Subpages cleanup: Complete Monster

Just my two cents, I'd say that if the CM is a Villain with Good Publicity, uses Obfuscating Stupidity, or something along those lines, they only need to repulse characters who are "in the know" about their true natures. However, if it's anything deeper than just an act, they probably shouldn't be C Ms.

(For example, Onimi of the New Jedi Order pretends to be an obnoxious, rather perverted but basically harmless Cloudcuckoolander. He's really a sadistic Ax-Crazy Omnicidal Maniac. Most characters are only annoyed by him; those few who he lets see him for what he is are horrified. His real persona fits all the criteria perfectly.)

Thanks for all the support, your dissertations on individual villains are very helpful, and so far mesh pretty well with what I think. Sorry about my slow output so far, but Real Life (tm) had to take priority today and yesterday, but I ought to have more time the rest of the week.

Just changed the main entry's text to clarify a bit; now it's ALL criteria that must apply, and the horrendous stuff must be according to the setting's standards (that means that Warhammer 40000 won't have an entry consisting only of "everybody who's still alive and kicking").

As for 411314's 12 villains (thanks to those who did writeups about those and others):

1. Jenner: Been a while since I saw this one, but IIRC he seemed perfectly willing to cause the "bad stuff" he mentioned to happen, up to and including said flood; that or he just wanted to have absolute control over as many people as he could. Methinks he still counts.

2. Hades: Jealousy over a crummy job is standard villain fare, plus his body count isn't that high by Disney standards, and mostly the work of his mooks. Finally, sounding like someone who works at Honest John's Dealership adds up to a villain who really doesn't fit the trope.

3. Drake: Haven't seen that one; input would be appreciated.

4. Briar Cudgeon: Haven't read, but carla's writeup is convincing. He's out.

5. Gaston: I removed him once before, and wrote about my reasons, plus convincing arguments against him in this thread. Out.

6. Two-Face: Schumacher's Batflicks being a pet peeve of mine notwithstanding, despite Tommy Lee Jones hamming it up, he's not that horrible a villain. He's mostly gimmicky and kitschy like the '60s show villains, and his murder of the Flying Graysons is pretty much bog-standard procedure for fictionland's extortionists. Out, both of them.

7. Poison Ivy: Yeah... No. Like Two-Face, too cartoony in her Schumacher incarnation to be a contender, and even more stereotypically villainous. Seriously, if those last two can count, then 90% of Bats' Rogues Gallery should be included in the appropriate sub-sections, and as her borderline case nature was pointed out, the comic-book Poison Ivy (who's leagues worse) might get axed. In the compost heap she goes.

8. Khan: I agree completely with Frodo and Madru on this one, and watching the TOS episode he's in only weakens his case further. He can quote Moby Dick elsewhere.

9. Krudge: Christopher Lloyd does a great job, but Krudge, to me at least, doesn't appear that much more evil than other Klingons we'd seen so far in the franchise - this was before they were anything but bad guys. It's more a case of having more opportunities for wrongdoing than his predecessors, who probably would have been just as ruthless IMO. Set phasers to "out".

10-11. Lex Luthor and Nuclear Man: Same opinion as Hobbit, plus, again, standard villain behavior. Throw'em in the Phantom Zone.

12. Megabyte: Now we're talking. When the show stops being just episodic, he gradually yet rapidly becomes a very serious contender, topping every other villain's evil by far, hitting just where it hurts the protagonists the most, no motive or excuse save lust for power and lulz, no regret, zero chance at redemption and he likes it that way. Unless someone gives me a very compelling reason, bet on him staying.

Also, Master Ghandalf makes a good point, I say we apply his reasoning.

edited 26th Oct '10 11:21:53 PM by Paireon

Cleaning up the Comic Books subpage:

• Black Mask qualifies, too. His hobby is Cold-Blooded Torture.

• From Grant Morrisons Batman: Dr. Hurt, and Flamingo, eater of faces. Funny name, funny description? Try laughing without lips buster.

• Dr. Destiny in the pages of Sandman where he goes from being just a rather-creepy-but-nothing-really-special supervillain to pure High Octane Nightmare Fuel.
  • His Justice League (animated series) appearance seems to take a page off of this.

- Anyone can write up more developped versions? I don't really doubt they belong (kept them for now), but the second one might as well be a face-mauling dobermann named Flamingo.

• Hotstreak in the Static series, which is in complete contrast to his Draco in Leather Pants portrayal in the cartoon series. In the comics, he was an outright bigot who attempted to kill citizens at a Gay Pride Parade.

- His resumé better be more horrible than merely trying to kill people at a Gay Pride Parade, unless the comic is a lot softer than the rest of the DC universe.

• 1) Sometimes things end without restitution or justice. That's the way things are in real life (and to a much lesser extent) and in fiction. 2) The consequences of the aftermath of New Krypton and War of the Superman are not going to be dropped just like that, but are going to be explored. But just so this isn't a justifying edit: You forgot Zod himself. While not as openly Axe-Crazy as his wife Ursa, he is far more cunning. He is as "loyal" to New Krypton as can possibly be interpreted, but his main goal was to enslave Earth and make everyone on it slaves to the Kryptonians. Just because his earlier invasion was driven off. And of course, he has never forgotten his vendetta against the Son of Jor-El.
• The current General Zod is actually probably the most sympathetic incarnation of his character in the history of the Superman mythos. Most earlier incarnations of Zod had little characterization beyond the trope he named and a desire for conquest; while the current version still has those traits, they are balanced out by his other, more noble goals, namely saving the people of Kandor from Brainiac, saving Krypton, and saving New Krypton from Brainiac. The fact that he fails to accoplish any of them and probably has almost nothing left but revenge at this point would make him seem like a particularly tragic Type V Anti-Hero if the POV was different. This is especially true when compared to other interpretations of the character, some of whom are unquestionably monsters.

-1) The first part is still a Justifying Edit even if you say it's not. 2) If there's so much leeway in Alternate Character Interpretation in the same storyline, the character can't count as this trope, period. I might restore it if shown proof that leather pants are responsible.

Meanwhile, the Smallville version of Zod, is practically an evil(er?) twin of of the current one. He reprogramed Brainiac to be evil, created Doomsday, was responsible for Krypton's destruction, and even killed his wife (a more sympathetic version of Faora) and unborn child because she didn't agree with his actions.

- That belongs in live action television.

• I don't care about Geoff Johns's "Nekron is beyond the dichotomy of good and evil!" comments; if forcing black rings onto resurrected heroes and making them Black Lanterns, among which include not only some of the big guns of the DC Universe, but two of the Trinity! doesn't hurl one into Complete Monster territory, I don't know what does. And then he goes ahead and summons the white entity and hacks away at it with his scythe, for the sole purpose of slowly killing every living thing in the universe as painfully as possible! Seriously, the way it's written, he comes off as extremely sadistic, force of nature or not. And I'm not even getting into the now-necrophilic Black Hand...
  • While I would have argued this, classifying him more as an Eldritch Abomination and a force of nature, once it was revealed that the living heroes who are taken over by the rings are CONSCIOUS and forced to watch in a And I Must Scream state as their possessed bodies kill their loved ones, he definitely qualifies in spades.
  • Nekron may not qualify under this site's criteria, having something of an excuse. No one disputes his claim that Light, Life, and the Entity intruded into the darkness of the universe, and that Nekron and his minions are right to call them 'invaders'. Additionally, Black Hand is strongly hinted to have been targeted by Nekron as his portal from birth, therefore never having a chance to be anything other than the avatar of the Blackest Night.
    • YMMV on whether or not this justifies their cruelty during the event.

- It justifies or it doesn't. No variable mileage. A vote on this might be appropriate for this one.

• The Juggernaut(except for a time after being in Chuck Austin's hands). Killing hundreds if not thousands of people. Acts of terrorism up to and including destroying a World Trade Center Tower. A willingness to work for the previously mentioned Red Skull for money. And being able to do all of these things with a smile on his face. Not to mention killing for the right to use a power that compels you to evil acts. While fully aware of this fact. Even Professor Xavier has admitted Cain is beyond redemption.

