Character arc and story

[RylenolFlu]

Alot of the time you hear gurus saying how the character must be different at the end of the film than he/she was at the beginning, so I have been pondering this question lately: How many characters need to have an arc in a story? Now I know it would vary from story to story, but generally, is the protagonist the one character that has the arc and not the antagonist. Watching Gladiator actually got me to thinking about this. I think an argument can be made that both Maximus and Commodus remain relatively the same throughout the entire film. What about Maximus, besides his circumstances, really changes? Commodus remains the deceitful and nasty person throughout the entire film. Just wondering what everyone thinks.

[ImagineAZ]

Most stories feature a protagonist who changes during the course of a film, but not always. Generally, if you have a protagonist who doesn't change, you're making a point with the fact that he never changes, OR you're writing a complicated but not very complex story, like an action film.

The Gladiator went from being the soldier and family man to being almost a hollow shell while he was being forced to fight. Then when faced with the possibility of facing the emperor, he found a reason to continue living. But you're right - he remained a man of great honor from beginning to end. I think you could say that the events of the story transformed him from happy to lost to focused, but he never underwent a real change of character.

[gp101]

James Bond hasn't changed through what, 30 movies? I still love him.

That said, yeah most MCs go through a character arc that leaves them changed. Yours might not, depending on the story. An action/adventure would be more about plot than character (though of course you can't ignore character ever). The enjoyment of the story could be watching how clever, determined, strong your MC is while he reaches his goal. He will still have an arc, but it may not leave the MC a "changed" person at the end.

Like with Maximus. The honorable, brave general is reduced to someone with no hope, no reason to live. Circumstances then provide him a reason to live (to gain revenge) and he is a changed person once again, relying on his training and determination while he pursues his goal. My memory is a little foggy about the ending, but I think at the end he winds up very near to the same person he was at the beginning in regards to what type of person he is, not what he does (he's no longer a general but still a leader of men). Not 100% sure about the end though.

All that said, yeah a lot of movies have characters that are somehow transformed, for the better or worse, by the end of the story. Ask around for examples of movies where the MC doesn't change much by the end and watch those movies for examples, if that's the type of story you want to write.

Good luck.

[HeronW]

I don't think a change has to be major, or there can be several minor changes that forces my MC to wonder why she's doing this, will it ever get any easier, will she always feel like she's losing even though she and her friends destroyed a great evil.

[Plot Device]

One script reader said that there are three critical elements that all scripts must have: 1) Concept,2) Plot, and 3) Theme. And he also said that the resulting Character Arc will be inextricably intertwined with the theme. He used Liar Liar as an example:

1) Concept -- A man can't lie
2) Plot -- This phenomenon happens because the man's frustrated son makes a wish, and so now the man's job as a courtroom lawyer gets confounded by his inability to lie.
3) Theme -- The man needs to learn that his family should take precedence over his job.

So of course we watched Jim Carrey spend 90 minutes thrashing around with his inability to lie. And then by film's end, he learned that he needs to put his family first



As for Gladiator, I think Maximus was the classic "reluctant hero" because he at first refused the job of emperor, but by the end of Act 2 he was ready to march an entire army against Rome. It was a long journey for his conscience to get there. His arc was our following all of his many choices to get involved or not to get involved.

One of the most memorable of such choices he made was when he and the other slaves were forced into the gladiatorial ring. He chose to take on a role of leadership with the other slaves/gladiators and to show them how to fight together "as one." Then when he had the confidence of the other men, the tigers charged forth and Maximus and the other slaves defeated the tigers and it was entirely because of Maximus.

[Plot Device]

The movie Jaws had a very very bogus, tiny, little character arc for Chief Brody: stop being afraid of the water. It was quite itsy bitsy in comparison to the huge colossal plot of needing to get rid of the shark. (That was a Spielberg film, BTW.)

In a similar vein, Indiana Jones from the original Raiders of the Lost Ark had a fear of snakes. (Another Spielberg film, coincidentally.)

The recent DaVinci Code also had a flimsy excuse for a character arc: Tom Hanks' character was claustrophobic and needed to get over his fear of enclosed spaces. (A Ron Howard film, and Howard is good buddies with Spielberg.)



I guess the moral of the story is:

When your film needs to be primarilly driven by action and suspense, and you don't have time for one of those pesky character arcs, cook up an on-the-spot phobia for your main protag and that'll do. (Must be the Spielberg school of how to do a movie. But who am I to argue with Spielberg, right?)

[ImagineAZ]

I think that the gladiator is a classic example of steadfast character. It was a tale of what a strong, simple, honest, honorable man will do when asked for help or when confronted with evil. Every decision was based on what he felt was needed, not on a change in his attitude or his views. Archetypal courage and honor.

In fact, he was planning to be emperor. He wanted to go home, but after his conversation with Marcus Aurelius, he immediately told Cicero that they would not be going home after all.

Powerful stuff.

[dpaterso]

There was an odd moment in GLADIATOR when they almost threw Maximus's vaunted honor away. When he became the most popular gladiator in Oliver Reed's school, pleasing the crowds, he butchered four men in the arena as if they were something he'd scraped off his shoe. That was a cold moment that severely dented his hero rating. Gotta watch out for those little blips that can tarnish or ruin a carefully constructed character.

-Derek

[ImagineAZ]

Ah yes. He seemed to make little of their lives.

My impression of that scene was that he was equating the enemies in the arena with the arena itself. He seemed to have little care for the enemies in any arena, as it seemed that those men were there by choice, as opposed to the prisoners with whom he fought.

[ImagineAZ]

I just read the Gladiator script, and it says absolutely nothing about his demeanor or facial expressions or anything else during battles. It just says things like "Maximus slices through the enemies with ease." I think if the script was meant to demonstrate the idea that his sense of honor was wavering, or that honor was becoming less important, the script would have said something like "Maximus watches the body fall, then spits on the corpse."

[dpaterso]

Fair enough, tho' this seems like a missed opportunity to show character growth/arc -- the merciless soldier learns to appreciate the value of life. Maybe they were saving this for the big arena fight with the former champion? But it could equally have worked along the way, to mellow Maximus's ruthless character. Honor on its own isn't enough.

-Derek

[clockwork]

The movie Jaws had a very very bogus, tiny, little character arc for Chief Brody: stop being afraid of the water. It was quite itsy bitsy in comparison to the huge colossal plot of needing to get rid of the shark. (That was a Spielberg film, BTW.)

Brody's arc isn't getting over his fear of the water. Give him (and Spielberg) a bit of credit. His character is far deeper than that. The film isn't really even about a shark, it's about a guy finding his way in a new world that he isn't really at home in. He's afraid of the water and lives on an island - it's your classic fish out of water set up.

Outwardly Brody likes Amity, "Here, one man can make a difference" but he knows he's not particularly happy because he's both demanded and rejected at the same time. The locals badger him for every little thing but they think he's a sissy. He lives in Amity but he and his family will "never be islanders." He's the chief of police but the mayor countermands him at every turn and yet he's the one that gets slapped in the face by a grieving mother when her son dies.

He's a guy being pulled in every direction and he has no idea of how to be all things to everyone or where he really belongs. Most importantly, his family, who he moved for a better life is also worn down by the island - his son is attacked by the shark, his wife grows distant the more he tries to face up to his official responsibilities and by the time he goes out to sea, she is in tears and he's facing a very uncertain future.

Brody really wants to make a go of it in Amity but when the shark comes along, (which is really just a metaphor for the violence and bloodshed he ran away from in New York) he is forced to confront something that threatens to stop him from finding his place and settling down. He has to stop running and become what he believes he needs to be in order to get his life back on track, whatever the cost, whatever he has to do, whether it's going out to sea despite hating the water, looking like a bumpkin in comparison to Hooper and Quint or telling the mayor what needs to be heard - "You're gonna sign it, Larry. You're gonna sign it so I hire Quint to kill the shark," - would he have dared say that to the mayor at the beginning of the film? No. This is a man that is changing and by the end of the film, once he has personally destroyed the threat, after everyone else has failed and he's paddling back to shore, we are left with the distinct impression that once he gets back, things will have changed.

In summary; a scared man gets brave - exactly what you said - but that fear and bravery runs far deeper and more abstractly than you seem to realise.

And I won't belabour it but Indy's arc has nothing whatsoever to do with getting over a fear of snakes. It's about him realising he wants Marion more than the ark - that he wants love more than trinkets.

He initially seeks Marion out for an object, a thing, and discovers she has become something of an object herself. Soon after, he is forced into a partnership he doesn't want. Then, throughout the course of the film, he chases both Marion and the ark but it seems quite clear he values the ark more - tying up Marion in the tent rather than simply escaping with her, for example. But then it starts to get a little fuzzy. When he swims over to the submarine that has taken both the ark and Marion, we're left wondering who is he chasing now? We are soon left with no doubt as Indy threatens to blow up the ark with a bazooka - "All I want is there girl," - and finally, if there were any doubt left, despite his bad meeting with the government types at the end, he still chooses to walk away from the ark and leave with Marion. This is a guy who has discovered there is a greater reward is saving the people he loves over the relics that don't love him back.

I haven't seen DaVinci Code but saying it has a Spielberg connection and therefore a bogus character arc seems like bogus reasoning. I'm sure there's more at play in that film (however bad it is) than a simple case of conquering claustrophobia.

[Plot Device]

Honor on its own isn't enough.

It was enough to

a) gross $450 million at the world wide box office
b) win 5 Oscars including Best Picture for that lack-of-an-arc story, as well as Best Actor for it's previously-not-too-well-known-by-the-general-public star



:D :tongue

[Plot Device]

Aw ... Chris! :( You're usually such a sweetheart on these boards. But, ouch! I guess I hit a raw nerve/sacred cow with you by picking at Spielberg (and I love Speilberg, btw).

You analysis/defense of Jaws has merit. Raiders, I'd have to think about (beyond Marion, there was the added plot element of keeping Hitler from getting his hands on the Ark because he could like maybe conquor the world with it).

The DaVinci Code had the additional "arc" of Hanks' character feeling slighted by the statements made by Audre Toutou's father before his death, and so Hanks had to get over that perceived insult.


I made the "Spielberg connection" to be sardonic, not to be serious. I do love that man and his body of work and all he's done for cinema.

[clockwork]

Hey - I didn't mean to sound pissed. I just think these are clear character arcs.

Raiders, I'd have to think about (beyond Marion, there was the added plot element of keeping Hitler from getting his hands on the Ark because he could like maybe conquor the world with it).

"All I want is the girl" is all you need to pay attention to in Raiders. Compare that to his earlier lines, "I had it Marcus, I had it in my hands!" And it's quite clear this is a guy who's changed.

He kind of reboots to his old self in the sequels but the same arc eventually comes to bare; choosing to save the people he cares about over the object he's chasing.

[dpaterso]

It was enough to

a) gross $450 million at the world wide box office
b) win 5 Oscars including Best Picture for that lack-of-an-arc story, as well as Best Actor for it's previously-not-too-well-known-by-the-general-public star

:D :tongue
Well sure, but are we lauding the film or jawin' about character arcs? (Or lack thereof.) :)

-Derek

[Plot Device]

No worries, Chris! :)

I guess part of me is STILL taking personally a very polite rejection I got from a prodco last summer. After they took 3 months to read my script they said their biggest problem was that my main protag's character arc wasn't pronounced enough and he seemed to simply be a reactive character, walking through the adventure with no discernable inward change. I thought it was a plenty strong arc, but they said they wanted it to be far more pronounced than what I presented, and also didn't like that he was an ulitmately noble person (the same way that Indie and Maximus are noble) and they prefer a grittier main protag. I am now hyper-sensitive to a possible LACK of a BLATANT arc in other scripts, and so this thread in particular caught my eye today.

But I'm being read right now by another prodco. So the dream is still alive. :cool:

[Plot Device]

Well sure, but are we lauding the film or jawin' about character arcs? (Or lack thereof.) :)

-Derek


Wel, Derek, get a look at the response I made to Chris just now (Post #17) and read between the Fruedian lines of that reply ........ ;)


... I guess what we're REALLY jawin' about here is whether a "lack" of an arc is indeed a "lack" at all. :D

[clockwork]

No worries, Chris! :)

I guess part of me is STILL taking personally a very polite rejection I got from a prodco last summer. After they took 3 months to read my script they said their biggest problem was that my main protag's character arc wasn't pronounced enough and he seemed to simply be a reactive character, walking through the adventure with no discernable inward change. I thought it was a plenty strong arc, but they said they wanted it to be far more pronounced than what I presented, and also didn't like that he was an ulitmately noble person (the same way that Indie and Maximus are noble) and they prefer a grittier main protag. I am now hyper-sensitive to a possible LACK of a BLATANT arc in other scripts, and so this thread in particular caught my eye today.

But I'm being read right now by another prodco. So the dream is still alive. :cool:

I think sometimes we mistake simplicity for absence. I see how people could assume that Brody and Indy are stock characters that don't change because there's so much window-dressing that comes with them. But I love Jaws and Raiders for Brody and Indy, not the shark and not the ark so there must be more to them than meets the eye.

And try not to take rejections personally. You'll end up putting a gun in your mouth if do. :)

[Plot Device]

The day job keep me busy. ;)

[ImagineAZ]

Fair enough, tho' this seems like a missed opportunity to show character growth/arc -- the merciless soldier learns to appreciate the value of life. Maybe they were saving this for the big arena fight with the former champion? But it could equally have worked along the way, to mellow Maximus's ruthless character. Honor on its own isn't enough.

-Derek

I actually think the lack of a character arc is part of the story's strength. I know I felt the power of that movie when I first saw it, and it probably emanated from the unwavering sense of justice that the gladiator shows. Perhaps we could say that revenge played a bigger role than justice, and maybe he would not have taken the same path if it was another family that was unjustly murdered. But even standing there dying at the end, his final order was to restore the democracy.

The only reason I'm laboring on the point is that it seems to me such a great example of what Robert McKee said about theme being demonstrated by lack of character arc in the protagonist. I finally get it haha.

[Plot Device]

I guess this might be what made Maximus so relateable and well-liked by millions and milions of peope the world over. SO FRIGGING MANY FILMS try to tell us: "You really probably could stand some improvement to your personal conduct and your general outlook on life." But this movie said: "Maximus is fine just the way he is. But life sucks, and the suckiness of life and the evilness of others encroached upon his private little piece of happiness, and now it's his job to get society to change, not his job to get himself to change." And therefore, we of the audience vicariously were being told the same thing. I think it's reassuring to SOMETIMES be told "you're fine exactly the way you are."

Gladiator was very much modeled after Braveheart (in fact, Mel Gibson turned down the role of Maximus explaining: "I'm too old, mate"), and so William Wallace was yet another character whose arc wasn't one of inward change, just of answering the call to duty.



::ETA::

But I guess that's the trade-off, then (do you think?) A "perfect just the way you are" kind of a character CAN'T be permitted to live by film's end. Such a character MUST die perhaps. He's so perfect he's rivalling God himself, and so that makes him a messiah-character --a savior. And all (or most) messianic characters have to die. If they don't die, then they must change (or vice-versa). Agree?

In that same vein of thought, Tom Cruise's character from the Mission Impossible series has repeatedly been positioned as a messianic character, but he also never dies. Check out the imagery at the very begining of MI:2 when Crusie is rock-climbing. He turns and faces the camera while hanging by his fingertips from the cliff, and both his arms are spread apart at his sides in crucifixion-fashion. So what was Cruise's arc/flaw in ANY of the three MI films?

[nmstevens]

Brody's arc isn't getting over his fear of the water. Give him (and Spielberg) a bit of credit. His character is far deeper than that. The film isn't really even about a shark, it's about a guy finding his way in a new world that he isn't really at home in. He's afraid of the water and lives on an island - it's your classic fish out of water set up.

Outwardly Brody likes Amity, "Here, one man can make a difference" but he knows he's not particularly happy because he's both demanded and rejected at the same time. The locals badger him for every little thing but they think he's a sissy. He lives in Amity but he and his family will "never be islanders." He's the chief of police but the mayor countermands him at every turn and yet he's the one that gets slapped in the face by a grieving mother when her son dies.

He's a guy being pulled in every direction and he has no idea of how to be all things to everyone or where he really belongs. Most importantly, his family, who he moved for a better life is also worn down by the island - his son is attacked by the shark, his wife grows distant the more he tries to face up to his official responsibilities and by the time he goes out to sea, she is in tears and he's facing a very uncertain future.

Brody really wants to make a go of it in Amity but when the shark comes along, (which is really just a metaphor for the violence and bloodshed he ran away from in New York) he is forced to confront something that threatens to stop him from finding his place and settling down. He has to stop running and become what he believes he needs to be in order to get his life back on track, whatever the cost, whatever he has to do, whether it's going out to sea despite hating the water, looking like a bumpkin in comparison to Hooper and Quint or telling the mayor what needs to be heard - "You're gonna sign it, Larry. You're gonna sign it so I hire Quint to kill the shark," - would he have dared say that to the mayor at the beginning of the film? No. This is a man that is changing and by the end of the film, once he has personally destroyed the threat, after everyone else has failed and he's paddling back to shore, we are left with the distinct impression that once he gets back, things will have changed.

In summary; a scared man gets brave - exactly what you said - but that fear and bravery runs far deeper and more abstractly than you seem to realise.

And I won't belabour it but Indy's arc has nothing whatsoever to do with getting over a fear of snakes. It's about him realising he wants Marion more than the ark - that he wants love more than trinkets.

He initially seeks Marion out for an object, a thing, and discovers she has become something of an object herself. Soon after, he is forced into a partnership he doesn't want. Then, throughout the course of the film, he chases both Marion and the ark but it seems quite clear he values the ark more - tying up Marion in the tent rather than simply escaping with her, for example. But then it starts to get a little fuzzy. When he swims over to the submarine that has taken both the ark and Marion, we're left wondering who is he chasing now? We are soon left with no doubt as Indy threatens to blow up the ark with a bazooka - "All I want is there girl," - and finally, if there were any doubt left, despite his bad meeting with the government types at the end, he still chooses to walk away from the ark and leave with Marion. This is a guy who has discovered there is a greater reward is saving the people he loves over the relics that don't love him back.

I haven't seen DaVinci Code but saying it has a Spielberg connection and therefore a bogus character arc seems like bogus reasoning. I'm sure there's more at play in that film (however bad it is) than a simple case of conquering claustrophobia.

I'd just like to weigh in on a couple of points on the subject of Jaws.

First -- and perhaps the biggest point.

Stephen Spielberg is a very talented fellow. But he is a talented *director.*

He did not write Jaws. He didn't write the book and he didn't write the screenplay. The screenplay was written by Peter Benchley and Carl Gottlieb. The "Indianapolis" monologue was written by Howard Sackler, John Milius and re-written by Robert Shaw.

I can't tell you how much it bugs me when people talk about, "Well Spielberg shaped the character arc to be this, that, and the other thing" -- No -- the *writer* did. The writer of the screenplay, who created the characters, who invented the scenes, who wrote the dialogue -- he is the one who created the character arc (such as it is).

Not the Director.

This is a kind of lazy shorthand that critics use, wrongly, all the time. I just hate to see it being used here, on a screenwriting newsgroup.

Second, regarding Brody's character arc -- which, of course, has to do with the larger theme of this story.

This is a story that is, thematically, about redemption. Brody is someone who has fled from the big city to a small town, to escape from the dangers and responsibilities of that world -- and where does he find himself? What does that fear of water signify?

He comes here to escape the hard moral choices that come with being a cop in a big city - life and death choices. That is what he fears -- and instead, finds himself morally and thus, thematically, "in over his head."

And what happens? When presented with the first tough choice as Sheriff -- he balks. He makes the wrong the choice. Everything tells him that a shark has killed the girl in the opening scene. He knows it's a shark. He doesn't change his mind because he thinks it isn't. He changes his mind because he's pressured by the Mayor and his cronies. He goes along so as to not make waves.

And what is the result? An innocent boy is killed. The hard choices he tried to escape -- the "waters" that he feared, he now finds himself swimming in. He couldn't escape them after all. And he's failed, disastrously. And he keeps floundering, keeps trying *not* to swim -- let others fix it, the coast guard, the Marine Biologist Expert, anyone but him, and what's the result? There is yet another death, and his own son is almost killed.

And finally, he realizes that there is only one choice. There is no escape. In order to redeem himself, he is going to have to take full moral responsibity -- it can't be passed on to anyone else. He has to close the beaches. He has to get the boat -- and he has to be the one to go out into those waters and risk everything -- his own life -- to make it right.

And when he has finally made it right -- when he has embraced the full moral responsibility that he had been ducking all along -- then he is, symbolically, "no longer afraid of the water."

That is what Jaws is about.

(And the Da Vinci Code is just a complete piece of crap that isn't even worth thinking about).

NMS

[Plot Device]

I can't tell you how much it bugs me when people talk about, "Well Spielberg shaped the character arc to be this, that, and the other thing" -- No -- the *writer* did. The writer of the screenplay, who created the characters, who invented the scenes, who wrote the dialogue -- he is the one who created the character arc (such as it is).

Not the Director.

This is a kind of lazy shorthand that critics use, wrongly, all the time. I just hate to see it being used here, on a screenwriting newsgroup.


Sorry, NMS, I started this conundrum by being a dark jokester this morning in this thread. My humor was ill-received and thus probably ill-conceived. My bad.

And I'm a huge proponent of championing Peter Benchley as the writer of Jaws. I mean no disrespect to him (and the other writers).

Second, regarding Brody's character arc -- which, of course, has to do with the larger theme of this story.

This is a story that is, thematically, about redemption. Brody is someone who has fled from the big city to a small town, to escape from the dangers and responsibilities of that world -- and where does he find himself? What does that fear of water signify?

He comes here to escape the hard moral choices that come with being a cop in a big city - life and death choices. That is what he fears -- and instead, finds himself morally and thus, thematically, "in over his head."

And what happens? When presented with the first tough choice as Sheriff -- he balks. He makes the wrong the choice. Everything tells him that a shark has killed the girl in the opening scene. He knows it's a shark. He doesn't change his mind because he thinks it isn't. He changes his mind because he's pressured by the Mayor and his cronies. He goes along so as to not make waves.

And what is the result? An innocent boy is killed. The hard choices he tried to escape -- the "waters" that he feared, he now finds himself swimming in. He couldn't escape them after all. And he's failed, disastrously. And he keeps floundering, keeps trying *not* to swim -- let others fix it, the coast guard, the Marine Biologist Expert, anyone but him, and what's the result? There is yet another death, and his own son is almost killed.

And finally, he realizes that there is only one choice. There is no escape. In order to redeem himself, he is going to have to take full moral responsibity -- it can't be passed on to anyone else. He has to close the beaches. He has to get the boat -- and he has to be the one to go out into those waters and risk everything -- his own life -- to make it right.

And when he has finally made it right -- when he has embraced the full moral responsibility that he had been ducking all along -- then he is, symbolically, "no longer afraid of the water."

That is what Jaws is about.

You and Chris both gave great analyses. Thanks.

[Plot Device]

One more thing I want to apologise for in this thread: I saw Jaws in the theatres when I was just 10 years old, and it was the film that first sparked my imagination to truly look at the art of filmmaking. But I was still just 10 years old. The maturity level in my ability to grasp those deeper aspects of the movie just weren't there.

I have seen Jaws several more times since reaching adulthood, but not one of those re-screenings were at a time in my life (more than five years ago) when I was considering film as a career. So I was never (during those adult screenings) able to embark upon the same sort of deep-shit analysis of the film that I am now capable of via my (only very recent) formal film training.

I realize that some people in this thread are much younger than I am, and so their exposure to the film is liekly via the 30-year anniversary edition of Jaws with all the cool commentary in it that I keep hearing about. But for me, the bulk of my life-long perceptions of the film come from my very first screening in a movie theatre back when I was just 10. So I guess it's time for a re-watch by me.

[clockwork]

I'd just like to weigh in on a couple of points on the subject of Jaws.

First -- and perhaps the biggest point.

Stephen Spielberg is a very talented fellow. But he is a talented *director.*

He did not write Jaws. He didn't write the book and he didn't write the screenplay. The screenplay was written by Peter Benchley and Carl Gottlieb. The "Indianapolis" monologue was written by Howard Sackler, John Milius and re-written by Robert Shaw.

I can't tell you how much it bugs me when people talk about, "Well Spielberg shaped the character arc to be this, that, and the other thing" -- No -- the *writer* did. The writer of the screenplay, who created the characters, who invented the scenes, who wrote the dialogue -- he is the one who created the character arc (such as it is).

Not the Director.

This is a kind of lazy shorthand that critics use, wrongly, all the time. I just hate to see it being used here, on a screenwriting newsgroup.

Second, regarding Brody's character arc -- which, of course, has to do with the larger theme of this story.

This is a story that is, thematically, about redemption. Brody is someone who has fled from the big city to a small town, to escape from the dangers and responsibilities of that world -- and where does he find himself? What does that fear of water signify?

He comes here to escape the hard moral choices that come with being a cop in a big city - life and death choices. That is what he fears -- and instead, finds himself morally and thus, thematically, "in over his head."

And what happens? When presented with the first tough choice as Sheriff -- he balks. He makes the wrong the choice. Everything tells him that a shark has killed the girl in the opening scene. He knows it's a shark. He doesn't change his mind because he thinks it isn't. He changes his mind because he's pressured by the Mayor and his cronies. He goes along so as to not make waves.

And what is the result? An innocent boy is killed. The hard choices he tried to escape -- the "waters" that he feared, he now finds himself swimming in. He couldn't escape them after all. And he's failed, disastrously. And he keeps floundering, keeps trying *not* to swim -- let others fix it, the coast guard, the Marine Biologist Expert, anyone but him, and what's the result? There is yet another death, and his own son is almost killed.

And finally, he realizes that there is only one choice. There is no escape. In order to redeem himself, he is going to have to take full moral responsibity -- it can't be passed on to anyone else. He has to close the beaches. He has to get the boat -- and he has to be the one to go out into those waters and risk everything -- his own life -- to make it right.

And when he has finally made it right -- when he has embraced the full moral responsibility that he had been ducking all along -- then he is, symbolically, "no longer afraid of the water."

That is what Jaws is about.

(And the Da Vinci Code is just a complete piece of crap that isn't even worth thinking about).

NMS

Well, that's the beauty of a great film like Jaws. You see redemption, I see a guy looking for his place in the world. The two themes aren't that far removed from each other anyway. The point is, such a film has a whole world of themes and issues that are there to be interpreted. I've seen it read as a Vietnam retrospective, as an anti-feminist piece, as a homoerotic buddy flick, as a commentary on the downward spiral of America - the attack on family by outside elements - and the list goes on. It's a wonderful, richly-layered film.

As far as the script and writing goes, I think there were a lot of influences on this script from a range of sources. Spielberg did write a draft of the script albeit a very early one that was probably largely to trim the book down and allow the ideas that interested him to become visible.*

But I never said, "Well Spielberg shaped the character arc to be this, that, and the other thing." The initial point that PD made was about Spielberg and I said he deserved more credit. He may not have written the screenplay he shot but he certainly had a hand in how it was developed. I assume what you're saying is that no matter who shapes the characters during the development, the actual crafting and structure, the nuts and bolts, words on paper stuff comes down to the writer and as such, he should be credited and with that I completely agree.


* ETA: Spielberg wrote his draft of the script "after Benchley and before Sackler." (from the Jaws DVD)

[preyer]

sorry, had to skip ahead without reading all of the replies....

'raiders of the lost arc' used to make me wonder what the char. car was, too. i think it's his acceptance that there is a being higher than mankind. at the end, he realizes that it's not all mumbo-jumbo and tells marion not to watch, just don't watch, as everyone knows a mere mortal cannot hear nor see god directly ~ such a sight or sound would destroy them (that's why god usually has messengers. maybe i'm getting it a bit backwards, i'm no theologian by any stretch). his growth is spiritual. also, he repairs past damages that he caused marion (the implication was he used her, but at the end he has some kind of real relationship with her). on the surface, sure, i admit there doesn't seem to much of an arc, but, imo, there's quite a bit, subtle though it may be.

the other indy flicks are pretty obvious: 'temple of doom' establishes him as carry about nothing other than 'fortune and glory,' and at the end turns over those very objects that would have given him both, not only giving back the shankara stones, but hauling back those screaming little heathens. 'the last crusade' is even more blatant, reconnecting (or connecting for the first time on an adult level) with pops. shia lebouf will play indy's son, so, again, i think the char. arc there will be pretty obvious.

i think we have to use our imagination for 'gladiator' a bit, mostly because he dies. he accomplishes his initial wish of returning to his family. in the interim, he's consumed by revenge, and i think there's just enough there to connote the idea that he realizes his revenge was pointless. or something. (i think commodus was a co-emperor. lucious, as i recall, was an even worse emperor than commodus.)

does a character have to have an arc? i'd suggest they do, definitely. even those cheesy action flicks from the 80's had the hero get the girl in the end. not much of a change, really, but it's something. okay, action jackson's character arc is more of a flatline, but i'm sure he changed in there somewhere.

what about rambo's character arc? well, he was a man imprisoned inside himself. at the end we find out exactly why, and in the course of freeing himself a little bit (during his rant with his old boss in the shot up police station where he was certainly going to make his last stand had he not had the chance to vent), allows himself to be arrested and tossed into a real prison. ironic, eh? the message: it's better to be imprisoned with a free heart than be free with an imprisoned heart. sound plausible? i'm just making shit up if it's not obvious. (<--- sorta like gladiator, no? would he have gotten to the elysian fields with hate in his heart? that he accomplished his revenge is ancillary to the notion that he freed his heart from hatred, which is almost the key to any gate of any heaven, wouldn't you say? deeep....)

a contrived arc is one i loathe. it makes otherwise enjoyable flicks useless. it's the kind where the hero massacres a hundred henchmen towards the villain's inner sanctrum, then at the last minute decides not to kill the guy (nevermind the scores of others he wiped out). then the bad guy, instead of counting his lucky stars, does some stupid last ditch effort to get the hero and the hero has no choice but to dispatch him. blech. what dreck. revenge movies do this all the time, i've noticed, where the hero kills plenty of people and it's completely justified somehow. (the one exception, just because i like the movie so much, is 'the count of monte cristo,' the new version.)

[nmstevens]

sorry, had to skip ahead without reading all of the replies....

'raiders of the lost arc' used to make me wonder what the char. car was, too. i think it's his acceptance that there is a being higher than mankind. at the end, he realizes that it's not all mumbo-jumbo and tells marion not to watch, just don't watch, as everyone knows a mere mortal cannot hear nor see god directly ~ such a sight or sound would destroy them (that's why god usually has messengers. maybe i'm getting it a bit backwards, i'm no theologian by any stretch). his growth is spiritual. also, he repairs past damages that he caused marion (the implication was he used her, but at the end he has some kind of real relationship with her). on the surface, sure, i admit there doesn't seem to much of an arc, but, imo, there's quite a bit, subtle though it may be.

the other indy flicks are pretty obvious: 'temple of doom' establishes him as carry about nothing other than 'fortune and glory,' and at the end turns over those very objects that would have given him both, not only giving back the shankara stones, but hauling back those screaming little heathens. 'the last crusade' is even more blatant, reconnecting (or connecting for the first time on an adult level) with pops. shia lebouf will play indy's son, so, again, i think the char. arc there will be pretty obvious.

i think we have to use our imagination for 'gladiator' a bit, mostly because he dies. he accomplishes his initial wish of returning to his family. in the interim, he's consumed by revenge, and i think there's just enough there to connote the idea that he realizes his revenge was pointless. or something. (i think commodus was a co-emperor. lucious, as i recall, was an even worse emperor than commodus.)

does a character have to have an arc? i'd suggest they do, definitely. even those cheesy action flicks from the 80's had the hero get the girl in the end. not much of a change, really, but it's something. okay, action jackson's character arc is more of a flatline, but i'm sure he changed in there somewhere.

what about rambo's character arc? well, he was a man imprisoned inside himself. at the end we find out exactly why, and in the course of freeing himself a little bit (during his rant with his old boss in the shot up police station where he was certainly going to make his last stand had he not had the chance to vent), allows himself to be arrested and tossed into a real prison. ironic, eh? the message: it's better to be imprisoned with a free heart than be free with an imprisoned heart. sound plausible? i'm just making shit up if it's not obvious. (<--- sorta like gladiator, no? would he have gotten to the elysian fields with hate in his heart? that he accomplished his revenge is ancillary to the notion that he freed his heart from hatred, which is almost the key to any gate of any heaven, wouldn't you say? deeep....)

a contrived arc is one i loathe. it makes otherwise enjoyable flicks useless. it's the kind where the hero massacres a hundred henchmen towards the villain's inner sanctrum, then at the last minute decides not to kill the guy (nevermind the scores of others he wiped out). then the bad guy, instead of counting his lucky stars, does some stupid last ditch effort to get the hero and the hero has no choice but to dispatch him. blech. what dreck. revenge movies do this all the time, i've noticed, where the hero kills plenty of people and it's completely justified somehow. (the one exception, just because i like the movie so much, is 'the count of monte cristo,' the new version.)


A goal is not the same as an "arc" -- that is "Character wanting X and not having it" at the beginning and then "Character X having it" at the end doesn't mean that there is a character arc. It just means that the Character has gotten whatever it is that he wanted.

A Character arc means that a Character wants whatever he wants at the beginning and can't achieve it, not simply because of the physical obstacles that prevent him from getting it, but because there is an "internal" obstacle -- he can't achieve his objective because he is, at the beginning, a certain kind of person -- a person lacking certain qualities, or lacking a certain insight, or having certain wrong beliefs, or insufficiently grown up -- or whatever. So that, in order to achieve his goal, he doesn't simply have to overcome external obstacles -- that is, change the outsider world, he also has to change the *inside world* -- change himself -- and by changing himself, he can achieve the objective.

Simply lacking the objective at the beginning and achieving it at the end does not mean that the character has changed or gone through some "arc" or metamorphosis. Nor does experiencing physical or even emotional suffering or loss or trials. The question you have to answer in order to know whether there has truly been a character arc is -- is the person at the end of the movie a different person than the one at the beginning.

It is absolutely untrue that every protagonist experiences a "character arc" in the sense that his character changes from the beginning of the movie to the end.

In fact, there is a whole category of hero that does not change. These are heroes that embody abiding virtues -- generally they represent the forces of good, or civilization.

The way in which stories with these kinds of characters play out is that, representing the Forces of Right, they are challenged - that is, they are put in a position where their nature is tested -- but if they change, if they alter than nature, they will lose. The test, in the case of character like these, is not to change, but to hold fast to their nature. By holding fast to who and what they are -- they survive and win.

For a character like, say, Terry Malloy in On the Waterfront, the test for him, is to change. It is by changing that he wins. If he'd stayed the same, he would have lost in the end -- lost his soul.

But, for a character, say, like Sherlock Holmes (or James Bond, or John Wayne in countless westerns) who represent the forces of law and civilization -- they have to hold fast to who and what they are, against often overwhelming challenges. For them to change their underlying nature -- to become different people, would be a defeat.

Their victory likes in holding fast to their nature against challenge. And by *staying the same* -- they win.

