Talk:Governor Ratcliffe/@comment-26664985-20150717215434/@comment-1672596-20150718124744

If it's of any consolation, the sequel does actually make him a credible threat and make his villainy a lot more blatant and credible (probably one of the few good things about the sequel, really, when the sequel was bad enough that they actively try to avoid giving much of a hint towards its existence, something not even Return to the Sea accomplished.).

Seriously, in the first film, Ratcliffe's about as poorly done as a villain as the Ferengi in the early seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation (coincidentally, both villains seemed to have "profit" or something similar as their motive and treated as villainous solely for looking for a profit). Even Gaston comes across as only slightly better than him in terms of villainy, and that's the guy whose motives solely amounted to the main protagonist's so-called "beauty" even when ignoring three women who more than met the conventional standard of beauty, and basically was stupider than a James Bond villain regarding expounding on his plan during a stupid reprise of his villain song. Then again, why should this be a surprise? That movie was entirely helmed by Jeffrey Katzenberg (he had more involvement in Pocahontas than he did The Lion King), pretty much the bane to Disney animation since he ruined a lot of storylines (honestly, the only storylines he DIDN'T ruin are The Little Mermaid and The Lion King, and that's only because he barely had any direct involvement in creating the movies unlike the others).

TVTropes gives a pretty good description of how Ratcliffe was horribly done to such an extent that he's hated for reasons that ironically aren't the intended reasons he should be hated: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TheScrappy/AnimatedFilm