You didn't change over the course of this video...BAD.

fringy not posting for almost a year then casually comes back like its just another day in the office.

Gandalf. The most dynamic character in history. Evolving from a shy, disrespectful Hobbit to an all powerful and righteous god. Wait, that's not how it happens..

Basically all characters in Cowboy Bebop are static. They all have had their history and growth through it prior to the story, and the show focus on how those grown characters bounce on one another or is challenged. It's one of the most beloved anime out there for many good reasons, one being, surprise surprise, the fun characters.

Character development is merely one of many tools for a writer to use in a given story. A character can be dynamic or static just like real life.

I think when you said "good characters must be dynamic" even before you started to repute this opinion, my first thought was "Batman". Bruce Wayne is not gonna change in most Batman stories, he has a set of defined values and won't re-evaluate them... but his stories are still often great and entertaining.

Rorschach from Watchmen is another good example of having a static character being a good character, Rorschach being static serves to the story and makes him a character who refuses to change and compromise.

Superman is a pretty good character that doesn't need to be changed all that much: He was raised right by good people with strong morals and uses his powers for the good of mankind. Superman VS The Elite is a great film also to show that the internal debate on whether what hes doing is right or not (Basically why he doesn't kill) without forcing him to go through character development was amazing.

Hey, stop fat-shaming the universe! He may have gained some volume, but he's no heavier than he was before. A healthy universe is curved.

I agree. In some stories it's perfectly fine if a character doesn't really change. It depends on what kind of story you're telling and in some cases a character changing can feel misplaced or even contradictory. There are also cases, like you said, where it's not necessary because the focus of the story isn't the characters changing but instead the world around them changing.

Yes, he be back

Blessed Wolf will be so happy to see Fringy upload a video..... and yes he says the word we are all waiting for at 1:32

Welcome back, Kotter. Character development is overrated only when those characters and their potential are wasted and no longer contribute to the story, like a bunch of stupid characters from Steven Universe. A lot of them were one-episode characters despite the creators saying, "no characters only have one-episode" which turned out to be a big fat lie.

It's been so long.

Blessed Froggold

Good Point. There are lot of good stories with static characters. Goblin Slayer is one. The protag, doesn't change in his convictions.

NOUGHHH

I'm doin just fine; thanks for askin. As far as my size is concerned, I'm at the point in my life where I've come to accept that I'm just gonna get bigger and bigger until the light inside me slowly fades. Time makes fools of us all, I suppose. Great video, btw.

The Return of The King.

Interesting topic, good to have you back! My two cents would be that character development should happen only if it makes sense in the context of the story. Some characters may be young or inexperienced and more ripe to change. Some characters might've already had their developement prior to the beginning and their worldview is rigid. Honestly, there's propably no single thing that every story must do to be good. Best a writer can do is weave the story moment by moment, steering the characters towards interesting situations, but ultimately allowing those characters to act and think in a manner that makes the most sense for them. I've found that development comes naturally if it ought to come, almost by accident. At least that's the way I write.

1:32 HE DID THE THING

I was just watching your old reviews yesterday. Glad to see you're back. As for characters, Cartman is one of my favourites and I don't believe he changed much over the many seasons he's been around. I find a lot of the time the small changes, or even the characters learning from their original faults suddenly made them boring because it's like the writers didn't know what to do with them anymore. Right now I can only think of Steven Universe with the original gems where they felt more toony and emotional at the beginning. They constantly aired their old grievances and reacted in different ways to all the new shit that came their way. However, when I got up to season 4 episode something, they suddenly felt like background characters as they became more grounded, and I didn't look forward to seeing them anymore.

You make compelling points so I am inclined to agree with your stance. Well done.

Holy cow this was a surprise! Loved this video Fringy! Can't wait to see more from you.

Looong have I waited...

OMG THE FROG UPLOADED

Another example Id use is Back to the Future (1985), specifically Marty McFly.

i had waited for years for a video from fringy

Yay! You're back! I love your videos!

This is something that i've come to learn in recent years. It's fascinating because i thought the opposite for so long despite seeing so many films with static main characters. A friend just showed me the movie Snatch, which is almost exclusively filled with static characters and it's a fantastic film.

I've never seen "character development" as synonymous with "character change". I've always seen it as the story's development of this character. Like how a picture slowly forms and develops over the course of putting together a jigsaw puzzle. The picture is technically unchanging and static, but you just haven't seen all that it has to offer and all that there is. And that's often what I believe can make static characters compelling. Just watching them "unfold" and how they react in the heat of the moment. What informed their decisions was never something they changed to and was always inherent to their character. You just didn't know it was there until it was developed enough for it to be on screen.

Nice video Fringy, always a pleasure to see new content from you. And I think that's a valid point to put out there; it's just so spoon-fed that a character has to change or have an arc of development, that questioning whether that's true or not is something not a lot of people (in the bigger picture of storytelling) seem to discuss or question. And nough, I'm not gonna make a joke about you saying-...SHIT!

Oh my god, Fringy posted a video!!!

See, this is why people should have Avatar the Last Airbender in their lives. You can always refer to it for pretty much anything when it comes to storytelling. In this case, one word: Toph.

Welcome back Fringy!! ps. NOUGH!

The dollars trilogy is a solid example of a character that doesn't change, but we as the audience know more about him because of the story of the movies.

I Hadn't watched your chanel before, but this is good! Keep 'er goin'!

I would bring up that there's the second interpretation of character development, which is something along the lines of simply providing the information that informs the character's actions and motivations, as well as giving perspective on more facets of a character. I do think you absolutely need character development, but more because there's more to it than just change, and its almost impossible not to have character development to some extent.

Hoollllyyy crap... Where the f have you been matey... Glad to have you back.

Welcome back mate also what happen to your buzzfeed video I miss that

Wough, Fringy uploaded? I enjoyed this video, it really made me laugh. Come on EFAP again soon! We miss you.

There are stories that don’t have character development like Rogue One, Halo Reach,Halo Combat evolved,and many other stories. And the specific examples I gave are still good stories. As long as they personally and some character traits, I would say they are still good characters.

My fellow Australians. Listen again to our legend Of the Frogald!

A good example of a static character is quark from deep space 9, he goes through many adventures and hardships and never really “develops” in the usual sense, what develops is the audience’s understanding of him and what he believes.

Fringy uploaded a video? 2020 just keeps getting crazier.

Fringy uploading a new video? Maybe 2020 hasn't gone to complete hell after all.

Just because a character doesn't develop that much doesn't mean they're bad. The best example of this is Toph Beifong from ATLA, barely receives that much development but still widely loved

Noooаu way, you're posting a video. Exciting stuff.

One of my favorite examples of this is David Thewlis's character in the movie Naked

Welcome back

Finally, Fringy is bloody back!

You've been gone longer than maluers entire videos watch time

NOUGH WAY, HE'S BACK?! pog

Great work.

Great to see a new video😁😁❤👍 but Efap needs you😜

This is actually something that I've had festering in the back of my head for a while. Thanks for articulating it pretty eloquently.

YES! The king is back! 😁

"Life is a comedy" oh Fringy you Joker you

I think the main point is that writers need to stop thinking there's some end-all-be-all design philosophy to guarantee a good character/ story. So much discussion among potential writers these days is dominated by figuring out how to adhere to some made-up rule that's really more of a general guideline to be used alongside a dozen others. It's how we get writers who think shocking the audience is always good, even if its an entirely unpleasant, outright offensive, and utterly nonsensical shock (such as, "Luke is a cowardly hermit now!"). It's how we get writers who think flawed characters are always good, even if they remain completely unlikable and morally repugnant for the whole story (such as, well, almost the entire cast of TLOU2). I've spent a lot of time in fantasy writing circles, and everyone was singularly focused on avoiding similarities to tolkien and middle-earth, which I've slowly come to see as utterly baffling; LOTR revolutionized fantasy as a genre and some 80yrs later is still running laps around even the best of modern fiction... maybe it's not automatically a good idea to just ignore it outright? Surely a little inspiration from tolkien isn't the end of the world? The cold, hard truth is that the proper application of all these writing "rules" is always going to depend on the specific story. Because that's really hard to do, most people seem to drift into one of two extremes: adopting one or more rules as a functional commandment governing the whole story, or convincing themselves that there are no rules and everything is "subjective". Both strategies are recipes for failure; rigidly applying these guidelines to stories/ characters that don't work well with them will likely result in a story that seems confused and unfocused, just as attempting to craft a story with no guiding principles at all will likely result in a confusing, self-indulgent mess, as the writer naturally defaults to whatever they personally like in the absence of any external guidance. There's all kinds of reasons to have a character, and all kinds of things you can do with them. Having them develop over a the course of a story is a good place to start because that fits in with the monomyth formula that seems to work all throughout history all over the world, but that's hardly the limit. You can have characters that are interesting precisely because they don't change, but their environment/ circumstances do, and the drama comes from seeing how that character will react in a new situation. One of my favorite book series is the Flashman novels: these are historical novels where 90% of the fun is in taking the main character (an unchanging coward, cheat, racist, lustful deviant and one-time struggle snuggler) and seeing how on earth he'll handle a particular historically-significant event or location, such as being in custer's charge or drawn into one of otto von bismark's political schemes. This works because the writing is absolutely brilliant in regards to putting Flashman in situations interesting to him specifically and coming up with creative and hilarious ways for him to navigate them. I think we can really cut right through the BS and just say, "there's no magic formula to make writing good stories anything but a pain in the ass, embrace the suck or GTFO".

