Screenwriting : Likeable characters - are they needed? by Craig D Griffiths

Tricky. Frank Underwood and Walter White have done some truly terrible things -- but you still want to see what they are up to because they were compellingly drawn. But that's TV. For film, I think it is harder because you have less time to develop a character -- but not impossible. It definitely wouldn't stop me from seeing a film, if I was intrigued by the character and the scenarios that they face.

(There is nothing about that logline that makes the character inherently unlikeable .. they are job descriptions.) It doesn't matter whether we 'like' the character or not - we just have to relate to them or have an emotional investment in their journey ... Scarface. American Psycho. Taxi Driver.

Thank you both. Emotional investment, exactly. I think these people had a hard time thinking they could be emotionally invested in the life of a drug dealer. They jumped straight in with " no one cares if a scumbag thrives..." Which I thought was a tad immature.

Bad guys are in big time! If the character's engaging and entertaining you're golden.

The logline is terrible which probably means the thru line of the script is terrible. Mel Brooks made Hitler a sympathetic character. It s just storytelling. Give us a reason why the audience should pay $$$$.

@Dan, as I said needs work. Why is it terrible and how would you fix it?

Try this one on for size. A malcontented street dealer looking to improve her life finds a way to import product directly and becomes the target for the middle men she cut out.

I'm a newb but I feel like as long as a character is interesting it doesn't matter if they are likeable or not because an interesting character is in it's own right likeable.

First; I agree with Dan in that the logline is flat, uninteresting and typical of present day television fare. But the answer to your question regarding the necessity of likeable characters. I think you really do need some likeable characters in order to hold an audience. Your antagonist may truly be an evil, rotten, nasty character but s/ he ought to have some enduring points too. I loved the antagonist in The 3:10 to Yuma. Your protagonist ought to have a few basis character flaws too (watch the old Dirty Harry films). Every person (character) I know has some good and some bad facets – and that's what makes them interesting, real and compelling.

Craig, I think you are on to something. I know the industry calls for our hero to be likable but just like John explained you can put this character in a bad situation that the audience can relate to. This hero can make all the wrong choices but if her heart is in the right place the audience will be compelled. In regards to the logline, start over. I would suggest something but I do not think what you have wrote even begins to explain what your story is truly about. Try again and then we can maybe help!

I'm an eternal optimist. Therefore I usually look for a least one redeeming quality in a character. It may be a characteristic that we don't agree is too redeeming, but for a villain it may be the best they can give. It's all based on their viewpoint.

Some of the better movies and TV have had either likable characters that get themselves into bad situations or bad characters that end up doing good things despite themselves.

Craig, the logline is bland and a cliche of every drug or robber character who "wants a better life" or "one last score." Give us an emotional or high stakes journey told in 2 sentences or less. Anthony Moore 's logline is good. the Hero's journey, goal, threat of stakes. If your script follows his logline to the T, it will be an entertaining story.

I guess the likeability of a character doesn't depend on something positive or negative. Everyday circumstances teach us not to judge anything or anyone. I believe Dan Maxx. Anthony Moore's logline is what we are talking about, but there is room to make the story far more compelling. Just do what you must to justify your character(s). Put yourself into the situation; what will you do? Everybody needs an advocate, the purest of saints and the vilest of devils.

Characters must be compelling, not necessarily "likeable." :)

After a good night's sleep, Im sharp. Craig, your logline/story is the pilot episode of "Weeds", TV show from 9 years ago. "A surburban single mom creates a new weed strain and becomes the target of crooked Cops and falls in Love with a drug kingpin" Even though mom is a dirtbag drug dealer, the audience roots for her because the bad guys are worse-killers- and she's selling drugs to provide for her family. Yada. Yada. Empathy. Sympathy. Whatever Universal emotions. I cried when Darth Vader died and he's the greatest villain in American cinema History.

If you're going to make your characters unlikable then you run the risk of irritating your viewer. However, you can make bad people charming and entertaining. Make them audacious in their behavior. One of the best examples that is the Louis Bloom character in Nightcrawler. I think he's very loosely inspired by 1940s photographer Arthur Fellig, AKA The Weegee, who photographed some pretty stark images. And was known to have pushed the normal envelope. However, the Bloom character does far worse things in Nightcrawler. But our dear Beth hit the unlikable nail on the head, make your characters compelling, which usually comes with a large dose of charm. Here are some other examples of charming badmen. 1. Robert Stranix and Commander Krill in Under Seige were great villains and funny as hell. So much so, that without them, the sequel fell flat. 2. Armani suit wearing, money grubbing Hans Gruber was so charming, he made the perfect antagonist to the dogged protagonist John McClane. Gruber became the prototype for future villains like the aforementioned Stranix and Krill. 3. No list would be complete without Al Swearengen from Deadwood. His character was charming, thoughtful, likable, deadly and Machiavellian enough to give the Borgias a run for their money.

