Prince Zuko from the TV show version of Avatar: The Last Airbender. Strong positive character arc. Best redemption story I’ve seen portrayed on screen.
I would argue that a Flat Arc is good when it is challenged. A flat arc with no challenge is just a character existing in the space. Leia's strength is challenged through escalating events in Star Wars. Gandalf's power and wisdom is challenged from solving a mystery to standing against a demi-god. Sam's loyalty even is challenged as Frodo faces greater threats and Sam does NOT have to go along, especially in the finale when he tries to get to the boat despite not being able to swim.
Exactly. A character who isn’t challenged doesn’t go through an arc. It’s just a flat character. By givning them challenges they need to remain steadfast in you create an arc for them, since that introduces conflict against their strength.
I’m not sure if I would say Boromir has a negative arc. I’m not a writer or anything, but I’m a huge LotR fan and Boromir is my favorite character. After he sacrifices himself he admits to trying to take the ring and apologizes. He then admits to Aragorn being his true king. I could see his arc being Positive, flat, or negative depending on how you look at it. Arrogant to modest, stays honorable, or what you said. Maybe all three at once.
Its a negative arc with a redemption. The redemption is too close to the conclusion to make it a positive arc and he never truly overcame his flaw (dying honorably enforces a strength he already had).
@@charlesmclearn4642 What affected the story was Boromir's gradual progression from "Gondor has no king, Gondor needs no king" to "I would have followed you, my brother. My captain. My king." Hard as others tried to convince Aragorn to man up, it was Boromir's acceptance that moved him in the end. The betrayal and honorable death were more significant in the repercussions of his loss than the direct result of his actions. He didn't get the ring. He didn't save the hobbits. But Gondor never got to hear his endorsement. Aragorn had to win their approval himself. Tragic, yes, but his succumbing to the One Ring's power was more a testament to its power to corrupt than defining his character and impact on the story.
He is a great character. To me he always seemed like the man who wanted to do what was right, but he didn't really know what that was. Being caught between honor for his father and love for his brother, two men who did not get along, helped build that backstory for him.
Actually, C-3PO does change over the course of the Trilogy. In Episode IV, he says, "I'm not very good at telling stories-well, not at making them interesting anyway," but by Episode VI he keeps the Ewoks enthralled wit his storytelling.
I know only one main flat character. He's Forrest Gump. He doesn't change himself entire film. But he's simply clear mind changes the world he lives, change us, "normals".
Part of Boromir's tragedy is that he is the "wrong brother, in the wrong place". He is sent to the meeting at Rivendale by his father. Faramir should be the one who went, as he is the diplomatic one, while Boromir should be leading the troops. It's also an early indicator that Denethor is not a capable leader and decision maker.
At the beginning of the quest, no rational person could honestly say they believed 2 hobbits could somehow make their way thru Mordor to Mount Doom and actually destroy the ring. It was a suicide mission, w/ extremely small odds of success! (even then, it took Gollum's treachery to complete the deed; Frodo claimed the Ring for himself) I'd argue that Denethor did what MOST rational leaders would do in his position.
@@blueshattrick Except that Denethor's decision to send Boromir is not for any of those reasons - he doesn't know at the time anything that we the audience know. He sent Boromir to an important meeting because Boromir is the elder son. While it's not in the film, in the book Faramir has the prophetic dream prompting sending someone to Rivendell and Denethor ignores his request to go despite Boromir's encouragement. It's only when Boromir has the dream that Denethor sends his elder son to represent the strength of the house of the Steward of Gondor. Denethor's choice is about prestige, not wisdom or strategy.
10:57 The actual moment of Merry, and particularly Pippen's arc coming to completion is before they fight the Uruk-hais with Boromir. It's the moment both of them understand that Frodo's quest needs to continue without the Fellowship and they selflessly create the diversion for his escape. They don't know Boromir will come to fight with them, but they acknowledge that they have an important roll for the greater quest to continue, even if it means they may come to harm.
Yeah that’s what I thought he was going to mention! That was a much more impactful moment than them just fighting beside Boromir. For all they knew, they were giving up their lives so Frodo could escape. And it was an active choice they made that affected the story, not just a passive one like fighting beside Boromir.
@@Poet482Eh. Not sure about the manga but Ive dropped the show at episode 100 or so. Story is too slow, ugly art and every single character speaks screaming.
@@AndersonMallony-EricCF Again, reading it is different, and that's where the quality is. It's a slow burn at first, with relatively simple stories at first, but around 50 characters in the scope of the setting widens considerably, and from there it keeps getting better and better. No filler in the manga, either, of course. Not a single arc in the whole series is bad, and once you get to the Baratie arc you're in for the quality that One Piece is known for consistently.
Neville Longbottom from Harry Potter : Clumsy and forgetful kid at the beginning Stands up (unsuccesfully) to the trio at the end of Philosopher's Stone Emboldened to stand up to Bellatrix in the Order of the Phoenix Leads Dumbledore Army with Albus dead and Harry absent, to eventually kill the last horcrux of Voldemort in a badass moment in the Deathly Hallows
You touched on the biggies in the video. Gimli/Legolas is a great arc as mistrust turns into friendship. From Aliens, Ripley is a strong character but shattered from the events in the first film. We see her regain confidence and become greater as her conflict is more often with the humans around her. She knows what to do and others need to get out if her way.
3:30 Thats how the classical genre of tragedy works. A hero has a "fatal flaw" that dooms him to fail no matter what. Escaping fate will only lead to it catching up in most ironic ways. Stories from Achilles, Heracles, and Oedipus, to Hamlet, Heathcliff, any Byronic hero etc. show them as hopeless from the start.
I would argue that c-3po and r2d2 definitely have character arcs. R2D2 is noticing sad that “Luke doesn’t like him” and that C-3PO says “I don’t like you either.” Then at the end, Luke noticeably cares saying “we’ve been through a lot together.” Like Han, R2D2 sort of shifts it’s responsibilities, from “the mission” to “his friends” it’s slight because those goals overlap so much.
C-3PO’s world view changes drastically. In a new hope he says to Luke “I’m not one for telling stories.” But by the time return of the Jedi comes around, he’s captivating the crowd of Ewoks with all the adventures they’ve been on, after saying “no more adventures”
Just because Luke & R2 have been through a lot together, doesn't mean R2 has an arc. In fact, what you're describing is a change in _Luke._ As for C3PO, I wouldn't call story-telling a real arc. He doesn't go through any 'challenges or trials' in telling a story. Regardless, the examples were clearly for _Star Wars: A New Hope_ and not the trilogy, which is why he pointed out Leia has a flat arc but in ESB she has a different arc. (As well as not mentioning the characters in the rest of the trilogy.)
Flat character arcs are my favorite when done right, partly because they are hardest to do. This tends to work best when good people are in really bad situations and for them to change would mean them changing for the worse.
Yeah, a show like Trigun is largely about whether it’s main character will give in to the demands of the world, take a more “realistic” outlook, and start killing in order to protect others. So yeah, episode after episode, the main character stays the same, but it’s because he CHOOSES live following his moral code. (And also, what we know about the main character, and how we perceive him, changes drastically over the course of the show.) Interestingly, it’s the main character’s unchanging nature which has such a strong impact on the side characters and fuels the incredible character growth of the character acting as his foil. It’s one of my favorite stories. (Which is great for me, because I’ve got three different versions of it to enjoy. 😁)
Flat arcs work best with a truly developed and complex Character to begin with... I'm rather partial to Bobby Singer in "Supernatural", as the Mentor and Fatherly figure to the boys through most of his time on the show... With every challenge that arises to test him, we find out more about Bobby, and largely he doesn't change so much as our respective views of him grow. He's always the plain and blunt "country" type... He keeps it as simple as possible, with an undying loyalty to those he cares about, like the boys. He doesn't lie, even to soften the reality that he knows is going to hurt horribly when he has to tell them something... AND of course, his dry, morbid sense of humor is hilarious... "If you're gonna shoot, SHOOT... don't talk." ~one of my favorite bits of Bobby Singer philosophy, and it really is Bobby in a nutshell. ;o)
One of my favorite character arcs is Gerard from The Fugitive. He starts out "not caring" that Kimble is innocent, to actually believing he is and assisting him in capturing the real guilty party. He even uncuffs him in the squad car in the end.😊😂
One of my favorite side character arcs is Dot in the TV show, Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries (set in the 1920s). She starts out as a timid, fearful house maid who is petrified of the telephone and believes electricity running thru wires will blow up the world. She's also a deeply faithful Catholic. Miss Fisher takes her on as a Lady's Companion and soon Dot is thrown into a world of murder mysteries, guns, knives, dancing, being kidnapped, going undercover, falling in love, and making daily phone calls! At the end of the series she has found her inner strength and taken on all the better qualities of a modern woman. Absolutely delightful! If you've never watched the show, I HIGHLY recommend it. Dot is just one of the many deeply layered characters amid beautifully crafted intersecting character arcs! (And the wardrobes are incredible, too!)
Boromir succumbed to fear, not to arrogance. The moments when he showed arrogance was actually due to his underlying fear and insecurity regarding his station as the son of a Steward, and not the rightful heir to Gondor. Moreover, his fear of loss, of losing Gondor, losing his father’s respect, is what leads the ring to tempt him so strongly. His story arc is a warning against allowing fear to guide your decisions and emotions. He overcomes his fear in the end, after overcoming a terrible fall, and is able to defend the hobbits and accept Aragorn as the rightful king.
I think maybe Flat Arcs need further disambiguation. I feel like there's a difference between a character who has a strong trait, that trait is challenged, and the character successfully meets that challenge and ends the story intact (like Sam) vs a character who isn't really challenged and whose actions only serve to affect others
I agree. For me a flat arc would be a character who has a belief and this belief will challenge the Mc through his journey to find his new truth. However, that doesn't mean the character won't have conflict either. In the same way the Mc will be pushed out of their comfort zone, this character will also be tested to prove their belief. So through different obstacles in the story he has to prove himself by staying loyal to his truth. And by the end, he will be more encouraged and more certain of his belief than before because he reinforced it.
