Attachment to Characters

I think that you have to relate to the character in some manner. For example, I really like Smallville. I think the reason I relate to Clark Kent is that I also have a hidden superhero identity and I really think Lana Lane (Kristin Kreuk sp?) is super hot, so I can relate to what this character is going through.

Seriously, I'm not sure what it is that attaches us to certain characters over others. I really like Vincent D'Onofrio's character in Law & Order: Criminal Intent because there is a lot of unspoken stuff going on in his mind that translates through the acting and various ways he responds to other characters, etc.

I guess the main thing is finding a way to relate..

 

besides from what was said above. Another obvious factor is the character development. A multi-dimensional character is probably going to appear more real than a one-dimensional caricature. The more real the characters are, the more likely you will be enveloped in the movie.

Also, some movies are more concerned with other things than developing characters.

 

I think it has to do with liking the character and identifying with them. Trinity often seems cold and impassive, almost robotic. Even in the "sex" scene, she was very unrealistic. Therefore, it's kind of hard to root for her or even like her, for that matter. Aeryn, on the other hand, puts up a stoic Peacekeeper front, but she's actually vulnerable underneath, like a REAL person. She actually has faults, too. You can therefore identify with her. In doing so, you care for the character, too.

This is why I could give 2 s***s about every Voyager character. Characterization sucked, dialogue sucks, and every character "weakness" was often exploited for plot purposes only. In the end, too, everything worked out just fine in the typical Star Trek fashion. The characters therefore seemed like either plastic or cardboard. (The other Star Treks were a bit different, however.)

As for Farscape, not every bad thing gets neatly wrapped up. Things go terribly wrong and stay wrong (when was the last time a major Star Trek character died?). Plus, each major character is a sort of tragic hero. Each has their faults, which, yes, get exploited for plot purposes, too, but their weaknesses are tested over and over again (unlike Voyager). They often try to change, but it's just who they are. John is obsessed with wormholes. D'Argo has a temper and a vendetta. Aeryn is afraid of her emotions and being helpless. Chiana is irresponsible. Rygel is too greedy. Zahn is the closest the ship has to perfection, but she's haunted by her past and tries to make amends everyday. Heck, even Moya can be vengeful and obstinate. The ship and universe are far from perfect, much like our own. Therefore, we care for these characters.

Buffy is very similar, I think, but the characterization is not quite as good as Farscape.

 

Errr. I hate to tell you how the series ends. Let's just say it's not good (cliffhanger never to be resolved). And John and Aeryn DID go to Earth... along with the rest of the crew...

 

1) You need looks
2) You need two characters who are near opposites.
3) You pick the character of the two you identify with most

I think looks play a big part in it. If we are attracted to someone we are more likely to pay attention to them, be interested in the outcome, and pay less attention to the qualities we hate about them. Everybody is attracted to something different. But people also like goofy looking people or people with strange voices. That's an attractant too.

Looks put most of us through the door. Then it's the writing. Most of us like to see two exact opposite people at the beginning of a story. That's why so many people like Morpheus and Neo. They were exactly the opposite. That's makes it interesting. In Backdraft you have the two brothers. Exact opposites. In Nemo same thing.

The exact opposite thing allows you to not only bond with the type you identify with, but allows you to find fault in the other types. Once you've done that you have a rooting interest. A hero so to speak.

As to why you don't like Matrix, I would suggest that you were not attracted to the characters looks in any way. Or that maybe you never really saw a difference in the characters. Thus you were never able to choose one to identify with. Thus why would you care about them. This was the problem in Blackhawk down. The charcters began to melt together. Which is what the director wanted. He wanted some sense of the chaos. Thus most of us couldn't identify with the characters and we focused on the chaos of war.

 

I think attachment has a lot to do with the ability to relate to characters. If the actor can get the audience to relate with him, then they really care about what happens to him. In most movies, I find I care about the stupid animals in them more than I do the actual characters. I guess that has a lot to do with associating those animals with animals that you have when you're growing up. Reading this thread reminded me of Castaway and Tom Hanks. I really felt extremely sad when that damn volleyball started drifting away from Tom's character. I'm still amazed that I felt emotionally attached to a stupid freaking volleyball with blood on it. I guess that attachment has a lot to do with being in a similar situation as a child. Most of us all had certain things that we gave life to when we were kids, such as Transformers or dolls or whatever.

It's all about being able to relate to the character in some way.