Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Movie [Archive]

Pansa

02-16-2005, 10:29 PM

Paroxysm said:
Zaphods hidden head is part of the plot and a invention by douglas himself. Frankly the head on his shoulder was only used for one joke in the book anyway (pretnding it's a parrot). It also works with zaphos bipolar nature. His second head contains all the most extreme plarts of his brain. NO president is allowed to operate with a full brain so his is split between two heads.

Don't think the movie is only made because douglas is dead. The vast majoirty of the script is douglas. Some of the casting is douglas. He'd been working with people on the film for a very long time. Infact the most hollywood thing in the script (ford and trillians romance) is by douglas, so we can't even blame em for that :P The crew has shown alot of respect and seems to have done douglas' wishes for the film right so far.

yeah i read up on the selfinterview of the screenwriter , ..

but i have some doubts ..

i mean , the interview itsellf schows prospect , and i DO believe that some major changes were by adams himself,
but seriously .. the aspired director beeing involved with austin powers , and the screenwriter of " Honey We Shrunk Ourselves" and chicken run , the only aardman film i DONT adore....

it renders the whole selfinterview sensless , just compairing it with the steve jackson interviews about lotr ... i mean , the movies may be great , but they dont live up to what he self described it in the interviews..

well link to the self interview about hhgttg: http://hitchhikers.movies.go.com/hitchblog/interview.htm

Paroxysm

02-16-2005, 11:38 PM

Pansa said:
yeah i read up on the selfinterview of the screenwriter , ..

but i have some doubts ..

i mean , the interview itsellf schows prospect , and i DO believe that some major changes were by adams himself,
but seriously .. the aspired director beeing involved with austin powers , and the screenwriter of " Honey We Shrunk Ourselves" and chicken run , the only aardman film i DONT adore....

it renders the whole selfinterview sensless , just compairing it with the steve jackson interviews about lotr ... i mean , the movies may be great , but they dont live up to what he self described it in the interviews..

well link to the self interview about hhgttg: http://hitchhikers.movies.go.com/hitchblog/interview.htm

My source isn't the screenwriter. Countless crew members, spies, extras , preview audiences and those that have been involved with the script before the current screenwriter was even attached. Wether it'll be exactly what we want or not, dunno yet. I see no reason to consider that the film is only being made now because they could get away with it now Adams is dead.

PS: Who the hell is Steve Jackson? Do you mean Peter? I think he delivered exactly what he promised.

Dukefan

02-17-2005, 12:16 AM

Considering that I just finished reading Hitchiker's Guide a few hours ago (and have yet to start on Restaurant at the End of the Universe), my impresson of the trailer is that the film seem to keep a lot of book's humor, and anyway, I'm hardly qualified to discuss how faithful it is to Adams. But the trailer has a very definite "big budget action romp through space" feel to it; it gives the impression that the whole film is about our heroes getting thrown into mortal peril frequently and needing to rescue themselves (in comedic fashion), which doesn't seem to me like what the book was about. (But maybe the later books have plenty of dangerous and thrilling situations with fantastic action pieces that translate easily to film. Seems awfully Hollywood to me, though.)

And I couldn't help but notice that the music in the last few seconds in the trailer is Danny Elfman's theme from "Men in Black." Maybe it's just me, but I think that theme is darker and a bit more ominous than what HHG's tone is.

Mountain Man

02-17-2005, 07:54 AM

There's some debate about how much of the script really belongs to Adams. The reason this film was in pre-production limbo for so long was because there was a lot of contention between Adams and the producers about the script. After both parties had made concessions, Adams came up with a workable--from a story standpoint--script that he was happy with. Then he died, leaving the producers without a shooting script, so they brought in the second writer to go over Adams' notes and come up with a shooting script. How much the final shooting script matches Adams' vision will never be known.

Really, the film could go either way with me at this point. I have a feeling this will be one that fans of the series will either love or hate. I agree with Dukefan that it doesn't appear it will have the same intimate charm as the other versions of the story (radio, books, TV series).

Marty

02-17-2005, 07:59 AM

looks nice. cant say much more at this stage that hasnt already been said

Pansa

02-17-2005, 08:22 AM

Paroxysm said:
PS: Who the hell is Steve Jackson? Do you mean Peter? I think he delivered exactly what he promised.

yeah, been playing to much munchkin lately .

what still bothers me a bit , are THOSE minor changes , which dont change alot except that they are changes ..

eg , the vogon ships being grayish/blackish..
it doesnt give a benefit to make them not yellow.
this may look like nitpicking , but i think those "unnescessary" changes are , what bother me right now ..

and just when i dealt with the ford prefect issue.. they are showing me zaphod... im realy not shure about this second head thingy..

supermeerkat

02-17-2005, 09:42 AM

Paroxysm said:

Nessus said:
^ Yeah if the BBC version could have zphod with 2 heads I dont see why Hollywood couldnt pull it off, I dont like him with one head.

You really liked the paper mache head?

I did. It was what part of what gave the BBC TV series its charm: a really cheerful, low budget, self depracating sought of feeling that captured the spirit of the books.

Kronx

02-17-2005, 10:05 AM

I did. It was what part of what gave the BBC TV series its charm: a really cheerful, low budget, self depracating sought of feeling that captured the spirit of the books.

That's great and all, but I'm not paying $20+ to go see a movie with my wife and watch a guy with a paper mache head on his shoulder.

Honestly, I was expecting something a bit more along the lines of Men in Black II. But I'm not going to blast the movie's version until I see it myself.

Mountain Man

02-17-2005, 11:02 AM

Thing is, with today's special effects technology, they could have easily given us a convincing two-headed Zaphod. Putting the second head under his chin and making it a plot point seems unnecessary.

supermeerkat

02-17-2005, 11:05 AM

Kronx said:
That's great and all, but I'm not paying $20+ to go see a movie with my wife and watch a guy with a paper mache head on his shoulder.

Honestly, I was expecting something a bit more along the lines of Men in Black II. But I'm not going to blast the movie's version until I see it myself.

Special effects aren't everything. Whatever happened to suspension of disbelief when you see a movie? There was a time when special effects were not very good, but the films were still entertaining, and the sight of a paper mache head, stop motion taun-taun, badly comped space ship etc didn't ruin the film, because people wanted to be entertained.

someguy2435

02-17-2005, 08:39 PM

Dukefan said:
And I couldn't help but notice that the music in the last few seconds in the trailer is Danny Elfman's theme from "Men in Black." Maybe it's just me, but I think that theme is darker and a bit more ominous than what HHG's tone is.

the actually score is not done yet; that music is just placeholder

Nessus

02-17-2005, 09:51 PM

The doing away with the 2 heads for zaphod bothers me. It was an important visual while you were reading and even though it was cheesy it still worked in the BBC version. I think I just dont like the attitude of, " We have one of the greatest and most original stories ever written here, lets change it!"

Just film the damm book.

Pansa

02-17-2005, 10:01 PM

Dukefan

02-17-2005, 10:02 PM

someguy2435 said:

Dukefan said:
And I couldn't help but notice that the music in the last few seconds in the trailer is Danny Elfman's theme from "Men in Black." Maybe it's just me, but I think that theme is darker and a bit more ominous than what HHG's tone is.

the actually score is not done yet; that music is just placeholder

I know; the music in movie trailers is almost always taken from older scores or trailer music houses. But the editors of the trailer (who may or may not wish to represent the film accurately) saw fit to use Elfman's music, which is darker than I would have expected for HHG.

Dukefan

02-17-2005, 10:07 PM

Nessus said:
The doing away with the 2 heads for zaphod bothers me. It was an important visual while you were reading and even though it was cheesy it still worked in the BBC version. I think I just dont like the attitude of, " We have one of the greatest and most original stories ever written here, lets change it!"

Just film the damm book.

I read somewhere else that the two-heads thing was nothing more than a throwaway gag in the original radio play (the very first incarnation of HHG, remember), but to maintain some consistency, Adams brought it over to every other medium, even though it was never really necessary except for the occasional joke.

I just finished the book yesterday. I honestly don't remember many moments where the two-heads were even mentioned, much less were important in any way.

And if you think they should just "film the damn book," you try writing a screenplay. And please remember how much of the book's humor is told through a narrator who has no qualms about stopping the current story to launch into a tangent in another time or dimension.

Not to mention the fact that I have no earthly idea how they would go about filming a superintelligent shade of the color blue.

Eddy Willson

02-18-2005, 06:04 AM

In the 3rd book, Life, the Universe and Everything, it says that :

'One head was crushed between teo pillows, trying to get some sleep, whilst the other stayed up doing crosswords late into the night'

(Appologies for missquotation, thats my memory for ya)

There are also many other references to him having 2 heads, thats the only one I remember at the mo...

hellchicken

02-18-2005, 07:39 AM

I've never read the books, only saw the BBC show, but I'm really looking forward to this, looks fun and entertaining from the trailer.

ADM

02-19-2005, 05:34 AM

That looks good http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif I would like to read the books before I see this though.. so which pack is better to get via Amazon?

I want the one with all of the books and well the best one to get.

Tedski

02-19-2005, 05:49 AM

ADoomedMarine said:
That looks good http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif I would like to read the books before I see this though.. so which pack is better to get via Amazon?

I want the one with all of the books and well the best one to get.

