I’m ambivalent about the thought of making a movie from one of the Discworld books, because movies often disappoint. Pratchett is growing in popularity here and I’d hate a bad movie to damage his rep.
On the other hand, from what I’ve read he’s made it clear in the past that he won’t allow a movie if it requires seriously altering the story.
His books definitely aren’t based on movies, although he certainly does know how to toss in references to contemporary culture.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Pratchett is the funniest and one of the most thought provoking writers working.
“While it isn’t a Discworld book, Good Omens is being filmed by Terry Gilliam, the perfect director to bring out the Pratchett/Gaiman sensibility.”
I agree. I’ve never seen anyone who could so clearly do it. iF gILLIAM COULDN’T NOBADY COULD MAKE A SUCCESSFUL dISC MVIE.
"Neither Vimes, nor Angua some across as very nice in Thief of Time. "
There is a difference between NICE and GOOD. Both of them are GOOD (Yep, even old Vetinari is GOOD, see below) but they don’t always do things politely, as it were. Da-Dum Ksssh! Get the joke?
Vetinari, I think, counts as a good person. He’s just not very nice about it. You might say he is the ultimate cynic who, while losing his faith in humanity, nevertheless couldn’t lose his love for it.
Yes, of course. The Truth. I’ll blame on me re-reading ToT for the third time.
And I think Vetenari (The Vet, taking care of the animals? No?) has faith in humanity, to be human, but no love. This is a man who prefers to enjoy music by reading it.
It’s very clear that Pratchett wants to go in to the American market. He’s said so many times. And with all the merchandising, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a movie set in Discworld in the future. Maybe once he stops writing the series and gets older.
Starship Troopers got made after RAH’s death, and the newer editions of some of his works, make me wonder about the judgment of Virginia Heinlein.
Eh, Vetinari is “stage evil” at best. There’s a lot of talk about dungeons and scorpions and mysteriously disappearing mimes, but he never actually does anything nasty or unpleasant “on screen,” as it were. Most characters are clearly marked as good or evil, and behave accordingly. The good guys may have grating personalities, or humorous moral lapses in minor areas like property law or business ethics, but they’re always the good guys. And usually, their lapses are chiefly tools to illustrate their better natures. Vimes, for example, is an alcoholic mainly so that he can virtuously refuse to drink. Vetinari is a dangerous, powerful autocrat, but he seems to only use his position to bully other bureaucrats (The guild leaders, the Archchancellor, the priests, etc.), never characters sympathetic to the reader. Their flaws almost never lead to real trouble. Vimes is never going to get drunk and accidentally kill a prisoner. Vetinari is never going to have Sgt. Colon executed for incompetence. Susan is never going to get so resentful of her grandfather that she switches sides and starts helping the Auditors.
As for his villains, while they sometimes come from circumstances that make us somewhat sympathetic (the mad watchmaker in Thief of Time, Coin from Sourcery) there is never any ambiguity about the “rightness” of their goals, nor any question that they might succeed.
Further, Pratchett’s books tend to be “safe” reads. He almost never kills his protagonists. Mort got killed offscreen between books, Detritus’ dwarf partner died in… ahg… the book with the gonne. Oh, and Brutha died of old age at the end of Small Gods. There’s no risk in becoming emotionally invested in one of Pratchett’s characters, because they aren’t going to die, and they aren’t going to betray you.
Pratchett’s characters are drawn purposefully broad to better communicate his themes. I don’t see it as a flaw so much as an artistic decision. I think Pratchett could write “real” literature if he wanted to, but he doesn’t. And I don’t necessarily want to read it. He is the best at what he does, and I don’t think writing an excellent comedic novel is any easier than writing an excellent dramatic novel.
Getting back to the original topic, I think another reason his books have a cinematic feel is that he draws more on movies and television for his references than on literature. It’s hard not to see “Dirty” Harry Callahan when you read about Vimes, or the Wicked Witch of the East when you read about Granny Weatherwax. Pratchett draws on powerful visual images already in the culture, which gives his books a powerful visual feel.