[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Flower

I think this could be one reference point for a working definition of "pandering" ... but pandering has a negative connotation imo, and re-using a "trope" sometimes works for many diff reasons: method of presentation could be one, but also the love of the staff, director, etc. for the subject coming through can sometimes make something "work".

Tropes are perfectly legitimate literary mechanisms. I'm not saying that writers should actively avoid tropes, and such a thing is likely even impossible.

But... and this is hard to convey, but I'll try anyway... I can kind of tell when a show is just a mechanical assemblage of tropes with little thought to how they help serve the broader narrative or theme (and pretty much without exception, from what I've seen at least, such mechanical assemblages arise from excessive pandering). I can also kind of tell when tropes are being used judiciously, to serve the broader work.

The tropes exist to serve the narrative and its characters, the narrative doesn't exist to showcase the tropes. That's they key, in my opinion. Well, with the possible exception of a comedy, anyway.

One could argue where the reason for something working comes from, but there are occasions where using tropes does "work".

Oh, certainly.

So maybe demanding solely on originality as a criteria might be stepping into dangerous territory.

Of course.

I'm just saying that it's generally good to aim for originality in at least some aspects of a creative work. Things that are totally generic usually don't get noticed, after all.