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
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Note. We're trying to phase out and eliminate all hottips on the wiki.
The problem is that simply stating X is a CM is often times a spoiler in and of itself.
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
... why are we phasing them out? Personally I prefer them to spoiler tags, since it's easier to see what's potholed or linked or whatever for hot-tips than it is for text hidden behind spoiler tags.
EDITED IN: Just to clarify, I added "characters" to the "behind the hot-tips" part before seeing your post. I realized myself why that needed to be fixed.
edited 3rd Jul '12 3:36:39 PM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
explanation
In either case, I think we should try to limit spoiler markup in some fashion as much as possible.
The issue I have with your suggestion is works with multiple CM's, or works/series who have a unique page devoted to their CM's.
edited 3rd Jul '12 3:40:16 PM by DarkConfidant
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
Well, whether it's a hot-tip or a label-note, my point is that it's a means of hiding spoilers, until people choose to see them, that still leaves clearer where the potholes and external links are than the conventional spoiler tags do.
Again, I get that this trope is spoiler-prone by its very nature, but that leaves me inclined to regard it as better to just list the works and leave everything else behind label-note by default, than to leave everything unhidden by default.
EDITED IN: As for multiple CMs, they should be classified by how far into the work the characters are. For example, if a movie has a CM, its sequel another CM, etc... I would suggest a format like this.
- [Movie X] [character, explanation].
- And in the sequel, [character, explanation].
edited 3rd Jul '12 3:43:52 PM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
Regarding the Scar discussion from earlier, I'd note that one distinction between him and Claudius is that the latter has an entire soliloquy where he clearly expresses at least some degree of remorse for his actions. Scar, as far as I can remember (and it's been a long time since I've seen the movie), never comes close to expressing any sort of remorse.
I don't believe he qualifies as a CM anyway, but I thought it was worth bringing up.
Avatar by Leafsnake
So... Scar and Scroop. In my opinion they are both complete monsters. Scroop is a psycho for hire, and Scar is a murderous tyrant. Neither have any redeeming qualities, but their place relies on how high we place the bar for heinous deeds. Scar and Scroop have gotten away with murder (In that they killed someone inside a Disney film, not being a Karma Houdini), killing good aligned characters (Unfortunately, the Horned King didn't kill any of the heros in his movie). Scar kills his brother, emotionally manipulates his nephew, and leads his land into drought (Though that one probably wasn't his fault, it could have been the weather, or overpopulation). He has some dirty coward moments, and then gets killed by henchmen he sought to betray. Scroop is sadistic and cruel, disrespecting Silver, killing Arrow, and trying to kill Jim. He's cruel, he's menacing and damn was he cool. Scar and Scroop are CM's in my book, but if we set the bar higher, then they probably aren't, anyone's thoughts?
Think of the mooks!
Oh, the spoiler tag. Bane of my troping existence.
I'm probably not the best person to ask about spoiler tags, because my personal preference would be to do away with them completely. As in, remove them from TV Tropes entirely. I know that's not about to happen, though - if nothing else, my experiences in Real Life tell me that some people are very touchy about the topic.
But yes, I would love to abolish spoiler tags in the entirety.
That said, this wiki isn't my playground alone. So I have to respect that the majority of folks do want the tags in use. At the same time, though, we can't have entire sections spoilered out, because that's just useless from a troping standpoint.
Since this trope isn't an ending trope, and there are plenty of examples where the Complete Monster is immediately obvious, I don't think this trope could, under the wiki's guidelines, become a spoiler-free trope. So the question is, what is an acceptable level of spoilers involved?
Actually, let me walk that backwards. What's the requirement for a useful trope entry without spoilers? I think at least some of the general actions will need to be revealed, even if the particular victims of said action are not. Moreover, attempting certain actions will always count, so you can hide behind spoiler text both the would-be victim as well as whether or not they succeed. Finally, the work name itself should never be spoilered.
I think that's a general strong framework for a trope entry that can stand on its own, even if spoiler tags are involved. Beyond that, though, I also hold that anything in the first 25% of the work in question (be it an individual episode, a game, a movie, a book, or whatever) should never be spoilered, and being extremely judicious with anything in the second 25%. I think that'd keep the number of spoiler tags used down while still granting some amount of consideration for those that do believe in them.
For Sarrano, making the long story short will be valuable for when it comes time to actually craft the trope entry. For now, though, I want the long story. That description feels to me like we're dealing with the 95% Monster again, but you're still hinting that there are more depraved things the character has done. Ordinarily, I'd be inclined to just vote no at this point, but I'm convinced enough that I'm still willing to hear arguments for voting yes.
