Subpages cleanup: Complete Monster

I think we have a winner: Leo Finch of CSI: Cyber.

Who's this?

Leo Finch was a 911 emergency operator who got sexual kicks from the torment victims ringing him were going through, and he deliberately delayed sending help as long as possible to get as much of this as he can.

And what's he done?

Aside from the above Finch was caught and fired, and over the next year he worked on a computer virus that would hijack 911 calls before he calmly murdered his parents, enjoying his mother's pleas for help, before sitting down to have breakfast, his plan to infect all of New York and potentially America in motion. He was desperate enough for more tragedy he reenacted them murdering his victims, and ensuring no one could get help so he would have more trauma to enjoy. When the FBI track him down he tries to throw them off the scent so he can kill a father and his son, but he is stopped and when the police think to play him one of his 911 calls Finch is overjoyed, before trying to stab Elijah forcing the police to shoot Finch in self defense.

Mitigating factors

Finch is treated as a drug addict craving his next fix however mere dependence cannot excuse the cold blooded premeditation or how much he enjoys what he does.

Heinousness

Unlike, say, the assassin in the previous episode or maybe the baby kidnappers at the start of the series Finch could not pass off threats as pragmatism...he actually made no such threats, he only tried to make the FBI think he was everywhere at once so they could not find him before he committed another murder and get gratification from it. He is compared to arsonists and pedophiles except that it's not fire itself or children; heinous as that is, that gets him sexually aroused, it's seeing and hearing people suffer and hurt. Think Buffy the Vampire Slayer and how Snyder admits he gets a sexual kick out of hurting her, except in this case it's murder.

Sufficient characterization

Yep. Avery goes into detail about Finch's problems and the type of person he is, and what she covers touches upon treating seeing and hearing people hurt is like a drug, Finch has to have suffering around him for kicks. Finch treats the murder of his parents as casual as breathing, he is meticulous in his planning to cause chaos and panic and is almost child like when he is in need of help. He has enough of a character to qualify.

edited 25th Jun '16 7:41:54 AM by tsstevens

Hank - a CM doesn't need to be a serial killer to be completely heinous, and essentially raping a teenager and a woman who is not capable of consent (via lack of knowledge) as part of a massive baby farming scheme is easily heinous beyond belief.

the Conjuring spirit - I feel like there's no way that thing has agency. It seems Made of Evil.

Question on 911 guy from CSI Cyber - what is the show's general heinousness standard?

Finally (sweet Jesus) my favorite MCU villain is Zemo, who in no way counts as a CM. I was kind of rooting for him to win - Cap's complete blindness to everything except Bucky was driving me crazy.

@ACW: Well, considering the fact that Valak's name was literally learned at the last second, and only because It had accidentally revealed it to Lorraine when It was haunting her, it's true it is something of a Weaksauce Weakness, but it ultimately wouldn't matter to most people as guessing a demon's name is pretty dang hard, and most probably wouldn't even know that was It's weakness.

Also, yes, Bathsheba still counts. She was operating entirely on her own, and she's still heinous enough.

Finally, Valak did commit the Amityville Massacre seemingly For the Evulz, and that is a prime motivator for the terrorizing the Hodgson family, however It's primary goal in that case is to try and causethe Warrens as much pain as possible, as It seems ticked off that they exposed It as the one behind Amityville.

I'm still unconvinced on Valak. Seems like It leans too much of being Made of Evil; the fact that it seems to exist only to corrupt and pervert kind of makes me wary. So my vote remains unchanged.

@ACW I don't see how we're even questioning if Bathsheba still counts, considering I feel she's worse than Valak.

As for Valak, not quite sure yet. However, there is a sequel in the works starring Valak, so he'll probably get more crimes.

First of all, on Valak being Made of Evil, nothing in the film suggests this. Valak is depicted as a malevolent entity fully capable of sadism, intelligent thinking, and pettiness. The fact is, the thread, from what has been brought up at previous times, has an unspoken rule that demons are to be considered not Made of Evil unless the work explicitly states this. As I've said, not the case here.

Second of all, on the heinousness issue, Bathsheba is a repulsive, despicable being, no doubt. Let's just do a quick comparison between the two.

