Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Movies Media It's funny.  Laugh. Sci-Fi Space

Hitchhikers Guide Movie Might Become a Trilogy 502

Noiser writes "The BBC reports that The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie could be turned into a trilogy. I wonder if they mean that it might turn into a trilogy in five parts, just like the book? I wish it did - unlike some people, I liked all of them..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hitchhikers Guide Movie Might Become a Trilogy

Comments Filter:
  • ok.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by aixou ( 756713 ) on Monday May 02, 2005 @10:22PM (#12415750)
    ok, I think we can start panicking now.
  • Dirk Gently (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Audent ( 35893 ) <[audent] [at] [ilovebiscuits.com]> on Monday May 02, 2005 @10:22PM (#12415759) Homepage
    Come on, where's the Dirk Gently movie/TV series? I know, I know, it was a lot like Dr Who (in fact, I can't read DG without picturing Tom Baker in the role) but frankly it was brill and should be done at once.

    The Long Dark Tea-time of the Soul (despite having a great title) wasn't so good but the first one (Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency) was excellent.
    • Re:Dirk Gently (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jeremi ( 14640 ) on Monday May 02, 2005 @10:26PM (#12415795) Homepage
      (in fact, I can't read DG without picturing Tom Baker in the role)

      I always picture Jack Black. Oh, and they'd better be sure to use the proper late-1980's-era Macintoshes...

      Btw, while you're waiting for the movie, try the comic [dirk-gently.com]...

    • In 1978 (1977?) wrote the episode of Dr. Who called "The Pirate Planet" staring Tom Baker and that thing on his lip. It includes Polyphase Avitron. Guess what that is. You can see HHGTG bubbling beneath the characters.
    • I like LDTTOTS better than DGHDA. The standoff between dirk and his housekeeper over the refrigerator is great stuff.
    • Much agreed! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jellisky ( 211018 ) on Monday May 02, 2005 @10:37PM (#12415874) Journal
      Those two are both MUCH more adaptable to film than any of the Hitchhiker books and were just as good. And personally, I enjoyed Long Dark more than HDA, but they were both some of the more entertaining reads I've had. - Jellisky
    • Re:Dirk Gently (Score:3, Interesting)

      by B3ryllium ( 571199 )
      You know, while I was watching the movie "I Heart Huckabees", it struck me as being VERY Dirk Gently-esque.
    • Re:Dirk Gently (Score:4, Interesting)

      by aug24 ( 38229 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @03:43AM (#12417607) Homepage
      Hmmm, a very clever idiosyncratic individual (Dirk) with an assistant (Richard) investigates a very old man (Urban Chronotis) living in a room in a university with a console that enables the whole room to travel in time and space, whereby they meet a character from history (Samuel Taylor Coleridge). I wonder why it reminds you in some way of a Dr Who script?

      FYI, speaking as a total DNA fan and (less) DW fanboy, you're bang on. It was originally conveived as a DW adventure in the Tom Baker era, but there was a strike on set which cut short the series on which DNA was script editor (another story, 'Shada', was only half completed) and DNA stopped writing for DW. He noodled around with the plot for aver ten years before finding a way to re-use it without it being *too* damn obvious.

      The idea was that a Time Lord had retired to Cambridge to live a long and peaceful last regeneration, knowing that no-one would ever bother him. The Cambridge colleges are notoriously unenquiring of human oddity! Supposedly, he had been there a very *very* long time and had forgotten everything that came before.

  • Sounds good (Score:2, Informative)

    by imboboage0 ( 876812 )
    I just got done watching the movie a few hours ago. Very good I thought. I would very much like to see this keep going, so long as prodution values do not fall. All will be shown in due time (hopefully soon).
  • Scripts (Score:5, Insightful)

    by someguy456 ( 607900 ) <someguy456@phreaker.net> on Monday May 02, 2005 @10:24PM (#12415773) Homepage Journal

    Of course, one of the redeeming properties of the movie is that Douglas Adams wrote the script himself, before he passed away.

    Unless he personally wrote out the additional scripts, or at least laid out an extensive outline (plot/characters, etc), I don't think any more movies would be as successfull as the first, which couldn't really be considered a blockbuster per se.

