i think your english teacher meant "likeable" in the sense that the characters need to be APPEALING. they need to _connect to the audience_ in order to form a long-lasting impression. you know what i mean? i don't think your teacher meant "likeable" in terms of SYMPATHETIC. that's what i think, anyway.
That's still another word. It just a misconception people have, and just because she's a teacher doesn't mean she actually understood that one rule about characters. The word you're talking about is RELATABLE.
A character doesn't need to be sympathetic. What really matters in film is empathy, but it usually depends on the viewer; and unlike sympathy, it's not that easy to perform/create.
I think I've just realized how well Walter White's development was handled in Breaking Bad. At first he's a very likable, but at the same time passive character and his graph slightly resembles the one from Bilbo, but as the story progresses, he turns more and more evil and by the time he's at the very height of his power, his graph reminds me of Darth Vader's one. He's nothing like himself from the first episode. He broke bad. Thank you very much for this video. It's hard to find something so informative and quick as this nowadays on TH-cam. Keep up the great work. :)
And they handle that very well because along the way the character development is so subtle that by the end you still cheer him on, even though he's a terrible dude in the end.
I know this was 6 months ago, but you should also watch this incredible video about character arcs, based on a very good book: th-cam.com/video/HUgYoT_xEFY/w-d-xo.html The Closer Look and Lessons from the Screenplay come at this from different angles and both give great insights, which is awesome. Walter White is fascinating to think about from both perspectives.
Walter White is interesting because, over time, he switches from the Protagonist to the Antagonist...depending on how you define those terms. Some people might say he went from sympathetic protagonist to villain protagonist. Either way, it's an amazing thing to do with a character.
Winner of a video, I've been looking for "how can i surround myself with positive people?" for a while now, and I think this has helped. Ever heard of - Soyailey Simplex Sovereignty - (do a search on google ) ? It is a great one off product for discovering how to become successful and happy without the normal expense. Ive heard some pretty good things about it and my friend got excellent success with it.
i think a great character needs 1. personality - portrayed through dialogue and action we understand the way they talk, move, interact, their world views ect. they are distinguishable to other characters in story, but still familiar so you can relate the character to someone you recognize 2. a goal/mission - they want something, whether more or less of something say money, respect, confidence, better at something it's established to the audience through actions, images or dialogue that suggests the character wants something 3. motivation - the reason why they are the way they are and why they want something, they feel an emotion behind said goal this motivation is portrayed through exposition which can be delivered visually, in action scene, as the goal of the scene 4. method - the how they will gain their goal, what are they going to use who do they want to help this should all be simple and easy to grasp and is the main of the story with the character 5. development - the character then learns info that changes their or someone else's view, forces them to reevaluate themselves, this is what changes them in the story whether for better or worse it is the catalyst that makes them or the environment different by the end
He means Vader is not a nice person. He is a jerk honestly. Same with Batman with the only difference that he has a heart of gold (in terms of personality). Though to be fair and considering how they are found in google search and websites for likeable characters, niceness would be a more a better word for describing how much will the audience like a character than likable.
Warren Bradford Vader is a depressed man who lost everything, his friends, his wife, his children, and his life. Atleast from the comics he is interesting.
A minor alteration I'd offer: Activity should count more on the graph if positive and less if negative. A likable, competent character who's actions have a strong impact but in a way that, from their perspective, is undesirable or unexpected can be quite interesting.
I dunno if cartoons can be included, but hey, they're still characters. what about Star Butterfly? Dipper Pines? I see them all have 3 fields that you mention. But they also have flaws.
I know it’s been 3 years since you posted but I do have a thought on this. Star Butterfly starts the story very low in competence and is somewhat mediocre in activity. Her whole arc is learning to use her magic and the hurdles she has often involve her inability to completely understand her magic and her unwillingness to put forth the proper work required to effectively control it. Dipper Pines is very active and suitably competent but his obsessive insistence on figuring out the mysteries of Gravity Falls (and his pursuance of Wendy) often blinds him from doing the “right thing” right away, lessening his likability (especially compared to Mabel, who is low in the competence field but is very likable because of her ability to think of others first). But both Dipper and Star end their stories having grown and learned so they end with all three of these traits. They have amazing arcs but they do not start their stories will 100s in all three fields. Ok, sorry for butting in, please go about your day!
@@rango962 do you mean the one whos name is Yoshikage Kira. Is 33 years old. His house is in the northeast section of Morioh, where all the villas are, and not married?
The Closer Look: "Now, if you were to pluck any character from fiction and analyze these three factors, you should find they line up somewhere on this graph." Me: "Okay! Simple enough. So, which character should I analyze.... Oh! I know, Jar Jar Binks from the Phantom Menace! 1. Likability: Well, no one that I know of would have a pleasant conversation with Jar Jar. So, rating: Bad. 2. Competency: Jar Jar wasn't good at anything in the film, nor accomplishing anything on purpose. Rating: Bad. 3. Activity: Jar Jar only affected the plot once (maybe twice), and didn't anything else. The first time Jar Jar was in a leadership role, he was the first to give up, and just waited until the droids were deactivated by someone else. Rating: Bad. 4. Conclusion: *Scratches head* Uhh... George, according to the graph, Jar Jar Binks would be an unlikable, not great character that has very little to do with the film. Are you SURE, you want to keep him in the movie?" George Lucas: "It's fine, do it."
Jacob Williams It was a tongue-in-cheek comment based on hearing a hyped character’s not popular. If it was an actual critique I wouldn’t have typed “I jest”. All in good humour, mate
Jacob Williams It’s an ironic contrast based on the definitions of “likeable”, one being the video’s and the other based on a different likeability expressed by fans cheering for the character. I made it clear it wasn’t an actual critique of the video, and if you can’t understand that I don’t know what to tell you. No one’s forcing you to like or look at this comment.
Ok I do agree with your points on this topic but I also have another viewpoint on it. The answer is right there in the question in the term "character" . An iconic character has a fleshed out personality, they have their likes/dislikes, strengths/weaknesses and their own logic/feelings. In order to have a great character you need to establish character traits to begin with (the best way to do this is gradually throughout the story). All the best heros/villains have identifiable personalities and the ones who don't are the most forgettable.
I take your points and raise you one Boba Fett. Prior to the prequels he had all of 7 lines of dialogue, no motivations, and very little screen time. However, he has since become a remarkably iconic character, with many star wars fans citing him as their favorite. The same can be said about Darth Vader in A New Hope, though to a slightly lesser extent. However, both show that to be popular is impact this graph.
_I've been told I'm something of a great character myself..._ And may I just add that, I saw your three fields for character and I have to say, I think I fit all three. I believe I competent, active, and likable all at the same time. But I think many would still agree I am indeed a great character. You can fill up all the categories and be a beloved character, it's all about how you are utilized in the story.
It's also important to make sure your character changes in an important and dramatic way throughout the course of their story. Any character that the audience spends a lot of time with, no matter how well established they are, must have an engaging arc to be interesting beyond just the first few minutes of their showing. It's important to make sure there's inner conflict as well as external conflict.
I understand what you're trying to say, but it's not always true. A change in a character's "character" is not necessarily going to change his or her likeability, competency, or activity. Some audiences may like a character just for the way that character is. I agree that the character needs inner an external conflict for both the character to show off who he is and for the plot to progress in some form. Take Captain America in the MCU for example: His "character" never really changes. The manner in which he handles conflicts is in sync with the kind of morals and ideals he follows as a person. He never really changes in a dramatic way, he just shows off how he handles things when conflicts arise. What does change is the plot and the severity of the aftermath of his decisions. You're not entirely wrong about your statement though and the example i gave was just one character.
As others have said you're not entirely correct. I get what you mean and do agree conflict is important, but you're mixing up character development with character progression. A character doesn't necessarily have to change as the story progresses to remain interesting. A good example would be Spike Speagel from Cowboy Bebop, he starts and ends the same way, but throughout the show his characteristics were given more depth every episode. Character development is a must. But character progression is optional depending on your story.
On that topic, it's also interesting when a character doesn't change but you reveal more about it that the reader changes opinion on them. Take Snape for example, there's little evolution on his personnality but we readers change perspective as his story and actions unfolds.
