Question: Who is the most evil and darkest Disney villain ever created by Walt Disney??? ?
Tell me your answers and why... "Be Prepared" to hear mine...
Question: Who is the most evil and darkest Disney villain ever created by Walt Disney??? ?
Tell me your answers and why... "Be Prepared" to hear mine...
StargateFanBB wrote:
StargateFanBB wrote:
StargateFanBB wrote:
StargateFanBB wrote:
Cruella is also really evil because she tried to turn PUPPIES into a FUR COAT. Who is cruel enough to do that?
As far as the Horned King, I'm pretty sure Maleficent would have done that as well. Since she's called the Mistress of All Evil, she definitely would have done the same thing Horned King did. Heck, in a way, she technically DID do that, since it was her actions that led directly to King Stefan's kingdom basically falling into a coma, which is pretty close to world destruction.
And Maleficent is easily up there on darkest villains just cos of how evil, spiteful and petty she is and lengths she's willing to go to for a percieved slight (Aurora's curse) or just be a douche in general (she ruined Flora's flowers just because).
She's not? How's that possible? Frollo is a very different sort of villain, being more complex and a very human villain (not just that he is human) and I'm pretty sure he's considered a Complete Monster.
Don't ask me, apparently some guys at TVTropes and All The Tropes think she's not "heinous enough" to qualify despite the fact that she explicitly cursed a newborn child for even more petty reasons than even the Evil Queen from Snow White (and that's even ASSUMING she did it out of revenge for not being invited, since she implied that she did it just for her own amusement).
And personally, I find it very rich that one of the reasons why they disqualified her was due to her reaction to Diablo's petrification by Merriweather immediately beforehand, when Volgin's outrage at Raikov being at the very least harmed if not killed outright by Naked Snake in Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater failed to disqualify him from the trope (and unlike Volgin who at least actually WAS outraged at Raikov being harmed in a way that indicated he actually DID care for Raikov's well being and may have even sent him off base for his safety if we count Portable Ops as canon, Maleficent made ZERO attempt at actually restoring her most loyal and useful follower, despite obviously being capable of doing so due to Flora making VERY clear early on that her powers were far superior to Merriweather's powers, or even any of the other Good Fairies, at least individually). And quite frankly, Frollo's practically a good foster parent overall compared to the Dursleys from Harry Potter, and THEY failed to qualify. I also find it rich that he qualifies despite the fact that he at least took in Quasimodo due to actual guilt or at least fear of eternal damnation (which, really, is ultimately the same thing), yet Maleficent doesn't qualify despite the fact that she obviously didn't regret ruining Aurora's life and cursing her, nor was she even responsible for giving her a fighting chance at survival (not directly anyways, and certainly not intentionally). I mean, sure, I could probably understand why Maleficent in the 2014 would fail to qualify as a CM due to her actually being depicted as being a quasi-good guy (an antihero or at worst an anti-villain), heck, I can even understand why her Kingdom Hearts self failed to qualify (since she effectively entered anti-hero territory starting with II, and even deliberately spared Sora specifically because the latter saved her at one point). But the 1959 version ought to at least be allowed in.
But yeah, overall, Maleficent definitely qualified as one of the more evil Disney villains, if not THE most evil, far outranking Frollo under ANY stretch.
StargateFanBB wrote:
StargateFanBB wrote:
StargateFanBB wrote:
StargateFanBB wrote:
Cruella is also really evil because she tried to turn PUPPIES into a FUR COAT. Who is cruel enough to do that?
As far as the Horned King, I'm pretty sure Maleficent would have done that as well. Since she's called the Mistress of All Evil, she definitely would have done the same thing Horned King did. Heck, in a way, she technically DID do that, since it was her actions that led directly to King Stefan's kingdom basically falling into a coma, which is pretty close to world destruction.
And Maleficent is easily up there on darkest villains just cos of how evil, spiteful and petty she is and lengths she's willing to go to for a percieved slight (Aurora's curse) or just be a douche in general (she ruined Flora's flowers just because).
