The Watch (Terry Pratchett) [BBC America]

Sonics2k · 28-11-2019 1:17pm

I believe there's a line in Guards! Guards! referring to Dwarf bars being full of Dwarves who suddenly change their names to things like "Galf Shinkicker" and start wearing chain mail and spiky helms but they'd never go home to the mountains.

iirc there's no reference to the Irish directly in any Discworld book.

Greyjoy · 28-11-2019 1:37pm

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?

Yeah it's one of my favourite quotes. The further away from home the more their national character gets exaggerated. PT describes it as happening to "the Welsh in London, the Irish in New York and Australians everywhere".

blueshade · 28-11-2019 2:11pm

I have to disagree with people who say that Lady Sybil's race doesn't matter. It would be difficult to find a character that is more typical of old white British Empire than Sybil. To suggest that her skin colour doesn't matter is ridiculous. The only reason to make her young and black is to pander to a woke audience who complain about a lack of diversity.

Gbear · 28-11-2019 2:28pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

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.

That's not precisely true.

In Jingo, the concept of racism (or perhaps more precisely, xenophobia) is addressed, so there can be a distrust of the other, but it's not based purely on skin colour, although the victims in question are supposed to be North African or Middle Eastern.

I think Pratchett had a certain image of London in mind, and neither I, nor he, I suspect, envisaged there being black people in Ankh-Morpork, or at least not any specific black people, but that was not, I think, for any particular reason. I'd imagine it was an oversight. For a modern audience, there's no harm in chucking in a bit of inclusivity.

A recent example I've noticed is in the BBC His Dark Materials adaptation - they've made one character, Lord Boreal, black, when I don't think he was in the books. It has no impact, and he's doing a very good job. They probably just got the guy who did the best in the casting call.

I suppose the way I'd look at it, is that the casting call for most, if not all characters needn't have mentioned their race. Probably the only exception would be Carrot, because he has to be ginger, and maybe Angua, because she is supposed to represent a certain stereotypical germanic archetype, but for most, it doesn't matter.
I think, for example, Chiwetel Ejiofor would make for an amazing Patrician, or Dr Cruces.

What I suspect, is that they've deliberately done the gender-bending (and the race stuff) to make a point, which isn't a problem in itself, but makes this an exercise in feminist media rather than an actual adaptation of Terry Pratchett's works.

I'm not particularly fond of that decision, but it doesn't destroy the originals so it's no skin off my nose, really.

bucketybuck · 28-11-2019 2:39pm

Gbear wrote: »

What I suspect, is that they've deliberately done the gender-bending (and the race stuff) to make a point, which isn't a problem in itself, but makes this an exercise in feminist media rather than an actual adaptation of Terry Pratchett's works.

I have little doubt that at some point there was a brainstorming session beginning with something like:

"Ok guys, analytics show that diversity is trending with millennials, we need to be thinking outside the box here so what can we do to target the demographic?"
"Lets make the patrician be a woman"
"We need a plucky person in a wheelchair"
"Make sure we get a few different races in there"
"Fat old white woman isn't going to play on Insta, we need to make her more vibrant".

I'm just surprised that they didn't go all the way and change Sybil into Simon.

blueshade · 28-11-2019 4:15pm

bucketybuck wrote: »

I have little doubt that at some point there was a brainstorming session beginning with something like:

"Ok guys, analytics show that diversity is trending with millennials, we need to be thinking outside the box here so what can we do to target the demographic?"
"Lets make the patrician be a woman"
"We need a plucky person in a wheelchair"
"Make sure we get a few different races in there"
"Fat old white woman isn't going to play on Insta, we need to make her more vibrant".

I'm just surprised that they didn't go all the way and change Sybil into Simon.

Give it time, at some point Sybil will probably ''identify'' as Simon.

Bannasidhe · 28-11-2019 4:29pm

Gbear wrote: »

What I suspect, is that they've deliberately done the gender-bending (and the race stuff) to make a point, which isn't a problem in itself, but makes this an exercise in feminist media rather than an actual adaptation of Terry Pratchett's works.

'Feminist media' ?
Ah for feck sake. I'm a feminist and I think it's complete crap changing the genders so don't be trying to lay that one on us like. :rolleyes:

I want it the way Pratchett wrote it because the way he wrote it was the right way because it was his creation.

Stop moaning ffs · 28-11-2019 4:36pm

Would we even be aware of any of this if it weren’t for the ever so fragile menimists popping up in every single topic using words like woke and agenda?

I wouldn’t. Don’t care either. Funny watching their masculinity such as it is, be so easily threatened though.