- Wasn't this one discussed before? Anyway, I'm choosing to trust Iaculus's judgement on this.

edited 27th Oct '10 9:05:33 PM by Paireon

i'm very much with ghandalf when it comes to villains with good publicity. in fact, for most if not all of the cases, the reactions that count the most will be those of the main characters, up to the main supporting cast. the heroes, involved authorities, Mooks... i mean, i could argue that random lady X sees a commercial of lex luthor on TV and obviously her reaction is not "omg i'm completely terrified of this man!" but there's a reason for that— she doesn't even know he's evil, so how can we expect her to think him a Complete Monster? random lady X's opinion of lex luthor shouldn't count towards luthor's Complete Monster status.

i would say changing it to "ALL must apply" is definitely a good way to go, although we could add a hottip saying something along the lines of "if there's a villain that does not fit one of the criteria, but you're still really, really certain he or she should be considered a Complete Monster, please take it to the discussion page before adding them. if you can explain the reasons why you think this character still fits the trope and get consensus, then you're good to go."

OK, so Comic Books seems properly cleaned up after a final revision. Will now check if worthy additions are in previous posts. Moving on to Anime and Manga (DAMN that one's gonna be a doozy... It's the longest subpage except for Videogames!).

Also, added carla's suggested hottip verbatim on the main trope page.

One last thing: Should DC and Marvel be spun off into their own subpages?

edited 27th Oct '10 9:52:17 PM by Paireon

^ Its a good idea.

Just wanted to say that it's nice to see someone cleaning up this page. As someone who likes this trope a lot, and finds it a useful measure of villainy in a character, I appreciate you taking the time to make it readable. I'd do it myself, but I'm not familiar enough with the vast majority of the works.

Thanks again.

There is, arguably, a problem with the image now. It could be not an actual example.

To qualify, most, preferably all of the following must apply:

• The character must personally engage in a series of truly horrendous acts, and the story makes no attempt to gloss these over or present them in a positive light. Acts concealed behind a Villainy Discretion Shot or by a distant Mook don't count. The Complete Monster usually starts at the Moral Event Horizon and keeps on running, though nothing excludes him becoming one through Character Development.
• 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.
• There is no adequate justification or Freudian Excuse to balance out the misdeeds.
• The character must show no regret or remorse for their actions, however terrible. It's better if they obviously enjoy it, but complete lack of emotion or caring will suffice.
• Most importantly, the character must have no chance of redemption without being considered a Karma Houdini. The only way the story could come to anything resembling a happy ending is if they die or are otherwise removed. A Heel–Face Turn is out of the question, and nobody would believe it if it happened. There can be no Redemption Equals Death for this character, and no Fate Worse than Death is too extreme.

The word must was not present in the specific line I was speaking of at the time, but now, it has to be that this character cannot have an adequate Freudian Excuse.

Johan Liebert does not have some stupid excuse like "some dude licked my pizza so i'm gonna KILL EVERYONE" it's fairly serious and could be considered to be an adequate justification for his actions.

When it said most, or perferably all, I was under the impression that every line that said "must" (which were all the lines except for that big one)meant that has to be a requirement no matter what, and only that specific line I point out here was a possible exception.

A villian discretion shot can still make people a complete monster. Chantique manages to come across as creepy when she throttles a man to death even though we only see the outline. Shan Yu is the same even though his massacre of innocent civillians is never shown. Ozai comes across as it when he burns Zuko even though it's not seen because we hear the scream and understand enough of what went on offscreen. If the reader understands what's going on enough to be completely shocked and horrified, then the person should technically be a complete monster, even if it's not seen. And ordering atrocities can still make someone a monster (prophet of truth from halo does his most evil actions indirectly, ordering his mooks to do them, yet still earns his rank due to the sheer evil of said actions and his ultimate responsibility.) In short, I propose that if the person is disgusted despite the discretion shot (chantique's murder of jervo thelien), or if the villian is the ultimate cause of said actions even if he isn't directly responsible, then he still qualifies as a complete monster. and johan manages to be an unlikable monster despite his sympathetic excuse, so he qualifies (like lotso)

edited 31st Oct '10 7:51:35 AM by PirateKing

The Villainy Discretion Shot is more than that - it's when both the plot and the other characters downplay Offstage Villainy in a person's past.

So, for instance, Shan Yu would be subject to a Villainy Discretion Shot if he was depicted as a Fun Personified Boisterous Bruiser who was casually mentioned in passing to be single-handedly responsible for depopulating China.

