hitch hikers guide to the galaxy-trash it

rosconey · « **on:** 16 Oct 2005, 12:28 pm »

ive watched alot of bad movies over the years-this is at the top of the list.

it was 2 bucks at hollywood video so i figured what the hell-i want my money back with extra$ for pain and suffering

arthurs · « **Reply #1 on:** 16 Oct 2005, 12:51 pm »

total agreement here, what a piece of crap...

PhilNYC · « **Reply #2 on:** 16 Oct 2005, 12:57 pm »

Yeah, the new movie sucked. But if you're a fan of the book, you should check out the old BBC TV production of Hitchhiker's Guide...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005YUNJ/qid=1129467351

WerTicus · « **Reply #3 on:** 16 Oct 2005, 12:57 pm »

hrmmm i really liked the remake and i seem to be the only one

never saw any other version or read the book though so no doubt its better.

ScottMayo · « **Reply #4 on:** 16 Oct 2005, 02:15 pm »

Quote from: WerTicus

hrmmm i really liked the remake and i seem to be the only one
never saw any other version or read the book though so no doubt its better.

The books were practically a Defining Moment for a whole gneration of people. Nobody had quite written like that before - there'd been plenty of social satires, and existential angst writings by the truckloads, but no one had ever really turned those tools against the nature of reality itself, against all of human nature. Yeah, I know, Vonngeut. But Adams was truely *funny*. You couldn't get through a page without seeing parallels to your own life, and laughing about it. It was the best modern antidote to modern civilization ever done, IMHO.

The movie didn't do it. It didn't even really try.

Some writing just doesn't translate to movies. Lord of the Rings is another big example - the recent movie was ok but it wasn't LOTR. It was a high budget fantasy flick, minus the usual bikinis. But you didn't get the little shiver when you realised that an entire army had run into a forest, and was never going to come out again because pissing off the guardians of the forest is a losing proposition. You didn't get to see that Gimli and even Boromir had their share of granduer. Don't even get me started on the damage done to Arwen's character, or Gandalf's. Some books need to stay books.

Now I see they're going to do Narnia as a movie, and I'm already bracing for disaster. Aslan as a special effect - it's just not going to work.

WerTicus · « **Reply #5 on:** 16 Oct 2005, 02:45 pm »

is there an example where the movie is better than the book? i think not

Bwanagreg · « **Reply #6 on:** 16 Oct 2005, 03:09 pm »

The original BBC radio and TV adaptations were/are SOOOO much better than the recent POS. I couldn't even begin to guess what went wrong here, except the casting seemed way off. The original actor playing Arthur Dent - Simon Jones - nailed the character with the right mix of sardonic resignation and hostile sarcasm, and the fact that Douglas Adams (who was Jones' best friend) wrote the part with him specifically in mind didn't hurt!

The whole pacing of the story was wrong. It felt like a hatchet job in the editing room, but who knows. Maybe the whole project fell apart early and they just wanted to get it over with.

Too bad, a really wanted to like the remake. Boring POS.

dwk · « **Reply #7 on:** 16 Oct 2005, 03:43 pm »

I haven't seen the movie, but a supposed quote from someone that worked on the radio series seems to sum it up:

"They took all the jokes out."

Tweaker · « **Reply #8 on:** 16 Oct 2005, 11:41 pm »

The only movies I've seen that I enjoyed where I had read the book first was Jurassic Park, and LOTR. The LOTR is a tough one though as I had read the books so long ago that I, thankfully, really couldn't remember enough about them to nit pick the movies.
I have since re-read The Fellowship and now, I have to admit, it's harder to enjoy the movie. I'm not going to read the other two as I don't want to ruin my enjoyment of the Two Towers, and The Return Of The King. My wife read the books recently and she still loves the movies. Her feeling is that the soul of the story is intact and it's two different but superb ways of telling the same story.
Books I've read that Hollywood screwed up completely:

The Firm
Papillon
The Horse Whisperer
Dune

JoshK · « **Reply #9 on:** 17 Oct 2005, 12:50 am »

High Fidelity. A story I fully enjoyed both in film and in novel. I think because it did different versions for each media that were parrellel. The book set in a London neighborhood (forget which) with tons of british pop references, and the movie in Chicago (Wicker park?) with lots of american sub-pop references.

