Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Goober5000 on April 21, 2005, 07:50:39 am
-
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy movie is bad. Really bad. You just won't believe how vastly, staggeringly, jaw-droppingly bad it is. I mean, you might think that The Phantom Menace was a hopelessly misguided attempt to reinvent a much-loved franchise by people who, though well-intentioned, completely failed to understand what made the original popular - but that's just peanuts to the Hitchhiker's movie.
http://www.planetmagrathea.com/shortreview.html
Stupid Hollywood.
-
i wasn't going to go see it anyway. the trailers were extremely stupid.
-
F*CK!
-
naaa it looked like crap from the get-go...
i'm afraid the next best movie i have to look forward to is the same now as it was 6 months ago: Star Wars EP III in less than a month.
-
I wouldn't trust just one review...
JAMES THRIFT, BROTHER OF DOUGLAS ADAMS
As a young boy, I used sit in the bedroom down at the end of the corridor watching Douglas tap away at his typewriter, occasionally stopping to gaze out of the window, the odd wry grin followed by furious typing. Hitchhikers was being born for the first time.
As the years progressed that scenario was oft repeated as Hitchhikers was born into each new medium, the books, TV series, album, stage production and computer game. The typewriter became an Apple Mac, the bedroom became Islington, and some would say the gaps between the wry grins became longer, but sadly for Douglas despite writing numerous screenplays, the jewel in the Hitchhikers crown evaded him, the movie.
Now 20 years after Douglas leapt onto that first plane to Hollywood, the family having decided that we really did want to see this film made, the movie is finally here, it's finished, the world premiere is on Wednesday, the global release only a week or so away.
I saw the finished product last week, I must say it was nerve racking going into the screening knowing what Douglas wanted to achieve with the film, how he envisaged dealing with this, how he wanted to portray that, and wondering if it was ever going to live up to that expectation.
I needn't have worried, the only un-Douglas thing about this film is that it was finished on time.
The story is unequivocally Hitchhikers, but in true Douglas style it is Hitchhikers with a difference, new characters, new plots. Don't expect to be spoon fed a new rendition of the radio/book/tv/stage/cereal packet version, you ain't gonna get it. What you're going to get is a film that is funny, hilarious at times, evocative, visually stunning, and something that Douglas would have loved.
The characters are bang on the mark, Zaphod is so hip it hurts and Arthur is, well Arthur. Polly and I ended up arguing over who gets to keep Marvin, well we were till Warwick made it clear we'd have to fight him first, methinks he became a bit attached to his character! The visual effects are simply outstanding, the Vogons, the Heart of Gold, I know Douglas wanted big, but wait till you see the Magrathean factory floor!
As a family we are going to walk up that red carpet with an enormous amount of pride, masked only by the sadness that the big man's not here to see it.
-
Gee, do you think the fact that it's his brother might have just the slightest impact on his point of view and objectivity? Hell, if Planet Magrathea writes a bad (ok, really bad) review, and they're the die hard fans, then that really tells you something.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Stupid Hollywood.
:lol:
i don't know i have open mind regarding new movies. Don't critise it until you don't see it.
-
Judging by the source of the link Goob - I'd be hesitant. The guys site looks very... purist. I'm not sure he'd be pleased with any other take on the Hitch Hikers world.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
they're the die hard fans
There lies my problem with that site.
-
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. ;)
-
I wouldn't trust the review of a die-hard fan; IMO that sort of person has a very clear view of exactly what they want, is likely to expect not to get it, and will hate anything that doesn't have it.
The IMDB board has an average of 8/10 rating so far; although you kind of have to take any anonymous internet rating with a hefty pinch of salt.
-
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....
I disagree entirely. Film is a different art form, and it can be just as far-reaching in depth and scope as a book, but it uses different techniques. There is a world of artistic possibility involving lighting, sound, camera work, acting style, music, etc. To say one cannot compare to the other is like saying a sculpture can never be as complicated or deep as a painting.
-
The "big" issue for me with book to film conversions is that when you read something, your mind automatically creates the whole thing as you want to imagine it. When the film doesn't fit that image you've made for yourself in your head - you feel it didn't live up to your own expectations.
Had you gone into a movie theatre without having read the book in advance, you might not have the expecations and be fine with whatever you see.
-
Well, just from the previews, I know that the movie has already violated some of my expecations regarding the book, but I still have high hopes for the film. I think it can differ greatly from the book in technical ways but still convey the same things where it counts.