If it was me I would buy one of the versions that has all the parts in it in one go i.e. one volume. Then it would be a case of hardback or paperback. Trust me - get the Hardback version because you will read it more than once http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

ADM

02-19-2005, 05:52 AM

Yeah I was going to get the all-in-one one.. but is there different versions of the volumes? Like something which contains more to read or a special edition or something?

Dr.Dude

02-19-2005, 11:46 AM

Love the trailer. I was a little worried about this movie, but if the trailer's any indication it's looking great---can't wait for this movie to come out! http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/thumbsup.gif

And those Vogons are awesome. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Tedski

02-19-2005, 02:49 PM

ADoomedMarine said:
Yeah I was going to get the all-in-one one.. but is there different versions of the volumes? Like something which contains more to read or a special edition or something?

I would think that the latest edition of it should suffice. I doubt that there's anything extra to be had other than the last revision.

ADM

02-19-2005, 03:07 PM

Cool I'll look into it.. how many books are there?

Eddy Willson

02-19-2005, 04:04 PM

ADoomedMarine said:
Cool I'll look into it.. how many books are there?

Five, although you would be fine just reading the first 3. The other 2 were more 'extras' if you like, thus the trilogy of five http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Tedski

02-19-2005, 05:28 PM

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0517149257/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-5493536-1316910#reader-link
looks like it'll have the right stuff in it.

someguy2435

02-19-2005, 06:29 PM

the first 3 books are the best, but number 4 and 5 are definitely worth reading

anyone notice Arthur likes to read a little Kurt Vonnegut?

Mediocre, Man.

02-20-2005, 12:17 AM

The new trailer has been posted on the official site if anyone would like to see it in fully-fledged glory...

On a side not, not sure whether this is in the book (haven't read them), but when Arthur hits the alarm clock, you can see his name badge for work and it appears that he works for the BBC... heh.

someguy2435

02-20-2005, 12:19 PM

Mediocre, Man. said:
On a side not, not sure whether this is in the book (haven't read them), but when Arthur hits the alarm clock, you can see his name badge for work and it appears that he works for the BBC... heh.

Yeah, Arthur works for the BBC. I believe it was mentioned in the 4th book.

Mediocre, Man.

03-01-2005, 05:16 PM

Has anyone seen the web exclusive trailer on UGO?

I believe it's still up :

http://www.ugo.com

It's freakin' hiliarious!

Pansa

03-01-2005, 05:45 PM

Mediocre, Man. said:
Has anyone seen the web exclusive trailer on UGO?

I believe it's still up :

http://www.ugo.com

It's freakin' hiliarious!

ok , if the movie AT ALL resembles anything like this trailer , im sold...

is this the radioshow voice ?
if not , they found a quite working replacement

LeadBullet

03-01-2005, 06:16 PM

Is there a direct link to download the file rather than stream it in a popup box?

Paroxysm

03-01-2005, 07:33 PM

http://home.gotland.com/wisby/internettrailer.avi

direct link.

http://img215.exs.cx/img215/2694/hhg1em.jpg

Quicktime was supposed to be out by monday. But no luck as of yet.

is this the radioshow voice ?
if not , they found a quite working replacement

The great Peter Jones is unfortunately dead. Stephen Fry is the voice for the movie. He was a close personal friend of Douglas and a great talent. He does a good job http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
(actualyl Stephen Fry reads alot of audiobooks, so it's even his field! http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif )

Mountain Man

03-02-2005, 09:19 AM

Unfortunately, Peter Jones is one of those great, irreplacable talents. I simply can't convince myself that Steven Fry is any where near as good. Don't get me wrong, he does an adequate job, but he is no Peter Jones.

As for the trailer, I did laugh when Zaphod fell a considerable distance, landed flat on his face, then immediately jumped to his feet while exclaiming, "Far out!" And while Alan Rickman doesn't sound anything like Stephen Moore, his take on Marvin actually works quite well (incidentally, I wonder why they didn't use Moore?).

I really want this movie to be good, but my optimism remains cautious.

Pansa

03-02-2005, 10:32 AM

Mountain Man said:
Unfortunately, Peter Jones is one of those great, irreplacable talents. I simply can't convince myself that Steven Fry is any where near as good. Don't get me wrong, he does an adequate job, but he is no Peter Jones.

As for the trailer, I did laugh when Zaphod fell a considerable distance, landed flat on his face, then immediately jumped to his feet while exclaiming, "Far out!" And while Alan Rickman doesn't sound anything like Stephen Moore, his take on Marvin actually works quite well (incidentally, I wonder why they didn't use Moore?).

I really want this movie to be good, but my optimism remains cautious.

well i think the trailervoiceover sounds quite like the one in the new radioseries..

the last trailer didnt go to well with me , but this one is realy great..

im even begining to like zaphod .. (stupid head thing taken aside)

edit[ marvin sounds like Douglas reading it ..]

Mountain Man

03-02-2005, 11:30 AM

Pansa said:
well i think the trailervoiceover sounds quite like the one in the new radioseries..

Simon Jones is still tops in my opinion. The new voice talent is too jovial and lacks Jones' humorously sardonic delivery.

edit[ marvin sounds like Douglas reading it ..]

According to IMDb.com, it's Alan Rickman.

Pansa

03-02-2005, 12:00 PM

Mountain Man said:

edit[ marvin sounds like Douglas reading it ..]

According to IMDb.com, it's Alan Rickman.

thx , if it wasnt for you , id still think they shocked Adams back to life....

edit:

actually both the new and the old series credit PETER jones as the book...

Mountain Man

03-02-2005, 03:11 PM

Yes, it is Peter Jones (as I correctly noted two posts above). However, this a Simon Jones also associated with the radio series, and I often mistakenly transpose the first names.

supermeerkat

03-02-2005, 06:00 PM

Pansa said:
Actually both the new and the old series credit PETER jones as the book...

Peter jones was only credited on the first episode of the Tertiary phase of H2G2, but William Franklyn was credited for all six episodes. After a few more listens to the new series, William Franklyn is really starting to grow on me.

On a side note, I saw Peter Jones' last public performance, at the recording of a BBC radio show called "Just a Minute". He was clearly senile and didn't know what was going on, and whenever it was his turn to speak everyone wildly clapped and cheered. The british public love Peter Jones, he was such a great actor and performer.

Paroxysm

03-03-2005, 02:05 AM

Mountain Man said:
As for the trailer, I did laugh when Zaphod fell a considerable distance, landed flat on his face, then immediately jumped to his feet while exclaiming, "Far out!"

I would say "Far out" is actually an audio Sample from elsewhere in the movie. It's just plonked on top with no real mix.

someguy2435

04-07-2005, 07:57 PM

He says it quite a few times in the trailer(s), so I don't know.
The official UK site (sorry if already posted), with a new alternate trailer:

http://hitchhikersmovie.co.uk

The ending is a lot better, the Vogons look different, and everything except the first 10-15 seconds is new material. So, the movie's release date is drawing closer. Do any of you have specific plans? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hhg.gif

(Didn't want to start a new thread, so instead I'm posting in a previously existing one)

Nacho

04-07-2005, 09:10 PM

Awesome site with secrets and stuff. Oh and I'm seeing it the day it comes out.

NutWrench

04-10-2005, 04:00 PM

Here's a review I found. Doesn't look too good . . .

http://www.planetmagrathea.com/shortreview.html

someguy2435

04-10-2005, 04:13 PM

It really seems like those people expected far too much. And the last point on "Things that aren't featured in the movie", a lot of that stuff isn't mentioned until Book 2.

Two more (positive) reviews
http://www.empireonline.co.uk/site/incinemas/ReviewInFull.asp?FID=9807
http://h2g2movie.com/pages/review.html

Pansa

04-10-2005, 05:27 PM

funny thing is , i cant understand what they are expecting ...

more of the radio series , more of the tv series , more of the books ?

im pretty used to the idea that this movie will not be what i expect from reading the book , mainly , because no interpretation was the same to begin with...

but what i find funny is , that this "descrapancy" also counts for the trailers to this movie ..

the sneak was fun ... the first "trailer" was totaly of imho .. but the last one did it for me ..
as long as they grab the humour in the movie like they did with the "movie trailers are " trailer .. this is going to be just fine

someguy2435

04-14-2005, 06:16 PM

http://movies.channel.aol.com/franchise/firstlook.adp

actual movie footage (dialogue, etc)
have fun http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hhg.gif

Paroxysm

04-15-2005, 03:44 AM

My ticket and towel http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

http://img221.echo.cx/img221/1593/hitch9bj.jpg

Mediocre, Man.

04-15-2005, 04:11 AM

someguy2435 said:
http://movies.channel.aol.com/franchise/firstlook.adp

actual movie footage (dialogue, etc)
have fun http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hhg.gif

Hey, thanks! That was pretty cool http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
_____

Paroxysm, I'm pretty sure AMC blows. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif Atleast the one where I used to live did. Sound would cut out for minutes at a time, you could HEAR the old projectors. Hah, good times. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/doh.gif

Paroxysm

04-15-2005, 05:09 AM

Nah AMC arround here kicks the bigger cinemas arse. better screen, seats, prices and not full of jerks. Only place better is the old Imax although it has shit seats.

Mediocre, Man.

04-15-2005, 06:27 AM

So the towel deal is AMC exclusive?

Mountain Man

04-15-2005, 08:44 AM

NutWrench

04-15-2005, 09:16 AM

It seems to me that the people producing this mess just don't understand WHY Douglas Adams writing is funny or they wouldn't have cut down dialogue scenes like this:

"I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the Display Department."
"With a torch."
"The lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But you found the plans, didn't you?"
"Oh yes, they were 'on display' in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the leopard.'"

Which, in the movie has been reduced to THIS:

"I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"But you found the plans, didn't you?"

The reason why Adam's humour works is because he starts with ordinary situations and takes them to ridiculous extremes. In the example above, all of the humour has been stripped away. A hard-to-find government document is NOT funny. In fact, that's what most of us call "real life."

Now a document locked in the bottom of a filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the leopard.'? Now THAT'S freakin hilarious. That's the difference, which these producers don't understand.

BioHazard

04-15-2005, 11:21 AM

NutWrench said:
A hard-to-find government document is NOT funny. In fact, that's what most of us call "real life."

Actually, I find that quite funny. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

It all depends on the context. My opinion is that if you don't go into the film expecting something that faithfully resembles the book then you might have a chance of enjoying it.

Pansa

04-15-2005, 01:24 PM

NutWrench said:
It seems to me that the people producing this mess just don't understand WHY Douglas Adams writing is funny or they wouldn't have cut down dialogue scenes like this:

"I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the Display Department."
"With a torch."
"The lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But you found the plans, didn't you?"
"Oh yes, they were 'on display' in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the leopard.'"

Which, in the movie has been reduced to THIS:

"I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"But you found the plans, didn't you?"

The reason why Adam's humour works is because he starts with ordinary situations and takes them to ridiculous extremes. In the example above, all of the humour has been stripped away. A hard-to-find government document is NOT funny. In fact, that's what most of us call "real life."

Now a document locked in the bottom of a filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the leopard.'? Now THAT'S freakin hilarious. That's the difference, which these producers don't understand.

i said it once , and will say it several times..

without having seen the "script" which adams wrote himselff , or better the PARTS of a script he wrote himself , which , accounting to the screenplaywriter was very explicit about changes itself ,
we will NEVER know which part of those changes are adams work , and which are later changes...

i actually tried the cellar line myself on the guy who told me that the date for inscribing to a course at my uni was on the blackboard (which funny enough was 2 weeks before ANYONE could know if they failed or passed the prerequested test) he didnt get it ...
mind you that was the physics department...

Paroxysm

04-15-2005, 04:41 PM

Mediocre, Man. said:
So the towel deal is AMC exclusive?

Nope. it's a promotion from the distributor. So ustralia wide, all cinemas showing the film.

someguy2435

04-15-2005, 06:39 PM

Paroxysm said:
My ticket and towel http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

http://img221.echo.cx/img221/1593/hitch9bj.jpg

I bloody hate you. So very very much.

Jeff

04-29-2005, 01:20 AM

Watched the trailer. Looks good. However, I'd still like to see the film. Or read what others thought of it before I go to see it. Don't want to spend $15 and not like it.

However, I hear it's like Futurama, with the sci-fi/comedy sort of thing. If it's got that, then it's definately worth seeing.

someguy2435

04-29-2005, 05:18 AM

YES! OPENING DAY!
\o/

Gonna see it tonite! Oh yeah!
*pelvic thrusts*

supermeerkat

04-29-2005, 05:58 AM

jeffbthomson said:
However, I hear it's like Futurama, with the sci-fi/comedy sort of thing. If it's got that, then it's definately worth seeing.

Sorry to be a pendant, but Futurama is like the HitchHikers Guide to the galaxy with the sci-fi/comedy sort of thing.

Vroomfondel

04-29-2005, 06:29 AM

So has anyone seen it yet? I want to know how it is! It's only comming out on 10 June over here http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Paroxysm

04-29-2005, 06:47 AM

Seen it twice so far. Shows alot of respect for the source material, great cast, good fun. Biggest problem is just that they try to do so much in one movie. Very much worth it.

Jeff

04-29-2005, 12:07 PM

supermeerkat said:
Sorry to be a pendant, but Futurama is like the HitchHikers Guide to the galaxy with the sci-fi/comedy sort of thing.

Oh that's right. It came out long before Futurama. My mistake. Well I should enjoy it then. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

IwantMORE

04-29-2005, 05:31 PM

Just saw the movie it rocks http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Opus131

04-29-2005, 06:34 PM

Glad to hear people liked it, i was worried about this one. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Opus131

04-29-2005, 06:37 PM

Paroxysm said:
My ticket and towel http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

http://img221.echo.cx/img221/1593/hitch9bj.jpg

Blast that, i'll be bringing my very own towel http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Mountain Man

04-29-2005, 10:20 PM

Opus131 said:
Glad to hear people liked it, i was worried about this one. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I'm still skeptical myself. It would be interesting to know what the general viewer thinks versus Hitchhiker/Douglas Adams fans.

Paroxysm

04-29-2005, 10:27 PM

Opus131 said:

Blast that, i'll be bringing my very own towel http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

We wore bathrobes http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif *outgeek'd"*

Jeff

04-29-2005, 10:47 PM

You guys would have to start a cult or something. Like those LOTR or Star Wars fans.

Anyways, on my last day off before heading back to work Sunday evening, I'm gonna go see the movie tomorrow.

someguy2435

04-30-2005, 05:22 AM

I just saw The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxylast night. The following review contains spoilers, and you've been warned. If you're reading this, you're either a dolt and didn't notice the spoiler alert and will proceed with reading this and then blaming me, or you actually care about my opinion. The really really spoiler stuff are contained in spoiler tags.

SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11one

To start off, I thought it was a wonderfully funny movie. Not the train-wreck everyone predicted it to be, but not exactly the greatest film of all time. The plot (or at least the beginnings) is incredibly familiar, but, if you've paid attention, the entire Hitch Hiker's storyline tends to go off on its own in each rendition after the demolition of Earth.

After Earth turns to dust, the plot doesn't really focus on Zaphod finding Magrathea for treasure; instead, he <table><tr><th><font size="-1">Spoiler below:</font></th></tr><tr><td class="spoiler"> wants to find the Ultimate Question to the Ultimate Answer (42)</td></tr></table>, which is quite the deviation from past incarnations. On their way they get <table><tr><th><font size="-1">Spoiler below:</font></th></tr><tr><td class="spoiler">attacked by some sort of Vogon police force</td></tr></table> and they end up on <table><tr><th><font size="-1">Spoiler below:</font></th></tr><tr><td class="spoiler">Viltvodle Six </td></tr></table>and we are introduced to John Malkovich's character, the religious cult leader. He convinces them to <table><tr><th><font size="-1">Spoiler below:</font></th></tr><tr><td class="spoiler">go to Magreathea to get him the point of view gun while they search for the Ultimate Question.</td></tr></table>

Then the plot sort of more or less gets back on track, but it deviates a bit here and there. Some of the best jokes from the books and radio are gone, but some of the new ones are ok (but more in the low brow hahaha I made a poopy slapstick sense of humour)

Good bits:
* All the acting was very solid; particularly Mos Def as Ford
* The Vogons looked appropriately ugly and creepy
* Marvin! YAAY! \o/
* Trillian is uber sexay >_>
* The Guide entries are fantastic
* YAY for references and little in-jokes
* The classic Hitch Hiker's theme is in there!

Bad bits: (MORE SPOILERS!)
<table><tr><th><font size="-1">Spoiler below:</font></th></tr><tr><td class="spoiler">
* The little gag at the end where Marvin says "the Restaurant is at the other end of the Universe." (groan)
* The song intro So Long and Thanks for all the Fish kind of got on my nerves a bit
* The part where Arthur and Ford land on the Heart of Gold was changed http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
* Just a lot of noticeable little bits, nothing TOO major
</td></tr></table>

Summary:
A very funny (if not entirely solid or coherent) film for Hitch Hikers fans and maybe casual viewers too. Some of the random strangers in the audience enjoyed the jokes very much but were confused. The subplot involving John Malkovich's character isn't really touched upon again until the end, mentioned in a passing comment. Casual viewers may want to acquaint themselves with some of Adams' work or previous incarnations of H2G2 before seeing the movie. Hardcore fans beware; go in with an open mind and you won't be disappointed too much.

Summary of summary:
Good movie. Casual viewers read the books/watch the show first. Go with open mind. 42.

Quotes:
POSSIBLE SPOILERS HERE TOO!
<table><tr><th><font size="-1">Spoiler below:</font></th></tr><tr><td class="spoiler">

"I'm British. I know how to queue."

"Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and they ask me to bring you to the bridge. Call that job satisfaction? Coz I don't.."

"Good workmen of Earth! I bring you beer!"

"She's lying..she's skinny, pretty, and she's lying"

"Oh noes! He's got a towel!"

"Marvin, you've saved our lives!"
"Terrible isn't it..."
</td></tr></table>

I'd give it an 8.5 out of 10

Boo Boo Juice

04-30-2005, 06:44 AM

I just got back fromt he theatre a while ago.
Someguy did a pretty good review of it. I agree, I'd give it an 8.5 out of 10 as well. It was really funny and a lot of fun to watch. Check it out.

Paroxysm

04-30-2005, 08:28 AM

"bless you" was simple and awesome. Puntastic.

Joe Siegler

04-30-2005, 08:40 AM

I wrote this in another email conferecne I hang out. A friend of mine had some negative things to say without having seen it, so I wrote all this..

From what I hear, it barely resembles the original book. Most of the funny lines are gone, Zaphod's entire two-head thing was changed, and Marvin was made to be... well... cute. I don't think I will go see it.

Don't believe the hype. You're quoting from the horrible AICN review. I saw it last night.

I laughed out loud at several things. There were a few changes, yes - the Vogons do a lot more than just blow up Earth at the beginning for one. There was an entire subplot about having to go to the Vogon homeworld to rescue Trillian that wasnt' in the original book (that I remember, anyway, it's been a few years since I've read it).

I ended up really liking the dual head thing. Marvin wasn't "cute". He was just like the old Marvin, IMO.

As for "most of the funny lines" - that bit probably should read "someone's single favorite line wasn't included, so they're going to say that everything's changed". There was a lot that not included, but let's face it.

It's an hour and fourty minute movie. You can't jam three hours of TV episodes and a lot longer htan that book into 100 minutes and have EVERYTHING there, eh? I think part of the problem people will have is they will be comparing the old TV or radio perfomrances to what was on screen in the movie.

I did that myself in the beginning bit. Up until the Earth was destroyed I was going "this doesn't feel right", but I got over that - because I thought "Well, this is me thinking I'm not liking it because I liked the way what's his face did it in the TV series better".

I jettiosned that thought, and went with it - and I really liked it. It mixed in just enough of everything to make it work. The book was there - even the theme music from the radio series and the TV series made it in here, too. Stephen Fry did a great job as the book, I think. There was quite a lot of people in the audience laughing at various bits. There was a lot of laughter when the whale hit the ground. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I myself laughed at things - and a few enhancements to existing bits (won't spoil any of that, some in the spoilers below).

Bottom line - don't go into it with a closed mind, expecting not to like it, and expecting that it won't compare to the other formats, and you'll probably like it. I know the books well, know the radio series well, and know the TV series VERY well. I still liked the movie. And stay through the credits, there's an extra book entry about 2/3 of the way through the end credits.

A few direct spoilers - read these and be warned:

<table><tr><th><font size="-1">Spoiler below:</font></th></tr><tr><td class="spoiler">I got a major kick out of seeing the old Marvin robot from the TV series waiting in line on the Vogon homeworld - that was a nice throwin for fans of the old TV series.

Also at the end of the movie, when the Heart of Gold changes into a few forms, the face at the end looked to me like Douglas Adams - but it was barely on screen long enough to view (maybe a second). Anyone else see that?

I enjoyed the extra bits where they showed people lying on the ground in the pub from the beginning of the movie, and one woman putting a bag on her head just like the barkeep talked about. That was amusing.

The implementation of the actual planet construction area of Magrathea I thought was EXTREMELY well done. Looked great, and you manged to get a sense of scale, which I thought would be hard to do.

Marvin's use of the gun on the Vogons to make 'em all depressed was awesome - one of the best laugh out loud moments in the movie for me.

I didn't think Zaphod's character worked as well after they got rid of the second head (subplot with Malkovich's character). Although the joke about "a guy whose brain is run by lemons" was a good one.</td></tr></table>

Oh, one non spoiler bit. I watched a making of on this movie about a week ago, and they said there were NO CGI aliens - they were all real puppets (by the Jim Henson group). And it showed. I thought it looked better than a lot of TV shows and movies lately. Too bad more people don't do that.

The end credits mention Adams' "Starship Titanic" videogame from a few years back. Anyone catch a reference to that in the movie? I didn't see it.

Mountain Man

04-30-2005, 10:36 AM

someguy2435 said:
Some of the best jokes from the books and radio are gone, but some of the new ones are ok (but more in the low brow hahaha I made a poopy slapstick sense of humour).

This is what I'm most disappointed to hear. Adams used to labor for hours over the dialogue, mercilessly editing and rewriting it until it was as close to perfect as he could make it. That's why Hitchhiker's is so sharp, memorable, and funny!

That his brilliant wit has been replaced--at least in part--with low-brow toilet humor is a travesty.

abnormal

04-30-2005, 02:34 PM

this movie ruled.

abnormal

04-30-2005, 02:35 PM

someguy2435 said:

Paroxysm said:
My ticket and towel http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

http://img221.echo.cx/img221/1593/hitch9bj.jpg<br />

I bloody hate you. So very very much.

yeah me too, i hate u alot too.

Drizzle

04-30-2005, 02:42 PM

Although i havent read the books in over a decade and vaguely remember anything, i did enjoy the movie. My only wish was that it woulda been longer to smooth out the plot more. But its definitely a must see in the theater film.

The aliens did remind me of the ones in fifth element, and i always thought that was a great way to do them, good choice on their part.

And since this movie has come out finally there seems to be hope that a red dwarf movie would do well here in the US, if there ever is one that is...

Jeff

04-30-2005, 05:25 PM

Just got back from seeing it. Was pretty damn good. I'd say get rid of that fish song thing, and it would have been on a 8.5/10 list.

I'd give it an 8/10. Certainly going to go in my DVD shelf when the time comes. That President of the Galaxy reminds me of Zapp Brannigan from Futurama. :shivers: http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/redface.gif

Could have worked on his character a bit. Where do you find those towels? I know you can get posters around here for cheap at one of the movie poster shops.

someguy2435

04-30-2005, 05:40 PM

Does anyone have the classic Hitchhikers theme to download. I'm talking about the one from the original TV series <table><tr><th><font size="-1">Spoiler below:</font></th></tr><tr><td class="spoiler">(or the one they used to first introduce the guide in the movie)</td></tr></table>

Paroxysm

04-30-2005, 06:12 PM

Joe: The Starship Titanic credit was supposed to be for the use of the image of the planet shaped like douglas' head. I've seen it twice and haven't noticed the actual planet though and no one else I know has.

<table><tr><th><font size="-1">Spoiler below:</font></th></tr><tr><td class="spoiler">Yes you are correct Douglas is the final image of the film before the credits role.

Simon Jones (original Arthur Dent) was also featured as the Gaurdian of Magrathea. </td></tr></table>

Dukefan

05-01-2005, 12:29 AM

Just saw it, just read the book a few months ago:

Bad things:

A lot of the dialogue was unintelligible, either because the sound mix had too much other stuff (sound effects, score) going on which wasn't mixed soft enough, or because it just wasn't enunciated by the actors. Especially Ford in the first-third in the movie, I didn't understand half his lines. Yes, I know that weird accent is intentional, but that shouldn't come at the expense of being able to understand what he was saying.

Some plot points were explained way too quickly, and I think the audience might have a hard time understanding some of them. For others, the exposition was a lot longer. It felt unevenly paced.

Arthur's reaction when he landed on the Heart of Gold seemed odd to me--he launched into Jealous Boyfriend mode too quickly.

The pacing in general seemed kind of odd: it seemed like the writers were trying to avoid boring exposition at all costs by always interjecting it with something onscreen that was more exciting. Problem is, it's hard to focus on both onscreen action and narrated exposition at the same time. And anyway, a lot of Adams' exposition was pretty funny itself, so I wonder why they didn't trust the dialogue more to be both expository and funny.

And some exposition in general just wasn't done enough, or done at moments that were too chaotic.

So many funny bits taken out! Yeah yeah, that's an irrational fanboy criticism, but still, it would have only been 20 seonds more to have the exchange about the plans in the cellar, or the Babelfish disproving the existence of God, or the monkeys with the script of Hamlet! (On that note, the Infinite Improbability Generator could have done a lot more than just one wacky transformation.)

The opening bit with the dolphins was good, but I'm worried that it's too subversive for audiences unfamiliar with H2G2 to start the movie with.

Arthur never really grieved over his planet. In the book, he mentions it from time to time in that "Oh, is that all that's wrong?" tone Adams writes so perfectly, but Arthur just kind of seems to accept it.

Good things:

The Guide! Perfect voice, and great animation (it looked kind of like Flash to me, but good Flash). Too bad it pretty much disappeared in the second half.

The planet-building: That was really damn good CGI--really created an awesome sense of the sheer scope of building a whole planet. Arthur's expressions during that were really convincing too.

The Vogons: Jim Henson's Creature Shop rules! It's nice to see the Henson name finally do something worthwhile after that crappy Muppet Christmas special a few years ago. (I'm a big fan of Henson, and have really been disappointed with what the company has done since the death of Jim.)

The acting: Everyone got their chance to shine. Mos Def nailed the accent and mannerisms, Martin Freeman had the perfect face (again, watch him on the trip through the Planet-Builders. And remember that he was probably looking at nothing but bluescreen), I liked Zooey's (Trillian) poignant moment with the Point of View Gun where she keeps shooting Zaphod with it. Sam Rockwell as Zaphod...well, he was sufficiently obnoxious.

Deep Thought: Really cool design.

Miscellaneous/Questions:

Wait, so who was that woman with the Vogons? I know she was in that news clip when they introduce the Heart of Gold, but that exposition was done way too quickly--I didn't even get it. And they never properly explained that the Heart of Gold was the spaceship.