Dan MaXxXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX corrected me. Hans Gruber wore suits by John Phillips of London. personally, I'm an off the rack and let em' make a few alterations guy.

@Dan Maxx. I know you would love a dark soul like Darth Vader. ;)

I have a few screenplays where the main character is a bad guy. I don't think a main character always has to be likeable.

I would have thought for the most part, the antagonist is, a bad guy who makes life difficult for the protagonist.

I think bad characters are always very interesting, and a story with the main character as a bad one is very challenging!

Patricia you are right but a story can be antagonist driven.

Every bad guy – except those flat cardboard characters so common today – see's himself behaving righteously. It's just that your good guy sees himself as being more righteous and therein is the conflict that makes your story compelling.

While I don't know if you need a likable, I think the audience should have someone to root for. If they don't care, then how will they experience suspense or sadness. I think the audience must invest some emotional capital in the characters.

Great points, Phillip. ;) But compelling means more than charming. A compelling character is engaging, interesting, even if they are doing horrible things. We (the audience) WANT to see what they will do next, what will happen. If a character is compelling and captures our attention and interest, likability becomes rather irrelevant.

Beth, I didn't say charm was the only ingredient. However, charm is one of the key elements in making a successful sociopath both in real life and celluloid. Case in point; the most engaging thing about the maniac Hannibal Lector is his charm, along with intelligence and wait for it... good manners. By the way, have I told you how much I enjoy your posts? Also, I'm certain your most recent avatar is your best.

I am psychic, honestly I just tap into people to see what they want. I am also a scientist of human behavior, all human beings revolve around fear of abandonment, therefore to target you market, you want to INDUCE FEAR, psychologically people are attracted to what will motivate an action of change. Induce fear by triggering a high response emotion- which are, 1.FEAR/terror/hate, 2. Surprise/excitement/laughter 3. Love/likability. This means you are solid ! Keep going. Those people are just chattering about their opinions. I have science to prove this. For example Lord of the Rings, I sat threw and watched over and over even though I cannot sit still, I hate the character Froto, however everything about the movie was compelling, The Machinist, Silence of the Lambs, Movies you have to follow and have a constant pull of FEAR of the unknown and a dark element of curiosity. We are meant to evolve as humans, trigger curiosity. Blessings! Hope that helps.

I'm working on a script in which my main character is an awful person, something along the lines of "Louis Bloom" in Nightcrawler. I got some helpful and insightful advice from Conrad Sun; he's done some great webinars for S32. He advised to think of this type of character as the extraordinary in an ordinary world. It's all about creating a compelling character. A character that despite doing awful, morally wrong things engages your audience. We become interested in this character, this character that is operating and doing things 'normal' people would never do. Instead of the expected choice between option A or B, this character chooses C. They surprise us, intrigue us. We then want to see what they will do next. ;)

Haha, Phillip! Is that your charm talking? ...Personally speaking, I have never found "Hannibal Lector" charming, at least in the films. Terrifying--absolutely! Love the TV series, Hannibal. The series version of this great character is incredibly manipulative—being the sadistic, narcissistic, psychopath that he is. ;)

Beth! I just was about to post a pitch to due my life story. I was born in consciousness, dead at birth and died SO many times in my real life, I operated out of PURE ID. which is survival. I have 2 ideas. One for a play all music, I can play me and dance it, the other is for a movie, but I will play the ghost/innerchild. I slept under my bed and in closets and on the streets, got my MA in Mental Health to find a cure, then did! Now I am a Medical Intuitive, Psychic and more. I was born with the prophecy of the New Earth. I have Universal Cosmic Consciousness and the 13th Siddhi. Which means I am the 6th sense - 7th ring of Clarity. However I need to play me to make it work. I was born a pure prodigy and savant. I use my entire brain having telecknic powers. So I have to be careful with my voice. It changes bodies these days. I also need help to lead me, because I am in a constant state of meditation, however can work like no body else. I am fast as hell:) If you have leads for me that would be a blessing. The Medical Western world poisoned me and the government. I have a very interested life story- no one is like mine, a empath with sociopathic tendencies to survive, pure hearted and never hurt a fly, therefore I chose to die over and over instead until my children, then my mother died to show me through consciousness as she knew I was telepathic. She had me trained early.

