The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[vince56]

Nidan, when you say "pathetic" do you mean Attack of the Clones pathetic, or Bio-Dome pathetic... because my friend there is a difference

 

[Stout]

Nidan, let me explain something about Shakespeare, and specifically Hamlet. We're pretty sure Elizabethan productions took around 2 hours, give or take, because of the mention of the 'two hours traffic of our stage' in Romeo and Juliet. A lot of plays, however, Hamlet especially, are far too long (Hamlet would run about 4 hours as-is, and that's without bad acting and long pauses that don't need to be there). As such, we often find quarto versions that are a mere skeleton of the original script. Scholars always called these bad quartos, meaning they were pirated, but more and more they believe that they were the actual prompt-book, performance scripts, trimmed down and evolved to put on the stage.

With Hitchhiker's Guide (I'm sorry, but the book IS Hitchhiker's Guide, no matter how much you say it isn't, and so is the movie), you have the same kind of concept. I realize you THINK that the radio version is a sacred cow, but Adams HIMSELF continually re-invented the stories. From words of his own that I've read, each time he brought something new out, it was because he was letting the story evolve. Thus, in ADAMS' mind, the book versions were more factual.

I'm not making a value judgment on how good each were, as I've only read the books. I'm just letting you know that your view of the whole franchise is completely wrong, according to DA. He evolved the story (not even talking movie here). You don't feel the story should have evolved. That's all.

As far as the movie, I don't feel Adams sold out before he died, or that they completely killed his story. It was relatively close to the last version of Adams' story, the book, and it sure in the heck didn't change like the god-awful Sum of All Fears did.

 

[Chaplin]

Wow, all the hatred for the flick. I love the books, and I thought the movie was incredible. It was funny, ingenuitive, captured the story, and translated well to the screen.

And, nidan, Douglas Adams did write much of the script, approved everything about it, and gave it his full stamp of approval. Even though I never saw the show (which I heard was quite ********), or listened to the radio version (which I heard was very good), I just have to remind you that Adams constantly revised all of these stories, and that the film supposedly brought to life the story in the final version that Adams envisioned.

You may not have liked it, but it was Adams' baby, and the public liked it, and there will be a highly popular sequa.

Coming from someone who has not read the books or heard the radio show, there were some very, very funny parts in the movie--even for the uninitiated. But it was far from an incredible movie. And not because of the way it was adapted. From the very little I know of the books, it looks like it was adapted pretty well.

I thought John Malkovich pretty much mailed it in and Sam Rockwell just didn't... fit... in his role, even though he was funny, he just didn't seem right. Not to mention the 2nd head thing, which probably was funnier to a reader of the book, but to the layman was just mildly amusing, and was not really done well effects-wise. You could tell it was fake.

But for all its faults, even to someone who hasn't read the books, it was a pretty funny movie, kinda like a ride at Disneyland you like and will ride on every time you go, but it's no Pirates of the Carribean.

 

[Stout]

Coming from someone who has not read the books or heard the radio show, there were some very, very funny parts in the movie--even for the uninitiated. But it was far from an incredible movie. And not because of the way it was adapted. From the very little I know of the books, it looks like it was adapted pretty well.

I thought John Malkovich pretty much mailed it in and Sam Rockwell just didn't... fit... in his role, even though he was funny, he just didn't seem right. Not to mention the 2nd head thing, which probably was funnier to a reader of the book, but to the layman was just mildly amusing, and was not really done well effects-wise. You could tell it was fake.

But for all its faults, even to someone who hasn't read the books, it was a pretty funny movie, kinda like a ride at Disneyland you like and will ride on every time you go, but it's no Pirates of the Carribean.

A fair enough review. I and my friends found it an incredible new movie, with the exerpts from the diary working with hilarity. Still, can't fault a person for disagreeing.

 

[Chaplin]

A fair enough review. I and my friends found it an incredible new movie, with the exerpts from the diary working with hilarity. Still, can't fault a person for disagreeing.

Another thing was interesting. The first part of the movie actually introduced the Guide, but then after the middle of the movie, it never appeared again. I thought that was a little strange, considering the title of the movie...

 

[Stout]

Another thing was interesting. The first part of the movie actually introduced the Guide, but then after the middle of the movie, it never appeared again. I thought that was a little strange, considering the title of the movie...

Really? I seem to recall that guide animation came throughout the whole movie (though not at the very end...no need). Hmm. I'll have to watch it again if I can.

Also, if you stuck around for the credits, you got another guide reference, which happened to be my favorite little vignette of the whole series.

 

[Chaplin]

Really? I seem to recall that guide animation came throughout the whole movie (though not at the very end...no need). Hmm. I'll have to watch it again if I can.

Also, if you stuck around for the credits, you got another guide reference, which happened to be my favorite little vignette of the whole series.

Yeah, I did see that--and I thought the guide sequences were terrific, just that there were too few of them.

 

[Sandan]

Stout, I really do understand how Adams was continually changing the story. I have been a fan of this for far longer than you have.

I'm trying to explain why I was so disapointed awith it. I mean take the ending not only was it a) Massivly predictable, in fact I called it as soon as the gun went down alongside Marvin, but b) Had nothing to do with the stoary of the Hitchhikers guide.

I can easily see that you would like it as you have had limited exposure to Adams real material. I can also see that Chaplin might like it as he hasn't seen anything else on the the story.

However, even he noticed that the 'guide' made limited appearances.

