How To Handle This Trope: Big Lipped Alligator Moment

It seems that most examples are used in a consistent way, just most editors don't count symbolism, characterization, or mood-setting as enough reason to call them logical scenes.

It could make sense to change the definition according to that, after all, that paragraph that says the scenes can have "deeper meaning", making them more than BLAM, is exactly what makes it subjective.

I mean, with this logic, even the most random, nonsensical scene in the most serious film could be justified by saying that the director put it there intentionally, so it obviously means something. There are no truly random scenes, only scenes that don't make sense in the literal, realistic plot. We could as well collect those, and at least this trope could be more objective.

I don't think just tagging it as "subjective" should solve the problem and I've had that explained to me multiple times taht simply saying "YMMV" doesn't make a bad trope into a good one.

Basically, BLAM only exists because the minute that episode went up, somebody made a trope page and then it was subsequently flooded by fans of that show. It's a bad trope from the very beginning, and I think at the very least it needs to be restarted. Off-site wicks be damned, when has that ever stopped a large trope from being cut, rewritten, or locked?

All the time. Nakama, Xanatos Gambit, I could go on... It's one of the biggest reasons that we don't just cut things.

Then the description needs a rewrite to "something substantially wackier than usual happens," because most of those examples don't fit the trope as written.

"This has to happen in a story that, even if comedic or fantastical in nature, is otherwise fairly straightforward or follows its own sense of logic."

So, of the examples I surveyed, Utena is out, as it adheres to no logic whatsoever. Likewise Dead Leaves.

"This relatively normal story is then shot full of some kind of drug and veers sharply into Mind Screw territory."

This is the part of the trope that nearly every example fails. "A professional comedian performs his routine" is not Mind Screw. Neither is "the story has a framing narration" or "A character whose daydreams we see a lot has a daydream." Are they goofy stand-alone sequences? Yes, but there's a lot of distance between that and BLAM as written.

The sad part is that the very people who named the trope have done later videos explaining that it has limits and doesn't apply to some works.

Yeah, the trope really needs to be fixed, however I still don't get it why the Trope Namer isn't "applicable". Yeah, the King is plot-relevant, but the song sequence itself has no relevance to the plot.

I don't agree. Even when a Big-Lipped Alligator Moment happens multiple times, it can still be more weird than the work normally is.

The Dead Leaves example is incorrect no matter how we look at it, but I don't think that Azumanga Daioh or Calvin And Hobbes should be incorrect just because they are the kind of show where it happens repeatedly. The works still have a certain inner integrity, that makes you surprised when it happens.

edited 15th Jan '11 1:44:12 PM by EternalSeptember

Maybe rename it to Big Lipped Alligator Musical Moment. The muscial score was what was random, no the alligator its self.

No, because Calvin's daydreams are just something he does. It's part of his character just like his transmogrification or... the forums aren't telling me that transmogrification is spelled wrong? Anyway, it's just something he does, it's what the strip is about.

The same goes for Osaka or Sakaki's dreams or imagine spots. They don't make much sense, but they're used to establish that the characters are weird.

To wit: Chick and Critic knew how it works - it's the fanbase that somehow thinks anything weird or odd without checking the context is the one doing it wrong.

The Pink Elephants sequence didn't serve anything in the plot, for instance, and that counts as one. One of the grandparents being random in Charlie And The Chocolate Factory isn't.

That's what I'm talking about. "they're used to establish that the characters are weird." is the most generic, meaningless explanation that could be given to explain why a scene makes sense.

The particular scene is still less logical than most of the show, especially since we weren't even alerted that an imagine spot is coming. The girls had an ordinary day at school, they are walking home in the sunset, and BLAM! suddenly they are running in the clouds, and laughing. It makes less sense than, say, Sasaki and Osaka talking about Chiyo-chan's father and having a weird Imagine Spot about him.

The same for Calvin And Hobbes. He has weird thoughts, but they still make sense. He is fighting a monster, and the last frame reveals that the monster was his math teacher. He is travelling back in time, and his time machine is a cardbox. Connecting these images to reality is the point, there are gags about it. A scene where he just randomly grows gigantic and falls off Earth doesn't make sense at all.

Hell, I think Calvin And Hobbes are generally about Calvin's imaginations. There's nothing BLAM about the strip at all.

^

As for establishing character, we wouldn't know nearly as much about Sakaki if she didn't have those imagine spots. And Osaka would probably be no more than her initial appearance of being kind of slow. And honestly, Chiyo's dad is a bit of a running joke. There are dolls of him in universe even.

