Complete Monster criteria and Disney villains

I too feel Gothel is not a complete monster. But the fact we see villainy play quite a bit more realistically/or I should say for reason beyond evulz makes her more then just the designated villain.

Wait, Gaston is on the list? Get that moron out of there! He's just a narrow-minded jerk.

Don't take life too seriously. It's only a temporary situation.

Haven't seen Tangled, so I can't say anything about Mother Gothel, but I know that Gaston isn't a CM.

Just thought I'd add this about love and C Ms; a CM can have a creepy obsession with another character, and this obsession can even appear to be infatuation, but it's the nature of the attraction that you would need to look at to determine if it disqualifies them or not. Someone whose obsession is entirely selfish, poisonous, and destructive would still count as a CM, but if a character's obsessive infatuation leads them to actually care about the other person's well being, then it would mean that they weren't a CM.

edited 6th Nov '11 2:58:11 PM by tropetown

Some might call Frollo an Anti-Hero. Is it possible for an anti-hero to be a complete monster?

Magic people, voodoo people!

I don't think so.

Who on EARTH said that Frollo was an Anti-Hero? That's ridiculous!

edited 6th Nov '11 4:39:38 PM by gingerninja666

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

Agreed. Anti-Hero kind of requires one to be portrayed as the protagonist.

Edit: Or at least as allied with the protagonist. Given that Frollo is the antagonist, that pretty much rules out Anti-Hero unless you can make a plausible case for Quasimodo as a Villain Protagonist.

edited 6th Nov '11 4:45:21 PM by CountDorku

You are dazzled by my array of very legal documents.

Given his position, Frollo would have to be an Anti-Villain, and GOD KNOWS he isn't one of those Not by a long shot

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

I have not watched Tangled, and am hesitant to make a request based primarily on the hearsay of others. Besides, you could always make such a request yourself.

Besides, if like you said this thing is beyond repair, perhaps we should stop wasting effort trying to clean it up and just discuss splitting it already.

edited 6th Nov '11 7:37:27 PM by HiddenFacedMatt

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

Yes, if he were in Real Life, Frollo's acts would be subject to Values Dissonance. However, Disney films are not Real Life. The Disney film universe doesn't have Values Dissonance, it just has good and evil.

I agree, Gothel is not nearly CM-level. Her actions don't really seem any worse than the average Disney villain.

Did we reach an agreement on Scar?

edited 8th Nov '11 4:57:26 AM by ading

I'm a Troper!!!

Anybody CAN ask the mod to add/remove, but it's probably better if we can reach a consensus first. That way, we can say "Look here, we've agreed this fellow is/isn't a Complete Monster."

As for Scar, I think somebody mentioned a crowner. Heck, I think it was Fighteer. Actually, a crowner might be a good idea for the more divisive ones.

edited 7th Nov '11 11:11:06 AM by TriggerLoaded

Don't take life too seriously. It's only a temporary situation.

Guys, do you think that the Witch from Silly Symphony cartoon Babes in the Woods counts??

I'd like to quickly write a bit more about my views of Frollo. I still feel he isn't a CM. Post-Hellfire Frollo would fit in my view because he starts doing some heinous acts (being willing to burn down a house with an innocent family inside, and it goes downhill from there), but the fact is that we've seen him in guilt and being afraid beforehand. In my opinion those emotions humanize him enough in earlier parts of the film (pre-Hellfire), which softens his character a bit.

Let me elaborate a bit on that.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, the whole scene with the Archdeacon in the beginning and Frollo's fear of ending up in Hell if he kills Quasi shows that he isn't quite the monster he could be. I would imagine that a CM simply would either laugh at the Archdeacon's warning and say "Bring it on!" to God (that is, not care one bit whether judgement awaits him or not), or something along those lines while still throwing Quasi down the well for the kicks. The opening song itself states that Frollo saw corruption everywhere BUT within, and I believe the Archdeacon's words hit a nerve, making him see perhaps an inkling of a truth that he may not have acted with the best intentions. Sure, Frollo later justifies his indeciveness by claiming that he spared Quasi because he thought he could use him in the future (which does happen with Quasi unknowingly leading Frollo to the gypsy hideout), but to me that seems more of an excuse of Frollo to avoid confronting the idea that he himself is corrupt, too. It's like a psychological self defense mechanism.

This inkling of self-doubt continues when Frollo confronts Esmeralda in the cathedral. He could've taken her then and there, but the Archdeacon's words about "sanctuary" within Notre Dame still sway him to let Esmeralda be... at least until she leaves the church. I would imagine a CM simply not caring about something like that and simply grabbing her then and there? Why wouldn't he have if he was truly evil enough... it's not like a CM would have cared about an Archdeacon's wrath, and he certainly had enough soldiers around to take Esmeralda by force even if the priests had protested. Sure, he once again turns his moment of hesitation upside down in a following scene by predicting (correctly) that Esmeralda will leave the cathedral eventually so he can wait and not dirty his hands at the moment, but once again it seems to me that he's trying to (perhaps subconsciously) hide the fact that he still fears for his soul and can't quite slide down that slippery slope just yet to defile the church's ancient law of providing sanctuary for those who need it.

This struggle with doubt culminates in the Hellfire sequence where Frollo is obviously torn by his supposed piety versus lust for Esmeralda. I like to interpret the ghostly choir as the last remnants of whatever's still "good" in him: the apparitions sing "mea culpa" which means "through my fault", and it's a basic recital of a Catholic prayer, an admission of guilt and wrongdoing. So even when Frollo sings in English that it's not his fault, the choir (the subconscious etc.) singing "mea culpa" conflicts with his solo lyrics, which in turn reveals a dark truth beneath the surface: Frollo KNOWS on some level that what he's doing is wrong, and that epiphany finally drives him over the edge. After the Hellfire sequence Frollo will stop at nothing to get what he wants: he is willing to kill innocents, burn down Paris, even defile Notre Dame (which he was hesitant to do before).

