HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy!
 

Holy cow!!! I don't know if any of you out there are fans of the HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy tale, or of the old cheesy BBC series from '81, or if you even happen to know where the Trillian software or the AltaVista 'babelfish' translator engine got their names, but they're making it into a movie, finally!

Here's a teaser trailer. It's a DivX avi - so until it's officially posted on Apple trailers or somewhere, this is all we've got.

http://hitchhikermovie.free.fr/trailer_hitchhikers.avi


This book was such a huge influence in my life and is such a source of ideas, imagination and humor for me on a daily basis, I can hardly contain myself with excitement.

I really hope they don't screw it up.

Awesome! Totally excited as well.

Love the constellation 42.

Cool ! Thanks for the heads up.

I actually got to meet DNA several years back. An exciting moment in my life I must say, being a die-hard fan of the h2g2 series... :-)

There's some good info about the movie on this site:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2642384

Don't Panic !

The perfect excuse to finally get around to downloading that DIVX codec.

Just saw it. I found the whole thing to be rather... improbable.

My wife and I went this afternoon as well. What's probably not improbable is that there's plenty of territory left (all the way to the end of the universe, perhaps) for a sequel, or two. Lunch, anyone? :-)

Agreed! Looks like I'll meet you at the restaurant at (the other) end of the galaxy.

while i never read any of the 4 books and the short story nor the tv episodes, nor the radio show, nor the *insert paraphernelia here* i went with someone that did. while i liked it and started to grasp the offbeat brit humor my friend said that it was a horrible rendition of the books by choosing a happy ending because Arthur Dent in the book didn't meet a happy ending. thus, Touchstone (aka Disney) prevails once again.

i thought the planet building was awe-inspiring =).

As a major fan of the books, and professional film critic's brother (:P), I was disappointed by the movie. It only showed Douglas Adam's wit in select spots, and overall seemed rushed, lackluster, and flat.

Sam Rockwell was good as Zaphod, and Although I love Martin Freeman from the Office, I found him to be unsympathetic as Arthur Dent. The love story was contrived and even Marvin, the Paranoid Android wasn't done as well ashe could have been.

It's a shame cause it could have been so much better.

Yi Fong Yu - you might want to tell your friend that Douglas Adams was himself responsible for a lot of the changes to the story. Including John Malkovich's entire character. Also, Arthur Dent didn't really have a true 'ending' in the first book. The story pretty much went on seamlessly to the second book, some of which was covered in the low-budget BBC series. I really hope this film makes enough money to keep going through the books. The last book though, So Long and Thanks for All the Fish, will be very difficult to pull off - it's much less fantastical than the rest and is much more of a character piece.

I've been a long time fan and was terrified that the solid British humor would be completely ruined for a cross-continental release, but it really did capture the same feel and wit. It's biggest flaw was that it should have been much longer. Filling in some gaps and adding back some of the missing bits would pretty much fix all the problems several people have with it.

And I was delighted by Mos Def as Ford Prefect. I was very skeptical going in, but he nailed the off-beat comedic timing. Mos Def impresses me more and more with everything I see him in.

And also, if you haven't yet, check out the trailer on the official site. Makes hysterical fun of trailers...

http://hitchhikers.movies.go.com/

For those who saw both the movie and BBC series, which one did you prefer and why?

And no, 42 is not the correct answer to this question.

I actually own the BBC series on DVD and just watched it again about 2 months ago. It has its charm obviously, and because of the length of it, a lot more could be worked through. So in that light, I enjoyed the BBC series quite a bit. However, the budget is so awful, and they were so painfully obviously limited in what they could do, it's hard to overlook.

It's hard to compare the two. I would say for different reasons, I love them both. But you really can't compare a mini-series to a barely two-hour feature - it's not very fair. I will say though, if they continue in the series, I will most definitely love the modern version much more.

But they all fall FAR short of the expanded and immersive genius in the books themselves. So I pick the third option.

How would you compare the robots? I still love the robot from the BBC series. I just want to smack him upside the head, with affection.

Yeah, yeah, I'm gonna see the movie tomorrow.

In the original TV series the Vogon saying 'Resistance is useless' curiously became in Star Trek Borg lingo 'Resistance is futile' - I wondered at the time whether this had something to do with Patrick Stewart - the mice have a lot to answer for.

That phrase is definitely much older than both of these things. I could swear I remember hearing it in that old Hogan's Heroes show from the Nazis, and even that was a comedic ripoff of more serious usage. And I think Dr. Who used it too. 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?

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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