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
![]()
![]()
![]()
Top Cow is very loosely based on the original Tomb Raider games and even then it is separate enough, as it has it's own adaptation of The Angel of Darkness game (issues 32-34)
, which severaly cuts down the story and significatly changes many parts of it (to the point that aside from Lara, Pieter Van Eckhardt and Werner Von Croy are the only characters from the game, that appeared there and "The Cabal" is pretty much just a bunch of rich old white dudes, instead of more smaller and diverse (in age and gender) assembly it was in the game). Plus Lara's butler there was revealed to be the villain, behind murder of her parents (in hopes to get their riches) and main villain of the very first arc of the comic, where he was killed.
And movies are in their own contunity.
Edited by VeryVileVillian on Apr 8th 2020 at 4:33:59 PM
John but a
for Braniac.
God, Superman Lives, what a movie that could've been. I highly recommend the documentary The Death of "Superman Lives": What Happened? for more info about the unmade "masterpiece".
Fuckton of creative differences and arguments. Too many writers left, no one could get a clear, definitive vision of the project, and so much money was spent for zero progress, so WB pulled the plug.
Edited by therealjackieboy on Apr 8th 2020 at 7:16:11 AM
It's Spooky Month!Why DID it never get made, when so much crap (and not even the good crap) gets through?
![]()
Thank you. I was trying to remember the name of the documentary. A really good one to.

I have a potential candidate that may not be the worst but maybe just scummy enough:
What is the work?
Burning Bright is a 2010 horror/thriller film about a teenager named Kelly striving to start while struggling to make sure her autistic younger brother is taken care of following the death of her mother.
When a hungry tiger attacks their home. She is force to fend for her and her brother's lives.
Who is he? What does he do?
John Gavenue is the step father of Kelly and Tom, and husband of their mother.
Prior to the start of the film he killed his wife after she tried to walk out on him, passing the death as a suicide.
He stole the money in Kelly's bank account (preventing her from getting Tom the hospital treatment he needs) and used to it to buy a hungry and vicious tiger after hearing a story about it going on a rampage in a circus using the excuse of creating a "Safari Ranch".
Knowing that his wife's children are the inheritance of her will, John deliberately released the tiger in their home hoping it would kill them and planned to paas their deaths off as a tragic accident.
Thinking the tiger had killed them, John went to the house planning to put the tiger down. However the tiger ends up killing John instead.
Mitigating Factors?
He has a moment of Pragmatic Villainy where he gives a worker a bandage after he got injured by the tiger but this is while he is keeping up the mask of being a descent man.
Heinousness?
His body count is pretty low, especially for a horror/thriller but I think the cruelty and pettiness of the deeds is what makes them stand out just enough.
Killing his wife was off-screen but the whole movie pretty much revolves around her death. Attempting to have her children mauled to death by a tiger to gain their inheritance is also pretty bad but what makes it unique for me is that one of them is severly autistic to the point of being mentally handicapped. I can't think of many works where a mentally disabled is specifically targeted.
There is also the fact that this is PG-13 so they can't get away with too much violence.