Hi, welcome to Villains Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Nightmare (Soul Calibur) page.
Hitler's CM Monster status in "Downfall" Edit
the reason I removed it is because Downfall was unique in its handling of Hitler, he was portrayed as a vulnerable man with deep mental health problems and disabilities, he was frail and chaotic and in the end became suicidal.. the movie showed him laughing, crying and doing very human things.. now for any other character that's all well and good but to portray Hitler in such a way is extremely rare and controversial.
The movie showed him in a more tragic and human light than any I've personally seen beforehand, this by no means excuses Hitler (who was a monster) but in watching the movie he is like a frightened child rather than the usual monster he is shown as in other media. Doctor Mad (talk) 16:58, August 24, 2013 (UTC)
like I said, that is true - vulnerable portrayals of CMs exist (Frollo is an example) but the main reason I see Downfall Hitler as different is because almost every other version of Hitler is shown as a completely evil, inhuman creature and thus it is striking to see him portrayed as someone who has emotion and desires beyond his genocidal hate.. he also grows physically ill and so forth, further showing that although a horrible man he was still human.. I know it's very hard to see any Hitler portrayal as less than a CM but I believe compared to other portrayals (especially in his prime, where he was more able to think clearly and was not akin to a caged animal) the Downfall Hitler is not monstrous.. if the movie was the only fictional portrayal of Hitler I'd say he was a CM but since many other media show Hitler as being far worse than the one of Downfall I see him as a case of "compared to other versions, he is not quite CM" though very close.
Also in Downfall it can be argued he devolved from truly repulsive Lawful Evil (even Neutral Evil, if you look into it enough) to a terrifying but uncontrollable Chaotic Evil that showed he was no longer able to control himself, though as you said this is minor as Joker can be the same and is a CM Doctor Mad (talk) 17:46, August 24, 2013 (UTC)
Darth Malak is not a Complete MonsterEdit
Overseer 80, I assume that you have played KOTOR and chose LIght Side ending. I use information from Wookipedia (star wars wiki) that gives us:
"Yet despite further corruption by the dark side, Malak was never fully able to rid himself of the good in him. Moments before he died from wounds inflicted by a redeemed Revan, the Dark Lord allowed himself to let go of his hate and anger, reflecting on what his life could have been if he had not been corrupted by Revan as a Sith Lord—or if he had possessed the strength to forsake the dark side and return to the light, as Revan had done. Malak died with regret over his actions and without contempt toward his former friend."
"Malak was reminded by his former Master that he had chosen to continue to practice the dark side, and Malak told Revan that perhaps there was more truth in the than he had ever believed. The dying Dark Lord realized that he alone had to accept responsibility for his fate. With his dying words, Malak recognized that as the darkness took him, he was nothing in the end. Malak died with sorrow and regret over his deeds, but without hatred or malice toward Revan, his one-time closest friend."
I don't think that he's redeemed himself. It'll be wrong to think so. But this shows that he had at least remorse, while CMs have none. That's why I cant' agree with you.
P.S. I'll stop edit war, in any case, though I still disagree.
Ilya_Rysenkov , 30.08.2013
What sources made you think that DM is irredeemable? The facts from above that you've brought I understood. But if the facts are that he didn't show any remorse, wouldn't they be marked as non-canon?
Ilya_Rysenkov , 30.08.2013, 21.43 GMT +4
Alright so maybe it didn't seem compatible but he also felt like his parents never loved him.
I've seen the movie and it's been shown that perhaps Latham believed his cause thus making him a well-intentioned extremist or whatever. The only difference between him and Butch is that Butch is cannibalistic and is shown with having no redeemable factors. Maybe you should follow your own advice and respect my firstname.lastname@example.org (talk) 21:03, September 9, 2013 (UTC)Robinsonbecky
Did you just accuse me of hypocrisy? That stings.
Not every villain who CLAIMS to be well-intentioned actually is. Take Frollo for example. To the very bitter end he tried to pass himself off as well-intentioned, but it's abdundantly clear that he's really not due to being a psychotic, genocidal hypocrite. Latham Cole is no different. And no, he's not cannibalistic, but he's still genocidal and tried to start a war, which is just as awful. So there's not much disparity I can see. Latham Cole has no redeeming qualities. He only claims to be well-intentioned but it's clear from some of his other actions (such as his robbing his so-called allies) that he's really just, as Tonto puts it "a greedy white man". He isn't genuinely well-intentioned. Your also using the word "perhaps" really hurts your argument, because it shows a lack of certainty.
So in the end I disagree with you, but that does not mean lack of respect necessarily. If I REALLY didn't respect you or your opinions I wouldn't bother discussing it first. But in having this little debate we can determine whether or not he fits before changing him again. This way an Edit War can be prevented.
I wonder what you mean by Disney Villains overall. I tend to see them each as individually evil in their own movies. Thus, I really don't think that there is a definite heinous standard in a Disney movie. Though, again this is how I view email@example.com (talk) 22:13, September 9, 2013 (UTC)Robinsonbecky
That is one way of looking at it, but even then some Disney villains just aren't heinous enough. Trying to take over a kingdom and trying to kill the hero/heroes are the most standard kinds of villainy there are. Whereas say, Butch Cavendish and Latham Cole indulge in genocide, murder of innocent civilians, and in the case of one of them cannibalism. So they really stand out even when not compared to villains from other Disney movies.
That's not what I meant. Yes, I am aware that some Disney Villains wanted to take over a kingdom or whatever, but I meant in terms of evil. Frollo would qualify as a CM, because, like you said, he tried to commit genocide on the Gpsy race and tried to burn Paris to the ground just because of his lust towards a member of the race he swore to exterminate. I'm thinking of evilness in terms of genocide or mass murder or whatever. I didn't mean to compare any villains from other Disney movies saying this one is more heinous or this one is disqualified because of a previous villain or whatever. I just think they should be judged by how evil each one is like have a scale dor 1 to ten on who would be the most evil Disney villain. Frollo and Butch would be on number one, and a villain like Prince John would be on the number 10 because he was less evil than the other two. Again, this is what I believe. I also apologize for accusing you of hypocrisy, I had a rough firstname.lastname@example.org (talk) 23:59, September 9, 2013 (UTC)Robinsonbecky
Individuals versus GroupsEdit
Well yes, there are groups that are generally antagonistic or evil. But they don't have moral capacity. Moral capacity is the concept of being concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior of a character, so this only applies to individuals not groups. I think labelling an organization or a group as complete monsters would be too vague. Take the Death Eaters for example, they are a group of sorcerers formed to exterminate the Muggles race and take over the world. Sure their crimes were heinous, but the group as whole are not complete monsters like their leader Lord Voldemort. Lucius Malfoy genuinely cares for his family and redeems himself in book 7, Wormtail felt regretful of his actions before his death, and Severus Snape joined the group to protect Harry Potter.
As you can see, just because they are generally evil doesn't mean they are complete monsters. There are other users like Bentonfill, Robinsonbecky and Balthus Dire who think that groups can't be complete monsters. Still if you wish to open a debate on this topic, feel free to do so. Tearface (talk) 08:58, September 14, 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the Death Eater example, I think I can see what you're getting at. But I believe that it's the group as a collective that can be this, not universally. So while not all the Death Eaters are equally evil and some of the members are far from pure evil, the group as a whole is all bad. Also, the Dark Eldar and Orcs ARE universally evil and are all completely bereft of redeeming qualities, not to mention that the individual members all tend to have similar personalities. So while obviously every single individual member of said group (or some cases species) can't be this, looking at the group/species' actions as a collective, I feel that the collective mentality of the group is one of pure, utter evil. Make sense?
Thank you for your editing on the Woman in White page, Overseer80. I really appreciate it. - Best regards B1bl1kal Don't cha judge me! 01:55, September 18, 2013 (UTC)
Renaming pages Edit
Just click on the arrow at the right of the "edit" button, and you'll see the option for renaming pages.
And the Complete Monster page was protected so only admins can edit it. Welcome to your doom! 17:15, September 19, 2013 (UTC)
This meant the new title you were trying to move the page to was protected from creation. No worries, I moved the page already. Welcome to your doom! 23:46, September 19, 2013 (UTC)
He was actually called "Lord Orm" (as also seen and explained in the end credits of an episode of Justice League), not Prince Orm (DCAU). Look it up. - Best regards B1bl1kal Don't cha judge me! 02:25, September 20, 2013 (UTC)
Blocking pages Edit
Sorry, but blocking pages is counter-productive, we only do this when the page has a high traffic and is target for vandalism. However, I gave a little ban to the users who were spamming the category. Welcome to your doom! 19:42, September 20, 2013 (UTC)
When you enter a category page, you should find two buttons on the top-right (just below the page count). You can use them to order the pages the way you like. Welcome to your doom! 14:35, September 24, 2013 (UTC)
Continuing the debateEdit
So, by ordering the missile he crossed the Moral Event Horizion, I agree on that. But on the Moral Event Horizon page it is stated that crossing the Moral Event Horizon once is not always enough to count as a Complete Monster and given the incompetent and comedic way he behaved in the rest of the movie I don't think this one action is enough, is it?.
Well here's the thing: you don't cross the MEH more than once. That's missing the whole point. Once a villain crosses the MEH that's it. There's no crossing it again, there's no backtracking, no nothing. It's a done deal. Now having said that, a villain can have multiple candidates for crossing the MEH. In the case of Kent Mansley, he really only has one, but I feel it's a sufficiently heinous one and in addition to his having no redeeming qualities of any kind I feel pretty justified in saying that he ends the movie as a completely unsympathetic and evil individaul. Make sense?
