Writing Characters Without Character Arcs 

and all while getting into illegal boxing using a martial art similar to kung fu, getting high af on opium and other drugs and being absolutely savage.

Mind, the mystery genre doesn't really focus on character arcs. The focus is generally on exploring the characters and figuring out who the guilty part is.

Seraphi Grimaldi what?

The Doctor doesn't have much of an Arc either. (s)he's pretty set in stone, wich works VERY well when he's the side character of an episode or arc.

@@vincentmuyo generally, but there is a reason Sherlock Holmes is pretty much the only name that comes to mind when you think of a detective. And it has to do with his character

Or Sherlock Holms 'novels ^^

A trend I hate lately in American TV is every character has a positive arc in practically every single episode. I don't like for two reasons: 1. Because it's too much; it doesn't feel special or meaningful if it happens over and over to the same character, and by the third season they should be so wise they're levitating. 2. And yet they never change, like somehow it's Groundhog Day and they reset every episode.

I couldn’t agree more. I loved The Goldbergs until I noticed that virtually every episode would begin with the kid or kids pushing their parents away and conclude with the kids realising just how much they need and love their parents (usually Beverley). Which is fine for what it is but this all happens in 23 minutes.

Not like the winter soldier. Cap changes a lot in that movie. His fundamental distrust in government comes from the events of Winter Soldier and lead directly to his position in Civil War.

Yeah, why doesn't bugs bunny have a character arc ? This video is dumb as fucking rocks.

Forrest Gump changes the world -- people -- around him but is relatively unchanged by it.

@@kamuelalee Not necessarily. He learns about loss (Bubba, Jenny) and assumes a greater role (fatherhood), and therefore gains a greater sense of self and responsibility than any of his history-making escapades could ever imbue (he seems indifferent to those, which is antithetical to me).

@@commandercaptain4664 Perhaps, though I did say Forrest is relatively unchanged. Yes, he does learn a few things -- but Forrest's personal character arc is still pretty flat. I think he more importantly impacts others' lives like Lt. Dan, Jenny. Granted, Forrest's character arc is not as flat as say Dustin Hoffman's "Rain Man" character whose arc remains mostly unchanged but vastly changes his brother's character, as played by Tom Cruise.

@@kamuelalee But isn't Tom Cruise's character technically the protagonist in Rain Man

@@dkisausome Title character is Dustin Hoffman, who also happened to win the Oscar for that movie. Tom Cruise should have won instead, in my humble opinion.

I know, it's really stupid to say Marty Mcfly didn't have an arc or change, he most certainly did.

Agreed. Marty has an arc. Its emphasized in Part 3 when he doesn't race Fleas' character after he's bullied. Aw geez Rick. I guess he got it wrong. :D

No! He has an arc BEFORE the chicken thing in the sequels. He completely changed his perspective about his parents at the end of the first film.

Agreed. The only film in which he doesn't really change is the second film, and that is the connective tissue between the first and third films.

Interesting perspective. I have one of the anniversary issues and in the commentary, the director and writer talk about Marty not having a character arc in any of the films. They specifically point out how his father has the arc in the first and doc has the arc in the third..I can't remember off the top of my head who (they said) had the arc in the second. The chicken thing was added in the second film so maybe that was their way of giving him some sort of arc.

I'd say the greatest example is Marcello from La Dolce Vita, but Wall-E is good, too.

bachelorchowTV I love wall e it’s always been one of my top movies and people always questioned me for it because of the lack of dialogue people assume it’s less meaningful or boring

Yes! Absolutely! WALL-E is a masterpiece

@@amarillot.t4376 Well then those people are dumb lol A story can be very engaging with no dialogue and WALL-E perfected this. It has dialogue in the later half of the movie, but the first half is almost completely silent. Instead it's filled with SUPERB sound design. The environment, WALL-E's beeps and boops have a lot of weight behind them, and this movie completely immerses it's audience all with NO WORDS!!! Brad Bird is a brilliant director ❤

@@Sqwivig I don't think Wall-E was directed by Brad Bird though... He directed The Incredibles and Ratatouille, but I don't think he did Wall-E.

I’m honoured!

I said the same thing out loud to my screen 2 seconds before you said it in the video. Thank you! That's exactly how they should write a Superman movie.

Oh my, you're actually here! I hope you've given Lessons from the Screenplay some love, he prompted me to buy your book with his incredible video.

So basically... "Superman vs. The Elite". And "All-Star Superman". Both well-liked stories in the comics (the latter, granted, an Elseworlds tale) in which Superman never wavers in his beliefs yet affects positive impacts on the world around him; both also adapted into well-received animated movies... How is it that the animated films are so much better than the "realistic" live-action movies...? Oh, yeah; because they actually get WHAT makes Superman a likeable character and what makes him WORK as a somewhat-OP figure. And of course, lest we forget about the original Christopher Reeve take in 1978, where it's Superman's nobility of heart (not his physical strength) that leads to Ms. Tessmacher trusting him enough to turn on Lex Luthor in the climax (in exchange for stopping the attack where her mother lives first); without which both cities would be devastated and Superman would probably be held at Luthor's mercy, with countless lives lost. Instead he makes a deal with the Big Bad's henchwoman, KEEPS his word despite the reality that he probably can't stop both disasters, and when the other one DOES kill Lois Lane he takes a gamble in reversing time to prevent ALL the deaths... yeah, I know the ending of the movie hasn't aged the best (especially since the first sequel, which was meant to deal with the consequences of that choice, was kind of screwed over by the executives), but the film should still be a bit more of a template for future filmmakers than the COMPLETE 180 that was "Man of Steel" (incidentally, I do like the latter movie's most contested point in the climax, but more in practice than in actual execution - especially after the sequels!)

Lessons From the Screenplay is great! And thanks for grabbing the book. I hope you enjoy it! :D

How's that flat? That is the opposite of flat.

MrParkerman6 Ferris Beuler is the main character and he doesn’t have an arc so it is a flat arc. The supporting character Cameron has one instead.

I thought of Ferris as well. The story is moreso about Cameron's need to loosen up, take chances, and stand up for himself. Ferris and Sloan are more of his guardian angels guiding his way.

