The Watch update

[RathDarkblade]

Whether we like it or not, Disney and Harry Potter are massive franchises compared to Discworld with all the films from Disney and a film for each book in the Harry Potter series and spin-offs.

True. As far as Disney's concerned ... you may call me a bluff old traditionalist if you like, but it'd be nice if Disney came up with something original rather than keep pushing The Lion King in my face for 25 years. And now it's Lion King with real (all right, CGI) lions.

Pterry has his detractors, sure. But I don't think he recycled plots (or characters) very often, if at all.

As for Harry Potter ... it's a fine series. I'm just tired of all the hype surrounding it. I still remember when the first HP came out, and everyone lost their minds. Not much of it, least all of all the "magical school", is a particularly original idea. The Quidditch game -- OK, that's original, and kudos to JKR for inventing it.

Please don't get me wrong: I like what JKR did for the fantasy genre, in that she took old ideas and repackaged them in new and interesting ways. I just wish the media would realise that there is more to the fantasy genre than Rowling, Tolkien, and Game of Thrones -- that's all. Then, maybe, Discworld would get the attention it so richly deserves.

 

[=Tamar]

There's plenty of good, fresh fantasy out there. There always was. (So was a lot of bad fantasy.) But the suits in media have refused for decades to allow anything that doesn't match their Joseph Campbellian cultural mythos. Movies have been shoved into the Quest model since Campbell began publishing his monomyth ideas. It is an appealing mythos to begin with or it wouldn't exist, and Western Culture has been conditioned to expect it for generations now. In novels, it can be altered, adapted, or completely ignored, but in film generally, all the differences that add up are ruthlessly removed to force every story into a length of time for people to sit in a theater, and we're back to the same old thing.

The first HP book has the monomyth all over it. Once it was in print and began selling, JKR's amazing skill at media manipulation got the suits interested in fantasy because suddenly they had it shoved in their faces that Fantasy Can Make Money. They had managed to ignore Discworld's success because it grew slowly. A fan of Diana Wynne Jones's work managed to get her wonderfully creative books back in print using the idea that "these are fantasy and will sell just like Harry Potter sold." But DWJ didn't have the clout to keep her stories from being twisted out of recognition, so Howl's Moving Castle took a 90-degree turn and became yet another Miyazaki vehicle instead of the complex psychological portrait it is. Good Omens languished for decades until Neil Gaiman managed to keep enough control over it to keep it fairly true to its origin.

Unless Narrativia can make it happen by keeping control and still getting the funding, I don't want to see more Discworld movies.

[I just reread the first book of Patricia McKillip's Riddle of Stars trilogy, The Riddle-Master of Hed (1976), which is wonderfully creative. Yes, there's a sword, and a birthmark on the hero's forehead, and there are wizards, but it is so very much not just the quest. He is not a quester - he's a questioner, and that's an enormous difference. A movie would lose that totally.]

 

[Who's Wee Dug]

There's plenty of good, fresh fantasy out there. There always was. (So was a lot of bad fantasy.) But the suits in media have refused for decades to allow anything that doesn't match their Joseph Campbellian cultural mythos. Movies have been shoved into the Quest model since Campbell began publishing his monomyth ideas. It is an appealing mythos to begin with or it wouldn't exist, and Western Culture has been conditioned to expect it for generations now. In novels, it can be altered, adapted, or completely ignored, but in film generally, all the differences that add up are ruthlessly removed to force every story into a length of time for people to sit in a theater, and we're back to the same old thing.

The first HP book has the monomyth all over it. Once it was in print and began selling, JKR's amazing skill at media manipulation got the suits interested in fantasy because suddenly they had it shoved in their faces that Fantasy Can Make Money. They had managed to ignore Discworld's success because it grew slowly. A fan of Diana Wynne Jones's work managed to get her wonderfully creative books back in print using the idea that "these are fantasy and will sell just like Harry Potter sold." But DWJ didn't have the clout to keep her stories from being twisted out of recognition, so Howl's Moving Castle took a 90-degree turn and became yet another Miyazaki vehicle instead of the complex psychological portrait it is. Good Omens languished for decades until Neil Gaiman managed to keep enough control over it to keep it fairly true to its origin.

Unless Narrativia can make it happen by keeping control and still getting the funding, I don't want to see more Discworld movies.

[I just reread the first book of Patricia McKillip's Riddle of Stars trilogy, The Riddle-Master of Hed (1976), which is wonderfully creative. Yes, there's a sword, and a birthmark on the hero's forehead, and there are wizards, but it is so very much not just the quest. He is not a quester - he's a questioner, and that's an enormous difference. A movie would lose that totally.]

I still think Sky did a good job on the Discworld films with Hogfather being my favourite one. I will watch it again at Christmas.

 

[Who's Wee Dug]

True. As far as Disney's concerned ... you may call me a bluff old traditionalist if you like, but it'd be nice if Disney came up with something original rather than keep pushing The Lion King in my face for 25 years. And now it's Lion King with real (all right, CGI) lions.

Pterry has his detractors, sure. But I don't think he recycled plots (or characters) very often, if at all.

As for Harry Potter ... it's a fine series. I'm just tired of all the hype surrounding it. I still remember when the first HP came out, and everyone lost their minds. Not much of it, least all of all the "magical school", is a particularly original idea. The Quidditch game -- OK, that's original, and kudos to JKR for inventing it.

Please don't get me wrong: I like what JKR did for the fantasy genre, in that she took old ideas and repackaged them in new and interesting ways. I just wish the media would realise that there is more to the fantasy genre than Rowling, Tolkien, and Game of Thrones -- that's all. Then, maybe, Discworld would get the attention it so richly deserves.

Maybe we should get Rincewind in the Marvel universe. ✨

 

[Who's Wee Dug]

Feegled from the Emporium forum, another scintillating review of the Watch.
Oh crappity crap, it just gets worse and worse
Richard Gurner .. sorry, Dorner, capers around like a demented pixie with Bells' palsy, and the dialogue ...

To call it wooden is to miss the opportunity to use the words leaden, moribund, stilted, and jarring
The other actors display emotion and action only marginally better than seen in Thunderbirds - but then faced with the drivel they are being asked to reel off, who can blame them
I suppose the only consolations are 1) no one outwith BBC America and their streaming partner are showing it (and I hear a rumour that AMC have only signed up for the first three episodes) and 2) it will never be repeated and the 'product' will revert to Narrativia (but not soon enough).
In addendum I might add we name this ship the Not Discworld Iceberg and all who sail in it melt into forgetfulness like a bad dream.

 

[=Tamar]

Sky did a decent job and Hogfather is a treasure, but I fear that the team behind it may be gone.

 

[Molokov]

Feegled from the Emporium forum, another scintillating review of the Watch.
Oh crappity crap, it just gets worse and worse
Richard Gurner .. sorry, Dorner, capers around like a demented pixie with Bells' palsy, and the dialogue ...

To call it wooden is to miss the opportunity to use the words leaden, moribund, stilted, and jarring
The other actors display emotion and action only marginally better than seen in Thunderbirds - but then faced with the drivel they are being asked to reel off, who can blame them
I suppose the only consolations are 1) no one outwith BBC America and their streaming partner are showing it (and I hear a rumour that AMC have only signed up for the first three episodes) and 2) it will never be repeated and the 'product' will revert to Narrativia (but not soon enough).
In addendum I might add we name this ship the Not Discworld Iceberg and all who sail in it melt into forgetfulness like a bad dream.

To be clear: The above comments were made by a Discworld fan on the Emporium forum based on the above trailer. I don't think they have seen the final product. (i.e. it's not a "review" of the actual show).

I have basically given up on The Watch. I am not going to view the latest trailer or the final show. I'm sure it may be able to stand on its own (we can but hope) but it's not Discworld and because I have such a clear picture in my head on what Discworld actually is (from the books), I can't watch anything that perverts it too much.

The Cosgrove Hall cartoons from the 90s proved that a good adaptation can be done. The Sky telemovies from the 00's proved that a good adaptation can be done. The 30+ play adaptations that I've been involved in or watched proved that a good adaptation can be done. All of these had to cut stuff, or slightly modify stuff, and although casting wasn't always perfect, the script wasn't always perfect, the *soul* has pretty much always been near enough to perfect as to make no difference.

And that's what appears to be missing from The Watch (from what I've seen so far). The soul has been twisted far too much from where it started, so that what we see from plot and characters barely resemble what was there originally beyond names and occupational descriptions.

