Oh! And one last thing I forgot to mention regarding where I always had this theory regarding this decision to make modern villains more "nuanced" comes from (and it doesn't even have to do with Disney)... I always felt that Illumination's 2012 adaptation of 'The Lorax' was a low-key influence to make that decision, given that the movie was simultaneously insanely popular (and still is popular for meme material) and heavily-criticized even at the time. And one of the most popular criticisms of it was the unnecessary addition of a clear-cut villain in a story that didn't need a villain in the first place; the 'Lorax' is a story about how every one of us is guilty of doing more damage than we realize, not just someone who is actively of Mal-intent. I could be totally wrong on that front, but I always felt that this was one particular aspect of the movie that did have some influence on it to a degree.
Third, that whole thing with Gaston vs. the Beast does present another topic of the whole protagonist vs. antagonist dynamic that has been a very important element ever since the dawn of storytelling: that defining moment or trait that separates the two. I've already made my case for Lotso vs. Woody in 'Toy Story 3', but we can see several examples throughout Disney's history , even in the 90s apart from Gaston. ('Tarzan' even kind of spells this out when Clayton says: "Go ahead and shoot me! You're a man now!" and Tarzan responds: "I'm not a man like you!") Frollo gets a lot of praise for being an effectively terrifying villain who is not (consciously) motivated by "evil", but I find a lot of people tend to overlook this facet of him and Quasimodo when it comes to "What makes a monster and what makes a man". Frollo's mindset is that if he can't have Esmerelda, nobody else can except the flaming pits of hell. Wheras Quasimodo rescues Esmerelda without getting posessive of her, and in the end, respects her decision and excepts that he is simply a close friend to her. It's all about selfless love vs. selfish lust. There are even some arguments to be made even in places where you wouldn't normally expect. Such as the complaint I've heard that Scar gets a huge downgrade after he murders Mufasa, drvies Simba away, and becomes king. Once Scar achieves that status and lets all the Pride Land go to ruin, he ends up looking like a spoiled child more than anything else. But I've also heard that's the point, as he's supposed to represent the kind of king Simba could have become if he'd never matured out of his experiences, and remained his young, egotisitcal self. Evene Yzma and Kuzco for crying out loud! There's that moment where Yzma says: "Who does that ungrateful little worm think he is?! Why I practically raised him!" to which Kronk notes: "Yeah, you'd think he'd have turned out better!" And when Yzma does take over and rule in Kuzco's absence, she exemplifies that very same ego-centrism and sea-absorbedness that Kuzco did, due to him being raised as the emperor with the belief that he world owed everything to him! The big difference is that Kuzco becoming a llama is how he learned humility and reformed himself, and whereas Yzma became a cat and stayed a cat (for the rest of the movie, although the non-canon sequel and series had her tranform back into a human with a tail, wile still being her deliciously-evil self). We can even see these moments in the modern "Twist Villain" era. In 'Coco', Miguel has that conversation with Ernesto de la Cruz as to whether the dream of pursuing music was worth the sacrifice of family and loved ones, and Ernesto says "One cannot deny who one is meant to be.", before the reveal about his villainy and Hector. That's part of Miguel's journey, since he's so driven to get as far away from his family and their hatred for the very thing he loves most in the world, that he's in danger of going down the same path, even if there's no clear indicator that he would ever go so far as to murder somebody for his own personal gain. (Of course, this is where Hector comes in, and his reveal that he was Miguel's true great, great grandfather, and his intention to stop his career as a travelling musician and go back to Coco and Imelda, is what causes Miguel to reconsider his priorities.) We can even see this in 'Zootopia'. Bellwether puts on the guise as the only one who supports Judy when Jusy arrives in the city, as Bogo started out underestimating her and wanting to fire her, and Nick tried to sabotage her chance of solving the Missing Mammal Case every chance he could, beforehe became her friend. Even during the reveal, Bellwether tries to appeal to Judy's emotion with: "You and I are on the same team! Underestimated, under-appreciated...Join me and we can become unstoppable!" Of couse, the big defining moment for Judy was before that reveal, when Bellwether bacame mayor and wanted to promote Judy as the face of the ZPD, Judy turned it down after recognizing the damage she had caused.
