Every genre that has found success on the big screen has its cliches, and there are quite a few to be found in today's superhero movies. And not only today’s, since they can be traced back to the Tim Burton Batman flicks and even before that.

Of course, I am not talking about the usual – and harmless – details, which can be seen all over the place. Thor needs a cape, just like Superman does. The mech suit is the one that actually makes Iron Man, just like the cowl is essential for Batman. I am talking here about those things which pop up in many movies and, because of that, they’re just boring.

And a superhero movie can be anything but boring. These types of films are already predictable to a certain degree (in the sense that the superhero always wins, especially when sequels are announced). They needn't be even more, by adding visual or thematic elements everybody is already accustomed to.

This being said, here are the most common clichés I find in today's superhero flicks.

Losing the superpower

Every other hero from the big screen has this type of moment, in which he or (almost never) she loses superpowers. Of course, this happens in the cases of Spider-Man, Thor, Daredevil (for the small screen), or any other superhero with actual superpowers.

In the case of, say, Iron Man, the loss of faith is the one that brings all the problems. Thus, when the hero is confronted with an unexpected situation (as if this weren't a part of the job description), he suddenly develops an out-of-character fear (PTSD for the aforementioned Iron Man), retreats from all heroic deeds (Bruce Banner, or even Batman in TDKR), or renounces the entire skill set (Thing in the first modern Fantastic Four).

What is the point of repeating this cliché, especially when we know that, eventually, the superhero will return? There is no point whatsoever. It might have been something new at one point, but now it just adds to the predictability of a film.

Mass destruction and its consequences

This is a recent cliché. To make it clear, I have no problem when half a city or an entire city is destroyed in superhero flicks. You can expect for that to happen when god-like beings are battling on the streets. The problem that I have is with how the studios decides to deal with these consequences.

At first, it was just a side commentary, usually a funny one. It addressed just the damage done to properties - something along the lines of, I hope they have good insurance. But this cliché changed after the arrival of Man of Steel. How come?

Now the damage to property falls behind the loss of civilian lives. And now, prominently in the big ensemble movies, it is mentioned ostentatiously that the area has been cleared, that all the civilians are out of harm's way, that the area is deserted, and so on and so forth.

Which is weird. Very weird as far as I am concerned. You cannot expect me to believe that a handful of people, even if superheroes, have managed to evacuate an entire city in mere minutes. Just like you cannot expect me to believe that three major fights can be contained to the same unpopulated area, even if they happen moments one after another and they involve the same characters (Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice).

Similar power-sets for hero and the antagonist

Here is another thing that is extremely un-entertaining - the fact that the superhero has a similar set of skills/powers to the supervillain’s. Iron Man is the biggest offender in this case, with two antagonists who are basically anti-Iron Men. That is why a Mandarin would have been the best.

With Thor, it is a bit more difficult - and that is because the villains (Loki and Malekith) are either Asgardians or their skills sets aren't defined at all. But Captain America has faced just super-soldiers until now, while Ant-Man fought against another ant-man.

It is useless to say that Superman has fought just some other Kryptonians, or that Hulk's only antagonist was his own souped-up version.

Suicide Squad, on the other hand, presented the unique opportunity of having regular people fighting supernatural foes. It failed miserably.

When is this going to end? Hopefully, once magic is introduced in the MCU, and once the Gods make their presence felt in the DCEU.

From this point of view, Fox’s Mutant Universe is looking good. After all, there are plenty of superpowers at work from which the producers can choose.

Villain motivations

With Canptain America: Civil War, Marvel broke the mold. Zemo didn't want to see the world destroyed - he wanted to break the Avengers, and he succeeded. The same can be said about The Dark Knight's Joker, who did want to watch the world burn, but on a metaphysical level.

This cannot be said about other villains. Zod wanted to destroy the world, Malekith and Ronan wanted to rule/destroy the universe, HYDRA wanted to rule the world. There are variations, of course, but they all follow the same premise - bigger is better.

And this isn't the case - even the loop found by the Russos for The Winter Soldier is still a cliché (to change the world you need to destroy it), picked up by others (Kingpin, who might be the best villain of the MCU). And that is because it also talks about the same lame motive - establishing a new order.

This list could be all about the villains - but this is the most important and irritating cliché used in relation to them.

The Nazis did it

This was a great intro for Magneto, even if it relied on another cliché (death of someone loved, in this case the mother). However, it appears that every other superhero movie relies on the same principles and ideas of the despised party.

Thus, HYDRA is a branch and supports the same ideology. I guess that happens when the major antagonist of the shared universe (as seen until now) spawns from this ideology and is all about world domination. The same can be said about Zod and his plan to further the creation of the perfect Kryptonians, while literally killing Earth’s entire population.

For that matter, The Avengers (the movie in which an Asgardian, member of a superior race, was the antagonist) contains a pretty clear reference, when Loki is called out by an old German. But, after all, this ideology is the one everybody can hate.

Or maybe it isn't. All in all, this has something to do with the villains and their motivations. You'd think that in 70 years of history some other real-life evil doers would have walked the face of the Earth (speaking of which, Iron Man had an awesome chance, but blew it).

You only live twice

In the comics, the characters cannot stay dead. Which is fine, and I don't have a problem with it. However, on the big screen, things don't work so well when a hero (or, very rarely, a villain) is brought back to life. It simply steals from the tension of a movie.

Coulson is, by far, the biggest of all offenders, with his death's significance being annulled once he returned to life. We can also mentioned Professor X (disintegrated and then, in the same movie, revealed to be alive), Nick Fury, Bucky Barnes, and, of course, Superman (in this case, this is a double offense, since it was actually revealed in the same film that he lives - as if we didn't see it coming).