So what's the point of the Point of View Gun? Come to think of it, what's the point of the new religious leader character? I know he was Adams' creation, but I don't really get what Adams' point with that character was. Why did he want the gun, and how come they never go back to give it to him?

I might be confusing the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast (which they were about to feed Trillian to) with something else: isn't that the creature that's so stupid it thinks if you can't see it, it can't see you, so all you have to do is put a towel over your own head?

Joe Siegler

05-01-2005, 01:02 AM

Wait, so who was that woman with the Vogons? I know she was in that news clip when they introduce the Heart of Gold, but that exposition was done way too quickly--I didn't even get it. And they never properly explained that the Heart of Gold was the spaceship.

I thought it was Beeblebrox's Vice President?

someguy2435

05-01-2005, 05:26 AM

Dukefan said:
Miscellaneous/Questions:

Wait, so who was that woman with the Vogons? I know she was in that news clip when they introduce the Heart of Gold, but that exposition was done way too quickly--I didn't even get it. And they never properly explained that the Heart of Gold was the spaceship.

She was the Vice President of the Galaxy. And I think it was implied that the Heart of Gold was a spaceship.

So what's the point of the Point of View Gun? Come to think of it, what's the point of the new religious leader character? I know he was Adams' creation, but I don't really get what Adams' point with that character was. Why did he want the gun, and how come they never go back to give it to him?

I think the whole point of that was probably to point out the whole science/politics vs. religion, but I'm probably most likely wrong.

Grande 3:16

05-01-2005, 06:51 AM

Saw the movie yesterday and I mostly enjoyed it. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif.

I've never read the book, but I watched the TV series in the mid 1980's so I don't remember a whole lot from it (I'm hoping it will get screened again).

Vroomfondel

05-01-2005, 09:46 AM

It sucks that I have to wait so long for it to come out here. Will probably be seeing crappy pirated DVD's all over the place before the movie started over here.

Anyway, just a little reminder to everyone: the Quandary Phase begins on Tuesday 3 May on BBC Radio 4. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hhg.gif

ADM

05-01-2005, 01:38 PM

Saw the movie tonight as well.. really enjoyed it, better then what I expected it to be.

Definite DVD buy for me.

I really enjoyed the little lightsaber knife with the accompaning sound fx http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Oh and not to mention the 'wheee' crab! \o/

Paroxysm

05-01-2005, 06:51 PM

Vroomfondel said:
Anyway, just a little reminder to everyone: the Quandary Phase begins on Tuesday 3 May on BBC Radio 4. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hhg.gif

I never heared all of tertiary http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif They need to get it out on CD tommorow!!!!!!

Grande 3:16

05-01-2005, 09:51 PM

Paroxysm said:

Opus131 said:

Blast that, i'll be bringing my very own towel http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

We wore bathrobes http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif *outgeek'd"*

And I got funny looks for wearing a Darth Vader t-shirt to The Phantom Menace http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/doh.gif

Paroxysm

05-01-2005, 11:22 PM

Grande 3:16 said:

Paroxysm said:

Opus131 said:

Blast that, i'll be bringing my very own towel http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

We wore bathrobes http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif *outgeek'd"*

And I got funny looks for wearing a Darth Vader t-shirt to The Phantom Menace http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/doh.gif

I wore full Jedi Garb and grew a beared for it. But it was the premier. Half of us were in custume and now most of us hate star wars http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Only reason I'm going to see this one is because I promised to take my little cousin years ago.

Opus131

05-02-2005, 07:40 AM

Well, just came back from the movie, and, well, i have mixed feelings about this.

I hate to be the usual voice of dissent, but i have to say that i was a little disappointed.

For once that i tried to keep an optimistic expectation and i was slapped right in the face with what started like a decent adaptation and stopped being funny half way throught.

I give it a 6.5/10...

Joe Siegler

05-02-2005, 06:14 PM

Grande 3:16 said:
I've never read the book, but I watched the TV series in the mid 1980's so I don't remember a whole lot from it (I'm hoping it will get screened again).

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005YUNJ/73407921

Joe Siegler

05-02-2005, 06:15 PM

Paroxysm said:

Vroomfondel said:
Anyway, just a little reminder to everyone: the Quandary Phase begins on Tuesday 3 May on BBC Radio 4. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hhg.gif

I never heared all of tertiary http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif They need to get it out on CD tommorow!!!!!!

It's been out on CD for months now.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1572704691.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1572704691/73407921)

Joe Siegler

05-03-2005, 07:17 AM

Looks like there will be more movies..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4491259.stm

Mountain Man

05-03-2005, 08:18 AM

Don't forget, the Quandary Phase begins airing tonight on BBC radio (link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/)).

QuiGonJ

05-03-2005, 04:28 PM

Opus131 said:
Well, just came back from the movie, and, well, i have mixed feelings about this.

I hate to be the usual voice of dissent, but i have to say that i was a little disappointed.

For once that i tried to keep an optimistic expectation and i was slapped right in the face with what started like a decent adaptation and stopped being funny half way throught.

I give it a 6.5/10...

I gave it a 5 personally. I didn't understand why they would make an Earth Mark II to be like the final product, wasn't crazy about the stock romantic comedy elements, and the worst thing was the only laugh I got was Marvin firing the gun at the end and the results of that.

Paroxysm

05-03-2005, 05:29 PM

Well spank me sideways and call me susan! Hope it's out in aus somewhere. mmMM tertiary phase

theRobot

05-04-2005, 01:34 AM

I don't mean to get anyone mad or anything, but I've never heard of Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy...

Can anyone give me a synopsis, including spoilers I don't mind, of the book/show/movie...

From what I've read so far, it started as a book.. people loved it, then BBC let a show get made, but the show only covered 2 of the 5 books that were made, and the movie was made just this year, 4 years after the original authors death, which mildly compresses all 5 books into about 2 hours thus killing alot of the humor that the books and even the shows had before...

Now, if anyone could/wants. Can anyone just like tell how it goes? Cause I'm really interested in checking it out.

Jeff

05-04-2005, 02:26 AM

theRobot said:
I don't mean to get anyone mad or anything, but I've never heard of Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy...

I've never heard about it until last Wednesday. Saw the movie, and this one's going on my DVD shelf.

Geir

05-04-2005, 05:46 AM

I have read all of the HGTTG books and looked at the tv series. the movie was nothing like the book, even the series!

Paroxysm

05-04-2005, 05:57 AM

theRobot said:
I don't mean to get anyone mad or anything, but I've never heard of Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy...

Can anyone give me a synopsis, including spoilers I don't mind, of the book/show/movie...

From what I've read so far, it started as a book.. people loved it, then BBC let a show get made, but the show only covered 2 of the 5 books that were made, and the movie was made just this year, 4 years after the original authors death, which mildly compresses all 5 books into about 2 hours thus killing alot of the humor that the books and even the shows had before...

Actually it started as a radio series. Also the movie only covers the first book really and adds new material. BUt it's still heavily cut down, but it needs to be to not be 6 hours long http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

As for a synopsis.... The earth is destroyed and some stuff happens. That's all you need know.

Opus131

05-04-2005, 09:59 AM

Paroxysm said:
BUt it's still heavily cut down, but it needs to be to not be 6 hours long http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

They didn't just cut down parts of the book, if only it was as simple as that.

They issue is that they cut and sometimes merely reworked what they DID include from the book.

Time constrain isn't the issue because those cuts were minimal, and often were completely null as they replaced what was taken out with original (unfunny) versions of what was in the book.

Point in case, they even had the time to add pointless new scenes and an entire extra subplot, still, they just about crammed everything they could from the book, and let's be frank, highthiker guide is a relatively small novel (it was a radio show after all).

I'm personally convinced they just trashed Douglas screenplay and reworked the movie to meet the vision of the producers (disney in this case).

The entire ordeal with the vice president is a big give away (Anybody having a deja vu of films like the Adam's Familiy remakes, Scooby Doo and such ? )

And of course, the fact nobody apparently ever got the point.

A gigantic give away they didn't even read the bloody thing is the ending.

Folks, the restaurant it's not AT the end of the universe, it's right at THE end of the universe, nestled inside a temporal statis field where you can have your meal and conformable whatch the universe END in front of you eyes.

THAT'S THE WHOLE BLOODY POINT OF THE JOKE http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/doh.gif

Synti

05-04-2005, 10:17 AM

jeffbthomson said:

theRobot said:
I don't mean to get anyone mad or anything, but I've never heard of Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy...

I've never heard about it until last Wednesday. Saw the movie, and this one's going on my DVD shelf.

This describes my feelings quite well http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

http://theaterhopper.com/comics/050502.jpg

Paroxysm

05-04-2005, 08:16 PM

Opus131 said:

Paroxysm said:
BUt it's still heavily cut down, but it needs to be to not be 6 hours long http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

blah blah blah blah stargazers normal crap

Get over it. The love aspects were Douglas' addition. Are you even aware of how different the various versions of hitch hikers are? Consistency and continuity are NEVER respected. It's part of the whole chaotic world.

Opus131

05-04-2005, 08:43 PM

Paroxysm said:
The love aspects were Douglas' addition.

Which love aspects ? Arthur's ? Zaphod's ? How much of the way it was presented in the film was Douglas doing ?

Ho yes, none, because he's bloody dead.

