Total posts: [19,917] 1 ... 128 129 130 131 132 134 135 136 137 138 ... 797
Azor AhaiNew episode of Boardwalk Empire tonight. Think it pretty clearly rules out Manny. In the last season, he hinted at a loving relationship with his wife, but since she was The Ghost, it couldn't really be judged as a positive quality. However, she did show up on screen in this episode, and he is indeed shown to be tender in his private life he's also killed off right after his Pet the Dog moment in revenge for the nasty murder he committed last season. Also, he's shown as genuinely friendly toward another gangster, Micky, who is treated like dirt by every other character. Also, I'm not really sure the show can/has any complete monsters in that there are zero good characters, just some who are less evil than others (and sometimes, as with Manny, the eviler ones will eventually show a nicer side).
The Chaotic QueenDude, we gotta add this example from last night's episode of...: Okay, we will automatically table all discussion on a character from an ongoing series. For one, it's very easy to get caught up in the excitement of something that was just enjoyed. For another, we don't know what the writers are going to do until everything is over. We don't want to put up an example just to have to take it down when the example turns out to be much less monstrous than it first appeared. —- from FAQ. Might want to wait.
(>^.^)> (>^.^<) <(^.^<) <(^.^)> v(^.^)^
He's not wanting to add the example - he's saying the new episode conclusively proves that an already-debated character is not a Complete Monster.
What he said. Jordan is a long-participating troper, he's heard it several times and he was pointing out that the series validated a CM's removal. Similar to how with The Legend of Korra people were putting Tarrlock down as a Complete Monster after Episode 9 and we took it off due to it being a running series, and then two weeks later he gets another appearance where he's incredibly sympathetic, showing remorse for his crimes and apologising to the hero. But it's good to hear that we were ahead of the curve.
The 11th GroverIt's Monday, must be time to run through the weekend doings. For Frieza of Dragon Ball Abridged - the character page for the series cites Pet the Dog, which has me believe he likely doesn't belong. @3265: For Grim Reaper, if all he does is kill good guy mooks, that's not enough, cut. Marvel's The Hand is a group, cut. Cutler Beckett's troops in Pirates of the Caribbean are a group, plus they're following orders. The fault for their deeds lie on his head (and he is already cited). Though slightly related, Captain Barbossa is listed on the series' YMMV page - I don't think he hits the "heinous" part, particularly with Beckett around. I would cut Barbossa. For American Dragon Jake Long. definitely cut the Huntsclan. I would need to hear more about the Huntsman - I wonder if he was also indoctrinated. I would cut Carter from Batman Beyond - that's bad, but not near what Derek Powers does. @3266 I have to apologize - you brought those up before, and I didn't comment. Grim Reaper - already discussed above. Surtur - I'm leaning towards no, because there's too much implied about the genocide of Beta Ray Bill's people. If it showed him giving an order, and then lots of Bill's people being destroyed, I'd be more accepting of the entry. Red Skull - yeah, he can be kept. Baron Zemo - If the dynamic between him and Red Skull is anything like the comics version, I have to imagine that he does not qualify. General Ross - None of that sounds as bad as the Red Skull (also, if your suggestion is correct, they should take their concerns to The Scrappy). Cut. I'll short circuit any Skrull talk by noting that even individual Skrulls tend to be Well-Intentioned Extremist characters - unless the Skrull is truly Ax-Crazy, I will vote to cut without even looking hard. I wouldn't mind having just one page for Pokémon examples, dividing it up between games and anime. I suppose I'll have to give the anime examples a deep look later. @3271 That's a group. No groups. Cut. @3292 Yes, that line from the Sweeney Todd writeup needed to be cut. As for In the Company of Men, I've seen it, and we are talking about a complete sociopath who doesn't even see women as human. I'd compare him to a real person, but it'd be a bit gauche to name names. That said, he's like the Dangerous Liaisons example from earlier - terrible, but not quite heinous enough to qualify (if he actually raped the deaf girl, I probably would have given it to him). I'll trust your judgment and vote to cut the other two examples as well. And feeling real good about the vote to cut Mickey weeks ago. Going to do more with the video game sandbox later - going to be kind of a restart, since it was alphabetized since I last looked at it.
edited 21st Sep '12 8:02:34 AM by 32_Footsteps
The Chaotic QueenHey, I know this forum is about Complete Monsters, but I can't find the forum on Moral Event Horizon, so here's my question. Under YMMV.Not Always Right, there's a Moral Event Horizon entry. Now, Not Always Right is a website where people write about real experiences they had with customers. But the sight is also unreliable and each story has the possibility of being total bullshit. So the Moral Events Horizon may or may not count as real life examples. Should they be deleted?
