Moral Event Horizon cleanup

With the new rules, are any of the following valid?

Wonder Woman (2011 pilot):

• Moral Event Horizon:
  • Wonder Woman crosses this when she broke a hospitalized man's arm and then proceeds to torture him for information. Wonder Woman makes a point of dramatically resting her lasso on the guy. If you're familiar with the comics, you'd know that this is the Lasso of Truth, and it even gets called that in the pilot. Granted, they never established that it has that magical power in this universe, but it does make people familiar with other incarnations immediately think WW has decided to purposely ignore the Lasso in favor of torture (or even worse, that it's meant to be a metaphor about how torture is the real "Lasso of Truth"). What makes it even darker is that WW torturing him in the Hospital bed SHE put him in!

Animaniacs (2020)

• Moral Event Horizon:
  • Brain has a few moments that are worthy contenders:
    • "Pinko and the Brain": He starts an anti-mouse campaign during the Red Scare, leading to the Mouseketeers being arrested. Even Pinky questions the morality of this, pointing out they are mice and it's hypocritical. Fortunately, Brie interferes and exposes them.
    • "Mousechurian Candidate:” Brain plants an obedience chip in Julia's brain. He had also planned on using child labor to build bombs (though this is only stated in a single throwaway line).

The Cabin in the Woods:

• Moral Event Horizon: Marty and Dana effectively cross this by letting all of humanity die.

The last one especially befuddles me, because the characters were given either that choice, or to sacrifice themselves, if I remember correctly.

For the first two: these are protagonists and are still treated as sympathetic after these events, correct? And the Pinky and the Brain examples sound comedic. So no, it wouldn't count.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

I did some cleanup work for examples failing to meet the new established criteria, but one troper objected to my deletions over PMs on YMMV.Total Drama.

---

---

My explanations for how the deleted examples failed to meet the new criteria:

• "The deed marks a change in the portrayal of the character." Almost none of their portrayals^{Definiton of portrayal} a depiction of someone or something in a work of art or literature were ever changed, and the portrayals that did change weren't because of specific deeds.
• "The deed is outstandingly evil by the standards of the story."
  • Many of the deleted examples involve choosing to let someone die, so attempted murder or something similar isn't outstandingly evil by Total Drama's standards unless the method is very brutal.
  • The one example that might be exceptional to someone who doesn't watch the show—getting eaten by scarabs—doesn't count because the show regularly risks contestants getting eaten by sharks, so getting eaten by animals isn't outstandingly evil. Also, that example is written like Chris using a skeleton as a footstool is the MEH, which isn't really evil.
• "Must be intentional by the narrative and only applies to intentional villains (if they weren't clearly intended as clear-cut villains before crossing they are afterward)." Only 3^note 4 if you count Chris's examples, which I don't because he displays redeeming qualities after the deeds, albeit rarely of the examples had characters (Mal, Amy, and Scarlett) that the show clearly intended to be irredeemable (remember that the core of MEH is about irredeemably evil characters), only 1 of those characters (Amy) is irredeemable because of a specific moment, and that moment doesn't qualify because it's an Establishing Character Moment, which can't mark a change in a character's portrayal by definition.

Thoughts?

Edited by Kevjro7 on Jan 9th 2021 at 6:09:43 AM

Are any of these from YMMV.Cobra Kai valid?

• Arguably, Shannon Keane crosses the line when she abandons Robby out of the blue with her new boyfriend (claiming to only be gone for a few weeks, but not returning until the end of summer), proving that her Gold Digging is entirely selfish. She doesn't even make sure that the bills are being paid while she's gone, so the power goes out shortly after she leaves. Even worse, Robby only found out because Shannon sneaked back into their apartment to grab something, meaning she was planning on leaving her son without any explanation. Obviously, Shannon has a lot of problems (addiction being one of them), but that is no excuse for abandoning your child, especially without ensuring that he's safe and secure.

I could see this working as she is partially to blame for Robby's Face–Heel Turn.

• Kreese seemed willing to try to redeem himself, but he crosses it when he steals the dojo from Johnny leaving him with no income and plans to corrupt the students even worse than in 1984. And if he didn't cross it there, he definitely crossed it when he attempted to murder Johnny and Daniel.

This I could see staying even if Kreese has a Freudian Excuse being a Shell-Shocked Veteran.

Kyler crosses it when he beats Miguel to a pulp with a lacrosse stick.

ZCE.

The Cobra Kai dojo as a whole crosses it when they convince Hawk to break Demetri's arm. Then, Tory and the other Cobra Kai loyalists cross it even further when they invade the La Russo house and assault Sam, Miguel and all of the Miyagi-do and former Cobra Kai students as they’re hanging out.

