r/FilmTalk • u/StructureWatcher • 8d ago
Discussion Which movie adaptation changed a character so much that it became the version people remember?
I’ve been thinking about cases where an adaptation doesn’t just translate a character to the screen — it changes what audiences think the character is.
RDJ’s Tony Stark is an obvious example. His version became so dominant that even people who never read the comics have a very specific idea of what Iron Man is supposed to be like.
But I’m curious about less obvious examples.
Which movie or TV adaptation changed a character so successfully that later versions almost had to react to it?
And what actually changed — the personality, look, tone, humor, backstory, or something else?
7
u/scottyboy218 7d ago
Faramir never tried to take the ring/Sam/Frodo back to Gondor
3
u/StructureWatcher 7d ago
Faramir is a good example because that change affects how you read the character morally, not just how the plot moves. The movie gives him a temptation that the book version basically doesn’t have.
1
u/azure-skyfall 7d ago
Justice for Faramir! If he found the Ring on the side of the road he would not have picked it up.
I get they needed it to happen for plot and pacing reasons, but come on!
1
u/AbbreviationsTop4959 7d ago
They didn't. He's on record rejecting even the possibility that a person of such deep conviction could exist.
5
u/Kalasad-Stormblessed 8d ago
Aragorn, Frodo, and Denethor are all big examples to me from Lord of the Rings. Aragorn- Is super ready to become King of Gondor and his initial plan is to leave the fellowship with Boromir for Gondor. Frodo- Middle aged quasi noble who when using the ring exudes confidence and sometimes appears lordly and exerts dominance over gollum. Denethor- Was just wrecked by holding back Sauron and as I remember he never sent Faramir to die (been a while since I read the third book).
I still love the movies and they portrayed the vibe of Lotr well in my opinion but they are a bit different.
4
u/Human-Bonus7830 7d ago
Aragorn will always be my answer to this. Movie Aragorn seems like a great guy, but nothing like the character in the books.
5
u/lluewhyn 7d ago
Aragorn was my first thought. He doesn't have confidence issues in the book. It was done to make him a more sympathetic protagonist, but I think doing so diminishes the fact that the four hobbits are supposed to be the main protagonists, which is why they conveniently end up near most of the main events except Rohan.
1
u/SYOH326 6d ago
He was my first answer too. When I think of Aragorn, the PJ movies invade my opinion of him and I think of the movie version retroactively. I think of him as a reluctant hero, unless I force myself to swap gears, I don't have that problem with the other characters. Gimli is only comic relief, and Legolas is only a superhero when I'm actually watching the movies. Somehow Viggo has infected years of reading the books. Kudos to him, I do love both versions of the character.
0
u/Aquashinez 6d ago
And Faramir himself, probably the wrist slander.
The 'sent Faramir to die point' is a bit more iffy. He wasn't deliberately going 'please go kill yourself' but it was likely a very heavy casualty mission. The large difference is that the charge had a point and was tactically a good decision.
7
2
u/numbersthen0987431 8d ago
Harley Quinn was actually just a one off character introduced in Batman TAS, but her appearance was so well received that she became an important character to the whole franchise since then.
4
u/CaptainSebT 7d ago
But notably each version tends to influence the media after because modern harley quinn is very different then her original version that versions largely unrecognizable to the anti hero she becomes later.
Every time she becomes main stream somewhere what we see of her after builds off that typically not off her first appearance ot comic appearance. Often even her wardrobe and style changes to be closer to other popular instances of her before it.
6
u/sonofaresiii 7d ago
Eh, I dunno. It seems like a pretty consistent evolution, she doesn't radically change character the way Star Lord did, for example. Even her early appearances showed signs of a sympathetic character who got dragged in over her head
3
u/N0-1_H3r3 7d ago
This. The character has been allowed to grow over the years, and you can see that even just within Batman the Animated Series - she has episodes showing her growth and development, and attempts to break free from the Joker, even if she does backslide occasionally.
1
u/preshowerpoop 6d ago
She "backslides" and flip-flops to whatever the writer wants. She has been rewritten so many times in her short existence that she has become an unreliable character. They even reference her loony inconsistencies in the Suicide Squad; one of them. The character has become a meme in itself. She is just a hot chick who's bonkers at this point, and unfortunately, that's it.
