What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Disney/SleepingBeauty

 

helterskelter
topic
05:36:59 PM Sep 21st 2012
edited by helterskelter
Well, first, putting it right back begins an edit war. You should have taken it to discussion.

Regardless, it's a plain dress. The trope is not "dress". Aurora's is the plainest dress in the movie—compare her own mother's dress. It's far more detailed. Hell, compare completely irrelevant background characters' dresses. I mean, her outfit is spectacularly understated.

I might even go as far to see her peasant outfit is either just as, or a tiny bit more, complex.

I think you're really stretching to see Aurora's dress as "pimped out" in even the smallest of senses. It could barely get any plainer.
DragonQuestZ
05:49:39 PM Sep 21st 2012
1. Beginning an edit war isn't really a thing (as we took it too discussion before it got too far). It's constantly taking an example on and off that counts.

2. Regardless, those other outfits still qualify the movie to list that trope.

3. Being plain in terms of decoration is not always a dis-qualifier. An actual plain dress would be an everyday dress that doesn't look anything special. So it doesn't matter if the peasant dress merely looks more decorative to the naked eye, what it's decorated with wouldn't qualify it to be this trope. Her princess dress is of a design that they couldn't pull off without magic, when they clearly had to make plain clothes before.
helterskelter
06:34:36 PM Sep 21st 2012
But we're talking about Aurora, not the Queen or background nobility.

Her princess dress couldn't be pulled off because Flora didn't sew—that appeared to be either Merryweather or Fauna's job (similar to how Fauna didn't know how to cook). Flora's early attempt didn't even begin to resemble wearable clothing. It was clear she just didn't know how.

"what it's decorated with wouldn't qualify it to be this trope"

It would when that's the entire point of the trope. Not "dress".
DragonQuestZ
07:12:11 PM Sep 21st 2012
1. The point is that if the other ladies fit, then the example should be rewritten to include them, not delete it from the page entirely.

2. That kind of dress still wasn't something that any peasant could do or afford, and a lot of them had to make their own clothes back then, and do them simply.

3. I was referring to her peasant dress, which wasn't loaded with fancy trimmings, just plain trimmings. Yet a dress made out of mostly expensive fabrics (since they weren't going to make the dress out of wool or other lower class materials), and cut in ways that would take far too much time than a peasant would have time to do (would a peasant cut their skirt to have the star-like pattern around the waist?) would still be pimped out, since such an outfit would require a lot of cost in terms of materials and labor.

After all, this isn't just "dress loaded with lots of trimmings". It's also "a dress that is extremely fancy in any particular way".
helterskelter
07:22:22 PM Sep 21st 2012
"That kind of dress still wasn't something that any peasant could do or afford, and a lot of them had to make their own clothes back then, and do them simply."

It's a fantasy world; how would you know? And it was made magically.

Again, how do you know what it's made of? Your argument right now is "I'm sure it must be a Pimped-Out Dress because I'm guessing it's made of something expensive based upon nothing I've seen in the movie".

"would a peasant cut their skirt to have the star-like pattern around the waist?"

Would a peasant wear a corset outside of their clothing when they have an undershirt that perfectly sufficed? Would a peasant girl have worn a headband? Yet, as a peasant, she does. So your idea of what peasants and princesses ought to look like doesn't actually match the movie itself.

And, again, judging from the movie itself—the lesser nobility of the kingdom wear far fancier outfits than Aurora. There's no dress we seem them wearing that is as plain as hers. Yet, are we to believe they're all supremely rich dukes and duchesses? Her dress, in the context of the movie and real life, is not pimped out. It's plain.

And this dress isn't extremely fancy. That's the point. It's not even fancy.
DragonQuestZ
07:41:32 PM Sep 21st 2012
edited by DragonQuestZ
"It's a fantasy world; how would you know? And it was made magically."

Prince Phillip clearly says "This it the 14th century". So fantasy world or not, it's still grounded in some of our rules at the time, and human peasants could not make such a dress.

"Again, how do you know what it's made of?"

I didn't write what it was made of. I was stating what it couldn't be made of.

