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
Okay, so has anyone called the Syfy Channel Original Movie "Deep Shock" or planning to do an entry?
I ask because I know someone was planning some Syfy Channel Original Movie ones and I'd just watched this movie...twice. Because it's so bad its hilarious to watch. But the villain is played by probably the only good actor in the movie and seems worth discussing.
I have one from Clark Ashton Smith to kick off! From the story, The Gorgon...
The story concerns a nameless narrator in London, still reeling from the death of his lover. Wandering through the streets, he stumbles upon an odd old man who informs him of a secret: " 'I can see that you have a taste for horror. The dark and awful secrets of death. the equally dreadful mysteries of life, allure your interest. If you care to come with me, I will show you something which is the quintessence of all horror. You shall gaze on the head of Medusa with its serpent locks — that very head which was severed by the sword of Perseus"
...and being a dark horror story...it doesn't end well.
Who is the Old Man?
A mysterious figure with an obsession to the macabre, the old man is described as seemingly average save for his great age, one who could pass for the boatman Charon himself....and he claims to have the head of Medusa, which one can gaze upon with a mirror...and claims he won the head from Perseus in a game of chance, claiming "time is not altogether the simple matter which you believe it to be. There are short-cuts between the ages, there are deviations and overlappings among the epochs, of which you have no idea. ... Also, I can see that you are surprised to learn that the Head is in London... But London after all is only a name; and there are shiftings, abbreviations, and interchanges of space as well as of time.'
And the old man? Well, he's a unique sort of Serial Killer...he enjoys using the Gorgon head to turn his victims into stone, keeping them in a macabre little collection. As the story elaborates:
Either the Old Man is way, way older than he appears or he uses his unique grasp of time to delve through the ages to find people to murder with the head of Medusa and his collection? Is massive...and the statues are each marked with "a deadly and undying torment." He proceeds to try to force the hero to see it, savoring the moment of the kill. The narrator tries to leave but the old man attacks him to force him to gaze upon Medusa...in the ensuing struggle, though, well just guess, guys.
"I needed no second glance to recognize in all his limbs, in all his lineaments, the same rigidity and the same horror which characterized the other statues. Like them, he had been smitten instantaneously into an image of dark stone. In falling, he had seen the very face of Medusa, even as his victims had seen it. And now he would he among them forever."
Heinousness?
A time-spanning serial killer who freezes victims in unending torment through stone with the Medusa's head? For a small, short story, this is pretty damn wicked. I'd say pass.
Mitigating Qualities?
Zip. He's just an ancient thrill killer who came into possession of one of the most valuable things in all human existence and uses it to murder people for fun.
Conclusion?
A yes to the old man.
Alright.
What Is the Work?
Deep Shock, a 2003 Syfy Channel Original movie about giant alien electric eels who are causing global warming at the North Pole.
Who's Dr. Chomsky?
Dr. Chomsky is the film's main antagonist and archrival to protagonist Dr. Anne Fletcher. At the beginning of the film, he has Anne removed from her position at the Hubris research station in the Arctic to push forwards his plan to deal with the warming problem by nuking the trench apparently causing it to seal it.
What has he done?
Dr. Chomsky's plan is agreed upon by the United Nations, but when implemented provokes the Eels into flash frying everyone on board the Hubris in retaliation. Chomsky is more enraged his plan failed than upset about the 20 plus people his plan directly resulted in the deaths of, and his only concern is to drag Anne up to the Hubris as part of the team to investigate, purely so he can prove he's right to her face.
Upon arrival, the eels react aggressively to a probe being launched, but are pacified and back off when Anne manages to communicate with them, providing rather concrete proof she's right and Chomsky is wrong. So what does Chomsky do?
