Re: [R][I] Earthsea movie
Arthur Hagen
> Ok, while the Earthsea miniseries itself and the books have nothing
> whatsoever to do with the Discworld I think the essay " A Whitewashed
> Earthsea - How the Sci Fi Channel wrecked my books" by the books
> author at http://slate.msn.com/id/2111107/ is a very good reminder of
> why PTerry hasn't sold the rights to the Discworld books.
Did you miss the entire big thread we had about this just a few days ago?
> Also, having said that, looking at the work done by snowgum films on
> Trollbridge so far I'm sure that with the 'right' input from Terry his
> books can be made into very good movies. Possibly with his bank
> overflowing he could even finance one himself, Hmm which one to start
> with?
I'd start with the old bank; it's bigger.
--
*Art
Terry Pratchett
<lordw...@hotmail.com> writes
>Ok, while the Earthsea miniseries itself and the books have nothing
>whatsoever to do with the Discworld I think the essay " A Whitewashed
>Earthsea - How the Sci Fi Channel wrecked my books" by the books author at
>http://slate.msn.com/id/2111107/ is a very good reminder of why PTerry
>hasn't sold the rights to the Discworld books.
The follow ups to the article, at least the coherent ones, made
interesting reading, too.
I'm mildly surprised that she was surprised. A lot of movie approaches
involved statements like 'we hope that this can be a co-operative
endeavour ' which I have always translated as 'we hope that if we give
you the transitory feeling that you'll have some kind on genuine input,
you won't want as much money'. Why should they listen to an author?
People in Hollywood don't read.
Right now, companies are cherry-picking movies with magic/wizards in
them, not with care, but because they think it says 'like HP and TLOTR'
on the tin.
I think the only think an author can do is hold out for what looks like
the best artistic deal, hit them for a wad of cash, and walk.
>
>Also, having said that, looking at the work done by snowgum films on
>Trollbridge so far I'm sure that with the 'right' input from Terry his
>books can be made into very good movies.
See above. You can get all the 'input' you like --you just can't have
any kind of CONTROL.
> Possibly with his bank overflowing
>he could even finance one himself, Hmm which one to start with?
>
But why?
--
Terry Pratchett
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 21/12/04 18:41 GMT Standard Time
>>I'm sure that with the 'right' input from Terry his
>>books can be made into very good movies.
>
>See above. You can get all the 'input' you like --you just can't have
>any kind of CONTROL.
As DNA put it, re: the Hitchhiker's movie, "I had plenty say, but they didn't
have much listen".
--
Dave
The Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
In life, as in breakfast cereal, it is always best to read the instructions on
the box.
-Thief of Time, Terry Pratchett
elfin
[snip]
> Right now, companies are cherry-picking movies with magic/wizards in
> them, not with care, but because they think it says 'like HP and
> TLOTR' on the tin.
including yourself? I am getting the distinct impression from the above that
you were approached again recently.
> I think the only think an author can do is hold out for what looks
> like the best artistic deal, hit them for a wad of cash, and walk.
Will there come a time when you think seriously about doing this?
Though I have noticed a lack of progress reports on the Bromeliad movie, not
sure whether to be disappointed by this or relieved.
elfin
--
http://www.elfden.co.uk/
http://www.quirm.net/
http://www.lspace.org/
http://www.by-users.co.uk/
Eric Jarvis
> In message <Xns95C68A55B155...@130.133.1.4>, Cameron Biggart
> <lordw...@hotmail.com> writes
> >Ok, while the Earthsea miniseries itself and the books have nothing
> >whatsoever to do with the Discworld I think the essay " A Whitewashed
> >Earthsea - How the Sci Fi Channel wrecked my books" by the books author at
> >http://slate.msn.com/id/2111107/ is a very good reminder of why PTerry
> >hasn't sold the rights to the Discworld books.
>
> The follow ups to the article, at least the coherent ones, made
> interesting reading, too.
>
> I'm mildly surprised that she was surprised. A lot of movie approaches
> involved statements like 'we hope that this can be a co-operative
> endeavour ' which I have always translated as 'we hope that if we give
> you the transitory feeling that you'll have some kind on genuine input,
> you won't want as much money'. Why should they listen to an author?
> People in Hollywood don't read.
>
> Right now, companies are cherry-picking movies with magic/wizards in
> them, not with care, but because they think it says 'like HP and TLOTR'
> on the tin.
>
> I think the only think an author can do is hold out for what looks like
> the best artistic deal, hit them for a wad of cash, and walk.
>
That makes sense. So long as you've reached the level of success where
there simply isn't any amount of money Sly Stallone can offer in order to
fulfill his dream of playing Hevelock Vetinaru on film. :)
> >Also, having said that, looking at the work done by snowgum films on
> >Trollbridge so far I'm sure that with the 'right' input from Terry his
> >books can be made into very good movies.
>
> See above. You can get all the 'input' you like --you just can't have
> any kind of CONTROL.
To an extent that's inevitable even with the best will in the world. Any
film (or play, or TV show) requires a single focused vision to succeed.
That can come from a producer or it can come from a director. It can only
come from the writer if they also take on the role of producer or
director.
My experience has varied over my years in theatre. Some writers simply
handed the script over and walked away (or at least tried to, I've
generally been able to inveigle them into at least one long in depth
conversation, though that was extremely hard work with Alan Moore). Other
writers come across as would be directors who want to at least be listened
to about everything and to have the last word even where they know nothing
about the technical limitations. The ideal from a directorial POV is
obviously closer to the former, but that also seems to be the way to get
the best results. Ideally one wants the writer "on tap" to explain detail,
character and perspective, and nowhere near the actual production.
I know that there are directors who work on a basis that input from
writers is good PR but to be completely ignored otherwise. There are also
some who think that the writer's vision is sacrosanct. You won't find many
of the latter working professionally for stage or screen. Simply because
working that way they aren't bringing anything to the party. It's a really
inefficient way of getting the writer to direct without giving them a
credit.
>
> > Possibly with his bank overflowing
> >he could even finance one himself, Hmm which one to start with?
> >
> But why?
>
My first stage production as a director was chosen by the guy I'd been
assistant to. He chose it because it was an extremely ordinary to poor
play that it was almost impossible to make worse.
So the question would actually be, "which book do you like least?"
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
all these years I've waited for the revolution
and all we end up getting is spin
Arthur Hagen
> In message <Xns95C68A55B155...@130.133.1.4>, Cameron
> Biggart <lordw...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>> he could even finance one himself, Hmm which one to start with?
>>
> But why?
Now that's an interesting question. Why write a novel, for that matter?
I have absolutely no idea why you write, Mr Pratchett, but I do think the
world is a slightly better place because of it[1]. I just have to presume
that you writing a book and the Kevins reading it gives you something too
(besides pieces of eight).
Cinematography is a very different and more limited art form, and I can
fully understand if it doesn't have the same appeal. But why. One why
could be to lure future readers, who might not yet have discovered the joys
of colouring the mind's movie with the paint brush of the author's words.
These days, the LoTR books are selling exactly like hotcakes aren't. That's
probably a Good Thing, as it helps create a new generation of readers, even
though it doesn't benefit J.R.R.T. much.
I can imagine a filmatisation of DiscWorld movies also doing the same, if
handled properly. But honestly, I doubt that there's any producer powerful
enough to do a decent job, without making a total massacre of the original
in the names of mammon, fad-of-the-day and political correctness.
With wizards *and* vampires, it'd sell like it came in a bun, though.
[1]: So far, no school shooting has prompted outraged parents to state that
Terry Pratchett made them do it.
Regards,
--
*Art
Mark Gallagher
<snip: http://slate.msn.com/id/2111107/ />
> I'm mildly surprised that she was surprised. A lot of movie approaches
> involved statements like 'we hope that this can be a co-operative
> endeavour ' which I have always translated as 'we hope that if we give
> you the transitory feeling that you'll have some kind on genuine input,
> you won't want as much money'. Why should they listen to an author?
> People in Hollywood don't read.
At a guess, I'd say not many people think too clearly in such
situations. "My God! A movie!", and it's only when they're pushing
the wheelbarrow to the bank that they stop and think about what they've
done.
> Right now, companies are cherry-picking movies with magic/wizards in
> them, not with care, but because they think it says 'like HP and TLOTR'
> on the tin.
>
> I think the only think an author can do is hold out for what looks like
> the best artistic deal, hit them for a wad of cash, and walk.
Hmm, is that a hint about a possible DW fillum? ;-)
> >Also, having said that, looking at the work done by snowgum films on
> >Trollbridge so far I'm sure that with the 'right' input from Terry his
> >books can be made into very good movies.
>
> See above. You can get all the 'input' you like --you just can't have
> any kind of CONTROL.
>
> > Possibly with his bank overflowing
> >he could even finance one himself, Hmm which one to start with?
>
> But why?
Because some fellow on USENET asked you to!
--
"But honestly, astrology is crap, just ask the I Ching."
(Stig M. Valstad, <4tvqtu$n...@hasle.sn.no>)
Web: http://donotuselifts.net/
Email: m [dot] gallagher [at] student [dot] canberra [dot] edu [dot] au
Sanity
>> Possibly with his bank overflowing
>>he could even finance one himself, Hmm which one to start with?
>>
> But why?
Because people would like to? Because the way you write your books,
sometimes even from the point of view of a camera moving and zooming in?
I have both seen the LotR movie and read the books. The movie might be
completely unlike the books at certain points, but it still is a great
movie where they put a lot of care in making it a beautiful movie which
still mostly reflects the book. As a movie, if the books wouldn't have
existed, it is a great work IMO. A DW movie could be the same, though
probably not on such a large scale.
Of course, you don't have to please the fans, just like you don't have to
write more Rincewind/Watch/Death books just because people keep nagging
about them. And your fears about how filmmakers would mess up a DW movie
is probably justified. But still, it's not for no reason at all that the
movie subject keeps coming up. People enjoy the books, and in this age of
images, people want to *see* it. Well, I know I'd love to see a DW movie...
--
TTFN, | AFPChess, L-Files & more:
| http://www.affordable-prawns.co.uk/
Michel AKA Sanity | Now available on Jabber: michel @ jabber.xs4all.nl
gipsy boy
> Terry Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>>Possibly with his bank overflowing
>>>he could even finance one himself, Hmm which one to start with?
>>>
>>
>>But why?
>
>
> Because people would like to? Because the way you write your books,
> sometimes even from the point of view of a camera moving and zooming in?
That doesn't mean it'd work in a movie, imo.. Movies are weird, I try to
write screenplays from time to time and I think they are very hard and
unnatural. Movies are like a constant hiding of the fact that it's "just
a movie"; as soon as the viewer can see through that facade, your movie
is ruined.. Perhaps novels are similar in that respect...I'm sorry I
can't explain, movies just seem so much faker to me, like..concentrated
tomatoes..it doesn't taste..like tomatoes...
