Board 8 > Best Adapted Character Tournament - Nominations

(+) Yeah! (+)

Welcome to the Best Adapted Character Tournament. This tournament is all about depictions of characters in different mediums. You can nominate characters such as those from movies based on comics and books, TV shows based on movies, and so on (as long as the character started out in a different medium).

What I'm not looking for (and I will reject nominations that aren't in the spirit of the contest) are characters who are depicted the same way in a different medium (such as Pokémon), or characters who are only really known for the adapted medium (such as James Bond in film). It should be a new take on an established character. If you're unsure, feel free to ask.

You may nominate up to 10 characters. The characters with the most nominations will get in. I'm thinking a 64 character bracket to avoid filler.

RULES:
- You may nominate up to 10 characters who first appeared in a different medium (subject to the guidelines above)
- You must list the source material
- Multiple nominations for the same character are ok as long as they're different versions
- The 64 characters with the most nominations will get in
- End date for nominations is to be decided (I'll give some notice before it closes)

A new take on an established character, eh? How would the cast of Game of Thrones qualify? What about Lord of the Rings? I'd like to participate, because I like you, but I'm not sure what else I can think of here that would even work.

If I'm forgetting some obvious sci-fi passion of mine, let me know.
---

Jeff Zero posted...

How would the cast of Game of Thrones qualify? What about Lord of the Rings?

Both perfectly eligible.

My guidelines are to omit stuff like Pokemon characters who have technically appeared in different medium, but are always the same, or characters from South Park: The Stick of Truth who are intended to be exactly the same as on the show.

I read this as adopted and was confused

Uh

Nominate Hannibal Lecter (Red Dragon) and his movie counterpart in Silence of the Lambs (Played by Anthony Hopkins)
---

Cool.

01. Jon Snow (HBO's Game of Thrones)
02. Cersei Lannister (HBO's Game of Thrones)
03. Brienne of Tarth (HBO's Game of Thrones)
04. Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG-1)
05. Daniel Jackson (Stargate SG-1)
06. Aragorn (Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings)
07. Samwise Gamgee (Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings)
08. Spock (JJ Abrams' Star Trek)
09. Leonard McCoy (JJ Abrams' Star Trek)
10. Josephus Miller (SyFy's The Expanse)
---

1. Sherlock Holmes (2009 film)
2. Cassidy (Preacher - AMC)
3. Scarecrow (Batman Begins)

1. Iceman/Bobby Drake (X-Men film franchise)
2. Arya Stark (Game of Thrones)
3. Scarecrow (Batman Begins)
4. Winnie the Pooh (The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh)
5. Slade (Teen Titans Cartoon Network Show)
6. Static (Static Shock)
---

4. Jason Bourne (The Bourne Identity)
5. Lex Luthor (Smallville)

Cloud Strife (Advent Children)

6. The Riddler (Batman 60s)

Ofglen (The Handmaid's Tale)
Hermione Granger (Harry Potter and the Cursed Child)
Draco Malfoy (A Very Potter Musical)
Belle (Beauty and the Beast live action)
The Joker (The Dark Knight trilogy)

Also do you accept portrayal of historical characters?
---

Batman (Batman TAS)

Raka_Putra posted...

Also do you accept portrayal of historical characters?

I'm thinking they should just be adaptations of fictional characters.

Not sure if the board is just dead this weekend, or this idea is a dud.

Weekends are slow traditionally.

I've been trying to think of who to nom. Lots of choices.
---

Jesse_Custer posted...

or this idea is a dud.

It does seem kind of weird to me.
---

azuarc posted...

Jesse_Custer posted...

or this idea is a dud.

It does seem kind of weird to me.

I was concerned people might feel that way, but figured I'd go for it because it won the poll. I mean I think it makes sense, but I could see people finding it confusing.

Rick Grimes (The Walking Dead)
---

Patrick Bateman (American Psycho)
V (V for Vendetta)
Punisher/Frank Castle (Marvel's Daredevil)
John Constantine (Constantine TV Series)
Green Arrow/Oliver Queen (Arrow)
Heat Wave/Mick Rory (DC's Legends of Tomorrow)
Deathstroke/Slade Wilson (Arrow)
Harley Quinn (Batman: Arkham)
Scarecrow (Batman: Arkham)
Wolverine (X-Men film series)
---

Actually drop Wolverine, add Lucifer Morningstar (Lucifer)
---

7. Scarecrow (Arkham series)
8. Willy Wonka (Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory) [the Gene Wilder one]
---

I question the parts regarding only being well-known for the adapted medium, and being basically the same character. For example, Atticus Finch is arguably the case for both of those, but it's undeniable that he is a well-realized adaptation, partially because of the strength of Gregory Peck's acting. Your Bond example is also off, because the books were reasonably popular and anyway most of the Bonds are fairly different from the book version.

