Slashdot Mirror


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..."

44 of 502 comments (clear)

  1. ok.. by aixou · · Score: 5, Funny

    ok, I think we can start panicking now.

  2. Dirk Gently by Audent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I am a leaf on the wind
    1. Re:Dirk Gently by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Informative
      (in fact, I can't read DG without picturing Tom Baker in the role)


      I always picture Jack Black. Oh, and they'd better be sure to use the proper late-1980's-era Macintoshes...


      Btw, while you're waiting for the movie, try the comic...

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    2. Re:Dirk Gently by tktk · · Score: 3, Funny
      While we're imagining this....

      Have Christopher Walken as the Electric Monk.

      For no reason at all, just for the hell of it.

    3. Re:Dirk Gently by waynemcdougall · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you're following the books/radio/TV versions then Hot Black doesn't have any lines...

      therefore Kenau Reeves would be the ideal choice.

      --
      Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
    4. Re:Dirk Gently by aug24 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hmmm, a very clever idiosyncratic individual (Dirk) with an assistant (Richard) investigates a very old man (Urban Chronotis) living in a room in a university with a console that enables the whole room to travel in time and space, whereby they meet a character from history (Samuel Taylor Coleridge). I wonder why it reminds you in some way of a Dr Who script?

      FYI, speaking as a total DNA fan and (less) DW fanboy, you're bang on. It was originally conveived as a DW adventure in the Tom Baker era, but there was a strike on set which cut short the series on which DNA was script editor (another story, 'Shada', was only half completed) and DNA stopped writing for DW. He noodled around with the plot for aver ten years before finding a way to re-use it without it being *too* damn obvious.

      The idea was that a Time Lord had retired to Cambridge to live a long and peaceful last regeneration, knowing that no-one would ever bother him. The Cambridge colleges are notoriously unenquiring of human oddity! Supposedly, he had been there a very *very* long time and had forgotten everything that came before.

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
  3. Scripts by someguy456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Scripts by ari_j · · Score: 5, Funny

      I still refer to Star Wars as a bi-trilogy.

      Well, it damn well wasn't a sexology!

  4. If they were to bring in Terry Gilliam as director by jpardey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would stop panicing.

    --
    I have freaks! I did something right...
  5. True, but... by GundamFan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I just can't see mostly harmless as making a very good movie. 'Restaurant At the End of the Universe', 'Life the Universe and Everything' and 'So Long and Thanks for All the Fish' could be very easily made into two movies... they have a kind of natural flow.

    --
    I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
    Mark Twain
  6. Re:A Trilogy, why not? by magefile · · Score: 5, Funny

    Close, but no cigar. You're looking for the word pentateuch.

  7. LXG, indeed. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 4, Informative

    While Alan Moore's "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" wasn't exactly a classic, it was a tremendously disappointing adaptation of a densely layered and rather subtle work. That "LXG" crap was an abomination.

    Oh, and "I, Robot". Couldn't they have made their silly action thriller with SF spray painted on the top without robbing Asimov's grave to do it?

    And they're going to fuck up "Watchmen" next. Ugh. Stab stab stabbity...

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  8. Re:Well... by zachtib · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I actually thought it was very true to the book, except for a few minor things. I saw it on Saturday and reread the book today. As far as movie adaptations go, I was impressed, several passages were taken word for word from the novel

  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. Much agreed! by jellisky · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  11. Ugh. What a disappointment. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 5, Informative

    Will they make Arthur into a romantic lead again, instead of the hapless bumbler he was meant to be?

    Oh, oh! You know how whenever Hollywood is making a romantic comedy, someone thinks, "hey! This movie needs explosions to draw in the boys!", and adds some shit blowing which makes no goddamn sense? No?

    Well, then why the fuck did they insert a turgid romance into the middle of a darkly ironic SF comedy of non sequiturs? To wit:

    Arthur Dent, as the romantic lead, is playing opposite Trillian. And when the small white mice are about to carve up his head (they left out the "DICED!" line, but that's a minor quibble), he cries out that no question has ever brought him happiness, and that for him there's only been one question ever, and it's "Is she the one?" and the answer is "Yes!---It's always been yes!".

    And then he uses his superheroic strength to break through his bonds and smush the small white mice. Slartibartfast smiles. Earth Mark II having been recreated and all the people on it restored, Arthur and Trillian go off in the Heart of Gold, happily ever after.

    And that is why I wish to piss in the Cheerios of whoever made the choice to smear that shit on the movie. That's all.

    Oh, and when the characters are all waiting in line, keep an eye out for the Marvin from the original BBC television series. He makes a cameo. I thought that was cute.

    And the Earth is made whole again and no one's really dead and... ugh. It wasn't true to the spirit of the books, and it didn't even manage to be true to the letter in a lot of places.

    And those of us who liked the original work are left sort of gesturing and lamely telling disappointed fellow filmgoers that, really, it wasn't like that at all.

