All posts by Weedle McHairybug

Okay, correction, the Prince Charming character wasn't used, but a bandit Snow White spared earlier. Not particularly fond of that change, but at least they didn't have Grimhilde give that kiss to wake her, so it's at least got that over Maleficent.

The only thing I genuinely hated about the Snow White remake was the disrespect Zegler and the production staff showed the original film during marketing as well as its title character. That alone won't give me much respect for the remake (though, to be fair regarding that bit, this is hardly the first time they used that overrated "let's trash the old to promote the new" marketing scheme even excluding remakes. If I recall correctly, Linda Woolverton started that crap with Beauty and the Beast where she basically dissed Belle's predecessors as being little more than shallow tarts who merely waited for their prince to come, including even Ariel, the then-most recent DP. And Paige O'Hara showed the original fairy tale some disrespect by claiming Belle was "forced by men" to go for Beast, even though even a brief summary of the book would make clear that, no, she was never forced by men to do anything, much less go for Beast. Actually, if anything, the ACTUAL reason she went to him was more similar to Mulan where she snuck out of the house to ensure her dad didn't have to carry out the prison sentence and that, if anything, her dad DIDN'T want any of his daughters, much less her, being sent to Beast, all because she blamed herself for his troubles. And even IF she had indeed been forced by someone else to go, it was her SISTERS who did the forcing, not men.). Beyond that, the remake itself from what I gather was okay (at least they ALLOWED the Prince Charming character to wake her from sleeping death rather than wimpifying him in a crass attempt at making her save the day like Eric and Ariel in the TLM remake, or what happened to Phillip in Maleficent). Heck, I actually LIKED how they did the Evil Queen in this, and I was actually nervous when I heard they changed her motivation to be this weird "I want to be a just ruler" thing over, you know, being the most beautiful in existence (good thing they kept the original motive). I especially liked how they, for ONCE, avoided making her sympathetic (especially after what they did to Maleficent, and to a lesser extent Cruella).

So far as The Lion King's remake, never saw it, but from what I gather of it, at least it actually WAS respectful of the source material ultimately, so it's at least got THAT going compared to, say, Maleficent (that was truly a disrespectful take on Sleeping Beauty, one that didn't even respect Maleficent's overall character either, and that was ENTIRELY Linda Woolverton's fault). Besides, the remake actually managed to make Scar even more of a realistic tyrant than before by having him channeling Lenin or Stalin by deliberately causing starvations (something that even today tends to be ignored in favor of just emulating Hitler), and him being a realistic portrayal of a tyrant was actually one of his biggest selling points. Probably my only real gripe towards the movie was Simba's VA doing that racist anti-American music video "This is America." I did think Zazu being forced away by Hyenas was unnecessary of a change, though (since it's pretty clearly implied Scar kept Zazu locked up and relegated to court jester precisely BECAUSE he knows too much, especially when the only ones actually seen visiting Scar's quarters were those Hyenas.).

"Fun fact Disney outright said that they set it in Italy, multiple times. I don’t know why we can’t take their word for it."

Outside of those Princess videos on YouTube (which I already made clear are dubious at best due to them making at least one glaring error regarding development of Beauty and the Beast), I have not heard anything about them confirming that it's Italy multiple times (South Mediterranean, yes, but not Italy specifically. Also, they did say they used Italy as the inspiration for the setting, but that does not necessarily mean it's actually SET in Italy. Hideo Kojima used Jordan as the basis for one of the primary settings of Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, yet the explicit in-game setting in question was actually AFGHANISTAN.).

"Because we get really sad when something we love gets changed [which is understandable... to a point]... all the while not considering that we don't own that thing/object, and have zero say in the matter other than voting with our dollars.

/In other news: still no cure for cancer"

To be fair, I WAS willing to believe and in fact actually DID think it was set in Italy when I was younger, and only decided against it because of the TV series and Return to the Sea.

Oh yeah, and I remembered someone alluded to Triton and Poseidon's names and indicating it was meant to be Mediterranean. However, there's a problem with that bit: While Triton is called Poseidon's son in the TV series, he's ALSO stated to be the grandson of Neptune. The reason that's a problem is that Poseidon and Neptune are the same guy (Poseidon's the Greek version of the God of Oceans, while Neptune's the Roman version).

