Subpages cleanup: Complete Monster

I'd be willing to keep Clifford, though barely. Octavia I'd cut

Clifford isn't listed as a monster. Octavia, however is.

Ironic how the one listed under Nightmare Fuel is more evil sounding than the one under Complete Monster.

edited 20th Jan '13 11:01:10 PM by Klavice

Not really. Although it's a cartoon, the monsters in that show are real, and they do try to kill the protagonists when they're found out. The only thing special about Octavia is she's the only villain whose entire goal is to kill people, as far as I remember. The others have a goal that requires to kill people, or have no problem killing anyone who gets in their way. Like the family that fed people to a dragon to get immortality, the guys who sacrificed vacationers to a god, or the aliens who destroyed planets.

Now with that said, I don't think either is a complete monster. That's just standard villainy, even by the standard of the work.

edited 21st Jan '13 3:51:29 AM by Nithael

I know this is going to be controversial, since he is the subject of the page's quote and everything, but here goes:

I don't entirely believe Michael Myers from Halloween is eligible for this trope. As his own entry on the page states, there's nothing to indicate that he even knows the difference between right and wrong, and it describes him as more of a force of nature than an actual character. If you don't even know that you're evil, can you really be held responsible for your actions?

Besides, I read that one of the sequels (haven't seen any of them past the second one) establishes Michael as being possessed by a curse or something similar, and that is what drives him to kill. That would violate the criteria that a Complete Monster has to commit heinous of their own free will. Again, I haven't seen the actual film that reveals the curse, so there may be details that I don't know, but from the looks of it, it disqualifies Michael.

Having watched both versions of Halloween I don't think that Micheal Meyers counts either. The original doesn't develop his personality enough for him to count and the remake has him clearly trying to reconnect with his younger sister (only starts attacking her after she attacked him). I do admit that I have not watched any of the sequels though so if new information is presented that gives Micheal enough personality to move him out of the "force of nature" category then I might revise my opinion.

I've said before that horror movie villains in general seem to fail to live up to the standards of the Complete Monster trope, either because of poor characterization or the simple fact that in a horror movie you expect people to be killed gruesomely, so there's a failure to be extraordinary.

Two entries from the Pony POV Series need cut, Dark World!Fluttercruel and Dark World!Angry Pie, both of them have ultimately shown to have redeeming traits, the latter has performed a Heel–Face Turn, and the former actually has a valid Freudian Excuse; namely she was RAISED that way by Discord and, unknown to everyone even Discord himself, was born Discorded so she COULDN'T change her ways.

By the end of the fight with her she's been reduced to a broken child trying desperately to save her mortally wounded father out of Undying Loyalty to him and has realized her actions where wrong and that loyalty is the ONLY thing keeping her evil. After death (she's a goddess by that point, so she only died in the sense she can't manifest on the mortal plain again) it's even implied she's been put on the path towards a full Heel–Face Turn.

So neither of these qualify.

Regarding Michael Myers, I concur that the version from the remake does not qualify. That said, I have to disagree with cutting the original version (though I'll confess that I too, have not seen Curse).

Anyway, Michael never struck me as void of personality or as a "force of nature". He doesn't just plow through his victims, or try to kill everyone he encounters. In the first film, we see him stalking Laurie and her friends for hours before moving in for the kill. When he does so, he isolates each of the victims and picks them off one at a time, using disguises, phone calls, and ambushes to determine where his victims are, and then kill them. He can also drive a car, and seems to be the one who staged the breakout from the mental institution he was in. So, regardless of his lack of verbal skills, he is obviously a very bright, highly motivated guy.

As far as heinousness goes, Michael comes off as pretty sadistic to me. Lifting a guy off his feet and pinning him to the inside of a closet, so that the next person who looks inside will freak out? Strangling a girl to death with a telephone cord while dressed as her boyfriend? Relentlessly stalking your own family members, no matter where they go, and going out of your way to ruin their lives? Again, none of that indicates to me somebody who isn't getting a kick out of what they're doing.

