Biggest surprise when you read the book...

[Mordar]

What was the biggest surprise you've encountered when you read the original book/short story/whatever of a movie, TV show or franchise, and why?

Or, phrased differently, because I want to focus on positive surprises...

You like a visual media presentation of a story. You also like the source written presentation of the story. There is a major difference between the two. What is it, and why do you like it?

For me: James Bond.

I've recently decided to read the paperbacks that spawned what might be the first huge movie franchise, and I was very, very (and pleasantly) surprised.

I liked the films well enough, though my preferred list of actors would probably rankle hard-core JB movie fans. Then on a whim picked up a 60s-era version of Casino Royale (along with several others, and read away. Then I couldn't stop reading them. Fast paced, well structured, "serious" fun, and without the things troped about the films. Details?

Spoiler: Why I was pleasantly surprised

Show

Book Bond is competent, but fallible. Book Bond needs to be rescued once in a while. And not from cheese-laden deathtraps where the Evil Genius explains his plan and walks away.

Book Bond is smooth, attractive and plays well with "the ladies", but isn't Ladies Man. Movie Bond regular says "I seduce her with my +20 Diplomacy skill"

Book Bond is presented as much more egalitarian than I expected given the era of the books. There is plenty of the casual expression of what you would expect from 60s-era men's literature, but not nearly to the level I would have expected...and Bond is regularly more progressive in his views.

Book Bond is John McClane before Bruce Willis was out of primary school. He takes his lumps, he wins fights by being slightly less beaten.

Book Bond doesn't like the wet-side of his job, and loathes assassination.

All in all, a pretty stand up guy. I understand why the films went a different direction, and I like them a little more now.

Who's next?

- M

[Gnoman]

I had a different take on Book-Bond.

Spoiler

Show

He spends a lot of the books as a bumbling drunk stumbling through the story until somebody (the Bond Girl, in more than a few cases) telling him who to shoot.

[Saph]

I had a different take on Book-Bond.

Spoiler

Show

He spends a lot of the books as a bumbling drunk stumbling through the story until somebody (the Bond Girl, in more than a few cases) telling him who to shoot.

Uh, what? For most of the Bond books, that description's wrong on pretty much every level.

Let's take Casino Royale, which is the first, and the one that set the model for all the others:

Spoiler

Show

• Casino Royale Bond isn't a drunk. He likes his drinks, but I don't think he ever actually gets drunk. When he goes out for confrontations, he's extremely clear and focused.
• He's not bumbling. He's given a very difficult mission (out-gamble and bankrupt Le Chiffre) and succeeds. He does get his cover blown from the start, but that isn't his fault – unknown to him (and to the readers) he'd been assigned a double agent as a partner, which actually makes it pretty impressive that he succeeds at all.
• He doesn't solve the problem by shooting anyone. Actually, I don't think he fires his gun even once in the whole book.
• He does get captured and horribly tortured, but again, this is because his partner's a double agent. He gets saved by pure luck, but by that point, he'd already accomplished what he was set to do – he didn't give up the location of the money under torture, meaning that Le Chiffre was already a dead man walking. If he'd died there, M would have considered the mission a success.

[Sapphire Guard]

I usually read the book version first, but basically any 'classic' story.

Sherlock Holmes is a lot more personable in the books (granted I've only read a couple of them) and he's not nearly as insufferable, just wired differently where he can't function without stimulus, which comes with downsides.

Lovecraft's work isn't as nihilistic as its reputation, you can usually defeat the evil mage (typically by beating him at his own game). Charles Dexter Ward is some of the best horror writing I've ever seen.

[Mordar]

I had a different take on Book-Bond.

Spoiler

Show

He spends a lot of the books as a bumbling drunk stumbling through the story until somebody (the Bond Girl, in more than a few cases) telling him who to shoot.

I concur with Saph. By today's standards, he drinks and smokes an incredible amount and would be viewed as alcoholic and addict. That day is not today, however. Comparing it by standards of the day (or at least the 10+ years later when I was alive and aware of things besides my toes and fingers fitting in my mouth), it would have been commonplace. There are a couple of points, as I recall, where it is a plot point as he over-drinks to salve trauma...and it is pointed out as such and corrected. Pretty darn progressive for that era.

I usually read the book version first, but basically any 'classic' story.

Sherlock Holmes is a lot more personable in the books (granted I've only read a couple of them) and he's not nearly as insufferable, just wired differently where he can't function without stimulus, which comes with downsides.

Lovecraft's work isn't as nihilistic as its reputation, you can usually defeat the evil mage (typically by beating him at his own game). Charles Dexter Ward is some of the best horror writing I've ever seen.

I worry that I didn't present the question properly. What about instances in where there was a significant change, regardless of which you experienced first (written or visual), and you really liked both?

Aside: Waiting eagerly for good visual Lovecraft. There's been some decent if you squint and give huge credit for them making do with a shoestring budget, and frankly I liked the "Howard Lovecraft and the" films (Frozen Kingdom, Kingdom of Madness, Undersea Kingdom), but I still want something that I love. And no, Nicholas Cage will never be appropriate.

- M

[Manga Shoggoth]

Probably reading the original Jungle Book many years after having seen the Disney animation.

Kaa is one if the good guys (and a staunch ally to Mowgli)? Hathi is an old, wise elephant rather than a delusional hen-pecked muppet (Oh, and there's no wife or child)? Baloo is a teacher of the Jungle Law, rather than a goofing drifter? Mother Wolf is badass enough to make Shere Khan back down? Mowgli actually had a brain in his head?

I mean, don't get me wrong here - I love the old film, and it is a true classic, but a good adaptation of the source material it isn't.

[Precure]

Gulliver's Travels is very much dark and depressing

Oz is a real place and it's literally an isekai story

The victim of "Death on the Nile" is just misunderstood.

[Cikomyr2]

I second Sherlock Holmes' character being often misrepresented. Also, he doesnt hold much respect for the police; which he sees as more interested in "catching a criminal" than actually solving crime.

Lestrade was actually a somewhat competent detective rather than a bumbling Chief.

The Hound found peace and content serving a religious community.


Hmm... Victor Frankenstein is supposed to be an egotist, selfish, and cowardly intellectual who ran away from the consequences of his action and happily throw everyone under the bus to take the blame. He's not "misunderstood". He wasn't a "mad scientist" either. Hes just a coward.

[Eldan]

Victor Frankenstein isn't even a Doctor, he never finished his studies.

[Batcathat]

Hmm... Victor Frankenstein is supposed to be an egotist, selfish, and cowardly intellectual who ran away from the consequences of his action and happily throw everyone under the bus to take the blame. He's not "misunderstood". He wasn't a "mad scientist" either. Hes just a coward.

On a very similar note, his creature isn't exactly the lumbering moron with bolts on his neck from pop culture either.

[Mordar]

On a very similar note, his creature isn't exactly the lumbering moron with bolts on his neck from pop culture either.

This is one of the situations where it was a big surprise and I didn't like both depictions...the Creature in the book is so very very much better. Frankenstein is a tragedy, not a horror piece, and while Victor has some very moving speeches/lines in the book...the films (excepting Young Frankenstein) were always very "meh" for me. The book, I love.

- M

[Batcathat]

This is one of the situations where it was a big surprise and I didn't like both depictions...the Creature in the book is so very very much better. Frankenstein is a tragedy, not a horror piece, and while Victor has some very moving speeches/lines in the book...the films (excepting Young Frankenstein) were always very "meh" for me. The book, I love.

Totally agree, while I knew the pop culture image of Frankenstein isn't exactly accurate, I was still surprised when I read the book (it also led to me and a classmate doing one of the weirder interpretation of school assignment I've been a part of, basically creating a short comic book version of Frankenstein in some sort of Soviet-esque cyberpunk world full of bad in-jokes).

That said, with the exception of the aforementioned Young Frankenstein, I don't think I've ever actually seen a Frankenstein movie, whether faithful to the book or not.

[LaZodiac]

Hmm... Victor Frankenstein is supposed to be an egotist, selfish, and cowardly intellectual who ran away from the consequences of his action and happily throw everyone under the bus to take the blame. He's not "misunderstood". He wasn't a "mad scientist" either. Hes just a coward.

While all of this is true... Frankenstein sure as hell did not happily throw everyone under the bus. He in fact suffered to the extreme when he grew cold feet at the last minute and ruined Adam's potential partner- for understandable reasons, but reasons that got pretty much everyone he loved killed. He fully accepts this blame, severely, to the point of nearly getting sick to death from it.

Meanwhile to answer the question; reading through Dracula after I thought I knew everything about it. I'm shocked by basically any adaptation that does not recognize how cool and good a character Mina is now.

[Trixie_One]

The Hound found peace and content serving a religious community.

Only cause there's likely never going to be another book so we'll never know if they were supposed to all get butchered later, leaving the Hound the sole survivor to draw him back into things.

I suspect that likely will be his happy ending due to the as mentioned perpetual lack of Winds of Winter, but I suspect it wasn't the intended one given Martins' usual style.

[DavidSh]

Only cause there's likely never going to be another book so we'll never know if they were supposed to all get butchered later, leaving the Hound the sole survivor to draw him back into things.

