Talk:Hans/@comment-27926499-20160323001853/@comment-27926499-20160501200619

"You have to realize this is Disney. They don't have the screen time, nor the desire, to fully expound on the nefarious exploits villains could achieve."

What you just said just doesn't make sense. Disney spent YEARS making villains who could come up with backup plans when things took a wrong turn for them, and were defeated in the last moment because of either their arrogance or a mistep they did in the last minute that backfired on them, or just both. Ursula saw Ariel nearly kissing Eric ? She had Flotsam and Jetsam breaking them up and then made use of her magical skills and Ariel's voice. Jafar lost the lamp, so he followed Iago's advice and tried a more feasible way to get to the throne, until things got better for his case.

"In terms of good villains, Disney has produced two: Hans and Claude Frollo."

Except only Frollo is a great villain. Hans definetely is not.

"Also, Hans is definitely smarter than Scar. He knew when to reveal his hand, and knew how to get what he wants while still having the appeal of the people. Scar fails on all three, and he practically had no contigency plan, so I'm not sure why you're criticizing Hans in that regard. And Scar was completely incompetent in his regency; Hans doesn't give that sort of impression as his plans were well thought-out and he had a semblance of leadership quality."

No no no no, you are not taking things in account. First, Scar wasn't interested in leading per se, he only wanted the place as king, because he had a lust for power. Hans wanted to lead. Second, Scar had minions, LOTS of them, as incompetent some of them might have been, but he had a full pack of hyenas on his side. The only mistep he did was, out of desperation for survival, was blaming them. Hans, on the other hand, was alone. Hasn't the Duke of Weaselton been there, he wouldn't have had anyone to hunt Elsa down. Nor did he ever thought that maybe someone would have slipped into that room to peek on Anna's supposed corpse. Scar, on the other hand, had nothing to fear, despite Simba being alive, because he was unrivaled for, what it seems, years. Hans seems only to succeed only because of plot-convenience rather than his own merits, and that's why he fails.

"Hans is a master manipulator; he knows what to say to get his way, and that's why he's "shapeless" as his exterior personality shifts to complement the person he's manipulating. He fooled everyone--Elsa included--and got her to drop her guard so he could go for the killing blow. This makes him vastly more interesting than, say, Scar and Gaston."

No, he's not. Besides looking good and acting nice, he's not smart, he's not resourceful, he's not sophisticated, he has no minions, special weapons or powers, he only had sheer dumb luck, patience and plot induced useless characters who made things easier for him, because they basically did nothing or made things easier for him. Had he end up in a Kingdom with a much more stable situation, he wouldn't have been anywhere this lucky. Him being just a void makes him only more boring, because besides idling and doing nothing, he has nothing that make him effective or really threatening. And please, anyone is more interesting than Gaston.

"I don't think he's a morally gray character--he's pretty downright near psychopathic. A reform story would be interesting if done well, but I agree that the Elsa/Hans ship is weird. I don't think Elsa could ever forgive a man that nearly murdered her sister."

I've never said I consider him morally grey. I was calling out on how nonsensical that newly surfaced view on him is.