TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Subpages cleanup: Complete Monster

Go To

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:

     Previous Post 
Complete Monster Cleanup Thread

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. "[tup] 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

ACW from Arlington, VA (near Washington, D.C.) Since: Jul, 2009
#24926: May 4th 2014 at 12:35:10 PM

Yeah, Kallarnak seems like a [tdown] to me as well. Giant asshole, and a Manipulative Bastard, but not quite bad enough.

edited 4th May '14 12:36:51 PM by ACW

CorrTerek The Permanently Confused from The Bland Line Since: Jul, 2009
The Permanently Confused
#24927: May 4th 2014 at 12:37:06 PM

What if character A only has a kitchen knife, and character B has a team of well armed mercenaries.

I get what you guys are saying, but it's still a shaky argument. And I've seen it used to justify characters who actually had more resources and did less with them than other, more heinous individuals. At that point, what stops people from using it to support anyone ever (aside from common sense)?

There needs to be some sort of line here, is what I'm saying.

ACW from Arlington, VA (near Washington, D.C.) Since: Jul, 2009
#24928: May 4th 2014 at 12:39:29 PM

Well, that's why it's YMMV. And why it's basically a case-by-case scenario.

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#24929: May 4th 2014 at 12:44:38 PM

Well, like ACW said...we can't just have one straight rule: it needs to be case by case, individually. In some settings, some actions do become mundane, so it stops mattering as to what resources they have if it's a lesser series of crimes. But in others?

ambar's fond of the Ribbons Almark/Ali Al-Saachez example. Both are indisputable monsters, but Ribbons achieves more solely because he has more to ork with. Ali pushes the bounds of what he can get done with what he has access to.

Generally speaking, the thread here's meant to be the safeguard. It's also why wevoted pretty unanimously to keep Captain Kuro and Saint Charloss...or Hody and Caesar Clown.

CorrTerek The Permanently Confused from The Bland Line Since: Jul, 2009
The Permanently Confused
#24930: May 4th 2014 at 12:46:18 PM

Perhaps. I'm just not sure what the point of a particular guideline is if you can't use it more or less objectively. I mean, that's why we ditched the guidelines about redemption, right? Because technically anyone could qualify?

edited 4th May '14 12:46:34 PM by CorrTerek

TheOverlord Since: Jan, 2015
#24931: May 4th 2014 at 12:51:51 PM

@ 24917, I disagree that 80s animation is darker then animation today. We have far more C Ms from animation from the 90s and 21st century then we do with animation from the 80s. Tirek, the Grundel and a few movie villains like Jenner and Horned King are the only C Ms that I can think of from the 80s.

The 80s versions of Transformers, GI Joe and TMNT don't have any C Ms, but their more modern counterparts do. Utrom Shredder is way scarier then anyone on the 80s TMNT cartoon and some of the villains from the 2012 cartoon have a chance of being C Ms (likely Rat King and possibly Shredder.) Villains from Beast Wars, Transformers Prime and Transformers Animated outrank the villains from the 80s cartoon in terms of heinousness. Something like GI Joe Resolute lets Cobra Commander commit more evil crimes then his 80s counter part.

I think Tirek is the exception, not the rule, I think cartoon villains tend to be worse after the 90s rather then before it.

edited 4th May '14 12:59:47 PM by TheOverlord

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#24932: May 4th 2014 at 12:52:21 PM

Ehh...that was more of a less defined rule. My argument was redemption as a metaphysical concept was pointless as it didn't rely on intrinsic qualities of the characters. It's not as bad as that, though: the standard remains 'heinous by standards of work'...rape and murder can both qualify for that

AustinDR Lizzid people! (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Lizzid people!
#24933: May 4th 2014 at 1:30:19 PM

I didn't mean that all 80s animated shows were dark and gritty, I just meant that a majority of cartoons at that time were rather dark, because back then, the censorboard didn't exist, or at least they let some things slip past their noses. True, most animated shows today have dark story lines, but normally, some animated shows can't get away with anything because of Moral Guardians criticizing the network for their programs. Therefore, most stations are very strict with what should be shown on their networks.

edited 4th May '14 1:31:34 PM by AustinDR

TheOverlord Since: Jan, 2015
#24934: May 4th 2014 at 1:44:18 PM

[up] There was still censorship back in the 80s, that's part of the reason the Foot Soldiers were robots in the 1987 TMNT cartoon, while they were human ninjas in the Mirage Comics. I think censorship guidelines were different back then, not necessarily more loose. Again I can think of more animated C Ms from the 90s and 2000s then there were in the 80s. Plus animation in the 80s had more of a goofy tone to it, with villains often engaging in the type of schemes you would see in a Silver Age comic book.

AustinDR Lizzid people! (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Lizzid people!
#24935: May 4th 2014 at 1:52:01 PM

I guess it was more of a different values system back then?

ACW from Arlington, VA (near Washington, D.C.) Since: Jul, 2009
#24936: May 4th 2014 at 1:52:11 PM

Hah, you wanna talk about the censorboard not existing, look at Animaniacs! Maybe not violence, but boy a lot of stuff got past that radar.

AustinDR Lizzid people! (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Lizzid people!
#24937: May 4th 2014 at 1:58:29 PM

Oh yeah. Finger Prints...

TheOverlord Since: Jan, 2015
#24938: May 4th 2014 at 2:15:54 PM

[up][up][up] I think different eras have different standards and taboos.

