5 Reasons Why Your Characters Suck (Writing Advice)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- Explore five of the worst mistakes writers make when creating and unleashing their characters. Examples from Rogue One, Game of Thrones, Titanic, and more!
Patreon Page: / writerbrandonmcnulty
TH-cam Membership: / @writerbrandonmcnulty
Get Brandon's horror/thriller novel The Half Murders:
- AMAZON (USA - Ad Link): amzn.to/4amlFKG
- BARNES & NOBLE (USA): shorturl.at/acwLX
- AUDIBLE (USA): shorturl.at/goFG9
- AMAZON (UK): www.amazon.co....
- AMAZON (CAN): www.amazon.ca/...
- AMAZON (INDIA): www.amazon.in/...
- AMAZON (AUS) www.amazon.com...
- OTHER RETAILERS: books2read.com...
Get Brandon's horror/thriller novel BAD PARTS:
- AMAZON (USA - Ad Link): amzn.to/3esTFYC
- AMAZON (UK): www.amazon.co....
- AMAZON (CAN): www.amazon.ca/...
- AMAZON (INDIA): www.amazon.in/...
- AMAZON (AUS): www.amazon.com...
- BARNES & NOBLE: tinyurl.com/Ba...
- AUDIBLE: www.audible.co...
- OTHER RETAILERS: books2read.com...
Get Brandon's supernatural thriller novel ENTRY WOUNDS:
- AMAZON (USA - Ad Link): amzn.to/2XL737v
- AMAZON (UK): www.amazon.co....
- AMAZON (CAN): www.amazon.ca/...
- AMAZON (INDIA): www.amazon.in/...
- AMAZON (AUS): www.amazon.com...
- BARNES & NOBLE: tinyurl.com/En...
- AUDIBLE: tinyurl.com/EW...
- OTHER RETAILERS: books2read.com...
NOTE: Some of my links are affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. This helps support the channel and allows me to continue to make videos. This does not affect my review of products. All opinions are my own. Thanks for the support!
Follow Brandon McNulty:
WEBSITE (Join my mailing list!) - brandonmcnulty...
TWITTER - / mcnultyfiction
FACEBOOK - / mcnultyfiction
SUBSCRIBE to Writer Brandon McNulty here: / @writerbrandonmcnulty
#WritingAdvice #WritingTips #Writing #author #betterstories #authortube #booktube #authortuber #howtowrite #BrandonMcNulty #WriterBrandonMcNulty #BadParts #WritingCommunity
=======================================
CHECK OUT MY OTHER VIDEOS:
Mastering Scene Structure:
• Mastering Scene Struct...
Writing Scenes that Flow:
• Writing Scenes That Fl...
5 Fatal Mistakes that New Writers Make
• 5 Fatal Mistakes that ...
5 Time-Saving Tips for Writers (And Readers!)
• 5 Time-Saving Tips for...
5 Scientific Inaccuracies in Movies, TV, & Books
• 5 Scientific Inaccurac...
The BEST Writing Exercise Out There
• The BEST Writing Exerc...
How to Write a Book Pitch
• How to Write a Book Pitch
Writing Villains #1 - Start with Your Hero
• Writing Villains #1 - ...
Writing Villains #2 - Goals
• Writing Villains #2 - ...
Writing Villains #3 - Motivation
• Writing Villains #3 - ...
Writing Villains #4 - When to Introduce Your Villain
• Writing Villains #4 - ...
Writing Villains #5 - Plot Points for Villains
• Writing Villains #5 - ...
Writing Villains #6 - Impacting the Hero
• Writing Villains #6 - ...
The Anatomy of Story REVIEW:
• The Anatomy of Story R...
Save the Cat Writes a Novel REVIEW:
• Save the Cat Writes a ...
=======================================
I’m upset by the characters who, instead of doing something in their style, do something stupid to please the plot. 😢
actually a great plot idea
guy starts doing things completely out of his character to confuse everyone
Which, sadly, is in waaaay too many stories.
Consistency is king in storytelling.
Like Captain Marvel movies?
Because most characters are NPCs who work for the plot, not themselves. Ironically, just like in real life!
Sees title
Rude. But please tell me more.
Hahaha it wasn't directed at you, I promise
@WriterBrandonMcNulty It's nothing personal. It's just Writing.
Excellent comment lol
😂
When a character is a trope more than an actual individual character...
Any examples?
This can be a problem, but can also work very well. Mentors who die so the hero can fully emerge is a great trope.
But making a character super smart by having them figure out the plot even when that is impossible looks ridiculous. Sage in The Boys S4 or Sherlock Holmes are text book examples of this lazy writing style.
That's a good one. It reminds me of a similar issue I notice with some writing where there's this overly tight adherence to a particular theme that prevents the story and plot elements from breathing naturally.
@lanychabot-laroche135 Supporting characters from Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom and Dominion for me.
