HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy!

Patrick King · May 3rd, 2005, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imran Zaidi

That phrase is definitely much older than both of these things. ... I bet it goes back to Shakespeare or something - everything seems to.

And Shakespeare quoted liberally from scripture...and the scripture authors quoted liberally from...Ford Prefect?

Imran Zaidi · May 3rd, 2005, 08:02 AM

Don't be silly - it's all just a derivative of the rules and bylaws of the people that were jettisoned from their home planet which they were told was about to be eaten by a giant space goat.

(Boy I hope they make the second book. Such great stuff in there).

Dylan Couper · May 6th, 2005, 10:30 AM

Big fan of the books.
I thought the movie was a good reworking of the book.
However, I thought the movie was flat and without energy.
Dissapointed in it in that sense. Cannot reccomend.

K. Forman · September 16th, 2005, 09:52 PM

I just bought the new movie, to compliment the original. However, it does not compliment the original, and it will never replace it. It was like they just stripped the original lines, added better effects, and left out the heart. I might suggest you rent this, but don't bother buying it.

Stephen Finton · November 15th, 2005, 12:55 PM

I screamed at a friend of mine to turn off the movie, it was so bad!

For some reason they did not have the people dismantle the computer after it gave them the answer of 42. They tore it up in the book because they were so mad.

And the love interest! If you'll notice, the love scenes were filmed with only two characters in the room, meaning they were filmed seperately so that no one who knew the book would complain that studio executives were screwing up the movie.

Poor Douglas Adams. They tore down his life work and built an intergalactic freeway to nowhere. What a sad waste.

Matt Brabender · December 12th, 2005, 06:03 PM

Stephen, I'm with you.
It is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Sorry to those who enjoyed it.

Chris Ivanovskis · December 12th, 2005, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Brabender

Stephen, I'm with you.
It is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Sorry to those who enjoyed it.

agreed. i love the book, and i don't want to be "that guy" that says the movie will never be as good as the book, but they did a poor job with the material given. pulling a one liner out of a book that is set up for one liners and throwing it randomly into the movie, you just don't get it.

this entire movie reminded me of catch 22 the movie, which was downright terrible.

i just don't think the humor in the book (either) could translate well to screen.

Imran Zaidi · December 12th, 2005, 11:17 PM

It boggles my mind that you'd think it was so bad. But I would like to let you guys know that Douglas Adams himself was responsible for most of the changes from the book. I think it's different but totally in line with the vision of the book (though no film could ever beat the book it comes from in scope and quality). But to each his own.

Pete Bauer · December 13th, 2005, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Brabender

Stephen, I'm with you.
It is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Sorry to those who enjoyed it.

Naw, don't feel sorry for us! I'm sorry for you folks who paid good money to see it and then didn't enjoy it.

I'm in the middle...it sure wasn't all it could have been, but being familiar with the context -- from the written works -- of some of the disjointed stuff in the movie, I still had an enjoyable time watching the flick. For the things I didn't see in the movie that I expected to come over from print, I consoled myself by anticipating that there will undoubtedly be sequels, and that like the printed version the final disjointed sum will be greater than any one part.

Douglas Adams died in 2001 so obviously didn't have much impact on the final film version that made it to screen. But I'll give you that his credo was "flexible, to say the least" and his dragged-out and convoluted style sure is evident in the movie nonetheless!

Yi Fong Yu · December 13th, 2005, 10:01 AM

i didn't read the book and i enjoyed it immensely.

as far as i know, wasn't Hitchhiker a radio-play initially before being committed into a book by D. Adams? my point is that it's been adapted into a variety of mediums. perhaps it was meant to be like that... ah well =). i enjoyed it and it was entertaining. is it monty python? no. but it's still better than the jim carey funny movies.

John Allardice · December 13th, 2005, 05:12 PM

Yep..originally BBC radio series, then album, then book, then radio series #2,then book number 2, then tv series, then adventure game...and so on.
Every single version, BTW, contradicts the one before, DNA was very aware of this and was often quoted as saying that there was no definitive version of the guide.
Unfortunately at the time of his death he was working on material that he had begun to realise was shaping up into a new hitchhikers novel, and not the third dirk gently book, as he had originally thought. Some of this is availiable on "The Salmon of Doubt", a posthumous publication of letters, essays, speeches and unfinished works, that will be, unfortunately, the last we shall ever hear from this huge talent.

J

May 6th, 2005, 10:30 AM	#18
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	Big fan of the books. I thought the movie was a good reworking of the book. However, I thought the movie was flat and without energy. Dissapointed in it in that sense. Cannot reccomend. __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

September 16th, 2005, 09:52 PM	#19
K. Forman Capt. Quirk Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Middle of the woods in Georgia Posts: 3,596	I just bought the new movie, to compliment the original. However, it does not compliment the original, and it will never replace it. It was like they just stripped the original lines, added better effects, and left out the heart. I might suggest you rent this, but don't bother buying it. __________________ www.SmokeWagonLeather.us

December 13th, 2005, 10:01 AM	#25
Yi Fong Yu Trustee Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vulcan Posts: 1,564	i didn't read the book and i enjoyed it immensely. as far as i know, wasn't Hitchhiker a radio-play initially before being committed into a book by D. Adams? my point is that it's been adapted into a variety of mediums. perhaps it was meant to be like that... ah well =). i enjoyed it and it was entertaining. is it monty python? no. but it's still better than the jim carey funny movies. __________________ bow wow wow

May 3rd, 2005, 08:02 AM	#17
Imran Zaidi Trustee Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 1,315	Don't be silly - it's all just a derivative of the rules and bylaws of the people that were jettisoned from their home planet which they were told was about to be eaten by a giant space goat. (Boy I hope they make the second book. Such great stuff in there).

November 15th, 2005, 12:55 PM	#20
Stephen Finton Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 344	I screamed at a friend of mine to turn off the movie, it was so bad! For some reason they did not have the people dismantle the computer after it gave them the answer of 42. They tore it up in the book because they were so mad. And the love interest! If you'll notice, the love scenes were filmed with only two characters in the room, meaning they were filmed seperately so that no one who knew the book would complain that studio executives were screwing up the movie. Poor Douglas Adams. They tore down his life work and built an intergalactic freeway to nowhere. What a sad waste.

December 12th, 2005, 06:03 PM	#21
Matt Brabender Major Player Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 230	Stephen, I'm with you. It is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Sorry to those who enjoyed it.

December 12th, 2005, 11:17 PM	#23
Imran Zaidi Trustee Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 1,315	It boggles my mind that you'd think it was so bad. But I would like to let you guys know that Douglas Adams himself was responsible for most of the changes from the book. I think it's different but totally in line with the vision of the book (though no film could ever beat the book it comes from in scope and quality). But to each his own.

December 13th, 2005, 05:12 PM	#26
John Allardice New Boot Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 9	Yep..originally BBC radio series, then album, then book, then radio series #2,then book number 2, then tv series, then adventure game...and so on. Every single version, BTW, contradicts the one before, DNA was very aware of this and was often quoted as saying that there was no definitive version of the guide. Unfortunately at the time of his death he was working on material that he had begun to realise was shaping up into a new hitchhikers novel, and not the third dirk gently book, as he had originally thought. Some of this is availiable on "The Salmon of Doubt", a posthumous publication of letters, essays, speeches and unfinished works, that will be, unfortunately, the last we shall ever hear from this huge talent. J