<p>today I open a discussion on a rather obscure Marvel villain but one who is absolutely a Pure Evil, however I can not add it without a vote and discussion - the article needs a lot of work but here's why I feel the PE title fits to this guy.</p><p>
</p><p>he is a psychopathic villain who has made it his life's work to torture, kill and absolutely torment mutant children and their loved ones.. this is a full-grown man who gets his kicks off the unspeakable psychological torment of very young victims, the oldest member of Power Pack is only 19 and the youngest was only *FIVE* years old when she began her "superhero" career (which shows comics don't have much for child safety laws but anyway).</p><p>
</p><p>This.. creature.. happily tortures children as young as five years of age, calling them "freaks" and threatening to cannibalize them for being "evil" mutants, when he is a guy who sold his own humanity so that he could obtain demonic powers and kill / torture more mutant kids.</p><p>
</p><p>this is what makes him especially vicious even by supervillain standards, he could easily try and fight X-Men or Avengers or adult heroes but he specifically targets the under-age Power Pack and truly delights in traumatizing them - he even went as far as kidnapping their families and forcing them to expose their powers to their parents, causing extreme PTSD.. he then paraded the families around a literal Hell on Earth to further mind-r***e them, intent on killing them.. of course his bloated ass was defeated before he could achieve that end-goal but it is still extreme levels of sadism even for comic book bad guys.</p><p>
</p><p>he also does crap like kidnapping young children, forcing them to firebomb their own homes and then tries to sell them off to demons for eternal torment - all because he gets his jollies out of the anguish of mutant children.</p><p>
</p><p>villains.wikia.com/wiki/Bogeyman_(Marvel)</p>
94,337
pages
ALL POSTS
All posts by Scottish-Terror
Thank fandom's utter disregard for allowing community's to have a look they ask for and instead force every wiki to look like a trash mobile-game, to be honest.. this wiki would of been as well migrating to a different platform but too late for that now, thus it is stuck looking like trash.. like every wiki shall soon.. again due to Fandom switching ALL wikis to this format, against the wishes of most of its user-base.
<p>updated info: this guy is so bad that even *before* he sold his soul to Hell the mutant mystic known as Magik (sister to X-Men's Colossus) once found out his true desire in life and it was "to get rich via the mass murder of innocent mutant children".</p><p>Magik was so appalled by this she cast him to Hell, where he gained his demonic powers - Magik is a woman who lived in Hell for years and has had contact with guys like Master Pandemonium and so on.. who are also horrible demonic overlords, yet she was shocked by Bogeyman's depraved goals.</p>
<p>IMPORTANT NOTE: making rude and foolish comments is not funny nor smart, it will earn you the same blocks trolling or other disruptive behaviors would - don't waste your time or that of others with these disruptive acts, it only serves to take up space that can be used by others who want to contribute like sensible people.</p>
<p>well one of the more obvious ones for me would be about how the film (despite its fantasy elements of superheroism etc) will deal with dissociation and mental illness - since its main villain is a "split personality", the obvious question is will the movie explore any of this psychologically and show a bit on such conditions and how they effect people?</p><p>
</p><p>a lot of superhero and action movie just make the madmen Joker-esque with little real psychology or insight into the human mind and how such characters could evolve.</p><p>
</p><p>while I'm sure he has it sorted out there's some questions that could be asked, especially with how mental illness is a big topic and one that people still fear to address, especially with movies.. the argument of "it's just fantasy" doesn't always cut it, even with fantastical stories you should be thinking on how it can relate to reality.</p>
</p><p>a lot of superhero and action movie just make the madmen Joker-esque with little real psychology or insight into the human mind and how such characters could evolve.</p><p>
</p><p>while I'm sure he has it sorted out there's some questions that could be asked, especially with how mental illness is a big topic and one that people still fear to address, especially with movies.. the argument of "it's just fantasy" doesn't always cut it, even with fantastical stories you should be thinking on how it can relate to reality.</p>
<p>ToS violation, troll-article and generally not the kind of content we want on this wiki.. so no, none of this stuff.</p>
<p>the irony is the online thugs of many SJW groups are much more fascistic and cruel than any other cause and employ tactics directly out of the book of some of history's worst dictatorships - a lot of blame comes when companies like BBC etc empower these types of people by downplaying the acts they do.</p><p>no matter if one's cause is for a "good cause" or not it is one's action that defines how one is truly remembered - a lot of the SJW movement (especially online) need look on that.</p><p>
</p><p>the other side can be just as bad too (for example people who think there's an active conspiracy to "ruin" all "boy's media" etc and blame the actors, when it is usually higher-ups who cause the problems by pandering to the online thugs.. and of course the trolls who use online personas of "SJW" stereotypes to make things worse for everyone).</p><p>
</p><p>as was pointed out, I don't care what Doctor looks like, what matters is Doctor is given their unique, heroic and inventive character while continually being challenged by new and inventive opponents - so far I don't see too much of that being done and I don't fault the actors as much as either writers or higher-ups because no Doctor can survive a season if writing is not there to help them along.</p>
