Follow TV Tropes

Discussion Monster / Film

Go To

Jun 6th 2019 at 10:30:17 AM •••

A suggestion would be Little Bill from Unforgiven due to his abuse and torture scenes in the movie as well as how he refuses to do what is just and lets the two that scarred the prostitute go free, not granting justice.

Edited by Some-Person
Sep 11th 2017 at 4:26:39 PM •••

IT (2017) Should this version of Pennywise should be on the Complete monster list, I make not watch the movie but I watch some clip and half the movie to know that this guy is CM. He bit a kid arm off that brutal man even the old version of It hadn't included that part

Edited by Sandkings321
Jan 3rd 2015 at 7:10:06 PM •••

If Howard Payne from Speed is deemed as Complete Monster, shouldn't that mean that by extention John Gieger of Speed 2 is also one?

Hide/Show Replies
Jan 4th 2015 at 1:55:00 AM •••

You'd have to ask here. And no, "by extension" doesn't qualify anything for Complete Monster.

Feb 3rd 2014 at 2:07:26 AM •••

All proposals or requests for removals should go to the Complete Monster Cleanup thread set up for that very purpose. Requests to add characters on the discussion page will get ignored.

Oct 29th 2013 at 2:15:57 PM •••

Would anyone be willing to help put these baddies from Cloud Atlas on here? I'm also willing to make any changes that need to be made.

  • While some of Hugo Weaving's characters range in amorality (from the standard and malicious Jerkass to the slightly sympathetic), Bill Smoke from the Lusia Rey story is the worst of the bunch. Showing zero regret or empathy throughout Lusia's story, Smoke ruthlessly and methodically kills a good amount of the cast in that segment ranging from "suicides" to even blowing up a plane with innocent people on board just to get his target. He also shows himself to be a nasty bigot as well, outright calling an innocent Mexican woman a "fucking wetback" and shoots her dog right in front of her.
  • Doctor Henry Goose also qualifies. He poisons and almost kills a man just to get his gold, with his only other motive being a Social Darwinist philosophy, in addition to being an extreme bigot, even for his time period. All the while of pretending to "help" Ewing with a fake demeanor of friendliness. He also looks pretty creepy too, especially the way he smiles and giggles a lot.

Edited by 24.61.182.11 Hide/Show Replies
Aug 9th 2013 at 10:25:25 PM •••

I came back from watching Elysium and right now two of the villains come into mind for this page:

  • Agent Kruger. Already known for committing over fifty counts of human rights violations and rape, he enjoys every bit of his job working as Delacourt's attack dog and goes freaking bananas whenever he gibs a target. Later, he brutally interrogates Frey about Max's whereabouts in front of her daughter before he decides to kidnap them both. Before landing on Elysium, he sexually harasses Frey, all to get a rise from her (and later Max). The icing on the cake, however, comes at the climax. After recovering from having his face disfigured, he jams a mirror shard on Delacourt's throat, killing her and allowing him to enact his ultimate plan: to take over the council and rule Elysium as he and his squadmates see fit! All in all, this bastard gives Johan Libert a run for his money as the most terrifying and batshit insane villain to ever exist in fiction as a whole, which is really saying something.
  • While not nearly as psychotic as Kruger, Secretary of Defense Delaney Delacourt might also qualify. She cares about absolutely no one but herself and is responsible for murdering sickly children, their parents, and elders on two of the three shuttles. She also wants to rule Elysium with an iron fist, hence why she initiates a coup by making Carlyle hack the database so she could take over as president. Moreover, she takes Faux Affably Evil to a whole new level, questioning if the president had children, neverminding that she wiped out plenty of kids on the shuttles she destroyed.

So Kruger and/or Delacourt. Yay or Nay?