Intentionally send one of his crew out in a mini sub while broadcasting Anne's communication to keep the eels passive to blow a hole in the ice to send a communication antennae to the surface...then shuts it down to intentionally provoke the creatures into attacking him. He then uses the opportunity to attempt to kill the creatures, only succeeding in getting the man killed. He is then called out on this by Captain Andy Raines, Anne's ex-husband, who points out the plan was completely unnecessary and Chomsky knew it was (they could've just sent the new antennae up the entrance tunnel without risking anyone's lives).
Despite at this point it being proving the eels exist, are the cause, and can be reasoned with (as Anne's communication program successfully pacifies them and she was able to make direct communication), Chomsky refuses to tell the UN about this and instead arranges for the trench to be literally carpet bombed with nukes, which will disrupt fishing in the northern sea for centuries.
Why is he doing this? Because he wants to prove he was right and Anne was wrong and rub her face in it.
When Anne and Raines go out to reason with the creatures, does he call the UN to call off the strike? Nope, he cuts off communications and gladly let's them die. When his further attempts to kill the creatures gets one of his crew mates trapped in a room that's rapidly flooding, he proceeds to leave the man to drown in an attempt to save his own sorry hide.
Raines and Anne decide that, despite everything, they'll come back and save him anyway, how does he repay them? By stealing the mini sub the group were going to use to escape and leaving them to die when the nukes hit. In the process, he attempts to kill Anne by shooting her, and would've if she hadn't managed to fight him off and escape. This results in his sub being disabled by the eels and him being sent plummeting into the depths where he's killed by the pressure.
Mitigating Factors?
On the surface, Chomsky seems like he wants to stop the apocalyptic melting of the polar ice caps, it becomes clear as the movie progresses that the only thing he cares about is proving he's right and Anne is wrong, and is willing to commit what amounts to genocide and get people killed solely to achieve that goal. Despite a potential solution to the problem that doesn't involve irradiating the northern ocean for over a hundred years being presented, he does everything in his power to make that happen purely out of spite.
He does say in regards to the man he sent to launch the transmitter that 'we can't let him drown'...but he was the one who willingly and knowingly set him up to be killed by the eels in the first place and is clearly only doing so to justify his choice to try and kill the eels, which at this point have heavy evidence that they are at least semi-sapient and can be communicated with and reasoned with, but he has no interest in trying.
He also leaves both one of his crew and Anne and Raines to die in order to save his own hide.
There is the fact this movie is horrible, but Chomsky is the most consistently written and best acted character in it. He has a defined personality.
Heinousness?
His competition are the eels, which to be fair do have a sizable body count and have the potential to cause a global disaster...however, while the movie is a bit clumsy about it, the eels aren't actively malicious: before Anne makes contact with them, they don't seem to comprehend humanity are sapient or the damage their plan will actually cause. They're open to be reasoned with, and repay Anne and Raines for saving them by saving them in turn. They only ever kill when they're attacked first, and all of those attacks and Chomsky's own fault. While they are somewhat hesitant to stop, they are genuinely motivated by the well being of their species, and its implied had Anne had more time to negotiate, they could've been convinced to stop completely.
Rather than call their species to invade and kill humanity in the end when they're about to be nuked, the eels send them a message that Earth is unsuitable to them, seemingly out of gratitude for Anne genuinely trying to save them. So they intentionally spare humanity in the end rather than seek revenge.
While the first attempt to kill the eels is accidental, by the time he tries to get them killed later, it's clear that they can be reasoned with in some capacity and only attack when provoked, and Chomsky both covers up their existence and gets quite a few people killed with no remorse.
Chomsky, in contrast, is a selfish, egoistical jerk whose entire motivation is to prove he's right, even when proof Anne is correct is literally staring him in the face, and outright tries to murder the person who came back to save his life. Whereas the eels may have unintentionally potentially killed humanity if they didn't stop, Chomsky knew they were sapient and tried to have them nuked into oblivion anyway. It's also noted to Chomsky that all his plan might succeed in doing is provoking the eels to kill everyone, but he doesn't listen and stubbornly insists it will work. Which at that point might endanger all of humanity.