(On a side note, it's kind of funny how after I see your announcement for a plan to do a video essay on the "Red Herring Twist Villain", on of my favorite animation reviewers, AniMat, came out with a video on the Top 10 Twist Villains in Animated Movies! First off, I don't think that classic Disney villains are outdated, not by a long shot. The reason they're so beloved today is a testament to that. And I absolutely agree that we could still stand to get ourselves a dose of some of that classic Disney fairytale magic that we love them for every now and again, despite a lot of the bad faith criticism that has been fired at them. Some variety is healthy. Of course, I do consider myself one of those people who prefers to take the stories I consume and apply their morals and implications to my own life, even from the fantasty-based ones; although I do understand the need for escapism too. Yes, the classic villains we've gotten so far are already so many and so good that I can see them being hard to compete next to, but you'll never know until you try. (Although from what I've heard, 'Luca' acutally went with the first villain who is straight-up evil from the start, even if not as deliciously evil as the classic ones.) I honestly don't know if what constitutes for a good villain is a quantifiable measure. The only thing I know how to do to assess a villain is to just let storytellers tell their stories, and see how everything unfolds from there. And sometimes, the result simultaneously does AND doesn't surprise me! One example of this is 'Incredibles 2', where Winston Endeavor was originally intended to be the villains, and the first time I watched the movie, I thought that was going to be the case, with him coming in saying that he was a supporter of supers who constantly gave off all the "business important corporate marketing" vibes that seem to be a classic indicator of a traditional villain in a family-oriented movie; so I think Evelyn, being the creator of all that technology (even having that conversation with Helen about "Creator vs. Seller" midway through the movie), turning out to be the mastermind behind it all, is kind of clever in its own way.
I'll have to give that video a watch. I'm curious to see if any of the recent Disney villains are on the list. I share your sentiment about preferring movies that communicate themes and morality that I am able to relate to. However it is nice to have variety like you said. I would like to see Disney try to incorporate a more traditional villain into their modern movies with more nuanced themes and character exploration. I think it could yield some interesting, if not fantastic, results. Luca is definitely the first Disney movie in quite some time to use a straightforward antagonist (even if it's Pixar). The idea of what makes a good villain could be a video in itself. I have an idea of what I consider to be a good villain, though, admittedly this largely stems from my affinity for comic books. There is definitely a difference between the villain archetype that is a mindless drone and a villain that is also a character with true motivation and agency. I 100% believe Disney can do this without relying on a reveal. Incredibles 2 is the perfect example. I knew from the very beginning that Evelyn was the real villain. (Not just because her name phonetically states "evil endeavor.") But because I've become so conditioned to the superhero genre conventions. Yet I still think Screenslaver worked as a villain, and as I've said before: I think she's a much better villain than people want to admit. Having said all that, it's hard for me to disagree with your main point. We just need to let filmmakers tell their stories. Lately, for Disney, that hasn't called for the use of a classic Disney villain.
Second, as much as well love to praise the classic villains of the 90s and before, we can't act like all the ones from those eras were absolute gold (like I don't have many high praises for Radcliffe, and not just because I think 'Pocahontas' is the weakest Rennaisance-era movie), or like they stopped existing when the year 2000 rolled around (let's not forget that was the year we got Yzma and Kronk; well, namely Yzma, Kronk was along for the ride, but does have his classic shoulder angel dynamic and small redemption complex). But that goes to show that I don't think there is a very clear shift from "classic villain we love to hate" to "red herring, trope-subverting villains". (It's just more a matter of how the latter has become so much of a trend that it seems like such a default choice.) Like for my money, I'd argue that 'Frozen' was NOT the first to go for the "subverting expectations of who is the real villain" storyline, as there is Gaston. (Though to be fair, a big advantage Gaston has over Hans is that he does start to engage in more villainy at around the halfway mark of the movie, when he plots to use Maurice as leverage to get laid with Belle.) He is introduced as a slight subversion of the classic trope of the handsome guy you'd expcet to be the villain, starting off as a huge egotist, but it becomes EXTRA subversive when he fails to get his way and let the town's praises of him go more and more to his head, as opposed to the Beast who needs to undergo his personal transofrmation before he can undergo his physical one. Although that does make me think of one argument I could see being made for Hans over Gaston (not that I HAVE heard anybody make it, but I'll play devil's advocate here). Hans is meant to resemble the kind of manipulative person who lures someone into a toxic relationship to their detriment, with very few warning signs. I mean, Gaston wasn't exactly subtle with his hints that he was going to be a toxic person, which Belle was smart enough to pick up on. Anna didn't fall for Hans because she was stupid or anything, Hans just basically was good at concealing his motives and using Anna's weaknesses to exploit her-and ultimately Elsa!
