If Ramirez and Curly could do it…
At first I was just going to respond to this silly statement with something glib. But then it actually made me think. I saw Star Wars before I was 10. So “need” for character development didn’t enter into it. Even now, it’s not like I sit around, perusing the film advertisements and saying to myself–in my best Alistair Cooke accent–“Well…this film Serenity surely won’t have any character development, which I need, so I shan’t see it.” I saw Star Wars because my dad took me to see it. Eight times. I have seen it innumerable times since. You know why?
Because it wasn’t “disposable sci-fi junk”. You want a list of films that qualify for that, I’ll be glad to try to drum up such a list. Or you can just check out the MST3K catalogue.
If you think the Star Wars films are “disposable sci-fi junk”, then you have no soul. Sorry to be the one to break it to you.
Come to think of it, if these films are “disposable sci-fi junk”…why are you bothering to post in a thread about them? I guess because you like junk? Okay. That’s fine.
I see every film I can see, knowing as little about the film going in as I can. Even down to genre, when possible. I almost never watch trailers. And I never read advance crap going in. It would be impossible for “potential for character development” to be a factor in deciding whether I see the film. However, character development is a huge factor in whether or not a film works for me. See the difference?
That’s like reading Penthouse (and not even Playboy) for the articles…
Yowza. Oh well. Guess what. When I was a kid–let’s say 6th grade or so–and my best friend introduced me to his dad’s Penthouse stash, I thought the pictures were great, but I couldn’t stop reading the Penthouse Letters and Penthouse Forum. I guess words just don’t turn you on. That’s okay too.
None of that is germane to this argument, but as it was a lousy analogy anyway [see what I did there?] I thought I’d throw it in.
Couldn’t disagree more…I’m just stunned that anyone could point at these animated action figures and talk about “strong character development”.
So cliffski’s point was, simply, that he does not even need character development from Star Wars. My point was that it is essential in any film. What’s yours? Both? That character development isn’t necessary for “sci-fi junk” but just in case it is those films don’t have strong character development anyway?
Look, make up your mind. We can argue all day about whether this film or that film has strong character development. That’s cool. But that’s not what his post and my counter post was about. It was simply whether or not character develpment has value, and my point was that for me it is vital in any kind of film.
If you think it’s unnecessary, say that and be done with it. You’ll look like a goofball, but at least you’ll be addressing the issue.
“Just because you are a character doesn’t mean you have character.”
-Amanpour
So what exactly are you trying to say by “character development”? Are you referring to some significant change that happens to characters over the course of a story? Some complex interaction of characters that explores the depths of the human soul? Or are you just using the term as a synonym for any sort of characterization?
Apparently you’re thinking about the latter, and in that case I have no problems with your claim that it’s necessary for all movies. That fits my remark about stereotypes – they, too, are a form of characterization after all. Claiming that Star Wars was particularly strong here still strikes me as silly but… whatever.
I do like junk, by the way! And admittedly the story of Star Wars holds up quite well compared to the average video game, so it’s not all bad.
Character development means that there’s some kind of change in the status of the character based on the events of the film.
If the character isn’t going on some kind of journey why even bother? The prequels are proof positive that having a character go from A to A just turns it into spectacle. I don’t know about you, but I can handle a fireworks show for about 20 minutes before I’m ready for something else.
The first Star Wars film borrows heavily from mythology and manages to create a simple, clear journey for Luke that even ten year olds can identify with. There’s mystery in there too, as we ponder what’s up with the Jedi.
Also, Vader is a genuine villain who has an agenda that goes beyond just being “pissed off”.
In that case I have to disagree on both counts. I don’t think the characters in Star Wars change in any particularly noteworthy or interesting ways (as you say, naive farm boy going out to save princess is a very basic cliché), and I actually don’t need any change of character at all to keep me entertained. Meesa like spectacles with static stereotypes just fine!
“Character development” doesn’t necessarily mean a deep storyline with multilayered personalities. A promotion at work is character development.
Luke becomes embroiled in the alliance, undergoes training, becomes a commander, becomes increasingly more badass, gets his ass kicked by Vader and loses a hand, and recovers, finally becoming a Jedi.
Han goes from an unscrupulous, freewheeling outlaw to an integral part of the alliance with a love interest, to a frozen block of carbonite, to, uh, Leia’s manfriend. Okay, so he doesn’t develop much.
Obi-Wan goes from being a wise old master to a wise old ghost… uh, nevermind this one. Move along.
Leia gets the planet of which she is princess blown to smithereens pretty much immediately. Her character doesn’t so much develop as it does unfold, and a lot of her stuff is incongruous (wait, she’s Luke’s sister and she COULD ALSO BE A JEDI!), etc.
I don’t think I even need to talk about Vader’s character development.
Han goes from being totally selfish to being somewhat selfless and finding more reward in that than in cold hard cash.
Hell, he gives away the Falcon to Lando in the third film.
Obi-Wan goes from being a wise old master to a wise old ghost… uh, nevermind this one. Move along.
Obi-wan goes from Hopeless to hopeful.
Leia gets the planet of which she is princess blown to smithereens pretty much immediately. Her character doesn’t so much develop as it does unfold, and a lot of her stuff is incongruous (wait, she’s Luke’s sister and she COULD ALSO BE A JEDI!), etc.
Leia goes from royal pain in the ass to hot piece of ass.
I don’t think I even need to talk about Vader’s character development.
Hard-boiled egg to soft-boiled egg.
The last series I think about when discussing character development is LoTR. Instead, I think of lore, scenery, and setting. Not to offend anyone, but I found most of the characters in the LoTR books to be dry and undeveloped, at best.