|
Main Complete Monster Discussion
Real Life examples are not and will never be allowed for this trope.
For one thing, no real human being is completely free of all redeeming qualities.
For another, real life example sections exist on probation only - the moment they cause problems like Natter, Edit Wars, or Flame Wars, they go. The Complete Monster real life examples cause all three.
Therefore, we will not have them. Don't ask or nominate anyone.
Re cut request: This trope has been in much better shape thanks to the cleanup, and it has more than 2000 wicks and inbounds. Please do not cut it.
Sinc ethe request went through and broke the page history - Webarchive
Is a single TRS discussion REALLY grounds for a team of moderators systematically going over every single topic on the entire website and getting rid of any connection between Ghetsis and the Complete Monster trope?
Vaas and Hoyt from Far Cry 3 definitely should be on the list.
I don't see why Brian's family from The Breakfast Club doesn't qualify. They abuse, guilt-trip and humiliate him to get perfect grades to boost their already Jupiter-sized superiority complexes and apparently don't give a fuck that he could've, you know, KILLED HIMSELF. Hell, most of the parents, with the possible exception of Claire's, could qualify. Andy's dad pretty implies he's done worse stuff than taping buttocks together a long, long time ago and that he's grooming Andy to be as evil as him.
Why can't a group of villains in general counts as complete monsters, despite doing a lot of bad things?
Are they evil or just heinously selfish? I mean do they do horrible things for some gain or just for the pleasure of seeing others suffer?
Why was "death metal" removed from the music section again, considering when most of the people in those songs did completely FUCKED UP SHIT BEYOND TELLING?
If you're talking about the "Death Metal songs with gore in it in general" example, that's because we don't list "in general" or "everybody in X genre" examples. If you think one particular example or several might count, you can go to this thread to discuss them individually.
to discuss them individually.
what about
1: emperor taychon(or is he a woobie destroyer of worlds??)
2: erwin(from pac man world 3)
3: metal sonic
4: nitros oxide from crash team racing
5: the elementals from crash wrath of cortex
6: the evil twins from crash twinsanity
If you want to discuss some candidates, please go on this thread. Don't forget to read the FAQ on the opening post first.
. Don't forget to read the FAQ on the opening post first.
Lola "Princess" Stone and her father, the torturers from "The Loved Ones" qualify. They show no remorse and lack any semblance of humanity. And they kill that poor dog.
Is labeling a villain a Complete Monster when they're really not and the fact that they have a few redeeming qualities in them considered Ron The Death Eater applied to a villain?
I couldn't find DCAU here, but I checked later and realized it was indexed under a different subpage, and now I can't delete this post....
I'm having an issue with a redirect; whenever I click the Live Action TV subpage, I get redirected to Victim of the Week. Could somebody please fill me in? I'm not sure these tropes are equivalent.
I'm kinda confused here.
Pete Docter said that a true villain is an unrealistic character, and that's why most of the Pixar villains have redeemable qualities.
But isn't the point of a villain to be intimidating and terrifying? The way most of these examples are treated as really, really scary makes me think a Complete Monster is the best kind of villain. For exampe, why do you think people prefer Lord Shen over Tai Lung? Shen didn't have that deep of a personality; I just saw him as an Generic Doomsday Villain Evil Overlord trying to kill everyone. But everyone LOVES him because he's a vile, sadistic, cruel, Nightmare Fuel-inducing, city-destroying, murdering, asshole, more so than Tai Lung.
In fact, I think ALL of the villains I've ever created are Complete Monsters, because I want them to be cool like Lord Shen. (Example: Iron Rose from Cold Blood.)
So, what's the difference between a Jerkass and a Complete Monster? I ask this, because both types are unpleasant and there seems to be a degree of overlap between the two.
I've started noticing an odd trend: That entries in Complete Monster match up rather closely with entries in Rooting For The Empire in a great many cases... for the same characters.
