Right. In a drama/comedy (which are the same thing), you typically want the audience invested in the emotional state of the hero because the stakes aren't otherwise very high. (Will she find love or will her heart be broken?!)

In a genre film, you typically want the audience invested in the physical state of the hero or his family and friends because that's usually what's at stake: you fail, you die.

But in both cases, it's perfectly possible to build in a character arc where the main characters (sometimes including the villain) are revealed and then eventually changed. That's just strong story-telling. But in genre, it's still quite satisfying to present a character who, in the course of the story, merely demonstrates his mettle.

• The Terminator is the best, most obvious example of the genre character arc: Sarah Connor is going to be killed unless she toughens up and fights back.

• In Die Hard, John McClane demonstrates his mettle but also learns something along the way about being a better husband—he actually has a long talk about it over the radio while he's doctoring his bloody feet. Classic.

• In Last Crusade, Indy learns his father wasn't just a neglectful obsessive; he thought he was giving Junior a great childhood. They both learn something about what's important ("Junior... let it go") while killing Nazis.

But does Indy change much by the end of Temple of Doom? Not really. Does Batman ever really learn anything or grow as a person in any movie except perhaps The Dark Knight? This is why Hollywood loves origin stories for superheroes. They provide an obvious opportunity for character growth.

Disaster movies (including zombie apocalypses) are more of the sort where people don't change; they just show what they're really like under pressure. Some step up and become heroes; some betray the others to try to save themselves. When this is done well, it feels like--and maybe even is--a character arc and is really satisfying (loaner MacReady takes charge in The Thing). When it's done badly, you just have nameless victims getting killed until the only one left is the one who didn't take off her top.

There's never any reason not to give a hero an emotional arc. But in genre, and especially in the sequels, it's often hard to do it.

• Dirty Harry doesn't change much in Dirty Harry, but he learns that it's no use working within a system that doesn't work, so he throws away his badge at the end.

• In Magnum Force, he learns that vigilante justice is also unworkable.

• By The Enforcer, Tyne Daly's character is needed to be a character that learns something new, because Callahan has seen it all.

So in sequels, writers usually introduce a new character to be the real center or to help the main character learn a new lesson.

• In Terminator 2, Sarah is pushed aside so that John can be the center of attention and grow into a hero.

• In Aliens, Ripley--whose inner mettle was revealed (along with her panties) in Alien--gets Hicks, Newt, and especially Bishop to help her learn about teamwork, humanity, and trust--all of which were subverted by the first film.

In short, there's nothing like a solid character arc to enhance your genre story, and all the better if the bad guy has an arc of his own.

And that's why Point Break is the greatest film of all time.