 

[RathDarkblade]

The Cosgrove Hall cartoons from the 90s proved that a good adaptation can be done. The Sky telemovies from the 00's proved that a good adaptation can be done. The 30+ play adaptations that I've been involved in or watched proved that a good adaptation can be done. All of these had to cut stuff, or slightly modify stuff, and although casting wasn't always perfect, the script wasn't always perfect, the *soul* has pretty much always been near enough to perfect as to make no difference.

Amen, for ever and ever. (Which is a tautology, I know -- sorry!)

Incidentally, I was lucky enough to be able to borrow the Cosgrove Hall cartoons from the library (on VHS) and enjoyed them enormously.

I'm also lucky enough to own the Cosgrove Hall cartoons from the 90s on my shelf (on DVD). They are wonderful. The monumental Christopher Lee as DEATH is enough of a treat, but everyone else there is good too.

I haven't seen any play adaptations, unfortunately. Maybe there aren't any down here in Melbourne.

 

[Who's Wee Dug]

To be clear: The above comments were made by a Discworld fan on the Emporium forum based on the above trailer. I don't think they have seen the final product. (i.e. it's not a "review" of the actual show).

I have basically given up on The Watch. I am not going to view the latest trailer or the final show. I'm sure it may be able to stand on its own (we can but hope) but it's not Discworld and because I have such a clear picture in my head on what Discworld actually is (from the books), I can't watch anything that perverts it too much.

The Cosgrove Hall cartoons from the 90s proved that a good adaptation can be done. The Sky telemovies from the 00's proved that a good adaptation can be done. The 30+ play adaptations that I've been involved in or watched proved that a good adaptation can be done. All of these had to cut stuff, or slightly modify stuff, and although casting wasn't always perfect, the script wasn't always perfect, the *soul* has pretty much always been near enough to perfect as to make no difference.

And that's what appears to be missing from The Watch (from what I've seen so far). The soul has been twisted far too much from where it started, so that what we see from plot and characters barely resemble what was there originally beyond names and occupational descriptions.

That was a reply after watching the latest trailer, so obviously not the full film as it has not been released for general viewing.

 

[Mixa]

In addendum I might add we name this ship the Not Discworld Iceberg and all who sail in it melt into forgetfulness like a bad dream.

I absolutey agree with this person. Frankly, I just want to forget this exists, because even bad publicity is publicity in the end. Just like the worst ancient Egyptian punishment, I want to erase the name of The Watch from the temple of my memory.

Mx

 

[Molokov]

I haven't seen any play adaptations, unfortunately. Maybe there aren't any down here in Melbourne.

Last one I heard about was Going Postal which was in October last year (by these guys: https://www.gemcoplayers.org/ ). Gemco tend to do a Discworld play every few years... so maybe keep an eye on them in future.

(Discworld plays seem to be more regular in Brisbane, Adelaide and even Perth. Melbourne less frequently, and I've not heard of any in Sydney city for many years -- although a few in country NSW)

 

[RathDarkblade]

Thanks, Molokov. I heard about that production of Going Postal, but unfortunately I heard too late to go and see it.

 

[Quatermass]

Pterry has his detractors, sure. But I don't think he recycled plots (or characters) very often, if at all.

Actually, that's utter bollocks. How many Death books start with him either trying out human things, or else teaming up with a reluctant Susan to stop a threat to reality, or both? Or a Watch book dealing with Vimes being, well, obstructed at every turn, including Vetinari, though Vetinari at least does it partly to encourage him? Moving Pictures and Soul Music are very similar, every Moist von Lipwig story has Vetinari forcing him to use his skills to revamp some public service...I could go on, but I won't.

Terry Pratchett was very like another author named Terry, specifically Terry Nation, who reused a hell of a lot of tropes, cliches and plots in not just his Doctor Who stories, but in other series like Blake's 7, to the point where I would not be surprised if there was a drinking game around watching his stuff (like take a shot every time there's something to do with nuclear war, bioweapons and plagues, an alien jungle, radiation poisoning, brainwashing, totalitarianism, xenophobia, mutants, robot doubles, etc). Hell, Planet of the Daleks is sometimes called 'Terry Nation's Greatest Hits' because it reuses a lot of stuff and mixes it up, and Genesis of the Daleks came about because Terrance Dicks and Barry Letts pointed out that his newest script had basically been sold to them already, and they wanted something new.

