Subpages cleanup: Complete Monster

Have one other for today, too:

What's the work?

'71 is a film by Gregory Burke and Yann demange, set in 1971, during 'The Troubles' in Ireland... Gary Hook is a new recruit in the British army sent to Belfast under the leadership of an inexperienced officer....namely to an area where Catholics, Republicans, Ulster Protestants, and Loyalists live right in proximity. As you can imagine tensions are a wee bit high and things go to hell....then Hook, after a protest gone horribly wrong, is sent fleeing from violence where he stumbles on a plot, which one sociopathic officer is a part of....a treacherous member of the Military reaction Force named Sergeant Leslie Lewis

Who is Lewis?

If you know of the MRF, you know of their black reputation, in regards to their brutality towards anyone they even suspected of sympathies to the IRA or any Catholic groups. Now, this film isn't subtle with politics, so I'm staying well out of the volatile subject.

In truth, Lewis is part of the Loyalists, working in pubs and he is helping the loyalists toplant bombs against Catholic civilians....then things go wrong and the bomb is accidentally detonated in the Loyalist pub. Things go straight to hell as the Provisional Irish Republican Army and Official Irish Republican Army blame one another....now, Lewis? Knows Hook is a witness to his crimes and he can't be having that.

Lewis and his unit are dispatched in and Lewis takes the chance to kill some members of the IRA they find, trying to hunt for Hook. All the fasctions collide and Hook ends up at the mercy of a young boy with a gun named Sean, a disciple of the PIRA leader Quinn...and Lewis arrives, gunning Sean down as he and his captain Browning massacre those about. Noticing Hook is entirely helpless, Lewis decides to throttle him to prevent him from talking about his work with the Loyalist terrorists, but Sean, still alive, pulls the trigger on Lewis...just as the British sadly arrive and shoot Sean, mistaking him for an enemy....Hook is sent bakc to the military, with the whole incident written off and covered up by superiors.

Mitigating Qualities?

Okay, the movie is dark. Belfast is a nightmarish little hotpot of hostility with multiple factions at one another's throats at the regular. Terrorists, brutal soldiers, etc...but Lewis is a military traitor happy to assist the Loyalists in bombing catholics, and using his unit to kill others, and his crimes are pure self interest; to murder a witness to his crimes, which makes him stick out a bit more in addition to the bombings, even if the pub one is an accident by his allies blowing one another up, they still intended to bomb another. No good qualities to him whatsoever.

Conclusion?

I'd say Lewis is a keeper.

Lewis.

Lewis

Yes to Lewis.

Sure to Lewis, barely.

'Yes' to Lewis, but 'No' to Dogatie.

Alright, this is one I've been back-and-forth on for awhile, but who I ultimately think should be cut...despite being one of my own approved candidates from a couple years back.

• Reality Show: "The Red Triangle" is a vicious Robotic Psychopath and Serial Killer. Originally a simple worker drone, the Red Triangle gained sentience after an experiment using emotion sharing parasites granted him a taste of human emotions, and, becoming obsessed with creating his own "perfect" human personality, the Red Triangle began using these parasites to feed off the emotions of two people at a time for a few days, after which he kills them and moves on to other "hosts". Along the way, the Red Triangle gleefully butchers dozens of police officers and other random people who stand in his way, and takes extra sadistic glee in tormenting humans with his killings. When hunting for a pure good personality, the Red Triangle feeds off a preacher and a rookie police officer's integrity and kindness before murdering one in front of the other simply to feed off the "survivors' guilt" the other feels, and spends his final moments proclaiming that he will never again feed off of another person as morally good as them, noting that it might compromise his sadistic, immoral personality, which he is perfectly happy with. Despite claiming that all his victims were "despicable", this ranges from delusional to outright lies considering one of his victims was a child, which makes his seeming outrage at a child molester ring hollow, especially when said outrage was over the man being a terrible host for his desired emotions rather than actual sadness for what the man did to children. The Red Triangle's motives never extend beyond becoming as perfectly human-like as possible in his mind, regardless how many innocents he happily murdered along the way.

Aight, so, ignoring the overly long write-up that I'm downright appalled to look back on given the guy isn't very extraordinary in crimes, getting right down to it? I think the Red Triangle is meant to be way more complex than just "pure evil bastard, move on."

I put up a lot of solid arguments for his inclusion back in the day, but there's ultimately a lot of speculation as to some of his possible Pet the Dog moments. The Red Triangle literally feeds off of others' emotions and personalities, so I chalked a lot of his more iffy moments up to that, but the fact of the matter is that he spares a room of trafficked children after slaughtering pedophiles, and remarks to them to not look in the room he just butchered because "it's not your kind of show."

As I said, originally, I chalked this up to him currently sharing the emotions with a very moral person, thus it would impact his willingness to kill kids (especially since, at a glance, he seems to have killed a child before, but it's not explicit), but this is very presumptuous upon a reread tbh, and I think going so far as to tell them not to look into the room of butchered corpses shows a bit more..."standards" than just 'the morals I'm currently experiencing are preventing me from killing you, ugh.'

Secondly, the Red Triangle shows legitimate politeness and seems to genuinely thank the priest he is feeding off of before trying to kill him, basically remarking that though he's about to murder him, in the meantime he's very gracious for how the man is truly good and compassionate.

I ultimately think the Red Triangle's got way too many character complexities to count, tbh. A young consciousness who wants to be his own person, and thinks the only way to accomplish it is by murder, shows several moments of remorse/standards that, though potentially chalked up to the whole "sharing emotions" schtick, is moreso Alternate Character Interpretation, and he spends his final moments begging to be allowed to live, downright terrified of the thought of going back to nothingness and no consciousness again after so long of having one.

So yeah, if looked upon in the right light, Red Triangle could be seen as a Complete Monster, but I think too many things are open to interpretation to shrug off all of his complexities and character and just say "nah he an unsympathetic douchenozzle." Willingly choosing villainy? Definitely. Sadistic about his crimes? Sure. Lacking in nuance and some measure of relatable desire for common humanity? Nope, and I think that's what takes him out of the trope.

If anyone wants to counterpoint any of this (which I doubt since the comic is hella obscure) then I'm open to arguments, but as the original proposer? I'm saying I don't think he counts anymore.

weak yes to Lewis, could Browning or anyone else from the film count?

Lewis

For starters, the manga doesn't say that Bernadetter's mother died on Childbirth, if anything, the flashback show her playing with her baby daughter.

Here is the page BTW.◊

Dogatie mentions that if his wife was cruel, he might have funneled his hatred towards her alone. But given she was kind on a way only possible for Earth inhabitants, the sight of it made him feel miserable because he saw it as a attack towards "The Jupiter that I created".

@Kazuya the link didn't work for me. EDIT I works now

@Ravok is the comic just called Reality Show? EDIT Nevermind

Edited by papyru30 on Apr 2nd 2020 at 12:53:15 PM

to Lewis the Sociopathic Soldier

I might as well include his Motive Rant here.

Edited by TheMadCr0w on Apr 2nd 2020 at 4:09:20 PM

If that's all we get for his motive then I say yes to Dogatie. The speech to me comes off as a man who's lashing out because people didn't treat him with the respect he thinks he deserves for what he did on Jupiter.

The Red Triangle... man, that one's tough, there are a lot of solid arguments for and against him and either way there's an interpretation being taken for someone whose ultimate motives aren't perfectly spelled out in each moment. I think I'll actually sit this one out, I love him as a keeper and as you initially stated, there are solid assumptions to both explain his cruelty and mitigate what seem like Pet the Dog moments but on the flip side you raise equally good points that there are slivers of humanity to him.

Dogatie, on the other hand, between his revulsion at the Earth Federation for their forced political marriage and stint as a decent leader, combined with the amount of sympathy the narrative gives him, no matter how small and the serious Love Makes You Evil implications, I'm staying with a firm, firm nay.

Edited by 43110 on Apr 2nd 2020 at 3:02:03 PM

For Isumi: Big Bad work for his name? Also, Bitch in Sheep's Clothing accurate?

• Fukashigi Philia: Isumi Yuunagi, seemingly the kindly man who took Tasuku in after the death of his parents, is actually a murderous human trafficker whose Gift is "Will Over Memories". Before gaining his Gift, Isumi profited off human misery and is chronologically introduced trying to strong-arm a man named Sentetsu into selling his stepson to be trafficked to pay off the debts Isumi has forced upon him. A violently possessive father of his only child Yusuzu, Isumi slaughters a kid, Tasuku, and his entire family for being nice to Yusuzu during a rainstorm. Tasuku's Reality Warping sister Nao brings Isumi back with his Gift, which he promptly uses in tandem with Tasuku's gift-—rewinding time-—to brainwash Nao and a resurrected Tasuku as his slaves, murdering Tasuku over and over and over again while forcing Tasuku and Nao to enjoy it. Even when he's finally killed, Isumi tries to overwrite the personality of his killer to replace it with his own, and from there brainwashes Tasuku into remembering Isumi as his kindly parental figure. Isumi is monstrous even to Yusuzu, using his powers to curse everyone who talks to his daughter to forget her, and even attempting to stab her to death when she ultimately foils his plans.

Edited by ACW on Apr 2nd 2020 at 3:05:35 PM

No to Dogatie. Cut the Red Triangle.

dogaite

I think Scraggle said the Big Bad was the Reality Warper, Isumi was just the nastiest guy in the manga.

Actually I'll abstain on Dogatie since I'm not familiar with the series, same with Red Triangle who, going by what Ravok said, seem to be operating on a really odd mindset that's hard to fully understand.

Shit, you're right. Fuck it, I'll do this and stick with 7:

• Isumi Yuunagi, seemingly the kindly man who took Tasuku in after the death of his parents, is actually a murderous human trafficker whose Gift is "Will Over Memories". Before gaining his Gift, Isumi profited off human misery and is chronologically introduced trying to strong-arm a man named Sentetsu into selling his stepson to be trafficked to pay off the debts Isumi has forced upon him. A violently possessive father of his only child Yusuzu, Isumi slaughters a kid, Tasuku, and his entire family for being nice to Yusuzu during a rainstorm. Tasuku's Reality Warping sister Nao brings Isumi back with his Gift, which he promptly uses in tandem with Tasuku's gift-—rewinding time-—to brainwash Nao and a resurrected Tasuku as his slaves, murdering Tasuku over and over and over again while forcing Tasuku and Nao to enjoy it. Even when he's finally killed, Isumi tries to overwrite the personality of his killer to replace it with his own, and from there brainwashes Tasuku into remembering Isumi as his kindly parental figure. Isumi is monstrous even to Yusuzu, using his powers to curse everyone who talks to his daughter to forget her, and even attempting to stab her to death when she ultimately foils his plans.

Edited by ACW on Apr 2nd 2020 at 4:03:47 AM

to Lord Vymes and Sergeant Leslie Lewis.

I'll abstain from the red triangle.

Hmmm just mark me as abstain on red triangle. Though he sounds interesting.

Yes to Lewis and anybody else on the Red Triangle? I can’t I’m good conscience go either way since I find the argument that he’s a willful sadist who’s Pet the Dog moments can be chalked up to a moment’s whim to be equally compelling to him never having a proper upbringing with which to understand human interactions and his sadistic behaviour akin to that of a child learning something for the first time and his aforementioned PTD moments showing actually slivers of care in an otherwise horrible person. It’s a good case and I think merits focus for debate.

As a Danganronpa fan going to give a late and somewhat weak to Monaca; I'm still a bit skeptical of her counting because the Freudian Excuse is there but N made a good argument that having Abusive Parents isn't much of a justification for willingly helping cause the apocalypse and killing hundreds of innocent people, so I'd say she counts, albeit barely.

Also Haji should not be considered at all; while he's a complete douchebag and heavily implied to be a pedophile he doesn't even come close to the series's (incredibly high) heinous standard and he's a Well-Intentioned Extremist. Major Hate Sink Jerkass /=/ Complete Monster

Edited by WaryHoglet on Apr 2nd 2020 at 1:35:46 AM

Cut the red Triangle

Abstain on Dogatie

Listening to it...I think taken all together, it' a fair case for a cut.

Even as I take a more neutral stance on Red Triangle, he's a great villain and I think he can definitely be interpreted as a Complete Monster, but by the same logic, it's pretty easy to see him as having legitimate Pet the Dog moments and a minor amount of respect for the priest he kills. He's pretty sadistic about it nonetheless, and I think he has enough scenes to show he's willfully choosing evil, but the possible Pet the Dog moments of respect to the priest and sparing not only the kids' lives, but also their eyes from the heavy scarring of seeing a butchered room of corpses, throws a lot of murkiness into the water.

Now, of note is that we don't see him spare the kids, merely they're overblown retelling of it, so that's something at least, but then you've got the seeming respect for the priest and "thanking" him for being a pure soul. This could have been mockery, but I felt it was genuine to a point (even if he then sadistically tries to force him to watch someone die just to feed off his survivor's guilt...)

He also does have a small breakdown after killing the priest, whining "Forgive me, forgive me," but I should note this is just portrayed as him feeding on another victim's despair at it, he's not feeling genuine remorse since he later brags about it.

He's a very complex character which is what made me say he should be cut, but I will admit that he's also willingly making a lot of choices that tend towards "pure evil", it's just those moments of ambiguity to some of his words and actions that give me pause.