(>^.^)> (>^.^<) <(^.^<) <(^.^)> v(^.^)^
There really should not be real life entries.
I recommend removing Amon Goeth from Schindler's List. Don't gete wrong, the dude's a monster through and through, but the simple fact is, he's a real person. Not only that, but the real Amon was even more despicable. Real life people can't qualify, so I strongly believe he should be removed.
Dr. D. M. PsycheYay, Goeth again! I remember discussing Goeth, and this conversation was brought up when we were discussion Hitler and Gobbels from Inglorious bastards. They were based on people, but in the film, they are characters in their own right, and their monstrous deeds are thus taken into account. This film is fiction, historical fiction and based on a true story, but it's still a fiction film, unlike say a documentary. Goeth's character commits evil actions and is an utter depraved... erm douche or something. Unlike Hitler and Gobbels, who didn't do much in the Basterds movie, but were added because they did horrible stuff in real life, and someone thought their fictional portrayals counted. So Goeth is an evil character, his actions in the film count, but any real life action not brought up in the film does not. That would be kinda funny.
edited 18th Sep '12 12:05:55 AM by DrPsyche
Pretty much that. There are plenty of characters that are also real people, but we make the distinction between the two. So if someone made a character George W. Bush and had him be a Complete Monster, we wouldn't cut that character just because it's based on a real person.
The 11th GroverTo expand upon the previous points, You have to make clear that you are only discussing the character in question when doing their write-up of Complete Monster and not the real person that was inspiring that particular fictional depiction. This is actually what got me involved in this cleanup effort in the first place - Idi Amin in The Last King of Scotland is cited, and I wondered if his fictional version, who did what the entry described, would count. It was decided that yes, because the fictional version was shown doing that, he counted. However, his entry could not describe things that the real Amin did that were not depicted (like his habit of crushing genitals of dissidents with his bare hands). This is why Hitler and Goebbels are cut from Inglorious Basterds; they didn't do anything other than rant ineffectually on-screen. However, Amon Goeth of Schindler's List does do plenty of horrible things on-screen, so he can count. And similar to the Amin example, the record suggests that the real Goeth did much worse in real life, but we will not discuss that on the page, since the page is only about his appearance in the movie.
I'm proposing the rewrite for Frank from Once Upon a Time in the West. The original example is almost totally spoilered out. Original example: ◦Frank, from Once Upon a Time in the West, who is played completely against type by Henry Fonda, no less. Frank is one of Leone's most cold-blooded and reprehensible villains, but his absolute worst act and the reason that Harmonica wants him dead so badly: when Harmonica was just a boy, Frank murdered his older brother in one of the worst acts of cruelty ever committed by a Leone villain - he has a rope tied around the guy's neck and then has him hoisted upon young Harmonica's shoulders, effectively using the kid as a human stool. If Harmonica's strength gives out, the brother will die by hanging. And the harmonica that gave this character his name? It's stuck into the poor kid's mouth by Frank himself. The only reason that Harmonica isn't completely torn up by failing to keep his brother alive is because his brother, in an act of sacrifice, kicked Harmonica away, choosing to die on his own terms rather than let Frank destroy his brother. And that's just one act. In the opening scenes of the film he massacres an entire family, including a small boy, despite his boss' instructions to merely scare them, and later captures the heroine and forces her to sleep with him. Rewrite: Frank (Henry Fonda) from Once Upon a Time in the West is a former bandit turned enforcer for the railroad company. During the film's opening sequence, he and his men gun down the entire McBain family, with Frank shooting down the last survivor, a small boy, himself, then nails a duster to the door so that local bandito chief Cheyenne will be blamed for the crime. When he reports back to his boss, Mr. Morton, Morton says that he only wanted the McBains scared. Frank's response? "People scare better when they're dying." When Morton tries to cut a deal with McBain's newly arrived widow (ex-Hooker with a Heart of Gold Jill), Frank sabotages the plan, takes Jill hostage, has his way with her, and forces her to sell her land at an auction, positioning his own men there to intimidate the bidders. The arrival of Harmonica, the film's protagonist, ruins this plan, and sets the stage for The Reveal of Frank's worst crime. When Harmonica was a boy, Frank made his older brother stand on his shoulders, and put a noose around the brother's neck. When Harmonica collapsed from exhaustion, his brother was hanged. To add an appropriately sadistic touch, Frank placed a harmonica between the younger brother's lips and instructed him to "play your ever lovin' brother a tune." No reason is ever given for his actions, and Frank has ultimately gone down in film history as one of the most vicious villains of his era.