I think there should be a fourth factor called multi-dimensional or something. That accounts for characters showcasing their doubts, fears and acting 'out of character' sometimes. It's kind of like likability but I think it's kind of its own category
All Might is the superman icon figure of his universe, so it makes sense that he fills up all three categories to the max. I think sometimes Superman characters can serve the narrative very well.
This was actually really helpful! I’m currently creating a video game but am struggling to make him both appealing in terms of looks but also have a likeable character. The 3 fields really helped narrow it down.
I honestly think you can make a good character that is perfect at all three, they just can't start out like that. It's all about character development, it's really cool seing the character slowly evolve into the best versions of themselves but it's still probably best to leave a couple of flaws because it makes them more relatable
everything has to to hit you on the head now a days or people don't get it and every character has to be flanderized and one note aka one trope that defines them and not nuisance or 3d at all or else people can't get used to them and know them cause they don't react one way to every scenario which people want in their story characters for some reason...look at homer simpson...idiot fans only like him when hes lazy/stupid..when hes for example trying to be a good father causals would say hey thats not my homer...even though thats always been him its just subtle about it....or they are flat bland stoic static blank slate characters....aka relateable..i hate those with characterization but no development who just exist to accept exposition and picture ourself in the situation like in isekai animes..make your characters deeper guys..a great show at that is black lagoon...the cast has layers...
Great character = character trait that defines them. A character trait that they will not sacrifice no matter what the cost. Ex. Batman = fairness or sense of justice. Harry potter = honesty.
I believe that the 'Likability' factor is relative to your (the audience's) opinion. Some might find a conversation with Batman or Vader extremely enjoyable. Great video though!
I think there is also the factor of character complexity vs character strength. A character either has to be complex, or they have to have very strong characteristics. The Joker in the Dark Knight, for example, is not a complex character. He is a one dimensional chaotic murderer. But all his characteristics are strong and consistent, so it works. However, many bully characters seem like weak characters, because often they are not complex, and have no strong characteristics other than being an asshole with no motivation.
I also want to add that when you mentioned the example of "What would it be like to engage with that character" and the 3 aspects of a character, it also has to do with how that character handles his or her relationships with others. How they treat different kinds of people they come across and how they react to different situations helps emphasize how people perceive that character to be in his or her level of Likeablility, Competency, and Activity. At the end of the day, it's all about how the writers choose to handle this, but i think more writers need to watch your video. Great job!
@@wojciechmazurk5468 Counterargument, Griffith is highly competent and he greatly affects the plot. It's just our hatred for him reaches deeper than the Earth's core.
Amazing video! I just wish it was longer and got more in-depth, since this is a pretty big topic. One question though: what do you think happens when a character isn't good at any of these fields? Can this happen? Is it a good or a bad thing? Can you bring an example? I can't think of one myself right now...
Thanks, yea like I said your character cant be bad at all 3 of them. The reason why is these qualities are what makes your character compelling. If your character is bad at all them they will be too flawed a character to actually like and they will be ultimately forgettable. That probably explains why you cant remember any of them XD
Yeah, although I'm starting to doubt if there even is a character like that. The only ones that KIND OF fit this description I could think of is the entire human race in 2001: A Space Odyssey (which makes the film even more brilliant) and, well, Jar Jar Binks..... Not so brilliant. But if anyody can think of a better example, please let me know.
I get your point, however in my opinion: Theon is still maybe 50% on the active scale - as in very large parts of the story he is extremely passive. He is also competent in some ways but still low on this scale (25%~), and has maybe 10% likeability to sum it up.
No because he's not meant to be likable. If you were to sit down with the Joker in the real world, and he told you all the terrible things he's done you probably wouldn't like him very much.
I thought about this in terms of Gandalf. He is a very interesting character and is high in all scales. But then I thought about it more. He actually doesn’t do a massive amount in himself, but rather gets everyone else to take responsibility and do things for themselves. Interesting.
This can really help me. I'm planning on creating a manga series about a group of assassins who live in a society that technically advanced. This society are now able to revive dinosaurs and now they are used as transport, service and security. These assassins are planning to hunt down a mob boss who is planning on weaponising them for war. I got a pretty good story already but when I shared the story and the characters to some friends they said that characters were a bit bad. Mainly their character arcs and characteristics. This video really helped me. Thanks
I think your teacher is right. They're likable, but they can be in different ways. One of my favorite villains is Medusa from Soul Eater, because I like how horrible she is. She's smart and consistent with her terrible morals. She's a good antagonist to hate therefore I like her.
I would like to propose a fourth quality: "Temporality: How much does this character change the next time we see them?" Since with the three qualities mentioned in this video apply mostly with characters that appears in one book/movie/TV episode/comic arc/videogame, while with this fourth quality can be applied to characters that are planned to appear once again in another story (like bilbo in the lord of the ring, luke in the mandalorian, rickert from berserk, etc) or to characters that have an expanded story (the superman from 2021 has many changes from the one in 1939, the Dio in Stardust Crusaders is almost different than the one in Phantom Blood, the antagonistic Darth Vader from "a new hope" is much different than the tragic Anakin Skywalker from the clone wars tv series, etc).
Doesn't Spider-Man rank in all three categories? He proves time and time again that he is funny, energetic, relatable and is very active and competent.
Spiderman's highyl likeable, but he's not very active. He perseveres a lot in is stories. And competency is somewhere in the middle, good at what he does but often young and inexperienced in his stories
I am currently a teenage WIP Sci-fi author, and I would like to spend some time to credit you for your amazing, helpful videos. They have given me inspiration for many of my characters, especially villains, and I think that you must be extremely clever to have come up with all of these ideas. Thank you
Don't a majority of superheroes prove this wrong. Characters like Wonder Woman, Captain America, The Flash, and Spider-Man fill all the boxes pretty well.
That's a good point. Its probably because superheros are by their very nature paragons. They are supposed to be flawless because they are a romantic personification of humanity but thats no excuse for you to make your character flawless either. Yes those characters are paragons but that is a bad thing because all of the conflict comes externally through the forms of villains and dangers rather than internal conflict. If a character is flawless in these 3 aspects, it will be significantly harder to write internal conflict for them than if they are not. All that being said you must remember the majority of superheros do not fill out all 3 of these bars. For example: Iron man: He has a massive ego, in the comics tries to be the leader of the avengers but ultimately is a bad leader because he is self centred and that lets his team down. The fact he is self centred means he is less likeable and less competent when it comes to caring about others. Thor: in the first movie Thor was extremely arrogant and came off like a spoiled child. This made him less likeable and reduced his competency do to the fact he charged into situations without properly thinking them over. Such as trying to assassinate the frost giant king and starting a war. Spiderman: He is likeable and active but despite his skills can come across as incompetent. Why, due to his lack of experience. He is often depicted as a teenager or young adult which means he does not have the life experience other heroes have. Due to that he lacks wisdom in certain situations.
I think something that can a character interesting is contrast to society. Batman's brooding nature is something you see everyday, and neither is Superman's optimism, which is why I think he's a good character.
+The Closer Look I actually have a question about Thor. His likability increases dramatically, and therefor his competency (as seen in the last act when Thor regains his godhood and successfully stops Loki.) So does this provide a problem, or does his growth in the movie give him a pass for the inherent interest?
One of my favorite screenwriting books is Your Screenplay Sucks and it covers this dynamic of making your characters fascinating instead of just likeable, nice to see this channel passing on that knowledge.
Could you please do a video about logan it is by far the best movie i've seen in quite a while and it is one of the very few movies that actually made me cry. I would love to see you dig into this amazing movie because I love the way you analyse movies it is so unique there really are very few channels on youtube of wich I think could compete with yours. You are absolutely great and I love watching your videos.
I think any good character, even if they’re not one you could have a good conversation with, is one that is “likeable” in some aspect, or at least admirable.
What about captain America? He's hella likable, very competent, and active as all hell. But he still has flaws, as Civil War demonstrated. He still has demons to overcome. I think this was important but not the only factor in wether a character is interesting or not
I'm necroposting! Yeah, I was thinking of Captain America, and in personality terms he's not far off being Superman. With characters like that, it's about putting them in situations that conflict with their personality. The Cap values the truth above all else, so Winter Soldier throws him into a world where everyone is lying and so must he. It's a very, very good film.
