Top 13 Disney villains to fear as an adult

I am a Disney nerd.

Seriously, ask anyone who knows me. I have a stupid number of the animated films on DVD (which I have probably seen far too many times), could probably quote my favourites quite easily and would write long involved essays about the plots, characters and animation.

As a child, I enjoyed the catchy songs, pretty colours and even the odd story or two. But as I grew older, I started to appreciate the music, the artwork, the stories and even the characters, whether they were protagonist or villain. And since we have just left the season of Halloween behind us and are in the middle of Nanowrimo, I thought it would be a good idea to have a look at the Disney Villains.

Let’s face it, Disney knows how to create memorable villains. In fact, they have a pretty good following among Disney fans. Everyone has their favourite and I thought I would count down my Top Ten favourite villains…

At least I would have done if not for a few very key reasons.

1. This has been done to death, by people much smarter than me.
2.  My reasons for liking certain villains better than others is very subjective with very little reasoning behind it (seriously, I somehow doubt the words 'I just do' are going to fly here).
3. There's too many.
4. At what stage in my life would I be basing this list on?

This last point made me think. After all, as I've stated before, I'm not the same person that I was when I was a child. My tastes have changed, my understanding has changed, even my personal life experiences have changed. So I started to think about what a villain actually is and realised that villains are people who are intended to be feared. They are designed to make us fear what they could do and to root for the hero. But a child's fears are often very different to those of an adult, which got me to wondering, can a Disney Villain scare an adult as much as it can a child?

Apparently the answer is yes.

So sticking with the theme of Halloween, I decided to count down my Top 13 Disney Villains that I Fear as an Adult.

Why 13?

Because I'm not the Nostalgia Critic and it's my list (plus 13 seemed appropriate).

A few rules before I start.

1. This is my list so it is possible that you may not agree with me.
2.  I'm basing this list on the animated features only.
3. This list does not include the Pixar movies as they were (up until recently) a very separate studio.

So let's get started with an old favourite.

13. 'Man' from Bambi

Invisible but deadly

One of the key things about a good villain in any story is their presence. After all, how can you fear something that has nothing to it? In a lot of stories, they build on that presence using rumour, visuals and the occasional musical cue. In Bambi, they took it a step further by never letting you see the villain.

Oh we know all about 'Man' but we never actually put a face to the name. Are the animals just talking about humans or do they have a particular face in mind? Is the one who shot Bambi's mother part of the group that started the forest fire or were they different people? We don't even know if 'Man' means male, female, adult or child. By never associating 'Man' with any kind of physical appearance, we're left with this unseen presence that hangs over the story, able to enter and disappear without warning, never making it clear when they intend to show up or for how long.

Mysterious and somewhat unsettling, 'Man' definitely deserves to start this list.

 12. Jafar from Aladdin

Clearly a happy man.

One of the key things that freaks me out about this guy is his position of power. He's the Royal Vizier, an advisor to the Sultan and a trusted member of the Court. In the background he is controlling the Sultan's decisions, hidden in plain sight and playing the Sultan and the Court like his own personal puppet theatre.

To me, there's something very unnerving about the idea of the person in power not being the one pulling the strings. Let's put this into a slightly more contemporary perspective: It's one thing for a government to be guided by the wants of their people, but for a government to be controlled by a background force, and not realise that they are being controlled? That's somewhat scary. The only thing that would make it scarier is if he had managed this without magic.

For a man with ambition and the ear of the Sultan, Jafar is a creepy guy for any adult.

11. The Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland

 

Tread carefully.

Watching a person lose their temper for no apparent reason is scary, no one can deny that. To see a person go from relative calm to explosive anger is frightening. So how do you cope with someone who does it on a frequent basis?

To me, this is one of the reasons why I find the Queen of Hearts so unnerving because you can see, through Alice, exactly how fast her temper can change and how carefully people need to tread in order to keep her calm and themselves alive. The wrong sound, word or gesture could easily set her off just as quickly as it could calm her down and, being in a position of authority, her emotions can easily destroy others without affecting her in the slightest. She has absolutely no concept of responsibility, only power. If not for the King of Hearts, she could very easily become a person with no conscience or sense of compassion.

The Queen of Hearts: Definitely a woman to stay away from.

10. The Evil Queen from Snow White

Mirror, mirror on the wall...

I'm not a huge fan of Snow White. I've tried to like it but I can't. However there are two major saving graces for me, the first are the dwarfs and the second is the Evil Queen (who I recently discovered is called Grimhilde).

