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. "![[tup]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/thumbs_up_emote.png "[thumb up]"){kind=small}
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
Hey, on Film page somebody added Eddie Brock/Venom from Spider Man 3. I wanted to discuss his potential removal.
- Eddie Brock/ Venom from Spider-Man 3, out of all villains in Spider-Man movies, he is probably the most evil of them. Norman Osborn/ Green Goblin started out as simply a Jerkass but still somewhat decent man, but became monster after Freak Lab Accident, Dr. Octopus redeems himself in the end and is more of tragic villain, Sandman wanted to help his sick daughter and Harry/ New Goblin believed that Spider-Man killed his father, but Venom lacks any symphathetic qualties or reasons for his actions and is a bad person even before bonding with symbiote. To clarify: he didn't care when his "girlfriend" was hanging off a ledge, nearly ruined Spiderman's reputation to get a job, and afterwards prayed to God that he kill Peter Parker for ratting him out. It gets worse when he bonds with symbiote and becomes Venom and becomes a literal monster. He wants to kill Peter and he justified trying to kill Mary Jane as getting back at Peter for causing "his" girl to break up with him. He even responds to Peter's "you'll lose yourself (to the symbiote)" with "I like being bad. It makes me happy." In attempt to kill Spider-Man, Venom kills Harry by impaling and mortally wounding him with Harry's own spiked glider. Venom's characterization in the movie, is similar to Venom's characterization in his first few appearences in the original comics, where he was portrayed as cruel sociopath, who only wanted to kill Spider-Man and terrorized his loved ones. By an extention, the symbiote itself qualifies.
Well for me he sounds more of a Jerkass than a true CM before he became Venom, and after he became Venom, it is not entirely his fault that he was so bad. He is more of a Card-Carrying Villain I think. He did not even kill Harry on purpose; Harry wanted to protect Peter Parker so he allowed himself to be killed.
So guys, what do you think? Do we remove Venom??
As for the villains brought by Hidden Faced Matt, well I am not familliar with most of them, but I can say that Windigoes don't count (I actually wanted to mention them before), because they are not even direct antagonists. They are certainly more of examples than Discord though, and I wonder why was brony so obsessed with Discord, but not with them. By the way, could Hidden Faced Matt participate in this discussion more? He knows this trope so well, and he solves all the problems most easily.
edited 1st May '12 5:49:48 AM by MONEYMONEY
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Remove him; the Symboite is what's driving him ba, he doesn't do anything truly henious by the standards of the story, and he's not beyond redemption. List this thread in the edit reason and if someone puts him back in let us know.
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
Well, I already described a fair bit about her; the links are more for context for it, as description can only do so much. Alternatively, one could go to the episode descriptions for said context instead. (Chrysalis is in the last two episodes of the second season; for some reason TV Tropes isn't letting me pothole directly to said episodes' pages.)
Also, the following clip provides a minute-long sample of Chrysalis' sadistic nature without requiring 44 minutes of context.
Also, in a PM conversation with another user in this thread, I mentioned the following about another character, but I'm going to repost it here for future reference because I think this is a central aspect of CM portrayal, similar to that of whether a character is portrayed comically or seriously.
edited 1st May '12 6:39:32 AM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
Okay, so I removed Venom.
As for Chrysalis, well I would say she does count unlike Discord. I want to ask you guys, why brony 99 was obsessed about Discord but not Chrysalis?! It doesn't make any sense for me.
Think of the mooks!
@779 Your description of the character involved "characters calling her out for not being as nice as she seemed" and "unleashing a horde of changelings." If that's your "fair bit about her," I don't even need to watch the clip to say no. Being a Jerkass and unleashing some doppelgangers? Hell, I've seen heroes do that. You're not actually providing any context - you're hoping that people will watch clips and that other people will have provided the context for you.
Yes, CM is about portrayal as much as it is by actions. That said, if you want my vote, convince me that the portrayal is effective. Don't give me clips and hope that I'll watch it and come to the same conclusion as you. You have no guarantee that I'll reach the same conclusion as you. Also, you take it as a huge leap of faith that I would even give it a minute of my time.
