Telegraph Reviews Hitchhiker Movie, Approves 293
LPetrazickis writes "The Telegraph has reviewed the movie adaptation of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The review notes that the film is every bit as much a loving tribute to Douglas Adams as it is a joyous comedy. American actors acquit themselves well, and the sense of intelligent wonder transfers well to the technicolour screen. The many incarnations of The Guide are summarized at the end."
Box office earnings... (Score:5, Funny)
I forecast 42 million dollars in the first day. :P
Re:Box office earnings... (Score:2)
Re:Box office earnings... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Box office earnings... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Box office earnings... (Score:2)
Fah, I am going to spend $42 on the movie myself the first day. How bad could the movie be? Douglas Adams wrote the screenplay, and it's got Zaphod Beeblebrox in it (even if he apparently only has one head).
Re:Books great. TV show sucked. Movie? TBD (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Box office earnings... (Score:5, Funny)
Highly possible since the math used by Production companies to figure out the Net when there are people getting paid a portion of the Net is even more complicated, mysterious and convuleted than Bistromathematics.
Ask anyone who's ever taken a percentage of the Net, Production company will show that it lost more money than it took to actually produce it.
Re:Box office earnings... (Score:5, Funny)
#define SIX 1 + 5
#define NINE 8 + 1
int main() {
printf("%d times %d is %d\n", SIX, NINE, SIX * NINE);
}
Re:Box office earnings... (Score:3, Interesting)
OTOH, there must be millions of geeks out there who know Star Wars but don't know HHGTG, so the movie can't win the numbers. Still, it should be a good f
Re:Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything (Score:4, Funny)
Must Watch (Score:4, Insightful)
Will The Movie Be A Trilogy Too? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Will The Movie Be A Trilogy Too? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Will The Movie Be A Trilogy Too? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Will The Movie Be A Trilogy Too? (Score:4, Funny)
Bring a Towel? (Score:3, Funny)
1) I'm the only one who does it and look like a total dork
2) Lots of people do it and I look like an unoriginal hack
Re:Bring a Towel? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't take the towel. A packet of peanuts would be acceptable.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Some Clips from the movie (Score:2, Insightful)
Moviefone? (Score:2)
Re:Moviefone? (Score:3, Funny)
Believe it or not, Moviefone was a happily operating business long before it was ever referenced on "Seinfeld"....
Re:Some Clips from the movie (Score:3, Funny)
If they can survive being linked when they had Morgan Webb photos, they can survive anything.
Re:Some Clips from the movie (Score:2)
That's what they want you to think- they've got an image to uphold.
Maxim's popularity (and thus profit) is based on projecting an aura of exaggerated masculinity. Amoung other effects, that means they must eschew any nerd-like tendencies, such as remembering the plot or backstory to a sci-fi feature.
Understand HGttG = nerd = no girls = no sales.
Such writers can adm
Cake is for eating (Score:5, Insightful)
I, for one, look forward to the movie. I have confidence that it will incredibly funny, while still staying true to the spirit of the books. I ask all those who demand a carbon copy to please bellyache out of my earshot.
"Can anyone say LotR?" (Score:5, Funny)
"Lo-tor!"
"Lot-rrr"
"Lort!"
I think I hurt my glottis *and* my epiglottis. It's definitely bed time.
I wish I could believe him, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
And what's with nonsense like:
Zooey Deschanel as Trillian, a minor character in Adams's book
or
and a towel, a manic-depressive android and a whale falling from the sky all make important appearances.
I'm sorry, Trillian is a "minor character"? Marvin is lumped in with the whale as a character who makes "important appearances"? Important appearances? The reviewer doesn't even give his name? If the movie slashes his role that much, there is serious trouble.
My Joo Janta peril-sensitive sunglasses are strangely opaque. I suspect this movie will suck, and will only do slightly better than if every theater showing it was blanketed in an SEP field.
Re:I wish I could believe him, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I wish I could believe him, but... (Score:2)
I don't think that word means what you think it means
Re:I wish I could believe him, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
I just don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I just don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Has it gotten to the point where we don't even watch a movie to figure out if we like it?