I suspect that likely will be his happy ending due to the as mentioned perpetual lack of Winds of Winter, but I suspect it wasn't the intended one given Martins' usual style.

And I thought, with the previous paragraphs on Sherlock Holmes, this was a reference to the Hound of the Baskervilles, or at least to the dog that was standing in for that spectral canine. (But now that I look up the details of that story, that wouldn't have been possible.)

[MCerberus]

The lead codpieces to prevent nuclear mutant children was really a tone-setter, and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is pretty much this thread at every step.

Mostly I'm upset by the lack of very large men carrying doves for dramatic reasons.

[gbaji]

The lead codpieces to prevent nuclear mutant children was really a tone-setter, and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is pretty much this thread at every step.

Most of Phillip K. ****'s stories fit this thread (put his full name in there, cause... er... filters gone wild!)

It's hard for me to think of very many that fit, because in most cases I read the book before watching the film (or before the film was made in many cases). I suppose Dune fits. I did *start to read* the book before the film came out. Not sure why, but I just couldn't get past the first 50 pages or so (it's really reallly slow at the start). Years later, the film came out, and then sometime after that, I decided to try reading the book. Yeah. Huge difference. I get why Lynch did what he did with that film (and it's quite memorable for its own reasons), but... yeah.

[Bohandas]

Gulliver's Travels is very much dark and depressing

Also, he goes to more than one island. The movies tend to leave that out and focus exclusively on Lilliput

[Metastachydium]

Probably reading the original Jungle Book many years after having seen the Disney animation.

Kaa is one if the good guys (and a staunch ally to Mowgli)? Hathi is an old, wise elephant rather than a delusional hen-pecked muppet (Oh, and there's no wife or child)? Baloo is a teacher of the Jungle Law, rather than a goofing drifter? Mother Wolf is badass enough to make Shere Khan back down? Mowgli actually had a brain in his head?

Yeah. Original Kaa in particular is magnificent, albeit very not child-friendly. (I mostly just feel like Disney shouldn't have kept trying to adapt serious works for whatever target audience they had in mind with their stuff. I'm pretty sure I've ranted on-site about how much I hate their Hunchback (and I'm not even talking about the sequel here).)

Meanwhile to answer the question; reading through Dracula after I thought I knew everything about it. I'm shocked by basically any adaptation that does not recognize how cool and good a character Mina is now.

SO yes. Most adaptations of Dracula are at the very least very strictly inferior to the original if not aggressively bad (most are aggressively bad) and Mina (alongside Renfield, but he kinda deserves it for killing birdies) is one of the characters who's done dirty the most (the idiotic reincarnation romance thing they keep slapping on her is just insult to injury).

[Darth Credence]

SO yes. Most adaptations of Dracula are at the very least very strictly inferior to the original if not aggressively bad (most are aggressively bad) and Mina (alongside Renfield, but he kinda deserves it for killing birdies) is one of the characters who's done dirty the most (the idiotic reincarnation romance thing they keep slapping on her is just insult to injury).

I blame the original Ravenloft module, and Ireena/Tatyana. That's not the actual reason, but I like to tie it to that, regardless.

As far as I know, that came about due to an early 70s TV version, made by the same person who made Dark Shadows and starring Jack Palance. IIRC, that was a plot point for Barnabas in Dark Shadows, and he reused it in the Dracula movie.

[Cikomyr2]

Also, he goes to more than one island. The movies tend to leave that out and focus exclusively on Lilliput

If I remember right, he went to Lilliput, its opposite; the land of giants. And then the horse realm that made him "go native"?

[Yanagi]

If I remember right, he went to Lilliput, its opposite; the land of giants. And then the horse realm that made him "go native"?

There's a floating island full of supercilious philosophers between the giants and the horses.

[Bohandas]

If I remember right, he went to Lilliput, its opposite; the land of giants. And then the horse realm that made him "go native"?

There was also the floating island of scatterbrained philosophers, and I think a couple of minor ones immediately before and after that one

[LaZodiac]

Yeah. Original Kaa in particular is magnificent, albeit very not child-friendly. (I mostly just feel like Disney shouldn't have kept trying to adapt serious works for whatever target audience they had in mind with their stuff. I'm pretty sure I've ranted on-site about how much I hate their Hunchback (and I'm not even talking about the sequel here).)



SO yes. Most adaptations of Dracula are at the very least very strictly inferior to the original if not aggressively bad (most are aggressively bad) and Mina (alongside Renfield, but he kinda deserves it for killing birdies) is one of the characters who's done dirty the most (the idiotic reincarnation romance thing they keep slapping on her is just insult to injury).

