Maybe it's just his term for archetypes?

I'm guessing that "character patterns" are similar in a way to plotting conventions. If a thriller or a rom-com has certain plot conventions, and plot is derived from character, then the character and their relationships should adhere to the patterns discernible/expected of characters within that genre/plot.

So though something like "Brick" or "Up in the Air" are genre defying, the relationships adhere to certain conventions or patterns and thus leave the audience satisfied.

But hey I could be wrong.

Interestingly, I have a similar theory to this in terms of character interaction.
WHat I think he means is that characters shoould always react the same to the same conflict. In life, we tend to "weaken," but characters can't.

If the cop will shoot first he will always. If he abuses liars, he always will.

Look at Jack Sparrow, his "character pattern" is pithy, condescending banter and robbing you blind.

Will would be more the helpful scoundrel in his interactions.

Elizabeth plays more of the elegant, refined criminal.

That said, my theory goes a little farther by actually describing interaction patterns based on personality.

I guess banter is the subtext of "character patterns" then. I think people will remember a heated argument during a chase as much as the chase.
Wait, I'm supposed to be on vacation. Read my blog for more.

When Rossio (from Kalamazoo) talks about "evolving and interesting character relationships" and "character interaction patterns", I'd have to guess that character patterns involves how characters can realistically interact in a story or maybe more importantly not interact realistically.

Now I have to wait until tomorrow for the real answer.

I think he simply means looking at the character from an "overview" perspective. Like when he talks (I just found you and Wordplay, so I might be wrong. :)about being finished and looking back at the character patterns, and interesting enough--at the plot patterns in El Dorado.

So...character patterns are simply his way of saying "when everything is done (or far enough along so you can see them) the "pattern" is "looking" at the character, his interactions, choices and arc "within" the story as a whole...the pattern of the character.

Everyone knows a screenwriter should create intriguing and engaging characters. As far as i understand it, Rossio’s “character patterns” are what you do with your intriguing and engaging characters once you’ve created them.

In other words, creating character patterns means shaping how those characters interact, in what situations, with what attitudes, and how the relationships between them develop through the movie (which is something different to how each character develops through the movie). It would involve making sure that each character’s particular attitudes are reflected in, contrasted to and shaped by as many interactions with other characters as possible: (Character A’s piety is only fully explored when it butts up against Character B’s devilry, or Character C’s genuine selflessness, or both at once). And, as far as you should separate them, it’s about mapping emotional and attitudinal relationships rather than what happens in the plot.

Rossio and Elliott’s approach, which is outlined at length in the interview, is to strip back the elements of a screenplay, and to rearrange them and re-examine them in varying lights to make sure they work best. So, if you were working on “character patterns” I think you’d be looking at how this character reacts to this character at this point in the film – is this the best way for this to happen? – the best point in time? – with both characters in this emotional state? – would it be richer/more satisfying if this happened in front of another character too? – would their character bring a new perspective to the scene? etc etc.

When Rossio talks about this subject earlier in the interview he says this:

“the relationship between characters is what needs to be defined, those are the moments audiences want to watch.”

So, movie characters only become great movie characters when the whole of the film is designed to pull them and push them around to reveal what great characters they are. Part of that design is how they react and relate to the other characters in the film. Those inter-relationships are what are meant by “character patterns”. (I think!)

Searching Rossio's site I found this:

Rule #55. Distinguish characters by their speech patterns: word choice, sentence patterns; revealed background, level of intelligence.

No results came up searching for the term "character patterns"

My guess is he means writers need to make their characters absolutely clear in terms of what they represent. Like so and so is the bad guy.

@Zach: I'll try to post my thoughts on this idea on Mon or Tue.

Terry Rossio's thoughts on Character Patterns here:

http://www.wordplayer.com/forums/scriptsarc11/index.cgi?read=157508

and here

http://www.wordplayer.com/forums/scriptsarc11/index.cgi?read=154928

Reading those links, it appears Character Patterns weren't what I was describing. Instead, he's talking about those archetypical character interactions (such as buddy film, revenge story, love triangle, etc).

But I knew he'd said something along the lines I was mentioning, and I finally found it!!:

"CONNECTIONS

Has every character met every other character? If your screenplay has more than 5 characters, almost guaranteed you've missed some drama, by not having a scene between two characters who, in your first draft, never meet. Like missing lines of a triangle, you've drawn two in but not the third. Take a pass through your script with this in mind and you will be surprised."

@Michael Cook: Great find. Glad to report I was pretty much on target with my sense of what Rossio meant. More on this next week.

@Michael Cook: Nice find!