Edited by 216.99.32.45 Hide/Show Replies
Jul 22nd 2013 at 7:27:11 PM •••

I'll try to add this back in after the cleanup, but just so I don't forget:

Amon Goeth from Schindler's List is much less sympathetic in Real Life, as most of the "redeeming" scenes in the movie are fictional, because audiences wouldn't believe that someone could actually be that evil. That is, Spielberg toned him down significantly, because the real Amon was about as close to a perfect living example of this trope that humanity produces.

On a similar note, I'd like to add practically the entire main cast from Conspiracy, the 2001 film about the Wannsee Conference, the formal start of the Nazi Final Solution. The main cast are all pretty much exactly protrayed as their Real Life namesakes. Heydrich and Eichmann are the standout Monsters, but the others all definitely qualify, especially considering exactly what the topic of the Conference is - the technical logistical details of how to exterminate 5+ million people.

Hide/Show Replies
Jul 22nd 2013 at 7:47:44 PM •••

About Goeth, Complete Monster is a No Real Life Examples trope and the fact that the real life version of a character is worst than their movie counterpart is not relevant to this trope. The same thing to a character being more heinous than their real life counterpart.

About Conspiracy, if i am not mistaken, this example was removed because if all the characters are equally heinous, no character is more heinous than the others- and is impossible the entire cast of a history be more heinous than the normal to this history.

Jul 23rd 2013 at 1:38:07 PM •••

I can see the argument about Goeth (which makes complete sense), but Conspiracy is still valid.

Complete Monster has to have some basis for judgement against - that is, we have a baseline morality provided by the audience, from which to judge people. The trope isn't about relative morals between characters, its an Objective (or as much as possible) trope where we measure the personality/actions of a character against society's morality.

Many things are subject to Values Dissonance - this trope should not be one of them, because it's defined in such a manner as to be at the extremes of human morality, and one where no civilization can exist if that behavior is considered normal or acceptable.

It shouldn't matter that a large percentage of the cast in Conspiracy meet the definition - that should have no relevance to whether or not they're listed here. You can't be NOT considered a Complete Monster just because you happen to be standing next to another one. Otherwise, a show set in a Hell dimension couldn't have anyone labeled as such, and I think everyone would agree that that's simply ridiculous.

Aug 9th 2013 at 3:58:55 AM •••

Actually yes, that is exactly how it works. To be a Complete Monster you must be (amongst many things), henioues by the standards of both real life and the standards of the work you're in, and you have to stand out as a CM is so ungodly evil that other villians look better in comparison. One of the key rules for this topic is that groups cannot under any circumstance be listed as a Complete Monster, as it is incredibly implausable that every last member of a group is utterly without redeeming qualities, Complete Monsters are individuals and must be listed as such, and again a Complete Monster has to stand out from a crowd, which obviously doesn't work if you say the crowd is a Complete Monster. One murderer in a town of pacifists is henious; one murdrer on a world of murderers is mundane, and a Complete Monster is anything but mundane.

You seem to be missing the point about just what this trope is about; a show in a Hell dimension could have one character who stands out so much in his or her villian that they would qualify. If you are interested at all in what this trope actually is then you should go to the cleanup thread to see just what makes and doesn't make a CM.

Jun 20th 2013 at 6:17:52 PM •••

Do the killers from the movie Smiley count? They pretty much spend the entire movie setting up a massive gambit to terrorize one girl, and they show nothing but joy and elation when they learn they caused her to commit suicide.

Hide/Show Replies
Telcontar MOD
May 30th 2013 at 1:50:04 AM •••

As the cleanup thread discusses entries, they will be fixed. That'll take a while, though, so you could create Sandbox.Monster Film, copy this page's content over, work on fixing it there, and ask the mods to swap the corrected version in.

Dec 26th 2012 at 4:10:08 PM •••

Some of these examples like Captain Vidal, and The Jokers are way to long.

Hide/Show Replies
Jan 21st 2014 at 2:14:54 PM •••

^We don't care about spoilers. If you're reading a list tha rates people on how evil they are, there's going to be, well, lists of the evil they've done.

Telcontar MOD
Dec 23rd 2012 at 1:31:29 AM •••

It is going/has gone through a lengthy cleanup process to ensure all the examples are valid. The lock prevents bad ones being added/readded.

Nov 3rd 2012 at 3:24:46 AM •••

Personnally, I think this cathegory is very messy. There are so many complete monsters and so many different movies, with no precise order. So here's a suggestion: how about classifying the CM chronologically, by the years the movies they appear in were released? The 50-60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, the 2000s and the 2010s? I think it would be interesting because with years, cencorship evolved, making more and more horrible characters possible to appear onscreen, and CM became more frequent and terrifying recently.

Hide/Show Replies
Aug 9th 2013 at 4:00:08 AM •••

Besides censorship being irrelevant to what makes a CM, the standard ordering style for the wiki is alphapetical.

Oct 17th 2012 at 7:39:42 AM •••

It should be noted that Emperor Palpatine (in Expanded Universe) have some glimpses of being pragmatic villain instead. In Timothy Zhan's Novel "Outbound Flight" is revealed the story of Outbound Flight, the intergalactic expedition run by Jedi. We were told that Palpatine let his pawn Thrawn intercept the expedition and blow it up just for killing Jedi, but it isnt true. Thrawn isnt even employed by Palpatine, but by Chiss (his race) navy and he actually destroys the original force send to destroy the expedition. Then Palpatine starts negotiating with Thrawn and explaining why he wants the expedition to be taken out:

In future of SW universe (about 30 year later than last movie) galaxy is facing terrible intergalactic invasion by race of fanatics called Yuzhaan Vong. And they were scouting edges of our galaxy in the time when book is taking place (between EP 1 and EP 2) studiyng us to prepare for invasion. And Palpatine knows this (so do Thrawn) and he says he want expedition destroyed just for not giving Vongs expedition containg specimens of most galactic species and cultures, as if it falls to Vong's hands, it could make the invasion to happen much sooner.

Also, Thrawn then asks, that when invasion is post-poned by destroying expedition, how will Palpatine prepare for it. Palpatine then say he will establish a new order, and basically implies that whole empire is going to be founded just for defence against the Vong! He is still definitely evil and no doubt he wanted to have his UNLIMITED POWAAHHH!, but there maybe more pragmatic reasons for his takeover. And one thing is definitely certain: The militarictic and prepared Empire would defeat the Vong much more easily then it was with New Republic.

Hide/Show Replies
Oct 17th 2012 at 8:12:40 AM •••

Then make him a Pragmatic Villain in the literature section. None of that is in any of the films.

Oct 17th 2012 at 8:42:57 AM •••

Grand Moff Tarkin's "Landing Star Destroyer on them" is also form books/comics and is mentioned here in movies

Aug 9th 2013 at 4:09:29 AM •••

It should be noted that opposing the Vong doesn't automatically make him pragmatic, since a Vong victory means a Sith defeat. To use a good example look at Emperor Mengsk from Video Game/{[Starcraft}}; his dominion works to keep the Zerg and Protoss back (which is good for Terrans) but he is personally more interested in ruling that sector of space and willing to go to extremes to keep an iron grip on it (including mind raping protestors into being loyal soldiers with their final test being to kill people that they love, or killing off children just because their parents were part of the regieme you toppled by luring billions of aliens to their planet to consume it's population just to make sure nobody can oppose you).

The "Palpatine was just preparing for the Vong invasion" argument falls short since he has been plotting his takeover for years, he could just as easily protect the republic without taking it over and killing off the Sith's ancient enemies. There's also the small detail that Palpatine is a notorious liar and manipulator (including being the leader of both sides of the Clone War and pitting them against the other, lying to Anakin about the possiblity of stopping people from dying, lying to him again after confessing to not know that secret by saying they will find it together, lying to him about his wife's fate just to break his spirit, etc.) whilst Thrawn is a lot more honourable and less likely to be loyal to someone whose ultimately in it for himself.

Oct 14th 2012 at 11:42:35 AM •••

in mainstream list of complete monsters there is frank booth from blue velvet, but why not bobby peru from wild at heart? he's a clear personification of evil, a sadistic and vicious hitman hired to kill sailor. How bad is he? he sexually assaults lula (he rapes her verbally, forcing her to say she wants him), he gratuitously shots a feed store clerck during a robbery...and in his offstage vilainy,we learn that he partecipated in a My Lay- style massacre of civilian during the Vietnam War (he was a marine).

Oct 14th 2012 at 11:10:47 AM •••

xenia onatopp in goldeneye? in my opinion she's a complete monster,she's a sadistic mass-murder.

Sep 7th 2012 at 4:01:31 PM •••

Kevin and the Woman in black should be removed because they belong in the literature section.

Hide/Show Replies
Sep 7th 2012 at 4:09:47 PM •••

Both of those works were made into films, so they could potentially count for both.

Also, I noticed that you deleted Joffrey from Game of Thrones. While there is a decent argument I think whether or not he counts, that should not have been deleted for the reason you gave. The book series is called A Song of Ice and Fire. Game of Thrones is the tv adaptation, and so assuming his behavior qualifies him, it would be valid to list Joffrey in the show under the live action tv examples.

Dec 11th 2012 at 5:39:39 PM •••

I know they have adaptations, I think it is redundant to have them on both the film and literature section. Since the books came first they should belong in the literature section.

Jul 14th 2012 at 7:32:11 AM •••

Is Clyde Shelton from Law Abiding Citizen a Complete Monster? In my opinion, I would say yes. Of course he had a daughter and a wife, who were killed by Clarence Darby, which starts him off as initially sympathetic. But by halfway through the movie, Clyde eventually becomes a monster himself, since he is a terrorist to begin with. Not to mention the fact that it doesn't give him an excuse to destroy the justice system.

Edited by Craver357 Hide/Show Replies
Jan 2nd 2014 at 5:41:45 PM •••

No, he doesn't count as his deeds are a mixture of his obvious Freudian excuse and possible mental sickness.

Jul 7th 2012 at 4:54:24 AM •••

  • Eddie Brock/Venom from Spider-Man 3. Before becoming Venom, he was a petty con artist, was implied to be an adulterer, and begged god to kill Peter Parker just for outing him as a con-man. After becoming Venom, he kidnapped MJ, attempted to murder her, and killed Harry Osborn after reforming.

Following MONEYMONEY reasoning, this example is not sufficiently heinous.

Hide/Show Replies
Jul 20th 2012 at 12:54:23 AM •••

Take it to the clean up thread. For the record though, the thread ruled against Eddie because being a dick and having a body count that's smaller then every other villian in the series while being under More Than Mind Control from a amoral slime that can make the hero turn bad doesn't make you a Complete Monster.

Jun 13th 2012 at 1:46:37 PM •••

What about Elle Driver from Kill Bill? Poisoned an old man, shot many people (Including a pregnant woman) In a church, attempted to poison said pregnant woman whilst she was in a coma and killed her boss' brother for money (Whilst gleefully lecturing him on what's happening to his body) and that's just the boring stuff.

Hide/Show Replies
Jun 19th 2012 at 7:51:49 AM •••

Well, her boss' brother buried the main character alive before. So NO she is not a CM. if anything, her boss' brother is a CM

Jun 19th 2012 at 7:52:26 AM •••

And an old man plucked out her eye earlier

Jan 19th 2012 at 2:32:38 PM •••

Alright, how is Mr. Potter any worse than say Mr. Krabs, who I still say is a Complete Monster. I mean the discription makes him sound like a Jerkass at worst. Either give him a more in-depth entry or I'll remove him in a week.

Hide/Show Replies
Jan 19th 2012 at 2:41:00 PM •••

Full disclosure, I generally stop listening any time someone says that Mr. Krabs is a complete monster (why, just why?)

Eh Mr. Potter is a Corrupt Corporate Executive /slumlord that tries to have the hero wrongly imprisoned for embezzlement. I don't really know if he qualifies though. He has some really great lines and sometimes has a point.

Feb 13th 2012 at 2:59:58 AM •••

I'm not sure if he qualified in the main movie, but he certainly did qualify in the reality where the main character never existed. Just look at how the city was run when he was in charge. It was like Sodom and Gomorrha.

Nov 3rd 2012 at 9:30:47 AM •••

Actually, we don't see Potter in the alternative reality. Maybe he is even more crippled, alone, hated and miserable than in the original. I think the townspeople are unhappy not because they are ran by a CM, but because they had no one to give them hope during the great depression and the war. Really, Potter is too much trashed: he is a bad person, but not enough to be called pure evil.

Nov 3rd 2011 at 2:50:50 PM •••

Should the James Bond villains have their own monster section? There sure seem to have a lot of them...

Edited by Bertandernie
Aug 23rd 2011 at 6:45:19 AM •••

here's a bunch of "mainstream" movie complete monsters (in my opinion):

-the old lady in the bath from Stanley Kubrick's "Shining";

-the killer from "Profondo Rosso"(expecially in the "puppet scene", poor professor Giordani!);

-Swan from Brian De Palma's "Phantom of the Paradise";

-private detective Loren Visser from "Blood Simple" and bounty hunter Leonard Smalls from "Raising Arizona", both directed by Coen brothers;

-sadistic hitman Bobby Peru from "Wild at Heart";

-Bob from "Twin Peaks"

- El Indio (Gian Maria Volontè) from "For Few Dollars More".

Hide/Show Replies
Aug 25th 2011 at 4:55:32 AM •••

What exactly does the lady in "The Shining" do to consider her a complete monster? She's just a zombie that tries to strangle Danny. No motivations are explored. We don't know anything about her. She didn't actually do anything truly heinous (o hoo, you though you were banging a hot lady but I'm actually old and rotten! I'm eeeevil!). Complete Monsters have to be a little more elaborate than "she did something bad. BAAAD". What she did doesn't even qualify for a Moral Event Horizon.

Plus if you read the book, where she is more "fleshed out", you see there is nothing that can lead to consider her a irredeemably evil human being. So no.

Can't talk about the other ones.

Jul 20th 2011 at 7:27:01 PM •••

Okay, recently some people are trying to add in Sentinel Prime as part of this trope. I'm trying to delete it, under the grounds that he was a Well Intentioned Extremist, and as you and the page stated, Well Intentioned Extremists are never qualified for Complete Monsterdom. It keeps being readded in, and I think we need to reach a consensus.

First of all, seeing how Sentinel's motives were pretty blatantly stated to be due to a desire to restore Cybertron, he qualifies more towards a Well-Intentioned Extremist than to an outright Complete Monster. I also heard of alternate character interpretations, but I've also seen through various edits that they cannot encompass YMMV-tropes, especially not Alternate Character Interpretation. In either case, I think Sentinel Prime should stay out for these facts. What do you guys think?

Hide/Show Replies
Jan 9th 2012 at 2:40:37 PM •••

Turning everyoneon Earth into his slaves, Teaming up with his natural enemy only to be implied to betray them, and trying to genocide his own race. Doesn't sound the least bit Well Intentioned Extemist to me. Hell he does a lot more than The Fallen ever did. Oh and his reasons are pity as can be.

Jan 10th 2012 at 7:54:22 AM •••

That's the "extremist" part. The "Well Intentioned" part is that he's trying to restore Cybertron.

Jan 19th 2012 at 2:34:26 PM •••

Really and attempting genocide on your own race isn't something only a Complete Monster does. Like I said trying to restore a fallen empire isn't "Well Intentioned" enough to count.