Fine, I'll go along with it under the context that the creators themselves made that bit clear, like how Beauty and the Beast was set during the prelude to the French Revolution based on what Glen Keane said about the film. However, the TV series, which is still canon especially when the guys who made the film had some involvement in writing the series, still implied it was set during the 19th century and presumably the same time the book itself was published due to the events of Metal Fish. Kind of wish the episode had a line from Andersen saying he came to Eric's kingdom to test out their new submersibles for research into his new book so as to avoid implying it actually WAS set near Denmark, though... Would also have doubled as a neat continuity nod to the old Disney Comics as well that had a similar situation.

I was ready to assume when I was younger that it was set in Italy, but Metal Fish and to an extent Return to the Sea threw a wrench into that bit.

I could have sworn I replied to the above two posts, but oh well...

Look, even if the video confirmed Ariel and Eric are from Denmark instead of the Mediterranean/Italy, I still would have not have used that video as a source. And the reason why is because that series of videos, particularly Belle's Fun Facts, made some rather glaring mistakes in their analysis (eg, claiming Beast's Castle's statues were modeled after the Notre Dame gargoyles, even though Glen Keane made it very clear that it was from prototype designs for Beast himself and had absolutely nothing to do with Notre Dame at all), making its trustworthiness suspect at best, regardless of whether it's an official source or not. So, don't use that video as proof. Now, the bits about how the original little mermaid itself could have been set somewhere other than Denmark and maybe also the statue having little to do with HCA himself are definite valid points to consider.

"Even if Return to the sea is canon, which I highly doubt it is because Ariel is so out of character, I mean considering how her personality was in the first movie, I seriously doubt she would become like the frozen parents (Ugh I hate the sequel so much because of that) you can't argue that its set in Denmark just because Eric arrived quickly at the north pole. in no animated movie is travelling shown consistent! In avatar the last airbender they also arrive quickly at the north pole. This proves nothing. And if you want to argue that Ariels beginnig is not canon because of many plot problems with which I agree by the way, I can also tell you that the series has them too: I mean in the series sebastian knows about Ariels collection even though in the movie it was clearly shown that he just found out about it. And not only that but Sebastian always travels with Ariel when she goes adventuring even though in the movie he only cared about his job at the beginning and he wasn't ordered to look after her until the movie. So the tv series is also not consistent with the movie, so why should we even look for proof where the movie is set in a tv show that wa s produced AFTER the movie and has plot problems? And that episode again proofs nothing because in the last scene where Ariel watches Anderson it looks NOTHING like Erics kingdom! Why am I the only one who notices this? This could mean that he was home at the end but his home is not in erics kingdom and Ariel just travelled there!"

Eh, in Ariel's defense, Morgana DID nearly try to kill Melody, so I'd argue she at least had some justification for what she did to Melody unlike Elsa and Anna's parents (plus, you have to admit, if Melody had inherited Ariel's reckless streak, telling her the truth probably would have been even worse).

As far as your reference to Avatar, at least those characters had mystical powers as an excuse for traveling that fast to the North Pole. There's literally no way Eric is just going to travel to the North Pole in a sailing ship from Italy in less than a few hours. Especially when King Triton by that point was depowered and thus couldn't have even aided Eric and his fleet into arriving at the North Pole regardless of whether he wanted to thanks to Melody stealing the trident for Morgana as a result of being tricked. At least Melody had her being a mermaid at the time as an excuse for traveling that fast.

And as far as the TV series, I'll address those parts point by point.

The bit about Sebastian not knowing about her grotto can easily be explained as Ariel not letting Sebastian in the loop about rebuilding the grotto (remember, the one Sebastian witnessed was destroyed by Ariel thanks to one of Ursula's plots forcing her to).

As far as traveling with Ariel, I took it as meaning he didn't want to be mandated with looking out after Ariel. There's a difference between being ordered to look out after someone and doing so on your own terms. It's like how Penguin doesn't like being called "Penguin" by his henchmen, yet had absolutely no problem referring to himself as such indirectly in Arkham City.

Either way, that's tiny compared to some of the plot problems in Ariel's Beginning, which literally CANNOT be explained away. Like, for example, why Ariel is made to wait at least a year to join the band when she's the reason Atlantica has music again. Not to mention Ariel's Sisters birth order being completely wrong compared to the original film, or Flounder's whole characterization, or even the fact that Ariel never expressed an interest in human objects even ONCE despite it literally being her origins movie.

