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."

7 of 537 comments (clear)

  1. 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 . . .
  2. 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.
  3. 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".

  4. 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.

  5. 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...

  6. 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 ...

  7. 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