Jun 17th 2011 at 11:03:00 AM •••

Why was the Nome King removed from the list? Was he not malicious enough? In the movie he almost kills the Gump and tries to EAT DOROTHY GALE AND HER FRIENDS!

Hide/Show Replies
Apr 25th 2011 at 4:27:12 AM •••

leland palmer from twin peaks, when is under the influence of the evil spirit bob counts too

Apr 22nd 2011 at 9:01:28 AM •••

Would Jason Voorhees from Friday The 13th count? He has killed hundreds of people and that is probably enough to count.

Hide/Show Replies
Oct 4th 2011 at 3:35:43 PM •••

Yes, but he's essentially a retarded child. Wait, scratch that, he is a retarded child. He doesn't fully understand what's going on, he's killing people because he thinks his mommy wants to, and he just kills people; he doesn't torture them or rape them or do anything else besides kill them. Compared to everyone else on the list (especially when we get to see him compared to Freddy Kruger) he's not that extreme.

Mar 16th 2011 at 12:13:43 PM •••

michele placido's character in Arrivederci Amore Ciao, police commisioner ferruccio anedda, is probably the most corrupt, dirty and evil cop in all movie history; he's involving in several robberies, blackmails and murders without remorses

Feb 26th 2011 at 5:52:40 PM •••

the blackmailers in 52 pick up (1986), expecially the afro-american bobby shy, a brutal and ruthless killer and a greedy gangster, and the perverted, sadistic alan raimy (the leader of the gang); the third of them, leo franks, is a sleazy and greedy man, but he's too weak and pavid to qualify as complete monster.

Feb 26th 2011 at 5:46:27 PM •••

and nicky santoro/joe pesci in martin scorsese's casino? ok, he's a good father and a quite affabily evil, but he's a very nasty and cruel enforcer who kills and tortures people, stabs a guy in the neck with is own pen after this guy insults asso and betrayes his best friend become ginger's lover

Feb 26th 2011 at 5:30:46 PM •••

What about wild at heart's bobby peru? in my opinion the carachter is too funny to be a really complete monster

Jan 17th 2011 at 4:21:33 PM •••

Is the wicked witch really an example of this? I'm not very familiar with Wizard Of Oz, but from what I've heard it's a fairly kid-friendly story; granted, kid-friendly stories and despicable villains aren't mutually exclusive, (The Lion King comes to mind) but from what I've heard of it Wizard Of Oz doesn't strike me as the kind of story to have a full-blown CM in it.

Hide/Show Replies
Jan 17th 2011 at 4:33:46 PM •••

She may not have been a monster in the book, but the way she acted in the film, not to mention the implied amount of deaths she caused more than qualifies for her being a complete monster.

Jan 18th 2011 at 2:15:05 AM •••

See the TRS thread, EJO1. Others have argued that her villainy is too generic to qualify as completely monstrous. When in doubt, edit it out...

Dec 28th 2010 at 12:48:11 PM •••

  • Dr. Woodrue in Batman & Robin really qualifies. Well, he uses plant toxins to create venom, a Super Serum that would give the subject super strength. With this, he is responsible for Bane's origin. However, when Pamela Isley saw that and is not liking it, Woodrue tries to kill her by pushing her to a table and dumping venom into her, making him responsible for Poison Ivy's origin. That's proof that he is definitely not a saint.

Just creating a super-serum and two villains (even if one of them was by attempted-murder-related accident) who don't qualify themselves is not grounds for complete monsterdom, or else Max Shreck from Batman Returns would be there as well, as his actions are overall a lot worse. Removed. If anyone wants to put it back, they'll need a very good explanation.

