TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Needs Help: Plumbers Crack

Go To

Deadlock Clock: Jul 24th 2014 at 11:59:00 PM
ShanghaiSlave Giver of Lame Names from YKTTW Since: Mar, 2012 Relationship Status: is commanded to— WANK!
#26: May 1st 2014 at 8:54:41 AM

@Fighteer

I know, its very simple. your example is how this trope is supposed to be used and how its supposed to be described as, and yet... that's not how it is used(much less read) as right now. As said, the examples are all over the place, the interpretations vary quite a bit.

Right now, as it is written. We don't laugh because the butt crack is showing, we laugh because of the situation of the person looking at the buttcrack(disgust) or the person exposing his buttcrack(shame, or something else).

in other words, as it is written, Plumber's Crack is not the trope, but something else is, the trope revolves around the buttcrack, not about the exposure of the buttcrack, which is what this one is supposed to be.

Furienna

That case you're talking about is Discussed Trope. The guy is saying "you have the pants for it[Working Class job AKA Plumbing]". Plus even then, its funny because he's fit as a plumber, not because his buttcrack is showing.

EDIT: Rereading, that's actually a representative example of what this should be.

EDIT EDIT: looking back, I take it back, my point stands. it's funny because he's like a plumber, not because his buttcrack is showing.

Right now, my position sits solely on this being People Sit On Chairs, but i'm also open to changing this to something more tropeable (and easier to spot) and less likely to be a trashbin for Zero Context Example.

So to summarize my points:

edited 2nd May '14 1:13:42 AM by ShanghaiSlave

Is dast der Zerstorer? Odar die Schopfer?
AnotherDuck No, the other one. from Stockholm Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Mu
No, the other one.
#27: May 1st 2014 at 9:10:55 AM

It's not something that just happens. It's something that's deliberately included. There's a pattern to the reasons it's included. Sometimes it just happens that way. But there are enough instances of it being deliberate to create a pattern to make it a trope. There are things we associate it with, so it's meant to invoke those thoughts. Or the opposite, it's included because those thoughts are present for the creators, so therefore it's included because "should" be like that.

Generally and vaguely speaking.

Check out my fanfiction!
ShanghaiSlave Giver of Lame Names from YKTTW Since: Mar, 2012 Relationship Status: is commanded to— WANK!
#28: May 1st 2014 at 10:11:37 AM

[up] That's what I'm saying. "sitting person exposes his buttcrack" is not the pattern.

Did a bit thinking on this. I'm guessing the trope here is actually Wardrobe Malfunction but for the ass, and Played for Laughs or used as a gag. basically, "Someone accidentally exposes his underwear/butt via clothing malfunction and it's Played for Laughs".

Yes, I acknowledge the pattern of "accidentally exposed buttcrack".

No, I don't acknowledge it as a Trope. in the same way I don't acknowledge Nip Slip as a trope because it's just a specific Wardrobe Malfunction.

unless sports or party mishaps count as Plumber's Crack?

one of the links is from a the Spongebob episode Ripped Pants, which didn't seem to have the "ripped pants" trope for some reason.

edited 1st May '14 10:14:17 AM by ShanghaiSlave

Is dast der Zerstorer? Odar die Schopfer?
AnotherDuck No, the other one. from Stockholm Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Mu
No, the other one.
#29: May 1st 2014 at 10:21:04 AM

No, that's not what you're saying. You're saying that there's no meaning at all to it being a plumber or equivalent person it happens to, and that there's no association to any kind of characterisation with it.

Check out my fanfiction!
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#30: May 1st 2014 at 10:59:33 AM

[up][up] Not a single one of the pictures you posted was a Plumber's Crack. All of those were Wardrobe Malfunction or mooning. They aren't the same thing at all. Those are all either accidental or on purpose. Not just apathetic as a sign of general disregard for personal appearance.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
ShanghaiSlave Giver of Lame Names from YKTTW Since: Mar, 2012 Relationship Status: is commanded to— WANK!
#31: May 2nd 2014 at 1:09:52 AM

Another Duck:

That's why i'm saying here. as it is written now, that's exactly what it is.


shimaspawn:

which is exactly my point. "shows buttcrack" shouldn't be a trope. on it's own, it's none of those pictures.




