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."
..."I think you ought to know I'm feeling very depressed...about this movie"
You are apparently unfamiliar with British English, where maths is the preferred truncation of mathematics.
Adams' deceptively complex novels are crammed full of witty erudition, great gags and lengthy digressions, so it was always going to be a struggle to turn it into a neatly packaged two-hour movie.
Understandably perhaps, huge swathes of the novel have been cut in order to make a consistent, story-led film.
you'd think the BBC of all places would know this. They're *supposed* to be different. If the radio show, books, game, and all the hitchhiker stuff were all incredibly different, how could the movie be the same as all of them? How would that be possible? Oranges, apples, and bananas are all different - how could I give someone a fruit that was the same as all of them?
If it's bad, it likely just means DA wasn't good at writing movies. When will people stop saying it's not the same as the books?!? The books aren't the same as the radio show, either...
SPOILER WARNING!!!
...
The series results in the Earth getting horribly, completely, totally obliterated.
Thrice.
Judging this book by its cover mightn't be such a great idea, either.
Don't Panic? Yeah, right