Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy
- Thread starter jolligan
- Start date
Kenny Milkensen
New member
No
No
Badly
No
Badly
OrelHershiserIV
New member
Care to elaborate?
jbelljarnet
New member
I liked it!!! But I've only ever seen the film so....
I'm a massive fan and I loved it. I think too many people were looking for a literal translation of the books and/or radio series and/or TV series, but he instead took the concept and the medium and went in a completely different direction.
When Douglas Adams tenRAB to write for a medium, so the radio shows were rich in sound, the books were rich in language and the film is rich in visuals. The film is what he wanted, a big Hollywood film.
When Douglas Adams tenRAB to write for a medium, so the radio shows were rich in sound, the books were rich in language and the film is rich in visuals. The film is what he wanted, a big Hollywood film.
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.
*~m3g*@n~*
New member
TBH only the original radio series is any good. Each re-interpretation through books, TV and now film has been worse than what went before. A bit like a french polisher not knowing when to stop and rubbing his way through to the chipboard underneath.
Rohit.fire
New member
It was terrible. Don't waste your money on it. The 80s series is the better choice.
Histeria, totally agree with you. It remains the only film I've seen at the cinema I was willing to walk out of ( although didn't because my other half wanted to see it ). Unfunny, tired, pedestrian, pointless ( what the f*ck was John Malkovich's character all about? ) and a massive waste of time. Freeman was well cast but the film must rate as one of the biggest disappointments in UK film history. The TV series was immeasurably better.
delaneyy !_!
New member
Histeria's 100% correct on this. The first ten minutes or so were quite enjoyable and there was some reasonable casting (Martin Freeman was a good choice, it's just a shame with what they did to his character, Bill Nighy was a good choice for Slatey Bartfast and Stephen Fry as the Guide was great).
You'd have thought Alan Rickman would be inspired casting as "Paranoid Android" Marvin, sadly his delivery was on par with Royal Mail.
Obviously the books are your best option (apart from Mostly Harmless which is a massive bag of...). If you can't be bothered to read it then grab the 80's mini-series. Highy recommended (ok so the F/X, sets and general production are all a tad horrible *especially for this day and age* but it's highly enjoyable none the less).
You'd have thought Alan Rickman would be inspired casting as "Paranoid Android" Marvin, sadly his delivery was on par with Royal Mail.
Obviously the books are your best option (apart from Mostly Harmless which is a massive bag of...). If you can't be bothered to read it then grab the 80's mini-series. Highy recommended (ok so the F/X, sets and general production are all a tad horrible *especially for this day and age* but it's highly enjoyable none the less).
ChiC_pArIsIEnnE
New member
I really really enjoyed this film.
Hadn't read the books and didnt like the tv series much but I thought the film was excellent.
I certainly think I'm in the minority though!
Hadn't read the books and didnt like the tv series much but I thought the film was excellent.
I certainly think I'm in the minority though!
Paul_in_Steeltown
New member
THHGTTG was at its' best in its' original format (radio) then 2nd incarnation (book) the TV.
I haven't and will not see the film.
A friend of mine who is a big fan (prefers the book which he came to first) saw the film and warned me off it.
I was already worried when I heard how rong they got Marvin and that they'd given Zaphod social motivation (Zaphod is motivated by his ego - itself enough to run a small planet for a decade).
I haven't and will not see the film.
A friend of mine who is a big fan (prefers the book which he came to first) saw the film and warned me off it.
I was already worried when I heard how rong they got Marvin and that they'd given Zaphod social motivation (Zaphod is motivated by his ego - itself enough to run a small planet for a decade).
Footprints in the Sand
New member
Awful, awful, awful.
The books are fantastic, even the 80s series was quite good, but the film is just horrendous.
The books are fantastic, even the 80s series was quite good, but the film is just horrendous.