Slashdot Mirror
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Screening Reviews
Doctor Monkey writes "Initial reviews are up at Ain't It Cool News from a 'work-in-progress' screening of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in Pasadena, CA. Reaction seems mixed-to-positive, mostly due to some uneven performances. But it looks like the film is not a complete bastardization of Adams' work."
Aside from that, i must say that the review was horrible. Too long, too many different font sizes used, too many "jokes" that weren't funny. Oh, and if you're referring to something "reported on before" (eg the problem with Zaphod's heads), then could you please give at least some hints as to what the "problem" might be?
Bah. Over and out.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
Nice movie, thanks for the fish!
Can someone please give examples of when a book converted to a movie was anywhere near as good as the book? Some are satisfactory conversions... but I have never had one instance where a good book became a better movie...
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Good to know some studio exec didn't decide that the answer should be 43.
For those interested the BBC radio version is available on various p2p systems. Pretty good I think.
Here's a linky to the toys and office products from the movie. Marvin looks too cute and I want one of those mugs!
Speak truth to power.
michael quoth: "looks like the film is not a complete bastardization of adams' work."
this is actually IMHO the best a fan should ever hope for WRT film adaptations of a cherished book/series/whatever.
ed
I have to admit I was one of those turned off by the first still I saw: the awful looking Marvin that looked like a pokemon. Whatever the visual flaws of the old BBC production, I thought the clunky boxy look of the Paranoid Android was perfect. This new one makes "Twikki" from Buck Rogers seem like Robby the Robot in comparison. I also read that they got rid of Zaphod's extra head and put it on his tongue. Hope that is a wild rumour.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Marvin, agora é só voce, e não vai adiantar, chorar vai te fazer... sofrer...
Since Adams wrote the script from his own books, that's not too surprising. The acting, who knows? But unless they wanted to deliberately destroy the approved script, it would stand to reason that it would have the usual Adams touch. A touch that has worked in print and on radio, so here's hoping it works in film.
I like your brain.
I watched the movie first and then read the book later. I couldn't believe how close the two were. And I honestly enjoyed the ending to the movie better than the ending to the book. (The only thing that was really changed).
"Excellence in Mediocrity"
"not a complete bastardization of Adams' work" -- Doctor Monkey ... wonder if they'll use that one in the TV commercials.
In other news, the BBC series is available on Netflix.
I read an article somewhere saying it was in his nose. The reason for it was tied up with the Church of the great green archelsneezer or whatever that is...
Here's one: "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" (adapted from "Who Censored Roger Rabbit")
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Xhixen thumbs an early ride to a test screening of HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY and declares it 'Mostly Terrific!!' Hey folks, Harry here with the very first film review of HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY - now both Moriarty and Quint were going to attempt to break into this screening all undercover style, and I've yet to hear if they've succeeded or not. On other news - CHUD has images of the toys we'll all be getting soon enough! Note: the following review will try in every way possible to avoid making cliche jokes using references such as "Don't Panic," "42," or "Pangalactic Gargle Blaster." Please ignore the previous self-aware occurrences of these terms. Hello folks. I just returned home after an evening in Pasadena, where I had the privilege to see a screening of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I must admit that as a slightly-more-than-casual fan of the original works -- I read the first three books of the trilogy years ago and have listened to the radio serial -- I expected the worst. I mean, when was the last time Hollywood took a beloved property and turned it into something just as special? Oh, right, that fruity dwarf and wizard movie. I never cared much for those books in the first place. Rings aside, I'm happy to report that at least 75% of the things I liked about The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy were preserved in this movie. I won't bore you with a rehashing of the story of The Hitchhiker's Guide, as everyone reading this knows "the answer" by now. Rather than beginning with the imminent demolition of one Arthur Dent's flat (a la the book), the movie starts with a musical number (hold your groans) recounting the dolphins' escape from the planet Earth. It rather nicely sets the tone for those who go into the movie not knowing what to expect. Still, the fact that the film immediately deviated from the book had me a bit uneasy. However, after the destruction