At least it's still forty-two...
April 9, 2005 6:37 PM Subscribe
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy isn't sounding too flash. "This is a terrible, terrible film and it makes me want to weep."
At least we enjoyed the trailer!
Considering how much I loved this book series (somehow, I knew I would even before I read it), this is a sad, sad thing to read. Especially if it will drive people away from the book series.
HHGTTG really deserves the kind of treatment that the LOTR got.
posted by Lectrick at 6:49 PM on April 9, 2005
HHGTTG really deserves the kind of treatment that the LOTR got.
posted by Lectrick at 6:49 PM on April 9, 2005
i'm not reading that review.
remember the film is NOT a remake. it's a whole new interpretation.
you have to go into the film with that mindset.
this film will encourage people to read the books, and the extra details in the books will flesh out some details for them and they'll go "ah, that's cool".
i remain blindly hopeful. and as for the guide entry on towels, there's always the dvd extras!!
posted by knapah at 6:58 PM on April 9, 2005
remember the film is NOT a remake. it's a whole new interpretation.
you have to go into the film with that mindset.
this film will encourage people to read the books, and the extra details in the books will flesh out some details for them and they'll go "ah, that's cool".
i remain blindly hopeful. and as for the guide entry on towels, there's always the dvd extras!!
posted by knapah at 6:58 PM on April 9, 2005
This is disheartening.
I think they tried to make an action-flick blockbuster out of it, rather than the interstellar absurdist comedy that the books were.
Bummer.
posted by jonmc at 7:01 PM on April 9, 2005
I think they tried to make an action-flick blockbuster out of it, rather than the interstellar absurdist comedy that the books were.
Bummer.
posted by jonmc at 7:01 PM on April 9, 2005
In fairness, the review reads as if its author wanted (and expected) a literal dramatisation of the book(s), without any changes, additions or deletions. This was never going to happen -- for one thing, it wouldn't have made for a good movie. Having said that, I'm worried about the film too.
posted by Zonker at 7:02 PM on April 9, 2005
posted by Zonker at 7:02 PM on April 9, 2005
remember the film is NOT a remake. it's a whole new interpretation.
One can "interpret" Greek dramas. One can "interpret" fairytales. The strength of HHGTTG is in the detail not the tale - attempting a new "interpretation" of something like this is foolish, espcially if it means jokes are left unfinished and characters are modified.
posted by Jimbob at 7:03 PM on April 9, 2005
One can "interpret" Greek dramas. One can "interpret" fairytales. The strength of HHGTTG is in the detail not the tale - attempting a new "interpretation" of something like this is foolish, espcially if it means jokes are left unfinished and characters are modified.
posted by Jimbob at 7:03 PM on April 9, 2005
this film will encourage people to read the books
Why? Assuming the review (which you haven't read) is correct and the film sucks on its merits -- a point the review touches on -- why would it encourage anyone to read the books? When was the last time you saw a film and said "my god that was awful. I must now in haste hie myself to read the book"?
On preview, Zonker, the review does say ’"It's not even a good film if viewed as an original work". Granted, that's just one person's opinion but at least he does address your point.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:06 PM on April 9, 2005
Why? Assuming the review (which you haven't read) is correct and the film sucks on its merits -- a point the review touches on -- why would it encourage anyone to read the books? When was the last time you saw a film and said "my god that was awful. I must now in haste hie myself to read the book"?
On preview, Zonker, the review does say ’"It's not even a good film if viewed as an original work". Granted, that's just one person's opinion but at least he does address your point.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:06 PM on April 9, 2005
I think I'll wait to see it for myself (or at least for a few more reports to come in) before I start weeping into my jynnan tonnyx. Much as I respect MJ Simpson for, well, knowing shit-loads about Douglas Adams, he could well be too close to the originals to be objective about the film. Yes, he says that it doesn't work on its own merits, but he's clearly so pissed off about the changes and omissions that it could have soured his view of the whole thing.
I don't mind about things being missing - I've been laughing at those jokes for over a decade now, and I don't know that I'd get much more from watching them another time on a bigger screen. If this is accurate, and it has been edited to the point of incoherence, then that's a real shame - but I'm going to hold off judgement for a couple of days at least...
posted by flashboy at 7:16 PM on April 9, 2005
I don't mind about things being missing - I've been laughing at those jokes for over a decade now, and I don't know that I'd get much more from watching them another time on a bigger screen. If this is accurate, and it has been edited to the point of incoherence, then that's a real shame - but I'm going to hold off judgement for a couple of days at least...
posted by flashboy at 7:16 PM on April 9, 2005
oh, this is sad, though. I was feeling hopeful that it would come through. It may not be as bad as the reviewer says, but if the movie were really, solidly good on its own merits, it wouldn't get this brutally trashed... I'm fine with a new angle, with changes and flexibility, but, you know, I want it to be funny.
Well, i had been wondering how it was going to feel to have such a long time brit/geek subculturish thing become seriously mainstream[I mean, 'folks at the office' making references]; maybe this means I won't find out yet.
posted by mdn at 7:27 PM on April 9, 2005
Well, i had been wondering how it was going to feel to have such a long time brit/geek subculturish thing become seriously mainstream[I mean, 'folks at the office' making references]; maybe this means I won't find out yet.
posted by mdn at 7:27 PM on April 9, 2005
remember the film is NOT a remake. it's a whole new interpretation.
Yes, but it appears to be an interpretation that sucks.
posted by bshort at 7:32 PM on April 9, 2005
Yes, but it appears to be an interpretation that sucks.
posted by bshort at 7:32 PM on April 9, 2005
Amazing. You found a review that said a movie was bad. There's another review which says the movie is good. Why is the negative one on the front page? Because it makes for more interesting conversation fodder, I assume.
Here's a major shocker... Every movie has people who like it and people who don't like it. For example, read this negative review of "The Incredibles."
I also have to point out that the script was written in large part BY Douglas Adams. So complaining about dialog that ruins Douglas Adams' dialog... Sort of inane.
posted by kcalder at 7:35 PM on April 9, 2005
Here's a major shocker... Every movie has people who like it and people who don't like it. For example, read this negative review of "The Incredibles."
I also have to point out that the script was written in large part BY Douglas Adams. So complaining about dialog that ruins Douglas Adams' dialog... Sort of inane.
posted by kcalder at 7:35 PM on April 9, 2005
When I first saw the trailer, two questions immediately sprang to mind. "Where is Zaphod's other head?!" and "Did Arthur just call Trillian 'Trish'?!?" Then I saw that Zaphod's second head is under the first, and remembered that Trillian's full name was Tricia McMillan. Fair enough.
Now, I didn't read the long review but I did read the list of things that aren't in the film. Saddening. As Jimbob has said, this does not bode well.
I really, really want to like this movie though, so I'm taking everything with a grain of salt.
posted by Lush at 7:48 PM on April 9, 2005
Now, I didn't read the long review but I did read the list of things that aren't in the film. Saddening. As Jimbob has said, this does not bode well.
I really, really want to like this movie though, so I'm taking everything with a grain of salt.
posted by Lush at 7:48 PM on April 9, 2005
Adams himself ticked off fans of the radio series by making the book so different, and the TV series different again. This is par for the course.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:49 PM on April 9, 2005
posted by Space Coyote at 7:49 PM on April 9, 2005
remember the film is NOT a remake. it's a whole new interpretation.
However it seems to be an interpretation of the HHG that fell thru a hole from a somehow much crappier parallel universe.
posted by MrLint at 8:00 PM on April 9, 2005
However it seems to be an interpretation of the HHG that fell thru a hole from a somehow much crappier parallel universe.
posted by MrLint at 8:00 PM on April 9, 2005
I don't care what anyone says. I'm planning to see the film. Whether I like it or hate it, I'm going to be glad I saw it. As a huge Patrick O'brian fan, I had similar concerns about seeing Master and Commander. It was worth seeing, even if the books were much much better.
posted by mmahaffie at 8:07 PM on April 9, 2005
posted by mmahaffie at 8:07 PM on April 9, 2005
Great. First the fall civilization due to peak oil and now this. Why bother going on?
posted by sourwookie at 8:12 PM on April 9, 2005
posted by sourwookie at 8:12 PM on April 9, 2005
I expect to enjoy it personally, but I wouldn't go anywhere near this property as a prospective producer. It has too many rabid fans and you will not live up to their expectations.
posted by RavinDave at 8:21 PM on April 9, 2005
posted by RavinDave at 8:21 PM on April 9, 2005
Who let Marvin be the first entity to review the new HHGTTG movie?
Well, it may be wishful thinking, but I'm not buying it. That reviewer sounds exactly like the purist contingent at TolkienOnline who despise the PJ films and complain incessantly about Filmamir/FarfromtheBookamir, etc.
Most of the early word from other sources (AICN, IGN, etc.) has been very positive. For now, I'm inclined to agree with those folks.
posted by kevincmurphy at 8:22 PM on April 9, 2005
Well, it may be wishful thinking, but I'm not buying it. That reviewer sounds exactly like the purist contingent at TolkienOnline who despise the PJ films and complain incessantly about Filmamir/FarfromtheBookamir, etc.
Most of the early word from other sources (AICN, IGN, etc.) has been very positive. For now, I'm inclined to agree with those folks.
posted by kevincmurphy at 8:22 PM on April 9, 2005
A few other hard-core fans have reviewed it as well:
I would have difficulties to understand someone who says that he's a Hitchhiker's fan and hates the movie. This is certainly the best movie we could hope for.
I have never seen anything quite like it, and nothing springs to mind to compare it with. Did I like it? Yes I did, very much. Did I laugh? Oh, yes indeed I did.
Now, those are reviews of a slightly earlier cut to the one Simpson saw, so yes it's possible that it's been completely fucked up in the intervening period... but it's enough to suggest that, astonishingly, the sky might not actually be falling after all.
posted by flashboy at 8:26 PM on April 9, 2005
I would have difficulties to understand someone who says that he's a Hitchhiker's fan and hates the movie. This is certainly the best movie we could hope for.
I have never seen anything quite like it, and nothing springs to mind to compare it with. Did I like it? Yes I did, very much. Did I laugh? Oh, yes indeed I did.
Now, those are reviews of a slightly earlier cut to the one Simpson saw, so yes it's possible that it's been completely fucked up in the intervening period... but it's enough to suggest that, astonishingly, the sky might not actually be falling after all.
posted by flashboy at 8:26 PM on April 9, 2005
the sky might not actually be falling after all
It's actually a whale.
posted by bigtimes at 8:28 PM on April 9, 2005
It's actually a whale.
posted by bigtimes at 8:28 PM on April 9, 2005
It does not make me re-live the early-teenage laugh attacks that the book once gave me. As a consumer and nerd, I demand that Hollywood makes a movie that makes me feel my youthful naivite and earnestness. Surely technology can do that or, failing that, I demand magic. Or else I will blog about how the movie doesn't move me the same way a book did 20 years ago when I was 13 and that obviously means the death of the film.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:34 PM on April 9, 2005
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:34 PM on April 9, 2005
you guys know how sci-fi types are when it comes to adaptations. I can't wait to see the movie because I'm sure it's gonna be awesomely good and I'm not gonna let a buncha guys with I'm-into-computers beards tell me any different!
posted by mcsweetie at 8:34 PM on April 9, 2005
posted by mcsweetie at 8:34 PM on April 9, 2005
The bikini girl in the American trailer gives me hope that there will be a depiction of Alpha Minor Beta, one of my favorite story elements.
And I will happily swoon through the movie just listening to Alan Rickman intone Marvin's lines. Especially those about mattresses, if any.
Sad that it doesn't incorporate Milliways.
But in reality: This is a four-book trilogy. Why should anyone have imagined that all their favorite scenes/characters/planets/drinks would make it into the film? Just can't be done.
I'll go.
posted by Miko at 8:46 PM on April 9, 2005
And I will happily swoon through the movie just listening to Alan Rickman intone Marvin's lines. Especially those about mattresses, if any.
Sad that it doesn't incorporate Milliways.
But in reality: This is a four-book trilogy. Why should anyone have imagined that all their favorite scenes/characters/planets/drinks would make it into the film? Just can't be done.
I'll go.
posted by Miko at 8:46 PM on April 9, 2005
not trying to be snarky at all (i swear), but
attempting a new "interpretation" of something
is kinda what makes the world go round, in my eyes (and ears, and fingers, and toes....)
posted by auslander at 9:08 PM on April 9, 2005
attempting a new "interpretation" of something
is kinda what makes the world go round, in my eyes (and ears, and fingers, and toes....)
posted by auslander at 9:08 PM on April 9, 2005
From the review:
It is driven by convenience and unexplained happenings. Characters just happen to be where they need to be and have what they need to have, even if it makes no sense for them to be there or to have that
I seem to remember, and I may be wrong, that there were more than a few instances of this in both the radio series and the books. Serve the comedic end before the logical one, I'd think.
I'll still see the movie even if it is Douglas Adams meets Pluto Nash. Because I'm a stubborn fucking nerd and that's that.
posted by unsupervised at 9:24 PM on April 9, 2005
It is driven by convenience and unexplained happenings. Characters just happen to be where they need to be and have what they need to have, even if it makes no sense for them to be there or to have that
I seem to remember, and I may be wrong, that there were more than a few instances of this in both the radio series and the books. Serve the comedic end before the logical one, I'd think.
I'll still see the movie even if it is Douglas Adams meets Pluto Nash. Because I'm a stubborn fucking nerd and that's that.
posted by unsupervised at 9:24 PM on April 9, 2005
It's not sounding too flash? Man, I thought I was up to date on slang.
posted by painquale at 9:42 PM on April 9, 2005
posted by painquale at 9:42 PM on April 9, 2005
But in reality: This is a four-book trilogy.
try five books, son! *strokes I'm-into-computers beard*
posted by mcsweetie at 9:47 PM on April 9, 2005
try five books, son! *strokes I'm-into-computers beard*
posted by mcsweetie at 9:47 PM on April 9, 2005
I got a sense that nothing would be good enough for this guy. Personally, I don't see how you could make a film that is just like the books; the books, as written, are unfilmable, simply because there's so much exposition, digression, stuff happening off-screen, internal monologues, etc. They are books, not novelizations of screenplays. Plus the fact that the film probably isn't in its final form even now. I'm reserving my judgement until I see the movie.
posted by RylandDotNet at 9:58 PM on April 9, 2005
posted by RylandDotNet at 9:58 PM on April 9, 2005
"Douglas Adams was a dialogue writer. That was his skill - writing great dialogue."
