Old Complete Monster cleanup thread
Welcome to the Complete Monster proposal thread! This is the thread where new Complete Monster examples are vetted, approved, and written up. If you're looking for the general cleanup thread (for cuts, rewrites, expansions, and the like), please go here
Important: Before suggesting any new examples, please read the Frequently Asked Questions and Common Requests List; if you have any questions, the odds are high they are answered there. Additionally, please check here for the earliest date a work can be discussed (usually two weeks from the U.S. release date) and whether the work has already been reserved by another user.
Here is how the process works:
- If you have a candidate to propose, you can simply come right in and propose them! If the character's run is brief, such as a single issue of a comic book, then a simple summary of their actions and any potential redeeming qualities will be enough; for longer-running candidates, an effortpost (EP) might be helpful for organizing the proposal. An EP is not outright required, but please be mindful that if a post becomes too clunky and unorganized, it can be very hard for other people to follow.
- After the proposal, there will be a 72-hour discussion and voting period, where people may ask questions and vote on the candidate. The number of upvotes must outnumber the downvotes by at least five for the character to be considered "approved".
- Three days after the proposal has been made, if the character has been approved, you may post the writeup (the text to be posted on the trope page itself) on the thread and send it to the drafts page. Your candidate will soon be added to the CM subpage. If the work has a page, you should add your candidate to the relevant YMMV page. Voila! It's that simple!
Outside of this process, we do have a few ground rules:
- To keep the thread moving at a reasonable pace, there are some restrictions on when a proposal can be made. There should only be a maximum of four EPs posted both per page and per hour to ensure that nothing gets lost in the shuffle; additionally, each individual troper should only be proposing or writing up characters from a maximum of three works at a time (from initial proposals to end of their voting period). If your proposal would fall outside of either of these guidelines, we'd like to ask you to please wait until they would fit within; feel free to type them up on an outside document, and then when the time comes, you can just copy, paste, and post!
- No plagiarism of any kind. This is a very serious matter site-wide, as the website could get in actual legal trouble over this; as a result, this can very quickly lead to mod intervention. This can take many different forms:
- Direct plagiarism, i.e. wholesale copying. This is not only the easiest to find, but is also the most likely to warrant quick moderator intervention. To be clear, quoting in some places is perfectly acceptable, but it has to be very clear you're quoting from something else and it cannot be anything longer than a sentence or two - if you're quoting an entire work summary from Wikipedia, no one is going to believe you've actually consumed the work, so even if you cite your source, your candidate will be downvoted anyway.
- Self-plagiarism. Even if you can prove that you wrote the same text in both places, the site itself can't contain any of the duplicated text. If you already wrote something once before, it's not too hard to write it a second time.
- Using another site's work as a template for a proposal. Just because you don't copy and paste something directly doesn't mean it's any harder to detect if you're basing parts or all of your proposal on text someone else wrote. To be clear, this doesn't violate site rules and won't lead to mod intervention, but just like if you directly plagiarize, no one will believe you've consumed the work if you're clearly basing your proposal on something else. This thread largely operates on the honor system, and tweaking someone else's work to pass it off as your own is one of the fastest ways to lose trust.
- Votes must be for specific candidates, meaning no blanket voting (i.e. "yes to everyone I missed").
- If you are the first person to downvote a candidate, please provide an explanation of why when you do so. We're here for discussions above all, and a hit-and-run downvote doesn't facilitate anything.
- If a work is already reserved by another user, please don't comment on the work or any potential characters worth discussion before the discussion date. We know how exciting it is when a work has a keeper that you're waiting to talk about, but it's not fair to the person who reserved the work who is just as excited to lead the discussion to see the discussion getting spoiled before they get to do it. On the other hand, if the reservation only has one name attached, shoot them a PM - they may be down for a collaboration, which will get you in on the fun as well!
- Please keep the thread on-topic. While discussing the trope is fun and we encourage people to enjoy it, questions like "who's your favorite CM" are off-topic and can lead to thumps. That's the kind of question to take to people's PMs if they're willing. Similarly, while we encourage friendliness and familiarity with other users, posts should always have some kind of thread-relevant purpose; for instance, if you want to wish someone a happy birthday, feel free to, but if it's the only thing in the post, it's off-topic and needs something else alongside it. Again, though, while we strive for a friendly atmosphere, this is not Facebook; life updates are fun, but unless they have some kind of impact on your thread participation, please do not bring it here - we have Yack Fest for that.
