Subpages cleanup: Complete Monster

@8750

Read @8745 and the post above it. His actions are driven less by "ideology" and more by "malice".

thank you for your opinion, Footsteps, but I would point out that Vidal says this at a dinner when his motive is to impress his guests.

Don't bring proclamations of how the trope is doomed 'if this continues' because when every person who's actually seen the film seems to have a far different opinion than you? To paraphrase your own words back at you, maybe it's not we're all wrong, but "What am I missing here?"

Crowley pointed out the whole point of the pocket watch subplot is Vidal wanting to show up his father through spite via his son. The point of "he never mistreats his son" is a moot one because, as I pointed out, he onlyhas a child for a very short period of time. A period of time in which he displays no real fatherly affection, nor is anything made of "he loves him and just can't show it."

Oh, and to quote your own words back to you? Maybe you ought read the arguments actually being made. Xie, Crowley and I all pointed out his actions at points are divorced from ideology. When he tortures someone with a stutter or kills people brought to him solely for offending him? That's not acting for ideology: that's malice and sadism.

And we're not voting to add Mojo Jojo or Rita Repulsa here. We're voting for a ruthless fascist who beat a man's face in with a bottle for no rational reason, tortured a man with a stutter after giving him a Hope Spot out of cruelty and fatally shot a little girl without a flicker of remorse

edited 20th Feb '13 4:58:30 PM by Lightysnake

That's not even the only lie he makes at that dinner; he also clearly lies about the pocket watch to, again, put down his father.

edited 20th Feb '13 5:44:36 PM by Crowley

I remember the last time that the "everyone else who took in this work says this character qualifies; 32_Footsteps must be wrong" argument (more generally known as Appeal to Popularity) was used in this thread. It was when Ghetsis was being brought up an interminable amount of time.

The arguments regarding whether he truly loved his son seem to come down to "nobody who truly loved someone else could have done all these terrible deeds." That's a No True Scotsman argument.

I never said that this trope was doomed if "this" (and by "this," I mean falling prey to Confirmation Bias) continues. That's invoking the Strawman Fallacy.

Whether or not Vidal loves his son is not moot; it's in the very definition of the trope that we're weighing. Particularly as I can easily turn around some of his atrocities (such as shooting Ofelia) to be directly motivated by the love that is in question (namely, someone was taking his son away from him... shooting a child may be a very cruel way to try to take that son back, but it still shows love).

This trope isn't just about who is the most atrocious character in any given work. So it's not enough to simply show that he's merciless, that he's a torturer, or that he shot a child. You have to prove each part of this trope - not prove one part and come up with justification after the fact for the others.

Did you comment on the pocket watch subplot that was brought up? It probably wouldn't be listed in the imdb/wikipedia plot summary (being told almost entirely through visuals and not dialogue), but it does answer the question of Vidal's relationship with his son - he intends to use him to sort out his issues with his own father. Regardless, I think you're still out voted on this matter.

edited 20th Feb '13 8:25:10 PM by Crowley

No, Footsteps, this not an appeal to popularity. I am asking you to apply standards you've applied in the past. Appeal to popularity would be a direct appeal to the virtue of the argument by nature of everyone agreeing. I am pointing out everyone familiar with the film seems to interpret it differently from you, someone who is apparently quite unfamiliar with it. Pointing out the opinions of those familiar with a work swing a different way seems quite valid for an argument

I think it's more you just fail to understand the arguments being made or simply refuse to change a preconceived notion. You're certainly ignoring a great deal of what people are saying. You ignored the context in which Vidal said he wanted a clean Spain (the dinner, where he blatantly lies to people around him, according to Crowley here). Ofelia was not going to harm his child and had demonstrated that. Heck, she had practically shouted it. Vidal killed her for no real reason whatsoever.

You've also had people saying consistently there's evidence in the film that he cares about his son solely as a legacy and as a way to spite his own deceased father.