Groups can't count. Cut.

Captain Turner's actions throughout Vietnam fell strictly under I Did What I Had to Do, until he told Kreese that his girlfriend was dead just to demoralize him so he could kill him to save his own life.

Damn... Definitely keep.

Fair warning: I can get pretty emotional and take things too seriously.

I agree with most of those. There are some I'm not quite sure about. Does Scarlett not count because that's her last appearance to date, and it's a reveal that she was a villain to begin with? Also does Mal count when he starts getting physically violent or is it too early in his portrayal to be a change in character, as opposed to a reveal of his true intentions?

I'm wondering if Chris might count somewhere because there is a distinct change in his depiction from a somewhat mean-spirited game show host to a pure law-breaking sadist, but I think that might be too gradual a change, akin to Flanderization.

I can help rewrite Blaineley if you don't want to.

Edited by mightymewtron on Jan 8th 2021 at 12:56:55 PM

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

We should discuss Evil All Along characters on the TRS thread. The reasons why Scarlett doesn't count is because her change in portrayal is caused by...entering a control room (that's what the wiki page for the episode says). This isn't an evil deed, and even if her change in her apparent portrayal isn't this, it's still not because she did something awful. Getting "physically violent" happens all the time in Total Drama, so that shouldn't count. If it happens early, it's an Establishing Character Moment, which sets the character's portrayal, and fails the "The deed marks a change in the portrayal of the character" criteria by default. And as you can see from the other examples, attempted murder (or something very similar to it) is common enough to not be outstandingly evil by TD's standards. My point is that he doesn't fit the new criteria. Maybe Chris can count if we can pinpoint a specific deed, but it definitely isn't one of the moments listed. There's also the issue of the redeeming qualities he shows very rarely, which conflicts with the "irredeemably evil" part of Moral Event Horizon. This is why I don't think he counts at all. His portrayal changes between seasons, which can't be attributed to a specific deed in the show. Well, if you're offering...

Here's how I rewrote Blaineley:

• Blaineley began as the egotistical but largely harmless co-host of Celebrity Manhunt and later the replacement host for Bridgette in the Aftermath special. Then in "Aftermath Aftermayhem," she forces Bridgette to take her place on a tour so Blainley can take her place as co-host permanently, leaving Bridgette stranded in freezing cold Siberia. This horrifies Geoff, who sings a brutal song mocking her. Almost everybody dislikes her (barring Owen, who has a crush on her) and she becomes The Chew Toy when she joins the season as a contestant, being put through serious physical pain to the amusement of everybody else.

While we're on the subject, there's this on Total Drama Presents: The Ridonculous Race:

• Moral Event Horizon: Josee crossed this, or at least came very close in "Bahamarama". It's at least clear it goes no farther than then her rival MacArthur saves her from drowning by sharing her oxygen tank with her, and Josee repays the favor by chucking a coconut at MacArthur's head mere minutes later during a footrace to the finish line, without a single ounce of remorse whatsoever. Though some would argue that she and Jacques had already crossed it even earlier in "My Way or Zimbabwe" when they tried to purposely run Dwayne over after he tells them that medals aren't important.

Edited by mightymewtron on Jan 8th 2021 at 2:14:54 PM

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

Haven't watched the show, but here are my thoughts based on what's written:

• If this is the only instance of abandoning a child and not making sure they're fine, keep. Cut the first word because Examples Are Not Arguable. Rewrite the rest if you feel it's needed.
• Needs to be rewritten because their can only be one moment with the new criteria. More details are needed before I can comment on its validity.
• Cut.
• Cut.
• Keep.

I only watched Race once and about a year ago, but wasn't her portrayal as being hyper-competitive more or less the same after the betrayal? Cut the part about them attempting to runover Dwayne because from what I do remember, their portrayal stays the same after that.

That's reason enough for me to say she can't count. Cut it.

Edited by Kevjro7 on Jan 9th 2021 at 9:52:13 AM

Yeah, and I think she actually had sympathetic moments after that. So I don't think it counts, but I also didn't watch Race very much so I'm unsure.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

Keep in mind that this is not Complete Monster; the character must not be completely devoid of positive qualities, they just need to be irreedeemably evil.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Let's cover something interesting:

Toy Story 3: Lotso had already established himself as a ruthless and unrepentant dog-kicking machine as he tortures and corrupts the toys during the movie, but irrevocably crosses the horizon when he pretends to try to turn off the Conveyor Belt of Doom leading to the incinerator, then leaves the other toys to their deaths with the remark "where's your kid now, sheriff?", complete with a mocking salute and evil smile. This after he pretended to be redeemed and after Woody and Buzz had just risked their lives to save him. So much for Rousseau being right this time, as is usually the case for Pixar.

I think this fits under the criteria, and it shows that Redemption Rejection is a great way to identify MEH examples. Thoughts?

Are we still going with "irredeemably evil" or just "irredeemable"? Some characters are antagonistic, or they may even be the protagonist but a very shitty person, but might not be depicted as "evil" per se.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

I've been thinking of a character who's act of torturing the protagonist was considered so vile and cruel that it not only horrified everyone who saw the footage but also was major enough to crumble the very culture of their society. It changed him from a relatively normal dude to someone seen as an abusive monster. It checks pretty much every major criteria we'd voted on.

However, this character isn't without his redeeming qualities. At the end of the second book his son gets shot, and it genuinely upsets him. He ends up being seen less as some completely evil monster and more as a man with insane beliefs who went too far in that moment.

So I guess I'm also questioning the "irredeemability" issue. The story doesn't outright redeem him- he's still in power and still doing awful things until the torture footage gets him removed, and in the end he's sent to prison for it. The act is a black mark on him that the story consistently portrayed as horrific, but he himself is very human and more nuanced than just an evil scumbag.

So if it's not necessarily the CM meaning of "irredeemable", what's our meaning of the word here?

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

That's why I think this should be an objective trope, because it is possible to play with the concept of "irredeemablity" in works that go beyond Black-and-White Morality.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

Remember this criteria:

• Must be intentional by the narrative and only applies to intentional villains (if they weren't clearly intended as clear-cut villains before crossing they are afterward).

They must be evil. A character portrayed as an irredeemable jerkass at worst doesn't count.

How do we define "evil" then? For the Total Drama example, Blaineley isn't truly evil, but there is a point where she loses all sympathetic qualities and the narrative treats her differently. And I'm always going to point to BoJack Horseman because the narrative deconstructs the idea of "good" and "evil" but also has a very clear-cut instance of the title character crossing the MEH - still sympathetic but no longer seen as a good person at all, everybody including his closest friends leaves him, he has little chance of redemption.

TBH I think I got this mixed up with the TRS thread for a bit.

Edited by mightymewtron on Jan 9th 2021 at 5:44:40 AM

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

Maybe we should move this to the TRS discussion; we're getting into pretty big definition questions here.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

The definitions I found when googling "evil" were consistently about morally reprehensible behavior. Blainley commits the morally reprehensible act of kidnapping Bridgette and risking her freezing to death in Siberia, so I'd say that proves that she's evil. Can't comment on BoJack because I have no knowledge of it.

Agreed.

Edited by Kevjro7 on Jan 9th 2021 at 2:16:11 AM

Yeah, this discussion should be going on in the TRS thread.

On the difference between being evil and just being a Jerkass, I’d say “evil” is defined by committing actions that have a significant negative impact on others and by having a notable influence on the plot.

back lol

Here are the examples on YMMV.Rick And Morty, and my thoughts on which should be cut or kept.

Edit: To those of you who came here because of my edit reason, here's the full criteria. And I deleted the second Tammy example because it fails the "change in portrayal of the character" criteria.

---

---

Thoughts? And can I also hear thoughts on this?

Edited by Kevjro7 on Jan 11th 2021 at 5:18:37 AM

Here's one for The Social Network which I'm not sure is even valid.

• Moral Event Horizon: "Interns?" Mark admired and defended Sean, but was visibly uncomfortable with his "interest" in a young intern working at Facebook. The fact that Sean's arrest at a college party involved several interns, all underage, was unforgivable and inexcusable to Mark for more than just PR reasons.

Not familiar with the movie, but I think that could count if the arrest marks a significant change and the narrative and characters treat him like an irredeemable bad guy from that point on.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

This scene marks Sean's transition from a jerkass pervert to a full fledged criminal, sleeping with underage women is outstandingly evil by the film's standards, and Mark's reaction shows that it was intentional by the narrative. Keep.

I think the concern is that if this is close to troping real life people or not.

Although if we're going to keep it, I think it should be rewritten a bit, since its a bit confusingly written and written more like a objective trope rather than an audience reaction.

BTW is there a similar example on the movie's main page under Beyond Redemption? (That's the in-universe version).

Edited by PlasmaPower on Jan 10th 2021 at 6:24:32 AM

Thomas fans needed! Come join me in the the show's cleanup thread!

Well, actually, the TRS is debating if MEH should stay in YMMV or become an objective trope. Here's the thread if you're curious.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness