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
Well, I know we got rid of Sin from the main page due to her Mad Love with Crossbones being deemed redeeming enough and having the Skull as a father pretty much being a Freudian Excuse in and of itself...
As HT said Sin has a Freudian Excuse and some redeeming qualities. I'll also add that she is usually treated as though she were clinically insane, and has, at various points, been institutionalised.
As for the Serpent, I don't think he recieves near enough characterisation. He shows up for this arc, dies at the end, and is essentially there to be "the threat". Given that he was created solely because the writers had somehow come to the conclusion that Jormungand wasn't badass enough to kill Thor (despite having killed Thor once, and come damn close to doing it again on several occasions; seriously if anyone's a Hero Killer it's that snake) and serves as little more than a walking cliche, I have trouble viewing him as anything other than a Generic Doomsday Villain. Also, I don't think he's near as bad as some of the other big crossover villains, including The Red Skull, or some of the other Thor villains, like Malekith or Surt. Throw in the possible redeeming quality mentioned in that write-up, and the You Can't Fight Fate element inherent in his character, and no, he doesn't qualify.
So far I have three votes for Glandyth, plus my own. Will do a write-up tonight.
edited 25th Nov '13 9:12:43 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
On Changeling, I removed some entries that didn't explain anything, so is what's left:
- Complete Monster: Dr Steele, the corrupt head psychiatrist. At best, he doesn't give a crap about treating his patients... at worst, he verbally and physically abuses them. Any retaliation leads to them being sent for a torturous electro-therapy treatment. The fact his treatment of Christine is almost perpetually accompanied by a nonchalant smirk (replaced by visible bitterness when he is forced to release her) suggests he's a man who enjoys his job. Northcott was mentally insane, Jones thought he was working for a greater good while Arthur was a kid. Steele on the other hand is a sane and ambitionless sadist.
Some time ago, I brought up the entry from The Crucible (the Korean film, not the Arthur Miller play), but no one gave an opinion:
- Complete Monster: Park Bo-hyeon and the Lee twins (who all beat and sexually abuse their deaf students) and Yun Ja-ae, who dishes out savage beatings bordering on torture to the children. If that wasn't enough, their clear lack of repentance and successful manipulation of the trial proceedings to get themselves off the hook, including Yun intimidating Min-su's frail grandmother into settling outside of court, which she then taunts Yu-jin with, should convince you.
![]()
![]()
Funny you mention Mad Love: Bellatrix is listed on that page, but it was ruled her obsession with Voldy wasn't love...
Actually, talking of Bella... I know she's on the Never Again List due to her love for Voldemort not being love-love, but... what about her relationship with her sister, Narcissa? I don't believe we really discussed this much; at the very least, searching "Complete monster" "Narcissa" only gives a couple passing mentions. I ask because in the "Spinner's End" chapter of ''Half-Blood Prince," Bella acts... actually kind of normal when she's around her sister. It would seem this is the one relationship she has that isn't creepy, and she actually defies Voldemort's orders to trust Snape when she thinks Narcissa's walking into a trap. This is, IIRC, the single time she disagrees with the Big V in the entire series. It's not much, especially seeing as how she treats other relatives, but I remember it struck me how different she seemed when I read this chapter for the first time.
ehhh...it's not really very functional. Narcissa is the vastly more sane of the two and Bella is basically telling her "Stop bitching, your son can die for our lord, ain't it awesome?" before mocking her when Narcissa gets mad enough to draw a wand on her.
The Crucible examples..cut them, but have someone come here to make the case. The doctor from Changeling....tough one. I'm not sure he sticks out enough to Northcott...but, he could.
Re: Teen Wolf: concensus supports cutting Peter, Kate, and Isaac's father. Is someone else familiar enough with the series to qualify or write up Gerard and Jennifer?
I still need input for the three listed examples on Age of Apocalypse.