Edited by Paireon
Sep 7th 2010 at 9:07:15 PM •••

Is the good Colonel from Avatar really a Complete Monster? There are tons of people who see him as Unintentionally Sympathetic, and he does have a handful of redeeming qualities no matter how you look at it, like genuine care for his soldiers and loyalty to his cause. Those afromentioned soldiers he shot at were traitors who had recently defected to the enemy side and attacked his escort teams and killed his men. Besides, he is also a severely entertaining Badass, so at the very least he is Evilly Affable. And lets not forget, the Na'vi are the ones who killed all his diplomats, and if Jake had just negotiated with the Na'vi instead of having sex with Neytiri and then riling up everyone into a war hungry and genocidal frenzy, none of that would have happened.

Hide/Show Replies
Sep 19th 2010 at 8:00:30 AM •••

I agree completely. This is especially annoying because the author made it so anvillicious. I mean, half a page for Colonel Quarritch?! He's not even a GOOD example of this trope, even though he fits it with a bit of alternate character interpretation. The back to the future entry is another unnecessary one, I think. Sure, the guy is a massive asshole, but the entry makes the movies look sickeningly depressive. I think we should cut the two entries out or at least rewrite them to make them less anvillicous.

Sep 28th 2010 at 7:40:28 PM •••

I removed them. This is getting out of hand.

Sep 28th 2010 at 10:07:40 PM •••

Quaritch may cross the Moral Event Horizon when he firebombs a civilian settlement, but he's excluded from Complete Monster-hood by Point 2.

  • The character must evoke fear, revulsion and/or hatred from the other characters in the story. If there are other villains around, they are afraid of/dislike this person, too — Even Evil Has Standards, after all (in particularly disturbing stories, with particularly evil villains, even lesser Complete Monsters may fear such a character). If the other characters in the story treat the character as a joke or don't take them seriously, they fail to qualify.

The colonel is A Father to His Men, and well-respected by the human colonists. Compare, for instance, Kimblee from Full Metal Alchemist, who even freaks out his own troops. A Complete Monster must not just be a dangerous opponent, but utterly bloody terrifying even within the story.

Oct 14th 2010 at 7:27:39 PM •••

Didn't realize this was mentioned on the discussion page until now.

A Father to His Men, Iaculus? Must be a pretty ABUSIVE "father to his men" when he shoots them for a bit of unobtanium. The human colonists' "respect" for him dwindles over the course of the movie, with his own troops saying to him things like "are you out of your jar-head mind?" before he even firebombs the Na'vi.

And FMfan, the whole Unintentionally Sympathetic thing is clearly a case of Misaimed Fandom. The soldiers were "traitors" because the alternative was being mass murderers. Ok, so the term gets a little shaky when the victims are aliens, but the point remains. And Quaritch shot at them BEFORE they started shooting other troops, remember when they were trying to escape via plane in the "steak's too good for these traitors" scene?

Oh, and Jake DID negotiate with the Na'vi. Remember the scene where he explained that no matter what the humans offered, it was stuff the Na'vi didn't want?

Really, FMfan, your interpretation of the movie just strikes me as Completely Missing the Point.

Oct 18th 2010 at 11:37:03 AM •••

I don't quite understand the rationale for the recent deleting of the entry in the edit reasons. Can someone translate? What the hell does "sorry admins, some anvils need to be dropped" even mean in that context?

Oct 18th 2010 at 4:32:28 PM •••

Reinstated. Sorry if a day was too impatient for waiting for a response.

Edited by OldManHoOh
Oct 21st 2010 at 8:34:53 AM •••

Okay, so it's apparently flamebait now. Dear God I hate this guy's Misaimed Fandom. The movie's not fresh in my mind, so I don't know for certain whether it fits.

Oct 21st 2010 at 1:37:09 PM •••

... to be fair, this title IS overused, and if the example is "ambiguous" it's probably fair to cut it. Then again, there's probably examples even more ambiguous that have yet to be cut.

Oct 22nd 2010 at 5:17:09 AM •••

Removed for good. Please, do not utilise references to "misaimed fandom" as an excuse to ignore every opinion but your own. And yes, it is a flamebait, good job bringing it on.

