So, I'm curious. In what situation would you guys consider a deus ex machina not a deus ex machina, or to be otherwise totally acceptable? Genuinely interested.
Honestly, and only because I took a class and wrote a term paper on it and it is damn near five in the morning: The Great Eagles in Lord of the Rings. They're supposed to, by some interpretation, represent the benevolent hand of God coming in to grant reprieve to two men who went above and beyond the call of duty in service to everyone beyond themselves. It is a very Catholic line of thinking, and it never really bothered me when I read the books as a child because so much is happening towards the end of the ring; that the birds seem a rather fair concession because while they are out of the frying pan; they are then thrown into the fires of industry during the Scouring of the Shire.
Deus Ex Machina needs to be handled carefully, or not at all. Because while people don't seem to like the Great Eagles all that much now; they're just a minor plot point in a larger work. It doesn't make for great cinema, but in the literature it isn't the worst. Plus fellbeasts, crebin, and a giant eye of Sauron for anyone who wants to contend they ought to have flown regardless.
@thesisterscomic Thanks for that, the eagles are a pretty obvious example, you're right. But using that, what kind of earlier preparation would have made the Eagles not a deus ex machina?
I mean, what does it take to bring to a device out of that category? Surely anything that conveniently saves the day or brings a character back to life is at risk of being criticised? It must be a terribly grey area.
For me it's when a story shoehorns in an obligatory sex scene or brings in an overly sexual character.
Take for instance the reboot of the movie Robocop. I actually really like this film. It's a fun popcorn flick. But in the first act there's an awkward, "wait a second, what are they...? Really? We're just doing this now?" kind of moment that really has no place in the overall tone of the movie. It makes no sense to be there, and it was interrupted anyway, so why have it in there other than filler? There could have been a nice conversation that led up to some romance that was interrupted instead, but rather than give us some characterization (at least they give us some later) they believe that because this is an action flick, we need to put in a sexual moment because movie. Also there might be adults in the audience, so we have to hit the big three - sex, violence, and drugs! It HAS to be in there!
Or in anime when there's a character that is put in that obviously is drawn in a certain way so that the lowest common denominator follows it. And when it comes about in a good anime or manga, it feels out of place. I mean, I know that the culture is a bit more open, but really? Does it have to be so... there? So right in your face? Did that character have any use in the plot other than their looks? It hurts sometimes to be a part of the fandom when I see it.
Well in the book, the eagles were limited by the sizable air-force of Sauron that thesistercomic mentioned. In fact, during the final battle against Mordor, the Nazgul were still flying CAP and the eagles were merely balancing the air-superiority of Sauron, not winning the day like in the movies. It was only after the mountain went up that Sauron's air-force was destroyed, removing the limitation and allowing the eagles to save S&F.
As far as your overall question about Deus Ex Machina, the were two pieces of advice that stuck with me over the years.
1) Just let your protagonist(s) do it themselves. Basically, not using DeM in the first place, as thesistercomic also mentioned.
We writers like to put our protagonists in desperate situations, with no way out, to create tension; but if there's truly no way out, then either let them lose or don't make the situation unwinnable in the first place. In the Lord of the Rings example, what's so wrong with letting Sam carry Frodo all the way out? (IMO, nothing) Even with that though, in the book, the eagles were already there, as part of the protagonists, so one could say removing their limitation (via an act of Frodo) allowed the protagonists to do it themselves anyway, but I digress.
2) If you have a villain and they're going to get theirs sans the protagonist(s) or via protagonist(s)-from-the-grave; then think time-bomb, not lightning strike.
The story behind this advice came from a creative writing class assignment. We were tasked with rewriting the ending to a story. In the first version, the villain had to hide a prize from a previous murder because the item could link the villain to the murder. With all obstacles (and protagonists) out of the way, the villain headed toward the pier to claim their prize. It was a stormy night, the prize was in the water and while using a net on the end of a metal pole, BLAM, lightning strike, villain dead, class groans.
The best rewrite (by vote) was by a student who suggested the prize be hidden in a non-assuming hole, but as the prize is initially thrown in, something dark and scaly moves. As before, the villain is off to claim their prize. They stick their hand in the hole, quick strike, villain takes a few steps, keels over.
