23rd Oct: It's time for the second TV Tropes Halloween Avatar Contest, theme: cute monsters! Details and voting here.
Total posts: [31,913] 1 ... 136 137 138 139 140 142 143 144 145 146 ... 1277
love lockdown, you lose.I think that it's pretty unambiguous that Patrick Bateman is a Complete Monster. What's ambiguous is which action of his is the absolute worst, given that God knows which atrocities he actually committed. Any one of them, combined with his mentality, is enough to make him a CM. Even if you cut Bateman off at his murder of the hobo, or that he mentioned murdering a child and getting no kick out of it, ignoring the Habitrail murder or the cannibalism, that's more than enough atrocities and heinous behavior to justify him. I can write a suitable example, if anyone wants me to. Sorry about the extended absence from this thread, btw. I jumped back in to talk about this thing on the YMMV page of There Will Be Blood:
edited 29th Sep '12 10:59:18 AM by LargoQuagmire
@32Footsteps I looked at the list but I feel there is a contradiction in your statement. A Complete Monster is the most heinous villain by the standard of the story, with no positive traits (including redemption or motives) whatsoever. "One, while he might be the most evil in the world of Pokemon, this does not mean he automatically qualifies. He has to reach a certain baseline of evil acts, and his acts don't hit it. This is addressed in the FAQ in the first post of this thread - read the part about "heinous by the standards of the story." "There are two parts to this. One - regardless of whether the character would seek it out, is it possible for the character to seek forgiveness for what they've done (in other words, is it truly heinous)? Two - are this character's deeds not eclipsed by anyone else (in other words, is it heinous by the standards of the story)?" On the definition page, we have this...and Ghetsis does qualify for all three of them. The character is truly heinous by the standards of the story, which makes no attempt to present the character in any positive way. (What has Ghetsis done to portray himself positively? Nothing since he's a hypocrite.) The character's terribleness is played seriously at all times, evoking fear, revulsion and hatred from the other characters in the story. (As time goes on, the other characters start to hate Ghetsis for his evil ways and called a monster by Cheren and Alder especially after what he said to N.) They are completely devoid of altruistic qualities. They show no regret for their crimes. (Ghetsis refuses to redeem himself even when N gives him a last minute chance to redeem himself in the sequel. Not only does Ghetsis ignore it, but he basically insults N even more. His own men are disgusted by how Ghetsis asks hence why most of them leave him at the end. The only reason the Shadow Triad sticks with him is because they're in debt to him. Also, he treats his Pokemon badly as his Hydreigon has Frustration and that move does more damage when the Pokemon hates the trainer contrast to Cyrus who has a Crobat that evolves by love and friendship.) I just don't understand how Hunter J can be listed as a Complete Monster for trying to kill Ash when Ghetsis tries to kill the player in Black/White 2 and mentally abused N as a kid to the point he's probably diagnosed with some disorder caused from the abuse. As a result, I don't see HOW he can NOT reach the point because he already crossed the Moral Event Horizon multiple times. I'm asking you how he doesn't qualify because I feel like the reasons listed were rejected without being looked at. Also, Cyrus has a Freudian Excuse for trying to wipe everything out of existence (and the fandom Dracos him as a result). The fact that you learn some sad things about him after the game is very depressing. Ghetsis has no excuse for his actions. The reasons all of those facts were listed was to show that Ghetsis is a complete monster (and not even the fandom will try to draco Ghetsis.) And I don't mean to make this sound like an attack, but I don't think it's fair to say that the young fanbase can't judge what is truly evil or they have mood swings. Just because you're older than the demographic of the fanbase doesn't mean you can label the majority of the fanbase as insignificant when it comes to judging because I would like to think the fanbase knows what is truly evil when they see one. I'm speaking for the younger audience since I got Pokemon Red (started with Bulbasaur too) at the age of 5 and then as I grow up and analyze characters even more, I can see what's messed up and what's not and I know that Ghetsis would qualify because he has done many bad things even without the fan speculation and Off Screen Villainy just as Darkrai and Purple Eyes do.
Harmless Villain days.