My antagonists are all horrible people... an uncouth businessman who conspires with a lawyer to steal a businesswoman's assets and rapes his secretary.... the devil who terrorizes all in his quest to take a bride... a group of 8 who conspire to strip a nurse of her home and livelihood because she is fighting to save her community... So my aim is for the audience will hate my antagonists and hopefully love my protagonists.

Thanks everyone. @Dan, I heard a story told by Vince Gilligan where he told someone the concept for Breaking Bad and they said "it's weeds". Vastly different you'd agree. That is the problem with a logline, hard to get tone in it. This is a young woman (Amy) trapped in a low socioeconomic world. She looks after her young sister by selling some drugs and doing odd jobs for a dealer. The dealer is a junkie and sees himself as a big time dealer, which he isn't. She has the opportunity to get her own weight, cut out her boss and perhaps start something that she thinks will make life better. Her boss asks her to drop a car off to someone that she knows kills people. Her paranoia gets the better of her and she strikes first. This triggers a series of escalating problems. During the story her sister is sent out of town to a friend of Amy. The final scene is her deciding to die (death by cop) to give her sister a clean break.

I don't think they all have to be likable...what fun is that. I would rather have a movie that I dislike at least one of the characters, that way it garnishes interest...who wants a movie where you know what's going to happen. Isn't there a saying "love to hate"? The audience would love to hate that characters so much that they can't stop watching what they do.

Craig I heard the same Story. But he is Vince Gillian. Emmy winner. Made $1billion+ for Fox TV. He s pitching to decision makers. You re submitting to Interns. Your logline gotta be Killer.

Real life sucks sometimes, people want to feel related to, I like it Craig!

Bad people believe themselves not evil, but they're good at being bad for the benefit of others. Some are bad at being good. Good people are boring without unsavory counter-parts or adversaries. Evil is not immune to giving or receiving love. Evil once loved. Stories are survival tools. Bad people want to survive too, but a bad person learns to stay evil by the hands of an altruist. That's bad altruism. So who's really good? No one is really, we're selfish, greedy, jealous and manipulative but think we're not. So I'd rather spend my energy on converting evil than affirming altruism. Standardized structure is suffocating like public schooling but i understand it's necessity. My imagination survived knowing the value of auto-escapism and day dreaming would retain my since of childhood wonderment, exploratory discovery and most importantly.... innocence. I tried to compact this, I hope this helps Craig! Cheers.

@Serafin people believe they are the heroes of their own story. My experience as a criminal intelligence analyst taught me everyone has a morally neutral position they need to survive. Even a thief believes they need the stuff more than the person they are robbing. If the victim really cared they would have protected it more, or it's the insurance companies problem, the victim gets a new one. The their tells themselves that it helps the victim, allows them to get back to that morally neutral place. We have all heard someone say "it would be better for everyone if I was dead". This is that. As much as Amy tries she only makes it worse. That's when she reaches the conclusion.

@Dan, Vince was out of work and joking with a friend that they should cook meth to make ends meet which why he wrote Breaking Bad. You can't point at someone's success as a reason why they can do something. They are successful because of what they did not the other way around. Prior to BB Vince was a staff writer on the X-files and had done 40 unsuccessful rewrites on Hancock. I am going to continue to be me. If the world wants that great, but if not at least I know it was my best attempt. This is a great thread, thanks everyone.

I know just about everyone has put in their 2 or 3 cents but I just thought I'd toss in mine as well. I agree that they don't always have to be likable, though that depends on the genre and target audience. Typically with family or children's films you don't want unlikable leads unless its a Scrooge type story where we have redemption (see Despicable Me). ALL characters, must be interesting. So even if they aren't likable, they are either funny, quirky, or so compelling that we have to keep watching. I think audience sympathy can help with the initial introduction and push (like the terminal situation of Walter White), but if they keep doing unlikable things, that sympathy will run out and we'll need another reason to follow them. We can also go the other way with a tragedy. We can start off with a really likable character and then they fall apart. I think we see some of that with Rick's character in Walking Dead. We've seen him do some really selfless and heroic things, but then he starts to slip and loose his humanity and we hope he can regain it. That tension can sustain an unlikeable character, or a character who is doing unlikable things, for a bit.

