Actors I admire seem to be aware of this and select projects very carefully as a result . . . same for directors I admire.

But the people above I mention strictly as a point . . . at one time, many folks were flavors of the month, and then they weren’t . . .

Matt Damon said recently in an interview (I’m sorry I can’t remember which magazine) that before THE BOURNE IDENTITY came out a few years back, everyone expected the worst from it, because it’s opening had been delayed a year, and there were reshoots and cost overruns and rumor had it the production had problems and so the movie must be bad, it had to be bad, otherwise, why reshoot it?

And since his two films previous had flopped (RIPLEY and ALL THE PRETTY HORSES) Damon’s status as a “Hollywood star” was down “there was maybe one offer to my agent, the week before it opened. After Bourne opened as good as it did, and the reviews were as good as it did, I had 12 film offers waiting for me that following Monday”.

The film engaged and moved us, and everyone benefitted as a result. And Damon is really damn good in it, too.

Heh-heh.

Hey, I said that this was only the opening shot on a series based on character work, and I also stated that the beginning is stuff most experienced writers are likely to know . . .

But even today, you’d be surprised at how many folks confuse plot and story.

I’m keeping my series down to bite-sized chunks, so to go down easier.

Also I challenge you on the assertion that Spidey 3 had good character work . . . not enough of it to save it, that’s for certain.

And Hudson Hawk, complete disaster, as evidenced in Richard E. Grant’s wonderful book . . .

But whatever, dude, if they float your boat, more power to you.

I don’t disagree with your last point too much, though I want to save the great character debate for when I get there . . . my primarily point to this small post is that off the three main things, character is more important to the audience.

Check in next Wednesday, when I’ll either say something incredibly valuable or I’ll just shoot my mouth off . . . it’s a coin toss, heh-heh.

And don’t forget, Mondays are Unheralded Cool MOvies You Should KNow About, be sure to check in.

As for the examples you use to illustrate poor characters and, as a result, stories that fall flat. Might I suggest that your entirely subjective view on whether those stories and characters were successful or not, does not serve your argument exactly. For instance- one could make the argument that both Hudson Hawk and Spiderman 3 had great character work in them. And that both were good movies. I know that Hawk in particular has long been the whipping boy of unimaginative critics, but upon closer inspection the characters in the movie were actually quite dimensional. I think that movie suffered from a problem of poor marketing. Expectations were set for a certain kind of movie that Hudson Hawk was not crafted to deliver. I’m not surprised that it was a disappointment to many.

As for the character of House- I do think that he started out as an interesting character, but ultimately a limited one for serialized storytelling. Already his internal conflict is getting a little stale. They’re trying to give him new external conflicts in the story to keep it interesting, but most of us in the audience have already figured House out. It’s fairly easy to predict what he’ll say next.

Which brings me to my last point. Great characters come from great conflicts. Particularly from great internal conflicts that can lead to fundamental human truths. That way, no matter what the character appears like, or what plotting they find themselves in the middle of, no matter how absurd their story, we as the audience can identify with them. We can see ourselves in the character. We can recognize ourselves in the story. That’s the soul I think you’re referring to. The conflict that tugs at the emotional center of the character and makes each and every scene with that character engaging and unpredictable.

I’ve come across your blog before- you say a lot that’s interesting and valuable and then, on the other hand, you say a lot of stuff that sounds pretty much like a blowhard. Just an observation.

Sometimes I watch movies over and over again because I can’t get enough of the dialogue, but the number 1 reason is the characters.
I think that in films it’s also important who plays those roles. A character can have soul on paper but if it’s not the right actor, it will be lost on the big screen. Some remakes are definitely good example for that…

“Without character, you just have a dead corpse on your hand that occasional twitches and makes zombie-like shuffles for the exit” – Great line!

My pseudo name is my favorite literary character