Subpages cleanup: Complete Monster

Entry for the Nibiru Entity and the Revolution and Person of Interest ones look good. Those two seem to be keepers

All right, Godzillawolf, the right-up you used is better than the one from the YMMV page. Normally the Fate of the monster isn't important to the trope, though in this case I wonder if it is, as the world is literally, better off without him. You get his big acts up on the description, killing the people and the town (my personal favorite being when he has the two bodies hanging out of his mouth and slurps them up like noodles, but I digress). The only other really major thing he did was have the Conquistadors kill and pillage, and I don't know if that's worth mentioning as you wrote he caused every bad thing to happen. All in all it looks good, though the backstory might be too intrusive (I wouldn't know how to cut it down though).

Yeah, normally their fate isn't an issue, but like you said, in this case, it shows the world is quite literally better off without his actions and just how much his actions corrupted the town.

I included the backstory mentioning what he is for two reasons;

One, his species being benevolent means he has no Always Chaotic Evil excuse; he's how he is IN SPITE of his species being generally good.

And two, them considering him the most evil member of the species shows the 'treated with fear and revulsion by the characters in the story' qualification.

Yeah, it gives Context and scope to how bad it really is, that's why I don't know how to cut ti down, it seems necessary.

Though one thing that confuses me, if he manipulates primarily through the Pets, what about the Darrow family? Their turmoil didn't seem connected to their pet.

edited 6th Apr '13 5:28:16 PM by DrPsyche

Like the writeup as is. Does he MAKE Pericles evil though?

Yes, it's stated he kept corrupting the Team Pet, apparently using the same thing that lets his kind use animals as hosts.

Ah, so then Pericles is D Qed do to the no moral agency. BTW, any pics of the Entity?

@11173: Much prefer your write-up Godzillawolf. It seems much better written and more inclusive of the Nibiru Entity's character and deeds.

@11174: Both Strausser and Alonzo Quinn sound like they count.

So, is the Entity actually the in-universe explanation for why criminals dress in silly monster suits in the Scoobyverse? That's hilarious.

Yeah, it can get kinda stupid in it's failed attempts to be dark and serious.

Another entry on the film page (in fact, it was right below Blood Diamond before that was deleted, and I suspect that they were added by the same person since the entries originally noted that the conflicts in both films were expys of Real Life wars) that I think needs looking at is Savior. I haven't seen it, but the entry looks iffy. Three characters are listed: a Sociopathic Soldier rapist, the rape victim's father, who tries to kill her for disgracing the family, and another soldier who has his prisoners beaten to death with a hammer while he nonchalantly shaves. Surprisingly, the one I have most issue with is the last guy, as the entry notes he has no name and never speaks, almost as if he appears in a montage of war atrocities or something like that. To anyone who's seen it: is he enough of a character to qualify?

edited 7th Apr '13 5:14:21 AM by HamburgerTime

I would say no, honestly.

Not sure rape victim's dad is a qualifier, either

So...Shall we add Godzillawolf's entry?

So, we're pretty much set on the Nibiru Entity, what do we do with it now?

edited 7th Apr '13 11:44:11 AM by Godzillawolf

Yep, we should add it now.

Go to the Edit Request Thread and request it be added to the correct page. Post the entry there and cite back to the discussion here

Don't forget to add it HERE either.

Casino again - Frank Marino https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=YMMV.Casino, this LLCJ guy keeps adding complete monsters on his own... example (Tommy was cut, Jimmy may apply)

In Casino Frank Marino has Pet the Dog moments and he's always following orders. Fails the complete part, he's a standard sociopath in the story. A non-example.

edited 7th Apr '13 3:41:36 PM by TrollBrutal

@11186

I looked over the trope page. So our hero shot up a mosque and is now working for the Serbs? And they try to portray all the armies as equally guilty? And all the Bosnians are crazy mujahadeen? Nice mix of racism, bad history, grim dark, and general stupidity there. Anyway, cut the last two. The one guy clearly gets no characterisation, and as for the father, Values Dissonance is in full effect here. I haven't seen the film, but I'm guessing that he's portrayed as a fundamentalist Bosnian Muslim. Ignoring the fact that Bosnian Muslims are usually pretty liberal (the whole they're evil fundamentalists thing was largely Serbian and Croatian propaganda, which sadly, some of the UN peacekeepers decided to repeat verbatim), this would mean he is operating on a moral code, if a screwed up one, and that he therefore does not qualify. I'm inclined to say that given the subject matter, and what our hero gets away with (retiring to raise a girl he's adopted), no one can qualify. Or maybe I'm just offended by the film's premise. The entire page, and especially the original (some edits have been made) entry for Unfortunate Implications comes off as Serb apologism. There is no moral equivalency when one side has rape camps and the others do not, you hack director.

Somebody has repeatedly added Lola and Chillini from the second film to the YMMV page for The Transporter. Seeing as the two of them are in a relationship, and care about each other, they do not qualify. You could probably make a better case for the human traffickers from the first film.

edited 7th Apr '13 5:47:39 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

The Shining

• Mr Grady, who killed his wife and his two daughters.
  • In Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation, Jack qualifies as well.
  • The Overlook Hotel, or whatever kind of malevolent force that dwells there. It is implied that anyone who dies in the hotel becomes corrupted and evil by its powers.

