Are you using central character for Ferris or for Cameron?

Ferris is the protagonist for all the reasons mentioned plus the Antagonist of the film is Ed Rooney, who directly opposes Ferris.

There's a secondary Antagonist -- Ferris's sister, who also opposes Ferris.

I think it's pretty clear that Ferris is the protagonist.

Cameron changes. He's the heart of the story. In stories when the protagonist doesn't change the protagonist is often the catalyst for change. Which Ferris clearly is. Without Ferris, Cameron would still be in bed moping to this very day.

Without Cameron the movie has no heart. Without Ferris there is no movie.

Also -- Ferris is the catalyst for his sister's change. Not many people mention this. Her transformation, while on a smaller scale, is just as valid as Cameron's when talking about the transformational character arc of story.

Jim Hull over at Story Fanatic has an interesting article called "When the Main Character is Not the Protagonist"

http://storyfanatic.com/articles/story-structure/when-the-main-character-is-not-the-protagonist

It is well worth the read.

Back to the Future also operates under this model. Michael J Fox's character does not change, but it's his actions that drive the character change in his father.

@James: I think an argument can be made to look at FBDO with Ferris as the Central / Main Character and Cameron as the Protagonist. As the former, Ferris sets the specifics of the Plotline -- it is, after all, his day off -- and it's through his perspective that the viewer experiences the story. But as cited in the OP, Cameron is the character who goes through the most significant metamorphosis. Indeed if we step out of the story world and look at it in terms of its psychological functionality, you could argue the story happens precisely so that Cameron will confront his shadow -- fear of his father.

Then again, FBDO also is instructive in demonstrating that terms like Protagonist and Central Character, while helpful as pedagogical and writing tools, are artificial tags when applied to something to a story which is by its very nature organic.

Good point about Ferris' sister. She does have her own metamorphosis arc.

@David: I was just talking about this yesterday in my class at UNC as we were breaking down BTTF. Marty changes nearly everyone and everything else, but not much if at all himself. In fact, if you read early drafts of the script, there is a bit of business about him having an audition tape he's afraid to send to the record company because he can't bear the thought of being rejected. When he returns to the present, he deposits the tape (envelope) in the mailbox. A small metamorphosis, but one nonetheless. Omitted from the final movie.

@James @Scott

I wrote this in a similar discussion on another website:

Ferris may have been Jeannie's catalyst, but the kid in the police station was Jeannie's mentor.

To which Bitter Script Reader responded: 'More like Jeannie's Warlock Vatican Assassin.'

I think splitting the protagonist's function this way particularly works for a teen comedy. When you're that age, you spend a lot of time thinking about who you are and what kind of person you want to be. You're identity is also sharply defined within your group of friends. Are you the nurturer? The arty one? The funny one? The party girl? Then your group as a whole has a place within the whole hierarchy of groups. I was a kid the first few times I watched FBDO, and I remember trying to figure out which type of guy I'd want to end up with: a Ferris, or a Cameron? (Which I thinks to Scott's point about Sloane potentially ending up with Cameron, something I felt, too.) BUT now that I'm older and hopefully wiser, I know that a complete person incorporates both Ferris and Cameron. If you go through life just as a Ferris, you'll have levity, but life will be so easy, you won't have any real meaning. You may wake up one day and go, "My gosh - where did all the decades go and what the hell have I been doing?" If you go through life strictly as a Cameron, life will have so much meaning, you'll drown under the weight of it all (remember Ferris pulling Cameron out of the pool?); the ironic thing is, ultimately, you could end up saying the same thing "Where did my life go and what have I been doing?" So, a complete person incorporates both halves - levity and depth - the way a complete story incorporates both plotline and themeline.

@Annika: Good analysis. Here's a fun thought: Imagine a buddy comedy with Ferris and Cameron in "Midnight Run." That's actually an interesting idea: What buddy pictures would Ferris and Cameron be good at in together?

I would say the protagonist is still Ferris and his underlying character goal is getting Cameron to lighten up and enjoy himself.

Ferris doesn't go through a major character change because he really doesn't need to. It's similar in a way to Indiana Jones in Raiders. But instead of a physical goal -- keep the ArK away from the Nazis, the goal of Ferris is an emotional one-- help his friend, under the guise of taking a day off.

My ears are burning...

This:

"So how about this? They are Dual Protagonists: Ferris is the Protagonist as Change Agent. And Cameron is the Protagonist as The Transformed."

is sooo close to the Dramatica theory of story that I had to pipe in. Using that theory as a context:

Ferris is a Steadfast Main Character/Protagonist.
Cameron is a Change Impact Character.

Ferris - Steadfast because his final resolve is to maintain his point-of-view of the world
Cameron - Change because he adopts a new perspective

Ferris - Main Character because we experience the film through his eyes

Cameron - Impact Character because Ferris develops a significant emotional relationship with him and because their relationship carries a portion of the story's meaning.

Ferris - Protagonist because he drives the Overall Story (referred to above as the Plotline)

Dramatica calls for complete stories to have both OBJECTIVE throughlines and SUBJECTIVE throughlines. The disparity between the two creates meaning.

Objective Throughline = Plotline
Subjective Throughline = Themeline

This is the reason why the term Protagonist should be separated from the concept of the Main Character. One is an objective appreciation, the other emotional. Objectively, Protagonists don't change. Subjectively, sometimes Main Characters do. Sometimes Main Characters are Protagonists (as in the example of FBDO), sometimes they are not.

Using Dramatica, Protagonist and Main Character have clearly delineated definitions.

Obviously in development rooms and meetings with execs who don't care what means what, you could use Dual Protagonists and so on. But between writers, clarity of terminology can only help the conversation.

We're all saying the same thing. It only seems like there are arguments and differences of opinion because in years past the definitions of Protagonist veered towards the nebulous.

Also, the first link in the original post is broken. Is there a correct one?

Alexndara Sokoloff has a post about this on her blog. Pretty much echoes my thoughts.

http://thedarksalon.blogspot.com/2008/10/story-structure-elements-of-act-two.html

"I think it’s a little more complicated than that. I think a lot of classic series characters, especially series detectives – and of course James Bond and his sexier modern incarnation Jack Reacher do spring immediately to mind – are really examples of the “Mysterious Stranger” archetype, and Mysterious Stranger stories have their own story structure. Mary Poppins is the classic Mysterious Stranger; she pops in (get it?), fixes the family, and pops out, while remaining herself “Practically Perfect in Every Way”. SHANE is a great film with a Mysterious Stranger structure, although Shane is a much more wounded Stranger than Mary Poppins – he’s very imperfect, unable to change, and therefore unable to integrate into society in the end – but he does fix the town’s problem and the wound in the family that temporarily takes him in.

James Bond and Jack Reacher are also perfect characters in their ways (although, from a female POV, perfectly infuriating). Rob is right - we don’t want them to change. The trick to the Mysterious Stranger structure is that it’s the OTHER characters who have the big character arcs in the story (although in some Mysterious Stranger stories, the Stranger does have an arc as well."