Needs Help: Not Wearing Tights

So. . . limit it to the superhero genre?

. . . That doesn't actually sound like a very fun thing to have to define, tbh, but, uh, if someone else is willing. . .

In universes full of superheroes who wear tights, having someone who doesn't is usually Civvie Spandex. That's even mentioned in the trope itself in the "comic books" section. Series which contain superheroic characters but where tights are not one of the Acceptable Breaks from Reality are usually different from series where tights are normal and one character just doesn't happen to wear them.

And I thought the trope is already limited to superheroes (or rather characters who are superheroes in all but name.)

edited 23rd May '13 11:12:03 AM by arromdee

Actually, the description on Civvie Spandex says "spandex plus civilian clothes". Which contradicts its page quote, naturally.

...which I guess means we have two pages which need help.

We have other pages that are limited to the Western Superhero Genre. Just write on the page that it's limited to that genre and the work is done.

Same, i think we should limit to situations where you have the expectation that they'll be in in costume of some kind.

edited 23rd May '13 6:39:20 PM by shoboni

Clock is set.

Do we need a crowner for this?

I would suggest a rename crowner (current suggestions include the present, Non Costumed Super Being, and Non Costumed Super), but the definition I think we have to hash out in the thread.

Speaking of which, I'm going to give it another try:

One of the most defining aspects of superhero stories is the costumes. Heroes, villains, wannabes, and sidekicks (even minions, in some cases) ... every one of them goes to work in their action-figure clothes: distinctive, stylish, and superheroic or -villainous, as the case may be.

Well, almost every one of them. Some superheroes and supervillains don't. This page is about those exceptions.

Bump?

So the proposed redefinition is that it will be about not wearing traditional superhero attire, rather than the current definition about not being called superheroes?

If that's what's happening, why do we need a name change? Not Wearing Tights seems to fit the new definition quite nicely.

Tights are associated with lots of people that aren't superheroes, such as Mel Brooks's Robin Hood: Men In Tights, and certain acting circles.

But where else is wearing tights so ubiquitous that its absence merits attention?

FYI, there is a trope about superheroes not having codenames: Comic-Book Movies Don't Use Codenames

edited 4th Jul '13 12:39:47 AM by AP

Definitely related.

...no comments on the description rewrite?

I like the just of it, it could stand to be longer though.

@Raven, because something can look like a standard Super Custume without being tights(Iron Mans Armor, for example)

edited 5th Jul '13 5:06:08 PM by shoboni

@shoboni: It felt extremely short when I wrote it, but I'm not seeing a natural way to add to it that adds, rather than merely lengthens.

I also agree with your point about Iron Man — he's not wearing tights, but his Powered Armor definitely has the same costume feel (unlike, say, the cargo loader in Aliens).

Re-clocking, and this one will stick.

Someone throw out some names.

Non Costumed Super sounded good to me.

Going to say no to a rename. Names a little narrower than their meanings are not necessarily bad, and the number of wicks and inbounds is large enough that I like to see proof of malfunction.

Well, I said that last clock would stick and then this fell off the map again. Locking up since this isn't going anywhere.