TV Tropes Org

Forums

Deadlock Clock: 21st May '13 11:59 PM
search forum titles
google site search
 26 shimaspawn, Mon, 19th Mar '12 9:03:18 AM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
[up] That's for Innocent.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
If you think Shameless Fanservice Girl is the Exhibitionism trope than there has been a severe breakdown in the trope description there. None of the examples over there are meant to make one think "this character gets his/her rocks off by being seen naked." Ok, except the DearS teacher, but, yeah. Contrast that character with, say, Grace from El Goonish Shive and the problem becomes pretty clear.

The DearS teacher is an oversexed, admittedly attractive, Ms. Fanservice Vamp who comes on so strong that she scares everyone away. Her only reason for being included on the page is that her "seduction" attempts usually involve her stripping naked at a drop of a hat.

Grace is a shapeshifter who was Raised by Wolves who was originally a textbook Innocent Fanservice Girl. When someone explained to her that Nudity = Sex in most people's minds, she adjusted by merely going nude when in private.

It's admittedly a poorly named trope, created by a new troper that should have ran it through YKTTW first. (At least, I don't think it was ran through YKTTW first...)

I do agree that we need to examine the idea of doing a double rename, but I would suggest, say:

And then looking at if we have an Exhibitionism trope or not — what about Attention Whore? I guess that's not a perfect fit, either.

My justification for these specific two renames:

Shameless Fanservice Girl is more akin to a Nudist in "Hollywood"* Terms — obviously they know about clothing and the like, they just don't care if other people are offended. Consider the various "nudist" characters in European Movies and American B-movies, who are well aware of the effects their nudity is having on others, but are arrogant or confident enough that they do not care if they're seen (usually in private). Almost always used for Fanservice (but we don't need to include this in the title, obviously), almost a sign of a Ms. Fanservice or Mr. Fanservice character.

Innocent Fanservice Girl works better as No Nudity Taboo, since there's not a 100% overlap between the idea of a character not understanding nudity's implications and an actual belief in Naturism or Nudism. Plus this would clear up the nonsexual examples, such as Pyrénée.

 28 shimaspawn, Mon, 19th Mar '12 9:19:32 AM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
[up] You're misusing Hollywood there. How you're using it in the trope name isn't how we as a wiki use it. It's a bad and unspecific title. We should not use it.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
Er, isn't that kinda the point of all the examples of Hollywood Style? A theme parked version of various real life things, such as Heart Attacks and Occult Beliefs?

 30 shimaspawn, Mon, 19th Mar '12 9:32:57 AM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
No, Hollywood means, in the single manner in which Hollywood almost always portrays this concept. Yours is far from the only way Hollywood portrays nudists. Thus it can't be Hollywood Nudist.

Hollywood has "Nudists Are Hippies", "Nudists Are Ugly And Thats Funny", "Nudists Are Closer To The Earth", "Foreigners Are Nudists", "Nudity Is Natural" your trope of "Nudists Are Blatantly Sexual" is actually about one of the rarest ways Hollywood portrays them. Most characters that fall under that trope aren't actually nudists. They just get naked to make other people want them a lot.

edited 19th Mar '12 9:37:42 AM by shimaspawn

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

-Philip K. Dick
Er, really? Hm. The list itself has a disclaimer saying that it's not restricted to Hollywood, and just about every trope on the list has a good chunk of wiggle room. Take a look at Hollywood Atheist, for example, there are like 9 different versions of the trope listed.

Ok, hold it. Where did I say Nudists are Blatantly Sexual? I really don't see where you're getting that from what I'm saying. At all.

What I am saying is that Hollywood's take on Nudism tends to be "Hey, look, a Happy Naked Girl(TM)! But that's ok, cause she's a nudist!"

You can see this trope in play in all kinds of older movies from the 1950s — Holiday in the Sun or Garden of Eden or any of the other Exploitation films that came out as a result of the Nudist organizations of the time wining against the Hays Code.

Modern day, it's admittedly more of a European film trope, but you also see it with the occasional B-Movie or Foreign Fanservice character.

A Hollywood Nudist doesn't have to be spelled out, just like how a Hollywood Scientist doesn't have to be spelled out. If the guy is wearing a lab coat, talking like Spock, and holding a beaker, we can kinda figure out that he's supposed to be a Scientist.