"based upon nothing I've seen in the movie"

Her being the firstborn of the king and queen is nothing? Are you forgetting that she's a princess, and that dress was made for a princess?

"Would a peasant wear a corset outside of their clothing when they have an undershirt that perfectly sufficed?"

That's not fancy. That's anachronistic (since corsets didn't become so popular until the 16th century). And even then, it more fits the Renaissance fair version of a peasant outfit than being pimped out.

Plus a corset alone is not a pimping out decoration.

"Would a peasant girl have worn a headband?"

Again, you're confusing any deocoration for fancy materials and decorations. That and it might also be just another anachronism.

"There's no dress we seem them wearing that is as plain as hers."

The definition of the trope is NOT that there is some kind of fanciness baseline that any dress would fall under. It's fancy, period.

And you're missing the context of the movie, and of the period. I've been looking at costume books since I was about 10 (yet I'm a straight male; wanna fight about it?). Trust me, this is a fancy dress.
Telcontar
moderator
12:12:41 AM Sep 22nd 2012
It isn't a Pimped-Out Dress. "Fancy dress", "expensive dress", and "colored dress" are not tropes, let alone that one. It doesn't have a whole bunch of extra bits and pieces — the only decoration is fairly ordinary fabric cut with a zigzag pattern in a couple places. There's no smidgen of fur, no beads and bobs, no buttons and ribbons and bows... It's a beatuiful dress, but doesn't fit the trope.
DragonQuestZ
09:48:29 AM Sep 22nd 2012
edited by DragonQuestZ
Again, Pimped-Out Dress doesn't require a whole bunch of extra bits and pieces. That part of the page for Pimped-Out Dress lists common decorations, but does not say those are the only ones that qualify. Heck, it starts off listing loads of fabric, which even today makes a dress expensive (I've seen news articles about clothing companies making mass produced dresses smaller to save costs). And her skirt does flare out, which would not work if the skirt didn't have lots of fabric. It's even doubled by the petticoat underneath.

Here's the petticoat.

Also, the skirt is pleated, which can be seen in the straight lines when the skirt it worn normally, but in the finale, the pleats open up, showing the extra fabric the skirt has.

Pleats 1

Pleats 2

Pleats 3

If you seriously think that's not a fancy decoration on the dress, ask a dressmaker to do something like that, and how much it would cost.

And although I don't know what fabric the dress is made of, it has to be something expensive like silk or velvet, as the fairies were sending the crown princess back to the royal court, and even put a crown on her head. There was no way they would send her back in something made of fabric peasants could wear, no matter how fancy it was cut.

Oh, and pink dyes were expensive at the time. And using magic doesn't really apply, as the fabric was pink when they brought it out in the first place. So the color war was on fabric that was already made for royalty. Their magic just saved the labor costs, not the material costs.
Telcontar
moderator
10:03:48 AM Sep 22nd 2012
The first screencap that you have labelled as "petticoat" is magic sparkles that only stay a moment; they don't count towards it being fancy or not.

Okay, so there's pleats. There is nothing special about long, wide pleats in a dress. Girls at school have fancier pleats on their skirts. It's a little extra fabric that looks semi-classy, but it doesn't give the dress the opulence and over-the-topness needed for a Pimped-Out Dress.

First sentence of that trope: a dress made with a whole bunch of fancy trimmings, and/or materials, just to make it look pretty. Pleats in that way don't contribute to that. I don't deny that it would be an expensive dress — I expect Maddy could give a rough figure — but that doesn't mean it fits the trope. This is a Disney film, so what color would have cost at the time is irrelevant.
DragonQuestZ
10:13:01 AM Sep 22nd 2012
"The first screencap that you have labelled as "petticoat" is magic sparkles that only stay a moment; they don't count towards it being fancy or not."

Do you even know what "petticoat" means? It refers to the large, white underskirt that can be seen in that picture.

"There is nothing special about long, wide pleats in a dress."

Again, ask a dressmaker to do large, full-length pleats on a full-length skirt.

"Girls at school have fancier pleats on their skirts."