To give more of why I'm feeling this way, just how is said sexual arousal depicted? If he's just popping inappropriate boners, that's sick. If he's then raping someone as a response, then he's crossing the line into Complete Monster territory. For the racist issue, spouting racist rhetoric is an asshole move. Picking his targets for racist reasons is edging into Complete Monster Territory. Training his troops to act in a racist fashion (including with murder) is running headlong into it. In short, I'm convinced that all of the other aspects of the trope are met, but I'm still wondering about the "heinous" qualifier.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
Azor Ahai
I argued against Scar previously, mainly on the "some villainy played for laughs" ground. I will say though, that Scar has a quite different personality than Claudius, despite filling a similar role. I've always thought that Scar's personality came from another Shakespeare Evil Uncle, Richard III, who like Scar is rather amusing before his nasty side comes out, and has an Unfortunate Implication applied toward him (not really an implication at all in Shakespeare) that that their physical corruption is a sign of moral corruption. Because of the latter, both are Unintentionally Sympathetic.
Hodor
I'm sorry about being rude, I didn't mean to offend anyone. Anyway I still say that The Twix should be removed simply because they are Played for Laughs and pathetic for Complete Monster. They're more of an example of The Trickster or Card-Carrying Villain. Besides what kind of Complete Monster is defeated by a ladybug in the Sprite episode.
I love the Lion King to bits but Scar qualifies for all this trope. He even gets a Karmic Death.
Think of the mooks!
Please name the series that your topic of discussion involves.
I don't want to harp on this, but keep in mind that we're trying to refine entries that go on the wiki. Good wiki style involves stating the specific series involved for an example, not using a Pot Hole within the description to direct folks to the entry in question.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
Okay, now I'm confused again about Scroop. Looking over the three criteria;
- The villain is portrayed as being utterly devoid of positive traits. The villain has no Freudian Excuses or other mitigating, sympathetic portrayals, and shows no regret for their actions.
- The villain is particularly heinous, even by the standards of the world in which the character lives. A sociopath in a world of sociopaths does not qualify, unless there are defining traits which make said character even nastier.
- The person's villainy is played seriously, evoking feelings of fear, disgust, and revulsion from characters and the audience alike.
For a Disney movie killing people is heinous, no regret, and with Scar and Joker we decided that being an amusing Complete Monster is possible.
So, I'm on the fence about thi one, having not seen the movie (and unlikely to ever do it).
Avatar by Leafsnake
Okay, just a recap for Scroop's portrayal, and why he fits the catagories you mentioned
- He has no sympathetic qualities, he's a sadistic spidery-thing enjoys killing. He killed Mr. Arrow, and took some pleasure in blaming Jim. He later tried to kill Jim. While he was killing Mr. Arrow (By cutting his lifeline, as they were above a black hole, he wanted Mr. Arrow to see him, and give him a good and ironic one-liner before sending him off.
- The ship is full of pirates, and all of them want to take the treasure and kill the captain. Several of them are hard to take seriously, and most show greedy and stupid traits. The only one who is worse than the average is the gunner, and he's just a brute, not a full-blown sadist like Scroop. Scroop also provides contrast to Silver, arguably the Big Bad, because Silver is greedy and willing to take lives, he still has standards and takes a shine to Jim as a protege, which makes him sympathetic, and paves the way for him to save Jim, While Scroop has a Karmic Death.
- Scroop scared me as a kid. Now that I'm older, he's not one of my favorite villains, but he's still cool, as he plays on the audience's arachnophobia. He makes numerous and dark threats to Jim. and his final battle is played as scary, with lights going out, and him suprising Jim from the ceiling. The Crew members don't make any jokes at his expanse (But they rarely make jokes, and the funny ones only end up making themselves look stupid), and he's played as a serious and deadly threat with no remorse, again, contrast to Silver.
Can someone provide me with the arguments against this guy? It's starting to sound like he fits, but again, it's hard to tell with just one person providing the evidence.
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
I haven't watched Treasure Planet, but that's a couple of posts now for which you seem to associate being a CM with being cool. The description used to actually contrast it with that; the character's evil being played for revulsion rather than for any sort of perceived sense of coolness. Even now I still think that at the very least, all else being equal an increased focus on how horrible they are will come at the expense of the Evil Is Cool portrayal. In any case, a character being "cool" does not imply being a CM.
edited 4th Jul '12 5:55:49 AM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
You are quite wrong. CM can be cool. The Coachman from Pinocchio is one of my favorite Disney villains, yet he is absolutely a Complete Monster.
Avatar by Leafsnake
CM's are cool, in fact, their utter depravity intrigues me.
- loved Coachman, wish he had more screentime.
- Sykes was intimidating, and pretty dark.
- (Non-Disney) Lockdown from Transformers Animated was a fan favorite and a complete monster.
- So was the Grim Reaper from Avenegers
- Both voiced by Lance Henrikson.
edited 4th Jul '12 1:49:24 PM by DrPsyche
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
They can be, but I was simply pointing to ways in which CM portrayal comes at the expense of portrayed "coolness." (Note that I didn't say it negates it.)