Conclusion
This movie is horrible, though horrible in a fun, entertaining way, but I think Chomsky still counts. The guy attempts to commit genocide, gets nearly the entire crew killed out of selfishness and spite, and endangers humanity in the process.
So I think it's a
. Even if he's voted down, this movie was a glorious mess to watch.
Edited by Godzillawolf on Mar 16th 2020 at 11:07:55 AM
Edmund, the Old Man, and Chomsky.
By the way, I propose quotes: three from GeorgieEnkoom
, one from Tehrannotaur
, one from TheImmortalAngelNewton
, and one from ElfenLiedFan90 on his Discord server.
Anime and Manga
Tanjiro: What are you saying?
Muzan: Look at it this way. Being killed by me is the same as encountering a great calamity. You don't need to think so hard about it.
Tanjiro: ...
Muzan: Rains, winds, volcano eruptions, earthquakes. Nobody tries to swear revenge on a natural disaster, no matter how many lives it takes. You can't bring dead humans back to life. Why not just stop fussing over the issue all the time, and live quietly to earn your daily wages. Most humans live that life. Why can't you all do that? There's only one reason. The Demon Hunters are an assembly of deviants. And I'm tired of dealing with deviants. I'm the one who really wants to put an end to all this.
Tanjiro: Muzan, you are a being that should not be allowed to exist.
Fan Works
Tsunade: A psychopath of the highest caliber.
Tobi: The survival rate of anything in the Warlord's vicinity tends to drop to.. zero. Trust me, you don't want to be in the same room as him. He's fucking insane.
Those eyes promised no honorable battle. They promised neither pity nor praise. Those eyes were simply a gaping abyss, a prophecy of a painful, brutal death. Those eyes promised only annihilation.
This man, no, this thing was pure, distilled, absolute evil."
Moriarty: Oh you are quite right! What have I DONE! To think I would have stooped so low! Perhaps my grudge against your father clouded my judgment. Oh Aelita, you have reached my human side! ...Oh... wait a moment. Oh dear, I'm afraid it just died. What a shame. I was just about to release your father.
Video Games
Well, it seems like no one has an issue, so let's do this.
What are the works?
The Trails Series is a series of role playing games that has already given us two qualifiers. One tradition the games have is having at least one collectable In-Game Novel each game, which tend to be used to get an ultimate weapon as well as being readable in full. In the first Cold Steel game, the main novel is Red Moon Rose, a historical fantasy taking place a few decades after the death of Erebonian Emperor Dreichels.
The capital of Erebonia, Heimdallr, has fallen victim to a serial killer who targets young women and drains their blood. This, combined with the bite marks on the victims' neck, leads to the killings being dubbed the Vampire Murders. The story follows Alphonse, a soldier and one of the investigators who ends up learning that the culprit actually is a vampire after being attacked by a Ghoul, the reanimated, cannibalistic corpse of one of the killer's victims. He is saved by Rose, a wandering woman who also happens to be a vampire hunter, and the two team up to find and kill the vampire; Alphonse being motivated by the killings reminding him of his parents' death. Near the end, they discover the culprit is Elroy, another soldier/orphan, and they defeat him after he kidnaps Alphonse's childhood friend. Right as they're about to deal the final blow, it's revealed that, while Elroy was the killer, the true mastermind was someone else entirely...
Who is he?
Garrard is the captain of the unit Alphonse and Elroy serve in, as well as the kind father figure for both orphans. He also happens to be an Elder Vampire, the most powerful group of vampires still in existence. When the True Ancestors, the one group more powerful than the Elder Vampires, decided to die out due to both their immense powers and uncontrollable lust for blood, the Elder Vampires paid no heed, keeping a low profile by only quenching their thirst when they had to: once every ten years. Garrard did this, willingly murdering until satisfied every decade, and eventually ended up in Alphonse's childhood home and befriending his father. One day, Alphonse's father met Rose, both of whom were suspicious of a vampire in the town. The two of them, with assistance from Alphonse's mother investigated, and came very close to discovering it was Garrard. Right before they could do so, however, Garrard murdered Alphonse's parents. He had also intended to murder the young Alphonse, but Rose had been in a habit of playing with Alphonse to give his father some quiet while investigating. Not wanting to arouse too much suspicion, Garrard opted to adopt Alphonse as his foster son instead of killing him, showering him with care to ensure he wouldn't suspect Garrard of anything untoward.