of the Earth (oops, did I spoil something?) the credits began to roll with some odd, spacey banjo picking. When the title appeared along with a remixed version of the amazingly ridiculous Eagles song from the radio series, most of my concern was alleviated. It was obvious that the filmmaker's intent was to preserve all of the quirky appeal that has made the series so enduring. Visually, the movie was absolutely perfect. The entire scene of Earth's destruction felt like it came straight out of my imagination. And oh what a joy it was to see The Guide itself unfurl. While it was really no more than a glorified Flash animation on a laptop, the animation was executed with great wit and respect for Adams' sense of humor. Narratives from The Guide were interjected throughout the movie, just as in the book/radio series, and always drew a big laugh. The Heart of Gold, and its shift into improbability (by transforming into various improbable objects) was also well conceived. I really have a hard time finding anything not to appreciate about the visual design of the film, except perhaps for the previously reported liberties taken with Zaphod's two heads. Unfortunately that was not the only fault I found with Zaphod and some of the other characters. Most of the aforementioned 25% disappointment with this adaptation comes from the downright painful portrayals of some of the characters. Not surprisingly, most of the British actors were spot on (especially Martin Freeman as Arthur Dent). However, I had huge issues with Mos Def, Zooey Deschanel, and to a lesser extent, Sam Rockwell. I don't know if there is an intrinsically wry sense of humor that comes with hailing from England (must have something to do with the weather), but a lot of the lines from the American actors just fell flat. Mos Def really lacked the requisite wit and charisma that defined Ford Prefect. I also found Deschanel's Trillian simply uninteresting. Speaking of Trillian, needless to say, the arc of her and Arthur falling for each other felt really out of place and was entirely gratuitous. The ending also felt slightly rushed and, if I recall correctly, largely departed from the
It's 42
Soundproofing Warning do no
There's also a fairly good Q&A with the film-makers at Coming Soon!. It's hard to take much of what you read at AintItCool seriously, when you consider that the guy reviews movies from the standpoint of a five year old at best.
Great Jerzey Kosinski book and awesome performance by Peter Sellers in the movie.
Worst. Sig. Ever.
AICN is like the epitome of craptacular, JeffK-style web "design".
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
How long until the cries of "Garth Jennings raped my childhood" begin?
They routinely give lousy movies glowing reviews ("Freddy vs Jason was top-notch fashizzle!"). Some of it I can understand -- these folks like movies and get excited about them, so they're more optomistic in their reviews. Fine, whatever, what still doesn't mean anyone should ever listen to one of their reviews. Ever,
The only usefulness I ever, *ever* get out of them is in determining which movies are at the absolute bottom of the heap. If AICN says that a movie's bad (or gives it "mixed reviews"), that generally means it's so god awful that St. Peter will keep me out of heaven when I die when he finds me carrying the ticket stub.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
You are hereby ordered to surrended your Geek license to your local authorities. The fact you didn't recognize a relevent novelty recording is grounds for dismissal from Geekdom.
Those who complain about affect & effect on
Since the original radio scripts were substantially different from the books, and the books were substantially different than the TV special, there really hasn't been any single consistent version of the story line.
Actually, since incessant change is the only thing that is consistent, the only way to not bastardize the spirit of the original story is to substantially change it.
There are 2 kinds of people in this world. Those that can keep their train of thought,
While George Pal's "Time Machine" film is more than respectible, his "War of the Worlds" movie is awful. It replace the scary tripods from the book with awful Jetsons-style vacuum cleaners.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Having recently reread and reviewed the Philosopher's Stoned I'd have to say I found the movie to be a nearly flawless adaptation of the book. Great casting, direction and cinematography.
It was previously reported that his second head is in his nostril.
If that still does not help you either insert your babelfish or move along to the next thread...
Whoa, a Hollywood adaptation of a beloved sci-fi classic disappoints and robs the original of most of its joy?
:|
This is my shocked face.
I was going to read the article.. but then I remembered the last HHGG stuff on AICN and decided against it.
No matter what they say it'll probably be completely wrong if not down right lies.
I like muppets.
The Princess Bride was, oh, so much better as a movie than it is as a book. The book reminds me of an overlength /. whine. ;)
Hitchhickers guide was originally a radio program. The books are derived from the radio scripts.
