Is a 'multidimensional character' a good thing, in terms of sales, in all genres? In most genres?

Jay, it's probably safe to say that generally, yes. There are genre movies, certain kinds of broad comedies or horror movies for example, where you may not need characters with a lot of depth. But even in such movies, there has be enough, even minimal, 'stuff' going on with characters to reflect an internal life. And in most movies, key primary characters need to have layers of things going on, not just living on the surface, but interesting psychological dynamics at work. This is especially true of Protagonists. The complaints I hear and read about scripts that cycle through Hollywood are these: Too many formulaic scripts, thin or flat characters, and scripts that don't create any emotional connection or resonance. A focused effort to develop characters can be an antidote to all three.

Hi Scott, I would like to take this Protagonist class as my free class from the Quest, please. If I am doing this wrong please let me know. :)

Thanks, Scott. Although I'm always full of questions, I really do appreciate all the information on the site. I guess I don't know if John McLane, say, is a multidimensional character. Or James Bond, excepting the first of the reboots? I guess people found Tony Stark to be multidimensional, but I thought he was more of a laundry list: genius, philanthropist, billionaire, superhero. Bruce Banner, on the other hand, yow.

John McLane is a great example of what I call 'scalability' when it comes to character development. Why does he fly to LA? To see his wife. Check that, estranged wife. How do we know this? When he checks into the office building, he can't locate her by his last name, but does with her maiden name. Then they have a tender moment, followed immediately by an argument. When she gets called out to speak to the employees, he is alone, and talks aloud to himself, pissed off he screwed up and get into a row with her. Then - boom! Hostage-taking. So throughout the entire rest of the movie, including a heartfelt confession over a walkie-talkie about his feelings for his wife, that argument and their flailing marriage hangs like a ghost over everything that happens. It's not "War and Peace," but it adds a layer of emotional depth to the action. He's not just trying to save all these people's lives, he's trying to save his wife. And not just his wife, but his marriage. That's it, nothing more, but it WORKS by giving all the action emotional meaning. James Bond? Until the Daniel Craig version came along, JB did not change, he was, in essence, a two-dimensional superhero. Tony Stark? I thought what Whedon did with him in The Avengers, by sending him hurtling into space in an act of self-sacrifice, the psychological antithesis of egoism, was a nice indication of a bit of a change. But yes, nothing compared to Bruce Banner who has the 'beast' looming within, waiting to burst forth, which is all very Jungian.

I'm all in favour of multi-dimensional characters (and Bruce Banner is a favourite), but I wonder if we're onto something here. Bond, Tony Stark, a lot of Tarentino characters - is there are a rare type of dramatic hero who doesn't change through the arc of the story? Comic characters don't really change, after all. Is it possible for dramatic characters like Bond and Stark to deliver something else in place of change - say, audience wish fulfilment?

I quite like the trend at the moment of more complex protagonists. They're not necessarily squeaky clean. They're not necessarily "heroic" in the true sense of the word. I'm in the middle of watching Edge of Darkness with Mel Gibson. In it, he plays a father whose daughter is murdered and he sets about finding out who killed her. The character is so multi-layered and so conflicted and yet, you find yourself rooting for the guy all the same. (And Mel Gibson is still one of my favourite actors despite the recent madness.) I think these characters appeal to me the most. Real life humans are complex and have dark places inside them. I really connect with protagonists who do too.

Seems to me that this is largely an issue of series characters, Debbie. Bond and Stark were written that way. Just struck me that every single character we're talking about here was _not_ created by a screenwriter. Bond, Stark, Banner, McClane. McClane has the (semi-) estranged wife, but I'm not sure I see that as really multidimensional. Although now I suspect I'm approaching the whole question wrong; I was thinking more about multidimensional _personality_ than multidimensional _character_. So really we're not talking, as Jeeves would say, about the psychology of the individual: any other dimension in his life counts? (And Stark, bah. That sacrifice setup was so heavy-handed I cringed--and worse, I didn't really believe it. Stark's the billionaire genius son of a billionaire genius, who never loses. What is he trying to prove? To whom? Why _would_ he sacrifice himself? Maybe to prove that he refuses to lose the 'self-sacrifice' game, too? He'll die to win? But that didn't come across. He's willing to sacrifice himself he wears a funny suit, that's why. There's no there, there.)

Lydia, I think that trend is absolutely a real one. We see it in movies, we see in TV series. People seem to want more 'edge' in their entertainment, hence the swing toward more thrillers and action movies [in terms of spec script sales and what is getting produced]. Even comedies have more edge [e.g., Horrible Bosses]. One way to do that is through complex Protagonists who are not so morally pure, are at 'war' with themselves, etc.

yeah... I would like to as well!

@ Scott "Tony Stark? I thought what Whedon did with him in The Avengers, by sending him hurtling into space in an act of self-sacrifice, the psychological antithesis of egoism, was a nice indication of a bit of a change." Me too. @Jay "(And Stark, bah. That sacrifice setup was so heavy-handed I cringed–and worse, I didn’t really believe it. Stark’s the billionaire genius son of a billionaire genius, who never loses. What is he trying to prove? To whom? Why _would_ he sacrifice himself? Maybe to prove that he refuses to lose the ‘self-sacrifice’ game, too? He’ll die to win? But that didn’t come across. He’s willing to sacrifice himself he wears a funny suit, that’s why. There’s no there, there.)" I think you're missing the bigger picture on character. You don't have to have quote/unquote good traits to be likable. I like Stark BECAUSE he's full of himself. In fact, I find it to be his most likable feature. In a previous scene, Stark puts his life in danger without question or hesitation, despite being uncertain if Cap will carry his end (pulling the lever on time) when he goes to restart the fan. Doesn't that spell out what kind of character he is? And that's never violated. Not once. Not when Thor steals Loki, and Stark goes after Thor. Not when he has to go face to face with Loki to monologue his way to the new suit. Stark does it in only the way Stark can -- by being a brash, arrogant, egotistical, smooth-talking smart mouth. My favorite reveal of a plot point (Where is Loki going to attack from?) is given through Stark without ever specifically saying it -- STARK: Yeah. That's just previews, this is...this is opening night. And Loki, he's a full-tail diva. He wants flowers, he wants parades, he wants a monument built to the skies with his name plastered... (then) Son of a bitch. CUT TO: EXT. STARK TOWER - DAY If this had been some other character pondering where Loki would attack from, they likely wouldn't have come to the same conclusion (or instead, taken a cheap pot-shot at Stark) Thor could have explained everything Stark said about his brother. He'd know this stuff. Cap could comeback, "Sounds like somebody I know." And then Cap have the revelation. (I think how Whedon did it was the best choice because the joke is literally on the reveal of the building, which is the very essence of Show, don't tell). Point is -- They are clearly their own unique characters with their own unique voices. You tend to like people for who they are, rather than who they aren't. I like Cap because he's a boyscout. I like The Hulk because he doesn't want to be this rage monster. I like Black Widow because 1) she's a smart badass, 2) she knows her limits 3) that doesn't stop her. Really, the only trick to character is to give us something to root for and then be CONSISTENT with it.

[...] Create A Compelling Protagonist (gointothestory.blcklst.com) [...]

This article by Dan Harmon on storytelling got me thinking about character introductions: "The audience is floating freely, like a ghost, until you give them a place to land...If there are choices, the audience picks someone to whom they relate. When in doubt, they follow their pity. Fade in on a raccoon being chased by a bear, we are the raccoon. Fade in on a room full of ambassadors. The President walks in and trips on the carpet. We are the President. When you feel sorry for someone, you're using the same part of your brain you use to identify with them." What I take away from that is that introducing a character in a situation that makes us feel sorry for him or her is one way to make it clear who is the protagonist. (This may be more appropriate to some stories and genres than others.)