What do you like? Character driven or plot driven stories?

[Gillvane]

I thought this short article summed up the differences between plot driven and character driven stories pretty well:

http://www.indietips.com/writingcharacter-driven-vs-plot-driven-do-you-know-the-difference/

For a good story you always need a little bit of both, but it will lean one way or the other. I tend to like plot driven stories better than character driven stories.

 

[hscully]

The author cites a narrow distinction between the two saying that you can identify a character driven plot by a single test. That is, remove the character from the film and if it doesn't work, then it's character driven. I don't agree with the premise, or at least, I would want to hear it further developed.

In a good story, characters are revealed by what they do, not characterization, which are the external details of their makeup. I think stories cannot rely on character alone to drive the story. It is not actually possible. The characters need to be involved in some conflict that needs to be resolved and in so doing reveal who they are. So for my money, ALL good scripts are driven by plot.

It's not possible to ignore the convention that plot driven usually means scripts where the character's inner life is less developed, and character driven stories are ones where the characters are nuanced. I think, as you say, you need both, some stories can't do well without the viewer identifying with the characters, while others, more action driven, rely on it less. I think a more accurate definition might lead to a discussion of genre.

 

[Gillvane]

The author cites a narrow distinction between the two saying that you can identify a character driven plot by a single test. That is, remove the character from the film and if it doesn't work, then it's character driven. I don't agree with the premise, or at least, I would want to hear it further developed.

In a good story, characters are revealed by what they do, not characterization, which are the external details of their makeup. I think stories cannot rely on character alone to drive the story. It is not actually possible. The characters need to be involved in some conflict that needs to be resolved and in so doing reveal who they are. So for my money, ALL good scripts are driven by plot.

It's not possible to ignore the convention that plot driven usually means scripts where the character's inner life is less developed, and character driven stories are ones where the characters are nuanced. I think, as you say, you need both, some stories can't do well without the viewer identifying with the characters, while others, more action driven, rely on it less. I think a more accurate definition might lead to a discussion of genre.

You can develop the character's inner life in either a plot driven, or character driven story.

"Character driven" just means the protagonist is the CAUSE of the conflict, not merely reacting to the conflict that will inevitably take place no matter who the character is that we follow through the story.

Here's a list of character driven movies. Granted it's a random list, and I don't like character driven movies so I haven't seen most of them but here it is:
http://www.listal.com/list/best-characterdriven-films

Now, I'll take an example of one of these that I did watch, Rocky. Without Rocky, there is no movie. This is not about some inevitable conflict that is about to take place, and we just happen to experience that conflict through the main character of Rocky. Without Rocky, it's just another heavy weight fight, and there is no story. The ONLY reason it's a story, is because of Rocky's past, what's going on in his life, why he feels he needs to fight, what he stands to lose, or gain, etc., etc.

Now, compare that to something like Independence Day starring Will Smith. Aliens are invading Earth. The **** is going to hit the fan, whether we follow Will Smith, or the President, or whomever. The conflict is happening no matter what, it's just a matter of what character we follow through this conflict.

Or, look at it this way. Rocky decides not to fight. What happens? No story. Character driven.

Will Smith decides not to be a fighter pilot, or the President is killed in the initial blast. We still have a story. We can just follow another character in this world. The aliens are still invading and there's going to be conflict! Plot driven.

 

[hscully]

I get it, I just don't think it works. If the character, Rocky, decides not to fight you just have a different story, not no story. You can't just yank characters out of plot driven movies and have the movie work. It's just not so. One of the only charms in Independence Day is the swashbuckling Smith.

Three of my favorite movies, that I consider plot driven are Three Days of the Condor, Michael Clayton, and Chinatown. Do you agree they are plot driven? Maybe it's a definition problem. I don't think you can take Gettes (Jack Nicholson) out of Chinatown or Clayton (George Clooney) out of Michael Clayton and have the same movie. Because their POV is crucial to the plot. Their actions reveal them. If Gettes wasn't the type of character that needed to make sure his reputation stayed intact, he would not have pursued the case so thoroughly. If Michael Clayton hadn't been a caring guy with a s*%tty job as a fixer, then he wouldn't have wondered about his friend and chased down what happened. If Joseph Turner (Robert Redford) wasn't a quick study and a world class sceptic then he would never have survived.

Even for the most plot driven stories we need a protagonist to get behind, a character.