That was very interesting, thank you. I indeed never thought too much about side characters; I just wrote them, and I thought it worked. But now I see how important it is to give them a structure, and think about them for a moment to make them more interesting, and even have them consciously contribute to the story. It's also interesting to see the different types, and how they interact with each other. My problem with this though is that the main character of one of my book projects doesn't actually have a real "flaw" that's defining him or his life at the beginning of the story. He's actually content with his life, and then meets his love interest. He is actually irritated about these new feelings that are disrupting his peaceful life, and he only later realises that being in love does him good, that, because of a bad experience in his teens, he has suppressed the wish to have a relationship up to the point of always telling himself he's fine with the life he leads, he doesn't need anyone. I've read so many tips on writing your character, and they all state that your main character *needs* a problem or a motivation etc. at the beginning, and that it's bad if they don't, that it does make your character uninteresting to the readers. I'd be interested in your opinion in this (or anybody's opinion here) because I don't think it's a bad thing if a main character doesn't want change at the beginning of the story like Luke does, for example. I suppose my character's a bit like Frodo since Frodo (and Bilbo even more) doesn't want change at the beginning, but has to accept it eventually. So, I suppose he's a flat character at the beginning who changes to positive somewhere along the way. I feel really reassured now because, as I said, I only ever read that there needs to be a motivation at the beginning. You showed me that it seems to be fine to even have a main character that has a flat arc at the beginning (and anyway; writing a conflict or motivation for your character is so much easier with fantasy or science fiction or other action-laden stories; there I could think of tons of motivations, but in a relatively tranquil, realistic setting and plot... definitely more difficult)
Aragorn is absolutely the main character like come on, Return of the KING, not Journey of the Hobbit! Leia shares cover of this video with him and she's literally the female lead. She's not supporting cast: Han, Chewie, the droids, Lando and Boba Fett are.
This is an excellent video. Thank you for sharing it. I found your analysis really interesting and thought provoking. I think that there’s massive number of side characters with arcs and the first one that comes to mind for me is Hudson from Aliens. He starts out arrogant but a bit of a joke to the other marines, after they encounter the aliens in the reactor room he goes to pieces and needs to ordered to step up. Later in the film he finds his courage and loyalty and goes down fighting. Arguably his arc is circular where he starts out arrogant, has the confidence knocked out of him but reverts to his old ways and dies because he underestimates the xenophomorphs at the end. All these flaws make him an excellent character though.
Theme for the first LoTR movie is much more about corruption and the power of friendship/loyalty. Boromir's sacrifice and redemption, Aragorn's speach and Sam's actions in the very end of the movie are basically the authors telling us what we should remember of the story. I'd argue the LoTR arcs are also more about all three movies than just the first. In the first movie alone, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli would have a flat arc, they don't develop their main arc (yet). Aragorn is a good leader from start to finish (leading the hobbits - > leading the fellowship). The one small positive arc we could give Aragorn is about learning to "let go", that you can't control/save everything/everyone. Growth happens 1-when Arwen takes frodo, 2- when Gandalf pushes him away in moria, and he embraces it when he lets Sam and Frodo go. Legolas and Gimli are both still adversarial (Gimli's words in the Lorien) and only start changing in Two Towers; in fellowship, we could say they represent loyalty and the overcoming of differences for the greater good, which serves as contrast with Boromir.
I just recently watch Breaking Bad and better call Saul for the first time . I’d love how better call Saul took the side characters Mike and Saul and made them main characters in their own show. Seeing Jimmy’s name change with his negative and positive character arcs.
I noticed that sometimes even protagonists can have a flat arc. I always take as example WIlliam Wallace in "Braveheart", because he doesn't have really an arc: he's defined by his fearlessness to the point of senselessness and this is what he is at the end. WHat he does though is acting as a catalyst for side characters' arc, mainly Robert Bruce and the princess Isabelle, the ones who will continue his legacy, one by fighting English and conquering independece for Scotland, the other giving birth to his son and (probably) killing the legitimate heir of England's throne.
This is the film that came to mind when I thought of side character arcs. Wallace serves as an example to those two characters, who are good but weak/inexperienced characters. Who find their strength by the end of the film.
Granted, calling him a "side" character is a bit of a stretch, but Dinobot from Beast Wars has one of the best side character arcs of all time. His struggle to mesh his Predacon values with the values of his Maximal allies, how he befriends Rattrap, how he and Optimus simultaneously greatly respect one another despite their clashing core values, his existential crisis when he learns his actions may be pre-ordained and his destiny already set, his temptation to return to Megatron's side, and his ultimate sacrifice.
Also, something I would like to add is that the best character arcs combine both positive and negative growths at some point. Catra from the She Ra Animated Series, has a negative growth for most of the show until she finally reaches a redemption arc at the very last season. It is, of course, riskier, as it could make your character feel inconsistent, but makes it look far more human.
Marisa Tomei was about the best supporting actress for her award winning role in my cousin Vinny. Thinking, I couldn’t find any Arch. Her function is to help Vinny find his arch. Her character is hardly flat, but she remains consistent throughout. She mainly goes back-and-forth between being supportive to her man and being firmly resolved to the point of demanding. In the beginning she demands Vinny to take her serious when she yells at him not to shoot a deer or when she yells at him for not knowing what his own law books contain. Then in the end she tries to be supportive again until Vinny makes her angry and she demands to be taken seriously by Vinny and the prosecuting attorney who tries to dupe her. Then when she realizes that Vinny is finally taking her seriously, and giving her respect, she becomes supportive again. And throughout she has that sassy repartee that makes you love her.
I would argue that Boromir has more of a positive arc. I mean his arc does go down during the story, that is until the end when he redeems himself. At the end he recognizes he was wrong and fights for his friends until he is defeated. Then before he dies he apologizes and respectfully calls Arrogorn his king (which he would never have done before this scene) But in any case, all the other examples were great! Lol. I've been looking for inspiration on how to improve my side character's arcs so this was helpful.
I'm rewatching Game of Thrones and it reminds me of how many side characters have so many incredible arcs. It's an absolute clinic on character development.... until that last season. 💩
Boromir has a fallen arc, that he redeems with his selfless sacrifice. I wouldn't call that negative either. He was actually strong for finally being able to pull himself free from the ring's influence. BTW,, I wouldn't call Aragorn a side character. He has a grand story and adventure of his own; so I'd call him a deuteragonist instead. Still, some pretty interesting takes to hear.
Also, remember that before the orcs attack, he realizes that he succumbed to his darkness and showed immediate shame and regret before screaming out his apologies and begging for Frodo's forgiveness. After he is fatally shot, he confesses what he did to Aragorn as an act of penance. As he dies, he shows no fear as he has hope that Aragorn will save Gondor, and he swears loyalty to Aragorn with his final breath because he is the rightful king. To me, his arc is a combination of a negative and positive arc
I like a lot of side characters better than the main ones, so it's pretty hard to answer that question ^^' But about Aragorn, I always considered him to be a second main character rather than a side character. He has a strongly developed arc, follows his own plot line, that intertwines with Frodo's and has a full blown resolution in the end. And Boromir's arc is more of a positive one, that's what makes him tragic. He showed the capability of change right before he dies. Tragedy mimics a negative arc by cutting off a positive one right at the turning point.
This will be a more obscure example, but Cassius from "The Mice Templar" graphic novel series. He starts the story consumed by regret for actions he took years ago The Big Backstory War, which he tries to run from by clinging to self-righteous pride. But over the course of the story he comes to terms with the fact that while he did things that cannot be undone, he still has the chance to do good by practicing humility where once he was arrogant, showing patience where he was once quick to anger, and using wisdom to discern the big picture where once he was short-sighted.
Yeah, Actually I'm new to this channel and I'm latina so from where I am is normal that disney and nickelodeon make telenovelas (rom coms) and something that I really don't like is when the bad guy, bad girl only purpose is to being mean towards the main character, I want to know if has a family, how is relation, what are her/his goals in life and more dinamics between characters, it make the telenovela more rewatchable.
King Theoden of Rohan. From old, feeble, indecisive & brainwashed by Grima (in the books there's no magic spell by Saruman, but Grima's poisonous words numbing him for many years), to a strong, wise, decisive King who leads by example & fights in the front lines. Yes, it took someone like Gandalf to set him free, but once he remembered who he was, he took all the right decisions. He led his men & fought in 2 of the most important battles of his time, winning the 1st & doing a major contribution in winning the 2nd. And he finally met a glorious, epic end, and it took no lesser foe than the Witch-King himself (probably the most powerful enemy on the battlefield) to take him down. One of my all time favourite side characters with a positive arc. And thinking about it: In another book (e.g. an Anthology of the Kings of Rohan) he might very well be a main character.
Stranger Things side characters have critical story arcs over the course of the several seasons, as they grow up but also grow apart/together, depending on which characters you focus on. At the same time, their story arcs within the mysterious and horrific events create incredible tipping points and pay-offs in the plot.
Legitimately, my favorite side character is Boromir, both in the books and the movies. Even though he has a negative character arc. But, I think he redeems himself in the minutes leading up to his death.
Dom from the Gears of war series has one if my favorite arcs. Not gunna say anything bout it for spoiler reasons, but his arc is really good. Another favorite side character of mine is Elizabeth from Bioshock Infinite and Chloe from Life Is Strange. Just off the top, im sure if i spent more time i can think of alot from books, movies, games, etc.
@@PuppetMaster-Blade I love Chloe from Life is Strange. She was EASILY my favorite part of the storyline. Haven't played Gears (cmon, Microsoft, port it to Switch!) or Bioshock Infinite (although I've had the PS3 version in my backlog since 2015 haha)
I don't wanna say Captain Raymond Holt, even though he is my favorite side character (and character in general), so I'll say Yasuho Hirose from the eighth part of the manga Jojo's Bizzare Adventure called Jojolion. Yasuho has a positive arc, she grows braver and stronger (personality wise). I haven't read Jojolion in a while so it's a bit hard to explain in detail what her arc is, but maybe I'll rereaed it soon, if so, I'll go and make another comment
The priests in Fifth Element. They're just hilarious and awkward, the entire thing was their job and especially Ian Holm's character tries to be the one to get Leeloo but he's reduced to hiding in cargo compartment between the wires and in awkwardly blushing when Milla has no nudity taboo.
One of my favorite side characters is Luc in Emily in Paris--he's always so qunpredictable and quirky, but philosophical and not often wrong. I think he slowly becomes more of a friend than a buddy. Good question :-) Thanks for this video.
