While this is no objective standard, I definitely measure the evil-ness of villains based on who scared me the most. Chernabog wins the childhood standard: I ran out of the room immediately and hid, saying things like “the movie’s over now! Turn it off!” So he has to tie with the Shadow Man, to whom I had the same reaction when I finally saw “Princess and the Frog”...just a couple of months ago.

I will say that I think Frollo contributed to me believing the Catholic Church was full of creepy lustful dudes for most of my high school years. Although he obviously wasn’t part of the hierarchy of the Church, for a Protestant kid with not a lot of understanding about the Catholic Church, I just assumed he played some role and found the song “hellfire” to be really skeezy in that “old white man lusts after younger ethnic babe that he actually hates” way.

Gee, I was thinking Michael Eisner, but ... :)

It may be premature, but I am almost prepared to announce that Chad Thomas Johnston wins the combox for the day, if not the entire Internet. (Everyone else, thanks for playing.) But the combox is just getting started, so the announcement is postponed for now.
 
MJROFL: Yes, the Shadow Man is definitely the villain most likely to be inappropriate for younger or more sensitive children in recent Disney history.

The gecko from Tangled. Not only does he commit murder without remorse, he simultaneously tarnishes the `“harmless” image of his fellow geckos for all time, right down to the Geico gecko.

P.S. Captcha: bad69—- evvvillll.

See, I knew it was premature. Chad Thomas Johnston, you have competition.

Villains like Ursula and Maleficent scared me the most as a child because of their frightening appearance and because they were pretty scary evil villains. But at the same time they were supposed to be evil because they were wicked witches.
The villains that rankled me the most as a kid and now as an adult are those that are normal human people, but are so conniving and wicked that it shocks you because we are taught to believe that everyone has the potential for good and was created for good. Gaston is one of these, even though he starts out as the typical over-confident male you’d meet on any given Saturday night. But then he just becomes creepy going to evil lengths to get Belle just to prove that he is the best.
But the most wicked of these normal human villains would be in my opinion Mother Gothel or the Stepmother from Cinderella. Both pretend to be good and kind but are really manipulative and controlling for their own benefit. Cinderella’s stepmother was the worst for me as a child because she looked like a normal woman but she was so wicked and wanted to destroy someone else’s happiness for no good reason.
The scary part is unfortunately in reality you meet more people like the Wicked Stepmother and Gaston than you do Maleficent and Ursula.

ps. A shout-out to Ratigan, the villain from The Great Mouse Detective. Played by Vincent Price which makes him delightfully evil but still pretty wicked. Just a well played villain.

The person who wrote the II movies for the Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Mulan, Cinderellla and Lady and the Tramp….Evil…soul sucking out all the marrow of beauty and humor that was in any of these films type evil. 

Capta spirit84…even the spambot agrees with me.

The gecko didn’t kill Mother Goethel. She was dead (disintegrated!) before she hit the ground.

For the record on misunderstood villians:
Gaston is a victim of the Disney need for revenge on men—he should have been turned into the beast instead of falling to his death, and the mob into the pots and pans to allow the process of civilization and forgiveness to begin again…otherwise, there should be an OWS movement because mercy and forgiveness via the process of maturity is only for the very rich 1%.

Go ahead and make Chad Thomas Johnston commenter of the day: that was brilliant!

I thought Jafar was pretty bad (brainwashing, altering the fabric of reality),  but I agree: Gurgi was pretty bad, too.

Heh. Sherry, your comment reminds me of a line from my Beauty and the Beast review:

“Why some enchantress didn’t come along and turn Gaston into a walking nightmare is one of life’s mysteries. At any rate, both the Prince (at the beginning) and Gaston (especially at the end) are monstrous, but the Prince has been visited by a sort of grace, and confronted with his monstrous condition made manifest.”

 
However, it must be noted that no one has a right to grace, and the story is after all not Gaston’s. Who knows what opportunities for redemption he turned down?

For me its a toss up between Maleficent and Gaston.

Maleficent because lets face it SHE is just soo evil.

Gaston because not only he a buffoon of the jock which I loathe but because even after the Beast spares his life he stabs him in the back in a moment of pure spite.

I guess she can’t compete with some of the really evil ones, but Madame Medusa from Rescuers was a pretty bad one. As a kid, she was always very scary to me. Maybe because being kidnapped and forced down in hole seems more real than some of the other really crazy things that the other uber-villians are up to. Even as an adult watching it with the kids, I still feel very sorry for Penny.
Ratigan was also a favorite of mine, one of the first movies I ever saw in a theater.
And I guess it’s not Disney, but the “other mother” in Coraline is extremely creepy and evil as well.

Victor: Never mind what they did to Gurgi. At least they included him. He’s almost impossible to get right anyway.
 
The larger problem is that doing The Black Cauldron as a mash-up of the first two Prydain books and leaving out Gwydion, Coll, Achren and Ellidyr is like doing a one-film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings called The Two Towers and leaving out Aragorn, Bilbo, Saruman and Boromir.
 
Oh, and in the end Gollum heroically jumps into Mount Doom with the ring in order to destroy it. But worse.

Snow White of course.

Franklin: Snow White herself? Or the evil Queen?

J. Worthington Foulfellow. He lures little boys into his amusement park and ultimately turns them into donkeys for slave labor. But, the one that scared me the most was actually Millicent. She just had that “I’ll kill you if you look at me wrong” vibe. I loved the Shadow Man. He was pretty dang evil, but he found out quick enough that you don’t mess with the voodoo.

I need to reread the Prydain Chrocnicles. After the Disney movie first came out, I read through all five of them quickly, but it’s been a long time since then. I’m happy though because our son just started (as in yesterday) The Book of Three. I’ll have to borrow his library copy to refresh myself.

Victor: Oh yes. You do. I can’t even say how formative the Prydain books were for me in childhood—possibly more than The Chronicles of Narnia or The Lord of the Rings, even. I’ve read them out loud to my kids more times than I can count. (I do different voices for all the characters and everything. I do the same thing with The Lord of the Rings, which I am currently reading aloud for the third time, always to a slightly different subset of my children.)

What happened to Emporer Zurg?  No?  Just kidding.  I gotta say it is down to Maleficent or the Churnabog as far as the magnitude of evil.  Interesting animation and thought concepts on Disney’s part though.

Froilan: Pixar is a whole ‘nother kettle of fish.

Yes I mean the evil queen in snow white.

Mostly because of the contrast between snow whites purity and the kind person it would take to want to harm that kind of innocence which we find in the wicked queen.

Franklin: Juuust checking. We did have one nomination for Pascal, Rapunzel’s pet chameleon in Tangled—and a good case was made, too.