Finally, Fringy’s annual video is here

So he isn't just an imaginary character mauler brings on when needed... the legends were true.

Welcome Back Firingodius Froglodyde! Does this video indicate more videos on your channel in the near future? If nough then can your videos be at only 8 months apart for now?

So is that all were gonna get until like 2022? I'm ok with that I'm just asking out of curiosity.

Welcome back fringold.

Holy shit its fringy!

Frongold just dropping a video with 0 warning, bless

HES BACK BABY

Yes! You are still alive!

I've come up with a number of different rewrites for certain superhero and Star Wars films. In the process, I've learned that--in both big and microscopic ways--characters are almost constantly changing. Then again, this is technically only because of the state of constant evolution of the world around them. Even if the main character is still occasionally shocked or surprised by what the universe throws at him, I don't feel it's necessary to have him changed significantly by the end of the story. Rather, I feel it's more important to show how what he says and does throughout the journey makes perfect sense for a man in his position. Of course, it also helps a great deal to just have a main character that's genuinely interesting and fun to follow to begin with. Batman in his Animated Series comes to mind; he goes through a LOT of messed up stuff in that show and has his own unique reactions to all of it, emotional or otherwise. No matter what, though, he's always Batman and he never really changes. And I'm fine with that.

I say less character development is less overrated and more misunderstood. People seem to have the misconception that character development is a main character learning a life lesson and growing as a person, but that simply isn't true. Look at characters like Batman, James Bond, Sherlock Holmes and Superman, neither of those characters really change throughout the course of their story, but they are still well loved characters. Character development is really how well realised and ranged a character is in their personality, like a characters actions can tell you a lot about them as a person or how they contrast with a supporting character and especially the villain.

HE RETURNS!

Character development doesn't mean changing, it means fleshing them out. You can develop a static character, like Goku or Superman, by lending the audience a window into their personality, morals, values, and desires. I agree, though, that there's something of a fixation on a dynamic arc; to witness the world shaping the individual rather than to watch an individual shape the world.

This is like waking up inside of the coffin

See you next year. Great video tho.

I'm sure there are plenty of side static character examples which can be found in stories, but I guess when it comes to the main character then it's a different story and would be something intered to explore.

Finally

Fringy uploaded? Is it April 1st already again?

RETURN OF THE KING

Frog man is back!!!!!!!

Well well well Mr Fringy, did you just say you don't nough?

If I’m not wrong, I think one of the good examples of statistic characters are from Berserk. In that anime, there is Griffith’s crew which he sacrificed for his desires with Guts, Caska, Judeau etc. But I will especially be talking about Judeau. He’s a good side character that has a goal and a past which didn’t mean to change. In one episode, he has told that he used to be a thief or something and didn’t really had something to do with his life, until Griffith took him and slightly changed the plot. I just think that he just helped the main character (Guts) to socialize with his friends when he was first recruited and it’s something to not be criticized. Good characters (especially side characters) should just have a goal but it’s not necessary to change them. (And I’m sorry for my bad english, it’s still hard for me to form sentences)

What took you so long Frogman?!

Vic Mackey from The Shield is a perfect example of a static character that doesn't need to change. He was entertaining to watch throughout the entire 7 seasons of the show.

Some one from before the disaster struck have been revived?