- Please refrain from asking anything along the lines of "How Did We Miss This One?" In almost every case, the answer is simply "No one thought about it before". This Is a Wiki where everyone has different interests, and the fact that people missed a particular candidate, even one that seems like a textbook example of a trope or a character who is particularly iconic in pop culture, means absolutely nothing. The question is disruptive, has a simple and consistent answer, and provides nothing to any discussion.
- If you are suspended from parts of the website, it is still possible to participate!
- For users who are suspended from editing the wiki, you still have full access to this thread. You can propose candidates and write them up with no issues whatsoever; while you will have to ask someone else to post the entry to the relevant pages once it is done, all write-ups are considered thread-approved - as in, done by consensus - and thus doing so does not violate any rules regarding meatpuppeting.
- If you are suspended from the forums, your participation is limited but not impossible. It is still possible for a forum-suspended user to assist in creating the write-up for a character who has already been approved; as previously mentioned, write-ups are inherently considered a consensus-based edit and thus not tied to any one particular user. However, you can not assist in the proposal of a character; as a proposal is based around the forum rather than the wiki, doing so with a forum suspension qualifies as meatpuppeting.
- Please keep all discussions "in-house".
- What other wikis use for CM equivalents is irrelevant here.
- Please be wary of using other wikis, Fandom or otherwise, as sources of information. They are just as fallible as a site like Wikipedia in regards to accuracy because they can be edited by any user, just as this site can.
- Do not attempt to force a communication with an author in an attempt to gather evidence or settle a debate; besides the fact that this is a YMMV trope and thus author intent has variable weight depending on the circumstance, doing so may cross the line into drama exportation, which is prohibited site-wide.
If you would like to use an EP for your candidate, here's the general format. This format does not have to be followed exactly, but these are the main topics that need to be covered:
What is the work?
This is a brief summary of the work you're going to discuss. We don't need a full plot summary here, just however much we need to understand going into the discussion — it can even be as simple as quoting the summary on the work's page.
Who is the candidate and what have they done?
This is essentially the character's biography — who they are, their story, the crimes they commit, and, preferably (though not required), what happens to the candidate at the end. It does not have to include every single thing they ever do — for some villains, we'd be here all day if that was the case — but it should include the highlights of their journey.
Any redeeming qualities? Freudian Excuse?
This is where any potential redeeming characteristics or tragic backstory should be discussed. Do they have a tragic past? Do they show that Even Evil Has Standards or Even Evil Has Loved Ones? Maybe a Pet the Dog moment or two? This is where these should be discussed in full. Not every potential redeeming moment is a clear-cut disqualifier, but we should hear of any potential issues to ensure the character is discussed in full.
Are they bad enough?
A Complete Monster has to be particularly vile by the standard of the work they appear in. Therefore, you should look at what the character does compared to similar characters in the same work. This takes into account things like:
- Their resource level (a human Serial Killer can't stand up to an alien Omnicidal Maniac, but they can be bad by the standard of other human serial killers)
- The amount of time they have to work with (such as a one-shot character versus long-running antagonists)
- The quantity vs. quality of their crimes compared to others (someone with a lower victim count but far more visceral and personal crimes could be considered as equally bad overall as someone with a higher body count but less horror involved)
Essentially, this section is an analysis of the kinds of villainy shown in the work and an explanation of why this particular character's villainy stands out within it.
Final verdict?
This is where you post your final conclusion on the character in question. You can continue elaborating on your reasons or even just say a simple "yes" or "no"; at this point, we've heard everything we need to hear.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This thread tackles very serious and dark matters on a daily basis. We will be discussing things like murder, rape, torture, human trafficking, crimes against children, and in particularly dark cases, several of these issues at the same time. We keep a lighthearted air, but all candidates carry the general assumption that these are awful individuals committing disgusting crimes. We ask that if you participate, you do so with the requisite seriousness such dark topics require; exclamations of how gross something is, whether serious or sarcastic, are disrespectful to the topics at hand, and if you cannot handle such topics, please do not participate.
And that's everything you need to know. Welcome to the thread!
