Kartik Aaryan Quotes

You need the audience to become invested in the characters and in order to become invested, they need to identify with the characters... and that's why the characters need to be real.

I'm focused on finding characters I connect to.

You have to present characters an audience can relate to.

I hope to create characters that people want to watch - and they either want to be or are, or it's something that they recognize.

One of the things that separates a good genre movie from a bad genre movie, I always think, ironically, is when you care about the people. The dime a dozen ones are where you don't have any awareness of the character.

As a writer, you have to realize that people want to like the characters, so you have to be careful to keep them involved.

I can tell you that as a writer and as a reader, I regard character as king. Or queen. No matter how riveting the action or interesting the plot twists, if I don't feel like I'm meeting someone who feels real, I'm not going to be compelled to read further.

The real trick to these movies and making the big action sequences work - and I've forgotten this sometimes and screwed it up - the characters really have to be humanized. Because you can have the greatest special effects in the world, but if you don't care about the people in those effects, there's no impact.

I try to create characters people want to sit with, even if nothing is happening.

Whether it was 'Gangs Of Wasseypur' or whether it's 'LSTCK,' the characters are real, and when you see them on screen, you can identify with them.

I always try to make my characters people, and yet I always want to entertain.

People like the comedy more when they care about the characters.

There's no rule that we have to like the characters movies are about.

I have to have a character worth caring about. I tend not to start writing books about people I don't have a lot of sympathy for because I'm just going to be with them too long.

There's a bizarre insistence on how a story should be. 'The protagonist must be sympathetic!' they say. Whatever that means. I never engage in that discussion. I never use that word, 'sympathetic.' I just know 'interesting.'

What I look for in any character, good or bad, is whether I can hear him speak. If I can imagine him that clearly, then I can write about him.

I try to begin with a strong grasp of my characters. Even if it's schematic, I need it clear in my head who these people are.

I am a firm believer that a good plot makes for a fun enough read, but it's not what binds us. If we don't care about the characters, we won't care - not in a lasting way - about what's happening to them.

If you can relate to what the character's going through, the story can be as ridiculous as possible, and people will relate to it. You can be fearless in your storytelling if you're vigilant about protecting your characters.

What is overriding that and most important is that readers generally are interested in a good character. They might be more comfortable with Harry because they think they know him, but they always seem willing to give somebody new a chance.

I'm about my characters.

In terms of the parallels, I've never related less to a character than Riggan.

When a family film is done well, there's a character that every member of the audience can relate to. I want to be one of those guys.

I think the best way to sell a made-up character is to plant his feet into the real earth.

You can't make the audience fall in love with a character you don't like.