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
Unofficial Wiki Curator for Complete Monster
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
De Loco, if he counts (haven't played the game), needs more elaboration
Unofficial Wiki Curator for Complete Monster
From Carnage's entry (from Marvel; he stays): It's creepier when he gives a monologue about how the managers of the supervillain asylums are WORSE than him - and he's completely right.
Elaboration?
Also, shall we add Freddy Krueger to the Film Sandbox? Child-killer BEFORE he became the current form.
CM Dates; CM Pending; CM Drafts
I did a search and Krueger came up once, though he's on the film page.
The problem is Freddy suffered intense Villain Decay till he was a joking buffoon. However, in his core form and in many films, Freddy is this in spades. We've seen him kill children when he was human with some gory discretion shots, and he really matches every entry on this trope.
eta: Posted while half asleep.
edited 16th Feb '13 2:44:16 PM by SeptimusHeap
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Not all the time. In some movies, like Freddy vs. Jason it's subject to Gory Discretion Shot. In that one, we see him sharpening his glove with a cringing little girl in the background. He then advances on her with the claw raised before cutting away to her picture burning as she screams. Next he licks her picture as he burns her things.
OK, first off? Being a slasher in a slasher film isn't CM material. That's standard villainy for such works.
His pre-slashing deeds - this is what the question was about. Pardon the incorrect question.
edited 16th Feb '13 2:30:55 PM by SeptimusHeap
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
And what in my post led you to believe I'm saying "He fits cause he's a slasher?" I'm discussing him murdering little kids. Like the little girl I just mentioned
edited 16th Feb '13 2:36:05 PM by Lightysnake
I am admittedly not familiar with horror, but that doesn't sound like much.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I'm curious if you're bothering to read what I'm saying at this point.
You: Isn't him being a child killer Offscreen Villainy
Me: No, here's a scene where he murders a child in Gory Discretion Shot
You: "OK, first off? Being a slasher in a slasher film isn't CM material. That's standard villainy for such works. " and then reiterate the same questions
I'm honestly confused at what you're actually asking or looking for at this point. No, him killing children ceased to be Offscreen Villainy with further movies.
Well, here it's 23:41 times and I should go to bed now. Let me rewrite the argument a bit: What makes Krueger's killings stand out compared to other horror level villainy?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
The fact that he's a child killer, in of itself, is a stand out. Most slasher films tended to limit targets to horny teenagers or adults. Krueger is noticeably more sadistic in how he preys on his targets, and keeps the souls of his victims locked inside him to give him more power.
Unofficial Wiki Curator for Complete Monster
And a child-killer BEFORE becoming all supernatural.
CM Dates; CM Pending; CM Drafts
Has there been any discussion for the Mortal Kombat examples?
- Sammun-Mak in the The Devil's Playhouse segment "They Stole Max's Brain!" (and to a lesser extent in "The City That Dares Not Sleep"). Most of the villains have some degree of sympathetic qualities, like Anton Papierwaite becoming an ally by the series' end and even The Narrator pulls a Heel–Face Turn when he realizes Max is capable of selfless acts. Sammun-Mak however? He's a Spoiled Brat ruler who wants to have the entire Mole People race exterminated, has people tortured or killed over minor offenses during his time as alternate reality ruler, and even mentions, with a humored tone no less, that he once had a lute teacher fed to a crocodile for "questioning his divine talent".
- A few fans believe General Skun'kape and/or Girl Stinky may somewhat qualify as this as well.
[facepalm] SOMEWHAT qualify?!
Since we're working on a Star Wars page, I'm bringing the example on the New Jedi Order page.
- Supreme Overlord Shimmra, Tsavong Lah, Nom Anor, and Onimi all qualify. Nom repeatedly causes the death of billions and he is the epitome of selfishness. Shimmra and Tsavong Lah are both heartless psychopaths who gleefully slaughter innocents; Lah to please the gods, Shimmra because he's absolutely insane. Worst of all is Onimi. A former shaper driven mad by his experiments, he manages to be utterly unlikeable even before the full extent of his evil is revealed. He orchestrates a war that results in the death of trillions, destroys whole worlds, and which renders whole species extinct, just to become a god. During his rant to Jaina, he also expresses giddy joy at the prospect of killing "everyone and everything in this foul galaxy!" All four of these guys suffer at least some sort of Karmic Fate. Onimi is consumed by the very poisons he generates to use against Jacen Solo, Tsavong Lah witnesses his fleet get wiped out and falls in combat with Jaina Solo, Shimmra falls in combat with Luke, and Nom Anor chooses death simply because the alternative (living in a universe without power) disgusts him more. Many warriors do repent later on, or were simply victims of their culture. Not these guys though. And they still leave one hell of a mess.
Now, Onimi is listed both on the Star Wars Sandbox and the Star Wars Expanded Universe page, but the others aren't.
edited 16th Feb '13 4:32:49 PM by TVRulezAgain
Terrible examples.
Nom Anor is the closest there, but he's too complex. He's capable of empathy, regret and guilt and his final scene leaves him as a broken man ending his life because he has nowhere to belong to. He's a bad, bad guy with tons of crimes, but he has some redeeming features and a burst of heroism in the final book.
Tsavong is just as much a product of the culture as any warrior. While he's a brutal SOB, he has a Villainous Friendship with a Yuuzhang Vong priest, and has affection for his attendant/mate Seef. He also honors and loves his father as well and is left stricken when the old man dies in battle.
