The Watch (Terry Pratchett) [BBC America]

Sonics2k

Yet another adaption of Terry Pratchett's Discworld books, this time focusing on the Night Watch.

I'm skeptically hopeful about this, though some of the casting seems odd.

https://www.terrypratchettbooks.com/richard-dormer-leads-watch-cast/

Lara Rossi as Lady Sybil is the odd choice among the casting. For one, she's considerably younger than Richard Dormer and Lady Sybil is written as a large lady in late 40's and rather pompus.

WengerOutIn

Sonics2k wrote: »

Yet another adaption of Terry Pratchett's Discworld books, this time focusing on the Night Watch.

I'm skeptically hopeful about this, though some of the casting seems odd.

https://www.terrypratchettbooks.com/richard-dormer-leads-watch-cast/

Lara Rossi as Lady Sybil is the odd choice among the casting. For one, she's considerably younger than Richard Dormer and Lady Sybil is written as a large lady in late 40's and rather pompus.

any idea who is producing it? Really brilliant books around the watch and Vimes.

TheIrishGrover

I like the idea of them making a series of The Watch. it is probably the best angle to come at for a Discworld series. I have no real problems with the cast. No problem with them aging some of them down. But they are all awful pretty

No, my biggest concern is the production values/cost. If done right, it could look amazing but be very expensive. If the budget isn't invested then it can look cheap and nasty.

Sonics2k

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

I like the idea of them making a series of The Watch. it is probably the best angle to come at for a Discworld series. I have no real problems with the cast. No problem with them aging some of them down. But they are all awful pretty

No, my biggest concern is the production values/cost. If done right, it could look amazing but be very expensive. If the budget isn't invested then it can look cheap and nasty.

I'm not sure about it. Part of the initial attraction between Sybil and Sam is the age they are. They're both considered past their prime, him a total drunk and a mess, and her a dragon obsessed spinster and considered to be the last of the Ramkin family.

But then, I personally think they cast Rincewind too old in the previous Light Fantastic mini-series.

pixelburp

Yeah, the Sybil casting is wrong, based on the books and my mind's eye. As said, she's meant to be a frumpy "of the earth" sort you get with English upper class clichés. The actor looks too elfin and, well, glamorous.

Still, I'm amazed and excited this is actually happening at all. Seems like it was near permanently within the rumour mill for ages, and never really believed it would be adapted. I believe Pratchett's daughter is involved, or was last time I read about it (possibly '15). Guess with GOT, there's a bit of a gold Rush with fantasy IPs.

Will be an interesting one to adapt, and not sure how well it might work. A lot of the humour was as much Pratchett's narration as it was the events in the novel, so hopefully some sense of that wry humour remains.

Mark Hamill

Isn't Carcer the villain from Night Watch? Thats the 6th Watch-centric book in the Discworld series, are they going to through them all in one series or are they changing the chronology around that much?

Day Lewin

Chrysoprase the troll, gang-master. Superb. Can't wait!

Mickeroo

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Isn't Carcer the villain from Night Watch? Thats the 6th Watch-centric book in the Discworld series, are they going to through them all in one series or are they changing the chronology around that much?

Night watch wouldn't be a bad one to do first in fairness as it's basically Vimes' origin story to an extent.

This has great potential as a series I have to say, though I'm concerned at the lack of Nobby in the casting, good luck getting a model to play him

pixelburp

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Isn't Carcer the villain from Night Watch? Thats the 6th Watch-centric book in the Discworld series, are they going to through them all in one series or are they changing the chronology around that much?

He is. I suspect he's going to be something of a Big Bad, and if the show has legs we'll eventually see an adaptation of Night Watch; there's no way they'll start with it, as the book necessitated the reader knowing the characters first as to appreciate "before they were famous" story.

I'm also guessing that if Carcer is in this, they're not starting with Guards Guards, unless it's a very loose adaptation - starting with Vimes at rock bottom, but it's a serial killer and not a dragon that stirs him into a new lease of life.

nullObjects

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Isn't Carcer the villain from Night Watch? Thats the 6th Watch-centric book in the Discworld series, are they going to through them all in one series or are they changing the chronology around that much?

Yeah he's the main villain in that one

They travel back in time and he meets a younger version of himself, maybe that's why the actors are younger than you'd expect the characters to be?

Hope they give this the series it deserves, night watch is one of my favourites

donegal_man

Some of the stuff coming from the people behind it would suggest it's going to be one of those shows "based on characters created by ..." It may start with an episode based on one of the books to attract fans then go off on its own as happened with the Dresden Files adaptation.

AMC Network’s Entertainment Group & AMC Studios President Sarah Barnett says: “The Watch will be a very BBC America show. As with Killing Eve, we don’t go straight at an adaptation – we blur genres, undercut with humor, and hire the most genius writers and actors to create stories and characters that are both entertaining and very contemporary...”

Lead writer and executive producer, Simon Allen says: “...It’s been such a privilege to work with our world-class director, producers and writers on building a television show that honors his legacy while striking out on its own in his name and spirit."... 

Full article on BBC America

Sonics2k

Richard Dormer is 49 years old, which actually seems like a good age for Vimes as I always imagined him as late 40's to early 50's.

I can't find any age for Lara Rossi but she doesn't seem to be that age from what I can tell.

pixelburp

Guards Guards was always a little bit of an outlier anyway IMO: future stories were more politically epic in scope, rather than the viscerally epic of a ruddy great big dragon terrorising the city. It became about Vimes slowly evolving into Discworld's Honest Broker, and could see that working better in serialised TV than a shallower "man slays dragon and personal demons" story.

Besides, a CGI dragon, and the various action scenes involving it would cost more money, and I daresay it'll be expensive as it stands building Ankh-Morpork & its non-human denizens.

Mickeroo

The lead writer's CV has killed my enthusiasm a bit.

pixelburp

Yeah, very little pedigree when it comes to comedy writing, while the shows themselves are hardly standouts; his most involvement was with The Musketeers by the looks of things, which was fine. No great shakes, even if the show was fun in a throwaway kinda way.

Mickeroo

pixelburp wrote: »

Yeah, very little pedigree when it comes to comedy writing, while the shows themselves are hardly standouts; his most involvement was with The Musketeers by the looks of things, which was fine. No great shakes, even if the show was fun in a throwaway kinda way.

That's the one that jumped out at me as an alarm bell the most tbh, I'd take New Tricks over that any day

pixelburp

Haha, different strokes I guess. Either way don't think either of us are blown away by the guy's CV. Nor does the director's at that. Filming to start at the end of the month, and TV tends to have a quick enough turnaround so perhaps it won't be long 'til we get some promotional material.

It's got the backing of Pratchett's Estate (sidebar: that it's an 'Estate' now), though no word of Rhianna in the official announcement, and given her own previous work I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing

Greyjoy

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'm not sure about it. Part of the initial attraction between Sybil and Sam is the age they are. They're both considered past their prime, him a total drunk and a mess, and her a dragon obsessed spinster and considered to be the last of the Ramkin family.

But then, I personally think they cast Rincewind too old in the previous Light Fantastic mini-series.

Dormer is a good pick for Vimes but it feels like the Hollywood cliche that they can't give the leading man a love interest similar in age but instead a much younger actress.

Gbear

Most of what I've heard about this is bad news and little more than piggybacking off a fantasy series good name, and pissing all over it in the process.

Oh well. Given the number of fantasy series in production I shouldn't be too greedy.

Sir Pterry can wait a little longer to get something worthy of being associated with him. He is not, after all, in much of a hurry these days.

donegal_man

Anna Chancellor as Lord Vetinari, Ingrid Oliver as Doctor Cruces and Ruth Madeley CMOT Dibbler! Anna Chancellor is the only one of them I'm really familiar with and think she would have made an excellent Lady Sybil.
Full article on tor.com HERE

RedXIV

Not quite sure how they are trying to sell this "gender neutral" casting but I've got to admit, I'm a little concerned as I don't know the cast well at all and how I've always had it in my head that each of the male characters was decisively male (probably a little less convinced with Wonse).

I do think they nailed Vimes though

Sonics2k

Why in the name of bouncy baby Jehova have they case Hakeem Kae-Kazim as Sergeant Keel?

He's a fantastic actor, but isn't that going to cause some severe with the entire damn plot of Night Watch or is Richard Dormer just going to black face his way through it?

pixelburp

I wasn't hugely stoked by the news they'd gender flipped The Patrician, mostly because the books were always quite definitive about his appearance; if there's one saving grace it's that Chancellor at least LOOKS like a female version of Vetinari, so that's something at least.