She's just so cold and cruel, banishing her stepdaughter to the life of a servant and willing to kill for the sake of her vanity. I cannot help but wonder at the control and authority she has over Snow White, after all, surely there were other servants in the castle? Or were they perhaps banished, leaving Snow White to take care of the place on her own with only her stepmother for company? Either way, the fact that the Queen has that much control over a member of the royal family (and one that has a much stronger claim to the throne than she does) is very unnerving.

And then there's the transformation sequence. This still freaks me out to see a character so obsessed over her looks being willing to throw them away to destroy the object of her hatred. The music, the visuals, the pained gasping and the reveal of her disguise is just so creepy that I cannot help but give her the number 10 spot.

9. Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty

Evil and loving it

Let's face it, if you're going to create any kind of Disney Villain list, Maleficent has to make an appearance somewhere. She's petty, she's calculating, she's cruel. She shouts, curses, taunts and knows exactly how to hurt every main character at different points throughout the story and she does not take defeat well. She turns into a freaking dragon for crying out loud!

So why is she so low on the list, especially since she's my favourite Disney villain? Well, frankly it comes down to the presence of her magic and the fact that I enjoy her too much to be completely afraid of her.

But does that stop her from being frightening? Not at all. In fact, the scene of Aurora being guided to the spinning wheel is among one of the creepiest scenes in Disney history, with its use of green light, Aurora's blank stare and the musical chanting of her name. Forget horror movies! This is the scene that I come back to again and again for the creepy factor. Yes, I know that Maleficent isn't physically present during this scene but you know she's the one behind the whole thing.

Maleficent. The Mistress of Evil and my number 9 choice for this list.

8. Lady Tremaine from Cinderella

Look at that sneer!

At first glance, you would probably wonder why Lady Tremaine is so high on the list. Truth be told, this is one that grew on me the older I got. She doesn't seem that frightening until you look at her treatment of Cinderella: She has complete and utter control over this girl and is very aware of it. Not only does she work to make her stepdaughter's life miserable, but she also dangles small pieces of hope before ripping them away, or, in one memorable scene, convincing others to do so. Literally.

But of course, you may think, after Cinderella was married and out of sight, her stepmother's hatred would fade.

Nope!

In the third sequel, the stepmother gets hold of the Fairy godmother's wand and what does she do? She turns back time so that she can get her own daughter to marry the prince and destroys the one piece of evidence that Cinderella has to prove that she was the mystery girl at the ball.

The idea of someone hating you that much that, even when given power and opportunity, use both to make your life miserable, is horrific and terrifying. Even worse, people like Lady Tremaine do exist making this woman the ideal candidate for the number 8 spot.

7. Mr Scroop from Treasure Planet

Those who fear spiders should probably avoid this image.

A bit more based on the obvious, Scroop creeps me out. Between his crab/spider hybrid appearance, yellow eyes and growly voice, he is this creepy concoction of childhood (and adulthood depending on who you talk to) nightmares. From the way he moves to his absolutely vicious temper and sly manner, this is someone who knows he’s frightening to look at and knows how to use it.

But he is not just a thug, he is a smart thug, able to see and understand the world around him. He isn't easily fooled although he is more than capable of fooling others (such as hiding his culpability in an outright murder). His loyalty isn't easily bought and relies heavily on whoever holds the most advantage for him. The moment he sees an opportunity to move on or move up, he will take it without a second thought.

Vicious, creepy and more than a bit cunning, this is one alien that I do not want to ever meet!

6. Professor Ratigan from The Great Mouse Detective

Moriarity + Vincent Price + Rat = SCARY!!

Charming, civilised and even funny, Professor Ratigan is one of those villains that you cannot help but enjoy. Every time he's on screen, it's so much fun to watch. Suave and sophisticated, it is very easy to forget that he is not the person (or mouse) you should be supporting.

So why is he so high on this list?

Every time I watch this film, I get sucked into the joy of Ratigan. He enjoys what he does and, frankly, I enjoy watching him. And then we see him lose his temper.

At first, he bottles it up but still feeds a minion to a giant cat! But that temper pops up again and again and every time, he fights to maintain his composure. So when he does finally lose it, it's a shock.

To me, those who have a temper are less frightening than those that do not lose it often because when they do, it's unexpected and sudden. And when Ratigan's temper explodes, it transcends to every other part of his appearance. No longer calm and sophisticated, he is vicious and animalistic, abandoning his eloquence and intelligence for strength and claws. That transformation is, in itself terrifying to watch and, accompanied by the lighting, makes for the stuff of nightmares.

Animalistic rage hidden in a disguise of sophistication, Ratigan is definitely one to watch and, more importantly, one to fear.

5. Frollo from Hunchback of Notre Dame

THIS is apparently the face of justice

Where do I start with this guy? A repressed, perverted, religious leader, Frollo is someone who has a lot of power and has absolutely no problem using that power to maintain the integrity and morals of the people of Paris.

This is another Disney villain who I fear more as an adult than I do as a child and, surprisingly, it's not because of his reactions to Esmeralda or his resulting sexual confusion. Frollo is a character who believes he is above sin. When he accidentally kills Quasimodo's mother, he claims he is 'guiltless'. When he starts questioning his feelings towards Esmeralda, he claims 'It's not my fault.

He never takes the blame for his actions and never accepts responsibility for them, claiming that they are out of his control and in God's hands. That is an attitude that I find very frightening because one of the key things about Christianity in particular is that it centres on the concept of love and more or less states that humanity is responsible for its own actions.

Let me make this clear; it is not Frollo's religion that I fear. It is how he uses it to justify everything he does and his belief in that justification that scares me because that attitude can easily lead to all kinds of horrors. Horrors that we have seen repeatedly throughout history, based on religion, power, money, political stance and even gender. It is frightening to see how someone can twist something fundamentally good into something terrible to suit their own needs without understanding or caring about the consequences and nowhere is this clearer than in the character of Frollo.

4. Gaston from Beauty and the Beast

No one hams like Gaston

Beauty and the Beast is one of my favourite films, and I've grown used to the comments about ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ when talking about it, but what surprises me are the number of people who focus more on that than on the Big Bad of the movie, Gaston.

Handsome, charming and a popular figure in town, in any other film he might be considered the hero. In fact according to the townfolk, he is the hero. But he's also a bully, pushing around the smaller LeFou, getting into bar brawls and demanding Belle's hand in marriage. As the town hero, he feels he deserves the most beautiful woman in town. But the fact that Belle doesn't want anything to do with him doesn’t even faze him and he tries to put her into a position where she will have to be his, either out of sheer embarrassment or desperation.

And what makes this worse is that people encourage him to take those drastic steps to get what he wants, never mind how morally questionable they are or how it may hurt others! For crying out loud, he announces in the middle of a crowded tavern that he is going to use Belle's love for her father to force her to marry him! And even his motivations are wrong. The only reason he wants Belle is so that no one else can have her. He has no intention of staying faithful or being a husband. He just wants another trophy for his collection.

We live in a world where discrimination exists in many forms, and though people are taking steps to improve the situation, we still have a long way to go. Men like Gaston are still encouraged and considered people to look up to, no matter who it hurts. Like it or not, there are many Gastons in the world and we aren't doing enough to change that or make the world safer for people like Belle, Maurice or even the Beast.

Gaston. One of the biggest reasons we need to be open-minded and understanding and my choice for number 4.

3. Mother Gothel from Tangled

You want me to be the bad guy?

At first glance, Gothel is not someone you would expect to be in a scary villains list. She's more funny and hammy than actually frightening and rarely does anything that could seriously be considered 'villainous'.

In reality, Gothel could easily be considered one of the more frightening of the Disney villains, not because of the way she looks or acts, but because of the things she says and how that affects Rapunzel. Not just her efforts to keep Rapunzel in her tower but also her serious and dangerous manipulations of her self-confidence and beliefs.

Don't believe me?

The first time we see adult Rapunzel and Gothel together, Gothel gives Rapunzel two very cutting comments about her abilities in a breezy voice that she ends up passing off as teasing. It may not seem like much but by doing this, she not only picks at Rapunzel's confidence but she manipulates the situation so that Rapunzel herself is left with the sensation that it's her fault if she sees these comments as insulting or hurtful.

Even Gothel's song is presented in this way. It's funny at first but the lyrics are picking away at Rapunzel, telling her that she's 'sloppy, underdressed, immature, clumsy' and in the next breath declaring that this is only said out of love. And of course, if it's said out of love then it's important to get over the hurt it causes, isn't it? But her manipulations become clearer the further we get into the story. In the reprise of 'Mother Knows Best', she tells Rapunzel 'Why would (Flynn) like you? Come on now really!/Look at you! You think that he’s impressed?' and after stabbing Flynn, she outright says, 'Look what you made me do.'

