Prince Zuko from the TV show version of Avatar: The Last Airbender. Strong positive character arc. Best redemption story I’ve seen portrayed on screen.

I know only one main flat character. He's Forrest Gump. He doesn't change himself entire film. But he's simply clear mind changes the world he lives, change us, "normals".

I would argue that a Flat Arc is good when it is challenged. A flat arc with no challenge is just a character existing in the space. Leia's strength is challenged through escalating events in Star Wars. Gandalf's power and wisdom is challenged from solving a mystery to standing against a demi-god. Sam's loyalty even is challenged as Frodo faces greater threats and Sam does NOT have to go along, especially in the finale when he tries to get to the boat despite not being able to swim.

Neville Longbottom from Harry Potter : Clumsy and forgetful kid at the beginning Stands up (unsuccesfully) to the trio at the end of Philosopher's Stone Emboldened to stand up to Bellatrix in the Order of the Phoenix Leads Dumbledore Army with Albus dead and Harry absent, to eventually kill the last horcrux of Voldemort in a badass moment in the Deathly Hallows

Part of Boromir's tragedy is that he is the "wrong brother, in the wrong place". He is sent to the meeting at Rivendale by his father. Faramir should be the one who went, as he is the diplomatic one, while Boromir should be leading the troops. It's also an early indicator that Denethor is not a capable leader and decision maker.

Actually, C-3PO does change over the course of the Trilogy. In Episode IV, he says, "I'm not very good at telling stories-well, not at making them interesting anyway," but by Episode VI he keeps the Ewoks enthralled wit his storytelling.

I’m not sure if I would say Boromir has a negative arc. I’m not a writer or anything, but I’m a huge LotR fan and Boromir is my favorite character. After he sacrifices himself he admits to trying to take the ring and apologizes. He then admits to Aragorn being his true king. I could see his arc being Positive, flat, or negative depending on how you look at it. Arrogant to modest, stays honorable, or what you said. Maybe all three at once.

10:57 The actual moment of Merry, and particularly Pippen's arc coming to completion is before they fight the Uruk-hais with Boromir. It's the moment both of them understand that Frodo's quest needs to continue without the Fellowship and they selflessly create the diversion for his escape. They don't know Boromir will come to fight with them, but they acknowledge that they have an important roll for the greater quest to continue, even if it means they may come to harm.

The huge amount of character in Lotr is probably one of the reasons it's so beloved. It's rare in a film with so many characters that I like them all.

The gatekeeper of Bree had a flat arc - first he questions the Nazgul, then gets flattened by them 😄

I would argue that c-3po and r2d2 definitely have character arcs. R2D2 is noticing sad that “Luke doesn’t like him” and that C-3PO says “I don’t like you either.” Then at the end, Luke noticeably cares saying “we’ve been through a lot together.” Like Han, R2D2 sort of shifts it’s responsibilities, from “the mission” to “his friends” it’s slight because those goals overlap so much.

I was about to make a "one does not simply..." comment. But, once again, you have beat me to it, Brandon. You're on fire.

3:30 Thats how the classical genre of tragedy works. A hero has a "fatal flaw" that dooms him to fail no matter what. Escaping fate will only lead to it catching up in most ironic ways. Stories from Achilles, Heracles, and Oedipus, to Hamlet, Heathcliff, any Byronic hero etc. show them as hopeless from the start.

Flat character arcs are my favorite when done right, partly because they are hardest to do. This tends to work best when good people are in really bad situations and for them to change would mean them changing for the worse.

You touched on the biggies in the video. Gimli/Legolas is a great arc as mistrust turns into friendship. From Aliens, Ripley is a strong character but shattered from the events in the first film. We see her regain confidence and become greater as her conflict is more often with the humans around her. She knows what to do and others need to get out if her way.

Boromir succumbed to fear, not to arrogance. The moments when he showed arrogance was actually due to his underlying fear and insecurity regarding his station as the son of a Steward, and not the rightful heir to Gondor. Moreover, his fear of loss, of losing Gondor, losing his father’s respect, is what leads the ring to tempt him so strongly. His story arc is a warning against allowing fear to guide your decisions and emotions. He overcomes his fear in the end, after overcoming a terrible fall, and is able to defend the hobbits and accept Aragorn as the rightful king.

