Total posts: [24,421] 1 ... 597 598 599 600 601 603 604 605 606 607 ... 977
love lockdown, you lose.Yeah, we never really resolved Jeff, because the debate snowballed into Commodus/Eddy's Brother. I don't even know who voted.
Revenge of the LemursStill voting on Jeff. My argument is that while he may be the only villain never to be Played for Laughs, some of the things that are played for laughs are (or would be if they were played seriously) worse than him. Quagmire himself is implied to be a rapist, and that's not even getting into the stuff Carter gets up to.
Anything that's played for laughs does not count. It was explicitly stated in the beginning of this thread that this is why no one in South Park can qualify.
edited 2nd Aug '13 12:30:22 PM by SeaRover
Revenge of the LemursI'm not saying they count, I'm saying they're more heinous than Jeff, even though they're not serious characters and he is.
Cleric of BanjoWhich I believe is considered a disqualifying factor (that characters who do more heinous behavior aren't monsters). I'm not totally comfortable with the Eddy Brother example staying, but in that situation, there isn't really the kind of hypocrisy (for lack of a better word) present in Family Guy. I think there's a difference between distinguishing between Amusing Injuries and those which aren't (very common in cartoons and cleverly used in the Roger Rabbit film), and attempting to present a Domestic Abuser as heinous then the main character does the same or worse all the time.
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wiki
I mean, bad stuff happened in Ed, Ed'n Eddy but for the most part it was pranking or pretty harmless kid fights. Then comes Eddy's brother who is a real, serious domestic abuser. I think he meets the standard there
@Sea Rover The fact that a character can't qualify if they are played for laughs, does not prevent that character from disqualifying another character who isn't played for laughs, but whose actions are, in actual fact, less heinous. @everyone I think that when Jeff was originally voted on, we all allowed the dark nature of the episode and the fact that he was treated seriously to blind us to the fact that numerous other characters in the show are as bad or worse, just played less seriously. With that in mind, I'm going to say let's cut the bastard and never discuss Family Guy again.
Ayup. Also, since it seems like it's coming to an actual vote now: for the inclusion of Commodus.
Revenge of the LemursWe've disqualified villains when characters presented as sympathetic do worse than villains (often due to probable moral bankruptcy on the writer's part but sometimes not), so I don't see why we shouldn't apply the same principle to comedic characters who do worse than serious characters.
Complete Monster and YMMV Must Be The SameYup. Kind of an annoying rule, but...
If nobody objects, I'll add the Korean and other film examples later, then.
Revenge of the LemursI don't see why it's annoying. If a writer wants to make his heroes terrible people, either due to his own incompetence or a warped moral code, I don't see why we have to take them being heroes at face value. This does make me wonder again, though, if since we don't take Word of God into account it would actually be possible for a character intended to be sympathetic but communicated so utterly terribly in this respect to qualify for CM. Wasn't there discussion a while back if the protagonists of some Neo-Nazi propaganda book qualified, or something?
edited 2nd Aug '13 3:46:47 PM by HamburgerTime
Complete Monster and YMMV Must Be The SameI guess it could happen. If the reverse could, why not this?
Also, for the Dance in the Vampire Bund entries, they need a rewrite, and Gabe in there as well.
edited 2nd Aug '13 4:37:18 PM by Lightysnake
They call him the Winter Soldieron Commodus and Vorster. on Jeff.
edited 2nd Aug '13 5:11:54 PM by VeryMelon
3DS Friend Code: 4382 - 2449 - 5707 IGN: Anthony
Voting On Jeff, Shido, Neutron and Eddy's brother. For the latter it's because, although I haven't seen the show, I don't think it can hit that bare minimum level where redemption is an impossiblity because it's a kid's show of lesser depth than say, Avatar: The Last Airbender (plus honestly I don't believe in a one-scene wonder CM). Plus physical assault and torment is still below the baseline henious standards, since under that criteria we could qualfiy 80% of comic book villians as meeting the bare minimum standards to be considered as CMs. For Jeff Family Guy is just such a dark show with so many henious deeds and not I don't think it's possible for it to have a Complete Monster. For Shido it sounds like they are an irredeamable bastard, but that doesn't equal a Complete Monster. The closest he'd get is sthe trying to kill someone's family, but that is still only a step towards it, I just don't see them being the embodiment of pure evil that this trope is supposed to be. I honestly think that he would stick out on a list of complete monsters as not being a contender. For Neutron, I have to go with Ambar's logic and say that he's overshadowed by people with the same level of power who have the ambition to actually go out and do even worse things.