Considering the rather high cost of movie tickets these days (~$10 in many areas of the US), I can understand why people like to hear what others are saying about a film before plunking down their hard-earned cash.
How often are critics wrong?
Fairly often, but I find looking to places like rottentomatoes helps because it is rare that all the critics will be wrong about all the movies. Taking a wide sample of critics' views on a movie really seems to weed out the occasional critic who just "didn't get it" or was too far removed from the intended audience.
Of course, the best reviews are always from people we know with similar tastes in movies, so those are preferred, but not always available...
Re:I just don't understand (Score:5, Funny)
Moviegoer: <pained> If you can tell me how to do that, you can keep the 12 bucks...
Re:I just don't understand (Score:2)
Not around here (Los Angeles) ... the matinee price is $6.50-7.50, and it's only available for the first showing of the day (i.e. around noon). Regular price is $8.50-$10, and a few "high end" theaters charge $14 (although at those you get reserved seating and an employee comes out before the movie starts to give a little welcoming speech... whether that is worth an extra $5 I won't comment on)
I will explain (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why so many bad movies get churned out over and over again. If you continue to front the cash for them then it's basically the same as saying "shove anything in my face hollywood, because I never learn and I'll continue to pay for whatever trash you deem worthy entertainment" (in my opinion).
So most people rely on movie re
Re:I will explain (Score:2)
What really hacks me off is that they should have a refund policy in place. Heck, even a %50 return on your tickets if you didn't like the movie would be sufficient.
Re:I will explain (Score:3, Funny)
Quit mixing metaphors badly (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Quit mixing metaphors badly (Score:5, Funny)
We are, after all, discussing a movie review published on the website of a newspaper called the Telegraph
I don't know about you, but my head's spinning.
Breaking news: Slashdot ad revenue bust (Score:5, Funny)
In financial news today expert industry anylists report that the once popular, geeky, tech news site slashdot.com's ad revenue is in sharp decline.
Economists assert that Slashdots's new diet of endless lame news items about Google, municipal WIFI and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy are putting off hungry consumers who are going elsewhere.
"I just can't take it anymore" said one long time Slashdot afficionado. "It's just Google, HitchHiker's, and WIFI"
Experts predict that of the remaining 12.5 visitors slashdot gets daily, 98.3% use the adblock feature of the controversial "Firefox" browser.
"It's a bleak situation"
Re:Breaking news: Slashdot ad revenue bust (Score:2)
Thank god (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, as if we weren't going to see it anyway.
I've yet to find a movie critic with whom I agree with often enough to actually avoid a movie based on their review.
See the damn movie, make up your own mind 'eh.
erm.. (Score:2)
Hitchin a ride (Score:2, Interesting)
The Real Question (Score:4, Funny)
42.
Re:The Real Question (Score:5, Funny)
Horses for courses (Score:5, Insightful)
As is made clear in just about every item one reads about Douglas (including TFA), he saw each incarnation of H2G2 as a different entity in its own right and felt no compunction to translate perfectly between mediums.
The sad fact is that Douglas is dead. So we can either have no movie ever, or hand it over to someone else. The latter was always the best idea, IMO. Let's stop whining and celebrate the fact that the geek's favourite book has finally made it to film. Films are practically never as good as the books they follow (one or two exceptions like 2001 and, for me, Fear & Loathing (thanks to Johnny Depp, but I digress) spring to mind). H2G2 is the best example of this as it fires the imagination like nothing else.
I, for one, am all too happy to see both negative and positive reviews.
It's indifference I don't like.
Re:Horses for courses (Score:2)
Films are practically never as good as the books they follow (one or two exceptions like 2001
In that particular case, the book followed the film.
Re:Horses for courses (Score:3, Interesting)
That, and Mr. Clarke (like DNA) were already well established book authors before the movies were in production.
This movie did at least have a rough draft of a script from DNA, which at least gave some directions as to where he wanted this project to go. The thing that I have been most impressed with DNA was that he totally understood the concept that
Re:Horses for courses (Score:3, Interesting)
Unlikely, because it has to live up to the BBC DVD [amazon.co.uk] of the TV series... (Which Amazon seems to think is not out yet, but I've had it over a year).