One of my favorite character arcs is Gerard from The Fugitive. He starts out "not caring" that Kimble is innocent, to actually believing he is and assisting him in capturing the real guilty party. He even uncuffs him in the squad car in the end.😊😂

Great video although I would argue Aragorn is as much of a main character as Frodo. I consider LOTR to be a Dual Protagonist story.

One of my favorite side character arcs is Dot in the TV show, Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries (set in the 1920s). She starts out as a timid, fearful house maid who is petrified of the telephone and believes electricity running thru wires will blow up the world. She's also a deeply faithful Catholic. Miss Fisher takes her on as a Lady's Companion and soon Dot is thrown into a world of murder mysteries, guns, knives, dancing, being kidnapped, going undercover, falling in love, and making daily phone calls! At the end of the series she has found her inner strength and taken on all the better qualities of a modern woman. Absolutely delightful! If you've never watched the show, I HIGHLY recommend it. Dot is just one of the many deeply layered characters amid beautifully crafted intersecting character arcs! (And the wardrobes are incredible, too!)

I think maybe Flat Arcs need further disambiguation. I feel like there's a difference between a character who has a strong trait, that trait is challenged, and the character successfully meets that challenge and ends the story intact (like Sam) vs a character who isn't really challenged and whose actions only serve to affect others

I'm rewatching Game of Thrones and it reminds me of how many side characters have so many incredible arcs. It's an absolute clinic on character development.... until that last season. 💩

Boromir has a fallen arc, that he redeems with his selfless sacrifice. I wouldn't call that negative either. He was actually strong for finally being able to pull himself free from the ring's influence. BTW,, I wouldn't call Aragorn a side character. He has a grand story and adventure of his own; so I'd call him a deuteragonist instead. Still, some pretty interesting takes to hear.

I just recently watch Breaking Bad and better call Saul for the first time . I’d love how better call Saul took the side characters Mike and Saul and made them main characters in their own show. Seeing Jimmy’s name change with his negative and positive character arcs.

Theme for the first LoTR movie is much more about corruption and the power of friendship/loyalty. Boromir's sacrifice and redemption, Aragorn's speach and Sam's actions in the very end of the movie are basically the authors telling us what we should remember of the story. I'd argue the LoTR arcs are also more about all three movies than just the first. In the first movie alone, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli would have a flat arc, they don't develop their main arc (yet). Aragorn is a good leader from start to finish (leading the hobbits - > leading the fellowship). The one small positive arc we could give Aragorn is about learning to "let go", that you can't control/save everything/everyone. Growth happens 1-when Arwen takes frodo, 2- when Gandalf pushes him away in moria, and he embraces it when he lets Sam and Frodo go. Legolas and Gimli are both still adversarial (Gimli's words in the Lorien) and only start changing in Two Towers; in fellowship, we could say they represent loyalty and the overcoming of differences for the greater good, which serves as contrast with Boromir.

Marisa Tomei was about the best supporting actress for her award winning role in my cousin Vinny. Thinking, I couldn’t find any Arch. Her function is to help Vinny find his arch. Her character is hardly flat, but she remains consistent throughout. She mainly goes back-and-forth between being supportive to her man and being firmly resolved to the point of demanding. In the beginning she demands Vinny to take her serious when she yells at him not to shoot a deer or when she yells at him for not knowing what his own law books contain. Then in the end she tries to be supportive again until Vinny makes her angry and she demands to be taken seriously by Vinny and the prosecuting attorney who tries to dupe her. Then when she realizes that Vinny is finally taking her seriously, and giving her respect, she becomes supportive again. And throughout she has that sassy repartee that makes you love her.

I noticed that sometimes even protagonists can have a flat arc. I always take as example WIlliam Wallace in "Braveheart", because he doesn't have really an arc: he's defined by his fearlessness to the point of senselessness and this is what he is at the end. WHat he does though is acting as a catalyst for side characters' arc, mainly Robert Bruce and the princess Isabelle, the ones who will continue his legacy, one by fighting English and conquering independece for Scotland, the other giving birth to his son and (probably) killing the legitimate heir of England's throne.

Also, something I would like to add is that the best character arcs combine both positive and negative growths at some point. Catra from the She Ra Animated Series, has a negative growth for most of the show until she finally reaches a redemption arc at the very last season. It is, of course, riskier, as it could make your character feel inconsistent, but makes it look far more human.

That was very interesting, thank you. I indeed never thought too much about side characters; I just wrote them, and I thought it worked. But now I see how important it is to give them a structure, and think about them for a moment to make them more interesting, and even have them consciously contribute to the story. It's also interesting to see the different types, and how they interact with each other. My problem with this though is that the main character of one of my book projects doesn't actually have a real "flaw" that's defining him or his life at the beginning of the story. He's actually content with his life, and then meets his love interest. He is actually irritated about these new feelings that are disrupting his peaceful life, and he only later realises that being in love does him good, that, because of a bad experience in his teens, he has suppressed the wish to have a relationship up to the point of always telling himself he's fine with the life he leads, he doesn't need anyone. I've read so many tips on writing your character, and they all state that your main character *needs* a problem or a motivation etc. at the beginning, and that it's bad if they don't, that it does make your character uninteresting to the readers. I'd be interested in your opinion in this (or anybody's opinion here) because I don't think it's a bad thing if a main character doesn't want change at the beginning of the story like Luke does, for example. I suppose my character's a bit like Frodo since Frodo (and Bilbo even more) doesn't want change at the beginning, but has to accept it eventually. So, I suppose he's a flat character at the beginning who changes to positive somewhere along the way. I feel really reassured now because, as I said, I only ever read that there needs to be a motivation at the beginning. You showed me that it seems to be fine to even have a main character that has a flat arc at the beginning (and anyway; writing a conflict or motivation for your character is so much easier with fantasy or science fiction or other action-laden stories; there I could think of tons of motivations, but in a relatively tranquil, realistic setting and plot... definitely more difficult)

Granted, calling him a "side" character is a bit of a stretch, but Dinobot from Beast Wars has one of the best side character arcs of all time. His struggle to mesh his Predacon values with the values of his Maximal allies, how he befriends Rattrap, how he and Optimus simultaneously greatly respect one another despite their clashing core values, his existential crisis when he learns his actions may be pre-ordained and his destiny already set, his temptation to return to Megatron's side, and his ultimate sacrifice.

I would argue that Boromir has more of a positive arc. I mean his arc does go down during the story, that is until the end when he redeems himself. At the end he recognizes he was wrong and fights for his friends until he is defeated. Then before he dies he apologizes and respectfully calls Arrogorn his king (which he would never have done before this scene) But in any case, all the other examples were great! Lol. I've been looking for inspiration on how to improve my side character's arcs so this was helpful.

R2D2 was worth mentioning :) Negative arc as he was in bit of denial and them amnesia. Badass all the way though!

I like a lot of side characters better than the main ones, so it's pretty hard to answer that question ^^' But about Aragorn, I always considered him to be a second main character rather than a side character. He has a strongly developed arc, follows his own plot line, that intertwines with Frodo's and has a full blown resolution in the end. And Boromir's arc is more of a positive one, that's what makes him tragic. He showed the capability of change right before he dies. Tragedy mimics a negative arc by cutting off a positive one right at the turning point.

For me, Merry and Pippin’s defining moment of change in Fellowship is when Merry realizes Frodo is leaving the fellowship. At first they recklessly get up to rush to Frodo, presumably to stop him from leaving, but in doing so they attract the attention of the Uruk-Hai. Seeing what they’ve done, they know if they make their way to Frodo they will inadvertently lead the Uruk-Hai to Frodo and to the Ring-so in a split second decision they decide to help Frodo by misdirecting the hoard over to them and leading them away from where Frodo is trying to get to, clearing the way for him, and they do it knowing it will lead to their deaths. In a flash, all three characters make hero-defining decisions-Frodo sacrifices himself by going at it alone, and Merry and Pippin sacrifice themselves to clear the way for Frodo. It marks a very sudden shift and it moves me every time.

This is an excellent video. Thank you for sharing it. I found your analysis really interesting and thought provoking. I think that there’s massive number of side characters with arcs and the first one that comes to mind for me is Hudson from Aliens. He starts out arrogant but a bit of a joke to the other marines, after they encounter the aliens in the reactor room he goes to pieces and needs to ordered to step up. Later in the film he finds his courage and loyalty and goes down fighting. Arguably his arc is circular where he starts out arrogant, has the confidence knocked out of him but reverts to his old ways and dies because he underestimates the xenophomorphs at the end. All these flaws make him an excellent character though.

Legitimately, my favorite side character is Boromir, both in the books and the movies. Even though he has a negative character arc. But, I think he redeems himself in the minutes leading up to his death.

For me the great payoff for a flat arc isn't that they change, but their trait, such as clumsiness, finally serves the story instead of hindering it. They (or others) learn to value what was dismissed or criticized. A great example - up to the Ewoks, Han always brushed off 3PO, but then he was forced to rely on him to get out of his scrape. 3PO doesn't change, but finally becomes valuable to the team.

Just stumbled upon this treasure trove of writing lessons! These are succinct and entertaining. Thank you so much for what you do.

Glad I came across your channel. I’ll be buying your books next paycheck.

Thank you for this video! I loved it.

These examples are so old. I imagine that today's movies are even better now! Also, I'm thinking Oedipus, Odysseus and Shylock as good examples.

Yeah, Actually I'm new to this channel and I'm latina so from where I am is normal that disney and nickelodeon make telenovelas (rom coms) and something that I really don't like is when the bad guy, bad girl only purpose is to being mean towards the main character, I want to know if has a family, how is relation, what are her/his goals in life and more dinamics between characters, it make the telenovela more rewatchable.

All your videos are very informative and have helped me get my comic book series off the ground! Really appreciate your insight! Keep it up!

Nice vid. Thank you

Awesome breakdown, man!

Fredo in The Godfather part II, favorite side character arc

Awesome! Thanks for this!

Doc Holiday in Tombstone, and his loyalty to Wyatt is perfect

This is a great video and it would also be really nice to look at the character arc development in some good TV series, as they have a much longer time to properly advance that. Mad Men would be a fantastic case to review for example.

Nice analysis. I think, however, that Boromir fatal flaw is hopelessness, not arrogance. He has been sent by his father as the last hope Gondor has. He is carrying that weight, and that is how he relates to Frodo in a contrasting way. An interesting conversation he has with Frodo is after Gandalf's death. He tells him not to put the weight of his death on himself. When he meets Galadriel, she tells him there is hope, but he doesn't believe. He doesn't believe in Aragorn, the man who would be king. His strength would be his compassion. He is, throughout the movie, the one who trains and play with the hobbits, who support Gimli in his grief, confort Frodo after Gandalf's death. And that compassion is what makes him sacrifice his life (remember, he is the last hope of Gondor!) For 2 hobbits that to someone else, would not be worth his life. He is my favorite character, ao I'm biaised, but I think he is the most important (or impactful) character in Fellowship of the Ring. He is the one that kickstart both main characters their respective arc. His treason of Frodo makes Frodo understand that he cannot relie on anyone else than himself, that the quest is his alone (Sam comes in after this realisation). Aragorn, at the start of the movie, lives with the elves and doesn't believe in himself, nor in the strength of men. He would not ask help from Gondor and doesn't want the crown. Boromir challenges him many times, most importantly after the meeting with Galadriel. When Boromir dies, he sees tthat with his death, Gondor will fall, but Aragorn promise him that he will do everything in his power to save "their people". And he goes on to save Rohan and Gondor and fulfilling his destiny. A long message, I hope some will powerread through it all😅

Awzum! I love character arcs! 😎👍

Another amazing video,Thankyou for helping me understand this better! How would you address a swap in character perspective? Say your main character does die near the end and perspective shifts to another main character? I have so many questions

One of my favorite side characters is Luc in Emily in Paris--he's always so qunpredictable and quirky, but philosophical and not often wrong. I think he slowly becomes more of a friend than a buddy. Good question :-) Thanks for this video.

As a novelist it'd be nice to see you reference books sometimes rather than only movies and TV shows

It is interesting how different the views of the Lord of the Rings characters are here. For example: Aragorn exists as a hunted man, the enemies of his linage want to exterminate him and he is in hiding under a false name. Elrond even talks to him in the movie trilogy about how the enemy fears him becoming King and spells it out plain as day. There is no self doubt involved with his name. Aragorn, being of elven descent is in his 80's and has had false names before, most notably in Gondor to my offhand recollection in the days of Dethenor's youth. Strider becomes the name of his house, but in another language in fact. One does not accomplish heroic deeds for decades in various realms and still have self doubt. The worry in Aragorn's case is one of a concern about how the war of the ring is going to end, victory or defeat for the free races of Middle Earth is about to be decided and he personally is going to play an important part in it. He fears not living up to his incredibly heroic ancestors, one of which was taken physically beyond the world and into the stars above after they saved the world from the real evil in Middle Earth. (Sauron was just the follower of the Big Baddie) Talk about Aragorn having something to live up to! He wisely refuses to take the ring as he believes it is not something anyone should claim. (learning from isildur's mistake) Not simply him refusing it, but that nobody can use the Ring of Power as it answers only to one master. (if it even answers 100% to Sauron) This is again not doubting himself at all. I dislike the label of a "fear/flaw/weakness" that is supposedly required for any/all well written characters. People go out of their way to find one, or interpret one even when it is not there. Characters need a journey, writers typically make the ending better than the starting for their characters because they are personally invested in them, so relatively the beginning is "less" than the ending. Rename it "newfound insight/strength/wisdom" that is gained instead and ditch the search for a negative starting point.

