SPOILERS Moving Pictures Discussion **Spoilers**

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
11,961
2,900
#41
Jan Van Quirm said:
But Doctor in the House was one of the biggest grossing UK films in the mid-Fifties which was also very much about the right time for a pre-teen Pratchett to have caught it at his local cinema club perhaps (all the big picture house chains (the Odeon/Odium :laugh:
As I understand it, pre-teen Prachett didn't have the cash to go to movies. He barely had cash to get to the library, and buy the occasional second-hand SF magazine or paperback. Also, he was born in 1948. In 1954 when the film came out, he was six years old and the family were not movie-goers and definitely did not have a TV license.

Jan Van Quirm said:
It also got shown to death on TV in 60s and 70s and a v. popular TV comedy adaptation spin off was shown then as well so with Pterry's magpie addiction to popular culture there's every reason to suppose he knew it quite well... ;)
Pterry was working full-time at the newspaper at age 17 (1965), and as I understand it, probably did not have a TV license then either, certainly not one of his own, and not likely to have had time to waste watching TV either. I think it would be far more likely that he read the Zelazny novel and possibly the original 1952 novel, which he might have found in the library, though he was concentrating on the myth and folklore sections. He may have heard people talking about the main gimmick of the book or the movie. I would be very wary of attempting to link rigidly to anything specific when we have already identified the pattern in several different parts of the Pool of Story.
 

Jan Van Quirm

Sergeant-at-Arms
Nov 7, 2008
8,524
2,800
Dunheved, Kernow
www.janhawke.me.uk
#43
We have to pay a flat fee annual TV licence in the UK Raptorn - used to be for the radio as well. The fee goes towards funding the BBC which is why they don't show adverts (except for hyping their own shows and commercials on some of their satellite channels) and allegedly are able to make 'better' programmes than the other TV/Satellite stations that have to rely of revenue from commercials. :rolleyes:

TV Licensing said:
It costs £145.50 for colour and £49.00 for a black and white TV Licence.
:eek: I didn't know they still made B&W TVs!

=Tamar said:
As I understand it, pre-teen Prachett didn't have the cash to go to movies. He barely had cash to get to the library, and buy the occasional second-hand SF magazine or paperback. Also, he was born in 1948. In 1954 when the film came out, he was six years old and the family were not movie-goers and definitely did not have a TV license.

Jan Van Quirm said:
It also got shown to death on TV in 60s and 70s and a v. popular TV comedy adaptation spin off was shown then as well so with Pterry's magpie addiction to popular culture there's every reason to suppose he knew it quite well... ;)
Can't tell how young you are are where you're from =Tamar (are you Cornish?) but I'm 10 years younger than Terry and in my day it was dead cheap to go to the cinema and parents often gave their kids the money to get them out from under their feet. and if we didn't have the cash to go to the library we walked there, even if it was a few miles away down (and up) a sodding great hill! :laugh:

The Doctor series of movies and on TV were really popular in the UK at the time I was old enough to watch in the 60s so it's not impossible that he knew of the films through his friends if not at first hand. :)

The other reason I mentioned the movie was because of the Medical Uni Faculty for the student doctors who behaved very much like the UU academic staff and why I was wondering if anyone else had made the connection
 
Jan 13, 2012
2,337
2,600
South florida, US
www.youtube.com
#44
Jan Van Quirm said:
We have to pay a flat fee annual TV licence in the UK Raptorn - used to be for the radio as well. The fee goes towards funding the BBC which is why they don't show adverts (except for hyping their own shows and commercials on some of their satellite channels) and allegedly are able to make 'better' programmes than the other TV/Satellite stations that have to rely of revenue from commercials. :rolleyes:
And hand made gifts are always better then store bought. :laugh:

wanna toaster?

 

Dotsie

Sergeant-at-Arms
Jul 28, 2008
9,068
2,850
#45
=Tamar said:
As I understand it, pre-teen Prachett didn't have the cash to go to movies. He barely had cash to get to the library, and buy the occasional second-hand SF magazine or paperback. Also, he was born in 1948. In 1954 when the film came out, he was six years old and the family were not movie-goers and definitely did not have a TV license.
You might very well be right, but Terry did write a book about the film industry, for which he would have been certain to have watched a good many films, or at least researched them. As Jan says, Doctor in the House was very popular, so he would have at least heard of it. And anyway, who would choose to sit through Gone With the Wind? Snore! Especially if you don't have time to waste watching TV ;) But he still makes reference to it in the book.
 

raisindot

Sergeant-at-Arms
Oct 1, 2009
5,125
2,450
Boston, MA USA
#47
Dotsie said:
=Tamar said:
As I understand it, pre-teen Prachett didn't have the cash to go to movies. He barely had cash to get to the library, and buy the occasional second-hand SF magazine or paperback. Also, he was born in 1948. In 1954 when the film came out, he was six years old and the family were not movie-goers and definitely did not have a TV license.
You might very well be right, but Terry did write a book about the film industry, for which he would have been certain to have watched a good many films, or at least researched them. As Jan says, Doctor in the House was very popular, so he would have at least heard of it. And anyway, who would choose to sit through Gone With the Wind? Snore! Especially if you don't have time to waste watching TV ;) But he still makes reference to it in the book.
Hmmmm....if Pterry was poor, didn't have cash to read movies, go to the library, or watch TV there is certainly no way that he could possibly have amassed enough of an education to be able to come up with the thousands of cultural, historical and scientific references in his books.

