Sorry about your new account. I thought the User of this account had plagiarized your old profile page. Soon I realized that your old account was blocked. I know I can be rude ask, but what exactly happened to your old account for it be blocked?
WeedleMchairybug won't leave me alone. He even said the CM cateogry should be deleted. I told him what you said about him trying to use other villains as an example and how that's a lazy way of getting his arguments more valid and that they live up to their standards in their entertainment but he was at it again. He couldn't just agree to disagree. And he says how Hunchback isn't a family film and that means Frollo's actions aren't heinous by the standards of the story. IT IS A FAMILY FILM!!!! Just because it has certain certain subject material doesn't mean it's any less of a family film. Family films have thematic material and allot of stuff that seems adult. Yes it shoud have been rated PG but that doesn't change anything. PLEASE GIVE IT UP!!!! I've officially told him I'm just gonna agree to disagree with him. I told him he should go to you and that you're more of an expert on the CM trope than I am but I don't think it'll do much. He's entiled to his opinion, but there's a difference between an opinion and making a poor analysis. He just won't take anything I say into full account. He's just using little ittty bitty ticks to make his arguments more justified, but all he's doing is either repeating himself or just not coming to grips with the fact that he has no real arguments. Sorry but I had to rant to someone. Btw, sorry about your account man.
Once more, I'm not terribly enthusiastic on Weedle's points on Frollo. I can see why some wouldn't consider Frollo to be a Monster, but his views only he can see (in much the same way TV Tropes doesn't see Syndrome as a Monster... I may be a devoted member of their Monster voting forum, but there are some points I absolutely refuse to tolerate).
Don't get me wrong, I can understand as well. Heck I myself even questioned it at first. But saying he felt remorse and wanted to legitimately help Quasi is an invalid argument especially when he knows Frollo flat out said he would one day be of use to him. Besides, Frollo proves it's just about his concern for his image rather than legitimate love when he tries to KILL QUASI!!!!
Hey! I just would like to apologize for my constant arguing with you about the CM category. I understand that Complete Monsters are the baddest of the bad and maybe I do have a lot more to learn about what makes a Complete Monster. I'm just not looking at actions but also looking through a story point of view. Like with the Disney Villains Wiki I'm looking at if could the story or stories if it's a tv series could there have been a happy ending if the character wasn't in the story? If the answer is no then I consider them a monster. That's why I consider the Evil Queen one. Although one sided in her actions she provoked fear in not just Snow but the Seven Dwarves as well as The Huntsman. Also Snow White couldn't have gotten her happy ending as long she was trying to escape The Queen. I realize that you might have a different opinion than me and I respect that. And with I say I'm sorry!
Complete Monster is Your Mileage May Vary for a reason. One will have a vastly different view upon what a Monster is than another. I prefer to look at it strictly by-the-book, and though I don't always agree with TV Tropes, I sometimes find myself enforcing their criteria elsewhere, which I often regret.
But I ask what are your thoughts on Prince Phobos from W.I.T.C.H? He's almost exactly like Scar from The Lion King. But unlike him Phobos already had taken over the kingdom at the very start of the series. And just like Scar he tries to kill his sibling. Who is his sister to be exact. Doesn't succeed. But if you read the book series Phobos is much more worse.
Also don't feel bad for wanting to enforce Tvtropes criteria. As I do it some times too. Because while like you said some of the information on TVTropes is questionable and debatable. There are some points that I do agree with. Like I don't think that the Queen Elsa Of Arendelle article should have been deleted because TVTROPES listed as the Big Bad of the film because she was the cause of the majority of the conflict of the movie. Whether intentional or not. Also Let It Go is considered by them as a "villain song ." I've tried explaining this but apparently a lot of users don't agree with me which is ok.
Hey I had a question regarding Angelus. I know you're not terribly familiar with Buffy, but I'll fill in the details. I added him to Pedophile considering he raped that 16 year old gypsy girl while he was 26 (well technically he was MUCH older than that but you know what I mean). I'm just not sure what laws regarding sex and age were like back in the late 1800s or whatever year it was when he did that, or if the law was any different now. I asked the creator of the Pedophilia page, but it seems like that person hasn't really been on there for a while, so...
