AliUk,

Yes, I remember the "Hannay" series, it wasn't that bad, but it didn't really "hook" me, although I do seem to remember they did make an effort to get the right feel to it.

Don,

The problem with "proper" duelling on screen is that, if portrayed properly, many of the viewers will either miss it or get bored. Just look what happens with two evenly matched middle weight range boxers are paired off. Often most of the match is spent in "feeling out" the opponent's weaknesses and the crowd get bored because "nothing's happening"). I seem to recall reading somewhere that even Roman gladiators were taught to fight with wide and "showy" blows (rather than tight and economic movements) so that the crowd could see something happening.
Remember that for a great number of people "out there", Errol Flynn in "Robin Hood" was a great swordsman, even if he wouldn't last two minutes against a professional (as Rathbone is said to have proved).

Of Pratchett novels:
I've always thought that Russell Hunter ("Lonely" in the Callan" series) would have mad a good "Nobby", these days it'd have to be Tony Robinson in "Baldrick" mode. I'm not sure who would go well as Fred Colon (Bill Maynard?) Alan Rickman as the Patrician, I have seen Clint Eastwood touted as Vimes and I've seen Paul Darrow ("Avon" in "Blake's 7" for those whoremember it) actually play the part on stage, but I reckon Michael Elphick could do the job. How about Jane Horrocks as Magrat Garlick or Jack Dee as Verence II ?
Why are films like this always so much easier to cast 40 years ago?

Regards

Walrus