The Rainmaker movie with Matt Damon was just as good as the book.
... with a one-headed, two-armed zaphod beeblebrox????
oh, wait. i just RTFA.
that said, i love the plushies.
The book was enjoyable, it wasn't that bad. But I do agree, the movie was (much) better.
My UID is the product of 2 primes.
Uh, don't you mean best left on the radio?
Ok, to be fair, the TV series was kind of bad, and some humor works a lot better in print than you can do on the radio. But this is sort of a unique adaptation in that the subject matter has already been adapated into every form imaginary. It's not like a crappy movie based on a Tom Clancy book, where the entire plot is changed because a movie about middle eastern terrorists nuking the Super Bowl would be insensitive.
The movie would have turned out better if DNA had spent the entire filming sitting next to the director and changing the script on the fly. Wanker reviewers who've only read the book would complain about details being changed, but major changes happened between the radio series and the books and they just made things better. Bah.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Douglas Adams seems to have looked at everything as a work in progress. His attitudes are generally the opposite of the tendency that many folks have to "canonize" works. "The Hitchhikers Universe" is really a Multi-verse like Adams tried to portray in "Mostly Harmless." The book he wrote was different from the earlier radio show he wrote and the movie (he helped write) will be different from the book and the radio show. Different, not wrong, incorrect or inaccurate. And if it turns out to be bad, it can be just bad (or not great) without that judgment carrying any moral connotations.
I can't really think of any parallels that match very well. The closest thing I can think of is the way old (pre 1900) folk songs used to 'mutate' or be adapted to suit the new singer(s). Lyrics would change, rhythms would change. The new way of singing it wasn't a 'wrong' way, just different. And the artist was able to make a new statement and connect with his audience. This hasn't happened much since the dawn of strong copyrights. The very unusual aspect of H2G2 is that it's the original artist who's doing the adaptations.
I for one hope it's a great film. I don't, and in many ways am glad, expect it to be the book pulled out of my imagination and put on screen. If Disney messes it up, it won't ruin the books for me.
No version of the guide is consistant with another. Why the film should follow the book exactly when DNA himself, in early versions, deviated from it liberally, is beyond me.
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
> The movies were far superior to the books by that Tolkien guy.
I wonder if you've even read anything by "that Tolkien guy"?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
yeah, but you believe in free ipods.
HA haaaa!
-nelson
I thought it was just perfect... doesn't need to be re-done.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
i'm a fan of Adams' work, but i hardly think some random opinion of a movie that isn't even finished yet is news worthy...
I wonder how this will turn out: movie worse than book like jurassic park or movie better than book like forrest gump?
In truth, I've only watched the movie. Considering the awards both the movie and the book won, I thought I'd toss it out there.
You didn't need to write that message to prove you're an idiot. Your signature does that just fine.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Ran across this the other day.
t =2 288
Gives some really good insight on what exactly is going on with the movie (in regards to the casting, plot, etc.):
http://www.douglasadams.se/forum/viewtopic.php?
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."
I never claimed to be otherwise, thank you very much ;)
In the movies of Tolkien's work, it seemed this small band of people did almost everything, but in the books, there were lots of little people that were talked about that helped it turn out. (no pun intended, really :) )
Belgium off, you're probably an stupid American!
How do you convey vogon ships hanging in the air much like a brick doesn't on the big screen?
Really captured the epic nature of the novel.
Same here, actually. I hated everything about Dr. Who, but loved everything about the HHGTTG adaptation (which, I believe, was made by the same outfit!).
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Token, Trollken, whatever.
I couldn't get into the books. The movies were great considering how much "stuff" was packed into such a "small" amount of time.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
And yet you cared enough to tell us? Thanks so much for letting us know.
--- These are not words: wierd, genious, rediculous
The entire scene of Earth's destruction felt like it came straight out of my imagination.
This guy is clearly dangerous! He's planning to destroy the Earth!
Call John Ashcroft!! Let's form a coalition of the willing!
Because of this, I think the movie was an improvement, since you didn't have to toil through the painful writing to get the story.