1. Chernobog
2. Malificent
3. Jafar
4. Scar

I think I would say Maleficent, who seems to be evil for the sake of being evil. (sort of like Hannibal Lecter)  Although a good case can be made for Scar because he is trusted by Simba and Mufasa, and he kills his own family.  Scar, Jafar, and Ursula all want unlimited power, but Scar commits more heinous crimes to achieve it.  Also, most children I know find Scar the most frightening Disney villain.  However, I remember the poacher from The Rescuers Down Under being very evil.  My memory of the movie is vague (saw part of it nearly twenty years ago) but he owned a creepy pet snake, tortured and killed animals, kidnapped a boy, and (I think) he stabbed a child with a knife.

Sterling Holloway as the voice of Kaa singing “Trust in Me” in the “Jungle Book” was delightfully creepy.  Not the worst bad guy, but even as a child I knew that was Pooh Bear’s voice so that added to the weird factor. Plus Kaa is so selfishly sneaky he deserves a mention.

1) Maleficent - “All the powers of Hell”
2) Scar - Fratricide and Regicide just to begin with
3) Shadow Man - That Voodoo he do
4) Ursula - Sea Witch and man-stealing hussy
5) Jafar - Evil wizard, Vizier’s coup det’at

Dishonorable Mention
1) Hook - Shot a man in the middle of his cadenza.
2) Edgar - For failing to drown a bag of cats
3) The Gogans - No redeeming value in the lot of them

The strawberry scented bear from Toy Story 3!!!  He pretends to be your friend, but in the end even after you save his life he leaves you to die!  Chilling for a kids movie!

I’ve seen it pointed out that Maleficent combines diabolic power and twisted majesty with low wickedness—she ruins lives out of either petty spite (if she really was offended) or sheer malice. It reminds me of C. S. Lewis’ take on the demonic in Perelandra, or his reading of Milton’s Satan in Preface to Paradise Lost/

Imagine that Walt Disney died unexpectedly in the middle of filming Snow White, and production was taken over by Alfred Hitchcock. 

That evil Queen.

Does anyone even remember “The Rescuers” (1977)?  An oft overlooked film in the Disney film list.  Not perfect by any means but it surely beats out any of the sequels that have been made.

Who can forget Bob Newhart’s droll delivery, Ava Gabor’s elegance voice in a mouse and the marvelous Geraldine Page has got to be one of the worst (and ugly) villians - Madame Medusa!

Taking an orphan for her own purposes when the little girl surely hoped for a better life is so cruel.  She then added to that evil with the two crocodiles and making her descend into the caves - I really, really hate caves so those parts of the film made me really cringe.

I really think she deserves a place in a top 10 list.

Hmm…I can’t comment on who is the most evil, but I think I will give some thoughts on Frollo.  He suffered most from the sins of lust and pride.

He was tormented by his passion to Esmerelda, his song reeks of that, but it also reeked of pride.  He was like the pharisee in the parable that spoke of his virtue, unlike the tax collector begging for mercy.  There is a taste of that in the song, but it’s an afterthought, when he’s already commited himself to act on his lust, and his mind was darkened.

He doesn’t really have any redeeming features displayed in the movie, except some fear of the Lord, but I think many men (and myself) can identify with such struggles.

How about live action?  Lord Cutler Beckett from the 2nd and 3rd Pirates movies was pretty nasty, conniving, and lacking in conscience.  I think he even surpassed Davy Jones, who was pretty bad himself.

The Disney villain that freaked me out the most was “Honest John” from Pinocchio, despite the fact that he’s pretty funny too. I don’t know if it’s because he’s a liar and manipulates an innocent kid/puppet, or that he’s a talking fox that none of the humans treat any differently. Still, pretty freaky. In fact, a bunch of characters from Pinocchio are pretty villainous.

Namewise, Cruella de Vil is ipso-facto most evil (slightly over Maleficent - two references to one), though her name is not nearly the most creepy.

In an animated part of a live-action film, my kids flee in abject terror at the mere thought of seeing the Banshee in Darby O’Gill (I kind of think it’s lame myself, but I’ve never seen them remotely act this way to anything else.).

I think the award needs to go to someone who is truly evil, who loves evil even if they don’t profit from it.  Characters like the Sea Witch are more power-hungry and selfish rather than serving evil for its own sake.  How much evil did Scar actively intend accomplish as a pseudo-king?  The evil fruits of the land were merely incident to his selfishness and power lust.  Jafar basically fits the same mold.

Maleficent for me wins hands-down since she just loves evil for its own sake, whether or not it helps her further another private end.  In fact she broods for years and years for not being able to do the evil she wants to commit.

Chernobog might be more purely evil, but it seems almost robot-ish.  He doesn’t “choose” evil, it’s just the humdrum life of demons.  By slinking away at the bell, it’s like he knows his place and accepts it.

Maleficent gets props for a really evil plan. She doesn’t plan to kill the hero or heroine, at all.  Rather, she’ll imprison the prince until he is very, very old then let him go to awaken the princess with true love’s first kiss.  Imagine the princess’s horror at awakening years later to her true love only to find him really old.  And to her, the prince would have been her young love just the day before since she won’t know how long she’s been asleep.  Magnificently, malignantly evil.

Plus, Maleficent had already created heartache (16 years worth) for the poor king and queen who had been childless for so many years only to have their long awaited child raised by fairies and they never get to see their child even once in all that time.  Truly the most evil of all.  And Maleficent doesn’t even bother to have a reason, unlike all the other villians, she’s just bad.

Oh, and in the end Gollum heroically jumps into Mount Doom with the ring in order to destroy it. But worse.

 
Actually, however drastic an alteration it would be on the textual level, this would be quite in keeping with the spirit and world of the story. Tolkien said (it’s in the Letters somewhere) that this is what probably would have happened if Sam had displayed compassion toward Gollum instead of rejecting his good impulses. Gollum would have been unable to break his attachment to the ring, but would in newfound love have saved Frodo by sacrificing himself.

Pachyderminator: Yeah, I didn’t really capture the atrocity of what the Disney film does there. Let me take another stab at it: Sam grabs the Ring and jumps into Mount Doom. That also may be something less than a complete betrayal of the world of Tolkien’s story, but it’s certainly a horrendously different ending. To make it even closer to the betrayal of Alexander, you have to imagine that in Tolkien it was actually Boromir, not Gollum, who repents and voluntarily casts himself into Mount Doom with the Ring, but the movie changed it to Sam. Oh, forget it.

Thank you folks so much for reminding me of ‘The Rescuers’ and ‘The Great Mouse Detective’!
Apparently, based on a search of Disney movies, in 2014 we will see one based on the Maleficent character.  Why, you ask?  Ya got me.  I wonder who was clamoring for that.

