Straight Dope Message Board

[TwoCarrotSnowman]

I broadly agree that the overall quality of the adaptation matters more than any individual casting choices, but I must admit I do see Lady Sybil as being quite a bit older (like maybe two decades). I'm fine with all the other choices, though, including Cheery.

It's pretty clear that whoever wrote that Cinema Blend article linked to above hasn't read any of the books. Also, this quote from the article gives me pause:

In the effort to right the city’s wrong, Lady Sybil utilizes “chaotic vigilantism” as the means to do so.

As a calibration aid, I didn't like the adaptation of TCoM, thought Hogfather was OK, and really enjoyed Going Postal. I also thought that the adaptation of Good Omens was near-perfect. 101

[iiandyiiii]

It looks to me like this is more "inspired by" than a straight adaptation. Which could be fine, if done well. 102

[Darren Garrison]

Originally Posted by TwoCarrotSnowman

I broadly agree that the overall quality of the adaptation matters more than any individual casting choices, but I must admit I do see Lady Sybil as being quite a bit older (like maybe two decades).

In Night Watch it was suggested (or outright said?) that her pregnancy was high risk because she was almost too old to have children. This wiki pegs her age then at around 46.

In the effort to right the city’s wrong, Lady Sybil utilizes “chaotic vigilantism” as the means to do so.

At this point, I'm fully exoecting her to be Secret Super Action Hero Girl. Expect a scene where she defeats 20 men using gymnastics. 103

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Darren Garrison

At this point, I'm fully exoecting her to be Secret Super Action Hero Girl. Expect a scene where she defeats 20 men using gymnastics.

It is stated or implied at several points in the books that Sybil is both constitutionally and physically badass - in "Guards! Guards!" she charges a group of soldiers while brandishing a broadsword (and then trips and knocks herself out, but still) and in "Snuff" Vimes tells Stratford he's lucky he didn't try to break into Sybil's stateroom because of what she would have done to him. And she takes a straight-out attempt to murder her with a flamethrower in her stride, not to mention saving herself from a castle full of werewolves.

So gymnastics, no, but defeating 20 men using a morningstar and a small dragon, absolutely. 104

[Darren Garrison]

And is it stated or implied in the books that she is a vigilante? 105

[Chronos]

The thing with Cheery is, a faithful casting was impossible, because dwarvish sexuality works differently from human sexuality. Yes, in the books Cheery is decidedly binary, and presumably cis and hetero (though I don't know if we have any real evidence on either of those scores), but she's also, by her culture's standards, gender-queer. Any casting was bound to be an affront of some sort or other, but I feel like casting a non-queer actor (of either sex) would have been the greater affront. 106

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by Darren Garrison

And is it stated or implied in the books that she is a vigilante?

No where that I remember. 107

[thorny locust]

Sybil is very much part of the Nobility Female Establishment. Which, as Pratchett points out, has historically gotten the work done, including the defense work, while The Men are away at The Wars.

It's also a major point in her character in the original that she's not conventionally attractive, that she's fat, and that she's well past the usual age of marriage and making (until she meets Vimes) the best of expecting to wind up alone. And that she's physically [ETA: as well as mentally] extremely able, and well worth getting married to. Pratchett was making a point. I gather that the casting not only misses the point, but attempts to turn it on its head and effectively deny it. 108

[SmartAleq]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Miranda Hart? Sybil's whole thing is being large in all sorts of ways, not tall and gawkish.

Miranda Hart would be ideal--anyone who's seen her in Call The Midwife can attest that she has a solid, large physicality to her that would be perfect as well as having that bluff, hearty, no-nonsense, sports loving, dog (or dragon) breeding personality and manner of speaking dialled in. If you want Lady Sybil a bit older then Linda Bassett, who took over the Chummy type role in the show would also suit. Miranda's funnier though. 109

[Darren Garrison]

Originally Posted by Chronos

but I feel like casting a non-queer actor (of either sex) would have been the greater affront.

