Subpages cleanup: Complete Monster

Yeesh, haven't seem the movie but Rourke seems like one

on all Recess villains. Undecided on Rourke. He always struck me as a Jerkass who just wanted money, but thinking about it, the fact that he was willing to doom an entire civilization just for money, knowing but just not caring, is pretty heinous. As was shooting his loyal follower Helga in cold blood, and calling it "nothing personal!" He had no alturistic qualities and any redeeming points were all just an act. And he's less enjoyably evil than most Disney villains and more vile and cruel. I'm leaning towards .

edited 13th Apr '13 12:30:58 PM by AnewMan

Cut for Giovanni, Cut for Hunter J, Cut for Benedict, Cut all Recess examples, Keep for Rourke.

edited 13th Apr '13 12:28:47 PM by verymelon

That makes 6 votes to cut Giovanni.

Though I'd still say that Hunter J is a legit qualifyer. In her first appearance alone, she demonstrates monsterous behaviour and is talked up as being heinous by standards of the Pokemon anime's world. And she only gets worse in her following appearances. Especially in the kidnapped Riolu two-parter, where she commits arson on an entire forest filled with Pokemon, and then lures Ash into a position where she attempts to murder him. And like Nina Myers and Rourke, she does everything for money. There's never ever any moments where we see a shred of humanity from her. So the only thing that's really holding her back is the fact that she's in the same series that features Cyrus and Team Galactic doing things that are arguably more heinous than her crimes. But given that she's the worst she can possibly be in her position (I forgot to mention she assists Team Galactic in her last appearance by droppping their bomb onto a lake and then torturing/paralyzing the Lake Trio like she does with all Pokemon she hunts.), I say she ought to be kept regardless.

edited 13th Apr '13 12:44:00 PM by AnewMan

@lightysnake I know and agree, hence the pothole; just wanted to make a note how this trope isn't mutually exclusive with charisma.

Rourke wasn't listed. I watched the movie yesterday, thought about what he did, and thought he'd be a candidate. Thus, I brought him to you guys.

If he does qualify, he needs a writeup. Unfortunately, I am rather poor at writing those.

When it comes to Rourke, I think this deserves mention again:

Finally, when his hot air balloon, which he's using to escape, is damaged, he lightens the load by throwing his loyal right-hand woman overboard, joking about it as she falls to her death.

Actually, what makes this so bad isn't that he jokes about it, it's the he's half joking in his delivery but half sincere in what he says: "Nothing personal!" And it was nothing personal. Helga was nothing but loyal to him this whole time: he throws her off to her (near) death just to lighten the load on his escape ride. This shows him as a man who can and will kill somebody for no good reason or no personal vendetta, and not give a shit at all. And this was after he'd been shown to be a man willing to knowlingly destroy an entire civilization and the lives of all who live there just so he can get even richer than he would've been anyway. So I'm defenitely going for now.

edited 13th Apr '13 3:20:09 PM by ANewMan

So, counting my own, that's six votes to add Rourke.

And just to be clear, Rourke KNEW taking the power source would kill everyone in Atlantis, and he only wanted the money, right? If so,

Rourke wanted the entire civilization destroyed and everyone dead because that would make the treasures he was taking even more valuable, and thus he could get richer for the discovery. And he was gleeful about the whole thing. No qualms at all.

edited 13th Apr '13 5:32:49 PM by AnewMan

Yeesh.

I've found a couple of sites that have a backstory for Rourke and mention a dead father, but I don't know where this backstory came from and even if it is official it doesn't specify if his father's death serves as a Freudian Excuse. I vote but trying to track the source of the backstory might be something we'd want to do.

If it doesn't factor into the movie, I doubt it'll sway my vote

Would it, considering it would be entirely offscreen?

edited 13th Apr '13 6:15:40 PM by Crowley

Voting keep for Hunter J. Not counting the movies (which gives the oh so charming Kodai), J is easily the most vile character in the Pokemon anime.

The villain from Snakes On A Plane is listed. I haven't seen the movie, but isn't everything about it supposed to be as intentionally over-the-top as possible?

From what I remember that guy was played for complete seriousness.

and yeah, haven't seen it, but I do believe that a commedy can have a CM if, unlike everything else, the villain is played completely seriously, (ignoring the example from Blacula that I proposed (and have recently added to the ymmv page) other examples would be Jeff Fecalman from Family Guy, and, while he does not quite make the cut, abridged Frieza from Team Four Star comes pretty close to this trope too).

On Rourke, I have not seen that movie in years, but from what I remember, it could have been dark enough for him to qualify.

edited 13th Apr '13 8:21:15 PM by bobg

"Rourke wanted the entire civilization destroyed and everyone dead because that would make the treasures he was taking even more valuable, and thus he could get richer for the discovery. And he was gleeful about the whole thing. No qualms at all."