As such the latter page describes in detail why a character is rooted for because they're not actually all that bad, and everything they do is somewhat justified, etc etc... and at the same time, there are paragraphs over this side about how those same characters are irredeemably eeeeevil for all the awfully horrible things they do.
I'm not saying the tropes are 100% mutually exclusive, but the justifications given in Rooting For The Empire tend, where accurate, to disqualify said characters from Complete Monster status... for way too many characters.
Can a Complete Monster be redeemed? Like if they've kicked many Dogs, broken many cuties, and crossed the moral event horizon and then pull a Heel Face Turn?
Johan is widely considered to be the poster-boy for Complete Monster, but does he really qualify? He never had a chance to be any thing else, and Another Monster shows us that Johan took that second chance Tenma gave him to be a better man. Plus, he had Dissociative Identity Disorder and one of those identities honestly wanted to stop, shown when he gives money to a prostitute so she can start over.
There's a thread in Special Efforts to discuss things like that.
to discuss things like that.
Can't fix due to Edit Lock, but do you want to add Monster/The Godfather to an index?
BRING BACK JOHAN! That is all.
(Or at least provide some justification for taking the picture down.)
Added "A Criminal Mind" (the Lawrence Gowan song, not the TV show) to Music, because the narrator practically PERSONIFIES this trope.
Kevin Khatchadourian, from "We Need to Talk About Kevin" is just about as unremittingly evil as any character I can think of. His mother was always the only one who he showed his true colors to until he was in his mid teens, when he (SPOILER ALERT) killed his father, little sister, and quite a few of his fellow students for no reason. It's never clear why he is the way he is, but he fits this trope to a T, never showing that he is capable of any feeling other than hate. By the end of the film he has successfully ruined the main character's life in the most horrific way imaginable. Kevin has no Freudian Excuse, and the closest he comes to any kind of remorse is, after spending 2 years in prison, admitting that even he doesn't know why he did what he did.
Now I know not many people like the movie Delgo, but I do and Sedesa, the big bad, certainly qualifies. First she doesn't fallow orders to strike peace and instead has her armies attack the other village. Her only "Excuse" was saying that there speeches was superior because they can fly. Then she poisons her sister in law the queen and attempts to do the same to the king, but she gets caught and has her wings removed and sent into exile. While there she only gets worse, She gains the trust of the tribes that live out there and then kills the treble leaders to gain control of there armies. Then using help of a fellow general she frames another general for treason and then frames Delgo for kidnapping the princess, when she was the real culprit. She try to cut off the Princess wings and almost dethrones her brother and I can't remember if she killed him. But during the final battle the floor of the castle starts to collapse and she falls through. Perhaps she should have followed orders.
Why must a complete monster be completely devoid of altruistic qualities? Altruism can be horrific provided it is sufficiently twisted. Lets say a Yandere torturing someone to death cause they accidentally bumped into there crush and didn't immediately apologize. This action of course is to preventing that person from preforming another offense and to make them pay for the one they committed. Altruism doesn't say who the loyalty is to, or how it is acted upon.
Also why must it be played with revolution, hate, and or fear at all times? Some people might not realize the person they are dealing with is a complete monster at first.
This is just an Idea for an entry. Mesogog from Power Ranger Dino Thunder should be a qualifier. Despite having the sympathetic Anton Merser, Mesogog is the evil alter ego who is determined to separate from Anton. Now for his atrociousness: He lied to Trent (White Ranger) when he made the trade for the Dino Gems when he said he would give Anton (Who he had separated from) back then he tries to kill them. To power his machine he takes the power from his right hand man Elsa when she points out he needed a power source to give it a boost to start it. He Mind Rapes his henchman when they fall behind or fail. And the fact his master plan is to bring about a new Dino age. If you think about it that would mean many people would louse their lives. Through all of the power ranger series Mesogog is played seriously at times. So being destroyed by all the power in the Dino Gems was vary amusing.