Likewise, if a character walks in on someone sunbathing and the total reaction to being seen is meh on the sunbather's part, then we're probably dealing with what we would currently call a Shameless Fanservice Girl.

edited 19th Mar '12 9:52:39 AM by KiTA

 33 shimaspawn, Mon, 19th Mar '12 9:47:47 AM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
Having multiple versions of the same trope on one page tends to make a mess of things honestly. There's a reason Hollywood Atheist keeps ending up in the TRS. A lot of the Hollywood tropes do now that I think about it. The names are vague enough people seem to make up what they think they mean and that causes misuse.

[up] Ah, yes, that's not really common at all any more and not something anyone modern would think of as a Hollywood Nudist. It's certainly not how Hollywood treats nudists now, and it's not the trope we're talking about.

edited 19th Mar '12 9:49:31 AM by shimaspawn

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

-Philip K. Dick
 34 Fighteer, Mon, 19th Mar '12 9:48:52 AM from the Time Vortex Relationship Status: Dancing with Captain Jack Harkness
[up] Right. Hollywood X titles violate our guidelines on clarity — in particular, the admonition to Be Specific.
Neoclassicism, AKA the Tinkerbell school of economics.
Well, if not "Hollywood, " then what do we call it? "Faux Nudist" sounds silly, for example. Imitation Nudist? Phony Nudist?

Naked Fanservice? Barely Justified Nudity?

 36 lu 127, Mon, 19th Mar '12 10:03:08 AM from the Capital of Light Relationship Status: Loves me...loves me not
[up][up] I suspect we'd get an epic shitstorm if we tried to rename those.

The way I understand it, the key to this trope is that the character in question has a no nudity taboo because they do not understand why it would make others uncomfortable. A Shameless Fanservice Girl, on the other hand, understands why her nudity would shock, but does it anyway because she couldn't care less.
迷子の足音消えた
代わりに祈りの唄
 37 Fighteer, Mon, 19th Mar '12 10:05:34 AM from the Time Vortex Relationship Status: Dancing with Captain Jack Harkness
I think we can get rid of the Fanservice part of the trope titles. That's what really is causing the issue here — any time someone uses that term, it keys up reactions of, "Well it was fanservice for me, " or the question of whether the use of the trope is intended to tittilate the audience or just provide information about the character.

A reorganization of these tropes is definitely in order. Let me see if I can classify them in a useful way.

  • Type 1: A character does not have a nudity taboo and is unaware of the existence or reason behind it.
  • Type 2: A character is aware of the taboo and is a practicing nudist or otherwise deliberately defies it, but not necessarily for sexual reasons.
  • Type 3: A character is aware of the taboo and goes naked precisely for the effect it will have on the members of the opposite sex (or the same sex, depending).

These really seem like the categories we're aiming for, in my opinion. They could be a soft split or a hard split.

edited 19th Mar '12 11:15:02 AM by Fighteer

Neoclassicism, AKA the Tinkerbell school of economics.
 38 shimaspawn, Mon, 19th Mar '12 10:39:43 AM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
[up] Those do seem to be the ideas. I like that split and I think fanservice needs to just be gone in the title.

edited 19th Mar '12 10:39:54 AM by shimaspawn

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

-Philip K. Dick
Nudists also have No Nudity Taboo.
 
 40 Fighteer, Mon, 19th Mar '12 11:12:57 AM from the Time Vortex Relationship Status: Dancing with Captain Jack Harkness
Some do, some don't. If you didn't grow up a nudist, you have the taboo whether you consciously reject it or not. It takes a lot of practice to overcome one's conditioning. Still, this falls under the heading of people who are aware of the taboo but do not choose to obey it for nonsexual reasons (Type 2).

In a setting where nudity is the default for everyone, that would be a Type 1.

edited 19th Mar '12 11:14:02 AM by Fighteer

Neoclassicism, AKA the Tinkerbell school of economics.
 41 lu 127, Mon, 19th Mar '12 11:17:17 AM from the Capital of Light Relationship Status: Loves me...loves me not
It appears 1 and 2 are mashed into Innocent Fanservice Girl, while 3 is what Shameless Fanservice Girl should be like.

I like the distinction Fighteer put forward. We should be able to work with that.
迷子の足音消えた
代わりに祈りの唄
 42 Fighteer, Mon, 19th Mar '12 11:20:54 AM from the Time Vortex Relationship Status: Dancing with Captain Jack Harkness
If I were doing the titles, I'd put Type 1 under No Nudity Taboo, Type 2 under Nudist, and Type 3 under... hmm, I'd need to review existing tropes to see if it fits under something we've already got. There are so many.

edited 19th Mar '12 11:21:22 AM by Fighteer

Neoclassicism, AKA the Tinkerbell school of economics.
 43 lu 127, Mon, 19th Mar '12 11:23:48 AM from the Capital of Light Relationship Status: Loves me...loves me not
Oh wait, just caught another we should look at. Reluctant Fanservice Girl.
迷子の足音消えた
代わりに祈りの唄
 44 Fighteer, Mon, 19th Mar '12 11:33:18 AM from the Time Vortex Relationship Status: Dancing with Captain Jack Harkness
I see that as a subtrope, really. In this case the Fanservice is typically intentional on the part of the writer, so it qualifies for that element as well. However, it's also a snowclone of the other tropes, which makes it hard to judge the title on its own merits.