1
u/N0-1_H3r3 6d ago
I think it feels more inconsistent than it is because of this stupid phenomenon these days where people try and tie every iteration of a character to a single essential canon. You get the same thing with discussions about the Joker, where people talking discuss him as if every crime that every adaptation of him has done was all done by a single person. There is no singular, absolute canon. There are multiple, parallel canons.
Multiple versions of Harley exist in different continuities. It isn't inconsistency if one version does one thing and a different version does another.
1
u/preshowerpoop 6d ago
That is it! Too many people have different takes on one singular character, and a fictional character has no chance of being cohesively structured.
Your example of the Joker is spot on. I've seen so many people get Joker tattoos and fundamentally not understand the character. I'm an avid reader of comics and watch the movies. I see their tattoo and wonder why they would get that character permanently on their body. They always say something like, " I am rebellious, or I have a wild side" -and I'm just stuck thinking to myself, you know that guy murders and rapes people for fun. He ain't cool.
1
u/bubblesaurus 7d ago
Crazy villain Harley Quinn is my favorite version.
I don’t really recognize her with what they have done to her
3
u/N0-1_H3r3 7d ago
Another Batman example is Mr. Freeze - he was a D-list gimmick villain named Mr. Zero, created in 1959, but he was renamed to Mr. Freeze for the 1960s Batman TV show, and the comic version got the rename a couple of years later. The main thing defined back then was that an accident with cryogenic technology backfired, forcing him into a containment suit because he needed sub-zero temperatures to survive.
Then later, in Batman: The Animated Series, he gets a complete backstory rework in the episode Heart of Ice, which introduces him as the Dr. Victor Fries, a cryogenics expert who was trying to save his cryogenically-frozen wife, Nora, from a deadly illness, when an accident turns him into Mr. Freeze. This has been the defining backstory for the character ever since, and was adapted back into the comics, and from there into other adaptations (even the version played by Arnie in Batman & Robin included the Nora Freeze backstory). Variations on it have been attempted, too, but the core idea is still based on the Heart of Ice version.
The DCAU also introduced a few other characters, such as GCPD officer Renee Montoya, and the Superman villain Livewire, who've made it back into the comics since, but none are quite so enduring as Harley Quinn or their revised version of Mr. Freeze.
2
u/StructureWatcher 7d ago
That’s an interesting reversal of the idea. Instead of an adaptation changing an existing character, the adaptation created a character who became important enough to reshape the source franchise itself.
3
u/ItsATrap1983 8d ago
Jason Bourne. There were significant departures in the movie from the book series.
2
u/eatschocolate 7d ago
I first read the book, and loved it. Then I watched the movie and loved it. Then I reread the book and hated it.
3
u/justagayguyinnyc 8d ago
It is kind of weird to me that people now think of Hulk as being a longtime Avenger. Prior to the movies coming out Hulk was an Avengers for 2 issues.
3
u/ThatEntrepreneur1450 7d ago
Alan Rickman's Severus Snape.
Book Snape wears his emotions on his sleeves and has freakouts every book. While movie Snape has full control over his emotions and is calm.
3
u/Rated_Phenomenal 7d ago
Movie Thanos and comic Thanos have completely different motivations and personalities , comic Thanos is essentially a simp that was trying to win the love of Death
2
u/Chance_Debt_1184 7d ago
just say you havent read the comics, like i dont know how you could get this impression from the actual story
2
u/Geiseric222 7d ago
That is literally what happens. Like he literally kills people and looks to death for approval which she then refuses to give
2
u/Rated_Phenomenal 7d ago
I literally own the Infinity Saga books (among many others), what are you talking about? Comic Thanos wiped out half the universe to try and win over Death, thats a completely different motivation to movie Thanos, have YOU read the comics?
2
u/Chance_Debt_1184 7d ago
have you? the entire damn storyline is about Thanos wanting to die.
2
7d ago edited 2d ago
[deleted]
2
2
u/Rated_Phenomenal 7d ago
No it’s not lmao if he wanted to die he would have just killed himself, he does not need to impress the literal embodiment of Death to do that, hes not immortal or cursed, just an alien mutant.
2
u/Chance_Debt_1184 7d ago
hes immortal and hes basically cursed, he literally cant die. read the damn comics, its plot of half the stuff starlin does
1
u/Lopsided-Rub5476 6d ago
It's been a while since I've read the comics, but didn't death resurrect thanos to have him kill half the universe?
1
u/StructureWatcher 7d ago
Thanos is a really good one. The MCU substantially reframed his motivation while keeping the scale and menace of the character, and for a lot of people that movie version is probably now the default Thanos.
3
u/unafraidrabbit 7d ago
Huge Jackman is Wolverine. Huge Jackman is tall. Wolverine is no longer short.
Comic purists still will not let this go. How critical was his height to his characterization? And just remember, a character can have a Napoleon complex without actually being short.
2
u/StructureWatcher 6d ago
That’s a good example of a physical change becoming almost culturally invisible over time. Jackman’s version became so dominant that many movie-first viewers probably don’t even think of Wolverine being short as a defining trait.
1
u/Rohml 5d ago
Logan being short was designed to evoke his animal namesake—a wolverine is a stocky and ill-tempered animal, and his original creation was tightly tied to that identity.
He was part of the Giant-Size / All-New, All-Different X-Men lineup, which aimed to diversify the team's cast through different ethnic backgrounds, cultures, and body types. Logan's height also defines his unique fighting style: because of his shorter reach, he has to get brutally close to his opponents. Visually, it serves as a great subversion of the standard superhero trope. You don't need to be tall and statuesque to be a superhero.
No shade to Hugh Jackman, who gave an iconic performance, but comic fans miss short Logan because of the unique body-type representation and visual contrast he brought to the X-Men.
1
u/unafraidrabbit 5d ago
Do you know of any panels that show his height mattering naritivly or action wise? With his claws he has better reach than most people. I tried looking but dont know really where to search. Im not talking about him just being drawn shorter where the audience makes assumptions based on him being "canonically short and therefore all these things are true". Where is a scene where someone who doesn't know he is supposed to be short would look at it and think only a short guy would do/act that way.
2
2
2
2
u/MyFulllifeCrisis 7d ago
Disney's The Jungle Book basically swapped Bagherra and Balloo's personalities. In the books Balloo was much more serious and a stickler for the laws of the jungle. And Bagherra was more mischievous and much more... Well cat-like.
1
u/StructureWatcher 6d ago
That’s a really interesting one because it changes the roles the two characters play, not just their personalities. If the movie is your first exposure, it can completely reshape which one feels like the strict mentor and which one feels like the relaxed friend.
2
u/SuddenReal 7d ago
Nebula. The original Nebula was the self-proclaimed granddaughter of Thanos and was basically a homocidal maniac. She single handedly annihalated Xandar and killed nearly the entire Nova Corps (which is why she wanted to kill Richard Rider to finish the job).
And then after the Guardians of the Galaxy movie, she became a "daughter of Thanos" and one of the good guys.
1
u/StructureWatcher 6d ago
Nebula is a really strong example. The MCU turned her from a much more straightforward villain into a damaged character whose relationships with Thanos and Gamora became central to how audiences see her.
2
u/FieryTub 7d ago edited 7d ago
Frankenstein's creature. The Boris Karloff version that is still the primary influence today is vastly different from what is in the book.
2
u/TheRobertCarpenter 7d ago
Kano from Mortal Kombat. Kano prior had been Japanese American and bland. Trevor Goddard's frankly amazing job transformed to the point basically every iteration after that is basically adapting the movie Kano to the games
1
u/StructureWatcher 6d ago
That’s a great example because the adaptation seems to have fed back into the source material itself. Kano didn’t just become more memorable on screen — the movie helped redefine the character for later games too.
2
u/Environmental_Ad4675 6d ago
Howl (of moving castle fame) is A) a ho, B) not a big cool bird, and C) crucially, Welsh.
1
u/StructureWatcher 5d ago
Howl is a fun one because the movie keeps the core appeal of the character while changing so many of the details around him. And yes, the Welsh part is a pretty big thing to lose.D
2
u/clbdn93 6d ago
Every character in How to Train Your Dragon, but especially Toothless who is a small, bitchy little trickster.
1
u/StructureWatcher 5d ago
Toothless is a really good example. The movie version changed him so drastically that I think a lot of people would be surprised by how different the book character is.
2
u/Remy149 6d ago
Blade was almost completely different character before the Wesley snipes films. He was just a regular human who hunted vampires and British
1
u/StructureWatcher 5d ago
Blade is a great example. The movie version became so dominant that for a lot of people it probably feels like that was always what the character was supposed to be.
2
u/Remy149 5d ago
The comic version completely changed to be more in line with the films
1
u/StructureWatcher 4d ago
That makes Blade an even stronger example. The adaptation didn’t just redefine the character for audiences — it actually pushed the source material itself to move closer to the movie version.
2
u/trinity_nolanite12 5d ago
LA Confidential. Ed Exley was really changed (thankfully) from the book version from what I’ve heard
1
u/ThisIsGrouchy 8d ago
I saw someone on a different subreddit say that Jan in the Brady Bunch movies (a parody of the TV character that exaggerated her most awkward traits) is all anyone remembers now when the original Jan from the show was a much deeper character.
1
u/ovulationchamber 8d ago
I feel like this is the case for pretty much any character in a movie that is a person's first exposure to them.
That sentence was written terribly but I hope it's understandable.
If you see a popular movie that has enough pop culture impact, the character that you saw in the movie is going to be the version you think of when people mention the character. Rarely do audiences even check out the source material IF they know. And often, they don't even know that there's source material because.. why would they?
1
u/TBvunza98 7d ago edited 7d ago
Tobey's Peter Parker. In the comics, he was never this soppy loser with a punchable face. He was actually a handsome guy in high school with anger issues who isolated himself because he felt everyone around him was intellectually inferior to him. It wasn't until Uncle Ben's death when he got humbled and got the whole 'with great power comes great responsibility'.
1
u/TheNerdyRandom 7d ago
What...? Nowhere is it stated, shown, or even hinted at that Tobey's Peter thought people were intellectually inferior. Sure, he was clearly smart, but even before the spider bite, he was shown being a somewhat awkward, yet kind and smart student. There's nothing that shows he had a superiority complex before Ben died.
1
u/TBvunza98 7d ago
Comic book Peter was like what I mentioned above, which was changed to Tobey's Peter and that's what everyone thinks he is now. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
1
u/TheNerdyRandom 7d ago
Ah I see, my apologies. Your wording made it seem as if Tobey's Peter was the one acting like an asshole before Ben died.
1
1
u/GardenTop7253 7d ago
Toothless from HTTYD. That whole movie series is wildly different than the books, but book Toothless was a visibly smaller and weak-looking dragon that was super snarky and full of attitude. I forget if only Hiccup could talk to the dragons or what, but wow have the movies changed people’s expectations
1
u/Chantaille 7d ago
My daughter listened to the audiobooks some time after I saw the movies, and I disliked the characterization of Toothless in the books. I got over it later by deciding to see the movies and the books as two entirely different things, each of which I would have to choose for different reasons. Although I would only really choose the movies, to be honest.
1
u/GardenTop7253 7d ago
Oh yeah, it’s insanely different but no one really cares cause the movies are just wildly better, at least that seems to be the general consensus
1
u/Cheerqueen2341 7d ago
Bella from twilight- she was shy and bookish but she had a personality in the books.
1
u/Bannerbusters 7d ago
Nolan's interpretation of both Batman and the Joker. To be fair, Batman is described as having a gravelly voice in the comics, but you can have something like Roger Craig Smith's portrayal from Arkham Origins without overblowing it like Bale ended up doing (especially since he didn't even sound so gravelly for the sake of comic accuracy). On the note of Batman, the trilogy also ruined the cape and cowl being a singular unit, though that's a bit more forgivable considering the inevitable stiff neck muscles. As for the Joker, part of what makes the character is that he knows exactly how to improve and be very spontaneous. Nolan's interpretation seems to be subversive of this by basically having the Joker fool everyone into thinking he's spontaneous when he's really not. I'll also say this for the Joker: posthumous pity carried that role.
1
1
1
1
u/GeniusLike4207 7d ago
Magneto
his helmet originally wasn't meant to thrawrt telepaths, that was a movie addition which was adopted to the comics
1
u/Ebolatastic 7d ago
Iirc he also wasn't originally Jewish either, just a refugee from some wartorn eastern eurpean county. Pretty sure the screenwriter came up with that. His name was also changed.
1
u/Federal_Bicycle_7800 6d ago
nah that was a thing in the comics. originally yes magneto wasn't a holocaust survivor when he debuted but then chris claremont gave him that backstory to make him more sympathetic.
1
1
6
u/Gold-Play5285 8d ago
Gene Wilder’s Willy Wonka basically replaced Roald Dahl’s unsettling, vaguely cruel eccentric with a whimsical pop-culture icon, so did later versions ever really have a choice but to react to Wilder?