His sister also had an arc. Although that may have been more due to Charlie Sheen's character lol.

MrParkerman6 were you even listening during the video? A flat arc means the main character doesn’t change them self, they change others

It's really the only way Superman can work.

Jaren Tankersley Watching the video, I was like "This is why I love "Man of Steel" and 'Batman v Superman' so much, because Superman has such a flat arc. How can I segue this into Zack Snyder and David Goyer's use of a flat arc for Superman." Then he suggests that "This is how a Superman movie should be written." I was like "This is exactly how 'Man of Steel' and 'Batman v Superman' are written!" I'm going to be replying to him in full very soon.

Doesn't Man of Steel has that whole arc about Supes accepting who he is and choosing to make a difference instead of staying hidden? I thought at least half the movie was about that. Besides, I didn't get the idea in either movie that Superman made some kind of change in the world or in the other characters (well, except Batman I guess...). Kinda pointless to have a main character with a flat arc if the rest of the story isn't really affected by that. Haven't watched those movies in ages though, so I might be wrong lol

Bruno Bessa That's what I came away with. The problem I had with Supermans' arc was that after he decides to save mankind his relationship with the world doesn't change which makes his dilemma feel pointless. They distrust him in the beginning and distrust him in the end.

Bruno Bessa In "Man of Steel", he changed his school bully, Pete Ross, he changes the lives of all the people he saved, actually. Especially Lois. Up until she realized that Clark was protecting Smallville and the people he saved by protecting his secret, all she cared about was the story. After meeting him, however, she risked her freedom and even her life for him. By being a hero to her, he made her a hero in her own right. She saved his life on the Kryptonian ship and she helped him save the world. One of my favorite scenes in "Man of Steel" is another example of how he changes the people around him. The World Engine is bearing down on Perry White, Frank Lombard and Jenny, and you can see in Perry's face that he knows there is no saving them, but Superman does. He gives them hope when there seems to be none. Finally, he changes the military. By saving these men who were firing on him, he shows them he is indeed not their enemy. In "Batman v Superman" he changes far more than just Batman. Lex hates him because he is incorruptible and he is desperate to prove otherwise in his plan to break Superman's spirit, disgrace him, and kill him. He dramatically bends his spirit, but can't break it, especially with Lois becoming his hero, he fails to disgrace him. Instead Clark proves that he is all good by risking his life in his fight with Batman, rather than taking Batman's life. He saves Lex and he gives his life to save a world that told him he had no right to. In doing so, the world looks up to him, not as a god, but as a man who never stopped trying to do the right thing. Batman realize that his rules against killing matter more than ever, even in a world of super powered people, and Wonder Woman has faith in humanity's survival, and steps out of the shadows, to fight for the good in the world. All because Superman never gave up on helping others, and because he never lost faith in humanity.

Agreed. If I hear one more "critique" about how "X" shouldn't achieve something because one hasn't achieved the preconceived rules of "Y", when it's "Z" that actually matters...

I swear people call a character badly written or say the actor/actress is bad when the character they play doesn't show a lot of charisma or is calmer than the others

Being "likeable" is purely dependent on who you ask about a specific character, while having "good values" isn't intrinsically a good thing for storytelling. So like, both don't matter much when actually judging stories.

@@vasilivros4166 every one loves demon slayer and guess what he's flat

You're taking it out of context and specifically leaving out examples. The kind of critics I generally see on youtube are people who have a general understanding about story building, so I think they'd be familiar with static characters. Those can only really exist when the plot is exciting. If you take Star Wars, for example, a movie that is solely about a character arc, there's no excuse. I think you'll find that the characters aren't the only ones getting criticized. The plot gets the most hate.

Andy does change. He initially believes that he can influence the institution around him for the better despite having accepted his fate of wrongful incarceration, which is actually a way in which he lost hope. It's at the midpoint, after he's given new hope he can prove his innocence, but dropped in the hole for a month, and the kid he tutored is killed, he reverses it all; flips it. He realizes he can't change the institution for the better, but rejects that he is resigned to wrongful incarceration, and initiates his escape plan. He learns to take his fate into his own hands. He does change, as well as change the world around him.

@@jdovma1 You're right.

@Robert Townrow I think you should watch it again. He doesnt start digging the tunnel when he gets the rock hammer. He carves chess pieces. It isnt until he cracks off a piece of the wall carving his initials that he starts digging, which is toward the middle, but he doesnt make his final decision to go ahead with the escape until his efforts to change things prove futile. He enjoyed making the prison a better place. And why you think money laundering was his attempt to make things better is beyond me. He pestered his local government with letters for funding to expand the library. Thats how they got the music he got himself in trouble playing over the PA system for the benefit of the rest of the inmates. He traded tax advice for beer for his fellow inmates working on the roof. He tutored inmates to help them get GEDs. It isnt until after the kid is killed while he's doing a month in the hole that Andy makes his decision to "get busy living or get busy dying." Even if he had finished digging through he very well may have stayed if he continued feeling like he was making a difference. It was the blatant corruption of the warden burying the evidence and killing the kid he was helping that finally convinced him to escape.

He didnt just change Morgan's life.. he influenced many in the prison..especially in the main characters. And even some guards. And the whole prison at once when he played that song for them.

No, he starts carving the tunnel almost as soon as he gets the hammer. Note when he asks for the Rita Hayworth poster.

I imagine this is an exaggeration, but are you incredibly close-minded, stubborn, and closed off to the world? I've changed astronomically over the course of just 2 years, I absolutely can't imagine someone not changing over the course of 2 decades... If you're serious, you've probably just not noticed or are omitting things that you don't think are changes.

Well yes and no. I have basically the same hobbies, interests, moral principles, life values, and I'm still in the same job I had when I graduated high school, in the same position. Everyone I know has gone to college, gotten married, had kids, changed jobs multiple times, gone through "phases." A lot of them have come to me asking for advice over the years, and I've been told it's because they see me as a pretty stable person who they can rely on to give a grounded perspective no matter what. But yeah, I have not changed in any significant way unless you count body hair in the last 20 years.

@blazinho I was 15 20 years ago... so no not height lol.

