Do you disagree with any of the Complete Monster entries?

Gladly. In fact, let's go through the magic five points with him;

• His goals, methods, actions etc, are not horrifying in the slightest. He uses hypnotic singing to make people steal valuables for him. Nothing he does could be considered a Moral Event Horizon, or even a Kick the Dog moment.
• The biggest reaction he evokes from others is frustration. Batman considers him an annoyance at best. He is neither terrifying or utterly revolting.
• He does have a Freudian Excuse. It's a silly one, but then again, everything about him is a bit silly.
• If he were to make a Heel–Face Turn the fandom would probably rejoice, seeing as he's so popular. If he were to be killed it wouldn't be considered karmic, it would be Disproportionate Retribution.

In short, the Music Meister fits none of the Complete Monster points.

I also find that the phrase Complete Monster seems to get overused in the Disney list. Just look at the page history. While I'm not very familiar with most of the examples used there, I know that both the evil queen from Snow White and Governor Ratcliffe from Pocahontas were added, the former on multiple occassions.

The evil queen's villainy seems to be limited to an attempted murder of one person, and the vague threatening of another; evil, obviously, but I don't think it takes evil to a Complete Monster extreme.

And while Ratcliffe's evil is on a comparatively larger scale, he seemed to come across as a rather polite villain... well, most of the time. He's probably dealt with a little too lightly to be a Complete Monster.

 ^*

EDIT again: Why didn't that tvtropes-code thing work in my earlier edit?

edited 2nd Oct '10 9:18:08 AM by neoYTPism

Y'know what? More and more, I feel this needs an Example Sectionectomy. It just seems like we simply can't keep this one under control.

* His goals, methods, actions etc, are not horrifying in the slightest. He uses hypnotic singing to make people steal valuables for him. Nothing he does could be considered a Moral Event Horizon, or even a Kick The Dog moment.

• The biggest reaction he evokes from others is frustration. Batman considers him an annoyance at best. He is neither terrifying or utterly revolting.
• He does have a Freudian Excuse. It's a silly one, but then again, everything about him is a bit silly.
• If he were to make a Heel Face Turn the fandom would probably rejoice, seeing as he's so popular. If he were to be killed it wouldn't be considered karmic, it would be Disproportionate Retribution.

The point about how other characters react to him is the only objective thing there, though. Some people may find the idea of being hypnotically controlled Nightmare Fuel, and thus find the Music Meister's actions appalling and wish he received a more severe punishment. And the guidelines say they must have no adequate Freudian Excuse; whether or not the Music Meister's qualifies is a matter of opinion.

If we're gonna say "Hey, someone might find his actions scary and appalling", then every villain in existence is technically a Complete Monster, as no matter how Harmless they are. If the villain's plan revolves around tickling peoples feet and stealing fairy cakes, if someone thinks it's bad, he's a Complete Monster? In that case, Complete Monster is meaningless.

...or subjective, which is what it's labeled as right now.

... just because it's subjective doesn't mean we ought to treat every notion of monstrousness as evil.

I think this title needs to be reserved for the most extreme of villains. From the definition, mild ones, remorseful ones, and redeemable ones are implied not to count. And I think even Affably Evil ones who otherwise meet the criteria are sort of a grey area.

But everyone has different standards of "mild," whether someone's redeemable is often the subject of fierce debate, and even whether someone's actually remorseful can be difficult to get agreement on.

In an earlier Complete Monster thread, I argued that Frollo from Disney's The Hunchback Of Notre Dame shouldn't qualify since he has good intentions and feels remorse over his more severe crimes. Others argued that good intentions are meaningless and that Frollo's remorse doesn't count because, as a devout Christian, he was just trying to avoid divine punishment.

Now you've got me wondering if someone can be a temporary Complete Monster if they feel no remorse for some horrible action, but do later.

Just my two cents, but I'd say that if a villain ever feels genuine, selfless remorse, then they're not a Complete Monster (I'm not counting "I regret that because I realize now it actually hurt me too" as "genuine remorse").

See? Hopelessly subjective.

One thing we have learned: This article doesn't help us document a storytelling technique.

The technique is this:

1. Set up a moral value.
2. Have the character exceed that value in an extravagant way.

We need to back up and look at it from that perspective. In story, what moral boundary has been established? By what means has the boundary been established? In what way does the character extravagantly cross that boundary?

Somebody just put Goldmember in the page. I removed it, but they just put it back.

I give up.

there was some discussion about this trope here, specifically about disney villains, but there's also some stuff about subjectivity and authorial intent being discussed.

fwiw, i think this trope is hopelessly subjective. but it's also being abused. the key here is the five criteria— if there are any villains that obviously don't fit the five criteria (like villains that got redeemed, villains not taken seriously by other characters, and such), that's a genuine deviation from the trope definition and should be edited out. if the only reason you might think it doesn't fit the five criteria is "but that's hardly horrible when compared to this other villain from this other Darker and Edgier series," then... well, i don't think that's a good enough reason.

that's just how i see it, though, but i'm personally not against subjectivity, so...

edited 10th Oct '10 7:03:49 PM by carla

"I just removed Carmine Falconi (he didn't even do anything, let alone pass the Moral Event Horizon!), Ra's Al Ghul (who the hell would put a Well Intentioned Extremist on the Complete Monster page???), Miles Quaritch (he's Unintentionally Sympathetic, for crying out loud!)" - RL Nice

Quaritch is sympathetic because of Misaimed Fandom. When I watched the movie I could tell he was being portrayed as completely monstrous, so I added him. I even explained how he meets the checklist.

As for Ra's and Falcone, they were originally on the page for The Dark Knight Saga before I moved them to the Complete Monster page. I don't consider Ra's a Complete Monster either, but he was already there so I left him there; besides, his "good intentions" are somewhat ambiguous.

I was the one who added Falcone, actually, before even copying the characters to the Complete Monster list, partly BECAUSE Ra's was already there, and partly because Falcone was arguably worse for the apparent lack of "good intentions." Also, Falcone is clearly quite cruel and remorseless, as indicated by his claim in the restaurant scene that he wouldn't have a second's hesitation about blowing Bruce Wayne's head off in front of the police. He's also implied to have sent hitmen to kill Rachel Dawes because she couldn't be bought off. That said, he probably doesn't get enough on-screen characterization to apply either.

Freiza (and other DB/DBZ villains): Frieza has what could almost be considered Pet the Dog moments. He agrees to not fight Nail in front of the Elder and he stops causing needless destruction to Namek when Goku calls him out on it (at first anyway). He only slaughters the Namek villagers when they refuse to give him the Dragon Balls. As for the people who say that he has no excuse...Have you seen Frieza's father? Not the kind of guy that would raise a child with upstanding moral character. Overall, DB and DBZ aren't serious enough shows to really have villains who are Complete Monsters.

Sylar, Danko, and Samuel (Heroes): Sylar is too conflicted over the evil acts he commits, Samuel is a Well-Intentioned Extremist, and Danko (despite being a huge prick) has a whole episode pretty much to show that he isn't completely devoid of humanity.

Patrick Logan (Desperate Housewives): The fact that the guy cares about saving the planet pretty much negates his inclusion on the list.

The Trinity Killer (Dexter): The Trinity Killer hates what he does. No matter how bad a character's actions may be, they aren't a Complete Monster if they have even the smallest smidgeon of remorse.

edited 12th Oct '10 10:41:13 AM by emperorzaige

Frieza commissioned the slaughter of entire planetary populations. Any excuses are worthless.

edited 12th Oct '10 11:24:57 AM by Colonial1.1

Eh, to be fair, the scale of destruction doesn't necessarily imply as to the way their villainy is handled. Eggman threatened to fire the eclipse cannon at the US (which would kill millions of innocent civilians) if it didn't surrender to his empire, yet he carries on a polite conversation with Tails in SA 2's ending.