The Renaissance villains are definitely not all gems. There's no argument here. I think someone like Governor Ratcliffe is a perfect example. He's not a good villain. Not in the traditional sense, and not in the modern sense. I do think that his case is hurt by the fact that Pocahontas was not the movie Disney thought it was, but that is beside the point. By the time Renaissance fatigue set in (1995-99), most of the villains lost their edge as well. Hades is probably the most memorable one, and that is solely because he was the first Disney villain to have a purely comedic take. Shan-Yu, Clayton, and Ratcliffe are all extremely forgettable. I think Frollo is the outlier because he was a truly evil villain that most resembled real world evil, but the problem was Hunchback receiving the lukewarm response that it did. Frollo is overlooked by many people despite people's love of "Hellfire." As someone who doesn't particularly enjoy the Post-Renaissance era Disney movies, it's hard for me to fully accept Yzma as a classic Disney villain. But looking at it from an objective perspective, Yzma is a classic Disney villain in the vain of Hades opting for comedy rather than appalling villainy. I personally don't consider Gaston much of a subversion. To me he was always clearly the villain of Beauty and the Beast with his blatant sexism and misogyny. Even with that being the case, I can understand your argument for him being a subversion of his archetype. Gaston's evil also happens fairly early on in the movie as opposed to someone like Hans. Not only does he form an angry mob with the townspeople, but he was prepared to send Belle's father off to the asylum. Your argument for Hans is exactly why I can understand Disney choosing to portray their villains this way even if I'm not crazy about it. I don't think it's necessarily trying to stick with the red herring trend so much as they are trying to communicate certain types of real world evil.
In fact, continuing from my last comment, I'm going to go out on a limb here and defend Bellwether for a moment. She may not be a memorable villain, and I can agree that her big reveal does come WAY too out of left field when viewing her from the "twist villain" lens, but her plans and tactics are cunning and do represent a type of villainy that does exist in the world, and has in fact been displayed very often in our society in recent years: The rise to power by instilling ignorance, fear, and bigotry in the general public! Bellwether was already carrying out her plan to make predators look "biologically predisposed to go savage", and all she needed for that conspiracy to spread was for someone to buy into it and serve as a mouthpiece for it. And given Judy's childhood experiences and the ignorant conspiracies that her family instilled in her, that just made her the perfect candidate for it, so that all Bellwether had to do was play the "innocent and friendly" card to make it look like she was on Judy's side the whole time. I think that's another reason that the "Twist Villain" trope took flight the way it did: It just seemed to all of a sudden be important for Disney to emphasize who REAL friends are, and who are the people in the world who might put on a front until they can pull of the mask and reveal their intentions! ('Raya' even kind of explored this regarding the dynamic between Raya and Namari, where after a start where Raya decided she couldn't trust anyone, she and Namari both had to re-examine themselves and recognize each other's intentions, in order to take that step to saving the nations.) There's one last movie I'd like to use to make a case for, regarding this topic (one of Disney's most underrated movies, I feel)...'Meet the Robinsons'. It's not a perfect movie by any means, but it lives through its heart and message, and I do think it deserves significantly more credit as the turning point for Disney out of their Dark Age of the 2000s, and a representation for their philosophies. That movie has kind of its own subversion for the "Twist Villain" narrative. In that one, Mike Yagoobian (aka "Goob", aka "Bowler Hat Guy") tries to embrace and indulge in the classic, over-the-top villainly, but only ends up demonstrating what a pathetic excuse of a villain he is, but it works to the film's advantage! He wanted revenge on Louis for keeping him up at night with his inventions and causing him to fall asleep while playing baseball. But the movie emphasizes that it was his bitterness and blaming others that got him stuck in a rut and made him a loner, which is meant to push forward that part of the message "Keep Moving Forward". And ultimately, the real mastermind is Doris, the mechanical bowler hat, who was manipulating Goob to use him in her scheme to defeat Louis and take over the world. When Doris is defeated, Louis shows Goob what the future could truly be like, and offers to make room for him in the Robinson family. But Goob just ends up walking away, feeling shattered and not knowing what to do with himself, after realizing he was not the villain whom he thought was the only thing left for him to be. (This is before the very end where Louis goes back to their present and helps Goob correct his future. I do think that classical-style villains are welcome, even in this time with our modern family entertainment aiming to be more nuanced. But I also don't think there is a definitive right-or-wrong way to construct a villain, and I think this behavior going around implaying (if not flat-out stating) that there is, is yet another example of this bad faith criticism that helped spark this "Twist Villain" trend. Because sometimes, writers know what they're doing a lot better than critics or audiences give them credit for.
I adore Zootopia. I think it is completely deserving of being in the conversation with the best Disney movie of all time along with Beauty and the Beast, Pinocchio and Aladdin. (Personally I would throw in Tangled as well.) Zootopia is a really good allegory for racism and stereotypes. I know there are a lot of people that think it doesn't work on that level, but I think it does. I think that was clearly the intent with Zootopia and for me it succeeded. I also agree that was the intent for Mayor Bellwether's character: to display the kind of real world evil that we were clearly facing at the time. *cough* The so called President we endured for four years that rose to power through fear mongering and preying on the worst instincts of the human race. *cough* I support the idea of Bellwether's character, and what she's supposed to represent, and I will even admit her plan makes much more sense and better executed than 90% of the other twist villains. It's just the reveal that doesn't work for me. Even though it's clearly foreshadowed with the rams working in the "drug lab." It's a moment in the movie that is, like you said, completely left field. I'm going to be honest with you: I NEVER viewed Goob through that lens before. Wow. That is... certainly something to think about. He really does try to engage in the classic, over the top Disney villainy, but it's just embarrassing for him. I have to watch Meet the Robinsons again. I was never a huge fan of it, but this is honestly a really interesting interpretation of Bowler Hat Guy/Goob. I dismissed the movie for several reasons, one of the biggest being the reveal that the hat was actually the villain.
Oh! And one last thing I forgot to mention regarding where I always had this theory regarding this decision to make modern villains more "nuanced" comes from (and it doesn't even have to do with Disney)...
I always felt that Illumination's 2012 adaptation of 'The Lorax' was a low-key influence to make that decision, given that the movie was simultaneously insanely popular (and still is popular for meme material) and heavily-criticized even at the time. And one of the most popular criticisms of it was the unnecessary addition of a clear-cut villain in a story that didn't need a villain in the first place; the 'Lorax' is a story about how every one of us is guilty of doing more damage than we realize, not just someone who is actively of Mal-intent.
I could be totally wrong on that front, but I always felt that this was one particular aspect of the movie that did have some influence on it to a degree.
Third, that whole thing with Gaston vs. the Beast does present another topic of the whole protagonist vs. antagonist dynamic that has been a very important element ever since the dawn of storytelling: that defining moment or trait that separates the two. I've already made my case for Lotso vs. Woody in 'Toy Story 3', but we can see several examples throughout Disney's history , even in the 90s apart from Gaston. ('Tarzan' even kind of spells this out when Clayton says: "Go ahead and shoot me! You're a man now!" and Tarzan responds: "I'm not a man like you!")
Frollo gets a lot of praise for being an effectively terrifying villain who is not (consciously) motivated by "evil", but I find a lot of people tend to overlook this facet of him and Quasimodo when it comes to "What makes a monster and what makes a man". Frollo's mindset is that if he can't have Esmerelda, nobody else can except the flaming pits of hell. Wheras Quasimodo rescues Esmerelda without getting posessive of her, and in the end, respects her decision and excepts that he is simply a close friend to her. It's all about selfless love vs. selfish lust.
There are even some arguments to be made even in places where you wouldn't normally expect. Such as the complaint I've heard that Scar gets a huge downgrade after he murders Mufasa, drvies Simba away, and becomes king. Once Scar achieves that status and lets all the Pride Land go to ruin, he ends up looking like a spoiled child more than anything else. But I've also heard that's the point, as he's supposed to represent the kind of king Simba could have become if he'd never matured out of his experiences, and remained his young, egotisitcal self.
