Slashdot Mirror


BBC Reviews Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

An anonymous reader writes "Now that the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has made its debut in London, reviews are now beginning to trickle in. The BBC's review can be summed up in one sentence: '... somewhere in the production process the crew has lost sight of the fundamental aspect of the books - they were immensely funny."

17 of 537 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Is it a "negative" review? I dont think so... by Golias · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, he also called it a "mess."

    Personally, I plan on seeing it, but I also plan on going out of my way to read every last negative review and whiny Aint-It-Cool-News tirade which warns of how bad it is before seeing it.

    The more I lower my expectations going in, the better the chances that I might extract a little pleasure out of watching what is bound to be a very flawed adaptation of my absolute favorite childhood novel.

    --

    Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  2. Re: not quite true by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fight Club was a phenomenal book that survived the transition to a movie, and then some.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
  3. sick by zerkon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sick of all the FUD floating around... i'm officially not reading anymore /. articles i'm just going to go see the thing for myself... hope it doesn't suck

  4. Re:My Verdict by MindStalker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thank you for another great negative review, thus assuring my expectations will be appropriatly low so I can enjoy the film.

    Curse you for giving away the part about Malkovich, it would have been an entertaining surprise.

  5. Re:My Verdict by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I could not believe how awful this film was

    Oh, come on, now. Deliberatly saying something's bad just so that the downloaders can claim they're sticking it to The Man for making bad movies... that's so, well, earlier this morning.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  6. Re:Movie reviews usually suck. by badmanone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Napoleon Dynamite is, I think, a very generational movie. If you grew up as a "child of the 80's", and were part of a specific sub-culture (the geek/dork/outsider), you can look at this movie and laugh your ass off because you see how true to life a lot of it is. If you weren't in those circles, then it is hard to see how the movie is funny.

    I myself was part of that culture, and now as a successful adult I can look back and recall all those childhood memories this movie brings up. The aweful clothing, the moon boots, the tater tots for lunch. For a lot of people, it's like their childhood (except streched out into late high school and taken to the extreme).

  7. I, Robot didn't suck. by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I, Robot didn't suck. It just had absolutly nothing to do with the book. I bet your opinion of it would be a lot higher if they had stuck with the original title, "Hardwired".

  8. Re:Is it a "negative" review? I dont think so... by Golias · · Score: 5, Insightful

    compared to Arthur, Ford was an absolute nut.

    Do you know what my favorite moment in the story is?

    When Arther Dent, stuck on past Earth, announces that he has decided to go mad.

    Ford suddenly appears and agrees that it's a good idea.

    What I like about that moment is that I didn't really care for anything which came after it. Don't get me wrong, the prose was still very funny, but all this stuff of Aurther learning to fly, a planet-wise parody of what a boring sport cricket is, the truck-driving rain god, and the destruction of all possible alternate realities... It just wasn't up to snuff with the book material spawned from the original radio plays.

    So, I have decided the following:

    Arthur really did go mad at that moment. Ford never showed up. Arthur never learned to fly. Mattress creatures did not flollop. The reincarnated plant did not seek out revenge against Arthur. None of it happened. It was all just the delusions of Arthur's madness.

    Looking at the final three and a half books of the trilogy in this light makes them much more enjoyable for me, especially since it discards the "Goddammit! I'm not writing a sixth book ever! Fuck all you drooling fanboys who will demand that my publisher lean on me to write more!" fatalistic ending. YMMV.

    For that matter, one could take this premise and craft a fairly amusing fan-fic which picks up just as Arthur recovers his sanity, still stuck among the cave men.

    --

    Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  9. Re:Movie reviews usually suck. by kahei · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I never think that Penny Arcade comics are funny, but often still laugh at User Friendly.

    This pretty much renders your opinions on comedy invalid, doesn't it?

    Go ahead -- mod me 'Troll' for speaking the truth! The world will remember me!

    --
    Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
  10. Loved the books, but as a movie? by meanfriend · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I've always been skeptical about using HHG2TG as a foundation of a movie. The enjoyment in the books isnt so much in the plot, but the writing and delivery. Personally, I love how Adams goes off track on diatribes that have nothing to do with the plot but make for some fun reading.

    An example from the famous babelfish passage:

    Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

    The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

    `But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

    `Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.

    `Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

    How the heck are you supposed to film that and keep some semblance of flow to the story? You could do it as a voiceover I suppose, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the plot yet passages like this are a defining feature of an Adams book. I'll be interested to see if they attempted to put passages like this in the movie and if they can pull it off.

    Compare with LOTR, or Harry Potter, or any Michael Crichton novel, which are more plot driven works and thus can translate to a visual medium like movies and still capture the spirit of the original text much better. At least IMHO

    Still, I'm intent on seeing the movie and hope it retains some of the classic Adams humour...

    1. Re:Loved the books, but as a movie? by Zunni · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Watch the BBC TV Version, they manage to do a great job of that very thing *including the passage you mention*

  11. I Robot by waterford0069 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I think you are wrong about "I Robot". I've been a fan of Asimov's novels for more than 20 years.

    The movie wasn't a retelling of the book, but you'd be nuts to try it. The book is a string of disjoint short stories. The same characters keep poping up, but they are complete stories unto themselves. You could perhaps make a mini-series out of them, but I don't think the majority of the American public would GET IT.

    The movie it self though was very true to Asimov's theme, which was basically "Given these three laws, how can things go wrong while the three laws are still being obeyed... and then how can I get these characters out of this mess?" additionally, they brought in the concept of the 0th law that we saw at the end of the Robot novels (although in this story line with tragic consequences).

    Perhaps the name was a bad choice, but it got the fan's attention. However, equally well it could have been called "The Three Laws", or something simmilar.

  12. Funny the first time... by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The "immensely funny" thing is curious. To be honest, completely honest... I didnt find douglas adams' work to be all that genuinely funny

    I see your point. The first couple times I thought the H2G2 books (the first 3 anyway) were quite funny. The 4th was thought provoking and the 5th quite a bummer.

    I did find, 10 years after reading the first three that I found them to be more cynical than I recalled, with some fairly biting sarcasm embodied by certain characters and actions I didn't really see before. Eventually I believed it was funny while taking aim at a lot of things Douglas Adams probably found frustration with, like satire. There certainly are some very visible satirical references, but it seemed to me that like much humor there is often a target which is true, though by not being familiar with it we don't get all of the joke.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  13. Napoleon is in a class of it's own... by FirstNoel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I found it bizarre to watch the first time. But now for some odd reason I remember parts of it, and it seems funnier now.

    Lines like:

    "Pedro offers his protection", or "You gonna eat those tots?", while on there own don't sound funny, it the right context with people who know the reference can be fairly entertaining.

    I'd say Napoleon is funnier after you've see it, not while you're actually watching it.

    I still liked it better than "Friends", ugh, I'm glad that's over.

    Sean D.

    --
    "Hmm. I am to metaphor cheese as metaphor cheese is to transitive verb crackers!"
  14. Hardwired didn't suck. by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I, Robot didn't suck. It just had absolutly nothing to do with the book. I bet your opinion of it would be a lot higher if they had stuck with the original title, "Hardwired".

    Yes, our opinion would be different if they had refrained from RAPING ASIMOV'S CORPSE!

    Then again, I haven't seen it, because of what Will Smith said on Leno: "It's very faithfull to the book [...] My character is the only man on earth who doesn't trust robots, everyone else does..."
    Yeah, that is the exact opposite of the book, jackass.

    Asimov's estate should sue them for diffamation... if they weren't busy swimming in their giant cash-filled swimming pools from all the horrible crap they've sold labelled as "Asimov's ...", that is.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  15. Nonsense. by ggvaidya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it can survive the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Trall, it can survive a bad movie.

    You could use it to hold popcorn, to wrap yourself in if the theatre is too cold, and if you carry a tube of cyanide stitched into the lining, you could kill yourself if it is too much to bear.

    Most importantly, you could cry into it if the reviews are right ...

  16. Don't Panic! - The Review Isn't Consistent by Absentminded-Artist · · Score: 5, Insightful
    After reading the article I'm not certain of what point the reviewer was trying to make. He is both glowing and critical of the same things. I wouldn't put too much weight on his comments because of this. Here's an example:

    Sam Rockwell does a great turn as Zaphod Beeblebrox, the two-headed president of the galaxy; Mos Def is passable as Ford Prefect; while Zooey Deschanel is beguiling as Trillian

    Then a few paragraphs down we get this:

    Did I say characters? Hmmm. While Dent is a familiar cipher, audiences will be left clueless by Ford Prefect, bemused by Zaphod Beeblebrox and indifferent to Trillian.

    Indifferent to Trillian? I thought the actress playing her was "beguiling"!?! How can an actress potray a character in a beguiling way that leaves the audience indifferent? That's almost as funny as some of Adams' turns of speech. :)

    In brief, the reviewer liked the movie, but didn't like all of it. In fact, he called it a "charming mess". Having been a fan of Adams' work for over twenty years I had always been under the impression the same could be said of the books. And even Adams' own later sequels lacked the punchy humor and wit of the originals. It is hard to make lightening strike twice.

    I recently downloaded the BBC's HG2G TV adaptation. Although some parts are brilliant, many parts drag and are truly awful. Translating Adams' writing style into a visual medium is bound to be difficult. Even the British couldn't get it all right.

    --
    The Splintered Mind - Overcoming