For me, Merry and Pippin’s defining moment of change in Fellowship is when Merry realizes Frodo is leaving the fellowship. At first they recklessly get up to rush to Frodo, presumably to stop him from leaving, but in doing so they attract the attention of the Uruk-Hai. Seeing what they’ve done, they know if they make their way to Frodo they will inadvertently lead the Uruk-Hai to Frodo and to the Ring-so in a split second decision they decide to help Frodo by misdirecting the hoard over to them and leading them away from where Frodo is trying to get to, clearing the way for him, and they do it knowing it will lead to their deaths. In a flash, all three characters make hero-defining decisions-Frodo sacrifices himself by going at it alone, and Merry and Pippin sacrifice themselves to clear the way for Frodo. It marks a very sudden shift and it moves me every time.
C-3PO has an arc in the first trilogy. In the “a new hope” Like asks him for stories of the resistance and 3po says that he isn’t good at telling stories or “making them interesting” anyway. But in “return of the jedi” he tells a story to the Ewoks with sound effects and they are enraptured.
In the original series of Lost in Space the Robot goes from basically an appliance that Dr Smith programs to kill the Robinson family to becoming the trusted guardian of the children (like a cross between Lassie and Uncle Charlie from My Three Sons) and Will Robinson's best friend. This happens through Will's interventions and at first the Robot calls him William Robinson all the time but eventually Will tell's him to call him Will and slowly his mannerisms become more nuanced to the point where Will thinks of him as the brother he never had. In the last episode ever filmed (it wasn't the last shown) the Robot is going to be melted down but his love for the Robinsons shields him from the flames (cheesy but significant) and he comes out scorched but unhurt.
For me the great payoff for a flat arc isn't that they change, but their trait, such as clumsiness, finally serves the story instead of hindering it. They (or others) learn to value what was dismissed or criticized. A great example - up to the Ewoks, Han always brushed off 3PO, but then he was forced to rely on him to get out of his scrape. 3PO doesn't change, but finally becomes valuable to the team.
Another amazing video,Thankyou for helping me understand this better! How would you address a swap in character perspective? Say your main character does die near the end and perspective shifts to another main character? I have so many questions
Thanks! And to answer your question: Start a new chapter/section after the MC dies and then ground us in the new MC's POV (by giving us thoughts/sensory details/etc.) If the new MC is at the scene of the MC's death, have the newbie react to the death.
Londo and Jakar in Babylon 5. They both stat as inteligent repusentivies of their people that both well enbody their resspective cultures. They both grow to be more and even somtimes contrary to their cultures. Also they both despise one another and grow to respect and honor one another by the end.
I agree with almost everything but Boromir has a giga positive arc change. He was arrogant, he was selfish, he wanted the ring for Gondor, he doubted Aragorn as the heir to the throne. But as he saw what Aragorn was doing, how he failed Frodo and pushed him away and therefore failed his duty to the fellowship and the hobbits fighting twice the size, twice the strength, he wanted to protect them. He realized his wrongdoings, that the ring is bigger than him. And he gave his life for it. If he kept his arrogance as you said... he would have just bailed. Hid behind a tree or something, let the hobbits be taken and then reunite with Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli and told them some BS lie how there were too many and he was not able to fight them off despite his immense attempt.
This is a great video and it would also be really nice to look at the character arc development in some good TV series, as they have a much longer time to properly advance that. Mad Men would be a fantastic case to review for example.
Captain America in the MCU is a painful example of a Flat Arc. The man's strength (overbearing self righteousness, and stubborness) was a reoccurring weakness that he never learned from.
my actual favorite side character is kazuma from an anime called kemonozume. he has a negative arc in which he succumbs to his arrogance and end up dying miserably, the theme of the anime is something in the lines of having self-control and putting your own interior demons under said control... well, he failed...
For me it's Christopher from Sopranos. His entire arc was to find understanding and meaning in his life. Near the end, he comes to the understanding that everyone in his life, especially his most beloved uncle Tony, doesn't care about him. Then he succumbs to the same addictions his father did and it endangers his life, and Tony takes the opportunity to kill him. That was his arc.
Nice analysis. I think, however, that Boromir fatal flaw is hopelessness, not arrogance. He has been sent by his father as the last hope Gondor has. He is carrying that weight, and that is how he relates to Frodo in a contrasting way. An interesting conversation he has with Frodo is after Gandalf's death. He tells him not to put the weight of his death on himself. When he meets Galadriel, she tells him there is hope, but he doesn't believe. He doesn't believe in Aragorn, the man who would be king. His strength would be his compassion. He is, throughout the movie, the one who trains and play with the hobbits, who support Gimli in his grief, confort Frodo after Gandalf's death. And that compassion is what makes him sacrifice his life (remember, he is the last hope of Gondor!) For 2 hobbits that to someone else, would not be worth his life. He is my favorite character, ao I'm biaised, but I think he is the most important (or impactful) character in Fellowship of the Ring. He is the one that kickstart both main characters their respective arc. His treason of Frodo makes Frodo understand that he cannot relie on anyone else than himself, that the quest is his alone (Sam comes in after this realisation). Aragorn, at the start of the movie, lives with the elves and doesn't believe in himself, nor in the strength of men. He would not ask help from Gondor and doesn't want the crown. Boromir challenges him many times, most importantly after the meeting with Galadriel. When Boromir dies, he sees tthat with his death, Gondor will fall, but Aragorn promise him that he will do everything in his power to save "their people". And he goes on to save Rohan and Gondor and fulfilling his destiny. A long message, I hope some will powerread through it all😅
My favorite character arc is that of Mr. Kobayashi from The Usual Suspects. I'm not going to explain why. Just watch the film and enjoy the amazing performance of Pete Postlethwaite.
Wouldn't you say Obi wan's arc grows upward from being Jedi Master to being completly at one with the force growing more powerful than you can possibly imagine?
Not sure that I would see Leia ''shed her pride to be his Han'' as a positive character arc (6:45). The relationship and Han's advances are highly problematic. Pop Culture Detective did a great video on that: th-cam.com/video/wWoP8VpbpYI/w-d-xo.html
8:53 Indecisive to Decisive?! But couldn't one also say that it also goes from being independently decisive to becoming a passive object? Exactly the other way around from Sam, who has to go from insecure to self-confident...
Because whenever he takes his own path other than the given path, it ends in catastrophe and at the end he (passive) is taken/carried by the active, self-confident Sam.
Col. Mustang from full metal alchemist. His arc could be considered flat or negative. He became vengeful, and stays vengeful for a long time, and after he gets his revenge, he didn't regret the deed. It's satisfying since the show didn't preach that revenge is a bad thing, people just get what they deserve
Lord of the flies as I perceive it: Positive arc: Ralph (from indifferent to caring and responsible) Flat arc: Piggy (smart but whiny and socially awkward) Simon (maybe) (sensitive, loyal and shy) Negative arc: Jack (succumbs to lust for power and paranoia) Roger (succumbs to violence)
Elrond: Flat - wise and strong. Galadriel: Ditto. Bilbo: Positive - gets rid of his burden. The bartender: Flat - but he is afraid of Strider. Gatekeeper: Negative - the Nazgul kill him. The Nazgul: Flat - they will never change. The old hobbit who laughed at fireworks: Positive - he laughed after all! Sauron: Negative - he fails to recover the ring again and his evil only grows. Saruman: Negative - Used to be good, now his madness deepens. Cave Troll: Negative - he dies and fails to kill Frodo. The Uruk Hai Leader: Negative - dies by Aragorn's hand. Arwen: Negative - deciding between love or death, no conclusion yet, but despair. Balrog: Negative - Who knows how long he lived there, not anymore. Haldir: Not enough info to decide yet, he only introduced himself. Gollum: Flat - in this specific movie, he only follows silently, but in his past, his development was only negative so far. Tom Bombadil: Flat but not present :p Challenges of flat characters: Elrond: The decision what to do with the One Ring, whole world depends on it. Galadriel: Resisting the temptation to take the One Ring. Bartender: Trying to keep his cool even though his life gets miserable. Gollum: Trying to follow the Fellowship all the time sneakily, losing them would mean losing the chance to get the Precious back. (Will stop being flat in the second movie, but in this one everything he did prior to Frodo leaving was in his past and now in the present he is just flat.) Tom Bombadil: Various mysterious things to do and discuss. Wants to meet Gandalf again someday.
Im writing a short story that will probably set up a bigger story.where you are introduced to the greatest thief in the world becomming cocky and over confident due to it and ends up dieing to a hero at the end of it.it shows som simple character development
Hi, Brandon. I am writing a fantasy novel with a large cast and each chapter will be the characters name. I had chapter 1 start with the main protagonist but I feel the story would be better if I start chapter 1 with the antagonist instead as it sets the theme for the overall book. What are your thoughts on starting with the antagonist and then have chapter 2 with the protagonist instead?
I think it's honestly BETTER to introduce the antagonist first. You get conflict right off the bat, and the threat of an antagonist carries over into Chapter 2 while the protag is getting introduced. You always want conflict in the back of the reader's mind
It is interesting how different the views of the Lord of the Rings characters are here. For example: Aragorn exists as a hunted man, the enemies of his linage want to exterminate him and he is in hiding under a false name. Elrond even talks to him in the movie trilogy about how the enemy fears him becoming King and spells it out plain as day. There is no self doubt involved with his name. Aragorn, being of elven descent is in his 80's and has had false names before, most notably in Gondor to my offhand recollection in the days of Dethenor's youth. Strider becomes the name of his house, but in another language in fact. One does not accomplish heroic deeds for decades in various realms and still have self doubt. The worry in Aragorn's case is one of a concern about how the war of the ring is going to end, victory or defeat for the free races of Middle Earth is about to be decided and he personally is going to play an important part in it. He fears not living up to his incredibly heroic ancestors, one of which was taken physically beyond the world and into the stars above after they saved the world from the real evil in Middle Earth. (Sauron was just the follower of the Big Baddie) Talk about Aragorn having something to live up to! He wisely refuses to take the ring as he believes it is not something anyone should claim. (learning from isildur's mistake) Not simply him refusing it, but that nobody can use the Ring of Power as it answers only to one master. (if it even answers 100% to Sauron) This is again not doubting himself at all. I dislike the label of a "fear/flaw/weakness" that is supposedly required for any/all well written characters. People go out of their way to find one, or interpret one even when it is not there. Characters need a journey, writers typically make the ending better than the starting for their characters because they are personally invested in them, so relatively the beginning is "less" than the ending. Rename it "newfound insight/strength/wisdom" that is gained instead and ditch the search for a negative starting point.