The Chaotic QueenHey, if a villain is revealed to have standards does that automatically disqualify them, or can they still be a Complete Monster? I'm unsure because it means there's a level of evil they aren't willing to reach, and a CM needs to be 100% pure evil. Let's look at The Joker. He's widely regarded to be the biggest Complete Monster of comic books, yet even he finds nazis to be despicable. On the other side of the coin, Roberto from Monster is 100% percent loyal to Johan and enjoys all the suffering he spreads, but he doesn't count simpy because Johan is still worse. Pragmatic Villainy doesn't count.
edited 29th Sep '12 1:17:19 PM by ChaoticQueen
(>^.^)> (>^.^<) <(^.^<) <(^.^)> v(^.^)^
love lockdown, you lose.I don't think Team Rocket - as in the Jesse, James, and Meowth unit - has never tried to intentionally kill Ash. Most of the time, when it looks like ANYONE is going to get seriously hurt, they bow out completely. Jesse and James are sometimes disgusted by Butch and Cassidy's behavior, for instance, and they didn't go nearly as far as some of the one-shot villains. Literally desiring to kill Ash would make a villain one of the most heinous characters in the Pokemon anime.
@ 3476 I may be a little late to the party but I think that poorly written examples should be cut quickly so that they don't spawn other bad examples. Why generate more work if you don't have to. Cutting and then discussing is the best course of action especially when the page isn't locked so a good example can easily be added back on. If it were to happen the other way round it could be days to weeks while the forum comes to a comclusion before a bad example is fixed increasing the likelihood that someone will get the wrong impression about what Complete Monster means.
@ Chaotic Queen Roberto had a retroactive Pet the Dog moment when he showed Kindness to Grimmer as a child, also he is completely loyal to Johan in addition to not being as bad (heinous standard as you say), as for the Joker, his standards vary wildly from story to story, sometimes rule of drama, sometimes rule of funny (Like when he accuses Warren white of being worse than him because white steals kids college funds).
edited 29th Sep '12 5:40:26 PM by DrPsyche
Think of the mooks!@3496 Miss Power was already brought up in post @811. In short, I still say no. @3499 Dialogue is not enough. Show, Don't Tell applies here. @3501 Actually, I don't think There Will Be Blood is all that difficult to apply tropes to. Daniel Plainview doesn't count to me. He's a Corrupt Corporate Executive, and he kills Eli Sunday... that's about it in terms of evil acts (I'm actually inclined to let the murder of the guy pretending to be his brother slide). I'm not saying he's at all good (and there's an argument to be made that he did actually love H.W., and that he was just lashing out at the end), but I think that falls short of the heinous standard. @3502 The whole reason we wrote an FAQ and stuck it in the first post is because the folks in this thread are tired of playing semantic games for people who want to let characters like Ghetsis still in. We're past the point of being convinced on Ghetsis; I was just trying to be polite and point out, since you're new to this, why he's cut. However, even I have my limits on how many times I want to say this. Ghetsis does not count. End of story. @3506 It's just as much work to rework an entry, and it's actually even more work to restore a perfectly serviceable entry (which I think was the case for American Psycho). And beyond that, if we wanted the easy way, we'd just cut everything. This cleanup isn't about the easy way; it's about the fair way. And if the fair way is more work, then so be it. Nobody said this would be easy. The least we can do is be fair.
love lockdown, you lose.Cool. I can go ahead and take that off the TWBB YMMV page if that's okay with everyone, because I don't think it's on the Film Monster page.
No matter how many times...@Akirax Atsukifan The reason why we remove it is because a bunch of fools who thinks that Ghetsis is the evilest of all villain even thought there are a bunch of villains that are eviler than him, as the example is SO.VERY.LONG. Not to mention that a fool add a rather pointless example of Ghetsis will kill N after he caught Zekrom/Reshiram which is not hinted in game at all. And that 'Ghetsis tries to kill the player by surrounding with icicles' was bold in that page. Is this even necessary?
I'm not going to deny sympathizing, but that's really not helpful.