"downplayed Mooning is slightly showing buttcrack", yes, indeed it is. however, what makes it meaningful: The fact that the buttcrack is showing OR the fact that he's mocking by showing his buttcrack?


Nip Slip is an Internal Subtrope of Wardrobe Malfunction (which is a fanservice gag, BTW).

What makes it meaningful: The fact that the nipple is showing, or the fact that we get a glimpse some hot girl's nipples?


What makes Slouch of Villainy meaningful?

The fact that the villain is sitting on a chair or the fact that his slouching on his seat shows he's nonchalant?


Now, Plumber's Crack(AS IT IS NOW) is just "shows buttcrack".

So what makes it meaningful?

The fact that the buttcrack is showing OR The fact that the guy doesn't care that his buttcrack is showing?


THIS is the point i've been trying to bring up here. The trope "guy doesn't care about his appearance" which is what you read here. THIS IS NOT Plumber's Crack.

AS IT IS WRITTEN NOW Plumber's Crack is People Sit On Chairs. you have all brought forth potential tropes we can have from this specific element, however, none of the tropes brought forth is the element (plumber shows buttcrack) itself, all of it, however revolve on it one way or another. Just as villain sits on a chair is just an element in order for Slouch of Villainy to be a trope.

I apologize for the Bold Inflation, but it really pisses me off when I have to repeatedly make the same point almost as if I'm commiting proof by assertion simply because the same point just somehow doesn't get across no matter how i reword and re-explain it.

edited 2nd May '14 1:11:03 AM by ShanghaiSlave

Is dast der Zerstorer? Odar die Schopfer?
crazysamaritan NaNo 4328 / 50,000 from Lupin III Since: Apr, 2010
NaNo 4328 / 50,000
#32: May 2nd 2014 at 4:07:48 AM

Noone has defended the description. Your conclusion is what we disagree with.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
Prfnoff Since: Jan, 2001
#33: May 2nd 2014 at 6:21:13 AM

No, this isn't People Sit on Chairs. I tried to say so before this thread opened.

ShanghaiSlave Giver of Lame Names from YKTTW Since: Mar, 2012 Relationship Status: is commanded to— WANK!
#34: May 2nd 2014 at 7:14:56 AM

again, I don't understand why this is somehow not People Sit On Chairs.

I repeatedly demonstrated why this is People Sit On Chairs, none of you have explained why this logic is wrong so we're just going in circles.

The gag is not "the buttcrack are exposed", the gag is "sleazy guy doesn't care about his appearance, squicks out people when he accidentally exposes his buttcrack"

Is dast der Zerstorer? Odar die Schopfer?
Madrugada Since: Jan, 2001
#35: May 2nd 2014 at 7:26:10 AM

No, Shanghai. You have simply repeated over and over that it's PSOC and pointed to the wide variety in the examples to support your point. Bad examples are not enough reason to cut a trope, and bad examples are not what determines whether something is Chairs or not. You say it yourself:

The gag is not "the buttcrack are exposed", the gag is "sleazy guy doesn't care about his appearance, squicks out people when he accidentally exposes his buttcrack"
That's not Chairs. That has narrative purpose.

Does the description need to be made more clear, that it's more than "someone's buttcrack shows"? Yes. No one is arguing against that. Do the examples need to be checked and cleaned, to get rid of "Someone's buttcrack shows"? Yes. No one is arguing against that, either. Is this PSOC? No. Should it be cut? No.

edited 2nd May '14 7:28:33 AM by Madrugada

ShanghaiSlave Giver of Lame Names from YKTTW Since: Mar, 2012 Relationship Status: is commanded to— WANK!
#36: May 2nd 2014 at 7:47:05 AM

Now I get it. I got tripped by my overuse of People Sit On Chairs.

anyway, since everything is clear to me now. what should be done? tweak the description? rename with a wider, less chairsy name?

Is dast der Zerstorer? Odar die Schopfer?
AnotherDuck No, the other one. from Stockholm Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Mu
No, the other one.
#37: May 2nd 2014 at 8:59:32 AM

I don't think there's any problem with the name.

The description, on the other hand, probably need tweaking.

