Needs Help: Shot On Shitteo

1.) The name is of obscure origin.

2.) Haven't we been trying to keep profanity out of trope names?

3.) Only one wick.

4.) Is this even tropeworthy?

The name is juvenile and not even a little bit witty, the YKTTW didn't really get past using the euphemism because The Cinema Snob used it so I'm entirely in favour of a new name. As for the trope itself, I think it's valid (low quality video recording used to make a movie) but needs to be seeded a little.

edited 11th Jan '14 1:09:43 AM by treelo

Okay, I finally got that the second word was meant to be based on "video."

I understand what the context is just by the name alone since I know The Cinema Snob well. However, I do support a rename, since I feel it kinda falls under Trope-Namer Syndrome since not everyone understands That Guy with the Glasses references, less so with The Cinema Snob.

edited 11th Jan '14 4:36:39 AM by EarlOfSandvich

This name is so far fetched and the usage so small that I agree with a rename.

The concept of the trope is sound, but that's a horrible name for multiple reasons; go ahead with a rename.

Any name proposals? The only ones I get violate the "No dialogue" rule.

I don't think it's even a trope. There are other tropes that cover using poor recording media or poor shot composition or cinematography choices deliberately, which leaves this to only cover those times that it just happens for a real life reason. Which isn't a trope. Plus, it really seems like it's just complaining.

The Fictional Examples are all deliberate choices; the Real Life examples are simply sneering, and 3 of the 4 are generic "happens a lot in <this genre>" non-examples.

I think whoever made it in the first place just wanted to use the name and bitch.

My vote is to cut it.

edited 11th Jan '14 9:52:43 AM by Madrugada

I won't infer the rationale for a page creation just from its content.

This seems like a "filming yourself with whatever recording device you have, without expert assistance" page to me - assuming that I am using the vocabulary correctly here.

That's true, I probably shouldn't have speculated like that.

And I agree that your precis sounds about right. Is that a trope, though, or just something that people do?

edited 11th Jan '14 12:35:12 PM by Madrugada

I think it's a paratext trope. Medium is part of story telling after all.

That was my take as well.

How's Lo-Fi Filming for an alternate name?

I am not sure what "Lo-Fi Filming" means. Anyhow, I agree with this being a Paratext trope.

Lo-Fi means low fidelity which is what this sort of filming is technically called. I think it needs a lot of the negativity sucked away, then it can become a more neutral trope about a style choice.

edited 12th Jan '14 8:39:30 AM by shimaspawn

I don't have any problem with the name (how could it be interpreted as being anything else?), but I don't think this is a trope to begin with. Pretty much everything that was shot on video between 1985 and 2005 looks like crap, or at best, like a soap opera, making this another form of People Sit In Chairs. If nothing else, it's triva.

When it's used in-universe, it's just a particular variety of Stylistic Suck.

Also, the very first Crazy Fat Ethel movie was shot on 16mm and isn't an example of this trope to begin with.

Is this supposed to be specifically about something shot on videotape as opposed to generally poor perceived image quality?

Don't think so but the way it reads it wants to be limited to specifically poor quality VHS recordings. It's fairly ill-defined and doesn't know if it's about low-quality filming as a stylistic choice or one of necessity (that or nothing).

@16: I am not seeing your logic there, unless you want to say "everything shot on video then looks bad and that makes it PSOC", which seems a) false and b) not a logical conclusion.

@17: The page creators were writing for both, apparently. I would just use the filming technique.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I've watched many, many movies over the course of my life, and it's very obvious which ones were shot on video, and even more obvious which ones were shot with consumer-grade equipment (which is what I assume the trope is about). Have you ever seen anything that was (1) obviously shot on video, and (2) looks good?

I think we may have a rough consensus for a cut here. Anyone wanna call it?

Seems like we need some more discussion, on the contrary.

I don't see a consensus, what I do see is a potential trope marred by being downright unclear and some folk working on making it have a clear meaning. Sounds like what TRS threads should do, carry on.

That is one horrible name and it desperately needs a new name. That said, isn't there a trope here? For works that are intentionally shot in low-fidelity media? I've been reading a lot about that "Computer Chess" movie that was shot with black-and-white ancient video cameras. That's tropeable, isn't it?

Yep, there's a trope and it's about making something with very low quality video which usually has a much higher quality to the form (mainly feature-length films) as a stylistic choice or through limitation of available equipment.

I still think Lo-Fi Filming isn't a bad name and people have some idea of what "lo-fi" means in the context.

edited 14th Jan '14 11:40:19 PM by treelo