Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

H2G2 Cast Finalized, Starts Shooting in April 541

akahige writes "According to The Hollywood Reporter, Martin Freeman (The Office, Love Actually), Mos Def (Showtime, The Italian Job), and Zooey Deschanel (Big Trouble, Elf) have signed on to play Arthur, Ford, and Trillian, respectively. Stephen Moore is once again doing the voice of Marvin. No word on who's playing Zaphod (but wouldn't Eddie Izzard be great?). It worries me when they say things like, "Adams adapted his own novel for the screen. After his death, Karey Kirkpatrick came aboard for a rewrite." But it's Disney, so what do you expect? Shooting begins in April."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

H2G2 Cast Finalized, Starts Shooting in April

Comments Filter:
  • by Xolotl ( 675282 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @05:34PM (#8127972) Journal
    Disney did The Pirates of the Caribbean" [imdb.com]. If they do HHG with the same degree of style (and don't screw with it too much) it might be quite good.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 29, 2004 @05:35PM (#8127986)
    Yeah, I love Douglas Adams and I like that he's popular, without becoming too non-geeky. You can tell a lot about a person if they know anything about Douglas Adams' books. Now every four year old is going to have seen a movie about it, robbing them even of the chance to experience the wonderful world of Douglas Adams *first hand*. I can not imagine what it would be like if I hadn't read the books first and based everything off a movie...

    This would be one of the worst things that could happen to a kid, literarily. Douglas Adams was a memorable portion of my adolescence escape.
  • I've got low hopes (Score:3, Insightful)

    by KrispyKringle ( 672903 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @05:36PM (#8127999)
    Somehow, things that were anti-establishment, outlandish, and unique seem to lose that anti-establishment fun when they're reproduced by a major motion picture studio.

    It always seems like they spend less time poking fun at things like how major motion picture studios do product placement and regurgitate the same old shit and spend more time doing product placement and regurgitating the same old shit.

    But I don't know. Maybe I'm just being cynical. After all, it's Disney! The people who brought us Brother Bear and, uh...yeah, Brother Bear!

  • by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Thursday January 29, 2004 @05:40PM (#8128056) Homepage Journal
    Now every four year old is going to have seen a movie about it, robbing them even of the chance to experience the wonderful world of Douglas Adams *first hand*.

    So true. I'd love to know the stats of the people which paid to see the LotR trilogy multiple times, bought the various DVD editions, plastic cups from some fast-food dive but haven't read the books and have no intention of doing so.
    I'm not knocking Jackson or the movies, I think he did as good a job as could have been done, but no amount of CGI can beat the infinite movie screen of the imagination when fueled by a good book.
  • by adler187 ( 448837 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @05:41PM (#8128080) Journal
    That would be McDonalds. I used to work at BK so I would know. BK only has the crappy Nickelodeon toys and other Non-Disney animation toys. And they wonder why BK sales are worse than MDonalds.

    I once had a lady ask me if the most important part of her kid's Kids Meal was in there as I handed her food out the Drive-Thru window. I asked her what the most important part was, and she said, "The Toy of course!" Kids dont care about the food, its all about the toy. Just my $.2
  • zaphod actor (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Stinking Pig ( 45860 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @05:43PM (#8128100) Homepage
    really, really ought to be Tim Curry.
  • by TheMonkeyDepartment ( 413269 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @05:44PM (#8128120)
    Throughout the history of H2G2, Douglas Adams adapted and re-adapted his works to multiple media. Starting with a radio show, moving to books and TV, even a computer game -- with every adaptation, he fearlessly changed it around as he saw fit, to embrace the strengths of the medium. The computer game is not the same material as the book, which is totally different from the radio series, etc. etc.

    In other words, The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy series is all about change. If the movie is 100% faithful to the books, I'll be very disappointed. I want them to switch it around a little bit, give us some of the stuff we love, but also some new stuff too.

    I want to see the wonderful spirit of H2G2 and the sense of humor of Douglas Adams accurately reflected in these movies. If that's done, I don't care if Ford is black, if Arthur Dent is Latino, if Trillian is played by Queen Latifah or if Fenchurch is played by Harvey Fierstein.
  • by mihalis ( 28146 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @05:45PM (#8128128) Homepage
    I thought that too, however since Ford is not even human (or at least not from Earth), insisting he be white and speak with a Britishaccent is a little limiting. After all, Ford grew up with Zaphod, right? Zaphod grew a third arm and second head on a whim, right?
  • by ausoleil ( 322752 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @05:45PM (#8128134) Homepage
    So after the Lord of the Rings, comes another well-regarded piece of literature in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Hollywood did well by LOTR, let's hope "they" learned their lesson and will let a piece of classic writing stand on it's own and not try to stuff the story into a 2-hour formula.