And personally, I find it very rich that one of the reasons why they disqualified her was due to her reaction to Diablo's petrification by Merriweather immediately beforehand, when Volgin's outrage at Raikov being at the very least harmed if not killed outright by Naked Snake in Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater failed to disqualify him from the trope (and unlike Volgin who at least actually WAS outraged at Raikov being harmed in a way that indicated he actually DID care for Raikov's well being and may have even sent him off base for his safety if we count Portable Ops as canon, Maleficent made ZERO attempt at actually restoring her most loyal and useful follower, despite obviously being capable of doing so due to Flora making VERY clear early on that her powers were far superior to Merriweather's powers, or even any of the other Good Fairies, at least individually). And quite frankly, Frollo's practically a good foster parent overall compared to the Dursleys from Harry Potter, and THEY failed to qualify. I also find it rich that he qualifies despite the fact that he at least took in Quasimodo due to actual guilt or at least fear of eternal damnation (which, really, is ultimately the same thing), yet Maleficent doesn't qualify despite the fact that she obviously didn't regret ruining Aurora's life and cursing her, nor was she even responsible for giving her a fighting chance at survival (not directly anyways, and certainly not intentionally). I mean, sure, I could probably understand why Maleficent in the 2014 would fail to qualify as a CM due to her actually being depicted as being a quasi-good guy (an antihero or at worst an anti-villain), heck, I can even understand why her Kingdom Hearts self failed to qualify (since she effectively entered anti-hero territory starting with II, and even deliberately spared Sora specifically because the latter saved her at one point). But the 1959 version ought to at least be allowed in.
But yeah, overall, Maleficent definitely qualified as one of the more evil Disney villains, if not THE most evil, far outranking Frollo under ANY stretch.
I call BS on her being disqualified cos she showed concern for petrified Diablo. And yes it's implied her cursing Aurora is simply for amusement. If Frollo is considered a Complete Monster despite his complexity as a character than she should be default. There's not many villains darker or worse than her in canon.
StargateFanBB wrote:
StargateFanBB wrote:
StargateFanBB wrote:
StargateFanBB wrote:
StargateFanBB wrote:
Cruella is also really evil because she tried to turn PUPPIES into a FUR COAT. Who is cruel enough to do that?
As far as the Horned King, I'm pretty sure Maleficent would have done that as well. Since she's called the Mistress of All Evil, she definitely would have done the same thing Horned King did. Heck, in a way, she technically DID do that, since it was her actions that led directly to King Stefan's kingdom basically falling into a coma, which is pretty close to world destruction.
And Maleficent is easily up there on darkest villains just cos of how evil, spiteful and petty she is and lengths she's willing to go to for a percieved slight (Aurora's curse) or just be a douche in general (she ruined Flora's flowers just because).
And personally, I find it very rich that one of the reasons why they disqualified her was due to her reaction to Diablo's petrification by Merriweather immediately beforehand, when Volgin's outrage at Raikov being at the very least harmed if not killed outright by Naked Snake in Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater failed to disqualify him from the trope (and unlike Volgin who at least actually WAS outraged at Raikov being harmed in a way that indicated he actually DID care for Raikov's well being and may have even sent him off base for his safety if we count Portable Ops as canon, Maleficent made ZERO attempt at actually restoring her most loyal and useful follower, despite obviously being capable of doing so due to Flora making VERY clear early on that her powers were far superior to Merriweather's powers, or even any of the other Good Fairies, at least individually). And quite frankly, Frollo's practically a good foster parent overall compared to the Dursleys from Harry Potter, and THEY failed to qualify. I also find it rich that he qualifies despite the fact that he at least took in Quasimodo due to actual guilt or at least fear of eternal damnation (which, really, is ultimately the same thing), yet Maleficent doesn't qualify despite the fact that she obviously didn't regret ruining Aurora's life and cursing her, nor was she even responsible for giving her a fighting chance at survival (not directly anyways, and certainly not intentionally). I mean, sure, I could probably understand why Maleficent in the 2014 would fail to qualify as a CM due to her actually being depicted as being a quasi-good guy (an antihero or at worst an anti-villain), heck, I can even understand why her Kingdom Hearts self failed to qualify (since she effectively entered anti-hero territory starting with II, and even deliberately spared Sora specifically because the latter saved her at one point). But the 1959 version ought to at least be allowed in.