C-3PO has an arc in the first trilogy. In the “a new hope” Like asks him for stories of the resistance and 3po says that he isn’t good at telling stories or “making them interesting” anyway. But in “return of the jedi” he tells a story to the Ewoks with sound effects and they are enraptured.

In the original series of Lost in Space the Robot goes from basically an appliance that Dr Smith programs to kill the Robinson family to becoming the trusted guardian of the children (like a cross between Lassie and Uncle Charlie from My Three Sons) and Will Robinson's best friend. This happens through Will's interventions and at first the Robot calls him William Robinson all the time but eventually Will tell's him to call him Will and slowly his mannerisms become more nuanced to the point where Will thinks of him as the brother he never had. In the last episode ever filmed (it wasn't the last shown) the Robot is going to be melted down but his love for the Robinsons shields him from the flames (cheesy but significant) and he comes out scorched but unhurt.

Lord of the flies as I perceive it: Positive arc: Ralph (from indifferent to caring and responsible) Flat arc: Piggy (smart but whiny and socially awkward) Simon (maybe) (sensitive, loyal and shy) Negative arc: Jack (succumbs to lust for power and paranoia) Roger (succumbs to violence)

Wouldn't you say Obi wan's arc grows upward from being Jedi Master to being completly at one with the force growing more powerful than you can possibly imagine?

My favorite character arc is that of Mr. Kobayashi from The Usual Suspects. I'm not going to explain why. Just watch the film and enjoy the amazing performance of Pete Postlethwaite.

For me it's Christopher from Sopranos. His entire arc was to find understanding and meaning in his life. Near the end, he comes to the understanding that everyone in his life, especially his most beloved uncle Tony, doesn't care about him. Then he succumbs to the same addictions his father did and it endangers his life, and Tony takes the opportunity to kill him. That was his arc.

Please please please do a review of guardians 3 where you talk about plot and character development.

Samwise wasn't a side character in LotR, he was the main character.

For a side character arc you can't do better than Nynaeve from Wheel of Time. She is a type 1 personality and a natural born leader. Her problem is that she can't touch the source (i.e. use magic) unless she is angry. Her arc is how she learns to use magic at will. She learns that it's not being angry that lets her use magic, it's the fact that being incredibly angry is the only time she lets go of her control, and one can not touch the source without surrendering them self to it.

I could tell you’d read The Nutshell Technique. You practically quote it at some points.

This question is related to the arc. If you write a novel that has 82 thousand words, or 360-plus pages. To show a loser-turn-confident hero, how many pages, or words should be invested in showing his "loser" mis-adventures? I am talking before the main conflict materialize.

Gandalf doesn't have a flat arc. He transforms from Galdalf the Grey to Gandalf the White. He starts out limited by his sense of his place in a cosmic order. He discovers he can power up and transcend it.

my actual favorite side character is kazuma from an anime called kemonozume. he has a negative arc in which he succumbs to his arrogance and end up dying miserably, the theme of the anime is something in the lines of having self-control and putting your own interior demons under said control... well, he failed...

Col. Mustang from full metal alchemist. His arc could be considered flat or negative. He became vengeful, and stays vengeful for a long time, and after he gets his revenge, he didn't regret the deed. It's satisfying since the show didn't preach that revenge is a bad thing, people just get what they deserve

"Never thought I'd die side by side with an elf." "How about side by side with a friend?" "Aye... I can do that."

Londo and Jakar in Babylon 5. They both stat as inteligent repusentivies of their people that both well enbody their resspective cultures. They both grow to be more and even somtimes contrary to their cultures. Also they both despise one another and grow to respect and honor one another by the end.

You know, often is enough. Often times has a redundant word in play.

The fact that Aragorn goes by the name of Strider doesn't exactly signal self doubt. Tolkien was incorporating something from ancient times, when great people often bore different names in different settings. Remember that Gandalf also had different names (Stormcrow being one of them), and Gandalf suffered verrrrrrry little self-doubt. Otherwise though, I thought this talk was quite good.

