Well, we're almost done with the category cleanup, so I'd like to hear some suggestions. Basically I'd like to discuss some category renamings and mergings.
Well, we're almost done with the category cleanup, so I'd like to hear some suggestions. Basically I'd like to discuss some category renamings and mergings.
Everything you said was true. So despite not being funny, RWBY villains would be classified as "Comedy Villains" because they ae from a comedic series?
P.S. I think the Joker is funny...
Personally I do not see RWBY (baseline) as a comedy. While loaded with plenty of lighthearted moments, the overall story is serious. Unlike its Chibi offering. Or "wassisname and Val".
Most comedies' main characters do not lose an arm. I think Archer is about the most "serious/dramatic comedy" show I can think of (without being animé), but it is also targeted for adult demographics.
Again… Personal assessment.
And in that vein, Joker in most of his baseline appearances is serious even if a *few* funny moments can be found with him. But then there are venues/vehicles/stories which are comedies/parodies from the ground-up and thus he is comedic within that frame. Such as the varied HISHE outings.
Another thing: are we still merging "Batman Villains", "Superman Villains", "Wonder Woman Villains", etc. into just "DC Comics Villains"? Same with Marvel and Darkhorse?
No, we are not.
NerdWithAKeyboard wrote: Another thing: are we still merging "Batman Villains", "Superman Villains", "Wonder Woman Villains", etc. into just "DC Comics Villains"? Same with Marvel and Darkhorse?
No we are not. However we *are* restricting those categories to villains who started with those Heroes, or are BEST KNOWN for being their main nemesis.
In other words, just because4 a "Hero X Villain" can be spotted in a "Hero Y story" but are otherwise not known for being their main foe, they are not to be tagged as a "Hero Y Villain".
This is because, especially with comic-originated franchises and titles, they have such a long history and have crossed over soo many times that just about every villain of a particular copyright-holder could be tagged with all the Heroes of that copyright'r.
For example, Dr Sylvannas and his family originated in the pages of Shazam! as a Captain Marvel and Family Villain. However he has also faced Superman but should not be tagged as a "Superman Villain".
Also, I wondered if we could create "Horror Comedy Villains" or "Dark Comedy Villains" for characters like Krampus and Circus Baby for when the tag "Comedy" isn't quite right. I dunno, just a thought.
NerdWithAKeyboard wrote: Also, I wondered if we could create "Horror Comedy Villains" or "Dark Comedy Villains" for characters like Krampus and Circus Baby for when the tag "Comedy" isn't quite right. I dunno, just a thought.
I'd be willing to consider "Dark Comedy". How many characters would fit it? Need at least 20.
However, would need examples of what is on other side of the line for "dark comedy". What would not be dark enough? Otherwise we'll have issues as to what qualifies or not.
"Dark Comedy" could be for charaters from dark comedies that, in any other comedic situation, would be classified as "Game Changers". Unlike The Rhino or Thrax, who are disturbing presences in otherwise lighthearted comedies (thus making them "Game Changers"), these would be threatening presences in more dark-natered comedies. Examples could include:
Krampus (Horror Comedy)
The Baby (Who's Your Daddy) (Black Humor)
Almost all the characters from Five Night's at Freddy's: Sister Location (Horror Comedy)
Almost all the villains from RWBY (Comedic Action Fantasy with dark elements/characters to the point where "Comedy" seems inappropriate.)
Almost all characters from South Park (Exploitation and Black Humor)
Also, there could potentially be Game Changers within even this, being evil beyond the subject matter of their respective franchise (Cinder Fall, Eric Cartman).
For dark villains from lighthearted comedies, "Game Changer" and "Comedy Villains".
For funny villains from comedies, "Comic Relief Villains" and "Comedy Villains".
For funny villains from other works, "Comic Relief Villains".
Eric Cartman is in no shape or form a Game Changer, so he did a few evil deeds that went further than South Park's norms - big deal, he's NEVER a threat that lasts.. he's ALWAYS plays for laughs.. people fanboy over Cartman's "evil" nature but really you can't get more dark-as-mud comedy villain that Cartman : he doesn't darken the show in the slightest, in fact he tends to be the one the audience enjoys because of how Stupid Evil he can be.
also no need for "Black Comedy" at all, it fits under Exploitation - if the comedy is seen as offensive or disturbing it is Exploitation.. simple.. comedy is too hard to class and what is the point of removing cats if we just start repopulating the wiki with new ones?
all Black Comedy fits nicely under Exploitation (media that is controversial, often deliberately so - including anything from porn to black comedy series (South Park and Family Guy are in there) : Horror is often a type of Exploitation, so Comedy Horrors that go further into disturbing or controversial stuff over traditional slapstick go under Exploitation as well (for example Gremlins goes under Fantasy, Horror, Comedy because it is relatively light-hearted for what it is.. something like Evil Dead (the original) goes under Exploitation because its mix of horror and comedy was for adult audiences and designed to shock (the reason Evil Dead was allowed so much gore was because it invoked "Safety in Audacity, censors decided the gore was so ridiculously over-the-top it was funny rather than offensive so it got released with more gore than usual for its time (though still labelled a "Video Nasty" in Britian, where censorship went insane.. but that's a completely different matter).