Edited by Twiddler on Jan 17th 2024 at 5:42:49 AM
Unofficial Wiki Curator for Complete Monster
That could work.
CM Dates; CM Pending; CM Drafts
Ultimate Moral Compass
![[tup]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/thumbs_up_emote.png "[thumb up]"){kind=small}
Sal and Vartan
Father Sal.
Vartan.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
NGL, I misread that as Regina George for a second.
Edited by Beast on Apr 4th 2024 at 1:13:51 AM
"It's like...a cliff, and if I do it, I'm just gonna...fall." "I think we're already falling."
....Phenomenal
for the Darkness, Sal, and Vartan.
"Cool. Coolcoolcool."
Yes to Vartan.
Potential quote for the GTA page:
Unofficial Wiki Curator for Complete Monster
I was looking for possible quotes last night...that one could work, though I'm not SUPER fond of it.
Pending:
- Cyberpunk stuff
- Carl Reissman (Atlantis)
- The Night in Question: Ashley Henderson (Bozzy)
- Maniac (2018): Jed Milgrim (Crow)
- Sound of Freedom (Ghal-Sur):
- Flower (Jackie)
- The Lord of the Rings Online: Karazgar (NTG)
- Devereaux (Ravok)
- Delusions of Grandeur (machinima): Razanak (umaprasis)
Edited by ACW on Apr 4th 2024 at 4:50:41 AM
CM Dates; CM Pending; CM Drafts
Unofficial co-Wiki Curator for Magnificent Bastard
Sorry for the late reply, but to Bullman's header.
Ultimate Moral Compass
- Acceleration (2019): Jack "the Flower", Rhona’s fifth target, is a human trafficker whose business practices disgusted his former partner Vladik. Valuing women as nothing but products to increase his bottom line, even owning a ledger containing his many transactions, Jack holds Rhona captive after she releases some of his prisoners, hoping to keep her around as a Sex Slave for his men and eventually sell her once they grow bored of her.
- The Fall Guy:
- "License to Kill" two-parter: Salem is an international terrorist and "murderous piece of slime" responsible for over ten years of political assassinations that have terrorized half the world. Having killed many men, women, and children in the name of any cause willing to pay him, Salem is tracked down by CIA Agent Ryker while planning to assassinate the president of San Samoa. Using his mole Agent Bradshaw to frame Ryker as a criminal and kill him and anybody who could stop him, Salem even tells Bradshaw to his face that he’s willing to sell him out if need be.
- "Prisoner": Sheriff Bates, feeling that he wasn’t getting a big enough salary, sets up Cell Block 6 as his own illegal prostitution ring. Having innocent women kidnapped off the street and charged for false crimes, Bates allows his guards to assault and psychologically torment the prisoners until they’ll agree to do anything to leave his prison. Bates has these women flown to foreign buyers, with his latest batch about to be sold to a South American general.
I can say trying to clone Jesus is a new one for me. Though I'm sure more such stories exist. Yes to Father Sal.
Yep also to Vartan.
Your friendly neighborhood stank goblin
for Vartan Illiescu.
to Father Sal and Vartan Illiescu.
Okay in light of all my recent New Tricks candidates, I'm just going to do a brief run through of all of them and why I think they stand out still before I do my writeups (do you mind if I do them all together for simplicity?).
As quick refresher, the show is overall pretty realistic and has a pretty low heinous standard. Most episodes focus on investigating a single murder, sex crimes and such are a rare rare event.
Ricky Hanson - The shows only recurring antagonist, and an thuggish sadistic mid-tier gangster. Hanson is confirmed to be responsible for the murder of at least six people, including his own brother and Jack's beloved wife, who took two years to die from her injuries. He likewise forced his own son to serve eleven years in prison for a crime he didn't do, just to protect himself and framed the guy who tipped him off to activists infiltrating his gang for their murders (which he personally did). Compared to all the other gangsters to appear throughout the show (and their are a lot) Hanson is easily the worst.
Sir Edwards Chambers - Possess the highest body count in the entire show, responsible for eighteen murders and also stands out as one of only two war criminals in the entire show (the second we never find out what they did to gain that distinction).
George Mackie - A vicious pyromaniac, who was driven by an obsession with attention and ego. In a single event he was responsible for four people being burned alive and numerous others being left with life long agonising burns. He likewise claims to be responsible for setting 63 fires other fires.
