Your philosophies and ideas about character amount in film/series/game.

A friend of mine and myself are in the process of creating a film. We try to experiment as many techniques and angles as possible. In the process of writing story for the film, one interesting subject came up.

Apparently, my friend wants the story to be around at most 5 or 6 characters. His reasoning is not to make the story complicated because he doesn't want to spend more time to develop character. I notice that all he watches in media are mostly sitcom, with, obviously, revolve around the same characters every episode. The one that nearly breaks that horizon is House.

I'm different. I love films with many characters. Because I love the complexity of the connection within the characters. It excites me to trace that connection and I feel involved in something big, from many angles. I find if you take away small little elements which make big important elements important, those big elements turn out to be not so important anymore. I love big series like Lost, Prison Break, Gundam Seed, Fullmetal Alchemist, Code Geass, Resident Evil ..etc...; even small series like Basilisk or Last Exile, they are still great for the great story teller based on an impressive amount of characters.

What's your idea behind this and why do you like it?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I don't mind having a lot of characters who are interconnected as long as the connection is either strong thematically or in the plot. Depends what kind of story you're trying to tell really...there's different advantages and effects that come into play when delving deep into one character or less into multiple characters.

Well, I think (obviously) writing a TV series and writing a movie are very different. You simply don't have the time to go into every small connection when you only have 120 minutes to work with. If you try, I find movies that try to do that feel very disjointed and incomplete. However, if that feeling of disjointedness or unknowing is an intended theme for your story then it works.
I guess, in a simple answer, you have to keep in mind the themes of your story first and then decide if every single character is contributing to that theme. Bit of a pretentious answer but that's my opinion on it =p

Try checking out some films with a lot of characters and see if they work for you as well since you cite a lot of TV series. I recommend:

Amores Perros
The Killing
Days of Being Wild
Ashes of Time

Just to name a few. That was probably not quite what you were looking for but uh...hope some of that sparks...something >_>

There's nowhere I can't reach.

When discussing this, one point you have to talk about is whether you're meaning actual main characters, or just supporting cast.

As you brought up Lost, while there are a lot of characters in that show, about half are just characteratures with perhaps one to two actual backstory episodes. You have a core of Jack, John, Kate, Sawyer, who each have 5+ backstory episodes. For these people we know a lot of personal quirks, we can reasonably predict how they'll respond to new challenges, and we start to feel like we really know them.

Beyond that, you begin to get into varying levels of exploration. Hugo, Sayid, Jin, & Sun would probably be the next tier, as they've all been in every episode, but have a bit less development. These folks begin to become cutouts of actual people, as their actions / purpose in the show are driven by a single concept, but have been in enough episodes that we've learned minor quirks anyhow.

Then you rapidly drop into folks which represent ideas, but don't have a full development. Clair, Charlie, Ben, & Juliet all might be examples of this. Claire in particular is a good example, as she generally just appears whenever you want someone to ask a naive question or bring up family context.

On my personal preference.

As Timber noted, in a normal movie length, there isn't much time to actually develop more than a couple people well. I often tend to dislike focused character studies, like Taxi Driver or Magnolia. That said, its not a hard and fast rule, as some like Fight Club, Lost in Translation, and American Beauty are within my favorite movies.

Generally, I'd say that making a movie with limited main's intensifies the reaction to a film. Its heavily carried by the personal connection to / interest in them. If done well, or using interesting main's, it can often be a greater success with individuals, but this polarization means its tougher to guarantee the reception with a wide audience.

A good example of this is Napoleon Dynamite, which is regarded as one of the most polarizing movies that exists. If people associate with the quirky comedy, and sympathize with the problems of Napoleon's family, then they often regard it as a classic. However, there is a wide audience which feels no connection to the characters, doesn't feel the comedy, and pans it as trash. It has almost single-handedly halted progress on the Netflix algorithm contest.

Naturally, broader, interaction based films without a strong core of mains will be easier to accept, as you're never focusing on one person all the time. Personal quirks aren't as pronounced and intense like/dislike responses are less likely to result. The main impact of association / sympathy that comes across then is overall influence of the writer themselves, as their voice can accidentally/intentionally speak through all the characters at once. (See all of Guy Ritchie's films) I personally often find these movies fun, but without lasting appeal, as the only broad movie of this type which is in my top ten is Lord of the Rings, and with 12 hours (plus books) they have plenty of space to properly characterize all of the Fellowship.

