Animated Films / Dethroning Moment

Even the greatest and least good animated movies can have a few moments that should’ve ended up in the cutting room floor.

Note that this section is for long-form western animation only. Want to discuss the most terrible moments in many animated television shows? Well, you may want to head over to this page.

Keep in mind:

Sign your entries.
One moment per work to a troper. If multiple entries are signed to the same troper, the more recent one will be cut.
Moments only, no "just everything he said," or "This entire movie," or "This entire series" entries.
No contesting entries. This is subjective, and the entry is their opinion.
No natter. As above, anything contesting an entry will be cut, and anything that's just contributing more can be made its own entry.
Explain why it's a Dethroning Moment of Suck.
No Real Life examples, including Executive Meddling. It only invites a flame war.
No ALLCAPS, no bold, and no italics unless it's the title of a work. We are not yelling the DMoSs out loud.

The following movies have their own pages:

Frozen

Examples:

open/close all folders

Disney Animated Canon

Alan Palgut: I enjoy Alice in Wonderland (1951), but it's far from the perfect version thanks to the Doorknob – the film's only real Canon Foreigner – whose presence I find completely pointless to the plot, mainly because he (it?) annoys Alice at the beginning and merely shows her as having "escaped" at the end, and if Joseph Kearns is pulling off a Fake Brit, he sucks at it while many of the other characters in the film are voiced by natural British people (e.g. Alice herself by Kathryn Beaumont, the Caterpillar by Richard Haydn) or by Americans who could have cared no less (e.g. the Mad Hatter by Ed Wynn, the Cheshire-Cat by Sterling Holloway). I would have said the same thing about the Tulgey Wood (despite being a canonical place in the poem "Jabberwocky") were it not an example of What Could Have Been and had it not contained "Very Good Advice," the film's biggest Tear Jerker.
Kenya Starflight: While I love most of Disney's output, one scene in The Aristocats drives me absolutely nuts — the scene with the goose sisters. They're meant to be comic relief but come across as irritating, pushy, and doing more to hinder O'Malley than actually help him — even almost killing him at one point with their interference! They seem added only to pad out the story and end up having little to no effect on the plot — the cats could have found their way out of the river and to Paris without their "help."
- Geoduck: Mine would be the inclusion of painfully bad Chinese stereotypes during the song "Everybody Wants To Be a Cat." Doubly tragic because otherwise, it's a cool song and scene.
Atlantis: The Lost Empire
- aziuka: By no means was Atlantis: The Lost Empire a good movie, but the cataclysmically stupid idea of Atlanteans being capable of speaking every Indo-European language ever by virtue of having an unspecified root language as their mother tongue made me want to tear my hair out. Sure, they don't know how to read in their own frigging native language, but this apparently doesn't hinder them from understanding multiple others, including modern ones that are separated from their own by several millennia. Not to mention that from a dramatic standpoint, it was a wasted opportunity to focus on Milo as a character intrinsically important to the relationship with the Atlanteans, as he'd have been the only one who actually spoke their language. Instead, we got a cheap and lazy Hand Wave that mirrors the lack of creativity and imagination that plagues the movie as a whole.
- SinisterHoodedFigure2: I rather enjoyed Atlantis up until the moment Lyle Tiberius Rourke became the main villain. I can't fit all of the contexts and reasons why, but he has a very poorly thought-out motive for an older audience: killing Atlanteans for more money just so that Atlantis could have a one-note action movie villain. He behaves like some insufferably smug Magnificent Bastard, despite his extremely stupid actions. And for being such a dark villain intending to kill thousands, the Leviathan actually holds the biggest body count, while Rourke only killed the King, and stupidly thrown off his loyal henchwoman, who later ruins his plan afterwards (ultimately defeating himself), all for the sake of having the audience hate him. Rourke's character, in particular, is so painfully flat compared to literally every other Disney Villain, as he just comes off as an even more last-minute villain than Hans from Frozen. Say what you will about Hans as a last-minute villain, he did serve some purpose in the film, and whether right or wrong, is actually memorable, unlike Rourke, who nobody, not even fans of the film, remembers. Rourke as the villain is contrived, forced, and ultimately pointless in the grand scheme of the film; the heroes get rich, and the actual climax is a volcanic eruption. Rourke is also inept at killing Milo, and was accidentally killed. This is the absolute worst Disney villain; the Leviathan or even the King of Atlantis would've been better main villains.
Joji MC: Disney sequels tend to be a mixed bag for me, but the one that I find the absolute worst of the bunch has to be Beauty and the Beast: Belle's Magical World. In this movie, Beast (or Adam, depending on which name you prefer) has been flanderized into a major Jerkass. I mean, I get that he could be a bit of a brute in the first movie, but he still had a few Pet the Dog moments here, proving that he isn't 100% heartless. Yeah, that's not the case for this movie. In the first half of the movie, Belle and Beast both get into a fight and demand an apology. But because Beast will never apologize, Belle has to be the one to apologize. Oh, God. I'm getting unpleasant flashbacks of Seahorse Seashell Party. Okay, I don't want to be rude but I don't think Belle should be the one to apologize. If anything, Beast should. He was acting like an unlikable bully towards her all over the window curtains. If anything, he's the one who should be apologizing. Now, don't get me wrong, I love Beauty and the Beast. It's one of my favorite Disney movies. The sequel, on the other hand, is just no, no, no. Not my cup of tea.
SenorCornholio: An Extremely Goofy Movie is a mixed bag for me. On one hand, it's definitely a lot of fun to watch at points, such as the signature disco scene. On the other hand, it seems to take place in an entirely different universe from the first movie at points. And probably my biggest complaint has to do with Max's Aesop Amnesia. The plot was about Max realizing how much he and his father mean to each other and learning to be upfront with him. And by the end, Max has a better appreciation for Goofy than he had at the start of the film. So how does Extremely start Max's development? By having Max say, and I quote, "going off to college means no more well-meaning but totally smothering, overprotective, doting, ah-yucking dads?" Really, man? You two almost fell off of a waterfall together, and this is how you see him? I get that they still tried to make him somewhat sympathetic to Goofy's joblessness later in the film and still make him a good kid at heart, but this just made him come across as a disrespectful punk in the first few minutes of the film alone. If that entire aspect of Max's character was cut, it would have been a much better sequel to A Goofy Movie instead of just slightly above average.
- Big Jimbo: While A Goofy Movie is a good movie and fun to watch for the most part, there's a moment that rubs me the wrong way; at one point in "After Today," Max is singing his desire to "talk to Roxanne and not feel like a fool," annoying some of his classmates in the process, and Lisa punches him in the arm. I get that it's supposed to showcase how Max doesn't get along well with many of his peers, but most of the prior scenes conveyed it pretty well, and this just felt jarring and unnecessary. To the film's credit, this moment doesn't do much to distract from the cool song, and the scene where Max is congratulated by his peers, Lisa included, for his school performance somewhat makes up for it.
Maths Angelic Version: Even though Kronk's New Groove wasn't as good as the first film, I didn't find it bad at all. The one moment I hate is when the naked Rudy busts into Kronk's house and asks for more of Yzma's youth potion. I understand that Disney wanted to show that Rudy is badly addicted to the stuff, but having him selling his clothes and making the scene Fan Disservice was just unnecessary, cringeworthy, and squicky. It also demeans Rudy as a character. Why couldn't Disney at least have made him "borrow" a carpet (or something like that) and wrap it around himself? That would have kept some of his dignity and wouldn't have interfered with anything else in the film.
Loekman 3: While The Lion King is easily my favorite Disney movie of all time, there is one moment that leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, and that is when Simba has just returned to the Pride Lands after learning to move on from his past. See the Aesop here is that "The past is the past, and you must face your fears in the present." All that's good, but then Scar proceeds to make Simba reveal that he himself is responsible for his own father's death. The DMOS here is that Simba goes back to his fearful self, and none of the lionesses (not even Sarabi or Nala) even bother to vouch for him despite the fact that they need him to free Pride Lands of Scar's tyranny, with the only reason that Simba and the lionesses even fight back is that Scar stupidly confesses that he killed Mufasa, which pretty much makes everything that Simba learned being completely meaningless and instead has the lesson that "You will only free yourself from the past if someone admits the truth and had lied all along."
- Almighty King Prawn: I've been a major animal nerd my whole life. I usually am able to immediately notice blatant cases of Artistic License – Biology, but I typically just groan a little and still enjoy the movie. Two movies, however, have always bugged me on this. The Lion King is one such instance, despite otherwise being one of my favorites. Ever since I was a kid, I have been very mad at "I Just Can't Wait To Be King". Why? There are *sigh* giant anteaters on the big tower at the end. In the African savanna. A South American animal. It's especially infuriating not only because the musical number makes some welcome obscure animal choices like sable antelope that indicate that they still did research despite this, but because Africa DOES have aardvarks, which, while so incredibly different looking that it is one of my pet peeves when people mix them up, is technically the African equivalent to an anteater, with the same long snoot and tongue. Therefore, they could have 100% used the animal that you would ACTUALLY find on the African savanna instead, and STILL gotten a component of the tower where the animals are all sticking out their long tongues.
Maths Angelic Version: I had very little sympathy for King Triton in the original The Little Mermaid (1989). He started off as an intolerant jerk, and while he did have some Character Development later, it wasn't enough to redeem him in my eyes. Then comes The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning, which shows how he became bigoted against humans. That'd make him a tragic character whom I'd finally understand and respect, right? Well, as you've probably guessed, because this is on a DMoS page, nope. It turns out that this is the "explanation": He once gave his wife, Athena, a music box. Then a pirate ship appeared, and everyone escaped while the pirates presumably tried to steal their stuff. That is, everyone but Athena. She threw herself in front of the ship to try to save the music box, which unsurprisingly got her crushed to death instead. This apparently made Triton hate humans. There are two big problems with this: The first is that Triton is too quick to generalise humans as bad, and it's not even clear how bad these humans were (maybe Athena basically popped up out of nowhere from their point of view, so they couldn't have avoided her). The second is Athena was Too Dumb to Live, or at least had a bad case of Skewed Priorities. It was just a music box. Triton could get her another one. She had absolutely no reason to risk her life for it. Her death was at least partly her own fault (the human equivalent would be her running into traffic and being hit — even if the driver who hit her made no attempt to stop, she'd still be an idiot for running into traffic in the first place), and yet Triton puts all the blame on the humans. All in all, this attempt at making Triton a Tragic Bigot only made him even more unlikable to me. I realize that his bigotry isn't supposed to be justified, but it should at least be understandable. Otherwise, he just ends up looking like a villain. Him having some resentment toward humans would be okay, but this is just stupid.
However, the problems with the scene don't end with that. As a result of this incident, Triton bans music. It would have been understandable if he only forbade his subjects from playing music in his presence,^notethere could still be a plot, e.g. "Triton's daughters try to help him cope with Athena's death and make him enjoy music again" but he takes music away from everyone and is a jerk about it. Sure, the ban is eventually lifted, and he ends up enjoying music again, but The Little Mermaid shows us that he learns nothing about this "don't get mad at Ariel because of her interests, especially not if you won't even explain your feelings properly" thing. Thus, Athena's death is my DMoS for the series because it could have made the unsympathetic Triton more likable but instead made the situation worse. It shows us that he's the type who lets his emotions get the better of him, even when it obviously hurts his subjects. It shows us that his actions in The Little Mermaid are the result of him failing to learn his lesson the first time around. And it's all for the sake of his Too Dumb to Live wife. What an awful king. I almost wanted Ursula to win just to make this jerk suffer.
- DrZulu2010: Speaking of The Little Mermaid III, we have to mention Ariel's Disney Death. Really, Disney?! Like You Would Really Do It?! Like would you really kill the main character of the original movie in this prequel?! Hell, I liked this trope for kids movies. But the thing is, we have to make it work, we must not know if the character might survive at the time. This is why the Beast's, Megara's, Baymax's, and, yes, even Gurgi's death, among many others, are impactful; because we are not sure if they will come back to life (Granted, Disney wouldn't dare to kill off those characters... well... except maybe Gurgi) and when they came back, it gave the audience joy and happiness. But Ariel?! The movies are named after her! This is just as bad as thinking that Bambi might die in his midquel.
Statzkeen: Moana had the best music of any Disney movie since Lion King, and then nearly ruined it with that awful pop cover version of "How Far I'll Go" in the credits.
- SenorCornholio: My biggest issue with yet another Disney movie that I overall happen to enjoy has to do with the action of leaving out Pua, Moana's pet pig. Even John Musker, one of the film's co-directors, had mixed feelings about this decision. The merch advertised him to have a larger part of the movie, and he would have been a great addition to the cast. Instead, Moana's accompanied by Heihei, who has all of one semi-important role in the film: saving the Heart of Te Fiti from being lost to the sea, which anyone else could have done. And to make matters worse, imagine the two animals bouncing off of each other's personalities. The thing that bothers me the most, however, is why he was removed: Moana's journey should be as difficult as possible, and Pua's inclusion would have gotten in the way of that. Okay, so we can't have him, but we can totally have Gummy's distant island-bound cousin? I call shenanigans. Whether this would have been better with Pua or whether it would have been better with just Moana and Maui, this decision overall didn't help the film's semi-Broken Base.
AL 19: I wanna make it clear that while Peter Pan is far from my favorite Disney movie, I still find it to be a fun and enjoyable film. However, there is one scene where, even as a child, I found it to be so unbearable that in future watches, I'm gonna skip the entire bit, and that's from the Mermaid Lagoon scene. At first, it starts out fine, with Peter Pan chatting with the mermaids about his adventures, but the scene starts going downhill once they discover Wendy. What do I mean by that? Well, when they notice her, they instantly get jealous because she's a girl (Ugh), and proceed to harass her by pulling on her nightgown, then splashing water all over her. But surprisingly, that's not the worst thing about this scene. No, the worst part is Peter Pan—instead of helping the poor girl—laughing his flying ass off, as if Wendy is very clearly distressed is fucking hilarious to watch. Hell, the mermaids don't even bother hiding the fact that they were trying to drown her, yet Peter still excuses their actions by saying, "They're just having fun!" I also thought it didn't make much sense because earlier in the film when he found out the Lost Boys threw random stuff at Wendy because Tinkerbell lied to them by saying she was some kind of bird, he was understandably angry at her. Here, he (again) apparently finds it funny that Wendy's being blatantly harassed by some mermaids, even though this isn't much different than what Tinkerbell did prior. I'm so glad this is the only time we see these characters because had they had more screen time, I probably would've liked this film way less.
The Lucky Cat: I like The Princess and the Frog, but one moment that stands out to me that prevents the film from being a truly great film is the climax. So Dr. Facilier has recaptured Naveen and is using Lawrence to pose as him so he can marry Charlotte, then Dr. Facilier plans to kill off Big Daddy and become the mayor of New Orleans. Tiana, who is still in frog form, is in the cemetery and has Dr. Facilier's amulet that Ray the firefly managed to steal off him to try and save Naveen. Dr. Facilier then tries to use Tiana's dreams of opening her own restaurant to persuade her to give him the amulet, then when that fails, she tries to smash the amulet, but his shadow snatches it back and it's only because Dr. Facilier forgets frogs have extendable tongues that she manages to grab it back and smash it (with perhaps the worst Pre-Mortem One-Liner in any Disney movie - "I got news for you, Shadow man! It's not slime, it's mucus!" Like, wow, is being a pedant supposed to be cool?) But the problem here is that Tiana herself barely had any stake in the plot before she turns into a frog by mistake when Naveen mistakenly thinks she's a princess. She never even interacts with Dr. Facilier before the climax - he appears in the diner she works at (which is presumably how he knows enough of her backstory to taunt her with), but he spends the entire movie trying to find Naveen. It's Naveen's life Dr. Facilier and Lawrence stole, his appearance they're using to trick Charlotte and his blood that fuels the amulet, but Tiana gets to confront the Big Bad of the story despite the fact we have every reason to believe she'd never even met him before now and she wasn't part of his scheme at all, she just got dragged along for the ride by sheer happenstance. With other Disney movies, the villain and hero have a huge conflict that culminates in the final confrontation - that's what makes them so thrilling and cathartic when the good guy wins, but with Tiana, it really doesn't feel like she earned it - she had more of a personal beef with the two men who refused to sell her the building she wanted to buy than she did with Dr. Facilier! Hell, Charlotte has more of a reason to go up against Dr. Facilier than Tiana does, since his plan hinges on killing her father and using her to secure his riches. It would have been far more satisfying for Naveen to be the one to take revenge on the man who tricked him, transformed him, and tried to keep him a prisoner for the rest of his life. It's almost like the writers wanted to make up for the fact that most Disney Princesses don't get to finish off the villain themselves (with the exception of Mulan), but then ruined the climax of the movie by handing Tiana a victory that really should have been Naveen's.
Ryanruff 13: The trailer to Ralph Breaks the Internet has a gag where a bunny in a smartphone game is fed too many pancakes by Ralph and ends up exploding off-screen, much to a horror of a young girl playing the game on a tablet. This may be an unpopular opinion, but the joke ended up coming across to me as needlessly disgusting, not to mention rather predictable.^note(Maybe except for the fact that it was rather unexpected out of a Disney movie, which probably was the point. Not that it makes the joke much better.) And this is coming from somebody who's not overly squeamish and can usually handle dark stuff.
- Loekman 3: While the movie is actually quite good, the ending to the movie really sucked...basically Vanellope decides to abandon her own game in favor of the Shank racing game while parting ways with her best friend Ralph. I hated it because not only does it breaks the message from the first movie but she is basically selfishly leaving everyone behind in favor of her own dreams and invalidated whatever Character Development she had and essentially makes her no better than Turbo in that regard. I lost sympathy for her here what makes a great movie ended up being undermined by the Esoteric Happy Ending.
- synczomb: For me, the movie's Dethroning Moment would have to be the catalyst for the plot. Upon seeing that Ralph has made a new track for her, Vanellope decides to interrupt a game while the player is playing as her just to check it out, and her fighting over control of her cart is what leads to Sugar Rush breaking. Considering the fact that she's been a playable character for six years by the time this happened, you'd think she'd understand by now that a player should be allowed to play the game. Looking at it like this, the film almost seems like an Idiot Plot.
- dmcreif: Personally, I think it'd be a more effective climax if Vanellope wasn't let off the hook. There'd be a stronger climax if it was focused on Vanellope's insecurity instead of Ralph, and the climax involved virus clones of Vanellope as well. Then the story would've been more effective, with a revised resolution where either Vanellope returns to Sugar Rush and visits Slaughter Race after hours to fill her desire for unpredictability or the same as the movie, but with the chance to say goodbye to Felix, Calhoun and the others.
- Alex_26373: A DMoS for me in this film (apart from the end credits stinger, where we're treated to a preview of Frozen 2, only to be Rick Rolled like it's still 2008 even though this movie came out in 2018) would have to be the scene with Vanellope and the Disney Princesses. Specifically, what the movie did to Merida. They turned her into The Unintelligible because "lol Scottish people are incomprehensible". I mean, seriously? You had Kelly Macdonald reprise her role by bastardizing it for two lines? What an extremely overdone disservice to a character.
- Tv Troper 8328: I enjoy this movie more than the first and can hand wave the moral dissonance between the two by assuming that Vanellope did say goodbye to her friends and still visits the game occasionally, making her still sympathetic. What I cannot hand wave, no matter how badly I want to, is what is my DMoS for the movie: The lead protagonist, who’s supposed to be a hero, unleashes a virus, which has the potential to jeopardize not only the life of his best friend, but an entire game’s population (and later the entire internet’s population), all because he didn’t want his best friend to leave his side. Not only does this make him seem exactly like Turbo/King Candy, and to some, he crossed the Moral Event Horizon, but it also has him pick up the Idiot Ball because who’s to say Vanellope can’t still hang out with him when she’s a main character in Slaughter Race? Being in different games never stopped them from hanging out before.
Capricious Salmon: Raya and the Last Dragon has a god-awful moral that gets repeated so much it's basically a Drinking Game. The theme is trust, but instead of saying Raya should be more trusting of people and Sisu needs to learn you can't always trust people, the movie is prone to Gaslighting the former on this and egging on Sisu's borderline dangerous philosophy. Sisu never changes at any point during the movie, nor does she learn a lesson, and she constantly gets Raya and the gang into trouble because she thinks you need to trust people who, justifiably, don't trust her or have her best intentions at heart. Near the end of the movie, Raya reluctantly tries to trust Naamari, as per Sisu's advice, but Naamari betrays her and holds the two at the crossbow point. Raya tries to stop Naamari in self-defense, but Sisu gets killed in the confusion. When at Raya's mercy, Naamari tearfully tells her, "You're as much to blame for Sisu's death as I am!" and, like with Sisu, the movie agrees with her. What?! Is Belle as much to blame for the Beast's death as Gaston? Or is Simba as much to blame for Mufasa's death as Scar? If anything, it's Naamari's fault for escalating the situation and Sisu's for being so stupid and tone-deaf it borders on brain-dead. Talk about Victim-Blaming! Besides, Raya has every reason not to trust Naamari since Naamari has always stabbed her in the back, sometimes for shits and giggles, and really has no reason to be friendly to Raya. I don't get why critics say this movie has such an uplifting message, it's borderline dangerous. "Raya and the Last Dragon" is also a kid's movie, so are they saying kids need to be incredibly trusting of strangers who offer them free candy, or bullies who give them black eyes, or deadbeat dads who come into the picture 30 years later asking for money?
Alan Palgut: The Return of Jafar is far from First Installment Wins, but it's still one of the better DTV sequels — an honour that usually goes to The King of Thieves or A Twist in Time. It would have been much better, however, had Jafar not wasted Abis Mal's first two wishes. Altogether it wastes about ten seconds of both characters' time, and the scenes involving Jafar with the other characters are far better executed. I'll never get my third wish indeed.
Tangled:
- Maths Angelic Version: I didn't like Tangled, and the climax is the main reason for that. Basically, Gothel has Rapunzel Bound and Gagged^(wtf?) and has stabbed Eugene.^(what?!) Rapunzel tells about how she'll never stop fighting Gothel, which is awesome... until she promises to stay with Gothel forever if she's allowed to heal Eugene. It's clearly supposed to be heartwarming when she gives up her freedom for the man she loves, but it falls apart if you try to think about it for more than two seconds. Gothel has shown repeatedly that she doesn't give a damn about anyone but herself, and there's no reason whatsoever to believe that she'll change her ways. If anything, killing Eugene and blaming Rapunzel for it pushes her over the Moral Event Horizon if you don't think she has crossed it already. She has demonstrated that she's a liar and a murderer, which means that attempting to negotiate with her is very idiotic. Thus, Gothel will probably just go back and kill Eugene later, rendering Rapunzel's sacrifice worthless. It's made even worse by the fact that Rapunzel can never escape because she's irrationally committed to her promises, even though keeping that one will ruin her life without accomplishing anything except for prolonging the life of an abuser that doesn't deserve to live. Plus, staying with Gothel means ignoring her duties as a princess and making sure that her parents will never see their daughter again. Very irresponsible. Why the hell is this supposed to show a positive quality and not a Fatal Flaw? Even if we assume that Gothel is too lazy to go back and kill Eugene, it's heavily implied that she'll leave him chained up in the tower. This means that he'll be stuck there and die of dehydration in a few painful days/weeks anyway, considering that a rescue is extremely unlikely.^Why? This also takes away the selflessness of Eugene's "Heroic Sacrifice." ^Explanation If he would otherwise spend his last days/weeks being tormented to death by dehydration and starvation (or waiting for Gothel to come back and kill him), why not save himself this drawn-out suffering and let his wound kill him? This action is kind of stupid as well because if he cuts Rapunzel's hair, nothing is left to prevent Gothel from killing her. It's probably a better fate than having to stay with Gothel forever and Rapunzel kind of asked for it by being stupid enough to make a promise when she could have suggested the deal to Gothel without promising anything, but still. Neither he nor the audience^note had any way of predicting the No Immortal Inertia that kills Gothel almost immediately after the cutting of the hair. After that, Eugene dies, Rapunzel whines a little,^note then another Deus ex Machina revives him.
  