Sonics2k · 28-11-2019 4:38pm

Gbear wrote: »

What I suspect, is that they've deliberately done the gender-bending (and the race stuff) to make a point, which isn't a problem in itself, but makes this an exercise in feminist media rather than an actual adaptation of Terry Pratchett's works.

I'd say it's far less to do with Feminism, and far more to do with bloody Americans who simply insist on butchering British comedy because they don't understand it.

Does anyone else remember that god awful Faulty Towers remake?

blueshade · 28-11-2019 4:51pm

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Would we even be aware of any of this if it weren’t for the ever so fragile menimists popping up in every single topic using words like woke and agenda?

I wouldn’t. Don’t care either. Funny watching their masculinity such as it is, be so easily threatened though.

Scarlet for ya. The artwork on the books reflects how Pratchett imagined the characters. Lady Sybil was not a black slim vigilante and the Patrician was a man. Now people can get their panties in a bunch and insult other posters as much as they like but it will not change the reality that the American version is nothing but a woke attempt at marketing a different story to a new audience by pretending to be something it isn't.

Book reading Pratchett fans will be appalled but non Pratchett readers seeing it on TV will probably lap it up. It is not The Watch and I'll be giving it a miss.

Stop moaning ffs · 28-11-2019 4:54pm

blueshade wrote: »

Scarlet for ya. The artwork on the books reflects how Pratchett imagined the characters. Lady Sybil was not a black slim vigilante and the Patrician was a man. Now people can get their panties in a bunch and insult other posters as much as they like but it will not change the reality that the American version is nothing but a woke attempt at marketing a different story to a new audience by pretending to be something it isn't.

Book reading Pratchett fans will be appalled but non Pratchett readers seeing it on TV will probably lap it up. It is not The Watch and I'll be giving it a miss.

I’ve no idea what woke means but well aware of the people that use the term. Let’s leave it there.

Bannasidhe · 28-11-2019 5:04pm

blueshade wrote: »

Scarlet for ya. The artwork on the books reflects how Pratchett imagined the characters. Lady Sybil was not a black slim vigilante and the Patrician was a man. Now people can get their panties in a bunch and insult other posters as much as they like but it will not change the reality that the American version is nothing but a woke attempt at marketing a different story to a new audience by pretending to be something it isn't.

Book reading Pratchett fans will be appalled but non Pratchett readers seeing it on TV will probably lap it up. It is not The Watch and I'll be giving it a miss.

I agree with you it's an American version, and for reasons known only to themselves they are trying to be 'edgy' - call that 'woke' if you like, and it's not what Pratchett wrote so, imo, they should just go off and create their own original story if they want and leave his alone.

But it's not the fault of feminism.

And the book covers are chosen by the publishers - rarely do the authors get a say - and which version? I bought each work as they were first published so I have them going back to the 80s right up to the Shepard's Crown and the artwork changes according to publication editions/dates.

You know what they say about judging a book by it's cover

pixelburp · 28-11-2019 5:15pm

blueshade wrote: »

I have to disagree with people who say that Lady Sybil's race doesn't matter. It would be difficult to find a character that is more typical of old white British Empire than Sybil. To suggest that her skin colour doesn't matter is ridiculous. The only reason to make her young and black is to pander to a woke audience who complain about a lack of diversity.

The only intrinsic aspect of Sybil's appearance was her large-bosomed, heavyset figure & relative plain appearance. There was absolutely no reason an afro-caribbean, middle-aged woman couldn't have worked here, and work well given the nature of Sybil's written personality. While a bit of a riff on the Agatha Christie mould, Sybil's persona wasn't so explicitly "white" that you couldn't sketch around the edges (there are plenty of barber jacket clichés to go around).

And as said, given Ankh Morpork is MEANT to be a melting pot of absorbed cultures, it would play into that underlying aspect of the novels.

Anyway, neither of us are happy with the production, that much is clear, but IMO the 'black' aspect is totally incidental here, compared with the open 'sexing' up, and broad reconstruction of a character who no longer bares any foundational similarity with the written version.

Gbear · 28-11-2019 5:23pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'Feminist media' ?
Ah for feck sake. I'm a feminist and I think it's complete crap changing the genders so don't be trying to lay that one on us like. :rolleyes:

I want it the way Pratchett wrote it because the way he wrote it was the right way because it was his creation.

You don't own feminism, and neither do they. I'm just trying to come up with an explanation for what they're trying to do. They wanted to do a feminism. It's up to feminists critics to determine whether or not they did that well.