But yeah, overall, Maleficent definitely qualified as one of the more evil Disney villains, if not THE most evil, far outranking Frollo under ANY stretch.
I call BS on her being disqualified cos she showed concern for petrified Diablo. And yes it's implied her cursing Aurora is simply for amusement. If Frollo is considered a Complete Monster despite his complexity as a character than she should be default. There's not many villains darker or worse than her in canon.
Yeah, agreed there. Besides, I'm not even sure if she really showed that much concern for Diablo anyway, just momentary shock (which doesn't really mean much especially when she makes NO attempt whatsoever to restore him despite it obviously being within her ability, nor does she even seem to consider it.). Even Jafar screamed "No!" when Gazeem got... well, chomped by the Cave of Wonders, yet he obviously didn't care about him at all based on his saying "Gazeem was obviously less than worthy" in a very cold tone. It's even more ironic considering that DocColress, one of the guys who rejected Maleficent being allowed in and was very vocal about keeping her off, was the guy who actually brought in Ghetsis to the trope on All The Tropes and made clear he was not to be removed (and that was despite TVTropes disqualifying him simply because the Shadow Trio showed loyalty to him for his saving them earlier, something which DocColress outright rejected.).
So, I think it's totally Frollo! We not talk about the most evil, the most not normal, the best, but the darkest. And I say it that way he is my 2nd favourite Disney villain (after Scar). After that he is the darkest, I think he is e most hateable.
He did the worst things: killing a woman, who didn't do anything, trying to kill a baby, sexually harassed Esmeralda, had sinful desire, burnt whole Paris just because Esmeralda didn't want to be his, manipulate Quasimodo, tell him the wolrd is dark and bad, but who's really dark and bad is he. Tell him he is a monster, in turn it said a real monster... Just so hateable! And his film was so dark, too. Hunchback of Notre Dame isn't the tipical pinky, happy Disney movie, it's much darker and more serious than the most of them. And it has a really dark, corrupt villain. And at the end, his death is so much dark, too.
Also there are more evil and dark villains - like Maleficent; killing someone just because sha wasn't invited to the party? WHY??? And she is also frightening and yeah, dark.
Cruella de Vil... Trying to steel puppies to make them a coat??? Who is that cruel? Ok, I'm not that big dog fan, as the most of people (I'm scared of them, yeah, it's a phobia called "kinophibia"), but I think, too, her plan was so evil and cruel. Small, nadf, cute puppies... Argh.
And there is Chernabog... Disney's variant for satan. Frightening!
And the Horn King... The most frightening of all the Disney villains.
But I can mention Scar, who killed his own brother. Who would kill his sibling just for heiring the throne and being the king???!!! What's that if not evil?
And there were Disney villains who aren't that dark as these I wrote about, but their death was. Like Clayton. He wasn't dark, just very heartless and cruel, but his death is the darkest Disney death ever.
So it's a really hard question, but I think it's totally Frollo, if we just talk about his crimes, his personality, his film. But there are so many other very evil and dark villains. (And so many I didn't mention, of course!)
For human villains:
Frollo is an very dark human villain. Most villains prior to that wanted to take over a kingdom or kill a princess. Frollo wanted to commit genocide on a group of people and make Esmerelda his plaything basically.
Cruella is just a straight-up psychopath and sociopath and puppy killer. Really dark there.