This of course, can only mean one thing.

THE MAN KNOWN AS TERRY PRATCHETT IS NOT THE REAL AUTHOR OF THE DISCWORLD BOOKS AND INSTEAD SERVES AS A FRONT FOR A SYNDICATE OF AUTHORS WRITING UNDER HIS NAME.

This would explain everything. After all, what English writer of any consequence would want to be known for writing fantasy parody books? The actor playing the persona of Terry Pratchett agreed to serve as a front for these 'slummers.'

This explains the often abrupt shifts in style. The first 'joke-heavy' Rincewind books were most likely written by someone like--Doug Adams, perhaps?

After awhile, this first ghost author was switched out to someone (or several) who were able to bring more depth and quality to the series (Neil Gaiman? Tom Sharpe?). Then, finally, budgetary problems forced the syndicate to bring in a less-talented writer who is responsible for more muddled and lower quality recent books (George R.R. Martin?). Meanwhile, the actor pretending to be Pterry has been meticulously coached by the syndicate to appear erudite, educated and intellectual.

This could be the biggest literacy conspiracy since someone decided to publish Fifty Shades of Gray. :laugh:
 

Dotsie

Sergeant-at-Arms
Jul 28, 2008
9,068
2,850
#49
:laugh:

Well, it's certainly a theory. And never let the facts stand in the way of a good story, I say!
 

=Tamar

Lieutenant
May 20, 2012
11,961
2,900
#51
Rereading Moving Pictures, today it occurred to me that there is a strong alchemy base to the story. I don't mean the obvious one, that the alchemists invented - or were caused to invent - octocellulose which let them invent moving pictures. I mean the symbolism of alchemy, as it was used in the Renaissance to symbolize a human process of personal growth. It's not a one-to-one correspondence, but there seems to be a connection.

The deliberate mystification of alchemy symbolism had variations, but there were certain things that stayed fairly consistent. The material to begin with was common, worthless, and found everywhere.
The standard formula for alchemy is a combination of sulphur (yellowish), mercury (quick-silver, "living silver"), and salt (often considered unnecessary but the third element was traditional). In Holy Wood there is a screen that looks like mercury, and the screen in Ankh-Morpork becomes the same when it is taken over; when the Things from the Dungeon Dimensions break through, they take on the appearance of being coated with mercury even though the films were made in color. In Ankh-Morpork and again in Holy Wood, the TFTDD break through a mercury-like screen. The fireball that destroys the gate in Ankh-Morpork is lit with matches, which are still made with sulphur.

There was a sequence of color coding in alchemy: the process began with black putrescence, moved to white light and dawn, then on to yellow or golden light, and then to red, the Rubeus stage at which the Philosopher's Stone could be used for life extension or to turn base materials into gold.
Victor (and Ginger) go through the intensely dark tunnel to the rotting theater under the hill, where Ginger (entranced) holds up a torch that produces blindingly white light. The theater mechanisms have broken so they leave, getting caught in the blackness of the tunnel again until rescued by the dogs and the trolls. (The professional dog, Laddie, is golden yellow.) The tunnel collapses and the next morning there is a shining white fog.

People asked Sir Terry whether the coincidence of Ruby's and Ginger's names both meaning "red" were an allusion to Scarlett O'Hara. He said no. But nobody asked him whether they were alchemical, referring to the Rubeus stage. Ruby comes out of the darkness of the jazz club and makes an impression on Detritus (detritus means "a common material, considered worthless"), who immediately begins to reform his old way of life. Ginger manages to energize even Victor to attempt more than he had intended before.
 

RathDarkblade

Moderator
City Watch
Mar 24, 2015
15,992
3,400
47
Melbourne, Victoria
#52
Hmmm... very interesting. I never knew that. :) Thanks, =Tamar! :)

raisindot said:
THE MAN KNOWN AS TERRY PRATCHETT IS NOT THE REAL AUTHOR OF THE DISCWORLD BOOKS AND INSTEAD SERVES AS A FRONT FOR A SYNDICATE OF AUTHORS WRITING UNDER HIS NAME.
:laugh: Yep! And Shakespeare did not write his plays, and they were written by a committee of lords and noblemen, with Big Bill acting as a front for them.

Don't laugh, there are some people who believe that. ;)
 

RathDarkblade

Moderator
City Watch
Mar 24, 2015
15,992
3,400
47
Melbourne, Victoria
#57
Bah! I've read all of these conspiracy theories before - both the pros and cons - and frankly, they don't impress me. :devil:

Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. Sure, his dad may have been a boot salesman, but Shakespeare himself was smarter than people give him credit for. ;)
 

The Mad Collector

Sergeant-at-Arms
Sep 1, 2010
9,918
2,850
61
Ironbridge UK
www.bearsonthesquare.com
#60
RathDarkblade said:
raisindot said:
THE MAN KNOWN AS TERRY PRATCHETT IS NOT THE REAL AUTHOR OF THE DISCWORLD BOOKS AND INSTEAD SERVES AS A FRONT FOR A SYNDICATE OF AUTHORS WRITING UNDER HIS NAME.
This is the old theory about Isaac Asimov repackaged. Asimov wrote or edited over 500 books so it was widely assumed he was in fact several people using his name. Actually he was just very very prolific and never stopped writing
 

User Menu

Newsletter