The rest of us can pass judgement on it as the failure it will presumably be as an adaptation.

I wish they didn't have the rights to the IP to do that, because I don't think Pratchett or his estate would be keen, but ultimately, it doesn't matter.

As we saw with the Golden Compass and His Dark Materials, a few years can be all it takes for a different, competent team to get their hands on the material and make something worthwhile (at least HDM is so far, anyway).

blueshade wrote: »

Scarlet for ya. The artwork on the books reflects how Pratchett imagined the characters. Lady Sybil was not a black slim vigilante and the Patrician was a man. Now people can get their panties in a bunch and insult other posters as much as they like but it will not change the reality that the American version is nothing but a woke attempt at marketing a different story to a new audience by pretending to be something it isn't.

Book reading Pratchett fans will be appalled but non Pratchett readers seeing it on TV will probably lap it up. It is not The Watch and I'll be giving it a miss.

As far as I know Pratchett had little enough to do with the covers.
Sure, in the first book, Twoflower is drawn as a sort of four-eyed mutant because the artist didn't understand that they were describing glasses.

pixelburp · 28-11-2019 5:27pm

Gbear wrote: »

As far as I know Pratchett had little enough to do with the covers.
Sure, in the first book, Twoflower is drawn as a sort of four-eyed mutant because the artist didn't understand that they were describing glasses.

Wait, what? Really? LOL, mortified for the illustrator in that case!

*goes off to google*

Stop moaning ffs · 28-11-2019 5:32pm

Loved all the original covers. Caught the tone and whimsical feel of the world.

Sonics2k · 28-11-2019 5:43pm

blueshade wrote: »

Scarlet for ya. The artwork on the books reflects how Pratchett imagined the characters. Lady Sybil was not a black slim vigilante and the Patrician was a man. Now people can get their panties in a bunch and insult other posters as much as they like but it will not change the reality that the American version is nothing but a woke attempt at marketing a different story to a new audience by pretending to be something it isn't.

Book reading Pratchett fans will be appalled but non Pratchett readers seeing it on TV will probably lap it up. It is not The Watch and I'll be giving it a miss.

I mean, I don't think anyone here has said this isn't

1/ Americans be lazy and ruining another great British authors work
2/ A lazy attempt at being woke.

However, it's important to note that woke =/= feminism.

Nobody has insulted anyone, and frankly I believe if someone reading this thinks they're being attacked or insulted, then they may have deeper issues to resolve for themselves.

-Most-, if not all, posters on this are openly saying the casting choices are being done poorly, the altering of a characters backstory is a dreadful idea.

The skin colour of Sybil does not impact the character at all, just like with someone like Colon or CMOT. Compared to someone like Carrot who is ginger who's skin colour obviously reflects that.

Stop moaning ffs · 28-11-2019 5:48pm

Also true that discworld is a bit of an institution in this part of the world. Can’t imagine they were anything like as popular books in the US. So they’re probably thinking they can adapt and change as the audience in the most part won’t be familiar with the canon and won’t know or care.

blueshade · 28-11-2019 6:23pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I agree with you it's an American version, and for reasons known only to themselves they are trying to be 'edgy' - call that 'woke' if you like, and it's not what Pratchett wrote so, imo, they should just go off and create their own original story if they want and leave his alone.

But it's not the fault of feminism.

And the book covers are chosen by the publishers - rarely do the authors get a say - and which version? I bought each work as they were first published so I have them going back to the 80s right up to the Shepard's Crown and the artwork changes according to publication editions/dates.

You know what they say about judging a book by it's cover

I never suggested blaming feminism. Pratchett female characters are usually strong capable independent women who don't rely on men to save them, in fact it's more likely them that saves the day. It's just another example of changing things for the sake of diversity. Yes, diversity is important but there's no need to change ethnicity of characters.

As soon as someone suggested having a black woman play a white female character it became a race issue. I'd agree that where a characters skin colour isn't a factor then it doesn't matter but most people imagine Lady Sybil as a middle aged white woman, not a young black woman. It's only a book, but the books are like old friends that I read again over the years so it is annoying to see that the television version isn't the same as the book, then again I won't be watching it.

Bannasidhe · 28-11-2019 6:29pm

blueshade wrote: »

I never suggested blaming feminism. Pratchett female characters are usually strong capable independent women who don't rely on men to save them, in fact it's more likely them that saves the day. It's just another example of changing things for the sake of diversity. Yes, diversity is important but there's no need to change ethnicity of characters.

