I’m personally getting a little tired of the all-too-frequent trend of having seemingly friendly characters turn into villains. Seriously, they’ve done it in four films now: Monsters Inc., Toy Story 2 & 3, and Up. Has anybody else noticed this and is tired of it?
Actually this practice makes the audience keep on it’s toes. Could that kind, friendly mentor really be evil? Anything’s possible with PIXAR!
They also did it with Incredibles, sort of. I agree, though. It’s a concept that’s getting pretty tired at this point.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that at all.
Hmm…
well, with Toy Story 2, I think Pixar employed this perfectly. It was truely so unexpected. I really thought Pete was just some old guy along for the ride, and all the evidence pointed towards Jessie sabatoging Woody. I was so surprised; why wouldn’t a toy that “never” has been opened want to be played with? Really well done by Pixar.
In Monsters, Inc., the situation is very similar. The audience really believes that Randall is the sole villain, until of course Waternoose reveals himslef to be the true mastermind, Randall being merely a tool in Waternoose’s plan. In this situation, due to Waternoose’s fondness of Sulley and his attempts to inspire new scarers, I really thought he was a good guy. This is admittedly very similar to TS2. I don’t feel like it is as unexpected, but maybe I am just stereotyping buissnessmen,
This just might be me, but I do not think Muntz was a surprise villain in Up at all. I vividly remember in commercials on TV for the film Muntz being portrayed as evil. Then, considering that Muntz’s reputation was ruined by the bird, and considering he devoted the rest of his life (and in essence giving up everything) to finding the bird again, and considering that his dogs hunt for the bird with such force, and considering that Russell and Carl so effortlessly happened to find the bird, I personally don’t think it is all surprising that Muntz ends up being the villain. Yes, when Carl and Russell first show up at his lair, he is hospitable to them, admires the floating house, and invites them in for dinner; even his dogs warm start to lick Carl and Russell’s faces! However, the evidence is all their to show that Muntz will no longer be kind to anyone associated with the bird. I really think if Russell had never found Kevin, Muntz probably would’ve have continued being nice to Carl and provided him with more aid.
Then in Toy Story 3, [i]I at least knew going into that Lotso’ was the villain, simply because this fact was revealed when Up was released and easter eggs were being hunted down. Clearly I was not shocked when Lotso flipped. Of course, if one had been skilled enought to avoid any and all spoilers, they may not have know Lotso was the bad guy. [spoil]The only difference here is, Lotso spends most of the film as a villain. His kindness is quickly stripped away early into the film.[/spoil] This is not the case for Waternoose and Pete, who only are revealed as villains by the end of their respective films.[spoil] He is even given a backstory explaining how he became such a bad guy! I really did think, though, that as they approached the incinerator and Lotso was able to push the stop button, that he would do it and redeem himself. Pixar had me fooled, though, and Lotso does ignore the fact that Woody and Buzz saved his life and allows the gang to go to their deaths.[/spoil]
I think you have caught on to a pattern here. Pixar has pulled the surprise villain a few times. Fortunately, each situation has it’s differences. I think the biggest repeat is Toy Story 2 and Monsters, Inc., and it seems that Pixar has learned a little from that back to back plot twist.
EDIT- Please add spoiler tags to spoilers, thanks!
-lizardgirl
EDIT- So sorry, lizardgirl! I really meant to add the spoilers as I was writting this. Thanks for catching this!
I don’t think the surprise villain thing is bad; I think it adds more flavor to the films and I typically like that.
Would you mind explaining who you’re referring to? I never considered Mirage a villain; just an accomplice who did a few things with bad intentions but redeemed herself in the end. If you’re talking about Syndrome, I wouldn’t group him with the other examples because when we see him as Buddy, he’s not evil. The difference between Syndrome and, let’s say, Stinky Pete is that when he becomes Syndrome, you don’t doubt that he’s the villain. Whereas Stinky Pete was always had villainous intentions but kept them hidden. See the difference?
Yeah, I have to agree with love70ways, the only ones that shocked me were Stinky Pete and Mr. Waternoose. I remember Muntz being portrayed as antagonistic in the trailers, and Lotso was spoiled for me months before I saw the movie. That said, I don’t mind the trend. It keeps the viewer wondering.
I agree with the general consensus here, Waternoose and Stinky Pete are, I think, the only true and clear examples of a surprise villain, but what about those that are surprise good guys? We tend to forget about those characters, such as Sid’s toys in Toy Story, because for whatever reason they don’t stick out as much in the viewer’s minds.
As for this trend, well as long as Pixar doesn’t make too much of a habit of it, and as long as they don’t repeat what they’ve already done to a T, the surprise villain thing can carry on successfully I think. After all, a surprise villain does tend to be a lot more believable than an all-out villain; we usually get to see more of their backstory and there’s normally the reinforcement of the idea that the bad guy(s) weren’t always bad. When you’ve got a completely villainous character, you don’t tend to get that side of the story and it all just becomes that bit more unbelievable.
I don’t really mind ‘Mole’ characters (excuse me for using TVtropes talk; A ‘Mole’ is a character who appears to be good but ends up being bad. If it looks bad, and ends up being good, it’s a ‘reverse Mole’) I think they’re cool. They lure the audience in. 
Don’t forget that Auto seemed seemingly innocent at first, didn’t he?
Speaking of which, I think that Andrew Stanton seems to follow this trend the least out of the Pixar directors in the sense of films with no real villains. Finding Nemo is not a villains movie at all, and I had to argue that on the Pixar Wiki regarding P. Sherman “kidnapping” Nemo, when he really did it out of noble intentions from a human’s point-of-view. And I felt in Wall-E that Auto was just a robot who couldn’t think for himself when programmed to follow a directive, and had no soul or sense of feelings like Wall-E. And I think a villain would need to have feelings to have real villainous intentions at all.
I wasn’t surprised that Muntz turned out to be a villain at all - it’s clear that he would have had his dogs tear Carl and Russell apart then and there if he hadn’t decided (initially, anyway) that they weren’t a threat. The tension in the scene that followed came from seeing this ostensibly hospitable man and wondering when he would crack.
lizardgirl has a great point, I’d love to see a surprise hero. Mirage is one example, as is Anton Ego. Pixar needs to take a less cynical worldview and recognise that some villains are capable of repent and redemption. 
And yeah, the sequels need to stop. Seriously. I’m kinda tired of Hollywood returning to familiar franchises, as much as I’d love to see more adventures with our favourite characters.
I’ve really liked the suprise villian trend, but I don’t want to see it done over and over, unless it works well with the story.
When Hollywood can’t come up with something new, they pretty much run on sequels, remakes, reboots, spin-offs, classic cartoons made in CGI, and superhero films.
I never really noticed it YDDD I mean i usually will get the strange feeling inside when the character is introduced YDD like i have the sense that i know somethings up YD but i supose it’s that feeling that keeps me from getting at “hey this is getting old” YD
i love Pixar movies so i wont complain about the villians i mean shesh i could careless if there was a villian at all YD Pixar does try and add thier mini conflicts to things too Besides creating villains are hard ^^’ no one wants to be cliche at all but sometimes all the ideas seems to be taken.
YD what kind of villians do toys have other than things that Break them YD ^^’ theirs people that break them and then you have other toys that break.
Barbie sort of pulled the same trick on Ken and she was on our side ^^
Keep your friends close and your enimies closer.
It’s never bothered me…
And it looks like they’ve returned to the trend with Cars 2 and [spoil]Axlerod[/spoil].
I disagree. I love this trope. I think it makes for a more interesting villain, though I do think if they do it too much people will see a nice, older character walk onscreen and automatically shout “Villain!”