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.)
How faithful to the spirit of the book will the movie be?
http://tech-hawg.blogspot.com
Why'd you take out the jokes?
Do you realize how many people will miss "Beware of the Leopard?" Almost all the dialogue in that skit is gone, so it's not even a joke anymore.
Will the full trilogy (5 books) be made or is it being played by ear to see how the first goes?
I like muppets.
Which of the characters in the movie was the most difficult to find an actor for and why?
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
In Making the Film, what was the most difficult cut that had to be made? What scene from the book do you wish could have made it into the movie?
Was there an effort made to appeal equally to both fans of the original books and those who have not read the books, or was it slanted towards one group over the other?
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare -- a pumpkin with a gun."
Was investing in a franchise with such a purist fan base ever a concern for you, and what audience do you see this film appealing to most in light of such concerns?
Google, as usual, is already on top of that.t he+universe%2C+and+everything
http://www.google.com/search?q=answer+to+life%2C+
In making the film, was it ever a consideration to create a film that will appeal to people who have never read the books or heard the radio broadcasts? In making adaptations from literary works, especially ones with rich, stand alone universes, much time is spent on exposition of material that is well known to anyone who has read the works. While needed for people unfamiliar with the milieu, exposition rarely makes for riveting entertainment. But then again, so many people have read the books or heard the broadcasts, who actually makes the decision? It it just left up to the screen adaptor?
I understand from film makers that I know that it's very difficult to bring a book to film. Many things that work in a novel just don't work on film.
I'm curious as to what decisions you made regarding editing, changing, or even adding things to the plot to bring the story to film?
What was the driving inspiration behind the look for the movie version of Marvin? Fans are all aware of the "brain the size of a planet" lament, but what's with that giant round head? A new play on words? For laffs? Because all the other MP3 players seem to be going with that look nowadays?
Starkle, starkle, little twink.
If more films are made how will the refrences to God (The babelfish entry) and God's message to his creation be handled? In the current politically correct world will these be dropped or edited to refrence something different?
I like muppets.
"W-H-A...T" What!
"D-O-Y-O"? Doy-oh, "u-G", Do you Get!
*snip*
"...n,u,s-O-n-E!" Plus or minus one!
"What do you get if you multiply six by eight, for values of eight moderated up or down by +/-1?"
(I always thought there was something fundamentally wrong with Slashdot moderation anyways.)
The only question that really matters: Whether he'd have approved or not, would DNA have laughed while watching your "re-imagination" of his work?
How hard was it dealing with studio exec's who neither read nor understood Douglas Adam's work, while attempting to transition the original stories to film?
What do you feel is the single compromise made in the name of satisfying studio demands that the fans of the originals will be least likely to accept?
Where is your towel?
Douglas Adams has likened getting a movie made in Hollywood to "trying to grill a steak by having a succession of people coming into the room and breathing on it."
Given the considerable success of his books and their large following, why wasn't a film adaptation released earlier? What hurdles had to be overcome?
It seemed that a lot of the reason that Hammer and Tongs was chosen to do this film was their unique style, and in a lot of ways, it works with Douglas Adams' creative vision. However, it's being distributed by Touchstone Pictures, a division of the Walt Disney Corporation, and the quirky nature of Hammer and Tongs doesn't seem like it'd mesh with the culture at Disney. Additionally, I'd imagine the "suits" would have a lot of problems with a faithful treatment of Adams' work.
My question: how was the working relationship between the filmmakers and Disney (Touchstone)? Were there elements of the movie that were cut by Disney because they "just didn't get it," or were they pretty supportive of the decisions made by the filmmakers?
Why the decision to go with an almost totally American leading cast)? Other big book to movie adaptations (Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings) did outstanding with a fully british, and very mixed (respectively) cast. Was this by design to win over American audiences, or studio pressure, or just because they were the best auditioned actors these right roles? and also, were they the 1st choice for the roles. NOTE: I love Sam Rockwell, Mos Def and Zooey Deschanel, so these are not to be taken critically.
As an enormous Hitchhikers fan and Douglas Adams friend, I'm curious how you feel he would view the movie in it's final rendition. Since it's not about the accuracy to the books but about the intent, spirit and truth to Douglas' vision bracketed by the financial and operational limitations of a movie in todays economy would Douglas smile and have another drink or just get drunk? He worked for many years to get this on film and now that it is ready for release, as a friend and knowing him as long as you did, how do you think he'd feel you did?
What does the "movie-first" experience have to offer that the "book-first" does not? Or is this movie really just for the geeks that are already in love with the tale, and my wife will just think it's another of my quirks?
This forum Sig is licensed under the LGPL.
Did the studio execs want a flashy blockbuster like Men In Black, or were they projecting for a lower box office total with the production (and thus not as willing to pony up big effects dollars)?
