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
Finished the movie. It was great and underrated in my opinion.
Who is Malagant and what has he done?
Malagant is a former Knight of the Round Table who once served King Arthur in Camelot, but turned rebel after becoming jealous of the king. He and his followers frequently raid and burn villages to the ground. His ultimate goal is to usurp the throne of Camelot. In the beginning of the movie we see him and his followers burning a village to the ground.
Later, Malagant and his followers capture Arthur's fiancé Guinevre. They use her as a hostage but Lancelot saves her.
In the end of the film, Malagant invades Camelot with his men and forces Arthur to bow before him or else he will die and Camelot will be torched. He orders his men to torch Camelot to the ground and kill everyone but civillians are armed and he gets killed in a duel with Lancelot.
Heinous?
He is the Big Bad and the only prominent villain. Sets it.
Mitigating Factors?
Well he asks his men not to harm Guinavre when he kidnaps her, but that is more out of pragmatic villainy. He threatens her while she is his hostage.
Conclusion?
Not one of the worst ones we discussed here and he might seem pretty standard compared to others, especially some of the recent ones but I think he crosses the line.
Welcome to the world of greatest media!Malagant's a yea. I should also note a few other details that might make Malagant's qualification a bit easier... his soldiers ultimately do end up killing Arthur, and, if I remember correctly, Malagant also employs full use of We Have Reserves. It also helps his last moments consist of him furiously shrieking at his soldiers to just burn everything.
edited 7th May '17 5:39:23 PM by Scraggle
to Dead@17 Lucifer and Malagant.
Sorry to hear your ill Ravok, hope its nothing serious and you feel better soon, and I hope you feel better soon to Austin.
By the way, whatever happed about Madison Bell from Swim Fan. I remember she got more than enough votes to qualify, then the poster said they were going to rewatch it just to be sure, and then nothing.
Time for the writeup with so many yes votes.
- First Knight: Malagant is a former Knight of the Round Table who once served King Arthur of Camelot, but turned rebel out of jealousy for the king. He and his followers frequently raid and burn villages to the grounds. Later, he and his knights capture Arthur's fiancé Guinevre and use her as a hostage for Arthur to give up his throne. In the end of the film, Malagant invades Camelot with his men and forces Arthur to bow before him or else he will die and Camelot will be torched. He orders his men to torch Camelot to the ground. Malagant also employs full use of We Have Reserves when he sacrifices a wave of soldiers just so Gunivere's guards are out of position when the second wave hits.
edited 7th May '17 7:08:26 PM by emperors
Welcome to the world of greatest media!
Minor edit here... the whole "ordering Camelot to be torched" comes off as a little redundant from the first sentence:
- First Knight: Malagant is a former Knight of the Round Table who once served King Arthur of Camelot, but turned rebel out of jealousy for the king. He and his followers frequently raid and burn villages to the grounds. Later, he and his knights capture Arthur's fiancé Guinevre and use her as a hostage for Arthur to give up his throne. In the end of the film, Malagant invades Camelot with his men and forces Arthur to bow before him or else he will die and Camelot will be torched. Once Arthur defies him, Malagant sees him fatally injured and dies furiously ordering his men to torch Camelot to the ground. Malagant also employs full use of We Have Reserves when he sacrifices a wave of soldiers just so Gunivere's guards are out of position when the second wave hits.
edited 7th May '17 7:13:12 PM by Scraggle
So I finished Swimfan.
Madison claims that she loves Ben in the end and demands that he say he loves her and when he doesn't, that's when she pushes Amy in the pool. Going after him with the pool cleaner to stop him from saving Amy shows that it doesn't do much for her character. Madison is shown to have contempt for her cousin Christopher and any other family relationships she has are either not shown or nonexistent.
The nurse saying that Madison wore her seatbelt while Jake didn't means that Madison likely intended the car to crash. Switching from Jake to Ben (as well as possibly planning to seduce Ben before she even met him because she collected several newspaper clippings of him in a box) shows how fickle her relationship with Jake was and immediately trying to find Jake when she thinks he's woken up shows how fickle Ben is to her too. At least how I perceive it all. She may display the symptoms of a mental illness, but it's never addressed or said.
All her killings are premeditated and done with precision. She plans them out and figures out ways to get away, as well as saving trophies in a way (she keeps the lab coat after trying to kill the guy in the hospital and probably uses it again when she tries to kill Amy at the hospital later on. Her sparing Amy to find Jake is not an act of compassion because the way she tries to kill her later is far more brutal.
The guy at the hospital, Josh and the two cops have no meaning to her. She views them only as obstacles in her way. She tries to goad Ben into trying to killing her as a means of hurting him even further. She talks about how playing the cello is a means of escaping her hardships, but it doesn't mean much.
She's a spoiled, control freak who gets off on the attention she gets when playing the cello and resorts to hurting people without hesitation when she doesn't get her way. The focus she puts into committing just one atrocity with planning makes her a serial killer of sorts.
So in summary, she's not a strong keep, but I still say
.
edited 7th May '17 8:21:02 PM by futuremoviewriter
Has Nicolai been approved here? If so, I'll use a version of my old entry.
The Equalizer: Nicolai Itchenko stands out among the mobsters in his cruelty. He starts by brutally beating an Irish mobster to death, stating it to be about sending a message, something that scares even the Corrupt Cop that works with him. Then he interrogates Alina's friend and fellow prostitute Mandy in her house, trying to pose as friendly when he then strangles her to death. After Robert receives information on him, it is stated that he executed two corrupt officers who worked with him by beating them to death and stuffing them in the back of a car with their testicles removed and shoved on their mouths. He is described as a "sociopath with a business card" which is fit: he openly admits to Robert that he sees being sentimental as a weakness and sees no gain in it. Robert breaks his long time promise to not return to his vigilante days just to deal with this man.

A search proved nothing and I recall no conversations on him. Not seeing why he wouldn't count, anyways... he's not the absolute nastiest but he's more than heinous enough. Zilch with redeeming qualities on top of that.