>>56929692Again, not talking about Hugh specifically
Try to see if you can follow my chain of logic:
Pure definition: Forgettable means more likely to be (or more able to be by more people) forgotten/misremembered etc.
Step 2: This can be caused by attributes of the subject (in this case characters)
Steps 3 and 4 are interchangeable
Step 3: What you said. These are "exposure" factors, so to speak. I happen to disagree with the "third version" reason. I interpret the original definition as "if you're exposed to it, how likely are you to forget it/how easily will you forget it". It's sort of like a "per capita" of what percent of people who experienced the character remember it.
Step 4:
For whatever reason, you seem to maintain that no attributes of the character itself can make it forgettable, I disagree. I'm not just saying "bad = forgettable". If something is more actively repulsive, it strikes your brain more and so you remember it, but it's in a negative way so the character is bad.
What I've been arguing is that there are ways to execute a character that literally strike your brain less and make you remember it less. Nothing to do with being bad even if there's overlap. Movies, for example, might have a specific nameless character always alongside the main one that will be les memorable, but doesn't means he's a bad character. If there's just nothing to the character, there's no reason for the mind to store extra memories of it relative to characters that have more bearing.
So I don't really see the issue with what I said. Boring characters intrinsically are tougher for more people to remember for longer since there literally isn't so much material to remember. Same with shallow and unoriginal characters. The brain simply remembers unique things better, Unique could be bad too while still being more memorable.
Please tell me exactly what point you still lost me.
