TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Cleanup thread: Magnificent Bastard

Go To

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:

     Previous post 
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.

  • Why do a cleanup?: This trope definitely exists and has a well documented history of use. That being said, it frequently gets misused to a character who meets one of the components, namely that they are smart, charming while not necessarily even being a villain, or create good plans. While these are components, there is also a certain personality required, not to mention that all of the above are required to be present for a character to be a true Magnificent Bastard. As the trope attracts interest, it unfortunately brings in a lot of misuse and I thought the best way to rectify this would be a Perpetual Cleanup Thread, as is being done and has seen success with Complete Monster.

  • What makes a Magnificent Bastard: Below is a list of the individual components to make this character. Note that they must all be present, not just some, which has lead to frequent misuse:
    • Must be intelligent: Goes without saying, to be a Magnificent Bastard, the character has to be smart in the first place and use their brain to work towards whatever their end goal may be;
    • Must be a Bastard: While going overboard in how vile the character is can be detrimental, a key aspect is the Bastard part of the trope, whether the character is an out-and-out antagonist in the work, some manner of Villain Protagonist, or something in between, they at least have some unscrupulous qualities to qualify for this trope;
    • Must not be too detestable: Again, there is a ceiling on how bad the character can be before they just become too nefarious, blocking out the Magnificent part of the trope. A genocidal racist or child-raping Sadist aren't going to make the cut;
    • Think on their feet: In addition to being a Chessmaster, a Magnificent Bastard, if the character deals with situations in which their initial plan is ruined, has to be able to pull a Xanatos Speed Chess and at least come up with a competent strategy to make up for lost time, otherwise they fail for being unable to think in tough spots;
    • Have charm: Even if they don't necessarily make every character they meet fall in love with them and can even be detested by others, the audience has to find an amicable social relation to the character, or they are failing to make the impact required for this trope.

  • What to do if a character is listed on a page but has not been approved?: They need to be removed, all candidates need to come through the cleanup thread first. The character could well count but they need to be analyzed properly and voted on first.

  • Do we list Playing With this trope?: No; as a YMMV trope, this cannot be Played With, so we only want examples that are Played Straight.

  • What do I do if I want a character to be listed as a Magnificent Bastard?: The greatest success Complete Monster saw for its cleanup effort was from the invention of the effort post format, so, borrowing from that, a troper wishing to propose a Magnificent Bastard will create such a post in the following format:
    • Begin by describing The work, this will help establish the setting the character is in and for the reader to understand what kind of a scenario they are in;
    • Summarize The character's actions, this will provide a listing for readers to understand what they do and how it applies to this trope because charm and lack of smugness are so crucial, this is a good time to be incorporating exactly the flavor of how they operate to explain this;
    • List circumstances in which the character must Think on their feet, these are times where a wrench might be thrown in their initial plan and they have to adapt on the spot or even come up with a new scheme all together, this is also a good time to explain how the villain reacts to defeat when they have to face it, a true Magnificent Bastard won't break down into tears at the thought of death, they should have known such a possibility could occur and be able to handle it with more dignity;
    • The competition, similar to the Heinous Standard dealt with for a Complete Monster, this section is to deal with how successful the character is in carrying out their plans compared to other characters. While, as a villain, they probably are going to lose in the end, it is good to explain how other characters handle the same situation. There is no exceptionalism case to be made for this trope but explaining the variety helps the reader have a better understanding of the proposal.

  • How do you know when the character's arc is done so they can be proposed? When their tenure as a villain or antagonist finishes. This could happen in a single Story Arc in an entire work, a single work of a franchise, or the whole series in general. We'll show lenience to Long-Runners with constantly recurring candidates or series with outstanding continuities (ex. comic books), and it's entirely possible to count in a work or two but not in general for a reason like Depending on the Writer.