Michael Denby and John Felsham - Holding the shows third highest body count (with seven) Denby was a vicious thug notorious for his acts of brutality, including giving a columbium neck tie to his fence, slaughtering his own gang of childhood friends and jabbing a man in the face with a broken beer bottle just for a laugh. Felsham was his equal partner who happily enabled Denby every step of the way for money, and then used to him to murder an old friend to protect himself.
Victoria Kemp - Deliberately pimped out both of her daughters to a sexual predator, with her seeing them as nothing more than her own meal ticket. A crime that is both unique inverse and easily one of the worst.
Helen Wray, Colin Ogilvy & Roy Fraser - Helen ran the worst (and pretty much only), pretty sex trafficking ring within the entire series, using vulnerable teenage girls to make herself rich. Ogilvy and Fraser were her main clients and key figures in ensuring the ring actually functioning.
Annabelle Skinner - An utterly vicious thug, who tortured a woman for money before beating her to death, snapped an innocent woman's neck, strangled two other people to death and attempted to murder a completely innocent victim in the same manner purely out of an obsession with feeling cheated.
Doctor Alastair Caldwell - The most prolific sex offender within the entire series, admitted to be responsible for the rape of dozens of poor children under his care.
Now the only present keeper who I feel may need to be cut is Alex Close, and I've put my arguments for the matter on the clean up thread, so if you could please go and cast your votes I'd appreciate it.
To give a quick overview of those that are over the line but I don't think make the mark and why:
Tom Miller - Has the second highest body count within the series, a vicious and misogynistic Serial Killer who kidnapped, bound, tortured and raped eleven women. Frustratingly revealed in the literal final minutes to be secretly a genuinely loving husband and father.
Harry Eldridge - Utterly vicious abuser who regularly beat and terrorised his wife and son, brutally murdered another man for trying to help them (literally leaving him hanging on a meat hook), killed another and attempted to murder his family. Nasty but I don't think he does enough.
Anthony Gunnell - Serial date rapist, who drugged and raped four women. Is legitimately horrified when he discovers the team believes he was responsible for another case where the victim was poisoned.
James Farlow - Bluebeard who slowly poisoned to death two wives for the insurance money, and attempts to also poison Jack for personal amusement. Nasty but not quite bad enough.
Lorcan McCaffery - Serial Killer, who murdered at least four victims (including his own friend) and kept parts of their bodies as grisly trophies. Bad but Miller blows him out of the water a bit to much.
Two unnamed professional Hitmen, hired to cover up an intelligence conspiracy by killing everyone who was involved. Vicious but absolutely nothing is revealed about them. The two crooked MI5 agents who hire them likewise love each other.
As such I think that's everyone in the series worth talking about.
Edited by MGD107 on Apr 4th 2024 at 5:45:19 AM
Unofficial Wiki Curator for Complete Monster
Yeah, seems like everyone's good. The only other who I could MAYBE see not bad enough is Skinner. Denby seems to match her in body count while being more vicious.
Edited by ACW on Apr 4th 2024 at 8:54:09 AM
CM Dates; CM Pending; CM Drafts
Your friendly neighborhood stank goblin
Welp. Seems like I got another candidate from the same universe.
Dusty Revenge is a 2014 Beat 'em Up made by PD Design Studio. Like the prequel, it takes place in the same World of Funny Animals with our hero once again being Dusty the ex-soldier. Except this time around he sounds like Shadow the Hedgehog and the setting is in the Wild West. Anyway, plot's fairly simple: Dusty is attacked by mercenaries for some unknown reason while he's away from home. When he returns home, he sees that it's on fire and that more mercenaries murdered his fiancée, Daisy. Thus begins Dusty's eponymous revenge quest, with him teaming up with a sniper and an artillery expert as the three of them venture together to kill the tiger behind all this madness.
So let's talk about said tiger...
Who Is He?
Craven is the Big Bad of the game, being the one responsible for killing Dusty's loved ones and kickstarting his vengeance quest.
What Has He Done?
