The Gang of Five
Beyond the Mysterious Beyond => The Arts => Silver Screen => Topic started by: brekclub85 on November 23, 2009, 06:07:12 PM
-
In any type of plotline, whether it be a game, movie, book, or tv show, we've all probably seen things that we consider cliche. While I'm sure we each have cliches that don't bother us or we don't find annoying, but I'm sure we each have clches that annoy us time to time when we see them. What are yours?
Cliches I don't like: (Though there have been some stories with these that I don't mind.)
1. In cat vs. dog stories, the cat is always the bad guy.
2. Carnivores being portrayed as the bad guys.
3. Science being villainized.
4. In competition stories where it's between 2 good guys, not a good guy vs bad guy, the underdog always is the winner. (Face it, when it's a strong competitor vs an underdog, the underdog always wins.)
5. Even though I like slasher films, I find it cliche when the only survivors are the main girl and her boyfriend.
What about you guys?
-
1. Big corporations being villainized and always having their business razed to the ground by the end. I always wonder if their disgruntle and recently unemployed employees didn't lynch and kill the plucky heroes after the film ends.
2. The underdog is always the hero. While I appreciate the plotline of a bunch of losers getting their acts together and getting serious about whatever sport they're playing, they shouldn't always win the championship game at the end. I'd love to see just one movie where they don't the championship, but the possibility that they could win next time is still there. Hell, that would make a sequel to that film actually worthwhile, because the team wasn't actually won yet.
3. The championship teams always being portrayed as cheaters and money mongers who only play to win and don't enjoy the game at all. Seriously, can't the other team just be another team of perfectly civil individuals who just happen to be competition to the underdogs for once?
I absolutely loved how Pixar's Cars suverted that by having the champ racer actually be a nice guy.
4. The Romeo and Juliet star-crossed lovers part. This has been done SO many times that its become a cliche. Is there another Shakespear play that is more ripped-off?
5. Horror that end badly for the protagonist. Do horror films ever have endings that don't result in the heroes' horrible deaths anymore? What's the point? I already the villain is going to win and eat the protagonist, and I don't feel any need to put myself throught hat kind of ride.
-
When there are hero teams that have like 4 guys and only 1 girl or 2 guys and 1 girl,
they don't give females enough credit...
-
* Star-crossed lovers. Blllllehhhhhhhh! Let's see how many I can list:
Romeo and Juliet
Ranger and Charmer (This one ESPECIALLY makes me sick with the whole fur-color thing. Adder and Sinuous are differently colored and they don't even seem to notice it)
Tony and Maria (okay, technically Romeo and Juliet)
Edward and Bella *takes out a machine gun*
JACOB and Bella *takes out another machine gun*
Kovu and Kiara (Ick)
* Reptiles as villains. Especially snakes. How dare Disney bring Kaa to that state >.< . Thankfully, there's Juju from Princess and the Frog that's the pet of the witchlady that helps them. Heck, just his NAME sounds flat out adorable!
* Any dog as a hero. ESPECIALLY foxes and wolves
* Cats as villains. The movie Cats and Dogs heightened that.
* "I-AM-YOUR-FATHER". Only time that's good is in Star Wars
* "Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die" Again, only good in The Princess Bride
* Love at first sight. That's probably one of my most hated concepts. I don't believe in love at first sight. Love MUST develop. It has GOT to develop. It was Enchanted that sparked that. Before you decide you're in love with somebody, you've got to have known them for a period longer than a few weeks. Maybe a year.
* Princess under a spell. Especially a sixteen year old princess...that doesn't even look like she's sixteen.
-
If there is an "old wise teacher / mentor" kind of a character in a fantasy story you can be almost certain that he will be killed in the story. There are cases where he (most of the time it is a he) does a "Gandalf" and returns but really most of the old mentors of a main character are killed of. With Gandalf I already mentioned one case of exception because he returns. Other examples can be found in Star Wars (Obi Wan Kenobi (and one could probably name some more examples)), Harry Potter (Dumbledore), Eragon (Grom or something like that), Highlander (whatever the name of Sean Connery's character was). I'm quite sure I have seen more examples of this. Old mentor's don't tend to get much older ;)
-
The "old mentor that can't stay" ended up becoming an archetype in my English classes. Usually, he dies so the hero doesn't have anyone to cling to for help. I think Merlin just left Arthur, but it would be interesting for the mentor to say "Nuh-uh! You go do this on your own and figure it out. You're a big boy/girl now! *BOOT!*"
-
* Reptiles as villains. Especially snakes. How dare Disney bring Kaa to that state >.< . Thankfully, there's Juju from Princess and the Frog that's the pet of the witchlady that helps them. Heck, just his NAME sounds flat out adorable!
From what I heard, could be wrong, in the original Jungle Book stories the Disney movie was based on, not only was Kaa actually a good guy but he was also one of Mowgli's tutors.
Any dog as a hero. ESPECIALLY foxes and wolves
I have nothing against foxes or wolves, or any animal in general (I don't see a reason to hold a grudge against an entire species but that's just me). Not sure on foxes, but wolves I agree are too overly used, both as villains and as heroes. It'd be nice if they'd use other animals instead. Wolves are nice and all but they are not the only animals in the wild.
-
Some video game cliches that really grind my gears:
- The tough space marine character that's in nearly every sci-fi action game. Half life broke that trend, but so many sci-fi games just reuse the bad ass marine type character. Just once I would like to play a character with a little more realization to them.
- Karma meter. Every game nowadays seems to be trying to make you take "moral decisions" that effect how good/evil you are. The only problem is how black and white it always is... you're either a goody goody gum drops, or a blight on all living things. Modern RPG's are doing this like mad.
- You are the one. So many games cast you as the "chosen one" or the one who is destined to beat up the bad guys. Just once I would like to play someone in the background, be a player rather than a leader. Call of duty had excellent moments where you were just another soldier, rather than the bad ass hero.
-
Horror movies. Any horror movie that involves a group of teenagers heading off on a road trip or something and getting killed off one by one. Has there ever been a more overused plot line?
-
Horror movies. Any horror movie that involves a group of teenagers heading off on a road trip or something and getting killed off one by one. Has there ever been a more overused plot line?
I've stopped watching horror movies thanks to how cliche and repetitive it has become... that, and the fact I'm no longer terrified of the horror genre.
Saw was the last good horror flick I ever watched, it had a simple premise, good twist and was pretty damn scary I thought. Another favorite of mine (though less horror and more suspense) was Open Water... same idea as Saw, simple premise... but bloody terrifying.
The worst horror cliche I've ever witnessed is the one where a character would get tapped on the back or have the camera walk up to them... they freak out, but it turns out it was only a friend or something not scary, like a cat.
A CAT! AHHH... I'M TERRIFIED AND PEEING MY PANTS!
:bang
-
The idea that the richer people are villains and that poorer people are automatically the good guys.
Also, the cliche of the guy wanting to get into the most attractive girl's pants is overdone... they make it seem like the girl rarely has any desires of her own... unless she somehow breaks the rules.
And my RP doesn't make it so black and white... :lol
-
More I'm tired of:
The killer turning out to be the main character in a trance or out-of-body experience.
Whether it be the good guys or bad guys, action-filled stories that don't end with at least 1 person dieing for an emotional scene. (One thing I disliked about the Avatar finale, even though for the most part I found it awesome.)
-
More I'm annoyed up:
1. Whenever the title of an episode provides spoilers for the plot, making watching it somewhat unneeded.
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cWvBujcESQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cWvBujcESQ) This episode of the American Tail tv series was a good example of this: Whenever a carnivore actually successfully catches somebody, they never simply eat them on the spot, inevitably allowing the prey to escape by themselves or thanks to someone else later while they are busy cooking.
3. Stories about revenge (When the protagonist is the one wanting revenge, not the villain wanting revenge on the hero) always ending in the hero not being able to commit revenge (Not that I think revenge is justified, I'd just like to see a story where the main character goes through with their plans. The ending of Saw VI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGx6-FjX9r4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGx6-FjX9r4) was a great example of something like this not ending the cliche way, which I appreciated.)
-
This is somewhat an extension of my tiredness of the carnivore cliche, but not quite as I'm seen some times where it's herbivorous on both sides:
Often in animated animal shows,
Being something small (like a mouse)=You're good, You're smart, you'll save the day in the end, you're incapable of being bad.
Being something big (Like a tiger, or an elephant etc)= You're a jerk, you're incapable of saving the day, you always get caught by the bad guy if you're not the bad guy, you have strength but it's no help, and you're typically dumb.
Also, an extension of my one about cats, I want to see one movie where cats are the good guys while the mice are the bad guys.
-
The protagonist who vows never to kill. This is one thing I strongly dislike about the manga Rurouni Kenshin. I still like the manga though. But anyway, I just hate heroes who would rather put themselves and their friends in potential danger should the big bad decide to take revenge on the hero and his friends than say, I dunno, FINISH THE BIG BAD OFF!!
-
You know, speaking of mice, from what I've seen, in stories with mice and rats, it's the rats who are usually the bad guys. I wonder why this is the case. In fact, rats are more commonly portrayed negatively in stories it seems.
-
Okay, I read a lot of (clean)furry stories because frankly, a lot of them are MUCH better than the garbage that's actually been made into books (not to mention they're FREE). I'm sick and tired of reading stories where either the women in it are portrayed as weak and meager, or when they're portrayed as way overly-confident and overly-strong to hide the sexist attitude of the author. It just pisses me off. Even when a story is really good, if women are treated like this, I just don't like it very much anymore. It's not like they try or anything. It just comes out....and that's even worse. Without even realizing it, they put women down or beef them up unrealistically.