Percival McLeach is a poacher who traps and skins animals and kidnaps a kid to get info from him on an eagle he wants then tries to kill the kid in an extremely sadistic way (which he mentioned is his idea of fun). So yeah he's a psychopath and probably a sociopath. Him and Cruella would get along great.
Madame Medusa kidnaps a little girl to get a large diamond and straight out tries to kill her later and her partner and is as psychotic and sociopathic as they come.
StargateFanBB wrote: For human villains:
Frollo is an very dark human villain. Most villains prior to that wanted to take over a kingdom or kill a princess. Frollo wanted to commit genocide on a group of people and make Esmerelda his plaything basically.
Cruella is just a straight-up psychopath and sociopath and puppy killer. Really dark there.
Percival McLeach is a poacher who traps and skins animals and kidnaps a kid to get info from him on an eagle he wants then tries to kill the kid in an extremely sadistic way (which he mentioned is his idea of fun). So yeah he's a psychopath and probably a sociopath. Him and Cruella would get along great.
Madame Medusa kidnaps a little girl to get a large diamond and straight out tries to kill her later and her partner and is as psychotic and sociopathic as they come.
I'll agree that Frollo was definitely one of the darker human villains, but it's not by much (personally, he'd need to be depicted more like, say, Phillipe Augustine from Eternal Darkness or, heck, Barthandelus/Patriarch Galenth Dysley from Final Fantasy XIII before he can truly qualify as being the darkest Disney villain, not to mention the most evil. Even make him an explicit Satan worshipper.). And quite frankly, because "darkest villain" can also be used as separate from "most evil" (like for example, Mr. Freeze, who was extremely dark in terms of overall characterization, yet was one of the biggest anti-villains of Batman), he doesn't really qualify as "most evil" either. He still doesn't hold a candle to Maleficent in terms of villainy, though (you'd be hard-pressed to top the Mistress of All Evil in terms of villainy). Besides, unlike the other human villains listed, at least Frollo actually DOES have the capacity for remorse, and he DID take Quasimodo in (and if the Dursleys taking in Harry Potter, even when it's pretty obvious that they only did so because Dumbledore effectively blackmailed them into taking him in, was counted as a redeemable trait, I see zero reason to think Frollo doing the same isn't redeemable, and believe me, the Dursleys' treatment of Harry was MUCH worse than Frollo's treatment of Quasimodo. At least Frollo made sure Quasimodo was well-fed, taught Christianity, and more importantly, didn't force him to live in a cupboard underneath stairs.). The other human villains you listed generally don't have any remorse for what they've done.
And quite frankly, I'm hesitant to denounce genocide as being a truly horrific act, mostly because even God has done it many times and yet is called omnibenevolent (Sodom and Gomorrah, the Caananites, you name it. The fact that the guys who got slaughtered deserved it does not change the fact that he committed genocide, and in the case of the former, he lied to Abraham by letting him think there was a chance at there being innocents instead of, you know, ending the barter before it could even begin and even psychologically torture Abraham if he dared even try to barter God and have God in response as this is going on gloat that there aren't any innocents to spare besides his family. And his genocides and, heck, the barter game even, technically violated the Commandments God himself made anyway, especially in the latter case when God would have known full well due to his Omniscience that, besides Lot and his family, there WEREN'T any innocents to spare in those towns.).
Actually, not even because she wasn't invited to the party. She tried to kill Aurora for fun. Don't forget, when Leah asked if Maleficent was upset at not being invited, Maleficent explicitly said she was not upset at all before cursing Aurora, making it very clear that she did that just for fun, and would have done it even if she WERE invited. Actually, if anything, cursing Aurora for fun is even WORSE than simply for not being invited. And don't forget the storybook sequel where she actually turned the kingdom into stone in a form of genocide.
