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
Obvious yea to Hackshaw. And on that, ACW...
Who is Bordon? What has he done?
Played by Clancy Brown himself, Harry Bordon is our other villain of the film and the man responsible for the disappearance of the Necronomicon in the first place. Lovecraft's former partner on the force, the relationship between the two went sour years ago when Bordon quit being a cop and instead turned to the life of crime as the local hood, a mafioso who runs a firm from the leisure of a nightclub called the Dunwich Room (ah, classic horror references, we will never not love thee). Bordon is ruthless and answers any sort of question to his protocol with viciousness and murder through his murderous henchman Tugall... also disposing of all his other living henchmen and replacing them with thuggish zombies, under the logic that it's cheaper and they "don't ask questions." Bordon opens the film by receiving a package he assumes contains the Necronomicon from a man named Mickey. When the book turns out to be a fake, Bordon orders Tugall to horribly murder the man, which Tugall accomplishes by cutting the man to ribbons in a whirlwind of paper and a literal Death by a Thousand Cuts.
Once Lovecraft is put on the case by Hackshaw, Bordon invites his old partner in for a talk while simultaneously demonstrating magic of his own by cursing a singer under his employ to speak backwards for the rest of his life for trying to sign out of his contract. Once Lovecraft leaves Bordon more determined than ever to find the Necronomicon, Bordon has Tugall follow him and try to murder him... regardless of any collateral, as Tugall summons a demon in a public restaurant to kill him that ends up slaughtering the manager of the place instead. Lovecraft eventually does find out Bordon's place in the case; Mickey and his lover Willis were sent by Bordon to invade Hackshaw's property and find out what he wanted with the Necronomicon, which he was willing to buy for very suspiciously high prices, and then bring it to him. Lewis and Mickey backstabbed Bordon and took the book for themselves, and Bordon obviously let loose Tugall to enact the appropriate murderous retribution. Tugall, however, made the mistake of killing Mickey before he could get any information from him... meaning Bordon's just as lost on the Necronomicon's location as Hackshaw is.
When he finally tracks it down to Lovecraft's hands through his mole Connie, the resident femme fatale in his movie (and Lovecraft's lover), Bordon pieces together Tugall's mistake and, less than impressed, has his servant drown Tugall in a bathtub after callously turning down his offer to "talk about it" with a smug "no." Bordon delivers Lovecraft and the Necronomicon to Hackshaw, where he finally reveals to Lovecraft he's giving the Necronomicon to Hackshaw to summon the Old Ones and ravage the Earth so he can rule the tortured hellscape that'll be left as an immortal, even having threatened to harm Hackshaw's virgin daughter unless he was made a part of the plan. His reasons? Murderous ambition and envy of his former partner Lovecraft, who's severed head Bordon replies would make a good watch fob when he becomes immortal. Bordon hands over everything integral to the sacrifice to Hackshaw... only for Connie to double cross him and shoot him once Bordon leans into a kiss for "good luck," ending his delusions as the rest of the climax proceeds.
Any mitigating factors?
I'd say nada. There's no redeeming qualities with the man himself, as Connie is just arm candy for him — a "pet" as Connie herself later puts it — and he has no care for any of his other subordinates, disposing of most of his other henchmen to replace them with mindless zombies and eventually murdering his only living minion left. The only thing of concern is the heinous standard, as Hackshaw largely treats Bordon as a pawn to be disposed of at the end, but I think we still do have to factor in individual heinousness. Looking at that, honestly, I don't think Bordon's any less vile than Hackshaw... he's a vile mobster who's responsible for more onscreen deaths than even Hackshaw himself and is an eager participant to completely devastate the Earth. And while Bordon's not quite using his own daughter to accomplish this? He's a willing and integral component to the rest of Hackshaw's scheme (even threatening to completely screw Hackshaw over if he wasn't made a part of it) and his motives — selling out all humanity to a tortured extinction or enslavement to stick it to his former partner — are no less sickening.
Conclusion?
Bordon's a murdering gangster who tries to condemn the entire Earth to a hellish apocalypse of the Elder Gods out of ambition and petty spite. Nasty? Yes. Nasty enough to be listed up with Hackshaw? I'll let you all decide.
Thoughts?
edited 8th Aug '17 2:07:00 AM by Scraggle
I'll give a
to Amos Hackshaw and Borden. Yeah it does sound like Borden's more personal cruelty and unecessary brutality manages to push him to Hackshaw's level. Especially as they both wanted to bring about the end of the world.
Why have I not seen this movie? (Anyone else find themselves asking that about every other week when on this thread?)
]Amos Hackshaw and Harry Bordon. Sounds like they’re both equally heinous.
