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
No to the Skiz.
Other news from Robert's Cine-A-Trek for more villains in obscure cinema; I'm so damn sure the Big Bad of the big-budget Indian action film, Kadamban, is going to be a keeper, having massacred entire villages, and ordering his minions to flush out fleeing civilains - including children - with flung dynamites! He's so close to a monster!....
... and then eight minutes before the end credits, he swears vengeance on the hero over the death of his younger brother, which he does, actually, cares about. Dangit, there goes my keeper :-|
Edited by RobertTYL on May 5th 2021 at 12:05:13 AM
With jackie's input, going with a 'No' for Skizzo then
I've got a quickie potential here, one I'm a bit surprised hasn't come through the thread before...
What's the work?
Green Room is a 2015 horror-thriller distributed by cult company A24, directed by Jeremy Saulnier. Our film follows a punk band called the "Ain't Rights" and it's members—Pat, Sam, Reece and Tiger—as they perform their latest gig at a club for a uhhhh...politically unpopular gang. All seems well and good until the group witness a murder in a back room, and as they team up with a fellow, trigger-happy target Amber, they must lock themselves in said back room while the murderous Neo-Nazis try to eliminate them all to cover up the murder...
Who is Darcy? What has he done?
Darcy Banker—played by Patrick Stewart of all people—is the soft-spoken gangleader of the Neo-Nazis in the film, using his gang to become a successful drug dealer who slings heroin.
Seemingly a Reasonable Authority Figure when first arriving on the scene, Darcy meets up with his put-upon right-hand man Gabe for details on the situation with the Ain't Rights. As it comes to light later in the movie, the Neo-Nazi Werm murdered fellow gangmember Emily when he discovered she was planning to ditch the gang and expose some sort of violent crime Darcy and his gang committed last year involving a bloody baseball bat. The Ain't Rights witnessed the murder, and now have barricaded themselves in the back room with a loaded gun and one of the Neo-Nazis as a hostage.
Using an affable persona, Darcy tries to goad the band members into opening the door and that they'll be let go, asking to be given their gun first. As soon as band member Pat opens the door to throw the gun out to the gang, Darcy has one of his Neo-Nazis hack at Pat's arm and leave his hand hanging on by a thread to ensure the gun is taken from the band before they lock themselves back in.
Verbally and physically abusing Gabe as he makes plans, Darcy intends to murder the entire Ain't Rights band as well as Amber to cover up the murder of Emily, then frame their deaths as wild dog attacks. So, hoping to keep up this facade, he orders his men to only use knives in killing the band members if they have to, and in the meantime summons the hired dog-fighter Clark to bring his attack dogs.
Darcy ends up siccing the dogs onto the Ain't Rights, getting Tiger's throat ripped open and eaten by one, while he has Reece brutally stabbed. When Reece is still barely alive and dying slowly from the wounds, Gabe obviously shocked at the violence and Reece's suffering, Darcy coldly orders "Let him bleed." as Reece painfully dies slow, noting that a later time of death will work better for his scheme.
Next sending in two of his gangmembers with machetes to finish off the band, Darcy learns that one of them—Daniel—was a friend of Emily's, and quickly realizes he'll turncoat if the Ain't Rights expose the truth. Darcy promptly sends in other gang members with a shotgun and has them shoot Daniel when he tries to help the Ain't Rights escape to avenge Emily. Darcy then gets Sam ripped apart by another fighting dog.
With only Pat and Amber left, Darcy orders his men to just go in and shoot them, stating if their bodies are disposed of, the other bodies "just" mauled will be enough for forensics. Darcy further shows his duplicitous nature when he tells Clark he'll let one of his wounded dogs have a last thrilling go at the targets before the dog dies...as soon as Clark is out of earshot, Darcy tells his goons to forget the dog and just shoot Pat and Amber to speed things along.
Now, earlier in the film, Werm and his band Cowcatcher left the scene of the crime at Darcy's request, with Darcy giving them heroin as incentive and a parting gift....of course, near the end of the film, Gabe asks Darcy if they should be worried about Cowcatcher talking when the murder of the entire band becomes news. Darcy smugly notes "I'm more concerned of their habit. Really gotta stay away from that dope...hear there's a bad batch going around." And as we later see at least two members of Cowcatcher lying dead from the heroin Darcy provided, it turns out Darcy poisoned the heroin he gave Werm and his band to silence them all.
Ultimately, Pat and Amber fight tooth and nail and make it out alive, confronting Darcy and his last remaining gang at gunpoint while Gabe pulls a Heel–Face Turn. As Darcy can only stare down the guns, Pat notes, "Funny. You were so scary last night."
Darcy meets his end when he tries to run and pull a gun on Pat and Amber, getting shot dead as he only squeezes off one stray bullet before dropping as the police are called and Pat and Amber await to meet them and explain the whole situation.
Freudian Excuse or other redeeming features?
This one takes a bit of an explanation, but just bear with me:
Darcy is listed as Affably Evil and a Jerkass Woobie. These are bullshit. Darcy is as Faux Affably Evil as they come—he has the same friendly, calm voice while he's trying to negotiate with the band as he does while ordering their brutal deaths—and his Jerkass Woobie entry says he fits it because...he seems like a tired old man. Yeah, one who is willing to commit a mass murder to cover up his drug operation while being sadistic about it, I feel so sorry for him -_-
Now, Darcy is outraged at Werm for killing Emily, but only because the club houses Darcy's drug lab and he doesn't want a "selfish, impulsive" act committed "under MY roof", and while yes, you can say trying to get rid of the band is Pragmatic Villainy since they witnessed the murder...it doesn't really change that Darcy is willing to brutally kill the whole band and Amber as well then stage their deaths as wild dog attacks to avoid police finding his drug lab.
Lastly, even though Darcy acts like A Father to His Men? The film goes through hoops to showcase the subversive nature of this. He coldly states if he had been around for the murder he'd have just gotten Werm sent to prison, and later, despite admitting to being grateful to Werm for killing Emily when he learns she was trying to ditch the gang and potentially expose a past crime...he still is downright smug and ruthless when he reveals he's poisoned Werm and his whole band to silence them.
We further see this behavior when Darcy lies to Clark's face that he'll honor his wishes for his dying dog to get a last chase only to emotionlessly go behind his back and change plans, and Darcy treats Gabe like a damn stooge who he at one point even slams his head into a wall. He does put up a brisk "I apologize" when another gangmember shows shock at the display, and he later tells Gabe he'll "promote" him to a higher position in the gang, but the entire point of Gabe pulling a Heel–Face Turn is based around Darcy's mistreatment and that Gabe has seen how he treats even his fellow gang members.
Heinousness?
The best you can say about Darcy is that he's trying to cover up a murder, but his methods are uhhhhh rough. He's trying to kill off the Ain't Rights and Amber by way of horrid stabbings and dog attacks, he has Daniel shot in the face when he tries to help the group escape, and he poisons Werm and the Cowcatchers with bad heroin to silence them.
Final Verdict?
I would honestly lean Keep, even though Darcy didn't kick off the plot and he's annoyed at the "trouble", his response on covering up Emily's murder is brutal and costs many lives, he's sadistic and ruthless about it all, and he never once shows any genuine redeeming feature that isn't subverted in one way or another. That's a Yes from me.
Edited by Ravok on May 4th 2021 at 10:53:07 AM
No! That is NOT Solid Snake! Stop impersonating him!@miraculous: Honestly great. He's a strange combination of Grumpy Old Man and Faux Affably Evil who manages to make a role that could have been forgettable instead quite menacing.
No! That is NOT Solid Snake! Stop impersonating him!Yes to Darcy. Third for Stewart.
Edited by Bullman on May 4th 2021 at 12:31:18 PM
Fan-Preferred Couple cleanup threadHmmm...my issue with Darcy is honestly heinousness...I've seen Green Room and while Darcy is the worst in it, I'm honestly not too sure he passes full muster. His actual body count seems kinda limited, overall.
I guess I mighr be a bit jaded and I'm open to discussion, but for such a visceral and flatly brutal film (and one I really liked), I never got the impression Darcy went beyond standard villainy. Darcy isn't a fan of torture, just...efficiency as possible. I never got the sense the old Nazi was sadistic, just out to remove a problem as quickly as possible by the means available.
If Darcy made a regular practice of murder, or we had hints he's a serial killerhad racialized murders, I'd agree, but killing two of his own (who are, let's be fair, total scumbags) and inconvenient witnesses to a crime he himself had no real part in...I'm not really able to see it.
I think what swings me most is it's not his own crime Darcy is attempting to cover up.
Edited by Lightysnake on May 4th 2021 at 11:04:29 AM
I do get that thought process, but I also think Darcy trying to cover up a murder to mask his massive drug trafficking enterprise and obvious criminal history (the bloody baseball bat + the reference to what Neo-Nazis call "boot parties" in which they brutalize people) gives him enough selfishness, and while he's not pointlessly sadistic, he's still pulling shit like letting Reece (and possibly Sam too) live for longer in pain and near-death to better serve his set-up, and his bodycount ultimately is at least 7—Tiger, Reece, Sam, Daniel, and members of Cow Catcher (who were still his supposed partners and all of whom were in on the murder, scumbags or not)—with attempted two more of Pat and Amber. He gets Pat's hand cleaved damn near off, he's feeding them to dogs and butchering them with machetes to better cover up his own involvement... it's more then brutal enough for me even if it's covering up a crime.
Edited by Ravok on May 4th 2021 at 11:11:45 AM
No! That is NOT Solid Snake! Stop impersonating him!Weaker Yes to Darcy, he seems sadistic enough for me
I have a question, if the villain has his wife killed, and then looks at her photo and says that "War requires sacrifices" and "She is better off now anyway", does it count as regret? And then he throws the photo away.
Edited by VeryVileVillian on May 4th 2021 at 9:13:57 PM
Yeah Darcy is by no means a strong Keep so if anyone has doubts I'm happy to hear them, I just do feel he slightly passes given the Bad Boss and mass murder of everyone who could expose his criminal organization, and the fact that he chooses "ripped apart by dogs" as the choice of death just to better serve an alibi... it's just over the bar for me, personally, but I'm totally fine with dissenting opinions on this one.
Edited by Ravok on May 4th 2021 at 11:20:33 AM
No! That is NOT Solid Snake! Stop impersonating him!This seems a strange case where Pragmatic Villainy (wanting a strong alibi) may HELP a candidate.
to Darcy
Question: Let say the villain has clones, he/she isn't nice to anyone else but his clones and is a Bad Boss to anyone else, but he or she is kind to their clones in a non-faux way and does get upset if they die. Would that be redeeming or would it be a case of extreme narcissism?

Skizzo. I was meant to cover the game for the thread when it was first released, and I ruled out the possibility of him keeping. Primarily because of the heinous standard, and how he doesn't stand out compared to other antagonists of his caliber; his main problem is that he's not evil enough given his resources.
It's Spooky Month!