> I have both seen the LotR movie and read the books. The movie might be
> completely unlike the books at certain points, but it still is a great
> movie where they put a lot of care in making it a beautiful movie which
> still mostly reflects the book. As a movie, if the books wouldn't have
> existed, it is a great work IMO. A DW movie could be the same, though
> probably not on such a large scale.
What I'd fear about a DW movie is that it just wouldn't work for us. How
do you introduce the characters? Jingo could have a diversity of
settings, but, it'd take an hour to introduce everyone properly, etc..I
just don't think you can pick one book out of the canonic chain.
And, look what happened to LotR. All thigns considered, it certainly was
the most epic work ever created on film, but, the soul of the book isn't
there. Certainly in the second half it was just a monster movie. Even
what they did with Gollum isn't always good (although it's sometimes
magnificent).
And worse, I haven't picked up my well battered copies of the books ever
since TT finished. The movies really did ruin the experience for me
(maybe watching all of them 4 times didn't help that), I'm only hoping
it will come back.
I don't think that could happen with DW though..unless it becomes all
hyped and people don't get the point.
> Of course, you don't have to please the fans, just like you don't have to
> write more Rincewind/Watch/Death books just because people keep nagging
> about them. And your fears about how filmmakers would mess up a DW movie
> is probably justified. But still, it's not for no reason at all that the
> movie subject keeps coming up. People enjoy the books, and in this age of
> images, people want to *see* it. Well, I know I'd love to see a DW movie...
I'd like to see a DW *play*, and whenever I make it over the ocean
(well, the sea), I'll have to try that.
I wouldn't like to see a movie. DW reminds me of laying in bed with a
book, laughing and sniggering, and always smiling. I don't really need a
movie at all.. Maybe if technology advances enough that a computer can
understand books and make a movie out of them in real-time.
--
- gipsy boy
"@lec ©awley"
> Terry Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>>Possibly with his bank overflowing
>>>he could even finance one himself, Hmm which one to start with?
>>>
>>
>>But why?
>
>
> Because people would like to? Because the way you write your books,
> sometimes even from the point of view of a camera moving and zooming in?
>
> I have both seen the LotR movie and read the books. The movie might be
> completely unlike the books at certain points, but it still is a great
> movie where they put a lot of care in making it a beautiful movie which
> still mostly reflects the book. As a movie, if the books wouldn't have
> existed, it is a great work IMO. A DW movie could be the same, though
> probably not on such a large scale.
>
> Of course, you don't have to please the fans, just like you don't have to
> write more Rincewind/Watch/Death books just because people keep nagging
> about them. And your fears about how filmmakers would mess up a DW movie
> is probably justified. But still, it's not for no reason at all that the
> movie subject keeps coming up. People enjoy the books, and in this age of
> images, people want to *see* it. Well, I know I'd love to see a DW movie...
Can I disagree strongly with this?
PTerry is, as we all know, a very good writer. But that is because he
has been writing since he was in short trousers, and you can see the
development from an initial talent to a mature professionalism over time.
However, AFAIK, he has never produced or directed anything film like.
While there is not reason why he should be any worse than the rest of
the world at such a task, there is no reason that I can see why he
should turn out any better than anyone else at painting his ideas in
pictures instead of words.
And there is no obvious reason to believe that he would have *fun* doing
it. The pressures of a completely novel creative process would be
enormous. And surely having fun is what keeps someone at work when they
have earned more money than they need.
He could, of course, just reach into his pocket and hand over a lot of
money to some other person to produce a film. But how would this be any
better than having a load of Hollywood money given to another person to
produce the film - which he has already rejected a number of times?
If, on the other hand, he used his financial clout to ensure that he got
a lot of input into the film, it would take a *lot* of time. And where
would that time come from? You can bet that most of it would come from
writing books. I would guess that producing one film - telling a story
we already know - would cost *at least* two books. Now, a PTerry book is
a sure-fire winner. I already know that I will enjoy it, and I will
enjoy two twice as much. A PTerry film is an unknown quantity. And, IME,
90% of the "films of the book" disappoint fans of the book. Film is too
different a genre to convert easily.
Terry - please excuse me talking about you in the third person in front
of your face. Unfortunately, that is somewhat in the nature of Usenet:
conversations between two people are held, willy-nilly, on front of
everybody else, including those being talked about. But I think the film
enthusiasts need to think through what they are asking for. (This seems
to be a classic "be careful what you wish for - you may get it and not
want it").
--
@lec ©awley
j...@arcade.demon.co.uk
> movie subject keeps coming up. People enjoy the books, and in this
age of
> images, people want to *see* it.
--
JGH
j...@arcade.demon.co.uk
> movie subject keeps coming up. People enjoy the books, and in this
age of
> images, people want to *see* it.
Boyd Bottorff
> That makes sense. So long as you've reached the level of success where
> there simply isn't any amount of money Sly Stallone can offer in order to
> fulfill his dream of playing Hevelock Vetinaru on film. :)
Why do I picture him more as Cohen?
Eric Jarvis
In a few years time I think he'd be great in the role. :)
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Sanity
Yes, but that's simply not the same. And rather messy when trying to eat
popcorn at the same time.
Sanity
> Sanity wrote:
>> Terry Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Possibly with his bank overflowing
>>>>he could even finance one himself, Hmm which one to start with?
>>>>
>>>
>>>But why?
>>
>>
>> Because people would like to?
[snip - I'm not asking Terry Pratchett to direct a movie]
> He could, of course, just reach into his pocket and hand over a lot of
> money to some other person to produce a film. But how would this be any
> better than having a load of Hollywood money given to another person to
> produce the film - which he has already rejected a number of times?
Because then it'd be *his* movie. You have a certain amount of influence
if you can say "I'm not financing this anymore if you don't listen". At
least he can make sure the characters aren't screwed up.
> If, on the other hand, he used his financial clout to ensure that he got
> a lot of input into the film, it would take a *lot* of time. And where
> would that time come from? You can bet that most of it would come from
> writing books. I would guess that producing one film - telling a story
> we already know - would cost *at least* two books.
Finally some time to reread the other 30 books ;)
But seriously. It would cost time, and probably two books. Depending on
what kind of influence he'd want. But in the end, there's a movie which
may have more effect than two books. Which attracts more people than those
two books. And after all, when you write stuff to get published, you want
people to read it, to enjoy it. And as I said, if people weren't
interested in a movie, it wouldn't crop up so often.
Sanity
>> I have both seen the LotR movie and read the books. The movie might be
>> completely unlike the books at certain points, but it still is a great
>> movie where they put a lot of care in making it a beautiful movie which
>> still mostly reflects the book. As a movie, if the books wouldn't have
>> existed, it is a great work IMO. A DW movie could be the same, though
>> probably not on such a large scale.
>
> What I'd fear about a DW movie is that it just wouldn't work for us. How
> do you introduce the characters? Jingo could have a diversity of
> settings, but, it'd take an hour to introduce everyone properly, etc..I
> just don't think you can pick one book out of the canonic chain.
Why not? It's the kind of thing you wonder about because you know all
sorts of details about characters, which you don't need in a movie. You
need an introduction, certainly, but not long, and not for all characters.
Though it would be easiest to film a book with less "background". Most
recent books can do without that, though. The Truth, Nightwatch, Wee Free
Men, Monstrous Regiment, they all need less background information than
others.
> And, look what happened to LotR. All thigns considered, it certainly was
> the most epic work ever created on film, but, the soul of the book isn't
> there.
Why not? It had stunning landscapes, big battles, nasty wizards,
impossible escapes, dei ex machinas, everlasting friendships and way too
many endings. It's all there. Some *elements* of the book aren't there,
but they just used another way of showing the same soul, really.
> Certainly in the second half it was just a monster movie. Even
> what they did with Gollum isn't always good (although it's sometimes
> magnificent).
> And worse, I haven't picked up my well battered copies of the books ever
> since TT finished. The movies really did ruin the experience for me
> (maybe watching all of them 4 times didn't help that), I'm only hoping
> it will come back.
I started reading the books after TTT had finished. For me, it made the
experience of reading the books better, with the New-Zealand images in my
head. It made it more realistic.
> I don't think that could happen with DW though..unless it becomes all
> hyped and people don't get the point.
But what is "the point" of DW? What is it that people need to see? For me,
DW is good because they're good stories that work, not hindered by being
fantasy. It's realistic fantasy, about people and their day-to-day lives.
It's the reflection of this world that you only see after sniggering about
a joke, and only then realise that it's not so far-fetched after all.
gipsy boy
> Boyd Bottorff bbot...@nomail.com wrote:
>
>>Eric Jarvis <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That makes sense. So long as you've reached the level of success where
>>>there simply isn't any amount of money Sly Stallone can offer in order to
>>>fulfill his dream of playing Hevelock Vetinaru on film. :)
>>
>>Why do I picture him more as Cohen?
>>
>
>
> In a few years time I think he'd be great in the role. :)
The guy from The Pianist could play Havelock, imo..with some make-up.
He's going to be in King Kong too..can't remember his name.
I don't want to steer the thread further in that direction though..
--
- gipsy boy
Daniel Knight
"Sanity" <sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.12.23....@news.affordable-prawns.co.uk...
Interesting stuff brought up here. Here are my thoughts on a Discworld
film -
they tend to meander a bit, so bare with me. Hopefully there's something
for
everyone.
To fully finance a Discworld movie - you're looking at spending at least 60
million, US. And this would be a very, *very* cheap film given the events
and locations that normally happen in a Discworld book. Preferably you'd
want to spend a nice round 100 million. That's a heck of a lot of money for
anyone.
Sure - Terry could still inject a large portion of his own wealth into the
project
and then step on as a producer, but he's still not going to get *complete*
creative control. Film making occurs when you get a bunch of people
together
who really like a story - but believe that *their* version of the story is
best.
Film-making is a constant argument, with those who have the biggest wallets
or
most convincing arguments rising to the top of the input level. It's also
about
compromise. everyone wants to leave their mark on the project. It's up to
the
director to try and blend all these people's ideas into something that is
remotely
cohesive and keep everyone happy. He's also the guy that presents the
majority
of the ideas. but now I'm getting sidetracked.
Sometimes all this works - Lord of the Rings - and sometimes it doesn't -
Daredevil.
Personally, I blame the producers. If you think about it, a producer is
just a guy
who wants to be a filmmaker - but has absolutely no creative bone in his
body.
If they *did* - they'd be directing, writing, acting, fluffing, or have any
other
thousands of more creative jobs in the industry.
