Everything this piece of crap was... talk about killing part of my childhood. Granted the scene with the Stygian witchs was pretty good and Liam Neeson as Zeus is something I could proberly believe to be actual fact, the rest of the film was just so... CLICHE!!!
Io is proberly my most hated character in modern film. Christ everything about her was just awful and no one seemed bothered!!!
Might hate me for this, but I liked this movie. I always go into movies with an vague idea of what the movie is going to be, rather than what I hope it will be. This way, I enjoy most movies. This was a fun, no-thinking involved action movie. I saw stuff kill other stuff. Exactly what I expected. And I was happy.
The church being evil. The priest is a gay pedo, and it's always a man. Christians being racist, sexist, narrow-minded people that will kill you on the spot. Same goes for Muslims being terrorist. British guy is usually the bad guy. Atheists are smarter then everyone. Black people being Gs, white people are the uncool evil losers. Big strong dude gets the sexy girl.
Sucky henchmen, or "Stormtrooper Syndrome". You know that scene with the shot up sandcrawler from the original Star Wars movie? Where Obi-Wan says something of the like: "Look at these laser blasts! Only imperial Stormtroopers are this accurate!" And when they actually encounter the Stormtrooper, they suck so much that they'd miss the bowl while taking a dump.
Now this happens in a lot of movies, though it mostly only bothers me when A. the baddies are really hyped and or are just ridiculously worthless. For example, the recent Captain America. Now the movie itself I really enjoyed, though it kind of bothered me that the Hydra grunts were beyond worthless. They are made out to be a super elite combat force, with energy weapons powered by, literally, Godlike powers. And they constantly get their asses handed to them, not only by the Cap' but through the film the death ratio seem to be something like 1 to 5 comparing the American grunts to the Hydra.
The obligatory love interest. It really just seems to be shoehorned in most of the time.
A good example would be in the otherwise great game Radiant Historia, which I will put in a little spoiler box.
In a sidequest late into the game, Raynie just decides to tell Stocke that she loves him. There's no build up or anything. No foreshadowing. It just comes out of nowhere. It's one of the few problems I have with the game.
- Honor keeps the hero from killing the villain
- Honor in conjunction with some arbitrary asian character
- Honor itself is becoming something of a cliche'; we need to go back to honor meaning a fair fight, not spiritual satisfaction.
- The big guy is strong, but slow
- The big guy is strong, but the little guy is nimble and packs a punch
- The bug guy is strong, but the little guy is stronger
- The big guy has a weakness easily exploited by an acrobatic and nimble little guy
- The big guy is easily defeated by the little guy
- The big guy is easily defeated by the little guy (who is in possession of mystical powers)
- The big guy is easily defeated by the little guy (who is in possession of a secret weapon)
- The big guy is one of the bad guy's dumb henchmen
- The big guy charges head first into a wall
- The big guy is strong, but dumb
I think all those 'big guy' points are why I hate anime, come to think about it. Because in every anime I have dared try to watch for more than five minutes (because I feel it is important to experience some of that which one strives to hate, else one comes off sounding like a hypocritical douche), one of those cliches comes up, and makes me absolutely hate it. Hell, a lot of movies do this too.
Being a big guy myself, I feel stereotyped and offended. I spend a helluva lot of time working out, lifting weights, exercising, going on jogs, eating meals, cooking meals, learning to cook meals to eat--little guys don't get the amount of effort that goes into building a strong physique, and they're the ignorant ones! Go on youtube, look up a video of some muscular guy, and 9 out of 10 comments will be "STEROIDS!!11!1", and you just know that it's an insecure scrawny kid on the other side of the keyboard, who doesn't understand a thing about anatomy, physiology or kinesiology--hell, there's another point! The level of knowledge needed to build a proper symmetrical physique requires brains! The biggest guys need to be smart, fast, and strong in order to get to where they're at. It irritates the hell out of me that big guys and bodybuilders and such in this day and age are being seen as social outcasts who all use drugs to get to where they're at, and have no purpose for their strength except narcissistic self-gratification.
To be fair, that's because it's Japanese. I think Extra Credits did a video a while back explaining the difference between Japanese and Western perception of weapons, and why there were so few Japanese FPS games. Basically, Japanese culture sees a weapon to be an extension of the self, while Western culture sees it as a tool. The point of course being that one's fighting spirit is far more important than what they are using to fight with. They generally use a giant guy, because it provides emphasis to this belief, precisely BECAUSE that's not what generally happens in real life.
I feel like I should link a video detailing why Ouendan Squads are more hardcore than pep squads... but I digress.
On topic, The cliche I dislike the most is what tvtropes.com (not gonna link because most people value their sanity) has dubbed the "Mighty Whitey". Basically, no matter how good a group of people are at doing something, a white guy will come along, and just be better than them at it in every single way, despite having no prior experience with said activity. They then become the leader, and save the group from a bunch of other white people or something. See: Dances with Wolves, Avatar, etc.
I hate how they try to make some female characters as cool and beautiful possible but somehow forget to give her a personality. Sex sells more then character development.
Everything this piece of crap was... talk about killing part of my childhood. Granted the scene with the Stygian witchs was pretty good and Liam Neeson as Zeus is something I could proberly believe to be actual fact, the rest of the film was just so... CLICHE!!!
Io is proberly my most hated character in modern film. Christ everything about her was just awful and no one seemed bothered!!!
One cliche I've grown to really hate is how in almost every media involving Greek mythology, Hades is turned into a monstrous villain. Disney's Hercules, Percy Jackson (the film version), Clash of the Titans (remake), etc.
In mythology, Hades is mostly just doing his job, and is no more an evil villain/jerk than Zeus or Poseidon. But nope, "God of the Underworld" automatically equals "Greek Satan". Heck, God of War was actually surprisingly fair to the guy (aside from making him all creepy, monstrous, and spike-covered), because he actually had a comparatively good reason to seek revenge against Kratos (avenging his wife and brother) rather than just doing it because he's "evil".
I also hate the cliche of "badass" ladies suddenly becoming damsels in distress. Once in a while is fine, but if every single time there's a climactic showdown the girl is whisked into some form of contrived distress, ugh...
Well, to clarify: cliched gay characters, also known as token gay characters. Particularly the gays-who-are-also-nympho-for-some-inexplicable-reason. THEY were the reason I was homophobic for so long - i thought that they were nympho BECAUSE they were gay.
Then i saw it done RIGHT. WITHOUT an obsession for buttsex.
Dear lord, I feel like such a prick...
Also, race wars. WE GET IT, RACISM IS BAD, CAN YOU TRY TELLING US A /GOOD/ STORY NOW?!
A lot. But the most overused one is probably this:
1. Protagonist getting his/her ass kicked by opponent.
2. Out of nowhere, he/she gets a surge of power that is usually caused by feelings.
3. The protagonist suddenly kicks the other guy's ass.
A Campbellian Hero is a character archetype that follows many of the tropes and cliches as described by writer Joseph Campbell in his book The Hero of a Thousand Faces.
It is the stock pattern that thousands of literary works have followed, even before Campbell wrote and categorized them. They basically work like this.
The problem is, most of the films and books that follow this structure recently all take their cues from Star Wars' take on the monomyth, instead of using the original pattern.
How many games or films have you seen that start with the hero's hometown/farmstead/family being destroyed?
A Campbellian Hero is a character archetype that follows many of the tropes and cliches as described by writer Joseph Campbell in his book The Hero of a Thousand Faces.
It is the stock pattern that thousands of literary works have followed, even before Campbell wrote and categorized them. They basically work like this.
The problem is, most of the films and books that follow this structure recently all take their cues from Star Wars' take on the monomyth, instead of using the original pattern.
How many games or films have you seen that start with the hero's hometown/farmstead/family being destroyed?
Yep. It's quite prolific, and always has been. My annoyance with the monomyth comes from the fact that so many people use the Star Wars version. The tropes that Campbell described are all very general, which was intentional in order to facilitate creativity. But everyone has to use the doomed hometown version.
Government organizations betraying/abandoning their best agents/own government.
Some examples off the top of my head...
Third Echelon trying to kill Sam and President in Splinter Cell (although Splinter cell does get points in my book by having a woman as President)
Zion leadership giving up on Neo in Matrix
Galloway almost evicting Autobots from Earth in ROTF (seriously, no one else agreed with him and no one thought to call the Prez up and say "this guy serious about what you want?")
The entire Sith "Rule of Two" in Star Wars, especially when Palpatine is doing it backwards
Monologing, Obvious Brooding, "I'll save you with the power of love", Not being able to kill the main villain for any reason. The stupid big guy character, the extremely girly girl, the brash, naive hero, Characters having amnesia, being the chosen one just because, forced romance..
-that america is the centre of the universe an american ausdiences cant process somthing in their little brains if its not american enough...for example upon hearing the the "kid that dies" in MW is an american tourist...in london, that actually shocked and offended me more than the fact that the kid dies
-that america is the centre of the universe an american ausdiences cant process somthing in their little brains if its not american enough...for example upon hearing the the "kid that dies" in MW is an american tourist...in london, that actually shocked and offended me more than the fact that the kid dies
-that america is the centre of the universe an american ausdiences cant process somthing in their little brains if its not american enough...for example upon hearing the the "kid that dies" in MW is an american tourist...in london, that actually shocked and offended me more than the fact that the kid dies
That makes sense. I thought he was talking about the manga, but since there's no American tourist dying there as far as I can remember, I was wondering.
Thanks!
I always really, really, REALLY hate it when creators assume that I care about the relationship between characters by simple virtue of their family ties (parent/child, for example).
If you take time to explore it, you're off the hook, but when you don't, I fume.
For instance, (Sandman Spoilers Ahoy)
I always found Lyta's attachment to Daniel Hall in The Sandman series rather forced. I get it, she lost everything, including her fragile grasp of reality, and Daniel was really all there was left, but it just felt like her attachment to him was there just to get the Furies moving.
I loathe narrative contrivances that (more often than not) mirror, and sometimes attempt to justify, gender-specific double standards evident in the real world. Prime offenders are western police procedural TV shows (think Law & Order UK, Law & Order: SVU, Luther, Blue Bloods, & their sordid ilk).
For example, almost all male perpetrators seem to be written to specifically lack any discernible level of relatability or sympathetic motive. Female characters, on the other hand, no matter how hateful, self-serving, narcissistic, amoral/immoral, &/or just plain dumb are practically guaranteed even the most flimsy [a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FreudianExcuse"]Freudian Excuse[/a] to justify their actions (or lack thereof). Case and point - Series 1, Episode 4 of Luther:
Emotionally needy and fragile cabby stalks and kills young women to (fleetingly) smother the angst of his own social, marital, and sexual inadequacies. It all comes to a head where he realises his wife has had a years-long affair with a good mate, and he murders that former friend in said friend's flat. The episode ends with his own grieving wife mortally wounding him with a Ban-hammerific blow to skull after witnessing the aftermath of his grisly murder of previous mate, and her lover. So man + murder = deplorable, but then female relative discovering murder/(er) + grief + improvised weapon = dead male murderer = justice(?). WWhhaattt?? :\
well too often i see people make the mistake of showing a person with antisocial personality disorder (psychopaths or sociopaths) show hints of having actual feelings of empathy or remorse, when they should be completely incapable of such a thing (the part of the brain that dictates what we call a "conscious" is literally dead for those diagnosed with this).
To be fair, and more accurate, people who suffer from either psychological "disorder" aren't emotionally/psychologically "deadened" (clinically speaking, of course). It's more like "true" sociopaths have those parts involuntarily "turned off", while "true" psychopaths
care little about what others think about them and they use others to achieve their goals or needs
to put it succinctly. In other words, psychopathy leads a person to become pathologically manipulative, self-serving, and socially disaffected -- immoral, basically. They may, or may not, subscribe to any number/combo of creed(s), faith(s), etiquette(s), and/or honour code(s), but their condition (may) compel them to betray or twist them (their own, or others' understanding of them) to rationalise their behaviour.
For some reason it's always bugged me that when a character has electricity based powers in comic books they are either black heroes(Black Lightning, Black Vulcan, Static Shock, Volt) or psychotic white villains (Electro, Livewire, Lightning Lord, Emperor Palpatine, Colonel Volgin,)
I know there's probably just as many that don't fit but it still bugs me.
I loathe narrative contrivances that (more often than not) mirror, and sometimes attempt to justify, gender-specific double standards evident in the real world. Prime offenders are western police procedural TV shows (think Law & Order UK, Law & Order: SVU, Luther, Blue Bloods, & their sordid ilk).
For example, almost all male perpetrators seem to be written to specifically lack any discernible level of relatability or sympathetic motive. Female characters, on the other hand, no matter how hateful, self-serving, narcissistic, amoral/immoral, &/or just plain dumb are practically guaranteed even the most flimsy [a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FreudianExcuse"]Freudian Excuse[/a] to justify their actions (or lack thereof). Case and point - Series 1, Episode 4 of Luther:
Emotionally needy and fragile cabby stalks and kills young women to (fleetingly) smother the angst of his own social, marital, and sexual inadequacies. It all comes to a head where he realises his wife has had a years-long affair with a good mate, and he murders that former friend in said friend's flat. The episode ends with his own grieving wife mortally wounding him with a Ban-hammerific blow to skull after witnessing the aftermath of his grisly murder of previous mate, and her lover. So man + murder = deplorable, but then female relative discovering murder/(er) + grief + improvised weapon = dead male murderer = justice(?). WWhhaattt?? :\
well too often i see people make the mistake of showing a person with antisocial personality disorder (psychopaths or sociopaths) show hints of having actual feelings of empathy or remorse, when they should be completely incapable of such a thing (the part of the brain that dictates what we call a "conscious" is literally dead for those diagnosed with this).
To be fair, and more accurate, people who suffer from either psychological "disorder" aren't emotionally/psychologically "deadened" (clinically speaking, of course). It's more like "true" sociopaths have those parts involuntarily "turned off", while "true" psychopaths
care little about what others think about them and they use others to achieve their goals or needs
to put it succinctly. In other words, psychopathy leads a person to become pathologically manipulative, self-serving, and socially disaffected -- immoral, basically. They may, or may not, subscribe to any number/combo of creed(s), faith(s), etiquette(s), and/or honour code(s), but their condition (may) compel them to betray or twist them (their own, or others' understanding of them) to rationalise their behaviour.
yes....although i gave a very general overview of the two, they are literally dead in a part of the frontal lobe, there is NO electrical activity going on with certain nerves, leaving them incapable of utilizing those feelings.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
