TV Tropes Org

Forums

search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [54]  1
2
3

reinterpret title?: Lingerie Scene get usage counts

I disagree. It is about the character being in that costume, not the reveal of the costume. This is a costume trope, essentially. An article about doing a strip-tease that stops at the underwear is another article.
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
 27 Madrugada, Fri, 8th Oct '10 3:16:42 PM Relationship Status: In season
Zzzzzzzzzz
^ I disagree. A woman taking off her top to reveal undergarments in public is very often treated fundamentally differently by the other characters than a guy shedding his shirt. Basically, a guy can have lots of good reasons in-story to take off his shirt in public. A woman almost always does it to titillate another character. (I'm working from an assumption here that we aren't talking about scenes where someone is changing clothes alone or in the presence of a lover or spouse.)

edited 8th Oct '10 7:36:08 PM by Madrugada

'He strutted across the bedroom, his hard manhood pointing the way' sounds like he owns a badly named seeing-eye dog. 'Sit, Hard Manhood!
The assertion, then, is that Lingerie Scene is about the scene, which has at least two components: undergarments and a reveal of the undergarments. I can buy that. It fits the title. Will adjust.

ETA: Actually, that is already there. All the fixation earlier on what the garments were left me with the impression it was about the costume, not the reveal. It's about both, together.

edited 8th Oct '10 3:25:54 PM by FastEddie

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
^^Agreed. Lingerie Scene operates under very different circumstances than a Shirtless Scene, with the only consistent shared trait being Fanservice.

Does the character have to reveal herself to another character, or just the audience? Is the use of lingerie solely a means of avoiding an R Rating? For the only criteria of the trope to be that "A woman removes her clothes, revealing underwear" is way too general, and not really a trope in and of itself.

 30 Marq FJA, Sat, 9th Oct '10 2:38:09 AM from Saudi Arabia Relationship Status: Shipping fictional characters
O' Allah, save Egypt
Also, if bikinis double as undergarments, which is your argument, then arguing that only mentioning undergarments excludes bikinis from the trope is broken logic.

First, allow me to rephrase myself so as to clarify what I really meant: bikinis, which are normally used as "outergarments" (with or without undergarments; see sports bikinis), can be repurposed as undergarments, making them a form of make-shift undergarments.

Secondly, leaving the definition at just "undergarments" risks misunderstanding by tropers/viewers who either subscribe to literal interpretation of the trope title and definition, or assume that it is the case unless said otherwise. To avoid this, there should be at least a passing mention of "yes, make-shift underwear can substitute for actual underwear"  *.

Does the character have to reveal herself to another character, or just the audience? Is the use of lingerie solely a means of avoiding an R Rating?
Fanservice is audience-directed, thus technically Shirtless Scene and Lingerie Scene need only to have the audience as... well, audience. (Is this Captain Obvious or Redundancy Department of Redundancy?) And yes, the lingerie is there only to avoid an R rating; R- and NC 17-rated works obviously have no reason to shy away from complete female toplessness if they want to include it.

Which brings me to this proposal (spurred by Fast Eddie's suggestion here): Following Applied Phlebotinum's example, we make an examplelss Super Trope that always has to be one of the Sub Tropes. My first draft for this suggestion:

Undress Scene (Yes, undress has a noun sense) - A male or female character removes/opens up/unbuttons/unzips (or is forced to do so) their outerwear (or either top or bottom part of it) for Fanservice, typically in a way that is normally inappropiate in public. This can take one of several forms (all of which have to be played for fanservice at least partially)...

General note: The removal part can be implicit/off-screen.

Additions are welcome.

EDIT: Added Swimsuit Scene, included proper credit to Fast Eddie, and fixed some issues pointed out below.

edited 12th Oct '10 10:02:29 AM by MarqFJA

Ash-shaʻb yurīd isqāṭ ḥukm al-ʻaskar
I'm still of the opinion that these are all way too general and common. Your proposed tropes are essentially "For Fanservice, a character removes clothing to reveal sexy under-clothing / removes their top, exposing their chest / takes of their bottoms, revealing a naked pelvic region / takes of their cloths and is naked."

There isn't a lot to explain about any of those circumstances. If you understand Fanservice you know that it includes gratuitous nudity/partial nudity, often arrived at by removing clothing.

 32 Madrugada, Sat, 9th Oct '10 8:00:18 AM Relationship Status: In season
Zzzzzzzzzz
(I don't know of any male under-tops that are designed to be fanservicey, to be honest.)

Wifebeaters can be. Whether one is or not depends on the guy wearing it.

edited 9th Oct '10 8:01:56 AM by Madrugada

'He strutted across the bedroom, his hard manhood pointing the way' sounds like he owns a badly named seeing-eye dog. 'Sit, Hard Manhood!
 33 Marq FJA, Sat, 9th Oct '10 9:14:46 AM from Saudi Arabia Relationship Status: Shipping fictional characters
O' Allah, save Egypt
^^ Under your logic, we should delete a lot of fanservice's subtropes.

^ Really... They don't look so IMO, but then I'm a man. tongue Women generally know about their own preferences more accurately than men do.

BTW, the above scheme assumes that the character is fanservice material (or at least possessed of Generic Cuteness), independent of anything else.

Updating scheme.

edited 9th Oct '10 9:15:50 AM by MarqFJA

Ash-shaʻb yurīd isqāṭ ḥukm al-ʻaskar
 34 Marq FJA, Mon, 11th Oct '10 3:31:03 AM from Saudi Arabia Relationship Status: Shipping fictional characters
O' Allah, save Egypt
Should I assume I have a green-light to implement the above scheme? Because I don't want to accidentally start an Edit War of reversions by reworking Lingerie Scene and Shirtless Scene to conform to the gender-neutrality aspect of the trope outlines above, after YKTTWing the other tropes.

edited 11th Oct '10 3:39:44 AM by MarqFJA

Ash-shaʻb yurīd isqāṭ ḥukm al-ʻaskar
Nah. Can we just keep it simple? Simple is a lot better than all that.
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
 36 Marq FJA, Mon, 11th Oct '10 3:56:11 AM from Saudi Arabia Relationship Status: Shipping fictional characters
O' Allah, save Egypt
How is it not simple? It's not like I'm asking for major rewrites.
Ash-shaʻb yurīd isqāṭ ḥukm al-ʻaskar
 37 shimaspawn, Mon, 11th Oct '10 8:54:24 AM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
I still don't see the point of any of your proposals.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
 38 Marq FJA, Mon, 11th Oct '10 9:37:30 AM from Saudi Arabia Relationship Status: Shipping fictional characters
O' Allah, save Egypt
See Post #21. It took some time for hindsight to convince me that the idea has merit.

edited 11th Oct '10 9:37:50 AM by MarqFJA

Ash-shaʻb yurīd isqāṭ ḥukm al-ʻaskar
 39 Fnor, Mon, 11th Oct '10 11:14:30 AM from Haha, no.
Does not work that way
I agree with shimaspawn, there doesn't seem to be much point in these changes. Unnecessary attempts at clarification merely lead to more confusion.

 40 Madrugada, Mon, 11th Oct '10 11:58:06 AM Relationship Status: In season
Zzzzzzzzzz
You are proposing a complicated division of very similar tropes where which one any given example goes into is dependent on very tiny (and somewhat nitpicky) differences in what the garment is.

  • Undress Scene : A male or female character removes/opens up/unbuttons/unzips (or is forced to do so) their outerwear (or either top or bottom part of it) for Fanservice, typically in a way that is normally inappropiate in public.

This is nothing more than a restatement of Fanservice under a different name.

  • Underwear Scene / Speedo Scene / Lingerie Scene - The character is wearing undergarments. including "make-shift" underwear / underwear substitutes such as bikinis, sarashi, tropical tree leaves made into bikini-like outfits, skimpily skintight and/or sheer bodysuits and bodystockings, etc. are valid.

  • Swimsuit Scene / Beachwear Scene / Bikini Scene - The character is wearing a (typically fanservicey, notwithstanding subversions) swimsuit. Note that it doesn't necessarily have to happen in a Beach Episode or Pool Scene.

How is this fundamentally different from swimwear as a make-shift underwear in an Underwear Scene? Especially if it doesn't have to take place at a beach or pool?

  • Shirtless Scene / Topless Scene / Bare Chest Scene - The character is either completely topless or just barechested (i.e. open-front shirt); note that...
    • "Shirtless" also includes undershirts.

This is just going to be confusing. It's not a shirtless scene if he's still wearing an undershirt. It may be Fanservice but it's not "Shirtless", or "Bare-chested" or "Topless".

  • Bottomless Scene - The character is completely bottomless. This is distinct from either Going Commando or Vapor Wear in that those are about not wearing underwear, where as this trope is about revealing the lack of underwear. (Do We Have This One?)

This one we could probably use.

  • Nude Scene / Denuding Scene - The character strips (or is forcibly stripped) down to their birthday suit. Note that the stripping part is essential.

And again, a confusing name. "Nude scene" already has an established meaning and it is not "being stripped". It's simply "being naked." On top of that, it's always going to overlap with one of the others.

edited 11th Oct '10 11:58:44 AM by Madrugada

'He strutted across the bedroom, his hard manhood pointing the way' sounds like he owns a badly named seeing-eye dog. 'Sit, Hard Manhood!
 41 Marq FJA, Mon, 11th Oct '10 1:32:04 PM from Saudi Arabia Relationship Status: Shipping fictional characters
O' Allah, save Egypt
You are proposing a complicated division of very similar tropes where which one any given example goes into is dependent on very tiny (and somewhat nitpicky) differences in what the garment is.
I suppose that is different from Applied Phlebotinum's relationship with Green Rocks, Minovsky Particle, Unobtanium, etc.? It is the model for this division, after all.

This is nothing more than a restatement of Fanservice under a different name.

Fanservice isn't always about (partial) nudity; there are lots of fanservice tropes that apply even when the character is fully and decently clothed. Undress Scene simply handles some of the (partial) nudity-based ones that technically aren't covered by Furo Scene, Shower Scene, etc.

How is this fundamentally different from swimwear as a make-shift underwear in an Underwear Scene? Especially if it doesn't have to take place at a beach or pool?
Right. My mistake. Rephrasing:

Swimsuit Scene / Beachwear Scene / Bikini Scene - The character is wearing a (typically fanservicey, notwithstanding subversions) swimsuit. Note that it is either logically preceded by a Denuding Scene (on-screen or off-screen), or involves wearing the swimsuit instead of actual underwear. In the latter case, it's differeniated from a swimsuit/bikini-based Underwear Scene in the intent - here, the swimsuit is worn with the purpose of saving the time wasted in changing outfits, rather than make-shift underwear.

This is just going to be confusing. It's not a shirtless scene if he's still wearing an undershirt. It may be Fanservice but it's not "Shirtless", or "Bare-chested" or "Topless".
... I meant "'Shirtless' also includes undershirts" as in "'Shirtless' means that you're also not wearing undershirt." (It's for the more obnoxious factions of Grammar Nazis who might insist on differentiating "shirt" from "undershirt". Yeah, I'm being Crazy-Prepared.) We can leave this part out altogether, on second thought.

And again, a confusing name. "Nude scene" already has an established meaning and it is not "being stripped". It's simply "being naked." On top of that, it's always going to overlap with one of the others.
Then we go with Denuding Scene; and I included it because it can occur independently of the others. The example list should include only such independent instances - and exclude instances occuring due to Hot Springs Episode, Furo Scene and Shower Scene for obvious reasons.

edited 12th Oct '10 2:56:04 AM by MarqFJA

Ash-shaʻb yurīd isqāṭ ḥukm al-ʻaskar
I'm not sure about this more detailed stuff, but as to the argument on the first page, I think there was a fundamental misunderstanding.

