Special:Badtitle/NS90:Talk:Complete Monster/Disney/Examples that should remain here.


 * The Mad Doctor - For the standards of old cartoon shorts, this guy was as heinous and severely evil as it could possibly get. He doesn't have much of a character, but that only adds to his "depraved and evil with no mitigating factors" portrayal. He also turns out to be a literal nightmare, making him a particular abnormality by Mickey Mouse standards.


 * Stromboli - He's given just enough characterization to be considered irredeemably vile, his actions and threats (child exploitation and child murder all for the sake of profit) are heinous by the work's standards, the moment his villainy is revealed is not light-hearted or comedic at all, and the nature of his evil is very similar to that of the Coachman, but on a smaller scale and lesser resources. There's no given excuse for him being this way, no true mitigating factors, and no conceivable redemption in sight.


 * Sykes - As a loan shark, kidnapper, blackmailer, attempted murderer, and all around thug played very straight and realistically, and with no mitigating factors to be found in his depiction, there's no way he doesn't qualify by the standards of both his work and Disney as a whole.


 * Queen Grimhilde - Her dark and serious depiction, lack of redeeming features, vile atrocities committed for no good reason (whether they be implicit or explicit) and place in the narrative of being a figure who's reviled and feared by others makes her truly heinous by the standards of the story. Her Knight of Cerebus nature that effects the tone of all her scenes also makes her heinous by Disney standards. According to Frank and Ollie, Walt took note to never make another villain that scary, real, or menacing again, meaning that even Chernabog and Maleficent weren't deemed as bad as her. Also telling is how her old hag persona reflects her "true self" - all the ugliness and depravity she kept inside now brought to the outside.


 * Shan-Yu - The main thing that kept igniting discussions on cutting him on TV Tropes was him seemingly being a Generic Doomsday Villain. However, it's made very clear that he's basically a rather dark version of an Arrogant Kung Fu Guy who takes the very idea of an enormous wall protecting China as both a personal insult and a challenge, and also gets a characterization as a stoic, cruel, intelligent warrior. He definitely has enough personality to count, even if he's more subdued that most Disney villains.


 * Turbo - He hits off the criteria for the trope in being heinous by the standards of his narrative and setting ("going Turbo" is considered an atrocity in-universe and his actions involved getting two whole games unplugged, violating the very existences of other characters, and endangering the lives of many while using the Cy-Bugs in hopes of dominating the entire arcade world), his villainy being played seriously despite his Laughably Evil moments and comedic personality traits, being loathed by others, having no excuse or justification for his actions, possessing no redeeming qualities, and ending the story completely irredeemable.


 * Hopper - His single decent feature that keeps him off the trope at TV Tropes is that he keeps his promise to his mother (a promise he made while she was on her deathbed, off-screen in the past) to not kill or seriously harm his brother Molt. But even this rings hollow since he states he gladly would kill Molt if he hadn't chose to bind himself to that promise (likely out of a grasshopper's honor code and not wanting his men to revolt were he to break it) and then he later actually seems ready to finally do it in the scene at the grasshopper's lair before Molt saves himself by pointing out that the action Hopper was angry at wasn't his idea, but two other grasshopper minions whom Hopper does proceed to kill - if Molt hadn't blabbed the truth, that could have been him! And overall it just does not stack up against the level of viciousness and cruelty displayed by Hopper in his other actions, which makes it not a mitigating factor nor a truly redeeming feature at all.


 * Lotso Huggin' Bear - While he has a sad backstory and Freudian Excuse for becoming what he is now, it's not at all adequate enough to justify the actions he chose to take, nor does it change the fact that he's presently sadistic, despotic, nihilistic, lacking in redeeming qualities and beyond all hope of repentance and redemption. His excuse loses even more weight when it's considered that he abandoned his owner rather than the other way around, turned on his two friends (lying to Big Baby about not getting replaced and forcing Chuckles to go along with the lie, and throwing Chuckles out to get broken during his rule over Sunnyside) and became "no one's friend", and distorted his own views from "she don't love us no more!" to "she never loved us!", thus giving up on belief in love in general and viewing toys, himself included, as nothing more than ultimately disposable trash. And his actions are truly heinous by any standard since they're against his fellow toys and the real life equivalent of such crimes would be absolutely horrifying.