Special features include:
Re:Horses for courses (Score:2)
You are, of course, correct. I shouldn't have use chronology. What I meant was that films are rarely as good as their book versions.
OT - Re:Horses for courses (Score:2)
He is a bright light, but every time I see him, I think "21 Jump Street"... (and, in another OT note, I didn't know Depp was in "Platoon".. thanks IMDB)
Definitately going to see it (Score:2)
Anyway, Alan Rickman as the voice of Marvin will be worth the admission price alone.
DNA's life mirror the stories in his books (Score:4, Funny)
In short, DNA could very likely be a character in his own book. Or conversely, his own life was so bizzare that in many ways the books (not just the Hitchhiker trilogy) mirror his own life. The more I read about DNA's life experiences, the more facinating I find him to be.
I found this bit to be almost priceless from the Telegraph story: (to pharaphrase) The producers of this movie are "two men working from a barge named Polly, moored on the Regent's Canal in an unfashionable part of Islington, north London."
I don't think DNA could have done better for a new book opening scene.
Re:DNA's life mirror the stories in his books (Score:2)
Not just one [amazon.com], but several [amazon.com].
Re:DNA's life mirror the stories in his books (Score:3, Interesting)
If you can get ahold of the radio scripts (compiled into book form), there is also a bit of an autobiography of DNA included in them, as well as some biographical information that is floating around on various web sites. h2g2.com also has some information about DNA as well. As has been pointed out, there are also seve
Simple explanation (Score:4, Funny)
so, it's as funny as a funeral and bears no resemblance to the book then?
Tom Bombadil! (Score:4, Funny)
Question (Score:2)
Obligatory question (Score:2)
I recall watching in 60 minutes this old man saying how certain reviewers were invited to buffettes and such so they would give favorable reviews of movies that frankly, sucked.
I'd like to know if this was the case, too.
Big difference between the last review (Score:2)
Well it depends of course on what you want the movie to be. LoTR is generally considered to be a good/okay adapation of the books yet some hardcore fans complain that important elements were left out or changed. Most book to movie adaptations do not go well. I robot and the sound of thunder have people who love the original book (or short story) version crying foul about the movie adapatation.
What I am getting from the
Another positive review... (Score:2)
"Don't Panic" - brand PDA (Score:3, Interesting)
Trillian a romantic interest? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Trillian a romantic interest? (Score:3, Insightful)
The review says Trillian will be a romantic interest of Arthur Dent. If anything, this convinces me they did something seriously wrong with the movie.
Did you know they had a child together...?! (Fifth book)
(Okay, if you know the scenario it wasn't in quite a romantic way, but there were actually cases of romantic heroism:)
Arthur picked a fight with a Norse god (Thor) to get her back. (Third book)
Arthur killed someone to protect her (Second radio series)
There was also some past sexy business all
Re:So does it suck, or not? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So does it suck, or not? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So does it suck, or not? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen the BBC series and it simply rocks.
I've had every other favorite book of mine trashed - Lord of the Rings, Dune, I, Robot and a quintillion others.
I'm not ready to watch the movie and destroy what I've treasured all this while. And most importantly, when I re-read the book, the images from the movie will stick in my mind - something I really do not want to happen.
I'll go with the earlier review -- I'm a purist of sorts in this regard, and I'm fairly certain I'll hate the movie.
Re:So does it suck, or not? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think the LOTR movies "trashed" the books, then you would probably not like *any adaptation* of a book. As you said, if you don't want "images from the movie to stick" in your mind, the best bet is to not watch it. So, you don't really need to go with any review -- you seem to have an issue with the visual medium itself.
S
Re:So does it suck, or not? (Score:3, Interesting)
My primary grudge with LoTR was that while it was a good story on its own, it wasn't in any way related to Tolkien's world.
One of the things that made LoTR powerful was the strength of the characters - I find that missing in LoTR. I felt that almost all the characters were trashed and made to appear rather simplistic or even comical.
For instance - both Ghost in the Shell and Sincity weren't bad adaptations, and both held quite true to the spirit of the books.