As soon as someone suggested having a black woman play a white female character it became a race issue. I'd agree that where a characters skin colour isn't a factor then it doesn't matter but most people imagine Lady Sybil as a middle aged white woman, not a young black woman. It's only a book, but the books are like old friends that I read again over the years so it is annoying to see that the television version isn't the same as the book, then again I won't be watching it.

Apologies. You didn't. It was another poster. I just added that as a general comment in my reply to you.

blueshade · 28-11-2019 6:37pm

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

I’ve no idea what woke means but well aware of the people that use the term. Let’s leave it there.

That's a very juvenile statement to make, we'll have to agree to disagree. Some people can make a point and back it up, others jump on a high horse and don't notice that it's a donkey.

Stop moaning ffs · 28-11-2019 6:41pm

blueshade wrote: »

That's a very juvenile statement to make, we'll have to agree to disagree. Some people can make a point and back it up, others jump on a high horse and don't notice that it's a donkey.

Juvenile is using ridiculous terminology from the American far right and airlifting it and the accusation of ‘agenda’ into every single conversation possible.
It’s so transparent and tiresome.

You’re probably ‘triggered’ by the ‘trans’ in that last bit too given your earlier post

Mark Hamill · 29-11-2019 11:59am

blueshade wrote: »

I'd agree that where a characters skin colour isn't a factor then it doesn't matter but most people imagine Lady Sybil as a middle aged white woman, not a young black woman.

She is white in the books but the white is never attached to anything so what difference does it make if its changed? How is it a factor? I don't think most readers would care if the only change was that she was now black.

The bigger issue is how she is good bit younger and how far her character is changed. That's the big problem with the whole thing - the heavy-handed alteration of character backgrounds and motivations. The relationships and character interactions are a large part of what makes Discworld so good. Substantially changing even a few of the main characters personalities is going to have knock-on effects and it's going to be very hard for it still feel connected and real.

blueshade · 29-11-2019 12:33pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

She is white in the books but the white is never attached to anything so what difference does it make if its changed? How is it a factor? I don't think most readers would care if the only change was that she was now black.

The bigger issue is how she is good bit younger and how far her character is changed. That's the big problem with the whole thing - the heavy-handed alteration of character backgrounds and motivations. The relationships and character interactions are a large part of what makes Discworld so good. Substantially changing even a few of the main characters personalities is going to have knock-on effects and it's going to be very hard for it still feel connected and real.

As soon as someone suggested a black actress it was an issue. When casting for an actress for someone to play the character of Sybil a black actress would not even have been on the radar but somebody decided that they needed a strong black female character. Now while the black actress in Watchmen is absolutely fantastic the character of Lady Sybil is an entirely different fish. The fact that they've made her even younger is another aspect entirely.

This version seems to be like going to the cinema to see a film about Lassie and getting a film about Giraffes. I'm not really surprised that it's being shown in America and not the UK, European readers would be horrified. Diversity is a good thing, but we don't need to go out of the way to make white characters black for the sake of it. Lady Sybil is no more a young black woman than James Bond is black or a woman. Even with the female wizard, I mean they really couldn't have missed the point any worse than they did.

The Witches are portrayed as much better and more practical and clever than the Wizards and make do without all the fancy robes and spells and big dinners. The Witches are out in the world doing the real work and getting on with it while the Wizards are in USU stuffing themselves, bitching and sniping at each other.

pixelburp · 29-11-2019 12:45pm

Just to be clear, what female wizard are we talking about in the cast list, cos I never saw anything about that.

And out of curiousity, does the race-switching of Lord Boreal(sp) in His Dark Materials bother you? Or Harvey Dent in the '89 Batman, etc etc.? Is it a blanket disapproval or just the convenient cultural baggage that's going around these days; cos there's nothing that uniquely new about gender or race switching in fiction.

Stop moaning ffs · 29-11-2019 1:02pm

I wonder if those so put out by women and minorities being represented want to go back to only men being allowed act and playing all the women’s parts...although that might confuse their objections to trans folks too...tricky

Didn’t Maskerade touch on this?

Sofiztikated · 29-11-2019 1:05pm

blueshade wrote: »

Scarlet for ya. The artwork on the books reflects how Pratchett imagined the characters. Lady Sybil was not a black slim vigilante and the Patrician was a man. Now people can get their panties in a bunch and insult other posters as much as they like but it will not change the reality that the American version is nothing but a woke attempt at marketing a different story to a new audience by pretending to be something it isn't.

Book reading Pratchett fans will be appalled but non Pratchett readers seeing it on TV will probably lap it up. It is not The Watch and I'll be giving it a miss.