 

[Gillvane]

I get it, I just don't think it works. If the character, Rocky, decides not to fight you just have a different story, not no story. You can't just yank characters out of plot driven movies and have the movie work. It's just not so. One of the only charms in Independence Day is the swashbuckling Smith.

Three of my favorite movies, that I consider plot driven are Three Days of the Condor, Michael Clayton, and Chinatown. Do you agree they are plot driven? Maybe it's a definition problem. I don't think you can take Gettes (Jack Nicholson) out of Chinatown or Clayton (George Clooney) out of Michael Clayton and have the same movie. Because their POV is crucial to the plot. Their actions reveal them. If Gettes wasn't the type of character that needed to make sure his reputation stayed intact, he would not have pursued the case so thoroughly. If Michael Clayton hadn't been a caring guy with a s*%tty job as a fixer, then he wouldn't have wondered about his friend and chased down what happened. If Joseph Turner (Robert Redford) wasn't a quick study and a world class sceptic then he would never have survived.

Even for the most plot driven stories we need a protagonist to get behind, a character.

I would say those are all character driven. What is the conflict that is going to take place in China Town even if Jack Nicholson doesn't get involved? Could we follow some other character and and go through this conflict? What is the conflict then?
Three Days of the condor, again, character driven. What if they had killed Robert Redford when they killed everyone else? What's the conflict then?

 

[KurtF]

Movies (and all stories really) have problems that can be solved physically, or emotionally. If you need fists, guns, fast cars, etc., then the solution is most likely physical. If the problem is solved via networking, talking, sharing your feelings, then the problem is solved emotionally. The first is an action film, summer blockbuster, etc. The second is the relationship, chick flick, indie type. Both films however require solid characters, and it would be nice if they had a decent plot. You need interesting people doing interesting things to solve their problems. Both are required. The only difference is the method by which the problem is solved.

 

[Gillvane]

Movies (and all stories really) have problems that can be solved physically, or emotionally. If you need fists, guns, fast cars, etc., then the solution is most likely physical. If the problem is solved via networking, talking, sharing your feelings, then the problem is solved emotionally. The first is an action film, summer blockbuster, etc. The second is the relationship, chick flick, indie type. Both films however require solid characters, and it would be nice if they had a decent plot. You need interesting people doing interesting things to solve their problems. Both are required. The only difference is the method by which the problem is solved.

If you use your fists, most likely it's plot driven. If you use your emotions, most likely it's character driven.

 

[hscully]

I would say those are all character driven. What is the conflict that is going to take place in China Town even if Jack Nicholson doesn't get involved? Could we follow some other character and and go through this conflict? What is the conflict then?
Three Days of the condor, again, character driven. What if they had killed Robert Redford when they killed everyone else? What's the conflict then?

Oh, ok. I think that these are plot driven. This is a fun and intersting discussion. I disagree with your definitions. I think that saying that if a movie has disposable characters then it is plot driven is incorrect. I say that movies are plot driven if the plot, the events of the story and how they are revealed is the primary keeper of the viewers interest. Character stories primarily rely on relationships and how they play out in the story. Whether the plot or the relationships carry the day, you always need a lead character with whom the audience relates. That's been around since Aristotle.

The plot in Chinatown revolves around a mysterious murder, secret incest, and the manipulation of water rights in LA. It's a whodunit! How could that not be considered plot driven? Yes there is a compelling protagonist. There is no story of any kind without one. The plot of Three Days of the Condor revolves around a secret CIA hidden within the CIA. It's a thriller of the first order with a killer plot! How is that not a plot driven movie? Could you cite a couple of really good movies that match your criteria of plot driven? By your standards all movies are character driven and by your criteria (indisposable characters) then I have to agree but then... which are plot driven?

 

[Gillvane]

Oh, ok. I think that these are plot driven. This is a fun and intersting discussion. I disagree with your definitions. I think that saying that if a movie has disposable characters then it is plot driven is incorrect. I say that movies are plot driven if the plot, the events of the story and how they are revealed is the primary keeper of the viewers interest. Character stories primarily rely on relationships and how they play out in the story. Whether the plot or the relationships carry the day, you always need a lead character with whom the audience relates. That's been around since Aristotle.

The plot in Chinatown revolves around a mysterious murder, secret incest, and the manipulation of water rights in LA. It's a whodunit! How could that not be considered plot driven? Yes there is a compelling protagonist. There is no story of any kind without one. The plot of Three Days of the Condor revolves around a secret CIA hidden within the CIA. It's a thriller of the first order with a killer plot! How is that not a plot driven movie? Could you cite a couple of really good movies that match your criteria of plot driven? By your standards all movies are character driven and by your criteria (indisposable characters) then I have to agree but then... which are plot driven?