Technically, that student didn't change the DeM aspect of the villain's comeuppance, but did a couple of things different. First, they foreshadowed it well before the act (not minutes before the act, like the stormy night) and it felt inevitable, because easily in 9 out of 10 attempts, that hole would still be occupied. Unlike the stormy night, where the villain would only have to wait a day or two and be in the clear. Second; I personally got the sense the villain was responsible for their own demise because of the earlier murder, hiding of the item and their greed; not from some heretofore unseen impatience/stupidity of trying to claim the prize, in the water, ON A STORMY-FREAKING-NIGHT, er, sorry about that, LOL.
I hope that all made sense.
OK, most of mine have always been said, so I will leave them out. Although I need to make a special shout out to "Love Triangles" (which, technically are not TRIANGLES anyway, because it always seems to be a girl trying to choose between two guys and it would only be a triangle if Girl like Guy 1 who liked Guy 2 who liked Girl 
), and "Lack of Communication." I find myself yelling "Just talk to each other" at movies and shows a lot.
The two I want to add are:
1) "A Love Story for the Sake of a Love Story."
Don't just throw it in there because you think the audience needs/is expecting it. Also, if you are going to write two characters falling in love, at least make sure they have chemistry!
2) "And They Lived Happily Ever After"
This one. Oh, this one is just the worst. I have watched so many shows/movies and read so many books where the characters go through some genuine trauma and/or end of the world type scenarios – and then JUST GO BACK TO THE WAY THINGS WERE BEFORE AT THE END! The world was almost destroyed and left desolate or under the rule of an insane tyrant? Meh, no big deal! You just watched your friends/family/people you know die? shrug! You just literally murdered someone to save the world? Cool, no worries! This pisses me off so much because it basically just erases any character development they may have gone through in the rest of the story!
erm one of my current running plots in mt comic is lack of communication, without it there would be no plot ,no drama ,no child whom hates one parent.
on and I have already done the child came from a farm and his daddy died and fluffed up everything! ....(only he turned into a raving loony who kills any woman who tells lies no a super hero.... go fig I love my sick and twisted plots)
Most of the cliches that I don't like have been pinpointed. This topic also made me a little bit more cautious when thinking about my adventure comic (I'm working on it since 2010, still as far as revising stuff). So thanks for sharing, it's good to read some real opinions on these tropes rather than just browse through it 
About the tropes that I personally don't like:
Damsel in distress - just why, tell me why. I LOVE strong women in stories, so why so many Hollywood movies tend to still create such characters? (like in recent Jurassic World) And I see that a lot in fantasy stories when there's this super hot and masculine CHOSEN HERO and he's off to save the world and his good-for-nothing-crying-girl. I'm so angry with that.
Revived character - why kill a character just so he would be revived 20 pages/chapters/volumes later? I saw that in Naruto a few times and it felt like the author run out of ideas to create interesting charas. I'm familiar all too well with death and mourn in real life and it would be a fucking MIRACLE to get my loved ones back. So reviving characters from death is totally stupid and meaningless in my eyes. I love how Eiichiro Oda, the author of One Piece, treasures death and use it to built and make his characters stronger. When he kills a character, which happens very rarely, it really adds to the story. And he hasn't revived any character yet cause he know it perfectly that it would just destroy the setting, the characters and the world he built.
Also I don't know it it's a trope but it's very popular recently:
Inside a game - story revolves around characters that were somehow transferred inside a game, nobody knows how and now they have to live there to survive (and the overall drama "we cannot escape from here" - boooring). It was really nice when Digimon covered the idea since it was new then and I remember reading a manhwa 1/2 Prince back in 2008 or something. It was funny and I could relate much to it since I was playing some rpgs. But as Sword Art Online came out there are so many offsprings based on a popularity of it that it bacame so lame... The same pattern over and over when an author puts charas in a game and they have to fight mobs to get out of there. I liked it as an arc in HunterxHunter cause the characters knew they were in a game and it had it's purpose cause they were looking for someone.
Thanks for taking the time to write this out. It does make sense, don't worry! I guess foreshadowing and appropriation are the key to avoiding DeM. Seems obvious really, when you think about it, but it's so easy to develop blindspots when you're chin deep in plotlines.
Solid advice, but hard to execute well I'm sure. I'm a sucker for foreshadowing and hints and love the idea of working them into my own stuff but it's actually quite tricky. I mean, what's obvious to me might not be obvious to you, but being too cryptic/too blatant is also really easy. Tough job!
I completely agree. It's nice to sound off about what you're tired of seeing in things, but the thing to remember most is something I've often said to other creators, especially ones just starting out: you cannot please everyone, and you shouldn't try because you will end up pleasing no one, least of all yourself.
But moreover, I also usually add: when you're talking with someone about your work, ask them what they like, rather than what they don't. People often find it easier to think of negatives, so it will challenge them to think of a concrete positive, which will usually force them to actually analyze and consider the work at greater length. It's better to hold onto the things that people enjoy about your work than to try and throw away the things people don't. If you throw away something because someone doesn't like it, eventually you'll end up with nothing left of you in the work.
I don't know, to be honest I had a big problem with the eagles, and for a variety of reasons, but I'm sure having done a paper you've exhaustively familiarized yourself with the issues that people bring up!
My biggest problem with Lord of the Rings, as I've grown older, was a factor that was typically omitted from most adaptations: Tom Bombadil. I love the character dearly. But Tolkien brings up the point, only to handwave it through Gandalf, that Tom Bombadil could have handled the whole "taking the ring to destroy" thing -- Tom Bombadil was a god of the land and incorruptible -- but Gandalf's opinion was that it wouldn't work because he "didn't understand" the situation.
And not a single person brought up a concern about that.
Of course, there's Gollum too -- a huge deus ex machina at many points of the story -- but that's a whole other can of worms! I just feel like if one doesn't want it to occur to readers that there may be a logical problem here...maybe don't bring it up, making it more difficult to reason out that something is so problematic. The Tom Bombadil question always made me think and interfered with my belief in the situation.
Yeah, I don't like a tokenistic approach to it. I especially dislike it in a lot of Marvel/DC output, where they tend to condense as many minority labels on as few characters as possible, as if they want to be able to have it concentrated so they have to deal with it as little as possible. You so often used to see this (and still do) in gay characters, who almost always have partners who are usually a densely-gathered minority nexus. And are usually killed off or are irrelevant to the stories; even in 2016, gay characters are always the last priority to actually be allowed to have any actual relationships or anything pertaining.
Another pet peeve of mine in writing is for people to motivate others by people dying or being killed off.
If your character is so lazy, insensitive, unmotivated, or otherwise awful that people literally have to die before they will do something, then your character does not deserve to be regarded as heroic or even sympathetic. That may be your point and that's okay. But I've seen this happen way too many times in stories where the character in question is supposed to be sympathetic and admirable and someone is literally horribly killed by the story, and that's what motivates them to do something.
This is literally what destroyed any modicum of sympathetic buildup for the sisters in Charmed, for example. It got to the point where people literally had to die to motivate them to do what they were supposed to have been doing anyway.
If lack of communication serves a purpose for the story, that's different. If it's there for the sole purpose of causing unnecessary drama, that's when it annoys me! 
Concerning Tom Bombadil (who frankly I always loved), the main issue is that it is unclear what he is supposed to be, beyond who he is. If Tom Bombadil is the Green Man, a stand-in for old goodness in Pagan Faith; nature by the view of man (or hobbit kind); giving him the ring wouldn't work because he would not comprehend the situation. Not because he is foolish, but because he is so alien to the concept of it; and of course if he was "corrupted" by it things would get infinitely worse. Tom Bombadil is something that cannot be matched, namely because he's larger than life by way of viewing from people who are far quainter than anyone's life is. And while he is not corrupted by the ring, he is in and of itself his own entity who could be corrupted by the promise of things to come. Which fits the theme of the story.
Gondor wants the ring, as a weapon; but it corrupts Boromir who uses his last bit of humanity and free will to see those predetermined by fate to survive. Galadriel considers it, but she'd be corrupted by it and realizes this. Gandalf is offered it but he knows he could be corrupted by it and is terrified of that fate. Tom Bombadil does not want the ring, but he could do the deed; but he could also listen to Sauron and say in a flight of fantasy "All right, evil sounds like the order of the day for me too."
A lot of people talk about it, especially if you get into Tolkien scholarship properly. Tom is a very polarizing figure. I'd still say the Eagles aren't a -huge- problem, just because the real toll of the war on Frodo and Sam doesn't happen until the Scouring proper. Gollum is, to me, less deus ex machina, and more a traditional protagonist without being given the title. He drives the movement forward, and it is clear he is (like the rest of the Fellowship sans Boromir) fated for something. There's a lot of Catholic themes brought up with Gollum, namely commensality, and it is made clear rather early by way of Frodo that they're supposed to be mirrors. Gollum will be redeemed through his corruptions and die, whereas Frodo will become corrupted through constant sacrifices, and yet live. Which is why Frodo is really a very tragic character once the end of the stories happen. He's so burnt out.
But it has been awhile since I wrote those papers. Mostly been grumbling about dwarves for the past few years. I don't disagree with you on how they can be seen; but intent is important and with a broader reading it does make sense within Tolkien's works. There's an internal cohesion to it.
Not to hijack the topic, but... that's funny, I remember reading somewhere that Bombadil would not be corrupted by the Ring because he did not care for it under any circumstances, but he would ultimately fail because the rest of Middle-Earth would become Sauron's domain, until only Bombadil's little kingdom is left under siege it can't withstand.
3 months later
I know I'm bringing up an old topic here, but I remembered seeing this one when I lurked on the forums before starting my comic. One cliche I really can't stand is that I see too many comics open up with the main character being late for school and going through their morning routine (brushing their teeth, getting dressed, eating breakfast while usually leaving the house while simultaneously putting their shirt on with a piece of toast in their mouth), while monologuing how old they are, what school they go to and what friends they have, what their favourite colour is, etc. Also, hearing the character describe themselves as average in every way and how they long to be swept up in a life of adventure apart from their boring life's routine (in which some other being usually comes along and whisks them to another world or makes them the chosen one).
There are just much more interesting ways to begin a story or to introduce your main character. I'd rather see a character come into their own personality naturally instead of listing off their traits in checklist form and heading out to what seems like a regular day to have their world turned upside down. I can't tell you how many comics I've seen start off this way since I really started looking for more series to read a couple weeks ago.
Clutter
Way too much going on at the same time. Busy pages with way too many panels, colours all over the place with no clear focus, speechbubbles with way too much text in them (characters don't have to be verbose, the overall flow of the comic is more important), also overlapping panels that are hard to follow.
Mediocrity
Ordinary stories about ordinary people doing ordinary things, saying ordinary things with ordinary outcomes. I have a life, so I don't read comics to remind me of it. I read comics to get away from it.
I know there are both more general but they are the main things I don't like when reading comics.
Nothing gets on my tits like the introduction of the "mysterious" character. You know, the one that every kid that wants to draw manga does where you just see close ups and the face is always obscured by his hair or a hood. Then we have a close up of his mouth (on the side) and says something like "It's time...." or some other mysterious shit. Then, after going through that, we have the big 'reveal' of the main character where we see his/her face. Why is there a reveal of a character we've never seen before? Who knows?
Perhaps at that point we're supposed to exclaim "Oh my god! It's a guy I've never seen before! I was sure it was Mahatma Ghandi or queen Victoria, but I was totally wrong!".
I dont know how much of a cliche it is by itself, but here's some of my biggest peeve:
Saturation:
Several of the examples mentioned above fit this. Kill characters too often, revive them too often, repeat patterns of any kind and I'll become desensitised. Modern superhero comics are obviously the worst offender her. Whenever someone dies in dc/marvel it has zero emotional impact on me. I feel more like "ugh, wonder how long befor they come back".
Everyone falls in love:
When groups of characters, typically with an equal male female ratio, all have to ducking fall in love with someone of the opposite gender. Is this the only way to portray relationships. Honestly, I'm so happy whenever I come across a story that doesn't revolve around a romantic situation at all because of this. There has to be more options to characters relationships than this.
Grimdark:
Talking about oversaturation again. I have a big problem with (especially main) characters who are meant to be "dark and kewl" and overdo this. I think it's absolutely possible to make a character with these traits but they can't be the only traits they have. But I want them to have more to them than just being quiet, grim, dark and violent. On an aside, when a character rarely speaks or gives you insight into their persona it feels to me like a writer is playing it safe or isn't really sure who their character is.
All the above said, I'll throw in my vote with "any cliche or trope" can be done well. Cliches doesn't mean a story is bad. I'll certainly have some in my comic. It's almost impossible to expand on every little thing so some aspects will appear more cliche than others. But give me an interesting spin on a trope and I'll be there to comb through your story.
Oh and for the "damsel in distress"-trope I want to add in the "i can take care of myself"-sub trope. Generally a seemingly strong female character who utters these words only to five seconds later be kidnapped, killed or somesuch... No thank you!
haha I like how you started your comment.
@Greg_Dickson That's alright.
On the subject of this thread, yeah I agree. Establish your character's personality traits and quirks organically.