Scarlet for YOU. The covers are what Josh Kirby and Paul Kidby imagined the characters to be.

And which cover is The Colour of Magic that pops out to you?

Or none of the above?

Mark Hamill · 29-11-2019 5:09pm

blueshade wrote: »

As soon as someone suggested a black actress it was an issue. When casting for an actress for someone to play the character of Sybil a black actress would not even have been on the radar but somebody decided that they needed a strong black female character. Now while the black actress in Watchmen is absolutely fantastic the character of Lady Sybil is an entirely different fish. The fact that they've made her even younger is another aspect entirely.

This version seems to be like going to the cinema to see a film about Lassie and getting a film about Giraffes. I'm not really surprised that it's being shown in America and not the UK, European readers would be horrified. Diversity is a good thing, but we don't need to go out of the way to make white characters black for the sake of it. Lady Sybil is no more a young black woman than James Bond is black or a woman.

Are you saying the difference between white and black people is like the difference between dogs and giraffes?

You are conflating the issue of changing her character (her motivations and her age, which impacted storylines in the books) with changing her race (which had no impact in books).
I don't see any problem with a black James Bond, Idris Elba would have made a good one without needing to change anything of the essence of the character. A female James Bond would require a bit of a change for the character as it is very strongly defined as male (that doesn't mean it would impossible, but better to make a different female character altogether).

Did you have an issue when they changed Red's character in the Shawshank Redemption movie? (White Irish in the book, Morgan Freeman in the movie).

blueshade wrote: »

Even with the female wizard, I mean they really couldn't have missed the point any worse than they did.

The Witches are portrayed as much better and more practical and clever than the Wizards and make do without all the fancy robes and spells and big dinners. The Witches are out in the world doing the real work and getting on with it while the Wizards are in USU stuffing themselves, bitching and sniping at each other.

I agree that having a female wizard does miss the point, but that's because wizards in the book have specific hangups about women and there are books exploring this. Having a woman wizard would negate those books. However, I didn't actually see any announcement of female wizard, do you have a link?

Stop moaning ffs · 29-11-2019 5:25pm

Motion to change the thread title

wench · 29-11-2019 5:27pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

However, I didn't actually see any announcement of female wizard, do you have a link?

From the article linked in the first post -

Bianca Simone Mannie will play the re-imagined character of Wonse, ‘a wizard hopeful in waiting that is frequently underestimated.’

pixelburp · 29-11-2019 5:31pm

Like the rest of the cast, we're going off a slim press release and summary, so it's not clear that the "female wizard" is, in fact, an actual wizard.

http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2019/11/casting-news-bbc-americas-the-watch-enlists-anna-chancellor-james-fleet-and-more

Bianca Simone Mannie (Homeland) stars as the cunning Wonse, a wizard hopeful in waiting that is frequently underestimated.

To me, that reads like the character wants to be a wizard, but has presumably been rejected due to her gender. On the face of it, it's not the most egregious deviation from the source material's foundation. "Equal Rites" IIRC touched on that very subject - though it's a long time since I read it so I've no idea where it left things. In theory, that single line doesn't necessarily negate the established canon.

Agitating about race though is frippery, certainly in comparison with the more actual problems with Sybil's reimagining. And if anything, it just makes the debate more difficult to express in sober discussion, if folks reduce it to about race.

It's real "wood for trees" stuff.

blueshade · 30-11-2019 2:39pm

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Scarlet for YOU. The covers are what Josh Kirby and Paul Kidby imagined the characters to be.

And which cover is The Colour of Magic that pops out to you?

Or none of the above?

Perhaps you could explain why you are posting images of the Colour of Magic when the thread is about The Watch? By casting an attractive young black actress in the role of an overweight middle aged upper class white woman they deliberately discriminated against actresses over the age of 40 and against white actresses. You might find that positive discrimination personally I find it ageist and racist. For many years now the leading actresses have complained that once they reach 30 they have huge problems getting roles in films. But you keep beating that it doesn't matter drum. You just aren't getting it. By all means, feel free to post an image from a Pratchett book with a young black Lady Sybil.

blueshade · 30-11-2019 2:42pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Like the rest of the cast, we're going off a slim press release and summary, so it's not clear that the "female wizard" is, in fact, an actual wizard.

http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2019/11/casting-news-bbc-americas-the-watch-enlists-anna-chancellor-james-fleet-and-more

To me, that reads like the character wants to be a wizard, but has presumably been rejected due to her gender. On the face of it, it's not the most egregious deviation from the source material's foundation. "Equal Rites" IIRC touched on that very subject - though it's a long time since I read it so I've no idea where it left things. In theory, that single line doesn't necessarily negate the established canon.