Isn't Jack too complex for the trope? Also, how can the hotel qualify if it's left vague whether or not the supernatural events were real?

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

• The White Witch.
  • Rectified in retrospect, however, as in The Magician's Nephew we learn that, by being cursed for he theft of The Tree's apple, she's condemned to never be happy and forever to feel misery.

Wait, rectified?

Fright Night

• Jerry
  • Interestingly, he seems to try to subvert this when he tells offers Charlie 'something he doesn't have, a choice.' However, it soon becomes clear just how sadistic and evil he is.

Doesn't explain how he qualifies.

Let the Right One In

• The sadistic and pedophilic vampire nobleman that turns and castrates Eli.
  • Also the lead bully's big brother qualifies.

No context for the bully's brother.

A couple other ZCE's:

The Power of One

• Jappie Botha, one of the cruelest, most brutal, and most racist villains in cinematic history.

Ghost Ship

• Ferriman. Who is an actual monster.

Dragnet

• Jonathan Whirley in the 1987 film.

edited 7th Apr '13 6:25:09 PM by TVRulezAgain

The Shining:

• Grady's murders are Offscreen Villainy, cut
• Jack is under the influence of the Hotel, not in control of his actions, but his sanity slippage is complex and ambiguous I'd say cut, he's somewhat civil/normal before he loses it. Non-example in the novel, where he struggles against the hotel, and protects his son briefly in a moment of sanity.
• Not sure about the Hotel itself, the movie suggests Maybe Magic, Maybe Mundane and it's not presented as a character, unlike the ghosts. The novel suggests it's a combination of Made of Evil and Eldritch Abomination with Blue-and-Orange Morality behind it, I'd say cut.

edited 7th Apr '13 6:57:20 PM by TrollBrutal

With regards to the examples from Saviour it is difficult to establish what stands out in terms of heinousness. From what is listed on the Film page and the YMMV page it looks as if Goran is the most heinous and might qualify but I am unsure.

The film has a messed up concept of what atrocities a character can commit and still be fully redeemable. The main character perpetrates the hate crime of shooting up a random mosque and is still allowed to be completely redeemed. Given that one of the early editors had compared main character to Jesus I have reason to suspect that the editor's concept of morality is skewed.

The disgusting tilt the film is likely due to the fact that the director, Predrag Antonijevic, was born in Serbia.

Hell, I'm not sure Goran can qualify. Yes he's a rapist. Yes he's a war criminal. Yes he plans to force a pregnant into premature labour so he can shoot her child. Yes the main character decides that Even Evil Has Standards and blows him away. But ya know what?

Guy, our hero, not only shot up a mosque filled with innocent people, but he did it in Paris, in civilian life. Goran at least has the excuse, however slight, of buying into Serb propaganda (of course this film seems to think that propaganda's accurate and that Goran just goes a little too far) about how awful the Bosnians are. Guy, on the other hand, decides, hey, Muslim suicide bombers killed my wife? I'll go shoot a bunch of people who had nothing to do with it. And then I'll go to Bosnia and fight for a genocidal rape happy regime. And kill people who are trying to retrieve their friends' corpses. And I won't give a damn about what Goran does until a girl I like is threatened.

Forget Goran. The most heinous person in this film is Guy. And he gets to Karma Houdini his way to victory, and it's portrayed as a good thing. Screw this film so hard.

"Predrag Antonijevic, was born in Serbia"

Big freaking surprise. Who produced it, Lewis MacKenzie*

EDIT: While on the subject of genocide, somebody tried to list the genocidaires from Shake Hands With The Devil on the book's YMMV page. I appreciate the sentiment, but No Real Life Examples, and no groups. Instacut.

edited 7th Apr '13 7:23:26 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

@11194: "No" votes from me on all three examples from The Shining. It's been almost a decade since I read the book and saw the Kubrick film, but as I remember it, the Grady murders happen offscreen, Jack's descent into madness leaves doubtful the question of whether he is in control of his actions, and the question of whether the hotel is an evil being is ambiguously handled.

"No" also on the Dragnet example; Whirley, like the film itself, is never presented seriously for a moment. He's an OTT comic villain, not a monster.

edited 7th Apr '13 7:46:46 PM by mlsmithca

Jaape Botha...I can see him. When he's a kid, he's a vicious, racist little bully who tortures the main character by making him eat feces, murders his pet chickens...when he's an adult, he's violent and savage and kills civilians, from what I recall of the film.

Fright Night..two separate films.

The first Jerry Dandridge, played by Chris Sarandon? Mmm...no. He does genuinely give Charlie a choice to leave him alone after Charlie have proven himself a nuisance at best and a threat at worst, and has some depth to him...and even some feelings to Charlie's girlfriend who seems to remind him of a woman in a photograph...albeit he vamps said girlfriend and plans to let her eat Charlie.

But remake Dandridge? Hell yes. He loses the original's charm and reluctance, brutally kills civilians and kids and has no redeeming features whatsoever

If that's accurate, I'd support the inclusion of the remake Dandridge and the cutting of the original.