    My great fear of this is that the wit, sarcasm and anti-religious rage will be written out and instead, we'll get...Spy Kids in Space. The anti-religious part will be the first to go, otherwise Pat Robertson will be ranting and railing on Fox News about a horrible, blasephemous film coming from that esteemed home of children's entertainment, Disney. But it's a part of 'The Guide' and should stay in. Otherwise, it becomes...something else.

    On the other hand, I suppose Disney should be given a little benefit of the doubt, after all, Pirates of the Caribbean was a highly entertaining film.

    It will interesting to see what happens with this. I was hoping secretly Peter Jackson would handle the director's chair, given the respect he gave LOTR as literature. To me, Hitchhiker's Guide is a classic and should not be "messed with."

  • Re:Mos Def (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Shant3030 ( 414048 ) * on Thursday January 29, 2004 @05:47PM (#8128151)
    Yes, he's tremendous
  • by Golias ( 176380 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @05:47PM (#8128157)
    I'd love to know the stats of the people which paid to see the LotR trilogy multiple times, bought the various DVD editions, plastic cups from some fast-food dive but haven't read the books and have no intention of doing so.

    Here's your stats:

    Total: 0.
    Margin of error: Not enough to worry about.

    People who have not read the books tend to see them each once at the theater, and come out saying "a pretty good action flick, but kinda slow at times."

    The psycho-fans who are buying little Gollum statues and set pieces off eBay are people who read The Silmarillion twice (but claim to have read it three times.)

  • by pyros ( 61399 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @05:53PM (#8128241) Journal
    My first exposure to Adams was as a child, seeing it on television in England. I didn't read the books until the past 5 years, and I think they were more enjoyable, because I had seen some of the TV stuff already. Anyone who wants to read the books still can. Anyone who wouldn't have read them anyways won't be missing out if they see the movie instead. Take a deep breath and relax.
  • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dasmegabyte ( 267018 ) <das@OHNOWHATSTHISdasmegabyte.org> on Thursday January 29, 2004 @05:54PM (#8128244) Homepage Journal
    Whoa. The book doesn't say what colour he is, but he's from another goddamn galaxy. Be glad the actor isn't teal or something, or with a second head sewn onto his shoulder like the LAST H2G2...

    I for one am PUMPED to see what the mighty Mos Def can do for this film. He's an incredibly talented rhymer with a very distinct vocal style. His flow will match well with Davis' dialog. I'm already imagining him dropping great lines like "Muscle relaxant. You'll need it for hyperspace, it's unpleasantly like being drunk." "What's wrong with being drunk" "Ask a glass of water."

  • by Artichoke ( 34549 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @06:03PM (#8128350) Homepage

    For me, given that it was a radio series first, I'll go with your first but not your second point.

    To expand a little. Yes Ford can be what ever colour you like, NAP. But Douglas Adams was a _very_ English writer, and if he wrote Ford with an English accent (witness accents on original BBC Radio4 series: mostly, but not entirely, English accents), I'd prefer it to stay that way.

    That said, without DNA to keep the director/movie corp in line, I'm re-jigging my expectations for the film.

    Disney doing subtle mixed with off-beat English humour <shudder>.

  • by 3flp ( 172152 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @06:04PM (#8128364)
    Sorry, but they don't have the mentality to capture the subtle hilarity of the Hitchikers guide. It's like a industrial drill operator trying to do a brain microsurgery...

    I'd like to be surprised though.
  • by c.emmertfoster ( 577356 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @06:13PM (#8128460)
    The only reason that film was good was Johnny Depp.
  • by MROD ( 101561 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @06:14PM (#8128468) Homepage
    Well, by-passes are out.. the American 13-18 male demographic don't know what they are.

    You can't have drinking to excess (even if it is with peanuts to help offset matter transfer and hyperspace) in a teenager film, so that's out.. It'll have to be Coca-Cola/Pepsi and Doritos instead.

    The mid-western 13-18 male demographic wont understand probability, so the infinite improbability drive is out. It must be the particle of the month, just like Star Trek.

    Satire isn't funny enough. Eddie the ship board computer will have to be smutty and/or throw custard pies. Marvin will be the cheery, slapstic C3PO look-alike.

