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
@Lightysnake
Dial it back a notch, please. Remember how offended you were when people accused others of "not getting the trope"? Well you're treading very close to accusing people of not watching a film correctly.
RE: Ronan
So far what I'm getting from the argument for inclusion is "we don't like this guy. So we will ignore his one redeeming quality." Seriously, some of the arguments I'm seeing here—Ronan doesn't "speak of them with fondness?" He's attempting genocide because they're dead. Ronan doesn't break down weeping? Since when is that a qualifier. Under that logic Hopper, Patrick Zala, and every other villain who ever displayed "insufficient grief" is going back up.
As for some of the other arguments: Ronan's father's death doesn't justify genocide? Well the death of Mr. Freeze's wife doesn't justify any of the murders he's committed either. Even Evil Has Loved Ones isn't about justification. It's about giving a damn. Ronan rages about the fact that his father, his grandfather, and his great-grandfather died for nothing and have been betrayed by the peace treaty. He gives a damn. That's a disqualifier.
Ronan doesn't actually care about them. Please provide actual evidence for this. Does he piss on their graves at some point? Insult them? Say flat out that he doesn't care? Does another character in the film—one of his enemies perhaps—call him out on the fact that he doesn't care about them? The answer of course is, no. That never happens. Nobody in the film ever suggests that Ronan does not care about his father, grandfather, etc. Not even his opponents try to deny that. Not even Thanos, tries to deny that. Ronan says and does nothing to indicate he does not care. There is no reason to dismiss what he says, and those of you who want to, need to actually provide evidence that there is cause. Show me the part in the film where somebody—anybody—says Ronan doesn't care, and I'll grant your point.
Ronan's using their deaths as propaganda. Oh really? For whose consumption. The first time he brings it up he's talking to himself and/or his henchmen (that scene is unclear at best). The second time he's monologuing to a group of people he's about to kill. There's nobody to impress and nobody to win over. Try again.
Ronan views them as part of Kree culture/religion/whatever. This argument is the greatest stretch of all. According to you we don't see enough of Ronan to confirm that he cares about what happened to his ancestors (despite his saying flat out that he does) but we apparently do see enough of him to do an in-depth analysis of the religious, cultural, and ethnic components of his ill-defined and barely mentioned ideology. Right. That makes total sense. Ronan's ideology is barely discussed; the most we get is "punish Xandar" and "peace treaty bad". We're not given any real insight into his religious beliefs or his belief in Kree cultural superiority or anything to that effect, so citing things that he never discusses in order to dismiss things he actually says strikes me as really disingenuous.
Those of you claiming Ronan is lying/doesn't give damn/views them as extensions of his faith? The burden of proof is on you. You're saying "what he says doesn't count" but you aren't offering any actual, in-film proof as to why we should accept that.
Ronan says he gives a damn about his ancestors. Nothing he does and nothing he says contradicts that. Therefore he does not count.
For starters: Ronan says he cares about his ancestors? Show me. Show me him caring about them. It's not 'insufficient grief,' it's that there's NO grief. No fondness, no sentiment. Nothing. Does Ronan mourn them? Speak of them with care? Love? Seniment? Does he honor them? Does he do anything, anything to indicate any love or redeeming nature? Or does he act the genocidal fanatic looking to justify a psychotic code?
Ronan says he cares for them? Ronan says no such thing, actually. There is not one line of dialogue indicating that. None. Zero. This argument is frankly over. Nobody is showing anything new.
Ronan is ending this as a solid keeper.
edited 9th Aug '14 9:48:43 PM by Lightysnake
I'd say deal with Live-Action TV first because it's almost done. We just need to discuss the examples here.
I personally would not object towards merging several subpages - lots of subpages are the Moments' and Fuels' tropes' shtick, not a trope with a strict standard like Complete Monster.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Now some, like X-Men, probably wouldn't break the page, but we should probably keep just because there are SO many examples (over 15 monsters).
But, for example:
- Berserk: 3 entries
- Bleach: 4
- Flame of Recca: 3
- Rurouni Kenshin: 3
- Yu Yu Hakusho: 4
And Video Games:
- Dragon Age: 4
- Dragon Quest; Elder Scrolls; Fable: 3 each
- Metal Gear: 3
- Super Robot Wars: 3
- The Witcher: 3
And that's the last I'll say about that. If I'm voted down, so be it.
edited 10th Aug '14 6:56:19 AM by ACW
Both that and Generic Doomsday Villain. He's given far too little characterization in this film. If there are sequels, we might find out more, but it's exceedingly rare for the Bigger Bad to get CM status on the basis of the first entry in a series.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I was thinking the same thing. So far the only real personality he's shown is him smiling at the end of The Avengers.