We have Zia and Franklin in Fallen Kingdom and they were just plot device characters with Franklin providing comic relief and Zia being an arrogant bossy female.
Then we have Kayla and Ramsey from Dominion. Kayla is just there because the plot needs a pilot and some sarcastic jokes while Ramsey is there to aid the main characters.
Literally my favourite channel to listen to! Your knowledge is always appreciated 🙏🏻
Happy to hear it! Thanks for the kind words
It’s been said a million times before but Daenerys’ homicidal outbreak in s8 will always be one of the worst character changes I’ve ever seen.
Hell yeah. It was just out of the blue. Daenerys was always willing to be brutal, but she restricted her cruelty to those who were outright enemies. Suddenly she's nuking a city filled with innocent people and turning into Dragon Hitler? Lame.
Yep, thought about including this for #4, but I didn't want to overload the video with GoT
That only works if you have proper buildup and a decent downfall character arc.
@@WriterBrandonMcNulty It must be tempting since you could make plenty of videos purely talking about the mistakes of GoT season 8 as examples of what not to do.
So, I think I know WHY it happened. When the show started, George RR Martin told Dave and Dan how he wanted the series to end, in case he died before he finished writing it. And if you ignore the abruptness of it, it was heavily foreshadowed. The story starts with the aftermath of a Targaryen king going mad and massacring his own subjects. A lot of Dany's character is rooted in being different from her predecessors, and it's a rich, poetic tragedy that at the very end she dies on the throne the same way Aerys Targaryen did: Killed by one of the people sworn to protect her. If there's anything George loves, it's a poetic tragedy.
The problem is that Dave and Dan rushed the final two seasons of the show because they had a contract with Disney to direct a new prequel trilogy for Star Wars once Game of Thrones was finished. Yet another poetic tragedy that in destroying Game of Thrones they destroyed their Star Wars deal.
I kid you not, when the notification for Brandon pops up, everything else gets the pause. Brandon's content stay solid. He's the GOAT.
Hahaha no way am I the GOAT, but thanks so much for the kind words!
"What are you doing?? We only have 30 seconds until the bomb detonates!"
"A new B-Nulty video just dropped."
"Oh sh*t, really? Pull that sh*t up."
@j-rey- put it on speaker!
Yeah, you're missing the horizontal pupils and a disregard for gravity to be a proper goat. But in other areas you're doing more than well enough.
Ugh. You nailed it with Willie's screaming. Love love love Indy Jones movies, but the last time I watched Temple of Doom I almost couldn't finish it because of how annoying the screaming was.
It's been a _long_ time since I've seen Temple of Doom (possibly in theaters), but I'm trying to recall if that was toward the end of the "Scream Queen" era or if it had already passed. 🤔Although, I think most scream queens only screamed within reason. Mostly.
If it helps any, that performance basically ended her career.
@@minutebooks3245 She has 24 credits _after_ Temple of doom, ending in 2002. I'm not sure if I would state "ended" or that was her peak.
@@grondhero Being married to speilberg helped but she never had an important role after this disaster.
There's an example of Smart Characters Suddenly Becoming Stupid in dozens, maybe hundreds, of horror/mystery movies:
"Let's Split Up!" Seconded only by one of said characters blundering into the dark (with an inadequate flashlight or candle) in search of the source of an ominous sound, shouting "Hello? Who's there?"
Yes! And why don't they ever freaking look up?!
@@emeralddraegon LOL!🤣
Characters whose motivation is all off. Their motivations ought to be consistent with what they do and how they do it. But that also means you need a story where the actions they undertake ring true. Like, Bruce Wayne's tragedy led him to feel the need to do something - ANYTHING - to fight suffering in Gotham City. That adds up; the action that is integral to a Batman story lines up properly. But other superhero stories that are similar on the surface, don't get this right; the "Daredevil" movie is my go-to example of where they didn't get the motivations right, or they didn't get Daredevil's activities right. As a result it's a movie where a guy puts on a unitard and gets into fights but I'm never sold on why he would do that.
Overbearing Personality was my problem with the title character in Nimona. Her first introduction scene had me saying "Writers, calm down. We get it, dial her back a little."
I was going to say based, but honestly this is just fair. I like the movie, but yeah, I get what you mean. 😮💨
When a character completely changes without any reason or cause. Think Acolyte.
Almost every character in the show suffers from this. They attempted to make “twists” where we were surprised by the characters action. But the only reason their actions were surprising is because they made absolutely no sense.
Characters that are in no way, shape, or form, what they are framed to be. Mostly bone thin, 80-100 lbs. 4'x" badasses - or super models that couldn't lift a glass of water. Bad acting and bad writing are easier to swallow than a character that are wholly unbelievable from the moment you lay eyes on them. Not just the ladies either, soy-boy Jedi or the over-weight one come to mind quickly.
It CAN work, with compelling reasons - like a Yoda. It works well in sports stuff, where the heart or will of a character is the point of the movie - or something along a similar line. Cutting Edge, Rudy, or even Happy Gilmore - work, because they acknowledge these are square pegs in round holes.
One character introduction trope that frustrates me to no end is what I like to call threeshadowing. It's when a character is built up long before they're seen. I know it can be very well done, but constantly foreshadowing someone as an absolute beast of a character that must certainly have lots of weight in the world is really annoying and pointless if they turn out to be cliche, predictable, and weak with no plot relevance.
Don't tease a big bad wolf if you deliver a slow T rex that bites the air behind the humans it chases.
Like the Fry Cook games episode from SpongeBob where Plankton hypes up the entrant as a big bad contestant, (floor shakes, the audience is scared, the entrance breaks as soon as the ebtrabt arrives) but as soon as contestant enters, the fish enters and it is big and bad but Plankton tells the fish to turn around and it's actually Patrick Star. The opposite of it being big and bad.
@@Mariobro4 Well. That was an intentional joke.
@@parkertulk7485 Yeah. Couldn't find anything at the top of my head but intentional joke kinda still kinda fits. What's yours?
@@Mariobro4 It's just one of those things where I feel like I've seen it in everything when I was younger but can't seem to find an example now. You know.
What character-related issues frustrate you most? Let us know!
Inconsistent characterisation. This is what killed basically the entire game of thrones csst by season 8
I get frustrated when a fictional character is created, and while ticking all the boxes, there is a failure to add minute humanizing quirks. Cookie cutter characters are fine, but jazz it up a bit, please. Add some M&Ms to the sugar cookie once in a while; something.
I hate when an unlikeable character is introduced, but the show/movie really wants you to like them so they have the other characters talk about how much they like that person even though they did nothing to deserve it. It really drives me to hate the character more. If they took the non-lazy route to get me to care about their characters, I might actually end up liking the new, unlikeable character.
Any plot that hinges on a character hiding something from another character for no good reason. The book The Art of Fielding comes to mind. So much of one subplot would be avoided if one character simply said “I didn’t get accepted into law school”, to which the response would be “that sucks, apply somewhere else”. But no, the character decides not to tell his closest friends for the sole purpose of that’s what the author needed to happen.
When someone seems to be getting development and an arc but then goes back to the same boring person. Like the writer just backed out last second.
I was expecting to see Michael Burnham from Star Trek Discovery on here. Her character frustrated me because she has to be involved in everything. It’s never anyone else. She even brings up information that other characters should already know such as telling another character they have a certain ability that will help them in the situation. Why would she have to tell them that when they know that?
I think the biggest problem with her character is she's not very likeable, which can be fine for a protagonist but the show treats her as if everyone likes her and the character suffers from borderline Mary Sueness. I don't know if this is in part due to Discovery having only 10-15 episodes a season compared to the standard 26 episodes a season most of the Star Trek shows had which let the other shows characterize the rest of the cast more (SNW and Picard also have similar issues to Discovery), if the serialized nature of the series just doesn't let the show have episodes to let the rest of the cast have a spotlight, or some combination. Her character is certainly the most divisive of Star Trek's captains (though I know many would argue Picard doesn't act like the same captain in ST:Picard as he did in TNG).
Hey Brandon I just wanted to mention that I finished The Half Murders recently! (Yeah I started it awhile ago but then life got in the way, oops). By the second half (lol) I couldn't put it down. Definitely your best yet!
Thanks so much for checking it THM! Thrilled you enjoyed it. The second half was a blast to write, so I'm glad it translated into a fun reading experience.
Also, please consider leaving a brief Amazon review if you don't mind--those help a ton
Finally someone else sees why Rogue One is so bad. Prequels like this fail because the ending is already known. We are simply watching a mass slaughter to achieve a goal we know will happen. The ending is fixed, so why get emotionally involved? I think a video on writing prequels or creating tension around events we already know the outcome to would be a great video idea for you. A good example of the latter is Hidden Figures, as the end scenes of getting the astronaut home safely build tension even though it is known he will make it (if you know your history).
To answer your question, I loathe characters that sleepwalk through their part, with their only real emotions being anger or surprise (because plot twists on this hero need reactions). Ruby from the video game Wet is a major example of this, or Violet from Ultraviolet. Both characters are tough as nails and sarcastic, but they have very few emotional responses that aren’t plot driven. All they are is sarcasm and rage until the one point they need to show emotion, then back to S&R. A better example of a more relatable hero of this type is Gracie Hart in Miss Congeniality. Yes she is tough and sarcastic, but we see her display lots of other emotions and character development while retaining these qualities. She is led by compassion and a want to protect the girls she once looked down upon.
I love how well you explain everything and show examples. Thank you!
I have a theory about Titanic. The whole story was entirely dependent on old Rose. Meaning she could change the story to her liking.
Her story ends with Jack dying from stupid physic with no second attempt. There are only two possible explanations for that.
One is that she does not exactly remember how he died or assumed he died because she never see him again after the ship sunk.
Second is that Jack was never real. Jack was her imaginary boyfriend she made during her time on Titanic. The drawing of naked Rose is real. But I think it was drawn by just a regular artist named Jack. Again Jack died but she had to let go of him to move on. That means she no longer needs him.
@leachblah6313 Great point! Similar to Usual Suspects... (minor spoilers) you never really know what really happened or didn't happen, just a few touch points that had outside evidence/witnesses, but who knows how much of the rest is true.
That (Jack as an imaginary boyfriend) would actually make sense (and address one of the issues I had with the movie at the time--of all the real stories that could have been dramatized, they chose a story that *could not* have happened).
Great video Brandon. I can’t stand the new trend of making other characters stupid or annoying just to make the main protagonist stand out. That’s not real life everyone has skills and a form of intelligence. You make the character stand out when you have people that rival them or just not as inept in that particular skill that the main character is. Like I enjoy watching the Black Widow movie but I hate how they made Red Guardian an idiot and unskilled as a fighter just to make the other characters stand out. Despite the fact he is suppose to be the Russian version of Captain America. Sorry I had to vent about that 😂😂.
Holy mother of writers, this!!!!! 💕💕 (because it usually means the main character is awful, too, but the author doesn't know how to make it better 😭😭)
Omg, that was personal XD
Whoa, whoa, whoa! You mean the ship sank?!
Darn spoilers! :(
Great video as always, Mr. McNulty! :) Keep 'em coming!
The funny thing about Jynn saving that little girl is that later the whole city gets blowed up by the Death Star.
I never even thought about that.
Oof, brutal, had not thought of that.
Hard to spot, but it does put in question why that scene was there, it just makes it worse.
You say that like she knew that would happen or that it’s her fault. What are you trying to say?
It's her save the cat moment. The kid isn’t important it’s the fact that Jyn puts herself in danger to help a stranger that's relevant in that scene. If anything it enhances the tragedy of the city being destroyed and adds to the feeling of hopelessness that is the Rebellion, even that small act of kindness is wiped out by the overwhelming might of the empire.
@@intergalactic92 it was never her fault in the first place.
This is the fault of the writers not realizing they have contradicted themselves by including this.
Possibly it's the antagonists that go from strong and intimidating to Dumb and clumsy because otherwise they would win. Like Palpatine in episode 9 killing himself when years ago he schemed the downfall of the Jedi.
My biggest frustration (Game of Thrones inspired): when a character loses their entire personality for no apparent reason. Why did Bran and Arya become boring assholes the last couple seasons? Who knows, but I was definitely rooting for the NIght King towards the end
Most of the answers as to why GoT lost a lot of what made it work in the earlier seasons likely stems from the fact that the show outpaced the books and the show's writers aren't near as good as Martin with the characters.
I'm glad you brought up the infamous Door in The Titanic. People always bring up how the argument is stupid bc they tried to both fit and the door didn't hold their weight. But the response is obviously: they tried ONCE. I get that it's a movie and you have to make things as concise as possible, but it wasn't enough to be convincing.
Yeh, have them fail a few times or use a smaller door where it's obvious they can't both fit. As the scene is, it is stupid.
And then he just nods to himself like, welp guess I'll die now!
I believe Amazing spiderman 2 was a prototype movie not a finished movie.
I agree about Willie screaming and complaining all the time but I think that was Spielberg's intention since he had to show the actress how to scream. I think Willie's role is to show how most people would actually react to the many dangers Indy faces. She's a complete caricature, of course, but most of her reactions were pretty relatable.
Titanic was logical otherwise they would have suffered hypothmia
Opposite to Titanic, you have Castaway, where Tom Hanks makes a massive effort to save Wilson but he really can’t, and the audience suffers with him.
How do you write a character that's looking or struggling to find their purpose/passion/goal?
I feel the number one mistake with characters is lack of charactarization, which turns them into card board cut-outs rather than actual people.
I love Willie Scott, sure she is annoying, but she is supposed to be. She is a fish out of water, but she still is likable and has a good character arc. I always liked that they did something different with the female lead in the first 3 Indiana Jones movies.
Don Corleone's plan to send Luca Brasi to spy on Salutzo. That wasn't in line with how brilliantly clever he's supposed to be.
I generally don't like infallible characters, especially when their skills are informed attributes.
I am having trouble making the protagonist of my grimdark fantasy novel not too passive, while establishing them (a young girl who is a princess) as timid and introverted in demeanor, and dislikes being around other people.
This is regarding the first half of the book as a young child, since as a young adult, she is supposed to become more proactive and driven.
Stupid joke but is Entry wounds a prequel to Exit Wounds with DMX? 😂. Enjoyed the video
Tyrion Lannister dumbed down pretty much the minute they ran past the books (I don't want to say ran *out* because they barely touched books 4 and 5). It's easy to see why he's George's personal favorite character, and the perfect example to your point.