And while I know that there is often a tremendous desire to fit a paradigm to everything, however tortured the fit -- an Arc that goes from A to A just plain ain't no Arc by any definition that I've ever seen.

NMS

[ImagineAZ]

I guess this might be what made Maximus so relateable and well-liked by millions and milions of peope the world over. SO FRIGGING MANY FILMS try to tell us: "You really probably could stand some improvement to your personal conduct and your general outlook on life." But this movie said: "Maximus is fine just the way he is. But life sucks, and the suckiness of life and the evilness of others encroached upon his private little piece of happiness, and now it's his job to get society to change, not his job to get himself to change." And therefore, we of the audience vicariously were being told the same thing. I think it's reassuring to SOMETIMES be told "you're fine exactly the way you are."

Gladiator was very much modeled after Braveheart (in fact, Mel Gibson turned down the role of Maximus explaining: "I'm too old, mate"), and so William Wallace was yet another character whose arc wasn't one of inward change, just of answering the call to duty.




::ETA::

But I guess that's the trade-off, then (do you think?) A "perfect just the way you are" kind of a character CAN'T be permitted to live by film's end. Such a character MUST die perhaps. He's so perfect he's rivalling God himself, and so that makes him a messiah-character --a savior. And all (or most) messianic characters have to die. If they don't die, then they must change (or vice-versa). Agree?

In that same vein of thought, Tom Cruise's character from the Mission Impossible series has repeatedly been positioned as a messianic character, but he also never dies. Check out the imagery at the very begining of MI:2 when Crusie is rock-climbing. He turns and faces the camera while hanging by his fingertips from the cliff, and both his arms are spread apart at his sides in crucifixion-fashion. So what was Cruise's arc/flaw in ANY of the three MI films?

Exactly! Also, as mentioned earlier in this thread: James Bond

[Plot Device]

Exactly! Also, as mentioned earlier in this thread: James Bond



I guess James Bond is an intresting exception. It's a somewhat unique and iconic stand-alone series of films, utterly separate from the rest of cinema, and responsible for launching an entire genre. So I don't think it can be expected to follow any stablished formulas since it WROTE an entire formula of its very own.

But then (sadly) the James Bond series kinda spiraled out of control after a few (gasp!) decades. The recent revisioning with Daniel Craig restored the dignity to the JB concept, I think, and also infused it with a new found grittiness and 21st Century brand of realism. And did the Daniel Craig version have an arc? Hmm .... not sure yet. Any thoughts?

[ImagineAZ]

This is going to sound bizarre, but I have never seen a James Bond film.

[dpaterso]

And did the Daniel Craig version have an arc? Hmm .... not sure yet. Any thoughts?
Tricky one, you could argue that his arc was to prove to M that he was a capable double-oh operative!

Kidding. Maybe. :)

I'd have to say no arc... tho' 007 was affected by events (including Eva Green's departure) along the way, as per the usual Bond formula.

By the end of course he's come full circle (hey, isn't a circle an arc?!) and is back where he started, the sauve supercool secret agent, licensed to kill, and thrill.

-Derek

[nmstevens]

I guess James Bond is an intresting exception. It's a somewhat unique and iconic stand-alone series of films, utterly separate from the rest of cinema, and responsible for launching an entire genre. So I don't think it can be expected to follow any stablished formulas since it WROTE an entire formula of its very own.

But then (sadly) the James Bond series kinda spiraled out of control after a few (gasp!) decades. The recent revisioning with Daniel Craig restored the dignity to the JB concept, I think, and also infused it with a new found grittiness and 21st Century brand of realism. And did the Daniel Craig version have an arc? Hmm .... not sure yet. Any thoughts?


Bond, in the sense of being a character who lacks an arc, isn't unique at all.

How many Sherlock Holmes movies have their been? And excluding the few that have messed around with the character, how many of them involve Holmes having a "character arc?" None. He's the same character at the beginning of your basic Sherlock Holmes movie as he is at the end.

Ditto with the Thin Man movies -- Nick and Nora Charles are exactly the same characters at the beginning of those movies as they are at the end.

No character arcs.

And there's nothing wrong with those movies. They work perfectly well.

NMS

[gp101]

The movie Jaws had a very very bogus, tiny, little character arc for Chief Brody: stop being afraid of the water. It was quite itsy bitsy in comparison to the huge colossal plot of needing to get rid of the shark. (That was a Spielberg film, BTW.)

I dunno... Jaws was one of the better screenplays I'd read in college, and one of my favorite movies, and I didn't see Brody in this light. His arc could be more accurately described as someone who stops playing the corporate game (keeping quiet to preserve the holiday earnings for the island), and does what's right. He stops being silent.


In a similar vein, Indiana Jones from the original Raiders of the Lost Ark had a fear of snakes. (Another Spielberg film, coincidentally.)

I thought the fear of snakes was a terrific character flaw--this guy who is combatting all these evil elements is afraid of snakes! Hilarious! And very humanizing. But it is only a character flaw. It is not the emphasis of his character arc. I don't even recall his arc, to be honest, only that I remeber it was secondary to his quest... that is, how he got to the end, what he did to get there.


The recent DaVinci Code also had a flimsy excuse for a character arc: Tom Hanks' character was claustrophobic and needed to get over his fear of enclosed spaces. (A Ron Howard film, and Howard is good buddies with Spielberg.)

Loved the book, hated the movie. But by picking Indy and DaVinci, you're treading murky waters in character arc terms. Sure, lots of action/adventures leave their characters changed, butn not all of them. As I said in my previous post, with this genre, a lot of times all you need is a steadfast character who shows his unwavering character by how he reacts to unbelievable circumstance. And the fun will be watching him win. As with James Bon, you don't necessarily need a changed character.


I guess the moral of the story is:

When your film needs to be primarilly driven by action and suspense, and you don't have time for one of those pesky character arcs, cook up an on-the-spot phobia for your main protag and that'll do. (Must be the Spielberg school of how to do a movie. But who am I to argue with Spielberg, right?)

Did you date Stevie and he never called back?

[gp101]

No worries, Chris! :)

I guess part of me is STILL taking personally a very polite rejection I got from a prodco last summer. After they took 3 months to read my script they said their biggest problem was that my main protag's character arc wasn't pronounced enough and he seemed to simply be a reactive character, walking through the adventure with no discernable inward change. I thought it was a plenty strong arc, but they said they wanted it to be far more pronounced than what I presented, and also didn't like that he was an ulitmately noble person (the same way that Indie and Maximus are noble) and they prefer a grittier main protag. I am now hyper-sensitive to a possible LACK of a BLATANT arc in other scripts, and so this thread in particular caught my eye today.

But I'm being read right now by another prodco. So the dream is still alive. :cool:

Ah hah! That's why your answers are so scewed. Just cuz one prodco says something is so, doesn't mean they're right. H'wood is littered with accounts of prodcos or studios turning down scripts for one reason or another only to kick themselves when the script and subsequent movie does well at th BO and/or at the Oscars.

Character arc certainly is important, but it's not the end-all. If your script is spot-on, I bet the charge regarding character arc is rubbish. If you were a name in H'wood, they wouldn't mention it. I would save that script as is, if you really like it, think it's sound... and try to sell something that "feeds" the machnie's needs for now. Then come back with the older script. I bet no one will cry "arc, arc!".

[preyer]

A goal is not the same as an "arc" -- that is "Character wanting X and not having it" at the beginning and then "Character X having it" at the end doesn't mean that there is a character arc. It just means that the Character has gotten whatever it is that he wanted. ~ maybe i'm wrong here, but i always considered character arc as being the same as character growth. when i say there needs to be an arc, i mean growth.

A Character arc means that a Character wants whatever he wants at the beginning and can't achieve it, not simply because of the physical obstacles that prevent him from getting it, but because there is an "internal" obstacle -- he can't achieve his objective because he is, at the beginning, a certain kind of person -- a person lacking certain qualities, or lacking a certain insight, or having certain wrong beliefs, or insufficiently grown up -- or whatever. So that, in order to achieve his goal, he doesn't simply have to overcome external obstacles -- that is, change the outsider world, he also has to change the *inside world* -- change himself -- and by changing himself, he can achieve the objective. ~ this is very akin to what i'm saying. the difference in what i'd said and this is worth noting. your way (and the way i've seen advised by, well, most how-to guys) is saying that it's what the character learns about himself that allows him to solve the problem. agreed. what i'd said was the character needs to be different by the end and the examples i provided showed how the character had been altered *after* the event.

Simply lacking the objective at the beginning and achieving it at the end does not mean that the character has changed or gone through some "arc" or metamorphosis. Nor does experiencing physical or even emotional suffering or loss or trials. The question you have to answer in order to know whether there has truly been a character arc is -- is the person at the end of the movie a different person than the one at the beginning. ~ agreed again. that was what i was trying to illustrate... poorly, i guess. :)

It is absolutely untrue that every protagonist experiences a "character arc" in the sense that his character changes from the beginning of the movie to the end.

In fact, there is a whole category of hero that does not change. These are heroes that embody abiding virtues -- generally they represent the forces of good, or civilization.

The way in which stories with these kinds of characters play out is that, representing the Forces of Right, they are challenged - that is, they are put in a position where their nature is tested -- but if they change, if they alter than nature, they will lose. The test, in the case of character like these, is not to change, but to hold fast to their nature. By holding fast to who and what they are -- they survive and win. ~ i'd say this is more true of past characterization than it is today. just my opinion. is it fair to say that when you do this you're more involved in archetypes and the story is likely to be plot driven than character driven on average? still, you'll have that character learn something by the end, eh? i assume we're not talking about the tom mix variety of movie here, right? where the hero rides in on a white horse, does his thing, and rides into the sunset with no sweat and nary a smudg on his bone white ten gallon hat. is a modern movie audience going to watch that and be satisfied at the end? maybe, though i'd say you'd have a pretty forgettable movie.

For a character like, say, Terry Malloy in On the Waterfront, the test for him, is to change. It is by changing that he wins. If he'd stayed the same, he would have lost in the end -- lost his soul.

But, for a character, say, like Sherlock Holmes (or James Bond, or John Wayne in countless westerns) who represent the forces of law and civilization -- they have to hold fast to who and what they are, against often overwhelming challenges. For them to change their underlying nature -- to become different people, would be a defeat. ~ holmes is a tricky one. i think you'd have a tough time with a sherlock holmes franchise today if he *didn't* change. bond is a good example of that ~ i can't think of any one bond movie that did as much for the actual character as 'casino royale' (the new one). to do less and i don't think you'd have a franchise. the same goes with 'batman' and 'spider-man' and 'superman.' is anyone going to repeatedly go to the movies to watch a franchise of the 'thin man' movies (nick and nora charles and their dog, asta) where nothing to the characters happen? i doubt that. i think it's good to put storytelling into historical perspective, as these movies made in the 30's, 'classics' as they may be, are practically all pre-1948, the golden age before the studio system collapsed, back when they made one movie after another after another.

Their victory likes in holding fast to their nature against challenge. And by *staying the same* -- they win. ~ but, today, there'd be a side character that does change. one could argue that since the intent of a story is to affect the audience, then part of that involves ostensibly having a character we can relate to, and that almost makes that 'side' character the real main character. for example, 'shane' really isn't about the unflappable shane as it is about, well, just about everyone else with three seconds of screen time. were there a goat in that movie, it would have learned something by the end. shane was the vehicle for them to learn something. (i'd have to watch this again to remember what the father learned, but i'm sure he did.) nm, can you provide an example where *no one* learns a shittin' thing and yet it's a great movie? 'spartacus'?

And while I know that there is often a tremendous desire to fit a paradigm to everything, however tortured the fit -- an Arc that goes from A to A just plain ain't no Arc by any definition that I've ever seen. ~ nor is it probably a movie i'd care that much about without tons of f/x and nudity, lol. the unflappable hero, the saint, is hard to relate to, eh? here i'd like to clarify ~ not every single friggin' character needs an arc, imo, though *some* character should have one. are there some made like that today? oh, i'm sure there are. i can't think of any i can't make a case for, though... none that i'd watch again or say is worth the time to look at, at any rate.

NMS

By the end of course he's come full circle (hey, isn't a circle an arc?!) and is back where he started, the sauve supercool secret agent, licensed to kill, and thrill. ~ i think his arc will occur during the course of the new series. the first installment shows the beginning, true, but i think the real character development happens when his lover dies as (as i took it... bear in mind my memory) the impetus as being the carefree lover we think of. the fact is probably closer to that event having some pretty deep psychological affect on the character. in other words, he just doesn't become a sex machine simply because he can. i'd have to see it again.... at any rate, i think you also have to consider that the original bond character was the definition of manliness... from the perspective of the 50's and 60's. later incarnations certainly have him being much more sensitive, and the latest, imo, is all about the character. in other words, once the series becomes just another adventure movie and it's no longer about the character, it will (putting on my prediction hat here) die because we don't have the same attitudes our grandparents did.

and, yeah, you've got movies with john wayne. i'd say you're funny to think he *never* made a movie where his character didn't grow. i'd cede these were more his later movies, if memory serves. as plot says, which i really liked, about the character not having to grow or have an 'arc' as much *if they die*, i'm reminded of 'the alamo.' besides, honestly, i don't think people watched a john wayne movie for the story as much as they did because they liked watching john wayne. john wayne is an icon, an institution, and i feel that when you're dealing with legends you're possibly dealing with a different set of considerations.

not to say wayne didn't make some great movies. he should have, he'd been around for a long time. on the flip side of that, just as iconic and legendary is james dean, who made three (?) feature films before dying. now, would it be possible to be a legend with only three movies to your credit if they *weren't* about the character? i'm thinking not unless it's an extremely rare case, which the closest i can come to thinking of is mark hamill as luke skywalker (though he's done other movies).

would 'back to the future' have worked without an arc? not as well.

'shawshank redemption'? not much of an arc there in the supposed main character, though i'd argue that these movies supposedly without an arc, *and that actually work*, the arc isn't with the apparent main character, rather in the perceived supporting role, in this case the master of the v.o., morgan freeman. does he have an arc? this movie, imo, is a prime example of one of those 'it doesn't have an arc'/'the unwavering hero doesn't change' ideas, but i posit that these usually do. another is 'saving private ryan.' hanks' character doesn't change, though there's a profound change (albeit you can argue you have to imagine it as a result of ryan trying to live a life worth men dying for) in the 'side' character.

No character arcs.

And there's nothing wrong with those movies. They work perfectly well. ~ they work perfectly well for a t.v. series, imo. you could rework 'hart to hart' all day long and probably have a good show. in terms of theatrical movies? the closest modern movie i can think of that had this in mind is 'mr. and mrs. smith.' and it wasn't a very good movie, so there ya go. as far as character arcs go, not quite so much of that in a t.v. series (it depends, of course. not much arc in a 'matlock' episode, usually an arc is the only thing holding a 'star trek: the next generation' show together. it sure wasn't the rock solid science fiction. MOWs, on the other hand, i'd say there's plenty of arc.

guess part of me is STILL taking personally a very polite rejection I got from a prodco last summer. After they took 3 months to read my script they said their biggest problem was that my main protag's character arc wasn't pronounced enough and he seemed to simply be a reactive character, walking through the adventure with no discernable inward change. I thought it was a plenty strong arc, but they said they wanted it to be far more pronounced than what I presented, and also didn't like that he was an ulitmately noble person (the same way that Indie and Maximus are noble) and they prefer a grittier main protag. I am now hyper-sensitive to a possible LACK of a BLATANT arc in other scripts, and so this thread in particular caught my eye today. ~ as nm mentioned (or alluded to), we're quick to find the formula that'll make the movie experience that much better. or try to find that formula. or believe there even *is* a formula. i'm sure script readers are looking for a certain pattern on top of that *je n'est sais que*.

what i'm finding is a lot of gurus selling their formula that 'all movies have.' the next guru will tell you it's a bunch of bunk, that nothing HAS to happen on page 17, or whatever. then the nay-sayers go into what you *should* have as part of their story, and it's all so very similar that you wonder, well, both are saying the same basic thing, so why *shouldn't* it happen on page 17? seems like as good a place as any. besides, you've seen it on or about the same place in enough scripts and/or movies that it certainly seems like it *could* be a good idea. something to bear in mind, if nothing else. all the gurus, nay- and yay-sayers, are giving their advice on making an effective story, and by and large they're probably pretty close if you're going for a mainstream kind of thing. and i think that's what a lot of prodcos are looking for, that 'effective' story that 'guarantees' them some kind of return, if only theoretical. then i think it's based on their interpretation of what people want, not necessarily being accurate (a perfect example, imo, are pre-sold franchises. did *anyone* even see the 'honeymooners' movie? with the exception of 'mission: impossible' and 'the addams family,' can someone refresh my memory and tell me any pre-sold franchises not based on comic book characters that did well? hmmm... 'star trek.' maaaybe 'the mummy.' 'freaky friday'? that last one is kind of questionable to me since disney has their own network now. it took a long time for movie studios to be allowed their own network, after all. how many disney movies do you see on other channels? lol. so, yeah, it's a pre-sold franchise, but i crinkle my nose at that one while admitting it is what it is.)

anyway, that script-reader just didn't agree with your formula. egh, her opinion.

[Plot Device]

Preyer, if you wanna make posts that are so long ... can you maybe use the shift key? Please?

[jonpiper]

A goal is not the same as an "arc" -- that is "Character wanting X and not having it" at the beginning and then "Character X having it" at the end doesn't mean that there is a character arc. It just means that the Character has gotten whatever it is that he wanted.