Adapting something from one medium to another is almost always going to bring about inherent differences; The Stick of Truth example you mentioned, where they are explicitly designed to be as much in the style of the show as possible, are something of exceptions.

Also, what about characters from famous Disney adaptations like Sleeping Beauty or Frozen or Beauty and the Beast or Hunchback of Notre Dame? Aside from perhaps the last one of those, the source material is largely fairy tales that are hundreds of years old and are generally substantially altered. However they are generally far less known than their Disney counterparts, and many have not read the original tales. That fact might disqualify them, but surely it can't be denied that they are not only adaptations, but very different from the source characters? This is frankly true of most movies, especially the less recent the derivative work; moves tend to overshadow source material most of the time.

I mean, I can just give you my 10 favorite LotR characters and call it a day (several would make it either way), but surely that's less interesting?

There's also the complication of seeing and adaption beforehand. I watched Batmas: TAS long before I read any comics, and my conception of the characters was absolutely informed by that. I love Two Face not because of his comics, but because of the TAS version I encountered first. Then there are all of the adaptations I've experienced without ever seeing the source material... how can I judge them on the merits of the adaptation if I've never experienced the original? At that point it's just a character I like, and adapting them has nothing to do with it. It's practically irrelevant that they were created for some other work before.

One final things, and I know this is reaching a bit, but what about characters that are not strictly the same, but are based off of others in stories based on others. Think King Lear > Ran or Romeo & Juliet > West Side Story. Many of these characters are direct analogies to the original work, even if they are technically different characters.
---

Boromir (Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings)
---

MrZAP17 posted...

I question the parts regarding only being well-known for the adapted medium, and being basically the same character. For example, Atticus Finch is arguably the case for both of those, but it's undeniable that he is a well-realized adaptation, partially because of the strength of Gregory Peck's acting. Your Bond example is also off, because the books were reasonably popular and anyway most of the Bonds are fairly different from the book version.

Adapting something from one medium to another is almost always going to bring about inherent differences; The Stick of Truth example you mentioned, where they are explicitly designed to be as much in the style of the show as possible, are something of exceptions.

Also, what about characters from famous Disney adaptations like Sleeping Beauty or Frozen or Beauty and the Beast or Hunchback of Notre Dame? Aside from perhaps the last one of those, the source material is largely fairy tales that are hundreds of years old and are generally substantially altered. However they are generally far less known than their Disney counterparts, and many have not read the original tales. That fact might disqualify them, but surely it can't be denied that they are not only adaptations, but very different from the source characters? This is frankly true of most movies, especially the less recent the derivative work; moves tend to overshadow source material most of the time.

I mean, I can just give you my 10 favorite LotR characters and call it a day (several would make it either way), but surely that's less interesting?

There's also the complication of seeing and adaption beforehand. I watched Batmas: TAS long before I read any comics, and my conception of the characters was absolutely informed by that. I love Two Face not because of his comics, but because of the TAS version I encountered first. Then there are all of the adaptations I've experienced without ever seeing the source material... how can I judge them on the merits of the adaptation if I've never experienced the original? At that point it's just a character I like, and adapting them has nothing to do with it. It's practically irrelevant that they were created for some other work before.

One final things, and I know this is reaching a bit, but what about characters that are not strictly the same, but are based off of others in stories based on others. Think King Lear > Ran or Romeo & Juliet > West Side Story. Many of these characters are direct analogies to the original work, even if they are technically different characters.

I think you're overthinking it. I put in the qualifying language just to eliminate people trying to get characters in that clearly shouldn't qualify like a Pokémon. And I think there's plenty of licensed games like Stick of Truth that are intended to be identical to the source material (such as any of the Dragon Ball fighting games).

Most of the examples you named would be eligible, including Atticus Finch and the Disney movies. Where I'd draw the line is characters loosely based on literary works that aren't the same character such as your West Side Story example.

And as for Bond, I guess we'll just have to disagree. That is a rare character who is only famous because of the films, and I don't believe the average person even knows he started as a literary character at this point.

