Something must be done: Accidental Innuendo

The examples on Accidental Innuendo, and its entries on work pages, are extremely prone to similar problems as Getting Crap Past the Radar: extremely dirty-minded tropers trying to find anything that can even be construed as sexual in tone, while simultaneously dismissing any possibility that it might not have been 'accidental'. They're also quite nattery. I suggest any of the following as a solution:

• Limit it to in-universe examples, possibly merging with That Came Out Wrong
• Make it YMMV
• Kill the examples outright

I'm fine with any of these, but in its current state this is not a good trope.

Didn't you notice that it already has a YMMV banner?

...No, no I didn't.

Which doesn't mean we still don't have a problem with the examples, mind you.

That Came Out Wrong isn't limited to innuendo though. And I say we kill the subjective examples and make this In-Universe only. There are plenty of examples of that. Take the Let's Play series Marik Plays Bloodlines, which makes it a Running Gag.

How do you distinguish between an In-Universe example of this trope and Double Entendre ?

A Double Entendre is intentional, while Accidental Innuendo is, well, accidental.

And it's not limited to those either.

The way Double Entendre is written makes it sexually-specific. Therefore, there's a YKTTW for Double Meaning, right now. Read what I asked again; an In-Universe example of Accidental Innuendo, which means one character makes an Innocent Innuendo and another character takes it the wrong way.

What makes this different from an intentional Double Entendre then?

You wrote "intentional", and asked how "accidental" is different?

If this is In-Universe, there is nothing unintentional from the creator. Unless you're limiting it to Show Within a Show

edited 27th Oct '11 2:26:03 PM by crazysamaritan

The idea is that, if it's in-universe, intentional vs. accidental depends on the character.

Yeah.

You should realize In-Universe means it's within the context of the story. OF COURSE they are deliberate with the writer. That's what make them not YMMV. But if character slips and falls, it's STILL accidental to them.

edited 27th Oct '11 3:29:44 PM by DragonQuestZ

And so is Innocent Innuendo. When it is not deliberately done by the character, it is an Innocent Innuendo. Accidental's distinction was that the creator didn't intend it.

Well, then, perhaps we should merge this with Innocent Innuendo?

I only know that the current sophomoric "heh heh they said X" tone of the examples for this seems really out of control.

That is not what that trope means. It's actually cutting out part of a conversation to make it seem like an innuendo to the audience. It's in the first paragraph of that trope's description.

It doesn't say anything about the dialogue being missing, only some context, generally visual.

Accidental Innunedo is an Audience Reaction. Innocent Innuendo is an In-Universe trope, though a bit more specific. I don't really see why this needs to be changed.

"A deliberate ploy to make the viewer think something sexy or illicit is occurring" is the first line of Innocent Innuendo. It is not an in-universe version of someone making an innuendo accidentally.

Right, Innocent Innuendo is not an In-Universe trope, or an in-universe trope. Accidental Innuendo, however, if limited to In-Universe only, either falls under Double Entendre or Innocent Innuendo.

Here's a line characters are hearing: "How'd you get so hard so suddenly? Is this a trick or what?" If the scene is then shown to be innocent, this is Innocent Innuendo. If the character recognizes the pun, it is That Came Out Wrong. If other characters recognize the pun, it is Un Entendre. Accidental Innuendo doesn't come into play In-Universe unless it's in a work.

edited 29th Oct '11 3:30:58 AM by crazysamaritan

No, the point of that trope is to trick the audience into thinking there is something dirty, but an in-universe accidental innuendo would be tricking a character into thinking it's dirty.

Who is tricking the character? If its the author, that's an In-Universe Innocent Innuendo, if its another character, that's Double Entendre.

Edit: if a character does it to themself, it's Un Entendre.

edited 29th Oct '11 10:34:57 AM by crazysamaritan

I didn't mean a person is actually tricking the character. I rushed the comment as you still don't seem to get how Innocent Innuendo works.

How hard is this to understand: I draw a picture, you say it looks like a penis. How would that be different from Bob drawing a picture, and Alice saying it looks like a penis? That is what Accidental Innuendo is. It's not removing context, which is what Innocent Innuendo is, even if applied to the characters.

edited 29th Oct '11 10:53:38 AM by DragonQuestZ

A situation a character interpreted as an innuendo when none was intended? Innocent Innuendo. Look at the page image! Two female characters are getting the impression that an inappropriate situation is going on. The male characters do not intend to give them that impression.

Edit: Your drawing example is an Un Entendre.

edited 29th Oct '11 10:58:48 AM by crazysamaritan

"A situation a character interpreted as an innuendo when none was intended? Innocent Innuendo."

No, it's for the audience, at least primarily, but the paragraph mentioning characters doesn't really explain how it would work for them instead.

And the page image is them freaking out over what's really happening, which is still to fool the audience.

As for Un Entendre, that's for stuff that's not an innuendo at all. Characters are just pretending it is. The drawing example would be a Christmas tree that doesn't look phallic at all, but Alice still says it looks like a penis.

edited 29th Oct '11 11:33:30 AM by DragonQuestZ

That's right; its not an innuendo at all.

Edit: to see more examples of "not just visually missing context, but any context", check the literature and theatre folders, the justice league entry regarding Epilogue, and pretty much the whole Real-life folder.

edited 29th Oct '11 12:06:14 PM by crazysamaritan