So I guess the questions stands. why would Terry want to get involved in all
that?
Because he can, is as good an answer as any. He's done children books,
adult
books, cook books, diaries, picture books, and computer games - so what
next? What's life if it isn't about finding what your limitations are, and
seeing
how much you can achieve? It *would* be a hell of a ride though.
As an aside, I actually find it interesting that people are asking if a
Discworld
movie would work or not. They should be asking if it *could* work. And I
believe the answer is yes, it could. Terry writes in a very filmic style
already -
and I challenge anyone to find a Discworld story that *couldn't* work as a
film.
I was rereading The Fifth Elephant last night and. okay guys. spoiler time
ahead. I got to the bit where Gaspode finds Gavin dead at the bottom of the
river, and Angue finds out about it. To my surprise I found myself crying
(I
don't recall I've ever done this for the Discworld before... maybe I'm being
overly sensetive). No internal dialogue was needed at all -
we knew what she was thinking, and it wasn't pretty. It's
a fantastic scene that relies on the sounds and visuals of the situation -
it would
be utterly amazing to see on film. I wanted to go out and shoot it right
then,
because it's that kind of imagery and situation (and Terry does it all the
time)
that really burns across the readers mind.
This coupled with the dialogue that he writes - which is very easy to speak
(as noted by the thousands of theatre productions out there) - makes Terry
a perfect scriptwriter. Each book he does is a fantastic blueprint for a
movie
- should one ever eventuate. I couldn't think of any author who would be
*easier* to adapt than Terry.
But maybe I'm biased.
Daniel Knight
~That Guy Who's Making That Discworld Film~
www.snowgumfilms.com/trollbridge/
Daniel Knight
My last message turned out looking aweful... let me try it again...
----------
"@lec ©awley"
> To fully finance a Discworld movie - you're looking at spending at least 60
> million, US. And this would be a very, *very* cheap film given the events
> and locations that normally happen in a Discworld book. Preferably you'd
> want to spend a nice round 100 million. That's a heck of a lot of money for
> anyone.
Only if you insist it must be done as a fantasy spectacular, with stars,
effects etc.. Some would have to br - Pyramids, for examlpe. But you
could, I think, do Wyrd Sisters on quite a small scale. All you would
need is a plausible town square, a battered but not too much so castle,
and some outside locations. Plus, of course, some very good actors. But
make a film that concentrates on people, not on effects, and it could be
done for a few million.
The sort of style I was thinking of is "Mrs. Brown", which cost 4 million.
> Personally, I blame the producers. If you think about it, a producer is
> just a guy
> who wants to be a filmmaker - but has absolutely no creative bone in his
> body.
> If they *did* - they'd be directing, writing, acting, fluffing, or have any
> other
> thousands of more creative jobs in the industry.
Not necessarily. Some people do get a kick out of "making it happen".
> As an aside, I actually find it interesting that people are asking if a
> Discworld
> movie would work or not. They should be asking if it *could* work. And I
> believe the answer is yes, it could. Terry writes in a very filmic style
> already -
> and I challenge anyone to find a Discworld story that *couldn't* work as a
> film.
On the contrary, I agree that Discworld is eminently filmable, as yu
say. Far more so than, to pick a random example, LoTR.
--
@lec Šawley
Arthur Hagen
>
> This coupled with the dialogue that he writes - which is very easy to
> speak (as noted by the thousands of theatre productions out there) -
> makes Terry a perfect scriptwriter. Each book he does is a fantastic
> blueprint for a movie
> - should one ever eventuate. I couldn't think of any author who
> would be *easier* to adapt than Terry.
>
> But maybe I'm biased.
There's a few things that would be very difficult to achieve, even with the
best cgi in the world. The colour octarine, for example. Or Foul Ole
Ron -- not even a scratch card could convey a hint of what a reader thinks
of him and his smell.
Regards,
--
*Art
Richard Eney
CGI could produce an image of the Smell, though. Other things could be
done to convey the feeling, but I won't post them lest I screw up a scene
Pterry's thinking of, because they could also be written in a book.
=Tamar
Eric Jarvis
Neither would worry me for either screen or stage. You can do a LOT with
hints and reactions.
Arthur Hagen
> Arthur Hagen a...@broomstick.com wrote:
>> Daniel Knight <daniel...@snowgumfilms.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This coupled with the dialogue that he writes - which is very easy
>>> to speak (as noted by the thousands of theatre productions out
>>> there) - makes Terry a perfect scriptwriter. Each book he does is
>>> a fantastic blueprint for a movie
>>> - should one ever eventuate. I couldn't think of any author who
>>> would be *easier* to adapt than Terry.
>>>
>>> But maybe I'm biased.
>>
>> There's a few things that would be very difficult to achieve, even
>> with the best cgi in the world. The colour octarine, for example.
>> Or Foul Ole
>> Ron -- not even a scratch card could convey a hint of what a reader
>> thinks of him and his smell.
>>
>
> Neither would worry me for either screen or stage. You can do a LOT
> with hints and reactions.
Oh, it's *much* easier on a stage. You don't expect picture perfectness,
and it's perfectly plausible to bang sheets together to get thunder, throw a
rag across the screen to simulate a terrier, and shine a purple reflector
that the audience has no problems pretending is octarine.
A movie, on the other hand, is expected to do all the imagination *for* the
audience, who sit there passively (well, their hands go up and down to their
mouths, but otherwise quite passively) without a fleck of imagination going
through their brains.
Regards,
--
*Art
Eric Jarvis
Try looking carefully at what's actually on the screen. An awful lot of
what people remember as classic movie moments is entirely in their own
head and not actually directly shown.
Boyd Bottorff
> > million, US. And this would be a very, *very* cheap film given the events
> > and locations that normally happen in a Discworld book. Preferably you'd
> > want to spend a nice round 100 million. That's a heck of a lot of money for
> > anyone.
>
> Only if you insist it must be done as a fantasy spectacular, with stars,
> effects etc.. Some would have to br - Pyramids, for examlpe. But you
> could, I think, do Wyrd Sisters on quite a small scale. All you would
> need is a plausible town square, a battered but not too much so castle,
> and some outside locations. Plus, of course, some very good actors. But
> make a film that concentrates on people, not on effects, and it could be
> done for a few million.
Not only that, but within half a generation, you should be able to
digitally add in many of the needed backgrounds instead of building a
lot of sets, just doing most of the stuff bluescreen, so you should be
able to drop the cost even more.
Eric Jarvis
With Discworld you could do most stuff by dressing locations rather than
having to build sets.
"@lec ©awley"
That still costs a lot for a good quality job. The only way to do "Epic"
effects, but on the small scale, building a set and them parhaps spicing
it ip with a little digital magic is probably cheaper.
--
@lec Šawley
Mark Gallagher
> Try looking carefully at what's actually on the screen. An awful lot of
> what people remember as classic movie moments is entirely in their own
> head and not actually directly shown.
Like the awesome car chase in /Dr No/. I spent *years* thinking it was
the greatest thing under the sun, then looked at it again with modern
eyes a couple months ago and felt, well, *cheated* --- who does a car
chase with bluescreen?
Richard Adams
> In message <Xns95C68A55B155...@130.133.1.4>, Cameron Biggart
> <lordw...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>> whatsoever to do with the Discworld I think the essay " A Whitewashed
>> Earthsea - How the Sci Fi Channel wrecked my books" by the books
>> author at
>> http://slate.msn.com/id/2111107/ is a very good reminder of why PTerry
>> hasn't sold the rights to the Discworld books.
>
>
> The follow ups to the article, at least the coherent ones, made
> interesting reading, too.
>
> I'm mildly surprised that she was surprised. A lot of movie approaches
> involved statements like 'we hope that this can be a co-operative
> endeavour ' which I have always translated as 'we hope that if we give
> you the transitory feeling that you'll have some kind on genuine input,
> you won't want as much money'. Why should they listen to an author?
> People in Hollywood don't read.
>
> them, not with care, but because they think it says 'like HP and TLOTR'
> on the tin.
>
> I think the only think an author can do is hold out for what looks like
> the best artistic deal, hit them for a wad of cash, and walk.
Considering the upcoming two War of the Worlds films due in 2005, one
should be enabled to make a fair comparison of Hollywood vs. Indy
Cinema. The Spielberg/Cruise version in a nutshell: Dysfunctional Los
Angeles family finds common ground and pulls through invasion of earth
(yawn!) Pendragon: Film follows book, period setting and dress, etc.
Guess which the p-uh-blic will throw fat wads of cash at. It should
tell you everything you need to know about uh-mericans.
>>
>> Also, having said that, looking at the work done by snowgum films on
>> Trollbridge so far I'm sure that with the 'right' input from Terry his
>> books can be made into very good movies.
>
>
> See above. You can get all the 'input' you like --you just can't have
> any kind of CONTROL.
Down the pub I was just talking, this very evening, about Michael
Crichton's disgust with the treatment (strip out all the suspense, keep
the bits which the writers think will be interesting, make movie almost
entirely unlike book. other example: I Robot)
To give some idea why this is, consider the recent decision of Shrek 3
and Cars (Pixar's last film under the Disney Cabal) have been moved from
November (Thanksgiving USA) to Spring/early Summer releases for
following years, to enable the maximum DVD's to be on store shelves in
time for your holiday shopping pleasure.
>> Possibly with his bank overflowing
>> he could even finance one himself, Hmm which one to start with?
>>
> But why?
You don't have to be cynical to understand Hollywood, but it helps.
Maybe if you really wanted to suffer for your art...
Sanity
> Interesting stuff brought up here. Here are my thoughts on a Discworld
> film - they tend to meander a bit, so bare with me. Hopefully there's
> something for everyone.
I pretty much agree with you, and trust your opinion as a filmmaker more
than mine as a book reader. But this:
> To fully finance a Discworld movie - you're looking at spending at least 60
> million, US. And this would be a very, *very* cheap film given the events
> and locations that normally happen in a Discworld book. Preferably you'd
> want to spend a nice round 100 million. That's a heck of a lot of money for
> anyone.
I doubt whether it'd cost *that* much. A DW movie doesn't rely on big
shots, massive battles, lots of different creatures, huge locations. That
definitely should save a lot of money. Also, DW/Pratchett are such names
by themselves, that you don't need expensive actors, just good actors.
Terry Pratchett
Sanity <sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk> writes
>lso, DW/Pratchett are such names
>by themselves, t
Wrong, I'm afraid.
No UK production company would touch Mort; I recall FilmFour said DW was
'far too genteel and cerebral for cinema audiences (see how good I am? I
can write genteel and cerebral books which are, as everyone knows, read
only by 14 year old boys called Kevin:-)
The Twinning of Wincanton and Ankh-Morpork filled the town but got no
national coverage; not did the fact that Dw was 21 years old this year.