The films gave Aragorn more of an arc than the books. In the books, Aragorn sets out from Rivendell with confidence in himself and his claim to the thrones of Gondor and Arnor (though, as you say, with uncertainty as to how the good guys can actually win). Before he leaves, he has the shards of Narsil reforged into Anduril. When he's crossing Rohan in search of the captured hobbits and encounters Eomer's company, he declares himself as Isildur's heir and displays Anduril. When he arrives in Edoras, he again declares his claim and suggests that he's not beholden to Theoden's law that weapons be surrendered before entering Meduseld (though he then finds a diplomatic solution). When he comes into possession of the palantir of Orthanc, he wrests control of it from Sauron, then uses it to discover the threat of the Corsairs. When he arrives (in the Corsair ships) at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, he unfurls a banner (made for him by Arwen) that incorporates the tokens of Elendil's house. After that battle, he delays claiming the throne, but for prudent reasons. In sum, his arc from Rivendell to Gondor is essentially flat. In the films, Aragorn sets out from Rivendell full of doubt as to whether he's worthy of his lineage. He's reluctant to even speak of it (others do it for him). He even seems a little doubtful of what strength is left in the entire race of Men. He leaves Rivendell without Anduril. In Rohan, he's still pretty much in "Strider mode" until (in a departure from the books) he's visited by Elrond, who (1) informs him that Arwen is in peril (she has tied her fate to Middle Earth's), (2) warns him of the Corsair threat, (3) presents Anduril to him, and (4) urges him to "put aside the Ranger and become the man you were born to be." After that, Aragorn begins to embrace his destiny. He accepts Anduril. He takes the Paths of the Dead, confronts the Dead to fulfil their oaths to Isildur by fighting for him, and thereby defeats the Corsairs. After the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, he uses the palantir to reveal himself to Sauron. His arc culminates in his "courage of men" speech at the Black Gate (or, arguably, at his coronation, when he sings Elendil's words). I love Book Aragorn, but I suspect a professional writer would say that giving him a positive (rather than flat) arc was a smart move for the films.
Gandalf doesn't have a flat arc. He transforms from Galdalf the Grey to Gandalf the White. He starts out limited by his sense of his place in a cosmic order. He discovers he can power up and transcend it.
Well no, because there's nothing *bad* about being Gandalf the Grey. His more powerful incarnation is a *reward* for staying the same, for not being corrupted, and is predicated on his adherence to the cosmic order you claim he "trancends".
I would argue Gandalf does have a small positive arc, but it happens much earlier than that. His arc is from being more passive (e.g. deferring to Saruman early on, and playing more of a background manipulator role in The Hobbit) to taking a more active and independent role. However this arc is largely complete by the council at Rivendell, where he argues forcefully with Elrond and then chooses to lead the new Fellowship himself. This contrasts with his role in the Hobbit, where once he's put together the company he mostly leaves them to it under Thorin's questionable leadership.
eeeh, I think that's less of a character arc and more of fulfilling a rightful role. IF Gandalf had more power to make the world a better place, he would use it for that purpose and is better suited to that power and responsibility than his superiors. After being brought to the brink of death, he is ascended to that power and indeed uses his power for greater good and overcomes temptation. It's less of a character arc and more of a test of resolve.
You completely missed the point on Boromir. His ark is positive. He goes from a arrogant to loyal. His last action was to attempt to save habits and at the end he accepted Aragorn as his king.
This question is related to the arc. If you write a novel that has 82 thousand words, or 360-plus pages. To show a loser-turn-confident hero, how many pages, or words should be invested in showing his "loser" mis-adventures? I am talking before the main conflict materialize.
The fact that Aragorn goes by the name of Strider doesn't exactly signal self doubt. Tolkien was incorporating something from ancient times, when great people often bore different names in different settings. Remember that Gandalf also had different names (Stormcrow being one of them), and Gandalf suffered verrrrrrry little self-doubt. Otherwise though, I thought this talk was quite good.
I think you have a pretty expansive view of what counts as a side character. Star Wars OT has 3 main characters, not one. Luke is the most front and center, but Leia and Han are pretty clearly also main characters and not at all side characters. Side characters would be Threepio, R2, and Chewie.
For a side character arc you can't do better than Nynaeve from Wheel of Time. She is a type 1 personality and a natural born leader. Her problem is that she can't touch the source (i.e. use magic) unless she is angry. Her arc is how she learns to use magic at will. She learns that it's not being angry that lets her use magic, it's the fact that being incredibly angry is the only time she lets go of her control, and one can not touch the source without surrendering them self to it.
Favorite side Character with a great arc??? You just about can't be Crowley from "Supernatural"... Starts out as a reprehensible, though dubiously important and powerful "Cross-roads demon"... a deal maker and seducer, who has built his own network of colleagues... As the show progresses, though, he practically runs the gamut... Rising at some point to "King of Hell" in Lucifer's stead, even managing to banish the ol' guy... AND somehow regularly heavily reliant on the Winchester Boys to further his goals... Until they manage to kidnap him as part of a trial to close the gates of Hell forever... That plan (overall) of course, doesn't work out, but the damage done, Crowley starts craving the sense of being human... which develops a sense of empathy in him, through an addiction to blood (part of the plot in the trial, and complicated)... and finally he sacrifices himself to lock Lucifer away off-world... saving the Boys AND the world, if only for a temporary reprieve... From on top of his game, to scraping through rock bottom for new depths, Crowley got put through the ringer, and they couldn't have found a better actor to do the job... There's a LOT that's legitimately "wrong" with "Supernatural", but somehow... if you have a little patience, it just works. It never takes itself too seriously, so in spite of the Angels and Demons themes heavily splashed throughout, it's not preachy... It's fun and funny, with more twists on family, sticking together, and building relationships and taking risks for people than all the pseudo-religious academic research mostly dedicated to poking fun at the old stories and lore... ;o)
SPOILER: I will speak to Spock’s story arc in Wrath of Kahn. My take is that it is a flat story arc-propelled by his damned Vulcan logic. (channeling Bones McCoy there)-despite the outcome being negative. This flat story arc produces the most pivotal moment in a protagonist’s story arc (in movie history, I submit). Having to endure personal loss of that scale as a result of the most logical solution, it impacts the audience as equally heavily as it does Kirk. It forces Kirk to look to growing older as a gift to be cherished and to make amends and grow new relationships and look forward to them.
isn't it also possible to mix the first two types? As in, a positive change that results in a negative outcome. I'm thinking about American History X where Derek and Danny make a positive change but at the end Danny gets killed, and you could make the case it is as a result of this change (since he ends up kind of alone)
WAT?? Boromirs arc was positive! He grows from being arrogant and selfish to being humble and self-sacrificing. Sure he succumbs to his temptation for a minute and hits his lowest point, but that's the closest he gets to doing something "wrong". He realizes the error of his ways and defends Merry & Pippin to his death, acknowledging Aragorn as his king. I refuse to believe that his minor momentary fall from grace means he has a negative arc. Anakin Skywalker makes a better example of a negative arc that ends in a heroic act & death.
Wall.E is made of arcs. Both Wall.E and the ship's computer have flat arcs. Wall.E has completely broken free from his programming, whereas the computer remains governed by its programming and thus represents the status quo. At the start of the story, all the side characters' motivations are driven by maintaining the status quo and sticking to their programming/daily schedule. Over the course of the story, Wall.E slowly brings all the other characters from their every day life to exercising free will. As a result, freedom is finally achieved. Paddington is another example of a flat arc for the lead. He is kind and selfless throughout. Over the course of the story, he draws all the Brown family out from their shell (although Mrs Brown was practically there from the beginning) and helps them all become accepting of change/risk/each other
Prince Zuko from the TV show version of Avatar: The Last Airbender. Strong positive character arc. Best redemption story I’ve seen portrayed on screen.
Yes! That's an excellent selection!
possibly the best character in the whole history of characters
“you must look within yourself to save yourself from your other self. Only then will your true self reveal itself.”
So good! Love, love, love Zuko 💛
Eh, Zuko is the co-main character.
I would argue that a Flat Arc is good when it is challenged. A flat arc with no challenge is just a character existing in the space. Leia's strength is challenged through escalating events in Star Wars. Gandalf's power and wisdom is challenged from solving a mystery to standing against a demi-god. Sam's loyalty even is challenged as Frodo faces greater threats and Sam does NOT have to go along, especially in the finale when he tries to get to the boat despite not being able to swim.
Another challenge to Sam was when Golem turns Frodo against him, and instead of going home, he goes back to rescue his best friend.
@@user-yv4mm6bx3c that's a false narrative which was never written by Tolkien, it was just something Jackson tacked on for dramatic effect.
@@richdon6233 It worked for the characters in the film.
Exactly. A character who isn’t challenged doesn’t go through an arc. It’s just a flat character. By givning them challenges they need to remain steadfast in you create an arc for them, since that introduces conflict against their strength.
This was such a good comment I'm going to screenshot and write down
I’m not sure if I would say Boromir has a negative arc. I’m not a writer or anything, but I’m a huge LotR fan and Boromir is my favorite character. After he sacrifices himself he admits to trying to take the ring and apologizes. He then admits to Aragorn being his true king. I could see his arc being Positive, flat, or negative depending on how you look at it. Arrogant to modest, stays honorable, or what you said. Maybe all three at once.
Its a negative arc with a redemption. The redemption is too close to the conclusion to make it a positive arc and he never truly overcame his flaw (dying honorably enforces a strength he already had).
The ring has a negative pull / influence on Baromir and he failed his saving throw.
Imo it's a positive arc: yes he dies, but he dies redeeming himself. Unlike say his father Denethor, Saruman, etc.
@@charlesmclearn4642 What affected the story was Boromir's gradual progression from "Gondor has no king, Gondor needs no king" to "I would have followed you, my brother. My captain. My king." Hard as others tried to convince Aragorn to man up, it was Boromir's acceptance that moved him in the end.
The betrayal and honorable death were more significant in the repercussions of his loss than the direct result of his actions. He didn't get the ring. He didn't save the hobbits. But Gondor never got to hear his endorsement. Aragorn had to win their approval himself.
Tragic, yes, but his succumbing to the One Ring's power was more a testament to its power to corrupt than defining his character and impact on the story.
He is a great character. To me he always seemed like the man who wanted to do what was right, but he didn't really know what that was. Being caught between honor for his father and love for his brother, two men who did not get along, helped build that backstory for him.
Actually, C-3PO does change over the course of the Trilogy. In Episode IV, he says, "I'm not very good at telling stories-well, not at making them interesting anyway," but by Episode VI he keeps the Ewoks enthralled wit his storytelling.
Huh, I never thought of that.
Good point!
Clearly his descriptions were just about A New Hope and not the trilogy. He even points that out with Leia.
I know only one main flat character. He's Forrest Gump. He doesn't change himself entire film. But he's simply clear mind changes the world he lives, change us, "normals".
Part of Boromir's tragedy is that he is the "wrong brother, in the wrong place". He is sent to the meeting at Rivendale by his father. Faramir should be the one who went, as he is the diplomatic one, while Boromir should be leading the troops. It's also an early indicator that Denethor is not a capable leader and decision maker.
At the beginning of the quest, no rational person could honestly say they believed 2 hobbits could somehow make their way thru Mordor to Mount Doom and actually destroy the ring. It was a suicide mission, w/ extremely small odds of success! (even then, it took Gollum's treachery to complete the deed; Frodo claimed the Ring for himself) I'd argue that Denethor did what MOST rational leaders would do in his position.
@@blueshattrick Except that Denethor's decision to send Boromir is not for any of those reasons - he doesn't know at the time anything that we the audience know. He sent Boromir to an important meeting because Boromir is the elder son. While it's not in the film, in the book Faramir has the prophetic dream prompting sending someone to Rivendell and Denethor ignores his request to go despite Boromir's encouragement. It's only when Boromir has the dream that Denethor sends his elder son to represent the strength of the house of the Steward of Gondor. Denethor's choice is about prestige, not wisdom or strategy.
10:57 The actual moment of Merry, and particularly Pippen's arc coming to completion is before they fight the Uruk-hais with Boromir. It's the moment both of them understand that Frodo's quest needs to continue without the Fellowship and they selflessly create the diversion for his escape. They don't know Boromir will come to fight with them, but they acknowledge that they have an important roll for the greater quest to continue, even if it means they may come to harm.
Yeah that’s what I thought he was going to mention! That was a much more impactful moment than them just fighting beside Boromir. For all they knew, they were giving up their lives so Frodo could escape. And it was an active choice they made that affected the story, not just a passive one like fighting beside Boromir.
The huge amount of character in Lotr is probably one of the reasons it's so beloved. It's rare in a film with so many characters that I like them all.
I'd recommend you read One Piece. Great writing all over the place.
@@Poet482Eh. Not sure about the manga but Ive dropped the show at episode 100 or so. Story is too slow, ugly art and every single character speaks screaming.
@@AndersonMallony-EricCF
Again, reading it is different, and that's where the quality is. It's a slow burn at first, with relatively simple stories at first, but around 50 characters in the scope of the setting widens considerably, and from there it keeps getting better and better. No filler in the manga, either, of course.
Not a single arc in the whole series is bad, and once you get to the Baratie arc you're in for the quality that One Piece is known for consistently.
It's beloved because this generation are tragic nerds.
Neville Longbottom from Harry Potter :
Clumsy and forgetful kid at the beginning
Stands up (unsuccesfully) to the trio at the end of Philosopher's Stone
Emboldened to stand up to Bellatrix in the Order of the Phoenix
Leads Dumbledore Army with Albus dead and Harry absent, to eventually kill the last horcrux of Voldemort in a badass moment in the Deathly Hallows
I was about to make a "one does not simply..." comment. But, once again, you have beat me to it, Brandon. You're on fire.
Haha! "One does not simply beat someone to a Boromir joke"
You touched on the biggies in the video. Gimli/Legolas is a great arc as mistrust turns into friendship. From Aliens, Ripley is a strong character but shattered from the events in the first film. We see her regain confidence and become greater as her conflict is more often with the humans around her. She knows what to do and others need to get out if her way.
Yeah I love watching Ripley redefine herself in the second movie. Alien and Aliens are timeless
3:30 Thats how the classical genre of tragedy works. A hero has a "fatal flaw" that dooms him to fail no matter what. Escaping fate will only lead to it catching up in most ironic ways. Stories from Achilles, Heracles, and Oedipus, to Hamlet, Heathcliff, any Byronic hero etc. show them as hopeless from the start.
I would argue that c-3po and r2d2 definitely have character arcs. R2D2 is noticing sad that “Luke doesn’t like him” and that C-3PO says “I don’t like you either.” Then at the end, Luke noticeably cares saying “we’ve been through a lot together.”
Like Han, R2D2 sort of shifts it’s responsibilities, from “the mission” to “his friends” it’s slight because those goals overlap so much.
C-3PO’s world view changes drastically. In a new hope he says to Luke “I’m not one for telling stories.” But by the time return of the Jedi comes around, he’s captivating the crowd of Ewoks with all the adventures they’ve been on, after saying “no more adventures”
Just because Luke & R2 have been through a lot together, doesn't mean R2 has an arc. In fact, what you're describing is a change in _Luke._ As for C3PO, I wouldn't call story-telling a real arc. He doesn't go through any 'challenges or trials' in telling a story. Regardless, the examples were clearly for _Star Wars: A New Hope_ and not the trilogy, which is why he pointed out Leia has a flat arc but in ESB she has a different arc. (As well as not mentioning the characters in the rest of the trilogy.)
Flat character arcs are my favorite when done right, partly because they are hardest to do. This tends to work best when good people are in really bad situations and for them to change would mean them changing for the worse.
Yeah, a show like Trigun is largely about whether it’s main character will give in to the demands of the world, take a more “realistic” outlook, and start killing in order to protect others. So yeah, episode after episode, the main character stays the same, but it’s because he CHOOSES live following his moral code. (And also, what we know about the main character, and how we perceive him, changes drastically over the course of the show.)
Interestingly, it’s the main character’s unchanging nature which has such a strong impact on the side characters and fuels the incredible character growth of the character acting as his foil.
It’s one of my favorite stories. (Which is great for me, because I’ve got three different versions of it to enjoy. 😁)
Flat arcs work best with a truly developed and complex Character to begin with... I'm rather partial to Bobby Singer in "Supernatural", as the Mentor and Fatherly figure to the boys through most of his time on the show...
With every challenge that arises to test him, we find out more about Bobby, and largely he doesn't change so much as our respective views of him grow. He's always the plain and blunt "country" type... He keeps it as simple as possible, with an undying loyalty to those he cares about, like the boys. He doesn't lie, even to soften the reality that he knows is going to hurt horribly when he has to tell them something... AND of course, his dry, morbid sense of humor is hilarious...
"If you're gonna shoot, SHOOT... don't talk." ~one of my favorite bits of Bobby Singer philosophy, and it really is Bobby in a nutshell. ;o)
The gatekeeper of Bree had a flat arc - first he questions the Nazgul, then gets flattened by them 😄
You can't have a flatter arc than that.
One of my favorite character arcs is Gerard from The Fugitive. He starts out "not caring" that Kimble is innocent, to actually believing he is and assisting him in capturing the real guilty party. He even uncuffs him in the squad car in the end.😊😂
One of my favorite side character arcs is Dot in the TV show, Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries (set in the 1920s). She starts out as a timid, fearful house maid who is petrified of the telephone and believes electricity running thru wires will blow up the world. She's also a deeply faithful Catholic. Miss Fisher takes her on as a Lady's Companion and soon Dot is thrown into a world of murder mysteries, guns, knives, dancing, being kidnapped, going undercover, falling in love, and making daily phone calls! At the end of the series she has found her inner strength and taken on all the better qualities of a modern woman. Absolutely delightful! If you've never watched the show, I HIGHLY recommend it. Dot is just one of the many deeply layered characters amid beautifully crafted intersecting character arcs! (And the wardrobes are incredible, too!)
Boromir succumbed to fear, not to arrogance. The moments when he showed arrogance was actually due to his underlying fear and insecurity regarding his station as the son of a Steward, and not the rightful heir to Gondor. Moreover, his fear of loss, of losing Gondor, losing his father’s respect, is what leads the ring to tempt him so strongly. His story arc is a warning against allowing fear to guide your decisions and emotions. He overcomes his fear in the end, after overcoming a terrible fall, and is able to defend the hobbits and accept Aragorn as the rightful king.
I think maybe Flat Arcs need further disambiguation. I feel like there's a difference between a character who has a strong trait, that trait is challenged, and the character successfully meets that challenge and ends the story intact (like Sam) vs a character who isn't really challenged and whose actions only serve to affect others
A bell arc and a flat arc
I agree. For me a flat arc would be a character who has a belief and this belief will challenge the Mc through his journey to find his new truth. However, that doesn't mean the character won't have conflict either. In the same way the Mc will be pushed out of their comfort zone, this character will also be tested to prove their belief. So through different obstacles in the story he has to prove himself by staying loyal to his truth. And by the end, he will be more encouraged and more certain of his belief than before because he reinforced it.
That was very interesting, thank you. I indeed never thought too much about side characters; I just wrote them, and I thought it worked. But now I see how important it is to give them a structure, and think about them for a moment to make them more interesting, and even have them consciously contribute to the story. It's also interesting to see the different types, and how they interact with each other.
My problem with this though is that the main character of one of my book projects doesn't actually have a real "flaw" that's defining him or his life at the beginning of the story. He's actually content with his life, and then meets his love interest. He is actually irritated about these new feelings that are disrupting his peaceful life, and he only later realises that being in love does him good, that, because of a bad experience in his teens, he has suppressed the wish to have a relationship up to the point of always telling himself he's fine with the life he leads, he doesn't need anyone.
I've read so many tips on writing your character, and they all state that your main character *needs* a problem or a motivation etc. at the beginning, and that it's bad if they don't, that it does make your character uninteresting to the readers.
I'd be interested in your opinion in this (or anybody's opinion here) because I don't think it's a bad thing if a main character doesn't want change at the beginning of the story like Luke does, for example. I suppose my character's a bit like Frodo since Frodo (and Bilbo even more) doesn't want change at the beginning, but has to accept it eventually. So, I suppose he's a flat character at the beginning who changes to positive somewhere along the way. I feel really reassured now because, as I said, I only ever read that there needs to be a motivation at the beginning. You showed me that it seems to be fine to even have a main character that has a flat arc at the beginning (and anyway; writing a conflict or motivation for your character is so much easier with fantasy or science fiction or other action-laden stories; there I could think of tons of motivations, but in a relatively tranquil, realistic setting and plot... definitely more difficult)
Great video although I would argue Aragorn is as much of a main character as Frodo. I consider LOTR to be a Dual Protagonist story.
Aragorn is absolutely the main character like come on, Return of the KING, not Journey of the Hobbit! Leia shares cover of this video with him and she's literally the female lead. She's not supporting cast: Han, Chewie, the droids, Lando and Boba Fett are.