  To sum it up: The writers use contrived stupidity to put the main characters into a nearly impossible situation. Instead of at least letting them use their skills to get out themselves, Rapunzel's contrived horrible decision makes the situation worse.^{Avoidable problem} Then a decision that is the least of two evils^note for both characters is for some reason portrayed as heroic. Then the writers Deus ex Machina the characters out of it to force a happy ending.
- cheedo: Personally, I hated the emotional manipulation of Tangled. So Rapunzel is a very sweet girl who truly believes deceiving Gothel and sneaking out is morally wrong. Her decision? "I am going to see those lanterns!" She isn't sneaking out to get away from Gothel's teasing and using her; it's the equivalent of a teenager being told they can't go to a party and sneaking out to go anyway. What Rapunzel wants is more important than following her own moral compass. Great lesson for kids there, Disney. On top of that, seeing the lanterns isn't even particularly important or life-changing at all.
Retloclive: While Treasure Planet is by no means a masterpiece, I do consider it to be one of Disney's more underrated films. However, there are times throughout the film when I struggle to buy into its "Treasure Island in space" setting. I can buy into that the film is going for a Steampunk mixed with Pirates kind of vibe, but what I can't get over is how there are times when I feel like the old real-world Treasure Island aesthetic didn't translate well being shoved into a space setting. This is no more obvious than in the lifeline scene where the crew needs to strap themselves to the ship or else they will fly off and be sucked into a black hole. How do they strap themselves down? With rope. With just freaking normal rope. My Willing Suspension of Disbelief is just gone whenever it reaches this scene. A ship that can fly through space with futuristic techs, such as speed boosters and a gravity control device, still for some reason uses a basic rope tied around one's waist as its life-saving safety net. Screw Jim being upset that he thought his incompetence resulted in Mr. Arrow's death. He should have been upset that the ship was using a lifeline system that comes off feeling severely outdated. The creators couldn't even do the bare minimum by making the rope look metal, or at least show that the inside of the normal-looking rope after it had been cut by Scroop is made of a different stronger material. I get that there are times when the film needs to keep to the spirit of Treasure Island, but this really feels like something that should have been updated.
Loekman 3: The beginning segment of Wish (2023) has like probably one of the biggest cases of They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot in Disney's history and it's what tanked my initial hopes for the movie. Basically the opening premise is that Asha wants to study under King Magnifico so she can further contribute to Rosa's cause. The way they interacted at first actually gave me a very good impression of their hero/villain dynamic only for it to be squandered away when Asha realizes the King's intentions and the latter ultimately refuses her request not only by saying no but he also rub it in by granting someone else their wish, leaving Asha on her own to help fulfill their dreams. I get it, Magnifico is advertised to be a classical Disney villain not seen since Mother Gothel but you'd think that they would at least have Magnifico agree to take her in and add some segments of her working there or even say that she's has already worked with the King for some time and only then would he open his secret chamber to her. That would have flesh out their dynamic and makes the climax when the King gives in to his corrupted magic far more meaningful than what it is seen now.
Kenya Starflight: Another Disney one — this time Zootopia. During the scene where people tell Judy off for giving them parking tickets, a child tells her "My mommy says she wishes you were dead." When is it ever okay to say this to a police officer who is just doing their job, even if it's one that mildly inconveniences you? Maybe I'm just suffering from Harsher in Hindsight given the horrific shootings of police officers that have taken place this year (2016), but wishing death upon an officer for simply upholding the law is inexcusable, even as a throwaway line in a movie.
- SampaCM: Seconded. Although nothing to bare your teeth at, that particular line was pretty disturbing, even if it was just an innocent child repeating what her mom said. I guess it's no surprise that line was changed in the Latin American dub, and the child, instead says "My mommy says she doesn't want you near her."
- emilethetemplar: I enjoy Zootopia, I really do, but its final act is definitely the weakest and the main reason is the reveal that Bellwether was behind the Night Howlers drug creation. Now, revealing your twist villain that late in your movie is always gonna be problematic, but there's also a complete lack of foreshadowing of any kind that makes it feel like it was shoehorned because the movie needed a climax. Like, I get it, the harmless little sheep was an evil mastermind all along, but it could have been handled much better.
Melancholy Utopia: I love The Hunchback of Notre Dame and regard it as one of my absolute favorite Disney films of all time. That said, it's not exempt from errors, as including the gargoyles in the film was a huge mistake, and nothing exemplifies this more than their song "A Guy Like You." It suffers from the same problems as "Fixer Upper" from Frozen does, as both songs take place when a main character's life is at stake and really make you question the other characters' priorities if they're willing to squander crucial time singing a stupid love song. However, I'd argue this moment is considerably worse because prior to the song, Quasimodo was already doubting that Esmeralda felt the same for him romantically as he does her, and if it had been left at that, perhaps he wouldn't have been as heartbroken as he got when he saw Phoebus and Esmeralda kiss. But this idiot trio instead instills this false hope and makes him think there's more to their relationship than there actually is, crushing his dreams and making his emotional state worse than it already was at that point. In general, I just don't think they're that funny; Esmeralda's pet goat Djali was already more than enough comic relief fodder because, while he doesn't contribute much to the plot, his presence is at least inoffensive and doesn't negatively impact the narrative (same with Clopin, who sings many of the songs in the film and is a lot of fun to watch, in addition to both being actual characters from the original novel). The gargoyles aren't just useless in the film, but they are actively harmful to Quasimodo's character growth, and this fact is what perfectly cements their scrappy status for me.