A producer who wanted to make a bit programme about DW and me got no
takers on any network. DW is not a media phenomenon and did not happen
suddenly -- it's "fame" is among lots of readers, who don't count It's
just there unsexy and reliable Sad but true.
The money's good, though:-)
--
Terry Pratchett
rich hammett
> In message <pan.2004.12.24...@news.affordable-prawns.co.uk>,
> Sanity <sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk> writes
>>lso, DW/Pratchett are such names
>>by themselves, t
> Wrong, I'm afraid.
> No UK production company would touch Mort; I recall FilmFour said DW was
> 'far too genteel and cerebral for cinema audiences (see how good I am? I
> can write genteel and cerebral books which are, as everyone knows, read
> only by 14 year old boys called Kevin:-)
Is this anything like those lazy Dwarf immigrants who sneak into
Ankh-Morpork and steal all of our jobs?
(I've heard at least a half-dozen people here in the States make
just such arguments since I read that bit in one of your books)
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."
elfin
> "Daniel Knight" wrote:
>
>> To fully finance a Discworld movie - you're looking at spending at
>> least 60 million, US. And this would be a very, *very* cheap film
>> given the events and locations that normally happen in a Discworld
>> book. Preferably you'd want to spend a nice round 100 million.
>> That's a heck of a lot of money for anyone.
>
> I doubt whether it'd cost *that* much. A DW movie doesn't rely on big
> shots, massive battles, lots of different creatures, huge locations.
> That definitely should save a lot of money. Also, DW/Pratchett are
> such names by themselves, that you don't need expensive actors, just
> good actors.
Sorry but I'd agree with Daniel.
Remember also that Discworld may have a 'large' readship, but it isn't so
large that it is noticed. As Terry has said media coverage has not been that
great. It isn't every day that a town gets twinned with a fictional one, yet
the press coverage was quite small. Considering Terry is read around the
globe, you'd have thought it would have sparked more interest. So to get a
film made. and to get bums on seats you'd need a few big names in it. Not
only that but you'd probably need a big time director as well.
As to the sets/locations. Well these things do cost money. Ankh-Morpork
alone would cost a fair bit to do, and make it look realistic. I mention
this specifically as I think the Guards books lend themselves more to a
movie than a lot of them. There might not be many explosions, but at least
there would be a dragon or three.
Now if you could get a well known Producer on board then things might
happen. Anybody got Speilbergs(sp?) phone number handy :-)
elfin
elfin
Terry Pratchett wrote:
> No UK production company would touch Mort; I recall FilmFour said DW
> was 'far too genteel and cerebral for cinema audiences (see how good
> I am? I can write genteel and cerebral books which are, as everyone
> knows, read only by 14 year old boys called Kevin:-)
yep not enough explosions too much DEATH.
> The Twinning of Wincanton and Ankh-Morpork filled the town but got no
> national coverage; not did the fact that Dw was 21 years old this
> year. A producer who wanted to make a bit programme about DW and me
> got no takers on any network. DW is not a media phenomenon and did
> not happen suddenly -- it's "fame" is among lots of readers, who
> don't count It's just there unsexy and reliable Sad but true.
How much of this is due to your tight hold on the rights though? The
merchandise has been kept fairly limited. Movies could have happened if you
let them hack the plot to pieces etc. etc. Though I think we are glad you
*haven't* let things slide on this, I have wondered sometimes what direction
things would have taken if you had let them. Would we still see a book a
year and high quality merchandise, I think not.
> The money's good, though:-)
Aren't you a multi-millionaire these days? does the money still mean as much
:-)
elfin
Richard Adams
Terry, you remind me very much of one of my favorite perfomers: Jimmy
Buffett. He only scored a couple minor hits, yet his shows are
automatic sold out instantly, anywhere. Jimmy's fan following are
(myself included) referred to as Parrotheads, a take-off of Deadheads
(fans of The Grateful Dead.)
There are worse things than not being noticed, such as having the
bone-head media brightly tell viewers "it's all somewhat like Harry
Potter!" (which in my book would be a bit of a backhanded compliment.)
Conventional Wisdumb probably told Hollywood that LOTR was poison and
avoided for years. Funny how often they get it wrong, but it does take
the right director, script, cast, etc, to pull it off, and a few friends
who were dyed-in-the-wool Tolkein fans were rather offended by the
portrayal of some characters.
DW fans rejoice, that DW novels haven't been made into some of the
travesties which have visited the cinema screens in the past few decades.
Terry Pratchett
<el...@elfden.co.uk> writes
>
>How much of this is due to your tight hold on the rights though? The
>merchandise has been kept fairly limited.
Because merchandise without s big screen presence is always limited. How
much TLOTR stuff did you see in the High Street ten years ago? It's
limited by the size of the pool you can reach without movies..
>Movies could have happened if you
>let them hack the plot to pieces etc. etc. Though I think we are glad you
>*haven't* let things slide on this, I have wondered sometimes what direction
>things would have taken if you had let them. Would we still see a book a
>year and high quality merchandise, I think not.
>
Then you've answered you own question. In truth, though, there has
never been an approach from a name I admire.
I said as much to Peter Jackson when I was in Auckland last month. I
explained what a valuable property DW could be, the scope of the series,
my willingness to accept a smallish advance from the right
producer/director...
...and then his butler opened the door and told me to stop shouting
through the letter box.
--
Terry Pratchett
Boyd Bottorff
> happen. Anybody got Speilbergs(sp?) phone number handy :-)
Not until he gets back into form, please.
Daniel Knight
""@lec Šawley"" <al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:330hb3F...@individual.net...
> Daniel Knight wrote:
>
>> To fully finance a Discworld movie - you're looking at spending at least
>> 60
>> million, US. And this would be a very, *very* cheap film given the
>> events
>> and locations that normally happen in a Discworld book. Preferably you'd
>> want to spend a nice round 100 million. That's a heck of a lot of money
>> for
>> anyone.
>
> Only if you insist it must be done as a fantasy spectacular, with stars,
> effects etc.. Some would have to br - Pyramids, for examlpe. But you
> could, I think, do Wyrd Sisters on quite a small scale. All you would need
> is a plausible town square, a battered but not too much so castle, and
> some outside locations. Plus, of course, some very good actors. But make a
> film that concentrates on people, not on effects, and it could be done for
> a few million.
>
> The sort of style I was thinking of is "Mrs. Brown", which cost 4 million.
It depends on if you're after a quality film or not. And Wyrd Sisters would
still have more than a few FX sequences. Let's break it down.
You'd need a miniature (or bigiarure if you prefer) of Lacre Castle and the
surrounding area (what with the steep cliffs and everything), as well as a
model of the town. There is no castle that looks like Lancre castle in real
life - and you'd be doing it a huge disservice by setting it in one. Even
if you were going to make CG extensions. The area surrounding the miniature
town and castle can have Ramtop matte paintings.
You would also need a model of Ankh-Morpork. although you could probably get
away with this being completely CG as we don't really need to see much other
than the Dysk Theatre.
Then you have a fair bit of blue screening ahead of you as far as Verence
and the others ghosts are concerned - and you'd probably want a puppet Death
as well. Luckily Greebo doesn't have much screen time - otherwise you'd
want to consider making him completely CG. Wxrthltl-jwlpklz would look
great as a CG character - and awful with a guy wearing horns. although you
could possibly make him a puppet too, but I think you'd be spoiling a lot of
opportunity with him.
And you'd need a heap of well trained animals to sit and stare at Granny
near the end.
And then you have the broom flight. erm. yeah. don't even get me started on
that, because it's going to require a perfect blend of bloody well
everything.
And all this is without mentioning the sets that would need to be built for
the interior locations. You aren't going to be able to use a castle.
believe me it will be cheaper just to make it yourself.
All the things I've mentioned are important plot points. The problem with
the Discworld, is that it *is* in a big epic setting. It's hardly ever
important to the plot - but it *is* important. It's what makes the
Discworld, Discworld, and not just Earth.
Oh. but everything else in Wyrd Sisters would be cheap as anything.
Provided of course you were willing to scrimp on the acting. Or the film
stock. Or the quality of the director of photography. Or the designer
(which is going to be *very* important). And then because it's a Discworld
movie - you're going to want to launch a massive marketing campaign for it.
so there's your couple of million gone already.
If you're happy with something smaller and intimate though. feel free to
visit the link in my sig. :P We could certainly use your support!
>> Personally, I blame the producers. If you think about it, a producer is
>> just a guy
>> who wants to be a filmmaker - but has absolutely no creative bone in his
>> body.
>> If they *did* - they'd be directing, writing, acting, fluffing, or have
>> any other
>> thousands of more creative jobs in the industry.
>
> Not necessarily. Some people do get a kick out of "making it happen".
Of course they get a kick out of it. What I'm questioning however, is their
talent level and wether they should be getting as much of an artistic say as
they do. If a producer doesn't trust the director - then they really
shouldn't be involved in the project.
This is not to say that producers don't have their good points. I mean -
the producers had very little say in the Matrix sequels (as part of the
contract that had been signed with the Wachowski siblings), and look what
happened to those! Producers *do* play an important role (not just as
investors), but they really shouldn't be trying to direct the piece (as
often unfortunately happens).
Daniel Knight
~Making a Discworld Movie~
www.snowgumfilms.com/trollbridge
Daniel Knight
"Boyd Bottorff" <bbot...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:1gp9e2k.c229iq1wlioz4N%bbot...@nomail.com...
Blue-screening everything is a pain in the arse - and takes up whopping
great big slabs of time. Trust me. it's cheaper just to build the damned
set, rather than build it later in a computer. Digital sets would only be
helpful for large locations. such as making the grand hall in the castle
look bigger (taller).
Spicing up an already existing location is certainly an option (and would
probably be what you'd do for Nanny's and Magrat's cottage, as well as the
town square), but maybe a little difficult for the castle. Granny's cottage
you'd probably want to build from scratch, as it's been detailed so much
already in the books.
This is of course - still using Wyrd Sisters as an example.
Daniel Knight
www.snowgumfilms.com/trollbridge
Daniel Knight
"Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:cqfcto$6uv$1...@cauldron.broomstick.com...
The smell would actually be very easy. and even something I could do on my
computer at home.
Overlaying him with an animated olive green mist would be ideal, and then
you could have it move rather independently of its owner.
Or you could dip his clothes in an acid solution that will make it look like
green steam is coming from them.
Less obvious, you could simply have flies orbiting his face and body, and
some dirty, muddy smears across any visible flesh. Maybe even have a shot
of flowers wilting when he passes for a cheap laugh.
The other actors talking to him would also of course get the point across.
