Moral Event Horizon cleanup

Misuse. Character is not evil.

I think we should remove Gladys Sharp's Moral Event Horizon in Over the Hedge since her calling the exterminator is no different than in real life, hence isn't a Moral Event Horizon

I'm curious to know if Dr. Facilier squashing Ray in The Princess And The Frog qualifies as a MEH.

Is there any evidence that he knows fireflies are sentient? From his point of view, what he did is no worse than you swatting an annoying fly.

Edited by MrMediaGuy2 on May 11th 2019 at 2:57:12 AM

The firefly stole the amulet from Facilier to begin with. He knows that the bug is sapient enough to do that.

That, and how drawn-out he makes it (like grinding his heel), and his smug expression afterwards, all implies that he was well aware that Ray was sentient. This dude turned people into frogs, I wouldn't put it past him to realize that fireflies can have some sapience.

@Birdy: Yeah, that makes sense.

So I guess this means we have an extra criteria (adding onto the criteria from the last page) of "The character must be aware of what they're doing".

Edited by WarJay77 on May 11th 2019 at 8:35:38 AM

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

i would probably word it "must be fully aware of the consequences of their actions". calling an exterminator still isn't exactly a nice thing to do; there are more humane ways to deal with pests. but she had no idea she was basically calling a hitman on a group of sapient beings.

Migrated to Chloe Jessica!

yeah, that's a better way of putting it.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

No, I don't think this is acceptable. This interpretation allows for people to Ron the Death Eater characters into this trope because that event would "forever be a black mark against" Ron; the moment when his villainy was truly "revealed", and the other heroes are wrong for trusting in him again. I don't believe such a trope exists, and this served as the one metric I knew I could rely on to say "they couldn't have passed the Moral Event Horizon because the work demonstrates that the act was forgivable".

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I'm not sure how that'd work. The Moral Event Horizon only applies to characters that can be considered villainous by the work's standards, as the moment when they cemented themselves as a villain. Someone could try to shoehorn Ron the Death Eater in there, but that doesn't mean they'd be using the trope correctly, because Ron isn't a villain by any stretch of the imagination.

Like, really. I'm not sure what your argument here is. Fans could misuse it to shoehorn characters that aren't villains, that means it doesn't work, even if it's clearly a villain-specific trope with pre-requisites?

Edited by WarJay77 on Jun 1st 2019 at 11:24:58 AM

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Do any of the examples on YMMV.Sponge Bob Square Pants count? The work doesn't depict them as irredeemably evil, Negative Continuity and whatnot. I also recommend that you all look at the history for an example I cut that was definitely misuse and not added to MoralEventHorizon.Western Animation.

Contains 20% less fat than the leading value brand!

Yeah I would say cut that. I had multiple examples of Moral Event Horizon for Panty & Stocking and I had to cut that because it's complete misuse considering everything in that show is Played for Laughs or has Negative Continuity.

Because that loophole opens the trope for non-villain characters. Redeemed villains are heroes. That's the point of redemption. If MEH allows examples of heroic characters who have committed villainous acts, then you don't have a line that says "the work itself says the act wasn't vile enough". You're allowing flawed hero characters into the trope because they may act as villains.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

To be fair, I was initially opposed to allowing redeemed characters as well. The rest of the thread disagreed, and I had to go with the consensus. But I don't think the loophole is as major as you're making it out to be. Redeemed villains are still villains for as long as they weren't redeemed; still evil. Redemption doesn't automatically make them anti-heroes; if anything, it'd make anti- villains acceptable.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Except that the storyarc of Anakin is that of the Fallen Hero; a heroic character who falls to the Dark Side and then redeems himself at the cost of his own life. We are literally talking about an Anti-Hero who is getting MEH applied to them.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

In the context of the original trilogy, Vader is unambiguously a villain, making him eligible.

