Behold! A Woman With No Impulse Control

Even though they no longer are causing harm to others and are able to actually undo some of their previous harm by living, some folks reacted as though this ending was somehow morally suspect. Morally bankrupt, even.

And I think it might be because so many of us were raised on a very specific kind of kids media trope:

They all fall to their deaths.

Disney loves chucking their bad guys off cliffs. And it makes sense- in a moral framework where villains *must* be punished (regardless of whether their death will actually prevent further harm or not), but killing of any kind is morally bad for the hero, the narrative must find a way to kill the villain without the protagonists doing a murder.

It's a moral assumption that a person can *deserve* to die, that it is cosmically just for them to die, that them dying is evidence that the story itself is morally good and correct. Scar *deserves* to die, but it would be bad for Simba to kill him. So....cliff.

Steven Universe, whatever else it's faults, took at step back and said "but if killing people is bad, then people dying is bad", and instead of dropping White Diamond off a cliff, asked "what would actual *restorative*, not punitive, justice look like? What would actual reparations mean here? If the goal is to heal, not just to punish, how do we handle those who have done harm?" And then did that.

Which I think is interesting, and that there was pushback against it is interesting.

I'd also like to point out that the idea that you can prevent a wholesale genocide by like, killing the RIGHT individual, is a rather...simplistic understanding of what causes genocide.

Frollo, to use him as the example, is a priest (in the book), and a judge (in the Disney movie.) He's not just a bad guy. He's an extention of the Catholic Church/The State (depending on which version you want to lean on here.) His power to do harm comes from his position within those institutions and the power of those institutions themselves. The persecution of the Roma people within France isn't because there was a bad guy, but because of those systems of power being used to kill the people that the church and the government wanted dead. Frollo getting dropped off a building wouldn't stop the persecution of the Roma in any world that isn't, maybe, a Disney film.

In the real world, it's very easy to hold up Hitler as the boogeyman. But if Hitler had died, but the war machine of Third Reich Germany hadn't lost the Battle of Berlin/the War as a whole, the Holocaust wouldn't have magically stopped just because 1 guy died.

Look. I'm not saying that there's never been a situation in the world where killing 1 guy wasn't the objectively best option in a high stakes, immediately dangerous situation. The world is full of Trolley problems and self defense situations and nuance and context.

But this post is about Restorative vs Punitive Justice *systems*, and about how many people, in general, start and end their analysis of Justice with "did the bad guy get killed?"

I would even argue that this mentality, where as long as you are sure in your heart that it will SAVE LIVES, killing people is just and good and shouldn't be questioned because some people are just bad- that mentality? Forms the core of Police killings in our culture. Justifies shooting first and asking questions never. Because once you decide that someone has done harm, they need to die for there to be Justice?

Many Disney villain deaths ARE specifically by falling ( Gaston and Frollo are the most obvious examples, but theres more- Snow Whites Queen, Ratigan from the Great Mouse Detective, etc), or falling with a twist (Gothel from Tangled and Clayton from Tarzan come to mind). But sometimes it's a little more abstract- still a death that leaves the hero blameless, but not specifically a fall (Hades, Dr. Falcifer) Technically, it's not falling that kills them, but it fulfills the same trope.

2.

Scar absolutely fits category 2. He very dramatically falls off a cliff, in a parallel to Mufasa, and THEN gets eaten by hyenas. The fall is absolutely part of it.

DAI Artbook:

Nope, it’s really in there. I needed that laugh today.

Also, can we also appreciate this poor confused-looking…snuffed-out rage demon? Ash wraith? Whatever it is, on the left?

It looks so lost.

Also, how do you make Despair demons less scary?

Get them heartbroken and drunk, I guess.

and it’s hilarious when they pull pranks on each other, like attaching things to other people’s caps:

or the beloved hot foot prank:

or when they decided to put a guy’s pants over his head and make it seem like he was walking on his hands:

or when they opposing pitchers took turns playing tic tac toe every time they got on the mound:

THEY RELEASED THE COYOTE VS ACME TRAILER !!!!!

WE WON !!!

If someone wants to tell a light-hearted comedy story that's sold on the basis of 'minority groups can see themselves represented in a positive light', but they kill off The Disabled CharacterTM in a really dodgy way... the writers probably weren't intending to be ableist. But the actuality is that they created a product that feeds into horrific ableist ideas about 'killing disabled people is kinder, actually'. They failed at telling the story they wanted to tell, possibly because of unexplored prejudices or just a lack of skill.

If someone wants to tell a fun story for kids that involves child soldiers, but because of genre conventions, etc., this isn't actually a serious issue.... then decides they want to engage with 'child soldiers' and 'military states' and 'genocide' as the serious, fucked-up issue they are, and makes the point that this world has to change... then decides that actually, no, they're not going to dig any deeper into that, and we're all just going to accept that military states and child soldiers are a genre convention, actually, and the world doesn't need to significantly change in order for a 'happy ending' to feel earned? Then they told the story they wanted to tell, but they arguably told it badly.

For example: an author wants to write an enemies-to-lovers romance novel, does so, and it's a complete flop. There are two possible reasons:

Reason one: this story is not a romance. The characters may be well-written and complex and believably traumatized and have wonderfully entertaining interactions, but they never once seem to even so much as find the other useful to be around, much less like the other's company enough to fall in love with them. For 95% of the plot they visibly, vocally hate each other, and then at the end they kiss and get married and all the other characters go "ah isn't this romantic". This is a "bad story" because it failed to tell the story it was trying to tell. The author wanted to tell a romance and did not do that.

Reason two: this story is badly written. It is a romance, yes, it ticks all the boxes and hits all the plot points and the characters go on a perfectly charted arc from enemies to lovers, but the writing is just plain bad. The characters are flat and uninteresting, the prose is hard to read, the setting is generic, the plot is stupid. This is a "bad story" because it told the story it wanted to tell but told it badly. The author wanted to tell a romance and did in fact do that, but it's still badly done.