Star Wars is plot driven. Yes, the characters are wonderful, but the Empire is going to build the Death Star, adn the Rebels must stop them. That conflict drives the story, and it's not dependent on the characters. I"m not saying the characters are disposable. I'm not saying the story is as good or the same without Luke, and Han, etc. I'm saying whether Luke and Han get involved or not, the conflict happens either way, Rebels vs Empire building the Death Star. The plot revolves around the plans of the Death Star, how it will be used against the Rebels, etc., etc. The main conflict is the construction of the Death Star and to defeat it. If Luke and Han gave up, someone still needs to defeat the Death Star, or maybe they don't, but that's the main conflict. The conflict is enhanced because Luke's parents are killed by the Empire, but that's not the main conflict. It's not primarily a revenge story.

Saving Private Ryan, on the other hand, is character driven. Yes, the war is happening and it's Allies versus Axis powers (like Rebels vs Empire), but that is not what the story is about. The story is about Tom Hank's refusal to take the easy way out, give up, and not find Private Ryan. If Tom Hanks goes, yea, we tried to find this Ryan kid, but no luck. Oh well. What's left of the conflict? It's gone. Tom Hanks is not replaceable, because the conflict exists due to this character. He's the one that tells his men, I don't care if we all die, we're going to find Ryan. THAT is the conflict. WWII is a backdrop, not the main story.

So with these examples, IMO, a similar situation like war can be either plot driven or character driven. We agree that either way you need great characters. And by "disposable" I don't mean a character like Luke Skywalker is not an awesome character, just that he is participating in a larger conflict besides the conflict he himself is creating.

It's been a while since I"ve seen Chinatown. Maybe it is plot driven.

 

[Batutta]

This argument has been going on for a long time with writers, and I'm starting to wonder if this is a false distinction. Focusing on character vs plot I think gets too confusing, as all stories are a combination of both. Maybe it's not character driven vs plot driven, but plot driven vs story driven. In a plot, A follows B follows C in a chain of events that are a reaction to the previous event. The thing that happened in A leads directly to B. A current example would be Interstellar. In a story, A+B+C adds up to an overall idea, or theme. B does not need to follow A in any direct way. A current example would be Boyhood.

 

[hscully]

Star Wars, as you say, revolves around the Empire and the Death Star as the main conflict as you say. It creates a conflict and a framework and a concept for the story. Someone has to experience that conflict for the audience to care because the Death Star is an McGuffin. The Empire doesn't exist. What can exist is a young man on a distant planet who is a reluctant hero, our protagonist. What is the substitution for Luke? What is the substitution for the archetype Old Man, Obiwan? I suggest that it is only through following the journey of these characters that the story exists, not an arbitrary framework or concept for a conflict.

If Luke and Han gave up, someone still needs to defeat the Death Star, or maybe they don't, but that's the main conflict. The conflict is enhanced because Luke's parents are killed by the Empire, but that's not the main conflict.

Precisely! Someone has to take up the conflict or we have no story. It's a different story now but without Luke and Hans no one cares about the Death Star or the Empire. It's all a concept or premise to make a movie about the journey of those characters.

The killing of the parents is the first plot point or inciting incident. It's a great construction because it makes the stakes life and death and very personal for Luke, plus it leaves him without an escape from his duty. It also provides the audience with an excellent reason to empathize and so root for him. No Luke, no story, no Star Wars.

It may be, as Battuta suggests, a fruitless argument, but I do like thinking about what makes these movies work and it is fun to talk about. Saving Private Ryan... what a great great movie. There's a million things right with that movie, just a clinic.

 

[Gillvane]

Star Wars, as you say, revolves around the Empire and the Death Star as the main conflict as you say. It creates a conflict and a framework and a concept for the story. Someone has to experience that conflict for the audience to care because the Death Star is an McGuffin. The Empire doesn't exist. What can exist is a young man on a distant planet who is a reluctant hero, our protagonist. What is the substitution for Luke? What is the substitution for the archetype Old Man, Obiwan? I suggest that it is only through following the journey of these characters that the story exists, not an arbitrary framework or concept for a conflict.

If Luke and Han gave up, someone still needs to defeat the Death Star, or maybe they don't, but that's the main conflict. The conflict is enhanced because Luke's parents are killed by the Empire, but that's not the main conflict.

Precisely! Someone has to take up the conflict or we have no story. It's a different story now but without Luke and Hans no one cares about the Death Star or the Empire. It's all a concept or premise to make a movie about the journey of those characters.

The killing of the parents is the first plot point or inciting incident. It's a great construction because it makes the stakes life and death and very personal for Luke, plus it leaves him without an escape from his duty. It also provides the audience with an excellent reason to empathize and so root for him. No Luke, no story, no Star Wars.

It may be, as Battuta suggests, a fruitless argument, but I do like thinking about what makes these movies work and it is fun to talk about. Saving Private Ryan... what a great great movie. There's a million things right with that movie, just a clinic.

No Luke, we still have a story. The Empire is still building a Death Star. The Rebels still need to defeat the Death Star, or be defeated by it. We can follow other characters and how they deal with this, just like Luke and Han are dealing with it.

The point is not that we need a protagonist to experience the plot, of course we do. Is the protagonist the CAUSE of the conflict, or merely reacting to it? Luke doesn't cause the war between the Empire and the Rebels, the main conflict in the movie. Could Luke end the conflict by simply giving up? No, the struggle to build the Death Star or defeat it will still happen. WE could follow another group of characters involved in this struggle. It's like Lord of the Rings. What if we don't follow Frodo? WE could follow another group of characters involved in this struggle with Sauron. The Battle between good and evil is going to happen, whether you want it to or not, and someone is going to be affected.

The Hobbit, however, is character driven. No one HAS to go get the gold from Smaug. If Bilbo decided not to go, then there is no story. Smaug stays asleep, nothing happens.

Tom Hanks is the CAUSE of the conflict in Private Ryan. His desire to fulfill his duty, and save Ryan no matter what is what CAUSES the conflict. Could Tom Hanks end this conflict if he simply gives up? Yes, Ryan is not found, the conflict ceases to exist. Who is going to be affected no matter what and they cannot avoid it? No one.

 

[Gillvane]

This argument has been going on for a long time with writers, and I'm starting to wonder if this is a false distinction. Focusing on character vs plot I think gets too confusing, as all stories are a combination of both. Maybe it's not character driven vs plot driven, but plot driven vs story driven. In a plot, A follows B follows C in a chain of events that are a reaction to the previous event. The thing that happened in A leads directly to B. A current example would be Interstellar. In a story, A+B+C adds up to an overall idea, or theme. B does not need to follow A in any direct way. A current example would be Boyhood.

You are not focusing on the "driver". All good stories have great plots and great characters. I'm not saying you can do without either one, but that one or the other DRIVES the story.

I think maybe you are describing is plot versus story. A story is what happened. Just a retelling of events. I went to the grocery store and bought some beer. A happened, then B happened, then C happened. A plot is WHY it happened, and what consequences it had?
http://cinemoose.com/plot-vs-story/
[h=2]Plot vs. Story[/h] [h=3]October 30th, 2008[/h]
One of the things that every writer needs to know is the difference between story and plot. It’s very easy to confuse the two and many people often do, most typically the blue-suited penguins knowns as movie producers and studio executives. So what is the difference between story and plot?
Writer E.M. Forster once wrote in Aspects of the Novel

, defined a story as ‘a narrative of events arranged in their time sequence.’ Forster wrote: ‘it (a story) can only have one merit: that of making the audience want to know what happens next. “The king died and then the queen died” is a story.’
‘A plot’, Forster wrote, ‘is also a narrative of events, the emphasis falling on causality.’ Thus, ‘“The king died and then the queen died” is a story.’ But ‘“The king died, and then the queen died of grief’ is a plot. The time-sequence is preserved, but the sense of causality overshadows it.’

 

[Batutta]

I think maybe you are describing is plot versus story.

That's exactly what I said. Ultimately if plot drives the story and not character that's just bad writing. Luke Skywalker isn't pushed along the story whether he wants to or not. He has to make choices. His choices form the narrative. Events beyond his control kick off the narrative, but the choices he makes after that determine the course of the story. His character drives it. He has to choose to help Obi-Wan. He has to choose to save the princess. He has to choose to join the rebellion. He has to choose to shut off his computer and destroy the death star. Bad, plot driven writing would be the first Twilight, where things just happen to Bella but she makes almost no decisions that impact the outcome of the story.

