Slashdot Mirror
Ask 'Hitchhiker's Guide' Exec. Producer Robbie Stamp
After nearly three years of waiting, the movie version of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is almost upon us. I've been impressed with the casting, and with the trailers I've seen of the film -- enough that I'm taking the rather unhappy early review posted the other day with a large grain of salt. Now's your chance to ask whatever you'd like of Robbie Stamp, the film's executive producer; we'll pass on to Robbie some of the best questions and publish his answers as soon as he gets them back to us. (As usual, please -- confine yourself to one question per post.)
Considering that there is zero chance that real Hitchhiker fans will be satisfied with the movie ... why do you even bother trying?
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
How about doing another interview after we've seen the movie?
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
do the ads look like a terribly unfunny movie?
Reject Fear - Embrace Hope
There's a rumor going around that there were a great number of things about the movie that were in contention between the studio and Douglass Adams, and that after his death all of these points were decided by the studio in their favor. Is there any truth to this? A lot of fans are concerned that this film will not be faithful to Douglass Adams' vision for the movie.
Dear diary: Today I stuffed some dolls full of dead rats I put in the blender.
How much filmed material will not make it into the movie, and is making an extended edition a possibility?
As others have pointed out, the dialogue was originally written to be spoken, which it was in the original radio play, and it worked very, very well, thank you.
If you can't imagine that dialogue in your head being funny when spoken then you are either not a fan, have a shitty sense of humor, or are entirely devoid of imagination. Possibly all of the above.
Dear moderators: the parent post isn't actually a troll, despite your moderation. It's a (very valid) criticism of the style of argument put forth in the original post.
Assuming that it's not there (I haven't seen the film that's not out yet), the additional dialogue about the leopard did enhance the humor (though in a typical wordy brittish way), but is unnecessary for the overall gag: namely that the notice was on "public display" in a very unpublic place. The leopard bit just dresses it up a bit by pointing out how rediculously un-public the public display was.
The cheapest resource in a book is its words: you can have as many of them as you want really, no matter how long it takes to read.
By contrast, the most valuable resource in a film is, arguably, the time. If you want to fit the film into one sitting, you need take advantage of films strengths: it is a visual medium.. drop some dialogue and tell the rest of the joke with the visual portion. Which no doubt will be stunning if the trailer is typical of the film.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Douglas Adams said he wanted Marvin to look round and sleek, not like his TV series counter part. Today "sleek and cool" is an iPod with legs.
Makes perfect sense. "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with" ought to look like he's... made of plastic and... fun... to be with.
I never liked his look in the TV show, early 80's BBC cheeze fest aside. He sounds depressed, but he's supposed to look... appealing. It's a product that is well marketted, but badly made. Remember the commerical in the show? That other robot on the beach didn't look like something anyone would want to buy.
I like that change: It's a cosmetic upgrade that is actually closer to the spirit of the character.
You can't take the sky from me...
How about some casting suggestions?
First off, what the Hell does Lord of the Rings have to do with whether this will be a good film or not?
More to the point though, how do you know the film will be close to the book. Even if it were close to the book, it doesn't mean it'll be a good film. Two people can tell a joke and one will make it funny and the other drag it out.
But since DNA didn't even keep true to his original work, how can you criticize?
I haven't criticised, I'm interested in what it was that Douglas Adams was fighting them on. After all, he has produced very funny books and radio plays on this idea. I respect the gift for humour and intelligence he had. If he had fights with the studio over which direction the film would take, then I'd like to know what they were. Whether or not the film varied the plot yet again, the author knew what was funny and what wasn't.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Yes, but there was one thing consistant across the radio, book, and TV. They were full of DNA's jokes. Our fear of the new movie is that it is full of broken DNA jokes.
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
That's science fiction books, not comic or fantasy books which both have some decent attempts. Where do you think HG2TG will stack up? I can think of lots and lots of bad SFB2Ms:
Starship Troopers, I-Robot, The Postman, etc, not bad translations so much as bad movies with the wrong title, that changes the entire story and adds new, boring ones. Starship Troopers took out the armor and added sex and unrequited love. I-Robot I will confess I never eyed. The Postman took a sympathetic do-gooder who put his own life in danger and turned him into a post-apocalyptic con man who gets a bunch of innocent people killed.
The original Planet of the Apes, Blade Runner, Total Recall, Running Man are all decent films but again, the source material was pretty much just a starting point, it just went in a better direction.
I look forward to seeing this movie, however I also looked forward to some of the movies I mentioned previously. Good luck, for all our sakes.
The Lord of the Rings trilogy was a mile-stone in moviemaking. They managed to stay very, very, close to the original material without becoming bogged down in dialogue, or become extremely boring. They were hugely successful.
In this day and age, how can anyone honestly say that something from a book 'cannot be done' or 'won't work'? Why did you use ideas that weren't in the book? The books seem to have been Douglas Adam's final draft of most of the ideas in the HHGTTG, what made you think that ideas from his other sources were superior?
Did you learn any lessons from the LoTRs movies? (What would work, what doesn't work?)
Why pick on that one (missing) joke? Like DNA had said heaps of times before, the movie isn't the book, and the book isn't the radio play! They're different because they're different mediums. So many of you have canned this film and it's not even released yet... How are you supposed to enjoy it if you go in with that attitude? What about all the jokes from the radio play that were not in the book? Do you complain about them?
Why the decision to go with an almost totally American leading cast)?
Judging by some of the past US adaptations of British books, my guess would be parochialism, hubris, and a basic contempt for the material. (No disrespect to the US actors who I'm sure did their best, however miscast).
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling