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

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#24951: May 4th 2014 at 8:05:41 PM

Yep, let's put You Know Who from GOT on the list after a day or two to let everyone process it. I want to give Shaoken time, given I'm not sure when it air in Australia.

Btw, one guy I was considering...Le Chiffre from the 2006 Bond film Casino Royale

he has an enormous attempted body count when he tries to blow up a jumbo jet on its launch so he can cheat the stock market...and he takes care of money for the world's worst terrorists, funding them and increasing their money so they can kill more people. he regularly cheats the market that way to make a fortune in short selling.

Added to that, he tortures Bond horribly by beating his genitals with a carpet beater

HamburgerTime Since: Apr, 2010
#24952: May 4th 2014 at 8:10:00 PM

[up] Hmm... Le Chiffre. I've only seen bits of the film, though I have read the book. He's fairly unique among Bond villains in that by the time he and Bond meet, he's already lost, and Bond's mission is not to stop his scheme but to keep him from recouping his losses. That said, isn't it implied that his clients (Russian Intelligence in the book, the Lord's Resistance Army in the film) are worse than he?

TheOverlord Since: Jan, 2015
#24953: May 4th 2014 at 8:10:19 PM

I will say [tup] to Le Chiffre.

edited 4th May '14 8:10:50 PM by TheOverlord

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#24954: May 4th 2014 at 8:13:17 PM

See, that's the thing for me, HT...it's not really implied they're worse than him. The film implies he helped with 9/11 to make money, and he makes all these guys do possible by handling the money and increasing it for them. Le Chiffre handles money for the LRA, Arab Terrorists, Irish terrorists, Quantum...he's remarkably cosmopolitan in his approach to this...but everything these guys do, he bears a measure of responsibility for, and he kills tons more people to make more cash.

The film gives him more crimes: Namely, he hasn't lost yet at film's start. He tries to destroy this record size jet on its first launch, but Bond foils him and kills the bomber he sent...as a result, the stocks soar and he loses everything betting the wrong way...which means his clients want to cut him into chunks of meat if he can't regain the cash.

He doesn't really care for his girlfriend either, as the Lord's resistance Army guy notes Le Chiffre didn't utter a word of protest while he faked trying to chop her arm off.

edited 4th May '14 8:14:41 PM by Lightysnake

KyleJacobs from DC - Southern efficiency, Northern charm Since: Mar, 2011 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#24955: May 4th 2014 at 11:31:45 PM

I don't recall them namedropping the LRA. That aside, I'm really not sure which way to vote on Le Chiffre, but I'm leaning towards [tdown] on the grounds of Offscreen Villainy and a lack of heinousness when compared to other Bond villains, even in the Daniel Craig films. Also, if I remember correctly, that plane didn't have passengers and had just come out of the hangar when he tried to blow it up.

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#24956: May 4th 2014 at 11:35:06 PM

If he tried to blow up the plane, I think the rules allow us to impute that to other actions, given the pattern of behavior for him. The torture pushes him over for me, too. however, his henchman Carlos's original intent, and the original plan, was to plant a bomb on it. he tried to use a fuel truck when he got desperate

Given the rebooted, more realistic continuity, probably best to keep the Craig films compared together. Leaving us with Dominic Greene, Le Chiffre, Medrano and Silva.

I think Steven Obanno was confirmed to be part of the LRA as well...not sure if the name's ever mention, but a brief glance in google indicates Obanno's a leader of the LRA

edited 4th May '14 11:41:33 PM by Lightysnake

Shaoken (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Dating Catwoman
#24957: May 5th 2014 at 3:41:06 AM

Okay, saw GOT and give a thumbs up for the man behind the spoiler tags.

LogoP Party Crasher from the Land of Deep Blue Since: May, 2013 Relationship Status: You can be my wingman any time
Party Crasher
#24958: May 5th 2014 at 4:47:22 AM

If Karl Tanner, from GOT, qualifies then i'd like to make a case for Craster. His crimes ( abusing and raping his daughters & sacrificing his sons to the White Walkers) are basically the same and has been committing them for years.

He was also an unreprentant Jerkass ,who had never been portayed sympathetically, insults and takes advantage of the Night's Watch and was implied to kill any of them that proved too much of a load for him.

It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.
ACW from Arlington, VA (near Washington, D.C.) Since: Jul, 2009
#24959: May 5th 2014 at 5:18:11 AM

Is he different enough from the book that both qualify?

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#24960: May 5th 2014 at 5:40:02 AM

He never should have been deleted to begin with

Morgenthaler Since: Feb, 2016
#24961: May 5th 2014 at 7:29:01 AM

[tup] for the Thrones character. He accomplishes remarkably much in what little screen time he has.

I'm divided on Le Chiffre, but also leaning no. Rechecking the scenes, the plane in question seemed to have been unoccupied, with lights off inside and just part of a new demonstration fresh after construction. His dealings with the terrorists is also shady. On the one hand you could call him more heinous than them for dealing with them in aggregrate, but on the other hand he himself doesn't seem to reach their level of war crimes and terrorist acts, which are also mostly Offscreen Villainy. His torture of Bond was also unflinchingly brutal, but he's clearly under major stress to interrogate him before his bosses will (and do) kill him for his failure — it's less a choice and more a necessity for Le Chifre. With his terrorist funding hard to add to his crime tally, Medrano is also a lot more heinous than him.

I have no doubts that Dr. X from the CGI Action Man qualifies for this trope as that show played his heinousness quite straight and his post-human goal goes through Motive Decay until he's nothing but a nihilistic mass murderer worshipping only himself. Since I've only seen a few episodes back in the day, I'll do some more research later on to get a proper rap sheet for his crimes.

Earlier I did a breakdown on Villain Protagonist Stanley Cauldwell from Cabin by the Lake in this post. He's received one vote to keep so far. Can more people weigh in on him?


Here's another candidate, one who was discussed earlier and cut on debatable grounds: Edward Longshanks from Mel Gibson's BraveHeart. It was argued that he doesn't do anything on screen and was just portrayed as a Jerkass, not a monster. I would disagree, since there seem to have been things that were overlooked about him in this previous discussion.

Like Commodus from Gladiator he's another historical person who gets a Historical Villain Upgrade that serves to make him much more evil than he ever was, and Gibson in general is quite unsubtle when it comes to villain characterization (honestly, the film falls just a black cloak and crown with Spikes of Villainy shy of portraying Longshanks as an Evil Overlord). Neither of these are points against him qualifying of course, but neither is the fact that his minions carry out a lot of his orders. There have been plenty of dictators and evil kings who were qualified for this trope on the basis of the acts being directly attributable to their conduct even if they have Mooks do it for them. As another contributor to this thread pointed out previously, it's initiative that's important, not who personally gets their hands dirty. Do we give Joffrey a pass for ordering Illyn Payne to execute Ned Stark while he himself just looks on?

That, and there are onscreen crimes directly committed by Longshanks. He throws his effeminate son's homosexual lover out of a castle window for daring to speak to him as an advisor. He beats his son's face in afterwards (admittedly Edward's son attacked him with a knife, but since this was in response to the preceding murder of his friend I don't think that should be held as a point against), and obviously sees him as nothing but a continuation of his legacy. His subjugation of Scotland is likewise portrayed as Edward just expanding The Empire, and he institutionalizes a wave of rapes of local women by the English nobility by invoking Jus Primae Noctis, while simultaneously planning the gradual extinction of the Scots. He's similarly ruthless in battle, ordering his archers to fire on his own troops while they're fighting the Scots, as he considers them expandable. The torture of William Wallace is similarly cruel, and at one point he expresses his plans to burn Scotland to the ground purely out of petty spite at Wallace.

One might counter that conquering lands, torture, brutal murders and war rapes were standard practice for the time, but the movie doesn't really portray it as such, tending more towards Politically Correct History ("Freedom"?). The real Edward was just interested in establishing order and was not particularely more vicious than any other lord of his time who tried to expand their dynasty, but as part of the Historical Villain Upgrade all his actions are portrayed as quite out of bounds with the time and reflecting on him just being an evil bastard. The only time the Scots ever come close to Longshanks' level is when they send him the head of one of his officers. This is a single act however, done in reaction to Longshanks' prior atrocities, and Longshanks is not remotely shocked at the sight of one of his dead subjects, just at the thought that the Scots could invade his capital and end his kingship by defeating him. Braveheart!Longshanks is cruel, warmongering, tyrannical, and interested only in his own power. The film portrays him as a villain and nothing but that.

edited 5th May '14 7:46:37 AM by Morgenthaler

You've got roaming bands of armed, aggressive, tyrannical plumbers coming to your door, saying "Use our service, or else!"
ACW from Arlington, VA (near Washington, D.C.) Since: Jul, 2009
#24962: May 5th 2014 at 7:44:08 AM

Hmmm, I guess I lean [tup] for Longshanks.

Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Hello, I love you
#24963: May 5th 2014 at 8:17:03 AM

Took a swing at a write-up for Karl from Game Of Thrones:

  • Karl Tanner. In season 3, he led a mutiny, against his Lord Commander (and in the process becoming an oathbreaker (an In-Universe Moral Event Horizon) by denouncing his vows to protect the wall. It's not until season 4's "Oathkeeper" that he reaches complete monster status, having taken up at Craster's Keep. Here he hurtles insults towards his men, encourages them to rape Craster's daughters/wives "to death," and drinks wine from the skull of the very commander he betrayed. When one of the wives comes with a son who has been born, Karl's first reaction is to take a knife and kill it. He's only stopped when the rest of the wives point out they usually leave the sons out in the cold as a sacrifice for the White Walkers so he has that done instead. Once one of his men captures Bran and his group, he menaces Meera and threatens her to get Bran to speak. In the next episode, he intends to rape her, in front of her brother, and then let his men do the same. Fortunately, he gets paid back for his actions.

When Karl gets added, we should also have the mod Folderize the page.

edited 5th May '14 8:18:59 AM by Larkmarn

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
OccasionalExister Since: Jul, 2012
#24964: May 5th 2014 at 8:35:48 AM

Possible write-up for Karl. Let me know what you guys think or if you have any suggestions.

  • Karl Tanner is a former member of the Night's Watch who led the mutiny at Craster's Keep, which led to the deaths of many Night's Watch members, including Lord Commander Jeor Mormont. Keeping Jeor's skull as a trophy to drink from, Karl turned Craster's Keep into a rape-camp where he and his men sexually brutalized Craster's wives with Karl's motto being, "Fuck 'em til they're dead!" When presented with the last newborn son of Craster, Karl planned on killing the baby so he wouldn't have another mouth to feed only to instead sacrifice the child to the White Walkers. Capturing Bran, Karl beats him and threatens to kill Bran's friends unless Bran confesses who he is. Learning he has a valuable hostage to ransom, Karl and his cronies still try to rape Bran's friend, Meera Reed, in front him and her brother.

[nja]Damn ninja'd. Ignore mine, Larkmarn's write-up is better. Just need to get rid of that last bit of gravedancing talking about his karmic comeuppance. Also, happy 1,000th page everyone.

edited 5th May '14 8:39:13 AM by OccasionalExister

ACW from Arlington, VA (near Washington, D.C.) Since: Jul, 2009
#24965: May 5th 2014 at 8:38:19 AM

[up][up]I already requested folderization; mods are like two weeks behind.

verymelon Since: Jul, 2011 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#24966: May 5th 2014 at 8:38:34 AM

Between Larkman's and Occasional Exister's write-ups, I'm going to go with Occasional Exister's. By the way, we have hot 1000 pages everyone!

ACW from Arlington, VA (near Washington, D.C.) Since: Jul, 2009
#24967: May 5th 2014 at 8:41:43 AM

Here's a tweaked Larkman's writeup:

• Karl Tanner, in season 3, led a mutiny against his Lord Commander (and in the process becoming an oathbreaker (crossing an In-Universe Moral Event Horizon) by denouncing his vows to protect the wall. It's not until season 4's "Oathkeeper" that he reaches Complete Monster status, having taken up at Craster's Keep. Here he hurtles insults towards his men, encourages them to rape Craster's daughters/wives "to death," and drinks wine from the skull of the very commander he betrayed. When one of the wives comes with a son who has been born, Karl's first reaction is to take a knife and kill it. He's only stopped when the rest of the wives point out they usually leave the sons out in the cold as a sacrifice for the White Walkers so he has that done instead. Once one of his men captures Bran and his group, he menaces Meera and threatens her to get Bran to speak. In the next episode, he intends to rape her in front of her brother, and then let his men do the same.
I like OE's better. Though FWIW, is he as bad as Frey or Ramsay?

