Repurpose into an index and split: Foot Focus

"is too common"

Not a valid argument.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

There is no such thing as Too Common. Nothing is too common to trope.

The bigger issue with this is that the examples are defined as something other than a trope. It's just a vague collection of bare feet with no real meaning uniting them. Most of the examples are flat out meaningless and incidental.

edited 6th Mar '12 4:03:23 PM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

I agree with that assessment.

I think the title describes a trope clearly enough. Foot Focus = focusing on feet. It's a trope about Gaze, right? I like keeping it to examples where the camera focuses on bare feet.

Rhymes with "Protracted."

That's why I still maintain this should be renamed to Bare Feet Closeup.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

I don't see why they need to be bare. Why can't it just be when the camera angles down at feet and shows them instead of faces?

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

That would be a Super-Trope. This... is largely a fanservice trope.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

People who are into feet don't just like them naked any more than people into boobs only like them naked. Focusing on a foot wearing a shoe and focusing on a bare foot are both potentially fanservice (or Author Appeal I think in movies directed by Quentin Tarantino...) and both the same trope.

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

Well a shoe closeup isn't really for the same reasons as this trope, since the could cover a lot of clothing items that don't normally get focus.

But at this point, I no longer see expanding the trope as a bad thing, as long as it made sense.

edited 6th Mar '12 7:36:11 PM by DragonQuestZ

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

Barefoot Close Up gets my vote. It's specific enough to fit the traditional criteria but still it's own camera shot.

Don't say that! People will get the wrong idea and try to turn the trope page into some sort of fap list.

What about "too common to make an example list feasible"?

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Too Common For Examples.

EDIT: Is that still in YKTTW?

edited 7th Mar '12 5:29:24 AM by lu127

"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer

Yes

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Something has come to light. Some people are worried that this is a People Sit On Chairs trope and that there's no meaning behind it (unless you count the Fanservice meaning). When this page is made, we must make sure that we include the meaning behind the trope and explain why its used. Otherwise, the page will truly become a "sexy list".

edited 7th Mar '12 4:00:45 PM by Akagikiba

Fanservice is not compatible with chairs. If anything, it's Too Common For Examples. And chairs's in the TRS because people don't tell the difference between "too common" and "no meaning"

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

It is a fanserivce trope, isn't it? But doesn't that contradict the Don'tBeCreepy rule?

edited 7th Mar '12 4:14:28 PM by Akagikiba

The don't be creepy rule says fanservice tropes are a huge part of media and should not be cut, yes.

The problem is, this trope doesn't even have a consistent fanservice meaning. Most of the examples aren't fanservice.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

"Most of the examples aren't fanservice."

Oh, if that's true we'll have to explain the meaning of the trope when it's not used as a fanservice device. The trope might even be split down the road if the examples are superfluous enough.

I'm voting for cutting the page. Fetish Fuel was expelled from the Wiki already. Let us continue what we started and destroy its offspring. I can't think of a better place to start, as feet are among the most divisive Broken Bases of the "fetish community". Let us just stick to character and story tropes and leave the "Camera Focuses On Flesh" crap to Male Gaze or something.

edited 7th Mar '12 5:18:24 PM by Cider

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack

You're not slaying some evil beast of data. And cutting is losing on the crowner, so that's not going to happen.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

Evil beast of data? I'm not following. And I don't see why something losing in votes means I'm not allowed to argue why I think more people should vote for it.

Despite the name, TV Tropes's staff is more interested in story telling devices, writing, than whatever the cameraman is doing. We have Male Gaze, which makes foot focus The Same But More Specific and we already dumped a whole bunch of fetish pages. Why not keep dumping them?

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack

You wrote "Fetish Fuel was expelled from the Wiki already. Let us continue what we started and destroy its offspring", as though this was some kind of quest or crusade.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

Oh that? Well, no there is no digital beast to slay, there is just consistency in our actions. We usually ax samey redundant pages, so why are we so reluctant to drop this one that is redundant to Male Gaze. We just cut down on fetish fuel, why did we stop cutting here?

Why not go to characters? Has Beautiful Feet or Feet To Die For, about a character who's feet is liked by other characters? How about meaning behind the foot close up(implies nudity, feet are damaged/sore, some symbolism, done to rub in a feeling of humiliation). Camera looks at feet is pretty vague and the only index that isn't coincidental is fan service.

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack

That is only valid if this was a Fetish Fuel sup page, not a trope that just happens to be Fetish Fuel for a lot of people.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

If Baby Got Back got cut, this can go too. DUH-LETE.

Can doesn't lead to will. Not ruling it out, but it's a logical fallacy to just assume a similar trope cut means others will be.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.