|
Post by Belchic on Nov 26, 2016 1:57:39 GMT -5
Picking up children
This seems to be common in a lot of older movies, but it always seems whenever there is a kid who is going someplace, and there is a nearby adult, the adult always seems to find the need to pick him up and place him where he needs to be. I mean I can understand if it's a really little kid and where they need to be is out of their range, but it seems no matter how old they are or where it is, they always need to be picked up. I mean, seriously, do they seriously think all adolescent kids are invalids? I rarely got that kind of treatment when I was a kid. From what I see, it's just something to make the kid look cute, but why don't these adults ever let the kids fend for themselves if they know they can do it just fine.
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Dec 4, 2016 12:33:08 GMT -5
Two more cliches I find annoying:
Tap-Dancing Filler
If there's an upbeat musical number that's supposed to be comical, there's usually an instrumental part with no lyrics. Instead, they have to put in tap-dancing. Is it really necessary to put that in? Is it just an excuse to have something funny going on when nobody's singing? All it does is drag out the song.
Waving at flying objects
I don't know why this always happens, but every time someone sees something fly by and is amazed by it, that person always waves at it. This one, I just don't get at all.
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Dec 13, 2016 13:11:26 GMT -5
Grinch = Rhyme
This doesn't only apply in movies but to all media in general. Whenever somebody does something associated with the Grinch whether it be a parody or a review, it always has to be done in rhyme. I mean, I understand, it's Dr. Seuss, and rhyming is something he's always been known for, but not EVERYTHING you do associated with the Grinch or anything Dr. Seuss HAS to rhyme! If you do it that way, it limits what you are allowed to say, and it takes away a lot of the humor. So that's why I think people should just knock it off.
|
|
|
Post by Trey_Vore on Dec 17, 2016 16:58:43 GMT -5
This is one that is not hard to hate.
One sex is superior to the other
While I know that there are some things that women naturally do better than men, and other things men naturally do better than women, to act as though one sex is outright better than the other is only asking for trouble. Why? Because obviously you will strongly agree if your gender wins and you are going to be pissed off if the other side wins.
This is a clear sign of "Whoever wins... we lose."
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Jan 8, 2017 13:37:23 GMT -5
I've got a couple here I'd like to share:
The dance party finale
It seems like every animated film these days seems to end with the characters having a dance party. This has gotten a little annoying. I find it to be an excuse to keep the movie running and giving the animators more work to do. It's not just bad movies that rely heavily on jokes that do this either. Even the good ones tend to end with dance party numbers. I would like to blame Shrek for starting this trend in addition to starting the trend of CGI replacing cel animation.
Female on top
For those of you who know me pretty well, you're probably not surprised that I brought this up. Whenever an instance comes up in a movie, a tv show, or a tv special where one has to get in another's shoulders. If there is a female involved, most of the time, she's the one on top. Very rarely do I see a female supporting a male. Understandably, for the most part, men are larger and stronger than women, so that case would make sense. With that in mind, if a female was larger than a male, she'd have to be on the bottom, but there are even times when it doesn't matter how big the female is, she still ends up on top. I will admit there were some franchises that were generous enough to have it done the other way around. Like in "T.U.F.F. Puppy", Kitty has carried Dudley numerous times, though that makes sense since she is taller than him. The only series I can think of that made this trope more original was "101 Dalmatians", where Cadpig, being a female and the smallest of the main pups, has carried Lucky a good number of times. Still, at least 80% of the time if a female is involved in a human ladder, she is on top regardless of her size. I just think it would be more fair if both males and females got an equal share of being on the receiving end. This kind of goes with Trey's rant on one sex being superior to the other, and I this example I talk about should be no exception to that.
|
|
|
Post by Lucky on Mar 11, 2017 21:57:09 GMT -5
To be honest, I have no idea what to say about that, but if a woman is injured, like Roxy was in the Hunt on Mt. Gruteley, I believe it would be best for the man to carry the woman, if you don't like that, then I don't know how to help you with that.
Killing off the Villains
In most movies, I can understand this, the Villains are OC's the Heroes are OC's, but when it comes to films like Batman, Superman (Lex doesn't count.), Spider-Man, Guardians of the Galaxy, (I could say Fantastic Four, X-Men and Deadpool, but I haven't been up to date on the villains for Deadpool.), but anyway, The Villains in the Comic Films I've mentioned gets killed off, Ra's Al Ghoul (Batman Begins), Joker (Batman), Green Goblin, Eddie Brock/Venom, Doc Ock, etc. These are villains that are real well known.
Without these villains, the movies themselves will come to a quick close when there are more stories, you can tell with these characters, their roles in the movies aren't over, you can do more than just have them appear and die in one film.
Batman and Spider-Man don't kill off their villains, rather they are in a tight spot or not, Batman and Aunt May respectively suggested this about the heroes, so why kill off the Joker when you could've used him in the fifth Batman film if Batman and Robin succeeded instead of using the Serum that the Scarecrow uses to induce fear on his victims.
Hollywood, if you're reading this, you can see that there are so much more you can do with these villains and heroes even their love interests instead of killing them off right then and there, ASM 2 Emotional? You've got to have Gwen Stacy alive for three or Four films before I can feel anything for a character that dies.
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Mar 12, 2017 16:48:26 GMT -5
Lucky: Well, if the female is injured, then I can understand why she needs to be carried. My point is when this occurs and a female is on top just because she's a girl. I just find that sexist and overdone, especially if she's the same size or even larger than the guy who is propping her up. Anyway, your latest entry gave me an idea for a movie cliche I can't stand: The villain falls to their deathThis one seems to be common in Disney movies. The villain of a movie is often defeated by falling from a great height. James Rolfe even pointed out this has happened way to often in films. Disney movies seem to be the most guilty of this. Some examples include the Queen from Snow White, Willie the Giant, Rattigan, Gaston and Frollo; they were all defeated this way. Why is this so common? They might as well throw Baby Plucky in there to say, "Villain go down the hole!"
|
|
|
Post by Trey_Vore on Mar 12, 2017 23:33:05 GMT -5
This kind of goes with Trey's rant on one sex being superior to the other, and I this example I talk about should be no exception to that. You miss the point. In terms of business only men are permitted specific jobs because they have better business intuition and are more likely to succeed (women are just more likely to fail) and in terms of say, performance art if you have two women maybe dancing to suggest a close bond people will except it for moral or immoral reasons (but if that was two men people tend to think that is just GAY!!). I'm not saying I think women need to be let past the glass ceiling or that more people need to be excepting of all-male pr0no. My previous post is talking more like this: powerpuffpony1.deviantart.com/art/Mr-Enter-s-Notebook-Lisa-the-Simpson-547122192
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Apr 3, 2017 12:07:26 GMT -5
It's 3 o'clock in the morning!
A character does something bizarre in the middle of the night, another character wakes up and doesn't approve of those actions, and then he says that it's 3:00 in the morning. Why is it always 3:00? Why can't it always be a different time? What makes 3:00 always the default? I guess because it's the very middle of that time period in between midnight and dawn. Still, where's the variety? I've heard "3:00 in the morning" said in movies like "The Chipmunk Adventure", "The Mouse on the Motorcycle", and I think "3 Men and a Baby"; I've also heard it on TV shows like "Rugrats", "Rocko's Modern Life" and "Sesame Street". Even "101 Dalmatians: The Series" is guilty of this cliche! Bill Waterson must have been aware of this cliche, because there is a running gag in his "Calvin & Hobbes" strips where Calvin wakes his mom up at 2:00 in the morning for insignificant reasons, but even that could still be a lack of variety. I admit there are some sources where they've used other times, but 3:00 always seems to be the default.
|
|
|
Post by Trey_Vore on Apr 5, 2017 8:30:34 GMT -5
Anyway, your latest entry gave me an idea for a movie cliche I can't stand: The villain falls to their deathThis one seems to be common in Disney movies. The villain of a movie is often defeated by falling from a great height. James Rolfe even pointed out this has happened way to often in films. Disney movies seem to be the most guilty of this. Some examples include the Queen from Snow White, Willie the Giant, Rattigan, Gaston and Frollo; they were all defeated this way. Why is this so common? They might as well throw Baby Plucky in there to say, "Villain go down the hole!" This happens so the hero/heroine doesn't have any blood on their hands. Sure the villain can be brutally stabbed to death by the hero but then who really is the villain here? That's what this is: tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisneyVillainDeath
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Apr 5, 2017 9:53:36 GMT -5
Erm, Trey_Vore? There are more alternatives to killing a villain than just stabbing them to death.
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Apr 14, 2017 12:38:11 GMT -5
Now here's a cliche I really can't stand!
The indistinguishable evil twin
I've seen a lot of movies and TV shows where one of the heroes (usually the main one) gets an evil twin, and when the other heroes find out there are two of them, they are completely unable to figure out which one is which. Even if the difference between the two is so obvious, they are still too oblivious to distinguish which one is the real one and which one is the imposter! Are they really that stupid? Now I know some of you are going to argue with me saying, "It's just for humor." Well, humorous or serious, it still makes no sense. Where is the logic?
|
|
|
Post by Lucky on Apr 15, 2017 1:04:08 GMT -5
I don't know where the Logic is, but I can understand where the characters are going with this since the twins look alike except for the personality, I have to say I don't really like the idea unless there's logic to it, like it's your counterpart from an alternate Universe or if you've been split in half like Dark Wing Duck and Cruella has been in the episodes of DarkWing Duck and 101 Dalmatians Respectively.
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Apr 15, 2017 11:31:29 GMT -5
I don't know where the Logic is, but I can understand where the characters are going with this since the twins look alike except for the personality, I have to say I don't really like the idea unless there's logic to it, like it's your counterpart from an alternate Universe or if you've been split in half like Dark Wing Duck and Cruella has been in the episodes of DarkWing Duck and 101 Dalmatians Respectively. But sometimes the difference between the two is too obvious. Not just in voice and personality, but also the physical appearance. In those cases, the other heroes still couldn't tell which one is which. Like in the Action League Now episode when the Flesh had an evil counterpart who had bolts in his body, and they still couldn't tell the difference between the two! Though I know that is part of the show's humor, but you get my drift. Also, when did the evil twin thing happen in 101 Dalmatians? I don't recall an episode where any of the pups had an evil counterpart.
|
|
|
Post by Lucky on Apr 16, 2017 2:26:19 GMT -5
Really? -_- I can tell them apart if I saw bolts on his neck, the real Flesh doesn't have bolts on his neck. But yeah, you see the episodes like that all the time, which I prefer the Episodes where people go up against or help out their counterparts from a different universe than our own better. For the Cruella episode, it's more trying to use her good side to get rid of the Dearly's. But just to point something out, dude, where in my post do you see me put, Lucky, Cadpig, Rolly and the rest of the Dalmatians go up against their counterparts, I never did mention a word about it, I said DARKWING DUCK and CRUELLA from DARKWING DUCK and 101 DALMATIANS RESPECTIVELY. (Don't get me wrong, Belchic, that does sound interesting, but I never said anything about Dalmatians facing off against their counterparts, so since you brought that up, Belchic, You tell me where there's an episode where they go up against their evil counterparts.)
|
|