Prior to the events of the game, Craven was part of an expedition along with seven others who made a pact to preserve the dying Illumna race. The Illumna were a spiritual group who had their own supply of dust that more or less has unspecified magical power and is quite valuable. Knowing the Illumna would eventually die out, the Circle of Eight chose to build a machine to collect the sacred dust in order to keep peace and order in the world. Just as they were about to finish, Craven betrayed the Circle, slaughtering what remained of the Illumna that night. Not long after, he and an army of mercenaries spent time hunting down the Circle after they stole three pieces to make the machine function, killing them off one by one in an attempt to recover said pieces. One of said members was Dusty's father Dante, who left a note for his son before he was killed. However, Dante gave one of the pieces—a coupling rod—to Dusty for safe-keeping. Craven sends one of his henchmen, Reddo, and a few others to Dusty's house, where they end up burning down his home and killing Daisy while Dusty was away dealing with other mercs.
Knowing Gladius, an elderly surviving member of the Circle, has a compass containing the dust he needs, Craven also sends Reddo after her as well. Reddo murders Gladius just as Dusty meets up with her, but fortunately Dusty and another ally named Rondel kill him before he can do more harm. As it turns out, Craven also sent his mercs to kidnap Rondel's son, who was bound to an ancient artifact. Determined to put his plans in motion and hoping to kill Casey McCoy—the last surviving member of the Circle, he sends more and more mercenaries after the trio to get the compass, all of whom are cut down by the heroes. When Tongada, another one of his henchmen, fails to stop Dusty, Craven appears in-person with more mercs and violently tears his head off, nearly killing Dusty right afterwards until Casey shoots him in the eye with his rifle. This isn't enough to kill him, however, and Craven quickly flees.
Using the compass as a guide to Craven's hideout in a tower, the trio finally confronts him after mopping up the rest of his troops. They discover Craven sitting on a throne, along with Rondel's tiny son on the verge of being crushed beneath his boot. Craven makes a simple offer: give up the compass or Rondel's son dies. They do the swap; Craven gets the compass and releases Rondel's son, but before he can relish in his victory, Dusty attacks him, still longing for revenge. Craven hops into a colossal mecha and powers it up with the compass, but despite being in said impenetrable machine, Dusty and his allies manage to destroy it and kill Craven soon after.
Mitigating Factors?
Many of Craven's mercs seem loyal to Craven and even cheer him on when he appears in-person after the Tongada fight. That being said, he doesn't share the same loyalty to his troops, given how quickly he murders Tongada for failing him and how he let his mercs stay behind to be slaughtered by the heroes while he flees after getting shot in the eye.
My biggest point of contention is that after Dusty throws Craven the compass, he does lift his foot to release Rondel's son. Whether you can chalk this up to Pragmatic Villainy or not (since he knew if he killed Rondel's son, he'd never get the compass to power the machine) is up for debate.
Heinous Standard Issues?
So this is interesting, because Craven does not try to plunge the whole world into darkness by releasing Sealed Evil in a Can like Sir William did. That being said, his crimes are much more of the quality niche here, not quantity. There's no need to compare him to any other villains from the prequel; none of them have character outside of the other two candidates I discussed previously. Like the prequel, this game has multiple bosses, as well as hordes of mercenaries to plow through. Unlike the prequel, almost all of the enemies and bosses are mercenaries either following or working with Craven.
So to summarize, Craven is responsible for destroying an entire civilization, betraying his seven companions and killing five of them (including Dusty's father), sending some of his goons to kill Dusty, only for them to kill his fiancée instead, having the elderly Gladius executed, killing one of his loyal henchmen by tearing off his head, kidnapping Rondel's son and threatening to crush his back, and overall, attempting to harvest Illumna Dust so he could become a powerful warlord/crime boss.
Final Verdict?
Iffy. The bit with Rondel's son gives me pause.
I write stories and shiz. You can read them here.
to Craven.
ACW: Well with Skinner, I agree Denby exceeds her body count and is the more vicious of the two. But I kind of feel the fact she flat out tortured someone (which is pretty much unique in this series) and brutally murdered two completely innocent people and attempted to murder a further two out of an obsession with revenge against someone who did nothing against her, kind of pushes her over the line (Denby's cruel, but at least all his murders had a practical purpose to them).
Edited by MGD107 on Apr 4th 2024 at 6:14:44 AM
Yes to Helen Wray, Colin Ogilvy, Roy Fraser, Ancient Darkness, Sir William, Father Sal, Vartan and Craven.
