Do characters always have to learn something in the end?

[ShiRa Ryu]

Many professional writer books that I have read, they have one thing in common. They always say that the writer have to ensure that the character has to go through a process and learn something in the end.

Usually when they DO learn something in the end, the character's certain trait evolves.(From my POV, it's always positively)

I was wondering if it could be possible that a character, after going through a process, fails to grasp and learn something from it. Will it make the character more attractive or dull?

[FJ and G]

There are exceptions to every rule.

You would usually want the main character to learn something but if he doesn't, and keeps bumbling and digging himself in deeper, then at least the audience learns something.

Here's an example that you might try for a screenplay.

A boss is kinda nice and mellow, but people at the top apply pressure for him to produce more from his workers. He gets stressed and stresses out his employees. He turns into a boss from hell and eventually implodes at the end.

I'm sure there are movies where the main character deterioriated. Pi comes to mind.

[NikeeGoddess]

no. it depends on what you're writing.

many action type heros have little or no character arc and are the same guy throughout the story or they end up exactly where they started.

however, if you're writing an afterschool special...... nuff said.

write on!

[joecalabre]

Nikee is right. each script and genre is different.

Personally, I like to have my characters better people in the end than they started, except for the villians.

[kojled]

srr

in correctly drawn drama, the protag always evolves


zilla

[dchapma123]

It is possible for a character who should learn something (or to evolve in some way) to not do that, but the result would be disastrous for him. And that may be the kind of story you want to tell. You set up the kind of change the character should go through, and then have him not actually do it. Not easy to pull off and still have a satisfying story, however.

It's also possible for the hero to be unchanging, but the environment changes. The Lone Ranger rides into town, fights the bad guys, teaches us a lesson, and leaves as the same Lone Ranger he was when he arrived. Frankly, I think that's kind of boring, but you can certainly go that route.

Finally, the hero may not actually realize that he's learned something or changed. He may just be a better person (or worse person), without giving it an conscious thought. Don't get hung up on the "lesson" interpretation. Change/growth is the result of conflict, and as long as you have conflict in your story (you must), the characters should respond to it -- and change as a result. Change for the better? Maybe not.

[SimonSays]

Good characters always grow. Whether they change for the better or change for the worse - you want them to be different at the end than they were at the beginning.

Even action heroes should grow and change. The best action heros do change - they have to come to terms with something in their past or overcome a fear in order to triumph in the end. Their partner dies and the 'by the book' cop - is now willing to break the rules to get justice. This is a change in the character's world view.

This is a perfect example of the dangers of asking for advice on matters like these on these boards. Nikegoddess is just flat out wrong here. Character arcs are not just for after school specials or heavy dramas. Character arcs are not genre specific - they are a key element to every story. This is not a topic where it's a matter of opinion or should be open to debate. It is the essence of dramatic writing - and those who think character arcs are not necessary - do not understand the basics of dramatic writing.

[joecalabre]

Then I ask...
What is Indiana Jones' arc in Raiders other than fear of snakes? Does even a small change constitute as a valid arc?

[ShiRa Ryu]

Actually, I don't want to have my characters evolving positively because most stories I have read, the protagonist always evolved positively. In someway, the story tries to relate it to a moral.(That kindness pays, good guys always win..etc.)

Basically, the character in my story is a pessimist. She always believe that nothing good will ever happen to her. The situation she is in and the way she handles it always prove that her belief is always right. When her belief has been proved right, she continues to hold this belief.

Do you think this character is interesting to write about?<img border=0 src="http://www.absolutewrite.com/images/emotehuh.gif" />

[JustinoXV]

In a number of produced action and horror movies, the "hero" changes little if at all.

In all the Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street, what changes occur in the main characters?

Jones goes through absolutely no change in the sequels like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

If you know you are writing a script for a certain genre, then Joe's advice on reading the scripts for that genre may be a good idea. Or watching movies.

And for those of you who constantly ask questions on this board, don't take what I'm about to say the wrong way. On absolutewrite it appears everyone has to be "the expert". The reality is people will have to find out what works or what doesn't work in their own way.

