Is character development really necessary to create an objectively good character?

Is character development really necessary to create an objectively good character?

Other urls found in this thread:

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RhetoricalQuestionBlunder
araeph.tumblr.com/post/142449808335/you-know-how-in-the-first-couple-of-episodes-zuko
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Yes, that's basic story telling, you make a character that is not defeatable/good at everything they become boring. (AKA Rey from Star Wars)

Yes.

That's why Namor is comics very worst. Literally zero development in all his existence.

Perfect example, Rey is horribly written

No not necessarily as long as your character is entertaining and has a strong supporting cast.

Case in point: Goku and Superman

NO

>Character development is THE most overrated trope in "entertainment", basic or otherwise. It should be used sparingly, and only meaningfully.

It depends on how serious your story is and what tone it conveys. In most cases, the answer to your question is an unequivocal yes.

However some settings are a bit more outlandish than others, and so having an unstoppable juggernaut as your character, whose only motivation is fucking up your shit, can be refreshing in the right context.

>implying the entire point of storytelling isn't character development
You know what a story without characters growing or changing in it is? Boring. And that's the worst thing a story can be.

It depends, if the character is dumb as rocks they should learn something eventually.
If they're seemingly fully developed, the story can show their flaws or why they think the way they do.

That usually requires an interactive medium, though.

>If they're seemingly fully developed, the story can show their flaws or why they think the way they do.
Which is developing their character.

The tall tale relies on a stock character who is usually unchanging. You saying Jack tales aren't fun?

I believe that one of the reasons Robbie Reyes was liked so much on this board for the All New All Different Ghost Rider run was because of the time spent on his character and supporting cast.
It wasn't so much a large investment of time put to telling his normal life story as it was time well spent, if that makes sense. There weren't spots of useless Bendis Speak.

Marvel's taken a recent tactic of "I'm a character that's gay, and that's my hook!" or "Islam is my religion!" or "I have a vagina and you should be inspired by my gender!" bullshit. Robbie was Hispanic but that wasn't his promotion for the book. His heritage was a single piece of who he was from the multiple pieces that he was composed of, and it wasn't even remarked upon by other characters of the book much at all.

Rant over. Good characters need to have elements of their lives and the people that they are explained to the reader so they can be identified or empathized with. Even if it's a cape comic.

No, static characters are the best

>objectively good character?

First off. Doesn't exist.

>Is character development really necessary to create a good character?

Depends on what we're defining as character development and the story itself.

A character at the very least needs to figure out how to solve the problem presented for them to progress. The gaining of that knowledge in itself can be character development.

Whats also important is the characters place in the story. It's a lot easier to have supplementary characters learn absolutly nothing during the course of a story and interpret everything through their preconceived notions, while still being interesting and well thought out characters. I'd even argue that a character interpreting outside stimuli and making decisions for better or worse, without becoming a completely different person by the end of the story is more realistic.

Well it's development for the audience, the character themselves don't change in that case.

trickster tales can be fun, but they usually have a purpose beyond story telling. They impart a message which is more important than entertainment.

That's the point: You have to explore a character, either through who they are or who they become if you want them to be interesting to the audience.

So make a character that isn't unbeatable and then have them not grow in any way.

One of Sup Forums favorite characters is completely static, his only "developments" are shit like "I became an angel" or "I became a Zombie".

No one ever reads Punisher for character development.

well, character development is a common way to make a character more interesting, and it is sometimes a way to see whether the writers have the capabilities to improve their writing skills. For instance, you can still have boring character because the said character's development is just pandering the fanbase or wasting people's time. On the flip side, you can have flawed character whose development successfully captures the story the writers want to tell.

I did not write anything that contradicts your post.

Read my post again.

The Fantastic Four members never grow or change. Are they boring?

I'd argue that some characters has to be static, because that's their defining character. Johnny Bravo would be boring if he stopped hitting on women.

Not really, it depends on what you want to do. Certain characters work well in stories where there is no development like spongebob or tom and jerry.
If the story goes nowhere the characters doesn't need to change, problem is that public can get boring really fast.

Yeah.

Sometimes a character just having a goal is charming enough.

Isn't the point of a tragic character that they don't change?

>If the story goes nowhere the characters doesn't need to change, problem is that public can get boring really fast.
If this happens, a common mistake many writers tend to do is to add more characters to waste people's time. Sure, having more interesting casts may be interesting at first, but it will become boring and frustrating eventually.

No, but it is for an interesting story.