Lets compare the 90s Spider-Man cartoon with the 1967 Spider-Man cartoon. The 1967 cartoon allowed smoking, real guns and let Spidey punch people without a Hit Flash appearing. Its still goofy though, most of the villains never doing anything more then petty thievery. The 90s cartoon allowed none of those things, but still had C Ms, because the 1967 never had a genocidal villain or a villain who blew up city blocks for fun.

edited 4th May '14 2:47:09 PM by TheOverlord

AustinDR Lizzid people! (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Lizzid people!
#24939: May 4th 2014 at 2:41:33 PM

I see what you mean.

HamburgerTime Since: Apr, 2010
#24940: May 4th 2014 at 3:09:22 PM

I remember we once briefly discussed a recurring Law and Order SVU villain named William Lewis whose arc was still ongoing. Well, he's dead now; anyone know if he qualifies?

VeryMelon Since: Jul, 2011 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#24941: May 4th 2014 at 3:17:01 PM

I'd give a [tup] to William Lewis. Being the most reoccurring antagonist to appear on Law and Order: SVU definitely helps him make a bigger case.

OccasionalExister Since: Jul, 2012
#24942: May 4th 2014 at 4:19:25 PM

@24878: Agree with cutting Hideki.

@24880: Agree with cutting that second example from Law and Order. She only has one major crime to her name and from the sounds of the entry, we don't see the Serial Killer doing anything in the episode.

@24881: I'd be alright with cutting Marissa too since there's a possible Well-Intentioned Extremist motives and her worst actions are offscreen.

@24884: I'm honestly not sure about the Rat King. He sounds bad but I don't think he's bad enough yet. Maybe if he appears more in the future and does more, but until then I don't think he passes the base heinous level yet.

@24888: Zorin rewrite looks great. I've never seen the show but Dr. X definitely sounds like he could count, provided the show plays him heinously.

@24890: I'd be alright with a Vandal Savage rewrite.

@24902: I'm with lighty. I don't think she sounds worse than a standard Jackass Genie.

@24921: Rewrites look good to me.

@24926: I agree that doesn't really sound like meaningful affection that would be enough to disqualify Zorin.

@24927: Yeah, we learn too little about the Taker of Souls to label it a CM.

@24953: Can you elaborate on who Lewis is and what he does?

edited 4th May '14 4:20:26 PM by OccasionalExister

HamburgerTime Since: Apr, 2010
#24943: May 4th 2014 at 4:21:47 PM

[up] Thanks! Anyone else have any comments on the entry I described here?

TVRulezAgain Since: Sep, 2011
#24944: May 4th 2014 at 5:02:45 PM

I'd say cut it. It makes little sense.

Christabella from the film adaptation of Silent Hill had 3 votes to keep. This is her current YMMV entry:

  • Complete Monster: Christabella The manipulative leader of a local religious cult from the film adaptation who believes in finding and burning those who are considered to be witches. After Christabella's sister gave birth to a daughter out of wedlock, Christabella had the child condemned as a witch. Alessa was bullied and abused by her peers daily, while the members of the cult and her aunt not only allowed it, but encouraged it. When Alessa was nine years old, Christabella convinced Dahlia that she needed to be "purified", calling her "filth" and saying her innocence must be restored. Christabella then had Alessa laid over a bed of burning coals to be burned alive as a witch. When one of the chains holding Alessa in place had broken, Christabella and her followers fled from the church. When Christabella discovers that Rose's adoptive daughter, Sharon, is identical to Alessa, she has her followers attempt to kidnap Rose and Cybil. Rose escapes, but Christabella orders her men to beat Cybil as she lays on the ground bleeding. Christabella then goes to the apartment of her now mad sister, Dahlia, where she finds Sharon and kidnaps her. At the church, Christabella has Cybil burned alive as a witch, and attempts to do the same to Sharon when Rose arrives.

Does that look good?

VeryMelon Since: Jul, 2011 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#24945: May 4th 2014 at 5:59:58 PM

I'd like to think so, considering I wrote it when I brought her up last year.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#24946: May 4th 2014 at 7:21:59 PM

Just got back from Amazing Spider-Man 2. Without giving spoilers, there are no qualifiers.

lrrose Since: Jul, 2009
#24947: May 4th 2014 at 7:24:37 PM

In this night's Game of Thrones episode, Karl Tanner died. He was not portrayed sympathetically at all and had no redeeming features. His actions were still heinous by the standards of the story, so I support including him.

HamburgerTime Since: Apr, 2010
#24948: May 4th 2014 at 7:24:54 PM

[up][up] I'm told a very Unexpected Character who was extraordinarily nasty in his source material shows up, though. We'll have to wait for other films in the series to come out.

edited 4th May '14 7:25:12 PM by HamburgerTime

SuperSaiyaMan Since: Jun, 2009
#24949: May 4th 2014 at 7:40:50 PM

Just saw it too Ambar.

I'd at least put Harry on a watchlist to see what happens in the next film.

TheOverlord Since: Jan, 2015
#24950: May 4th 2014 at 7:44:11 PM

@ 24958, I'm not surprised at all, I think the Spider-Man movies prefer sympathetic villains to evil ones.

@ 24954. I have no problem with waiting on Rat King, to see if he does more evil things in the future, especially since he has a habit of becoming more vile with each new appearance, but I have question: where do we set the heinous standard in regards to western animation aimed at children? We said animated Mongul counted after he committed Mind Rape against Superman and Rat King has Mind Raped Splinter couple of times, in addition to kidnapping a bunch of random people to so he can use them as lab rats, including children and teenagers. He also ruined two people's lives and has attempted to ruin more, he may have failed, but its not due to lack of trying.

[up][up] Are you talking about The Gentleman?.

edited 4th May '14 7:59:46 PM by TheOverlord


Total posts: 326,048
Top