    • Re:Scripts (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jeremi ( 14640 )
      Plenty of other books have been adapted into movies without the assistance of their authors, with varying degrees of success... it all depends on who is doing the work.
    • Re:Scripts (Score:2, Interesting)

      by kevn ( 730412 )
      actually according to various sources. The movie was pretty much re-written after he died. unfortun his last draft was nowhere near complete.
    • Re:Scripts (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Aleteha1033 ( 880906 )
      Douglas Adams did not in fact write the script used in the current movie. What happened was that he wrote a script and passed away. The person who wrote the script in use (you know that other guy in the credits for script writing) looked at/started from/incorporated Adams's script and therefore Adam's has to be credited. This is actually a good thing for the movie because it implies that a) Douglas Adams wrote the script and b) it's an adaptation of the book. All the ads I've seen for the movie have th
  • "Mostly Harmelss". I thought it a little strange after sparing Earth and Arthur for four book he finaly decides to knock off the whole crew in one swell foop.

    Slightly anti-climatic and all that.
    • Re:I didn't like (Score:2, Informative)

      If memory serves correctly he said he was going through a bad patch at the time and this was a reflection of his mood - He hinted towards regretting it afterwards.

      As regards sources I can't remember - I may have come across it in an interview or perhaps the Salmon of Doubt
    • It was an awfully funny book even if it was a bit dark.

      I think the fourth book, with Authur falling in love and living happily ever after, is a more likely version of Adams' long-term desire for his characters.

      And this, of course, makes a romance between Author and Trillian seem perfectly normal and even correct. So perhaps the critics of the movie should think twice about this aspect of it.

    • by uberdave ( 526529 ) on Monday May 02, 2005 @11:06PM (#12416094) Homepage
      A swell foop? A foop like the noise of a hundred thousand people saying "foop"? A foop like the sound of a departing Krikkit Warship?
    • Re:I didn't like (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Jerf ( 17166 )
      I find myself able to enjoy it a bit more now that he's dead, and the Universe has prevented him from writing more books in the series far more thoroughly than the end of Mostly Harmless does.

      As a piece of existentialist horror it is unmatched; even the great French philosophers like Satre on his best day couldn't invoke the true horrors of the Whole Sort of General Mish-Mash, a direct consequence of the Many Worlds hypothesis (though Many Worlds doesn't imply that you can travel on the "probability axes",
  • Movie annoying (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SteelV ( 839704 )
    I saw the movie a couple days ago and found it to be extremely annoying, starting from the dolphin song, and lasting throughout. There were some good parts but overall it was not that great, even having read the book (and everyone I know how saw it without having read the book hated it).

    Why make a sequal? Unless you replace the cast with people who can act...
  • True, but... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GundamFan ( 848341 ) on Monday May 02, 2005 @10:27PM (#12415806)
    I just can't see mostly harmless as making a very good movie. 'Restaurant At the End of the Universe', 'Life the Universe and Everything' and 'So Long and Thanks for All the Fish' could be very easily made into two movies... they have a kind of natural flow.
    • i agree, which is kind of sad.. i mean the ending probably wouldnt work so it would have to be changed (i think they're changing it for the new radio series).. but mostly harmless has 2 of my favorite parts (random in the forrest with the crashed ship and the new guide.. and ford and arthur trying to ride a perfectly normal beast).. it also has one of my favorite characters (random)

      but so long and thanks for all the fish is my favorite book in the "trilogy" so id love to see that get made but im not sure w
  • I don't see this as being a big money maker like the Lotr or Matrix series.

    They can give it a try but I don't think it will happen.
  • I think (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bloodstar ( 866306 )
    The movie was an enjoyable diversion. Was it the greatest thing ever? no. But it was a hell of a lot of fun and I sat through the entire movie with a silly grin on my face. Would I have tweaked a few things? Yes, but then again I think you can say that of almost any movie. But I'd see the sequals if they maintain the level of quality and a good mix of Adam's insanity (in a good way) and a bit of pacing.

    Hell, I'll be seeing the movie again...

  • Five parts? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by x3ro ( 628101 )
    Why is it that people keep talking about the books as the authoritative original source which the films must be measured against? The books, while a good read, lack the immediacy and playfulness of the original radio show: by the time Adams came to write the books, he was, to a certain extent, the victim of his own success. The series became a franchise that was undeservedly bigger than its author (his Dirk Gently books were less pacey, but just as entertaining as the Hitch Hiker titles). For instance, Zaph
    • The radio show and the book each were exceptional in their own way, in my opinion. The book had some wonderful descriptions, for instance how the Vogon ships hang in the air "exactly the way that bricks don't". On the other hand, the dialogue came alive in the radio shows in a way that the books couldn't match- particularly Marvin I feel, his "pain in all the diodes line" for instance is so-so in the books and uproarious in the radio show. I felt the radio show lagged in the second half, but the ending b
    • Why is it that people keep talking about the books as the authoritative original source which the films must be measured against?

      Been wondering that myself. I figure it's because that's the form there's the most of: The TV and radio series didn't go as long as the books.
  • The BBC reports that The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie could be turned into a trilogy....

    But only if it is more sucessful than the mean movie at this time does it become ripe for the "sequel" phenomenon. And only if the hollywood types want to milk it for more money at the expense of their souls (duh, of course they do)!

    Note that cast being available, dead, willing; the end of the previous movie being sequel-friendly etc has no bearing on whether a sequel will be made. Its entirely based on

  • by Grendel Drago ( 41496 ) on Monday May 02, 2005 @10:37PM (#12415878) Homepage
    Will they make Arthur into a romantic lead again, instead of the hapless bumbler he was meant to be?

    Oh, oh! You know how whenever Hollywood is making a romantic comedy, someone thinks, "hey! This movie needs explosions to draw in the boys!", and adds some shit blowing which makes no goddamn sense? No?

    Well, then why the fuck did they insert a turgid romance into the middle of a darkly ironic SF comedy of non sequiturs? To wit:

    Arthur Dent, as the romantic lead, is playing opposite Trillian. And when the small white mice are about to carve up his head (they left out the "DICED!" line, but that's a minor quibble), he cries out that no question has ever brought him happiness, and that for him there's only been one question ever, and it's "Is she the one?" and the answer is "Yes!---It's always been yes!".

    And then he uses his superheroic strength to break through his bonds and smush the small white mice. Slartibartfast smiles. Earth Mark II having been recreated and all the people on it restored, Arthur and Trillian go off in the Heart of Gold, happily ever after.

    And that is why I wish to piss in the Cheerios of whoever made the choice to smear that shit on the movie. That's all.

    Oh, and when the characters are all waiting in line, keep an eye out for the Marvin from the original BBC television series. He makes a cameo. I thought that was cute.

    And the Earth is made whole again and no one's really dead and... ugh. It wasn't true to the spirit of the books, and it didn't even manage to be true to the letter in a lot of places.

    And those of us who liked the original work are left sort of gesturing and lamely telling disappointed fellow filmgoers that, really, it wasn't like that at all.

    Pfah. Take your sequels and shove 'em.

    --grendel drago
    • And that is why I wish to piss in the Cheerios of whoever made the choice to smear that shit on the movie. That's all.

      That would be Douglas Adams. Just pray he has some old, rotten bowl of Cheerios in his grave so that you won't have to piss on his corpse if there aren't any.

      Have a nice day.
      • by rco3 ( 198978 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @01:43AM (#12417020) Homepage
        The way I read grandparent's comment was that the romantic "arc" tack-welded on top of the story was the 'shit smeared' on the movie. I'd agree with him in that, and your assertion that Douglas Adams himself was responsible for that is at least somewhat contradicted by the following, quoted from ccn.com's review of the film:

        "After Adams' death, screenwriter Karey Kirkpatrick was called in to tighten up the script's structure, bolstering the romance and streamlining the plot." (italics mine)

        Sounds an awful lot like the romance was troweled on after DA was no longer around to object. What with it being totally non-witty and not really fitting with anything else, I'd have to say that chances are good that Douglas Adams did not and would not have tarted up the romance like that.

        It also sounds to me like all the subtle stuff that Americans wouldn't get anyway (yes, I'm being sarcastic and kind of pissy about it) was smoothed over, by Karey Kirkpatrick, to make it more shallow and easily digested for the Hollywood audience. I won't go into my rant about how streamlining and simplifying LOTR for the big screen reduced it to an FX extravaganza whose plot and characterization were no more exciting than any one of hundreds of thousands of games of AD&D played out in basements and bedrooms all around the world... oops, I guess I did. Sorry.

        But that's how I feel about HHGTTG on the big screen, too. The genius is in the details, and Hollywood doesn't want genius - Hollywood has no desire to leave cash in the pockets of morons, and would rather dumb it down than take a chance on not getting money from everyone.

        As an example: I think that when you skip the entire dialog about the plans being in the basement, where the lights had gone out, in a locked cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Tiger" or however the phrasing went, you also lose a great deal of the whimsy that made HHGTTG so brilliant. And the parallel between the bureaucrats in charge of destroying Arthur's house and those destroying Arthur's planet is damn near lost altogether.

        Fortunately, I was already prepared for this movie to miss the point, so it didn't hit me too hard. YMMV.
    • by MagPulse ( 316 ) on Monday May 02, 2005 @10:57PM (#12416020)
      Since Adams helped with the script, my theory is that after the radio show, book, and BBC series (did he help with that?), he thought it would be nice for Arthur to finally get Trillian. I don't think it was that out of character for him to fight for her.

      Maybe the other person who Adams worked with on the script will tell us if this is true?
    • Yeah, I suppose Hollywood doesn't think Americans are capable of dealing with the dark shit that keeps happening to Arthur. Even Adams seemed to repenting in the fourth book, only to come back and really give it to him in the fifth book.

      Speaking of which, one of several reasons I only go to 1 or 2 movies a year anymore is because the pre-show advertising keeps getting longer and longer. I foresee a day when the pre-show advertising is longer than the movie itself, but I digress. Anyway, it would appear th

      • Oh and it looks like someone's doing a Jumanji ripoff without the Robin Williams. Yippee.

        Yeah, I seem to remember the trailer for that one mentioning that the same guy who came up with Jumanji made this one, too. What the hell?
    • Will they make Arthur into a romantic lead again, instead of the hapless bumbler he was meant to be?

      Oddly enough, he's quite competent and assertive in the original radio series. Several of his best lines are given to Ford (or innocent bystanders) in the books and TV series, creating the effect that he is overall less competant.

    • by Edmund Blackadder ( 559735 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @12:12AM (#12416470)
      I completely agree that the romantic story screwed up the whole movie.

      I am not against romantic stories per se and I always wanted Arthur to get it on with Trillian ASAP, so generally I would have welcomed it. But it was SOOO badly executed. It was very out of place with the whole rest of the movie and was not at all believable.

      Basicaly, you have a couple of pieces of incredibly cheesy dialogue inserted in a sarcastic story. So for the time of this dialogue it feels like you are watching a completely different movie.

      Also, there was the whole stupid Hollywood obssession that characters must have "arcs", and male leads have to "change" or be "redeemed" in order to "earn" the woman.
  • On how much money it ends up making. It'd take whatever an executive producer says with a grain of salt. Hitchhiker did claim #1 spot on opening weekend and grossed about 20 million, but it remains to be seen whether it has any legs, that is, if it will keep making money after the first couple of weeks. Now that all the fans have seen it, will it still rake it in?

    Also, anyone have any idea how much the movie cost to make?
  • That sucks! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Chairboy ( 88841 ) on Monday May 02, 2005 @10:38PM (#12415889) Homepage
    I'm outraged! They don't support OGG vorbis or-

    wait, what are we talking about? I'm not sure what we're being outraged about today.
  • Arthur.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Weaselmancer ( 533834 ) on Monday May 02, 2005 @10:39PM (#12415899)

    I am your father...

  • and you'll find out if there will be a sequel.

    BUT, be happyt hat hollywood is paying attention lately to KEEPING its blockbuster moneymakers safe by doing a GOOD JOB!

    Look at the new Batman, it has been painstakenly revamped to avoid the neon junk it turned in too... Hollywood realized they need to be careful with things dear to the audience.

    They saw/see if with Star wars, and got slapped again with Star Trek, who will be taking some time off, hopefully to be reinvented with the same care as Batman is bei
    • I really hope that's the case. I just want Star Wars to go away. It does not exist anymore as a charming spaceborne fairytale, but rather as a tri-annual marketing blizkrieg.

      I want them to fix Star Trek, and if they have in fact fixed Batman I shall be very pleased.

      While it's my hope that they'll do sequels that don't suck, if the market says it doesn't want a sequel, then clearly the original didn't prove itself enough to deserve one, and in such a case it's unlikely a sequel would be any better. Yay fre
  • by Mr. Neutron ( 3115 ) on Monday May 02, 2005 @10:54PM (#12415996) Homepage Journal
    ****Movie Spoilers, read at your own risk****

    The whole thing that drove the books on was the fact that Arthur was alone and lost in hostile universe, with more and more of his home Earth ceasing to be. At the end of this movie, Earth is restored and Arthur gets the girl. What's the point in continuing? To see Arthur fly around the galaxy sight-seeing, with a great girl by his side, knowing all along he can return to his home whenever he gets sick of it? That's not Hitchhikers.

