What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Monster/WesternAnimation

 

Shaoken
topic
02:14:18 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.
TotalDramaRox97
topic
02:37:32 PM Nov 14th 2013
Vaatu from LOK should definitely count and Unalaq maybe
Larkmarn
03:04:59 PM Nov 14th 2013
Vaatu can't count because he's a manifestation of chaos.

Not caught up on the series, but Unalaq wasn't anywhere near CM-level when last I checked. Things could have changed, though.
TotalDramaRox97
04:31:16 PM Nov 29th 2013
Inn the finale he is a official one
TotalDramaRox97
topic
12:08:38 PM May 6th 2013
What about Yakone from Legend of Korra

He was a crime boss in Republic City who got away with his actions for a while. Once he was finally convicted he revealed his ability to Bloodbend whenever he wants and uses it to escape. When Aang goes to pursue him, he gets Yakone and then Yakone tries to KILL the Avatar with Bloodbending. Thankfully, Aang broke free and took away Yakone's bending. Somehow, he escaped prison and got plastic surgery to start a new life. Does that sound semi-redeeming? It's not. He marries a woman and has 2 happy children Tarlokk and Noatak (who grew up to become Amon). He eventually learns they are waterbenders and starts forcing them to learn. over times his training tactics got more violent (like bloodbending wolves) turning his Noatak into a loner. One night, he forces his two sons to BLOODBEND EACH OTHER. And when Tarlokk refuses he threatens him with physical violence. Noatak bloodbends his father and tells him how horrible a father he is. Yakone's treatment of his sons turned one into a sleazy politician who manipulated others and had no qualms with arresting people for no good reason and the other into a terrorist leader who was going to rid the world of bending.
Peteman
12:23:18 PM May 6th 2013
Shouldn't you be asking this on the Complete Monster thread in the forums?
Nithael
12:56:32 PM May 6th 2013
Yakone was discussed repeatedly, and is now on the "Absolutely Concluded And Will Never Be Discussed Again" list. The reasoning is that he's not nearly as bad as Ozai was, and some of his actions can be interpreted as showing love for his sons and remorse over what he did to them (I personally don't agree with the last part, but w/e).
TotalDramaRox97
04:07:07 PM May 20th 2013
Has Hiroshi Sato been discussed I think he reached it in Endgame
Shaoken
07:00:10 PM Jul 6th 2013
Discussed and ruled to not even be close. Not truly henious in actions, would fail compared to Ozai who has corned the Avatar market on bad fathers, his start of darkness was triggered by love, etc.
Larkmarn
09:56:27 AM Jul 7th 2013
Sato's nowhere near a Complete Monster. In my book Yakone's close, but the fact he did seem to love his family and care for them before he knew they were water benders shows that some part of him is a decent human being, you know?
captainmarkle
topic
04:10:41 AM Jan 27th 2013
We struck Norman Osborne from the list? Seriously?

Don't "take it to the cleanup thread" me, that damn thing is well over 300 pages long and it takes too long to find the reply.
sparkykandy
08:22:02 PM Apr 17th 2013
Page 274 of the Complete Monster cleanup thread discusses Norman Osborn. Apparently, he struck for not being heinous enough. (Not sure if any other discussion exists.) Just found this one.
Shaoken
05:21:08 AM Aug 26th 2013
Also there is this wonderful tool called "google search" that this wiki so happens to have built-in so you can search the forums, usually by including "cleanup thread" and the name of the character to quickly identify the pages discussed.
Chronic1
topic
09:19:24 AM Oct 21st 2012
edited by Chronic1
Seeing as stuff from the discussion still gets added to the page, I propose Qilby from Wakfu (massive spoilers for the second season follow). He started his villainous career by causing the extermination of his own race by inciting a Hopeless War, so that except him and five other immortal Eliatropes only a couple dozens of Eliatrope children survived from a planet worth of people. After the survivors escaped their doomed homeworld in a magic-powered spaceship, he intentionally sabotaged their attempts to find a new home, instead using whatever habitable planets they encountered to refuel said spaseship by draining those planets of wakfu, the life force of all things. It is also practically stated that Qilby repeatedly murdered his fellow immortals, when their successive reincarnations again and again refused to participate in this, until they finally managed to overcome him and seal him away. After being accidentally set free and finding that no one remembering his crimes is still around, Qilby tries to go right back to his genocidal space travels. For that, he deceives basically everyone he meets. To take out the last being who can interfere with his plans, Qilby lets Omnicidal Maniac Rushu and his army of Demonic Invaders enter the World of Twelve and offers Adomai (basically, a kid, even if with power of a dragon) for them to possess. The reason he did all this? You see, as one of the six original Eliatropes Qilby has reincarnative immortality, but unlike the other five he remembers all of his past lives perfectly. This eventually left him completely bored and jaded, so he decided to pass his infinite lifespan by travelling the universe. That's right, he betrayed everyone he ever knew and caused or committed multiple genocides out of simple boredom. Note that not only Qilby regrets absolutely nothing, and not only he expresses nothing but manic glee when planning destruction of yet another world and brutalizing his former comrades - he considers himself the wronged side in the whole affair. Qilby' sole humanizing quality, the fear of remaining completely companionless and alone, while serving as his fatal weakness, still fails to invoke any sympathy for him, because it doesn't shake his monstrous egocentrism in the slightest - even after his dragon "sister" who apparently shared his memory curse and supported him in his previous misdeeds, rejects his plans, tries to talk him down and finally delivers the decisive blow to him (proving by this that Qilby's behavior can't be blamed on his circumstances), he doesn't even for a second try to consider that maybe everyone's rejection of him is his own damn fault. Final fate delivered to Qilby is karmically horrible - being sealed (again) in a timeless blank dimension where nothing and no one else exist - but even the exceptionally compassionate main character, Yugo, agrees, albeit with heavy heart, that it was the only option.
Robinsbecky
topic
06:59:40 PM May 5th 2012
If the folder for the Western Animation complete monster page ever gets unlocked, I think that Miss Power from [1] definitely counts. Here are the reasons:

1. She comes to Earth, and pretends to be a superhero, and teaches WordGirl her super powers (such as Ice breath) but also taught her the power of using mean words. 2. Unlike WordGirl, who simply defeats the villains, Miss Power, on the other hand, openly insults the other villains, and teaches WordGirl to do so also. 3. She manipulates the town into insulting each other. 4. She gives WordGirl a No-Holds-Barred Beatdown, and calls her weak. 5. Throws her mother into jail for a disagreement they had. 6. And lastly, she tries to ''kill'' Dr.-Two Brains, and most likely would have, if WordGirl hadn't returned. Overall, unlike the other villains she is taken taken completely seriously, and, due to the PBS Kids' support of the anti-bullying message, she is a fairly accurate portrayl of a bully.
Telcontar
moderator
12:39:13 AM May 6th 2012
Take it to this thread about CM and subpages and examples and all. If it's decided that she's a complete moster, then there's a thread for edit requests to locked pages.
Idisagree
topic
10:53:13 PM Apr 28th 2012
Would Howard Blandy count? After all he does directly prove that even Mr. Krabs' has some standards. His crimes include using synthetic patties, having Squidward TORTURED by a Psycho for Hire for frowning, and treats employees like dirt. This isn't played for laughs like many of Mr.Krabs' crimes.

Even SpongeBob despises him and Squidward told Mr.Krabs "Help Me!" This implies that he's done far worse atrocities than listed if they want Krabs back. Like mentioned above he's very dark.

I don't recall him having an excuse and he most certainly doesn't show any regrets. One the other hand he was a One-Shot Character.

Finally he's a Karma Houdini for everthing. Is that enough.
Telcontar
moderator
02:20:22 AM Apr 29th 2012
ading
03:08:46 PM May 3rd 2013
SpongeBob SquarePants characters are all in the "Already discussed repeatedly" pile.
Tropemasterx2
topic
01:35:04 AM Apr 22nd 2012
edited by Tropemasterx2
Can we create Complete Monster subpages for seperate series? I was thinking that we should create a subpage for Marvel animated series villains. In Complete Monster comic book page, there is subpage for Marvel Complete Monster villains and Western Animation Complete Monster page has DCAU Complete Monster subpage. So if DC has their Western Animation Complete Monster subpage, so should Marvel villains have one.

Also when i went to Beavis And Butthead YMMV page i found this in Complete Monster entry:

This entry states that Beavis and Butthead were complete monsters in early episodes. But i'm not sure if they fit this trope. While in early episodes they were much meaner, their actions were still Played for Laughs and in early episode they were already stupid, but not as much as in later episodes. If character is a Complete Monster their actions must be played seriously and while cruelty to animals is vile, it is Played for Laughs in the series.

plcthecd
topic
06:52:25 PM Apr 21st 2012
If this (Ever) gets unlocked someday, have you guys think other characters that qualifies as a Complete Monster?

Because My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic has [[Spoiler: Queen Chrysalis]] in the Season Two finale who kidnaps the real Princess Candace and masquerades her. Unlike Discord, who gets away from being Faux Affably Evil and Laughably Evil. She is taken seriously and she is the only antagonist in the series who tried her hardest to kill other ponies. And she came dangerously close to succeeding. She leaves Twilight imprisoned in the caves under Canterlot, which have been long forgotten meaning no one will ever find her! And then she taunts her about that very fact! And she did the same thing to Cadence! And this is after she destroyed Twilight's public image so that, even if the mine was remembered, nopony would want to search for the "bitch who humiliated the bride and groom"!
MONEYMONEY
07:26:21 AM May 2nd 2012
she is on the list already
Claudandus
11:15:01 AM Nov 14th 2012
She has since been removed, and does anyone else wonder why? And Discord was up there as well. Does he not qualify?
GoldenSpot5
05:22:58 PM Nov 28th 2012
Queen Chrysalis just wanted food for her kind, their for she is a well intentioned extremist. and Discord only did those things to the girls because they posed a threat to him. He doesn't want to hurt anyone, he just wants to have fun at the cost of others misery. He doesn't see that what he is doing as wrong.
Tropemasterx2
topic
08:55:27 AM Apr 19th 2012
edited by Tropemasterx2
We should add few villains from The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes, specifically Red Skull, Ultron, Grim Reaper and Surtur and Skrull Captain America to the list. And if we can put Complete monsters characters, who are complete monsters in literal sense, we should add Puffy Fluffy from Spongebob's episode "A Pal For Gary" and Venom from Ultimate Spider-Man animated series.
Nithael
09:03:44 AM Apr 19th 2012
I'm not sure of what you mean by "complete monster in the literal sense", but I have the feeling that it means "not this trope".
ading
03:09:41 PM May 3rd 2013
I think he means characters who are ACTUAL monsters, as in not humans or normal animals, which doesn't make them this trope.
DavidRobinson
topic
08:25:16 PM Apr 8th 2012
If the western animation page for complete monsters is unlocked, could we add Miss Power to the list?
MrMediaGuy
topic
11:46:12 PM Mar 19th 2012
Ok, so a lot of people got into an argument over whether Mr Krabs qualifies. But should we add Plankton? (At least, the Plankton in The Movie.) The YMMV page for both SpongeBob SquarePants and The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie say that he becomes one, and he doesn't seem to show any remorse. Also, his villainy is taken pretty seriously.
Idisagree
10:42:13 PM Apr 28th 2012
No that would be Not So Harmless. Besides you can't be a Complete Monster in one apperance and not another. Even then Mr.Krabs is way worse and more consistant. So that's a no.
ading
03:19:17 AM Mar 3rd 2013
^ Worse, yes, but Krabs is hardly consistent. Anyways they're both too much Played for Laughs to qualify.
323347
topic
06:16:17 PM Mar 16th 2012
lord dregg in tmnt1987 series!!!!
kablammin45
topic
08:16:50 PM Feb 10th 2012
Why are new examples never added to this page?? I know that it's locked and all, but, can't some other folks be added?
vexusdylan
topic
03:59:40 AM Jan 29th 2012
Wow. At first I thought it was BS that the western animation page, and ONLY the western animation page, was locked, but seeing these wars with Mr. Krabs, Cartman, Peter, and the like...I suppose I can see why it would be that way, still sucks, though.

I heard this page was locked because someone went crazy trying to add Discord from My Little Pony to the page (Who obviously does not qualify since he has quite a lot of funny moments and quirks), but rumors are rumors...
tsstevens
08:08:25 PM Jan 30th 2012
Not rumors. Darthmaul9 was obsessed over this, was banned and eventually bounced after arguing over it. Look at the discussion above for an example.
MONEYMONEY
09:27:01 AM Mar 22nd 2012
I want to understand. Since, 9Darthmaul is gone. (I don't know about him much; I wasn't on tv tropes when he was banned), why won't we just UNLOCK the page. I read all the edit-wars, and it was all his fault! Why do you guys blame all the tropers, for one trooper's actions??
redjirachi
topic
12:43:47 AM Jan 29th 2012
I for one think we should add Jeff from Family Guy to the list. He fits all levels of this trope:
  • His actions are completely reprehensible: he's an absolutely horrid abuser(and purveyour of Nightmare Fuel), plans to abuse her child when its' born, is a total Jerkass, and ends up trying to kill Quagmire and his friends.
  • He shows absolutely no remorse or regret for his actions. Given his Slasher Smile when trying to kill Quagmire, he probably took some enjoyment out of it.
  • Unlike just about all examples of abuse or cruelty, which is played for laughs, his actions are played seriously and without a hint of comedy.
  • All the other characters are visibly disgusted. This includes Peter Griffin(a Psychopathic Manchild who treats his kids like crap), Lois(a woman who has known to rape her husbandd and is almost as bad as him) and Glen Quagmire(a Karvoka Man and date-rapist.) Not to mention that Joe allows them to kill the bastard without going to jail.
SuperSaiyaMan
topic
12:34:55 AM Jan 18th 2012
Hey, can we unlock the trope? Its been blocked for months.
Webby
topic
08:24:55 PM Nov 25th 2011
Can someone who can edit this remove Ren, of Ren and Stimpy? I think he's plainly supposed to cross the line twice, and it mentions him seeming ashamed of himself.
SeptimusHeap
10:53:56 AM Dec 14th 2011
Ask here.
Camacan
moderator
11:28:47 PM Dec 28th 2011
Removed. This is absurdist black comedy, so there goes played seriously at all times before we start. And this character shows remorse.

kablammin45
topic
06:22:26 PM Oct 2nd 2011
WARNING MANY SPOILERS!!!

This troper thinks that (spoiler)The Big Bads of the two Hoodwinked! movies should be up here.

Boingo: Don't let his cuteness fool you, this bunny is [[Understatement very mean]]. He has no qualms about getting rid of Red or anyone who gets in his way. Just because he wants to make stuff every bit as good, he puts everyone out of buisness, (potentially ruining lives in the process). And beats Red up even when she's down.

(spoiler)Hansel and Gretel: Hoo boy, Stewie Griffin would be proud of these two. After the reveal, they constantly extol the fact that they're [[Understatement not as innocent as practically everyone said]]. They literally have no stated reason for going after that dang recipe, other than the fact that they're evil. Stewie and Cartman would probably cower in terror as, after ingesting the truffles, they go rampaging through town senselessly wreaking buildings and injuring innocent people, all while commenting on that fact and just how senseless it is. (Once Hansel jokes about almost destroying a presumably occupied school bus while Gretel encourages him to destroy it next time.) They also consider giving the truffles to other bad guys and belittle our heros. They're perfect for being on this page, as they're almost as bad as Cartman.(spoiler)
HiddenFacedMatt
09:39:45 AM Oct 30th 2011
Movies go in film, not western animation.
plcthecd
topic
08:15:29 PM Sep 18th 2011
I guess, once the topic has been locked it's permanent?
ading
02:02:08 PM Oct 24th 2011
Mods can still edit pages.
lightning37
topic
05:18:19 AM Aug 11th 2011
So I saw League of Villains on Nicktoons the other day, and made me rethink if Baby Eddie still fits there or not. He's not a Karma Houdini (he and the other villains are all stuck in the prehistoric time period created by Jimmy's wormhole), but his first appearance was pretty brief (though there ''is'' a trope for that), and he was in an army of other villains like King Goobot and Calamitous who he was all up with (I wouldn't treat this so seriously, but Slicer37 made such a big deal out of the same matter when I tried to add a certain character on the Disney page). I haven't seen the episode where he tries to destroy Jimmy's aunt's party in a long time, so does he still fit?

And speaking of Goobot, is there anything other than the above (his army not fearing his plan) that would keep him from being put here?
Idisagree
06:09:06 PM Nov 7th 2011
No he's actually the OPPOSITE as all he does is Poke the Poodle and talk smack. Seriously ruining a party is below standard villainy.
Idisagree
02:57:11 PM Nov 29th 2011
seriously can someone remove Cousin Eddie, he's as evil as Snaptrap or Dr.Draken.

As for Goobot, who said a Villain with Good Publicity can't be a Complete Monster.

lightning37
02:08:50 PM Apr 6th 2012
Fine, if the page gets unlocked, Cousin Eddie can go. But Evil Jimmy and Meldar both definitely stay.
SuperSaiyaMan
topic
03:00:21 PM Jul 15th 2011
I'd like to add Deputy Director Bullock from American Dad! to the list. His actions are pretty heinous, and at times not Played for Laughs. He's killed people and tried to cover them up, and abused Stan for a long time. I'll be back with more of his actions.
ading
05:26:07 AM Jul 20th 2011
note: "at times". A Complete Monster's actions have to be played seriously at all times.
lightning37
topic
07:40:35 PM Jun 27th 2011
And even though he's technically Played for Laughs, would it be alright to add the Stewie clone from the Family Guy episode "The Hand That Rocks the Wheelchair"? He did some pretty awful things there.
WolfMan16
11:08:22 PM Jun 27th 2011
We'll just have to wait for the page to be unlocked. Fortunately, 9darthmaul has been banned recently so now there wouldn't be much edit wars once the page is unlocked.
ading
10:47:55 AM Jun 29th 2011
Well, it's not like all the edit-wars on this page were because of 9.
plcthecd
03:57:50 PM Jun 29th 2011
It might be possible, if he fits the five criteria, and the page gets unlocked. But being a Dead Baby Comedy show, it might be tough to put him there. After all, Cartman's labeled as a Complete Monster even though his atrocities are played for laughs.

WolfMan16
04:06:15 PM Jun 29th 2011
edited by WolfMan16
^^ Thank you for agreeing with me.

^ Negaduck is also played for laughs, yet you seem to be the one who wanted him on the page on the Disney section. Also, Cartman is treated as a horrible character in-universe.
ading
05:56:08 AM Jul 11th 2011
A Complete Monster doesn't have to be played seriously, but the monstrous things they do need to be played seriously. The Joker is (apparently) an example of a villain who is Played for Laughs, but whose actions aren't.
lightning37
05:57:48 AM Jul 17th 2011
Well, Evil Stewie is listed as one on the show's YMMV page, so I was curious.
vexusdylan
03:52:24 AM Jan 29th 2012
Yes, the Evil Stewie clone IS a Complete Monster. Despite the shows Dead Baby Comedy style humor, everything he did was played SERIOUSLY.

plcthecd
topic
05:47:31 PM Jun 23rd 2011
Hi, I nominated The Lead Eliminator from The Fairly OddParents movie Wishology but it was removed for the show's lack of continuity. But the show does have SOME continuity compared to Spongebob Squarepants and the Lead Eliminator fits the five Criteria...

Heinous atrocities even by the show standards: He's dedicated into killing a child and destroying other worlds. The Lead Eliminator even backstabbed his creator, the Darkness who happen lonely.

Feared and hated: Definitely, unlike Ax-Crazy Vicky who's played for laughs, he's taken as an actual threat.

No Freudian Excuse: He was created simply to eliminate, hence his name.

No remorse: None at all.

Elimination from the story without a Karma Houdini: He's the only villian the show who was Killed Off for Real/

Plus, he's from The Movie, and it's kind of unfair that Eddy's brother from Ed, Edd, and Eddy and Grandfather from Kids Next Door are labeled Complete Monsters in their own movies but the Lead Eliminator can't.
plcthecd
05:59:15 PM Jun 23rd 2011
And someone who removed it said MAJOR Negative Continuity, don't you think that's a bit too much? After all, the show did mention past references here and there.

Plus, is there any chance this could be unblocked for future irredeemable people?
miru
08:05:48 PM Jun 23rd 2011
edited by ading
I'll ask Madrugada or Fast Eddie.
ading
06:05:24 AM Jun 24th 2011
edited by ading
Good point. I guess he could be added back. Or at least, he could if the page was unlocked.
ading
04:18:05 AM Jun 25th 2011
By the way, how is it unfair?
plcthecd
10:43:25 PM Jun 25th 2011
Maybe saying "unfair" was a bit over-reacting but I just wanted to pointed out that Eddy's Brother and Grandfather were labeled Complete Monsters in the Cartoon Netowork and [adult swim] board despite being movie only characters.
ading
03:47:44 AM Jun 26th 2011
And?
plcthecd
09:40:17 PM Jun 26th 2011
And I did listed why the Lead Eliminator qualifies as a Complete Monster just like the mentioned above.
ading
05:16:20 PM Jun 27th 2011
I still don't really see what the whole "He's from The Movie" thing has to do with anything.
plcthecd
06:26:21 PM Jun 27th 2011
edited by ading
Well, I thought it was removed because the Lead Eliminator was a one-shot character
ading
10:25:01 AM Jun 28th 2011
How do you get from "the show has major Negative Continuity" to "he's a one-shot character"?

Also, it's hard to not have some continuity compared to SpongeBob SquarePants and Wishology's Negative Continuity is notable even by the show's standards.

plcthecd
06:20:50 PM Jun 28th 2011
Okay, so I got a little bit confused to start alright?

I thought that Negative Continuity=One-shot characters
ading
topic
05:47:56 AM Jun 16th 2011
edited by ading
Idisagree, care to explain your reasons for deleting several entries? "Mr. Krabs has similar bad traits" isn't reason for deletion. If noone gives a reason by Friday, I am going to add them back since he didn't give any reason for why they aren't complete monsters.
WolfMan16
08:39:45 PM Jun 19th 2011
Considering that the person who deleted those examples has the username "Idisagree", I think this is enough proof that the user shouldn't be taken seriously whenever they disagree with someone or something on the page being there. I guess the examples can be added back.
lightning37
07:31:09 AM Jun 20th 2011
That is true, but you shouldn't immediately add them back unless you've watched what they were in and generally feel that they are fitting of the trope...or if you're the troper who added them in the first place.
WolfMan16
04:20:51 PM Jun 20th 2011
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Idisagree
02:59:21 PM Nov 29th 2011
I'm Back! I removed those villains for failing the first criteria. Besides you two were on my side during the Mr.Krabs thing.
miru
topic
06:18:38 PM Jun 15th 2011
What happened to the Animal Abusing Farmer, Hotel Spider, and other Short Film villains?
MagBas
06:21:30 PM Jun 15th 2011
Were removed by Idisagree using "Don't add these not Complete Monster characters back." as edit reason.
plcthecd
03:05:49 PM Jun 17th 2011
Can Idisagree at least explain on what they're missing on the criteria?
MagBas
03:09:39 PM Jun 17th 2011
Well...no.
9Darthmaul
01:19:02 PM Jun 18th 2011
edited by 9Darthmaul
Animal Abusive Farmer is a Complete Monster, and I don't know what kind of an idiot can even think that he is not when he definetly is!!!!
KingSolstice
07:50:59 PM Jun 18th 2011
Well, the Animal Abusing Farmer's deeds may be less than noble, but they are far less severe than the deeds of the other Western Animation Complete Monsters. Tormenting animals is just Kick the Dog, not necessarily a Moral Event Horizon.
9Darthmaul
01:03:44 AM Jun 19th 2011
edited by ading
Tormenting animals is way worse than genocide!!!!!! (in my opinion) Besides, there are different levels of Complete Monsters.
ading
06:04:09 AM Jun 19th 2011
edited by ading
Okay, what? Tormenting animals is worse than genocide? In what way?