In most cases, the antagonist believes his/her motives are justified (numerous reasons, all good movies, plays). For example, in most cases, they believe they're doing "good work" for mankind, basically. If so, the viewer may see the antagonist's point of view, the reason for his/her unlawful actions, like the antagonist commits a robbery. Okay, this is lawfully wrong, right? But, now, you show some compelling reason for committing this unlawful actions, she needs the money to help save someone's life, not because she wants to go have a good time. Your villain can be bad and compassionate at the same time, make her multi-layered. Here's another streamline example, in the film The Professional (watch his movie), the assassin protects his house plant. Why would a professional killer care about a stupid house plant? He could always buy another plant, right? He's a professional killer and a protector of life. The plant symbolizes life; it needs to be care for in order to continue living. It makes the assassin a more interesting and complex character. Anyway, here's the thing, in my opinion, your protagonist is only as good as your villain is bad. Hope this helps.

Serafin: not all bad people believe themselves to be not evil. Some realistically embrace the essence of their evilness quite openly and authentically.

Craig I think you are a good guy and Im going be respectful and tell you straight truth. It's gonna help your entertainment writing. you are not part of the American Industry. you were never part of the Industry. Yahoos reading your loglines are also not in the Industy. I am not in the Industry. The people in the Industry are attending the golden globe awards tomorrw night in Los Angeles. You and I are auditioning by writing our shitty spec scripts hoping for a shitty 1st assignment which will lead to a job, a career in the industry. That is it. If youre gonna to write bad loglines, you re gonna fall behind the pack. There is Vince Gillian "out of work" and there is you and I "out of work." Huge difference.

Craig: I'm assuming you are speaking primarily about a story's protagonist. A few observations: + There is obviously a difference between "like" as in "having an enjoyable/pleasant feeling/attitude/belief about someone/something....and "like" as in "being captivated by someone/something." + While someone may not like a character like Patrick Bateman, we can certainly be captivated by his psychopathic/sociopathic nature and actions. He is quite aware of his descent into an immoral world; he hates everyone and everything in his life; and there is nothing redeemable about him...other than the fact that he won't kill/seduce/harm Jean. So even though he's not likable in the one sense of the word, he's definitely quite a captivating film protagonist. + Tony Montana is pretty psychopatic/sociopathic, too, and not likable in the one sense of the word, but definitely is quite a captivating film protagonist, too, in both character and in actions. So there is this difference between "personally liking someone" and "personally being captivated by someone who quite isn't the type of person I'd want to associate with or emulate." I think as long as a writer has a clear understanding of that second type of "like", and writes the story, character and actions in that appropriate type of way.....an audience member doesn't have to "like" someone....as long as they are captivated by the protagonist and the actions of that protagonist.

Bill Costantini True* I focused mainly on the vast spectrum of gray which is flexible unlike bare-boned black and white.

When it comes to characters, it's not about whether or not they are likable (in my opinion). Instead, to me it's more important that they are well written. Some of my favorite characters in things have been characters that should be unlikeable but I get invested in their story enough that I overlook those aspects.

@Dan, sorry I misread your comment. I thought you were heading down the path of "only famous writers can write uniquely". I am sick of the "you're not Tarantino" crowd. You know the people that see something different and panic that is doesn't fit into some formula or page count. So again sorry (reading on a phone & 50 year old eyes). I truly never intend to be a Hollywood writer. Australia has a good film industry, so I'll stay home.

Craig Thats fine too. Stay local and crush it. Best to you, sir.

Characters carry a story. Do they all need to be likeable? No. But will readers/viewers continue to be interested? In our world today, people read books or go to movies to 'escape reality' sometimes. They want someone to root for. Some people live depressing lives or suffer depression. These people want to see someone go against all odds and succeed. According to your logline and description, your main character doesn't seem like an unlikeable person, but in an unlikeable situation? Write it in a way that the audience has empathy for the character(s), and since her sister has been abducted, that's a strong element for an audience to connect with (at least puts themselves into the main character's shoes). The Blackliist with James Spader is a good example that conveys what you're asking. Reddington is by no means a good person. Even though he's working with the FBI, he's underhanded in what he does, and yet, his character is one of my favorites to watch. Best!

