Remove ads

Cliches you can't stand

Androids who cannot can't use contractions. This is basically the same problem as translators not translating metaphors, only worse.

Heroes who "demonstrate that killing (or sacrifice) isn't necessary" because they live in a world contrived to provide ways in which killing isn't needed--always have a third way turn up, never have concussions be lethal, etc. The one who did it right was Superboy in the Legion, who voted to acquit a member who killed because it's easy for him not to kill, being ultra-powerful, but the other members don't always have that luxury.
 
arromdee said:
Androids who cannot can't use contractions. This is basically the same problem as translators not translating metaphors, only worse.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I kinda like it as a vocal style quirk... not can't, of course, I fully agree that's silly, but chooses not to.

Heroes who "demonstrate that killing (or sacrifice) isn't necessary" because they live in a world contrived to provide ways in which killing isn't needed--always have a third way turn up, never have concussions be lethal, etc. The one who did it right was Superboy in the Legion, who voted to acquit a member who killed because it's easy for him not to kill, being ultra-powerful, but the other members don't always have that luxury.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I agree with that.

Like, it's often overlooked, but Superman does kill. He tries really hard to avoid it, but it's not like Batman's pathological no-kill rule. If you're a cosmic entity that's too tough for even him to subdue non-lethally and you put an inhabited planet in your sights? He certainly will, can, and has put beings like that down.

Heroes emphasizing the importance of trying to find/make a third way is excellent. Treating it as an immutable rule that their must be one is not- especially when you look at the comics history and notice that there are types of foes with a tendency to go down. It's just not based on how 'evil' they are or such, more the difficulty of taking them combined with immediateness of their threat.
 
Q99 said:
Not entirely.

Like, vigilantes could do stuff like capture villains and drop them off at the police- turning them into the system in short. Some may rough them up beyond what's needed to stop them, some don't. Some, like the Punisher, often kill and take up the whole judge-jury-executioner role upon themselves, but some leave 'em tied up with evidence and an anonymous call (and note, many supers will just flat-out hand them over to police directly, open and clear). A lot do care about what society and such says and try to keep at least within eyesight of society's views of what's acceptable, even if they clearly cross some lines. It varies.

Stardust is the type to take an entire gang, merge them into one individual, then shooting the merged individual into space, while taking the gang's leader, making his head grow and absorb his entire body, then handing him over to a headless giant who'll then absorb said gangleader-head into his headless stump. That's not even a hypothetical, that's a thing he did.

There are levels of this stuff, is what I'm saying.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Shortened as in they walk immediately when their lawyer shows up unless the superhero is willing to stick around and give a statement and then appear unmasked at their trial.

I think superheroes should probably ignore all the petty crimes unless its a gang or something with the idea being to beat them up and make their lives difficult rather than seeing them behind bars which simply wouldn't happen most of the time in any sane legal system.
 
Q99 said:
I kinda like it as a vocal style quirk... not can't, of course, I fully agree that's silly, but chooses not to.



I agree with that.

Like, it's often overlooked, but Superman does kill. He tries really hard to avoid it, but it's not like Batman's pathological no-kill rule. If you're a cosmic entity that's too tough for even him to subdue non-lethally and you put an inhabited planet in your sights? He certainly will, can, and has put beings like that down.

Heroes emphasizing the importance of trying to find/make a third way is excellent. Treating it as an immutable rule that their must be one is not- especially when you look at the comics history and notice that there are types of foes with a tendency to go down. It's just not based on how 'evil' they are or such, more the difficulty of taking them combined with immediateness of their threat.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As I recall Batman used a gun against Darksaid in spite of his rule against guns and was most certainly trying to kill him from what I recall so even batman has a point where his normal rules don't apply I guess however I think some of the best drama with batman is when he is heavily tempted kill someone because of their actions like in the animated series with the sewer king.
 
Alane1 said:
I am not sure consider the works of Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, Egar Rice Burroughs, Issac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, L. Sprague De Camp and others to have much in common with Objectivism or Nietzsche's ideas to be honest.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


I think @Reveen was specifically referring to mil-sci-fi, given the reference to Ender's Game as foundational.

Also, if you people really wanna talk about Neitzch in fiction, I invite you to consider the Bioware oeuvre.
 
Alane1 said:
As I recall Batman used a gun against Darksaid in spite of his rule against guns and was most certainly trying to kill him from what I recall so even batman has a point where his normal rules don't apply I guess however I think some of the best drama with batman is when he is heavily tempted kill someone because of their actions like in the animated series with the sewer king.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Note he shot Dan Turpin/Darkseid in the shoulder, so Turpin lived.