  • What about candidates evil because of external sources? Those Made of Evil can qualify if they show enough individuality and tactical acumen — in other words, they have the personality to fulfill the magnificence requirement. Conversely, those brainwashed, especially if they're a better person without it, may fail the individuality aspect and cannot count.

  • What if they are under orders from a higher-up? Depends. If the boss created the plans down to the letter and the candidate is just following them, sounds like we should discuss the boss instead. However, if the candidate takes creative liberties with the orders, adds their own charm and flair to them, fills in holes in the orders, and/or actively deals with obstacles their boss did not talk about, the candidate shows enough individual thinking to qualify.

  • What about Character Development? An MB is something a character can develop into... a nice person who plots well might become more morally gray as the work goes on and hits the "Bastard" criteria, thus making them viable. Likewise, a Smug Snake might shed their ego, become more understanding of the threat others pose and gain the personality or "Magnificent" criteria, likewise making them viable. Conversely, a character who looks like this trope might suffer from a Sanity Slippage or just get outed as not being as smart as they thought they were and become incompatible with MB.

  • Can an MB be a good guy? Not in the conventional sense... it is required they have at least some dubious traits lest they fail the "Bastard" criteria. That being said, a character who pulls a Heel–Face Turn or eventually stops taking villainous actions is still fair game: as there was a point in time where they were both "Magnificent" and a "Bastard" at the same time and they've merely adapted as time goes on. Now... if such a character begins showing other issues (i.e.: becomes prone to freak outs or starts getting outwitted) then they're compromising their Magnificence and will probably be deemed a cut. What's important is stylishly operating while at least for some time being willing to take at best underhanded methods to see a job done. A Heel–Face Turn in itself isn't a disqualifier but they do have to have been "Magnificent" and a "Bastard" at the same time and afterwards can't start slipping on the former front.

  • What about characters whose stories can take different routes?: When proposing a character in a form of media that has them in multiple story routes. Said character must be consistent with their characteristics in all routes. (ex.: Can't have an example who shows promise on one route yet fails in another.) The only exception is if a later installment of the series confirms the character's actions which made them worth proposing are the canon route.

  • Is there a timeframe rule like with Complete Monster?: Yes, please wait two weeks until after the work has concluded before proposing a character (again, usually using the North American air date). As is the case with CM, we want to give a reasonable time frame so that everyone interested in seeing the work has done so and can participate in the discussion without having anything spoiled.

  • What about groups like with Complete Monster?: This is a point of divergence between the two tropes. While CM does not allow for a single entry encompassing more than three characters lest their heinousness for crimes becomes too watered down, with MB as long as they are treated as one "unit" it is acceptable to lump all characters provided they share acts of charm and intelligence.

  • Can I propose my own work's character as a Magnificent Bastard?: No, this is a YMMV subject and the creator of a content is way too biased to be able to evaluate the criteria we're looking for without a second opinion taking over. That being said, you are more than welcome to encourage someone to consume your creation and if they feel a character counts, are more than welcome to suggest them.

Thread rules

When voting a troper must specify the effort post they're voting on and cannot merely vote on "Everything I missed" as in the past it has indicated the poster didn't read the effort post and is guessing instead of analyzing.

Resolved items

In general, a character listed on this trope is considered "settled". This means they should not be challenged unless information used to list them was incorrect or information was missed in the initial discussion.

However, when re-litigating a candidate, the same rules apply for when they were originally proposed. If they do not have five or more upvotes than downvotes for approval upon a re-litigation, including votes from the initial discussion if they do not change, then they are a cut.

This especially applies to the characters listed below, who have been discussed excessively and repeated attempts to get them listed/cut may result in punitive action for bogging down the thread.