No, his skill was writing great narration. The best bits of HHG are from the omniscient narrator or the Guide, which is read by the narrator. This is why the TV series wasn't nearly as bad as some people like to think (that, and the casting was perfect).
Adams himself ticked off fans of the radio series by making the book so different, and the TV series different again. This is par for the course.
This is the problem with most creative geniuses. They shine brightly but burn out too quickly, then spend their retirement trying to tweak and perfect something without any of the hunger they had in their youth. See: George Lucas, Eddie Murphy, etc.
I don't care what anyone says. I'm planning to see the film.
Me too. But Hollywood won't be seeing a dime from my wallet.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:02 PM on April 9, 2005
No, his skill was writing great narration. The best bits of HHG are from the omniscient narrator or the Guide, which is read by the narrator. This is why the TV series wasn't nearly as bad as some people like to think (that, and the casting was perfect).
Adams himself ticked off fans of the radio series by making the book so different, and the TV series different again. This is par for the course.
This is the problem with most creative geniuses. They shine brightly but burn out too quickly, then spend their retirement trying to tweak and perfect something without any of the hunger they had in their youth. See: George Lucas, Eddie Murphy, etc.
I don't care what anyone says. I'm planning to see the film.
Me too. But Hollywood won't be seeing a dime from my wallet.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:02 PM on April 9, 2005
I'm not so concerned about the review as I am about the list of things that are missing. in particular, the sections of the guide that are missing. The title doesnt really mean much if you're going to cut half (or more) of the guide entries.
posted by juv3nal at 10:03 PM on April 9, 2005
posted by juv3nal at 10:03 PM on April 9, 2005
.
posted by rolypolyman at 10:03 PM on April 9, 2005
posted by rolypolyman at 10:03 PM on April 9, 2005
I think kcalder has it. This is a single review by someone who no doubt expected a scene-by-scene enactment of the film in his/her mind.
posted by me3dia at 10:11 PM on April 9, 2005
posted by me3dia at 10:11 PM on April 9, 2005
AICN?? this is the same outfit that promised me episode II was gonna redeem the star wars franchise! HA!
AICN is the worst rag of a bunch of fan boy fags i have ever had the misfortune to read and take seriously, these idiots thought the remake of the texas chainsaw massacre was a good film?! hell the original was shit and it still was a better film than the remake.
AINC can kiss my ass , and referencing them does not help a movies chances (at least from my view) . . . so there!
posted by nola at 10:24 PM on April 9, 2005
AICN is the worst rag of a bunch of fan boy fags i have ever had the misfortune to read and take seriously, these idiots thought the remake of the texas chainsaw massacre was a good film?! hell the original was shit and it still was a better film than the remake.
AINC can kiss my ass , and referencing them does not help a movies chances (at least from my view) . . . so there!
posted by nola at 10:24 PM on April 9, 2005
I'll still see the movie even if it is Douglas Adams meets Pluto Nash. Because I'm a stubborn fucking nerd and that's that.
well god bless you :) but i'm guessing that the "pluto nash" reference is apropo.
posted by nola at 10:27 PM on April 9, 2005
well god bless you :) but i'm guessing that the "pluto nash" reference is apropo.
posted by nola at 10:27 PM on April 9, 2005
Ouch, that's harsh. Really really harsh. And the question of missing jokes and deleted all but intrinsic things like ... Earth's guide entry, and towels ... no, not auspicious.
But I trust Moriarty at AICN. A lot, and not just more than Harry Knowles -- if he were only more consistent he could be a top movie critic for adults as well as fanboys. He understands story, and he understands the indefinable things that can make a movie work, even despite itself. I don't think any one text of Hitchhiker's is sacrosanct, let alone every single line of dialog. Douglas did have a major hand in this screenplay up until his death. I like the new trailer, I like every one of the actors, I don't think it's wrong to have cast Mos Def or Zooey Deschanel, and I'm still gonna look forward to this as something that may not completely suck.
posted by dhartung at 10:32 PM on April 9, 2005
But I trust Moriarty at AICN. A lot, and not just more than Harry Knowles -- if he were only more consistent he could be a top movie critic for adults as well as fanboys. He understands story, and he understands the indefinable things that can make a movie work, even despite itself. I don't think any one text of Hitchhiker's is sacrosanct, let alone every single line of dialog. Douglas did have a major hand in this screenplay up until his death. I like the new trailer, I like every one of the actors, I don't think it's wrong to have cast Mos Def or Zooey Deschanel, and I'm still gonna look forward to this as something that may not completely suck.
posted by dhartung at 10:32 PM on April 9, 2005
Well it may turn out to be a poor film, I didn't really like the review much, too much comparison to the other versions. It reminds me of people who think that the '97 version of The Shining is sooo much better than the Kubrick version, just because it follows the book more closely.
posted by bobo123 at 11:16 PM on April 9, 2005
posted by bobo123 at 11:16 PM on April 9, 2005
Zaphod's third arm lazily disappearing from the plot without explanation
OMFG HIS THIRD ARM ISNT THERE!!!125u8q
Seriously, now. There's no possible way to know whether the film will be good or not at this point. I'm seeing it.
posted by Tlogmer at 11:30 PM on April 9, 2005
OMFG HIS THIRD ARM ISNT THERE!!!125u8q
Seriously, now. There's no possible way to know whether the film will be good or not at this point. I'm seeing it.
posted by Tlogmer at 11:30 PM on April 9, 2005
But in reality: This is a four-book trilogy.
try five books, son! *strokes I'm-into-computers beard*
You will be a happier person if you consider it a four-book trilogy and don't read the fifth one, or even admit to its existance. It's depressing as hell.
posted by Mitrovarr at 11:41 PM on April 9, 2005
try five books, son! *strokes I'm-into-computers beard*
You will be a happier person if you consider it a four-book trilogy and don't read the fifth one, or even admit to its existance. It's depressing as hell.
posted by Mitrovarr at 11:41 PM on April 9, 2005
Not having seen the film, I can't tell whether it's up to scratch. However, as it's an intellectually-dense British story being taken up by Disney (of all studios), I'm not terribly optimistic. The main article seems to point to all the faults that Disney could safely be expected to make.
posted by clevershark at 11:49 PM on April 9, 2005
posted by clevershark at 11:49 PM on April 9, 2005
XQUZYPHYR said:
I'm really sick of fans of good stories being told "We just can't deal with adaptation of the source." Bullshit. What I can't deal with is a script being a pile of garbage.
It's an unfortunate circumstance of the industry and how distribution and production funding are financed. It's not that (in most cases) there is not a great source of original material, it's that the test screeners based on earlier versions of the movie are targeted at an audience that unfortunately makes up the larger percentage of the ticket purchasing populace.
As much as certain writers, directors and producers may try to stick to original plot elements and/or scripts there are always those influential few within the development process that determine those crucial elements that, quite often, completely break away from the source material in favour of the commonly played out comedic/dramatic elements that have the largest appeal, to the largest audience (thereby resulting in, hopefully, larger box office earnings).
auslander said:
well said, XQUZYPHYR, why don't you make a movie?