@777 Yes, just remove Venom. Venom from the movie is more of a cardboard cutout of a monster than a real one. From everything I've read, he was intentionally done poorly as an act of Writer Revolt on the behalf of Sam Raimi.
edited 1st May '12 7:56:25 AM by 32_Footsteps
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
Venom is already gone.
As for Chrysalis, well the video alone does not make her a CM, but how about this description
- The Changeling Queen, Chrysalis. She is the only antagonist in the series who tried her hardest to kill other ponies. And she came dangerously close to succeeding. She leaves Twilight imprisoned in the caves under Canterlot, which have been long forgotten meaning no one will ever find her. And then she taunts her about that very fact! And she did the same thing to Cadance! And this is after she destroyed Twilight's public image so that, even if the mine was remembered, nopony would want to search for the "bitch who humiliated the bride and groom"!
- If there's any doubt about this one, note that in her Villain Song's reprise, she observes her minions trashing Canterlot and hunting down all the ponies, and notes that this is sort of day which she has dreamed of since she was small. Since she was a child, she wanted to see horrible monsters ruining a grand city and attacking peaceful people.
edited 1st May '12 8:15:43 AM by MONEYMONEY
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
If you won't watch a 1-minute clip, why would you read a more thorough description that would probably take more than a minute to read? It's not just being mean to those who call her out on things, it's being a Bitch in Sheep's Clothing who uses the Wounded Gazelle Gambit to make anyone who calls her out on anything look like the bad guy to other characters. And the effects of this on the characters she demonizes are not exactly taken lightly.
Again, words alone don't quite capture the feel of her portrayal. (Though even then, you seem to have misinterpreted my earlier description of her.)
edited 1st May '12 8:18:16 AM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
Think of the mooks!
@782 You took care of Venom in a ninja move - you hadn't zapped it yet when I went to reply.
@783 First, I read pretty fast. I just read MONEYMONEY's proposed entry in less than a minute, and that proposed entry has put in more reason to consider Chrysalis than what you've said so far. And considering that we're doing a concerted effort to move away from using weblinks as examples across the wiki, if you want an entry to count anywhere, you need to make words capture the feel of the portrayal. Otherwise, it'll just get thrown back into the workshops for repair or possible deletion.
That said, actually going into MONEYMONEY's proposed write-up...
Okay, that has me convinced. That said, if there are two things I hate in proposed Complete Monster entries, it's excessive text effects (italics and bold) and inconsequential points (whether or not she succeeds at killing protagonists doesn't affect this trope; it just affects how competent she is). Plus, there's no reason to have a subbullet. Also, unless they actually called her a bitch on the show (considering this is supposed to be marketed towards children first and foremost, going out on a limb and saying that they didn't), it shouldn't be listed on there, particularly in quotes. Allow me a ruthless editorial pen.
- The Changeling Queen, Chrysalis. She's the only antagonist who tried their hardest to kill other ponies. She leaves Twilight imprisoned in the caves under Canterlot, which have been long forgotten meaning no one will ever find her. And then she taunts her about that very fact, just as she did with Cadance. And this is after she destroyed Twilight's public image so that, even if the mine was remembered, nopony would want to search for the pony who humiliated the bride and groom at their wedding. In her Villain Song's reprise, she observes her minions trashing Canterlot and hunting down all the ponies, and notes that this is sort of day which she has dreamed of since she was a child, bragging that she was an Enfente Terrible once upon a time.
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
Actually, MONEYMONEY's description is based on the MLP:FIM YMMV page's CM entry, which I linked to at the very beginning of my post from last page.
Anyway, perhaps the points I raised should be added to said entry. Here it is with my points worked into it, and with the wording slightly adjusted.
