I remember reading that you should make your audience care about your main character, to sympathise with it, to really invest in it and its goals and stakes and you know... just care. But I did that with a few movies only to find the hero die in the end!
He dies. And I invested in it, wanted it to win. Even if there was some kind of victory, the hero didn't live to enjoy it! This happens in some movies, not all of them.
At least in my screenplays, I have a "rule": Good guys just don't die. The hero always wins(and lives). How much does this rule applies in movies with such tragic endings?
Should we always write characters according to this rule(the sympathetic protagonist), if we know he/she dies on page 95?:( Or should you take a more relaxed approach(don't bother so much with character development),and make viewers say:"No idea who the good guy was, but awesome gunfights and blowing up stuff and yeah, he died after finishing the bad guy, but.. nice car chases!"?
1 person likes this
Huh? No. That's what this is all about!!! Making a reader or audience feel something, be engaged, be invested. Care what happens. Be entertained. Go on an emotional roller coaster. Be on the edge of their seats. Even if the main character dies or loses or the story ends tragically there's meaning to it. A relaxed approach? Don't bother with character development? Now that's just lazy writing. ;)
There are no rules as to whether a character should die or not.
You're telling a story and you want your audience to become invested in that story so they will enjoy the journey that your characters take. Write an entertaining story, write a gripping story, write a moving story and if that story becomes better because a character dies, then so be it
A lead character doesn't have to be a hero. They can be very flawed people. You have great advice from Beth and Pierre in the above posts. What matters is story and the audience at minimum identifying with characters. Bad guys, whether protag or antag, believe they are the good guys. They have their motivations.
Plenty of very meaningful movies have the lead character die. Write it and make it meaningful and conclusive to your theme.
I'm gonna go with "it depends".
In fantasy genre (take, "The Magicians" for example) the hero(es) can live on in the spirit realm.
They can be "killed off" but in a false-exit shown not to be dead after all.
It can be left to the viewer's imagination what happened.
It can be a "final exit" for an ageing actor.
They can be re-incarnated / re-built (like "Hero 6")
They can be replaced - with a "new better hero"
It can be a foregone conclusion that the hero dies (like "Me, Earl & the Dying Girl")
I agee, that if the audience invests a lot into the hero, there should be a good reason (and replacement) for all that capital to go to. A good example of this is when John Wayne was killed off in "The Cowboys" - I think this was the first movie that John Wayne was actually "killed off" in. I won't give spoilers, but suffice to say it was a better movie because of his death.
alway ALWAYS make us sympathize with your main character. Even if he or she or it is a total nasty piece of nastiness, we must be drawn in and care about her/his journey. It's deeper than 'liking' - we have to CARE, otherwise we won't be drawn into the story. And yes, you can kill them off, just maybe a little later than page 95....
Polanski had to defend that the Faye Dunaway character in Chinatown dies at the end. He said it was necessary or the movie would have no message. He later killed the female character in Frantic pretty identically.
Maximus and John Coffey dies at the end in Gladiator and Green Mile. Andy Dufresne stayed alive in Shawshank Redemption. Both type of endings can be extremely efficient. All of them lived true pain and suffering. They all ended unjustfully in a harsh environment they don't belong but in Shawshank and Green Mile we don't know that for a long time, we may assume but can't be sure. We start to like them as a story progress for what they do and not for who they were/are like in Gladiator. They all helped others. John healed sick people, Andy made them feel alive whenever he can and brings back hope and will for life. Maximus entertain them like no one before, so much they started to worship him.
Answer to your question is hidden in your setup. Maximus had only one wish before he rejoins his family in another world, to return Rome back to right hands so wishes of Marcus Aurelius can be fulfilled. After he dramatically achieved that, it's absolutely great way to end story by sending him to his new home. John Coffey said he can't take no more evil around him beacause he have seen and felt too much for a lifetime. He wanted to end agony but not before he discover what really happens in case for which he is accused and pass that knowledge to people of justice. Only Andy wanted to survive and had every reason to live, so he get busy living and survived.
Look at "Thelma and Louise". Ask yourself, would the audience have even cared if these two women died at the end if there hadn't been so much character development? Would you have cared? Without sympathy for the characters, there wouldn't have been a movie. It would have been 3 minute music video with the car going over the cliff.
Shonda Rhimes said she doesn't know any likable people so she doesn't worry about making her characters likable. It's the opposite of what is usually taught but clearly it has worked for her!
Lol victor, that's the right answer to critics!
Eff character arc, just focus on gun fights, explosions and car chases! It worked for Fast n Furious. Simple emotional journey and lots of eye candy images.