Subpages cleanup: Complete Monster

Those X-men examples look great. I know Shaw is definitely a qualifier, and I can't remember anything that would disqualify Stryker.

Plus at that stage they're crossing into Real Life territory.

But again, isn't the rule that a complete monster can't love someone besides himself and is it not heavily implied in X2 that Styrker loved his wife? Can a Complete Monster love someone besides himself?

I'll give a tentative yes to Kawarino btw

Can anyone confirm if it's explicitly clear Stryker loved his wife?

Okay I nuked all those examples. I really doubt anyone would object to their removal. Asshole Victim =/= Complete Monster.

Certainly would be a departure from the comics, where he killed her just for being a carrier for the X-gene.

Well on Stryker, the whole reason why he hates mutants, in particular his son, is because his son made his wife commit suicide if I remember correctly. I don't know if he still loved her when the films took place though.

edited 20th Sep '13 11:18:58 PM by TommyFresh

Well there is one scene in the movie where Stryker is discussing his motives with Professor Xavier and mentions that sent his son to Xavier's school to "cure him". When Xavier told Stryker that his school didn't cure mutants, his son Jason returned home and out of spite started casting illusions to drive Willaim Stryker and his wife insane. Stryker then mentions his wife took a drill to her head to get rid of the illusions. When describing that scene, Styrker seems horrified and sad and then gets angry at Xavier right away. Stryker seems to want avenge his wife's death and feels that the mutant gene corrupted his son. So well that scene might be up for some interpretion, it seems to me like Stryker loved his wife and her death was the basis of his hatred of mutants.

But again, isn't the rule that a complete monster can't love someone besides himself and is it not heavily implied in X2 that Styrker loved his wife? Can a Complete Monster love someone besides himself? '

No, so Stryker could be disqualified on account that his whole Start of Darkness was caused by his son driving his wife to suicide. He may or may not have some sort of paternal instinct left towards said son as well, or he may just be maniuplating him. Hard to tell.

Well, that level of ambiguity...much as I hate to do it, it seems Shaw may be our one keep.

Yeah, gonna have to vote cut on Stryker.

I don't think William Stryker has any real paternal instinct towards his son when we get to the events of X2, he seems to hate his son at this point and is just using him in a pawn, there is a good chance Stryker's plan would have resulted in Jason's death. Stryker even says "My son is dead" when his son is still alive and I don't think

Stryker's treatment towards his son is pretty heinous, but then again, if Jason did force his mother to commit suicide, you can argue Stryker has a valid reason for hating his son. We only have Stryker's word for all this, but he has no reason to lie about any this, maybe he was wrong about Jason, maybe Jason drove his mother insane by mistake because he couldn't control his powers and Stryker assumed it was intentional. We don't know everything about this situation, but I don't see why Stryker would lie about his wife and if his wife's death is the reason for his actions, then he likely loved his wife. There is a method to William Stryker's madness. It all depends on whether that one scene is enough to disqualify him, but I do think that scene gets to the core of his motive.

Now clearly his wife's death doesn't justify genocide or any of the things Stryker did over the course of the movie, but this might be the cause of a character who crosses the moral event horizon without being a CM.

Well, since they also seem to be fine with qualifying, writeups:

• Edgler Foreman Vess of the Dean Koontz novel Intensity is a 'homicide adventurer' who kills for the 'intensity' he gets during murder. Vess takes time to deconstuct the notion he has a Freudian Excuse as he murdered his parents who had never mistreated him, murdered his grandmother for the insurance money, and his adopted family as well for the same reason. Vess is introduced breaking into the home of the heroine Chyna's friend Lauren, where he murders Lauren's family, rapes her and then murders her as well, Chyna tailing him to a gas station where he murders the clerks after bragging he has a young girl hostage in his basement. He subdues Chyna when he becomes aware of her and chains her in his basement with the young girl Ariel, offering to spare Chyna if she tortures Ariel with him. Vess suffers from god complex where he believes himself the supreme being in his own fantasies and only thinks of other human beings in terms of how much he can hurt them

• Count Orlok, Trope Namer of Looks Like Orlok is one of the earliest examples of vampires in cinema in the film Nosferatu and one of the most terrifying. When Thomas Hutter arrives in the Transylvanian Carpathian mountains, the locals speak Orlok's name in hushed whispers and don't dare to venture out at dark. Upon meeting Orlok, Hutter is attacked and the count makes an attempt to feed from him fatally before being repulsed. Hutter witnesses Orlok loading up several coffins to be transported across the sea, and later murders the entire crew of the schooner transporting him. The other coffins are revealed to also contain plague bearing rats, and Orlok's arrival spreads a deathly plague all over Europe. he uses the plague as cover to feed on the people of Hutter's home village of Wisborg without suspicion before Hutter's innocent wife Elllen catches his eye. Orlok attacks Ellen, draining her to death in her Heroic Sacrifice to keep him distracted before the sun rises to destroy him. Orlok had spawned a legion of imitators and while later vampires were portrayed as sophisticated, urbane and charming, Orlok is nothing more than a cunning, evil and ravenous beast who can barely pass as a human being.

edited 21st Sep '13 10:20:47 AM by Lightysnake

Regarding comments after my write-up on the Horned King, I take it then that the Disney examples have not all been discussed and approved yet?