I think they lower his ability somewhat, to make him less superman-esque. I'd say his 'ability' bar is only half full. He still loses. He has no real super powers. He lost his girl, his time period, all previous motivations other than the primal need to defend the weak, etc. Likability bar full, perseverance full, ability half full.
Jack Landry i dont think Captain america is a really good chaarcter though, I think out of all characters in the MCU aren't good charcaters with the exception of Spiderman
Logan Young I reckon if they showcased that Superman cannot help everyone at all times, he’d probably be a better character. There are still people that he can’t save and beats himself up about it.
That sounds interesting. I wonder what do you think about Rey from the Star Wars sequel trilogy? I think she is good at all three points, though I didn't really like her personally, but many people did. And I think she was purposefully made to be good at these points and that's why others call her a Mary Sue. So I'm interested in your opinion.
Its a good rule of thumb you got there. A protagonist always has to show both potential and limitations. Competency shown early often foreshadows later traps said character is familiar with addressing.
This was great info. We used a 2 minutes, clipped, (audio only) in the podcast Episode 13 about the character The Batman. Full credit and links given. Keep up the great work!!! ✊
I feel that relevancy and/or empathy are better qualities to graph how a great character can be made, or rather a measure of how you can compare yourselves to them to get an emotional response.
1. Likability: how much will the audience like the character? 2. Competency: how good are they at what they do? 3. Activity: how much do they persevere? Having all three will make a Superman that is too perfect. Hope I got that right, thanks for uploading great videos.
(Sorry for the wall of text this reply ended up being) I disagree and actually like Rey, her likability is her weak point, because she is subborn and tends to focus on the important tasks even when it annoys other people. Going deeper, she is honestly only competent, the plot effects her way more than vice versa and I meantioned above about her likability being low. The point of her character is that she is meant to overcome these flaws by the end of the trilogy and people seem to treat her as if she is already perfect. The only thing she does is have a natural inclination on how to wield a lightsaber well and a skill in technology. She gets along with Poe and Finn because they went through a lot together, a lot of the other characters very much don't enjoy her company, the only ones who do are the people who think she's a prophecy child, which TLJ proved she isn't, she is just strong with the force. But that doesn't mean anything. The Jedi way was backwards and hypocritical. You were not to love, but you should love your brothers in arms, you were not to kill, but should kill the Sith to restore light. That's what Luke realised when he found himself compelled to kill his own nephew. People really need to pay more attention to what the Sequel Trilogy was trying to say rather than what ways it was countering the original story. And yes, I do acknowledge that TLJ does have several major plot holes, but so did the original trilogy, if you will remember.
Congratulations on 4k (and soon 5k) subs! You consistently produce high quality content that most channels with 1mil+ subs wish they could do, and it's only a matter of time before you reach those six-figure subs as well!
Thanks :D My channel is growing faster right now than it ever has before. A few days ago I got 180 subs in one day. I find it hard to process how many people that is :)
I Beleve that what makes a character likable is their humanity.Why os Iron Man likable.He drinks,he hooks up with girls...he is likable Because he shows that anyone can be a hero.No mater How bad of a person They Are.
this is a great video, and really helped understand the importance of good character development. but, I think there's a way to take it a step further, and create a character dynamic. I feel as the story goes on, you could change one (or more) of these values. so, for example, we start off with a character who is likeable, but not really active or competent. as the story progresses, and the character learns values and lessons, he could become more competent, but stays just as inactive, or vise versa. I think this way, it feels the character is growing and learning, making the adventure they go through worth while
I gauge likability on, yes, how much I would like to be around the character, but I also gauge likability on how relatable the character is. An example is this character I have in a story I’m making named Caitlyn, or Cat, who is a likable character with her personality and relationships, but has too much on her plate and is expected to do more than she’s able to handle and pushes back her depression to make others feel better. Relatability is just as important as a likable personality, though both are very important.
Wait.. is this why on GoT (HBO show) many characters say: "You know nothing, Jon Snow".. ? I often found hard to understand why some of the characters on GoT suddenly felt compelled to utter that phrase. Are the writers trying to dial Jon Snow's "competency bar" down simply by having other characters stating so? If that's the case, that seems to me to be quite a lazy attempt.
Have you read the books? This is an honest question seeing as I've only played the games. From the video game protagonist perspective, I feel these rankings are a little blurry. In most cases the player character inherently has a high sense of 'activity': the character must persevere through obstacles in the narrative if the player wants to beat a game. The other rankings can vary depending on play style. During my play through of the witcher, I made Geralt the kind, chivalrous fighter that would do anything to protect Ciri however someone else might opt to make Geralt the intimidating sword for hire who fails to show any form of affection whatsoever. In this case Geralts sense of 'likability' can vary greatly. It might be different in a book where you have a constant and linear progression of events but video games take an overall unique approach to these things.
ThePhobiephozee2000 I would say this video is referring to movies, series, books and tv shows, not videogames. Most of videogames characters can change depending on the player's choices, so it is not possible to say how likeable, active or competent Geralt is, hence he shouldn't be considered in the first place.
I can safely say that the fixed image of Geralt from the book is anything but likeable. A self-hating, whiny freak that has no purpose in life and lives from monster to monster. At least before meeting Ciri.
Which probably means that you dislike characters who don't make decisions for themselves and have no strenghs even if they are big-hearted, don't you? (Like who you find interesting, not kind).
Its not your edgy kind of liking things. Actual humans find people who are friendly and kind to be likable. Edgy kids think that Batman is deep and brooding and like that.
Sakura from Naruto is a good example of lacking all three traits. Being useless doesn't make a character bad, but she was useless and unlikeable. A damsel in distress is only good if they are likeable. Although they did fix up her character by raising the competence and likeability of Sakura later on.
sakurachan aka "uselessness is a character who has aquired and utilised the art of being useless in depth and heart...... it is almost applaudable how she remained irrelevant the entire show.... she is legend
I have two main characters in my book. I think i've nailed your diagram however without knowing it. #1: Is bubbly and fun/smart. But in this book that includes fighting, he's weaker and has to use his smarts or surroundings. ( in my opinion that rules out "active" ). #2: More quiet, not as smart, and while not super strong, he is more adaptable to his situations, as in street smarts/instincts. ( however in this example his nervous quietness and general kindness puts him at likable enough. ) so in summary: #1 is 8/10 likable, a 7/10 competent, but 2/10 active. #2 is probably more likable to the reader but he's 3/10 likable, 2/10 competent, and 8/10 active. I also do mention that although #2 is low in score overall, he is probably still my favorite when it comes to his dynamics and personal changes. i do see your three sections as being a bit confusing in the scenario of mine... where competent would have to mean: "smarts to persuade or make strategy", and active: "fighting instincts, and good survival habits." - which of course wouldn't matter in any situation but fighting or resolving problems.... I feel like having the sense of "hey this character needs to be good at this one thing, but bad at all these" is important nonetheless. I don't however use the traits these two have to give them a full deck of abilities.. instead they become just enough to have a character learn something or narrowly figure out a solution to/ or rescue oneself from a scenario. let me know what anyone thinks.
Yeah fair enough he was fairly likeable, competent and active but he was not 'max stats'. For example he is not all that competent. I mean he got wrongly imprisoned for a crime he didnt commit, he was drunk, angry and threw his gun into the river. Would someone who is exceptionally competent do that and get convicted of a crime he didn't admit. Yes he did show skill at points in the movie but to be good at something doesn't mean that character is automatically flawless in that department. I mean he was raped several times by that gang, if he had invested all his stats into the competency tree then he would have fended off the attackers every single time.
