Old Complete Monster cleanup thread
Welcome to the Complete Monster proposal thread! This is the thread where new Complete Monster examples are vetted, approved, and written up. If you're looking for the general cleanup thread (for cuts, rewrites, expansions, and the like), please go here
Important: Before suggesting any new examples, please read the Frequently Asked Questions and Common Requests List; if you have any questions, the odds are high they are answered there. Additionally, please check here for the earliest date a work can be discussed (usually two weeks from the U.S. release date) and whether the work has already been reserved by another user.
Here is how the process works:
- If you have a candidate to propose, you can simply come right in and propose them! If the character's run is brief, such as a single issue of a comic book, then a simple summary of their actions and any potential redeeming qualities will be enough; for longer-running candidates, an effortpost (EP) might be helpful for organizing the proposal. An EP is not outright required, but please be mindful that if a post becomes too clunky and unorganized, it can be very hard for other people to follow.
- After the proposal, there will be a 72-hour discussion and voting period, where people may ask questions and vote on the candidate. The number of upvotes must outnumber the downvotes by at least five for the character to be considered "approved".
- Three days after the proposal has been made, if the character has been approved, you may post the writeup (the text to be posted on the trope page itself) on the thread and send it to the drafts page. Your candidate will soon be added to the CM subpage. If the work has a page, you should add your candidate to the relevant YMMV page. Voila! It's that simple!
Outside of this process, we do have a few ground rules:
- To keep the thread moving at a reasonable pace, there are some restrictions on when a proposal can be made. There should only be a maximum of four EPs posted both per page and per hour to ensure that nothing gets lost in the shuffle; additionally, each individual troper should only be proposing or writing up characters from a maximum of three works at a time (from initial proposals to end of their voting period). If your proposal would fall outside of either of these guidelines, we'd like to ask you to please wait until they would fit within; feel free to type them up on an outside document, and then when the time comes, you can just copy, paste, and post!
- No plagiarism of any kind. This is a very serious matter site-wide, as the website could get in actual legal trouble over this; as a result, this can very quickly lead to mod intervention. This can take many different forms:
- Direct plagiarism, i.e. wholesale copying. This is not only the easiest to find, but is also the most likely to warrant quick moderator intervention. To be clear, quoting in some places is perfectly acceptable, but it has to be very clear you're quoting from something else and it cannot be anything longer than a sentence or two - if you're quoting an entire work summary from Wikipedia, no one is going to believe you've actually consumed the work, so even if you cite your source, your candidate will be downvoted anyway.
- Self-plagiarism. Even if you can prove that you wrote the same text in both places, the site itself can't contain any of the duplicated text. If you already wrote something once before, it's not too hard to write it a second time.
- Using another site's work as a template for a proposal. Just because you don't copy and paste something directly doesn't mean it's any harder to detect if you're basing parts or all of your proposal on text someone else wrote. To be clear, this doesn't violate site rules and won't lead to mod intervention, but just like if you directly plagiarize, no one will believe you've consumed the work if you're clearly basing your proposal on something else. This thread largely operates on the honor system, and tweaking someone else's work to pass it off as your own is one of the fastest ways to lose trust.
- Votes must be for specific candidates, meaning no blanket voting (i.e. "yes to everyone I missed").
- If you are the first person to downvote a candidate, please provide an explanation of why when you do so. We're here for discussions above all, and a hit-and-run downvote doesn't facilitate anything.
- If a work is already reserved by another user, please don't comment on the work or any potential characters worth discussion before the discussion date. We know how exciting it is when a work has a keeper that you're waiting to talk about, but it's not fair to the person who reserved the work who is just as excited to lead the discussion to see the discussion getting spoiled before they get to do it. On the other hand, if the reservation only has one name attached, shoot them a PM - they may be down for a collaboration, which will get you in on the fun as well!
- Please keep the thread on-topic. While discussing the trope is fun and we encourage people to enjoy it, questions like "who's your favorite CM" are off-topic and can lead to thumps. That's the kind of question to take to people's PMs if they're willing. Similarly, while we encourage friendliness and familiarity with other users, posts should always have some kind of thread-relevant purpose; for instance, if you want to wish someone a happy birthday, feel free to, but if it's the only thing in the post, it's off-topic and needs something else alongside it. Again, though, while we strive for a friendly atmosphere, this is not Facebook; life updates are fun, but unless they have some kind of impact on your thread participation, please do not bring it here - we have Yack Fest for that.
