Overall, I found the movie to be pretty good. Definitely worth seeing, but it seemed to lack the oomph I was expecting.
The top three things that make this worth the watch:
1) The Guide: The use of the Guide in the movie was great. If you haven't gone yet, stick around during the credits for a little something extra.
2) Marvin: Of all the characters, he is probably the closest to what I expected. Marvin was perfect -- the voice, the depression -- it all fit so well.
3) The Vogons: All ugly as all get out, the puppetry effects for the Vogons were phenomenal. Far better than any CGI probably could have been. They looked so real and they looked the way Vogons should (at least in my mind's eye).
Now for the three things I wan't so crazy about:
1) Zaphod: I know he is supposed be a moron, but I just wasn't impressed. The way the two heads were handled looked wierd and just didn't work for me. In the book, Zaphod was annoying but he was also comic relief. In the movie, I just found him annoying.
2) The POV Gun: Okay, the POV gun was a good concept. It could have been really good. Instead it ended up being used to tell us things we were already being shown. "Show don't tell." is such a cliché in writing, but the concept is fairly solid. In the movies, there is an advantage: You actually can show things. We can see, plain as day, that Trillian is tiring of Zaphod and starting to fall for Arthur -- WE DO NOT NEED TO BE TOLD! I watched the entire POV Gun scene and kept thinking, When is it going to end?!
3) The Trillian/Arthur romance thing: I'm not sure if this was an actor chemistry issue, or if it was an actual story flaw, but the romance between Arthur and Trillian felt forced. I just didn't believe it. Well, I believed it coming from Arthur, but Trillian...I just didn't buy it. Of course, I didn't really buy her performance all the way through.
While this could have better, overall it wasn't bad -- definitly worth seeing in the theatre, even if just for the visual effects.
Oh, and the dolphins were great!
-------
So for those went to check it out this weekend, what did you think? Impressions? Loves? Hates?
I'm going to have to go home and pull my copy of the Guide out to see if there was that bit about the Vogon planet, because I don't remember a word of it. Or the POV gun, for that matter. Not that I really care whether they were in there or not, but I just hate feeling like I missed something.
For those of you who went on opening night: how many people brought towels? I thought about it, decided not to, then regretted it when I showed up at the theatre with at least half the crowd sporting towels around their necks. And I thought I'd feel out of place if I *brought* the towel...
). There were a few die hards in housecoats with towels, but most people didn't bring them.The book didn't have the POV gun, Trillian being kidnapped, or the on-going saga with the Vogons. It also didn't have that wierd cult leader (at least not that I remember). I'm about 50 odd pages away from finishing "Mostly Harmless" (Book five in the trilogy). After that I plan to re-read the first one, just because it was so darn good.
I liked the movie, it was just a bit too wholesome, too Disneyfied. I wanted the irreverant edge. The whole point of the Hitchhiker's Guide is to play up the absurdity and useless of life.
But I understand why they did this.
The original radio play was later mirrored by the book. The book was not a novel. A novel has a coherent plot in which the main characters take an active role, in the radio & book versions of the Hitchhiker's Guide, the main characters don't have much control, things just happen to them.
That's not the formula for a mainstream movie. Mainstream movies are character driven plot engines, the main characters have goals and control what happens. To film the Hitchhiker's Guide depicted in the radio play or book would be to make another Monty Python's Meaning of Life. It would be a constantly digressing art piece, not a plot dirven mainstream movie.
Listen for The Eagles' The Journey of the Sorcerer, aka the original Hitchhiker's Guide theme, in the middle of the movie.
Look for the Marvin costume from the original miniseries.
In the final scene the Heart of Gold engages it's Infinite Improbability drive and turns into a variety of random objects. The last object is a human face . . . the face of Douglas Adams.
Anyway....I did not fall in love with the movie as I did with the book. TO me, there was a depth that the movie could not achieve, though I thought this is about as good an effort as we're ever likely to see.
1. The acting was wonderful. I especially liked Martin, but they all did a good job.
2. I was ok with the addition of the scene on the Vogon homeworld. It helped to lend continuinty to the movie that the books lacked.
3. The use of the Guide was very well-done.
BUT....
1. The earth was destroyed. There was no back up Earth that picked up where the old one left off. I didn't like that AT ALL.
2. The romance was ok. I am quite torn about it. On the one hand, it worked to bring closure to the movie but on the other hand it was never meant to be. Maybe I'm just holding that opinion over from the book, I don't know.
So, Card did a review of this movie. I was looking forward to it. He and I have something of a 97% agreement rate on books and movies and I often go with his advice because of it:
http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2005-05-01.shtml
BUT as you can see, he didn't even like the books. It almost sound like he overlooked the true humor because he was distracted by a perceived author foible. There is a reason that in critiquing you are not supposed to make assertions about the author, only about the work. Frankly, when reading for pleasure you shouldn't do that either, although we all do to a certain extent. I guess the reason is that it puts nonsense in the way of enjoying or not enjoying the book. What's the real problem? I always want to know.