Check out my fanfiction!
DoktorvonEurotrash Lex et Veritas from Not a place of honour (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#38: May 2nd 2014 at 10:49:52 AM

[up]Agreed, the description is pretty bad.

crazysamaritan NaNo 4328 / 50,000 from Lupin III Since: Apr, 2010
NaNo 4328 / 50,000
#39: May 2nd 2014 at 3:55:08 PM

Here's me making an attempt:

A common stereotype of the Blue-Collar worker is their lack of hygiene and personal fitness. Keeping in mind the principle of Show, Don't Tell, the (usually) overweight and hirsute character bends down to take a look at something, and their pants fall below their waistline, exposing an ugly ass. There are rare inversions (where the exposed buttcrack is attractive), typically in Soap Opera series or an Excuse Plot.

The Reaction Shot of the other characters is typically Played for Laughs. Characters are often far more disgusted by the sight than similar sights of "Mooning". Another similar trope is Wardrobe Malfunction.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
Madrugada Since: Jan, 2001
#40: May 2nd 2014 at 4:51:39 PM

Hmmm. pretty good. I'd suggest either changing "exposing an ugly ass" to "exposing the top of their buttcrack" or adding ""partially" and noting that often, the audience doesn't see it, only the other characters do.

edited 2nd May '14 4:53:55 PM by Madrugada

AnotherDuck No, the other one. from Stockholm Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Mu
No, the other one.
#41: May 2nd 2014 at 5:14:23 PM

Definite improvement. Is Blue-Collar normally written capitalised?

edited 2nd May '14 5:14:32 PM by AnotherDuck

Check out my fanfiction!
DoktorvonEurotrash Lex et Veritas from Not a place of honour (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#43: May 3rd 2014 at 4:34:37 AM

That's a big improvement on the current description.

Willbyr Hi (Y2K) Relationship Status: With my statistically significant other
Hi
#44: May 3rd 2014 at 11:15:08 AM

Agreed, that's a good rewrite.

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#45: May 3rd 2014 at 11:16:16 AM

39 is a better writeup.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
m8e from Sweden Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Wanna dance with somebody
#46: May 4th 2014 at 4:19:04 AM

Maybe add a line about how this also happens to other people trying to do that type of work? Like in that The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air example that was mentioned.

edited 4th May '14 4:20:34 AM by m8e

crazysamaritan NaNo 4328 / 50,000 from Lupin III Since: Apr, 2010
NaNo 4328 / 50,000
#47: May 4th 2014 at 4:28:02 AM

I considered that, but felt it wasn't necessary to the trope. I was trying to emphasize stereotypes of blue-collar workers (and mildly surprised we don't have a page, I couldn't CamelCase to it) which Uncle Phil can fall victim to when he tries to do the work.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
DoktorvonEurotrash Lex et Veritas from Not a place of honour (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#48: May 4th 2014 at 4:37:59 AM

I agree with [up]. It's more of a humorous spin on the trope than an integral part of it.

m8e from Sweden Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Wanna dance with somebody
#49: May 4th 2014 at 4:48:52 AM

[up] The Fanservice variant isn't integral part either and to me it seem both less common and notable than this 'humorous spin'.

It's a valid and fairly common variant and I just think it should be mentioned as such.

edited 4th May '14 4:54:10 AM by m8e

crazysamaritan NaNo 4328 / 50,000 from Lupin III Since: Apr, 2010
NaNo 4328 / 50,000
#50: May 4th 2014 at 5:05:48 AM

Uncle Phil (a white-collar lawyer) having an unattractive ass is not a "humourous spin" in the trope. Uncle Phil (a white-collar lawyer) doing a blue-collar job badly is a humourous trope of its own.

Uncle Phil taking on the blue-collar job of plumbing then exposes his buttcrack because his pants cannot cover it while he works is a straight example of the trope. No changes needed.

In contrast, an Excuse Plot where a handyman is doing the same thing, but the exposed ass is attractive and makes the woman want to take his pants off entirely is taking the same trope in the completely opposite direction, and is alluded to in Daytime Soaps. The allusion is very common, to the point where the same dynamic can show up in a Sitcom as a Rule of Funny as the "man" of the house then chases the handyman out and tries to fix it himself, before having to ask the guy to come back again because It Got Worse.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Total posts: 63
Top