In short, any question you ask on a forum like this will likely be followed by a dispute. I can't imagine that's an effective way to learn about screenwriting.

[ShiRa Ryu]

I'm sure as mature writers, they will know that each holds his/her own opinions and thoughts.

I just want to know if writing the character that I described on the previous post, is interesting or not?

I hope there isn't going to be flame war or dispute here. After all I just want to know the interest level of not following a rule I read in books.

[JustinoXV]

"I'm sure as mature writers, they will know that each holds his/her own opinions and thoughts."

Check around on message boards in general. Mature people on the internet? Ha!

"I just want to know if writing the character that I described on the previous post, is interesting or not?"

Some could say yes, others could say no. Why do you need validation from this board?

This board could say your character sucks and your script could go on to be a blockbuster.

Or this board could say your character is the greatest character of all time, yet in the end no one would touch your script with a 10 foot pole.

[SimonSays]

There are good and bad in every genre and you should be emulating the best not the worst. In the best stories, character's end up in a different place than where they started.

If you're interested in horror - look at Steven King - his protags always change - and not always for the best.

Indiana Jones does change - in the backstory he left Marion - at the end of the movie - he's with her. No longer 'loving and leaving'. And that's no small thing - in the beginning he values artifacts more than people. He also grows in the 3rd movie in the series - first in his relationship with his father - and in the end when he realizes the true value of the grail and leaves it.

I'm not going to debate this anymore - it's a ridiculous debate.

Shirau - you can listen to every professional writing book you've ever read or listen to the people on this board - it's up to you. As for whether or not your character will be interesting or not is also up to you. But one way to make a character interesting is to have them grow.

[joecalabre]

I agree, end of debate.

To each his own. Let your conscious be your guide.

[ShiRa Ryu]

The reason why I rely on this board for feedbacks is because people that I know never give sincere opinions at all.

When I ask my mom, she will always say good idea, great idea.

When I ask my brother, he will always say OK. I watch some great movies with him before. When I ask how was it, his reply was OK. Everything is OK. <img border=0 src="http://www.absolutewrite.com/images/EmoteSmack.gif" />WTH

When I ask my friend, he tells me to be real, stating that screenwriting will never go far. Wow thanks, nice feedback.<img border=0 src="http://www.absolutewrite.com/images/emoteClap.gif" /> He didn't even consider my idea.

Maybe most Asian people tends to be realistic.(I'm Asian)
<img border=0 src="http://www.absolutewrite.com/images/emotewha.gif" />

So, back to the topic. Any comments?

[joecalabre]

It's good that your looking for opinions outside your friends and family circle. But, unfortunately, on these boards you will get a variety of different responses because each writer treats things differently.

The only advice I can give is to write what YOU feel works.

After your done with your first few drafts, then have the script read by impartial judges. Coverage services, writing groups, triggerstreet-- whatever you like.

But starting out asking for advice before you write a script and general debatable questions at that, won't be much help to you and in the long run you are wasting valuable writing time.

Do what is in your heart. Write with passion and conviction. A common thing I hear from writers who are successful.

Good luck.

[NikeeGoddess]

simonsays - i was just answering the question which technically can be answered: yes or no - my intention was not to analyze the entire subject of character arcs. i only had 2 pence (not the $2 answer). please stop putting words into my mouth....like "heavy dramas" or "only" - i never said any of those things

babble on!

[SimonSays]

Okay, this thread inspired me so I took an unscientific poll on the matter.

The Pollees:

2 Producers - both with development deals at major studios. Both with at least one blockbuster - one who does a lot of action flicks.

1 Director - Independent Spirit Award Nominee

3 Screenwriters - all produced

1 Literary Agent

1 Screenwriting Professor at prestigious film school.

The Poll Question -

Is it okay to have a main character who doesn't have an arc and doesn't change?

Results:

8 - No it is not okay
0 - Yes it's okay

Some unsolicited editorial comments from the pollees:

"You must be kidding, no one can really be that clueless"

"See that's why we stopped accepting submissions from unrepped writers. It's a shame really"

"Who are these idiots and why are you wasting your time talking to them, you're supposed to be working on the rewrite you owe me."