This is actually known as emotional abuse and it's something that is just as serious as the physical version but much harder to get help for. Victims can often not realise they are victims and there's little physical evidence for an outsider to catch on that something's wrong with the situation. It relies more on emotional and verbal manipulation than physical actions, allowing the perpetrators to hide in plain sight.

How can someone like this not be considered someone to fear?

2. Hans from Frozen

And this is why you don't get engaged to a guy you just met.

Charming, sweet and understanding, Hans was presented as your typical Disney Prince, willing to do whatever it took to win the heart of Anna and the trust of her sister.

And then he uttered twelve words:

'Oh Anna. If only there was someone out there who loved you.'

With those words, Hans moved from being a typical Disney Prince to one of the scariest villains in Disney history. He stopped being charming and sweet and became a chameleon, able to change his behaviour and emotional responses to whatever was necessary for the situation, making it unclear who he really was underneath the mask. There is some speculation as to whether or not Hans could be considered a sociopath, but I am reluctant to label him with something that could potentially excuse his behaviour.

Hans is a character who reflects everyone's uncertainty about a person. What they really think of you when you're not there. Who they are when you're not in the room. Like Gothel, he is a character of manipulation and control, but unlike her, there's no sign that he's the bad guy. He's the town hero without Gaston's obvious arrogance. There's no visual or verbal clues to indicate that he is anything other than the charming prince he appears to be.

I have no doubt that if he had married Anna, he would have said and done all the right things to be the perfect husband, but he still would have been the person who murdered her sister and potentially might have slipped up. Whether he would have done a Gothel and emotionally manipulated Anna into what he wanted, or taken power directly from her, is uncertain. But his ability to hide, even from the audience, who he really was, is terrifying. With Gothel, we know she's the villain of the story. With Hans, nobody inside or outside of the story has a clue.

A master of disguise and one of the biggest shocks in a Disney film, Prince Hans of the Southern Isles is my number 2 spot.

1. The mobs from Pocahontas, Beauty and the Beast, Hunchback of Notre Dame, The Lion King and probably many more

Fuelled by emotion...

I know this one is cheating but hey, it's my list so I can do whatever I want!

Unlike the other Disney villains, this is one that isn't immediately obvious. Mobs don't have a place in the Disney villain line and cannot be connected with a single film. But that doesn't stop them from being one of the more frightening villains of the Disney franchise, especially when you're an adult.

When I refer to a Disney 'Villain', I mean an antagonist that goes against the hero and could potentially cause them harm and the mobs certainly do by threatening to hurt or humiliate the protagonist or actually doing so.

...capable of good or ill...

Unlike the rest of this list, the mobs are made up of individuals, people that we have seen in the background and, at times, have met in person. Smart, kind hearted people with hopes, dreams, friends and family. But the worst part of being part of a mob is that it becomes a single entity rather than a group of individuals, an entity driven by fear, hatred or anger. These emotions are often fuelled by a charismatic leader and feed off the other members of the group. The more that is felt by the group, the more emotion is created and feeds the group which in turn makes the situation worse and does not allow for individual thoughts or actions that go against the group.

...incapable of working alone.

What scares me the most about any of the mobs is the concept of how easy it would be to be involved with one. Not just to be on the wrong side of a mob, a lone voice against a mass of emotion, but also to become a part of one. To be so carried away by anger, ignorance, fear or pain that you stop becoming a thinking, loving human being. Maybe you'll never meet a Gothel or a Frollo or even a Jafar, but given the right circumstances you may easily become the villain you never wanted to be.

Somewhat unconventional, but no less frightening, this is my number 1 pick for Disney villains that I fear as an adult.

And those are my top 13 Disney Villains to fear as an adult. Have another look at your favourite Disney films and see if you start seeing your favourite villains in a different light as you grow older.

Thank you for reading my list and I hope that you had a happy Halloween and that Nanowrimo isn't causing you too much stress.

Adaptation Fascination

Well, despite all best intentions, we have somehow managed to make it to June without another blog post. I am a terrible blogger but sometimes, reality gets in the way of your other activities. So, without further ado, let's dive into another exploration into the world of stories in all their forms.
_____________________________

What's your favourite book?

I can already see a few of you rolling your eyes but go with me on this one.

Have you got something in mind?

So what's your favourite film?

What about your favourite colour? Or your favourite song?

Maybe these were easy questions to answer or maybe they weren't. Maybe you had some trouble trying to figure out what you liked above all others.

But what if I asked you what your favourite adaptation was?

Suddenly the question becomes a lot harder. After all, adaptations come in many different forms from book to movie, graphic novel to movie or television series, film to stage production, music to stage show or, in a few cases, book to book. That doesn't even include the fact that sometimes these examples can go the other way (such as tie in novelisations, film musicals and even games).

And sometimes, even toys can get movie adaptations...which are adapted into games and toys. 

So what exactly do I mean by the term 'adaptation'? According to Oxford dictionaries, there are a number of definitions including 'a film, television drama, or stage play that has been adapted from a written work' but this is somewhat limiting. After all, not every written work is an original work and screenplays or scripts are not the same as a book or novel because of the intended medium. Screenplays are created with the understanding that they will become visual creations. Books do not have such limitations and therefore do not need to be concerned about what is on screen at any given time. However, the word 'adapt' has a much more appropriate definition; 'make (something) suitable for a new use or purpose'. In other words, to recreate a work for a different format or for a different audience.

This isn't nearly as simple as it may seem. After all, every medium has its own set of benefits and limitations that have to be acknowledged and considered. Visual mediums require less description. We don't need to be told that someone is scared because we can see it. But at the same time, it's easier to write the experience of someone flying rather than attempting to create it (budget notwithstanding).

'The Book was Better'

Everyone has their own opinions about good and bad adaptations that have been created over the years and there are many different opinions as to why they exist. One of the most common adaptations that exists, and the one I will be focusing on, is the book to movie adaptation and it is very easy to start comparing the two and declare that 'The book was better'. I am very guilty of doing the same thing and it is only in recent years that I have begun to understand more about how the two mediums work and the difficulties that exist in adapting. In some cases, it is very easy to stick to the original. The Hunger Games and Harry Potter films made a significant effort to stick as close to the original text as possible, with a few necessary tweaks to compensate for difference of medium. However, just sticking to the original text isn't enough and sometimes sticking too close to the original can cause problems of their own. Musicals can often come under scrutiny for this with many fans walking away declaring 'It's the stage show on a bigger budget'. We expect more from a film than we do for a book or a stage show in terms of visuals and soundtrack.

But what about those adaptations that veer wildly off-track and still manage to be good? What is it about them that manage to hit the mark when so many fail?

How to Train Your Dragon is a very popular film with a great story and brilliant visuals, but many people are unaware of the fact that they are based on a series of books by Cressida Cowell…and they do not share many similarities with the film that shares their name. But does that make the film a bad adaptation?

Two different takes...

...on the same material. 

To a certain extent you could argue that it does because it changes the plot of the original story. But, as discussed before, even those that stay relatively faithful to the original texts will make some tweaks to the script in order to correspond with a new medium or current social structure. As a film, it had good characterisation, a coherent and interesting plot and some stunning visuals. It remained aware of its own medium and used it to good effect. As an adaptation, it brought the original book series to the attention of the audience and even influenced the author herself in how she handled the later books in the series.

Rewriting History

But not every adaptation comes from a work of fiction. How often have we seen something emblazoned with the words 'Based on real events' or 'Based on a true story'? What about historical events that are adapted for literature or screen? These don't have the same freedom as a work of fiction might because of the web of truth that surrounds it. Academics spend their lives studying and discovering the past and, depending on the story being told, those who lived it might still be around. While some creators would normally get around these issues by keeping historical figures and key events along the sidelines, there are those who prefer to have the big issues remain front and centre of the story. But there is no singular version of history, so how can these events be properly adapted for 'entertainment'?

It is important to understand one major issue; in any work regarding historical events, we will never get the complete story. Like any work of fiction, there will be a certain bias and we will be invited to sympathise with one side at the expense of the other. Some people will be forgotten or relegated to the background and sometimes, the order of events may be at odds with narrative timing and purpose. But what makes, for example, The King’s Speech better than Pearl Harbour in spite of their historical inaccuracies? A lot of it comes right back to the story and the characters. Most of us are not professional historians and we rely solely on the adaptations to explain what happened in the past and the people responsible, or how it affected everyone else. We may not have known George VI or Lionel Logue, but we can sympathise with the difficulties of overcoming a stammer and the pressures of public speaking. The film is about the men and their efforts, not about the outbreak of World War Two around them.

A friendship that would last a lifetime begins with a few simple words. 

In contrast, the events depicted in Pearl Harbour have no real narrative focus behind them beyond a few fictional individuals being action heroes, which is one of the biggest reasons why it frustrates and angers so many. The actual events of Pearl Harbour are ignored and glossed over in favour of creating an action movie with an historical setting. As a film, it is considered to be poor but as an historical adaptation that makes very little effort to acknowledge the event it is meant to portray, it is considered deplorable.

So what about a combination of the two? After all, not every original work has been created in the last twenty years. Works by Jane Austen, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, C.S. Lewis or even William Shakespeare have been adapted and re-adapted over and over again for the stage, the screen and even condensed for children. So what do you do when someone takes an older work and creates a modern version of it, placing older stories in a modern context as Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss did to create Sherlock?

'Past, have you met Present?'

Modern adaptations are very difficult to create because it isn't possible to just create a straight adaptation. It's not enough to have Romeo and Juliet just wandering around with mobile phones and the Internet and declare the adaptation modern. Other things such as social expectations, technology and even setting have to be taken into consideration. While Baz Luhrman didn't change the language of his Romeo and Juliet, he changed the setting and created modern versions of important elements to create the juxtaposition he wanted. Guns instead of swords, cars rather than horses and a Chief of Police instead of a royal prince.

One of the biggest issues that a modern adaptation has to take into consideration is the difference in social expectation between the creation of the original work and today. So, for example, in Pride and Prejudice, there is a great deal of focus on getting the Bennet sisters married off, something that would not be considered acceptable for many people in a contemporary setting. Some adaptations do make an effort to adapt the circumstances to reflect the changing times. So in Bridget Jones’ Diary it is Bridget who is searching for a boyfriend, and in Bride and Prejudice, Lalita Bakshi's mother is part of an older generation from India that sees marriage as an important way of securing a woman's future. But in both cases, the centrality of 'needing a man' is still present and can be quite off-putting, especially in a world where women are still struggling to be acknowledged as men's equals.

The Lizzie Bennet Diaries, a web series by Hank Green and Bernie Su, changes this central concept completely while still maintaining the central themes of the book. Instead of the focus being on marriage (apart from Mrs Bennet's hopes…at least according to Lizzie), the focus is on the girls' careers. In the original story, the need to marry off the girls was a necessary step to secure their futures. After all, a woman rarely had a steady income apart from a one-off dowry payment. Nowadays, women have more opportunities and are less dependent on men to secure their futures. So in The Lizzie Bennet Diaries, while the elements change, the overall themes and intents remain the same.

But what if those elements were changed on a much greater scale?

Sherlock Holmes has been adapted again and again and most recently, has been taken out of his historical setting of Victorian England and placed in 21st century London and New York in Sherlock and Elementary respectively. The former created a great deal of hype when it arrived because it was the first time this historical character had been taken out of his habitat in this way (I am not including Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd century here for obvious reasons). It was clever, it was slick and it made an effort to provide a modern twist to the old stories. But Elementary made waves for another major reason; the casting of Lucy Liu as Joan Watson.

A partnership for the ages with a few little tweaks

This was a big deal. Holmes and Watson are one of the biggest bromances in literary history. Their friendship is deep, caring and utterly fascinating (not to mention the subject of much slash fiction but that is quite common). So by casting a woman, there were huge fears among Sherlock Holmes fans that this was a ploy to create sexual tension for the show and a way to get the two main characters together in a way that would not cause problems for conservative watchers. Fortunately (so far), the show has kept the bromance as it was and even made an effort to put the two characters on an equal footing. Joan is not a potential love interest or sidekick, she is a partner who Holmes is teaching his methods to, can contribute to cases and even solve some on her own. This was as far away from the original portrayal of the bumbling sidekick as you could get although opinions do differ as to whether these changes enrich or weaken the connection with the source material.

Conclusion

It is very hard to pinpoint what makes a good adaptation but one of the major things that needs to be taken into consideration is the change in medium and what alterations need to be made in order to tell a coherent story using that medium. An adaptation does not have to be completely faithful to an original source because it never can be. Times change. Society moves on. And interpretations alter. The original creator is rarely involved in an adaptation (although they might be consulted a few times during the process) and the original audience may not be the ones who are being targeted for the new product. Those who read the book may not necessarily be the ones who watch the film, the ones who will play the game or the ones who understand the history. They might know everything about the original story that is playing out before them but they might not. It is essential that an adaptation is able to stand on its own, no matter what form it takes. That does not mean spoon-feeding or holding the audience by the hand, but it does mean carefully considering the source material and using that to create an interesting and dynamic story with engaging characters. After all, the story you tell will be the first introduction to that world for somebody. Make sure it's a good one.

A Perspective on Perspective

Happy New Year.

I hope you all had a peaceful Christmas and a relaxing New Year and are now ready to face whatever 2014 has in store for you.

Since January is a month of new beginnings, I thought it might be a good idea to address a topic that transcends the realms of fiction and consider something that is fundamentally important for everyday life as well.

Perspective and Point of View

I'm sure that plenty of you have looked at the title and wondered what the heck I'm talking about.

Perspective is defined as, 'away of regarding situations, facts, etc, and judging their relative importance' while point of view is considered to be 'a mental viewpoint or attitude'. Basically, how does someone see a certain situation?

So let's use a brief example. You've been talking to a friend or a colleague and have made a comment that you consider to be a joke. Let's say it's a comment on how something is 'so gay' or how someone has 'done something blonde' (again, apologies for these examples). It's something that maybe doesn't mean anything to you but your colleague isn't reacting the way you thought. In fact, they've become angry with you and an argument has begun.

Many viewpoints but a rather limited understanding

It would be all too easy to blame your colleague for taking your comment the wrong way and to maintain your innocence. After all, you didn't mean anything by it and did not intend to start an argument. But that doesn't mean that you are in the clear.

What has happened is a clashing of perspectives. Someone has been hurt or angered by something that has been said because they see the comment in a different way from what was intended. It happens every day and can be the root of many arguments because everyone has a perspective which is as unique as they are. They can be shaped by past experiences, memories or even internal conflict, and they can sometimes clash.

For those of you who have read my blogs before, you will know that I addressed something similar when discussing character creation so some of this will no doubt sound familiar to you. But I'm certain that there's a few of you out there wondering why I appear to be rehashing something that I've already addressed or are wondering why I'm delving into something based more on psychology than character analysis (unless, of course, you have already become bored and have decided to watch videos on YouTube rather than continue this post). This isn't the first time I have done so, but my focus and examples will primarily come from books and films as usual, rather than academic knowledge.

What do you think?

Perspective or point of view can come in two guises; a perspective based on opinion and a perspective based on knowledge.

A perspective based on opinion is easy. After all, you're in the process of reading one. This entire blog is based on my opinions and I am fully aware that not everyone will agree with what I have to say. It is a biased perspective and can depend on my own thoughts or indeed the thoughts of others that I have absorbed along the way. Everyone has a unique perspective, but they are often created in very similar ways. We absorb opinions and constantly develop our own. We can change our minds based on new information or we can contradict what someone else says if we don't agree.

Perspectives have a tendency to colour everything we do and this is most obvious when reading something with a first-person narrative. The Hunger Games trilogy is a prime example of such a narrative. Katniss Everdeen guides us through her story every step of the way. We know that President Snow is someone to fear because she is afraid of him and makes an effort to project her feelings about him onto us. We are suspicious of Peeta and Finnick at first because she doesn't quite trust them and when she learns to let them in, we start to believe what they say.

But first-person narratives can also reveal some fundamental flaws with certain characters, including the narrator themselves. Critics and academics have spent years analysing the voice of Nick Carraway, the narrator of The Great Gatsby and have questioned his story because of this biased opinion. This is referred to as the 'Unreliable Narrator', and suspicions can grow regarding the reliability of certain statements or characters. After all, just because Nick sees Gatsby as an innocent, fun individual doesn't mean that he was, or that there wasn't a darker presence hidden behind a friendly façade.

Who is Gatsby?

This is one of the main reasons why adaptations of first-person narratives can be so difficult. The introspections and opinions of the character we are following can often be lost or can clutter the story that is being told. It's a different medium and adaptations can struggle to bring certain perspectives to life in the same way as they initially appeared.

But that is not to say it's impossible. The Hunger Games films added some extra scenes of President Snow so that we, as an audience, could develop the same uneasiness that Katniss feels towards him without her actively telling us 'You should be scared of him'. We can see that she is afraid, but that isn't enough. We have to experience it ourselves or a key element of the narrative is lost.

