Did we watch the same programme.

You say nothing about the story, the acting, except for a snide comment about Marc Warren's voice.

And they under-used David Jason?
This is an adaptation of book. Hard things squarish words on the page. The story already exists and they followed it well. You can't suddenly increase David Jason's part!

I suspect whoever reviewed this has neither read the book nor watched the whole of the production.

I truly believe that if you are going to review something, you should do it properly or leave it alone.

to quote Amazon - Was this review useful to you?
NO!

Posted by: christine russell | December 19, 2006 3:18 PM

Harsh words! The production team took on a Herculean task. Not only had they to introduce Discworld to those who hadn't read the books, they had to avoid losing too much of the novel to avoid upsetting those who had! Yes, some of the Ankh-Morpork sets were dark - as you'd expect in a world lit mostly by candles and oil lamps. But were you watching in Crumleys? In the Tooth Fairy's Castle? In the nursery? The production values in those sets knocked spots off any comparable production.

It wasn't perfect - but without ten times the budget and twice the screen time I don't think it could have been much better. I watched both halves and I'll be watching them again next week!

Posted by: Pat Harkin | December 19, 2006 3:31 PM

I'm a firm believer in if a jobs worth doing it's worth doing right. I'm not convinced your reviewer even watched the adaptation.

The quirky behaviour from Marc Warren's Teatime is right for the character. He is meant to put people off and act a bit weird because he is a deranged psychopath.

You failed to mention the wonderful acting provided by Michelle Dockery as Susan.

I would say that to me Albert's part in the series was used more than many. In fact I suspect that very few of Albert's lines were dropped from the original book. Whereas lots of cuts had to be made to fit a full novel into a 3 hour time period.

Finally to criticise the programme because LCD screens are not very good a resolving dark areas is a farce. Does that mean in the future we have to affect the integrity of stories and film makers visions so it will look OK when played back on flawed equipment. I certainly hope not.

Posted by: Jason Anthony | December 19, 2006 3:49 PM

How many subscribers felt they got their money’s worth from this £6m production? 1.5 million, as thats how many people tuned in to watch the second part. Maybe more as the final figures have not been recorded yet.

Have you even read the book? Did you watch it all the way through, or get distracted by something shiny.

I thought the adaptation was spot on, yes there were somethings missing from the book and things had to be changed a little for it to be adapted to TV but the guys that made it did a fantastic job.

Congratulations to the MOB a job well done.

Posted by: John Moores | December 19, 2006 3:52 PM

I thought it was an excellent effort - granted it may have been difficult to follow for some newbies, but I assume the makers were expected a degree of intelligence from the viewing public.. maybe they assumed incorrectly. This wasnt even a review, in future when you want entertainment go to the local electronics store and play with the contrast settings on the Television sets..that should keep you happy.

Posted by: Bob | December 19, 2006 4:03 PM

I enjoyed the MOB production of Hogfather ... the picture quality was FINE on my 32" LCD set, the whole thing *looked* beautiful ... and the adaptation was very faithful to the original story, within the constraints of running time and budget.

Your reviewer has ... obviously ... not read the original story (or he would have, for example, understood Teatime's eyes) and made little attempt to make up for his ignorance by watching intelligently. A lazy effort, in my opinion.

Perhaps he should limit his future reviewing activities to those demanding information screens transmitted by off-air stations.

And, in the short term, maybe his colleagues could have a whip-round and buy him a book of *funny* puns.

That might help ...

Posted by: Colin | December 19, 2006 6:04 PM

Critics - what do they know.
This one obviously didn't watch the programme. Nothing that is said relates to the Film.

So, nothing new there then.

Remember guys, good news doesn't sell!!!

Posted by: Peter | December 20, 2006 7:56 AM

Hehe - rarely have I seen a reviewer so shot down in flames :)

I've read about a dozen of the Discworld novels, but not this one. I watched both parts of Hogfather and thoroughly enjoyed both parts.

I thought Death, the Death of Rats, and Death's grandaughter came over especially well (Ian Richardson has a great voice for Death, though I wish he'd spoken a LITTLE LOUDER, else why is he in capitals?) Cast-wise my only problem was with David Jason who even not having read the book, just felt wrong in this role.

On the topic of Sky's use of £6m to make this, I say "great". It's about time Sky started contributing decent programming rather than just stealing it off other networks ("Lost").

Posted by: John | December 20, 2006 2:30 PM