Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy.....
- Thread starter jamis
- Start date
SchruteBucks
New member
Not read the book or seen the TV original but wqatched the film couple of nights ago after my freinRAB raved about it. Was really disappointed as was my boyf. I found it stupid and unfunny, a cross between Monty Python and something from the cbeebies channel.
My Boyf has read the book and said the humour is much better.
My Boyf has read the book and said the humour is much better.
nix};5608558']Sadly, although they did try hard with the film, I think it lost most of the brilliance of the original. And there were additions to the story, that were really not needed and didn't help the storyline.
If you want to cry laughing, get the audio CD's of the original Radio 4 series. They have just finished the final part now and it is really, seriously worth a listen.
In short, the Radio series came first, and remains my favourite medium for the story. The books are all very good too, and keep the humour. The TV series is okay, but again, not a patch on the radio series.
Shame the film wasn't slightly more like the radio series really...
Marvin was awesome though!
If you want to cry laughing, get the audio CD's of the original Radio 4 series. They have just finished the final part now and it is really, seriously worth a listen.
In short, the Radio series came first, and remains my favourite medium for the story. The books are all very good too, and keep the humour. The TV series is okay, but again, not a patch on the radio series.
Shame the film wasn't slightly more like the radio series really...
Marvin was awesome though!
FellingLonely
New member
Heard only outtakes from the radio series and it probably was a better medium to get the humour. However I was probably going through my psychedlic period whilst watching the T.V. series and so found the graphics/ effects excellent. It did get confusing trying to read/watch what was appearing on the screen and listening to it at the same time. I thought it was all very innovative for its' time.
As for Marvin, I thought the T.V. robot was far superior to the film - probably due to the fact that the originally Marvin was a proper main character and seemed to have a fair proportion of the gags.
As for Marvin, I thought the T.V. robot was far superior to the film - probably due to the fact that the originally Marvin was a proper main character and seemed to have a fair proportion of the gags.
MightyHyphy
New member
I really wish that they had stuck with the graphical style of the Guide entries from the TV show in the movie. The movie Guide entries looked too much like Shockwave Flash (which they probably were). There weren't enough of them either.
♥ < thats love fer ya
New member
To massively paraphrase my many posts/rants on the subject of this turd of a movie:
I sat, unable to move as the end credits rolled, at the horror that had unfolded before me. A spectacular exercise in making a sow's ear out of a silk purse. The Hitch-Hikers Guide to The Galaxy is possibly one of the funniest Radio series, books and TV series ever made. The movie is about as funny as an ingrowing toenail. Not only did it have all the jokes removed, but it completely missed the point of the other formats in that the humour is all in the characters' and narrator's dialogue. Which are what the movie had so nearly mutilated beyond all recognition. A sad sad day for HHGTTG fans like me, who were frankly embarrassed by it. It makes my head hurt trying to imagine what they thought they were doing with that mess. Every version of HHGTTG has had significantly different plotline and characterization - something Adams described as them "deliberately contradicting" one another. Change I have no problem with - you'd be hard pressed to be a 'purist' of something that changes every format. The only problem I had is that the humour in Adams' work is in the smart dialogue and narrative. That could change - but to remove the majority of the intelligence and weird logic flights of fancy, and replace them with action sequences and slapstick was to miss the point of what made it different (and popular) in the first place. Change is perfectly good - even to be encouraged - unless it is a change from 'intelligent and funny' to 'dumb and boring'. HHGTTG has worked in very different (radio, TV, books - even a video-game) - it REALLY could have worked as a movie. But what we got just plain bad.
I sat, unable to move as the end credits rolled, at the horror that had unfolded before me. A spectacular exercise in making a sow's ear out of a silk purse. The Hitch-Hikers Guide to The Galaxy is possibly one of the funniest Radio series, books and TV series ever made. The movie is about as funny as an ingrowing toenail. Not only did it have all the jokes removed, but it completely missed the point of the other formats in that the humour is all in the characters' and narrator's dialogue. Which are what the movie had so nearly mutilated beyond all recognition. A sad sad day for HHGTTG fans like me, who were frankly embarrassed by it. It makes my head hurt trying to imagine what they thought they were doing with that mess. Every version of HHGTTG has had significantly different plotline and characterization - something Adams described as them "deliberately contradicting" one another. Change I have no problem with - you'd be hard pressed to be a 'purist' of something that changes every format. The only problem I had is that the humour in Adams' work is in the smart dialogue and narrative. That could change - but to remove the majority of the intelligence and weird logic flights of fancy, and replace them with action sequences and slapstick was to miss the point of what made it different (and popular) in the first place. Change is perfectly good - even to be encouraged - unless it is a change from 'intelligent and funny' to 'dumb and boring'. HHGTTG has worked in very different (radio, TV, books - even a video-game) - it REALLY could have worked as a movie. But what we got just plain bad.
damario rocka
New member
Like laughing at watching paint dry!
