Subpages cleanup: Complete Monster

Giving Xavier from Saw a . Clearly an Asshole Victim, but not particularly heinous.

Ah, my apologies to Forenperser then. It just struck me as a bit fast-paced to start counting votes within less than a day and an ongoing discussion.

edited 17th Aug '13 2:15:00 AM by Morgenthaler

No problem. I just wanted to keep tally. Alright, thats 5:5 now.

X4: You know, that's a fair point. Kinda like the mirror image of Scar; he was off, but then we had a proper discussion (and he was voted down still, but at least we discussed him). I'm not sure where I stand on the brother BTW.

Actually, I think I'm gonna change my vote on Xavier. His actions seem vastly overshadowed by Hoffman, and he could've done far worse things in his situation.

On Hoffman, is all sympathy for him gone just because he's done a bunch of terrible things, or does he make it clear that he doesn't care about his sister anymore and just enjoys torturing people? I mean, he kills an entire police station, but was that because they failed to convict his sister's murderer? Wouldn't that suggest that he still cares for her?

edited 17th Aug '13 7:01:08 AM by Camberf

@Shaoken: So, wait, he was added without even a consensus? That means it's 9 cut, 7 keep right now. The "neutral" votes really can't count for Eddy's brother since he was added without discussion. They have to be considered irrelevant.

After re-watching the scene involving Eddy's Brother's beating of Eddy, I'm changing my vote to cut. It's not as bad as it's made out to be, no different then what anyone else on the show has done, and most of it is off-screen.

Yeah about Hoffman, is there any indication he stopped caring about his sister? Just losing all audience sympathy doesn`t mean he lost his one redeeming quality.

edited 17th Aug '13 8:22:26 AM by TommyFresh

I'm gonna say cut on Eddy's brother too. I think the reason people see him as so heinous is because his actions create a lot of Fridge Horror when re-watching past episodes of the show; every time Eddy says how great his brother is, which is often, you know he's just making stuff up to make people like him, and that he actually has a lot of personal trauma. What's shown isn't that bad no matter how you look at it. It's still cartoony, and, while played seriously by the show's standards, isn't terrible enough to qualify him based on his one appearance.

So your first point is that his truly heinous actions are offscreen.

What? Where did I say that? It was all right there, on-screen! We see Eddy get thrown against the door, we see his leg get twisted, and we see him get knocked against the pavement. I meant that it's animated (ON-SCREEN, mind you!) in a very "cartoony" way, but that doesn't make it Played for Laughs since nothing about the scene is funny and the other characters react as if it were very real abuse.

Second point; That... really doesn't matter enough. It's still not any better than the rest.

"The rest" as in what? The other villains on the CN Monster page that are from completely different works with different standards and have no bearing on this whatsoever?

Is this all backstory or onscreen. If it's just backstory, then cut.

It's both. We see him doing this on-screen: he only alludes to backstory. And this sort of thing is what messed Eddy up so bad that most of the entire series, which is of course on-screen, stemmed from it.

Fourth point; It's definitely a sadist show. Sorry, but there's no other type of comedy it really fits better into.

That's what I said. When a Sadist Show has standards against a full blown sadistic, domestic abusing sociopath, then that does say something about the character's qualification.

I'm honestly not seeing it here. By people's admissions it's the same level of violence showed in the show, it's just played seriously instead of for laughs. It's basically the same as Jeff from Family Guy and we cut Jeff for just that reason.

So you skipped over my post where I said: So unlike Jeff, Eddy's Brother cannot be disqualified on the grounds of "other characters have done it before and it was Played for Laughs, therefore the work doesn't have standards against it." Because clearly THIS level of beatdown on the protagonists has not been done before. This is a whole different league from the other kids' regular slapstick that is ultimately harmless in the end. The regular level of violence on this show was never coupled with serious psychological abuse and never left the characters with serious graphic injuries.

