Talk:Terry Pratchett's Going Postal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discworld, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.DiscworldWikipedia:WikiProject DiscworldTemplate:WikiProject DiscworldDiscworld articles

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Patrician Havelock Vetinari[edit]

Do we have a source for Jeremy Irons playing the Patrician? Last I heard was the talk at the 2008 Convention, in which they said they'd like to get Irons back following TCOM, but hadn't asked him yet. And Terry said that, if it came to it, he could easily justify having a different actor play Vetinari in each film. Daibhid C (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sigh... why the HELL did they replace jeremy irons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.207.170 (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because he wasn't that good in the role, but it was only a cameo in the Colour of Magic--92.21.233.252 (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in my opponion, jeremy irons IS the patrician of anhk morpork! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.204.84 (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with book page?[edit]

Why does this need a separate page? Speculatrix (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Separate from what? ISD (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means the book article. Geoff B (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you mean that, I think there should be seperate, just like most films and TV shows based on books have different articles for the book and the adaptation.

The TV adaptation has numerous and significant differences from the book, ergo should have its own page to avoid confusion and an overlong, combined entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.200.233 (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the title consistent?[edit]

Just wondering if 'Terry Pratchett's Going Postal' is correct...shouldn't it be 'Going Postal (TV film)' ? That would better disambiguate the different things with a class in the title. Gazzat5 (talk) 05:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

I've written a first draft of the plot, but would welcome a tidy up Damiantgordon (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---changed the mention that the TV adaptation lacked the inclusion of the "Pi" subplot to be spelled correctly. It had been spelled as "Pie" like the food and the subplot mentioned is about an inventor that literally changed the nature of Pi (as in 3.141) to be 3, instead, creating a small space-time warp that is used to kill the banshee in the book. Spelling it "Pie" made no sense since the mathematical term is being discussed, not the foodstuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.200.233 (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Production[edit]

I guess this article needs a "production" section also Damiantgordon (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think some more information with regards to the making will be revealed when the DVD comes out. ISD (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]