Going Postal

Thaedydal wrote: »

Utterly lacklustre.
Says a lot when the only thing which got both my kids excited was Terry's cameo.

Me and my daughter both shouted 'Its Terry!!' at the same moment, which was probably the most lively we got through the whole thing.
A bit of an 'embuggerance' all round although better than the other two.

I really liked it. Thought it was funny and loved the scenery etc. Very few books will translate onto screen well but i thought it was well done.

Oh gods I am only at the end of the first part and they butchered it all again the worse being moist and richter are ruined and the whole moral plotline is cringeworthy tosh peaking in **** when there's the smoking is bad bit

Thought it was alright myself. Not a patch on the book but as a separate entity it was watchable. Herself (definitely not a Pratchett fan despite my many urgings) watched it and thought it was ok as well.

Odd lack of humour in it though

I havnt had a chance to watch part 2

but part 1 was painful, badly made, poorly adapted and cringeworthy of the highest order.

It needs to be taken as a seperate identity from the book because it has kept very little of the book's plot. I can understand and expect in an adaptation most of the subplots would be cut (so the old postmen, the smoking gnu and the post office carriage service I am not surprised were missing [though the carriage men could show up in part 2, doubt it])

But they replaced it with an utter tosh rewrite of the main plot cutting out the mystical and humour elements and replacing it with this god awful melodramatic life lesson bollocks that reached the height of idiocy when they it is idiotic, heavy handed and uninteresting.

But compared to the butchering they have done richter at least bellheart has kept her backstory somewhat intact (even if her independent working woman role in the book has been turned into a handicap rather then the charm it had in the book.) Richter has been gutted of all his looking glass charm of the book (he's just like moist...but better) and now is some pompus overfed banker. Absolute waste of a character, in fact he plays more like cosmo lavish form making money then richter. They must have got the books mixed up here?

Moist is completely wrong, I was worried he'd land on the mathew broderick side of weird uncomfortable humour but he's not funny...not at all, nor is he charming, clever or manipulative, this is a character who is meant to be always looking for an angle and despite saying *I am looking for the angles* in a bored voice over at one point he never seems to be playing anyone or anything, just bloundering through shouting at people and dancing around like a muppet. I mean I actually had to ask *why did he go to the pin shop?* it made perfect sense in the book he was keeping stanley on his side over groat, but it didnt make sense in this except for the plot conveniance later on. What happened to him charming all the gaurds in his cell before being hanged? What happened to him trying out the stamp in public? These were the scenes that defined Moist and they were cut.


Ahhh!

On top of that, Ankh Morpock seems to look worse and worse with every one of these shows, its lifeless, empty and worse of all CLEAN it never stops looking like a set, the extras always seem to be the same six people and the background noise is completely missing.


I will find it very difficult to convince myself to watch part 2.

Interesting take Blitz, but you haven't changed my mind I still think it's the best adaptation yet. They have ALL been off plot but the main stuff was there. Oh and some of that stuff you mention IS in part 2, .

Some of the characters like for example Sergeant Angua and the golems are completely NOT what I imagine in my mind's eye when I read the books, they couldn't be more different. And yes, at first the differences pissed me off but it's a fun little TV show and many of the characters do work and I quite enjoyed it.

Anyone else prefer Charles Dance over Jeremy Irons?

The problem is Ankh-Mopork is in our imaginations, if I made a TV show with my perfect Ankh-Mopork most people would think it was crap tbh. Just like some LOTR fanboys/girls think Peter Jackson is a ****ing muppet, it's never going to please everyone. But better than the usual x-factor rubbish or something so don't complain too much or they'll stop making them!

The problem is Ankh-Mopork is in our imaginations, if I made a TV show with my perfect Ankh-Mopork most people would think it was crap tbh. Just like some LOTR fanboys/girls think Peter Jackson is a ****ing muppet, it's never going to please everyone.

This is not a *oh I imagined it as this* scenario...They've done morpork twice before and both times they did it better then they did it here



and here



compared to this



Its not just that its empty, noticeable bare in almost every shop...its clean, its badly laid out, flat and uninteresting. Its bad set design not wishy washy not what i wanted bollox.

But better than the usual x-factor rubbish or something so don't complain too much or they'll stop making them!

I rather leave tv to the x factor rubbish and keep my attention on media that does the material justice then have half arsed crap for the sake of having it.

but you haven't changed my mind I still think it's the best adaptation yet. They have ALL been off plot but the main stuff was there. Oh and some of that stuff you mention IS in part 2

I had no intention of changing anyone's mind. And I already said I have no issue with them having to cut things to fit a book into a 4 hour mini series.

Where I complained was with the main plots gutting and rebuilding into some moral teaching ****e and the butchering of the lead characters.

angell wrote:

I thought adora chose cigarettes when she was stressed over her father dying. Didn't she go into the boarded up shop after?

She does,

Anyone else prefer Charles Dance over Jeremy Irons?

He was fine, but he didnt have nearly as much good material to work with as Irons had in colour of magic. In COM jeremy irons had alot more space to play with his few scenes which is very much like the vetinari to play with his *victims* while Charles Dance tended to be required to deliver plot elements more concretely so couldnt play around as much. Which is a shame because the moist/vetinari scene at the beginning really is something that should be played out a good bit.

comparisons again



sadly charles dance's scenes are not online yet

I was more annoyed at how drumknot was presented more so. Steve Pemberton was being a smug little git and playing it far too much like how timothy spall played beadle in sweeney todd. Which is pretty much the opposite to how the character was written.

Okay I haven't seen this one but a couple of things strike me.

(BTW, I've read every Pratchett novel and a lot of the 'about Discworld' books.)

I seem to be one of the few who enjoyed the Hogfather adaptation :P So for those of you complaining about this and the other adaptarions I would say you should consider the following:

It's a made-for-TV movie, the budget is not that high. Okay, they're not astoundingly brillliant but at least someone is making the effort to make them!! Hollywood has thus far ignored Pratchett.

The story's aren't faithful to the book? Why complain? How many Hollywood films are faithful to the book? Anyone ever read The Bourne Identity and then watch the film? Even the Lord of the Rings didn't stay faithful to the books and that's a class trilogy!

My wife hasn't read any Discworld novels but loves the Hogfather adaptation, it got her more interested in Pratchett than she has ever been. I would imagine that there have been a lot more converts to the Church of Terry since these adaptations started rolling out

I agree that there's lots of room for improvement but as I say, I think that it's only a matter of time before some Hollywood studio realises that there's money to be made from Pratchett films and really give us a good movie.

I do however agree that there needs to be more effort in bringing Ankh-Morpork to life in these made-for-TV pieces