Hitchhiker's Guide Reviewed 539
me at werk writes "The Register has posted it's review of h2g2. 'The radio series, that became a book, that became a TV series, has finally made it to the silver screen. The film version of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is faithful to author Douglas Adams' legacy. The trouble is it's simply not especially funny.'"
Why the need for a movie? (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, I'll be continuing to watch the TV episodes myself. Modern 'movie magic' really can't do much for this.
Reviews don't matter here (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope to see it this weekend and, as long as it's about as good as the TV version (which I wasn't a fan of), I'll be happy I guess.
Of course, if it's slapstick city I may have real trouble taking it and will feel cheated of my tenner!
contradiction (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the main things I enjoy about Douglas Adams works is the humor
To be faithfull to his legacy i would say that you need to capture the "Funny" parts aswell as the other aspects , and the humor is pretty much one of the main aspects .
Hope for the best, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
book to movie (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://w
for example
Re:Better with the books (Score:3, Insightful)
As I saw it put elsewhere, "Hey, Peter! I've got a great idea! Let's leave the Balrog out of the movie!"
Fuck Disney. Everyone involved in taking this marvelous quirky story and turning it into a fucking Galaxy Quest clone needs to be skullfucked to death.
Am I the only one who doesn't like the series? (Score:1, Insightful)
While it might be argued that I was too young for these books, I have to admit great surpise that the general slashdot opinion is in favor of these series. To me, these novels are only about escapism.
Rob W.
I've just seen it last night (Score:4, Insightful)
Good points, marvin was spectacular and outdid the original TV series' version. Zaphod Beeblebrox was outstanding and the true extent of his ego bleeds off the screen (flamebait comment, to be honest I think only an American could pull off the cheesy grin and un-abashed ego... sorry
Bad points are I'm a bit hmmmm about Ford, Trillian and Arthur though. Ford really didnt create any sort of major screen prescence and as such became a rather minor character with a penchant for towels. Trillian, whilst great at the start of the film, seamed to get relegeted to damsel in distress/love interest (standard hollywood crap). And Arthur... well hes was quite good for most of the film but I suppose I miss the orginal TV version which sticks in my mind as the definative Arthur Dent.
I suppose the worst aspect of the film is that yes, some of the great witty dialogue is missing. Its not all gone but a lot of the classic lines are trimmed. I quite missed the original lines regarding the babel fish proveing that god did not exist and the very funny bit about the plans being on display (the shortend "I had to go downstairs", made no sense on screen).
In all I would recommend people go see it, it gets a bit shakey before the middle but still provides a good homage to Adams' legacy.
Americans cannot exist without God. (Score:0, Insightful)
So the joke has to go.
It's prefectly logical when you think about it..
Angst does not go well with Hitchhiker's (Score:5, Insightful)
The other problem is Ford Prefect, Mr. Sarcasm in the originals is practically a non-entity and not especially funny when he does exist.
I loved Zaphod though
Re:Moderate: Unfunny (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny book - dull film per se. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why the need for a movie? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why the need for a movie? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Saw it Friday (Score:2, Insightful)
But - once you're past all that - it's a damn funny film. There are new jokes, and they're funny; and the new plot device (through which the day is saved at the film's climax) is pure Adams.
Re:Why the need for a movie? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My review (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the movie itself, it really is quite good. The casting is wonderful, especially the man they got to play Zaphod. And the bits where the Guide is used are truly great.
The movie wasn't really all that funny towards the end, but neither was the book so I can't complain on that note.
I'm glad things are different (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:1, Insightful)
Mangaesque... or possibly manga-esque. I'll admit that I'm not *that* damn good at English to figure out if the latter is correct, but the former looks strange.
Definitely *not* 'manga esk', unless Marvin really did have something to do with the animated version of a Scottish river, but I don't quite see that.
Re:Better with the books (Score:5, Insightful)
As expected, I didn't see ALL the gags from the book, but I'm happy to say at least they cut the less funny ones instead of the good ones. You can't really expect everything from the book to be in the movie. As you know, I'm sure, a great deal of the book's charm is in the wording of the narration. Converting the narration's humour to movie format without over narrating is definitely hard, and I for one think they did a great job.
I will agree, however, that I didn't expect Marvin to look that way. I also didn't expect Zaphod to look that way either, but his character was great!
Also, in the credits, the BBC is thanked for providing the original Marvin suit from the TV series. I haven't watched the series yet, but is that how Marvin looked? That could be a good explanation.
Anyway.. there were differences from the book, but they were well done. For example, Ford showing up at the beginning with a cart full of beer. At first I was worried the pub scene would be cut, but it wasn't, and it tied in well! I actually preferred how this scene played out.
