Should superman have arcs in movies or should he be a flat arc character?

[manwhohaseverything]

This is a video i found regarding character arcs. In the end the video creator kind of makes a joke about how Superman should be written to be a flat arc character.
So as superman fans, do you want superman to be unchanging one through out a movie affecting everyone like marty mcfly or maximus or samurai jack Or do you want superman to have arcs?

[rpmaluki]

I definitely prefer him to have an arc. Flat characterisation can only take you so far before people get bored and something else gets their attention (this applies to every fictional character btw). I just don't want him to swing from one extreme to another without rhyme or reason or because it's the in thing to do. There are elements of the character that are worth exploring, if only they were smarter in expounding them.

[manwhohaseverything]

I definitely prefer him to have an arc. Flat characterisation can only take you so far before people get bored and something else gets their attention (this applies to every fictional character btw). I just don't want him to swing from one extreme to another without rhyme or reason or because it's the in thing to do. There are elements of the character that are worth exploring, if only they were smarter in expounding them.

Flat characterisation and flat arcs are different. When you have an arc the character needs to change and learn, Confront lies within. Flat arc characters themselves don't change their values, it's others who do. They are the truth, in a world of lies. So, how would a character with flat arc swing from one extreme to another?Fleischer cartoons had superman be pretty constant. And captain america movies too does the same.Captain will always fight for freedom.no matter who his opponent is,even the country he fought for. tintins adventures are like that as well. Luffy never changes.

Superman fights bullies, corrupt powerful and believes in the good in people. So having an arc would mean making clark either corrupt or a coward or cynic at the beginning of the story. The character in the goldenage comics where phenomenal flat arc storylines. Postive change requires something negative to exist prior. Zack snyder tried to give an arc for superman. It didn't do much good.

[rpmaluki]

I guess Clark works best with the "flat arc" but I still prefer a little push back to show that his values aren't just slapped on just because he is Superman.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

I'd do a mix of both. In some movies he would have an arc in others he wouldn't.

[Jim Kelly]

Ha, "flat arc," what kind of goofy Hollywood logic is that? I remember a radio interview with Ken Finkleman from many years ago where he related how he was forced to leave Hollywood. He had been acting and writing there for some years, but he was on a phonecall with someone and didn't realize they had him on speaker phone. They said that a character had to have an arc and he started raging about the stupidity of character arcs, that real people don't have arcs. That's not how real life works. A bunch of studio bosses were there on the other end of the line listening to his rant. After that he came back to Canada and created THE NEWSROOM for CBC (not to be confused with the later American series of the same name).

I always remember that. We as people don't have arcs and it's a silly convention of writing to think that characters should have arcs. It's just lazy writing, applying this template to your characters, instead of writing stories that are authentic to actual experience.

[manwhohaseverything]

I guess Clark works best with the "flat arc" but I still prefer a little push back to show that his values aren't just slapped on just because he is Superman.

Oh! the characters values will be tested. But, he wouldn't change. katniss everdeen never comes to a conclusion that the government isn't corrupt. Luffy never says "dreams are for fools" .

Another thing, one piece does have an antagonist with same ideal with different attitudes or morality to show contrasts. Luffy and black beard both profess "man's dreams never ends". They both leave somekind of rubble of old structure. Yet, the contrast is when luffy leaves a new better working structure is left in its place. While, when blackbeard leaves the rubbles turn to ashes and there is no renewal. This is ofcourse a antagonist - protagonist kind of thing. It doesn't have to be like that. My hero does this as well with mirio and deku. Mirio is more methodical and while deku would save whomever recklessly,while they both value humour in society as heroes.

To make it interesting for readers instead , Goldenage comics left ambiguities for interpretation. Superman can be read as a hero or a jerk/bully himself,depending on the eyes of the beholder. Captain america is either a freedom fighter or a fugitive.

In short, flat arc characters are not only more rare. there are tons of literary techniques for enhancing the enjoyment of such characters.

Ha, "flat arc," what kind of goofy Hollywood logic is that? I remember a radio interview with Ken Finkleman from many years ago where he related how he was forced to leave Hollywood. He had been acting and writing there for some years, but he was on a phonecall with someone and didn't realize they had him on speaker phone. They said that a character had to have an arc and he started raging about the stupidity of character arcs, that real people don't have arcs. That's not how real life works. A bunch of studio bosses were there on the other end of the line listening to his rant. After that he came back to Canada and created THE NEWSROOM for CBC (not to be confused with the later American series of the same name).

I always remember that. We as people don't have arcs and it's a silly convention of writing to think that characters should have arcs. It's just lazy writing, applying this template to your characters, instead of writing stories that are authentic to actual experience.