[n/t]
'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
I thought it was on Orion's collar?
HGTTG is the best series in existence, and I"M PROUD TO PROCLAIM IT PROHAMMER http://hammerrevolution.com/
Legend of Bagger Vance was a far better movie than the book was.
Dude, I know this is sort of stupid, but I totally friggin' agree. I hated that book. I couldn't even get to the halfway point. It's just so self-assured of it's own cleverness that it's infuriating.
From TFA:
"I mean, when was the last time Hollywood took a beloved property and turned it into something just as special? Oh, right, that fruity dwarf and wizard movie. I never cared much for those books in the first place."
So if you liked the LotR films, don't trust Harry's review. Easy enough. The second review (after the heinous font-change) seems to be more accurate, though the authoer goes overboard with prattling content.
Me, I'm going to wait for a RottenTomatoes score. Under 70% and it has to wait for DVD for me to hear what Alan Rickman did with Marvin...
Am I the only one who immediately thought that the movie's portrayal was right on the money? Marvin was built to be a "little plastic pal who's fun to be with" and had only the depressing sounding voice to betray his inner ennui. (Read: malfunctioning Genuine People Personality) Remember, he was built by the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation, the same people who made those cheerful elevator doors and way too helpful vending machines. Even the various leftover parts he was evenually built out of didn't occur until the later novels; he's just "out of the plastic wrap" at the start of this film.
Those who complain about affect & effect on
Blade Runner crushes Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.
So, we have two purported 'reviews' that manage to reveal a grand total of NO NEW FACTS WHATSOEVER about the film, everything they say can be guessed from the cast list stills that are available on the official site. All the opinions stated (and let's not forget these reviews disagree about the film's merits - handy since it means that one is bound to be right about the quality of the film) read like opinions on the actors previous work.
Here's the 3 things I'd most like to know about the movie:
1) How does the major new character played by John Malkovich fit in?
2) What is the trick used to avoid seeing Zaphod's other head?
3) How much of the '5 book trilogy' does the movie cover?
Guess what... these 'reviews' don't mention anything at all about these issues, presumably because the reviewers made the whole thing up and haven't even seen the latest cast announcements (Bill Bailey as the voice of the whale, and Stephen Fry as the voice of the Guide), let alone a rough cut of the finished article.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
my friend blogged about it. Just don't mod it up too much or his meager server will crash. As an added safeguard I'll put the link in plaintext. http://www.blogwaffe.com:8000
I would add that the robot was also good in that it could convey negative moods with "body language".
Also, be prepared for the fact that they threw together stuff from several of the books, I think nicely. Except they try and fail to explain why zaphod is crazy. Also, I agree that they overdo arthur and trillian's love story. Finally, I always imagined zaphod's heads side by side, was that wrong? In the movie he kind of tips his head back and that's where the other one is. Also they hadn't finished digitizing in his third arm, so I don't know how that will look. There's plenty of vogony goodness to look forward to. And the ending is complete crap, but they asked about it specifically, so maybe they have a backup ending.
Not necessarily better than the book, but one of the best adaptations of a novel I have ever seen. Of course, it took 3 LONG movies to make a faithful adaptation of the novel. A novel is just too much to cover to a single movie without trimming a lot of the content. Short stories and novellas are much better candidates (such as the Shawshank Redemption, as one of the other posters mentioned).
The movie is a wonderful cinematic experience. The book is mediocre.
If you watch anime and you've heard of Escaflowne it's a pretty good parallel to how Adams treats H2G2. There is the manga (which I haven't read .. I did flip through a volume once though! ... I'm going on other people telling me stuff for this one though) that has been written in a few different versions with different-but-similar plots. There is also the TV series, which has its plot and versions of all the characters, and there is the movie which has another different plot and version of all the characters.
.. I'm not sure) but a different version of the same story.