 * Syndrome - He might be more of a borderline case since he has a small mitigating quality in wanting to do some good in his life (and going by the "Jack Jack Attacks" short, letting Kari live even when he didn't have to) but otherwise he fits the requirements. He's the most heinous villain in the story and his acts are suitably heinous by Disney-Pixar standards, his villainy is played dead seriously in spite of his humorous quirks, other characters are disgusted by him (even his own henchwoman, Mirage, who turns on him due to his blatant disregard for human life), his Freudian Excuse is very weak when stacked up against his actions (which include genocide against superheroes who had nothing to do with him) and how much of what went wrong in his backstory was largely his own damn fault, he lacks redeeming qualities and is naturally not redeemed. And no, his "I'll make everyone super" does not count as an altruistic quality since he finishes it with "and when everyone is super, no one will be", indicating that supers will be totally extinct now and that he's well aware of the consequences of selling off his weapons to potentially irresponsible people - he just doesn't give a shit.


 * The Archmage and Hakon - Both are reasonably heinous within their own scales and with the resources they have to work with, and posses no redeeming qualities, so they're both legit contenders.


 * Anton Sevarius - As his entry states, his single redeeming feature wasn't even canon, therefore the actual character as depicted in canon stories has no such qualities to him at all.


 * Negaduck - While very much Laughably Evil and having moments that are Played for Laughs, the character himself and his crimes are treated as seriously in-universe as it's possible to be in this show, he's committed the most dangerous and heinous acts done by anyone not named Taurus Bulba, and he displays no redeeming qualities to detract from how vicious he is.


 * The Dark Dragon - Is considered to be even worse than the Huntsman in-universe, and he displays no mitigating factors during any of his brutal crimes.


 * The Phineas and Ferb examples - The entry points out that the universe of this series and the nature of the show itself makes a CM existing there impossible, so the two loopholes were a character who was a literal nightmare and thus didn't actually exist, and a notorious monster from the Marvelverse brought in for a special crossover episode. Both of them meet the qualifications for this trope.


 * Trout Walker - His crimes include leading a lynch mob to murder a man out of racism and feeling rejected for that man by the woman he desired, arson, attempted murder, child abuse, and implied spousal abuse, he has no Freudian Excuse like the Warden does (and in fact is the cause of her excuse), and showcases no redeeming qualities. His malice, cruelty, and hatred also led to everything bad that went down in the story, thus making him truly heinous by the standards of the work's narrative. He lacked a wider scale and many resources, but was still as awful as he could manage to be, so by book and Disney film standards, he counts.


 * Mr. Dark - While his literary counterpart was Made of Evil and possessing Blue and Orange Morality, the film version of the character is simply malicious and sadistically cruel, choosing to act as wickedly as possible in order to make the misery and pain that nourishes him all the sweeter. He shares much in common with Stephen King Monsters Leland Gaunt and IT - he takes pleasure in luring people in with what they most desire only to take it from them and send them over the Despair Event Horizon, and he feeds off of their negative feelings, understanding human morality full well but not caring to emulate it in any way. His actions are horrifying, he's given no adequate justification or excuse, and has no redeeming features. By the film's standards, he aligns with the criteria.


 * Princess Mombi - She is depicted as being completely vile and ruthless, and unlike the Nome King, has no mitigating qualities or sympathetic, potentially justified reasons for her villainy since she just wants to claim power. Her actions themselves are very much like a Serial Killer, in addition to imprisonment and enslavement she does on the side, and the dark tone of her presence on screen makes her come off as truly heinous by the film's standards.


 * Cruella DeVille - While Laughably Evil, her actions are notably more heinous than her animated counterpart in that she's a Serial Poacher who's work has greatly inconvenienced the lives and welfare of humans and animals alike just to make a profit and fulfill her lust for fur. The narrative and other characters view her as a devilish villain, she has no redeeming features or Freudian Excuse, and is unrepentant for her crimes. Her portrayal in the sequel is less in line with the trope's criteria (she's noticeably tamer and Played for Laughs more there), so if the events and depiction of her in that film had come first, she might not have qualified. But when it's taken as a continuation of her character and arc from the first film, the character still qualifies.


 * Injun Joe - His Knight of Cerebus depiction and brutally violent actions he takes within his scale meet the heinous standard for Disney family films, and his character aligns with the trope criteria in how he's as terrible as his scale and resources allow, devoid of redeeming features, lacks an excuse or justification for his villainy, and is feared and hated by others in the movie.


 * The Phantom - Is as close to this trope as a character in a theme park attraction can get.