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. "
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
Oh by the way I rembered two actors whove played CM's and battled against CM's
Sean Connery and Timothy Dalton
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."
Rassilion from Doctor Who
Bringing up Marakov in this is baffling, as he is from a completely different series. There isn’t a single all defining heinous that includes and collective works in all forms of media.
Heck, compare Budzo from Adventures in Zambezia to Pennywise. Both of them are Child Eater. However, Budzo comes from a family friendly Southern African animated kids film, and he is a Knight of Cerebus for the whole film, causing it all to become much darker whenever he shows up. His motivation is having lost one claw in a battle with the Zambezians, and his goal is to take over Zambezia and devour their eggs, which is completely unjustified and disproportionate, something he seems to be aware of. Budzo is just a gleeful sadist, but he can outright be shown eating bird eggs as bird eggs are treated like babies here, and that would make the film much darker and push the U rating hard.
Pennywise is a Stephen King villain appearing in a horror novel where he explicitly eats kids and kills them in sadistic ways. He can get away with being shown committing his crimes because the work is meant to be horror and has a very high intended R rating. It is meant to be dark and scary and make you stay up at night.
Both Budzo and Pennywise stand out as villains in their respective forms of media for different reasons and have both cleared the heinous standard. That is why they individually count as monsters. They stand out in their own work, and stand out compared to other works in their respective media platforms as well. But you still cannot compare the two as equals at all because of a few restraints that have to be pulled here and there with Zambezia. Budzo would’ve not been accepted otherwise.
It’s why there is no single heinous standard. Every work is completely different from each other in their own ways.
edited 27th Dec '17 9:14:26 AM by Vampireandthen
Please allow me to introduce myself, I am a man of wealth and taste. Nice to meet you, hope you can guess my name.Okay, Hope? At thia point you're blatantly ignoring us. Either read the effortpost and the rules so you understand how this works, or drop the argument.
I write stories and shiz. You can read them here."The rules also state the bodycount is also a factor, not just the resources at their disposal,"
This is true, and explains why someone like, say Van Zant can't count, since he's up against omnicidal maniacs. But considering Zardoz probably has the second highest attempted body count? I'd say he counts easily.
BTW, Van-Damne also played and faced a CM (he was a CM in Enemies Closer).
edited 27th Dec '17 9:17:26 AM by ACW
No, what was essentially said "Hope, quit trying to participate on the thread" for a good couple of posts starting with me not being told to appeal at all. My appeal was never really given an answer as to whether he qualified or not.
Also as far as the effortpost goes, he only kills a few hundred people. Under the special rules for groups, especially terrorists, he doesn't stand out.
edited 27th Dec '17 9:23:58 AM by hopeshalllive
If we bringing up an Omnicidal Maniac, I think a comparison that would be good here is from Empire, with Mike Weissman and Nathan Ryland.
Ryland is the guy who knowingly started the zombie apocalypse and ended human civilization because he wanted to see what would happen.
Mike Weissman is a Serial Rapist who used his power as one of only two police officers in a city overrun by zombies to cover his tracks.
While Mike can't compare to Ryland's actions, he still stands out by using his very few resources to full effect, was a textbook Wolf in Sheep's Clothing who pretended to be a morally upstanding person as he planned to become the leader of the survivors and have all the women depending on him, and is clearly shown to really enjoy being able to decide if someone lives or dies, going into almost a trance. He has the fewest resources but is a very unique villain for the series who is completely unrepentant for what he has done.
A Complete Monster is a villain who is unique and stands out through what they have done as well as having no redeeming qualities.
From what I have seen of the guy we are talking about, he does much worse than Mike Weissman. Hope, try dropping it now, okay?
edited 27th Dec '17 9:29:27 AM by Vampireandthen
Please allow me to introduce myself, I am a man of wealth and taste. Nice to meet you, hope you can guess my name.![]()
![]()
I mean isn't he the leader who wants to get the nukes. With leaders of groups that group rule your talking about doesn't work as he's responsible for everything that his group does.
edited 27th Dec '17 9:28:22 AM by miraculous
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."Uh that's not true. A GDV isnt just a villain that doesn't have a defined motive, they also need to have zero personality to count as a GDV.
Zardoz sounds like he has a personality from the effort post.
edited 27th Dec '17 9:36:33 AM by miraculous
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."You know what? People, can we just vote on this?I submit that Zardoz is an anti-west terrorist driven by power and hatred of the west with a clearly defined personality that he frequently displays in his appearances as a charismatic cult leader and remorseless killer, with a huge bodycount of countless terrorist attacks and an attempt to get his hands on nukes and use them, with huge amounts of bloodshed on camera.
I know this because I read the series and proposed him, and believe he sticks out next to the massive amounts of villains and terrorists in Dog Soldier's first three volumes alone. This is Single-Issue Wonk and I'd like to see it put tor est.
edited 27th Dec '17 9:36:38 AM by Lightysnake

I'm just pointing out that since he knew the double would not have the nuclear codes, he knew he couldn't nuke the city, so adding Tokyo to the attempted body count doesn't work when that gets taken into account.