"I'll call you back when I stop laughing".


As I said it's unscientific - make of it what you will.

[ShiRa Ryu]

Hmm...

My character struggles to make herself a stand in society despite being a pessimist. (That considered a character arc?)

However, as she attempts to make further progress, she gets caught up with unfavourable situation, in which when she tries to handle it, it worsens. When things doesn't go her way, she gives up and her pestimistic beliefs strengthens.

That's what I intend to write about.

[JustinoXV]

Simon:

To be honest, we have no proof you spoke to said professionals, nor do we have proof of your credentials.

I'm not asking you to show them, but I will point out a contradiction in what you say.

You tell people to ignore message boards, yet you have no problem giving people advice.

So if one should ignore message boards, basically, one should ignore all of us, including you!

"Who are these idiots and why are you wasting your time talking to them, you're supposed to be working on the rewrite you owe me."

Indeed. Why must you try to be king of this message board? If you're a professional writer, then you've already proven yourself. No need to prove it to a bunch of strangers.

As for the change in the Raiders of the Lost Arcs, well, I'm still not sure Jones changed. I got the impression that he had sex with a teenager Marion. She implied he took advantage of her, but he told her she was old enough to know what she was doing. The adventure they had someone put them together, but even at the end, I never had the impression Jones married Marion.

I'm not telling people not to have their characters changed. Only that I've seen action movies where I saw little change in the major character.

And if you advocate people educating themselves off the board, then let them learn things for themselves.

If it is wrong not to have change in characters, a screenwriter who sends out said script will find out sooner or later what he is doing wrong . At the very beginning of my writing, I did get feedback from some producers. (mainly indie).

Also, I don't even know that the original poster has finished the script. The problems that a lot of writer wanna bes have is that they can't go further than the first few pages, much less an entire script. So it may be better to let people finish their first drafts, no matter how horrible. They can always find the right professionals to read and critique their work, and learn from that.

[dchapma123]

When things doesn't go her way, she gives up and her pestimistic beliefs strengthens.

This is growth. Your description of your story is pretty vague, but what you have -- at least -- is a character whose worldview becomes more extreme than it was at the beginning. So...your character does, in fact, change.

[creativexec]

Aristotle believed if the story was important
enough, it would force the character to
change. "Learning a lesson" would fall into
this category. Change or growth provides
dimension to the character and adds depth
to the story itself.

Change doesn't have to be positive - DEATH
is change. (Though often, death can be
positive.) However, if you're hoping Hollywood
will buy your script - "positive" is the smarter
way to go.

It's just about a certainty that Hollywood
expects to see some sort of transformational
arc in - at least - the protagonist. (Though
it is often quite trivial and insubstantial.)

A good arc can be difficult to chart. It
needs to evolve from the drama - be
believable and emotional.

It is one of the more elusive elements in
screenwriting and, I'd say, it's one of the
TOP THREE most common "notes" given
to writers.

Also, if you're writing a spec script, a
good character arc is crucial to in order
to attract acting talent. A good "star
vehicle" (which is a key factor in selling a
spec script) would involve a character arc.

If the character doesn't change - it should
be a conscious decision by the writer; the
lack of change should support the theme
and make a statement.

It is the character's arc that often gives
the story its "heart," an element for which
agents, producers, and studio execs are
always looking.

:D

[SimonSays]

Justino -

For the record Shira started this thread by stating that ALL the books she read on writing said a character needs to learn something. If the other responses all backed up this concept - I would have not had any reason to post. But alas, people who I assume may not know quite as much as the authors in question - gave her different opinions - and so I posted to reiterate what the authors of her books on writing had said. And the reason I did is because every book that I've ever read on writing says the same thing. I mean this is really basic stuff. English Lit 101, hell, it's more like 8th grade English.

I challenge you to find me one book on screenwriting, one screenwriting professor, one English lit professor, one creative writing teacher of any kind, who will champion the idea that character's do not need to grow and change in order to be well-drawn characters.