That said, I'm not familiar with Frieza anyway.

The Complete Monster doesn't have to be a slavering lunatic every waking moment; it's entirely reasonable for him to be charismatic or even superficially likeable. At least until characters find out what he's really like, in which case a Freak Out is not unheard of.

i wouldn't simply disregard works for "not being serious enough" (i'm big on context), but i don't think i would say frieza is a Complete Monster. he always seemed a run-of-the-mill space conqueror to me, although a pretty powerful one. i can't remember DBZ enough to remember exact moments, but i never got the feeling the characters were outright scared of him. sure, they did not underestimate him for one second, but the overall feeling was "no matter what happens, we're going to beat this guy!", you know, the typical shonen shpiel. especially goku. i can't recall anyone going "oh my god, how could he do that?! this person is a complete psychopath! how can such a being even exist?! i think i'm going to cry or throw up just watching this" like i imagine "truly horrific" has to be. he might've been the butt of a joke once or twice, too. i would have to rewatch to know for sure, but i'm not going to.

or maybe it's just that he hired the ginyu force (not to mention vegeta and nappa). their lulz (Over Nine Thousand!) immediately extend to frieza in my mind, for some reason.

as far as the others go, sylar has moments of absolute psychopathy but that's not enough to make him a Complete Monster. and danko is right out, if you ask me; he seemed to really be into that girl, and it gave me a moment of pause from my initial loathing. besides, i always got the feeling he was more of a Well-Intentioned Extremist, at least in his own mind. i can't remember who samuel is.

No. Vegeta was scared of him. So were plenty of other folk. Even King Kai to a degree.

^ some characters were scared of him, yeah. i just think the "complete" in the trope name tells me he has to be a truly horrible character in the eyes of everybody. nobody should see him as "just another strong enemy i'm going to beat." or at least that's the stick i've been using to measure it (this trope is so hopelessly subjective... hence this thread).

but either way, even if i don't see vegeta as a Complete Monster, my stance is that i have to leave him there, since someone else obviously does see him that way. it's not like i'm going to edit him out.

You realize that Darth Vader held Princess Leia back when Tarkin destroyed her home planet right? Darth Vader doesn't fall into Complete Monster territory. The fact is that there were several opportunities for Frieza to be even more evil than he was. Like I said, he could have tortured Nail in front of the Elder, but he didn't. A Complete Monster wouldn't be that considerate.

Vegeta and Nappa are not Complete Monsters (the former had a Heel–Face Turn). Frieza may or may not be a Complete Monster, but again, this is a subjective trope. Some forms of Buu is this, espeically the last one.

When I think of Complete Monster, I think of Vigil from Staying Fat For Sarah Byrnes. He shows no remorse and he push his own daughters face into a hot stove, making her scarred to life and scaring off his wife. And In the climax, Vigil goes after the main character, stabs him, and almost kills him. He shows no symtathy for either of these events. No wonder Sarah is scared of her own father.

It was mentioned earlier that well-intentioned extremists couldn't be complete monsters, but I'm not really sure if I agree with that. Can't a character's actions qualify them for complete monster status even if they believe what they're doing is best?

To bring in an anime example which is listed on the page, Admiral Akainu from One Piece is mentioned. This character hates criminals and purportedly wants to keep the world safe, but he does this by ruthlessly and remorselessly killing a lot of innocent people so he can get to criminals and by protecting a government which also does a lot of unnecessary and evil things to stay in power. He fits all of the complete monster criteria, but since he believes he's doing the right thing, he's also a well-intentioned extremist.

The Well-Intentioned Extremist would have to have a really twisted vision of what is right and wrong for them to be a Complete Monster to the point where even their vision is wrong. In that case, he may not be well-intentioned. The basis of being a Complete Monster is that there is no speck of goodness in the person. Wanting to do the right thing would tend to at least mean that the character has enough goodness in him to want to think of himself as good.