As for his moral agency, Dr. Loomis (whose description of Michael provides the page quote for Complete Monster) doesn't describe Michael as handicapped, or otherwise impaired morally. He describes him as Pure Evil. Yes, that's a quote, and it could be argued is an Informed Attribute, but everything Michael does onscreen only confirms that impression. Also, as Michael's psychiatrist since he was six years old, Loomis is in a better position than anyone else to judge Michael.

Finally, while I respect Fighteer's argument that horror movie villains are unlikely to qualify, I think Michael's an exception for a couple of reasons. Halloween came out in 1978, and was the Trope Maker or Trope Codifier for most of the slasher genre. Without it, films like Friday the 13th wouldn't be likely to exist, so I think it's unfair to judge it by their standards. Additionally, if you do compare Michael to other slashers, he actually comes off worse then they do. Jason Voorhees has one hell of a Freudian Excuse. Leatherface is obviously mentally impaired, and one could ask similar questions about the rest of his family. The Creeper, whom we discussed some pages back, is a supernatural being, which makes its motives difficult to determine. Even Freddy Krueger has the excuse of having been burned to death (though admittedly he had that coming) and is, if nothing else, Played for Laughs on occasion. None of this applies to Michael. He is an entirely mortal character, who for no reason whatsoever, knifed his sister to death at the age of six, and is back to finish the job on the rest of the family.

Michael Myers is the only one of the classic slasher movie villains whom I can see meeting this trope's requirements. He has clear personality traits, has no Freudian Excuse or other mitigating factors, displays a high degree of both intelligence and sadism in his crimes, and is the only slasher I can think of, whose life's goal is wiping out his own family. The first film makes him out to be a Complete Monster, and subsequent films support that interpretation. The remake version should go, but the original character can, and I believe should, stay.

edited 21st Jan '13 9:25:00 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Now, now, I'd consider Freddy the other qualifier for this one...he got his ass burned because he was raping and murdering kids, and then decided to take vengeance on innocent children by proxy (In the remake he was 'only' raping them), granted vigilante justice of that sort isn't exactly....ideal, but Krueger's one of the few who you could say had it coming.

That said, Ambar nails Michael in the original pretty handily. Unless we take the demonic possession nonsense (I am goingto ignore Halloween 6 and I suggest you do, too).

Keep in mind, one very important thing...Halloween was the Trope Codifier for the slasher genre. (Black Christmas was really the first of the era, but Halloween was more infamous and impactful.) What was considered mundane in slasher films was shocking and horrible when Halloween premiered

edited 21st Jan '13 9:39:41 AM by Lightysnake

I don't agree that we should use filmic historical context to determine whether or not someone is a CM, but I think it's very important to note that Halloween was never intended as a franchise, and, for most of it, Michael Myers is completely unknowable, and no explanation for his behavior sticks. EDIT: I mixed up Michael with Freddy Krueger in my head - I'll go ahead and vote yes on Michael being a CM.

Also, I hate to harp, but we never really came to a consensus on Alex (from A Clockwork Orange, not Literature). As I recall, two were for cutting, I was on the fence, and one was for keeping. If anyone needs additional information, I'd be happy to supply it. The issue with Film!Alex is that he lacks the redemption sequences of Literature!Alex, BUT Film!Alex is still subject to the torturous Ludovico technique, which may or may not create audience sympathy for him.

edited 21st Jan '13 9:45:38 AM by LargoQuagmire

My vote on Alex from the film (lit is an easy no) is that, unfortunately, he becomes, and the film treats him as too much of a Jerkass Woobie to qualify

edited 21st Jan '13 9:47:23 AM by Lightysnake

With Michael not talking I find it hard to say with any certainty that his actions are driven by sadism. Some of the things that you have listed as sadistic (strangling the one girl while dressed as her boyfriend) could have simply been motivated by efficiency and not the desire to cause pain.