I'm not quite sure if even Shaw qualifies in terms of heinousnous. Since the X-Men movies are all in continuity but not a massive multi-property franchise like the comics universe the characters should be judged by their complete portrayal across the movies. I think there might be too many parellels between Shaw and Magneto. Both become mutant supremacists who want to destroy mankind to start a new race. Both kill humans in droves. Both kill mutants to fulfill their goal, making their philosophy of protecting mutants above all else seem hollow. Both attempt genocide on humans (Magneto did it as retribution in X2, but is responding to attempted genocide of mutants by one human extremist with attempted genocide against humans by one mutant extremist that much better?), and both acknowledge their ideas are similar. Magneto even takes up Shaw's mantle immediately after killing him for personal reasons. Between the two Magneto is obviously the more sympathetic one with the murder of his mother at Shaw's hands and his history as a Holocaust survivor, but I'm doubtful if Shaw absolutely exceeds him in terms of crimes. The only additional one is that he murders Erik's mother to activate his powers, and his other crimes in Auschwitz are Offstage Villainy. I'm not sure if that's enough when both try to commit genocide in the name of a "superior race".

Regarding Top Dollar (The Crow), his comments after his sister's death do make it more ambiguous. I still don't think there's enough there to definitely conclude that he does not or never did care for her. He only lives a few minutes longer than her, and in that time tries to kill Eric, and drop his friend Shelley to her death out of spite (which might well be taken as an "eye for an eye" revenge). He doesn't fly into an Unstoppable Rage granted, but he doesn't say anything to the effect of "my sister was disposable" or "she meant nothing to me". There might even be another redeeming trait in his Worthy Opponent speech to Eric. At least it shows respect for his foe.

Funboy seems like a cut then. Does anyone else want to add anything to Lightysnake's input on The Crow comics?

I will get back to Zé Pequeno (City of God) another time.

Shaw is as heinous as he can possibly be, given he's also operating in the 60s. he doesn't have access to the technology Magneto did, like Cerebro, to help him out. Shaw is most certainly heinous enough, and the fact he was a Nazi scientist who murdered a kid's mother and then tortured him with science experiments before attempting to exterminate all human life? And only Magneto has tried the latter. Two guys having similar plots does not make one overshadow the other. Shaw doesn't need too exceed Magneto exceed everyone else in the franchise, and the fact that Magneto has an extra 40 years of tech to work with helps Shaw's case.

Ask yourself these questions: 1. is Shaw as bad as he can be with what he has to work with?

2. Is there anyone else in the franchise who comes close to Shaw beyond Magneto? Don't ask if someone equals Shaw, ask if someone overshadows him to the point his deeds aren't heinous by the story's standards. I don't think there's a reasonable argument for concluding Shaw's attempts at genocide aren't heinous. You can make an argument Magneto equals him, but overshadows him? No way.

Top Dollar's 'respect' for Eric is quite hollow. He defines it in these terms: "You put a smile on my face at least," in regards to exciting him. His sister dies and he doesn't react at all. No anger, no grief, nothing. His final line to Eric implies he has enjoyed the thrill of everything. That means there's no evidence the trait exists and some evidence it doesn't. Top Dollar's philosophy is, as he defines it: "Are we having fun or what?"

I requested cutting Lono and cut him from the YMMV. What did we decide on Medici?

I've gone back to the criteria on this argument, and am actually a bit puzzled. I'm aware that they've been gathered through months of discussion and are thus conclusive (and for good reason), but have questions regarding the second part of the "heinous by the standards of the standards of the story" criterium.

• So just what does "heinous by the standards of the story" mean, anyway?: There are two parts to this. One - regardless of whether the character would seek it out, is it possible for the character to seek forgiveness for what they've done (in other words, is it truly heinous)? Two - are this character's deeds not eclipsed by anyone else (in other words, is it heinous by the standards of the story)?

I mistakenly read 'eclipsed' as 'equalled' instead of 'surpassed', but doesn't this argument work backwards from how CMs are qualified? To take this particular example, it seems like Magneto shouldn't have to overshadow Shaw for Shaw to disqualify, Shaw should have to overshadow Magneto to qualify. It places the burden of proof on the disqualifier rather than the qualifier, which seems inimical to what this thread has been trying to accomplish. How has this criterium been applied in past discussions?

edited 21st Sep '13 1:41:33 AM by Morgenthaler

With Shaw, he counts because Magneto comes up to Shaw with the attempted genocide thing, but the difference all comes down to motivation. Magneto tried to wipe out all of humanity because he's convinced humanity will never stop trying to kill mutant kind, Shaw pulled out his attempted genocide scheme because he wanted to rule over the survivors. Magneto also caried about mutants, honestly considered Xavier a friend and respected him so much that he snaps the second one of his underlings commented he would have killed Xavier if given the order. Shaw had no qualms going through henchmen, killing allies, the whole works.

So it's basically just three men at the same level, and two are disqualified for other reasons. Since none of them actually exceed what Shaw attempted he still meets the truly henious by the standards of the story qualifier. If the next two X-Men movies throw out villians of the same calibur he might just fail that one however.

Well considering A Million Is a Statistic, shouldn't we factor in smaller, more personal acts of cruelty? I think its easier for an audience to loathe a character, when they commit acts of cruelty against a character we can see and get to know, rather then a faceless mob of people?

I think that's what makes Shaw stand out, murdering Magneto's mom and then torturing a young Mangeto. For me that seemed more horrible then Shaw's attempts to start a nuclear war, because he can see how that fact of cruelty affected Magneto, rather then it being something that applies to an abstract millions people who we will never see.

Really Magneto never committed one of these smaller, more personal acts of cruelty against someone else, so that is something that separates Magneto and Shaw.

edited 21st Sep '13 7:05:04 AM by TheOverlord

• Found this on YMMV/Killer7:
  Suzie is probably the most remorseless and psychopathic Remnant Psyche that the Killer7 encounters, made all the more disconcerting because she's a teenage girl. Her personal timeline of events is fractured, but she apparently killed her boyfriend, several of her classmates, her mother, an anonymous caretaker, and probably a number of other bystanders before seeking out the Killer7 herself, at which point they apparently just killed her as a matter of principle.
• The King of Fighters has Jivatma and Saki, while CM only has Rugal.
• Legacy of Kain: Does the Elder God count? He's not on the YMMV.

edited 21st Sep '13 8:48:00 AM by ACW

Magneto: Tried to kill all non-mutants for the sake of mutant-kind.

Shaw: Tried to kill all non-mutants for his own sake.

Huge difference there. Then we get down to their "personal" acts. People claiming Magneto didn't do anything personal are whitewashing him a bit. His Roaring Rampage of Revenge was for personal reasons and it did hurt innocent people (he did knowingly put his best friend through tremendous pain, and he sorta tortured a Swiss banker for information), as well as many not-so-innocent people. Of course, he has the mitigating factor of having the excuse of hunting down the man who killed his mother. Shaw, on the other hand was a Nazi scientist (shorthand for evil bastard), shot the kid's mother in front of him on a whim, and personally killed Darwin in front of his friends (using Darwin's best friend's energy, no less).

So let's not whitewash Magneto. But even keeping in mind all he did do, he still doesn't come close to Shaw.

Plus, there's the... questionable continuity between First Class and the five Wolverine movies. If we assume First Class is its own continuity, then Magneto doesn't even have the "tried to kill all humans" thing.

All Susie does on-screen is give you rings. She's a decapitated head in the game. Hell, even if they showed what she says she's done, she'd still be out done by pretty much the entirety of the cast. Honestly, Curtis Blackburn kind of single-handedly makes everyone look like a saint.

edited 21st Sep '13 8:36:41 AM by Larkmarn

Cut Suzie from Killer7, all she does onscreen is be a creepy severed head.

Also, it sounds like Waarabe doesn`t do much onscreen except get killed.

The other two King Of Fighters characters were brought up before and I think Jivatma was said to be a Well-Intentioned Extremist.

edited 21st Sep '13 8:47:49 AM by TommyFresh

Suzie's cut. Call of Duty I added to the list. And Jivatma okay, but what about Saki? Finally, shall I add the Elder God to the YMMV page.

Oh, and if a YMMV example is zero context, I'm not even bringing it here. That cool with everyone?

edited 21st Sep '13 8:53:05 AM by ACW

One thing about Shaw, wouldn`t his plan also have wiped out most mutants? It`s been a while since I`ve seen the movie but I didn`t think most mutants could survive a nuclear apocalypse. Just ones like Shaw, Wolverine, and Darwin. Even if they survived the nukes, many would die afterwards due to starvation and stuff. So I think his plan is even worse than what Magneto did. Am I misremembering this?

I don`t remember what was said about Saki but I don`t think anyone felt strongly about keeping. If the Elder God is on CM but not YMMV he could probably be added unless there are glaring problems. I wouldn`t be opposed to just cutting ZCE s. Afterwards if anyone knows enough and thinks they qualify, they can bring them up.

edited 21st Sep '13 9:21:50 AM by TommyFresh

Well if nobody felt strongly about keeping, cut he gets. I'll add Elder God.