Hitchhikers Guide Movie Might Become a Trilogy

Noiser writes "The BBC reports that The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie could be turned into a trilogy. I wonder if they mean that it might turn into a trilogy in five parts, just like the book? I wish it did - unlike some people, I liked all of them..."

Comments

Dirk Gently

[Audent]

Come on, where's the Dirk Gently movie/TV series? I know, I know, it was a lot like Dr Who (in fact, I can't read DG without picturing Tom Baker in the role) but frankly it was brill and should be done at once.

The Long Dark Tea-time of the Soul (despite having a great title) wasn't so good but the first one (Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency) was excellent.

Scripts

[someguy456]

Of course, one of the redeeming properties of the movie is that Douglas Adams wrote the script himself, before he passed away.

Unless he personally wrote out the additional scripts, or at least laid out an extensive outline (plot/characters, etc), I don't think any more movies would be as successfull as the first, which couldn't really be considered a blockbuster per se.

Re:Scripts

[Jeremi]

Plenty of other books have been adapted into movies without the assistance of their authors, with varying degrees of success... it all depends on who is doing the work.

If they were to bring in Terry Gilliam as director

[jpardey]

I would stop panicing.

I think

[bloodstar]

The movie was an enjoyable diversion. Was it the greatest thing ever? no. But it was a hell of a lot of fun and I sat through the entire movie with a silly grin on my face. Would I have tweaked a few things? Yes, but then again I think you can say that of almost any movie. But I'd see the sequals if they maintain the level of quality and a good mix of Adam's insanity (in a good way) and a bit of pacing.

Hell, I'll be seeing the movie again...

Much agreed!

[jellisky]

Those two are both MUCH more adaptable to film than any of the Hitchhiker books and were just as good. And personally, I enjoyed Long Dark more than HDA, but they were both some of the more entertaining reads I've had. - Jellisky

Why does everyone keep doing this?

[spoco2]

Why does everyone keep saying "This was the same as the book", "This was different" etc. etc.

Surely you all know very well by now that Adams changed the story to suit the medium (and his own fancy). The radio play, books, TV Show and now movie are ALL DIFFERENT.

They share a LOT in common, but why people get all ansy(or is that antsy) about what's different in the films compared to the books is beyond me.

Re:Why does everyone keep doing this?

[wyldeone]

And those 6 episodes (the three hours) included both books. So the grandparent's argument is bunk, as the comparable portion of the miniseries was actually quite a bit shorter.

Re:Why does everyone keep doing this?

[hedge_death_shootout]

Adams changed the story to suit the medium

Okay, In future, can everyone please just type 'ACtStStM' when they want to repeat this true-but-done-to-death statement? It's so boring to hear it repeated ad infinitum.

And can we please have another interesting Dr Who thread, so everyone can observe how "that's X dead doctors out of a total of Y doctors and goodness me that means that soon the doctor regeneration supply will run out!"
(suggested abbreviation: GMtDRSWSRO)

Re:Well...

[cluening]

Keep in mind that the book wasn't even true to the book. Or something like that.

Really! The radio plays, the book, the BBC TV series, and the towel all had slightly different and often contradictory story lines. Having the movie differ is just another evolution in the story.

More movies seem pointless (SPOILERS)

[Mr. Neutron]

****Movie Spoilers, read at your own risk****

The whole thing that drove the books on was the fact that Arthur was alone and lost in hostile universe, with more and more of his home Earth ceasing to be. At the end of this movie, Earth is restored and Arthur gets the girl. What's the point in continuing? To see Arthur fly around the galaxy sight-seeing, with a great girl by his side, knowing all along he can return to his home whenever he gets sick of it? That's not Hitchhikers.

They'd have to re-blow-up the Earth and set up another love triangle with Trillian or something.

On one condition...

[EEBaum]

...fire everyone but the artists and Slartibartfast.

Re:Ugh. What a disappointment.

[MagPulse]

Since Adams helped with the script, my theory is that after the radio show, book, and BBC series (did he help with that?), he thought it would be nice for Arthur to finally get Trillian. I don't think it was that out of character for him to fight for her.

Maybe the other person who Adams worked with on the script will tell us if this is true?

I loved it

[AaronW]

After reading the review that said most of the humor was missing I was unsure of what to expect, but ended up really enjoying the movie. The movie is not the book, which is different than the radio and TV series. I went with a number of friends, many of whom are also fans of the books and the general consensus is that the movie was well done.