For me the protagonists of LOTR are Frodo, Sam, Aragorn and maybe Gandalf.
The main character of Fellowship is undoubtedly Frodo, Aragorn becomes the secondary main character in Two Towers as their stories split.
This is an excellent video. Thank you for sharing it. I found your analysis really interesting and thought provoking.
I think that there’s massive number of side characters with arcs and the first one that comes to mind for me is Hudson from Aliens. He starts out arrogant but a bit of a joke to the other marines, after they encounter the aliens in the reactor room he goes to pieces and needs to ordered to step up. Later in the film he finds his courage and loyalty and goes down fighting. Arguably his arc is circular where he starts out arrogant, has the confidence knocked out of him but reverts to his old ways and dies because he underestimates the xenophomorphs at the end. All these flaws make him an excellent character though.
Alien and Aliens are full of great side character arcs. Great call.
Theme for the first LoTR movie is much more about corruption and the power of friendship/loyalty. Boromir's sacrifice and redemption, Aragorn's speach and Sam's actions in the very end of the movie are basically the authors telling us what we should remember of the story. I'd argue the LoTR arcs are also more about all three movies than just the first. In the first movie alone, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli would have a flat arc, they don't develop their main arc (yet). Aragorn is a good leader from start to finish (leading the hobbits - > leading the fellowship). The one small positive arc we could give Aragorn is about learning to "let go", that you can't control/save everything/everyone. Growth happens 1-when Arwen takes frodo, 2- when Gandalf pushes him away in moria, and he embraces it when he lets Sam and Frodo go. Legolas and Gimli are both still adversarial (Gimli's words in the Lorien) and only start changing in Two Towers; in fellowship, we could say they represent loyalty and the overcoming of differences for the greater good, which serves as contrast with Boromir.
I just recently watch Breaking Bad and better call Saul for the first time . I’d love how better call Saul took the side characters Mike and Saul and made them main characters in their own show. Seeing Jimmy’s name change with his negative and positive character arcs.
You're a lifesaver! I'm struggling with character arc right now. Thank you so much.
I noticed that sometimes even protagonists can have a flat arc. I always take as example WIlliam Wallace in "Braveheart", because he doesn't have really an arc: he's defined by his fearlessness to the point of senselessness and this is what he is at the end. WHat he does though is acting as a catalyst for side characters' arc, mainly Robert Bruce and the princess Isabelle, the ones who will continue his legacy, one by fighting English and conquering independece for Scotland, the other giving birth to his son and (probably) killing the legitimate heir of England's throne.
Are you a Claudia from German too?
@@AndersonMallony-EricCF No.
@@Laurelin70 😡
This is the film that came to mind when I thought of side character arcs. Wallace serves as an example to those two characters, who are good but weak/inexperienced characters. Who find their strength by the end of the film.
Granted, calling him a "side" character is a bit of a stretch, but Dinobot from Beast Wars has one of the best side character arcs of all time. His struggle to mesh his Predacon values with the values of his Maximal allies, how he befriends Rattrap, how he and Optimus simultaneously greatly respect one another despite their clashing core values, his existential crisis when he learns his actions may be pre-ordained and his destiny already set, his temptation to return to Megatron's side, and his ultimate sacrifice.
Also, something I would like to add is that the best character arcs combine both positive and negative growths at some point. Catra from the She Ra Animated Series, has a negative growth for most of the show until she finally reaches a redemption arc at the very last season.
It is, of course, riskier, as it could make your character feel inconsistent, but makes it look far more human.
Marisa Tomei was about the best supporting actress for her award winning role in my cousin Vinny. Thinking, I couldn’t find any Arch. Her function is to help Vinny find his arch. Her character is hardly flat, but she remains consistent throughout. She mainly goes back-and-forth between being supportive to her man and being firmly resolved to the point of demanding. In the beginning she demands Vinny to take her serious when she yells at him not to shoot a deer or when she yells at him for not knowing what his own law books contain. Then in the end she tries to be supportive again until Vinny makes her angry and she demands to be taken seriously by Vinny and the prosecuting attorney who tries to dupe her. Then when she realizes that Vinny is finally taking her seriously, and giving her respect, she becomes supportive again.
And throughout she has that sassy repartee that makes you love her.
It's a comedy. Comedies play by different rules.
I would argue that Boromir has more of a positive arc. I mean his arc does go down during the story, that is until the end when he redeems himself. At the end he recognizes he was wrong and fights for his friends until he is defeated. Then before he dies he apologizes and respectfully calls Arrogorn his king (which he would never have done before this scene)
But in any case, all the other examples were great! Lol. I've been looking for inspiration on how to improve my side character's arcs so this was helpful.
R2D2 was worth mentioning :) Negative arc as he was in bit of denial and them amnesia. Badass all the way though!
I'm rewatching Game of Thrones and it reminds me of how many side characters have so many incredible arcs. It's an absolute clinic on character development.... until that last season. 💩
Boromir has a fallen arc, that he redeems with his selfless sacrifice. I wouldn't call that negative either. He was actually strong for finally being able to pull himself free from the ring's influence. BTW,, I wouldn't call Aragorn a side character. He has a grand story and adventure of his own; so I'd call him a deuteragonist instead. Still, some pretty interesting takes to hear.
Also, remember that before the orcs attack, he realizes that he succumbed to his darkness and showed immediate shame and regret before screaming out his apologies and begging for Frodo's forgiveness. After he is fatally shot, he confesses what he did to Aragorn as an act of penance. As he dies, he shows no fear as he has hope that Aragorn will save Gondor, and he swears loyalty to Aragorn with his final breath because he is the rightful king. To me, his arc is a combination of a negative and positive arc
I like a lot of side characters better than the main ones, so it's pretty hard to answer that question ^^'
But about Aragorn, I always considered him to be a second main character rather than a side character. He has a strongly developed arc, follows his own plot line, that intertwines with Frodo's and has a full blown resolution in the end. And Boromir's arc is more of a positive one, that's what makes him tragic. He showed the capability of change right before he dies. Tragedy mimics a negative arc by cutting off a positive one right at the turning point.
This will be a more obscure example, but Cassius from "The Mice Templar" graphic novel series. He starts the story consumed by regret for actions he took years ago The Big Backstory War, which he tries to run from by clinging to self-righteous pride. But over the course of the story he comes to terms with the fact that while he did things that cannot be undone, he still has the chance to do good by practicing humility where once he was arrogant, showing patience where he was once quick to anger, and using wisdom to discern the big picture where once he was short-sighted.
All your videos are very informative and have helped me get my comic book series off the ground! Really appreciate your insight! Keep it up!
Great to hear! Best of luck with your comics!
Just stumbled upon this treasure trove of writing lessons! These are succinct and entertaining. Thank you so much for what you do.
Yeah, Actually I'm new to this channel and I'm latina so from where I am is normal that disney and nickelodeon make telenovelas (rom coms) and something that I really don't like is when the bad guy, bad girl only purpose is to being mean towards the main character, I want to know if has a family, how is relation, what are her/his goals in life and more dinamics between characters, it make the telenovela more rewatchable.
Yeah, sounds like a little character depth could help. Thanks for watching btw!
Glad I came across your channel. I’ll be buying your books next paycheck.
Love that scene when Merry drops the corpse into the well 😂
King Theoden of Rohan. From old, feeble, indecisive & brainwashed by Grima (in the books there's no magic spell by Saruman, but Grima's poisonous words numbing him for many years), to a strong, wise, decisive King who leads by example & fights in the front lines. Yes, it took someone like Gandalf to set him free, but once he remembered who he was, he took all the right decisions. He led his men & fought in 2 of the most important battles of his time, winning the 1st & doing a major contribution in winning the 2nd. And he finally met a glorious, epic end, and it took no lesser foe than the Witch-King himself (probably the most powerful enemy on the battlefield) to take him down.
One of my all time favourite side characters with a positive arc.
And thinking about it: In another book (e.g. an Anthology of the Kings of Rohan) he might very well be a main character.
Stranger Things side characters have critical story arcs over the course of the several seasons, as they grow up but also grow apart/together, depending on which characters you focus on. At the same time, their story arcs within the mysterious and horrific events create incredible tipping points and pay-offs in the plot.
Legitimately, my favorite side character is Boromir, both in the books and the movies. Even though he has a negative character arc. But, I think he redeems himself in the minutes leading up to his death.
Doc Holiday in Tombstone, and his loyalty to Wyatt is perfect
Who's your favorite side character and what is their arc? Let us know!
Dom from the Gears of war series has one if my favorite arcs. Not gunna say anything bout it for spoiler reasons, but his arc is really good.
Another favorite side character of mine is Elizabeth from Bioshock Infinite and Chloe from Life Is Strange.
Just off the top, im sure if i spent more time i can think of alot from books, movies, games, etc.
@@PuppetMaster-Blade I love Chloe from Life is Strange. She was EASILY my favorite part of the storyline.
Haven't played Gears (cmon, Microsoft, port it to Switch!) or Bioshock Infinite (although I've had the PS3 version in my backlog since 2015 haha)
I don't wanna say Captain Raymond Holt, even though he is my favorite side character (and character in general), so I'll say Yasuho Hirose from the eighth part of the manga Jojo's Bizzare Adventure called Jojolion.
Yasuho has a positive arc, she grows braver and stronger (personality wise).
I haven't read Jojolion in a while so it's a bit hard to explain in detail what her arc is, but maybe I'll rereaed it soon, if so, I'll go and make another comment
@@WriterBrandonMcNultymany people can't stand her personality and her tremendous amount of unredeemed character flaws
The priests in Fifth Element. They're just hilarious and awkward, the entire thing was their job and especially Ian Holm's character tries to be the one to get Leeloo but he's reduced to hiding in cargo compartment between the wires and in awkwardly blushing when Milla has no nudity taboo.
One of my favorite side characters is Luc in Emily in Paris--he's always so qunpredictable and quirky, but philosophical and not often wrong. I think he slowly becomes more of a friend than a buddy. Good question :-) Thanks for this video.
Thanks for watching!
Thank you for this video! I loved it.
For me, Merry and Pippin’s defining moment of change in Fellowship is when Merry realizes Frodo is leaving the fellowship. At first they recklessly get up to rush to Frodo, presumably to stop him from leaving, but in doing so they attract the attention of the Uruk-Hai. Seeing what they’ve done, they know if they make their way to Frodo they will inadvertently lead the Uruk-Hai to Frodo and to the Ring-so in a split second decision they decide to help Frodo by misdirecting the hoard over to them and leading them away from where Frodo is trying to get to, clearing the way for him, and they do it knowing it will lead to their deaths.
