Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

re: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Darron — Sat, 30 Apr 2005 04:19:18 GMT

I disagree with the last statement. I am a techie, and had never read this book. (don't ask... long story) But I saw the movie today, thought it was unbelievable. I'm buying the book tomorrow morning. I think it made a fan.

(My wife agreed. We laughed very hard, and so did the rest of the crowd in Atlanta at my theatre).

~D

re: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Matt Selnekovic — Sat, 30 Apr 2005 07:35:14 GMT

I rather enjoyed the movie. It wasn't exactly the same as the books (I've read them all many times), but it was worth going out to see.
I rather appreciated the small tributes to Douglas Adams... and (according to others I saw it with), it was chock full of cameos and references to other Guide stuff, such as the TV show.
Still, I can see why some purists would dislike it, but then they're purists -- they never have any fun anyhow.

re: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Bertrand Le Roy — Sat, 30 Apr 2005 10:02:15 GMT

If it's really that bad, that's very sad as it probably never will be redone properly. Well, we still have the TV shows on DVD...
I guess I still have to see the movie for myself.

re: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Chris Bilson — Sat, 30 Apr 2005 15:43:30 GMT

I don't think I will be able to watch this movie...Zaphod is from Texas?!?!? My mental Zaphod is Richard Branson with two heads.

re: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

ghett0blaster — Sun, 01 May 2005 06:15:20 GMT

The guide is introduced before we see the actual device. "Don't Panic" is, inexplicably, on the back of the book, so in the setup show, you don't see it until the end of the introductory setting. You've seen the front. It doesn't have words. You've heard the narration. I says they're there. Ugh.

The narration says it's "on the COVER". It never says front or back. It's vague.

On the other hand I agree a lot with what you said. This movie stinks.

Movie Review (and more): Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy

Random Thoughts — Sun, 01 May 2005 10:32:49 GMT

This evening Nabila and I went to see Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy. To say this is a home coming for me is sort of an understatement in a "full-circle" kind of way. Before I get to the review,...

I Thoroughly enjoyed Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy

Sirsha Development Resources Blog — Sun, 01 May 2005 21:33:40 GMT

I have read the books a few times, my girlfriend hasn't. We both thought it was great, as did everyone else at the noon showing yesterday, from the sound of it.

I guess you could sum up my review as a big

re: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Andy Tom — Sun, 08 May 2005 21:38:56 GMT

I moved heaven and earth to get to see this film. Way back in the late 70's I was a devoted hhgtg fan, heard the radio series, bought the books, bought the vinyl, watched the tv series, had all the lines off word perfect. So I HAD to see the movie. WHAT A DISAPPOINTMENT> I agree totally with the comments. Utter Rubbish. Where's the flowing dialogue? wheres the bemusement of Arthur? Ford's supposed to be COOL not just smartly dressed. SHOOT THE PRODUCERS, I SAY.

re: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Ian Griffiths — Mon, 09 May 2005 19:09:38 GMT

Zaphod having two heads becomes integral to the plot in the books too actually... And it's all tied in with the president of the galaxy thing. And as a part of this whole plot device, he's not really clear on what his motivations are. Have you read all of the books?

Zaphod is meant to be really annoying. Douglas Adams *hated* Zaphod - he was always supposed to be a truly obnoxious character. (My girlfriend used to work for Douglas Adams by the way, in case you're wondering on what authority I got this...) So Sam Rockwell's protrayal of the character is arguably much closer to Douglas Adams' intentions than Mark Wing Davey's. (Who played the original Zaphod.)

I gather that the love interest between Arthur and Trillian was introduced to the script by Douglas Adams because he felt it was necessary to provide more character development to make it a successfuly film. I certainly think Trillian was a much better developed character in the film than she was in the books or the original radio play. The interplay between her and Arthur forms a part of that.

I did find the absence of some of the lines I knew and loved to be somewhat jarring. But it's a film, not a book or a radio play. Slavishly copying dialog can be a bad idea. If you want to see what happens when you stick more faithfully to the original, watch the TV adaptation of Hitchhikers. I think the movie is significantly better than the TV series, largely *because* it didn't try to stick as closely to the original as the TV series did.

In fact the parts that stuck exactly to the original were, IMO, some of the weakest. The film was at its strongest when it was different from before, particulary when adding visual aspects to the humour. (E.g. I thought a lot of the guide entries were animated with excellent understated but effective wit.)

That's not to say there weren't few somewhat ham-fisted edits and bizarre semi-faithful-byt-arbitrarily-different parts in the script. But on balance, I enjoyed it a great deal, far more than I was expecting. (I was hugely into the original radio series and the books, so I was expecting to hate it...) It was a much better adaptation, I thought, than the other much more faithful adaptation-for-screen, the TV series.

re: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Mike Schilling — Fri, 13 May 2005 21:57:21 GMT

In the books, there are two main parts to Marvin: he's depressed all the time, and he's incredibly intelligent. In the movie, we just get the depression. (He does say "brain the size of a planet", but never demonstrates it.) I saw Douglas Adams speak once, and he acted out the scene where Marvin tricks the armed-to-the-teeth attack robot into destroying itself (BTW, Adams did a brilliant Marvin voice), ending with Marvin's comment on the dead robot: "What a depressingly stupid creature." That's exactly it: Marvin's depressed *because* he's so smart. The movie gives you none of that.

re: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Louis Parks — Thu, 19 May 2005 19:55:10 GMT

I thought similarly. The credits listed Adams as the screenwriter and executive producer. I wonder how much (if any) of the content was changed after he died. I find it somewhat hard to believe that he would have written it this way.

Spamalot

Eric Gunnerson's C# Compendium — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 02:04:49 GMT

Last Saturday night, the three of us headed into Seattle (the Big City) to see Spamalot at the Paramount.

Eric Gunnerson s C Compendium Hitchhiker s Guide to the Galaxy | Green Tea Fat Burner

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 05:31:47 GMT

PingBack from http://greenteafatburner.info/story.php?id=3526

Eric Gunnerson s C Compendium Hitchhiker s Guide to the Galaxy | Insomnia Cure

Eric Gunnerson s C Compendium Hitchhiker s Guide to the Galaxy | Insomnia Cure — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:53:22 GMT

PingBack from http://insomniacuresite.info/story.php?id=5521

Eric Gunnerson s C Compendium Hitchhiker s Guide to the Galaxy | Quick Diets

Eric Gunnerson s C Compendium Hitchhiker s Guide to the Galaxy | Quick Diets — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:36:55 GMT

PingBack from http://quickdietsite.info/story.php?id=14360