Evene Yzma and Kuzco for crying out loud! There's that moment where Yzma says: "Who does that ungrateful little worm think he is?! Why I practically raised him!" to which Kronk notes: "Yeah, you'd think he'd have turned out better!" And when Yzma does take over and rule in Kuzco's absence, she exemplifies that very same ego-centrism and sea-absorbedness that Kuzco did, due to him being raised as the emperor with the belief that he world owed everything to him! The big difference is that Kuzco becoming a llama is how he learned humility and reformed himself, and whereas Yzma became a cat and stayed a cat (for the rest of the movie, although the non-canon sequel and series had her tranform back into a human with a tail, wile still being her deliciously-evil self).
We can even see these moments in the modern "Twist Villain" era. In 'Coco', Miguel has that conversation with Ernesto de la Cruz as to whether the dream of pursuing music was worth the sacrifice of family and loved ones, and Ernesto says "One cannot deny who one is meant to be.", before the reveal about his villainy and Hector. That's part of Miguel's journey, since he's so driven to get as far away from his family and their hatred for the very thing he loves most in the world, that he's in danger of going down the same path, even if there's no clear indicator that he would ever go so far as to murder somebody for his own personal gain. (Of course, this is where Hector comes in, and his reveal that he was Miguel's true great, great grandfather, and his intention to stop his career as a travelling musician and go back to Coco and Imelda, is what causes Miguel to reconsider his priorities.)
We can even see this in 'Zootopia'. Bellwether puts on the guise as the only one who supports Judy when Jusy arrives in the city, as Bogo started out underestimating her and wanting to fire her, and Nick tried to sabotage her chance of solving the Missing Mammal Case every chance he could, beforehe became her friend. Even during the reveal, Bellwether tries to appeal to Judy's emotion with: "You and I are on the same team! Underestimated, under-appreciated...Join me and we can become unstoppable!" Of couse, the big defining moment for Judy was before that reveal, when Bellwether bacame mayor and wanted to promote Judy as the face of the ZPD, Judy turned it down after recognizing the damage she had caused.
I've always maintained that Ernesto de la Cruz is a great example of a red herring done well. Not "right," but well.
(On a side note, it's kind of funny how after I see your announcement for a plan to do a video essay on the "Red Herring Twist Villain", on of my favorite animation reviewers, AniMat, came out with a video on the Top 10 Twist Villains in Animated Movies!
First off, I don't think that classic Disney villains are outdated, not by a long shot. The reason they're so beloved today is a testament to that. And I absolutely agree that we could still stand to get ourselves a dose of some of that classic Disney fairytale magic that we love them for every now and again, despite a lot of the bad faith criticism that has been fired at them. Some variety is healthy. Of course, I do consider myself one of those people who prefers to take the stories I consume and apply their morals and implications to my own life, even from the fantasty-based ones; although I do understand the need for escapism too.
Yes, the classic villains we've gotten so far are already so many and so good that I can see them being hard to compete next to, but you'll never know until you try. (Although from what I've heard, 'Luca' acutally went with the first villain who is straight-up evil from the start, even if not as deliciously evil as the classic ones.)
I honestly don't know if what constitutes for a good villain is a quantifiable measure. The only thing I know how to do to assess a villain is to just let storytellers tell their stories, and see how everything unfolds from there. And sometimes, the result simultaneously does AND doesn't surprise me!
One example of this is 'Incredibles 2', where Winston Endeavor was originally intended to be the villains, and the first time I watched the movie, I thought that was going to be the case, with him coming in saying that he was a supporter of supers who constantly gave off all the "business important corporate marketing" vibes that seem to be a classic indicator of a traditional villain in a family-oriented movie; so I think Evelyn, being the creator of all that technology (even having that conversation with Helen about "Creator vs. Seller" midway through the movie), turning out to be the mastermind behind it all, is kind of clever in its own way.
I'll have to give that video a watch. I'm curious to see if any of the recent Disney villains are on the list.
I share your sentiment about preferring movies that communicate themes and morality that I am able to relate to. However it is nice to have variety like you said. I would like to see Disney try to incorporate a more traditional villain into their modern movies with more nuanced themes and character exploration. I think it could yield some interesting, if not fantastic, results. Luca is definitely the first Disney movie in quite some time to use a straightforward antagonist (even if it's Pixar).