The Changeling Queen, Chrysalis. She's the only antagonist who went so far as to try to kill other ponies. She disguises herself as Shining Armor's bride Cadence; just to harness his love for her as energy for her Changeling invasion of Canterlot; and imprisons the actual Cadence in the caves beneath Canterlot that most ponies had forgotten even exist. When Shining Armor's sister Twilight, having seen fake Cadence casting spells on Shining Armor, voices her own suspicions, fake Cadence plays innocent and makes it look like Twilight's only accusing her out of possessiveness of her brother. Fake Cadence then imprisons Twilight in the caves beneath Canterlot, away from the actual Cadence hoping neither will find the other. In her Villain Song's reprise, she observes her minions trashing Canterlot and hunting down all the ponies, and notes that this is sort of day which she has dreamed of since she was a child, bragging that she was an Enfante Terrible once upon a time.
I'm not sure about the wording for the "plays innocent" part. Here's the scene in question.
Again, I'm not saying the description should rely on a weblink, I'm just providing the context so that those better with words than myself could come up with a better way to describe it concisely.
Also, should some of this be in spoiler tags? If so, which parts of it?
edited 1st May '12 9:25:39 AM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
Think of the mooks!
They still made more effort to make the argument than you did. By at least taking the time to reword the entry, they made an attempt to convince me... and it worked.
For spoiler tags, I hate spoiler tags in Complete Monster entries. If you want to make an argument for why someone is so evil, don't hide it. And you should be prepared, when you go into the page, to see arguments on what makes people so evil - which may spoil parts of the story. My rule of thumb is, if it's something that you'd reasonably know very early in the piece in question, it doesn't need to be hidden.
Also, I wouldn't know what would count as a major spoiler for the character. So there is that.
For your proposed write-up, it goes on a bit long. Also, the "playing innocent" part is really minor comparatively. As I've said before, you don't need to list all the evil. You just need to list enough to demonstrate that the trope is appropriate. Also, you need fewer spoiler tags that way.
Finally, I think the part about ruining the main character's reputation needs to stay in - beyond being compltely evil, it shows that the character is willing to dip into the Xanatos Gambit to make sure some evil is caused regardless of whether her schemes succeed or fail.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
I want to ask you guys, why brony 99 was obsessed about Discord but not Chrysalis?! It doesn't make any sense for me.
You're expecting rationality from hardcore MLP fans. Stop that.
What's precedent ever done for us?
I also want to discuss the Ants from Happy Tree Friends
They are on YMMV page and I want to know whether to remove them or add them to Western Animation. The description would be;
- The Ants from Happy Tree Friends. Sniffles tries to eat them, but that doesn't justify the Cold-Blooded Torture they put him through before killing him.
Here is one of the episodes that shows an example of what they do to him
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YpYbleFNDY
Here is another
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fk20PonfJ0
Another
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuJjs8TE_sM&feature=relmfu
What?! What are you talking about?? brony 99 is a user who has been banned not very long ago, due to Edit War.
edited 1st May '12 10:59:50 AM by MONEYMONEY
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
Though in hindsight I suppose disguising oneself has the dishonesty part covered anyway.
Anyway, here's a further modified version.
The Changeling Queen, Chrysalis. She's the only antagonist who went so far as to try to kill other ponies. She disguises herself as Shining Armor's bride Cadence; just to harness his love for her as energy for her Changeling invasion of Canterlot; and imprisons the actual Cadence in the caves beneath Canterlot that most ponies had forgotten even exist. When Shining Armor's sister Twilight, having seen fake Cadence casting spells on Shining Armor, voices her own suspicions, fake Cadence then imprisons Twilight in the caves beneath Canterlot, away from the actual Cadence under the impression that even if either found the other, neither would escape if they did. In her Villain Song's reprise, she observes her minions trashing Canterlot and hunting down all the ponies, and notes that this is sort of day which she has dreamed of since she was a child, bragging that she was an Enfante Terrible once upon a time.
As for brony99, I think he was banned well before Canterlot Wedding came out.
edited 1st May '12 3:54:18 PM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
Think of the mooks!
@787 Demonizing a whole fanbase isn't going to get us anywhere.
@788 When I said "they," I meant you. I just don't know your gender and didn't want to presume.
