It is a thankless job to make a film of a much-loved book. You can make the best film ever, and there will still always be many fans who think you got it wrong because it is not like it was in their head.
"Hogfather" is a SkyOne TV adaption of the Terry Pratchett novel by the same name. And I think they did a fantastic job. It looks and plays every bit as well as other fantasy films (like "A Series of Unfortunate Events" for example). It is really a 3-hour feature film. But it was made for a mere 6 million pounds (ten million dollars), a number which wouldn't even fund the snack budget in a Hollywood production.
The casting is really good, the adaption is unusually faithful, the timing is precise, and the designs are beautiful. Just Death's mask alone is an experience. And Michelle Dockery is beautiful as Susan, Death's granddaughter.
Unfortunately it does not seem to be available in the US yet. I hope it will be soon.
Lots of bits on Utoobe of course.
15 comments:
Dude, that Grim Reaper picture alone makes me want to see it.
Wonko (who for some reason can't seem to log in) says:
I think you'll find that it's so faithful to the book because, to quote the opening titles, it was "Mucked about by Terry Pratchett".
It's possible. On the other hand, the parts were Douglas Adams were directly involved with the Hitchhiker movie were the parts that were totally different from the books. (The last half, basically.)
I love the Discworld books, they are so much fun and witty!
No kidding.
(You'll see earlier posts on them if you use the Search field.)
I think I've actually read all of them now, some twice.
(Though there were a couple I did not get through.)
I had never noticed that tiny Search field before. Another example of harmful excessive modesty? These things are VITALLY handy!
"that Grim Reaper picture alone makes me want to see it."
Yeah, and he's acted well too. (One person doing the body, one doing the voice.)
Wonko (still unable to login) says:
Eolake says:"On the other hand, the parts were Douglas Adams were directly involved with the Hitchhiker movie were the parts that were totally different from the books. "
Ah yes, but the thing about HHGTTG is that DNA continually mucked around with different plots and storylines right from day one until his untimely death. The original radio shows are different to the subsequent studio LP/tapes that were released, which in turn were different to the books, and the TV series was different again. In fact you could say that the only consistency was his inconsistency! There are also legendary tales of Douglas re-writing the next scene of the original radio shows while the cast were performing the preceding one!
I get the feeling Terry Pratchett feel a gret deal more responsibility to create and maintain a consistant "Universe" for the DiscWorld to exist in. Hence the production of the various maps (DiscWorld, Ankh-Morpork, Death's Domain).
I do agree with general comments about how well Death was portayed. Voiced by the late Ian Richardson - he died shortly after transmission of the show - he did a splendid job. My only complaint was that I would have like to have seen more of Susan's hair re-arranging itself as it seems to constantly do in the book. I guess budget restrictions scuppered that one, and it's only a minor gripe.
[Just a note: you're able to write under any name, even without having logged in. Just select "other".]
Aha! Cheers. ;o)
"I would have like to have seen more of Susan's hair re-arranging itself as it seems to constantly do in the book."
It does? I hadn't noticed.
It's clear that the effects budget was stretched. For instance, the monster in the sack.
But those effects they had were gorgeous. Especially the whole of the discworld.
Holy crap, you read my note and answered it seconds after I posted it!
I think holy crap is an ingredient used in some forbidden potion that Harry Potter is supposedly too young to know about. But then, by June the 30th, he'll be 17, an adult by wizard standards. And by July 21st, I'll know whom of him or Loan Voldemortgage has to die according to the Property, I mean, Prophecy. (I'm betting on the evil spamming one.)
Yep, that's right: I was the first living soul to pre-order it in Lebanon. Not bad, for a country of 3 to 4 million people!
Back to topic, I resent fans who keep griping because a book made into a movie HAS to be more or less adapted. What's more normal? It'll never be a carbon-copy, that's why people still read the books.
Although, I must say, they definitely could have included the Quidditch World Cup final in Harry Potter 4. I was eagerly awaiting it. Instead, no Wronski Feint, no Leprechaun gold rain, and not a single Veela!!! ):-P
They could have made five extra minutes of pure eye candy, surely nobody would've complained.
In MY movie, I promise, there'll be lots of Veelas. And they'll be naked, too. Just wait for Henry Pascal and the Passage of the Wolf.
(I would've gone for "...and the Land of the Babes", but Duke Nukem had already claimed the name.)
"Holy crap, you read my note and answered it seconds after I posted it!"
I did? I hadn't even spotted the time of your comment...
"It does? I hadn't noticed."
In the Sky One programme, yes, just once when she's about to embark on her journey. It's a rather neat effect. In the book Susan gets very annoyed at her hair constantly re-arranging itself into various complex hair-dos.
I guess the problem with adaptations from books is that if we care enough about the book - and by extension the characters within the story - our own imagination tends to run riot with the information we're given. I guess that's one of the appeals of fiction. When it comes to adaptations I work on the principle of how well they have kept within the spirit of the work. I'm happy to accept that there will be changes, cuts and contractions, it's more to do with the way they are done. Does it radically alter the story, the basic concepts of which it is based or the world the story takes place in? Similarly writers of film or TV adaptions will always be aware that they can't please everyone.
If I remember correctly the Lord of the Rings films were written by fans of the books, in consultation with other fans. Even with three long films they had to cut a lot out, and change the order of the stories, but it was done with an overwhelming love for the story and a desire to tell it. hence I think the Lord of the Rings films were a sucess, as was Hogfather.
"Our own imagination tends to run riot with the information we're given. I guess that's one of the appeals of fiction."
You said it, Mr Outsidetheasylum!
Mine's so rioting, it's always got the SWAT team hot on its tail. All 9 tails, in fact.
And this ain't no tall tail!
Post a Comment