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
I would actually say the he does count. I originally thought he doesn't, but he killed his own father after all. A father who loved him dearly (movie version). Maybe it is best to move him to Film page?
edited 28th Jul '12 12:25:56 PM by Krystoff
Barty Jr. could still go on the film page if he drums up enough support to count. I'm on the fence if he's heinous enough in the movie but the film does remove all the things that made him a Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds in the books. In the book, Barty Crouch Sr.'s Knight Templar actions coupled with him not showing his son any real love is hinted to be why Junior becomes a Voldemort supporter. Also, Junior is genuinely loyal to Voldemort and his ideals, and acts as a "Well Done, Son" Guy to get Voldemort's approval.
The film removes all of that. Junior's decision to follow Voldemort seem more For the Evulz, also his father isn't a Knight Templar and is actually shown to genuinely care about his son. In fact, it's Barty Crouch Sr. who is presented as The Woobie in the film, which makes his son's murder of him worse than the book version's, which comes off more as Kickthe Sonofa Bitch. I'd also add that he helped Bellatrix in torturing Neville's parents into insanity.
edited 28th Jul '12 12:28:03 PM by OccasionalExister
Except that there is one problem that I see with moving him to Film (he was originally). The problem is that should he be the only character from the film, or should we mention others as well?
edited 28th Jul '12 12:32:22 PM by Krystoff
I have to disagree. It shouldn't matter whether the film or book counterpart is the one that fulfills the criteria-there's no reason why he can't stay in Monster.Harry Potter if he qualifies. Just note which adaptation has him as a CM and why.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer![]()
I don't think so, pretty much every Complete Monster from the Harry Potter movies is one that's already a Complete Monster in the books. Their personalities and actions are nearly identical. It'd be redundant to list in them in two different pages with entries that would say more-or-less the same thing. Barty Crouch Jr. is the only villain radically different enough from his original characterization to possibly count.
I don't really see a problem with that.
edited 28th Jul '12 12:46:46 PM by OccasionalExister
It's probaly best to keep all the Harry Potter examples on one page, because it makes it easier to keep an eye on them in case someone tries to add bad examples to another page.
As for Barty Crouch Junior, I'd vote to cut since he fails the henious standard. His worst on-screen actions are just to enable other villians.
Offscreen.
Granted, that's more for spoiler reasons - though Moody doing that weird tongue thing pretty much gives it away anyway - then to downplay it; as noted above, Crouch Sr. comes off as much more sympathetic in the movie. But I'm still inclined to doubt it really matches up with other villains' heinousness standards.
edited 29th Jul '12 2:24:41 AM by nrjxll
So killing family members is inherrently worse than killing even more people who aren't related to you? What if you barely know said family member, what if said family member is evil and needs to be stopped? And what makes killing a family member worse than killing several other people with the same intentions?
What intentions are you talking about? Even Bad Men Love Their Mamas. I hope this trope will answer your question. Family members are people whom you are supposed to love. If a said family member is evil or you barely know him (or her) than thats totally a different thing. Remember, this is only my opinion. I am still fine with cutting.
edited 29th Jul '12 3:03:00 AM by Krystoff
I think Bellatrix had a slightly different presentation between book and film. The book version of her was pretty serious in her ax crazy-ness, and her love of Voldemort is a manifestation of her evilness, not a redeeming quality.
Film!Bellatrix is something of a Perky Female Minion to Voldemort and plays as Laughably Evil- which is not to say that she isn't also really nasty in her actions, but still, her love of Voldemort comes across as more of a sympathetic quality.
Both versions are at least 90% monstrous, but I'd say that the book version is closer to fitting than the film version.
HodorAnd I'm back from vacation. Looking over the discussion I raised on Katejina, it looks like there's some solid arguments for and against keeping her:
The argument against is that she has reasons for being the way that she is, is offered the chance to get on with her life at the end, has a thing for Chronicle Asher, and isn't evil on nearly the scale provided by the likes of Gihren Zabi. She's a selfish, obsessive bitch, but nothing more.
The argument for her, hinges on the idea that she takes selfish bitch to new heights. She shows no remorse for her actions, has a fairly clear Moral Event Horizon, is treated absolutely seriously (bordering on Hero Killer by the end), only cares about Chronicle inasmuch as ensuring he worships the ground she walks on, and is subjected to what the director himself views as a Fate Worse than Death.
Is that a fairly accurate summation of the argument? Because if so, I'm not sure which way I'm leaning. I've at least gotten the cleaned up entry I was hoping for out of this and may well post it to the Gundam subpage, but I'm still not sure.

I'll go ahead and delete him.