No he was a wizards raven* that death of rats used to talk ( although he doesnt say the N** word) to Susan in Soul musicIIRC Quoth was Death's Raven, who stuck around for the eyeballs.
I must admit I had forgotten that, I only remembered him being in Death's home.Quoth wasn't Death's Raven - he was the raven in the Wizard's shop in Quirm, who started hanging around with Death of Rats during Soul Music, and then realised there were all the eyeballs available.
I know exactly what you mean. As a reference, take the 'Reacher' films. Now in the books, the description of the hero was based on a rugby player but clearly it was meant to be just a mere chimera as the character when viewed was more like Frodo from LotR.You are all slightly missing my point. There is a difference between a) how physical things are described in words, i.e. the description that the author puts on paper, and b) how readers build up an image of a character.
In this case, I'm simply suggesting that the important image that everyone has is a disembodied voice that speaks in capitals.
Screen adaptations are full of characters where what is shown on screen is actually quite far away from what is described in the books, but quickly feels right. In other words, they do a better job of portraying the physical look of the character than the author does. This makes total sense, because in any long book or series, the author usually only describes the character physically a few times early on, but they write the character the whole way through. The reader's perception of the character is much more formed by behaviour than physical description.
I know there are plenty of literalists who will argue this point until they hear capital letters, so let's not bother - I'm just nothing that my description is generally how successful screen adaptations do it. They let the production cast / design the characterness rather than try to exactly replicate the author's description. In this case there is also enough in the text to justify it, although yes you are right, people who are very literal about things will make exactly the points made above.
So, to get back to my original point - a skeleton with glowing eyes is always going to look twee. Death the character is many things, but he is not twee. The Sky productions suffered because they couldn't sufficiently capture the Death-ness of Death with the literal physical description.
Instead I'd suggest something like a big, dark hood with two pinpricks in it, and a lot of reaction shots where characters thought they weren't being looked at but suddenly realise Death is looking at them (or suddenly not looking at them, like Batman disappearing).
PS If you disagree, look at the two versions of the Mountain in Game of Thrones (or indeed Brienne or Beric Dondarrion); the original descriptions of Yoda / Jabba the Hutt vs the screen versions; Voldemort in the Harry Potter films, etc etc. In all cases the original descriptions are pretty lacking, and sometimes inspired physical creators like Frank Oz or genetic freaks who've won World's Strongest Man are a better fit.
Not quite. It is a story inspired by a Discworld novel drawing on the plot and characters, but written by a punk on crack...So it's a Pratchett inspired by Tolkien inspired spoof of a satire.