I'm pretty sure I read an interview woth James Cameron where he said something like if he had known hpw upset viewers would get by the door scene he would have made the door smaller.
Can you talk about when a character past matters. Because I know that learning about a character includes knowing they’re a past but some character have simples past and some have complex past and people find it hard to justify a characters motives or ambitions because ‘they had a past’ there for it make them in the right.
It frustrates me when a movie or book think tacking a character past would make them justify or redeemable when it is they’re actions and how harsh they are willing to go knowing or not know what the protagonist or everyone around them has gone through.
I'm only 42 seconds into the video, and we've seen Kate Capshaw maybe 5 times. I love it.
“Because characters are important”
If this is news to you, give up your writing career
First view! 🏆
Man I love this guy I’m gonna be great writer one day because of him
That scene from Groundhog Day. Right in the feels.
When a character has a pattern of wrongdoings, and then gets a rushed redemption arc, with little to no accountability for the past. I can think of two examples. Spoilers for "Death Becomes Her" and "Encanto"
Death Becomes Her - Ernest started out as weak willed, then he set his prioritoes straight, learned boundaries and learned the meaning of being in a loyal family, thus turning his life around. Sounds good on paper. That was intended for his arc. HOWEVER! He started out as a cheater. He kept being one till the climax. He was never held accountable for that. He never held himself accountable for it. He cheated on Helen because Madeline was shiny. Years later Madeline started abusing him, then Helen started being shiny, and he ran back to her. Then both of them ended up using him, and he yeeted out. The women were not innocent, and he had every right to run away, but he never thought to himself "Maybe I contributed with being a double timer." He simply went to what he thought benefitted him, and the last instance was his only right call.
Encanto - After years of bullying Mirabel, Isabella accidentally made a cactus while... That's right! Bullying Mirabel. Then she sang a song about freedom and stuff, hugged her sister and suddenly everything's fine. Girl. Being forced to portray a perfect image at the expence of autonomy sucks, but nothing excuses the behaviour, and you never apologized for it.
I have watched Encanto and I agree with your point on the rushed redemption arc of Isabella and even Abuela's redemption was rushed.
You could make a whole list about how stupid horror movie characters are.
Love your videos, I do disagree with your dislike of Euron though.
In all of the examples of bad anything is the movie the Room.
Vader had probably the best villain introduction ever
I liked Jynn, but i get your point. Good video!
I liked the STAR WARS prequels.
Titanic spoiler warning : the ship sinks
perfect video to watch after school😊
fault number one: you don't write them like actual people
Basically, a lot of sci-fi and fantasy characters suck
Jumping off the lifeboat killed Jack!
He'd have that door all to himself if Rose just stayed in the f*cking lifeboat!!!!!!!!!!!!
One of the silliest overreactions I ever saw was by Pierce Brosnan in the movie Taffin. He plays a debt collector helping out his home town against developers. He has a discussion with a local woman who complains about the goings on in the town. He replies by yelling "WELL MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T BE LIVING HERE!!!!!"
th-cam.com/video/vIjppgnkknE/w-d-xo.html
How can writers avoid flanderizing a character? Most of the GOT characters just became shallow parodies of their previously awesome selves. But better written shows (Walter in Breaking Bad) and movie series (Luke in Star Wars episodes 4-6) see characters actually develop and make meaningful changes. So, what are the warning signs of flanderization and how do good writers avoid those?
Shadow clones and idle transfiguration. All the people with devastating injuries, I'm coming to see them.
Currently, what makes me turn from many a fiction is gender clichés (which may be often accurate, but not what I relate to), especially :
- Big disparities in the power / agency of characters in a romance (i.e. trophy wife and super hero, or trophy husband !)
- The recent trope of "strong" female charcaters (in fact, Mary Sues directly translated from outdated macho tropes, with ovaries instead of b*llocks).
- Female characters falling in love with a guy who treats them poorly / dismissively (including Hahn Solo / Leia in TESB, and I know this is controversial - actually their dynamic IS realistic, but the guy's behaviour is such a "The Game" trope it angers me),
OK, that is already a lot. And I have more. Thank you Brandon for making me realise I have anger related to character-writing in pop fiction !
I'm offended that you put Rogue One in this thumbnail. Rogue One has amazing characters, and it's one of the only times I ever cried at a movie
As soon as you flashed that bit of Game of Thrones, I knew inconsistency was going to be one of the five reasons 😅
Hey Brandon, I wanted to ask if you if it's okay to mention you in my current novel in the dedication section. I wanted to give you credit for teaching me how to become a novelist.
The movie Tombstone has a scene where the villains shoot up a church. The men inside the church have guns and could have easily taken cover. Instead, they run out just to get shot. I was so mad that I stood up in the theater and yelled, "This is some bull$h!t."
