Top 10 Worst Cliches in Disney Movies

Disney is full of romance, but sometimes it just doesn't always make sense. Like with Aurora and Philip. Why is she just suddenly in love with him? They met once, they sang once, and they're already dancing like a couple. This wouldn't have bothered me so much if she didn't wake up from her kiss because of true love. Like I said, she only met him and it's true love? That's just so bizarre. I'm sure there are other examples, but that one really bugs me.

1. Get lost
2. Love at first sight
3. The middle of the movie is all without the prince
4. Princess gets poisoned and faints
5. Prince kisses the princess because it's "true love," and they're royal so they belong together and the main characters always end up together
6. The end. Ignore the side characters who were always with the princess. She ended up with someone she fell in love with.

Oh, you know these characters - the really annoying ones that make you grit your teeth. For me, this would have to go to B.E.N. from Treasure Planet. I like the movie, but I couldn't stand B.E.N. Or if I had to choose one from Pixar, it would be Mater. I wouldn't have hated him so much if he was more of a background character, but thanks to Cars 2, I now have a strong dislike for him. Not all side characters are annoying. I like some like Sebastian from The Little Mermaid or the dwarves from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

Fine in "Wreck-It Ralph" and even "Frozen" (and "Toy Story 3" if that counts).

In "Big Hero 6," I out loud said, "Oh, come on!" In "Zootopia," I literally stomped out of the theater in a rage. Didn't even bother with "Moana" and probably won't see another new Disney movie again for a while, if ever, now that their twist/attempt to stay "fresh" has become stale and overused.

Hey, does anyone remember the twist villain in The Nutcracker and the Four Realms? Disney went too far with this character (Sugar Plum Fairy) being the villain and it is easily one of Disney's dumbest decisions ever.

Okay, let's stop spreading that rumor that this has anything to do with the death of Walt Disney's mother. It's because most Disney films are adapted from traditional stories, fairy tales, legends, novels, etc., wherein the parents were dead anyway. Then Disney acquired Marvel and Star Wars, which, even before Disney got their white-gloved hands on them, were already swarming with dead parent stories. Again, the untimely death of Mrs. Disney had nothing to do with it.

While this can be irritating, the reason behind it is really sad and somewhat understandable - Walt Disney's mother died because of fumes from a furnace that Walt and his brother had bought for their parents. But I get it, we need more Disney films in which characters don't need their parents to die so that they can grow. And it would probably relate better with a majority of children who have parents. How about divorced parents instead?

How many times have we seen this? A bunch. I understand if someone like Tarzan felt like he didn't belong with his family. He's a human and they're gorillas. That would make sense why he felt left out. But it felt really hard for me to understand why Ariel felt like she didn't belong in the sea. She has amazing sisters, an overprotective but still loving father, and an entire underwater kingdom. Yet she would abandon all of the people she loved for a world she only knew for a few days? It just seemed so confusing and out of place. I didn't expect Disney to do the Hans Christian Andersen ending, but it seemed very sporadic in my opinion.

This one seems to be pretty big with Disney, and it somewhat bothers me sometimes. I understand with stuff like Beauty and the Beast. The people were cursed into inanimate objects until the spell was broken. But then why are some things like the gargoyles from The Hunchback of Notre Dame coming to life? I know a lot of people thought the concept was that Quasimodo was imagining them, and hey, that's a good reason. However, the gargoyles help defeat the guards through their shenanigans. How is this happening?

Then there's Grandmother Willow from Pocahontas. That doesn't make much sense either. How is she alive? Is she a Native American who trapped her soul in that willow tree? It doesn't say. Or the biggest one: the Cars and Planes movies. How are they created? Why do they have teeth and eyes? Why is it that sometimes they eat with their mouths? Do they need to eat? When Lightning McQueen said, Thank the Manufacturer, is that like their version of God? Or is it someone who creates the vehicles? Your guess is as good as mine!

I don't mind it when children's movies kill off characters. I was really taken aback that Ray from The Princess and the Frog actually died. It was even more touching when I understood this. I can't stand it, however, when we think a character is dead but they're not really. Like with Flynn dying and then being saved by Rapunzel. Did we really need that? Or how about Oliver from Oliver and Company? I think Chief from The Fox and the Hound should have died. There would have been more emotional weight on Copper and made a bigger gap in Tod and Copper's friendship. But Chief is just injured even though he was hit by a train and fell off a bridge.

The Slaughter Race song, literally all of Frozen 2's soundtrack (and this coming from someone who actually liked Frozen 1), that Shakira song in Zootopia...

Like "In This Place Called Slaughter Race" or whatever that song from "Ralph Breaks the Internet" is called? You know, the one Vanellope sang in praise of that Grand Theft Auto Online ripoff?

I Just Can't Wait to Be King is a horrible and very annoying earworm.

Why is it that the hero must always fall in love? Some of them are nice, like Mulan and Shang Yu. Some of them are an important part of the plot, like Cinderella.

But I don't understand why movies like The Lion King need a love interest. Don't get me wrong, I like Nala, but I think that she could have just stayed friends with Simba.

Nowadays, they must have a (strongly hinted) love interest of the same gender, and in the sequels to their original movies. Vanellope went from no love interest to being enamored of Gal Gadot's gangster character, and Elsa went from no love interest to deciding (more or less) to stay with that Honey chick.

I like some villain sidekicks like Kronk from The Emperor's New Groove. But there are some sidekicks you look at and wonder why the villain even deals with them. Iago the parrot from Aladdin is one of them. Jafar seems annoyed with him a lot. Wouldn't it be better if he had a better sidekick? The only thing Iago ever did was have that shrieking voice and complain. The most he ever did was come up with Jafar's plan of killing the Sultan and Jasmine after marrying her.

Then there are some like the Willie Brothers from Home on the Range. Alameda Slim is rich and can't be bothered to hire more competent goons. The only one he has is Rico, but if he can get someone like that, then what's the point in having the Willie Brothers? I know they're his nephews, but he's a villain. Scar killed his own brother for the sake of his ambition, so what's stopping this guy from tossing these three away? They can't even recognize their own uncle when he puts on a hat and glasses. It could be considered funny, but it doesn't make sense why Alameda Slim would keep them if they're that stupid.

Mufasa is the worst of them all. Glad he's dead.

Especially when said hopes and desires are living in a crummy, violent edgelord game with a blatant Mary Sue.

"In This Place Called Slaughter Race" is one of the worst offenders.

You know these villains, the ones that don't have any motivation other than being greedy and wanting something. Whether they want power or more wealth than they could ever ask for. Like Commander Rourke from Atlantis or Shan Yu from Mulan. Now, if there's a reason they're so greedy like Scar from The Lion King, I understand. However, I hate it when their only motivation is greed and nothing else.

Not all villains are greedy, Disney. What's with all the stereotypes?

This one is a nitpick, I understand that. Why is it that some Disney princesses are excluded from their lineup? Kiara from The Lion King 2 was (and still might be) a princess. She even came from one of the better Disney sequels, and her mother Nala is a queen. Shouldn't she be somewhere on the list? Or if we're excluding animals, what about Kida from Atlantis or Eilonwy from The Black Cauldron? They're both princesses, but they're never in the lineup. Most argue that they're from less successful movies, so they're not shown as often as the other princesses, which sadly is probably the reason why.

At least Frozen had a better moral than loving the one you only knew for a few days.

A really depressing Deus ex machina to an otherwise interesting storyline.

Does that ones whose existence annoys you, but they themselves did nothing particularly annoying but nothing particularly endearing either?

The worst was when the Disney Princesses themselves became annoying side characters in "Disney Tries Too Hard to Prove How Woke and In Touch They Are" - I mean, "Vanellope von Schweetz Goes Radfem" - I mean, "Ralph Breaks the Internet."

Why is it that some animals can talk, yet others can't? Trees in Pocahontas can talk for some reason, but the animals can't.

Why can't the birds talk in Cinderella, but the mice can? How about that caterpillar that turned into a butterfly from The Fox and the Hound? It's just really confusing and bizarre.

Funny how you misspelled The Lion King as Lion Ding. It would've been better if it was The Lion Dung, knowing how awful that movie is.

Seriously, how it portrayed hyenas was just wrong and over the top. This is why I don't like it when something stereotypes animals.

Very true. Disney even got sued by an animal biologist for the defamation of using the entire spotted hyena species as henchmen.

Like sloths in that holy can-do-no-wrong movie of Disney's whose die-hard fanboy I don't want to deal with right now or ever.