Relatable, have a nice day.

@@Jamie-tx7pn > i absolutely can't imaginr someone not changing over the course of 2 decades. Not to be disparaging but that sounds like someones ttrpg "chaotic" character saying something to a creature made in a lawful plane.

AMEN!

Cap and Superman are different in ways which make it so you can't write them similarly anymore. Clark isn't from the 1940s anymore he is always contemporary to whatever time he is being written so Modern Clark will always have to born in a post cold war world where tension and paranoia and ideas involving security over freedom came about something Cap didn't have to worry about until he had already firmly established his principles which many Americans shared with him. When He went under the Ice he was fully formed and justified in his views he didn't live ina world of perpetual greys. Clark's reality is different. He lives in a post Vietnam, post 9/11, post every other week a terrorist attack, school shooting or mass genocide in africa world. If you write modern Clark Kent you have to take how all this would affect his environment otherwise your superman story will be built on a lie of willful ignorance. You have to ask how will a world which actively attacks and belittles anyone different affect how the Kents raise Clark. Raising him with love and kindness is all well and good but do you seriously expect them to not heavily caution and dissuade him from trusting everyone he meets and openly using his powers? Would you as a parent tell you child in the world we live in to feel safe in our world? No. It's we are told as children not to trust strangers and why there is security and Identification in many schools. Bottom Line Cap comes from 1940s America where good and bad are easy to delineate and you don't have to worry about any complications. Modern Superman exists in the context of a morally bankrupt world where truth is a suggestion and anything can happen at any moment to any person, and every human on this planet grows up with the simple fact that life isn't fair and you are never truly safe. He would be forced to question his place in a world like that if he is any sort of hero.

I'm trying to reply but I'm just so busy laughing over the idea that 1940s America was a simple place where good and bad were easy to delineate, free of complications. Have you heard of Jim Crow? It was only ever a great time to be alive if you were a white straight male, thanks. Also, according to the MCU, Captain America was given the super soldier serum in 1941, and spent 1943-1945 witnessing and dealing with the most sickening atrocities carried out by Hydra in German occupied Europe. He DIED in 1945. He wasn't born and brought up in the 40s. He was born sometime between 1918-1921 (when is arguable - MCU has conflicting dates) and grew up during the Depression, a time of deprivation and suffering, most especially for the working classes. In the comics his dad was occasionally an abusive drunk, and his mum died of Typhoid. So your argument there is based on a faulty premise. He isn't a figure of hope because he came from a hopeful time. He came from a shitty time and fought in a shitty war. He's not a figure of hope because he never notices corruption or questions his role or clashes with authority. He's a figure of hope because his character has been effectively written to be a man of great principle who, by continually fighting for what he believes to be right, engenders change for the better in others. The point I was making and the point that the maker of the video was making is that this should be Superman's role too. The whole reason Superman is an enduring and beloved character is that ultimately he is is own self - an optimistic and deeply principled character who sacrifices his own happiness over and over from love of justice and mankind. If your characterisation of him instead turns him into a conflicted and broken character who appears to take joy in nothing and feels only weary cynicism toward humanity, then he can't fulfil that role. It doesn't matter if your character was born and grew up in the shitty 1920s or the shitty 90s. He can still fulfil that role - he can still be idealistic, caring, ultimately optimistic. But not if your mission in rebooting him is to make him something completely different.

Okay I think I have a better idea of where you are coming from. I must disagree however. I do not believe Cav-El (DCEU Supes) to be the man you think him to be. You say you want him to be ultimately optimistic implying you believe he is not; I disagree. If we look at the mission statement or the core belief of this Superman it is the fundamental belief that "every person can be a force for good". That's what his "S" stands for. This is his hope and as long as he fights for this I recognise him and the film's narrative and the character's arc recognises him as a hopeful and optimistic individual. While he has certainly doubted and been bufted and aggressed by the cynical world he inhabits he was "ulimately", optimistic. Had he not been an optimstic individual he would not have died to save a world against Doomsday. He would not have risked his and his mother's life to try and convince Bruce to help him, a man he had no reason to trust other than hope, a man who he rightly believed to be a dangerous criminal. Even after everything Luthor did he did not hesitate to save him from Doomsday's fist. In MoS Clark is at a pivotal crossroads between acting on his own and not going to Zod or trusting humanity and giving himself over to humans to do what they think is best "Lois: You are giving yourself to Zod? Clark: I'm giving myself to humanity there is a difference". He takes what the Priest says ," Sometimes you have to take a leap of faith, the trust part comes later" and puts it into action in his life. And people change after he takes a leap of faith. First his bully Pete Ross. Then Colonel Hardy who previously didn't trust him until ,"This man is not our enemy". In BvS Bruce obviously doesn't like him and has more or less given up on the world and good people , "We know what promises are worth, how many good guys are left? How many stayed that way?" Then by the end of the film, "Men are still good." That was because Clark took a chance on him. Then finally after a film showing the divided world view on Supes after his death everyone comes together to mourn him much like real life controversial figures. It's only in death are they appreciated. Superman's sacrifice changed the world. His belief in the goodness of man saved Batman from being completely destroyed by his own darkness.

Joseph Bapeck Dammit, RU-vid ate my reply. Anyway, it was something along the lines of YES, there is definitely room to interpret both the films that way, and I think there were great moments in MoS and BvS, but I don't think either film gave us any more than a subtext. Superman fans want him to be a blazing banner of optimism, idealism and love for mankind - that's why we love him. We don't want a subtext. We want that to BE the text. Yes, he can struggle with what the right thing to do is, yes, he can question himself, but his underlying character should not be subject to change. But it has been changed, fundamentally. And not for the better in my reckoning. Superman always had those unique traits which made him who he was. Now he doesn't. If it weren't for the God-like powers he might as well be Daredevil or any other run of the mill conflicted, world-weary hero. And this is why a lot of us have transferred our love over to Captain America in recent years, because although Marvel doesn't get everything right (Tony Stark characterisation, I'm looking at you) they have definitely written a spot-on flat arc for Steve Rogers that gives all us saps who want a truly good, principled, decent superhero shining out admist all the anti-heroes and conflicted heroes and grimdark heroes a place to call home.