edited 2nd Aug '13 5:48:31 PM by Shaoken
I think the way he's played as a domestic abuser with no redeeming qualities extremely heinously pushes him over the age. It darkens the show considerably.
Have we voted on all the MLP fanworks examples? I know we voted to cut the FIW examples and the Mentally Advanced Series examples but aside from that I don't remember us having a decisive vote on the other examples. FIW needs to be cleaned. Fluttershy and Twilight are still listed as Complete Monsters and the show isn't taken seriously enough for any of them to qualify. And if Jeff is going I say we cut Fluttershy's dad too, he's pretty much the same deal. (almost every single one of the mane cast is played more heinously than him and they aren't serious characters. He is apparently but still pales.) Also voting no on Eddy's Brother and Jeff from Family Guy. Both are just Jerkasses.
edited 2nd Aug '13 5:59:21 PM by Klavice
He's still basically a bully. He doesn't kill anyone, doesn't cripple anyone, basically if he disappeared from that point onward the show would go back to the way it was. When we established the baseline heniouness limiter, this is the sort of example it was supposed to block out; character's who are the worst that show has to offer, but are so laughably out of place when compared to the Fire Lord Ozai's of the list. Taking a quick look over it you have either confirmed murderers or attempted murderers, people who are selling drugs to children and attempting murder via drugs, liberal applications of Mind Rape, etc. In comparison, Eddy's brother is just a bully.
Revenge of the LemursNothing like that even happens in Ed... though. And again, we already decided him.
Which is the point, and there's still a debate going on about him so I'd say there hasn't been a decision yet.
As said before, wasn't he already discussed and voted in? I don't see why we should bar a domestic abuser whose crimes are played seriously in a lighthearted work when they're showed to be extremely heinous and having left acute mental scars on the victim. And why, again, are we suddenly extending criteria to 'heinous next to one another?' That's not how this works and was never how it was supposed to.
edited 2nd Aug '13 6:05:12 PM by Lightysnake
Um, yes it always has. That is literally what the baseline henious standard is; a comparison to see if they stack up to other Complete Monsters. That was the reason we gave for discounting my little pony villians (next to the impossiblity of being irredeamable).
edited 2nd Aug '13 6:10:19 PM by Shaoken
They're dogs, and they're playing poker!Woah, woah, let's all calm down. Yes, Eddy's Brother was already voted on, and he was counted as a CM on the Cartoon Network page. Now that that's out of the way, let's go to another topic.
edited 2nd Aug '13 6:20:19 PM by AustinDR
Keep calm, and let it go.
@15041 How far does one have to go in order to qualify? That guy has done quite a few things to destroy the status quo. He killed Tadao, he caused Miki to miss Tadao's funeral, he got Kagami fired from her own firm and caused her to lose her Law license, he beat up Konata, causing her to lose three of her teeth, and when things took a turn against him, he killed Patricia, burned down the aforementioned firm, and for his last act, shot and killed Ayano (and that was his second attempt on her life, his first being to trap her inside the burning building). All fic long, he has had not one real Pet the Dog moment. Not a single one. And he also stands out among all the other villains from both that fic and its prequel, Loss of Innocence, such as Tsukasa's rapist Ryosuke and his cohorts, her short-lived punk friend Yuka Miyakawa, Tsukasa herself for some time after having been raped, and Patricia (following a beating by Tsukasa; also eventually came around). If none of that qualifies him for this trope, then what would?
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 email@example.com.