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.'"

Comments

Why the need for a movie?

[riflemann]

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.

Re:Why the need for a movie?

[vistic]

Agreed. The magic of this story was always in the dialogue... using great special effects to add a sense of wonder (like the Magrathean construction floor) doesn't do much for the story. Looks cool... but zooming by planets just makes the audience go "oooh" and "ahhh" and that time should have been spent making them laugh their butts off.

Re:Why the need for a movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

I really didn't enjoy the movie that much, too much Vogon involvement, not that well done. But the casting was amazingly good (esp Sam Rockwell and Mos Def) and the visual style far surpassed the, let's be honest, crappy, shaky polystyrene sets of the BBC series, which was made nearly half a decade after Star Wars. It is unfortunate that it wasn't more true to the book (I know Doug never intended it to be gospel) but everyone has their own ideas on what should have been done.

Re:Why the need for a movie?

[bokane]

So does the movie actually lessen your enjoyment? Did Garth Jennings, or whoever it was who directed it, somehow go back in time and steal your delight in the original books? Geez -- if it's not as good as the books - and I don't see how it could be - then it's not as good as the books. It's not going to make me throw away my copy, or decide that I didn't actually like it after all.

Re:Why the need for a movie?

[h4rm0ny]

Yes, actually. A movie can spoil a book you've previously read. A movie presents powerful images that are difficult to un-see. If I re-read Hitchhiker's and I find that I'm hearing Douglas Adams' writing in Stephen Fry's voice, then that is definitely a negative. Worst voice of guide, ever (mainly if you're British).

Re:Why the need for a movie?

[pla]

there are a generation or two, or three, of people who do not read books. these people go to movies. should the story be inaccessible to them?

Put simply - Yes. Fuck 'em. If they won't take the time to pick up a book and read the story, why should they have access to it?

And I don't mean this as a troll... The biggest complaint I see in this thread involves how poorly DA's British, intellectual, subtle style of humor, translates to the big screen. This very consistently happens with productions of decent literature (as opposed to productions of hacks who basically write screenplays in novel form), because the two mediums do NOT have totally equivalent expressive power.


translating one form of literary culture into another form, is usually a good way to spread that culture. don't you agree?

No, I do not.

Movies convey information as though the viewer exists as a disembodied viewer floating through the story, observing the events that unfold. Great for action, great for "physical" comedy, great for slasher flicks and some forms of more physical horror, great for porn. Okay for drama, barely passable for "psychological" thrillers (only by making offensively frequent use of information the viewer should not fairly have, such as showing scenes of the unidentifiable bad guy torturing the little girl, when the other 99% of the movie has the observer follow Detective BadAss).

Books, OTOH, make use of the reader's imagination. They let you inside the heads of the charaters without the need for annoying voiceovers - For that matter, a book could get away with not having a single spoken word (referring only to fiction here, of course, since nonfiction would make this a moot point).


your self, having read the book, can't possibly think of why there is any reason whatsoever to contribute to another cultural form.

Hello? Come back down here, friend, you've floated a bit too far out there.

This doesn't involve cultural anthropology, it involves two mediums that most people in the modern Western world have basically equal access to (or if not, they do not by choice). Both mediums have their uses. But both do not work for every story.

In this case, the moving-pictures-with-sound format doesn't work well to fully express the story. I would even say that about the original BBC episodes - Not bad, but not nearly as stop-reading-so-I-can-stop-laughing-and-catch-my-b reath funny as the book.


next time you see a 9 year old, ask them if they know the answer to life, the universe, and everything.

And after going to see this movie, they might "know" the right answer, but they won't "get" why so many of us "geeks who read" find that answer hilarious. That 9YO will roll his or her eyes, and say "what-EVER" in that dismissive tone that only 5-15YOs seem able to master.


This has nothing to do with elitism, or with some noble idea of "making culture accessible". It involves placing something in the wrong context. The crocodile doesn't live in trees, the monkey doesn't live in the desert, and the cat doesn't live in a swamp. "format C:\" doesn't work in Linux. And HHG doesn't work on film.

Reviews don't matter here

[TheoGB]

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!

contradiction

[FidelCatsro]

he 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.'"

Is it just me .. or does that statment sort of contradict itself.
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 .

Re:contradiction

[LordLucless]

I didnt say it didnt have any asides, I said it didnt have any absurdist insides. Half of the humour rom HHG is from asides that have only tangential relevance to the rest of the story. "Beware of the Tiger" sign. Babelfish and God. The army of battleships eaten by a small dog. The quantum physics aside in Dirk Gently was used because the book later discusses it in other areas, and the characters are used to discuss it to give the reader a basic foundation.

Hope for the best, but...

[houstonbofh]

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.

book to movie

[timmarhy]

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

Re:Well...

[FidelCatsro]

I really don't like the new Marvin , he looks kind of Mangaled(sorry for the pun) , and dosn't look entierly crap as he did in the TV-show which really added to the charichter.. Actualy come ot think of it , most of the new costumes are rather odd and make the charichters look like Jedi knights
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://ww w.scifi.com/scifiwire2005/gallery_photos/hitchhike rs_cast_gal.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.scifi.com/sci fiwire2005/index.php%3Fcategory%3D10%26id%3D122&h= 250&w=380&sz=22&tbnid=Wyl4kgno2gMJ:&tbnh=78&tbnw=1 19&hl=en&start=3&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmarvin%2Bhitch hikers%2B%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN
for example

Re:Better with the books

[Goldberg's Pants]

They left out the Guide entry on towels, AND the entry for Earth, which was only the damn title of the fifth book.

As I saw it put elsewhere, "Hey, Peter! I've got a great idea! Let's leave the Balrog out of the movie!"

Fuck Disney. Everyone involved in taking this marvelous quirky story and turning it into a fucking Galaxy Quest clone needs to be skullfucked to death.

Am I the only one who doesn't like the series?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I've just seen it last night

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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 :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.

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.

Americans cannot exist without God.

[Anonymous Coward]

Therefore God must exist.

So the joke has to go.

It's prefectly logical when you think about it..

Angst does not go well with Hitchhiker's

[tehanu]

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 :)

Re:Moderate: Unfunny

[QuantumG]

Yep, and 2001 A Space Odyssey made absolutely no sense to people who hadn't read the book, and pretty much every serious film out of Europe makes no sense unless you had a classical education.. unless you're trying to make a "blockbuster", why must we always aim for the lowest common denominator?

Funny book - dull film per se.

[Circlotron]

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 /.

Re:Saw it Friday

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you need to be careful if you've memorized a lot of the original jokes. There's a fair few times where the feedlines have been worked into the dialog, but the punchlines dropped - if you're new to H2G then you won't notice. But, at least to begin with, if you know the jokes then this drives you crazy. Adams' humour can work much like Python humour - you know the joke, you're waiting for the joke, you enjoy the buildup to the joke, and - bam - you get the satisfaction of the punchline. In this film, at times, you feel cheated out of your punchline.

But - once you're past all that - it's a damn funny film. There are new jokes, and they're funny; and the new plot device (through which the day is saved at the film's climax) is pure Adams.

Re:My review

[gaijin99]

I thought the movie was actually pretty good. What many people keep forgetting is that the book itself falls flat in the last half. Seriously, how long has it been since you read the book? Go back and read it again and you'll discover that once they get to Megrathea it really isn't that funny, amusing yes, but hardly *funny* the way some of the earlier bits are.

As for the movie itself, it really is quite good. The casting is wonderful, especially the man they got to play Zaphod. And the bits where the Guide is used are truly great.

The movie wasn't really all that funny towards the end, but neither was the book so I can't complain on that note.