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
The "big" issue for me with book to film conversions is that when you read something, your mind automatically creates the whole thing as you want to imagine it. When the film doesn't fit that image you've made for yourself in your head - you feel it didn't live up to your own expectations.
Had you gone into a movie theatre without having read the book in advance, you might not have the expecations and be fine with whatever you see.
And if you had never driven a Ferrari, you wouldn't mind when someone passes of a Yugo as a Ferrari. The fact that it may be an on-par movie really says nothing, considering the cailbre of movies these days.
The reason that I trust only fans on this one is because, well, the great unwashed masses who turned out in droves to see the likes of Elektra really can't be trusted. It could be utter crap, and someone, perhaps even most people, would still think it was enjoyable, for lack of a better standard.
-
well, we'll just have to wait and see, I suppose. I'll still go see it, hopefully.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I disagree entirely. Film is a different art form, and it can be just as far-reaching in depth and scope as a book, but it uses different techniques. There is a world of artistic possibility involving lighting, sound, camera work, acting style, music, etc. To say one cannot compare to the other is like saying a sculpture can never be as complicated or deep as a painting.
Sorry, I meant to say that making a movie out of a book while maintaining the same level of depth and complexity as the book is difficult. The thing is that they are different forms of expression, and cannot be related to eachother, because films and books are done so differently.
Movies are a form of art as well, absolutely. :)
-
damn i was kinda lookin forward to this one
-
Sorry, that F*CK just doesn't cut it. Here is my expression:
Watch your language, now
-
This was on slashdot not too long ago.
Ultimately that review smacks of rabid fan overexpectations. I would take it as being on-par with reviews that blasted LotR for its liberties with Tolkien's story, and you don't see many people that found the final product as severely lacking. Has it been adapted to the general tastes and format of a theater-going audience? Unquestionably so. Is it untrue to the original? Probably not. Don't judge the movie by one bad review. Ever.
-
:wakka: good one. :yes:
:eek: someone doesn't like Star Wars: Ep 1? they must die.
i gotta admit tho, the trailers for The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy were hilarious.
"I think that-" *WHAM (hit by some kind of shovel)* "What was that?" *WHAM (everyone but Marvin get hit)* "RUN!!!"
"You hit that button and BAM!" *zap, boom, wack, zoom and every sfx you can think of* "Is this gonna happen every time we press that button?"
:lol:
-
I did rather explicityly say one bad review. If a movie has many (Star Wars ep 1 comes to mind) then it probably is bad. But most of the rest of the reviews I've seen for HHGTTG are pretty good. Simple statistics; you throw out the most extreme data to get a closer approximation to the true value.
-
I liked Episode I. And Episode II.
-
Then you're dumb.
The thing about this guy's HHGTTG review is that he doesn't just ask you to take his (occasionally fanatical) word for it, he actually provides a scene-by-scene description of the entire movie. And based on that description, it does indeed seem to have the plot coherence of a Tim Burton movie. If you like that sort of thing... well... more power to ya (and please don't reproduce).
-
Tim Burton is a genius. He's made several of my favorite movies.
-
I would have to say 'plot coherence' never struck me as a major point of the books, to be fair. The other thing that strikes me, is that someone who can give a virtual scene-by-scene recap of a film is a bit like the kind of person who points out the stupid little continuity errors that no-one actually cares about.
I'll wait for a proper review, methinks.
-
"fan overexpectation" is just another way of saying "fans are the only ones have anything resembling a standard". I'm sorry, but I simply don't trust the majority of people to have discerning taste. Would you like me to start listing the scores of bull**** movies which were well recieved?
Like I said, if you've never driven a Ferrari, you have no problem believing that a Yugo (being the worst car I can think of at the moment) is as good as it gets.
-
No, it's another way of saying that if you're going to disect every scene, line by line, and completely ignore the overall plot arcs or the jokes that aren't lifted line-for-line out of the source to the adaption, then you are holding it up to some unattainable and unreasonable standard. In all seriousness, you absolutely have to remember that it is an adaption of previous works first and foremost, and will not necessarily align itself to what any one person has built up in their mind. That reviewer quite plainly went in to the thing knowing he was going to hate it, and he reasoned it out with whatever evidence he could find.
But anyway, by the same reasoning, someone who has only driven a piece of crap car has no problem believing what he has is the worst. Even when it could get much worse. Open mind Rictor, don't make assumptions based on someone elses (biased) point of view.
-
Meh. Maybe it is a bad review; in any case I'm reserving judgement until I hear the reports from opening day. Though the reviewer's description of the crippled jokes doesn't bode well.
It's just that there's been a disturbing trend in Hollywood to make bad movies out of good source material, LOTR notwithstanding. I'm afraid this may be yet another instance of that.
-
I disapear for one hour to install my new Firewall, and what happens? Posts. Lots of them. This'll be interesting.
*enables mass-answering mechanism*
Originally posted by Cobra
:wakka: good one. :yes:
I hope this wasn't in response to Strattcom's post, which made perfect sense in every way. If it was, you've reached a lofty new level of stupidity.
Originally posted by Ford Perfect:
I liked Episode I. And Episode II.
I thought they were alright. Lots of action, and the plot wasn't that bad.
Originally posted by ZylonBane in response to Ford Perfect:
Then you're dumb.
He isn't dumb, he's just got a different opinion. Yeah, that happens sometimes. The whole "not-everyone-thinks-just-like-you" thing. Bloody egotist.
Originally posted by aldo_14
I would have to say 'plot coherence' never struck me as a major point of the books
So right, on so many levels.
Originally posted by Goober the uber naysayer:
the reviewer's description of the crippled jokes doesn't bode well
No, they don't. Is it just me, or is Hollywood catering to the Adam Sandler-type-fans who don't "get" sophisticated humor? Hello, morons, there's more to humor than cussing and body-part jokes!
Also posted by Goober. He's on a role, today, isn't he?
It's just that there's been a disturbing trend in Hollywood to make bad movies out of good source material
Pearl Harbor, about fifty botched book adaptions, you'd need to rent a stadium to hold the list.
LoTR was a pleasant success, but that's it, as far as I can tell. Can they get anything right? Or perhaps Hollywood should attempt something original?
-
One question, have the done what they did with Lord of the Rings and given an explanation why parts had to be changed etc?
And since HHGTTG was pretty succesful as a series, it does show that it can be pretty faithfully reproduced in Film format :)
-
Everyone is aware that Douglas Adams wrote the screenplay for the movie, right?
-
I thought the movie was based on Douglas Adams screenplay that he wrote whilst still alive, the same screenplay they used for the TV series, with completely different results? I wasn't under the impression it was written specifically for that movie.
-
It's still his writing, though. The point is that even the author himself was not entirely faithful to the books when writing a screenplay. A lot of things that work in books just don't work on screen, and they're usually things that we wouldn't think about because we don't work in the film industry.
-
Agreed, however, it also shows the massive disparity that can occur when two different people interpret the same screenplay. Maybe the Director was trying not to just make a film of the TV series of the Book, I don't know, but if so, it's becoming a game of Media Chinese Whispers, with the result becoming further and further detached from the original.
That said, I am going to watch the movie before making any definite conclusions about it :)
-
That's what the producers of this travesty are hoping you'll do.
-
Well, I won't know it's a travesty till I do, and I won't be paying cinema prices, I don't even do that for films I am eagerly waiting for. So it'll have to wait until it's released on Tor....er....DVD :)
-
Usually I'd rag on you for hurting the film industry, but this time, not so much.
-
:lol: to be honest, these days I wait until movies come out to rent, watching 'attack of the blur with warbly soundtrack' is not my idea of a fun evening in ;)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
One question, have the done what they did with Lord of the Rings and given an explanation why parts had to be changed etc?
And since HHGTTG was pretty succesful as a series, it does show that it can be pretty faithfully reproduced in Film format :)
I would suspect / fear they removed the cleverer conversations with big words...... of course, IMO part of the best (if not the best) bit about the books is the narrative anyways, and I'm not sure that could really be reproduced on film.
I'm actually in 2 minds over the movie; on the one hand it's fear of Hollywoods adaptation, on the other hand there is the odd bit of hope; Bill Bailey voicing the sperm whale, for example.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
My conclusion?
It's a freaking movie! Come on! Get off that chair and go outside!
-
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.
-
...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 :)
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Hardcore fans are nerds, and nerds obsess over trivialities.
...says the man called 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.
-
It is nevertheless and incredibly ironic turn of events.
-
All this is like being unpleasantly drunk...
-
...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.
-
*sighs*
No one caught it. :(
-
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.
-
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.
-
The books were definitely first.
EDIT: No, they weren't. That was dumb.
-
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 :p
I judge all movies on my own tastes and only watch what I like anyway, not based on anyone elses opinion.
-
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? :p
-
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.
-
Because I would never name myself after a car company whose ads cater to guys who need big trucks to make people think they have big penises.
That and the "Prefect" part kinda narrows it down.