Tropette everydayFrom the Berserk Complete Monster page: The archenemies of Guts in Berserk are Complete Monsters who perform horrible deeds for their own amusement, and it's not exactly helped by the fact that every demon was once a human who sacrificed something or someone dear to them to the Godhand, the primary Big Bads of the series in general, to become that way. Due to the Grim Dark nature of the setting, though, only a very few actually deserve to be on this list. Would the number of Complete Monsters be limited to only a small percentage of villains instead of nearly all of them ?
edited 30th Sep '12 5:21:59 AM by Jojolavache
Most villains in Berserk are awful people with no redeeming qualities. Because of that being "heinous by the standards of the setting" is a difficult thing to pull off. End result, only a few villains make the list. If memory serves we cut it down to Wyald, Griffith/Femto, Ganishka, and one or two others. The crack about them all being CM material should probably be cut down to say the "archenemies of Guts in Berserk are all monsters" though. @32_Footsteps I think that if an example is written in such a way that it either a) gives us no information, or b) is going to encourage further bad examples it needs to go immediately, before it convinces people to add further bad examples. That's why I slashed the American Psycho entry, not because he doesn't qualify, but because the way the example was set up, wasn't completely serviceable. As someone with only a passing familiarity with the series, my first thought was, "well who else can I get in under those semantics"? Cutting examples where we are unsure if they count because of questions about heinousness, etc, I'm with you. Leave it until after the discussion. Cutting examples because they are written in such a way as to be confusing or uninformative? That's a different kettle of fish altogether. We have consistently cut examples that are written that way. @Largo Quagmire I think a rewrite for Bateman is a good idea. Preferably one that says Bateman claims to be a CM without ever using the word "arguably" etc. I was going to do one myself, but since you seem to know the book better than I do (as in have read it more than once), please go ahead.
edited 30th Sep '12 8:28:54 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Pronounced YAK-you-lussYeah, the thing with Bateman is that what he describes is monstrous, but it's bloody difficult to tell whether any of it actually happened.
Freedom of speech includes the freedom for other people to call you out on your bullshit.
It would be fair to say that he thinks he's a CM, or wants to be a CM. Actually being one, questionable. Therein lies our problem.
love lockdown, you lose.This is an early-morning write-up attempt. Please don't kill me.
Azor AhaiThat sounds pretty good; however, if Bateman didn't actually commit any of the murders, then he isn't a Complete Monster, is he? He's just a lunatic with some very unpleasant fantasies. So perhaps it should start something like "Assuming Patrick Bateman committed all of the crimes he describes..."
edited 30th Sep '12 8:57:15 AM by Jordan
love lockdown, you lose.Patrick, y u so complicate?! But yes, that sounds better. Maybe even "assuming Patrick Bateman committed at least one crime", since all of them are ridiculously horrible (the various hooker deaths, the fact that he eats people, killing a child and finding it not fun enough to continue doing, the hobo...).
Ski bi di bi di do bap doSo far my verdicts towards subpages are like thus:
edited 30th Sep '12 10:51:35 AM by EarlOfSandvich
Status of possible Fallout RP idea: Thinking of and open to new ideas. Just feelin' like a casual chat? My PM box is ALWAYS open!
