DHS New Villains Show Coming to Disney’s Hollywood Studios in Summer 2025

discos

Well-Known Member
It looks like Maleficent, Captain Hook, Cruella De Vil, Hades and Jafar will all have musical numbers and actual actors, whilst all the other villains will likely be cameos in the mirrors. Do we know if there will be new original songs for this show, since those 3/5 characters don't actually have songs attached to them
The casting breakdown only had Cruella, Maleficent and Captain Hook as equity roles, so only those 3 characters will be the only ones speaking and singing live. BUT this new art shows other non-equity performers will probably be used in the show. Jafar and Hades will not sing or talk live, but nothing stops them from lip-syncing as Dr Faciller does in Hocus Pocus during MNSSHP, where as the Sanderson Sisters are equity.
 

DCBaker

Premium Member
Original Poster
Disney Live Entertainment has a new casting notice out today looking for Actors to portray the role of Maleficent in Disney Villains: Unfairly Ever After:

Screenshot 2025-01-23 at 8.56.34 AM.png
 

Cliff

Well-Known Member
The "misunderstood villain" trope again...

Ooh, scary.
What's wrong with the "misunderstood villain" concept?

It's common for society to immediately think somebody is a "bad person" but this idea shows us that "we" are often the bad people for quickly labeling somebody as a "villain" without knowing their life circumstances.

Yes,...Cruella DeVille wants to kill puppies and our knee-jerk reaction is to pre-judge this person for that alone. (pre-judge = prejudice!!) But that feature doesn't inherently make Cruella a "bad" person. Yes, Frollo almost murdered an innocent baby (Quasimodo) by wanting to throw that baby into a deep well. But we don't know what these people's life experiences are that cause them to do these things! These "villains" can also be victims of their circumstances too!

These "misunderstood villain tropes" teach society that it's often "OUR" fault for misjudging people's characters when we don't know "their" life story or "their" truth that made them do these things. It's 2025 and we know that everybody's truth is different, and we need to respect and celebrate that fact.

The "misunderstood villain trope" is a good and virtuous message for Burbank to promote to today's modern audience. We should all get behind this to help improve society and make the world a safer and more inclusive place.

Please?
 
Last edited:

ToTBellHop

Well-Known Member
What's wrong with the "misunderstood villain" concept?

It's common for society to immediately think somebody is a "bad person" but this idea shows us that "we" are often the bad people for quickly labeling somebody as a "villain" without knowing their life circumstances.

Yes,...Cruella DeVille wants to kill puppies and our knee-jerk reaction is to pre-judge this person for that alone. (pre-judge = prejudice!!) But that feature she has doesn't inherently make her a "bad" person. Yes, Frollo almost murdered an innocent baby (Quasimodo) by wanting to throw that baby into a deep well. But we don't know what these people's life experiences are that cause them to do these things! These "villains" can also be victims of their circumstances too!

These "misunderstood villain tropes" teach society that it's often "OUR" fault for misjudging people's characters when we don't know "their" life story or "their" truth that made them do these things. It's 2025 and we know that everybody's truth is different, and we need to respect and celebrate that fact.

The "misunderstood villain trope" is a good and virtuous message for Burbank to promote to today's modern audience. We should all get behind this to help improve society and make the world a safer and more inclusive place.

Please?
I mean, it is Simba’s fault that Scar had to kill Mufasa. Simba could have just not been born.
 

Cliff

Well-Known Member
I mean, it is Simba’s fault that Scar had to kill Mufasa. Simba could have just not been born.
Was Scar "that" bad? Was he really a "Villian"? I dunno,...it could be argued using modern logic that Scar was "oppressed". Modern ideology teaches us that everybody falls into either the "oppressed" or "oppressor" category in life. Everybody is either a victim or a victimizer. Scar was CLEARLY oppressed by his extremely powerful brother who had ALL the social control over him. Scar simply couldn't take anymore and lashed out against his oppressor (Mufasa) and killed him.

It's hard to point fingers at Scar and call him a "villain". We are privileged and don't know what it was like to live in Scar's shoes so I think maybe it's wrong to judge Scar because of that. Scar did what he felt was necessary to get justice for himself and his hyena friends.

Maybe Mufasa should have treated Scar and his friends more in a more inclusive and equitable way?