You do have a point in that there are different levels of Complete Monsters though.
9Darthmaul
07:13:01 AM Jun 19th 2011
I love animals, and from my point of view killing an animal is equally bad as killing a human if not worse. The only crime that is worse than killing an animal is killing a child. Killing children or animals is unforgivable.
9Darthmaul
07:13:26 AM Jun 19th 2011
Unless, you kill animals to eat them of course. That's a difference.
9Darthmaul
07:52:30 AM Jun 19th 2011
I am a bit of a crazy person so you know, I have some of this mental thoughts, but I understand that most people would disagree with me. So many other villains are more evil than this farmer, but remember that horrible actions need to much the setting. In Betty Boop, his horrbile animal abuse makes him more than enough to make him a Complete Monster. If he would do it in a more adult film, than his actions would be just Kick the Dog.
Slicer37
08:47:35 PM Jun 19th 2011
Yes, but just because you think he's a Complete Monster, doesn't mean he should stay. And you know you just admitted to being insane on the internet. right?
9Darthmaul
12:11:48 AM Jun 20th 2011
I did not add him. Someone else did, and I just support him being here. Am I insane or not?! This is the topic that should not be dicussed. If he qualifies or not, I think that you all should discuss, not me.
9Darthmaul
12:25:57 AM Jun 20th 2011
edited by ading
I am a bit crazy, but this doesn't mean that I am stupid. I am not actually. I can show you, does he meet all 5 criteria. Remember, if you disagree you can (and I guess you should) still discuss, but I show my opinion anyway:

Heinous misdeeds: Well, the short is even called Be Human. YMMV if tormenting animals is horrible, but most people that I know think it is. Besides just because the law doesn't consider it as truly heinous, doesn't mean that it is not. If you think deeply about it, it is. We can call it Lawful Evil. Besides, as I said, heinous misdeeds need to match the setting. For a kid-friendly cartoon like Betty Boop, his actions are horrible.

Evoking fear: Oh so much! There are no evil characters, but all everyone else who appears in the film hates him and fears him; just look at Betty's face and behavior!

No Freudian Excuse: Nothing is said about his backstory.

No remorse: He actually does this For the Evulz.

No chance of redemption: He clearly didn't want to redeem. He got Humiliation Conga.

ading
03:55:23 AM Jun 20th 2011
I would agree that tormenting animals is horrible. Maybe not as bad as some of the others on this page, but still horrible.
9Darthmaul
06:34:47 AM Jun 20th 2011
So he is a Complete Monster. Not the highest level, but still a Complete Monster.
9Darthmaul
02:30:09 PM Jun 20th 2011
There are still two users that keep deleting him, without giving a reason. Let's discuss if he really qualifies. I don't have much to say becasue I already showed my opinion.
Jordan
02:51:55 PM Jun 20th 2011
Honestly, I took him out partly because your justifications for keeping him have been totally unreasonable.

I have a problem with stretching the "Complete Monster for the setting" in a way that means that every villain in a kids show is a Complete Monster (given that kids show villains are often Card-Carrying Villain Flat Characters.

Is this farmer the worst villain in any Bettie Boop short? Even if he is, he doesn't seem anywhere near like one of the most evil characters among animated villains in general.

The fact the guy is punished with a Humiliation Conga goes against his being a Complete Monster. If the character being punished in a amusing way is punishment enough as far as the viewer is concerned, then they can't be all that evil- in contrast, note that Disney villains tend to be punished with death.
thedragoness
06:04:23 PM Jun 20th 2011
edited by ading
Darth Maul, some advice. Please. Do not ever, ever, EVER look up Gendou Ikari, The Joker, Cutler Beckett, The Millennium Trilogy, Angelous, the Collectors or Mr Krabs. Please.
9Darthmaul
01:01:42 AM Jun 21st 2011
I don't know any other villains in Betty Boop.
thedragoness
05:58:28 AM Jun 21st 2011
Well, this one will appeal to you. Angelous once nailed a puppy to a door...and that was as far as the story got.

:Skip it. I don't have a puppy, I don't want to know. Skip it."

Betty Boop have anything like that? If you were to look up these characters you'd see the sort of people who would be a Complete Monster.
9Darthmaul
07:30:02 AM Jun 21st 2011
Wait, what are you talking about?!
thedragoness
08:01:54 AM Jun 21st 2011
Hmm, Angelous is a character on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Without wasting your time going into detail, if you read over his atrocities you'd get an idea how well he qualifies as a Complete Monster. Abusing animals in Betty Boop is not nice, but it doesn't make someone who does that a Complete Monster. Otherwise Indonesia would have that trope on their page.
9Darthmaul
08:57:52 AM Jun 21st 2011
If he qualifies, add him.
MrDeath
09:01:05 AM Jun 21st 2011
Good lord you missed the point by a mile. Thedragoness isn't arguing that Angelus should be added (mostly because he's already on the Live-Action TV page. She's saying that he's an example of what qualifies as a Complete Monster.
ading
02:17:08 PM Jun 21st 2011
You mean the country of Indonesia?

If so, then I would like to ask you whether all real people hate Indonesia. I would think not.

No, not all animal abusers are complete monsters. But if they fit the criteria, then they are. To many people, (I said many, not all, or even most) abusing animals is just as bad as, and to some (though probably not a lot) worse than, abusing humans. Just because character X is not as bad as character Y, does not mean character X is not a Complete Monster.
ading
02:19:20 PM Jun 21st 2011
Also, not all kid's villains are complete monsters. It's just that in a cartoon where the majority of villains are kid-friendly (or where there aren't many villains to begin with), then the standards for a monstrous act are lower.
thedragoness
03:08:05 PM Jun 21st 2011
''You mean the country of Indonesia?

If so, then I would like to ask you whether all real people hate Indonesia. I would think not.''

The point I was making was if animal cruelty made someone a complete monster, here we have a country that is one. Animal cruelty however doesn't make it a complete monster, and whether the country is hated...is there a Balibo page here? That topic would be more befitting there.
ading
04:09:38 PM Jun 21st 2011
Except that one of the criteria of being a Complete Monster is being hated. Hence, it DOES matter if the country is hated.

I don't even know what Balibo is. Plus, if it's a common thing in the work, then it's not really horrendous BY THE STANDARDS OF THE SETTING is it?
thedragoness
05:52:50 PM Jun 21st 2011
I'm going to be a bit political here, so fair warning.

Balibo is a town in Indonesia, where foreign journalists were executed by Indonesian soldiers because they were reporting on the invasion of East Timor. A film was recently made centering on the incident Indonesia have basically said "yeah we murdered them, what you going to do about it?" As you can imagine this has angered people.

That explains Balibo. Two other major cases that have caused problems has been the treatment of drug smugglers, most famously Shapelle Corby, and the recent inhumane treatment of animals exported to Indonesia. This has, however wrongly, caused animosity.

Now, the standards of the setting is akin to that of Hong Kong or China. Those who are upset over Indonesia, their culture is pretty alien to them. Their stance on drugs for example is much much tougher than it is in America, with smugglers being executed. This is even more true because of the 'golden triangle', the famed drug smuggling ring neighboring Indonesia.

One thing about Indonesia is it is very proud. It likes to think they are correct in everything they do. Taking the Schapelle Corby case for example, they will not hear of anything that suggests they got the case wrong, they did not follow due process, anything that even hints there was a flaw. The same for their problems with crime, police and government, they are very upset at attempts to show these problems. So upset they murdered the journalists at Balibo.

I'm not trying to condemn the country in saying this, I'm simply stating facts. Going back to whether Indonesia would be a Complete Monster, yes they mistreat animals, yes they have a Hatedom, however it would be no worse than that of America, Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya. Plus I personally think it's hard to label a place a Complete Monster.
WolfMan16
11:13:38 PM Jun 21st 2011
I don't think Indonesia would count either way because the main page states not to add any real life examples of a Complete Monster, that also includes countries.
thedragoness
05:10:57 AM Jun 22nd 2011
edited by ading
No, no that goes without saying, Imagine if real life examples were allowed. Aw crap This Is Gonna Suck. The point is if harming animals made you a Complete Monster, which is doesn't, then Indonesia would be one.
ading
05:38:47 AM Jun 22nd 2011
If it's a common thing in the setting, then it's not really horrendous by the standards of the setting is it? This is a question you haven't answered.

I don't think a place can be a Complete Monster anyway.
thedragoness
06:51:56 AM Jun 22nd 2011
Is animal cruelty common in Indonesia? I don't know. I kind of figure they'd fit the Asian stereotype of eating cats, but aside from that I couldn't tell you if the treatment of live exports is common. I can say that the backlash for it is something that a country that is normally so proud of itself is something it's going to have to wear, so without knowing the details my best guess is there is something abnormal about this particular instance.
9Darthmaul
09:47:08 AM Jun 22nd 2011
In Betty Boop, abusing animals is not common to the setting. But does the farmer count?? You have to decide. Not me.
CrypticMirror
09:51:15 AM Jun 22nd 2011
edited by CrypticMirror
Cruelty to animals is unpleasant, but to be a complete monster he'd have to be sexually abusing them,then selling videotaped porn of it to small orphans in boxes marked as "Friendly Tales from the Friendly Farmyard", and having the package made of the animals' skin.

A Complete Monster goes that extra mile from the common or garden asswipe.
9Darthmaul
12:02:44 PM Jun 22nd 2011
edited by 9Darthmaul
Good point! So he fails.
ading
03:32:08 AM Jun 23rd 2011
By "the setting", I meant Real Life, where animal cruelty is common (just go to a factory farm). Remember, truly horrendous acts by the standards of the setting.

He fails the fifth criteria though. As Jordan said, if being put through a Humiliation Conga is punishment enough as far as the viewer is concerned, then the villain is not a Complete Monster.
thedragoness
04:40:03 AM Jun 23rd 2011
Write back tomorrow and remind me on this, I don't know the details but if you want to know I can look up exactly why Indonesia's live exports were so bad.
lightning37
topic
09:54:13 AM May 31st 2011
Aren't the characters from Shrek Forever After and Kung Fu Panda 2 supposed to be on the film page? Or is that one just for live action films?
WolfMan16
01:45:30 PM Jun 1st 2011
My guess is that the Animated Films belong in the Western Animation section. Since I've scrolled through the Film section, and many examples are live-action films. Many examples from this section have animated films.
9Darthmaul
topic
12:35:32 PM Apr 27th 2011
I wonder, what's the point of deleting Nigel?!
WolfMan16
07:25:20 PM Apr 27th 2011
edited by WolfMan16
I agree, he is definitely a villain. He has committed acts that are considered to be heinous. I don't see how the deleter didn't notice he was one. I'm guessing he didn't watch the movie.
WolfMan16
10:34:36 PM May 17th 2011
Although, considering your actions on the Disney CM page, I might turn my choice otherwise. Still I don't think stating he's not a villain, when he truly is, is a reason why his entry is deleted.
Slicer37
10:36:14 AM Jun 4th 2011
Which Nigel?
ading
01:45:09 PM Jun 7th 2011
Nigel from Rio, I believe.
9Darthmaul
12:10:29 AM Jun 8th 2011
But, I watched the movie again. He fails the second criteria. His owner doesn't seem to fear him. He rather loves and respects him.
WolfMan16
10:19:43 PM Jun 8th 2011
Now you want to change your opinion again, even after I partly agree with you. Obviously, you'll never side with anyone and you're only looking for an argument.
9Darthmaul
08:49:16 AM Jun 9th 2011
I don't know! When I considered him as a Complete Monster, I misinterpreted the trope. I got the trope, now so I begin to wonder... but I sill think he should stay, after all his owner's minion feared him.
plcthecd
topic
03:01:48 PM Jan 17th 2011
I still think Eric Cartman from South Park should be added back to the Complete Monster, after all Darkwing Duck has Negaduck added in for Disney even though the latter's Complete Monster-dom is played for laughs sometimes.
JustaUsername
05:24:11 AM Jan 20th 2011
I totally agree with you there.

Removing Cartman because Peter Griffin isn't seen as a complete monster? Not a good enough reason.

Cartman commits actions extreme even for South Park, numerous characters are disgusted by his actions (including actual villains), he has no Freudian Excuse or justification for his actions, he enjoys doing the evil he commits and if he doesn't suffer at the end of the South Park episode for his actions, he's a Karma Houdini.

He makes the checklist for being a Complete Monster, add him back in. Besides this is a YMMV page, what one person would see as a Complete Monster would be not be true for another.
WolfMan16
10:20:17 PM Jan 22nd 2011
I believe Cartman, Peter, and Krabs should all be back since I assume this edit war is happening because one character cannot be added because the other is taken down. They all show Complete Monster traits, so all of them should be bought back. This is a YMMV case anyway.
ading
03:20:58 PM Mar 14th 2011
Cartman has been added back, Krabs was added back and deleted several times, he's currently off but I think he should be added back, I don't know what happened to Peter.
WolfMan16
01:03:50 AM Mar 15th 2011
It turns out Krabs isnt a Complete Monster, despite the fact that nobody has deleted the entry within a month. Once someone finally deleted it, everybody starts going against this and finally declaring he isn't one. To make matters worse, nobody reminded me about this, the person who deleted it was rude to me, and I ended up getting a ban. I'm not adding it back, since I'm not risking another ban. Keep in mind I don't get any praise for my contributions or have positive notice and instead I get the most crap thrown at me when I make a simple mistake.
ading
02:59:02 PM Mar 15th 2011
edited by ading
I'm just wondering: why do you now say Krabs isn't a Complete Monster?
ading
10:07:59 AM Mar 16th 2011
Why is my entry green?
ading
11:51:15 AM Mar 16th 2011
edited by ading
Oh, I remember you now! You were the one who on the Troper Tales for Butt Monkey stated that you're being a Butt Monkey was proven by the fact that you got no sympathy comments for a month!
WolfMan16
08:11:42 PM Mar 21st 2011
Well it appears most tropers had a BSOD placed over them some time before I added the entry and sometime during March 12 they finally noticed the entry and it got removed. After that everybody seemed to call him out despite the fact nobody has said anything about him and some tropers were even adding info to the entry. Like I said, I got a ban for all of this because nobody gives a damn about entries I post until its too late and I end up getting in major trouble and nobody even supported me. The troper who deleted the entry even rudely called me "sonny jim" so its basically a "what the hell" moment for me. Right now I'm only saying he isn't because of the fear of getting another undeserving ban. It appears tvtropes secretly hates me.
Vox
03:57:12 AM Mar 22nd 2011
Could you please explain to me what's so rude and offensive about "sonny jim"? I honestly don't understand why you're taking such exception to it.
ading
11:55:47 AM Mar 23rd 2011
Also, if I understand correctly, you were banned because you kept listing him after he got deleted, not just because you listed him. And yeah, how is "sonny jim" rude?
WolfMan16
07:12:15 PM Mar 23rd 2011
Have you guys forgot this is a YMMV trope? Meaning there can be two or more sides to the entry. I only put him back up one time and everybody is overreacting about this situation. Also is "sonny jim" supposed to be a compliment or something?
Vox
03:16:00 AM Mar 24th 2011
It's not a compliment or an insult any more than "dude" is. Your overreaction over such an unloaded term was uncalled for.
ading
04:42:41 AM Mar 24th 2011
Wait, you only put him back up one time? Sorry, I thought you put it back up several times.
WolfMan16
11:15:40 PM Mar 25th 2011
edited by WolfMan16
The only reason he keeps getting deleted is because nobody pays attention to the post-movie seasons. Have they watched some of the season seven episodes such as "One Coarse Meal" or "The Cent Of Money"? I guarentee you they don't. They say he's a "mild villain with a good core", but that was before the movie.
Vox
07:06:46 AM Mar 26th 2011
I have seen the post-movie episodes. You seem to think that being mean to his employees, mistreating animals and knowingly selling unhealthy food is enough to put someone on the same level as the rapists and murderers that make up the rest of this page. By that criteria the fast food industry must be full of irredeemable bastards, eh?

(And I'm still awaiting a reply on your absurd hissy fit over "sonny jim". Honestly, if that's the kind of thing that makes you feel insulted then I'm not surprised you're convinced the wiki/world hates you.)
WolfMan16
01:36:51 AM Mar 27th 2011
Ignoring this is a YMMV trope and becoming enemies with a random troper. That all that needs to be said.
Vox
08:11:26 AM Mar 27th 2011
"It's a YMMV Trope" doesn't mean you can add characters who blatantly don't qualify.
ading
04:37:22 PM Mar 29th 2011
edited by ading
Even if you do think what he does is "truly horrendous", he still can't be a Complete Monster since Spongebob and Patrick like him.
nuclearneo577
05:45:13 PM Mar 29th 2011
The guy who was adding Krabs is banned now.
WolfMan16
10:47:48 PM Mar 31st 2011
edited by WolfMan16
I suppose the episodes written by Casey Alexander and Zeus Cervas portray Mr. Krabs as a Complete Monster, or at least close to being one. All other episodes portray him fine as a character.

@nuclearneo Who was the troper who added him up and got banned because of it?
ading
05:44:05 AM Apr 2nd 2011
If Casey Alexander and Zeus Cervas portray other characters as fearing/hating him, then yes, I would agree. Otherwise, no.
Komodin
06:02:45 AM Apr 2nd 2011
If Casey Alexander and Zeus Cervas portray other characters as fearing/hating him

Which they've never done.
ading
06:43:57 AM Apr 3rd 2011
Then no, no he isn't.
WolfMan16
05:50:45 PM Apr 4th 2011
edited by WolfMan16
Except for Plankton. Spongebob was appalled with Krabs' treatment towards Plankton in "One Coarse Meal" and he was arguing with Krabs near the end of "The Cent Of Money".

@ading Don't forget you tried to add the entry back in after I removed it.
miru
04:43:05 PM Apr 5th 2011
What about "Kracked Krabs"? He was nice there, and it was a post movie episode.
WolfMan16
07:29:17 PM Apr 5th 2011
"Kracked Krabs" is not an episode written by Casey and Zeus. *sighs*
ading
03:57:56 PM Apr 13th 2011
@Wolf Man 16: I admit that. I have since realized that he isn't.
WolfMan16
11:43:50 PM Apr 15th 2011
@ading Yep. After taking some reasearch, I too realized he doesn't qualify.
ading
06:29:34 PM Jun 1st 2011
edited by ading
Plus, a Complete Monster's actions can't suffer from Negative Continuity, which Spongebob has.
Slicer37
10:35:15 AM Jun 4th 2011
If Krabs is a Complete Monster, so is the owner of the nearest Mcdonalds. Krabs is evil, but not a Complete Monster. I don't think Krabs, Peter, or Cartman qualify. They all fail critera 2.
ading
01:44:35 PM Jun 7th 2011
edited by ading
Krabs doesn't qualify.

1. Horrendous acts: Even if you do consider what he does "truly horrendous", they still suffer from Negative Continuity, a strict disqualifier. So no.

2. Played seriously, evoking fear, hatred, and revulsion: No. Most characters don't hate him (Other than Plankton, Squidward, and a few others), and his actions are Played for Laughs, even if some of them really aren't funny.

3. No Freudian Excuse: None that I know of.

4. No altruistic qualities or remorse for their actions: He does feel remorse in some episodes, like that time when he sold Spongebob's soul to the Flying Dutchman. Granted he doesn't show altruistic qualities as much post-movie, but still.

5. No chance of redemption: Even post-movie, he is still a good guy some of the time, so I'd have to say no.

Score: 1/5. Krabs is not a Complete Monster.
lightning37
04:30:17 PM Jun 8th 2011
"If Krabs is a Complete Monster, so is the owner of the nearest Mcdonalds". Except Mcdonalds owners wouldn't do the worst things possible for a dollar.

Also, between episodes like One Coarse Meal, The Krusty Sponge, Krabs a la Mode and The Cent of Money, very few people think he's redeemable at all. Not saying he is one, just pointing some stuff out.
ading
06:32:03 PM Jun 8th 2011
edited by ading
^ How evil Mr. Krabs is is still Depending on the Writer, even post-movie. Given how inconsistent Spongebob is, it's kind of hard to decide whether villain X is redeemable.

Even if he is irredeemable, he'd still only fit 2/5, so he still doesn't count.
WolfMan16
10:21:45 PM Jun 8th 2011
edited by WolfMan16
I still say that he isn't one, because he lacks all of the criteria.

Also, about the Mcdonald's owner comparison to Krabs, I doubt Mcdonald's owners would drive the owners of Burger King to suicide, or go through hell just to retrieve a single penny from their employee.
Idisagree
09:08:06 PM Jun 10th 2011
edited by ading
I, As a diehard Sponge Bob Square Pants fan, disagree. For one he's got all of the worst traits of at least six so called "Complete Monster"s. Steele is on here for being so proud and selfish that he'd let people die. Mr. Krabs is proud and selfish too and cares little about anyone. The Orphenage leader used to be on here for being a bully. Mr. Krabs is also a bully towards Plankton and even made him go suicidal and laughed it off like a joke of the day. Sotto is on here when he's basically just a big cat. Krabs is greedy like the other crabs. Next! the Twix and Cousin Eddie are on here for being an Extreme Jerk Ass, once again Krabs is also a jerk. The Animal Abusing Farmer is on here for abusing animals and using a whip. By that standard, everyone who uses a whip without regret is a Complete Monster. Mr. Krabs was portrayed with a whip in Canon during Krusty Kronicals, and abused SpongeBob's pet, Gary, while stealing from the whole town. That's obviously much worse than that. So basically he's got the worst trait of more than one Complete Monster. He also has at least 5 Moral Event Horizons to his name and a dozen Kick the Dog moments too. Not to mention he's despised or at least feared by all the villains, such as the Flying Dutchman and shows regret maybe twice at the most. Plus Cartman is played for laughs and he's still monstrous at the same time. When someone like this isn't a Complete Monster, this trope has lost all meaning. Oh and he doesn't have an excuse besides greed. "Kracked Krabs" if anything makes him a bigger monster by showing that the other crabs are Harmless Villains who Poke the Poodle while he kicks dogs.
ading
05:25:14 AM Jun 11th 2011
edited by ading
1. His actions suffer from Negative Continuity.

2. Spongebob and Patrick don't hate him, even if Spongebob is sometimes appalled by his actions, he still doesn't hate him.

3. He is occasionally shown to feel remorse. It's very rare, but it doesn't matter. Any regret more than none is a disqualifier.

All of these are incompatible with truly being a Complete Monster. Hence, Krabs is not a Complete Monster.
lightning37
02:20:02 PM Jun 11th 2011
Plus, his actions are technically Played for Laughs. And if he was one, he'd have to do the stuff with evil in mind. Although bad happens out of his actions, that's not his intention. A proper Complete Monster needs actual evil behind their deeds, which isn't what he aims for. It's the same reason Peter Griffin isn't here, either.
ading
03:45:54 PM Jun 11th 2011
edited by ading
While I don't remember much about Ice Age, the example itself doesn't really sound like "just a big cat." Also, Saber-tooth cats aren't big cats, but their own subfamily.
WolfMan16
10:58:07 PM Jun 11th 2011
edited by WolfMan16
^^^^His actions are Played for Laughs (even if it isn't funny). He is a monster at best, but he's not a complete monster.

Also, I'd suggest you turn around or change your opinion, unless you want every troper here to attack you mercilessly for expressing your viewpoints about a particular character's actions while insulting you and banning you. Would you want that? Huh?
ading
06:01:09 AM Jun 12th 2011
And while I'ts debatable the possibility of a Heel-Face Turn for Krabs, I think they could quite easily end the show without killing him.

Hence, 1/5. Krabs is evil, but not a Complete Monster.
ading
02:07:01 PM Jun 13th 2011
^^ When did you get attacked mercilessly and insulted? I certainly didn't notice any of it. Also, unless he adds the example back, I don't think he can get banned for it.
WolfMan16
09:35:00 PM Jun 16th 2011
edited by WolfMan16
Even though there's a lot of bashing towards me in the forums and discussion page, none of that wasn't too bad or hostile. However, this pretty much takes the cake. What's worse is the person who posted that was a moderator.

It appears the link to the querie isn't showing up. Type my username in the search box after clicking the link, and you should see it there.
ading
03:30:15 AM Mar 3rd 2013
I would also add that even those characters who do hate Krabs don't hate him because he's evil. Squidward just hates everything, and Plankton is jealous of his success.
miru
topic
04:19:38 PM Jan 14th 2011
Sonic now has its own page. Could someone please change the image to one of Ren?
Iaculus
01:51:53 AM Jul 15th 2011
Why Ren? Dude occasionally displays altruism. He doesn't count for this trope.

The Complete Monster isn't just really, really evil - they're wholly devoid of anything that could remotely be described as a positive element.
CPFMfan
topic
01:36:59 AM Nov 14th 2010
edited by CPFMfan
So why is it that villains like Mr.Burns and Peter Griffin are deleted for being played for laughs, yet Eric Cartman still has one of the longest sections on this page? I know that Evilly Affable and Complete Monster are not mutually exclusive, but I'm beginning to wonder what some of these peoples logic is. So... Peter Griffin shoots his daughter in the face, blows up a childrens hospital, and beats up several children (just watch half the cutaway gags) yet he can't be here because of being played for laughs? That's perfectly reasonable. But what exactly stops Eric Cartman from being removed on the same merits? EVERYTHING he does is played for laughs and whether or not you find it funny, most people probably do considering he is the most popular and recognizeable character on the show.
miru
08:42:22 PM Dec 1st 2010
edited by 173.11.75.205
Well, its his Comeuppances and One-Liners that are funny, NOT his actions.
CPFMfan
01:59:06 PM Dec 2nd 2010
Speak for yourself on the "his actions are not funny" thing. But still, the fact that he is played for laughs and has funny lines (like you just said) means he is not a complete monster.
neoYTPism
02:10:44 PM Dec 5th 2010
edited by neoYTPism
... Burns and Griffin are nowhere NEAR as extreme as Cartman, and each character is more frequently on the right side of an issue even if for the wrong reasons.

Burns does things like... torture dogs, send guard dogs after kids who try to steal from him... cruel moments, but not necessarily heinous enough to be a Moral Event Horizon. At worst he's implied to have tried to drown Bart but for the most part his villainy is taken a LOT more lightly. (See above discussion on Negative Continuity for more reasons; and yes, I'm the same neoYTPism who used to consider Burns a CM.)

As for Griffin, I haven't seen the episode where he blows up a hospital, (so I wouldn't know the context or the reasons or just how it was handled) but I can say that while he does some nasty things, (I am familiar with the beating up children scenes) he is typically given some kind of excuse, (ie. thinking the children deserved it, albeit for totally absurd reasons) which while insufficient seems to make him just barely pitiable enough to not be considered a CM. I think it's the same thing with Burns... his villainy may be extreme some of the time but it's usually taken a lot more lightly.

As for Cartman... some of his evil deeds are pretty heinous and are taken more seriously than you would expect ANYTHING to be taken by a show like The Simpsons or Family guy. Cartman's "sympathetic moments" from what I've seen just turn out to be ploys being used to trick people. I'm not about to put him back on the list just yet, but he sure is a lot more likely to be a CM than someone like Burns or Griffin is.

EDIT: Oh, and funny dialogue and jokes don't negate CM status. See The Dark Knight's version of The Joker for a comical, wisecracking Complete Monster.
CPFMfan
10:14:53 PM Dec 6th 2010
Taken seriously? Oh sure they are taken more seriously than the Simpsons, but their still not played for drama in the least. As for most of his Pet the Dog moments being fakes, he has done at least a couple of genuinely nice things and shown genuine empathy sometimes (see "Major Boobage", and the ends of "Cartman's Silly Hate Crime", "Pinkeye" "Fishsticks" and "Tssst". He also seems concerned for Stan's well being in "Fun With Veal" but its a bit more subtle there). That probably does not make him much less evil, but still, just throwing it out there. He also is implied to have a Freudian Excuse of being molested by his Uncle. Plus, like Peter, at times he is shown to be just too stupid to know what he's doing (see "Coon and Friends v.s. The Coon", where he has a brief conversation with Kenny and reveals that he genuinely believes that he and Cthulhu are making the world a better place), although most of the time he is actually pretty smart, so that excuse does not work as well as it does with Peter. Also like Peter, he seems to think that most of his victims deserve it, like Scott Tenorman. In "Fishsticks", the show pretty much outright states that his mind alters events to fit his version of them, so his mind could be playing tricks on him a lot of the time when it comes to his deeds. it was As for Mr.Burns: He doesn't "just" try to kill a child, I seem to recall that he also sold weaponry to Hitler and bragged about how great his artillery shells were and was a member of the Waffen S.S. Plus, as long as we are doing Complete Monster characters from South Park, what about Saddam Hussein? Kills Kenny for no real reason, abuses his boyfriend, makes opressive laws for the sole purpose of making the Canadians suffer, and literally sleeps with the Devil so that he can conquer the world (once again, he is also very comedic about it). Unlike Peter and Cartman, he fully knows how wrong his deeds are and is not stupid, but he just doesn't care. I'm not saying that any of these characters should be included, but if someone is going to, I would like to hear what their reasoning is, because it seems the reason for removing Peter changed from "He is a protagonist and Played For Laughs" to "He's just really stupid."
greatpikminfan
04:02:16 PM Jul 14th 2011
edited by greatpikminfan
This is probably going to be ignored, but whatever. I seriously don't think Cartman qualifies. I mean, come on. It's a comedy show that tends to use Refuge in Audacity all the time, the guy himself is almost never taken seriously, and in most episodes (The Scott Tenorman one and 201 aren't "most episodes," people, it's only two and in the former's case it was played for laughs.) he's a Jerk Ass at worst.

Doing bad acts alone (and in about less than 5% of the episodes, I'm dead serious) doesn't qualify, especially if the show almost never treats all this seriously. Him and those woodland animals kill stuff. But that's just part of the show's humor. Comparing him to people like Mr. Burns is moot, The Simpsons and South Park fit two completely different styles. SP's humor tends to head over to the more extreme side, and so Cartman's actions are more extreme.

And yes, I am aware he fits four of the qualifications. It's just that he fails so hard at the fifth one that it pretty much discounts him.

EDIT: Changed trope from Beyond the Impossible to Refuge in Audacity. It fits the show more.
lightning37
05:25:31 AM Aug 11th 2011
edited by lightning37
In the case of what you speak, wouldn't he fail the second criteria, too?
ading
05:52:20 PM Aug 14th 2011
^ I think that was what he meant.
louis6578
01:28:37 PM Sep 22nd 2011
First off, I dont think that we should count the cutaway gags as anything in Family Guy. Those may have never even happened unless its actually relevant to the plot. Peter blowing up a children's hospital was accidental. He usually comes off as a jerkass, but he's never killed anyone in cold blood outside of the gags.

As for Cartman, he doesnt go around killing people for the fun of it. Outside of Cthulu and Friends episode where he really only killed those who he believed were morally wrong, or killed because they pissed him off. Scott Tenorman's parents were an exception (and IMO, I always thought Scott deserved it but his parents... neh) he just wasnt thinking when he did that. Besides, Cartman may have been lying when he said "I knew you wouldnt go yourself for fear of having your wiener bitten off". Maybe he thought Scott would come, so he got the farmer to shoot the "violent pony killer" who he thought would be scott. Being a jerkass, Cartman wasnt sympathetic about having two innocent people accidentally murdered and as such, just continued with a new (totally epic) plan... "So I could tell you personally about your parents demise! And of course, feed you your chili...". WMG a lot here, but hey, Cartman has been shown to care about his friends a few times (Kenny dies. I doubt he really planned to make a second shakeys, but when Kenny died anyway, he wanted to save face), and about the lives of cats. Having any sort of sympathy keeps him from being a complete monster, right?
MrDeath
01:42:22 PM Sep 22nd 2011
Bullshit on the Cartman stuff. He knew full well exactly what he was doing, don't make excuses for him that are not in the least supported by the episode. As you said, it's pure WMG.
louis6578
04:56:42 PM Sep 23rd 2011
Aw, come on man! Cartman probably didnt expect his parents to go instead. When they did, he just improvised epically. As for the Cthulhu thing, I really think he was more driven by anger and shit. He wasnt thinking about his friends because he was too pissed off. Its not like he doesnt care a little about them under normal circumstances. The fact that he has any sympathy at all shows that he cant be categorized as a complete monster. Why not just agree that he's a high level jerkass?
neoYTPism
topic
10:25:34 AM Oct 5th 2010
edited by neoYTPism
I'm beginning to change my mind a second time about Mr. Burns. I added him before and others (temporarily) convinced me he wasn't extreme enough to belong, but thinking about it again, I think he might. Let's just run through the checklist.

  • Series of horrendous acts? How about "Mother Simpson" where Burns ran a biological warfare lab, and when Mona Simpson helped wreck Burns said "my precious germs!" as if to imply caring more about the germs than the people they could be used on? How about "Bart vs. Thanksgiving" where Burns sends vicious attack dogs against a hungry child who tried to steal food from a windowsill, food which Burns would have otherwise disposed of? How about "Dog Of Death" where Burns tries to mold an innocent, gentle pet dog into a vicious attack dog (despite already having plenty of them) by forcing it to watch a series of disturbing images? Remember, the image of The Mad Doctor torturing a dog is the current page image for the Disney section. Surely Burns torturing a dog ought to be monstrous too...
  • Revulsion from other characters? He's hated throughout Springfield; even Smithers objected to his plan to deprive Springfield of sunlight. In that same episode, Snake Jailbird apologized for not being around to shoot Burns.
  • No sufficient justification? He seems to be primarily driven by greed. For what it's worth, the show does, once in a while, reference childhood memories like losing his teddy-bear bobo, but the idea of something like this being treated as an excuse for Burns' behaviour is absurd.
  • No genuine remorse? I'm guessing he has occasionally claimed to be remorseful, but one has to doubt the sincerity of this when he keeps going back to his evil ways next episode. Burns' isn't exactly all that averse to dishonesty after all.
  • Irredeemable? Absolutely. As if it wasn't obvious enough from Burns never turning into a good guy, Lisa herself mentioned this during "The Old Man And Lisa" by saying something to Burns along the lines of "you're evil! You're worse than evil! Even when you try to at least act good you end up being even more evil!"

The supposed reason for Burns not belonging on the list was that his villainy is mostly Played for Laughs. Well, so is that of Eric Cartman but he's on the list.
Iaculus
11:27:02 AM Oct 5th 2010
The thing about The Simpsons is that Negative Continuity and Depending on the Writer mean that characters can have entirely different personalities depending on the episode. As such, I think it's fair to mention that Burns is a Complete Monster in some episodes - a claim that could not be made for a show that aimed for tighter continuity and more consistent characterisations.
ading
03:51:07 PM Jun 3rd 2011
But a Complete Monster's actions can't suffer from Negative Continuity.
greatpikminfan
topic
07:06:27 PM Aug 8th 2010
edited by greatpikminfan
Deleted:

  • Alejandro from Total Drama World Tour has become one of these. It's only episode 7 and already, he's manipulated nearly everyone into thinking he's a nice guy, seems perfectly happy with destroying love lives, has caused the eliminations of 3 of the last 5 so far... Okay, he's not the first person to have done this, but is he not the first person to have blown Leshawna a mock kiss before pushing her off the plane? Fine, Chris does it all the time, but at least when he does it, it's played for laughs. It's already being considered the darkest moment of the show. When you can say that about a show like this, then you've entered Complete Monster territory.

Like said in the edit reason, the antagonists of the series are just jerks we want to see finally get eliminated, Alejandro is no exception. Chris McClean has a higher chance of qualifying (and as a slight responce to a huge conversation above, Chris may count before before Vicky, Lois, and especially Patrick), as he fits almost every requirement on the list. Not saying he should be listed here, but:

  • He pulls out several extremely harsh challenges and pulls several things out of nowhere for his own enjoyment. And he in the second season special, he didn't even care if all the contestants will die. And again when he drops everyone out into Japan, unless he strictly had equipment to save them all, they could have easily crashed onto the ground. Also, in Action he was a huge Jerk Ass (havn't seen those episodes myself as of this post).
  • Nearly every contestant in the show hates him. The only people that don't include the insane Izzy and Sierra, along with Owen.
  • Unless he pulls an Eddy (spoilered due to giving a bit of Ed, Edd n Eddy away) by getting a sudden backstory, there is no excuse for what he does. He's just a sadist.
  • He shows no regret for anything done. The closest thing was when a serial killer found Gwen, but appearently he was more conserned about lawsuits.
  • Like said above, he is ireedeemable.
  • Finally (and possibly the worst), he approves and even likes the musical numbers. He even says the musicals are his favorite parts of the challenge.

Lastly, in what way was the false kiss to LeShawna dark? What about when Courtney blatantly tried to kill Tyler, DJ, Cody, and the other guy in the first season special?

Edit: And again:

  • Alejandro, who is easily the most evil contestant antagonist in the series. He is the one behind more than half of all eliminations in the 3rd season, is responsible for the complete decimation of Team Victory, betrays and votes out 3 of his own teammates who were friendly with him, and intentionally makes Tyler reveal Gwen and Duncan's secret romance, making Courtney go crazy, sending Gwen on a long, humiliating, painful road to elimination, permanently ending Dx C and ultimately destroying Team Amazon. Note that this was what he wanted to happen, and after the initial reveal he seduces and exploits Courtney, further encouraging her to take revenge on them and hold her grudge. The guy makes Season 1 Heather seem decent by comparison.

Again, manipulation like that is by no means Complete Monster levels. The trope fits a little more under Smug Snake (going by that page's laconic article and a quick reading of the begining).

  • Commits actions bad by the standards of the story: Chris bumps up those standards by quite a bit. Alejandro gets people eliminated, not killing interns. He does not rope everyone into several Shoot the Shaggy Dog game shows, either. Nor is there any Secret Test of Character that nearly killed over twenty people just for an attempt to get people into another season. No check.
  • Played seriously, other people don't like him: Once people start to realise, he's seen as a bad manipulator at worse. Also, Chris kicks this one off, as he does not fear him at all. No check.
  • No backstory: Unless there's something in the Aftermaths, all he said was that his older brother hit him and called him "Al". The total originality of having an older brother who abused and corrupted him into a jerk ass aside, whether that's a check or not I'm not sure.
  • No sympathy: Check, but that's just so common. Also, all the previous villains had this.
  • No chance of redemption: Not check. Alejandro himself was manipulated, and even had lava run over him. I think that's karmatic enough.

Al is just a better version of the previous antagonists, yet by no means a full-on CM. Heck, just to sorta-sum this up: Chris killed interns, Courtney would have let Cody, DJ, Tyler, and he-who-must-not-be-named get mauled, and Blaineley set a trip for Bridgette that would have killed her. Alejandro, on the other hand, just eliminated some people and caused a few breakups.

By the way, Duncan and Courtney ending was not all Alejandro's fault, heck he hardly had that much part. That kiss he did with Gwen did, and IIRC Al did nothing to Gwen at all, just Courtney.
plcthecd
05:12:23 PM Sep 9th 2010
Noticed the edit on the description for Eric Cartman, so he's not considered a Magnificent Bastard? I thought Evilly Affable are villains who act friendly to their victims.
neoYTPism
09:21:43 AM Sep 11th 2010
Evilly Affable is more along the lines of an extremely evil character (perhaps not necessarily to the Complete Monster extreme, but it is implied that Evilly Affable characters cross some form of Moral Event Horizon) who happens to be cool and/or funny despite the nature of their evil deeds.

Being friendly to their victims is more of an Affably Evil thing, though Evilly Affable characters often tend to do this as well.
RySenkari
08:29:10 AM Nov 22nd 2010
How about Blaineley? What she did to Bridgette was obviously abominable, but she fails the "must be feared/universally loathed by other villains" requirement, IMO. That and the fact that she still evoked some sympathy after being put in a full body cast for the final few episodes, and I think she falls short of Complete Monster status. She's a total Jerkass, obviously, but not an absolute monster.
ading
01:23:49 PM Feb 11th 2011
edited by ading
plcthecd, you're thinking of Affably Evil. Evilly Affable refers to extremely evil villains who manage to be entertaining due to their humor and demeanor.
ading
02:37:24 PM Mar 18th 2011
edited by ading
Also, neither Evilly Affable nor Magnificent Bastard contradict Complete Monster.
AdamKalb
07:13:45 PM Jul 15th 2012
edited by AdamKalb
How do you explain the Playa Des Losers from Season 1? That seemed nice.
Caswin
topic
03:51:42 PM Jul 21st 2010
I've tweaked some of the other pages already, but I'm having trouble with this one short of re-writing the whole thing. Here's the thing: Contrary to what the introduction would have you believe, cartoons weren't populated by harmless, easily-defeated villains, how evil they are doesn't play a role in how long it takes to defeat them, there are still limits on what you can put in a kids' show, and the whole idea of "monstrous villains in children's cartoons" is treated disturbingly like an artistic triumph. Does this seem wrong to anyone else?
Caswin
04:42:55 PM Jul 23rd 2010
I re-wrote the whole thing.
miru
topic
09:36:41 AM Jul 14th 2010
We should bud off the Disney section, as it is getting large, and we should add live action examples.
ading
02:38:23 PM Mar 14th 2011
We have Live-Action TV for live action examples.
neoYTPism
topic
09:40:42 AM Jul 12th 2010
edited by neoYTPism
Does Lady Tremaine from Cinderella even belong in the Complete Monster category at all? Her villainy is quite mild compared to that of other Disney villains on the list; she's an abusive step-parent, yes, but Frollo and Medusa are far more extreme examples of that same thing. Tremaine made Cinderella do a lot of work, but it wasn't as dangerous as the kind of work Medusa made Penny do. (As in, digging for diamonds in frequently-flooded caves)
MichaelJJ
10:34:12 AM Jul 13th 2010
She's still terrifying. According to the one who posted her, her abuse is very realistic, and she's meant to be hated.
neoYTPism
01:39:55 PM Jul 13th 2010
edited by neoYTPism
"Hateable" =/= Complete Monster. Other villains in the work are supposed to dislike and/or fear the character, and that obviously doesn't apply to the stepsisters. Plus, her abusiveness probably isn't extreme enough to quite reach Complete Monster status. I'm removing the example.
70.134.98.109
07:24:31 AM Jul 16th 2010
The rest of the cast fears her.
CP/FMfan
02:03:24 PM Jul 29th 2010
edited by Bgal
Well, she is a mild case, but still a case. Its kind of like Eddy's Brother, from Ed Eddand Eddy. They don't have much power, in fact, they only have power over one person. But they abuse that person as much as they can, absolutely love doing so, are highly sadistic, and more or less ruin most of their lives. Just like Chad, from "In The Company of Men", it shows that a petty bully or what you would normally just consider a Jerkass can be soul-blackeningly evil.
98.87.57.130
01:12:57 PM Oct 7th 2010
You mean like how Mr.Krabs treats Plankton. He's been bullying him since before the show started. Sure it was played for laughs but became Dude, Not Funny! after being reveled to give Plankton insomnia.
411314
01:59:44 PM Oct 24th 2010
edited by 411314
@ the comment put up by F Mfan and edited by Bgal:

"Well, she is a mild case, but still a case. Its kind of like Eddy's Brother, from Ed Eddand Eddy. They don't have much power, in fact, they only have power over one person. But they abuse that person as much as they can, absolutely love doing so, are highly sadistic, and more or less ruin most of their lives. Just like Chad, from "In The Company of Men", it shows that a petty bully or what you would normally just consider a Jerkass can be soul-blackeningly evil. Well, she is a mild case, but still a case. Its kind of like Eddy's Brother, from Ed Eddand Eddy. They don't have much power, in fact, they only have power over one person. But they abuse that person as much as they can, absolutely love doing so, are highly sadistic, and more or less ruin most of their lives. Just like Chad, from "In The Company of Men", it shows that a petty bully or what you would normally just consider a Jerkass can be soul-blackeningly evil."

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.

miru
topic
08:36:40 AM Jun 26th 2010
Would Vicky from The Fairly OddParents fit?
MichaelJJ
08:03:57 PM Jul 11th 2010
Played for comedy, so no. She's been listed here and deleted already.
miru
11:21:14 AM Jul 12th 2010
No, she is not.
MichaelJJ
02:35:13 PM Jul 12th 2010
Uh, yes she is. Like everything else on the show, her actions are Refuge in Audacity. If you don't find it funny, you're missing the point.
70.134.74.41
03:54:35 PM Jul 12th 2010
Just like Krabs and Peter above.
SuperSaiyaMan
01:15:32 AM Jul 13th 2010
So I guess Joker isn't a Complete Monster. He does everything in the Refuge in Audacity.
miru
10:19:57 AM Jul 13th 2010
you said Marcell Toing is not a complete monster. and yet you think Krabs is.
ading
02:37:19 PM Mar 14th 2011
edited by ading
A Complete Monster can be played for laughs, so long as the humor doesn't come from their actions. However, in Vicky's case, the humor does come from her actions (Which suffer from Negative Continuity anyways.)
miru
topic
06:16:24 PM May 23rd 2010
Cartman is a protagonist.
173.11.75.205
01:45:55 PM May 25th 2010
Should we remove Cartman And Peter Griffin? They are protagonist characters
MichaelJJ
01:51:34 PM May 25th 2010
Well, Cartman's meant to be a sociopathic monster, and more often than not he's actually an antagonist who you're supposed to love to see fail, so maybe we can keep him. Peter a tougher case, it's unlikely at this point that he's meant to be likeable, but he's not necessarily a villain...
millenniumrex
04:13:07 PM May 25th 2010
The show seems to be acknowledging Peter and Quagmire's sociopathy more and more lately.
Iaculus
06:45:29 PM May 25th 2010
edited by Iaculus
For the purposes of humour, or drama? One central aspect of complete monsters is that they aren't played for laughs - they are evil in a way that is intended to make you despise them. Being malevolently sociopathic in a comedy show does not guarantee this; it just darkens the humour. See also: Evilly Affable, and Unsympathetic Comedy Protagonist.
SuperSaiyaMan
05:30:49 PM Jun 1st 2010
Family Guy at least has been amping up Peter Griffin's monstrosity. Abusing all of his kids and blaming Lois for it, sexually abusing Meg, fucking emulating Amon Goth to try to kill his wife and Mort Goldman because they're Jewish...

And its not played for Comedy. Its an ATTEMPT at Dead Baby Comedy and fails miserably.
173.11.75.205
11:06:55 AM Jun 2nd 2010
edited by 173.11.75.205
The difference is that Eric Cartman is now an antagonist. Peter is still the protagonist
SuperSaiyaMan
11:19:35 AM Jun 2nd 2010
A protagonist can still be a complete monster, 173.11.75.205. Look at Alucard for an example.
173.11.75.205
12:24:19 PM Jun 2nd 2010
Okay, deleting Alucard.
miru
01:17:47 PM Jun 2nd 2010
A complete monster must be a antagonist.
70.134.100.241
06:28:15 PM Jun 2nd 2010
Alucard is only sometimes protagonistic.
miru
08:44:35 PM Jun 2nd 2010
Peter is meant to be sympathetic. If he is a complete monster, all of the Family Guy cast exept Meg is.
SuperSaiyaMan
01:19:28 AM Jun 3rd 2010
edited by miru
Peter hasn't been presented as 'sympathetic' at all since the revival. He's a Complete Monster, he has all the qualifications for it. Not only that, miru, 70.134.100.241, an Complete Monster doesn't have to be an antagonist or a villain. Plenty of times there have been protagonists.

Not only that, how can you say, miru that Peter is a 'good guy' when he's done this crap:

1. Beat all of his children since they were infants and blame Lois, his wife for it. 2. Sexually Abuse Meg 3. Emulate Amon Goeth and shoot his wife and Mort Goldman just because they were Jewish 4. Murdered multiple children and expressed no remorse for it 5. Murdered Quagmire's cat and took his money when he told him

How is any of that a 'good guy'? Open up your mind and stop deleting things since you are Family Guy fans.
MichaelJJ
07:53:00 AM Jun 3rd 2010
edited by MichaelJJ
As a Family Guy fan, I'll have to oppose Peter as well. Comparing him to Clay and Cartman doesn't work. Clay stopped being played for laughs at the end of the second season, with several episodes dedicated to showing what a monster he is, while the entire point of Cartman is your supposed to absolutely hate him, the laughs come from seeing him get what he deserves. Peter is still a good guy, even if he is a Designated Hero. And while Cartman has had one or two Pet the Dog moments, Peter has had way too many, what kind of person he is seems dictated by Rule of Funny, even if the funny part falls flat.

Plus, this is indexed as a villain trope. I think that means being a villain is a qualification. This is not a subjective trope, it comes down to what the creators intended, and I don't quite think they intended you to be disgusted by him.
millenniumrex
10:44:34 AM Jun 3rd 2010
At the same time, I feel like "protagonist" is kind of a strange term when it comes to Family Guy. The show doesn't seem to have the same cohesive narrative as Mc Farlane's other shows. Peter, Stewie, and Brian could all be considered the Protagonist at certain points, and Peter definitely does play the villain role at times.

I definitely feel like they want us to be disgusted and horrified by him and Quagmire at times, but the show isn't consistent enough to really create a clear picture of how we're supposed to feel about either of them.

I'd say Quagmire is a much clearer example of this trope than Peter, but he had those two out-of-nowhere Pet the Dog moments that everyone remembers.

I'm not really sure where I fall on this one.
SuperSaiyaMan
05:34:47 PM Jun 3rd 2010
edited by ading
Look at what Peter's done in recent seasons. Look at Quagmire. They both have Moral Event Horizons that put them on the list.
Blork
05:45:46 PM Jun 3rd 2010
It needs to be pointed out that Super Saiya Man's list is doing that annoying thing that turns up in the IJBM and Dethroning Moment of Suck pages a lot, where silly jokes are treated as being completely serious. Yes, Peter has been shown killing people at times, and he rarely shows remorse for it, but this is because five seconds later the show has moved onto another random gag and completely forgotten about whatever he just did. Also, if he does kill someone it is almost always as a result of extreme stupidity and/or incompetence (for example in the case of the cat, he was trying to shave it for a prank). A proper Complete Monster would need actual malice behind his actions.
Aquila89
01:47:59 AM Jun 4th 2010
edited by Aquila89
Yeah, Peter's supposed "crimes" are mostly Big Lipped Alligator Moments. And the whole thing is played for laughs. It may doesn't work for you, fine, but that doesn't change the fact that his acts are supposed to be funny and not horrifying. Calling him a Complete Monster based on these would be like calling a bad comedy film a drama, because you didn't find it funny.
70.134.74.41
08:01:09 PM Jul 11th 2010
One user is trying to add Mr. Krabs to the list.
SuperSaiyaMan
08:22:41 PM Jul 11th 2010
Because he fits everything there.
miru
08:28:27 PM Jul 11th 2010
He does not care for his actions because he is very stupid.
SuperSaiyaMan
08:34:53 PM Jul 11th 2010
Mr. Krabs isn't stupid. Miru, what show do you watch? Krabs is one of the smarter characters. He knows PERFECTLY WELL when he crosses the MEH, but if it makes him a buck, he doesn't care.
miru
08:39:00 PM Jul 11th 2010
So Peter can be put back on the list.
SuperSaiyaMan
08:42:20 PM Jul 11th 2010
I believe he can, yes. Peter Griffin has crossed the MEH too many times-many times NOT played for Comedy.
miru
08:51:28 PM Jul 11th 2010
We can also add more Spongebob and Family Guy charecters, like Stewie, Lois, and Patrick.
SuperSaiyaMan
09:00:43 PM Jul 11th 2010
Spongebob, Patrick, Stewie, and Lois actually don't qualify. Spongebob is too well intentioned and friendly, always trying to help people. Patrick is a Jerkass, but he's just too stupid. Stewie could have became a Complete Monster, but instead got character derailment. And Lois, despite her bitchiness, hasn't crossed the MEH like her husband has.
miru
09:04:21 PM Jul 11th 2010
You should put Mr. Krabs and peter on troper tales. Quagmire on the other hand is a perfect fit.
70.134.74.41
09:10:40 PM Jul 11th 2010
Mr. Krabs is also well intentioned.
SuperSaiyaMan
12:58:20 AM Jul 12th 2010
edited by miru
No...he's not. He's not Well Intentioned in the slightest. Everything, EVERYTHING he does, 70.134.74.41 is for a buck (or at worst, for fun). He abuses his employees, he abuses animals, he sells out everyone and everything if it gets him a dollar.

You don't even watch the series and you claim this.
MichaelJJ
07:30:07 AM Jul 12th 2010
Alright, I thought we had this discussion already. Peter and quagmire are played for laughs. It's a failed attempt, sure, but they're still meant to be funny. Plus, they have sympathetic qualities, very recently there have been episodes that portrayed them as sympathetic (Peter getting harassed by Angela and Quagmire's incident with his dad, the ending nonwithstanding). We've deleted examples from Avatar that had sympathetic qualities, even though they came much closer to complete monsters.

As for Mr Krabs, I've stopped watching the series recently, but every incident listed I remember being played for laughs as well. Unless there's been a real 180, he's still a protagonist, meant to be sympathetic, he wouldn't qualify.
miru
10:21:24 AM Jul 12th 2010
Sponegbob is starting to lose his well intentions.
SuperSaiyaMan
11:16:40 AM Jul 12th 2010
edited by ading
Michael JJ, Mr. Krabs things AREN'T played for laughs anymore. He's not meant to be sympathetic in the slightest. He's been cast more and more as the antagonist. He literally steals from people, poisons people, sells people, abuses his employees, abuses his customers, and abuses animals. All the while NOT being played for laughs.

Having 'sympathetic qualities' doesn't change the fact that Peter Griffin at least have crossed the Moral Event Horizon. When you replay the shooting scene from Schindler's List, you lose any sympathy from the viewer.
SuperSaiyaMan
11:19:08 AM Jul 12th 2010
miru, Spongebob isn't losing his well intentions. Its true he's being portrayed as more and more jerkass and annoying, but he still hasn't really crossed the Moral Event Horizon.
miru
11:20:52 AM Jul 12th 2010
The whole show of spongebob and almost everything in it, (save One Coarse Meal) is played for laughs.
SuperSaiyaMan
12:30:11 PM Jul 12th 2010
miru, don't play that card, you're already not standing on one leg, more like half of it. Mr. Krabs has crossed the moral event horizon, Spongebob hasn't. You just don't get what things are here.
miru
01:07:24 PM Jul 12th 2010
edited by miru
So can I put Vicky back on the list?
MichaelJJ
07:14:02 PM Jul 12th 2010
edited by MichaelJJ
No. These guys don't fit.

The show cannot attempt to gloss over the deeds. They do. It's Refuge in Audacity. and Rule of Funny. Complete monsters can't be played for laughs. Even if they end up disgusting the audience, they are disqualified. Everyone hates Timmy's parents, too, but they aren't complete monsters.

They must have other characters fear and hate them, including villains. They don't.

They must start at the Moral Event Horizon and keep going. They didn't. They crossed it later, and keep jumping back.

(exclude Vicky from the next two).

No sympethetic qualities. They have them. Plenty of them.

Most importantly, they can't be protaganists. They are. Designated Hero, maybe, but they are.

Look, this has been decided several times. They aren't complete monsters. They just don't fit enough of the criteria.
SuperSaiyaMan
10:05:42 PM Jul 12th 2010
edited by ading
It hasn't been decided. By your logic, the Joker can't be a Complete Monster since at some level, he has a Refuge in Audacity and Rule of Funny in the crimes he does.

miru thinks that everyone who has commited a MEH is a Complete Monster, that's false. Hence why he wants to put Spongebob, Lois, Stewie, etc.

The reason why Mr. Krabs fits, Michael JJ, is because he HAS jumped off the Moral Event Horizon and kept on going. He's willing and able to sacrifice his employees, his ethics, his basic common decency if it'll make him one dollar, or just for spite. He even made his Harmless Villain rival, Plankton, become suicidal and he laughed it off even when Spongebob said he was going too far. Krabs isn't portrayed sympathetically anymore, at most, he's portrayed as pathetic, but he still commits acts that solidify him that he's NOT a protagonist anymore.