More annoying has been turning Lady Sybil into a political rabble-rouser (beyond changing her noted frumpy appearance), and CMOT into a snitch: the above tor article doesn't mention it, but the BBC America article states: "[Throat]... will portray the wiry Throat, the city’s best snitch, with a gang of freelance henchmen at her beck and call"

That's NOT who CMOT Dibbler is; I get the Arthur Daly / Derek Trotter stereotype is a bit stale these days, but he was never a snitch. Definitely more concerned about the flippancy with which they're just tinkering with characters. I remember reading an interview with Pratchett where he said his main aversion to adaptations was studios' desires to just arbitrarily change characters. Going by Throat & Sybil, it feels like his Estate hasn't heeded his words

bucketybuck

Get woke go broke.

The casting is a load of **** and a clear sign of the mentality behind this "adaptation". I'm not one for internet boycotts or any of that but I have no interest in a college diversity project.

Sonics2k

pixelburp wrote: »

I wasn't hugely stoked by the news they'd gender flipped The Patrician, mostly because the books were always quite definitive about his appearance; if there's one saving grace it's that Chancellor at least LOOKS like a female version of Vetinari, so that's something at least.

More annoying has been turning Lady Sybil into a political rabble-rouser (beyond changing her noted frumpy appearance), and CMOT into a snitch: the above tor article doesn't mention it, but the BBC America article states: "[Throat]... will portray the wiry Throat, the city’s best snitch, with a gang of freelance henchmen at her beck and call"

That's NOT who CMOT Dibbler is; I get the Arthur Daly / Derek Trotter stereotype is a bit stale these days, but he was never a snitch. Definitely more concerned about the flippancy with which they're just tinkering with characters. I remember reading an interview with Pratchett where he said his main aversion to adaptations was studios' desires to just arbitrarily change characters. Going by Throat & Sybil, it feels like his Estate hasn't heeded his words

Absolutely agree, though I think it's important to state that his estate (namely Rhianna Pratchett herself) is not involved in this. Its all BBC America.

https://twitter.com/rhipratchett/status/1172096652603248641

I'm always up for doing a Gender Swap now and then, but in this case it's just being badly done, along side some incredibly pointless character background changes.

It strongly feels like nobody involved in the making of this show actually cares about the source material.

Another rumour I heard is that Cheeri will not be a Dwarf!

pixelburp

Sonics2k wrote: »

Absolutely agree, though I think it's important to state that his estate (namely Rhianna Pratchett herself) is not involved in this. Its all BBC America.

https://twitter.com/rhipratchett/status/1172096652603248641

I'm always up for doing a Gender Swap now and then, but in this case it's just being badly done, along side some incredibly pointless character background changes.

It strongly feels like nobody involved in the making of this show actually cares about the source material.

Another rumour I heard is that Cheeri will not be a Dwarf!

Huh, I had read that the Estate had signed off on this, so I'm just confused now. The absence of Pratchett herself is noteworthy though; those Tweets of her do give off an air of "don't look at me, I didn't have anything to do with it", not exactly a ringing endorsement from her that's for sure.

Like I said I'm not overly pushed about the gender-flips, even if there are so many & so arbitrary it's hard not to think it's intentional, but more concerned about changing up the characters themselves. CMOT is a pretty beloved side-character, so suddenly becoming this Fagan-esque snitch is lame. If the writers are that flippant about the basic foundation of a character, then presumably they're not bothered about keeping them on their paths form the books.

But the director/writer combination looked crap from the outset, so casting decisions or not this had always got off on the wrong foot.

Sonics2k

pixelburp wrote: »

Huh, I had read that the Estate had signed off on this, so I'm just confused now. The absence of Pratchett herself is noteworthy though; those Tweets of her do give off an air of "don't look at me, I didn't have anything to do with it", not exactly a ringing endorsement from her that's for sure.

Like I said I'm not overly pushed about the gender-flips, even if there are so many & so arbitrary it's hard not to think it's intentional, but more concerned about changing up the characters themselves. CMOT is a pretty beloved side-character, so suddenly becoming this Fagan-esque snitch is lame. If the writers are that flippant about the source, then presumably they're not bothered about keeping them on their paths form the books.