A fairly common suggestion/critique of the non-movie making populace that condemns a lot of the more commonly used techniques, plots, or emotive elements within their "art". It's hardly valid, or even remotely relevant given that most people do not have the requisite skills or even the funding for such an initiative to be successful.
posted by purephase at 12:04 AM on April 10, 2005
I'm really sick of fans of good stories being told "We just can't deal with adaptation of the source." Bullshit. What I can't deal with is a script being a pile of garbage.
It's an unfortunate circumstance of the industry and how distribution and production funding are financed. It's not that (in most cases) there is not a great source of original material, it's that the test screeners based on earlier versions of the movie are targeted at an audience that unfortunately makes up the larger percentage of the ticket purchasing populace.
As much as certain writers, directors and producers may try to stick to original plot elements and/or scripts there are always those influential few within the development process that determine those crucial elements that, quite often, completely break away from the source material in favour of the commonly played out comedic/dramatic elements that have the largest appeal, to the largest audience (thereby resulting in, hopefully, larger box office earnings).
auslander said:
well said, XQUZYPHYR, why don't you make a movie?
A fairly common suggestion/critique of the non-movie making populace that condemns a lot of the more commonly used techniques, plots, or emotive elements within their "art". It's hardly valid, or even remotely relevant given that most people do not have the requisite skills or even the funding for such an initiative to be successful.
posted by purephase at 12:04 AM on April 10, 2005
AINC can kiss my ass , and referencing them does not help a movies chances (at least from my view) . . . so there!
humph! >:O(
posted by jimmy at 12:08 AM on April 10, 2005
humph! >:O(
posted by jimmy at 12:08 AM on April 10, 2005
But in reality: This is a four-book trilogy.
try five books, son! *strokes I'm-into-computers beard*
You will be a happier person if you consider it a four-book trilogy and don't read the fifth one, or even admit to its existance. It's depressing as hell.
But ... Stavromula Beta!
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 12:23 AM on April 10, 2005
try five books, son! *strokes I'm-into-computers beard*
You will be a happier person if you consider it a four-book trilogy and don't read the fifth one, or even admit to its existance. It's depressing as hell.
But ... Stavromula Beta!
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 12:23 AM on April 10, 2005
It's not sounding too flash? Man, I thought I was up to date on slang.
You needn't be, for that one. It's archaic, but still used in the UK and NZ and OZ, frequently in an archly ironic way.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:44 AM on April 10, 2005
You needn't be, for that one. It's archaic, but still used in the UK and NZ and OZ, frequently in an archly ironic way.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:44 AM on April 10, 2005
The Guardian review says it's OK, but if that isn't the story you want to hear ...
posted by Wolof at 1:08 AM on April 10, 2005
posted by Wolof at 1:08 AM on April 10, 2005
Well frankly I wouldn't care if they removed the actual guide from the film entirely. That would be pretty cool in my view. Still have everything else but Ford works for a newspaper. Who cares? It would still be good, going off into space and so on. It would still be the same story. The only thing that bothers me about this film is the size of Marvin the robot's head. The robot looks so uncool! I can't believe nobody else cares about this, it kind of ruins the look of the film. Whichever ridiculous American person dreamed up the design of that robot should never be allowed to work in film or television again. Sorry, pal, it's bloody awful and you're a disgrace to your profession and to humanity. Anyway I never once laughed out loud at the book or the TV series, although I enjoyed them.
posted by mokey at 2:57 AM on April 10, 2005
posted by mokey at 2:57 AM on April 10, 2005
This review makes HHGTTG sound like this generation's Disney's Black Hole.
posted by paddbear at 3:05 AM on April 10, 2005
posted by paddbear at 3:05 AM on April 10, 2005
Oh no! One person didn't like the movie! I guess it must be shit, then.
Milliways, Disaster Area, the B Ark, and the prehistoric Earth are not in the first book either. Surely he's not expecting them to compress the first two books into one movie? Also, complaining that the description of the Vogon ships hanging in the air "in much the same way that bricks don't" is left out is a bit odd - it's a movie, not a book. Unless you have the Guide constantly narrating all the way through, over the top of all the dialogue, you're going to have to leave out a lot of description. And as it's a movie, you don't really need to describe things that are, er, visible...
posted by ralphyk at 5:16 AM on April 10, 2005
Milliways, Disaster Area, the B Ark, and the prehistoric Earth are not in the first book either. Surely he's not expecting them to compress the first two books into one movie? Also, complaining that the description of the Vogon ships hanging in the air "in much the same way that bricks don't" is left out is a bit odd - it's a movie, not a book. Unless you have the Guide constantly narrating all the way through, over the top of all the dialogue, you're going to have to leave out a lot of description. And as it's a movie, you don't really need to describe things that are, er, visible...
posted by ralphyk at 5:16 AM on April 10, 2005
You will be a happier person if you consider it a four-book trilogy and don't read the fifth one, or even admit to its existance. It's depressing as hell.
see, there just won't be agreement about the movie because humor is so subjective. I think Perfectly Normal Beasts and the 25 hr day & a lot of other stuff from the last book are fantastic... I don't remember it all, and a "four book trilogy" was funnier than a five book one, but I'm still glad Mostly Harmless got written....
The positive review linked above compares it favorably to Austin Powers. This is problematic to me. Austin Powers was amusing, but h2g2 was funny in a dark, philosophical sort of way. It managed to combine intelligence, absurdity, science and a real awareness of the essential incomprehensibility of life. The crew are going off to search for the Question? But that misses the whole point of the joke! What made "42" so brilliant was the way it pointed out to us that we don't know what we're trying to ask to start with, but the professional philosophers don't get tripped up by this; instead they say, ah, well, then, seems as if we need a bigger computer, then. But the regular folks don't get stuck in that loop - as the first reviewer said, they're just looking for a good cup of tea, or a good time. To have that become a quest makes it a less funny story...
Well frankly I wouldn't care if they removed the actual guide from the film entirely. That would be pretty cool in my view. Still have everything else but Ford works for a newspaper. Who cares? It would still be good, going off into space and so on.
this feels like the worst of both worlds. It will be popular in a Spaceballs sort of way, and miss all the dark existential humor that I loved it for. I guess it'd have been pretty tough to pull off the kind of movie that I would have wanted; this will probably make more money. But it is still sad to me.
posted by mdn at 5:18 AM on April 10, 2005
see, there just won't be agreement about the movie because humor is so subjective. I think Perfectly Normal Beasts and the 25 hr day & a lot of other stuff from the last book are fantastic... I don't remember it all, and a "four book trilogy" was funnier than a five book one, but I'm still glad Mostly Harmless got written....
The positive review linked above compares it favorably to Austin Powers. This is problematic to me. Austin Powers was amusing, but h2g2 was funny in a dark, philosophical sort of way. It managed to combine intelligence, absurdity, science and a real awareness of the essential incomprehensibility of life. The crew are going off to search for the Question? But that misses the whole point of the joke! What made "42" so brilliant was the way it pointed out to us that we don't know what we're trying to ask to start with, but the professional philosophers don't get tripped up by this; instead they say, ah, well, then, seems as if we need a bigger computer, then. But the regular folks don't get stuck in that loop - as the first reviewer said, they're just looking for a good cup of tea, or a good time. To have that become a quest makes it a less funny story...
