Why is Large Ham YMMV?: Large Ham

I think this disappeared during the recent borking, so I'm reposting it.

YMMV may easily vary as to if a Large Ham is enjoyable, but "over acting" is easily recognized if someone is familiar with what "hamming" is (as is true for almost every trope).

It's objective if it happens in-character (e.g. Bottom in A Midsummer Nights Dream) and subjective if you think the actor playing the character is doing it. It can be placed on the YMMV page, the main, or both, depending on the nature of the example.

edited 27th Dec '10 3:33:32 PM by troacctid

Because the definition of "over-acting" and "under-acting" differs for each person, culture, and era. As it's mentioned in the Dull Surprise page, Keanu Reaves would have once been praised for his "manly restraint".

For another example, consider silent films. If those were shot with sound, they'd definitely be hamming. But since they HAVE to get everything across via pantomime, we have a sort of ham-filter on when watching.

Lots of types of theater genres also have conventions that would be hammy to an outsider (Kabuki, Chinese Theater, etc. etc.).

Dull Surprise isn't about restraint, it's about the blank expression.

I disagree that calling an actor an "overactor" is, on the whole, a subjective concept.

Besides, if it's truly a subjective, then we shouldn't be able to get away with a statement like, "Practically defined by: BRIAN BLESSED in Britain, William Shatner in America, and Norio Wakamoto in Japan" anywhere on the wiki (let alone on the trope page) if it's apparently impossible to point to the likes of a BRIAN BLESSED and objectively show what we're talking about. Though, technically, there shouldn't be a statement like that in the trope description, anyway, because they're all just meant to be examples, but that's a slightly different matter.

Large Ham is more of a schtick. If we're calling someone a Large Ham, it's generally someone with a given reputation for being hammy. Most individual examples here, however, are generally citing specific lines from scenes in works, which would be better covered under things like Ham and Cheese and Narm, which would deal more with those kind of specific details.

edited 9th Jan '11 3:21:57 PM by SeanMurrayI

I think calling large hams subjective calls into question other tropes that are considered more or less objective, such as tsundere or jerkass. A character can easily be written to be an over the top ham.

If a character in a work is an actor, then he can objectively be a Large Ham, no problem. If the Real Life actor in a work is being hammy, that's not part of the story—it's the audience's reaction to the acting, so it goes with the other Audience Reaction Tropes. Yes?

But just because something doesn't have anything to do with a story doesn't mean it can't be objective.

Dull Surprise has fuck all to do with story and is still objective.

edited 9th Jan '11 3:57:17 PM by SeanMurrayI

Some characters are written so that they're obviously enjoying themselves way too much, with lots of over the top evil laughs, overreactions, saying silly things completely seriously etc. They're obviously intended to be like that and it's an effect that writers aim for. It's not just an audience reaction.

Characters can be written to be hammy, but not every Large Ham is intentional.

I feel like some examples of this legitimately aren't YMMV, but on the other hand, trying to separate the ones that are from the ones that aren't doesn't seem like an easy task.

^Like I said earlier, many examples aren't really so much about calling an actor a ham but about listing particular moments and scenes that someone found hammy. These would be much better fitting for pages like Ham and Cheese and Narm.

I think it would also be acceptable on the main page if, for example, Word of God in the DVD commentary had the director talking about instructing the actors to ham it up, or notable critics described a performance as hammy. There should be something to back it up so it doesn't just look like a This Troper opinion.

What if the story required overacting? It would still count.

What do you mean?

I think make it not objective, but if the character isn't intentionally hammy then label it as Alternate Character Interpretation.

I fail to see how Large Ham can be considered subjective, at least any more then some others.

Some examples may be clearer then others, and some examples may fit better under Ham and Cheese or Narm, as someone said. But whether or not it's the actor or the character that's hammy doesn't really change whether or not a scene is done hammily in my eyes.

I could see how the actor being a ham is subjective, but I'm more used to seeing this trope applied to characters. If it's an acting trope, how can you have comic book or literature examples?

I don't think this one's subjective.

edited 12th Jan '11 3:49:54 PM by Tyoria

I find that arguments for this being subjective or not tend to be fairly subjective — perhaps indicating the trope itself is.

For me I'd much prefer to see this stay as subjective because the rules for subjective tropes are much looser: we can have fun going to town when describing people we find hammy. Having moved a fair bit of subjective stuff to article's YMMV tabs I find that subjective material has a harmonious tone when it's grouped — and Large Ham fits right in.

edited 13th Jan '11 12:38:10 AM by Camacan

I would prefer it to be not subjective so it can actually appear on works pages and Character pages instead of shuffled off to a blackhole. Its a label that just screws over tropes.

IMO there is a big difference from an actor just plain overacting (Subjective) and a character who was made to be that way (Not subjective).

edited 13th Jan '11 5:27:11 AM by Raso

"I would prefer it to be not subjective so it can actually appear on works pages and Character pages instead of shuffled off to a blackhole." - Raso

Blackhole nothing, YMMV trope lists tend to be SHORTER than the main lists. A trope mention in YMMV gets a higher % of the YMMV page's focus than a trope mention in the main trope list gets of that page's focus.

As for trope lists in character pages, as far as I'm aware, subjectives weren't barred from being mentioned there. (Hey that rhymes!)

Actually...of the YMMV Stuff thread, starting of the fourth post:

• Night Raid-"What about character pages ? Is it okay to add them there ?"
• Deboss-"As a side note, in universe examples are considered something you can put on the page. If a character watches a movie and says it's So Bad Its Horrible, then you can put that example on the page.

And, no on the character pages part. Anything subjectively applied goes on YMMV."

• Ghilz- " AFAIK Yes you can, though others might disagree (the banner does say they can go on subpages).

Also, most of the Crowning X Of Awesome pages have their own subpages, these also do not go in the main page. "

• melloncollie-"I've heard from a mod that subjective stuff should not be on the character pages."
• Deboss-"The character page is a subcomponent of the main page designed to break off the characterization tropes because they tend to ramp up the amount of stuff on the page. "
• Fighteer-"Correct. The subjective banner applies to all works articles and all essentially similar subpages such as Characters. If it's tagged subjective, it only belongs in YMMV, Just Bugs Me, one of the Awesome/Horrible/Funny/Tear Jerker/Fridge subpages, or a review."

It's not subjective trope, because it's not something that people are expected to argue about.

And you used your brand new, almost never posted-on forum account just to tell us that? You are such a great contributor here and your well-reasoned opinion will surely sway us.

Bounced.