Insightful

[marko123]

I thought the movie version was hilarious.

All DA's versions were different, so why not this one?

What DA did with plots in the different media versions must make SF-ST/SW-canon-geeks heads asplode :)

My girlfriend hadn't read the books before because she thought they were nerdy, but she pissed herself in the movie and will be reading the books as soon as she finishes LOTR.

Her quote:
"Oh, I thought the H2G2 were just for nerds."

I think the movie will make a lot of people read the books for the first time.

Re:Insightful

[anakin876]

so what exactly happens once someone pisses themselves in a movie? I used to work in a theater and we were definitely not equipped to handle that sort of problem.

Top Grossing Film for Weekend=Sequel to Hollywood

[Absentminded-Artist]

After pulling in $21 million and ranking number one for the weekend I am not surprised that Disney is talking sequels. My largest concern is that the script felt a bit lackluster, though I enjoyed the movie. I just didn't think that many of the actors brought their characters to life. And Trillian's role was reduced to a damsel in distress who lowered her expectations in order to find love since her beau never truly overcame his cowardice.

If they do more, I'd want to see more sarcasm and wit brought into the dialog. I'd like to see Ford be less of a tree hugger and more of a pithy saw with his comments. Zaphod and Ford were far too kind to Arthur in this version, IMO...

Re:If they removed the Vogons who made the movie..

[eln]

If you're looking for commentary on the madness of bureaucracy, look no further than the scene on Vogsphere, when Arthur was trying to get Trillian released. It was a fairly brilliant sequence, IMO. Also note the cameo by the original Marvin the Paranoid Android in the queue.

Overall, I thought the movie was quite good. It's not a classic for the ages, but it was an enjoyable movie, and I hope they at least make the first three books into movies. The fourth and fifth are dodgier, and I wouldn't lose any sleep if they didn't do them.

Re:If they removed the Vogons who made the movie..

[AlexMax2742]

Oh hush. I'm an avid fan of Douglas' work, and even though they removed some of his dialog, the stuff they replaced it with was suitably funny, and there was enough stuff changed and added that I was laughing throughout much of the movie, instead of mildly chuckling as each of Douglas jokes in the book is repeated verbatim.

Christ, even Douglas himself said that there was no such thing as the official Hitchhiker story. This movie is just another take on the whole Hitchiker idea.

It wasn't perfect. But it was a hell of a lot better than I expected it to be. And defeniatly a lot better than that godawful BBC miniseries.

Re:My such divided opinions

[Fallingcow]

Yeah, I noticed that too. I totally can't understand it. I hated it, and I left the theater assuming that all the talk on the internet would be about all the not-laughing that had been done at this movie. Strangely, it seems split 50/50.

Not so in the theater I was at, though. I think there were maybe 2 or 3 (I'm not exaggerating!) parts where *anyone* laughed, out of 60-70 people. The door squishing the crab got, hands down, the most laughter of anything. Sad.

I've read the books and seen parts of the mini-series. While watching the movie I kept seeing them start really good jokes, sitting there in eager anticipation for their hilarious conclusion... only to have them omit the punch line. It's not that I don't "get" British humor--I enjoyed the books, plus the parts of the miniseries that I saw, and I like Monty Python, and Father Ted (OK, it's Irish, whatever) is one of my favorite TV shows of all time, etc, etc. It was just totally unfunny. The timing was consistantly bad throughout, along with the aforementioned omission of the 2nd half of many of the jokes.

I was embarassed on DNA's behalf, actually, because I knew that none of the people in the theater with me who had not already read the books would ever want to, after seeing that.

Also, the acting was some of the worst I've seen. EVER. Period. And I go out of my way to see nototiously bad movies, when the mood strikes me. We're talking worse than the kids in the 1st Harry Potter movie. Yes, that bad.

But, again, opinion seems split down the middle. Weird.

Re:Movie annoying

[NanoGator]

"Why make a sequal?"

Because a lot of people liked it and we're alloweed to have differing opinions?

Re:ok..

[Rolyat69]

Yes, you can stop panicking. I went to see the movie last night, and have read all the books. The book was much better than the movie, but IMHO they didn't do a bad job of adapting it to the big screen. I read the reviews and reactions of others before going to see it and found myself wondering what kind of crack they are smoking. It's great! It will definitly make it to my DVD collection as soon as it hits the shelves.

Re:A Trilogy, why not?