So basically, Jeff was cut because he was "exactly the same as some other domestic abusers on the show who were Played for Laughs before, but played seriously." Eddy's brother is NOT like anyone else seen in the series, and thus his Played for Drama cruelty is unmatched.

So, wait, he was added without even a consensus? That means it's 9 cut, 7 keep right now. The "neutral" votes really can't count for Eddy's brother since he was added without discussion. They have to be considered irrelevant.

No, I'm sure it was a closed case before. Ask 32_Footsteps about it: I remember him being involved in a prior discussion about the character. And I still say the neutral votes should count, so the entry is still on the fence.

It's not as bad as it's made out to be, no different then what anyone else on the show has done, and most of it is off-screen.

Again defer to my post where I explained all the reasons why it's more heinous than what anyone else on the show has done, and seriously? I think you are abusing Offscreen Villainy here. We see Eddy thrown against the door: is it off-screen just because we don't see his brother making the throw? And even then, we do see Eddy's brother lay down the rest of the abuse to Eddy, AND towards Double D. And if he indicates that he's done this before while in the very act of doing just that, why doubt him?

What's shown isn't that bad no matter how you look at it. It's still cartoony, and, while played seriously by the show's standards, isn't terrible enough to qualify him based on his one appearance.

Did anyone pay attention to my big-ass post on this matter?

I think the issue here is that people do not want to accept any bully with a body count of zero into this Trope because it goes against their idea of what a Complete Monster HAS to do. I cannot agree to this. Sometimes, depending on the setting and how it's played, torture and abuse is just as heinous as murder.

edited 17th Aug '13 9:16:06 AM by ANewMan

Hoffman was a police officer who was working on the Jigsaw case. He used his knowledge of Jigsaw to kill the guy who killed his sister and frame Jigsaw for the crime. Jigsaw kidnapped Hoffman and told him that even murderers deserve second chances and said that he understood how he felt about the justice system, but needed to know how to do vigilanteism the "right way". So Hoffman became his accomplace. After Jigsaw's death in the third movie, Hoffman becomes the Big Bad for the rest of the series. Unlike his mentor, Hoffman was willing to break the code and kill innocint people in cold blood to keep his identity safe (seen in saw 6). His sister's death makes him somewhat sympathetic at first, but he becomes more and more evil as the series goes on. Hoffman only becomes a CM in the last movie. At the end of the sixth movie, Jill (Jigsaw's wife and accomplace) put him in a trap that left him with a scar on his face. He wanted revenge on Jill, so he places another man in a test with four others, telling the police that if they do not give Jillup, all five victims will die. When they refuse, he keeps the game going, resulting in four of the five people dying. He also murders a group of racists, and hides in a body bag to get into the station. In the station, he kills six people before reaching Jill and kiling her too. Meanwhile, three officers entering his lair are killed by a machine gun turret he sit up while another four are gassed to death trying to reach the five victims mentioned earlier. By the end, he has caused the deaths of about twinty people in one night. As for his sister, he never really mentones her after the fifth movie, he may have cared about her when she was alive, but now that she's dead he does not have a sister to care for.

Still, with Eddy's Brother, he's no where near other candidates such as Ghetsis. The main conflict with him was that he did things offscreen which, according to the rules, disqualifies him as a CM. Not only does Eddy's Brother does his abuse onscreen, but it still treated as vile in universe compared to the previous beatings Eddy endured at the hand of the kids. Again, I'm not trying to defend him, I'm just giving some things on the character that might've been overlooked.

You mean he's not as heinous as someone from a different work entirely? Can we stick within our own parameters PLEASE? Gregor Clegane may not be as heinous as Killstab Mc Rapey from whatever work but that has zero bearing on whether he qualifies.

Eddy's Brother should be judged only by his own show.

So all of that happens in the last movie? He could probably qualify then.

edited 17th Aug '13 11:42:57 AM by Camberf

Well, Ghetsis was disqualified im part on insufficient absolute heinousness, so if Edwhatever is less heinous than Ghetsis, he would qualify even less.

