Gonna crank this discussion into a little different direction. I think we can all agree that a majority of films have some sort of change, usually the protagonist. I want to address the anomalies. Metamorphosis of a character doesn't explain characters like JAMES BOND, INDIANA JONES, FLASH GORDON, AXEL FOLEY. Many heroes start out as us, a normal person, and through their journey become a hero. But the list above are heroes that are fully realized before their journey begins. This video by REDLETTERMEDIA (The guys that did the Phantom Menace review) actually hits the nail on the head about how INDY works as a character -- http://tinyurl.com/7mzdlkp There's also the problem of change being too easy. In many bad screenplays, change often seems too easy, too convenient. Some event happens and things are all hunky-dorey in the end. Some very famous and beloved films have this as well, but work. Let's face it, as much as I love DIE HARD, the resolution of the hostage situation IS also the resolution of the love story. Simple. Yet, it works, when so many other screenplays fail (DIE HARD 4 for example). But why? It has dove-tailed the love story into the hostage situation. The different last names of the protagonist and wife illustrates the estrangement of the couple in the love story, but also becomes a prominent plot point when the villain is trying to eliminate McClane -- the relationship becomes his weakness in both stories. While the characters never make up, and simply embrace at the end of the film after the hero saves the damsel (twice), we feel that they live "happily ever after." The reality of the situation is that nothing has changed with their relationship status. But the magic of film (and the action genre) has made this a complete ending. In a drama, this same ending might seem hollow. But in an action film, where McClane took on impossible odds to rescue the hostages and save his wife, he becomes the knight in shining armor that saves the day. We, as audience members, as participants in this experience that is film WANT TO BE THE HERO. We want to be the guy who swoops in and saves the girl. The spy who bangs all the gorgeous looking models and still has time to best the bad guys and save the world. We step into the hero's shoes. While I think metamorphosis of a character is important, I think it is vastly overshadowed by creating characters that we long to be like. Change for the sake of change is worthless. Many of bad screenplays simply mark-off change as if it were a box on a checklist. The hero is different at the end from the beginning. Check! Got it. Change only exists in story because we hope that a fictional character may be able to prevail over a situation we cannot. When a character starts out "better" than us, change is less important. (This also explains why films with characters that start out "better or cooler" than us, can't simply rely on change. FROM PARIS WITH LOVE, John Travolta's character is a fully realized hero from the getgo -- but do we really want to be like him? I know I don't. He's kind of a jackass). How tehse types of films fail is something I could write an entire post on. Characters that are "too cool for school" that we can't relate to, nor want to be, but seemingly have everything of the JAMES BOND's of the world. It should be noted that there are also characters that have both a powerful character arc and are the person we wish we could be. LUKE SKYWALKER is one. NOTE: I am talking about two different cases in this comment 1) Heroes that don't arc and 2) Heroes that arc, but conveniently wrap up a subplot simply by completing the plot. The point is that there is more than metamorphosis at work. Anyway, I'm longwinded. Watch http://tinyurl.com/7mzdlkp It's much funnier and explains a lot of what I'm talking about here in an entertaining way :)

James, there is a type of Eternal Hero who doesn't change a la James Bond, Indiana Jones, etc [although interestingly their most recent movies have deconstructed the mythology of their characters somewhat so they are becoming more human]. The fact is that is a subset of a subset of a subset, statistically really really small. You have been in studio meetings. You know what I'm talking about. This idea that a Protagonist goes through some sort of metamorphosis, transformation, change is engrained in Hollywood development circles. Even execs or producers who barely understand story know this dynamic is key. Change in real life is both a terrific opportunity... and a frightening proposition. Movies that have a character starting out way over here, then ending up way over there -- in 2 hours time no less!!! -- is a great way for a moviegoer to process the very idea of change in their own lives. That is at least one reason why metamorphosis is such a powerful meme in movies. And as you have suggested and I have noted, metamorphosis does not have to be formulaic, but rather has an endless variety of options in terms of iterations. Fascinating subject, really. We could go on and on and on...