A Character arc means that a Character wants whatever he wants at the beginning and can't achieve it, not simply because of the physical obstacles that prevent him from getting it, but because there is an "internal" obstacle -- he can't achieve his objective because he is, at the beginning, a certain kind of person -- a person lacking certain qualities, or lacking a certain insight, or having certain wrong beliefs, or insufficiently grown up -- or whatever. So that, in order to achieve his goal, he doesn't simply have to overcome external obstacles -- that is, change the outsider world, he also has to change the *inside world* -- change himself -- and by changing himself, he can achieve the objective.
NMS

Thank, you nms.

I think we must remember that "character" in character arc refers to the character of the character not to the physical person, the physical character.

If, over the course of the story, the Leslie looses weight -- a physical goal -- that in itself is not considered a character arc. If Leslie changes from a reclusive librarian to a self-confident book store owner while loosing the weight, I think that would be considered a character arc.

[WerenCole]

With out having to read the entire thread. . . I will answer the question of th Gladiator.. . .


Did they change? Personally? No. Probably not. Did their circumstances change? Yes. Like I repped the original poster. . . one was dead and the other disgraced. That is a change from that status before.


Change does not always have to be the meta-physical or estoteric bullsh** that writers think. Sometimes simple is easier. . . and more profound.

[nmstevens]

By the end of course he's come full circle (hey, isn't a circle an arc?!) and is back where he started, the sauve supercool secret agent, licensed to kill, and thrill. ~ i think his arc will occur during the course of the new series. the first installment shows the beginning, true, but i think the real character development happens when his lover dies as (as i took it... bear in mind my memory) the impetus as being the carefree lover we think of. the fact is probably closer to that event having some pretty deep psychological affect on the character. in other words, he just doesn't become a sex machine simply because he can. i'd have to see it again.... at any rate, i think you also have to consider that the original bond character was the definition of manliness... from the perspective of the 50's and 60's. later incarnations certainly have him being much more sensitive, and the latest, imo, is all about the character. in other words, once the series becomes just another adventure movie and it's no longer about the character, it will (putting on my prediction hat here) die because we don't have the same attitudes our grandparents did.

and, yeah, you've got movies with john wayne. i'd say you're funny to think he *never* made a movie where his character didn't grow. i'd cede these were more his later movies, if memory serves. as plot says, which i really liked, about the character not having to grow or have an 'arc' as much *if they die*, i'm reminded of 'the alamo.' besides, honestly, i don't think people watched a john wayne movie for the story as much as they did because they liked watching john wayne. john wayne is an icon, an institution, and i feel that when you're dealing with legends you're possibly dealing with a different set of considerations.

not to say wayne didn't make some great movies. he should have, he'd been around for a long time. on the flip side of that, just as iconic and legendary is james dean, who made three (?) feature films before dying. now, would it be possible to be a legend with only three movies to your credit if they *weren't* about the character? i'm thinking not unless it's an extremely rare case, which the closest i can come to thinking of is mark hamill as luke skywalker (though he's done other movies).

would 'back to the future' have worked without an arc? not as well.

'shawshank redemption'? not much of an arc there in the supposed main character, though i'd argue that these movies supposedly without an arc, *and that actually work*, the arc isn't with the apparent main character, rather in the perceived supporting role, in this case the master of the v.o., morgan freeman. does he have an arc? this movie, imo, is a prime example of one of those 'it doesn't have an arc'/'the unwavering hero doesn't change' ideas, but i posit that these usually do. another is 'saving private ryan.' hanks' character doesn't change, though there's a profound change (albeit you can argue you have to imagine it as a result of ryan trying to live a life worth men dying for) in the 'side' character.

No character arcs.

And there's nothing wrong with those movies. They work perfectly well. ~ they work perfectly well for a t.v. series, imo. you could rework 'hart to hart' all day long and probably have a good show. in terms of theatrical movies? the closest modern movie i can think of that had this in mind is 'mr. and mrs. smith.' and it wasn't a very good movie, so there ya go. as far as character arcs go, not quite so much of that in a t.v. series (it depends, of course. not much arc in a 'matlock' episode, usually an arc is the only thing holding a 'star trek: the next generation' show together. it sure wasn't the rock solid science fiction. MOWs, on the other hand, i'd say there's plenty of arc.

guess part of me is STILL taking personally a very polite rejection I got from a prodco last summer. After they took 3 months to read my script they said their biggest problem was that my main protag's character arc wasn't pronounced enough and he seemed to simply be a reactive character, walking through the adventure with no discernable inward change. I thought it was a plenty strong arc, but they said they wanted it to be far more pronounced than what I presented, and also didn't like that he was an ulitmately noble person (the same way that Indie and Maximus are noble) and they prefer a grittier main protag. I am now hyper-sensitive to a possible LACK of a BLATANT arc in other scripts, and so this thread in particular caught my eye today. ~ as nm mentioned (or alluded to), we're quick to find the formula that'll make the movie experience that much better. or try to find that formula. or believe there even *is* a formula. i'm sure script readers are looking for a certain pattern on top of that *je n'est sais que*.

what i'm finding is a lot of gurus selling their formula that 'all movies have.' the next guru will tell you it's a bunch of bunk, that nothing HAS to happen on page 17, or whatever. then the nay-sayers go into what you *should* have as part of their story, and it's all so very similar that you wonder, well, both are saying the same basic thing, so why *shouldn't* it happen on page 17? seems like as good a place as any. besides, you've seen it on or about the same place in enough scripts and/or movies that it certainly seems like it *could* be a good idea. something to bear in mind, if nothing else. all the gurus, nay- and yay-sayers, are giving their advice on making an effective story, and by and large they're probably pretty close if you're going for a mainstream kind of thing. and i think that's what a lot of prodcos are looking for, that 'effective' story that 'guarantees' them some kind of return, if only theoretical. then i think it's based on their interpretation of what people want, not necessarily being accurate (a perfect example, imo, are pre-sold franchises. did *anyone* even see the 'honeymooners' movie? with the exception of 'mission: impossible' and 'the addams family,' can someone refresh my memory and tell me any pre-sold franchises not based on comic book characters that did well? hmmm... 'star trek.' maaaybe 'the mummy.' 'freaky friday'? that last one is kind of questionable to me since disney has their own network now. it took a long time for movie studios to be allowed their own network, after all. how many disney movies do you see on other channels? lol. so, yeah, it's a pre-sold franchise, but i crinkle my nose at that one while admitting it is what it is.)

anyway, that script-reader just didn't agree with your formula. egh, her opinion.


It doesn't make any sense to say, "Well, movie X wouldn't have worked without the main character having a character arc" -- therefore all movies need character arcs.

It also doesn't make sense to say, "Well, this movie didn't have a character arc and it wasn't very good," -- therefore all movies lacking a character arc aren't very good.

Obviously, some movies need character arcs -- those movies in which a character needs to change to achieve the goals of the story.

And just as obviously, other movies, which tell different stories, are not telling the story of a character that needs to change, but of a character that needs to stay the same -- and those characters do *not* have a character arc, and shouldn't, and the movies are just as good as any other movie that has a character arc.

John Wayne didn't show up on set one day and get declared an icon. He rose to iconic status over time through making many movies, by appearing as a certain kind of on-screen character, a similar character in many different roles.

It was because audiences responded to that character -- and to that *kind* of character, that Wayne rose to iconic status. It wasn't because he had iconic status that people suddenly decided that they were willing to embrace him in his non-character-arc-ish sort of roles.

He was a traditional western hero and that hero, in movie terms, represented the forces of justice and acted as a protector of civilization in a wild land. Those stories involved that character, which embodied those qualities, being tested. Can he, as a representative of those virtues, survive -- hold true to them, against the forces which, in the movie, will represent the forces of lawlessness and chaos?

And the answer -- the answer that the audience wants and is hoping for -- is "yes." -- Yes, the character that embodies those virtues will win out in the end. The forces of chaos -- the gunfighters, the bad guys, the Indians, the rustlers, will be vanquished, and the Man who stands alone against those forces, who leads the way so that civilization may follow, will win out.

He will not change, because what he stands for, from the get-go, is right.

That is -- in traditional westerns. At a certain point, that paradigm changed, as we got into the sixties and beyond, and then you started to get into western heroes who did change, because the genre started to explore greater complexities.

Even Wayne, in one of his greatest Westerns, The Searchers, changed in the end. But that was a later Western, when the simpler issues of the earlier, classic western were coming under great scrutiny.

And in stories of that type -- when the main character embodies virtues that the audience is expected to support -- that the main character is not expected to change over the course of the story. The story isn't about a character who has to change in order to achieve his goal, but about a character whose beliefs are going to be tested -- and who will ultimately pass the test and remain steadfast against those challenges.

And as a matter both of basic geometry and of storytelling -- no, a circle is not an arc -- and if a character ends up the same at the end as he was the beginning, then he has not changed.

And if a character hasn't changed, there's no character arc.

NMS

[preyer]

'It was because audiences responded to that character -- and to that *kind* of character, that Wayne rose to iconic status. It wasn't because he had iconic status that people suddenly decided that they were willing to embrace him in his non-character-arc-ish sort of roles.'

i'd say people responded to that character archetype *and* the actor playing that role. in a lot of movies there's that mentor kind of archetype which we all, or at least most, seem to respond to, from obi-wan to the hotel manager in 'pretty woman.' as i mentioned, the 'side' characters often, even in john wayne flicks, have the character arcs. in those cases, the wayne character has to remain steady in order to facilitate the change.

then the question becomes, 'well, did writers fifty years ago deliberately write in character arcs?' i don't know, though i think the idea of arcs is relatively newer, but i'd say writers always had that in mind by whatever term they wanted to call it. did they always set out to create an arc? probably not. just the better writers did that, either by accident or consciously.

'That is -- in traditional westerns. At a certain point, that paradigm changed, as we got into the sixties and beyond, and then you started to get into western heroes who did change, because the genre started to explore greater complexities.'

enter the spaghetti westerns. clint eastwood didn't have a huge arc, even if he had one at all. i'd say that at this time we're really just starting to get into real anti-heroes, which on the surface seems like they were a one-eighty from what people were used to in westerns where the good guys wore white and the bad guys were clad in black and named bart. i think it's fair to totally discount prit near every western pre-1928/9, going back to when a movie was made every week and scripts weren't even used and the only writing was done by a flunky on cue cards inserted in scenes, eh? (as an aside, there were anti-heroes before then, of course. i'd say humphrey bogart built his legendary status on such roles. is his character in 'the maltese falcon' containing much of an arc?)
i think it's worth remembering, too, that in the golden age they had double-features, one being the main attraction and the other being a film not so great. but, hey, people wanted a lot of movies, popcorn, something to drink, a cigar and a vaudeville show for their nickel, damnit!

in eastwood's role as the man with no name, that was shocking stuff at the time. the level of violence was unheard of, really. i mean, the hero walks into a room and for little or no reason appears to murder four men sitting there playing cards. i love these movies! there's a wow factor there that trumps everything else. these movies are skewed, really.

skewed from what, though? skewed because they didn't have an arc? skewed because they apparently were made deliberately without them? skewed because they weren't defenders of justice and the american way? skewed because some of them (mostly indies rising from the ashes of the studio system) didn't follow any discenernible pattern of storytelling?

well, yeah, that's why they're skewed. you had your indies where a young writer started out not really knowing what he was doing necessarily. those movies got made because the drive-in market demanded product and didn't care so much about quality. the major studios had severely cut back on their production, often favouring epics with huge stars (stars could have risen up from the indie ranks just as directors and writers could have done back then).

what i'm saying is that today modern audiences won't find that spaghetti western satisfying for their ten buck, which really is closer to twenty once you factor in everything else. direct-to-video? no problems. as a feature show? i doubt it. if you don't have it, even a big-budget feature with marquee names won't pass. (even if it does have it, it's still no guarantee, eh?)

your mainstream is going to stick more or less to the 'formula' wherein you absolutely are advised to have an arc/growth/whatever you want to term it. if you have a hero's journey kind of tale, i think the growth *can* be lighter, but you've got that forumla of sorts and can rely on the audience's built-in recognition of the story structure for a satisfactory experience.

one movie i'd love to love is 'the prestige.' great actors, cool ass premise, lots of awesome things going on. so, what happens at the end? it turns out there's a set of identical twins, one who's hanged and the other who goes on to have a happy life. it was certainly a twist! and a twist that left me stunned (inasfar as i can be stunned by a movie) story-wise and void of any real satisfaction in the end. final analysis: egh, and a shrug of my shoulders. i don't mind twists, but there are twists that leave me asking, 'huh? really? uh, okay. what else do we have to watch?'

what's the arc in 'the quick and the dead'? well, it's a revenge flick, and there's nothing i hate more in a revenge movie than when the hero decides not to go through with their plan. that doesn't leave much of an arc to happen, i admit, but that's not what i'm watching the those movies for, either. so, i think you have to know your audience, too. 'kill bill's arc? ha! she learns she's a killer. well, she already knew *that*, didn't she?

back to westerns for a minute, yes, they certainly did explore different complexities. i couldn't tell you the complexities of 'the wild bunch' beyond it being a bloodbath, but it certainly wasn't your everyday fare. it had that wow factor. the arc of 'once upon a time in the west' rests squarely on the woman turned new orleans whore to a caring person while charles bronson rides off into the sunset, effectively no different than he was before as henry fonda lies dead in the ditch after achieving his redemption of sorts (as i recall).

i think you'll probably notice that where main characters die, they didn't need to be redeemed or if they did then they certain WERE redeemed before dying. i'm talking main characters here: you can kill supporting characters off by the truckload and it won't matter, such as leonard dicreepio's death in 'the quick and the dead' (since it's on my mind ~ i can't seem to get sharon stone getting out of bed with a hangover out of my head) as sometimes they have to die once their usefulness in filling in exposition is over. (don't confuse the mentor's death as in a hero's journey with this. sharon stone's character didn't need the boy's death in order to do what she does.)

'And in stories of that type -- when the main character embodies virtues that the audience is expected to support -- that the main character is not expected to change over the course of the story. The story isn't about a character who has to change in order to achieve his goal, but about a character whose beliefs are going to be tested -- and who will ultimately pass the test and remain steadfast against those challenges.'

okay. but i posit that today there are, nine times out of ten in a movie that people will actually buy, side characters with an arc. i reckon there are exceptions ~ i'm sure plenty of people own 'bad boys' for some reason, though i can't tell you the first thing about any arcs. or plot for that matter.

are there kinds of movies with definite arcs? i'd say yes.

your average rom-com has arcs. 'how to lose a guy in ten days,' stuff like that. most definitely.

comedies? you betcha. if you say 'knocked up' doesn't have arcs then you're nuts. from 'liar, liar' to 'bruce almighty' to 'sister act' to 'miss congeniality'... 'pretty woman'... geez, lemme go to my wife's DVD library... the list is long, though. abbot and costello? not so much. different time. different style of comedy. different expectations. i think those days are over. a lot of those people came from vaudevillian backgrounds anyway, and there's not so much of that around. great t.v. fodder, not so much films. but in the examples i listed, the beginning of the character is pretty bluntly stated.

what about fantasies? hm, yes and no. i think the arcs, such as they are, are more archetypical in nature. but what makes 'star wars' so great and 'willow' and 'eragon' such disasters? one thing 'star wars' was blasted for was it was low on characterization. hm, maybe. i'd say they all had their arcs, they were all different people by the end, even if the change was pretty small (as in leia's case), and given the idea that the mentor doesn't change (he's the morale rock of gilbralter like in the old westerns, and the hero's journey plays very well into that genre if you'll notice, westerns being distinctly american fantasy). in a typical fantasy of the hero's journey variety, you have the mentor sheltering the hero until his death, wherein the hero has to complete the journey on his own. he's definitely not the same person he was at the beginning. but, you know, they start off being good people and wind up being good people, so the arc isn't always right in your face.

action/adventure? again, not always right there in your face. you might have to use your imagination. i'd say this and some westerns is where you're likely not to have an arc at all (or so it would seem). 'young guns' for example didn't have much arcing as i remember. so why was there a sequel made if the first wasn't super-duper? well, again, i think you've got that wow factor in the casting. most if not all of the actors were at the top of their careers film-wise.

anyway, i think you get the point. i'll alter my statement to say it's advisable that there be a character arc, particularly if your target audience expects one, imo, and bear in mind the genre. too, i'd say if you're looking at hollywood as it was in the golden age and think you can automatically do the same thing, that's not necessarily always the case, so some cursory history on the collapse of the studio system is likely to help. that is, there's more to today's films than just the addition of foul language, nudity and graphic violence.

[nmstevens]

'It was because audiences responded to that character -- and to that *kind* of character, that Wayne rose to iconic status. It wasn't because he had iconic status that people suddenly decided that they were willing to embrace him in his non-character-arc-ish sort of roles.'

i'd say people responded to that character archetype *and* the actor playing that role. in a lot of movies there's that mentor kind of archetype which we all, or at least most, seem to respond to, from obi-wan to the hotel manager in 'pretty woman.' as i mentioned, the 'side' characters often, even in john wayne flicks, have the character arcs. in those cases, the wayne character has to remain steady in order to facilitate the change.

then the question becomes, 'well, did writers fifty years ago deliberately write in character arcs?' i don't know, though i think the idea of arcs is relatively newer, but i'd say writers always had that in mind by whatever term they wanted to call it. did they always set out to create an arc? probably not. just the better writers did that, either by accident or consciously.

'That is -- in traditional westerns. At a certain point, that paradigm changed, as we got into the sixties and beyond, and then you started to get into western heroes who did change, because the genre started to explore greater complexities.'

enter the spaghetti westerns. clint eastwood didn't have a huge arc, even if he had one at all. i'd say that at this time we're really just starting to get into real anti-heroes, which on the surface seems like they were a one-eighty from what people were used to in westerns where the good guys wore white and the bad guys were clad in black and named bart. i think it's fair to totally discount prit near every western pre-1928/9, going back to when a movie was made every week and scripts weren't even used and the only writing was done by a flunky on cue cards inserted in scenes, eh? (as an aside, there were anti-heroes before then, of course. i'd say humphrey bogart built his legendary status on such roles. is his character in 'the maltese falcon' containing much of an arc?)
i think it's worth remembering, too, that in the golden age they had double-features, one being the main attraction and the other being a film not so great. but, hey, people wanted a lot of movies, popcorn, something to drink, a cigar and a vaudeville show for their nickel, damnit!

in eastwood's role as the man with no name, that was shocking stuff at the time. the level of violence was unheard of, really. i mean, the hero walks into a room and for little or no reason appears to murder four men sitting there playing cards. i love these movies! there's a wow factor there that trumps everything else. these movies are skewed, really.

skewed from what, though? skewed because they didn't have an arc? skewed because they apparently were made deliberately without them? skewed because they weren't defenders of justice and the american way? skewed because some of them (mostly indies rising from the ashes of the studio system) didn't follow any discenernible pattern of storytelling?

well, yeah, that's why they're skewed. you had your indies where a young writer started out not really knowing what he was doing necessarily. those movies got made because the drive-in market demanded product and didn't care so much about quality. the major studios had severely cut back on their production, often favouring epics with huge stars (stars could have risen up from the indie ranks just as directors and writers could have done back then).

what i'm saying is that today modern audiences won't find that spaghetti western satisfying for their ten buck, which really is closer to twenty once you factor in everything else. direct-to-video? no problems. as a feature show? i doubt it. if you don't have it, even a big-budget feature with marquee names won't pass. (even if it does have it, it's still no guarantee, eh?)

your mainstream is going to stick more or less to the 'formula' wherein you absolutely are advised to have an arc/growth/whatever you want to term it. if you have a hero's journey kind of tale, i think the growth *can* be lighter, but you've got that forumla of sorts and can rely on the audience's built-in recognition of the story structure for a satisfactory experience.

one movie i'd love to love is 'the prestige.' great actors, cool ass premise, lots of awesome things going on. so, what happens at the end? it turns out there's a set of identical twins, one who's hanged and the other who goes on to have a happy life. it was certainly a twist! and a twist that left me stunned (inasfar as i can be stunned by a movie) story-wise and void of any real satisfaction in the end. final analysis: egh, and a shrug of my shoulders. i don't mind twists, but there are twists that leave me asking, 'huh? really? uh, okay. what else do we have to watch?'

what's the arc in 'the quick and the dead'? well, it's a revenge flick, and there's nothing i hate more in a revenge movie than when the hero decides not to go through with their plan. that doesn't leave much of an arc to happen, i admit, but that's not what i'm watching the those movies for, either. so, i think you have to know your audience, too. 'kill bill's arc? ha! she learns she's a killer. well, she already knew *that*, didn't she?

back to westerns for a minute, yes, they certainly did explore different complexities. i couldn't tell you the complexities of 'the wild bunch' beyond it being a bloodbath, but it certainly wasn't your everyday fare. it had that wow factor. the arc of 'once upon a time in the west' rests squarely on the woman turned new orleans whore to a caring person while charles bronson rides off into the sunset, effectively no different than he was before as henry fonda lies dead in the ditch after achieving his redemption of sorts (as i recall).

i think you'll probably notice that where main characters die, they didn't need to be redeemed or if they did then they certain WERE redeemed before dying. i'm talking main characters here: you can kill supporting characters off by the truckload and it won't matter, such as leonard dicreepio's death in 'the quick and the dead' (since it's on my mind ~ i can't seem to get sharon stone getting out of bed with a hangover out of my head) as sometimes they have to die once their usefulness in filling in exposition is over. (don't confuse the mentor's death as in a hero's journey with this. sharon stone's character didn't need the boy's death in order to do what she does.)

'And in stories of that type -- when the main character embodies virtues that the audience is expected to support -- that the main character is not expected to change over the course of the story. The story isn't about a character who has to change in order to achieve his goal, but about a character whose beliefs are going to be tested -- and who will ultimately pass the test and remain steadfast against those challenges.'

okay. but i posit that today there are, nine times out of ten in a movie that people will actually buy, side characters with an arc. i reckon there are exceptions ~ i'm sure plenty of people own 'bad boys' for some reason, though i can't tell you the first thing about any arcs. or plot for that matter.

are there kinds of movies with definite arcs? i'd say yes.

your average rom-com has arcs. 'how to lose a guy in ten days,' stuff like that. most definitely.

comedies? you betcha. if you say 'knocked up' doesn't have arcs then you're nuts. from 'liar, liar' to 'bruce almighty' to 'sister act' to 'miss congeniality'... 'pretty woman'... geez, lemme go to my wife's DVD library... the list is long, though. abbot and costello? not so much. different time. different style of comedy. different expectations. i think those days are over. a lot of those people came from vaudevillian backgrounds anyway, and there's not so much of that around. great t.v. fodder, not so much films. but in the examples i listed, the beginning of the character is pretty bluntly stated.

what about fantasies? hm, yes and no. i think the arcs, such as they are, are more archetypical in nature. but what makes 'star wars' so great and 'willow' and 'eragon' such disasters? one thing 'star wars' was blasted for was it was low on characterization. hm, maybe. i'd say they all had their arcs, they were all different people by the end, even if the change was pretty small (as in leia's case), and given the idea that the mentor doesn't change (he's the morale rock of gilbralter like in the old westerns, and the hero's journey plays very well into that genre if you'll notice, westerns being distinctly american fantasy). in a typical fantasy of the hero's journey variety, you have the mentor sheltering the hero until his death, wherein the hero has to complete the journey on his own. he's definitely not the same person he was at the beginning. but, you know, they start off being good people and wind up being good people, so the arc isn't always right in your face.

action/adventure? again, not always right there in your face. you might have to use your imagination. i'd say this and some westerns is where you're likely not to have an arc at all (or so it would seem). 'young guns' for example didn't have much arcing as i remember. so why was there a sequel made if the first wasn't super-duper? well, again, i think you've got that wow factor in the casting. most if not all of the actors were at the top of their careers film-wise.

anyway, i think you get the point. i'll alter my statement to say it's advisable that there be a character arc, particularly if your target audience expects one, imo, and bear in mind the genre. too, i'd say if you're looking at hollywood as it was in the golden age and think you can automatically do the same thing, that's not necessarily always the case, so some cursory history on the collapse of the studio system is likely to help. that is, there's more to today's films than just the addition of foul language, nudity and graphic violence.


Okay -- first of all, you need to learn how to quote -- because reading the above is getting mighty confusing.

Second of all -- I think you really need to learn a lot more about film history and about genre history and about story structure generally before you start making sweeping statements.

"Adult" westerns of the kind that I was referring to were being made in this country, by directors like Anthony Mann and Budd Boetticher -- and also Sam Peckinpah, long before Spaghetti westerns came on the scene.

And if you've ever actually seen some of the great silent westerns, as I have, you wouldn't be so dismissive of them.

But you are certainly correct -- and it's true not only in westerns, that in movies, across many genres, in which you have a leading character that "remains true to his nature" that you will have a secondary character that changes.

That is how you explore the the underlying idea. One character is going to remain true. The other character is tested. Is he going to come around? He is, in essence, a "main character" in training. We sort of know that he wants to be, should be, ought to be -- heading in that same "main character" direction, but something is stopping him. And over the course of the movie, as the main character does what he does -- the secondary character is ultimately swayed by him -- and comes over -- comes into the light.

What's interesting is that you see this happen not only in movies like Rio Bravo -- John Wayne the strong character who doesn't change, Dean Martin, the failed character who ultimately redeems himself -- but you even see it in screwball comedies like His Girl Friday -- Cary Grant is the completely impervious, unrepentant "Newspaper Man" -- and Hildy Johnson, who's struggling for the whole movie to escape from him -- but really, in her heart, she's struggling to achieve the wrong thing. And in the end, she goes back to being what she really is -- and what's that? It's what HE is. A "newspaper man."

And what? Those stories somehow don't work today? Bull. They're just as good today as they ever were.

I'm not arguing *against* character arcs. I'm simply saying that whether a character changes or whether he doesn't is dependent on the story that you're trying to tell. It isn't a function of genre. It isn't a function of taste or time or modernity. It's a function of the particular story.

And stories where the leading character doesn't change can be just as good as stories where they do -- and it's simply silly to quote individual examples as if that were dispositive.

The idea that one can look at a story and say, ''Hmm, this story doesn't have a character arc. Better stick one in," makes as much sense as saying, "Hmm, this story doesn't have a giant robot spider. Better stick one in."

It's not decoration.

If your story needs one and doesn't have one, then there's something wrong with your story.

And there will be something just as wrong with your story if it doesn't need one and has one.

NMS

[jonpiper]

With out having to read the entire thread. . . I will answer the question of th Gladiator.. . .


Did they change? Personally? No. Probably not. Did their circumstances change? Yes. Like I repped the original poster. . . one was dead and the other disgraced. That is a change from that status before.


Change does not always have to be the meta-physical or estoteric bullsh** that writers think. Sometimes simple is easier. . . and more profound.

If I understand what you're saying, I think you are referring to something other than character arc.

True, a lot can change through the course of a story, but not all change has to do with a character's arc. When a character in the story goes through a lot of s**t and the only thing that changes is his physical condition, a character arc has not taken place.

[preyer]

Okay -- first of all, you need to learn how to quote -- because reading the above is getting mighty confusing. ~ hm, nah. thanks for the suggestion, though.

Second of all -- I think you really need to learn a lot more about film history and about genre history and about story structure generally before you start making sweeping statements. ~ if you can point to something i've said that's wrong, please enlighten me. i've given plenty of examples supporting what i've said and even plenty of examples that doesn't support my argument. granted, i'm no expert in any of these, but ne'ertheless you or anyone else is more than welcome to fill in the gaps. does anyone think my statements were comprehensive? or do you feel i've used some highlights to make a general point, using movies that's within most of our living memories?

And what? Those stories somehow don't work today? Bull. They're just as good today as they ever were. ~ i never said that. i don't even know how i mislead you to even think that's anywhere near my point.

I'm not arguing *against* character arcs. I'm simply saying that whether a character changes or whether he doesn't is dependent on the story that you're trying to tell. It isn't a function of genre. It isn't a function of taste or time or modernity. It's a function of the particular story. ~ it's also a function of commercialism. and i'd say a rom-com made today *will* have a character arc. well, a 'good' one will. a function of genre? if you're trying to convince me that it's NEVER a function of a genre or sub-genre, you'll have to prove it. it can be as intrinsic a part of a story as having a beginning, middle and end. you're right, though, having a character arc in a story isn't about a particular time ~ they've always been around, so that only leaves it as a matter of taste, and that changes, but we'll never be done with arcs. ever. if there's a specific sweeping statement you've issue with, let's discuss it.

And stories where the leading character doesn't change can be just as good as stories where they do -- and it's simply silly to quote individual examples as if that were dispositive. ~ i must need a better dictionary, 'dispositive' wasn't listed, so i can't comment on it being 'simply silly.' like i said, if the main character doesn't change, there's usually 'a hero in training' who will. i can't think of any movies off the top of my head where the characters live and there's absolutely no arc whatsoever *and* it being a movie worth remembering. further, i don't think it's worth mentioning movies from a bygone era that probably wouldn't be made today except as a television series, such as the 'thin man' movies. if i can avail of you to be 'simply silly,' can you point to a successful movie made after johnson became president that's got no arc whatsoever? i mean, something that people actually went to go see and we can all pretty much agree it's 'good' even if we didn't particularly care for it personally?

The idea that one can look at a story and say, ''Hmm, this story doesn't have a character arc. Better stick one in," makes as much sense as saying, "Hmm, this story doesn't have a giant robot spider. Better stick one in." ~ now who's being simply silly? i can't think of a movie where having a character arc would make it worse. okay, maybe certain slasher horror flicks, but, c'mon, let's get real. pick a profession. make practitioner of said profession a maniac. add chainsaw and nubile college students. you're done. hardly challenging there. i do agree with you that there are those movies where the main character's change would hurt it. sam spade's character springs to mind. would that fly today? maybe as much as it would were you to keep pumping out bond movies exactly no different than the one's from the sixties, with just more fancy junk. do tastes change? absolutely, and bond is a perfect example of that. i believe it was dalton's first bond movie wherein the producers understood the sexual attitudes had changed, so instead of him banging everything in sight, they made bond into more of a one-woman kinda guy. no, i don't think it worked, but it was probably no more moronic a bond episode than any other. and isn't the new bond producers' goal to make bond more human? i believe i saw that on the DVD extras. the bond franchise was completely stagnant and needed the boost.

It's not decoration. ~ agreed. it's likely to be very key towards providing a satisfying story. if you don't have it there should be a good reason, not just because you don't know what it is.

If your story needs one and doesn't have one, then there's something wrong with your story. ~ agreed.

And there will be something just as wrong with your story if it doesn't need one and has one. ~ agreed. but, as i tried to illustrate, some stories practically require one. i sincerely hope your advice to would-be YA writers that they don't need a character arc, because i'd have to wonder what the hell kind of idea you think you'd sell. you might as well try selling a religious story that's got no moral.



funny you should mention anthony mann, uncredited for 'spartacus' and directed 'the fall of the roman empire.' watch the latter then 'gladiator.' those westerns you refer to (and why the hell are we stuck on westerns anyway?), did they *not* have any character arcs like we're talking about? i don't know as i've not seen every movie ever made, not even all the classics (though a lot called so that i suffered through just to say i'd seen it) so i have to rely on your analysis on those. because my point about the spaghetti's is that they have no arc that i can think of (maybe one does, i'd have to research to refresh my memory).

some movies just have a wow to them that overrides its shortcomings. i'm not saying these are great movies, not saying they're not. 'escape from new york' didn't have character arc in *any* of its characters, the plot isn't exactly genius, the characters have all the emotional range of a pissed off gorilla, and we have further evidence of why more directors shouldn't write their own scores. still, every few years i have to have my 'escape' fix. besides, i like to remember adrienne (sp?) barbeau the way they were, er, they way she was. pure escapist entertainment.

would an arc have hurt that movie? not really, no. it wouldn't have added much to it. then again, 'escape' was a few notches above a B movie production-wise. i see it basically as an exploitation film, or so close to that in mindset that the difference is negligible. john carpenter's films were mostly smash-mouth kind of fare, 'starman' being an exception. it's almost as if carpenter operated from the standpoint of absolutely, under few circumstances will i have character arcs! if someone can, please point out the arcs in 'the fog,' 'halloween,' 'the thing,' 'they live,' and, my favourite, 'big trouble in little china' (i've been in the alley where they filmed the gang fight scene).

'so, Preyer, where's the wow factor in those, huh? well, answer me!' okay, calm down, calm down. the answer is ~ there isn't one. not unless you count 'cool' as wow or there are legions of kurt russell fans i'm unaware of. they appeal to a certain audience, though, and if that's the audience you're aiming for, then maybe, just maybe, you want to listen to nms on this one. if you want an oscar contender, i think you'd best take my advice and work in some character arc. that's just me, though, do what thou wilt, so mete it be.

and here i'll share something with y'all you probably won't read in any book: people love bad movies! it never occured to me, but it's true. when i was old enough to rent movies, my buddy and i would duck out of school early, hit the video store, pick up some pulled pork sammiches and kick back for a few hours, usually to some really stupid horror movie. their titles might as well have been 'really stupid horror movie featuring boobs and cannibalism' or just 'boobs and blood.'

years later a friend opened a video store. i'd asked her what kind of movies she rents the most. of course porn was on top of the list, naturally. then i expected new releases to be next. alas! nope, stupid, moronic, B movies. well, certainly her store must have been some kind of exception. i'd worked at major video before it was eaten by blockbuster, and, yeah, okay, porn rented like crazy, true, but i sure seemed to rent out new releases by the armful. then i thought about it and, hm, yeah, i *did* rent out a bunch of junk. i'm not talking about hits from a few years ago, i'm talking about stuff like 'gator bait.'

so, now i walk the 'new' release aisle at blockbuster, and while i see two banks of 'transformers,' there are also an amazing amount of B movies there, too. mostly horror, some sci-fi and raunchy comedies. and you know when you pick one of these up that you're not looking for oscar-winning anything, and you sure as hell aren't using these for film studies to see how the masters handle subtext, you're needing something that will put you in maximum popcorn munching mode, nothing more.

these things are made because they make just enough money to justify making them. maybe a few make it to cult status for some reason. a lot of them have taken a good movie, turned it into a franchise and run it into the ground. 'hellraiser' for example. for whatever reason they keep/kept making 'chucky' and 'puppet master' movies. now, if that's not proof that people love bad movies, i don't know what else i can tell you.

what's the common denominator in these movies? boobs? well, yeah, there's that in most of 'em. not all. there should be. damnit. and that's a fact. but, i'd say it's practically an overall lack of giving a shit about making art as much as entertaining someone on a boorish level. where carefully constructed plots explore meaningful themes and great attention is paid to mechanics and... well, the hell with all that, let's just wipe our arses on a piece of paper, call it a script, and see if we can translate that into a movie!

character arcs in that? uhm, not so much. it's not meant to. and before someone says i'm saying it, no, indies and B film makers aren't synonymous.

and lest i supposedly further mislead anyone, just because you have all the elements you need for a kick-ass script, tons of support from the studio, and the planets align themselves just for you, none of that guarantees a great product. that's right, i called it a product, because that's ultimately what it is. your script is art, but it's my saturday night entertainment for a few hours before ploughing through the next one. i might remember the title if it's got some wow to it. i might remember it if it's well-crafted (that's an important thing, eh?). if it's got both, i just may buy the DVD.

i think were we to do some market research and break each genre and sub-genre down to story elements, and looked at those movies made in the last ten years or so (i say ten years as an arbitrary number. you don't find near as many theatrical action movies of the stripe made in the eighties today. you know what i mean, like 'cobra' or 'raw'... that stuff goes straight to video these daze. and i don't think today's action heroes are of the same calibre as then, either. i like jason stratham, but, jeez, i wish he could have a breakout movie), i'd venture to say that those nearest the top more often than not have the kind of arc discussed here. those are:

1) straight up character arc/growth. nms suggests it has to be, or should be, of the kind that allows the character to beat his problem. i say the growth can occur as a result of beating the problem, though i'd say the former is likely the better of the two on the surface of things, if that's worth considering.

2) the main character has no real arc. he starts and ends the same. often there's a side character who has the arc.

3) there is no arc because the audience doesn't give a damn. your B movies are like this a lot.

4) the hero's journey. you'll find a lot of this 'formula' in westerns, too, imo. this kind of fare relies on archetypes a lot.

5) movies that were made with no verifiable or very muddy arc, made to capitalize on star power or some gimmick/topical event/overtly controversial idea. to me, these movies feel like lazy writing. want an example? 'tomb raider' springs to mind since it's been making the circuit on t.v. lately. a more cold, unlikeable, ungrowing character you're not apt to find. i kind of want to believe that the writer provided, or tried to, an entertaining movie more than anything else, but, as mentioned, considered the idea that something happened to the character as being a character arc when i think we all agree it's not. ('tomb raider' baffles me. for being rather a formulaic action movie, i can't understand why it misses so many targets. for that matter, i don't see why people liked 'national treasure' other than it had some entertaining bits to it. 'national treasure' is the perfect example of what i mean with this part, where the 'growth' is really nothing more than accomplishing the goal and getting the girl. that's not an arc as far as i'm concerned, but i'm sure some people, even writers, think it is. or maybe it is of sorts and i'm completely whackadoo? damn you, whoever started this thread, for making me think. i don't want to be a screenwriter so i can think! i could write novels if i wanted to do that! <-- attempting to be funny here. give me a rep point if you caught that.) the funny thing is these movies will sometimes make a lot of money. i think you then have to take into consideration the kind of movie it is, such as a summer blockbuster extravaganza (or even a late fall blockbuster these daze... and you said tastes don't change, lol. i think LOTR showed us we're hungry for pizzazz as the temperature drops, eh? i'd say 'national treasure II' would have been a summer release ten years ago. just guessing on that, but i think it's probable) and its intentions on commercial appeal.

6) a great movie without any discernable character arc that doesn't fit 1-5. not sure what you've been watching, so you'll have to clue me on as to what movies those are. i can't watch every movie, after all, so learn me up some things.

am i right, wrong, sorta right/kinda wrong, what?

[preyer]

okay, so how does one go about using the quote function?

[nmstevens]

okay, so how does one go about using the quote function?

Down at the bottom of the screen on the right hand side there are three options you can press. One is simply "quote", which I just pressed.

When the reply screen comes up, the quoted text appears as standard text, but with control functions in brackets on either side, such that when the message appears, the original text appears offset in a different color with your new message coming after it.

Next to the quote button is another button that allows you to do the same sort of thing, only to insert your replies into the body of the text that you're replying to.

Finally, there's a "quick reply button, which doesn't include any text at all.

I think that's about all there is too it.

NMS

[nmstevens]

Okay -- first of all, you need to learn how to quote -- because reading the above is getting mighty confusing. ~ hm, nah. thanks for the suggestion, though.

Second of all -- I think you really need to learn a lot more about film history and about genre history and about story structure generally before you start making sweeping statements. ~ if you can point to something i've said that's wrong, please enlighten me. i've given plenty of examples supporting what i've said and even plenty of examples that doesn't support my argument. granted, i'm no expert in any of these, but ne'ertheless you or anyone else is more than welcome to fill in the gaps.

does anyone think my statements were comprehensive? or do you feel i've used some highlights to make a general point, using movies that's within most of our living memories?


And what? Those stories somehow don't work today? Bull. They're just as good today as they ever were. ~ i never said that. i don't even know how i mislead you to even think that's anywhere near my point.

I'm not arguing *against* character arcs. I'm simply saying that whether a character changes or whether he doesn't is dependent on the story that you're trying to tell. It isn't a function of genre. It isn't a function of taste or time or modernity. It's a function of the particular story. ~ it's also a function of commercialism. and i'd say a rom-com made today *will* have a character arc. well, a 'good' one will. a function of genre? if you're trying to convince me that it's NEVER a function of a genre or sub-genre, you'll have to prove it. it can be as intrinsic a part of a story as having a beginning, middle and end. you're right, though, having a character arc in a story isn't about a particular time ~ they've always been around, so that only leaves it as a matter of taste, and that changes, but we'll never be done with arcs. ever. if there's a specific sweeping statement you've issue with, let's discuss it.

And stories where the leading character doesn't change can be just as good as stories where they do -- and it's simply silly to quote individual examples as if that were dispositive. ~ i must need a better dictionary, 'dispositive' wasn't listed, so i can't comment on it being 'simply silly.' like i said, if the main character doesn't change, there's usually 'a hero in training' who will. i can't think of any movies off the top of my head where the characters live and there's absolutely no arc whatsoever *and* it being a movie worth remembering. further, i don't think it's worth mentioning movies from a bygone era that probably wouldn't be made today except as a television series, such as the 'thin man' movies. if i can avail of you to be 'simply silly,' can you point to a successful movie made after johnson became president that's got no arc whatsoever? i mean, something that people actually went to go see and we can all pretty much agree it's 'good' even if we didn't particularly care for it personally?

The idea that one can look at a story and say, ''Hmm, this story doesn't have a character arc. Better stick one in," makes as much sense as saying, "Hmm, this story doesn't have a giant robot spider. Better stick one in." ~ now who's being simply silly? i can't think of a movie where having a character arc would make it worse. okay, maybe certain slasher horror flicks, but, c'mon, let's get real. pick a profession. make practitioner of said profession a maniac. add chainsaw and nubile college students. you're done. hardly challenging there. i do agree with you that there are those movies where the main character's change would hurt it. sam spade's character springs to mind. would that fly today? maybe as much as it would were you to keep pumping out bond movies exactly no different than the one's from the sixties, with just more fancy junk. do tastes change? absolutely, and bond is a perfect example of that. i believe it was dalton's first bond movie wherein the producers understood the sexual attitudes had changed, so instead of him banging everything in sight, they made bond into more of a one-woman kinda guy. no, i don't think it worked, but it was probably no more moronic a bond episode than any other. and isn't the new bond producers' goal to make bond more human? i believe i saw that on the DVD extras. the bond franchise was completely stagnant and needed the boost.

It's not decoration. ~ agreed. it's likely to be very key towards providing a satisfying story. if you don't have it there should be a good reason, not just because you don't know what it is.

If your story needs one and doesn't have one, then there's something wrong with your story. ~ agreed.

And there will be something just as wrong with your story if it doesn't need one and has one. ~ agreed. but, as i tried to illustrate, some stories practically require one. i sincerely hope your advice to would-be YA writers that they don't need a character arc, because i'd have to wonder what the hell kind of idea you think you'd sell. you might as well try selling a religious story that's got no moral.



funny you should mention anthony mann, uncredited for 'spartacus' and directed 'the fall of the roman empire.' watch the latter then 'gladiator.' those westerns you refer to (and why the hell are we stuck on westerns anyway?), did they *not* have any character arcs like we're talking about? i don't know as i've not seen every movie ever made, not even all the classics (though a lot called so that i suffered through just to say i'd seen it) so i have to rely on your analysis on those. because my point about the spaghetti's is that they have no arc that i can think of (maybe one does, i'd have to research to refresh my memory).

some movies just have a wow to them that overrides its shortcomings. i'm not saying these are great movies, not saying they're not. 'escape from new york' didn't have character arc in *any* of its characters, the plot isn't exactly genius, the characters have all the emotional range of a pissed off gorilla, and we have further evidence of why more directors shouldn't write their own scores. still, every few years i have to have my 'escape' fix. besides, i like to remember adrienne (sp?) barbeau the way they were, er, they way she was. pure escapist entertainment.

would an arc have hurt that movie? not really, no. it wouldn't have added much to it. then again, 'escape' was a few notches above a B movie production-wise. i see it basically as an exploitation film, or so close to that in mindset that the difference is negligible. john carpenter's films were mostly smash-mouth kind of fare, 'starman' being an exception. it's almost as if carpenter operated from the standpoint of absolutely, under few circumstances will i have character arcs! if someone can, please point out the arcs in 'the fog,' 'halloween,' 'the thing,' 'they live,' and, my favourite, 'big trouble in little china' (i've been in the alley where they filmed the gang fight scene).

'so, Preyer, where's the wow factor in those, huh? well, answer me!' okay, calm down, calm down. the answer is ~ there isn't one. not unless you count 'cool' as wow or there are legions of kurt russell fans i'm unaware of. they appeal to a certain audience, though, and if that's the audience you're aiming for, then maybe, just maybe, you want to listen to nms on this one. if you want an oscar contender, i think you'd best take my advice and work in some character arc. that's just me, though, do what thou wilt, so mete it be.

and here i'll share something with y'all you probably won't read in any book: people love bad movies! it never occured to me, but it's true. when i was old enough to rent movies, my buddy and i would duck out of school early, hit the video store, pick up some pulled pork sammiches and kick back for a few hours, usually to some really stupid horror movie. their titles might as well have been 'really stupid horror movie featuring boobs and cannibalism' or just 'boobs and blood.'

years later a friend opened a video store. i'd asked her what kind of movies she rents the most. of course porn was on top of the list, naturally. then i expected new releases to be next. alas! nope, stupid, moronic, B movies. well, certainly her store must have been some kind of exception. i'd worked at major video before it was eaten by blockbuster, and, yeah, okay, porn rented like crazy, true, but i sure seemed to rent out new releases by the armful. then i thought about it and, hm, yeah, i *did* rent out a bunch of junk. i'm not talking about hits from a few years ago, i'm talking about stuff like 'gator bait.'

so, now i walk the 'new' release aisle at blockbuster, and while i see two banks of 'transformers,' there are also an amazing amount of B movies there, too. mostly horror, some sci-fi and raunchy comedies. and you know when you pick one of these up that you're not looking for oscar-winning anything, and you sure as hell aren't using these for film studies to see how the masters handle subtext, you're needing something that will put you in maximum popcorn munching mode, nothing more.

these things are made because they make just enough money to justify making them. maybe a few make it to cult status for some reason. a lot of them have taken a good movie, turned it into a franchise and run it into the ground. 'hellraiser' for example. for whatever reason they keep/kept making 'chucky' and 'puppet master' movies. now, if that's not proof that people love bad movies, i don't know what else i can tell you.

what's the common denominator in these movies? boobs? well, yeah, there's that in most of 'em. not all. there should be. damnit. and that's a fact. but, i'd say it's practically an overall lack of giving a shit about making art as much as entertaining someone on a boorish level. where carefully constructed plots explore meaningful themes and great attention is paid to mechanics and... well, the hell with all that, let's just wipe our arses on a piece of paper, call it a script, and see if we can translate that into a movie!

character arcs in that? uhm, not so much. it's not meant to. and before someone says i'm saying it, no, indies and B film makers aren't synonymous.

and lest i supposedly further mislead anyone, just because you have all the elements you need for a kick-ass script, tons of support from the studio, and the planets align themselves just for you, none of that guarantees a great product. that's right, i called it a product, because that's ultimately what it is. your script is art, but it's my saturday night entertainment for a few hours before ploughing through the next one. i might remember the title if it's got some wow to it. i might remember it if it's well-crafted (that's an important thing, eh?). if it's got both, i just may buy the DVD.

i think were we to do some market research and break each genre and sub-genre down to story elements, and looked at those movies made in the last ten years or so (i say ten years as an arbitrary number. you don't find near as many theatrical action movies of the stripe made in the eighties today. you know what i mean, like 'cobra' or 'raw'... that stuff goes straight to video these daze. and i don't think today's action heroes are of the same calibre as then, either. i like jason stratham, but, jeez, i wish he could have a breakout movie), i'd venture to say that those nearest the top more often than not have the kind of arc discussed here. those are:

1) straight up character arc/growth. nms suggests it has to be, or should be, of the kind that allows the character to beat his problem. i say the growth can occur as a result of beating the problem, though i'd say the former is likely the better of the two on the surface of things, if that's worth considering.

2) the main character has no real arc. he starts and ends the same. often there's a side character who has the arc.

3) there is no arc because the audience doesn't give a damn. your B movies are like this a lot.

4) the hero's journey. you'll find a lot of this 'formula' in westerns, too, imo. this kind of fare relies on archetypes a lot.

5) movies that were made with no verifiable or very muddy arc, made to capitalize on star power or some gimmick/topical event/overtly controversial idea. to me, these movies feel like lazy writing. want an example? 'tomb raider' springs to mind since it's been making the circuit on t.v. lately. a more cold, unlikeable, ungrowing character you're not apt to find. i kind of want to believe that the writer provided, or tried to, an entertaining movie more than anything else, but, as mentioned, considered the idea that something happened to the character as being a character arc when i think we all agree it's not. ('tomb raider' baffles me. for being rather a formulaic action movie, i can't understand why it misses so many targets. for that matter, i don't see why people liked 'national treasure' other than it had some entertaining bits to it. 'national treasure' is the perfect example of what i mean with this part, where the 'growth' is really nothing more than accomplishing the goal and getting the girl. that's not an arc as far as i'm concerned, but i'm sure some people, even writers, think it is. or maybe it is of sorts and i'm completely whackadoo? damn you, whoever started this thread, for making me think. i don't want to be a screenwriter so i can think! i could write novels if i wanted to do that! <-- attempting to be funny here. give me a rep point if you caught that.) the funny thing is these movies will sometimes make a lot of money. i think you then have to take into consideration the kind of movie it is, such as a summer blockbuster extravaganza (or even a late fall blockbuster these daze... and you said tastes don't change, lol. i think LOTR showed us we're hungry for pizzazz as the temperature drops, eh? i'd say 'national treasure II' would have been a summer release ten years ago. just guessing on that, but i think it's probable) and its intentions on commercial appeal.

6) a great movie without any discernable character arc that doesn't fit 1-5. not sure what you've been watching, so you'll have to clue me on as to what movies those are. i can't watch every movie, after all, so learn me up some things.

am i right, wrong, sorta right/kinda wrong, what?

Let me make this clear. I'm not a film teacher. I'm certainly not yours. Nor is it my responsibility to make your arguments for you, if you fail to make them effectively. If you don't know film history, then you don't. If you're unacquainted with silent westerns, then you don't get to make sweeping statements about what they the were like, based on your lack of knowledge about them, and then move on.

And you also don't now, get to proclaim that they, or westerns generally, are irrelevant to whatever argument you were making then -- since you brought them up.

You also don't get to rephrase the terms not only of your own argument but of mine, to suit yourself.

If we're arguing the question of whether story arcs -- as a principle -- are necessary or not necessary to successful stories, well then, I must let you in on a secret.

Stories weren't invented subsequent to the Johnson administration. They've been around for quite a few thousand years. Even movie stories have been around for over a century. Successful stories. Even great stories.

And the fact that the people who told those stories weren't born subsequent to the invention of the cell phone doesn't make them lesser species of movie, nor make the audiences that watched them and enjoyed them a different species of movie goer, nor does it allow you to change the terms of the argument.

If the only issue you're trying to make is that the current crop of D-girls and readers like character arcs in the same way that they dislike "Cut to" and "we see" and prefer scripts under a 110 pages -- then what the heck is the discussion about, other than there's yet another passing style in Hollywood development land that's here today and might just as well be gone tomorrow.

So just to shorten things up -- because these posts are getting rather long -- and just to make my position on the subject clear.

Is there a recent movie that I consider to be great (well, an excellent movie -- greatness is a judgement of history), in which the main character has no character arc?

And by character arc, I don't mean a circle, but rather one in which the character is established as one kind of person at the beginning and ends up as a different kind of person at the end -- not merely in different external circumstances, but clearly defined as a fundamentally different person inside.

Yes.

There Will Be Blood.

Daniel Day Lewis' character is established at the beginning as a character that is obsessed with oil and the money that it can bring. The events of the very prolonged story tests that obsession. Essentially the story asks this character -- what will you give up in order to hold on to that obsession. And he has other important things in his life. His pride, his family, his grudges. And one by one, he gives everything up to hold onto that one thing. He holds onto it, to the exclusion, the rejection, the denial of everything else, until all he's got left at the end, is what his oil has bought him -- and one last enemy. And when he's finished with his enemy -- and all he has left is his oil -- he's got nothing.

He changes not one bit -- and that's what makes it a tragedy.

So -- yes. Movies without character arcs are most definitely still being made and still work for audiences today.

At any rate, There Will Be Blood certainly worked for me.

NMS

[Plot Device]

Okay.

I will say I have NOT read all of what is going back and forth between Preyer and NMS. But I will say the following:

a) NMS is one of the few professional (as in he makes his living at it) screenwriters at this forum, so he automatically has MAJOR frigging truckloads of street cred in these here parts. So anyone who would venture to tangle with him needs to realize that not only does NMS know his shyte, but MOST of the people around here will probably root for him. (The only way NMS would LOSE any popularity contests around here would be if he were to shoot himself in the foot by becoming a REAL dick-- by becoming mean and insulting and viscious. Which he has NEVER done, and I'd be shocked if I ever saw it happen.)

b) Preyer has two habits in his typing/posting style that make me NOT want to read ANYTHING he posts: 1) he won't use the shift key, and 2) he meanders around endlessly. All of Preyer's not-a-single-capitalized-letter-in-sight posts are maddening enough to read when they are SHORT, but when they are long--and NEEDLESSLY long-- because he "muses" and "ponders" things for two or three paragraphs at a time, I just can't deal with it, so I don't even bother. (Sorry, preyer, I know you're a generally nice guy, but I just can't get past your failure to capitalize.)

What I am trying to say here is that I see this entire thread --one that started off quite interrestingly-- getting utterly monopolized by two incredibly mis-matched combatants (Pitting NMS against Preyer is like pitting Bruce Lee against Jimmy Olsen). I feel compelled to pick a side, but in all fairness I am unable and unwilling to read a single word that Preyer has posted because HE CONTINUALLY FAILS TO USE THE FRIGGING SHIFT KEY!!! Therefore since I can't force bring myself to read Preyer's side of the argument, I can't possibly evaluate the argument at all. So I need to abstain from TRULY picking a side here. But I will say that Preyer is MOST LIKELY in the wrong just because NMS is almost always 99% of the time right--and deadly so.

[xhouseboy]

Plot Device;2026724]Okay.

I will say I have NOT read all of what is going back and forth between Preyer and NMS.



Why not? You might then discover that he's at least attempting to make an argument rather than simply assuming the role of cheerleader in residence.

And just for the record, I'd come down on the side of NMS in this particular debate. But I think I've earned the right to say that, having followed both sides of the debate.

And here's something else for the record. There are other professional screenwriters on this forum with solid track record. I know one or two. They don't broadcast it, preferring instead to keep these details to PM's.

And that's understandable, as this sort of sycophancy would probably make them feel a tad uncomfortable:


a) NMS is one of the few professional (as in he makes his living at it) screenwriters at this forum, so he automatically has MAJOR frigging truckloads of street cred in these here parts. So anyone who would venture to tangle with him needs to realize that not only does NMS know his shyte, but MOST of the people around here will probably root for him. (The only way NMS would LOSE any popularity contests around here would be if he were to shoot himself in the foot by becoming a REAL dick-- by becoming mean and insulting and viscious. Which he has NEVER done, and I'd be shocked if I ever saw it happen.)

b) Preyer has two habits in his typing/posting style that make me NOT want to read ANYTHING he posts: 1) he won't use the shift key, and 2) he meanders around endlessly. All of Preyer's not-a-single-capitalized-letter-in-sight posts are maddening enough to read when they are SHORT, but when they are long--and NEEDLESSLY long-- because he "muses" and "ponders" things for two or three paragraphs at a time, I just can't deal with it, so I don't even bother. (Sorry, preyer, I know you're a generally nice guy, but I just can't get past your failure to capitalize.)

What I am trying to say here is that I see this entire thread --one that started off quite interrestingly-- getting utterly monopolized by two incredibly mis-matched combatants (Pitting NMS against Preyer is like pitting Bruce Lee against Jimmy Olsen). I feel compelled to pick a side, but in all fairness I am unable and unwilling to read a single word that Preyer has posted because HE CONTINUALLY FAILS TO USE THE FRIGGING SHIFT KEY!!! Therefore since I can't force bring myself to read Preyer's side of the argument, I can't possibly evaluate the argument at all. So I need to abstain from TRULY picking a side here. But I will say that Preyer is MOST LIKELY in the wrong just because NMS is almost always 99% of the time right--and deadly so.

[Daydreamer]

Okay, group hug, everyone. :Hug2:

[Plot Device]

Why not? You might then discover that he's at least attempting to make an argument rather than simply assuming the role of cheerleader in residence.

I'm trying to say that if he REALLY REALLY wants to be heard he should consider the delivery of his message. I find his lack of caps PAINFUL to even look at (no exaggeration, I can't look at it let alone read it).

The rest of your comments I will think about.

[RylenolFlu]

I didn't think the post would stay afloat this long. To think that it all started with a simple question from moi. It sure makes for one heck of a read.

[nmstevens]

I didn't think the post would stay afloat this long. To think that it all started with a simple question from moi. It sure makes for one heck of a read.

Look, I appreciate all the worshipfulness I can get -- and I still think Preyer should start using the quote function because it makes it easier to follow, but as in the thread about the theme of Jaws -- there isn't necessarily any one right answer or any single paradigm, or any one particular page on which to end Act One.

These are only issues under discussion. I have my point of view. Preyer has his. The fact that they're different is what makes it an argument, and so long as it's civil, there's no reason that we can't disagree and continue to have a fruitful discussion.

If there's one point I've always tried to make, it's that there is no Holy Writ in this business -- not from me or anybody else. That's what makes this an art (to some extent, a craft) but not a science. There are only things that have worked well in the past and may conceivably be of use to writers now.

NMS

[Plot Device]

Hey, NMS, xhouseboy is half right. While I don't believe I'm BEING a sycophant (as in deliberately trying to suck up to people with the ulterior motive of meriting favor and borrowing prestige), I sure as hell LOOK like one. And that alone makes me a first class asshole on a lot of levels. So I think I need to apologize all around.

Sorry, no worship from me (not my thing).

[nmstevens]

Hey, NMS, xhouseboy is half right. While I don't believe I'm BEING a sycophant (as in deliberately trying to suck up to people with the ulterior motive of meriting favor and borrowing prestige), I sure as hell LOOK like one. And that alone makes me a first class asshole on a lot of levels. So I think I need to apologize all around.

Sorry, no worship from me (not my thing).


Not intended as criticism -- and the use of the word "worship" was just a bit of hyperbole on my part (although L. Ron Hubbard had some luck starting his own religion, so maybe it's worth exploring).

If a question really comes down to -- how is something done in the professional world, then, I suppose, as a working professional, I might have an edge at answering certain kinds of questions.

But on the whole, arguments have to come down to their merits, and not a question of who's making them.

NMS

[Plot Device]

I still should apologize. To you, to preyer, and the xhouseboy.

Sorry guys. I was being an asshole.

[xhouseboy]

I still should apologize. To you, to preyer, and the xhouseboy.

Sorry guys. I was being an asshole.

No need to apologise to me. I was just voicing an opinion.

And if it came over a bit strong, then I apologise.

[nmstevens]

And continuing on the subject of recent movies without character arcs -- I just saw "The World's Fastest Indian" -- which I think qualifies as a recent movie.

No trace of a character arc. Not only doesn't the Anthony Hopkins protagonist change from the beginning to the end, there isn't even a secondary character who undergoes any kind of change.

It is simply a main character with a single defining need who faces obstacles, overcomes them and achieves his objective.

No Character Arc.

NMS

[preyer]

sorry you won't be able to read this, plot. :) i'm not sure what happens, but i believe there's an 'ignore' button on this board somewhere. that sounds like something you might want to use for my posts. trust me, you won't hurt my feelings.

no hard feelings on my part. i'm disappointed plot doesn't read what i say, though it's not the first time it's happened, won't be the last. i meander and go off on tangents, true. just me.

country music sucks.

that said, and what nms says, it's an argument. while it seems to border on heated for a moment, i think we're both just a couple of guys who tend to express themselves strongly. no harm, no foul. nms has certainly answered many dumb questions of mine and i'd like for him to continue doing so. i'm sure he will, or at least hope so, because i defer to his answers in most things screenwriting. there's a soft underbelly to sychophancy where one gets in the big dawg's face and hopes to gain respect. not my intention ~ it's just a friggin' debate and i don't care who it's against.

my dimissal of silent-era stories in general is because they were often made literally in a week and on the fly. without dialogue, no scripts were needed; the director knew the story and just had his actors do that. dialogue inserts and the like weren't necessarily written by writers. westerns were popular because once movies moved to hollywood there was vast areas of landscape to use... for free. i'm not picking on westerns as a genre, nor dismissing *all* silent films. in fact, if i'm able to, i believe 'beau bommel' is on AMC pretty soon with the winner of a scoring contest for that film.

somewhere in all that stuff i wrote, i believe i mentioned something to the effect of having a high commercial appeal, no? the examples noted since my last post are indies, i take it? nothing against art house fare, but i'm talking commercial stuff (not saying those examples are art house flicks that closes on a saturday night, but on the surface they don't sound as if they had big bucks in mind as motivation. 'american psycho' probably is another example of what y'all're talking about).

[nmstevens]

sorry you won't be able to read this, plot. :) i'm not sure what happens, but i believe there's an 'ignore' button on this board somewhere. that sounds like something you might want to use for my posts. trust me, you won't hurt my feelings.

no hard feelings on my part. i'm disappointed plot doesn't read what i say, though it's not the first time it's happened, won't be the last. i meander and go off on tangents, true. just me.

country music sucks.

that said, and what nms says, it's an argument. while it seems to border on heated for a moment, i think we're both just a couple of guys who tend to express themselves strongly. no harm, no foul. nms has certainly answered many dumb questions of mine and i'd like for him to continue doing so. i'm sure he will, or at least hope so, because i defer to his answers in most things screenwriting. there's a soft underbelly to sychophancy where one gets in the big dawg's face and hopes to gain respect. not my intention ~ it's just a friggin' debate and i don't care who it's against.

my dimissal of silent-era stories in general is because they were often made literally in a week and on the fly. without dialogue, no scripts were needed; the director knew the story and just had his actors do that. dialogue inserts and the like weren't necessarily written by writers. westerns were popular because once movies moved to hollywood there was vast areas of landscape to use... for free. i'm not picking on westerns as a genre, nor dismissing *all* silent films. in fact, if i'm able to, i believe 'beau bommel' is on AMC pretty soon with the winner of a scoring contest for that film.

somewhere in all that stuff i wrote, i believe i mentioned something to the effect of having a high commercial appeal, no? the examples noted since my last post are indies, i take it? nothing against art house fare, but i'm talking commercial stuff (not saying those examples are art house flicks that closes on a saturday night, but on the surface they don't sound as if they had big bucks in mind as motivation. 'american psycho' probably is another example of what y'all're talking about).


I said that I wasn't going to be your teacher, yet every time you post, it seem as if I must act as one.

First, regarding silent films, you're understanding of that era is, I'm afraid, woefully incorrect. While that might describe the way in which short silent films were made in the early nickelodeon days, by the time the twenties rolled around -- by the time the studios had been established, full scale silent features were being produced on a scale that not only equally, but for a number of years surpassed what followed after the introduction of sound which, because of its technical limitations, substantially reduced the sorts of movies that were possible.

They were not only directed but most definitely were "written" -- that is, they had "scenarists" -- distinct from the writers of inter-titles" -- who wrote what happened in the scenes that made up the story, just as contemporary screenwriters do.

One need only watch some of the great silent films by directors like Von Stroheim, or Chaplin, or John Ford's silent films, to realize that the art of visual story-telling had, to all intents and purposes, been fully defined by the filmmakers of those days before movies ever learned how to talk.

Regarding westerns - in fact they were popular silent fare even before Hollywood moved west. The Great Train Robbery -- one of the earliest silent films in history -- a western, was shot in New Jersey. Most of the early films of all kinds, including westerns, were likewise shot in New Jersey.

The decision to move west was designed primarily to escape the burden of Edison's patent monopoly -- out on the west coast, people could shoot movies without having to pay him for using his (presumably patented) equipment.

The move west didn't create the genre. It was already in existence. What the move west permitted was the expansion, and ultimately the creation of the motion picture industry as it ultimately came to exist.

Regarding what you've been saying about movies with arcs as opposed to movies without them -- the fact is, you've been hopping back and forth like a bean on a frying pan.

First it's "great movies" vs. non-great movies. Then it's "contemporary movies" vs. "old movies" (with old, apparently being pre-Johnson?) -- now it's contemporary plus commercial as opposed to "art house."

Frankly, I'm beginning to think it's "Any criteria that will let me win the argument" vs. "anything else whatsoever."

As far as "art house fare" -- There Will Be Blood is currently one of the front runners for Best Picture for the Academy Awards.

While that doesn't make it Pirates of the Caribbean in terms of having high commercial appeal, it is certainly a mainstream hollywood movie, directed by a mainstream hollywood director, in the same way that No Country For Old Men is.

They're both dramas. They're not genre films -- so nobody expects them to be big blockbuster hits. They'll probably end up making seventy, eighty million dollars by the time they're done. Maybe more if they win an Oscar.

We're not exactly talking about The Brothers McMullen here.

"Indie" is getting to be a pretty loose term. I remember when people were calling "The English Patient" an "indie film." Yeah. Right.

These are all mainstream Hollywood movies, financed with hollywood money, and released through Hollywood studios.

NMS

[NikeeGoddess]

preyer, i rarely use the shift key either but i doubt that's the reason plot ignores my posts. i also think the "quote" is way overused. why quote the entire long post when you're only answer a tiny, specific section of it. it is possible to quote just a portion and if the answer directly follows the previous post then the quote function is not necessary at all.

like this:
I said that I wasn't going to be your teacher, yet every time you post, it seem as if I must act as one. it is my own personal opinion (no need to respond* to) that you don't always need to act as teacher. sometimes you can just let it go and be confident in yourself that you feel superior and have superior knowledge without having to shove it in people's face.
*with strength in yourself you can resist a response. you are strong enough.

BACK ON TOPIC:
it seems that many examples of characters with little or no character arcs have no character arcs because of one simple reason - the show must go on. the character re-occurs in film after film and any real change will be a detriment to sequels. they're like tv shows where characters change very little episode after episode, year after year.

[Daydreamer]

sometimes you can just let it go and be confident in yourself that you feel superior and have superior knowledge without having to shove it in people's face.


:rolleyes: *rolleyes*

[dpaterso]

Yep, an all-too-familiar pattern.

- Industry insider or pro screenwriter posts advice for the benefit of all.

- Receives snidey comments (usually from someone he or she wasn't even talking to).

- And stops posting.

Nikee, you never cease to dismay me. It's your "shining."

-Derek

[nmstevens]

BACK ON TOPIC:
it seems that many examples of characters with little or no character arcs have no character arcs because of one simple reason - the show must go on. the character re-occurs in film after film and any real change will be a detriment to sequels. they're like tv shows where characters change very little episode after episode, year after year.

Trying to stay on topic -- where do you think sequels come from? If the first James Bond movie (or the first James Bond novel, for that matter), had been a bomb, there wouldn't have been a second.

It's only because audiences respond to a character -- only because a movie (or a novel) works for an audience, that it generates sequels.

The original Thin Man -- the novel, was a stand-alone. When they adapted it to the screen, they didn't neglect to invest those characters with "arcs" in order to produce sequels but because that's the way those characters were in that original stand-alone novel by Hammett.

It was because the original movie worked, because those characters worked, because the movie was successful, that it *became* a series of movies.

And in terms of sequels, there's no requirement that the presence of a character arc prevents sequels.

In the original Jason Bourne movie, Bourne has a very distinct character arc -- which didn't keep him from coming back for two more sequels.

NMS

[NikeeGoddess]

It's only because audiences respond to a character -- only because a movie (or a novel) works for an audience, that it generates sequels. if it ain't broke don't fix it. if the character doesn't have an arc and the audience loves that character then they don't give it an arc in the sequel(s).

And in terms of sequels, there's no requirement that the presence of a character arc prevents sequels. nor the vice versa. and i don't think anyone is trying to suggest that everything is so black and white or that there is a winning/losing formula when it comes to character arcs.

not every comment needs a counter response.
and this is purely based on personal experience. there are times when you in a group (say a screenwriting group) sitting around a table, reading and studying scripts, getting advice, yada, yada, yada... and there's that one guy who also feels compelled to answer and advise of everything to an extreme lecture like way. he's knowledgeable, speaks loud and clear making sure everyone knows what he knows for their own benefit. he loves the sound of his own voice so much. after a while it's gets so tiresome and people in the group just want him be more selective and/or just take a break. -- now, if that guy was the organizer of the group and brought these people together to learn from him then it's a different situation and the people have chosen that learning/lecturing atmosphere.
- i say this just so you know where i'm coming from... if it matters that we all come from different places and have different experiences in life that have an affect on our behavior.

[Daydreamer]

not every comment needs a counter response.
and this is purely based on personal experience. there are times when you in a group (say a screenwriting group) sitting around a table, reading and studying scripts, getting advice, yada, yada, yada... and there's that one guy who also feels compelled to answer and advise of everything to an extreme lecture like way. he's knowledgeable, speaks loud and clear making sure everyone knows what he knows for their own benefit. he loves the sound of his own voice so much. after a while it's gets so tiresome and people in the group just want him be more selective and/or just take a break. -- now, if that guy was the organizer of the group and brought these people together to learn from him then it's a different situation and the people have chosen that learning/lecturing atmosphere.
- i say this just so you know where i'm coming from... if it matters that we all come from different places and have different experiences in life that have an affect on our behavior.

Nikee, now I'm actually getting pissed.
Clearly, you didn't understand NMS's last post because you're actually affirming his point, not giving a counter argument.

And if you're so tired of reading NMS's posts, then I suggest you simply stop reading them.
I always enjoy reading his posts because they're quite informative, logic and to the point. There are other people on this board who express interesting thoughts, too. That doesn't mean that one always has to agree with what these people are saying. But I would never tell anyone to shut up just because I don't like what they are saying, as long as their expressed thoughts have their merits.

[nmstevens]

. if it ain't broke don't fix it. if the character doesn't have an arc and the audience loves that character then they don't give it an arc in the sequel(s).

nor the vice versa. and i don't think anyone is trying to suggest that everything is so black and white or that there is a winning/losing formula when it comes to character arcs.

not every comment needs a counter response.
and this is purely based on personal experience. there are times when you in a group (say a screenwriting group) sitting around a table, reading and studying scripts, getting advice, yada, yada, yada... and there's that one guy who also feels compelled to answer and advise of everything to an extreme lecture like way. he's knowledgeable, speaks loud and clear making sure everyone knows what he knows for their own benefit. he loves the sound of his own voice so much. after a while it's gets so tiresome and people in the group just want him be more selective and/or just take a break. -- now, if that guy was the organizer of the group and brought these people together to learn from him then it's a different situation and the people have chosen that learning/lecturing atmosphere.
- i say this just so you know where i'm coming from... if it matters that we all come from different places and have different experiences in life that have an affect on our behavior.