This makes me think that the character is a good keep. I find that with a lot of (bad) examples, there's the issue of the character not being cognizant of the terrible things their actions with cause or the story itself not really fully considering them, but if the character actually consciously planned on wiping out a whole civilization, then yeah, that's a keeper.

Yeah, to clarify, here are some quotes from the movie:

Rourke: [Describing himself] "Mercenary"? I prefer the term "adventure capitalist".

Then: [Rourke has just punched the King when he refused to tell him where the crystal chamber is, and an upset Dr. Sweet checks on the mortally wounded king]

Dr. Sweet: Rourke, this was not a part of the plan!

Rourke: The plan's changed, Doc. I'd suggest you put a bandage on that bleeding heart of yours, it doesn't suit a mercenary.

Then: Milo: You think it's some kind of diamond. I thought it was some kind of a battery. But we're both wrong. It's their life force. That crystal is the only thing keeping these people alive. You take that away, and they'll die.

Rourke: Well, that changes things. Helga, what do you think?

Helga: Knowing that, I'd double the price.

Rourke: I was thinking triple.

And then: Milo: So, I guess this is how it ends, huh? Fine, you win. You're wiping out an entire civilization, but, hey, you'll be rich.....that's what it's all about, right? Money.

Rourke: Get off your soapbox, Thatch. You've read Darwin. It's called natural selection. We're just helping it along. ...Look at it this way, son. You were the man who discovered Atlantis, and now you're part of the exhibit.

There's also "I love it when I win!" and "Nothing personal!" They become monstrous if you know the context.

Actually, Jeff Fecalman making the cut has bugged me for two reasons:

1: He's played as an uncomedic Knight of Cerebus, sure. But is being an abusive boyfriend really heinous by Family Guy standards? This is a show that can turn anything into a big joke and has had wife beating Played for Laughs before. Heck, Jeff's brief first appearance in a previous episode was Played for Laughs. The only reason it was played seriously with Jeff and Brenda now was because it was A Very Special Episode. And the abuse victim was a protagonist's sister. Even though said protagonist has done his share of heinous things on the show.

2: Him trying to kill Quagmire, Peter, and Joe is cited as his Moral Event Horizon on the YMMV page and everywhere else. But the thing is...the only reason they were out there and got into that situation is because they were trying to kill him. Sure, the moment he turned things around on them, he was gleefully murderous rather than simply going for self defense, which does prove he's a terrible man (as if it wasn't obvious already). But not only is attempting murder something villains tend to do, but in this case the protagonists were doing it. To say it's only a Moral Event Horizon crossing with Jeff sounds kinda like Protagonist-Centered Morality.

Granted Jeff does stand out as more vile than anything else on the show given how seriously he's played. But I've never been sure if he really was a Complete Monster or just a Knight of Cerebus Bastard Boyfriend.

edited 13th Apr '13 9:06:19 PM by AnewMan

Frankly I'm skeptical that anyone named Fecalman could possibly be a serious enough character to qualify...

Oh believe me, for Family Guy, he was a serious enough contender. All comedy came to a grinding halt whenever he was present. But the things I mentioned makes me think he might not quite make the cut. More heinous things happen on that show and they're Played for Laughs.

Personally, I'd say the Evil Stewie Clone was the closest thing to a CM on Family Guy, though.

edited 13th Apr '13 10:10:54 PM by AnewMan

Possibly, although he doesn't count, because even if not Played for Laughs he's Made of Evil.

A few pages late, but an aside regarding Sweeney Todd: Film!Turpin may very well be a keeper given his remorseless vileness, but Play!Turpin, at least in the versions that keep "The Judge's Song", is most certainly not. While the song is terribly creepy and depraved, it also shows that the Judge does have some kind of conscience and recognise how reprehensible a human being he is, yet is too deeply disturbed to actually do what he would need to do to redeem himself, instead choosing to dig himself deeper into the black pit. It's a really humanising scene, but humanising in a way that makes the character even more frightening and dangerous.

Lovett is less ambiguous. Definitely a cut.

Also, what about Film!Beadle Bamford? He probably doesn't quite qualify on the heinousness standard, but damned if he doesn't try. (He's too silly in the play to really qualify.)

Forgot that Made of Evil doesn't qualify. He was still the closest other than Jeff.

I think Film!Turpin is a Complete Monster while Play!Turpin is not. The film removes any humanizing moments and numbers from him (pressumably because Alan Rickman didn't have the vocal range for them.) Similary, Beadle Bamford doesn't have the creepy close-up moments in the play that he does in the film (like giving a Psychotic Smirk at someone getting raped). Sweeney Todd and Miss Lovett are defenitely not qualifyers in either version. They're terrible, evil creatures, but not Complete Monsters since they're able to love and have several moments of sympathy.