Do we really need examples?: Panty Shot

Oh yeah, we really need very little if any "illustration".

No page image would probably be an improvement, too, considering that the current one is misleading and we can't have one that shows the trope. That's a thread for Image Pickin', though.

edited 17th Oct '11 8:57:26 AM by Antheia

What about keeping at the very least, examples of pantyshots from ecchi/fanservice shows. That way it gets rid of examples like Heroman or other one-shot pantyshots but still mentions prevalence in shows like Love Hina or Rosario-Vampire

Why the bleep is a trope about underwear named after a European capital? That makes zero sense.

I See London? It's an old kids rhyme. (The full thing slips my mind at the moment.)

Edit:

"I see London! I see France! I see [Insert Name Here]'s underpants!"

edited 25th Oct '11 4:49:27 PM by Raso

Popular rhyme from back in the day when "let's make a trope with the most obtuse name we can think of!" was still a popular passtime.

"I see London, I see France, I see X's underpants"

"I see London, I see France, I see ___'s underpants."

Which is the page quote, actually.

EDIT: Everyone ninja'ed everyone.

edited 25th Oct '11 4:50:12 PM by Discar

Never heard of that. Let me guess, it's localized to the US? Or perhaps to certain sections of the US? Or perhaps certain age groups only?

Well anyway, I guess that'll have to wait. I don't see a problem having examples on Panty Shot considering we have numerous sex- and porn-related tropes that do have examples. There's no need for T Vtropes to censor itself like that.

(edit) also I don't see a problem with the current image, but this is really not the forum to discuss that.

edited 25th Oct '11 6:18:42 PM by Spark9

Something I'd just like to point out is that, at least in animation, there's no such thing as an unintentional Panty Shot. Even a half second glimpse still requires someone to draw several frames of underwear; that doesn't just happen by accident.

Yeah they can invoke Magic Skirt whenever they want like as law of the universe or give them Modesty Shorts if they want a real reason. (Pretty Cure has never had a Panty Shot in 8 seasons of kicking ass in very mini skirts due to those two tropes.)

Panty Shot s have gotten so eregious now different varieties of panties go with different personality types.... Shimapan (Striped Panties typically blue and white) is the one that is really big right now, used by the innocent Moe types. (Trend started by Vocaloid)

edited 25th Oct '11 8:02:57 PM by Raso

In live action, you can have unintended panty shots.

I don't have a problem with keeping the examples, provided the ones that fit I See London better are cut.

Also, the trope is lampshaded and parodied a lot, so at least those examples should be legit.

I've never seen an unintended Panty Shot even in live action. It's not that hard to edit.

Well we might have just a crappy editor. But then someone saying that might get accusations similar to Parody Retcon.

I'm also kind of unclear on the difference between Panty Shot and I See London; their descriptions don't really do a good job explaining how they're different.

Pretty sure I See London is a sort of in-universe lampshade-hanging. "Ha! I saw your underwear!"

I'm not sure if we need that, but that's the impression I get from the examples.

I See London is very ill defined... going by the way the actual phrase is used is probably the best way to go which is "When you are caught by someone without pants and just only in your underwear usually with a rush to coverup" which is usually done as a gag like serious Clothing Damage or getting pants ed (usually done to a guy) a different name would be Caught Undressed I think.

Panty Shot is someone is wearing a skirt and giving everyone a view of their Panties. (occasionally its the Shirt / Panties version [1]◊) Many many anime series just run off the stuff IE Agent Aika [2]◊ or Ikkitousen. (just 2 of tons of examples.)

edited 26th Oct '11 7:23:53 PM by Raso

I was under the impression that I See London is when it's for comedy, Panty Shot is when it's for titillation.

Sounds like it'll be better if the two are merged. I was under the impression that I See London is some sort of in-universe thing and Panty Shot is something like an Audience Reaction, but it seems that the descriptions and page images are switched around.

In-Universe and out of universe have nothing to do with it.

• Panty Shot: A character is wearing a skirt. Because of this a glimpse of the character's panties can be seen even though they remain dressed. If this is seen by the audience, a character In-Universe, or both it doesn't matter. There's just a glimpse of it before the skirt falls down again leaving them fully clothed. A Panty Shot almost always happens on a woman because women tend to be the only ones wearing skirts.
• I See London: A character's underwear are exposed by the removal of clothing. Their pants fall down. They just happen to be running around without pants on. Their clothes are all eaten by moths just leaving their underwear. Reason doesn't matter. There is removal of other clothing either before or during the scene and they aren't fully dressed. This can happen to anyone as anyone can be stripped down to their underwear.

edited 27th Oct '11 3:44:30 AM by shimaspawn

Should it really be called a Panty Shot, though, if the audience doesn't see it? (cf Discretion Shot, Binocular Shot, Orbital Shot, etc.)

Yes, because that's the pre-existing term for it. We didn't make it up. It's been used for ages.

I've only ever seen it used for panties shown onscreen (or on-page). Perhaps usage might vary depending on the context?