TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Subpages cleanup: Complete Monster

Go To

During the investigation of recent hollers in the Complete Monster thread, it's become apparent to the staff that an insular, unfriendly culture has evolved in the Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard threads that is causing problems.

Specific issues include:

  • Overzealous hollers on tropers who come into the threads without being familiar with all the rules and traditions of the tropes. And when they are familiar with said rules and traditions, they get accused (with little evidence) of being ban evaders.
  • A few tropers in the thread habitually engage in snotty, impolite mini-modding. There are also regular complaints about excessive, offtopic "socializing" posts.
  • Many many thread regulars barely post/edit anywhere else, making the threads look like they are divorced from the rest of TV Tropes.
  • Following that, there are often complaints about the threads and their regulars violating wiki rules, such as on indexing, crosswicking, example context and example categorization. Some folks are working on resolving the issues, but...
  • Often moderator action against thread regulars leads to a lot of participants suddenly showing up in the moderation threads to protest and speak on their behalf, like a clique.

It is not a super high level problem, but it has been going on for years and we cannot ignore it any longer. There will be a thread in Wiki Talk to discuss the problem; in the meantime there is a moratorium on further Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard example discussion until we have gotten this sorted out.

Update: The new threads have been made and can be found here:

     Previous Post 
Complete Monster Cleanup Thread

Please see the Frequently Asked Questions and Common Requests List before suggesting any new entries for this trope.

IMPORTANT: To avoid a holler to the mods, please see here for the earliest date a work can be discussed, (usually two weeks from the US release), as well as who's reserved discussion.

When voting, you must specify the candidate(s). No blanket votes (i.e. "[tup] to everyone I missed").

No plagiarism: It's fair to source things, but an effortpost must be your own work and not lifted wholesale from another source.

We don't care what other sites think about a character being a Complete Monster. We judge this trope by our own criteria. Repeatedly attempting to bring up other sites will earn a suspension.

What is the Work

Here you briefly describe the work in question and explain any important setting details. Don't assume that everyone is familiar with the work in question.

Who is the Candidate and What have they Done?

This will be the main portion of the Effort Post. Here you list all of the crimes committed by the candidate. For candidates with longer rap sheets, keep the list to their most important and heinous crimes, we don't need to hear about every time they decide to do something minor or petty.

Do they have any Mitigating Factors or Freudian Excuse?

Here you discuss any potential redeeming or sympathetic features the character has, the character's Freudian Excuse if they have one, as well as any other potential mitigating factors like Offscreen Villainy or questions of moral agency. Try to present these as objectively as possible by presenting any evidence that may support or refute the mitigating factors.

Do they meet the Heinousness Standard?

Here you compare the actions of the Candidate to other character actions in the story in order to determine if they stand out or not. Remember that all characters, not just other villains, contribute to the Heinousness Standard

Final Verdict?

Simply state whether or not you think the character counts or not.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Aug 31st 2023 at 4:14:10 AM

LordXavius Doesn't even like this username from many fandoms Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Crazy Cat Lady
Doesn't even like this username
#28926: Aug 10th 2014 at 1:45:03 PM

[up] Shredder was said to be Sacks's mentor and indeed some kind of father figure, but any kind of love or caring is never implied beyond that. Probably because, if what I've read is correct, they were the same character until well into production.

VeryMelon Since: Jul, 2011 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#28927: Aug 10th 2014 at 1:49:48 PM

Right, and Sacks' motivation for the plan is Greed, he wants to poison all of New York so he can later sell them the cure to their disease.

Klavice (Elder Troper)
#28928: Aug 10th 2014 at 2:31:03 PM

Having read all the spoilers and seen a little bit of the movie. I'm gonna vote no on Sacks and Shredder.

They're not as heinous as the 2003 TMNT Shredder imo.

Does anyone have any thoughts on Ruinate from the fanfic A Future of Friendship, A history of hate? Here's his entry.

Complete Monster: Ruinate. He created Equestria to be a Crapsack World because that was his idea of paradise. When the other Sentiox took it away from him, he started destroying their worlds just to spite them, only to realize he enjoyed destruction, and went on a rampage, killing several other Sentiox in the process. And now that he's loose again, he plans on reducing Equestria back to its former state before picking up where he left off.

If he gets enough votes, I'll request he be added to the Monster.My Little Pony Fanworks page.

No, he does not have a Freudian Excuse or any mitigating factors against him to prevent him from qualifying.

Re: Flame of Recca. Three examples? Didn't we cut all but 2 (Mori and Mokuren)?

