MovieChat Forums > The AristoCats (1970) Discussion > Can somebody explain to me the villain's...

Can somebody explain to me the villain's motivations?

posted 9 years ago by BlazeTheMovieFan
10 replies | jump to latest

So from what I understand, the butler of the house is someone who hates cats, and wants to get rid of them. I don't know why he does, it's never explained, so can somebody please explain this to me?

With most animated Disney villains their motivations are clear. Jafar wants to get rid of Aladdin so he won't stand in his way when he's in power. Ursula wants Ariel's voice since she is collecting souls. Cruella De Vil wants to own the furs of the dogs. Scar wants to rule over the lions. I could go on and on.

My point is it's obvious why most Disney villains do the things they do, but with the butler in this movie, not so much. So can someone explain to me why he wanted to get rid of the cats? Thank you.

[–] thismomentisfate 9 years ago

I always thought it was because the old lady planned to leave her house or money to the cats. And he wanted to be the one she leaves her money to.

[–] BlazeTheMovieFan 9 years ago

Alright, that makes sense.

But I still consider him a very weak villain though.

He isn't even close to the quality of villains like Jafar, Cruella De Vil, Ursula, Frollo or Scar.

In fact I would say he is one of the most awful villains, I'm glad you explained to me his motives I appreciate that. Sadly that didn't change my opinion on him much.

[–] furienna 9 years ago

But why do you consider him such a weak villain? I know a lot of people feel that way about Edgar, but I don't think that is fair. He is not supposed to be compared to Jafar, Scar or Frollo. They were indeed more frightening, and they also worked on a much bigger scale. But I say that Edgar worked as a villain in this particular movie, where the main protagonists are four innocent cats.

And to be honest, I can only think of one weak villain from a Disney movie right now: Radcliffe from "Pocahontas". The movie wants to present itself as a more mature Disney output, an epic for the ages. It asks people to take it so seriously and reward it with a heap of Oscars. And yet, Radcliffe seems to be more buffoonish than frightening. Sure, he is a racist jerk. But you need to go beyond that to be a good villain in a epic, serious movie (of course, "Pocahontas" never quite was that anyway, but still...). It is very telling that except for Hades from "Hercules", who is a god and can not die, Radcliffe is the only villain from a Renaissance movie to survive at the end.

I also hear that Hans from "Frozen" is considered as a weak villain by some. But I haven't watched that movie yet, so I can't say. But as for Edgar, there was no need for a stronger villain in "Aristocats", so I can accept him.

Intelligence and purity.

[–] jayruth 9 years ago

It is explained in the scene when he overhears Madame organising her will. She leaves all her money to the cats and once they are dead it gets passed to the butler. The butler cannot wait the twelve years or so until the kittens die so decides to remove them altogether in the understanding the money will then go direct to him. Hope that helps!

[–] Ursulo911 9 years ago

His motivations of getting rid of the cats was in order to inherit Madames fortune when she dies instead of the cats inheriting which was what Madame intended, for her cats to inherit all her money so by getting rid of the cats madame would have to leave her fortune to Edgar when she died because there would be no one else to inherit her fortune since she had no living relatives.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] louiseculmer 9 years ago

because he stands to inherit the estate after the cats die. he is too impatient to wait until then. Although he reckons the cats lifespan to be about twelve years (though cats more commonly live fifteen or sixteen years), he rather weidrly adds their ages up to live consecutively, which mAkes no sense. of course, if madame had been sensibe, she would have left the estate to edgar on condition thst he look after the cats until they die, and she could have had someone check up on him regularly to make sure the cats were okay. she could have made a provision that he would be disinherited if the cats died in suspicious circumstances. but of course that wouldn't make a very interesting film.

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

So from what I understand, the butler of the house is someone who hates cats,

That's not in the movie. I don't think he hated them at all. At least at the beginning.

Can't stop the signal.

[–] DnDgames 9 years ago

Yeah I dont think he hated them. Just wanted the money. If he hated em Id imagine he kill them instead of dumping them.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]