FANDOM

A FANDOM user
  Loading editor
  • Good luck with your proposal, mate :-). I gave my vote, and respect any opinion.

    Personally, I see Beckett as more evil. Firstly, there's the death thing. Blackbeard had a more horrible (some will say fitting) death. Beckett just dropped dead like a deer trapped in the traffic lights. Secondly, Blackbeard was a man of action who get up and backs up his plots. Beckett is standing where he is and leave the real work to others. I know Blackbeard is sending his minions and family to do his dirty job too, but he also fights a great deal of his own battles. That opinion is regardless my vote.

      Loading editor
    • View all 12 replies
    • Your profile states that you're into "Middle Earth" universe, which i like too :-). I have some topics in regard:

      1. Frodo is a holocaust survivor. Similarly to Harry Potter, but not as good as a character. Bilbo is jewish too, because the hobbits were meant to represent the jews. Sméagol is a judenrat . Morgoth might be the architects behind the murder of Frantz Ferdinand and the beginning of WW1. Eru is ambiguous, but I do know Gandalf is Churchill. I assume Galadriel represents the heroic faction of America, which eventually convinced the rest of the state to take action after bombing Pearl Harbor. What does Azog and the goblin king are meant to symbolize?

      2. What Smaug was supposed to symolize in WW1 context?

      3. Azog, in particular, is similar to warlords such as Himmler. Being vile and almighty even for an orc, which means practically any mortal Gandalf met in LOTR is peanuts compare to him, makes him as dangerous as a whole army of Uruk-Hai. And that's even without counting his own army. Did Saruman try to design his private orcs as more obedient versions of Azog, or did he assume he could surpass Azog?

        Loading editor
    • 1. I never saw Frodo and Sam as holocaust survivors, more like friends making it through the horrors of war and overcoming the seemingly unstoppable horrors (Sauron). The dead marshes were based off of dead bodies in the trenches of WW1. Gandalf, Morgoth and Eru Illuvatar were all based on religious figures - Jesus, Satan and God respectively. Azog wasn't in the books much. His role in the films was expanded by Peter Jackson. Therefore it's likely Tolkien wasn't using him to symbolize anything, just another monster. However, the goblins did represent the machines of war, with Tolkien saying in the Hobbit that many machines that killed many people were created by goblins.

      2. Smaug represented the Western concept of Dragons in mythology, such as Christianity. He is portrayed as a destructive, winged, snake like, fire breathing animal with a greedy lust for gold and who guard treasure and must be slain. Very different to Asian and Chinese mythological concepts of dragons, where dragons are portrayed as wise gods that give wisdom and fortune and are to be worshipped, not slain. You could loosely compare his fiery breath to the cannon fire of WWI. Similar to how Sauron and his forces represent the unmatchable odds and terrors you face in war, as well as the evil and corruption in the world.

      3. I don't believe Azog was that much stronger than the average Uruk-Hai, if at all. He was only the strongest Orc for his time, 60 years before the Uruk-Hai were bred. I believe Aragorn could have killed Azog in a duel - albeit a difficult one. Saruman definitely believed he could surpass Azog, and all orcs in general, with the Uruk-Hai, which he called the orcs "perfected". The Uruk-Hai even looked down on regular Orcs, as "maggots". I'm sure Azog could kill a Uruk-Hai, due to his strength and skills, but he wasn't too much better than them, and all other Orcs certainly weren't at all.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Please do not undo a wiki admin's cleanup work like you did with the It (Stephen King)'S infobox ever again. This is not a joke nor it is negotiable.

      Loading editor
  • Look, if you're going to start adding obsolete terms like "tertiary/quaternary/quinary antagonist" to pages like Draco Malfoy, then you really need to familiarize yourself with the rules. Antagonist fussing is highly discouraged due to overly-specifying villain roles to the point where its redundant and spammy. While tertiary is generally no longer in use and discouraged, quaternary and quinary or anything below those two terms are completely forbidden. So again, don't abuse the antagonistic scale.

      Loading editor
  • No category-spamming allowed (see Rules).

      Loading editor
  • OK, here's my problem with Destoroyah; one of the chief gripes that I have with this particular Kaiju is that apparently, he's a hive mind. Basically, Destoroyah is made up of several creatures that have a shared consciousness. As such, this falls under the "no groups" rule.

      Loading editor
    • Okay then. I didn't know that there was a no groups rule or that Destoroyah could count as a group being an individual character.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Alright... (also, my apologies for resending this; the original message contained a typo in the title, which I couldn't fix)

    Let me get this out of the way. I appreciate what you're trying to do for this wiki and it's good that you're at least trying to be constructive. It's good that you're expanding pages with actual, detailed information.

    But please, please, when an admin marks an edit as irrelevant, unconstructive, or a misuse, do not revert that edit or try to shoehorn it back into the article. If a category is removed? That means it doesn't apply to the villain. Do not re-add it and do not engage in an edit-war. The "type of villains" section should not be a re-state of the categories; it should simply be a single term/category that most generally applies to the villains. It's present on a lot of articles, but I plan to talk to Balthus Dire at some point in time to make this into a rule, because frankly, it's ridiculous at this point. And finally, the villain tags... (e.g. main, secondary, tertiary antagonist, and that ilk) not only should those not be used past "secondary" in any regard (please read this to get better detail on that) the way you've used them on the Minecraft pages is in a way that does not apply. Minecraft doesn't have a true story or narrative structure. The enemies oppose the player, but none of them serve to create conflict that drives the story forward; they are enemies and bosses and nothing more.

    What particularly concerns me is that you seem to be deliberately ignoring this even when an administrator outlines it to you. I've already locked at least two pages because of your continued insistence on bloating up the article with information and spam deemed useless and ignoring/warring with the admins who try to clean that up. You mean well and you've still got a lot of constructive edits under your belt, so I'm going to let you off with as gentle of a warning as I can.

    I'll restate; when something is marked as misuse, do not re-add it. Should you ignore these points, you will be blocked again; and given that I've already blocked you once and you've now received a warning, demonstrating that you still refuse to follow the rules proves that you're simply ignoring them and it will not be a lenient block.

    Thank you.

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • i watched killers when the actor who played Controller X, played soicpath named Nomura Shuhei whom i add

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Godzillas
      Loading editor
  • Have you seen The Avengers: Age Of Ultron? 

      Loading editor
See archived talk page
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.