</p><p>the other side can be just as bad too (for example people who think there's an active conspiracy to "ruin" all "boy's media" etc and blame the actors, when it is usually higher-ups who cause the problems by pandering to the online thugs.. and of course the trolls who use online personas of "SJW" stereotypes to make things worse for everyone).</p><p>
</p><p>as was pointed out, I don't care what Doctor looks like, what matters is Doctor is given their unique, heroic and inventive character while continually being challenged by new and inventive opponents - so far I don't see too much of that being done and I don't fault the actors as much as either writers or higher-ups because no Doctor can survive a season if writing is not there to help them along.</p>
(Edited by Scottish-Terror)
<p>well, it had to be done - I've followed Who for a while and despite the fact the show has ups and downs I'm sadly of the mind now that BBC has truly lost the plot in regards of how to handle the franchise - thus Doctor Who requires a rework or at worst a rest then a reboot (under a different generation of writers).</p><p>
</p><p>Let me be clear, the whole controversy over female Doctor is stupid for any Who fan as the lore of the series has always been that Time Lords can regenerate as different genders - heck, they don't even need to regenerate as "humans".. so the problem with the show is not this, it is a horribly apparent trend in BBC in general to push very blunt and very unneeded messages to people in a forced manner that undermines / ruins creativity.</p><p>
</p><p>That and the stories just do not match what Who is meant to be, tbh.. the enemy of the franchise is not more diversity and culture (that's what it thrives on), the enemy is writers and higher-ups who instead of truly embracing diversity and culture ram their personal views as facts and do not disguise that.. unapologetic propaganda is never a good thing and never "progressive".</p><p>
</p><p>so I'm sad to say I don't see this new season lasting long or if it does I see it as ruining a lot of the franchise unless BBC gets their collective heads out of their rear ends and wise up - Marvel made a similar mistake with the "All New" travesty but recovered somewhat with aid of MCU etc.. I hope BBC can do similar but I don't hold much hope.</p><p>
</p><p>a female Doctor should be a chance to show the creative, witty and infinitely wondrous nature of Who - not a hollow shell of a thing used for BBC to turn into propaganda pieces either under writers who are uninterested in making Who stories and just want to use the show's massive fan-base to push their agenda or higher-ups who are forcing such tactics.. again, diversity should be utilized to make incredible new stories and backgrounds, it can't do so when stifled by powers-that-be who clearly don't care about the quality over their own personal biases.</p><p>
</p><p>iif you enjoy the new season, all power to you, I just thought I'd share my views on it and why I do not think this is a great move for the franchise and certainly doesn't push it forward - Doctor is a character who can do anything, be anyone and share any message in the hands of good writers and higher-ups.. if used simply as a tool for propaganda he/she loses the power that made Doctor such a great character (in my view).</p>
</p><p>Let me be clear, the whole controversy over female Doctor is stupid for any Who fan as the lore of the series has always been that Time Lords can regenerate as different genders - heck, they don't even need to regenerate as "humans".. so the problem with the show is not this, it is a horribly apparent trend in BBC in general to push very blunt and very unneeded messages to people in a forced manner that undermines / ruins creativity.</p><p>
</p><p>That and the stories just do not match what Who is meant to be, tbh.. the enemy of the franchise is not more diversity and culture (that's what it thrives on), the enemy is writers and higher-ups who instead of truly embracing diversity and culture ram their personal views as facts and do not disguise that.. unapologetic propaganda is never a good thing and never "progressive".</p><p>
</p><p>so I'm sad to say I don't see this new season lasting long or if it does I see it as ruining a lot of the franchise unless BBC gets their collective heads out of their rear ends and wise up - Marvel made a similar mistake with the "All New" travesty but recovered somewhat with aid of MCU etc.. I hope BBC can do similar but I don't hold much hope.</p><p>
</p><p>a female Doctor should be a chance to show the creative, witty and infinitely wondrous nature of Who - not a hollow shell of a thing used for BBC to turn into propaganda pieces either under writers who are uninterested in making Who stories and just want to use the show's massive fan-base to push their agenda or higher-ups who are forcing such tactics.. again, diversity should be utilized to make incredible new stories and backgrounds, it can't do so when stifled by powers-that-be who clearly don't care about the quality over their own personal biases.</p><p>
</p><p>iif you enjoy the new season, all power to you, I just thought I'd share my views on it and why I do not think this is a great move for the franchise and certainly doesn't push it forward - Doctor is a character who can do anything, be anyone and share any message in the hands of good writers and higher-ups.. if used simply as a tool for propaganda he/she loses the power that made Doctor such a great character (in my view).</p>
I have seen more and more articles being made, especially by new editors, that simply have a picture and random words - this is unacceptable : here is absolute bare minimum requirements for any article on his wiki, short or not..
