Maurice in 2023

Welcome to the Sir Terry Pratchett Forums
Register here for the Sir Terry Pratchett forum and message boards.
Sign up

=Tamar

Lieutenant
May 20, 2012
12,004
2,900
#1
I believe the theatrical release of The Amazing Maurice is to begin soon. I recall it was supposed to be Jan. 3, 2023 for the US. Now to find a place to see it.
 
#3
Feb 3 for the US, I heard. Australian release is next week (Jan 12), planning to take my niece and nephew next weekend (2nd time for me, given I've seen a preview!)

Discworld Monthly has been trying to keep a list of cinemas screening it up to date:
https://discworldmonthly.co.uk/maurice.php

It's not 100% comprehensive but should at least have the official release dates for each country (where known)
 

=Tamar

Lieutenant
May 20, 2012
12,004
2,900
#7
Early complaints gave some spoilers.
Sir pTerry said that he was all right with changes as long as the heart of the story was there. So I guess it depends on what you consider to be the heart of the story.
I think the heart, or part of it, is "people of different types can learn to live together peaceably." I have the impression that the general idea seems to have been kept.
But I still think that I will be sadly disappointed by the unnecessary changes that have been reported.
 
#8
I guess it depends on what changes you consider "unnecessary".

I find that if an adaptation captures the spirit of the characters and the story, I don't mind changes to character appearances (or diversity of casting for live action), or modifications or compression of the plot (which is pretty much *always* required in any adaptation).

In this, I believe that The Amazing Maurice has done exceedingly well. They have kept fans in mind from the start, and this is still Terry's story - the tone may have been lightened so that the film appeals to a younger audience (I'd have no problems taking 6 year olds to see this, and indeed did so yesterday - she got a little bored, but her 11 year old brother enjoyed it and is planning to read the book next), but far less of the plot was changed than I would have expected (and what has changed is mostly side- or sub- plots).

From what we've seen before, I'd consider e.g. Hogfather to have been a great and faithful adaptation, although it had some casting and direction issues, Going Postal to have more changes in its adaptation, but still managed to become a better telemovie/series because of them, and Amazing Maurice falling a bit between the two, managing both the faithfulness to the essence of the story and characters, and still making modifications due to aiming the animated film at a younger audience than the book.
 

RathDarkblade

Moderator
City Watch
Mar 24, 2015
16,058
3,400
47
Melbourne, Victoria
#9
I haven't seen it yet. (No spoilers, please!) :) Just had too much to do - taking on too much at work. :(

Molokov, I agree that Hogfather was a very faithful adaptation. I don't think there were too many casting or direction issues, though. I do think that the Tooth Fairy herself (i.e. the original one) could've been scarier, but I can see why this was changed.

Going Postal had far more changes (the most glaring, for me, was the fact that
David Suchet as Reacher Gilt actually MURDERS Crispin Horsefry,
and
the total absence of any other members of the Board of the Clacks Company).
But otherwise, it was enjoyable.

What did you think of the adaptation of TCOM and TLF? Just curious. :)

I haven't read TAMAHER recently (not for years, IIRC), so I'll go to see the movie with an open mind. I hope I'll enjoy it. :)
 
#10
The Colour of Magic is the weakest of the 3 Sky telemovies - and it's the only one I didn't buy on DVD. I think David Jason was woefully miscast as Rincewind (he was a decent Albert, however), but I can understand why they did it from a "star name" point of view. Some of the performances were good (e.g. Tim Curry) and the way they managed to pull together some of the disparate bits of the two books together worked, but as a whole, it's just "ok". Whereas Hogfather is "good" and Going Postal is an exciting retelling of the novel (even with some plot details changed).

I guess a lot of where I come from is having done more than 15 of the stage plays. Briggs does a good job of adapting the novels for the stage, but many a subplot is excised (with good reason). He tends to stay much truer to the dialogue of the books than the film versions do (usually lifting Terry's writing verbatim), which is wonderful, but I can also understand why screenwriters feel the need to adapt the words to something more concise, as they usually have less time to play with. (That being said, I was still amazed at how Going Postal managed to use quite a lot of direct dialogue from the book, albeit sometimes in entirely different scenes...)

But... anyway, back to The Amazing Maurice. If you are happy to accept that it's a film designed for a 6-10 year old audience (and their parents), and it's going up against films like Minions or Puss in Boots or whatever the latest Disney one is (Strange World, I guess, although that seems to have flopped - but it's still a very good film!), then what they've managed to do to appeal to that audience *and still* keep it pretty faithful to Terry's story is quite, if you'll excuse the pun, amazing.
 

RathDarkblade

Moderator
City Watch
Mar 24, 2015
16,058
3,400
47
Melbourne, Victoria
#11
Fair enough. I thought the TCOM movie had some good points (Tim Curry, as you mentioned, and Christopher Lee as the voice of Death... I'm sorry, but compared to Mr Lee, I can't picture anyone else doing Death's voice). :)

I've done about 8-9 stage plays (and a heck of a lot more concerts of classical and renaissance music), but haven't done Discworld stage plays.

As for your last point: yes, that's the main difference between book, play and movie. An author (and his editing crew) can take a heck of a lot more liberties with how much to write and publish than a stage director, or a film director. If you tried filming (say) "Feet of Clay" or "The Fifth Elephant" in their entirety -- not leaving one scene out, not one -- then no-one would come to see the films. They would be at least 5 days long. ;)

This is why I get annoyed with film-goers who say "Ooh, deary me, the book was better."

*takes a deep breath* Of course the book was better!! The book was better because there was so much more of the author's original vision!!! And you know why the film didn't have it, don't you??! Because film directors with so-called "vision" and "courage" (oh, sure ... bull****!) cut so much of the book out, and replace it with their own nonsense, and that's how you get scummy gunge like "The Watch" TV show and .......!!!!!! :mad:

Ahem. Excuse me. Time for my dried frog pills ;)
 
Last edited:

RathDarkblade

Moderator
City Watch
Mar 24, 2015
16,058
3,400
47
Melbourne, Victoria
#14
People on YouTube argue that the book is/is not a children's book. *shrug*

I last read this book in 2001 when it came out, so I don't remember all the details, but ... aren't there some dark moments in the book? I remember one of the rats being dropped into a rat-pit and nearly torn to shreds, the Rat King was something like an Eldritch Abomination that had to be killed, one of the rats is caught in a trap and has a near-death experience, etc... oh yes, and the rat-catchers are especially cruel.

Mind you, if you read Grimm's fairy-tales closely (or not even that closely), they're also full of dark moments like this.

So why do films have to cut these bits out and replace them with cute-and-funny (or cute-and-bouncy) stuff? Yes, I get it - to appeal to kids (or rather, to avoid parents getting outraged and suing the cinema/the studio/the entire %&*@ing universe). But ... still ... damn it! Isn't it possible to show those elements in a not-very-dark-but-still-not-cute-and-jokey way? :(

Sigh. Now I'm feeling very depressed. (Like Marvin) ;)
 

Latest posts

User Menu

Newsletter