A thought just occurred to me recently about Max mordon.
He was locked up in eternal jail before Tad and Sara confessed their love for eachother.
Why is that relevant? Cuz this means Max doesn't know Sara and Tad are dating. He isn't aware of their relationship. So imagine Max's reaction if he makes a grand return (i really hope that happens) and finds out!!! HECK- IMAGINE MAX'S REACTION TO OLI
BECAUSE IDK BOUT YALL BUT I THINK ESCAPING ETERNAL JAIL AND FINDING OUT SARA (your ex) AND TAD (the guy responsible for ur downfall) HAD A BABY TOGETHER MIGHT BREAK MAX
Wanted to do a cover for the AU which has a new name now.
Synopsis
Max Mordon escaped Paititi to get his revenge on Tad Jones. Once he found him he used an enchanted amulet thinking it would kill him, but instead it turned Tad into a jaguar.
With the help of his friends, Tad must race back to Paititi to protect it from Max and the remaining group of Odysseus Inc, all while trying to complete the Jaguar trials in order to change back to normal.
SO, Guess who just rewatched UP so that I could further expand on the tea brought up in the post that ask prompted! I mean, and some general comparison moments... with plot and tone and the possible inspirations... BUT--
We're not here to explore Paradise Falls today!
So let's take this in parts so I can give each villain(and one bonus) their dues. Starting with the Pixar villain who first traumatized me in 2009.
Charles Muntz
Sooo first of all, this guy is terrifying.
Like, out of all the villains I'm here to talk about, Muntz has reached that point that there's just... something wrong and broken by the time he actually shows up on screen in his movie. Well, not his movie but-- By the time we meet him, isolation has done a number along with his single minded focus on his goal.
Muntz is... not in a good state of mind AT ALL.
BUT--
I kind of want to take it back for a moment to what triggered this. Because here's the tea-- As we see, throughout the movie with Russel and Kevin, Muntz's find was real. Birb still around even. That skeleton he displayed-- and yet--
They decried it as fake. Something he fabricated. Which hello, here's some of my related tea-- Again, this is basically that whole-- issue of if it doesn't fit with known facts, along with some of the other issues regarding the palaeontology community in general that is-- not quite the same, but--
I have many, many dinosaur issues and some of them come from how long it took people to accept feathered dinosaurs, to the fact that there has been multiple cases of evidence that dinosaurs went extinct much more recently than what we're taught in schools(middle ages, medieval art and designs and just argh--), that are just-- REJECTED. Which even included a report about still images, art and designs that are very dinosaur in nature. Or hell, the comparison of dragon legends to how dinosaur skulls and appearances are--
Not to mention there have been and are still fiascos about dinosaur bones and the whole marrow and blood cells discovered in them. Which instead of maybe assuming that means they're younger than previously assumed they're assuming that means that decay rates are off, which... yeah sure. I don't really have a degree on that, but it sounds wrong when decay has more clear and obvious examples that have been more clearly witnessed, studied-- I mean there's a whole STUDY on decay--
BUT I'M NOT AN EXPERT AND THE EARTH HAS TO BE--
Anyway-- Fossils and bones have-- such a HUGE mess. From exhibits going missing, discoveries passed over time and time again because is "doesn't fit" what was previously know, there's a whole documentary that's one guy trying to explain how there's evidence of specific species actually just being sexual dimorphism and differences in age of just one species and being mocked by the rest of the community for that view--
You know fascinating stuff--
Among other things, like I remember so clearly a documentary that used to be around where they talked about a dig site where there were modern animals preserved with animals from so, so long ago-- along with trying to explain how the very existence of Dinosaur bones and fossils proved that the Great Worldwide Flood happened.
Which-- honestly on the flood, just look at how pretty much every culture has a Great Flood story and that's already proven that something happened. WHICH is all beside the point--
But this-- THIS--
Do you know how much this happens, happened, and still probably will happen in the future?! I mean shit-- people thought the KANGAROO was FAKE NEWS once upon a time. Among-- many other of Australia's animals... also like-- think about weird animals from your own country and imagine in the olden days, sure people could travel, but that didn't mean everyone would or could and just--
How many animals sound fake but then you see them?!
In any case, there's just a very subtle background flow to this movie in that ultimately, the TRUE villains hidden in the story are the Archaeology & Palaeontology communities. Scientists.
--
Which yeah, deviation from the main point of this post, so now that we have that background detail and rant. What impact does Muntz have as a villain. Well... very clearly he's terrifying. Like, I don't think I can overstate how much I was FREAKED OUT as a baby 11 year old seeing this movie for the first time, with exaggerated memories of fire and trauma and all-- and just-- Muntz is a Pixar villain.
Which yeah--
I don't actually really have to say much in regards to how he lingers and his presence is felt all through how the movie unfolds. Even from before this reveal-- there's that sense of wrongness when you're paying attention and you just think about how the dogs act.
And well-- there's something to be stated about this scene... and how it serves as a good lead in to the next villain I would like to talk about-- But for now...
Muntz' degeneration here is subtle. Traitors, liars, people after his discovery... and some serious isolation induced paranoia.
But the heart of his motivation is that long, long ago disgrace. It's been YEARS, of hunting and trying to find the one thing. Carl's entire lifetime from childhood. His entire goal-- and what a hell of a broken pedestal that creates... but arguably, he's from a somewhat tragic perspective when you actually think how fundamentally broken he's fallen when examining the facts.
From a lauded explorer-- adventurer... to this.
Fearing and calling anyone he meets liars.
Max Mordon
Soooo before anyone says that was an abrupt-- I think that this is the PERFECT place to transition over. Because the one immediately there is... some DRASTIC contrasts between these two, despite well. Some small similar vibes to generals.
Like seriously...
Not precisely the same... but like-- Brown hair, blue eyes... and the general frame of his hair style. Max just missed some of the points and has no moustache or anything. BUT--
Max is also in direct contrast in regards to motivations. At least to the prior villain of Muntz. BUT-- Max is kind of literally the kind of people that Muntz was paranoid about. Which isn't really played for subtly in the movie, which is unfortunate, but to be fair that's a hard thing to play subtle and with all the tropes we've been exposed to nowadays-- BUT--
Max basically fell into the trap of, pedestal to break, along with what I kind of call Scooby logic, in how his presentation gave him away as a villain. And also all the older mentor characters disapproving of him.
Basically he was doomed from the framing.
Which-- isn't really the movie's fault, and in the end I would argue it actually plays to his favour to be so obvious.
Sooo I can also actually focus on other things instead of the fact we all know! Like how THERE'S just... so, so much I could say about Tad's reactions to Max throughout the movie. But that will probably take away from the focus of this rant/analysis. BUT-- Yeah, Max is set up as pretty obviously trouble to EVERYONE but the main characters.
Which... I do have opinions for another rant about how Sara would have in any other context probably noticed his fake sooner-- but Max is... "media circus" and archaeology... and more really his pursuit is-- really, really straight forwards in the context of the movie and even the greater scope.
Max is after immortality, power, and prestige. Puts great pride on his title and claim to be the "Greatest explorer". And much unlike Muntz there is no sign of ANYTHING tragic or forgiving in his background. He wasn't screwed over by the system, rather he's here using the system to screw others other.
ALSO--
Max is savvy as anything.
Like-- I don't think people will quite understand my glee at how RUTHLESS this is. But in a similar vein to Muntz, Max isn't letting anything stand in the way of his goals. Not here-- directing the Odysseus to get rid of Freddy and Tad despite them ostensibly being "no threat", which yeah... not completely for Tad as later that comes back around-- BUT-- Max is just... SAVVY in that sense that he's not taking risks.
BUT then we also get him showing he's... really not as expert as he plays himself. Which sure, the Professor has studied for years, but still-- there's a kind of logic that's just-- well, in the Quipu room and even before entering the ruins... He's just-- not studied enough, or observing enough. Not without blind spots.
BUT--
I also want to for a moment just take a moment to have an aside on this:
I also don't know if this is something that people would notice. But-- when it comes to this moment, Max turns the tables... really quickly. Which half of that is just Mummy being kind of naïve himself here in this moment, like-- of all the decisions... but the other half is SOMETHING clicked in Max's mind on this--
But mostly I want to focus on that expression. He's so damn smug-- like he's got a plan, smug and smooth, ready to try and steal the advantage... and I have... opinions on other nuances that might be hiding in that smile. But-- well, it's just not something that can easily be covered all in this--
BUT
It's these two SIDES. And his clear motivation, that actually makes Max a really, really strong and interesting villain to speculate and think about. ALSO-- On the topic of my prior rant...
Max DEFINITELY is the kind of person who probably-- had the movie not unfolded as it did, just be likely to think Mummy was just "another discovery" and tool to use to boost his own reputation.
But as we all know-- ultimately it all came back down on him and backfired.
Jack Rackham
Is honestly the most bland and kind of... confusing almost part of The Secret of King Midas. Like, I almost get him, but then compared to Max, there's just... Nothing to really work with in terms of fanfiction for missing scenes, alternative takes on the universe and story-- and even for his basic motivation it feels like something is... missing or unexplained. Not quite paid off properly.
But then, a lot of things in the sequel kind of pan out in a weird way that I have... much to grumble on.
"So cute, the power of Midas goes way beyond wealth my dear"
"Midas' power, is the power of the GODS! The power to Rule the World!"
Aaaand then this feels like it doesn't actually get a proper explanation or framing or anything to explain what that even MEANS. It's kind of nebulous to how things pan out and unfold. Also, just in general for movie 2, we didn't see enough of Rackham for him to make a proper impact or landing...
Like, for all the world aside the romance subplot, Rackham's presence in this movie is the MOST FORCED THING. He just feels... incomplete, or like something is missing. And then worse, obligatory. With next to no impact aside a few expressions that only lead to more internal confusion and screaming because WHAT DOES THIS EVEN MEAN?! What was meant to be going on here?
And that stupid, stupid line--
Makes me wonder if there was some other factor supposed to be at play with the collar. Since honestly-- Just the touch of gold doesn't really speak highly to "the power of the gods".
Rackham... in comparison to Max is just-- so empty.
And again...
The last thing that just drives my confusion(along with a conspiracy based on framing, set pieces and other things) is this expression, and specifically who it's aimed at.
Bonus Tiffany & The Archaeological Community
So...
Hot take but-- Movie 2's villain should have been Tiff. Well, halfway anyway... And I have... already mostly ranted on the topic-- But not really enough to truly kind of get over my TRUE frustration. Which has now combined into how nebulous and almost... overloaded movie 2 feels the more I rewatch the rest of it.
BUT LIKE--
If there is one rule that we see time and time again when discoveries are made that challenge things. THEY ARE NOT ACCEPTED. People just like to think, to believe that we know the most about the past already. That there's a strict timeline to everything that happened. And if mythology and stories come into it-- Just for crying out loud--
The issue persists.
People denying anything that challenges the view already established. Up to and including the mishandling of archaeological digs and finds. Destruction of artefacts and we all know that the ones who get the brunt of it are the younger folks, those who're out of the "default" and well... ladies.
Which yeah-- not really surprising because sexism still stands and rings strong... but here...
DESPITE THE PAPYRUS BEING FOUND-- We didn't actually get to see the end result of that... And how it was taken beyond a giant presentation. There would have been authenticators-- people going over every INCH of that thing and then more-- so, so many people who would STILL call it fake.
Since we all know! Magic isn't real, myths didn't happen. So this must be some exaggerated story as well right?
WHICH ALSO-- Arguably this whole angle, the potential of the plot being just-- Driven by this-- It's more in line with the motives that are set up for Tiffany. The BIGGEST DISCOVERY in recent history. And also again, I can talk about some incomplete arcs, because this actually gives EVERYONE that little bit more room to breath.
Also serves as a bit more of a move on from movie 1 for Tadeo, first his hero(Max), wasn't all he appeared, and now-- the villain is okay, not exactly defined so much, more abstract in the community decrying the evidence. Denying-- Quite likely mishandling the papyrus since it can't really be what it claims.
Actually make the papyrus relevant, along with Sara's journal of notes on the project for more than one scene... and POSSIBLY EXPLAIN THAT LINE FROM RACKHAM.
Power of the Gods... and the mystery of Sara's kind of echo/response line to it.
“There are too many signs that the power of Midas shouldn’t be trifled with, I’m just saying that maybe the collar shouldn’t see the daylight”
We could have even still had that climax, just with some alterations, and let Tiffany come full circle in the theming. Set up and payoff, with even the legend being mirrored. But anyway... yeah.
Just in general, the villains most effective here are the ones who give us more than just that surface level empty sense. That have presence that's felt and echoes throughout the whole MOVIE and story. Which is definitely Muntz and Max, without them something is fundamentally lost.
Meanwhile Rackham is there, but he feels obligatory, without a proper explanation and if you removed him--
Tiffany could have become a mirror to Muntz in a similar way to Max-- BUT also much closer. She's set up PERFECTLY for it as well. Her adoration and eagerness, that bright hope yet. And it would be so easy to still have the main beats be the same-- Without much of an issue of the plot push either.
Rackham's sense of presence in the movie is so... dismal anyway--
And as for that climax. Well, you have to prove every aspect right?
BUT then it wouldn't make sense for Tadeo to make any kind of sacrifice there. To come full circle, it would need to be Tiffany. And the collar ACTUALLY could be sacrificed like in the legend and Tad first assumed.