All good people agree on this, right?
 

Agent H

Well-Known Member
Was Scar "that" bad? Was he really a "Villian"? I dunno,...it could be argued using modern logic that Scar was "oppressed". Modern ideology teaches us that everybody falls into either the "oppressed" or "oppressor" category in life. Everybody is either a victim or a victimizer. Scar was CLEARLY oppressed by his extremely powerful brother who had ALL the social control over him. Scar simply couldn't take anymore and lashed out against his oppressor (Mufasa) and killed him.

It's hard to point fingers at Scar and call him a "villain". We are privileged and don't know what it was like to live in Scar's shoes so I think maybe it's wrong to judge Scar because of that. Scar did what he felt was necessary to get justice for himself and his hyena friends.

Maybe Mufasa should have treated Scar and his friends more in a more inclusive and equitable way?

All good people agree on this, right?
While I sympathize with the point you’re trying to make as shown in the lion guard scar was ‘oppressed’ because he killed his friends! Frankly I don’t know why he wasn’t banished to the outlands for that
 

Agent H

Well-Known Member
Not to mention all the villains have tried several times to kill the heroes miss de vill tried to kill the Dalmatian puppy’s twice and then came back a century later to try and skin their descendants! But the show seems like satire of that trope (even if it isn’t always a bad one)
 

Cliff

Well-Known Member
Not to mention all the villains have tried several times to kill the heroes miss de vill tried to kill the Dalmatian puppy’s twice and then came back a century later to try and skin their descendants! But the show seems like satire of that trope (even if it isn’t always a bad one)
The second question this brings up is this:

Do we really want to glorify a person that want's to murder puppy's? Where is Burbank's Stories Matter group on this?

Burbank has successfully canceled Splash Mountain, Tom Sawyer, Huk Finn, Mark Twain, Davy Crocket and a host of other socially sensitive things because of how terrible they are. Why is Burbank happy to glorify a puppy murderer in this show?

I think Burbank's Stories Matter sensitivity experts need to inspect this "Villain's" show very carefully before it goes too far into development. I don't know if some of these villains are the kind of representation that modern Burbank should be using today.

It's 2025. It's not 2015 anymore. Those days and those old ways of thinking are a dinosaur now.
 

Agent H

Well-Known Member
The second question this brings up is this:

Do we really want to glorify a person that want's to murder puppy's? Where is Burbank's Stories Matter group on this?

Burbank has successfully canceled Splash Mountain, Tom Sawyer, Huk Finn, Mark Twain, Davy Crocket and a host of other socially sensitive things because of how terrible they are. Why is Burbank happy to glorify a puppy murderer in this show?

I think Burbank's Stories Matter sensitivity experts need to inspect this "Villain's" show very carefully before it goes too far into development. I don't know if some of these villains are the kind of representation that modern Burbank should be using today.

It's 2025. It's not 2015 anymore. Those days and those old ways of thinking are a dinosaur now.
There is nothing wrong with Tom Sawyer island as it currently exists the very cringy ‘injun Joe’ ( hurts to even type that) reference has been gone for a long time I do not want to discuss splash mountain for fear of sending this thread down in flames and how did they cancel Davy Crocket? the movies are still on Disney+ But I feel a Walt Disney quote would be most appropriate here life is composed of lights and shadows it would be untruthful insincere and saccharine to pretend there are no shadows.
 

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
The second question this brings up is this:

Do we really want to glorify a person that want's to murder puppy's? Where is Burbank's Stories Matter group on this?

Burbank has successfully canceled Splash Mountain, Tom Sawyer, Huk Finn, Mark Twain, Davy Crocket and a host of other socially sensitive things because of how terrible they are. Why is Burbank happy to glorify a puppy murderer in this show?

I think Burbank's Stories Matter sensitivity experts need to inspect this "Villain's" show very carefully before it goes too far into development. I don't know if some of these villains are the kind of representation that modern Burbank should be using today.

It's 2025. It's not 2015 anymore. Those days and those old ways of thinking are a dinosaur now.
No! But you see! She herself was a victim of her own mother, and society, and the insular fashion industry. These are all natural reactions.
 

Cliff

Well-Known Member
I don't know Cruella's pronouns so I will just refer to this person simply as "Cruella".