Then again
Re:So does it suck, or not? (Score:5, Interesting)
What? I thought it was an extremely faithful adaption, given the limitations imposed by trying to compress three fat books into a mere 9 hours (or whatever) of movie. And before you ask, I've read LoTR so many times since my mum bought it for my birthday in 1962 that my original copy has just about fallen apart. Btw, I've never felt that Tolkien's characterisation was all that strong - most of the characters are little better than cardboard cutouts.
Re:So does it suck, or not? (Score:5, Interesting)
Glad someone said it. I really liked the books and movies, but depth of characterization wasn't a priority for Tolkein. Given that his interests were with mythology, that wasn't surprising, but let's not pretend his work was something it wasn't intended to be. Most of the characters were either "white hats" or "black hats." Exceptions were mainly limited to Gondor, where Denethor was plain nuts, Boromir was a good flawed hero, and Faramir was very well rounded.
The treatment of Faramir, actually, was my greatest disappointment with the movie (theater version especially).
Re:So does it suck, or not? (Score:3, Insightful)
I will agree that Faramir was unsettling (although I understand why they did it), and I felt they nailed Boromir as a good -but too proud- man.
To be fair, Denethor wasn't "plain nuts", Sauron drove him to it (and oh, how I wanted to see that in the extended cut) via the palantir.
I have a theory (Score:3, Interesting)
The conventional literary complaint about fantasy is that it doesn't hany any model of psychology at all -- that characters are flat and have no internal life. Therefore fantasy is mere entertainment, and can't have any kind of relevance other than escapism.
The key to understanding how this works, in my opinion, is that there is truly only one character in fantasy -- each character represent a
Re:So does it suck, or not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I guess it's just a matter of opinion. Peter Jackson's movie was well made as a fantasy movie, just not LoTR.
It's not the compressed part that got to me, but the fact that he changed a lot of things that need not have been changed - making Gimli into a comical character, portraying Faramir as someone who gives into temptation, horrible portrayal of Lady Galadriel, Aragorn and a lot of others. Not to mention tonnes of inconsistencies (Glorifendel's role, for instance) and such.
PJ did not have to make these changes, yet he did - that is what irritated me.
Re:So does it suck, or not? (Score:2)
Don't forget that most of the punters had never even _heard_ of Tolkien before these films were made, and certainly wouldn't have been able to deal with the greater complexities of plot involved in making the movies conform 100% to the books.
LOTR/H2G2 Deep Thoughts... (Score:5, Interesting)
The beauty of the LOTR movies was that even though they were not faithful to the letter of the book, they were faithful to the spirit of the book. I was not disappointed.
Of course, I would have rather seen Bjork as Arwen. She *looks* like an elf. She wouldn't have even had to play with a different accent...her Icelandic/British accent is pretty damn close to the way they did Elvish anyway.
Also I would have rather heard what Jimmy Page would have done on the soundtrack instead of Howard Shore. I'm a child of the '70s. Reading LOTR with Led Zeppelin on the stereo has inescapably twisted my mind. He's done orchestral scores before...anyone remember the "Death Wish" movies? Yeah, I know, bad example.
Of course, H2G2 has similar synaptic connections in my twisted mind. I still have an animated movie starring the voices of Eric Idle (Ford), Michael Palin (Arthur) and Bill Murray (Zaphod) in my mind, probably never to be erased by the actual movie. The deconstruction of the movie by DNA's biographer [slashdot.org] kinda had me worried, but I think I might just give this a chance.
Re:So does it suck, or not? (Score:4, Insightful)
From the typical viewpoint of "characters are people", then the LOTR books had hardly any characterization. The members of the fellowship were hardly more than stereotypes.
Only if you look at it in context and understand that those stereotypes were new inventions (at that time) can you grasp why the series had such acclaim. In a way, the entire races and cultures of elves, dwarves, orcs and hobbits were characters of themselves.
Readers born after the 1970s will barely recognize that fact, because the ideas have been copied so broadly through D&D, World of Warcraft, etc.
