During the investigation of recent hollers in the Complete Monster thread, it's become apparent to the staff that an insular, unfriendly culture has evolved in the Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard threads that is causing problems.
Specific issues include:
- Overzealous hollers on tropers who come into the threads without being familiar with all the rules and traditions of the tropes. And when they are familiar with said rules and traditions, they get accused (with little evidence) of being ban evaders.
- A few tropers in the thread habitually engage in snotty, impolite mini-modding. There are also regular complaints about excessive, offtopic "socializing" posts.
- Many many thread regulars barely post/edit anywhere else, making the threads look like they are divorced from the rest of TV Tropes.
- Following that, there are often complaints about the threads and their regulars violating wiki rules, such as on indexing, crosswicking, example context and example categorization. Some folks are working on resolving the issues, but...
- Often moderator action against thread regulars leads to a lot of participants suddenly showing up in the moderation threads to protest and speak on their behalf, like a clique.
It is not a super high level problem, but it has been going on for years and we cannot ignore it any longer. There will be a thread in Wiki Talk
to discuss the problem; in the meantime there is a moratorium on further Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard example discussion until we have gotten this sorted out.
Update: The new threads have been made and can be found here:
Please see the Frequently Asked Questions and Common Requests List before suggesting any new entries for this trope.
IMPORTANT: To avoid a holler to the mods, please see here for the earliest date a work can be discussed, (usually two weeks from the US release), as well as who's reserved discussion.
When voting, you must specify the candidate(s). No blanket votes (i.e. "![[tup]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/thumbs_up_emote.png "[thumb up]"){kind=small}
to everyone I missed").
No plagiarism: It's fair to source things, but an effortpost must be your own work and not lifted wholesale from another source.
We don't care what other sites think about a character being a Complete Monster. We judge this trope by our own criteria. Repeatedly attempting to bring up other sites will earn a suspension.
What is the Work
Here you briefly describe the work in question and explain any important setting details. Don't assume that everyone is familiar with the work in question.
Who is the Candidate and What have they Done?
This will be the main portion of the Effort Post. Here you list all of the crimes committed by the candidate. For candidates with longer rap sheets, keep the list to their most important and heinous crimes, we don't need to hear about every time they decide to do something minor or petty.
Do they have any Mitigating Factors or Freudian Excuse?
Here you discuss any potential redeeming or sympathetic features the character has, the character's Freudian Excuse if they have one, as well as any other potential mitigating factors like Offscreen Villainy or questions of moral agency. Try to present these as objectively as possible by presenting any evidence that may support or refute the mitigating factors.
Do they meet the Heinousness Standard?
Here you compare the actions of the Candidate to other character actions in the story in order to determine if they stand out or not. Remember that all characters, not just other villains, contribute to the Heinousness Standard
Final Verdict?
Simply state whether or not you think the character counts or not.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Aug 31st 2023 at 4:14:10 AM
Actually 32, while I do agree Damien is too much of a Generic Doomsday Villain to qualify, I don't agree that he's a Well-Intentioned Extremist. Everything he does is purely to fuel his delusions of godhood.
Shamelessly plugging my comics, Oh yes.
Examining the Even Evil Has Standards moments for Bloth, it seems that a lot of it does have self serving alternate motie (he helps Ren's 'wedding' in exchange for treasure and spares Ren when he thinks his friends are dead so he can watch Ren "die a thousand deaths out of guilt"
That said, he does fight with Ren in exchange for Ren sparing his life earlier. Is that enough to disqualify him? Possibly
From the Jack Frost horror movie dulogy ymmv page:
Complete Monster: Guess Who.
No context. I have seen both movies and, as far has slasher villains go, he has no Freudian Excuse (unlike Jason, Cordel from the maniac cop series, Candyman, or the remake version of Michael), mental handycap (Leatherface), or insanity problem (Norman Bates). He does everything because he loves killing. He has a pretty high bodycount (especially in the second movie), and he would most certainly hurt a child (during the climax of the first movie, he tries to choke a little boy to death). He also rapes a woman to death in a shower in the first movie. He has a personality like Freddy and makes puns before killing his victims. He is most deffinately one of the least sympathetic, and most evil slasher villains I have seen. However, in the second film he cries when he sees his snowball children have all been killed, actually sheding a tear and vowing to avenge them. The snowball children were pretty evil themselves though, killing everything they saw. Does Even Evil Has Loved Ones still count has a disqualifier even if the loved one is evil themself? or does there also being evil negate it? I ask because I believe a disqualifyer would be something that makes a villain sympathetic, and I do not believe that mourning a loved one makes you sympathetic when the loved one was a serial killer, but you guys might think differently.
edited 26th Mar '13 10:47:05 AM by bobg
jjj
Still a disqualifier. It's the love that disqualifies, not what it's directed to.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Another thing is Jack Frost is so over the top it's almost a parody
Should I just cut him than, or should we still take a vote?
jjj
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Add my vote to those saying cut. And yes, love is a redeeming factor. Always will be. Horror film villains in general also have a hard time of hacking it here.
Think of the mooks!
Bloth also just wasn't as heinous as the Dark Dweller. I think that in combination with his multiple Even Evil Has Standards moments (maybe one could have been excused, but it came up too often for me to write off all of Bloth's moments) is a reason to list only the Dark Dweller.
For Damien... well, if nothing else, Pandora definitely goes much further than Damien. Beyond that, though, you have to split hairs on just whether Damien truly believed he was doing what was best for the various chimerae or if he was doing it purely to fuel his own ego. There's nothing to definitively show that he's lying, so I have to credit him for Well-Intentioned Extremist as well.
As for cutting things without votes... never do that. For one, that can lead to an Edit War. Two, if it really is that simple (for example, when Boy Meets World was brought up earlier), then it won't be hard to get the votes. Taking unilateral action without votes and consultation is how a cleanup was necessary in the first place, and it can bring moderation down on you if it proves to be a regular pattern and problem.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
Do we have enough votes to cut Jack now? I also think that the dark dweller could qualify.
By the way Ambar, I see you made the changes to the wrestling page, should we merge those two examples with music and create the other page now?
jjj
"In distress", my ass.
Cut for Bloth and Jack, keep for Dark Dweller, and no comment on the rest of what's been brought up recently as I'm not familiar with those works.
All your safe space are belong to Trump
I just cut Jack, adding the disclaimer "Disqualified due to crying over the deaths of his children in the sequel".
So we have three votes for Dark Dweller, is that enough for him to be added? I did not sugest him, but I like to make sure we know when were done voting.
On a side note, I would just like to say how far we have come, there used to be some pretty bad examples in the past but this cleanup has helped alot.
edited 26th Mar '13 1:21:24 PM by bobg
jjj
I think that's me, Nohbody, Paireon and Footsteps...Bloth is under debate.
Otherwise, it seems in The dweller's favor, but no need to rush on him
Spoilers people, because below is from a new film that just got released recently do not look if you do not want to spoil yourself, it's from Oz the great and powerful.
Evanore, the wicked witch of the east, is listed on the ymmv page. I just saw the film yesterday, and in it, she kills her father (offscreen and before the events of the film), frames Glinda, and has her banished. She has her flying monkeys kill all the china people (offscreen, but we see the village afterwards, and it has been torn to shreds) except for one little china girl (who has lost both her legs as a result of the attack). Tries to trick Oz into killing Glinda by destroying her wand (as he and everyone else beleaves she is the wicked witch). When Oz realises that Evanore is the true wicked witch, she tricks her kind hearted sister Theeodora into eating an apple which turns her into the wicked witch of the west. Than the two wicked witches try to kill Oz, Glinda, and all the other inhabitants. However, after theeodora becomes the wicked witch of the west, Evanore starts to get overshadowed by her sister's evil (for example, Evanore says they will "make them flee to the hills" but Theeodora says "no, we will not let them flee, we will show no mercy, we will paint the yellow brick road red with blood") granted, Evanore still goes along with Theeodora's plans without objecting, and she still stays on her side and lets her get away with everything, but Evanore's very own entry notes that she does start to get overshadowed as Theeodora becomes the daragon in chief. Should we cut her or keep her?
edited 26th Mar '13 4:34:49 PM by bobg
jjj
Two notes:
- Spoiler tags exist for a reason.
- Please use proper capitalization.
edited 26th Mar '13 3:48:26 PM by SeptimusHeap
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Okay Heap, I changed it. By the way, heres the entry:
Complete Monster: Surprisingly, not the Wicked Witch of the West. The real monster is Evanora, who enjoys playing both Theeodora and Oz like puppets and is directly responsible forTheeodora becoming who she is by the end of the film. It's also established that unlike Theeodora, she never once gives a damn about the other two.
- Evanora's Complete Monster status is debatable. Athough she is beyond the Moral Event Horrizon, she does have an even evil has standards moment (see main page). On the flip side, considering that the evil she balks at was her own creation...