I'm glad things are different

[fireboy1919]

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.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

It just looks from the stills thats its insanely odd and manga esk.

Mangaesque... or possibly manga-esque. I'll admit that I'm not *that* damn good at English to figure out if the latter is correct, but the former looks strange.

Definitely *not* 'manga esk', unless Marvin really did have something to do with the animated version of a Scottish river, but I don't quite see that.

Re:Better with the books

[Bozzio]

Personally, I thought it was very well adapted.

As expected, I didn't see ALL the gags from the book, but I'm happy to say at least they cut the less funny ones instead of the good ones. You can't really expect everything from the book to be in the movie. As you know, I'm sure, a great deal of the book's charm is in the wording of the narration. Converting the narration's humour to movie format without over narrating is definitely hard, and I for one think they did a great job.

I will agree, however, that I didn't expect Marvin to look that way. I also didn't expect Zaphod to look that way either, but his character was great!

Also, in the credits, the BBC is thanked for providing the original Marvin suit from the TV series. I haven't watched the series yet, but is that how Marvin looked? That could be a good explanation.

Anyway.. there were differences from the book, but they were well done. For example, Ford showing up at the beginning with a cart full of beer. At first I was worried the pub scene would be cut, but it wasn't, and it tied in well! I actually preferred how this scene played out.

Sadly, they DID cut out the Narrator's explanation of how Ford picked his name.. BUT they still managed to fit in how Ford thought cars were the dominant species of earth. Precious!

Overall, the movie is pretty damn close to the book. The changes are warranted, and still pretty damn funny. On the down side, I can see how a lot of the plot and humour would be harder to catch if you hadn't read the book(s).

I still give it 3 thumbs up.

Generation?

[Jonathan]

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...

Re:My review

[crs3210]

I made the mistake of comparing mediums when I first saw the tv series, and I was thoroughly disappointed. 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. No, this isn't the book...this is the movie. It's supposed to be different; Douglas Adams even intended it to be so when he wrote the screenplay. Sure they cut out a few jokes, or executed them somewhat poorly, however, there are quite a few extra stuff they put in that wasn't in the book or the series, and this more than makes up for it in my opinion. Highly recommended, for newcomers and (open minded) hardcore fans alike.

Just like the books

[Anonymous Coward]

The books aren't funny either.

Re:Moderate: Unfunny

[porcupine8]

There's a IRC chat in bash.org, where a guy got fired for accidently putting Bibles in the fiction section.

Hm. The only thing I could find was this:

i got kicked out of barnes and noble once for moving all the bibles into the fiction section

I'd be pissed and kick him out too. Do you know how much extra work that makes for the employees, who have better shit to do than clean up after someone trying to be "clever"?

I had to go and search for myself, because your version sounded highly unlikely. In most bookstores, Bibles get their very own (rather large) section - there's no way an employee could accidentally put them in fiction any more than they could accidentally put a dictionary in fiction.

Making movies enjoyable again

[shawb]

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.

Re:Moderate: Unfunny

[ArsSineArtificio]

Do you know how much extra work that makes for the employees, who have better shit to do than clean up after someone trying to be "clever"?

Oddly enough, people trying to make an Important Social Statement never seem to actually think about the people they're supposed to be sticking up for. Kind of like all those anti-trade protestors who trash McDonald's restaurants, not considering that they mainly just screwed over the employees, who wouldn't be working there if they didn't really need the money.

Re:Better with the books

[JoshNorton]

Given how much of Starship Titanic WASN'T Adams and was instead the other parts of the team at TDV... Eh, I think it's fair. Besides, it's not like they had to pay royalties - just acknowledgement. It's being polite.

Re:My review

[Martin Blank]

I found Sam Rockwell to be the worst part of the whole movie. I dislike his acting style, and have never liked any part he has played. Matchstick Men was the closest I ever came to being able to deal with him in a role, and that's because the role he played was the role he always plays.