[Rolyat69]

What... you mean The Hitchhikers Guide isn't the word of God? Damn... after all these years...

Re:If they removed the Vogons who made the movie..

[MynockGuano]

Unfortunately, absurd humor is only half of what gives the novels and the radio series their charm. The other half is the witty, irreverant, biting commentary on the nature of humanity, which the movies did away with entirely--probably so as not to "offend" anyone.

Eddie was great, though. Even if they were terrible, I'd watch the rest of the movies just for him. >8)

...ok, I'd watch them anyway.

Re:I've seen the movie

[mrchaotica]

I agree completely. I didn't walk out on it, but I sat there in a kind of horrified trance. It was the details that made it funny, and they just... weren't there. For example (in just the first few minutes of the film):

• There should have been bulldozers reflected in the mirror when Arthur was brushing his teeth
• What happened to "beware of the leopard?!"
• Even worse, why didn't Mr. Prosser end up lying in the mud?
• Vogon ships are supposed to be yellow, and for a reason: they're supposed to resemble the bulldozers.

All in all, it was a movie that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike The Hitchhiker's Guide.

Re:Trilogys happen after big returns from film one

[Jeremi]

It doesn't need to be. It only needs to make a profit.

You're forgetting opportunity cost -- it needs to not just make a profit, but make more profit than (whatever other movie the people involved could be working on instead). I don't think any studio wants to spend several hundred man-years of their time just to break even...

Mostly Harmless

[thed00d]

Personally, I liked the movie. I went in with absolutely no expectations, or delusions of grandeur - and I feel that that is the single largest mistake most people made. How often do we see that, no matter how good the book was, the movie is less? Every time. EX: LOTR was a great series of books; The movies were good as well; The movies and the books are similar, but different. It's the same with H2G2.

We see the converse of this where movies have been adapted to book form. The books don't follow the movie, has a different flow of events, and is usually written in a new perspective. Most are bad, some are good - it depends on the writer.

Personally, I'd like to see a five part trilogy - I think it would be great. I don't, however, have any expectation that it would, or even should, follow the books with a faithfulness of more than using the ideas in them, and building anew. With the proper writers, script editors, etc.., a series of movies could be great. It also brings me to another point - if the movies were to be close followings of the books, don't you think it would get monotones? Do we really want our own visions of what we think it should be, of how we picture it on our own minds, shattered by something that strives to be an exact copy? I wouldn't. I'd want something that I could watch, and maybe see the story from a new angle, not the same old thing regurgitated in a visual form.

Anyway, just my two cents worth.

Re:If they removed the Vogons who made the movie..

[ReverendLoki]

Actually, the head in the neck thing has now given the existence of a second head a purpose. Whereas before the extra head was merely a cosmetic change, it now makes sense as the place he put the part of his brain that actually knew the real reason he wanted to become President of the Galaxy and steal the Heart of Gold in the first place, along with the other parts of his brain/personality that would have prevented him from getting the job in the first place. It's a great setup, and the point in the movie that told me they (directors and writer) actually knew what was going in the greater plot, and gave me hope for a sequel. And I actually like how Sam Rockwell played the role, and I find his character in the movie as likeable in the movie as in the book, if that's important to you (a character need not be likeable to be a good character).

I admit, this isn't the ideal movie that it could have been; I would have actually rather seen it made by the Farscape producers, as I think they could have better hit the style (and it could still have those Henson Creature Shop creations in it). But all in all, I think the good exceeds the bad. And I can sit here and go on for a few hours about the parts they got wrong. Arthur was great; Ford was hit and miss; Zaphod was good, but it felt to me like he was occasionally pulling off a bad George W impersonation; Trillian was fairly far from the mark; Marvin was done damn near perfect; and the Vogons where better than I had imagined.

Re:If they removed the Vogons who made the movie..

[Vitriol Angst]

Terry Gilliam would have been perfect to make this movie.

I love that the greatest Terrorist the "Brazil" the movie, is a repairman.

The terrorists life is saved by a smashed fly. The wrong person is executed and because his family doesn't except the "compensation", it drives the rest of the movie with a bureaucratic tailspin.

That the name "Brazil" sounds exotic and forrested, and nothing in the movie has not been paved over by industry.

Terry gets the irony and absurdity of Douglas Adams. More than anyone else I can think of. I always thought that "Time Bandits" had a similiar mood/creative sensibility to the "Hitchhiker's Guide".