FYI, i'm not complaining about the 'love aspects' (how typical can you get ? Next you'll start accusing me of being bitter of the fact the movie it's not like the book. Ho wait, you already did), i'm pointing out how the character of the Vice President resembles things seen in other movies made off old classics and icons.

It's obvious they have their own priven formula for those things (proven by what, i don't know, those movies aren't exactly successful).

Sigh, i wish i could complain about the love bits, which to tell you the truth i really didn't mind nor care for...

Paroxysm said:
Are you even aware of how different the various versions of hitch hikers are? Consistency and continuity are NEVER respected. It's part of the whole chaotic world.

Are you even aware the hitch hiker is meant to be funny, witty and often utterly brilliant ?

This movie was anything but for the most part, doubtful this is the work of the Douglas i know, and i'm starting to wonder how many of you got his work to begin with if you really think the trite 'additions' and 'changes' made to this film were worthy of his name.

Hey, at least they got the whale bit right, and the Earth Mark II scene was breathtaking ( Slartibartfast was also done very well), but other then that this movie was scarred with incompetent meddling by untalented hacks, and while you can tell some of the people involved took great care to give their best ultimetly it all came down to an almost embarassing parody of the guide and a waisted efford.

Right now i'm hoping the problem lies in the editing and that perhaps they redeem themselves with the DvD version...

Paroxysm

05-04-2005, 11:20 PM

Opus131 said:
Which love aspects ? Arthur's ? Zaphod's ? How much of the way it was presented in the film was Douglas doing ?

Ho yes, none, because he's bloody dead.

Quite alot considering he wrote the original screenplay, was part of the producing team and his close personal friends were part of the final production team.

It's obvious they have their own priven formula for those things (proven by what, i don't know, those movies aren't exactly successful).

Obvious hey? Please share your all encompassing film knowledge with us oh great Stargazer! Describing this film as formulaic is almost on the verge of idiocy. The generic elements added by Douglas (the love focuss) were for the mainstream audience and are reportedly cut back abit by the final screen writer but their inclusion is far from formulaic. Perhaps if they were it would feel slightly less forced as it would be a more familiar element to read.

Are you even aware the hitch hiker is meant to be funny, witty and often utterly brilliant ?

Of which much of the film was. Of course it's hard to laugh at material most of us already know like the back of our hands. But since most of us did laugh at said material they must have done alot right.

This movie was anything but for the most part, doubtful this is the work of the Douglas i know, and i'm starting to wonder how many of you got his work to begin with if you really think the trite 'additions' and 'changes' made to this film were worthy of his name.

hehehe what makes you think you get it? Everyone close to douglas is happy, why do you think that you, as a totally unconnected internet elitist have any understanding of what his work was about? The best you can say was that the film doens't live up to what you wish the series was. Which is fair enough, but for alot of us it captures the spirit of the works to great effect and shows alot of love for them.

You have a pretty hard time convincing any of us that your broad claims about "untalented hacks" when you have such a poor understanding of the cinematic process as well as the history and method of this films creation.

You do make an almost valid point about the editing though (almost only because it's completely generic comment) in that there were quite a few harsh cuts on action at the end of scenes that did feel like it had been cut short. I also hope we see the rest of the scenes at a later date.

"Bless You"

Paroxysm

05-04-2005, 11:35 PM

Did a little more research into the script

Douglas' script had ZERO entries from the guide
Karey Kirkpatrick introduced ZERO new characters, plot elements to the universe. What wasn't in the script he was given was lifted straight from the books or earlier drafts.
Disney felt the film was too long and got cut down quite severly.

Mountain Man

05-05-2005, 06:34 AM

Paroxysm said:
Quite alot considering he wrote the original screenplay, was part of the producing team and his close personal friends were part of the final production team.

As I understand it, it went something like this:

Douglas Adams wrestled for years with Disney trying to come up with a script that both parties were happy with (or at least found tolerable). After countless compromises from both sides, they were finally in general agreement, so Adams wrote a rough treatment that was almost immediately rejected by Disney. Then Adams unexpectedly died, so Disney brought in a new writer to write the screenplay from scratch, using Adams' earlier drafts for "reference". During this process, all of Disney's concessions mysteriously vanished, and the end result is closer to what Disney wanted and further from what Adams wanted.

In other words this is not Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" but "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", based on the original story by Douglas Adams. It's particularly notable that all the film's promotions have pointedly excluded Adams' name.

Granted, I have not seen the film (I will eventually) so this is all based on what I've read from those who have seen the film. But it's my impression that with rare exception, the film really doesn't look or sound like something Adams would have written.

Opus131

05-05-2005, 09:48 AM

Paroxysm said:
Quite alot considering he wrote the original screenplay, was part of the producing team and his close personal friends were part of the final production team.

So we are told.

Mountain Man seems to bring a different notion, one which would explain a few things.

I'm starting to believe this 'Douglas wrote it' idea is the reason people are so lenient to the short comings of the film.

Paroxysm said:Obvious hey? Please share your all encompassing film knowledge with us oh great Stargazer! Describing this film as formulaic is almost on the verge of idiocy.

You don't think Arthur sentimental longings for 'Trisha' were formulaic ?

You don't think the whole character of the Vice President ('she's so skinny and beautiful') was formulaic ?

You don't think the whole 'rescue' chapter was formulaic (with Arthur chanting 'Trisha!!!' over and over) ?

Paroxysm said:
The generic elements added by Douglas (the love focuss)

1) The generic elements don't stop with the 'love focus', far from it, they go all the way to inane slapstick jokes and abysmal gags (give me an hand, OMG how funniah !!!11)

2) It matters not what contribution Douglas had to the film, the mere mention that 'he added elements' doesn't automatically makes the film great, witty or funny.

George Lucas wrote the book on how to kill your own work so perhaps we can just stop pulling Douglas name like it meant anything and start examine things with an objective eye, agreed ?

Paroxysm said:
Of which much of the film was.

Ho yes, Ford using a cart full of beer to prevent Arthur's house from being demolished, the whole 'give me an hand' joke, lemon powered thinking caps, idea face slapping rachets, this movie just oozes with witty and often brilliant humorous content.

Indeed, Douglas was the master of CRAZY slapstick jokes, this is what the hitchhiker guide is all about after all...

Paroxysm said:
Of course it's hard to laugh at material most of us already know like the back of our hands. But since most of us did laugh at said material they must have done alot right.

The fact you did laugh at said material only shows you didn't get the first thing about Douglas humor.

My personal experience was one of disbelief in how much they failed to convey the humor of Douglas.

This was all the more evident considering i went to see the film with a pair of friends who were rather unfamiliar with the hitchhiker, knew nothing about it and whom i had hyped to no end prior to attending this movie.

I can only imagine their disappointment at some of the jokes i told them were going to be so funny and completely felt flat in their new modified redition.

Some parts of the film were very good but we all came out of the theater shaking our heads as that annoying 'So long and thanks for all the fish' song played in the credits.

A good adaptation of the hitchhiker would have been able to present Douglas humor to people unfamiliar with his work and perhaps introduce them to the guide.

By meddling with what made the guide so funny to begin with not only they failed to educate new audiences about Douglas, they also gave the wrong impression and i bet you quite a few people thought the guide is about crazy slapstick humor.

Of course, to the 'fans' it was great (or should i say fanboys ? ), why not ? It doesn't matter to you or anybody if they failed to convey Douglas humor. We knew all the jokes already, thus, for you this was propably just a visual representation of the guide and a good one at that in that regard.

For those who went to see The Hitchhiker Guide to The Galaxy it was a near complete failure...

Paroxysm said:
Everyone close to douglas is happy, why do you think that you, as a totally unconnected internet elitist have any understanding of what his work was about?

What a stupid and inane claim.

Why is it that everytime i get into an argument with you i always have to deal with this ad hominen attitude of yours ?

Paroxysm said:
but for alot of us it captures the spirit of the works to great effect and shows alot of love for them.

This is why i said you don't seem to understand Douglas work.

Ford carrying beer rather then convince the guy to lay in Arthur's place while they go the pub is not what i would call 'capturing the spirit' as much as completely and utterly missing the point.

Perhaps it captures the spirit of the guide on a visual level is what you meant, as far as substance it's concerned i think it's rather underwhelming.

Paroxysm said:
You have a pretty hard time convincing any of us that your broad claims about "untalented hacks" when you have such a poor understanding of the cinematic process as well as the history and method of this films creation.

Bla bla bla, the usual meaningless crap from Paroxysm.

Pray tell, what 'cinematic process' or inherent 'history and method' of this films creation am i having trouble with ?

I suppose not being a film expert such as yourself i should refrain from making any judgement or evaluation of this film, a far reaching line of reasoning if i ever saw one...

Mountain Man

05-05-2005, 10:04 AM

Opus131 said:
It matters not what contribution Douglas had to the film, the mere mention that 'he added elements' doesn't automatically makes the film great, witty or funny.

It should also be noted that Adams was a merciless editor of his own work. Radio producer Geoffry Perkins once said that it wasn't unusual for Adams to come to work with half a script, work all day, and go home with a third of a script. If something wasn't working, he would rework it and rework it and rework it until it did work, and if it still didn't work then he'd scrap it entirely. This is why his writing is so sharp, memorable, and funny. He wouldn't set anything in stone until he was completely happy with it.