None of them is a continuation/adaptation of the other (except maybe one of the manga plots is used for the movie/TV show
Side note: when I saw the preview for H2G2 last time I saw a movie in theaters, I thought it was decent enough, though it didnt have much information other then "We're making a H2G2 movie! Here's a memorable line for you fans..." (It's "DON'T PANIC" with a semi-obvious "42" in the star field afterwards). Hopefully it'll be good
The Infocom text-adventure of the Hitchhiker's Guide should be a requirement for every high school student considering a career in computer science. Unfortunately the plot of the movie may simplify some of the rougher puzzles in the game.
***Possible minor spoilers***
It's been a long time since I've played the game, but I still recall the way one acquires tea is a nice way to approach the concept of double negation and the final puzzle reminds me of the frustration of hunting for bugs in a program with a poor debugger and finding the bug to be inadequate tools rather than the concept of what one is solving.
*** End spoilers ***
As an eighth grader playing this game, I thought this was an incredibly frustrating and ultimately quite enlightening and satisfying game to play.
I'm sure there will be computer games based on the HHGTTG movie, but whether they are rehashes of Frogger with different character maps and models or whether they actually pay homage to the brilliance of the Infocom game remains to be seen.
to each their own opinion. i think it is already very likely to be a complete bastardization due to the two following known changes: zaphord only has one skull and the two heads have been reduced to a stupid sex joke, and the heart of gold is now a sphere in direct contradiction to the book. given this i have no faith what-so-ever that it gets any better. at least adams didn't live to see this abomination. i wish there was a law against inaccurate translations of books to film, but hollywood would go broke.
In 1993 there was the Connery/Snipes vehicle Rising Sun, which I read first, then saw. Both book and movie were mediocre, which gives the film an edge, because it only takes 2hrs to complete, and there were some pretty women it it.
Okay, I haven't thought this through very clearly. Some of the short stories are better. Stand By Me is a good example. I guess some of my favorites have turned into poor movies, but there are some good exceptions.
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
Legend of Bagger Vance was a far better movie than the book was.
If that's true, considering what a stinker that movie was, I can't possibly imagine how bad the book would have been.
the books by Mario Puzo are arguably run-of-the-mill mafioso novels, but the movies, with stunning performances by Pacino, DeNiro and Brando make the movies outstanding
this sig has been discontinued.
You're getting your troll account off to a pretty poor start, kid. You need to pick your battles a little better.
I remember going to see Douglas Adams at a local bookstore a couple of years before he passed away, and even then he spent half the discussion talking about the movie. He was really excited about this. I've been waiting for it for a long time.
Of course it will be different from the book, but he made sure to keep what he could. This may be a different screenplay entirely, but I really hope not. I remember one of his concerns was whether he could accomplish some of the scenes with the special effects back then, but by now I'm thinking it should look really polished.
[insert witty quote here]
N/T
Yeah, London VFX is technologically backwards... And of course ILM weren't responsible for the ropey-as-f**k CGI Scorpion King in The Mummy Returns or the PS1-level effects work of the Quidditch matches in Harry Potter... Get real mate. That is complete bollocks. Do you even know what VFX work entails? I do - I work in it... People do as good as they can in the given time - and unfortunately the time given is getting less and less. Check the anniversary Cinefex to see the entire industry getting pissed-off at ever shrinking turnaround times.
twat.
didn't see this one before i posted. or maybe I have a split personality
Of course he does -- he's working on King Kong. So, eventually, there's hope that we'll get this handed off to someone with serious geek understanding.
Alan Rickman as Marvin = genius
Mos Def as Ford = insanity
I have a great deal of respect for Mos Def, but this isn't a role within his range. As for Trillian falling for Arthur, please.
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
In case anyone cares:
Amazon link for the book
IMDB link for the movie
The movie's own web site
Your favorite sig sucks
While not as reputable as the original, the movie scores over the original on two key points. First, it is slightly cheaper, and second, it has the words, "Don't Panic," inscribed in large, friendly letters on the cover.
Black token characters ruin films -
black RAPPER lead character - Mos Def is a principal lead in this movie despite no mention of a black rapper being "Ford Prefect"
"Ford Prefect" was a pasty white and british as you can imagine. no hint of ghetto accent in the bbs series or mention in the books.
I will not pay a penny to watch this swill.
the reason some things are collosal hits is because they have no contrived token ghetto characters.