Definitely an MB

Definitely not an MB

  • South Park: The show's frequent use of vulgar comedy and mean-spirited humor leaves any potential candidates devoid of the dignity or charm to qualify.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Aug 31st 2023 at 4:15:22 AM

jjjj2 from Arrakis Since: Jul, 2015
#25976: Aug 22nd 2020 at 2:30:09 PM

Well Ambar also felt that way, but Ambar's gone. We do allow keepers to have occasionally moments of bigotry as long as it's not a pervasive part of their character. Let me give two non-examples from The Wire, Stringer Bell and Prop Joe. Both of these characters don't count for numerous reasons, but with Stringer you can say his expressions of bigotry are very genuine reasons for not counting. He engages in the torture of Omar's boyfriend, and I noticed this on rewatch, he says "faggot" to omar in the courtroom without provocation. Contrast this with Joe, who is perfectly happy to work with Omar and respects his lethality. He does refer to Omar as a "faggot" to other druglords, but this is after the man has stolen from him, and he's trying to keep the druglords from turning on him as they are all part of a criminal co-op. Thus you can easily say Stringers bigotry is very genuine whereas Joe is just using it to further his aims and doesn't really care that much.

You can only write so much in your forum signature. It's not fair that I want to write a piece of writing yet it will cut me off in the mid
43110 (Striking Back) Relationship Status: Reincarnated romance
#25977: Aug 22nd 2020 at 2:31:30 PM

Feel better Morgan.

Again Kaz, this "I say what I want and no one challenge it" thing wasn't fun last time. Do you see the problem with trying to maintain one line of standards and then trying to mesh two incompatible views?

@ J, We allow said moments to occur if there's reason to think they're not bigoted. See Satoshi drugged up using the 'Goddamn peking ducks' line.

Edited by 43110 on Aug 22nd 2020 at 5:32:18 AM

ImperialMajestyXO Since: Nov, 2015
#25978: Aug 22nd 2020 at 2:32:48 PM

Having mulled it over for a while, [tup] to Dai Li

Riley1sCool Since: Dec, 2014
#25979: Aug 22nd 2020 at 2:32:57 PM

I think your point on Kimblee is fair. I still think he counts just fine though.

43110 (Striking Back) Relationship Status: Reincarnated romance
#25980: Aug 22nd 2020 at 2:35:17 PM

As do I, I just think this is a good opportunity to make sure we're not being too brief on anything.

jjjj2 from Arrakis Since: Jul, 2015
#25981: Aug 22nd 2020 at 2:36:20 PM

Well yeah I feel like I made that clear with the contrast between my Stringer and Joe example. It contrasted how they treated and talked about Omar. Both of them don't count, for other reasons as well.

You can only write so much in your forum signature. It's not fair that I want to write a piece of writing yet it will cut me off in the mid
43110 (Striking Back) Relationship Status: Reincarnated romance
#25982: Aug 22nd 2020 at 2:36:47 PM

Agreed. I just wanted to restate to make sure the "occasional moments of bigotry" part wasn't what got latched on to.

Edited by 43110 on Aug 22nd 2020 at 5:37:37 AM

Riley1sCool Since: Dec, 2014
#25983: Aug 22nd 2020 at 2:39:55 PM

Kimblee sounds like a nasty customer, but it also sounds like he has factors that mitigate him being just a nasty customer. As has been said a lot lately, this trope is a balancing act, and he sounds like he's got enough balance.

falcontalons from Earth-2 Since: Apr, 2019
43110 (Striking Back) Relationship Status: Reincarnated romance
#25985: Aug 22nd 2020 at 3:01:28 PM

Anyways, with that mostly smoothed out I think you're good to go ahead on the others you wanted to do xie.

G-Editor The 47th President Since: Mar, 2015 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
The 47th President
#25986: Aug 22nd 2020 at 3:17:01 PM

I mean if a bastard does throw a slur once or twice that doesn't automatically make them a Politically Incorrect Villain. That also a reason why I didn't necessarily understand the reasoning why Leslie Chow from The Hangover trilogy was disapproved was because he said a slur once, despite Chow not actually showing much bigotry, met all the other criteria, is the trilogy's most popular character, and we've approved other bastards who may have threw an occasional slur.