I'm gonna have to say...cut
There's a small correction, the King of Oz wasn't Evanora's father, he was Glinda's. Now that that's out of the way, I agree with you completely that Evanora doesn't count. She doesn't go any farther than any typical fairy tale villain (with the destruction of China Town and turning her sister completely evil being her only stand-out moments of villainy). Also, she does get an Even Evil Has Standards moment when Theodora orders their forces to wipe out all those who oppose them, so while Evanora is power-hungry, she doesn't like the idea of rampant slaughter without purpose.
Most of the standards listed for Bloth do look like they're done mostly for good reasons instead of self-serving ones, so I'll vote against him but for the Dark Dweller.
edited 26th Mar '13 6:06:02 PM by OccasionalExister
Lizzid people!
The Joker has standards so what difference is that?
The Merry Monarch of Darkness
When?
edited 26th Mar '13 6:01:16 PM by HamburgerTime
The pig of Hufflepuff pulsed like a large bullfrog. Dumbledore smiled at it, and placed his hand on its head: "You are Hagrid now."
Unless I'm mistaken he's referring to that one idiot crossover where The Joker didn't want to work with The Red Skull. It's a crossover. Set in the 1940s. In a universe where Captain America and Batman have always inhabited the same universe. Needless to say, not a canonical source.
None that have ever lasted.
edited 26th Mar '13 6:03:34 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
The Joker's only standards are "Is it funny?"
Agreed. And that ain't a moral standard.
"Is it funny", as lightysnake just noted, is not a moral standard. Neither is refusing to kill people with gas because you prefer the pleasure shooting them yourself, the way that Yazan Gable does. We are referring to moral standards only.
I wear no mask.
Flame Of Recca writeups: look good, though I'm also partial to keeping Kaima.
Boy Meets World Example: ...no. NOOOooonononononono. Burninate. NOW.
Cyber: Nope, still voting cut. Also, I'm not sure the rest of Wolvie's foes mentioned, considering the depths Sabretooth and Omega Red plumb, can count; also, Weapon X-related villains are mostly guilty, like Cyber, of Offscreen Villainy as far as I know. No idea who Mr. Founder is, though.
Damien from El Goonish Shive: Generic Doomsday Villain, yes. Well-Intentioned Extremist... not so much. He's purely a selfish megalomaniac. In any case methinks we decided to cut him some time back.
Jack Frost: If he loved his kids, no matter how evil they were, he misses the mark. Only just, but still a miss. Cut.
Evanora from Oz The Great And Powerful: Gonna have to say no; looks like the film's a shade or two darker than the original movie/stories (although amusingly this is pretty par for the course for Oz reinterpretations), and she seems to do pretty much what's expected of a Wicked Witch (kinda reminds me of Willow's Queen Bavmorda, but less evil). Cut.
Aaaand now on the subject of The Pirates Of Dark Water, since I'm the one who brought it up...
After scoping it out, I'd have to say Bloth doesn't count. Half of his Even Evil Has Standards moments are out of selfishness, which would make me discount their validity, but the other half are disinterested and motivated by either fair-play or reciprocity (which are related concepts anyway). As treacherous and cruel as he is, this one quality disqualifies him in the end I think.
Of course, the Dark Dweller still counts, and I'm happy to see the other who remember the show agree. I'll try and get a write-up for tonight or tomorrow.
edited 26th Mar '13 7:07:44 PM by Paireon
I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me.
The Merry Monarch of Darkness
Any other opinions on the Professor from Wolverine? He's a '90s character, and like I said I'm not well-versed in those, but I'm inclined to vote no because I have read a more recent appearance that basically shows him being cowed by his boss John Sublime; Sublime himself I'll also vote no on for dubious moral agency*.
edited 26th Mar '13 7:13:33 PM by HamburgerTime
The pig of Hufflepuff pulsed like a large bullfrog. Dumbledore smiled at it, and placed his hand on its head: "You are Hagrid now."
For the brief time I have...
I'll also vote no on Damien from El Goonish Shive. Doesn't actually do all that much on-screen, doesn't appear to be as heinous as some of the later villains, and he appears to be a Well-Intentioned Extremist with a Freudian Excuse.
From The Pirates Of Dark Water, I vote against Bloth, but for the Dark Dweller. Bloth is cited way too many times for Even Evil Has Standards to apply, and he honestly wasn't nearly as bad as the Dark Dweller. The latter, though, had much worse crimes as well as no mitigating personality traits.
Finally, there were no examples in Boy Meets World. Delete with extreme prejudice.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.