@789 On the timeliness of spoilers: it's frustratingly a case-by-case basis. Since we're talking about a character whose name is only in the script/story bible, that part definitely shouldn't be spoilered. Beyond that... leave at least the things that weren't meant to be twists (I imagine the revelation in the Villain Song would count) out of tags. I personally like to keep spoilers to less than 25% of an entry. A rough guide I use, although by no means treat this as gospel, is that anything in the first 25% of a work shouldn't be spoilered, anything in the second 25% should only sparingly be spoilered, and simply be cautious about twists in the second half of the story.
I would treat a single story arc as a "work" for these purposes (so for a two-part episode, the first half of episode 1 would be the first 25%, and so on). Mind you, as I deal with video games that run into issues with side quests and the like, even I don't treat that as written in stone.
I wouldn't say that at all. There are plenty of listed examples under all media where dishonesty is one sin that a Complete Monster in question does not indulge in. It would depend on why they're above dishonest ruthlessness.
As for the rep, it doesn't matter if it was permanently ruined or not. As we've noted before, we're not grading for results; we're grading for what they actively attempt. And we're talking about a character that set up a scenario in which she won something regardless of the outcome. Sure, it may have been eventually overcome, but it was attempted in the short term (and given that it worked at least temporarily, it's just quicker to point it out). And all things considered, making a Xanatos Gambit where you either get to utterly destroy a kingdom or destroy the reputation of whoever stops you counts as depraved, wicked, and a worthy note to include in a Complete Monster entry. So I think that part should be added in; it gives a more complete picture of the character's ruthlessness and danger.
In general: I'd rather not dwell on brony99. I also don't think any armchair psychology would do any good regarding them.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
When I said "they, " I meant you. I just don't know your gender and didn't want to presume. I am man, if you want to know
edited 1st May '12 2:38:08 PM by MONEYMONEY
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
However, as far as how the description is written it does matter, since it's best to avoid getting such things wrong and confusing readers in the process.
Don't get me wrong, it's still depraved on Chrysalis' part, but I just don't want misinterpretations of the story by those who haven't watched the episodes to distort the description of a character's role.
EDITED IN: As for the spoilers, bear in mind that "first 25% and next 25%" is just the first episode, which as I mentioned doesn't reveal that there is a Chrysalis, so again, it makes it especially tricky. I've added a slighly modified version of my new description with spoiler tags, but I'm beginning to think it might be better to hide the entire thing (except the name of the two-parter she's from, of course) behind hot-tip instead.
The Changeling Queen, Chrysalis. She's the only antagonist who went so far as to try to kill other ponies. She disguises herself as Shining Armor's bride Cadence; just to harness his love for her as energy for her Changeling invasion of Canterlot; and imprisons the actual Cadence in the caves beneath Canterlot that most ponies had forgotten even exist. When Shining Armor's sister Twilight, having seen fake Cadence casting spells on Shining Armor, voices her own suspicions, fake Cadence then imprisons Twilight in the caves beneath Canterlot, away from the actual Cadence under the impression that even if either found the other, neither would escape if they did. In her Villain Song's reprise, she observes her minions trashing Canterlot and hunting down all the ponies, and notes that this is sort of day which she has dreamed of since she was a child, bragging that she was an Enfante Terrible once upon a time.
edited 1st May '12 3:54:03 PM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
Demonizing a whole fanbase isn't going to get us anywhere.
Hardly a whole fanbase. It would be foolish to suggest that the MLP fandom doesn't have a few crazies in its ranks, and brony99 was a pretty clear example.
What's precedent ever done for us?
Think of the mooks!
@791 No need to bold. I'm just trying to be considerate.
@792 Fair enough. It's probably more a case of being Out-Gambitted anyhow, which is most definitely fluff for a CM entry. As for spoiler tags... while I'm not particularly fond of them, I reluctantly understand why they're there. What you have is probably fine.
@793 You specifically snidely commented about hardcore MLP fans. I know several that, while annoyingly hype-tastic about the show, are still rational beings that wouldn't do what brony99 did. Trust me, if you want to complain about people (and this thread is hardly the place for it), do it about specific people, not about groups.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
Mother of Odin, 32, it's a fandom for cartoon ponies, not an oppressed ethnic minority. No need to get so tetchy.
