Boccs t1_j2cgulw wrote

I mean that could be said of any version of Jekyll and Hyde. They've seen the personality monster so many times that's not going to draw any more people than running it accurately to the book would.


Boccs t1_j2cckyz wrote

At this juncture I'd argue a faithful adaptation would actually be more surprising to general audiences. Most people these days associate the story with the personality disorder interpretation, so sticking to the original story would probably throw a lot of people for a loop.


Boccs t1_j2bzt5s wrote

Terry Pratchett's everythings are a lot more interesting. The man had an unparalleled gift for taking tropes and cliches and turning them so far on their head that it makes you wonder how we never saw them in that light to begin with.


Boccs t1_j2bzno3 wrote

Right up there with the adaptation of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in terms of "missing the point of the book" since in the book Jekyll's serum didn't do anything to his personality at all, only temporarily changed his appearance. It's just under the safety of anonymity Dr. Jekyll was allowed to do all the awful hedonistic shit he wanted to do normally but couldn't because it would damage his reputation as a proper Victorian gentleman. No personality disorders, no change of mentality, just a guy who found out how to be an asshole without people knowing it was him.

Meanwhile 90% of movies make it a magic potion that alters his psyche and body to make them two separate entities fighting for control like a less green Incredible Hulk.