And I would never in a million years have thought that would be a possible need--though I should have guessed. (Eyes rolling so hard that the edges are red-shifting.) 110

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Chronos

she's also, by her culture's standards, gender-queer.

I don't agree.

Would you call an Afghani woman who refused to wear a burka "gender-queer"? Or the suffragettes who wore reform dress? Those're the closest RW equivalent of what Cheery does, to me. 111

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

bluff, hearty, no-nonsense, sports loving, dog (or dragon) breeding personality and manner of speaking

You can sum that all up in the phrase "jolly-hockey-sticks" 112

[Darren Garrison]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

I don't agree.

Would you call an Afghani woman who refused to wear a burka "gender-queer"? Or the suffragettes who wore reform dress? Those're the closest RW equivalent of what Cheery does, to me.

Right--there are no basis in the book that she questions her gender or gender roles--she only wants to dress differently. And--I point out--Cheery never considered shaving her thick beard: she was female, but she was still a dwarf. So if the giant playing her doesn't have and keep a thick beard, then that is just one more level of fundamental fuckup. 113

[Peter Morris]

Cheery is a metaphor for gender issues in contemporary society. Like many Pratchett ideas, it's a mirror image.

Dwarf society on the Discworld is rigidly gender neutral. They barely distinguish between male and female at all. Cheery defies dwarven convention by openly identifying as female. As such she encounters the same problems that a trans person might encounter in our world. 114

[DerNils]

Interesting Topics here. I am as baffled as the next poster about the casting of Sybil. As thorny_locust pointed out, her being a large, mature women is an important Point of her character. Making her a sexy crazy Person is completely besides the Point.
With Cheery I have zero idea where they are going, but I don't care about the gender of actors in one direction or the other - they are playing a role. It will be important how the role of Cheery is set up, not what the actors private gender identification is like. The size is a non-issue, if you look at the Hobbit movies Fantasy dwarfes can be made extremely convincing with modern technology. Though I admit, giving the role to an actual small Person would have worked as well. Pratchetts world is flexible enough to allow for his dwarves to look like real world small persons (with big beards). But I am not so sure how their communities feel about being Fantasy-dwarf Surrogates. Game of Thrones Tyrion is not a Fantasy dwarf at all, and dwarf is used as a derogative term in the real world. Better to give any role to a small Person where size is actually not important to the role, to give them more representation as average People. 115

[iiandyiiii]

Will there be a Nobbs and Colon, or are those parts being written out? 116

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

Dwarf society on the Discworld is rigidly gender neutral.

I don't agree. They're rigidly patriarchal, not neutral. It's only women who have to hide their femaleness - even motherhood - to be subsumed under maleness. I've always read it as much more about feminism than transgender rights.

“You shouldn’t have encouraged her. I mean, of course there’s female dwarfs but . . . I mean, they have the decency not to show it.” - Carrot, in FoC

“All dwarfs are men , sir [...] I mean . . . traditionally." Cheery, in TFE 117

[Peter Morris]

Well, here's the actual passage:


It isn't that women are forced to act male, it's that male and female act the same way because they don't see any difference. 118

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

It isn't that women are forced to act male, it's that male and female act the same way because they don't see any difference.

That's not my interpretation of it at all. Key words there are "anywhere but in private" - they do see the difference, but choose to hide it. They're not applying neutral terms to dwarfs, it's made absolutely clear that they're applying male ones. 119

[typoink]

I think it's fair to say this show is going to be a huge disappointment if you go in wanting a clean, faithful, direct adaptation of Pratchett's works. They're taking aggressive liberties. Sybil is obviously going to be completely different character, the status of the Watch is a bit different, and I think the overall flavor of the city is going to be shifted. And, brace yourselves now, but I'll damn near guarantee that Cheery isn't going to actually be portrayed as a female with a bushy beard.

I'm absolutely fine with that. I don't think Pratchett's writing survives direct adaptation. The prior adaptations are all varying levels of okay to hokey. I don't need a "live action" version of the stories I've already read and reread. If the showrunners make a decent show that draws good inspiration from Pratchett and finds a good balance of humor, adventure, and satire, I'll be completely on-board. 120

[Darren Garrison]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Will there be a Nobbs and Colon, or are those parts being written out?

I already predicted Nobby to be played by Justin Beiber. I'm now predicting that Fred will be played by the late Stephen Hawkins's wheelchair. 121

[thorny locust]

Originally Posted by typoink

I think it's fair to say this show is going to be a huge disappointment if you go in wanting a clean, faithful, direct adaptation of Pratchett's works. They're taking aggressive liberties. Sybil is obviously going to be completely different character, the status of the Watch is a bit different, and I think the overall flavor of the city is going to be shifted. And, brace yourselves now, but I'll damn near guarantee that Cheery isn't going to actually be portrayed as a female with a bushy beard.

I'm absolutely fine with that. I don't think Pratchett's writing survives direct adaptation. The prior adaptations are all varying levels of okay to hokey. I don't need a "live action" version of the stories I've already read and reread. If the showrunners make a decent show that draws good inspiration from Pratchett and finds a good balance of humor, adventure, and satire, I'll be completely on-board.

I'll give them something of a break on casting Cheery, because finding somebody unusually short, female, heavily bearded, capable of acting the part, and willing to do so may not be possible (though someone more up on current actors than I am might be able to suggest somebody, especially since the beard could certainly be added. Skipping the beard is a problem, though, unless they're going to also have beardless male dwarves, since if Discworld dwarf women don't have beards the whole nobody's-supposed-to-be-able-to-tell thing falls apart.)

And I'd give them a break on Sybil's age, as long as she's at least mid-twenties, since a woman in most societies will have noticed by then if she's not considered marriage material by most in the society.

But I'm not going to give them a break on fat/conventionally unattractive. Because Pratchett, as always, is making a point, which he's trying very hard to drive into the back of readers' heads while they're busy laughing. And the point being made in Guards! Guards! is that, all those people who get written off as useless? Don't do that; because a lot of them aren't useless at all, and it's quite possible they're going to be the only ones who can save your ass.

What the casters are proving if they make Sybil conventionally pretty is exactly that either they didn't get the point -- and so shouldn't be trying to adapt, translate, or whatever, Pratchett, because they're bound to screw it up -- or that they got the point, don't like it, and are deliberately counteracting it; which if true is nasty. 122

[silenus]

From the description of the adaptation: Dixi’s Sam Adewunmi will take on the role of Carcer Dun, who is described as “wounded” and “wronged.” Out to takeover destiny itself, Dun works to capture control of Ankh-Morpork. In doing so, Dun aims to exact a “terrible revenge” on a reality that is not just.

Carcer. Wronged.


BULLSHIT!!!

This is going to be a fooking disaster. These asshats will go down as doing the worst adaptation of a book since Paul Verhoeven raped Starship Troopers.

May they rot in whatever Hell has low enough standards to take them. 123

[Peter Morris]

But the Carcer of the book did claim to have been wronged, and see himself as a hero. That part isn't necessarily going to be bad. 124

[silenus]

Everybody says they are innocent and wronged. Carcer was never anything than a bloody efficient psychopathic killer.

They are going to have to invent a new scale to measure how much this is going to suck. 125

[Fair Rarity]

I think if I got to cast, I'd have picked Olivia Colman for Sybill. Not that she's unattractive, but she's not Hollywood Knock-out. And the age is in the right ballpark. Plus she has the ability to pull of the attitude.

I'm not crazy about the casting, but I am not taking it as a literal adaptation. More like the spirit of the DW. So if things are changed and it works, I can live with it. Like if it's more about themes and humor and works on both those ends while not resembling the novels in any way but characters' names? Yeah, that's fine. But only if it works. 126

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by thorny locust

Skipping the beard is a problem, though, unless they're going to also have beardless male dwarves

Casanunda is beardless. 127

[Chronos]

Casanunda is also very far from being a normal dwarf.