Consider: Every "incarnation" of tHHGttG has had variations such that no two are alike. Not including this one, Douglas Adams had a direct hand from start to finish of each version, so one cannot make remarks about accuracy or authenticity.
While DNA started this one, he was taken from us before its completion.
SO, my question is : Which "divergences" in this version were done (by/under the guidance of) Douglas Adams and which (if any) were done by other folks after his passing.
FWIW, I plan to ignore the critics and go see this film with a child-at-Christmas expectation. It should be great Eye Candy if nothing else.
Could you please respond to the review located at http://planetmagrathea.com/shortreview.html , in particular rebutting the parts that suggest the movie is poor in quality, is a travisty, or is otherwise unworthy of the name HHGTTG?
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
In the end, how did you choose, from this range of sources, what sort of Hitch Hiker's Guide you actually wanted to make?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
To me, the essence of the Hitchhiker's Guide lies in the unpredictable turn of events that Douglas sets up to the reader. From a little girl with the answer to Vogon poetry, leaping to dolphins and mice. How do you retain these elements in such a straightforward media as the movies? How did you manage to "guide" the viewer without loosing the "in this page, for something completely different, we will talk about dolphins"?
This is true: two years ago I was watching "The Office" at a co-worker's house (I'd never watched a whole episode before), and realized that Martin Freeman struck me -- out of the blue -- as exactly the way I would have expected a real-life Arthur Dent to look, gesture and sound, right down to the mooning for dawn, and the look of frustrated annoyance that he occasionally beams at (or rather just past) Gareth.
At the time (having no head for celebrity news), I didn't realize he'd been cast already as Arthur, and figured some other, well-meaning but inferior actor had been cast in that role. "It's too bad that they're already shooting 'Hitchhikers,'" I said, "because that guy *is* Arthur! Anyone else will pale in comparison to the flesh-and-blood Arthur who is playing Tim in this bizarre English-type sit-com!" My better-informed co-worker let me in on the good news, and my casting prowess was confirmed (to me, anyhow).
However, I'm curious how he came to the attention of the film's makers -- or was it vice versa? Was it because of his role in The Office, or was it his idea, or what? Was he already an Adams fan, or was this just happenstance?
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Does any one person have final creative say on a movie? Can the editors take a film and chop it up as they see fit thereby changing, for better or worse, the movie? Can the Executive Producer tell the director to change a character the EP doesn't like?
There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
How well do you think this movie will go over with Hitchhiker newbies and United States audiences as compared to a "native" British audience? On a similar vein, did you go out of your way to make it accessible or concentrate on autenticity?
Peter Jackson reportedly said that he got the inspiration to work on Lord of the Rings when he finally realized that no one else was going to do it. What motivated you to get involved with Hitchhiker's? And secondly, what project would you love to see someone do?
Education is the silver bullet.
Thanks,
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
With Douglas Adams gone, one of the difficulties you most certainly faced was balancing your ideas for the film with loyalty to his work.
Without Adams to serve as a reality check and oracle for all things Hitchhiker, how did you divine what he would have enjoyed, recommended, etc., without forfeiting or neglecting your own ideas?
1. If Douglas Adams were still alive, what do you believe would be his thoughts and opinion of the final version of the movie?
2. Do you believe the movie would be noticeably different if Adams had survived and had more of a hand in its making? If so, in what ways?
I have been confused by the TV spot for this film. It pushes itself as a Sci-Fi exploration, possibly action film with absolutely no comedy. Is this merely the TV advertising campaign, or is the film not a comedy?
Dear diary: Today I stuffed some dolls full of dead rats I put in the blender.
Having read "Salmon of doubt", I gather Douglas Adams very much wanted to be involved in this project, (I found his list of phone numbers rather funny :), but then he died. :(
What I wonder is how much he got the chance to be involved, and what (if any) of his contributions to the movie script that were cut (and that you miss)? Were there new stuff, or was it a question of selecting from the preexisting versions?
(I realize answering this question might require the protection of an asbestos suit, but you are welcome to borrow mine.)
Yes, I am a biological organism. All rumors to the contrary are just that, rumors.
This movie was in deadlock for a long time until Douglas Adams died. In a reasonably short time span after this, things began moving.
My question is what things did Douglas Adams block that have now gone ahead?
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
The infamous Planet Magrathea pre-release review is saying that a lot of Adams's original dialogue was chopped to bits, leaving out classic lines and asphyxiating his jokes. Is this true? If so, why was the dialogue--the one aspect of H2G2 that has been a constant--changed so drastically?
[insert witty sig here]
I've always wanted to know what an executive producer does. What do they do? And how many of them does this film have?
All of the trailers I have seen on televison recently make the movie seem like an action flick. In keeping with the spirit of the book, I think this clearly isn't the case. However, the trailer I saw before Sin City last night, actually made the movie seem like more of a comedy. Is this just a case of marketing to different demographics? For instance, the audience for Sin City is most likely into comics, sci fi, etc. and will already know what the book and movie are about. However, the average schlub watching televsion will have no idea, so the trailer tries to draw them with lots of explosions. Is this indeed the case?
I guess I fall into both categories, so I will be there for the humor and the explosions. ; )
SiO2
So, when can we expect the movie version of "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" to come out?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Of note: in base 13, 6 × 9 = 42
Are there any scenes that have counterparts in other versions that you originally thought "There is no way that we're going to be able to do that" that you feel have turned out particularly well?
"I think everyone is an agnostic but just doesn't know" - Frazz
2) With the six books in the series on Arthur Dent, Ford Prefect, and Zaphod Beeblebrox, how did you choose to keep some material and not show other material? Did you do this with the the thought of a sequel in mind?
3) In the Introduction: Guide to the guide: Some unhelpful hints from the author, will the movie update the contact info on "How to leave the planet" with current contact info to NASA, The Whitehouse, The Kremlin, and the Pope, with the addition of Virgin Galactic at www.virgingalactic.com ?
4)So Long, And Thanks For All The Fish
Most movies force the producers into some sort of comprimise due to budget/time/movie length restrictions. If these restrictions were lifted so that you could add one more thing to this movie, what would it be?
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
We have heard a lot about scenes being in and out of various cuts, suggesting that many of the things long-time fans will miss in this movie may have been filmed.
So, my join questions: Are there plans in place to have an extended cut? and Are there any particular scenes that come to mind that you believe should be added back in?
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
i'm skeptical of everything i read online, but if the unhappy review is right and the moviemakers don't know that the restarant is at the temporal end of the universe, then i have no faith in them to get the rest right. as far as i'm concerned, mj simpson's review has saved me $8.
I have one question for you... It's a 42 part question:
No, seriously though, here is my question:
Did you get to work with Douglas Adams before his untimely death? If so, what was it like?
http://www.accelerateglobalwarming.com
Why did you feel it necessary to change the character motivations? Part of what made the books and radio programs funny was that the characters AREN'T actually interested in the Question to the Answer of the Meaning of Life the Universe and Everything/Saving the Universe from the homicidal planet Krikkit/God's Last Message to Creation/etc. Instead, all they want is a good cup of tea/wealth and fame/a drink and a peer group/ad infinitum... The utter inanity of the characters was part of the funny.
The plot of HHGTTG has always been fluid, but the characters were the same throughout all the plot variations. I think the new PLOT of the movie could have worked just as well as any of the other HH plots, except that the characters are significantly different in attitude, behavior, and motivation.
Yes, there are women on Slashdot. Deal with it.
In my opinion, what made Douglas Adams' H2G2 books special was their combination of light-hearted wacky humor with a quite serious undercurrent of bitter socio-philosophical commentary.
The movie trailers look as if they capture the light-hearted wacky humor, but my big concern is that the movie will fail to capture and blend in Adams' commentary on society. And as others have pointed out, with Disney involved somehow in the making or distribution of the movie, I doubt the suits would have let much bitter or deep underlying social commentary into the film.
Do you think you actually correctly identified, related to, and captured in film format the social commentary aspect of Adams' writing?
Adams had a George Carlin-esque approach that was key: he pointed out the asinine flaws in mainstream human thinking and behavior, which are things we all notice but few dare to explicitly point out or belittle. To lose that would be a an artistic shame.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
What sort of auience were you aiming at? Fans, non-fans, British, American, et cetera?
I have friends, including my current SO, who are not from English-speaking countries but speak English pretty well. Not one of them has been able to enjoy my favorite comedic literature due to the cultural and/or lingustic barriers. In making the film have you taken any special steps to make the material accessible to international audiences? Is it even possible to do so without ruining the material?
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Whilst I havent yet been able to hear the radio plays, I have seen the TV series (well the VHS version on 2 tapes anyway) and read all 5 books.
I understand that the movie is not a movie of the book, just another conflicting version of the whole story. But, why are things that are consistant between the book and TV show (and probobly the radio plays too I suspect) different in the movie?
Why does the production design/costumes/etc differ so much from what the books (and I assume the radio plays) describe and also what is shown on the TV series? (e.g. zaphod's extra head and arm not being as prominent as the book and TV series depict, the heart of gold not being shaped like a sneaker as described in the book and shown in the TV series and so on)
Apparently there are quite a few. The list of missing scenes makes reference to the Guide entry for the towels as being missing but it's only the Guide entry that's cut, not all the other references to towels.
There were promotional towels draped over the backs of the chairs for the recent Leicester Square premier.