I have another NYPD Blue Candidate to discuss, this time we skip to season 11, with the 15th episode, ''Old Yeller'', the B plot is a light-hearted story about an elderly woman who had a ring stolen by her nephew and the A-plot deals with this guy (this is another gross one):
Who is Paul Grady, what has he done?
Paul Grady is just the local dry cleaning man with a dry cleaning van. He is also secretly a rapist/torturer. Grady would stalk women who were alone and then drug them and put them into his van. Grady would then take his victim to his basement which was turned into a torture chamber. Grady would keep a victim, for weeks, even months. He would give them food that was drugged and then rape them when they were knocked out. Then he would torture them, like hitting the back of their knees with a bamboo stick. He would eventually grow bored with his victims and release them. A woman he raped and tortured for 2 months, Helen Stoles, committed suicide, putting Sipowicz on his trail, with Helen putting Grady's license plate in her suicide note.
Sipowicz brings in Grady and talks to him and he seems friendly enough, saying the victim was a mentally ill woman who came to his house after she was seemingly attacked and left right away. Sipowicz talks to Gina Bell, another woman who has kidnapped and raped for several weeks, 2 years ago, but she is in denial about the whole thing. They talk to another kidnapping victim, Martha Henstridge, who was held for a month, where she was raped and tortured. Henstridge identifies Grady. They bring in Grady and arrest him. Sipowicz gets a warrant and searches Grady's house, finding his torture chamber. Hatcher, a detective on the force, beats up Grady after seeing the torture chamber, with Grady refusing to talk after that. Sipowicz talks to Grady's wife, who claims that Grady is an FBI agent who deprograms cult members, Sipowicz questions her and she admits that was a lie. Grady's wife claims he beat and raped her and forced her to stay silent.
Henstridge convinces Gina Bell to testify against Grady, helping out of her denial, with Bell also identifying Grady. Bell says a woman helped Grady torture her, Sipowicz suspects the wife, but there is not enough evidence to arrest her, so she walks in exchange for testifying against her husband, meanwhile Grady goes away for a long time.
Is he heinous by the standards of the work?
Grady may not have as high a body count as Vartan, Squires or the Webster Killer, but that is because he spends his time raping and torturing one victim at a time rather than going out to kill several times a month. I think raping and torturing women for weeks, even months is a nasty niche, despite only having 3 victims.
There are some other rapists in this series, there is a rapist serial killer I am going to deal with by the end. There was a serial rapist named Julian Kerbis, who raped and killed one woman, raped another woman and tried to come back and kill the second rape victim, only to be caught by an undercover cop instead. There was a long plot in season 11 where Sipowicz investigates the 18-year-old murder of a 12-year-old girl after DNA evidence proves the innocence of the man Sipowicz put away 18 years ago, she was killed by a pedophile teacher, who raped another child, but he only has two confirmed victims over 18 years. I think Grady is among the worst of the rapists in this show.
I think he stands out considering there are a ton of episodes with pretty criminals or a jealous husband who killed his wife.
Any Freudian Excuse or other redeeming qualities?
Nah, he is a scumbag, rapist/torturer, even his wife is scared of him.
Final Verdict?
Keep him.
Edited by Overlord on Apr 4th 2024 at 7:40:39 AM
Grady and Craven.
The Draftsman of Doom
Yes to Grady.
Feels good, don't it?
The Emperor of Evil!
Oooh boy, I think I've found a bizarre candidate for you guys, from You Tuber named Avacodo Animations where he usually makes dark parody videos such as ones about Velma, Barbieheimer, and Mr. Beast. Now this? This is possibly his darkest, and most serious he's ever proposed-
What's The Work?
Willy Wonka Makes an Oompa Loompa is a rather dark video about how Willy Wonka himself actually bought the Wonkas to his factory. It follows a native of an island named Lofti, going over his life from his birth to how he meets the love of his life and has a child, having a happy life with his people. The nameless Natives are unnaturally small, and lived in a village, and try to keep out of danger from the larger animals like alligators and such. It wasn't up until now that Wonka arrives...
What Did He Do?
- Willy Wonka arrives on the island with his ship, under the false pretense of wanting to befriend the inhabitants of the island. Giving them candy and sweets to them, until Lofti distrusts him and convinces his people not to take whatever he's offering.