I'm wondering why Syndrome from the Incredibles isn't listed on the CM page? He seems like a pretty good example of one. Let's see.
"The character is truly heinous by the standards of the story, which makes no attempt to present the character in any positive way." Check. He has a Freudian Excuse, but that isn't enough to excuse his crimes.
"The character's terribleness is played seriously at all times, evoking fear, revulsion and/or hatred from the other characters in the story." Check. Syndrome's actions are not Playedfor Laughs and even one of his henchmen is shocked by his villainy.
"They are completely devoid of altruistic qualities. They show no regret for their crimes." Check. The only reason Syndrome wants to be a superhero is satisfy his own ego and he never shows regret for his evil acts.
I've always tought of that: is there some fictional malicious animal examples who could be qualfy as Complete Monster ? You know, like the lions from The Ghost And The Darkness or the Raptors from the original Jurassic Park ?
I noticed Blue from Sucker Punch is listed, and I found a great picture of him. Can I put that in the image links thingy?
So... Doesn't Bad Girl count? I mean, No attempt to portray her actions positivly? Check. Evil character (In this case, Travis) Disgusted by her actions? Check. No regret? Well, here's a quote: "It's just a job, the daily grind." So, yeah, I think she counts.
To keep but clean up the pages, then lock them once done so nobody could add examples without taking it to the forums first.
Here's a link to the clean-up page, please use it if you're planning on doing any editing: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=6vic3f9h1cy5qivsenw8llok&page=14#342
You know, a character doesn't have to be sympathetic or have redeeming moral qualities to be realistic. After all, there are plenty of people in Real Life who are complete assholes.
Edit request: Could someone please add links to the subpages Monster.Doctor Who and Monster.Super Sentai?
Could a character who is a completely irredemable villain whose actions are played seriously and commits atrocities truly horrific by the story's standards BUT is generally loved OOCly because Evil Is Cool be considered a Complete Monster?
Would a character qualify from another character's point of view? In The Fairly Odd Parents, Timmy thinks that Vicky and Mr. Crocker might be Complete Monsters.
I know we've decided not to have real-life examples, but can we have real-life quotes on the quote section?
- Carl Panzram:
- "In my lifetime I have murdered 21 human beings, I have committed thousands of burglaries, robberies, larcenies, arsons and last but not least I have committed sodomy [read: rape] on more than 1,000 male human beings. For all these things I am not in the least bit sorry."
- "I wish all mankind had one neck so I could choke it!"
- Last words: "Hurry up, you Hoosier bastard, I could kill ten men while you're fooling about!"
I don't think anyone is going to read this far down, but this is about rule number one.
Over in the Mass Effect discussion we've had a big arguement and discussion about what constitute off-screen. The problem is that most of our examples happen off-camera. The compromise on the matter came down to how much of the after-effects were shown; if we were simply told this but not given any proof, it counted as off-screen. If we walk through the facility where horrible experiments were preformed, saw recordings of them talking about what they were doing, saw the effects it had on their victims etc. that counted enough for the trope.
Anyway, how much leeway is there on the definition of "off-screen" out of interest?
The Western Animation subpage's discussion link leads to the Western Animation general discussion page instead of the trope-specific discussion page it should lead to. Can anyone fix it, or at least tell us why?
Gonna remove mention of my cleanups on the subpages, since the TRS thread is gone anyway. Real Life this year's been a rollercoaster, hence my relatively sporadic troping and inability to do a full cleanup as I intended; sorry. Any mentions on locked subpages, should any be left, should be removed by those with the clearance to do so.
BTW, I still intend to do some cleanups when I can.
I added the following to the Disney discussion page, but I should probably add it here too:
—-
Do Jafar and Maleficent really belong on the list? Even if they are lacking in redeeming qualities, their villainy seems to be taken a little more lightly than that of other examples. I think applying the Complete Monster label to Jafar and Maleficent diminishes the value of applying it to Frollo and Lotso.