You don't seem to be convincing many people, and reacting like this does your position no favors. There isn't a need to turn nasty when a vote doesn't go your way. Consider that maybe we just fairly disagree with your position.

edited 20th Feb '13 9:18:32 PM by Lightysnake

Footsteps I don't have a horse in this race. I really don't give a damn if Vidal gets onto the list or not. Comparing it to the Ghestis argument isn't fair though. That was a case of a couple of wonks from outside of the thread trying to get us to accept the example; the thread itself was largely against the idea. In this case you've got a number of people who have been in this thread as long as you have saying Vidal counts. Not the same situation at all.

@8705: Regarding the Word of God, yes, the creator states that he loves his son, that gives context to the scene where he rescues Fred from almost dying. The scene is later questioned by Fred Jr's real parents (who're also pretty shady) saying that it was likely that Fred Sr. saved him to keep a hold over them so they wouldn't come back.

Basically, the word of God supports implications of a scene that were present in the work.

His deed was saving Fred, he showed concern for him, which was reinforced by Word of God, and not solely offered up by him.

edited 20th Feb '13 9:17:23 PM by DrPsyche

A question. Is Ofelia Vidal's daughter? If yes, that would give some context for his love of his son, given that he kills his daughter in cold blood.

No, she's his stepdaughter. He married Ofelia's mother solely as a baby farm

edited 20th Feb '13 9:22:55 PM by Lightysnake

Ah, that makes it ok then (kidding).

I also don't really have a dog in the fight/know much about the film. I don't want to rule out that there could be a Fascist/Nazi character who is fairly heinous but could be a Well-Intentioned Extremist (although its unlikely), but I agree that its telling that as you say, Vidal's well-intentioned sounding statement was in a context where he had witnesses who he wanted to impress.

That being said, I can see where 32 Footsteps is coming from in cautioning against reading the worst possible intention into a character (generally, if it looks like a Pet the Dog moment, it probably is).

That's the problem. He never has anything that looks like it. No tender moments with the baby, no expression of love. Nothing. Just the "cleaner Spain" line, and as Crowley consistently points out, Vidal's darker motives are there for the viewer to see, albeit subtly.

We're not pulling evil interpretation of Vidal out of blue here. It's very much there in the film and he does things for no other reason than sadistic gratification. Put it this way: It's about as absurd to me as the idea Gregor Clegane acted as a Well-Intentioned Extremist and burned his brother's face off to teach him the evil truth of the knighthood and save him from it.

edited 20th Feb '13 9:30:46 PM by Lightysnake

On the Live-Action TV page, I think we should cut Livia Soprano from The Sopranos since she does show sympathy for her grandkids.

Sorry to bring up Buffy the Vampire Slayer again, but what's the consensus for Lothos from the movie.

Call of Duty: Black Ops

• Complete Monster: Black Ops has Dragovich, a guy who was a Jerkass since World War II, and has absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever. He most definitely crosses the Moral Event Horizon when he throws Dimitri Petrenko (The Hero of Treyarch's previous game World at War) into a gas chamber and releases a chemical agent that melts human tissue just to see if it works. Even worse when it turns out that even though he is killed and his main plan fails, his plot to create a presidential assassin actually succeeds.
  • His dragon, Kravchenko, is no less monstrous - if you linger long enough in a specific area to listen to a radio recording made by him, he mentions that they've tested Nova 6 on children and infants. Intel on him indicates that Kravchenko is a bipolar sociopath who can only find joy in human suffering, and he even mutilated and murdered his sister when she spurned Dragovich's advances to show his loyalty.

The second entry is mostly Offscreen Villainy.

Zero Context Examples:

Lolth from Dungeons & Dragons.

Louis from Carnival of Souls

Asa Watts from The Cowboys

Papa Jupiter and Lizard from The Hills Have Eyes

edited 20th Feb '13 9:30:37 PM by TVRulezAgain

I need to research Livia then. Given her...usual habits with children though, I'm not sure it's anything but her being a manipulative Evil Matriarch

Kravchenko's tough...but he doesn't stack much to Dragovitch onscreen.

I can't see keeping Lothos. Standard villain.

Lolth needs expansion. She deserves to be on the list

Not sure about Asa Watt or the Carnival of S Ouls examples. Will research

Lizard...yeah, I can see him. Easily the most sadistic of the- wait, did I just confess to seeing that godawful movie? Uhhh...I dunno what you're talking about

I brought this example up last time I went through the literature page, but no one commented.

• In Carlton Mellick III's Apeshit, there are background characters never seen in the actual story proper and only mentioned. The first we know of Dan, Stephanie's big brother, gives an image of a deadbeat, unpleasant loser tired of his life that goes nowhere, although he's mentioned to have been on relatively good terms with the six main characters at some point before his life started going all downhill, probably through some fault of his own, although this is left ambiguous. Readers soon find out that Stephanie is pregnant. This has happened by Dan repeatedly forcing himself on her for a long time and, despite Stephanie's requests, refusing to use a condom, because he finds it more exciting that way. To pass time and coerce her to have sex with him, he would also torture Stephanie, among other things burn marks on her with a cigarette and throw ants on her. Stephanie, being 17 and needing a parent's permission for an abortion, has to turn to her mother. A Christian fundamentalist, Stephanie's mother brushes off her telling about Dan having impregnated her by rape by dismissively claiming it's still God's child and aborting it would be wrong. Dan only gets excited at the thought of being able to keep Stephanie as his wife forever. Stephanie may consider herself lucky despite being forever stuck inside the forest, physically damaged and not being able to leave it without dying.

First of all, the mother clearly doesn't qualify. She's less heinous than Dan and sounds more crazy than anything else. Secondly, even Dan, according to the entry itself, doesn't appear in the story proper. Cut?

Cut with prejudice, aye.

Looked over the page for Apeshit. Even if Dan's actions were shown he couldn't qualify; the book is too filled with gorn, fates worse than death, sexual depravity, and general stupidity to qualify.

Hodor, as for your question ("My question then is whether doing something good for a warped reason can still be a Pet the Dog moment")...personally, I take the view that when it comes to the judging of fictional characters, it's the thought that counts. As for that specific case, the fact that Goeth would cut down Schindler without a thought if he knew the truth really undermines the value of any Villainous Friendship element.

Deleted the Deadliest Warriors examples.

@8754 Vidal is never shown to view his son as anything more as a vessel for his own ego and does not care for the child as an individual. He is a heinous character with no redeeming features. I am going to add my vote towards him counting.

Ok, that's Me, Sophia, Ambar, Paireon, Crowley, Xie, willthiswork, somenewguy, mlsmithica, Occasional Exister and Super Saiya Man(mentioned it over PM, I can ask him to post if needed)

Footsteps and Septimus against.

I think we can say he's a solid keep now. Krueger as well. If anyone has any comments on the rewrites I posted at post 8679, I'd love to hear before I submit. And the rewrites on Bane and Zannah

Thank you.

Anybody else have an opinion on that lit example I posted? If it helps, not only are the rapes apparently Offscreen Villainy, but one of the protagonists is an HIV positive guy who knows he has AIDS and yet continues to sleep around. The book ends with the main cast mutilated so badly they can't ever leave the woods. It's that sort of story.

That entry does lead me to believe that none of this is on screen and from what you have said really isn't heinous by the standards of the story. I am inclined to cut it.

@8755 I didn't comment on the pocketwatch subplot because it's a tangental argument. Wanting to show up his father and caring for his son are not exclusive to each other. It's not enough to show that he wanted to prove himself better at fatherhood than his own father (that's not uncommon, even in cases where the characters in question are unambiguously heroic). You'd also have to simultaneously show that he didn't love the child at the same time. The catch with the pocketwatch subplot is that it only demonstrates the "show up the father" part, not anything regarding truly loving the son (or lack thereof).