That. A guy who "merely" beats up his brother is just not going to pass the minimal heinousness threshold.

Frankly, from some of the arguments for him I can't help but feel that some people still don't understand exactly what this trope is.

Can you quit with that? It sounds disturbingly elitist and it gets trotted out whenever someone disagrees with how bad someone should be (And no, violent domestic abuse being a qualifier is not some hideous betrayal of what this trope should be)

No, I will not "quit with that". It really seems like a lot of people in this thread still see the trope as the watered-down "nasty villain" that misuse had degraded it into instead of the absolute worst of the worst that it was meant to be. Just look at all of the complaints we still get about the criteria being "too restrictive". It's completely possible - or should be - to have a work, even a serious or dark one, with no Complete Monsters at all.

edited 17th Aug '13 12:45:05 PM by nrjxll

While "disturbingly elitist" isn't really inaccurate here, and I think "violent domestic abuse" is a qualifier, I wouldn't say it's a qualifier on its own. For one it implies there's a domestic side to it at all, which means it can easily be worse. Without those worse parts, I just don't think it's heinous enough.

From what I've seen, whenever the criticism of the trope definition have been brought up, it's always been through reasoned questioning of whether the rules are being too arbitrary or illogical (e.g. like the earlier conversation about whether superficial and narcissistic "friendships" should really count as something redeeming - the consensus was no, so these discussions really are productive toward this thread).

So yeah. The only parts you have to quit are the strawmanning and the passive aggressive general insults to everyone in the thread that isn't you.

edited 17th Aug '13 1:09:12 PM by Crowley

Still, with Eddy's Brother, he's no where near other candidates such as Ghetsis.

DO NOT SPEAK THAT NAME!

Well, Ghetsis

Seriously, don't.

@Lightysnake: Thanks for all your arguments here. I'm with you.

@nrjxll: UGH. Here we go.

A guy who "merely" beats up his brother is just not going to pass the minimal heinousness threshold.

"Merely" is a way of writing off the other factors and variables involved in the character and situation, judging it strictly by what the actions are. And this trope is about characters as much as it is about their actions. I brought up some factors of why Eddy's Brother is heinous, but nobody seems to want to give them a second thought.

Frankly, from some of the arguments for him I can't help but feel that some people still don't understand exactly what this trope is.

I'm in agreement with Lightysnake here: this IS terribly, disturbingly elitist. You are basically saying that alot of people don't "get" this trope while you do. That your definition of the trope is the absolute truth and law, and anyone else who raises opposition to that is ignorant and "doesn't understand."

Here's the truth that you probably don't want to hear: NOBODY "understands exactly what this trope is." NOBODY. At this point, the trope can be anything to anyone on the wiki if it suits their agenda. It's a trope that should not be complicated to understand, yet it's not just that, but it's constantly in danger of being downright convoluted and nearly impossible to grasp. The definition on the page is simple enough, but then there's all these critera and factors about "heinousness" that are strict, limiting, numerous, and even self contradictory, and they leave most people scratching their heads about what and who is meant to go in this Trope. It's a mess.

It really seems like a lot of people in this thread still see the trope as the watered-down "nasty villain" that misuse had degraded it into instead of the absolute worst of the worst that it was meant to be.

Because many of the candidates are the worst of the worst by the standards of their works, and follow the exact criteria that's given on the trope page. It's all the extra baggage on the FAQ of this thread that makes defining this trope and pinpointing examples of it an absolute nightmare.

Just look at all of the complaints we still get about the criteria being "too restrictive". It's completely possible - or should be - to have a work, even a serious or dark one, with no Complete Monsters at all.

Because it is too restrictive. Because people want it to be too restrictive. People like Brony99 and all the misusers have made folks downright afraid of this trope, afraid of the trope having more than one or two examples per work, if at all. So they bend the criteria any way they want to in order to ensure that villains do not make the cut. As was once stated here, most villains are supposed to fail passing for Complete Monster. That's the policy here, from what I'm seeing. And it is a concern that it's not entirely fair.

