Most hated cliché/trope in fiction

Mr muggyman 3000

Mr muggyman 3000

Lover of coffe cups
i just finished watching A show on Netflix a couple of days back, I liked it at first, it had everything.good protagonist, atmosphere, cinematograph,etc. it was all good until they replaced, a interesting/complex antagonist, with a campy "I'm your evil long lost brother I want to kill you because daddy didn't love me". Character that I've seen in comics/movies/book for fucking! Years!!. It totally runied the show for me.

after I calmed down from my rage, I started reflecting on some clichés/tropes that really get my blood boiling,here's a small list.

1- main protagonists is somehow related to the antagonist.

2-main protagonist/antagonist do the things they do because of some contrived tragedy/trama from their childhood.

3-main character is a complete Saint without any flaws, or vices.

4- love interest's that have the personality/ depth, of a shit coated puddle, and have no chemistry with the main protagonist or vice versa.

5-love triangles/romances that pander to preteen girls.

6- black, and white morality pov with no room for any shades of grey.

That's mostly my list of hated tropes in fiction.
I would love to hear some of y'alls.

Tl;dr what's your most hated trope in fiction.
 
Last edited:
Neck Snapping.

It can't happen as far as I can tell, but it was used in movies and media because it's so hard to pull off, so it was a easy way to showcase how badass and strong a character was.

Now it occurs so much it's lost all meaning and has surely driven a few idiots to try it on someone.
 
Tropes are not cliche, trope is just plot device; its just nothing wrong with it. there's nothing such as bad trope, so you might want to consider to not put those slash mark and pair it.

that said, black and white works wonderfully in cosmic horror story; maybe @CT Phipps knows
 
@Mr muggyman 3000 What show is that?

As for the actual thread topic, Token Romances that tends to lead to my other hated trope, Romantic Plot Tumors.

These two, when implemented, do not add anything to most fictional tales I see them featured in and usually drag on to an excruciating degree. A lot of movies always seem to implement token romances between a male and female character for no reason other than a man and a woman are only capable of being romantically involved rather than being platonic.

It's one of the reasons why I got bored when watching the second and third Hobbit films since the Tauriel, Kili and Legolas love triangle was dull, stupid and ultimately did not contribute the story except to increase the run-time of the films (there are other problems with those films but this one is the easiest to recall)

Yahtzee's statement of Token Romances (I think it was the Silent Hill Homecoming review) sums up the absurdity of this trope nicely:
"The trademark sense of isolation is another point the game misses like a champ when you're given a spunky female sidekick. This is another peculiarly American habit that seems to always go unchallenged: why does a love interest subplot have to be shoehorned into everything? Imagine if there was some kind of parallel universe where every game and movie, regardless of genre, was required to incorporate at least one line dancing competition. We'd think they were all raving lunatics!"
Click to expand...
 
CerberusGate said:
@Mr muggyman 3000 What show is that?

As for the actual thread topic, Token Romances that tends to lead to my other hated trope, Romantic Plot Tumors.

These two, when implemented, do not add anything to most fictional tales I see them featured in and usually drag on to an excruciating degree. A lot of movies always seem to implement token romances between a male and female character for no reason other than a man and a woman are only capable of being romantically involved rather than being platonic.
Click to expand...
Firstly The show was Luke cage. Secondly I absolutely agree. I've watched/read stories that have great potential get completely ruined because they focused on a forced romance rather then the plot, characters, or setting. Romance can be good if both characters are interesting,and have chemistry. But most of of time it's just shoved into stories because of mass market appeal.:wall:
 
I guess Luke Cage had to completely adapt all the generic comic cliches then... :facepalm:
Mr muggyman 3000 said:
But most of of time it's just shoved into stories because of mass market appeal.
Click to expand...
It's why Pacific Rim's ending with the two lead characters was rather satisfying to me at least. No big damn kiss or declaration of love, just relief and joy from surviving the final battle with a friendly headbutt. If they turn romantic later on (like in a sequel), it should be done as development from close friendship into budding romance (if one considers Mako's character) rather than coming in out of nowhere.
 
An example that springs to mind is Jurassic World. I knew from the first scene the main 2 characters talked to each other I knew they'd get back together.

It's ridiculous.
 
Plot armor.

I can't stand it.