Though yea, him fighting with himself over it is good.

Mortis Nuntius said:
Shortened as in they walk immediately when their lawyer shows up unless the superhero is willing to stick around and give a statement and then appear unmasked at their trial.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That assumes the case is built on their testimony. If they stop an assault, the victim can provide all that. If they point the cops to where they can find their own evidence, also fine. If they're already wanted, then it's just a delivery, so even pure vigilantes can often do that.

Or they could use their JLA or Avengers ID- they do have rules allowing testifying without unmasking, since who they are can be legally proven. Heroes going to trials isn't all that rare (more-so in Marvel to be sure. Often Jennifer Walters is one of the lawyers).

Not always, but some supers stuff does in fact think about this kind of thing.

I think superheroes should probably ignore all the petty crimes unless its a gang or something with the idea being to beat them up and make their lives difficult rather than seeing them behind bars which simply wouldn't happen most of the time in any sane legal system.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Like, even chasing off muggers is a good thing. Spider-man webbing people up is fine and he should probably continue.
 
Last edited:
I cannot stand plots that hinge on miscommunication, and in general miscommunication in fiction. It's just so annoying, and it makes me constantly think "All of this wouldn't have happened if those people would just talk and listen to each other", and so I can't enjoy it even if it's written decently. I simply can't stand the trope in any way, shape or form.
 
I mean, I obviously disagree if only because miscommunication is so common in life. But I wish it'd be a little, you know, less obvious and stupid.

It's never, "We both wanted different things out of our relationship, and so when I said 'X' I was sure you understood I also meant 'Y'" it's, "I never even considered communicating with you."
 
The Laurent said:
I mean, I obviously disagree if only because miscommunication is so common in life. But I wish it'd be a little, you know, less obvious and stupid.

It's never, "We both wanted different things out of our relationship, and so when I said 'X' I was sure you understood I also meant 'Y'" it's, "I never even considered communicating with you."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It might be my introversion and possible mental problems talking, but I hate the first one too. I prefer to clarify whenever I end up in a situation that could be ambiguous and try not to hinge on "obvious" things that could as well be not obvious to others.

My default reaction to any miscommunication is annoyance, so it's something I get annoyed by by default.
 
Last edited:
DestinyPlayer said:
I cannot stand plots that hinge on miscommunication, and in general miscommunication in fiction. It's just so annoying, and it makes me constantly think "All of this wouldn't have happened if those people would just talk and listen to each other", and so I can't enjoy it even if it's written decently. I simply can't stand the trope in any way, shape or form.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I know a multi-Hugo award-winning series that has multiple books that hinge on miscommunication -- or outright lies, depending -- and are excellent. It can be done well and effectively.
 
I absolutely love plots about clearing up communication problems- CJ Cherryh's foreigner series, starring a diplomat, for starters.
 
foamy said:
Vorkosigan Saga.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Though I wouldn't say miscommunication plays a major role in most of them- the one that most relies on it is the romance/comedy of manner novel, A Civil Campaign. Which, granted, is a great one.

Most of the time, it's direct and purposeful deception, which is a different matter. A trickster hero isn't miscommunicating, they're communicating to precise effect.
 
Idiot Heroes, ESPECIALLY in anime because they're all ripping off Son Goku in some fashion. This breaks my SOD because they're usually portrayed as utter morons who only understand fightning and eating and don't have the maturity or discipline to stick with a training regiment and the diet that they'd have to stick with. The only idiot heroes that I'd accept are Minsc from Baldur's Gate (who has brain damage) , Tidus and Yuna from Final Fantasy X (while more naive then dumb, their naivete still causes them to do dumb things).
 
FalaKAISER said:
Idiot Heroes, ESPECIALLY in anime because they're all ripping off Son Goku in some fashion. This breaks my SOD because they're usually portrayed as utter morons who only understand fightning and eating and don't have the maturity or discipline to stick with a training regiment and the diet that they'd have to stick with. The only idiot heroes that I'd accept are Minsc from Baldur's Gate (who has brain damage) , Tidus and Yuna from Final Fantasy X (while more naive then dumb, their naivete still causes them to do dumb things).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't think they really qualify at all? Unless you extend idiot hero to include anyone who's not some grand intellectual? In which case, every action hero who is merely an average person rather than brainiac is an 'idiot hero.'