I definitely think the two most recognizably human, “there but for the grace of God go I” evil characters are Gaston and Judge Frollo. Gaston’s garden-variety vanity was fertilized by wounded pride into something truly despicable. I found it quite compelling, and all through it, he didn’t see himself as the “evil villain” but taking the property (Belle) that was rightfully his through any means necessary. If you take out the distracting singing gargoyles, I think The Hunchback of Nôtre Dame was one of the more underappreciated Disney features, and one main reason for this is the complex and realistic villain. Frollo is a man whose extremes of self-righteousness leads him to do terrible things that he (blinded by pride) considers justifiable in his crusade for order and uprightness. But then he runs across a gypsy woman (a race assumed by Frollo to be dirty and immoral) and lusts are ignited which torture him with desire and guilt. That song “Hellfire” is unlike anything I’ve seen in the Disney canon (I would say the same for Esmeralda’s prayer in Nôtre Dame cathedral, “God Help the Outcasts”). To me, these two were the most chilling villains because they could be us.

To define: evil to me is pure selfishness, going to great lengths to get what one wants, irregardless of its impact on others (or even oneself).  To that end, I’d say that Scar, Malificent, Madame Medusa, Jafar and Mother Gothel are the most evil.

As for Gaston, I’d say his actions are a complex blend of pride and peer-pressure that lead to poor decisions.  To wit: consider the song Gaston: sure we see his arrogance, but look at all his lackeys and hangers-on…they fawn all over him and convince him that he can do no wrong.  This type of peer-pressure enables him and encourages him to try and commit Belle’s father and then to kill the Beast: the uncritical support of his lackeys creates and reinforces the mindset that he can do no wrong and it is Belle and her father that are wrong.

The hunter that shot Bambi’s mother - who apparently was Gaston. That is, the makers of “Beauty and the Beast” were going to have an in-joke at some point during the movie that Gaston was responsible for killing Bambi’s mother, but a) couldn’t make it feel organic, and b) they thought it would tarnish the meaning of the original “Bambi” film, in which the hunter was…well, just a hunter.

The only remnant of this idea was the fact that Lefou was carrying around a dead deer when we first see him and Gaston.

Still, it puts a different spin on Gaston when you consider he was sorta-kinda-almost responsible for one of the most powerful deaths in Disney’s canon.

My vote for the least objectively evil? Shere Khan.  He was just doing what a tiger does.

M. Swaim: Yes, this came up on Facebook. Shere Khan is just part of the Circle of Life!
 
Of course, The Lion King doesn’t extend that reasoning all the way either. From a Cracked.com article (with the usual language issues) on movie villains who got a raw deal:

Mufasa: Everything you see exists together, in a delicate balance. As king, you need to understand that balance, and respect all the creatures—from the crawling ant to the leaping antelope.
 
Simba: But Dad, don’t we eat the antelope?
 
Mufasa: Yes, Simba, but let me explain. When we die, our bodies become grass. And the antelope eat the grass. And so we are all connected in the great Circle of Life.
 
Simba: Wow… Say, Dad, where do the hyenas fit into the great Circle of Life?
 
Mufasa: Ugh, the hyenas. No, f#@k those guys.
 
Simba: Yeah, that’s fair.

 
So let’s nominate the hyenas in The Lion King for most misunderstood Disney villain.

I find it ironic that all these “villans” are cartoon characters. The REAL evil are employees of Disneyland/World who promote Gay Pride day in their respective parks.

Rebecca has me changing my vote.  It has to be the hunter who shot Bambi’s mother. My wife won’t even buy the movie because of remembering seeing that scene as a little girl.  Now when you can cause that kind of sustained reaction in a viewer then you have created one terrible villain.

I’ve changed my mind. Michael Eisner’s harmless compared to the people who created “Bambi.”

Exhibit A: Bambi made me cry like a girl when I saw it in the theater, and made me realize my own mother was mortal at age 3 or 4.

Exhibit B: “Bambi” is a name that has gone on to become synonymous with buxom blonde bimbos who play beach volleyball (or something along those lines), and yet Bambi was a boy. So the people who made Bambi are responsible for no small amount of cultural confusion.

The people who made Bambi should be on the receiving end of the rifle wielded by the hunter who killed Bambi’s mother. Or they should at least be forbidden from making other films.

On that note, I WILL NOT SEE “BAMBI 2.” Unless Bambi’s mother comes back from the dead as a zombie deer ...

It doesn’t matter how traumatized anyone was by Bambi’s mother’s death. Hunters shooting deer, like tigers hunting, is not evil.
 
Now, if you want to argue that the careless humans who started the forest fire in the end of Bambi were villains, you might have a case.

Maleficent-that voice!-is definitely most evil. She practically wallows in the occult. That “Now shall you deal with me, O Prince, and all the powers of Hell!” had me shivering behind the couch every time.
Aunt Sarah of Lady and the Tramp was the most careless villain, though. Getting a muzzle for Lady and then locking her in the doghouse was the cause of so much trouble.

To me, the real villans are those in Pinnochio.  I could never watch that more than once; I wanted there to be forgiveness for those boys who turned into donkeys!

Had to laugh at this, “the “Shadow Man” from The Princess and the Frog, is a voodoo witch doctor who is in league with DEMONS that ultimately drag him to hell. So, THAT’S bad.”

And, for my money (and childhood scarring) it has to be the overlords of Treasure Island in Pinocchio, letting those children run amok in vice, then become transfigured jackasses to be sold off to farms and a sort of indentured labor.

The villains from the Rescuers movies seem the most despicable to me because they’re the kind of villains I could imagine running into in real life. I find the over the top/take over the world villains entertaining and fun in their cartoonishness, but Percival McLeech completely creeps me out. It’s kind of like how Umbridge is more hated than Voldemort; “familiar” villains are better at striking a nerve.

Mother Gothel ...agreed….but thats because her narcissitic pathology actually is realistic…abusive parents really do mess with their kids heads like that. I’ve seen it.
Though I love the scene where Rapunzal is swinging on her hair, alternating between ‘I’m free…yay!!” to curling up in a fetal position whimpering “I’m a horrible daughter’....one of my favorite movie scenes ever….I totally identified. LOL

Why should any person of faith acknowledge Disney, which since the passing of Walt, has offered America and the world gradually deteriorating works?  There is an entire month dedicated to the gay community within the Disney family; their division Miramax offered anti-Catholic films.  Check out the female cartoon figures as they evolved over the years - from modest to voluptuous . . . There are good companies out there offering entertainment that is truly “G”-rated.  Let’s make a conscientious effort to avoid supporting the coffers of entities that work hard to destroy our values.  Thank you!

Forgive me if this is not a disney movie, I forgot, it has been a while, but Rasputin from “Anastasia” was probably one of the most evil villains, although, definitely the not the most successful.

This is pretty obscure, but the banshee from Darby O’Gill and the Little People scarred me for life as a child. What had been a harmless, cheerful tale was suddenly rent by a horrible, screaming embodiement of fear itself…

For me: Maleficent, hands down. Chernabog was confined to a mountain and only seemed to be awful to other awful creatures, and yes, went into hibernation with the Angelus bell and the coming of morning. Scar was conniving and murderous, but it was confined to one pride, and his demise was at the hands of his own minions—-not powerful. Ursula was power-hungry, but she didn’t kill or entrance or brainwash anyone and her power was very short lived and she died when she was stabbed by a broken bowsprit—-not very powerful. The queen in Snow White was a pathetic thing running from the dwarfs when she died. Haven’t seen tangled, so can’t compare. Jafar’s power was short-lived, was only from the genie, and he was easily tricked into becoming a genie, and therefore a slave, himself.  The horned king is a close second for me because of the awfulness of the undead army and the overall darkness of the film, but he himself didn’t really do much awful.

But Maleficent. The way she was drawn was terrifying. Her voice and her staff. The green flame when she arrived, her awful curse at Aurora’s birth, the way Aurora became entranced and how the wall disappeared that she walked through, how she compelled Aurora to prick her finger on the spindle even after fighting the trance momentarily, and then the natural barriers she threw up in front of Philip before, “now you have to deal with me, and all the powers of hell!,” then the spinning ball of sparks as she flew to confront him as a dragon. And she was only brought down by an enchanted sword….  Anyhow, if “most evil” means “the one who inspired the most fear in a young, impressionable viewer,” there’s no question in my mind she was the most evil.

A few years ago, the Nostalgia Critic made a “Top 11 Disney Villains”.

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/2786-top-11-disney-villains

There are a couple of instances of bad language (no f-bombs though), but it’s quite a funny and interesting piece - and he pretty much aligns with what a lot of people have been saying here. And his #1 choice is quite thoughtful…even if he *does* misinterpret what exactly the character actually IS.

Ok, I’ve not seen many Disney movies, but i’m 17 and the eldest of 4, whose ages are 10, 8, and 4. I think, though I’m not sure if it’s a Disney, Willy Wonka was the only movie I could’nt sit through. the blueberry girl looked so human, and then became so disfigured. I remember thinking how terrifying that was, somthing I absolutely knew was normal, had been destroyed and manipulated to something horrible, against the victims will. And she had no warning that would happen! though there was no villan, it was scary. To take someone and transform them into something the’re not was by no means a new concept to me, but to change WHO THEY WERE was terrifying. For 6 at least. For a villan? Well, bad is a lack of good. Evil would be a complete lack of good. Frodo has scruples, so he still had a concience, thougyh that could make him worse. For Malificent and Chernobog, they just fulfill their roles, they cannot really be related to. So in order to find the most evil, you need to find one that has a complete lack of goodness(if such a thing can be measured), and changes what is into what is not and should not be.

Which Disney character IS the most evil or HAS DONE the most evil?

For my money, all the sappy characters who swan off into the sunset of “happily ever after” have done Western society a great evil. So many people give up on marriages when they fail to magically transform into the Disney soft focus “happily ever after.” A number of friends recently weer quite relieved to hear that, for a great many couples, happiness in marriage requires hard work, struggle, hard work, pain, sacrifice and hard hard work. It IS a path to true happiness, but the soft focus fade of Disney has a lot to answer for!

PS: Did I mention the hard work?

I’m going to second Lotso and Mother Gothel as the most realistically evil villains. I have met people like them and read about them in history class, and I find the realism of their deceptive manipulation all the more frightening. Creepiest villain ever? Big Baby, before he converted.

I second Lotso as a true villain. Toy Story III, the ending specifically, scared me even though I’m in my mid 20s. If you think about it, Lotso is a nihilist, or the toy equivalent, and his actions stem from his nihilism. His parting line to the toys of “Where is your kid now?” pretty much confirms his motives for me. He does what he does because he no longer believes in the love kids have for their toys.

Seems to me that (Denise on Wednesday, Feb 1, 2012 11:37 AM) is the only one who has her priorities straight. The Baptists boycotted Disney the Catholic League boycotted Disney The Assembly of God boycotted Disney. Disney and their affiliate Co. have done more damage to this countries morality and family values than any CO. I know of. But yet Catholics support them with their money. The movies that make the most money for Disney are the ones good christian people wold watch. What do they do with that money but use it to promote all kinds of anti Christian ideas. See all the work the Catholic League has done in fighting Disney at this link http://www.catholicleague.org/index.php?s=Disney What good does it do if we give them our money to keep promoting the things they do. But yet many will just ignore this because we are addicted to being entertained. We can’t give up our entertainment no matter how evil the Co. is. Don’t be so surprised to see our world turn into the culture of death if you can’t even retrain yourselves from giving money to evil Co. because you want your entertainment. Americans, including American Catholics, are addicted to entertainment. The evil one knows how to get us to support his agenda. You are doing it by supporting Disney. See how clever he is.

The siamese cats from “Lady and the Tramp.”  Gah.

Ratigan, in song lyrics, is said to have drowned widows and orphans. Plus he kills that poor drunk minion for calling him a rat.

About Medusa, didn’t she tell Penny she was an ugly little brat and no one would ever want to adopt her? That wasn’t large-scale villainy, but it was pretty mean.

Now, if the White Witch counts as a Disney villain…

Okay: Who’s Edgar? I can almost remember him, but not quite. Oh, right! From the Aristocats!
   
He wins the prize for being stupid. I mean, come on, dude. Eccentric rich lady leaves her fortune to her cats and then leaves her cats in your care. And so you decide to kill the cats? Before she dies, so that she could change her mind and, now lacking cats, leave the whole shebang to charity? (Like, I dunno, an animal shelter or something?) And that’s assuming she doesn’t find out. And if you’d just left well enough alone you basically would have had the mansion and fortune to yourself in exchange for taking care of the cats. (Huh? What do you guys mean Edgar can’t hear me? Leave me alone!)
   
   
I never really thought of it until recently, but if Pixar’s off-limits I’m gonna have to vote Gaston. He’s an emblem of what selfish and immature behavior ultimately morphs into if we leave it unchecked.
   
If Pixar’s not off limits, then I’m voting for Chick Hicks. His pride blinds him to everything, and it’s clear that that’s (almost) exactly what McQueen could have become. After that, it’s probably Lotso. Syndrome is next, followed by Waternoose (Honorable mentions: Stinky Pete, because Lotso is basically just him but creepier, and Randall for the same reason as Hicks, but with more actual villainy involved.)
   
You know, though, what I think they all have in common? The process of becoming a villain. Sure, there are more Villainously Villainous Villains in Disney, but the ones I find most effective are the ones who gave themselves over to being consumed by bitterness or anger. They either started out relatively harmless or had ample opportunities to change, but insisted on clinging to their hatred.
   
Chick didn’t really do so consciously; he slid into it after years of being second banana to Strip Weathers. (At least I think that was The King’s name…) That bitterness is the one thing that differentiated him from Mcqueen, other than the Radiator Springs episode and learning the True Meaning of Friendship. But both cars had the same pride and vanity and desire for worldly greatness. It was Chick’s bitterness and, I dare say, hatred of Weathers that inspired his little PIT maneuver, and it was his enormous ego that blinded him to the fact that there was even anything wrong with that. It was sad how he honestly couldn’t comprehend why he was the only one celebrating.
   
Hicks and Gaston are alike in that they both seemed like harmless buffoon at the start, but end up dealing a nearly fatal blow to another character who didn’t deserve it by any means. And they did so out of what must have seemed to them like righteous anger at the time, even though it was pretty plainly just jealousy and rage and spite.
   
Lotso and Syndrome have that same bitterness, but they were a lot less gradual than Gaston or Chick. They started out as good guys. Then came an event that they interpreted as a betrayal, but really wasn’t (i.e. Mr. Incredible handled it wrong but really was looking out for Buddy’s safety, and Daisy not only didn’t mean to leave Lotso behind but may not even have been aware that her replacement wasn’t him). They just snapped, and from that point forward, they built up a wall of anger and hatred around themselves. In Lotso’s case, he had his redemption handed to him on a plate and threw it away just to make a point, reiterating his justification for his actions. Syndrome made sure there wasn’t even a chance at reconciliation, declaring that it was too late for that.
   
Waternoose seemed like a perfectly respectable guy. And he probably was, to start with. But he let his fear and pride consume him, and as a result he wound up being perfectly fine with kidnapping and essentially torturing innocent children. (Plus, even among monsters, he’s pretty darn creepy!)
   
Come to think of it, plenty of other villains fit this mold to one degree or another. Scar. Frollo. Pete and Randall, of course. Probably Snow White’s stepmother. Not Facilier, but probably his sidekick (Naveen’s attendant). Maybe even Edgar. Who else am I missing?
   
The point, of course, is that this kind of thing that can turn us into villains. We’re not mer-octopi-things and we can’t morph into dragons, but we can let our negative emotions boil over into hatred that ignites and engulfs us in, as Frollo aptly put it, hellfire. I can be just like these guys if I cling to anger and pride instead of accepting love and mercy from others (starting with God).
   
That scares me a whole lot more than any dragon.

My apologies if I’m mistaken about these omissions, but I’d like to offer some comments about villains I haven’t seen mentioned here at all, yet.

Alice in Wonderland - The Queen of Hearts is a bloody-handed tyrant who holds what seems to be an entire sub-universe under her heel.  She exhibits all of the worst qualities of a ruler - the sort of things that make people question the actual concept of authority - and condemns people to death by the truckload for offenses variously insignificant and imagined.

Beauty and the Beast - Lots of people have talked about Gaston, but I haven’t seen anyone mention the sorceress who sets the Beast’s story into motion in the first place.  Absent any broader context, sorceresses are suspect by default, and what we learn of her does little to improve her image.  We are told that she adopted the appearance of a terrifying hag and then descended upon the castle during a raging storm to offer a little boy an ominous gift.  A little boy?  Why yes!  The internal testimony of the film makes it clear that the curse that’s just about to come to its fruition has been in effect for ten years, and that it’s the prince’s 21st birthday that marks the deadline.  He also seems to have been an orphan when the curse was placed, by the way; no parents are ever mentioned at all, and the sorceress’ justification for the curse in the first place depends upon the boy having the authority to order her away - which he likely wouldn’t if his parents were around.

So, a frightened child turns away someone who is obviously (and actually) a witch.  For this, she turns him - and everyone who works in his castle, man woman and child - into a grotesque, inhuman parody.  This is punishment, she says, for the prince “having no love in his heart.”  I submit that he “had no love in his heart” for her because she was a manipulative, opportunistic monster who frightened a bereaved child during a thunderstorm, and that the tempestuous, impatient personality the Beast exhibits during the film is the product of years of despairing isolation and entirely justified rage.  The curse was wicked enough, but the terms of it are just as bad.  Not only does he have to come to truly love someone else - which would seem to be a reasonable condition for lifting the curse, if the sorceress’ claims are true - but that person also has to love him in return!  That’s hard enough for people who haven’t been forced against their will to look like demons, and the only reason that the curse even CAN be lifted is that Belle exists in a nearby town.  We can scarcely imagine another woman being able to do it.

The sorceress is bad, bad, bad news, and the moral economy of that film is an absolute mess.  I know you hold Beauty and the Beast in high esteem (and I do too, in a way), but there’s so much about it that troubles me.

Mulan - Shan Yu is a merciless warlord responsible for the deaths of thousands of men, women and children.  He is shown having a man killed for sport, and makes a joke about the prospect of murdering a little girl.  I will admit that lots of Disney villains have it in for young women, but usually because those young women have crossed them in some specific way, or are thwarting their bid for power, or whatever; this is just some anonymous peasant girl who lost her doll.  He had never even met her before he had her killed (and he did).  For the sake of context: elsewhere in this thread, people are complaining about Gaston.

Atlantis: The Lost Empire - Lyle Rourke is a career mercenary who is already quite well-off.  In spite of this, for mere love of money, he is willing to commit an act of casual genocide that will also, incidentally, utterly destroy the greatest archaeological and anthropological discovery in the history of mankind.  It’s not as though he just gives into this impulse in a moment of temptation, either.  It was in the cards all along, and he doesn’t even care.  Meanwhile - just another reminder - people are upset about Gaston.

Finally, a personal appeal.  You said above that you’ve only seen The Hunchback of Notre Dame once, and a long time ago at that.  I’d be tremendously interested to see what you’d make of it now.  Frollo is a marvelously complex villain, the animation quality is off the charts, and the songs… well, gosh.  They made a Disney movie in which everyone believes in God and addresses Him (in whatever variety of ways) as a being of central importance to the governance and justice of the universe.  There’s Latin hymnody, heroic clerics, speculations about the nature of divine providence, and so much more.  I only saw it for the first time recently, but it made a tremendous impression on me.  Is it perfect?  Certainly not.  Interesting?  Oh my, yes.  These late-winter/early spring months are often a wasteland for good film in the theatres, so if you find yourself at a loss for something to review, I know that I, at least, would be delighted to learn of your impressions of Hunchback.

I remember when I first saw the movie at the theater way back in 1979, I found the robot in “The Black Hole” pretty evil and creepy. Especially the last scene where Maximilian Schell’s character is inside of the robot while they are standing in what appears to be Hell. Of course I was only 15 at the time, but still, creepy, and it was a Disney movie.

I appreciate your problems with THE BLACK CAULDRON, although I’ve always had a soft spot for it. I was the right age to be captivated by it as a child, and it was responsible for introducing me to the marvelous books. I do think it’s worth noting that the Horned King makes what is probably the most nakedly Satanic declaration in the Disney canon: “I shall make you Cauldron Born [...] Then you will worship me! Me. [...] How long I have thirsted to be a god among mortal men.” Here is a fiend whose stated goal is nothing less than to usurp the power and honor reserved to the Creator! The film also contains some strikingly resonant Christian themes (innocent blood undergoing a literal baptism unto death, thereby undoing the power of the evil one)—even if things get somewhat muddled in the resurrection scene (the three witches hardly come across as a “holy” trinity).

