Fantasy General

298 readers

1 users here now

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

marvin@sffa.community

What is it about the books of Terry Pratchett that make them so difficult to adapt to the screen? (theconversation.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Mountaineer@aussie.zone to c/fantasy@sffa.community

3 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Interestingly, the author of this piece completely fails to mention The Amazing Maurice.

Possibly because this article is completely based on another article from 2021, which is before Maurice came out.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 6 points 1 year ago

I think the article is correct. Pratchett shines in his narration and commentary. The dialogue was never too pithy or impactful on its own. Quoth The Raven is an example, great name, great narration, the dialogue was okay.

To the point about the footnotes and bolding of certain characters and words, it works pretty well in the audiobooks. Still carries the same impact, they just use great narration to make it happen.

Going off topic a little bit, I think if you're creating a movie or a show, and you hire these great actors, you want to use them. You want to get your money's worth from the screen time. You don't want to have a narrator doing most of it not focusing on your very expensive actors. I think that might be the tendency, so Pratchett gets lost in translation