James at 2010-12-03 17:54:46:
I think you nailed it Scott.

I also think the term "character arc" is somewhat overused and also comes with a result--which I don't necessarily think is the case.

As the OP says "in which they learn something and grow in a positive way."

A character arc isn't always positive. Buddy Fox of WALL STREET's character arc is very much self destructive.

BEVERLY HILLS COP is a great example of a movie in which the main character doesn't change, but instead is an instrument of change. HOWEVER, his character both has his own external and internal conflicts. To solve the murder of his buddy -- and his goofy, self absorbed nature keeps sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

If you were to apply a simple "character arc template" over the character, you would imagine that at the end of the movie he would get over his funny, shenanigan ways. But why?

There's no reason for it other than to fit a template of a "character arc." And it leads to cliche. Instead the character remains the same throughout. We get an action filled, comedy. And the character never feels in violation of himself, nor does it ever feel like he gives in to any cliche story formula.

I believe thinking in terms of "character arc" often results in cliche. Rather thinking in terms of wants, needs, desires, and inner and external conflict (much of what Scott teaches) often accomplishes the same things, but without the cookie cutter feel.

While I think a characters motives are of utmost importance, I think there is a grave danger of thinking about them in too simplistic of terms -- such as "character arc."
Adaddinsane at 2010-12-04 03:55:32:
The Fugitive is the best example of a "steadfast" (unchanging) protagonist - "Elf" is another one example.

They do exist - however *somebody* has to change. In The Fugitive it's Tommy Lee Jones' character, in Elf it's his father.

Campbell is all very well but he was a "story biologist" he merely examined stories and found common elements: he categorised. Doesn't mean that every story has to have his elements, or that his elements are the only thing stories can be composed of.
Stephen Gallagher at 2010-12-04 06:16:39:
People want to believe they can change

Another way to look at it would be that people want to believe that they'd rise to a challenge in a way that proves their underlying worth.
Scott at 2010-12-04 08:40:13:
@James: You make a good point re the use of "character arc." While as writers we know what it means and are well aware of it as we develop our characters, I think it's often used in the world of script development as a convenient buzz word: The character has to change. But that's approaching character development from outside the character when all the good work (and results) are going to be derived from working inside the character. It's similar, I think, to the prominence of this idea of a character flaw which also strikes me a buzz word that can, like you say, lead to cliche characters.

@Adaddinsane: While I agree with your conclusion -- "Doesn't mean that every story has to have his [Joseph Campbell] elements, or that his elements are the only thing stories can be composed of" -- I would beg to differ re Campbell: "he merely examined stories and found common elements." While true that is a significant aspect of his work, he focused an enormous amount of his work interpreting the meaning of stories and their universal truths. Indeed starting in 1965 and every year thereafter, he visited the Esalen Institute in California, not only to lecture, but spend time with people with a select group of people helping them process their lives on both a psychological and spiritual front. But your central point is well-taken: the danger of taking any paradigm or approach to screenwriting and screenplay structure, and make it somehow mandatory or normative. Story may well have structure and narrative elements, but it also transcends them.

@Stephen: "Another way to look at it would be that people want to believe that they'd rise to a challenge in a way that proves their underlying worth." That's an interesting take and speaks to the idea of audience identification whereby the movie viewer 'becomes' the Protagonist, we experience what the P does as if -- in a psychological way -- it is we who are on the screen. It's key to the very idea of 'wish fulfillment' which is at the core of so many movies, and speaks to your point of self-worth.
Gregaria at 2010-12-04 13:18:00:
Wow, this got a lot deeper than I thought it would. Thanks for all the thoughts and comments!
ZoeTheCat at 2011-06-21 17:33:49:
I'm unsure whether 'character arc' is vital for protagonists on either a direct (they make the change themselves), or indirect (they change others) basis.

While both of these archetypes are very effective (Scott provides great classic examples), there is the possiblility that neither is required.

I just requenched my thirst for "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly." This movie is in my top-three all time list, and I know that I am not alone. (Pulp Fiction and 2001 round out my list.)

There is no character-arc whatsoever for any of our three cherished protagonists in this movie. They all affect one another. Yet they all stay true to their initial character throughout the movie - no epiphanies, no metamorphosis.

This brings me to my point. I believe that STORY (coupled with music) is more important than PLOT and character progression!

I'm not saying that direct/indirect character revelations are not important as a tool. I am saying that they are not necessary.

I will watch a movie again and again if I like the way it makes me FEEL. I will not watch a movie again regardless of plot and character dynamic if it has no feeling (no soul).

I have read screenplay tutorials that talk about formulaic plotlines with plot-point stuctures and character development and character-arc. I am here to say that these tutorials are part of the problem. There is too much formula and not enough CINEMA in movies today.

I won't watch anything under 80% Rotten Tomato in theatre. When lesser tripe hits On-demand, I'll watch it just to find out what I already knew - It's soulless formulaic garbage; I realize that there are exceptions.

My primary motivation for popping in my TGTBTU DVD was to watch the final half hour with Ennio Morricnes' heavenly score - "The Ecstasy of Gold" and "The Trio."

IMHO, Great movies are a combination of film & music motivated by the defined characters that populate them. There is no need for a character metamorphisis at all.

But if you're going to take this approach, you had better have some idea of what you want to convey in CINEMA while you are writing your script. How do your scenes FEEL (music & effect). I realize this is asking more of the screenwriter, but I think it is vitally important if your aim is create something great. If you happen to have Ennio Morricone contracted - no worries.
storynotes at 2014-01-19 09:57:09:
I would say yes to drama and comedy. Most even follow what's been called the orphan model. http://www.amazon.com/Parables-Today-Christians-Screenwriting-ebook/dp/B00EZWXDAI/ref=zg_bs_156423011_82