As I've stated before, he's a great villain, but he's flawed, namely in The Lion King's final act where he glues the Villain Ball onto himself and continues to act as an idiot and ultimately kills himself; a stark contrast to the evil mastermind he was formerly portrayed as.
In my personal opinion, it's far too inbalanced in tone. The daring of Frollo does not intermix well with the cheerful songs of Quasimodo and the comic relief gargoyles.
If you want to do an adaption of something as dark as Victor Hugo's Hunchback, be really considerate with what parts you Disnify and which ones you leave untouched, otherwise you'll get the clunky, dramatically mixed Disney version.
I've never read the book, and maybe adapting it wasn't the best way to get the Disney Renaissance back on it's feet, but on it's own I think it's fine, but who knows maybe if I read the book my thoughts would change slightly. All I know is it ain't got no happy ending. :s
Oh I think it would be interesting to ask you stuff like what got you into villains wiki, what qualities do you think make a good villain, etc. I don't really know tbh. Just think it would be interesting.
Though I can answer one question off the bat. What got me into this wiki was what it always has been: the frank misuse of Complete Monster. I cleaned up spam, and eventually I kind of just stuck around. I've learned a lot.
It (or she, I actually think) is a decent villain. I haven't read the original book, but Tim Curry's performance in the miniseries was all types of entertaining. The character was an interesting concept on its own. A being that takes the shape of your worst fears. While I feel the ultimate payoff was anticlimactic, I am aware It is a classic eldritch horror, and the spider was the closest thing mankind could perceive as its true form.
Also, I was having a conversation with a user on Disney Wiki on Frollo. And, sigh, let's just say Weedle Mchairybug was at it again. I'm just gonna give you a link to the converstaion. You don't have the read the stuff about Yokai just the part where he comes in: http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Message_Wall:Somebodybends
Tell me, did I explain my reasoning well? It's not that I don't want to argue a different opinion with the guy, but it doesn't seem like he's REALLY taking my arguments into account. Also, just because Maleficent tried to kill a child (well she waited till she was 16 actually) doesn't make her more vile that Frollo, who might i add, TRIED TO DROWN A BABY FOR HIS APPERANCE! By that logic, I guess Disney's Hades is more evil for trying to kill a baby in the most standered way possible. I just want to know for the futrue when i agrue different opinions, did I explain my reasons well and is he just stubborn?
I'm really indifferent to Weedle's points. I can see why some wouldn't consider him pure evil (one interpretation of Hellfire is Frollo essentially being driven to hopeless madness and becoming a tragic shell in the process) but his points really don't hold any actual merit to me. He misunderstands the meaning of remorse, and the fact that he's using other villains (who each have their respective universes, actions, character, and standards to live up to) to try and demonstrate why Frollo isn't a Monster instead of actually analyzing Frollo himself, isn't an agreeable move.
As for Frollo, yes, he's one of Disney's most three-dimensional villains. And one of the most daring, as well. A hypocritical, violently faithful man tortured by his own sexual urges who eventually breaches the ultimate line and becomes a lustful, psychopathic monster.
I see one villain, Darth Nihilus is listed as a Complete Monster and the page is locked. The reason he is was TvTropes at one point counted him but since removed him. Some problems I see are while sadistic and crossed the MEH he is a slave to his hunger, has a possible Pet the Dog Moment according to TvTropes but since no one understands him no one is 100% certain, seemed angered or hurt by his apprentice's betrayal. The Wookieepedia claims he was obsessed with power but later was forced to consume others life force to not feel like he was starving though he accepted this as his fate and somewhat enjoyed it due to the fear it aspired from others.
I haven't played the game so I could be wrong but due to the possible Pet the Dog moment and being a slave to his hunger I fell he fails. What do you think?
I haven't played Knight of the Old Republic, nor am I really that well versed in Star Wars, but I'll answer as I can.
For his apprentice's betrayal, I believe Nihilus forcefully shaped her into what she was to begin with. If we go by the little character Nihilus was presented with, Nihilus was more likely simply angered than genuinely hurt.
As for being a slave to his own hunger, I don't really see how you can be a slave if you actively accept and enjoy this destructive path. I don't see any evidence that discounts Nihilus.
Your probably right about the whole apprentice thing.
The slave to the hunger is he seemingly became part of the force and has the choice to comsume others life forces or feel like he is starving. The embrace from what I read was basically him just enjoying the fear it put in others. The hardest strike against him is the possible Pet the Dog thing I found on TvTropes.
Hey, some user removed that One-Man Army is the opposite of Cowards since there are some One-Man armies that are Cowards. I added that back in cause, imo, considering a One-Man Army is powerful enough and thus willing to take on multiple characters as well as the stronger opponent, they should not be considered a coward. Does that make sense? Did I do the right thing?
So your favourite villains is Bryagh? Not questioning you taste or anything since I've never even seen what he's in, but why is that? Just out of curiousity. Also, I look forward to your Monster Blog. When might that get done?
As for Bryagh... I really don't know, but something about him fascinates me. He's not particularly three-dimensional, and he's not particularly filled with personality, but it's rare a villain can make so much impact with minimal screen-time and four lines. The Big Bad was just a cackling Sauron-expy (with the voice of James Earl Jones, admittedly a big plus) so he's not particularly interesting, but I just find the design, his voice, his fued with the knight Orrin and his final confrontation with him... Again, something oddly fascinating.
But maybe it all comes back down to my fascination with the Complete Monster trope. With certain exceptions aside, Bryagh's probably one of the straightest examples of a Monster in a children's film I've ever seen. He's a character that, despite relatively little influence on the plot and the fact he's subservient to the omnicidal Big Bad, manages to ooze utter vileness with every scene he's in. To sum up, he's a cannibalistic child-murdererer who's end goal is the destruction of mankind, and he manages to murder almost every main character in the main climax and laughs about it. That's another aspect I like about him. He's still a minor character, but I'll be damned if he isn't one of the most proficient examples of a literal hero killer I've seen in a while.
So, it comes down to extremely personal choice. I'm not sure exactly why I like Bryagh so much, I kind of just... do.
As for the Monster blog, I haven't had time to do it quite yet, but I'll get to that soon. Top priority.
Unsure. Still, Randall Flagg ultimately becomes just like old Nyarly- a near-Lovecraftian being who spreads evil and drives entire societies to ruin under the guise of his numerous manipulative avatars.
Yeah I didn't read the book but according to his trivia on his page, he's hinted to be Nyarly, which in turn I guess would make him Randall Flagg. I need to get my read on and not just go off of research.
He's a good deal more interesting than Crimson King, who I've expressed my dislike about on the Villains for Hire page.
Randall Flagg I feel is a good example of an adaptable character. He's a force of pure evil, but he's something like a chameleon. He can exist in the fantastic world of Delain, or the dystopian remains of Earth, and still exist as the ultimate evil. He can exist in any environment and work it to his own diabolical advantage while still being a suave, manipulative bastard.
Yes, his ultimate death was kind of an anticlimax, but Randall Flagg's chillingly effective deeds, chessmaster-type persona, slick personality, and his adaptability probably make him Stephen King's best villain.
Yes, I'm going to have to say I support him being He Who Walks, because another thing I like about Flagg is that he's essentially the King stand-in for Nyarlathotep. Nyarly has a dozen avatars in which he wreaks ruin with, as does Flagg. He Who Walks could easily just be another one of them.