Discussion Monster / Disney

They are both Complete Monsters if you ask me, but Scar is more so than Zira.

Why in the name of all that is good is Turbo banned from this page?!? The arguments against him being one are he's not heinous enough and he was programmed to want attention, but the later doesn't hold much water. Gene and Taffyta are jerks but that's not part of their game personas. And even if that was a valid argument, Trying to force Ralph to watch Vanellope getting killed by the Cy Bugs wasn't done for attention, that was pure sadism. As for not being evil enough, that's subjective. In my opinion, Hopper from A Bugs Life qualifies as well. I don't hate him as much as Turbo, but i definitely think he's worse than Lotso. His promise not to kill his brother just makes him more dangerous, seeing how he attacks one of his gang when Molt annoys him.

Because he isn't heinous enough. There is a thread in the forums that decided what is a Complete Monster that overwhelmingly said no a year or so ago.

Okay let's run him through the five;

• Depraved acts?; He was responsible for two games getting unpluged. in the context of the film that means he caused the destruction of two worlds. that might have been unintentional, but everything he does in Sugar Rush most certainly is delibrate, Making a child's life a misery for years, trying to brutally murder her and trying to force her friend to watch her get killed? He definitely ticks of this one.
• No Freudian Excuse?; He was supposedly programmed to want attention, but trying to force Ralph to watch Vanellope get killed by th Cy bugs wasn't attention seeking, that was just sadism, plain and simple.
• No remorse?; None whatsoever.
• There was one other that I can't remember, which leads us to..
• No chance of redemption?; Could you really see him being redeemed under any circumstances? Check and double check.

The thread did not agree with you on the first point. Hence why he's off.

I just remembered the other criteriea, other characters have to hate and/or fear them, and King Candy ticks off this one too, Sour Bill's reluctantance to tell Ralph the truth about Vanellope was probably out of fear of what his boss would do to him if he found out, plus most of the older characters in the film dread the possiblity of others going turbo, and Calhoun's appalled when she hears about the above. To Me, Turbo will always be a Complete Monster no matter what this page says. I also want to discuss Hopper from A Bugs Life. I don't hate him as much as Turbo, but I agree completely with Alvy Foster about him being worse than Lotso. The argument against him is he keeps a deathbed promise to his mother not to kill his brother, but remember how when Molt keeps on annoying him he brutally attacks one of his gang? This implies that when Molt really stirs him up he attacks, and possibly kills anyone that's nearby, in other words what would normally be a redeeming feature just makes him more dangerous.

You know that arguing here won't change anything or persuade anyone? The examples are discussed in the forum thread, that thread did very definitively decline to add Turbo, so unless you can convince them otherwise nothing will change.

So how do I go about convincing them to add Hopper and Turbo?

I totally agree with you about Turbo, in my opinion he's worse than Lotso.

Way to agree with yourself.

I don’t think Turbo would qualify as a CM because he is not heinous enough. He just want to take over games and does standard villainy like try to kill Vanellope. It is also implied that the Cy-Bug was controlling him at the end causing him to want to destroy the arcade.

Take to the Monster cleanup forum https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=6vic3f9h1cy5qivsenw8llok

How is he not, he lacks any redeeming traits and was going to condemn all New Orleans to having their souls consumed.

and he killed ray

Facilier has redemming qualities. He wasn't going to betray Lawrence to keep all the money and didn't force him into villainy. He also symapthized with both him and Tiana about being poor which he was as well. He also was not going to sacrifice all of New Orlenas he said, "All the WAYWARD souls.", which means people willing to give their souls up. There is nothing that proves he knew Ray was sapient. Just that Ray was attacking the shadows.

All those redeeming traits were an act to manipulate others or deemed insufficient to offset his evil traits.

Assuming otherwise is Alternate Character Interpretation which is insufficient to discount one.

I'm not trying to whitewash him but he never did attempt to sacrifice the souls plus he stated the WAYWARD souls and never commited murder and his friends are worse than him.

Let it go.

Why? I'm not trying to whitewash him it's a genuine concern. If he attempted to give up all the souls I'd been fine but the ONLY problem I have is he never made a legitamte attempt to do so. Even people on the villains wiki or discussing to remove him. He just does one moral event horizon and complete monsters need to cross it twice.

He was planning to sacrifice the souls to save his own hide once he assassinated Bid Daddy.

Be patient, it will take some time before the weekly CM batches are added

why isn't the nome king a Complete Monster?

Agreed, apparently the difference is that the heinousness standard of the comic book is lower, even though the character does the exact same stuff. I think it should clarify that, but I couldn't get any traction in the thread.

And now movie!Syndrome has been added. Funny ol' world, ain't it?

EDIT: Nevermind, it's been added. Always be patient when new write-ups are being added.

Yeah, that's... odd. Because the other than "portrayed as an even more despicable villain than in the film" literally everything else in his writeup applies to the movie version.

Why is he a qualifier if the movie isn't?

Exactly. You know, I'd to request an edit on the Syndrome entry.

I’m not so sure about that, because the whole point of the phrase "going Turbo", is game characters defying their programming to cause damage, which is what Turbo did when he abandoned his own game to try and take over the new rivaling game, leading to both games being unplugged. Furthermore, I don’t think programming had anything to do with Turbo's craving of attention.

Toffee was brought up in the Clean-Up thread and determined to not count. His effort post was deleted, but the start of the discussion of his crimes can be found here.

I don't think I've ever seen that movie, but he's an animal version of Bill Sykes from Oliver Twist, right? Bill Sykes in the novel is pretty unrelenting vicious, and the closest thing he has to a sympathetic moment is his terror leading up to his death.

Not sure to what extent this carries over in the cartoon film, but he'd probably be a decent candidate if he's anything like his predecessor in the novel.

Actually, he is a human character. A 10-minute video of his actions is available in the western animation Disney CM thread. (Alternatively you could google search Disney Sykes.)

Well, I feel embarassed now. I watched through the video, and he seems like a pretty different character than the novel one (the animated Fagin looks like how I'd picture Sykes in the novel). Still, he does seem pretty nasty, sinister, and cruel and at least in those scenes, doesn't really have any played for laughs element. So, at the very least, he seems like a more likely example than some of the others that have graced the page.

Please put Sykes back on the page. He deserves A mention. T Here's nothing child friendly about him. Let's review:

• Oliver And Company: Sykes is a disturbingly realistic villain for a Disney film. A loan shark who demonstrates his nastiness by rolling up his car window on the neck of a man who's late in his payments, Sykes has no hesitation releasing his savage attack dogs on the man's own pets. He later receives a phone call from a fellow mobster in the process of killing someone and gives the man advice on how to do it over the phone. Sykes later kidnaps a little girl to extort money from her parents and indicates he'll feed her to his dogs. When Oliver and team free her, Sykes unleashes his dogs after them and rides after them himself, fully intending to kill everyone.

You can ask here. Make sure to read the post at the top and the linked list before, though.

Here's the thread If you want to remove him, talk about it here.

Okay, though it will have to wait a day, as the post button can't get up until 24 hours have passed.

Well since EJO 2 is just a sockpuppet of EJO 1, whose last contributions to the thread weren't very constructive, and since he has been bounced because he's ban-evading, I'd say this proposal is dead in the water.

We already covered what EJO 1 suggested and ruled that it didn't disqualify him.

Insufficiently heinous and a sympathetic backstory. Basically villains trying to kill heroes is not a qualifier as that is just what half of all villains do. And when he gets power he doesn't really abuse it maliciously, so much as he just sucks at being leader and things go bad. Hence insufficient heinousness.

As for the sympathetic backstory, that's a bit more iffy but some materials Disney released paint Scar as having a bad childhood (being the runt of the litter to Mufasa's alpha male). It was the lesser of the two arguments, but enough to count as a point against him.

And Scar is on the Never Again list, so any attempts to start a discussion to put him back on is going to be ignored. Every last avenue on the character has been explored short of them making another film with him in it.

Well, looks like Scar was discussed again, and it was decided that he qualifies.

Personally, I always felt he qualified.

She tried to kill a grand total of two people. Not much of a qualifier there.

That is so far below the list of crimes considered to be Complete Monster worthy it's not funny. Being mean to someone else isn't something that gets listed, even if it was your own family and it was heinous for the time.

Yes. But the Villains Wiki lists these characters down as Complete Monsters. That's why they might count as such in the first place.

Firstly this is not Villains Wiki, but TV Tropes. Villains wiki is mis-using the term just like many other people. I was actually trying to remove them from this category, only to see them added back in. Villains wiki did not make this term; Tv tropes did. Users on Villains wiki simply misuse this term.

Couldn't agree more. That website I'm talking about also have a discussion, where people talk among themselves that the term is misused. Both the Villains wiki and TV tropes need to have a major clean up on who qualifies as 100% evil and who's not.

OK, Hopper kept his promise to his mother, never kill Molt. But when Molt interrupts his massage to say they shouldn't go back to the ants, I really think Hopper would have killed his brother if he hadn't put the blame on the other two guys (that Hopper does kill, smothered under seed). And huuuuu... his mother actually made him promise to never kill Molt? If she did, it's obvious even she knew her son WAS a complete monster. It's just a background Pet the Dog moment to me. In Kung Fu Panda 2, Shen let the old goat go, but he still is Dreamworks'worst CM.

Lord Shen turned out to not be Complete Monster material after all. So that's a bad example of anything.

I concur. Hopper isn't played for laughs at all, and his own minions are terrified of him.

Just because Hopper from A Bugs Life loves his brother and mother, doesn't change the fact that he's evil and have no Freudian Excuse behind his monstrous actions.

I also agree with Syndrome from The Incredibles. Being rejected by someone doesn't count as a excuse at all. He definitely have no remorse over what he's doing.

Hopper seems to be a decent candidate for this trope but Syndrome ... seriously. All his lines are either PlayedForLaughs or meant to evoke ''sympathy''. Also his goal is definitely WellIntentionedExtremist because he wants everyone to be a hero (Sounds pretty noble). Besides wasn't it [[FemmeFatale Mirage who killed the super heroes. Also he has a Pet the Dog moment (deciding to raise Jack Jack instead of killing him and hoping to be a better father).

Is that enough against his inclusion.

That is an amazing load of not understanding the movie at all. I think I remember you. Didn't you get banned for insisting on that line of utter bullshit constantly before?

Even without that, you are completely wrong on every single point you just tried to make. We've had this discussion before, your position rests entirely on a foundation of bull.

The reason Hopper got taken off is because this trope is called Complete Monster, not 99% monster. Despite everything else, Hopper still loved his mother enough to make a promise to her on her deathbed and to keep it afterwards. A proper Complete Monster, even if they made such a promise, would never bother to keep it, yet Hopper still keeps his brother around despite have no qualms with killing people to demonstrate a point. The only argument against that one was that he was incincere about the promise which...is never stated in the movie itself.

So irregardless, Hopper was ruled to be a 99% monster in the cleanup thread and cut. If anyone wants to challenge that, I would do a google search of the forums and read up all of the arguments that were brought up before, because if you just repeat what we've already heard before we'll ignore it because we already heard it before and made a decision.

(Yes, that essentially means that the case on Hopper is permamently closed since he only appeared in one movie and everything he did in it was brought up.)

As for Syndrome, he wasn't even close to the truly henious part, and having even one sincere Pet the Dog moment is enough to disqualify you (before anyone gets up in arms to prove me wrong, that doesn't count if they turn evil after the Pet the Dog moment).

...He wasn't even close to the truly heinous part? The truly heinous part was entirely his plan. He came up with it, he did the work for it, he directly controlled it, and he laughed while it was going on. How is that "not even close"?

And what Pet the Dog moment?

The discussion on Syndrome is closed. It will not be re-openned. IF you really care about what the cleanup thread decided, search the forums with "Syndrome" "Complete Monster." But he will not be put back on, either on this page or the work YMMV, and anyone who inisists on doing so will have to answer to the moderators.

I'm not arguing he should be included. I'm just arguing against the people who seem to think that Syndrome didn't have a part in the plan he conceived and which was carried out explicitly and directly on his orders, oversight, and design, and the people who seem to think kidnapping an infant to raise him as a supervillain counts as a Pet the Dog.

Yes but the villain has to do things onscreen to justify his actions, Mirage killed the superheroes willingly but she's not a Complete Monster. Also don't his Mooks show that their equal to him in evil by having a drinking game to property damage and possible deaths.

The Page is locked because this is a very misused trope, and we want to discourage that. All examples one has should be brought up here, we always welcome input, but before you bring them up, use the search bar to check if they've already been brought up, like Scar has.

This page needs to be edited for spelling.

It seems that way, yes.

Complete Monster Subpage Cleanup is here, we encourage discussion there.

Because he was just a program. He was discussed here.

Ask here

But that does not diminish his CM status.

Was it supposed to?

No, it probably doesn't and wasn't supposed to. Still the line about No Sense of Humor should be deleted for sarcastic remarks are technically jokes.

Thank you, I was going to recommend it to the discussion that we edit the post and remove that part.

She was discussed here.

She didn't try to kill a child, she olny threatened while mcleach really tried and almost succeeded!

Explanation was short and rather unsatisfying. Kidnapping and endangering a child is pretty extreme for a disney movie. I argue that Mc Cleach is a bigger monster than medusa, but she is still one. However, if you see it fit to prove me wrong, please delete her entry from the Rescuers page under complete monster.

EDIT: Well, after spending over six months in the CM subpage discussion, I have a better understanding of the trope, and I retract my request to add her.

Take your edit through this thread about Complete Monster first, and then if it's approved take it here with a link to the relevant posts in the first thread. Otherwise it's very unlikely your edit request will be answered.

Dr. Benedict?! What?! He never did anything heinous!

That's exactly why Complete Monster is a YMMV trope.

^^ He tried to bring about a freaking ICE AGE just to keep kids in school.

So he wanted and CM has to actually do these things. Users like brony99 like to misinterpret this trope as an excuse to throw in their favorite villains, and now, they are banned.

Guys, this isn't the place to discuss this. Take it to the Special Efforts thread, where more people can give more input. MONEYMONEY, please make sure what you say is calm, polite, and relevant. Thank-you.

And Sci-fi and Fantasy can't be for children because???

It's quite violent for a Disney film, and it's not about children. The main characters are in their twenties.

To be fair, his Knight Templar attitude puts a bit of a question mark on the third criteria, which explicitly states that ANY excuses they may have are unambiguously insufficient; if Frollo really thinks he's doing the right thing, then there's enough doubt on the 3rd criteria to mention said doubt without there being enough doubt to remove Frollo from the list.

Frollo's probably a clearer case of CM than most characters on the list though.

Frodo DOESN'T think he's doing the right thing though. He has an entire song where he's afraid he'll burn in Hell for lusting after a Gypsy, and yet he still tries to rape her anyways. And yes, what he did counts as extreme durress, and therefore rape.

Also, this movie has a very pro-Christian tone to it, and when Frodo says how how God will smite the wicked and cast them into a fiery pit, that's exactly what happens to him. So any Knight Templar characetristics firmly establishes him as a hypocrite and pretender of his own professed faith, and thus any Freudian Excuse is shallow and meaningless.

How is the current entry confusing?

Again, ask here.

Ask here.

Somebody wrote it, I guess. Just delete this line.

What criteria did Syndrome from The Incredibles failed at?

Offstage Villainy doesn't count; the story has to show the actions, not imply them.

The story does show his records—it's explicit, not implicit, that he killed all those other heroes. It also shows him attempting to murder children via missile.

Key word: "attempting". A Complete Monster has to actually DO whatever their monstrous deed is. Also, while he did kill other heroes, the actions have to be onscreen for the character to qualify.

Okay, that is WAY too specific a qualification. Just 'cause Syndrome didn't succeed at killing Mr Incredible's wife and kids means that he's not a Complete Monster? We saw him try it, he showed no remorse doing it, and even laughed at Mr Incredible's grief when it looked like he had suceeded. Oh, and then he tries to kidnap a baby at the end of the film. We see him do that, does it not count because he doesn't succeed?

One Moral Event Horizon, doesn't mean that you are a Complete Monster. Otherwise, Muntz would also qualify.

Muntz had other things keeping him off the trope, such as Freudian Excuse: he had a reasonable one that drove him insane. Syndrome has no excuse for his mass-murdering other than he's an overreacting psychopath. He shows no remorse, he's treated as pure evil by the heroes and by Mirage, and he was iredeemable. I'm pretty sure he belongs here.

Muntz has NO EXCUSE!!! Yes, he went insane, but this is part of Alternate Character Interpretation. This is about how they are treated in the film, not Alternate Character Interpretation!

He did have an excuse. Other than the fact that he went insane in the jungle, he also wanted to prove to the scientific community that he did not fake his discovery by recovering a live specimen, after he was falsely accused by the scientific community for fraud. That's probably closer to a well-intentioned extremist than a complete monster, and this was actually shown in the film, so it is not an Alternate Character Interpretation. A good example of an Alternate Character Interpretation is the depiction of Broly in the fanfiction Worthy of Legends.

Syndrome has been rejected by his beloved idol!! How would you feel?! Beig rejected by your idol?!?! That's scary! Syndrome had a good excuse. He did what he should! He would be an idiot, if he would let it go. Though, he still had no reason to kill Bob's children, but one Moral Event Horizon doesn't make a character a Complete Monster.

...Okay, seriously? Being turned down by his idol is a "good excuse" for mass murder? What the hell is wrong with you?

Nothing! But it is ridiculous to just let it go! Besides, we don't know about mass murder. He did everything off-screen. As it is written on the main page, offstage villainy doesn't count.

I don't recall his blowing up a plane that contained a mom and two children being offscreen, and his launching those Omnidroids to various parts of the world certainly wasn't off-screen, either (There were news broadcasts, and we also see his men launching at least one omnidroid rocket).

Honestly, some of the reasoning right now that's being put forth, to be frank, is ridiculous, in either case.

Trying to kill Russel and Carl was not offscreen either!

Okay, but killing two people, while still bad, is not even enough to qualify someone as a complete monster. Killing several innocent people, on-screen, in one fell swoop with a technological marvel or a bioweapon, people who didn't even hurt the person who murder them, to boot, and for little, if any reason whatsoever, however, does at the very least come a heck of a lot closer to a complete monster, hence why Syndrome does qualify whereas Muntz does not really qualify. A mass murderer usually has to kill at least four people in a single incident.

Look, while some may have enough sympathy for Syndrome for him to not be on this trope, it makes no sense for him to go while Randall Boggs stays on since Syndrome was worse than Randall. Both of them attempted to torture or kill main characters but didn't succeed, but Syndrome killed dozens of superheroes to further his own selfish goals. But since that's off-screen, apparently it's not monsterous enough. And thus Randall shouldn't be here either seeing as all of his on-screen villainy failed.

I know Hopper and Lotso are the most despicable Pixar villains but I'd still say Syndrome comes third, then Randall, and then Muntz (the latter being excused from this trope due to a reasonable motive and insanity but was still pretty damn deplorable).

It's not that offstage actions are somehow less monstrous. It's that one of the criteria mentioned on the main page is that "the story has to show the actions, not imply them." (The page's words, not mine). I can't say whether Syndrome (or Randall) is a Complete Monster, not having seen the films, but I can say that Off Stage Villainy, no matter how awful, cannot qualify someone for Complete Monster status.

I deleted Randall for now based on Man With The Plan's argument.

There oughta be some distinction between implying and stating. Syndrome isn't implied to have killed other Supers. He's stated to, in no uncertain terms, by the other characters—they don't mince words, and they certainly say die. We even see a goddamn list. "Imply" means there's room left for doubt, which there certainly is not in Syndrome's case.

EJ 01, but Muntz tried to kill a child while laughing!! This child was innocent! just killing two people doesn't make you a Complete Monster, but killing a child... too late, you are a Complete Monster. If a villain Would Hurt a Child, he is a Complete Monster. Though, as I see most people oppose him being here so fine. Take him off.

Besides, Syndrome also tried to kill only one child. violet parr was about 15 years old. Only those under the age of 14 are children so she was not a child anymore! tHERE were two adults in the plane and one child, so both Muntz and Syndrome attempted to kill one child, so they either both fail, or both count!

Again, note the word TRIED. And the story has to SHOW the actions, not state them.

It appears an Edit War is breaking out. Does any of the above characters fit all five qualifications of a CM? If not, then they shouldn't be on the list.

Also, I agree with ading, a CM cannot commit Off Stage Villainy. A CM has to expose there actions, not imply them.

Also, in regard to 9darthmaul's question, attempting to kill a child doesn't automatically make someone a Complete Monster. They could cross the Moral Event Horizon, but they're not instant CM's. Also, unless he's succeeded in killing a child, he still doesn't count as a CM.

Exactly! Syndrome did NOT succeed. That is why he doesn't count.

There were a lot of news reports about all of the destruction being caused by his Omnidroids, which is definitely explicit (had it been implied, it would be more like a conversation between two people, not shown in a news report). Also, correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't recall Muntz ever laughing when trying to kill the kid. He did react angrily, but he didn't seem to laugh at all.

Well, but he said "You can scream, no one will save you"

^^ Unless it's SHOWN, that doesn't qualify him. The page says "The story has to show the actions."

Again, note the word TRIED. And the story has to SHOW the actions, not state them.

The trying IS shown. The attempts just don't succeed. For instance, Muntz killing all other people whom he thought were there to steal the bird from him was only implied and told to us by Muntz himself. Muntz attempting to kill Russel and Carl was shown right there on the screen. There's a difference there.

^ True, but he doesn't succeed, so it still doesn't qualify him. The same goes for Muntz.

I can't say for sure, but I think Syndrome does not qualify.

A mod from Ask The Tropers did say Syndrome doesn't qualify.

Come to think of it, Syndrome also fails the second criteria. This is because he's obviously too silly and a Large Ham. Besides "Trying to Kill a plane full of children". Correction, he only tried to kill two kids (both of them being Mr.Incredibles' children). Besides it was Mirage who technically killed the super heroes.

Well, I've already said I think Scar fits the 4th criterion even though the movie leaves it open to interpretation, so I'd be a hypocrite to say now that the fact that the movie leaves it open to interpretation disqualifies her. Still, I don't think a character should be labeled a CM because of what they didn't do, or what they threatened to do but didn't, so I'm going to vote no. I haven't seen the movie, though.

Well, as I said on another forum, I don't see anything that denies his CM status. He is certainly more evil than Medusa.

By the way, The Coachman is also more likeable than Stromboli, yet which one of them is a CM? The Coachman of course!

Just because it's locked doesn't mean the page can't be edited, it only means that editing is restricted to users with the authority to do so. (I think that would be just mods.)

1. Ok, I acknowledge that "there are different levels of CM-dom" is a pretty overused argument in these kinds of things, but I think that may be a response to overuse of arguments like "X doesn't qualify because it doesn't really compare to the heinous deeds of Y".

2. Wait, Nuka's antics count for Zira's qualifications? Huh?

3-5 I have no argument against.

1. Still though, we should try to make sure we don't diminish the value of mentions of the worst with mentions of those noticeably milder than the worst. Remember, the CM status of Disney villains at all is often questioned, and the list should be more for the most obvious of examples.

2. The implications of her villainy aren't played purely seriously; even her villain song seems to have a somewhat slapstick style.

3-5. Okay, then the question is, does this combined with other reasons imply she should be removed? My tentative answer is a no; really, since she does seem to be one of the more obvious examples on the list; but I think we ought to discuss this just a little more to make sure. (If consensus is for keeping her, I'll move on to the next villain.)

1. Really? The CM status of any Disney villains at all is often questioned? I've only seen 2 people question it and one of them didn't even make an argument against any of the examples. As for being noticeably milder than the worst, she does seem to be up there as one of the worst.

2. That makes more sense.

3-5. Well, criteria 3 and 5 are debatable, but the page does say "they must show no regret for their crimes no matter how horrible they may be" and "characters who fit the trope must be completely devoid of altruistic qualities", so I guess that means any remorse more than none is a disqualifier, in which case Zira fails.

^ So, we have real reason to at least consider removing Zira from the list. Anyone else want to weigh in on that?

Yeah, I previously supported her place on the list, but I'm coming to doubt it. She doesn't seem to do anything so horrendous as to be worthy of a CM label.

Axelrod only tries to kill a few characters, (this isn't played as darkly as the murderous nature of Sykes and Zira) and is Affably Evil. Same for Zundapp, but not quite as affable... but like you said, has more of an excuse.

Don't get me wrong, they are both considerably evil, but not CM-level evil... the reason Disney has a CM section is for the most extreme of the extreme Disney villains, to which Axelrod and Zundapp are mild in comparison, and as has been pointed out in the TRS thread and the Western Animation forum's Disney CM thread, including those relatively mild villains diminishes the value of the presence of villains like Zira and Sykes.

I don't think that a villain not being as bad as another should be reason to not qualify them, but I agree that they don't make the work significantly darker enough to qualify for CM, and it's true that only trying to kill someone doesn't qualify you (you have to actually DO the deed). Being Affably Evil doesn't disqualify someone from being a Complete Monster, though it makes it hard to pull off.

Well, if only two of the five requirements for Complete Monsterdom are given a clear-cut shoo-in, and the rest are at best ambiguous, I doubt that Scar should be listed as a Complete Monster. Actually, Zira seems to fill in more categories for it unambiguously than Scar (and in the case of the first part, while technically not a city, she does nonetheless orchestrate the burning of a significant portion of the Pride Lands in a plot to have Kovu kill Simba).

There are different levels of CM-dom though. He may not be as bad as Frollo, but that doesn't prevent him from being a CM.

1. Yeah, what's your point? There are different levels of CM-dom.

2. But is that comic relief from his evil?

4. I don't think something that isn't canon should be taken as a reason to get rid of an example. It might be good to add a note that he has an Alternate Character Interpretation in which he would not qualify, though.

Haven't played Epic Mickey either, but being All Just a Dream shouldn't disqualify him unless we've seen a "real" version being different enough to not be a CM, otherwise we'd be getting way too meta, and to point out a similar case of fiction inide fiction, tropes can be applied to characters from a Show Within a Show. And if he counts in the game as well someone should add him to the video games subpage.

Also, the game being pretty metafictionnal as far as I know, I'd say his shorts appearance still qualifies him, as the game is only the 2nd time the character's been used (I think), so there's a lack of other characterisations to base ourselves on (unlike, say, Pete, who was removed due to being a CM in only one of dozens of appearances).

Okay then, let's keep him on the list for now.

I'll also skip Frollo for now, as he seems to be the kind of character we have a Disney CM list for in the first place.

Also, a Complete Monster can have motives other than evil for evil's sake.

See the TRS thread, and the Disney CM thread in the Western Animation forum. Most users agreed that the listing of (relatively) milder villains like Maleficent diminished the value of listing the more clearly applicable villains like Zira and Sykes, the kind of villains whom are the reason Disney has a subpage for CM in the first place.

That, and I think Maleficent's style seems more like generic villainy, while the less conventional villainy of Zira and Sykes adds extra oomph to their respective roles.

Those are the two at the moment, but in the past there have also been edit wars over Chernabog, Ms. Stout, and Nazi (These all seem to involve a certain troper starting with 9...).

^^ Also, you were the one that's been adding/deleting examples that don't qualify on this page despite other tropers dismissing those villains, while giving absurd edit reasons to bring them back. If you weren't here arguing with the rest of us or if you were banned a while ago, the pages wouldn't be locked. Next time, please seek a consensus, 9.

Uh, you're the one that started the Edit Wars in the first place with your'e inablity to admit you're wrong and your ego, and now your'e blaming US?

Partially. It's you who kept deleting Pete, even though he certainly counted in The Prince And The Pauper. Just go on Pete and check YMMV. Besides, it is Man With The Plan who argued about Gaston! Not me! Though, I admit that your arguments were minor, and mine was major one, so I am the most guilty. Please, don't be rude to me.

If I recall correctly, your'e the one that added him in the first place to the YMMV, so that still doesn't count.

But, the main problem isn't you're agruing, but the fact that you can't listen to someone elses opinion. If you see that someone had deleted you're example, DON'T re-add it, because that just starts and Edit War. Instead, if you think that example qualifies, calmly bring it up on the disscussion page, and ONLY re-add it if a majority of people agree with you. Just beause you think it's right doesn't meaan it needs to be their if a majority of people don't agree with you. It has to be a majority opnion, not just your own.

^^The user who added him as a CM on the YMMV page could be wrong just like you. If a lot of people say he isn't one while giving reasons, then he doesn't count. That's how a consensus works. Don't just add the example back if you don't agree with the masses and believe you're right.

^^^ Well, yeah, it was Man With The Plan who argued about Gaston, but what about Chernabog? what about Mrs. Stout? What about Nazi?

In case of Nazi, you supported me ading, so don't blame me. And to you Slicer37, I am saying that I am afraid that some people will not go on discussion page and not see my question.

Also regarding ading's questions, what about Pete?

You still failed to answer why you would argue over Chernabog and Mrs. Stout.

^^ What about Chernabog? What about Mrs. Stout?

^I already asked that question, there's no need to repeat it.

^^^Also, how's about your edit warring and arguing on the Western Animation CM page?

Okay, getting back to 9Darthmaul's original question, the reason Pete fails is because you can't just be a Complete Monster once and then never again. You have to be consistenly a monster.

Yeah, it's too inconsistent for this. And to answer Chernabog. He doesn't really do enough to qualify. If he'd been in a longer feature it would be more apparent, maybe.

So how do we get this page unlocked?

^ I wasn't asking whether Chernabog qualifies, that was resolved earlier in the page, I was just pointing out examples of 9 edit warring over invalid examples in response to him pointing out that it was man with the plan arguing about Gaston.

Sorry, I was replying to somebody else and I didn't make it clear.

What was actually the point of poiting out the examples that 9Darthmaul was arguing? He clearly admitted that he argued most!! Did you miss that last sentence?!?!

^ Yes I did.

If Gaston is to be added in, then so do the villagers. It's that simple really. Since he's irredeemable, they are by proxy, especially when they legitimately supported Gaston's heinous actions, knowingly (as evidenced by the reprise). Besides, one of the other villagers, the Asylum Warden, qualifies as such, probably even more than Gaston. While Gaston's main motivation behind his actions were unrequited love (or rather, lust), the Asylum Warden has absolutely no excuse for what he does, as it is heavily implied that he actually loves the idea of someone doing something dispicable. I honestly don't see the point in adding him in if none of the other villagers shouldn't. I surely hope that The Joker doesn't visit them and try to use his Social Experiment on them, because I can definitely see that the results will have the Joker actually succeed in his social experiment (they blow each other up).

As for Shan Yu, same as Gaston.

Negaduck might qualify. Just because someone is a complete monster doesn't mean he can't be over the top. Just look at Kefka Palazzo. He's over the top, and he certainly got people to laugh, yet he's still considered a complete monster.

Well yeah. It wasn't the ENTIRE village that supported Gaston (alot of them in the "Belle" number flat-out ignored him) but the ones at his wedding proposal, at the tavern when he first hatched the plan, and who watched and laughed as Maurice was going to be taken to the asylum were all ammoral people who liked Gaston because he was a dick.

Alot of the times Negaduck definately would qualify, aside from Taurus Bulba, he's the only villain Darkwing Duck has that is treated seriously on many occasions.

Funnily enough, of the people there, the Triplets were the only ones who weren't present during the latter event. I don't know what happened in-universe, but if I have to suspect anything, it probably would have to be some sort of second thoughts arising. I doubt it had to do with fear of a mob, or snobbishness, or heck, even their father forbidding them to go to the mob, now that I think about it. For one thing, had it been fear of a mob, I certainly doubt they would have been present at the Tavern, especially when, during that "Gaston" song, there was a pretty bad barfight that occured, something that, had they been fearful of a mob, they certainly would have a nervous breakdown over a barfight, especially when you remember that barfights are quite commonplace in a tavern or bar. Snobbishness would also be out of the question, since I have sincere doubts that they'd even associate themselves with a tavern because of disgust for "common folk". Besides which, if it is true that they only attended due to Gaston being present, it would have been especially likely that they would have been present for the mob part. As for their father, I doubt their father would even allow them near a tavern if he didn't allow them near a mob. The only two options left are either that they had beauty sleep, or they gave it some thought and decided they probably aren't going to agree with Gaston, either due to moral reasons or, well, they now hate him for trying to choose Belle over one of them. Even beauty sleep can't quite cut it, since, from what little we can glean of them, I wouldn't even be surprised if they decided to stab themselves or maim themselves or gleefully get into humiliating situations if Gaston told them to, so they would probably forsake beauty sleep and go ahead with partaking in that mob that Gaston is instigating if they still agreed to Gaston's plan. Because of these inconsistencies, it's likely they decided not to support Gaston after that, even though they initially did support it. Rest of the villagers, yeah, probably going to make Joker's "social experiment" succeed.

"His enemies hate him"

Well, duh.

Anyways, you say their supporters are evil, which means they can be Complete Monsters despite failing one of the criteria. But other villains are supposed to hate them too. Hence, I am re-removing them since you yourself inadvertently admit they don't qualify, Man With The Plan.

So if even other villains hate them, that means EVERYONE has to hate them? That is a pretty stupid qualification if you ask me. For one, that would mean that a Complete Monster shouldn't even have henchmen and supporters, seeing as said villains were HIS HENCHMEN. And there are PLENTY of Villains With Good Publicity who are actually Complete Monsters. I'm sorry to bring real life into this but Adolf Hilter himself had good publicity among his people back in the days, is he not a Complete Monster? Osama Bin Laden still has followers who love him, is he not a Complete Monster? This trope really can't escape Trope Decay, can it?

Maybe Gaston is arguable but I'm sure Shan Yu was nothing but a Complete Monster who shouldn't not qualify just because he has an army of followers. I mean, imagine if Voldemort were deleted because of that?

What respect means is that they can't respect him after knowing his or her true self. And it also says that they have to respect him, not be afraid of him. As Dumbledore says, Voldemort rules with fear. Most of the death eaters don't really seem to like him, except of Bellatrix, and she is a Complete Monster herself. Shan Yu is a borderline example, I will admit. It basically rests on whether you consider his entire army to be Complete Monsters, or just him. As for Gaston, please read what someone said about Clayton higher on the page, and cross out Clayton with Gaston and Tarzan with Beast.

There are henchmen who know full well how evil their Complete Monster master is but don't care. Freeza is widely considered a Complete Monster and other villains (the Saiyans) hate him but he also has the likes of Zarbon, Dodoria, and the Ginyu Force following him without problem. The fear thing could be argued for Zarbon and Dodoria, but not for the Ginyu Force, who are simply doing their jobs.

Gaston defenitely became a monster by the end of the film (that was the whole point) but he that probably wasn't enough for him to be a full-fledged Complete Monster. Shan Yu on the other hand...if he got a Freudian Excuse like Ty Lung's than maybe he wouldn't qualify but as it stands, he didn't. He was thoroughly despicable. The description spells out why he's an example of this trope but people just can't let go of the whole followers thing.

I don't watch much anime except for Death Note, so I can't really talk about Dragon Ball. As for Shan-Yu, he fits the other 4 criteria, but making out an entire army to be Complete Monsters is a little much for me. However, it's obvious that the writers were intending for him to be a Complete Monster, and he definitely fits the 'boring' aspect that the page mentiosn. He's a very borderline example, to be sure. So, do we both agree that Gaston doesn't fit?

Shan Yu's followers aren't really characters. They barely have a characterization. They were sort of like... robots. Every other character who had characterization feared him. Shan Yu is a Complete Monster.

I don't see anything about "characters who have characterizations". And by the way, as to your question about Hitler being a Complete Monster, I doubt there are any Real Life people who fit the trope.

Well, the reason Shan-Yu's followers don't really have characterization is because Shan-Yu barely has a characterization. But I supose you have a point. He can stay, but Gaston should be taken off the page.

it is not about Hitler. It's about Nazis from the cartoon. Besides we need some characters from Classical Disney Shorts. The Mad Doctor is the only one so far.

I agree with Gaston being removed. the description itself doesn't sound that monstrous

We don't need more chacters from disney shorts. The Mad Doctor is the only one because it is the only one that qualifies. The mistake that most people make and the reason that it's so hard to edit this is that people don't understand that Complete Monster is a rare archtype. People are just putting random villians that they like. So we don't need more examples from Disney Shorts.

Unless there are some. We have to watch them all more carefully. Complete Monster is my favorite type of villain. We have to find some. However, let's discuss every single villain from this list. We have to make sure if they all meet all the criteria.

What other Disney Short Villians are Complete Monsters other than the The Mad Doctor? If you give me a name, I will disscuss it.

I am annoyed that you deleted every single villain that I added!! You deleted Nizam, Ms. Staut, Nazi (we discussed them already and I got it), and of course The Warden! Let's discuss them all (except Nazi).

I deleted them beause they don't qualify. You can look into the page history for reasons.

the Warden qualifies. Like Lotso, she has NO real Freudian Excuse.

And Ms. Stout, how is that she doesn't count?!?! Miss Hattie from Despicable Me or Ms. Minchin from The Little Princess are on Western Animation section and Literature section, while all they did was the same thing that Ms. Stout did; making fun of some orphans!

Stop talking about other people and face the facts. Is making fun of some orphans on the same level as having a genocide of your own species? Acording to you, it is.

Yes, but what about Miss Hattie and Miss Minchin?!?! you haven't answer my question!!

Yes, but what about Miss Hattie and Miss Minchin?!?! you haven't answer my question!!

That doesn't have to do with this page. The reasons for why the chacters I deleted are clear.

than delete those two as well

I'm not entirely sure whether a Complete Monster has to be played seriously or not, because of the second criteria:

"The character's terribleness must be played seriously at all times... If the character is Played for Laughs, they... can still be one if done right."

???

You know Slicer37?!?! If I would be an administrator I would bann you!!! ANSWER MY QUESTION NOW!!! WHY MISS HATTIE OR UMBRDGE QUALIFY IF MS. STOUT DOESN'T?!

Sorry...

First of all, both Miss Hattie and Umbridge have been deleted, or at least, Miss Hattie is.

Second, she lacks the first criteria, she doesn't commit any horrendous acts.

Third, considering your attitude, I highly doubt you can ever come close to an administrator. Besides, banning someone because you feel like attacking the editor is not a good reason for a ban.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I was talking to Man With The Plan, not you.

I deleted Miss Hattie based on Tropers/9DarthMaul's argument.

I haven't read either of the books, but from comparing descriptions it sounds like Minchin and Umbridge are a lot worse than Ms. Stout. (I'll admit I'm not confident Umbridge qualifies in the movie, but I don't know about the books.)

He IS largely played for laughs, though; a CM is typically played more so for intense revulsion, like in the cases of Frollo or Hopper.

Also, the worst Ratigan did is "drowning the widows and orphans," and even that is Offstage Villainy. He's very evil, but not quite a CM.

The acts need to be on-screen for them to qualify. Remember, this is for the worst of the worst. As for Oogie Boogie, he's already been disqualified. Look at the disscussion above.

The "no offscreen villainy" thing just seems like stupidly high expectations for this trope. We don't need to see the attrocities the villain commited, we just have to know that they did them.

That should be taken up on the main discussion page, not this page, man with the plan. Also, being shown the villain's actions are "high expectations"? What?

Sometimes (SOMETIMES, not always) horrific actions being known to the characters and the audience speaks just as loud as us seeing them. To say they absolutely ALWAYS must be seen in order for a Complete Monster to count seems like high standard-setting to me.

That still should go on the main discussion page. As it stands, the acts need to be shown for them to qualify.

It's supossed to be high standard, because the idea is only a few villians should qualify. That's the reason were having this edit war, because people just want to put any villain that they like on the page.

I'm with Manwiththe Plan, honestly. Take Syndrome for example. We know that he lured dozens of Supers to his island and had them murdered for his revenge plot. We see them listed, in order of death, with their names and dates and which version of the machine that did them in. This is fact. We see one of their bodies, in fact.

It is clear, indisputable that Syndrome willingly, knowingly, and with clear purpose killed numerous people whose entire reason for being amounted to "save people." The movie puts the computer scene in there to tell the audience in 50 foot tall flaming letters, "THIS GUY IS A MURDERER WHO MURDERS GOOD PEOPLE FOR PETTY REASONS."

And somehow, it doesn't count because the actual deaths didn't happen on screen?

I'll agree that the actions shouldn't be implied, but there's nothing "implied" here. It's explicitly stated, in no uncertain terms, and leaving no mistake about what Syndrome did. That should be the distinction: Implicit vs. Explicit, not On Screen vs. Off.

Hell, the same paragraph on the main page that says the actions can't be implied says at the end that they're usually "implied" to have crossed the Moral Event Horizon in the past; i.e., offscreen.

They're implied to have crossed the Moral Event Horizon in the past, but they have also done other bad things since onscreen.

And THIS STILL BELONGS ON THE MAIN DISCUSSION PAGE!!!!

Yes, I realize that. Which is why I started a Trope Repair Shop thread about it this morning just after I made this post.

Muntz, also killed this innocent people whom he believed that they stole his bird. And Syndrome has been rejected by his idol!! He is more of a Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds

We get it. Syndrome has been rejected by his idol. That is not adequate justification for mass murder (at least, not to me). Plus, Muntz has a legitimate Freudian Excuse as well.

Being removed from Scientific community is not enough for muss murder either (at least, not for me). Besides, I admitted that he doesn't count.

Alright, can we stop adding and removing Syndrome from the page? This won't end with him staying.

^^ I agree with you. But neither is being rejected by your idol. I do believe you are correct that Syndrome does not qualify though.

Just watch The Incredibles, and decide.

The second criterion is rather confusing (see my comment above), first it says that the villain must be played seriously, but then it says that a character who is Played for Laughs can still be one if done right. WTH???

I agree, Xykon from the webcomic Order Of The Stick is considered a Complete Monster despite being Laughably Evil for a time.

Then he needs to be removed as well. Cartman has been removed with the reason being that his actions are played for Rule of Funny, despite committing atrocious acts that are played seriously.

The show is a comedy so of course Negaduck is going to be Played for Laughs at times. That doesn't change the fact that he is treated as a dangerous, evil villain by the characters in-universe. Just watch "Life, the Negaverse, and Everything" again: his evil is treated dead-seriously there.

And honestly, if that second criteria means no Complete Monster can be funny, then the Joker and Kefka should be removed too. And that'd just be stupid.

The second criteria does need to be changed so in-universe actions are considered serious even if the character is played for laughs. I've added Cartman back in, because he's basically about the same, a character who commits dangerously atrocious acts that are played for laughs outside of the show's universe. I guess you can add Negaduck back in.

Oh, I think I got it now. It doesn't say that the character has to be played seriously, only that the villain's acts need to be played seriously. So a villain who is funny, but whose actions aren't, can still qualify. If Negaduck fits that description, then he might qualify. If his actions are Played for Laughs, then he can't.

He certainly counts MORE than Syndrome!! He is NOT a Well-Intentioned Extremist, at least not anymore.

Let's see if he meets all the criteria...

• Terrible actions:

Yes! Trying to kill an innocent child is really terrible! Only Complete Monsters do that!

• Evoking Fear

Alpha seemed to respect him. NO!

• No Freudian Excuse

Well, as it was written being cast out of the scientific community after wrongly being accused of being a fraud DOES NOT excuse his actions. However, spending so much time at the Paradise Falls without finding that bird and then finally seeing it explains that he just went crazy. I would give a question mark for that, but we already know that he fails the second criteria.

• No remorse

Check

• No chance of redemption

Well, he could do a Heel–Face Turn actually and maybe he even would if Carl and Russel allowed him to take the bird. He didn't even want to hurt the animal. He only wanted to prove its existence. However, when he attempted to kill Russel, he certainly lost all sympathy and had no more chances but still...

So he meets 3/5 or 2/5 criterias, because as I wrote, it is hard to decide number 3, but no matter which one of these will you choose, he still fails being a Complete Monster.

Now, I will do Syndrome:

• Horrible actions:

As it is written on the main page the story has to show the actions, not imply them. His actions are only implied. Also, when he kidnaps Baby Jack-Jack, he clearly says that maybe he will became a good helper proving that he will NEVER go as far, as to kill a baby. I would say NO for this one.

• Evoking Fear

Check

• No Freudian Excuse

Definitely fails this one. How would you feel if you were rejected by your idol?!

• No remorse

Check.

• No chance of redemption

He could do a Heel–Face Turn, but I guess that the story would then somehow make no sense so I guess... Check

He meets 3/5 criterias. He also fails.

I don't think Sydrome's freudian excuse is enough. Mr. Incredible didn't really do anything to him. It's like someone called me ugly, and in revenge I kill their parents. It doesn't add up as a solid Freudian Excuse. And you seem to be forgetting that he threw missiles at children on board a ship and laughed about it. In a Pixar movie. Never go as far as to hurt a child? Think again. Sydrome is definitely a Complete Monster, and the fact that Lotso and Hopper are more evil only makes them more horrific.

This way Muntz Also counts. He is waay more evil than Syndrome. He also tried to kill a Child!!

This way Muntz also counts. He is way more evil than Syndrome. He also tried to kill a Child!!

Sydrome tried to kill a plane of children. Muntz tried to kill one child, and it was clear he was doing it out of nessecity. Muntz isn't a Complete Monster, Sydrome is.

Are you stupid?!? (sorry for being rude) Killing one child is even worse than killing more than one. It is NOT an argument that he is kiling a child out of nessecity!!! HE IS A Complete Monster!!!

And what the hell is wrong with Nazis and Pete?!?!

Okay, what? Taking one life is worse than taking more than one? There's no arguing that it was a Moral Event Horizon for Muntz, but like everything he did, he did it out of paranoid insanity rather than malice. Muntz was evil and a madman but he had understandable reason to be so and thus is not a Complete Monster.

Like Chernabog (the Devil), Nazis should go without saying on this page. But Pete always plays the bad guy: in no story was he ever a Complete Monster.

Honestly, if anyone's being stupid here, it's you for repeatedly misinterpretating this trope.

Yes, taking one life is WORSE than taking more than one! Why?! Because Dying Alone is waay more terrible than with others! If Nazis should go on this page, re-add them. In case of Pete, you probably didn't watch The Prince and the Pauper. He is even mentioned on Prince and the Pauper film page as this.

That may not be the opinion of other people. And still, one Moral Event Horizon is not enough to make a Complete Monster.

I said that Nazis should go WITHOUT SAYING on this page. Their evil is so well known that they don't need to be an example here.

My memory's fuzzy on The Prince and the Pauper but I don't recall Pete ever doing something that puts him above a regular evil villain. And no, he is NOT mentioned on the film page as a Complete Monster.

Well, not anymore. I just checked.

The reason I deleted the Nazi's is because it's Dude, Not Funny!. We can't put real life people on here. As as you said, they go without saying.

Film section has Amon Goeth. He is also a person from Real Life!

He isn't as well known, and he doesn't cause much convertsy. And how exactly is killing one child worse than killing a plane of them?

I think Muntz counts as a Complete Monster:

• 1) Heinous Actions: Yes, he tried to kill both Carl and Russel
• 2) Serious: Yes, he is played seriously
• 3) Excuse: Even if he was made a laughing stock, that doesn't justify killing several people (offscreen) and attempting to kill two more, even if they were in the way
• 4) No Empathy: He's shown to not show any empathy over killing people, and doesn't show any when attempting to kill Carl and Russel
• 5) No Redemption Chance: This one I'm kinda iffy on, he may have been redeemed, but I think then he may have been considered a Karma Houdini as he, ya'know, had killed several people in the past.

Exactly!!! Well Intentioned Extremists are not complete monsters, but Muntz is not a well intentioned extremist. He is a selfish man who wants to kill a poor child, sacrifice some dogs, and kill an old man (his greatest fan) for his own happiness. Just wanting to prove that he is not a fraud, doesn't mean that he has to do so much terrible things. There are only two people who oppose Charles Muntz being listed on this page. Only you two oppose him being here. Everyone else is in favor of him being here.

No Excuse? He was on a deserted island for 70 years all by himself with no human company. Let's you do that for a year and not go completly insane. And now you claim he is a Complete Monster because only two people say he isn't. Well, only two people say he should be here, and no one added him back when I deleted them. And are you seroiusly saying that he should be on here because only two people oppose him being on here? This a trope page, not a high school popularity contest. Please stop flaming me and look at the movie on more time. It should be clear that Muntz is not a Complete Monster.

Well when a villain kills a child, usually gets my hatred, and ALWAYS becomes a Complete Monster. Besides he was accompanied by dogs. He was NOT alone. Also he has been on this page for whole year. If a villain is here for so long, it's too late, they need to stay...

Wait, What?. If a poor example has been on the page for a year they need to stay? Did you even read what I said? Yeah. he had dogs. Again, i'd like to see you go on a deserted island for 70 years with just dogs and see how long before you snap. Your basic arguement is that he that " he killed a child so he had no redemming qualities." First of all, he didn't kill a child. He tried to kill one. A Complete Monster needs to walk into a story. Please stop spamming the page with poor examples and read what I say.

@Slicer: Maybe no one added him back because they wanted to discuss it here. Also, him being on a deserted island isn't mentioned to be what drove him to be like this, it was his selfish desire to get the bird himself after being made a joke. Yes, he had reasons to kill and attempt to kill people, but they were not good enough reasons. He fell off the Moral Event Horizon long ago, when he killed the people earlier, and him trying to kill an old man and a child for irrational reasons just solidifies his position as a Complete Monster.

Mario kidnapped Donkey Kong in Donkey Kong Jr., and he also attempted to have Donkey Kong Jr. killed by various pets in order to prevent him from rescuing Donkey Kong. Does that automatically make Mario a complete monster? By your logic, it does.

Honestly, I'm sorry, but I really can't believe some reasons people cite as to whether someone's a complete monster. I mean, trying to prove he was indeed telling the truth when he was ostracized for faking his discoveries and committing fraud? Honestly, if that's the case, then literally anyone who tries to prove that someone else or even themselves are telling the truth must automatically be complete monsters. Heck, to get my point across as to how, in my mind, absurd this thing is, why not claim God to be a complete monster just because he actually forbade us to lie and instead live the truth and tell the truth.

Again, I'm sorry if this post sounds cross, but I actually get very irritated that people who try to prove truth are considered complete monsters. If anything, complete monsters are more similar to pathological liars since the latter are irredeemable.

Okay Slicer37, you have won.

I really don't see the problem with Nazi.

Firstly, You clearly don't know what Dude, Not Funny! means.

Secondly, It's not adding real life people anymore than adding Amon Goeth to the film section. It's not about Real Life Nazis, just the Nazis from the cartoon. Yes, saying Real Life people were/are Complete Monsters in Real Life will probably cause trouble. But that's not what the example is doing. It is saying that Nazi is a Complete Monster in one of the Classic Disney Shorts.

Also, noone has said that Muntz is a Complete Monster for trying to prove he is telling the truth. And while you can say that his excuse is simply that he went insane, his official excuse is that he was cast out of the scientific community because he was falsely accused of being a fraud. While a legitimate excuse, it doesn't justify that he's killed everyone who wandered into the valley in the past 60 years. However, Off Stage Villainy doesn't count, and the onscreen horrendous acts given are only things he TRIES to do, hence he still doesn't qualify.

So, Syndrome also doesn't. He also failed his on-screen action. His heinous actions happened off-screen. He also fails.

I didn't say Syndrome counted, only that Muntz didn't. Don't put words in my mouth.

Yes, but using your logic Syndrome doesn't. Muntz is way more evil! Syndrome at least had an excuse.

But the page explitly says "all actions must be onscreen" Muntz's murders happned offscreen, so he still doesn't count.

Syndrome's actions also happened offscreen.

His shooting missiles a plane full of children and trying to push The Dragon off a helicopter were not offscreen.

Trying to kill Carl and Russel was also not offscreen.

There's a diffrence between crossing the Moral Event Horizon and being a Complete Monster.

Exactly! Things that Syndrome did was also, only a Moral Event Horizon

So why is this Muntz person a Complete Monster again?

He is not. Neither is Syndrome, or otherwise they are both.

^^^^^ Key word: Trying. A Complete Monster has to actually DO whatever their monstrous deed is. I can't comment on Syndrome since I haven't seen The Incredibles, but I can say that Muntz is not a Complete Monster.

Muntz has an excuse as much as Syndrome does. It isn't adequate to justify what he does, but it's still an excuse.

Syndrome's excuse is hardly justifing ethier. However, you do have a fair point in that his actions were mostly offscreen. I supose you can take Syndrome off the page, but Muntz is not a Complete Monster.

In case of Nazi, as ading said, it is only about those from the cartoon. Why you deleted them?.