The idea of what makes a good villain could be a video in itself. I have an idea of what I consider to be a good villain, though, admittedly this largely stems from my affinity for comic books. There is definitely a difference between the villain archetype that is a mindless drone and a villain that is also a character with true motivation and agency. I 100% believe Disney can do this without relying on a reveal. Incredibles 2 is the perfect example. I knew from the very beginning that Evelyn was the real villain. (Not just because her name phonetically states "evil endeavor.") But because I've become so conditioned to the superhero genre conventions. Yet I still think Screenslaver worked as a villain, and as I've said before: I think she's a much better villain than people want to admit. Having said all that, it's hard for me to disagree with your main point. We just need to let filmmakers tell their stories. Lately, for Disney, that hasn't called for the use of a classic Disney villain.
Second, as much as well love to praise the classic villains of the 90s and before, we can't act like all the ones from those eras were absolute gold (like I don't have many high praises for Radcliffe, and not just because I think 'Pocahontas' is the weakest Rennaisance-era movie), or like they stopped existing when the year 2000 rolled around (let's not forget that was the year we got Yzma and Kronk; well, namely Yzma, Kronk was along for the ride, but does have his classic shoulder angel dynamic and small redemption complex).
But that goes to show that I don't think there is a very clear shift from "classic villain we love to hate" to "red herring, trope-subverting villains". (It's just more a matter of how the latter has become so much of a trend that it seems like such a default choice.)
Like for my money, I'd argue that 'Frozen' was NOT the first to go for the "subverting expectations of who is the real villain" storyline, as there is Gaston. (Though to be fair, a big advantage Gaston has over Hans is that he does start to engage in more villainy at around the halfway mark of the movie, when he plots to use Maurice as leverage to get laid with Belle.) He is introduced as a slight subversion of the classic trope of the handsome guy you'd expcet to be the villain, starting off as a huge egotist, but it becomes EXTRA subversive when he fails to get his way and let the town's praises of him go more and more to his head, as opposed to the Beast who needs to undergo his personal transofrmation before he can undergo his physical one.
Although that does make me think of one argument I could see being made for Hans over Gaston (not that I HAVE heard anybody make it, but I'll play devil's advocate here). Hans is meant to resemble the kind of manipulative person who lures someone into a toxic relationship to their detriment, with very few warning signs. I mean, Gaston wasn't exactly subtle with his hints that he was going to be a toxic person, which Belle was smart enough to pick up on. Anna didn't fall for Hans because she was stupid or anything, Hans just basically was good at concealing his motives and using Anna's weaknesses to exploit her-and ultimately Elsa!
The Renaissance villains are definitely not all gems. There's no argument here. I think someone like Governor Ratcliffe is a perfect example. He's not a good villain. Not in the traditional sense, and not in the modern sense. I do think that his case is hurt by the fact that Pocahontas was not the movie Disney thought it was, but that is beside the point. By the time Renaissance fatigue set in (1995-99), most of the villains lost their edge as well. Hades is probably the most memorable one, and that is solely because he was the first Disney villain to have a purely comedic take. Shan-Yu, Clayton, and Ratcliffe are all extremely forgettable. I think Frollo is the outlier because he was a truly evil villain that most resembled real world evil, but the problem was Hunchback receiving the lukewarm response that it did. Frollo is overlooked by many people despite people's love of "Hellfire."
As someone who doesn't particularly enjoy the Post-Renaissance era Disney movies, it's hard for me to fully accept Yzma as a classic Disney villain. But looking at it from an objective perspective, Yzma is a classic Disney villain in the vain of Hades opting for comedy rather than appalling villainy.
I personally don't consider Gaston much of a subversion. To me he was always clearly the villain of Beauty and the Beast with his blatant sexism and misogyny. Even with that being the case, I can understand your argument for him being a subversion of his archetype. Gaston's evil also happens fairly early on in the movie as opposed to someone like Hans. Not only does he form an angry mob with the townspeople, but he was prepared to send Belle's father off to the asylum.
Your argument for Hans is exactly why I can understand Disney choosing to portray their villains this way even if I'm not crazy about it. I don't think it's necessarily trying to stick with the red herring trend so much as they are trying to communicate certain types of real world evil.
In fact, continuing from my last comment, I'm going to go out on a limb here and defend Bellwether for a moment. She may not be a memorable villain, and I can agree that her big reveal does come WAY too out of left field when viewing her from the "twist villain" lens, but her plans and tactics are cunning and do represent a type of villainy that does exist in the world, and has in fact been displayed very often in our society in recent years: The rise to power by instilling ignorance, fear, and bigotry in the general public! Bellwether was already carrying out her plan to make predators look "biologically predisposed to go savage", and all she needed for that conspiracy to spread was for someone to buy into it and serve as a mouthpiece for it. And given Judy's childhood experiences and the ignorant conspiracies that her family instilled in her, that just made her the perfect candidate for it, so that all Bellwether had to do was play the "innocent and friendly" card to make it look like she was on Judy's side the whole time.
I think that's another reason that the "Twist Villain" trope took flight the way it did: It just seemed to all of a sudden be important for Disney to emphasize who REAL friends are, and who are the people in the world who might put on a front until they can pull of the mask and reveal their intentions!
('Raya' even kind of explored this regarding the dynamic between Raya and Namari, where after a start where Raya decided she couldn't trust anyone, she and Namari both had to re-examine themselves and recognize each other's intentions, in order to take that step to saving the nations.)
There's one last movie I'd like to use to make a case for, regarding this topic (one of Disney's most underrated movies, I feel)...'Meet the Robinsons'. It's not a perfect movie by any means, but it lives through its heart and message, and I do think it deserves significantly more credit as the turning point for Disney out of their Dark Age of the 2000s, and a representation for their philosophies. That movie has kind of its own subversion for the "Twist Villain" narrative.
In that one, Mike Yagoobian (aka "Goob", aka "Bowler Hat Guy") tries to embrace and indulge in the classic, over-the-top villainly, but only ends up demonstrating what a pathetic excuse of a villain he is, but it works to the film's advantage! He wanted revenge on Louis for keeping him up at night with his inventions and causing him to fall asleep while playing baseball. But the movie emphasizes that it was his bitterness and blaming others that got him stuck in a rut and made him a loner, which is meant to push forward that part of the message "Keep Moving Forward".
And ultimately, the real mastermind is Doris, the mechanical bowler hat, who was manipulating Goob to use him in her scheme to defeat Louis and take over the world. When Doris is defeated, Louis shows Goob what the future could truly be like, and offers to make room for him in the Robinson family. But Goob just ends up walking away, feeling shattered and not knowing what to do with himself, after realizing he was not the villain whom he thought was the only thing left for him to be. (This is before the very end where Louis goes back to their present and helps Goob correct his future.
I do think that classical-style villains are welcome, even in this time with our modern family entertainment aiming to be more nuanced. But I also don't think there is a definitive right-or-wrong way to construct a villain, and I think this behavior going around implaying (if not flat-out stating) that there is, is yet another example of this bad faith criticism that helped spark this "Twist Villain" trend. Because sometimes, writers know what they're doing a lot better than critics or audiences give them credit for.
I adore Zootopia. I think it is completely deserving of being in the conversation with the best Disney movie of all time along with Beauty and the Beast, Pinocchio and Aladdin. (Personally I would throw in Tangled as well.) Zootopia is a really good allegory for racism and stereotypes. I know there are a lot of people that think it doesn't work on that level, but I think it does. I think that was clearly the intent with Zootopia and for me it succeeded. I also agree that was the intent for Mayor Bellwether's character: to display the kind of real world evil that we were clearly facing at the time. *cough* The so called President we endured for four years that rose to power through fear mongering and preying on the worst instincts of the human race. *cough* I support the idea of Bellwether's character, and what she's supposed to represent, and I will even admit her plan makes much more sense and better executed than 90% of the other twist villains. It's just the reveal that doesn't work for me. Even though it's clearly foreshadowed with the rams working in the "drug lab." It's a moment in the movie that is, like you said, completely left field.
I'm going to be honest with you: I NEVER viewed Goob through that lens before. Wow. That is... certainly something to think about. He really does try to engage in the classic, over the top Disney villainy, but it's just embarrassing for him. I have to watch Meet the Robinsons again. I was never a huge fan of it, but this is honestly a really interesting interpretation of Bowler Hat Guy/Goob. I dismissed the movie for several reasons, one of the biggest being the reveal that the hat was actually the villain.