Douglas Adams has a dry, sacreligious (sp?) sense of humor. It is based in pointing out the flaws ot the human race and the perceived flaws of God as mirrored in the human race. The books are a bit disjointed (not so much that you can't follow), often going into asides that would usually drive me nuts but worked in this case because they were often amusing in and of themselves.
I agreed with Card that the movie was missing a bit of soul, or maybe oomph, or something like that. I will have to wholeheartedly disagree that this was missing from the books. It didn't give you anything or anyone to care about? How about yourself? Arthur Dent was just supposed to be _insert human here_. A bit of a British human, albeit, but I could overlook that part and go with it. And the story was not about person, character, or changing. It is, by his own MICE quotient, an idea/millieu story. These stories often request that character steps aside for something else.
Anyway, that's enough of that. I find that you either love the Guide or you hate it. (The book, not the movie. That it is perfectly possible to be so-so about.) It is difficult for me to understand the part of the human race who hates it, but that's my problem.
I liked the opening montage with all the dolphins in the movie, but I think I really would have prefered to hear the opening narration from the beginning of the book first -- then we can watch all the singing and dancing dolphins .
I was a little surprised at Card's response to the books, but to each their own. Sure, I don't really care about the characters, but that isn't the point, imo. Hitchhikers is like a giant puzzle that all tries to fit together and which laughs in the face of science (in a bizarre yet logical way) as well as religion, well sort of.
On the whole, I loved the first three books of the trilogy of five. The last two were more like Epilogues to the whole thing that just didn't have the same power. In a way I think Adams had to write them to bring closure to everything, but he needn't have taken so long to do it.
Christine, thanks for the recommendation. I'm going on vacation next month and need to get a bunch of books to read. I guess between Card and Adams I'll have plenty to choose from.
No sympathy, no understanding, no nothing.
My husband is really big into political satire and his comment about Zaphod was that he's the ultimate politician. He's a showman at best and a self-centered airhead at worst. When he put it in those terms, Zaphod's character in the movie made more sense to me.
I have to agree wholeheartedly with those who felt the relationship between Arthur and Trillian seemed forced. The scene at the party was great: I could believe the two of them might make a cute couple. The rest of their scenes together didn't impress me at all.
My two favorite scenes:
- The factory floor, just because of the sense of wonder it produced in me.
- The whale. "Hello, ground!"
I never sympathized for a moment with Dent or anyone else in the books. That would ruin the fun. Do you sympathize with the Poles in Pollock jokes? I suppose that you might, if you were Polish.
I think that it's healthy for humans to develop the ability to laugh at these books, and enjoy that sort of humor, because fundamentally humanity is laughable. Card thinks that it's not terribly healthy because too much of the laughter is despairing, the laughter of those that can't help being the butt of cruel jokes. I don't believe in helplessness, I think that despair is a matter of choice. And I enjoy seeing people have fun at their own expense. It's not terribly moral, but it isn't particularly immoral either.
As for my own fun, I think that humanity owes me a few laughs by now. When the debt is paid, I promise to stop
While I was taking the train home after a night out with friends, I started thinking about OSC's books. I couldn't think of one book that ever made me laugh out loud. I've cried. But never laughed. He's got genuinely funny moments, but he's not a humorist -- and that's not a bad thing, either. It's just that this type of humor (which is distinctively British, by the way) just doesn't suit him, probably.
I suspect -- but don't really know -- that he wouldn't like classic British humor, such as: Monty Python, The Black Adder, Red Dwarf, Black Books, and others. As Survivor put it, you have to appreciate the absurdity of humanity.
Perhaps we can convince OSC to expand on his opinion of Hitchhiker's for us.
Anyway, Hitchhiker's is quite simply one of the greatest works of humorous fiction of all time. It has no real plot, the characters are pathetic, and yet somehow it all works brilliantly -- for me, at least.
By the way, having seen the movie, I wasn't particularly impressed. But I accepted it for what it was, not what I thought it should have been.
Card is a bit of an existentialist, after all. He thinks that humans are mostly free and mostly responsible for their own destiny. I believe that all sentient beings are totally free and totally responsible for their own destinies. For me, it's not like it's bad to laugh at fools, because they chose their own damnation. Card has trouble making the emotional leap from intellectual belief that people willfully choose self-destruction. He believes it with his head, but in his heart he thinks that nobody really chooses to be a freaking idiot.
So for him, there has to be a reason for hell beyond "they asked for it". He doesn't generally choose that for himself, and he doesn't understand how anyone could. And it's hard for him to believe what he doesn't understand. Me, I accept that meaninglessness doesn't have to have a higher meaning. People chosing to live innane lives don't have to serve some higher good beyond their own freedom to go to hell.
Card can understand why Gollum must end up destroying the Ring. I think that it's fine and poetic, and makes a nifty plot element, but it isn't necessary for me. Gollum chose to be what he was, and nothing good has to come of it other than Gollum's opportunity to make that choice for himself. I loved the portrayal of him in both the book and the movie, he was wonderfully comic. And wonderfully tragic. It's not like one excludes the other entirely.
Humor often requires a victim, someone to take the pie in the face. Perhaps OSC finds it distasteful.