In a flash, all three characters make hero-defining decisions-Frodo sacrifices himself by going at it alone, and Merry and Pippin sacrifice themselves to clear the way for Frodo. It marks a very sudden shift and it moves me every time.
Excellent. Thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
C-3PO has an arc in the first trilogy. In the “a new hope” Like asks him for stories of the resistance and 3po says that he isn’t good at telling stories or “making them interesting” anyway. But in “return of the jedi” he tells a story to the Ewoks with sound effects and they are enraptured.
Never realized that. Good call!
In the original series of Lost in Space the Robot goes from basically an appliance that Dr Smith programs to kill the Robinson family to becoming the trusted guardian of the children (like a cross between Lassie and Uncle Charlie from My Three Sons) and Will Robinson's best friend. This happens through Will's interventions and at first the Robot calls him William Robinson all the time but eventually Will tell's him to call him Will and slowly his mannerisms become more nuanced to the point where Will thinks of him as the brother he never had. In the last episode ever filmed (it wasn't the last shown) the Robot is going to be melted down but his love for the Robinsons shields him from the flames (cheesy but significant) and he comes out scorched but unhurt.
Awesome breakdown, man!
Thanks! Glad it helped
As a novelist it'd be nice to see you reference books sometimes rather than only movies and TV shows
These examples are so old. I imagine that today's movies are even better now!
Also, I'm thinking Oedipus, Odysseus and Shylock as good examples.
For me the great payoff for a flat arc isn't that they change, but their trait, such as clumsiness, finally serves the story instead of hindering it. They (or others) learn to value what was dismissed or criticized. A great example - up to the Ewoks, Han always brushed off 3PO, but then he was forced to rely on him to get out of his scrape. 3PO doesn't change, but finally becomes valuable to the team.
Another amazing video,Thankyou for helping me understand this better!
How would you address a swap in character perspective? Say your main character does die near the end and perspective shifts to another main character? I have so many questions
Thanks! And to answer your question: Start a new chapter/section after the MC dies and then ground us in the new MC's POV (by giving us thoughts/sensory details/etc.) If the new MC is at the scene of the MC's death, have the newbie react to the death.
Fredo in The Godfather part II, favorite side character arc
Londo and Jakar in Babylon 5. They both stat as inteligent repusentivies of their people that both well enbody their resspective cultures. They both grow to be more and even somtimes contrary to their cultures. Also they both despise one another and grow to respect and honor one another by the end.
I agree with almost everything but Boromir has a giga positive arc change. He was arrogant, he was selfish, he wanted the ring for Gondor, he doubted Aragorn as the heir to the throne. But as he saw what Aragorn was doing, how he failed Frodo and pushed him away and therefore failed his duty to the fellowship and the hobbits fighting twice the size, twice the strength, he wanted to protect them. He realized his wrongdoings, that the ring is bigger than him. And he gave his life for it. If he kept his arrogance as you said... he would have just bailed. Hid behind a tree or something, let the hobbits be taken and then reunite with Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli and told them some BS lie how there were too many and he was not able to fight them off despite his immense attempt.
This is a great video and it would also be really nice to look at the character arc development in some good TV series, as they have a much longer time to properly advance that. Mad Men would be a fantastic case to review for example.
Captain America in the MCU is a painful example of a Flat Arc. The man's strength (overbearing self righteousness, and stubborness) was a reoccurring weakness that he never learned from.
Awesome! Thanks for this!
No problem! Thanks for watching!
my actual favorite side character is kazuma from an anime called kemonozume. he has a negative arc in which he succumbs to his arrogance and end up dying miserably, the theme of the anime is something in the lines of having self-control and putting your own interior demons under said control... well, he failed...
For me it's Christopher from Sopranos. His entire arc was to find understanding and meaning in his life. Near the end, he comes to the understanding that everyone in his life, especially his most beloved uncle Tony, doesn't care about him. Then he succumbs to the same addictions his father did and it endangers his life, and Tony takes the opportunity to kill him. That was his arc.
Nice vid. Thank you
Nice analysis. I think, however, that Boromir fatal flaw is hopelessness, not arrogance. He has been sent by his father as the last hope Gondor has. He is carrying that weight, and that is how he relates to Frodo in a contrasting way. An interesting conversation he has with Frodo is after Gandalf's death. He tells him not to put the weight of his death on himself. When he meets Galadriel, she tells him there is hope, but he doesn't believe. He doesn't believe in Aragorn, the man who would be king.
His strength would be his compassion. He is, throughout the movie, the one who trains and play with the hobbits, who support Gimli in his grief, confort Frodo after Gandalf's death. And that compassion is what makes him sacrifice his life (remember, he is the last hope of Gondor!) For 2 hobbits that to someone else, would not be worth his life.
He is my favorite character, ao I'm biaised, but I think he is the most important (or impactful) character in Fellowship of the Ring. He is the one that kickstart both main characters their respective arc.
His treason of Frodo makes Frodo understand that he cannot relie on anyone else than himself, that the quest is his alone (Sam comes in after this realisation).
Aragorn, at the start of the movie, lives with the elves and doesn't believe in himself, nor in the strength of men. He would not ask help from Gondor and doesn't want the crown. Boromir challenges him many times, most importantly after the meeting with Galadriel. When Boromir dies, he sees tthat with his death, Gondor will fall, but Aragorn promise him that he will do everything in his power to save "their people". And he goes on to save Rohan and Gondor and fulfilling his destiny.
A long message, I hope some will powerread through it all😅
Awzum! I love character arcs! 😎👍
Thanks for watching!
My favorite character arc is that of Mr. Kobayashi from The Usual Suspects. I'm not going to explain why. Just watch the film and enjoy the amazing performance of Pete Postlethwaite.
Wouldn't you say Obi wan's arc grows upward from being Jedi Master to being completly at one with the force growing more powerful than you can possibly imagine?
Not sure that I would see Leia ''shed her pride to be his Han'' as a positive character arc (6:45). The relationship and Han's advances are highly problematic. Pop Culture Detective did a great video on that: th-cam.com/video/wWoP8VpbpYI/w-d-xo.html
8:53 Indecisive to Decisive?!
But couldn't one also say that it also goes from being independently decisive to becoming a passive object?
Exactly the other way around from Sam, who has to go from insecure to self-confident...
Because whenever he takes his own path other than the given path, it ends in catastrophe
and at the end he (passive) is taken/carried by the active, self-confident Sam.
Col. Mustang from full metal alchemist. His arc could be considered flat or negative. He became vengeful, and stays vengeful for a long time, and after he gets his revenge, he didn't regret the deed. It's satisfying since the show didn't preach that revenge is a bad thing, people just get what they deserve
I could tell you’d read The Nutshell Technique. You practically quote it at some points.
Please please please do a review of guardians 3 where you talk about plot and character development.
Lord of the flies as I perceive it:
Positive arc: Ralph (from indifferent to caring and responsible)
Flat arc: Piggy (smart but whiny and socially awkward)
Simon (maybe) (sensitive, loyal and shy)
Negative arc: Jack (succumbs to lust for power and paranoia)
Roger (succumbs to violence)
Aragorn felt more like the protagonist than Frodo ever did.
Lol no
@@DannyLee-zv9gl Yeah. That’s how I and many others felt, because yes Frodo carried the ring, but he kept needing to be saved by Sam again and again.
Elrond: Flat - wise and strong.
Galadriel: Ditto.
Bilbo: Positive - gets rid of his burden.
The bartender: Flat - but he is afraid of Strider.
Gatekeeper: Negative - the Nazgul kill him.
The Nazgul: Flat - they will never change.
The old hobbit who laughed at fireworks: Positive - he laughed after all!
Sauron: Negative - he fails to recover the ring again and his evil only grows.
Saruman: Negative - Used to be good, now his madness deepens.
Cave Troll: Negative - he dies and fails to kill Frodo.
The Uruk Hai Leader: Negative - dies by Aragorn's hand.
Arwen: Negative - deciding between love or death, no conclusion yet, but despair.
Balrog: Negative - Who knows how long he lived there, not anymore.
Haldir: Not enough info to decide yet, he only introduced himself.
Gollum: Flat - in this specific movie, he only follows silently, but in his past, his development was only negative so far.
Tom Bombadil: Flat but not present :p
Challenges of flat characters:
Elrond: The decision what to do with the One Ring, whole world depends on it.
Galadriel: Resisting the temptation to take the One Ring.
Bartender: Trying to keep his cool even though his life gets miserable.
Gollum: Trying to follow the Fellowship all the time sneakily, losing them would mean losing the chance to get the Precious back. (Will stop being flat in the second movie, but in this one everything he did prior to Frodo leaving was in his past and now in the present he is just flat.)
Tom Bombadil: Various mysterious things to do and discuss. Wants to meet Gandalf again someday.
And the refs were in clear favor of the celtics, that pushoff by Tatum in the end was just insult to audacity (wayyy past injury)
Im writing a short story that will probably set up a bigger story.where you are introduced to the greatest thief in the world becomming cocky and over confident due to it and ends up dieing to a hero at the end of it.it shows som simple character development
Awesome, and you might benefit from having some supporting characters with arcs of their own
@@WriterBrandonMcNulty its gonna be a short story so i would have to find place to add side characters
@@WriterBrandonMcNulty it will also be a sorta setup for a full on story like the intro thst had nothing to do with the story type of story
@@potatomanboooi3105 Or just see if a side character naturally arises from your writing
@@WriterBrandonMcNulty there will be a few.i was planning of him being the leader of a gang.aswell as cops.
Hi, Brandon. I am writing a fantasy novel with a large cast and each chapter will be the characters name. I had chapter 1 start with the main protagonist but I feel the story would be better if I start chapter 1 with the antagonist instead as it sets the theme for the overall book.
What are your thoughts on starting with the antagonist and then have chapter 2 with the protagonist instead?
I think it's honestly BETTER to introduce the antagonist first. You get conflict right off the bat, and the threat of an antagonist carries over into Chapter 2 while the protag is getting introduced. You always want conflict in the back of the reader's mind
@@WriterBrandonMcNulty thanks
@@peterheyes8552 np!
@@WriterBrandonMcNulty This felt really good to read as this is exactly what I'm doing and I didn't even realize it
@@gruskujo9761 Yep, if you introduce conflict (or the threat of conflict) right of the bat, it’s an easy way to get your reader invested
It is interesting how different the views of the Lord of the Rings characters are here.