You'd think, but look how he treats Laurie. He arranges the corpses of her friends in a sick little tableau for her to find to cause maximum terror before he closes in for the kill.

@7254: I agree with Ambar's reasons on keeping Michael Myers from the original films. The one from the remake should definitely go though.

@7260: I vote to cut book Alex, and keep movie Alex.

If he was motivated purely by efficency though, it stands to reason he'd go straight after Laurie, who is his actual target. Instead he kills her friends one at a time and he doesn't do it quickly. With Michael's size, and the knife he's carrying around, he could have overpowered and killed her friend quite swiftly. Instead he throttles her to death while Laurie listens from the other end of the phone. That's without even getting into his theft of his sister's tombstone, another way that he establishes his enjoyment of his crimes.

Oh, Shaoken and I are going through the DC section now. We'll post our findings soon.

Otherwise, Video Games seems mostly good to go.

Good point. I have no problem with Micheal from the original qualifying.

Oh, Gozillawolf: Those sound like good cuts to me

First, really enjoying the Long Term/Perpetual forum for this project. Though I did spend a minute trying to figure out what happened to the thread.

@7114 Your point about the misuse of Blue-and-Orange Morality in this thread is part of why I voted to ignore that trope in regards to judging this one. The other part, as I previously said, is that I've found that any time someone wants to cite Blue and Orange Morality as a reason to cut, there's always been a legit reason to cut for a different reason. It's become a bit of a crutch, and I'd love to be rid of it for purposes of evaluating this trope (mind you, the trope has its place... in discussion of works like The Slender Man Mythos).

@7115 I'd cut all of those save Cyrus. Too little to properly evaluate the others, except for the ones you've given reason to cut.

@7124 In cases like this, Ask The Tropers is probably the better place to go; dollars to donuts, it's a Single-Issue Wonk that won't let their issue go.

@7132 Aqua Regia gives my thoughts on the issue in @7136 - while I wouldn't exactly expect it to be common, that outlined scenario is one where I'd allow a player character to count. Though as for whether it'd be a failure... well, given that I find Grand Theft Auto a bit morally repugnant and part of me is a bit disgusted by its existence, a bitter part of me thinks that such a game would have a target audience.

@7144 Well, I believe wiki policy in general is that YMMV tropes shouldn't be on character pages, period. I believe the correct way to approach those is to remove them all period, then discuss here what should or shouldn't be then put on the YMMV pages.

Also, the writeup for Kord looks solid... though man, this is going to make me feel awkward when I next play Dungeons And Dragons, as my current character follows a god of the same name (I swear, he's ChaoticGood!).

@7149 I really ought to go on the discussion page and note the policy that nobody will be added to the page until their arc is over. Doflamingo might qualify one day (they've certainly hinted that he might qualify from his first appearance), but the fandom basically leaps at the chance to name the most recent villain from a given arc at every opportunity (for example, check out how often I've told people that they can wait, god damn it, on Caesar Clown).

@7180 I have to admit, I do chuckle a little when I see folks apologizing for doing what we ask folks to do in this thread. Of course, I do appreciate the politeness.

Oh, for your example itself? @7182 covers my thoughts on it. Delete it and call it a mercy killing.

@7185 Hold on... (reads history page for YMMV.One Piece)

Oh dear God. The horror... the sheer horror. So many underhanded ploys to get around arguments and rules made for things like this cleanup (I bet the Five-Man Band cleanup also has to poke their heads in there ever so often)... I think I ought to do some of my non-CM wiki work there. So while only tangentially related to this, thanks for the heads up.

@7194 Hmm... looks solid. Though I'd like some more specifics about specific on-screen actions along the lines of what you described.

@7199 You realize that for all that Spandam did all that, that's extremely small potatoes? And half of that (like the cowardice and the selfishness) aren't even qualifiers for this trope? We're talking about someone whose intentional crimes on the page are having one man convicted to death under false pretenses, one case of blackmail, and a bunch of things covered by the trope Jerkass. Push comes to shove, Buggy the Clown manages to both threaten and nearly intentionally accomplish more atrocity than Spandam (in fact, the reason Spandam is so bad is because he's too ignorant to know just how bad what he's doing can be... until he ends up accidentally activating the Buster Call onto the island he's standing upon; he's such a major threat because he's an idiot with unchecked power). Yes, he's a different type of evil. But in terms of his conscious actions? Almost nothing. He's the kind of character that I'd consider if he came back later and did much more... but until then, no.

Enel was worse, but he still isn't responsible for said civil war (it was in fact shown in flashbacks to have gone on for generations before Enel even came to Skypeia), and even his attempt to destroy Skypeia was more about launching his ship than actually killing people (he really didn't care one way or the other about that). Being dangerous isn't a reason to include him on the list; this isn't the list of most powerful or capable villains. It's the list of the most vile.

Now, to address the major issue...

You don't understand. A Complete Monster can't have their deeds overshadowed by other villains. It doesn't matter how "small" your crimes are. If you stand out in your villainy in some way regardless of the scope of your villainy, then you can qualify. If One Piece suddenly introduced a rapist as a villain, he'd stand out as a villain even if this rapist kept their crimes to a small village, because it'd be something so shockingly different for the series that it would stand out. But when you get to the crimes of the others, they do get overshadowed by those who go further in those fields, which is why so many end up getting the axe.

@7203 Again, it's not a question of who counts as the "major villains". Complete Monster is not synonymous with Major Villain (that's Big Bad). It's for the completely unredeemable villains.

@7208 Agreed on the first three.

@7214 It's probably worth noting at this point that I'm actually starting to turn towards voting against Caesar Clown because people will not stop trying to push him in even when the arc was still ongoing. This is what Single-Issue Wonk status causes, folks - this is why it should be avoided.

@7225 For the Shinigami King... ugh, could have sworn I voted against him before for not even being an onscreen character, but I don't have time to dig through every single mention of Death Note. For Rosario To Vampire'', you already brought up Kiria. You didn't convince anyone. Bringing up an example again without bringing up new information is very poor form.

@7254 I'm inclined to agree with Ambar in @7258. In the original, at least, I would definitely qualify Michael Myers. It's fair to disqualify the remake version, but I think Ambar hits all the major points. Plus, I think a big part of the effectiveness of Halloween is that Myers' existence as a completely human monster created the slasher genre. Yes, it's easy to say, from this vantage in history, that many of the imitations of such movies would make someone like Myers not qualify when taken as part of its genre. But really, Halloween was a part of the horror genre; it was only in retrospect that we dubbed it the Genre Maker for a different subgenre entirely.

@7259 If I recall correctly, though, Freddy Kreuger's crimes while alive were all Offscreen Villainy. I think that mitigates Kreuger's deeds just enough to disqualify him (i.e. he doesn't really stand out for his onscreen evil). He's hardly the first or the last slasher villain that was said to have horrible crimes like rape or killing defenseless children in their backstory.

I'd like to cut Kiria from Rosario To Vampire. He was never a Complete Monster to begin with.

Lightysnake has really done a lot for the DC And Vertigo page, that one should be done shortly.

That said, I'll be hading overseas for my sister's wedding soon, and whilst I will have occassional internet access, I wouldn't count too much on it. So I'll probably be gone from tomorrow until a week from today.

Thanks a ton, Shaoken. Do you want to post the stuff I sent you here, or want I do it?

Congratulations, too. You'll be missed till then. Have fun there.