Edited by G-Editor on Aug 22nd 2020 at 12:20:10 AM

My sandbox of EPs and other stuff
jjjj2 from Arrakis Since: Jul, 2015
#25987: Aug 22nd 2020 at 3:23:33 PM

I think it's less that and more the tone is similar to south park. He's a bit of a cartoon, you don't really see him as magnificent more an agent of chaos who happens to be clever but also really dumb at times. He's humiliated often enough, that and the interpol agent seems to think the bigotry is genuine.

You can only write so much in your forum signature. It's not fair that I want to write a piece of writing yet it will cut me off in the mid
43110 (Striking Back) Relationship Status: Reincarnated romance
#25988: Aug 22nd 2020 at 3:26:40 PM

I seem to recall us talking about this before but Leslie Chow exists to be a classless frenemy in an adult comedy. He handles himself like a clever but bratty teenager pulling crimes and his use of the n-word exists because the writers thought it would be funny to throw in, not meant to be out of character or anything of the like.

As an aside, I don't quite understand all these lines about various villains you want to see posted because they are "So popular, so funny, so cool, etc." A Smug Snake can be any of those things, a PIV can be any of those things. Evil Is Cool seems to encompass a lot of the characters you want to see coming up and while that plays a part, it's missing the bigger picture.

Edited by 43110 on Aug 22nd 2020 at 6:28:37 AM

Klavice (Elder Troper)
#25989: Aug 22nd 2020 at 3:28:12 PM

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but Chow was disapproved not "just because he used a slur once". I believe he raped people too, and was a bigger asshole than anyone else, and not in a "Wow, this is magnificent" way but in a "Good lord, can this guy do any worse?" way. Plus, he's a Smug Snake extraordinaire. Also he was an actual racist. I watched all three movies twice, so I know. As for Dai Li? I'm going to say yes. It feel like as said before, if he doesn't commit nearly as many atrocious actions as his Real life self, (I sadly never learned about him, and history was one of my top subjects) I'm fine with him counting.

[up] Exactly. We let characters from the Simpsons and Archer slide because they weren't one note and actually had some depth other than to be racist. Plus those characters aren't racist.

Edited by Klavice on Aug 22nd 2020 at 3:30:43 AM

43110 (Striking Back) Relationship Status: Reincarnated romance
#25990: Aug 22nd 2020 at 3:29:48 PM

Wait Chow's a rapist too? That certainly wasn't in his EP.

Klavice (Elder Troper)
#25991: Aug 22nd 2020 at 3:31:18 PM

I believe he rapes a prostitute offscreen.

43110 (Striking Back) Relationship Status: Reincarnated romance
#25992: Aug 22nd 2020 at 3:34:00 PM

Earnestly doesn't seem off tone at all as a bout of black comedy to throw in.

G-Editor The 47th President Since: Mar, 2015 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
The 47th President
#25993: Aug 22nd 2020 at 3:38:36 PM

When did Chow say that he raped anyone because I never seen or remember Chow raping anyone nor was that ever mentioned in the argument against him. I only remember Chow having sex with prostitutes at his penthouse suite, which was consensual I never actually seen Chow rape anyone nor did her ever mentioned it. I mean I'm not arguing for him and if he had raped anyone than I would have never brought him up in the first place

Edited by G-Editor on Aug 22nd 2020 at 12:41:00 AM

My sandbox of EPs and other stuff
Klavice (Elder Troper)
#25994: Aug 22nd 2020 at 3:44:20 PM

Weird, I remembered a scene back in 2, where he had non consensual sex with a prostitute off screen, but if it was consensuel, perhaps my memory of those movies wasn't as good as I thought. It has been quite a while since I've seen the movies (I actually saw them with my parents a long time ago back before I turned 18 so maybe my young mind processed Consensual sex as rape.)