ACW from Arlington, VA (near Washington, D.C.) Since: Jul, 2009
#24969: May 5th 2014 at 9:40:13 AM

Alright, simple question, simple answer [lol]
Anyway, once I finish Death Star, I'll let y'all know my opinion of Tarkin vis-a-vis Daala (it'll be interesting to see what Luceno does with it if anything; either way, if you haven't read Darth Plagueis).

[nja]Someone added Queen Sectonia to the main and Triple Deluxe pages. I deleted and linked to the thread.

edited 5th May '14 11:14:08 AM by ACW

LogoP Party Crasher from the Land of Deep Blue Since: May, 2013 Relationship Status: You can be my wingman any time
Party Crasher
#24970: May 5th 2014 at 11:22:45 AM

Perfect write-up on Karl.

Question: What was the verdict on Craster? His crimes are basically the same as Karl's, if not worse. And, also, can we possibly make a case for Locke? Now that he's arc is over he's shown that he is just as nasty as his book counterpark, who is already listed.

[up] Tarkin has my vote [tup]

edited 5th May '14 11:24:49 AM by LogoP

It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.
Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#24971: May 5th 2014 at 11:27:16 AM

Well, several things: I think Craster was deleted...too hastily because his book counterpart was written up already. I dislike the idea of needing to search between two different folders so I'd support re-adding him. Post haste.

For Locke...I'm thinking no. Locke prides himself on his genuine, iron loyalty to the Boltons, and he released and paid a man who gave him Jaime and Brienne's location instead of just murdering him. Not to compare him to Vargo Hoat, but he's certainly nowhere near as nasty and vicious as the Crippler who leads his merry band of psychos to kill everything they encounter.

Tarkin's been discussed, though...now, my issue with Daala...well...Daala thinks Tarkin 'loved' her, but this doesn't seem to mesh with the facts. In fact, she paints a far too rosy picture of a controlling, abusive relationship. Hell, she remembers him physically smacking her at points.

edited 5th May '14 11:28:37 AM by Lightysnake

OccasionalExister Since: Jul, 2012
#24972: May 5th 2014 at 11:39:57 AM

[up][up]For Craster, the following is just my opinion and others may feel differently, but it's not that Craster isn't heinous enough, it's that his show character is identical to his book character. Unlike Joffrey or, to a much lesser extent, Ramsay, who both have new crimes unique to the show, nothing distinguishes Craster at all from his literary counterpart. They do exactly the same things and behave exactly the same way. Having an entry for the show version would be the same as cutting-and-pasting the book version's entry. It'd feel redundant to have.

I keep using this as an example, but it's like if we listed Lord Voldemort twice on Monster.Literature and Monster.Film for the movie version of him. Or it'd be like having a two entries for a villain from a manga and a slightly altered anime version of the series where the villain commits the exact same crimes in each version. In each case there wouldn't be enough difference between the two interpretations of the character to justify a second entry.

edited 5th May '14 11:42:21 AM by OccasionalExister

LogoP Party Crasher from the Land of Deep Blue Since: May, 2013 Relationship Status: You can be my wingman any time
Party Crasher
#24973: May 5th 2014 at 11:55:14 AM

I believe the books and the series should be treated as the different media they are.

If a character can qualify as a Complete Monster in both the series and books (Ramsay, who's arguably a better person in the series) or not (Locke/Vargo Hoat), then Craster should be no exception. His previous write-up discribed his monstrosity in detail whilst being different than the book one. I believe he should be re-added but that's just M.O. Whatever the thread decides.

It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.
ACW from Arlington, VA (near Washington, D.C.) Since: Jul, 2009
#24974: May 5th 2014 at 11:56:19 AM

I agree with OE. Now, if they get separate crimes (e.g. Show!Walder), then we can change.

Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Hello, I love you
#24975: May 5th 2014 at 11:58:09 AM

[up] That's evidence to put him on both, I think. They're in separate folders so that people that just watch the show can read without being spoiled. I'd be perfectly fine with a copy/pasted Craster in there.

That said, Locke's definitely not a qualifer. He's a ginormous douche, but hardly Complete Monster territory in my opinion. Just not heinous enough. May be because of a lack of screen time, but yeah.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

Total posts: 326,048
Top