The more difficult area that I'm surprised nobody has brought up yet is manga/anime. In that situation, I would be okay with the character if the anime isn't virtually a literal depiction of the manga, with only slight differences.

However, I'm quickly seeing that this concept may be too amorphous for a contest. I'll leave it open for now to see if anyone else has feedback and how many more nominations come in, but I'm not absolutely sure if this will work.

I'll put in some nominations later today.
---

To those who have nominated, would anyone care much if I bail on this one and do one of the other ideas instead? This one doesn't seem like it's going to work out well.

I don't mind though this seemed like a cool idea too.
---

Snake5555555555 posted...

I don't mind though this seemed like a cool idea too.

---

Of course, I could wind up trying a different idea and have that not work. Maybe I should just do something simple like sitcoms!

Well, it's up to you, but I like slightly more complex/unique project like this.
---

There's always a possibility of doing something like this, but more specific? Like "Best comic character adaptation" or "Best literary character adaptation?"

It's kind of tough to compare "video game Joker adapting from comics" to something like "classic lit. characters adapted for modern film"
---

Jesse_Custer posted...

MrZAP17 posted...

I question the parts regarding only being well-known for the adapted medium, and being basically the same character. For example, Atticus Finch is arguably the case for both of those, but it's undeniable that he is a well-realized adaptation, partially because of the strength of Gregory Peck's acting. Your Bond example is also off, because the books were reasonably popular and anyway most of the Bonds are fairly different from the book version.

Adapting something from one medium to another is almost always going to bring about inherent differences; The Stick of Truth example you mentioned, where they are explicitly designed to be as much in the style of the show as possible, are something of exceptions.

Also, what about characters from famous Disney adaptations like Sleeping Beauty or Frozen or Beauty and the Beast or Hunchback of Notre Dame? Aside from perhaps the last one of those, the source material is largely fairy tales that are hundreds of years old and are generally substantially altered. However they are generally far less known than their Disney counterparts, and many have not read the original tales. That fact might disqualify them, but surely it can't be denied that they are not only adaptations, but very different from the source characters? This is frankly true of most movies, especially the less recent the derivative work; moves tend to overshadow source material most of the time.

I mean, I can just give you my 10 favorite LotR characters and call it a day (several would make it either way), but surely that's less interesting?

There's also the complication of seeing and adaption beforehand. I watched Batmas: TAS long before I read any comics, and my conception of the characters was absolutely informed by that. I love Two Face not because of his comics, but because of the TAS version I encountered first. Then there are all of the adaptations I've experienced without ever seeing the source material... how can I judge them on the merits of the adaptation if I've never experienced the original? At that point it's just a character I like, and adapting them has nothing to do with it. It's practically irrelevant that they were created for some other work before.

One final things, and I know this is reaching a bit, but what about characters that are not strictly the same, but are based off of others in stories based on others. Think King Lear > Ran or Romeo & Juliet > West Side Story. Many of these characters are direct analogies to the original work, even if they are technically different characters.

I think you're overthinking it. I put in the qualifying language just to eliminate people trying to get characters in that clearly shouldn't qualify like a Pokémon. And I think there's plenty of licensed games like Stick of Truth that are intended to be identical to the source material (such as any of the Dragon Ball fighting games).

Most of the examples you named would be eligible, including Atticus Finch and the Disney movies. Where I'd draw the line is characters loosely based on literary works that aren't the same character such as your West Side Story example.

And as for Bond, I guess we'll just have to disagree. That is a rare character who is only famous because of the films, and I don't believe the average person even knows he started as a literary character at this point.

Nope, I absolutely agree with ZAP. Bond is exactly the type of character that belongs in this, because there have been plenty of changes.
---

Jesse_Custer posted...

To those who have nominated, would anyone care much if I bail on this one and do one of the other ideas instead? This one doesn't seem like it's going to work out well.

Yeah, I did think it was a stretch.

Though I'm also very disappointed and maybe a bit surprised that no Once Upon A Time characters were nominated. Equally disappointed, but less surprised because I'd consider it an "adaptation eclipsed the original" that would probably still count anyway because the "original" characters could still count and the adaptation in question doesn't seem like B8's thing, is the lack of Wicked characters. (The books are actually really good, and a lot racier than the musical. Though I'll admit I saw the musical first and decided I was interested in reading the source material.)
---