Yeah, that's my question: Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker's role in the story becomes vastly different if you watch the original trilogy alone versus with the prequel trilogy. So much so that the focus of these films turns on its head.

Contains 20% less fat than the leading value brand!

I tend to consider Anakin a different character. I know they aren't really, but once Anakin gets in the Vader suit, he's a villain. His heroic arc was retroactive, but he was absolutely villainous as Vader in the OT.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

For Vader, we can say he was redeemed within the narrative, but since by and large he wasn't forgiven In-Universe, we can add where In-Universe characters think he crossed the line.

Should MEH have a waiting period (until we can assume their role in the story is over for the foreseeable future)?

Since MEH is when the narrative has portrayed a character as irredeemably evil, is a Designated Hero exempt as they're portrayed otherwise despite all to the contrary? It seems like a separate complaint and all MEH examples pertaining to them are effectively redundant complaints with why they're Designated.

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Jun 2nd 2019 at 4:00:40 AM

that would be smart.

We also have to remember that this is subjective. A villain like Vader may be redeemed in-universe, but that doesn't mean all fans will stop seeing them as evil. The MEH is just the moment that solidified that status.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

YMMV.Red Zone Cuba and Monster.Film R To Z list a Designated Hero as a Complete Monster and has that he crosses the Moral Event Horizon as the main character rapes a woman and throws her father down a well. Now, I have not seen the movie for myself, so I'm not the most qualified to speak to this, but I am honestly against him being listed as a CM or MEH crosser seeing as the work is not described as treating him as heinous in-universe, and seems more indicative of a skewed heinous standard than anything else, not unlike why South Park is barred from having any examples and at least one bit of fan-made material involving that show was ultimately denied.

Of course, this would require that I — or someone else — bring this up to the Complete Monster cleanup thread, and I fear they're not willing to budge if they've made up their minds. Then again, Syndrome from The Incredibles was denied as a CM for years before a re-evaluation determined him to count after all since the arguments against him were weak, so who knows?

Contains 20% less fat than the leading value brand!

took it to the CM cleanup thread

Absolute destiny... apeachalypse?

@Brainulator9 according to the CM thread, it's so rare as to be virtually impossible. Griffin is the only one who's every managed it.

Absolute destiny... apeachalypse?

Okay, so the CM thing is fine, but the MEH thing is still questionable. It's clear that the question we're all having now is just how villainous a character needs to be in-universe to qualify.

• Is the audience's perception more important than actual in-universe status? It's an audience reaction, after all.
• Is it more about the action? Does pulling off highly villainous acts even when "heroic" make the character's actions count, thus allowing for characters like Griffin and Vader?
• Does the character have to a villain in-universe first?

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

To your points:

• My immersion is MEH is not when audiences feel they crossed the line, but when audiences feel the narrative has portrayed them as crossing the line, which is why being redeemed invalidates this.

• For Griffin, he was supposed to be a Protagonist Journey to Villain who's crossing the MEH was supposed to make him a Tragic Hero as he wanted to go legit but doomed himself in that moment. The problem was he failed to show redeeming traits before crossing the line. Griffen is unique in that he was a Designated Hero who fell to straight villainy. Otherwise a DH is presented as not crossed the line.
  As for Vader, limiting him to where he was considered crossing the line in-universe if fine for now. I say wait until The Rise of Skywalker handles Kylo Ren, who's in a similar position of crossing it from an in universe perspective, before discussing further.

• They don't need to be villains to cross the line, but crossing the line means they have become villains to some degree in-universe and are presented such by the narrative.

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Jun 3rd 2019 at 2:28:34 AM

From YMMV.Bolt:

• Moral Event Horizon: Penny's agent crosses it when he shows absolutely no sympathy for Penny's life-threatening burns and encourages her stressed mother to use the said burns for publicity. The punch he gets from her Mama Bear's wrath was definitely satisfying.

Methinks this is a stretch.

Contains 20% less fat than the leading value brand!