edited 19th Sep '12 11:09:12 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
The Chaotic QueenFrom YMMV.Despicable Me:
(>^.^)> (>^.^<) <(^.^<) <(^.^)> v(^.^)^
Dr. D. M. PsychePyro: Obliviously Evil, that fits that description, cut. Hattie: Fails heinous standard, and Karma Houdini is not important. @ Footsteps, Does Amin count as affably Evil (I firmly believe that he is a CM, I just want to know if he's this trope as well). Also, regarding Subversions I found this in the Young Justice YMMV.
edited 18th Sep '12 9:53:09 AM by DrPsyche
I would figure he counts as Faux Affably Evil, since it's all a performance. Since a genuinely affably evil character is a nice guy aside from their villainy, I'm not sure it's possible for a CM to qualify.
Dr. D. M. PsycheBut is that really Faux Affably Evil? He is nice and kind, but that's an act, but when he's bad he's just brutal, and he doesn't seem to be that nice, or even pretending to be nice. I thought that FAE is supposed to be nice, but applying it in an ironic way.
The Chaotic QueenTwo words for you: Johan Liebert
edited 18th Sep '12 9:55:08 AM by ChaoticQueen
(>^.^)> (>^.^<) <(^.^<) <(^.^)> v(^.^)^
Faux Affably Evil is when someone pretends to be nice, but it's just a mask over their true evil. Affably Evil is when the niceness is genuine. Faux Affably Evil does not disqualify from Complete Monster, but Affably Evil does.
I have a blog. (That updates sometimes.)
Johan isn't genuinely pleasant. It's a facade over a guy who would murder you or ruin your life as soon as look at you. An Affably Evil character is harmless as long as you aren't in his way. Johan isn't like that. If the pleasantry is a total act, and vanishes the second things get serious, than you probably want Bitch in Sheep's Clothing. Still not Affably Evil though.
Pronounced YAK-you-lussHarm doesn't even try to be nice. The whole point of his character is that he's trying to be pure evil, and doesn't quite succeed. He's pretty much the exact opposite of Faux Affably Evil.
edited 18th Sep '12 10:01:39 AM by Iaculus
Freedom of speech includes the freedom for other people to call you out on your bullshit.
Now crowned princessSpeaking of Affably Evil, I saw Hans Gruber cited for the trope while I also saw him in CM's film subpage. Having seen the film (although it's still been a while), I can confirm that he does have class, even if he is a bastard. Furthermore, in the Affably Evil page, a couple of his actions are potholed to Pet the Dog, definitely a disqualifier for Complete Monster. EDIT: Not sure whether to remove Bob Page from the VG sandbox too. It is confirmed that his philanthropy is all for show and he had no intention for curing humanitynote , but Affably Evil did state that he is seen by employees as caring and he engages in casual conversation. EDIT 2: And I believe the Affably Evil trope itself should be more than just being polite and talking and looking nice, which I see some of the examples being. But this is another matter for another topic.
edited 18th Sep '12 11:06:49 AM by EarlOfSandvich
Just some ordinary bloke looking for work... Also, for "vandalism", just send me a PM and I'll put it on my page. Thanks! :)
Hey, I'm not trying to start an argument, but I'm genuinely curious about something. As far as I've seen, most of the entries that have been removed were removed due to "Offscreen Villainy". My question is, why? If a villain does something horrific, even if we the audience only hear of it via words or the aftermath, shouldn't those actions count against them? Again, not trying to start something, just genuinely curious.
Complete Monster is that the audience must hate them and wish them destroyed. This only works if the audience is given sufficient reason to regard the character as heinous, and the combination of Informed Attribute and A Million Is a Statistic means that a heinous act must be seen, not told about.
edited 18th Sep '12 10:14:21 AM by Fighteer
I have a blog. (That updates sometimes.)
Dr. D. M. Psyche@3320: I was arguing Idi Amin, not Harm. @ Ambar: Bitch in Sheep's clothing does seem like a good choice Also, we have to hate them for their actions, not for another reason, like those included in the Scrappy Index
edited 18th Sep '12 10:26:27 AM by DrPsyche
Hans was discussed some time ago. On the character sheet for Die Hard affably evil was replaced with faux affably evil, and it was done for a reason. Hans' Pet the Dog (having a couch brought out for a pregnant woman) is ultimately subverted when he forces her, along with all the other hostages, onto the roof and tries to blow her up. Now, personally, I'm still not positive he qualifies. The villain from the second film is considerably worse, for one thing. Still arguing that he shouldn't be here is difficult. By the way, any thoughts on my rewrite for Frank? I know we're trying to get rid of spoilered entries.
edited 18th Sep '12 10:55:50 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from firstname.lastname@example.org.