Actually, not even because she wasn't invited to the party. She tried to kill Aurora for fun. Don't forget, when Leah asked if Maleficent was upset at not being invited, Maleficent explicitly said she was not upset at all before cursing Aurora, making it very clear that she did that just for fun, and would have done it even if she WERE invited. Actually, if anything, cursing Aurora for fun is even WORSE than simply for not being invited. And don't forget the storybook sequel where she actually turned the kingdom into stone in a form of genocide.
Yes, you are right, and it that case, as you said, her reason is worse. She is evil, it isn't question.
Eszterrrka wrote:
Actually, not even because she wasn't invited to the party. She tried to kill Aurora for fun. Don't forget, when Leah asked if Maleficent was upset at not being invited, Maleficent explicitly said she was not upset at all before cursing Aurora, making it very clear that she did that just for fun, and would have done it even if she WERE invited. Actually, if anything, cursing Aurora for fun is even WORSE than simply for not being invited. And don't forget the storybook sequel where she actually turned the kingdom into stone in a form of genocide.
Yes, you are right, and it that case, as you said, her reason is worse. She is evil, it isn't question.
Yeah, she is, and it's actually a surprise that TVTropes and All The Tropes, heck, Villains Wiki, even, refuse to call her a complete monster even when it's very obvious that she is.
EDIT: Actually, a good comparison to what Maleficent did to Aurora regarding the curse would be what Ridley nearly did to a then three-year old Samus Aran in the Metroid manga, and Ridley is agreed to be a Complete Monster there.
Wisconsinboy wrote: Truthfully Disney intended Frollo to be as evil and vile as possible to avert the saying Evil is Cool. Frollo May seemingly felt guilty but he never repented truly so he completely remorseless. He cared for no one but himself. He tried to love and care for Quasimodo but he was too full of hatred. Maleficent, while I agree that she is an example of one of the most evil, if not the most, but she cared for Diablo. Maleficent is not pure evil according to Villains Wiki which I agree with. A Pure Evil villain, according to Villains Wiki, is a villain who is among the worst of all the villains. They are completely irredeemable, they have crossed the Horizon Moral Event (crossing it only once usually doesn’t qualify although rare examples exist), they are never presented in a positive way, they have no love for anyone other than themselves (even if they do claim to have love it would be for pervasion or obsession), they are taken seriously causing fear, revulsion, or hatred from other characters) and they are completely remorseless. Disney villains who are listed as pure evil are the Coachman, The Horned King, Perceval McLeach, Scar, Frollo, Shan Yu, Rourke, Dr. Facilier, Syndrome, Lotso, Axelrod, Zundapp, and Judge Doom. Maleficent, alongside Queen Grimhilde, Mother Gothel, Turbo, Hopper, Ernesto de la Cruz, Oogie Boogie, Gaston, Ratigan, and Bill Sykes are all rejected by the wiki because they feel that they are not hineous enough or that they don’t meet the recognitions to be a Pure Evil villain.
Actually, Maleficent freely admitted she was pure evil. "Mistress of All Evil", remember? And she showed far less actual redeeming factors than Frollo ever did (at least Frollo spared Quasimodo of being killed by his hand, so he WAS ultimately redeemable precisely BECAUSE he spared Quasimodo instead of, say, killing him then and there and gloating he's damned, spared his life and even was arguably a better foster parent than the Dursleys were to Harry Potter, something which Maleficent couldn't even be bothered to do to Aurora). And quite frankly, Villains Wiki's staff is composed of idiots, largely because they seem to think Maleficent isn't pure evil despite her LITERALLY stating as much about herself and the movie playing her completely seriously. Besides, the whole Complete Monster category was broken anyway. You really expect me to believe, going strictly by their behavior when nuking something, that The Boss ISN'T a complete monster, yet Volgin is? She had the same reaction as Volgin, yet she's not deemed a monster despite doing the same thing for the same reasons (and literally the only reason she's treated as redeemable was because of the story despite it being the exact same actions and motives). Were I the admins, I'd list her as a complete monster precisely BECAUSE she did the same thing Volgin did with no remorse and for the same reasons.
