Which are real bad guys?

Pixar's Feature Films
#41

Emeror Zerg wasn’t in the movies, but in the animated Disney Channel series, “Buzz Lightyear of Star Command”, which was more of an “alternate universe”, in that it took place in the setting where the Buzz Lightyear character was supposed to have originated, and the Buzz in the movies was supposed to have more or less an action figure based on the children’s tv series. The series sort of parodied the whole Star Wars genre, with the main villain turning out to be the hero’s father, as was the case with Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker.

I haven’t even been to see Up. I’m still too disappointed that Pixar would continue to rely on negative stereotyping, especially with Muntz’s dogs. With BSL springing up like cancer all over the place, the last thing I wanted was a popular movie in which the “bad” dogs are a bunch of Rottweilers and Dobermans. I’m sorry that Pixar chose to reinforce what amounts to canine racial profiling.

pitbulllady

#42

To my recollection…Zerg first “appears” in Toy story 2 in the video game…uuhh…two of the toys are playing. In effect being the “end boss” of the game. Then later appears as a toy himself…and though he does show to be opposition, it’s not like he was really a threat. And from there Zerg goes into the whole Star Wars parody of “I am Your Father” (though…if this parody is actually TRUE…I…don’t know 0_0), and comes to good fatherly terms with “son” second-Buzz (as there were two in the film. And funny enough the second-Buzz was actually more into believing his t.v. role as an actual Buzz Lightyear (as the the real Buzz, in Toy Story, eventually learns he IS a toy and not the actual t.v. Buzz)

#43

Firstly, it’s ‘Zurg’, not ‘Zerg’.

Secondly, I never really thought of him as a villain simply because of that bit in Toy Story 2 when he and the other Buzz become father and son- that bit’s hilarious. :laughing: I think the point of Zurg is that he shows how the toys originally have personalities that correspond with the type of toy they are- so Zurg is meant to be a bad guy and when little kids play with the Zurg toys, they’ll use them as villains- but that at the same time they do have their own personalities, and Zurg in a way manages to overcome that innate evilness that he’s supposed to display to end up as a cool father to the other Buzz. Sort of like EVE from WALL-E not following her directive, in a way.

So basically I agree with everyone else. :laughing:

#44

Even though some Pixar films have had villains, it’s been said ever since Toy Story that they didn’t really like using villains in their films. Most of them are either misunderstood or had something in their lives that led them to being bad. In the case of Sid Phillips they’ve said that he was never thought of as a villain but as an obstacle. He’s really just a mixed up kid who gets his creativity/aggression out of taking toys apart and rearranging them in bizarre ways (honestly, what kid hasn’t done that kind of thing with toys before?), but to the toys ending up in his room is like facing death itself.

The Prospector (or Stinky Pete as we like to call him) in Toy Story 2 was someone who had been hurt in the past like Jessie, only in his case he was never played with at all. He was left in the same box he had been in ever since he was made, which just left him bitter inside and determined to be in the Woody’s Roundup collection so he can finally be recognized. He never once experienced the love and joy of belonging to a kid that he could have had if he was opened, and instead only the greed of toy collectors like Al who only care about how valuable he is.

The real Emperor Zurg that exists in the Buzz Lightyear universe would be considered evil, but the toy version of Zurg in Toy Story 2 was just another deluded toy who only believed he was a real villain, just as Buzz originally believed he was a real space ranger. Also in the direct-to-video movie Buzz Lightyear of Star Command: The Adventure Begins the real Zurg went to the home planet of the LGMs (the Pizza Planet aliens) to steal the Uni-Mind (a giant orb that gives them the power to be connected together mentally), which he then turned into pure evil so he could attach it to a large ray gun and take over the minds of everyone in the universe, so that more than makes him qualify as a true villain. I think originally though Zurg in Toy Story 2 was just thought of as a joke character (an obvious Darth Vader parody) that served no real purpose to the story other than to show one of the other toys Buzz belonged to in comparison to Woody and the Roundup Gang.

Hopper in A Bug’s Life was to me the most evil of all Pixar villains. He was cruel, intimidating, and manipulative in taking advantage of the ant colony by making them feel inferior to the grasshoppers, going so far as planning to kill the queen for no reason. He’s really one of the main reasons I still appreciate A Bug’s Life and feel it’s so unjustly looked over today.

