Alright, so in TRS Badass Gay came up for discussion and it was agreed that there appears to big problem with the Badass X tropes in general, which needs to be sorted out until something can be ruled on for Badass Gay.
Here's a courtesy link: TRS page
. And Badass page with its subtropes. You can also visit the sandbox page here.
Noted Problems include:
- Tropes are just listings of characters people thing are badass who happen to have a certain trait. (The Badass + Trait Problem)
- Badass X as a naming scheme is actually very vague and doesn't give a lot of insight into what the character trope actually is, assuming it is a trope.
- Badass X as a naming scheme proliferates the use of Badass + Trait 'tropes'.
Suggested things to do include:
- Make it a requirement that a badass character trope means a character is "badass because of a trait", or "badass in spite of a trait".
- Renaming away from the Badass X naming scheme as much as possible.
- Cut, redefine or re-purpose things that are just Badass + trait.
There are also a lot of tropes that seem to be valid character-types, but have the naming scheme 'Badass X', when there's more to the trope than that. There are also a lot of prop or event or whatever tropes that need to be gone through as well.
Edited by Berrenta on May 15th 2020 at 7:39:14 AM
Well, the public does treat "can put up a fight" is Badass, so we just need a definition that covers that and DQZ's definition.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Aren't those two entirely different concepts though? And one of them doesn't always apply or carry down to subtropes, which makes it sound like it might be the subtrope instead. That or two unrelated tropes.
edited 18th Apr '15 8:55:11 AM by Arha
I don't think they are that different. In both cases, we have more-or-less rational abilities to overcome an obstacle and look good while doing so in a way normal people don't do. Maybe this is what we need to focus on.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
One is based on Rule of Cool. The character gets to do crazy things by sheer virtue of being cool. The other is based on fighting. The character gets to beat people up because he knows how to fight. Nothing stated about how they do it, leaving it open to a lot of variation. The latter definition is what descends down the subtropes line while the former is what Badass was supposed to be once upon a time, perhaps even before I came to this site.
So far as I can tell, just about every page uses the latter definition. I'm not really sure how you think these two traits are closely enough related that they can be considered the same thing, so could you please explain?
edited 18th Apr '15 9:46:09 AM by Arha
The character gets to do crazy things by sheer virtue of being cool.
That seems more like Awesomeness Is a Force, the way you are phrasing this. And many fights involve a degree of coolness as well.
I am not entirely convinced by what I am defining up there. The trope has decayed to "cool character" and putting that into a trope concept is difficult.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
4thing DQZ's definition.
^^ I'm not really sure how we would define or use what DQZ was talking about. I really don't want to just repeat myself but I don't really know of another way to put this. We have two or three definitions of Badass possible. One, the cool character who does impossibly cool stuff. Two, the character who beats people up. Three, it's both.
My concern comes through on several points. First, competence in a fight doesn't necessarily make you superhumanly capable or cool. You can can be a fighter but entirely mundane or even unlikable. That means the points do not overlap 100% of the time. Second, we've established a hierarchy of sorts with Badass at the top. Everything below must also contain everything that was above it, meaning a Badass Adorable must also be the impossible cool guy. Third, I'm pretty sure it's not actually used to mean how DQZ suggested defining. Finally, and something of a separate point, but using that kind of definition for Badass turns it into an audience reaction.
edited 18th Apr '15 11:07:39 AM by Arha
The Other Troper
How does Badass Adorable not use that definition? It just adds that they are extremely cute even when doing badass things.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.
Because a cute girl beating someone up is something just a cute girl beating someone up. It doesn't have to be so cool that we wouldn't really find it credible. On the other hand, using your definition and applying it down to subtropes means that a cute sky diver is also Badass Adorable.
The Other Troper
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Wait, just beating someone up is Cute Bruiser.
No, because that has other restrictions to it. The tropes aren't even mutually exclusive.
edited 18th Apr '15 11:46:58 AM by Arha
The Other Troper
Okay... that's not a very good trope name then for the parameters.
I still don't see in the actual text of Badass Adorable what you're claiming it's about. The first line says one has to be badass, not just strong.
edited 18th Apr '15 12:11:18 PM by DragonQuestZ
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.
The trope is about the contrast between fighting ability and appearance. You don't expect someone that looks so cute to be capable of kicking your ass. If that's not what it means, then a cute girl going skydiving or whatever is a Badass Adorable character. I don't think I've ever seen the trope used to mean something like that.
Or how Badass Normal is about someone who can hold their own against super powered characters despite their (supposedly) normal human limits. Again, it's based around martial ability. Or how Adaptational Badass makes someone more powerful in combat, not necessarily cooler or whatever. Ambadassador? A diplomat who kicks ass. And so on.
The Other Troper
If it's about the contrast alone, that does cover Cute Bruiser, and Girly Bruiser.
But again where does it say in the text that Badass Adorable doesn't have to be a Badass?
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.
I'm not sure what you mean. I never said a Badass Adorable doesn't have to be Badass. That's entirely against the point I was trying to make, actually.
Arha's asserting that your definition does not fit the definition of "badass" that is at the heart of Badass Adorable. I personally think Badass needs to cover fighting as well as your definition.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
The Other Troper
I don't see how "In more detail, Badass is an adjective used to describe a character who gets away with outright insane stunts (defusing a bomb with their teeth, conning a mob boss, getting into a firefight with the entire army, etc.) that would be very hard to pull off in Real Life, or would get the person trying it killed several times over." doesn't include being able to fight. It just means the fighting ability would be well beyond what would be reasonable... or at least reasonable for a real life analog.
So Kirby has super powers that make him strong, but something that would look like that in real life wouldn't realistically be able to kick ass like that (even if it was a giant eating ball).
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.
Is a baby that knows how to freedive a badass? According to your definition it is.
The Other Troper
Perhaps it does.
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
... Are you saying that a human baby that knows how to freedive from several kilometers above the ground doesn't count as being badass? I don't know of any human baby that wouldn't go into a hysterical crying fit from being dropped a few meters above the ground (assuming that they're safely caught before hitting the ground, that is).
edited 18th Apr '15 1:01:08 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
Freediving is diving without oxygen assistance, not skydiving. The baby swims down, then it swims back up. To me, that sounds comical.
Anyway, even if it is impressive, it has absolutely nothing to do with how we actually use tropes on this site.
edited 18th Apr '15 1:20:03 PM by Arha
The Other Troper
It's not just "impressive", it's also impossible. That's what makes it badass.
EDIT: Then again if you mean the image would look comical, then it would be a Rule of Funny trope, not a Rule of Cool trope. And that would be different.
edited 18th Apr '15 1:39:46 PM by DragonQuestZ
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.
You're making it sound like an audience reaction now.
Can't see how DQZ's definition is Audience Reaction-ey in the slightest. As an aside, should I retag this thread so that it points to the current Badass discussion?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Stuff like Badass Adorable doesn't use that definition. I was under the impression that all subtropes had to also be examples of the supertrope, but not every Badass Adorable or whatever character runs on Rule of Cool. So either we can't use that definition, I'm misunderstanding what a supertrope is or it's not intended to be a supertrope.