Comic Books are great examples of static characters in plots making good narratives. They have fun stories that revolve around a number of characters and might develop one of them. The war of jokes and Riddles is a great example, Joker has a gang of super villains and so does the riddler, Kiteman (hell yeah) is stuck between the two and he is developed as a terrible robber who had his kid killed in the conflict. A forgettable joke of a character is developed into a sympathetic villain that doesn't give up on robbery even though it probably isn't the best for him. Although this character develops the cover characters Batman, Joker, Riddler they don't change and if all of them did you'd have a modern Marvel comic where they all die and turn into black, trans, super geniuses, that loooove selfies.

Excellent, and I agree!

this video made me think of a clockwork orange. alex is forced to change, bringing about a unique form of character development in which he really has no say over. in the end, has he really changed? and was it better for him to have changed unwillingly or to have willingly stayed the same? i think the movie could argue your point in that sometimes a forced change (in writing) can be so unnatural and illogical that it breaks all sense of immersion for myself and many others. its a shame many writers steer characters into inconsistent actions for the sake of this sort of "character development". sorry to beat a dead horse, but luke in the last jedi feels as if he was taken captive and forced into the character he was in that movie, although this time there is no irony and it isnt some sort of philosophical question. its just used in a cheap attempt to capitalize on emotions of the uninvolved narrative-coasters in the audience. i feel that some writers think a character has to change and a lot of consumers just go with it, perpetuating this assumption.

1:33 - "Nough"

Bubsy and even Sonic seem to be right up your alley nowadays lol

Lovecraft wrote many great stories where the characters changed very little and aren't very defined. Pickman's Model, for instance, has a grand total of two characters -- the first-person narrator/protagonist and Pickman, and the protagonist's change is "I didn't know all this shit, now I do and I'm afraid of Pickman and subways". The only way characters change in The Dunwich Horror is that several of them die, and even the guy who actually investigates what's going on already understands what's up because he's well-versed in the Necronomicon already so nothing he discovers is a surprise to him. So yeah you can absolutely have great stories with very static characters, and depending on the story they don't even need to be terribly well-defined, just enough for the plot to work -- they can be simple static archetypes.

A character arc where the character doesn't change is called a Flat Character Arc. I can't be assed to go and look up more, but the gist of it is that unlike characters that either develop into better people, such as young protags like Frodo, Naruto, and others - or regress into worse people, like Zamasu from Dragon Ball Super, or Loki from the first Thor, a Flat Character would be more like Gandalf. Or Goku, also from Dragon Ball. Both are characters that are immensely important to the plot in which they reside, but don't change or grow beyond the superficial. They don't have to, because they don't have any misconceptions or falsehoods about themselves or the world that hold them back. Instead of changing themselves, a Flat Character will usually change the world and people around them. Gandalf mentoring Bilbo and Frodo, and guiding the Fellowship; or Goku and the countless people he befriends and just sort of picks up in his wake, inspiring them to improve themselves in the same way he seeks to improve himself.

I personally don't care for character development at all. But great to have you back.

I agree. Many characters need change but others do not. For example, Sandman. I've heard the audible version and it was very good. Sandman doesn't really change over time. He reacts and adapts to situations but he doesn't grow. He doesn't change. He just is.

Holyfuck! Fring Daddy G uploaded?!?!

Static characters are great in drama stories. I haven't laughed so hard since I've seen Batwoman.

I feel like there are 2 types of characters, completed characters and developing characters, some characters have just... been through their share of hardships and solidified their views of the world and cannot be budged because even if their worldview has faults, they have their reasons for even accepting those faults

Somehow - even with me half paying attention to this video - this all makes sense to me.

Frogald Croak is back!

the Simpsons (and similar) are like the comedy de arte. More or less established personnae are rolled out on ever changing sinarios, to see how the characters react, the play is done and the cast resets.

I think there's plenty of good stories where the character being static very much plays into that. Usually it's done in the form of the antagonists constantly finding ways to destroy the protagonists values e.g. batman and joker. You could possibly argue this is a development of it's own as the character renews their ideals and builds them higher. By the same token you could definitely write a plotline where Batman does end up abandoning said values, which isn't inherently bad either as long as it's done right. This all segways into my next point that I think development tends to be a symptom of a good story as opposed to an element and so the correlation emerges. If something good is happening in your story odds are it will have impact on the character in some fashion. How they respond is up to the writer. Whether it makes sense is then in the audience's hands.