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!”
Honestly, they do it a lot. But it never bothered me. shrug
They did it in Cars 2 as well, in the most convoluted way possible.
But that’s OK, because the overarching theme of Cars 2 is that the disabled and different are evil, and it’s OK to revile them. /sarcasm
It can be very effective when it works, and I think it worked particularly strongly in Toy Story 3. That was one bad bear. Up I never really thought of that character as a good guy, though it was obvious the other characters did, still it wasn’t any big surprise.
… oh god really? Did something like that happen?! I mean I have my doubts but still wtf.
(Hasn’t seen Cars 2 yet).
In any case I think overall yes only Stinkey Pete and Waternoose surprised me in this instance- Muntz was a disappointment and I saw both he and Lotso coming from a mile off. Overall I would say both the first two had the greatest emotional impact as well- Stinkey Pete was someone you could really feel for when he talked about what it was like in the store.
Waternoose also had some sympathy extended to him but also was almost matserfuly done as he was kind of always… there… in the background now and then- and unlike Muntz you never forgot his existence for this reason (Muntz was briefly introduced and not mentioned or heard of again until just before his turn around after all). However overall between the two I prefer Waternoose. At first you thought Waternoose was just someone for Sulley to interact with, rather like Celia could be considered for Mike but he turned out to be a lot more than just that- and was in fact the true master of the plot all along which was great and made utter sense- since someone like Randall on say a job like scaring probably wouldn’t be able to afford the various raw materials for the scream extractor for instance- and the subtlties when it’s just them, Boo and Fungus are interesting- it’s clear who is really in charge there.
Sulley and Waternoose also as implied in the movie had a relationship for a long time- Sulley thinks of him as a father- and hence when he is betrayed by him it’s far more soul crushing overall on top of everything else (such as losing Boo’s trust and fearing for Boo’s safety). In a way Waternoose and Sulley’s relationship can be a distorted mirror of what Boo’s and Sulley’s is- Waternoose is willing to sacrifice Sulley, someone who viewed him as a father like figure, just for his company- whereas Sulley is willing to do anything for Boo who he himself developed quasi-parental feelings for.
I think this is something however Pixar also repeats though - the TS2 and 3 were more or less Stinkey Pete/Lotso- Woody mirrors in a sense, representing Woody’s fears and the different road they went on- the way Woody could go were it not for this example of what could or could have happened. Up similarly had two old men who had different reasons for going to South America, achieving perhaps wanting a sense of what was lost or ‘taken’ from them before hand. Muntz may have been disappointing as a villian to me, but I think I can see what they were going for (I just didn’t care for how it was executed at all). Muntz is Carl’s childhood hero to boot and also perhaps a representation of Carl’s past desires and even disappointments as his childhood hero is not what he thought it was eitherwhich through Ellie’s last written words he realised didn’t matter- he still had a good life and was still ALIVE no matter how old he may have been. That might have been what they were going for- I’m not sure- like I said I can see the desire to make Muntz interesting or thematic, but I don’t think it really worked well overall at all personally.
Lotso I think was moderately better than Muntz as a villian (I mean… at least I never forgot he EXISTED even if I knew what would happen) though overall I must admit the darkness of TS3 is sometimes jarring when set along with the others. Plus I never got WHY he didn’t save the others- even if you wanted to keep him selfish it would have been in his own interests for him to save them- he was done in the nursery after all and at least together they could have found a place somewhere else. But oh well. I guess it was simply pure malice in his case with no real reason-and Lotso wasn’t it seems, the most stable character to begin with. Plus TS3 is really we have to admit simply what -actually- happened in relation to fears (Andy or kids losing interest in their toys) which had already in some way been discussed in TS2 anyway. Lotso is only different in the sense he had the love of a kid- but lost it unlike Stinkey Pete who never had it to begin with.
I won’t deny what is happening is repetitive though, but I can sometimes see why. But I think their earlier ones were better than their latest ones.
Overall most interesting antagonists and villians I think ARE the ones that can trick you, because not only the idea is scarier of course than upfront ones- but also the ones you can understand are ones you can care about, that perhaps you could see being the designated hero under different circumstances- a trope I think that Pixar LOVES to imply though they don’t actually outright say it. By and large Pixar movies follow the protaganists (of course) and with a limited time period in a movie for a short time you might have to trick the protaganists into thinking someone is on their side so we can see more of the antagonist and get a feel for them if for whatever reason we want to keep following the designated heroes more (say plot of their own character development). Though Pixar I think could pull off something different rather than resorting this- they can be subtle when they want to be after all and I think without this ‘trick’ they can pull it off- making people feel for the antagonists or at least understand them a bit regardless. They could for instance have a movie where there is no clear dividing line in that instance (as in no real main protaganist- just keeping people guessing in that area about who is really technically right if anyone)- or even leave the protaganist for brief periods of time at the very least and show this on the ‘other side’.
Overall like many stories Pixar not only has conflict between ‘heroes’ and ‘villians’ but also internally for the main character- and sometimes those two can be connected or at least symbolised.
Overall perhaps they should break out of the ‘fatherly friendly old man’ being the villian though at least for a little while. And have more things in the other direction. I could see perhaps someone like a hero poutright DESPISING someone or wrongfully labelling someone as evil and it turning out to be more complicated than that (either through ignorance por other matters)- or that the ‘hero’ is in fact completely wrong entirely and even working on the ‘wrong’ side themselves without realising it.
I don’t mind it that much. Altough i’d much prefer a genuine suprise in the films. Lotso, Waternoose, Pete etc were good and all, but I would prefer a main character, not a support, be more of a shock.
For example if Buzz somehow turned into a villain in the first TS or heck in one of the sequels (a normal Buzz/turns into a villain on his own accord not turned into one manually by other villains). That would a real suprise, although having it fit well into the story of course 
i don’t think they need to stop completely, but I guess turn it down a little.