The more relevant example, which I've wondered about for a while, is Carrot. Why isn't it scandalous that he's clean-shaven? He can't even say that it's to comply with Watch regulations, because other dwarves in the Watch are allowed to keep their beards. 128

[Broomstick]

Carrot isn't exactly a normal Dwarf, either. Maybe he gets a pass since it's pretty well known he's adopted. 129

[thorny locust]

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

But the Carcer of the book did claim to have been wronged, and see himself as a hero. That part isn't necessarily going to be bad.

It was my distinct impression that those claims were being made entirely cynically -- not that Carcer believed them, but that he was mocking such claims/theories, and/or trying to make Vimes hesitate for long enough to give Carcer a chance to kill Vimes or to escape.

Originally Posted by Fair Rarity

I'm not crazy about the casting, but I am not taking it as a literal adaptation. More like the spirit of the DW. So if things are changed and it works, I can live with it. Like if it's more about themes and humor and works on both those ends

What I'm saying is that the casting, of Sybil at least, does not work with the theme, and is not in the spirit of the original.

Originally Posted by MrDibble

Casanunda is beardless.

Ah. I'd either missed or forgotten that. 130

[Chronos]

By human standards, Carrot isn't a normal dwarf, but by dwarvish standards, he is. To the dwarves, dwarfishness isn't about stature or ancestry; it's about upholding a complicated set of traditions and rituals. One of which is wearing a beard. 131

[Broomstick]

Maybe Carrot can't grow a beard?

And yeah, the other Dwarfs know there's something a bit off about him, they just can't quite put their fingers on it.

You're right, it's an inconsistency. So is Cassanunder's lack of beard. 132

[Alessan]

Consistency and continuity are things that Pratchett picked up along the way; they weren't baked into his books from the start. 133

[Darren Garrison]

Darned History Monks. 134

[TwoCarrotSnowman]

Originally Posted by Darren Garrison

Darned History Monks.

Yep, this is Pratchett's actual canonical explanation for such inconsistencies, IIRC. 135

[Peter Morris]

The auditors and the glass clock caused the inconsistencies, the history monks fought against it, and repaired the damage as best they could. 136

[kaylasdad99]

I feel that Minnie Driver could deliver a passable Sybil Ramkin.

As could Catherine Tate. 137

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

I feel that Minnie Driver could deliver a passable Sybil Ramkin.

As could Catherine Tate.

I like the idea of Tate or Coleman, both have a presence and good comedic chops. 138

[TwoCarrotSnowman]

Originally Posted by What Exit?

I like the idea of Tate or Coleman, both have a presence and good comedic chops.

Yeah, Olivia Colman has the upper-class, jolly hockey sticks, big-hearted-but-with-a-core-of-steel thing down cold. 139

[si_blakely]

Originally Posted by TwoCarrotSnowman

Yeah, Olivia Colman has the upper-class, jolly hockey sticks, big-hearted-but-with-a-core-of-steel thing down cold.

Have you seen Hot Fuzz?

Originally Posted by Doris Thatcher

I could have given you the tour!
I've been around the station a few times!

140

[MrDibble]

I love Olivia Colman, but she's not generally upper-class or jolly-hockey-sticks. I know she's played royalty several times, no need to tell me, but generally, I view her as her characters in Peepshow, or Rev., or Broadchurch long before I view her as Queen Anne. 141

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

I love Olivia Colman, but she's not generally upper-class or jolly-hockey-sticks. I know she's played royalty several times, no need to tell me, but generally, I view her as her characters in Peepshow, or Rev., or Broadchurch long before I view her as Queen Anne.