Sadly, they DID cut out the Narrator's explanation of how Ford picked his name.. BUT they still managed to fit in how Ford thought cars were the dominant species of earth. Precious!
Overall, the movie is pretty damn close to the book. The changes are warranted, and still pretty damn funny. On the down side, I can see how a lot of the plot and humour would be harder to catch if you hadn't read the book(s).
I still give it 3 thumbs up.
Generation? (Score:5, Insightful)
As there has always been.
there are a generation or two, or three, of people who do not read books.
No. If anything, books seem to be on a rebound. Twenty years ago outside of big cities the only bookstore one would likely find would be a Waldenbooks mostly selling Garfield comics. Now you can hardly throw a stone and not hit a Borders or a Barnes and Noble. And they really sell some stuff for literati -- stuff like the Loeb and I Tatti Libraries can actually be found in the sticks these days. And of course there's the bookseller Amazon.com. practically the only dot-com that didn't go belly up...
Re:Why the need for a movie? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, actually. A movie can spoil a book you've previously read. A movie presents powerful images that are difficult to un-see. If I re-read Hitchhiker's and I find that I'm hearing Douglas Adams' writing in Stephen Fry's voice, then that is definitely a negative. Worst voice of guide, ever (mainly if you're British).
Re:contradiction (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My review (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like the books (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Moderate: Unfunny (Score:5, Insightful)
Hm. The only thing I could find was this:
i got kicked out of barnes and noble once for moving all the bibles into the fiction section
I'd be pissed and kick him out too. Do you know how much extra work that makes for the employees, who have better shit to do than clean up after someone trying to be "clever"?
I had to go and search for myself, because your version sounded highly unlikely. In most bookstores, Bibles get their very own (rather large) section - there's no way an employee could accidentally put them in fiction any more than they could accidentally put a dictionary in fiction.
Re:Why the need for a movie? (Score:3, Insightful)
Put simply - Yes. Fuck 'em. If they won't take the time to pick up a book and read the story, why should they have access to it?
And I don't mean this as a troll... The biggest complaint I see in this thread involves how poorly DA's British, intellectual, subtle style of humor, translates to the big screen. This very consistently happens with productions of decent literature (as opposed to productions of hacks who basically write screenplays in novel form), because the two mediums do NOT have totally equivalent expressive power.
translating one form of literary culture into another form, is usually a good way to spread that culture. don't you agree?
No, I do not.
Movies convey information as though the viewer exists as a disembodied viewer floating through the story, observing the events that unfold. Great for action, great for "physical" comedy, great for slasher flicks and some forms of more physical horror, great for porn. Okay for drama, barely passable for "psychological" thrillers (only by making offensively frequent use of information the viewer should not fairly have, such as showing scenes of the unidentifiable bad guy torturing the little girl, when the other 99% of the movie has the observer follow Detective BadAss).
Books, OTOH, make use of the reader's imagination. They let you inside the heads of the charaters without the need for annoying voiceovers - For that matter, a book could get away with not having a single spoken word (referring only to fiction here, of course, since nonfiction would make this a moot point).
your self, having read the book, can't possibly think of why there is any reason whatsoever to contribute to another cultural form.
Hello? Come back down here, friend, you've floated a bit too far out there.
This doesn't involve cultural anthropology, it involves two mediums that most people in the modern Western world have basically equal access to (or if not, they do not by choice). Both mediums have their uses. But both do not work for every story.
In this case, the moving-pictures-with-sound format doesn't work well to fully express the story. I would even say that about the original BBC episodes - Not bad, but not nearly as stop-reading-so-I-can-stop-laughing-and-catch-my-
next time you see a 9 year old, ask them if they know the answer to life, the universe, and everything.
And after going to see this movie, they might "know" the right answer, but they won't "get" why so many of us "geeks who read" find that answer hilarious. That 9YO will roll his or her eyes, and say "what-EVER" in that dismissive tone that only 5-15YOs seem able to master.
This has nothing to do with elitism, or with some noble idea of "making culture accessible". It involves placing something in the wrong context. The crocodile doesn't live in trees, the monkey doesn't live in the desert, and the cat doesn't live in a swamp. "format C:\" doesn't work in Linux. And HHG doesn't work on film.
Making movies enjoyable again (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know how many times this has happened to me. People that love the book/comic book/whatever that a movie is based on slam the movie so much that I start to believe them a little. If I do end up going to see it, I usually end up loving it. But if a movie is hyped and hyped and hyped (I'm talking grassroots hyping here... I've pretty much learned to ignore advertising) when I go to see it I'm usually underwhelmed.