As for whether or not my poll is for real - I did not inform any of the people that I spoke to that their responses would be published on a message board, so I am not comfortable giving out their names. But I assure you I did talk to all 8 people I mentioned about this and those were their actual responses - although the choice of the word idiot was creative license on my part - as the word actually uttered was slightly more vulgar.

As for posting on these boards. You're right, Justino I have nothing to prove. I was posting to try to steer people towards the resources that will help them become better writers. And to steer them away from advice that will make them bad writers. Not because it bolstered my ego, but because I really thought I could help. And I admit it's been somewhat frustrating - because no matter what I say, there is bound to be at least one person who says the opposite.

But I think that with Shira's post I finally see what I have been unable or unwilling to see. And that is that many do not want to learn to do it the right way - they just want validation that the way they want to do it is right (even if it's not). And on these boards, no matter how wrong your preferred way is, you will always find someone who will back you up and encourage you to do it your way.

And despite what some would like to believe - there are some rights and wrongs when it comes to writing. Not everything is a matter of opinion, there are some absolutes. There are some elements of storytelling that are completely necessary and without them you do not have a story. I hope that those of you who are serious about your writing will take the time to find out what those elements are.

[ShiRa Ryu]

I want to try something different for a change. The books and shows that I read and watch, most of them have their characters evolved positively. Most of them also have become better people(even when they die) or they change their perspective optimisically.

Of course, there are some exception to such a rule and such can be seen in horror films(Friday the 13th, Elm street, Grudge, The ring) where the antagonist never dies and the ending is often left as a cliffhanger.

I don't know if hollywood or some tv company will accept it or not, since I don't live in the US.

Most screenwriting books I read, they emphasis on putting the main character in conflict so as he progress, he learns to curb his flaw(whatever flaw he has) and confronts his enemy at the beginning of act 3.

But for me, I want to try something different. The protogonist of my story is put through conflict, fails to handle it and in the end, the conflict strengthens her flaw. The antogonist passively wins the battle but the protogonist still gets on with life, with the flaw in her.

In some way, the character in my story evolves as she goes through conflict, yet not in a positive way unlike most other stories.

Personally, I find such story rather interesting, coz for most of us, no matter how much we been through, we will never evolve.

Quote from Simon
And that is that many do not want to learn to do it the right way - they just want validation that the way they want to do it is right
<img border=0 src="http://www.absolutewrite.com/images/EmoteROFL.gif" />

[JustinoXV]

"For the record Shira started this thread by stating that ALL the books she read on writing said a character needs to learn something. If the other responses all backed up this concept - I would have not had any reason to post. But alas, people who I assume may not know quite as much as the authors in question - gave her different opinions - and so I posted to reiterate what the authors of her books on writing had said. And the reason I did is because every book that I've ever read on writing says the same thing. I mean this is really basic stuff. English Lit 101, hell, it's more like 8th grade English."

Creative Exec, who is a story editor at ICM, said this.

"If the character doesn't change - it should
be a conscious decision by the writer; the
lack of change should support the theme
and make a statement."

So while it appears to be a good idea to have character change overall, it isn't necessary in all cases.

Creative Exec also mentioned that death of the main character in and of itself could be a change.

"I challenge you to find me one book on screenwriting, one screenwriting professor, one English lit professor, one creative writing teacher of any kind, who will champion the idea that character's do not need to grow and change in order to be well-drawn characters."

I never said this, nor did anyone on this board did say this.

What some of us did say is that there are produced movies where the characters grow or change little.

"As for posting on these boards. You're right, Justino I have nothing to prove. I was posting to try to steer people towards the resources that will help them become better writers. And to steer them away from advice that will make them bad writers. Not because it bolstered my ego, but because I really thought I could help. And I admit it's been somewhat frustrating - because no matter what I say, there is bound to be at least one person who says the opposite."

Of course. It's an internet forum!

"But I think that with Shira's post I finally see what I have been unable or unwilling to see. And that is that many do not want to learn to do it the right way - they just want validation that the way they want to do it is right (even if it's not). And on these boards, no matter how wrong your preferred way is, you will always find someone who will back you up and encourage you to do it your way."

This is true as well. Which is what I tried telling you. There are people who have no intentions of being professional writers. They are hobbiests who are writing scripts for their own personal enjoyment. If at a later time they decide to be working writers, then industry rules will apply. But many people here are not at that stage. If they were, why would they be asking any questions on a forum like this?

"And despite what some would like to believe - there are some rights and wrongs when it comes to writing. Not everything is a matter of opinion, there are some absolutes. There are some elements of storytelling that are completely necessary and without them you do not have a story. I hope that those of you who are serious about your writing will take the time to find out what those elements are."

There are indeed absolutes that must be there in professional storytelling. And professional writers have learned and mastered those long before SimonSays was born.:)

With all that said..............................

"But for me, I want to try something different. The protogonist of my story is put through conflict, fails to handle it and in the end, the conflict strengthens her flaw. The antogonist passively wins the battle but the protogonist still gets on with life, with the flaw in her."

Technically, Shira, this still counts as a change. :) The flaw was strengthened. And not all Hollywood or tv movies give the protagonist a happy ending.

I also don't know what Asian audiences expect in their movies, or if you intend to go Hollywood, or Asian or whatever. So why not write your story the way you want it? After it is done, send it out to industry professionals, and get your critical feedback. At this point in the game, Shira, just finish your writing and don't be so eager to get advice. Opinions are like a******s, everyone has one.

One thing is certain. You won't get anywhere by telling us what you want to do. You won't get anywhere telling your parents, or friend what you want to do.

So instead of telling us what you want to do, JUST DO IT.:)

[JustinoXV]

I'll say another thing. There are movies and stories where the main character is a villain, evil, etc. Blow starring Johnny Depp (a cocaine dealer) is an example.

These movies often end with the main character dead, in jail, etc. In that sense, there is a change.

So Shira, if your main character is a total drug addict for example, and by the end of the movie has that flaw made stronger, a good way of showing it would be to have the character overdose and die. Or perhaps the drug problem causes him/her to run over a small child and end up in jail. The protag can fail, and doesn't have to have a happy ending.

Earlier, when you asked the question, part of the reason you got such contradictory advice is because you did not really give much info on what you hoped to achieve.

I don't think Shira is actually rebelling from the screenwriting books. The wording he/she used just had people thinking that she didn't want the character to have any change.

[Writing Again]

I liked Nikkee's answer: Pointing out the two extremes of character arc: Series character's, especially action adventure and detective stories show little if any: While it would be hard to imagine an afternoon special without without one; society wants children to learn to be better people. In between you have everything you can imagine.

No one champions characters without arc, but many experts, particularly in the genres of novel writing: Lawrence Block comes to mind: Discuss the lack of arc in series characters and will even point out that readers like Mickey Spillane just the way he is and do not want him to change: Hard to find character arc in Perry Mason, though many hoped for a true romance to bloom with Della Street.

Speaking as a newbie screenwriter:

I notice so many beginners “want to try something different” before they have mastered the basics. It is like a little kid wanting to learn how to coin new words before they have learned to read.

Why?

I'm a firm believer that anything can be done and done well. Including the idea of a character whose experiences reinforce their position in spite of all good sense.

However the object of writing a script, for the newbie, is not the arc of the character they are writing about: The object is the arc of the writer: What have you learned from the experience of having written the script. Did you learn something?

If not then you have wasted your time and effort.

If “yes” then the script, the time, the effort is not wasted. At this stage it does not matter what you write, or how poorly, or how ill conceived: What matters; the only thing that matters is: Have you learned enough to make the next script better?

[joecalabre]

If Shira wants to try something different, let him. If it works, great. If not, oh well-- back to the drawing board.

To say you can't do this or can't do that, is like telling someone you know what's best for them. You don't. You haven't read the script and the question is too general to give any accurate and informed advice.

If someone asked me 5 years ago, can you write a script with a backward timeline, or in real time, I would say "are purposely trying to throw off audiences? You're crazy"-- but look at Memento and 24. Things can be done that are considered taboo and bad form-- as long as it works well.

Even if the great William Goldman personally told him not to write passive characters (which looking at the poster's subsequent posts, it's obvious his hero does have an arc), it won't change the fact that if it works and get's sold, then the advice was pointless.