As someone above said, Zaphod's not an idiot. His ideas aren't always the brightest (and some are downright stupid), but he has his occasional bouts of genius. He's also much more in control than most people around him realize, and he was most certainly not in control in the movie. There's a lot more subtlety to him than Rockwell has the capability to portray.

Re:Better with the books

[__aahlyu4518]

Including Mr Adams himself who wrote the script for this ? People seem to forget that it was him who said that every instance of this story should be a little different from the others.

With every film made after a comic, a book ,a bbc radio series, there are some people that nomatter how good the movie is, will bash it just because they think it is not completely accurate or the writer must have had a different view blah blah blah...

I just ignore these people, and go see it for myself... I usually end up liking it.

I also ignore people that hype a movie to the stars, because a movie usually cannot live upto it. People that told me that I just HAD to see 'Independance Day' I never took seriously again. That was for me one of the worst movies ever.

But then again.. now people will ignore ME hopefully for saying that ;-)

That behaviour is unacceptable

[Scrameustache]

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.

Re:My review

[Golias]

When I think of all the good jokes they cut, and all the scenes which felt rushed, that they made those unwise edits to make room for us to hear that idiotic song at the beginning and end of the film, I find myself in Marvin's camp.

"So-LONG-so-LONG-so-LONG and thanks... for all the fiiiiiiish!"

Dear God I'm so depressed.

Re:IMDB

[Golias]

Meh. There are a lot of funny movies out there. "Office Space" probably being the funniest of the last ten years of so.

If you are going to make a movie called "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", you damn well better at least capture the spirit of the original work.

It would have been nice if the movie could have slowed down to explain why a space traveller should keep his towel handy, rather then just make it seem like a strange fettish of Ford's, and later justify its presence by using it as a sort of weapon.

(IIRC, the point of keeping a towel handy, among other things, is that it creates the impression that it makes it easier to borrow things like soap or a comb, because if you travel with a towel, you are obviously the sort of person who takes care of himself, but simply finds himself short a personal hygiene item or two.)

Re:Do I belong on this planet myself?

[shawb]

I actually thought that was clever. The largest slapstick scene in the movie was them getting hit with, well, slapsticks. Very DNA.

Re:Yes, Zaphod is supposed to seem Stupid

[fishbot]

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 know _WHO_ he was supposed to be. a) It was not funny. b) It did not fit into the plot of the first book. c) It was a fucking brief and off handed reference even when it did come in to play in Restaurant.

Hehe, I love reading these anti-reviews. I thought the movie was great. I have no idea why ANYONE thought it was remotely faithful to the books. Earth blows up; check. Arthur saved by Ford; check. Babelfish, Vogons, other periphery; check. The entire rest of the storyline... um, no. Not in any version of the book, tv series, radio show, game or towel that I've ever known.

Anyway, onto my point and what I found amusing in your rants about Humma Kavula:

"John Malkovich's character, a religious leader, was created especially for the movie by Douglas Adams."

Source: http://imdb.com/title/tt0371724/trivia

All this agro over a bit that DNA actually wrote! In fact, if you look deeper, Douglas wrote pretty much all of it. All that was left to do was the screenplay.

I dunno. Maybe you were expecting a glorious deep story. Maybe you were expecting a visual representation of the books, verbatim, like even LOTR failed to do. Whatever, you were never gonna get it. What we did get was an amusing, madcap comedy in the Hitchhikers universe, and a load of nay-sayers who would never have been happy unless they had made it themselves. Seeing as none of you would, the point really is moot.

Re:Moderate: Unfunny

[Bitsy Boffin]

even though I love that monologue, I agree with its deletion

So because some people who wouldn't know funny if it hit them over the head think that the film is thrusting Aethism down thier throat with a 30 second bit of humor then we should remove one of the most intellectually amusing parts of the story?

Sigh. Why can't people just grow the fuck up and learn to laugh at themselves sometimes.