So just because an element appeared in an early draft of the script doesn't mean that it would have automatically survived later rewrites intact. In fact, it's more likely than not that many of the new contributions to the film script would have drastically changed during production had Adams been alive while the film was being made.

So, yes, there are likely some (many?) elements that Adams may have introduced himself, but that's worlds away from saying, "This is how Adams wanted it."

Joe Siegler

05-05-2005, 01:26 PM

You don't think Arthur sentimental longings for 'Trisha' were formulaic ?

You don't think the whole character of the Vice President ('she's so skinny and beautiful') was formulaic ?

You don't think the whole 'rescue' chapter was formulaic (with Arthur chanting 'Trisha!!!' over and over) ?

I think you're overthinking it. It's not meant to be that serious.

Bla bla bla, the usual meaningless crap from Paroxysm.

Knock it off. Flamebait like that is NOT welcome.

Opus131

05-05-2005, 01:36 PM

Joe3DR said:
I think you're overthinking it. It's not meant to be that serious.

Maybe, doesn't matter, the love 'elements' are the last of my problems with this film, i only meant to show the source and the type of meddling done to this movie by pointing familiar formulaic bits in the film...

Joe3DR said:
Knock it off. Flamebait like that is NOT welcome.

I'm quoting back what Paroxysm throw at me to start with, that's all...

KillerByte

05-05-2005, 02:11 PM

Saw this last night. I absolutely loved it! http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I hope they continue and make more from the series.

someguy2435

05-05-2005, 02:30 PM

IMO, it was an enjoyable movie, and mostly tolerable. I think some of you are reading too much into things.

Paroxysm

05-05-2005, 05:23 PM

Mountain Man said:
As I understand it, it went something like this:

Douglas Adams wrestled for years with Disney trying to come up with a script that both parties were happy with (or at least found tolerable). After countless compromises from both sides, they were finally in general agreement, so Adams wrote a rough treatment that was almost immediately rejected by Disney. Then Adams unexpectedly died, so Disney brought in a new writer to write the screenplay from scratch, using Adams' earlier drafts for "reference". During this process, all of Disney's concessions mysteriously vanished, and the end result is closer to what Disney wanted and further from what Adams wanted.

That has some elements of truth in it. A writer was hired to make the film from stratch but it was long before adams death and the script was rejected by all partys (mainly just a space adventure with the same character names). The writer brought on after douglas' death was hired by the directors (Hammer and Tongs) to help structure Adams draft, which is highly believable because as we all know Adams had the talent for structure that a lemming has for absailing.

Paroxysm

05-05-2005, 05:41 PM

Opus131 said:
Ho yes, Ford using a cart full of beer to prevent Arthur's house from being demolished, the whole 'give me an hand' joke, lemon powered thinking caps, idea face slapping rachets, this movie just oozes with witty and often brilliant humorous content.

Interesting as Fords characters was always obsessed with alcohol, not to mention the ungodly ammount of puns that Douglas enjoys using (Eg one of my personal favourites "What's so bad about being drunk?" "You ask a glass of water") that I can't see how a lemon powered hat that gives you "zest" and "give me a hand jokes" are any different. And as for slapstick? Not exactly a foreign concept to douglas' work and British comedy as a whole. Not to mention the face slap scene in particular being a scene douglas was particulary proud of working as pure entertainment and clever backstory for vogon development.

Paroxysm said:
Of course it's hard to laugh at material most of us already know like the back of our hands. But since most of us did laugh at said material they must have done alot right.

The fact you did laugh at said material only shows you didn't get the first thing about Douglas humor.

I ask again, what makes you think you understand it in the first place to make such a claim? Personal interpretation is not all encompassing. Your expectations have nothing to do with the original intent of a work.

Mountain Man

05-05-2005, 07:25 PM

Paroxysm said:
The writer brought on after douglas' death was hired by the directors (Hammer and Tongs) to help structure Adams draft...

And this is where I fear that things went awry. "Lost in translation" as it were.

Tedski

05-05-2005, 07:43 PM

My feeling overall to it was that it was ok. It did just about capture the flavour of the 'Guide' - mainly due to the incomparable voiceing of it by Stephen Fry. I felt that it covered most of the bases as it were, it just didn't manage to do it with a real flow. It seemed to me that additional material was probably needed in several places for clarification about what was going on, which is where the dialogue failed - there wasn't enough basically. If I wasn't already pretty familiar with Adams work, I wouldn't have been anywhere near as happy with this adaptation as I don't believe it is much more than a 'watchable' movie.
This may well be one that could do with a 'directors' cut' if there is the amount of additional footage available that has previously been mentioned in this thread.

Opus131

05-06-2005, 02:19 PM

Paroxysm said:
Interesting as Fords characters was always obsessed with alcohol

Missing the point often ?

The issue here is that Ford carrying beer is neither witty, clever or even remotely funny.

Ford convincing the guy to lay on the mud in Arthur's place while they go to the pub is bloody hysterical.

Is this how the movie carries the 'spirit' of the guide to you ?

Paroxysm said:
not to mention the ungodly ammount of puns that Douglas enjoys using (Eg one of my personal favourites "What's so bad about being drunk?" "You ask a glass of water") that I can't see how a lemon powered hat that gives you "zest" and "give me a hand jokes" are any different.

The difference is that 'give me a hand' is not funny, it's embarrassingly bad.

Paroxysm said:
And as for slapstick? Not exactly a foreign concept to douglas' work and British comedy as a whole. Not to mention the face slap scene in particular being a scene douglas was particulary proud of working as pure entertainment and clever backstory for vogon development.

I felt it was completely gratuitous and slapped there just to cater a few laughs from the audience.

The 'joke' is in relation to the vogons, not in a 'getting slapped in the face' gag...

Paroxysm said:
I ask again, what makes you think you understand it in the first place to make such a claim? Personal interpretation is not all encompassing. Your expectations have nothing to do with the original intent of a work.

My expectations have very much to do with the original intent of a work.

This is nothing but another manifestation for the rampant relativism shown by this board which never fails to drive me nuts.

I'm sorry, but there's nothing relative about Marvin saying 'guys, the end of the universe is the other way', if that's isn't failing to understand the jokes, i don't know what is...

Paroxysm

05-06-2005, 07:35 PM

Opus131 said:
My expectations have very much to do with the original intent of a work.

To put it simply. Wrong. They are just your individual expectations and that's all the arguments you've put forth have ever been about. You can't justify any point past the level of "I didn't like it" or "that's not what I wanted it be".

Opus131

05-06-2005, 09:08 PM

Paroxysm said:
To put it simply. Wrong. They are just your individual expectations and that's all the arguments you've put forth have ever been about. You can't justify any point past the level of "I didn't like it" or "that's not what I wanted it be".

Once more, i'm being subjected by relativism.

For the sake of the argument, let's assume i agree with you and that my objective appreciation of the way the film carried over the humor of the guide is relative to myself and nobody else.

I just pulled the guide from my book shelf, so let's make an example.

At the beginning of the story we are confronted with the popular scene of Arthur's laying in front of the bulldozer and Prosser (the guy who wants to demolish his house) explaining to him that he had all the time in the world to file a protest seeing as the plans have been available at the local planning office for the last nine months.

In the film, we get this :

P: But the plans were on display...
A: On display ? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.
P: But you found the plans, didn't you ?

In the guide, this is what we get instead :

P: But the plans were on display...
A: On display ? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.
P: That's the display department.
A: With a flashlight
P: Ah, well, the lights had propably gone.
A: So had the stairs.
P: But look, you found the notice, didn't you ?
A: Yes, yes i did. It was on 'display' in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard".

Now, in my view, what we get from the film is no where near as hilarious as what we find in the original guide. Better yet, the exchange in the film is not funny at all, and completely misses the point by ignoring not only the main element of that entire gag but also one of the main elements of Douglas's style, which is his focus on dialog.

Now, this is, indeed, my own and personal view.

However, by arguing that my personal opinion of this exchange is relative to myself rather the purely objective, you are implying that everything i've been pointing out so far was perfectly fine to you.

Now, the whole point of something like "The Restaurant at the End of Universe" is exactly that the restaurant is not AT the end of the universe. That is the bloody joke.

Are you telling me the way the movie misinterpreters the original joke and replaces it with the 'guys the end of the universe is on the OTHER side' is perfectly fine in your opinion ?

Would you say that the example i posted in this reply was handled just right in the film ?

Joe Siegler

05-06-2005, 09:55 PM

Opus131, we get it. This thread is not becoming fun anymore. it's supposed to be just fun. It's obvious you didn't like it. Most of the rest of us did. Let it go.

Opus131

05-06-2005, 10:01 PM

Joe3DR said:
Opus131, we get it. This thread is not becoming fun anymore. it's supposed to be just fun. It's obvious you didn't like it. Most of the rest of us did. Let it go.

Ho bloody hell fine, have it your way.

I'm off mourning what could have been the next Holy Grail, see you guys on the next argument... http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Paroxysm

05-07-2005, 03:23 AM

Opus131 said:
I pulled the guide from my book shelf, so let's make an example.

I didn't want to say anything else but this is just one point that I think is important. Hitchhikers is not a book. One interpretation of it is a book. It was not the first version and is not the deffinitive version.

