Needs Help: Innocent Fanservice Girl

Deadlock Clock: 21st May 2013 11:59:00 PM
Total posts: [154]
1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 7
1 feotakahari17th Mar 2012 09:00:45 PM from Looking out at the city
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
Title I would have used if the software had let me: Are we sure this is just one trope?

It's definitely a trope when a character's lack of a nudity taboo is portrayed as a result of his or her innocence. It's also a . . . something (I'm not sure if it's exactly a trope) when a character delivers Fanservice completely by accident. But some of the examples mentioned are the former without the latter (for instance, the feral children discussed in one paragraph), and others can be the latter without the former (for instance, a Green-Skinned Space Babe who lacks a nudity taboo may not be conventionally innocent, even if she's not a Shameless Fanservice Girl.)

How many subtropes does this cover, and how much (or how little) do they overlap? At the very least, I'd like to not see prepubescent children listed in an article with "fanservice" in its name.

edited 17th Mar '12 9:01:19 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
I'd say the lady in Forbidden Planet is probably the least innocent you can be and still qualify.
3 Deboss17th Mar 2012 10:01:57 PM from Awesomeville Texas
I see the Awesomeness.
Are you referring to some sort of No Sexual Taboo type of trope with the Green-Skinned Space Babe reference? I think that might involve Free-Love Future.
4 feotakahari17th Mar 2012 10:03:50 PM from Looking out at the city
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
^ Sort of, though that might also be Shameless Fanservice Girl. (The distinction gets a bit blurry at times.)

Edit: Just discovered that Shameless Fanservice Girl is broader than I thought—it's about girls who're unashamed of being naked, regardless of whether they're fanservice characters. Maybe they both need reworking (or at least retitling.)

edited 17th Mar '12 10:05:58 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
A few of the examples need to be moved to Shameless Fanservice Girl, as Shameless was created long after Innocent Fanservice Girl was created. I moved a good chunk when attempting to salvage Shameless Fanservice Girl when it was launched, probably a few more need to get moved over.

Accidental turn ons is I Didn't Mean to Turn You On. There's certainly overlap between the two.

There's a fine line between the IFG and the SFG. The basic rule is:
  • Both: No taboo about nudity — that is, they have no real qualms about being undressed or being seen while undressed.
  • Innocent Fanservice Girl: Does not understand the nudity taboo at all, or has a flawed understanding of it. General reaction to someone reacting to their nudity is confusion at best. They simply don't "get" why people are upset at them for seemingly random reasons.
  • Shameless Fanservice Girl: Does understand the nudity taboo, but does not agree with it for various reasons. General reaction to someone reacting to their nudity is bemusement, anger, stoicism, etc. They "get" why people are upset, but they generally don't care.

An IFG who is made aware of the taboo can go a few routes — dropping the trope entirely, turning into a Ms. Fanservice, or even going the SFG route. That's part of the reason why some of the characters are difficult to classify.

The fact that there are prepubescent children listed isn't really relevant. The trope itself is "a character without a nudity taboo," and this does cover, say, Pyrénée, despite the entire work having nothing sexual about it and the main character being around 12 years old.

The name of the trope isn't inappropriate (it's a legacy thing), although if not for Shameless Fanservice Girl I would suggest a rename to Hollywood Nudist, as that's effectively what it is.

edited 18th Mar '12 12:06:46 AM by KiTA

6 feotakahari18th Mar 2012 01:34:16 PM from Looking out at the city
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
The name of the trope isn't inappropriate (it's a legacy thing)

I don't mean to sound hostile, but I'm not getting this. At all. Aren't we renaming all our legacy tropes with awkward names? (And if it's a trope with "fanservice" in the title that's not about fanservice, the name is actively misleading.)
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
Yup, we are renaming some awkwardly named legacy tropes. Except this isn't one of them. It's used in nearly 1000 pages and has a ton of inbound hits.

The vast majority of the trope examples are about girls having no nudity taboo, and in almost every example this is done purely for fanservice. Hence the name — it's a form of fanservice where one character is given an extremely flimsy excuse to walk around naked until she (or he) is corrected by others, whereupon she usually stops.

Of course, like any good trope, there are all kinds of variations on it. And yes, this includes parts where it is completely nonsexual — the Feral Children style stories, for example.

There was already one spinoff (although I don't really agree with it and feel it was done prematurely) with Shameless Fanservice Girl. As mentioned before, I feel they should be merged into Hollywood Nudist.

I'm not quite sure I understand your objections here. Are you just objecting to the name, suggesting another split, or just upset that there are underage characters on the list?
[up]Nice job laying the smack down.

I don't get the merging thing though. The Shameless Fanservice Girl descriptions starts out by saying that it's basically the opposite of "Hollywood nudists" - it's how nudists usually act in real life.

edited 18th Mar '12 4:32:09 PM by abk0100

It seems that the OP is taking issue with the use of the word "innocent" in the title, on the grounds that lacking a nudity taboo does not necessarily indicate innocence, and that a character does not always generate fanservice due to lacking one.

I would therefore respond that trope names need not correspond precisely with the entire breadth of a trope. As noted above, the significant majority of examples here involve fanservice, just as the significant majority involve females.

I would likewise point out that the significant majority of examples on both this and Shameless Fanservice Girl do not involve nudism as such, which would recommend against any merge with a hypothetical Hollywood Nudist trope.
10 shimaspawn18th Mar 2012 06:26:51 PM from Here and Now , Relationship Status: In your bunk
Honestly, if I was going to rename the tropes I'd go with No Nudity Taboo, and Shameless Nudist. There is a lot of misuse of both tropes even just from a quick glance at the wiks, but I'm working on a more thorough check now.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
Dragon Writer
... isn't it a bit ironic how the word "shameless" has shameful connotations?
What would Hollywood Nudist be?
13 shimaspawn18th Mar 2012 07:10:52 PM from Here and Now , Relationship Status: In your bunk
I don't think Hollywood shows nudists enough for there to be a standard Hollywood Nudist.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
@abk 0100> Not exactly no. Hollywood portrays nudists in one of two ways — Innocent Fanservice Girls or Shameless Fanservice Girls. Either they are blissfully unaware as to the effect nudity has on other people, or they are completely aware but are also sociopathic enough not to care. There's little middle ground between the two, although the latter is usually location specific. They may just refuse to dress when around the house even when neighbors complain, for example.

Of the two, Shameless Fanservice Girl is a more realistic approximation — Nudists generally do understand the Nudity taboo, they just don't believe in it, but a major tenant of Nudism from 1935 - 2005 or so was "Nude when Appropriate," which included when it was socially acceptable.

There is a more modern Nudism movement that rejects this (there was a recent documentary in the UK about it) and claim that Nudists have a right to be Nude 24x7 if they want, and, well, it gets complex.

@Enraged Filia> That's the thing. "Hollywood" versions of things do not need to have anything to do with the original topic. See also Hollywood Athiesm, Hollywood Scientists, heck, anything on the huge index with have about the concept of Hollywoodization.

Which is why I think a rename towards that would be fitting, although I fully admit it would be a lot of work.

Now, from the 1950s when the Nudist movement inadvertently caused the softcore film industry to be allowed into mainstream theaters (you can find some information on that in National Geographic Nudity) you saw a surge of these "Hollywood Nudists," in the form of these fake Nudism films that allowed producers to legally show nudity.

To make a long story short, "Nudist films" were legally allowed to show nudity, with the understanding that it was inherent to the content of the movie and ultimately nonsexual. So if you were a 1950s-1960s filmmaker who wanted to show nudity, you had to claim your film was a "Nudist film" to get it allowed into theaters. Which is why so many of those old B movies from the era were like "Nudist Colony Massacre" or "Nude On the Moon" or "Escape from Sunny Buns Bay" or what have you.

