Alright, so this has been bothering me for awhile. There is a lot of tropes that people keep telling me NOT to use. However, there are other works that have used these tropes, and were well-received despite this. Let's give some examples. People tell me that villains have to have a believable motivation, and be somewhat three-dimensional. Frollo in The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a good example. But what about Maleficent? (From the original 1959 Sleeping Beauty, not the crappy reboot film.) Her evil acts were just the result of not being invited (either that, or just for fun). Despite this, she's one of the most popular and beloved Disney villains. I'm also told not to have my characters be one-note archetypes. But the recent Nickelodeon series The Loud House has been well-received despite all of Lincoln's sisters being common archetypes we've seen in many previous cartoons. (Like the creepy goth girl, the science nerd who talks with a lisp, the polar opposite tomboy and girly-girl twins, the bitchy teen, the ditzy teen, the comedian who tells bad jokes, the rocker, the sports-lover, etc.) Also, The Book of Life used a BUNCH of Disney-style cliches like the love triangle, the rebellious teen who doesn't want to do what their elders tell them, the girl who does things women aren't allowed to do in this society, etc. Despite this, the film is really well-liked, and I can't figure out why. So, is this a sign that tropes are just tools, and not inherently good or bad? What did these works do that made them work? Am I allowed to use these tropes if I do something similar to what made them work here?