I've always seen it like this:

Moral Event Horizon depends on the villian, as in, killing puppies for Voldemort is nothing, while for someone like Cruella (in the way that she does it), could be MEH.

For Complete Monster, however, it's the same line for everyone.

For me it depends on the series and the audience reaction.

• In an otherwise very lighthearted series, a character can be a Complete Monster without even successfully carrying out a crime, as long as they have absolutely no remorse.
• In a universe like Harry Potter, even a lot of Anti-Hero types have done worse than Kick the Dog.
• You cheer for the Card-Carrying Villain because they're so delightfully Evilly Affable.
• You cheer when the Anti-Villain makes a Heel–Face Turn.
• You only feel disgust toward a Complete Monster, or else concern for everyone else around them.

@edmania— i'm not familiar with liebert, what's his excuse? we could discuss it and see if it fits.

agreed with iaculus about the Villainy Discretion Shot. that trope seems to confuse a lot of people (i blame the "shot" part of the name— maybe someone should start a TRS thread for that one). but in reality, it has nothing to do with whether the terrible acts performed by the villain are shown on-screen or not— what it's supposed to be, according to the description, is when a horrible act is downplayed by the other characters, by them not reacting like it's horrible. like so:

Big Bad: (slashes random bystander #1 in half For the Lulz, blood flies everywhere).

random bystander #2: man, they're going to have a heck of a time cleaning this carpet.

@alfredo— i think it depends on the context. you can't have one single Complete Monster in a race where everybody has "crossed the line." if your whole cast makes it a habit of killing people and gleefully having their intestines for lunch just because they can, none of them are going to bat an eyelash at the one dude who, instead of eating the intestines, decided to add insult to injury by hanging the entrails around his house as decoration. this dude would not count as a Complete Monster, because the rest of the cast would not react to his actions with horror. he fails the second clause of the trope.

(man, this trope is making me sound increasingly morbid. )

edited 1st Nov '10 7:29:21 AM by carla

Villainy Discretion Shot is where an otherwise evil or depraved act is deliberately not shown or downplayed to the audience. Generally it's used to keep a villain from crossing the Moral Event Horizon; therefore it should be seen as an automatic disqualifier from Complete Monster. At least, as long as there aren't other things the character does that aren't downplayed.

edited 1st Nov '10 7:55:15 AM by Fighteer

Am I crazy, or is saying that only "most" of the conditions have to apply in a trope called COMPLETE Monster COMPLETELY Missing The Point?

:P

This may help in terms of information about Johan Liebert.

Many of us have been making that point all along. It's supposed to be an all or nothing deal.

yeah, fighteer said it better. just pointing out, even if the act itself is not shown (like in shan yu's case), if it's clearly portrayed as a horrible act with no downplaying, it's not a Villainy Discretion Shot (gosh, that's really a bad name for this trope), and it still counts toward Complete Monster status.

regarding johan lieber's Complete Monster-ness, it's this line of the analysis which catches my eye: "at the same time his sister went through exactly the same things he went through, and only he turned into such a homicidal maniac." this would tell me that, yes, while he does have a Freudian Excuse, it's not enough to justify his actions. there's a difference between "understandable" and "adequate."

The point of the Freudian Excuse is to make you feel a tiny bit of empathy, or at least sympathy for the character. You start to think, "Gee, what if one of us had been that messed up, would we have turned out the same?" If this occurs, then by definition the excuse is adequate. Inadequate excuses are things like, "My mommy took away my teddy bear so I'm going to rape and murder people." Or things like, "My mommy made my life a living hell, now I'm going to bring the world to the Apocalypse for the sheer joy of it." It's the juxtaposition of the Excuse with the Motive that determines qualification here.

In short, the idea is to weed out sympathetic villains, Well Intentioned Extremists, Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds, Alas, Poor Villain, etc.

edited 1st Nov '10 11:31:01 AM by Fighteer

Point of technicality @27 above re: Megabyte. Characters in the Reboot universe are said to have "programing" - Bob often says that he can't go against his, usually to explain instances of Save The Villian. The characters all appear to have choice and will with programing serving more as a "true nature", but as a virus, you could argue that Megabyte can't help being what he is. (Hexidecimal gets a Face–Heel Turn but I think there was some "reprograming" involved.) Does that change his placement?