Agitating about race though is frippery, certainly in comparison with the more actual problems with Sybil's reimagining. And if anything, it just makes the debate more difficult to express in sober discussion, if folks reduce it to about race.

It's real "wood for trees" stuff.

How is it frippery? An overweight middle aged white woman with impeccable breeding and gentility being played by a slim attractive young black woman is not the same character end of. Let's not ignore the elephant in the room. It's ageist and racist and pretending it's a positive thing is a lot of bollOx.

Bannasidhe · 30-11-2019 2:50pm

blueshade wrote: »

How is it frippery? An overweight middle aged white woman with impeccable breeding and gentility being played by a slim attractive young black woman is not the same character end of. Let's not ignore the elephant in the room. It's ageist and racist and pretending it's a positive thing is a lot of bollOx.

As Pratchett describes her
Sybil is amply portioned yes.
She is middle aged yes.
She is aristocratic yes.
'Genteel' - not so much. Too up to her oxters in dragon droppings for that.

White? Where does Pratchett say she has any particular skin colour?

You are assuming that a black woman cannot be an amply proportioned, posh, rich, middle aged woman.

Sofiztikated · 30-11-2019 2:56pm

blueshade wrote: »

How is it frippery? An overweight middle aged white woman with impeccable breeding and gentility being played by a slim attractive young black woman is not the same character end of. Let's not ignore the elephant in the room. It's ageist and racist and pretending it's a positive thing is a lot of bollOx.

There's not one person here saying it's a good casting choice. Not a single one.

Changing the colour of her skin, in a fictional world, where Ankh Morpork is a melting pot of cultures (Which runs foul of the lumps that won't melt), doesn't affect the character one bit.

Changing her motivations and age is not doing justice to the character. If she was a young, attractive, slim, white woman it'd mean the same.

Blackhorse Slim · 30-11-2019 3:17pm

I was excited when I first heard of this, but I've completely lost interest now. I won't be following any more news, or watching when it comes out. I thought this would be a Practhett/Discworld series, it's clear now that it won't be.

Pratchett was always a feminist writer, sometimes very explicitly so. There was also a great opportunity to do something here with the Cheery Littlebottom character to address LBGTQ and specifically trans issues - this looks unlikely now. But these changes look incredibly clumsy and ill-advised, these are not the characters we know and love.

The Hogfather was pretty good, the other two live adaptations were not great but had some good things going for them. Maybe some day we'll get a truly great tv version of Discworld, but I'm pretty sure this isn't it.

Bannasidhe · 30-11-2019 3:25pm

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Changing her motivations and age is not doing justice to the character. If she was a young, attractive, slim, white woman it'd mean the same.

This is it in a nutshell.

pixelburp · 30-11-2019 3:58pm

blueshade wrote: »

How is it frippery? An overweight middle aged white woman with impeccable breeding and gentility being played by a slim attractive young black woman is not the same character end of. Let's not ignore the elephant in the room. It's ageist and racist and pretending it's a positive thing is a lot of bollOx.

Once again, no one is saying the rejigging of the character is a good thing. I've already said this countless times, turning her into batman is asinine. But focusing on the race as a specific problem is reductionist on a character where the race is the LEAST of the problems here. Just to be clear: if this version of Sybil read like she did on the page, played by a middle aged, heavyset woman, but the actor was black, would you still object? Because it reads like it does, rather than the more fundamental issue of changing her CHARACTER. So yes, this is 100% wood for trees.

Mark Hamill · 03-12-2019 12:07pm

blueshade wrote: »

How is it frippery? An overweight middle aged white woman with impeccable breeding and gentility being played by a slim attractive young black woman is not the same character end of. Let's not ignore the elephant in the room. It's ageist and racist and pretending it's a positive thing is a lot of bollOx.

Was it racist when Morgan Freeman was cast as Red in Shawshank Redemption? In the books, Red is white and Irish (hence his nickname being Red).

Stop moaning ffs · 03-12-2019 9:58pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Was it racist when Morgan Freeman was cast as Red in Shawshank Redemption? In the books, Red is white and Irish (hence his nickname being Red).

Something something ‘replacement agenda!’

Given his post history.

blueshade · 05-12-2019 5:21pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Was it racist when Morgan Freeman was cast as Red in Shawshank Redemption? In the books, Red is white and Irish (hence his nickname being Red).

