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?

With Good Omens, the other author, Gaiman, was both extremely invested in preserving Pratchett’s intent/ideas and had a depth of understanding what made the book work because he’d helped create it. Add that to experience in writing for genre tv (Doctor Who), and you have a really strong support for getting it right. I don’t think Discworld has an equivalent.

I think it was one of the most successful adaptations, but that's for some "perfect storm" reasons...many of which boil down to "Neil Gaiman" Like, when the guy who co-wrote is it making decisions its a lot harder to argue with them.

I do think the miniseries is the right length for adaptations generally.

And I don't know that it's possible to get rid of the narrator without getting REAL creative (hovering text, using camera and editing as a sort of "silent narrator" with flashbacks and whatnot). It reminds me of the Muppet Christmas Carol essay. Without Dickens as a character, you lose the whole vibe.

With Good Omens, the other author, Gaiman, was both extremely invested in preserving Pratchett’s intent/ideas and had a depth of understanding what made the book work because he’d helped create it.

He wrote the cold open of episode 3 for the miniseries, and it fit so well that I really thought I forgot a huge chunk of the book. But, nope. When one of the authors of the book is the showrunner, he can add stuff that fits seamlessly.

I think it was one of the most successful adaptations, but that's for some "perfect storm" reasons...many of which boil down to "Neil Gaiman" Like, when the guy who co-wrote is it making decisions its a lot harder to argue with them.

Honestly, this. I read an interview with him where he said that he hated being the showrunner, but he felt like the series ended up being something that Terry would have loved, which was his (Gaiman's) only real goal.