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
@77116 I wouldn't exactly call Tetch's attachment to his sister love.
"I'll show you the Dark Side." CM actors and killsRaphelson from White House Down also believed the power was better used in his hands and that the country needed a stronger leader, but he also allied himself with White Supremacists to do it, had a plane blown up and tried to do the same to witnesses and his co-conspirators too. That said, being Speaker of the House, he had less people to blow through to get to the Presidency.
edited 13th Feb '17 1:10:24 PM by futuremoviewriter
That's 5-4 I think. We can close the discussion on Deckert. I concede the results of the voting.
At least I conceded. Not sure Trump would have. Haha. Joking Mode. Half-Joking Mode.
edited 13th Feb '17 1:21:16 PM by futuremoviewriter
To diverge: Should I start a draft for Arjen Rudd?
"I'll show you the Dark Side." CM actors and killsAn EP for Pieter Vorstedt:
Who Is He?: Pieter Vorstedt is the head of security for Arjen Rudd, the Minster of Foreign Affairs for the South African consulate in Los Angeles.
What Does He Do? Vorstedt does any hands-on villainy for Rudd, including threats and assassinations. Several years ago, Vorstedt was told to murder Detective Martin Riggs, who was getting close to uncovering Rudd's illegal activities. Vorstedt failed to kill Riggs but killed Riggs' wife by either tampering with the brakes of the car or running her off the road. During the film, Vorstedt executes a henchman named Hans when the latter lost a shipment of Krugerrands in a Car Chase. Later, he and a few associates sneak into the house of Detective Roger Murtaugh, who is leading the investigation, and threatens him with death should he poke his nose into their affairs. During this time, the South Africans try to kill an informant named Leo Getz and rig Murtaugh's toilet with a bomb. Later in the film, Rudd orders Vorstedt to murder the policemen participating in the investigation. Vorstedt murders Officers Wyler, Shapiro, Moss, Cavanagh, Collins and Esteban, getting into a small chat with Wyler before shooting him in the head. Murtaugh manages to escape, but Riggs is captured by Vorstedt, who taunts him about the death of Riggs' wife and revealing his role in it before drowning Rudd's secretary Rika, who was in a relationship with Riggs, before trying to drown Riggs, who escapes. The deaths of their comrades and loved ones in Riggs' case prompts Riggs and Murtaugh to go full vigilante during the climax, trying to stop the drug shipment by killing everyone associated with Rudd. Vorstedt is a cold-blooded emotionless killer who doesn't care about the blood on his hands or how cruel the actions he takes are.
None.
Mitigating Circumstances?:
Possible Undying Loyalty, possible Just Following Orders. To be honest, I wasn't too sure on him in the first place.
edited 13th Feb '17 1:34:32 PM by k410ren
"I'll show you the Dark Side." CM actors and killsFred "Freddy" Krueger
What is the work?
A fan-made short film called The Confession of Fred Krueger
, made with the intention of creating a Darker and Edgier — possibly THE darkest and edgiest to date — representation of Freddy. It's based on the short story The Life and Death of Freddy Krueger from the book, The Nightmares On Elm Street Companion by Jeffrey Cooper, which chronicles the infamous killer's Start of Darkness. I'd go as far as to say that it's what The Killing Joke was for the Joker.
Freddy had just been arrested on suspicion of the string of gruesome child murders that had haunted the suburb of Springwood, and confesses everything to a detective, holding absolutely nothing back.
Who is he?
Oh, come on, do I really have to explain who Fred Krueger is? I guess that since he's portrayed a bit differently here than he was in Freddys Dead The Final Nightmare, I probably should. Here, he's portrayed as a homeless Straw Nihilist who never knew his real parents, and doesn't even know his age. He is not a native of Springwood, nor is he the family man that he was in Freddy's Dead. In fact, he despises the people of Springwood with a passion.
What did he do?
I don't mean to sound rude, but it should be fairly common knowledge that he was a Serial Killer who murdered the children of Springwood. The one thing that's different is that he goes into more detail about his MO and how, when, and why he started killing.
He committed his first confirmed murder (of a human, he tortured animals during his childhood. As for the "confirmed" part, he burned down the house of his abusive adoptive father, but it's never made clear if he actually died in the fire or not) when he was lying, passed out drunk outside of a school yard, when a group of children tried to pickpocket him. When he next encountered the children, he smashed his bottle of gin against one of their heads, and the remaining four children took off. He took out his straight razor and cut four marks into the boy's body, representing the four children who got away. This is where he got the idea to build his iconic glove.
