Annoying Cliches: What Are The Most Overused Tropes?

Hey there, fellow bookworms and movie buffs! Let's dive into a topic that's sure to spark some passionate discussion: what are the most annoying cliches in books and movies? We all love a good story, but sometimes we stumble upon tropes and overused plot devices that make us roll our eyes. So, let's get into it and explore some of the most common cliches that plague our favorite forms of entertainment.

The Chosen One Trope

One of the most prevalent cliches in both books and movies is the Chosen One trope. This is where the story revolves around a seemingly ordinary character who discovers they are the only one capable of saving the world, their kingdom, or whatever's at stake. While this concept can be compelling, it's been done so many times that it often feels predictable and unoriginal.

Think about it: Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker, Neo from The Matrix – all classic examples of the Chosen One. The formula usually involves a protagonist with hidden potential, a prophecy foretelling their rise, and a destiny they can't escape. While these stories can be epic, the predictability can sometimes detract from the overall experience. We know they're going to win in the end, and that takes away some of the suspense.

But why is this trope so popular? Well, it taps into a deep-seated human desire to feel special and important. We all want to believe that we have a unique purpose, and the Chosen One narrative resonates with that yearning. However, when every other story features a Chosen One, the trope loses its luster. It's like hearing the same joke over and over again – it just isn't funny anymore.

To make the Chosen One trope fresh, writers need to subvert expectations. Maybe the Chosen One fails, or maybe they have to make a morally ambiguous choice to fulfill their destiny. Perhaps the story focuses on the people around the Chosen One, showing how their lives are affected by this extraordinary individual. By playing with the formula, authors and filmmakers can breathe new life into this overused cliche. Ultimately, the goal is to surprise the audience and give them a reason to invest in the story, even if they've seen it all before.

Love Triangles That Lead Nowhere

Ah, the love triangle: a staple of young adult fiction and romantic comedies. You've got your protagonist, typically torn between two potential love interests, each offering something different. One is often the "bad boy" or "bad girl" with a mysterious allure, while the other is the safe, reliable option. Sounds familiar, right? While love triangles can add drama and tension to a story, they often feel contrived and unnecessary.

Think of countless teen dramas where the protagonist flip-flops between two love interests for seasons on end, dragging the plot along with them. It's exhausting for the audience! Often, these love triangles exist solely to create conflict and keep viewers engaged, rather than serving a meaningful purpose in the narrative. The characters' motivations can feel shallow, and the relationships themselves lack depth.

What makes a love triangle truly frustrating is when it resolves in a predictable or unsatisfying way. How many times have we seen the protagonist end up with the obvious choice, rendering the entire triangle pointless? Or worse, the love triangle is resolved through a sudden, out-of-character decision that feels forced and unearned. It's like the writers just wanted to wrap things up quickly without considering the emotional impact on the characters or the audience.

To make a love triangle work, it needs to be more than just a plot device. It should explore genuine emotional complexities and character growth. The protagonist's choice should reflect their values and desires, and the consequences of their decision should have a lasting impact on the story. Instead of simply creating conflict for the sake of drama, love triangles should delve into the nuances of human relationships and the challenges of choosing between different kinds of love.

The Damsel in Distress

Another cliche that has rightfully fallen out of favor is the damsel in distress. This trope portrays women as helpless victims who need to be rescued by a male hero. While there's nothing inherently wrong with a character needing help, the damsel in distress trope often reinforces harmful stereotypes about gender roles and female agency.

In these stories, the female character is often passive, lacking her own goals and motivations. Her primary role is to be captured, threatened, and ultimately saved by the male protagonist. This portrayal not only diminishes female characters but also reinforces the idea that women are inherently weaker and need male protection. It's a tired trope that has overstayed its welcome.

Fortunately, we're seeing more and more stories that subvert this cliche. Female characters are taking charge of their own destinies, rescuing themselves and others. They're strong, capable, and complex, with their own agency and motivations. Think of characters like Katniss Everdeen from The Hunger Games, Rey from Star Wars, or Hermione Granger from Harry Potter. These women are far from helpless, and their stories are all the more compelling because of it.

To avoid the damsel in distress trope, writers need to give female characters their own agency. They should have their own goals, motivations, and skills. They should be active participants in the story, not just passive recipients of the hero's actions. By creating strong, independent female characters, we can move beyond outdated stereotypes and tell more nuanced and engaging stories. The key is to remember that a character's strength doesn't always mean physical prowess; it can also manifest in emotional resilience, intelligence, and determination.

The Misunderstanding That Could Have Been Solved in Five Minutes

This cliche is a classic example of lazy writing: a simple misunderstanding that drives the plot forward, even though it could easily be resolved with a quick conversation. You know the scenario: two characters have a falling out because of a miscommunication, and instead of talking it out, they let the misunderstanding fester for the entire movie or book. It's frustrating for the audience because we can see how easily the conflict could be avoided.

These misunderstandings often feel contrived and unrealistic. In real life, people usually try to clarify things when there's a conflict. They ask questions, seek explanations, and try to understand the other person's perspective. But in cliche-ridden stories, characters seem incapable of having a simple conversation. They jump to conclusions, make assumptions, and let their emotions cloud their judgment. It's like they're intentionally avoiding communication to prolong the drama.

To avoid this cliche, writers need to give their characters realistic communication skills. If there's a misunderstanding, the characters should try to talk it out. If they can't communicate effectively, there should be a good reason why. Maybe they're afraid of being vulnerable, or maybe they have a history of miscommunication. By exploring the underlying reasons for the misunderstanding, writers can create a more compelling and believable conflict.

Ultimately, the goal is to create conflict that feels organic and meaningful. A simple misunderstanding can be a starting point, but it shouldn't be the sole source of drama. The characters' reactions and choices should drive the plot forward, not the lack of communication. By focusing on character development and emotional complexity, writers can avoid this annoying cliche and create more satisfying stories.

The Fake-Out Death

Fake-out deaths are another pet peeve for many readers and viewers. This is when a character appears to die, often in a dramatic and emotional scene, only to be revealed as alive later on. While a well-executed fake-out death can be a shocking and memorable plot twist, it often feels cheap and manipulative when overused.

The problem with fake-out deaths is that they diminish the emotional impact of real character deaths. If we know that characters can come back from the dead at any time, we're less likely to invest in their fates. It's like the stakes are constantly being lowered, and the story loses its sense of danger and urgency. Why should we care if a character dies if we know they might just pop back up in the next scene?

Moreover, fake-out deaths can feel like a betrayal of the audience's trust. We've invested our time and emotions in these characters, and when they die, we feel a sense of loss. But if that death is then revealed to be a trick, it can feel like the writers are playing with our emotions for cheap thrills. It's a shortcut to creating drama without actually exploring the consequences of death and loss.

To make a fake-out death work, it needs to be earned. There should be a logical explanation for how the character survived, and their survival should have a significant impact on the story. The fake-out death shouldn't just be a plot twist for the sake of a plot twist; it should serve a deeper purpose in the narrative. And most importantly, it shouldn't be overused. If every character has a fake-out death, the trope loses its impact and becomes predictable.

So, what do you guys think? What are the most annoying cliches in books and movies for you? Let's keep the conversation going in the comments below!