I think Dufresne fails a bit at "likeability". He hasn't quite got the personality for it, it seems. I'd almost read it as a kind of autism, he doesn't connect well with people and only sort of eventually works past this through years of practice and continuous exposure to the same set of people. For instance, the court scene at the start of the movie: The judge says Andy shows no remorse. You could chalk that up to shock from dealing with the whole experience or anger because his wife was cheating on him, or defiance based on the knowledge that he is innocent, but I read it as kind of a fundamental thing about Andy: he just doesn't respond emotionally to his wife's death in a way that the judge recognizes as sadness or regret. I take the scene where he's working on the roof and offering to help the guard with some financial maneuvering... He nearly gets himself killed because the way he approaches the topic comes across as tremendously disrespectful. Again, it's a failure of social skill. And although Red (in narration) dismisses the idea that Andy got the beer to ingratiate himself with the people around him, I see the effort as him trying to work around his natural difficulties in connecting with people. Dufresne is likeable in the sense that he's kind of gentle and unassuming, but would he pass the "conversation" test? He doesn't strike me as much of a conversationalist.
luffy's only flaw is his lack of development...he really does not develop much..but he nails everything else...hes suppose to be a static character like goku though...so its hard to hate on that aspect of him...he effects change around him....hes the way he is at the start we see why he became that way and thinks that way and he can change others around him...
RebelBeamMaster X84 i guess a side character who's very charming and a complete badass, but doesn't do much to move the plot forward could be considered that.
Usually not main characters/characters unable to do things. Think of characters like EsCey mentioned, the "Boba Fett" types, or the "gay best friend who is never around at this point in the musical" etc.
miname262 He's likable as a fictional character to read about and watch, but not to sit down for lunch with. He's either a disinterested, playboy jackass or he's a brooding, cruel sociopath. He often treats Alfred and the various Robins like shit. But we love him despite his flaws because he's Batman.
I really enjoyed watching your video. Of course many have pointed out the thing with the "likeability", but as you said. It is you personal Interpretation. I think that everyone who creates Characters fills those 3 Factorsdifferently. As you said, it is a personal choice/interpretation. Someone just does not care if his characters can have a good chat, because they absolutely don't see this kind of things in their Character at all. That's why those Sketches where Darth Vader is doing "normal,real life" things have that fun appeal, because it shows them in an Enviroment where "likeability" can be a form of Evaluation. I think it would be a great Idea to switch the three Factors with anything someone might come up with, and love to see a handful of examples where your 3 factors work extremely well. You might argue with me that you can't change all 3 of the above mentioned Factors..well I know for sure there will be enough people that will try to prove THAT wrong so I don't care. Once again, thank you for the great video.It gave me a good starting point without putting on pressure that your way is the absolutely right way.It's nice to see someone making content and making clear that it stems from his personal view. I wish enough people in the comments would get it. Cheers!
Just writing my first book, have a great story in my mind starting writing it and I realised my characters don’t sound as exciting as I had in my mind. Usually when I tell story’s (like ghost story’s or thriller story’s) to my friends and family when we hanging out for fun and banter I don’t usually give much attention on the characters very small minor details like their gender. This video has been great help for how I can expand on my characters making them more compelling.
Thank you I appreciate your executive summary like educational videos as compared to many of the others seem like either TED Talks where it's all about the speaker or entertainment instead of Education
Just found your great channel! Love your insights. You mention at the end that you are (were?) working on a video about creating a strong female character. Very interested to see you make a video on this topic!
Good video and great channel! This is basically the same idea that Brandon Sanderson teaches on his lessons. They are on TH-cam, I cannot recommend them enough.
The Closer Look Np. Also, I'd love to hear your perspective on: - films based on real events (patriots day, lone survivor, sully, titanic etc.) - forrest gump meshing fiction with real life events - how logan and deadpool succeeded in being rated r in the superhero genre - speculation of joss whedon's potential for justice league based on his avenger's experience - ron howard filming han solo - a compare/contrast between a movie reboot and the original
I actually think your teacher was right. The character does not have to be GOOD, but they have to do what they do (whether it be murdering innocent people or saving the world) with some style, panache, or likability. A great character like Hans Landa is both evil, and I think, likable. Great video!
![เปิด อาณาจักร หมื่นล้าน "สาระตั้ม" l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3XE0nPF4YkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
i think your english teacher meant "likeable" in the sense that the characters need to be APPEALING. they need to _connect to the audience_ in order to form a long-lasting impression. you know what i mean? i don't think your teacher meant "likeable" in terms of SYMPATHETIC. that's what i think, anyway.
That's still another word. It just a misconception people have, and just because she's a teacher doesn't mean she actually understood that one rule about characters. The word you're talking about is RELATABLE.
i belive youre right
A character doesn't need to be sympathetic. What really matters in film is empathy, but it usually depends on the viewer; and unlike sympathy, it's not that easy to perform/create.
@@CharroArgentino Character doesn't have to be relatable in order to be good either.
@@CharroArgentino Thank you!!!! People do not get this!!!!! The owner of this channel needs to understand this !!!! Relatable!!
I think I've just realized how well Walter White's development was handled in Breaking Bad. At first he's a very likable, but at the same time passive character and his graph slightly resembles the one from Bilbo, but as the story progresses, he turns more and more evil and by the time he's at the very height of his power, his graph reminds me of Darth Vader's one. He's nothing like himself from the first episode. He broke bad.
Thank you very much for this video. It's hard to find something so informative and quick as this nowadays on TH-cam. Keep up the great work. :)
Thanks, yeah he had a good character arc in that show :)
And they handle that very well because along the way the character development is so subtle that by the end you still cheer him on, even though he's a terrible dude in the end.
LeBron i
I know this was 6 months ago, but you should also watch this incredible video about character arcs, based on a very good book: th-cam.com/video/HUgYoT_xEFY/w-d-xo.html
The Closer Look and Lessons from the Screenplay come at this from different angles and both give great insights, which is awesome. Walter White is fascinating to think about from both perspectives.
Walter White is interesting because, over time, he switches from the Protagonist to the Antagonist...depending on how you define those terms. Some people might say he went from sympathetic protagonist to villain protagonist. Either way, it's an amazing thing to do with a character.
"Watson...I fear I have something I must tell you."
"What, Sherlock?"
"I'M BATMAN!"
How does this have so many likes but not any replies
Winner of a video, I've been looking for "how can i surround myself with positive people?" for a while now, and I think this has helped. Ever heard of - Soyailey Simplex Sovereignty - (do a search on google ) ? It is a great one off product for discovering how to become successful and happy without the normal expense. Ive heard some pretty good things about it and my friend got excellent success with it.
Quality content.
Sherlock: and.. I.. am....
FIRE. I AM DEATH
“And Sherlock I’m so glad you tell the truth, but look at me look! Loook! I’m your father!”
i think a great character needs
1. personality - portrayed through dialogue and action we understand the way they talk, move, interact, their world views ect.
they are distinguishable to other characters in story, but still familiar so you can relate the character to someone you recognize
2. a goal/mission - they want something, whether more or less of something say money, respect, confidence, better at something
it's established to the audience through actions, images or dialogue that suggests the character wants something
3. motivation - the reason why they are the way they are and why they want something, they feel an emotion behind said goal
this motivation is portrayed through exposition which can be delivered visually, in action scene, as the goal of the scene
4. method - the how they will gain their goal, what are they going to use who do they want to help
this should all be simple and easy to grasp and is the main of the story with the character
5. development - the character then learns info that changes their or someone else's view, forces them to reevaluate themselves,
this is what changes them in the story whether for better or worse it is the catalyst that makes them or the environment different by the end
Thank you for the tip!
- A temporary writer
"There is very little about Vader that is likeable"
Excuse me?
You clearly didn't watch the video
watch the video
He means Vader is not a nice person. He is a jerk honestly. Same with Batman with the only difference that he has a heart of gold (in terms of personality). Though to be fair and considering how they are found in google search and websites for likeable characters, niceness would be a more a better word for describing how much will the audience like a character than likable.
Warren Bradford Vader is a depressed man who lost everything, his friends, his wife, his children, and his life. Atleast from the comics he is interesting.
FBI your opinion of Vader is what you think
A minor alteration I'd offer: Activity should count more on the graph if positive and less if negative. A likable, competent character who's actions have a strong impact but in a way that, from their perspective, is undesirable or unexpected can be quite interesting.
I dunno if cartoons can be included, but hey, they're still characters.
what about Star Butterfly? Dipper Pines? I see them all have 3 fields that you mention. But they also have flaws.