- Please refrain from asking anything along the lines of "How Did We Miss This One?" In almost every case, the answer is simply "No one thought about it before". This Is a Wiki where everyone has different interests, and the fact that people missed a particular candidate, even one that seems like a textbook example of a trope or a character who is particularly iconic in pop culture, means absolutely nothing. The question is disruptive, has a simple and consistent answer, and provides nothing to any discussion.
- If you are suspended from parts of the website, it is still possible to participate!
- For users who are suspended from editing the wiki, you still have full access to this thread. You can propose candidates and write them up with no issues whatsoever; while you will have to ask someone else to post the entry to the relevant pages once it is done, all write-ups are considered thread-approved - as in, done by consensus - and thus doing so does not violate any rules regarding meatpuppeting.
- If you are suspended from the forums, your participation is limited but not impossible. It is still possible for a forum-suspended user to assist in creating the write-up for a character who has already been approved; as previously mentioned, write-ups are inherently considered a consensus-based edit and thus not tied to any one particular user. However, you can not assist in the proposal of a character; as a proposal is based around the forum rather than the wiki, doing so with a forum suspension qualifies as meatpuppeting.
- Please keep all discussions "in-house".
- What other wikis use for CM equivalents is irrelevant here.
- Please be wary of using other wikis, Fandom or otherwise, as sources of information. They are just as fallible as a site like Wikipedia in regards to accuracy because they can be edited by any user, just as this site can.
- Do not attempt to force a communication with an author in an attempt to gather evidence or settle a debate; besides the fact that this is a YMMV trope and thus author intent has variable weight depending on the circumstance, doing so may cross the line into drama exportation, which is prohibited site-wide.
If you would like to use an EP for your candidate, here's the general format. This format does not have to be followed exactly, but these are the main topics that need to be covered:
What is the work?
This is a brief summary of the work you're going to discuss. We don't need a full plot summary here, just however much we need to understand going into the discussion — it can even be as simple as quoting the summary on the work's page.
Who is the candidate and what have they done?
This is essentially the character's biography — who they are, their story, the crimes they commit, and, preferably (though not required), what happens to the candidate at the end. It does not have to include every single thing they ever do — for some villains, we'd be here all day if that was the case — but it should include the highlights of their journey.
Any redeeming qualities? Freudian Excuse?
This is where any potential redeeming characteristics or tragic backstory should be discussed. Do they have a tragic past? Do they show that Even Evil Has Standards or Even Evil Has Loved Ones? Maybe a Pet the Dog moment or two? This is where these should be discussed in full. Not every potential redeeming moment is a clear-cut disqualifier, but we should hear of any potential issues to ensure the character is discussed in full.
Are they bad enough?
A Complete Monster has to be particularly vile by the standard of the work they appear in. Therefore, you should look at what the character does compared to similar characters in the same work. This takes into account things like:
- Their resource level (a human Serial Killer can't stand up to an alien Omnicidal Maniac, but they can be bad by the standard of other human serial killers)
- The amount of time they have to work with (such as a one-shot character versus long-running antagonists)
- The quantity vs. quality of their crimes compared to others (someone with a lower victim count but far more visceral and personal crimes could be considered as equally bad overall as someone with a higher body count but less horror involved)
Essentially, this section is an analysis of the kinds of villainy shown in the work and an explanation of why this particular character's villainy stands out within it.
Final verdict?
This is where you post your final conclusion on the character in question. You can continue elaborating on your reasons or even just say a simple "yes" or "no"; at this point, we've heard everything we need to hear.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This thread tackles very serious and dark matters on a daily basis. We will be discussing things like murder, rape, torture, human trafficking, crimes against children, and in particularly dark cases, several of these issues at the same time. We keep a lighthearted air, but all candidates carry the general assumption that these are awful individuals committing disgusting crimes. We ask that if you participate, you do so with the requisite seriousness such dark topics require; exclamations of how gross something is, whether serious or sarcastic, are disrespectful to the topics at hand, and if you cannot handle such topics, please do not participate.
And that's everything you need to know. Welcome to the thread!
Edited by Twiddler on Jan 17th 2024 at 5:42:49 AM
Yes to Rutgers, Doleman and Riddler.
I'm going to abstain on Craig due to heinousness concerns thanks to shared crimes but Klavice I'm not quite sure I follow... we know he's a rapist but it's made clear rather than shown (Thankfully!) so that somehow makes him less heinous than if the film straight up showed the rapes?
I guess I'm used to rape scenes in fiction showing the aftereffects in fiction. Like how The Simpsons used Black Comedy Rape with Muscular Marge and Homer. Do we see the effects the rapes have on the victims, besides the screams, if we do I'm leaning yes.
Edited by Klavice on Mar 8th 2023 at 5:50:28 AM
I personally don't think the rape being subject to a discretion shot makes it less heinous. Yes there.
Thinking it over, I'll give a stronger yes. I was just worried of the standard is all. You say Rape is "uncommon" but how many rapists are there?
Ultimate Moral Compass
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Mainly 2, Karl and Craig
Then I'm fine with this guy going up. As someone who's dealt with rape in the past, maybe not themselves, I think he's an awful enough person.
(![[tup]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Thumbs_up_emoticon_3268.png "[thumb up]"){kind=small}
)
Edited by Klavice on Mar 8th 2023 at 6:01:52 AM
jackie's correct, my concern towards heinousness has more to do with all of his crimes being shared with his brother who goes on to do a lot more. If we feel them being the only rapists gives Craig the edge, I think that's good reasoning to upvote him, they're the only two in the franchise which already has pretty tenuous connection.
I actually misread when it came to Riddler's post; I didn't see the novels and comic tie-ins.
Classy, Refined, Unstable
Alright I had previously asked about retrying this person and folks seemed on board so here we go, part of it is copied from my old EP for her but self plagiarism on the same wiki isn't banned right?
What is the work?
Tomb Raider is arguably one of the most influential games ever made. One of the first ever 3rd person action adventure games made, it follows heroine Lara Croft in an adventure spanning the globe to search for a dissembled artefact called The Scion for a woman called Jaqueline Natla... for sport of course. Said Jacqueline Natla is the character I want to propose.
Who is the character and what have they done?
Jacqueline Natla is a CEO of Natla Technologies who was seeking the Scion for a unknown purpose. Following up on her research she tasks French mercenary Pierre Dupont to explore Greece to find a piece while sending a mercenary named Larson to ask Lara to look for a piece in Peru, while having Larson tail her to kill her and take said piece. Unfortunately for Natla, Larson failed and Lara managed to make her way to Greece with the piece and eventually got the second piece as well-killing Pierre in the process. When Lara combines the two pieces together she sees a vision of how the civilisation of Atlantis was destroyed by one of their own leaders with a piece of the Scion which was then hidden in Egypt.
After gaining the third piece in Egypt, killing Larson in the process, Lara gets ambushed by Natla and her goons (Skateboard Guy, Cowboy and Scary Black Man) resulting with her having the Scion stolen and her weapons taken. Although Natla tells her goons to kill Lara, Lara manages to escape. Lara then manages to stowaway on Natla's yacht to a remote island where Natla uses the Scion to reveal an ancient pyramid, a settlement of Atlantis. Natla's true villainy and goal is revealed when Lara reaches into the Scion and sees another vision.
Natla was one of the original three rulers of Atlantis along with Qualopec and Tihocan before coming to see the Atlanteans as weak. Developing a mad desire to invoke a rapid evolutionary change to improve the Atlantean race through natural selection, Natla uses her piece of the Scion to try and mutate the Atlanteans and used Qualopec's and Tihocan's own armies to enforce a new Darwinist evolution on Atlantis before being sealed in ice by Tihocan and Qualopec. After her imprisonment, the continent of Atlantis was destroyed by an unknown cataclysm.
Speaking to Lara, Natla reveals she's using the pyramid she's in as a factory to breed mutated Atlanteans and create new variants to unleash on the world viewing humanity with "Evolution's in a rut. Natural selection at an all time low.. Seemingly dead after plummeting down the pyramid, Natla ambushes Lara near the end of the game after Lara destroyed the Scion, causing the pyramid to be breaking. Despite putting up a fight, Lara manages to shoot down the maniac, killing her before making an escape and leaving the pyramid to be completely annihilated, stopping Natla's ambitions from reaching civilisation.
Freudian Excuse or Mitigating Factors?
Ha no, Natla saw the Atlantis' citizens as weak and decided to create a new Darwinist form of evolution. When hearing about the cataclysm that destroyed the continent? She remarks that they were "langering wimps" so yeah she had no true care for her people. Now you could possibly see she's a Well-Intentioned Extremist albeit a rather extreme one with her plans for evolution? Well her "evolved" Atlanteans are shown to be wild and highly feral mutants who always go straight for the kill when encountering Lara. So all I'm getting from that is empty rhetoric behind megalomania since she doesn't even show any form of care towards the mutants.
My main problem with Natla though is that she's in the first remake continuity of the franchise where her goals are similar in Tomb Raider: Anniversary since its a remake of the first game. My defence? Natla's main goal wasn't a form of Survival Of The Fittest but ended with her being a Omnicidal Maniac and additional crimes in Tomb Raider: Underworld. With that I think because the goal had a different result makes her viable for a proposal.
Heinous Standard?
Alright I'll address the concern that made her be voted down. People were concerned that Willard also going for a "global mutant goal" which outheinoused/rivalled her. Thing is Willard never originally intended on mutating humanity, his workers being mutated in Antartica? That was from the exposure of the meterite, note Willard intentionally using them as guinea pigs as he guys armed to make sure they don't escape. His desire to evolve humanity isn't seen as "Bwahaha I'm evil" but a genuine belief he'll be able to evolve humanity. Natla on the otherhand twisted Atlanteans to be feral mutants out of a megalomaniacal "Survival of the fittest desire" to sic on the planet.
Now for the other villains in the classic series
- Keepers
- Set - clearest keeper of the series with plagues and unleashing monsters on Egypt but he's also a Physical God who Lara can only hope to beat by sealing him away
- Pieter Van Eckhardt - Gruesome Serial Killer, Bad Boss trying to revive the Nephilim.
- Sophia Leigh - Fate Worse than Death experiments
- Kristina Boaz - Horrific experiments leaving people in vegetative feral states
- Non keepers
- Willard - Tried to evolve humanity after discovering the true potential of the meteorite although it wasn't his original intentions and he's Affably Evil
- Marco Bartoli - Shoots an unarmed monk, punches his co pilot... that's it.
Natla's intending a global goal while being responsible for nasty mutations. For what it's worth, in the atlantis flashback before the cataclysm, you can see they were human shaped... after Natla's intervention they look like this.
Conclusion?
YMMV for a reason, her being the villain in the definer of 3rd person action adventure games while being decently vile makes me a tentative personally.
I do genuinely apologise if bringing up my old failed candidates is tiresome, I'd like to think I can provide better arguments for them.
Oh, Mr. Kennedy, you entertain me. To show my appreciation, I will help you awaken from your world of clichés.
for Jacqueline
Well done there!!
I'll have a Bryan Cranston myself shortly.
Quite unpredictable
Martin Rutgers, Lord Doleman, and a weak one to the original Natla.
Abstain on Riddler, as Arkham's heinous standard must be ridiculously high if a guy like that wasn't in the running before. I don't think I could have a properly formed opinion without knowing what Joker, Penguin, etc. have done.
"I don't have the power to reverse my destiny. [...] But I'm not going to turn away from my fate anymore." — Kiriya
Finally, Walter White will get his due.
Jacqueline. Funny enough, I never actually got to the end of the game. I only got up to either the end of Greece's levels or the start of Egypt.
A few caveats with Riddler.
Regarding whether the narrative supports the "fall into insanity" thing:
- JT Wicker (Riddler's informant) goes on a whole rant about Nigma's condition and cites it as his reason for siding with Nigma.
- Upon capturing Riddler in Knight, Batman outright says "You need help, Nigma."
- If you capture Riddler before anyone else, Batman's Joker hallucination says "Good for you, Bats! Eddie doesn't need psychiatric help. No, no, no. Beat 'em up. Lock 'em up. That's the best medicine."
Admittedly, Riddler's Gambit is one of the few pieces of Arkham tie-in media I haven't read, so maybe it puts a different perspective on the matter? Though speaking of tie-ins, are we going to ignore the final chapters of the Arkham Knight prequel comic? Because I remember Riddler looking horrified after the Knight has killed Bane. (Though the Knight comics can have pretty screwy continuity)
Only other thing, does Riddler helping the Suicide Squad diffuse the bombs Waller planted in them count as an altruistic act?
Regardless, John Hammond sums up most people's thoughts on the character.
Natla sounds like a keep.
Edited by TVRulezAgain on Mar 8th 2023 at 7:13:55 AM
Lies and Violence!
Yes to Badrang, Xochtal, The Danger, Doleman, That Asshole, Craig, and Natla.
Ultimate Moral Compass
Jacqueline
@ACW
Yes, it's anime only. That's generally what people mean when they talk about filler in anime.
@Lore
Fair, though we could just rename the Movies and Specials category to "Non-Canon" or "Filler and Movies".
Edited by Awesomekid42 on Mar 8th 2023 at 10:20:34 AM
Caesar
I can safely say Riddler isn't horrified by Bane's death itself, Knight is just walking with his roasted corpse right past Riddler and Riddler has a look of shock on his face, but no actual standards expressed. The Suicide Squad tie-ins are considered pretty non-canon and even then I wouldn't say Riddler's presence in them is anything disqualifying, and I earnestly don't think Riddler's sanity is an issue. He's an egomaniacal sadist who, while pathetic, is never really implied to be of the "disqualifying" levels of insanity. Batman saying he "needs help", IMO, doesn't mean too much considering he's Batman, whereas genuine medical professionals and everyone else treat Riddler as just an annoying, homicidal, full-of-himself lunatic.
WHAT A WONDERFUL DAY!
The Moron
To counter those Riddler points:
- Wicker spends the entire time in the cell lying out of his ass to get Batman to let him out. The claim before the “I felt bad” card was to say that he was a triple agent. He’s clearly a liar trying to talk his way out so I’m not inclined to take that at face value.
- The “you need help” line is in no way meant to be “you have a genuine mental disorder and need help to become better”, it’s clearly meant to be Batman being done with his shit. The full context is this:
Riddler: If you couldn’t bypass their multi-layer encryption, decipher their unique operating system, and reprogram them mid-battle, that doesn’t mean you get to call in assistance!
Batman: You need help, Nigma.
Riddler: I NEVER NEED HELP WITH ANYTHING! - Even if that Joker weren’t a literal hallucination, it’s the Joker. He’s not exactly meant to be taken as a virtue for morality or advocating for mental health, he’s just criticizing everything Batman does at every point.
- The Knight prequel comics are a piece of the franchise that is literally impossible to reconcile with canon, hence why I never mentioned it. Even that Riddler moment you mentioned is retconned out by the game revealing that Bane is still alive and in Santa Prisca.
- And lastly, helping out the Suicide Squad is purely to save his own ass, not out of altruism. They were sent in to kill him, and the fact that he can save them is the only reason why they don’t.
Classy, Refined, Unstable
Diagnosis Murder sandbox is made if there's 8 comfortable candidates at least.
Oh, Mr. Kennedy, you entertain me. To show my appreciation, I will help you awaken from your world of clichés.
I was gonna say, cause I was pretty sure that I remember Bane being still alive during the events of Arkham Knight.
I also agree that Riddler was only helping the Suicide Squad just so they wouldn't kill him. And let's be honest, by the events of Arkham Knight, ALL OF US we’re done with Riddler's bullshit.
Edited by Michealthehero21 on Mar 8th 2023 at 7:42:09 AM
Valid points.
Ultimate Moral Compass
Scanner writeups are coming soon, but until then, here are my other ones.
- Last Airbender game:
- Commander Zhao, the Fire Nation’s ambitious general, seeks to kill Zuko after he rescues Aang from his prison. Choosing to blow up an entire ship of his own Fire Nation soldiers in order to make Zuko’s death look like an accident, which kills everyone onboard, Zhao later leads the invasion of the Northern Water Moon Tribe and murders their Moon Spirit, hoping to wipe out everybody and allow Ozai to take control.
- DS Version only: Fire Lord Ozai is the tyrannical ruler of the Fire Nation, and Zuko’s abusive father. Ruling the land with an iron first, Ozai has Earthbenders imprisoned and Airbenders killed when he hears of the Avatar’s return. Previously willing to allow an entire battalion of his own troops to be sacrificed to take out some Earthbenders, Ozai challenged Zuko to a fight as punishment for speaking out, scarring the boy to teach him respect. Ordering the invasion of the Northern Water Tribe and all the deaths that follow, Ozai seeks to have Zuko killed when he rescues Aang from Zhao’s prison, viewing him as a traitor.
- Whiro, aka Whiro-te-tipua, the god of darkness, is responsible for all the evil in the world, from disease, to death itself. Despising his younger brother Tane for wanting to bring the gods to Earth, Whiro fought with Tane countless times in an attempt to best him, not even showing loyalty toward his own allies, such as when he stole Uru’s wife for himself. Descending to the underworld after losing too many times, Whiro becomes the land’s ruler, using the Maiki clan to spread diseases to make humans suffer. Whiro is also known for eating the bodies of those who’ve died, hoping to consume enough souls to grow strong enough to escape from the underworld and devour all living things.
Yes to Edward Nigma aka: Arkhamverse Riddler as for Craig... rape may be uncommon but I've seen the other villains and there's a lot less than a Gory Discretion Shot with them so I'm not too certain that the implied rape pushes him over baseline.
Edited by Klavice on Mar 8th 2023 at 5:38:50 AM