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
Ditto. Re Gideon, I've only seen the film so can't comment on to what extent the comic version is different. The film version definitely doesn't qualify (he's basically just a smug jerk with Bastard Boyfriend and Evil Overlord trappings) and all of his villainy is presented humorously. There are some rape implications in how Ramona literally can't get him out of her head (because he uses mind control), but those are also played for laughs.
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wiki@7534 I discussed Monster.Mega Man back in @3817 - it was mostly overlooked. I like what you did for Weil and Regal.
@7536 Good call all around.
@7538 Technically speaking, some of those examples were discussed before; I remember covering the ones for Tales Of Vesperia, Tales of Symphonia, and Tales of the Abyss (not coincidentally, three of the four I've played). You'd need to search by the game's full name to see where those were discussed, as we mostly talked about the pages for the games themselves, not their CM entries. Also, doesn't help that the Symphonia ones were brought up during the Ghetsis controversy.
To go over:
Vesperia baddies - I voted in favor of all three previously. Though yes, a rewrite is in order.
Symphonia baddies - I really only bothered with Kvar before, and even that was to vote to remove an In-Universe tag (which definitely shouldn't be used regardless of other qualifiers). Hmm... inclined to agree on cutting them all.
Now, getting into the Tales games I haven't played...
Rebirth baddies - Since it sounds like the other two work for Zilva, and she goes further than both, leaning towards her being the only example from the game.
Valcav of Legendia - Honestly, intentional genocide isn't all that common in the Tales series. And even when it is, it's usually due to Well-Intentioned Extremist reasons (like in Symphonia). Inclined to keep.
Mars of Phantasia - Played at least through enough of this one to have seen Mars... seemed very one-dimensional, plus Dhaos (the guy revived) was a Well-Intentioned Extremist out to save his own world (the suggestion being that his underlings, including Mars, also were out for the same goal). I'd be inclined to cut.
Barbatos of Destiny 2 - Keep, but with a heavy rewrite. Much of that isn't about what would qualify for the trope (including listing others who don't qualify), but there's enough there that I'm willing to keep him.
@7543 If nothing else, that spoilered line in Griffith's entry is completely superfluous and should be cut (why spoiler the fact that he does worse than kill a policeman, when you then list said worse crimes without spoilers?). He's actually the only one I'm inclined to include, as the others either have no detail or pale in comparison to what Griffith has done (it sounds like "Jimmy" doesn't even go as far as Griffith, who is actually shown raping someone onscreen... well, inasmuch as you can "show" anything with someone with Invisibility). AKA, what Occasional Exister said in @7545.
@7547 A couple of salient points.
One, we're not in any rush here.
Two, the more examples you throw out at once in different posts, the more likely your examples will get lost in the stack. Slow down and keep to solving a couple items at a time. I like to limit it to one page at a time.
Three, it really helps if you actually link to the subpage in question.
@7549 These points are covered in the FAQ. Please read it. It's on the first page of the thread, and there's a link to it at the top of every page in the thread.
@7552 The cleanup, per se, won't ever be done. This thread is going to be continually open to evaluate new entries. Though once all the pages are locked, we can talk about whether alphabetizing is worth it then.
@7555 The Squidbillies example should be cut; if it depends on the episode, it means there are positive traits that can be listed. Super Jail runs on Black Comedy; easy cut for all examples. Everything in it is Played for Laughs. Whether it should be or not.
@7558 I'm starting to think that Gaston might need to be added to the FAQ under the "no way" list. Disney's Beauty And The Beast had no Complete Monster qualifiers.
Those other examples, I'll give my standard "cut, and get someone in here to justify further keeping."
@7563 First off, if you're going to ask "did we discuss this?", then you haven't read the FAQ on "how to search for a candidate." Second, if you can't name what series he's from, I don't want to discuss him.
@7572 Oh, fricking Scott Pilgrim. Honestly, my question is this - did anything Gordon Graves did stand above and beyond what Scott himself did? From the descriptions folks gave me of the last volume, the answer is no.
@7575 Drusa sounds like she's not quite heinous enough to me, given the setting.
@7577 Really, every evil act? Is Gideon to blame for Scott being such a Jerkass in the first five volumes?
@7580 Hrm... I don't know. Honestly, that still sounds not quite as heinous as Griffith.