    Pfah. Take your sequels and shove 'em.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:Ugh. What a disappointment. by MagPulse · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

    2. Re:Ugh. What a disappointment. by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 5, Informative

      I completely agree that the romantic story screwed up the whole movie.

      I am not against romantic stories per se and I always wanted Arthur to get it on with Trillian ASAP, so generally I would have welcomed it. But it was SOOO badly executed. It was very out of place with the whole rest of the movie and was not at all believable.

      Basicaly, you have a couple of pieces of incredibly cheesy dialogue inserted in a sarcastic story. So for the time of this dialogue it feels like you are watching a completely different movie.

      Also, there was the whole stupid Hollywood obssession that characters must have "arcs", and male leads have to "change" or be "redeemed" in order to "earn" the woman.

    3. Re:Ugh. What a disappointment. by rco3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The way I read grandparent's comment was that the romantic "arc" tack-welded on top of the story was the 'shit smeared' on the movie. I'd agree with him in that, and your assertion that Douglas Adams himself was responsible for that is at least somewhat contradicted by the following, quoted from ccn.com's review of the film:

      "After Adams' death, screenwriter Karey Kirkpatrick was called in to tighten up the script's structure, bolstering the romance and streamlining the plot." (italics mine)

      Sounds an awful lot like the romance was troweled on after DA was no longer around to object. What with it being totally non-witty and not really fitting with anything else, I'd have to say that chances are good that Douglas Adams did not and would not have tarted up the romance like that.

      It also sounds to me like all the subtle stuff that Americans wouldn't get anyway (yes, I'm being sarcastic and kind of pissy about it) was smoothed over, by Karey Kirkpatrick, to make it more shallow and easily digested for the Hollywood audience. I won't go into my rant about how streamlining and simplifying LOTR for the big screen reduced it to an FX extravaganza whose plot and characterization were no more exciting than any one of hundreds of thousands of games of AD&D played out in basements and bedrooms all around the world... oops, I guess I did. Sorry.

      But that's how I feel about HHGTTG on the big screen, too. The genius is in the details, and Hollywood doesn't want genius - Hollywood has no desire to leave cash in the pockets of morons, and would rather dumb it down than take a chance on not getting money from everyone.

      As an example: I think that when you skip the entire dialog about the plans being in the basement, where the lights had gone out, in a locked cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Tiger" or however the phrasing went, you also lose a great deal of the whimsy that made HHGTTG so brilliant. And the parallel between the bureaucrats in charge of destroying Arthur's house and those destroying Arthur's planet is damn near lost altogether.

      Fortunately, I was already prepared for this movie to miss the point, so it didn't hit me too hard. YMMV.

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
  12. That sucks! by Chairboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm outraged! They don't support OGG vorbis or-

    wait, what are we talking about? I'm not sure what we're being outraged about today.

  13. Why does everyone keep doing this? by spoco2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Why does everyone keep doing this? by wyldeone · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, but the thing about the movie was that it was bad. I went into it with low expectation, but it blew away even those. I have loved the tv show, the radio shows (both the original and the new one) and the books, but the movie conveyed none of the greatness that filled the productions of the other mediums. By essentially removing all of the humor and corrupting all of the characters, what the viewer was left with was a non-sensical storyline and some cheap CG. I'm not saying that it has to be exactly like the book. I wouldn't have minded all of the new subplots they added, if they had been humorous. Instead, they became a laundry list of places to go to, at which some item had to be for no very good reason.

      I didn't mind LoTR; sure the movie changed some things but I accepted that those changes probably helped it in the new medium. However, the H2G2 movie, irregaurdless of whether there had been a book before, was just bad.

      --
      In the beginning the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry and is widely considered as a bad move.
    2. Re:Why does everyone keep doing this? by AvitarX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I actually liked the movie and the next night watched part of the TV series and thought the movie was better.

      I thought Trillian's character was more true to how I remembered the books (smart, not idiotic) and it felt a lot less like a school play with the principals still reading from a script.

      My only real complaint from the movie is that they killed the mice instead of sending them back with how many roads must a man walk down (which is my memmory from the book, but it's been a while).

      The movie could of benifitted from the towel not being left as an inside joke too, but whatever.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  14. Re:Well... by cluening · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Posted from the wireless couch.
  15. More movies seem pointless (SPOILERS) by Mr.+Neutron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ****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.

    --
    dinner: it's what's for beer
  16. Re:If they were to bring in Terry Gilliam as direc by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wow, that would be interesting. But does Terry actually like HHGTTG? I would imagine definitely YES, but it is hard to be sure about these things.

  17. On one condition... by EEBaum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...fire everyone but the artists and Slartibartfast.

    --
    -- I prefer the term "karma escort."
  18. Re:A Trilogy, why not? by The+Taco+Prophet · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Close, but no cigar. You're looking for the word pentateuch."

    Spoken like... well, like a man who didn't get the joke.

  19. New radio show starts Tuesday by dunsurfin · · Score: 3, Informative

    You might want to check out BBC Radio 4's webpages - the new series of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (Quandary Phase) starts Tuesday 3rd May. You can listen online using Real Audio, or wait for the Beeb to sell you a CD later in the year. More info on BBC Radio 4's Hitchhikers pages.

  20. Re:I didn't like by uberdave · · Score: 4, Funny

    A swell foop? A foop like the noise of a hundred thousand people saying "foop"? A foop like the sound of a departing Krikkit Warship?

  21. Insightful by marko123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
  22. If they removed the Vogons who made the movie... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seriously, the movie feels like bureaucratic Vogons produced, directed and finished the screenplay. There was no understanding of the humor of Douglas Adams.

    I know people have poo-poo'd the often repeated criticism of the change in an early line where Arthur Dent is telling the head of the (human) demoltion team about the trouble of finding the plans for the bypass. But that change says a lot about the movie.
    Line from book/tv series:
    "It was in the basement ... locked file cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on it saying 'beware of the leopard'"
    Line in the movie:
    "It was in a cellar"

    The book showed the level of absurdity that bureaucracy causes. This basis of the joke in the book then continues when the Vogons use similar bureaucracy when telling humans where the plans for the hyperspace bypass are. But with the movie killing the basis of the bureaucracy joke, the Vogon part is far less funny as that joke is no longer built on anything previous.

    I am not a "fanboy" wanting an exact word for word duplication of the book. The ridiculousness of bureaucracy could have been shown or stated in several ways in that eary scene, without quoting the book. But the fact that there was no emphasis on ridiculous bureaucracy shows a total lack of understanding of the whole scene. Unfortunately, the entire movie is the same lack of "getting it".

    I want a coherent cohesive story that carries jokes forward and understands that humor relies heavily on context. No context means no humor. And the people/Vogons who made this movie clearly had no understanding of the context of Douglas Adams jokes. I hope to god that these same people have nothing to do with any further Hitchhikers movies.

  23. Re:A Trilogy, why not? by The+Taco+Prophet · · Score: 5, Funny

    Alas... I've mocked someone for being a dumbass only to be proven a dumbass myself. Truly, this day I am a slashdotter.

  24. Top Grossing Film for Weekend=Sequel to Hollywood by Absentminded-Artist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    --
    The Splintered Mind - Overcoming
  25. Re:If they removed the Vogons who made the movie.. by eln · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  26. Re:If they removed the Vogons who made the movie.. by AlexMax2742 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
  27. Better not follow all the books by logicnazi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One of the things I really liked about the movie was that it was nice and cheery unlike the last book in the series. The magic of HG2G is in the lighthearted humor and fun style if they try and copy the depressing last book it would ruin the movies even more than it did the books.

    --

    If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:

  28. Re:Movie annoying by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Why make a sequal?"

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

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  29. Re:Trilogys happen after big returns from film one by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "I don't see this as being a big money maker like the Lotr or Matrix series."

    It doesn't need to be. It only needs to make a profit. It had a budget of $45 million and in 3 days it made half that. That's ONLY in the US.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  30. Re:If they removed the Vogons who made the movie.. by MynockGuano · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  31. Re:If they removed the Vogons who made the movie.. by Moofie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I thought that Mos Def nailed Ford Prefect in about ten seconds. I liked Zaphod as well. Arthur was great, and Trillian was, well, around way too much. I could really have done without the love story, although Zooey Deschanel is easy to look at.

    I enjoyed the movie thoroughly. I didn't think for a moment that they'd do the sperm whale joke, but they did. I was happy.

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  32. Re:I've seen the movie by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.
    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  33. What I'm really hoping here is that by mcc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    *********SPOILERS***************

    _

    _

    They left the earth intact at the end of the movie. This, to mean, implies that they've given themselves a perfect opportunity to take after the original radio show and destroy the earth in every single installation of the movie trilogy, in a different way. I hope they take it :D

  34. Re:I've seen the movie by asoap · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Omg, you are so right.

    When I saw that the vogon ships were not yellow. I almost ran out of the theater. I was SO pissed off. IT RUINED THE MOVIE FOR ME!!!

    Flamebait + 1.

    I know what you are saying. I agree with you on some accounts. From dicussions with the director which I've read on slashdot, and other places, they kept on saying that things were edited for pacing issues. This was one of the things that I noticed in the beginning of the movie. The pace was fast, really fast. When the vogons were reading the poetry, it went by so fast, that the joke was lost. That is where the pace should have slowed down to halt to show just how bad the vogon poetry is. It's supposed to make the audience cringe, and then pick up the pace again. It seemed like everything was just flying by. So yes, I see what you are saying. Then again, on the other hand. The opening credits with the Dolphins singing a broadway musical about thanks for all the fish was brilliant. I absolutely loved it.

    Even though some of the classical jokes from before were glossed over, I still thoroughly enjoyed the movie. Also the field of slapping shovel creatures was great. That is something that wouldn't work at all in the book, or radio series, but worked really well in the movie.

    Also remember that lots of the changes where douglas' idea.

    --
    Treat me like a marketing stat, and I'll treat your movie like a series of ones and zeros