Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Hogfather

24

Posts

  • Eight RooksEight Rooks Registered User
    edited December 2006
    Dynagrip wrote:
    I am saying that because he has pumped out so many books in a relatively short period of time that it is obvious that he is not really a mastercraftsman of the written word.

    O_o

    Not much more I can say to that, really. Were you traumatised by Shaun Hutson novels as a child or something?

    And Going Postal is probably my favourite Discworld novel.

    <shrugs>

    EDIT: Insert predictable "Anyone who can seriously discern no significant difference between GP and The Incarnations of Immortality - ah, fuck it, anything Anthony has ever done - has something wrong with them" here, won't you?

    <AtlusParker> Sorry I'm playing Pokemon and vomiting at the same time so I'm not following the conversation in a linear fashion.

    Read my book. (It has a robot in it.)
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic I've Done Worse Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Dynagrip wrote:
    I am saying that because he has pumped out so many books in a relatively short period of time that it is obvious that he is not really a mastercraftsman of the written word.

    His books are not polished masterpieces representing the perfection of the written word. His books are entertaining, humorous and contain just enough in interesting ideas to be mildly thought provoking while still being easy reading.

    Trogg wrote: »
    Not as positive as AIDS and cancer, but positive nonetheless.

    PSN: QuipFilter
  • Wraith260Wraith260 Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    His books are not polished masterpieces representing the perfection of the written word.

    and who's are exactly? assuming there even is such a thing as 'the perfection of the written word', who in your opinion* has achieved it?

    *opinion being the very important word here.

    His books are entertaining, humorous and contain just enough in interesting ideas to be mildly thought provoking while still being easy reading.

    and what exactly is it that you think is wrong with this? surely every author struggles for the near perfect balance between entertaining and thought provoking that Pratchett has achieved.

    as for the issue of his works being worthless simply because there are so many, again, what writer wouldn't love to be able to write novel after novel at the pace Pratchett has. also i think its worth noting that the first Discworld novel was published in 1983.

    with any other series fans bitch and scream about the length of time between books which follow on from one another. yet when an (almost completely) non sequentially series gets either 1 or 2 book a year, people decide that the authors a hack for being able to publish multiple stories from the same world/universe in quick succession.

  • thorpethorpe Registered User
    edited December 2006
    Wraith260 wrote:
    His books are not polished masterpieces representing the perfection of the written word.

    and who's are exactly? assuming there even is such a thing as 'the perfection of the written word', who in your opinion* has achieved it?

    *opinion being the very important word here.

    His books are entertaining, humorous and contain just enough in interesting ideas to be mildly thought provoking while still being easy reading.

    and what exactly is it that you think is wrong with this? surely every author struggles for the near perfect balance between entertaining and thought provoking that Pratchett has achieved.

    as for the issue of his works being worthless simply because there are so many, again, what writer wouldn't love to be able to write novel after novel at the pace Pratchett has. also i think its worth noting that the first Discworld novel was published in 1983.

    with any other series fans bitch and scream about the length of time between books which follow on from one another. yet when an (almost completely) non sequentially series gets either 1 or 2 book a year, people decide that the authors a hack for being able to publish multiple stories from the same world/universe in quick succession.

    Dude... Apathetic was complimenting and defending Pratchett, not criticizing him.

    I think.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic I've Done Worse Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    thorpe wrote:
    Dude... Apathetic was complimenting and defending Pratchett, not criticizing him.

    I think.

    I was. He is easily among my favorite authors. He doesn't write 'serious' literature of the kind that English majors fap over, but I don't much care on that point. What he does is a different kind of art than that and one that fewer people succeed at.

    Dyna may have had so many people build him up as the Holy grail of all that is written that his expectation were not in line with what Pratchett actually is. This is what I was commenting upon.

    Trogg wrote: »
    Not as positive as AIDS and cancer, but positive nonetheless.

    PSN: QuipFilter
  • Wraith260Wraith260 Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    thorpe wrote:
    Dude... Apathetic was complimenting and defending Pratchett, not criticizing him.

    I think.

    I was. He is easily among my favorite authors. He doesn't write 'serious' literature of the kind that English majors fap over, but I don't much care on that point. What he does is a different kind of art than that and one that fewer people succeed at.