One thing I think you definitely shouldn't do is have the characters appear to learn lessons and develop but go right back to the start net episode, especially if it's the same development every time

It's more that they aren't able to realize that they are changing. MacBeth probably thought he was the hero up until he was facing MacDuff. Judge Frollo though he was a good person even as he decided to burn people alive. Bellephon thought he was worthy of ascending Olympus until the gods struck him down.

no, but it is how to make the best characters

I'm with you. I don't like character development

Doomguy is the best

>That usually requires an interactive medium, though.

Maybe, but not always.
One of the biggest things I loved about nudoom was how there was actually a story, and how there were characters with their own motivations and development, and that you can see it both in how they act and in how they are recorded in the codex.... meanwhile Doomguy couldn't give two shits about any of it. He's just here to rip and tear and that's fucking it.

>Fuck off with that drama about you and your former pupil. Fuck off with your Argent energy crisis. I've got a job to do, faggot.

I can see that kind of perspective working in a book or even an animated medium: where there's a story going on, but it's all being viewed by the person who least cares about it

How do you make a character undefeatable in the fantasy/science fiction/superhero genres? Literally the only science fiction novels where the good guys don't win are dystopian novels like 1984, and YA dystopias like Hunger Games don't have endings like that. In superhero comics, every single hero is comercially licensed to exist forever. Even newer superheroes like the Runaways are being brought back from the dead already.

Question: What if the characters do change but for the worst? Would there still be criticism?

Well yeah. Heroes becoming villains is a thing. It just has to be done well, like all character development.

Are there any characters who you consider to be entertaining both pre and post development?

You're asking the wrong question, IMO.

Tell a good story. Characters are an element of a good story -- or they might not be. But if you *do* have characters, they should be used well. Does that mean they need to be well-developed and go through changes? Not necessarily: it depends on how it affects the story, which matters more.

To sort of reference OP's picture, I think American comics suffer from too much character development (almost exactly like says) because they generally don't have the freedom/desire/time to tell truly interesting stories, and so they focus on character development as the sole means of doing interesting things (because their action is also usually not terribly interesting, either).

What's an example of character development done well? I'm not being facetious, genuinely curious.

Not really no. Though a lot of the time its what drives the story; so a lack of character development doesn't make a bad character but it generally makes a bad story.

Absolutely not. Don't listen to internet aspies. You need to show the character reacting to the environment/society or the society/environment reacting to the character. "Character development" is completely unnecessary and actively harmful if shoehorned in.

That's not what character development is.

Development in and of itself relates to how the character changes over time in response to events. I'll give a quick example, using 's question.

>Bill is a good man
>Friendly, Kind, optimistic, thinks the best of people
>One day something horrible happens to Bill
>Years later, he is rude, pessimistic, and thinks very lowly of others

Now, what would make Bill's story a good one?

>First, we need to see him being good, so we have a backdrop, This provides contrast to what he'll eventually become, and so when we see him being bad, we'll remember him being good and go "aww man...."
>Second,, we need to know what happened to him that changed him. It can't be basic and trivial. Bill becoming an asshole because he stubbed his toe is bad storytelling. Bill becoming an asshole because he lost his wife in a gang shooting? Now we're getting somewhere.
>Third, this event needs to have some form of staying power. It can't just happen and not be mentioned again. It needs time to stew in our minds when it happens, and it needs to leave marks in the world we're observing, Maybe like Bill waking up and looking a t a picture of his wife. Keep those moments short, mind you, but do put them in there, and with appropriate timing.
>Fourth (and hopefully you haven't starting writing yet), make sure his story has a purpose. How does Bill's new attitude affect the world around him? How does it affect other characters and their roles in the story. Let's say Bill's not the main character, but Tom is. Tom doesn't like how grumpy Bill is and he doesn't understand Bill's jadedness, but when he sees that picture of him and a lady with a wedding band under it? uh oh...


It's not really rocket science. You just have to think of what happened to the character and how it affects them and the world around them as a result.

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RhetoricalQuestionBlunder

Superman and Goku have had small development but retained their core character. They don't all have to do a 180 and become nephew killing psychopaths like Luke Skywalker for "development"

That's not a fair characterization for Luke, take that back.

Sorry "Sloth titty sucking coward", better?

Fuck you, don't act like you never drank cow milk.

>That usually requires an interactive medium, though.
Nah

Yes and No.

Making a good character doesn't explicitly require Character Development.

The idea is to create a character that clicks with us. Making him relatable and/or 3Dimensional, which usually involves character development, is an attempt to make said character more human.

That being said, it's not necessary. Side Characters can become the best characters in their shows because they either act as fools to other characters or their purpose in the plot gives them more freedom than the main character, who always has to face trials and tribulations thus needs character development more to feel real.

