I get that. I’d still differentiate, because in soap opera, these conflicts are more caricatures, driven to the extreme. In BSG they are mostly understandable, sometimes even relatable and grounded in experiences you could make in real life.
No, the story progresses because of the characters’ actions and decisions. The story begins because Holden decides to go against his captain’s orders and logs the distress call. Joe Miller decides to continue his investigations beyond the necessary. We do have a McGuffin, we so have some events characters reakt to, but many events might have taken place differently or not at all depending on character choices.
I’m unfailiar with your definition of character-driven. For me, when a character is primarily about the characters and the action and the plot are primarily to illustrate and grow characters, then that’s character-driven. If the main thrust of the story is what happens, then I’d say it’s story driven.
There’s room for interpretation, though, and it’s all relative.
If you want an action show that goes about as far into character-driven as possible–and you can get around the casual unexamined misogyny so prevalent in SF spaces–I can’t think of a better example than the original Buffy: The Vampire Slayer TV series (caveat: the phsycial DVD is the only extant intedned director’s vision).
Okay, then we have different definitions here. I see stories on a spectrum regarding how the story progresses and why important events happen. The more the characters are reaponsible for what happens, the more character driven a story is.
What you describe I’d call a character study, which is an archetype of storytelling.
Those are not clear cut templates though, there’s a lot of overlap and wiggle room and “things can fit more than one category at once”.
On a side note though, The Expanse is a character driven story under the characteristics you laid down, too. There are many characters studied in relation to their developements under certain conditions, from Camina Drummer and the Belters through Bobby Draper or the Rocinante Crew all the way to Reverend Volovodov; their relations to others and each other, their personal growth, values, etc are often focused closely.
Thanks for agreeing to disagree; this is subjective. For me, I loved the expanse for the plot and the characters, but I’d say my interest in the show was 75% plot/world building and 25% character (mostly Avarasala (and goddamnit why couldn’t they book Jared Harris for a full 2-season arc?!)). Maybe the mix for you is different, and maybe I need to see it again.
But compare that to the reason ANYONE watches a show like Mad Men–probably exactly 0% of people truly are watching it see what the organizational structure of a 50s advertising agency is at the end of a season. That show is 100% character, and not just character exploration, character development (even Draper’s stagnation is sort of in-motion).
Ok. You talked me into it. Time to re-watch the Expanse.
But that is just character driven plot, not soap opera.
Not to say those shows literally are soap operas, but they share major qualities that I dislike out of soap operas.
I get that. I’d still differentiate, because in soap opera, these conflicts are more caricatures, driven to the extreme. In BSG they are mostly understandable, sometimes even relatable and grounded in experiences you could make in real life.
Average hard SF fan.
I mean, one of if not the best shows of the last decade (imho) was The Expanse, a character driven, very hard sci fi show.
I love the Expanse and I love the characters, and I love their development, but it is very much a plot driven show.
No, the story progresses because of the characters’ actions and decisions. The story begins because Holden decides to go against his captain’s orders and logs the distress call. Joe Miller decides to continue his investigations beyond the necessary. We do have a McGuffin, we so have some events characters reakt to, but many events might have taken place differently or not at all depending on character choices.
I’m unfailiar with your definition of character-driven. For me, when a character is primarily about the characters and the action and the plot are primarily to illustrate and grow characters, then that’s character-driven. If the main thrust of the story is what happens, then I’d say it’s story driven.
There’s room for interpretation, though, and it’s all relative.
If you want an action show that goes about as far into character-driven as possible–and you can get around the casual unexamined misogyny so prevalent in SF spaces–I can’t think of a better example than the original Buffy: The Vampire Slayer TV series (caveat: the phsycial DVD is the only extant intedned director’s vision).
Okay, then we have different definitions here. I see stories on a spectrum regarding how the story progresses and why important events happen. The more the characters are reaponsible for what happens, the more character driven a story is.
What you describe I’d call a character study, which is an archetype of storytelling.
Those are not clear cut templates though, there’s a lot of overlap and wiggle room and “things can fit more than one category at once”.
On a side note though, The Expanse is a character driven story under the characteristics you laid down, too. There are many characters studied in relation to their developements under certain conditions, from Camina Drummer and the Belters through Bobby Draper or the Rocinante Crew all the way to Reverend Volovodov; their relations to others and each other, their personal growth, values, etc are often focused closely.
Thanks for agreeing to disagree; this is subjective. For me, I loved the expanse for the plot and the characters, but I’d say my interest in the show was 75% plot/world building and 25% character (mostly Avarasala (and goddamnit why couldn’t they book Jared Harris for a full 2-season arc?!)). Maybe the mix for you is different, and maybe I need to see it again.
But compare that to the reason ANYONE watches a show like Mad Men–probably exactly 0% of people truly are watching it see what the organizational structure of a 50s advertising agency is at the end of a season. That show is 100% character, and not just character exploration, character development (even Draper’s stagnation is sort of in-motion).
Ok. You talked me into it. Time to re-watch the Expanse.