Subpages cleanup: Complete Monster

Gonna agree with you there, finish the examples already on the page first.

Correct, while Lotso seems to be one of the darker villains and more obvious examples, we try to look deep into him in order to make extra-sure.

In terms of heinousness for the Toy Story series, the first Big Bad, Sid, is Obliviously Evil. He breaks and tortures his toys, but he has no idea they’re sentient. Because of this, his actions come across as What Do You Meanits Not Heinous. Even then, he ends up scared straight in the end, and an alright human being when he cameos in the third movie.

The second Big Bad, Stinky Pete is an Antivillain. He’s a jerkass who tries to forcibly have Woody, Jessie, and Bullseye sold with him to a toy museum in Japan, but he has a good excuse. He spent “years rotting on a dime-store shelf, watching every other toy get picked but him.” Since he never had an owner or experienced love, it’s hard to hate him for trying to finally be loved and idolized by kids forever. When he’s given to a little girl at the end of the movie, the after-movie interviews reveal that having an owner has actually reformed him and made him pretty happy.

Now for Lotso. Wordof God says that, due to his Freudian Excuse, he's a Nietzsche Wannabe who believes all love is a lie, and the feelings he thought he and his owner shared never truly existed. Since he doesn't think love is real, he makes sure no other toy can be loved in turn. This excuse isn’t that good because every toy ends up being abandoned by their owner at some point, it’s one of the themes explored by the series. Lotso’s excuse is somewhat similar to Pete’s, but Lotso comes off as worse because he’s being cruel for the sake of being cruel, while Pete just wanted happiness. Heck, Jessie was abandoned by her owner and she turned out fine.

Besides, Woody calls Lotso out on how weak his Freudian Excuse is. Kids don’t know toys are alive and his owner was a toddler. When her parents bought her a new one, it’s a sign that she really loved her Lotso toy, not that she didn't care. She didn’t abandon him, he abandoned her.

Wordof God goes further to explain that there was a bit of Misaimed Fandom surrounding Lotso. Apparently some members of the test audiences sympathized enough with him because of his backstory that they wish he was redeemed in the end. In response, the creators went back and actually made Lotso crueler to prove he earned his Fate Worsethan Death. Also to note, all of Lotso’s henchmen undergo a Heel–Face Turn in the end and help to make the day care a happier place, while he's the only villain in the series to be resigned to permanent misery.

edited 8th Jul '12 8:27:37 PM by OccasionalExister

@1539

Saying "all these people have sympathetic moments but count as CMs" isn't an argument for keeping another character with sympathetic moments. It's an argument for looking really closely at all the people you mentioned.

On another note, I would like to say something—a Complete Monster shouldn't be able to be genuinely Affably Evil. The entire point of Affably Evil is that side from whatever their goal is, they are a pretty okay person. A Complete Monster who is polite and well-mannered isn't Affably Evil—he's either Faux Affably Evil or a particularly extreme example of Bitch in Sheep's Clothing.

edited 8th Jul '12 10:51:15 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Before I give my take on any examples, I want to ask folks to step back, clear their heads a bit, and act a bit more chill about this work.

Yes, it's good that folks are taking it seriously. But at the same time, it's not worth snapping at folks over. It's not right to be taking folks to task for bringing up an example that they want addressed. It's not good to harp on folks for interrupting the discussion of Disney Complete Monster candidates - especially when the Disney Complete Monster discussion completely derailed the Anime and Manga Complete Monster discussion (in short, it sounds almost like folks complaining "my derail is more important than your derail").

Yes, it's getting a bit more chaotic in here because there are more folks participating more regularly in this thread. Things could stand to be a bit more orderly - particularly in regards to rehashing the same arguments over and over. If you're going to continue a debate about a candidate, either pro or con, please introduce a new argument about the candidate when you post. Rehashing the same thing over and over is just causing the noise to start to cancel out the signal.

Also, we should be welcoming folks coming in with their own examples for debate, not shouting them down. Yes, we want them to clearly state the candidate/candidates in question as well as the series that they come from. But there's no harm in dealing with a dozen or more candidates at once. Folks who deal with this thread regularly are probably familiar with my habit of addressing a half dozen or more examples in a single post - I just open the thread in a different window and address all the ones that I haven't yet hit, roughly in posting order.

Finally, let's be very judicious with discussions of brony99. That name is starting to become almost a stealth curse word, and we probably should all feel a bit embarrassed about that - I know I do. We already have the trope Single-Issue Wonk when we want to point out that folks are hammering the same issue endlessly.

Okay, since I want this post to stand alone, I'm going to make my post to actually consider examples separate from this one.

Okay, first, @1539 - Why does a Complete Monster have to be "complete"? And you don't want me to say "Because it's in the name"?

Well, that's a bit unfair. It'd be like asking why Alpha Bitch has to be a bitch without pointing out that it's in the name. Or asking why Good Is Not Nice has to be not nice without pointing out that it's in the name.

Yes, a whole bunch of these examples do have to be axed. We're fully aware of this. The reason why Complete Monster is in Special Efforts is because it was one of the worst cases of Trope Decay that this site had seen. In fact, a whole host of villain tropes were created in part to give the appropriate home to the examples that don't belong in Complete Monster.

There are a ton of examples that don't fit on various pages because, in part, folks are still actually getting up to speed on what the trope means, and in part because we're still in the process of actually removing them. If there wasn't such a huge misuse problem, we wouldn't need a Special Efforts thread. We wouldn't be going over Hopper from A Bugs Life like it was a doctoral thesis. Things would be so much simpler. But they aren't, and here we are.

When it comes down to it, a Complete Monster just isn't nearly as common as some folks think it is. To be honest, I'm actually glad for that. There are generally only a very small handful that improve a work. I think The Joker makes Batman a better hero in many regards. I think Lezard Valeth makes Valkyrie Profile a more entertaining game (it helps that he also isn't the Big Bad). I still rank Kefka as the yardstick for video gaming villains based on what he did in Final Fantasy VI (I actually created the millikefka as a rating for villainy, with one millikefka being one-thousandth as evil as the Psycho Clown). But that's really it for my list of Complete Monsters that make a work better.

Anyhow, to sum up my thoughts on the Pixar choices, since they may have gotten lost in the crowd - Hopper no; Lotso yes.

Starscream in Transformers Prime - Dirty Cowards is not a disqualifier for this trope. That said, freeing someone out of a sense of gratitude is just enough to have me disqualify someone. As noted with Lotso, a true Complete Monster will leave someone who just helped them to die without reservation.

Dr. Slicer of Recess - Okay, how he gets dealt with as punishment is not a disqualifier for this trope. That's the subject of a Karma Houdini debate, which is unrelated to this trope. Anyhow, while turning a school into a military school is Jerkass territory, it's not evil, really. Nothing that couldn't be forgiven. I could address the other aspects of the trope, but I don't think I need to. Easy no.

Dr. Benedict - Depends if they actually discuss the ramifications of eternal winter or not. If they actually do, I'd consider him.

Frollo in the Disney version of Hunchback of Notre Dame - See, this is why I don't like having a Disney section in general. Everyone constantly says that Frollo is the clearest case in the Disney animated canon. Mind you, I am colored a bit by familiarity with the original novel (where Frollo isn't even remotely a candidate). But considering that the animated Frollo is only part of what the novel version is...

I guess he does actually count. Putting aside my issues (standard lit snob ones, really) with the treatment of the story by Disney, they do remove all of Frollo's positive traits and heap on tons more negative ones. While he hasn't put together a master plan for doing so, the fact that he is genocidal (not to mention does act on it several times) is extremely heinous, particularly for the canon. Still, there aren't that many that Disney makes that equal this.

Bellatrix Lestrange - Yes, boot her; as demented as it is, it is still genuine love.

Madame Medusa of The Rescuers - Child endangerment is pretty nasty, but she's not as full-on evil as I'd expect out of this trope. Well, maybe she actually is, but she never actually shows it. I would say no.

edited 9th Jul '12 8:39:24 AM by 32_Footsteps

TF Prime Starscream had a Pet the Dog moment, and the CM posts acknowledge that, but in reality, they should just delete the post, because his actions muddy the waters. Hopper, I think we finished discussing, he was cut. Medusa; child endangerment and almost murder makes her seem like a CM to me, but she might fail to reach the heinous standard. Lotso, well, I haven't heard a convincing argument to remove him yet.

In case of Benedict, as far as I remember they do discuss the effects of eternal winter. But I am not sure but the movie can be watched here.

Now I will finally bring all the poor examples that I found on the Disney page. These are all potential candidates for removal.

WITCH

• The Tracker. His horrifying appearance and complete lack of personality besides relentlessly trying to kill the heroes definitely solidifies him as the show's most evil character.
• Phobos could count as well. He abducts and tortures Will, and he wishes to kill his own sister.

I haven't seen the series (nor am I planning to) but by reading the description, I can be certain thatthe tracker is decidedly not an example. All he tries to do is simply to kill the heroes. In other words, he tries to do exactly what almost all the villains in every work try. She should be removed immediately. Phobos? I think that he is much more likely an example, but I also heard that he sides with the heroes at the end to defeat a greater villain (though, after the victory he betrays them again and is trapped in the dungeon (I don't know, I only heard about it since I haven't seen the show). I also heard, that he almost always fails.

• Buzz Lightyearof Star Command has some, but the particular example is Evil Buzz Lightyear from an alternate universe. He manipulates Gravitina, who's in love with him, by pretending he loves her as well, but when her life is in danger, he doesn't even try to help! He even reacts to her cries sarcastically. Let's also mention NOS-4-A2. He is a vampire robot who enjoys torturing other machines and he brainwashed XR into becaming evil. Actually, his goal is pretty evil. He wants to turn the WHOLE UNIVERSE INTO MACHINES! As a result, he's one of the few villains to get Killed Offfor Real in his last appearance. Ironically, Zurg himself, who was considered as the most evil villain in the whole galaxy, avoids falling into this trope due to being very much an Ineffectual Sympathetic Villain.

Evil Buzz Lightyear? What he does is certainly evil and villainous, but truly heinous?! NO! NOS-4-A2 is only a robot. Plus, brainwashing a hero to become evil is not something I would consider a CM level. Turning universe into machines is standard villainy goal for me.

Finally:

• Merlock from Duck Talesthe Movie Treasureofthe Lost Lamp. A power-mad Evil Sorcerer, he was able to bypass the three-wish limit on the magic lamp using his talisman, essentially getting as many wishes as he wants. Genie gives us a few examples of what he wished for: "You ever hear of Atlantis? It used to be everyone's favorite resort 'til Merlock couldn't get reservations. Then down she went! And poor Pompeii! Mount Vesuvius wouldn't have blown its top if Merlock hadn't blown his!" Oh, and his first wish was to live forever. In a nutshell, folks, Merlock is an undying tyrant with a hair trigger and a god complex whose idea of blowing off steam is murdering entire cities.

Yeah he is evil, but most of his actions are played OFF-screen, and he is also funny in some scenes. He is more Faux Affably Evil than a Complete Monster I would say.

edited 9th Jul '12 9:54:18 AM by Krystoff

Okay, before we go on to other characters, do we agree to keep Lotso or not? I'm thinking we should set up a crowner just to make sure.

edited 9th Jul '12 11:13:30 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

I didn't see anybody against.

Me - for

Dr Psyche - for

Occasional Exister - for

Ambar son of deshar - for

32Footsteps - for

You - undecided

Shaoken - undecided

edited 9th Jul '12 11:25:00 AM by Krystoff

Fair enough, then, I guess I wasn't paying enough attention to the conversation.

What about a crowner for Hopper, though, is it too late for that? I don't think there was nearly as clear a consensus with regards to Hopper.

I was going to put in an edit request (not to remove the Lotso entry, just to replace it with a better-worded one) but I first want to see what we're going to do with regards to Hopper.

edited 9th Jul '12 11:55:02 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

Yeah, that sums up the conversation well.

• I don't remember a consensus for Hopper, there was still debate among the meaning of the line about not killing Molt. Perhaps A Crowner (Which I assume is a page about voting) should be made. I remember that more people tended to say that Hopper wasn't a CM, though I was not one of them. I believe that the discussion should have had a more final ending, but It boiled down to the validity of that line, and more people tended to think it was evidence of a good quality.

edited 9th Jul '12 12:10:18 PM by DrPsyche

I thought I already stated this, but I'm for Lotso, against Hopper.

What about all my examples?

With Hopper, I accept cutting him but I am still reluctant since he still very dark for a Pixar villain. Lets make a crowner

edited 9th Jul '12 1:31:51 PM by Krystoff

This is why people tend to repeat examples/ arguments, they get forgotten, or another conversation starts, making them getting forgotten. Personally, I have never actually seen any of those shows, so I can't comment.

Are You For keeping Lotso, or For Axing him, sorry, I'm just making it clear.

edited 9th Jul '12 1:39:45 PM by DrPsyche

For inclusion.

Thank you. Sorry to nitpick.

edited 9th Jul '12 1:58:08 PM by DrPsyche

Does a crowner do us a lot of good in a situation like this? All I'm thinking about is that the reason the trope is under review is because people were/are misusing it. Do we want to open up voting to people who are still liable to misuse it? Just something to think about; I'm not necessarily saying don't do it.

A good point. To be honest, I still think Hopper is a CM, but there were more people saying that he wasn't one, so we should probably not bother with a Crowner, and keep him off the CM page. The trope is subjective, and the misuse of it is being debated constantly, a crowner would add to the debate (and basically do what this Forum does, we argue and debate to see if X is a CM), so I don't think it matters that much.

• EDIT: When you deleted Hopper from the Bug's Life YMMV, you probably should have cited the forum, but I suppose you could just shoot a PM to any one who objects.

edited 9th Jul '12 4:56:26 PM by DrPsyche

Not that it particularly matters, but I reorganised the entries for Sergio Leone's films on the Film page (they're now in chronological order), removed a dead link, and cleared up some bad grammar (although if somebody else would like to take a shot at making the entry on Frank more readable, that'd be great; it's one of the ones I didn't write and I'm not quite sure how to make it better without taking out the big spoilered section).

Looking at the film section as a whole, when discussing multiple films from one director, should we try to group them together? I'm just noting that some directors, like Leone, seem to have a thing for this trope, and it might make the page more readable.

edited 9th Jul '12 5:08:55 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

A number of other tropes leave what to do about their misuse open to crowners. I'm not sure leaving what to do about a specific example to a crowner is necessarily worse. It's a criticism worth taking into account, but shouldn't be enough to rule it out altogether.

Do you have specifics of who says he is and who says he isn't?

Okay, Matt, I don't have everyone, but I'll track down the posts I can find.

Matt: I'm pretty sure you wanted to keep Hopper: please tell me If I'm wrong

Me: Keep Hopper

Largo Quagmire: Keep Hopper

Occasional Exister: Keep Hopper

Shaoken: Cut Hopper

Ambar Sonof Deshar: Cut Hopper

nrjxll: Cut Hopper

Jordan: Cut Hopper

32 Footsteps: Cut Hopper

Krystoff: Wanted the Crowner (Not sure what his final decision was)

Please Notify me if I misrepresented anyone of you.

edited 10th Jul '12 12:24:28 AM by DrPsyche

I skimmed past this earlier, but now that I notice it, I really can't second it enough (well, not the specific characters part, but that's not the point). This trope is really not one that's required for even a truly nasty villain, despite the lingering belief that it is in the troper mentality. It's not Three-Quarters Monster, it's not even 99.9 Percent Monster. It's Complete Monster - or, as one redirect I'm particularly fond of puts it, Pure Evil. The fact that what's needed to qualify keeps an awful lot of villains out doesn't mean they're too stringent; it means that the trope doesn't apply to a lot of villains.

And I think I've also made the case in the past that a CM really doesn't help a work as much as people think, too. They can be extremely scary villains, but as essentially one-dimensional characters (usually) they're rarely very interesting, particularly as a sole or primary antagonist.

edited 10th Jul '12 12:20:44 AM by nrjxll

What about all the examples above that I brought up. I am reminding about them since people seem to forget. Look above.

According to that, it is 5 in favour of cutting Hopper from the list, 4 against. Had it been a crowner, it wouldn't have had the 2:1 ratio typically used as a guideline for crowners. I'm inclined to think a bit more discussion is called for, and after that we'll move onto the TV, live action and video game Disney villains to look for the kind of poor examples Krystoff was referring to. (The Disney CM thread already went over the Animated Canon section.)

One thing that irks me a bit about the Hopper thing is the "why include the line at all" question. As if everything in a movie is unanimously supported by everyone involved in it. I doubt the writers at Pixar anticipated that people would be that deeply analyzing this one particular line.

edited 10th Jul '12 4:44:03 AM by HiddenFacedMatt