The phrase, to the extent it means anything (and it's TV Tropesian, so) doesn't even come close to covering either Tidus or Yuna in FFX. I can't really even think of what he would have done that'd get him labeled an 'idiot' other than not be aware of cultural contexts, and thus missing that Yuna was marching towards her death the whole time.
 
I dislike stories (novels or drama shows) that show 'good' characters as an equivalent to 'stupid' or 'naive' characters.

Good does not equal to Stupid nor does it equal to Naive. This kind of stereotyping characters to force us to root for the Good characters because they keep getting fooled and backstabbed by the Bad characters are infuriating.

For once write a Good character with a backbone, and enough power to push back whatever villainous plots surrounding them. Make them equal with each other, so the conflict formed between them will be more interesting to watch.
 
I hate it in shows, fanfics, and books, when a person just changes his mind about being bad, does a face-heel turn, and then joins the good guy's side. Then people just ignore whatever crimes or wrongdoings or murders the person has done.

Hello? Its nice you changed your mind. Maybe try to fix what you broke?
 
My current big gripe is when newbie joins a group and is shown to be wildly better than a long-time member at something they supposedly do every day.

Like, it's one thing if newbie is a professional sniper taking over for a squad's self-taught de facto sniper, or if newbie has insider forewarning about a hazing ritual. But if it's like "oh, did you ever notice this dropdown on a form you've been using for years" it's just, arrgh.
 
Evil Plan said:
My current big gripe is when newbie joins a group and is shown to be wildly better than a long-time member at something they supposedly do every day.

Like, it's one thing if newbie is a professional sniper taking over for a squad's self-taught de facto sniper, or if newbie has insider forewarning about a hazing ritual. But if it's like "oh, did you ever notice this dropdown on a form you've been using for years" it's just, arrgh.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
However, as seen in Harry Potter, there can sometimes be a good reason: Harry has a lot of natural talent, while Draco has some experience but also a lot of bad habits he hasn't yet realized are holding him back.
 
arromdee said:
Androids who cannot can't use contractions. This is basically the same problem as translators not translating metaphors, only worse.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That bugged me to death on TNG, when Data would fail to grasp some basic idiom or cultural standard. He apparently went through all of Star Fleet Academy, and he can quote thousands of pieces of literature, and apparently understands them, but he somehow thinks watching a pot might change how long it takes to boil, and can't grasp the psychology of humor, despite us having it fairly well worked out in the benighted 20th century. And he thinks it is okay to recite dirty limericks on the bridge.

It's a good thing Brent Spiner is cute is what I'm saying.
 
Assembler said:
However, as seen in Harry Potter, there can sometimes be a good reason: Harry has a lot of natural talent, while Draco has some experience but also a lot of bad habits he hasn't yet realized are holding him back.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But I wouldn't consider Draco a long-time member with regards to Quidditch. Krum, however, is and Harry is impressed by him, implying he is better than Harry.
 
Assembler said:
However, as seen in Harry Potter, there can sometimes be a good reason: Harry has a lot of natural talent, while Draco has some experience but also a lot of bad habits he hasn't yet realized are holding him back.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Being comparatively good at a sport in a middle school league isn't a high bar to clear though. If Harry started tearing shit up in professional tier Quidditch that would fit the cliche better.

EDIT: Wait why the fuck is there only one Quidditch league at Hogwarts that the same students can just hog team spots in throughout their entire education? Thats really fucking unfair to kids who want to get into Quidditch but all the spots are taken and always will be
 
Last edited:
Reveen said:
Being comparatively good at a sport in a middle school league isn't a high bar to clear though. If Harry started tearing shit up in professional tier Quidditch that would fit the cliche better.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean, he is implied to have a lot of talent. I could sorta-kinda almost believe that if he dedicated his life to it, he could be a decent pro player. You know, when he was an adult. And decent, not, "The greatest Quidditch player who has ever lived."

Instead he was always also very interested in DADA, and wound up having a career based on that.
 
The Laurent said:
I mean, he is implied to have a lot of talent. I could sorta-kinda almost believe that if he dedicated his life to it, he could be a decent pro player. You know, when he was an adult. And decent, not, "The greatest Quidditch player who has ever lived."

Instead he was always also very interested in DADA, and wound up having a career based on that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Mhm, I think he'd manage at least 'good'.
"Great Scott, he can fly!" yelled Bagman as the crowd shrieked and gasped. "Are you watching this, Mr. Krum?"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's not something you say about someone who's merely 'decent'.
 
Last edited:
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top