Edited by Klavice on Aug 22nd 2020 at 3:45:10 AM

ImperialMajestyXO Since: Nov, 2015
#25995: Aug 22nd 2020 at 3:47:32 PM

The reason we voted down Chow is because while he's clever and an entertaining asshole, that's not the same thing as this trope. Him using an anti-Arab slur was just the tip of the iceberg.

43110 (Striking Back) Relationship Status: Reincarnated romance
#25996: Aug 22nd 2020 at 3:51:03 PM

Another useful thing to keep in mind is that while certain archetypes might buy you points towards this (Gentleman Thief, Loveable Rogue, etc.) is that they don't instantly buy you a spot on it. Meeting the prerequisites doesn't necessarily mean you'll pass evaluation when the EP is done. How many good planners are broken wrecks of people on the inside far too pathetic to really be labeled MB?

Riley1sCool Since: Dec, 2014
#25997: Aug 22nd 2020 at 3:55:29 PM

cough My current profile image cough

Edit: Seriously though, 43's right. You can go a long ways toward passing the basic elements of this trope and still fail to actually qualify.

Edited by Riley1sCool on Aug 22nd 2020 at 3:56:55 AM

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#25998: Aug 22nd 2020 at 4:12:16 PM

Okay, here's one now...

What's the work?

this is kind of a dual post for a villain in an adaptation: Prisoner of Zenda is one of the major adventure novels an the trope-namer for Ruritania. When Rudolf Rassendyll takes a trip to Ruritania, he learn he's a distant relative of King Rudolf...and not only that, they're identical strangers. King Rudolf is delighted to meet him and offers him some time to chill. Michael, Rudolf's half-brother, concocts a scheme to drug Rudolf into a coma so Michael can be coronated...so Rassendyll must take the King's place. And finds himself falling for the King's fiancee Flavia. Our candidate is not Michael, but...Michael's cheif henchman: Rupert of Hentzau.

Who is Rupert?

From the 1937 and 1952 adaptations, played by Douglas Fairbanks Jr and James Mason respectively. Rupert is witty, charming, genteel and ruthless to the core. Rupert is Michael's chief lieutenant, but also only out for his enrichment and to win Michael's mistress Antoinette. Rupert is the one to plan things out, handling most of the affair before locking on to Rassendyll as the imposter to King Rudolf. Rupert kidnaps the king, holding him for an opportune time to set a trap for Rassendyll...but also keeps Michael silent, as Michael can't speak up without incriminating himself.

Antoinette ends up helping the good guys unexpectedly, with only Rasendyll able to save the king. Rupert, being charming and suave, cheerily offers Rassendyll a fortune to leave...as long as he turns his back on his allies and allows them to die. Rassendyll refuses, prompting Rupert to attempt to have him killed. Rupert then makes the moves on Antoinette, when Michael arrives and attacks Rupert. Realizing things are done, Rupert kills him, deciding to finish things with the king and slip away in the chaos, leading to a lengthy duel with Rassendyll. In the pinnacle of a swashbuckling fight, Rupert is able to set things to his advantage and flee scot free, taking a horse from a peasant girl and riding out.

Rudolf is restored to the throne but in a bittersweet ending, Rassendyll and Flavia must part, with her marrying the king. A sequel was written, called Rupert of Hentzau where Rupert returns with a new plot and winds up slain at the end of the novel, but never filmed.

Mitigating followers, bastard?

There's a reason I'm using the film versions and not the novel: in the book, Rupert attempts to rape Antoinette, whereas in the movies he tries to seduce her, which provokes Michael to homicidal anger. Rupert is charming, the epitome of a pleasant swashbuckler villain,a ruthless schemer, and willing to throw a country into chaos, commit murder and get a man to sell out his compatriots. Rupert is sometimes sarcastic, and cheerfully amoral, but never too evil. He's a pretty classic villain for good reason.

Conclusion?

Film versions keep.

miraculous Goku Black (Apprentice)
Goku Black
#25999: Aug 22nd 2020 at 4:12:57 PM

[tup]film Ruperts

"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."

Total posts: 82,595
Top