That's a good point, an excellent example.

Changing the world for the worse, one clip at a time!

This is definitely almost always a good starting point for villains in general too. Even if they don't realize they're wrong at some point, believing a lie is practically a requirement to being a villain.

I literally came to the comment section to write the exact same thing! The main character in my book doesn't change too much within the story, which some readers consider a bad thing or not a well-rounded character, but after a few sleepless nights I came to the conclusion that there is a purpose behind it, and the character couldn't be any other way, and have the story work, at least not in the same way.

Do look up the Blithe Spirit / Blithe Angel plot arc, described here: tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlitheSpirit It's from the book *Power* *Screenwriting* by Michael Chase Walker, and, while I don't care too much about most of that book, the fourth chapter is just GOLD. It details several myths: the basic Hero Myth, the "hero must escape the corrupt land he got stuck in" Outlaw Myth, and three "inverted myths" where the Hero has a flat arc like this. There's the Messiah come to offer salvation (often struck down by an uncaring world that rejects him), the Vengeful Messiah who punishes a sinful people, and the Blithe Angel who shakes up the status quo and helps people be not so stuck in their old patterns. A lot of alternative plots happen when you simply shift the focus to a different part of the tale. You might also hunt through the 7 Basic Plots (as depicted by Christopher Booker: tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/TheSevenBasicPlots), the Ten Movie Plots (from the book Save the Cat! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TenMoviePlots), or other archetypes people have collected over the years: tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BooksOnTrope I had to bridge outside conventional wisdom when trying to write a story about a kid in foster care. Traditional wisdom says that the protagonist must have agency, must move the plot forward -- but a key factor of a kid in foster care is that they have little to no power to affect the situation they're in; they're only able to bear up under adverse circumstances. But traditional stories don't cover 100% of possibly tales!

Just be careful not to write a mary sue

@@taliakellegg5978 hmm Rey... Hmmm

Same thing here, it cleared my confusion and now I’m left with the ability to think up more in depth scenarios with all the characters and their different arcs

I was going to include a little section about this, but had to cut it. In the video, I'm only talking about Marty in the first film. They add on an arc about him learning not to flip out when he's called a coward, but to me it feels stapled on, as if they felt him not having an arc in the first film was a weakness in the story when it really wasn't.

Just Write I see your point. It also reminds me of the criticism Crispin Glover had of the movie at large. It seems Glover had wanted to see Marty learn to be less materialistic and self-centered in his goals of helping others.

Marty does have an arc in the first film, though. He lacks confidence about his talent (much like his father) and he tells Jennifer he wouldn't be able to handle the rejection if somebody told him he's no good. By the end of the movie he plays a big gig in front of a large audience and goes all out. Then again, he does go through the audition (and gets rejected) and doesn't seem too fazed by it... This might be a weak spot in an otherwise perfect script!

meh, I feel like it's only a weak spot if it makes you enjoy the movie less

+Shir Deutch (‫שיר דויטש‬‎) it lead to the Johnny B Goode scene

HoustonProductions1 “Houston productions” what do you do?

It good stuff

I think it's more that these Mary Sue characters can't grow because they're already idealized versions of what we want to be. At least, I hope so, because if your idea of being your ideal self is determined by other people's reactions, you've got a lot of growing to do. ;)

Mikeztarp These characters can have films where they radically change. Even Superman, but it's about what changes about them. If you want to do a Superman origin story, maybe a film about him becoming more sure of himself and his purpose, similar to Superman Earth 1. Generally hero stories, about heroes that change are about the responsibility they have given who they are and what they do. Spiderman, Logan, Guardians, Black Panther, etc. A story that Just Write mentions, needs to have the main character constantly being tested to the point of questioning, but in the end remaining steadfast and inspiring others to do so as well. It's why I think Winter Soldier is the best Superman movie in years. It's everything modern Superman should be.

dickriding association is everywhere

Obi wan Kenobi

cap stopped believing in the government in this movie. he changed all his point of view of being captain "america". he realized that being a symbol was not helping anymore, and he had to change the way he fights to actually fight against evil. winter soldier is where we see steve changing more, this is a huge character arc. are you sure you didn't sleep throughout the movie?

@@yasmeowo Its not character development he doesnt change his way of looking at things his program doesnt change he just input some new data

Disliked just because of it really, otherwise a good video.

Yeah, me too. It's good to know that people support what's right even though it might be so controversial.

I like that too. It really surprised me. I do side with James Gunn because I believe, no matter the age, that people can change, and I'm sure Paddington would agree. But I also think some mistakes are harder to forget than others, especially in this digital age.

Same. People can change. Disney should stop making all their movies about it if they don't believe it for real.

Daniel Gatten you caught that crap right? I thumbed down the video just for that attempt by uploader.

Timothy McLean this isn't necessarily true. Look at old knight's tales. They are more about the adventure than anything else, about how they solve problems they face along the way, nothing ever really changes, not fundamentally

But the intrigue in each tale is the problem being solved and that is the compelling change. In eastern stories, a lot more emphasis is placed on the cycle of things. Things happen (change) but they change in predictable ways, so nothing ever really changes, not fundamentally there too. But there is still change in some way and the stores often are about the change and its relation to the stay. One might be able to make your point about purely observational stories, if such a thing really exists. Kinda like The Time Machine, but even in that the author inserts conflict to overcome in that exploration.

Waiting for Godot haha

Not really. A tragedy could be defined as a story where a change is necessary but doesn't happen. What you need in a story is tension, but you can just as easily create that tension through making the audience hope for something to change. It doesn't need to actually happen. Chekov plays or Waiting for Godot use audience desires as well. Chekov will have at least one, character whom the audience really wants to see succeed. But he always ends the play before it's clear who is going to succeed. In Waiting for Godot the audience just really wants this awesome Godot guy to show up. A lot of horror stories work off of this too: where the audience always wants the hero to find a way out. But in the best horror stories there is no way out.

Timothy McLean You can make a story where nothing changes in the setting if you think that story will change your audience.

Shawn H Corey excellent point, how about Alyosha Karamazov?