I think Jaffar from Fire Emblem Elibe counts. He was born an Empty Shell, who crossed the Moral Event Horizon becoming an Enfant Terrible, and that was before the Big Bad found him and turned him into a Tykebomb, the story begins well after that. Pretty much every character either fears or hates him if not both, from their first interactions with him. While he does have a Heel Face Turn, the circumstances around it involve Love Redeems where the object of his affections is A FOURTEEN YEAR OLD GIRL which pushes him even further pasted the Moral Event Horizon given that his A support with her makes such an excellent case for why statutory rape is a crime. Hell even after his Heel Face Turn, he still does not regret his past crimes and he get one character giving him death threats and another actually making attempts on his life, with only the need for his skill and the fear of He Who Fights Monsters holding them back.
Would Miles Axlerod from Cars 2 count? Let's have a look at the criteria:
- Axlerod is a Non Action Big Bad, however every action the other villains do are under his direct order, including murder and sabotage.
- Axlerod is rarely played for humor, his villainous side being humor-devoid completely.
- His motivation: money. That is all.
- Axlerod shows absolutely no empathy for any of his actions.
- The story makes no attempt to redeem Axlerod at all.
- Being the Dragon In Chief to Axlerod's Non Action Big Bad, he is shown cold-bloodedly committing, or at least attempting to commit murder multiple times on-screen.
- Zundapp is sometimes used for humor, but this doesn't undermine his evilness.
- Unlike Axlerod, Zundapp's motive is revenge for being considered a lemon.
- Zundapp shows zero remorse for his actions.
- No attempt is made to redeem Zundapp.
Lottie is a 15 year old serial killer who terrorised her town because "all God's children got to die". When she got captured, her only remorse was that she have no possibility to hurt anyone anymore.
And "Terrible", well, I'll just leave an entire song here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKwW_TREA6E
about the first rule for this trope, does a character have to succeed in horrible actions? Steele from Balto deserves to be called a Complete Monster yet he only ever tried to kill anyone.
Could this page be put as a subpage of Live Action TV Complete Monster somewhere?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Monster/DoctorWho
This is a question that's just bugging me - A complete monster shows no regret over heinous acts.
Regretting a heinous act in the sense that they regret that it wasn't more heinous (or rather that they could have easily made it more heinous - for example, accidentally destroying an entire city and almost all its people, and they regret that it wasn't on purpose) would still qualify for that, right?
Okay, if Coach Keller wasn't this, he was definitely one of, if not the biggest recurring Jerkass on the show (he might be Played For Laughs, Dan just did a terrible job with him). That said, here are two characters from Drake And Josh that I feel should be brought up:
The criminals from The Movie. Replacing Josh's G.O., unfairly making money, and (kidnapping and) trying to drown Drake and Josh?! Plus they were two of the most wanted guys in the US (I haven't seen that movie in some time, though, but that's what I recall).
Dr. Favisham from "My Dinner with Bobo". He tried to cook and eat a monkey, locked Drake and Josh in a closet, and even escaped arrest (though that's typical in Schneider-verse).
Officer Gilbert from the Christmas movie fails, though, because he has a Freudian Excuse and also fails the last criteria. Would either of the two I mentioned fit, though?
According to the Playing With page, a Subverted Complete Monster is a character purposely doing heinous and terrible acts to achieve a Zero Percent Approval Gambit...
From the page itself : "Emperor Evulz is pulling off a Zero Percent Approval Gambit: he makes it seem like he's an irredeemable monster, so heroes and villains alike will unite, leading to a better world."
I know an example that does this.
Could it still be added to this page?
I'd like to add it to Anime and Manga, the character is from the series Code Geass. It's Lelouch towards the end of the series.