Nudists in these films were always fantastically beautiful women, had no qualms about walking around nude nor being seen by others while naked, and were frequently treated as not even knowing what clothing was. Does that sound familiar? It should: Basically, they were Innocent Fanservice Girls.

Or Hollywood Nudists.

Oh, and the men? Yeah, never shown. Most Writers Are Male, after all. In fact, in "Diary of a Nudist," one of the more influential movies in this subgenre, had a main MALE lead, who was discovering nudism... which to a man, meant wearing skin tight shorts. Showing a penis? Are you mad?

The other wiki has some information on Nudist Exploitation movies over here.

@shimaspawn> Militant Nudist or Unrepentant Nudist would work better, I would think, but I've never really been keen on the Shameless Fanservice Girl launch. I had to do a lot of editing to make the original article make much sense, as the original editor had a... fairly good grasp on English, but not perfect.

Lets try to codify what tropes we are working with here, exactly:

  • A Theme Park Version of Nudism
  • A character with No taboo about being nude
  • Characters who are inhuman enough to not need clothing (And this is almost never brought up)

Problem with #2 there is there's a LOT of overlap with #1. I think #3 is probably it's own trope (and might already exist). Any others?

edited 18th Mar '12 7:17:51 PM by KiTA

15 shimaspawn18th Mar 2012 07:18:02 PM from Here and Now , Relationship Status: In your bunk
I suppose there's also the whole Ugly Nudist that also falls into the category, but there's still no one portrayal.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
Ugly Nudist is a common comedic take on the Shameless Fanservice Girl, yeah. Not sure it's it's own trope, since it's basically "This trope, with Fandisservice."
17 shimaspawn18th Mar 2012 07:32:08 PM from Here and Now , Relationship Status: In your bunk
I think Ugly Nudist is it's own thing. Watch films like Eurotrip. Personality wise, it can be either of those, but the character reactions make it it's own thing.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
We probably should take a look at Naked People Are Funny too, as it has a pretty good blurb on Hollywood's take on Nudism, too.
After squinting, I'm convinced this and Shameless Fanservice Girl are exactly the same trope. Technically, as soon as someone asks why a character isn't wearing clothes, Innocent Fanservice Girl no longer applies. As soon as she says, "Am I supposed to?" she becomes a shameless, no nudity taboo character.
"Technically, as soon as someone asks..."

Or nobody asks. Or she is oblivious to the answer.
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel.
Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.
I think the description could make it more obvious what the difference is between this and Shameless Fanservice Girl.

Near the beginning it should say, "The Innocent Fanservice Girl is usually incapable of understanding the effect her being nude has. If she does figure it out, she'll either start wearing clothes, or become a Shameless Fanservice Girl."
I think our use of shameless is problematic - though literally correct, the name has implications of licentiousness which might make people reluctant to put some more "innocent" characters who lack a nudity taboo on it, even if they fit the description.

And Shameless Fanservice Girl implies that the person is shameless about the fanservice, which makes the trope seem more like an exhibitionist trope than one about lacking a nudity taboo.

23 Fighteer19th Mar 2012 08:19:24 AM from the Time Vortex , Relationship Status: Dancing with Captain Jack Harkness
I too am inclined to drop the "fanservice" from the title in service of our drive to avoid sounding pervy and transplant Innocent Fanservice Girl into No Nudity Taboo.

Shameless Fanservice Girl does indeed sound like a separate trope, though — there is a very strong thematic difference between a person who is unclothed out of ignorance versus doing it deliberately. Maybe we can put it into Exhibitionist, if we don't have that.

edited 19th Mar '12 8:21:14 AM by Fighteer

24 shimaspawn19th Mar 2012 08:59:09 AM from Here and Now , Relationship Status: In your bunk
[up] Is that for innocent or shameless?

Either way, I'd be in favor of a rename. No Nudity Taboo is my preference. When I cleaned up the Innocent Fanservice Girl page (for creepiness, not incorrect examples), I recall seeing many instances that should be in Shameless Fanservice Girl.

Total posts: 154
1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 7