Say are there any specials rules for EP for My Little Pony Fan Work characters? I was thinking about proposing Shine Bright from the Time Fades comic, but there’s already a rather long list of fandom created CM and I’m afraid that people are sick of them.
edited 8th Aug '17 4:18:02 AM by NTG
![]()
*binge-reads the entire comic just to be able to make a judgement call* *something about too much free time*
It's quite grim in its tone (certainly much more so than the show), with many deaths (ranging from old age to childbirth to assassination) and some brutal war scenes, but it's not overly gory and is certainly more tasteful than a lot of the grimdark schlock produced by the fandom. Go ahead and make the proposal if you want to, but be prepared for another round of heated discussion about what is and isn't appropriate. I'm personally abstaining, at least for now.
for the Lovecraft movie candidates (another film for my to-watch list!). Abstaining on the poacher duo.
edited 8th Aug '17 5:32:30 AM by LordXavius
I was watching a very early season of The Simpsons and thought I might actually have a character worth discussing. Now I am not up to date with The Simpsons so I don't know the exact extent of the heinous standard but from what I have watched and can gather he is responsible for a very high bodycount/attempted body count (much higher than Russ Cargail) and unlike all the other villains he's played seriously the whole time.
![]()
You know, the funny thing is, speaking of South Park, I swear I was gonna vote yes to Lennart Bedrager, until that moment where it seemed like he had some regret.
And honestly, maybe not Family Guy, but I could conceivably see a Simpsons character counting.
I'm curious, username. Who's the character?
@ACW: Lyle Lanley from Marge vs the Monorail. His MO is pretty much ruining towns by tricking them into building a monorail knowing that it's highly dangerous to use, setting up fake training conductor classes to pick someone out at random to conduct, condemning the conductor and it's many passengers to certain death while causing vast destruction to the town while he takes off with the money he swindled them. He has done this to several towns.
![]()
I remember that episode, I would say he is not serious enough, considering he used a musical number to convince Springfield to build his monorail.
To Hackshaw abd Bordon.
Yeah, I would say its almost impossible for most adult comedy cartoons to have complete monsters in them, the heinous standard is too slanted by characters who are played for laughs.
edited 8th Aug '17 7:53:53 AM by Overlord
@91873 He sounds like a pretty solid keep. Unrelated, I swear I've heard of this movie before.
@91881 Push comes to shove, he has more or less the same resources as Hacksaw, but Bordon doesn't go nearly as far (plus, Hacksaw gets at least some responsibility for Bordon's crimes). I think Hacksaw overshadows him, and thus I vote cut.
@91892 I was just going to counsel just not bringing up such a candidate in general, but since you did, let me go over why Lanley doesn't count.
One, he doesn't stand out in his villainy. People who are out for their own greed and willing to throw lives away are very standard in The Simpsons. I mean, Exhibit A for such a character is C. Montgomery Burns. And it's not like there's a giant gulf in terms of funding, either - while Lanley isn't flaunting it to Burns' extent, it was shown that he defrauded at least three other towns of millions of dollars. Considering that he's a Shout-Out to 'Professor' Harry Hill, he's almost certainly just hiding how much funds he has. In short, he has to be evaluated on the same scale as Burns, and he's being overshadowed there.
Two, he doesn't reach quite the levels of depravity required. Yes, his callousness in terms of being quite willing to let everyone die is pretty bad, but his plan works equally well if nobody dies. Compare that to Burns, where some of his plans are basically predicated on actions that certainly will be lethal (see a good chunk of what he does in the two-part "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" eps). He doesn't quite sink to the levels of depravity of several members of the regular cast (there's probably a pretty good argument that Mayor Quimby is further on the depravity scale than Lyle Lanley).
Three, as mentioned, he's totally played for laughs. As previously noted, the whole episode is an Affectionate Parody of The Music Man, with Lanley being a slightly sleazier Harold Hill. He's totally set up for laughs, and none of his scams (current or previous) are treated as more than a setup for a later joke. He's just a grifter, and he wasn't that heinous even before the would-be heinous standard slipped further by Bart and Homer also becoming grifters a few seasons later. Very hard cut.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.I wasn't proposing Lanley I was just talking about him in passing. I know he probably doesn't count but thought he might be worth a discussion. Also, I don't get how him starting a musical number makes him played for laughs, by that logic we should cut Scar for being "Played for Laughs" since starting a musical number makes you comedic now.
Endangering the lives of entire towns of people for profit is more than being a grifter, Lanley is a textbook sociopath. Using charm to get what he wants, apathetic towards innocent life, very manipulative and smooth talking. I can understand Burns may outheinous him but the other reasons I don't get.
Because it's a firm comedy show that plays most of it for laughs.
And Disney has a string of musicals and Scar's number is a clear Villain Song meant to evoke fascist and Nazi imagery. The Simpsons isn't a musical show by any stretch despite the occasional appearance of musical numbers.
edited 8th Aug '17 8:25:55 AM by Lightysnake

Hackshaw
Shadow?