I'm going to say
on Principal Torres from Every Witch Way. Again it sounds like too much generic villainy without a real Moral Event Horizon moment.
A
for Prospero.
If no one objects, I'll cut the characters I brought up in this post
and rewrite Sarren, and Vladimir Scorpius from that Bond novel.
I'll restate my question on forum roleplays. Do they fold into the rule against PC Complete Monsters?
And I have one other candidate: Dr. Joseph Mengele as played by Gregory Peck from The Boys from Brazil.
Who is Mengele? What has he done?
The man probably needs no introduction: he's the notorious Nazi scientist at Auschwitz who butchered numerous people out of a sick fascination with cutting people up For Science! (or pseudo-science, rather). His wartime crimes are all backstory here, but it adds a ton of other crimes.
After the war Mengele is involved in a plot to recreate the Third Reich by cloning Hitler several times over and recreating his life's circumstances. He had dozens of women kidnapped and forcibly impregnated with Hitler's DNA in the 1960s. When the boys reach a certain age, he orders 94 men (the clones' fathers) to be killed all around the world as part of his experiment, not caring about any bystanders who get killed in the process as well. When a younger Nazi Hunter discovers his plot in conjunction with a servant boy who spied on Mengele's compound, he has both the infiltrator and the child killed. Eventually the Nazi organization's leadership aborts Mengele's project because it is attracting too much attention, but he goes rogue and starts to kill the remaining fathers personally. An elderly Jewish Nazi Hunter who was in contact with the previous one gets on Mengele's trail; he orders him assassinated as well.
Freudian Excuse or redeeming traits?
None whatsoever. His entire reason for the cloning plot is to complete the Nazi conquest of the "lower races" and exterminate them all. He doesn't even have any particular affection for Hitler; everything indicates that he just idolizes him because he sees him as the ideal sociopathic genocidal warlord, and wants to create a new Hitler for every future generation.
Conclusion?
Definite keep. Heinous as all hell with around 100 direct kills on his head and future plans for total genocide and enslavement of the world.
edited 10th Aug '14 8:28:37 AM by Morgenthaler
You've got roaming bands of armed, aggressive, tyrannical plumbers coming to your door, saying "Use our service, or else!"@Lightysnake
The Ronan conversation may be over, but I'm just going to say those so that you and the others understand it for future conversations—I will always view Avenging the Villain as a redeeming trait unless the story explicitly finds a way to indicate it is not. To stick with this example just for convenience's sake, Ronan says he wants to avenge the deaths of his ancestors. Unless the film explicitly states that it's just a justification, I will always take something like that at face value because, as I said way back during the Hopper discussion, we have to take the statements of characters at face value unless there is a very good reason not to (ie the character gains something from saying it, is shown to be a pathological liar, etc). So don't tell me "the character shows no fondness" (which is subjective in and of itself; what exactly qualifies as "showing fondness"?) when they say they're Avenging the Villain. Unless something actually contradicts that motivation—and there's nothing in this case, or in any number of others we've discussed—I will accept it every time. And quite frankly, I think that it's part of our job to accept what characters say. Otherwise anybody can qualify as long as we find a way to write off their good traits.
@Morgenthaler
Mengele's entire objective in The Boys from Brazil is getting himself a new Hitler clone, right? Why does he want Hitler back? If it's purely ideological, than yeah he can qualify, but if he actually wants Hitler the person back, he could be disqualified.
Trust me, I've seen "writing off a villain's good traits", and it doesn't seem to be happening with Ronan. I've seen people trying to interpret his Avenging the Villain goal as a good trait because nothing explicitly shows it's a bad trait, but to say it's a good trait that comes from a place of love and compassion is really sort of a paradox when talking about a guy who's fueled by fanatical hatred and warped moral beliefs such as "weakness is sin" (and by all means, should that not mean since his father and grandfather died, they were "weak", and thus sinners who deserved to fall? If Ronan doesn't feel that, that might just make him a hypocrite.)
Mengele gets a
if he indeed had no Villainous Friendship with Hitler.

To better explain my Avenging the Villain comment:
Ronan hates Xandar for even existing, and while I know actual terrorists don't "hate people for their freedom", that seems like (at least from the information in the film) a reasonable good description of what Ronan and the Kree have against Xandar.
So, where Ronan's father and grandfather come in is that Ronan is outraged that they died in vain because their deaths in battle didn't contribute to the destruction of Xandar and its people- And the father and grandfather are very closely tied to an abstract idea of Kree superiority here- Ronan sees the Kree as superior, and so it isn't "right" that they should die and Xandar should live.
So I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see the father and grandfather as providing a Freudian Excuse or redeeming quality, because they basically exist as personifications of Kree superiority that fuel Ronan's insane ideology.
edited 9th Aug '14 9:04:19 PM by Hodor
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wiki