User blog comment:Magma MK-II/Complete Monster: Characters to be removed/@comment-7455247-20160216015423/@comment-26205772-20160216040610

I'll wholeheartedly agree on John Garrett, Steele, and I admit that Liebert I'm quite skeptical on despite the fact that Monster is essentially an analysis on the Complete Monster tropes. I've literally no hesitation in removing them.

I'll provide some brief analysis on the other characters:

Slade: Everything Slade does is only to act in his own interest. Becoming an anti-hero? Solely to get back at Trigon; Robin states that "[it]" changes nothing" and he agrees. Aside from that, his methods of trying to get an apprentice are wholly and completely sadistic and unsympathetic, so I think Slade is a pretty firm keeper.

Hopper: Murders his own minions, for a very minor reason, at that, terrorizes and starves an entire colony of ants for what he knows is basically just kicks, nearly feeds a child to a psychotic grasshopper and I believe has no compunction in having that child killed later by said psychotic grasshopper, plots to assassinate the queen to cow the ants into submission, and has Flik brutally beaten before attempting to crush his head in front of a crowd of onlookers. I think he makes the cut heinousness-wise, and I still consider the promise he kept to his mother way too vague to count for anything, especially considering Hopper mistreats his own brother regardless. I will admit, though, I can see why some would want him removed; and if he is or has been, I'm in the minority supporting him, it seems.

Syndrome: Comedy doesn't necessarily disqualify a Monster, his method of appealing himself to the general public was to allow a homicidal robot rampage through the town before intending to essentially displace the meaning of superheroes (there's no much redeeming about that), and his backstory's about as sympathetic as the Holocaust. He's a keeper, to me.

Lotso: Your arguments are... rather weak, I'm going to admit. His backstory is displayed in-universe as the essential opposite of tragic, and his actions, while tame compared to someone like Syndrome, are still quite heinous compared to the usual fare of his series considering he's perpetuating the misery and suffering of many toys under him - and abandons every single one of the heroes (that's about ten or thereabouts) to burn to death after they saved his life. That's an act of spite uncommon in many children's films.

Shan Yu: Zero times did he ever display "respect" towards anyone (he doesn't tear apart Mulan on her gender, but that's because he just sees her as another soldier in his way), nor did he ever really treat his minions with explicit friendliness. Sure, he's pissed off when the majority of them are killed, but that's more him treating it like a loss of something he possesses. Aside from that, Shan Yu's just in it for the fight, and that also means butchering any innocents that get in his way as well.

Nizam: I haven't seen this movie in a while but I think your logic's a little backwards; he wanted to go back in time to prevent saving his brother's life, which he views as his greatest mistake. So that redeeming quality isn't really that redeeming when he's actively trying to undo it.

Wilford: Alright, yes, Wilford is affably evil, but he's still a spiteful bastard. He's avuncular enough until he displays a massacre on a speakerphone to Curtis just to hammer a point in. Nothing he does is meant for the benefit of humanity; he's torturing the lower-class, brainwashing the upper-class, and doing it all so that he remains on top and that the system he's created remains the same. He's got the ego the size of a planet and I should make it explicit that forcing his position onto Curtis isn't redeeming in the slightest, because Wilford does it through a combination of sadistic manipulation and withholding facts from Curtis ("parts of an engine," much?). He's an excellent villain, but I'll be damned if he isn't the most heinous I've seen in a long while - Wilford is a firm keep.

Trunchbull: For the standards of the setting, I think Trunchbull can count. Her actions are extremely over-the-top, but they're still played seriously by the standards of the setting and her entire modus operandi is the horrific abuse and injury of children. I'm also quite sure that the murder she committed was made explicit in some form. For her resource level and by the nature of the setting, Trunchbull is a keeper.