-
You guys basically listed them all. ^^ lol
Here's one:
1. In movies with caucasians and the Native Americans, the Native Americans seem to always be "good" and the caucasians are always bad. I'm actually not really annoyed with it, but it's too bad that White people keep getting these stereotypes of being greedy, lazy, and selfish. :p
-
Okay, I read a lot of (clean)furry stories because frankly, a lot of them are MUCH better than the garbage that's actually been made into books (not to mention they're FREE). I'm sick and tired of reading stories where either the women in it are portrayed as weak and meager, or when they're portrayed as way overly-confident and overly-strong to hide the sexist attitude of the author. It just pisses me off. Even when a story is really good, if women are treated like this, I just don't like it very much anymore. It's not like they try or anything. It just comes out....and that's even worse. Without even realizing it, they put women down or beef them up unrealistically.
Personally I think one of the best female characters is Alyx from Half-Life 2. She is portrayed as a confident woman, able to take care of herself, but she isn't beefed up or anything and there's times when you (as Gordon) have to protect/save her, and she can be killed, although it's game over if she does die, since she's an important ally.
-
Yeah, we do tend to ignore that the Native Americans were responsible for quite a few attrocities, themselves, don't we?
-
Rain during sad, realizing moments.....pretty standard in a lot of films.
-
A couple of the heros being smart-arses. It's happening a lot now a days, like Transformers, Sam is turning out to be a smart-arse. Wanted, the main kid in there turns out to be one.....especially in the Wanted game.
Although, other than that, I think everyone else has pretty much covered my cliches, especially the horror ones, the villain is beaten and one or two characters end up living. However, in Wolf Creek, one kid may've survived, but they never found the killer XD
-
Speaking of horror films, I can't help but slap my own forehead everytime the power goes out and the character calls, "Hello?" :slap. Not only does the character look like a total dumba**, but it's usually predictable that they're about to get whacked :rolleyes:. Instead of acting like a how a smart person would and hide in silence, they set themselves up to be murdered :crazy.
Oh, and graphic sex scenes in horror films. The characters are usually teens, so they have no business having sex to begin with, in my opinion. Add in drinking, drugs, and one-night stands, and it becomes very old very quickly. Seriously, can't there be another horror film released in which the characters are at least decent in that regard? At least the Saw series, my favorite horror series of all time, does not have this kind of garbage.
Sorry if I just offended anybody. I find graphic sex scenes to be very repulsive. Also, I can't stand how much of it is in the media. Sex is supposed to be an INTIMATE act between two soulmates, and yet the media makes humans look like rabbits :bang! Of course, young folks will get the idea it's okay to do it, since the characters generally don't live long enough for viewers to learn the consequences of such irresponsibility (i.e. STDs, pregnancies). No wonder kids are experimenting as early as elementary school, but that's off-topic. I just don't care for seeing graphic sexual content. If I was even slightly into that, I'd probably view certain controversial sites :x :x.
-
Not to mention that whenever the power goes out, they want to go out and investigate it. I mean seriously, if it were me, I would be like "Screw that, I aint going anywhere....."
Why would you want to go and investigate the power going out on a dark and stormy night? Something is bound to happen!
And yes, I agree with the Saw series, Jigsaw tends to choose those that have been ungrateful in life, not just some random teenager to go and slaughter....well, technically, the victums kill themselves in the traps if they are unsecessful in getting out, but you probabally can see my point anyway, to me, that's what sets Saw apart from other ones, it has a philosiphy in there I believe.
-
Elves. Just...elves.
-
One clcihe that I'm sick of more particularly then ones I've already listed:
Big Cities are ALWAYS portrayed as terrible places to live and the people there are jerks or unlikeable and that cities/city folk in general are making the world a worse place,
whereas the country side is ALWAYS portrayed as a nice place to live, and it's ALWAYS a beautiful sight to see and the people there are always friendly and they are "Constantly getting picked on by the city folk."
I live in a fairly big city, (albeit one probably not recognizable if I told you it's name) and it's not a bad place at all. These kind of stories have a tendency to piss me off slightly.
-
I actually have another one, it may've been mentioned already, but I'll say it anyway. Whenever ever someone hears a noise, they call out something like "Who's there!?" or whatever, as if they're trying to scare off the person instead of remaining quiet if they want to get the jump on them you know.
I've seen that in many horror movies and it just seems a bit stupid....
-
One clcihe that I'm sick of more particularly then ones I've already listed:
Big Cities are ALWAYS portrayed as terrible places to live and the people there are jerks or unlikeable and that cities/city folk in general are making the world a worse place,
whereas the country side is ALWAYS portrayed as a nice place to live, and it's ALWAYS a beautiful sight to see and the people there are always friendly and they are "Constantly getting picked on by the city folk."
I live in a fairly big city, (albeit one probably not recognizable if I told you it's name) and it's not a bad place at all. These kind of stories have a tendency to piss me off slightly.
That cliche doesn't really bother me so much. Not liking cities myself, I do consider cities as a less appealing place to live than out of the city. One reason I don't like cities is because there aren't many plants around, thus making the area hotter. Places covered in plants, such as trees and grass, tend to be cooler than urban areas.
-
Two more cliches that I dislike (Though they aqre essentially the same thing in hindsight):
Stories where athletic skill is considered more important than having brain,
And:
(This often applies to shows, books, and movies set at schools traditionally): When being good at a sport is the only way to get respect or have a fun time, and that "you can't possibly be having fun if you're in a non-athletic activity."
To summarize, I'm sick of stories that say "Being good at athletics is more important and always more fun than being good at academics."
-
It's probably a way to get people to become more active.
-
I agree with that, I'm not saying you're wrong or anything. I know that being active is important, I just hate it when they make it seem like having "book smarts" makes you boring or unlikeable.
-
Ah yes, I am not too fond of that cliche either. Another cliche that I find annoying is how scientist characters are sometimes depicted as always wearing glasses, possibly being bald, and being a bit dorky. The only time that this cliche seems to work, in my opinion, is Half-Life 2 with Dr. Kleiner. There's another scientist who appears in the series, Dr. Magnusson, who is like the polar opposite of Dr. Kleiner.
-
*The movies that portray Jocks as jerks and *Insert curse words here* Perfect example Ryan in Alvin and the Chipmunks 2.
* I agree with the under dog team winning thing. All though there were a few movies where the under dog team lost. (A league of their Own, Little Big League)*
-
*The movies that portray Jocks as jerks and *Insert curse words here* Perfect example Ryan in Alvin and the Chipmunks 2.
Yeah I agree.
One of the very few times I've seen a jock portrayed positively is Max from Dino Squad; instead of being portrayed as a jerk like jocks usually are, he's more on the sympathetic side and is friendly and helpful. Provided he is a bit bossy, though he isn't a jerk about it.
I think Ulrich from Code Lyoko is also a jock but I don't know for sure. He isn't a jerk either. From what I recall, he's more on the shy side. Been a long time since I've seen the show, though, so I don't remember too much about his personality in the show other than he's not as outgoing as Odd.
-
I'm not sure how many times I've seen a character fall down a flight of stairs and die after breaking his or her neck :rolleyes:. Seriously, I've known a lot of folks who have fallen down stairs (several times for myself) and have walked away alive and well.
-
In movies, the nerd or the guy with the glasses always getting killed. I mean come on... you've got Dennis Nedry in Jurassic Park, and the astronomer at the start of Deep Impact. There have to be heaps of similar cases.
-
Another cliche I dislike.
Films that portray everything about White Western civilization as evil as we torment the poor innocent natives. Yeah, it happened in real life, but I'm tired of the whole White Guilt thing in which every attrocity that's been performed by those with pale skin is reinacted. Well, I'm sorry. I feel bad, Hollywood. Mission accomplished. I'd like a see movie that showed just what the Native Americans and Africans were already doing to each other before evil ol' whitey even got their hands on them.
Yeah, yeah, I have issues, but I'm tired of my society telling me I should feel like I've been an asshole who has descended from a line of other assholes who wronged minorities just by being white. Fuck you, Hollywood.
Edit: About Nedry getting killed in Jurassic Park. I don't think he was killed for being a nerd. I think he was killed for being back stabber who put many people at risk for a buck and for being enough of an idiot to shut down all power in a park with giant creatures ranging anywhere from 25-50 feet tall.
-
Edit: About Nedry getting killed in Jurassic Park. I don't think he was killed for being a nerd. I think he was killed for being back stabber who put many people at risk for a buck and for being enough of an idea to shut down all power in a park with giant creatures ranging anywhere from 25-50 feet tall.
Yeah, but he's still the guy with the glasses. It's just a pattern I've noticed.
-
There have to be heaps of similar cases.
There happens to be one in Avatar - and that is, Grace. (biology nerd) :p
-
Another cliche I dislike.
Films that portray everything about White Western civilization as evil as we torment the poor innocent natives. Yeah, it happened in real life, but I'm tired of the whole White Guilt thing in which every attrocity that's been performed by those with pale skin is reinacted. Well, I'm sorry. I feel bad, Hollywood. Mission accomplished. I'd like a see movie just what the Native Americans and Africans were already doing to each other before evil ol' whitey even got their hands on them.
Yeah, yeah, I have issues, but I'm tired of my society telling me I should feel like I've been an asshole who has descended from a line of other assholes who wronged minorities just be being white. Fuck you, Hollywood.
I could not have said it any better, WeirdRaptor <_<! What about the first Thanksgiving, where both the pilgrims AND the Native Americans came together for a day of thanks? I don't think there's even a film out there about the first Thanksgiving. Not enough drama, I suppose :rolleyes:. Also, those many movies about slavery in America and how the Caucasians treated African Americans pre-Civil Rights movement (and even during). I really do not mean any disrespect toward any race or ethnicity, but does anybody stop to think that Africa's royalty gave the permission for their own people to be kidnapped and forced into slavery? Where's the movie about that? And what about the upheaval in Haiti in which the people killed all of the Caucasians, consequently resulting in the social unrest they still experience today?
Caucasians are not to blame for every wrongdoing that has taken place among humankind, and I too get sick and tired of my race being slapped with the "Bad Race" label by Hollywood :anger.
-
I'd like a see movie just what the Native Americans and Africans were already doing to each other before evil ol' whitey even got their hands on them.
Like Apocalypto?
While I do not oppose the call for showing both sides of the same coin, I do not think the examples brought up here are particularly well chosen.
In case of Africa, the governmental (monarchic) structures there were not comparable to the monarchies in Europe. Even though certain leaders there assumed the the title of king, the structures there were more on a tribal level with the tribes being played out against each other (something that had happened in Europe in the time of tribal structures as well).
Terrible atrocities were committed by liberated slaves during the revolt in Haiti (killing and torturing whites without distinction of age, sex, or whether or not the respective whites had been slaveowners at all) but these atrocities could not be described objectively without pointing out the almost 300 years of atrocities against slaves on Haiti which preceded the revolt.
Also there are movies depicting the role of African rulers and slave hunters though admittedly not as a main topic as such movies tend to be about the fate of the slaves with the capture being only the beginning of this. An example for such a movie would be the movie "Amistad", but apart from a significant number of historical errors the movie is also extremely emotional and divides people up in neatly defined "good people" and "bad people" while history and presence are just not so simple. It does depict some gross atrocities, but all the whites are either extremely in favor of slavery or very much against it.
The same problem can also be found in the movie "Mississippi burning" about the time of the civil rights movie. In that movie any member of the FBI is automatically a "good guy" without any reservations against African Americans.
I agree that there are movies giving a one sided view of things and that a balanced view would be desirable. But there is a good reason to guard against euphemizing the events. So far white caucasians have not been subjected to a genocide comparable in its dimensions by anyone except other white caucasians. I am not saying that with the necessary technology etc. it could not have been the other way round, but this is really hypothetical.
The depiction of the crimes of whites against the native Americans or Africans is on the one hand important to make sure that we do not forget about the parts of our histories which (among the plenty movies taking rather glorifying approaches to chapters of history which seem suitable for this) many would rather forget. On the other hand a one sided and abundant depiction of this might also contribute to making the scars more difficult to heal up.
More importantly however the movies tend to make us believe that such things are exclusively a matter of the past. Most whites who are being asked today would claim that perfect racial equality has been achieved in the US already and sure enough great progress has been made in many respects. High ranking and highest ranking African American politicians are a shining example how racist structures in the upper stairs of social life are breaking up. The importance of this must not be underestimated and yes I think pride about this is well deserved.
But for all this it ought not to be totally ignored that for the ranks achieved on the highest steps of social standing African Americans also make up for a disproportionally high part of society's lowest spheres. If one was given the chance for job chance's sake to pick either white or black skin color I'm afraid it is for good reason that a huge majority would want to be white. There are possibilities for African Americans to rise to the highest level in society. Equal opportunity in life has still not been achieved. Also many would agree (or at least not contradict) to claims that it is "the black mans own fault" if a disproportionally large number of them were a the bottom of society. In such claims I see remains of old racism and stereotypes that have not yet been quite overcome.
Much has been achieved to be proud about. There is still more to be achieved. Movies should not mislead us to think of social history of a given part of the population to have ended with the end of the movie of the latest setting. It continues right now while we are typing here.
-
THank you, Tiger. Yeah, really. It's not just Whites who have treated people bad. The truth is, everyone has been a tormentor to someone at one point in history. It's not just Caucasians who do bad things. I also meant no disrespect towards anyone. I'm just tired of this backlash against White people that's been happening when the whole point of civil rights has to put every on equel grounds and to have a unitified nation for everyone. I know racism will never die completely, but by all that is good and Holy, people, I'm sure racism could die a little more than this.
Yeah, I would love to see a movie about that massacre in Haiti, but Hollywood would never have the guts to show it, because that would be admitting that those of the darker skin persuasion aren't perfect.
In response to Malte:
I've not seen Apocalypto. I couldn't work up the interest, personally.
Hmm. Very interesting concerning Africa. Tribes constantly at war, sounds a lot like the Native Americans.
Regardless of what happened in the blacks before they killed all the whites in Haiti, it's still an example of inhuman crualty that cannot be justified. If everyone requires an eye for an eye, we're going to end up blind.
I'm willing to bet most of these films you speak of are modern American made, though, Malte, because the over-whelming majority of films that touch on this issue take "whites=bad; everyone else=good" stance.
So what if Caucasians haven't met the same level of discrimination at the hands of others? We're all still people and a far out view is required if the filmmakers intend to do something other than point the finger for something I cannot alter.
The depiction of the crimes of whites against the native Americans or Africans is on the one hand important to make sure that we do not forget about the parts of our histories which (among the plenty movies taking rather glorifying approaches to chapters of history which seem suitable for this) many would rather forget. On the other hand a one sided and abundant depiction of this might also contribute to making the scars more difficult to heal up.
I agree that it is important not to forget about what we did to Natives and Africans in the past, however, my point is that we're constantly reminded and often in the condescending ways imaginable. I do think the over-whelmingly one-sided approach Hollywood always takes is making it harder for those scars to burn.
I am aware racism still exists. My point is that we're over doing it with the White guilt and it's not getting anything positive accomplished. You want proof? I've seen blacks get mad about what happened over the course of a film concerning the topic being discussed here and then take it out some random white (me). Okay, the blacks in question were being jerks, but still, the film worked up negative emotions in them.
-
I do get your point WR and like I said before I do agree to the degree that such movies can prevent the wounds from healing up. But it is important to see both sides of the coin.
I've not seen Apocalypto. I couldn't work up the interest, personally.
Personally I don't think you have missed too much, but what you did miss was a movie mostly about pre-columbian conflict between native Americans of genocidal dimensions. There is among other a scene in which the main character is standing on a huge field covered with the bodies of sacrificed bodies that bears a very eerie resemblance to some of the pictures we know from the Holocaust death camps.
Yeah, I would love to see a movie about that massacre in Haiti, but Hollywood would never have the guts to show it, because that would be admitting that those of the darker skin persuasion aren't perfect.
Would you want such a movie with the exclusion of the suffering of the slaves that preceded the revolt and its atrocities? In that case it would not be objective. But if the suffering prior to the revolt, the suffering of whites during the revolt, and the suffering of the fighters on both sides during the French retribution was put in I'm afraid the movie is still likely to be interpreted as anti-white. Also the white retribution mentioned above should not be excluded from a movie that is meant to depict the whole story.
But are dark skinned people really always depicted as good? What about 300 in which Xerxes was (more likely than not unhistorically) depicted as an African looking man? The movie depicted vicious darker skinned people (some of whom actually looked almost like lord of the rings orcs) fighting the harsh but noble whities.
I'm willing to bet most of these films you speak of are modern American made, though, Malte, because the over-whelming majority of films that touch on this issue take "whites=bad; everyone else=good" stance.
What would you bet for? It depends of course on what you define as modern. Amistad is from 1997 and Mississippi Burning from 1988. But isn't it a rather common scheme in movies about white racisim to let "good whites" appear as well? I think the problem there is not so much making the skin color the only determiner for good or bad, but rather the exclusion of the many gray shades in between (Mississippi Burning is a particularly good example for this).
But can you name me one movie about white racism that does NOT include a good whitey? From uncle Tom's cabin on (and presumably it holds true for earlier stories as well) such movies don't really come without at least some good whiteys in each story.
There are also modern day movies which present a rather questionable view on some parts of history. An example would be "Gods and Generals". Made in 2003 as a prequel to the movie Gettysburg it falls regrettably short of that movies quality. While there are two speeches against slavery in the movie, they come across as very much of a matter of "political correctness". Both of the two African American characters in the movie think that slavery is bad but they still side actively with the south. One of the two characters (a cook of Stonewall Jackson) did really exist and there had been some strong bonds of loyalty between some slaves and their owners. Depicting this is not a wrong thing to do. But without a serious depiction of the other side of the coin and the brutality of slavery the movie fits very well into the still very much alive legend of the "lost cause" in the south.
So what if Caucasians haven't met the same level of discrimination at the hands of others? We're all still people and a far out view is required if the filmmakers intend to do something other than point the finger for something I cannot alter.
I hear what you are saying, but one problem is that it is relatively easy to say from the perspective of the people who were not the victims to the crimes committed.
We must NOT be held responsible for crimes committed before we were even born. But assume for a moment that you were an African American still exposed to the kind of discrimination mentioned above with a chance, but a much lesser chance to get a good job than a white person (just for example)? Would it not then annoy the crap out of you if movies depicted the big black man as the evildoers and the white people as the good ones... come to think of it, isn't that exactly what actually IS happening on TV (not on the great screen) every day? Isn't the big black man still a main subject in so called reality shows about crime?
-
I do get your point WR and like I said before I do agree to the degree that such movies can prevent the wounds from healing up. But it is important to see both sides of the coin.
I already see both sides of the coiin and I say that what Hollywood is doing is condescending and it only dredges up hard feelings.
Would you want such a movie with the exclusion of the suffering of the slaves that preceded the revolt and its atrocities? In that case it would not be objective. But if the suffering prior to the revolt, the suffering of whites during the revolt, and the suffering of the fighters on both sides during the French retribution was put in I'm afraid the movie is still likely to be interpreted as anti-white. Also the white retribution mentioned above should not be excluded from a movie that is meant to depict the whole story.
At least the film would show Mr. Black isn't Mr. Perfect.
But are dark skinned people really always depicted as good? What about 300 in which Xerxes was (more likely than not unhistorically) depicted as an African looking man? The movie depicted vicious darker skinned people (some of whom actually looked almost like lord of the rings orcs) fighting the harsh but noble whities.
Yes, they are, in films that are regared at all. That being said, 300 is a bad example because no one takes that film seriously.
What would you bet for? It depends of course on what you define as modern. Amistad is from 1997 and Mississippi Burning from 1988. But isn't it a rather common scheme in movies about white racisim to let "good whites" appear as well? I think the problem there is not so much making the skin color the only determiner for good or bad, but rather the exclusion of the many gray shades in between (Mississippi Burning is a particularly good example for this).
But can you name me one movie about white racism that does NOT include a good whitey? From uncle Tom's cabin on (and presumably it holds true for earlier stories as well) such movies don't really come without at least some good whiteys in each story.
Said good whiteys get over-shadowed even in story. Besides which, having just some good whiteys just leads to all sorts of unfortunate implicationas. Like there are only a few good Caucasians or something of the like. For the most part, those films do treat pale skinned ones as true monsters in over-whelming proportions, and it's because of the factor you pointed out. No gray areas at all.
There are also modern day movies which present a rather questionable view on some parts of history. An example would be "Gods and Generals". Made in 2003 as a prequel to the movie Gettysburg it falls regrettably short of that movies quality. While there are two speeches against slavery in the movie, they come across as very much of a matter of "political correctness". Both of the two African American characters in the movie think that slavery is bad but they still side actively with the south. One of the two characters (a cook of Stonewall Jackson) did really exist and there had been some strong bonds of loyalty between some slaves and their owners. Depicting this is not a wrong thing to do. But without a serious depiction of the other side of the coin and the brutality of slavery the movie fits very well into the still very much alive legend of the "lost cause" in the south.
I'm not saying we should stop making films that remind us of the atrocities that were committed in the part, Malte. I'm saying they need to stop being made in such huge amounts. It seems that I am under constant reminder that I'm distantly relaed to someone who owned slaves or something of the like and it seems almost like they're point the finger at us and it's getting tiring. I'm not going to budge on this issue.
Yeah, unfortunately, the South (the part of the country that the rest of us try to ignore) do still hold on to a lot of old issues from the "lost cause". It's not just slavery, though. It's just about everything from the old days of North vs. South. A lot of those guys are still sore about even still being a part of the union (even though chances are that we'd have lost both world Wars had America not been a unified nation).
I hear what you are saying, but one problem is that it is relatively easy to say from the perspective of the people who were not the victims to the crimes committed.
I have a black friend who agrees with me on this. He says that forgetting the past is wrong, but we seriously need to start moving forward instead of making sure we have a continual stream reminding us every day of the past.
We must NOT be held responsible for crimes committed before we were even born. But assume for a moment that you were an African American still exposed to the kind of discrimination mentioned above with a chance, but a much lesser chance to get a good job than a white person (just for example)? Would it not then annoy the crap out of you if movies depicted the big black man as the evildoers and the white people as the good ones... come to think of it, isn't that exactly what actually IS happening on TV (not on the great screen) every day? Isn't the big black man still a main subject in so called reality shows about crime?
What's the point of this last paragraph? Just because some wrongs are still committed against blacks I have to just sit here and accept every bit of backlash racism thrown my way. Is that what you're trying to tell me? To fucking hell with that! I am not going to be told I'm evil just for being white in an over-whelmingly high number of films and such which are far more common than the crime dramas you mentioned. My whole point was from the beginning is that we should be working on accepting each other instead of continuing to point the finger and that these movies are not helping!
And actually, if you watch the crime dramas in question, just as many white criminals are featured. It's just that black criminals are made a bigger deal of. I know, I sat down and watched a so-called unfair cops reality show. They picked up one black criminal, total, in the episode. The others were two whites, an Asian, and one girl who I think had a mixed background.
If I misunderstood this last paragraph, I apologize in advance, because I tend to get very nippy on this topic.
-
What's the point of this last paragraph? Just because some wrongs are still committed against blacks I have to just sit here and accept every bit of backlash racism thrown my way. Is that what you're trying to tell me? To fucking hell with that! I am not going to be told I'm evil just for being white in an over-whelmingly high number of films and such which are far more common than the crime dramas you mentioned. My whole point was from the beginning is that we should be working on accepting each other instead of continuing to point the finger and that these movies are not helping!
Please WR, there is no need to get angry. As I said repeatedly I do see the problem which you are addressing, but I am trying to point out some of the reasons for the problem, some problems which may be easier to overlook from a white-only perspective, and also some examples for movies which do NOT fit into the scheme that you criticize. I know there are plenty of movies to match the criteria which you are addressing though none has been named so far.
At least the film would show Mr. Black isn't Mr. Perfect.
There are plenty more movies depicting black people as not all good and whites as not all bad. The use of the certainly not so kindly meant phrase "Mr. Black" kind of worries me as it really makes it sound like you were blaming black people for the movies which you don't like. Remember, most of the directors and script writers are white WR.
Here are some more movies which I think disprove the view that the existing movies showed black people as perfect people:
The movie "Birth of a nation" is not really an argument in this debate as being shot in 1915 it is by now more of a historic source than a movie that would be aired to entertain people. However, I am mentioning this movie which contributed to the second rising of the KKK because it did take a strong influence on the depiction of blacks in later movies and because it did gain a kind of "official blessing" from then US president Woodrow Wilson who claimed the movie to show the historic truth.
Another rather old movie that shows blacks in negative roles as well (negative may also include the stereotypical image of black people as stupid, silly, and careless) would be "gone with the wind". Yes, I know this movie also is very old 1939 or 1940 I think, but because it is so famous and popular that it will still be aired it may have a better right to be mentioned in this thread than "Birth of a Nation".
Getting out of the sphere of pre-civil rights movement movies we have the 80s TV series "North and South". It includes "good whites" and "bad whites" on both sides of Mason Dixie with some shades of gray (but not much of that). However apart from the "good blacks" there are also "bad blacks". It is a while since I saw the series, but I am pretty sure there were blacks torching down the homes of whites there and murdering whites. They even allyed with a former slave overseer (who was NOT in command, so it was not the bad white causing the good blacks to do bad). That was not so "blacks are good only".
Another movie would be "Glory" of 1989 (music by James Horner by the way). The movie is mostly about the 54th (black) Massachusetts regiment in the Civil War. Looking at the movie you will find many scenes which would support your view of whites being depicted as evil, but I think that there are more cases to be found in the movie which contradict that view. Again the main protagonist is the well meaning white which can be found in practically every movie on the matter I am aware of (can you name a single movie on the matter without the "good white" character?). And even though the movie does (as the title suggests) glorify the events we do get to see a good deal of acts which will not depict the blacks as good only. Apart from them pecking on each other within the ranks we see a black trying to rape a white women before being shot by an (evil) white man, burning down a town (yes, that one is ordered by the aforementioned evil white man), and shooting an innocent civilian who wants to surrender (no order from an evil white man there).
That being said, 300 is a bad example because no one takes that film seriously.
Is it so? I'm afraid there are plenty enough people who actually mistake the movie 300 as a close depiction of historical events. As to whether or not the movie is taken seriously, assume for a moment that tomorrow a movie was launched in the "Arab world" depicting the "Western world " and the US in such a light as 300 did depict the "hordes of Asia". I think it is quite likely that some people here would take it very seriously. It is always easy not to take a movie too serious if oneself does not belong to the group that feels offended by it. You don't think so?
Then what about the Turkish movie "Valley of the Wolves Iraq"? I did not watch it and I don't want to watch it, but the reaction of the "western world" was not amused. From what I have read the movie includes very strong anti-American, anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian messages. American Soldiers are portrayed as brutal rambos. But apart from pure atrocity propaganda it also included references and depictions of atrocities which have de facto been committed in recent years. Is it easy not to take that serious when one is on the receiving end of such a depiction?
Again, I do not deny the problem which you addressed does exist WR, but some of the things you write (e.g. your agreement to making a movie about the atrocities committed by blacks on Haiti but please without reference to the atrocities of the previous centuries of slavery which caused and the brutal retribution that followed it) I really cannot agree with. If a problem really IS to be solved one needs to look at it from both sides of the matter. On the one hand you claim that you do see both sides of the coin, but on the other hand you are sounding so furious and use formulations (e.g. "Mr. Black isn't perfect.") that make it very difficult to believe that you really do. Your not knowing any of the movies I listed which are NOT the way you describe movies in general to be further adds to this impression.
WR I am neither out to offend you, nor do I deny the existence of the problem which you address. My point is that the problem is not as universal as you may think (which may make you happy), and also that other related problems exist, some of which provide a basis for the problem you are concerned about. One cannot solve the one without solving the other there.
