Slashdot Mirror
Hitchhiker's Guide Reviewed
me at werk writes "The Register has posted it's review of h2g2. 'The radio series, that became a book, that became a TV series, has finally made it to the silver screen. The film version of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is faithful to author Douglas Adams' legacy. The trouble is it's simply not especially funny.'"
I watched it, it was pretty funny. But then I watched it by myself, and I remember laughing so hard to the show on radio and smiling after reading the boook. But I did not laugh as much.
Don't know why...
I usually don't agree with reviews when I actually go see/play/ect whatever was revied. But I'm starting to worry about whether I should see this or not.
For me, the big turn off is Marvin. That does NOT look like what I expected him to.
So, should I suck it up and watch it, and risk being dissapointed and bored for 2 hours, or not? If I do enjoy it, I will probably end up loosing another week of my life reading the books again.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
I've always wondered why there is a need for a movie of this...the six TV episodes themselves make for a great story, and there is nothing more that a movie could do aside from shorten the storyline.
Personally, I'll be continuing to watch the TV episodes myself. Modern 'movie magic' really can't do much for this.
Sparks:Gadget:Beer Maker
Well I don't think they do. It's got so much crap to carry round to live up to that you just can't begin to know if you'll like it.
I hope to see it this weekend and, as long as it's about as good as the TV version (which I wasn't a fan of), I'll be happy I guess.
Of course, if it's slapstick city I may have real trouble taking it and will feel cheated of my tenner!
I've heard mixed reviews about it, some enjoyed it, others didn't. Surprise surprise, this happens for just about every movie! Thinking back to the Matrix series, some really enjoyed the philosophy while others didn't, it was purely a matter of preference. While I've yet to see it I have also heard that some of the theatres it has been playing at have seen less than stellar lines for it on opening night, which does in fact surprise me. This is probably isolated to one area, but who knows, I've yet to hear from any other big cities.
One of the main things I enjoy about Douglas Adams works is the humor
To be faithfull to his legacy i would say that you need to capture the "Funny" parts aswell as the other aspects , and the humor is pretty much one of the main aspects .
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Faithful to Adams' legacy, and not funny. There is a contradiction there, I'd say?
-Lasse
This has the potential to be either one of the best, or one of the most disappointing movies of the year. I am trying not to hope too much for the former, and keep my expectations low. Too often lately it seems that low expectations are the key to good movies.
The beginning was good, but a lot of the dialogue got truncated before it got witty, and the additional stuff wasn't very funny.
I dunno, maybe I was expecting a rehash of the 1981 BBC version (which is better than OK) with better visuals.
over at rotten tomatoes
Currently 62% positive
Pretty sure I enjoyed it more because of the books. The Register had it right about plot development: you'll need to have read the books to make sense of some parts - like the dolphins - but otherwise it's a pretty funny film.
I love the sound effect tie-ins too, watch for the bread knife and it's upcoming George Lucas prequel.
-Matt
--- Need web hosting?
the problem i think is so many people have read the book and have their own idea of how things will look, everyones will be different, which is why it's so hard to please everyone when you adapt a popular book to tv/movie
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
...the book isn't very funny. It's very dated and cliched. The radio series was a lot better.
Fortunately they won't get as far as making the movie of the completely unfunny "Mostly Harmless". What a pile of crap that was.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
I've read the books, and I watched it with someone who has memorized most of the jokes, and we both enjoyed it. It's different, and if you want to see the books (the first one, in this case) translated exactly to film, you'll be disappointed. The movie exists as its own entity, just like the radio show and the TV show and everything else. The British humor is extremely toned down, but it's still pretty funny. That poor whale...
Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
He's done well since Half Life 2.
FB!
Its been out for over a week in quite a few places in London AFAIK, how come they've only just reviewed it? Fans of the book are going to watch it even if it gets 1 star, simply because of the novelty aspect - that's how most mainstream films work these days, converting cartoons to film to satisfy curiosity, remaking films that didn't have the latest special effects etc. its pretty sad really. I was hoping that while this had a novelty aspect it would also be a well made film that could stand up on its own, but i haven't gotten around to seeing it yet so i'll shut up..
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
..of Americans butchering classic British comedy?
.. and the collective consciences tell me its not funny, then i see no reason to go see it in the theatre.
..
so i'm gonna wait until its on DVD, and i can watch it in the comfort of my own home, where i can choose to laugh or not laugh, or not, without having the collective crowd around me to 'prompt' me to laugh, or not laugh, in a big dark room
i mean, really. all this slavish devotion to mob think has trained me to realise when the time comes for individualism, and when the time comes to be one of the masses.
if its really not funny, and the collective gods say its not, then its not.
plus, a DVD purchase is like, 3 movie tickets worth of cash anyway, so its like i'm paying humble patronage to the mob with my decision to delay my enjoyment, anyway.
thank god there's no such thing as 'book reading theatre'.
to conclude: buy the DVD. kill the mob!
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
It's another example of some douche steering the thread towards a "what's wrong with Americans" discussion.
The early eighties TV version is a great three-and-a-half hour videotape, the radio version is a great nine hours ... soon to be thirteen hours. The books are a great couple of weeks. The old DC comics version was apt. And the movie is a wonderful way to spend the afternoon. Having experienced the other versions, the new film was a welcome addition to the Douglas Adams canon, in my opinion. I loved the new episode with regards to the Church of the Arkelseisure, because that Perspective Gun was a wonderful literary tool which allowed screenwriter Douglas Adams to have his characters learn things which they otherwise would have learned through bulky dialogue. As for dialogue, the movie had a good mix of "novel dialogue" and "movie dialogue". "Novel dialogue" is bulky, wheras "movie dialogue" is short and to the point, and the film had a good mix indeed.
I've enjoyed the other versions, and so I found it very simple to enjoy the new version.
They must make four sequels.
P.S. Bring a pair of "red and blue" 3D glasses. As the starship Heart of Gold arrives at the planet Magrathea, the crew is greeted by a holographic recording. That recording is only a minute long; however, it's in 3D. You need a pair of "red and blue" 3D glasses in order to properly enjoy that minute of film. This is not a spoiler; it's an enhancer.
"I am a fictional character."
Having read the books, a large part of the humor for me was Adams' side commentary. I'm not saying the events and characters weren't funny, but at least half of the humor seemed to come from Adams' wry manner of writing.
Is it just me, or does that not carry over especially well into film?
I have discovered a truly marvelous
Personal favourite bits: seeing the original Marvin in the queue on Vogsphere, as well as the cameo played by Simon Jones (the original Arthur). And the gun, don't forget the gun.
"I am Heisenborg. You will probably be assimilated"
In my early teens, in the early eighty's, I was an avid reader a science fiction. One of the only novels in my life I did not finish was The Hobit. I did read all the Hitchhickers series, but did not find it that funny or interesting. Compared to the Foundation Series, Dune, the Pern series, etc, the H2G2's staple of jokes were just not that inspiring.
While it might be argued that I was too young for these books, I have to admit great surpise that the general slashdot opinion is in favor of these series. To me, these novels are only about escapism.
Rob W.
why not do neither? If its not a good movie, why encourage them to produce even more crap?
By buying the DVD you are most certainly succembing to mob think, in that you are still only watching it because everyone else is, and not because its actually good and worth the money.
I.O.U One Sig.
The problem with this is that you don't get the same experience while watching movies at home. Although you can get the same quality with good equipment, it's just not the same as going to the theatre.
I believe the reason is that when you go to a theatre you totally dedicate yourself to watching a movie. There's no talking, no phones, no pause button - you watch the film. Period.
People with good memories for the book might find the movie funny because their minds fill in the missing dialogue. But as Ebert says, to someone who doesn't already know the book, its not funny.
Whats interesting is that the movie does have some of the funniest scenes from the book, but those scenes just don't work. Partly because the persectives are different. Being inside the head of a newly born whale as it plummets to earth is funny, but watching a graphic of it hit the ground isn't funny.
Other things were just poorly done, for example, the babble fish. They actually do cut to the Guide to explain what a babblefish does, but totally skip the part about God disappearing in a puff of logic. So the scene is not funny at all save maybe a little slapstick about putting a fish in Authur's ear.
Sadly, this movie is exactly what you expect from Hollywood doing a foriegn movie, dumbed down to the point of irrelevance.
And to be honest its not to bad at all. Yes some of the British comedy tone was toned down, but it was still rather funny. It managed to get a good couple of belly laughs from the audiance, including me.
:P). The extended usage of the vogons was quite amusing and they made great bad guys. There are some bits that will make the geek in you go "ooh ooh ooh!" and point excitedly although I wont go into detail as to spoil it.