> You have been in studio meetings. You know what I’m talking about. This idea that a Protagonist goes through some sort of metamorphosis, transformation, change is engrained in Hollywood development circles. Even execs or producers who barely understand story know this dynamic is key. Scott, does that imply that an Eternal Hero spec script is sunk in the water? Or that it would have to be so spectacular and immersive that readers and execs get caught up in the story to the point they overlook the unchecked box next to "protagonist character arc"? I assume the further a spec script strays from the conventional assumptions about script standards, the tougher the sell. On a related note, I just read this fascinating article about Charlie, the protagonist of (the original) Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Facotory (my bolding added): > Charlie is clearly our hero protagonist and there is no doubt that he is on a journey - a journey that breaks his ordinary world and casts him into, as Campbell and Vogler refer, the ’ special world’. Yet as a protagonist Charlie would seem to be missing the key elements that we often use to define a hero on a journey - Charlie is Not flawed nor does he undergo a Transformation. His circumstances change tangibly from poverty to wealth but there is virtually no inner journey for Charlie at all. Charlie is a very good kid in a shitty situation of poverty but he has no discernible moral, ethical or personal flaw and we are not watching a film of growth or psychological change - he’s a good, honest self-less kid at the beginning and remains so at the end. In truth we actually don’t watch to see Charlie change - rather we watch for the opposite reason, we watch to see IF he will change, IF he will give into temptation to change. This may seem simple but it is, rather surprisingly, unusual in feature film narrative. The film fits a broad notion of an ‘underdog’ film, yet such films (Rocky springs to mind) also very often hinge on a journey of self-recognition, overcoming doubt, a character finding faith in themself when they otherwise had none. Again, there really is none of this in WWATCF for our central character. Indeed, even calling Charlie a protagonist based on the concept of Wants, Needs and Obstacles is problematic. -- Willy Wonka defying conventional story wisdom The only other film I can think of with a will-he-or-won't-he-change protagonist is Jesus of Montreal.

Oh! Two more examples: Joan of Arc in Carl Theodor Dryer's Passion of Joan of Arc, and Hildegard of Bingen in Margarethe von Trotta's Vision. What is the pattern to these anti-change protagonists? That they all inhabit stories about temptation?

"Scott, does that imply that an Eternal Hero spec script is sunk in the water?" Not at all. Just look at the list of characters who don't change, some as mentioned: James Bond, Indiana Jones, Jack Sparrow, and on and on. They create action and adventure, and that is the sub-genre where you're likely to find them. Then there are Change Agents, characters who change others: Forrest Gump, Bill Starbuck (The Rainmaker), The Cat In The Hat, Harold Hill (The Music Man), Mary Poppins, Ferris Bueller. You'll often see these characters in "stranger comes to town" stories. There is a similarity between these two types: They tend to be bigger-than-life characters which makes sense because in order to upset the status quo, they have to have some sort of unusual power whether the power of their beliefs or an actual supernatural power. So if you have such a character at work in your story, leap into it with gusto! Such characters can be compelling and a whole helluva lot of fun, both to write and enjoy as a script reader.

100% agree with you on all accounts Scott. Was just examining some anomalies to point out there are alternatives. @ Shaula -- Great observation about Charlie. What's also great -- is we are starting to see characters that are changing for the WORSE. Breaking Bad anybody? I also wanted to point out, one of the biggest flaws I see in screenplays (pro and amateur alike) is that change comes about too easily or unearned. And certain guru's books (SAVE THE CAT, for instance) encourage change for change's sake to the point of including a scene that sums up what the character learned from his journey. In ALIEN, Ripley has clearly changed by the end. However, there isn't a scene that sums up "what she has learned." Likewise Sarah Connor in TERMINATOR. In Back To The Future, Marty is afraid to try out as the music act for the school dance. Yeah, Jennifer, but what if I suck? But when his father and mother's relationship (as well as his own existence) is on the line, he gladly steps up to the task. He even goes so far as to make a fool out of himself sliding around the stage. He gets awkward stares and what should have been his worst nightmare at the start of the film he can now shrug off with a simple joke. No scene of "what I learned" needed. If you find yourself writing this "what I learned" scene, I encourage writers to try to pay it off in the culmination as something they couldn't do in Act One. In the Hero's Journey, it's actually why the Hero has to face "death" twice. The first one is the catalyst for change. The second is the proof of change. (Usually Act Two culmination and then the finale in Act Three). When faced with the same/similar/worse obstacle, the hero this time breaks the pattern of old habits.

James, now I'm going to have my eyes out for characters who change for the worse...

Hi Scott I have sort of an adjacent concern...how characters bond throughout the story... it turns me off to watch characters bonding through a montage...my mind fast forwards through the images because I get it: they're bonding, yeah, sure, whatever. I like characters to bond through their metamorphosis because this is pretty much how the movie gets its emotional leverage, in my opinion...e.g. Due Date and Pride and Prejudice... Are there any rules for that? Tips? Other examples to study? Appreciated :)