Worst Cliches in Disney MoviesI know I normally make anime lists but I decided to change things up. So I made a list of the worst clichés of Disney. Now I'm not saying these movies are bad or that all the clichés they use are bad. I like most these movies and I like the song cliché personally. But they're some really annoying ones that just don't always work in my opinion. I'm going to add in ten, and the rest is up to you.
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 sung 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 they're other examples but that one really bugs me.
And now there's underdeveloped (and only strongly hinted) LESBIAN romance in their more recent films (Frozen 2 and RBTI), which the mere fact that they do involve two female characters is supposed to be "enough".
This in basically every Disney film involving princesses. There's more to a man than just his face, ya know!
The people who doesn't like romance are probably just triggered feminists. LOL
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 Dwarves.
The dwarfs from Snow White & the Seven Dwarves need a lot more credit than they usually get, but the only bad sidekick you have listed/did not make a big deal over is the Gargoyles. - The Ultimate Daredevil
Shank. Yes (with multiple s's). The Disney princesses in Forever w1 and acting like vapid Tumblrinas. We gave up Felix and Calhoun, not to mention the Sugar Rush kids, for THOSE?
I HATED those gargoyles from Hunchback of Notre Dame. They were so stupid and didn't make me laugh at all!
Fine in "Wreck-It Ralph" and even "Frozen" (and "Toy Story 3" if that counts), "Big Hero 6" I out loud said "oh come on! ", "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 Nutcracker and the Four Realms? Disney went to far with this character (Sugar Plum Fairy) being the villain and is easily one of Disney's dumbest decision ever.
At first, it kind of worked, but now Disney thinks it's a good idea to turn random characters into last act villains! Not working, Disney!
I'm sorry, I loved the Turbo surprise in Wreck It Ralph, if that's one of the things you have in mind.
Stop thumbs-upping up that unfounded rumor! Here's why it's just a rumor: Lilo could have had a living but deadbeat dad and frustrated struggling single mom instead of both parents dead and a frustrated struggling much older sister. Walt was long dead before anyone even thought about making Lilo&Stitch. And why were both Mulan's parents alive when they could have given her a (physically) weak father and a dead mother (and again even if they had killed off her mom the move came about long after Walt had died)?
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 in 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?
Now I don't mind if they use this for something like Cinderella. They're doing it because that's what was in the original fairy tale. I get that. Heck, I was happy when Mulan had both of her parents. It's one of the reasons I really like that movie. What I don't get is how some stories just decide to not have parents at all. For example, Pocahontas' mother died a year after Pocahontas actually did. It could have been a great family struggle or help give the characters some better development. But they used the dead parent cliché instead.
How many times have we've 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 Anderson ending but it seemed very sporadic in my opinion.
Wreck-It Ralph: Vanellope feels like she doesn't belong, turns out she does.
Ralph Breaks the Internet: Vanellope still feels like she doesn't belong; she "really " belongs in one of those stupid games only popular with teenage edgelords.
Worse: this gets resolved, but then enter a sequel where they again feel like they don't belong. Looking at you, Ralph Breaks the Internet and Frozen 2.
Simba in a strip club.
This one seems to be pretty big with Disney and it somewhat bothers me sometimes. I understand with stuff like Beauty & The Beast. The people were cursed into inanimate objects until the spell was broken. But then why are somethings 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 the Grandmother Willow from Pocahontas that doesn't make much sense too. 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 ...more
Even in Harry Potter, objects move by themselves with magic.
The brave little toaster and toy story did it right though
Disney movies don't have to be realistic!
I don't mind it when children's movies kill off characters. I was really taken back that Ray from the Princess & 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 make a bigger gap in Tod and Copper's friendship. But Chief is just injured even though he was hit by a train and well off a bridge.
I think at least a few of these, specifically the ones in films made in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, were because Disney got a lot of flack from fans (or their parents) who had been traumatized over the not-so-fake death of Bambi's mother. Trusty and Baloo for instance would have actually died otherwise.
These are supposed to give audiences a moment of shock and drama, but they don't work. I would not mind them so much if they weren't used so much. Alas, they are and because of that they don't work like they're supposed to.
This should be higher.
Mufasa being the worst of them all. Glad he's dead.
Or parental figures (Ralph)
You know these villains, the ones that don't have any motivation other than being greedy and want something. Whether they want power to seize 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 damn stereotypes?
BRUH.. THEY ARE IN EVERY MOVIE! SO ANNOYING AND OLD NOW
Kristoff's 1980s power ballad, anyone? And if "The Next Right Thing" from the same movie (Frozen II) didn't scream "please love this movie and where we decided to go with these characters even if it reeks of bad fanfiction"...
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 tf that song from "Ralph Breaks the Internet" is called? You know, the one Vanellope sang in raise of that Grand Theft Auto Online ripoff?