Characters can be immortalized by just being entertaining, tho.

*Foils to other characters

The idea that the main character needs to change is overblown. In Jack Reacher, Reacher never goes through an arc, but the character o Helen Rodin does. Some stories usually suit a static character simply solving a problem, another example being James Bond.

Character development doesn't involve development in the present, though. Side characters in stories are often fleshed out and given development through their past experiences, which is just as much development as what the MC experiences going through the main plot.

A good character explicitly requires character development because it gives them motive and reason. You can't plop down a character then never elaborate on their past or their aspirations. Even entertaining characters have a reason for why they act the way they do.

That was one of my problems with the show. I wanted a Frank who was fully in his identity, but oh well. The show was alright, but the storytelling was something that wasn't up my alley.

One of my favorite Sup Forums examples is Zuko in Avatar: The Last Air Bender

Nothing is objectively needed for a good character and only genre fiction babies will say otherwise.

>one of the best American television villains, period
>barely a character

I really need to finish the new one, but I haven't read anything so I'm afraid it's going to get really bad.

He said character development done well. Not dragged out over multiple seasons with lame excuses shoved into the story.

>Character development doesn't involve development in the present, though. Side characters in stories are often fleshed out and given development through their past experiences, which is just as much development as what the MC experiences going through the main plot.
Not necessarily.

Some characters don't need to extropolate some backstory that explain how they grew as a person.

Some characters can just act as foils or work as setting stones for the plot or other characters.

He had zero character development for 4 seasons and we loved him.

Man. Fuck Rian Johson and that Kenedy bitch.

Oh, great. Here come those faggots as if this thread wasn't shit enough.

You gotta counterexample bucko?

>Character development doesn't involve development in the present, though.
I never even implied it to be the case.
>Even entertaining characters have a reason for why they act the way they do.
Having a backstory or a motivation doesn't mean you're getting character development

Ariel from The Little Mermaid had little character development, yet she was still a fleshed out character that reeked of personality, even when she couldn't talk at all.

yes, just look at how terribly the dc movies are doing compared to marvel

Can you describe what an objectively good character is without subjective terms?

No, but strong characterization is required. Giving your character a well-defined goal and strong personality is enough to make them iconic.

It's not necessary but if character does develop but something happens to regress it(i.e OMD aka the 2nd worst thing to ever happen to Marvel) then the character becomes fucked.

I want to fuck it regardless of gender.

Aang, you dumbass. Though someone else already put it better than I probably could...

>Aang actually develops quite a bit over the series in terms of honoring his word, just as Zuko learns about being truly honorable. First episode (does not honestly intend to go back to the Fire Nation with Zuko):

>Aang: If I go with you, will you promise to leave everyone alone?

>Zuko: *nods*

>Aang: *escapes two minutes later*

>End of Season 1 (honest intent, but has trouble following through due to lack of self-discipline):

>Aang: I wasn’t there when the Fire Nation attacked my people. I’m going to make a difference this time.

>*later that same episode*

>Aang: I can’t do it.

>End of Season 2 (honest intent, follows through almost to the end, stops but then realizes error, error is corrected too late):

>Aang *realizes he has to let Katara go*: I’m sorry, Katara. *enters Avatar State*

>*lightninged*

>Middle of Season 3 (honest intent, follows all the way through, actually has to be dragged away):

>Aang: *is ready to face the Fire Lord, goes all the way to the palace only to find no one*

>Aang: Fire Lord Ozai, where are you?

I cut out a bunch of dialogue from the last one but you probably get the point, if not see the original post at araeph.tumblr.com/post/142449808335/you-know-how-in-the-first-couple-of-episodes-zuko

Aang does get a done of good development. He goes from literally just a kid to a confident, powerful leader.

>Is character development really necessary to create an objectively good character?
No, characters can be interesting and have a depth while remaining static, it only becomes an issue in never ending works when the characters has every reason to develop but they don't.

>Which is developing their character.
No, that's fleshing out their character, development implies change.

yes

i can't just slap titanic sized tits on a female character and expect her to coast without backstory!

Reminder people THESE are the types of underage mentally challenged faggots that defend shity movies and shows from Marvel & DC. And never read comics.

And furthermore, why is Deus ex machina bad? It was a perfectly legitimate writing technique for hundreds of years!
Now suddenly everyone turns their noses to it.

Joke's on you, I don't watch capeshit movies OR read cape comics. I do watch cape cartoons, but mainly just the older ones.

Sup Forums, this aspiring writer needs some advice. How can I write character development without having the character do a 180 in personality?

Have them do a 90 instead.