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}
It really depends on how much value one puts on the fact that he slaughtered at least two innocent villages. Like, that's basically the thing that needs to be worked out here to consensus.
For adding Mirage in Aladdin, like someone said. Jafar may not be a Complete Monster despite his attempted murder but if I most go by the three signs of what character qualifies as a Complete Monster...
Heinous Actions even by the series standards: She was willing to cause a war for no reason or turn children into demons something that neither Jafar nor the other series villains had crossed.
Feared and Hated by other characters: While the rest of the series' villains were dealt as a threat or at least mere nuisance. Mirage is one of the most dangerous villains Aladdin has faced.
No remorse nor regret: None at all, in fact she considers it weakness, and hates good.
I think Shan-Yu is a Complete Monster and I don't think he's a Generic Doomsday Villain. He does have a personality, it's just a subdued one. He also has a motive: to glorify his own ego by proving his strength and superiority. He says the Great Wall of China was a challenge of his strength and he wants to meet it. That's his entire reason for launching the war, to prove he's strong. When a guard tells him all of China knows that he's there, Shan-Yu's response is: "Perfect." The message he has the soldier relay to the Emperor is an announcement of exactly where the Hun army is, as well as a boast that the Emperor should send his best after him. He makes good on his boast when he deliberately attacks the village occupied with the bulk of the Chinese army, despite knowing there is a less risky way to get to his target.
The most telling part is near the end when, after most of his army is wiped out, he still attacks the capital and tries to make the Emperor bow before him. It's not enough for him to win, he wants his enemy to know that he's been beaten. Despite being The Quiet One, the few things he does say coupled with his actions lead me to believe his inner self is that of an Arrogant Kung-Fu Guy.
Also, the main problem I have with claiming Shan-Yu's Kickthe Dog and Moral Event Horizon moments can be brushed aside due to Values Dissonance, is that he takes too much pleasure in his actions. He breaks out a Psychotic Smirk both when he orders one of the messengers to be killed, as well as when it's implied he's thinking about killing a little girl. He pursues courses of action that result in the most bloodshed, even when they're unnecessary to his overall goal. I've heard arguements that the Chinese army would be just as willing to engage in those actions during that time period, but that's never shown onscreen and the soldiers we do see in the Chinese army are all decent people with the exception ofChi Fu.
As for the Coachman, yes I'd say he counts. Halfway through the movie, Stromboli was the most heinous villain encountered, seeing as he was going to enslave one boy, then planned on killing him when he was no longer useful. The Coachman, however, ups the ante by enslaving dozens of boys, but not before subjecting them to Body Horror. It's unknown if the boys he transformed into speechless donkes are aware of their situation or not. If they've fully transformed from human minds into donkey minds, then it seems similar to murder, the boy's consciousness gone, replaced with an animal's consciousness. If they still have human consciousness but are trapped in donkey bodies, then it's a Fate Worsethan Death. Either way it's the most horrific thing shown in the story, at least in my opinion. Not to mention it's implied that the Coachman is going to do something horrible with the donkeys who are still capable of talking. I don't see how Stromboli comes across as worse when the Coachman commits similar crimes, only more horrifying and on a more massive scale.
Also, was the Coachman ever mentioned as being a karmic force? Is there supplementary material somewhere to back that up? I mean, earlier it was said that villains should be taken at face value unless it'simplied otherwise. So, if we're to taking the Coachman at face value, then he's just an evil old man willing to force children into a Fate Worsethan Death out of greed.
edited 11th Jul '12 8:53:38 PM by OccasionalExister
Avatar by Leafsnake
That last part was the crux of my argument. I have been told to take them at face value, but making the Coachman a karmic force is reading into it deeper and finding an interpretation. I like that interpretation, it balances the redemption of the blue fairy with the retribution of the Coachman (Who's coat is red), but this is only a theory, and the way the coachman is presented in the film makes him a complete monster.
@ Moz. Go back one page and you'll see we already mentioned Clown. The verdict was that we wait until the story involving him has wrapped up, because a lot of the times someone adds a character in the middle of an ongoing story-arc (*cough cough* Tarrlock from The Legend Of Korra) something happens later in the story that knocks them out of the running.
@ plc; I'm still not buying Mirage. Causing a war for no reason? Not a CM action. Turning children into Demons? Cartoon-level villiany. Feared and hated? I'd wadger Aladdin would still place Jafar higher up on that list. She's as evil as Jafar at most, who was also a traitor and forced Genie to fight Aladdin in the original movie.
Speaking on the Aladdin front, the entry for Aladdin and the King of Thieves needs re-writting; whoever wrote it originally felt the need to include a lot of exclamation marks and needless italics;
- Sa'Luk from Aladdin And The King Of Thieves. He is very ruthless, showing a very cruel sense of humor and he has a pleasure in killing! He is also willing to betray and/or kill his own people in order to get what he wants and he also manipulates many characters!! In the end when he finds Aladdin and his father with a golden hand of Midas, he demands them to give it to him, or he will kill Aladdin. When they give it to him, he decides to kill Aladdin anyway, just for pleasure! It is very satisfying to see him than turn into gold.
While we're on Aladdin, is Sa'Luk a CM? He sounds a lot like Jafar, who manipulated his own men and sacrificed them, I'm pretty sure he's made deals then broke them later, and attempted murder on several characters. Then again, maybe I'm biased because I think anyone who feels that their example needs so many exclamation points is probably overreacting.
For Shan-Yu, my gut instinct is no, but that's going off real life warfare at the time, which was particularly brutal, and the Chinese army did worse things than shown in the movie. But obviously because this is a Disney movie, things can't be that dark. So taking everything at face value, Shun-Yu did all these attrocities just because he felt that the wall designed to keep him out was a challenge from China to him.