So Has Everyone seen the Zaphod election music video and the marvin dance song? Deliciously decedant :P

someguy2435

05-07-2005, 06:22 AM

No, can you hook me up with a link or something?

Opus131

05-07-2005, 08:43 AM

Paroxysm said:
I didn't want to say anything else but this is just one point that I think is important. Hitchhikers is not a book. One interpretation of it is a book. It was not the first version and is not the deffinitive version.

Yes i'm aware of that but is the version I possess http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Speaking of the radio show, which is the suggested one on CD?

I'm looking at my options on Amazon but there appear to be a bunch of different versions... http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Paroxysm

05-07-2005, 09:12 AM

Zaphod music vid (http://www.media-file.net/hhgg/zaphod.mov) (low quality)

The zaphos song and marvin song are both on the soundtrack. The new version of Journey of the sorcerer makes the soundtrack worth it alone, the rest are just perks :P

As for version of the radio play you should be able to buy audio cds (not MP3's) of the primary phase, secondary phase and tertiary phase. Each should be 3 cd's long. Haven't got time to check amazon currently but that should be an way to identify them.

Mountain Man

05-08-2005, 02:53 PM

Paroxysm said:
I didn't want to say anything else but this is just one point that I think is important. Hitchhikers is not a book. One interpretation of it is a book. It was not the first version and is not the deffinitive version.

You're missing Opus131's point. Douglas Adams had a gift for writing sharp, witty, and often absurd dialogue that was uproariously funny. It's not that fans of the series necessarily want the film to be word for word exactly the way it was written (because, as every good Hitchhiker's fan knows, there is no definitive version). Rather, we just want it to sound like something that Adams could have written. Based on what I've read, the film doesn't really deliver on that account (even if it is funny in its own way).

Paroxysm

05-08-2005, 05:14 PM

My point was simply that the example he used is different in different versions and even completely absent in one. There's plenty of douglas wordwork in the film (alot of it translated into visuals, since film is afterall a visual medium) but it's not the same material as most other versions.

GrkFire611

05-08-2005, 07:50 PM

Paroxysm said:
Zaphod music vid (http://www.media-file.net/hhgg/zaphod.mov) (low quality)

Oh my. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Kronx

05-10-2005, 08:38 AM

I know I'm late, but I just saw the movie.

I think I would have liked it better had I not read the books beforehand. I DID like it, but it just doesn't compare at all with the books. And I think that's really a matter of medium. DA could throw so much into text, that there was simply no way to include even a good percentage of the humor in the movie.

The Trillian love stuff didn't bother me. If anyone has read the entire series, they know it becomes important toward the end. Although not in a way folks who aren't familiar with the books might think. It's more of a sandwhich-making thing.

All in all, it wasn't so much that I was highly-impressed with the film. It was more that I breathed a sigh of relief at the things they managed to leave in.

The only real disappointment for me was Mos Def. I really don't think he was a good Ford. The Arthur/Ford dynamic is what really starts the book rolling and captures the complete insanity of existence. But in the movie they just didn't click right.

Still, I'll probably pick this up on DVD.

CronoMan

05-27-2005, 05:40 AM

One thing that really annoys me about that movie (and the previous series) is that they made Trillian Zaphods' girlfriend, and that's not entirely correct. They just have to put some love somewhere, and that angers me.
Zaphod is an alien with three arms and two heads for christs sake. Yeah, that would be a great mix >:(

And Marvin looks real gay in the movie.

If you ask me, it's better to read the books than to see the movie or the series.

Pansa

05-27-2005, 07:17 PM

may i restate my point on this from page one ...

as long as we dont get Adams draft of the script , its futile to argue any differences to the books to be "whomeevers" fault..

douglas was known for changing things to be the way theyd work ,

so just assuming that any changes to make it a commercial movie is an s.e.p. than douglases is based on assumptions that arent definit..

there are a couple of interviews on the internet , one by the scriptwriter interviewing himselff, which i found aswell whitty , and well done .

oh and about the differences between disney and douglas ..

there is a nice little letter in "salmon of doubt" from douglas to someone at disney ... where he is leaving him 20 phonenumbers where he can be reached... priceless..

@ mountainman...

he was not only known for writting witty and whtsnot .. some parts are plain SILLY , and you just know that he hang around with some of the pythoncrew http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

someguy2435

06-02-2005, 04:11 PM

After having watched the old BBC series and comparing the two, I must say the movie looks like utter garbage. It stands decent on its own, but compared to the TV series it sucks.

Joe Siegler

06-02-2005, 04:28 PM

someguy2435 said:
After having watched the old BBC series and comparing the two, I must say the movie looks like utter garbage. It stands decent on its own, but compared to the TV series it sucks.

Sorry, can't agree with you. I've known the TV series since it was new. I've seen it uncounted times. I love it.

I like the movie a lot too. Again, the problem is that most people expect the movie to look like their own utopian version of HHG, and when some part of it doesn't match that - "it sucks".

The genius of *ALL* of HHG is that there's differences in all the versions, and that's what makes it brilliant. The base story is the same in all, but they branch off in their own directions. And I love that.

someguy2435

06-08-2005, 08:16 PM

http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Any word on a DVD release yet?

Joe Siegler

06-09-2005, 12:10 AM

No, but if I had to guess, it'll be out late summer, early fall

Vroomfondel

06-09-2005, 01:49 AM

The movie is only comming out in theatres next month over here. Sucks that we have to wait so long. People arround here are so desperate they are starting to look for places where they can download it from. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tinyted.gif http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Pansa

06-15-2005, 05:08 PM

wow, been to the movies today (only date they showed it indubbed)

and it was great..
in a "never expected it to be that cool" way of great..

the visualisation of the improbability drive... priceless
the way the caracters WORKED (but mostly not how they LOOKED) almst perfect , although ford came across a bit more gay than need be, and zaphod a bit more dumb than crazy ...

but all the small things that actually where to adams humor , while cutting THAT part of adams humor which ONLY works "word by word"

and the gun? if anything prooves that adams wrote things into his version of the script that are TOTALY not in the books, than its the gun.. the whole idea of it REEKS of Adams..

and even the guides "60s flashstyle " animation worked quite well i thought...
so did all the "overthetopness" for sheer "overdoing it"
revers to the strings while zooming out earth, and the microphonecrane on the vogon ship as prime examples...

and all the camoes in it ... sheer fun..
from the titlescore (the original bbc one) over the old marvin standing in line and , if im not mistaken, the statue of aggrajahr in the temple of the "malkovic" charakter..

where it took libertys with specific scenes from the book , i thought it was worth it, for example splitting the psycadelic scene while in "improbability mode" which is one long trip in the book into several small ones in the movie..

and the guy demolishing arthurs home totaly looks like a descent of ghengis khan , 4rth removed http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
ok , you only see it if you KNOW about it .. but still...

and there where alot of shots which just are , what adams would have written , if he hadn't written it before..
eg the scene #before destruction.
running people .... running people... screaming city .. another city .. herd of sheep...

in the book thered be a laconic "...., and a flock of sheep."
great movie , most fun i had in a long time... great fx, great humor (save for the one or the other very grafic slapstic humor... ) and imho you see that alot of people who knew adams well were involved...

forgot to mention Simon Jones as the magrathean anouncer http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Paroxysm

06-15-2005, 08:00 PM

Pansa said:
if im not mistaken, the statue of aggrajahr in the temple of the "malkovic" charakter..

No way! I've watched it three times and I didn't notice... does this merit a 4th cinema visit to confirm? possibly! http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Pansa

06-16-2005, 05:41 AM

Paroxysm said:

Pansa said:
if im not mistaken, the statue of aggrajahr in the temple of the "malkovic" charakter..

No way! I've watched it three times and I didn't notice... does this merit a 4th cinema visit to confirm? possibly! http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

i dont think so , its just a small statue in the background , having 6-8 arms like kali...
so it MAY just be a statue dedicated to the sneezing cult...

but , i felt instantly reminded http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

oh and sorry , i think i made false impression , i didnt mean a statue of the aggrajahr character, but a a small replica of aggrajahrs statue of arthur http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/doh.gif

Joe Siegler

06-16-2005, 02:53 PM

someguy2435 said:
http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Any word on a DVD release yet?

I saw something about it last week, I think it's coming out in September in the US on DVD.

someguy2435

04-27-2006, 06:04 PM

I have the DVD with me now. The deleted scenes are pretty funny. :)

Paroxysm

04-27-2006, 07:40 PM

someguy2435

04-27-2006, 07:54 PM

Eeewww....

Mountain Man

04-29-2006, 09:25 AM

Speaking of hitchhikers anyone finish up the Radio Series? I finally picked up the final series the other day (the adaptation of Mostly harmless) ASide form it being about the fastest renition of the story possible they add to the ending... it's ****ing depressing that they cop out of being depressing. Made me squirm with anger. They even bring Fenchurch back.
Yeah, the ending was a bit of a cop out I thought. Should have left it as Douglas Adams wrote it (of course, he did express some misgivings over the ending of Mostly Harmless, and before his death, he was in the process of adapting what was originally going to be a third Dirk Gently novel into a sixth Hitchhiker's story, so he obviously had some idea of how to bring the characters back, though I doubt it was anything like the radio dramatization). Other than that, I thought the radio series was excellent, much better than the movie, which I thought was as bad from beginning to end as that ridiculous ending to the radio series.