[ SECRET POST #2689 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2689 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 026 secrets from Secret Submission Post #384.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[type_wild]

I never watched a single episode of Care Bears but I honestly think the world would be different if the Walt Disney Company could fully embrace the concept of an antagonist whose motive isn't BEING EVIL FOR THE SAKE OF BEING EVIL.

[purityandlight]

Seconded!

[sarillia]

How many Disney villains do you think fit that description? Not a rhetorical question meant to tell you you're wrong, by the way. I'm seriously thinking about this now. I feel like most of them were after some personal gain, not just to fuck everything up for other people just because they could.

[type_wild]

I actually did the count a few days ago, and IIRC the only Disney antagonists who had noble motives are the lot from Lilo & Stitch and Brother Bear. The case might or might not also be made for Silver from Treasure Planet, since his one big decision hinges on that as well.

My memory might be faulty, though.

[sarillia]

Oh okay, you're talking villains with good intentions versus villains who are willingly hurting people for the sake of a larger goal. I separate that from "evil for the sake of evil". Although I guess the ones who want power could be said to be evil for the sake of evil since they just want that power to be able to lord over people.

[(Anonymous)]

That's... Not evil for the sake of evil, hon. Evil for the sake of evil would be Maleficent. Basically, she has no real goals beyond BEING EEEEEVIIIIIIL. That is evil for the sake of evil.

You're thinking "noble goals I can potentially sympathize with" vs "things I can't potentially sympathize with," I think.

[(Anonymous)]

Easy with the patronizing tone, mom.

[darkmanifest]

Even Maleficent was only evil because they outright insulted her by not inviting her to the royal christening. Granted, she went way too far for the sake of pure evil, but considering the kingdom was still standing before that incident, she needed to be provoked.

[(Anonymous)]

But 'noble motives' and 'evil for the sake of evil' aren't the same. Frollo, for example, certainly thinks his motives are noble. That the audience disagrees is immaterial.

[(Anonymous)]

completely irrelevant to discussion, but I like your icon.

[type_wild]

Thanks ♥ the world can never have too much Yoshitaka Waya.