By the very definition of Complete Monster it should be someone who raises no questions about his horrific nature. Miles Quaritch raises quite a few => he is not here, period.

Oct 22nd 2010 at 8:53:17 AM •••

In theory, almost ANY villain could raise questions about their nature. You want to remove Quaritch for that reason make sure other similar entires are removed as well.

Oct 25th 2010 at 3:16:20 AM •••

In practice, that's why there are many shades of villainy in articles, and this one is at the extreme end of the spectrum. Of other movies mentioned that I know, only Castor Troy raises some gut objection, iirc, he had something going for him, but then again, it's been a long time since I watched Face Off.

Sep 6th 2010 at 4:21:01 PM •••

Freddy in "Freddy vs. Jason"? Especially the charachter introduction.

Hide/Show Replies
Jan 2nd 2014 at 5:43:16 PM •••

Freddy Kruger's already on the list.

Jun 4th 2010 at 3:53:23 PM •••

"H" from "Unthinkable", played by samuel l. jackson, would he count? Torture, killing a woman in front of everybody, trying to kill children...

Edited by ham_solo Hide/Show Replies
Sep 6th 2010 at 4:18:22 PM •••

Well he was being concerned to some extend with the nukes and all, but he really was trying to kill the kids and he killed his wife, so... yes I think it counts.

Sep 13th 2010 at 9:17:48 AM •••

Cases of Well-Intentioned Extremist can not be cases of Complete Monster. No, he not counts because, despite his methods, his motivation-concern about the nuclear bombs and fear that they blow up in habitated areas- was completely symphathetic,specially given that he was correct about the fourth bomb

Apr 22nd 2010 at 9:36:34 PM •••

I removed two recent examples, both of which I think are a great example of the trope's Flanderization to "anyone who has crossed the Moral Event Horizon."

The Hand That Rocks The Cradle example listed only one action, a rather vile one at that, but once again, merely crossing the Moral Event Horizon does not make one a Complete Monster. In this case the woman is a rather disturbed individual who lost her husband to a suicide due to reports of him molesting his patients, started by the targeted parents. Essentially she goes after them for revenge. Wrong? Absolutely and a fine example of a Knight Templar gone extreme. But as someone with some sympathy and a bit crazed and normal before, I'd say that excludes her from Complete Monster status.

In The Company Of Men: OK the guy sounds like a major league fucking asshole. No question about that. But saying that the other examples on the page would be disgusted by him shows the flaw. We are talking about serial killers, torturers and war criminals, and here we have a guy who is a douchebag to women. A Complete Monster isn't someone you meet on a daily basis, most people probably never do and would be happy to be so. Most people have met someone like this asshole. He hasn't even broken the law.

Hide/Show Replies
Sep 28th 2010 at 4:31:41 PM •••

I just removed a few myself, including Biff, who isn't anything more than a major Jerkass, and Ra's Al Ghul, a cookie cutter Well-Intentioned Extremist, a type of villain that the page itself says can never be a Complete Monster.

Also removed Miles Quaritch, for reasons listed below and on the example itself, Max Zorin, who is nothing more than a slightly more brutal than usual Bond villain and Carmine Falconi from Batman Begins, who doesn't really do anything at all. No, threatening to kill Bruce Wayne does not count, as he was only making a point and probably didn't intend to carry it out.

Oct 21st 2010 at 9:31:39 AM •••

Someone readded that old Miles flamebait. Huh. Guys, please, follow the description provided: Complete Monster is someone who is unquestionably, beyond a reasonable doubt irredeemable. The whole amount of flame produced by Avatar and the question of Quaritch clearly indicates that many people do find redeeming qualities in him (or alternatively do not find his actions sufficently "evil").

Apr 8th 2010 at 12:40:25 PM •••

Pans Labyrinth? Really? Isn't it a tad, um, derivative, especially the example used (why not Amon Geoth from Schindlers List then?)

Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.
Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report