 

[crossXcheck]

For me plot driven is when the main conflict we're interested in exists outside the character, whereas character driven the conflict exists primarily internally. Of course everything is on a shaded continuum, but think Bergman vs. Bay, not much plot in one and not much character in the other.

Edited to add, I think the distinction is often based on the viewer. Lawrence of Arabia and The Godfather could be viewed as either plot or character, depending on the preferences and interests of the viewer.

 

[Batutta]

This is an interesting debate but when it comes down to it, I don't think it's all that useful as a writer to think in terms of plot over character or vice versa. Even if a film has gigantic, apocalyptic events in it beyond the characters control, it's how the characters react and the dilemma's they face that makes for compelling drama. Character choices should always be what forms the backbone of your story and I don't think it's constructive to think any other way. Even in something as dumb as Transformers, characters still drive the story. Those characters just happen to be giant, transforming robots.

 

[niki]

For me plot driven is when the main conflict we're interested in exists outside the character, whereas character driven the conflict exists primarily internally. Of course everything is on a shaded continuum, but think Bergman vs. Bay, not much plot in one and not much character in the other.

Edited to add, I think the distinction is often based on the viewer. Lawrence of Arabia and The Godfather could be viewed as either plot or character, depending on the preferences and interests of the viewer.

and film it on kodak...

 

[crossXcheck]

Characters reacting primarily to external stimuli does not for me make very compelling drama. Give me an insight into why they react the way they do, rather then just the how. It's the Christopher Nolan conundrum. Nolan wants it both ways, but in the end he always falls back on external stimulus to drive his characters forward while throwing the why component a bone.

I don't think authors should consciously choose one direction or the other, they should tell stories based on their interests and the insights they're attempting to communicate and let the viewer sort it out.

 

[Gillvane]

That's exactly what I said. Ultimately if plot drives the story and not character that's just bad writing. Luke Skywalker isn't pushed along the story whether he wants to or not. He has to make choices. His choices form the narrative. Events beyond his control kick off the narrative, but the choices he makes after that determine the course of the story. His character drives it. He has to choose to help Obi-Wan. He has to choose to save the princess. He has to choose to join the rebellion. He has to choose to shut off his computer and destroy the death star. Bad, plot driven writing would be the first Twilight, where things just happen to Bella but she makes almost no decisions that impact the outcome of the story.

Most people are describing this as the character reacting to the events of the plot, in other words plot driven. Yes, he has to choose to save the Princess. but the REASON the Princess is in danger is the Empire is building a Death Star, and the Rebels are trying to stop it. The plot is what is driving his reactions.

Twilight is Character Driven. There's no Empire building a Death Star in Twilight. We can't just follow some other characters in this drama that is going to play out either way. The conflict is CAUSED by Bella, her desire to be a vampire, or choose between two hunky guys, or whatever the heck it is. Without Bella's internal conflict, there is no conflict.

Without Luke Skywalker's choices, we still have conflict beteween the Death Star production and hte Rebel forces. We could follow a young Tai Fighter, adn why he decides to fight for the Empire, or a million other stories based on the conflict that already exists, Rebel Vs Empire.

 

[Gillvane]

This is an interesting debate but when it comes down to it, I don't think it's all that useful as a writer to think in terms of plot over character or vice versa. Even if a film has gigantic, apocalyptic events in it beyond the characters control, it's how the characters react and the dilemma's they face that makes for compelling drama. Character choices should always be what forms the backbone of your story and I don't think it's constructive to think any other way. Even in something as dumb as Transformers, characters still drive the story. Those characters just happen to be giant, transforming robots.

That is true, but also doesn't change what is the DRIVER of the film, plot or character. Reacting to events is Plot driven. CAUSING events due to your inner struggle, is character driven.

Transformers is plot driven, not character driven. The characters are not DRIVING the story, they are reacting to the events, which is a war between Transformers and Autobots. This war is going to take place. It is going to affect people (and robots). Yes, the characters will have to make decisions. Because of the war, which is the DRIVER.

I don't know if you saw Drive, but it's Character driven. It's about the Character, and his love for a woman, and his profession which is driving for bad guys. He IS the conflict, what he wants, what he does. There is no Empire building a Death Star and he's just reacting to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive_(2011_film)

Batman is character driven. It's about the inner struggle of Bruce Wayne, why he wants to protect the city, what he's willing to do to protect the city, etc. There is no Empire building a death star, and he's just affected it by it like many people will be.