@8756 You specifically said, in @8752:

That right there is a classic Appeal to Popularity - arguing that I should change my opinion based on what others are thinking. As for applying the same standards that I've applied in the past - I am. You may not understand those standards, and you've made your disagreement with them quite clear. But I am being consistent.

I understand the arguments being made quite well. I find them based either on fallacious reasoning or incomplete information. The "clean Spain" argument is not arguing that he wants a positive goal (even without the context of the dinner party, the line in its original context clearly indicates a willingness, demonstrated subsequently in the film, that this "clean Spain" is a violent, oppressive society that would potentially qualify for Complete Monster). It's arguing over the "for my son" part. It's pretty obvious at all points that Vidal somehow thinks that an oppressive and regimented society that victimizes the majority of its people is for the best. But the fact is, he doesn't just think of it best for him. He thinks it best for his son. Wrong? Certainly. Showing consideration for someone beyond himself? Horrible as it is, also yes.

Finally, you consistently claim that I turn "nasty" when you vote opposite me. I don't know why that is - I personally suspect that you don't take criticism well. Regardless, I recommend that you not take my words so personally. Finding insult in every single one of my posts will get tiring and is not productive for anyone.

@8757 There's a major flaw in that argument. Basically, it doesn't matter whether anyone regularly contributes to this thread or not. The wiki's rules are pretty succinct on the issue - as long as you're an editor in good standing, you have the same position in workshop threads that any other non-staff does (and even they only have authority if they specifically make a mod hat post). If the mods wanted to make a P5-style panel, they could have just stuck me, Shaoken, Paireon, nrjxll, and Fighteer into a group and had us basically control everything for having been involved in the cleanup significantly longer than anyone else (especially if seniority mattered). That's not how this cleanup has been constructed, though.

As such, it comes down to the same thing - there are a bunch of tropers familiar with the work. I am one of the few (possibly the only one; I don't know if Septimus has seen the film) who is voting against the example, and I have had my ability to gauge the example properly in question. Anything else - familiarity with the cleanup effort, seniority within the cleanup effort - is immaterial, particularly inasmuch as the wiki itself is concerned.

@8758 My point about Word of God is that it shouldn't be used in this thread, either way. We've had too many votes (unanimous ones, even) where we voted opposite of what the creator said.

It is convenient that it happens to jibe with the at-face explanation in this case, but if we want to discourage people from making arguments where it is potentially controversial, we need to avoid using it at all times, even when it isn't.

And as you point out, it's not even necessary in this case. Parent saves child with no ulterior motive. Clear case of parental love, cut.

@8763 Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they go out of their way in The Sopranos to show every member of the titular family have someone that they care about? I think it was a "banality of evil" theme that they wanted to hammer home. Anyhow, Livia should be cut for caring for at least someone in her family.

For Call Of Duty Black Ops, both of those examples need to be either rewritten or cut. I need more context on Dragovich, because I was under the impression that it was a Crapsack World where that kind of thing was common. What's listed for Kravchenko is certainly Offscreen Villainy; I won't discount that he might show up enough to commit some actual atrocities, though (though again, see the note about Crapsack World).

For Lolth, we should zap her from the Dungeons And Dragons page for now, and eventually go over each incarnation to see which might belong (I'm inclined to let at least one version of Forgotten Realms Lolth stay in, but I'm leaning towards cutting the Greyhawk one).

The other Zero Context Examples... agreed, cut and get someone in here to explain them.

@8765 I missed when you previously mentioned that, apologies.

First... what the hell? Reading the trope page to this is kind of simultaneously flashing a "too dark to qualify" sign and a "Freudian Excuse everywhere" sign. Plus, I see Black Humor cited on the page; it looks like the entire thing might be Played for Laughs... awful, awful laughs. Finally, it does appear that the deeds in question are all Offscreen Villainy (though not 100% sure; it sounds like some flashbacks are included in the story). Anyhow, feel free to pick from any of the above as to why I'm going to vote for a blanket cut.