AHGTTG was so-so movie, ok to watch but not great but I had zero idea what it was spose to be about, never read the book or knew about the premise.

ScottMayo · « **Reply #10 on:** 17 Oct 2005, 02:25 am »

Quote from: JoshK

AHGTTG was so-so movie, ok to watch but not great but I had zero idea what it was spose to be about, never read the book or knew about the premise.

The premise is basically: the universe is insane and it's not really your fault, but have a nice life. There's a plot in there too, sort of, but it's mostly carpentry to hang the message on. The message is the point. The world is run by mice; the universe is run by a lunatic locked on a deserted planet because no one can trust anyone else to be unbiased, and humanity itself is descended from a lot of failed alien marketers and inept leaders, not apes - apes would be a step up. If your life makes no sense, that might be why. Or not.

Why the movie focused on the plot is unclear. The author barely did.

Carlman · « **Reply #11 on:** 17 Oct 2005, 02:47 am »

Quote from: ScottMayo

Now I see they're going to do Narnia as a movie, and I'm already bracing for disaster. Aslan as a special effect - it's just not going to work.
...

One good thing about these movies becoming films is that people who simply do not have the reading comprehension can at least get a taste of it... I can't 'get into' a lot of books because I can't follow what's happening. I can't read fast enough for my brain or something... Reading is a skill and a gift. Be glad you have it.

A couple of books I read that I thought were as good in the theaters were Clockwork Orange (except the last chapter is missing in the movie) and High Fidelity (the book was darker and more depressing)... other than the () I didn't think there was much difference. For me, reading each book took days and weeks what it takes most people a few hours or a plane-ride... Man, I wish I could do that. Until then, I'll see LOTR and other books that are a seriously daunting challenge for me to read.... and that likely would only give me shivers of fear that I had to read them... !

OK.. sorry for the OT stuff.. back to bashing Hitchy...

ScottMayo · « **Reply #12 on:** 17 Oct 2005, 03:36 am »

Quote from: Carlman

One good thing about these movies becoming films is that people who simply do not have the reading comprehension can at least get a taste of it... I can't 'get into' a lot of books because I can't follow what's happening. I can't read fast enough for my brain or something... Reading is a skill and a gift. Be glad you have it.

Narnia is children's fare - pretty easy to follow. (Well, ok, it's written as children's fare - which is not the same thing. I suspect some decent thesis have been written on it, but not because the plot is complex.)

LOTR is something else. A lot of people get as far as "Council of Eldrond" and throw up their hands. Pages of people talking in committee! Who cares! And so they miss the good stuff.

But there's no denying it's a thick read and it gets complex at points. It's just that the movie butchered so much.... have you tried 'books on tape'? Some people swear by them.

Tim S · « **Reply #13 on:** 17 Oct 2005, 01:06 pm »

Quote from: ScottMayo

The books were practically a Defining Moment for a whole gneration of people. Nobody had quite written like that before - there'd been plenty of social satires, and existential angst writings by the truckloads, but no one had ever really turned those tools against the nature of reality itself, against all of human nature. Yeah, I know, Vonngeut. But Adams was truely *funny*. You couldn't get through a page without seeing parallels to your own life, and laughing about it.

I actually liked the movie, but I can see why others might not. But where I draw the line is dissing Vonnegut.

Now you are perfectly accurate in saying that Adams is much more light hearted and carefree in is writing style, but Vonnegut is hilarious. Ever read Breakfast of Champions? If so, what does this * represent?

The movie adaptation of it, however, was truely horrible as are most of the movie versions of Vonnegut's books. On the other hand, if you want to see a fabulous movie rendition of a book, or just a great movie, watch Mother Night. Very well done.