And by your logic, Disney doesn't respect the culture of France, because other than language, there was nothing in Beauty and the Beast that screamed France, and if anything one could be forgiven if going strictly by the environment you'd think it was set in Germany instead. Heck, they had far less respect for the source material for that movie than they ever did for The Little Mermaid's source material. At least with The Little Mermaid, they kept the broad strokes of the tale, and kept environmental elements such as the steps to the sea, Ariel having older sisters, and even gave a brief reference in Ariel's trademark song to how surfacing was deemed a rite of passage. Beauty and the Beast retained little, if any of the stuff from the original tale.

And just as an FYI, like you, I DID think Ariel was Italian. Unfortunately, Metal Fish and Return to the Sea destroyed that notion.

"Not to offend but I really hate the second movie and I refuse to count it as canon and most don't count the sequels at all. Most also don't know about the TV series either. So I wouldn't bother using either of those as examples of where the setting is supposed to be."

Personal feelings for a film =/= whether it's canon or not. As a for instance, I absolutely HATE [[wikipedia:Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker|Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker]] and [[wikipedia:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain|Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain]] with a passion for a variety of reasons (such as Kojima ruining large amounts of characters, including mainstay characters such as Big Boss and Kazuhira Miller, and even newcomer characters such as Paz Ortega Andrade, due to thinking he ought to use it as a sounding board for his politics, broke the timeline in various areas, including in Chapter 5, and other stuff), yet despite my revulsion towards those games, I nevertheless consider it canon to the Metal Gear series precisely BECAUSE Kojima made it abundantly clear they are canon. By contrast, I actually like Ghost Babel, aka the Game Boy Color version of Metal Gear Solid, actually think it's much better than Metal Gear Solid and its remake, Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes, especially in regards to how Solid Snake was depicted in that game, yet despite loving that game's story, I nevertheless have to acknowledge it's non-canon since it simply cannot work within the timeline (not that Peace Walker or The Phantom Pain really works with the timeline either since Kojima gets all retcon-happy with his games, doing so on a mere whim, but still...). And since Return to the Sea is actually acknowledged in official works relating to Disney, including at least one guidebook, it's ultimately canon, and I'm not of that movie either (though that said, I infinitely prefer that movie to Ariel's Beginning. At least RTTS didn't break the timeline. Heck, I prefer RTTS to The Force Awakens, thought that it was better done in terms of plotline than the latter DESPITE both being rehash "sequels".).

The only thing that truly matters to whether something is canon aside from word of god is whether or not it actually FITS into a timeline or not. The Little Mermaid II and even the TV series at least had that bit, unlike Ariel's Beginning which did not do so.

And as far as sequels are concerned, it's more of a give or take in the case of whether they're considered canon or not. The Aladdin sequels are generally considered canon thanks to Iago consistently being depicted as having reformed, something that only occurred in a sequel: Return of Jafar. Same goes for the Cinderella sequels (kind of...). And The Lion King 2 at least is deemed canon thanks largely to Kiara and Kovu's presence in The Lion Guard.

And based on that TIME interview that that user posted, it sounds as though the TV series actually DID match up with Musker and Clements' views regarding the time period at least, since they specifically indicated that the film took place in 1937, and since the TV series is a year before the first film, that would actually match up with the in-story chronology.

"I don't see Musker and Clements imply anywhere that it was set in Denmark. And you keep citing nonexistent "evidence" from TLM 2 and Metal Fish. In TLM 2, the map Morgana gives Melody looks completely improvised and doesn't tell where Morgana's lair is exactly or where Atlantica is. We can only conclude that her lair is somewhere in the Arctic because of all the ice. And before you mention how fast Eric arrived, for all we know he received magical help from Triton."

Considering by that point Triton lost his Trident thanks largely to Melody being manipulated by Morgana into stealing it, it's extremely unlikely Triton would have been in any position to aid Eric magically. Not unless he somehow had access to magic without the Trident. As far as the comments, there was the bit about the Queen of Denmark when the film was released.

"And the episode Metal Fish shouldn't be considered at all considering the fact that it's even more inconsistent with the first movie than Ariel's Beginning. In the original, Ariel explicitly said when she saw Eric that she had never been so close to a human before, but in Metal Fish she comes face-to-face with H.C. Andersen through a window. Even if that episode were canon, what would that prove? Andersen's stories rarely took place in Denmark and for all we know, he was visiting a Mediterranean country. Heck, we don't even know if that episode took place in Eric's kingdom."

Technically, Andersen was enclosed in a window in a fully contained submarine, while Eric was outdoors on the ship, which is still a bit closer to getting close to a human than being couped up in a submarine and being visible via a window. It's the same difference as a zoologist getting up close to a tiger in, say, the wild, compared to looking at a tiger while behind a glass window at a zoo. Yes, technically, you are closer in the zoo than in the wild, but it's not quite the same thing. At least that can be explained away as I just demonstrated, unlike with Ariel's Beginning, which really CANNOT be explained away at all, like the fact that Ariel had to wait a year to join the Daughters of Triton despite her pretty much being the reason why Atlantica even HAS music during that time, or why Sebastian, who was notoriously bad at keeping secrets, was somehow able to hide an illegal music club for who knows HOW long from Triton, who in that film practically ran Atlantica like North Korea, not to mention Sebastian somehow mixing up the order of Triton's daughters in what was meant to be Ariel's musical debut. And the docks at least WERE the same as in Eric's Kingdom, which implies it was indeed Eric's Kingdom. Now, if Ariel had gotten inches from HCA, in the open, on a beach, THEN your statement would have merit and allow it for automatic dismissal (the episode, I mean).

And as far as your other point, Aladdin took place in China in the original tale (that, and North Africa during the second half) and the titular character was in fact meant to be Chinese himself, yet in the actual Disney movie, it's explicitly located near the Jordan River, the Middle East in other words (most likely Iraq), and Aladdin himself was made Arabic rather than Chinese. Even if the fairy tale didn't necessarily take place in Denmark originally, there's nothing saying they can't change it to the country of origin. Heck, originally, The Frog Prince took place in an European kingdom, yet the Disney adaptation Princess and the Frog was set in New Orleans during the roaring twenties.

"And those images posted earlier don't imply it was set in Denmark either. Because all they show is Victorian era fashion, a pleasure garden with artificial flora and multicultural influence, a beach landscape that is not unique to Denmark and a town square that looks nothing like Eric's kingdom. Heck, one of those images even have the fleur-de-lis on a big banner in the background, which is generally a French aesthetic. Not to mention that pretty much every supplementary material indicates a Mediterranean setting. The first movie alone should tell you that it doesn't take place in Denmark, judging by the fauna and the Under the Sea song."

With the exception of the town bit (and actually, I could see some degree of similarities in terms of layout to the one in Eric's Kingdom), those depicted specific real world locations within Denmark, and provided comparison photos (and for the record, those flamingoes are probably domesticated. Roman Emperors had Lions and Tigers, despite not even being native to Rome itself). Besides, by that logic, we might as well say most of the locales in Beauty and the Beast were generic and not necessarily French.

And yet again, using the fleur-de-lis is not indicative of being located in France or, heck, even being French-owned territory. As a for instance, I live in Georgia, United Stated of America Georgia to be specific, and I live in the Dunwoody area. There's a neighborhood subdivision close by called Glenridge Close that does in fact feature the fleur-de-lis prominently on its sign. Bear in mind, Georgia was originally a British colony, and doesn't have any French history in that location, nor does it have any way of honoring the French AFAIK for their role in the American War of Independence, unlike, say, Kentucky and its invention of Bourbon, an alcoholic drink explicitly named after the French dynasty Louis XVI belonged to. Besides, Grimsby and Caroletta are shown to be British and Italian. Are we really going to claim the country was the UK or Italy just from that? Heck, might as well claim Robin Hood must be located in France just because Prince John used French at one point in the movie, despite the fact that the film repeated and explicitly stated that it was set in England, not France. The most we can say is that Eric's kingdom held to Roman Catholicism as its state religion, since the fleur-de-lis is also a major Roman Catholic symbol. And next time you try to claim that it's French due to that symbol, I'm making sure to upload a photograph of Glenridge Close specifically to show you that it's not limited to France or even areas historically belonging to France. Heck, even My Pillow makes use of the symbol, and that's purely an American company.

"Wrong. Yes, it states that. But is this information coming from the producer of The Little Mermaid or the actual Walt Disney Animated Studios?

I think not. A fun fact? Well, it's a fun fact.

Ron Clements and John Musker know the truth.

Ron also talked about the importance of keeping up with the culture!

So how can Hans Christian Andersen’s Mermaid be in Italy when it is in Denmark?

This is not making any sense.

Snow White is in Germany, Cinderella is in France because Walt Disney relies on the Charles Perrault version. The Sleeping Beauty, France.

So just tell me how can Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale be in Italy?"

In all fairness, not all Disney adaptations of fairy tales actually take place in the country said fairy tales originated in. For example, Disney's Aladdin took place near the Jordan river, yet in the actual story it was adapted from, Aladdin was actually set inside China. Also, Princess and the Frog was set in New Orleans, yet the tale it was adapted from, The Frog Prince, obviously wasn't even American in origin (and I'm a bit hesitant to state Sleeping Beauty was located in France, especially when there's little indicating where exactly it was set. At least Cinderella had French names to suggest either France or Belgium. Though if Aurora and Phillip's cameo in TLM as a portrait in Eric's Dining Room is of any indication, Aurora's kingdom is presumably located around the same area as Eric's Kingdom, in the future.).

Still, the fact that Musker and Clements strongly implied it was meant to be set in Denmark, not to mention evidence from Return to the Sea and the TV series, heck, even some tidbits from the actual movie as you yourself pointed out strongly suggest it is indeed meant to be Denmark.

Eh, I really wouldn't use the official Disney Princess channel as a source, if I were you. It's also the same channel that claimed that Beast's castle was inspired by Notre Dame due to the gargoyles (it wasn't. The gargoyles if anything were prototype designs of Beast that were reused), to say little about repeating the conventional wisdom of how people were illiterate back during the day of Beauty and the Beast (when if anything, its setting was during the golden age of Libraries).

And I really wouldn't use the fact that they used Greek terms/names for the merpeople as evidence that they're located near Italy or Greece. In Dead or Alive Xtreme Venus Vacation, for example, the main location is called the Venus Islands, obviously named after the Roman Goddess of Love, and by extension after Aphrodite, the Greek Goddess of Love, yet that's explicitly located in the South Pacific, nowhere NEAR Europe, let alone Italy or Greece.

And this is speaking as someone who DID think it was located near Italty when I was younger.

I suppose you're right. Ariel's will's fairly strong, though. Maybe not quite as strong as Mulan's, but close to it anyway.

"The weakest is obviously Aurora and the strongest is obviously Mulan."

Well, strongest standard human princess, perhaps, but strongest princess as a whole? Not entirely sure about that. Elsa, Anna, and Ariel definitely seem to be a bit stronger than her, and the last one isn't even human.

No, if they're done right. Unfortunately, the ones involving characters like Hans look as though the Disney writers were just trying to copy Metal Gear and its overuse of twist villains and plot twists.

"@Weedle McHairybug Here's the thing though. Triton might have been a bit overprotective of Ariel, and OK, destroying her grotto might have been a tiny bit over the top, but at least he was concerned about his daughter's safety; unlike Ursula, who played her like a pawn to get what she wanted."

Who said anything about whether Triton was evil? I never said that. Far from it, I pointed out he was one of the good guys DESPITE being a blatant, almost genocidal racist that actually came close to Frollo's level (and for the record, I actually consider King Triton to be one of Disney's best fathers precisely because he's doing what a father is supposed to do, which is actually protect his children as well as being very much a badass and awesome about it, and not made into a wimp, a dummy, a manchild, or a jerk [well, not too much of a jerk anyway], so don't think I actually hate the guy, even if I do object to his treatment of Ariel at times).

And the borderline genocidal element was referring more to his telling Ariel "one less human to worry about" when she pointed out that Eric would have drowned if she didn't save him, even when it was obvious that, being unconscious, he was not even close to a threat to his daughter at all.

"I've said it and I'll say it again:

Maleficent is not actually that bad, her evilness only affects one person, the only reason the kingdom was involved was because the king was involved emotionally. If they had just let Aurora die then Maleficent would've been good as long as they invited her to their parties.

On the other hand Scar murdered his own brother, took over the pridelands, and killed most of the animals and drove the rest away. So Scar, hands down, easily."

Actually, her evilness had affected an entire KINGDOM, not just one person. And if that's not enough, it's actually implied at one point that she would have cursed Aurora anyways even if she DID end up invited to the celebration.

"Queen Leah: And you're not offended, your excellency?

Maleficent: Why no, your majesty. And to show I bear no ill will, I, too, shall bestow a gift on the child.

[The fairies protect the cradle]

Maleficent: Listen well, all of you! The princess shall indeed grow in grace and beauty, beloved by all who know her. But, before the sun sets on her sixteenth birthday, she shall prick her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel and die."

Yeah, that sounds too much like she was going to inflict a death curse on Aurora even if she did end up invited, just for fun. And she also issued a manhunt on Aurora for 16 whole years with the implication that her minions' incompetence is the ONLY reason it lasted nearly as long as it did (and it came across as her attempting to find Aurora specifically to make SURE she pricked her finger WELL before her 16th birthday's sunset). And let's not forget that she attempted to outright torch the castle during her fight against Phillip, with everyone still inside.