Around the same time, Garrard also took in Elroy, raising him in a way to ensure Elroy would become a "Well Done, Son" Guy, making sure to treat him worse than Alphonse, but still well enough that Elroy would grow to envy and hate Alphonse rather than despise Garrard. Eventually, Garrard let Elroy in on his secret, knowing Elroy would jump at the opportunity to become a vampire. Shortly after Elroy became a vampire, Garrard set him out on Heimdallr, who simultaneously gathered blood and power while raising a small army of Ghouls from the victims. This also lured Rose to Heimdallr, eventually leading her to Alphonse. When Alphonse requested to investigate the Vampire Murders alone with a civilian, Garrard let him, giving him an opportunity to kill Alphonse with Rose when Elroy's murder spree was done.
When Elroy is defeated, Garrard appears and grievously wounds Rose, revealing himself to be the true mastermind behind the Vampire Murders. Initially keeping up his benevolent, fatherly act, he soon tells Elroy he has become useless and finishes off Elroy himself, drinking the rest of his blood and absorbing the power he gained from draining his victims, allowing him to go One-Winged Angel. Revealing how he manipulated Elroy since childhood to lure Rose into a trap and fulfill his needed once-a-decade bloodfest, he then revealed to Alphonse that, yes, he killed his parents and raised him with love just to ensure Alphonse trusted him implicitly. Garrard then goes to finish Alphonse...
..Except then Rose gets up and reveals she's actually the sole surviving True Ancestor. While the rest did die out, Rose realized that the Elder Vampires were planning to survive and go on murder sprees every decade. She then resolved to survive and learn how to conquer her need for blood to finish the job of making the vampire race extinct. Drinking the blood flowing out of Alphonse, Rose goes One-Winged Angel herself, and the two engage in a final battle. Rose wins, leaving Garrard as only a head and chest. Alphonse, healed by Rose, is allowed by her to deal the killing blow. Garrard mocks Alphonse's desire for revenge; he responds by saying he's not doing this out of revenge, but to move on, thanking him one last time for raising him. Garrard is initially stunned, but then starts laughing at Alphonse for his kindness; Alphonse then finishes Garrard off.
Heinousness?
Big Bad; sets it. He's the only Elder Vampire we see, and it's made clear Elroy's killings, which went into the dozens, are merely the last in a pattern of mass murders Garrard had engaged in every ten years of his long life as a vampire. When Rose tells him why the True Ancestors let themselves die and why she decided to live on and kill the remaining malicious vampires, Garrard cannot wrap his mind around it and indicates he doesn't kill just out of necessity; he embraces his monstrous urges, only limiting himself to what's necessary to keep a low profile. He also take delight in his manipulation of Alphonse and Elroy, making it clear the kind father figure never existed and laughing in Alphonse's face when he's told Alphonse shows gratitude for raising him before getting killed. There's also the horrifying fate of the Ghouls, vampire victims turned into cannibalistic zombie slaves for Garrard and Elroy; in addition to keeping the victims in a Fate Worse than Death, Alphonse is clearly unhappy having to fight human victims, adding a psychological aspect to them.
Mitigating Factors?
Nope. After his reveal, Garrard hammers it in that all his past altruism was fake, and no other issues come up.
Verdict?
Repeated mass murderer, trying to murder the hero as a child before he became the hero, sadistically tormenting him when the truth comes out and laughing at his kindness, corrupting an orphan to mass murder for him so he can murder said orphan for the benefits, using the victims as undead cannibal slaves...
from me.

I don't think it's an issue myself.