Octarine, octarine, octarine. yeah I'll give you that one. We're currently
working on something that could "suggest" octarine for Troll Bridge. I'm
pretty happy with it at the moment - but I'm trying to find some ways of
making it a little more chaotic. It currently looks like an electrical oil
slick.
Daniel Knight
www.snowgumfilms.com/trollbridge
Mark Gallagher
> Wxrthltl-jwlpklz would look
> great as a CG character - and awful with a guy wearing horns. although you
> could possibly make him a puppet too, but I think you'd be spoiling a lot of
> opportunity with him.
But Wxrthltl-jewlpklz *is* just a regular-looking guy with horns.
Daniel Knight
"Mark Gallagher" <n...@spam.INVALID> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c37c68d9...@news.individual.net...
> It's the end of the world as we know it, and Daniel Knight feels...
>> Wxrthltl-jwlpklz would look
>> great as a CG character - and awful with a guy wearing horns. although
>> you
>> could possibly make him a puppet too, but I think you'd be spoiling a lot
>> of
>> opportunity with him.
>
> But Wxrthltl-jewlpklz *is* just a regular-looking guy with horns.
Erm... <quickly grabs his copy of Wyrd Sisters and flicks madly through it>.
Bugger me... you're right! Although I notice that he's also made of black
liquid. Instead of using makeup - I'd probably push for him to be CG... but
that's probably because I like making things complicated.
Daniel Knight
~Making a Discworld Film~
www.snowgumfilms.com/trollbridge
Catja Pafort
> I doubt whether it'd cost *that* much. A DW movie doesn't rely on big
> shots, massive battles, lots of different creatures, huge locations. That
> definitely should save a lot of money. Also, DW/Pratchett are such names
> by themselves, that you don't need expensive actors, just good actors.
I'd disagree:I think the locations, to make them realistic, would need
the same sort of input and loving attention to detail than Middle Earth
did.
And that won't be cheap.
Catja
Lesley Weston
tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk wrote on 24/12/2004 3:22 PM:
<snip DW movies>
>In truth, though, there has
> never been an approach from a name I admire.
>
> I said as much to Peter Jackson when I was in Auckland last month. I
> explained what a valuable property DW could be, the scope of the series,
> my willingness to accept a smallish advance from the right
> producer/director...
>
> ...and then his butler opened the door and told me to stop shouting
> through the letter box.
>
The man is clearly a philistine. When you have finally found someone capable
of making a DW movie properly, Peter Jackson will fire his butler and live
the rest of his days burdened with regret.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use lesley att vancouverbc
dott nett, changing spelling and spacing as required.
Eric Jarvis
The difficulty when it comes to commercial Discworld films is that there
isn't an existing model to draw on. They aren't action fantasy, swords and
sorcery, or fairy stories. They need to be character centred, written and
directed with care and intelligence, and be presented without taking
themselves too seriously. That's just not like anything else out there. So
ALL the approaches that will come from somebody who is looking for a sure
fire commercial success will be from somebody who simply doesn't "get" the
books.
It isn't easy to do a good Discworld script. It's not like filming a Tom
Clancy novel where it will work if threw's the right set of action scenes
to get from one plot point to the next. Almost all the books cover too
much ground to fit into a single film. All the later books require that
several characters be well established in order to make the plot work.
That means that the screenplay has to be created with some artistry in its
own right, hackwork won't be good enough.
In my view they would also need extremely careful directing and in a style
that isn't the norm. They can't be simply over the top, it would mean
losing all the depth. Yet the sense of fun has to be there to make the
humour work, and po faced realism would also destroy the feel. That means
a good director working hard to make the film work with no chance of
simply following an existing formula, and having to keep many of the
actors on a very tight rein all the way through the process.
The ONLY was I can see good Discworld films being made in the short of
medium term is through a name performer deciding they desperately want to
play Sam Vimes, Granny Weatherwax or some such, and then pushing to get
one made. Then the money is potentially there on the strength of their
personal box office appeal. Since the number of actors at that level is
always limited, and the number who are suited to a major Discworld
character even more limited, it's very long odds on that ever happening.
A shame because that means there are some potentially great films that
will never be made. TV would be easier because there's the possibility of
spreading out over several episodes, which makes it easier to script well
and easier to establish the characters. However there's pretty much nobody
commissioning TV with the right sort of budget to do a decent job, and
having heard Neil Gaiman explain some of the Neverwhere/BBC "saga" I can
imagine that any attempt to produce a TV series on the cheap might be
extremely distressing.
Eric Jarvis
To do a proper professional job. It's not easy to find locations that look
realistic for the period without them being familiar film locations. IMO
most of the books would be best filmed using location shooting as much as
possible in preference to sets. Medieval buildings tend to be somewhat old
and a bit past their best, which is a bit of a problem when filming
something set when that sort of building was new.
The thing that Discworld has that sets it apart from most fantasy is that
there's an underlying sense of real people behaving as people really do.
That means there should also be a sense of the real places that real
people can be found in. Even the best set builders struggle to manage that
consistently.
Sanity
>> There's a few things that would be very difficult to achieve, even with
>> the
>> best cgi in the world. The colour octarine, for example.
[...]
> Octarine, octarine, octarine. yeah I'll give you that one. We're currently
> working on something that could "suggest" octarine for Troll Bridge. I'm
> pretty happy with it at the moment - but I'm trying to find some ways of
> making it a little more chaotic. It currently looks like an electrical oil
> slick.
And remember how spoilt we are with cgi. The first Discworld game simply
had purple-green dots which you could actually see.
Octarine needn't be too hard to do. You need to suggest magic. You can't
do octarine in the sense of the books, because non-wizards can't see it
and if you can see it, it's another colour and it would be like creating
red without having the colour red. It's suggestion that has to do the
trick, not exactly what is in the books in this case.
Sanity
> In message <pan.2004.12.24...@news.affordable-prawns.co.uk>,
> Sanity <sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk> writes
>>lso, DW/Pratchett are such names
>>by themselves, t
>
> Wrong, I'm afraid.
Aw...
> No UK production company would touch Mort; I recall FilmFour said DW was
> 'far too genteel and cerebral for cinema audiences (see how good I am? I
> can write genteel and cerebral books which are, as everyone knows, read
> only by 14 year old boys called Kevin:-)
They should make you an OBE, really. But maybe I'm prejudiced because I
occasionally go see pictures without cgi, battle scenes, etc, but that do
have a plot, and therefor I'm not typical enough of today's cinema
visitors to know whether a movie is commercially viable. I still think it
is, though.
> The Twinning of Wincanton and Ankh-Morpork filled the town but got no
> national coverage;
How much press coverage would there have been if Wincanton had twinned
with, say, Minas Tirith, *before* the LotR movies? A bit more, maybe, but
not a lot.
> not did the fact that Dw was 21 years old this year.
> A producer who wanted to make a bit programme about DW and me got no
> takers on any network. DW is not a media phenomenon and did not happen
> suddenly -- it's "fame" is among lots of readers, who don't count It's
> just there unsexy and reliable Sad but true.
Yes, but sci-fi/fantasy in general is not a media phenomenon.
> The money's good, though:-)
Well, at least that's positive. For you :p
Joerg Ruedenauer
> Octarine, octarine, octarine. yeah I'll give you that one. We're
> currently working on something that could "suggest" octarine for Troll
> Bridge.
>
Why do you need octarine in TB?
Would it work to create an 'absence' of colour (since the audience can't
see octarine)? Kind of like Ahmed describes it in J...
Joerg
--
"Quoth the raven: Nevermore!" -- E.A. Poe
Terry Pratchett
<pan.2004.12.27....@news.affordable-prawns.co.uk>, Sanity
<sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk> writes
>Terry Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <pan.2004.12.24...@news.affordable-prawns.co.uk>,
>> Sanity <sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk> writes
>>>lso, DW/Pratchett are such names
>>>by themselves, t
>>
>> Wrong, I'm afraid.
>
>Aw...
>
>> No UK production company would touch Mort; I recall FilmFour said DW was
>> 'far too genteel and cerebral for cinema audiences (see how good I am? I
>> can write genteel and cerebral books which are, as everyone knows, read
>> only by 14 year old boys called Kevin:-)
>
>They should make you an OBE, really. But maybe I'm prejudiced because I
>occasionally go see pictures without cgi, battle scenes, etc, but that do
>have a plot, and therefor I'm not typical enough of today's cinema
>visitors to know whether a movie is commercially viable. I still think it
>is, though.
>
>> The Twinning of Wincanton and Ankh-Morpork filled the town but got no
>> national coverage;
>
>How much press coverage would there have been if Wincanton had twinned
>with, say, Minas Tirith, *before* the LotR movies? A bit more, maybe, but
>not a lot.
>
the point...
>> not did the fact that Dw was 21 years old this year.
>> A producer who wanted to make a bit programme about DW and me got no
>> takers on any network. DW is not a media phenomenon and did not happen
>> suddenly -- it's "fame" is among lots of readers, who don't count It's
>> just there unsexy and reliable Sad but true.
>
>Yes, but sci-fi/fantasy in general is not a media phenomenon.
...I was making. TP and DW are demonstrably *not* such names by
themselves. I'm good at what I do, and because I do a lot of it I am
successful, but it's not the kind of success that extends hugely into
the world beyond books.
--
Terry Pratchett
Orjan Westin
> TP and DW are demonstrably *not* such names by
> themselves. I'm good at what I do, and because I do a lot of it I am
> successful, but it's not the kind of success that extends hugely into
> the world beyond books.
There is one? Are there any good books about it?
Now, if you could only get involved in a sexual scandal somehow featuring
David Beckham (UK) or Arnold Schwarzenegger (US) you would truly cross over
into mainstream consciousness...
Um.
Personally, I'm perfectly happy with the movie I get inside my head when
reading - there is no technology to make better special effects on the
silver screen and the casting is always right - and given the above I can
understand you're not very keen on making it happen.
Orjan
DrownTheClowns
into holywood Arch-stereotypes. And then of course, there's the
ultimate evil of ... Americanisation. Even Cthulhu wouldn't stoop so
low ..
Arthur Hagen
> Terry Pratchett wrote:
>
>> TP and DW are demonstrably *not* such names by
>> themselves. I'm good at what I do, and because I do a lot of it I am
>> successful, but it's not the kind of success that extends hugely into
>> the world beyond books.
>
> There is one? Are there any good books about it?
<URL:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?WRD=United+States+of+America>
> Now, if you could only get involved in a sexual scandal somehow
> featuring David Beckham (UK) or Arnold Schwarzenegger (US) you would
> truly cross over into mainstream consciousness...
Shouldn't that be Arnold Schwarzenegger (AT)?
Regards,
--
*Art
Richard Adams
Disney would, however.
Graycat
<nos...@cunobaros.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Terry Pratchett wrote:
>
>> TP and DW are demonstrably *not* such names by
>> themselves. I'm good at what I do, and because I do a lot of it I am
>> successful, but it's not the kind of success that extends hugely into
>> the world beyond books.
>
>There is one? Are there any good books about it?
>
>Now, if you could only get involved in a sexual scandal somehow featuring
>David Beckham (UK) or Arnold Schwarzenegger (US) you would truly cross over
>into mainstream consciousness...
Make that Paris Hilton (US) and you're really cooking.
--
Elin
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/index.html
The Oswalds - premier Discworld casting awards
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/Oswald/index.html
CCA
>DW is not a media phenomenon and did not happen
>suddenly -- it's "fame" is among lots of readers, who don't count It's
>just there unsexy and reliable
Well, thank Gods for that, eh?
CCA:)
Family Bites Website and Sample Chapter at http://www.falboroughhall.co.uk
Lister
Juergen Nieveler <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> scribis
>"Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
>>> Now, if you could only get involved in a sexual scandal somehow
>>> featuring David Beckham (UK) or Arnold Schwarzenegger (US) you would
>>> truly cross over into mainstream consciousness...
>>
>> Shouldn't that be Arnold Schwarzenegger (AT)?
>
>Austria: Small country in the Alps. Exports: Right-wing policticians.
Famous for Fucking
--
All around me are familiar faces
Worn out places, worn out faces
Bright and early for the daily races
Going nowhere, going nowhere
Arthur Hagen
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:10:38 -0000, "Orjan Westin"
> <nos...@cunobaros.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Now, if you could only get involved in a sexual scandal somehow
>> featuring David Beckham (UK) or Arnold Schwarzenegger (US) you would
>> truly cross over into mainstream consciousness...
>
> Make that Paris Hilton (US) and you're really cooking.
No, then you'd need Martha Stewart (US).
--
*Art
Daniel Knight
"Joerg Ruedenauer" <nos...@ruedenauer.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.12.27....@ruedenauer.net...
> Daniel Knight wrote:
>
>> Octarine, octarine, octarine. yeah I'll give you that one. We're
>> currently working on something that could "suggest" octarine for Troll
>> Bridge.
>>
> Why do you need octarine in TB?
Okay. <whacks on flame retardant gear and prepares to defend himself>
We've filmed an opening to Troll Bridge that has Cohen in his prime, doing
the "rescue the virgin sacrifice and kill the guards" routine. Why have we
done this, I hear you all scream. The idea was, that as Troll Bridge the
short story was (at one level) parodying the Conan and Lord of the Rings
books - so should the movie parody the films. The movies have a lot more
fight scenes, because fight scenes are exciting. so we wrote one in. It
also helps an audience who has no knowledge of Cohen (or even Conan for that
matter), to better appreciate who he *was*. I like to think it also
highlights the tragic nature of his current situation on the bridge.
Anyway, it turns out that the films opening with the younger Cohen was just
a story being told in a tavern. which goes with the narrated dialogue of the
piece. which is of course taken from the opening lines of the original
story.
Still with me?
Now. before people start flaming me... Terry has seen a bloody rough cut of
the film and didn't have any problems with the *idea* of what we'd done.
And this is because film and the written word are somewhat different mediums
that require different hooks. What he did have a problem with - was that he
wished he'd written it *for* us. And this is because he could have made it
funnier. Obviously. If I've gotten something wrong there - I'm sure (and
hope) he'll chime in and correct me.
Now that I have that out of the way. during the sacrifice, magical energy
spreads outward from the guy performing the ceremony. Which I hope can end
up looking sufficiently octarine.
> Would it work to create an 'absence' of colour (since the audience can't
> see octarine)? Kind of like Ahmed describes it in J...
Hmmm. interesting idea. leave that with me - I just may have to steal it.
Or at least give it a go and see how it looks.
Daniel Knight
~Director of Troll Bridge~
www.snowgumfilms.com/trollbridge
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 28/12/04 10:04 GMT Standard Time
>On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:10:38 -0000, "Orjan Westin"
><nos...@cunobaros.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Terry Pratchett wrote:
>>
>>> TP and DW are demonstrably *not* such names by
>>> themselves. I'm good at what I do, and because I do a lot of it I am
>>> successful, but it's not the kind of success that extends hugely into
>>> the world beyond books.
>>
>>There is one? Are there any good books about it?
>>
>>Now, if you could only get involved in a sexual scandal somehow featuring
>>David Beckham (UK) or Arnold Schwarzenegger (US) you would truly cross over
>>into mainstream consciousness...
>
>Make that Paris Hilton (US) and you're really cooking.
You'd *really* strike fat if you could get a Paris *and* Becks sex scandal...
--
Dave
The Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
In life, as in breakfast cereal, it is always best to read the instructions on
the box.
-Thief of Time, Terry Pratchett
Orjan Westin
> From: gra...@passagen.se (Graycat)
> Date: 28/12/04 10:04 GMT Standard Time
>
>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:10:38 -0000, "Orjan Westin"
>> <nos...@cunobaros.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Now, if you could only get involved in a sexual scandal somehow
>>> featuring David Beckham (UK) or Arnold Schwarzenegger (US) you
>>> would truly cross over into mainstream consciousness...
>>
>> Make that Paris Hilton (US) and you're really cooking.
>
> You'd *really* strike fat if you could get a Paris *and* Becks sex
> scandal...
Aarrgh! My mind's eyes! I'm blind!
Orjan
--
Get your Tale paperback or CD here:
http://tale.cunobaros.com
Or just read it there, if you don't want the illustrations
Eric Jarvis
> >> featuring David Beckham (UK) or Arnold Schwarzenegger (US) you would
> >> truly cross over into mainstream consciousness...
> >
> > Shouldn't that be Arnold Schwarzenegger (AT)?
>
>
Surely it's more like.
Austria: Comparitively large country considering it's in the Alps. Exports
broken limbed skiers and right wing politicians.
DrownTheClowns
butcher it completely. A classic example of this is the Dungeons and
Dragons movie. That movie made me want to vomit.
" Let the cheese rain from the skyyy !!" ... Bastards.
am...@hotmail.com
The most obvious problem with screening the books like DW is that
you can't put the comments on the screen. Stripped of them, even a
faithful recreation of action is doomed to be a shadow of the book
unless movie becomes very "creative" and gets life of its own,
which means that it has little to do with the book besides its title.
Which option would you prefer as a viewer? Which option author would
prefer? Of course, there is a possibility that screenplay
is written by an author. This removes accusations of "distortions"
but does not guarantee that screenplay is close to the original book
(happened more than once).
Daniel Knight
"DrownTheClowns" <SeanF...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104258179....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
The problem with that film - is that they sold the rights to a 19 year old
kid. Ten years later he directed the film with *no* prior directing
experience *at all*. Now that's just crazy, whack talk!
It's actually one of those films that is soooo bad, that I love it. I even
own the DVD. It sits right next to my Extended Spanish translation of
Attack of the Killer Tomatoes.
Of course, in the wonderful, creative world that is Hollywood <snigger> they're
producing a sequel to be released some time next year. Not surprisingly
they're setting it so far in the future that all the characters and events
that occurred in the first movie are either dead or forgotten. Except for
the guy who had blue lips - he's still about.
Some things will never cease to amaze me.
Daniel Knight
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104265572.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> The most obvious problem with screening the books like DW is that
> you can't put the comments on the screen. Stripped of them, even a
> faithful recreation of action is doomed to be a shadow of the book
> unless movie becomes very "creative" and gets life of its own,
> which means that it has little to do with the book besides its title.
> Which option would you prefer as a viewer? Which option author would
> prefer? Of course, there is a possibility that screenplay
> is written by an author. This removes accusations of "distortions"
> but does not guarantee that screenplay is close to the original book
> (happened more than once).
If this were true - the Discworld plays wouldn't be so successful.
Danny
<daniel...@snowgumfilms.com>, wrote the following stuff about Re: Discworld
movie, was Earthsea movie:
However, Daniel, you must admit that the vast majority of Discworld plays
manage to get a lot of the narrative comments in (the plot necessary and
the funny ones) by having a narrator, whether that be one or more of the
characters, or the "Footnote" character that Stephen Briggs brilliantly
came up with for GG and MAA.
In a movie, voice over/character narration only works in *certain* contexts,
and if overused, it can get rather annoying. The stage has the limitation
of not being able to show everything, and narration helps the audience's
imaginations fill in the blanks. In a movie, what *can* be shown *should*
be shown, don't you agree?
Seeya. Danny.
--
E-Mail: Danny (at) grovers (dash) sa (dot) com
Terry Pratchett
<da...@atgroversdashsadot.com> writes
>However, Daniel, you must admit that the vast majority of Discworld plays
>manage to get a lot of the narrative comments in (the plot necessary and
>the funny ones) by having a narrator, whether that be one or more of the
>characters, or the "Footnote" character that Stephen Briggs brilliantly
>came up with for GG and MAA.
Not true. In my experience, which is extensive, narrators are rarely
used. They are certainly not 'the vast majority'. Players usually
dislike them because they are bald infodumps, retailing information that
could, with care, be delivered in other ways. When they *are* used, they
tend to be at the start and simply introduce DW to a public that might
not know much about it.
The footnotes were another matter; they weren't there, particularly, to
deliver information but to be funny!
--
Terry Pratchett
Boyd Bottorff
> >If this were true - the Discworld plays wouldn't be so successful.
>
> However, Daniel, you must admit that the vast majority of Discworld plays
> manage to get a lot of the narrative comments in (the plot necessary and
> the funny ones) by having a narrator, whether that be one or more of the
> characters, or the "Footnote" character that Stephen Briggs brilliantly
> came up with for GG and MAA.
>
> In a movie, voice over/character narration only works in *certain* contexts,
> and if overused, it can get rather annoying.
The same could be argued for books-- authoral interruptions, asides,
irrelevant footnotes, excessive relevant footnoting, and so forth ruin
the flow of the books, and become annoying.
Frequently true, but not for the DW books. It all depends on the voice
of the book-- or movie.
> The stage has the limitation
> of not being able to show everything, and narration helps the audience's
> imaginations fill in the blanks. In a movie, what *can* be shown *should*
> be shown, don't you agree?
No. A lot of movies would be better off if more of the drama or CGI was
left to the viewer's imagination.
am...@hotmail.com
Catja Pafort
> The most obvious problem with screening the books like DW is that
> you can't put the comments on the screen. Stripped of them, even a
> faithful recreation of action is doomed to be a shadow of the book
> unless movie becomes very "creative" and gets life of its own,
> which means that it has little to do with the book besides its title.
> Which option would you prefer as a viewer?
I think what I would really really like to watch is a Diskworld movie,
devised by a certain Mr. Pratchett.
There are a thousand and one wonderful things one could do with the
medium of film. By starting with a standalone script - not necessarily a
Discworld one - you'd avoid a number of problems in book adaptations.
But that's not fair on someone who, I am certain, if he had felt a call
to the medium of film, would have done something about that long ago.
Catja
aka PerditaX
Peter Ellis
><am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The most obvious problem with screening the books like DW is that
>> you can't put the comments on the screen. Stripped of them, even a
>> faithful recreation of action is doomed to be a shadow of the book
>> unless movie becomes very "creative" and gets life of its own,
>> which means that it has little to do with the book besides its title.
>> Which option would you prefer as a viewer?
>
>I think what I would really really like to watch is a Diskworld movie,
>devised by a certain Mr. Pratchett.
With all due respect, that's the kind of woolly thinking that leads to
stacks of celebrity books with no discernible merit.
Talent in one sphere does not confer talent in another. A film script
written by Terry (as opposed to him having the say-so over the plot and
the "feel" of the world within which the script is set) makes as much
sense as getting Pavarotti to design bras, or David Beckham to
choreograph a ballet.
Peter
Luna
Peter Ellis <pj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Talent in one sphere does not confer talent in another. A film script
> written by Terry (as opposed to him having the say-so over the plot and
> the "feel" of the world within which the script is set) makes as much
> sense as getting Pavarotti to design bras, or David Beckham to
> choreograph a ballet.
>
> Peter
I agree with you in general, but in specifics I think Terry would be a
good, if not great, screenwriter. He's got a good ear for dialogue, and a
good sense of pace. His descriptions and transitions already feel
film-like in some books.
What I'd really like to see is an original collaboration between Terry
Pratchett and Joss Whedon, with all the music by TMBG. For that to happen
though, a lot of those people would have to move.
--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.
Eric Jarvis
I don't. I think it's a good rule of thumb as a starting point, but it
isn't written in stone. There are also things that aren't generally shown
in film. Two classic examples being the sex scene that starts and ends but
never actually takes place, and just about every fight scene ever shot.
You could make all such scenes totally graphic, but there's no point, the
imagination of the audience is still an important factor just as in other
media.
I generally prefer things to be implied, whether it be on stage or on
screen. I enjoy filling in the gaps. I also like changes of perspective
and point of view. That includes being perfectly happy with a narrator on
film if it's done well.
The crucial thing is to understand what you are doing and why you are
doing it, not a set of preset rules. There are probably many ways of
including narration and footnotes in a Discworld film, and a good director
using the right method for themself will be able to make it work.
Personally I'd not include them on the grounds that I don't think a
Discworld movie should feel rushed, so something has to go. However I can
see several approaches that might make it possible to include them if one
wanted to (eg if it was for a TV series not a one off film).
Len Oil
> DrownTheClowns wrote:
> The most obvious problem with screening the books like DW is that
> you can't put the comments on the screen. Stripped of them, even a
> faithful recreation of action is doomed to be a shadow of the book
> unless movie becomes very "creative" and gets life of its own,
> which means that it has little to do with the book besides its title.
My internal cinema has developed a large number of methods that /I/
would be happy with, on-screen, to represent not just the footnotes but
the internal dialogues and remembrances. Each in their own place, but
among them there's flashback, 'thought' dialogue, even the occasional
(but tastefully and sparingly done) pre-introduction of the concept with
quick non-book scenes inserted to which a not unwieldy reference can be
made.
You have to be there (in my mind, that is[1]) and I'm under no illusion
that it'd be universally acceptable. I'd go so far as to say that a lot
would hate it, but it makes sense to /me/... :)
[1] Just watch out for the cobwebs and soul-eaters, I /really/ need to
get the cleaners and supernatural exterminators in, one of these days...
Arthur Hagen
> Daniel Knight wrote:
>>
>> If this were true - the Discworld plays wouldn't be so successful.
>
> Stage play is not a direct equivalent to a movie.
This is absolutely true. In a stage play, the audience is supposed to use
their imagination, while a modern day western culture movie is supposed to
provide the whole pre-digested experience for the viewer, including
background music to set the mood and cars that explode three times in slow
motion.
Regards,
--
*Art
Darin Johnson
> Of course, in the wonderful, creative world that is Hollywood
> <snigger> they're producing a sequel to be released some time next
> year.
Hmm, it's being called "Dungeons & Dragons 2". Why couldn't they
have called it "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" instead?
--
Darin Johnson
"Particle Man, Particle Man, doing the things a particle can"
Arthur Hagen
> "DrownTheClowns" <SeanF...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1104258179....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> If they did make a DW movie there's always a chance that they could
>> butcher it completely. A classic example of this is the Dungeons and
>> Dragons movie. That movie made me want to vomit.
>> " Let the cheese rain from the skyyy !!" ... Bastards.
>
> The problem with that film - is that they sold the rights to a 19
> year old kid. Ten years later he directed the film with *no* prior
> directing experience *at all*. Now that's just crazy, whack talk!
>
> It's actually one of those films that is soooo bad, that I love it.
> I even own the DVD. It sits right next to my Extended Spanish
> translation of
> Attack of the Killer Tomatoes.
I agree -- that's one of the movies that I love just because they're so
horrible. My groaner collection include:
Plan 9 From Outer Space
Dungeons & Dragons
Star Wars Holiday Special
Abraxas (the one with Jesse Ventura)
Lawnmower Man 2
I'd add Battlefield Earth to that collection, but I refuse to give those
guys any money.
Highlander 2 (The Sickening) and Star Trek: Nemesis are horrible too, but
not because the movies themselves are so bad, but because the directors and
producers knew absolutely nothing about the coda of the respective
movieverses, and displayed their ignorance with pride. Now *that* is my
biggest fear with a DW movie.
Regards,
--
*Art
Stig M. Valstad
>
>To do a proper professional job. It's not easy to find locations that look
>realistic for the period without them being familiar film locations. IMO
>most of the books would be best filmed using location shooting as much as
>possible in preference to sets. Medieval buildings tend to be somewhat old
>and a bit past their best, which is a bit of a problem when filming
>something set when that sort of building was new.
I don't think there are many new or well-kept houses in
Ankh-Morpork. I really can't see those people build a new
house unless the old one fell down or burned down. We
want run-down looking houses.
>The thing that Discworld has that sets it apart from most fantasy is that
>there's an underlying sense of real people behaving as people really do.
>That means there should also be a sense of the real places that real
>people can be found in. Even the best set builders struggle to manage that
>consistently.
That also means that the more expensive, glamorous actors
would be wrong for a Discworld movie.
In my experience films based on film scripts tend to be
better than films based on books, so what I would like to
see for a Discworld film is Pterry cooperating with a
good screen-writer to make a script not based on a specific
book. Then Lloyd Kaufmann could direct it. He's good at
finding cheap solutions that look almost as good as the
expensive effects. Umm, why is there suddenly a lynch mob
at my doorstep?
--
Stig M. Valstad
Their last song was so bad that they had to rewrite it before
they could throw it away. Prima Vera
Eric Jarvis
> "Daniel Knight" <daniel...@snowgumfilms.com> writes:
>
> > Of course, in the wonderful, creative world that is Hollywood
> > <snigger> they're producing a sequel to be released some time next
> > year.
>
> Hmm, it's being called "Dungeons & Dragons 2". Why couldn't they
> have called it "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" instead?
>
Because so many of us would have ignored it and waited for GURPS to be
released as a film?
Daniel Knight
"Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:cqvb5u$1f3$1...@cauldron.broomstick.com...
Yeah, I'm not arguing that stage and film are different mediums - what I was
arguing - was that both stage and screen must use the same tricks in order
to convey the narrative comments of the books. Whether it be a narrator or
(preferably) writing the comments into the dialogue of the other characters,
in this fashion both forms *are* equal.
am...@hotmail.com
Daniel Knight wrote:
> "Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
> news:cqvb5u$1f3$1...@cauldron.broomstick.com...
> > am...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Daniel Knight wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If this were true - the Discworld plays wouldn't be so
successful.
> >>
> >> Stage play is not a direct equivalent to a movie.
> >
> > This is absolutely true. In a stage play, the audience is supposed
to use
> > their imagination, while a modern day western culture movie is
supposed to
> > provide the whole pre-digested experience for the viewer, including
> > background music to set the mood and cars that explode three times
in slow
> > motion.
>
> Yeah, I'm not arguing that stage and film are different mediums -
what I was
> arguing - was that both stage and screen must use the same tricks in
order
> to convey the narrative comments of the books.
My impression was that we were talking about "faithfulness"
to the original as a condition of success. Which is, quite
often not the case. I saw two very successful (aka "popular")
stage productions of "Master and Margarita" which were, at
best, the pale shadows of the book (but very "creative").
Some of the popular movies had little to do with originals
(like "Valmont").
>Whether it be a narrator or
> (preferably) writing the comments into the dialogue of the other
characters,
> in this fashion both forms *are* equal.
It's the same as to claim that they are equal because in both
cases people are to be present. Rules of the stage and screen
are different and the way they are using the tricks are often
quite different. It is difficult to put subtitles into a
stage production and ability to use a narrator on a stage is
usually much greater than on a screen. NOt to mention that the
screen has a greater flexibility in substituting comments with
the action (when this is possible).
am...@hotmail.com
Catja Pafort wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The most obvious problem with screening the books like DW is that
> > you can't put the comments on the screen. Stripped of them, even a
> > faithful recreation of action is doomed to be a shadow of the book
> > unless movie becomes very "creative" and gets life of its own,
> > which means that it has little to do with the book besides its
title.
> > Which option would you prefer as a viewer?
>
> I think what I would really really like to watch is a Diskworld
movie,
> devised by a certain Mr. Pratchett.
>
It will be interesting.
I saw movies based on the screenplays wriiten by the authors
of the s-f/fantasy books. "Quality" issues aside,
these screenplays were different from the books. Of course,
this may vary from author to author.
am...@hotmail.com
Len Oil wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > DrownTheClowns wrote:
> > The most obvious problem with screening the books like DW is that
> > you can't put the comments on the screen. Stripped of them, even a
> > faithful recreation of action is doomed to be a shadow of the book
> > unless movie becomes very "creative" and gets life of its own,
> > which means that it has little to do with the book besides its
title.
>
> My internal cinema has developed a large number of methods that /I/
> would be happy with, on-screen, to represent not just the footnotes
but
> the internal dialogues and remembrances. Each in their own place,
but
> among them there's flashback, 'thought' dialogue, even the occasional
> (but tastefully and sparingly done) pre-introduction of the concept
with
> quick non-book scenes inserted to which a not unwieldy reference can
be
> made.