Flat arc is basically no arc. There is the postive arc, where the protagonist learns something positive . Example spiderman, peter is selfish irresponsible person who learns responsibility and altruism .

Negative arc, where the protagonist descends into madness, tragedy, villainy.. Etc. For example:-othello,macbeth.. Etc.batman can be categorised as one. But, generally bruce's negative aspects are celebrated or should i say his fallen state(batman) is celebrated because people find glimpses of truth and good in that state.

[DochaDocha]

If Superman needs an arc, it's likely because most movies in the genre that introduce characters have something that resembles a character arc, and people would probably complain if the Superman movie failed to do the same even if the movie were perfectly fine.

On the other hand, I do think that Superman is in a spot where everything decision made ends up angering a large portion of Superman viewers: whatever conscious change you try to enact may win over some fans, but you end up losing something like the same number. Also, doing something because every other movie does it just makes Superman even more generic to the new fans, when some of us who've been following the character longer know it's actually the opposite.

Personally, I'd like a flat arc (coincidentally, I linked this video some time ago), but I'm guessing it wouldn't be well-received "because if you watched something like Captain America..."

[kjn]

Sadly, I think most comics published right now are sorely lacking in character arcs, so it's not like it wouldn't be without precedent. There's also more than a few film franchises which seldom or never include character arcs for the protagonist; James Bond is probably the most famous example.

I do think it's possible to do a decent Superman movie without a character arc for him, but it'd need the right mindset for the creative team. I also think it's trickier to do it for Superman than it is for, say, Batman (especially in a more noir-ish setting, where Batman starts out protecting the city against the scum and ends having protected the city against the scum).

[manwhohaseverything]

Personally, I'd like a flat arc (coincidentally, I linked this video some time ago), but I'm guessing it wouldn't be well-received "because if you watched something like Captain America..."

I don't think so, i mean people don't watch princess mononoke or mononoke-hime and go "ashitaka is captain america". Do they? Character doesn't change in that movie as well. Ashitaka believes man and nature can coexist. Its the ideals, goals and morality of the character that differentiates from one another . His belief though tested, never changes. Ashitaka is also given a goal to focus on. To see the world with eyes unclouded by any hate in order to escape a curse and a terrible end. Which is a subtle postive arc.So,superman doesn't necessarily have to be flat arc character. but, his postive transformations can't be as blunt.Many characters i have mentioned are very critically acclaimed.i do believe flat arc characters are very rare compared to the former(postive arc) and later(negative arc) . It is surprising that negative arc charcters with tragic ends are much more common. I mean, look at all the greek stories.

Writers at large and in general trying to give superman a positive arc make it boring or fail and give him negative arc instead. Negative arcs come easily for flat arc characters. Just flip the switch. The world is good or the truth. The protagonist is bad or the lie or contradiction. And then they give a postive arc along with redemption at the end of the story.

[DochaDocha]

Mononoke Hime is more than 20 years old and doesn't fit the superhero genre. Anyway, I do think that Superman is nitpicked more than any other hero. Either you do something "stale" (i.e. not good) or you do something that's "not Superman."

[The World]

Nah, or at least he shouldn't JUST be a flat arc character. If you have one story where he's sticking to his guns then you probably need another where he is forced to accept even he can't always be in the right. The story where he's chasing Supergirl through space and time and encounters the Spectre is a good one.


The best thing to happen to the MCU Captain was a push for him in the role of rebel in Winter Soldier because it really helped the character turn the corner. The guy willing to speak up when no one else wants to and is in a perpetual Man vs Society conflict was a good angle for him even if it a got ridiculous in Civil War. Good fodder for a way to spin a character that had been viewed as pretty lame into something most people fantasize about being willing to do.

Conversely people seem to cringe when the idea of Superman being the rebel comes up even if that is basically the characters origins (see the N52). It's harder to take Superman and do the same thing Marvel did with Cap since the guy could flatten most governments to pulp. Also DC is quick to try and scrub anything that might be deemed controversial from his character which is another thing that DC views as being beneficial to the character but I think is actually holding him back.

For better or worse DC has ground Superman's character down to "farmer" and has eked out just enough of a fanbase that will whine if he's anything but.

[manwhohaseverything]

Mononoke Hime is more than 20 years old and doesn't fit the superhero genre. Anyway, I do think that Superman is nitpicked more than any other hero. Either you do something "stale" (i.e. not good) or you do something that's "not Superman."

As said, ideal can be used for differentiation. Superman fights for truth and justice. He doesn't fight for freedom. Those are vastly different concepts. Captain america was fighting a system that was selling chains in the guise of sheilds. Superman is a character that should fight lies, even the ones a person that tells themselves. All the injustices caused by flawed system. Sure, enough i do believe the right and wrong of superman's existence and actions should be left to the audiences. Leave the ambiguities in tact, you know for the adult audiences.

Mononoke is just something thing that came to my mind. There are current examples,like the video says hunger games or Paddington movies with protagonists that have flat arcs. Superhero genre is just a mix of fantasy and action with vigilante flavour. Aquaman used to be about the same thing ashitaka is, regarding the conflict between nature and man. I believe, nonsuperhero stories have much to offer to the genre itself. Even iron giant has such a protagonists-hogarth And iron giant can't be classified as superhero genre either.

Nah, or at least he shouldn't JUST be a flat arc character. If you have one story where he's sticking to his guns then you probably need another where he is forced to accept even he can't always be in the right. The story where he's chasing Supergirl through space and time and encounters the Spectre is a good one.


The best thing to happen to the MCU Captain was a push for him in the role of rebel in Winter Soldier because it really helped the character turn the corner. The guy willing to speak up when no one else wants to and is in a perpetual Man vs Society conflict was a good angle for him even if it a got ridiculous in Civil War. Good fodder for a way to spin a character that had been viewed as pretty lame into something most people fantasize about being willing to do.

Conversely people seem to cringe when the idea of Superman being the rebel comes up even if that is basically the characters origins (see the N52). It's harder to take Superman and do the same thing Marvel did with Cap since the guy could flatten most governments to pulp. Also DC is quick to try and scrub anything that might be deemed controversial from his character which is another thing that DC views as being beneficial to the character but I think is actually holding him back.

For better or worse DC has ground Superman's character down to "farmer" and has eked out just enough of a fanbase that will whine if he's anything but.

Yet, captain america as the rebel avatar is doing what he has been doing till then. He is still fighting for freedom. The only change was his world. He was consistent in his beliefs. I am not saying superman can't have positive arcs. But, does his positive arc ever illicit the same emotions as someone like spiderman. I don't think so. Does being confronted by the spectre, comparable to how peter learning spiderman is important ? I don't think so. Even in that story did Clark's belifs change or was he himself contradicting or taking for granted his name own values. I mean, i could fight for truth, still lie and be shown a mirror . See flat arc, is where a man's beliefs or values never change and is the truth. While the world of lies may change influenced by the truth. As a matter of fact a flat arc character requires a changing world influenced by the protagonist . Having contradictions is not a factor in a character being flat arc. Captain america fights for freedom and equality. Yet, bucky means more. Luffy is a rebel and he is a flat arc character.Being a rebel character and flat arc character isn't mutually exclusive.

[stargazer01]

Of course he should have arcs in movies and shows. I don't see why not if he can grow and learn like any other superhero. But it should be according to who this character is. It should be in character.

The Snyder DC movies were divisive because many felt Clark and/or Pa and Ma Kent acted very out of character in some scenes. Now look at the animated Death of Superman movie; most liked it and Clark/Superman wasn't always perfect, he had doubts like a real person, but he learned and grew. No doubt Smallville the show also had a Clark that evolved over time. It's the execution and knowing who this character is at his core.

[Adekis]

I think there's an unfair stigma attached to the concept of "flat" or "static" characters. I think the descriptive names themselves contain a judgmental implication. "Flat" sounds boring or lacking in depth. Similarly, the human brain hears "dynamic" characters and thinks it sounds exciting, or "round" characters and thinks it sounds deep and fully formed. Neither is fundamentally, inherently true though. "Flat" characters are not inherently boring, and they certainly don't inherently, or even usually, lack depth. "Dynamic" characters are not inherently exciting. "Round" characters need not be more fleshed out than "flat" ones. And I think these terms were probably designed or coined by people with some pretty major biases against flat or static in the first place. These are straight up pretty bad names for the categories inherently.

I remember reading an essay which offhandedly claimed that there should really be two words for characters. There are characters like Hamlet or Rick Blaine, who exist primarily in one single story, or variations on that story, and who change and grow in really significant ways over the course of that story. Then there are characters like Sherlock Holmes or Arthur Reed, who pretty much only ever have the illusion of change, rather than actually changing in significant ways, and who can exist in a continuing line of stories designed to fit their character, which could pretty much go on forever. What Stan Lee called "The Illusion of Change" can make them seem to go through major changes, but ultimately you can never change them too much.

I think that's pretty similar to the concepts of "Dynamic" and "Dynamic" characters, in a lot of ways. Neither is a perfect set of categories. Especially in the last twenty years or so, there are a lot more stories, TV shows especially, designed for big sweeping arcs to occur over time, despite otherwise resembling the second kind of character, and sometimes characters that it'd be hard not to describe as static kind of "drift" into a different characterization without a deliberate arc. Luthor's a good example of that, for example, but I digress.

I think most super-heroes, including Superman, are pretty much that second kind of character. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.