Tim

ScottMayo · « **Reply #14 on:** 17 Oct 2005, 01:26 pm »

Quote from: Tim S

but Vonnegut is hilarious. Ever read Breakfast of Champions? If so, what does this * represent?
Tim

I've read it. The right way to answer is "I've read it - asshole!" but it could be taken the wrong way.

But that's just where Vonnegut doesn't work for me. It's low humor. Yes, he's laughing at himself, but that doesn't help. Then again, I still get giggles from Carrol's "Hunting of the Snark", so what do I know.

Tim S · « **Reply #15 on:** 17 Oct 2005, 01:36 pm »

Actually I was going for the "wide open beaver" use of the asterisk as it was funnier, but I see how it could have been misinterpreted given the context.

Yes, either interpretation is indeed low humour. Cats Cradle, however, is certainly funny (to me at least) with very little "low brow" about it.

Tim

art · « **Reply #16 on:** 17 Oct 2005, 02:01 pm »

Bill Gates is crashing my e-mail s/w today, so......

Goodbye, Blue Monday.

Think I will lay on my back and thumb my nose...........

Pat

electricbear · « **Reply #17 on:** 17 Oct 2005, 03:32 pm »

Sorry Guys, I am forced to disagree with the majority of you. I actually enjoyed the movie. True, it is not as good as the original radio play but it still captures the satyr and irony in Adams writing. It's british humor, you either get it or you don't. For those of you who do enjoy Adams writing you should try some Terry Pratchett. Pratchett takes humor to the next level.

DeadFish · « **Reply #18 on:** 17 Oct 2005, 04:51 pm »

I have to jump on board in defense of HitchHiker's Guide if purely from the side of seeing someone else's interpretations. Yes, I think it fell short from the book, radio and PBS versions, but I would rather see a re-hash of what I have already enjoyed, than some POS that is even poor from the writing standpoint, put out for the sake of $$$.
This film seemed most shallow, especially by its almost total lack of references to 'The Guide' on film. (compared to the teevee version).
Personally, I just about always have disdain for a director's hubris at thinking that HIS imagination and realization is better than what I had going in my head from the book. My imagination is a wonderful and terrible thing. However, I am willing to admit that someone else might have gotten something I missed! And to have some tale broadened in the 'umpteenth' time I have gone over it, is just plain fun and satisfying.
I will admit to being far more satisfied for instance with LOTR than I ever thought I could have been, having read it repeatedly for 40 years, but it seemed it WAS an act of love by director and actors alike.
Moving on to comment on Vonnegut, I consider him darker and a bit more complex than Adams, but still a master at looking at life's absurdities.
Thanks for the tip, Tim S on the film of 'Mother Night'. I didn't know it existed. Vonnegut's movies always seem nothing but absurd, but I can take that. Anyone ever see the almost-impossible-to-find "Between Time and Timbuktu"? Seen it in the 70s, but I've never found a copy in the here and now. Loosely based on 'Welcome to the Monkey House' and rather hilarious.
Once again, I think that by necessity a film version of a book will always fall short of the book (and I'm willing to be wrong on this point) when a director thinks that he can wrap his mind around what the original author had in mind, and be able to put it out in a commercial version in under 2 hours.
Anybody else see what appeared to be the PBS version's of "Marvin the Depressed Robot' standing in line in the film?

Regards,
DeadFish

PhilNYC · « **Reply #19 on:** 17 Oct 2005, 05:05 pm »

For me, the biggest problem I had with the movie version is that the PBS/BBC version is still fresh in my head having picked up the DVD less than a year ago. In the film, so many of the scenes that I thoroughly enjoyed in the PBS/BBC version were heavily cut in the movie. For example, the entire scene where Ford tries to convince the demolition crew to let Arthur go for a drink at the pub had a lot of wit and twisted logic in it, which in the PBS/BBC version was fully played-out and fun. In the film version, half the dialog was cut from the scene, leaving it very incomplete to me.

And yes, the absence of "the book" as a story-telling device was bad. The entire movie was about the book, but I don't even remember the book playing a part in the movie...