But the director/writer combination looked crap from the outset, so casting decisions or not this had always got off on the wrong foot.

I was legitimately excited for this show, Night Watch is up there among my favourite Discworld books, and I've longed dreamed about who I'd cast in various roles from Guards! Guards! onwards.

Frankly I was hoping to see Charles Dance returned as Vetinari, as I felt he nailed it in Going Postal.

I saw images recently of Ankh Morpork being re-imagined as some sort of dystopian city, which put in me mind of the god awful Super Mario movie.

I've always been a firm believer in casting the right actor for the part, but this is honestly one of those times where I feel like they really are pushing the diversity thing and just altering characters.

Sybil is supposed to be an eccentric, overweight, aging Socialite and the richest person in Ankh. It's the characters very definition and part of what makes her interesting.
Cheeri is a Dwarf who openly admits to being a female.
CMOT is a petty crook with an awful sense of venture capitalism. At absolute best the closest he'd have to a Henchman is Detritus or maybe his nephew Saul.

Gbear

If you're looking at something very well trodden like Hamlet or Othello, then there's plenty of room to adapt it any way you like. There's been race swapped versions of Othello (with Patrick Stuart possibly?), there's that Baz Luhrmann Romeo and Juliet. So many others on screen and on stage. That's totally fine. Especially if the original author is so old as to be dead hundreds of years, no harm can be done, and if it sucks, it'll only reflect on a bad production.

But in this case, there hasn't really been any successful adaptations, and worse his family (and to a lesser extent, legions of fans) have known and loved him, and are still around to be hurt by disrespecting the source material in such a way.

I honestly think it just reflects very poorly on those producing the show. It shows such an arrogance that I find difficult to grasp. Whether or not the show is well made is bedside the point. They have taken something of someone else's and that requires a duty of care, IMO, and they appear to have completely abandoned that.

That's leaving aside the sheer wankery of gender bending the cast of an author who was as progressive, and had such an amazingly rich and diverse cast of women as Pratchett had. It's infantile.

Mickeroo

I'd generally have no issue with gender swapping characters for adaptations and the like but they're committing a much bigger crime with this in that they have no idea about what made those characters appealing or what they were about in the first place. It's not like Discworld is short on diverse characters either so it seems even more pointless.

The most frustrating thing is the Watch have amazing potential for a TV adaptation.

Sonics2k

Gbear wrote: »

That's leaving aside the sheer wankery of gender bending the cast of an author who was as progressive, and had such an amazingly rich and diverse cast of women as Pratchett had. It's infantile.

I think this is actually the part that bothers me the most.

Pratchett was famed for writing great female characters, even the Subreddit /r/menwritingwomen praises him because he wrote them as actual people, and not sex objects

https://i.redd.it/eajdr4pkp6n31.jpg

So what's the point of forcing in new female characters when there's already a great range of them in the cannon?

pixelburp

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'd generally have no issue with gender swapping characters for adaptations and the like but they're committing a much bigger crime with this in that they have no idea about what made those characters appealing or what they were about in the first place. It's not like Discworld is short on diverse characters either so it seems even more pointless.

The most frustrating thing is the Watch have amazing potential for a TV adaptation.

I wonder if the clue here is that it's BBC America producing the show: because above all else, Pratchett's Ankh-Morpork was a distinctly English-British beast: Lady Sybil as the frumpy, ruddy-cheeked, wellyboot wearing faded socialite was a potent image we (as cultural neighbours) could easily relate to and picture. Sybil was the quintessential lower rung of nobility that had seen better days, but putting that land to good use.

BBC America, looking probably at a more American or international audience, may have seen that cliché and decided nobody would get it, instead keeping her class but making her a wrong-righting vigilante in some misguided belief it added agency to her character...

.. Wait, superheroes are in, right? Oh god I just realised: they have turned Lady Sybil into Batman:

"... Lady Sybil Ramkin, last scion of Ankh-Morpork’s nobility, who’s trying to fix the city’s wrongs with her chaotic vigilantism"

http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2019/09/richard-dormer-leads-bbc-americas-next-original-series-the-watch

Mickeroo

You're probably right pixel unfortunately.

Do I see a female wizard in there too? Christ, they haven't a clue.

Bannasidhe

Reading the scuttlebug around this it puts me in mind of when Stallone was cast as Judge Dredd. And absolute car crash of a film where it was obvious that no-one involved had the slightest idea about the characters or the storyline.
And I think the issues come from the same place - like Dredd, Pratchett's work was 'British' -by which I mean it was informed by his life, education, culture growing up in the UK. Not just the jokes about Morris Dancing or references to potent alcohol made (mostly) from apples, it drew it's humour from the same well as the Pythons. The Well of Absurdity in Everyday Life and that 'life' was British.

They might speak the same language in the US (mostly), but the nuances of everyday life, the humour, the cultural references etc are completely different. They just don't get it. Not really.

Sybil is a character that could be found in Agatha Christie. The dowdy, eccentric, aristocratic, hunter welly/wax jacket wearing middle aged spinster, awfully jolly hockey sticks who is utterly passionate about dogs horses dragons to the exclusion of all else. She probably went to St Trinians as a young gal. It it wasn't for the fact that she has blue blood and is stinking rich she'd have been locked up due to being 'a bit bonkers'.

CMOT is Del Boy/Arfur Daly/Flash Harry.

Sam Vimes is like a million Sean Bean roles - working class lad grew up in poverty, bit of a chip on his shoulder when it comes to his 'betters'. Prides himself on his street smarts. Handy with his fists but also sentimental.

Vetinari is that public school boy. The odd clever one. He's one of those is he gay or British types. Terribly well educated, terribly well connected, posh enough to put the aristocrats in their place, wily enough to get one over the guilds, ruthless enough to terrify everyone.

On this side of the Pond we 'know' these characters. We grew up with them. We read them in Christie and Blyton. We have watched them in countless TV shows. We were immersed in the same source material Pratchett drew on.

pixelburp

Yup, I think Bannasidhe you've summed it up: Pratchett was the evolution & deconstruction of a distinctly British set of cultural markers, both from fiction & reality. So far this adaptation feels like it has intentionally torn out those British'isms, because of a misguided feeling they're irrelevant or alien to what will presumably be an international audience.

I'm actively hoping this will die on the production table but it does sound like it's all systems go; and thanks to the arbitrary casting choices, it'll ensure any sober discussion about it being a faithful adaptation gets drowned out by those either ranting about SJWs, or those emotionally investing their slacktivism for this cause.

Stop moaning ffs

Was so excited when I saw this thread. Had no idea this was coming. A huge brave endeavor. Seems some of you aren’t happy tough and now I can see why.
Worrying indeed.

Bannasidhe

pixelburp wrote: »

Yup, I think Bannasidhe you've summed it up: Pratchett was the evolution & deconstruction of a distinctly British set of cultural markers, both from fiction & reality. So far this adaptation feels like it has intentionally torn out those British'isms, because of a misguided feeling they're irrelevant or alien to what will presumably be an international audience.

I'm actively hoping this will die on the production table but it does sound like it's all systems go; and thanks to the arbitrary casting choices, it'll ensure any sober discussion about it being a faithful adaptation gets drowned out by those either ranting about SJWs, or those emotionally investing their slacktivism for this cause.

It's like they are trying to morph Miss Marple into Jessica Fletcher so we'll end up with some bizarre Jessica Marple living in St Mary's Cove stripped of their storyline, motivations, history.

Gbear

pixelburp wrote: »

Yup, I think Bannasidhe you've summed it up: Pratchett was the evolution & deconstruction of a distinctly British set of cultural markers, both from fiction & reality. So far this adaptation feels like it has intentionally torn out those British'isms, because of a misguided feeling they're irrelevant or alien to what will presumably be an international audience.

I'm actively hoping this will die on the production table but it does sound like it's all systems go; and thanks to the arbitrary casting choices, it'll ensure any sober discussion about it being a faithful adaptation gets drowned out by those either ranting about SJWs, or those emotionally investing their slacktivism for this cause.

There's more than enough substance in Pratchett's work that the references are irrelevant. I started reading them when I was 9, and you can be sure almost every reference flew straight over my head, but I still loved them, because they're brilliantly written. The characters are deep, but more than that, they're human and relatable. They're not superheroes, mostly. And even when they stray into that, it's done knowingly and in a limited fashion. Indeed, Carrot would be a superhero in any other series, but in Discworld, he just wants to be a bog-standard public servant.