Well frankly I wouldn't care if they removed the actual guide from the film entirely. That would be pretty cool in my view. Still have everything else but Ford works for a newspaper. Who cares? It would still be good, going off into space and so on.
this feels like the worst of both worlds. It will be popular in a Spaceballs sort of way, and miss all the dark existential humor that I loved it for. I guess it'd have been pretty tough to pull off the kind of movie that I would have wanted; this will probably make more money. But it is still sad to me.
posted by mdn at 5:18 AM on April 10, 2005
popular in a Spaceballs sort of way
I'm keeping that one and using it in times of need.
posted by flashboy at 5:26 AM on April 10, 2005
I'm keeping that one and using it in times of need.
posted by flashboy at 5:26 AM on April 10, 2005
What I was saying is that the spirit of the thing isn't dependent on every detail, or any particular detail, of the original being present. Which is not to say that the film will necessarily live up to the spirit of the thing, but just that it is not impossible for it to just because certain things are missing. So it is silly to list missing things like it was a big deal.
posted by mokey at 6:09 AM on April 10, 2005
posted by mokey at 6:09 AM on April 10, 2005
But wasn't the spirit of the books totally created by that accumulation of detail, some of it irrelevantly hysterical, all building up to create the backbone of the worlds they found themselves in and the people they deal with? Also the incredibly great contrast bet. Arthur and those worlds and people?
I think that a movie of the books maybe needs a sort-of Moulin Rouge over-the-top treatment, with so much info and stuff always happening and too much to look at in each frame that it highlights the fish-out-of-water thing and the absurdity of it all.
posted by amberglow at 6:27 AM on April 10, 2005
I think that a movie of the books maybe needs a sort-of Moulin Rouge over-the-top treatment, with so much info and stuff always happening and too much to look at in each frame that it highlights the fish-out-of-water thing and the absurdity of it all.
posted by amberglow at 6:27 AM on April 10, 2005
I'll go see it 'cause Stephen Fry as the guide is as good as it gets in my mind.
posted by riffola at 6:51 AM on April 10, 2005
posted by riffola at 6:51 AM on April 10, 2005
You will be a happier person if you consider it a four-book trilogy and don't read the fifth one, or even admit to its existance. It's depressing as hell.
You are crazy. Book 5 is as funny as the first three; book 4 is sweet, but it's definitely my least favorite.
Also, the blurb "Book five in the increasingly misnamed Hitchhiker Trilogy!" makes me lol every time I think of it.
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:19 AM on April 10, 2005
You are crazy. Book 5 is as funny as the first three; book 4 is sweet, but it's definitely my least favorite.
Also, the blurb "Book five in the increasingly misnamed Hitchhiker Trilogy!" makes me lol every time I think of it.
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:19 AM on April 10, 2005
I think we can conclude what we should have known already: this one will seriously divide the fans. I'll be interested to see what people who didn't already know about HHGTTG think of it, because they won't be bringing the baggage. And the problem is, it's serious baggage.
As one who's old enough to have heard the original Radio 4 broadcasts when I was a university student (and loved them), to have read each book when it came out (and loved them, especially the first three), to have watched the TV series on original release (and been fairly disappointed)... I'm going to come to this with as open a mind as I can manage. Someone else made the point: the radio shows, the books, the TV show, were all quite different in approach. I'd expect nothing less from a movie. In fact, I think it would have been absolute death to the film if they'd taken too much of a painstakingly respectful fanboy approach. Some of those pouty objections about what's missing seem more than a little trainspotterish to me. Some of the funny lines from the books (like the one about how the Vogon spacecraft hung in the air) just wouldn't fit easily into a movie format. It's ridiculous to think that some sort of checklist of our favourite bits should have been religiously followed.
I'll be happy if they capture the mood of breathless audacity, gratuitous zaniness and subtle piss-taking that the books had. One of the funniest things about them for me was that Adams was - at least partly - poking fun at precisely the sort of sad-boy SF geekery that, I suspect, lies behind that review. I'm glad some people have provided us with a few alternative views. I'll go to the film with low expectations and hope to be pleasantly surprised.
posted by Decani at 7:21 AM on April 10, 2005
As one who's old enough to have heard the original Radio 4 broadcasts when I was a university student (and loved them), to have read each book when it came out (and loved them, especially the first three), to have watched the TV series on original release (and been fairly disappointed)... I'm going to come to this with as open a mind as I can manage. Someone else made the point: the radio shows, the books, the TV show, were all quite different in approach. I'd expect nothing less from a movie. In fact, I think it would have been absolute death to the film if they'd taken too much of a painstakingly respectful fanboy approach. Some of those pouty objections about what's missing seem more than a little trainspotterish to me. Some of the funny lines from the books (like the one about how the Vogon spacecraft hung in the air) just wouldn't fit easily into a movie format. It's ridiculous to think that some sort of checklist of our favourite bits should have been religiously followed.
I'll be happy if they capture the mood of breathless audacity, gratuitous zaniness and subtle piss-taking that the books had. One of the funniest things about them for me was that Adams was - at least partly - poking fun at precisely the sort of sad-boy SF geekery that, I suspect, lies behind that review. I'm glad some people have provided us with a few alternative views. I'll go to the film with low expectations and hope to be pleasantly surprised.
posted by Decani at 7:21 AM on April 10, 2005
.
posted by andrewjthomas at 8:22 AM on April 10, 2005
posted by andrewjthomas at 8:22 AM on April 10, 2005
I wouldn't call myself a fanatic about HHGTTG, however I've read the books a few times, heard the radio show loads of times and watched the TV programme a couple of times. While it's still great stuff I'm not sure how these fans can tolerate yet another version of the same thing all over again. I know it back to front, and I'm not a fanatic, these fans must be sick to death of it by now. If it's different enough then I might go and see this movie.
Now a Dirk Gently film would be a much more interesting proposition - it hasn't been played to death, it's much more adaptable, and it doesn't have a group of fans waiting to pounce on it for the slightest deviation.
posted by dodgygeezer at 8:28 AM on April 10, 2005
Now a Dirk Gently film would be a much more interesting proposition - it hasn't been played to death, it's much more adaptable, and it doesn't have a group of fans waiting to pounce on it for the slightest deviation.
posted by dodgygeezer at 8:28 AM on April 10, 2005
Well, as much as it hurts to see people make terrible adaptations of books that I love, it is comforting to know that this isn't necessarily the end of the story.
Case in point :
The original Lord of The Rings movie - unwatchable dreck
The most recent rendition - the third, eleventh, and thirteen best movies of all time.
Although, The Guide may turn out to be like some books, that, after a century of film, still haven't been succesfully adapted.
posted by afroblanca at 9:12 AM on April 10, 2005
Case in point :
The original Lord of The Rings movie - unwatchable dreck
The most recent rendition - the third, eleventh, and thirteen best movies of all time.
Although, The Guide may turn out to be like some books, that, after a century of film, still haven't been succesfully adapted.
posted by afroblanca at 9:12 AM on April 10, 2005
(thirteen = thirteenth)
posted by afroblanca at 9:34 AM on April 10, 2005
posted by afroblanca at 9:34 AM on April 10, 2005
the mood of breathless audacity, gratuitous zaniness and subtle piss-taking that the books had
I guess my concern is that they're going for the first two, but not really noticing the third, which is unfortunate. The mood to me is a continuous 'piss-taking' of basically humanity altogether (though not in a mean-spirited way at all). The Guide is basically a joke about the cluelessness of earthlings - that we live in a galaxy so full of all this action, and we've no idea about any of it (& arthur dent epitomizes this). Infinite Improbability is a jab at quantum mechanics. The babel fish proof of god (where He "vanishes in a puff of logic") is a perfect parody of the ontological proof and other philosophical attempts to determine god. So much of the absurdity in the book is analogous to actual absurdity inherent in being alive; if that's forgotten and it just becomes absurdity for the sake of it, that misses the best part.
But, Decani's attitude is probably the way to go. Low expectations, light fun, etc.
dodgygeezer, it's a bit diff for americans. I've never caught the TV or radio stuff, and the jokes are less permeated through the culture on this side of the pond (my college friends pretty much all knew it, but my grad school friends don't necessarily, and I'd never expect, eg, my dojo friends to). The UK is a much tighter culture, somehow...
posted by mdn at 9:35 AM on April 10, 2005
I guess my concern is that they're going for the first two, but not really noticing the third, which is unfortunate. The mood to me is a continuous 'piss-taking' of basically humanity altogether (though not in a mean-spirited way at all). The Guide is basically a joke about the cluelessness of earthlings - that we live in a galaxy so full of all this action, and we've no idea about any of it (& arthur dent epitomizes this). Infinite Improbability is a jab at quantum mechanics. The babel fish proof of god (where He "vanishes in a puff of logic") is a perfect parody of the ontological proof and other philosophical attempts to determine god. So much of the absurdity in the book is analogous to actual absurdity inherent in being alive; if that's forgotten and it just becomes absurdity for the sake of it, that misses the best part.
But, Decani's attitude is probably the way to go. Low expectations, light fun, etc.
dodgygeezer, it's a bit diff for americans. I've never caught the TV or radio stuff, and the jokes are less permeated through the culture on this side of the pond (my college friends pretty much all knew it, but my grad school friends don't necessarily, and I'd never expect, eg, my dojo friends to). The UK is a much tighter culture, somehow...
posted by mdn at 9:35 AM on April 10, 2005
Mostly Harmless is my favorite HHG book.
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:57 AM on April 10, 2005
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:57 AM on April 10, 2005
I've never read the book, so I might actualy enjoy the movie.
posted by delmoi at 9:58 AM on April 10, 2005
posted by delmoi at 9:58 AM on April 10, 2005
Afroblanca: Case in point? The IMDB list is made up by masturbatory fanboy wonks who waver between obnoxious elitism and unswerving geekery. I mean, fuckin' Christ, first off the LOR movies were overlong schmaltz, loved by people who don't have the discerning taste to realize that the original books were shitty cobbles of mythology and crappy, monochromatic characters (along with interesting, but overly cited as somehow redeeming, linguistics).
The movies were better than the books, but to pretend that the Return of the King was the third best movie ever is to both be astonishly ignorant of the bredth of finer movies and to be remarkably lacking in taste to venerate such a shitfarm in the first place.
That said, much of what was great about HGG was inherent in their book form (which were better than the radio shows). There's an abstraction that comes from writing in novel form that's simply not translatable to the screen, mostly because you can't just say that something hung in the air exactly like bricks don't, you have to show it.
The movie may be good. I'll probably wait and see it in the cheap theater.
posted by klangklangston at 10:14 AM on April 10, 2005
The movies were better than the books, but to pretend that the Return of the King was the third best movie ever is to both be astonishly ignorant of the bredth of finer movies and to be remarkably lacking in taste to venerate such a shitfarm in the first place.
That said, much of what was great about HGG was inherent in their book form (which were better than the radio shows). There's an abstraction that comes from writing in novel form that's simply not translatable to the screen, mostly because you can't just say that something hung in the air exactly like bricks don't, you have to show it.
The movie may be good. I'll probably wait and see it in the cheap theater.
posted by klangklangston at 10:14 AM on April 10, 2005
Tommy Tallarico's site has an interview with Douglas Adams (warning: WMV file) around the time he released Starship Titanic. He talks about the reason the fifth book is so dark in comparison to the other four (basically, he had a bad year) and his goals with the movie. He states bluntly that he will do with the movie what he did with the book in respect to the radio series: contradict everything.
And then you get to see Tommy Tallarico recite Vogon Poetry and screw it up in front of a mildly peeved Adams. Which is kind of satisfying even if you like Tallarico, like I do. So, all in all, I don't mind having 4 different versions of the H2G2 out there, even if there's one lackluster one.
posted by unsupervised at 10:40 AM on April 10, 2005
And then you get to see Tommy Tallarico recite Vogon Poetry and screw it up in front of a mildly peeved Adams. Which is kind of satisfying even if you like Tallarico, like I do. So, all in all, I don't mind having 4 different versions of the H2G2 out there, even if there's one lackluster one.
posted by unsupervised at 10:40 AM on April 10, 2005
Well, that certainly dashed my enthusiasm for the film - I'll still end up seeing it with an open mind, though.
/watching the BBC TV version right now, it's a little dated (fashion/effects) but still hillarious as all out
posted by PurplePorpoise at 10:49 AM on April 10, 2005
/watching the BBC TV version right now, it's a little dated (fashion/effects) but still hillarious as all out
posted by PurplePorpoise at 10:49 AM on April 10, 2005
What the hell? All I know is I walked into this thread and my Peril Sensitive Sunglasses went totally black and they stay that way until I leave. Yeah, you try typing blind on a keyboard with no key labels in pitch blackness.
Of course, I could remove the sunglasses, but that's never really prudent or wise, is it?
/wraps towel tightly around head, stumbles out.
posted by loquacious at 11:09 AM on April 10, 2005
Of course, I could remove the sunglasses, but that's never really prudent or wise, is it?
/wraps towel tightly around head, stumbles out.
posted by loquacious at 11:09 AM on April 10, 2005
Yeah, you try typing blind on a keyboard with no key labels in pitch blackness.
Hmm, maybe your keys do have labels. It's just that they're labeled in black, on a black background, and every time you type something, a little black light lights up black to tell you you've done it.
posted by 235w103 at 11:41 AM on April 10, 2005
Hmm, maybe your keys do have labels. It's just that they're labeled in black, on a black background, and every time you type something, a little black light lights up black to tell you you've done it.
posted by 235w103 at 11:41 AM on April 10, 2005
Also, I might add that expecting an open-minded, non-fanboy review from www.planetmagrathea.com is probably asking a bit too much.
posted by 235w103 at 11:43 AM on April 10, 2005
posted by 235w103 at 11:43 AM on April 10, 2005
KlangKlangston writes : Afroblanca: Case in point?
