Slashdot Mirror
Telegraph Reviews Hitchhiker Movie, Approves
LPetrazickis writes "The Telegraph has reviewed the movie adaptation of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The review notes that the film is every bit as much a loving tribute to Douglas Adams as it is a joyous comedy. American actors acquit themselves well, and the sense of intelligent wonder transfers well to the technicolour screen. The many incarnations of The Guide are summarized at the end."
I forecast 42 million dollars in the first day. :P
unixkb.com -- articles on practical Unix issues.
I don't have a choice, I must see it to either enjoy it or to hack it to pieces in person with my friends. Not watching it is not an option, no matter how bad it is.
Frylock: "We should have cloned twenties, Jackson wouldn't have given a fuck."
If a book trilogy can consistent of 5 books, why can't a movie trilogy consist of 1 movie?
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
Who cares, I know I'll be seeing it. Opening night. Vogon poetry couldn't keep me away from the theater for this one.
Real_men_don't_need_spacebars.
I'm sure it isn't as good as the books were, but either way I'm going to see it. I'll be there opening day, even if everyone in the world tells me it sucks. Why? Because even if it shits on DNA's grave, it's still the Hitchhiker's Guide Movie, damn it, and I'm a Hitchhiker's Guide fan.
Username taken, please choose another one.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Unfortunately, I will not be.
:-)
I've seen the BBC series and it simply rocks.
I've had every other favorite book of mine trashed - Lord of the Rings, Dune, I, Robot and a quintillion others.
I'm not ready to watch the movie and destroy what I've treasured all this while. And most importantly, when I re-read the book, the images from the movie will stick in my mind - something I really do not want to happen.
I'll go with the earlier review -- I'm a purist of sorts in this regard, and I'm fairly certain I'll hate the movie.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Don't smoke dope and post at /. at the same time.
Thanks for the link. The whale falling monologue seems to have been reproduced faithfully (slightly cut and rushed, but it was there), which gives me some renewed faith in the film.
I, for one, look forward to the movie. I have confidence that it will incredibly funny, while still staying true to the spirit of the books. I ask all those who demand a carbon copy to please bellyache out of my earshot.
Sounds rather bought-and-paid-for to me. Puff piece. Astroturf, even.
And what's with nonsense like:
Zooey Deschanel as Trillian, a minor character in Adams's book
or
and a towel, a manic-depressive android and a whale falling from the sky all make important appearances.
I'm sorry, Trillian is a "minor character"? Marvin is lumped in with the whale as a character who makes "important appearances"? Important appearances? The reviewer doesn't even give his name? If the movie slashes his role that much, there is serious trouble.
My Joo Janta peril-sensitive sunglasses are strangely opaque. I suspect this movie will suck, and will only do slightly better than if every theater showing it was blanketed in an SEP field.
Has it gotten to the point where we don't even watch a movie to figure out if we like it? How often are critics wrong? Watch the movie for yourself and make up your own mind.
So put that in your pipe and grep it
I've had every other favorite book of mine trashed - Lord of the Rings...
If you think the LOTR movies "trashed" the books, then you would probably not like *any adaptation* of a book. As you said, if you don't want "images from the movie to stick" in your mind, the best bet is to not watch it. So, you don't really need to go with any review -- you seem to have an issue with the visual medium itself.
S
Marshall McLuhan's message: ""The Medium is the Message" is now about 4 decades old. McLuhan is thought by many to be one of the fathers of the age of technology yet posters on /. seem unable to distinguish between two mediums/metaphors as visibly distinguishable as film and book. The experiences are distinctly different enjoy each according to its merits. If you can't distinguish between two diverse experinces perhaps you're too egocentic and tribal, read primitive.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
REUTERS:
In financial news today expert industry anylists report that the once popular, geeky, tech news site slashdot.com's ad revenue is in sharp decline.