And then, of course, there is Loki and there is also Zod, both villains being brought back to life, just because the script needed a good villain (maybe this isn't so for the latter).

If a hero dies, it has an impact on the entire shared universe - reviving him as soon as possible makes me wonder if there is an actual threat in the shared universe for him. If a villain dies (as it happens so often), maybe he should stay dead.

If not, maybe the villain shouldn't die, at all. After all, he is facing heroes and not killers.

Disposable armies

This is the case for all of the ensemble movies - whether it is the Chitauri or whether it is the zombies/whatever from Suicide Squad, we cannot get rid of them for good. I get it - the heroes must battle someone until they face the big baddie of the movie. And cannon fodder is thus essential. Not even Deadpool escaped this cliché, even if it played wonderfully in the end (spelling a name with dead bodies is always awesome).

And until the studios decide to have the teams face equally powerful villains, I don't see this changing. The Parademons will follow in the Justice League flick. And I can bet that Thanos will bring an army as well (as if he actually needs one).

As awesome as The Avengers was, the entire third act was a mess. Especially considering that Black Widow and Hawkeye can take on the same opponents as Hulk and Thor. It's even worse for Suicide Squad, which has even greater inconsistencies.

As said, unfortunately, I don't see the superhero genre getting rid of this cliché anytime soon.

Fridging

Can anyone explain what purpose Lois Lane had in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, besides being rescued and utterly dumb? Or, for that matter, what was the point in having Jane Foster in Thor: The Dark World, other than being a vessel for the Ether?

Thank god Wonder Woman is coming, to see men being rescued for a change"¦

This is a cliché since the beginning of time, and it is in no way limited to superhero films. Whether the name is Lois, Jane, Mary-Jane, Gwen, or whatever, superhero films almost always rely on the superhero having to save the damsel in distress (who is always connected in some way to the superhero). It is as if the writers cannot pen a multidimensional female character.

Thank god Wonder Woman is coming. I do hope Warner Bros. doesn't mess her up (I giggled when I heard Gal Gadot telling Chris Pine that she makes her own decisions).

Of course, I should mention Gamora, who kicked all sorts of butt, being saved just once in an entire movie"¦

No law makes sense

This is a common place for the superhero universes that tend to be realistic in their description of the world. So, basically, this cliché is about all the shared universes of the moment. Thus, as it is clearly said in Captain America: Civil War, the heroes are actually vigilantes. And they are, basically, breaking the law each time they act.

However, even if so, the law doesn't actually exist for these heroes. Sure, Superman is called for a hearing in front of the Senate and the Sokovian Accords are written. However, does it surprise anybody that the heroes actually escape from justice in the end? I guess not. So the law has no significance.

Even more than that, it doesn't make any sense. Take Superman who battles actual gods and prevents them from destroying the world at the cost of a single city. Or take the Avengers, who destroy only one city at a time, thus preventing the world from being obliterated. Should any of the heroes stand trial, even if their acts aren't exactly legal?

I guess we need another Civil War to delve into this issue.

Over-complicated schemes

Guardians of the Galaxy was pretty awesome from this point of view - Ronan wanted the Orb, Ronan got the Orb, Ronan was destroyed. And there are a few other movies that are pretty basic. Which is great.

And then there are the others - The Avengers, basically the entire Dark Knight Trilogy, Iron Man 3, The Winter Soldier, Civil War, and then some. In these movies, it is unbelievable how improbable the plans of the villains are; they always rely on events they can’t even be sure will occur.

And even if the movies turn out to be great (The Dark Knight, Civil War), you still end up being amazed at how lucky the villains are. And this greatly reduces their evil, scheming aura.

Unfortunately, this trend will continue. Apparently, Darkseid is after the Anti-Life Equation and he will probably have one hell of a plan to get it. And then there is Thanos, with a plan to end all plans (if he had one in the first place, involving giving away an Infinity Stone, empowering an enemy, creating superpowerful superheroes, and what not).

Anthropocentrism

Yes, it is pretty obvious why every shared universe is anthropocentric. After all, almost every movie thus far took place on Earth. However, this issue comes to life once we discover that the Universe is actually quite big and quite populated.

Guardians of the Galaxy had this amazing chance of bringing us the Star Wars  of comic book movies. It wasn't, since the main character is an Earthling. Furthermore, the species are all humanoid - but this will change once Ego the Living Planet arrives.

However, the issues still remain for all the shared universes, with the Earth being at the center of it all. In the comics, there are numerous and awesome alien species. And I do wonder why nobody makes a movie about them.

In the next episode"¦

And here is the biggest issue with all shared universes - while the movies do work on their own (most of the time, anyway), they work better if the viewer has previous knowledge of what has happened before. Even worse, there are hints and details all over the place about what will happen in the next installment.

In the MCU at least, there are plenty of scenes that could have been edited out. Take Thor's visit to the Norn cave. Or consider the Collector cameos. Or the Thanos appearances for that matter. The movies are simply riddled with these sorts of scenes.

I am not the first one to say that Captain America: The First Avenger was the set-up for The Avengers.

The DCEU, with just 3 movies, is not far behind. I guess this is the role of credits scenes, right? But what point did the Justice League cameos have in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice? No point at all. The movie simply stopped, to show us that more will follow in the following years.

And this, basically, can ruin a film, making it too hard to follow and too dense.

What do you think? What other clichés should be mentioned here?