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
Oop, sorry about the late reply on that one. He is shown with a brief smirk in the hostage scene, but the rest of his actions are colder/less outwardly sadistic. And his motive is either revenge against the main guy or being under orders (one time he got annoyed and killed an Asshole Victim, so that's even less so), not pure sadism.
edited 18th Dec '14 4:12:45 PM by mazaka
Psychotic enjoyment of your evil deeds isn't a requirement. Callous indifference is fine. Kruger's execution of Delacroix isn't done for moral reasons, either. He's annoyed she mouths off to him and stabs her in the neck. Delacroix might be (hell, she IS) a terrible human being, but as she could have been a living saint and Kruger still would have done the same thing makes it an action to count for his inclusion.
That said, Schmidtt/The Skull is stopped by Cap while he is attempting to blow up multiple cities, New York and Berlin included. While he doesn't succeed, as the holidays say, it's the thought that counts. The fact is, he has an attempted body count in the millions, including his own side. He also has Allied POWs used for experiments and it is strongly indicated he is having the village where he discovers The Tesseract massacred.
Also, Gory Discretion Shot is not a disqualifier, nor O Ffscreen Villainy. The Skull's men opening fire on civilians offscreen is the former. It's in the film and we know it's happening. However, Kruger's war crimes are simply told to us. That's offscreen villainy (he just ha enough legitimate crimes to get in on his own)
The fact Schmidtt doesn't torture people is not done out of mercy. It's simply convenience where he's in a hurry and irritated.
I reiterate my yes for Yuma Lau, btw. I think she just needs a writeup
edited 18th Dec '14 4:46:49 PM by Lightysnake
I actually have wondered about the MCU Skull from time to time. I feel like Ronan the Accuser does pretty much everything he does and does it nastier.
Resources come into play, though. Ronan is an intergalactic Kree warlord with access to the primordial force of creation that he plans to use to obliterate a planet.
The Skull, by contrast, is only the head of a science and research division of the German army and has access to a less powerful tool. His ultimate goal is to annihilate multiple major cities on earth, which would cause a death toll in the hundreds of millions. Factor in the torture of PO Ws for experiments.
From the FAQ at the beginning:
Do they have to succeed at what they try to do in order to count?: No, success is not a component of Complete Monster. After all, heroes succeed in fiction more often than not. What they consciously attempt to do is what matters.
I remember reading something about the MCU!Skull lending a henchman his car, or something like that. Is that a Pet the Dog?
I'm not sure that would be saying much.
That's not a random mook, it's Arnim Zola, the most brilliant guy in HYDRA who the Skull positively requires for long term projects.
...And even then, he's only giving him a chance to escape
Which is why I said "nastier" instead of something like "on a larger scale".
That said, I'm not seriously inclined to challenge his inclusion - honestly, I think my disquiet is more because he's notably less unpleasant than other continuities' versions of the Red Skull, which isn't actually relevant to whether he qualifies.
To be fair, I think it'd be rather impossible to put in a 'full on' Red Skull and maintain the PG rating.
Perhaps Skull knew in advance that Zola had the talent to spread the Gospel According to Hydra elsewhere?
edited 18th Dec '14 5:55:35 PM by ryanasaurus0077
@Keet 96 - I already nominated Yuma, but me and Morgenthaler did a little talking about her, and came to the conclusion that she has a lot to compete with. It helps that in both epilogue's Ajay's allies Amita or Sabal go of the deep end.
"It's like...a cliff, and if I do it, I'm just gonna...fall." "I think we're already falling."I thought of another one of Freddy Krueger's crimes. In Freddy vs. Jason, he tries to rape Lori.
Now I'm not sure how to fit that into his current entry. Then again Freddy Krueger commits a LOT of crimes. He might be a similar case with Palpatine in that listing all of his deeds would probably create a really huge entry.
Ah, but the fact that he doesn't torture out of practicality is mere speculation. Same with Kruger too; we don't know if they would do it or not. And if that's the case with genocide, then any remorselessly genocidal villain could qualify.
It's pretty lengthy as is, and it also mentions how he does something similar in the sixth film by morphing into some girl's sexually abusive father.
Not necessarily saying that Kruger is one (haven't seen the film), but I'm not sure how "any remorselessly genocidal villain could qualify" would be perceived as a bad thing. Together with Dystopia Justifies the Means it's about the epitomy of evil for large-scale crimes, which makes for a good qualifier if they lack any redeeming traits.
For The Departed, I don't think Mr. French qualifies anyway. He's mighty disturbed by Costello making a bad joke after killing a woman in the opening, and he seems to have Undying Loyalty towards Costello. Costello himself is... more difficult. He does a lot of heinous things, but his Evil Mentor behavior towards the two leads is pretty ambiguous.