All these things had been successfully used in the movies but
consider the following. To use them successfully, you have to
have a very talented director. And the talented directors, as
often as not, tend to introduce their own visions and
interpretations of the source material.
"Adventures of Baron Munchausen" is NOT precise (or even
marginally close) adaptation of the book and neither are
"Valmont" or "Stalker".
Daniel Knight
--
Daniel Knight
~The Discworld on the Big Screen!~
www.snowgumfilms.com/trollbridge
"Danny" <da...@atgroversdashsadot.com> wrote in message
news:tlp4t0t2d9q13ghoq...@4ax.com...
For starters, film simply won't need to use as many narrative comments as
stage does. Film wouldn't *need* Lezek coming forward telling us that the
Discworld looks like... because on film we can see it. We wouldn't need
someone telling us that Mort has been at Death's place for a while - and
that Binky is well fed - and that Mort has been sneaking around - or that
Death's garden is black (okay... I'm going off the top of my head here
because some bastard borrowed my scripts - so I may have got something
wrong). With this mind - we've already eliminated a heap of narration.
The narrated bits in the play left over - are either important plots points,
or gags. If you really want to keep those bits - you can easily incorporate
them into the dialogue with minimal rewording.
And what's wrong with narrated films anyway?
Lord of the Rings, Conan, The Princess Bride, Lemony Snickets, Edward
Scissorhands, The Never Ending Story and Moulin Rouge, just off the top of
my head all used narration successfully (at least I think so).
But yes. I agree that what *can* be *shown* should be.
Daniel Knight
--
Daniel Knight
~The Discworld on the Big Screen!~
www.snowgumfilms.com/trollbridge
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104378920....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Hmmm... yes, I agree that faithfulness (while not a condition of "success"),
is the most important thing. An interesting Bret Easton Ellis side trek...
American Psycho was a very close adaptation of the book. A lot of the
dialogue had been lifted out, the order of events are similar, and it's
certainly in the same time frame. And then you get The Rules of Attraction,
which. made heaps of changes. Bret Easton Ellis *loves* The Rules of
Attraction though - because while screwing around with everything, it
managed to remain it faithful in *feel* to the books. He loved it and now
the director is doing another one of his books.
I don't think I was trying to say anything with that little anecdote
(because obviously a Bret Easton Ellis novel works *very* differently to a
Terry Pratchett novel), but I thought it was interesting non-the-less.
>>Whether it be a narrator or
>> (preferably) writing the comments into the dialogue of the other
> characters,
>> in this fashion both forms *are* equal.
>
> It's the same as to claim that they are equal because in both
> cases people are to be present. Rules of the stage and screen
> are different and the way they are using the tricks are often
> quite different. It is difficult to put subtitles into a
> stage production and ability to use a narrator on a stage is
> usually much greater than on a screen. NOt to mention that the
> screen has a greater flexibility in substituting comments with
> the action (when this is possible).
Yes - but the point is - is that a narrator is *still* present. Whether
they're visually there, or just a voice over, it's still the *same trick*.
It just *looks* different.
Daniel Knight
~The Discworld on the Big Screen!~
www.snowgumfilms.com/trollbridge/
Catja Pafort
> Catja Pafort wrote:
> > I think what I would really really like to watch is a Diskworld
> > movie, devised by a certain Mr. Pratchett.
> >
>
> It will be interesting.
>
> I saw movies based on the screenplays wriiten by the authors
> of the s-f/fantasy books. "Quality" issues aside,
> these screenplays were different from the books. Of course,
> this may vary from author to author.
Of course they're different.
And I quite deliberately did not say 'screenplay', I said 'movie devised
by' which, I would say, encompasses more input, and more ideas.
You couldn't use the same jokes, but you could use the same _quality_ of
jokes. The same brand of humour. If he ever decides and all of that.
Starting fresh, without the 'adaptation' need seems like a good way
forward. I mean, we've already got the games the graphic novels - and
Eric seems to work only for a percentage of readers _as a book_, but for
most _as it was intended_. (I only *have* the book,I had no clue when I
bought it; waaagh, I wants!).
So why not a film? I'd watch it.
Catja
aka PerditaX
Graycat
<daniel...@snowgumfilms.com> wrote:
>The narrated bits in the play left over - are either important plots points,
>or gags. If you really want to keep those bits - you can easily incorporate
>them into the dialogue with minimal rewording.
>
>And what's wrong with narrated films anyway?
>
>Lord of the Rings, Conan, The Princess Bride, Lemony Snickets, Edward
>Scissorhands, The Never Ending Story and Moulin Rouge, just off the top of
>my head all used narration successfully (at least I think so).
Well, Lord of the Rings has some narration - in the prolog of the
first movie for examle - where Galadriel tells a story. But not a
whole lot. What they _did_ do though, to (imo) good effect, was take
bits of the text that was nice but not dialogue, and turn it into
dialogue. The same could probably be done with the DW books.
--
Elin
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/index.html
The Oswalds - premier Discworld casting awards
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/Oswald/index.html
Eric Jarvis
In fact I'd say that "faithfulness" to the original can be a serious
drawback. The key to a successful adaptation is a real commitment to the
adaptation in its own right, so it's a handicap if everyone is looking
over their shoulder at the original all the time. You have to go where the
material takes you, and you have to do that just as intensely as if you
are creating something original.
That means it's essential to stay true to the spirit of what is being
adapted but when the choice is between something that will make the
adaptation better and precisely recreating the original then the
adaptation has to take precedence.
After all we've already read the book. If we want to we can read it again.
The film/play/computer game has to work as something new or it's a
complete waste of time except as a way to make money.
Any Discworld film should be funny, it should tackle the same issues as
the book, the characters and setting should be as recognisable as
possible, but if the plot needs to be changed to fit the new medium then
it should be. I'd rather re-read the book than watch a bad film of it no
matter how accurate.
Flesh-eating Dragon
> That means it's essential to stay true to the spirit of what is being
> adapted but when the choice is between something that will make the
> adaptation better and precisely recreating the original then the
> adaptation has to take precedence.
I think it's lack of closeness to the _spirit_ of the original that
people generally mean when they complain about a film's lack of
faithfulness to the original; IME, deviations from the original usually
only get complained about to the degree that they _are_ a deviation in
spirit and not just in specifics. I'd hazard that the type of deviation
that causes the most upset among fans (partly on account of being
upsetting and partly on account of being common) is probably the type
that consists of a radical personality shift for one or more of the
major characters. Those can indeed be extremely irritating.
Adrian.
Eric Jarvis
However they may be necessary. There are motivations that can be explained
in a novel that can't be shown on screen. That may mean a choice between
having character that works believably or one that's the same as the
book. The general tone and themes should always be kept, or the adaptation
should be clearly labelled as just "inspired by" the original, but pretty
much anything else may NEED to change to make the adaptation work in it's
own right.
Now that I'm taking writing seriously I'm getting to grips with how
mutable everything apart from a basic storyline is. So far I've had
characters change race, gender, sexuality and religion on me. This
includes major characters. They still fulfill the same function in the
storyline, but they do other things too. In the unlikely event that it was
filmed I would have no problem if any of those characters changed again.
To me it wouldn't be that important so long as the same basic ideas are
expressed,
Richard Bos
>
>
> --
> Daniel Knight
> ~The Discworld on the Big Screen!~
> www.snowgumfilms.com/trollbridge
That's... a creative spot to put a signature. Your earlier posts had it
in the right place, too.
> And what's wrong with narrated films anyway?
>
> Lord of the Rings, Conan, The Princess Bride, Lemony Snickets, Edward
> Scissorhands, The Never Ending Story and Moulin Rouge, just off the top of
> my head all used narration successfully (at least I think so).
Well, that's what's wrong with narrated films. Of those films I've only
seen two of which I've also read the books, but in those cases...
LotR - FotR was a great film. It was a fantastic fantasy film. But it
_wasn't_ the film of the Lord of the Rings book. It used most of the
names, much of the plot, and seemed to follow the same story more or
less, but it didn't have the same back-story, the same soul, as the
book. And the way the hobbits had been treated was, IMO, vile. They
weren't comic relief in the book. Samwise was a simplish peasant, but
not a bumbling halfwit. I certainly enjoyed watching it, but only by
ignoring my memory of the book, which is much richer, much more alive,
with a deeper story behind it.
Never Ending Story was a worse film, and a worse adaptation of the book.
And by only filming half of it, they tore out its heart. Frankly, the
less said about it, the better.
This is not something I'd like to see done to the Discworld. If a
Dsicworld book must be filmed, it shouldn't be some half-succesful
adaptation, which manages to put in a narrator to tell all the pretty
words without too harsh an effect, yet completely loses its spirit.
While the jokes and the creative language are great assets of the
Discworld books, if I have to choose between losing the puns and losing
the soul, PVNI EVNT DOMVS.
Richard
am...@hotmail.com
In many cases it is. I was answering to the post that complained
about <whatever> movie not being close to the original. My point
was that in many cases this diference is inavoidable and viewer has
to be ready to see a "product" different from the original.
>The key to a successful adaptation is a real commitment to the
> adaptation in its own right, so it's a handicap if everyone is
looking
> over their shoulder at the original all the time.
Agree. There are some exceptions (like numerous attempts to "improve"
"3 Musketeers" or "Count Monte Cristo") but with more or
less "complex" book faithfulness to the original may be a handicap.
>You have to go where the
> material takes you, and you have to do that just as intensely as if
you
> are creating something original.
And sometimes you have to change original to adjust it to the
changed times.
[]
> Any Discworld film should be funny, it should tackle the same issues
as
> the book, the characters and setting should be as recognisable as
> possible, but if the plot needs to be changed to fit the new medium
then
> it should be. I'd rather re-read the book than watch a bad film of it
no
> matter how accurate.
Indeed.
Thomas Zahr
> ... makes as much sense as getting
> Pavarotti to design bras, or David Beckham to choreograph a
> ballet.
Of course, you'd have Beckham design the bra and Pavarotti
choreograph the ballet ...
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<what a waste>
Darin Johnson
> Of course, you'd have Beckham design the bra and Pavarotti
> choreograph the ballet ...
And after, Beckham would dance in the ballet and Pavarotti
would wear the bra.
--
Darin Johnson
Caution! Under no circumstances confuse the mesh with the
interleave operator, except under confusing circumstances!
Flesh-eating Dragon
> Highlander 2 (The Sickening) and Star Trek: Nemesis are horrible too, but
> not because the movies themselves are so bad, but because the directors and
> producers knew absolutely nothing about the coda of the respective
> movieverses, and displayed their ignorance with pride.
It's not whether they know, but whether they care, surely.
Adrian.