ACW from Arlington, VA (near Washington, D.C.) Since: Jul, 2009
Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#28930: Aug 10th 2014 at 2:39:34 PM

Why would not being as heinous as 2003 Shredder matter?

Kurtis Since: May, 2012
#28931: Aug 10th 2014 at 2:39:39 PM

Has anyone here seen the 2003 movie Hulk? Here's its central page: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/Hulk

To say that it's been a very long time since I last watched it is an understatement - I saw it in theatres eleven years ago, and may have seen it one other time within the following year. At least a decade has passed. Yet my memory of the story is surprisingly vivid for something I've seen so long ago. The thing that stands out the most for me is the main antagonist.

David Banner is a genetic researcher working on the development of some serum intended to dramatically increase human capabilities, giving them enhanced autoimmune systems and regenerative abilities. Employed by the US Army, his private research (presumably unbeknownst to the government) is focused on creating superhuman soldiers. David asks for permission to test his experiments on human subjects, but his employers decline (for obvious reasons). So he does the logical thing and tests it out on himself! His wife later gets pregnant and has a baby - Bruce Banner, the main protagonist of the film. David notices anomalies in Bruce's development, and conducts tests to see if his mutated genes were passed on to him. After confirming that this was indeed the case, David performs illegal experiments on his own son as a means of testing his newly developed serum. The US Army subsequently uncovered his activities and had him sacked. In response, David launches the nuclear self-destruct sequence throughout the base (and as I recall, the surrounding township) in which he worked, endangering the livelihood of several innocent people. He quickly heads home with plans to kill his son, preventing any unintended consequences from arising within his passed on genetics. His wife naturally intervenes, but David winds up accidentally killing her with a cutting knife. He's hauled off to a mental institution for the next few decades, and Bruce is put into foster care.

Fastforward some 30 odd years. Bruce unknowingly followed in his father's footsteps to become a researcher at UC Berkeley specializing in the development of nanomeds. The military takes an interest in his studies, and this presents itself as a central conflict within the story - but the focus here is on David Banner, who re-emerged from his years within a psychiatric ward to take a job as a janitor in the university where his son works. Bruce gets into an accident where he's exposed to gamma radiation, and thus, the Hulk was created. David comes out as Bruce's father, and steals strands of his hair to use as test subjects. Using his already aggressive dogs as guinea pigs, he transforms them into incredibly violent creatures and sends them after his son's ex-girlfriend Betty Ross, who also happens to be the daughter of his former boss (and tertiary antagonist). Why does he do this? As a means of testing out his experiments? To see what Bruce is capable of in his alternate form? Because Betty irritated him? Is it simply for his own amusement?

Later on in the movie, David gains superpowers of his own - he breaks into another military base (or UC Berkeley, I'm not sure which) and gains the ability to adopt the properties of whatever he touches. A police officer sees him there and attempts an arrest, but David uses his newfound powers to kill him.

On the main page of the movie, one of the tropes identified is "Archnemesis Dad", which describes David as "A very, very bad dude, though not without his sympathetic moments." I've emboldened this text because I feel it is relevant in discussing his potential viability as a complete monster. I'm not really sure what "sympathetic moments" are alluded to here; I honestly don't recall there being any. The closest he ever came to being "sympathetic" was when he said that he had loved his wife and was shocked when he had killed her. Would that preclude his inclusion? The reason she died was because she had tried to prevent him from killing their four year old son. I'll provide the full quote from that particular scene (David to Betty):

"Fear. Perhaps, Miss Ross. And loneliness, too. Yes. I feel them both. But I have lived completely once. I was so much in love. And she so much wanted a baby. My baby. I could tell from the moment she conceived that it wasn't a son I had given her, but something else. A monster, maybe. I should have put a stop to it right then, but I was curious, and that was my downfall. And as I watched this tiny life unfold, I began to imagine the horror of it, and my curiosity was replaced with compassion. But they took away my chance to cure him. Your father threw me out. I remember that day so well. Every moment. Every sensation. Walking into the house. The feeling of the handle of the knife in my hand. I knew I was doing a father's work, fulfilling a father's mercy... but then she surprised me. It was as if she and the knife merged. You cannot imagine the unbearable finality of it. And in that one moment, I took everything that was dear to me and transformed it into nothing more than a memory."