    Dyna may have had so many people build him up as the Holy grail of all that is written that his expectation were not in line with what Pratchett actually is. This is what I was commenting upon.

    fair enough. guess i just read your post in the wrong way, after reading the few that were coming out against him.

    i know that he's not the greatest author to ever commit word to paper, and does at times get a bit more praise then he deserves, but at the same time there are those who are just as unfairly harsh.

    as for the actual thread subject, just read Hogfather in anticipation of the adaptation, and am looking forward to it. there are a few bits i'm weary over from the trailers(there have been some obvious re-writes, but thats to be expected).

    still it's far from being his worst work and certainly not the worst Discworld novel. anyone who says otherwise obviously hasn't read Colour of Magic(it really did take him a few books to get settled in).

  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Dynagrip wrote:
    I am saying that because he has pumped out so many books in a relatively short period of time that it is obvious that he is not really a mastercraftsman of the written word.

    He's no Dostoyevsky, but he's more entertaining than Dostoyevsky, that's for certain. If you're looking for groundbreaking literature, Pratchett's not your guy, but for really entertaining books with enough substance to be satisfying, Discworld is great.

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • Wraith260Wraith260 Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Dynagrip wrote:
    I am saying that because he has pumped out so many books in a relatively short period of time that it is obvious that he is not really a mastercraftsman of the written word.

    He's no Dostoyevsky, but he's more entertaining than Dostoyevsky, that's for certain. If you're looking for groundbreaking literature, Pratchett's not your guy, but for really entertaining books with enough substance to be satisfying, Discworld is great.

    ok, so maybe this is the kind of post i should have went after to start with. then again, maybe i'm just reading it the wrong way.

    surely on this ground Pratchett comes out on top. whats the point of all that substance if you lose the majority of readers in the first few pages/chapters. the entertainment has to the there to draw people in, otherwise the rest just falls short.

    this sounds most like a criticism of Dostoyevsky than its supposed too. i'll be honest the works of Dostoyevsky are amongst those that i keep meaning to look into but never quite get around too.

    could Pratchett do with moving more towards the 'deep and meaningful' side? yes. but not at the expense of the entertainment, otherwise whats the point?

    surely the best literature is the kind that draws you in by being entertaining, but in the end leaves you thinking about the deeper questions about life, existence and human nature.

  • DukiDuki Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Small Gods and Night Watch are probably his most profound books. Small Gods about religion and Night Watch about human nature.

    Anyone else really like the Science of Discworld books? I've learned a lot from those things.

  • tynictynic PICNIC BADASS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2006
    Dynagrip wrote:
    Please use your words and type them to me so that I may understand the as yet unknown appeal of Going Postal. I would appreciate it very much if you could do this for me. I want to like Pratchett, but I get the feeling that he is only a marginally more clever Piers Anthony.
    I dislike your opinion and therefore shall now accuse you of trolling.

    Fathead.

  • BursarBursar 16 tons of #9 coleslaw Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I think the most important question here is: How can I see this in the US?

    Spoiler:
    My Steam profile | 3DS FC: 0810-0331-1324
    | PSN: Wstfgl | GamerTag: An Evil Plan
  • Wraith260Wraith260 Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Bursar wrote:
    I think the most important question here is: How can I see this in the US?

    it'll probably be torented before christmas. failing that, its being made by Sky which is pretty much the british version of Fox. and if it doesn't appear on there, look out for it on BBC America(which from what i hear tends to show the british shows that aren't simply signed over to PBS).



    thats all going on my miniscule understanding of how US TV/networks actually work and probably shouldn't be trusted all that much. :( so in other words, don't hold your breath.

  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Wraith260 wrote:
    Dynagrip wrote:
    I am saying that because he has pumped out so many books in a relatively short period of time that it is obvious that he is not really a mastercraftsman of the written word.