If you lack the capability to exercise a moral choice, than you can't be a Complete Monster. It's like how people keep trying to add the Xenomorphs from Alien. They're made to be what they are; they can't help it any more than a cat can help chasing mice. Someone actually tried to list cats as Complete Monsters once!!

edited 1st Nov '10 5:56:14 PM by Fighteer

Yes, but I rather think Reboot is less clear cut than, say, Aliens on the subject. Bob differs from the other Guardians in that he believes that viruses can be cured/rehabilitated. It's tricky to say just how deterministic the ReBoot verse is.

On another note, I was looking at The Nightmare Before Christmas last night. The page lists Ooogie Boogie as a Complete Monster and it bugged me, though I can't put my finger on it.

• Actions: Well, he doesn't do anything *nice* - he tries to kill Santa and Sally, plays it out like a gambling game and enjoys causing harm to others.
• Played seriously: I'm torn. On one hand, the other characters of Haloweentown are afraid of them and he's an outcast (kept locked up depending on how you interperet it) of a town that lives to scare people for fun. Oh the other hand, to 25-year-old-me, he comes off as Evily Affible and not particularly scary, especially his Villain Song...though to a kid, he might be Nightmare Fuel incarnate. The last rewrite of Complete Monster we did, we tried to put the emphasis on the in-story "taken seriously" rather than audience reaction, so I don't know.
• No Freudian Excuse: Check, though not much Character Development at all.
• No regret/remorse: Check
• No redemption: Check.

So here's the rub...I'm wondering whether we don't need a split, along the lines that divide Nightmare Fuel from High Octane Nightmare Fuel: Characters with no redeeming features but very little character development besides being For the Evulz, a lot more Informed Villiany and maybe a Villain Discression Shot or two, the idea of the Complete Monster brought down to a level that can pass in a work aimed at younger kids. The character is no less evil but is only really scary to kids. That would leave Complete Monster for the monsters that make the grown-ups scared.

edited 1st Nov '10 8:15:15 PM by Elle

People have talked about splitting it before, but no one's ever really agreed on it. From what I've read (I admit I wasn't a part of the discussion) it was because saying something like "slightly less absolutely evil" is hard to do.

Also, someone who's a Complete Monster in a children's program, is still a Complete Monster. They've gotten away with every little bit of villainy that the setting will allow. I think there's always going to be a bit of overlap between Evilly Affable and Complete Monster, if only because not everyone shares the same sense of humour. One person's Complete Monster is another's Evilly Affable.

Yes, a split won't work because then you're going to have tropes like "Really Majorly Evil Villain" and "Kinda Sorta Majorly Evil Villain" and "Completely Utterly Horribly Evil Villain". It's impossible to maintain the distinction.

re: oogie boogie— there can be Evilly Affable Complete Monsters. now, i've never seen The Nightmare Before Christmas, but it seems to me that if he's "not particularly scary," the it's not Evilly Affable you're thinking of. (although certainly it can get confusing, case in point i'm sure there's a couple of TRS threads for Evilly Affable still open at the moment).

i read the Nightmare entry on The Other Wiki, and the first thing it said about oogie boogie in the characters list is that he's "an un-respected bogeyman in Halloween Town who has a passion for gambling." that certainly doesn't say much of his Complete Monster-ness. and reading the full character entry... well, glowing bright green "similar to a glow stick" doesn't make it seem like he was made to come across as seriously terrifying. not to mention his death by stew. still, i'd have to see how other characters treat him in order to be sure.

i don't think it's possible to split out Family-Friendly Complete Monsters. there's no way we can draw an objective line there. the case for Nightmare Fuel and High Octane Nightmare Fuel relies on authorial intent (one wasn't meant to be scary but it came across as such, one was meant to be scary and came across as even scarier than intended), but that's precisely what we're having trouble with here. and it's worse in the case of Complete Monster because it's about a character— people really get attached to their villains, so the line of authorial intent becomes even more blurred. for every kid that's scared in a kids' show, you'll also find a kid who found it funny or awesome, and similarly you'll find an adult who found it scary. it's too subjective.

edited 2nd Nov '10 8:27:41 AM by carla