The Wee Free Men

[Lady Vetinari]

Please don't let Tim Burton near it - please.

I really don't understand what people see in Tim Burton - for me its all visuals over substance. The only film of his that I liked was Edward Scissorhands (and that's probably because it had Wynona Ryder in it!).

I disagree with that. I find Tim Burton a wonderful story teller and his films are a visual treat. Rarely does he rely on CGI either ... some of his films he uses it but Nightmare, Beatlejuice and the Batman films he did not rely on technology. Big Fish was a beautiful film - that even my mum loved and she's not keen on him! And Corpse Bride makes me cry.
I think also he has the right quirky style that would suit the Tiffany Aching series (better than Sam Raimi at any rate!) Edward Scissorhands best performer was the great Johnny Depp certainly not Winona Ryder ... (not a huge fan of hers! Liked her in Little Women and Beetlejuice but that's about it ... HATED her English accent in Dracula! and her performance in that dreadful adaptation!) The only Burton adaptation film I hated was James and The Giant Peach ... and I've yet to see Mars Attacks!

Still, I am not wanting to convert - just that as a writer I appreciate Tim Burton's storytelling skills. And I stand by what I said.

 

[mroobalooba]

As i've said before i think 'the wee free men' would make an excellent adaption to film based on its detachment from the majority of Discworld novels. Even Granny Weatherwax can be introduced without anyone new to Discworld becoming confused. Another book that could be adapted in the same way is 'Monstrous Regiment' which only includes returning characters such as Sam Vimes.
However, i don't think that Tim Burton making this into a film would work if you look at his usual style. I'm a big fan of Burton films and am interested to see his take on 'Alice in Wonderland'. The point i'm making though is that there is little need to bring a specific style to a film adaption of TWFM because as far as i'm concerned the style comes across very strongly in the book.

I have attempted writing my own script based on this book and only got so far, the hardest element is how to introduce the scenes with Granny Aching without taking an audience from the narrative. But i have pictured scenes in my head so vividly again and again.

At some point i will attempt to upload some storyboards i did of the intro sequence as i saw it and may even make an animatic..bare in mind the pictures aren't great.

I've also done a lot of copies of Paul Kidby's artwork (not traced but larger representations of smaller images he's done) and i'd love people to comment on them. http://mroobalooba.deviantart.com

 

[Jan Van Quirm]

I still haven't really taken to the Wee Free Men as major Discworld characters (I was going to say 'serious' there as in serious players ) for some reason - hated them in Carpe Jugulum and I only recently read the Tiffany series so I'm warming to them I guess, but still think they're peripheral or running (literally) gags to give her (or Granny in CJ) something to react against and move the story along.

As for a film - well

The point i'm making though is that there is little need to bring a specific style to a film adaption of TWFM because as far as i'm concerned the style comes across very strongly in the book.

like you say, stylistically Terry (and Paul) have done it already more or less and most competent director/producers would certainly find that a good kick-off point if nothing else. This is always the problem with book to film productions in that the film-maker have to either go completely with the generally perceived 'rightness' that the book-fans have as reference (if illustrated - for instance what I've seen of the Burton Alice so far is definitely following Tenniel and not the 'disneyfication' ) or else freely interpret and appeal to film-buffs with a progression or updating (thinking of both Batman and Spiderman here to be fair to the directorial contenders mentioned thus far) where other considerations, like demographics... *spits* come into play. Case in point is Peter Jackson's LotR trilogy which mostly looked the part, in some instances almost magically so, but for the book fans, the ending in particular is a huge disappointment (especially for hobbit-lovers).

At this point I don't give a hoot who or how the film is put together, but if I did I might take my sister's route and just boycott the film altogether so it doesn't mess with the movie I have in my head. She didn't take the risk with LotR and I did and, with hindsight, I'm disappointed in my willpower as I couldn't not go and watch it. I think missing out the Scouring of the Shire and divers stupid additions and omissions was just about worth the risk - but only by a smidgeon

Nice set of drawings in there mroobalooga - love Stewie!

 

[Tina a.k.a.SusanSto.Helit]

This is always the problem with book to film productions in that the film-maker have to either go completely with the generally perceived 'rightness' that the book-fans have as reference (if illustrated - for instance what I've seen of the Burton Alice so far is definitely following Tenniel and not the 'disneyfication' ) or else freely interpret and appeal to film-buffs with a progression or updating (thinking of both Batman and Spiderman here to be fair to the directorial contenders mentioned thus far) where other considerations, like demographics... *spits* come into play. (stolen from Jan Van Quirm's post)

My eyes are being oogie today, so twas easier to cut and paste :twisted:

If there were just some way to take the good and Brilliant bits of George Lucas (and CGI) and Steven Spielberg, and Burton, with a dash of Ron Howard and smoosh them into one Fantabulous director/producer it would be able to be a GREAT movie. But, that not being possible and them being all rich and like "oh, I don't feel like doing any work this decade" then, like I said, it would work.

Terry needs his Own cyborgy director who could be controlled and electronically punished when they got out of line, as in "can't we get rid of the Death guy" type of fing.

You would NEED the CGI stuff to make as many feegles as there should be and to make the backwards running/floating ship or coo animules look right, and to get the size of Tiffy's head inside the barrow fing too. You have to consider Horace too. CGI does have it's good points when it comes to making few into many. Or, when doing a cartoon-ish character if you don't want to screw it up by putting a dwarf or small child into a "Horace" suit.

I actually liked the feegles in Carpe Jugulum, they are so silly and wonky that they have a special, somewhat twisted part of my heart. I also love their "Row Row Row yer boat" round/fight on the log. I almost PMSL over that bit.

 

[mroobalooba]

thanks Jan Van Quirm

 

[Jan Van Quirm]

Nothing at all wrong with CGI - if it's used in context and isn't carrying the movie (like Transformers, although admittedly that is all about gadgets so was in context ) I was literally blown away by Jurassic Park and that could never have been made without Industrial Light & Magic, so I definitely agree with you Tina, especially when you need to have huge numbers of very small extras filling the screen

 

[mroobalooba]

It would definitely fall to CGI to create charcaters such as the Feegles and probably a lot of green/blue screen to create the feel of the fairie kingdom. But this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I certainly wouldn't want to see normal actors attempting to play the feegles, it just wouldn't work. For me, their design and look is, and will always be, that of Paul Kidby's drawings.
If i was any good at 3D sculpting, i would love to create a Feegle in 3DS Max in the same style just to see how it would look.

I think it is much easier now, with so much information in the four books, about Tiffany's character, to create a decent film with the possibility of continuing films because we know where the character is going and can help evolve that within the film.

 

[raisindot]

Please don't let Tim Burton near it - please.

I second that 100%. I think Burton is the most overrated director around. Except for "Edward Scissorhands" and the movie about the yuppie ghosts, I've found nearly everything he's done to be all about style over substance.

What he did to "Sweeney Todd," turning perhaps the most radically subversive musical ever writtebn into a glorified splatterfest, is unforgiveable.

The one director I could see who could fully understand this material and make the most of its fantastical elements (and humor) is Terry Gilliam. Alas, he'd end up spending $500 million on it before the studio cancelled it.



J-I-B