Good points, marvin was spectacular and outdid the original TV series' version. Zaphod Beeblebrox was outstanding and the true extent of his ego bleeds off the screen (flamebait comment, to be honest I think only an American could pull off the cheesy grin and un-abashed ego... sorry
Bad points are I'm a bit hmmmm about Ford, Trillian and Arthur though. Ford really didnt create any sort of major screen prescence and as such became a rather minor character with a penchant for towels. Trillian, whilst great at the start of the film, seamed to get relegeted to damsel in distress/love interest (standard hollywood crap). And Arthur... well hes was quite good for most of the film but I suppose I miss the orginal TV version which sticks in my mind as the definative Arthur Dent.
I suppose the worst aspect of the film is that yes, some of the great witty dialogue is missing. Its not all gone but a lot of the classic lines are trimmed. I quite missed the original lines regarding the babel fish proveing that god did not exist and the very funny bit about the plans being on display (the shortend "I had to go downstairs", made no sense on screen).
In all I would recommend people go see it, it gets a bit shakey before the middle but still provides a good homage to Adams' legacy.
I thought it was pretty good. I've read most all of Douglas Adam's books multiple times and it was comfortably familier, yet interestingly novel.
If it were 100% faithfully sync'd with the books; there would be little point it seeing it if you had read them.
The pacing was good, the dialog enough to tell a story, and the visuals fantastic. I think it stand well enough on it's own; and as an addition to the books.
Folks like this is why there may never be an 'Ender's Game' movie, because someone will complain the that naked boy soap fight scene was missing...
I always knew there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe. -- Arthur Dent.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Therefore God must exist.
So the joke has to go.
It's prefectly logical when you think about it..
The major problem I had with the movie is that it adds angst and sentimentality to the plot. Note, this is very stereotypical *Hollywood* angst and sentimentality and you can practically predict the lines so it's not particularly good angst and sentimentality either. Note I am a girl and I devour trashy romance novels and love chick flicks. However, there are situations where putting this sort of stuff in just simply doesn't really work (esp. when it is so badly written). Basically you sit through the movie. Funny scene. Laugh. Angst, romance, talking (all badly done) get bored. Funny scene - laugh. Angst, romance, talking - bored. Oh let me predict what lines they are going to say next. Wow, I got it right. How amazing (sarcasm). Funny scene - laugh. Etc. etc. Though I suspect the funny scenes were funny because I already read the book as they do seem to cut a lot of stuff out...
:)
The other problem is Ford Prefect, Mr. Sarcasm in the originals is practically a non-entity and not especially funny when he does exist.
I loved Zaphod though
Wow, good point about the crowd lauging when you see the movie. I don't know if it's just me, but I notice the crowd never laughs in the same places I do, and sometimes the places the crowd laughs are almost sad. Or I laugh when the rest of the crowd is silent. But I try never to let it affect how much I enjoy the movie.
I must be a psycho, my sense of humor is 180 degrees from normal...
Spoiler alert... I guess.
Why does it seem like I'm the only one that thought the playing up of Arthur and Trillian's romance was ridiculous? Why does Trillian have an American accent? Why... why... why...
Yes, I probably sound like just another rabid Adams fanboy who expected the movie to be a direct copy of the book. That isn't the case. I thought the film was awful. The acting was not very good, some of the revised dialog was really awkward, and... many other things simply related to the filmmaking itself and not just the script. My girlfriend and I were incredibly tempted to walk out many times, especially when Arthur made his incredibly awkward (I cannot use that word enough... that is my official review of the whole film... AWKWARD...) attempt at a sweet soliloquy at Trillian while about to have his brain removed by mice...
I think I'm just incredibly sore at the fact that they even attempted to make the film accessible to the general public. Am I being elitist? Probably... I mean, I can see the value in attempting to bring Adams' work to a broader venue, but when they cannot be done justice, some things are probably left unsaid. Or un-filmed in this case.
The film attempts to "have it's cake and eat it too" (to indulge in a trite cliche); make broad swaths of generic American love-story candy-coated filmmaking and sneak in the funny dialogue and faithful-to-the-series bits when the "normals" in the audience are distracted by something shiny. The hardcore fans will deride it for its creative license, and the great unwashed will view it as a quirky little film that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to them and is only "kinda" funny.
After getting in my car afterward and popping in Radiohead's "OK Computer", especially "Subterranean Homesick Alien", all I could think of were the smiling faces of the proleteriat in the audience, laughing their heads off every time Ford, Zaphod or Arthur were hit in the face with while walking on Vogsphere. The same scene that made me groan loudly. I wondered quietly as I took occasional peeks at the moon while driving: am I right on the money about this, or am I completely wrong? If the latter is true, then perhaps, like Ford, I've been trapped on this planet for far too long.
*sigh*... tommorrow's another day, I suppose...
but .. but .. how can i tell if its good or not without watching it?
i know! i should download it. then, if i like it, i should buy the DVD.
yay, finally i understand what it is that compels me to break the law! i despise the mob!!
[/cheTONGUEek]
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Considering the material they had to work with, that film was bad. The radio play was absolutely hilarious. The film was no more than humorous. It could have been so much better.
I am a crip! LLamas
bah. what is this 'experience' you talk of, and why do you think its worth sharing with Total Fucking Strangers?
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
The mob. Its whats for breakfast.
.. by the LAUGHTRACK![
]try watching telly without the laugh-track... hint: its totally sad to realize that for most of ones life, one has been brainwashed into laughing at abject cruelty
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Was pretty entertaining, but the pacing, but I was left wanting more.
If paced better, and was a 6 hour film I could really imagine it being something special.
As it was, I expected an epic, but was given more of a short story.
Still worth watching again, but not on par with LOTR in terms of immenseness.
7/10
I did once but I think I got away with it.
They could have easily included the God reference and then cut it for the obviously uneasy God-fearing US market so at least those of us without a God complex could enjoy it a little more. Hell, Douglas Adams was a very commited Atheist. I notice they didn't pause to cut the reference as soon as he was out of the picture. I'd put money on it being in the original scripts when Douglas was still alive.
I saw it 46 hours ago (I missed the opportunity to say 42 hours) and I must admit I have never read the book, only heard my son relating the highlights as he read it. It seems to me that the film mainly serves to remind you of the funny bits you read in the book rather than being amusing in itself. If you read and like the book then the film will probably be ok, but if you go and see the film cold like me then you might just be glancing at your watch and waiting till you can get back home and read /.
your ideas intrigue me so i would like to subscribe to your newsletter
Were there any kids in movie? I mean, more than normally would be?
Trailer "shouts" like "get your kids"...
Could be real evil...
(a free willy 3 at movie survivor)
I like the TV miniseries better.
Why must every movie have a love story? Is it a rule somewhere that people will not see a movie if there's no love story subplot?
Anyway, the funniest part was milking the cow... but I'm not going to spoil the joke for anyone who hasn't seen it.
When the movie was near the end... I was just thinking, "That's it?" It felt like it should have been much longer... there's so much that was in the miniseries and books that wasn't in the movie... I want a sequel made now... but I really don't think this movie will do that well (sadly). It didn't make me laugh out loud like the books did at any part.
Good cameo of Simon Jones and the original Marvin. The Vogons were very impressive looking and acting... strange they had such a huge rule in the movie. I also read some negative stuff about Humma Kavula... but I thought that was one of the better parts of the movie (and not in any other hitchhikers version).
And despite what everyone says I think the guy from Office they got to play Arthur Dent was not right for the role... yes he's plain looking and very mellow... but his personality wasn't quite right. I liked Simon Jones constant sense of amazement and protest. Also I didn't really get Mos Def as Ford... he had weird pacing and timing of his lines. Sam Rockwell for Zaphod was alright (despite the accent, yuck) but the 2nd head was animated pretty poorly, it looked inserted with computers a bit too much... I actually think the half-dead latex head in the miniseries was less distracting.
Lord, I wanted it to be good, but it wasn't....well it kind of was. The opening made me think it was going to ge awesome, but then it just winds down. The whole time it seemed like just an excuse to introduce things from the book then move on...and that is all the substance to it. show the babelfish, show deep thought, show the mice. There was no substance to it
I've heard the excuse that it's not the book and I can understand that, but when the entirity of the meat of each scene consists of showing an object then moving to the next scene whos only purpose is to show some other object....it's rediculous....not in the good way. So much potential....but at least I know what a knife that cuts bread AND toasts it looks like!
Hitchhiker's biggest shortcoming is that it will make absolutely no sense whatsoever to people who have not read the books or seen the BBC series.
I mean good lord, Ford is carrying around a towel all the time and telling Arthur to make sure he has his towel with him... but the movie never explains to the audience why the towels are so important!
