Subpages cleanup: Complete Monster

For Yes! Pretty Cure 5's Kawarino, I looked back at the final episode for him. He's already been beaten. The Pretty Cure are telling Desperiah that true happiness comes from friends and all that junk. Kawarino comes and yells that Desperiah doesn't need that; she just needs to shroud the world in darkness now. She stops him from killing the Pretty Cure. He's shocked and seems angry, but then he's dragged away/killed by a subordinate he just betrayed. I can't tell if he's angry at her for considering turning good or just shocked. I'm not sure if he's genuinely loyal to her. Sadly, I'm leaning cut towards him now, but I'm still not sure.

What are the votes at for the Saw examples? They aren't on the debate tracker.

edited 17th Aug '13 4:26:12 PM by Camberf

I'm not sure we need to bother. Votes are largely against Xavier and for Hoffman

A New Man, that was an epic speech .

Is that sincere or sarcastic? 'Cause I honestly was not trying to make an epic speech out of anything: I was just letting my side of the argument known. Sharing how things looked like from my side of the fence. But thank you very much anyway.

Despite the fact that I still stand by my opinion, I personally think Eddy's brother is going to get the ax given how things are going. I tried my best, but maybe it didn't come out good enough. But out of curiosity, what does the debate tracker mean by "2 standing by the old ranking". And who's the 1 neutral party here?

edited 17th Aug '13 4:36:06 PM by ANewMan

RE the Saw ones, I'm not saying no, but with both those guys, a lot of their evil seems to involve taking revenge/responding to harm they have received from others- often from the Villain Protagonist of the series and his adoring minion.

Makes me uncomfortable with keeping them (of the two, Hoffman seems a better fit).

With Eddy's Brother, he definitely sounds like a horrible person, but I question the baseline heinousness requirement. I'd kind of compare him to discussions of Norman Osborne from Spectacular Spider-Man and Yakone in The Legend of Korra- while I can see why they don't count, I also understand why they were proposed- these are characters that aren't just villains (with the generic dog-kicking that implies), they are also awful people.

But being an awful person isn't enough in itself to qualify you as a Complete Monster.

OT- but one thing that I think made Spectacular Spider-Man great was how much it gave depth to its villains as individuals, which often (but not always) shows how someone who engages in costumed villainy is probably generally an unpleasant individual to be around.

edited 17th Aug '13 4:46:16 PM by Hodor

I should actually note, Hodor, that Hoffman is the result of Even Evil Has Standards in this series. Directed at him. Not from him. He's the only one who is creating games to feed his sadism rather than any supposed cause or purpose.

That's a fair point and why I can see him qualifying, given his purpose of making Jigsaw look better by comparison (although from what I've heard, it is extremely debatable whether or not Jigsaw or Amanda's traps actually qualify as escapable).

When people started talking about Eddy's Brother again, two people said "he's already on the list, drop it and move on."

For the record Eddy's brother originally was never properly debated; a few people commented on him and voted but at the time we were handling literally dozens of characters at once (there were single posts that were discussing or voting on 20 or more characters).

Back onto the Hoffman from Saw example; besides my hatred of how people overlook that the original Saw wasn't that gorey and was genuinely clever (and I'm not just saying that because the film was pitched and made by an Australian) Hoffman is an interesting case. He obviously loved his sister enough to murder her killer, but while he never shows any sign of not caring about her he does carry out his job as Jigsaw's apprentice with a bit too much enthusiasm, although unlike Amanda he does honour Jigsaw's intentions by making the traps more about giving a second chance (at least for the person being tested, anyone else in them seems to be fair game), and 7 he could count, he is looking for revenge against Jigsaw's wife who did attempt to murder him but as it's pointed out he ends up killing a lot of cops to get what he wants (but to make things more complicated Jigsaw gotten quite a few officers killed himself).

So I'd have to lean towards cut due to the work itself making it hard for Hoffman to be head and shoulders compared to his peers in the series.

I was the "neutral" one. Also, just to clarify, when I said I was neutral, I meant I'm fine with keeping or cutting Eddy's brother.

Jigsaw's definitely were. We see people escape them several times. Amanda's were not, but her bodycount is nothing compared to Hoffman and she believed she was 'saving' people.

Strahm had no purpose but to cover his own ass. And Jill was trying to test him according to Jigsaw's instructions. he was being taken out because he's an Ax-Crazy murderer who pretty much wiped out the city's police force and kills innocent people to cover himself.

Hoffman's definitely got the clearest cut highest bodycount there is and he stands out.

