Needs Help: Ridiculously Cute Critter

I think this trope should go to YMMV. What is cute? That's a very subjective term. For example, some people (like me) don't think cats are cute at all, even though many insists. Just like Fetish Fuel, there are always some individual who think some animal is cute. Also, the laconic version states as "animal version of moe", while Moe itself is a YMMV.

So, this thing should go to YMMV. That's my point here.

Edit: Sorry but I messed up the title, without the camelcase... if a mod see this please fix the title

edited 16th Jul '12 6:36:02 AM by tryourbreast

You can edit the tagging yourself. It's the page-looking button. I did it for you, however.

I don't think this is YMMV. The point isn't whether or not everyone in the audience finds the critter cute, it's that the critter is clearly designed to be cute. It will have big eyes and a big head (making it look very young, since young animals are cute). It will look soft (usually by having fur and no hard edges) so it looks huggable. It'll probably make "cute" noises that are reminiscent of a baby animal.

It's pretty easy to look at the design and say "yeah, that was meant to be super cute" even if you, personally, don't find it cute.

edited 16th Jul '12 7:32:44 AM by ccoa

I agree with ccoa, but don't we have the YMMV crowner to decide this stuff?

Do we? I'm not sure where it is if we do.

Our forums are seriously a mess.

See this thread: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=3tg6evewhfkzrkmbflgc97iv&page=36#894

Yeah, I agree this isn't YMMV. We don't care in the slightest whether tropes think these things are cute.

@ccoa: It doesn't help that the Trivia banner crowner is in Special Efforts along with the Real Life Examples one, whilst the YMMV banner crowner (linked by jkbeta) is in Wiki Talk. I agree that this isn't YMMV, though.

edited 16th Jul '12 7:50:52 AM by Telcontar

Anyway, as long as we've got it here in TRS, it couldn't hurt to tweak the description a bit and mention the common points to the design and why they work.

• Big head, eyes, and often feet: makes the animal look younger.
• Soft-looking, with rounded edges or fur: makes the animal look huggable
• Makes relatively high-pitched but low volume noises, but not so high as to be actively irritating (ideally): makes the animal sound younger
• Small enough to pick up: makes the animal look younger and/or possible to hug

Then what about Moe entry? Actually I put this into TRS because Moe and this trope are in inconsistent natures (trope and YMMV), so if this should be a trope, Moe should go too. And apparantly many designers try to make character designs to be moe so as to appeal customers.

And that sounds a viable solution to me.

Being YMMV does not make something not a trope, it just means that whether or not it's present is subjective.

I have no idea what you need to do to a character to make her "moe", but I suspect it is not as clear-cut, since before I have heard it described as "you know it when you see it." This trope seems to have much simpler and more limited set of design choices.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the Laconic, either. Laconics are notoriously inaccurate.

edited 16th Jul '12 9:44:25 AM by ccoa

This isn't subjective. This is a set of traits that are designed by the creators to perform a specific function.

Moe is probably objective but it's a touchy issue that we shouldn't get into here. Either way, you can tell when something is designed to be cute even if turns out horrible.

As I understand it, Moe is subjective because the fans can't agree on what it actually means. (Not just on TV Tropes, either—it appears to be the basis of fanwars on other sites.)

Tweaked the description a bit and added additional info to the analysis page. Also, fixed the laconic.

Is there anything else we need to do here?

Gah, the examples seriously need a cleanup to comply with Example Indentation and other guidelines, but that's not really a task that requires TRS. I think the description looks fine now, and the laconic seems clear. Only glanced at the analysis page, but it seemed to cover the points I'd want it to. I'm satisfied.

I took a chainsaw to the examples.

Is there anything left to do?

I think not. Locking.