In David Banner's case, I think it's actually a pretty tough call. Could anything invalidate his potential status as a complete monster? He does accidentally kill his wife, but it's only because she intervened in his efforts to kill his son. Towards the end of the film, he makes yet another attempt on Bruce's life. The only reason he wanted to form a relationship with him was to gather DNA samples for future experiments; he later only tried to get closer as a means of absorbing some of Bruce's powers. He has no problems with human experimentation (even on his own son), or with setting off a nuclear explosion that presumably killed many people and caused his whole town to be abandoned. There was never any remorse on David's part for the horrors that he had inflicted on Bruce's life. The guys kills (or attempts to kill) people without so much as a second thought, and towards the end, he reveals his plan to take down the US Army as part of a personal vendetta. But a complete monster is someone who is devoid of any redeeming qualities, so the argument could easily be made against inclusion based on the quote I provided above. He claims to be capable of love and compassion; does that alone suffice in disqualifying him?

Thoughts?

edited 10th Aug '14 2:43:55 PM by Kurtis

VeryMelon Since: Jul, 2011 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#28932: Aug 10th 2014 at 2:40:31 PM

[up][up][up][up]What does the 2003 cartoon Shredder have to do with the heinousness of the 2014 Live-Action Movie Shredder and Sacks?

edited 10th Aug '14 2:40:52 PM by VeryMelon

nrjxll Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Not war
#28933: Aug 10th 2014 at 2:45:53 PM

[up]Ditto. Personally, I have no intention of seeing the movie, so I can't offer any actual comments. But since they're separate continuities, the '03 Shredder's actions have nothing to do with the heinousness standard for the '14 Shredder.

Kurtis Since: May, 2012
#28934: Aug 10th 2014 at 2:52:14 PM

OK, I should revisit my unintentionally prolix post above and admit that David is probably not suited for this trope, if only because of that one instance where he expresses remorse and a genuine capacity for love. I started writing that post earlier today, and watched most of the movie to gather some more understanding of him as a character. After doing so, I'm not as fervent in my support of his inclusion as I had been when first writing that post. I just didn't want to delete it outright, as I still felt it was worth discussing.

David Banner is most certainly a monster, but not completely.

edited 10th Aug '14 10:26:24 PM by Kurtis

AnewMan A total has-been. Since: Apr, 2013 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A total has-been.
#28935: Aug 10th 2014 at 3:16:01 PM

@Charleston Man: First off, do not ever delete entries until the thread gives the okay for them to be taken down. That is NOT COOL, OK?

Secondly, I do agree with the sentiment that her Season 2 appearance negates her status. It actually crossed my mind again due to the Ronan issue. One could argue that she only viewed her daughter as her property just as she viewed Holmes a work of art, but none of her words and actions actually clearly prove that. At face value, it seems that she does indeed care about her daughter's well-being. And even if it's indeed a very selfish love, it's still love. It's like Mother Gothel from Tangled: Word of God confirmed that she loved Rapunzel as her property and thus objectified her, but that doesn't change the fact that she had some sort of love for her that would drive her to want to protect her from harm.

Also, Moriarty breaks the "terribleness is played seriously at all times" and "portrayed in no positive way" criteria due to Holmes being her frenemy pen pal and Worthy Opponent even after what she did to him in Season One, and he believes she could be re-habitable. Watson doesn't trust her to ever truly change, but there's nothing saying her view is the one the viewer is meant to automatically side with, since both Holmes and Watsons have valid points about her nature.

But seeing as she's not the one being discussed at the moment, I'll say [tdown] to the TMNT villains.

edited 10th Aug '14 3:18:27 PM by AnewMan

ACW from Arlington, VA (near Washington, D.C.) Since: Jul, 2009
#28936: Aug 10th 2014 at 3:24:09 PM

Well, speaking of Worthy Opponent, Moriarty's Sherlock entry has that...

OccasionalExister Since: Jul, 2012
#28937: Aug 10th 2014 at 8:42:46 PM

Moriarity, from Sherlock, is a sociopath defined by how his vast intellect causes him unbearable boredom. He sees crimes as games and Sherlock as a playmate, one of the few people smart enough to give him some challenge, and thus, some excitement. There's nothing redeemable about Moriarity's fascination with Sherlock, it's just an acknowledgment on Moriarity's part that he can have more fun messing with Sherlock than he can by messing with "normal" people.

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#28938: Aug 10th 2014 at 9:15:11 PM

Can someone who knows enough tell me about the new Shredder and his number 2?

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#28939: Aug 10th 2014 at 9:53:38 PM

@Nightwire

I'll answer the question if only because it is liable to come up again if you continue to participate in this thread—we take people at face value unless the story gives us a reason not to.