I also disagree the first film was 'clever' by any stretch. It had plot holes galore

edited 17th Aug '13 5:17:42 PM by Lightysnake

Sorry for the lack of posts, the Wifi is down at my home, and I'm in a Macdonalds now.

Just read the tracker: major Kudos

If anyone needs any more explanation on Professor Zoom just say so, I think I've already covered the basic points. I agree with Footsteps, he doesn't do a lot to make himself stand out from Aquaman and Wonder woman. If he had a hand in changing time I'd be more inclined to keep him.

Regarding Xavier: Looks like a cut to me.

@TV Rulez Again: A candidate's fate might be in your hands! CHOOSE!

With Eddy's Brother, he definitely sounds like a horrible person, but I question the baseline heinousness requirement. I'd kind of compare him to discussions of Norman Osborne from Spectacular Spider-Man and Yakone in The Legend of Korra- while I can see why they don't count, I also understand why they were proposed- these are characters that aren't just villains (with the generic dog-kicking that implies), they are also awful people. But being an awful person isn't enough in itself to qualify you as a Complete Monster.

I know that, but I was under the assumption that being an awful person who is a sdistic abuser and torturer in a setting where there are none like that, and going as bad as possible given the scale, and standing out as heinous by the series' standards because of this, would be a qualification. Clearly I was wrong.

but one thing that I think made Spectacular Spider-Man great was how much it gave depth to its villains as individuals, which often (but not always) shows how someone who engages in costumed villainy is probably generally an unpleasant individual to be around.

Same here. Norman was literally the only candidate for a Complete Monster in that series. The rest of the villains were all significantly humanized.

edited 17th Aug '13 5:34:08 PM by ANewMan

"I know that, but I was under the assumption that being an awful person who is a sdistic abuser and torturer in a setting where there are none like that, and going as bad as possible given the scale, and standing out as heinous by the series' standards because of this, would be a qualification. Clearly I was wrong."

You're partly right, partly wrong. First, it sounds like from some posts (I've never watched the show) that other characters regularly engage in similar violent behavior- the difference is that its played for laughs in those instances, but is played seriously here- but the acts themselves are the same.

There's also sort of a baseline heinousness which is hard to define, but is necessary because there's too much room for bad examples if you just consider "heinous by the series' setting" (because that can easily be for instance An Alpha Bitch in a Sugar Bowl setting who pushed the protagonist- IIRC, there was an actual example like that that someone added).

They actually do. I've seen the show before. It's pretty sadistic and overly violent.

Really, this is the same problem we had with the Family Guy example. By the show's standards, the violence isn't overly heinous.

So we've had two people change their votes from keep to cut, we've had a few people add cut votes, can we say that it's a clear cut now or do we want to wait for something more definitive?

It's a clear cut.

No need to bring it on further. Nothing convincing has come up, and the arguments have been repeated with zero changes, beyond more people not agreeing with him being heinous. If the pattern continues, well, why put it off further. Cut him. It's the consensus now.

that other characters regularly engage in similar violent behavior- the difference is that its played for laughs in those instances, but is played seriously here- but the acts themselves are the same.

Except that with most of those other character's Played for Laughs acts of violence, they're

• A: Not seriously damaging
• B: Not psychologically abusive
• C: Not For the Evulz
• D: Not to a younger, smaller, weaker family member

Eddy's brother's acts of violence was all of those.

There's also sort of a baseline heinousness which is hard to define, but is necessary because there's too much room for bad examples if you just consider "heinous by the series' setting" (because that can easily be for instance An Alpha Bitch in a Sugar Bowl setting who pushed the protagonist- IIRC, there was an actual example like that that someone added).

Pushing, slapping, or insulting are never heinous enough. This was a legitimate beat-down we were talking about. The old brother just trounces his little brother into solid objects and does bodily harm to him for no other reason but It Amused Me.

Really, this is the same problem we had with the Family Guy example. By the show's standards, the violence isn't overly heinous.

This again shows that you did not really read my argument, because I covered where and why he differed from Jeff from Family Guy. All of Jeff's actions were things that had been done before by other characters and were Played for Laughs when they did it. None of the characters on this show did anything like Eddy's brother's actions. You seem to think they did because you're generalizing the actions of Eddy's brother as just "violence towards Eddy", when there was more variables there that set them apart from the usual slapstick violence fare.

It's a clear cut.

Looks that way, but are you sure the final verdict is up to you?

edited 17th Aug '13 6:05:59 PM by ANewMan

Flinging around accusations will not convince me to change the vote.

on Eddy's Brother, now more than ever.

And yes, the general consensus has been constantly saying to cut him(and the consensus has been increasingly growing to cut him more than to keep him). More than one person has asked to move on.