From there, he made his way into Springwood, and would stalk children in the streets and sometimes at their schools, and he would abduct them and take them to the boiler room where he worked, where he continued to stalk and instill fear in them before killing them, and would often dismember or burn them afterwards.
How seriously is he played?
Again, this is an attempt (a successful one, at that, imo) to undo the decades of Villain Decay and Flanderization that had marked the character. He laughs, but he's not funny. In this film, his confessions are modeled after those of contract killer, Richard "The Iceman" Kuklinski, and he goes as far as reciting — word for word — an incredibly creepy quote from none other than Charles Manson. "I'm nobody. I'm a tramp, a bum, a hobo. I'm a boxcar and a jug of wine. And a straight razor, if you get too close to me."
Freudian Excuse or other mitigating factors?
This is the one thing the filmmakers took from Freddy's Dead ... and made much, much darker. Besides not knowing his parents, he was taken in by an alcoholic pimp named Mr. Underwood (who is not played by Alice Cooper here, nor does he look anything like him). Underwood, who cared so little for the young Freddy, would often pimp him out to his friends.
Other than the horrible abuse he endured, he lived a lonely childhood. He would always be passed up for the happier children with (what he saw as) a future. This fed into his hatred for children in his adulthood. He loathed the happy children he saw. He loathed them because they had a future and he didn't.
And he never expresses the slightest bit of remorse for his crimes.
Final Verdict
Freddy is already listed as a CM on the YMMV page for A Nightmare on Elm Street. But — in addition to being the darkest representation of him to date — considering that this is a Web Original, and not part of the original Nightmare canon, I think he's worth adding to the database. His Freudian Excuse — while certainly a damn good one — does not justify remorselessly terrorizing and slaughtering children and taking their futures away simply because he doesn't think he has one.
edited 13th Feb '17 1:33:27 PM by Stellarvore
Note that I'm not even 100% for Galavan, my biggest issue is the shoddy reasoning claiming that "killed someone's loved one" is lumped in as the same as "killed someone while they were in the arms of their loved one."
![]()
Lethal Weapon 2, huh? So with Vorstadt, he's basically the Big Bad's muscle which I tend to have issues with since they tend to lack agency. They'll do bad things, sure, but I don't see them going out of their way to do them, which doesn't seem CM-y. Buuuuuuuuuuuuut they throw in the added spice of him being a racist and it's enough to make me consider him sufficiently heinous.
edited 13th Feb '17 1:34:57 PM by Larkmarn
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.Well given Ravok's point and with worse villain's coming to Gotham with less resources I guess I'll have to switch to in favor of cutting Galavan.
Still my opinion hasn't changed about Jervis, someone has to do something about that poor excuse of a redeeming quality, it feels like its a badly written to try and make him redeemable and less menacing.
edited 13th Feb '17 1:38:22 PM by G-Editor
My sandbox of EPs and other stuff![]()
![]()
Pretty much. Rudd orders murders, Vorstedt carries them out.
edited 13th Feb '17 1:37:34 PM by k410ren
"I'll show you the Dark Side." CM actors and kills
on Galavan. Abstain on Vorstedt.
Also with the Samurai Jack storyline concluding soon, particularly with the final season being Darker and Edgier. Do we need to revisit Aku?
Since apparently he was voted down for being Made of Evil or Played for Laughs as much as he was a serious threat, or that he had Even Evil Has Standards to killing children, but what would he need to do to subvert it(the reason why he was voted down is all over the place when doing a search on him on this EP, so I don't really get why he was voted down) Since I suspect he won't really be played for laughs and he will be less apprehensive about harming children the way season 5 is going it seems
edited 13th Feb '17 1:44:33 PM by xie323
@77146
Of course but I'm not sure the exact reasons he was cut in the first place since looking back it's all over the place(made of evil, being played for laughs to the point where it counterbalanced when he actually was acting really evil, Even Evil Has Standards, etc)
I dunno, we have added examples that became C Ms rather than starting off as them by discarding their standards and gleefully going past the Moral Event Horizon (I'm thinking Megabyte, though there were other factors at play too). Played for Laughs would probably disqualify him completely though.
Oissu!Just took a look through the history for Samurai Jack and the reason is that the entry didn't go through this forum first.
"I'll show you the Dark Side." CM actors and kills

Ok, gonna vote not to Deckert...Yorgi is way too high a standard there and Deckert doesn't breach it