It comes across as someone not understanding the source material, or a profound degree of meddling from the higher-ups.

Also, I'm all for inclusivity in media, and quite often there's little harm in switching the ethnicity of a character. In a place like Ankh-Morpork, there's no reason why you can't have a racially diverse set of characters.

Switching genders does more than that though. The context of a character is important, and while switching the ethnicity of a character might have no impact on that context, especially in certain fantasy settings, the gender virtually always will.

As with the aforementioned racial-swap for a production of Othello, you're making a statement by making Othello white and the rest of the cast black.

And that's, of course, not to say it's even necessarily bad. It's just a quite profound change to the source material, and you better have a bloody good reason for doing it.

This really should not be the hill to die on for the cause of representation in media.

It's arrogant to try, but if I attempt to put myself in the shoes of Pratchett and imagine what sort of changes he would be ok with, having Sybill be black is not one I think would bother him in the sligthest. Or even making Vimes (and Keel) black. But the gender-switching, the role-switching, totally changing the setting, stripping out the fantasy elements. That would surely not be ok with him.
He'd have stuffed that in a box and thrown it under the steam-roller along with his unfinished works.

Sonics2k

Well this is never good.

https://twitter.com/terryandrob/status/1199301665284935680

Stop moaning ffs

The danger involved with a writer selling the rights on for his stories.

donegal_man

donegal_man wrote: »

Some of the stuff coming from the people behind it would suggest it's going to be one of those shows "based on characters created by ..." It may start with an episode based on one of the books to attract fans then go off on its own as happened with the Dresden Files adaptation.



Full article on BBC America

I've never been less pleased to be right

Stop moaning ffs

Thinking on it, this series was never ever going to match the heart and spirit of the watch stories. Or the humour or the humanity or any of it. We all probably have different versions of ankh morpork and everyone in it in our heads. Seeing it stripped and repackaged should be enough of a warning. Leave them to it. It won’t work.

pixelburp

Begs the question what kind of custodians are running the Pratchett estate now that he's no longer with us - and indeed what role Rhianna plays, if any. Certainly her tweets made it sound like she had nothing to do with it.

The Good Omens adaptation was pretty faithful, if a little baggy and maybe TOO faithful in translating the written word. And as I said already, Pratchett resisted adaptations for the longest time precisely because they nearly always involved changing too much of his work. Mort without Death, that sort of thing. Sad that his anxieties are being born out.

Mickeroo

Good Omens was also unique in that Gaiman was still there to help steer the ship in the right direction.

pixelburp

Mickeroo wrote: »

Good Omens was also unique in that Gaiman was still there to help steer the ship in the right direction.

True, but way back when The Watch was mooted, Rhianna was part of the production, that much I'm certain. So that at least would have ensured some parity with the source material. Somewhere along the line then she left, either pushed out, had "creative differences" or her own priorities shifted (to be fair, she may never have wanted to be steward to her father's creative estate). The terse, noncommittal tweet where she clarified her absence from this production read as guarded, a lip bitten, though I'm probably reading into it.

One day a good, faithful adaptation will arise of Pratchett's discworld material.

Until then we have lady Sybil as batman. Sigh.

Sonics2k

I'm half expecting them to say they'll use Daisies instead of Lilacs as part of their re-imagining.

blueshade

All this woke nonsense is doing more harm than good. When you change the gender, colour or nature of a character then it isn't the same character. With Pratchett books everyone creates their own image of the characters. Lady Sybil is a strong overweight middle aged woman, what is wrong with having a strong white female character like that, why change it to a vigilante young black woman? Why make a wizard female? Why make the Patrician female? It has been disastrous in all the all female remake movies because nobody wants to see a terribly butchered remake of an old favourite. I've no issue with diversity but instead of making horrendous ''reimaginings'' of old favourites for the sake of diversity why not just make a new film/series with diverse new characters? I won't be watching this.

Sonics2k

blueshade wrote: »

All this woke nonsense is doing more harm than good. When you change the gender, colour or nature of a character then it isn't the same character. With Pratchett books everyone creates their own image of the characters. Lady Sybil is a strong overweight middle aged woman, what is wrong with having a strong white female character like that, why change it to a vigilante young black woman? Why make a wizard female? Why make the Patrician female? It has been disastrous in all the all female remake movies because nobody wants to see a terribly butchered remake of an old favourite. I've no issue with diversity but instead of making horrendous ''reimaginings'' of old favourites for the sake of diversity why not just make a new film/series with diverse new characters? I won't be watching this.

I'd actually be inclined to disagree, partially. Changing the race of a character isn't really a big deal or problem, unless it's an intrinsic part of the actual character.

For example, changing Carcer to a black guy, not an issue at all. His race is nothing to do with his actual character or the plot.

Changing Sergeant Keel to a black guy, well that is a problem as Vimes is supposed to be him during the events of Night Watch, and as we know, Ned Coates knows the real Keel so from the get go that's a problem.

Sybil can absolutely be played by a black woman, there's no reason she can't be. Even Pratchett noted that the concept of racism doesn't exist on the Disc, so white and black people live together without issue. Why bother with racism when Trolls and Dwarves exist.
The problem they've caused with Sybil is that they have changed the entire identity of the character, which was a direct reflection of Vimes. Changing her to a young vigilante is the real problem here, not the actresses race.

Most of the reason I dislike the changing of Vetinari to a woman is
a) Charles Dance was amazing and should have been recast.
b) It kinda messes up his backstory. He's supposed to have been a young boy, inducted to the Assassins Guild and his real love was the vampire Lady Margolotta.

pixelburp

I don't care that Sybil is a black woman - Ankh Morpork is SUPPOSED to be a big melting pot of peoples so honestly it's disingenuous to even flag it - I do care that they've warped her into Batman, and about 20 years younger than Vimes. Which is classic Hollywood really, but ultimately smacks that they don't have faith in the inherent Britishness of the source material to translate it accurately.

I've even come around to Vetinari being a woman, cos she at least looks the part, but the cracks are in the substance, not the superficial appearance.

Oh and as for Keel, I'm going out on a limb and say they're NOT going for an adaptation of Night Watch; no way they'll jump straight into a time travel plot off the bat, while the novel relied on that backlog of novels to make its emotional impact all the stronger. Keel will just be another name.

Bannasidhe

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'd actually be inclined to disagree, partially. Changing the race of a character isn't really a big deal or problem, unless it's an intrinsic part of the actual character.

For example, changing Carcer to a black guy, not an issue at all. His race is nothing to do with his actual character or the plot.

Changing Sergeant Keel to a black guy, well that is a problem as Vimes is supposed to be him during the events of Night Watch, and as we know, Ned Coates knows the real Keel so from the get go that's a problem.

Sybil can absolutely be played by a black woman, there's no reason she can't be. Even Pratchett noted that the concept of racism doesn't exist on the Disc, so white and black people live together without issue. Why bother with racism when Trolls and Dwarves exist.
The problem they've caused with Sybil is that they have changed the entire identity of the character, which was a direct reflection of Vimes. Changing her to a young vigilante is the real problem here, not the actresses race.

Most of the reason I dislike the changing of Vetinari to a woman is
a) Charles Dance was amazing and should have been recast.
b) It kinda messes up his backstory. He's supposed to have been a young boy, inducted to the Assassins Guild and his real love was the vampire Lady Margolotta.

I agree with this.

Skin colour is a complete non-issue for me (Keel being the exception for the reasons given here - if Keel is Vimes and Vimes is white then how does that work?).

Sybil is a Margaret Rutherford type character - her skin colour is immaterial but her age is vital to who she is when Vimes meets her. She isn't a young gal. She's a middle aged woman who had long given up on finding love and was going through life like a galleon in full sail using her aristocratic privilege to get away with ignoring conventions. Sybil is a particular kind of eccentric rebel against social convention - she is not a social justice warrior... unless poor helpless little dragonkins are involved.

As fr Vetinari - unless they envisage he being played by a woman would impart a certain (unnecessary) androgyny to the role then no.

Stop moaning ffs

Isn’t it one of the watch books where someone says ‘dwarves are like the Irish, they become more Irish the further away from home they get’

Am I misremembering that?

Bannasidhe

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Isn’t it one of the watch books where someone says ‘dwarves are like the Irish, they become more Irish the further away from home they get’

Am I misremembering that?

Not ringing any bells for me.