There is absolutely no new arguments that have been brought up at all. This is going around in circles and needs to end so we can discuss other new stuff.

Looks that way, but are you sure the final verdict is up to you?

We're looking at the very least at 11 for cutting and 5 for keeping, and the difference could be even greater if the people who voted cut in the last four pages hadn't already thrown a vote down. It's a clear 2-to-1 vote in favour of cutting.

A New Man, with the all caps and the Single Issue Wonks and the emoticons and the condensending and confrontational tone you've been taking this entire thread you're well on your way to becoming the next Brony99 or Krystoff of this thread. That is not a good thing.

You made your points, and your points have been acknowledged and rebutted.. Repeating them until people get sick and tired of having to repeat themselves to you does not make you the winner, it hurts the thread and it makes me think you don't have a place in it.

This is exactly like Jeff from Family Guy. Those "variables" you're talking about are utterly irrelevant to the fact that, in terms of violence levels, we've been told by several different tropers that the only difference between what Eddy's brother did and what other characters have done in the show was how it was treated. And "you seem to think" is no different from "you don't get the trope."

You're also ignoring the fact that Jeff was cut largely because characters had done worse than he had, the only difference being that one was played for laughs and the other wasn't.

Anyway I'm getting sick of going around in circles. Unless someone has anything to say that hasn't been said and repeated and beaten into the ground I'm going to request a cut with a 2-to-1 support. If you keep this up I'm also going to request that he be added to the "Never Again" list.

edited 17th Aug '13 6:17:10 PM by Shaoken

A New Man, with the all caps and the Single Issue Wonks and the emoticons and the condensending and confrontational tone you've been taking this entire thread you're well on your way to becoming the next Brony99 or Krystoff of this thread. That is not a good thing.

I suppose anyone who opposes the norm here and dares question if the standards and criteria for this trope are really straightened out would become the next Brony99 or Krytoff, huh?

All caps can be used sparingly, I wouldn't be having "Single Issue Wonks" if people would just actually acknowledge my points and put them into consideration while giving the candidate a fair trial using the actual criteria, I fail to see how emoticons harm anything, and I try to not get personally confrontational with anyone: just stern and vocal about some practices that go down here in general. If being "condescending and confrontational" is a problem, than Ambar should have become the next Brony99 and Krystoff a long time ago.

You made your points, and your points have been acknowledged and rebutted.. Repeating them until people get sick and tired of having to repeat themselves to you does not make you the winner, it hurts the thread and it makes me think you don't have a place in it.

But nobody seemed to really argue or actually respond to my points, which makes me think they were not acknowledged. People just held on to their "not heinous enough" mentality they had before I ever typed anything down, which makes it all ultimately a waste. Forgive me for not being pleased with that.

This is exactly like Jeff from Family Guy. Those "variables" you're talking about are utterly irrelevant to the fact that, in terms of violence levels, we've been told by several different tropers that the only difference between what Eddy's brother did and what other characters have done in the show was how it was treated. And "you seem to think" is no different from "you don't get the trope.

No, I really don't think it is. And did people expect the violence to be super realistic and graphic, with blood spewing everywhere? The way it was animated is irrelevant to what the act of violence was in-story. Does what we've been told by several tropers really matter more than what is shown in the show itself? Also, "you seem to think" is in reference to the series and the candidate for the trope in a context, not the trope itself.

You're also ignoring the fact that Jeff was cut largely because characters had done worse than he had, the only difference being that one was played for laughs and the other wasn't.

That's not much of an argument though because those worse things were all Played for Laughs, meaning that the universe of Family Guy had no standards against them. And "X has done worse" just doesn't strike me as a convincing argument as to why a character isn't a CM, because the issue of scale has been discussed before, which just leads to more confusion. It's more important to note that domestic abuse, the thing that was Played for Drama with Jeff, was among the many things that was played for laughs before but isn't now, so it's more like Family Guy going back on it's own standards than it being truly heinous by them.

edited 17th Aug '13 6:32:12 PM by ANewMan

Okay I vote to cut Eddys Brother. Maybe if he had more than one appearance he could count, but as is it just isn`t enough. I think a domestic abuser could count but he has to do more onscreen. I still don`t see what the problem is with the criteria and while heinousness is somewhat subjective, I don`t think it is that hard to determine.

Okay, I think that's enough votes to cut him.

I think there's something to be said for the criteria being fine, but we do have issues sticking to it at points. The issue of people using their own criteria to invalidate an entry is a rather big recurring issue. The Commodus one is an example of that when we got rather unfounded comparisons to Nero and Caligula.

Wow, with Eddy's Brother, this was probably the most hotly discussed candidate I've ever seen.