@@nhmooytis7058 Who's that? Book? Movie? TV series?

@@Sheeno101 Ah crap, it's in my reading list after Notes From the Underground and Brave New World, it'll have to wait Dx

Shawn H Corey "A catalysis is something that changes something else without itself being changed." *catalyst Great point though.👍

Princess Leia from Star Wars is catalytic, changing Luke and especially Han

Also, by the third movie he doesn't care that he's labeled a "coward."

Luke Wayne1939 That’s kinda what I meant. Someone can’t force you to do something stupid like street race in the neighborhood. It’s your choice.

It is very minimal character development compared to the other characters in the movie though. I think that's the point.

CurtTheGamer, I suppose so. Marty is the Hero/vehicle of His Parents and Docs story. Like how Jack Sparrow isn’t really the character who is experiencing new and crazy things in the first Pirates movie, it’s Will and Elizabeth with the arc, Jack simply has a task and stays more or less the same. He’s a Selfish, vengeful thief in the beginning, and the end.

I think he was just refering to the first movie, where he has more character development it's in the third one

TheDiabeticGameMaster : Meh... I get tired of these meta things pretty quickly. Though what you say is kinda true, it's also very easy to dive into the story that looks at itself way too much and winks to the audience way too much (some recent MCU movies come to mind for me). Also, some of this stuff relies on deconstruction, which is nice at some point but only when you build again after that, otherwise I see it as kinda lazy, you destroy things other people built and that's it. In other words, without the stuff you're dconstructing, you're nothing...

I disagree. Superman should have an arc and change if it fits the story and it's well written. Also just because there's an arc doesn't mean the character has to go through a 180 degree flip by the end of the story. It can just be the character becoming a slightly better person.

In his origin story, I think there should be some sort of arc, even for Superman. I mean, they were able to make a 10 season tv show origin story arc for Clark Kent before he becomes Superman, so it's very doable in film. I'd argue they did it brilliantly in Man of Steel and kinda botched the whole thing in BVS.

Peter Mann DC Films' Superman does have a flat arc, and that's why #ReleasetheSnyderCut (fans of "Man of Steel", "Batman v Superman" and "Wonder Woman") find his character arc to be anything but lackluster. From the Oil Rig scene, up to when he gives his life to save the world, he never gives up on using his abilities to help others.

A bad ten season TV show....

Tubby Lumpkins Or, in the case of "Man of Steel" finding a better way to use his abilities to help others while protecting his secret and Smallville by extension. In "Man of Steel", since he was a little boy, Clark Kent always wanted to use his abilities to help others, but he put Smallville and all the people he saved in danger if he didn't keep his secret. He solves this problem by becoming Superman. He remains the same person who wants to be a hero to others as his mother was to him, but he has a means to do it in which he compromises nothing.

George Daugherty Great point. Guess I’ll quit.

George Daugherty It shouldn’t take a sarcastic response to make you realize you’re mansplaining, either, because that’s what editing is for. If the book was ready in a year, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. It wasn’t, because I was too arrogant to do an outline. So now the book is written and I’m outlining it for the first time and it’s really a fairly lousy place to be. If you have any other obvious advice, I’m really in the mood for it.

awe ye bro *_take no bullshit_* good luck with your novel, I know how difficult it is to work backwards on that stuff

Good luck with the buck, friendo!

I've also been busy with my current WIP for around three years now. It's my first attempt at writing a novel and I possess no previous creative writing studies or anything, just what I've learned from extensive reading, a huge imagination, empathy and a story to tell. I can completely understand why one would take years to give shape to a novel-length story until you're satisfied with it. But it is also a learning-while-doing process. We give three steps forward and two backwards while we absorb all sorts of info and lessons from experienced writers (like the very useful and insightful book on Character Arcs by K.M. Weiland that I also have and read and re read lol). We do not only learn to tell a story well, but also to be writers, to find the routine and habits that must suits our life styles and personality. To stick for so long with a project shows perseverance and a will and drive to improve it to the best level you're capable of. I also didn't outline at the begining but you must start somewhere and put words down onto the paper/screen until the main idea kind of begins to take shape. Videos like this one help tremendously to reflect back on our own original characters and the world we are building for them. From Germany I send you the best of lucks for your project, JDMB in CLE!

Dunno. You can believe in and help others without believing in yourself. (Also, you can believe the truth [not the Lie], but not have the confidence to evince that belief.)

It kinda does have major emphasis. Anytime a story has a repeated line like that, it is emphatic. Unless you are _Planet Terror_ and repeat every single line for kicks.

Strongly disagree. Sure, Marty does say those words, but as Jennifer quickly points out: He‘s only processing the rejection he just experienced during the audition. In actuality, Marty believes that anything is possible if you only try hard enough. That’s what both Jennifer and Marty point out multiple times, even in direct response to Marty’s moment of self-reflection. As far as I’m concerned, that moment only exists to set up the difference between Marty’s and George’s believes, which would later be referenced in the dinner scene. Marty only quotes his father to state that he doesn’t agree with his sentiment. He’s even shocked to hear himself entertaining the idea that he might face rejection. So it actually sets up the exact opposite of what you suggested. At least that’s how I see it.

@@ft4709 so you agree with the thesis of the video? That Marty is a static character; he does not change; he is the same at the end of the film as at the beginning; he has no arc; he learns nothing and does not grow?

@@pastortaylorwood That’s not the thesis of the video, but yeah, I agree with the bit that Marty has a flat arc. The only thing that changes about him is that he gains a new perspective on his parents. If that qualifies as an arc though you wouldn’t actually need to teach that concept in screenwriting as practically every character would thus have an arc by default.

Bryan Johnstone Mary Poppins is exactly what I thought of while listening to this video. Though she doesn't change, we do see a little of her tender side near the end. The arc belongs to the Banks family, especially the father George, who goes through some drastic changes.

The Doctor

I think the aversion to the Mary Sues that have popped up is that they put a flat arc character into a position of a positive arc character. In the flat arc stories the other characters marvel at the hero determinedly pushing forward with his or her beliefs and usual lack of any power other than charisma. When a flat arc character gains more and more power and bludgeons his/her way forward rather than inspiring others it turns into a bully like Daneyris on game of thrones.