And for the Coachman, wasn't his deal was that he took misbehaving kids, allowed them to induldge in vices which turned them into Donkeys? I think the argument against him is that it's a Disportonate Retribution-version of Karmic Punishment (or in other words, the kids act like Jackasses and get turned into them). His victims are the trouble-making kids. Granted, I haven't seen the film in years and years.
Think of the mooks!
With the Coachman, nobody has addressed what about that is so heinous compared to the others. I mean, we're going back and forth on Shan Yu, and he has a legit body count. Yes, standards of the work and whatnot, but I don't see what he did to be nearly on the heinous level of a true Complete Monster.
For Shan Yu... I'm inclined to put the "slaughtering innocent villages" thing into then-standard operating procedures for a warlord. Think, this movie takes place centuries before Genghis Khan... and that's a guy who actually was treated as an innovator in his day for not slaughtering innocent villages indiscriminately.
Plus, since we have a lack of depicted motivation for him, I just don't think he's even developed enough to be this. It almost sounds like he could just as easily be a force of nature. There's no shame in simply saying no to this example.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
There's one big counter-argument I can see for all the "it's what they did" stuff with Shan-Yu: putting villages to the sword may have been SOP for your average ancient warlord, but it's not the usual sort of villainy in a Disney movie (and unlike something like Hunchback, I don't think Mulan is especially dark by the canon's standards).
Playing partial devil's advocate - "partial" because I do half-agree with this, though it doesn't undercut my own objection to including him.
Sorry, guys but I must still argue for Shan-Yu. I just want to be convinced by right argument. He doesn't get much characterization. I think that this is what makes him a Complete Monster. From all we know about him, he is one. Remember the Kill Bill example that I brought up? Boss Matsumato. He only appears in an animated flashback, and doesn't get much characterization either. Yet, you say that that doesn't disqualify him, and from what we know, he would count. Same with Shan-Yu. He doesn't even appear in the flashback.
Think of the mooks!
Well, Boss Matsumoto was raping underage girls. Shan Yu really doesn't strike me as comparatively heinous. That's why character development is necessary. If there was a particular cruel streak to how he was acting, shown through his characterization, then I could see including him.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
Killing a the whole village of people is not heinous? Otherwise, you have me convinced.
Think of the mooks!
Killing entire villages, even ones of non-combatants, was standard operating procedure for armies back in the day. Heck, Sun Tzu gave recommendations on just when doing that was not just a standard MO, but a good idea to boot. And Sun Tzu was approximately 800-1000 years before the setting of Mulan (based on when the story upon which the movie was based described).
So yes, it really wasn't all that heinous.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
If we factor in the real-life inspirations, it's rather tame. The problem is that in Disney's version Sun Tzu probably never said such things, the Chinese army was the bastion of honour and didn't go around castrating defeated soldiers, etc. etc.
So in the scope of the work, what he does is probably not the norm for the time.
Avatar by Leafsnake
The settlers came to America exclusively for gold, communication with the natives was easy, and the whole breakdown of Native-American and European relations was the fault of one man. Disney doesn't do accurate history very well.
I agree with you, the Chinese were probably more heroic, than history paints them, and the Huns were the evil conquerors. CM's are monstrous by the standards of the fiction they're in.
"That is how the character is presented in the story." - CM Work's page
edited 12th Jul '12 10:52:32 AM by DrPsyche
Yeah, the "heinous" standard is by the story's standards, not Real Life ones. Did someone act like Shan Yu in the story?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
No. Shan-Yu is treated as the worst of the worst in-story.
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
Yeah, if Shan-Yu was in A Song Of Ice And Fire, he'd be... well, he'd probably one of the heroes, actually. In a Disney movie with Eddie Murphy as a talking dragon, things are a bit different.
edited 12th Jul '12 2:39:45 PM by Iaculus
What's precedent ever done for us?
As I've said, I still think the problem is that he's just too undefined as a character to really count.
"undefined character" - being super-heinous sure sounds like a definition here.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Also, he's not undefined, he's just a more eloquent, Slasher Smile-prone version of The Stoic.
@Shaoken. Fine, what would Mirage have to do to qualify as Complete Monster material?
I'm going to go ahead and say, plcthecd, that you're really starting to give off a Single-Issue Wonk vibe here.
As for Shan-Yu, it looks like consensus is leaning in his favor, and I can see where you all are coming from (even if I don't agree myself), so I'm going to withdraw my objection. Put him up.
Azor Ahai
Yeah, he's a case I can understand being there. I do think the Song of Ice and Fire comment is on point though, in terms of my sense that no matter how great a conqueror/military commander is to their own people, most if not all of them probably look like Shan-Yu to those on the receiving end.
edited 12th Jul '12 3:40:04 PM by Jordan
Hodor
As I've said, I think that argument holds a little less weight given that he's a Disney villain anyway - my own objection is that he feels more like a somewhat-personified force of destruction then a true "character" as such, but it's certainly possible to disagree on that (and clearly most people do).
@1671: Have to do something evil enough to make people say "Jafar is nothing next to her." Just because she made an impression some tropers, that doesn't make her a CM. But transforming people isn't a unique thing to her, trying to kill people is standard villian fare, etc.
From my vantage point the discussion on Mirage is over. Unless you make an incredibly convincing argument I'd advise against pushing the issue, since that would be a Single-Issue Wonk and the mods look down on that.
The thing about Shan-Yu is that, while he certainly doesn't have any positive qualities, I'm not sure he has sufficiently negative ones to move beyond being an ISO Standard Conquering Warlord. As I said, I'm still thinking Generic Doomsday Villain.