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
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
That looks like an example to me. It is a moment, and all the main characters agreeing with it implies that it was meant to be taken seriously. I don't get what you mean by "it's just snarking about something silly-sounding", 'cause that's kind of what Narm is.
Edited by MurlocAggroB on Feb 12th 2024 at 6:39:20 AM
I would need to see more context because that seems like something that could have played for laughs (or at least, semi serious like "im sorry. My pants have eaten your ice cream.") Or been just straight and not serious.
low-poly Shinri
Found this on YMMV.Persona 3 Reload.
- Narm:
- Though fans have praised the more dynamic crowd in the overworld compared to the originals, all immersion is thrown out the window when they go inside Club Escapade and see all the dance floor Faceless Masses inside... frozen. One would think the dev team would bother to at least animate them... complaining
- Interrupting the All-Out Attack victory cards with Shuffle Time, rather than have it come up afterwards. general flaw
- The voice acting for the final boss; rather than sounding smug with a hint of sadness like in the original when he delivers his iconic lines, the new voice overs just make him sound bored more than anything else. unsure
- Now, even many minor characters have closeup portraits during cut-scenes. The catch is that often they only have a single expression which can lead to some awkward scenes where the expression of the portrait doesn't match the tone of the scene (eg. The character might be shown smiling in the portrait even if the voice acting and model animations suggests distress). general flaw
- Though fans have praised the more dynamic crowd in the overworld compared to the originals, all immersion is thrown out the window when they go inside Club Escapade and see all the dance floor Faceless Masses inside... frozen
![[down]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_down.png "[down]"){kind=icon}
Done!
Edited by Ayumi-chan on Feb 12th 2024 at 10:15:44 PM
She/Her | Currently cleaning N/A
The third one doesn't read as unintentionally hilarious, it just points out that the new performance is inferior to the original one. I agree with you on all the others, so I believe the four examples should be cut.
Bumping this, since it got ignored. Any objections to cutting Narm.Webcomics moving its contents to the main page?
How many examples does it have?
YMMV.Hazbin Hotel S 1 E 8 The Show Must Go On
- Narm: Sir Pentious' death at the hands of Adam is fine, but the reaction that follows is clearly a shallow attempt to milk drama out of a comedic moment. As the Youtuber put it, they're trying to have their cake and eat it too.
I deleted this because the death was intentional comedy, and the rest seemed misuse as not about how the reaction was supposed to be dramatic but unintentionally comedic but more the tonal inconsistency. The troper who added it PM'd me about it so I'm taking here.
Ten. You can look at the page yourself...
Also, agreed with that cut. "Thing falls flat" is not narm, and something being "a shallow attempt at drama" is just it falling flat.
Edited by MurlocAggroB on Feb 21st 2024 at 6:50:53 AM
Okay no, I worded that wrong. Those were not the guy's words. The death was not Narm, but that the build up to the death and the reaction shot that followed immediately after was Narm.
See, the scene suggests he's going to make a Heroic Sacrifice only for Adam to casually smite him without any effort. If it had simply cut off with Adam saying: "That could have been ugly," that would have been fine. It wasn't spaced out enough for either moment to work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRlUMdf7HBE
Start at 13:39 and and finish at 14:10
The reviewer says "I'm too busy laughing at this sh*t to care about Charlie crying".
I think this scene is a perfect example of the show being funny and then trying to be dramatic but it's so close together that it's still funny.
Absolute Rainbow & the tales between worlds
Crossing the Line Twice, I see.
So maybe it's Narm Charm then?
I don't think it worked. And neither did the youtuber, so I'm not just voicing my opinion based on nothing.
You missed the point of the trope so hard. Narm Charm is for seemingly Narmy scenes that
actually work as drama.
It still needs to be a widespread opinion, as opposed to some but most disagreeing. What I've seen in general is that it worked as intended despite the tonal whiplash, this is the first decent I've heard about. Also Narm Charm is when it still successfully conveyed the intended emotional toque despite, so use as a complaint is misuse.
And did the video say the intended drama came off as unintentionally comedic as opposed to just fall flat? Regardless of the validity of the complaint it's not Narm if it doesn't fit the definition.
Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Feb 22nd 2024 at 5:49:31 AM
I know that already I was telling the troper that it's not Narm OR Narm Charm.
What is "widespread"?
How many people need to share the opinion? Is the new
And I shouldn't need to tell you at what part. I already listed the time-stamps and provided a quote.
Moreover, it's not the scene individually but the tonal whiplash. And this is not merely Mood Whiplash. I'm not misusing the trope here. It's not the death I criticized. It's not just the reaction. It's the lack of spacing that makes it funny.
What is clearly meant to be funny death then immediately tries to be dramatic, which is funny because of the quickness.
My suggestions have been rejected numerous times and the first few times, I'll admit I didn't fully grasp why, but I do now. And I feel this time, I'm not being given my fair due. First off the troper who deleted it, wrongly listed my reasoning. I didn't say it was Sir Pentious' death that was Narm and he said I did. That already put me on the defensive and forced me to explain something I had already made clear in my initial post.
Second, I feel like this is turning into a "he said, she said" argument, where simply because other people disagree, it's no longer valid. I'd understand if I was the only one who had this opinion, but I'm not. I think at the very least, I deserve a vote or something.
Third, I didn't miss the point of the trope at all. I think this was Narmy, the way they handled the character's sacrifice, but if some people still found it suitably dramatic, than it fits Narm Charm.
Finally, I really shouldn't need to have a verbatim quote that says: "this scene was unintentionally comedic". We should be able to read between the lines. The guy says that because of the death, the following moment was made "unserious". The quick attempt to shift the tone is what made it Narmy.
With everything said, I think that I'm not the one misunderstanding Narm and rather you guys are not respecting the whole purpose of YMMV. If your complaint is "Most people think it worked", it shouldn't negate what I feel or what this guy feels.
Thats how consensus works. If you say a moment is Narm, and nobody else here agrees, its not getting in.
And "i think its Narm but it works for other people" is not Narm Charm.
Narm Charm is "audiences think this scene is cheesy but it still works for them." Both parts are necessary.
Lastly, you're making this weirdly personal. It might help you to try and document examples that exist outside of your own focus. Actually observe reactions in other fandoms and don't just try to ram through your own opinions.
He/Him
Narm Charm means that the cheesy thing still works unironically
Take Dafoe's Green Goblin from Spider-Man 1 for example. He's meant to be legitimately terrifying, but he's so over-the-top and the costume so ridiculous that the audience probably laughs at first. However, it loops right back into being terrifying anyway because of Dafoe's performance.
Edited by AudioSpeaks2 on Feb 22nd 2024 at 5:22:10 PM
Art Museum Curator and frequent helper of the Web Original deprecation project
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
The description of Narm Charm is extremely vague. It can work for whatever reason.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Shouldnt we try to clarify it then, instead of just "it can be whatever"?
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
That's a TRS thing.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Arthur, I appreciate your attempts to be civil, but I am not making it personal. I'm being disrespected. You're saying everyone disagrees with me, but they didn't even care to hear my argument at first, which was misrepresented.
Also telling me to go "outside my focus" is extremely ignorant. I did exactly that. I literally got this from the video I watched. Now you're all saying it doesn't matter because no one agrees with what the Youtuber is saying. Never mind that his video got 25K likes and it detailed exactly why he thinks the drama doesn't land and why it's still funny afterwards.
I think you guys have narrowed the narm thread too much.
It shouldn't just be overacting. We already have Wangst for that.
If this isn't Narm, what is it? Does this not have any category?
Help me understand, because the whole: "nobody else agrees" is stupid. There are like six of you and I'm guessing some are fans. Do I need to find six people who share my opinion?
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
Does your six people involve myself? Because I literally didn't weigh in, nor do I intend to, since I don't have an opinion.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
I wasn't including you. I was just pointing out that they can't dismiss my argument simply because no one in the thread agrees. That's hardly a sample size worth using.
But more to the point, this is supposed to be subjective. It shouldn't matter if they didn't find it unintentionally funny. As long as I found someone who did, that should be enough.
It's not enough to view scenes individually. We have to connect them together. If one scene is intentionally funny and the next scene is intentionally dramatic, we have to ask; did it work?
This guy's opinion was: no it did not. And because of the quick shift, the tone remains funny and he didn't care at all about Charlie's tears.
These guys saying; "Well I think it was executed well", is not a counterargument.
I meant outside your focus as in, finding a work you're not personally invested in.
I'm not invested in Hazbin Hotel. Haven't even watched a full episode yet.
I'm just sick of my content getting removed without warning and then being dismissed because people don't agree with my reasoning.
TV Tropes feels very bureaucratic these days.
Bringing this up from the YMMV page for W.I.T.C.H.. This isn't an example at all. It's just snarking about something silly-sounding.