1) the name of the villain (obviously)
2) the name of the film / game / franchise the villain appears in
3) the reasons WHY they are villains (crimes and bad deeds)
4) one or more good quality image, not stolen from other websites or random google search (make sure it is legal)
5) proper section headings (which should be HISTORY, APPEARANCE, ABILITIES and TRIVIA (do not use trivia for random gibberish, only for appropriate things.. none of this "villain is like villain x" nonsense).
if your article lacks even these basics it will be deleted on sight - which means you have to ask admins to remake said page.. laziness is not an excuse, if you truly wish to make a page you can at least follow these simple rules and earn it a "Stub".. saving us all the headache.
quality over quantity - remember that new users can only make one page anyway, so make it count and don't waste it on unacceptably vague pages.
that's a parody though.. like Red Skull in Phineas and Ferbs or Darkseid in Super Friends.. which don't really apply tbh, since they aren't in-canon (or I seriously *hope* TT Go isn't canon).
it's Trigon.. it can't ever be anything but "YES".
just like Darkseid, Red Skull, Mongul etc.. there are some characters that PE almost always applies to no matter what.. Trigon is one of these cases.
note that this is my opinion on the matter, not the universal nor even popular approach - just stating that there are flaws in how the trope is made, like all tropes.. nothing is perfect because everything is in a constant state of evolution : especially in "what makes true evil".
we could debate for centuries and it would keep going so I'll just say that this was my opinion and be done - it would just derail the thread and no one can win an argument of this kind anyway, it's philosophy - no winners, only opinions.
for the topic at hand I vote: "No".
no, they can care as long as it doesn't change what they do nor that they will sacrifice people they care about - they will still feel somewhat bad about it but the fact they'll do it anyway should be enough..
let's say someone is a mass-murderer and terrorist yet has a friend they don't like to see get hurt, said friend is with them and in the end they don't want to hurt them but ultimately said friend gets in the way or they have no option, so they kill said friend regardless of caring for them.. that shows far more actual evil than a guy who values nothing.. because if you don't give a crap about anyone else then what makes you any different than a billion other stereotypical "I'm eviler than you" bad guys out there?
if you can show care for others yet still be willing to kill them (albeit with reluctance) you are far more terrifying beast than any of the "always about me" types.
that's why PE / CM as stands is rather flawed, it depends on the idea that to be purely evil one must have zero care for anything or anyone - that's cartoon style evil at best, true evil is when you can care for others but still sacrifice them regardless if need be.
I disagree that PEs should be disqualified if they show very basic "care" for close relatives or friends, even Hitler "loved" his dog.. the fact is an absolutely evil monstrosity of a character can still have basic comfort from a select few.. otherwise they are just one-dimensional, drooling idiots.. psychopaths of the highest degree can have people they "care" for (or at least won't torture as much as others).
this is my main beef with PE / CM as a trope, completely unrealistic.. even Alan Yates had some level of concern / affection for his girlfriend.. the fact is he still abandoned her in the end.
