Moving Pictures Discussion **Spoilers**

Moderators: Jason, Toothy, Tonyblack

Re: Moving Pictures Discussion **Spoilers**

Postby =Tamar » Mon May 21, 2012 6:29 am

raptornx01 wrote:
=Tamar wrote:First came the wild idea, the idea of the clicks. Then the rest of the energy beings came through, and there was more than one shape behind that screen. They were probably similar, all DD monsters, but the forms were given them by the people who made the clicks their own. The monster had to obey the magic of the clicks, too. What if they had only continued to make little educational filmstrips? Would there have been a monstrous living potter's wheel?


I don't consider the TFTDD to be a part of it. they were a side effect. They just took advantage of an opportunity that was presented. sure the fact of the click magic dictated their form, as it was that that gave them a portal to the disc, but they weren't a part OF that magic.


Are you saying that if the TFTDD hadn't been clustering waiting for a chance to get through, something else would have animated the larger-than-life figures on the screen? Possibly beings of pure glamour? That would be a very interesting concept, glamour itself as a monster. The original Hollywood glamour did wind up pretty much destroyed, after having destroyed quite a few people.

raptornx01 wrote: What she was saying, at least it seemed that way to me, was there may have been more then one part of the click magic. IE, the part giving people ideas, and the part that got released when the door finally opened, were two different things. both still click magic, but still two different "spirits of holy wood"


I read her question as asking about that, not stating that as a given. However, it does seem to me that there are two parts. The first part is the wild idea, which is independent of the TFTDD that come through later. The clicks themselves are not intrinsically bad as an idea; the problem was the connection to the energies hidden in Holy Wood.

More film allusions: Casablanca, enacted by Ruby and Detritus. Cartoons, enacted by the animals on the hillside. I'm not sure whether the duck is Daffy or Donald, but most likely it's early Donald because he was totally inarticulate at first. The cat and mouse remind me of Tom and Jerry.
=Tamar
Member
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 1:16 am

Re: Moving Pictures Discussion **Spoilers**

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Mon May 21, 2012 12:33 pm

Yes I thought Tom and Jerry too and I think you're right about Donald morphing into Daffy too. :) I do have a fairly strong feeling that Terry tried to avoid putting too much of the 'Disney influence' into the story however - hence the mouse is definitely Jerry and not Mickey which is why the Looney Tunes theme is there more predominantly? :twisted: In fact that's virtually the first real satirical gag with the 'That's all Folks' ending to the first screening night at the Alchemist's Guild and even before they start with the banged grains... :lol:

I'm a little perturbed at Terry's seeming reluctance to lampoon Disney - he doesn't shy away from too much controversy ordinarily, but perhaps he's saving that rich cultural vein that for a 'theme park' or corporate blood-sucking parody? :P
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10481
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Re: Moving Pictures Discussion **Spoilers**

Postby Dotsie » Mon May 21, 2012 2:16 pm

I wasn't a big fan of MP when I first read it, as I found the references a bit cheesy (although not as bad as Soul Music, which I've only ever read once), and Gaspode was just irritating. On re-reading though it did grow on me, although I still prefer the later incarnations of the wonder dog.

I can't really remember much right now, but wasn't there a War of the Worlds reference?
What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!
User avatar
Dotsie
Member
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:07 am

Re: Moving Pictures Discussion **Spoilers**

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Wed May 23, 2012 2:50 pm

Did someone mention War of the Worlds? It's in the narrative rather than as an Holy Wood scene and it's a parody of 'the chances of anything coming from Mars' bit :lol:

Dibbler does a Gene Kelly from Singin' in the Rain when he goes to AM to advertise Sworde of Passione and in one of Ginger's Holy Wood dreams she's doing the Marilyn Monroe skirt scene from The Seven Year Itch :lol:
Last edited by Jan Van Quirm on Wed May 23, 2012 2:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10481
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Re: Moving Pictures Discussion **Spoilers**

Postby Tonyblack » Wed May 23, 2012 2:52 pm

Jan Van Quirm wrote:
Dibbler does a Gene Kelly from Singin' in the Rain when he goes to AM to advertise Sworde of Passione :lol:

I love that scene! :lol:

I also always love the sub plot with the 10,000 elephants. :lol:
"Goodness is about what you do. Not what you pray to."
User avatar
Tonyblack
Moderator
 
Posts: 28695
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:29 pm
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Re: Moving Pictures Discussion **Spoilers**

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Wed May 23, 2012 3:00 pm

The running gag for the Cecile B. De Mille style epic movies are just wonderful, especially when the idea of 10,000 elephants are taken literally

The whole ambiance of the dodgy commissary and 'actors are cheap' attitude at the beginning of the book does make some more serious but still funny swipes in a kind of Day of the Locust type way - how the 'little people' were treated as meaningless dross in the early days of Hollywood and how you were nothing if you're not in the clicks (I'm just reading the bit where Ginger has the hump with Victor after Silverfish fires them for taking a lunch break :P )
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10481
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Re: Moving Pictures Discussion **Spoilers**

Postby raptornx01 » Wed May 23, 2012 7:21 pm

Sometimes i wonder if hollywood wouldn't be better off going back to that :lol:
"The reason an author needs to know the rules of grammar isn't so he or she never breaks them, but so the author knows how to break them."
User avatar
raptornx01
Member
 
Posts: 2254
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:03 am
Location: South florida, US

Re: Moving Pictures Discussion **Spoilers**

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Mon May 28, 2012 8:56 pm

Still on the subject of old movies but going right back to the wizard finals - was anyone else reminded of the Doctor in the House films with the perennial student doctor Grimsdyke who had his allowance paid for him whilst he was in training so he just kept flunking the exams? :lol:

Appreciate this might be lost on non-Brit peeps as this is a v. old movie starring Dirk Bogarde but there was another famous actor in that same film called James Robertson Justice who I think is an even better blueprint for Ridcully than St. Brian the Blessed :P
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10481
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Re: Moving Pictures Discussion **Spoilers**

Postby =Tamar » Tue May 29, 2012 9:49 pm

Jan Van Quirm wrote:Still on the subject of old movies but going right back to the wizard finals - was anyone else reminded of the Doctor in the House films with the perennial student doctor Grimsdyke who had his allowance paid for him whilst he was in training so he just kept flunking the exams? :lol:


So there's yet another one! Gordon's novel came out in 1952, movie 1954.
There was a perennial student (Fred Cassidy) in Roger Zelazny's 1975 story, Doorways in the Sand (serialized in 1975, printed in hardcover 1976). But I'm not quite sure whether I also came across that element in a Wodehouse story. Neither of which proves anything, as I know I've found virtually identical structures in very different stories across genres, and the authors probably had no idea that the basic structure had been used elsewhere.
=Tamar
Member
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 1:16 am

Re: Moving Pictures Discussion **Spoilers**

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Wed May 30, 2012 12:38 pm

But Doctor in the House was one of the biggest grossing UK films in the mid-Fifties which was also very much about the right time for a pre-teen Pratchett to have caught it at his local cinema club perhaps (all the big picture house chains (the Odeon/Odium :lol: and ABC minors especially) over here had Saturday morning clubs sessions to catch the upcoming film-going audience early) or been to a matinee perhaps? :P

It also got shown to death on TV in 60s and 70s and a v. popular TV comedy adaptation spin off was shown then as well so with Pterry's magpie addiction to popular culture there's every reason to suppose he knew it quite well... ;)
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10481
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Re: Moving Pictures Discussion **Spoilers**

Postby =Tamar » Wed May 30, 2012 9:19 pm

Jan Van Quirm wrote:But Doctor in the House was one of the biggest grossing UK films in the mid-Fifties which was also very much about the right time for a pre-teen Pratchett to have caught it at his local cinema club perhaps (all the big picture house chains (the Odeon/Odium :lol:


As I understand it, pre-teen Prachett didn't have the cash to go to movies. He barely had cash to get to the library, and buy the occasional second-hand SF magazine or paperback. Also, he was born in 1948. In 1954 when the film came out, he was six years old and the family were not movie-goers and definitely did not have a TV license.