From Under Siege:
- Complete Monster: More or less lampshaded by Strannix when Krill decides to drown most of the ship's crew in order to bain Ryback into killing himself trying to save them.
- The villains in 2 are even worse; they are plotting the deaths of 8 million people for profit. Several of them are also clearly sadists.
The bad guys in the first movie aren't played straight enough. The Mole Krill deciding to drown his own crew probably cements his crossing of the horizon, but Strannix's (Tommy Lee Jones) comment on this might as well be complimenting him on outstanding villainy as having standards himself, considering he goes through with it. Overall they're treated as too comedic.
The villains in the second movie obviously can't qualify as a group; the only real candidates are the Big Bad (a smug computer programmer) and Dragon (a mercenary). They might qualify as they're played a lot straighter, but I found their plan to sell Kill Sat attacks out to the highest bidder not heinous enough beyond standard action movie villainy; it flirts quite extensively with A Million Is a Statistic rather than playing up the horror: no human deaths are seen from them, only blips on their radar screen. I'm on the fence there, especially since they share in these.
I'm putting forth one candidate who probably required a break-down: Sergeant Andrew Scott (Dolph Lundgren) from the first Universal Soldier.
Who is Andrew Scott? What has he done?
Andrew Scott is a Vietnam soldier who turns into a psychotic killer during his tour. He goes renegade and slaughters a town of civilians and then his own squad for their "defeatism". He collects the ears of his victims in a necklace. He murders two Vietnamese children, but is killed by Private Luc Deveraux (Jean-Claude van Damme). They're both revived as memory-wiped Super Soldiers years later for black ops missions. As he regains his memories he kills his masters, murdering anyone who stands in his way to get revenge on Deveraux. He ends the movie trying to kill Deveraux's elderly parents and his love interest.
Redeeming features?
None. He's a Sociopathic Soldier during the war, obsessed with continuing his war long after it's over, doesn't redeem himself, and never professes any problems with his crimes.
Moral Agency?
This is where it gets tricky. As a Unisol he is quite clearly programmed to follow his masters, but he reverts to his psychotic personality as soon as he regains his memories. A doctor who designed the program mentions later that both Luc and Scott have "regressive traumatic recall" — when they were revived their personalities became imprinted with the dominant emotion they had when they died, therefore Scott doesn't know that he's alive, and he doesn't know that he's not fighting the insurgents in Vietnam anymore. This seems to indicate he has no control over his actions, but there are two problems with that theory: 1] he was already an indiscriminate psychopath while in Vietnam, and his rampage in the States isn't any different 2] he does acknowledge several times that he's aware of his actions and knows that he is neither in Vietnam anymore or that there is still a war:
Andrew Scott: "Nice farm. Exactly like you described it back in 'Nam."
Minutes later:
Luc Deveraux: "Scott, the war is over." Andres Scott: "Not for me. Not for her [his hostage]. And not for you."
Verdict?
The crimes are heinous enough to qualify and he's not rivaled by anyone. His moral agency can be debated, but the film actually debunks its own theories on his mental state, supporting that he's behaving like he's slaughtering people in Vietnam because he doesn't want the war to end, not because he's genuinely confused. With that in mind I think he's a keep.
edited 25th Nov '13 3:13:06 PM by Morgenthaler
You've got roaming bands of armed, aggressive, tyrannical plumbers coming to your door, saying "Use our service, or else!"So, keep Bella in Mad Love, or...? And I'll cut all the Fear Itself examples.
EDIT: If he does indeed have moral agency,
Scott (why does he go all psycho on the civilians?).
edited 25th Nov '13 2:55:13 PM by ACW
He's been fighting the Vietcong with his squad for some time, then apparently decides that the simplest solution is to declare all Vietnamese, combatants and civilians alike and even the children, to be traitors deserving summary execution.
You've got roaming bands of armed, aggressive, tyrannical plumbers coming to your door, saying "Use our service, or else!"I think I'll ask this question: you can find people like that in just about any war, and Vietnam in particular was infamous for similar incidents. So I must ask, similar to the slaveholders we've discussed before, does the narrative paint his crimes as being a statement about him or about the war itself? There's even a psychological term for this effect, the "Atrocity-producing Situation;" very scared, very angry soldiers with a lot of power and a lot of weapons taking out that fear and anger on, well, anyone.
edited 25th Nov '13 3:38:20 PM by HamburgerTime
We might have to reach a final verdict for Obito soon. It seems he's making a Heel–Face Turn.
In Western Animation, I also question this entry. If it is qualifier, then it's not very well written:
Animated film Freddie as FRO 7: Messina the cobra witch may be the queen of Evilmainya, but she also pulled being a monster off by killing Freddie's parents to become ruler using her evil magic. She gets worse as Freddie was turned into a frog, nearly trapping Nessie with a boulder, teaming up with El Supremo, killing her henchmen, and transforming herself into a snake, hyena, etc. Her come uppance is getting turned into a vulture and flying away in terror.
Sounds like a generic animated movie villain to me.
Say, I was over at the Villains Wiki and I happened upon the optional bosses from Dead Rising 3, "the Seven Psychopaths." No, not them, these are seven people who used the Zombie Apocalypse to serve their own ends and to Hell with everyone else. Each one represents a different Deadly Sin, and a couple of them look like contenders. Specifically, Albert (Greed), a Mad Doctor who uses the outbreak as a cover for his black-market organ business, and Theodore (Sloth), a Gadgeteer Genius who owns the key to a store of potentially-lifesaving weapons but who would nevertheless rather play video games than help, and attempts to kill anyone who would disturb him. I haven't played it, but have we discussed them? Albert's trivia section notes that fans often consider him one of the most loathsome villains in the series.
![]()
Albert sounds like a potential qualifier but Theodore just sounds really selfish. I don`t think that simply not helping people and killing anyone who comes near is heinous enough. Incidentally, Albert is already listed in the YMMV along with someone else:
- Complete Monster: Hilde, the head of security, who is supposed to be rescuing survivors, instead mercilessly has a soldier kill a man's injured wife when he asks for help. She laughs wickedly as he cries over her death, and then swiftly snaps his neck. All with a sick sexual gratification from doing it.
- Albert is a sadistic doctor who has taken to abducting victims and harvesting their organs for profits. And he does so using a drug that makes them hallucinate and see monsters before their eyes. He's considered one of the darker Psychopaths for a reason.
edited 25th Nov '13 6:09:21 PM by TommyFresh
Wait? Obito's making a Heel–Face Turn? I don't watch Naruto every since Shippuden started, but isn't that Orochimaru from the first series suddenly joining the heroes? It's something that probably won't last. I think Obito's gone back on deals before. He could just be joining the heroes for pragmatic reasons, much like Hades from Kid Icarus.
By any chance, did Sasuke preform a HFT too yet? Forgive me, but I haven't read or watched hardly any of Shippuden so I only know what's said here.
Also can I cut Rainbow Factory!Rainbow Dash for performing a Heel–Face Turn and Alas, Poor Villain sacrifice in one ending? And maybe add the supervisor of the Rainbow Factory to the list. (His actions are pretty much the same as Dash's if not worse since he's the mastermind behind the whole thing).
Naruto asked to him redeem himself. He responded by saying he regrets nothing and tries to strangle him. Then he had a breakdown and Sasuke and Kakshi tried to execute him while Redshirts cheered them on. Obito just sat around while Minato tells them not to kill him. Orochimaru joined them because of Sasuke and is helping them a little.
Sasuke did perform a HFT after a few minutes of talking with the First Hokage.
edited 25th Nov '13 6:38:30 PM by doineedaname
Someone made an interesting case for
Lord Vyce, maybe we should consider him.
If it was one ending, is it easy to set aside? What I mean is if the original version potrayed Rainbow Dash as a CM then why should you disqualify her if there were many alternative endings made for the fanfic? Other people most likely made different endings for the original story, so are you referring to the original version or a fan version of the fanfic?
edited 25th Nov '13 6:44:33 PM by AustinDR
Was it decided to cut the Canadian Bacon entry for being a satire?
For Cloud Atlas, consensus seemed to be keep Bill Smoke and cut Dr. Henry Goose.
Lastly, was there a decision on Arius and Bennett from Commando?
This was on the YMMV page for Sinister Six Trilogy.
- Complete Monster: The Gentleman certainly qualifies. So does this version of Dr. Octopus who is a sadistic sociopath with a god complex.
Doc Ock doesn't qualify. He expresses some genuine sympathy for Peter Parker after hearing about his Aunt May's death. As for The Gentleman, aka Gustav Fiers—he's a horrible bastard. His speech on what he does, which I will cheerfully reproduce for anybody who cares to read it, would make a wonderful page quote for the trope, and may cause you to contemplate hurting somebody. But he doesn't count. First of all, he is motivated in a large part by the death of his brother Karl, whom Spider-Man accidentally caused the death of (The Gentleman was going to go after Peter anyway, but Karl's death is his current motivator). He himself is surprised by this I'll note. When Karl dies, Gustav is dumbstruck. "I actually cared about someone. I...I wonder if he felt the same way?" Secondly there's a bit where he reflects on the death of his one-time partner Dr. Christian Szell. "The Gentleman, who was human enough to mourn his few true friends, wiped a single tear from his eye." He's thinking about this years after it happened, and it still upsets him.
Damnably evil, but not this trope. I think they were both discussed before, so I've removed the example.
@Hodor
Here goes nothing:
"Essentially I've made my fortunes investing and in encouraging chaos. I'm an expert in breaking things, sometimes on a societal scale, just so I can benefit from knowing in advance precisely the manner in which money will ebb and flow in response. I have made fortunes—more than you can dream—destabilizing democracies because I can provide the technology of torture used by the dictatorships that rise their place; discouraging technical breakthroughs because I have too much riding on the problems they would have solved; formenting wars because my arms dealers are in a position to supply both sides; even sowing the seeds of ethnic cleansing because of all the special financial opportunities which only the most brutally self-cannibalising societies can provide. Crime, disease, environmental disasters, assassinations—they all provide fine fertile ground for a talented speculator capable of hurrying them along. For what it's worth, I've even been known to invest heavily in the work of certain artists, immediately before arranging for the drug overdoses and tragic accidents that make their work so much more valuable for the collector. I could name some of the best known tragic deaths of this century, ranging from soulful lady poets to sex-symbol actresses to rugged he-man novelists to painfully idealistic singer-songwriters; their deaths weren't all mine, because there are only so many hours in the day, but I did see many of them coming, and I did contribute enabling circumstances to a significant percentage of the rest. There are endless opportunities in this sort of endeavour, Spider-Man. Human heartbreak has always been a growth industry."
And later, when talking about his ward, Pity, whose parents he killed, this conversation happens:
Gustav: "For me it has never been enough to take vengeance on the betrayer. Being as long-lived as I am, I must also take vengeance on subsequent generations. My policy has always been to wait until the children of my enemies grow up and establish themselves in their adult lives so that I might then ruin any chance they have of lasting happiness. In this unfortunate young lady's case, having disposed of her mother and father, and having learned of her special latent abilities I devoted two decades into turning her into a creature without hope, and capable of committing any atrocity I choose. Since she has been allowed to keep her conscience, the better to keep her in a constant state of torment, this is a splendidly delicious way to punish her poor dead parents for what they did to me."
Spider-Man: "You're Insane!"
Gustav: "No. Simply evil. Those of you who happen to be players on the other side have so much trouble understanding the difference."