From what I've seen, whenever the criticism of the trope definition have been brought up, it's always been through reasoned questioning of whether the rules are being too arbitrary or illogical (e.g. like the earlier conversation about whether superficial and narcissistic "friendships" should really count as something redeeming - the consensus was no, so these discussions really are productive toward this thread).

That's what I've seen it as too. I hope it's getting us somewhere, but....

So yeah. The only parts you have to quit are the strawmanning and the passive aggressive general insults to everyone in the thread that isn't you.

THANK YOU!

edited 17th Aug '13 1:23:23 PM by ANewMan

Please don't perpetuate this argument, folks.

Also, I will probably holler soon to get the debate tracker added to the post header. Speak now if you disagree.

My apologies if I went too hard there. "You don't get it" attitudes just really vex me.

The fact that it's supposed to be a very restrictive trope is a good thing overall. It means that not just anyone can qualify, but they need to be hardcore heinous. As for why I feel he doesn't apply;

• It's a Sadist Show. The guy is a Sadist in itself. He isn't overly worse than the regular show either. Being played seriously doesn't change this either.
  • Also, the thing is, it's as bad as many Adult Swim shows, only slightly lower because it doesn't actually kill characters. But it's still a very violent show, and not in the funny slapstick way either.
• Half of it is offscreen. That's bad when it comes to applying for this trope. Besides that, we can never apply offscreen stuff. It's only important that his onscreen stuff is noted. The fact the offscreen stuff is still being brought up really makes him doubtful as worthy of this trope.

This is why I vote to cut. He just isn't heinous enough at all. Being a bit more violent than what the show has, being played for serious doesn't matter, too much of it is offscreen.

I will ask one thing; Is it simply implied he's the problem with Eddy's life, or is it directly said it's the reason Eddy's life is terrible? Because that severely matters. It won't necessarily change my overall vote, mind you, but it's an important distinction.

@njrxll & Anew Man

I agree that we don't want to sound elitist and that some of us (and njrxll isn't the only offender) can indeed sound that way. That said, Anew Man—an entire post whining about how the rules are too restrictive? Seriously? I hate to break it to you but these arguments about relative heinousness that you so disdain? They're what keep the bad examples off. And before you go on complaining about how we're trying to keep everyone out—take a look over the subpages. Really take a look over the subpages. They're still huge. There's still far too many villains on them who haven't done anything near enough to qualify. We also still regularly add new villains to the list. When there's no subpages left, and all the examples are on one page, then you can complain that we're being too tough.

@Crowley

Discussions about things like "friendship" and when we can define it as such, are indeed conducive to the thread. Unfortunately we frequently get sidetracked by posters (and this is not in any way, shape or form aimed at you) who can legitimately be described as not getting it. They either haven't read the rules, don't understand the rules, or in the worst cases, don't want to understand the rules and just want their pet character put on the list. That's where a lot of njrxll's frustrations (and for that matter, my own frustrations) are coming from. I concur that generalising about people is bad, but all too often the shoe does fit.

RE: Eddy's Brother and Xavier

If I haven't already said cut Eddy's Brother, I'll say it now: cut him. He's nowhere near heinous enough, on a general basis, or by the standards of the show. To those arguing for him—while I wouldn't go so far as to say that you do not understand the trope, I would say that you are failing to convey that understanding to me. The burden of proof is on you to prove that he belongs on the list, and so far I'm not seeing any evidence that he's bad enough to qualify.

As for Xavier, the exigent circumstances and the fact that Hoffman, and for that matter Jigsaw himself, even if he doesn't qualify, are worse makes me say cut. And I'll concur with Lightysnake that Saw is really, really bad.

RE: Fortis

Will do a write-up for him shortly if there are still no objections.

edited 17th Aug '13 1:41:34 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar