Cliche's in fiction that annoy you most

[Mr Somewhere]

I can't stand one-liners. Regardless of quality they always make me cringe. People aren't machines programmed to respond with a witty timely remark when in life threatening danger. People don't do that, it's poor writing. Characters should be approached as people, not tools.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

1: The Token Black Guy

2: The British guy who will almost certainly die or turn evil (or both)

3: The young male protagonist who has some issues with his past and is probably stuggling to fulfill some kind of 'destiny'. I don't always have a problem with this, sometimes it's done well (aka Harry Potter). However 90% of the times the guy just ends up being Mr Angsty McBland.

4: The retarded love interest who is of no use to any of the characters or the narrative and is only there because he/she is 'hot'. Yes, I AM looking at you Transformers.

5: Soldier kills enemy, "Get some you son of a *****!" Soldiers 'buddy' gets shot, "Don't you die on me man! NOOOOOOOOOOO!"

6: (this is my most hated...) Bad car chases. These can be split into two common mistakes: i) Pitting two cars against each other that irl are in no way evenly matched, and then have them perform equally. Seriously I refused to watch any more of Goldeneye after it tried to convince me that a 60's Aston DB5 was a match for a 90's Ferrari 355. ii) Good guy/Bad guy drag race they're neck and neck, everyone is on the edge of their seats, they get closer to the finish when... the good guy changes gear (having forgotten that he had one more gear for half the race apparently) and shoots ahead to win! Urgh.

 

[Walter44]

The most omnipresent and silly one of all: "Conflict".

I guess I should qualify:

I don't mean stories should be completely free of it either. I mean yeah, you have to drive a story somehow, and a little conflict is sure to be involved, but the problem as I see it is when there is one central conflict that drives everything at all times. If you have characters you care about, a well developed world, and a particular direction the story is headed in, there is no need for one central "good vs. evil" or "man vs. nature" type conflict to drive the story, because each character should have their own conflicts or reasons, the world has it's own rules, and the events unfold based on that.

Taking a "oh we are going to have this story about this conflict" approach essentially turns the story into a boring series of plot devices rather then a real world we can explore through narrative. Even worse is when that conflict is stretched out or each character is written only to be a conflict generator, which turns the story into a long boring soap opera without any substance (read:Lost, Battlesar Galactica, etc).

Fiction should be treated better then that, especially the characters. I want to see more characters treated as people, not dramatic devices.

I don't know. A story typically needs a conflict. Notice I say "a story". When we take a Universe, a world and let individual, independent stories unfold there I'm thinking of Fallout, for example. The first 2 games connect a little, but in the end every game tells another story and delivers details about the different parts of this world. But the individual stories still have conflict involved. Because you need something the characters can strive for. Even if it's just "Bring me this thing that is located...there". Getting "there" is practically a conflict in itself, even without the "bad guy" who wants to ruin the hero's efforts. And if it isn't presented as conflict it is...well, boring.

The only form of media that could...no, not just could...CAN deliver an entertaining experience without conflict is games, because if it is just about exploration, you cannot really enjoy it if you just watch someone doing it or read about it. At least in my opinion.

And for your last sentence...I don't think you can fit a real human into 90 minutes of film or 500 book pages while still trying to tell a story.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

1: The Token Black Guy

2: The British guy who will almost certainly die or turn evil (or both)

3: The young male protagonist who has some issues with his past and is probably stuggling to fulfill some kind of 'destiny'. I don't always have a problem with this, sometimes it's done well (aka Harry Potter). However 90% of the times the guy just ends up being Mr Angsty McBland.

4: The retarded love interest who is of no use to any of the characters or the narrative and is only there because he/she is 'hot'. Yes, I AM looking at you Transformers.

5: Soldier kills enemy, "Get some you son of a *****!" Soldiers 'buddy' gets shot, "Don't you die on me man! NOOOOOOOOOOO!"

6: (this is my most hated...) Bad car chases. These can be split into two common mistakes: i) Pitting two cars against each other that irl are in no way evenly matched, and then have them perform equally. Seriously I refused to watch any more of Goldeneye after it tried to convince me that a 60's Aston DB5 was a match for a 90's Ferrari 355. ii) Good guy/Bad guy drag race they're neck and neck, everyone is on the edge of their seats, they get closer to the finish when... the good guy changes gear (having forgotten that he had one more gear for half the race apparently) and shoots ahead to win! Urgh.

7: Middle aged, fading tough guy with no tech to his name but a handgun and a car "Is Our Last Hope"

Edit: Ooh, I forgot one...