-
Please WR, there is no need to get angry. As I said repeatedly I do see the problem which you are addressing, but I am trying to point out some of the reasons for the problem, some problems which may be easier to overlook from a white-only perspective, and also some examples for movies which do NOT fit into the scheme that you criticize. I know there are plenty of movies to match the criteria which you are addressing though none has been named so far.
I know the reasons for the problem, though. Whitey was a dick to other enthnicities in the past and Hollywood is bound determined that no one is going to think about anything else for very long.
Alright, you want examples: Avatar, for one. Evil Western civilization vs. the peaceful Natives who can do no wrong.
Too many depictions of the Civil War Era to count. Almost every Spike Lee film. Just about any film taking place in "the hood", unfortunately. A ton of films during the Rights March.
I don't blame black people for any of these films. I blame the filmmakers who are overly sensative and bending over backwards in some misguided effort to make up for past attrocities. A film with 2D depictions of the issues is not the way, Hollywood.
"Birth of a Nation". Good choice.
Yeah, Gone with the Wind really knows how to rack up the unfortunate implications, doesn't it? Again, I admit history right on up to film has to been unfair to minorities.
"North and South", very good. A surprisingly fair minded show, all tooo rare.
Good point about the "good white guy" character, though sometimes it almost seems like they're every bit of a much token character as...I hate to say this, the token black which Hollywood has the insipid habit of inserting....because apparently they just can't give an ordinary role to someone with skin darker than Halle Berry's. However, in the case of Glory and films concerning Abe Lincoln and the like, these well meaning guys existed. These are also literally some of the only films where you'll find positive white figures in them.
Is it so? I'm afraid there are plenty enough people who actually mistake the movie 300 as a close depiction of historical events. As to whether or not the movie is taken seriously, assume for a moment that tomorrow a movie was launched in the "Arab world" depicting the "Western world " and the US in such a light as 300 did depict the "hordes of Asia". I think it is quite likely that some people here would take it very seriously. It is always easy not to take a movie too serious if oneself does not belong to the group that feels offended by it. You don't think so?
Then what about the Turkish movie "Valley of the Wolves Iraq"? I did not watch it and I don't want to watch it, but the reaction of the "western world" was not amused. From what I have read the movie includes very strong anti-American, anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian messages. American Soldiers are portrayed as brutal rambos. But apart from pure atrocity propaganda it also included references and depictions of atrocities which have de facto been committed in recent years. Is it easy not to take that serious when one is on the receiving end of such a depiction?
They do? I've got to take more part in 300 online discussions, because I've never met a person up close who thought the film was accurate. It was made by the same guys who brought us Sin City, for crying out loud. Hmm. This may explain how Mel Gibson won so many awards for the demodrama that was Braveheart, AKA "Mel Gibson Really Hates the English Part I".
Valley of the Wolves Iraq sounds utterly horrible. Well, that's true what you said when the inaccurate demonization is directed at you suddenly makes a ridiculous premise more relevant. However, I can at least give the makers of 300 the benefit in that they weren't doing it on purpose and the hordes were the villains in that instance. This "Valley" movie by contrast sounds like it was intentionally malicious towards the Western world at large.
Again, I do not deny the problem which you addressed does exist WR, but some of the things you write (e.g. your agreement to making a movie about the atrocities committed by blacks on Haiti but please without reference to the atrocities of the previous centuries of slavery which caused and the brutal retribution that followed it) I really cannot agree with. If a problem really IS to be solved one needs to look at it from both sides of the matter. On the one hand you claim that you do see both sides of the coin, but on the other hand you are sounding so furious and use formulations (e.g. "Mr. Black isn't perfect.") that make it very difficult to believe that you really do. Your not knowing any of the movies I listed which are NOT the way you describe movies in general to be further adds to this impression.
I know both sides of the issues have to be tackled. That's exactly what Hollywood is not doing most of the time, however. The films you listed are by far in the minority as media featuring evil whites in this kind of story are disproportionately huge. I'll be back with a list of various stuff I've seen this unfair portrayal in when I've gathered enough of it.
WR I am neither out to offend you, nor do I deny the existence of the problem which you address. My point is that the problem is not as universal as you may think (which may make you happy), and also that other related problems exist, some of which provide a basis for the problem you are concerned about. One cannot solve the one without solving the other there.
Oh, I am happy that there are fair minded project out there. Believe me. It still seems like the backlash directed at those who were not involved with of the above attrocities is still overly disproportion. It's not like any of us chose to be related to slave owners and such and I don't believe in "sins of our fathers".
-
^Quite a debate here guys, awesome! I just need a whole week and some good vitamin C to understand and read all of it. :lol
I really wish dogs wouldn't die in movies all the time. >_> And they are always the heroes. For once, why can't a cat be a hero for his/her family?
Also, all of these teen movie stories where there the main character is supposed to be an "average" girl, when she is obviously not and the "hottest" guy in the whole school decides to not follow the crowd and suddenly becomes "reformed".
-
Honestly WR, I think you're really overreacting. You're taking the portrayal of Caucasians in certain films as a personal insult. The Western world is villainized in many films because, in many cases through history, it was a villain. That is history. That is fact. Nothing can change the fact that colonization by the Western world resulted in many an injustice. The colonization efforts of Western nations engulfed the entire Earth, and I can honestly see why the dangers of imperialism have become such a universal theme. The entire planet was affected by it, and its only natural that people wish to create cautionary tales to ensure that nothing of this nature should occur again. Whites are a very universal symbol of aggressive imperialists, mostly due to the fact that they were all white. So, in turn, it's only natural that the antagonists in these tales be white.
Yes, there were no doubt many cases where natives were already at each other's throats and doing nasty things to each other, but what right did the Western world have to attempt to solve these disputes? What gave Europe the right to attempt to assimilate smaller cultures, even in the name of peace and civilization? Nowadays, internal affairs of other nations are usually not to be meddled with by outsiders, simply because it, quite frankly, is none of any foreign power's business. Yes, there certainly are exceptions, but I can't help but feel that, had this policy been exercised more frequently by European explorers, some suffering might have been avoided. WR, you say you are tired of being told to feel like an asshole who descended from other assholes who wrong minorities just by being white. Those "other assholes" you speak of did not wrong other sects of humanity "just by being white". I think the imperialists of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries more than earned their historical reputation as "assholes" when they chose to use deadly force against native populations. As for the overwhelming majority of evil whites in these kinds of stories, I suppose you don't like the fact that, in most historical events of this nature, whites were the aggressors. Again, just a fact.
Now, all that being said, you have a point. This generation is not responsible for the sins of our forefathers. I heartily agree with that, but I think you're interpreting films of this nature as insults to Caucasians everywhere. As I said before, I believe they are intended to be cautionary tales. I am sorry you believe films of this nature are telling you you're an asshole because of your skin, and can only advise you to stop attempting to read so far into the film. Just take it for what it is and get on with life.
I'd like to point out that I mean no disrespect, and see that you have valid points. I just think you're getting a bit overzealous about this whole thing.
-
I wonder if we should have a seperate thread for the racism debate? I just think this thread became VERY off topic.
I might post a video of my opinion on this here, I just think debates like these are very worthy to bring forth to other people.
-
Well said, jedi. Perhaps I do take it too personally. My problem I guess is that I tned to get very tired of negative things and react badly to them upon even further experiences.
-
Well said, jedi. Perhaps I do take it too personally. My problem I guess is that I tned to get very tired of negative things and react badly to them upon even further experiences.
Really? Wow, I honestly thought I was making a fool of myself when I typed that up. I guess I'm not as incoherent as I thought. Usually when I tired I type whole paragraphs that make no sense.
I guess we should probably get back on topic, though, so...dragons. Seriously, I freakin' love dragons, but it just seems like they're in pretty much everything, and, when they appear as characters, usually are never really expanded upon.
-
When a man meets a woman at the beginning and in the end they get married.
Anyone notice that?
-
Or how 'bout when a couple breaks up, and then the guy wins the girl back in the end by impressing her with some accomplishment :p?
-
Or how 'bout when a couple breaks up, and then the guy wins the girl back in the end by impressing her with some accomplishment :p?
i need an example for that one...
-
When a man meets a woman at the beginning and in the end they get married.
Anyone notice that?
And yet, Enchanted took that out of proportion, shows you that a happily ever after doesn't really exist when you mean the one you love first.
Very different in the real world indeed.
-
Or how 'bout when a couple breaks up, and then the guy wins the girl back in the end by impressing her with some accomplishment :p?
i need an example for that one...
One example I could think of, since I'm more into comedies than romance films, is the film "Flubber" :lol. So the main character's engaged to his girlfriend. However, he keeps forgetting to show up at their wedding 'cuz he's more preocupied with a science project. He screws up again when he creates flubber, and she calls off their relationship and ends up dating another guy: one who is not nearly as eccentric and really does pay attention to her. It took the main character most of the film to even get back on her good side, let alone impress her with his new invention. Needless to say, they got married at the end :p.
-
When a man meets a woman at the beginning and in the end they get married.
Anyone notice that?
And yet, Enchanted took that out of proportion, shows you that a happily ever after doesn't really exist when you mean the one you love first.
Very different in the real world indeed.
Or Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull
-
If there is a love-triangle (usually involving two men and a woman) one can be quite sure that in the end the man who was there first "wins" while the other one has a fair chance of getting killed (e.g. Pearl Harbor and 2012, but there are more examples).
-
Anti-Christs that pop out of no where and blow everything up ("End of Days", for example). And most of the time...they're flat out stupid. Look at the one in End of Days. He fell for some of the oldest tricks in the book!
Thank goodness Stone Alexander came along. That guy was THE BEST Anti-Christ EVAR! And not because Michael York did the part...okay, that's some of it. He did a wicked job with that role. "YOU HAVE BETRAYED ME!!!"
He did make a ton of stuff obvious to us that we really don't want to think about. "Old ladies die every day. What good is it to keep them from dying?"...or something like that.
The only part that disappointed me was the end when Big Light Dude started getting rid of the bad guys and he just stood there. Although, he did have some awesome last bits.
But come on, let's get some better Anti-Christs out there...like Stone Alexander!
-
Another thing about these movie Anti-Christs... Why are they always so obvious? According to the Book of Revelation, the Anti-Christ is going to be loved by nearly one and all, so a high amount of charisma and good people skills would be a must to cover up their true nature.
And speaking of love triangles: I would love to see the leather jacket wearing "bad boy" lose out to the reliable nice guy who wears double breasted suits just once.
-
Another thing about these movie Anti-Christs... Why are they always so obvious? According to the Book of Revelation, the Anti-Christ is going to be loved by nearly one and all, so a high amount of charisma and good people skills would be a must to cover up their true nature.
Well, my complaint is that with the exception of The Omega Code, most of the Anti-Christs seem to pop out of nowhere and blow everything up. The Omega Code perfectly demonstrated what you just described, and in a way that we had never really thought of. Stone Alexander is the only Anti-Christ I can think of that's the only really, truely good one that matches. Unlike the dummy that offers to pull Arnold-man from the window and ends up getting pulled down himself :wow . That's another thing. Most of the others are stupid, stupid, stupid, STUPID! Alexander, on the other hand... "Oh, you're hanging from a window? Too bad. Bye."
Gosh darn it, those were awesome demonstrations of Armageddon 8D .
-
I know, but once you got me thinking about what I find wrong with movie depictions of the Anti-Christ, I had to put my two cents in.
-
This is more of a genre than a cliche, but I'm really sick of movies about the apocalypse. In fact, I'm just sick of disaster movies period.
Oh yeah, I'm also sick of vampire movies and that includes Twilight. Vampires suck. (no pun intended)
-
I'm not a fan of vampires myself, but I don't think they "suck". They're just not my preference. If other people like vampires, that's fine with me.
-
I found a video that AVGN made of his Top 10 Worst Movie Cliches. I'm sure you'll agree with at least one of them.
http://www.spike.com/video/cinemassacre-top-10/3327701 (http://www.spike.com/video/cinemassacre-top-10/3327701)
I especially am tired with the Stupid Villains thing. -_-
-
All true, and all will continue to be used. And they'll be adding some also. From what I heard another one is the shaky camera shot, like it's very bad amateur video with the person shaking their hand camera.
The bad guy talking to the hero instead of killing them stretches all the way back to even the pulp days and before so it's a very old thing. One lazy way for the hero and audience to find out what is really going on or to provide some bit of info, that could be found out using other methods.
-
Another old cliche: Characters possessing a firearm, but then they don't use it and get whacked by the bad guy :bang.
-
Here's another: independent computer hackers being better than government employed ones. Seriously, like in Die Hard 4 (which I like) and Swordfish (not so much), I just found it difficult to believe that the government didn't have people every bit as brilliant as the villainous hackers employed, countering them.
-
Another old cliche: Characters possessing a firearm, but then they don't use it and get whacked by the bad guy :bang.
I tell you what. I got a gun and you got a chainsaw, guess who is gonna win that fight!
-
I tell you what. I got a gun and you got a chainsaw, guess who is gonna win that fight!
:exactly
Too bad these film characters that end up dead are not smart enough to think like that :bang.
-
Whenever a show or movie does a Star Wars parody.
Look, I'm not a Star Wars fan or even a hater, but I think it's been spoofed to death by now, as was Star Trek.
-
Whenever a show or movie does a Star Wars parody.
Look, I'm not a Star Wars fan or even a hater, but I think it's been spoofed to death by now, as was Star Trek.
Quoted for truth! I love the original Star Wars trilogy but I wanna see some new movie parodies. I mean think how funny an Avatar parody would be XD
-
In slashers, teenagers doing patently stupid things.
I know some classmates (who I and some of my friends consider less than bright) who did something that could have come right out of a slasher movie: they decided to sneak into an old mental hospital.
And yet, even they were brighter than the average teen in slasher movie: they had the prudence to carry flashlights, stay together and even carry weapons (baseball bats, pieces of wood and I think some of them had knives).
-----------------------------------------
Another one:
People not fighting dirty.
It should be obvious to anyone who has read any of my writings (especially Twilight Valley) that I prefer fight scenes to be brutal and both combatants to be fighting dirty.
Still, the concept of the good guy always fighting by the rules and the bad guy going for cheap shots is a cliche that I have never liked.
-
I really don't like the modern fighting scenes. I guess that's one of the reasons why I like the Musketeer movies (the first two) because you can actually SEE what's going on in the fight...and everyone's fighting fairly, even the bad guy.
I also wish combatants would get TIRED when they fight. Just like the fight between D'Artagnan and Rouchfort after Constance's death (Grrrrrr :anger ). While it was refreshing that the girl wasn't saved, I REALLY wish it wasn't Constance.
-
Kids knowing how to operate heavy machinery. Last Action Hero, the Power Rangers movie, and We're Back are perfect examples of this.
-
For some reason, there is a recent (last decade) trend of magic-users being attacked by, tempted by, used by, or in some other way being manipulated by demons. Two examples off of the top of my head. First, in EVERY Avernum computer game in which it appears, the Tower of Magi (later known as the Tower colony) is attacked by demons, or else has demons from a previous attack still hanging around it. The second, and much-better publicized is Dragon Age: Origins, in which EVERY mage is tempted by demons, and they even have to pass a test to prove that they can resist demonic possession, or else they are killed or lobotomized to prevent possible infestation.
-
Another one is magic being portrayed as being superior to science and technology.
That is the reason I LOVE the Insane Cafe RP series: magic and technology are on equal grounds.
And that is reason I stopped reading Harry Potter books and started looking for fan fictions that make magic and technology on equal grounds.
-----------------------
Oh yeah, radiation giving superpowers.
That one really irritates me as a biologist.
Yeah, is cancer a superpower?
-
Not to mention radiation is more likely to kill you than give you any kind of powers.
-
I also don't like the whole "different is better" cliche. No, it is NOT always better! Some people who are different really ARE worse off than those who are like the social norm, and often for a good reason! In any even, even if one is "different", they are usually not better than most people, even if the might be just the same as them in more ways than people give them credit for. Of course, in fiction, this often translates as "born with a curse" or "I have powers that I never asked for and everyone fears me because of it."
-
The fact that anti-sexism(which granted is an important thing, I hate sexists) stories always go like this: boys are being sexist to girls. Never the other way around. Granted, I'm aware that in real life this is the majority case, but girls are still capable of doing it to boys and it's still just as wrong and potentially hurtful.
I remember a girl on my school bus who had a shirt that on the back that essentially said "All men are evil, sex-crazed, idiotic monsters."
-
Hollywood atheists (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodAtheist) The only atheists in movies are atheists because of some traumatic thing in their past like the death of a loved one, causing them to lose faith in God. Or they're skeptics of everything or really cynical. We're not all like that!
-
Here's another one. Movies with presidents suspiciously similar to whoever was in office at the time and get portrayed negatively. It's a form of distasteful political commentary that always seems out of place in a film like Die Hard. It's part of the reason why I found the G.I. Joe movie to be refreshing. White president in film with Obama real life in office and with that president portrayed as a sensible person.
-
I also don't like the whole "different is better" cliche. No, it is NOT always better! Some people who are different really ARE worse off than those who are like the social norm, and often for a good reason! In any even, even if one is "different", they are usually not better than most people, even if the might be just the same as them in more ways than people give them credit for. Of course, in fiction, this often translates as "born with a curse" or "I have powers that I never asked for and everyone fears me because of it."
In this respect I wish there was a bit more of the cliche in real live that makes the not quite normal people popular in fiction. In many stories the peculiarities of characters end up giving them a big popularity bonus (usually after some dose of political incorrectness of some characters on behalf of political correctness on the part of the fiction). While we have mercifully reached a stage of development where most of the time people don't need to fear for dear life anymore people are still likely not to get on too close terms with anyone known to have odd hobby (like land before time).
-
The funny thing is, "different is better" can be seen as a kind of discrimination against the majority. If "different is better", then normal must be worse. If nothing else, it implies bad things about a much larger number of people. It is elitist for one to assume that most people are part of some sort of unthinking mob while only a few exceptional people are worthy of praise just because they are different.
Still, in any case, no one deserves to die for being different. I think we can both agree on that.
-
There are different ways of being different and you rightfully pointed out that not all of these are positive. If someone differs by being a particularly talented bully able to mess up people at a much higher rate and effectiveness than "normal people" this is hardly a deviation from the norm that ought to be appreciated. But if for example a girl turn out to be excellent at a sport usually associated with guys or if a guy turns out to be very talented in a form of craftsmanship or art more likely to be associated with girls I do think that very often this is more perceived as abnormal (negative) and met with fake politeness at best rather than being appreciated for the quality it is.
There are also the abnormal interests or hobbies which are neither a vice nor a quality but tend to be treated like the former (e.g. being interested in LBT after reaching an age higher than that of the group where it would be accepted as normal).