If a villain shows the typical Complete Monster traits yet they have an adequate Freudian Excuse, where do they fit in?For example,say Emperor Evulz is a monstrous psychopath who slaughters innocents For The Evulz because the group that raised him horrifically tortured him-to the point you'd expect someone to become as monstrous as Emperor Evulz.If all other specifications for this trope are fit,except for an inadequate Freudian Excuse,what trope do they belong to?
I can understand the YMMV stance, but sometimes there are clear cut examples (the dresden files is chock full of them, including the guys who caused the rwanda and cambodia genocides for shits and giggles)
This might be a bit much, but does anyone think Coach Keller from Zoey 101 should be added? He forced his students to run lots of laps even when he knew they were exhausted (requirement 4), and if they came back from disc golf, he threatened to make them run the same amount of laps they would have run had they not changed electives. He also made Chase and Michael do things like take a beating from a child (I think), and he forced Zoey to join the wrestling team for the sole purpose of putting her in the tournament, making boys forfeit against her and then take her out so another guy would get in the final match without being tired out. (She did get to play in that match, but still.) Not surprisingly, Zoey was appalled by this (requirement 2). He doesn't have any excuse for this that I know of (requirement 3). Am I missing a time when he was good? "But it's Dan Schneider world, everything is Played For Laughs!" Not everything. Some things that happen in his shows are utterly shocking (iSell Penny Tees, anyone?). While some of you might see him as Comedic Sociopathy, I don't. What do you guys think?
Someone with the power to edit locked pages needs to add all the anime and manga pages to the index (or remove the subpages from the other ones). Just to keep it consistent.
Why do some people think being a Jerkass automatically means you're a Complete Monster? Is it really fair to put Jerkasses who Kick The Dog on the same page as villains who Mind Rape children, attempt to enact genocide, or basically do anything that goes beyond what a schoolyard bully couldn't even be capable of thinking?
Also, some people need to learn the difference between sociopathy being played for drama, and sociopathy being played for laughs.
So if a writer successfully manages to pull off a character who is a Complete Monster and a Magnificent Bastard, would they essentially have created the ultimate villain?
I was going to suggest Shan-Yu from Disney's "Mulan," but I was stumped over the "adequate justification" thing. He's a total beast, to be sure, and he was apparently up to his villains' antics before the events of the movie (note how everyone knows who he is and is appropriately concerned when his name is mentioned!) He said he was invading China because the building of the wall "challenged his strength."
Me, I don't think that's really justification, but rather just a flimsy excuse for him to invade and pillage what he finds inside the wall.
Other than that, he's irredeemably evil: look what he did to the village, even smiling when he said they should "return" a stolen doll to its owner; the classic "How many men does it take to deliver a message?" line (one!); and the rest of his shenanigans.
What say you, tropers?
I'm surprised no one has put Peter Griffin and Louis Griffin on the complete monster list.They have done too many atrocities to be excused as heroes or even anti-heroes.Man,even Homer isn't this bad and Marge is still a pillar of morals.
I've noticed that you have removed this trope from works pages. If that is the case, you should do away with this trope altogether. If it can't be featured on a works page or character page attached to it, its existence is pointless.
Does anyone know why Complete Monster now has a YMMV page, or what the examples in it are on about?
I still hate the fact that no-one in Real Life is considered a Complete Monster,despite exhibiting the qualifications.Doesn't Pol Pot count for the miserable existence he caused his people?Doesn't Stalin count for the murder of tens of millions simply because they were an interference,not to mention his Lack Of Empathy in the later days.Doesn't Caligula count for being utterly depraved?I swear,there are some people in history that have done things that other monsters in fiction have done,and with similar lack of a viable Freudian Excuse
Any work wherein the villain is one of these is obviously the work of a complete hack. I am not being sarcastic. This is genuinely what I believe.
[Deleted. The infobox line about subpages was brought to my attention. Still, the little scale icon showing up in the middles of sentences, even on potholes, is incredibly annoying.]