Re:So does it suck, or not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Jackson did trash Two Towers, which ought to have been much more suited to the screen than Fellowship. Look at how badly Theoden's character got screwed -- converted from probably the most sympathetic human character in the novel into an arrogant, cowardly fool. Not only did Jackson and his screenwriters turn that character into cardboard, he rewrote things so that holding the Hornburg was the s
Re:So does it suck, or not? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So does it suck, or not? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So does it suck, or not? (Score:2)
Apart from that, awful, no argument.
Re:So does it suck, or not? (Score:2)
I'm sorry, I cannot see a movie that is so badly skewed from the original that it made me grimace the first time I watched the trailer. People did not even have British accents, for cryin' out loud.
And LoTR - it was a nice movie by itself, but a bad adaptation. An adaptation is something that's based on the original, and Peter Jackson's version had so many flaws in comparison to the books.
Like I said, I'm a purist in these things - and it's my opinion.
While I do not particularly expect the movies to
Re:So does it suck, or not? (Score:2)
If you'd read my entire comment, you would have noted that I'd mentioned the trailer that I'd seen (and hated).
The fact that even at the very basic level all the characters looked exactly not like what I'd imagined them to be, the fact that they spoke American accents and the bad humor pissed me off.
The review was the proverbial straw.
Re:So does it suck, or not? (Score:2)
By the way, did you ever follow up on your review of that one episode of "Itchy and Scratchy"?
'Worst. Episode. Ever."
Re:So does it suck, or not? (Score:2)
You do not like them? Fine, you've let it be known. But do not tell me what you think of me just because my views differ from yours.
Personally, I think you are a narrow-minded person who has trouble accepting the fact that people may somehow hav
Re:So does it suck, or not? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So does it suck, or not? (Score:2)
The abridged version of Les Miserables is one of the best books ever written. The unabridged version of the book, on the other hand, was horrific. Victor needed an editor so bad it hurts. At one point Jean Valjean jumps over the wall into a monastery and Victor launches into a two hundred page rant about monasteries. Jean Valjean then jumps over another wall into a nunnery, and the story gets back on track. The reason was simple, by the time that Victor Hugo wrote Les Miserables he was so popular that
Re:So does it suck, or not? (Score:2)
Truth be told, I think the problem will be more to do with the fans than with the movie itself. You're gonna have one group of fans who wants to see a literal play by play of everything in the book. (Fat chance.) You're gonna have another group of fans who'll like it simply because it provides some visuals to what theyv'e seen. You're gonna have another group of fans who think they know what the formula to success was, then count up all the ways the movi
Holy crap nine dollars? (Score:2)
Sure, $9 isn't exactly cheap but it's not like you have to save up for it or anything, and chances are you've all spent a lot more then $9 on dumb shit.
Re:So does it suck, or not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Writer writes a book, not script/screenplay of a movie. So, a movie based on the book can not be SAME AS THE BOOK EVER!!! It is a completely different medium - to tell the same story.
A book leaves it to the reader to imagine how characters, places look. Hence it is a very personalized product for the reader. Movie leaves little left to imagination (in this context). It can not be as personal as the book might have been.
That is the reason why most of the movies based on very popular/cult books have been largely disappointing to the fanboys - just because it is not what THEY imagined/visualized it. And they are never going to be satisfied with the movie based on their favorite book. If one can not figure how great (and also faithful) LOTR movies have been to the book, well, H2G2 is a far cry.
Duuuuude... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Mindless entertainment for the masses (Score:2)
I've heard enough of this s
Re:CHA CHING! (Score:2, Informative)
Most of the book's best lines and situations survive. The phrase "Don't Panic!" is liberally sprinkled around, "42" is still the answer to the ultimate question, Arthur still can't quite get the hang of Thursdays - and a towel, a manic-depressive android and a whale falling from the sky all make important appearances.
Re: Film VS Book, just let it go already... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're that tied up that you cannot live with a story being adapted as best possible to suit the film media, please don't ever leave your house again. The rest of us cinema-goers don't want you there.
The story may not follow the book to the letter, but can't you see a little beyond that and maybe judge it on its own merits? For fucks sake...
Re:Impossible to complete? (Score:2)
Re:Impossible to complete? (Score:2)
Java version from DNA's site (Score:2)
enjoy
Re:Impossible to complete? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Impossible to complete? (Score:3, Informative)