It does sort of. But when ordering the missile he didn't seem like acting on pure evil purpose, but rather without thinking much about it. Meaning, if he had been fully aware of the consequences of his action at that moment, he probably wouldn't have done it. To me it seems, regarding the Character Alignment, like a Lawful/True Neutral action, rather than an act of pure wickedness. So I think it is enough to count as irredeemable, but not enough to count as a CM, considered the way he is depicted in the rest of the movie (as a Complete Monster should be only someone who is portayed as absolutely heineous for most or all of the time and shouldn't show much Incompetent/True Neutral/Comedic/Lawful Neutral/Insecure Villains-worthy traits, isn't that correct?). Well, that was my opinion, as from now I leave the decision to you, because after all, whether you add im to the CM category or not (considering my thoughts), there will anyway always be far too much uncertainty about that category, as there are really many villains in it who shouldn't be there, as well as vice versa.
I tend to go out of my way to remove villains who don't belong there and add villains who do, such as Kent Mansley. I suppose you could say that the act was more of a "panic-and-spur-of-the-moment" decision versus a consciously evil act, which I would say is valid. He's definitely not of neutral alignment though.
Well you are right, in general he is definately of Lawful Evil Alignment, however, some of his actions rather seem a bit like Neutral Evil or True Neutral to me, but maybe it's just me. So, do you now intend to re-add him to the CM category or not?
Did you even read the discussion page for him? One contributor did give some good points for him. Plus, you shouldn't take everything on TV Tropes as a fact, they are very email@example.com (talk) 01:16, September 29, 2013 (UTC)Robinsonbecky
They have high standards, that isn't necessarily the same as being hypocritical. And I actually I disagree with many of their CM-related verdicts. But not all of them. There are some where I absolutely agree, and Ghetsis is one such example. And there are several reasons why Ghetsis doesn't fit:
- Pokemon is too campy to take seriously, ESPECIALLY Black and White, where the writing quality and tone are horrendously bad and campy, even by Pokemon's (very low) standards.
- His villainy isn't up to snuff. He's a meaniehead, wants to take over the world, is mean to pokemon, and tries to stop the heroes. These qualities allow him to join the proud ranks of every other villain in the series. Giovanni to me came off as far worse and he isn't listed as a CM anywhere. Also, look at it like this: Hunter J and the Iron Masked Marauder are worse than Ghetsis, or at least as bad, and manage to be worse despite having inferior resources to Ghetsis (he had an entire organization at his finger-tips, Hunter J and the IMM are akin to a poacher). It's kind of like how Percival McLeach comes off as far worse than Jafar and Ursula despite having vastly inferior power and resources.
Shen (Kung Fu Panda)Edit
Oh, it's you again. Okay, since you said this debate had been settled already, I suppose this time it won't make much sense to argue with you, however I do have some questions I'd like to get answeared. Firstly, why is being insecure no redeeming quality? The fact that on the Insecure Villains category it is said "Not all villains ARE EVIL, in fact many villains are insecure and lash out at the world or society in an attempt to assert themselves" does make it seem like an insecure villain can't be classified as "truly evil", doesn't it?
Well here's how I look at it: while maybe not all insecure villains are totally evil, Shen is. He committed genocide, and before that was planning to use fireworks for villainous ends as opposed to his parent's more benevolent ways. Now he does have a Freudian Excuse, this is true, but it really doesn't hold much water, especially when one remembers that the writers deliberately made his reasons for being evil weak to emphasize that he does not warrant sympathy. Kind of like Lotso. He had a Freudian Excuse, but one that the writers deliberately made pitiful to show that Lotso does not deserve sympathy. Syndrome and Commodus from Gladiator were also insecure, but their actions are so detestable that it's hard to see insecurity as a terribly sympathetic reason for their crimes.
At least that's how I see it personally. I'd rather we not become enemies over this, but that's my take on it and why I feel whatever insecurity Shen has simply doesn't make him sympathetic, or at least not sympathetic enough.
Okay, I think I can accept that, so as far as I'm concerned Shen can remain a Complete Monster. I agree on the not becoming enemies part, after all, we appearantly both want the same thing in general, as we are both trying to clear up matters regarding the CM category.
Categories pertaining to shows and/or franchises are always fine, you don't need to ask for permission. Welcome to your doom! 01:34, October 2, 2013 (UTC)
Excellent! Only one question: how do I create a new category page for the franchise? Do I just make it a new page?
You create a category the same way you create any regular page. Contribute > Add a page > Category:name of the category. Welcome to your doom! 02:33, October 2, 2013 (UTC)
All right, I did it. So how long until the category shows up as an option on the "category adder"?
And for any category that happens to not be by franchise; you must ask an administrator for permission and they must agree01:29, October 4, 2013 (UTC)01:29, October 4, 2013 (UTC)~~
Just type the image name, without the "File:". Welcome to your doom! 18:58, October 4, 2013 (UTC)
Just type the image name, without the "File:". Welcome to your doom! 19:01, October 4, 2013 (UTC)