For example: Aragorn exists as a hunted man, the enemies of his linage want to exterminate him and he is in hiding under a false name. Elrond even talks to him in the movie trilogy about how the enemy fears him becoming King and spells it out plain as day. There is no self doubt involved with his name. Aragorn, being of elven descent is in his 80's and has had false names before, most notably in Gondor to my offhand recollection in the days of Dethenor's youth. Strider becomes the name of his house, but in another language in fact. One does not accomplish heroic deeds for decades in various realms and still have self doubt.
The worry in Aragorn's case is one of a concern about how the war of the ring is going to end, victory or defeat for the free races of Middle Earth is about to be decided and he personally is going to play an important part in it. He fears not living up to his incredibly heroic ancestors, one of which was taken physically beyond the world and into the stars above after they saved the world from the real evil in Middle Earth. (Sauron was just the follower of the Big Baddie) Talk about Aragorn having something to live up to! He wisely refuses to take the ring as he believes it is not something anyone should claim. (learning from isildur's mistake) Not simply him refusing it, but that nobody can use the Ring of Power as it answers only to one master. (if it even answers 100% to Sauron) This is again not doubting himself at all.
I dislike the label of a "fear/flaw/weakness" that is supposedly required for any/all well written characters. People go out of their way to find one, or interpret one even when it is not there.
Characters need a journey, writers typically make the ending better than the starting for their characters because they are personally invested in them, so relatively the beginning is "less" than the ending.
Rename it "newfound insight/strength/wisdom" that is gained instead and ditch the search for a negative starting point.
The films gave Aragorn more of an arc than the books.
In the books, Aragorn sets out from Rivendell with confidence in himself and his claim to the thrones of Gondor and Arnor (though, as you say, with uncertainty as to how the good guys can actually win). Before he leaves, he has the shards of Narsil reforged into Anduril. When he's crossing Rohan in search of the captured hobbits and encounters Eomer's company, he declares himself as Isildur's heir and displays Anduril. When he arrives in Edoras, he again declares his claim and suggests that he's not beholden to Theoden's law that weapons be surrendered before entering Meduseld (though he then finds a diplomatic solution). When he comes into possession of the palantir of Orthanc, he wrests control of it from Sauron, then uses it to discover the threat of the Corsairs. When he arrives (in the Corsair ships) at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, he unfurls a banner (made for him by Arwen) that incorporates the tokens of Elendil's house. After that battle, he delays claiming the throne, but for prudent reasons. In sum, his arc from Rivendell to Gondor is essentially flat.
In the films, Aragorn sets out from Rivendell full of doubt as to whether he's worthy of his lineage. He's reluctant to even speak of it (others do it for him). He even seems a little doubtful of what strength is left in the entire race of Men. He leaves Rivendell without Anduril. In Rohan, he's still pretty much in "Strider mode" until (in a departure from the books) he's visited by Elrond, who (1) informs him that Arwen is in peril (she has tied her fate to Middle Earth's), (2) warns him of the Corsair threat, (3) presents Anduril to him, and (4) urges him to "put aside the Ranger and become the man you were born to be." After that, Aragorn begins to embrace his destiny. He accepts Anduril. He takes the Paths of the Dead, confronts the Dead to fulfil their oaths to Isildur by fighting for him, and thereby defeats the Corsairs. After the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, he uses the palantir to reveal himself to Sauron. His arc culminates in his "courage of men" speech at the Black Gate (or, arguably, at his coronation, when he sings Elendil's words).
I love Book Aragorn, but I suspect a professional writer would say that giving him a positive (rather than flat) arc was a smart move for the films.
Samwise wasn't a side character in LotR, he was the main character.
I'd say he was a first runner-up to Frodo, but if you're remembering anyone from the story front to back, for sure it's those two.
Gandalf doesn't have a flat arc. He transforms from Galdalf the Grey to Gandalf the White. He starts out limited by his sense of his place in a cosmic order. He discovers he can power up and transcend it.
Well no, because there's nothing *bad* about being Gandalf the Grey. His more powerful incarnation is a *reward* for staying the same, for not being corrupted, and is predicated on his adherence to the cosmic order you claim he "trancends".
Gandalf doesn’t power up under his own strength. Literally God resurrects him and sends him back to complete his mission.
@@littlesherlock2313 More of an archangel (Manwe) than the god himself (Illuvatar)
I would argue Gandalf does have a small positive arc, but it happens much earlier than that. His arc is from being more passive (e.g. deferring to Saruman early on, and playing more of a background manipulator role in The Hobbit) to taking a more active and independent role. However this arc is largely complete by the council at Rivendell, where he argues forcefully with Elrond and then chooses to lead the new Fellowship himself. This contrasts with his role in the Hobbit, where once he's put together the company he mostly leaves them to it under Thorin's questionable leadership.
eeeh, I think that's less of a character arc and more of fulfilling a rightful role. IF Gandalf had more power to make the world a better place, he would use it for that purpose and is better suited to that power and responsibility than his superiors.
After being brought to the brink of death, he is ascended to that power and indeed uses his power for greater good and overcomes temptation.
It's less of a character arc and more of a test of resolve.
You completely missed the point on Boromir. His ark is positive. He goes from a arrogant to loyal. His last action was to attempt to save habits and at the end he accepted Aragorn as his king.
This question is related to the arc. If you write a novel that has 82 thousand words, or 360-plus pages. To show a loser-turn-confident hero, how many pages, or words should be invested in showing his "loser" mis-adventures? I am talking before the main conflict materialize.
The fact that Aragorn goes by the name of Strider doesn't exactly signal self doubt. Tolkien was incorporating something from ancient times, when great people often bore different names in different settings. Remember that Gandalf also had different names (Stormcrow being one of them), and Gandalf suffered verrrrrrry little self-doubt. Otherwise though, I thought this talk was quite good.
I think you have a pretty expansive view of what counts as a side character. Star Wars OT has 3 main characters, not one. Luke is the most front and center, but Leia and Han are pretty clearly also main characters and not at all side characters. Side characters would be Threepio, R2, and Chewie.
For a side character arc you can't do better than Nynaeve from Wheel of Time. She is a type 1 personality and a natural born leader. Her problem is that she can't touch the source (i.e. use magic) unless she is angry. Her arc is how she learns to use magic at will. She learns that it's not being angry that lets her use magic, it's the fact that being incredibly angry is the only time she lets go of her control, and one can not touch the source without surrendering them self to it.
Favorite side Character with a great arc??? You just about can't be Crowley from "Supernatural"... Starts out as a reprehensible, though dubiously important and powerful "Cross-roads demon"... a deal maker and seducer, who has built his own network of colleagues...
As the show progresses, though, he practically runs the gamut... Rising at some point to "King of Hell" in Lucifer's stead, even managing to banish the ol' guy... AND somehow regularly heavily reliant on the Winchester Boys to further his goals... Until they manage to kidnap him as part of a trial to close the gates of Hell forever... That plan (overall) of course, doesn't work out, but the damage done, Crowley starts craving the sense of being human... which develops a sense of empathy in him, through an addiction to blood (part of the plot in the trial, and complicated)... and finally he sacrifices himself to lock Lucifer away off-world... saving the Boys AND the world, if only for a temporary reprieve...
From on top of his game, to scraping through rock bottom for new depths, Crowley got put through the ringer, and they couldn't have found a better actor to do the job... There's a LOT that's legitimately "wrong" with "Supernatural", but somehow... if you have a little patience, it just works. It never takes itself too seriously, so in spite of the Angels and Demons themes heavily splashed throughout, it's not preachy... It's fun and funny, with more twists on family, sticking together, and building relationships and taking risks for people than all the pseudo-religious academic research mostly dedicated to poking fun at the old stories and lore... ;o)
You know, often is enough.
Often times has a redundant word in play.
SPOILER: I will speak to Spock’s story arc in Wrath of Kahn. My take is that it is a flat story arc-propelled by his damned Vulcan logic. (channeling Bones McCoy there)-despite the outcome being negative. This flat story arc produces the most pivotal moment in a protagonist’s story arc (in movie history, I submit). Having to endure personal loss of that scale as a result of the most logical solution, it impacts the audience as equally heavily as it does Kirk. It forces Kirk to look to growing older as a gift to be cherished and to make amends and grow new relationships and look forward to them.
isn't it also possible to mix the first two types? As in, a positive change that results in a negative outcome. I'm thinking about American History X where Derek and Danny make a positive change but at the end Danny gets killed, and you could make the case it is as a result of this change (since he ends up kind of alone)
That sounds interesting. One of the awesome things about writing is that you can do literally anything with it
WAT?? Boromirs arc was positive! He grows from being arrogant and selfish to being humble and self-sacrificing. Sure he succumbs to his temptation for a minute and hits his lowest point, but that's the closest he gets to doing something "wrong". He realizes the error of his ways and defends Merry & Pippin to his death, acknowledging Aragorn as his king. I refuse to believe that his minor momentary fall from grace means he has a negative arc. Anakin Skywalker makes a better example of a negative arc that ends in a heroic act & death.
He was not selfish
I feel like I'm at school again, but 100% less boring
Wall.E is made of arcs.
Both Wall.E and the ship's computer have flat arcs. Wall.E has completely broken free from his programming, whereas the computer remains governed by its programming and thus represents the status quo.
At the start of the story, all the side characters' motivations are driven by maintaining the status quo and sticking to their programming/daily schedule.
Over the course of the story, Wall.E slowly brings all the other characters from their every day life to exercising free will. As a result, freedom is finally achieved.
Paddington is another example of a flat arc for the lead. He is kind and selfless throughout. Over the course of the story, he draws all the Brown family out from their shell (although Mrs Brown was practically there from the beginning) and helps them all become accepting of change/risk/each other
The irony is that although Frodo's arc is positive in the first one, by the end it is negative. He fails. But that’s ok.
Saruman has a negative character arc, Theoden a positive one, but both are in the second part.
Doesn't Theoden ride to Gondor's aid in the third part?
The goat of side characters is vegeta
Question to anyone watching this in 2023 was iro from avatar the last airbender a flat arc or positive arc??
We see in flashbacks that he had a positive arc in the past, but in the present day of the show he has a flat arc.
"Never thought I'd die side by side with an elf."
"How about side by side with a friend?"
"Aye... I can do that."
That’s one of my favorite character arcs it’s beautiful writing