You've got roaming bands of armed, aggressive, tyrannical plumbers coming to your door, saying "Use our service, or else!"Yeah, 'remorselessly genocidal' seems to be a good way to end up on the shortlist for this trope. I don't see any argument against Johann Schmidtt. He's a ruthless tyrant with a god-complex who has no loyalty or affection towards anyone, kills without mercy or remorse, has people he captures experimented upon and mistreated and plans to kill millions to establish dominion over earth.
It's not relevant if he enjoys torture or not; he's indifferent to it, and each time he kills someone, he has no reason to bother torturing them. The man he kills at the beginning? He got the Tesseract and is on his way out. The soldier he disintegrates? That's just because he's in a bad moon.
Being frank on other matters, I don't think French qualifies for reason Morgenthaler stated. Costello is very hard. Despite his crimes, he is...ambiguous regarding the two leads, particularly Sullivan. In one scene, he tells Sullivan he'd never give him up, then seconds later tries to murder him.
Oh FFS, found this on Palpatine's characte rentry:
- Affably Evil: Occasionally, he is genuinely polite to his subjects (such as Wilhuff Tarkin), provided that they don't fail him. Most of his personality can be summed up as being Faux Affably Evil, however.
- Faux Affably Evil: In the waning days of the Republic, he has a tendency to be charming and friendly in spite of his intentions to screw everyone over. As the Emperor, he doesn't particularly bother to hide the fact that he's a bastard, but occasionally gives off a mockingly concerned tone of voice.
- Faux Affably Evil: In the waning days of the Republic, he has a tendency to be charming and friendly in spite of his intentions to screw everyone over. As the Emperor, he doesn't particularly bother to hide the fact that he's a bastard, but on occasion is genuinely polite to his subjects (such as Wilhuff Tarkin), provided that they don't fail him, and occasionally gives off a mockingly concerned tone of voice.
Nobody from The Departed qualifies.
Nobody from the final season of The Legend of Korra qualifies.
I'll submit this tomorrow, and finish tweaking Sonic (and try to condense Markos).
CM Dates; CM Pending; CM DraftsSeconding what Melon said. With the exception of Unalaq, every single Korra villain has redeeming qualities
I gotta concur with nobody from The Departed qualifying. I would argue with Costello failing the heinous standard as well. Torturing Costigan can be justified in that he thought that the latter was a traitor and that is what all villains do. Hell, he even gave him money to heal his broken arm and not many villains do that! The only thing that I would consider heinous is murdering a woman in the beginning of the movie. Mr. French's Even Evil Has Standards moment actually makes Mr. French a hypocrite since he is later shown murdering innocent helpless people too without remorse. However, both fail the heinous standard.
By the way, I give to Peter from The Lost Boys.
Can I get some opinions on my post about Eggman?
Okay, so far I have no objections to Wilson Concannon, so I'm going to go ahead and do a write up for him.
- The Hills Run Red: Wilson Concannon establishes himself as one of the most depraved killers in the slasher genre. A director working on the titular lost slasher film, Concannon wasn't satisfied with how his actors worked, he donned the costume of the killer, Babyface, and simply filmed as he killed the actors. He also raped his thirteen year old daughter, Alexa, and treated the resulting child with abuse, locking him in a dark room, and even letting him cut off his own face and become the new Babyface killer to impress him. At the time of the film, a movie buff named Tyler and his friends go to Concannon's house to find a copy of the film, he non chalantly confesses his deeds to Tyler while he's tied to a wheelchair, amused at his disgust. He takes Tyler to watch as his friend is killed on camera, but belittles Alexa for working on the film behind his back, shooting her. When their son panics, he only tells him to get back in character.
Also if I could get at least one more vote for Peter, that would be great. Also thinking about bringing up Simone Doffler from the comic book continuation of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
"It's like...a cliff, and if I do it, I'm just gonna...fall." "I think we're already falling."
So... I nominate Yuma Lau from Far Cry 4. She drugs and attempts to rape the protagonist Ajay before trying to kill him and "mix his mother's ashes in pig slop." and considers concepts like 'mercy' and 'pragmatic villainy' to be signs of weakness. She is also the only villain with no redeeming qualities, De Pleur has a wife and daughter that he cares for deeply, Noore is only serving Pagan under coercion, and even Pagan is revealed to have positive character traits in his relationship with Ishwari Gale. Yuma serves Pagan for pure sadism and attempts to have him murdered and take over his empire when she think he 'goes soft' (Read: doesn't immediately butcher anyone who looks at him funny.)
You can check out any time you like but you can never leave.