[Rictor]

By the Hitchhiker's movie.

First of all, there's just so much missing. 9/10 of the plotline is simply absent. Then there's the not-too-spectactular quality of the actors, settings, plot development and humour. The movie and the books aren't even in the same neighborhood, quality wise. Hell they're not in the the same galaxy.

Basically, the movie jumps really high, and calls that space-flight.

[BlackDove]

I saw it.

It wasn't a waste of my time.

It wasn't anything spectacular either though.

My review:











(*note, I never read the books though/heard radio shows, etc.)

[Rictor]

Well, don't take the movies are a representation of the books. Read the books, you will almost certainly love them.

[BlackDove]

Oh I'm sure I would (I mean I did like some/most of the things that were in the movie), but the whole thing just seemed too fast for me. By the time I actually got into it they were at the Earth MK2 and it was all ending.

[Rictor]

Like I said, the movies show literally 1/10 of the content of the books. That for me was the most glaring thing. I can forgive "creative license" but the movie would have to be at least 3 times as long to even justify being made, or at least to cram more stuff in the time given. And it can be done, just look at the LOTR movies.

It just seems so unambitous, like they tore out the first 50 pages out of 700 and said "OK, this is the movie."

[Mongoose]

I've heard mixed reviews from fans of the books.  Of course, there was that infamous Slashdot article that almost convinced me to not see the movie, but I also heard from a few people I know online who truly enjoyed it.  Greg Dean of Real Life Comics seemed to love it, as well.  From what I heard, the script was pretty much all Adams's work; the director made very few changes.  He did say that the Guide tended to change with each new media it was presented in; I guess you have to take that into account.  I'm definitely going to go see it now, if for no other reason than to try to sort through all of the conflicting reviews.  If money's any indication of success, the movie's doing spectacluarly.

[EtherShock]

If money's any indication, then people will pay to watch any crap you show on the screen. I can't believe Sahara did better than Sin City. Anyway...

After Doug died, the movie was rewritten. I forget by who, I posted it in the previous thread about this. There's part of your explanation for why it sucked. Plus, it's British comedy--done by Americans! You can't do that. The Guide is essentialy Monty Python in space. Could you imagine Monty Python done by Americans? It's just not possible!

[Ford Prefect]

Monty Python is on Broadway now, dude.

[Rictor]

Have they no shame, the bastards. One day someone will do a proper HHGTTG, and none of this live action stuff. I can think of nothing that can do it justice except full-blown CG and a stylized visual direction.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Mongoose
From what I heard, the script was pretty much all Adams's work; the director made very few changes.

There seem to be conflicting accounts here.  It's undisputed that the screenplay was originally written by Adams, and that it was unfinished.  However people differ on whether it was completely rewritten or only slightly rewritten.

As for me, I still haven't seen it yet.

[Nix]

Originally posted by EtherShock
I can't believe Sahara did better than Sin City.

AGREED!  Yet another modern movie that makes me want my 2 hours back in my life.  Not even Steve Zahn could save this film.  
I cant believe Clint Mansell threw in so much 70's mainstream rock music into it as well.  I mean come on, We're talking about the guy who made that spine-tingling orchestra piece for Requiem for a dream.. How many times do I need to hear "Magic Carpet Ride" in modern movies.  Geh.  

I read a review on Rolling Stone (I was bored! ) and they said they liked the film, put simply.  I havent read the books, seen the movie, or anything like that.  I would have rather watched this than some others I've seen recently.

[Fineus]

I think my opinions can be split into two views. May contain spoilers:

Opinion 1: I loved it. The humor was well placed and while some of it was quite.. childish, it carried off some of the entries from the book quite perfectly. The visuals were also quite good, including Deep Thought and the graphics for the HHG itself. Magratheas factory floor was also quite an incredible take on the design of the place.

Opinion 2: What the hell did they do to the story? I don't know if I ever thought they were going to retell the story of the book, or the audio version... but they completely butchered this one. Perhaps they did it to provide some variation for those of us who've already seen the book or whatever... but I really don't know why they did.

That said, the book is quite epic in its scope... there's an aweful lot that happens between Earths destruction and Arthur and Ford ending up on a Pre-Historic Earth. What happened to most of it? The whole notion of the real reason Zaphod didn't quite know what he was doing was never touched on... certainly not for the reasons in the book. Also, while he had a tendency to insult Arthur he never actually went at him over Trillian... there was no love interest there.

Meh... I try to ignore the let down of the story and focus on - on its own - it was a very funny film.

[Dark RevenantX]

well, Zaphod didn't have a problem with arthur and trillian because he was zapped 15 times by trillian with the point of view gun.

[EtherShock]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Monty Python is on Broadway now, dude.

Yeah, I know, and wasn't it written for Broadway by one of the original members?

[Ford Prefect]

Yes, but it's with American actors, and the nature of a stage performance is heavily dependent on the actors' interpretations. From what I've heard, they're doing a superb job of it.

[EtherShock]

True, but film nowadays is less dependent on the actors' interpretation for the most part.