I remember one thing he said at bootcamp though. "If you're thinking about writing humor -- don't."
He's right. It is the single most difficult form to master. I've been playing with it a bit for the past six months to a year, when I have the free time, just to see if I can make it work. It usually falls flat. Satire, in particular, my favorite form, is complex and difficult to write.
Moreover, humor is not the same for any two people. To know if you're succeeding in being funny, you need to show your attempts to people with similiar senses of humor to your own. Mine is a bit dry and subtle, and I often weave it into stories unwittingly. I'll just start getting feedback that people laughed at a point in my story and I don't mind usually.
The Hitchiker's Guide has a lot of dry, self-depractating humor in it. It is also quite satirical. It is also not really about anything except the humor. (Although I got a bit more out of it than the humor. I found another level of depth there, even if it was a bit chopped up. Good humor often gets you thinking.)
Another thing I remember Card saying about humor in boot camp was that if you did write it, the key was to be serious. I'm not exactly sure how to explain this point except to tsay thta movies that don't take themselves seriously just aren't funny. I dislike movies with exaggerated senses of humor. I can't stand slapstick, either, so maybe that's related.
My point is that everyone has a different sense of humor. I think about people when they are trying to date other people saying "I want someone with a sense of humor." but what they REALLY mean is "I want someone who shares my sense of humor." There are many ways to be funny, and yes, humor is important in dating but many of the people I might have dated would not have understood my sense of humor. Like I said, it's a bit dry. The man I ended up mnarrying does appreciate it, though, and that's what matters.
In class, Card is INCREDIBLY funny. His lecture style is light, energetic, and keeps you paying attention for hours on end.
Soooo....to sum up, I'm just curious to get a little more info on why this humor didn't appeal to him. Especially in light of the fact that in all movies, humorous and serious, I tend to agree with him on things about 97% of the time. What about this book made us have such extremes of opposite opinions? I didn't get a sense of it from his few remarks.
"Humor. It is a difficult concept. It is not logical." -- Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Heck, I do this in class. I never just tell a joke. Instead, I funny up something that I really mean. That way if it falls flat I can pretend I wasn't joking!
For this reason -- and I know I'm going to get "oh, how COULD you?" from somebody -- I hated Monty Python's Holy Grail. They cared absolutely nothing for the plot. I'd rather see A Fish Called Wanda -- funny, with a reasonable plot -- or a Monty Python TV show, which doesn't even have a plot to neglect.
quote:
I remember one thing he said at bootcamp though. "If you're thinking about writing humor -- don't."He's right. It is the single most difficult form to master.
I disagree with OSC, and your assertion that it's the most difficult form to master. I find humor incredibly easy to write. In fact, more so than anything else. I've never had trouble making people laugh in my stories.
And I find it hard to write anything serious... I always go for a laugh...
[This message has been edited by HSO (edited May 15, 2005).]
My scattered two cents,
Jon
quote:
It was all about how clever the author was. I find that irritating, even when the author is, in fact, clever.
i agree with him, and disagree with him. Adams was most certainly showing off his wit, and that was the point. however, instead of being a turn-off it was really quite hilarious and part of what made it so that my family couldn't sleep at night for a week while i was reading the books
it was all tongue in cheek and the author wrote it so that we KNEW it was, all at the same time SEEMING to be serious, yet we knew he wasn't, and he dropped in a few words to tell us so every now and again.
so basically the problem isn't any deficit in humor on Cards part, it is just a distaste on Cards part for a form that is intentionally precocious.
But don't try sarcasm. Sarcasm is humor for stupid people. The difference between smart people and morons is that morons actually believe their own written sarcasm is funny. You see it on the internet all the time, though its presence on this board is mercifully limited.
Even if you enjoy it
That said, humor is only funny insofar as it contains a grain of truth. That's why you need a "straight man" for so many comedy routines to work. You need someone to lend reality and credibility to the joke.
In HG2G, that's handled by Arthur Dent with a bit of help from Trillian. In some books, it's handled by everyone except the main characters, who are the wacky ones. Usually, there's a bit of room for role reversal, with characters taking turns being outrageous and being outraged/stunned/surprised.
In writing, you must always create a believable "straight man" response for somebody, even if only for the reader (note that readers don't like too many jokes at their own expense). That's why you always have to "take it seriously". If you don't think through the implications of your joke in a serious way, you won't be able to write good straight man responses.
Ultimately, the problem is probably that Card felt like Adams was abusing his straight man too much, not taking Dent seriously enough as a character. I have to agree entirely, as dramatic art, the early HG2G series completely fails because Dent is just such a hapless fool. Beginning somewhere around the middle of Life, the Universe, and Everything, this starts to change. But given Card's basically sympathetic outlook, I don't blame him for not getting that far. Besides, he probably wouldn't have found Dent a sufficient protagonist even then, or in any of the rest of the books.
The humor in HG2G is on the cruel side, particularly for people that can't easily sympathize with a complete loser like Dent. Card doesn't. And he doesn't like cruelty. I don't, but then I do like cruelty. I'm not a nice person.