In no way was I implying that IMDB ratings are particularly accurate, or that I even agree with them more than half the time (I don't.) I was simply giving an example of a movie being successfully re-made. Whatever your thoughts are on the Peter Jackson LOTR movies, you must at very least admit that they are leaps and bounds over the original, which I believe falls safely into the "hilariously bad" category.
posted by afroblanca at 11:51 AM on April 10, 2005
In no way was I implying that IMDB ratings are particularly accurate, or that I even agree with them more than half the time (I don't.) I was simply giving an example of a movie being successfully re-made. Whatever your thoughts are on the Peter Jackson LOTR movies, you must at very least admit that they are leaps and bounds over the original, which I believe falls safely into the "hilariously bad" category.
posted by afroblanca at 11:51 AM on April 10, 2005
(spoilers here, though considering the linked-to article is all about spoilers I'm presuming you won't care)
I think the reviewer made a good point about the removal of lot of Adams' original lines. He was a man who knew how to write a funny line, and you mess with that at your peril, even if you do have a sorta-big budget behind your production.
I think he made a *very* good point about how the earlier Hitchhikers' books don't fit a traditional story structure. I've long said to friends when I introduce them to the books that they're not about story, they're about funny. They may have all kinds of great ideas, but the characters don't develop and things happen just because they're sort of supposed to. Which is okay, because the supreme funniness of the words and the ideas excuse all the rest.
But the worst revelation of the review came right at the end, when it turns out that Arthur doesn't want to return to Earth II at the end of the story (them bringing Earth back is its own problem), but wants to continue roaming the galaxy with the others. That runs 180 degrees counter to character.
Also, neither he nor Trillian are as upset with Zaphod as they should be when he signed Earth's demolition orders.
One more thing that might help explain things is the quote from Variety about why some things were removed from the movie (found on the news page):
"The Hitchhiker book may be on the high school curriculum in Iceland but it isn't widely read in Idaho," says writer Adam Dawtrey. "It remains to be seen how Adams' unrepentant atheism will play in the US. 'God and religion don't do well in this film,' Jennings admits."
(sigh) Once again I'm forced to hang my head in sadness for the sake of the idiots with which my country is infested.
posted by JHarris at 2:04 PM on April 10, 2005
I think the reviewer made a good point about the removal of lot of Adams' original lines. He was a man who knew how to write a funny line, and you mess with that at your peril, even if you do have a sorta-big budget behind your production.
I think he made a *very* good point about how the earlier Hitchhikers' books don't fit a traditional story structure. I've long said to friends when I introduce them to the books that they're not about story, they're about funny. They may have all kinds of great ideas, but the characters don't develop and things happen just because they're sort of supposed to. Which is okay, because the supreme funniness of the words and the ideas excuse all the rest.
But the worst revelation of the review came right at the end, when it turns out that Arthur doesn't want to return to Earth II at the end of the story (them bringing Earth back is its own problem), but wants to continue roaming the galaxy with the others. That runs 180 degrees counter to character.
Also, neither he nor Trillian are as upset with Zaphod as they should be when he signed Earth's demolition orders.
One more thing that might help explain things is the quote from Variety about why some things were removed from the movie (found on the news page):
"The Hitchhiker book may be on the high school curriculum in Iceland but it isn't widely read in Idaho," says writer Adam Dawtrey. "It remains to be seen how Adams' unrepentant atheism will play in the US. 'God and religion don't do well in this film,' Jennings admits."
(sigh) Once again I'm forced to hang my head in sadness for the sake of the idiots with which my country is infested.
posted by JHarris at 2:04 PM on April 10, 2005
A quick perusal of alt.fan.douglas-adams (where the reviewer Mark Simpson often hangs out) reveals that he will be seeing the final, final version of the film with an audience of non-journos today, so we can see if his opinion changes at all with a different setting (though he doesn't expect it will).
posted by Sparx at 2:14 PM on April 10, 2005
posted by Sparx at 2:14 PM on April 10, 2005
Mike. Mike Simpson, dammit. And possibly not today either. How can one innocent post go so horribly wrong?
posted by Sparx at 2:21 PM on April 10, 2005
posted by Sparx at 2:21 PM on April 10, 2005
JHarris: I'm actually somewhat encouraged by that comment about Adams' unrepentant atheism. It suggests they haven't watered down the digs at religion too much. We shall see.
posted by Decani at 3:01 PM on April 10, 2005
posted by Decani at 3:01 PM on April 10, 2005
But in reality: This is a four-book trilogy.
try five books, son! *strokes I'm-into-computers beard*
...You will be a happier person if you consider it a four-book trilogy and don't read the fifth one, or even admit to its existance. It's depressing as hell.
Hey, I'm nobody's son. I know it's probably not terribly feminine to be an Adams fan, but why assume.
2nd: I read the books as they came out. The whole thing: stayed up all night stifling laughter; rereading until the copies were soft, tattered shreds; went back to them to look up obscure references, etc. And that's exactly how forgettable Mostly Harmless was. Read it once, after waiting breathlessly to get my hands on a copy; and grew quickly disenchanted. Set it down after one read. It was a real afterthought/attempt to milk a once-great idea. Kind of like another Stones album.
So I cop to forgetting that it was a 5-book trilogy, but I am indeed happier thinking of it as four.
Now, I agree that a Dirk Gently movie is a great idea. The first Dirk Gently was really an astoundingly good book. To this day, I cannot help a friend move without a few compulsive mentions of the couch in the stairwell.
posted by Miko at 6:46 PM on April 10, 2005
try five books, son! *strokes I'm-into-computers beard*
...You will be a happier person if you consider it a four-book trilogy and don't read the fifth one, or even admit to its existance. It's depressing as hell.
Hey, I'm nobody's son. I know it's probably not terribly feminine to be an Adams fan, but why assume.
2nd: I read the books as they came out. The whole thing: stayed up all night stifling laughter; rereading until the copies were soft, tattered shreds; went back to them to look up obscure references, etc. And that's exactly how forgettable Mostly Harmless was. Read it once, after waiting breathlessly to get my hands on a copy; and grew quickly disenchanted. Set it down after one read. It was a real afterthought/attempt to milk a once-great idea. Kind of like another Stones album.
So I cop to forgetting that it was a 5-book trilogy, but I am indeed happier thinking of it as four.
Now, I agree that a Dirk Gently movie is a great idea. The first Dirk Gently was really an astoundingly good book. To this day, I cannot help a friend move without a few compulsive mentions of the couch in the stairwell.
posted by Miko at 6:46 PM on April 10, 2005
I read the review, and I think that while the movie really does sound awful, with all the untied plot strings and bad acting, I don't necessarily have a problem with the way they tried to do it. Part of what made the book good for me was the very notion of what they were doing. I was 11 at the time, so I was dumb, but paving over Earth to make way for an intergalactic highway was funny. And the ruler of the universe as a dolt who scribbles his edicts with a pencil he can't make work was funny. I didn't catch the subtle humor because, you know, when you're 11 you don't. I had to look up lots of the words in there and I just gave up after awhile. I did finish the book though. I remember the book as a fantastic "metacomment" on the little world I lived in, of teachers and scheming classmates and squabbling parents. I guess I think that's what they were going for with the movie. They were stripping it down to an absurdist tale of things that wouldn't happen because, you know, this is the real world. Disney made it, and that's what they do best. It's probably a really good movie to show your kids.
But yeah, if the acting and dialogue is shit and the plot makes no sense, keep your fuckin' movie in your pants.
