Hey guys. After noticing some of the trivia facts about how the villains represent the opposite of a main character, and thinking about how it represents the story, I have decided to write a blog on how the villain represents the dark opposite of our main character. I don't know if those trivia facts are still posted on the Disney wiki, but I am going to write it anyway. Not every villain may represent the opposite of a main character, I am just putting down some of the ones I have noticed the most for now.
Beast vs Gaston
For starters, we all know that Beast is ugly on the outside but later a nice guy on the inside, while Gaston is handsome on the outside but a real jerk on the inside. But there is more to it than that. Beast was a real jerk too, which is WHY the enchantress cursed him in the first place. However, when Belle came into his life, he did listen to Belle when she told him to control his temper. In addition, Beast supported Belle's interests in reading books by giving him his library and listening to when she read them to him. And when Belle had to leave to help her father, Beast let her go because of his love for the woman, despite knowing the cost regarding the spell. Gaston on the other hand, let his arrogance get the best of him when "flirting" with his "imaginary wife." He tried to discourage Belle from reading, because of his sexist belief that women thinking was absurd. He thought about his own happiness before Belle's, by not changing his rude ways and saying what he dreamed in his marriage instead of asking what Belle wants. He also was not willing to let Belle follow her own path, when she showed her feelings towards the Beast. He even tried to get the villagers to KILL the Beast instead of letting her go like the Beast did. And during the climax, even though it was a mistake, Beast was willing to spare Gaston's life was Gaston literally stabbed him in the back. What else can I say? Beast is the real handsome hunk while Gaston is the real monster.
Wreck it Ralph vs King Candy (or Turbo, or whatever I should call him)
Another one of my best examples is Ralph against King Candy. Ralph is programmed to be The badguy during arcade hours, he is a nice gentle guy afterwards, like when he gave the cherries to the homeless arcade characters. He did game jump when he was not supposed to and almost put his own game out of order forever, but he only did it to get some appreciation that he never got and he was willing to fix his mistakes even if it meant always being the bad guy. And then there was the matter of Vanellope Von Schweetz. Ralph was willing to help Vanellope get a kart-first to get his medal back, but later to help Vanellope get the better life she deserves, and as they became closer Ralph wanted to protect her from any cost of harm because she was such a special friend to him. Did King Candy have that heart of gold? No! King Candy as Turbo, was initially programmed to be the hero of his game, but was obviously boastful about it to the point where he was dislikable. And when he saw Roadblasters , he game jumped for his own selfishness, and did not care for the welfares of either that game or his own. He was not willing to help Vanellope get a kart either. He was desperate to keep her away from the karts so he could remain king, and he cared nothing about Vanellope's safety-mental or physical. If he knew that the other racers bullied Vanellope, I am 100% sure he would encourage it, unlike Ralph who rescued her. Normally I hate it when people encourage bullying like in "Chicken Little" or "Mr. Peabody and Sherman", but at least since he is already evil, he'd have an excuse. That's why the arcade dudes should have given Ralph a chance.
Mufasa + Simba vs Scar
If you recall during Scar's time as king, everyone compared Scar to Mufasa unfavorably (even Banzai) for good reason. Mufasa was a good and wise king. He did have to be strict when necessary just like any parent, but he was very good to those he was close to, and thought about others' welfare first. Remember when he told Simba that he needed to understand the delicate balance of the animals? Well, the way I interpreted that was that its a king's responsibility to make sure his subjects' needs are met before the wants. Scar did not focus of anyone's needs when he took over. All he cared about was power. He did not see that any animals in the Pride Land was okay, and made sure the hyenas got their meals which led to the Pride Lands having too many predators which destroyed the Pride Lands' ecosystem. I know it might seem a little complicated, but its a nature movie. Nature can be puzzling sometimes. Simba was a little focused on power when he was a cub too, but his purposes were not selfish and when he was grown up he was willing to the good king he promised his father. That's how he is the opposite of Scar.