The trope: Female takes off her shirt as Fanservice while still wearing something underneath to prevent total nudity.

The Question: Why should this something not include bikinis? As long as it fits the format of a girl taking a shirt off to reveal something underneath as Fanservice, why should it matter if it's actual underwear as opposed to a Bikini or something equally revealing?

For pete's sake. Lingerie is underwear. The trope is titled Lingerie Scene. Why muddy the waters with a bunch of conjecture about what is or is not underwear?

I suppose you could use duct tape as underwear. There is no reason to specifically include that fact. The trope is still just about underwear.

edited 12th Oct '10 8:58:42 AM by FastEddie

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
On the same token there is no need to specifically restrict it to things that can only be underwear when the format of the scene plays out identically regardless of if it's a Bikini or a Bra.

The fact that you are even arguing that Bikini =/= Underwear is exactly why it should be mentioned, it's a common item in the specifics but the description as worded right now could sound to some like it wouldn't include bikinis because bikinis are not underwear.

Yes the title says Lingerie, there are innumerable tropes that extend beyond the most literal interpretation of their name.

Only Sane Fox
Fine. So edit the description to include these two sentences:

Does not strictly have to be lingerie. Anything filling the role of underwear will suffice.

There. Problem solved. Can we lock this thread now?

edited 12th Oct '10 8:59:41 AM by Roxor

Accidental mistakes are forgivable, intentional ones are not.
 46 Marq FJA, Tue, 12th Oct '10 10:04:19 AM from Saudi Arabia Relationship Status: Shipping fictional characters
O' Allah, save Egypt
^^ & ^ That is essentially what I have been arguing for since the beginning...

Except the "lock the thread" part. We still have the "degrees of undress" scheme that I have proposed here, now modified to fix some issues pointed out in previous posts. Of course, we can just split this issue into a separate thread and lock this one, but it seems counterintuitive to me for some reason.

edited 12th Oct '10 10:05:50 AM by MarqFJA

Ash-shaʻb yurīd isqāṭ ḥukm al-ʻaskar
 47 Marq FJA, Fri, 15th Oct '10 4:51:00 AM from Saudi Arabia Relationship Status: Shipping fictional characters
O' Allah, save Egypt
... Should I take this "silence" as an implicit green-light to YKTTW the tropes in the aforementioned framework?
Ash-shaʻb yurīd isqāṭ ḥukm al-ʻaskar
 48 shimaspawn, Fri, 15th Oct '10 8:19:08 AM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
No one here has agreed with your arguments. When we do you make the same ones again. The fact that we're silent is because you haven't offered anything new. Your ideas are still far too horribly convoluted and you're lacking the meaning aspect that is intrinsic to tropes. Tropes aren't just someone does X and that's all you're seeing them as.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
 49 Madrugada, Fri, 15th Oct '10 8:59:55 AM Relationship Status: In season
Zzzzzzzzzz
Marq, you can YKTTW anything you like. We can't stop you. You can launch anything you like. We can't stop that, either, short of blocking you from editing the wiki at all. But if you don't listen to anything that's being said, the pages that you launch will be cut in short order, because they are "X happens a lot".

"X happens a lot" is not a trope.
'He strutted across the bedroom, his hard manhood pointing the way' sounds like he owns a badly named seeing-eye dog. 'Sit, Hard Manhood!
 50 Marq FJA, Fri, 15th Oct '10 11:48:14 AM from Saudi Arabia Relationship Status: Shipping fictional characters
O' Allah, save Egypt
... Maybe I was mistaken in limiting myself to "laconic" descriptions of these tropes, with the intention of saving the more detailed ones for the actual YKTTWs. I was under the impression that the Repair Shop isn't the place for determining the (un)tropability of new would-be tropes.
Ash-shaʻb yurīd isqāṭ ḥukm al-ʻaskar
Total posts: 54
 1
2
3


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