8: 'You're clearly insane and have betrayed me before within the last two days, but for soome reason you are LITERALLY the only person who can help me on this high risk mission which we cannot risk failing'.

 

[II2]

Then you're gonna love this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8qgehH3kEQ

Yeah. That's right. They actually did that.

Ouch.

I raise you:

 

[Mr Somewhere]

The most omnipresent and silly one of all: "Conflict".

I guess I should qualify:

I don't mean stories should be completely free of it either. I mean yeah, you have to drive a story somehow, and a little conflict is sure to be involved, but the problem as I see it is when there is one central conflict that drives everything at all times. If you have characters you care about, a well developed world, and a particular direction the story is headed in, there is no need for one central "good vs. evil" or "man vs. nature" type conflict to drive the story, because each character should have their own conflicts or reasons, the world has it's own rules, and the events unfold based on that.

Taking a "oh we are going to have this story about this conflict" approach essentially turns the story into a boring series of plot devices rather then a real world we can explore through narrative. Even worse is when that conflict is stretched out or each character is written only to be a conflict generator, which turns the story into a long boring soap opera without any substance (read:Lost, Battlesar Galactica, etc).

Fiction should be treated better then that, especially the characters. I want to see more characters treated as people, not dramatic devices.

I don't know. A story typically needs a conflict. Notice I say "a story". When we take a Universe, a world and let individual, independent stories unfold there I'm thinking of Fallout, for example. The first 2 games connect a little, but in the end every game tells another story and delivers details about the different parts of this world. But the individual stories still have conflict involved. Because you need something the characters can strive for. Even if it's just "Bring me this thing that is located...there". Getting "there" is practically a conflict in itself, even without the "bad guy" who wants to ruin the hero's efforts. And if it isn't presented as conflict it is...well, boring.

The only form of media that could...no, not just could...CAN deliver an entertaining experience without conflict is games, because if it is just about exploration, you cannot really enjoy it if you just watch someone doing it or read about it. At least in my opinion.

And for your last sentence...I don't think you can fit a real human into 90 minutes of film or 500 book pages while still trying to tell a story.

That's not true at all. There have been plenty of works outside of videogames that have managed to create entertaining and viable pieces of entertainment whilst not having any conflict. For example, Ray Bradbury's fantacular short "No Particular Night or Morning" was primarily about the potential existential effect of space travel.

 

[Walter44]

That's not true at all. There have been plenty of works outside of videogames that have managed to create entertaining and viable pieces of entertainment whilst not having any conflict. For example, Ray Bradbury's fantacular short "No Particular Night or Morning" was primarily about the potential existential effect of space travel.

Well...okay, that was pretty generalizing and nobody can expect that I know every fictional work ever written. But on the other hand, your example doesn't sound like it would appeal to a mass audience (which doesn't say anything about its quality, but writers need some money, you know?)
I think if you try to appeal to a broad audience (what most writers, film makers and game designers do) you need some kind of conflict.

 

[II2]

The most omnipresent and silly one of all: "Conflict".

That's like saying building houses on a foundation is cliche. Without conflict, you wouldn't really have a story, so much as a DESCRIPTION.

Now, I did read your post and think arriving at exploration or experience as an alternative to conventional story telling IS logical enough, but I don't think it would be easy to make compelling.

I don't mean to sound dismissive, since there is a lot more that could be said on the subject and you're not wrong that something could be done without conflict and be engaging; but that's a topic better suited for Extra Credit.

 

[Mr Somewhere]

That's not true at all. There have been plenty of works outside of videogames that have managed to create entertaining and viable pieces of entertainment whilst not having any conflict. For example, Ray Bradbury's fantacular short "No Particular Night or Morning" was primarily about the potential existential effect of space travel.

Well...okay, that was pretty generalizing and nobody can expect that I know every fictional work ever written. But on the other hand, your example doesn't sound like it would appeal to a mass audience (which doesn't say anything about its quality, but writers need some money, you know?)
I think if you try to appeal to a broad audience (what most writers, film makers and game designers do) you need some kind of conflict.

Ray Bradbury is pretty well known... But, I think a non-confrontational work could certainly have mass appeal, it's all about timing and sincerity.

 

[A Username Not In Use]

The idiot Army officers in Science Fiction films who think they know better than the scientists and fuck everything up.

The individual who isn't flawed but act like they are.

The unpleasent bastard who is acting that way for no reason.

Using CGI effects to fill the screen with as much action as possible.

The motivating speech before a battle. The one exception to prove the rule being Kenneth Branagh's adapation of Henry V with the Saint Crispin day's speech.

 

[Walter44]

That's not true at all. There have been plenty of works outside of videogames that have managed to create entertaining and viable pieces of entertainment whilst not having any conflict. For example, Ray Bradbury's fantacular short "No Particular Night or Morning" was primarily about the potential existential effect of space travel.

Well...okay, that was pretty generalizing and nobody can expect that I know every fictional work ever written. But on the other hand, your example doesn't sound like it would appeal to a mass audience (which doesn't say anything about its quality, but writers need some money, you know?)
I think if you try to appeal to a broad audience (what most writers, film makers and game designers do) you need some kind of conflict.

Ray Bradbury is pretty well known... But, I think a non-confrontational work could certainly have mass appeal, it's all about timing and sincerity.

I know that he's well known, even though I think that most people only know him for Fahrenheit 451. But still: Pick any recent blockbuster movie and imagine the audience sitting in the cinema watching it. How many of these people would really enjoy the work of Bradbury, Orwell, Huxley or other famous writers?

The public WANTS explosions and warfare! OR bland and generic romance stories (GENERALIZATION ALERT!) I mean, Shakespeare's well known too, but Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet was still a bomb at the box office.

That's the problem with almost all of these clichés: The general public either doesn't notice them (the false portrayal of nerds would be an example) or they like and even WANT them.

 

[Voration]

I think most of the romance genre is cliche.

Cliche typical character types (the only one I can think of at the moment is the damsel in distress-knight in shining armour one, there are more subtle ones easy to think of).

I hate cliches people feel they must stick to: beautiful elves, dragons, dwarves etc they frequently seem to be copies of the stuff in LOtR

 

[Shanecooper]

One thing that really annoys me in Sci-FI. It's just a little thing but it really annoys me for some reason.
When a digital transmition is cut, the screen goes to static. Not black. Not a screen saver or desktop. Static.

 

[Mr Somewhere]

That's not true at all. There have been plenty of works outside of videogames that have managed to create entertaining and viable pieces of entertainment whilst not having any conflict. For example, Ray Bradbury's fantacular short "No Particular Night or Morning" was primarily about the potential existential effect of space travel.

Well...okay, that was pretty generalizing and nobody can expect that I know every fictional work ever written. But on the other hand, your example doesn't sound like it would appeal to a mass audience (which doesn't say anything about its quality, but writers need some money, you know?)
I think if you try to appeal to a broad audience (what most writers, film makers and game designers do) you need some kind of conflict.

Ray Bradbury is pretty well known... But, I think a non-confrontational work could certainly have mass appeal, it's all about timing and sincerity.

I know that he's well known, even though I think that most people only know him for Fahrenheit 451. But still: Pick any recent blockbuster movie and imagine the audience sitting in the cinema watching it. How many of these people would really enjoy the work of Bradbury, Orwell, Huxley or other famous writers?

The public WANTS explosions and warfare! OR bland and generic romance stories (GENERALIZATION ALERT!) I mean, Shakespeare's well known too, but Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet was still a bomb at the box office.

That's the problem with almost all of these clichés: The general public either doesn't notice them (the false portrayal of nerds would be an example) or they like and even WANT them.

Things move awful fast these days. Trends can always fall and rise without reason. So I imagine it's still possible. And, it has been popular, if only for brief flashes. French new wave, might be an example of this, I'm fairly certain there was a lot of event-less ambiance. You're right in saying the public gets what the public wants, but that is liable to change. Plus you never know what will get popular with any sub-culture either.
One of my favorite novels Man Plus wasn't entirely based on a confrontation, more the inhuman transformation of a man into a machine and the character's journey in that sense.
The Road, wasn't much for overarching confrontation either, though, there were flashes of it.

 

[Walter44]

That's not true at all. There have been plenty of works outside of videogames that have managed to create entertaining and viable pieces of entertainment whilst not having any conflict. For example, Ray Bradbury's fantacular short "No Particular Night or Morning" was primarily about the potential existential effect of space travel.

Well...okay, that was pretty generalizing and nobody can expect that I know every fictional work ever written. But on the other hand, your example doesn't sound like it would appeal to a mass audience (which doesn't say anything about its quality, but writers need some money, you know?)
I think if you try to appeal to a broad audience (what most writers, film makers and game designers do) you need some kind of conflict.

Ray Bradbury is pretty well known... But, I think a non-confrontational work could certainly have mass appeal, it's all about timing and sincerity.

I know that he's well known, even though I think that most people only know him for Fahrenheit 451. But still: Pick any recent blockbuster movie and imagine the audience sitting in the cinema watching it. How many of these people would really enjoy the work of Bradbury, Orwell, Huxley or other famous writers?

The public WANTS explosions and warfare! OR bland and generic romance stories (GENERALIZATION ALERT!) I mean, Shakespeare's well known too, but Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet was still a bomb at the box office.

That's the problem with almost all of these clichés: The general public either doesn't notice them (the false portrayal of nerds would be an example) or they like and even WANT them.

Things move awful fast these days. Trends can always fall and rise without reason. So I imagine it's still possible. And, it has been popular, if only for brief flashes. French new wave, might be an example of this, I'm fairly certain there was a lot of event-less ambiance. You're right in saying the public gets what the public wants, but that is liable to change. Plus you never know what will get popular with any sub-culture either.
One of my favorite novels Man Plus wasn't entirely based on a confrontation, more the inhuman transformation of a man into a machine and the character's journey in that sense.
The Road, wasn't much for overarching confrontation either, though, there were flashes of it.

Can we just say that a good story without conflict is possible but won't be financially successful if the taste of the general public doesn't change and just go with it? OK?

 

[Mr Somewhere]

That's not true at all. There have been plenty of works outside of videogames that have managed to create entertaining and viable pieces of entertainment whilst not having any conflict. For example, Ray Bradbury's fantacular short "No Particular Night or Morning" was primarily about the potential existential effect of space travel.

Well...okay, that was pretty generalizing and nobody can expect that I know every fictional work ever written. But on the other hand, your example doesn't sound like it would appeal to a mass audience (which doesn't say anything about its quality, but writers need some money, you know?)
I think if you try to appeal to a broad audience (what most writers, film makers and game designers do) you need some kind of conflict.

Ray Bradbury is pretty well known... But, I think a non-confrontational work could certainly have mass appeal, it's all about timing and sincerity.

I know that he's well known, even though I think that most people only know him for Fahrenheit 451. But still: Pick any recent blockbuster movie and imagine the audience sitting in the cinema watching it. How many of these people would really enjoy the work of Bradbury, Orwell, Huxley or other famous writers?

The public WANTS explosions and warfare! OR bland and generic romance stories (GENERALIZATION ALERT!) I mean, Shakespeare's well known too, but Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet was still a bomb at the box office.

That's the problem with almost all of these clichés: The general public either doesn't notice them (the false portrayal of nerds would be an example) or they like and even WANT them.

Things move awful fast these days. Trends can always fall and rise without reason. So I imagine it's still possible. And, it has been popular, if only for brief flashes. French new wave, might be an example of this, I'm fairly certain there was a lot of event-less ambiance. You're right in saying the public gets what the public wants, but that is liable to change. Plus you never know what will get popular with any sub-culture either.
One of my favorite novels Man Plus wasn't entirely based on a confrontation, more the inhuman transformation of a man into a machine and the character's journey in that sense.
The Road, wasn't much for overarching confrontation either, though, there were flashes of it.

Can we just say that a good story without conflict is possible but won't be financially successful if the taste of the general public doesn't change and just go with it? OK?

Heh heh, fair enough. I'll go with that.

 

[Ghengis John]

My most hated fictional cliche?

1. Good looking people are good people. Ugly people are evil.

This happens more than I can count. Never get tired of hating it. If one of your eyes is bigger than the other, if you have a bit of a gut, or if you're losing your hair your chances of being a villian in media tend to skyrocket. Exceptions are of course made for sidekicks and femme fatales.

Additionally:

2. Can't lose guy.

Can't lose guy never fumbles and the universe has conspired to make sure things always go his way. His plans go off without a hitch, when they don't fate provides an exit. His enemies can do nothing to stop him, even if they did before, cause this time he's back to settle the score and now you can't even muss his hair.

3. The idea that only beautiful, wonderful people who have it all together fall in love.

Ugly, flawed and lonely people fall in love all the time in real life. And, thank god for that. Rocky 1. Best love story ever put on film. People who's lives are perfect already don't need anybody, let's be honest. And real people will be less likely to spend time tearing down a country road in a convertible than fighting over who ate the last yogurt.

 

[Newtonyd]

Absolutely the most annoying thing is the idea that the antagonist is always a pointlessly evil being, ala Satan, whose purpose for world domination / money grubbing / tyranny / etc is always contrived and unrealistic. Enemy soldiers are always nameless, featureless entities capable of nothing but destruction.

The fact that the bad guy is always Sauron means there's never any moral quandaries when it comes to crushing the enemy. It's horseshit media like this that makes tons of Americans think every Muslim is a terrorist and that every terrorist is inherently evil.]

It's just lazy writing that degrades artistic value and damages thought processes.