Crazy for Cavies
New member
Some good choices, like Stephen Fry and Alan Rickman, but Marvin ... what were they thinking? 
Liked the Neil Hannon song at the end though.
Liked the Neil Hannon song at the end though.
Disclaimer: I'm a fanatic of DNA's work in all its forms
I never got around to seeing it at the cinema (couldn't persuade the lady friend to go, and I've never liked going by myself) but I had the DVD on pre-order.
With great anticipated, I loaded the DVD... and hated the first 10 minutes. You keep thinking "arrrgghh - how can they miss out "beware of the leopard'?" However. once they get onto the Heat of Gold and the story starts to diverge from the book and TV versions, it does get better.... until it suddenly enRAB.
Liked - Jim Henson's Vogons, Arthur and Trillian (the single biggest improvement over the TV version), Bill Bailey's Whale and Bill Nighy and the Magrathea factory floor
Didn't like - Marvin, Ford, Deep Thought
Overall, not as good as I'd hoped for - but better than it c I'm not sure could have been. I'm just not sure what a non-fan would have made of it.
Is there any news on if Restaurant has been comissioned?
LF
I never got around to seeing it at the cinema (couldn't persuade the lady friend to go, and I've never liked going by myself) but I had the DVD on pre-order.
With great anticipated, I loaded the DVD... and hated the first 10 minutes. You keep thinking "arrrgghh - how can they miss out "beware of the leopard'?" However. once they get onto the Heat of Gold and the story starts to diverge from the book and TV versions, it does get better.... until it suddenly enRAB.
Liked - Jim Henson's Vogons, Arthur and Trillian (the single biggest improvement over the TV version), Bill Bailey's Whale and Bill Nighy and the Magrathea factory floor
Didn't like - Marvin, Ford, Deep Thought
Overall, not as good as I'd hoped for - but better than it c I'm not sure could have been. I'm just not sure what a non-fan would have made of it.
Is there any news on if Restaurant has been comissioned?
LF
Kelly Belly! :DD
New member
Watching it for a second time, on DVD, I liked it even more than the first time (which I quite enjoyed - see post #48). There are some subtle funnies that you miss in the cinema or first time round - such as Arthur Dent doing a double-take as he passes the TV version of Marvin in the queue, for example, or the fact that the Heart of Gold poignantly turns into Douglas Adams' face in its last transistion in the last scene. And while there weren't quite so many deleted scenes as I had hoped for (it would have been nice to see, for instance, Martin Freeman's and Steve 'League of Gentlemen' Pemberton's take on the "had to go down to the basement" sketch), it is still worth a second (and more) viewing.
Each incarnation has been tailor made for its medium. The radio series was perfect radio: lots of quick, snappy dialogue; witty one-liners and conversations; and no real plot other than to loosely tie the jokes together. The book was perfect bookage: detailed narrative; lots of "thoughts" that would be difficult to convey on radio or TV. The TV series was ideal for TV: almost documentary-like in its evolvement, with The Guide acting as the narrator, tieing episodes together into a series.
And, with this in mind, the film is ideal for film: quick paced; pretty; visually humourous; and a love story to boot. Perfect! Good casting, too - Martin Freeman was inspired, as was Sam Rockwell. Alan Rickman sounded great at Marvin, and as for Zooey Deschanel as Trillian - perfectly cast as the not-too-stunning but still gorgeous love interest for the plain Dent. Brilliant.
And if all that isn't good enough, the 'in jokes' and homage - like the old Marvin, the use of Simon Jones, etc. - keep us fans happy too.
I can't see what the problem is.
Each incarnation has been tailor made for its medium. The radio series was perfect radio: lots of quick, snappy dialogue; witty one-liners and conversations; and no real plot other than to loosely tie the jokes together. The book was perfect bookage: detailed narrative; lots of "thoughts" that would be difficult to convey on radio or TV. The TV series was ideal for TV: almost documentary-like in its evolvement, with The Guide acting as the narrator, tieing episodes together into a series.
And, with this in mind, the film is ideal for film: quick paced; pretty; visually humourous; and a love story to boot. Perfect! Good casting, too - Martin Freeman was inspired, as was Sam Rockwell. Alan Rickman sounded great at Marvin, and as for Zooey Deschanel as Trillian - perfectly cast as the not-too-stunning but still gorgeous love interest for the plain Dent. Brilliant.
And if all that isn't good enough, the 'in jokes' and homage - like the old Marvin, the use of Simon Jones, etc. - keep us fans happy too.
I can't see what the problem is.
I liked it, I really liked it and so do most people i know. Yet every post i see on the internet about it slags it off (except for one or two above). I guess the problem is the fans dont like it, but it's a good film, so non-fans enjoy the movie and aren't fussed about it in comparison to the original.