And I want to reread it. Anyone have an etext?
posted by saysthis at 7:24 PM on April 10, 2005
But yeah, if the acting and dialogue is shit and the plot makes no sense, keep your fuckin' movie in your pants.
And I want to reread it. Anyone have an etext?
posted by saysthis at 7:24 PM on April 10, 2005
Just one thing to remember.
Radio Drama != Books != Television Series != Game != Movie
I Went to a book signing a while back (1995?), DNA said that there were several scenes from other books in the series that he was including in the current incarnation of the screenplay.
posted by The Cardinal at 7:55 PM on April 10, 2005
Radio Drama != Books != Television Series != Game != Movie
I Went to a book signing a while back (1995?), DNA said that there were several scenes from other books in the series that he was including in the current incarnation of the screenplay.
posted by The Cardinal at 7:55 PM on April 10, 2005
Interview with the executive producer. Just more grist for the mill...
posted by Decani at 12:03 PM on April 11, 2005
posted by Decani at 12:03 PM on April 11, 2005
The suck ass part of this is if your a fan you HAVE to go see it.
I went to see the HULK knowing it would suck for about two minutes of interesting Hulk-ness. (That'd be the Peter David era Hulk, not much else).
Pretty much the same thing here. It could suck, it could be great - They've already got my money. They know they have my money. So they don't have to work to hard to make the film worthwhile.
LOTR was a decent series because people cared enough about making it.
I'd love to be in the movie biz only because I'd make movies I would want to see. Not something with big time ROI.
...of course, I probably wouldn't be in the movie biz long.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:44 PM on April 11, 2005
I went to see the HULK knowing it would suck for about two minutes of interesting Hulk-ness. (That'd be the Peter David era Hulk, not much else).
Pretty much the same thing here. It could suck, it could be great - They've already got my money. They know they have my money. So they don't have to work to hard to make the film worthwhile.
LOTR was a decent series because people cared enough about making it.
I'd love to be in the movie biz only because I'd make movies I would want to see. Not something with big time ROI.
...of course, I probably wouldn't be in the movie biz long.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:44 PM on April 11, 2005
I don't even need to read this review. The trailer all but tells you directly that the movie is terrible. And I loved the books.
Unlike Smedleyman, they don't have my money. And unless I hear from several people whose judgement I really respect that this movie is amazing beyond belief, I'll never pay to see it.
posted by bingo at 7:33 PM on April 11, 2005
Unlike Smedleyman, they don't have my money. And unless I hear from several people whose judgement I really respect that this movie is amazing beyond belief, I'll never pay to see it.
posted by bingo at 7:33 PM on April 11, 2005
My friend just saw it. He's the only person I know who loves Hitchhiker's more than me. He said it very nearly made him cry.
Because it was so good.
posted by flashboy at 1:01 PM on April 13, 2005
Because it was so good.
posted by flashboy at 1:01 PM on April 13, 2005
When was the last time you saw a film and said "my god that was awful. I must now in haste hie myself to read the book"?
Actually, that's the only time I read nowadays. "What the hell happened here? I better check out the source material." The last time? After I saw WONDERBOYS on cable. (Although I will admit I'm not typical of my generation, my gender or of readers in general.)
Is there honestly anyone in the HGG core target market (70% skew male, educated/nerdy, snarky sense of humor, perhaps enjoys Dr. Who) that doesn't have a friend, neighbor or classmate already trying to foist a copy on them?
The new audience for this book brought in by the film will be the larger target market -- less subtle, more action, more STAR WARS, less Terry Pratchett. And from what I've read and seen, it's crafted to please that larger market. And if it gets them to read anything besides EGM or the menus on their PSP, I consider it a victory.
posted by Gucky at 10:50 AM on April 14, 2005
Actually, that's the only time I read nowadays. "What the hell happened here? I better check out the source material." The last time? After I saw WONDERBOYS on cable. (Although I will admit I'm not typical of my generation, my gender or of readers in general.)
Is there honestly anyone in the HGG core target market (70% skew male, educated/nerdy, snarky sense of humor, perhaps enjoys Dr. Who) that doesn't have a friend, neighbor or classmate already trying to foist a copy on them?
The new audience for this book brought in by the film will be the larger target market -- less subtle, more action, more STAR WARS, less Terry Pratchett. And from what I've read and seen, it's crafted to please that larger market. And if it gets them to read anything besides EGM or the menus on their PSP, I consider it a victory.
posted by Gucky at 10:50 AM on April 14, 2005
This is the problem with most creative geniuses. They shine brightly but burn out too quickly, then spend their retirement trying to tweak and perfect something without any of the hunger they had in their youth. See: George Lucas, Eddie Murphy, etc.
Um - Douglas is DEAD, and he died young. He didn't get to retire, asshole. Know your subject before you spout off. Production on this version of the movie started AFTER he died. Don't blame him. And he did NOT burn out. His last work was as good, if not better, than his first.
I dare you to compare him to Lucas on the 29th at a move theater.
posted by jaded at 10:57 AM on April 14, 2005
Um - Douglas is DEAD, and he died young. He didn't get to retire, asshole. Know your subject before you spout off. Production on this version of the movie started AFTER he died. Don't blame him. And he did NOT burn out. His last work was as good, if not better, than his first.
I dare you to compare him to Lucas on the 29th at a move theater.
posted by jaded at 10:57 AM on April 14, 2005
Dead thread, but had to revisit in light of having watched this movie this afternoon. *SPOILERS*
Ashame that topics come and go, and often come well before their usefulness.
My question is: how could so many people criticize the movie on content, facts, and be wrong? Did they not SEE the movie? I mean, sure, I wasn't keen on the style for the most part, found it WAY too Disney, but FACTS, people!
Zaphod's head just "disappears" half-way through the movie, no explanation? Did he fall asleep at that part?!
The Guide doesn't have "Don't Panic" on its cover?
Seriously, ARE YOU PEOPLE ON GLUE????!!!!!
posted by dreamsign at 11:46 PM on May 7, 2005
Ashame that topics come and go, and often come well before their usefulness.
My question is: how could so many people criticize the movie on content, facts, and be wrong? Did they not SEE the movie? I mean, sure, I wasn't keen on the style for the most part, found it WAY too Disney, but FACTS, people!
Zaphod's head just "disappears" half-way through the movie, no explanation? Did he fall asleep at that part?!
The Guide doesn't have "Don't Panic" on its cover?
Seriously, ARE YOU PEOPLE ON GLUE????!!!!!
posted by dreamsign at 11:46 PM on May 7, 2005
Guys, you are completely missing the point. They did not make this film for people who are already fans. As one person mentioned earlier in this thread, they knew we are going to shell out the bucks to see this regardless. They were trying to squeeze DNA's concepts into a formula they felt would appeal to a wider audience. This movie was not made for the fans, but the prospective fans to be. This is a cornerstone of thought among Hollywood investors who are always trying to widen the scope of any potential movie franchise, in order to maximize their profits.
It's also why so many movies suck.
posted by ZachsMind at 1:57 AM on May 8, 2005
It's also why so many movies suck.
posted by ZachsMind at 1:57 AM on May 8, 2005
« Older Deconstructing Cassell's Illustrated History of... | the politics of handshakes Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
This does not bode well.
posted by Jimbob at 6:45 PM on April 9, 2005