Restore, redefine and fix: Baby Got Back

As two more in-universe cases, Garnet in Final Fantasy IX provides the game's Crowning Moment Of Funny when Zidane gropes her and calls out "ooo, soft", and there's the trope namer for Stupid Sexy Flanders. I think we could go pure in-universe examples to cut out all objectivity, if need be.

"That bold criteria ends up causing trope decay and it makes this trope identical to Male Gaze." - what if Word of God says outright they emphasized a character's butt, rather than just fans assuming it was their intent? And also, it would make this a subtrope of Male Gaze, Male Gaze refers to any focus on a sexual body part, too general for a specific focus on the butt.

You've said the reason we keep Shes Got Legs, Sexy Back and Buxom Is Better is because people keep watch over those pages. Why can we just not do it for this trope and retool the name and description to try and make it less of a droolfest?

edited 17th Jan '12 10:59:58 AM by DrakeClawfang

As I said, it's a Getting Crap Past the Radar case. Everyone else's eyes (though they're all obscured) are focused primarily on the TV to the far right. Bucky is looking nowhere near the television.

All of those three tropes also have tropable criteria that doesn't just let in any time the work seems to showcase the body part maybe.

Sexy Back is a female character naked from the waist up but shown in such a way that we can only see her back. Not any character whose back is portrayed as sexy in a work.

edited 17th Jan '12 11:06:01 AM by shimaspawn

That's a very weak response and you know it. Explain what makes them more "tropable".

"Sexy Back is a female character naked from the waist up but shown in such a way that we can only see her back. Not any character whose back is portrayed as sexy in a work." - And Baby Got Back is a character who has an attractive rear which is emphasized and/or commented on in-universe. Not any character whose butt is portrayed as sexy in a work.

edited 17th Jan '12 11:07:25 AM by DrakeClawfang

No, it's not a weak response. Those have other valid criteria to them other than debatable focus in the work.

Those criteria are broad enough that that's effectively what you're letting in. Anyone whose rear happened to get a camera shot for any reason that the audience thought was sexy even if it wasn't the focus of that shot because the audience will say it was. Why? Because that's what they're focused on.

edited 17th Jan '12 11:09:00 AM by shimaspawn

"Anyone whose rear happened to get a camera shot for any reason that the audience thought was sexy even if it wasn't the focus of that shot because the audience will say it was. Why? Because that's what they're focused on." - then the obvious solution is to ask for the work to repeatedly focus on the rear. Agreed that a one-time thing doesn't count, but if a character is constantly having their butt prominently featured.

At which point the examples become people listing long rants about every time their favourite character's butt looked hot. The people who really care about these things will come up with examples even if it wasn't the intention of the work.

That's the sort of thing that got this trope cut in the first place.

edited 17th Jan '12 11:13:51 AM by shimaspawn

"At which point the examples become people listing long rants about every time their favourite character's butt looked hot. The people who really care about these things will come up with examples even if it wasn't the intention of the work." - And thus people keep a closer eye on the page! We're talking in circles now. And you still can't explain why those other tropes I mentioned are more valid than this one.

If a shot merely focuses on a hot body part, that's a trope that can be general to any such part. Thus those shouldn't apply here, unless they are In-Universe, like someone is taking a picture and deliberately focusing on someone's butt.

Anyway, what names could help make it clear it's In-Universe?

Well, what alt titles did BGB have? All I can recall is "Junk in the Trunk", which isn't really a good title.

They have objective criteria instead of subjective criteria. The work making a focus on the rear is a subjective criteria because it's one of those things that some people see and some people don't. And it's something a lot of people believe they see when it's not intended.

"They have objective criteria instead of subjective criteria. The work making a focus on the rear is a subjective criteria because it's one of those things that some people see and some people don't. And it's something a lot of people believe they see when it's not intended." - And again, the solution is to make the trope only for in-universe examples when a character is known or admired in-universe for having a nice butt. But even then, a trope being subjective doesn't mean it should be cut. That's what YMMV is for, as poorly defined as that term may be.

edited 17th Jan '12 11:21:25 AM by DrakeClawfang

Wait a sec, Shima. We just had a discussion in the Absolute Cleavage TRS whereas I was asking how do you objectively clarify when something is meant to be fanservice and when it isn't. You said in that thread "it's obvious"—and that trope isn't even about a specific body part anymore (you argue it should be about the fashion, not the cleavage). Now, you're stating that THIS trope needs something more obvious than someone commenting on the rear, or a story element that specifically draws attention to it?

I'm ok with the In-Universe criteria. I am not ok with adding the "work focuses on their rear" bit. That's the subjective criteria. Still, you aren't troping a specific camera shot, or a value judgement compared to other characters. You're just noting a compliment from one character to another. It seems to shallow for a trope.

Fanservice is like Porn. I know it when I see it. Objective criteria are admittedly hard. Simple focus on a body part has proven even harder especially in this case where just about any character has been lumped under this trope because fans paid attention rather than the show.

There are signs of both. Where this trope is concerned, tropers have found themselves incapable of actually focusing on anything other than rears they like and not on how the story depicts them.

edited 17th Jan '12 11:28:38 AM by shimaspawn

"I am not ok with adding the "work focuses on their rear" bit. That's the subjective criteria."

"Fanservice is like Porn. I know it when I see it." - Do you realize how incredibly hypocritical and self-righteous that is?

Cleavage also requires that the clothing be done a certain way. Simply focusing on the butt works with many kinds of clothing.

I was making a reference to a supreme court ruling. Please do not make personal attacks on other tropers.

Yes, I realise how it sounds. Still, my time here at the TRS has taught me that while most tropers can recognize fan-service when given a ridged set of criteria in which to compare one instance to another, when attention is just turned to a body part in general they get funny about it.

edited 17th Jan '12 11:33:26 AM by shimaspawn

I'm not making personal attacks, I am trying to remain civil but when you contradict yourself and demonstrate a double standard, it's difficult. If you think Fanservice is non-subjective, then how is a specific type of fanservice - focus on a character's butt - subjective? That doesn't work.

And you again bring up the behavior of other tropers, when myself and others have volunteered to keep an eye on the page.

"Baby Got Back/[Alt Title] is when a character is known in-universe for having an attractive rear end, or when the developers behind the work of fiction show a particular interest in focusing on their rear." And then tropers watch the page to weed out examples which don't count. What is the problem with this plan?

edited 17th Jan '12 11:34:43 AM by DrakeClawfang

Because quotes taken out of context are quite hard to defend.

• Most tropers can tell the difference between two very similar outfits or scenes, one played for fanservice, one not.
• Most tropers can't tell the difference between rears or breasts that they like, and rears and breasts the work forcuses on.

Those are the patterns revealed by my years of doing clean up here.

We did have tropers last time who volunteered to watch the page last time. They were some of the worst about adding bad examples to this one. I do not know why it is so hard to keep clean, but I think more ridged criteria would help it.

edited 17th Jan '12 11:37:09 AM by shimaspawn

That is true.

EDIT: But it's also the problem. We'd all agree that if The Thing wore a shirt with a low neckline, it wouldn't be fanservice...but what about if Reed Richards wore it? Sure, Reed usually isn't drawn with a very robust body type, but someone is bound to find that body type attractive.

edited 17th Jan '12 11:41:59 AM by KingZeal

Then let's discuss more rigid criteria. Do we want to focus on in-universe examples only?

And, while I wouldn't like this I consider it preferable to axing the trope entirely - we could reinstate the trope, not list examples on its page, and make it a YMMV.

edited 17th Jan '12 11:39:32 AM by DrakeClawfang

Yes, the fact that that trope has a strong objective base makes it much easier to judge. Yes, there are edge cases, there are always edge cases with every trope. But a strong objective base means that you can have standards.

If we focus on In-Universe examples only I think we should make the trope about something that the In-Universe examples have in common. Why are these rears singled out.

I really don't like the idea of only sticking it on YMMV pages. That makes it very hard to keep clean and patrol and you wind up with creepy natter in weird places without a main page to set the standard of what examples should look like.

edited 17th Jan '12 11:42:58 AM by shimaspawn

But what objective base do we even have?

NOTE: I'll repost this in the other TRS so that we don't derail.

That's what I'm trying to come up with. We need an objective base for this trope.

Well, I meant for Absolute Cleavage. At least this trope is about one specific body part, shape notwithstanding.

As far as I'm concerned, if there's a clear indication that the character's butt is considered attractive (in-universe emphasis), this trope works just fine. If there's a fashion that emphasizes it (Thong of Shielding, assless pants or writing on the butt), that would be equally credible.