Laws on sexual interaction were a lot looser in those days. Even barring that out, I'm not really thinking that this counts as an act of pedophilia. The gypsy in question wasn't a child, she was a decently-aged teenager.
And what a wonderful thing to add to Angelus' repitoire. I'm not entirely familiar with Buffy (I've researched it, though) but if I'm correct, didn't he try and pull down all of humanity into Hell for kicks?
So based on our conversation on Bryagh and why he's your favourite villain, you pretty much said that next to Thrax, he was the straghtes example of a CM you've ever seen in an animated family film. Does this mean you like Thrax somewhat?
Oh, yes. Thrax, solely on a scale of evil, is likely the most evil animated movie villain period. I can remember my jaw quite literally hanging when he started gloating about murdering a child. The voice and rather unique design helps.
A virus that goes from body to body, destroying each and every living being within, for the sole factor of making himself infamous... Now, replace "body" with "world" or "universe" and that's the general gist of what Thrax is. He's a serial killer, except he does that on a cosmic (to a cell, anyways) scale.
Now, between who's more heinous (Thrax and Bryagh) I'm honestly not sure. Thrax has the child-murdering thing done, and by hell he's one of the only villains I've seen who actively brags about it, but Bryagh is shown devouring an entire nest of the unborn eggs of his own species. I could pen to hunger, but given Bryagh's nature as a destructive, murderous sadist and that eating dragon eggs makes him a cannibal and a child murder...
Bryagh was also a lot more proactive about killing the heroes. Sure, Thrax tried to kill them himself, but he did so within the ranges of a child-friendly film. I'm not saying attempted murder isn't any worse than the result (quite the opposite, as you know) but it pales in comparison to the onscreen double-digits kills he scores. Bryagh, on the other hand, devastates the heroes, murder the love interest of token knight Sir Orrin in front of him, and laughs in his face when he starts crying before burning him alive as well. Bryagh was quite literally responsible for wiping out more than half the heroic cast in the film. The only ones who made it out was the main protagonist himself and the ones who were already dead. The way he does it with such callousness is... remarkable.
Now, granted, Thrax still had, as I said, double-digit kills, but none of them were major characters. Whether this makes it any less heinous is up to you (murder is still murder) but for a virus, Thrax still managed to bar down that whole "cosmic serial killer" thing. Bryagh, himself, was helping to engineer a plan to destroy all humanity, but he wasn't actually carrying out this plan himself, just doing his master's dirty work (and, subtracting one time he delibrately disobeyed Ommadon and tried to kill the person he was supposed to bring back alive for kicks, doing it remarkably well). Both are Omnicidal Maniacs in a way, but when you look at it from a certain perspective (each human body has trillions of cells, and Osmosis Jones makes it quite clear these things are very well sentient and die as soon as their human goes) Thrax does the whole "omnicidal" thing better.
Honestly, it comes down to a matter of the villain's character. Thrax did what he did well, but honestly, he's slick, smooth, charmingly evil, and, dare I say, worthy of the "leather pants" treatment. He's evil, but he's got fangirls for a reason. Bryagh, on the other hand, is just a cold-blooded dick. He oozes utter vileness, punctuates three of his four lines with a despicable, snorting laugh (one of which, again, was geared towards a mourning Sir Orrin who's love interest Danielle Bryagh had just crushed to death) and given his general ruthlessness and the fact he's got little character aside from that of someone who lives to kill (you see him anxious to lead his fleet into battle near the climax, and Bryagh's eyes quite literally shine eagerly as Ommadon tells him to "burn, demolish, devour, and grind [his enemies] to dust") means I think it's impossible for Bryagh to receive any sort of a leather pants treatment. I wouldn't know, and I don't think anyone will know, as I'm sadly part of a rather small cult following of The Flight of Dragons from whence Bryagh originates from.
So, on a sheer scale of evil, I'll probably give that to Thrax (as while he didn't have to power to end humanity, he did what he was capable of and still managed to get away with the implied murder of hundreds of billions of decidedly sentient cells and at least three humans) but when it comes down to pure depravity, I'll tilt that in favor of Bryagh. Both villains are evil, and I love 'em both for it.
Quite well explained. It's so weird, but this one online critic I watch had just given a review of the Flight of the Dragons right after I found out about it through this wiki. Yeah, he didn't care for it, but I still wanna see it and I usually take his word for it. I mean ok maybe it looks like their mouths aren't moving when they talk, but so what?
first, thank you for ending that weird rant Emperor Gear went on.. second, I have a query :
can Valeyard be considered a complete monster or does he fail for the same reason as Akhaten?
reasons I'd say he counts more is:
1) he has a choice not to be evil (since he evolved from a good character, rather being born "pure evil")
2) he's very intelligent (and thus knows what he's doing is wrong but does so anyway)
3) while by far not the most destructive he is a very petty and ruthless foe who will literally do anything to succeed (neutral evil at its worst)
some negatives, however:
1) his appearance is rather brief (and debatable on modern canon)
2) he is outdone by some characters (Davros comes to mind)
3) while not a parasite that requires evil to survive he is claimed to be made of all the "evil" parts of the Doctor.. so while he can have a choice to be good it may be harder (since his nature would be inclined towards "evil")
just wanted to see what one thought, in Who (like any massive franchise) there can be multiple CMs.. but true CMs are always rare, which is why I want to make sure any character I believe *may* qualify is checked first with others (to minimize bias)
Doing my duty with Gear. He was a bully who well earned his year-long ban.
As for the Valeyard, I'm not entirely sure. I'm not extremely familiar with Doctor Who (I've done my research, but the paper can only give you so much) much less the serial from where Valeyard originates, but I can say this much.
Being "non-canon" is irrelevant to Valeyard's inclusion as a potential Monster. Whether he affects the modern canon or not doesn't matter, because Valeyard is still a Whoniverse character and should be measured by their same standards.
As for the latter two parts, he may end up outshone by some of the more destructive villains, but if he still manages to stand out in his own way (Danes counts with his one crime with how brutally he plays it) he can still count. Due to a matter of resources, since Valeyard doesn't exactly have the means to end all reality, Valeyard likely can't be measured on the same grounds as Davros anyways because of the lower scale of his crimes.
As for being made of evil... If he knows what he's doing is heinous but still continues to do it anyways, regardless of his moral factor, I think he can make a case for having valid moral agency.
So, you're familiar with this stuff than I am, but I think it comes down to a scale of heinousness. What all does Valeyard do?
basically the Valeyard wanted to steal the Doctor's remaining regenerations and keep them for himself, ridding himself of his "other half" : to do this he manipulated the other Time Lords into hosting a trial, with the intention of murdering all present after they'd served his purpose.
He manipulated the Matrix to show the Doctor in a very negative light in order to try and secure a definite "guilty" (and thus get his regenerations) : ironically Doctor was only saved when the Master revealed Valeyard's trickery (having enjoyed seeing Doctor suffer but not wishing to see him die (at least by Valeyard) ).
He escaped capture and was pursued by Doctor, who stopped him using a particle weapon to destroy the Court (once again trying to kill everyone present) : Valeyard was apparently destroyed after that (but like many Who villains it is later shown he survived). <- this was all his first appearance, after this he went on to do many horrible things..
By far his most EVIL act was becoming Jack the Ripper, using a Dark Matrix to corrupt past Doctors into committing crimes on his behalf and feeding the machine using victims, uncaring of the ravages it caused time.. his appearances are far too vast to list here :
note all but his first appearance are Prose so I have not read them (only watched the show, have not (admitedly) got into books so much) : however the Jack the Ripper / Dark Matrix scheme is by far one of the most diabolical things I've heard of.. (just wanted to clarify that I haven't personally seen Valeyard past his first appearance)
So I've read through the article... He corrupted other Doctors into doing vile acts as well as his little stint as the Ripper, and there's that little addition of being willing to kill his past self...