This gradual transformation as outlined above makes Frollo a somewhat tragic villain in my mind: he was definitely evil in the beginning, but it's downright heartbreaking for me to see him finally turn into a monster in the end when he's consumed by his hatred and lust.

Another point against Frollo's CM status is that his minions throughout the whole movie don't fear him as far as I can see: they see him as a figure to be obeyed, and don't show disgust at any point (the exception being Phoebus, of course). He seems like a perfectly respectable authority figure on the outside to the majority of Parisians. Wouldn't every person in Paris, his minions included, tremble in fear in his presence if he was vile, a CM?

In any case Frollo is definitely a complex antagonist, one of Disney's finest IMHO, but the reasons I stated earlier make me not see him as deserving the title of a CM even though he's certainly a villain.

I'll try to write more about the other villains you've been discussing later, but I just wanted to first give my two cents about the topic concerning Frollo.

edited 12th Nov '11 5:25:52 PM by Kossage

Fear of being judged on your actions, I could understand as being a reason to disqualify someone, but fear of being punished for your actions I don't think is the same thing.

Anyway, I noticed on the discussion page that Shan-Yu was kept despite his minions not fearing him because his minions don't really have any characterization. But Gorog was kept off just because his minions don't hate him even though his minions don't have any characterization either (in fact we don't even know if they hate or fear him or not.) Do characters who have no characterization also have to fear a CM, or only characters that are actually characterized?

I'm a Troper!!!

If the characters are characterized then I don't think it counts as they are just generic/stock number henceman and we can only theorize how they felt.

More that we don't know whether his minions fear him or not. We have some indication that his highest-ranking minions don't fear him, but then again I don't see why Complete Monsters can't work in collaboration with other Complete Monsters. Shan-Yu's whole army, regardless of what they think of Shan-Yu himself, is clearly portrayed as quite monstrous.

Anyway, let's try to get this discussion back on track. Should we make a crowner about Scar?

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

I don't think so. Scar seems to be one of the more obvius example. he is nobody compared to the coachman or lotso but still.

We've been over with Frollo already.

In case of Gorog, I think he counts, but let's talk about villains that DO NOT count. Let's speak about The Queen from Snow White or Scroop from Treasure Island. Scroop counts certainly but the Queen seems to be a complicated example.

edited 14th Nov '11 1:22:53 PM by MONEYMONEY

At the very least we may as well run a crowner for Scar; you may find him obvious, but many disagree, and a crowner might help resolve this better.

Once we have Scar resolved, there will only be 3 more villains left to resolve in the Disney animated canon part of the Disney CM list.

edited 14th Nov '11 6:26:25 PM by HiddenFacedMatt

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

Scar was one of the few Disney villains who not only talked (or sung) about getting back at the Big Good, but actually succeeded in doing so. I guess that makes him Complete Monste, though I may be wrong.

3 more villains?? 2 more actually. Shan-yu was not characterized as anything else. Together with Frollo, and the Coachman, the page was made particularly for him.

Wait, a minute! What is crowner??

edited 15th Nov '11 12:14:32 AM by MONEYMONEY

The thing with Shan Yu is a true Complete Monster should be more about commiting evil for the sake of evil. Shan Yu was basically just yet another conqueror who only did things for power. He lacks the extra psychological dimension painting him as a fiend who would go out of his way just to be evil.

It definitely proves more skill (and/or luck) in his favour than of other Disney villains, and perhaps better confirms his willingness to follow through on his stated goals. However, that still does not necessarily make him a CM. Apart from him providing much of the comic relief in the movie, there is also the question of whether his deeds are necessarily CM-level. As others have pointed out, the starvation in the pridelands was due to incompetence, not any specifically implied malice, leaving us with severe incompetence, a few attempted murders, and guilt-tripping the grieving son of someone he killed. It's horrid, but not necessarily CM-level horrid.

Oh, and a crowner is a mechanism of polling users who are viewing the thread on a subject. You must be new here.

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

That's not true. The Coachman was kidnapping these boys also for money, not for the sake of evil. Have you read the book? He was selling them to salt mines to get some money. Besides, you seem to misinterpret the trope. For example, you think that a Complete Monster can be a Karma Houdini, while that's the thing. They CANNOT! They deserve punishment. The Coachman is very rare case of a villain who is a Karma Houdini, but still manages to be a Complete Monster.

Yes, I am new here. I think that crowner is a very good idea.

edited 15th Nov '11 9:46:42 AM by MONEYMONEY

I never got that. If a character is a Karma Houdini, then they're a Karma Houdini, doesn't stop em from being a CM. A CM may deserve extreme punishment, but depending on how cynical the film is that punishment may or may not come to pass.

If Karma Houdinis are usually exempt from CM status, then most slasher movie villains should be granted immunity as well. and as a general Rule, I don't think they are.

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

The old criteria wasn't that they can't be a Karma Houdini, it was that they couldn't avoid punishment without being one, which was a fancy, tropey way of saying they were completely irredeemable.

Don't take life too seriously. It's only a temporary situation.

This. And it could be made more concise by simply calling it an irredeemable and inexcusable extreme of evil. (Remorselessness seems to follow from that anyway, and attitudes other characters have to them may contradict things like Villain with Good Publicity.)

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

but from there the trope becomes too vague to even be usable. By differing standards, EVERY evil act can be considered irredeemably bad. There has to be more to it than that

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