Why shouldn't it count?


Phil

Because it goes against George's post, he said that they have to resolve the fatal flaw for it to be considered one and not just live with it... I'm not saying it doesn't those were kind of his words.

I couldn't care less, I was just wondering since he doesn't resolve that conflict... would it count?

It is the villain's inability to overcome their flaw that leads them to their doom. If the villain overcomes his flaw, that usually leads him to no longer being the villain, which can still make for a satisfying ending. The main protagonist is the focus for resolving the flaw.

Sometimes, the main character doesn't overcome his flaw which leads to a strange ending, but if that ending is the only inevitable one, then it occasionally works. I come back to War of the Roses as the example here.

Plot in essence is a minutia if you don't have the characters to carry it. Characters are the most important part of the script. You can have an intriuging, thrilling, and well developed plot, but if we don't care about the characters then you have nothing.

Character flaws are what give the movie flavour. I guess it's because people see themselves as flawed so they relate the our flawed characters.

Any genre can be good, if you take time to work out your characters.

Topher's right.  The plot should be the character.  If it isn't then you must be creating a world first.  An example of that would be that in LOTR the world was Middle Earth, and then you have the characters and there dealings and such in this period.  Every story is about character, and the fatal flaw is essentially what your main character/s have to work through to either change or accept to complete your script.

What happens to the characters should be the script.  You can have a cool idea, but if you dont have characters to back it up somebody'll come up right after you and do your idea better.