Like I said, I'm glad you enjoyed it but you didn't see the Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy You saw a screenwriters interpretation of it that had about 10-20% of the material from the original source.

What I don't understand is why this seems to annoy you ?

 

[Sandan]

 

[Gizmo Williams]

I love DA's work including thinks Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency. Maybe I like it too much. You see I cannot believe Douglas Adams would have approved of this production. He died in 1991, do you think the script for this movie hasn't changed since then. Movie production doesn't work that way. Also even a script tells you nothing about how the production will look. So know I don't agree that this is his baby.

He died in 2001, not 1991. So he probably was involved in most of the revisions.

While the movie was probably my least favorite of the four versions (I need to re-watch the TV series). I still enjoyed it and went in expecting that it would need to be changed to fit a 1 1/2 hour movie.

I agree that they should have used more of the animation which would have allowed them to fit in more of the books/radio script.

Did anyone else feel that Sam Rockwell's portrayal of Zaphod was lampooning Bush?

 

[Stout]

Stout, I really do understand how Adams was continually changing the story. I have been a fan of this for far longer than you have.

I'm trying to explain why I was so disapointed awith it. I mean take the ending not only was it a) Massivly predictable, in fact I called it as soon as the gun went down alongside Marvin, but b) Had nothing to do with the stoary of the Hitchhikers guide.

I can easily see that you would like it as you have had limited exposure to Adams real material. I can also see that Chaplin might like it as he hasn't seen anything else on the the story.

However, even he noticed that the 'guide' made limited appearances.

Like I said, I'm glad you enjoyed it but you didn't see the Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy You saw a screenwriters interpretation of it that had about 10-20% of the material from the original source.

What I don't understand is why this seems to annoy you ?

What annoys me is that you're taking a stance not on the Hitchhiker's franchise itself, but on what you're clinging to as the franchise. ADAMS EVOLVED THE STORY. I'm not saying you shouldn't, but you seem to love the origins of the story and the first forays into the story. You decry the books because they aren't true to what you grew to love. Unfortunately for you, Adams made the books the most up-to-date version of HIS story. It's not your story, and you're fully allowed to love the earliest versions the best--I have absolutely no problem with that. The problem I have is that you continually claim the book is not the true form and is the most diluted form. According to Adams, the book is the TRUEST form of the story. It's a harsh reality, but there you are.

Like the time I met my then favorite author. I was and still am a Terry Brooks fan, and outside of kid's stuff, The Sword of Shannara was my first sci fi/fantasy genre read. I met him at a book signing where, to my dismay, I learned that it wasn't pronounced 'Shan-nara' (double hard n), as I had thought and as pronunciation dictates, but was actually 'Shanera' (the second a was pronounced as e). I thought it sounded really dumb and didn't follow the rules of pronunciation at all. I loved meeting him and had a good chat, but I hated the real pronunciation. I've since continued pronouncing it my way, even though I know it's wrong according to the actual author.

That's kind of what you're doing. You're clinging to what you believe the story to be and not recognizing that the creator of the story moved on to a different place. That's what's annoying me, bro. Don't think I'm going nuts, though...I'm not mad or anything...just really annoyed Lol

Note that the above had nothing to do with the movie at all. I'm talking books here. Still, I think you would have enjoyed the movie more if you could accept that the books do indeed represent the story.

 

[Sandan]

My mistake, you are correct it was 2001

 

[Mulli]

I am wondering if this thread belongs under the "How big of a nerd/geek are you? thread. Hard to say.

 

[Sandan]

Actually the TV show came after the book, long after the book.

I'm still obviously not explaining myself correctly. My problem isn't the diversion from the orginal story, so the theory that I am clinging desperatly to the orginal version just isn't true.

In fact as he died in 2001 not 1991 [as I originally thought] it seems likely he had a lot to do with the script. My point is what was likely done after he died. Movie directors change scripts almost out of habit, I suspect the parts I really detested were put in by a director, long after Adams died.

The diversion would have been fine if it had been well written. Douglas Adams never wrote anything as prediciable as the ending to this movie. Not to mention the casting, which was [mostly] horrible ?

It's the little things that tick me off, things that you might not notice. There are punchlines of jokes cut off, such as the part about the planning display department, they cut out the last line of that, why ? It was what really pushed the dialogue into the realm of genius.

btw: I like Terry Brooks as well but just can't get into "Running with the Demon"

 

[Stout]

Actually the TV show came after the book, long after the book.

I'm still obviously not explaining myself correctly. My problem isn't the diversion from the orginal story, so the theory that I am clinging desperatly to the orginal version just isn't true.

In fact as he died in 2001 not 1991 [as I originally thought] it seems likely he had a lot to do with the script. My point is what was likely done after he died. Movie directors change scripts almost out of habit, I suspect the parts I really detested were put in by a director, long after Adams died.

The diversion would have been fine if it had been well written. Douglas Adams never wrote anything as prediciable as the ending to this movie. Not to mention the casting, which was [mostly] horrible ?

It's the little things that tick me off, things that you might not notice. There are punchlines of jokes cut off, such as the part about the planning display department, they cut out the last line of that, why ? It was what really pushed the dialogue into the realm of genius.

btw: I like Terry Brooks as well but just can't get into "Running with the Demon"

Okay, all that I can dig. I disagree with you about the movie, especially the casting (I think Mos Def especially did well), but this is a good post.

I never did get into Running with the Demon either.

 

[Assface]

I just watched this yesterday. I haven't read the book so I can't compare the 2 but I liked the movie. Not a classic but it was funny and one I would recommend.