The only thing wilder than autistic queen Mina solving vampire problems in a way I don't think I've seen EVER happen in any vampire media before, is the fact that Renfield is... even if he has weird murder ideas, a character who completely and genuinely tries to save the day. Like, I get characterizing him as a villain, but he dies trying to help our heroes and seems to genuinely want to be better, but Dracula's just infesting his brain. Justice for Renfield.

[Bohandas]

(the idiotic reincarnation romance thing they keep slapping on her is just insult to injury).

I don;t know whether this is actually significant or not but that subplot they keep tacking on to Mina is basically the premise of The Mummy. It's like they needed to pad it for time so they threw in part of another Universal monster movie

[Trixie_One]

I'm pretty sure I've ranted on-site about how much I hate their Hunchback (and I'm not even talking about the sequel here).)

The treble whammy of pain that was Hunchback, Pocahontas, and Hercules killed Disney for me when I was younger. Quite annoying really as it meant I didn't see the much better Mulan or the genuinely excellent Emperor's New Groove until significantly later.

Hunchback and Pocahontas at least have a decent song in Hellfire and Savages so that's something I guess. I'm tempted to say Pocahontas is the least worst as even with the dodgy historical stuff it hasn't got anything near as absolutely blood boilingly irritating as those dang gargoyles.

[Metastachydium]

I blame the original Ravenloft module, and Ireena/Tatyana. That's not the actual reason, but I like to tie it to that, regardless.

As far as I know, that came about due to an early 70s TV version, made by the same person who made Dark Shadows and starring Jack Palance. IIRC, that was a plot point for Barnabas in Dark Shadows, and he reused it in the Dracula movie.

I don;t know whether this is actually significant or not but that subplot they keep tacking on to Mina is basically the premise of The Mummy. It's like they needed to pad it for time so they threw in part of another Universal monster movie

Yeah, no. 2 sounds like the Original Bug, but these all sound about surprisingly right. (That's not to say I don't want to bash in the heads of those responsible any less now, but still.)

The only thing wilder than autistic queen Mina solving vampire problems in a way I don't think I've seen EVER happen in any vampire media before,

Her insane computing power alone should earn her more respect than she ever seems to get.

is the fact that Renfield is... even if he has weird murder ideas, a character who completely and genuinely tries to save the day. Like, I get characterizing him as a villain, but he dies trying to help our heroes and seems to genuinely want to be better, but Dracula's just infesting his brain. Justice for Renfield.

Like I said, my only issue with the guy is his hurting birdies and little spiders, but yeah.

Spoiler: Dracula!

Show

The Count has to basically bribe him to get through the first time; he manages to put on a display of impeccable sanity that flabbergasts his doctors just to sabotage the backdoor by getting out; and Ihe freaking goes toe-to-toe with a vampire in an actual wrestling match when all else fails.

Very far from the idiotic willing bootlicker accomplice he keeps getting portrayed as.

The treble whammy of pain that was Hunchback, Pocahontas, and Hercules killed Disney for me when I was younger. Quite annoying really as it meant I didn't see the much better Mulan or the genuinely excellent Emperor's New Groove until significantly later.

Hunchback and Pocahontas at least have a decent song in Hellfire and Savages so that's something I guess. I'm tempted to say Pocahontas is the least worst as even with the dodgy historical stuff it hasn't got anything near as absolutely blood boilingly irritating as those dang gargoyles.

"Let's make it dark, simplisticly and heavy-handedly preachy and then add in silly song-dance numbers and multiple Jar Jars! That will sure increase its appeal across the board!"

[Cikomyr2]

Oh right.

Frollo was actually a deluded fool in the book, and has nothing to do with the breaching of Notre Dame's sanctuary that leads to Esmeralda's death.

Phoebus is actually a coward ******* who gets away looking like a hero to his fiance for getting stabbed by ruffians, and abandons Esmeralda in her final moment of need.

[Metastachydium]

Oh right.

Frollo was actually a deluded fool in the book, and has nothing to do with the breaching of Notre Dame's sanctuary that leads to Esmeralda's death.

Heck,

Spoiler: Hugo

Show

he (alongside Gringoire) tries to actually rescue her when the excrement hits the fan, if for all the wrong reasons (and even though it goes just as wrong as everything he tries to achieve ever).

Phoebus is actually a coward ******* who gets away looking like a hero to his fiance for getting stabbed by ruffians, and abandons Esmeralda in her final moment of need.

Making that piece of **** Prince Charming is high on my list of gripes with Hunchback, yes.

[Eldan]

I just want to know who possibly thought Hunchback was good material for a children's movie.