I've only really noticed her recently, so to me she'll always be the hyper-competent intelligence agent she played in The Night Manager. I guess my point is, Olivia Colman is amazing and can play whatever she wants. 142

[Gyrate]

I doubt they have the budget to afford Colman's current rates. She's just won an Oscar, plus she has a couple of Golden Globes, several BAFTAS (film and television), a ridiculous number of other awards and she's currently up for an Emmy for Fleabag. 143

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

I doubt they have the budget to afford Colman's current rates. She's just won an Oscar, plus she has a couple of Golden Globes, several BAFTAS (film and television), a ridiculous number of other awards and she's currently up for an Emmy for Fleabag.

Would you say she has a much higher rate than, to pick another recent Pratchett series, Sheen and McKean and - especially, given your criteria - multiple award winners David Tennant, John Hamm and Miranda Richardson? Just for one Oscar?

We'll skip over multiple Oscar winner McDormand... 144

[Loach]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

Would you say she has a much higher rate than, to pick another recent Pratchett series, Sheen and McKean and - especially, given your criteria - multiple award winners David Tennant, John Hamm and Miranda Richardson? Just for one Oscar?

We'll skip over multiple Oscar winner McDormand...

Amazon throws a lot more money around than the BBC. Good Omens was a co-production but Amazon put a lot of money into it. 145

[typoink]

Originally Posted by thorny locust

What the casters are proving if they make Sybil conventionally pretty is exactly that either they didn't get the point -- and so shouldn't be trying to adapt, translate, or whatever, Pratchett, because they're bound to screw it up -- or that they got the point, don't like it, and are deliberately counteracting it; which if true is nasty.

Or that they thought something that worked well in the books might be harder to translate to the screen. Or that they were working with constraints from above to make the show "younger" or "sexier" or "prettier" and hope to accomplish the "don't judge a book by its cover" themes from different directions.

As a larger person myself, I definitely am disappointed they're negating that aspect of Sybil and losing the opportunity to tell that particular unique story.

But I don't think that inherently means the story they're telling has to be bad, it just means they're telling a very different story. I'm willing to let them succeed or fail on their own terms and judge the quality of the show on its own merits. 146

[silenus]

If they're telling a different story then they should write an original story, not desecrate a beloved series and besmirch a wonderful writer. They are fundamentally altering at least 3 major characters for no good reason, which means they think they can write better than Pterry could. Which is total bullshit. This project needs to be stopped with extreme prejudice. 147

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Loach

Amazon throws a lot more money around than the BBC. Good Omens was a co-production but Amazon put a lot of money into it.

BBC Studios is not "the BBC" in the traditional sense, though. Look at the production values of Dirk Gently (Elijah Wood), Killing Eve (Sandra Oh), even the new Doctor Who.

And of course, Intruders also had an Academy Awards alum... 148

[MrDibble]

I found out today it's shooting here. That's an odd choice, I would have thought somewhere European would be more apropos. Wonder if I'll recognize any of the sets from Black Sails?

Originally Posted by silenus

If they're telling a different story then they should write an original story, not desecrate a beloved series and besmirch a wonderful writer.

Oh, tone down the hyperbole. Nothing they're doing will have the slightest effect on the existing books, or any impact on the esteem Pterry's held in by his fans.

If it's a shitty show, it'll be forgotten as a footnote.

They are fundamentally altering at least 3 major characters for no good reason

We don't know that, yet. The series hasn't even started shooting yet. Bit early for the "Sky is Falling" song-and-dance. 149

[Small Clanger]

Originally Posted by silenus

This project needs to be stopped with extreme prejudice.

So you're saying: This project needs to be inhumed with extreme impoliteness.


Meanwhile. I don't know any of the context for this series. But Night Watch is really not a stand-alone story. You need to know the back (front?) story of a lot of characters, lots of the watch, Vetenari etc. Where in The Watch arc does it start*?

I mean...

SPOILER:

there are two Vimes in Night Watch

how does that work if you don't know who he is/will be?


* or end, refer back forward to? 150