My favorite example of this is "The World God Only Knows"

The Count of Monte Cristo is propably the most popular long novel (1280 pages) and the character change a lot several times. I don't think it's about the main character changes or not. You have to start from the story, not the characters. A story is about the journey. All characters including the main character must serve the narrative. And their narrative arcs too.

@@trorisk Best opinion.

Justice League It use flat story

Dragon Ball... honestly it would have been interesting to talk about that along with Peter Pan.

Just Write I wonder if technically Andy in The Shawshank Redemption fits this

Although, the question then is really is the movie Andy's story or Red's

The Little Mermaid. In TLM, Ariel is a girl that's obsessed with the outside world and believes that it cannot be as bad as her father describes her and that she would be happier there, and she stays the same until the end. Only her father and the people around her change.

Also his main mission, keeps kids off drugs!

Changing the people around him for the better IS what makes him a flat character. That's not a bad thing. I can't speak for the character arc because I haven't finished GW yet but Giorno seems like a classic flat character, his motivation and morals don't change much throughout the story (at least until the point I have watched)

Same can be said about Josuke, he changes people around him.

@@simonj6801 most JoJo protagonists (and shonen protagonists in general) are static I think. Makes sense for long running series

@@takahashierik joker and Johan liebert are examples of flat characters they don't change they change the world around them how many people they killed and corrupted but they've remained the same throughout the story

Flem Me too!

And Batman

This IS how they did a Superman film in 2013 & May 2016. Snyder's Superman has a flat arc. Yes, he is beaten down by the darkness of our world, but he never gives into it. Snyder's Superman remains the most pure hearted hero to date.

@@charleynewman5057 No. Batman lost his parents to a city of monsters & dresses up as a monster to fight them. He walks the line between man & monster every night. It's near impossible for him to have a flat arc.

I think action movies as a genre are usually exempt from character arcs. As long as the action's good, people will enjoy the movie. Die Hard's the same way. On the other hand, the first two Terminator movies have actual character arcs.

@@rbbecker73, Die Hard has two character arcs. John learns to accept his wife’s decision to go to LA and appreciates that it led to her getting a better career and it resolves their marriage. Even Powell gets an arc. He was afraid of pulling out a gun after the incident with the 13 year old boy and in the end kills Karl with a gun. It’s pretty subtle but it’s an arc.

@@joeyjerry1586 Yep yep. _Die Hard_ has arcs. Let's not forget that John starts out not wanting to get involved, calling the police, pulling the fire alarm, hoping beyond hope that Argyle heard gunshots and is calling for help, begging Hans to let Ellis go. Midway through the movie, he takes matters into his own hands. By the end of the movie, he believes he can thwart the terrorists, erm, thieves. A guy that was nervous on an airplane that is later rappelling from a 30 story tower with a makeshift rope definitely found some confidence somewhere!

I agree and people watching youtubes on these "rules" have ruined their ability to enjoy a complex story about actual human beings. Some of us don't/can't change, some of us change for the worse, not every story is a "redemption story" and reality rarely ends with some neat little bow of a "moral". I prefer stories that are more nuanced and emotionally relatable. Not everyone has a hero's journey, we are just doing the best we can. That story is worth telling as well.

@@Nikki_the_G some characters are perfect for their roles, hisoka and joker and lex luthor and deadpool and captain america and blade even one of the most icons and popular characters are pretty much flat characters wait when someone say that a flat character is bad no it's not as long they do it right it's not about how they change but how they change the world around them they may go through an arc they may develope but later they go back to where they were at first tho their specific goals may change from time to time but their cores and personalities are pretty much the same their core is still consistent they can be organic despite not changing too much, they may still be the same and their principles are still unwavering but they still have an impact on the story and still interesting to see them around. You have characters like guts and batman and spider man and daredevil and the flash and kratos and ezio auditore to mention few those are more compelling characters because they're more fleshed out and better developed and have more growth you see them changing and becoming different versions of themselves, so every character has its role to do.

It is not about maturing/progressing as much as it is about not becoming stale. The character can become a worse person by the end, they can stay immature but achieve a different emotional state that they weren't before, they can work towards a goal just to fail or change idea midway through and countless other possibilities... but if they are just gonna be stuck on the same mental place for the rest of the story, then it's not much of a narrative to begin with and the only thing you can do in this situation is come up with a pretty way to describe the same situation over and over again. You surely will achieve a pleasant aesthetic, but in terms of content it will be as superficial and pointless as it comes. That is a choice you can make, but certainly not the direction most professional writers and readers nowadays wants their stories to go. Keep in mind that mostly applies to main characters and not as much to secondary characters. Antagonists like the ones mentioned above (such as Joker or Hisoka) usually are not stale either, they change but in different ways, sometimes by becoming worse people than before as direct opposition to the mc's virtues or even simply becoming a bigger threat or showing another side to them that we haven't seen before.

@@thiagomestres579 Damn right

Yeah, same with Batman.

DC tried to go all 90's comics on us and nobody wanted it

It IS hard! People are bored of perfect heroes. No one wants the hero that wins because he is good, and the villain that loses because he is evil. The ideal, perfect hero, is boring. You can't relate to him/her, they're too strong, far away from us. They can do anything and the only limitations are personal connections, which are predictable. Wife? Threaten to kill her. Mother? Kidnap, then threaten to kill her. Children? Repeat, you can probably kill one of them. I fundamentally disagree with this idea I just explained, but I find superman boring. Superman in the comics is a tension killer for me. So I can't argue for him.

@@BygoneT The problem is, all the "complexity" and "depth" approach they tried to apply on superheroes, for most of time, only drags the superheroes down. It makes them like a "stock action hero move" character with a more predictable arc/theme, also many of them are outright edgy or unlikable. Even Marvel universe story does, more or less, look like an anime story. And yeah, I like the so-called "boring" superheroes movie with less character arc.

@@sertiana2512 I agree, mostly. I did say I disagree with the point I made though? I like Jonathan Joestar. He's definitely simple, he's a paragon of virtue and he's that sort of "Perfect hero". Thing is, he doesn't win because he's the hero or because he's good. He wins because he trains to be strong and he's creative. His goodness is just his character, and he's static. He doesn't really change after the first episodes. I don't mind edgy, to be honest (Sometimes, edgy is cringy way too often. Do you know "Ousama game the animation"? Boy, if you don't, for the love of everything don't look it up). I spent years trying to prove some tastes are wrong, but i discovered you don't get to choose your tastes for the most part. So there's really no point in arguing against rationalisations. I could give a more detailed explanation on why I dislike superman, but that would just be me, elaborating on my tastes. Nothing objective. I can't convince you, or anyone else who really likes superman, if they really like him. Maybe you share this as well, I love static characters when there is a lot to discover about them. I don't know if it's clear enough, what I mean is if a character is full of ideas and weird personal philosophy, I don't mind "Discovering" this one character that doesn't need an arc. Well you don't control the market of movies, thankfully. I want these "Follow the formula and get the cash" movies of both Marvel and DC, to die a painful and quick death. My issue is that I can predict the movies. If I can predict them I have no reason to watch them.

Interesting point but I disagree. I think the way Walt changes is different from how characters are usually categorized since he's a tragic figure. He pursues the same thing but he's completely different about his attitude towards it. Someone could argue that he didn't change but was finally embracing who he was deep down. But it's no question that his attitude about life, his attitude about family, his declining morality, his hubris are all in a different place than where they began.

That's what I mean when I say he transforms but doesn't change. He's a Richard III-type character whose ultimate goals and ambitions remain the same, and those are: to exert power. But as he progresses, he finds he has to adapt and alter his behaviour and learn new manipulative skills to always be on top. That's why he's such a fascinating character to analyse because he's never what you expect him to be. Once he's frightened, unconfident and remorseful, the next time he's cold, intimidating and awe-inspiring. He doesn't change from one to the other gradually, but switches between those states as he adapts to surrounding events. Supporting characters however, do in fact change. Jesse at first believes what he needs is fame and money and then understand he rather needs to be valued and loved and recognized as a good guy. Skyler believes the lie that Walt is well-meaning and loving and must understand that he is abusive and dangerous and must protect herself from him. But they always remain predictable in their behaviour.

Walter is Ahab, Jesse is Ishmael. Spoiler ahead for whomever has yet to see breaking bad. The whole thing is Moby Dick. Being on top is Walter's goal and his is so focused on that that he'll eventually lose everything trying to achieve that. Jesse who wanted out is the only one of Walter's companion to survive and him leaving with the black car is a nod to Ishmael surviving thanks to the coffin. There are a lot of nods at Moby Dick in BB. (Hank is another Ahab, the leg, the insanity and... Well, the ''White Whale''.). But to think that Walter has a flat-arc is not stupid. He does not change his goal, only the reasons he wants to achieve them. From his first attempt with Grey Matter to his last with the drugs, he only wants one thing, a thing that was taken from him countless times. If anything his arc is retroactive. You start to understand what he is and what he wants from what you can gather from his past and you understand things he did in the first seasons once you've seen him reveal who he is. The character does not evolve, he is revealed to the viewer. The understanding change, not the character.

Actually, he becomes more confident and in control of his actions as opposed to being a doormat and letting outside events dictate his life....at least that is what i observed.

Walter transforms from someone who is reluctant to hurt someone in the beginning to killing many people without even thinking about it. And this is just one of the many examples I could give. The whole story is about change. It even starts with his class saying chemistry is the study of change.

Nah, there's definitely an arc in Winter Soldier from an idealist to more of a disillusioned cynic in some ways. His moral center never really changes, but his worldview certainly has changed a bit after the events of Winter Soldier.

The Ponderer In the video it's mentioned that the supporting characters need to have arcs. But in Winter Soldier, almost none of the characters in the movie have arcs. Everybody just faces different situations. But they are the same person at the end of the movie. Except Bucky, maybe.

The Ponderer He absolutely does not have a flat arc in "Civil War". The entire world is in danger if governments have control over super powered people, but all he is worried about is clearing Bucky's name. He went from fighting for the American people, to fighting for his own interests. It's why it's one of my least favorite Marvel movies.

It's just not about that though. His view of the world was changed from Winter Soldier and quite frankly didn't want to put his trust in the government to control the activity of superheroes. There's a reason the whole accords thing was the vocal point of Civil War for a good 30 minutes. And Bucky didn't turn up till like the 45 minute mark. You could argue that it slightly isn't a flat arc because of his whole viewpoint changing because of the events in Winter Soldier (because he was very patriotic, wanting to enlist in the government etc before Winter Soldier) but that's about it. I think he has a flat arc in Civil War. He makes a decision and sticks with it throughout the whole movie and the movie is partly about how his decision affects everybody else in the world. His decision to "not sign the accords". Not his decision to "worry about is clearing Bucky's name"

Jake The decision not to sign the Accords is left in the first act though. Once Bucky is framed for bombing the embassy, the rest of the film is about protecting him from the law and clearing his name. I have no problem with Cap fighting for Bucky. He saved hundreds of people by doing so, but in "Civil War" after that Zemo plot which, quite frankly, dragged the whole film down, he didn't save anyone except for Bucky. If it's not apparent already, I believe "Civil War" was a huge misstep.

can u tell me what it means? i see that too hahaha

@@diegolikescode It means he supports James Gunn, the director of the Guardians of the Galaxy movies who was fired from his job directing Guardians of the Galaxy 3. Disney was essentially duped by neo Nazis, who stirred up fake outrage over some edgy, in-poor-taste jokes that Gunn made years ago. Luckily, Disney has since rehired Gunn, in no small part due to support like Just Write's!

But Link would have to inspire people without talking

WaveHello they do say actions can speak louder than words....

I think Moses changes somewhat. You're right that the nurse character has more of an arc though.

...Doc

Marty has an arc in the FIRST movie, dumbass.

Just started reading it, thanks for the recommendation.

WELCOME!

Thanks for the love, Just Write! I'm a 12 year old writer and your videos, along with those from the Closer Look, seriously benefit me! I've also read John Truby's book the ANATOMY OF WRITING #WriterForLife

The Potter universe is pretty cool and has a handful of interesting supporting characters (Hermione, Snape) but Harry himself may be the most bland, dull, featureless character in fiction.

@@polyhymnia701 I don't think he was bland. Pay some attention to his behaviour in Order of the Phoenix, for example. The book, not the movie.

If you think about it, most true life stories are about real life people with flat arcs. Because most inspiring true stories are about people staying true to what they believe no matter the obstacles and were able to change their world/our world because of their efforts. And like you said, it's powerful. Damn inspiring, really. I recently watched Darkest Hour, the Churchill movie with Gary Oldman in his Oscar winning performance (much deserved accolade I must say). SPOILERS FOR THAT FILM (although it's true history that you probably know about). Churchill doesn't change. He stuck to his guns to the bloody end. He changed Britain and inspired them and his government. There's a key line at the end of the movie where he convinces his government to stick to their guns and to not ever surrender. One of his opponents that favored surrendering says, "What happened?" The guy next to him says, "He just used the english language." Meaning that with his inspiring words, he changed the course of not only British history, but world history.

@@TheGeorgeD13 I'll check it out. Sounds amazing.

I'd argue that Steve Rogers undergoes a character arc in the fallout of the events that happened in Winter Soldier. Without that movie, his stance on the Sokovia Accords doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

I think captain america changes he belives that shield is good but he learns they are corrupted and from that movie he dosent trust the goverment anymore and is a outlaw

@@TheGeorgeD13 Yes it does being overly regulated means they can't help people in the way they think they should. They will make a bunch of strict rules and it would limit them. It reminds me of the Powerpuff Girls episode *Girls Gone Mild*. An angry parents group thinks that the Powerpuff Girls are way too violent so they will have to convert to passivism. If they do fight crime the angry parents will sue the Professor for creating them.

I agree. Most of the Coen Brothers films have characters who don't change at all.

Yes, me too

I hadn't heard of it, but it sounds quite interesting.

Evan get out of here with those Stuckman memes

Dwight Schrute Tell that to Zod's snapped neck

Evan grew up observing how various people grew up with various things

I kind of disagree. He is inherently good and doesn't change his mind about his values, but his perspective definitely changes. He realizes the organization he worked can't be trusted and the safest hands are his own. He grows wiser.

Yoo love that movie

Amelie changes though, at the start of the movie she's withdrawn from the world and admires it from afar but over the course of it she experiments with interfering with people's lives, eventually realising she needs to put herself out there if she wants to find happiness for herself.

Mmh no I wouldn't say so, he definitely learns a lot through light. And he has a different view of humans at the end

@@MaxMax-tt6db But he doesn't put that knowledge into practice. He knows more about humans but he doesn't feel enough about them to do anything. He's super excited at the end when he gets to write Light's name in his Death Note, just like he said he would be at the beginning. But Ryuk is not Light's Impact character. L is. Meeting L just makes Light more determined to rid the world of bad people because he rejects L's worldview and sees him only as an opponent. It's the Fall arc

Naruto Uzumaki, Monkey D. Luffy, Natsu Dragneel, Goku...

@@drfifteenmd7561 Naruto has positive arcs

No! It's shitty work, cuz he says Marty doesn't have an arc in the first film, but he very much does.

I would agree, but I think greatness gets rewarded in the end some way or another. And greatness tends to have great rotten tomato scores, anyway.

I was contesting his use of the Rottentomatoes score to frame the movie's narrative as successful. Plenty of movies have achieved similar scores, but have not gained cultural acclaim or notoriety.

150% agree.

He was just using an easy way to use a frame of reference to say that the film has had great acclaim. Not only is the percentage is high, but the average score is also pretty damn high. It's a critical darling.

I agree, and "Paddington 2" is a critical darling, but I determined that more accurately by the average rating of 8.7, which is fairly high among films in and around 100% on the Tomatometer. Especially since, in current film criticism, it is easy to get 60-70% score from critics just for having a decent production, and no major mistakes, which translates to 90+% on Rottentomatoes. Edit: I am saying averages are a more useful judge of critical acclaim.

Thanks for the reference! I need all the help I can get right now.

I'd agree but again, it's over three films that that occurs. She's not Paddington, but in this aspect there is a lot of similarity through the first two films.

Yeah, when he first listed the "flat arc" characters, I thought, "But they do change." After hearing his reasoning, I can see it both ways. They had arcs, but not a arcs that affected their worldview, but ones that affected their mindset. Very subtle difference, but enough that you could see it either way. It makes me wonder if some/many/most "arced" characters could have their story's focus shifted slightly, while still following them and not a character around them, to give them "flat arcs" as well?

I would say that Katniss changes her worldview. She wants to defeat the capitol at all cost, which while not her primary goal, is still pretty high up on her list. And then she finds out what those costs are, losing her family, her sense of self, and the idea that the other society (13) is better than the capitol. I think she gets rid of some arrogance perhaps, that she would never be capable (or support people who are) of the bad things the capitol does. And then she finds herself doing some horrible things and backs people who do. She must change her view of herself and her world.

Bob Pickleson As KW Weiland says, a character can be going through multiple arcs. For example, she lists the protagonist of Jurassic Park. While he goes through the change arc of not hating kids anymore, his flat arc is essentially, "Hey, maybe we shouldn't make dinosaurs in a way that can lead to disaster." From the moment he discovers the raptors to the end, his worldview about the park being a bad idea doesn't really change. So, Marty's flat arc in the first film is essentially "I must get my parents back together or I won't exist." He changes in some regards, like learning new things about his father or the changes in his attitude about being seen as a coward, but in each film his flat arc is "something is wrong, and I have to fix it." Katniss may change in her mental health (which one may are is a negative arc, not a change arc, according to Weiland's terminology), but her flat arc worldview is "the Capitol is bad." Again, as Weiland says, a flat arc is about believing a Truth while everyone around you believes a Lie. She says the Truth doesn't have to big or complex. it can be as simple as "The bad guy has to be stopped" or "I know I didn't kill my father." The protagonist can change in other areas, but they continue believing the Truth and try to make their situation better.