The first thirty minutes is really the most difficult as well, because they really tried to wow the audience with a strong, fast-paced opening... the problem is that the first half hour is packed with too much information for newcomers to absorb. It's just overwhelming how quickly they gloss over concepts, and it's overwhelming how many concepts they throw at the audience. It gets much better through the rest of the movie when they slow down and take their time to explain things and let ideas sink in...
It was ok, but they could have left out the silly sound effects. There were a lot of string plucks and boings that belong on a Spike Jones record than a sci-fi comedy.
------
There's a fine line between cuddling and holding someone down so they can't get away.
I would give it 42
Fox can take the sky from you.
why do you think Americans where involved at all ?
im just suprised they didnt add laughter to remind the thickos where the funny bits are supposed to be (like friends, seinfield etc etc)
dumb movie for a dumb audience
I saw it this afternoon and was disappointed. It wasn't as bad as, say, Highlander 2, which was able to reach back in time and slap my fond memories of Highlander with a cold wet fish. The problem was that there was so much story being crammed into the movie that no time could be taken to make the details of a scene work. As a result, it felt rushed and the characters developed no real personality.
Of the characters: Zaphod Beeblebrox was played so dumb it hurt to watch. Not funny dumb. Not slapstick dumb. More like watching someone extremely dense fill out the wrong blanks on a form and then go back and erase them only to fill them in wrong again.
Trillian was schizoid... one moment she was a happy-go-lucky party-seeking particle physicist and the next moment she was about to cry. Dent and Ford were played well. Marvin just didn't look right -- no facial expressions (or appropriate robotic substitutes) and a very awkward, non-robotic gait -- and was also not given the chance to develop.
Ive seen the film and I did laugh allot. All though not as much as I expected. In my opinion the problem was the phasing of the film. It was cut down to such a minimum, that it almost added to the absurdness of the story. I would not have minded spending another hour in the theater if the film had taken the time to paint the really good parts of the book well enough. Someone that hasnt read the book would most definitely benefit from seeing the film again, just to get some of the good points from book. I doubt however that they will.
yes, congratulations!
A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
This movie is Jurrasic Park 2 for geeks.
... there is very little in this movie to truely enjoy.
The books were awesome, but the movie sucked. They took the books and used it as a loose guide for various events in the movie. None of the dialog from the book survived. The acting was poor. The special effects were good. The pacing was rushed. Everything was glued together rather poorly.
You can tell that the people creating the movie had good intentions -- they wanted to cram many bits from the book into the movie. The problem is that they wanted to do it so badly that (due to time constraints) they condensed those scenes down to the point of being meaningless; they lost the funny. The whole point of including those bits is the funny!
Great stuff like the banter between Prosser and Author discussing where to find the notice for the demolition was reduced to "I eventually had to go to the cellar to find it". Ford 'saves' Author from the scene by rolling up with a shopping cart full of beer to distract the workers.
I could really go on, and on, and on
The funniest bits of the movie were lines delivered during the narration. I believe these were the only bits in the movie where they left the original text (mostly) alone.
The only scene I felt was really true to the book was the bit about the whale and the bowl of petunias.
I can't help to wonder: how many did expect it to be possible to make h2g2 to a good movie? I saw the trailer and lost all hope...
Apostrophe, front page; no.
I read the hitchiker books about 15 years ago and found them at the time terribly funny. So Im the sort of person who knows the plot in the books, but definitely could care less if the movie was word-for-word faithful to the books.
Well . . . the movie was bad. Just not funny at all. People were complaining as we walked out . . . and this was the opening night crowd. The werent complaining because the movie wasnt faithful to the book . . . but because the movie was--to quote "stupid."
Anyway, I really wanted to like the movie because I remember really enjoying the books. It was not to be. I think the directors and actors did a pretty good job (could they have done better? Yes), but in the end the material they had to work with was just not the greatest for use as making into a movie.
If they changed the material too much so that it did work in a movie, the faithful would have been really upset. So the makers of the movie were stuck in an unenviable position.
--Spooky Action At A Distance
so i'm gonna wait until its on DVD, and i can watch it in the comfort of my own home, where i can choose to laugh or not laugh, or not, without having the collective crowd around me to 'prompt' me to laugh, or not laugh, in a big dark room ..
Believe me, with this movie you won't be laughing. And the crowd won't let out much more than a chuckle.
(hope I got the letters right)
the images are fantastic escapist fare (I desperately needed to get out of this galaxy and couldn't wait till May for SW). I loved the planet building tour, the way it was depicted.
If I were a kid, it would make me want to go read the book, and probably go WTF? It's FUNNY, too!
Now I need to get myself a copy...
There was something missing, it wasn't good as the book or the audio book. Perhaps I should have curbed my high expectations. The animation was excellent, it was well made. Worth seeing. My just my 42 cents.
Ford 'saves' Author from the scene by rolling up with a shopping cart full of beer to distract the workers.
Wait, if Ford walks up to Prosser et. al. with a shopping cart full of beer, what's the point of taking Arthur away to the pub in the first place? They could have just thrown back a couple of beers as muscle relaxant right then and there and avoided the whole "let's confuse Prosser" bit altogether.
I was not disappointed, but not blown away either. It was funny - parts of it made me laugh out loud. It mostly followed the book. However, having read the book(s) several times, I'm not sure I can give an objective review of how the masses will receive the movie. Having said that, I'll make a prediction anyway - I think it won't bomb and might even be successful enough for a sequel.
Stay and watch the credits - about 3 or 4 minutes into them there are some bonus scenes from the guide!
Some friends of mine last night took me to see the movie, and based on the opinions I'd heard up until that point, I didn't think that I'd particularly like it or find it funny. I went in with very negative expectations.
This wasn't the case at all! We all found the movie to be exceptionally well done, and the entire theatre was laughing consistently throughout the film. The special effects were very well done, the jokes captured Adams' humour well and stayed faily true to the book, and I could muster up no complaints.
I'm not sure why there've been so many negative reviews, to be honest. I loved it, and I'd strongly recommend it. One of the first good movies I've seen in a long time.
I'm just back from the cinema, and after anticipating the release of this film for the last 15 years with a excitment and trepidation, (not nescessarily at the same time), and my low expectations were surpased. I really enjoyed a lot of the new stuff, and thought that nothing fell really flat. Really hard job to top the radio series though.
"...we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." B.Spears 2003
It's true!
I'll go even further. If you have any idea what the thing your aunt gave you that you don't know what it is" is, then you'll know that Douglas Adams intended each version of things to be different from the others. He even went so far as to say that he was upset how similar (and therefore boring to the fans) the miniseries was to the books, and it was only that way because he didn't have as much creative control as he would have liked.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
While not he funniest film I've ever seen. And granted a few attempts in the movie at being funny fell quite flat, there was still plenty to laugh about. All in all a very enjoyable film. I give it a B+.
;)
(Okay maybe it should be just a B or even a B-, but hey I'm a nice guy and I think Douglas liked nice guys especially after a bitter or two
:T:R:A:N:S:
Where can I get the series that were played on the radio?
When watching the movie. I honestly expected many of the jokes to be dimmed or cut. Say a 3 hour - 6 Hour Radio Series or a 3 hour TV Show to be shrunk in a 2 hour timeframe and give it a definite beginning and end. They did a pretty good job. There are some things I would have changed. Like make Author and Ford a little more like friends to each other and give Author more wonderment of the Universe, and down play Zaphod and Trillian. But just as long as you were not expecting the Books, Radio Series, TV Show then you were all set.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
In my experience theatre are different. Usually the sound is worse, someone else's phone rings, another person tries to reach his/her place at the end of my line, not to mention the costs for parking, the absurdly high price for actually watching the movie and the totally absurd rules not to bring something to eat or drink in so you have to buy their overprized crap. Yeah, the theater really is a unique experience you can't have at home.
Linux is not Windows
Where are the torrents?
Please, don't forget your towel.
"One touch of Darwin makes the whole world kin." George Bernard Shaw
Although I've been a techie my whole life, i was raised by religiously fanatical parents, so none of this talk of space exploration and evolution would be tolerated in our home. So that excluded enjoying HGG on the radio, television, or bookshelf.
I bring this up because it seems most everyone else here has gotten intimate with HGG in some form or another, so I thought I would provide some insight into the reaction of someone who saw the movie with no previous knowledge of what this thing was all about.
I was so eager to see HGG, I got to the theatre 45 minutes early last night to ensure good seating. I will say it simplye: the movie did NOT disappoint. Funny? Absolutely! There is a lot of silly humor, mainly in the forms of irony and cynicism. Many, many times throughout the movie, the entire theatre was laughing out loud together. I'm not sure who all in the theatre was familiar with the HGG story, everyone there from the 8-year-old kid to the 80-year-old grandparent gave it a unanimous thumbs up. I am actually thinking of going to see this thing again today, it was such a joy to watch the first time! I also just picked the literature from half.com.
...find some way to work the phrase "mostly harmless" into their assesment of the movie, all doing so as though they're tremendously clever and the only one to think of it.
believe it or not, but there are some people who did not grow up reading books.
As there has always been.
there are a generation or two, or three, of people who do not read books.
No. If anything, books seem to be on a rebound. Twenty years ago outside of big cities the only bookstore one would likely find would be a Waldenbooks mostly selling Garfield comics. Now you can hardly throw a stone and not hit a Borders or a Barnes and Noble. And they really sell some stuff for literati -- stuff like the Loeb and I Tatti Libraries can actually be found in the sticks these days. And of course there's the bookseller Amazon.com. practically the only dot-com that didn't go belly up...
I took my boys to see it and they had never been introduced to the books in any depth. I had them logged on and playing the old Infocom text game which I loved so much on my IBM PC Jr and they thought it was cool as hell. I think that they did a pretty good job with the movie. I think the series deserves a larger treatment. In the vein of LOR or Star Wars but I don't think that will ever happen. The last shot of Douglas Adams and the dedication was pretty poignant though. This will introduce Hg2g to a whole new slew of fans. If that is all that it does it will have been worth making
Too often lately it seems that low expectations are the key to good movies.
Let's just hope the director doesn't agree!
Haven't seen it yet, but will tomorrow or likely Monday.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
I went to see the film last night with my 9 year old son. He liked it but some of the humour was just too surreal for him.
I loved it.
For me it captured some of Adams's peculiar humour quite well and I did laugh out loud.
The characters came over very well in my view. Marvin was great.
The only thing that didn't come over well was how terrible Vogon poetry is.
Although I've been a techie my whole life, i was raised by religiously fanatical parents, so none of this talk of space exploration and evolution would be tolerated in our home. So that excluded enjoying HGG on the radio, television, or bookshelf.
You're kidding, right? What did you parents do, turn off the television when Cronkite was talking about the Apollo missions?
That sort of thing only happens in movies like Carrie.
and I had my towel!
but anyways a lot of it was hilarious but some of it they just butchered the characters and lines....
They left a few subplots open and if they make another movie it better be at least a little better.
You have been warned.
By no talking and no phones, you mean "I don't talk and don't use the phone", right? Because there generally *is* talking and phone ringing/use by other people in the theater. And if the half gallon of soda I just drank prompts me to have to pee before the movie's over, a pause button would certainly be handy.
:)
Was your point to list how irritating theaters can be?
I thought the movie was hillarious!
I've read the books a half dozen times or so and I was not at all disappointed. In fact, this is the first movie in a long time that I've seen twice within 5 hours and I came out of it excited each time. Shrek is the last movie that made me laugh like that... admittedly Shrek was funnier, but its slapstick humor and that makes it different.
HHGG made a very good showing as a movie, I will go and see it again, I will buy the DVD and I will show this to my kids, after they've read the books.
HHGG is the only story to be told in every 20th century storytelling medium. Radio, Book, TV, Computer Game and now Movie.
I say congratulations! Good movie.
(And you can't complain that it was different from the book, all of the versions of the story are different from each other)
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
They missed some of the best quotes!
"I'm not following a man whose brain is powered by lemons!"
"Very Splendid and worthwhile bypass"
"Go stick your head in a pig"
"Share and enjoy"
and they didn't even get to the Hitchhiker's Guide headquarters!
This definitely needs a sequel.
I do, however, like the cameo of Marvin from the original TV show, and the part where they become yarn-people.
There's an interview out there with the guy who finished the screenplay (think it was linked of /. about a year ago). Adams had left major fragments of a script, but there were large gaps to fill in, and the whole thing had to be put in order. So the new writer referenced the existing iternations of the story and did his best to be faithful to storyline and spirit, he said, while incorporating most of the script fragments Adams had left.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Why is it called h2g2?
Used to do a gaming TV show that didn't get picked up by a network and did an interview with DA. He proclaimed the show "the greatest in the known galaxy" www.imhz.com
Sure, lots of stuff was different from any other H2G2 story, but most of the rest was at least amusing, aside from losing the joke about the highway bypass plans. And the Magrathea tour was pretty impressive.
Marvin's costume design sucked, and while Alan Rickman was a good choice for the voice, his first few lines didn't sound quite depressed enough.
Basically, if they had been willing to lose the Humma Kavula bit in favor of something actually funny, it could at least have been free from suckage, if far from greatness.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
It rocks, and the books were just never as good. For one thing douglas wrote many of the episodes *just* before they were recorded, which somehow resulted in some of his most brilliant work ever.
I loved the film. I was releived to see it was a new take. I've listened to the radio series so often I know it by heart, read the books many many times, and if I'd gone into the theatre and not seen something new, I'd have been mightily dissapointed. As it was, I'm very pleased with it.
As someone who has read the "book", the movie simply struck me as a series of inside jokes. Maybe im just different but the plot turns i saw coming where humor would be served simply had no affect. it just wasnt funny, even the added bits. this doesnt just apply to those whove read it, but those who have no idea what the hell this film is are just as lost. its a good book, a good radio series and a good tv series but theres no point in hacking the story to bits simply to milk the box offices. i give a big thumbs up for their effort, but this was about as comical and exciting (but just as disappointing)as having Tom Brokaw read a porno transcript via cellular phone while facing into a headwind.
/. community of their flaming rights, my email is [missing_glasses@yahoo.com]
[Personal Theatrical experince: I feel the need to relay the feeling i had in the theatre. it was very apparent who in the theatre had read the book religiously. if you carefully read user reviews of the film those whose ratings scored HHGG an "A" or above began their review like, "I loved this book since I was 8..." or "As a hardcore fan I..." and "If you havent read the book I highly suggest you do..." as well as "This movie is a MUST for any Douglas fan..." and dont forget "Anyone who is a fan of HHGG will surely appreciate..." Plain and simple: the movie bases most of its plot on the assumption that youve been praying to your local diety that this movie be made and today is your wet-dream that it finally has. I personally found the movie to do more harm to the series than good as mention of the title will probably instill thoughts in ones peers like "Oh you mean that stupid movie they made back in Oh-Five?" Many folks walked out, even more were sleeping in the theatre. If you want truely funny sci-fi British humour, watch some Red Dwarf (truely side-splitting!) and dont ruin the book for yourself.
As i wouldnt think of robbing the
It seems you are post-ly harmless.
Just another case of a great story being adapted into a mediocre film...d'oh
Jesus CHRIST for the second time in two days the slashdot editors forgot fifth grade grammar. "IT'S" is NOT a possessive you illiterate MORONS.
"A lot"! Not "alot"!!! "A lot"!!!!! Aaaarrrggghhh!!
(shoots self)
--== thump ==--
From what I remembered Trillian was not English at any rate.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
After reading many comments, it seems like:
If you are really familiar with the books you may not like it, and think no-one who is not completeley familair with the books will understand it.
If you casually remember the books and the other things like the TV show you might like it and sort of reccomend it.
If you've never read the books before you will love it and find it hilarious.
So, the uscess of the movie depends on how many non-douglas adam fans go to see it and give it word of mouth to counteract the people that know the books too well.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
GWB. The Texan accent. The "I'm not stupid!" President of the Universe who really isn't in charge, snarls a lot, and has two heads, each with only part of a brain. Good character!
-
So long and thanks for all the fish!!
I went Friday to the 12:30pm showing. I thought it was about as good as a Hitchhiker's Guide movie could be. Plenty of Guide entries and a great The Voice made it true to the book, but you just can't capture narrative sentences like, "The rectangular shaped Vogon ships hung in the air much like bricks don't" on film.
The Heart of Gold's doors indeed sighed with pleasure as they opened and closed, but I doubt that the audience understood the GPP. It was so much funnier in the book when Arthur and Ford are frantically running through series of doors that exude happiness as they open and shut.
Eddie the computer was absolutely true to the book, but I just didn't think it was as funny as it was in print. "Guys, I'm tickled pink to inform you that two nuclear missles are headed right for us!"
My overall impression was that the book was geared too much toward children. I got this impression from the light-hearted soundtrack and the stereotypical "wah, wah, waaaaah" kind of music when things go wrong.
Coming out of the theater, I saw groups of fans with their towells in line at the box office. I got a real kick out of that. In retrospect, I should have told them not to panic.
Unfortunately for me, I didn't stay for the credits, where I'm told there are several bonus Guide entries. Dang...
All in all, I liked it, and will probably buy it on DVD, but only because I'm a long-time H2G2 fan. I bet anyone who hasn't read the book will leave the theater mostly confused.
... and I was one of those who grew up with it, being British myself. I remember hearing the radio series with my dad when I was a nipper, watching the TV series with my dad when I was a little older (and allowed to stay up later ), then I read the books and loved every incarnation despite the fact that every incarnation threw the previous incarnation completely out of the window.
... with gas prices the way they are at the moment I might need a dime for that...
Yes, I know the books came before the TV series... just bear with my a bit here...
I went to see the movie last night with my lovely wife and sister-in-law... and I wholeheartedly disagree with the review. It wasn't just funny, there were moments that were laugh-out-loud funny for the whole audience (that doesn't happen much in my experience). The characterizations are brilliant, the humour while a little different from the previous incarnations is definitely true to what I think Douglas Adams would have wanted from the movie, and generally I just love the whole feel of the movie.
Is it perfect? No, not even close. I do have a few issues with it. Firstly, the Guide entries were abridged and some of the jokes fell a little flat due to lack of some key piece of information. Second, the sound mix especially in the "first act" (prior to the Heart of Gold appearing) is muddy and it's difficult to hear the actors lines. It could also be they were mumbling, but I noticed the sound mix later was much better. Third, they really did move the story along at a lightning pace for most of the movie... if you're not willing to sit still for the entire 2 hours and pay attention you ARE going to get lost.
The Vogons looked great, exactly the way I'd want to see them. Remember, they were created by DA as a direct slam against the officious British government and councils... and the fact that they bear more than a slight resemblance to officials of that government is brilliant. It just goes to show that CGI hasn't killed "hard" effects like puppetry no matter what George Lucas thinks; they still produce more believable and solid characters on-screen.
Now, if you're expecting a direct translation of the book, radio series or TV series to film then forget it, it won't happen. I posted a few weeks ago my opinions about this; it's impossible to do this and appeal to a wider audience. Remember also, the British originals are a somewhat niche product. However, if you want to go and see a good "jazz riff" on the first book (only) of HHGTTG then you might enjoy it.
Oh, and for those who keep wondering "Where is...?", well, if the movie does well we'll get sequels. Can you think of a better way to start off a second movie than with a variation on the "no-one should have come down from the trees" piece from the originals, with Stephen Fry setting the backdrop, talking about Earth and then mentioning that the Guide doesn't contain any of this information... cue a graphic from the Guide showing "Earth: Harmless", fade into the continuation of the story.
There's plenty more to go, and it's WIDE open for a sequel.
Oh, and the "love story" between Trillian and Arthur... OK so it's not cinematic beauty but at least it's light years ahead of the Anakin and Padme love story in Episode II!!!
My nickel... that's 2c adjust for inflation...
The books aren't funny either.
...but what is "h2g2"? I'm pretty sure that the acronym for Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is "HG2G." Obviously Star Wars is on the brain, what with the prevalence of this acronym...
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Am I the only person who noticed that Sam Rockwell was deliberately trying to sound like George W. Bush?
dinner: it's what's for beer
One of the main characters of the story... (well, narrator) was rendered pretty much un-interesting by today's tech. You can google from a wireless PDA or phone and get just about any kind of mis-information you need. A guide with a bunch of simple graphics and sound just isnt that impressive anymore. My first taste of H2G2 was a broadcast on PBS in the US of the BBC series. What really captured my attention was the guide and the animated sequences it had. Back when CGA graphics were just being thought about, here was this little computer with color graphics, animation and sound (and that connection to the sub-etha). Itlooked better than anything on an Atari 2600. Even though it was frame cell animation, it still showed up on the geekdar pretty clear. Short of that, the movie is ok. Some funny stuff and some neat effects. Zooey has nice eyes. It's not the book, its not the radio show or the tv-series... it's the movie.
is that it's essentially English humour. This probably doesn't translate too well for US/World audiences. It's about a bewildered Englishman, who spends the whole thing in his pyjamas (agony for an Englishman). Zaphod is not meant to be nasty, the doors are supposed to talk. The Vogons don't kidnap Trillian. Deep Thought is not on Magrathea. The list is endless. It's about the pettyness of reality versus the majesty of the cosmos. How is a black New Yorker saying "what if I told you I wasn't from Guildford" supposed to be anything other than dumb? Yet another example of idiot film makers thinking they can do what they like to a story and missing the whole point altogether. A sad day for HHG fans.
I think it would set a more memorable example to skullfuck someone, but leave them alive to describe the horror.
Maybe that would be Steve Jobs? No, I guess that was Skully-fucking.
Buy and read The Science of The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy by Michael Hanlon Mamillan pubulishes Nature and news@nature.com has been flogging the book shamelessly in their email content alerts.
don't look at me! I aint gonna review it!
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
The exact same number of letters?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
And leaving out God disappearing in a puff of logic? WTF?!
Marvin sucks. Not funny at all, doesn't even really seem all that sad. The BBC version totally blew away the new movie, in that regard. (And yeah, I saw the "cameo." That just made me mad; wasn't funny either.)
I cannot recommend this movie.
Love and Kisses,
Sloppy
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
How is that a troll . . .
9 ..
Jesus do you guys ever have a clue what your moderating.
It's a joke (Perhaps not funny), those highlited words are all Rivers in Scotland
I think he ment it as a joke (maybe offtopic , however it was on-topic considering the grandparent)And it dosn't even look like a troll, wow your a bunch of uncultured luddites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll&e=979
That is what a troll is , now spot the diffrence
Sorry but clearly stupid moderation like this is just offensive.
Oh and BTW , I found this whilst meta moderating .
This 'story' was never going to make a good film.
When first produced as a radio series, DNA admitted that he wrote much of it week-to-week. Why would a multi-part, 30 minutes per show radio programme make a good 90+ minuted movie?
Don't get me wrong - I love the radio show, the books and the TV series (which did work as it was a similar format to radio), but I always knew H2G2 would miss too much as a film.
Some years ago, I had the great prvilidge of sharing dinner with Douglas and Richard Dawkins when they did an excellent open lecture on evolution at the Sheldonian in Oxford.
He was a witty and broad-thinking man but be wasn't a movie author (although I actually think Dirk Gently would work as a movie.
As i said in response to the awnser to this reply. .
Some idiot Troll has mod points and is spoiling the system for all of us
This post is clearly a Grammar troll and should be moderated as such, not UP.
The response post is clearly a joke not a troll , I wouldn't of moderated it either way (I dont waste mod points on jokes).
Reverse these moderations
S:F:R:O:M:S:(Slashdoters for the reform of the moderation system)
Ok, the planet Magrathea was breathtaking in the book, but Zooey Deschanel is a much better Trillian than I ever visualized. The movie is a footnote. It should have been released by Studio Ghibli to do it justice.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
He's just telling a story. It has to be altered a bit here and there to allow for different mediums, so while some of the old gems are lost, new things show up.
I can understand changing things a bit here and there, and some of the changes are gems (like the part where Arthur throws up, hilarious). But they made major changes to the plot. That cannot be excused away by saying it's a different medium.
Having said all that, I found it to be an enjoyable movie, good enough to see in the theatres*.
*I have a simple rating system: See it in the theatre, wait for DVD, wait for TV, or don't bother.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
why are we only seeing negative reviews on slashdot? I saw it, I'm an avid fan of the books and the radio show, and I absolutely loved it. It seems to me that many here WANT to hate it.
I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm going to trust the BBC's sense of humor (I am an American). "Oh my God, a man in woman's clothing? Ludicrous, I tell you!"
These conditions are:
1) I read all the books religiously many years ago, and not since. I certainly didn't read them recently in anticipation of the movie (a bad idea for any book-to-movie adaptation).
2) I simply watched the movie for my own entertainment, and not to justify my predetermined hatred of [popular movies/disney/big business/the world in general].
I think the movie did a great job of capturing the spirit of Douglas Adams's writing. Anybody who thinks that this movie was "Disneyfied" must not have seen a Disney movie in the last 20 years.
nope, that's not the answer either. try again.
Looks like reviews are mixed right now, but I haven't really seen timing mentioned.
...erk, I kindof felt like I got shot by Marvin at the end of the movie :( .
Timing on some of the jokes is just really, really bad. Every part - setup, punchline, etc. - of any specific joke is either grossly mistimed, poorly framed (ie. a guide joke near the beginning of the movie is distracted from by not showing the guide and having non-guide audio interfering), or missing (;P).
I saw it last night, and the timing is the second thing that struck me. The first was the great visuals.
In fact, that's what saved the movie was the visuals. Uh, 'saved' in terms of keeping it an O.K. movie. Miscasting, misvoicing (marvin's voice sucks, even worse than his lines), bad pacing and timing, boring plot devices...
...is a perspective gun.
;)
Then you'll know exactly how much they matter.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
What's with all the negative reviews of Hitchhiker's Guide being posted on /.? I mean, there are plenty of positive reviews out there as well... why don't those get coverage?
'nuff said
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I had heard a lot of bad stuff about this movie, so when I went to see it, I had somewhat low expectations, and they were very much surpassed.
I don't know how many times this has happened to me. People that love the book/comic book/whatever that a movie is based on slam the movie so much that I start to believe them a little. If I do end up going to see it, I usually end up loving it. But if a movie is hyped and hyped and hyped (I'm talking grassroots hyping here... I've pretty much learned to ignore advertising) when I go to see it I'm usually underwhelmed.
And if I go to a movie that I had heard absolutely nothing about besides "it's kinda funny, actually" or something I often end up entranced. Even if the movie isn't all that good. So I've learned to A)go on opening night B)watch a lot more "art house" style movies (except the ones trumped as "a magestic triumph of the human spirit" or something. Those are just plain boring to me. Or finally C)watch a B or C rated "horror" flick for the sheer mind-numbing entertainment.
Not hanging around movie sites when I want to see a movie helps me enjoy movies much more. So does (Uh oh... have I just become that guy?) not really watching TV on a regular basis.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
The SciFi Channel's TV version of _Dune_ was faithful to the events in the book, but had no soul.
--
make install -not war
...Marvin.
I went to that movie expecting a homecoming of sorts, that Douglas Adams had never left us. But I came out of movie sadder for the fact that we will never see an adaptation the way he intended it to be.
It reminded me of a punch in the guts that I felt reading "Mostly Harmless" after he had died and that the characters and the universe he created will never get the ending they so richly deserved.
I do hope that a future sequel will be a proper tribute for the creative genius that he really was.
-- "I can't tell the future, I just work there." -- The Doctor
From this weeks Savage Love"
I wish I'd known when I was 15 that dating older men does not mean you are hot shit; it means you're dating a dude who can't get women his own age, and that those women are avoiding him for good reasons.
Makes sense to me.
I liked it. It was...different. Unique. Fun.
Douglas Adams was listed as one of the executive producers. That's quite an impressive feat, considering he died four years ago!
Reading some of the reviews, I can't help but to think of "Bean", the very American big screen treatment of the very funny British television program "Mr. Bean". Mr. Bean was hilarious as a TV show. It took a while to get used to, but once you did, you couldn't help to laugh out loud at Rowan Atkinson's delightful antics.
Yes, one could argue the prat-fall humor was done in a way that was uniquely British, but even as an American, I thought it was dang funny. So when I saw that a motion picture had been done, with Atkinson playing the title character, I ran out to the local megaplex to watch it.
It was terrible.
We Americans do have a sense of humor, and we can be very funny if we try. But it seems that when Americans try to translate British humor into our own language we fail miserably, and that's what I fear The Hitchhiker's Guide is: An Americanized, Hollywood translation of an English classic.
I'm still going to see it, probably sometime this morning. I'll see it mainly because to date, there has been no media where a telling of the Hitchhiker's story hasn't been good. But my expectations are very, very low.
The Internet is generally stupid
Someone mentioned that there's some stuff in the ending credits some new guide entires I think. What do they say?
Of course, if it's slapstick city I may have real trouble
;-)
It's SlapStick Planet, actually, and literally so!
Just a thought...ooow!
You can't take the sky from me...
If you're going to talk ratios, at least keep them closer to the truth.
3:2 is a much more accurate portrayal of 62% than 2:1.
One of the main things I enjoy about Douglas Adams works is the humor
Well. The thing is, the text is faithfull, but the actor playing Ford just doesn't get it. He completly misplays the characters, and so jokes fall flat out of his incompetance.
BUT, there is something new, in the end, a device that is used in a way that was absolutly hilarious and that I couldn't imagine anyone but Douglas Adams writing.
So if you're a fan: go see! Expect the parts you alreaydy know and love to be downplayed, but there's new stuff that is good (and unfortunatly, new stuff that is bad).
I laughed, I spoke along with some dialog, I was dismayed at some butchered dialog, and I LOVED Marvin! He was perfect.
Ford was HORRIBLE.
Zaphod, well, he's just this guy, you know? (He was good at times, and bad at others)
Arthur is ordinary (which is what he's supposed to be).
Trillian... well, no comment. Not super good, not super bad, passable, but not the actress' fault, they just messed with the character a bit.
The Book: Excellent! A 21st century vision of a 1970's idea, very well done.
The Babelfish: Too big! No way something that size fits in an ear : (
So, it should have been better, but it wasn't as bad as I feared, and I did laugh.
You can't take the sky from me...
They ripped out too many great scenes - put in a few new ones that were a waste of time - and a lot more that were great. They cut words from formerly hilarious dialog and thereby removed the humor from them.
Fortunately, I was laughing too hard to notice.
www.sjbaker.org
faithful to author Douglas Adams' legacy. The trouble is it's simply not especially funny.
In my book, that is a contradiction.
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
Arthur Dent does not end up together with Trillian.
Marvin does not save the day.
Trillian does not get kidnapped by Vogons
There is no backup earth, hence the reason they wanted Arthur's brain.
The cult-leader only existed to remove Zaphrod's second head to avoid having to spend money on special effects after that point.
AND THE RESTAURANT AT THE END OF THE UNIVERSE ISN'T AT THE FUCKING EDGE OF THE UNIVERSE.
I actually brought a towel to this show and threw it away on my way out the door...
Adams is rolling in his grave right now... and so is Walt Disney... wtf is this shit with Lindsey Lohan driving Herbie?!?!
Painful. A complete flop. What a waste.
Your imagined elitism is the most pronounced I've ever seen on the 'dot. Bravo. You must have many friends.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
I couldn't tell by your post whether you verified that part was in 3D or not. I just saw the movie last night as well and planned on bringing 3D glasses along just to test that part out. Being a 3D aficionado I suspected the hologram was because of the obvious blue and red outlines (Nice to see Simon Jones made it to the big screen (that's the TV series 'Arthur Dent' for those not steeped in HG2G lore). Would be cool if it really was in 3D. Adds to the cheese. :)
The Splintered Mind - Overcoming
What the hell was with John Malkovich? Why was that scene there at all? It did nothing to advance the plot and was not in the book that I remember reading.
He was a Jatravartid. The narrator pretty much read the first chapter of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe including the whole "in the beginning the Universe was created" bit. (I thought the Ah-choo; Bless You line was hilarious.) They obviously wanted to draw on that background matierial to create a new location and background to create an alternate plot. (Every version of H2G2 has a slightly different plot.) Of course you don't know that the whole gun thing does come into the plot in a very funny moment involving Marvin, but you wouldn't know that because you walked out of the #$@!%@ movie.
I've heard stories about people walking out of movies. I really have to question their ability to enjoy life.
Stay and watch the credits - about 3 or 4 minutes into them there are some bonus scenes from the guide!
Let the lamers miss the good stuff.
If they feel that when names appear, the movie is over, let them miss the stuff they put in the credits to reward cinephiles who watch movie until the actual end, and not just up to the point where the creators' names come up.
You can't take the sky from me...
Saw the movie last night. I'd give it 3 1/2 stars out of 5. It was good, but not great. Funny, but not hilarious. Adventurous but not necessarily exciting. Had love interests but was not romantic. Notice a pattern? Although I have read many blasting accusations against Hollywood (usually by Americans) and blasting accusations against Americans (usually by Europeans) for the fault of this movie, I think some people are over generalizing.
;)
There are two problems with this movie. First, rest assured there were many things right in this movie. They were fairly faithful to the books. The production quality was excellent. The books were brought to life. But the visuals had all the riveting excitement of a postcard: Pretty to look at but not at all quite like being there. Which brings me to the first problem with the movie: the script. This would include dialog and pacing. The movie just didn't sparkle. The other problem was that the actors, except for Sam Rockwell and Alan Rickman, were boring. For this I blame the director.
If you've ever watched Galaxy Quest you know that Hollywood can produce something that is both exciting and sarcastictly funny. Galaxy Quest was a great satire. And perhaps that's what HG2G was missing. I wonder if the producers were almost too reverent to be truly satirical. If it wasn't for the graphics department slipping in bits of the book would this movie have been even remotely funny? I don't believe so. Somewhere someone was holding the throttle back. The actors just didn't seem to be into their parts, except for the character of Zaphod Beeblebrox played by Sam Rockwell and the voice overs by Alan Rickman. Even the folks at IMDB were confused about the real talent of the production because both of those gentlemen weren't even listed on the front page. (Interestingly enough, both of those actors had great roles in Galaxy Quest)
Don't panic by any means. The movie isn't a travesty. It just fell a wee bit short of the mark. I'd still see it again. But don't excect it to have lasting appeal beyond the confines of HG2G fandom. When blaming somebody for this movie's short-comings don't ignorantly blame "Hollywood" or "America". There are a few red blooded buggers who are specifically responsible. As an American who finds more than a few enjoyable movies coming out of Hollywood I think you're letting those guys off easy when you overgeneralize. Let's get their names so we can make sure they're the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes.