Hmm I see, maybe it's just a matter of opinions
Yes it counts considering they are still characters
I know it’s been 3 years since you posted but I do have a thought on this. Star Butterfly starts the story very low in competence and is somewhat mediocre in activity. Her whole arc is learning to use her magic and the hurdles she has often involve her inability to completely understand her magic and her unwillingness to put forth the proper work required to effectively control it. Dipper Pines is very active and suitably competent but his obsessive insistence on figuring out the mysteries of Gravity Falls (and his pursuance of Wendy) often blinds him from doing the “right thing” right away, lessening his likability (especially compared to Mabel, who is low in the competence field but is very likable because of her ability to think of others first). But both Dipper and Star end their stories having grown and learned so they end with all three of these traits. They have amazing arcs but they do not start their stories will 100s in all three fields. Ok, sorry for butting in, please go about your day!
For me my fav characters are guts, grithiff and KIRA YOSHIKAGE
@@rango962 do you mean the one whos name is Yoshikage Kira. Is 33 years old. His house is in the northeast section of Morioh, where all the villas are, and not married?
Awesome content, it helps me a lot. Can you do "How to make a heist movie/scene" like Heat, that would be helpful
Thanks, I'll think about it :)
The Closer Look please do this :)
@@TheCloserLook Batman is based off Sherlock Homles.
Basically how to make a suspenseful scene?
My God, Heat is so awesome.
The Closer Look: "Now, if you were to pluck any character from fiction and analyze these three factors, you should find they line up somewhere on this graph."
Me: "Okay! Simple enough. So, which character should I analyze.... Oh! I know, Jar Jar Binks from the Phantom Menace!
1. Likability: Well, no one that I know of would have a pleasant conversation with Jar Jar. So, rating: Bad.
2. Competency: Jar Jar wasn't good at anything in the film, nor accomplishing anything on purpose. Rating: Bad.
3. Activity: Jar Jar only affected the plot once (maybe twice), and didn't anything else. The first time Jar Jar was in a leadership role, he was the first to give up, and just waited until the droids were deactivated by someone else. Rating: Bad.
4. Conclusion: *Scratches head* Uhh... George, according to the graph, Jar Jar Binks would be an unlikable, not great character that has very little to do with the film. Are you SURE, you want to keep him in the movie?"
George Lucas: "It's fine, do it."
True that XD
You mean „Dew it!“
th-cam.com/video/wxL4pzuwSUQ/w-d-xo.html
Mesa actually like Jar Jar.
Mesa can tink of having a nice conversation with Jar Jar.
But Mesa respect your opinion.
Without Jar Jar they wouldn’t be any Empire
Death Vader not likeable?
Tell that to the cinema audience who cheered during Rogue One.
(I jest, I jest)
Jacob Williams I like Vader, and I did watch the video. It’s not up to the writer to determine who will be liked. It is the audience.
Jacob Williams It was a tongue-in-cheek comment based on hearing a hyped character’s not popular. If it was an actual critique I wouldn’t have typed “I jest”. All in good humour, mate
Jacob Williams Eh, I got a chuckle out of it, and I’m happy at least some other people did too. I’m sorry you took this so literally.
Jacob Williams It’s an ironic contrast based on the definitions of “likeable”, one being the video’s and the other based on a different likeability expressed by fans cheering for the character. I made it clear it wasn’t an actual critique of the video, and if you can’t understand that I don’t know what to tell you. No one’s forcing you to like or look at this comment.
Jacob Williams Or, in this case, the video saying he’s not likeable as I bring to mind the cheering crowds at Rogue One
Ok I do agree with your points on this topic but I also have another viewpoint on it. The answer is right there in the question in the term "character" . An iconic character has a fleshed out personality, they have their likes/dislikes, strengths/weaknesses and their own logic/feelings. In order to have a great character you need to establish character traits to begin with (the best way to do this is gradually throughout the story). All the best heros/villains have identifiable personalities and the ones who don't are the most forgettable.
I take your points and raise you one Boba Fett. Prior to the prequels he had all of 7 lines of dialogue, no motivations, and very little screen time. However, he has since become a remarkably iconic character, with many star wars fans citing him as their favorite. The same can be said about Darth Vader in A New Hope, though to a slightly lesser extent. However, both show that to be popular is impact this graph.
_I've been told I'm something of a great character myself..._
And may I just add that, I saw your three fields for character and I have to say, I think I fit all three. I believe I competent, active, and likable all at the same time. But I think many would still agree I am indeed a great character. You can fill up all the categories and be a beloved character, it's all about how you are utilized in the story.
It's also important to make sure your character changes in an important and dramatic way throughout the course of their story. Any character that the audience spends a lot of time with, no matter how well established they are, must have an engaging arc to be interesting beyond just the first few minutes of their showing. It's important to make sure there's inner conflict as well as external conflict.
That's not really true. That's more a trope of some modern literary young adult novels.
I understand what you're trying to say, but it's not always true. A change in a character's "character" is not necessarily going to change his or her likeability, competency, or activity. Some audiences may like a character just for the way that character is. I agree that the character needs inner an external conflict for both the character to show off who he is and for the plot to progress in some form. Take Captain America in the MCU for example: His "character" never really changes. The manner in which he handles conflicts is in sync with the kind of morals and ideals he follows as a person. He never really changes in a dramatic way, he just shows off how he handles things when conflicts arise. What does change is the plot and the severity of the aftermath of his decisions. You're not entirely wrong about your statement though and the example i gave was just one character.
As others have said you're not entirely correct. I get what you mean and do agree conflict is important, but you're mixing up character development with character progression. A character doesn't necessarily have to change as the story progresses to remain interesting. A good example would be Spike Speagel from Cowboy Bebop, he starts and ends the same way, but throughout the show his characteristics were given more depth every episode. Character development is a must. But character progression is optional depending on your story.
On that topic, it's also interesting when a character doesn't change but you reveal more about it that the reader changes opinion on them. Take Snape for example, there's little evolution on his personnality but we readers change perspective as his story and actions unfolds.
That's not necessarily true. The flat character arc is worth looking into.
You deserve more subscribers.
Thanks :)
Now he has them
@@devonhayes2209 Still not enough
@@Retr0_ADHD well whose fault is that? Not mine, I can only subscribe once
I just subscribed. Does that help?
I think there should be a fourth factor called multi-dimensional or something. That accounts for characters showcasing their doubts, fears and acting 'out of character' sometimes. It's kind of like likability but I think it's kind of its own category
Thank you, I was having trouble making my characters interesting.
Dont mention it :)
All Might is the superman icon figure of his universe, so it makes sense that he fills up all three categories to the max. I think sometimes Superman characters can serve the narrative very well.
I really like how these videos are applicable to not only movie making, but novel writing, and comics as well. I am definitely subscribing.
This was actually really helpful! I’m currently creating a video game but am struggling to make him both appealing in terms of looks but also have a likeable character. The 3 fields really helped narrow it down.
I honestly think you can make a good character that is perfect at all three, they just can't start out like that. It's all about character development, it's really cool seing the character slowly evolve into the best versions of themselves but it's still probably best to leave a couple of flaws because it makes them more relatable
everything has to to hit you on the head now a days or people don't get it and every character has to be flanderized and one note aka one trope that defines them and not nuisance or 3d at all or else people can't get used to them and know them cause they don't react one way to every scenario which people want in their story characters for some reason...look at homer simpson...idiot fans only like him when hes lazy/stupid..when hes for example trying to be a good father causals would say hey thats not my homer...even though thats always been him its just subtle about it....or they are flat bland stoic static blank slate characters....aka relateable..i hate those with characterization but no development who just exist to accept exposition and picture ourself in the situation like in isekai animes..make your characters deeper guys..a great show at that is black lagoon...the cast has layers...
Great character = character trait that defines them.
A character trait that they will not sacrifice no matter what the cost.
Ex.
Batman = fairness or sense of justice.
Harry potter = honesty.
I believe this is called a "hamartia", which is the main personality trait of a character.
I believe that the 'Likability' factor is relative to your (the audience's) opinion. Some might find a conversation with Batman or Vader extremely enjoyable. Great video though!
I've had a dream of writing a story for so long and your videos help me so much! Thank you so much for your amazing tips!
I think there is also the factor of character complexity vs character strength. A character either has to be complex, or they have to have very strong characteristics. The Joker in the Dark Knight, for example, is not a complex character. He is a one dimensional chaotic murderer. But all his characteristics are strong and consistent, so it works. However, many bully characters seem like weak characters, because often they are not complex, and have no strong characteristics other than being an asshole with no motivation.