And why CAN'T a protagonist be a Complete Monster? Many novels, movies, and TV shows can have a storyline presented from the villain's point of view, and many times they are considered the protagonist from a story point of view. Hell, Alucard commits monstrous acts, yet he's the protagonist of Hellsing-even Seras and Integra (who ordered it) were horrified when he impaled the human policemen who were unwittingly working for Millennium on flagpoles in the most malicious way possible.
miru
10:20:35 AM Jul 13th 2010
  • The mouse protagonist Marcel Toing from the Pixar rip-off Ratatoing. At the end of the movie he has a house cat bring two mice to his human masters, said mice being sent to an out-of-town laboratory. Marcel Toing is a dick.

You deleted that example, yet you still claim Krabs is one.
miru
10:22:05 AM Jul 13th 2010
Homer kept on going from the Horizon.
miru
10:22:53 AM Jul 13th 2010
However it is unintentional in Krabs case.
MichaelJJ
10:32:02 AM Jul 13th 2010
edited by MichaelJJ
Okay, first of, the Joker is not played as Refuge in Audacity, at least in most incarnations. He's a complete psycopath played straight with a few humurous lines.

But I'll concede. I have too much going on in the real world to keep this up.
miru
09:32:31 AM Jul 14th 2010
Vicky abuses animals, abuses kids, abuses the parents of the kids she abuses, abuses her parents, and even nearly KILLED Timmy. it is even implied she killed other children!
173.11.75.205
10:14:08 AM Jul 19th 2010
If Captain Hero does not fit, Mr. Krabs does not either
173.11.75.205
10:25:20 AM Jul 20th 2010
Mr. Krabs is played for laughs, yet you deleted Captain hero for that exact reason, you big fat hypocrite.
SuperSaiyaMan
02:51:30 PM Jul 24th 2010
Mr. Krabs isn't played for laughs. Whenever we see the horrifying stuff he does? We get a horror chord and the characters reacting.

Captain Hero doesn't fit. Its not being hypocritical at all.
miru
04:49:56 PM Jul 24th 2010
edited by ading
As for Mr. Krabs, let me see... Horrendous acts not glossed over or presented in a positive light? all of his horrible acts are presented in a positive light, if not outright played for laughs, other than the ones he feels remorseful for and/or gets karma for. People hate him: well Squidward and some of the customers do. Spongebob and Patrick on the other hand... (Well except for the acts he feels remorse and/or receives karma) Feels no remorse: No. he does feel remorse for his worst acts.

P.S.: Most of his acts are caused by the idiot ball
SuperSaiyaMan
12:02:21 PM Jul 25th 2010
..miru, you are showing you just don't get it. Mr. Krabs' acts, due to his Character Derailment, are not played in a positive light. He's a Karma Houdini who regularly abuses his employees and customers, abuses animals, nearly gets his rival to commit suicide, etc.

Mr. Krabs has every requirement of a Complete Monster. He expresses no remorse for his Greed anymore. Spongebob and Patrick are just too stupid to see Krabs for what he is, and he can be considered a Villain with Good Publicity even though he's the Designated Hero of Bikini Bottom.
70.134.76.81
12:25:31 PM Jul 25th 2010
So vicky can be added back?
CP/FMfan
01:52:26 PM Jul 29th 2010
The reason Mr.Krabs is a Complete Monster and Captain Hero isn't is because Mr.Krabs does really horrible things without regret, and Captain Hero does the same... but its mostly an accident. I have seen only a minimal amount of the show (for a good reason, not a pleasant show), but it just seems he's more of type 1 anti hero/ dity coward. He tries to be heroic, but he is just really, really bad at it, like the time he blew up his home planet. Plus, he shows genuine remorse, such as when he accidentally gave Foxxy a tumor. He is so guilty he actually gives up all his powers. Being a Complete Monster pretty much requires no redeeming qualities. Even then, it is still very cartoony and played for laughs. As for Mr.Krabs being played for laughs... Most of the time this is the case, but there have been notable exceptions. In One Coarse Meal (where he mentally tortured Plankton almost making him commit suicide) and The newest episode where he stole from everyone in town and abused Gary, or even the Jellyfish Hunter episode, his actions were presented as horrible, and even Spongebob was horrified. And he is Mr.Krabs most pathetic yes man.
SuperSaiyaMan
04:37:26 PM Jul 29th 2010
Exactly.
173.11.75.205
11:05:47 AM Aug 2nd 2010
I was talking abut Vicky from The Fairly Oddparents! would she fit?
CP/FMfan
12:57:06 PM Aug 2nd 2010
edited by CP/FMfan
Hmmmm... I don't know. When I was watching the show I never got the feeling that she was a Complete Monster. She was just too cartoonish. But I only watched a little of that show, so you might know better than me. And as for "only an antagonist can be a complete monster", I've got 2 words for you: Villain Protagonist . I've got another two: Devil's Rejects. Plus, if anyone still cares, Word of God confirms that Mr.Krabs , along with Plankton, is the main villain of the show, and lately he has become a much crueler and more reccuring villain, where as Plankton has become an Ineffectual Sympathetic Villain.
70.134.67.249
04:31:52 PM Aug 2nd 2010
edited by ading
I was talking to Super Saiya Man, not you.
CP/FMfan
11:31:20 PM Aug 2nd 2010
Sorry, I thought that was a "anyone respond" question.
miru
09:16:10 AM Nov 10th 2010
edited by miru
Here's Krab's entry, archived and updated.

amazingracfan1
12:57:57 PM Jan 28th 2011
edited by amazingracfan1
Mr Krabs is a monster and to back up my case plz read a few stories below

1. Fed customers pure grease for profit and only cared when his business was at stake

2. FORCED Sponge bob to write fake stories and only laughed at their misery and denied at what they were doing fully acknowledging it

3. Stole money using Gary as a weapon and tortured him in return

4. Poisoned his customers and was remorseless and got away with it

5. Used Plankton's fear of whales to bully him to the point of suicide and laughed at Plankton desiring suicide

6. Made Spongebob catch jellyfish and tortured them for the jelly

7. Exposed Spongebob and Patricks secret and used it as an unsafe amusement park ride

8. Stole the secret ingredient and framed Spongebob

9. Opened an extremely unsafe amusement park just for the kids money on the 2nd day of summer

10. Made Spongebob and Patrick fight real wrestlers for money full acknowledging they could have died

11. Did everything he could (even remove Sponge bob's brain) for a penny

12. Made Patrick fall to the point of nearly killing him and Squidward for money

13. Stole a clam's egg

14. Intentionally polluting the air

15. Makes his employees pay him for their services

Man that's a lot
amazingracfan1
06:50:17 AM Jan 29th 2011
And he's a Karma Houdini
amazingracfan1
07:01:03 AM Jan 30th 2011
I forgot how did he not care for Pearls medical problem
MagBas
07:26:33 AM Jan 30th 2011
As far as i know, Krabs was removed because of the posters of the forums. I guess that it is a good idea to discuss there.
amazingracfan1
07:02:05 AM Feb 1st 2011
edited by ading
imo Krabs has crossed a potential MEH at least 5 times
Slicer37
10:39:35 AM Jun 4th 2011
You can cross a MEH without being a Complete Monster.
TotalDramaRox97
07:01:40 PM Nov 19th 2012
Well he's crossed it at least 5 times
cclospina
topic
07:55:02 PM May 22nd 2010
edited by cclospina
I do not believe that kevin belongs here, it is true it was the damned one in the Ben10, but in Ben 10: Alien Force kevin is Chaotic Good.

One of the requirements to be a complete monster is "Most importantly, the character must have no chance of redemption"
MichaelJJ
06:04:16 AM May 25th 2010
Without seeming like a Karma Houdini was a stipulation, I believe. Keven was so derailed that the two versions might as well have been diffrent characters anyway.
Paireon
topic
05:07:35 PM Apr 22nd 2010
edited by Paireon
Is it me, or are a couple of entries just long, run-on sentences without any punctuation whatsoever? It's kinda hard to take such entries seriously. I'm thinking about removing them entirely (it's already pretty cluttered in there), so if anyone wants to clarify them or to give me a good reason to keep them, then by all means do so. P.S. It's the Transformers Animated and Pinocchio entries, if you want to know.
Mistermister
11:16:26 PM May 11th 2010
They should definitely stay, though I'm not so sure about the Transformers one. It could at least use some revising.

The Pinocchio entry should stay, though. The Coachman is one of the most unlikable villains in the Animated Disney Canon, considering how he ruins the lives of thousands of boys by permanently changing them into donkeys.
greatpikminfan
topic
06:59:34 PM Apr 13th 2010
Is Eddy's brother really that bad? He may be evil even by Ed, Edd n Eddy standards, but he looks odd being listed up with nearly everyone else both on this page and the other Complete Monster subpages. If anything, he should be more of a Big Bad or Jerk Ass. Or possibly Eviler than Thou (compared to everyone else).

Yes, Eddy's brother is unlikeable. Yes, he commited a Moral Event Horizon on debuing. Yes, Ed, Edd n Eddy does not allow deaths (except Plank's parents). But seriously? Even though the guy tormented Eddy for his life, read some of the other entries, those people are alot worse.

I'm not saying he isn't a Complete Monster — I don't understand the trope all that well and he seems to fit (nearly) every requirment in the list — but Eddy's brother...
MichaelJJ
06:59:46 PM Apr 22nd 2010
It's a bit of Fridge Horror, admittingly...I didn't think he was all that bad at first either. But when I thought about it, it fit. Since no one else remembers him, Eddy must have been really young when his brother did all that stuff...beating a toddler is monsterous. Plus, considering that Eddy seemed afraid of it getting worse, you have to wonder just what Matthew did to him...
CP/FMfan
01:54:00 AM Jul 30th 2010
Yeah, plus he fills every requirement, He personally abused Eddy for his whole life (a grown man abusing a little kid that bad is monstrous), all other minor bullies/Jerks fear or are disgusted by him, he has no Freudian Excuse, he does not regret his actions, he flat out enjoys them, and he does not have any chance at redemption. sounds like a monster to me.
louis6578
01:14:01 PM Sep 22nd 2011
Okay, in my opinion, Eddy's brother is more of a higher leveled jerkass than a complete monster. He bullied his brother a LOT as a kid. So? Its not like he did any sort of true permenant damage or torture (unless you count beating him up a lot as torture). I find it especially weird that he has 5 minutes of screentime and he's considered a monster, yet Vicky from FOP has episodes worth of being a main villain and tortures kids for fun, getting money and sick thrills off it. She's never been on the complete monster list though. Why?
ading
02:05:22 PM Oct 24th 2011
^ Vicky is mostly Played for Laughs and her actions suffer from Negative Continuity.
VVK
topic
03:57:33 PM Mar 30th 2010
This is getting way too watered down. Cruella de Vil wanted to literally massacre puppies, but neither she nor a lot of others belong here. The only Disney villain I ever got Complete Monster vibes from was Frollo. Yes, a lot of the others are quite properly evil. But "[f]ar from every Serial Killer, Psycho for Hire, Ax-Crazy, or Omnicidal Maniac is bad enough to be a Complete Monster." So yes, Scar was an abusive murderer. Is that worse than the average fictional serial killer? Or someone who wants to destroy the entire world? I'll answer just in case: No. What some examples seem to have in mind is that if a character is definitely evil, then that's a Complete Monster, but that's just not right.
VVK
04:14:28 PM Mar 30th 2010
I removed a couple of Disney examples that I'm confident don't belong there, but other examples on the page might need looking at too. The Queen from Snow White should probably go too, she sets a poor example right at the beginning of the page.

An example of why I'm confident: A Complete Monster is described as basically starting off at the Moral Event Horizon. Here we had someone who apparently got an ultimate Moral Event Horizon in locking up someone in a tower.
back to Monster/WesternAnimation

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