TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Subpages cleanup: Complete Monster

Go To

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:

     Previous Post 
Complete Monster Cleanup Thread

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] 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

DrPsyche Avatar by Leafsnake from Hawaii Since: May, 2012
Avatar by Leafsnake
#1451: Jul 5th 2012 at 2:53:42 PM

[up]I'm pretty sure someone put the Mad Doctor's incarnation in the video game (not the original short up for debate). The others I agree with. Even Lotso. Lotso had a sympathetic backstory, but he wasn't sympathetic himself, in-fact, the only thing that bugged me about him was his fate, we just had a huge emotionally charged scene where he almost killed the toys, to him being put on a grate for bugs. Sure its horrible, that he's crucified to the truck end for all eternity, and he could come-apart due to wear and tear (This bit of fridge logic is a neat idea, but the Toy Sotry 3 became popular for acknowledging fridge logic). I guess it always bugged me that his fate was played for laughs, or at least shown comically, in regards to how much of a monster he was.

EDIT: you said not the video game version, so you should probably ignore my Mad Doctor comment. Hopper, I think should stay. The only reason he would go is if he didn't reach the heinous bar, but if we set it at Lotso, it could be detrimental to other examples. I think Lotso passes the cut-off line, I don't think we should draw one at him.

edited 5th Jul '12 2:55:48 PM by DrPsyche

nrjxll Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Not war
#1452: Jul 5th 2012 at 2:56:20 PM

I just hope none of that is in the entry.

Krystoff Since: Jun, 2012
#1453: Jul 5th 2012 at 3:00:18 PM

[up] They are all in the entry.

edited 5th Jul '12 3:00:44 PM by Krystoff

nrjxll Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Not war
#1454: Jul 5th 2012 at 3:07:54 PM

[up]I mean the "boo, hiss, his fate was Played for Laughs" stuff. It's long been one of the biggest problems with Complete Monster entries - even if Lotso was an outright Karma Houdini, that would be utterly irrelevant to his entry.

If the entries that you quoted are what's on the page, they need a rewrite to get rid of the italics/overemphasis. I believe it was decided he definitely qualifies, though.

edited 5th Jul '12 3:08:13 PM by nrjxll

DrPsyche Avatar by Leafsnake from Hawaii Since: May, 2012
Avatar by Leafsnake
#1455: Jul 5th 2012 at 3:22:42 PM

[up] It is irrelevant, it's just my thoughts,and they aren't that important. What is, is how he is still a complete monster, focus more on that and not my ramblings.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#1456: Jul 5th 2012 at 3:56:47 PM

Again, this is just my opinion, but a kids' film like Toy Story 3 should never have anyone that qualifies as a CM. It's just a complete mismatch to the genre. Lotso should be disqualified by default.

edited 5th Jul '12 3:57:13 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Krystoff Since: Jun, 2012
#1457: Jul 5th 2012 at 4:04:43 PM

[up] Except that Toy Story 3 is not a kids film. Many families leaved the movie theatre when the film was released because their kids were so scared, and Lotso totally altered the tone of the work. Also, I think it is foolish to say that a kids film cannot have a CM. By that logic we should CUT Disney and Western Animation pages.

Toy Story 3 is actually for adults. It falls under What Do You Mean, It's Not for Kids? trope.

edited 5th Jul '12 4:27:53 PM by Krystoff

DrPsyche Avatar by Leafsnake from Hawaii Since: May, 2012
Avatar by Leafsnake
#1458: Jul 5th 2012 at 4:06:06 PM

[up][up] That is a good point. But I think that's what makes Lotso so good as a villain, Vile Villain Saccherine show, mixed in with the Crapsaccherine world. That's what makes his appearence in the film so jarring.

edited 5th Jul '12 4:06:43 PM by DrPsyche

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#1459: Jul 5th 2012 at 4:06:11 PM

Not all Disney and Western Animation films are for kids. But if, as you say, Lotso altered the tone of the film so much that it drove parents out of the theaters and gave kids nightmares, then I'd say he might get a pass.

edited 5th Jul '12 7:35:45 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
OccasionalExister Since: Jul, 2012
#1460: Jul 5th 2012 at 7:18:09 PM

I'd say Lotso's actions are cruel enough to sufficiently alter the tone of the work. Toy Story has always been a light series, but that light tone only serves to emphasize how evil Lotso's actions were. His attempt to kill the other toys by having them burned alive was immensely dark and genuinely shocking to happen in a movie made for little kids. It's so bad that the scene in the incinerator manages to be on both the Tear Jerker and Nightmare Fuel pages for the film.

@Ambar Sonof Deshar: Father does some truly horrible things, but I agree that he probably doesn't count. He's not a sadist, he's just incapable of thinking as humans as anything more than insects. He's more Blue-and-Orange Morality than anything. Besides, his explanation of his Freudian Excuse coupled with his horrifying fate ultimately makes me think the author wanted us to sympathize with him in the end.

32_Footsteps Think of the mooks! from Just north of Arkham Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Think of the mooks!
#1461: Jul 5th 2012 at 7:36:20 PM

Throwing out a few more pennies' worth of thoughts on what we have here.

The Endless Scroop Debate - do we actually have a majority clamoring for his inclusion, or do we have the same couple of voices posting repeatedly on the matter? I stopped mostly because repeating my arguments ad nauseam isn't going to do anyone any good. If folks believe my argument, they'll believe it. If not, then no.

Solf Kimblee - Didn't the manga and Brotherhood versions get brought up before? Maybe it was a different thread; they do start to blur a bit sometimes. I'm fine with the manga and Brotherhood versions being cut for the reasons listed. I know, late to the party on this one, but I support the cut that was made.

Father of Fullmetal Alchemist - Well, it's shown that he keeps his word... at the very least, that's one virtue in his favor, therefore, not completely without positive attributes, and would be disqualified.

Sarrano - Okay, @1449 has me convinced. That's the kind of argument I look for when I consider a Complete Monster entry. Want me to edit that into an entry that can go on the page, or would someone else prefer to handle it?

Lotso - Considering he apparently single-handedly made the movie dive headlong into Darker and Edgier territory, I'm inclined to keep him.

The Mad Doctor (Disney animated version) - As it happens, one of the things I unlocked while playing Epic Mickey was the original The Mad Doctor short. And it's only about 6 and a half minutes, and was the only appearance of said doctor, so that's easy enough to go through to make judgment, right?

Well, this is a short from back when animation was for adults, and it shows (hey, Ub Iwerks' skeletons! I recognize those!). And our Mad Doctor shows up in the middle of the night, kidnaps Pluto, tortures him a bit, gets ready to perform Mad Surgery (i.e. grafting Pluto's head onto a chicken body to see what kind of eggs would get laid... classic cartoons, ladies and gents!), and gets ready to cut Mickey in half when Mickey attempts to rescue Pluto. And that's actually it - he gets, at most, two minutes of total screentime.

I think it all comes down to the fact that he is willing to try to murder Mickey just to get a dog to operate on. Really, couldn't find a stray or afford to buy one yourself? That's the only thing, though, to make him distinct from a generic Mad Scientist. Is trying to murder Mickey Mouse just to save on dog purchasing really enough to get one labeled a Complete Monster?

I'd err on the side of caution and say no, but I'm hardly tied to it.

Speaking of, though, are there any other thoughts on the two Epic Mickey examples? If there's no complaints, I'll cut those two.

Finally, related to the not-at-all-lamented brony99, I found this page, which lists all of his edits. I'll comb through and see what needs to be addressed.

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
nrjxll Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Not war
#1462: Jul 5th 2012 at 8:08:44 PM

To state my opinions:

  • Scroop: Cut. It's getting increasingly clear that we just have a few vocal people wanting to include him.
  • Kimblee: Cut. Unambiguously not an example (if his alternate continuity anime version counts, keep him, but the version being discussed is clearly not a CM).
  • Father: Not familiar with the source material, and it doesn't seem like a clear-cut case either way, so I'm going to bow out of this one.
  • Sarrano: Keep (or add, as the case may be).
  • Lotso: Keep. I'm pretty sure we already voted to do that a while ago.
  • Mad Doctor (original): No opinion.

edited 5th Jul '12 8:09:47 PM by nrjxll

DrPsyche Avatar by Leafsnake from Hawaii Since: May, 2012
Avatar by Leafsnake
#1463: Jul 5th 2012 at 8:43:48 PM

Kimblee isn't a CM and neither is father, I'm pretty sure they've been cut. Scroop: I still think he's one, but the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming, and thus he has been cut and I concede your point (though he's still on the YMMV page, and I think he should be taken down). Mad Doctor: To me, the short was enough, and seemed like it was For the Evulz. I've never played Epic Mickey, so I can't say anything on his in game portrayal (though we shall see with the sequel). I think Lotso is one. Are we still discussing Scar?

  • EDIT: If you remove Scroop, cite the forum, there was a bit of confusion when Maleficent was taken of the Sleeping beauty YMMV.

edited 5th Jul '12 8:47:25 PM by DrPsyche

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#1464: Jul 5th 2012 at 10:15:11 PM

[up]I cut Kimblee. I haven't cut Father yet, though the consensus seems to be going in favour of doing so. I've also cleaned up some examples on the FMA page, cutting some nattery bits, and better explaining why one of the surefire examples (Dr. Goldtooth) does belong there. I find it somewhat interesting that the two different continuities had such a differing number of monsters.

DrPsyche Avatar by Leafsnake from Hawaii Since: May, 2012
Avatar by Leafsnake
#1465: Jul 5th 2012 at 10:27:57 PM

[up] Sorry, jumped the gun on Father. You're right, Goldtooth is a CM.

edited 5th Jul '12 10:46:51 PM by DrPsyche

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#1466: Jul 5th 2012 at 10:30:09 PM

[up]S'cool. Given the way the consensus is going, I'm going to remove Father (and some potholes on one or two other pages that link he and Kimblee to this trope). If someone makes a really convincing argument for why Father belongs we can always readd him. With this cut, I think I'll have an FMA page (for both series) that I can live with.

EDIT: Not having seen the Brotherhood film, I'm assuming the entry for Security Chief Atlas is an accurate one.

edited 5th Jul '12 10:52:22 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

DrPsyche Avatar by Leafsnake from Hawaii Since: May, 2012
Avatar by Leafsnake
#1467: Jul 5th 2012 at 10:46:34 PM

[up] I did see the film, and that is accurate.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#1468: Jul 5th 2012 at 10:53:53 PM

[up]Alright then, he stays, which leaves the manga and Brotherhood with a manageable number of monsters. If the plan is still to lock all of the pages eventually, I'd say the FMA one is ready to go.

DrPsyche Avatar by Leafsnake from Hawaii Since: May, 2012
Avatar by Leafsnake
#1469: Jul 5th 2012 at 11:02:25 PM

[up] I'd wait for more feedback on Atlas, I've never actually heard him being debated before.

edited 5th Jul '12 11:08:45 PM by DrPsyche

Iaculus Pronounced YAK-you-luss from England Since: May, 2010
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
#1470: Jul 6th 2012 at 3:32:17 AM

Sarrano - Okay, @1449 has me convinced. That's the kind of argument I look for when I consider a Complete Monster entry. Want me to edit that into an entry that can go on the page, or would someone else prefer to handle it?

Go for't, chief.

What's precedent ever done for us?
Krystoff Since: Jun, 2012
#1471: Jul 6th 2012 at 5:42:41 AM

The consensus seemed to be in favor of Lotso, so I will talk about Blackbeard now;

  • Blackbeard from the fourth Pirates Of The Caribbean is an example: He enjoys torturing his prisoners, locks them in cages and burns them alive, punishes anyone who tries to disagree with him, his horrible treatment of Syrena, and in the end, he is ready to sacrifice his OWN DAUGHTER, to save his own life. His disregard for his own daughter's life was even implied when he was ready to force Jack Sparrow to jump the gorge under the threat of her death, and ordered a mook to load two guns with a bullet each, and keep even himself in the dark as to which guns are loaded, and later lied to his daughter about knowing which ones are loaded.

I find no reasons to disqualify him; he is worse than the previous villains, and by the standards of the film he is really heinous, lets see:

1. He burns his prisoners alive, and he forces other pirates to work for him, and if they disobey him he burns them alive as well and he sometimes zombiefies them.

2. In one scene when he captured the mermaid, he got her tear (he needed it) than he left her to die slowly and painfully just for sadism

3. All the other characters fear him, and he is called The Pirate all other Pirates Fear. Even the missionary character who believes in goodness of everyone thinks that it is impossible to redeem Blackbeard. Nothing he does is ever Played for Laughs nor is he ever comical or funny.

4. He never shows any regret for his actions, nor has he got any sympathies and he is ready to sacrifice even his own daughter to further his goals.

5. Like with Toy Story, the fourth pirates is somehow darker than the previous ones.

Looks like the creators of the film browse TV Tropes to adress each criteria.[lol]

edited 6th Jul '12 5:52:01 AM by Krystoff

32_Footsteps Think of the mooks! from Just north of Arkham Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Think of the mooks!
#1472: Jul 6th 2012 at 5:49:44 AM

Okay, I can come up with a first draft for Sarrano in a couple days.

I looked over the remaining brony99 edits. He had an odd fascination at times with this trope. Most of his entries, though, have been edited out at this point (the guy had a real Natter problem). I think we should be free and clear of his pernicious influence.

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
HiddenFacedMatt Avatars may be subject to change without notice. Since: Jul, 2011
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
#1473: Jul 6th 2012 at 7:46:58 AM

The post I reacted to was on page 57, from you it seems.
Yeah, definitely a misinterpretation. Here's the relevant part of this sub-conversation...
You: [Scroop]'s cruel, he's menacing and damn was he cool . . . Scroop scared me as a kid. Now that I'm older, he's not one of my favorite villains, but he's still cool, as he plays on the audience's arachnophobia.

Me: I haven't watched Treasure Planet, but that's a couple of posts now for which you seem to associate being a CM with being cool. The description used to actually contrast it with that; the character's evil being played for revulsion rather than for any sort of perceived sense of coolness. Even now I still think that at the very least, all else being equal an increased focus on how horrible they are will come at the expense of the Evil is Cool portrayal. In any case, a character being "cool" does not imply being a CM.


In context, I figured rather than state coolness as completely separate from CM status, it would drive the point home better to focus on why they can actually contrast. At no point did I claim they were mutually exclusive, just that one could detract from the other, not eliminate it completely.

...

Anyway, I had no idea the thread would go so far in one day. I'm tempted to comment on Lotso because I have a lot to say about the character, but the main question we should be asking here is "which character are we discussing right now?" It's better to keep to one character at a time than to go all over the place. (In which case we can easily lose track of what people were saying about some other character, as the Disney CM thread goes to show.)

edited 6th Jul '12 7:47:23 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
Krystoff Since: Jun, 2012
#1474: Jul 6th 2012 at 8:05:26 AM

[up] I started about Blackbeard, but we can go back to Lotso particularly because I found nothing to discuss about Blackbeard since he meets all the criteria. Say something about Lotso.

HiddenFacedMatt Avatars may be subject to change without notice. Since: Jul, 2011
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
#1475: Jul 6th 2012 at 8:56:08 AM

Okay, so I take it we're on Lotso now? Then I think we should wait until we're done with Lotso before going back to Scar and Scroop.

Actually, I'd like to discuss Lotso and Hopper at the same time, until we come to a decision on both. note  The way I see it, you can't talk about Lotso without talking about Hopper, given how interconnected their portrayals are. They have noticeably similar means of controlling their minions and enemies, and I think this is on purpose; Lotso's portrayal strikes me as partly a reference to Hopper's.

I'm not entirely sure about either character, actually, but I think Hopper's more likely to count as a CM than Lotso, because Lotso is given a tragic backstory, (albeit arguably an insufficient one) whereas Hopper isn't really given a backstory at all; he's just shown to be a power-hungry gang leader from the moment he steps on-screen (whereas Lotso at least seems polite and friendly at first) without any flackback revealing how he got to be that way. The closest thing he has to a redeeming quality is claiming he had promised his mother on her deathbed not to kill his brother, (see 2 minutes and 20 seconds into the aforementioned clip) and that this is stopping him from doing so. Even then, it could be interpreted as a merely Lawful Evil notion of obeying some grasshopper code or tradition rather than as a Pet the Dog moment.

As for Toy Story 3 being a kids' movie, it definitely qualifies as one (the MPAA rated it G) but it also has a reputation as unusually dark for a kids' movie. Much like how The Hunchback Of Notre Dame, Oliver And Company, etc... have (barely) kid-friendly portrayals of extreme evil. The extent of evil can come at the expense of kid-friendliness and vice versa, but they're not incompatible.

edited 6th Jul '12 9:18:29 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

Total posts: 326,048
Top