Shh Batman is likeable! =)
I think he is referring to how he is not as likeable in the Batman world, not the real life audience...
But yes he is 101% likeable.
@@spyrax370 he is likeable in the comic world as well, especially with women. He's just a cold character at first but likeable as you get to know him.
A fair point.
Well he said in the video what he means by (his) likeable.
But I was also suprised when I first saw it.
So true I was like "Oh really"
I also want to add that when you mentioned the example of "What would it be like to engage with that character" and the 3 aspects of a character, it also has to do with how that character handles his or her relationships with others. How they treat different kinds of people they come across and how they react to different situations helps emphasize how people perceive that character to be in his or her level of Likeablility, Competency, and Activity. At the end of the day, it's all about how the writers choose to handle this, but i think more writers need to watch your video. Great job!
So, to create great charakter, do not make Mary Sue? Ok, it's kinda logical. I guess.
More importantly, don't make him incompetent, worthless and hated.
@@NestedQuantifier i would argue with this. Griffith is great written character but he is one of the most hated person in fiction
@@wojciechmazurk5468 Counterargument, Griffith is highly competent and he greatly affects the plot. It's just our hatred for him reaches deeper than the Earth's core.
@@wojciechmazurk5468 but he is active and competent
Superman was never A Mary Sue to begin with!
Thank you for explaining this! I've been struggling writing character's for this one story I'm working on and this helps a lot!
Don't mention it, good luck :)
Amazing video! I just wish it was longer and got more in-depth, since this is a pretty big topic. One question though: what do you think happens when a character isn't good at any of these fields? Can this happen? Is it a good or a bad thing? Can you bring an example? I can't think of one myself right now...
Thanks, yea like I said your character cant be bad at all 3 of them. The reason why is these qualities are what makes your character compelling. If your character is bad at all them they will be too flawed a character to actually like and they will be ultimately forgettable. That probably explains why you cant remember any of them XD
Yeah, although I'm starting to doubt if there even is a character like that. The only ones that KIND OF fit this description I could think of is the entire human race in 2001: A Space Odyssey (which makes the film even more brilliant) and, well, Jar Jar Binks..... Not so brilliant. But if anyody can think of a better example, please let me know.
Theon Greyjoy is not very likeable, competent nor active
No Theon is a very active character. I mean he defied his father and took winterfell with only a handful of men. That is about as active as it gets.
I get your point, however in my opinion: Theon is still maybe 50% on the active scale - as in very large parts of the story he is extremely passive. He is also competent in some ways but still low on this scale (25%~), and has maybe 10% likeability to sum it up.
Isnt the joker from ledger up on all three categories?
No because he's not meant to be likable. If you were to sit down with the Joker in the real world, and he told you all the terrible things he's done you probably wouldn't like him very much.
@@ryanmatthewrusso4538 i kinda Think it was a joke
r/gamersriseup
He is not a likable person my guy, but he has tons of activity, and competence, kinda like badman
I thought about this in terms of Gandalf. He is a very interesting character and is high in all scales. But then I thought about it more. He actually doesn’t do a massive amount in himself, but rather gets everyone else to take responsibility and do things for themselves. Interesting.
This is one of my favorite videos of yours, it's a shame it is less popular than many of your other ones.
You should make a video on how to make scenes intense/ make the audience on the edge of their seat
This can really help me. I'm planning on creating a manga series about a group of assassins who live in a society that technically advanced. This society are now able to revive dinosaurs and now they are used as transport, service and security. These assassins are planning to hunt down a mob boss who is planning on weaponising them for war. I got a pretty good story already but when I shared the story and the characters to some friends they said that characters were a bit bad. Mainly their character arcs and characteristics. This video really helped me. Thanks
Holy shit, that sounds badass
@@sethakins4029 thanks man, though I am putting that aside to work on a new manga series, but I will come back to it.
The phrase "Flaws create character, but too many flaws create a mess" comes to mind.
...probably just my mind though, since I just made it up.
yeah you don't want to just have flaws on top of flaws ...then what is the character?
I’m watching his videos from new down and it’s so fun to see where he was and how he progressively becomes more interested in this channel.
I think your teacher is right. They're likable, but they can be in different ways.
One of my favorite villains is Medusa from Soul Eater, because I like how horrible she is. She's smart and consistent with her terrible morals. She's a good antagonist to hate therefore I like her.
I would like to propose a fourth quality:
"Temporality: How much does this character change the next time we see them?"
Since with the three qualities mentioned in this video apply mostly with characters that appears in one book/movie/TV episode/comic arc/videogame, while with this fourth quality can be applied to characters that are planned to appear once again in another story (like bilbo in the lord of the ring, luke in the mandalorian, rickert from berserk, etc) or to characters that have an expanded story (the superman from 2021 has many changes from the one in 1939, the Dio in Stardust Crusaders is almost different than the one in Phantom Blood, the antagonistic Darth Vader from "a new hope" is much different than the tragic Anakin Skywalker from the clone wars tv series, etc).
Doesn't Spider-Man rank in all three categories? He proves time and time again that he is funny, energetic, relatable and is very active and competent.
Shadow normally he never has all 3 at the same time.
Shadow not in the new ones, in Spiderman homecoming he has to struggle with being competent to prove himself to Stark thats why he must defeat birdman
Yet, he's kind of awkward, definitely beatable, and has other flaws as well, so he's still relatable and likable.
Spiderman's highyl likeable, but he's not very active. He perseveres a lot in is stories. And competency is somewhere in the middle, good at what he does but often young and inexperienced in his stories
I am currently a teenage WIP Sci-fi author, and I would like to spend some time to credit you for your amazing, helpful videos. They have given me inspiration for many of my characters, especially villains, and I think that you must be extremely clever to have come up with all of these ideas.
Thank you
please do how to make a great supporting role or sidekick🙏🙏🙏
Don't a majority of superheroes prove this wrong. Characters like Wonder Woman, Captain America, The Flash, and Spider-Man fill all the boxes pretty well.
Jared Redmond They make up for not being proactive by persevering
Superheroes are all about persevering. And I'm pretty sure in their fifty years of history they've been proactive in their stories.
That's a good point. Its probably because superheros are by their very nature paragons. They are supposed to be flawless because they are a romantic personification of humanity but thats no excuse for you to make your character flawless either. Yes those characters are paragons but that is a bad thing because all of the conflict comes externally through the forms of villains and dangers rather than internal conflict. If a character is flawless in these 3 aspects, it will be significantly harder to write internal conflict for them than if they are not.
All that being said you must remember the majority of superheros do not fill out all 3 of these bars.
For example:
Iron man: He has a massive ego, in the comics tries to be the leader of the avengers but ultimately is a bad leader because he is self centred and that lets his team down. The fact he is self centred means he is less likeable and less competent when it comes to caring about others.
Thor: in the first movie Thor was extremely arrogant and came off like a spoiled child. This made him less likeable and reduced his competency do to the fact he charged into situations without properly thinking them over. Such as trying to assassinate the frost giant king and starting a war.
Spiderman: He is likeable and active but despite his skills can come across as incompetent. Why, due to his lack of experience. He is often depicted as a teenager or young adult which means he does not have the life experience other heroes have. Due to that he lacks wisdom in certain situations.
I think something that can a character interesting is contrast to society. Batman's brooding nature is something you see everyday, and neither is Superman's optimism, which is why I think he's a good character.
+The Closer Look I actually have a question about Thor. His likability increases dramatically, and therefor his competency (as seen in the last act when Thor regains his godhood and successfully stops Loki.) So does this provide a problem, or does his growth in the movie give him a pass for the inherent interest?
One of my favorite screenwriting books is Your Screenplay Sucks and it covers this dynamic of making your characters fascinating instead of just likeable, nice to see this channel passing on that knowledge.
Thanks, I haven't actually read that book. I initially got this idea from Brandon Sanderson who uses a similar technique for his characters :)
Could you please do a video about logan it is by far the best movie i've seen in quite a while and it is one of the very few movies that actually made me cry. I would love to see you dig into this amazing movie because I love the way you analyse movies it is so unique there really are very few channels on youtube of wich I think could compete with yours. You are absolutely great and I love watching your videos.