Bathsheba's crimes: Tried to kill her own baby when she was alive; Haunted any family that moved into her house, before she would possess the mother of said family, kill her children then make her commit suicide. She did this a couple of times; Tried to do the same to the current family residing in the house, comprised of 2 adults and 5 children; Tries to kill the Warrens and their baby.

Valak's crimes: Forced a man to massacre his entire family, comprised of 2 adults 4 minors; Painfully forces a man's spirit to do his bidding, refusing to let him pass on (This sort of happened to Bathsheba's victims, but it doesn't seem to be explicitly on purpose in her regard, unlike Valak); Tries to kill the Hodgson family, comprised of a mother and 3 children, at various times; Tries to force a little girl to commit suicide in front of her whole family, drag a man down with her, and force a woman to watch. Valak's hauntings are also, IMO, a bit more disturbing for the family It is haunting than Bathsheba.

Overall, I think they both stick out. The Amityville massacre by itself gives Valak approx. the same bodycount as Bathsheba, It's using Wilkins as a pawn is portrayed as an And I Must Scream situation, and It trying to have a girl impale herself and a man in front of both parties' families, is pretty dang heinous, and makes Valak just as bad as Bathsheba, just a different variation of bad.

edited 25th Jun '16 8:56:17 AM by Ravok

I just feel that what Valak does in the film is typical demonic behavior. I'm just not honestly getting the vibe with Valak.

No... I think trying to drive a little girl to suicide pushes it past "typical demon behavior." I'm seeing nothing disqualifying Valak.

Tentative yea to Finch; what's the heinous standard of CSI: Cyber?

edited 25th Jun '16 9:09:13 AM by Scraggle

Not to mention not letting the guy pass on. To me it's Tor (Ravok's last proposal) that doesn't seem to stand out.
Tentative to Leo.
Incidentally, back to the sub-pages, I think it was actually 3 or 4 at first, which is ridiculous. 5 works (and before anyone asks, The Dresden Files and Super Robot Wars are still around because their artifacts of when it was 4, but there will (hopefully in Dresden's case) be future works).

edited 25th Jun '16 9:12:21 AM by ACW

What I mean is attempting to murder children is pretty common in the films. I'm just not seeing any reason to upvote Valak.

Valak and Finch.

Regarding Hakumen, is this revelation also the case in the manga?

I honestly feel Super Robot Wars should be merged into Video Games.

I think I'll have to vote on Valak. Both it and Bathsheba terrorized and tried to kill a family, but Bathsheba forced mothers to kill their children and then commit suicide many times, and had tried to kill her own baby as well, which I find to be a little more heinous than Amityville. They strike me as very similar villains, but I personally feel that Bathsheba outstrips Valak by a little bit.

We got 4; I know someone said there's a new game coming out, so I'm fine with waiting...or merging, whatever.
BTW, I can't speak on Aristide, or on Emerson not being heinous enough, but I asked about his Freudian Excuse, and was told it's basically a throwaway line.
As for Hakumen, I now lean cut as well. Here's a proposed Guren rewrite:

• Ushio and Tora: Guren, Dragon to Hakunen no Mono, was already a vicious mercenary and murderer in life before he found the Beast Spear. Enjoying nothing so much as killing others, he used the Beast Spear on human beings until it devoured his humanity, leaving him as the monstrous, black-furred Guren. Guren would spend the centuries hunting down and devouring humans: men, women and children alike. Finally, he devoured the family of a man who would take the name Hyou and the two inflicted wounds and scars on one another, earning a mutual hatred. Hyou would hunt down Guren, following the trail of his atrocities. In their final duel, Guren tried to gain the upper hand by holding a woman and her child hostage, knowing Hyou would remember his own family. Guren planned to kill Hyou when his guard was down, before devouring the humans as a post-victory treat.

edited 25th Jun '16 11:02:53 AM by ACW

Even if there's a new game coming out, it's not certain that game will have a Monster.

Re Conjuring: I'd vote no Valak. Its less obvious if it has moral agency and it sounds as heinous as Bathsheba who was just a human that elevated herself to a supernatural threat.

Re F.E.A.R: I've never played the games. Can anyone verify if Genevieve does have standards and protects her employees at one point? Also, Fighteer mentioned Harlan Wade as the only unambiguously monstrous character in the series? Is that true? I heard he feels remorse in the first game, but also that he comes back as a ghost and the Big Bad of the third game.

edited 25th Jun '16 9:44:56 AM by OccasionalExister

If I didn't say "no" on Machinedramon before I'll say it now. "No". People are exaggerating his heinousness.

"No" on Valak for the reasons Exister listed.

And Weaving's Red Skull was boring. And not actually a Nazi which defeats the whole point of the character.

I think that the 2016 version of Shere Khan is most certainly qualifies as a Complete Monster.

Who he is?

He is the vicious main antagonist of the film who wants to kill Mowgli and rule over the jungle. The main plot of both the animated and the live action film is that Mowgli must leave to escape him.

What does he do?

He murders Mowgli's biological father as shown in a flashback by Kaa. He later takes Bagheera down with one swipe, and later murders Akela in front of his family. He later threatens to kill Raksha's pups if Mowgli doesn't return. In the final battle, he takes down Baloo, Bagheera and the wolf pack extremely quickly and actually tries to kill Bagheera in the final battle. When he corners Mowgli, he gloats about killing his biological father and Akela to him.

Freudian excuse, or redeeming traits

Shere Khan has no redeeming traits and no Freudian excuse here. While he does tell the wolf pack that he made it simple and didn't want to murder Akela. you can tell from his voice that he is just saying that to scare them. Also he simply wants to kill Mowgli out of his hatred for man rather than to protect the jungle.

Heinousness

While the story is dark, Kaa is simply looking for a meal and is pretty disgusted with Shere Khan attacking Mowgli and his father for no reason, and is also very polite to Mowgli. King Louie also is mainly after Mowgli simply to get the red flower, and actually seemed to make his promise of protection from Shere Khan genuine. All in all, Shere Khan easily passes the heinous standards of the story, since many of his actions are out of hate and pettiness and he has no redeeming qualities.

Final thoughts

I'm pretty positive that Shere Khan qualifies as a Complete Monster. I think he should belong as this? Anyone else's thoughts are welcome.

edited 25th Jun '16 10:37:53 AM by hopeshalllive

He was already discussed and downvoted.

Is there anyone who has read Poké Wars ? If so, was Uxie ever discussed ? Because from the tropes I've read, he seems to be a potential CM.

edited 25th Jun '16 10:23:44 AM by MiraiYuji

to Leo Finch.

Got to give credit, a Cracker, cyber terrorist and a murderous sexual deviant? That's a pretty unusual combination. I just love candidates who break the mould, their are only so many tyrants, dark lords, serial killers and psychopaths you can hear about before it starts to get a bit standard.

edited 25th Jun '16 10:30:05 AM by MGD107

Ok, one of my pet peeves...people inventing reasons to say no to something. No, there is nothing, absolutely nothing in the film to imply Valak lacks agency. Quite the opposite actually. Valak does not 'exist' to just corrupt and pervert, it earned the name because that's what it does for its own benefit and amusement. And Valak had someone murder his own baby siblings and parents, which is just as bad as what Bathsheba did.

Furthermore, The Conjuring take an entirely Catholic view of the monsters of its supernatural world, meaning that the demons and evil spirits are corrupt beings who have voluntarily chosen this path. Valak would be no exception. Yea.

As for catchup: @ Icy The Witch: Yeah, I agree with cutting Emerson now, upon rewatching the scene.. And cutting Genevieve if she has standards

ACW: No, Guren's entry does not need to mention why Hakumen doesn't count. Irrelevant.

Yes to Leo Finch and Hank.

As to Iaculus: Yes to removing Hakumen, but keeping Guren.

on Valak and Beth)whatever the full name was).

We're not discussing Bathsheba.

I fully agree with everything Lighty just said. Absolutely nothing about Valak being Made of Evil is even implied, with demons in these films being treated as fully morally understanding beings, as any Catholic or Christian will tell you they are.

Valak forced a man to kill his entire family. His child brothers and sisters. And then left him to be publicly torn apart, imprisoned for life, and tormented with the knowledge of what he did. Valak tried to make a little girl commit suicide by impalement IN FRONT of her mother and siblings. Valak horrifyingly forced an innocent man to attack a family for him, controlling him (PAINFULLY) like a puppet. That is all wretchedly vile and cruel, and I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone would think that Valak is less heinous than Bathsheba because of that.