I've decided to start a cleanup thread for Narm, since it seems to attract a lot of misuse and complaining. Like I said in my ATT post
, "some misuse is easy to catch (e.g. saying a joke is Narm when Narm by definition can't be a joke), a lot of examples fall into grey areas that seem like misuse but it's hard to tell. Like nitpicks that at first glance seem to be valid examples, but feel like stretches the more you think about them."
I think one of the main reasons for misuse is that most people aren't clear on what Narm actually is. To my understanding, it's when a scene is intended to be dramatic, but comes off as cheesy/funny unintentionally. But going by the page description, it's kind of vague what actually qualifies something as Narm. At the top, it says "Narm is a moment that is supposed to be serious, but due to either over-sappiness, poor execution, excessive Melodrama, or the sheer absurdity of the situation, the drama is lost to the point of surpassing "cheesy" and becoming unintentionally funny." But then later on in the same page, it gives a much more vague definition:
Most often, Narm is misused to mean "anything I personally don't think worked," whether or not it was intended as dramatic or comes off as funny. And when a work is high-profile enough, hoo boy, pretty much every scene is Narm to somebody. You can look at the Narm subpages for Doctor Who, Star Wars, and Game of Thrones and find tons of examples of people nitpicking the tiniest of details in a scene and blowing whatever it is out of proportion.
Another problem is that since it's such a subjective trope, it's not clear if there's supposed to be any sort of in-fandom consensus on the example in-question, or if every example is valid under the "it's called YMMV for a reason" excuse, even if the only person who thinks the example is Narm is the troper who adds it in.
I think it needs to be clearer whether nitpicks are valid examples of Narm, especially since nitpicking overlaps so often with barely-disguised complaining. The most frequent offenders for Narm entries I see are complaining, nitpicking, adding jokes, and ZeroContextExamples. I'm going to use Venom (2018) as an example, with my comments in bold:
- The scene of Eddie freaking out on the medical table is presented as the teaser's Money-Making Shot. It... doesn't quite work as intended, which isn't helped by it being sped up, making it look like a parody.
- The final trailer features a more complete version of the clip showing Venom's face "shutter" over Eddie. Whether or not this works or if it looks like a cheap special effect depends on who you ask.
- What makes the freakout even more narmful is that Eddie's screams are different screams playing on top of each other. The actual film lacks this strange effect. This example seems fine to me, but falls into the "The trailer is Narmy but the finished product isn't" doublespeak.
- The leaked trailer revealed some pretty terrible lines (“The guy you work for is an evil person.”). Tom Hardy's horrible New York...ish(?) accent isn't doing the delivery any favors either. And it really does not help that his voice cracks on the reading of "evil person". Thankfully, that line is not in the film proper. Do we keep examples that are purely in the trailers? Also an example of "thing falls flat" instead of "thing is funny."
- Hardy's line reading of "You're not real, you are just in my head." sounds like he's suffering from Elmuh Fudd Syndwome. At worst, he sounds like Adam Sandler's signature Manchild babbling. However there's some speculation that, based on the context of the scene and Eddie's stumbling movements, he's actually drunk, or perhaps even overdosed on medication (considering he was seen taking a bunch of pills, thinking he's sick). That and it could be a case of Reality Ensues, as it's unlikely anyone would keep the mental clarity to speak normally as an alien parasite is slowly bonding with their body. Natter. Goes back and forth between snarky complaints and defending the moment. Also nitpicking.
- Movie trailers cutting quotes out of context to form a new sentence is nothing new, but the editing on the line "you will only hurt bad people" is particularly poor, and it's very easy to hear that the line has been cut together out of separate pieces of dialogue. Not really a dramatic thing, so I don't think it counts as Narm. And it definitely isn't funny, it just falls flat.
- How Jenny Slate's character pronounces "symbiote" note . Plus, her giving firm, equal stress to all three syllables like she's speaking some foreign language. Luckily, this was cut from the theatrical release. Nitpicking and not funny.
- The shot of Eddie crashing straight through a half-fallen tree in the forest that he could just as easily have ducked under comes across as more comedic than cool, as if they just needed an additional gratuitous shot of something breaking. Especially if your mind goes to Victor from Wet Hot American Summer and his inexplicable refusal to jump over anything. It really does not help that the evil bad-guy vehicle chasing him looks like a slightly modified golf cart. The context for this one in the movie is that Venom is taking control of his body and forcing him to blindly flee through the woods to escape the Life Foundation. Context makes it not-Narm. Cut?
- Although it may look better in the context of the full scene, Eddie flying 50 feet into the air on his motorcycle off a slightly steep hill seems to rather severely break the laws of physics. Clearly written before the movie came out. Cut?
- The Jump Scare (on both sides of the fourth wall) where Venom suddenly shouts Eddie's name as he brushed his teeth would have been much more scary if not for the fact that the latter Screams Like a Little Girl. There's also the fact that he somehow throws himself backwards so hard that he crashes into the bathroom wall. Intended as comedic, so it isn't Narm.
- Remember how creepy and awesome that shot from the second trailer of the symbiote forming around Eddie's face in order to eat a guy was? In the third trailer, the potential Nightmare Fuel of that moment is significantly undercut by Venom slobbering all over the man's face with its tongue in an amusingly over-the-top manner. One is reminded of the scene with Patrick licking the yellow popsicle, or perhaps "This is the taste of a liar".... This seems pretty in-character for Venom. I'm not sure with this one.
- The guy who Carlton Drake subjects to Orifice Invasion in the third trailer would have been disturbing, if not for the victim's bland expression. Moment that falls flat; not funny. Cut.
- The symbiote's Venom-face forming on the end of Eddie's arm to talk to him strongly resembles a deranged hand puppet rather than a vicious alien parasite. There's also the fact that they can communicate telepathically, making that sequence unnecessary. Seems fine.
- Venom's violent threats to his enemies are this if they're not aggressively tasteless Black Comedy. His threat to mutilate a man until he's "like a turd on the wind" is particularly groan-inducing, especially coming after a genuinely frightening threat. How It Should Have Ended was even driven by this to make a video on just the trailer for the very first time, in which he mangles a bunch of other sayings. Pretty sure they are intended as comedy, so it's not Narm. Cut.
- The animation of the yellow symbiote just looks like mozzarella cheese come to life. Nitpick. Also... inaccurate? It's more of a mucus yellow.
- After Venom heals Eddie's broken legs, he flatly states "My legs! They were broken... and now they're not broken..."
- "My leg!" Seems fine to me.
- "HOSPITAL!!!! (extremely long pause) Now!" Zero-Context Example.
- Eddie and Anne quite casually discussing cannibalism as one of the symbiote's favorite activities. It's something that would probably sincerely shock and disgust the average person and likely require therapy, and yet it's bandied about like it's a pretty normal occurrence. These kinds of entries are tricky to me. They seem valid at first glance, but there's something off about them. I don't think this one counts if the work itself is treating the moment lightly.
- Any menace from Cletus Kasady is completely undercut by Woody Harrelson's truly ridiculous wig. A common comparison is that it causes him to look like a live-action Sideshow Bob, or a make-up-less Pennywise. Uses complainy word-choice. Otherwise fine.
- Kasady promising that there will be "carnage" after he gets out is so on-the-nose that it feels like it's straight out of a parody. First off, that's not an example of Anvilicious. Secondly, this verges on a nitpick to me. I'm not sure. It's not really funny, just lame.
- The final trade of words between Venom and Riot before the final battle is nothing but total Ham-to-Ham Combat - that and the two symbiotes happen to be Perpetual Smilers, which just gives off the feeling that they don't really give that much of a damn about their goals.
- Towards the end of the film, it's revealed that Venom used to be something of a loser on his home planet, like Eddie. This is his entire reason for wanting to save the Earth. Moment played as a joke, so it isn't Narm.
- Despite angrily forcing Eddie to spit out cooked meats because they're no longer living animals, the symbiote develops a taste for tater tots, and it practically demands that Eddie buy some during a conversation in the ending. The director admitted in an interview
that the writers just thought it was funny and put it in the script. It unfortunately invites comparisons to a similar tots-focused scene in Napoleon Dynamite as a result. Entry admits it's a joke. So it isn't Narm.
- Drake having bonded with Riot is treated as a huge shocking twist going into the final battle... except for the fact that the audience was already well aware of it and saw the whole process. It feels very much like a consequence of Executive Meddling to give Riot more screentime. Another tricky example. Seems to fall under "scene doesn't work" instead of "scene is funny."
- Right after Eddie is separated from the symbiote, a rather obvious ADR overdub replaces the intended "fuck you" with the much less vicious "we're done". Not really funny, just falls flat.
- Eddie's "DRAKE! STOP!" sounds less like he's in pain and more like a little kid telling his Big Brother Bully to stop giving him a wedgie. Nitpicking. Most people wouldn't even pay this sequence any mind.
Another issue with Narm is the distinction between moments that are unintentionally funny on their own, and moments that are only unintentionally funny after Memetic Mutation or similar feat. Does the latter truly count as Narm? Because you can make the case that everything that has ever been made can fall under that.
Edited by MisterApes-a-lot on Mar 31st 2019 at 7:06:31 AM
![]()
Yeah, if something is meant to be a funny moment, it's not Narm. Narm has to be something that's intended to be serious, but accidentally comes off as funny.
Found this on YMMV.The Owl And The Frog:
- The scene where Gustav declares justice for Sasha and Grime's crimes is supposed to be a serious retribution to them. However, the dialogue in this scene is quite cringeworthy as it seems to come from the lines of old hero movies where the heroes defeat the bad guys.
I haven't even read this fic, but this seems like classic "It didn't work for me personally" misuse. Your goateed philistine is sashaying towards us. | 🧱
Describing it as "quite cringeworthy" is a red flag for sure. At the very least, I would cut on the grounds of it not actually describing what was funny.
A question regarding Wish (yes, I know, again.)
This time it's about another of the movie's infamous lyrics: "And throw caution to every warning signs". The problem is obvious in this sentence, it's a haphazard mash of "Throw caution to the wind" and "ignore every warning signs" that ends up meaning the exact reverse of what it should (If you throw caution to warning signs, doesn't that mean you pay a lot of attention to them?). Overall, it's a rather awkward sentence that was widely ridiculed for being pretty silly (hence fullfilling the "funny" criterion)
Now for the context, it's part of the song "This wish". Notably, it doesn't have the excuse of "the song is supposed to be silly" as this time it's supposed to be a "I Want" Song played completely straight, with the character expressing her frustration with wishes being so limited by Magnifico. It also doesn't help that it's part of the chorus of said song. I assume this fullfills the "supposed to be serious" criterion.
With this in mind, does this qualify as Narm? Since I'm still not completely sure about the def I'm asking here first.
It has to be inherently funny due to a bad execution at drama.
One line of lyrics that are a little goofy don't really rise to that level because theres admittedly not a lot of attempted drama in a handful of words.
If the entire song was so bad that most audiences didnt take it seriously and thought it was funny and not on purpose then that could count.
As is this is a very minor thing to even bring up, let alone complain about.
It would be like giving an example for a novel and saying "the writer sometimes misuses "further and "farther", spoiling the seriousness of their writing."
Edited by ArthurEld on Feb 8th 2024 at 11:13:06 AM
Also, Narm (if I recall correctly) has to be funny in the moment.
Cold turkey's getting stale. Tonight I'm eating crow.The other thing is that nitpicking can lead to just... pointing out flaws. That's more common than it may seem.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallYes. Many, many Narm examples are just complaining about minor nitpicks.
"This character's hairstyle is goofy and they're supposed to be serious."
"This character has a lisp."
"This scene is filmed with distracting lens flare/lighting/soundtrack/whatever, ruining any drama/tension/seriousness/subjective ability of OP to enjoy a scene"
I've been talking with MurlocAggroB about moving the Webcomics Narm page onto the main Narm page since it's gotten quite short due to all the ZCE's being commented out. I've gotten approval from them, is anyone else OK with me doing this?
idk what to put hereYou don't need approval to add a Narm example, but if you're unsure about it, you're free to bring it up here.
Okay, so I was wondering if it would be acceptable to add a moment in Avengers? Particularly, where Loki slips and reveals his plan to Natasha? Aside from him coming off as a sexist, which he had not done before, the reveal is super obvious. So what is supposed to be a moment for Natasha exposing Loki, comes off as him just being an idiot and revealing it.
I was also wondering about Civil War; when Ross lists the casualties from previous movies, they are astonishingly low, despite the scale of destruction. It's hard to take seriously.
Berserk Button: misusing Nightmare Fuel
Narm isn't just "character acts like an idiot" or "something is hard to take seriously", it's for a moment that's supposed to be dramatic but comes across as funny. I have trouble imagining someone actually laughing because the number of casualties is too low.
There's an extreme amount of misuse for just bad writing in general.
Well, that's what I mean. It was supposed to be dramatic for Natasha to make Loki reveal his plan. Instead, he just does it. Also, while he's verbally abusing her, it's supposed to be dramatic, but his language throws one off.
In Civil War, the disasters are treated with the same gravitas as 9/11, but with like 1% of the casualties. And apparently, there more casualties from Lagos, then there were from the collapsing exploding Helicarriers that landed in the Potomac River. The numbers can be pretty jarring to look at.
And if it's not Narm, but "bad writing", is there a place for that?
Edited by 309216364 on Feb 8th 2024 at 2:10:35 AM
Berserk Button: misusing Nightmare Fuel
"Throws one off" and "pretty jarring to look at" is not "comes across as unintentionally funny".
Just plain complaining is not allowed on most pages. You could put it on Dethroning Moment of Suck if you personally feel very strongly about it.
Yes , I agree that neither of those are proper examples of Narm.
Loki sounds misogynistic because he's written by Joss Whedon. The dialogue coming off clunky doesnt really rise to the level of Narm.
We very purposefully dont have a place for complaining about "bad writing" unless it falls into the specific tropes and audience reaction categories. You've asked similar questions before about whether or not we have a place for jokes that didnt land, which we also dont have.
There are places to list every single complaint a given user might have about a work. Tv Tropes is not one of those places.
Edited by ArthurEld on Feb 20th 2024 at 5:06:17 AM
This has definitely been asked before, but why is Narm Flame Bait on its subpages and not the main page?
Your goateed philistine is sashaying towards us. | 🧱A glitch. It's not Flame Bait, it just pretends to be.
Edited by WarJay77 on Feb 8th 2024 at 6:10:07 AM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallIn that case, I'd like to remove some examples.
The Superman Statue and the False God. I don't see anything funny about it, unintentional or otherwise. The media don't call it a terrorist threat, they say he will be charged with one, and given that he vandalized the monument dedicated to the hero who saved Metropolis and the world, it doesn't seem too weird.
Batman's first appearance should be moved into Narm Charm. Same with Knightmare Batman
The "Believe me, I'll do it", has no basis being here, given that the user is trying to use the character's comic counterpart as the justification. That's a reach, right there.

From YMMV.Fairy Tail:
Any thoughts on what to do with these entries?
Edited by gjjones on Jan 22nd 2024 at 9:21:57 AM
He/His/Him. No matter who you are, always Be Yourself.