Let's talk 'character arcs'

[Rantanplan]

I think people go out of their way to find character arcs for characters they love. Not everybody "learns a valuable lesson" and "becomes a better human being." Just because a character is interesting to watch (great one-liners, great jams to get out of, combination of macho and vulnerable, etc.), does not mean they're experiencing tremendous "arc."

I thought TAKEN was instantly forgettable. One of the main requirements in a good action flick, as far as I'm concerned, is a great bad guy. DIE HARD and sequels had that, TAKEN did not. A sense of humor usually works pretty well too. Liam's character left his at the door. As cheesy as it might be, I'll take COMMANDO over TAKEN any day of the week. In terms of fathers fighting to get their daughters back, nobody's got nottin' on Arnold! I bet any action fan on this board can quote more lines from COMMANDO than from TAKEN.

[BurningWorld]

Character arcs aren't all that important anyway. People in real life don't change so why should characters. That's why the Coen brothers are great. They rarely have a character that changes. It's a breath of fresh air. And regarding TAKEN? Yeah, Neeson started as a father who didn't really connect with his daughter at all, I'm not even talking about the pony. Their relationship is not really that close. And it doesn't matter anyway that's not really an emotional character movie anyway -- it's an emotional plot movie with her getting napped.

[sc111]

I think the subtle thing in Taken is he had already seen the error of his ways in act one. He was already at the arc point fifteen minutes into the film. He wanted to connect with his daughter but, as a former spy, didn't have the skills to be that cuddly family man.

But, thanks to this same career, he was an a$$-kicking fearless killing machine who was able to do what he needed to do to save his daughter. If he had been a divorced lawyer estranged from his kid, all bets off.

In the denoument, he had found a way to connect with her in ways the pony-giving stepdad could never compete.

[scripto80]

All characters should see SOME sort of evolution by the end of a film, even if it's just uber slightly detectible. Whether they've come to learn to accept and deal with something bad from their past, forgive themselves for a past sin, love when they previously didn't know how, face their fears, find their happy place, accept themselves flaws and all, learn something they never knew, become sympathetic when previously they were cold, or simply achieve something they've strived throughout the whole film to achieve and then roll over and die.

An arc can be slight, but it has to exist at least to some degree for the main character. Even if it's only in the form of action instead of dialogue, or vice versa. If there's not some even remotely detectable change for a character from the beginning to the end, then they'll be one dimensional and hard to stick with for 2 hours.

It seems some people believe no arc is necessary, but that just results in flat, uninteresting, cliche caricatures as opposed to characters. Others believe a character has to have some huge, life defining 180 degree personality shift, but I disagree with that as well. As with everything, it's all about balance, finding what's appropriate for your character. If they start out as a seemingly cold-hearted, one liner delivering badass, you shouldn't force try them to be a Shakespeare-spouting mushy teddy bear by the end of the film. In the end they probably can and should still be a one liner delivering badass, but at some point they should have demonstrated some sort of growth or evolution, however small and seemingly insignificant it might be.

[Filmfelinemeowmeow]

Originally Posted by Harbinger

Die Hard is about as perfect as a movie can get. From Script to what's on screen.

Now admittedly a part of this is nostalgia. From my early years, the three movies I remember that all parents (in my circle) didn't want to let their kids watch was Die Hard, Predator and for some reason Total Recall (oh.... and Nightmare On Elm Strt)

We really have the same likes in film...weird. I didn't say I hate Die Hard, I just didn't love it, and I do like Willis. His fave films of mine are 5th Element, Sixth Sense, Pulp Fiction, Armagedon, and Color of the Night. I also love Striking Distance, I've seen that a few times.

Originally Posted by Harbinger

But here was the hero.

Well, you know how I feel about TAKEN. It's the best film I've seen in 2011.
I'm a Neeson fan and I loved his wifey too. The Handmaids Tale is one film I am jealous of not writing. Jealousy is a very bad Scorpio trait, so I have to pull the rains on that... along side with Bladerunner and a few others...I'm a huge fan of Total Recall, since you mentioned it. As for 'hero' what you saw at age 9 hm... I guess I was a victim of my parental units, I watched what they watched. I loved films like the the Magnificent Seven, Seven Samurai, Look Who's Coming to Dinner, Count of Monte Cristo, etc... Steve McQueen was my hero, Sony Chiba and Bruce Lee or James Bond is who I dreamt about

Originally Posted by Harbinger

EDIT: I will say that the relationship with Famke, his ex-wife, seems repaired in an amicable way, but isn't that more her arc? She resents him, but then he uses his skills to return their daughter. Still not his arc.

No, it's more hers...she is the one who changes although we never see how she either appreciates his skills or is thankful of having his advice in her life. In the begining she didn't take him seriously...
I love Famke. I enjoyed pizza with the goddess, she's stunning in RL mark my words! Be sure to check out Brining Up Bobby - she wrote it, directed it and there are youtube clip interviews too!

[Filmfelinemeowmeow]

Originally Posted by sc111

I think the subtle thing in Taken is he had already seen the error of his ways in act one. He was already at the arc point fifteen minutes into the film. He wanted to connect with his daughter but, as a former spy, didn't have the skills to be that cuddly family man.

I agree and interesting... very perceptive. You're right. It begins with his arc.

[Why One]

With TAKEN, IMO, the change happened before the movie began. Neeson let his work affect his personal life, making him an absent father and husband. So the movie start with him trying to connect with his daughter.

The only real discernible change that happened during the movie was Neeson trying to be less protective and letting his daughter go on that Paris trip. And we all know how that turned out.

[Filmfelinemeowmeow]

I forgot to add - one of the BEST FILMS I have ever seen - best characters, story, actors, director - is LEON C'est vraiment fantastique!

[jonpiper]

I have a different angle on the character arc in Taken and how a character relates to a story. I see it as a story about a divorced, retired CIA guy who must find and rescue his daughter when she is kidnapped on a trip to Europe with her girlfriend. The whole second act is independent of the first act in this story. Here's what I mean.

Neesom could have been an irresponsilbe prick who spoiled his daughter and approved of her traveling to Europe. His wife and her new husband could have been the overprotective ones. The setup would have been different of course, but the second act from the time she takes the plane until she is rescued could easily have been the same. Then change the denoument to fit the first act.

In that case the protag's arc would have been been different. In either case wouldn't the story have been the same? In this kind of story, I don't think an arc if any is necessary. An arc adds depth to the story, but so do a number of other things.

OOPS. I should have said an arc adds depth to a character. But does a more rounded character change the story?