Most amazing jew boots

I appreciate your inputs. Seems like I miss out on a lot of good movies. I actually saw Days of Being Wild long time ago, and totally loved it. I am thinking if we should make it a series instead of a film. My friend says Watchmen is really confusing while I think it's very deep and well put.

Araes: I believe the connection between the main and supporting characters engage more emotional intact. I absolutely agree with your view on the polar dynamics on films, where the very core of the story is exemplified by the main character. On the other hand, I think character developments on a bigger union relates viewers more on different angles of their lives. One can hate violins, one can hate trombone, but joining together in a symphony to create one common verse or melody while maintaining their own characteristics gives such a beautiful outcome.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

There are ways of telling a film with a large cast. For example, 12 Angry Men does an excellent job of showcasing twelve different personalities. However, if they cast gets too large, such as perhaps X-Men 3, some people receive little to not attention.

It's a balancing act, I think, and largely depends on how many characters you want to focus on.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Another possibility is *not* wrapping things up in traditional narrative form. Open ended films can sometimes linger on after viewing, inciting extended conversation about what happened, where it could go, what will befall the characters as they continue on their way. Examples for this kind of film (with large casts) are Mike Leigh's Topsy-Turvy and, well, stuff by Robert Altman like Gosford Park and Short Cuts. P.T. Anderson's Magnolia might also fit the bill here, though that wraps up a little nicer than the previous three.

Aside from all that, you can always move backwards to more classic offerings too like, oh, Seven Samurai. There's straightforwardness and simplicity in its telling, yet they manage to present a huge assortment of characters and give each their time and allow for solid interaction with the others.


(And while not on the same wavelength, I did recently re-watch The Goonies after so many years and I was delighted how wonderfully chaotic it was. The action and chatter is nearly unceasing but somehow each character's narrative voice is heard in a way that kids at that time certainly associated with one or another of the cast. The motive and drive of the movie is worn on its sleeve but that makes it no less meaningful and it comes off as quite endearing and, again, every character is given their due.)

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by BlindMonk

Another possibility is *not* wrapping things up in traditional narrative form.

I think that's a really good point actually. Keeping in mind that the fact that you may not be able to completely unearth a character isn't necessarily a FLAW in the film but could rather be something that allows the audience to come up with their own answers/interpretations. Well stated.

How ya doing, buddy?

Personally, I find large numbers of characters (7+, maybe?) to be too distracting, as it tends to spread movies, games, or stories far too thin. Of course, if each character has an important, well-developed role, then by all means, pile on the characters. The number gets too high when characters start becoming just characters thrown in with no real, vital hold into the main point. But then again, when you have too few characters, there's always a chance that the audience becomes tired of this one character. Perhaps you'll have to find a way to find what appeals to the most people, so if there's one character, that character better be interesting, and there should probably be other elements that would draw in the audience in the event that the character fails to do so for some. Or, if you have many characters, the plot and the characters' importance should be something concrete. Perhaps each character is fully developed, important, and memorable, or perhaps you have a set of supporting characters what serve to bring out parts of your main character. Regardless, developed or useful character makes for a memorable character. Depending on the plot and time constraints, it may be more difficult to develop multiple characters.

I guess Castaway would be a rather extreme example of a movie with 1 main character--2 if you're counting Wilson. Even with one character, the movie still managed to hook viewers. I wouldn't say there was much character development, even though there was only one character, but the plot was both interesting as well as appealing. Perhaps there was something the audience could identify with as the film focused on a single man trying to survive in the wilderness.


For films with many characters, I can't think of anything else off the top of my head, by Lord of the Rings was particularly good. Sure, there were countless characters on top of the 9 in the fellowship, but this worked out. While some characters weren't as developed to their fullest, quite a handful were, and if that weren't enough, there was a compelling story, thought-provoking parts, and, quite frankly, fanservice. Furthermore, the characters were all rather unique, from hobbits, to elves, and even talking trees. And each wasn't unique for the sake of being unique, either. But regardless, you had characters that appealed to a wide range of audiences, as well as an entertaining plot. But then again, each movie was about 3 hours long.

As for personal preference, I really can't say, as it depends on various other factors. When it comes to shows, it's usually the epic ones with many characters that I find myself glued to, from one episode to the next, but it's always the ones centered around a small group of people that I keep coming back to.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?