It seems to me that some of the requirements apply to the vast majority of fictional villains, or at least ones I've read about or watched, so I'm not sure how it's not true that almost EVERY villain is a Complete Monster with villains who aren't this trope being rare.
'The character must personally engage in a series of truly horrendous acts, and the story makes no attempt to gloss these over or present them in a positive light. Acts concealed behind a Villainy Discretion Shot or by a distant Mook don't count. The Complete Monster usually starts at the Moral Event Horizon and keeps on running, though nothing excludes them becoming one through Character Development.'
What qualifies as "truly horrendous"? If murder is truly horrendous regardless of weather or not it's an especially painful murder, then almost every villain fits this since almost every villain wants to murder the good guys and that's the primary thing that makes them a villain.
'The character's terribleness must be played seriously at all times, evoking fear, revulsion and/or hatred from the other characters in the story. If there are other villains around who aren't this trope, they are afraid of/dislike this person, too — Even Evil Has Standards, after all (and in particularly disturbing stories with particularly evil villains, even lesser Complete Monsters may fear such a character). If they're Played For Laughs, the character is just Evilly Affable, at best, but can still be one if done right. If the character is not taken seriously at all, they fail to qualify.
(emphasis mine) "If they're Played For Laughs, the character is just Evilly Affable, at best, but can still be one if done right" seems to contradict "The character's terribleness must be played seriously at all times", and the "If they're Played For Laughs, the character is just Evilly Affable" contradicts "but can still be one if done right". And it's not clear what "at best" means. Also, this seems like another one that just about any non-comedic villain could fit. If you're one of the good guys and the villain is trying to kill you, then of course you're going to be afraid of them. Anyone would be afraid of someone who wanted to kill them.
'There is no adequate justification or Freudian Excuse to balance out the misdeeds.'
There are stories about characters who tragically become evil like Doctor Horribles Sing A Long Blog and perhaps Othelo, but in most stories, we don't learn the villain's excuse other then wanting money or power.
'The character must show no regret or remorse for their actions, however terrible. It's better if they obviously enjoy it, but complete lack of emotion or caring will suffice.'
Yet another one that's true of most villains.
'Most importantly, the character must have no chance of redemption without being considered a Karma Houdini. The only way the story could come to anything resembling a happy ending is if they die or are otherwise removed. A Heel Face Turn is out of the question, and nobody would believe it if it happened. There can be no Redemption Equals Death for this character, and no Fate Worse Than Death is too extreme.'
The "no chance of redemption" part is also true of most villains, though not so much the "no fate worse than death is too extreme" part.
OK, someone needs to do it, so I may as well bite the bullet. I'm planning on a large-scale cleanup of the trope's subpages during this coming week. Natter and other extraneous text will be excised, examples with insufficient explanations will be expanded, and those not quite fitting will be pruned. I love this trope, but it's become utterly bloated like one of those 100-pound babies you see on Maury Povich and Jerry Springer.
Anyone willing to discuss this is welcome; I'll post this in the forums.
Also, it says in the Disney section that Shan Yu has the biggest body count of any Disney villain. Are they sure about this? I thought that title would belong to Frollo, who threatened to burn down all of Paris, and made considerable progress towards that goal before he was stopped. Sure, Shan Yu burned down whole communities, but they seemed to be rural ones without as high a population density as the city Frollo burned down a significant chunk of.
Subjective? What's so subjective about this trope? Complete Monsters are horrifically cruel villains with absolutely no regret with what they did. This is about as subjective as the Magnificent Bastard trope.
I was thinking of removing Cruella, Grimhilde, and maybe Maleficent from the Disney section... though I'm not very familiar with Maleficent... I actually added her beforehand even though I haven't watched the entirety of the movie she's from. Cruella's mostly cruel to nonhumans, Grimhilde to one or two humans, and Maleficent to her minions and a few humans. The list has since grown so much that I feel compelled to remove all but the most clear-cut cases of Complete Monster status.