The Splintered Mind - Overcoming
I walked out halfway through. [...] I rated this on IMDB and actually gave it a 1.
What are you, a Vogon?
You DO NOT RATE SOMETHING YOU HAVE NOT ACTUALLY SEEN!
Sheesh.
And BTW, there is a wonderfully hilarious moment near the end that had the Douglas Adams feel to it to an incredible degree, and you MISSED it! Don't call yourself a fan: you aren't. You're a curmudgeon, and you need to take a drink, relax, and be less callous and bad tempered.
You can't take the sky from me...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They are value-neutral.
Why did they detract from the quality of the film? Simply because they differed from the details of the book?
If they had done the movie to the letter of the book, it would have sucked.
Don't be a fanboy.
+++ATH0
I never read the books, never listened to the radio show and never watched the TV show. I played all of 2 minutes of the game. So with no prior knowledge of the story, what did I think?
It was a very good movie. I like sci-fi in general but I also saw it with my wife who doesn't. She was able to enjoy it for the humor. Only thing I knew of the story is that it was suppossed to be quirky, which the movie is. If you don't like the movie because it isn't a word for word telling of the book or it didn't match your ideas perfectly then you must not enjoy movies at all.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Considering the 7.4 average on IMDB I'd call it a success at least for a sci fi movie.
People give movies rediculous ratings from time to time, like 1/10 for an average-good film, that's why you should look at a mean score to be safe.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
If listing lines which WEREN'T in the film counts as {SPOILERS!}, then consider yourself warned.
That said, I was pleased with the movie. I consider it 55% faithful to the book -- the majority of the movie did parallel the story, with an acceptable amount of artistic license thrown in.
I was *VERY* sadly disappointed that the entry for Earth ("Harmless") wasn't mentioned *AT ALL!*
They sort of did a quick nod to the fact that Ford was on Earth to research more details, but they didn't even get to make the "Mostly Harmless" reference. *THAT* my friends is blasphemy!
(It'd be like saying "Kids will think it funnier if we use 69 instead of 42!")
Other lines which are sorely absent:
Guide: "[Earthlings] still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea."
Arthur: "It's times like this I wish I'd listened to what my mother used to say."
Ford: "What'd she used to say?"
Arthur: "I don't know, I never listened..."
Guide: "[Earthlings] concern themselves primarily with the moving of small green pieces of paper, which is ironic because in general, the pieces of paper aren't concerned at all." [paraphrasing]
[In the pub, speaking of teleportation]
Ford: "It feels kind of like being drunk."
Arthur: "What's so bad about that?"
Ford: "Try asking a glass of water."
[In the Heart of Gold]
Ford: "Arthur, there's an infinite number of monkeys out here and they'd like a word with you about this script they've come up with."
I'm glad they kept Slartibartfast saying "Late as in the late Dentarthurdent" but they didn't even mention the usefulness of having a towel if you're ever in peril of being eaten by the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal!
Nor did they acknowledge the Peril Sensitive Sunglasses. *Shrug* I can understand why that gag got dropped, though.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but was the giant girl Ford was talking to supposed to be the Triple Breasted Whore of [... Ack, I've forgetten where she was from!]
The omission of Vroomfondle and Magicthize was okay, but let me get this straight: Benji and Jeremy (the mice) were the same two people who built Deep Thought? And Arthur SMASHED THEM??!? What's up with that?!
Anyway, I do have to say I liked the movie, and I'll certainly buy the DVD, but I hope that some of the entries I long for are included in the additional material.
The "I know this great Restaurant at the End of the Universe" line at the end was a nice teaser for a sequel, but how will Marvin be "found" working as a valet?
The mice thing- WTF?
There were so many priceless lines cut from the book that I just did not see the point in making it. If they had been replaced with equally inspired dialog fine- But Ah-choo; Bless you? Come on!
-sirket
There are far better space operas with movie potential. Honor Harrington. Sten. Even the old Lensman series. For comedy SF, Snow Crash had more potential. And what are we getting? Dr. Who, The Next Generation.
When Space, 1999 comes back, we'll know it's hopeless.
This movie is different from the books (have read). And the radio show (haven't heard). And the miniseries (have seen). Duh. DNA wanted them to be different. I, for one, think it was too different though. Way too off. Lots of things were better explained in the books and show. The towel for one. And the entry for Earth. Ok You could leave the Earth bit out, but the towel thing? How can you make the audience know it is very important without telling them why? Anywho, fans of the other mediums that tell similar stories will probably be dissapointed. Others will enjoy it for the most part. As the projectionist that previewed the movie along with three other people that knew nothing of the other mediums that tell similar stories, I can tell you for a fact that two out of those three people did infact enjoy the movie. They thought it was quite humorous. The other thought it was stupid. Also having worked in the box office on friday night, I can say that for a "stupid" movie it did better than anything else in the theatre. And we have 11 other movies to choose from.
the Ghostly image who warns the team off magrathea is played by simon jones (original radio and tv Dent) and is shot in 3d - bring your red and blue glasses.
I am a new hhg2tg fan - read the books 4 mths ago - and overall, I liked the movie. They did better as I thought they'd do. It's good to see non-cgi characters!
On a scale of 1 to 10 I would give this movie a 3. Keep in mind that is generous, I would never ever pay again to see that movie.
"The trouble is it's simply not especially funny..."
People actually get especially paid to write like this.
Triple Breasted Whore of [... Ack, I've forgetten where she was from!]
Eroticon VI, if I recall?
And leaving out God disappearing in a puff of logic? WTF?!
I really love the fact that the dude who proved God does not exist then went on to prove that black is white and promptly got run over at a zebra crossing. (For a Christian that should mitigate the puff thing).
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
Testify, brother-man!
Don't get me wrong, they were kind and loving people, but their view of the world was one in which the forces of Satan had become victorious and would corrupt your kids if you weren't vigilant. To tell the truth, I sometimes miss the days when I believed the same things they did. Life was so much easier. But then I see the Texas legislature making it illegal for gays to be foster parents, and I can't help but sigh. It's harder on this side of the religious fence, but at least I feel better about myself.
Sounds like you should have heeded their warnings.
possible spoilers... We saw it last night. The theater was half empty, no one brought their towels and we had some darn kids who had to get up 6 times total during the movie. take them out back and break their legs... Other than that, I loved it. There were a couple lines missing (did anyone actually hear "hoopy frood" in there?), but Marvin and Arthur were dead on. I liked movie Trillian as more adventurous and less ditzy than the tv Trillian. Zaphod was a little out there.. but he's just this guy, ya know? The guide was great, the interface was like an TNG kiddie computer. Def as Ford was perfect, he was exactly how I thought of him... crazy enough to jump from planet to planet, but sane enough to make himself blend in. And, the babelfish was cute. Would highly recommend it to anyone who needs a good wind-down movie. Don't do any serious thinking in this one. Enjoy the one-liners (mostly provided by Marvin) and don't panic.. DNA should be proud up there :)
I had a great sig.. then I lost my penmanship.
Just got back from watching this movie. Let me start by saying I have read all 5 books and listened to the on CD read by Douglas Adam himself.
Now on to the movie. It sucked, plain and simple.
#1 - Arthur and Trillian don't get romantically involved in the bookset as much as they did in the this film.
#2 - Zaphod's head and arm thing was just wrong.
#3 - The only redeeming quality other than the person they chose to play Arthur Dent was having the robot from the H2G2 BBC shows in a line in the movie.
So, that being said, if they decide to make another 2 - 4 films to do the rest of the series, they better do it damn good. I think they can easily combine 2/3 and 4/5 so it's a trilogy, but knowing them, they will go for 5 and mess it all up. My guess is that their "screening audience" was a bunch of 10 year olds and not people that have read the books.
Does anyone know the lyrics for so long and thanks for all the fish? I bought the movie soundtrack on CD, and I'm pissed because they didn't include a lyric sheet! What the hell were they thinking? I did a google search and it looks like nobody can make out half the lyrics to that first song!
All they had to do was put the words with a bouncing ball at the satrt of the movie with the song and it would have been amusing and allowed people to understand what the dolphins were singing, but NOOOOOO!
"It's no Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy..."
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
If I had not read the book, listened to the radio series and seen the tv series, I would not of had a clue what the movie was about. I had to fill in most of the plot myself. And guess what they meant when the actors did not speak loud enough to hear. And cross check what I saw with the memories of the books, etc to work out what something probably was and why it was there, when it usually was not explained.
I dont beleive anyone who has not experienced the earlier forms can follow the movie at all. How would they know what the infinite improbability drive does? How could they leave out Disaster Area from a movie aimed at teenagers! Its a series of philosophy skits but they removed it all.
I'd read quite a bit about the movie before seeing it, and I think that needs mentioning because I might have been much less receptive to the changes from the books if I hadn't known about them before-hand. Still, I give the movie 3.5 out of 5 stars. There was a lot to like about the movie, even for the hardcore fans. And I could see Adams' hands on the movie in a number of places -- and that really helped calm down the parts of me that cringed at the changes and additions.
When things started *really* diverging from the book, I almost got upset. "This isn't like the TV Show at all! None of this was in it!" Yes. True, that. BUT then I thought, "Well, watch the TV Show again, if that is what you want. Or re-read the books!" Movies naturally divurge at points from their source material. And some of that divergence was inspired.
At the top of the list is Sam Rockwell's choice to put a healthy serving as George W. Bush in his portrayal of Zaphod. It just worked. It made the movie feel contemporay, somehow. The TV and radio series poked fun at digital watches -- a fad among many at the time -- and the movie cleverly poked fun at W, another fad among many today. Rockwell was just dead-on.
And hearing the theme music from the TV Series and seeing the original Marvin in the queue on the Volgon planet were nice tributes to the shows that I just love dearly.
And the Volgon character design made me think especially of Douglas Adams. Why? Because they looked like hideous distorted charcicatures of the British upperclass. The leader reminded me so much of John Houseman that I had "Paper Chase" flashbacks in between bites of popcorn.
And I quite enjoyed Mos Def as Ford. I had reservations at first, but Mos Def really made the character his own. I was afraid he'd try to play Ford the same as in the TV series and that would have been disastrous.
Yes, there were many things I liked. But some I didn't. For me, the Guide voice-overs would have worked better had they been illustrated. And the scene with the warhead-turned-whale wasn't given enough time to build. That was true of many of the Guide scenes: they just felt rushed to me.
And Bill Nighy just did not have enough screentime.
But overall, the movie worked for me. I probably will never have the same fondness for it as I do the TV Series, but that's probably more a time-of-life thing. I saw the TV show when I was in high school, and those times are always more fondly remembered than things that happened last night.
If Ford Prefect is the name Ford chose for Earth, why does Zaphod (his cousin) greet him as Ford when they arrive on the Heart of Gold ?? Surely he would have greeted him with his real name ?
That always bugged me about the book, tv series, and now the film.
I'm so much of a fan of the original radio series, the books, and the BBC-TV version, I find the motion picture version grossly mis-cast. Even Marvin looks wrong... he's supposed to be an android, not a freggin' oversized bowling ball on feet! I'll refuse to ever see the movie version, just from what I've seen and heard so far. Sure, Douglas Adams wrote most of the screenplay, but he had NOTHING to do with production of this fiasco! /from the bonus features on the DVD of the BBC series, I'd still "do" Sandra Dickinson (Trillian), but that is neither here nor there....
"A Bird In The Hand Will Poop On Your Wrist"-Benny Hill,1982
Overall, the movie had it's funny moments. The screenwriters who took over for Douglas Adams after he died didn't screw up the editing too badly. But after watching the movie (which just ended 49 minutes ago), I'm left with a sense of "WTF just happened?
It went by too quick. Some of the characters were plain and uninteresting (mis-cast). Marvin is supposed to be tall, thin and gold coloured. Zaphod is supposed to have cojones. Ford is supposed to look and act like a maniac. None of this shows in the movie.
I'm glad I saw it, so my H2G2 experience is complete, but I won't be buying the DVD.
"I'm so depressed..." - Marvin the Paranoid Android
Funny, I was thinking just the opposite... WJC (Bill Clinton). While the southern accent could go either way, I could never see GWB signing anything "Hugs and Kisses", but that had Clinton written all over it.
Just my $.02
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
The real creepy part was when Marvin, the depressed robot said "Mr. Takagi, I could talk about men's fashion and industrialization all day but I'm afraid work must intrude, and my associate Theo has some questions for you, sort of fill in the blanks questions... "
The Internet is generally stupid
Did anyone notice the planet shaped like Douglas Adams' head? I personally missed it but it was in the credits. I assume it was in Slartibartfasts 'office'. Stay for those credits!
I read the books all those years ago and immensely enjoyed them. I never heard the radio show or saw the TV show. I *thoroughly* enjoyed this movie! Excellent all around!
Well I don't think they do. It's got so much crap to carry round to live up to that you just can't begin to know if you'll like it.
I saw it last nite and my immediate reaction to it is that it was Disney'd up and far too campy. The film could have been better, but it was still pretty spiffy.
I would have preferred the version with Hugh Laurie (killer funny as House MD) and Jim Carey.
But this is the kid's version, really.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
But it's all lies.
The burden of proof isn't on me.
Look, it's not gonna be worth anyone's time to correspond with you if that's your attitude.
The very idea of condemning an eternal soul to eternal suffering is perhaps the most evil idea one could imagine. Nothing merits a judgment of everlasting torture. Not murder, not original sin, certainly not looking at a pretty girl with a lusty gleam in your eye.
Just a few points here.
1) What would you have God do with people like
Give them a kiss on the cheek and 72 virgins?2) The word "ETERNAL" does not appear in the passages you cited. YOU inserted it.
3) Search on the word "eternal":
It seems to me that the relevant portions of the bible are overwhelming concerned [by orders of magnitude] not with the sentence of eternal damnation, but rather with the offer of eternal life.Besides, as you indicated in your very first post:
All that touchy-feely stuff about loving your neighbors is FUN!!!Why are you blue-staters so damned intent on being miserable for your entire lives?
It seems as if it was set up perfectly for a sequel, though I wonder if I want to see one. One criticism that I think is fairly reasonable is that you can't hope to fully convey the book(I think of it as one big book) in a two hour movie- you do have to leave things out (although the planning commission bit was criminal) - and that the editing might have been better on that end.
...I think the earlier version was better. It seemed to capture the truth of the book, along with all of it's randomness. This movie was rushed, and not very funny. I guess the worst thing about it to me was that Ford Prefect, was not as he was in the book. This guy in the movie probably, didn't read the book.
We all dance, we all sing.
-The Streets
Whoa, there. Since we haven't established the existence of this character you call God, this is a moot point. There's no reason to believe that Stalin or Hitler did anything after death but decompose. Justice is something we humans have to make for ourselves while we live.
Well, let's get this out of the way first:
If we assume for the sake of argument that such things as souls do exist, and that the God of the Bible exists, the corollary argument that it is immoral to force souls to suffer in Hell for breaking Jehovah's rather arbitrary and often despotic rules is not contingent on the idea of that suffering being eternal. 100,000 years of burning in hellfire -- insert any number you like here -- for the crime of looking at a woman's ass isn't any better, morally speaking.
But, like I pointed out at the end of my previous post, most Christians do believe that Hell is eternal suffering, and they are not only fine with this, they celebrate and proselytize it as the most perfect state of justice, as you seemed to in relating it to various murderers.
I personally don't believe that condemning an eternal being to eternal suffering is morally justifiable, even if that eternal being is Hitler's soul. But it's especially revolting if that eternal being is some harmless Lothario who only gave the girls a good time. Or thought about it.
I know that you're probably busy at work today -- me too -- but I also think that you know you're misrepresenting the what the Bible says about Hell and the wrath of God. Even the Gospels, which seem to be the only parts of the Bible you want to discuss, aren't nearly as kind and cuddly as you seem intent on pretending.
I'm sure it is a little embarrassing to be forced to defend things like Jehovah's murderous flood tantrum or condemning people to Hell for watching "Desperate Housewives". But them's the breaks. You don't get to ignore the parts you find inconvenient or embarrassing.
Well, yeah, which is why I also love my gay neighbors enough to let them adopt and get married.
It's tempting to caricature you the same way, but I don't think it's profitable to discussion, which I have generally enjoyed so far. For what it's worth, I think there are terribly shrill and tremendously thoughtful people on both sides.
I do think that non-believers feel more responsible for making things just and good in this world because we're not waiting for some second world to come along in which justice is magically taken care of for us.
If you've read the book, this is from that.
/. There are no other bonuses.
Arthurs words, "I'd never go anywhere without my wonderful towel", are sent across the universe where two generals about to go to war are arguing. They hear it, and as these words are a great insult on their planet, they put aside their differences and set to attack earth. Of course, when they get there, they forgot to take size into consideration, and are eaten by a dog.
That's it. That's all. I stayed becuase of
For context, click Parent.