I'd drop the assuming. If we're going to have this on the page—and I'm really iffy about that—let's write it in such a way that no one, however determined, can construte it as proof that they can argue someone onto the page. Here's my attempt at a write-up, borrowing from both your rewrite and the original entry Patrick Bateman from American Psycho claims to be one of these. He shows a total inability to connect to other people, and talks about how he has no empathy for, or interest in, his coworkers, "friends" and even his fiancee. Bored, and looking for a thrill, he informs his audience that he turns to serial murder in order to relieve the dullness of his life. He says that he 1) horribly tortures a homeless man for no reason, 2) orders a pair of prostitutes, skins one alive, then tortures the other with a drill, cuts her head off, then fucks it in the mouth, 3) slits a child's throat to see what it feels like(he doesn't like it, not because of guilt, but strangely because he feels it wasn't evil enough), 4) stuffs a live rat up a girl's vagina and 5) kills many other people just for fun. He's also homophobic, misogynistic, envious, and prone to irrational anger, at one point killing a man for having nicer business cards than he does. In the end, he admits (while sitting under a sign that proclaims "This Is Not An Exit") that his confession has meant nothing, and that he will continue on the way he is. A deeply sick individual, Patrick at best wants to be a Complete Monster, and at worst has long since crossed the line. I think it's important to note that Patrick is actively trying to invoke the trope, as this cuts down on the ambiguity. Here's the original entry by the way, in case people are getting tired of going back a couple of pages to do comparisons. " Villain Protagonist Patrick Bateman of American Psycho may be one of these. If you choose to believe he does everything in the book for real, that means he 1) horribly tortures a homeless man for no reason, 2) orders a pair of prostitutes, skins one alive, then tortures the other with a drill, cuts her head off, then fucks it in the mouth, 3) slits a child's throat to see what it feels like(he doesn't like it, not because of guilt, but strangely because he feels it wasn't evil enough), 4) stuffs a live rat up a girl's vagina and 5) kills many other people just for fun. However, due to the ambiguous nature of the novel and Word of God, these may as well be the thoughts and imaginations of an incredibly fucked-up individual, who wants to be a monster." EDIT: While we are on the subject of literature, I have an example I'd like to propose—Lieutenant Sayle from the YA novel The Drowned Cities. Here's my proposed write-up: Lieutenant Sayle from The Drowned Cities is Colonel Glenn Stern's right-hand man, and acts as The Heavy for most of the book. The oldest soldier in Stern's service, Sayle acts as a recruiter, press-ganging children into becoming soldier boys for the United Patriotic Front, burning their rank into their faces with acid, and convincing them that the outside world has nothing to offer them. A particularly cold-blooded sadist, Sayle started the UPF's practice of mutiliating prisoners by cutting off their hands and feet and leaving them for their comrades to find, and put out of their misery. The practise eventually spread to other child armies, like Taylor's Wolves and the Army of God—a fact which Sayle is entirely comfortable with because it means that his own boys will be less likely to surrender. Sayle treats civilians with an even more deliberate brutality, endorsing, encouraging, and participating in his boys' practise of Rape, Pillage, and Burn; he's particularly vicious towards women, informing the heroine, Mahlia, (while neck lifting her) that "maybe I'll just stand here and watch you kick. I like it when a pretty girl kicks." During the climax, Sayle even manages to violate the soldier boys' tenuous moral code, when he has one of his own boys (Mahlia's former friend Mouse) mutilated in order to try and break Mahlia, a fact that shocks and disgusts his Number Two, Sergeant Ocho. What makes Sayle especially bad is that he doesn't buy into Colonel Stern's Well-Intentioned Extremist rhetoric, nor is he a drugged-up PTSDing child, like most of his boys. As Ocho notes that Sayle's Straight Edge Evil because "what got him high wasn't any booze or drug or girl. It was the hurting. Sayle liked people hurt."
edited 1st Oct '12 9:54:45 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
The Wanderer@Dark Star: Going by the wiki it appears to have some manner of intelligence, but its actions aren't bad enough for the trope IMO.
Hugging a Vanilluxe will give you frostbite. It's typed rmctagg09.
I like your rewrite for Bateman, and you have my vote for Sayle. Does anybody have any opinions on The Elder Scrolls examples I brought up here or my proposed rewrites for Mannimarco and Mankar here?
@ Ambar and Shaoken: When you say cut very bad examples without discussing, you pertain to groups, arguable examples and not straight examples right? To me that makes sense, they fail at the most basic criteria, so they should be disqualified, lest they breed more ignorance. I'm going to agree with you on that one.
The Wanderer@Occasional Exister: I like your rewrites. @Arondil: I'm aware that he does say to a female Dragonborn before attacking that he plans on adding her to his harem, but I'm not sure if it's relevant to his inclusion. @Kurdan gro-Drugal: I believe it's implied that the one guy was simply the latest in a long line of murders, but I don't particularly object to his axing. @Blackwood Company: Unfortunately the wiki isn't all that good for information on their leader. @Jagar Tharn: I know Tharn's mismanagement was ultimately responsible for the near destruction of the Empire since there was no one stopping the races of Tamriel from picking up their long-standing tradition of killing the fuck out of one another for little to no reason, but I don't think it's ultimately enough.
Hugging a Vanilluxe will give you frostbite. It's typed rmctagg09.
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.