I personally am often drawn to intriguing characters that are not so likable but you can't help but be fascinated by them. I think that if you define a character properly it goes deeper than just being liked. I love someone who can write about someone who's something of an ass but you end up rooting for them anyways. Depends on the story, too, I guess.

Leonard – I have to both agree and disagree with you: Characters, in and of themselves do not carry a story forward. It's the conflict between your characters, interwoven with your well crafted screenplay, performed by skilled actors in scenes blocked by a talented director that carries your story. (There are lots of other folk too.) Whether your characters are likable or unlikable matters not – but just make sure that they are not boring.

Dan M – I thought about going this year but our airport was shut down by an ice storm so I gave my invite to a starving young actor in LA who is networking her brains out.

Craig: Read your comments which started this thread. You obviously know a lot more about bait than I. I really didn't think you'd get so many comments. I read your Profile and your kind thanks at the end. Jocelyn: I wasn't really sure what I was reading. I wasn't sure whether it was a character you had created or whether I had read you correctly. I viewed your Profile. There are only two roads in life you can follow, both take you out. Both bringing you back, hopefully. But on one road you really don't know WHO you're engaging out there and whether it is YOU who comes back. Children are the most vulnerable because of their innocence. God Bless.

Doug--Without conflict you don't have a story. I agree. Without strong characters, most people won't care about the conflict enough to read/watch the script/movie. Ray Bradbury once said, "Follow the characters." Before we have actors, we have a script. A script someone has to read and decide if it's worth producing. As you mention, 'interwoven,' yes! All the elements must join properly, but if I don't have some empathy toward the characters, I cannot read it, regardless of the conflict. Dialogue is a key component in a script that highlights a character. A script not read is one not produced.

I would suggest vulnerability vs. likability. Characters don't have to be likable, but they have to have a moment of humanity, some window that show's they are not just an unredeemable sociopath. Sherlock Homes, Lou Bloom, Michael Corleone, Paul Kersey sociopaths one and all, but all have a twinge of humanity in their brokenness. Without that you have one dimension (bad)... with it you have two dimensions (bad but human)... more than enough to work. Even if they go south into darkness...at least you were rooting for them for a while (i.e., Michael Corleone). All this hinges on the moral component... a very long discussion :) My 2 cents.

So are unlikeable [sic] character [sic] death for a script? Per se, no. Everyone loves a villain who serves as a primary hate sink; the more unlikable, the better. But after serving their purpose vis-à-vis opposing the protagonist, they usually have to get their comeuppance. That said, Hollywood, and more recently TV/Streaming (still) loves protagonists who are cuddly, witty, and sympathetic... murderers, psycho killers, cannibals, assassins, scumbags. Once those creaky old moral and ethical standards are tossed out the window, anything goes.

Personally speaking, if I don't have at least some commonality with the protagonist I don't care what happens to him/her. Recent example would be War Dogs. I didn't like either of them. I didn't like the guy's wife. So I didn't care one way or another what happened to them. Why should I? Do you break down and cry for every homeless person you see on the street? No? That's not because you're heartless. It's because you have no vested interest in their story. Now, if you look closely and discover that that homeless person is some long lost friend, now all of a sudden you want to know what happened, don't you? Same person, same story. But now you care about them. Or at least you did at some point in your life.

If you look at is honestly, Sons of Anarchy has no likable characters. Some might think it's cool that they ride motorcycles and live on the edge but really they are all womanizing, criminal assholes. Also most of the women allow themselves to be treated like crap and ask for more. I enjoyed the show but did not genuinely like one character on the show.

@Patricia this wasn't bait. Go to www.logline.it you'll will find this logline there getting reviewed. Everyone there started out with how a character has to be likeable. A drug dealer can't be likeable.... blah blah blah. So I checked with you guys. Make sure I am not mad.

Craig – thanx for that site tip – I'll give a try. I don't think of a drug dealer as being a likable sort but I do think that if you give your drug dealing mom some righteous trait such as being a tiger mom, or an ecological advocate or a protector of old folks...whatever - It's the old “save the cat” character flaw.

Not necessarily likeable but sympathetic.

Compelling is all you need.

Compelling, sympathetic and relatable are somewhat subjective terms. One can briefly relate to or sympathize with the scumbag drug dealer Lemond Bishop of The Goodwife -- when he's acting like a good and loving father. But he could never wear the hero's hat because he's still a scumbag.