Shimrra is an awful example. Onimi mind raped him into a puppet long before the series starts, so any of his actions or commands are Onimi acting through him.
edited 16th Feb '13 5:14:51 PM by Lightysnake
Reading tropes such as You Know What You Did
Quick question about Underbelly. Chris Flannerly, as well as The Runner and The Driver are listed. However there's one slight problem: the series is based on and true to real life events. Victor Brincatt and Thomas Hentschel are real people. Bandali Debs and Jason Roberts who were the Silk-Miller murderers are real people. Those in the know said the real Flannerly was even worse. Thoughts?
edited 16th Feb '13 5:27:58 PM by tsstevens
Currently reading up My Rule Fu Is Stronger than Yours
Fictional depictions of real-life people can be listed as Complete Monsters, as long as they qualify within the narrative, unlike, say, Hitler's two minute cameo in Captain Planet.
Sam and Max is played for laughs, cut those.
And I agree with Freddy qualifying. It's one thing to kill anyone, but it's another to kill children in either gory discretion shots or actual scenes of the kids dying (there was one in the original Nightmare on Elm Street movie that had a kid killed in bed). He may be subject to Villain Decay, but that didn't stop us from including Scourge after he was given a backstory. In the original unedited version, he qualifies. Movies like Freddy Vs Jason? Not sure. Others? Not really.
The original Nightmare on Elmn street had Freddy murdering teens, though his motive is pretty nasty. His whole motive for going after who he does is because the parents killed him for what he did and he seeks vengeance by proxy on their children This might be a freudian excuse but "I suffered vigilante justice for murdering children and will take revenge on your innocent children as a result" is pretty...well, not sympathetic.
The movies are an odd case because Freddy never really gets subject to getting 'nicer'...his kills get more amusing and he repeatedly gets turned from 'supernatural serial killer' to 'the antichrist devil on earth
edited 16th Feb '13 6:08:28 PM by Lightysnake
Looking over the Mortal Kombat examples as written:
- Quan Chi is the most treacherous, biggest asshole in the entire series, bar none. Making a list of the characters he's hurt or the atrocities he's committed is an afternoon's diversion, to be sure.
- Not to let Shao Kahn off the hook, of course.
- Noob Saibot wasn't very nice when he was still Sub-Zero, but even then he showed restraint in his actions. His trip to the Netherrealm, however, stripped away all of his moral limitations and transformed him into a Made of Evil Humanoid Abomination. The other villains are evil for their own reasons, but Noob Saibot is simply evil incarnate.
As per usual, whoever wrote this examples should be beaten with the FAQ section. A summary of character's deeds:
- Quan Chi
- Offscreen, he murdered Scorpion's entire clan and framed Sub Zero for it, after onscreen hiring Sub-Zero for the job that resulted in Scorpion's death, all to further his master Shinnok's plans. Shinnok gets defeated in 4, and in Deadly Alliance he comes across the Dragon King's army and teams with Shang Tsung to take the souls of defeated warriors and force them into the Dragon King's army.
- Shao Kahn
- Offscreen, killed King Jerred and married his widow, invaded countless realms and opressed them, and in the reboot kills Kung Lao from behind despite him winning the tournament fair and square. Onscreen in the regular continuity, while he's responsible for the invasion of Earthrealm which results in a lot of deaths, we never see any of it beyond the Soulnado (a Tornado made out of souls from Earth Realm).
- Noob Saboit is a pretty nasty guy, but again he doesn't do a lot on screen. To be what he is he was a horrible person in life, but again, that's just an Informed Attribute for the games as while he's killed several people (Scorpion being the key one) that's the extent of it onscreen.
So in my opinion, cut the lot due to a lack of onscreen heniousness.
Reading tropes such as You Know What You Did
Another question: Complete Monster is listed as a YMMV trope. However this seems to be a move to make those who count and those who don't completely unarguable or official. Period, full stop, end of story, nothing open to interpretation. So is this a move to make the trope not YMMV?
Currently reading up My Rule Fu Is Stronger than Yours
That is the way it's going, but the cleanup has to be completed first.
Any other thoughts on the ones I listed in 8562?
Useless comment, I know, but: soulnado. What a word.
From the Star Wars examples, I can safely say that Remart Sasyru is a no. I know Rape Is a Special Kind of Evil and all that, but in a universe where destroying entire inhabited planets isn't a surefire qualifier, I don't think he goes anywhere near far enough. Plus, I've read I, Jedi, can remember and recount much of the plot, and still couldn't even remember who he was until your post 8569.
Joruus C'baoth is also probably a no: he's genuinely insane, and in a way that casts serious doubt on whether he could have been anything what he was.
And as for Moruth Doole, I also barely remember who he was, but I do know that he's from the Jedi Academy Trilogy, which means his immediate competition includes (the spirit of) Exar Kun. Almost certainly a no as well.
edited 16th Feb '13 8:49:36 PM by nrjxll
That is not one of these times.
Joking there, obviously but Tenacious D? Don't even need to asks us, sestroy that.
Castlevania...maybe. I presume this is Lords of Shadow and Satan only really shows up at the end. Albeit, he does influence and manipulate the events of the entire game.
Touched by an angel...never saw it, cannot say.
One other RPG example...
From Skies Of Arcadia
I saw him discussed waaaaay back on page 50, but nothing more was ever said. I think this guy could count if I remember the game right.
edited 16th Feb '13 12:49:17 PM by Lightysnake