And while I'm sure that there are people like the one you are referring to in most groups, there is also that kind of person, in similar groups who lacks any kind of experience, who doesn't really know what they are talking about, but who likes to talk anyway, often in a particularly arrogant, dismissive, and sometimes insulting way -- and then gets all what?who?me? and defensive when they get put to the wall for their behavior.

What you take away from a group, in large measure, depends on what you bring to it.

If what you bring to it is a lot of negative stuff and a lot of hear-say passing for knowledge, added to a general unwillingess to learn from others, you shouldn't expect to get much out of it.

And that's all I really have to say to you on this subject.

If people want to talk about screenwriting, I'd be more than happy to do it.

NMS

[NikeeGoddess]

Clearly, you didn't understand NMS's last post because you're actually affirming his point, not giving a counter argument. actually i did understand his post. that's why i said not every comment needs a counter b/c we were saying the same thing. maybe he countered b/c he didn't understand what i was saying.

in truth - i don't bring a lot of negative stuff to "screenwriting" discussions. and the truth is - if i don't know the answer then i don't respond even with an, "i don't know."

[preyer]

'I said that I wasn't going to be your teacher, yet every time you post, it seem as if I must act as one.' ~ i can't force you do anything you don't want to do, nms. if you don't want to play the role of teacher, that's your perogative. if you want to share what you know with people, great. don't feel as if i've suckered you into a no-win situation here.

and i'm not trying to 'win' the argument. i'd have to look back at it all, but i think my point pretty early on is concerning modern audiences (why you keep pounding on some arbitrary timeframe i came up with, i'm not sure as i'd hoped that was pretty clear, but it doesn't matter) for commercial films. granted, maybe i was too quick to dismiss silent films entirely, but i did qualify those silents i was referring to, i think.

for what it's worth, it's important to me that *my* stories (the fiction i write and soon scripts) have a character arc/growth/change, whatever you want to call it, unless i'm doing some slasher story or some real cheesy, formulaic action story ala some of the dreck we suffered through from the 80's, like 'commando' (which is what i mean, partially, about changing tastes. sure, you don't have to go far to find cheesy, formulaic action flicks (very much described in 'the last action hero'), but how many do you see now in this vein that are theatrical movies? not nearly as many as you did back then. i think it's hard to pawn off that level of quality and expect people to buy into it time and time again. not that there's not a market for this stuff, but not at the cost of spending fifty bucks on a night out. 'die hard'? kick ass movie. 'transformers'? not great, but entertaining. it's 'great' by hollywood standards, meaning it made money. as far as arcs go, imo, 'transformers''s arc felt very contrived. i can understand the YA aspect feel to to shia lebouf's (sp?) character and that was probably the way to go, just it felt too safe. anyway...).

nms mentioned a story that needs an arc should have one, and vice versa. i think my opinion on it is clear as mud, so, for those still awake out there, what *kinds* of stories don't require an arc? or do you not think in terms of 'kinds' of stories? does a 'kind' of story imply a structure, one that you may find limiting creatively? is having a deliberate character arc a lesser form of formulaic structuring (or higher form, i guess depending on your viewpoint), or is it an important part of knowing the craft, a part you use consciously and often? do you think certain 'kinds' of movies require an arc to be effective?

[krano]

i'm probably the least qualified to engage in this discussion, preyer, but to sort of answer your question, i think character arc is dependent upon the theme. for me, theme springs from the main character's flaw and unconscious need. in a true character arc of a developing characting, he comes to realize this unconscious need and is better, thus proving the theme, or thesis in this case.

going back to nm's example of There Will Be Blood, it seems from his description that the Daniel Day-Lewis character fails to fulfill his unconscious need, which could be to let go of greed, care about others, etc. (i haven't seen the movie). arc or no arc, there is still a structure because of the theme (which might be "He who cares only about power and money loses everything) that partly determines the character's interactions and the course of events.

again, i'm a neophyte and i don't wish to flare up anything, these are just my views (which are generously borrowed from Craig Mazin and Lagos Egri).


EDIT: if i missed something in the other posts and it seems like i'm regurgitating someone's thoughts, i apologize

[krano]

just to add, i don't usually start out with a clear cut theme. i explore my characters and try to let one develop itself (to keep things organic).

[Plot Device]

You're right, Nikkee. I do indeed have you on "ignore," and it's because of this sort of dispicable passive-agressiveness. I wouldn't even have seen these words of yours had others not quoted it in their own responses to you.

The following quote from you is an unacceptable and unwarranted attack against a great member of this community! http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon8.gif And it's also very typical of you.

and there's that one guy who also feels compelled to answer and advise of everything to an extreme lecture like way. he's knowledgeable, speaks loud and clear making sure everyone knows what he knows for their own benefit. he loves the sound of his own voice so much.

You don't even know him!

after a while it's gets so tiresome and people in the group just want him be more selective and/or just take a break.

I don't think there is even one single person who finds NMS "tiresome" or wants him to take a break from posting. The only bad part about the end of the writer's strike is that Neal will most likely no longer be here. And I suspect he WILL be missed.


-- now, if that guy was the organizer of the group and brought these people together to learn from him then it's a different situation and the people have chosen that learning/lecturing atmosphere.

If you don't like his posts then go to another thread. He generally doesn't even bother initating any discussions with you anymore from what I have observed. YOU are the one who continues to pursue HIM.

- i say this just so you know where i'm coming from...

So he'll know where YOU are coming from, Nikee, but not anyone else!

I am of the opinion that you stand utterly alone in these opinions and you have no business trying to imply that any of the other "people in the group" agree with you and feel the same way about it all.

If anyone else wants to say they agree with you, by all means, let them jump to your defense.

if it matters that we all come from different places and have different experiences in life that have an affect on our behavior.

What in God's name is it that has had such a horrible affect on YOUR behavior?

[preyer]

i think that's an interesting facet, krano ~ themes. i'd guess most themes we have are based around a character. my question is, does a 'personal' theme (personal to the character in question) beg for a character arc to illustrates the theme's point? if your theme is 'beware what you wish for, you just may get it,' when your character gets his wish and finds out it's not what he really wanted, is there a way to avoid a character arc? that is, is it possible to avoid that character growth/change? or if there is, would you be denying the character a resolution (not to mention having the audience walk away unsatisfied)?

'for me, theme springs from the main character's flaw and unconscious need.' ~ i don't think it always needs to be a subconscious need. some characters know they need to change, or at least are made accutely aware of it later (and maybe try to change everything around them before making/realizing the change themselves. had i a better memory i could name off a few. 'if only i had three wishes, everything would be okay!' 'if my rat friend under my chef's hat keeps making great dishes, my life will be great and i'll be able to keep my girl!' maybe not great examples (especially the last one), but, well, that's all i got this late in the day).

i'm not saying one automatically goes with another, but is there sometimes a symbiotic relationship?

[nmstevens]

'I said that I wasn't going to be your teacher, yet every time you post, it seem as if I must act as one.' ~ i can't force you do anything you don't want to do, nms. if you don't want to play the role of teacher, that's your perogative. if you want to share what you know with people, great. don't feel as if i've suckered you into a no-win situation here.

and i'm not trying to 'win' the argument. i'd have to look back at it all, but i think my point pretty early on is concerning modern audiences (why you keep pounding on some arbitrary timeframe i came up with, i'm not sure as i'd hoped that was pretty clear, but it doesn't matter) for commercial films.

You keep saying "commercial films" and you keep saying "contemporary films" -- but then you proceed to dismiss any film that is both commercial and contemporary that fails to have a character arc.

So then I guess we're talking films that are not only commercial *and* contemporary -- but I don't know what?

Something else -- that meets some completely arbitrary "quality" designation of yours.

So "There will be Blood" -- okay, that's somehow contemporary according to your secret Preyer definition book -- but not commercial.

But somehow or other, all of the recent Pierce Brosnan James Bond movies -- all unquestionably commercial, and all devoid of any trace of a character arc -- so what's the deal? Now 2002 fails to be sufficiently "contemporary" for your argument?

Or are we simply bringing in some new criterion?

Is it like -- oh, they're crappy, so they don't count.

So -- it's got to be both contemporary, and commercial -- and, according to your rules -- not crappy.

But if it's got an arc and it's crappy -- as countless movies do and are -- we aren't supposed to take this as meaning that "having a character arc" counts against your side of the argument.

Meanwhile, "There Will Be Blood" -- this year's Academy Award Nominee, doesn't seem to qualify, according to you.

granted, maybe i was too quick to dismiss silent films entirely, but i did qualify those silents i was referring to, i think.

for what it's worth, it's important to me that *my* stories (the fiction i write and soon scripts) have a character arc/growth/change, whatever you want to call it, unless i'm doing some slasher story or some real cheesy, formulaic action story ala some of the dreck we suffered through from the 80's, like 'commando' (which is what i mean, partially, about changing tastes. sure, you don't have to go far to find cheesy, formulaic action flicks (very much described in 'the last action hero'), but how many do you see now in this vein that are theatrical movies? not nearly as many as you did back then. i think it's hard to pawn off that level of quality and expect people to buy into it time and time again. not that there's not a market for this stuff, but not at the cost of spending fifty bucks on a night out. 'die hard'? kick ass movie. 'transformers'? not great, but entertaining. it's 'great' by hollywood standards, meaning it made money. as far as arcs go, imo, 'transformers''s arc felt very contrived. i can understand the YA aspect feel to to shia lebouf's (sp?) character and that was probably the way to go, just it felt too safe. anyway...).

You seem to be operating on this bizarre thesis that contemporary audiences are somehow more sophisticated than audiences of twenty or thirty years ago -- who, because they were, unlike sophisticate viewers like you, simply mindless clods who didn't mind sitting through those "arc-free" movies, where-as your sophisticated viewers today pretty much require the more demanding story-telling aspects of stories with character arcs.

Give me a break.

I have to tell you that this is an amazingly naive view of what audiences have been like and what audiences are like today.

There are story-telling styles, which change from generation from generation. Movies from past generations seem quaint to untutored eyes, just like pop music seems quaint to untutored ears, but it is a tremendous mistake to imagine that viewers and listeners of past generations were somehow simple-minded. It's like -- oh, grandma and grandpa -- they didn't know about bl*w j*bs.

Yes, they did. They knew about everything. And they knew all about stories and the things that made stories work back then are not any different from the things that make stories work now.

And if the movies back then seem quaint to our eyes, rest assured that kids fifty years from now will watch the coolest movies made today and they will seem just as quaint to them as movies made fifty years ago seem to you.


nms mentioned a story that needs an arc should have one, and vice versa. i think my opinion on it is clear as mud, so, for those still awake out there, what *kinds* of stories don't require an arc? or do you not think in terms of 'kinds' of stories? does a 'kind' of story imply a structure, one that you may find limiting creatively? is having a deliberate character arc a lesser form of formulaic structuring (or higher form, i guess depending on your viewpoint), or is it an important part of knowing the craft, a part you use consciously and often? do you think certain 'kinds' of movies require an arc to be effective?


I think that I made this clear -- perhaps I didn't, and if so, I'll try to.

Don't think about a story in terms of an "arc" -- that's starting a step too far.

You start by thinking in terms of a character's need. A character needs something that he doesn't have -- and it is that need that forms the basis of the story -- the story problem.

In most stories, that problem has two aspects -- an external aspect -- killing a great white shark, and an internal aspect - personal redemption -- with the two inextricably linked.

Whether a character is going to change over the course of the story or whether the character is going to remain the same depends on the specifics of the story and the theme that you have chosen.

The nature of your story may require that your character possess certain qualities that the story is going to test. If he holds true to those qualities, then he will win out in the end -- happy ending.

Say, for intance, this is a story about a person of faith, and the events of the story are going to test, or challenge that faith. At a crucial moment, that person may be tempted to abandon his faith. But the events of the story, whatever they may be, ultimately causes him to hold fast to his faith. He *stays the same* -- he holds true. Happy ending.

Or you may choose to make this a tragedy. He fails to hold true to that which is crucial to him -- he abandons that which is essential -- that is, he *changes* -- and the results are a disaster. Tragic ending.

The Godfather is a movie like this. Michael makes a tragic mistake -- he fails to hold true to that which is essential -- and he ends up following a course that leads him to losing his soul. There is indeed a character arc (and an essential one) -- but it is a tragic arc.

Or, you can do it the other way. You can have a story in which the events require that a person change in order to achieve the requirements of the story -- obviously there are many such stories. And the events of the story bring him to that point -- and he does, in fact, change. Happy ending. Redemption, salvation. Whatever it is.

Or -- the events of the story can require that he change in order for there to be a happy ending, and the character can *refuse* to change. He can hold fast to the aspects of his character that he needs to rid himself of, and the results are a tragic ending. The character is left unchanged -- but either dead, or lost.

That is the ending of There Will Be Blood.

All of these story possibilities are equally valid. All of them have been available to storytellers and have been used by them since time immemorial.

And all of them are still being used by storytellers in our medium and in others today.

No one form is better or worse or more to be preferred or less. They are equally valid.

The only question that you should be asking is -- what are the needs of the *particular* story that I am telling?

I'm afraid that I just can't make it any clearer than this.

NMS

[preyer]

damn, dude, did i piss in your cheerio's or something? i think i've been pretty damn even-keeled here, but these replies seem to have more and more vitriol-laced beginnings each time. that's a shame, too, because i'd like to know what you have to say, but i'm done with this dr. jeckyl/mr. hyde thing you've got going on in this thread, so i'll be done with your replies in this thread unless you decide to stop opening up with guns blazing and acting like a dick towards me. maybe it's just me, but i feel like i'm a team of wild horses trying to drag some information out of you sometimes.

what the frig is a professional doing on a board populated mostly by amateurs if you're not here to teach, anyway? you just want to 'discuss screenwriting'... isn't that what i was trying to do? don't get me wrong, i think you've helped me and several others, so i don't want you bail on us, but would it kill you to show a sense of humour and/or congeniality every now and then? believe me, i'm not the type of person who lets things go, but even i honestly don't care to reply to the first part of that mess.

lighten up or put me on 'ignore'... jeesh....

[nmstevens]

damn, dude, did i piss in your cheerio's or something? i think i've been pretty damn even-keeled here, but these replies seem to have more and more vitriol-laced beginnings each time. that's a shame, too, because i'd like to know what you have to say, but i'm done with this dr. jeckyl/mr. hyde thing you've got going on in this thread, so i'll be done with your replies in this thread unless you decide to stop opening up with guns blazing and acting like a dick towards me. maybe it's just me, but i feel like i'm a team of wild horses trying to drag some information out of you sometimes.

what the frig is a professional doing on a board populated mostly by amateurs if you're not here to teach, anyway? you just want to 'discuss screenwriting'... isn't that what i was trying to do? don't get me wrong, i think you've helped me and several others, so i don't want you bail on us, but would it kill you to show a sense of humour and/or congeniality every now and then? believe me, i'm not the type of person who lets things go, but even i honestly don't care to reply to the first part of that mess.

lighten up or put me on 'ignore'... jeesh....


Well I like to think I've very congenial, in my own way. I'm not making personal attacks on you. What do you want me to do? Start off my threads with a joke?

I understand that you're a beginner, and that's fine. But if you, as a beginner want to debate me -- and let's not kid around here, that's what you undertook to do, well that's fine. I'm not the voice of heaven. I can be wrong.

But if you're going to do that, if I'm taking one position and you're taking the opposite -- then you'd better be prepared to, first of all, be able to clearly enunciate what your position is and second of all, you'd better be able to clearly defend that position.

Because for sure, I can do both. And if, in the course of your attempt to defend that position, your arguments bounce all over the place, you can also bet that I'm going to be bouncing right along with you.

Look, you stated your opinion. I stated mine. If you didn't understand what I was saying, you could easily have said, "I don't quite understand what you're saying -- could you please explain further."

Which I would happily have done.

That's not what you did. You made the choice to, for lack of a better term -- to get into the ring with me.

Well, that was your choice. Don't come around now and start saying, "Oh, man, you were so mean. I'm all battered and bruised and you spoke to me in an unkind way and were so critical and uncongenial --"

Preyer, you took your position and got into the ring with me.

You debated with me. It's not personal. I'm not angry with you.

But that's how it goes when someone with your level of experience debates me. I wrote my first screenplay when I was thirteen. I'm fifty-one. I've written over a hundred of them. I've read literally thousands of them. I've been a working professional in this business for something like twenty years.

If you want to ask me something, then I'll answer, but if you want to engage in a dispute with me -- don't complain afterward if you come out the other end the worse for wear.

And if you think this is rough -- I'd hate to see how you'd respond to the average set of producer's notes.

NMS

[NikeeGoddess]

nms - it's not that you're wrong. you know that. it's all about your delivery.
and this response: Well I like to think I've very congenial, in my own way. I'm not making personal attacks on you. What do you want me to do? Start off my threads with a joke? makes it clear that you don't understand that it's more about how you come off. you took preyer's comment so literally. if indeed you are superior then there's no need to put up your dukes and prove it. and that's how you come off to some of us. it's all about delivery.

preyer - this book was just endorsed by creative screenwriting magazine. i suggest you invest: http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Story-Power-Transformational-Arc/dp/0978812905/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202302445&sr=1-1

[dpaterso]

Original poster's question has been asked and answered, if you folks want to continue your dialogue then I suggest you take it to PM, tho' I suspect law of diminishing returns is already operating.

Closing thread, PM me if any problems.

-Derek