She's not like Beerus, who at least had God of Destruction as more of a job and otherwise is swell if you don't tick him off. She's more like Frieza, to use Dragon Ball comparisons.

Scar does come close to matching her in villainy, but again, just close.

As far as Frollo, as I said in another thread, using your argument, are you seriously going to claim that what Kefka did in Final Fantasy VI's climax is not nearly as bad as what Frollo did, which amounted to just blowing up the entire dang world and slaughtering everyone for a full year, without any particular hatred towards any specific race and motivated solely by nihilism and sadism, just because he wasn't a racist unlike Frollo?

https://youtu.be/I-cdwDnryY0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ynz68dsJcI

Do you REALLY think that's going to fly with most people?

Besides, King Triton was a racist in his movie, even being somewhat comparable to Frollo to being borderline genocidal against humanity, and he was not nearly as evil as the main villain Ursula and if anything was one of the good guys.

"Oh god it’s one of these users 🙄"

Well, ask yourself this, are you seriously going to consider, objectively speaking, what Kefka did here less bad than racism?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ynz68dsJcI

https://youtu.be/I-cdwDnryY0

Because I'm pretty sure most people would view him as much worse than a racist.

"I say it's Claude Frollo. Rascism is the worst kind of evil, and isn't even funny."

Yeah, racism, while bad, is far from the worst form of evil. There's also nihilistic misanthropy, like what Kefka or the Joker does frequently, and they aren't even racists since they pretty much hate everybody and just love killing things because they get off on it.

Besides, are you really going to say being merely racist is worse than, say, the stuff the Columbine Shooters did? And there are a few good guys who ARE in fact racist. Case in point: King Triton, who really isn't that much different from Frollo regarding the racism bit, even implied a desire to commit genocide against humanity at one point.

"Did we forget about Frollo who sexually assaulted Esmerelda,"

...

Frollo at worst did a "marry me or die" threat. That wasn't sexual assault at all, being coercion at worst. Want sexual assault? Watch Josey's trial in North Country when encountering her Social Studies teacher after several years. If that's sexual assault, then I guess Gaston's threat of asylum to Belle makes him a sexual assaulter as well. If anyone came far closer to actual sexual assault, it was either Jafar when he tried to wish for Jasmine to fall in love with him (in other words, up and out rob her of her free will), or even Ursula when she pulled off that stunt as Vanessa by brainwashing Eric, as well her essentially implying with her "so long, lover boy!" remark that she may have done more than that to him when brainwashing him.

"murdered qusimodos mother,"

That was manslaughter, not murder, since it's implied from his reaction afterward that was accidental.

"tried murdering Quasimodo as a baby,"

He at least relented, which is still a lot more than what Maleficent did where SHE tried to inflict a death curse on Aurora and made absolutely NO attempt to allow for a way out (Merriwether put that in AFTER she had left), not to mention issued a manhunt against her for sixteen whole years.

"attempted genocide,"

Maleficent Returns had Maleficent committing genocide (and let's be real, being the Mistress of All Evil, she obviously would have committed genocides as a hobby of hers), and besides, even God has attempted Genocides and succeeded in doing so, and he's a good guy. As did King Triton in The Little Mermaid.

"emotionally abused Quasimodo"

If the Dursleys can get away with being called redeemable despite having even worse abuse of Harry Potter than Frollo, I fail to see how that's going to make him significantly more evil than, say, Maleficent.

"and tried burning a family alive"

Yeah, well Prince John tried to burn a castle alive and Maleficent also tried to burn the castle while everyone was still asleep while fighting Prince Phillip.

"@Weedle McHairybug Let me rephrase that. I am NOT saying religion is evil, or being religious is evil. What I am saying is, people who use religion as a weapon to dominate or abuse people beneath them are evil."

Isn't that essentially what God does all the time? Even when being merciful? He's essentially like the Patriots from Metal Gear Solid 2, or even Bahamut from Final Fantasy XV (particularly with Episode Ardyn and Dawn of the Future). At least, that's what I view God as being like with his actions from the Old Testament and even to a degree the New Testament (and Bahamut acted like the latter testament in the main game, before Ardyn and Dawn of the Future basically turned him into a villain for no real reason). And yes, I DO in fact believe in God.