Edit: I have a great title idea for Reluctant Fanservice Girl: Frequently Naked. That encompasses the trope and leaves the reasons why for the examples.

edited 19th Mar '12 11:36:13 AM by Fighteer

Neoclassicism, AKA the Tinkerbell school of economics.
 45 lu 127, Mon, 19th Mar '12 11:50:21 AM from the Capital of Light Relationship Status: Loves me...loves me not
Hmmm...Reluctant Fanservice Girl isn't only about nudity though. It's about characters ending up in skimpy or other kinds of fanservice-y outfits without meaning to. I can think of at least two cases where it doesn't involve nudity.
迷子の足音消えた
代わりに祈りの唄
 46 Fighteer, Mon, 19th Mar '12 11:57:27 AM from the Time Vortex Relationship Status: Dancing with Captain Jack Harkness
True. It's not just about nudity. If it fits with the other Fanservice tropes better than it does Nudism tropes, then leave it there.
Neoclassicism, AKA the Tinkerbell school of economics.
I'm looking through your wick check, shimas, and I disagree with a lot of it.

from Big Breasts, Big Deal:

"This is a girl who is so innocent/oblivious/naive that she genuinely can't make the connection between the increase of male accident rates in her presence and where their eyes are straying to.

You're saying that is misuse?

That's just one example, there are more. A lot of them are just describing a specific character by calling them an Innocent Fanservice Girl, and yet it's in the "misuse for fanservice in general" category. What's the deal?

edited 19th Mar '12 12:07:19 PM by abk0100

 48 shimaspawn, Mon, 19th Mar '12 12:55:41 PM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
[up] It's contributing to misuse in the larger context. It's talking about their breasts being used as fanservice. Not nudity.

Most of the specific character ones are never actually nude in their works. That means they can't qualify for this trope. They just wear clothing that is fanservice heavy or make Innocent Innuendos.

edited 19th Mar '12 12:57:05 PM by shimaspawn

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

-Philip K. Dick
I like the split Fighteer suggests. In theory, Innocent Fanservice Girl was always type 1, Shameless Fanservice Girl was always type 2, and ... we don't have a specific trope for Exhibitionists and Streakers as of yet. (We do, however, have one for Streakers who happen to be Invisible.)

I would suggest mentioning our Useful Notes: Nudism article on a theoretical Nudist page, especially in contrast with the stereotypical nudist-as-trope, which is usually played up as "Nude but No Big Deal."

I already started a rough draft here in notepad about a Nudist trope page (under the draft title of Hollywood Nudist), which I can clean up and will put in a sandbox someplace once I have some free time this afternoon.

So:

With appropriate recategorization of the tropes into one (or more than one) of the above three.

But before we go any further — can we at least agree that a character need not be specifically called out as a Nudist to fit into this hypothetical Type 2 trope? It's actually fairly rare that a character is ever explicitly called a nudist — for example, out of all the Anime examples on both pages, only Mio from Ano Natsu De Matteru has ever been actually called a nudist in a mainstream work to my knowledge, but plenty of characters fit the "casually nude without any sexual connotations" criteria.

For example, Grace from El Goonish Shive clearly upholds quite a few nudist ideals (some of her dialogue about the inherent nonsexuality of nudity may actually be crimped straight from the AANR or TNS websites) but seems to be unaware of the lifestyle / philosophy's existence. She's not an Innocent Fanservice Girl (although she started out as one), but she's by no means an Exhibitionist, either. She's in that type 2 category — she sees nothing wrong with being nude, but knows others do.

edited 19th Mar '12 1:38:25 PM by KiTA

 50 Fighteer, Mon, 19th Mar '12 1:38:05 PM from the Time Vortex Relationship Status: Dancing with Captain Jack Harkness
She's kind of a promoted Type 1. In fact, that needs to be put on the page. Maybe instead of Nudist we should call it Casually Nude.
Neoclassicism, AKA the Tinkerbell school of economics.
Total posts: 154
 1
2
 3  4  5  6 7


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy