Well, yesterday I caught a preview of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Movie.
Oh, man. What happened? Hollywood once again proves that they can't take a good BBC SF show and not try to vamp it up with too much glitz and action.
I am supremely disappointed. Anyone else feel this way, or know anything that might make me want to see this... thing?
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
I am reserving judgment.
But the teaser was so awesome that I am hopeful that the humour of the original can still be glimpsed in the movie.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Yeah, that teaser had me wetting myself. It was quite embarassing.
Actually, I'm waiting too. I plan to enjoy it anyway, because it'll be a good movie, even if it isn't a stellar adaptation of the book.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I am anxious to hear Alan Rickman read off some of Marvin's best lines. I will enjoy it for that, even if everything else sucks (and I don't think it will).
[ April 05, 2005, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
*resists urge to be snarky*
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
I dunno. Maybe I'm just sick of effects-based movies. Particularly when based upon such a well written show (both radio and television).
What was great about the BBC stuff from the seventies and eighties. Well, it wasn't the effects. It was the plots, the characters, the acting, and the writing . Not the rubber monsters.
Grrr.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
You can always close your eyes in the theatre.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
Yeah. That's a great idea.
But I've got a better one: why don't I just shred this $10 bill and save time. Posted by Mr.Gumby (Member # 6303) on :
quote: *resists urge to be snarky*
SNARKY?!? Someone's angry enough to make up words
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
quote: Main Entry: snarky Pronunciation: 'snär-kE Function: adjective Etymology: dialect snark to annoy, perhaps alteration of nark to irritate : CROTCHETY, SNAPPISH
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
My goal for the day is to use the word crochety in casual conversation.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I thought the preview was good. Sure there was the special effects thing...but the humor of the preview fit the books rather well.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
As in "That's a really crotchety sweater?" Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
I don't know, Port. "Snappish" has a nice ring to it.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Did you see the trailer that was a guide entry on trailers?
I would think that would quell most of your concerns as they poke much fun at the hollywood explosions and girls-in-next-to-nothing trailers...
Posted by Snarky (Member # 4406) on :
Made-up?! I'm a real person with FEELINGS, thank-you-very-much.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
yay! I just used crotchety.
Cow-orker: "(Other cow-orker) is very grumpy today." Me: "You mean she's crotchety?" Cow-orker: "Yeah."
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
*psst* Do you mean "co-worker"? Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
or maybe she works on a farm?
Posted by Cow-Eating Man (Member # 4491) on :
Or maybe she works with me?
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
Ok, then what's an "orker"?
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
cow orker: n. [Usenet] n. fortuitous typo for co-worker, widely used in Usenet, with perhaps a hint that orking cows is illegal. This term was popularized by Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert) but already appears in the January 1996 version of the scary devil monastery FAQ, and has been traced back to a 1989 sig block. Compare hing, grilf, filk, newsfroup.
Posted by orker (Member # 7737) on :
I am what I am.
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
I stand enlightened.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Looks neat. I’m just hoping it’s better then the book. I read it for the movie but didn’t like it. So…. I’m just hopeful.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
quote: Hollywood once again proves that they can't take a good BBC SF show and not try to vamp it up with too much glitz and action.
Wait, are they basing it on the show based on the book, or the book itself?
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
AFAIK, it's based onthe book, but every version is slightly different, i.e. there's a new character inthe movie that was written specifically for the movie by Adams.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
And remember, the book was based on a show before they based two shows on the book.
DNA said somewhere that he deliberately tried to make each version a little different...
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
I forgot about that, Jim. (I skipped the intro this time through. Oops.)
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
He goes on and on about that in his introduction to The More Than Complete Hitchhiker's Guide.
Talking about The Hitchhiker's Guid to the Galaxy: The Original Radio Scripts, he says:
quote:The book is, as the title suggests, a collection of tall the radio scripts, as broadcast, and it is therefore the only example of one Hitchhiker publication accurately and consistently reflecting another. I feel a little uncomfortable with this -- which is why the introduction to that book was written after the final and definitive one you are now reading and, of course, flatly contradicts it.
Posted by Mr_Megalomaniac (Member # 7695) on :
Both trailers I've seen have me thinking they might accually pull it off. The first and very short one with the song, "What a wonderful world" and then stopping abruptly to destroy the earth and in the middle of it for just a second show the words, "Don't Panic!" and the other trailer that's a guide to trailers was pretty darn funny. Especially the deep voice part.
Action doesn't have to be a bad thing, as long as they remember first that it's a comedy which they seem to be making sure anyone who doesn't know the books know it.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
Well, I feel a little better about it now.
But I'm watching them.... Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: cow orker: n. [Usenet] n. fortuitous typo for co-worker, widely used in Usenet, with perhaps a hint that orking cows is illegal. This term was popularized by Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert) but already appears in the January 1996 version of the scary devil monastery FAQ, and has been traced back to a 1989 sig block. Compare hing, grilf, filk, newsfroup.
.... Dang... you really can tell where I've been by my slang.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
nark = irritate uhsure... "snap'n'bark"y
[ April 05, 2005, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I have but one question. Are we going to hear about how towels are the most useful thing in the galaxy? Because I was planning on taking a towel with me when I go see it......
Posted by Mr.Gumby (Member # 6303) on :
I've always wanted to use the term "scrotal"
Posted by Mr.Gumby (Member # 6303) on :
Towels, the lightsabers of Hitchhiker's guide. That's not a bad idea to bring to the threatre
*imagines people snaping towles at each other on opening night*
[ April 05, 2005, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Mr.Gumby ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
If yer gonna hitchhike, the first thing ya gotta do is scrotal: ie score a towel.
[ April 05, 2005, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I need to remember that. I'll call my friend, we're going to go see it together because I forced him to read the book, and say," You need to scrotal!" He'll be so confused. In one of the trailers Ford says something about needing a towel so I'm taking one. Maybe it could be a Hatrack (and friends) statement. Take a towel with you to see the movie. Who wants to do it?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Cause a mall patrol riot: sell towels while waiting for the showing to start. "I saw you bought a ticket to Hitchhike. Need a towel?" Shake head and tsk with pitying look if they refuse.
[ April 05, 2005, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I'll do it if you do. Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
I just saw the trailer in the right before Sin City. It looked amazing. I can't wait! But then again I'm a fanboy. Of course I'll have my towel. On a side note I have the 42nd post. I'm in fanboy heaven.
[ April 05, 2005, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged ]
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Oh I'm ABSOLUTELY bringing a towel with me when I go see it! Dad and I are planning to go opening night (cause we're weird - we don't usually do opening day shows - and cause Mom has the day off to watch my kids for me)
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I was going to go the night it came out and take a towel with me......thats all I had planned. I think they need to make a real Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy the way it was described in the books, except for Mostly Harmless; I don't want a bird to explain stuff to me. Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
I spoke with the Executive Producer, Robbie Stamp, a few days ago. After seeing his presentation the previous night as part of the Melbourne Comedy Festival and spending half an hour with the guy for an interview for the magazine I write for I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.
Stamp was a friend and business partner of DNA's for the 10 years leading up to his death. When the team chose the writer to massage the last draft Adams' was working prior to his death they went with someone who worked exclusively with material that Adams himself had written - they felt it was vitally important for no-one else to try and be "Adams-y", but to dip into the huge pool of writing that was left. Stamp had DNA's entire hard-drive copied to his. Apparently there was just tons of stufff - as anyone who's read "Salmon of Doubt" knows.
Obviously the presentation and the interview is all a part of the sales pitch for the movie, but it's heartening to know that most of the character and plot choices were ones that Adams himself had proposed. Even Humma Kavala - if you've heard enough to know who that is.
The other thing to keep in mind is that Adams himself constantly maintained that none of the various editions of his work were consistent with each other and (to paraphrase) always relished a chance to set the record wrong definitively.
Adams was the only celeb that I felt a personal connection to, with absolutely no justification, of course. He once replied to an email I wrote. That's it. But he's only celeb who's passing I mourned... I've given away that many copies of "Last Chance To See"....
So to cut a rambling post short: Yay Adams! (Cautious) Yay Hitchhiker's Guide Movie!
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
That quelled any doubts I had about this movie.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
The meeting between Ford and Beeblebrox is one of my favourite bits in the book. It looks like they changed it completely in the movie to make them actually happy to see each other.
EDIT: Plus I don't know how British Humour can be carried out without British accents. It's an elemental part of it.
[ April 10, 2005, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: jebus202 ]
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I'll go see it anyway. That review seemed to be from the will it be a good adaptation of the book point of view. Who knows, it may be a good movie but a bad adaptation of the book. Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
WHY does Zaphod have only one head?????
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Oh no! Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I was so looking foward to this... there was so much promise in that "other" trailer. But I read the detailed review and it sounds just plain bad. I don't understand how it could have been so completely missed!
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote: WHY does Zaphod have only one head?????
I thought he had two heads, but it wasn't in the way people probably envisioned someone having two heads. Posted by Sartorius (Member # 7696) on :
I don't think I can believe in a Zaphod with one head.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
He does have two heads in this movie only one is apparantly hidden in his throat and rather angry, only popping up occaisionally.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I think it would have been better if they just gave him two heads.