- Wonka's response to this? Leading his men on a brutal siege on the Natives' village, shooting the innocent and killing them, we see bodies and people mutilated from the attack. Those who survived are enslaved by Wonka and sent to his ship to be transported to his factory.
- In his factory, Willy has the people subjected to horrible brainwashing, essentially bordering on Mind Rape. This takes place in his infamous Tunnel, turning an already scary scene into something truly terrifying. Renaming them into "Oompa Loompas", which in their language means "Drowned Minds". Forever slaves in Wonka's Chocolate Factory.
Mitigating Factor
Unlike the OG, he's portrayed as a racist Evil Colonist and slavedriver who's cheery personality being nothing more than Faux Affably Evil. He subjects the natives to horrible Mind Rape and slavery, and slaughter.
Now the only two concern is if it's serious and not shock value.
Now Avocado Animation usually makes comedic videos that are parodies, like the joke video on the Barbieheimer memes and his well-known Velma parody video where Scooby is revealed to be an Eldritch Abomination. Now here? This isn't the case, as this is possibly his most serious and darkest video he has produced. Nothing about it is played for laughs, it's played for sheer horror especially in scenes like Lofti being psychologically broken that he accidentally dropped his only child to be drowned in the river.
It's also not some shock value stuff, there's an actually a story beyond just "Willy Wonka is evil doing evil things for no reason". The video actually gives characteristics on Lofti and his backstory and even shows bits of his childhood, and some lore on his people being natives on an island who lived peacefully until Wonka arrives and explains how they became slaves to him. I say there's enough in my opinion.
Heinous Standards
Only villain in it, he's a slaver, a mass murderer, and a mind raping brainwasher to boot.
Final Verdict
Personally, I'm leaning yes, but I'll leave it up to you. I've posted the link to the video for you to decide.
Edited by Powermaster201 on Apr 4th 2024 at 11:47:54 AM
A Child from the Stars
Welp... for Willy Wonka...jesus...
Woagh
![[tdown]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/thumbs_down_emote.png "[thumb down]"){kind=small}
to Willy Wonka, i'm sorry but i'm having trouble believing this isn't an elaborate shitpost. When something like this is "taken seriously" it generally just means it's highlighting how absurd it is.
A Girl, Just One of Many Kinds
Watching the short I’m gonna throw in a yes. It’s a very, unorthodox candidate I’ll admit but I don’t think there’s ajytiing genuinely comedic or parody towards this to make me say it’s disqualifying
Keep Fighting. Keep Loving.
Lizzid people!
Had watched the video, somewhat leaning towards a yes, but could be swayed.
The Draftsman of Doom
I mean, the video does seem to take itself somewhat seriously, but I don't know if that's supposed to be part of the joke.
To be fair to Power, one of my candidates had to be cut due to the fact that I had underestimated the level of Comedic Sociopathy & Black Comedy in the film.
Mark me as abstaining.
![[down]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_down.png "[down]"){kind=icon}
I'm not saying you made a shitpost. I'm saying that I found it hard to judge the tone when I watched it based on the creator's other work, and it's possible you got a different impression of the video than I did.
Edited by SkyCat32 on Apr 4th 2024 at 1:40:42 PM
Feels good, don't it?
The Emperor of Evil!
Yeah just because it has a character like Willy Wonka doing nasty stuff out of the blue doesn't mean we can assume it's a parody. Sure the guy has made silly videos, but the premises themselves are silly, with Wonka it may sound strange but it's also portrayed very realistic and horrifying akin to real Colonizers, I've seen plenty of parodies and comedies myself and I usually wouldn't jump the gun on them unless I've actually seen genuine pathos and I think the video has it. Especially when the guy who makes these videos usally is obvious it's a parody. This? I found it hard to find anything is meant to be Played for Laughs, like all of it gives off nothing but disturbing psychological horror and the sheer awfulness of Wonka's crimes.
Like, just because it's Willy Wonka doesn't mean we should just assume it's some shitpost, not tryn pull some "Whataboutism" card here but... We had sillier characters up because they too fit the criteria. I personally think Wonka has a chance in this matter.
Edited by Azorius24 on Apr 4th 2024 at 8:56:40 PM
"The only thing which is certain, is that something will happen".