The goal of this board is to give advice based on our own experiences, not to show off how much you know and not to try and create mirror images of ourselves.

PEACE...

[joecalabre]

I want to add something that I feel is pertinant to opinions and advice.

Summer 2003, I wrote a Jesus Clone script called "Second Coming." Everyone said don't do it-- everyone and thier uncle has one and it goes nowhere. Even after I wrote it, several people said it's good but it won't do anything and I shouldn't bother trying to market it. One person actually told me to shelve it. Three months later, it won 3rd at Slamdance's SlamFi.

In fact, one of the Judges, Gail Anne Hurd (Terminator, Hulk) said...
"Here's a familiar set-up combining two popular topics that are explored with some regularity in screenplays that I have encountered: resurrecting Christ and cloning. However, the handling of the subject matter, particularly in reference to a character exploring his own faith and then passing that onto others is handled with a professionalism and subtlety that is admirable. What starts off a somewhat cliché and unsurprising thriller of a somewhat cartoonish evil ambitious priest, turns into a much more sophisticated smaller story of a man embraces his faith and his destiny and helping another woman find her own."


As a result of winning, I went to Park City this past January for the awards and festival. I made some good contacts who where impressed with my achieving in such an worn out concept. I ended up getting a rewrite job from it. Last week, a producer read it and is interested and it is currently in option negotiations.

Imagine if I took everyone's advice.

Do what is in your heart and write with passion. It will show itself on the page and if your story and elements are good and works it doesn't matter if you went against what books, gurus, message boards or even what Simon said.

[SimonSays]

Joe -

It is clear from many of your posts that you know how to write, but you appear to abide by the "let the writer find their own way" philosophy when it comes to giving guidance to others, which I find rather odd for a teacher. I must say I am quite curious to know what your curriculum is. Do you teach the basics like conflict, goal, need, protagonist, antagonist, beats, inciting incident, climax, character arc, 3 act structure, etc.?

Or does your class consist of a more simple syallabus:
Week 1: Proper font and margins
Week 2: Write from your heart

And if you do teach the basics, why do you teach them? Personally, I use them because they are tools to creating well structured stories with multi-dimensional characters. I certainly never implied that I personally developed these tools. In fact, I have on occassion mentioned that these basics date back to Plato and Aristotle.

And as for films being made where the basics are overlooked (i.e. no character development) these scripts get made in spite of their flaws, not because of them. I would think as a teacher you would strive to guide people toward the best possible writing. You can write from your heart and write about what matters to you and still incorporate the elements that make good drama.

I'd also be quite curious to know exactly what kind of feedback you give to your consulting clients. Do you ignore one dimensional and passive characters as long as the writing is from the heart? Or do you provide guidance and insight so that the writer can wind up with a well written and commercially viable screenplays?

[joecalabre]

Simon,
I see you've been checking up on me.

just for the record... my respose to the original question was "Personally, I like to have my characters better people in the end than they started, except for the villians." I think it's pretty obvious were I stand on character arcs.

As a teacher, I encourage my students to explore thier skills. I teach them the tools needed. I teach a basic course that includes formatting, structure, pacing, and yes-- character development.

As a script consultant, I do coverage on scripts that I can read-- not concepts or ideas. If I see a problem I mention it. If I see that it works, I congratulate the author.
This poster wanted to purposely try and do something with the main character which is difficult at best, but not unheard of. I mentioned the pitfalls, but I am supportive of his/her decision to try.

You can take polls of all the pros you want but the question you should have asked was "If you read a script that has no character arc AND it works and you love it, would you buy it?" Of course your pros will give the answer they did. They expect it not to work as it does not in many cases. But there are exceptions to every rule and this poster may be that exception.

This poster is looking for a black and white answer which can not be given unless we see the finished work. Regardless of what they intend to do or not has no bearing. What ends up on the finished page does. At this stage all we can do is warn him/her of the dangers.

As for your point about Indiana Jones earlier, valuing artifacts more than people in the beginning isn't totally accurate. In the opening, he saved the guide's life when he could have taken the idol and ran-- he trusted him more than his need for the artifact. The love story with Marion is also wrong. He didn't acknowledge he made a mistake with her in the past and there is no hint that they will last more than a week, especially with the second and third film as we don't see him with her. Even the snakes doesn't constitute an arc. He was afraid of them in the beginning and also at the end. In both instances he still managed to get the job done. After all, he didn't jump out of the plane. As for the other two films, yes he had more of an ark (pun intended) but I was only talking about the first film.

[dchapma123]

Simon, maybe we interpret things differently, but I didn't see a single post that advocated having a protagonist not change from beginning to end. If anything, the consensus was "It's not a good idea." Some people wished the original poster luck ("Who knows? Maybe it'll work."), others tried to find produced examples where the protagonist grows very little. You can argue that those films suffer because of a weak protagonist arc (I would agree).

But let's not be obsessive about this. We ought to be able to have an intellectual, theoretical discussion about whether it's possible to write a good script with a static protagonist. Even if someone takes the "pro" side of that argument, it doesn't apply as advice to the original poster, who has already revealed that her character DOES change -- making the original question, as applicable to her script, moot.

I don't think it's the right approach to take when writing a script, but I don't think it's worthwhile or warrranted to mock someone that disagrees with me.

I don't think it's bad that people get conflicting responses to their questions. This isn't an oracle; it's a discussion board. I come here for the discussion. If people want "answers", they should either be prepared for some debate or buy a Magic 8 Ball.

[JustinoXV]

"Even if someone takes the "pro" side of that argument, it doesn't apply as advice to the original poster, who has already revealed that her character DOES change -- making the original question, as applicable to her script, moot."

Indeed. So can we chill about this? Shira will do whatever he/she wants to do, anyway.

[joecalabre]

I second that motion...
And when Shira is finished with it, I would be glad to read and tell him/her whether or not I feel it works.

[SimonSays]

Actually Joe - I wasn't checking up on you, I just happen to have good reading comprehension - you mentioned on another thread that you taught screenwriting and consulted - so I assumed that meant you taught screenwriting and consulted.

I'm very sensitive to this topic at the moment because I recently helped a producer I know out by going through a pile of unsolicted submissions. At least 2/3 of them had one-dimensional characters with no arcs. This producer has decided not to accept unrepped submissions anymore precisely for this reason. Because many writers don't bother learning the fundamentals of storytelling and at least if an agent has signed them, there's some sort of pre-screening in place. I think it's really too bad because there are some talented unrepped writers out there with commercially viable scripts who deserve a chance.

Ah, well. I said my piece. I made my point. Or not. I'll leave this board in your capable hands.

Simon

[joecalabre]

It is a shame that so many good scripts and writers hit that wall. Let's hope they don't get disgouraged and give up too soon.

[JustinoXV]

"I'm very sensitive to this topic at the moment because I recently helped a producer I know out by going through a pile of unsolicted submissions. At least 2/3 of them had one-dimensional characters with no arcs. This producer has decided not to accept unrepped submissions anymore precisely for this reason. Because many writers don't bother learning the fundamentals of storytelling and at least if an agent has signed them, there's some sort of pre-screening in place."

Partially because of the reasons that you gave, Simon, most studios and studio backed or celebrity attached production companies do not accepted unrepped scripts. There's also issues of volume and legal reasons.

If those writers keep getting rejections and are serious about their writing, then they will do whatever it takes to improve their writing.

Many people are not serious, and never will be. That's entirely up to them.

[dchapma123]

Wait, JustinoXV? What happened to JustinoIV?

I apologize, ShiRa, if I incorrectly assumed you were female.

[joecalabre]

I'm wondering what happened to Justino 5 through 14?

[ShiRa Ryu]

dchapma123

No worries, perhaps the reference of gender that I give to my character have made you misunderstood me. <img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif" />

I second that motion...
And when Shira is finished with it, I would be glad to read and tell him/her whether or not I feel it works.

<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/image/posticons/pi_money.gif" /> I have to pay for it right? 75 USD? if i'm not wrong!!

[joecalabre]

for you I'll read it for free. You've sparked my interest.

[ShiRa Ryu]

Gee...thanks!