The movie TITANIC
The tv series FRIENDS, and SEINFELD, everybody loves raymond, Will & Grace, etc
the public hates tokenization of casts
Even the NYT alleged that The Matrix 3 would possibly do bad because of all the black actor leads... and matrix 3 did fall flat
come on!!! Ford Prefect == BLACK GANGSTA RAPPER (Mos Def) ?!?!??!?!?!
ugh!
i will perhaps watch a buddies copy one day from irc or private ftp site, maybe rent it a year from now, but i will not pay to watch this bastardization of somethign i cherished.
i am a big COLLECTOR of adams' published works, gilded edged hardvover editions, signed editions, his two video games, tv interviews, radio tapes, etc etc etc
but i will not reward hollywood for casting a black gangsta rapper to ruin this movie
and marvins head is too physically large
please don't suck please don't suck please don't suck. I can deal with SW being a steaming pile now, don't screw this up PLEASE!
Is it me or does anyone else think that the purpose of most reviews are to make a big stink about how good or bad a film is just so people notice the reviewer, not the film?
I mean, when was the last time you read much that could be considered a real critique of a movie rather than simply over-glorious praise or base trashing of a movie?
Or maybe I don't read enough reviews... 8^>
Geeez. Talk about a neophyte reaction to it. The reality is, the HHGTG universe is constantly in a state of flux. Between the radio series and the books, there are vast differences.
A movie that played the book "straight", would be the REAL bastardization.
In one of the forewords to one of the editions of Fahrenheit 451 that I picked up at the library to read, Bradbury admits that Truffaut came up with some great lines for The Captain he wished he'd thought of himself; he also felt the movie was true to what he intended for the book.
The Vogons are GREEN! Crap! As for Marvin, he looks nothing at all like I imagined, absolutely awful, too. A one-headed two-armed Zaphod, how unspecial. And I couldn't help but notice Disney in the upper right corner.
Something tells me 75% share-and-enjoy vs. 25% up-against-the-wall-when-the-revolution-comes is going to be generous. I may just sit this suspected travesty out. I think I've already met my quota of Movies I'd Like To Have My Money Back After Seeing Them for this decade.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I never read the books, so movies are always better.
Well then you're obviously not insanely clever enough to understand and enjoy it.
Hrm, I wonder if that bodes well for stuff along the same vein, like Mythadventures.
Someone had to do it.
you should be warned.
Can someone please tell me WTF that book is about? I just absolutely didn't get it at all.
I love it when people get modded all to hell for stating what should be taken as a personal opinion. Who can say for sure that the guy was really just trying to incite a riot amongst all of the loyal-to-the-death DA fans out there? I would've at least gone with an off-topic or a redundant, rather than just laud the guy as being nothing more than a simple, little troll.
"How like you to drag your keyboard to a gun fight." - Aaron Bedard (BANE)
Go hug some trees.
No: Adams had written a zillionth draft, one he considered "final".
Then he died.
And the studio rewrote the script, most probably to undo all the compromises they had to grant Adams.
Damn I'm tired of repeating this.
Here, read how the CEO of the studio spins it:
"Had started". Ah! That's not how he put it, before he died.
You can't take the sky from me...
Haven't you heard the good and/or bad news?
"it's not about aptitude, it's the way you're viewed" - Galinda
Anyone know where? Or specifically, where they're handing out tickets. I'd like to go.
Quotes:
downright painful portrayals of some of the characters
Mos Def really lacked the requisite wit
Deschanel's Trillian simply uninteresting
It wants to be popular and accessible by Hollywood standards
the end result is ineffectual and structurally confusing
the film looks oppressively cheap
lumbering puppets with little range of motion
Mos Def is something of a disaster as Ford Prefect
I can't think of a dolphin or a mouse that would shell out $10 to see this
Now, you can argue that I'm cherry-picking the bad news, and there were positive things said as well. That's true, but Ford is the single most important character in the book, so if he's a disaster, there's not much left, even if there are (oh boy) pretty special effects.
probably going to get hate for this, but I bloody hated Jurassic Park the book (read prior to the films release) and thought the film was much better.
