The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

I think Kombat Womat (love the name) was being a little sarcastic as since the original poster wrote Bill Bailey played Slartibartfast instead of Bill Nighy.

And yes, it was more faithful to the book with the exception of the trip to Vogsphere and the ending, but it must remembered that every incarnation of Hitchhkers Guide contradicts each other, the is no definitive plot.

Douglas Adams did what he's always done when writing a new version, he took the basic elements, mixed them up, added some new stuff and tailored it towarRAB it's intended medium.
 
The books have always been a poor reincarnation of the one true HHG on radio. And the TV series a sorry depiction of the books. Burn the heretics.
 
kombat wombat said:
It was really baffling coming out of the cinema because I wasn't quite sure what I had seen. Was this really Hitchhikers Guide?

It's kind of sad really, how the film company has taken a piece of genius, and turned it into something almost, if not entirely, different. Perhaps they have the movie equivalent of the Heart of Gold's Tea maker!

Thank heavens no-one will try to do a remake anytime soon, or we might get HHGTTG the musical, or HHGTTG in mime, or ...? Now I'm scared I might have given Disney ideas :( .
Click to expand...
 
Haven't seen the film (and judging by most of the comments here I don't think I will either!) so couldn't comment on that, but in the books the Restaurant was definitely on Magrathea and Marvin was definitely left behind and ended up as a spaceport attendant.
 
It seems the orange/star wars ad is universally better than the film! Oh the irony....


You hit the nail on the head there. I did the same, it occured to me about halfway through.

Was she intensely annoying or was it just me?
 
Yeah I was... sorry. :D

Yeah, the first 3rd of the film was quite faithful to the book (if you ignor that fact that all the best lines were cut) the rest was throw away rubbish that should never have seen the light of day.

I've said it before, this film could not get made when DA was alive... Disney have butchered this and dumbed it right down, but in doing so have made it more confussing and pretty unwatchable.

Also that the actress that played trillian should learn to speak rather than mumble.

Ok... that's my bitch for the day... time to get a brew ;)
 
To be honest, I don't care whether the film was faithful to what Adams wanted or not, the film was awful on its own merits. If this was Adams' idea, then that's his problem not ours. Still, I tend to believe that once Adams had died, it allowed Disney to divert itself away from what it saw as a film with only nerd appeal to one that they thought would appeal to a general audience (ie, dumbed down stuff). Nevertheless, whether this film was Adams' vision or not, it doesn't excuse rubbish. Rubbish is rubbish.
 
I'm sorry but this film is really bugging me. It's now 2 weeks since I saw it and and it is still bothering me. What is really annoying me is that I know the potential this film had. If it had been made right it would have remained at the top of the Movie Charts for weeks. But as most people on this thread seem to agree, it has failed to meet it's potential.

Each version of Hitchhikers to date, all be it that the story threaRAB might vary, still retain DA's skewed and hilarious humour. It's the humour that make HHGTTG so appealing. This version suceeRAB in hiding that humour!

What is really bothering me is that peoples perception of this work is formed on their first encounter. I feel sorry for all those people for whom this film is their first encounter. They will be leaving the cinema wondering what all the fuss has been about all this time. And I doubt that they will venture on to read the books or even listen to the Radio shows.

And the biggest irritaion of all is that the Movie Company has obviously dumbed the down the content and added all the (admittedly superb) special effects to appeal to a broader audience - and it seems to have worked! I have read some US reviews from non-movie critic sources (Space.com being one) and they loved the film!!

What the...? Does that mean that all this rant is for nothing? Am I wrong?

Oh well what do I know? I'm off to stick my head in a bucket of water!!
 
SHe was a tad on the grating side.

I recognised her, but could not place her, so I popped over to IMDb and found her

http://uk.imdb.com/name/nm0221046/

Now the only thing I have seen her in was Frasier.

Big star then!

Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that she is American, but Sandra Dickinson is aswell (Trillian from the original BBC TV Series) so why does that make a difference? Or did Sandra play her with an English accent?

JC
 
"Would you like me to go stick me head in a bucket of water?".

Class.

As people pointed out, and adding to my disquiet about the complete failure of a movie (I don't mind change, I do mind 'not funny'), is that the Restaurant at the End of the Universe is at the end of TIME, not the PHYSICAL end (it is indeed on what was Magrathea). I suspect the filmmakers omitted to actually read the second book, watch the TV show or listen to the radio show, since if they do make a sequel (shudder) it's going to cause some real problems to get out of.
 
Reading the comments on this thread and elsewhere just highlights the fact that this film was never going to please everyone. Some say it went on for too long, some say it was too short and too much was cut. Some say it was 'dumbed down' too much in order to make it accessible, some say it was too alienating for both fans and non-fans alike. There should have been more of the book, there was too much of the book...

For my two-pence worth, I really enjoyed this film, though my girlfriend (who has never read, heard or seen any of the other versions) did not. Yes, it was different from the radio play/book/TV series, each incarnation is different. The John Malcovich scene was handy to give the film a bit of a plot (otherwise it really would blow the minRAB of non-fans!), and does it really matter that it wasn't tied up? Would it have made the film better had the gang returned, given the gun, and Kavula says "cheers guys"? I don't think it would. I enjoyed the twist that held Beeblebrox responsible for that key event in the film.

I enjoyed the slapstick comedy. For me, Hitchhiker's Guide has always been a clever, witty, humourous tale but has never really made me laugh out loud. I have to say the film did make me laugh out loud, on quite a few occasions. And the CG scenes with Slartibartfast were absolutely stunning - worth waiting to be able to do it properly.

Overall I think the film is trying to please as many as possible, and in doing so has pissed off quite a few. That doesn't make it a bad film; simply that HHGTTG fans have high expectations!
 
Back
Top