Funny you should mention that.

I just finished reading the book last week and I hadn't realised that the character of Red was white. The book is much darker than the film, no pun intended. Does it bother me that a black man played the role? Not in the slightest, I can't imagine anyone but Morgan Freeman playing the role. Then again, I can't imagine a 20 something year old white woman being cast to play the role of Morgan Freeman in a biography of his life.

There is so much silly haste to signal virtue that people are willing to sacrifice things in order to be PC. The only race issue here is that a black 20 something year old was cast to play a white 40 something year old but some people are happy with that each to their own. So long as people want to keep on allowing this trash to happen we will keep being given crap. Standing up and pointing out that Lady Sybil is a middle aged overweight white woman is not racist it is simply pointing out the obvious.

Bannasidhe · 05-12-2019 5:34pm

blueshade wrote: »

There is so much silly haste to signal virtue that people are willing to sacrifice things in order to be PC. The only race issue here is that a black 20 something year old was cast to play a white 40 something year old but some people are happy with that each to their own. So long as people want to keep on allowing this trash to happen we will keep being given crap. Standing up and pointing out that Lady Sybil is a middle aged overweight white woman is not racist it is simply pointing out the obvious.

The race issue here is that a black 20 something year old was cast to play a white 40 something year old and no-one here is happy with that.

Please quote where Pratchett ever mentioned Sybil is white?

blueshade · 05-12-2019 7:13pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The race issue here is that a black 20 something year old was cast to play a white 40 something year old and no-one here is happy with that.

Please quote where Pratchett ever mentioned Sybil is white?

Oh come on!!! That's a real stretch, I don't believe for a single second that any Pratchett fan ever imagined her as black. This is identity politics crossing into entertainment. A prime example is the new film Cats, Judi Dench is playing a cat that in the original is male and the main character is a mixed race ballerina who made a comment recently that she is a mixed race person in white face and said ''read into that what you will''.

So she was given the role of a white cat and accepted it and is now bitching that she's playing a white character. Now what I've seen of the clips just looks downright creepy and weird so I won't watch it. Identity politics ultimately doesn't work. People want to shout racist but it isn't me making it about race, it's about the people behind it making a much loved character black when they aren't.

This stuff has been going on since Will Smith missed out on an Oscar and his wife started shouting racism and discrimination and the following year black actors started getting awards. Then came #metoo and since then films that shouldn't even have been nominated for Oscars have been winning them. It's no different to when they decided to make an all female Ghostbusters or any other film that changed all the male characters to females to pander to this nonsense.

pixelburp · 05-12-2019 7:26pm

blueshade wrote: »

A prime example is the new film Cats, Judi Dench is playing a cat that in the original is male and the main character is a mixed race ballerina who made a comment recently that she is a mixed race person in white face and said ''read into that what you will''.

Yes, because of all the things said about the Cats adaptation, THAT'S the biggest issue lol. Congrats on being the first person to bring "identity politics" to effin' Cats. Lol.

Absolutely NOBODY here has said they liked this characterisation of Sybil. Nobody. Not here and not online elsewhere. You're the only one fixating on the race, when, as said, should be way down the list of things wrong with this interpretation. It's the least important thing about her character.

Stop moaning ffs · 05-12-2019 7:39pm

Mod edit - Please report posts instead of calling out individual posters

blueshade · 06-12-2019 11:07am

pixelburp wrote: »

Yes, because of all the things said about the Cats adaptation, THAT'S the biggest issue lol. Congrats on being the first person to bring "identity politics" to effin' Cats. Lol.

Absolutely NOBODY here has said they liked this characterisation of Sybil. Nobody. Not here and not online elsewhere. You're the only one fixating on the race, when, as said, should be way down the list of things wrong with this interpretation. It's the least important thing about her character.

Eh no, I'm not the one fixating on race. We were discussing an adaptation of a Pratchett book and how the changes made to a beloved character bear very little if any resemblance to that character. The reason for those changes are purely to reflect identity politics and to appear to be diverse. There was clearly more concern about the cast appearing diverse than accurately reflecting the book, even the family have distanced themselves from this.

Now I get that a lot of people trip over themselves to shout racist, so many people are in such a dreadful rush to take offence on behalf of others that they may almost do themselves an injury. My posts are not racist no matter how much you shout it. In fact that ridiculous shout of racism at anyone who disagrees with a point of view has made the word almost meaningless, well done. Again, I would point out that it was not me that made an issue of identity politics in Cats, it was the mixed race ballerina who was given the part of a white cat. My point was to highlight the absurdity of what entertainment has become. My only real gripe with Cats is the bizarre and creepy human/cat hybrids.