And quite frankly, the guys who made Frollo may have intended for that, but they utterly failed in the end. Maleficent came far closer to averting Evil is Cool by supplying a death curse to a baby either out of not being invited or simply for fun, and THEN issuing a manhunt against her shortly afterward (and besides, since when has "Evil is Cool" been an actual exemption for a Complete Monster? Albert Wesker is the EPITOME of "Evil is Cool", as was Palpatine, and yet they still qualified).
Also, Maleficent did NOT care for Diablo. Otherwise, she would have removed his petrification curse when Merriwether implemented it on him (don't forget, it was explicitly stated that Maleficent's magic was STRONGER than Merriwethers, and presumably the other Good Fairies as well, so removing a petrification spell would be simple for her). Besides, caring for another person =/= not being pure evil. Even Voldemort valued Nagini and to a certain extent Bellatrix Lestrange, and he was STILL pure evil and a complete monster. And she was NEVER presented in a positive way, while even Frollo at least had SOME positives to him.
Wisconsinboy wrote: I do agree she did say that she is the mistress of all evil however she did stroke Diablo on several occasions and she used him as a pet. Besides there is NOTHING positive about Frollo anyways. He was even abusive towards Quasimodo and even in the climax he states that he was gonna kill him as he should have done twenty years ago. He does claim to be a righteous person but yet he shows the deadly sins of lust, wrath, and pride. Although he did confess that he murdered Quasimodo’s mother, similar to Scar’s confession to Simna to murdering Mufasa, he chose evil over repentance just like Scar, period. Even Frollo attempted to drown Quasimodo as a baby in a well before he was reprimanded by the Archdeacon. Besides he was also responsible for the number of offscreen deaths of innocent lives. His crimes were murder, attempted murder, sexual assault, assault, arson, torture, bribery, and burning at the stake.
Seriously? The Dursleys objectively treated their nephew Harry Potter far worse than Frollo did to Quasimodo, and even THEY were treated positively for that (more or less, since Dumbledore clearly implied in Order of the Phoenix that them even taking IN Harry at all was a redeeming factor, and that was despite essentially being blackmailed by Dumbledore into doing so, and were very obviously willing to feed Harry to Dementors had he not sent that Howler to them). At least Frollo made SURE Quasimodo was well fed (and not merely feeding him scraps from under the table), made sure he got a religious education, and didn't force him to live in a cupboard under stairs. Besides, Frollo did clearly care about his horse, even risking letting Phoebus desert him just to make sure Snowball didn't get hurt, last I checked, that didn't exempt him from being a Complete Monster, nor did Voldemort's genuine affection for Nagini (and bear in mind, he had genuine, almost uncharactertic affection for his pet snake even BEFORE he made her into a horcrux if Harry Potter Wiki and JK Rowling are to be believed), so I fail to see how THAT made Maleficent redeemable. And quite frankly, Maleficent always chose evil as a default, never even ONCE attempted to do ANY good in any way (and considering she refers to herself as the Mistress of All Evil, she clearly knows some bits about good to even make that claim). She didn't give Aurora a way out, she clearly attempted to have Aurora suffer from her curse much earlier by issuing that manhunt (and only did last minute stuff because her minions were grossly incompetent by failing to take into account the fact that humans age), captured, psychologically tortured, and even attempted to lock Phillip and his Horse up until he was a VERY old man simply to basically horrify Aurora when she wakes up, maybe do WORSE to her considering it was a surprising reference to the original Grimm version of the tale (or at least Talia Sun and Moon where the king woke a comatose lady by outright raping her), and even her closest follower Diablo she ditched like a used car when he was turned to stone by Merriwether (and please don't give me her "no..." reaction. Jafar also reacted the same way when Gazeem died, yet he obviously didn't care him at all). Not to mention based on her title probably was ALSO responsible for a lot of death and destruction in the kingdom (Flora even had to pointedly remind Fauna that she's more than capable of doing that kind of evil). At least Frollo made an actual ATTEMPT to be good, which is more than most Disney villains before him who clearly took pride in being evil.