So, between trying to steal the Doctor's regenerations, multiple attempted mass murders (as well as everyone he killed as the Ripper, and all the deaths he influenced through corrupting other Doctors) and being willing to kill his past self, I'd say he's past the general heinous scale to be a Complete Monster. However, I'm still unsure on whether he's heinous enough on the scale of the general Doctor Who universe. Since his appearances seem a little disjointed from modern canon, do we measure him by his own scale or by the general heinous standard of Doctor Who?
that's always a problem, Who is like DBZ and comic books.. with so many variant time-lines and canons, plus literally BILLIONS of extremely nasty villains.. some of which would easily be CMs in other media..
many Who villains are vastly destructive but what makes Valeyard different from most in Who anyway is if he can choose to be "good" or "evil" : as a great many beings in Who really can no longer choose (even Davros is unable to understand good, due to becoming so corrupted).. Master can never be a CM due to the fact he's too insane to know "good" or "evil" (especially modern Master / Missy).
I guess for Who lore at least heinous comes down to : "can the character tell he is doing wrong yet does it anyway?" if it is "yes" then they are (usually) a lot nastier than most others in the show (who tend to be stuck in a set mindset, delusion or so on..).
Valeyard was designed to be a CM but due to outside complications (such as retcons, new writers with conflicting ideas.. the usual craziness of very long running media) he became more and more forgotten and aspects of his character "bled" into newer incarnations of the Master.
that's why modern Master / Missy is a lot more monstrous than the old one (yet still unable to qualify due to being completely insane (and not in control of actions) ).
the 12th (technically 13th) Doctor's original lack of care and even slight malevolence at first may of been a nod to Valeyard but was (again) likely dropped.. making him more like the first Doctor ("mean" but "good").
so.. I think Valeyard is a concept that originally embodied the idea of "neutral evil" in Who but that concept has died away due to the vast changes in the show.
if a new version of him returns I'd be tempted to say we should make a new page on that version and keep the original as a CM.. (since Who is infamous for changing canon quite frequently by its very nature)
unless the new version, of course, had links to the old (as Master did).. but I doubt any new incarnations of valeyard would want to delve into the original's past (as it conflicts with current lore).
true, the recent scheme Missy did reminded me of something Valeyard would of done rather than Master of old.. but I never did understand the Missy change anyway (seemed a bit unneeded, especially since the last Master was also a Joker-ish maniac).
Thought I'd get something off my chest. I'm sorry, I mean no disrespect to anyone who made the category, but I just think the SPOILER category is a bit pointless. Like for example, why does it say SPOILERS on Hans' page if his name is right above the WARNING: SPOILERS sign? It already tells you who the bad guy is. Plus, who ever searched it must already know that Hans is the bad guy. Either they searched him or they saw him in an example page for a category. Now, to be fair, I can understand if say there was a masked villain with an alias under SPOILERS because the user wouldn't know who he/she was considering, well like I said, the character is masked and they're page is under the alias, so they don't know who the villain is until later. But with the case of Hans were the title immediately tells you that Hans is the bad guy, we're already spoiling it right away. Why put a warning sign below it?
Hey is the invisible man really a Monster? No I don't mean a Complete Monster, just...well you know monster. All he is is invisible. He doesn't exactly have an monsterous features or anything like that.
sorry if I'm butting in but a monster is basically defined as "a frightening being that goes against nature, usually in an ugly / abborent way" - by that definition many mutants count.. as does Invisible Man.. mutants are kind of a subtype of monster (in fiction anyway).
same as how aliens would be a subtype of monster, if we're technical (at least to humans).
the only creatures on this website I object to people listing as monsters are Demons since Demons are a spiritual entity.. yet many people list them as monsters (which is flawed).
so.. Invisible Man is a monster, if you want to be technical.