I was also thinking of adding Zira (see the Complete Monster, Freudian Excuse, and Alternate Character Interpretation sections of the Lion King 2 trope list) but I'm not sure if she qualifies. Would she?
Why exactly are "Real Life" examples of Complete Monsters not allowed?
A) The possibility that someone who admires truly dangerous people will troll this site?
B) The fact that most of them were political figures?
Mr. Burns? Seriously? Yes, he's evil and he blotted out the sun among other acts, but that's still a far cry from this trope. To say he doesn't elicit sympathy sounds...wrong to be honest. Also, crossing a Moral Event Horizon in and of itself does not mean they've become a Complete Monster.
How in God's name can this trope stay afloat when there are always fifty people ready to jump to any given character's defense as to why he's not a complete monster and argue any attempt to label him as such into the ground?
The whole Family Guy argument about whether or not Quagmire and Peter qualify as monsters or not gets on my nerves. I haven't watched the show all that much, really, and I can't determine whether or not they qualify, but let me ask, should they be in the section? The argument needs to end.
To argue about it more clearly, let's put up the qualifications.
- The character must personally engage in a series of truly horrendous acts, and the story makes no attempt to gloss these over or present them in a positive light. Acts concealed behind a Villainy Discretion Shot or by a distant Mook don't count. The Complete Monster usually starts at the Moral Event Horizon and keeps on running, though nothing excludes him becoming one through Character Development.
- The character must evoke fear, revulsion and/or hatred from the other characters in the story. If there are other villains around, they are afraid of/dislike this person, too — Even Evil Has Standards, after all. If the other characters in the story treat the character as a joke or don't take them seriously, they fail to qualify.
- No justification or Freudian Excuse is present, or adequate to explain away the deeds if one exists.
- The character must show no regret or remorse for their actions, however terrible. It's better if they obviously enjoy it, but complete lack of emotion or caring will suffice.
- Most importantly, the character must have no chance of redemption without being considered a Karma Houdini. The only way the story could come to anything resembling a happy ending is if they die or are otherwise removed. A Heel Face Turn is out of the question, and nobody would believe it if it happened. There can be no Redemption Equals Death for this character, and no Fate Worse Than Death is too extreme.
So is a "Complete Monster" defined by the extent of evil and/or the lack of moral justification for their actions, or does it also imply that they aren't supposed to be funny or cool while doing so? I recall a previous definition of "Complete Monster" on this site implying the latter, (though it seems to have been changed since) but what about the Joker from Dark Knight? I haven't watched the movie, but that villain is considered funny and cool while also being considered extremely evil, and from the Joker scenes I've seen I agree.
But if the "Complete Monster" category depends on said villain not being cool or funny, then wouldn't that suggest that "extremely evil" villains who are also cool and funny (like the Joker) should be put into a separate category of villain?
Created a single proposition crowner about possibly splitting Complete Monster into two seperate tropes here
.
Please let me know what you think.
.
Please let me know what you think.
I've completed the process of spinning off all examples into their own pages. Not really sure why someone only did it halfway.
Most of the Complete Monster example here are fairly ugly or old. So I'd say mentioning unattractiveness is a common trait with fictional Complete Monsters.
The writeup is waaay too long. No wonder people aren't reading the article and we end up with examples that in no way apply. I'm thinking of pruning the corollaries to the basics - no attempt at atonement, no adequate Freudian Excuse, no well intentioned extremism. Most of the rest seem to be frequently subverted and really do nothing to prove the rule.
Also, there is absolutely no reason for the corollaries to be so elaborate. If you need a paragraph to explain the clause, it means that the initial statement needs to be reworded into something more accessible and concise.
Deleted the page image. Just A Face And A Caption, makes no sense to anyone not familiar with the series in question.
Will whoever keeps deleting the Whatley examples cut it out?! Or at least give a reason why they don't count?! They seem pretty heinous, given the descriptions.