More to the point, it was in response to a user treating CM status as parallel to coolness, so what better way to drive home the point that this is unfitting than to call attention to ways in which they're antiparallel?
edited 4th Jul '12 3:25:19 PM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
It's also worth noting that this attitude accounts for possibly as much as half of the trope's problems.
Well, this is people misuse this tropes often. They think that a CM is a badge of honor when it is not.
Avatar by Leafsnake
Aside from the use of the trope. I'd like to know what's the verdict on Scroop, Scar, and my earlier discussed Thrid Personality of Lucy from Elfen Lied.
From what I can tell, it sounds like the latter two are out (the split personality definitely so), while Scroop is still being discussed. I'm leaning towards putting him in, but it's hard to tell without a second source of information.
Think of the mooks!
Okay, finally got enough in to Epic Mickey to make a solid determination on The Mad Doctor and The Shadow Blot.
The Mad Doctor definitely fails the heinous standard. He is trying to play all sides against each other because he turns out to be Beetleworx (i.e. a robot), and they are established to survive in a flood of thinner and paint. Kind of imagine a hyper-intelligent cockroach playing all sides against each other because it knows a nuclear war will result in its species' triumph. He's annoying, but he's never seen as the true threat - both by the characters and the story itself. Eh, if he comes back for the sequel, maybe he'll ramp it up. But he isn't quite there in the original.
The Shadow Blot is difficult to gauge because it spends most of the game as a Sealed Evil in a Can (the Blot that runs around causing havoc for most of the game is just a portion of its essence... and said portion can be redeemed like the paint/thinner mooks encountered elsewhere). Moreover, while it does demand Mickey's heart, this is neither the gruesome organ harvesting of Real Life or the "become a shell of your former self" case like it is in Kingdom Hearts. The heart, in Epic Mickey, represents the fame and love that character has. Those without them are stuck in The Wasteland, where the game takes place. It's actually established that all of the characters met in Epic Mickey are lacking hearts, and beyond being unable to leave The Wasteland, they're doing just fine - they live their lives, they can feel, all of that. So the fact that the Shadow Blot wants Mickey's heart is not nearly as evil as it was first presented - it's more akin to stealing someone's passport.
The Blot does present Mickey with a Friend-or-Idol Decision regarding his heart (he gives it up to save his resentful half-brother Oswald and Exposition Fairy Gus Gremlin), but he does hold up his end of the bargain, suggesting that he does have honor. Plus, while he is basically a walking ecological disaster (well, for a cartoon universe, so he's the incarnation of paint mixed with paint thinner), he seems uninterested in actually sticking around to destroy everything - the ecological disaster is more just a consequence of his existence rather than something consciously willed.
So I'm inclined to say that Epic Mickey has no Complete Monster in it, although they leave room to promote The Mad Doctor in Epic Mickey: The Power Of Two.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
Well, I'm inclined to take your judgement on this, considering you've done a playthrough to check it out.
Okay, I'm going to go make a request to cut some of the bad examples now.
On a completely unrelated note, I am going to propose the cutting of Full Metal Alchemist's Solf J. Kimblee. Now for those of you familiar with the series, bear with me. I'm not proposing cutting the version from the 2003 anime. That guy was a Nietzsche Wannabe, a Misanthrope Supreme, and a Psycho for Hire who absolutely belongs on the page. The manga and Brotherhood anime version is the one I'm after.
Having rewatched and reread the series multiple times, the thing about manga!Kimblee is this—yes he's a Mad Bomber and Sociopathic Soldier who Loves the Sound of Screaming and thoroughly enjoyed his role in the Ishbalan genocide. I'm not disputing any of that.
At the same time though, he does have some good points. He protects Armstrong from courtmartial (even if doing so entails blowing up the very people Armstrong was trying to save) and expresses genuine admiration for people who stick to their beliefs, no matter what—regardless of whether those beliefs clash with his own. He's one of anime's poster boys for Moral Sociopathy (bordering on Blue-and-Orange Morality at points) and he obeys his own personal moral code to the end, ultimately turning on Pride when the latter violates it and exposes himself as a hypocrite. Even his policy of always accepting responsibility for his crimes and remembering the faces of his victims is oddly respectful—to the point in fact, where Riza Hawkeye, one of the heroes, has also adopted it.
Kimblee's moral code may not be one that any sane human being would stick to. But he does have one, and as far as we can tell, never violates it. Heck, he dies helping the heroes, rather than let one of his allies get away with hypocrisy (which seems to be the big sin in his book). Should he be on this list at all?
edited 4th Jul '12 9:58:57 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
That way, those familiar with a work, or who otherwise are okay with seeing a spoiler for it, can click the hot-tip based on seeing the name of said work.
edited 3rd Jul '12 3:33:33 PM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart