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.
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.
I don't like "chosen ones", I don't like some destined prophesied person, Being special and better than the rest, nope, let the average Joe get lucky or grow under his own power and time to be the hero.
honestly, i almost always have a character like that, but mostly because that's how i am. I have an odd mix of a boisterous personality while being almost extremely shy (I'll meet your eye and speak when spoken to and don't 'cower' from people, but wont initiate conversation very often). My silent characters are almost reflections of myself, but i characterize and personify them through their actions and the few words they say here and there (i'm trying to break the habit of having the silent character though)....
I think it's also a matter of overall characterization and execution. You can have a character that doesn't talk much at all but still have lots of personality in how they do things. I have a friend who barely speaks unless spoken to and her movements are pretty slow and deliberate, but when she silently laughs or smiles at things, her whole face lights up.
I'd say if you have a silent character whom still had a personality outside of "being silent", then you're not part of my peeve. I'm talking about those types of characters that I think become one dimensional because of their silence. They don't necessarily have to talk a lot and inner monologues work as well. Just don't have them be silent just to be mysterious or "kewl" or such. That's what makes such a character one-note to me.