Economists assert that Slashdots's new diet of endless lame news items about Google, municipal WIFI and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy are putting off hungry consumers who are going elsewhere.
"I just can't take it anymore" said one long time Slashdot afficionado. "It's just Google, HitchHiker's, and WIFI"
Experts predict that of the remaining 12.5 visitors slashdot gets daily, 98.3% use the adblock feature of the controversial "Firefox" browser.
"It's a bleak situation"
Oh that's just part of the problem.
My primary grudge with LoTR was that while it was a good story on its own, it wasn't in any way related to Tolkien's world.
One of the things that made LoTR powerful was the strength of the characters - I find that missing in LoTR. I felt that almost all the characters were trashed and made to appear rather simplistic or even comical.
For instance - both Ghost in the Shell and Sincity weren't bad adaptations, and both held quite true to the spirit of the books.
Then again, maybe it's just me.
A positive review, now we can all go see the movie...
Please, as if we weren't going to see it anyway.
I've yet to find a movie critic with whom I agree with often enough to actually avoid a movie based on their review.
See the damn movie, make up your own mind 'eh.
You know you're a geek if you've ever replied to a tagline.
If they can survive being linked when they had Morgan Webb photos, they can survive anything.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
The Hitchhikers Guide to the galaxy is not a book that was adored and loved by all. i know many people that hate it and dont understand why it is so popular. so it is to be expected that some people would like the movie more than others. I personaly am a big fan of hitchhikers and hope that there is enough positive support for them to continue the series with more movies
godlike
> it wasn't in any way related to Tolkien's world.
What? I thought it was an extremely faithful adaption, given the limitations imposed by trying to compress three fat books into a mere 9 hours (or whatever) of movie. And before you ask, I've read LoTR so many times since my mum bought it for my birthday in 1962 that my original copy has just about fallen apart. Btw, I've never felt that Tolkien's characterisation was all that strong - most of the characters are little better than cardboard cutouts.
What a long, strange trip it's been.
The point is to not pay for bad movies. If you go to a movie such as this, and it turns out to be bad, well now you know it stinks but they have your $9 now so what do they care?
This is why so many bad movies get churned out over and over again. If you continue to front the cash for them then it's basically the same as saying "shove anything in my face hollywood, because I never learn and I'll continue to pay for whatever trash you deem worthy entertainment" (in my opinion).
So most people rely on movie reviews to make sure their dollars go to supporting entertainment they want to support.
RTFA:
Most of the book's best lines and situations survive. The phrase "Don't Panic!" is liberally sprinkled around, "42" is still the answer to the ultimate question, Arthur still can't quite get the hang of Thursdays - and a towel, a manic-depressive android and a whale falling from the sky all make important appearances.
UNIX: A computer user is defined as a programmer. WINDOWS: A computer user is defined as a consumer.
42.
Let's face it - whoever made this movie, whoever produced it, whoever starred in it - it was always, *always* going to be either loved or hated. Such is the sentiment and legacy towards DNA.
As is made clear in just about every item one reads about Douglas (including TFA), he saw each incarnation of H2G2 as a different entity in its own right and felt no compunction to translate perfectly between mediums.
The sad fact is that Douglas is dead. So we can either have no movie ever, or hand it over to someone else. The latter was always the best idea, IMO. Let's stop whining and celebrate the fact that the geek's favourite book has finally made it to film. Films are practically never as good as the books they follow (one or two exceptions like 2001 and, for me, Fear & Loathing (thanks to Johnny Depp, but I digress) spring to mind). H2G2 is the best example of this as it fires the imagination like nothing else.
I, for one, am all too happy to see both negative and positive reviews.
It's indifference I don't like.
If you think the BBC series "simply rocks", you are delusional, plain and simple. I love the series, but I'm not going to lie to myself- the BBC series was painful to watch.
Username taken, please choose another one.
Just reading about how this movie was made would make me think that a "making of..." documentary about this movie would be almost as entertaining as the movie itself.
In short, DNA could very likely be a character in his own book. Or conversely, his own life was so bizzare that in many ways the books (not just the Hitchhiker trilogy) mirror his own life. The more I read about DNA's life experiences, the more facinating I find him to be.
I found this bit to be almost priceless from the Telegraph story: (to pharaphrase) The producers of this movie are "two men working from a barge named Polly, moored on the Regent's Canal in an unfashionable part of Islington, north London."
I don't think DNA could have done better for a new book opening scene.
[blockquote]the film is every bit as much a loving tribute to Douglas Adams as it is a joyous comedy.[/blockquote]
so, it's as funny as a funeral and bears no resemblance to the book then?
Glad someone said it. I really liked the books and movies, but depth of characterization wasn't a priority for Tolkein. Given that his interests were with mythology, that wasn't surprising, but let's not pretend his work was something it wasn't intended to be. Most of the characters were either "white hats" or "black hats." Exceptions were mainly limited to Gondor, where Denethor was plain nuts, Boromir was a good flawed hero, and Faramir was very well rounded.
The treatment of Faramir, actually, was my greatest disappointment with the movie (theater version especially).
Well, I guess it's just a matter of opinion. Peter Jackson's movie was well made as a fantasy movie, just not LoTR.
It's not the compressed part that got to me, but the fact that he changed a lot of things that need not have been changed - making Gimli into a comical character, portraying Faramir as someone who gives into temptation, horrible portrayal of Lady Galadriel, Aragorn and a lot of others. Not to mention tonnes of inconsistencies (Glorifendel's role, for instance) and such.
PJ did not have to make these changes, yet he did - that is what irritated me.
I'm not going to see the movie. They replaced Tom Bombadil with some stupid robot, and I hear Trillian is going to be fighting at Helm's Deep. Isn't anything sacred anymore?
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Thank you! I was beginning to think everyone else (or maybe possibly I) was crazy! It was very painful. Personally, I got through half of the first episode, stopped it and deleted the entire series from my harddrive and did a DoD compliant wipe out of empty space just to be extra safe.
I thought he was from... Wales. (Hides)
"The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the pieces." --Aldo Leopold (Paraphrased)
Uh, I dunno ... is that one of those glottal stop words? Here in this country we use vowels.
"Lo-tor!"
"Lot-rrr"
"Lort!"
I think I hurt my glottis *and* my epiglottis. It's definitely bed time.
When I came out of the first Lord Of The Rings screening, I actually heard a pack of hardcore nerdlingers arguing over the way some of the characters sat down to eat and how it wasn't portrayed in the film.
If you're that tied up that you cannot live with a story being adapted as best possible to suit the film media, please don't ever leave your house again. The rest of us cinema-goers don't want you there.
The story may not follow the book to the letter, but can't you see a little beyond that and maybe judge it on its own merits? For fucks sake...
And let's not forget the gratuitous dwarf-tossing jokes in the first two films. Then again, the director of "Dead Alive" and "Meet The Feebles" not adding a little sophomoric humor to LOTR? Did you expect him to hold back? I didn't and wasn't offended.
The beauty of the LOTR movies was that even though they were not faithful to the letter of the book, they were faithful to the spirit of the book. I was not disappointed.
Of course, I would have rather seen Bjork as Arwen. She *looks* like an elf. She wouldn't have even had to play with a different accent...her Icelandic/British accent is pretty damn close to the way they did Elvish anyway.
Also I would have rather heard what Jimmy Page would have done on the soundtrack instead of Howard Shore. I'm a child of the '70s. Reading LOTR with Led Zeppelin on the stereo has inescapably twisted my mind. He's done orchestral scores before...anyone remember the "Death Wish" movies? Yeah, I know, bad example.
Of course, H2G2 has similar synaptic connections in my twisted mind. I still have an animated movie starring the voices of Eric Idle (Ford), Michael Palin (Arthur) and Bill Murray (Zaphod) in my mind, probably never to be erased by the actual movie. The deconstruction of the movie by DNA's biographer kinda had me worried, but I think I might just give this a chance.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
I met a fella at a party in England once in the seventies. We peed in a field and argued over whether "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Milky Way" was a better title. He thought not... Said I was a telepathic bastard in fact, but that's water out back of the comet now. Point: All I want is a PDA with all the video and movies and radio cross-ref'd with the Texts, with the words "Don't Panic" on its cover. Counterpoint: After all this time, is that too much to ask of Western Civilization? Tesserapoint: Or, at least, of an anonymous yet literate electronics factory in Taiwan?
One of the things that made LoTR powerful was the strength of the characters
From the typical viewpoint of "characters are people", then the LOTR books had hardly any characterization. The members of the fellowship were hardly more than stereotypes.
Only if you look at it in context and understand that those stereotypes were new inventions (at that time) can you grasp why the series had such acclaim. In a way, the entire races and cultures of elves, dwarves, orcs and hobbits were characters of themselves.
Readers born after the 1970s will barely recognize that fact, because the ideas have been copied so broadly through D&D, World of Warcraft, etc.
When the hell people would understand that book is what characters THINK, and movie is what your characters SPEAK!!
Writer writes a book, not script/screenplay of a movie. So, a movie based on the book can not be SAME AS THE BOOK EVER!!! It is a completely different medium - to tell the same story.
A book leaves it to the reader to imagine how characters, places look. Hence it is a very personalized product for the reader. Movie leaves little left to imagination (in this context). It can not be as personal as the book might have been.
That is the reason why most of the movies based on very popular/cult books have been largely disappointing to the fanboys - just because it is not what THEY imagined/visualized it. And they are never going to be satisfied with the movie based on their favorite book. If one can not figure how great (and also faithful) LOTR movies have been to the book, well, H2G2 is a far cry.
Believe it or not, Moviefone was a happily operating business long before it was ever referenced on "Seinfeld"....
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Eh, Tolkein didn't so much flesh out characterizations of individuals, as family lines. For example, it's not necessarily what Aragorn has done (most of his actual story is in the apendices), but WHO he is (is descended from).
I will agree that Faramir was unsettling (although I understand why they did it), and I felt they nailed Boromir as a good -but too proud- man.
To be fair, Denethor wasn't "plain nuts", Sauron drove him to it (and oh, how I wanted to see that in the extended cut) via the palantir.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
The review says Trillian will be a romantic interest of Arthur Dent. If anything, this convinces me they did something seriously wrong with the movie. A romantic interest is for heroes, or at least for guys with something going for them. Arthur Dent is a notorious failure, a complete nobody in the universe, and he is driven, at least in the first three books, mainly by a quest to find a decent cup of tea. Is he going to "save the girl" now? Shocking.
OH NO THEY ARE RAPING DOUGLAS ADAMS' CORPSE111111 **** OK, if you say that but also say how good the BBC TV series was...well...jeeze, people. Just...jeeze.
***
I've noticed at least a few changes between the UK and US prints of the books.
Examples include:
UK : US
Mindbuggering : Mindboggling - in description of the Vogon Fleet
Fuck : Belgium - the most gratuitous use of the word **** in a serious screenplay
Does anyone know of a full list of these changes? I'd be interested to know just how many alterations were made.
--------
All Your Fish Are Belong To Us
Hey, seriously, bringing a towel seems like a good idea. Except it only leads to 2 possibilities:
:(
1) I'm the only one who does it and look like a total dork
2) Lots of people do it and I look like an unoriginal hack
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
Then perhaps you should watch it before slating it. The film DOES contain the gargleblaster and even shows it being made, plus towels feature aplenty.
Actually it really was possible to complete (there are various walkthroughs floating the web, and the game is hosted also somewhere) it just had several problems: There were some mistakes you could make easily which never showed until the last third of the game. The game basically was unforgiving in that area by simply not giving any warning but letting you play further.
If you think the LOTR movies "trashed" the books, then you would probably not like *any adaptation* of a book.
Jackson did trash Two Towers, which ought to have been much more suited to the screen than Fellowship. Look at how badly Theoden's character got screwed -- converted from probably the most sympathetic human character in the novel into an arrogant, cowardly fool. Not only did Jackson and his screenwriters turn that character into cardboard, he rewrote things so that holding the Hornburg was the safe and stupid action rather than a brave last stand that would be the one hope for the country. In so doing, he takes one of the two great battles of the novel and drops it into a context where it is made to feel wrong and pointless. Then Jackson compounds the fuckup by cutting out the final confrontation with Saruman and pushing forward the Shelob encounter to RotK; with those three key elements gone, the entire movie winds up being pretty pointless too.
Maybe saying that Jackson and his screenwriters trashed LOTR is too harsh, but they really did fuck up Two Towers.
You'd rush too if you were falling rapidly towards the ground :)
about the difference between fantasy and conventional literature. It has to do about how they model psychology.
The conventional literary complaint about fantasy is that it doesn't hany any model of psychology at all -- that characters are flat and have no internal life. Therefore fantasy is mere entertainment, and can't have any kind of relevance other than escapism.
The key to understanding how this works, in my opinion, is that there is truly only one character in fantasy -- each character represent a different part of the reader, and as such have no internal structure. Psychological struggles are uncovered in fantasy and myth, by making the forces behind those struggles manifest, then playing out the results of each decision before our eyes, as it were. In the fairy tale, the impulse of pride is represented by the elder brothers who pass strange little man on the road and treat him with contempt, and the impulse of compassion is represented by the virtuous younger brother who stops and aid the little man, and in turn is aided. No more psychological machinery is required, this is perfect in itself. These are impulses which arise in ourselves and do battle on a daily basis; we don't know where they come from.
Very few fantasy works have the scope to demonstrate this fully, but LotR does. Every signficant character has his opposite: Gandalf/Sarauman, Theoden/Denethor, and Frodo/Gollum. Boromir is paird both with Faramier and Aragorn, who are in many ways the same character. So I would disagree that characterization is a weakness for Tolkien. He just uses what for literary critics are unfamiliar devices.
In any case, the reason the movie Faramir character was so unsuccessful is that he clearly doesn't belong here. The script writers had a major task in converting a mythological book into the dramatic medium. This involved a great deal of difficult compromise, and by in large they were sucessful by giving the archetypal characters dramatic shadings, if you will. They succeeded for the most part in keeping their drama instincts in check. Faramir is the one instance where they felt free to completely recast a Tolkien character to fit more of a theatrical/conventional literary mold. Probably the only one they dared to, as he is relatively minor. It isn't that one is ill-inclined to this character, he's just a melodramatic fish out of water..
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So the Earth will be destroyed five minutes before the box-office figures come in, then?
> Such writers can admit to watching something like Matrix or Star Wars only for
> spectacular stunts and explosions, not for admiring the fictional world or its
> techno-social implications.
So it's not just me who sits up half the night wondering just what the government would do were it to discover that the world is actually a computer program run by killer robots from the future? Girls just don't understand this sort of problem.
The Hitchhikker's Guide has always been a multi-format story, all incarnations of which differ from each other in very unique ways. First came the radio show, then the print trilogy, then the BBC TV Series, then the fourth book, then the Infocom game, and finally the last book. I enjoy all of the formats, and I'd be bored with the series by now if all of these were direct adaptations. I think judging this movie (particularly before you have seen it) is completely against the spirit of the series. The main reason I'll go see it is for the casting. I love Martin Freeman, and I love Mos Def. I've been re-reading the books, and I can already picture these two in the roles. And to those who expect the film to be bad: see it, but don't forget your towel.