No...you need the Protagonist and the Antagonist to make the conflict situation .. My main character, changes throughout the storyline, she is in constant jeopardy throughout... something to hide...playing dangerous mind games...antagonism can change sides.

So Craig – Back to your original questions: Are likable characters needed – No: Are unlikable characters death for a script – No. Remember that in screenwriting there are no rules or absolutes and I think that the certainty/confusion exhibited in the many responses in this thread affirm that.

I agree with Doug except there is one rule and that rule is, "write a great screenplay!"

"Are likable characters needed – No" ... really? A movie without likable characters sounds like torture, not entertainment. Strictly for the art-house crowd.

Just to add... Discussions like this one often go around and around in circles because the meaning of "likable" is rather subjective, is it not?—especially within the context of character creation. We need to have some sort of agreement on the definition/meaning of "likable" within this context, right? Perhaps? With that, I have read (I forget where? sorry) that there are 9 likable attributes. And a character must possess at least 5 out of the 9 to be "likeable." The 9 attributes are: funny, skilled, courageous, unfair injury, in some danger, nice/kind, loved by others, hardworking, driven/obsessed. Now, personally, this sort of thing makes my eyes roll because it seems far too contrived. Plus the pressure to be "likable" seems more put upon female characters than male. But... Regardless, you certainly can apply it to any character as some sort of "test." Likability, of course, is certainly an asset. However, personally, as a reader or audience member I'm not so concerned about "likable" but rather care more about "watchable." Watchable = compelling. "Likable" if pushed, overdone, can be a slippery slope to "contrived," which is boring. Does this character interest me? Do I want to see what happens? I'd say I prefer complex over likable any day. ...Oh, Dan G, I thought the only absolute rule of screenwriting is: never be boring. ;) Lol!

Beth. That too.

Haha! Okay, that's what I thought, Dan. Isn't that a Billy Wilder quote? He said something like, "Never bore people." :)

Can't see if anybody else has mentioned him already but one of creepiest and theoretically most unlikeable guys in film would have to be Anthony Hopkins playing Hannibal Lecter. And yet you couldn't not watch him. He was absolutely riveting on-screen. He was charming and erudite, and the scariest guy you'd ever want to meet in a dark alley. If your drug dealer's that compelling, Craig, you'll get butts on seats on opening weeked.

Discussions like this go around and around? (Sung to the tune of Dave Mason's We Just Disagree "There ain't no protags, there ain't no antags, there's only Beth and me and we might disagree. There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys, there's only Beth and me and we write what we see... whoa, whoa, whoa!, yeah, yeah, yeah!" Best Elvis Voice Thank you very much.

Wow, our own song rendition, Phillip? How kind of you! We disagree? I don't think so? Oh, wait... I guess I'm disagreeing now. Lol! :) :-P

Beth: Actually, we don't disagree. The song needed to rhyme.

Round an round an round... I'm outta here.

Watch Criminal, a negative turned into a positive.

Phillip: Haha! I thought so. Lol! But hey... Good song. Great lyrics. You gotta love it. ;)

Here's a perfect example. I'm watching Sky Captain and the world of tomorrow. Gwyneth Paltrow's character is so f***ing annoying I want to kill her. Every moment she's on the screen is one big cringe. It's ruining the whole movie for me.

Just watched Love & Friendship, where the main character is really bad, she's cunning, and hypocrite, but we still want to know what "will happen next" hoping her plan won't succeed. I think it is very hard for a screenwriter to build up a story around a "bad" character, but it's a very good challenge, for, if the screenwriter manages to keep the viewer's attention, he will have done something special. It's about making the character somehow "likable" although he's bad, and building the story around in such a way that it will hook the viewer's attention. Jane Austen was a skilled writer, I didn't read the book, but studying the movie and the screenplay could be of great help. All the best for your writing!

Breaking Bad ran for five seasons without a single likeable character. I wouldn't take advice from randos based on a logline, either. As for the logline itself, it sounds more like a summary to me; punch it up and tell me less - I want to be intrigued, not necessarily informed, and I certainly don't want to know the ending before I've seen the show! :)

Walt and Jesse were likable. Dad trying to provide for his family, charismatic kid with addiction problems. And the brother in law and Saul. All likable.

Omg no likable characters on Breaking Bad? That's ridiculous. They were some of the most multi-faceted characters I've ever seen, and you couldn't help liking them even when they did bad things.

Judy: I have three words for you... Better call Saul.