What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Monster/Disney

 

Shaoken
topic
02:05:58 AM Feb 3rd 2014
All proposals or requests for removals should go to the Complete Monster Cleanup thread set up for that very purpose. Requests to add characters on the discussion page will get ignored.
GoldenSpot5
topic
07:05:24 PM Jan 20th 2014
For all of you who think King Candy/Turbo from Wreak-It Ralph belongs here, your wrong You see Turbo will do any thing for attention, even reprogram another game, but the reason for this is seeing how he loved to win just like in his own game, Long story short he was programmed to want attention.
GoldenSpot5
topic
09:56:21 AM Dec 14th 2013
edited by 69.204.185.226
why was Scar Removed?
Shaoken
06:36:57 AM Dec 31st 2013
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.
toonyloon
10:03:10 PM Feb 25th 2014
Well, looks like Scar was discussed again, and it was decided that he qualifies.

Personally, I always felt he qualified.
FerreTrip
topic
10:01:34 AM Feb 11th 2013
edited by FerreTrip
I would like to put this somewhere in the Holes entry. A Disney villain swearing at his own granddaughter is pretty bad, at least considering the time this was made, when Moral Guardians were in higher power.
Shaoken
06:24:00 AM Dec 31st 2013
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.
LizardOfAus
topic
02:51:08 AM Feb 5th 2013
This is just a minor edit, so I don't think it necessarily needs to be brought up on the Complete Monster Cleanup thread.

For the caption under Frollo's picture, part of the quote links to the trope 'Be careful what you wish for'. I think that 'Famous Last Words' might be more appropriate to link to, since Frollo didn't really 'wish' for anything.
ScoutsGirlfriend
topic
10:55:22 AM Nov 7th 2012
Why is this page locked? I was gonna put Scar from The Lion King and Turbo (A.K.A. King Candy) from Wreck-It Ralph on here, but it looks like I can't.
DrPsyche
03:26:38 PM Nov 10th 2012
edited by DrPsyche
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.
tyrekecorrea
10:47:47 PM Jan 5th 2013
This page needs to be edited for spelling.
DrPsyche
08:18:58 PM Apr 6th 2013
It seems that way, yes.
plcthecd
topic
02:25:48 PM Nov 3rd 2012
I like to nominate King Candy aka Turbo from Wreck-It Ralph because he He became jealous because of the existence of another racing game taking his spot, so he wrecked it and got both games unplugged. He goes one step further when he invades Sugar Rush and tries to delete Vanellope from the game, but when he couldn't, he turned her into a glitch and locked away everyone's memories of who she really was. In other words, he takes over her position as ruler and making everyone else shun her and made her life a living hell.
DrPsyche
04:09:10 PM Nov 3rd 2012
Complete Monster Subpage Cleanup is here, we encourage discussion there.
AlvyFoster
topic
08:05:43 AM Oct 28th 2012
Lotso is not the only CM Pixar made, far from it.

In my book, Hopper is worse. He isn't presented in ANY positive way at all. Abuse children? Check. Slavedriving? Check. Racisme and psychological abuse? Check. Killing his close friends for making remarks? Check!!! He doesn't enslaves ants because he needs food, he just loves to have power, and to watch the weaker ones serve him.

And what about Syndrome? He does have a sympathic backstory (being rejected by his hero), but is that enough to excuse what he does? While Lotso and Hopper simply ran dictatorships, Syndrome actually committed GENOCIDE!!!!! He exterminated all super heroes to be the world's only hero, and almost killed Mr. Incredible's familly, or kidnapped his baby to train him as a sidekick!

If those two are not Complete Monsters, I don't know who is.
millenniumrex
12:52:21 PM Oct 28th 2012
I concur. Hopper isn't played for laughs at all, and his own minions are terrified of him.
Craver357
07:23:45 AM Nov 1st 2012
edited by Craver357
Just because Hopper from A Bug's 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.
Idisagree
07:02:12 PM Nov 6th 2012
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.
MrDeath
10:38:41 AM Nov 7th 2012
edited by MrDeath
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.
Shaoken
03:53:26 PM Nov 29th 2012
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).
MrDeath
01:44:26 PM Dec 12th 2012
...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?
Shaoken
03:29:13 PM Dec 24th 2012
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.
MrDeath
07:32:25 AM Dec 26th 2012
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.
Idisagree
07:58:26 PM Apr 12th 2013
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.
GoldenSpot5
topic
01:50:10 PM Oct 16th 2012
Why was Clue from Tron taken off. He clearly had no problem killing anyone, even his own worker.
Krystoff
06:14:46 AM Oct 21st 2012
edited by Krystoff
Because he was just a program. He was discussed here.
Krystoff
topic
10:05:03 AM Oct 5th 2012
edited by Krystoff
Some villains have been cut again because cleanup thread decided so. I will list the reasons:

  • The Mad Doctor: Nightmare Fuel yes! Very scary and creepy as hell. But all he really is, is simply a Mad Scientist who attempted to kill Mickey, and didn't do anything heinous beyond that.

  • The Queen from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: Like, The Mad Doctor, she didn't do that much. Just wanted to kill The Hero. Not nice, but standard villainy.*

  • Anton Sevarius: he didn't have total control on his actions; it was even written on the page.
NerdyTimes
topic
03:45:04 AM Sep 29th 2012
edited by NerdyTimes
I think that some characters from Disney Ducks Comic Universe should be added. Mostly the pig-faced villains and Flintheart Glomgold. While Glomgold is mostly Depending on the Writer, he's a serious threat who wants to kill Scrooge in Rosa's comics.

A particularly memorable villain would be Ravage DeFlora in the sequel of the Pygmy Indians story. The original's Green Aesop is taken Up to Eleven in the sequel and De Flora intended to destroy all the forests in a large part of Canada so he could take over the McDuck corporations. Is he a monster?

1. Heinous evil deeds: In a story where there is a Green Aesop, burning down large yards of forest For the Evulz is definitely evil.

2. Played seriously: Surprisingly, for a Disney comic. When compared to, say, Disney Animated Canon, they are notably Lighter and Softer. De Flora wouldn't be out of place in a main movie.

3. Inexcusable: He has no Freudian Excuse at all. He doesn't even attempt redemption and his motive is becoming a millionaire, nothing else.

4. Remorseless: Not proved, but as far as we know, he is.

5. Irredeemable: He's put in jail in the end. He doesn't even attmpt a Heel-Face Turn.
Krystoff
02:15:58 PM Oct 4th 2012
Ask here
Shaoken
topic
01:59:16 AM Jul 11th 2012
edited by Shaoken
Too make a long story short, here's a list of characters that were discussed in the cleanup thread and rejected. I'll update it as more decisions are reached.

  • Mirage from Aladdin. Worse than the other villians on the show, but cut for not being a Complete Monster, as For the Evulz is not an automatic qualifier for being a Complete Monster
  • Scroop From Treasure Planet. The cleanup thread decided it was more probable than not that he had some loyalty towards his fellow pirates, which takes him away from the 100% evil requirement; the rest of his actions were standard pirate fair.
  • Hopper from A Bug's Life. His refusal to kill his brother disqualifies him, since a true Complete Monster wouldn't honour a promise to a dead person. It may not be much, but it still knocks Hopper down from the 100% evil requirement.
  • Evil Buzz from Buzz Lightyear of Star Command is just a Jerk Ass, being mean is not a CM act.
  • NOS-4-A2 from the same show, due to lack of context in the example about his motivation for turning the universe into robots. The all-caps certainly didn't help things either.
Craver357
08:56:51 AM Jul 12th 2012
Yes. But the Villains Wiki lists these characters down as Complete Monsters. That's why they might count as such in the first place.
Krystoff
04:25:05 AM Jul 13th 2012
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.
Craver357
10:36:47 PM Jul 13th 2012
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.
AlvyFoster
08:16:32 AM Oct 28th 2012
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.
Idisagree
08:02:08 PM Apr 12th 2013
Lord Shen turned out to not be Complete Monster material after all. So that's a bad example of anything.
DrPsyche
topic
08:58:32 PM Jun 7th 2012
edited by DrPsyche
Madame Medusa (Rescuers down under) should be on the list, I think she was removed. She does some pretty horrible things, kidnapping and threatening a little girl, trying to kill her, and then her assistant. She is repeatedly shown as having a horrible personality and no redeeming traits. Compare to Mc Leach, who threatened a child, kidnapped him, and then tried to kill him by feeding him to an alligator, all the while threatening his assistant (Which was an iguana, or some sort of Lizard). Mc Leach was entertaining in his Hammy acting, and sometimes uneducated rambling, so personally I like him more than Medusa (His Half-track is cool to). They're both complete monsters, but Mc Leach to me, is also love to hate. If the argument is mae, and proven that she is not a complete monster, then one should probably delete her from the Rescuers YMMV page.
MONEYMONEY
01:06:39 PM Jun 8th 2012
She was discussed here.

