Character arc

[Centos]

Originally Posted by Southern_land

Does the protag have to have a character arc or can he or she reveal the truth of their character as the movie goes on?

I'm working on an idea where the protag is introduced doing some pretty evil deeds (multiple) but as the story progresses hopefully a more sympathetic view of him is presented even though he's still pursuing the same course. He is a man of black and white perceptions where good is good and bad is bad but he's willing to do a potential great evil to acheive a greater good.

Anyone know of any examples where this has been done before? All the examples I can think of have genuine character arcs, not reveals.

Thanks in advance

I think the only way you can make people like protagonists who do evil things is to have them fighting people who are even more evil.

I think a good example of this is found in Mel Gibson's "Payback." There was almost *no* character arc, Gibson's character (Porter) had almost no redeeming qualities, yet you were on his side from the very start.

[Southern_land]

Thanks guys.

Yeah I have payback on DVD (not the long version unfortunately) and there are elements of that character in mine as well as elements of the lead in Falling Down in their single minded pursuit of a goal. I love the almost terminator-like remorseless drive they display.

And interesting about eastern Promises. I guess a cop undercover is the ultimate of a guy who's created a mask to hide behind. The antithesis of my protag but working with similar restrictions.


I think fictional characters with a single minded goal are somehow easy to admire because the rest of us are so conflicted with various wants and needs knocking us off course. Strange that in real life single minded people often a pain inthe a$$.

again thanks
________
Marijuana hemp

[Biohazard]

Originally Posted by WritersBlock2010

The majority of iconic action heroes have no semblance of change, let alone arc.

And there's a direct correlation between an action hero's non-arc and the fact that the genre as a whole is typically looked down upon for lack of depth and overall quality.

But look at the classic action films and you will see definite change.

John McClane changes.
Neo changes.
Luke Skywalker changes.
Indiana Jones changes.
Sarah Connor changes.
Arnold the cyborg in T2 changes, and he's not even human.

There's a reason why people enjoy those films more-so than others from the same genre.

[WritersBlock2010]

Originally Posted by Biohazard

And there's a direct correlation between an action hero's non-arc and the fact that the genre as a whole is typically looked down upon for lack of depth and overall quality.

Where is this direct correlation?

Please, cite the source.

[Biohazard]

Originally Posted by WritersBlock2010

Where is this direct correlation?

Please, cite the source.

The source is the material. People don't like boring, stagnant characters or the films they are in...but films with great, dynamic characters are loved and talked-about for decades on end.

[Ronaldinho]

Originally Posted by Biohazard

Your character has to change somehow. Nobody wants to see a stagnant character for 2 hours.

This is categorically not true.

Lots of great characters don't change. They change the world around them, but they don't actually change. McClane in Die Hard, Ripley in the first Alien film, Sarah Connor in the first Terminator.

I've always called these guys "force of nature" characters, but Keith, over on Wordplay, had an absolutely fantastic post about this which I'm just going to link to:

http://www.wordplayer.com/forums/scr...gi?read=175787

So many of us are taught that "characters must arc" that we assume it must be the case, despite lots of evidence to the contrary.

(Incidentally, however, Neo in the Matrix does arc, as he learns to accept that he is the one, which allows him to become the one).

[Southern_land]

I would debate whether or not Sarah conner changes in T1. I think she's a very different individual between the apron wearing server drone to the point where she finally crushes Arnie
________
Michigan dispensaries

[Biohazard]

Sarah doesn't change in The Terminator?

Seriously, who believes that? It's the most obvious change in action film history. How could you not see it?

Timid, fumbling waitress who can't even balance her checkbook stands up to fight a killer cyborg so she can give birth to the savior of humanity and become the mother of the future.

[Southern_land]

Ok how about these three...

Kowolski (Vanishing point) Been a long time since I've seen it but from memory there is no arc


Luke (I guess?) Cool hand Luke Again it's been a couple of years since I last saw it but I recall a character resolutely going in one direction

Butch Cassedy and the Sundance kid Okay they arc and try to go straight, then the arc right back and continue their bank robberies so that could be a character circle I suppose. (and do't try to tell me that changing from robbing trains in the US to robbing banks in Bolivia is an arc... I won't believe you )
________
Handjob Nurse

[Ronaldinho]

Originally Posted by Biohazard

Timid, fumbling waitress who can't even balance her checkbook stands up to fight a killer cyborg so she can give birth to the savior of humanity and become the mother of the future.

All she ever does is run.

Even at the end, when she crushes it, she's running. She NEVER "stands up to it." When she crushes it in the machine it's because she literally can't run and the means to destroy it is put right in her hands.

There is a HUGE change between the Sarah Connor of T1 and the Sarah Connor of T2, caused by the events of the first film. But none of that is in the first film.

She never chooses to fight the terminator in the first film, she never chooses to stand up to it.

Or, put it another way:

Let's say the fight in the factory, where she destroys it, happened right after the Terminator attacked her in the club. She runs from the club, ends up in the factory, and the thing is still chasing her. Is there any way in which he behavior would be any different, that she couldn't have done what she did in the last scene?

If Neo doesn't have the experience of the film, he doesn't accept that he's the One, and he dies in the penultimate scene. If Luke doesn't have the experience of the film, he doesn't accept the ways of the Force, he tries to use his targeting computer to blow up the Death Star and it just impacts on the surface, and the rebel base is destroyed. If Indiana Jones doesn't have the experience of the film, and accept that there are powers beyond his understanding, he keeps his eyes open to see what's in the ark and gets fried like everyone else.

If Sarah Connor doesn't ... what?



(Just for the record, in no way do I intend this as a criticism of Terminator, which I only add because somebody always, in these discussions, thinks I'm attacking the movie. I'm attacking the paradigm that central characters have to arc for a film to resonate and be successful.)