@Lightysnake

If the thread votes to cut Elementary!Moriarty I'm fine with that. I don't know that I agree with it—having seen the episode it seems more like narcissistic rage than genuine emotion to me—but if we chose to vote her down, so be it. I just don't want people cutting examples without coming here first.

@Anew Man

I would discount Holmes viewing Moriarty as a Worthy Opponent because Elementary's version of Holmes is repeatedly shown to be a badly damaged man who isn't always the best judge of character. If people want to axe her because of her daughter, that's fine, but the relationship with Holmes is not a redeeming quality, and is explicitly shown not to be one in Season 1 (where she compares him to a painting).

RE: David Banner

He stays gone for the reasons the OP eventually came to on his own—he loved his wife, and regrets killing her. Also he thought killing Bruce was a Mercy Kill—we might disagree with him, but he wasn't acting out of malice.

RE: Mengele

I can give a yes vote to him then.

edited 10th Aug '14 9:53:54 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

TheOverlord Since: Jan, 2015
#28940: Aug 10th 2014 at 10:08:11 PM

I am going to say [tup] to Mengele.

Also regarding the discussion on Thanos a couple of pages back, Thanos is clearly being set up as the Big Bad of a future movie, likely Avengers 3. He is just The Man Behind the Man now, but he will likely take a more direct role in events in a future film, then we can judge him.

jag140 Since: Mar, 2014
#28941: Aug 10th 2014 at 11:06:46 PM

Does that guy on Avenged Sevenfold's song "A Little Piece of Heaven" really qualify as a monster? Granted he is disgusting on all levels of squick but I thought the entire video was Crosses the Line Twice.

ACW from Arlington, VA (near Washington, D.C.) Since: Jul, 2009
#28942: Aug 10th 2014 at 11:45:15 PM

Never mind.

edited 11th Aug '14 3:01:27 AM by ACW

Morgenthaler Since: Feb, 2016
#28943: Aug 11th 2014 at 1:34:05 AM

@ Beast: It depends equally on the tone, as well. If it's seriously treated as a horrifying fate to be turned into a frog (assuming the process is reversible; putting a Baleful Polymorph curse on someone and then stomping on them is no different from murder, really), and not just a mean-spirited inconvenience, I'll count that. But teenagers as enemies is a mixed bag. It's just a tad more heinous than targeting adults, but it's not quite on the same level as killing children because teenagers can usually defend themselves. Can you provide more information on the Child Hater aspect of the character? Is it more than a throwaway line that she's going to rid the world of children?

RE: David Banner: He's an odd case where I get the sense that, like the rest of the movie, they really weren't sure what they were trying to do with the character. Is he a monster, is he a Tragic Villain, is he a Well-Intentioned Extremist, just a madman, something else? There are pointlessly cruel actions like his attempted murder of Betty and the cop combined with genuine remorse for his wife's death and (at first) affection for his grown-up son. He eventually subverts this with Bruce by disowning and trying to kill him again at the end, but his wife's fate is still a redeeming factor.

Here are seven more characters who should be cut.


Frigid Winds and Burning Hearts

  • Complete Monster: Captain Braveheart, who truly embodies all of Luna's worst fears about her sister and the system she set up during her absence. He flagrantly abuses every last scrap of power that he has, lording over the 'commoners' and relishing every last bit of pain and suffering he causes. He's less concerned about solving the situation that arises than taking advantage of it to torture and destroy Princess Luna and anyone else he perceives as being in his way, all the while justifying his actions with Blatant Lies and trumped-up charges.
    • And later, it turns out that while he's always been a blowhard, he's A Father to His Men who just really hates Luna after watching a foal die in his hooves thanks to the panic caused during her escape.
    • Even his superior, General Hawkeyes, flat out tells him that he's a loose cannon and in need of therapy, but that he's allowed his position because he's the best suited for capturing Luna.
      • Also everyone sees Luna as one Then again, the Dragon Ajax tells her that her actions only caused a bloody civil war, and she's been acting ever since her return as though she were in the right doesn't help.
      • Luna was revealed to not even have been involved in anything that occurred during the civil war however, and much of her perception as a monster is the result of Celestia's smear campaign.

Cut for redeeming traits. I can find a brief discussion for him, but was the character actually removed from the page?


Gravity Falls Rule 63

Fails heinous bar.


Great Teacher Onizuka

  • Complete Monster: Sakurako's father in Shonan 14 Days. Abusive father? Check. Abusive husband? Check. Paying equally depraved and monstruous lawyers and doctors to make it look like Sakurako made up all of his dick moves up and give him legal power to keep Sakurako, trampling on her rights? Check.

Fails heinous bar. Unless it involves something sufficiently heinous for this trope like (attempted) murder or rape it's questionable if he even crosses the MEH.


Hikonin Sentai Akibaranger

  • Complete Monster: Doctor Z used to be one, thanks to his Abusive Parents qualities and cursing his daughter to ruin her career over something he didn't like, but this ends up as a subversion, this being a parody series, that Executive Meddling made his personality flip-flop between his old Complete Monster style or basic Evil Overlord style, and he ends up trying to start clean again in the end. In season 2, his fall into monsterdom got a complete Retcon that he's not even having any business with anime, having been a robot developer instead.

Cut. No "subversions".


Jericho

  • Complete Monster: Jericho himself, by many accounts. If you strip away his bubbly demeanor and constant humor, he is sort of a mass-murdering sociopath with absolutely no care, pity, or empathy and is an adroit liar with absolutely no guilt or remorse for all but one of the actions he performs in the course of the story. In fact, it's been suggested that Jericho is perfectly aware of this, which is exactly why he's constantly trying to hold onto his bubbly demeanor and constant humor, all in an attempt to hide this essential fact. He even says that his Code of Honor was created purely to prevent Jericho's more monstrous side from coming out.

Cut for redeeming traits. That's I Am a Monster, not Complete Monster.


Magic Knight Rayearth

  • Complete Monster Debonair. Not only she was born as the incarnation of Cephiro's collective bad feelings and acted as such, she almost mind rape Hikaru when she was most vulnerable and tried to kill her own "daughter" Nova when she had no more use for her.

Being literally made up of negative emotions, does she even have moral agency?


Mary Worth

  • Complete Monster: Nola, who among other things ruined a man's life by framing him for embezzlement so she could steal his job and ruined a marriage by seducing a married man just because she could and who sees nothing wrong with ruining lives to get ahead in life.

Fails heinous bar.

edited 11th Aug '14 1:49:37 AM by Morgenthaler

You've got roaming bands of armed, aggressive, tyrannical plumbers coming to your door, saying "Use our service, or else!"
sanfranman91 Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: Shipping fictional characters
#28944: Aug 11th 2014 at 2:14:02 AM

A definite [tup] for Mengele and I agree that all of the entries posted in Morgenthaler's latest post should be burned (thanks btw! [awesome]). As for Moriarty, I watched the episode in question as well as the rest of her appearances in Elementary. Unlike the Moriarty we see from Sherlock, it seems to me that this Moriarty does care about her daughter's well-being. I frankly don't see her qualifying as an example, but I am willing to abstain making a vote until we see her sometime in Season 3.

edited 11th Aug '14 2:14:25 AM by sanfranman91

ACW from Arlington, VA (near Washington, D.C.) Since: Jul, 2009
lrrose Since: Jul, 2009
#28946: Aug 11th 2014 at 5:00:03 AM

Is Worthy Opponent even a disqualifier? It's quite possible to respect someone as an enemy without it being a redeeming quality. Especially in cases like Moriarty, where the respect manifests itself in twisted ways.

edited 11th Aug '14 5:00:10 AM by lrrose

ACW from Arlington, VA (near Washington, D.C.) Since: Jul, 2009
#28947: Aug 11th 2014 at 5:28:45 AM

[up]Good question. I think it's been mentioned as a disqualifying factor, but I don't personally think it necessarily has to be.

[nja]Although, it does kind of imply respect for someone else, so maybe it is. Thoughts from others?

edited 11th Aug '14 5:31:40 AM by ACW

lrrose Since: Jul, 2009
#28948: Aug 11th 2014 at 5:41:50 AM

I'm not an "other" in this conversation, but here are my thoughts. It depends on just what the CM candidate views the other character as a Worthy Opponent for and how this respect manifests. If the CM candidate respects the opponent for a positive trait, like honor, then they might not be a CM. If the CM candidate manifests this respect by sparing the opponent's life, then they might not be a CM.

On the other hand, if the CM candidate respects the opponent for something like bloodlust, then that might not be a disqualifier. Likewise, if the CM candidate manifests this respect in a twisted way (like Sherlock!Moriarty's murderous games), then that might not be a disqualifier.

edited 11th Aug '14 5:41:57 AM by lrrose

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#28949: Aug 11th 2014 at 6:05:08 AM

A good formulation is "it depends upon what is being respected".

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#28950: Aug 11th 2014 at 6:10:44 AM

From what I remember of Rayearth...I think Debonair does indeed have agency. However, the rest needs to be burned


Total posts: 326,048
Top