@7593 Hmm... I don't know if we discussed anyone besides Wesker. Also, probably worth noting that Wesker sets the bar pretty high in the Resident Evil universe. Just due to how far Wesker goes, I'm inclined to cut the rest. Though under a rewrite, I might be convinced on Nicholai, who is certainly a different flavor of evil than Wesker.
@7605 Sigh... I hate dealing with anything related to Buffy The Vampire Slayer around here. Ironic, I know.
With Angelus, I'd be willing to keep him based on what I've been told about the series, but that entry needs to be heavily rewritten to be shorter. Also, to make it clear that his Heel–Face Turn was induced (via curse, if I understand things correctly).
Warren Mears might have qualified in a different universe, but he doesn't sound as bad as some of Big Bad villains. I'd cut for not being heinous enough.
Zachary Kralik - what did he do? Cut unless someone can justify him.
Adam is another where they don't describe what they do. Again, cut unless justified.
Caleb is slightly better, but it really doesn't go into his deeds much beyond what others have done. Sounds sick, but I'd need more detail in order to vote keep.
Tucker... again, mass sacrifice for petty reasons is pretty old hat for much of the villains for the show. I'm inclined to cut for not being heinous enough.
@7625 Can you give an argument either way for the character?
@7628 Implications also aren't enough to include anyone.
edited 28th Jan '13 10:35:49 AM by 32_Footsteps
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.I wasn't arguing that they were- more that if the "girlfriend freezing" thing in the comics is played similarly to the mind control of the film, then it is too much played for laughs and too much by implication to qualify.
Also, I would have to say regarding the LEG examples that while their crimes are broadly similar, "Jimmy" is a lot less heinous than Griffith (probably less heinous than Hyde too). Jimmy is an unsubtle Take That! toward James Bond and politically incorrect heroes of that ilk (that's why Bulldog Drummond is shown as a friend/mentor). He's not presented as a monster in the same way that some of the other villains are.
(Incidentally, I've been thinking that there might be a Spear Counterpart to the "misogynistic examples" I've noted. Just like there are female villains who are wrongly added for being the kind of character that would be called a bitch, there are male ones- Gideon, Gaston, Jimmy, etc.- who are slimeballs of the Politically Incorrect Villain mold, but aren't really sufficiently heinous)
edited 28th Jan '13 10:59:33 AM by Hodor
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wiki@7629: Oh crud, you did bring Monster.Mega Man up. Sorry about that. Thanks for commenting on my Weil and Regal rewrites. I'll add your previous votes to their current rankings. So far it's:
- Weil Keep: 32 Footsteps (@3817), lightysnake (@7580), Occasional Exister
- Omega Cut: 32 Footsteps (@3817), lightysnake (@7580), Occasional Exister
- Gemini Keep: lightysnake (@7580), Occasional Exister
- Gemini Cut: 32 Footsteps (@3817)
- Anime!Gemini Cut: 32 Footsteps (@3817), lightysnake (@7580), Occasional Exister
- Tsukasa Cut: lightysnake (@7580), Occasional Exister
- Joker Cut: 32 Footsteps (@3817), lightysnake (@7580), Occasional Exister
- King Keep: 32 Footsteps (@3817), lightysnake (@7580), Occasional Exister
- Plant Man Cut: 32 Footsteps (@3817), lightysnake (@7580), Occasional Exister
- Regal Keep: 32 Footsteps (@3817), lightysnake (@7580), Occasional Exister
- Blur Keep: 32 Footsteps (@3817)
- Blur Cut: lightysnake (@7580), Occasional Exister
- Wily Cut: 32 Footsteps (@3817), lightysnake (@7580), Occasional Exister
edited 28th Jan '13 11:25:41 AM by OccasionalExister
![]()
![]()
![]()
Hey, you're not the only one. I can't stand Joss Whedon in general, but we gotta deal with him.
To answer some of your questions, Kralik's a Serial Killer turned vampire who likes to eat his victims alive. It's never really shown though, and he's got one hell of a Freudian Excuse (his mother castrated him with scissors at the age of ten). As for Warren, I don't think he'd qualify even in another series. His worst crimes are all accidental, and he seems completely unaware of the implications of his earlier mind control until it is explained to him.