That's why in dangerous settings I prefer an ensemble cast, preferably with no de facto main protagonist. Cause when there is plot armor then I stop being engaged. I know that certain characters aren't going to die and that if they are going to die then it is going to be far more epic or heroic or emotional than just randomly taking a bullet to the head in a firefight. (I miss you, Axel) And a story without an ensemble cast? They are usually very boring to me. Any action scene is completely uninteresting to me because I know that the protagonist won't die in it. Might take a hit or two but they won't die so there isn't any lethality to the situation.

If you write a character into a corner then live with it and end them. Don't pull some bullshit out of nowhere to save them.
 
Almost never shooting first when some conversation starts off between the protagonist and the antagonist.

But really anything which breaks my suspension of disbelief.
 
Probably the fruit cart.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FruitCart

Perhaps off topic buy this entire shades of Gray morally unjustifiable angsty pained superhero with childhood trauma and cliffhangers/ -you decide for yourself what happens after the ending - is getting really boring.

What happened to fun films. Like the earlier (Connery) James Bond films where there was a cool self assured guy who went on a mission, and went from A to B to C and so on until the villain was dead and his evil plan thwarted. And then the movie ended. I miss that.
 
Laws of the "universe" work differently when they are applied to the main character or other "important" characters.

For example, it really annoys me when in a universe where the main character (and/or anyone else) kill dozens of vampires and they all instantly explode into ashes as soon as the mortal wound is dealt, but when he (or someone else) inflicts a mortal wound to his mentor/girlfriend/best friend/mother/rival/whoever else that was turned into a vampire too, they have time to stay in his arms dying and still talk for ages...
 
Look at the Walking Dead.

Jumping the shark; this goes quite well with plot armor, having characters that just won't die. It takes out all suspense. Some of the retarded viewers may be surprised by it, but it's a fucking stupid thing to do.
 
Thought of another:

Unexplained teleporting slow pursuers:
That classic case of someone frantically running from a pursuer, and it's running for ages. The pursuer is seen calmly walking or just standing still. The person running then falls down or hides behind something to catch his breath, then in the next second the pursuer appears right next to that person... Without any explanation at all...
 
One of my biggest pet peeves is when films/shows/ect. make an array of interesting characters, all with fleshed out backstory, and each with there own strengths and weaknesses, and then ruin it at the last minute by making one character basically dominate 90% of screentime, and get all the best scenes. The main example I can think of this is 28 days later, where Jim basically becomes the main character, despite being utterly boring on his own.
 
JO'Geran said:
One of my biggest pet peeves is when films/shows/ect. make an array of interesting characters, all with fleshed out backstory, and each with there own strengths and weaknesses, and then ruin it at the last minute by making one character basically dominate 90% of screentime, and get all the best scenes. The main example I can think of this is 28 days later, where Jim basically becomes the main character, despite being utterly boring on his own.
Click to expand...
They did that because it was better for the viewers to understand. As they were both "new" to the apocalypse, it made sense. They should've given him some character though.
 
Some timed situation in which the protagonist has to put in the disarming code, disable a critical component, or just push the button in order to prevent cosmic armaggeddon or something.
Sure the antagonist or some mooks (or a combination of both) try to stop him or her, and it almost looks like it is to late, but then the protagonist manages to overcome the with ease/power of love/some other skill previously unavailable that increases the protagonist's power level up to one million! or he or she does a lucky shot that happens to hit said device/artifact that is the trigger to the super duper death device.
 
CerberusGate said:
I guess Luke Cage had to completely adapt all the generic comic cliches then... :facepalm:

It's why Pacific Rim's ending with the two lead characters was rather satisfying to me at least. No big damn kiss or declaration of love, just relief and joy from surviving the final battle with a friendly headbutt. If they turn romantic later on (like in a sequel), it should be done as development from close friendship into budding romance (if one considers Mako's character) rather than coming in out of nowhere.
Click to expand...

Luke Cage is also Marvels weakest Netflix show to date.
 
I'm not sure if these are cliches but these are one of my pet-peeves.
  1. Needless adherence to the status quo.
    • Ex: This character is wimp. He starts working out. He becomes a jerk. He stop working out.
    • Ex: This character regularly bully the main character. He stop bullying. That is somehow bad. He goes back to being a bully.
    • Ex: New guy comes along. Everybody but one person likes him. Turns out to be evil.
  2. The moral lesson only applies to the main character.
  3. You should feel bad about this bully because he has a bad home life. Or some other self-destructive thinking.
  4. Writers are still fucking computer illiterate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top