What's precedent ever done for us?
I want to discuss a potential removal of another villain. It is The Joker (Jack Nicholson) from Tim Burton's Batman. Unlike Heath Ledger's Joker, this guy is too funny, and doesn't alter the tone of the work.
- Though The Joker/Jack Napier from Batman may not have been quite as gritty in his approach, the sheer scope of his reign of terror puts him on more or less the same level as his counterpart in The Dark Knight. Even before his transformation, Jack Napier was outright horrible: he was the one who murdered Bruce Wayne's parents, and if his accomplice hadn't yelled at him to get out of there, it's very likely the psycho would have killed young Bruce as well. From that to present day. For starters, he intends to poison all the Gothamites with Smylex Gas for no other reason than for his own amusement, has three mob bosses killed (with him even joking about their deaths, at least one of which qualified under Nightmare Fuel where he electrocutes him with enough voltage to turn him into a charred skeleton after claiming that shaking his hand will be the end of it if he refuses to agree with the Joker). He also horrifically disfigures Alicia Hunt, and was also implied to have thrown her off a building later on in the film under the guise of suicide to free himself for Vicki Vale ("You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs."). Gasses an entire art gallery full of people to death just to have some "alone time" with Vicki Vale and puts the components of Smylex into different cosmetics to cause random city-wide deaths just to make the people panic. He even cold-bloodedly guns down his best and only friend, Bob the Goon, simply to vent his anger over Batman ruining the above attempt to gas everyone at the parade.
While he certainly horrible and almost a CM, there is one BIG concern. He os really evil, does heinous things, and has no motives, the problem is that he doesn't alter the tone of the work which a CM should do. As pointed in another thread, a CM should alter the tone of the work like Joker from The Dark Knight does perfectly for example does perfectly. Jack Nicholson's Joker however, does not. The sequel, Batman Returns is Darker and Edgier and neither of the villains is a CM. Penguin is a Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds, while Max Shreck has a huge Pet the Dog moment.
The fact that the Joker doesn't alter the tone of the work; is that enough to negate his CM status??
edited 2nd May '12 9:38:18 AM by MONEYMONEY
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: A complete monster is someone truly henious by the standards of the story. The Joker still did plenty of things that if you transplanted him entirely into another film would still make him a Complete Monster.
@Iaculus: Don't be a jerk. You were insulting to people in two way (one by saying that hardcore Bronies are crazies, and by compaing them to Brony99), just say sorry and drop it.
Think of the mooks!
I'm in agreement with @797. The Jack Nicholson Joker is treated as a completely serious and heinous threat the whole time. Much like other incarnations of the character, audiences do find him horrifying and entertaining simultaneously. In short, both the Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger incarnations of The Joker fit the mold for me. Granted, they do it in different ways, but that just means it's a multifaceted trope with multiple ways to play straight.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
I wear no mask.
I agree that Jack Nicholson's Joker should stay there, because even though he doesn't change the tone of the movie that much, he's still plenty heinous, and besides when a work has a certain inherent level of grimdark even throwing in a CM or three won't up the level much (case in point: Warhammer 40000. Remove every CM from the fluff and then tell me if it's a place you'd want to live in afterwards. If the answer is yes, stay the hell away from me you sick freak).
Also, minor quibble: could we all please try to keep the thread polite and civilised? As in, a little less insults (deserved or not) and arguing about who said what about who? I'd rather it not devolve into yet another poo-flinging contest like so many others on the 'net. Thank you.
I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me.
Yeah, to be honest, I thought that he does qualify indeed, I just wanted to be extra-sure.
I'll listen to a full description of this proposed MLP Complete Monster. But if you can't be bothered to defend the nomination with more than "watch the episode here" links, I'm not going to vote in favor of it. I tried watching the show, didn't care for it, and I'm not going to simply take in every single nominated work just to make a decision. I don't have time for that.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.