Jerk Ass as Complete Monster

Well, there are some characters that are jerks that will take their Jerkassery to the extreme.

Here are some examples: 1. Lt. Carter Blake, Heavy Rain 2. Clay Puppington, Moral Orel 3. Judge Claude Frollo, The Hunchback Of Notre Dame

Are there some characters that becomes from Jerkass to Complete Monster?

If they cross the Moral Event Horizon they could be seen as a Complete Monster.

edited 26th Nov '10 4:05:19 AM by Raso

you can have a Jerkass become a Complete Monster, definitely. the thing is, a Complete Monster is so beyond the MEH that he's no longer just thoroughly obnoxious and unpleasant, they're downright scary. in that sense, being a Complete Monster kind of makes the Jerkass level useless; technically, a character shouldn't be in both tropes.

going with that, i wouldn't call frollo a Jerkass, for example. he's a murdering, bigoted hypocrite, who attempts genocide and would've likely attempted rape had this not been a disney movie. he's so beyond Jerkass it's not even funny. as far as your other examples go, i'm not familiar with Heavy Rain and i can't remember enough of Moral Orel to remember who clay puppington is. i think we'd be hard-pressed to find a legitimate Complete Monster in a comedy, but who knows.

EDIT: wait. hmm. reading the description of the trope it seems a Jerkass can only be one of the "good guys." "After all, if they were an asshole on team bad guy, they'd just be a villain." so maybe a Jerkass can only become a Complete Monster after a Face–Heel Turn? (this disqualifies frollo doubly, btw).

edited 26th Nov '10 5:34:27 AM by carla

Confusing Complete Monster for a The Same But More of Jerkass is like confusing Moral Event Horizon for a The Same But More of Kick the Dog; one is not merely a more extreme version of the other but a different (albeit connected) concept.

EDIT: That said the tropes are not mutually exclusive. Eric Cartman from South Park is arguably both:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqgkKje29zo

edited 26th Nov '10 9:41:50 AM by neoYTPism

Well, does anyone have any ideas?

Basically, what he said. The relationship between the two tropes is basically the same as the one between Kick the Dog and Moral Event Horizon; and Cartman is a good example of the two tropes combined.

Jerkass and Complete Monster are concepts entirely distinct from one another. It's like saying some left-handed people are also myopic; it's trivially true but also meaningless.

sadly i can't access youtube from this computer, and i admit i don't watch South Park at all (my Popcultural Osmosis of it is limited to kenny dying all the time), but hearing that SP has a Complete Monster makes me flashback to our discussion about george burns. so, how exactly is cartman a Complete Monster, i wonder?

Most of Cartman's CM chops come from his character evolving from a fairly straightforward Jerkass in earlier seasons to a sadistic sociopath in later ones, particularly the episode "Scott Tenorman Must Die" where, among other things, he arranges for the titular character to unwittingly eat his own parents.

Not having seen those episodes, I can't comment from a personal point of view.

His name is Charles Montgomery Burns, not George Burns @ carla

And yes, Cartman has more reason to be considered a CM than Burns does. Just look at the explanation on the Western Animation CM list. I know I've considered Burns a CM myself, and I still consider him a borderline candidate what with him evoking so much revulsion from other characters, having no apparent excuse for his evil deeds, expressing no apparently genuine remorse and having no chance at redemption at all, (with the "heinous evil deeds" part being his Kick the Dog moments) but I've decided he isn't clear-cut enough to belong on the Western Animation CM list. Cartman's evil deeds, on the other hand, are MUCH more extreme.

neo YT Pism— LOL, thanks for that correction. that's what i get for not watching The Simpsons, i don't know where i got that "george" from. am i supposed to know a george burns from somewhere...? -curious-

i've read cartman's evil deeds now (someone took him off the page, btw, i had to read it off the page history), and quite frankly, i find it all hilarious. he's probably meant to come across as a parody of a Complete Monster (i mean, he allied himself with cthulhu for god's sake), but as far as i can see it doesn't seem like he really is one— doesn't the rest of the South Park gang still hang out with him despite the fact that he murdered everybody and their dog at a justin bieber contest... (LMAO, i have to watch that episode ). once again, there's that problem of Negative Continuity and Status Quo Is God, but you guys would know that better than i would. -shrug-

edited 1st Dec '10 9:17:11 AM by carla

Which is exactly why I argued against Cartman and Mr. Burns being CM's. Their actions may qualify taken out of context, but within the story they're Played for Laughs and their actions mostly suffer from Negative Continuity, two strict disqualifiers.

Strange though, in another CM thread, people were arguing that Cartman belonged and that Burns didn't. As in, people referred to Burns with "treated too lightly, evil deeds too mild to qualify" whereas when they got to Cartman it was more like, "ah, now finally we're at an example that really could be considered a CM this time" etc... I guess different people were in that thread than in this one.

Something we might consider adding to the requirements for CM is that the villain's actions have to have actual, meaningful consequences that last beyond the current episode. Negative Continuity and Status Quo Is God almost automatically break the necessary dramatic impact.

edited 1st Dec '10 12:23:21 PM by Fighteer

I'll add that to the 1st criterion then. Obviously that is the part this standard is most relevant to.

holy cricket, there is a george burns?! i must've heard about him somewhere and then forgotten, and now my subconscious is playing tricks with me. LOL. (i'm not from the US, so i barely even know who lucy is).

it's the second criterion that leaves room for Played for Laughs characters:

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

one, the very first sentence of that criterion says "they must be played seriously at all times," which directly contradicts this. if they're Played for Laughs, that would mean they just don't ever count. also, Evilly Affable != Played for Laughs at all, as we've been discussing in several other threads.

two, we could add something like:

"Characters in shows with Negative Continuity or where Status Quo Is God don't qualify, because any horrible deeds committed in one episode are usually forgotten or Played for Laughs in the next episode."

edited 2nd Dec '10 12:59:06 PM by carla

I think the discussion is that a character Played for Laughs could be semi-funny in a primarily Crosses the Line Twice kind of way to the audience, but absolutely sickening to other characters in the work they are from.

The Joker from The Dark Knight comes to mind as an example of this.

i don't think the joker was Played for Laughs in The Dark Knight. he played himself for laughs, sure, but that only made him come off as even more of a psycho to the rest of the characters (and, arguably, the audience). he's Evilly Affable to the hilt, but not Played for Laughs; he's not meant to be comedic. the intention with making him funny was not to make us laugh, it was to freak us out.

that said, characters in a comedy show or in a comedy movie are usually intended to be comedic, so...