Pixar

Maths Angelic Version: Brave was pretty good, but for some reason, Pixar decided to ruin the heartwarming scene where Elinor and the triplets are changed back to their human selves with embarrassing and juvenile Naked People Are Funny jokes.
- cheedo: On top of that- I loved the fact that it portrayed a rare realistic relationship between a mother and daughter, but I really disliked that only Elinor was presented as wrong for burning Merida's bow- something she does AFTER Merida, in a rage, rips the tapestry Elinor had been working hard on. A bow can be replaced, but that tapestry will have to be made over. And Merida isn't presented as equally wrong for doing it as Elinor is for her action.
Retloclive: The Liar Revealed moment of A Bug's Life will always be the part I dread sitting through the most when this film pops up on TV because it's one massive contradiction when it comes to the ant colony. Early on, the ants all celebrate behind Flik's back for finally being rid of him when Flik departs from the colony to search for warrior bugs. Yet, when the jig is up that what Flik brought back to the colony on accident were circus bugs, Princess Atta and the colony have no issue choosing to banish Flik for lying to them, even though they were the ones who originally lied about wanting Flik gone without him knowing. By that logic, every single one of them should have been banished, and Flik would have every right to tell them all to piss off if he ever found out that a bunch of liars threw him out for lying.
- Thepenguinking2: I love A Bug's Life way more than most people out there do. But even I agree that the whole Liar Revealed scene is the one big low point of the movie. Like yeah, they're circus bugs, but their wacky antics still prove to be very useful anyway! They saved Dot from the bird by playing live bait, and the fake bird is fully functional, so the fact that the ant colony just shoos them off because of this news and don't even try the bird is very questionable. What would've worked better is if P.T. Flea jumped in with the truth, the ant colony stands by them because of how much of a boon they've served, but P.T. just kidnaps the circus bugs anyway. Then Flik can leave out of shame of how he himself feels like he let the colony down, and the movie can go as normal from there. Actually, that's how I'll see it actually going from now on, it's so much better!
Almighty King Prawn: Remember how I said above in regards to The Lion King that there are two glaring cases of Artistic License – Biology that have bugged me since childhood? Well Finding Dory has the other. I was practically dumbfounded in the theater beholding the Esoteric Happy Ending of Bailey the beluga escaping and going back to the Great Barrier Reef with the other characters. Belugas live in the Arctic Ocean, clearly much, much more freezing than a tropical reef. To stay warm, belugas have plenty of layers of thick blubber. Bailey is going to die of heat exhaustion right in front of his friends within days, if not hours. It's also infuriating that the aquarium doesn't even go after him after this, when in reality not only would there be a lot of concern for the chance of death, but concern for the potential introduction of an invasive cetacean into Monterey Bay. If they wanted to not court controversy about captivity so bad, they could have at least had Bailey say goodbye to his friends upon noticing that things are getting really toasty and swim north.
Theenglishman: The very sudden and out-of-place Shout-Out to Chinatown in the middle of Inside Out's climactic chase scene. Up until then, every Parental Bonus gag had either been in the background or was integrated into the plot somehow, but this one brought the entire chase to a complete halt for one joke which only a film buff would understand, and anyone who didn't would just think some poor cloud woman had been killed with two policemen making a quip about it for no good reason. Thankfully it's just one moment of suck, and the film picks up where it left off almost immediately afterward.
KoopaKid17: The very beginning of Lightyear, where I'm expected to believe that a movie I'm just being introduced to is responsible for Andy wanting a Buzz Lightyear for his birthday. No. Everybody saw first-hand exactly why anyone, even Sid of all people, would want a Buzz Lightyear in the first Toy Story. This cool toy glows in the dark, has light-activated lasers, his helmet and wings retract, etc. This movie does no such thing, instead relying on a few lines of text to try to convince its audience how Andy got won over. Come on, Pixar. You're better than committing one of the biggest violations of Show, Don't Tell in cinematic history.
Zeo Gosei Prime 68: While Onward had two very tough acts to follow after Toy Story 4 and Frozen II, I can safely say that thing movie is average. Don't get me wrong. The final battle with the cruse dragon was really cool, but I wanna talk about the moment before that. During the movie, Ian and Barley used a Visitation Spell to bring back their dad, who, at the time, is just the bottom half of himself. After going on a quest, encountering the Manticore, restoring her to her former glory (while scaring the crap out of everyone in the restaurant.), getting chased by a bunch of Pixies, almost getting caught by the police, making it past the trust bridge, had to sacrifice Guinevere to stall the cops, and after making it out of some booby traps, where did they end up? Back in town. That's right. The entire quest for the Phoenix Gem is nothing but a wild goose chase. It makes me sick to my stomach. At least things did get better.
The Lucky Cat: I didn't hate Toy Story 4, but I do consider it to be pointless, especially given that Toy Story 3 was pretty much perfect in my book - it was already a Tough Act to Follow, and I walked out of this going, "Really? That's the story they thought was too good to leave alone?" But I think the part that actually made me angry was when Woody is trying to get Forky back from the pawn shop and Bo Peep is trying to rescue her sheep. Now, I understand that the filmmakers wanted to revamp Bo Peep from just being Woody's Love Interest and give her her own agency, etc. That's all fine, but the way she treats Woody pisses me off. She essentially tells him to just shut the fuck up and stay out of the way while they break into Gabby's stronghold because he made mistakes earlier that got her sheep kidnapped and now she's mad at him. Excuse me, but who the hell does she think she is to talk to Woody like that? Throughout the early movie, she constantly treats Woody like this nuisance who doesn't know what he's doing, and it feels majorly disrespectful to Woody's character. I know Woody is a flawed person (which is what makes him such a good protagonist because he messes up but always comes through), but for Bo Peep to treat him like he's some clueless, bumbling idiot really rubs me the wrong way, especially since she was part of Andy's family long enough to know what Woody is capable of. Like, bitch, pick any scheme in the Toy Story movies, and they work because of Woody's master-level planning. Breaking out of Sid's room and dealing with Scott? Staging rescues for any toy who needs his help? Getting out of Sunnyside? Making it back to Andy's before he moves to college? All of those were Woody's plans. Just because Bo has been trucking around in the wilderness for years doesn't give her the right to talk down to him in order to make her character look better, but she spends like the entire film snarking at him and condescending to him, and it leaves a really bad taste in my mouth, they become the Official Couple, and Woody abandons Buzz, Jessie and everyone to be with someone who treats him like that. (I know, I know, he felt unfulfilled being Bonnie's toy and got a sense of purpose from helping lost toys, but it just doesn't feel right that he'd pick Bo over his best friends and a kid he cared for.) Plus, the majority of Bo's badass moments happen offscreen, so her status as this new renegade Action Girl really doesn't land when it's such a drastic change from how she was before - also, don't think I didn't notice that Jessie (who is a genuine Action Girl) gets nothing to do throughout this movie, because we can't have another girl upstaging Bo, now can we? Honestly, I preferred her when she was just Molly's lamp, at least she was a nice person who believed in Woody back then.
curiouskat: I'd like to think Turning Red was an okay movie, all things considered. Despite the fact it was the second movie in a row that we've had to address generational trauma, it told its story in a more modern fashion that kids of the 2000s can relate to. My dethroning moment, however, has to be all the "gyrating" (let's call it what it is, twerking) that they had Meilin do in the movie. Was twerking really a hot craze back in 2002? If I recall correctly, twerking didn't really gain steam until the 2010s, though it was present in some music videos of the time. What offsets my opinion of this movie is the fact that the introductory scene includes Mei shaking her butt at the camera, and what sours it even further is when it's used as a plot device to upset her mother during the climax. It's disturbing—this is a freshly-turned 13-year-old girl screaming at the top of her lungs, "I like to GYRATE...deal with it!" and they expect parents not to blink an eye? They could get away with the idea of Mei selling her "panda," but this, for me, toes the line a little too much. Something must be going on at Pixar because it seems like they're not even trying to disguise what they...ahem...like.
- Alex D. Large: While I disagree with the above troper's opinions (because I find it unlikely that there's a predator on the staff, and therefore, that's a very bold statement to make), I'll list the moment when Ming confronts Devon over the drawings that Mei drew and the Daisy Mart customers' reactions are to laugh at Mei. A Discord friend stated that this is basically making fun of those who draw lewd pictures in private, and they're considered a laughingstock. Since it struck a chord with him, he tuned out of this movie and listed this as his least favorite Pixar movie as a result (among other things). Granted, I never experienced this myself, considering I don't draw but write (and I've never had that similar experience either), but I can see where he's coming from, and as a result, this entry is on behalf of him.
- Melancholy Utopia: I, for the most part, don't like this film (I find the over-the-top expressions to be rather jarring for one) even if I can see a few upsides to it like it is a really good period piece of the early 2000s (I was about 6 in 2002, so I can recall a few trends). One moment, however, I found a bit too on the nose and made me facepalm so hard it left a mark was at the very end when Mei's mom asks her about exposing part of her panda in public, to which Mei replies: "My panda, my choice, mom!" Dear lord. I get the film is about finding independence, but what kind of message does it send to young teenagers? Even if they don't explicitly say it, the exchange usually alludes to a daughter being confronted about going out with extremely revealing clothing. My opinions about it aside, it's not appropriate to put that kind of reference for impressionable teens to piece together, particularly in a kids film (even if it's rated PG)!

Dreamworks Animation

Matitya, while I do think that DreamWorks Animation’s Antz was a good movie, albeit an edgy one, I also think that what it did best was preach the message of individualism over collectivism, and the fact that it does so without having the individualist characters give anvilicious speeches in the vein of Ayn Rand. My problem with it is the scene wherein an ant involved in the revolution decides to quote Karl Marx about the Workers controlling the means of production. Since it seems to me that the entire movie was an epic deconstruction of the ethos of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” as something which represented the abrogation of the individual and more or less explicitly condemned the practice of viewing the world through the lens of class privilege. So I find that one Marxist quote greatly undermines the message of the movie as a whole. (Though admittedly not enough to ruin the movie.)
Insert Clever Name Here: I did not like DreamWorks Animation's Bee Movie at all, but one scene, in particular, infuriated me. After Barry wins the jury, we see him ordering all of the honey-producing factories to be shut down so that the bees can be free from their work and bring the honey back to their hive. Okay, fair enough. But then they show a gag of an agent shooting Winnie the Pooh with a dart! Seriously?! I suppose some people would have found it hilarious, but to me, this scene is not only completely unnecessary, but it is also a stab in the back of many people's childhoods and plays animal cruelty for laughs.
- H0p3l1v3s0n: Also, after all the honey goes back and the bees stop working, every flower dies. I know it’s Artistic License, but… that's not how pollination works!
Vanilla Lime: I enjoyed How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World....until I got to the ending. Basically, Hiccup decides that, after years of friendship and defying odds together, it’s time to let Toothless go. Why? Because humans that use dragons as tools for their own gain exist. Are you kidding me? All that time spent building up the relationship between these two has been flushed down the drain for a cliche “Humans Are Bad” message. Oh, and not only do Toothless and Hiccup have to be separated, but the dragons and the Hooligan Tribe have to be separated too. Did the writers honestly think that none of those Vikings had a close bond with their dragons? That they would give up those bonds so easily just because their leaders did so? That other groups of people that peacefully coexist with dragons don't exist…like the Wingmaidens and the Defenders of the Wing from Dragons: Race to the Edge? The Hooligan Tribe letting their dragons go doesn’t stop humans elsewhere from using them for their own desires, and even if it did, how are humans supposed to "earn the right" to coexist with dragons again if they're constantly kept away from each other? If a malicious Viking clan WITH DRAGONS happens to go to New Berk with plans to conquer it, what is the Hooligan Tribe going to do? Yeah, they have ways of fighting off people without their dragons, but I feel it’ll only be a matter of time before they’re overwhelmed. It’s honestly sad that a series about The Power of Friendship conquering all concludes with fear winning in the end.
- Kirby 0189: Completely agreed. The ending suffers from the same issue I have with Puella Magi Madoka Magica The Movie: Rebellion, where the last few minutes don't feel like they had the proper buildup and defy what was established prior, but my brother made a very good point while we were mocking the ending after we first watched the movie: The ending might be going for a Coming of Age Story-type deal where Berk letting go of their dragons is supposed to represent the cast growing and leaving their childhoods behind, but if that's the case, what's the point of the scene right at the end where Hiccup and Astrid meet up with Toothless and the Light Fury again? Not really letting go of their childhoods that way, are they? Yep, not only does the ending defy the message of the previous films, but it also defies its own!
- BossKey: This, so very much. So you’re telling me the ending to a series based around Vikings and dragons enriching each other’s lives through coexistence… ends with them severing ties forever. Doesn’t that make the whole series entirely pointless? How to Train Your Dragon: Homecoming doubles down on how bad of an ending it was, since the plot of that is based entirely around Hiccup’s decision causing the Berkians to become fearful and superstitious of dragons again, completely undoing years of cultural advancement and setting the Hooligan Tribe back to where they were before the first movie, and the situation is resolved by, surprise surprise, dragons coming back. Releasing those dragons seems like a really stupid idea in hindsight, doesn’t it? (Addendum: the books did this much better, with the setting generally being more grim than the Lighter and Softer movie adaptations and the split being more justified due to Hiccup being their main peacekeeper and the split happening in his twilight years rather than in his prime.)
Loekman 3: The way that that Shen and Kai is treated in Kung Fu Panda 4 is one of the most disrespectful moments that I've ever seen, almost as if the creators of the movie personally decided shaft them in favor of their new OC villain (and a really bad one at that). For context, the Arc Villain of the movie, The Chameleon has summoned Kung Fu masters from the Spirit Realm in order to steal their techniques which also includes the BigBads of the previous movies. Now Tai Lung at least was treated with respect but no such thing happens to the other two, not only do they not speak at all here but Po barely acknowledges them. And at the the end they both decided to bow to Po in respect without telling as to why did they reform. Kai especially has it bad as not only there isn't any explanation as to how he came back after we saw him getting blown up onscreen in the previous movie but there is absolutely no sign of him even reforming (wheareas you could maybe make the assumption that Shen finds inner peace given that we saw him closing his eyes just before his death). If this is the best they can do, then they're simply better off not bothering to feature them at all.
Flowerfun: While I did enjoy Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken, there's one part of the movie that after thinking about it rubs me the wrong way, that being Chelsie being a Twist Villain and her not being Nerissa's daughter but being Nerissa herself. Not only does the twist waste what could have been an interesting conflict with her and Ruby trying to build peace between the two races and an interesting character, but it also ends up validating Gramama's Fantastic Racism that all mermaids are evil, unintentionally sending a pro-racism message. There's also the Esoteric Happy Ending where, although the villain has been defeated, the conflict between the mermaids and krakens goes completely unresolved.
Retloclive: Trolls turned out to be an okay film for something that looked like it was aimed at five year olds. However, one moment that's hard to overlook was Poppy just letting all the Troll refugees into Branch's bunker, which they go about eating everything in sight. Basically wrecking everything that Branch had prepared for years to keep himself safe from the Bergen. It's no different than a bunch of people eating all their limited food to the point of possibly starving only to then decide to go after and steal the food of the one person that actually rationed their share of the food, and leaving them with nothing like everyone else. Overall, it's such a horrible thing to do on Poppy's part, and no one calls her out on it.
Thepenguinking2: I'll fully admit, Turbo is a guilty pleasure of mine. I'm not sure if I can say it's a good movie, but I enjoyed it unironically. It's probably my childlike excitement over seeing a movie about my favorite animal, and also White Shadow was genuinely funny. But even then, I can't justify the scene where Guy Gagne turns out to be the twist villain. Now, I'm not entirely against the idea of Guy being rotten on the inside, but the logistics behind it are just dumb. Oh, so he seems like a nice guy in public, but after finding out a snail is racing, he decides to turn into an utter asshole with no regard for sportsmanship? Okay, sure, maybe Guy only puts up the friendly façade while being recorded or in public meetups, but that's also kind of dumb. Don't you think someone, anyone, who works with him would come out and bring Guy's abusive nature to the public? This movie was released around the time when concerns for celebrities abusing their status was starting to rise, after all. What would've made more sense would be Guy genuinely being really good at hiding his true colors, even at work, but he fully exposes himself to Theo only at first, and then he would start truly revealing his cruelty once the presumably meaningless snail started actually winning. I'm probably putting my mind way more into this kid's film than I really should be, but it still does bother me a good bit.

Other Films

Izzy Uneasy: That scene in The Boy and the Heron where budgies crap all over Shoichi. It's not only disgusting(and rather unexpected from Studio Ghibli), it's also absolutely pointless.
Clown-Face: The Emoji Movie is an awful movie, and there is no shortage of moments that could qualify as its DMoS, but for me, it's when Gene screws up and wrecks the text center early on. After spending the previous scene pleading to his parents to let him work on the phone for the first time so he can finally fit in, what does Gene do? He immediately, and with no provocation, freaks out and proceeds to make a mess of the text center, endangering everyone else there in the process. His actions go beyond that of a newbie making a mistake, making him look like an incompetent dumbass. What makes this such an Epic Fail on the movie's part is that they try to make Gene out as a sympathetic woobie being treated unfairly for being "different" and paints his father Mel in the wrong for not believing in him, but all Gene does is prove their viewpoint correct. And what adds to this is that in the climax, Mel tells Gene that he was wrong for not believing in him, and what's meant to be a heartwarming moment is again ruined because, at this point, Gene has done nothing but continue to make matters even worse, as his actions have inadvertently caused Alex to try to delete the phone, and Gene has thus far done nothing to rectify this. So Mel's change of heart makes no sense because Gene has done nothing to show that Mel was wrong for not trusting him; if anything, he's just shown that Mel's earlier opinion of him was warranted.
- Midna: The Emoji Movie is a failure of a picture on almost every level, but one moment that particularly stands out to me as horrible is when Gene and his friends finally make it to the Cloud, and Gene becomes a "meh" like he always wanted, not because Jailbreak reprograms him... but because she friendzones him. Forget the fact that it's an incredibly cheap attempt to force some end-of-second-act drama—did the writers seriously not notice what an awful, self-centered prick it makes Gene look like?
Kenya Starflight: Hotel Transylvania is a pretty good movie overall, but it hits a sour note for me with talk about a "zing" — essentially the concept of Love at First Sight — and it's emphasized that you only get one "zing" in your life. A romantic enough notion, perhaps, but did the filmmakers think to consider how kids who come from divorced families might feel about this? Or really, has anyone who's had a relationship end, either by death, divorce, or breaking up? The movie doesn't even justify it by saying that "zing" only applies to monsters (granted, they do mention this in the third movie, but not everyone watches sequels), which might have made it a bit more tolerable — basically the characters state you only get a single true love and that if you let them go, that's it. A cringe-worthy Accidental Aesop in an otherwise decent movie.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (Golden Films):
- Doctor Cooper: Already a terrible product scarce in redeeming qualities, but the worst moment was Quasimodo becoming handsome. This is too out of place. There is nothing wrong with doing an In Name Only derivative work, but this is too far off the point, and it's even insulting. The film also touches that True Beauty Is on the Inside but has the necessity to do such a change. Way to do a moral. If looks don't matter, why bother converting Quasimodo into a hunk? Not helped by the fact that the film states that Quasimodo's hunchback is just out of depression and mistreatment. Having self-esteem will not heal a handicap. The attempt to kiddify a grim product backfired with two offensive "morals." Golden Films has done much better than this.
Almighty King Prawn: While The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part was not the perfect masterpiece that the first film was, I still found it to be a very fun movie overall, with a great soundtrack, some funny jokes, and quite a bit of the original film's charm. One thing about the movie bugs me, however, and that is the Status Quo Is God applied to The LEGO Batman Movie. Essentially, the reason why Robin and Barbara aren't in the movie is handwaved away as... some unexplained event apparently caused them to leave/die/whatever, and Batman is now alone with Alfred again. Not only does this pretty much make the whole film a "Shaggy Dog" Story, but it was completely unnecessary! Either let the Batman film be a separate canon from the Lego film (I thought it was in the first place due to everyone seeming to know who Bruce Wayne was in TLM and no one seeming to know in TLBM) or bring the characters along for the ride — I would have particularly loved to see Robin react to his new mom, but we will never get to see that or any other hilarious situations that Robin and Barbara may have gotten into in the Systar System. Plus, with The LEGO Batman Movie 2 getting cancelled, we will never see these fantastic versions of those characters again period.
CJ Croen 1393: The documentary series March of the Dinosaurs had a dethroner in the form of the... monstrosities they claim are "Quetzalcoatlus", shown here, at the 9:05 mark. For a list of how awful they are *deep breath*... they're scaly and lacking pycnofibers, their wings are pointy and look just a bit too short, they are scavengers (something that would have been forgivable if it weren't made in 2011), they are bipedal and lack their small wing fingers and are just super ugly. As a paleonut and a pterosaur fan, I can't really forgive all of these blatant examples of Critical Research Failure. Keep in mind, this is supposed to be an educational documentary, but with the "Quetzalcoatlus", at least, it's clear that they didn't even try.
InsertCleverNameHere: Netflix's Marmaduke is so bad, you'd think picking a DMoS would be hard, but no. The entire "Marmaduke eats so much that he ends up shitting in a trophy" scene. Aside from being unfunny Toilet Humor, the scene uncomfortably feels like a writer's barely disguised fetish: Marmaduke gets a Balloon Belly (inflation), and he poops so much that it forms a massive cloud of gas (scat & farting). The whole thing was just so disgusting and drawn-out; I don't see how it was supposed to be funny.
Melancholy Utopia: I gotta be honest; I despise Sausage Party from the core of my very soul, but since I have to choose a specific moment, that prize would go to the orgy scene at the end; of all the foods having a free-for-all. It's out of nowhere, unfunny, disgusting, unfunny, uncomfortable, unfunny, repulsive, unfunny. Oh, and it's unfunny. I mean, what was the point of it? Shock value? 'Cause I've seen tons of reviews for this film, and almost no one talks positively about the ending. Are you supposed to laugh at the sausage banging the hot dog bun? Like... I'm genuinely wracking my brain for an explanation as to why anyone thought it was a good idea beyond "hurdihurrdurr the movie is rated R, so let's make it as non-family-friendly as possible because we can derp" without a shred of satire to it. If you want to watch a film exploring similar themes but manages to execute it well, there's South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut instead. Skip this one.
Overlord 347: While definitely a poor sequel to the masterpiece that was the first Secret of Nimh created by Don Bluth, The Secret of NIMH 2: Timmy to the Rescue has one particular moment that served as a dethroning moment. After making such a big deal out of Timmy being the Chosen One prophesied by Nicodemus (which was entirely made up for this film) and basically being told that he'll be the next best thing since his father, Jonathan Brisby, the rats of Thorn Valley do literally nothing to help him fill those shoes. They don't train him to fight, teach him anything, nothing. In fact, as the years progress, Timmy is made to do manual labor, like raking leaves and washing the cobblestones. How do the rats honestly expect him to be the hero they want him to be when they don't even give him a basic education? And when he gets frustrated by the fact that no one takes him seriously, they scold him for trying to take the initiative! Imagine being told that you're going to be a figure of great importance, only to be made a janitor and then forgotten about. You can hardly blame Timmy for feeling unappreciated.
punkcrow: I don't quite know whether this fits under here or the advertising section considering it's mostly about the movie's marketing, but the trailer for Sing was terrible - it basically spoiled the whole plot of the movie, including the scene where the theater started flooding. Worse yet, apparently, they didn't learn their lesson with the first movie, considering that they did the exact same thing with the trailer for the second movie. The movie itself is pretty good, but I feel like it's a good reason to avoid watching trailers.
Black Faith Star: Small Foot started off rather well. The characters and premise were all fine and dandy, there was a present weight of the tension in the Yetis solely living by their ancestors' knowledge, and although I wasn't aware that the movie would be that musical, I liked the songs nonetheless. There was no true villain; the Stonekeeper had a point in his actions for keeping the others in the dark. It's not even the scene where Migo has to lie to everyone about the "Smallfoot" that the Yetis spent the day with that sucks, it was supposedly tolerable after Migo's newfound knowledge of the past, although I wish he could've just simply told his friends that. The real DMOS for me is the ending, it fell flat. In my opinion, the movie should have ended after the Stonekeeper shared the truth with the village about what their ancestors had done and kept from them; at that time, it was out of good intention - to protect themselves from humans, which proved a threat to them. It felt like a good conclusion like the Yetis would start to communicate better. But then everyone plops to the surface right afterwards to say hi to the humans, which isn't wise in hindsight. Times change, yes, but the wisdom behind people of the past should not be completely thrown out the window. And right after the night when people were shaken by an actual Yeti sighting? You'd think they would've considered the hazards such a sudden reveal would cause, as that's what stopped them from remaking human contact in the first place. The only definite positive I saw from that ending was that Percy's life wouldn't be ruined since the Yetis turned out to be real, but how sure were they that everyone would accept them with open arms? A happy ending like that would only work out in fiction, but disregarding lessons from history entirely rendering their ancestors' aims to protect them nil left me unsettled because that is not a good message to end with. Upon reading further that the past humans attacked the Yetis out of fear rather than malice, perhaps this DMOS sucks less. But as someone else, I was watching the movie and said if the Yetis should reveal themselves to the humans at all, it would have to be a gradual process so both humans and Yetis could warm up to each other without possibly causing another huge ruckus. Status quo takes time to change. Having every single Yeti show themselves to the humans at once is not a good idea.
Meme Master 245: Teen Titans Go! & DC Super Hero Girls: Mayhem in the Multiverse. A movie that isn't bad but could have been a lot better, coming as a fan of DC Super Hero Girls 2019. I was tempted to put something related to the TTG! cast as my DMoS, but I don't want to be general. So instead, I'll go with the Plot-Mandated Friendship Failure. Thanks to Diana joining the Justice League, Batgirl keeping Harley's secret from the rest, and Zee's dark magic, they all just... split up. It comes out of nowhere and, honestly, feels like Narm. And since they get back together in less than five minutes, it's totally pointless and just seems to be thrown in for a bit of drama. At least the pilot had a more justifiable reason for their break-up (i.e. they didn't know each other too well). Here? It's a more minor argument that honestly pales to some they had in the show, which they stuck through.
Big Jimbo: Look, I don't think Wakko's Wish is bad, but there's a moment that makes me reluctant to watch it: at the end, the Mime is hit by an anvil. That on its own isn't so bad, but it's revealed that Yakko was the one who wished that the Mime would be injured... presumably just for being around. I'm sorry, but given that the rest of the movie seems to give Yakko Character Development, I can't help but feel this was completely unnecessary and ended up undermining any of that development just for a joke. No offense to anyone who worked on the movie, but they shouldn't have put in this part as it sacrifices some of the film's integrity and enjoyability for me.

Dethroning Moment / Animated Films

Examples:

Previous

Index

Next

Dethroning Moment / Animated Films

Edit Locked

Examples:

Previous

Index

Next