[Goober5000]

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.

[Stealth]

i wasn't going to go see it anyway.  the trailers were extremely stupid.

[Rictor]

F*CK!

[Stealth]

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.

[Lt.Cannonfodder]

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.

[Rictor]

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.

[Windrunner]

Originally posted by Goober5000

Stupid Hollywood.

i don't know i have open mind regarding new movies. Don't critise it until you don't see it.

[Fineus]

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.

[Lt.Cannonfodder]

Originally posted by Rictor
they're the die hard fans

There lies my problem with that site.

[Andreas]

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[Ford Prefect]

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.

[Fineus]

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.

[Ford Prefect]

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.

[Rictor]

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.

[Corsair]

well, we'll just have to wait and see, I suppose. I'll still go see it, hopefully.

[Andreas]

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.

[Night Hammer]

damn i was kinda lookin forward to this one

[Dark RevenantX]

Sorry, that F*CK just doesn't cut it.  Here is my expression:

Watch your language, now

[StratComm]

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.