And if I go to a movie that I had heard absolutely nothing about besides "it's kinda funny, actually" or something I often end up entranced. Even if the movie isn't all that good. So I've learned to A)go on opening night B)watch a lot more "art house" style movies (except the ones trumped as "a magestic triumph of the human spirit" or something. Those are just plain boring to me. Or finally C)watch a B or C rated "horror" flick for the sheer mind-numbing entertainment.
Not hanging around movie sites when I want to see a movie helps me enjoy movies much more. So does (Uh oh... have I just become that guy?) not really watching TV on a regular basis.
Re:Moderate: Unfunny (Score:3, Insightful)
Oddly enough, people trying to make an Important Social Statement never seem to actually think about the people they're supposed to be sticking up for. Kind of like all those anti-trade protestors who trash McDonald's restaurants, not considering that they mainly just screwed over the employees, who wouldn't be working there if they didn't really need the money.
Re:Better with the books (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My review (Score:2, Insightful)
As someone above said, Zaphod's not an idiot. His ideas aren't always the brightest (and some are downright stupid), but he has his occasional bouts of genius. He's also much more in control than most people around him realize, and he was most certainly not in control in the movie. There's a lot more subtlety to him than Rockwell has the capability to portray.
Re:Better with the books (Score:3, Insightful)
With every film made after a comic, a book
I just ignore these people, and go see it for myself... I usually end up liking it.
I also ignore people that hype a movie to the stars, because a movie usually cannot live upto it. People that told me that I just HAD to see 'Independance Day' I never took seriously again. That was for me one of the worst movies ever.
But then again.. now people will ignore ME hopefully for saying that
That behaviour is unacceptable (Score:4, Insightful)
What are you, a Vogon?
You DO NOT RATE SOMETHING YOU HAVE NOT ACTUALLY SEEN!
Sheesh.
And BTW, there is a wonderfully hilarious moment near the end that had the Douglas Adams feel to it to an incredible degree, and you MISSED it! Don't call yourself a fan: you aren't. You're a curmudgeon, and you need to take a drink, relax, and be less callous and bad tempered.
Re:My review (Score:4, Insightful)
"So-LONG-so-LONG-so-LONG and thanks... for all the fiiiiiiish!"
Dear God I'm so depressed.
Re:IMDB (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are going to make a movie called "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", you damn well better at least capture the spirit of the original work.
It would have been nice if the movie could have slowed down to explain why a space traveller should keep his towel handy, rather then just make it seem like a strange fettish of Ford's, and later justify its presence by using it as a sort of weapon.
(IIRC, the point of keeping a towel handy, among other things, is that it creates the impression that it makes it easier to borrow things like soap or a comb, because if you travel with a towel, you are obviously the sort of person who takes care of himself, but simply finds himself short a personal hygiene item or two.)
Re:Do I belong on this planet myself? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes, Zaphod is supposed to seem Stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
I know _WHO_ he was supposed to be. a) It was not funny. b) It did not fit into the plot of the first book. c) It was a fucking brief and off handed reference even when it did come in to play in Restaurant.
Hehe, I love reading these anti-reviews. I thought the movie was great. I have no idea why ANYONE thought it was remotely faithful to the books. Earth blows up; check. Arthur saved by Ford; check. Babelfish, Vogons, other periphery; check. The entire rest of the storyline... um, no. Not in any version of the book, tv series, radio show, game or towel that I've ever known.
Anyway, onto my point and what I found amusing in your rants about Humma Kavula:
"John Malkovich's character, a religious leader, was created especially for the movie by Douglas Adams."
Source: http://imdb.com/title/tt0371724/trivia [imdb.com]
All this agro over a bit that DNA actually wrote! In fact, if you look deeper, Douglas wrote pretty much all of it. All that was left to do was the screenplay.
I dunno. Maybe you were expecting a glorious deep story. Maybe you were expecting a visual representation of the books, verbatim, like even LOTR failed to do. Whatever, you were never gonna get it. What we did get was an amusing, madcap comedy in the Hitchhikers universe, and a load of nay-sayers who would never have been happy unless they had made it themselves. Seeing as none of you would, the point really is moot.
Re:Moderate: Unfunny (Score:3, Insightful)
So because some people who wouldn't know funny if it hit them over the head think that the film is thrusting Aethism down thier throat with a 30 second bit of humor then we should remove one of the most intellectually amusing parts of the story?
Sigh. Why can't people just grow the fuck up and learn to laugh at themselves sometimes.