    He's no Dostoyevsky, but he's more entertaining than Dostoyevsky, that's for certain. If you're looking for groundbreaking literature, Pratchett's not your guy, but for really entertaining books with enough substance to be satisfying, Discworld is great.

    ok, so maybe this is the kind of post i should have went after to start with. then again, maybe i'm just reading it the wrong way.

    surely on this ground Pratchett comes out on top. whats the point of all that substance if you lose the majority of readers in the first few pages/chapters. the entertainment has to the there to draw people in, otherwise the rest just falls short.

    this sounds most like a criticism of Dostoyevsky than its supposed too. i'll be honest the works of Dostoyevsky are amongst those that i keep meaning to look into but never quite get around too.

    could Pratchett do with moving more towards the 'deep and meaningful' side? yes. but not at the expense of the entertainment, otherwise whats the point?

    surely the best literature is the kind that draws you in by being entertaining, but in the end leaves you thinking about the deeper questions about life, existence and human nature.

    Reading Crime and Punishment is an altogether different experience than reading, say, The Fifth Elephant. Taken in context, I would say that Dostoyevsky is the better writer, although I can't say I've read the original Russian novels. I enjoy his work in a different way than I do Pratchett's. If I had to pin it down, Pratchett is entertaining because of his wit, his great dialogue, his relevance and commentary, his hilarious characters, and his often convoluted and even suspenseful plots. Dostoyevsky is enjoyable because, in Crime and Punishment for example, he is peeling back the layers of human thought and behaviour in a hypothetical situation, and dealing with pretty powerful ideas. It's fascinating to read, and much heavier than Pratchett.

    I still like Pratchett more, and I've got a stack of Discworld books to prove it, but that's because I am a sucker for humour and wit and charming characters.

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • Wraith260Wraith260 Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Reading Crime and Punishment is an altogether different experience than reading, say, The Fifth Elephant. Taken in context, I would say that Dostoyevsky is the better writer, although I can't say I've read the original Russian novels. I enjoy his work in a different way than I do Pratchett's. If I had to pin it down, Pratchett is entertaining because of his wit, his great dialogue, his relevance and commentary, his hilarious characters, and his often convoluted and even suspenseful plots. Dostoyevsky is enjoyable because, in Crime and Punishment for example, he is peeling back the layers of human thought and behaviour in a hypothetical situation, and dealing with pretty powerful ideas. It's fascinating to read, and much heavier than Pratchett.

    I still like Pratchett more, and I've got a stack of Discworld books to prove it, but that's because I am a sucker for humour and wit and charming characters.

    again, i wasn't really speaking out against Dostoyevsky. i agree that the ideas behind Crime And Punishment are very intriguing, but again must admit that since i've yet to read it in any form i'm not in the best position to comment.

    as a side note, the BBC produced an adaption of Crime and Punishment for TV a couple of years ago staring Ian McDiarmid and John Simm which was, at least for someone who'd never read the book, very engaging.

    i guess my over all point is that each has their merits. however, i do think that some people are a little to scared to speak out against the classics, and forget that they no doubt had their own fair share of critics when first published.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Wasn't Sam Raimi going to do a Wee Free Men movie?

    optimusighsig.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • Wraith260Wraith260 Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    i think there was a rumour that he was attached to it, but nothing concrete.

    however, i'm still holding out for the animated version of the Bromeliad trilogy that was promised.

  • SlyJokerSlyJoker Registered User
    edited December 2006
    DarkPrimus wrote:
    Wasn't Sam Raimi going to do a Wee Free Men movie?

    According to Wikipedia:

    In January 2006, it was revealed that director Sam Raimi has signed up to make a movie based on this novel, from a script by Pamela Pettler, the writer of Tim Burton's Corpse Bride. Sony Pictures Entertainment have recently acquired the rights to the book. Producers: Josh Donen, Vince Geradis, Ralph Vicinanza. No other details have been released about the movie adaptation.

  • JeedanJeedan Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Dynagrip wrote:
    I am saying that because he has pumped out so many books in a relatively short period of time that it is obvious that he is not really a mastercraftsman of the written word.

    He's a writer, what the hell else do you expect him to do with his time? Its hardly like he needs to churn out books as fast as he can for the money anymore anyway.

  • UndefinedMonkeyUndefinedMonkey Registered User
    edited December 2006
    Based on the clips I've seen on the interwebs, I'm not a huge fan of Teatime. I always thought Teatime should be ridiculously good-natured and friendly; the only really sinister thing you notice is his horribly mismatched eyes. Other than that, you don't really notice anything until he shivs you between the third and fourth ribs.

    [spoiler:76dcb2b124]Ernie the Carter, for example... he'd actually started warming up to Teatime by the time they got to the gate. Then Teatime just stabbed him, rolled him off the cart, and kept right on going without giving it a second thought.[/spoiler:76dcb2b124]

    I always had him pegged as a sort of stereotypical jolly Dickens character (like Scrooge's nephew Fred)... fresh-faced, eager, and maybe even handsome, right up until he decides he doesn't have any more use for you. This guy seems to be playing him like a cross between Norman Bates and Michael Jackson. Won't stop me watching the movie, though; Hogfather is one of my favorite Pratchett books.

    This space intentionally left blank.
  • SUPERSUGASUPERSUGA Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Just watched the first half of this. I'm not sure really.

    I wanted to like it really hard and I certainly didn't dislike it. I'm very neutral, which is strange. I'd have thought this would be "love it or hate it".

  • DynagripDynagrip destroy everything you touch Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2006
    Jeedan wrote:
    Dynagrip wrote:
    I am saying that because he has pumped out so many books in a relatively short period of time that it is obvious that he is not really a mastercraftsman of the written word.

    He's a writer, what the hell else do you expect him to do with his time? Its hardly like he needs to churn out books as fast as he can for the money anymore anyway.
    I expect him to write well and to not write like a jerk Piers Anthony with less puns but more footnotes.

    gusinrepose.png
  • UndefinedMonkeyUndefinedMonkey Registered User
    edited December 2006
    You say "Piers Anthony with less puns" like it's a bad thing...

    This space intentionally left blank.
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Fighting the War on String Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Bursar wrote:
    I think the most important question here is: How can I see this in the US?

    Seconded.

    Anyone?

    75trafim7bi2.png
  • SlyJokerSlyJoker Registered User
    edited December 2006
    Bursar wrote:
    I think the most important question here is: How can I see this in the US?

    Seconded.

    Anyone?

    Thirded.

    The obvious answer was for one of these brits to Tivo and Torrent it. :P

  • SeptimiusSeptimius Registered User
    edited December 2006
    I was interested in it, but I couldn't watch it. Sky's advetising blitz just annoyed me. It became tiresome watching it the last week, at least three mentions of "hogwatching this christmas", making the show, the actualy commercial for the show during every ad break.

    Sky1 also have a reputation for sticking crappy made for TV stuff and slapping it in during holidays.

    Besides, everyone knows David Jason peaked at Count Duckula . :D

  • SUPERSUGASUPERSUGA Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I saw about twenty minutes of the "making of" that was shown a few hours before the programme itself. After this time I realised that they were showing far too much of the story (although I'm familiar with it) and I turned over. Really, if I'd watched the whole of that programme an hour before the proper thing I think I'd have been totally burned out. I think I'd have definitely enjoyed this more if I'd not seen so many bits in adverts already.

  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Now here's a question? did they do the footnotes?

    A lot fo Pratchett is lost without those foot notes that at times can be as long as a whole page.

    I always pictured a Discworld adaptation would pause as moments and have Eric Idle narrate the footnotes.

    sig_zpsf0994cbd.jpg
  • sitteredsittered Registered User
    edited December 2006
    I always pictured a Discworld adaptation would pause as moments and have Eric Idle narrate the footnotes.

    :^:



    Teatime's face made me shite my heart out of my ears; his eye caught me off guard. S'been awhile since I read it.

  • TubeTube Says some shit Administrator, ClubPA admin
    edited December 2006
    I agree with that guy about Teatime. He's not supposed to look scary, apart from the eye.

  • WearingglassesWearingglasses Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    As a complete aside, I think Hugh Laurie would make an excellent Sam Vimes.

    I just got a copy of the Hogfather book though, so I need to breeze through it before waiting to see this.

    heeee.jpg
    PSN: BlakeMaxwell3 Steam: meganekun
  • TubeTube Says some shit Administrator, ClubPA admin
    edited December 2006
    it's funny that two years ago no one would even have thought of that

  • Wraith260Wraith260 Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    As a complete aside, I think Hugh Laurie would make an excellent Sam Vimes.

    oh come on, Sam Vimes should be played by Brain Cox plain and simple. Hugh Laurie would make an interesting Patrician though.

    have just watched the first part and have to say that my only real complaint it Teatime. perhaps if Warren had played it a bit more straight it would have worked better.

    there were a couple of other little things that didn't quite match how i'd imagined it, but that's to be expected with any adaptation.

    for who ever asked, no the footnotes were not covered, and this i think is the main problem with trying to adapt the Discworld books. its not so much what the characters say or do that is funny, but more they way that Pratchett writes it.

  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Wraith260 wrote:
    As a complete aside, I think Hugh Laurie would make an excellent Sam Vimes.

    oh come on, Sam Vimes should be played by Brain Cox plain and simple.
    supremacy2.jpg

    What the hell? In what universe has Vimes ever been characterized as a pudgy, white-haired fuck who gets winded eating a ham sandwich?

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • Wraith260Wraith260 Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Vimes

    surely i can't be the only one that thinks that's a near perfect look for the Vimes of Guards! Guards!. doesn't look too old, though personally i think a few grey streaks(perhaps not at first but developing as he rises in rank/status) would add to the character.

    there's also the subject of his alcoholism, so its not like he's ever described as being the pinnacle of physical fitness either.

  • UndefinedMonkeyUndefinedMonkey Registered User
    edited December 2006
    I've always thought Robert Llewellyn would make a decent Vimes. This could be because I reading quite a lot of the Night Watch series around the same time that I was really obsessively watching Junkyard Wars. Regardless, he's got that great haggard, perennially scruffy look, and seems as though he'd pull off the darkly cynical vibe quite well.

    Oh, and there can be but one Patrician: Alan Rickman. Pratchett himself said that he pretty much wrote Vetinari with Rickman in mind.

    This space intentionally left blank.
  • BursarBursar 16 tons of #9 coleslaw Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I thought Bob Hoskins would make a good Vimes, but he's pretty old (and bald) lately. I guess he'd make a good Fred Colon, though.

    Spoiler:
    My Steam profile | 3DS FC: 0810-0331-1324
    | PSN: Wstfgl | GamerTag: An Evil Plan
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Wraith260 wrote:
    Vimes is a world-weary, walks everywhere to the point he can tell where he is in the city by the feel of the cobbles on his feet, drinks too much, smokes too much Marlowe/Dirty Harry-esque alcoholic detective, not a jowls on his jowls, pass another donut or 5 jovial corrupt cop alcoholic. Cox has the wrong look and projects the wrong personality for the character.

    Vimes is a hard character to picture anyone as, but Laurie's a damn sight closer than Cox. Maybe an older or gaunter Sean Bean, or a considerably younger James Cromwell.

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • DynagripDynagrip destroy everything you touch Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2006
    Would a decent actor actually want to play Vimes though?

    gusinrepose.png
  • UndefinedMonkeyUndefinedMonkey Registered User
    edited December 2006
    I remember Llewellyn dropping a few Discworld references throughout his stint on Junkyard Wars, so I'm guessing he'd be a fan. Pratchett's got a huge following on both sides of the pond; hell, they got Christopher Lee to play Death in the oh-so-hideous animated series, so I'm guessing it wouldn't be too difficult.

    Oh, and Senjutsu totally has Vimes pegged. I'm not sure Laurie could pull off the whole raging "Fred! Where in the seven hells is that gods-damned report? Has anyone seen the petty cash? Someone turn Nobby upside down and shake him 'till it comes out and WHERE THE HELL ARE CARROT AND ANGUA?! For the love of all that's holy, Cheery, why is there greenery in this BLT? Ye gods.... " kind of bluster, but he's definitely got the right build and sarcastic bent. Then again, I never would have predicted his House character after Jeeves & Wooster, so anything's possible.

    Bad Dyna.. trying to make Discworld fans upset in a Discworld thread.

    This space intentionally left blank.
  • DukiDuki Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Alan Rickman as Vetinari, yeah.

    About 30 years ago, Clint Eastwood for Vimes.Kidby pretty much drew him like that anyway.

Sign In or Register to comment.