She didn't try to kill a child, she olny threatened while mcleach really tried and almost succeeded!
DrPsyche
04:20:17 PM Jun 17th 2012
edited by DrPsyche
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.
InnocentWoodlandElf
topic
08:14:05 AM May 20th 2012
The article says that the Horned King has no sense of humour but I'm not sure that this is entirely true. He uses sarcasm at several points throughout the film.
MONEYMONEY
10:35:14 AM May 23rd 2012
But that does not diminish his CM status.
DrPsyche
08:58:52 PM Jun 7th 2012
Was it supposed to?
Idisagree
09:52:10 AM Jul 15th 2012
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.
DrPsyche
10:46:39 AM Jul 18th 2012
Thank you, I was going to recommend it to the discussion that we edit the post and remove that part.
Tropemasterx2
topic
01:55:28 AM Apr 22nd 2012
edited by Tropemasterx2
We should add Dr. Slicer, Dr. Benedict and Mayor Fitzhugh from Recess. These three villains definetly qualify for Complete Monster trope and their actions are played seriously.
Telcontar
moderator
06:52:04 AM Apr 22nd 2012
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.
MONEYMONEY
04:52:10 AM Apr 24th 2012
Dr. Benedict?! What?! He never did anything heinous!
Telcontar
moderator
06:36:01 AM Apr 24th 2012
That's exactly why Complete Monster is a YMMV trope.
SomeNewGuy
08:39:09 AM Apr 24th 2012
^^ He tried to bring about a freaking ICE AGE just to keep kids in school.
MONEYMONEY
12:17:54 PM Apr 24th 2012
edited by MONEYMONEY
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.
Telcontar
moderator
01:31:32 PM Apr 24th 2012
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.
WillBGood
topic
04:20:27 AM Mar 31st 2012
This is locked, but I think this entry might be edited for slightly better English:

  • The best example is Sa'Luk from Aladdin And The King Of Thieves. He is very ruthless, showing a very cruel sense of humor and he has a pleasure in killing! He is also willing to betray and/or kill his own people in order to get what he wants and he also manipulates many characters!! In the end when he finds Aladdin and his father with a golden hand of Midas, he demands them to give it to him, or he will kill Aladdin. When they give it to him, he decides to kill Aladdin anyway, just for pleasure! It is very satisfying to see him than turn into gold.

to

  • Sa'Luk from Aladdin and the King of Thieves. He's a ruthless Manipulative Bastard with a very cruel sense of humor and takes pleasure in killing. He is also willing to betray and/or kill his own people in order to get what he wants. He threatens to kill Aladdin if he and his father don't give him the Hand of Midas— and then decides to kill Aladdin anyway out of spite. His Karmic Transformation / Karmic Death (turned into gold) is very satisfying.

(This is, of course, assuming Sa'Luk even qualifies for this trope.)
plcthecd
topic
04:57:58 PM Dec 13th 2011
I would like to edit Mirage from Aladdin so not get confused with the one from The Incredibles.
MrDeath
06:56:11 AM Dec 14th 2011
How is the current entry confusing?
SeptimusHeap
10:40:24 AM Dec 14th 2011
Again, ask here.
EJO1
topic
05:18:26 PM Dec 4th 2011
Can someone please unlock the topic? I have to add something in in regards to Queen Grimilde that would indicate her nature as being more-or-less closer to that of a Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds (a prequel novel for Snow White created by Serena Valentino called "Fairest of All").
SeptimusHeap
10:39:43 AM Dec 14th 2011
Ask here.
DarkHero9
topic
11:14:19 PM Nov 24th 2011
edited by DarkHero9
Yes, absolutely Maleficent belongs in this trope, because she is a monster. She's willing to murder a child for no real reason other than spite or pure fun, is very sadistic when she does this, has no Freudian Excuse to back her up, no loved ones except, MAYBE, her raven and even then it's doubtful, as she seems to only like Diablo because he isn't incompetent, since aside from a small moment of shock at his fate, she doesn't try reversing it or doing anything to save him and instead goes on to try and kill Philip.

And what is this thing about Maleficent being taken more lightly? How is the murder of someone out of spite or fun taken lightly in this movie? When it happens it's incredibly dark and creepy. And let's not forget what she planned on doing to Philip before the fairies interfered, which also would have caused the entire kingdom to suffer as well due to a spell that the fairies cast. Which just seems far worse than Frollo's and Lotso's actions when you think about it. She's willing to put not only two people in a Fate Worse than Death out of spite/fun, but also an entire kingdom, since she must know by now what the good fairies had done, seeing as how she easily showed Philip Aurora.

In other words, Maleficent is pure evil and rightly deserves to be designated as a Complete Monster, the fact that she's cool is of no consequence when you take her actions in the movie and analyze them.

And as the comment by Wolf Man 16 says, this is a YMMV trope, so that means because someone doesn't agree with it means that the majority of people who do doesn't matter? What the hell kind of sense does that make?
AmbarSonofDeshar
05:26:36 PM Jan 10th 2014
She tried to kill a grand total of two people. Not much of a qualifier there.
HiddenFacedMatt
topic
05:57:09 PM Oct 23rd 2011
edited by HiddenFacedMatt
Okay, consensus among those familiar with Medusa seems to favour removing her from the list on account of how comically she is portrayed. Now, onto Sykes.

Now, onto Sykes. While he does seem to be one of the more obvious examples, it might help to go over reasons for ambiguity just to make sure. His on-screen cruelty is mostly towards Fagin, who is also a criminal, and is implied to owe a lot of money he repeatedly fails to pay back. This isn't to say it justifies Sykes' cruelty, but it seems to put him in a position to claim a sort of Knight Templarish role. There's also Sykes' kidnapping of Jenny, wherein he ties Jenny to a chair, and chases Fagin's vehicle by limo when Fagin tries to free Jenny, but Sykes at least doesn't seem to be as cruel to Jenny as he was to Fagin.
Jordan
06:04:15 PM Oct 23rd 2011
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.
HiddenFacedMatt
08:43:55 PM Oct 23rd 2011
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.)
Jordan
08:49:27 PM Oct 23rd 2011
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.
HiddenFacedMatt
topic
01:47:30 PM Oct 22nd 2011
Consensus in the thread seems to be in favour of keeping McLeach on the list, I will move on to Medusa for now. As has already been pointed out she is not as evil as McLeach, so the question becomes whether or not she is evil enough to still qualify.

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

That, and her antics come across as those of a very generic hammy cartoon supervillain. This arguably calls into question both the second criteria, in that she is played somewhat comically, (not as much as Jafar but easily more so than McLeach) and the third criteria, in that her insanity (directly referenced by various characters) provides somewhat of an excuse. (Not enough on its own, but again, combining this with other reasons for ambiguity...)
ading
05:31:37 PM Oct 22nd 2011
edited by ading
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.
HiddenFacedMatt
topic
01:08:54 PM Oct 19th 2011
edited by HiddenFacedMatt
Okay, so that's Zira gone. (See this thread.)

I'm going to skip the coachman for now, since like with Frollo, he seems to be the level of villain the Disney section was meant for. That video alone seems to drive home all 5 criteria at the same time. Feel free to point out reasons otherwise, but none come to mind for me.

Similar thing for The Horned King from The Black Cauldron, in light of the discussion in that thread.


Now, onto McLeach from The Rescuers Down Under, a movie I'm more familiar with. He seems to be portrayed as a fairly comical character, from his amusingly over-the-top demented singing, to moments like the eggs scene. Also, as pointed out in The Rescuers' YMMV section, he is considered more likeable than Medusa because he is so Evilly Affable. Are these things combined enough reason to negate CM status?
TheEmperorPalp
09:55:22 AM Oct 20th 2011
Well, as I said on another forum, I don't see anything that denies his CM status. He is certainly more evil than Medusa.
TheEmperorPalp
09:57:07 AM Oct 20th 2011
edited by TheEmperorPalp
By the way, The Coachman is also more likeable than Stromboli, yet which one of them is a CM? The Coachman of course!
plcthecd
topic
07:33:56 PM Oct 13th 2011
Question: We'll bound to have irredeemable villains sometime in the future, but once a topic has been locked. Is it permanent?
HiddenFacedMatt
10:42:34 AM Oct 14th 2011
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.)
HiddenFacedMatt
topic
06:31:34 PM Oct 11th 2011
edited by HiddenFacedMatt
Okay, let's keep Scar on the list for now. Now, as for Zira, let's discuss the criteria to make sure...
  • Heinous evil deeds: Obviously, raising her kids to hate pridelanders, offering Simba a chance to kill Kovu, trying to continue the war against the pridelanders even when her own family was willing to make peace with them, etc... are pretty heinous as far as Disney villain deeds go. Still though, the question is, is it played darkly enough to be worth having her on the same list as Sykes, or the coachman, (who are played even more darkly) or does her presence on the list slightly diminish the value of the mentions of such characters?
  • Played seriously: For the most part, though her villain song could be interpreted partly as a form of Black Comedy given Nuka's slapstick, cartoony antics during it.
  • Inexcusable: She claims to be the way she is from being exiled and persecuted. On its own it's not enough to negate CM status, especially in a movie where other outcasts don't turn out as bad, but it's worth taking into consideration when combined with other factors.
  • Remorseless: This is probably the shakiest of the criteria. Remember her evidently genuine sadness at Nuka's death? This is just how she reacts to the death of her least favourite son. Yes, after a while she tries to blame it on Kovu, but it's pretty apparent that she had at least a moment of guilt before deliberately drowning it out.
  • Irredeemable: Hard to prove. She swipes at Kiara first time she offers to save her life, but they leave it open to interpretation that she might have changed her mind had she not fallen.
ading
06:15:46 PM Oct 12th 2011
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.
HiddenFacedMatt
03:52:39 AM Oct 13th 2011
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.)
ading
04:38:45 AM Oct 13th 2011
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.
HiddenFacedMatt
09:40:22 AM Oct 13th 2011
edited by HiddenFacedMatt
^ So, we have real reason to at least consider removing Zira from the list. Anyone else want to weigh in on that?
Mistermister
topic
09:07:02 AM Oct 9th 2011
I'm sorry, I just don't see anything about Mother Gothel being a Complete Monster. The description about her just seems like standard villainy to me. Could anyone explain in better detail what makes her a Complete Monster and not other villains like Gaston, Jaffar, or Syndrome?
ading
06:28:46 PM Oct 12th 2011
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.
HiddenFacedMatt
topic
04:50:12 PM Sep 29th 2011
edited by HiddenFacedMatt
Next up, Scar seems to be one of the more ambiguous examples. He is a memorably hated villain, but not quite on the same level as villains like Frollo. Let's go through the list.
  • Heinous evil deeds; well, he commits murder, he guilt-trips grieving family members into blaming themselves, and he allows the territory he rules over to slip into ruins. All that said, he doesn't threaten to burn down a city to find one fugitive or express intent to commit genocide.
  • Played seriously; not quite. His witty dialogue and strange antics provide a significant chunk of the movie's comic relief.
  • Inexcusable; well, we know from backstabbing the hyenas that it was not about helping them, but we could perceive Mufasa throwing his weight around as an excuse for Scar. A very petty one, granted, and not enough to make Scar a non-CM on its own, but when you combine it with other reasons for him to be ambiguous...
  • Remorseless; there are Alternate Character Interpretations relating to Scar, such as that thinking he sees Mufasa is just deeply buried remorse. These are just interpretations, but again, are worth taking into account.
  • Irredeemable; well duh. He threw away the chance at redemption he was offered.

