Your hero doesn't always need to arc!

Alright I can't leave this alone.

Nuno Dias said:
I still hold the notion that the idea of having a character that doesn't change, ridiculous. You can dance around all you want about what change is, situational, arc, emotional, whatever. But its still a change.
Click to expand...

Where did I say a character undergoes no change of any kind? This whole debate is about WHAT kind of change a character undergoes. Is it personal, emotional change or growth, or a physical change in status? Or both? Stories can exist along the whole spectrum.

Nuno Dias said:
James Bond always changes. With every new twist and turn he becomes more knowledgable, more efficient and more courageous. He becomes a better version of himself.

Indiana Jones starts off not looking for trouble, and avoiding it i.e: non confrontational and unsure of his capabilities and ends up more confident, stronger and victorious.
Click to expand...

Even if I fully agreed that they change in this way, which I don't, this is such a negligible change as to be without meaning. This is not the point of these stories. People don't watch those films and say, wow, wasn't it cool how Bond was awesome, and then became slightly more awesome. That really taught me how to be incrementally more awesome than I already am. They watch those films and say, wow, Bond is awesome, I wish I could be that awesome.

Nuno Dias said:
Mark Zukerberg started as an innocent troubled college kid and ended a corrupt soul and successful business man. (It still baffles me how anyone can deny to see change in his character...)
Click to expand...

Mark is not innocent at the start of the movie. He's an arrogant prick who can't make a meaningful connection with other people who screws others over the FIRST chance he gets by stealing the idea for Facebook. He then proceeds to screw over everyone else in his life in his single minded pursuit. He has a change in status, not a meaningful change in character.

Nuno Dias said:
Movies are not real life. They are anything but real life. But even in real life, people always change. If you are stupid and get a beating for being stupid, and even then, you continue stupid, then you've changed! You've became even more stupid! Or, you've became a little less stupid. Either way, you've changed from who you were before the beating. It doesn't matter how much you change, or how many beatings you need to change enough, but you'll change. Its human nature.
Click to expand...

Movies can reflect real life. Or they cannot reflect real life. That's a narrow way at looking at movies to suggest they don't....And you took my beating metaphor too literally. I meant emotional beatings as well as physical. And you don't always get those beatings because you're stupid. Sometimes bad, pointless stuff happens through no fault of your own. An entertaining movie on that very topic is After Hours. He literally ends up at the same point he started that movie. I don't know why this makes you upset. I am not negating your preference. I'm merely stating there are other ways to tell stories.
 
Last edited:
If you are unable to see change in any film, then, there's not much anyone can point out to otherwise. And that's fine. For me, the success of a story is exactly about how a character changes from beginning to end. Even if that's not the point of the story or even if the characters themselves don't know they've changed, or accepted the change.

The only characters that don't change are TV characters. But film characters do change.

Its not that I'm trying to convince you that they change, but that I won't let you convince me that they don't change. I didn't start the thread...

I never mentioned a physical beating, you did. And I can't help notice how many corners you put yourself into, and then distort what I say and fiddle with an argument that seems to fit to your way of thought, but that eventually leads to nowhere.

Peace. Don't change.
 
Nuno Dias said:
If you are unable to see change in any film, then, there's not much anyone can point out to otherwise. And that's fine. For me, the success of a story is exactly about how a character changes from beginning to end. Even if that's not the point of the story or even if the characters themselves don't know they've changed, or accepted the change.

The only characters that don't change are TV characters. But film characters do change.

Its not that I'm trying to convince you that they change, but that I won't let you convince me that they don't change. I didn't start the thread...

I never mentioned a physical beating, you did. And I can't help notice how many corners you put yourself into, and then distort what I say and fiddle with an argument that seems to fit to your way of thought, but that eventually leads to nowhere.

Peace. Don't change.
Click to expand...

If you won't let me convince you than why are you even here? You're basically saying there is nothing that could ever be said for you to consider another idea. Then why start a conversation? If you're trying to prove that characters always change in some way, then congratulations, I agree with you. It's the nature of that change that's in dispute here. I'm not trying to win an intellectual pissing contest and I'm not distorting what you're saying. I am CLARIFYING what I am saying, and believe it or not I actually appreciate this exchange, as it is refining my concepts. Let me go through this one last time--