Elrond: Flat - wise and strong. Galadriel: Ditto. Bilbo: Positive - gets rid of his burden. The bartender: Flat - but he is afraid of Strider. Gatekeeper: Negative - the Nazgul kill him. The Nazgul: Flat - they will never change. The old hobbit who laughed at fireworks: Positive - he laughed after all! Sauron: Negative - he fails to recover the ring again and his evil only grows. Saruman: Negative - Used to be good, now his madness deepens. Cave Troll: Negative - he dies and fails to kill Frodo. The Uruk Hai Leader: Negative - dies by Aragorn's hand. Arwen: Negative - deciding between love or death, no conclusion yet, but despair. Balrog: Negative - Who knows how long he lived there, not anymore. Haldir: Not enough info to decide yet, he only introduced himself. Gollum: Flat - in this specific movie, he only follows silently, but in his past, his development was only negative so far. Tom Bombadil: Flat but not present :p Challenges of flat characters: Elrond: The decision what to do with the One Ring, whole world depends on it. Galadriel: Resisting the temptation to take the One Ring. Bartender: Trying to keep his cool even though his life gets miserable. Gollum: Trying to follow the Fellowship all the time sneakily, losing them would mean losing the chance to get the Precious back. (Will stop being flat in the second movie, but in this one everything he did prior to Frodo leaving was in his past and now in the present he is just flat.) Tom Bombadil: Various mysterious things to do and discuss. Wants to meet Gandalf again someday.

Im writing a short story that will probably set up a bigger story.where you are introduced to the greatest thief in the world becomming cocky and over confident due to it and ends up dieing to a hero at the end of it.it shows som simple character development

Favorite side Character with a great arc??? You just about can't be Crowley from "Supernatural"... Starts out as a reprehensible, though dubiously important and powerful "Cross-roads demon"... a deal maker and seducer, who has built his own network of colleagues... As the show progresses, though, he practically runs the gamut... Rising at some point to "King of Hell" in Lucifer's stead, even managing to banish the ol' guy... AND somehow regularly heavily reliant on the Winchester Boys to further his goals... Until they manage to kidnap him as part of a trial to close the gates of Hell forever... That plan (overall) of course, doesn't work out, but the damage done, Crowley starts craving the sense of being human... which develops a sense of empathy in him, through an addiction to blood (part of the plot in the trial, and complicated)... and finally he sacrifices himself to lock Lucifer away off-world... saving the Boys AND the world, if only for a temporary reprieve... From on top of his game, to scraping through rock bottom for new depths, Crowley got put through the ringer, and they couldn't have found a better actor to do the job... There's a LOT that's legitimately "wrong" with "Supernatural", but somehow... if you have a little patience, it just works. It never takes itself too seriously, so in spite of the Angels and Demons themes heavily splashed throughout, it's not preachy... It's fun and funny, with more twists on family, sticking together, and building relationships and taking risks for people than all the pseudo-religious academic research mostly dedicated to poking fun at the old stories and lore... ;o)

And the refs were in clear favor of the celtics, that pushoff by Tatum in the end was just insult to audacity (wayyy past injury)

Hi, Brandon. I am writing a fantasy novel with a large cast and each chapter will be the characters name. I had chapter 1 start with the main protagonist but I feel the story would be better if I start chapter 1 with the antagonist instead as it sets the theme for the overall book. What are your thoughts on starting with the antagonist and then have chapter 2 with the protagonist instead?

I think you have a pretty expansive view of what counts as a side character. Star Wars OT has 3 main characters, not one. Luke is the most front and center, but Leia and Han are pretty clearly also main characters and not at all side characters. Side characters would be Threepio, R2, and Chewie.

Wall.E is made of arcs. Both Wall.E and the ship's computer have flat arcs. Wall.E has completely broken free from his programming, whereas the computer remains governed by its programming and thus represents the status quo. At the start of the story, all the side characters' motivations are driven by maintaining the status quo and sticking to their programming/daily schedule. Over the course of the story, Wall.E slowly brings all the other characters from their every day life to exercising free will. As a result, freedom is finally achieved. Paddington is another example of a flat arc for the lead. He is kind and selfless throughout. Over the course of the story, he draws all the Brown family out from their shell (although Mrs Brown was practically there from the beginning) and helps them all become accepting of change/risk/each other

Aragorn felt more like the protagonist than Frodo ever did.