    I'll just go and drink a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster (tm) (c)Zaphod Beeblebrox, (available at a seedy space ranger's bar near you) and drown my sorrows. (Oh, and that'll be canned as well!)
  • by Golias ( 176380 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @06:21PM (#8128548)
    Makes sense. Starship Troopers was a largely forgotten novel as far as most people were concerned until the movie came out and provoked teaming throngs of nerds to loudly complain that they were pissing on a classic work, prompting people to want to see what all the fuss was about. The backlash against the movie probably created more hype than the book ever enjoyed.
  • by GrahamCox ( 741991 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @06:30PM (#8128666) Homepage
    Everyone seems to be saying read the book first. I disagree - get the radio series (a very nice CD box set came out last year). This is the start of the whole thing - the books were written afterwards. The radio series is where all the original ideas were born. Sometimes they didn't quite work, and the book sorted out some of that and a few inconsistencies... but that's part of the radio series' charm. In addition the sound effects are wonderful (even ground-breaking, for their time), and only enhance the imaginative experience. In other words, the radio series is the "one true source", and everything else is basically a rehash (not that it means they're bad, just best read/seen in the oredr in which they were published).
  • by NickFusion ( 456530 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @06:37PM (#8128746) Homepage
    Yes, everyone says that your own imagination is better than anything you'll see at the movies.

    Bah.

    Look at the credits for LotR. We're talking about 100s of professional dreamers, all channeling their combined skills into one magnificent creative act.

    They beat me. Their world was more brilliantly imagined, more consistently detailed than my lone brain could come up with reading those books as a kid.

    I think this is lazy-speak for another phenomemon. When you read a book, you are triggering fundamentally different feelings than you get watching a movie. There is a pleasure in reading that you don't get from film (and, I think, the converse is true).

    But, yes, I admit it. the combined talents of all the creative folk on LotR bested my imagination.

    Kudos to them. And good luck to the H2G2 crew, they have a big job ahead of them.
  • by kalidasa ( 577403 ) * on Thursday January 29, 2004 @06:49PM (#8128887) Journal

    Read the first three books first, in order (*Hitchiker's Guide*, *Restaurant at the End of the Universe*, and *Life the Universe, and Everything*). Then listen to the radio shows (it is vitally important that you listen to the radio shows and read the books BEFORE you watch the BBC television series). I'd suggest the books first because they are the highest quality, even if the radio series is the fons et origo. Note that there are important differences in the organization of the books and the radio series: but you'll be able to see how DNA reworked the material for the books, and will hear the actors rather than seeing them.

    After that, watch the BBC series. The BBC cast used mostly the folks from the radio cast. Thing is, they're radio actors, and they act like radio actors - their movement, blocking, etc. are all a little stiff, even if their voices are superb. Also, the budget was very tight, and the production quality (special effects, sets, wardrobe, and especially the prosthetic head) leaves much to be desired.

    Next, read two stories that appear in *The Salmon of Doubt*. The first is "Young Zaphod Plays it Safe* - the version in *Salmon of Doubt* is uncensored in the US, while the on in the *Ultimate Hitchiker's Guide* and the other omnibus editions are censored in the US so that the ending leaves you a little confused (the last line is dropped). The second (though probably the oldest story of all, though I never checked on it) is "The Private Life of Ghenghis Khan".

    After you've read those, it's time to read *So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish*. Enjoy. This one is a little more surreal than anything else, but it's still pretty damned funny (the biscuit story, which is absolutely realistic, is funny as hell).

    Now, wait until some time when you're in such a good mood that nothing, not enough universal apocalypse, will make you sad. Get your favorite blanky out of the attic, and call up your significant other and ask him/her/shim/sher to remain on standby for a call. You are now prepared to read the last book, *Mostly Harmless*. The whole book is very, very dark, even though it is still quite funny. A lot of people hated it because the ending is rather depressing, and there's some retroactive continuity that's stretched a bit thin, but if you're over 30 you'll get it right away (if not, I've got terrible news for you: this is what life is like).

    Then go out and get yourself a nice glass of orange juice and a breakfast sandwich. It will cheer you up.

  • My .02 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by presearch ( 214913 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @09:19PM (#8130282)
    I wish that Terry Gilliam would have been chosen as director.
    This movie treatment deserves to be something special/spectacular.

    also

    DNA narrated all of his books for Dove audio, and added (again) something special.
    It would be lovely if they would his voiceover for narration or for the guide itself.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 29, 2004 @09:52PM (#8130550)
    Bruce Willis as Zaphod, Eddie Griffin as Ford, Juillanne Moore as Trillian, and Alan Rickman as Arthur! ...and no, it's not "Die Hard in the Restuarant at the End of the Universe"!