    They'd have to re-blow-up the Earth and set up another love triangle with Trillian or something.
  • by EEBaum ( 520514 ) on Monday May 02, 2005 @10:55PM (#12416010) Homepage
    ...fire everyone but the artists and Slartibartfast.
  • Perhaps instead it will be a trilogy in fourty-two parts, thus completing the circle.
  • by Hao Wu ( 652581 )
    If they're going to do a trilogy, they should make, like, four movies at least...
  • I loved it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AaronW ( 33736 ) on Monday May 02, 2005 @11:03PM (#12416073) Homepage
    After reading the review that said most of the humor was missing I was unsure of what to expect, but ended up really enjoying the movie. The movie is not the book, which is different than the radio and TV series. I went with a number of friends, many of whom are also fans of the books and the general consensus is that the movie was well done.

  • by dunsurfin ( 570404 ) on Monday May 02, 2005 @11:04PM (#12416077)

    You might want to check out BBC Radio 4's webpages [bbc.co.uk] - the new series of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (Quandary Phase) starts Tuesday 3rd May. You can listen online using Real Audio, or wait for the Beeb to sell you a CD later in the year. More info on BBC Radio 4's Hitchhikers pages [bbc.co.uk].

  • Insightful (Score:5, Insightful)

    by marko123 ( 131635 ) on Monday May 02, 2005 @11:10PM (#12416125) Homepage
    I thought the movie version was hilarious.

    All DA's versions were different, so why not this one?

    What DA did with plots in the different media versions must make SF-ST/SW-canon-geeks heads asplode :)

    My girlfriend hadn't read the books before because she thought they were nerdy, but she pissed herself in the movie and will be reading the books as soon as she finishes LOTR.

    Her quote:
    "Oh, I thought the H2G2 were just for nerds."

    I think the movie will make a lot of people read the books for the first time.
  • I guess the ending suggested a sequel, and I enjoyed the movie. It wasn't exactly a perpetual side-splitter like the books, but I was satisfied. There was even a laugh-out-loud moment or two. I'd like to see more. I'm of the opinion that practically anything goes when it comes to the H2G2 flick(s). As long as they amuse me--and this one did--I say mission accomplished.

    Besides, if they do another one, they'll almost certainly do a third--and in the span of two movies we can just about count on seeing the bi
  • After pulling in $21 million and ranking number one for the weekend I am not surprised that Disney is talking sequels. My largest concern is that the script felt a bit lackluster, though I enjoyed the movie. I just didn't think that many of the actors brought their characters to life. And Trillian's role was reduced to a damsel in distress who lowered her expectations in order to find love since her beau never truly overcame his cowardice.

    If they do more, I'd want to see more sarcasm and wit brought into the dialog. I'd like to see Ford be less of a tree hugger and more of a pithy saw with his comments. Zaphod and Ford were far too kind to Arthur in this version, IMO...

  • by logicnazi ( 169418 ) <logicnazi AT gmail DOT com> on Monday May 02, 2005 @11:30PM (#12416240) Homepage
    One of the things I really liked about the movie was that it was nice and cheery unlike the last book in the series. The magic of HG2G is in the lighthearted humor and fun style if they try and copy the depressing last book it would ruin the movies even more than it did the books.
    • Yeah, I kind of felt the last book was DA in a bad spot of life telling fans, "There, now don't bother me anymore." I won't take away from its few really great moments, ("He says he came willingly.") but while the other books had a feeling of being barely in control, that one just had an overarching air of heavyhanded authorial intervention throughout.
  • This is really odd. I've never seen such divided opinions on a movie before. I absolutely adored the movie, and there seems to be a whole second crowd who thinks it's a travisty.
  • by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @01:13AM (#12416828) Homepage



    They left the earth intact at the end of the movie. This, to mean, implies that they've given themselves a perfect opportunity to take after the original radio show and destroy the earth in every single installation of the movie trilogy, in a different way. I hope they take it :D

All seems condemned in the long run to approximate a state akin to Gaussian noise. -- James Martin