What a minute, A Complete Monster cant be a Draco In Leather Pants? This Trope has seen more than one characters be a rare example of both.
Okay, who deleted Sasuke from under the Naruto examples? I'd like a good explanation for this one, because it seems to me that he's a pretty good way over the horizon. Pwning Danzo would normally count as Kick The Son Of A Bitch, but doing it by stabbing THROUGH one of your new Nakama with the same dispassionnate nonchalance you show when slaughtering Mooks, you're not a very nice person anymore. Now we need to get him a new wardrobe, preferably without as many leather pants.
Removed Ulic Qel Droma from comics. The mere fact that he found genuine redemption instead of being a Karma Houdini disqualifies him for this trope.
No Just No. I, someone who actually read Order of the Stick, can actually vouch against Xykon's inclusion here. I mean, come on! True, some of his actions are not really portrayed as being funny, but those are a few exceptions. Xykon is the poster boy for Evilly Affable and most of his atrocities are not just portrayed as being funny, but they are funny. Seriously, for example, do you gasp when he sacrifices his minions?
. Do you really cry for the death of the celestial? And if you still don't believe that Xykon doesn't deserve to be here, well... would a Complete Monster have a substantial fanbase? Well, would they? A Complete Monster is not just someone that is "really, really evil" but someone who is irredeemable in ways that are not, I repeat not entertaining to the audience. The mere fact that Xykon would have his own section on the Order of the Stick Crowning Moment of Awesome page eliminates him from being a Complete Monster
. Do you really cry for the death of the celestial? And if you still don't believe that Xykon doesn't deserve to be here, well... would a Complete Monster have a substantial fanbase? Well, would they? A Complete Monster is not just someone that is "really, really evil" but someone who is irredeemable in ways that are not, I repeat not entertaining to the audience. The mere fact that Xykon would have his own section on the Order of the Stick Crowning Moment of Awesome page eliminates him from being a Complete Monster
OK, I talked about this before (and so have others), but I really don't think the Maleficent and Gaston entries (under Western Animation) should be there. While both are very clearly Bad People(tm), I don't believe they fit the standard, as none really go above and beyond in their evil.
For starters, Maleficent is an early modern take on The Fair Folk, and while in the thirties and early forties she might have seemed monstrous, by current standards she's pretty much run-of-the-mill Classic Villain material. Sure, you cheer her death, but at the end, virtually all of her evil deeds are undone, nobody's left traumatized (or even dead, if I remember), and her idea of Mind Rape isn't particularly scary for anyone over 12. I haven't heard anyone ever mention how loathsome she was; most consider her pretty awesome.
As for Gaston, I'll admit he's a walking talking Kick The Dog moment, but it makes him look more like a cartoonish Jerk Jock than this trope. He's even Evilly Affable enough to have undergone a minor Memetic Mutation once upon a time; most people think of him as an amusing (if villainous) buffoon for his acts. Complete Monsters aren't that entertaining (except The Joker, but he's a special case).
So, both are far too entertaining for this trope, and their bastardry doesn't translate into a desire to go through the screen and throttle them like other examples. If these two stay, we might as well add Cinderella's stepmother (who was a lot more personal about her villainy), Ursula (who sought to inflict A Fate Worse Than Death rather than just death to the heroine and her father), Clayton (who's much more sinister and duplicitous), and Jaffar (who probably pushes villainy as far as it can go without crossing the Moral Event Horizon). And all of those still aren't as repulsively, nightmarishly evil as Frollo or the evil queen from Snow white.
Maleficent is Nightmare Fuel because she goes One Winged Angel. Frollo is Nightmare Fuel because he's a murderous, sexually obsessed bigot who plans a small-scale genocide while using his position and his faith as justifications for his atrocities. Methinks the difference is pretty big.
I see that the Big Bossman has been added under Professional Wrestling, but whatever happened to Jake "The Snake" Roberts entry?