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.
…Um, from your tone towards the film, I’m assuming the sarcasm mark is on the “that’s ok” and not from the moral you think it had. I have two mental illnesses that I’ve had to deal with disability stigma over for 15 years, and… how on Earth did you get that message from the film, exactly? 
[spoil]The first new character we meet in Radiator Springs is Odis, who is not only a good guy lemon that Mater treats very kindly, but is freaking adorable and panders to the audience to like him right away. Later, when confronted with the bad guy lemons, Mater immediately makes an appeal to them, showing empathy for their plights. They didn’t not listen to him because they were lemons; they didn’t not listen to him because they were greedy people. Should we let somebody get away with doing something wrong because they have a disability? Or is it just not politically correct now to show disabled characters as anything but the good guys? 
And Mater, being totally different from every other character, was the main character. The movie goes as far as to flat out say that if other people can’t accept that he’s different, they need to change. It was, while a bit preachy, one of the most inspiring things I’ve heard related to mental illness or just not fitting the status quo in a film in years.[/spoil]
I say you’re reading way too much into it. If you dislike the movie, fine. Cool. Can we not have another “WALL-E supports communism” bit, please? 
Innocent? Yes. He didn’t come on screen laughing evilly and kill somebody. Friendly? No. For me, Auto immediately comes off as intimidating. I mean, we enter an empty, darkened room with only Auto in the center. He activates his glowing red eye and preforms quick, calculative completely ignoring anybody’s presence unless he needs to command them. WALL-E even boxed up a little and backed away.
If anything, Auto came across as neutral and just trying to do his job. And he never really got revealed as the villain as much as escalated into the events by his need to obey orders, which was apparent from the start. Heck, you could claim that Auto isn’t the antagonist at all and just a tool of the antagonist, Mr. Forthright. Auto is technically an inanimate object, after all.
And that brings up whether Forthright is a revealed villain? Well, he’s kind of a jerk, but he didn’t mean to hurt our heroes. He was just being lazy/cheap and A113 resulted from it.
Stanton seems to have a thing for circumstances being the antagonist more than any specific character.
I agree. it’s getting a little too predictable kind of like an M. Knight movie.
I never really thought too much about the surprise villian thing being a trend until it was pointed out. That being said, I guess I cant say it bothers me too much. I suppose now that i’m aware of it, I’ll be on the lookout for it 