Hitchhiker's Guide Film Reports

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hitchhiker's Guide Film Reports

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @03:09AM from the it's-coming-people dept.

wakaranai writes "The BBC reports that the new "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" movie will star Martin Freeman (Tim from The Office) as Arthur Dent. According to the Internet Movie Database filming starts early 2004, and Marvin's voice will be Stephen Moore, reviving his role from the classic 1981 BBC TV version." If you haven't seen The Office, it takes the subject matter Dilbert has bored us with, and makes it utterly hysterical. This is a good bit of casting. I'm still available to play Zaphod.

22 of 518 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:Word twisting by Dan+Crash · 2004-01-13 03:14 · Score: 1, Insightful

It didn't ruin "A Christmas Story".

--
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Hopes for Zaphod by dpille · 2004-01-13 03:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

I hope they'll spend some serious CGI money on Zaphod- I was always somewhat disappointed that on the TV series, the 2nd head mostly looked asleep or simply turned from side-to-side. I've always thought there are sections of dialogue in the books that make much less sense or are less funny if you can't imagine each head speaking its own mind.
1. Re:Hopes for Zaphod by eggoeater · 2004-01-13 03:27 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I never saw the TV series but from reading the book I've always had in my mind's eye what his two heads would be doing. The thing I like most about Zaphod is that he has two heads, two brains, but one "mind".
  In other words, were not subjected to the shtick of the two heads talking to one another as if there were two people sharing the same body. I like the idea of two faces showing the same emotion in slighly different ways. I also like the idea of only one head at a time talking unless he's screaming in which case he would use both. Another thing they could do is have him sing in harmony using both heads. Lots of possibilities! From an "acting" point of view, it adds a whole new dynamic.
  So my hope for Zaphod is that they take advantake of all that.
  
  --
  $7.95/mo, 200 GB disk, 2TBxfer, MySQL, PHP, RoR.
2. Re:Hopes for Zaphod by fermion · 2004-01-13 03:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The second head was a thing that worked well for the book and radio, but was just a distraction on TV. It would just be better to take that bit out in rewrites. It won't be a big problem, since any fans knows that the main character is the Guide, not the people.
  
  --
  "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
3. Re:Hopes for Zaphod by cjpez · 2004-01-13 03:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Bah. I hope they use as little CG as possible. HHGTTG isn't supposed to be some glitzy high-production thing; it's B-movie camp, and B-movie camp at its finest. Zaphod's plastic-head-attached-to-his-shoulder thing from the BBC TV series was outstanding. CG could ruin a good movie like this.
  
  --
  Al Qaeda has ninjas!
Poor Synopsis by Afty0r · 2004-01-13 03:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

If you haven't seen The Office, it takes the subject matter Dilbert has bored us with, and makes it utterly hysterical.
That's an utterly terrible synopsis. Dilbert and The Office share only their setting (an office) and very little else. In contrast to Dilberts "engineers banging heads against the system" the office chooses to explore primarily the relationships and personalities of people in a small office and the lack of authority or system which allows an incompetent boss to reign supreme.
1. Re:Poor Synopsis by bigjocker · 2004-01-13 03:32 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  the office chooses to explore primarily the relationships and personalities of people in a small office and the lack of authority or system which allows an incompetent boss to reign supreme
  
  And that differs from dilbert because ...
  
  --
  Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
2. Re:Poor Synopsis by Jellybob · 2004-01-13 03:41 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  That, and claiming it's hysterical.
  
  Everytime I've watched The Office, I havn't felt amused... I've felt embarrased.
  
  Especially the lead character I feel like I shouldn't be watching someone make that much of a dick of himself... and more disturbingly it appears to be the only part he can play.
3. Re:Poor Synopsis by pacman+on+prozac · 2004-01-13 05:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  He was a standup comedian for years and is still going with it so he does do a few other things.
  
  It's meant to make you cringe, thats the point of it really. They deliberatly avoid obvious gags, its not that kind of show. I guess you could see it as one of those shows thats main point is to make you feel better about your own life because its not as bad as theirs, although I have worked in offices with worse bosses & atmospheres so I could be wrong on that.
  
  I'd say its a very individual thing as to whether you find it incredibly funny or just annoying as hell, and perhaps a very thin line. For years I just thought the former, now I'm hooked. My girlfriend hates it and cannot sit for more than 30 seconds with it on the tv.
  
  If you do appreciate their humour then it is hysterical, they are more down-to-earth than most other comedies on the TV so it seems a fair statement. It wouldn't have run for 2 series plus xmas special if nobody liked it either.
Re:Word twisting by andyrut · 2004-01-13 03:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Given that the original was a radio show, which contained one or two words....

With radio, the audience isn't shown what's going on, thus there has to be a certain degree of narration to give them some idea of what's going on.

With a movie, the audience sees the action for themselves so narration wouldn't have to be used.
Re:This will be interesting by mccalli · 2004-01-13 03:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

specially if they pull a harry potter and begin using all 5 books of the trilogy to produce the movies in sequence.
I hope they don't, to be honest. Specifically, I would like to consign the fifth book to the dustbin of history. The humour seemed to have gone, and the overall impression was one of bitterness rather than anything else. Fenchurch dismissed with a not especially good joke too, although to be fair that also happened to Trillian in the original radio series (The joke was funnier there though. Actually, damn near anything Peter Jones said could have been funny).
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Dilbert is funny, witty. by Aardpig · 2004-01-13 03:30 · Score: 1, Insightful

The Office is pretentious and boring. Is one of those things that only Brits get I guess.

Nah, nah, no sense of humour!

--
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Re:Word twisting by trellick · 2004-01-13 03:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ah and don't forget the 'Blade Runner' narration - (the original - not the awful Director's Cut). Harrison Ford's voiceover added tremendously to the overall film.

I just the original would be put on DVD.

"Dear Mr Scott, please please please change your mind..."
Starring ???? as Zaphod by cryptochrome · 2004-01-13 03:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's the part Bruce Campbell was born to play!!!

--
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
WHY is this being entrusted to a newbie director!? by vapid+transit · 2004-01-13 03:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

WHY!? For the love of god. I've never heard of Garth Jennings. Its not like this guy's even worked his way up to director. IMDB does not have him listed as crew or writer for any major motion pictures. I hate to be negative but I'm truly anticipating disappointment from this film.
Re:The Office by lemsip · 2004-01-13 03:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Everything about the show is intended to look mundane and dull. Everything from the opening titles, showing shots of traffic driving about in dull commuter-belt town Slough, to the mundane way everyone in the office is sitting there looking ordinary and bored, adds to effect. Use models and good looking actors and it would destroy the effect the show is aiming for.

Or maybe it's just that us Brits are less superficial than you Americans... :-)
Re:Word twisting by Silverlock · 2004-01-13 03:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

Just a few days ago I found a DVD of the 1981 film version in a video store. Of course, I immediately grabbed it. The special effects and graphics are horrible but it's still Hitchhiker's.. I enjoyed it immensely.

I bring this up because the original has a ton of narration (accompanied by bad graphics) but, hell, it could be a starfield screensaver with some guy reading the entire text in the background and I would still love it. I think it's too good of a book to be ruined by a change of medium. It's been a radio show, a book, a film, an Infocom text-adventure game, and who knows what else. There's a reason for that...
Re:My votes for casting... by cjpez · 2004-01-13 03:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Mike Myers? You've gotta be kidding me. And while I dig Owen Wilson in general, I think he'd make a lousy Ford.
Zaphod should go to Bruce Campbell, and Jeff Goldblum would be great for Ford. And if Disaster Area makes it into the movies, they should do whatever it takes to get the Rolling Stones to play them.

--
Al Qaeda has ninjas!
Tho IMDB doesn't reflect it... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-13 04:04 · Score: 1, Insightful

...and the Coming Attractions archives have been set to 451 by the firemen at Cinescape, I remember reading that Douglas Adams had been working on the film screenplay for a while, right up to the date of his passing. He'd done at least one revision, which means the bare bones as envisioned by him were there. If the current scriptwriters used DNA's version as a base, the end product might not be so far from what the man himself wanted. It is Hollywood, so I won't be holding my breath on that, but the possibility is there...
Fitting, actually... by ackthpt · 2004-01-13 04:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

It would be fitting to noir it up a bit, as it really is a very cynical work. When I read H2G2 back in the early 80's I thought it was a stitch. The last time I read it, about 1995, I realized it was cynical and very biting, though appears humorous and whimsical on the surface. What DNA was saying about things though his characters and story line is unfortunately true enough about Britain if not other parts of the world, the USA prominently included. Sirius Cybernetics == Microsoft? That would have been some foresight, but that SC would be some company or companies was inspired by something.
Read the books again and look beyond the humor. It's probably only the humor which will appear on the screen, which could be a bit of a let down. Include some of that cynicism from the books and it could be better than just another light british comedy.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:The Office by Bertie · 2004-01-13 04:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Erm, don't mean to sound patronising or anything, but working in an office is slow and boring. Maybe it's just culture shock. It's not in your face like most American sitcoms (though you could hardly say it's subtle). Stop watching it expecting punchlines, and try to see the humour inherent in the characters themselves.

I mean, how can anybody watch Keith and not crease up?

(Interestingly, I've learned since graduating from university that Keith was in my class - and I didn't notice him, which amuses me immensely)
Re:WHY is this being entrusted to a newbie directo by halfsad · 2004-01-13 06:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Some studio exec had the balls hand the Lord of the Rings to Peter Jackson on the strength of what exactly?

A 30-second fantasy sequence in Heavenly Creatures?
The flop that was The Frighteners? Bad Taste and Meet The Feebles?

And it turned out great. I'd be more angry to see a Cultural Treasure such as Hitchhiker's in the hands of some big-name Hollywood chump. Maybe the newbie will turn the trick.