I think any good character, even if they’re not one you could have a good conversation with, is one that is “likeable” in some aspect, or at least admirable.
What about captain America? He's hella likable, very competent, and active as all hell.
But he still has flaws, as Civil War demonstrated. He still has demons to overcome. I think this was important but not the only factor in wether a character is interesting or not
I'm necroposting! Yeah, I was thinking of Captain America, and in personality terms he's not far off being Superman. With characters like that, it's about putting them in situations that conflict with their personality. The Cap values the truth above all else, so Winter Soldier throws him into a world where everyone is lying and so must he. It's a very, very good film.
I think they lower his ability somewhat, to make him less superman-esque. I'd say his 'ability' bar is only half full. He still loses. He has no real super powers. He lost his girl, his time period, all previous motivations other than the primal need to defend the weak, etc. Likability bar full, perseverance full, ability half full.
Jack Landry i dont think Captain america is a really good chaarcter though, I think out of all characters in the MCU aren't good charcaters with the exception of Spiderman
captain america is very similar to superman don't you think?
Logan Young I reckon if they showcased that Superman cannot help everyone at all times, he’d probably be a better character. There are still people that he can’t save and beats himself up about it.
I officially love your videos
Thanks :)
That sounds interesting. I wonder what do you think about Rey from the Star Wars sequel trilogy? I think she is good at all three points, though I didn't really like her personally, but many people did. And I think she was purposefully made to be good at these points and that's why others call her a Mary Sue. So I'm interested in your opinion.
Its a good rule of thumb you got there. A protagonist always has to show both potential and limitations. Competency shown early often foreshadows later traps said character is familiar with addressing.
In addition , a good character could be relatable 🤔
Or at the very least make sure their actions are understandable.
This was great info. We used a 2 minutes, clipped, (audio only) in the podcast Episode 13 about the character The Batman. Full credit and links given. Keep up the great work!!! ✊
Can you do a video on whether all Mary Sue characters are bad or not
I feel that relevancy and/or empathy are better qualities to graph how a great character can be made, or rather a measure of how you can compare yourselves to them to get an emotional response.
1. Likability: how much will the audience like the character?
2. Competency: how good are they at what they do?
3. Activity: how much do they persevere?
Having all three will make a Superman that is too perfect.
Hope I got that right, thanks for uploading great videos.
I really need all this type of information in one place, you should write a book
Fill everything => Rey
(Sorry for the wall of text this reply ended up being)
I disagree and actually like Rey, her likability is her weak point, because she is subborn and tends to focus on the important tasks even when it annoys other people. Going deeper, she is honestly only competent, the plot effects her way more than vice versa and I meantioned above about her likability being low. The point of her character is that she is meant to overcome these flaws by the end of the trilogy and people seem to treat her as if she is already perfect. The only thing she does is have a natural inclination on how to wield a lightsaber well and a skill in technology. She gets along with Poe and Finn because they went through a lot together, a lot of the other characters very much don't enjoy her company, the only ones who do are the people who think she's a prophecy child, which TLJ proved she isn't, she is just strong with the force. But that doesn't mean anything. The Jedi way was backwards and hypocritical. You were not to love, but you should love your brothers in arms, you were not to kill, but should kill the Sith to restore light. That's what Luke realised when he found himself compelled to kill his own nephew. People really need to pay more attention to what the Sequel Trilogy was trying to say rather than what ways it was countering the original story. And yes, I do acknowledge that TLJ does have several major plot holes, but so did the original trilogy, if you will remember.
Congratulations on 4k (and soon 5k) subs! You consistently produce high quality content that most channels with 1mil+ subs wish they could do, and it's only a matter of time before you reach those six-figure subs as well!
Thanks :D
My channel is growing faster right now than it ever has before. A few days ago I got 180 subs in one day. I find it hard to process how many people that is :)
I Beleve that what makes a character likable is their humanity.Why os Iron Man likable.He drinks,he hooks up with girls...he is likable Because he shows that anyone can be a hero.No mater How bad of a person They Are.
this is a great video, and really helped understand the importance of good character development. but, I think there's a way to take it a step further, and create a character dynamic. I feel as the story goes on, you could change one (or more) of these values.
so, for example, we start off with a character who is likeable, but not really active or competent. as the story progresses, and the character learns values and lessons, he could become more competent, but stays just as inactive, or vise versa.
I think this way, it feels the character is growing and learning, making the adventure they go through worth while
Some Sherlock Holmes version is very likable
I think he was addressing the BBC version.
He plays a Asberger like Sherlock Holmes in that BBC version,,, the one I think is funny, is when Dr watchson is a Chinese actor,,,
that is hilarious! But in what version?
that version is called Elementary,,, but there is also a version with a yonger sherlock from around before 2000 I don't remember,,,
Well, there have been a lot of Sherlock reboots.
I gauge likability on, yes, how much I would like to be around the character, but I also gauge likability on how relatable the character is. An example is this character I have in a story I’m making named Caitlyn, or Cat, who is a likable character with her personality and relationships, but has too much on her plate and is expected to do more than she’s able to handle and pushes back her depression to make others feel better. Relatability is just as important as a likable personality, though both are very important.
Dont forget to make her have flaws otherwise caitlyn wouldnt be relatable
@@justsomeguywithtb2953 yes, you’re right, her flaw is she has trouble asking for help so she pushes back her depression to not make others worry
Wait.. is this why on GoT (HBO show) many characters say: "You know nothing, Jon Snow".. ?
I often found hard to understand why some of the characters on GoT suddenly felt compelled to utter that phrase.
Are the writers trying to dial Jon Snow's "competency bar" down simply by having other characters stating so?
If that's the case, that seems to me to be quite a lazy attempt.
More content in a four minutes video than a bunch of thesis, essays and books
I would say Geralt of Rivia fits pretty high on all three boxes of the graph. But he aint no superman.
Have you read the books? This is an honest question seeing as I've only played the games. From the video game protagonist perspective, I feel these rankings are a little blurry. In most cases the player character inherently has a high sense of 'activity': the character must persevere through obstacles in the narrative if the player wants to beat a game. The other rankings can vary depending on play style. During my play through of the witcher, I made Geralt the kind, chivalrous fighter that would do anything to protect Ciri however someone else might opt to make Geralt the intimidating sword for hire who fails to show any form of affection whatsoever. In this case Geralts sense of 'likability' can vary greatly. It might be different in a book where you have a constant and linear progression of events but video games take an overall unique approach to these things.
ThePhobiephozee2000 I would say this video is referring to movies, series, books and tv shows, not videogames. Most of videogames characters can change depending on the player's choices, so it is not possible to say how likeable, active or competent Geralt is, hence he shouldn't be considered in the first place.
I can safely say that the fixed image of Geralt from the book is anything but likeable. A self-hating, whiny freak that has no purpose in life and lives from monster to monster. At least before meeting Ciri.
I'm glad you defined likeability.
I don't like Bilbo. But I like Batman and Sherlock.
Youkai9 he's talking about the majority
i dont think Batman, Sherlock, and Vader would be so popular if the majority didnt like them..
Which probably means that you dislike characters who don't make decisions for themselves and have no strenghs even if they are big-hearted, don't you?
(Like who you find interesting, not kind).
Its not your edgy kind of liking things.
Actual humans find people who are friendly and kind to be likable.
Edgy kids think that Batman is deep and brooding and like that.
@@SpaceNavy90 ^
Sakura from Naruto is a good example of lacking all three traits. Being useless doesn't make a character bad, but she was useless and unlikeable. A damsel in distress is only good if they are likeable. Although they did fix up her character by raising the competence and likeability of Sakura later on.
sakurachan aka "uselessness is a character who has aquired and utilised the art of being useless in depth and heart...... it is almost applaudable how she remained irrelevant the entire show.... she is legend
I have two main characters in my book. I think i've nailed your diagram however without knowing it.
#1: Is bubbly and fun/smart. But in this book that includes fighting, he's weaker and has to use his smarts or surroundings. ( in my opinion that rules out "active" ).
#2: More quiet, not as smart, and while not super strong, he is more adaptable to his situations, as in street smarts/instincts. ( however in this example his nervous quietness and general kindness puts him at likable enough. )
so in summary: #1 is 8/10 likable, a 7/10 competent, but 2/10 active. #2 is probably more likable to the reader but he's 3/10 likable, 2/10 competent, and 8/10 active.
I also do mention that although #2 is low in score overall, he is probably still my favorite when it comes to his dynamics and personal changes.
i do see your three sections as being a bit confusing in the scenario of mine... where competent would have to mean: "smarts to persuade or make strategy", and active: "fighting instincts, and good survival habits." - which of course wouldn't matter in any situation but fighting or resolving problems.... I feel like having the sense of "hey this character needs to be good at this one thing, but bad at all these" is important nonetheless.
I don't however use the traits these two have to give them a full deck of abilities.. instead they become just enough to have a character learn something or narrowly figure out a solution to/ or rescue oneself from a scenario.
let me know what anyone thinks.
0:37 you sure bout that?
Totally keeping these in mind when I write my next story. Amazing tips.
What about Andy Dufresne? Imo he has "max" stats.
Yeah fair enough he was fairly likeable, competent and active but he was not 'max stats'. For example he is not all that competent. I mean he got wrongly imprisoned for a crime he didnt commit, he was drunk, angry and threw his gun into the river. Would someone who is exceptionally competent do that and get convicted of a crime he didn't admit. Yes he did show skill at points in the movie but to be good at something doesn't mean that character is automatically flawless in that department.
I mean he was raped several times by that gang, if he had invested all his stats into the competency tree then he would have fended off the attackers every single time.
I think Dufresne fails a bit at "likeability". He hasn't quite got the personality for it, it seems. I'd almost read it as a kind of autism, he doesn't connect well with people and only sort of eventually works past this through years of practice and continuous exposure to the same set of people.
For instance, the court scene at the start of the movie: The judge says Andy shows no remorse. You could chalk that up to shock from dealing with the whole experience or anger because his wife was cheating on him, or defiance based on the knowledge that he is innocent, but I read it as kind of a fundamental thing about Andy: he just doesn't respond emotionally to his wife's death in a way that the judge recognizes as sadness or regret.
I take the scene where he's working on the roof and offering to help the guard with some financial maneuvering... He nearly gets himself killed because the way he approaches the topic comes across as tremendously disrespectful. Again, it's a failure of social skill. And although Red (in narration) dismisses the idea that Andy got the beer to ingratiate himself with the people around him, I see the effort as him trying to work around his natural difficulties in connecting with people.
Dufresne is likeable in the sense that he's kind of gentle and unassuming, but would he pass the "conversation" test? He doesn't strike me as much of a conversationalist.
I went to your channel while watching and seen a Sherlock video. I subscribed so fricking fast.
1:38 Spelled Persevere wrong :( OR :)
Wow! this is so helpful! I've been looking for a video like this for a while and this is the only useful one I've found. Thankyou!
can I just comment that Luffy is a great character despite the fact that he's good at all these fields?
luffy's only flaw is his lack of development...he really does not develop much..but he nails everything else...hes suppose to be a static character like goku though...so its hard to hate on that aspect of him...he effects change around him....hes the way he is at the start we see why he became that way and thinks that way and he can change others around him...
Lord Vader, what do you think about cheese?
Vader: >breathing apparatus
Well, what about sand?
Vader: *So you have chosen death...*
COMPETENCY is not a word. It's called competence.
This.
I didn't know what I need.
Now I know.
I need this.
Thanks!
What makes a great character?
Joseph Delaney.
Where are my Spooks fans at?
Apparently there are few Spooks fans around here...
Sorry I'm late
As always, wonderful video Henry!
Does a very likable and very competent, but not active character exist?
RebelBeamMaster X84 i guess a side character who's very charming and a complete badass, but doesn't do much to move the plot forward could be considered that.
Maybe a character can be very likeble and competent at doing something, either choses or is forced to not participate on the plot for whatever reason.
Usually not main characters/characters unable to do things. Think of characters like EsCey mentioned, the "Boba Fett" types, or the "gay best friend who is never around at this point in the musical" etc.
Really love your videos man! Best information for newbie directors/filmmakers on the net.
Bilbo isn't active? Batman isn't likeable?
Not likable in the sense not a sociable man. Can you imagine Batman telling you "Let's watch a movie this weekend"?
This actually really helped
Who doesnt like Batman!?
Joker, Bane, Riddler, Scarecrow, Clayface, Penguin, Two-face, Black mask...
@@miguelvidal2335 Actually Joker likes him where as the people of Gotham don't well some of them
Great video! So glad I found your channel. I look forward to more of your videos and expertise.
I stopped watching when you said batman wasn't likable.
hes also the guy that said batman is the best character ever... just saying
miname262 Because he is a sociopath.
miname262 He's likable as a fictional character to read about and watch, but not to sit down for lunch with. He's either a disinterested, playboy jackass or he's a brooding, cruel sociopath. He often treats Alfred and the various Robins like shit. But we love him despite his flaws because he's Batman.
Carlos Rodriguez batman is not a sociopath
+Cobra Commander He clearly is, dude.
I really enjoyed watching your video. Of course many have pointed out the thing with the "likeability", but as you said. It is you personal Interpretation.
I think that everyone who creates Characters fills those 3 Factorsdifferently. As you said, it is a personal choice/interpretation. Someone just does not care if his characters can have a good chat, because they absolutely don't see this kind of things in their Character at all. That's why those Sketches where Darth Vader is doing "normal,real life" things have that fun appeal, because it shows them in an Enviroment where "likeability" can be a form of Evaluation. I think it would be a great Idea to switch the three Factors with anything someone might come up with, and love to see a handful of examples where your 3 factors work extremely well. You might argue with me that you can't change all 3 of the above mentioned Factors..well I know for sure there will be enough people that will try to prove THAT wrong so I don't care.
Once again, thank you for the great video.It gave me a good starting point without putting on pressure that your way is the absolutely right way.It's nice to see someone making content and making clear that it stems from his personal view. I wish enough people in the comments would get it.
Cheers!
You totally stole this from Brandon Sanderson, yeah im calling you out
TENGU They have similar points but that does not mean he ripped off of Brandon.
Your videos are absolutely great man, keep it up.
Ahh come on Henry....I bet you would have an awesome conversation with Darth Vader. And I would love to be there to witness it.
Just writing my first book, have a great story in my mind starting writing it and I realised my characters don’t sound as exciting as I had in my mind.
Usually when I tell story’s (like ghost story’s or thriller story’s) to my friends and family when we hanging out for fun and banter
I don’t usually give much attention on the characters very small minor details like their gender.
This video has been great help for how I can expand on my characters making them more compelling.
Walter white is one of the greatest, most well thought out characters of all time. Absolutely brilliant
Thank you I appreciate your executive summary like educational videos as compared to many of the others seem like either TED Talks where it's all about the speaker or entertainment instead of Education
i think this logic is genius. thanks for making this video!
Just found your great channel! Love your insights. You mention at the end that you are (were?) working on a video about creating a strong female character. Very interested to see you make a video on this topic!
Good video and great channel! This is basically the same idea that Brandon Sanderson teaches on his lessons. They are on TH-cam, I cannot recommend them enough.
Very insightful video. I only hope you can make more examples with each combination of three qualities so common folks like me can understand more.
I love the quality of your videos! I can't believe you only have 5k subs...you deserve so many more...keep up the great work! I just subbed.
Thanks :)
The Closer Look Np. Also, I'd love to hear your perspective on:
- films based on real events (patriots day, lone survivor, sully, titanic etc.)
- forrest gump meshing fiction with real life events
- how logan and deadpool succeeded in being rated r in the superhero genre
- speculation of joss whedon's potential for justice league based on his avenger's experience
- ron howard filming han solo
- a compare/contrast between a movie reboot and the original
I know that's a lot of different suggestions, but I could just listen to your videos on repeat hahaha. I believe you have a lot of potential.
I actually think your teacher was right. The character does not have to be GOOD, but they have to do what they do (whether it be murdering innocent people or saving the world) with some style, panache, or likability. A great character like Hans Landa is both evil, and I think, likable. Great video!