Anyway, with that vote we now have more then enough (me, Occasional Exister, lightysnake, njrxll, Nocturna, Footsteps) to cut everybody who isn't Angelus or Caleb. Speaking of which, here's a potential rewrite for Caleb:
- Season 7's last five episodes introduced Caleb, the only villain in the series to rival Angelus in depravity. A defrocked priest turned Serial Killer of young women, Caleb uses the trust that people have in him to get closer to his victims, before torturing and killing them. In his first appearance he guts one of the Potential Slayers and leaves her at the side of the road, as a message for Buffy. He then kills another one of the girls during a battle, mangles the arm of another, and puts out Xander's eye, all while cracking bad jokes the entire time. He also coordinates the actions of the Bringers, organising the bombing of the Watcher Council's headquarters (resulting in most of their deaths), arranging the assaults on numerous Potentials, and trying to have Faith killed while she was in prison. A misogynistic sadist, who believes that all women are whores and deserve what he does to them, Caleb is The First Evil's right-hand man, and lives for the oncoming apocalypse, seeing the end of the world as a way to dispose of all those who do not share his mad religious convictions; he also gets a real kick out reenacting his murders with the shapeshifting First. Perhaps the most frightening thing about Caleb, however, is that he is entirely human, with nary a supernatural excuse, nor a Freudian Excuse, in sight.
edited 28th Jan '13 11:54:33 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Being a Jerkass is certainly not the same as 'evil acts'. I meant more that every major plot conflict is brought on by Gideon. The fact that Scott can't manage an interpersonal relationship to save his life is NOT on the same level as organizing a weird hyperspace area to personally Mind Rape an ex-girlfriend, set the entire plot in motion with the League of Evil Exes, have other women frozen as sex slaves...
@7630, @7631 Those are two wildly different takes on the issue.
From my viewpoint, actually, the heinous bar is already sketchy on Scott Pilgrim because Scott himself does some pretty despicable things. I came to the conclusion that Scott was Not So Different from his foes as of the middle of volume 2, and it actually surprised me to see Ramona even acknowledge it ("You're just another future evil ex, aren't you?") later in the series. It doesn't help with some of the info folks have filled me in on from the last volume, including the flashback that showed that the fight against Simon shown in flashback earlier wasn't really a Canadian retelling of River City Ransom; it was Scott cruelly kicking a geek's ass to get a date.
Beyond that, though, I think there's too little to confirm that Graves was going as far as @7631 suggests. From the way I've heard it described, not much detail is given beyond the fact that Graves has them on ice. And while it's certainly not heroic, it does sound like something he could atone for. So I'm feeling pretty good about an overall vote to cut all incarnations of Graves.
@7630 For your parenthetical... I have to disagree.
For examples like Gideon, Gaston, and Jimmy, more often than not, they play on implications. All of them are implied to be sexual predators of various degrees (though it sounds, in the latter case, that it's not just implication). Rape Is a Special Kind of Evil is a trope for a reason, after all. And including rape amongst your deeds is one of the more standout ways to qualify for this trope.
Also, I voted against each of them for different reasons. Gideon, it's a question of doing evil, but not quite doing enough evil. For Gaston, it's leaving most of it to interpretation and imagination, which is really what prevents most Disney villains from qualifying. For Jimmy of The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, I would have qualified him in other universes, but he got overshadowed by Griffith.
Meanwhile, the misogyny I see in examples is citing some characters in Mean Girls for gossiping. Gossiping. Or Merteuil of Dangerous Liaisons for making fun of someone else and loving sex (despite her actions being one of the only ways a woman of the era could avoid basically being under a man's thumb).
At least, in the case of the male examples listed, there's at least the argument that they're doing something rather wrong (and, in one case, showing that he actually did). In the female examples, the listed deeds are Jerkass material at most. In short, I think most of the male examples that are problematic are, more often than not, not nearly as much as the female examples. And given that the female examples are often based on arguments made about supposed negative traits of females (never mind that they're frequently glossed over, if not praised, when exhibited by men), I think that misogyny is much more prevalent when dealing with bad Complete Monster examples than misandry.
Now, if you wanted to discuss misandry in modern advertising, I could talk your ear off about that. But that's completely unrelated, so folks who want to hear that rant can PM me.
@7633 Shh! You wanna get run out of this wiki on rails? (I kid - the mods even know I'm not a fan, and Eddie even made a joke about it once.)
Huh... Kralik sounds a bit more sadistic than many vampires, but that doesn't seem quite so bad as the number of would-be world conquerers/destroyers that I've heard about from the show. I feel better about that cut vote. For Warren, that entry played him up even more than it sounded, then. Feeling good about that cut vote too.
That piece on Caleb looks better, although that last line looks really off to me. I can't put my finger on it.
@7634 From all the information I've read, while the "brainwashed into sex slaves" interpretation is implied, it's never stated. So no, that argument isn't on-screen enough to properly use in judging whether he qualifies. I'm done considering him; cut Graves and all other possible Scott Pilgrim nominees.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.I'm going to compare Scott and Gideon's crimes to see whether Gideon passes the heinous standard.
Scott's crimes:
- Being a bully in high school.
- Not caring about the lives of others to the point of Jerkassishness.
- Dating a naive seventeen year oldnote to get over a nasty breakup only to dump her for Ramona. He only breaks up with her after he and Ramona have been going out for a while. He doesn't either girl about his two timing.
- When his and Ramona's relationship runs into trouble, he becomes convinced that if he defeats all the evil exes, everything will be okay. This discourages him from trying to make the relationship work.
Gideon:
- He has kidnapped and frozen six women and wants to do the same for Ramona. He plans to unthaw them for the day that they will all go out with him. I dug up my copy of volume 6 and double checked that scene. Mindcontrol is never mentioned.
- Sees everyone else as little more than toys for his amusement, though Scott isn't much better on that point.
- Invents something called The Glow, which traps whoever is subjected to it in their mind with their issues. He tested this out on his girlfriend, Ramona. She was only able to escape because she has the ability to travel through subspace. However, the Glow still makes it impossible for Ramona to get over Gideon. Ramona remarks that Gideon viewed their entire relationship as a twisted experiment.
- Kills Scott, though Scott was also trying to kill him and every villain in the series has tried to do that.
- Goes out of his way to mortally wound Ramona.
- Rewrote Scott's memories so Scott would view all of his actions with him as an indisputably good guy. This made it considerably more difficult for Scott to become a better person.
Personally, I think that Gideon passes the heinous standard because the frozen women and the Glow are far worse than anything Scott has done. Thoughts?
edited 28th Jan '13 1:11:45 PM by lrrose
re: Gideon Graves: I think I'm going to have to vote no. From what I remember, Gideon just doesn't stick out past that general heinousness standard.
@7635 re: the last line of the proposed re-write for Caleb: Does "Perhaps the most indicting thing about Caleb is that he is entirely human and entirely without Freudian Excuse. He is evil because he wants to be evil." work better?
I think the point about Caleb's humanity is important because it underscores how much without excuse he is. Without having been taken over by something which is by nature indifferent to human life,* he manages to sink to essentially the same level of depravity as Angelus.
* Vampires are a type of demon which are intrinsically callous towards human life (doubtless linked to the fact that humans are their primary food source). This does not excuse Angelus, though, as vampires can be more or less cruel and are capable of love (as shown by Spike and Drusilla). Angelus deliberately set out to be the cruelest vampire possible and loves nobody but himself.
edited 28th Jan '13 1:13:50 PM by Nocturna
Looking over that list of what Scott does versus Gideon...
Yes, Gideon is more heinous than Scott.
No, Gideon does not reach the level of heinousness needed to qualify for this trope in general.
My final vote is still to cut.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.Gideon (from Scott Pilgrim) would be right on the edge of heinousness, in my home.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanSo to determine whether Gideon meets the general heinous standard, we have to determine whether he can be forgiven for:
- Two counts of murder (according to the FAQ, lack of success doesn't matter)
- Six counts of kidnapping
- Mind Raping his girlfriend.
I'd count Gideon's two attempts at murder more if not for the fact that Scott technically has more. Besides, as said before, killing the good guys is what bad guys do; it's not an automatic qualifier for Complete Monster.
The kidnappings are Offscreen Villainy.
From everything described, it's attempted Brainwashing, not Mind Rape. Not enough to qualify.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.I'd really like some more explanation on his actions not being played for laughs. For instance, did the two people he killed turn into coins, as in the movie? Ditto for the presentation of freezing the girlfriends.
I'm not ruling out that the comic might be very tonally different than the movie, but basically, the movie's general surreal setting and tone makes it hard to consider any action as heinous/serious (example- hitting a girl- not funny; hitting a girl and knocking the highlights out of her hair- funny)
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wiki@7648: That doesn't make it not Offscreen Villainy.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanThis is why I really hate that classification sometimes. We see the kidnapped girls. We see them having been brainwashed and frozen.
There is nothing about this presentation that is offscreen any more than showing a bloody corpse with the villain standing over it with a knife and entrails in his teeth.

edited 28th Jan '13 7:19:59 AM by AquaRegia