|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Mar 18, 2017 0:43:15 GMT
Yes yes, in an ideal world both, but when you're looking up a story, which element do you pay more mind towards?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2017 1:53:13 GMT
Interesting characters can usually save a story with a plot that leaves you wanting. The reverse doesn't tend to happen too often.
|
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Mar 18, 2017 1:55:24 GMT
For me, it's the characters. I think most of us are pretty genre savvy around here and we can puzzle out the basic arc of a story relatively early on. It's been a long time since I've been truly surprised by the resolution of a story. But I keep reading if I care about the characters.
|
|
|
|
Post by relativetime on Mar 18, 2017 2:45:18 GMT
The characters, definitely. My enjoyment of several otherwise great stories can be brought all the way down if I don't like the characters (Rose Tyler in Series 2, in my case). That being said, an entire story can be derailed by even just one scene. I'd say Hell Bent could have removed a single scene (or maybe two, actually) in its resolution and it might have been a lot better received. Same can be said for The End of Time (maybe more so) and probably many other films and television shows.
But, if I had to choose one, I'd definitely say the characters.
|
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Mar 18, 2017 11:44:12 GMT
Character drives story, not the other way round.
|
|
|
|
Post by anothermanicmondas on Mar 18, 2017 17:57:50 GMT
rule of thumb (with exceptions)
drama - story
comedy - characters
|
|
Tony Jones
Chancellery Guard
Professor Chronotis
Still rockin' along!
Likes: 2,132
|
Post by Tony Jones on Mar 19, 2017 10:15:13 GMT
For me it's the characters that bring the plot to life. When I write the character comes to life in the plot, though an aspect of their character may drive some of the story
|
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jun 3, 2017 0:03:44 GMT
rule of thumb (with exceptions) drama - story comedy - characters Interesting breakdown. |
|
|
|
Post by whiskeybrewer on Jun 3, 2017 13:35:45 GMT
The Characters definitely. A successful book for me always involves them driving the plot and having the story derive from their actions
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 2:45:36 GMT
Characters  |
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Sept 2, 2017 0:47:58 GMT
Something not mentioned yet for the pro-character segment: conflict. Just putting two very different people in a situation can give you a terrific drama engine for a story that mere plotting could not.
|
|
|
|
Post by omega on Sept 2, 2017 3:21:03 GMT
It's characters people tend to remember more. Many more people talk about Talons of Weng-Chiang for introducing Jago & Litefoot than they do for the homage to Phantom of the Opera.
I think this also comes across when comparing RTD to Moffat. People tend to be more favourable to the excellent character work of the former than the intricate plotting of the latter. You also have more people who don't like Moffat's character writing than you do RTD's weaker stories.
The best stories achieve a balance between the two. The characters have a direct influence on how the plot progresses, which in turn brings out the character. One feeds the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by omega on Sept 2, 2017 3:28:27 GMT
Something not mentioned yet for the pro-character segment: conflict. Just putting two very different people in a situation can give you a terrific drama engine for a story that mere plotting could not. Plus it's a more organic way of progressing the story than contrived coincidence. You need specific things to happen to make random acts of harm believable, like in the bit of the Supernatural episode My Heart Will Go On. There you've got a literal Fate out to get Sam and Dean in order to get to Cas. In Mystery Spot there would always be some way for Dean to die in each wave of the time loop, no matter how contrived (pianos don't fall out of windows of their own accord), yet the full context of why the time loop was there explained it perfectly. However the conflict between the characters needs to be consistent with how they have been previously portrayed in order to work. Suddenly making the characters not like each other out of the blue doesn't work. Play on pre-existing character traits. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 3:36:15 GMT
It's characters people tend to remember more. Many more people talk about Talons of Weng-Chiang for introducing Jago & Litefoot than they do for the homage to Phantom of the Opera. I think this also comes across when comparing RTD to Moffat. People tend to be more favourable to the excellent character work of the former than the intricate plotting of the latter. You also have more people who don't like Moffat's character writing than you do RTD's weaker stories. The best stories achieve a balance between the two. The characters have a direct influence on how the plot progresses, which in turn brings out the character. One feeds the other. It's funny you should say that, I was just thinking that Moffat managed to pull off World Enough and Time / The Doctor Falls because the first half was plotting and the second was pure character moments. The plot basically evaporates in that second portion (it's completely forgotten that the ship is still doomed to enter the black hole), but there's so much going on between these people that the viewer doesn't notice it. |
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Sept 2, 2017 16:02:14 GMT
Well drawn characters saying & doing interesting things every single time.
|
|