I think PE can show a degree of concern / affection for select individuals as long as it doesn't detract from the fact they are still horrible entities.. sure you may love your daughter or spouse or that guy at the bar you get drinks for and find a "friend" but it sure as hell doesn't make you any less of a monster if you also have a basement full of starving orphans you like to saw in half after your done.. if you are caring to some but horrendous to everyone else I'd argue it shows you as a far more disturbing and fearful entity than a "always chaotic evil" / "don't care for anyone ever" stereotype.
a being incapable of love / affection is scary.. a being who can show some degree of affection to others while also being able to inflict unspeakable horrors on others is TERRIFYING.
just my opinions.
depends on the reasoning for suicide - if it is due to tragic mental illness or being pushed too far, no.. however if it is for reasons that simply amplify their evil, yes..
a good example are suicide-bombers / kamikazees and mass-murderers.. they will keep killing and want to die but their evil is amplified because not only do they want their own deaths they want as many innocent people to perish with them as possible.
also evil by its nature is a morality very prone to the "if I can't have something no one else can" - thus a truly evil entity is equally prone to fits of rage and suicide if things don't go the way they wanted.. many evil entities would see themselves and the entire world / universe perish rather than allow heroes to be victorious.. evil is petty.
suicide is only sympathetic if it is committed out of sorrow and with the intention of solely killing oneself - when you try and kill off everyone else around you it is no longer sympathetic in the slightest.. much is if you have DIssociative Disorder, it is sympathetic if the disorder harms mainly yourself but if you end up forming personas that kill, torture or generally ruin everyone around them it is no longer sympathetic.. (that's why some mentally ill qualify as villains, despite being ill they lose sympathy if their actions become heinous enough).
Time Lords are difficult because they are completely different beings when they regenerate, modern Master was manipulated by a greater evil and Whoverse has insane heinous standards as even the most basic Who villains are reality-destroyers.
the classic Master is seen as PE, the modern era is too wibbly-wobbly.. Missy may count but again this is a show with so many insane heinous standards you need major evidence.
pretty sure the two aren't exclusive - ANYONE can suffer psychosis and psychopathy is a personality disorder.. you can be both a psychopath and a psychotic.. the whole "utterly insane" rule is flawed because no one, even the most disturbed psychotic, is permanently out of their heads and all of them can register *some* degree of reality (even the infamous Caligula would know some reality, despite how crazy fiction makes him out to be).
if one fits the criteria of both I don't see how they can't be added, the Hannibal quote about all psychopaths being sane is also flawed - to quote the Devil from Devil's Advocate : "consider the source".. Hannibal is himself a psychopath so using his quote about all them being sane is dubious as it is a very high case of Unreliable Narrator.. a guy who cannibalizes people and masterminds gruesome crimes is not someone qualified to say all psychopaths are sane, since it is questionable how sane he truly is anyway.
not all psychopaths are sane, not all psychotics are permanently insane.. this is why we shouldn't of got rid of the "sociopath" subcategory for psychopaths.. sociopath would work perfectly for characters who are too unpredictable to be classed as "traditional psychopaths" but clearly have psychopathic tendencies in addition to psychosis.
Alan Yates
oh, that IS what the category means in fiction anyway.. half the time Snuff Film just means "murder that is filmed and found / uploaded to public".. it is horribly inaccurate but so is "psychopath" for every violent lunatic but fiction is fiction for a reason.
for the sake of fiction "Snuff Film" has always meant "filmed torture / murder" - regardless of monetary gain or not.
also just like "heroes" what does and does not make a "villain" is one of the most debated and controversial topics in all of human history - thus no one will ever agree on anything on this wiki, save for the most extreme examples.
because the wiki deals with evil and morally dubious characters it constantly faces the ire of the multi-ethical real world, where no two people have the same belief of what is and is not "evil" or "wrong" (again, save for some extreme examples).
"one man's hero is another man's villain" ~ Dukat from Star Trek.. while Dukat is an EXTREME example of evil his quote is factual.. no matter how vile a character may be someone will defend them.. his quote also means no matter how much you may see a character as a hero or neutral someone will see them as a villain.. we've tried to limit this infinite loop by having one Golden Rule:
to qualify a character must of committed at least one real crime that is of a selfish nature or of such a severe nature it endangers a significant part of their story (for example a thief will qualify if they do so out of greed, not out of necessity or out of a greater good (Robin Hood).)