*Electro:* You want to be my friend?
*Harry:* I thought we were already friends.
*Electro:* I had a friend once. It didn't work out. (Indicating Spider-Man)
*Harry:* Yeah, me too. (Indicating Peter)
The problem is, why are Harry and Peter all of a sudden not friends?
If you remember all Harry asked Peter to go find Spiderman so he can ask for his blood and to Harry's knowledge that is what Peter did as when he asked Spiderman, did you talk to Pete and Spiderman said yes!
So Peter actually found him and got him to Harry.........so why would Harry say he wasn't friends with Peter anymore!?
I loved the TV show "Sliders" for the most part. But they had a lot of stupid character moments. So the basic premise was 4 characters ended up getting trapped on an alternate Earth but the timer that opened the vortex (wormhole) lost the coordinates home, so each time they went through the vortex, it was to a random Earth and they kept hoping that the next leap will be the leap home (wait, that might be a different show). But it was clear, the timer told them when the next vortex would be open, but that it didn't stay open for long, so they all had to be together or risk being left behind. So there would be no reason to split up so drastically, especially in a world without cell phones.
So in the episode "Slither", the 2 guys head from San Fran to Mexico by plane for a little vacation time. The 2 girls stay behind. WHAT? Without even going into why you need a vacation when every world you visit is new, why would you travel so far away just to be away from the girls (at this point 1 main character was killed off and replaced with a new girl who hadn't been with them that long). Of course, trying to fly home they have a problem when they get bumped from their flight and catch a charter plane home, without bothering to even try to call the girls (although it's not clear if there even was a number to call). Well, that plane crashes in the jungle and so the girls get worried the guys aren't back and decided to head down to Mexico to find them. WHAT? You have no way to contact them and you didn't know they crashed in the jungle. What if it they took a later flight and showed up and now you're heading to Mexico?
They also constantly go to new Earths where things are always different, even if slightly, but usually it's laws and customs. But the characters rarely, if ever, try to figure out what's different until it's too late. They went to a world where singing was outlawed, but The Crying Man can't stop singing and what's the worst that could happen?
The problem with bad characters, or characters making poor choices when they shouldn't, is then the plot has to be written to fix the issues. So it's just becomes bad writing because it's manufactured drama by creating a problem to solve. What's odd is the entire episode of "Slither" could have played out in a similar manner without needing to split the characters up.
I respect but disagree with your Willie comments. Yes she is annoying as hell, but she is supposed to be, that's what the writer intended, she is spoiled, famous, and entitled, she breaks a nail and her world is over. The over-the-top screams are for comedy and fit with her character, just like the over-the-top Indie punches, narrow escapes, one-liners, etc. Her style of character fits in that world. And if you notice at the end her character changes for the better after all the struggle they endure. She's no longer a brat, she is humble and respectful to the people(and the elephant too)
To make a great critique, you must separate "what you like" from "what works". For example, I hated the movie The Joker, I felt miserably depressed after, and I'll never watch it again, but I can't deny it was an exceptional movie, with incredible writing/acting/directing.
Dexter New Blood Spoiler
I hated that they made him a cop killer at the end. That was so out of character. He didn't want to kill Doakes, who was an asshole, but he kills the nice sheriff guy to break loose?
For me one of the worst examples of Inconsistent Characterization is the titular character of the TV Show Castle
He starts off smart, funny, and competent - including but not limited to being a great shot with a firearm
As the series progresses, he becomes stupider, incompetent, and inept at most things to the point of even being scared of firearms. He also constantly makes rash and idiotic decisions that often leaves him in need of rescue
I feel the show's writers did this in an attempt to make the other lead, Beckett, seems more like a bad-ass than she actually was, by throwing the character of Castle under the bus.
The worse version of Inconsistent Characterisation is just telling us that they are one thing and then showing us something different. It can be done well: "Triumff: Her Majesty's Hero" tells us that Rupert Triumff has a grand reputation and great favour with the monarch, but starts out by showing him in a post-drunken duel that he doesn't even remember having instigated (he swaps his weapon from one hand to the other not to show off, but because he temporarily can't remember which hand to hold it in); it's as the book progresses that we find out what brought him to that state and we get to see the more skilled side of him revealed where he lives up to the reputation. By contrast some characters in EE Smith stories (the main place I can think of that it stands out) go from somewhat ineffective leaders to (in one book) challenging the military authority on their mission simply based on a conversation where someone told them to "be more assertive." That one would work if: a) they tried and failed at being assertive at least once rather than succeeding straight away, and b) there had been more than one or two scenes (if that in some cases) before going "oh right, now I can have a dramatic shift to the character I want to write."
Marcos Inaros from "The Expanse". We are told of a brilliant leader possessing messianic charisma, a tactical genius capable of successfully carrying out a conspiracy with many moving parts across multiple planets, one that could easily fall to pieces if any of its executors betray him or fail in their missions. When we finally meet him, he's nepotistic, mercurial, manipulative in obvious ways, squanders his people to feed his own ego, and generally seems like he should have been stabbed in the back a dozen times before he ever got so far.
I tried watching "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel", which I know a lot of people like, but I couldn't get past a character issue early on. Midge is supposed to be this very smart, observant woman who is carefully navigating difficult situations with her husband and family. But when she ends up in court in the third episode, suddenly she's so stupid and lacking in self-control that she repeatedly swears at the judge. It's like her brain and all social awareness just shuts down. It completely broke the believability of the character to me, and I had no desire to watch any more of the series.
That's why i don't like re-watching How i met your mother. When the show became a hit and Barney became fans' favorite, they completely changed all characters just to please the audience. No explanations, nothing. Ted, who's a big romantic and slightly boring but lovable, suddenly starts acting like a jerk and a womanizer. barney suddenly falls in love and bam - he's a good guy even though he's a perverted creep who used women for his pleasure. Robin was a strong, smart woman, well-mannered and nice, and in 3 season she became a bully and obsessed with her looks. Lily was slightly clumsy girl who couldnt' get men to look at her in bars and suddenly we find out that she was the biggest bully and the most popular girl in her school, and her behavior changed completely. It's a great show, one of the greatest, but character development there sucks, it's literally non-existent, writers just suddenly decided to give each one of them completely different personalities because they thought that's what fans want
Did... did he just talk shit about the main character of the best Star Wars movie since Empire? This is the biggest miss I've seen on this channel. Not every character needs exhaustive exposition. In fact, that normally makes a character LESS interesting. Did we like Boba Fett more or less having learned more about him? Sometimes you want a character to be a mystery and you fill in the gaps. I agree with Brandon pretty much entirely but this is a rare miss and a big one.
Characters being inconsistent is one of the most frustrating and probably the thing that causes me to lose interest the fastest, which is almost as bad as being inconsistent with the rules of the fictional universe. As a reader or viewer, you simply reach a point where you decide, if the author doesn't care, then why should I? This is why I gave up on Disney Star Wars after I saw TFA.
I remember watching the British television show Poldark and continually getting angry at the fact that Ross Poldark refuses to take any of the offers that are given to him, which are then given to the main antagonist who abuses them. For example, he’s the position of judge in his town, but refuses it on moral principle, so his arch nemesis takes the role and uses it to abuse locals and gain more power. It’s just so idiotic. They all this bad stuff happen to his allies all because he’s got weird morals.
They tried to both get on the door and it flipped over. He didn't want to flip it, he wanted her to remain safe. I don't really think any of us were up for a game of "let's see if you hold real still on that end and I'll try to grab this end *KERSPLASH!*" at the end of a 3 hour movie, it was about "ok only one of us can be saved, got it." I really think the problem has less to do with the movie, and more to do with people's memories. Do people even remember that they tried and both ended up in the freezing water again? I'm not sure they do. But who knows.
Related to Pacing, not characters. I was just going through a book and the pacing was painful at times, and it made me think of your channel and wondered if you had touched on it. You sorta touched on it on your previous video on pacing, but not quite. In particular, I have noticed that in a few of Jim Butcher's Dresden Files stories, his pacing gets a bit long winded during an action sequence... and what I mean by that is that during the course of a bit of action that probably took just a couple of minutes of story time, it actually took over half an hour to read about it. Do you ever consider the speed of the reader reading when writing action scenes, so that the time it takes to read doesn't heavily eclipse the actual time elapsed within the story?
I'm most upset by passive characters. Jyn Erso is just pulled by the plot until she sees her dad's message and the whole movie is dragged down before that because of it. Unconvincing goals and motivations are bad but sometimes movies gloss over them so quickly it's like they don't even exist at all like in Black Widow. how do you have a revenge movie and not show the Red Room doing anything bad to any of the main characters? the main characters put in less thought and interest in to going on a revenge mission then most people put into going out to see a concert for a band they don't even like.
Hi Brandon, I love you content. Can you please tell me from where you take all the stock footage for your YT videos? (Would help a lot)
Thank you🙏
I'm having trouble with a story where the main character is a high school student who wants to get through school without too much attention, but enough so he is favorably remembered by some of his classmates (part of the story is revealing his reasons). I worry that my character's goals are too small to be interesting, but I've watched many shows (mostly anime for this setting) where these apparently small stakes are still interesting.
Could we get a episode showing the good and bad ways to use small stakes in a story?
9:12: When charathers spare the villian only for that decsion to cause more harm with the so called "heroes" caring more about the villain's wellbeing then the people they indidectly hurt or killed, or wanting to kill them out of revange, the very thing that was so bad in the first place that will make them no diffrent then the villain.
For the most part, it makes the "heroes" hypocrites.
It frustrates me when characters have personality traits that stall or interfere with the plot. You talked about scenarios where the plot overwhelms the characters, but the opposite situation is maybe even more annoying, since it means the story just goes on and on and on while the author meanders through events looking for a good enough reason for the protagonist to allow the plot to move forward.
Harry has few magic items. He is given a magic mirror to contact his god-father, but the plot requires a kid who grew up with no magic to forget he has a magic mirror to contact the one person he must reach.
I saw a movie based on an 80's manga the other day called City Hunter where the protagonist is way over the top in his reactions and switches between goofy and dramatic at the drop of a hat. It shouldn't have worked but it did.
I always thought Jack should have climbed on the door and froze to death by laying on top to shield her from the night air. It would show how much he loved her that he protected her till the last.
it always annoys me when a character has a theory about how to resolve a situation and they're absolutely right the first time, it's only the right decision because it moves the plot forward
The worst part of the door, even if he was on the door he is likely to freeze to death first. They could have talked both on the door. Then when he died, she could have shaken him repeatedly and shaken so hard he falls off the door.
I feel like for Anakin in AotC, that the speeder chase across Coruscant attempts to act as the character introduction but then its too late into the movie, even though it does set up the character relationship between Anakin as the padawan learner and Obi Wan as the mentor well.
Here is a question I have. Can you create an original character anymore? A character that nobody has ever met or seen and still make it appealing to the reading or video audience?
I dislike it when the author loses their nerve and won't let a character down a villain arc they would be fantastic in.
You’d have a field day with Kamille Bidan from Zeta Gundam.
the end that frustrated me the most is the en of a bridge over the river kwai, it ends because they got short of time
I love the leading lady in Indy2 😂😂
What I've been seeing lately is a phenomenon I call " death by sympathy." In some characters, negative attributes are avoided, apparently for fear of the public rejecting them. Examples: In Hocupocus 1, the Sanderson sisters are scary. In the second film, they are united and fun, taking away the urgency of the film. The second example is Bettlejuice. In the first, Bettlejuice is disgusting, but in the second he is a gentleman, I was rooting for him to marry Lydia. This is because after the first film, the public likes a character and in the second, the screenwriters are afraid of tarnishing him.
When a character isn't shown working at their job.
Example: A well-respected attorney is never in court or working a case at the law firm (we only see him looking at case files on a kitchen table or at his desk at home with running kids and a loud household or something).
A detective who isn't the one who solves a case (he needs outside help all the time to solve something), or a doctor is never seen at the hospital (he's just shown coming home all the time in scrubs and mentions his job but we don't see him at work.)
My pet peeve is when a dumb character says something clever. Like a Kelly Bundy and Joey from Friends.
As the years went on they’d often each give as good as they got when insulted by Bud or Chandler.
Initially the humor was at their expense. Kelly would get ripped by her brother and the humor was in her pathetic retorts.
By the end Kelly and Bud’s dialogue were nearly interchangeable.
I once read Mike judge saying he’d fired Beavis and Butthead writers because they had the boys making funny remarks like a Bart Simpson may.
He got tired of endlessly explaining that they were morons and character comes first.
Thats one reason I still watch B&B but not Friends or Married With Children.
The problem with Joey is that he changed. He started out as a bit of a doofus, but not really that bad. But by the end his intelligence had dropped so much that he was barely functional as an adult.
@@headlessnotahorseman yes Kelly too. And Homer. Thry become parodies of themselves. Exaggerated more every season.
Yet at the same time they make clever quips.
There’s a later episode wherein Kelly forget to breathe and passes out. Yet in the same one she outsmarts bud in a brilliant way.
Frustrating characterization from Jurassic Park: Lex can't figure out how to turn off a flashlight -- a flashlight that she turned on just twenty seconds earlier -- but she can figure out how to hack the Park's security system to save the day.
FINALLY!
Someone else knows how frustrating that damn door scene was in Titanic!
The fact that they BOTH didn't even attempt to jump on it is one of the many elements of that movie that drives me nuts.
How would you portray a mastermind character with a lot of ambition but not making them seem evil? I like the idea of these characters but I don't want them to be like a cold ham bond villain or something. These would the main character or a primary supporting character. Any suggestions would be helpful and I loved the video!!!
Hmm, you might want to consider making them just a little bit bad? Have you ever read the Artemis Fowl series? It's about a boy genius that wants to cure his mother of an incurable illness, so he scams the whole fairy nation to get a cure. He's amazingly smart and ambitious and Mostly good. But he doesn't feel bad about using, threatening, and tricking the fairies to get what he wants. No one gets hurt, and his mother gets cured, but he didn't use Nice means to get to his goal.
You need to give them a choice. Action that serves their ambitions but breaks some moral code, or sacrifice their ambitions to make the moral choice.
Then when you have established their moral code, you can give them a much higher stakes choice and there is genuine drama about which choice they will make.