Finally, came to a conclusion on Freddy Krueger.

I decided to sit down and do a total review of the archetypes of the slasher villain, and I managed to narrow it down to four. There's the "revenge driven" archetype, like Pamela Voorhees of the first Friday The13th. There's the "manipulated by authority" archetype, like Leatherface from The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. There's the "bloodthirsty sociopath" archetype that we see in Michael Myers from Halloween. Finally, we get the "supernatural force" archetype, like Jason Voorhees in most of the later Friday the 13th films. You do see some crossover, and Krueger is one such example - he manages to start in his backstory as the sociopathic version, and adds on the revenge and supernatural versions when he becomes the Springwood Slasher. While he's a blending of the archetypes, he's not truly original in that regard.

His crimes themselves, also not distinctive. There's precious little difference in practice with his methods of torture and murder than there are with other villains. Gorier and more subject to Nightmare Fuel? Yes, he has that. But that can't be the deciding factor, or else the trope becomes a revolving door for whoever has the goriest movie at the moment.

That said, I want to bring up the one thing that hasn't been truly discussed yet - his modus operandi. I don't mean his specific supernatural powers; I mean his method of using the tools at his disposal. Upon review of all the others, Freddy actually conducts his sprees drastically different than all of the others. The vast majority of his deeds are building towards some greater goal. He doesn't hunt and stalk so much as he builds deathtraps that he can spring on his victims (yes, he hunts and stalks once they're in there, but he's simply using such techniques as tools in a larger playset). He builds, he plans, and he conducts his reigns of terror in a much more structured method than any other villain that I can think of. Upon review, I'd actually say that the closest such villain to Krueger is actually the Jigsaw Killer from Saw. And that's 20 years after Krueger first became active - 20 years of essentially standing alone as this very distinct variety of slasher villain (in fact, given how few have managed to build a slasher villain along those lines, I wouldn't even say that Freddy is an archetype as of yet, because there aren't enough that fall into it).

So, the summation, what does that actually mean? Two things. One, yes, I'll vote to include Freddy Krueger of A Nightmare On Elm Street. Two, the entry has to be dramatically rewritten, because it should make clearer what makes Freddy stand distinct from every other slasher villain.

edited 21st Feb '13 9:01:48 AM by 32_Footsteps

It is interesting that when I quote your own words back to you, it becomes a fallacious argument. The fact is, your opinion sounds far less informed than people who have actively watched and seen the film lately. The fact that they come to different conclusions than you might lead to some introspection. You may think you're being consistent here, but there are glaring differences in this argument and arguments you've used in the past.

And speaking of fallacies, you're begging the question. You've decided Vidal must love his son, so all conclusions have to point back to that. The pocketwatch subplot is not 'tangential,' nor is the fact that the context in which he delivered the clean Spain line highly suspect

And yes, I do claim you turn nasty when the vote opposes you, because you do. Ambar has criticized me in the past, and Fighteer, among others. I haven't accused them of the same. If you can extend criticism, that you should receive it as well. You do turn nasty when you're disagreed with and the vote turns against you,complete with veiled insults. Whenever someone points this out, you claim they're being thin skinned or something of the sort. If you want to continue this on PM so we don't screw up the thread, by all means PM me.

As for Lolth, I'm going to agree to zap the Greyhawk example. The one from the Forgotten Realms game setting and novels is probably the clearest keep.

Also, I'll also say for Ambar's benefit:

Anything with the title 'apeshit' is something I think we ought to lean towards cutting on general principle for this. As far as awful examples go, this will just be one less.

If nobody has an objection, I'm going to add Bane and Zannah after some cleanup of their entries to the Star Wars sandbox and submit Caesar Clown to the One Piece entry later. If nobody objects in a few days, I'll add Shidou to the Anime and Manga sandbox and all the video game examples