All in all, though, I think the strongest argument against keeping Scar on the list is the extent to which he is played for laughs.
EJO1
10:11:52 AM Oct 2nd 2011
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).
ading
04:18:07 PM Oct 5th 2011
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.
HiddenFacedMatt
topic
09:22:13 AM Sep 26th 2011
edited by HiddenFacedMatt
I say we should discuss each villain on this list one-by-one, leaving only the worst of the worst, to avoid diminishing the mentions of villains like Frollo and Sykes.
First up, The Mad Doctor. (Show can be seen here.)

Does he get enough characterization to clearly count? Does the All Just a Dream status of that cartoon make it Negative Continuity? I haven't played Epic Mickey, is the version of that character from that game clearly a Complete Monster, and should we assume he is the same character as the dream version from the cartoon? (Ie. Did the version from the game enter the dream?)
EDITED IN: See also this thread.
Paireon
10:48:22 AM Sep 29th 2011
edited by Paireon
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).
HiddenFacedMatt
04:02:51 PM Sep 29th 2011
edited by HiddenFacedMatt
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.
BowsertheSecond
topic
06:36:07 AM Sep 22nd 2011
Would Miles Axlerod or Professor Zundapp from Cars 2 count?

Here's a look at the criteria:

  1. Now Miles Axlerod is a Non-Action Big Bad, but he’s also a Chess Master, having plotted the entire operation from the start. When Lightning McQueen announces that he will be using Allinol in the final race, Axlerod organises for Lightning to be killed, which would have succeeded only if Sarge hadn’t switched out the fuel. His backup plan involved strapping a bomb to Mater and detonating it when Lightning was close enough, killing him, Mater and any numerous others close enough to it.
  2. Axlerod holds a suave, charming façade in public to hide is cold, scheming ways. The difference is clear during his speech in Italy at the Lemon meeting. He boasts about how the racers are having their engines blown out by the Allinol to discredit alternative fuel and that he and his Lemon followers will become rich and powerful, but when speaking to the press after the race, he sorrowfully admits that Allinol will not be used for the final race.
  3. Axlerod’s motivation appears to be fuelled by greed, wanting to become the richest car in the world. This appears to eclipse the other motive of being considered a Lemon, as it is unclear if Axlerod has always been one, or if he was converted to one as part of his scheme.
  4. Axlerod shows no empathy for his actions, even going as far as to thank Lightning for choosing to use Allinol and how he hoped that Lightning could prove that others were wrong about it being dangerous, all the while knowing that he had secretly organised Lightning to be assassinated.
  5. Axlerod is incarcerated at the end of the film, and no form of redemption is attempted.

Now for Zundapp:

  1. Zundapp is the main physical threat present in the film, being the Dragon-in-Chief to Axlerod. Zundapp callously tortures and kills Rod Redline in Japan and is seemingly unfazed at this, so this is largely routine for him. Later in the London race, Zundapp is about to detonate the bomb attached to Mater, knowing full well about all the other characters that would be caught in the blast radius.
  2. Zundapp is considered a serious threat by Finn and Holley. As for the humor, Zundapp has small bouts of silliness, but these moments don’t undermine his evilness.
  3. Zundapp has a slightly stronger Freudian Excuse than Axlerod, wanting revenge for being considered a Lemon. This does not however make up for his actions.
  4. As mentioned above, Zundapp is unfazed by his actions throughout the film.
  5. Like Axlerod, Zundapp is incarcerated and is not given any chances at redemption.

HiddenFacedMatt
04:40:50 PM Sep 24th 2011
edited by HiddenFacedMatt
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.
ading
03:19:59 AM Oct 7th 2011
edited by ading
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.
EmperorOfEditing
topic
08:14:33 AM Sep 16th 2011
edited by EmperorOfEditing
Hey, why was Maleficent removed from the list?! I agree that Jafar doesn't count, but Maleficent?! Everyone around considers her as pure evil, and besides she tried to kill a baby just because, she was not invited to the party!
ading
05:46:20 PM Sep 17th 2011
Also, a Complete Monster can have motives other than evil for evil's sake.
HiddenFacedMatt
04:34:21 PM Sep 24th 2011
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.
WolfMan16
topic
05:45:14 PM Sep 4th 2011
Wait, we're still keeping up with the arguments about what the definition of a Complete Monster is for Disney and Western Animation?

Am I the only one here who realizes that this is a YMMV trope, meaning many examples are going to be arguable?
HiddenFacedMatt
topic
11:12:43 AM Sep 4th 2011
Do Jafar and Maleficent really belong on this 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.
411314
topic
09:07:51 PM Sep 2nd 2011
Here's an entry I'd put on the page if it weren't locked, so for now I'm putting it here so I can find it again later:

So Weird has a one-shot complete monster who runs a circus. Using some kind of Black Magic that's part of the mirrors at the carnival, he briefly turns Molly into a meltable woman and then puts her near a fire to melt, makes Irene dance on hot coals, and turns another person into stone. At least Annie undoes the spell, but the guy who cast it is a Karma Houdini!

MickeyMouseFan
topic
06:07:08 AM Jul 29th 2011
Does the Witch from Silly Symphony cartoon Babes In the Woods count?? She meets all the criteria. Watch the cartoon.
robinsonaustin
topic
11:54:54 AM Jul 1st 2011
Does Professor Ratigan from The Great Mouse Detective count as a monster. His atrocities include: In his Villain Song they talk about the widows and orphans he drowned, he feeds his minion Bartholomew to his cat, and tried to murder the queen and become THE SUPREME RULER OF ALL MOUSEDOM! And it's also mentioned that in one of his crimes he basically shot at anyone who resurfaced from the water, and threatened to murder Olivia's father if he didn't contribute.
neoYTPism
04:25:53 AM Jul 5th 2011
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.
9Darthmaul
topic
01:40:28 PM Jun 23rd 2011
edited by 9Darthmaul
See guys?? Because of all our arguments, the page has been locked. This doesn't happen usually, but we may try to resolve it. There are many new Disney films that will come out in future, and we need this page to be opened. So guys let's discuss Syndrome and Pete (the one from The Prince and the Pauper) because they seem to be the particular villains, because of whom the page is now locked. And next time, when there will be villains that will cause Edit War, we will try to be more careful.
ading
03:32:54 PM Jun 23rd 2011
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...).
WolfMan16
06:16:10 PM Jun 23rd 2011
edited by WolfMan16
^^ 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.
Slicer37
12:20:40 PM Jun 24th 2011
edited by Slicer37
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?
9Darthmaul
01:23:38 AM Jun 25th 2011
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.
Slicer37
08:50:29 AM Jun 25th 2011
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.
WolfMan16
08:47:10 PM Jun 25th 2011
edited by WolfMan16
^^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.
ading
04:00:18 AM Jun 26th 2011
^^^ Well, yeah, it was Man With The Plan who argued about Gaston, but what about Chernabog? what about Mrs. Stout? What about Nazi?
9Darthmaul
02:48:58 PM Jun 26th 2011
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.
WolfMan16
05:35:42 PM Jun 26th 2011
edited by WolfMan16
Also regarding ading's questions, what about Pete?