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
It would have also been more expensive while not contributing that much to the plot.
This bad review may actually make the movie better for me personally. When Webber's Phantom of the Opera was coming out I got pretty excited before a rash of bad reviews killed the hype I had built, and I forgot about it for the weeks coming up to release. Due to strange circumstances I saw it opening night, and I loved it.
Don't Panic?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I was looking forward to this movie, until one review claimed it made Phantom Menace look good.
-Trevor
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
That is probably just the reviewers opinion. They probably hadn't read the book and didn't want to see it.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Trying not to panic..... but I think I need a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster to help me relax. Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
Or send you over the edge.... Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
It's times like this that I wish I'd listened to my mother.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Why, what did she say?
Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
I don't know. I wasn't paying attention.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
I think I'll have to see it, just to see if the reviews are right...
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Got my preview at 8am this Wednesday, so I'll let you know after I've seen it.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I have one question, are we going to hear the thoughts of the whale and the bowl of petunias as they plummet towards their doom?
Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
It looks like it. I saw the whale in the trailer.
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
[ April 12, 2005, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Lord Solar Macharius ]
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Ok, just got back from the press screening:
I personally thought they did a much better than MJ Simpson believes, but then Simpson has a hell of a lot of emotional investment in Hitchhiker's Guide.
However, not quite as good as I wouldv'e hoped. It's a bit of fun, not as Douglassy as true fans would like but there were some really great moments.
OK, that's enough space. If you're still reading, you want to know. Having said that I'm not going to give away too much. That's mostly because the screening was at 8am and I'm a bit shattered.
A *lot* more guide entries that I'd been led to expect, given the MJ Simpson review.
The whale is there, and with the exception of the one little thing mentioned by Simpson, complete as written by Douglas.
I think that the one thing Simpson got right was that they did seem to remove a lot of the punchlines from setups and setups from punchlines....
Zaphod was just entirely weirder than expected - but then the book did allude to weirdness.
Some nice expansion of Trillian's character.
The Vogons are just great.
[/SPOILERS]
That's all I can be bothered with at the moment....
ZZzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzz*snork*zzzZZZZzzzzz........
Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
quote: Zaphod: Freeze Marvin: Freeze? I'm a robot, not a refrigerator.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
So Troubs, does the Marvin from the TV series have a cameo, or is he just in that last video clip that Macharius posted?
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
Spoilerish: . . . . . . .
I've heard tell that he has a pretty good cameo.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
There are a couple of cool cameos.
Take 3D glasses if you can find them.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote: The whale is there, and with the exception of the one little thing mentioned by Simpson, complete as written by Douglas.
I have not been failed! Do we hear what the bowl of petunias thinks?
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
Oh, no. Not again. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
After a few days of trying I finally found the review... and this:
quote: Characters just happen to be where they need to be and have what they need to have, even if it makes no sense for them to be there or to have that.
Convinces me the reviewer has no clue. The whole *book* was that way... and it was on purpose, too, because of the infinite improbability drive.
I'm resting a little easier. And besides, the "ain't it cool" guys review and this review pretty much cancel each other out, don't they?
Edit: perhaps this is a little harsh of me, but it's awfully silly to criticize the movie for one of the source materials obvious flaws... (if you're going to view it as a flaw)
[ April 14, 2005, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
Some will never get it. Some never got Python either.
After seeing a few more commercials, I am again hopeful.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The author of that negative review can hardly be accused of not "getting" the book. Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
Remember people, the MJ Simpson review complained about that "Hello ground!" line at the end. Did it actually bug anyone? I personally loved it, and thought it was delivered beautifully. If that's the kind of changes they made, I'll be quite happy.
Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
DON'T PANIC! Here are two positive reviews of the movie Review 1
quote: DON'T PANIC, fervent Douglas Adamites. This movie adaptation of the TV adaptation of the novelisation of the radio series is about as faithful as you can get. Yes, it's been tweaked and twizzled, with a romance inserted here, a new character plopped down there, but everything you love about The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy remains intact - not to mention reinvigorated by its big-screen reincarnation.
quote: If you've never encountered The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy before then this is as good a version as any to use as your introduction, and you're in for a treat. And if you love this film as much as you should, then go out and track down the original radio show, because there's more, much more, where this film came from.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Hm. Maybe I'll see it after all...
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I just have to see it...Troub, would you take an 8 year old?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I never doubted the fact that I wanted to see it. I'll freak the people there out with my towel.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
sure...![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)