I feel like I'm at school again, but 100% less boring

The goat of side characters is vegeta

isn't it also possible to mix the first two types? As in, a positive change that results in a negative outcome. I'm thinking about American History X where Derek and Danny make a positive change but at the end Danny gets killed, and you could make the case it is as a result of this change (since he ends up kind of alone)

Question to anyone watching this in 2023 was iro from avatar the last airbender a flat arc or positive arc??

Not sure that I would see Leia ''shed her pride to be his Han'' as a positive character arc (6:45). The relationship and Han's advances are highly problematic. Pop Culture Detective did a great video on that: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rb2fg5uH1cjUiX0.html

Saruman has a negative character arc, Theoden a positive one, but both are in the second part.

Who's your favorite side character and what is their arc? Let us know!

Favorite side character? Kelsier from Mistborn 1.

The irony is that although Frodo's arc is positive in the first one, by the end it is negative. He fails. But that’s ok.

“Where’s my arc, Paulie?”

Magneto when he’s not the main villain.

Poor Sam has a negative arc though - he doesn't end up with Frodo 😎

WAT?? Boromirs arc was positive! He grows from being arrogant and selfish to being humble and self-sacrificing. Sure he succumbs to his temptation for a minute and hits his lowest point, but that's the closest he gets to doing something "wrong". He realizes the error of his ways and defends Merry & Pippin to his death, acknowledging Aragorn as his king. I refuse to believe that his minor momentary fall from grace means he has a negative arc. Anakin Skywalker makes a better example of a negative arc that ends in a heroic act & death.

Turns out writing KZfaqrs are just like fight gyms. The big money makers and big channels are pretty neat and can get the job done, but then cheap pretty much in the dumps, no audience or popularity gyms like in Creed are where the work gets done😂

Flat is the wrong word. A parabola may start and end on the same surface, but it isn't flat. In the LotR Gollum is the same in the beginning as he is at the end, but his development in between is not flat. I think there is a lot of confusion about character arcs, and there's a very wrong-headed idea among writers--especially screenwriters--that characters require a dramatic change over the course of the story for it to be any good. This is why we don't get Superman movies in this century. For any plot, there is (almost always) only one characters who changes. If another character changes, it's (almost always) because that character has it's own sub-plot. Han's change in A New Hope is the result of his sub-plot. In the primary plot of A New Hope--the one about the Death Star--Han's structural purpose is to be skeptical about everything and shoot down every idea. He can only be moved off this position by invoking his sub-plot of owing money to Jabba that he can be moved of his normal position. Thus Han refuses to take another step deeper into the Death Star until he is promised a reward. Alongside any plot or subplot, there is a core relationship between two characters. There's the main character and the character that is trying to convince him/ her that there is a better way of doing things. One of these characters will change their outlook or approach in some fundamental way to something that is much closer to the other character's approach. The other character will remain steadfast. This is how an author says something about which approach is better. If they both changed, nothing would be said because their relative positions to each other will have stayed the same. In A New Hope, Luke is pressured to change by Obi Wan and he does. In the end he adopts Obi Wan's approach, stops trying to test or prove himself and simply trust in his instincts/ the Force. In the Han sub plot, Luke pressured Han to change and Han changes to become more selfless or heroic in the end, becoming more like Luke. In Back to the Future (part 1), Marty McFly is the main character, and he does not change. That's not to say he doesn't grow a bit or learn from his experiences, but he very much grows into the person he already was. George McFly, on the other hand, completely changes. He learns from Marty's example and becomes more like Marty. In Braveheart, William Wallace does not change. Even at the moment of his brutal, slow, tortuous death he maintains his approach. The core thematic relationship in Braveheart is between Wallace and Robert the Bruce. Wallace wants the Bruce to stand up and lead his people as Wallace is currently doing, and the Bruce hedges and is noncommittal. But in the final scene, the Bruce has finally learned from Wallace's example and leads an army in an attack against the English.

Meanwhile on Disney Star Wars Sequels: Character WHAT?

Aragorn is a side character? that's news to me

Leah's arc First movie: This guys an as shole Last movie: I guess I like this a ssho le now

NA-UH. NOPE. WRONG WRONG WRONG. Boromir has one of the most positive arcs in the trilogy. "I tried to take the ring... Forgive me... I would have followed you my brother. My captain. My king." With these lines he fully overcomes his character flaw.

Aragon isn’t a side character