You still failed to answer why you would argue over Chernabog and Mrs. Stout.
ading
08:45:29 AM Jun 27th 2011
^^ What about Chernabog? What about Mrs. Stout?
WolfMan16
10:18:07 PM Jun 27th 2011
^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?
ading
04:07:03 AM Jul 21st 2011
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.
captainmarkle
10:16:51 AM Jul 29th 2011
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?
ading
02:00:13 PM Aug 4th 2011
edited by ading
^ 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.
captainmarkle
07:27:39 AM Aug 9th 2011
Sorry, I was replying to somebody else and I didn't make it clear.
Catholic36
05:53:31 PM Aug 14th 2011
edited by Catholic36
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?!?!
ading
06:42:03 PM Aug 22nd 2011
Slicer37
topic
08:58:53 AM Jun 9th 2011
On the Pixar section, it says that Lotso and Hopper are the only two Pixar villians to meet all five qualifcations. My question is, what criteria does Randall not meet?
9Darthmaul
09:01:57 AM Jun 9th 2011
Somebody wrote it, I guess. Just delete this line.
plcthecd
09:30:40 PM Jun 12th 2011
What criteria did Syndrome from The Incredibles failed at?
Slicer37
07:05:26 AM Jun 13th 2011
Offstage Villainy doesn't count; the story has to show the actions, not imply them.
MrDeath
07:38:04 AM Jun 13th 2011
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.
ading
05:53:37 AM Jun 16th 2011
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.
ManwiththePlan
07:14:04 AM Jun 17th 2011
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?
9Darthmaul
08:12:25 AM Jun 17th 2011
One Moral Event Horizon, doesn't mean that you are a Complete Monster. Otherwise, Muntz would also qualify.
ManwiththePlan
08:55:58 AM Jun 17th 2011
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.
9Darthmaul
09:35:52 AM Jun 17th 2011
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!
EJO1
10:46:58 AM Jun 17th 2011
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.
9Darthmaul
11:11:36 AM Jun 17th 2011
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.
MrDeath
11:15:53 AM Jun 17th 2011
...Okay, seriously? Being turned down by his idol is a "good excuse" for mass murder? What the hell is wrong with you?
9Darthmaul
12:03:07 PM Jun 17th 2011
edited by 9Darthmaul
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.
EJO1
12:19:52 PM Jun 17th 2011
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.
9Darthmaul
12:29:37 PM Jun 17th 2011
Trying to kill Russel and Carl was not offscreen either!
EJO1
12:41:41 PM Jun 17th 2011
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.
ManwiththePlan
01:04:01 PM Jun 17th 2011
edited by ManwiththePlan
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).
ading
01:37:22 PM Jun 17th 2011
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.
Slicer37
05:47:52 PM Jun 17th 2011
I deleted Randall for now based on Man With The Plan's argument.
MrDeath
09:11:19 PM Jun 17th 2011
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.
9Darthmaul
12:04:49 AM Jun 18th 2011
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.
9Darthmaul
03:30:35 AM Jun 18th 2011
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!
ading
04:06:30 AM Jun 18th 2011
Again, note the word TRIED. And the story has to SHOW the actions, not state them.
WolfMan16
04:15:31 AM Jun 18th 2011
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.
WolfMan16
04:21:44 AM Jun 18th 2011
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.
9Darthmaul
05:07:47 AM Jun 18th 2011
Exactly! Syndrome did NOT succeed. That is why he doesn't count.
EJO1
05:25:07 AM Jun 18th 2011
edited by EJO1
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.
9Darthmaul
06:01:31 AM Jun 18th 2011
Well, but he said "You can scream, no one will save you"
ading
08:03:36 AM Jun 18th 2011
edited by ading
^^ Unless it's SHOWN, that doesn't qualify him. The page says "The story has to show the actions."
ManwiththePlan
05:12:32 PM Jun 18th 2011
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.
ading
05:57:44 AM Jun 19th 2011
^ True, but he doesn't succeed, so it still doesn't qualify him. The same goes for Muntz.
ading
03:31:12 PM Jun 20th 2011
I can't say for sure, but I think Syndrome does not qualify.
WolfMan16
09:45:01 PM Jun 20th 2011
edited by WolfMan16
A mod from Ask The Tropers did say Syndrome doesn't qualify.
Idisagree
03:03:12 PM Dec 5th 2011
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.
WolfMan16
topic
10:54:50 PM Jun 8th 2011
edited by WolfMan16
I've removed Negaduck from the list, as he fails the second criteria.
ading
04:07:26 PM Jun 9th 2011
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???
plcthecd
09:30:08 PM Jun 12th 2011
I agree, Xykon from the webcomic The Order of the Stick is considered a Complete Monster despite being Laughably Evil for a time.
WolfMan16
07:04:50 PM Jun 14th 2011
edited by WolfMan16
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.
ManwiththePlan
07:09:50 AM Jun 17th 2011
edited by ManwiththePlan
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.
WolfMan16
10:43:36 PM Jun 17th 2011
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.
ading
01:39:24 PM Jun 22nd 2011
edited by ading
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.
blackcat
moderator
topic
02:46:01 PM Jun 8th 2011
Moderator speaking: I see that there is a history of long discussions about examples and that is a good thing and I am glad to see this. There is an Edit War over this example:

  • Ms. Stout from The Search For Santa Paws. She creates a horrific and abusive environment. She doesn't allow children to sing, or to play with toys. Whenever she sees any child playing with a toy, she takes the toy and throws it into the incinirator! She even threatens to throw the girls into the incinerator or forces them to sleep in the basement, if they do not abide by her rules. She also takes pleasure in tounting Willamina, the oldest girl in the orphanage who hasn't been adopted.

I see there has been a discussion. Please resolve it here. I suspect that locking this page may be the only solution. I will talk with the other mods about it. Until then do not edit war.
Slicer37
09:08:51 PM Jun 8th 2011
I resloved it with him through PM's. There's no need to block the page. I will try not to get into flame wars in the future.
9Darthmaul
12:09:15 AM Jun 9th 2011
Yeah, I only want to know the opinion, of others... Though I accept now that she doesnt't count.
Jorgeazgad
topic
05:25:26 PM Jun 7th 2011
The question here to to evade further confusion and discussion of wether X character is or not a Complete Monster, could be if the X character to be a Complete Monster has to terrorize the audience or the in universe characters.

Another one could be if the off screen actions count or not. To me personally they should count.

Another thing we should do is to decide whether to ignore or not what they could be if we translated them to Real Life. As an example the Oogie Boogie in Real life is a demented Sociopath yet on the Halloween Universe he belongs he is probably just creepy or bothersome. Eating Santa could be less horrendous to the in universe characters than to us. Should I add these to the Complete monster Discussion?

Slicer37
09:44:53 AM Jun 8th 2011
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.
ManwiththePlan
07:19:05 AM Jun 17th 2011
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.
ading
01:39:31 PM Jun 17th 2011
edited by ading
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?
ManwiththePlan
05:08:57 PM Jun 18th 2011
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.
ading
05:59:42 AM Jun 19th 2011
That still should go on the main discussion page. As it stands, the acts need to be shown for them to qualify.
Slicer37
09:44:47 AM Jun 21st 2011
edited by ading
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.
MrDeath
09:56:39 AM Jun 21st 2011
edited by MrDeath
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.
ading
02:23:36 PM Jun 21st 2011
edited by ading
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!!!!
MrDeath
02:42:37 PM Jun 21st 2011
Yes, I realize that. Which is why I started a Trope Repair Shop thread about it this morning just after I made this post.
9Darthmaul
01:21:32 PM Jun 22nd 2011
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
ading
01:32:44 PM Jun 22nd 2011
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.
9Darthmaul
02:09:07 PM Jun 22nd 2011
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.
lightning37
08:17:51 AM Jun 23rd 2011
Alright, can we stop adding and removing Syndrome from the page? This won't end with him staying.
ading
10:10:29 AM Jun 23rd 2011
^^ I agree with you. But neither is being rejected by your idol. I do believe you are correct that Syndrome does not qualify though.
9Darthmaul
10:50:49 AM Jun 23rd 2011
edited by ading
Just watch The Incredibles, and decide.
Slicer37
topic
05:25:40 AM Jun 6th 2011
I don't mean to sound like a Grammar Nazi, but a lot of these entires are just horribly written, in patricular Gothel's and Trout Walkers. Can we rewrite them?
9Darthmaul
06:44:39 AM Jun 6th 2011
edited by 9Darthmaul
Sure. that is because I am not from America
ManwiththePlan
topic
10:22:45 PM Jun 4th 2011
edited by ManwiththePlan
I can't see why Gaston and Shan Yu DON'T belong here.

For Gaston: Everything he does to Belle, Maurice, and Beast in the final act are henious actions (and no, he didn't think that the beast was "just another animal"; he KNEW that the Beast was in love with Belle and mocked him for it), he has no excuse other than being a sociopathic jackass, he clearly has no remorse for what he does, and he had no shot at redemption either. The only one he fails is the fear/hatred one but that's mainly because all of his supporters in the village were assholes too.

For Shan Yu: He has a person shot with an arrow for no real reason, slaughters an entire village of innocent people, and threatens an entire nation, he invokes fear and hatred in all of his enemies (again, his supporters are evil, dehumanized characters too), he has no Freudian Excuse that we know of, he flat out SMILES at the thought of "returning the little girl's doll", and he had no shot at redemption.

I'd also think that Negaduck should be added back in. Just because the show's a comedy and he's played as over-the-top doesn't make his actions less atrocious and the characters do treat him as a serious threat. It's not played completely for laughs like the actions of Mr Krabbs or Peter Griffin, who easily get away with it in their universes. It's more like The Joker in terms of Refuge in Audacity.
EJO1
04:19:09 AM Jun 5th 2011
edited by EJO1
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.
ManwiththePlan
09:55:10 AM Jun 5th 2011
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.
EJO1
10:41:56 AM Jun 5th 2011
edited by EJO1
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.
ading
05:58:06 PM Jun 5th 2011
"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.
ManwiththePlan
08:11:09 PM Jun 5th 2011
edited by ManwiththePlan
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?
Slicer37
08:24:43 PM Jun 5th 2011
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.
ManwiththePlan
08:35:14 PM Jun 5th 2011
edited by ManwiththePlan
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.
Slicer37
08:49:57 PM Jun 5th 2011
edited by ading
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?
9Darthmaul
02:12:27 AM Jun 6th 2011
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.
ading
04:03:30 AM Jun 6th 2011
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.
Slicer37
04:05:12 AM Jun 6th 2011
edited by Slicer37
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.
9Darthmaul
06:47:33 AM Jun 6th 2011
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.
9Darthmaul
06:51:00 AM Jun 6th 2011
I agree with Gaston being removed. the description itself doesn't sound that monstrous
Slicer37
07:43:26 AM Jun 6th 2011
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.
9Darthmaul
08:14:05 AM Jun 6th 2011
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.
Slicer37
12:15:08 PM Jun 6th 2011
What other Disney Short Villians are Complete Monsters other than the The Mad Doctor? If you give me a name, I will disscuss it.
9Darthmaul
01:30:37 PM Jun 6th 2011
edited by ading
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).
Slicer37
04:30:00 PM Jun 6th 2011
I deleted them beause they don't qualify. You can look into the page history for reasons.
9Darthmaul
06:39:47 AM Jun 7th 2011
the Warden qualifies. Like Lotso, she has NO real Freudian Excuse.
9Darthmaul
06:46:19 AM Jun 7th 2011
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!
Slicer37
07:24:49 AM Jun 7th 2011
edited by ading
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.
9Darthmaul
07:52:38 AM Jun 7th 2011
Yes, but what about Miss Hattie and Miss Minchin?!?! you haven't answer my question!!
9Darthmaul
07:53:38 AM Jun 7th 2011
Yes, but what about Miss Hattie and Miss Minchin?!?! you haven't answer my question!!
Slicer37
12:59:40 PM Jun 7th 2011
That doesn't have to do with this page. The reasons for why the chacters I deleted are clear.
9Darthmaul
03:25:05 PM Jun 7th 2011
than delete those two as well
ading
07:17:48 PM Jun 7th 2011
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."

???
9Darthmaul
02:05:23 AM Jun 8th 2011
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?!
9Darthmaul
09:59:37 AM Jun 8th 2011
Sorry...
WolfMan16
10:52:37 PM Jun 8th 2011
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.
ading
05:55:32 AM Jun 16th 2011
edited by ading
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I was talking to Man With The Plan, not you.
ading
02:03:01 PM Aug 4th 2011
edited by ading
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.)
Slicer37
topic
05:39:46 AM Jun 3rd 2011
I scrapped Muntz. I don't think he meets all of the criteria.
9Darthmaul
08:35:40 AM Jun 3rd 2011
edited by ading
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!

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.
9Darthmaul
08:51:49 AM Jun 3rd 2011
edited by ading
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

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.

Slicer37
10:27:46 AM Jun 4th 2011
edited by ading
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.
9Darthmaul
11:47:11 AM Jun 4th 2011
edited by ading
This way Muntz Also counts. He is waay more evil than Syndrome. He also tried to kill a Child!!
9Darthmaul
11:47:16 AM Jun 4th 2011
edited by ading
This way Muntz also counts. He is way more evil than Syndrome. He also tried to kill a Child!!
Slicer37
02:40:33 PM Jun 4th 2011
edited by ading
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.
9Darthmaul
10:25:35 PM Jun 4th 2011
edited by ading
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!!!
9Darthmaul
10:28:50 PM Jun 4th 2011
And what the hell is wrong with Nazis and Pete?!?!
ManwiththePlan
10:29:09 PM Jun 4th 2011
edited by ManwiththePlan
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.
9Darthmaul
10:44:27 PM Jun 4th 2011
edited by 9Darthmaul
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.
ManwiththePlan
10:52:53 PM Jun 4th 2011
edited by ManwiththePlan
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.
9Darthmaul
11:53:54 PM Jun 4th 2011
Well, not anymore. I just checked.
Slicer37
08:49:10 AM Jun 5th 2011
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.
9Darthmaul
09:09:43 AM Jun 5th 2011
Film section has Amon Goeth. He is also a person from Real Life!
Slicer37
09:31:50 AM Jun 5th 2011
edited by Slicer37
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?
MONEYMAN
11:02:45 AM Jun 5th 2011
edited by MONEYMAN
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.
9Darthmaul
11:20:18 AM Jun 5th 2011
edited by ading
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.
Slicer37
12:38:10 PM Jun 5th 2011
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.
9Darthmaul
01:11:58 PM Jun 5th 2011
edited by ading
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...
Slicer37
02:51:49 PM Jun 5th 2011
edited by Slicer37
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.
MONEYMAN
03:30:00 PM Jun 5th 2011
edited by MONEYMAN
@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.
EJO1
03:44:26 PM Jun 5th 2011
edited by ManwiththePlan
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.
9Darthmaul
03:48:58 PM Jun 5th 2011
Okay Slicer37, you have won.
ading
04:29:51 PM Jun 9th 2011
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.
9Darthmaul
12:35:08 PM Jun 10th 2011
So, Syndrome also doesn't. He also failed his on-screen action. His heinous actions happened off-screen. He also fails.
ading
01:20:16 PM Jun 10th 2011
I didn't say Syndrome counted, only that Muntz didn't. Don't put words in my mouth.
9Darthmaul
02:01:56 PM Jun 10th 2011
edited by ading
Yes, but using your logic Syndrome doesn't. Muntz is way more evil! Syndrome at least had an excuse.
Slicer37
02:58:18 PM Jun 10th 2011
edited by Slicer37
But the page explitly says "all actions must be onscreen" Muntz's murders happned offscreen, so he still doesn't count.
9Darthmaul
03:00:09 PM Jun 10th 2011
edited by ading
Syndrome's actions also happened offscreen.
Slicer37
03:06:07 PM Jun 10th 2011
His shooting missiles a plane full of children and trying to push The Dragon off a helicopter were not offscreen.
9Darthmaul
03:07:27 PM Jun 10th 2011
edited by ading
Trying to kill Carl and Russel was also not offscreen.
Slicer37
03:10:46 PM Jun 10th 2011
There's a diffrence between crossing the Moral Event Horizon and being a Complete Monster.
9Darthmaul
03:14:57 PM Jun 10th 2011
Exactly! Things that Syndrome did was also, only a Moral Event Horizon
Jordan
03:20:19 PM Jun 10th 2011
So why is this Muntz person a Complete Monster again?
9Darthmaul
03:27:17 PM Jun 10th 2011
edited by ading
He is not. Neither is Syndrome, or otherwise they are both.
ading
05:57:22 PM Jun 10th 2011
^^^^^ 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.
ading
05:59:25 PM Jun 10th 2011
Muntz has an excuse as much as Syndrome does. It isn't adequate to justify what he does, but it's still an excuse.
Slicer37
07:44:18 PM Jun 10th 2011
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.
9Darthmaul
11:51:32 PM Jun 10th 2011
edited by ading
In case of Nazi, as ading said, it is only about those from the cartoon. Why you deleted them?.
ading
06:49:01 AM Jun 11th 2011
edited by ading
The given reason is "they didn't do anything". But the example says that they kidnap Donald and treat him as a slave, just like everyone else, which is a type of doing something. So, I'm really not sure what the problem is.
Slicer37
07:26:52 AM Jun 11th 2011
But it never says they kidnapped Donald in the cartoon. It implies that he is a nazi in his dream, so the "kidnap" thing doesn't hold water. As for the slave thing, Donald was a nazi in the dream, so he basically signed up for it.
plcthecd
06:21:44 AM Jun 13th 2011
Let's not forget that he also KIDNAPPED Jack-Jack in the end and planning to raise him as a villain. And yes, even the he killed those superheroes off-screen, and launched missiles at a plane with Bob's wife and kids. Need I remind you that he also release the Omnidroid into the city, causing chaos and destruction in its wake? Plus, he release the Omnidroid so he can defeat it and have the city see him as their savior.
Slicer37
07:04:12 AM Jun 13th 2011
edited by ading
We're not talking about Sydrome anymore. Most of his actions happened off-screen, therefore he doesn't count.
9Darthmaul
09:59:20 AM Jun 13th 2011
Beside, trying to raise Jack-Jack as a villain, is his Pet the Dog moment.
Slicer37
10:03:12 AM Jun 13th 2011
edited by ading
Trying to take a hero and raise him as a villian is a Pet the Dog moment? Honestly, I agree about Syndrome not being a Complete Monster, but your arguments make no sense what so ever.
9Darthmaul
02:10:13 AM Jun 14th 2011
Yes it is Pet the Dog because if he would be really evil he would kill him instead of raising him as a villaihn. But NO! He doesn't want to kill him, which means that he has some heart inside. Besides, you argued all the time that he is, now you say he is not?! That's funny.
plcthecd
02:27:48 AM Jun 15th 2011
Fine, if Syndrome isn't Complete Monster material can we at least acknowledge here that his Freudian Excuse is rather petty to say the least.
MrDeath
07:21:22 AM Jun 15th 2011
Kidnapping a child from his loving, rightful parents is never a Pet the Dog, especially if you're going to raise him to be a murderous villain. I mean, good gods, I've seen you post some daft things before but that is just...utterly stupid. I'm sorry if it's an ad hominem, but there's no other way I can put it. Sheesh.
ading
05:56:55 AM Jun 16th 2011
It's not Ad Hominem at all.
9Darthmaul
01:07:15 PM Jun 22nd 2011
edited by 9Darthmaul
Let's return to Pete's case because he is even mentioned on the film page as this

It is clearly written in The Prince and the Pauper

The film has what is probably one of the most sinister and least bumbling incarnations of Pete ever.

He counts, and DO NOT delete him. Watch Prince And The Pauper.
lightning37
topic
04:55:25 PM May 30th 2011
Would it be alright to add Gorog from the Wizards of Waverly Place 2-part episode Wizards vs. Angels? He tried to turn everyone in NYC evil and used Rosie to manipulate Justin.
Slicer37
10:33:44 PM May 30th 2011
No.
9Darthmaul
07:23:15 AM May 31st 2011
I think, yes!
lightning37
08:15:40 AM May 31st 2011
Slicer37: Care to mention which criterias he doesn't meet, then?
ading
04:39:35 PM May 31st 2011
Good question lightning37. What criteria does he not meet?
lightning37
05:14:56 PM May 31st 2011
Since you ask, let's see...

Commits truly heinous actions? He decieved Rosie and made her use Justin to bring about his plan. He turned Justin into an angel of darkness and threatened to destroy him for being an outsider. He also tried to use the Moral Compass to shroud all of NYC in darkness and make the people below them bitterhearted.

Terribleness is played seriously? The other characters hate him, yes, except for his servants of course. Well, Justin and Rosie didn't until they realized his plan, but still...

No Freudian Excuse? None that I can think of.

No altruistic qualities or regrets? He shows no regrets for his actions and was not well minded.

No chance at redemption? I would have to say not.

I'll have to watch the episode again later, but this is what I do recall.
Slicer37
05:28:33 PM May 31st 2011
edited by ading
Unless you'd go so far to say that all his minons are Complete Monsters, then he fails the second criteria.
9Darthmaul
11:15:12 PM May 31st 2011
edited by 9Darthmaul
Well, I agree. Number 2 is wrong. "If there are other villains, they dislike this person too. He fails this criteria. However, he meets 4/5. I guess he could still go.
ading
06:16:01 PM Jun 1st 2011
ALL of the criteria must apply. If he fails even one, he's out.
Slicer37
04:03:16 PM Jun 2nd 2011
Right. Gorog is not a Complete Monster.
lightning37
08:03:55 PM Jun 2nd 2011
But if all the criteria need to apply, then that's insufficient, because Hopper and Lotso's entries under Pixar films state that they are the only two Pixar characters to meet all five criteria, yet other Pixar villains like Syndrome and Charles Muntz still get their entries.
Slicer37
05:34:29 AM Jun 3rd 2011
Did you read the page? You must have all five criteria. If you feel that Sydrome and Muntz don't belong here, you can check them out for yourself and see if they fit all five catogories. But Gorog clearly doesn't so he isn't a Complete Monster.
lightning37
03:18:50 PM Jun 3rd 2011
Ah, whatever. I'll stop there before it becomes a "he is or isn't" like Peter Griffin, Mr. Krabs, Cyrus, etc.

But Penelope from Sonny with a Secret can stay, right?
Slicer37
08:56:03 PM Jun 3rd 2011
edited by ading
Considering that she tried to frame a innocent girl and later try to push her out of a helicopter with all her friends, and sneaked a bomb into a live show, on a Disney channel show, she definitely qualifies. She's actually one of the most clear examples on this page and probably worse than most of the Disney Animated Canon Complete Monsters.
Slicer37
topic
10:10:56 AM May 14th 2011
edited by ading
I don't think Jafar, Ursula, Gothel, or Chernabog qualifiy as Complete Monsters.
ading
02:50:28 PM May 25th 2011
/because?
9Darthmaul
12:35:22 PM May 28th 2011
Chernabog DOES! He is the DEVIL! HE is A SOURCE OF ALL EVIL. Complete Monster means pure-evil. Chernabog is pure evil.
Slicer37
02:21:09 PM May 29th 2011
edited by ading
On second thought, I suposose Jafar qualifies. Let's go through the other three.

Ursala

1. The character must personally commit actions that are truly heinous by the standards of the story, which makes no attempt to gloss them over or present them in a positive light. Offstage Villainy doesn't count; the story has to show the actions, not imply them. Actions that become inconsequential through Negative Continuity don't count either. A Complete Monster is implied to have crossed the Moral Event Horizon either during the story or long before it, but a character can cross the Moral Event Horizon without necessarily being a Complete Monster.

Well, she steals Ariel voice, hoping that she will fail to get her man and become part of her collection so she can bargain her for the trident to rule the ocean. That all sounds Complete Monster-ish on paper yes. But remember that she never actually does any of this stuff. A Complete Monster needs to walk into a story. I'm going to vote no on this one.

2. 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 usually just Evilly Affable at worst, but can still be one if done right. If the character is not taken seriously at all, they fail to qualify.

Again, at first she seems to qualify. But remeber the Reason Shan-yu was taken off this page. If there are other villians around, they must dislike her too. Flotsam and Jetsam are definatly NOT Complete Monsters. Yet they respect her. Plus, she's comical. Look at the villian songs, in paticular Frollo's. Frollo has a song, but it is dark, heavy, and terrifiying. Was anyone over the age of 8 actually scared of "Poor Unfortunate Souls"? No. It's funny. No Check.

There is no adequate justification or Freudian Excuse to balance out the misdeeds. That is to say, while there may be a sad backstory present, it must in no way be able to excuse the heinous evil deeds the character commits.

Check.

Characters that fit this trope must be completely devoid of altruistic qualities. By the same token, they must show no regret for their crimes regardless of how horrible they may be. It is more fitting for the CM to enjoy the devastation created by their actions but complete indifference toward it will suffice.

Remeber Ursala's Villianious Breakdown? It happened directly after Flotsam and Jetsam's death. She showed sadness and regret that they died. No check.

Most importantly, the character must have no chance of redemption, at least not without being considered a Karma Houdini. The only way the story could come to anything resembling a Happy Ending is a Karmic Death, a Fate Worse than Death, or at the very least removal from the story. A Heel-Face Turn, even of the Redemption Equals Death variety, is out of the question, and nobody would believe it if it happened.

She could have done one, but it would have been really stupid and fake-sounding. Check.

2/5. Ursala is NOT a Complete Monster.

I'll do the other two later.
9Darthmaul
08:46:11 AM May 30th 2011
edited by ading
I completly agree. I will do now for Chernabog.

  • Horrible actions:

He tortures many souls and makes them miserable. He also bring bad dreamss.

Well, the former is definitely monstrous, but the latter is NOT. Besides, he doesn't have to do anything evil to be this trope because HE IS SOURCE OF ALL EVIL. I would say yes for this one.

  • Evoking fear (including from other villains):

This segment is made of only villains. Look at them! They fear him so much! Check.

Check. Again, he is the source of all evil. He was made evil. Of course he has no Freudian Excuse.

  • No Remorse:

He clearly enjoyed everything he was doing.

  • No chance of redemption:

Very clearly NO.

5/5. He is a Complete Monster.
Slicer37
09:20:27 AM May 30th 2011
edited by ading
The problem with Chernabog is that, we don't know anything about him. He has what, 5 minutes of screentime tops? His entire extince is a Big Lipped Alligator Moment. The movie never actually says that he's made of evil. The movie never actually says that he's torturing demons. For all we know, he's playing with puppets. We just don't know enough about him for him to qualify. If we ever get more information, he might go on, but for now I think it's best if he is taken off the page.
9Darthmaul
09:44:39 AM May 30th 2011
Okay, now let's discuss Gothel.
Slicer37
09:55:42 AM May 30th 2011
edited by ading
Can I delete Chernabog first?
9Darthmaul
12:17:54 PM May 30th 2011
edited by ading
Okay, explain Mother Gothel
Slicer37
08:03:05 PM May 30th 2011
edited by ading
Actually, I rechecked and I think Gothel is a Complete Monster, so I guess she can stay. But how do we prevent people from putting on Ursala and Chernabog over and over?
9Darthmaul
07:12:48 AM May 31st 2011
I was the one who kept adding Chernabog. I will stop. I don't know what about Ursula. We will probably have to block them.
plcthecd
topic
06:34:13 PM May 12th 2011
edited by ading
Why was Negaduck removed for the Darkwing Duck section? I thought this is for the YMMV section and he's under Merlock from the Ducktales Movie section. Plus, Western Animation has Eric Cartman from South Park and in Webcomics, Xykon of The Order of the Stick are both listed as Complete Monsters even though their evil is played for laughs at times.
DynamicDragon
topic
09:38:25 AM May 7th 2011
I think calling Gothel and Ursula complete monsters is a bit of a stretch. Ursula did genuinely care for Flotsam and Jetsam and Gothel did what she did because she was absolutely terrifed of death
9Darthmaul
11:26:44 AM May 27th 2011
edited by ading
In case of Ursula, I agree, but in case of Mother Gothel, just because you are terrified of death, doesn't mean that you have to go so far like she went. She could be nicer to Rapunzel.
ading
03:12:20 PM May 27th 2011
Yeah, I'm not sure how being terrified of death makes Gothel not a Complete Monster.
Slicer37
06:32:49 PM May 31st 2011
Ursula has been scrapped.
lightning37
topic
10:13:37 AM Apr 20th 2011
Whoever said that TRON Legacy was for children in the first place? Just because it's Disney, it doesn't look like stuff that kids would understand. It's listed as Sci-Fi and Fantasy under most sources.
ading
05:39:02 PM May 1st 2011
And Sci-fi and Fantasy can't be for children because???
BlueKevlar16
05:48:20 AM Apr 4th 2012
It's quite violent for a Disney film, and it's not about children. The main characters are in their twenties.
9Darthmaul
topic
02:23:48 AM Apr 17th 2011
I REALLY FEEL that Chernabog really supposed to be here. He is a THE DEVIL!! SOURCE OF ALL EVIL!! How can he be not here??
ading
05:30:21 AM Apr 17th 2011
edited by ading
When the explanation starts with "While he doesn't do anything," then it's not a Complete Monster, because the one of the requirements of a Complete Monster is doing something truly horrendous.
9Darthmaul
05:41:19 AM Apr 17th 2011
edited by ading
He actually does something evil. He tortures demons of his kind and it was CLEARLY written that he is evil anyway.
ading
05:51:18 AM Apr 17th 2011
You are contradicting yourself because you explicitly stated that he doesn't do anything.
9Darthmaul
06:21:18 AM Apr 17th 2011
edited by ading
Okay, then I will re-add him and describe him more clearly and monstrously and I will describe some of his horrible actions.
miru
topic
08:59:33 AM Jan 30th 2011
How about his for a quote?

Baby, I know I'm not winning any popularity contests, but this is what makes me whole. Some guys have flaws. Or play checkers. Others organize book clubs. But me, I make tiny, adorable babies cry their little heads off!
neoYTPism
08:36:15 PM Mar 3rd 2011
Not as fitting or recognizable as the quotation from The Nostalgia Critic @ miru
ading
05:31:29 AM Mar 16th 2011
Besides, it was part of a Show Within a Show, and I doubt making babies cry is Complete Monster level.
SomeNewGuy
topic
04:06:37 PM Jan 29th 2011
There is no possible way Frollo does not qualify as a Complete Monster. Literally everything he does is either a cruel Kick the Dog, abusing and manipulating Quasimodo for both his own ends and his personal twisted amusment and, oh yeah, trying to commit genocide on the gypsies because one of them refused to be his lover.
neoYTPism
08:38:33 PM Mar 3rd 2011
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.
BlueKevlar16
05:46:32 AM Apr 4th 2012
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.
neoYTPism
topic
12:55:52 PM Dec 1st 2010
Oh, and I scrapped Shan-Yu as well. Recent TRS discussion suggests he doesn't apply.
millenniumrex
08:33:54 PM Dec 2nd 2010
What is TRS? I'm sort of new around here.

I'd argue the "Respect from the Hun army" thing. We never see their motivations explored in any depth, and most of them seem just as ruthless as he is.
neoYTPism
05:30:36 PM Dec 3rd 2010
TRS refers to the trope repair shop. More specifically, the thread about the CM cleanup from the trope repair shop.
miru
08:14:21 AM Jan 22nd 2011
Added him back. And i addded the other huns too.
neoYTPism
11:15:16 AM Jan 23rd 2011
You shouldn't have. If you had just looked at the Trope Repair Shop and Trope Talk threads about Complete Monster lists you'd have realized that the hun army, even as a whole, doesn't qualify as this.
ading
05:32:31 AM Mar 16th 2011
edited by ading
Can you provide a link because I don't see anything in the Trope Repair Shop Discussion about Shan-Yu?
DynamicDragon
09:40:27 AM May 7th 2011
I understand his horde, but Shan-Yu himself definitely qualifies. He butchers innocent people including children and tries to kill the Emperor.
ading
04:07:15 PM May 25th 2011
Except that his horde respects him, and one of the criteria for a Complete Monster is being feared and hated by all other non-Complete Monster characters.
neoYTPism
topic
09:32:23 PM Nov 30th 2010
On a sidenote, I scrapped Gaston from the list. I didn't even know he was added, and I don't think he belongs on the list at all. See the page history for what I removed, and why.
Roy
04:54:28 AM Mar 7th 2011
I personally think Gaston IS definetly a Complete Monster: he intends to marry a girl with the force: let's not forget that in one scene he basically tries to rape her in her own house. His worst act is when he threatens her by locking her father into the Asylum. At the climax he definetly crosses the lines himself, going with his Disproportionate Retribution towards the Beast, planning to kill him when he figures out that Belle loves him. When the Beast spares his life he literally stabs him in the back.

Maybe he's not worse than Frollo or the Evil Queen, but come on...his attitudes are quite dastardly.
EJO1
04:25:59 PM May 18th 2011
If you think Gaston is deserving of the trope, then to be brutally honest, the majority of the villagers qualify for the trope as well. For one thing, they actually supported the forced marriage. They also supported Gaston's plan to get Belle to marry him, even when it was especially clear that this plan was heavily implied to be a very heinous plan (Heck, Gaston and Le Fou actually state loudly in their reprise, loud enough for the entire tavern to hear, "no one plots/takes cheap shots/makes plans to persecute harmless crackpots like Gaston!" which should make it especially apparent that, whatever he is plotting, it is extraordinarily heinous), not to mention the cruel mocking of Maurice as they watch his (almost) being carted away.

Plus, personally, if anyone from that film ranks as a Complete Monster, it's the asylum warden. I mean, it's very clear that he actually likes it when despicable things happen.
neoYTPism
topic
12:14:09 PM Nov 21st 2010
Also, is Clayton really a CM? I've seen him on Disney villain lists but I don't recall him being described as heinously evil to a comparable extent to Frollo or Hopper. What do others here think?
millenniumrex
04:17:09 PM Nov 23rd 2010
I don't think Clayton qualifies, for the same reason that Facilier doesn't. It's hard to call someone a complete monster when they don't know that they're killing intelligent beings. Clayton is clearly a ruthless, evil, amoral hunter, and he does cross the MEH when he attempts to murder Tarzan, but I don't think he qualifies for this status.
neoYTPism
topic
08:22:45 AM Nov 13th 2010
I just commented in the Hunchback page about how Frollo isn't necessarily the most evil Disney villain ever, and how Hopper is arguably worse.

What would you people here consider the worst villain on the list? I would say Hopper is at least worse than Frollo, who is arguably a Knight Templar, unlike Hopper whose expressed motives are almost exclusively about "keeping those ants in line."

Shan Yu is pretty horrible as well, destroying whole villages of innocent civilians out of desire for power, and for that matter it is not exactly specified whether or not he would have even needed to destroy those villages to get his power ANYWAY.
Slicer37
07:07:25 PM May 16th 2011
edited by Slicer37
Worst villian on the list? I'd have to say Judge Doom. All the other villians are at least subject to Alternate Character Interpretation, while Judge Doom has abolutsly no redeeming qualities.
neoYTPism
topic
08:20:20 AM Nov 11th 2010
edited by neoYTPism
Someone added Nizam to the list. He is mentioned on the Prince of Persia film page as a CM as well, so I am tentatively leaving him on the list, but I figured I should just bring him up so that we in this discussion page can run over whether or not he qualifies.

I am not familiar with him, so I will leave discussion to those who are.
neoYTPism
topic
06:54:57 PM Nov 9th 2010
Someone added Shadow Man; I temporarily removed him but I am not very familiar with Princess And The Frog; perhaps he could be discussed here.
rodneyAnonymous
09:26:11 PM Nov 9th 2010
edited by rodneyAnonymous
1. Horrendous acts by the standards of the setting.

I don't think so. I'd like to see a case made otherwise. He makes deals with evil loa and plays with black magic. No horrendous acts, say murder or rape. He wants to collect other people's souls, but as far as we see, he doesn't at all. Actually committing the crimes is essential.  * You can't be a complete monster by talking big. You have to walk the walk in the story. Fail.

2. The character's horribleness is played straight at all times. Evokes fear, revulsion, and hatred.

Fail. Fear, maybe, but he dresses to scare and wears skull-looking face paint. Revulsion and hatred? No.

3. No Freudian excuse.

This is unexplored by the work. "Maybe not" is the most you could say for sure. But okay.

4. No remorse.

Fail.

5. No chance of redemption.

Fail. His "death" is particularly horrifying. Did you feel bad for him as he is dragged, screaming and pleading, off to "hell"? Yes? Then he is not a complete monster.

Generously, 1/5. Dr. Facilier / Shadow Man is not a complete monster. He is a realistic and somewhat sympathetic villain. Complete monsters are not realistic or sympathetic.
Iaculus
08:18:03 AM Nov 13th 2010
He actually does some pretty nasty stuff in that film - see also, promising to sacrifice an entire city to Eldritch Abominations in order to make a quick buck. It's just that it's obvious that he's acting out of desperation, far too caught up in his own lethal Chain of Deals to properly think his actions through.

A Complete Monster would act of his own volition, not just to keep his big, scary friends happy.
EJO1
12:10:43 PM Dec 3rd 2010
On that note, if anyone from that film deserves "Complete Monster" status, it's those eldritch abominations "friends" of Dr. Facilier.
PumpkinLore
topic
02:24:39 PM Nov 7th 2010
Can someone explain why Oogie Boogie was removed? As far as I can tell, he fits the five criteria for Complete Monster.

The character must personally engage in a series of truly horrendous acts by the standards of the setting, 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.

Trying to kill Santa out of pure sadism — but torturing him before doing so — seem to qualify to me.

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 usually just Evilly Affable, at worst, but can still be one if done right. If the character is not taken seriously at all, they fail to qualify.

Concerning the rest of Halloween Town citizens attitude towards him ("Leave that no account Oogie Boogie OUT OF THIS!"), this definately is Oogie. Even Lock, Shock, and Barrel seem to work for him out of fear.

There is no adequate justification or Freudian Excuse to balance out the misdeeds. That is to say, while there may be a sad backstory present, it must in no way be able to justify the horrendous deeds the character commits in the present time. The character, regardless of tragedy in the past, must clearly be too far gone now.

Check.

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.

Oogie laughing his head off while torturing. 'Nuff said.

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 satisfying Redemption Equals Death for this character, and no Fate Worse than Death is too extreme.

This one's questionable, because while it's pretty unlikely that Oogie can be redeemed, there probably could be a happy ending without killing Oogie (unless you include Fridge Horror).

Nevertheless, Oogie fits at least four of the criteria of Complete Monster, if not all five, so I don't see why he was removed.
Elle
11:17:33 PM Nov 7th 2010
The forum thread where it came up. I wouldn't have been so hasty to remove it but I was the one who brought it up as questionable.

The conflict is this:

- Is he played seriously enough? My personal reaction is that Oogie is too far on the Crazy Awesome side (with my yardstick for such usualy being the Joker from The Dark Knight - he was Crazy Awesome but also horrifying in his atrocities). But, I am also not the target audience for the movie. A kid might find differently.

- Even as much as we try to keep the defintion objective, there's still a lot of subjective, intangible "something" that people believe make a "true" Complete Monster on the basic emotional level: an audience reaction of fear and/or disgust. That comes into play mostly when arguing wither a character's actions were "bad enough" to qualify them.
rodneyAnonymous
10:31:12 AM Nov 9th 2010
edited by rodneyAnonymous
Oogie Boogie is not a complete monster. He is different than the other Halloween Town residents, who are Dark Is Not Evil, whereas Oogie is actually evil.

1. Horrendous acts by the standards of the setting.

Oogie threatens to cook and eat Santa. No torture. "Worse than the others"? Ok, a bit. Horrendous? No. Also note that he doesn't do it, so he could have been threatening sexual assault, it doesn't matter.

2. The character's horribleness is played straight at all times. Evokes fear, revulsion, and hatred.

No. He is obviously silly. He has a song and dance number. "Fear", "revulsion", and "hatred" are pretty strong words. The other residents dislike and mistrust him.

3. No Freudian excuse.

Okay.

4. No remorse.

Okay.

5. No chance of redemption.

Nonsense! The movie could have easily ended without killing Oogie (in a deleted scene/alternate ending, this is even true), and he could believably pull a Heel-Face Turn. Actually, he sort of appears to when Jack shows up, but it turned out not: "Jack, I thought you were dead! You must be double dead."

...a complete monster is supposed to fulfill all five. Oogie fails over half. He didn't go anywhere near any moral event horizons. Being a bit evil, or even a lot evil, is not enough; a complete monster is an epitome of evil.
PumpkinLore
05:59:08 PM Nov 12th 2010
Okay, now I understand. Well then, I'll go and take off the Complete Monster section on Nightmare page. On retrospect, I do remember when I first came to TV Tropes I was suprised with Oogie being considered a Complete Monster.
dynamicdragon
05:23:30 PM Nov 19th 2010
I would like to make a rebuttal

1. None of the other Halloween Town residents are nearly as bad as Ooogie-Boogie. None of theme intentionally hurt anybody. Also, it's shown that he's killed at least seven people

2. It doesn't matter if he sings amusing songs, he's still sining about torturing, killing and eating people for no reason other than sadism!

3. Redeemable? Hell no!! If someone like that existed in real life, they'd be sent to the gallows in a heartbeat!

Oogie fulfills all the criteria
Paireon
11:28:47 PM Nov 20th 2010
Sent to the gallows in a heartbeat? I don't know about your country, but in mine what we see him do (7 previous victims therefore notwithstanding) would get him about 15 years, and after a trial too. Sorry, but if you use such figures of speech (I really hope you didn't mean that last bit literally...), I doubt you can judge the criteria that well. Besides, a Complete Monster's adherence to the criteria must be beyond question, which doesn't seem to be the case here, ergo he probably should be removed for the time being. Maybe after more clarification he'll be put back.
dynamicdragon
04:14:07 AM Nov 21st 2010
That's a good point, but I do think he should be on the page, at least for the time being. We'll see if there are better reasons why he should be on the page
rodneyAnonymous
11:46:38 AM Nov 21st 2010
edited by rodneyAnonymous
Actually committing the crimes onscreen is essential. It doesn't matter if we learn that a character has a gruesome past. Oogie fails that criterion hard.

It doesn't matter if he sings about torture. (By the way: What?! I don't think there are any such lyrics...) You can't be a complete monster by talking big. You have to walk the walk in the work.

It's not just that he has a song and dance number. Frollo in Hunchback sings a song ("Hellfire"), and it's fearsome, it cements his monsterhood if anything. Oogie is clearly wacky, Affably Evil perhaps.

And it seems hopeless to argue with whether he has a chance at redemption when an alternate ending on the Special Edition DVD has the movie end without him dying. (Director commentary says it was scrapped for reasons other than his apology not seeming believeable.)

This is called complete monster. Alex de Large is a complete monster. Oogie Boogie is not.
411314
topic
10:50:57 PM Nov 1st 2010
I'm not saying he is or isn't, but I'd like to put this little-known villain from a Disney short up for consideration and analysis just in case; is Ben Buzzard a complete monster?
MagBas
topic
07:50:57 AM Oct 24th 2010
  • There is also Lady Tremaine. She's incredibly nasty not only to her poor cute stepdaughter, but she raises her daughters Anastasia and Drusilla to be almost as bitchy and cruel as she is, and goes out of her way to ruin Cindy's life just because she can.
    • The prequel and the sequel make her even worse, as in the former she does all she can to have the now noticeably more sympathetic Anastasia supplanting Cindy via the Fairy Godmother's Wand's magic while she sends the real one away, and in the latter she keeps humiliating Anastasia when she beings to openly rebel, until she snaps on her and has an open Heel-Face Turn. No wonder The Nostalgia Critic rated her the #3 Greatest Villain in the Disney Animated Canon.

As is having one edit war about this character i am putting she here to that both the sides can discuss without edit wars in the main page.
411314
01:26:56 PM Oct 24th 2010
edited by 411314
I haven't seen the prequel or sequel, but in the original, at least, she's a perfect example of a villain who is NOT a complete monster. The page says "most - preferably all" of the criteria must apply. Since there are five criteria, "most" would mean at least three.

•"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."

Making someone do a lot of chores is not "truly horrendus". Locking her up just long enough to prevent her from getting away from her unpleasant life in certainly mean and despicable, but "truly horrendus"? Probably not. No check.

•"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 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."

Cinderella is clearly sad about what Lady Tremaine is doing to her, but she shows no signs of hating her or finding her revolting. Perhaps the scene where she doesn't try to argue when Tremaine interrupts her while petting Lucifer could be interpreted as fear, but it seems more like mild intimidation or politeness. No check.

•"THERE IS NO ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION OR FREUIDIAN EXCUSE TO BALANCE OUT THE MISDEEDS."

Check.

•"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."

Check.

"MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE CHARACTER MUST HAVE NO CHANCE OF REDEMPTION WITHOUT BEING CONSIDRED 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 EEL 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 possibility of Tremaine reforming is debatable, but I think it's clear that she doesn't deserve death, let alone a fate worse then death. Such an ending would actually be rather dark and depressing, and the movie does have a happy ending despite her being a karma houdini. No check.

Final score: 2 out of 5, niether of which is the most important one. Tremaine is NOT a complete monster.
neoYTPism
06:28:40 PM Oct 24th 2010
To be fair, Cinderella does seem to significantly fear Tremaine. However, criteria #2 is still cancelled out by the stepsisters and the cat respecting Tremaine. If the "revulsion from other characters" criteria were met, the cat and/or stepsisters would lose respect for Tremaine over the course of the movie.

That said, the first criteria is probably the most important one, and like 411314 pointed out it is clearly not met. Tremaine doesn't belong here at all.
neoYTPism
topic
10:21:48 AM Oct 14th 2010
Does the Red Queen really belong here? I'm not familiar with the movie she's from, but Red Queen doesn't seem to be mentioned as a Complete Monster in the article about the movie, and the acts described on the page don't strike me as a "series of truly horrendous deeds"; at least not from the description alone. I'm tentatively removing her until the person who added her can come up with a good explanation here of how she meets the checklist.
Dommie222
topic
07:56:23 AM Sep 28th 2010
edited by Dommie222
So...How come that the Queen from Snow White has just been suddenly taken away from the page? I mean, trying to kill a kindhearted, innocent girl for a petty reason as "she's more fairer than me" should be enough, no less that the first murder attempt was to send a hunter to stab her to death and then take the heart back as a trophy, and the second murder attempt was to poison her and then laugh about how she'll be buried alive. And the dungeon scene hints that Snow White ain't the first or the only victim of the Queen's madness.
miru
05:03:14 PM Oct 1st 2010
And Ratcilffe is on here. He's too funny to count.
Iaculus
02:39:22 AM Oct 2nd 2010
Funny or not, does he fulfil the five points in the trope article? That's all that matters here.

The Queen is a definite shoo-in, certainly. Five points ticked off nicely.
neoYTPism
08:59:06 AM Oct 2nd 2010
I already gave my reasons for removing the evil queen from the page. Did you even LOOK through the page history?

And the dungeon scene doesn't tell us anything. Just because there are skeletons there doesn't mean she's responsible for the deaths of their owners. I don't think repeatedly trying to kill just one character makes her a Complete Monster... and I don't think the pettiness of her motivation is relevant at all.

Remember, this trope is for the most depraved of villains. This is a phrase used to describe the likes of Hopper and Frollo... I seriously doubt the evil queen from Snow White belongs on the same list.
miru
11:15:07 AM Oct 2nd 2010
edited by ading
hmmm... have you heard of Evilly Affable? That is where ratclffe should go.
neoYTPism
11:34:35 AM Oct 2nd 2010
I was thinking more along the lines of Affably Evil, since that's about villains who, like Ratcliffe, are polite. Evilly Affably is more for a villain who Crosses the Line Twice.
Iaculus
12:16:53 PM Oct 2nd 2010
edited by Iaculus
OK, let's run the Queen through the Five.

Right, let's forget about the skeletons in the dungeon for a bit. For all we know, they were bought along with the castle in order to add flavour. Even disregarding that, though, she orders the death of a teenager for being too pretty, and later carries it out herself. That's just... seven different shades of 'not cool'.

  • 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 (in particularly disturbing stories, with particularly evil villains, even lesser Complete Monsters may fear such a character). If the other characters in the story treat the character as a joke or don't take them seriously, they fail to qualify.

Didn't seem that anyone else was terribly fond of the Queen, certainly. Remember the huntsman's famous Even Evil Has Standards moment?

  • There is no adequate justification or Freudian Excuse to balance out the misdeeds.

If there was, I didn't see one.

  • 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.

Big check here.

  • 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.

Another check. Just look at the horrific Karmic Death she got dumped with.

She's a Complete Monster all right, and the fact that folks like Frollo outstrip her in evilness only makes them worse.
neoYTPism
08:54:51 AM Oct 3rd 2010
Even disregarding that, though, she orders the death of a teenager for being too pretty, and later carries it out herself. That's just... seven different shades of 'not cool'.

Indeed, but is it as extreme as the evil being done by other villains on the list? It's being done to one victim. Contrast Hopper, who clearly terrorized hundreds of victims, or Frollo, who tried to kill dozens of victims and is implied to have probably left hundreds more homeless given the progress he had made in burning down Paris. I suppose the question is simply whether their approach to one victim is enough to make them a Complete Monster or not, and whether or not there are different levels of Complete Monster within this.
Iaculus
11:34:14 AM Oct 3rd 2010
Even the trope description refers to 'lesser Complete Monsters', so presumably there are indeed degrees of monsterhood - I'd certainly consider the Queen a mere entry-level Complete Monster compared to Frollo.

Basically, if you meet the five points, you're in. Anything above and beyond that is just applying for extra credit.
neoYTPism
topic
04:37:08 PM Sep 20th 2010
I already made a thread about this in the Film board, but I figure I would discuss it here as well. I noticed that previously, until I mentioned the idea of Zira as a Complete Monster, she was not considered a Complete Monster on the page for The Lion King OR the Disney Complete Monster list, whereas Scar was on both for a while before that. I figured it might be worth asking why this is, as each character has reasons to be more of a Complete Monster than the other.

First off, it was mentioned in the other thread that it might be because fewer people heard of the sequel than the original. That would explain the discrepancy for the Disney Complete Monster list, but not necessarily for the page for The Lion King, unless the connection is just that fewer viewers means it took longer for someone to think of the film, then think of the villain and think Complete Monster.

That aside, though, reasons for Scar to be more of a Complete Monster include the lack of Freudian Excuse, (as pointed out in the other thread, he could otherwise have enjoyed his cushy prideland lifestyle if he got over the idea that Mufasa was in charge; Zira had much less) and reasons for Zira to be more of a Complete Monster include that she is so much more sadistic and spiteful about it; I myself mentioned Scar having an Affably Evil demeanor in comparison to Zira being angry and hateful.
Slicer37
04:34:25 PM Jun 6th 2011
They are both Complete Monsters if you ask me, but Scar is more so than Zira.
WitchOfTheAbsolute
11:11:48 AM Jun 12th 2014
edited by 194.81.49.122
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 Bug's 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.
SeptimusHeap
01:34:56 PM Jun 12th 2014
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.
WitchOfTheAbsolute
07:20:14 AM Jun 16th 2014
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.

SeptimusHeap
08:02:55 AM Jun 16th 2014
The thread did not agree with you on the first point. Hence why he's off.
WitchOfTheAbsolute
07:09:15 AM Jun 26th 2014
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 Bug's 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.
SeptimusHeap
08:34:46 AM Jun 26th 2014
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.
WitchOfTheAbsolute
07:21:17 AM Jun 30th 2014
So how do I go about convincing them to add Hopper and Turbo?
back to Monster/Disney

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy