Repurpose into an index and split: Foot Focus

Personally I think we need a bit of a super trope for egregious use of cameras pointed at feet in general. Like the trope says there is little point to actually focus there in a shot unless its like a kick or such.

Yeah, if you're putting on shoes, that's just to show putting on the footwear, not to focus on the bare feet alone. You can't try to declare something not misuse by redefining the trope.

Depends on how the shot is framed. Very few things are simply just anything. You can have foot focus, that involves shoes at some point. It doesn't require the feet to be bare the entire film, or for the camera to never shoot anything but bare feet. The trope itself is much more simple.

If the same shot is putting on the footwear then it's not an example. The shot has to focus on the bare feet for the feet themselves, not for the coverings that are being put on, or even what the feet are stepping on. Those are just close-ups that require feet to be in there.

There is nothing in the trope that says the bare feet can't be doing something when they get their close up.

Well first of all, I explicitly mentioned the description was a mess. Second of all, the trope started about gratuitous shots of bare feet. If there is another reason, it's not gratuitous, and just The Same But More Specific of a closeup shot.

No, a shot can be gratuitous and still have things happening in it. It doesn't need to be a still image. It just needs to be excessive and go on too long.

I wrote "another reason". How could you read that as "has to be a still shot"?

Because apparently if the foot is stomping, walking, or in any way being showcased doing something other than just being still at the end of a leg you don't acknowledge it as this trope.

That's a strawman. I only stated stomping doesn't count, since the point is something being crushed. The other things usually have nothing to focus on but the foot (when there is something else, the foot therefore isn't the focus).

No, the stomping focus is still the foot. It is showing the foot as strong. Appealing. Gazing lovingly upon it as it stomps.

Okay, that just makes that trope itself possible Fetish Fuel, but it's just a Sister Trope to this.

Its on the Turn On Tropes index...

That would be this trope. Gratuitous close ups of bare feet as fetish fuel.

I personally think it should include Sexy Shoes that get the same treatment like High Heels and such but that's just me (that's my only problem with this.)

I meant that shimaspawn thinks Giant Foot of Stomping is Fetish Fuel, due to that comment, but that doesn't make it part of this.

No, I don't think the trope is entirely fetish fuel. The context of the example on that page certainly is though.

The point was your comment implied that a foot stomping on something was a turn on. Or you seemed to think that a foot stomping on something was to linger on the foot, and that just seems odd, since the point is something got crushed. That's not this trope.

This isn't just "anytime a barefoot has a closeup". This is "a closeup of a barefoot for the reason of looking at the barefeet". Since author intent isn't always clear, the best way to tell is if there is nothing else to focus on other than the feet. Not what is being walked on, or stepped on, or what is being put on the foot. I mean, seeing the foot bandaging scene in Die Hard wouldn't be this trope (and if it's on the page, it's a bad example).

Ah, but there are some actions that emphasize the bare foot. Stomping is one of those. It makes it more obvious that the trope is there. It doesn't make it not the trope. I don't think you get this trope or the motives behind it well enough to evaluate it.

No, stomping it is to show that something is crushed. That the foot did it is incidental. Replace it with a hand, and the effect would be the same. But you don't show a bare hand for the same reason as this trope (that would be someone finding hands fascinating, due to being high or just becoming human).

Yeah, you don't understand the underlying fetish here at all. I'm really not sure how I can explain it to you so that you get it, but the foot is very very important and no, it would not be the same if a hand did it.

There's a saying, I can not describe the difference between porn, and art, but I know it when I see it. This is one of those tropes where that's true. You're trying to look at it without looking at the way that the foot is framed, and thus you are losing the entire trope.

edited 22nd Apr '11 8:10:42 PM by shimaspawn

The point is NOT to be abut the fetish, but to be a visual device that happens to be Fetish Fuel. There is a difference.

No, it very much is "Closeup on bare feet". That's the only clear definition ever given. It's in the laconic, and the earliest version I can find of the trope has this paragraph:

"Close-ups of bare feet are often used to imply nudity in a setting where full nudity cannot be shown, such as a network television show or a PG or G-rated movie. This can be made explicit by Dress Hits Floor."

Since this is not given as an exception, and would not fit with the rest of the description as a requirement, it's quite clear that "Close-ups of bare feet" was was supposed to be the trope.

By the current definition of the trope, the part where the camera stays on the foot right after crushing is this trope.

I wrote the ykttw, so I know what was intended, and a close up that just happens to involve a bare foot is not this trope (such as putting on footwear, which requires the foot be bare for that to happen, or stomping on something, which requires the foot to do the stomping).

Annnnd, therein lies the problem. What you intended for this trope to be when you wrote the YKTTW is narrower than the trope you were describing actually is. The trope itself is "Closeups of bare feet, either for the sake of having it or for fetishistic reasons." The "...for fetishistic reasons" is why stomping counts as this— at least when the character is barefoot. As for putting on footwear, once again, it features a closeup, focusing on bare feet, for the sake of having one*

edited 24th Apr '11 3:05:50 AM by Wulf