Needs a split: Casual Danger Dialog

There seem to be two tropes in one here. The majority of the description and examples are about characters reacting calmly to danger in an unrealistic way - ordinary high school students making jokes or one liners while being attacked by dangerous and lethal villains.

However, there's also a few justified cases of characters familiar with dangerous situations, such as military personnel, reacting in this way, which is stated to be Truth in Television in the original description. Given that we currently have no trope for that sort of thing, and Casual Danger Dialog is currently part of an index about tropes dealing with improbable behavior, I think we might want to split off those examples into a new trope, or possibly shift them to Gallows Humor or something similiar.

To sum up, when a trope that's about unrealistic behavior has over a dozen Real Life examples, something seems wrong.

Bumping this. I'd like more input before doing anything.

I agree. If the trope is "amusingly improbable casual chatter in the face of extremity" it is probably a mistake to put the hardened pros in with the ordinary folk.

Some of the problem examples might belong under Nerves of Steel?

I agree that this article needs cleanup. But rather than split it in two, moving examples of Gallows Humor and Nerves of Steel to those pages would probably do the trick, I think.

I disagree. Nerves of Steel and Gallows Humor are personality types, Casual Danger Dialog is a particular scene. That's the difference.

Nothing on the Casual Danger Dialog page says that veterans can't do it, nrjxll's definition is bogus.

I agree that Casual Danger Dialog is a different type of trope then Gallows Humor and so forth. After looking at it some more, I've come to the conclusion that a split is needless.

However, the description does seem to emphasize that the trope is inherently unrealistic, and it's linked to the Improbable Behavior Tropes index, which specifically says

Below are a list of tropes relating the different ways characters break Willing Suspension Of Disbelief by pulling a 180 and doing really weird, nonsenseical and/or stupid. Why does this happen? Two reasons: the author sucks, and drama requires them to.

Therefore, I'm inclined to think that Casual Danger Dialog is being treated as an overly unrealistic trope. I do feel there is a distinct "humorously unrealistic behavior" trope - applying to more then danger, for that matter. This is not that trope.

Below are some quotes from the trope description. Note the repeated use of the words "realistic" and "unrealistic".

In Real Life, when someone is being chased, about to be captured, about to fall off a cliff, or anything that could result in death or something nearly as bad, they get scared. It shows in their tone of voice and the things they say. "Help!" they scream, or "I'm over here!" They may even whimper to themselves, "I don't want to die, please don't let me die," or something similar.

But this doesn't carry over to TV, movie, cartoon, or book characters. Whenever a character in a work of fiction is in danger, unless the fiction is meant to be realistic drama, that character tends to do one of several things:

•Act as if the danger is real in their dialog, but speaking more calmly than one would likely do in real life. See also This Is Gonna Suck.

Either way, Casual Danger Dialog is usually used to make the mood more fun, rather than realistic. Seeing Shaggy and Scooby Doo run around screaming for help in pained tones of voice, with tears running down their face as they fear for their life, is not entertaining. Especially if it happens Once An Episode. Hence the need to tone down the level of fear. In more realistic stories, dialog showing realistic fear is sometimes reserved for when the heroes are reflecting on the danger.

See also Distracting Disambiguation. Contrast Say My Name and Big No, which involves meaningless exclamations that can seem as unrealistic as a quip. Truly Failure Is The Only Option when dealing with dramatic dialogue.

In contrast, only two lines and the last paragraph make any indication that there can be realism or in-universe justification for this trope. Overall, we seem to have a perfectly fine trope with a bad, or at least flawed, description. It also should probably be removed from the Improbable Behavior Tropes index.

edited 20th Dec '10 10:14:24 PM by nrjxll

Yeah, the description could use some rewriting, definitely. Examples could then be kept. Maybe the description could say that at times, it really stretches believability, but at other times, it indicates that the character is very used to danger.

I created this trope article, but at the time, I was originally picturing comedic dialog, which gets on my nerves and is indeed super-unrealistic. But with the many examples given that aren't comedic and even are believable in context, it seems the trope was very different than I'd originally pictured it. The intro could definitely use some rewriting.

The problem is that most people don't like it when you call their shows unrealistic. A split between "unrealistic" and "realistic" versions would be treated as The Same But More, Done Well and Done Badly.

Cue to edit warring and justifying edits.

edited 21st Dec '10 7:33:46 AM by EternalSeptember

Very good point. Instead of a split, just rewriting the intro would work. I'm thinking I might try rewriting the intro myself to be more neutral and also acknowledge that Casual Danger Dialog can occur in the real world or be the result of a life that involves constant danger, or be a coping mechanism to help one deal with scary situations. Then it would be up to the reader to determine which examples are unrealistic or not, but at least it won't be passing a value judgement.

Sorry it took so long, but I finally typed up a new intro for the article. Let me know if you think anything needs to be changed, or go ahead and change it yourself.

edited 23rd Dec '10 9:59:50 PM by BonsaiForest

I'd say it's fine & weights reasons for the trope's use equally.

Let's lock up this thread.

This issue seems to have been resolved. Can someone please lock this thread?

Thanks.