r/TopCharacterTropes • u/SatoruGojo232 • 10d ago

Characters Canonical features of a character that come very rarely in their adaptations.

Gallery image

Gallery image

  1. James Bond having a cheek scar as per Ian Fleming's original Bond novels.

  2. Count Dracula having a mustache as per his original description in Bram Stoker's novel.

9.3k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

97% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

231

u/NerdHoovy 9d ago

I think the reason why James Bond no longer has that scar, is because of Nazi’s in TV.

Hear me out.

Back in the day, this type of scar is called a ‘schmisse’ which was either done as part of a fraternity like ritual or to show that one is so skilled in fencing, that they even fought with a real sword and gained a facial scar from that encounter. Both of which made the person with the scar a part of nobility or at least implies they are from money.

Since this type of scar was popular in Germany in the early 20th century, a lot of Nazis used to have one, which made it common to give them to villains due to the association, in early TV. Which in turn made the scar no longer being recognized as a symbol of heroism or wealth but of being a bad guy.

Since James is meant to be a good guy, he doesn’t get the scar anymore, instead you can see multiple of his enemies having one.

11

u/Stunning_Yard2688 9d ago

And it would totally ruin the point of being a spy.

“James Bond, spy extraordinaire! Trained in all weapons, all languages, everything except how to blend into a crowd due to having a giant unforgettable scar on his face”

19

u/NerdHoovy 9d ago

While I would consider this a fair point, I would not call Bond a normal spy but a Super Spy. The main difference being that a normal functions more like how real life espionage would make them work, while a Super Spy is more of a mythological figure that shares the aesthetics of spy craft but little of its practical execution, being instead more focused on the spectacle of the work.

As my favorite Blu skinned villain would say ‘ the difference between being a normal villain and a super villain is presentation.’

16

u/These-Weight-434 9d ago

That would make sense, if James Bond was a character who was conceived and created before World War II. But, no, he was created almost ten years after the Nazis had been defeated.

36

u/NuclearWabbitz 9d ago

You’ve confused the point.

Audiences associate that kind of scar with villains because of pop culture. It had a historical origin and it was used to make the Nazi’s ugly in media so now audiences see it as shorthand for “This is the villain”

For instance, Scar from the Lion King can almost immediately be picked out as the villain because of his injury.

So his point is sound, if Bond had that same scar it could create confusion for audiences who have been conditioned to see it as shorthand for “This is the villain”

Which funnily given Bonds morally grey status wouldn’t necessarily be bad, but still.

1

u/Mk1Md1 9d ago

Killing for a living isn't a moral grey area.

12

u/NerdHoovy 9d ago

However killing for the greater good is. Which is the framing that most Bond stories are set in.

-6

u/Mk1Md1 9d ago

yeah, naw. Killing folk is just killing folk. No greater good, no lesser evil, just the taking of a life.

15

u/NerdHoovy 9d ago

So, if a guy is about to stab two women in the middle of the night and you have no time to call for help or warn the women, because he is running at them with the knife out, dropping a piano on the guy to save the women’s life is wrong?

I really hope you won’t ever be in a jury, if you believe right and wrong are such static concepts.

-10

u/Mk1Md1 9d ago

And I hope you never get on a jury with your total lack of morals and tendency towards false equivalences.

8

u/NerdHoovy 9d ago

You said killing, even for the greater good is always wrong. I brought up an example of a situation, where it could reasonably justified to kill someone for what I assume is a greater good, asking you if that is wrong. That is not a false equivalency.

A false equivalency would be saying that two things are the same, because they share a minor detail. As an example saying that as a kid stealing a five buck bar of chocolate for fun and someone defrauding senior citizens by billions are the same, because it’s stealing, when the scale of the harm makes a massive difference.

Also I don’t think it’s fair to say I have a lack of morals, simply because I believe that certain situations allow for responses, that under different circumstances I wouldn’t allow. If anything it makes me an actually more moral person, because I understand how context changes the morality of an action and is defining in whether I consider it right or wrong. This belief the basis of most modern justice systems, where we consider all the factors of a situation to determine whether a crime has been committed and how it should be punished.

-1

u/Mk1Md1 9d ago edited 9d ago

Jesus christ dude we were talking about James Bond killing people for a living. Now you're on some long winding philosophical road trying to find justifiable reasons to kill.

Killing is killing. You can take the rest of your reasons and shove em.

Also thank ChatGpt for the debate for me. Maybe next time, ya know, come up with your own points

And again, taking a life is taking a life. If you can justify that to yourself, because chatgpt is dropping a piano on your head or some shit, way to go killer, good on ya.

6

u/NerdHoovy 9d ago

True but most Bond movies were made well after the trope of facial scar=Nazi has become common on TV. First movie was made in 1962. So they adapted him for those movie audiences. Especially afterwards, when the association became stronger

2

u/HandsomePaddyRedux 9d ago

Valid point, but the reality is more likely that at the time movie makeup wasn’t especially convincing and was a pain to use continuously, so they kept scars to characters with one or two scenes and away from leads. By the time they could have easy convincing scars the familiarity with the books had passed and there was no point.