    Mike
  • Zaphod... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Big Sean O ( 317186 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @09:55PM (#8130567)
    As a victory lap for his Oscar-nominated performance in Pirates of the Carribean, I nominate Johnny Depp.
  • by MilenCent ( 219397 ) * <johnwhNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday January 29, 2004 @11:53PM (#8131417) Homepage
    They did not best my own personal imagination. Some (but by no means all) of the reasons:

    1. A movie has to be everything to all people, and this necessitates many trade-offs. My hypothetical best story is different from yours, and there are more people out there who would be happy with some lasers and rocket engines than would be happy Adams' superlative wit, just like there were more people who thought the Scouring of the Shire was an unnecessary add-on to the story than thought, like the author did, that it was an essential closing. With Lord of the Rings, this means that a whole bunch of people now consider these actors to be the definitive visual representations of these actors, and despite the fact that I generally liked the movies, I think that's a great shame.

    2. The modifier "professional" implies that someone can dream authoritatively. They cannot. In fact, I have a pretty low opinion of these people, for missing forests due to trees, looking at fine details while missing points. The people in the industry who most often connect words like "dream" with words like "profit" are Disney themselves, and despite a number of animated features, these days they tend to get it wrong more often than right.

    3. A movie is the work of hundreds of people, but some people are more important than others. Peter Jackson was much more important to the production than all the costume designers put together. If Jackson messes up, no one can make up for that deficiency.

    And a special case for this production:

    We're talking about DOUGLAS NOEL FREAKING ADAMS, for heaven's sake, a man I have always imagined as wit personified. These are not ordinary stories. I have never read anything else that zany and inventive, and I have no idea how the people making it can believe they can do it justice. Is Disney going to leave in Oolon Colluphid's philosophy books? Eccentricia Gallumbits? "Oh no, not again?"

    On a lesser, but related, note, I've always been more taken with the awesome, chest-bursting humor of Hitchhiker's than the story itself, which meanders from place to place, not always with a good reason. I think this fits the story nicely, very nicely indeed in fact, but I can't help but think that Disney will try to "improve" it. Doing so may well damage the humor.

    Anyway, sorry to disagree, sometimes the movie *is* better than the novel but I think this time it's impossible.
  • by fermion ( 181285 ) on Friday January 30, 2004 @12:39AM (#8131722) Homepage Journal
    It does change every time, but the essence is the same. The aggressive word play. The constant irreverence to the world and the norms. Jesus being refereed to as a guy nailed to a pole(or the like). Mice and dolphins ruling the world. The human character being the least important person in the galaxy. The earth is destroyed and no one cares.

    This kind of self depreciation is not American, and certainly not hollywood. If Arthur suddenly becomes a noble person, or there is grief over the loss of the planet, or, god forbid, it becomes Arthur's duty to redeem Ford and Zaphod, or even worse he gets Trillian, then the whole things falls apart.

    If this was mirimax, I might be more hopeful. But it is disney. Disney is all about the conventional status quo. It is why they have to have Pixar do their animation, even though Disney was once the greatest animation studio in the world. It is why they might lose Pixar, unless Eisner crawls to Jobs on his hand and knees.

    I hope is does change. I have mentioned some changes I would like. But I don't want to see this movie as another example where the studio bought the rights only to use the familiar name to sell tickets, while ignoring the fundamentals of the story.

  • by mo^ ( 150717 ) on Friday January 30, 2004 @04:09AM (#8132786)
    Please try to read some stuff about douglas. (even the "salmon of doubt" should give you enough back ground..

    He considered himself a script writer and was happier writing mostly for radio and televison (doctor who anyone?)

    Saying he was meant to be read is just silly. The guiy loved technology and media in all its forms (the web, games, books, radio, tv), i think douglas just _was_
  • by NiteHaqr ( 29663 ) on Friday January 30, 2004 @09:46AM (#8134031) Homepage
    The subject says casting is finalized.

    Yet the Article says that Zaphod is still to be cast!!!!

    Hmmmmmmm
  • Writing (Score:2, Insightful)

    by chefbb ( 691732 ) on Friday January 30, 2004 @11:42AM (#8135076)
    The main issue I see with the film is that one of the main appeal of Adams' writing is just that, his writing. There's no way in a film to portray "the ships hung in the sky in exactly the same way bricks don't" (hopefully i got that close enough)

    That said, i'm looking forward to seeing the movie provided the producers put their imaginations into it.

The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.

Working...