, oh and James Cordon basically getting paid to play James Cordon.

Sonics2k · 06-12-2019 12:45pm

blueshade wrote: »

Eh no, I'm not the one fixating on race.

Sorry buddy, you literally are the only person here fixated on race. Namely the race of Sybil.

Everyone here agrees the casting is poor, but mostly that they've changed the entire character of Sybil to the exact opposite of who she is.

pixelburp · 06-12-2019 12:58pm

blueshade wrote: »

Eh no, I'm not the one fixating on race. We were discussing an adaptation of a Pratchett book and how the changes made to a beloved character bear very little if any resemblance to that character. The reason for those changes are purely to reflect identity politics and to appear to be diverse. There was clearly more concern about the cast appearing diverse than accurately reflecting the book, even the family have distanced themselves from this.

Now I get that a lot of people trip over themselves to shout racist, so many people are in such a dreadful rush to take offence on behalf of others that they may almost do themselves an injury. My posts are not racist no matter how much you shout it.

Bzzzt. I never called you racist, nor would insinuate either so if you want to debate, don't pull up the victim complex or put words in my - or others' - mouth thanks. That's some bad-faith arguing right there.

Once more: nobody likes this Lady Sybil, including me. Turning her into Batman is ludicrous. Her race doesn't bother me however, whereas it obviously discombobulates you - bringing it up as a key pillar of the problem - when it very clearly isn't against the larger issues.

But I think this debate is done if you're going to start raising the hackles, and accusing everyone of being polemics.

Mark Hamill · 11-12-2019 11:59am

blueshade wrote: »

Funny you should mention that. I just finished reading the book last week and I hadn't realised that the character of Red was white. The book is much darker than the film, no pun intended. Does it bother me that a black man played the role? Not in the slightest, I can't imagine anyone but Morgan Freeman playing the role. Then again, I can't imagine a 20 something year old white woman being cast to play the role of Morgan Freeman in a biography of his life.

There is so much silly haste to signal virtue that people are willing to sacrifice things in order to be PC. The only race issue here is that a black 20 something year old was cast to play a white 40 something year old but some people are happy with that each to their own. So long as people want to keep on allowing this trash to happen we will keep being given crap. Standing up and pointing out that Lady Sybil is a middle aged overweight white woman is not racist it is simply pointing out the obvious.

And Red was a white Irish guy with red hair in the Shawshank Redemption book. Why don't you have a problem with that, but you have a problem here with Sybil being black? It's almost as if changing the race of Red made no difference to the story or character, so there was nothing to be bothered about it.

blueshade wrote: »

Oh come on!!! That's a real stretch, I don't believe for a single second that any Pratchett fan ever imagined her as black.

Why not? She was never described as white in the books and if you didn't buy the Paul Kidby Discworld art books then I don't think you would have never seen a drawing of her. People would presumably have imagined her as the same colour as themselves, which would lead me to guess that there would have been black readers who imagined her as black.

I'm reminded of how when the Hunger Games movie first came out, a bunch of people complained how one of the kids was cast with a young black actress. The said, like you, that they never imagined her as black, and that was despite the book specifically describing her as black.

People imagine characters according to their own experiences and expectations. Who, if anyone, do you think should be cast as black in the show?

blueshade · 11-12-2019 5:26pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And Red was a white Irish guy with red hair in the Shawshank Redemption book. Why don't you have a problem with that, but you have a problem here with Sybil being black? It's almost as if changing the race of Red made no difference to the story or character, so there was nothing to be bothered about it.

Why not? She was never described as white in the books and if you didn't buy the Paul Kidby Discworld art books then I don't think you would have never seen a drawing of her. People would presumably have imagined her as the same colour as themselves, which would lead me to guess that there would have been black readers who imagined her as black.

I'm reminded of how when the Hunger Games movie first came out, a bunch of people complained how one of the kids was cast with a young black actress. The said, like you, that they never imagined her as black, and that was despite the book specifically describing her as black.

People imagine characters according to their own experiences and expectations. Who, if anyone, do you think should be cast as black in the show?

You are all so desperate to be woke it's hilarious. His own daughter distanced herself from the project describing it as an 'entirely different beast' to the one her father had discussed with the BBC. But hey, carry on, knock yourself out with the aul wokeness, don't worry that it destroyed the story. All that matters is that it's woke.:p

The Watch (Terry Pratchett) [BBC America]

Comments