I Just Can't Wait To Be King is a horrible and very annoying earworm.
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.
Something I don't understand is why Mulan is a princess. She came from a normal family and married a high-ranking war general. In the second movie, she was about to marry a prince, but it never really happened. How come SHE is considered a princess, but the Emperor's daughters or the women RoseRedFlower mentioned are never shown in prominent Disney princess artwork? It makes no sense.
Count your blessings. The "excluded Princesses" weren't forced into dumb Hot Topic outfits and to act like vapid Tumblrinas like the "official Princesses".
Why isn't Meg considered a princess? She's married to Hercules, the prince of he gods, so she's technically supposed to be the princess of the gods.
Zootopia’s message wasn’t feminism. It was racism. The fact that they portrayed Nick and Judy equal and they’re opposite sex may hint a message about gender equality. However I do get your point guys. - AnimalsLover
Good gravy, the last three years worth of Disney movies have been bad about this! First Zootopia, then Emma Watson Turns A Classic Into Her Feminist Power Trip, then Ralph Breaks the Internet with that Oh My Disney scene.
Whoever put "anti feminism" on here, congratulations. Disney has now gone WAY too far in the opposite direction. Zootopia and Ralph Breaks the Internet are my needed citations.
The only thing I can give Disney credit for as far as this given their output since 2013 is at least they didn't make Hiro or Baymax female.
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 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.
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 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
*cough*Simba and Nala*cough*
Come on guys, It's FREAKIN' WRECK-IT RALPH! It's based on an ARCADE GAME! it's gotta have SOME sort of pop-culture refrence! - Stakamakataka
Response to previous comment: Indeed the original "Wreck-It Ralph" wasn't too bad about that and "Zootopia" was practically all references and far-left moralizing, but "Wreck-It Ralph 2" is going to give "Zootopia" a run for its money in the reference overkill department especially since its very title is a reference to Kim Kardashian no one wants to remember.
You picked the wrong "Ralph" movie as an image for this. "Breaks the Internet" was FAR worse about this than "Wreck-It Ralph".
Why is there an image from "Wreck-It Ralph" here? "Zootopia" is BY FAR the worst offender here.
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
Hate this cliche because it’s making a resurgence. You don’t need to send one character out to have a good ending! In fact, splitting them up makes it worse!
I know you didn't originally have that lame cop-out ending, "Frozen II". And even that wasn't any better than that "recalibration days" crap in "Ralph Breaks the Internet"!
Elsa and Anna are going to be forced to part in "Frozen II". Then Disney will make a sequel to "Big Hero 6" where Hiro and Baymax have to separate.
Didn't mind "The Fox and the Hound" doing this back in the day, but now it's become an annoying trend.
I like some villain sidekicks like Kronk from the Emperor's New Groove. But they're 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 and wouldn't it be better if her 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's some like 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 ...more
Shenzi, Banzai and Ed are the worst. These three give their species a bad rap enough to get Disney sued by an animal biologist.
Kronk is probably the only good villain sidekick, but the rest of them suck!
They're for comic relief, but are really annoying
Look I'm not trying to hate on villains ok... it's just that they creeped me out first of all the old hag the evil queens creeps me a lot! whoo gosh disney! it was just even a animated or a cartoon but it creeps me out more than a orignal action movie
It's my element dammit
It's so racist
Does that ones whose existence annoys you, but they themselves did nothing particularly annoying but nothing particularly endearing either?
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 ".
Shank and Yes spelled with, what, 5 s's.
Zeni is a bad excuse for comic relief.
Why is it that some animals can talk yet other ones can't? Trees in Pocahontas can talk for some reasons but the animals can't. Why? 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.
Birds always talk but why birds and not Godzillas?
Mulan, Moana, Tangled, and Frozen don't share this. That's why those are my only favorites. Rapunzel does fall in love but she saves the man in the end, dammit.
I'm sick and tired of all of this sexism. I want more strong females.
This should be at least number 3
What about Mulan?
Funny how you misspelled The Lion King as 'Lion Ding', 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.
Hyenas in The Lion King. And it's unclear why they are not part of Circle of Life.
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" being one of the worst offenders
"This Place", need I say more?
It's annoying how some characters are princesses for seemingly no reason other than to pander to little girls. Take Tangled, for instance - you can strip Rapunzel of her status as royalty without having to change the plot much. Ditto for Moana. And as a small-r republican, I'm sick of fictional royalty in general. Give me a fictional president for a change.
Treacle, you actually had a Disney president for about six years. Too bad Disney made her a princess again, and that so she could get the actual princesses into those awful outfits.
Didn't mind them in their own movies, but when Disney used them to boost their awful meme-ridden feminazi movie last year, they crossed a line.
Not all movies are about Disney princesses you know. (Zootopia, A Goofy Movie, Lilo and Stitch, Big Hero Six, etc...)