I said that the "Dad" scenes, and other imaginations, are NOT BLAM. Exactly because they make sense in the show's context. But the random cloud-running doesn't.

I'm actually in favor of the second option: refining the definition, making the trope subjective and putting examples in YMMV (I've already been doing that somewhat, and I've seen other people do the same). As this discussion is proving, there will be endless debates on individual examples. Like it says in the description of Subjective Tropes, the tropes exist regardless of opinion but what makes it problematic is the fact that there will be arguments over whether an example counts.

Funny enough, I was describing this trope to a friend and he was having a hard time understanding exactly what I was talking about. He asked for an example and I brought up Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory. Before I could get past the movie name, he exclaimed "Oh! The boat scene!" and started quoting Wonka's poem. I think that is one of only a dozen universally agreed upon examples.

If we are to make it completely objective, that means eliminating any audience reaction to it at all, which means the characters themselves have to behave as though this is a strange scene. Again, I don't think that will go over well with the wiki community, even if the forum agrees. Even shuffling it to YMMV includes eliminating examples that are worldbuilding in nature (the Bar Brawl in a Bad Guy Bar), explained by the circumstances (All Just a Dream or Daydream Surprise are supposed to have out-of-place moments) or establishing characterization (a Cloud Cuckoolander behaving strangely isn't strange).

The thing is that the Trope Namers gave three objective criteria, and the misuse comes from ignoring those.

Right. For example, if it's an episode with no lasting effects on the surrounding story arc, but the events are nothing unusual for the series's norm (e.g. Calvin And Hobbes example), then it's not a BLAM.

edited 15th Jan '11 2:51:50 PM by Stratadrake

Plus merely lacking a mention again is not enough, since that would mean that 90% of all moments in a work would have to be mentioned later on in order not to count. That isn't the case.

And I say that "it can't have any meaning in the plot" is not an objective criteria.

"It can't have any tangible effect on the plot" would be, because anyone who disagrees with an entry could just mention another scene that showed its effect.

But if it can't have a "meaning", that would be subjective, because we could argue all day whether or not portraying something in a cerain light was the writer's intention with an outstandingly weird scene that doesn't make logical in-universe sense.

edited 15th Jan '11 3:19:17 PM by EternalSeptember

This is why in the namer video, it was "Makes no sense, even in the context of the movie", and "afterward, it's never mentioned again". There is no mention of "meaning", which would have muddled it, which any of you arguing that are doing.

Yeah, but "Makes no sense" could be taken either way, and currently there is this notion that it should include only things that have no redeeming symbolical, or thematic meaning either.

For example the Azumanga Daioh example should still count, because an episode that is 95% about schoolgirls living their everyday life, and 5% about schoolgirls running in the clouds and laughing, is just weird, even if it might implied (but not clearly shown) that it was just an imagine spot for one of them, so you could say that it was intended to portray her emotions.

Randomly portraying a character's emotions in a surreal scene is still weird.

edited 15th Jan '11 4:33:49 PM by EternalSeptember

I enjoyed Azumanga Daioh quite a bit, and my wife and I both thought those scenes fit in just fine with the mood of the rest of the show (this is a show with an opening song whose title is translated as "misheard lyrics cake") , nor did we think they came out of nowhere, or were never mentioned again. So if you asked me if there were any big lipped alligator moments in Azumanga Daioh, I would say, no.

Tea for you! Cake for you!

edited 15th Jan '11 4:59:46 PM by MoCellMan

Why are something that is justified by the context as character development a BLAM?

See, this is my issue. We've cut and locked pages over far less.

Keyword though - context. Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory works because the boat Mind Screw really didn't fit in the movie, Wonka himself (his eccentric side reflects on candies and chocolate), and had really no relevance to the movie itself.

Compare to the Imagine Spot done in certain anime like Azumanga Daioh or School Rumble, which may seem random at first, but if you watched the whole series, you know it is bound to happen.

Azumanga's New Years Dreams have no impact on the story and no refrences elsewhere except for Chiyo-Dad's introduction which was in one of the four dreams.

That said though there is a superstition that Strange New Year's dreams about your friends is suppose to be good luck and make you closer friends in japan which is lost on Western Viewers. Also if you see Mt Fuji an eggplant and a hawk in your dream its going to be a good year (as seen in that ep and Ep 1 of Haruhi Chan.)

Not everyone gets What Do You Mean, It's Not Symbolic? and the instances between BLAM and that are Subjective and up to the viewer

edited 15th Jan '11 9:38:12 PM by Raso