Also, Frollo's crimes weren't sexual assault or rape. At worst, it was a marry me or die kind of thing like Gaston. Sexual assault or rape would be more like what Josey suffered from in North Country by her social studies teacher, and as bad as Frollo was in the movie, even he had the decency to NOT rape Esmerelda and have his fun with her in public or in private (at worst, he was more like Gaston in Beauty and the Beast in that scene, and quite frankly, even if that WERE to count as sexual assault or rape, I thought Gaston was worse there. At least Frollo clearly had second thoughts and reluctance for doing that, while Gaston if anything took sheer pride in doing and planning that and openly gloated about planning to blackmail her dad into going to the insane asylum without ANY shame at all. Heck, forget Gaston, Jafar and Ursula were much worse than Frollo in that regard since the former tried to wish Genie to essentially rob Jasmine of her free will [and it's a darn good thing Genies had rules not allowing them to force people to fall in love with them and he refused], and Ursula implies right before making off with Ariel that she may have had sex with Eric after brainwashing him as Vanessa, which is as close to literal rape in a Disney film as you can possibly get.). Heck, going by her plans with Phillip, she was even willing to engineer rape on Aurora.
And quite frankly, I think the fact that Frollo even repented at ALL of trying to kill Quasimodo and made sure he lived to adulthood as penance still made him more redeemable than most Disney villains, especially when the other Disney villains generally didn't even bother doing that. For example, Maleficent? She inflicted a death curse on Aurora as a baby (and in fact, she even implies at one point that she would have done so even if she HAD in fact been invited, meaning it wasn't even out of revenge for not being invited, but simply because she got a pure kick out of doing that, being THAT sick in the head), fled the premises while laughing heinously and leaving no way out for Aurora (remember, it was Merriweather who had to partly amend the curse AFTER Maleficent left, meaning Maleficent didn't even play any real role in ensuring Aurora had a chance at surviving), and that's not even counting the fact that she issued a freaking manhunt against Aurora shortly afterward. And Ursula? Despite literally promising Ariel's dad that she wouldn't harm Ariel (or her sisters for that matter) when Triton took Ariel's place in the deal, she breaks it barely even a minute afterward, even saying to Ariel "Contract or not, I'll..." right when she was about to blast Ariel at point blank range with the trident. Compared to that, Frollo is actually very good with his word and made sure Quasimodo lived to adulthood, he certainly proved himself more redeemable there than Ursula or Maleficent did.
Actually, if I were to make Frollo as evil as one can get, here's how I'd handle his first scene, when reprimanded by the Archdeacon. Basically, when the Archbishop tries to stop him, he just stabs him with a dagger and mocks him for thinking of stopping him from killing a deformed child, or even saving his soul, citing he had long abandoned God and sold his soul. However, as he does so, he then looks at the corpse of Quasimodo's mother, and then decides to spare Quasimodo, thinking that he's even more useful to him alive with the clear implication that he's only sparing him as bait to lure out more gypsies. I can assure you, THAT would have made him MUCH worse than what we've got, making it very clear he WANTED to be damned to Hell. Look at Barthandelus from Final Fantasy XIII, or even Phillipe Augustine from Eternal Darkness. That's Frollo done right regarding making him as evil as one can get.
And quite frankly, I find it hard to take the film's moralizing seriously when they literally had one of Notre Dame's gargoyles literally lusting after a male goat (and being male himself, no less), which is something God would canonically tolerate even LESS than he would the stuff Frollo did (let's not forget, Sodom and Gomorrah learned THAT the hard way when they did what Hugo does with Djali), and Hugo had even LESS remorse for that than Frollo did, and THAT was treated as a positive. God would actually deem that blasphemous and outright torch Notre Dame himself out of pure anger at that.