Tropes that you really fucking hate

...

...

...

...

This.

There is nothing wrong with "passing the torch". It can barely even be considered a trope.

Woah there, Gramps, keep hating on fun like that and next you'll tell us that Tsuyu isn't best girl.

Came here to post this.

...

Can be good when done well. The problem is when the new generation of characters are shit. Everyone likes Jean-Luc Picard, and Joseph Joestar.

I struggle to name a instance where this was done right, or just inferior to its predecessor.

Thanks for outing yourself as a sagefag.

Another? We didn't have any in this board yet.

This shit has been used to replace beloved characters in Marvel, Avatar, Star Wars and all these times the replacement are inferior to the original in everyway.

Who do you think you are talking to, fag?

-Villain can no longer have a private army and huge base because "fuck you, they just do" is apparently no longer an adequate explanation.

They have no impact because there is no story to actually change. Mainstream comics are just a series of events that look like a story, but isn't.

Bad execution and relative abundance thereof doesn't mean the thing itself is bad, you moron. What, do you go around saying entire mediums are shit because shitty stories are more common?

...

Not really… but let's see your examples:
- Marvel: No torch was passed, just old white male characters were banished/trapped in other dimension/ missing/ putted away/etc. New characters gained their powers and status by instant, not by passed to them…
-Avatar: I'm not familiar with this, but one of the thing i know is that the writers killed off the previous incarnations so there where never a torch passed, nor replaced (since the original series is closed).
-Star Wars: Never happened. Luke didn't even trained Rey just explained the very basics of the Force. By the way this shit sounds like you saying Luke replaced Anakin.

I know and see where your hard feeling come from, but it's not coming from the "pass the torch" trope, which doesn't even a trope! And the very shit you get from the other users is because you missuse the whole phrase to describe something more sinister.

which is making a well-know story or series more pol.correct

Passing the torch is largely only bad when it's used to justify a sequel to a finished story that needed no elaboration

Yes you fucking cunt. Where do you think we aree? Stab yourself in the eye and remove yourself from this board ASAP.

Delete your internet, moron.

They are still referred as passing the torch specially by people that enjoy this trope, so its more figurative than literally.

Holy shit, you need to leave. Like now.

Yeah except that's what's supposed to happen, most capes that don't do this stagnate as a character. Case in point, Batman, he's stagnated to the point where the only thing interesting about him is the people around him. I care more for Damian, Dick, and Jason, then I do Bruce.

Passing the torch is a fun as fuck trope, but it only works outside of modern cape shit from Marvel and DC, because you can't pass the torch and still keep the original characters around.

Fucking Ben 10 could have been a great show. A genuinely neat and interesting concept ruined by refusing to make a cartoon that doesn't treat kids like retards.>>Old heroes "pass the torch" to a new generation

No, it's not what's supposed to happen. What's supposed to happen is the guys who once read comics move on and grow up, instead the hobby is populated by whiny manchildren who want to replace characters and ruin them for future generations because "muh continuity". Also, none of the Bat-Family with the possible exception of Dick are remotely as interesting as Bruce. It's the same shit that has Superman sidelined in his books by his bland kid.

>>>/sa/
>>>/tumblr/

user, tropes aren't bad, just common.

>>>/back/

I absolutely, positively despise the 'despot leader kills his henchmen' trope. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

This isn't even like a true dictator taking out competition or killing someone for fun, or when they have such vast amounts of influence that it makes sense that you can't move against him.

This often comes up in secret societies and is at its worst in apocalypse survival scenarios, which is where this type of behavior makes the least amount of sense.

With a single action a person:

Weakens his forces
Instills in his men a sense that he is unstable
Prove that he is not much of a leader and that the system itself is fragile
Ensure anyone and everyone not directly working for him will avoid him at all cost
Scare others into trying to leave, possibly while stealing supplies
Give people a reason to betray him

Like, I get portraying someone as cruel or evil for a story perspective, but keep it in the realm of possibility.

...

Please don't get us started about the Punisher show

Sounds like your issue has more to do with the fact numale authors can't not fuck everything up rather than having a problem with the idea itself.

I got one

Good god, Season 3 of G1 was loaded with wasted potential.

I dunno, I enjoyed the hate plague.

But yeah, there was a lot of shit.

Here's another hated trope of mine

Good God, I hated it when they give old titles to cynical British writers…and then these sheep just lap up whatever said cynical British writers are doing, calling it deep and thought provoking. Hell, fuck deconstructions in general, you deconstructors are just that asshole who peed in the pool when everyone was having fun swimming in it.

Hate Plague and Predaking are the few good parts of Season 3. I just wished they re-ordered the episode around so Burden Hardest to Bear shouldn't be followed up by Return of Optimus Prime…or hell, just have Rodimus be this courageous but inexperienced leader…rather than him being a goddamn jerk everytime he's on screen (good negotiator though in one episode)

...

So…every film noir detective?

You are a faggot, OP.

What I dislike is more of a combination of tropes. I'll start with what I think is the only time that it is done well. The bully of the show is trying to always torment Pelswick and the straw that broke the paraplegic camel's back was the bully trying one up him in the paragames. In the end, the bully sustain an injury that would temporarily put him in a wheelchair. Everyone eggs Pelswick to take shots at him but he couldn't do it to the point that the bully gets angry that Pelswick feels sorry for him. His guardian angel made him realize that the reason was that he was a good person and he shouldn't feel bad about being one. Usually, the moral of the story gets forced by having everyone treat the bully nicer than Pelswick and have them shit on Pelswick for not even caring about the bully.

It the whole "the main character must be the moral paragon otherwise the constantly immoral side characters somehow gets the moral high ground". It is also how the main cast tries to justify the status quo to the point that positive changes are treated as a dilemma. Or the cheap "The person is only a bully because of their bad home life." How does that help anyone?

It reaches to the point where people base their public policy on it. "People only joined terrorist groups because of poverty or something similar" except it was already debunked.

Really any "subversive" shit like that

These two are absolutely retarded. Throughout history, most great heroes killed people if necessary, but in mid 20th century far too many were pussified, likely due to Comic Code. There is nothing wrong with no kill rule if done right, but using above as justification is beyond lazy and stupid.

If Old Hero can be a big guy with at least a small bit of confidence and charisma when he first becomes a hero, you don't need to make New Hero a small, annoying underdog that never manages to have even a fraction of the charisma the old one had.

...

It's fine for the length of a movie, but not for a series. Midsomer Murders opened my eyes to how detestable and overused this trope is elsewhere; the fact that the detective actually has an enviably happy and almost naively content home gives a much better sense of contrast with what he faces on the job and a greater sense of danger when one threatens to spill into the other.

It more of Japanese thing or at least the Christian mythology so edgy crowd.

I finished reading the first Devilman manga and I don't see how they are pushing this God is true villain in the story thing besides as a unnecessary way to extend the story. The same with SMT and MT which less the Bible isn't so black and white and more Lucifer has legitimate reasons, he isn't even Satan, he is the Messiah that wishes true freedom for humans and demons. It doesn't help that almost everyone else in the Chaos alignment is baby's first edge.

...

I thought in Devilman, Satan was the bad guy..but yeah, fucking hated when it's always God is the bad guy and Satan did nothing wrong BS.

I like the "no killing" rule when used in juxtaposition with people that actually kill, and having legitimate personal reasons to do so. Nowadays, Batman doesn't kill because he's genuinely afraid of himself. Meanwhile Green Arrow tries to avoiding killing as much as possible, but has no problem dropping someone if it's needed. In Trigun, Vash has a pretty faggy no-kill under any circumstances rule, but it's revealed that he has the rule Because he's severely traumatized from trying to kill someone before, which caused a backlash resulting in an entire city of innocent people being killed.
At this point, I'd like to see good fucking reason for a no-kill rule though. Have a story where the Punisher goes against some dude that actually comes back to life stronger everytime he's killed. Make it so the only way to permanently stop him is to get the police to lock him up in a secure facility. We're always fucking told that killing is bad because of philosophical reasons, give a legitimate fucking reason where you see concrete examples of not-killing doing good.

Later comics involved God punishing Satan by putting him in a time loop (so that there would be more comics) because we can't just let a story end in a self-inflicted tragedy.

Violence Jack or Devilman Lady? Because Devilman Lady happened after Violence Jack but the time just reset..well, in the manga at least.

Sounds pretty crappy as, you know, a punishment, specially from the Punisher, and I doubt he'd trust anyone enough, let alone the police, to do the job. If something, it'd fall down to "I can't kill you but I can make you suffer forever" way of thinking, with trapping the guy and torturing him forever. Of course, you can build it up to that point.
I really like immortal enemies, you have to be really creative to stop them.
You wut? Also, what kind of examples you want? In comics you can just make up a graphic about how not killing criminals is good and go with it. Fuck, in Batman is the contrary, and Batman is constantly reminded of how things would be better if he actually killed the psychos, but he insists in "rehabilitation".

After The Divine Comedy, this view changed.

The Comics Code was based on DC's own internal code, dumbass. Batman's "NO KILL" rule goes all the way back to New York World's Fair Comics 1940.

My point is that there need to be a few storylines exhibiting not-killing as a tangible positive. In Batman right now, Clayface has been working along side Batman and has become a crimefighter in his own right. Shit like that goes a LONG way toward making Batman's refusal to kill seem more reasonable. If you don't have shit like that happen, then the idea of "Why don't you just kill the Joker" becomes a looming cancer on the story that takes you out of it the longer it goes on, because it becomes more and more ridiculous.

The no kill rule is pretty childish tbh, there's a clear difference between killing and murder.
That being said, I can understand not killing the joker if he can be subdued non-lethally, he really should be excecuted but that's supposed the government's job, or at least that's how I see it.
But yeah, if batman ever lets a civilian die because he can't non-lethally stop the villian. that's terrible.

I'll do you one better
The joker shouldn't be able to sneak up on batman, "but he's the joker" no, that's shit. The joker should only be able to challenge batman with his schemes.

Yeah well, that doesn't really work with messed up villains like the joker, dollmaker and pigface guy, that's another trope I don't like, >edgy villians in a superhero comic. They can kill people but cutting their own face off and wearing it is just stupid. I'm not offended by the edgyness, it just comes across as pretty lame

Sure, we all know that the Joker will never be rehabilitated, but seeing other criminals that were formerly insane turn good (or at least good-ish) makes Batman more believable, because it gives a sort of hope that maybe one day they might. Without seeing some actual payoff from his beliefs, it makes him just seem dumb.
Truly the worst thing about modern comics. The idea that anyone would put up with the Joker at all is laughable nowadays. Any cop worth his salt would happily blow him away the moment he had handcuffs on, the criminal underworld would have a million different contracts for his head, the governement would have executed him, and the citizens of Gotham would have stormed Arkham and killed all the inmates by now. The Joker isn't even "insane" anymore in a sense that would avoid getting the death penalty. I miss the days of having a group of henchmen that stuck by their boss because they looked up to him, not a bunch of mooks that are going to get shot just to showcase how evil he is.

I do agree that you need to see build up or consequences, but that have already happened. Every time the joker do something fucked up, someone tells Batman to kill him, even Superman have. The reason that makes the whole thing so interesting is Batman's reason, that includes the example you did plus his trauma and the fact that he is scared of himself. Sure, not everything can compare to it, specially since Batman is old as fuck and had time to build the general feeling as to why he doesn't kill, but you don't need to do a lot, it basically boils down to
Honestly, that sounds like it would work better in a video game.

Yes because Mario is normalfag tier shit. Why aren't shows referencing other vidyas like Metroid, Sonic, or Metal Gear more often?

Honestly something that starts to irk me nowadays is how every single villain, whenever they get caught and sent to prison or some other place meant to contain them, are immediately somehow let loose for the stupidest and flimsiest of reasons within maybe a couple weeks of their stay for plot reasons and this sort of thing is never addressed or attempted to be addressed by the hero or people who threw them in there in the first place.

The most immediate example is Batman and Arkham Asylum being nothing more than a little vacation home for villains to stay at whilst they lick their wounds before their next big plan.

One of my favorite comics was Supreme when Alan Moore took over. Believe it or not he took a grim dark ultra violent Superman clone, and made it into a classical fun comic. I think in that case Alan Moore was just fucking with the audience expectations of him as a writer, but damned if he can't write a classic story without any deconstruction.

See X-Men for the first one. Especially considering how strawmen villains like Senator Kelly are totally spot-on that Mutants need to be kept in check. Or Decimation where Cyclops is offended at the notion of being a Homo Sapien

Legend of Korra does the second one over and over. First it happens with Toph's daughter Lin and how she ruins Korra's fun, doubly during what happens with her sister Suyin (In A Nutshell: She more or less says her sister is a criminal brat who got away with it thanks to Mother's awful parenting, is right about that, but we're supposed to see she's being mean to poor little Suyin and side against her). Then it happens with President Raiko who does dastardly acts like banning Korra after she left portals enabling spirit plants to smash up Republic City open.

That is mild compared to everything in this episode.

I was watching this episode and was wondering…OK, what bastard made an online game, with an end goal mind you considering that most MMOs are supposed to be endless, have that the end goal of the game gave the winner unlimited access to the Internet?

...

A prison that can actually hold its convicts is like a hero who has no qualms about killing on the spot: they're ideas that sounds nice in principle but are anathema to superhero stories.

Anti-mutant proponents aren't strawmen because they're right, they're strawmen because they usually go to the kind of outrageous extremes that drive the fucking premise of the comics they're in. Engaging in everything between wrongful incarceration and outright genocide kills their core argument regardless of how overpowered most muties are. Hard to deny that the bigotry allegories are outdated though.

There's plenty ways to keep villains coming back that don't revolve around them constantly breaking out. Throwing a person off a cliff and escaping while the hero rescues them is a lot better than constant prison escapes. Prison escapes can work, but if they're the default, it's retarded.

Isn't that an ad hominen fallacy?

So they're strawmen, thanks for agreeing. And just letting you know, it's not just about making death camps for whatever Mutant Shoah. Even things like making a cure for Mutant powers (even ones that are dangerous to others like Rogue's or deforming like Toad's is treated as a crime akin to forcing a Black man to turn White) or requesting some way to register Mutants is a step too far. And you know, there's how the X-Men show contempt for Homo Sapiens.

I want the Xavier Internet Defense Force to leave

HOW COULD THIS GO WRONG?

If the general degeneracy and fanart isn't enough, all the episodes end and play out the exact same way. The only one I recall being even remotely good is the Fairly Odd Parents one.

Nobody said the there would be forceful curings. And there were hordes of Mutants showing up to take the cure anyway.

Fucking this.

This, tbh, even the most correct translations of the ten commandments clearly state "Thou Shalt not Murder"

I haven't read Batman in a while but I thought the reason he didn't kill is that of the trauma of his dying parents, you know the kind of trauma that makes him dress in a Bat-suit and throw all his chances of a happy life to the gutter just to justify his insane 8yo kid/35yo manchild worldview?

Well, now that you're bringing IRL, cops are encouraged to not kill anyone unless a victim/hostage or himself are in immediate mortal danger because according to studies they get traumatized an ugly some. In fact, apparently more than soldiers just slower cause, they're not away from home. Regarding the citizens of Gotham storming the Asylum or Blackgate, really that would fit directly in the "If you kill them, you're not better than them" since it would be murder, not kill if anything they should storm the Mayor's office for making the security out of wet paper.

I genuinely thought it was a cool idea and hoped that maybe just once we could have a decent "regime" type elseworlds, but they had to turn it into another fucking Holocaust story. Why can't normal people win for once? Why is it always the metahumans who have to be right in the end no matter what? It happened in Secret Empire, in Age of X, why cant humanity have a fucking victory

There's an interesting explanation for this in the German version of Death of the Family. At the End, Bruce tells Dick that part of the reason why he doesn't just off the Joker is that he's afraid that the city will send someone even worse. Not sure how much I like that explanation, but at least I haven't heard it before.

Let's be honest here, the entire argument against Batman's code of ethics is because The Joker doesn't get the justice he deserves. This is, of course, the fault of writers edging him up to ridiculous extremes at the cost of Batman's competency.

And there's no way you can truly retcon it, since DC is milking the fuck out of books like The Killing Joke, Death In The Family, and Death Of The Family.

It's a fucking mess.

Yeah. People always give Batman shit for not killing the Joker, but he could have been sentenced to death any number of times and the courts don't fucking do it. The cops don't kill him, even the citizens don't take fuckin potshots at him.

Batman is a product of Gotham, and it seems Gotham is retarded

Heck, even the law is retarded. If the Joker has killed many people…why in Sam Hill does the law think stuffing him back to Arkham was ever a good idea? Just execute the guy…is that too hard to do?

And this is the point where the suspension of disbelief shatters and you become aware that you're reading a product.

Batman would not even have to kill the Joker to take him out of the action. Maiming or crippling could hinder his ability to be a criminal. Good luck being a crime lord when you are deaf or blind and stuck on a wheelchair.

I wouldn't mind if he didn't kill so long as the stories reflected that.
The no-kill mantra is fine for fun Batman, but nobody in comics has any fun anymore. You can't pick up a comic without knowing a bunch of history about the characters and shit, there's no single issue self-contained fun stories that go on for more than a few issues.

I miss fun.

Well, Super-Sons is fun…but yeah, I miss fun in comics. Give me something fun (well, not something stupid but stupid fun)

I don't like Damian or Superkid
I don't know why DC insist on trying to make me like Damian

Fuck you. You're going to get your human tapestry and like it.

You just explained any anime shit ever user

That wouldn't be out of place in a Batman comic though

Look at all those contrarian, fags. If the thread was titled "Tropes you fucking love" with this example, I'd be called a fucking Korra fag and an SJW. Kys oh yeah!

At this point, there is little difference because its now used to push fucking affirmative legacy characters that nobody cares about.