-
That is true; some differences are simply neutral, not better or worse. If someone likes the Land Before Time movies, that by itself does not signify anything about them one way or another. Also, keep in mind how popular and long-lasting a series this was. I don't think it is truly abnormal to have heard of it, at the very least. Now, are there some abnormal things associated with the series, such as being obsessed with a character? Maybe. Even so, I don't think that makes one better or worse, unless it becomes an unhealthy obsession. How one defines "unhealthy obsession" is very much open to debate; I don't have much to say about that.
Another cliche I don't like is how crashing cars ALWAYS seem to explode in movies. Having seen cars crash before, I can tell you that explosions are the exception and not the rule when a crash happens. And thank goodness.
-
I guess whether "unhealthy" or not in case of an unusual interest depends on whether it is your personal interest and you just stand for it (as in not being shy to devote your time to it, not hiding it, and not denying it when being asked about it) or if you are taking efforts to ram it down everybody's throat.
There is a Trekkie at my university who is seriously overdoing it. Printing Star Trek logos on his thesis papers (however unrelated the topic is to Star Trek), using space ship console images for a background in power point presentations (again, no matter the topic), wearing Star Trek uniforms, giving professors the military salute, and always trying to imitate a speech pattern of science fiction movies and military language... that is really an example of where I think it get's unhealthy. One must be able to distinguish between real life and ones hobbies (a point I included in my signature as well).
Another cliche I don't like is how crashing cars ALWAYS seem to explode in movies. Having seen cars crash before, I can tell you that explosions are the exception and not the rule when a crash happens. And thank goodness.
For all I know (never tried obviously :p) one could drop a burning match into a car tank and all it would do would be extinguishing from lack of oxygen. Unless gas / petrol is leaking out or a gaping whole in the tank allows for more oxygen to get in there is not much of a risk and in both cases the result would be more likely to be a big fire with high flames but without an actual explosion (which would require expanding gases to be contained).
-
A cliche I am not fond of is the good guys always beating the bad guys. There are plenty of historical examples of really bad people who won wars, or came to power in repressive countries.
One of the reasons why Claw Valley is my favourite faction in Twilight Valley... because evil is so much more interesting then good.
-
I also don't like the whole "different is better" cliche. No, it is NOT always better! Some people who are different really ARE worse off than those who are like the social norm, and often for a good reason! In any even, even if one is "different", they are usually not better than most people, even if the might be just the same as them in more ways than people give them credit for. Of course, in fiction, this often translates as "born with a curse" or "I have powers that I never asked for and everyone fears me because of it."
I think it more or less depends on the situation. Sometimes being different is bad and social norm good, but then in some cases this may be reversed.
-
I also don't like the whole "different is better" cliche. No, it is NOT always better! Some people who are different really ARE worse off than those who are like the social norm, and often for a good reason! In any even, even if one is "different", they are usually not better than most people, even if the might be just the same as them in more ways than people give them credit for. Of course, in fiction, this often translates as "born with a curse" or "I have powers that I never asked for and everyone fears me because of it."
I think it more or less depends on the situation. Sometimes being different is bad and social norm good, but then in some cases this may be reversed.
Well, it looks like we all have a grasp of the obvious, don't we? :lol
I'll admit that saying "some differences are good and others are bad" isn't a very deep statement on my part. Another cliche is how whenever criminals, terrorists, or someone along those lines tries to get through security in a movie, they ALWAYS do it, whereas the few times it happens in real life are the exception, not the rule.
-
Another cliche I don't like is how crashing cars ALWAYS seem to explode in movies. Having seen cars crash before, I can tell you that explosions are the exception and not the rule when a crash happens. And thank goodness.
I know, they even proved it wrong in Mythbusters once....although, I can't recall what they got instead of an exploding car, I think the car just caught on fire and that was it.
-
I know, they even proved it wrong in Mythbusters once....although, I can't recall what they got instead of an exploding car, I think the car just caught on fire and that was it.
If cars blew up that easily I would never get behind the wheel.
-
The only car that I know of that exploded so stereotypically was the Ford Pinto. There's a whole sad story behind that infamous model; the Ford engineers KNEW it was unsafe, but they thought that it would cost them less in settling lawsuits than it would to fix the problem. Not only didn't they consider the human cost, but they didn't consider the cost to their reputation.
-
:o Wow. That is a sad story. Sadly, I'm unsurprised.
Another cliche I grew tired of. Demonization of the military. Seriously, Hollywood? Step off. These are the people who are standing between us and being take over by someone else.
-
Another thing I don't like? Criticism of organized religion in many movies, especially ones that don't get the facts straight, like the Da Vinci code. If someone is going to criticize something, the very least they can do is to make sure they know what they are talking about first!
-
I'm sick of new always being portrayed as evil while old-fashioned is always portrayed as good.
-
i wish that in some movies and games they would have the main character wrestle with their personal demons, God of War 3 is a good example.
Kratos is anything but a hero, he is self serving, and mercilous. I do like however, when you think he is going to kill someone he saves them. I also like how they made the olympian gods corrupt and evil, and not the wise beings in greek mythology.
-
Black being used to represent evil. Or darkness being attributed to evil. I mostly wear black shirts so I guess that makes me evil :lol
-
^ Intriguingly, from watching the Musketeer films, black seems to be the "good guy color", since the Musketeer uniform is black...and white and gold. The "bad guy" color appears to be red (The Cardinal's Guard) and white (Milady DeWinter)...
Until the fouth movie where the Musketeers were wearing blue instead of black.
Ewww DX . Not right. Not right.
NOT D'Artagnan's color...oh well, he never wears his uniform, anyway, the old living-in-the-country-with-a-family coot XD
-
I know, they even proved it wrong in Mythbusters once....although, I can't recall what they got instead of an exploding car, I think the car just caught on fire and that was it.
If cars blew up that easily I would never get behind the wheel.
If this was the case, I would not even be sitting here typing this post :blink:.
I really hate how many movies, particularly horror films, have so many sex-crazed male characters and slutty female characters. The worst part is when there is a character who is known to be a virgin and he or she is picked on by the trashy characters for their virginity <_<. Seriously, when was it ever a crime to be a virgin :huh:?
-
^ OMG, you'ze a virgin? LOOZER!!!
But in all seriousness, I agree 100% with you, Cancerian Tiger. Sex scenes in horror films contribute nothing to the overall plot and are simply shameless fanservice. I mean come on! I wanna watch a horror, not a porno!
-
The fact that anti-sexism(which granted is an important thing, I hate sexists) stories always go like this: boys are being sexist to girls. Never the other way around. Granted, I'm aware that in real life this is the majority case, but girls are still capable of doing it to boys and it's still just as wrong and potentially hurtful.
I remember a girl on my school bus who had a shirt that on the back that essentially said "All men are evil, sex-crazed, idiotic monsters."
I know of at least two cases where it was a woman, or group of women, who were being sexist towards the guys.
There's "Y: The Last Man", where there's a group of fanatical woman called Daughters of Amazon, who think Mother Nature cleansed herself of the "abberation of the Y chromosome" and start decimating anything symbolizing male authority, such as christian churches and monuments.
And then there's an episode of Justice League, where a rogue Amazon warrior decides to unleash a plague to kill all men. Even when Wonderwoman told her of the good men can do, the rogue simply says it's not enough to account for all the cruelty men did over the years, or something along those lines.
-
Another cliche I'm beginning to notice that bugs me:
In stories about courtroom cases, the defense/jurors who vote not guilty are always portrayed as right/nice while the prosecution/ jurors who vote guilty is always portrayed as wrong/jerks.
-
^ OMG, you'ze a virgin? LOOZER!!!
But in all seriousness, I agree 100% with you, Cancerian Tiger. Sex scenes in horror films contribute nothing to the overall plot and are simply shameless fanservice. I mean come on! I wanna watch a horror, not a porno!
Well, there are times that the sex scenes do add to the Horror movie. But only if the killer kills one of the characters during or straight after the sex scene. Like for example Nightmare on Elm Street or Halloween.
-
Speaking of courtroom cliches: All lawyers are evil.
No, they're necessary. It's their job to make sure that accused is defended properly asd part of an impartial system that was designed not to just toss potentially innocent people in prison with ease like when we had monarchies. They also make sure everyone's story is told in detail before the Judge or jury can make a decision and they are what forces the local law inforements to make damn sure that they are not about to either send an innocent person off to do serious time or to 'the chair'. Sure, there are some dishonest ones, but mostly they're just individuals doing a job.
So stop portraying them in such a disproportionately negative light, Hollywood!
-
The villain holding somebody close to the hero at gun-point/knife-point, forcing the hero to put down his gun. Just once I would love to see the hero not even hesitate, just blow a hole through the villain, which would probably end up in whoever was held hostage killed as well. The hero was so consumed with anger and hate because of what the villain had put him through, and he wanted revenge so badly, that he abandoned all his emotions, and severed all ties to his heart, just so he could take him down. That would be an ending to remember.
-
The villain holding somebody close to the hero at gun-point/knife-point, forcing the hero to put down his gun. Just once I would love to see the hero not even hesitate, just blow a hole through the villain, which would probably end up in whoever was held hostage killed as well. The hero was so consumed with anger and hate because of what the villain had put him through, and he wanted revenge so badly, that he abandoned all his emotions, and severed all ties to his heart, just so he could take him down. That would be an ending to remember.
Not quite. Rather than shoot the scumbag and kill the hostage in the process, I'd like to see the hero simply put a bullet right between that smug sucker's eyes. I mean, most of the time the dude's head is completely exposed anyway.
-
But you've got to remember, heroes seems to have moral standards and if they kill the villain, that would mean that they're just stooping down to the villain's levels, something I don't think the hero would like to do.