No, they do not. They have smaller pleats, which are a lot less costly.

"It's a little extra fabric that looks semi-classy, but it doesn't give the dress the opulence and over-the-topness needed for a Pimped Out Dress."

I repeat, that would require lots of extra materials, which still counts for the trope (this is why slinky dresses usually don't count for the trope, and that dress is not slinky).

"This is a Disney film, so what color would have cost at the time is irrelevant."

How does that work? Do you think I was referring to the coloring used for the film? I was referring to pink fabric in the middle ages.
Telcontar
moderator
10:25:38 AM Sep 22nd 2012
I know what a petticoat is, having worn one a couple times. However, it looked to me like you were trying to point out the sparkles that went with that screenshot; I apologise for misinterpreting you. Since the petticoat isn't part of the main (as in, normally shown) dress, though, I don't think it should count towards the dress's visible fanciness. It's also just plain white.

Just because it takes a lot of fabric and is hard to do doesn't mean it marks the dress as opulent. I repeat, technical difficulty is no factor in an animated Pimped-Out Dress.

So what if it's expensive due to having a lot of fabric? It's just a plain pleat. I interpret the "extra materials" bit as referring to textures and all, since a wide-skirted dress with no other trimming clearly isn't "pimped out".

Ah, you misinterpreted me here — sorry if I was unclear. I meant that, since this is a Disney film, the creators probably didn't take into account what pink fabric of the day would have cost, the finer points of fashion in the middle-ages, etc..
DragonQuestZ
10:48:58 AM Sep 22nd 2012
"I don't think it should count towards the dress's visible fanciness. It's also just plain white."

Petticoats still add to the cost. Furthermore, they help hold the shape of the skirt, which is a visible aspect (it's why the dress in Enchanted could have a bell shape, as it had loads of petticoats). So it doesn't matter what one things "should" count. It does count.

"Just because it takes a lot of fabric and is hard to do doesn't mean it marks the dress as opulent."

Again, ask a dressmaker to do something like that, and see how much it costs.

And thinking opulence only counts if it has loads of stuff in your face, and not parts and labor, seems to be following the same fallacies that lead to some really tacky wedding dresses, because some people think "opulence=shoving the cost in your face".

"I repeat, technical difficulty is no factor in an animated Pimped Out Dress."

WHAT? If anything, that's hypocritical logic, because material costs aren't technically a factor either. The point of an animated dress it what it would cost if it were real. This is not a trope that has a double standard for animation.

"So what if it's expensive due to having a lot of fabric?"

Again, that's assuming that opulence can only be displayed a certain way.

"I interpret the"

Examples Are Not Arguable also means that examples on an objective trope is not up to personal interpretation. That's why I'm not arguing how I personally feel about the dress (and trust me, I haven't), but the facts about it.

"I meant that, since this is a Disney film, the creators probably didn't take into account what pink fabric of the day would have cost, the finer points of fashion in the middle-ages, etc."

That requires Word of God, so assuming what they though is not a valid argument. Plus many writers and filmmakers assume things are easy, and then find that applying them is not. That even counts for these films, as animating the dress still was time consuming.

The only thing off with the dress, that's evident in the film, is the style fits the 1950s instead of the styles back then.
Telcontar
moderator
11:35:06 PM Sep 22nd 2012
I think we're misunderstanding each other in some way, and yes we do each interpret the trope differently. You count technical difficulty towards it qualifying as a Pimped-Out Dress; I do not. A Pimped-Out Dress is about in-you-face opulence and showing off through having lots of decorations, extra frills, etc.. Some long pleats are not enough to qualify.
lu127
moderator
01:49:34 AM Sep 23rd 2012
edited by lu127
DQZ, I think that's enough. There's three different people, one of them a moderator with a degree in costume design agreeing it's not a Pimped-Out Dress. Learn when to step back.
RoseDoll
07:49:17 PM Apr 26th 2013
I always tend to interpret Pimped-Out Dress as simply a beautiful dress... And Aurora's dress certainly is beautiful...
back to Disney/SleepingBeauty

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