Not true. It's just that movies that do have villains who don't have the typical look (Atlantis and Rescuers Down Under come to mind; they had masculine-looking male villains) tend to get more overlooked. The only not-overlooked Disney movie I can think of that had a masculine guy as the villain was Beauty and the Beast (actually, that's something a lot of its fans give it credit for).
I did say "with known exceptions." That Home on the Range thing had one that looked like a traditional Disney cartoon shorts character, for another exception to the rule.
While the men certainly vary, there hasn't been a not hideous looking female villain since Maleficent (pre-dragon). Well, YMMV on the one from Tangled. I don't see why they all have to look like gross old crones, and in the case of Ursula, a morbidly obese drag queen (I'm sure we all have enough knowledge of Disney movies to know she was based on one). I swear that Yzma was yet another example of how ENG brutally parodied Disney movie tropes for that reason alone.
I'm sure if they made the Snow Queen movie they were going to make, she'd be all long pointy nosed, long pointy chinned, hair shaped like icicles...
Frozen has been the first to do several things, but it's not the trailblazer for everything. Frozen's main achievement is in being the first female-powered Disney animated film to gross over a billion dollars worldwide in a cinematic culture preoccupied with appeasing teenage boys.
Whatever anyone thinks of the quality of these two films, that's exactly what held back Princess and the Frog and Tangled. Especially since Princess and The Frog opened against Chipmunks 2 (you're boy audience strictly went there), and DOUBLE especially for Tangled because the male demographic they wanted was the reason the film was mismarketed... and how it almost was a terrible Shrek knockoff. I don't know what the heck got boys interested in Frozen (probably the Snowman), but whatever they did, keep it up.
I also liked that the lead characters could be both strong and feminine at the same time. I have nothing against female characters who aren't. Yet, it seems that strong women are often depicted as tomboys or disguising their sex.
Let's face it. Male writers struggle with female leads because anything you can do to them will get someone offended. Writers are in perpetual fear of angry letters and looking like a jerk that they make flat tropes that tend to tick everyone off anyway. So character flaws are out, causing the same action girl that also is a negative stereotype for some reason. Yet, I have to Godwin's Law here with Twilight... If a guy wrote the character of Bella, there would probably get death threats for daring to write a weak character that loves being in an abusive relationship. But tweenage girls gobbled her up and called her a hero because a woman wrote that. It's a bad role model and character regardless of who wrote it, of course. I just don't see why Wonder Woman gets so much love/hate and no one's ripping that character. Then again, WW was created by a bondage freak.
Getting off track... but other than that example, I think women
need to make their own characters. Sure, there are those who say that and look like jerks, but women get the subtleties that only women understand that men would glaze over. Not to mention that we should always have more cartoon/comic artists that are women. There is some great stuff out there, just not enough. We need more Sally Cruikshanks and Natasha Allegries out there. I love to see all kinds creating animated/illustrated masterpieces out there.
Welcome to the Muppet Central Forum!
Jim Henson Idea Man
Back to the Rock Season 2
Bear arrives on Disney+
Sam and Friends Book