Are you saying that because Cruella was a victim of society (or this person's unfortunate life circumstances) and resides in the socially "oppressed" category, Cruella's desire to murder puppies and do bad things should be forgiven because of that? Are you saying this also gives Burbank and the Stories Matter team the green light to let Cruella represent the company as a "Villain" in a show like that?

In other words: Don't see Cruella and a puppy murderer. Instead, see this person as an oppressed victim of society that made this person only "seem" like a Villian to those that too quicky pre-judge.

Hmmm,...that's an interesting idea. What excuse do the other villains have for their perceived bad deeds?

Didn't Captain Hook have a hard childhood? If that is true, Hook could also be justified in his actions too.

I think Burbank should have more back-story on the reasons why each villain is the way they are. This added info could help us judge better. I love the modern ideas and thinking today.
 

Jedi14

Well-Known Member
The second question this brings up is this:

Do we really want to glorify a person that want's to murder puppy's? Where is Burbank's Stories Matter group on this?

Burbank has successfully canceled Splash Mountain, Tom Sawyer, Huk Finn, Mark Twain, Davy Crocket and a host of other socially sensitive things because of how terrible they are. Why is Burbank happy to glorify a puppy murderer in this show?

I think Burbank's Stories Matter sensitivity experts need to inspect this "Villain's" show very carefully before it goes too far into development. I don't know if some of these villains are the kind of representation that modern Burbank should be using today.

It's 2025. It's not 2015 anymore. Those days and those old ways of thinking are a dinosaur now.
I honestly can’t tell if you’re being serious or not, but if you are, the show is coming out probably by June so if Stories Matter was involved they probably would have already looked at it. As for Cruella herself, firstly I don’t think she was flagged by Stories Matter like some other characters who are still used like Facilier, Tinker Bell, and Hook. Secondly, she doesn’t succeed.
 

Cliff

Well-Known Member
I honestly can’t tell if you’re being serious or not, but if you are, the show is coming out probably by June so if Stories Matter was involved they probably would have already looked at it. As for Cruella herself, firstly I don’t think she was flagged by Stories Matter like some other characters who are still used like Facilier, Tinker Bell, and Hook. Secondly, she doesn’t succeed.
Yes, Cruella doesn't succeed at murdering puppies only because this person was stopped from doing it. Cruella's success or failure is not the issue, it's this person's "intentions" that is. Do we really want to celebrate a person that want's to murder puppies in a show? Do we want to sell merchandise and glorify this person's image on it when we know what their goal is?

I don't know what gender Cruella identifies with. I don't think Burbank has ever confirmed that to the fans. However, she is a villain who possibly presents as a woman. Not trying to be offensive but that is my best guess. Cruella is an extremely unhinged person and I believe this pushes a negative or bad typecast for women in 2025. Burbank should not promote these types of villains anymore.

This should be a sensitivity concern for Stories Matter. Isn't their job to guide society "away" from these social stereotypes?
 

Agent H

Well-Known Member
Yes, Cruella doesn't succeed at murdering puppies only because this person was stopped from doing it. Cruella's success or failure is not the issue, it's this person's "intentions" that is. Do we really want to celebrate a person that want's to murder puppies in a show? Do we want to sell merchandise and glorify this person's image on it when we know what their goal is?

I don't know what gender Cruella identifies with. I don't think Burbank has ever confirmed that to the fans. However, she is a villain who possibly presents as a woman. Not trying to be offensive but that is my best guess. Cruella is an extremely unhinged person and I believe this pushes a negative or bad typecast for women in 2025. Burbank should not promote these types of villains anymore.

This should be a sensitivity concern for Stories Matter. Isn't their job to guide society "away" from these social stereotypes?
Still can’t tell if you’re being serious or not if you are being serious no they should not get rid of cruella or any of the other villains and I’m usually all for the inclusion policys but that is just ridiculous also cruella is very obviously a woman if you aren’t being serious we get it you’re upset they closed the ride that shall not be named shesh
 

Chi84

Premium Member
Still can’t tell if you’re being serious or not if you are being serious no they should not get rid of cruella or any of the other villains and I’m usually all for the inclusion policys but that is just ridiculous also cruella is very obviously a woman if you aren’t being serious we get it you’re upset they closed the ride that shall not be named shesh
See how quickly you’re catching on?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom