Complete Monster criteria and Disney villains

Can a villain who respects his/her opponents still qualify for monsterdom? It just seems like that kind of positive feeling towards someone should be beyond a true CM

"Contests fought between two masters are decided instantly. An invisible battle is now raging between the two of them." Lulu vs Schneizel

Ratigan seems more Faux Affably Evil due to his gentlemanly and somewhat comical demeanor amist all the horrendous things he does. He perhaps crosses the line when he goes completely berzerk in the climax however.

I'd say drowning widows and orphans puts him squarely past the MEH already

or does the MEH only apply to onscreen villainy?

"Contests fought between two masters are decided instantly. An invisible battle is now raging between the two of them." Lulu vs Schneizel

The first criteria says that Offstage Villainy doesn`t count. That, and the movie leaves room to interpret it as his minions only THINKING he did that. As for his confirmed villainy, he does extort work out of Flaversham by threatening to hurt his daughter, try to put heavy taxes on the elderly and disabled, and beat up Basil to within an inch of his life. Still, that is mild compared to coachman-level villainy.

In any case, Ratigan seems to be played way too comically to be a Complete Monster.

And like you said, his admiration of his enemies` skill might be a redeeming quality. I would count his politeness to minions of his that he feeds to the cat as well.

I think we should focus on which villains should be removed first, before we talk about which should be added.

Speaking of which, back to The Horned King. How many users here are familiar with The Black Cauldron, and if few, should we try to draw the attention of Black Cauldron fans to this thread?

edited 19th Oct '11 6:31:18 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

The Black Cauldron probably won't get many responses since it's one of the most obscure films in the Disney Animated Canon. I won't be one of the ones to reply since I haven't seen any of it.

I've seen it. The movie really has some good animation and interesting parts, but the main characters are obnoxious. Not to mention that it's also horribly gruesome for a Disney movie, especially the scene with the Horned King melting onscreen.

The Horned King unleashed an army of cauldronborne zombies on his followers and strangles his own dedicated henchman. He casually orders a pre-cognizant pig slaughtered in front of its owner. Even his petty acts are despicable, like when he kicks a skeleton apart with disgust.

He had absolutely no motivation outside of power and hatred, and his onscreen acts are pretty damn evil. Everyone is afraid of him, with good reason (Although his dessicated face, sharp teeth, red eyes, and horns might have something to do with it).

He's a one-dimensional villain, but I think unleashing a zombie army to go out and kill everyone (And they do kill a few people in the movie, I might add) easily puts him near Frollo levels of villainy. He's also really damn cool looking.

I found a good video of him on youtube. It also shows his Raiders Of The Lost Ark style death.

edited 19th Oct '11 4:26:35 PM by Scardoll

Fight. Struggle. Endure. Suffer. LIVE.

Wow. Let's keep the Horned King on the list, then.

Now, onto McLeach from The Rescuers Down Under, a movie I'm more familiar with. He seems to be portrayed as a fairly comical character, from his amusingly over-the-top demented singing, to moments like the eggs scene. Also, as pointed out in The Rescuers' YMMV section, he is considered more likeable than Medusa because he is so Evilly Affable. Are these things combined enough reason to negate CM status?

For what it's worth, here's a video of him from the same source that gave us the Horned King video:

---

edited 19th Oct '11 7:24:19 PM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

Of course he counts! I don't think his funny moments make him any less evil. Just look how other characters dislike him! Even his lizard fears him! To me there is no doubt that he is a monster. Medusa at least did not want to kill Penny. She wasn't as evil, as Mcleach. This would be UNFAIR and CRAZY to keep Medusa, but take out Mcleach. However, this is just my opinion, but most people that I know agree with me.

edited 20th Oct '11 9:30:20 AM by TheEmperorPalp

Yes, I'd say so. It would only disqualify them from being a CM if respecting the opponent led to them caring about the opponent in any way. An Ax-Crazy Blood Knight might respect his opponent for being a good fighter, but still want to make them suffer before killing them, for example.

As for McLeach, I didn't watch the entire video, but I'd say he counts.

edited 21st Oct '11 7:15:52 PM by tropetown

No, even when Mc Cleach is being funny, he's still portrayed as a scary, horrifying, dangerous character.

If you want any of my avatars, just Pm me I'd truly appreciate any avatar of a reptile sleeping in a Nice Hat Read Elmer Kelton books

I never said anything about whether or not to keep Medusa on the list. *

^{(Well, not in this thread, that is; well, not until now, that is.)}

We will discuss her later. I'm only mentioning McLeach first because he is before Medusa on the list. Once we have come to a decision on McLeach, then we should talk about whether or not to keep Medusa on the list.

edited 21st Oct '11 11:22:49 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

Well it depends on the media and the level of the works. So yeah, implied offscreen ability about what the villain possibly done shouldn't really matter unless it is explicitly implied that the villain did something heinous like murder or source for completely selfish or even worse no reason at all.

The problem with Disney works is that so many of the movies or lighter and softer then the works is based on so we see things like attempted murder of the heroes or the like but we really don't see the real sick or depraved stuff that can occur in other works which makes coming to a decision difficult.

Like Jafar for instance: Doesn't seem to value the life of others, power hungry, and stuff like that but he's like your typical evil chancellor. We can only theorize if he has sent people to their death among other things.

He seemed more fit on stroking his ego and being the sultan and not out and about slaughtering people for Lolz like some Complete Monsters. In other words his motivations were centered around selfish self-gratification, greed, and stuff like that which is quite common among many villains who aren't complete monsters.

I agree that the lighter a work is the harder it is to tell. I think this is the problem with a certain other villain from another franchise that I am convinced is a Complete Monster. while they're all important, I mainly look for the first and third criteria. if those criteria are met, the others just fall into place for me.

and about my statement that a villain is either and Anti-Villain or a Complete Monster, there is no other villain archetype between the two that is mutually exclusive to the latter.

edited 21st Oct '11 1:28:30 PM by brony99

Well, the kinds of characters consensus favours keeping so far are from movies like The Hunchback Of Notre Dame, The Lion King, and The Black Cauldron, each of which are considered unusually dark as far as Disney movies go. The first two arguably push the limits of what can be considered G-rated material, partly because of the memorably sickening portrayals of their villains. And of course, Black Cauldron was rated PG, which is unusual for an animated Disney movie.

Perhaps the standards may be a little lower for a Disney movie, if only because of the higher shock value the same level of villainy has in a Disney movie. Still though, they should not be much lower.

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

None that are mutually exclusive to the latter, no. But there also aren't any who are mutually inclusive to the latter, either.

I just think some villains like Jafar still count because they fill out all five criteria in my mind. and that also doesn't really prove anything.

edited 21st Oct '11 3:05:27 PM by brony99

Consensus seems to be his villainy is too humorous to qualify. And it wasn't intended to prove anything. Also, if a villain fills the first four criteria of a Complete Monster but pulls a Heel–Face Turn, then they aren't an Anti-Villain, but they also aren't a Complete Monster.

To be a Complete Monster, I think a villain should meet all the following criteria:

1- Irredeemable.

2- Absolutely lacking any genuine compassion or sympathy or love for another sapient being.

3- No sense of true honor.

4- No 'good, even if twisted' cause behind their actions.

5- Go out of their way to be evil and cruel to others, in opposition to harming them only if it benefits previous plans (like personal gain). If conditions 1 to 4 are met, but not this one, I'd say they qualify for 'Monster', but not quite Complete Monster. That seems to be the case for Jafar.

That last one should be added to the page, IMO; it'd make the definition a lot clearer.

I mostly agree. but they can still do it for personal gain, there's a certain Complete Monster from the Dragon Ball series that proves this.

edited 21st Oct '11 7:31:19 PM by brony99

Of course they can still do it for personal gain; however, if they aren't going out of their way to be evil for no reason as well, they probably aren't Complete Monsters.

Mc Leach... I would say that he fits. Lets leave him on the list, and discuss the next villain.

edited 22nd Oct '11 6:03:09 AM by Rascalos

Evil Virtues and Faux Affably Evil often complicate who and what make a true Complete Monster. The problem is sometimes even the most vile and irredeemable villains can have some sort of charm or pleasantries that make them 'likeable' or entertaining to the audience (which seems to be why Jafar is of so much debate here, heck he's even a humorous guest in House Of Mouse). A general belief is that a true Complete Monster must only garner disgust and horror from the audience. Granted this would mean most examples are likely rather one dimentional.

Another possible neccessity for a Complete Monster is that they are actually to some extent effective and give a genuine sense of danger to the heroes. Even Ineffectual Sympathetic Villains can be completely lacking in motives and redeeming aspects however they do not give a feeling of dread and disgust and often to some extent have entertainment value other than being completely vile.

edited 22nd Oct '11 10:21:02 AM by Psi001

Well, the description DOES state that if they are not taken seriously they fail to qualify. That alone is enough contradiction between Ineffectual Sympathetic Villain and Complete Monster, even if you assume there are no other contradictions.

Anyway, since consensus seems to be in favour of keeping McLeach on the list, I will move on to Medusa for now. As has already been pointed out she is not as evil as McLeach, so the question becomes whether or not she is evil enough to still qualify.

While making a child find diamonds for her is undoubtedly evil, the whole part about not letting her up even when her life is in danger seems not to take into account the possibility; that the movie leaves room for interpreting; that she does not believe Penny about the water coming in. It is still horrible, but I am not sure if it is CM-level horrible. If she has a moral event horizon, I think it would be in holding Snoops and Penny at gunpoint at the same time, but even that seems much milder than the kinds of evil deeds committed by the kinds of characters consensus has agreed to keep.

That, and her antics come across as those of a very generic hammy cartoon supervillain. This arguably calls into question both the second criteria, in that she is played somewhat comically, (not as much as Jafar but easily more so than McLeach) and the third criteria, in that her insanity (directly referenced by various characters) provides somewhat of an excuse. (Not enough on its own, but again, combining this with other reasons for ambiguity...)

EDITED IN: For what it`s worth, here`s a video of Medusa from the same source as the videos used for the last two villains:

---

edited 22nd Oct '11 1:34:48 PM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

No, too goofy to be a CM.