Terry Pratchett, however, was better than Terry Nation because he was better at mixing stuff up, even when he reused plotlines and tropes. He could at least disguise it somewhat better...most of the time. Just sayin'.

 

[=Tamar]

And both Good Omens and Paradise Lost are Biblical fanfic,recycling Adam and Eve and Satan.
There is a point where reduction ad absurdum turns everything into "This is just a story about living creatures doing things."

 

[Quatermass]

And both Good Omens and Paradise Lost are Biblical fanfic,recycling Adam and Eve and Satan.
There is a point where reduction ad absurdum turns everything into "This is just a story about living creatures doing things."

You forgot Dante Aligheri's the Divine Comedy, which is Biblical self-insert fanfic if I ever saw it...

 

[RathDarkblade]

Um, let's please not argue among ourselves. "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"

All I meant, when I said that Terry did not "recycle plots", was exactly that. Sure, there are quite a few books about Susan having to stand in for Death, or the Witches facing dangers, or Vimes facing up to danger, or Rincewind running away. But the point is that it's different every time.

Guards! Guards!, for instance, is very different to Night Watch. Mort is different to Thief of Time. TLF is different to TLH. That's because most major characters, if the author is any good, grow and change over time - yes, even DEATH. They look at situations from a different POV.

Is it possible to compare GG-Vimes to NW-Vimes? TCOM-DEATH with Mort-DEATH? Sourcery-Rincewind with TLH-Rincewind? (In most Rincewind books, Rincewind runs away until he can't, and then he faces the danger. In TLH, Rincewind volunteers. I never thought I'd see him volunteer).

Also, the antagonists and the landscapes are different every time. So it's impossible to say that the plots are exactly -- exactly, mind you -- the same.

Can Wolf (from TFE) be compared with the Dragon (from G!G!), or Dragon, King of Arms (from FOC)? Can Abrim (from S) be compared with The Big Dry (from TLC)? Can anything compare to the Creatures from the Dungeon Dimensions?

Yes, we know that the protagonist -- Vimes, Rincewind, the Witches, DEATH, Tiffany Aching -- will ultimately triumph. They always do. It would be a short book if they didn't. But they don't always do without some sort of cost, nor do they always triumph in the same way. That is what makes the Discworld books interesting, why I keep coming back to them, and why I say that Terry doesn't recycle the same plots.

 

[raisindot]

Gotta disagree with you, Rath. Maybe Pterry never recycled the exact same plots, but he did recycle many narrative conventions. Making Money follows a very similar story arc as Going Postal--Moist gets put in charge of a new business, launches a new kind of currency based on paper, faces a powerful business foe who wants to destroy or kill him, ends up triumphing in the end and helping Vetinari move the city forward in a more modern path.

All of the Tiffany Aching books have her facing off against some kind of supernatural or other-dimensional entity. And, unfortunately, the last third of The Shepherd's Crown horribly mashes together the endings of Wee Free Men and Lords and Ladies.

While the Watch books certainly have different plots, the first four (five, if you count The Truth) all involve conspiracies by members of the aristocracy (usually with the help of Mr. Slant) to have Vetinari removed from power and then the Vimes and company (with the help of Wm De. Worde in The Truth) restore him to power.

And since I'm not a Rincewind fan, I would argue that The Color of Magic and The Light Fantastic basically have the same kind of plot--Rincewind and Twoflower having adventures in different parts of the Discworld.

 

[Penfold]

Ouch.
The Watch Review: Polygon

 

[Ghost]

well at least we have the books

 

[=Tamar]

TCoM and TLF have 'the same kind of plot' because TLF is the continuation of TCoM.
The Tiffany books are the story of the development of a witch. She will of course face supernatural enemies as she grows. It's called a series.
Similarly, in the Moist von Lipwig series, Moist uses his skill with paperwork and wheeler-dealer thinking to modernize old-fashioned businesses. Most of his work in his third book still involves the paperwork and deal-making of getting the rights-of-way to build the railroads. His over-arching skill is communication. Arranging to build bridges (both literal and metaphorical) is part of the process of railroad building. He is also working through his relationship with Vetinari, from adversary to a kind of partnership, in which Vetinari even spends some time working on the railroad in more ways than one.
The Watch series is the stories of the men who are in the Watch, whose job, as the first book's introduction said, was to "stand there and be killed by the hero." It shows the development of Vimes. Of course all the stories involve his job.
It seems odd to criticize a series for being a series.