[Flipside]

This is why it would be terribly hard to make a Terry Pratchett or Robert Rankin movie etc. Much of the humour is locked up in the Author's own comments and observations, not in the 'active' content of the book.

I've just read Garden of Unearthly Delights by Robert Rankin for example, you'd never be able to effectively turn that into a movie as far as I can see.

[Mongoose]

They removed something as simple to reproduce yet fundamental as the Guide's entry on Earth.  I don't think getting upset over something like that is being nit-picky; it's one of the most well-remembered jokes of the entire book.  Yet they couldn't take ten seconds of the movie to throw it in there.  That, to me, speaks volumes.  When I first read that review, I was literally sickened.  They made an abomination out of a classic.  To those of you who wouldn't trust a hard-core fan, I say, who better to trust?  As an example, I'm one of the biggest Tolkien fans ever, and I adored the movies.  This person seems to be as big of a fan of Douglas, and he despised the movie.  That's a pretty big vote against the movie in my book.

[aldo_14]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4461899.stm
[q]Don't panic - The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is not as bad as I had feared. Then again, it is not as good as I had hoped.[/q]
BBC review.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Everyone is aware that Douglas Adams wrote the screenplay for the movie, right?

That doesn't mean it's automatically good. Maybe he just couldn't write for the screen. Or maybe the script is nothing if the director or crap. Or maybe they heavily edited the Adams script during production. Most likely it's a little of everything.

edit: the BBC review is hardly what you might call encouraging. Basically, it says the same thing the Planet Magrathea review says, only with lower initial expectations.

[Dark RevenantX]

My conclusion?

It's a freaking movie!  Come on!  Get off that chair and go outside!

[Kamikaze]

The most important part of the BBC review was this:

A lot of effort has gone in to keeping the film as faithful to Adams' vision as possible. But somewhere in the production process the crew has lost sight of the fundamental aspect of the books - they were immensely funny.

That said, I'm going to refrain from judging the movie until I go see it.

[Corhellion]

...Anyone who critisizes a movie before it's released is dumb...

...They're saying that Spielbergs WotWs is going to be crap "Cause it's not H.G. Wells' book!"

Duh! Think about it! Victoria England is pretty much Modern day America! It's a modern rendition, some of the things are left out, and others are made along the same lines. It's been done like that by every other book to movie. (Like the Harry Potter books...vastly different in some places, but vastly cooler in others)

You'll see...it'll be good...one week from today...I'm skipping school to go see it

[Ford Prefect]

This person seems to be as big of a fan of Douglas, and he despised the movie. That's a pretty big vote against the movie in my book.

Hardcore fans are nerds, and nerds obsess over trivialities. He's probably some idiot who thinks he's a literary scholar on Douglas Adams because he's read all the books and thus takes great pleasure in turning up his nose at anybody else who tries to interpret them.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect

Hardcore fans are nerds, and nerds obsess over trivialities.

...says the man called Ford Prefect.

[Ford Prefect]

But you'll notice that I'm not the least bit upset by the fact that they changed things in the movie. That's because I'm fan who leaves the house, has hobbies, and interacts with females on a regular basis.

[Rictor]

It is nevertheless and incredibly ironic turn of events.

[vyper]

All this is like being unpleasantly drunk...

[Blitzerland]

...actually, it's more like the immense headache you get the following day. Or so I've heard.

The strongest drink I've ever consumed was a glass of lemonade that some idiot left out in the sun for a few hours.

[vyper]

*sighs*

No one caught it.

[Deepblue]

Originally posted by Ai No Koriida
Movie adaptions from books are quite useless IMO anyways. There's no way you'll ever be able to make a movie as deep and complicated as a good book (especially this one). Simply the average max time of 2 hours enforces this, how can you stuff an entire book into 120 mins, and still make it true to the original?

Not to mention when "liberties" are taken with the original work. Kinda like bad fan-fiction I suppose.

In other words, it's like making movies from games.

IMHO, The Fall of Reach would make an EXCELLENT movie, if done right (therein lies the problem, Hollywood). The book is pretty much awesomeness.

[phatosealpha]

Er...if I'm not mistaken, HHGTTG the book was different then the radio show it was based on.  The TV series differed from both of those.

If the movie were a perfect translation of the Book, or TV Show, or even the original radio show, it would kind of violate the spirit of the guide.

[Ford Prefect]

The books were definitely first.

EDIT: No, they weren't. That was dumb.

[Sigma957]

It all comes down to individual tastes,just because some people dont like it doesn't mean you wont like it:rolleyes:
If you think its going to be crap then wait until its out on dvd and then get a mate to hire it out and then watch it but if  its good then you've probably missed out on seeing it at the theatre
I judge all movies on my own tastes and only watch what I like anyway, not based on anyone elses opinion.

[Mongoose]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
But you'll notice that I'm not the least bit upset by the fact that they changed things in the movie. That's because I'm fan who leaves the house, has hobbies, and interacts with females on a regular basis.

As do I, but I'm upset with this.  And what's wrong with being a nerd, anyway?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor

...says the man called Ford Prefect.

How do you know he's not named after the car?  Y'know, like Austin Healy.