Like Batman for example, he would never kill the Joker, it's to do with one of his rules, which the Joker uses to his advantage. Besides, I reckon that the villain also makes the hero. If there are no villains, then what use is a hero?
-
Not quite. Rather than shoot the scumbag and kill the hostage in the process, I'd like to see the hero simply put a bullet right between that smug sucker's eyes. I mean, most of the time the dude's head is completely exposed anyway.
I know one movie at least in which exactly that happened, but I doubt that movie to be known by more than a handful of people in the US. The title is "Old Surehand" and it is supposedly based on the novels of Karl May a 19th century author who wrote a long series of books many of which play in the Old West. His books are immensely popular over here and contribute a lot to the generally very high interest in Cowboys and Indians among kids (and a significant number of grownups as well) over here. His books however are also extremely full of clishees and convey a rather faulty image of American indians and the old west to the readers. As for the movies many of them took only the characters of the books and told different stories which were even further from historic reality (not a movie without some BIG explosion :lol). So these movies are mainly for entertainment. In any case in the movie Old Surehand we have that scene in which the bad guy holds takes cover behind the hostage to be shot anyway without the hostage getting hurt though the hostage (who happens to be the comic relief of the movie) thinks he was hit because apparently there was a little blood (which you don't see in the movie) that had splashed onto him from the bad guy.
In any case if you want to see any REALLY clishee loaded (but still kind of entertaining) Western you might want to look out for these movies which even topped the load of clishees from the books they are based on :lol
-
Darn I had one...
But, here's another.
In most insect movies, the main species are colony insects- either bees or ants, more commonly ants. The protagonist is usually the low ranking awkward guy who falls for the princess and ends up having to come up with really crazy ideas to save the colony. Oh yeah, and they're also really awkward and feel "insignificant". That, and the characters/couple that I REALLY warm up to are minor characters. In A Bug's Life, those characters would be Manny and Gypsy. In Antz, those characters would the the wasps/WASPS ( :p ).
Lol, I was soooo obsessed with Manny and Gypsy when I was in elementary school and they had hybrid kids in my storyline. These days, I think they'd just adopt a little moth caterpillar and mantis nymph (a TOTALLY cuter concept, if I say so myself X3 ). I just watched Antz today and completely fell in love with Chip and Muffy. I felt so horrible for "Chippy" when Muffy died. There's nothing like having your spouse die right after/in the middle of "making Z lose his appetite". It's one of those "Heh heh he-OH SH!--!!!" kinds of things when you're watching a movie. And there was so much to Chip helping Z back to the colony than "what his wattling-kiddles would want". He also wanted to keep Z from losing the one he loved like he did (thus preventing Z from turning into a depressed drunk like he had :lol ).
Now...what was that other one? It was in my head somewhere. I'm going to sit with Pooh Bear in his Thinking Place now. Think, think think.
-
If there is an "old wise teacher / mentor" kind of a character in a fantasy story you can be almost certain that he will be killed in the story. There are cases where he (most of the time it is a he) does a "Gandalf" and returns but really most of the old mentors of a main character are killed of. With Gandalf I already mentioned one case of exception because he returns. Other examples can be found in Star Wars (Obi Wan Kenobi (and one could probably name some more examples)), Harry Potter (Dumbledore), Eragon (Grom or something like that), Highlander (whatever the name of Sean Connery's character was). I'm quite sure I have seen more examples of this. Old mentor's don't tend to get much older ;)
Connor's mentor was Ramirez :) Or the longer form, Juan Sanchez Villa Lobos Ramirez.
I saw that Merlin leaving Arthur posts...maybe that's what makes the current Merlin more fun. It's not accurate completely to the legends, but it avoids that cliche.
-
This isn't so much a cliche in movies/books/shows etc themselves, but an audience response I find annoying sometimes.
I get annoyed how some people treat action movies like they're above criticism. If someone criticizes the plot, someone else would say, "It's not supposed to be about the plot." The same response would be said if you talked about acting, all they would respond is if whether the main characters were bad@$$ enough.
And how if someone says they found a particular action movie boring, someone would respond with "How could it be boring? It's an action movie." IMO, just because lots of stuff is happening on screen doesn't mean it's interesting.
I mean, I'm all for mindless fun but there are some movies that just simply fail at being that.
-
I know animeboye is going to chew me out for asking this, but could you provide an example that lacked on 'fun' part of the mindless fun. I'm genuinely curious.
-
Well, back in the summer I saw the Expendables, mainly cause my dad and best friend were interested in seeing it. Now, I didn't think it was bad, but it bored me.
By the final battle some much stuff was happening on screen I couldn't really get particularly interested on one particular event. And I just felt the action repetitive.
And what I said earlier about mindless fun, I meant that there are some movies that are so bad, it isn't even good enough to be mindless fun
-
Fair enough. Not a fan of too much happening on screen at once, huh? Me, too. Me, I didn't like because I don't like Stallone.
-
At least with slasher movies, they try to do a variety of gore effects and murder methods, I'd be bored if it was just simple stabbings each kill.
I mean, you can only see so many explosions before they all start to look the same.
-
How Wolves are given such a bad reputaton in movies. Take for instance The Chronicles of Narnia the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. The wolves were the bad guys. Wolves aren't that bad. At least they made the fox be a good guy.Tthe sad thing is, he was turned to stone. And I hate that cliche too. How we know that one of the good guy's is always going to die sacrificing himself or herself. <_< Yeah, I know that when the fox is turned to stone he isn't really sacrificing himself, but he kind of is at the same time.
-
Sorry for the double post, but I just got two more.
How the girl is alway's the "Damsel in Distress" that needs to be saved by the male characters. That downright annoy's me. It's so stupid. Thank goodness for Scooby-Doo! We finally get to see some action from the girl and she has to save the guy's butts.
how first nations' people are always considered to be dumb, clumsy, and stupid. This cliche is just a LIE. First nations' are actually brilliant.
-
How the girl is alway's the "Damsel in Distress" that needs to be saved by the male characters. That downright annoy's me. It's so stupid. Thank goodness for Scooby-Doo! We finally get to see some action from the girl and she has to save the guy's butts.
Ever seen Enchanted? At the ending climax, the main antagonist takes the male character hostage and the princess goes to save him. The antagonist even commented how the man she was holding was the 'damsel in distress'.
-
Yep, I've seen it. But not for a long time, so I didn't remember it. But that was a real shocker, a good shocker though.
-
I know animeboye is going to chew me out for asking this, but could you provide an example that lacked on 'fun' part of the mindless fun. I'm genuinely curious.
Why would I chew you out for that? If you like mindless action movies, that's fine. I have a fair share of dumb movies that I like myself.
The reason I chewed you out is because you attacked someone else's opinion. Look, I don't care if you don't like Avatar. I have some issues with the movie myself. But telling someone that likes Avatar that it "isn't worthy of mention" is just not cool. That goes for any movie. I don't particularly care for Lord of the Rings. To be honest, and this might make you angry, I found the first movie really boring. But that's just my opinion. A lot of people like Lord of the Rings and I respect that. I don't hate the movies. I just don't care about them. I don't like or dislike them.
I understand you're opinionated. I am too but I still try to respect others' likes/dislikes. And if you want to explain, in a calm and mature way, why you don't like Avatar, James Cameron, or anything else, then hey, we'll listen. Just don't attack others for liking something you don't.
-
Alright, gotcha. But: Wait, wait. You thought I was attacking the person who liked Avatar? No! I was attacking the movie, itself. My comments were not directed not at any person.
EDIT: Let's continue this by Private Message.
Alright, another cliche I'm tired of. Making cops unreasonable jerks who only get in the way of the "real" heroes. I don't really know where this even came from, considering it's their job to protect us, but it seriously needs to stop being in every action, horror, and science fiction movie that features local law enforcement.
-
Another cliche I grew tired of. Demonization of the military. Seriously, Hollywood? Step off. These are the people who are standing between us and being take over by someone else.
I agree with you here, I'm also tired of this, but at the same time I get annoyed when the military is portrayed as always right, so it kind of balances out for me.
-
...Not really. A portrayal where the military is portrayed as competent, yet fallible, like the rest of us, would be a truly balance portrayal. Taking turns with portrayals that demonize or glorify them 100% the time is not balance.
-
People in the military are no different than civilians, just putting on a uniform doesn't make you less fallible. I personally think we spend way too much on the military (do you really need to spend 700 Billion a year on defense? When taking half of that- 350 billion- and spending it on domestic stuff would help address SO MANY problems?)
-
Not sure if this counts as one, but the main character of a movie dying. Sand Serpents is a perfect example of this where the main character didn't deserve too die, its no the only one where the main characters dies that I have seen, buts it the only one that I remember. The same applies to a main character too (yes I'm referring to characters in Animals of Farthing Wood like Badger, Bold and Scarface).
-
Incomptent military officers and enlisted men in movies really annoy me.
-
One cliche I don’t like is how whenever you do a show that has a different villain every week (aka, Monster of the Week according to TV Tropes), I don’t like how it’s clearly obvious you can figure out who the villain is, even before the show actually showed you who it is.
Why do I think it’s bad? Well let’s say you see some side character that plays a major role in a episode, and you never seen him before. Chances are he/she is most likely the villain.
So that way, when it’s revealed the guy you knew was the villain was in the beginning, is the actual villain, it really takes the fun out of guessing who the villain of the episode is.
Also, some examples I’ve seen the cliche in was Scooby-Doo and Bonkers (hey, even if I think Bonkers is a good show, I still don’t like how the cliche I mentioned is attempted in that show).