@ Footsteps:

This is unfair for a variety of reasons RE: Caesar Clown. When Ninja Dragon brought him up, the arc was finihed. When people brought him up previously, the fight was literally one punch away from being finished. People brought him up because he was a good example, unlike Do Flamingo who was shrouded in mystery and who throughout has displayed deeper character traits that could disqualify him. Saying "I am now inclined to vote against Caesar Clown" solely because of people bringing him up does not seem what this trope is about. This isn't Discord or Rodrigo Borgia or Turbo or any cut examples which were deemed not to count, this was a character who counted from the start, continued to count, and ended the arc counting. Quite a few of us voted on him. You want to wait for the volume releases, that's fine. If you want to object or substantiate him after you've read them, that's more than okay. But I hardly think it's fair to tell us we can't discuss him or include him now that the arc's over.

And Kiria...it was hardly "didn't convince anyone," nobody but you and I responded until Super Saiya Man just now. The entry is factually inaccurate, lacking in heinousness, contains information that is simply not true and includes a character who does not remotely fit this trope. I am bringing it up against because I took a reread of the manga to catch up, from which I can bring up said new info. I'll do a writeup Iaculus-style later and let anyone else chime in.

Kreuger's misdeeds aren't always offscreen villainy in the backstor.y We've seen him killing children with gory discretion shots in other films, too.

edited 21st Jan '13 4:27:39 PM by Lightysnake

7270 - Could you explain who Rikia is, so that the rest of us might be able to pass judgment?

One write up coming up...

Original entry:

• Kiria. The mastermind of the Youkai Academy Fairy Tale arc, he also deliberately experiments on Hokuto to turn him from human into a human-hating monster. His excessive cruelty and deliberate corruption to turn a human against his own kind (something no other operative has done) is what leads me to think he belongs.

Who Is He?

Kiria Yoshii of Rosario To Vampire is a 'Hybrid' monster, a result of mating between separate monster species. Kiria starts the series as a lieutenant to the leader of an anti-human group called Anti-Thesis, though he frequently acts on his own initiative and for his own amusement. Kiria encounters the heroes and lets them live solely because it amuses him to see their growth and wants to see what they do next. Anti-Thesis's leader trusts Kiria implicitly and it's revealed the two share a Villainous Friendship due to the leader, Hokuto, having once been human. Hokuto was a horribly abused young man who was preyed on by monsters. Kiria, out of interest, gave Hokuto his blood, turning the young man into a hybrid.

Kiria is later revealed to be a lieutenant of the anti-human conspiracy group, Fairy Tail, along with Hokuto, though Kiria seems more willing to pursue its agenda while Hokuto seeks to save the human world now.

What Has He Done?

Kiria has threatened to kill the heroes on occasion, and at one point rather cruelly mocked the heroine to do the impossible or see her boyfriend killed by Hokuto in their fight. Other than that, he's a member of Fairy Tail and Anti-Thesis, which have sought the overthrow and defeat of the human world. Other than that, the original entry lists his 'intentional corruption' of a human. This is inaccurate for several reasons.

Foremost: Kiria did not 'corrupt' Hokuto. He changed Hokuto into a monster at the latter's consent to see what he'd do. After anti-Thesis is defeated, Kiria rescues Hokuto and admits he's jealous that the hero, Tsukune, could change Hokuto's heart, something Kiria was never able to achieve.

Secondly, Kiria is not the 'mastermind' of the events in the Academy arc. Kiria is a Fairy Tale operativ, but he's not the only one, and Hokuto is the leader and mastermind of Anti-Thesis. Kiria does little more than follow his directives, plans and occasionally does his own thing for the hell of it, but never subverts Hokuto

Does He have a Freudian Excuse or Mitigating Factors?

Kiria has no real excuse for being what he is, a rather sadistic excitement junkie. However, his list os misdeeds is pretty slim to his fellow Fairy Tail operatives.

One of them went on a killing spree out of boredom and planned to kill so many humans in a city they'd be piled as high as a skyscraper, solely for a drug-like high.

Another gets a kick out of murdering humans and burning those who interfere with him alive, and actually killed the hero (he got better) after telling him he'd murder all his friends. Kiria will at least give you a sporting chance and let you live. In manipulation, he's far from the nastiest character in the story.

Finally, Kiria has a Villainous Friendship with his leader and former protege Hokuto. Kiria changed him into a monster, but Hokuto is never resentful, and the two are seen working together harmoniously. After Hokuto's defeat, Kiria saves his life, saying Hokuto's growth is his greatest interest (for Kiria, this is almost a love confession), giving hOkuto his blood and smiling gently while saying he's a little jealous the hero could change Hokuto, something Kiria never achieved.

finally, even though Kiria and Hokuto serve different goals, Kiria never attacks or harms Hokuto, despite having dozens of opportunities to do so.

Kiria fails the heinous standard in multiple respects. His attempted homicides are small scale to his colleagues, he never intentionally corrupted anyone (Hokuto already wanted to destroy the human world when they met and Kiria admits he could never change Hokuto's heart), and he seems to have a code of honor in his sparing the heroes.

Here are my DC recommendations with Shaoken:

Joker is an easy keep, Black Mask probably would be just bellow him. Mr Zasz could use some expansion or deletion, Camille Baden-Smythe should get deleted since she's not as henious as others in her league (say, compared to Intergang), Tiger Shark is too small-time, James Jr. is a keep

Flamingo is a cut

Dr. Hurt needs expansion.

I'm thinking Flamingo and Camille should be the first we cut. I think we can keep Jim junior, but we need to heavily expand the good Dr. Hurt.

For the next few, I think Major Force and Mongul can be kept, but we ought cut Diro Yat.

As for the Superman group, Reactron sounds too generic, while I think Ursa, Sam Lane and Brainiac should be fine to keep. Not sure about Lex due to the real Depending Onthe Author stuff (John Byrne and Fifty Two have him as a solid CM). If we keep him, then we need to make it clear this is Depending on the Author

Wonder Woman examples all seem good keeps

I think we're good with the Secret Six entries, though we might want to give Ragdoll Senior his own entry as he has nothing much to do with the Six. Might want to edit Dwarfstar to actually get at his misdeeds, though. Darkseid....yeah, obvious keep, and I think Light and Felix Faust should be ok.

We've got Hellblazer covered (just need to sub out the entries) and we just need to rewrite Anton Arcane and Dr. Destiny. Occasional exister has volunteered to do Destiny's.

Fables...Hansel needs expansion, but he can stick around I think

Hellblazer...still have the examples I did? Just need to swap them out

The Unwritten...expand Pullman, cut the groups

Tao needs expansion, but from what I remember of Sleepwalker, easy keep

Prometheus...keep

Black Manta. Keep but make it clear it's not the new 52 version who was randomly made to have loved his dad that Aquaman murdered

Eobard Thawne/Professor Zoom: Keep

Alexander Luthor: Cut. Keep Superboy Prime.

Martian Manhunter's section is fine

Nekron is a keep

d'Kay D'Razz sounds fine...think Deathstorm might be cut, though. No need to repeat Manta's entry twice over, either. If anyone knows more about Deathstorm, I'd like to here

and I think that does it for mainstream DC

edited 21st Jan '13 4:33:57 PM by Lightysnake

I happened to see on The Wicker Man that Lord Summersisle was added as an example without context.

He seems like he wouldn't fit, since he's likely a well-intentioned extremist. If he does really believe in his that sacrificing the virgin policeman hero will bring the harvest back, then his actions are for a good reason, even if he's factually wrong.

If he doesn't really believe in the pagan religion the rest of the islanders follow, and only pretends to to maintain his power, well, he's more clearly evil, but even then, his actions are preserving the faith of his subjects.

In any case, he's not really exceptionally evil for the film in that everyone else on the island believes in the same Druid/paganesque religion.

Also, it strikes me that if your religion requires virgin sacrifice, its somewhat less evil to select a virgin adult than a child (especially since virgin children are easier to come by than virgin policemen).