Waternoose in Monsters Inc. was just concerned with keeping his company alive and Randall was jealous of Sulley’s success and wanted to be better than him, but both of them go too far in their motivations.

Finding Nemo is one Pixar film that has no true enemies but only misunderstood characters. The dentist that supposedly kidnapped Nemo only thought he was rescuing a small fish from suffering out in the ocean cause of Nemo’s bad fin (unlike Al who kidnapped Woody for his own selfish reasons), and Darla’s just another bratty kid like Sid who plays too rough with her pet fish. Before I saw this film I thought Bruce and the sharks were going to be enemies somehow, but instead they’re just trying to break their addiction of eating other fish. And the angler fish and barracuda don’t count cause they’re also just mindless animals looking for food.

Syndrome from The Incredibles is another true Pixar villain, but also one where we get to understand what made him a villain cause of being rejected by his hero. I actually think of him as being 2nd to Hopper since the backstory gives us some reason to have sympathy for him, but while Hopper was only going to kill one ant Syndrome killed many famous superheroes to get even with Mr. Incredible, which almost makes his motives even more unreasonable.

Chick Hicks in Cars just represents the ugly side of the self-centeredness Lightning McQueen had.

Haven’t watched Ratatouille that much but I just know that Skinner wanted to inherit Gusteau’s business and keep Linguini from finding out that it really belonged to him, and Ego is a grim food critic that’s difficult to please.

Auto in Wall-E was simply doing what all robots do by following his directive. Wall-E managed to break out of his own and somehow develop feelings as a result of all the years he spent alone on Earth (and he not only gave EVE that but helped awaken all of humanity on the Axiom when they were lost in what they were doing), but Auto remained a cold, soulless robot with no understanding of right or wrong. It’s like any machine that’s programmed to only know how to do one thing and can’t think for itself. Auto was told that they could never return to Earth, so as long as he was running he was going to see his directive through to the very end. And Buy 'N Large is basically a typical company with good intentions of providing the needs of their consumers, but at the same time is run by greedy businessmen (which I thought was a very clever satire on real life).

I already talked about Charles Muntz from Up in this thread: [url]http://www.pixarplanet.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=159761&highlight=#159761[/url]

I really like how most of Pixar’s antagonists have a lot more depth and understanding to them than just being the two-dimensional “Good vs Evil” kind of thing.

#45

To be honest, it’s hard for me to say whether Pixar themselves like the idea of villains. In their movies, they show a lot of depth to most of the characters, even the antagonists.

Yet in other media (some of which was directly done by them) they clearly promote the myth of pure evil. Take the Monsters, Inc. interviews, for instance. Randall was clearly the lesser of two evils, at the very least, yet everyone said nothing but bad things about him (some of which seeming to be forced, in reference to Steve Buscemi), and not one bad thing was said about the TRUE villain: Waternoose.

On top of that, though it’s probably less relevant, the media that refers to Pixar’s movies (i.e. the amusement park rides and the Boom! Comics) constantly reduce depth to the characters. I’m not going to delve into specifics, what with not wanting to risk debates, but, basically, this stuff pretty much degrades the quality of the movies.

#46

This is a really good topic with a lot of interesting and well-thought-out ideas!

I think the three “true” villains in the Pixar canon are Hopper, Syndrome and Muntz, because they are the three who are willing and able to kill to get what they want, and who are fully aware of the effects of their actions. One reason Hopper may come across as the “worst” is because we really don’t ever see him in a sympathetic light - he’s a tough guy who is determined to be Top Bug, whatever it takes, but we don’t know where his motivation comes from. We see Syndrome and Muntz in younger years and get an idea of how circumstances and bad choices sent them down the “villain” path. By the same token, they’re the three villains who have to die, because they are life-threateningly dangerous and there really is no other way to stop them.

I think Nemo and Wall-E really have no true villains, or even “bad guys” - there are obstacles and adversaries, but most of them are sea creatures following their natural instincts, or robots following their directives, without a deliberate sense of malice toward our heroes.

Overall, Pixar has done a good job of how they handle the villain/adversary/obstacle choices in their films. (Disclaimer, Hopper and Muntz are two of my all-time favorite Pixar characters, so I have no problem with them going the traditional “villain” route.)