The first-person narrative isn't the only way that opinion based perspective can be portrayed. Many narratives use a close third-person perspective that focuses primarily on one or more characters. Their thoughts and opinions still come across and can often provide some very contradictory opinions of each other.

Let's use the Discworld series as another example. Not every story in this series is told using the same characters but they do enjoy crossing over into other narratives. One prime example comes from Commander Samuel Vimes, a member of the Watch of Ankh-Morpork (basically he's a policeman). During the course of these books we learn about his intelligence, his love of the job, his love of his family and the difficulties of ensuring that the law is upheld across the city regardless of position or class. But in a city like Ankh-Morpork, there are many other characters present and several books choose to centre on them instead. The Truth revolves around William De Worde's attempts to create a newspaper and the Watch keeps popping up. Suddenly, Vimes is not the brilliant character or the hero we've come to know and love. He is a problem, someone who seems to be making William's life difficult and preventing him from achieving his goals by not sharing information or generally preventing William from getting what he needs to stay in business. On the flipside, when William, or his staff, appears in a book centred on the Watch, they are seen as annoyances that enjoy getting in the way.

The same people. Different perspectives.

However, as I mentioned earlier, there is another kind of perspective; the kind that relies on knowledge and understanding.

What do you know?

Let's use your work colleague here again and claim that they are an acquaintance of yours. You haven't known them very long before you made the comment that angered them. Now if they were someone you knew well, you would probably have known to not say this because it's a sensitive topic or it's just something they don't like to hear. It's the difference between an innocent mistake and a deliberate attempt to antagonise. People react differently based on what they know about a situation or issue. It's why we are more likely to trust a professional over someone who is just learning themselves or why we might treat someone slightly differently if we discovered they were seriously ill.

This is something that is mainly seen in minor characters such as the pencil-pushing, glory-seeking superior or the love-struck colleague who cause problems for the protagonist by doing things that make life difficult. But we only catch glimpses of these people and it's rarely when they are in their element or doing their jobs, moments when they would have an opportunity to show their competence or skill. We see them as comic relief or obstacles because they are reacting to the protagonist. Our knowledge of them reflects how we see them.

A prime example comes from Lin Beifong from Legend of Korra, an officer of the law and metal-bender. During the course of the second season, Lin suddenly seemed less competent at her job for no apparent reason. She dismissed the claims of Mako, who was investigating a crime, and preferred to listen to two lazy colleagues who kept looking for an easy solution. It is easy to see why Mako was getting frustrated and ended up making a few reckless choices.

But let's look at the situation based on what Lin knew at the time. Mako was a rookie in the ranks, didn't appear to have solid evidence backing up his claims and kept bringing his suspicions to Lin at inappropriate moments. His own past wasn't exactly squeaky clean and there was plenty of room to doubt him. In contrast were the two detectives, people who had not only been on the force for a while, but had clearly been promoted. There is reference made to detective 'openings', much like any other job vacancy, so these two had clearly applied and been considered the best candidates for these positions.

Calculating or ignorant? Bad writing or a believable reaction?

Minor characters often get a tough break in the narrative because we simply aren't given enough time with them to form any sort of opinion. The more we learn, the more our perspectives on them can change and this can often be reflected in the understanding of the main character.

Let's look at Harry Potter for a moment, or rather the character of Dumbledore. One scene that has stayed with fans since the beginning was with the Mirror of Erised. Because our perspective is with Harry, we see what he sees. We know what he desires. But when Harry shares the Mirror with Ron and Dumbledore, both Harry and the reader experience a problem; we can't see what Ron and Dumbledore see reflected in the Mirror. We trust what they tell us because Harry trusts them, even if we feel that what Dumbledore sees is a bit odd. It is only much later, when we learn more about Dumbledore's life and past regrets, that we start to view that scene with new eyes. Harry's knowledge and our understanding is no longer what it used to be. We don't believe what he told us in the first book because our trust in him has changed.

Reflections

Perspective shapes everything, no matter what form it comes in. It is not just about how someone might approach a situation. It's about how someone might think, or how they view people and situations.

So the work colleague you angered? Maybe they found your comments hurtful, even if you didn't mean them to be, or it was the final straw of a very bad day. Not everyone is going to see things the way you do or know everything that you know. In the words of Atticus Finch, 'You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view…until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.'

It's the beginning of a new year. Let's make an effort to understand a different point of view.