I was reminded talking to my brother that I forgot to watch the final season of The 100, so I started catching up on Netflix. I had forgotten SO MUCH of what happened in S6 but fortunately there's enough exposition that I'm able to keep up.

The Watch is bad.

WHY is adapting Terry Pratchett and Discworld so hard?

To be fair, this particular adaptation took an especially odd and difficult to pull off approach. But I do feel like there is an intrinsic obstacle and would like to think about that some more.

And trying to listen to both at once is likely to give you the same headache you’d get if you were jamming “Where Is My Mind?” in one ear and a half-remembered lute tune in the other.

IJWTS this is exactly the kind of shit my brain tries to earworm me with

I think that there are a few levels of things that make it hard.

First is that, while on first glance, it looks like fairly standard fantasy, plus funny! (Which has to be like catnip for tv/movie developers, especially when also looking at the popularity of the series) but there are things that are fundamentally incompatible with Standard Fantasy Adaptation and will piss your fan base Right Off if you fuck them up. Cf, the casting of Lady Sibyl. These also vary by faction of reader.

I think the narrative structure also trips people up. I know that every time I read a Pratchett, it feels like it's about to be done, with a third of the book left to go. Possibly-relatedly, it's very easy to slightly change the story (generally in ways that make it better fit narrative tropes) that completely undermine the whole damn point of the thing. This often involves simplifying plot elements to streamline the story. Cf Going Postal...which almost worked, but then said kind of the opposite of the book.

But if you try to include everything, then it drags and gets bogged down in detail cf Hogfather (still my favorite, but I think there's at least 10 minutes to be cut).

So, that's my basic theory.

Excellent points. I haven't actually seen much/any adaptations (I tried to watch one once and got bored partway through and never finished although I felt guilty about abandoning it (don't remember which one)) so I can't bring any practical observations to the question.

What do you think of Good Omens? The article mentions it's "inelegant" voiceover, but I have to say I loved just about every aspect of it. Does it count as a Pratchett adaptation? Is it successful and why?

I have SUCH mixed feelings about Good Omens, most of which boil down to "the casting and performances of Crowley and Aziraphale was so magnificent and wonderful I don't even care how much of the rest of it was kind of crap."

(I would, in general, follow Frances MacDormand to the literal ends of the earth and I don't think she did a bad job here, but casting an American narrator was a BAD CHOICE and it should not have happened. Same goes for Michael McKean as Shadwell when Peter Capaldi exists RIGHT THERE.)

Heh, go my selective memory only recalling the bits I like!

I have watched the entire series 3 times with half of my brain making ginormous sparkly heart-eyes at the two leads (plus John Hamm) and the other half scowling at almost every other casting/adaptation choice.

I have watched the entire series 3 times with half of my brain making ginormous sparkly heart-eyes at the two leads (plus John Hamm)

I mean, *was* there even anyone else in the show? Oh, I take it back; I also really loved War. (And I freaked out slightly when Famine showed up in S2 of Umbrella Academy.)

I mean, *was* there even anyone else in the show?

Right?