Get a free Ipod!
So I looked at the link and found this
Where's Zaphod's other fscking head!! Even if it is on his tongue or on his ass for that matter! Marvin looks 'cute' not depressed. That and the fact that I learned this from the toy line is the icing on the cake. Nothing is sacred here folks.
No I'm not going to get over it either. You can't Jar-Jar-ify Marvin and get box office revenue from me. I'd be interested to know how much of this Adams signed up for and how much he was boxed into.
Arthur C. Clark wrote about the process in his 1972 book "The Lost Worlds of 2001". Unfortunately the book seems to be out of print, but if you liked the book or movie of 2001, it makes an interesting read.
As well as the story of the collaboration between Clark & Kubrik, there are several draft chapters or shorter passages, effectively aalternate versions of episodes from the book.
I think films like HHGTTG should start taking cues from software development - rather than call it a completed film, slap a "beta" label on it and get your preview audiences to QA the film until its a better overall work.
.95 of Star Wars IV: ANH where they finally fix that damn "shoot at Han first" bug!
Looking forward to release
has nothing to do with Heart of Darkness. The book (novella) is about an English sailor riding a boat up the Congo River in the 1800s to find out what happened to a man at a trading post (who has gone native.) The only similarity is that a white man goes native. But there are hundreds of other stories like it. Including "The Man Who Would Be King." Both it, and "Heart of Darkness" realize how old the "Prestor John" concept is, and distinguish themselves with their unique narratives.
From what I have heard and read, the script is good (it should be, its a DNA origonal).
:(
But the production design is nothing like the BBC TV series or the descriptions in the book (I havent heard the radio plays so I cant comment on those).
There are some things that are consistant between the book and TV series (and probobly the radio plays too). For example:
The heart of gold is portrayed as being shaped like a sneaker.
Zaphod Beeblebrox has 3 arms and an extra neck and head comming out of his shoulder.
Yet the movie doesnt have those elements
following the toy link and scroll down to the bottom. you will see a 'sexy single woman' ad right below the toy ad. I didn't see the small txt on the edge iniitially. ;)
Ok, here's my flame bait for the year.
I read the comments on both the linked site, and here. It seems that a lot of people haven't actually read the books. I've read them a few times. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy here right now, or I'd quote from it. I've bought several over the years, but the seem to get 'borrowed' and never returned.
In the preface of one edition, Mr. Adams says something to the effect that the radio show was just something they threw together for fun. The book was the radio show, but they switched around the episodes to make the chapters, and changed plenty of things. The television show was the low-budget attempt to visualize it, poking fun at himself through the whole thing. The game was yet another scrambled attempt.
I'd fully expect the movie to be different than the radio show or the book. It's the way he would have wanted it. Every version of the story has been different, why should this one follow verbatum in the footprints of the previous?
I've listened to parts of the radio show, read all the books a few times, and watched the television series. I even beat the game when I was a kid on my old Apple IIe.
Now for the flame bait.
Books and movies will always be different. There are particular things you simply can't illustrate in either medium. The best example I can think of for this was on the "Stargate" Lowdown, on the SciFi channel. The actors were suppose to be looking at this giant spaceship taking off, and being amazed by how huge it was. They were really looking at a blue screen. The script just said a "really big spaceship". After the special effects guys got done with it, they were like "Ooohhh, a *REALLY* big spaceship". The visual effects were more dramatic than what they imagined from the written word on the script.
When you read a book, your imagination fills in all the blanks. What is a "really scary ugly monster"? They can go into details of arms, legs, eyes, size, etc. But, until you see something like the monster on Aliens, you didn't understand, "Oh, *REALLY* scary ugly monster.".
To one person, the movie may be tremendous, because they didn't imagine so deeply. To some, it may not be as great. I'm impressed by seeing what other people have put together. Sure, there are plenty of movies that I think absolutely sucked. I saw "Darkness" a few weeks ago. I kept waiting for it to get good. But I'm sure there are plenty of people who liked it.
Plenty of the science fiction that I like, bore the shit out of other people. I grasp ideas that they try to throw around as truth, while some people draw a blank at the idea of alternate dimensions, or the fabric of space. "Fabric? There's a t-shirt holding the universe together?" Some people are confused by the fact that light is influenced by gravity.
HHGTTG is just fun. Hmmm, the earth is blown up by big green construction workers, and a couple guys using a thing shaped like a thumb hop up to a spaceship, are thrown into space, and land on another spaceship with an Infinite Improbability Drive powered by a cup of tea, stolen by a drunkard two headed party animal who just happened to be the president of the universe? It's not serious, its humor.
I look forward to watching the movie. Too bad I wasn't invited to the preview, I'm only a few miles away from Pasadena.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
what made the radio version the definitve 1 was the sound effects:-)
The game that he wrote was incredible. It was this twisted mind-meld of everything in the books taken and shoved backwards into the brain of an insane loony. One of the goals of the game is to acquire both tea and no tea at the same time, impressing a smarter-than-thou door enough that it will let you through. You also have to go in and take out parts of your own brain, prevent an armed and deadly armada from being eaten by a small dog by feeding it a terrible bar-room sandwich, and a legendary sequence involving trying to catch a fish in a rue-goldbergesque nightmare of cleaning robots. Unfortunately it's so mind-bendingly difficulty that few people ever make it past the introduction alive.
I recommend sitting down with a guide and the game, for a light evening of laughter and murderous rage.
The ______ Agenda
Why not play it again?
The ______ Agenda
The book for The Shinning is rather good, with some scary moment, but the movie just blows it out of the water as far as I'm concerned. The same goes for Carrie, and John Carpenter's The Thing. Fight Club and Blade Runner have already been metioned. Clint Eastwood managed to craft a moving, brlliant movie out of The Bridges of Madison County, a book with prose as terse as a cement block but not half as entertaining. And I personally preferr the movie version of The Talented Mr. Ripley to the book, but that's mostly personal taste.
It ties into the Dark Tower series (as do many of his books). Ted is a breaker running from the Crimson King's henchmen...He makes another appearance at the end of the DT series. I think you have to be a Dark Tower fan to get it/like it :)
-L
Don't Panic.
I'm mostly going to wait and rent it from Blockbuster.
Hitchcock's Psycho is based on a book by Robert Bloch...the book's good too, but the movie's a classic...
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
I would think it would be easy to overdo Arthur and Trillian's love story... since they never had one. Trillian is "with" Zaphon inasmuch as she's with anyone, which is why she goes with him whenever he splits off from the rest of the group, as he does in "Life, the Universe, and Everything." She and Arthur relate well since they're... well... the only two humans in the vicinity, but they don't have any kind of love story.
The great challenge from book to movie is to give those who have already read the book something that is at least not entirely at odds with the picture they have formed in their heads. It's very hard, but not impossible despite a abundant absence of mind readers ;-). And some of the SFX they come up with help a lot.
;-) like sensual vs sexual (which lies mostly in the amount of exposed skin ;) etc etc.
In a way, this is also a reason why black and white pictures tend to have more 'feel' depth than coloured ones - it gives the mind something to do.
There are many more examples where leaving the brain something to do enhances the experience (sorry, marketing word
I am in awe of movie makers that can adapt a book and stay true to the content - as I said, it's very hard work..
Insert
"...or movie better than book like forrest gump?"
The only reason that's true is because the movie wastes less of your life than the book.
On the other hand, the book burns better.
Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone was nearly as good as the book. The two so far released after it are significantly less rich.
I read the first Dark Tower book, but never really got into the rest. I'll have to give them a try sometime. It seems like there's a lot of fans.
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
... and arguably Total Recall though the original Total Recall not only is just a short story, but also is quite different from the movie. Neither the written nor the film version are very good anyway.
1984 the film certainly is as powerful as the book , while very true to the spirit and letter of the source. To me, better, as I don't care much for Orwell's style.
Blade Runner has been adapted quite a bit more (Hollywod leads HAVE to be young and sexy), and both versions complement each other nicely. If I had to choose one, I'd take the film.
Best regards, Olivier
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
-L
Don't Panic.