Woody vs Lotso
Out of all the Toy Story villains, Lotso seems to be the most opposite of Woody, in the sense of leadership and their connections to their owners. Woody does act crabby time to time, but he always learns to think of others before himself by each movie's end. In the third film, Woody kept insisting that he and the other toys had to be there for Andy-although I interpreted it as Woody's excuse not to part with his "daddy figure." Even when the others did not listen to him, he did not let his feelings for Andy get the upper hand of him where he would turn into an awful character. He eventually did think of his friends' happiness by "convincing" Andy to give them to Bonnie, and not making his friends feel like prisoners to Andy's attic. But what about Lotso? He had the same selflessness that Woody had, right? Wrong!!! Lotso let his love for Daisy get the better of him by forcing Big Baby and Chuckles to leave Daisy, even though they had a right to be with her, just because HE was replaced. As dictator of Sunnyside, he would not let toys choose their own right of happiness. He made the new toys endure the torture of the Caterpillar room so the toddlers would not torture him. He also threatened to throw away any of his followers who defied him just like Woody and Ken, which made him nothing more than a horrible leader! That's one of the best storytelling aspects of Toy Story 3.
Hans vs Anna, Elsa, and Kristoff
If you remember from the trivia section, Hans represented the opposite of a lot of the good guys. But for now, I am only going to focus on the main characters. For starters, there's Anna the protagonist. Anna is a really sweet peach who has suffered from loneliness after her older sister Elsa shuts her out. Although it hurt Anna and she even lashed out at her during the coronation, she was willing to make amends and try to get her relationship with Elsa unstrained. Hans however, did not forgive his brothers and wanted to gloat in their faces by becoming king somewhere else and just get his own selfish respect. Then there's Elsa. Elsa is a good gentle person on the inside, but prefers to be distant on the outside. She does neglect Anna, but she doesn't do it to hurt her feelings, she only does it to protect Anna from getting hurt from her ice powers again. She also refuses to bless Anna's "engagement" with Hans because she knows well enough that giving all your trust to someone you just met does not solve your problems. Hans' intentions begged to differ because he was willing to give Anna what she wanted, but only as a trick and for his own agenda. And last but not least, there's Kristoff. Even though these two have not interacted with each other, you know well enough about them. Kristoff is not royalty or a hygienic person. He is nice-ish, but most of the time not very good with social skills when interacting with others, similar to my brother. He is a little rude at first, mainly to Oaken for his pricing and Anna for her ridiculous idea of wanting to marry someone she met in one day. But as the adventure goes on, he does fall in love with her and cares for her by the end. Hans, though appearing nice and polite on the outside, did not really care about Anna. He, of course, used Anna's naively personality as the key to becoming king. And that is pretty much all.
Baloo + Bagheera vs Shere Khan
One of the best aspects about the story to The Jungle Book is how the characters view humans, mainly their test subject, Mowgli the mancub. Baloo and Bagheera have different views on what is best for the Mowgli, much how like how groups of authorities agree or disagree on how to treat children. Bagheera wants Mowgli to live in the man village where he would be safe among his own kind which is the usual "looks better" attitude on how the struct one would think. Baloo wants Mowgli to fell happy by having fun with him in the jungle. Either way, they both want Mowgli to have a good happy life. Despite the troubles they get into, like when trying to get Mowgli back from King Louie who thinks all man-cubs know about fire, they love Mowgli like a special buddy, especially Baloo. He does not care that Mowgli is human, he loves hi as he is. Shere Khan on the other hand (or paw in this case), has nothing but hatred for Mowgli because of his prejudice judgements towards humans. If Mowgli is human, that is the only thing that matters to the striped beast. He does not care if Mowgli is special or fun to be around. The only human Shere Khan wants in the jungle is a dead one. And to make things worse, Shere Khan isn't even really that nice to his jungle locals as he appears to be. He may look as if he is minding his manners, but whenever he pulls out his sharp claws, he always implies his willingness to kill them if he does not get his way. Bagheera may not always act polite to his locals, but at least he truly means well at heart. That's why sometimes the jungle can be a mysterious place.
And that was my blog. If you have any request that you think I may have overlooked that you think should be here, I would be willing to put them down for you. Take care.