Am I saying there is no change in any film whatsoever? No, that is not what I am saying or have ever said. Am I saying human beings shouldn't change in life and never change? Of course they should and do. But sometimes they don't. You have to acknowledge that. And just as a story can be about how characters change as they sometimes do in life, it can also be about how they don't change. It's not either/or. The title of my thread was YOUR HERO DOESN'T ALWAYS NEED TO ARC! By this I meant, a character's point of view doesn't have to go from point A to point B in any meaningful way, and by always I meant not in every single story. Bond going from 1 (awesome spy) to 1.0000001 (slightly more awesome spy) has zero meaning to the viewer, and the point of writing anything is to imbue it with meaning. The meaning can be hey look, this character started thinking this way, he went through this, now he thinks in the completely opposite way (A Christmas Carol). Or it can be, hey, isn't it tragic this guy never grew as a person (The Social Network). Or, wow, that guy never quit doing what he was doing despite all obstacles put in his path. (Bond, Indiana Jones). I think the source of confusion here might be that you're confusing character with 'character'. There is a difference between a character changing and a person's 'character' changing. When I'm discussing character change or arc, I'm always referring to the values that inform a character's decision making changing, not his superficial attributes.


I'd rather you engage me in conversation Nuno than throw up roadblocks. You're clearly a smart enough person.
 
Last edited:
CallaghanFilms said:
We don't make actual core being changes very often, on the other hand...if at all.
Click to expand...

Right, although very rarely a very few of us do, and that's why it's such ripe fodder for fiction. The (reasonably credible) story of someone's profound inner transformation, particularly as a consequence of his/her own choices under difficult conditions, will always be a subject of great public fascination.
 
Agreed, just pointin' out the differences. :beer:

Of course, I also agree that a fictional character doesn’t have to change to be fascinating to said public.
 
I appreciate your post and understand what you're saying. My point was that, as you started the post, some other folks were kick to takle your idea onto extremes, where suddenly change existed only in a very few films. Anyone can look at any different number of films and see or not see change, and that's that.

But when I consider the most financial successful film ever made, 'Avatar' and see that the story is, in fact, all about Jake's character change, I can't help to aknowledge the fact that, when well crafted, this character arc thing, might actually be a very powerful weapon in a story. Especially when one considers films where character should have gone through more change and didn't, the film usually performs badly with its audience.

Although, I do know that you need a lot more than character change to get that amount of people in seats!

But surely, there's something about audiences witnessing change in other people, that attract's them to go and see this. But keep in mind that I'm talking from the point of view of what might be a 'popular' film. On the other hand, independent or art films, can do what they please, but with a few very good exceptions, these tend to be boring and self indulgent. And I cannot help but feel for the sad man that invested his money in this people to make these film...
 
Funny thing about stories of complete physical transformation like Avatar. Although it almost literally never happens in reality (and of course not at all to the extent shown in Avatar-like films), it's been done over and over and over in fiction. Just goes to show the compelling-ness of the whole notion...
 
Last edited:
Nuno Dias said:
I appreciate your post and understand what you're saying. My point was that, as you started the post, some other folks were kick to takle your idea onto extremes, where suddenly change existed only in a very few films. Anyone can look at any different number of films and see or not see change, and that's that.

But when I consider the most financial successful film ever made, 'Avatar' and see that the story is, in fact, all about Jake's character change, I can't help to aknowledge the fact that, when well crafted, this character arc thing, might actually be a very powerful weapon in a story. Especially when one considers films where character should have gone through more change and didn't, the film usually performs badly with its audience.

Although, I do know that you need a lot more than character change to get that amount of people in seats!

But surely, there's something about audiences witnessing change in other people, that attract's them to go and see this. But keep in mind that I'm talking from the point of view of what might be a 'popular' film. On the other hand, independent or art films, can do what they please, but with a few very good exceptions, these tend to be boring and self indulgent. And I cannot help but feel for the sad man that invested his money in this people to make these film...
Click to expand...

No doubt people like those stories a lot. Check out my other post The Shapes of Stories, where I later discuss Avatar in that same context. You can even make the case theses stories are more rewarding experiences for the audience. But stories about characters who don't grow in any meaningful way can be just as enjoyable, and reveal something just as truthful about people and life. For me it all comes down to what you want to say with your story.
 
Last edited:
movies are story telling mediums, it's fundamental to the movie. if there was nothing important or of great impact to tell, then it's not a story.

but it doesn't have to happen to the main character in the movie.

example 1: you could see something from a neutral perspective of the main character done to a different character or group of characters.

example 2: a movie could be an everyday life of someone so different than an average person that it changes the viewer or some of the other characters in the story around the main character.

the movie doesn't have to start at the beginning and end at the end of the arc. the movie can start in the middle of the arc and also end in the middle like a snapshot in a story, or a contemporary movie that does not need an intro, and the viewer can understand that something happened to the character before the movie started. it's a 2 hour story, it doesn't have to start when the character is born and to the point that he dies.
 
That was quite a good Avatar observation, I wasn't familiar with Vonnegut but it seems the man goes to the core of things in a rather simple unobstructive manner, as it should be really.

Guess I have quite a bit of study to do. He got my attention.

Actually (not that I want to keep hammering on this issue) all the Vonnegut curves illustrate the (now) infamous character arc...
 
Nuno Dias said:
Actually (not that I want to keep hammering on this issue) all the Vonnegut curves illustrate the (now) infamous character arc...
Click to expand...

Yes and no, as it's just diagramming a character's status relative to good or ill fortune. It's not saying how a character achieved that status. The character can achieve that fortune for a myriad of reasons, either through personal change or external change or a mixture of both. In the case of Cinderella, I see little personal change at all. Her status changes primarily because of divine intervention. Funnily, in the written article he goes onto diagram Hamlet, showing it has a no curve whatsoever, which proves there are always exceptions.
 
Last edited:
what is the avatar story? other than it's was a movie in 3d from the director of terminator and titanic.

the movie was not that memorable, but i remember it was trying to be something like Pocahontas or something.

i did not think there was a story, or a main character until the last leg of the movie. and we only get a villain.

there was something like a charade war on pause , to kill a tribe of blue people that live in one specific spot were they wanted to steal there mineral or material.

and we only get a villain and a henchman. it was trying to be a war movie for the wrong reasons , a character story without a character or a meaning or a goal or a plot or anything, love story without a love story. and it failed at everything.

everything that happened during the entire movie was pointless and then turn to retarded to finish of the mess of the story.
 
Amr Rahmy said:
what is the avatar story? other than it's was a movie in 3d from the director of terminator and titanic.

the movie was not that memorable, but i remember it was trying to be something like Pocahontas or something.

i did not think there was a story, or a main character until the last leg of the movie. and we only get a villain.

there was something like a charade war on pause , to kill a tribe of blue people that live in one specific spot were they wanted to steal there mineral or material.

and we only get a villain and a henchman. it was trying to be a war movie for the wrong reasons , a character story without a character or a meaning or a goal or a plot or anything, love story without a love story. and it failed at everything.

everything that happened during the entire movie was pointless and then turn to retarded to finish of the mess of the story.
Click to expand...


Oh, come on. You may not have liked it, but to say it has no story is not fair. I think it's a very clear story about a man realizing he's on the wrong side of a battle, who then changes his beliefs to help the indigenous people he was fighting. It's not Pocahontas it's Dances With Wolves. Was it original? No. But it was a story. And it had a point. And a plot. You just didn't like it, which is fine.
 
^+1

Avatar may not have been everyone's cup of tea, and not particularly original in pure storytelling terms, but it was a good story well told in my and *many* others' opinions. Cameron suffers from some of the same 'wooden dialog' issues that Lucas has been fairly knocked for, but IMO most of his movies are very well drawn story-wise. He didn't win critical raves and break all-time box office records *twice in a row* by peddling thrown-together crap...

But like Batutta said, everyone's entitled to their own opinion...
 
I think it's a very clear story about a man realizing he's on the wrong side of a battle, who then changes his beliefs to help the indigenous people he was fighting
Click to expand...

i think that's the story for battle for terra, definitly not avatar. and people did not like that movie, it was not in read 3d, by cameron, and expensive cg.


did the character fight against this tribe at the start or was he just cast as on the other side, when did he change hes beliefs(he didn't belief in good and evil before the movie started?), when did he not know what the military was up to, when did he realize what he was doing.

the movie was cloned from a better story, it doesn't mean avatar had a story, it's just was trying to have a story.
 
Amr Rahmy said:
i think that's the story for battle for terra, definitly not avatar. and people did not like that movie, it was not in read 3d, by cameron, and expensive cg.


did the character fight against this tribe at the start or was he just cast as on the other side, when did he change hes beliefs(he didn't belief in good and evil before the movie started?), when did he not know what the military was up to, when did he realize what he was doing.

the movie was cloned from a better story, it doesn't mean avatar had a story, it's just was trying to have a story.
Click to expand...

It had a story. You and I might not agree wether it was a good story. But it had a story. A story doesn't have to be good to qualify as one. Sully changed from obedient soldier who believed what he was doing was right, to a defiant insurgent willing to kill his fellow soldiers when he realized what he was doing was wrong, a pretty big change in beliefs.
 
that's more like a shell, where is the story, where is the change of belief and from what, when did he not know what he was doing was wrong, what made him change his mind. i know what the story they were trying to make, does not mean they made it.

when you watch a bad low budget b movie, you can most of the time tell what the movie was supposed to be about, it does not mean it was well executed, or done at all at any level.
 
i think the story of avatar is the director of titanic is finally releasing the movie hes been working on for so long and it's going to be amazing even before the movie is released.
people loved avatar before they had the chance to see it.

it's like if the coen brothers decided to make a bad movie, some people will loved no matter what.

if they watched the same movie without knowing who did it, i think they would judge it differently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top