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
What is the work?
"Polly" by NirvanaWho is the candidate and what have they done?
The unnamed protagonist kidnaps a teenage girl and proceeds to viciously rape and assault her, feeding her the bare minimum of food required for survival and burning her with a blowtorch for sadistic pleasure.Mitigating Factors or Freudian Excuse?
No. The story is apparently inspired by a real-life news report but has numerous distinctions from the event that occurred.Do they meet the Heinousness standard?
Nirvana is by no means a brutal death metal band, so fairly easily since this is one of their few narrative tracks.Final Verdict?
Probably, although I'd like your take on this.Edited by Orangutans on Feb 18th 2021 at 8:42:33 AM
![]()
Yes, future and I will be collaborating on Clarice.
Sydney. Abstain on the Protagonist until more information is given.
What is the work?
Dark Waters is a 1944 thriller starring Merle Oberon alongside Thomas Mitchell and Elisha Cook.
Leslie Calvin survives the U-Boat attack which took the lives of her parents, and arranges to live with her aunt Emily and Uncle Norbert Lamont.
Leslie eventually realizes that the people claiming to be her relatives are not who they say they are.
In addition to the mastermind, there is a certain loathsome figure doing his dirty work.
Who is Cleeve, and what has he done?
Cleeve is Mr. Sydney's uncouth partner, who makes creepy advances towards Leslie and participates in gaslighting.
Joining Sydney and Leslie for a walk, when Sydney takes his leave, Cleeve attempts to abduct Leslie in a boat, but Grover intervenes.
Later on, Cleeve kills Jackson, a former servant at the plantation.
When Grover has his suspicions confirmed about the conspiracy, Cleeve abducts George, beating him and eventually holding him at gunpoint.
Cleeve and Sydney hold the couple at gunpoint, and Cleeve disarms Sydney when he thinks the latter is plotting to betray him.
Once the couple escapes, Cleeve gives chase, only to die in quicksand.
Heinousness?
Cleeve is Sydney's willing accomplice, doing all the killing, the assault, and some of the gaslighting, while Sydney is the brains. And then there is the creepy advance thing. He shares an attempted bodycount of five with his employer, albeit as the one doing the dirty work. He also disarms his boss intending to betray him.
Mitigating Factors?
Cleeve is loyal to himself, and the moment he thinks his boss is trying to screw him, he turns on him. Otherwise, he is a smug, sadistic asshat who wants to make a quick buck. No dice.
Verdict?
Meh.
Fair point. I really need to brush up on my Noir standards.
Edited by SkyCat32 on Feb 18th 2021 at 12:42:29 PM
No to Sydney and Cleeve. All that sounds like is a few generic murders and attempted murders attached to a generic greedy plot—what exactly is the level of brutality here that's pushing these two past the film noir standard? My personal benchmark for the noir standard, Tommy Udo—iconic as he is—has a pretty low body count, but he makes up for that by the sheer godawfulness of his victim choice. These two don't sound like they're targeting innocent families and wheelchair-bound old women.
Gonna say no to the Nirvana guy too. Doesn't sound like enough substance for a single song.
Edited by Scraggle on Feb 18th 2021 at 10:39:50 AM
Welcome back Jackie!
And
to the Entity, Sydney, the Protagonist, and Cleeve.
Speaking of 1944 films, we forgot got to crosswick Wilhelm Grimm's entry to the YMMV.
Edit: I could have sworn there was a wick to this film in CMs Approved by Scraggle. Actually, the monster wick wasn't crosswicked.
Edited by SkyCat32 on Feb 19th 2021 at 11:30:12 AM
![]()
I got it.
Also, fuck, Monster Film O To S is getting too big. Are we gonna need SEVEN film pages? Though instead of having to reorganize the whole damn thing, I may just give the S entries their own page. O-R, S, T-Z.

No to the Entity.
What is the work?
Dark Waters is a 1944 thriller starring Merle Oberon alongside Thomas Mitchell and Elisha Cook.
Leslie Calvin survives the U-Boat attack which took the , and arranges to live with her aunt Emily and Uncle Norbert Lamont.
Leslie eventually realizes that the people claiming to be her relatives are not who they say they are.
At the center of the conspiracy is the man who supposedly handles Emily and Norbert's finances.
Who is Mr. Sydney, and what has he done?
When we are initially introduced to Sydney, he comes off as an obese snob.
However, throughout the film, Sydney indulges in gaslighting alongside his co-conspirator Cleeve by reminding Leslie of her trauma, indulging in menacing talk about other people's deaths, and playing recordings to make her question her sanity.
After the former servant Pearson Jackson informs Leslie of his suspicions regarding a confidence trick, Jackson ends up dead in the Louisiana Bayou on Sydney's orders.
Later, when Leslie calls for help from medical professional/love interest Dr. George Grover, Sydney has Cleeve capture Grover and assault him, fully intending on having Grover and Leslie killed, just as he had arranged for the deaths of the real Norbert and Emily, despite the objections of the impostors.
Sydney and Cleeve take the couple to a boat at gunpoint, intending to drown them. When they escape, Sydney and Cleeve try to shoot them. When Cleeve is caught in quicksand, Sydney does nothing to save him. Subsequently, Grover tricks Sydney into giving him his gun, exploiting the notion of Sydney drowning in quicksand.
The couple then holds Sydney at gunpoint while taking him to shore, presumably to hand him over to the cops.
Heinousness?
Sydney is behind a conspiracy with an attempted body count of five, not including letting his own co-conspirator drown in quicksand, plus a bad case of gaslighting.That said, Cleeve does most of the dirty work of his own volition, plus he makes unwanted advances towards Leslie.
Mitigating Factors?
Sydney does not give a rat's ass about his co-conspirators, and would easily kill them for his own benefit and profit. When Cleeve is in the quicksand, Sydney does nothing to save him.
Verdict?
Eh, I've done worse, but he's worthy of discussion nonetheless.Edited by SkyCat32 on Feb 18th 2021 at 12:27:26 PM