Does development automatically make characters more endearing or memorable compared to their more static counterparts?
It doesn't automatically make them more endearing. You can see characters grow and change but you can still dislike them. Hell, some stories are built on someone changing into a person you don't like, for example Walter White in Breaking Bad, or Tony Montana in Scarface.
But even when that's the case, the journey of seeing how and why they change is engaging. We understand why Walter White becomes Heisenberg, we even sympathise with his initial motivations, and the thrill of the show is watching him go further than we perhaps would ourselves and showing us something of the darkness lurking within us all. Walter's development
is the show. Without it no one would remember Breaking Bad.
Development helps characters leave a stronger impression, but there are plenty of characters who get development that we forget about, or just don't think about. They tend to be supporting or secondary characters, though, and we don't remember them as well because the story isn't about them specifically.
That said, developing secondary characters makes them feel like real people and not just contrivances that exist to enable the plot, and there are thousands of examples of side characters who are remembered because they had some development. Percy Weasley springs to mind.
If you only watch the movies you'd be forgiven for not even knowing Percy exists, but in the books he goes from Ron's snooty older brother and a bit of an odd-one-out in the Weasley clan, to a traitor sucking up to authority, to a redeemed hero returning to fight alongside his family after realising they are more important than his work or reputation. That development fleshes Percy out as a person and makes him memorable (to book readers at least) despite him not being very present compared to the rest of his family.
So development is definitely a powerful story-telling tool, whether you want the audience to like a character, grow to dislike them, understand darker impulses within themselves, or make the supporting cast more involved and memorable. It doesn't happen automatically, though. The development has to feel genuine and serve a narrative or thematic function.
Look at Groose in Skyward Sword. He gets developed, technically, but because he goes from one flat stereotype to another flat stereotype in a single scene it doesn't feel genuine. It feels like what it is: a contrivance to facilitate the catapult in the later Imprisoned fights. He doesn't feel like a real person, having real experiences, he feels like an explanation for something unrelated to the story. Because that's all he is.
So development in and of itself isn't good enough. It has to feel real, and it has to connect with something other than the plot. Otherwise it comes across as lazy, or the writer dispassionately checking boxes off a list.
Can static characters be effective?
Definitely. In fact, they are an important and powerful story-telling device.
The term 'catalyst characters' is commonly used to describe them because static characters — who are often characters who have fully developed into their 'perfect' selves, or characters who refuse to develop and remain as their 'worst' self — are most effectively used to kick off or aid the development of other characters, typically the protagonist.
Think of Obi-Wan Kenobi in the original Star Wars. He doesn't change over the course of the film, remaining the wise, knowledgable retired hero from the moment he scares off the Tuskan raiders to the moment he vanishes into the Force and leaves his clothes behind. But he is the catalyst for Luke's development. He not only gives Luke the story about his father that inspires Luke, he provides an example of what a Jedi is that Luke can strive to attain, as well as flat out teaching Luke how to connect with the Force.
Without Obi-Wan, Luke would not have become a Jedi, and because Obi-Wan is seen as a fully developed and static character the audience believes and trusts that he is a fitting mentor for Luke.
Or think of Jack in Titanic, lol. He is his complete, perfect self, but his role in the story is to allow Rose to express the side of herself that her circumstances represses, acting as the catalyst for Rose's development and the choices she makes during the story.
It can go the other way, too. A catalyst character might be a terrible person, or a person with no motivation to improve, or someone who has given up on ever bettering themselves or getting out of their circumstances. These characters might provide an example of what the protagonist doesn't want to become where someone like Obi-Wan represents what they do want to become. A possible future to avoid, rather than one to achieve.
But even here, with static characters, their effectiveness is tied directly to the development of another character. Static characters are most effective when they facilitate or inspire development in other characters, so just because they don't develop themselves doesn't mean development itself is any less important.
Can more developed/dynamic characters be ineffective?
Absolutely. If the development feels insincere, or rushed, or just doesn't make sense then the audience won't accept the changes or journey. They'll feel hollow and out of character.
To go back to Star Wars, Luke is very different in Episode 8 compared to Episode 6, but because the audience didn't see that development, and thus doesn't understand
why Luke changed to be the way he now is, it fails utterly to be effective. It feels false, like a lie, like this isn't really Luke but a version of him contrived to fit a plot he isn't naturally a part of. That's why so many people had a big problem with it.
Then look at Resident Evil 6. Chris Redfield is a hero, an inspiration, a warrior for truth and justice. Yet in RE6 he fights Leon Kennedy in an attempt to murder Ada Wong in cold blood. How did Chris get to this point? How did he become this hateful killer? Because of his experiences as a squad captain six months earlier, when Ada Wong seemingly betrayed his noble intentions and killed his entire team in front of his eyes. We see Chris's compassion and respect for his men. We see how fiercely he fights to protect them. We see how utterly he fails, and we see how the guilt and anger of that failure brings his darker impulses to the fore.
Chris becomes someone totally unlike himself, but because we see that development it feels true, it makes sense, and the audience accepts it. With Luke, they changed him without showing us the process by which he changed, and so the audience rejects it because it feels false.
Simply having a character change isn't enough. We need to see it. We need to know why in order to truly be affected by it. Character development isn't concerned
that a character changes, it's concerned with
why and
how a character changes, and stories that don't understand that — like The Last Jedi — will always be less effective than stories that do.
So, overall, my answer would be that character development isn't overrated. It really is crucial to making a story engaging on anything other than a surface level. But it's important to remember that development can be achieved in many ways with many types of characters. Static characters can be wonderful, but they are at their best when they influence the development of others. Development itself must feel genuine in order for the audience to accept it. Just having characters change on a dime, or because the story suddenly needs a mean person to be nice or a nice person to be mean, isn't enough.
Characters should direct the story, they shouldn't be directed by the plot. Development, however it is achieved and whatever role individual characters play in it, is central, and shouldn't be ignored or underestimated. Characters that we like for surface level traits are fine and we all have our examples of them, but when development is used to add depth to those characters and the characters around them you get so much more from a work of fiction.
Thank you for attending my TED Talk