Also, add my voice to the chorus of folks who would love to read a detailed review of HUNCHBACK from you. Given its direct engagement with Roman Catholicism, it seems glaringly absent from your website. I would not expect your attitude to undergo a complete reversal ... I can see where someone who chafes at stereotypical notions of “Catholic guilt” and such things would rankle at times. On the other hand, I think it’s worth pointing out that while the film may take potshots at moralizing hypocrites and self-absorbed laypersons, the ESSENTIAL HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH is never doubted or questioned. Indeed, it is central to the drama. All of the characters in the film recognize the Church as the house of God: a place where prayers are heard, grace is bestowed, and righteous judgment is dealt. The cathedral itself is a sanctuary whose violation is treated as a grave evil. Notre Dame is depicted, and not in an incidental way, as the home of Mary and the assembled Saints—beneath whose eyes, even someone as hard-hearted as Frollo may feel “a twinge of fear for his immortal soul.” Point out the problematic areas, by all means ... but I hope you find some positives as well.

Speaking for myself, I always get chills when Frollo, in the throes of arrogant self-justification (in what seems to me to be a deliberate evocation of the Pharisee’s prayer from Luke 18:11-12—“Beata Maria, you know I am a righteous man; of my virtue I am justly proud”), finds himself confronted by a chorus of spectral figures in monkish garb, bearing crosses and chanting “mea culpa” and Kyrie, eleison”—and for just a moment, you can hear his resolve falter.

Meredith:

“The siamese cats from ‘Lady and the Tramp.’  Gah.”

 
I was about to point out that, like Shere Khan just being a tiger, Si and Am are simply being cats in their hostility to Lady and their interest in the goldfish (and the baby’s milk).
 
That’s assuming, of course, that cats aren’t evil. But I’m not sure I want to assume that.
 
OTOH, Nick Milne, I will post a defense of the sorceress in Beauty and the Beast when I have time. Suffice to say, the film may have narrative problems (basically limited to the prologue narration) but I wouldn’t say the moral economy is a mess.

as a child the vil queen from Snow White scared me, in fact the movie its self scared, especially when Snow White is running through the forest, yeah i hid behind the couch. My least favorite is Captain Hook, I too don not care for Peter Pan, i think the villain in the film is far more pathetic than the hero. He is obsessed with killing Peter pan, and what does he gain ? Nothing. he isn’t after power or anything grand.
Frollo is probably the most misunderstood. the guy is guilty of murder, has to take care of a disfigured child. I mean Frollo was obviously a very lonely man, he wanted a companion, he wanted to do good but he went too far and for the wrong reasons. But I think Gothel is by far the most evil, actually i think Disney got it right. Evil is walking around and it isnt easy to see. Evil is at first appealing. I mean Gothel seems, at least at times, as a good caring person. No she doesnt try to take over the kingdom or anything, but like evil, she sucks up the life of a person so that she may continue to live.

I’ve got to give a shout out to Blackbeard in Pirates IV. He with his grand entrance, beard tips burning and all. He does a pretty good job of bringing evil about to the fountain of youth. Gambles on his daughters life, even takes the cup of eternal life from her, but to be foiled by Capt Jack.
All the villians in Pirates, Captain Barbosa, Davy Jones, and some of the other pirate kings where ruthless. 
However Maleficent takes the cake. Even when we go to Disneyland I still get chills when she peers out the castle window. (can be seen best standing in line for Peter Pan)

Shere Khan didn’t want to kill Mowgli because he was hungry. He wanted to kill him because he hated humans.

I look forward to reading your defense, Steve, and I feel I should make clear that I actually do like Beauty and the Beast, quite a bit.  It was just much on my mind after having recently seen it for the first time on the big screen, and I found myself having seriously pronounced objections to its narrative that had never occurred to me at all when last I had seen it.

And please review Hunchback ?_?

SDG probably won’t review Hunchback, because he admits that his memories of it are vague, and to review it he’d have to watch it again. I would guess that he wouldn’t like to do that, since he had very negative feelings about the perceived anti-Catholicism of the movie. What information is available, as far as I’m aware, about his opinion of the film can be found in these two articles.
 
While the movie was such a big part of my childhood that I can’t be completely objective, I disagree with much of SDG’s assessment. He doesn’t adequately consider the character of the archdeacon (completely invented for the movie - in the book Frollo was the archdeacon) who strongly defends both the rights of the oppressed and the sanctity of the Church and seems to look at the two in much the same way. There are other indications in the film that the Catholic religion can be a force for good in the world specifically because of its spirituality. For example, when Phoebus is inciting the townspeople to rebel against Frollo, his immortal line is: “Frollo has persecuted our people, ransacked our city, and now he has declared war on Notre Dame [i.e. Our Lady] herself!” For another example, Frollo’s song “Hellfire,” that self-justifying, blasphemous indulgence of malevolent lust, is sung to the powerful accompaniment of a group of clerics, at Mass or some kind of liturgy, chanting the Confiteor. The contrast couldn’t be plainer.
 
The mention of “Hellfire” brings up another point, by the way, namely that villains often have the best songs.

R.B. Sometimes a large predator like a tiger is a man-killer. It doesn’t make it evil.
 
Nick & Pachyderminator: I may well review Hunchback at some point. I would certainly have to rewatch it, and I would not at all be deterred from doing so by perceived or remembered anti-Catholic elements. I love the whole critical process, including watching movies I don’t like. It’s all part of the job.

Great!  You know I’ll read anything you write anyway :)

I love the whole critical process, including watching movies I don’t like. It’s all part of the job.

 
To be sure. I just thought you might not feel like investing more time in an uncongenial movie you thought you had filed away years ago.
 
In the matter of Shere Khan, it’s been a long time since I’ve seen The Jungle Book, but I think R.B. is right. Shere Khan is no ordinary large predator.

Okay, my turn.  My worst villains are the ones that slowly moved from being understandable characters to in-depth villains. Gaston the best example of these. Malicefant, for example, strangely is not as evil in my eyes because I expect nothing better from her. Watching a character slowly turn evil is far more frightening to me.

“I might footnote the Horned King from The Black Cauldron, on the grounds that anyone who commands an army of living dead is pretty definitively evil.”

What about Aragorn? Okay, he doesn’t keep them for long, and maybe they are ghosts and not living dead, but…this was my first thought and I’m saying it…

The elephants from Dumbo. They ridicule and ostracize an innocent baby elephant because his ears are too big. Completely heartless.

Can’t really comment on the bad guys.
Each Disney picture has at least one.

How many of the big WD films haven’t had any?

SDG - You haven’t answered my previous posts.

I’ll make it harder. Since all are “ranking” things,

Order the Pixar films.

You need not do this.

Your friend,

Matt

@John M: Brilliant counter-example re. Aragorn and the Dead. True, the Dead in Tolkien aren’t living dead, but if I were going to gloss a technicality, I think I would choose the verb “commands.” Tolkien’s Dead were not only bound by a vow freely chosen, but still had the freedom to choose to follow Aragorn or not. The Cauldron-Born, by contrast, were not only conscripted against their will, but became mindless slaves incapable of resisting. To command the dead in this sense is clearly evil, and Aragorn did not command the Dead in quite that way.
 
I might also rephrase my original claim and say that anyone who builds an army of living dead is pretty definitively evil. Aragorn didn’t form the army of the dead, nor did he seek their fealty, but inherited it.
 
@ Jenni: Heh. My wife and my mother-in-law would both be very sympathetic to your pick.
 
@ Matt: Without providing a complete ranking of Pixar’s films, here are my rough-and-ready breakdown:
 
a) 4-star masterpieces: Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Wall-E
b) 3½-star near-masterpieces: Monsters Inc, Ratatouille, Toy Story 3, Up
c) 3-star successes: A Bug’s Life, Cars
d) Meh: Cars 2
 
You may also find this interesting: Three phases of Pixar history

SDG-

My question was unfair. I’m sorry.  A quick reply, though! I’m impressed.

You have, of course, received that absolutely absurd and unanswerable inquiry:

“What’s Your Favorite Movie?”.  “What’s the Best film ever?”

I wonder how you respond to this question (who can?). 

Matt

Mother Gothel is the most twisted, I’ll agree :P But I always thought Jafar, Ursula, Shadow Man and Maleficent were the worst, not necessarily in that order, but…

Pascal, who is a chameleon, not a gecko…he’s not evil at all, guys. Pascal is awesome. I always saw his little trip thing at the end as a little victory for him over Mother Gothel. Didn’t she kick him against the wall, twice? He had to watch his best friend’s heart get basically ripped out and the love of her life DIE, he was just getting rid of Mother Gothel for good. It’d be gross if she disintegrated right in the tower. :(

Kay (and David B):

“Pascal, who is a chameleon, not a gecko”

 
Heh. Last night, reading this combox, my daughter Sarah saw David B’s reference to Pascal as a gecko and immediately ad-libbed, “‘Chameleon’…‘Nuance!’” I think some of my other kids got the joke, but I needed to have it explained: In the film, Flynn Ryder refers to Pascal as a “frog,” prompting Rapunzel to correct, “Chameleon,” to which Ryder responds, “Nuance!” Love my kids!

“he’s not evil at all, guys. Pascal is awesome.”

 
(Climactic Tangled spoilers) See point #1 here. FWIW, coming out of the screening for Tangled, these two points were my only caveats about the film. When I asked my kids what they thought of it, David’s immediate reply was: “Flynn coming back to life was totally deus ex machina! And the thing with the chameleon tripping Mother Goethel was kind of dark for a Disney cartoon, don’t you think?”  LOVE my kids!

Pascal’s tripping Mother Gothel is unjustifiable, but if one unworthy act of revenge against a defeated enemy makes him a “villain,” let alone one of the worst ones, I give up. I think the way to save the scene, by the way, might be by thinking of him precisely as a chameleon rather than a character. He then becomes more of a force of nature, and Mother Gothel’s death resembles Frollo’s or Gaston’s in that it was deserved, but caused by no human agency.
 
SDG, you’re wrong about the deus ex machina thing. I won’t derail the combox with it, but expect an email on the subject.

Aw, come on, y’all. I thought it was pretty clear David B. wasn’t serious.
 
Don’t worry about derailing the combox, Pachyderminator! 88 comments in, feel free to follow the tangents!

I’d just like to remind recent commenters that the guy in Atlantis: The Lost Empire qualmlessly attempts to commit genocide.  He’s perfectly happy to do it.  Perspective, people!

The Pachyderminator says that Pascal tripping Mother Gothel is “unjustifiable,” and SDG has denounced it elsewhere as having “no moral justification.”  I do not agree at all, and - since my true and brutal colours seem to be on display in this array of comments - I’ll explain why.

You can say as much in the comfort of knowing what you know about Gothel and the story as it shakes out, but - crucially - Pascal does not have this information.  All he knows is that this appalling, monstrous, tyrannical witch of a woman has kept his only friend in a state of perpetual slavery and imprisonment for her entire life, and that she (Gothel) either may natively have some sort of magical powers, or may have gained them in the process of exploiting Rapunzel for so many years.  In any case, she seems able to break Rapunzel’s will at every turn, and has no compunction about wielding the blade, as we see.  She’s just murdered a pretty interesting guy (Flynn) without any hint of hesitation or remorse, and with every sign of relish.  All of this constitutes the context in which Pascal does what he does.

The moment comes where a blow is struck against Gothel.  It’s apparent to us from narrative context that she’s finished, but all Pascal can see is The Tyrant flailing around - stunned and disoriented for the first time ever, in his memory - with her hood over her face.  At best he can see that she’s reverting to an elderly state, but she never had to be young to conquer Rapunzel.  She totters towards a window, but with no guarantee of falling out of it.  Pascal sees his chance, and does what I would argue is the perfectly reasonable thing: he ensures that the Tyrant falls.  “No,” he says, likely reflecting on nearly two decades of slavery and despair; “not now, and never again.”  He pulls the hair, and the tyrant falls.

Gothel is almost certainly dead before she hits the ground, and nothing has been done to her - by Pascal or by anyone - that she does not richly deserve.  It falls to God to judge her, as it does for anyone, but I do not agree that Pascal was particularly wrong in doing what he did.

Nick, you make an interesting case, but the subtleties of what Pascal did or didn’t know that make his act less than blameworthy would likely be lost on young viewers. Not that children are corrupted by seeing villains killed, of course, even in problematic ways. To my mind it’s all a technicality.

I don’t feel that Disney had a lot of truly “Evil” characters. Either animated or live action I believe that they were mostly sick, saddened and lacking the light. I suppose they all got what was coming to them; redemption or not.

PS - Missed it yesterday, Happy Birthday Charlie Dickens !! Now, there were some Evil characters.

the F&B manager at disneyworld

Bravo, Nick Milne. Great moral analysis.
 
But I stand by my son David’s commentary: A hero tripping a villain and causing her to fall from a fatal height is “kind of dark for a Disney cartoon” — too dark.
 
There’s a pedagogical reason why the archetypal hero characteristically tries to catch the villain as he’s about to plunge to his death, and it’s the villain who ultimately brings about his own demise.
 
Reverence for life is an overriding moral concern regarding children’s entertainment. Children at a certain age very easily assume that bad guys should die and it’s all right to kill them. Instilling in them the value of all human life, even the lives of bad guys, is of paramount importance.
 
Unmistakable self-defense is one thing. The kind of wire-drawn moral analysis that you make above, Nick, is way too subtle for children’s entertainment. The message to children is “Goodbye and good riddance” (and I think it can be argued that Pascal’s expression reinforces that). It’s gratuitous, and there’s no moral justification for it. Certainly it’s hard to imagine such a twist getting by during, say, pre-Renaissance Disney. 
 
Still, it’s very fleeting. And since most children will recognize, especially on repeated viewings, that Mother Gothel was dying anyway, they may not parse Pascal’s action as expressing a will toward her death.

Now, I know that it is not an animated film, but is was made by Disney…The White Witch from The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.  I mean, Lewis clearly based her off of the Biblical devil.  I mean, she turns a butterfly into stone…and Mr. Tumnus!  Poor Mr. Tumnus.

For live action films my choice is Long John Silver from the Disney version of Treasure Island.

“The message to children is “Goodbye and good riddance” (and I think it can be argued that Pascal’s expression reinforces that).”
Well, FWIW, Rapunzel didn’t look too happy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q22QPC6IbzQ&feature=related
(I believe Rapunzel’s reaction is around the 2:59 mark.) In fact, she makes an instinctive lunge to, judging by her expression, possibly save her.

On the subject of heroes directly offing the villains, did you ever see the end of The Land Before Time? The toddler-aged heroes actually plot to kill the villain. “Let’s get rid of him once and for all”, indeed. And it works. They’re animals, though, so not sure how that would affect it morally speaking.

AnonymousMe:

“Well, FWIW, Rapunzel didn’t look too happy.”

 
As befits her protagonist status. But that’s at least partly because for 18 years Rapunzel loved (or tried to love) this woman as a mother, and all that twisted dysfunctionality was still tying her emotionally to her. Pascal was doing what Rapunzel couldn’t bring herself to do (as sidekick characters often do, i.e., act out our unacknowledged impulses or offer catharsis for emotions we can’t bring ourselves to acknowledge). It was still for Rapunzel’s good, don’t you see. At least, that’s how it plays.

Maybe time to start a new Blog line, SDG

Oh my gosh, Ursula! She is TERRIFYING! I don’t even care about most of the evil things she did in Little Mermaid, I just hate how she turned the people who failed to keep up thier ends of the contracts into polyps, they were so twisted, so frightening and frightened. I was convinced that to intentionally reduce something so beautiful as a person, or even a mermaid, into such a vile thing was the worst of the worst. In my little seven year old mind it told me that Ursula has no respect for ANYTHING, had no master, no fear. Who would intentionally destroy the Grand Canyon for no other reason than spite? Or a Chaple? It terrified me and I still can’t and won’t watch it. Never, she is just too upsetting.

I’m glad I’m not the only one who thought of Shan Yu in this one. He’s one of the few Disney villains who seems to enjoy killing for its own sake.

Oh, Jadis (white witch) is undiniably evil, but for some reason it was the type of evil. She is vain, cuel, she is selfish and she is proud. But for some reason I am more horrified by spiteful villians. Ones who are evil not through any motive, but just to be evil. Those ones reflect the villiany of the devil. He KNOWS he cant win, he KNOWS God is good, he KNOWS that even to drag the whole world to hell will never set him free of the fire, but he still keeps on fighting God. Pride is dangerous, but it has good qualities too. Spite on the other hand comes from pride and is much, much more frightening to me as it has no good side at all.

The most terrifying movie I remember as a child was “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang”.  The king and queen and their hate for children, and the Kid Catcher.*shiver*  I still can not watch that movie.  Horrible stuff.  In animated Disney, “Bambi” was the most traumatic.  Sweet, cute little characters.  Then BAM!, the reality of our mother’s mortality delivered to us without any warning what so ever.  Cruel.

So, which Disney villains do you think had the best/lamest deaths or comeuppances?

Shan Yu is seconded. He’s scarily serious, which is rare for a Disney villain.

Not a villain per se, but one of the greatest “Anti-Hero”: Captain Nemo.
Reasons valid, Method horrible and disgraceful. 
Terrific performances in Disney’s first Fully live-action movie.

SDG, surprised you haven’t given a review of this.

I don’t know about “of all time” but for me the most evil Disney villain is Mother Gothel from “Tangled”—she made the word “mother” a dirty word, to the point where I couldn’t even fully trust Rapunzel’s REAL mother for no reason other than that she was a MOTHER.  Maybe that’s just my personal reaction, but how many things are worse than that?  Besides, she was the first Disney villain who actually scared me as an adult—the last time I remember really being scared of a Disney animated feature was “Beauty and the Beast”, and I was a kid then.

Hi, I’m 13 but I’ve seen so many disney movies. As a pure evil with no sign of human decency or love, i have to say Maleficent (goes physco crazy mean over not making the guest list, followed by Ursula (uses someone elses love and dreams to get her way, plus she’s King Triton’s sister- sibling rivalry), than the Horned King (second to the devil) and finally Madame Medusa (gets a sweet little girl and abuses, verbally and in other ways, her). As for the others, Mother Gothel is bad and sadistic, but in the movie she seems to love Rapunzel in a small way (three day trip to make paint) and Scar is awful but I think I rememer him doing something nice (?). For a personal favourite, can’t skip Cruella De Vil. Personally, i haven’t seen Alladin, Mulan or the Junglebook, no time. Oh, and also Lady Termaine is a good villain in the same way as Dolores Umbridge. I don’t count the Queen of Hearts or Hades, too comedic and fake. Can’t remember any more, thanks for reading.

(Not sure if you’re still following this thread or not, but on the off chance that you are…)

I get your point about Pascal and the nature of virtuous protagonists.  It’s true that the issues I raised would likely be lost on a child watching the film, and I think it’s probably a mark of how far I’ve abstracted myself from the genre that I never bothered to think what it would be like for a child to watch it at all :-/

I’d say that Dr. Facilier from “The Princess in the Frog” has an edge in villany in that, in his collaboration with demons, he is specifically trying to destroy souls as well as bodies.
On an emotional level, I find Gothel the most disturbing because her passive-aggressive nastiness is very, very believable.

Scar, if only because he relies on pure manipulation.

There was a specific villain that you missed that I consider to be the most terrible villain of all time, and although he wasn’t the main villain in the movie, Sabor from Tarzan is by far the least merciful. First, he kills a baby gorilla, and Kala’s heart is broken, but even after that, he goes and kills both of Tarzan’s parents, making Tarzan an orphan.

T, I don’t believe him to be a true villain. He was an animal and so he killed something to eat. Clayton, in the movie, was a lot worse. His crimes would if killed the animals, destroyed Tarzan’s life and Jane’s life too. And it was because of greed, not instinct.