Jan Van Quirm wrote:It also got shown to death on TV in 60s and 70s and a v. popular TV comedy adaptation spin off was shown then as well so with Pterry's magpie addiction to popular culture there's every reason to suppose he knew it quite well... ;)


Pterry was working full-time at the newspaper at age 17 (1965), and as I understand it, probably did not have a TV license then either, certainly not one of his own, and not likely to have had time to waste watching TV either. I think it would be far more likely that he read the Zelazny novel and possibly the original 1952 novel, which he might have found in the library, though he was concentrating on the myth and folklore sections. He may have heard people talking about the main gimmick of the book or the movie. I would be very wary of attempting to link rigidly to anything specific when we have already identified the pattern in several different parts of the Pool of Story.
=Tamar
Member
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 1:16 am

Re: Moving Pictures Discussion **Spoilers**

Postby raptornx01 » Wed May 30, 2012 9:26 pm

offtopic, but curious: TV License?
"The reason an author needs to know the rules of grammar isn't so he or she never breaks them, but so the author knows how to break them."
User avatar
raptornx01
Member
 
Posts: 2254
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:03 am
Location: South florida, US

Re: Moving Pictures Discussion **Spoilers**

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Wed May 30, 2012 9:52 pm

We have to pay a flat fee annual TV licence in the UK Raptorn - used to be for the radio as well. The fee goes towards funding the BBC which is why they don't show adverts (except for hyping their own shows and commercials on some of their satellite channels) and allegedly are able to make 'better' programmes than the other TV/Satellite stations that have to rely of revenue from commercials. :roll:

TV Licensing wrote:It costs £145.50 for colour and £49.00 for a black and white TV Licence.
:shock: I didn't know they still made B&W TVs!

=Tamar wrote:As I understand it, pre-teen Prachett didn't have the cash to go to movies. He barely had cash to get to the library, and buy the occasional second-hand SF magazine or paperback. Also, he was born in 1948. In 1954 when the film came out, he was six years old and the family were not movie-goers and definitely did not have a TV license.

Jan Van Quirm wrote:It also got shown to death on TV in 60s and 70s and a v. popular TV comedy adaptation spin off was shown then as well so with Pterry's magpie addiction to popular culture there's every reason to suppose he knew it quite well... ;)

Can't tell how young you are are where you're from =Tamar (are you Cornish?) but I'm 10 years younger than Terry and in my day it was dead cheap to go to the cinema and parents often gave their kids the money to get them out from under their feet. and if we didn't have the cash to go to the library we walked there, even if it was a few miles away down (and up) a sodding great hill! :lol:

The Doctor series of movies and on TV were really popular in the UK at the time I was old enough to watch in the 60s so it's not impossible that he knew of the films through his friends if not at first hand. :)

The other reason I mentioned the movie was because of the Medical Uni Faculty for the student doctors who behaved very much like the UU academic staff and why I was wondering if anyone else had made the connection
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10481
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Re: Moving Pictures Discussion **Spoilers**

Postby raptornx01 » Wed May 30, 2012 11:25 pm

Jan Van Quirm wrote:We have to pay a flat fee annual TV licence in the UK Raptorn - used to be for the radio as well. The fee goes towards funding the BBC which is why they don't show adverts (except for hyping their own shows and commercials on some of their satellite channels) and allegedly are able to make 'better' programmes than the other TV/Satellite stations that have to rely of revenue from commercials. :roll:



And hand made gifts are always better then store bought. :lol:

wanna toaster?

Image
"The reason an author needs to know the rules of grammar isn't so he or she never breaks them, but so the author knows how to break them."
User avatar
raptornx01
Member
 
Posts: 2254
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:03 am
Location: South florida, US

Re: Moving Pictures Discussion **Spoilers**

Postby Dotsie » Thu May 31, 2012 12:41 pm

=Tamar wrote:As I understand it, pre-teen Prachett didn't have the cash to go to movies. He barely had cash to get to the library, and buy the occasional second-hand SF magazine or paperback. Also, he was born in 1948. In 1954 when the film came out, he was six years old and the family were not movie-goers and definitely did not have a TV license.

You might very well be right, but Terry did write a book about the film industry, for which he would have been certain to have watched a good many films, or at least researched them. As Jan says, Doctor in the House was very popular, so he would have at least heard of it. And anyway, who would choose to sit through Gone With the Wind? Snore! Especially if you don't have time to waste watching TV ;) But he still makes reference to it in the book.
What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!
User avatar
Dotsie
Member
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:07 am

PreviousNext

Return to Discworld novels

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests