My only problem with the movie was it didn’t have an infinite number of monkeys outside who want to talk to us about this script for Hamlet they’ve worked out.
I’ve honestly never met a fan of the books that didn’t also like the movie. I think it did a great job of appealing to fans of the book and a not so good job appealing to non fans.
I never saw the movie because I never understood what value that medium would have to offer. There’s just too many jokes packed into the text for it to translate into something you can watch in one sitting. It’s like when they made a movie about catch-22. It’s great to get the material to more audiences, but there’s just no way to correctly translate it no matter how good you do it.
I’m a big fan of the books who didn’t really like the movie. But that’s partly because I’m also a huge fan of the BBC TV show so, to me, that’s what HHGG should look and sound like. Particularly Peter Jones as the voice of the Book (nothing against Stephen Fry in general).
The movie had some good moments, but having Zaphod’s second head beneath his first instead of beside it was a horrible idea. And the joke at the end about going in the wrong direction to the Restaurant at the End of the Universe seemed to suggest the makers thought that ‘End’ refers to a physical location in the universe as opposed to its chronological end point. Which annoyed me quite a bit.
It’s fine though, I’m not one of these “They completely ruined it” people - there are so many different versions of HHGG what with the radio show, the books, the audio books, the TV show, and the text adventure game, that there really isn’t a single definitive version. I happen to not like the film, but the rest still exist, so it’s all hoopy.
I can understand these complaints. In general, though, I felt like the movie was just being a different thing while trying to stay faithful to the spirit of the book, and I loved the movie for that. It didn’t feel like the creators just wanted to cash in on a name, but genuinely liked the material and were trying to bring that to life.
It wasn’t a great movie, but as a fan of the books, I appreciate that it exists. I knew it wouldn’t happen, but I wanted the sequel.
Also, I didn’t get the feeling they misunderstand the “end” joke, I thought it was just a cute way to end the movie while name checking the potential sequel.
Is that a bad thing? It’s a different medium that can reach a much wider audience. I’d bet that at least 80% of people who enjoy the BBC miniseries have never heard of the radio program.
It would have been better if it varied more from the radio show as the books did, and the special effects were largely cringeworthy if a product of the time and budget. The animations were very good though.
My point was that it doesn’t particularly support the idea that all the different versions have been drastically different.
Especially crazy when Douglas Adams has a writing credit on the screenplay, and all indications are that he was substantially involved in it’s contents.
Edit:
The script we shot was very much based on the last draft that Douglas wrote… All the substantive new ideas in the movie… are brand new Douglas ideas written especially for the movie by him… Douglas was always up for reinventing HHGG in each of its different incarnations and he knew that working harder on some character development and some of the key relationships was an integral part of turning HHGG into a movie.
Anyone who hates on the movies for being different from the books seriously misunderstands the pedigree and nature of the Hitchhiker’s Guide series.
My only problem with the movie was it didn’t have an infinite number of monkeys outside who want to talk to us about this script for Hamlet they’ve worked out.
I’ve honestly never met a fan of the books that didn’t also like the movie. I think it did a great job of appealing to fans of the book and a not so good job appealing to non fans.
I think the book has to be read before watching the movie.
I never saw the movie because I never understood what value that medium would have to offer. There’s just too many jokes packed into the text for it to translate into something you can watch in one sitting. It’s like when they made a movie about catch-22. It’s great to get the material to more audiences, but there’s just no way to correctly translate it no matter how good you do it.
I’m a big fan of the books who didn’t really like the movie. But that’s partly because I’m also a huge fan of the BBC TV show so, to me, that’s what HHGG should look and sound like. Particularly Peter Jones as the voice of the Book (nothing against Stephen Fry in general).
The movie had some good moments, but having Zaphod’s second head beneath his first instead of beside it was a horrible idea. And the joke at the end about going in the wrong direction to the Restaurant at the End of the Universe seemed to suggest the makers thought that ‘End’ refers to a physical location in the universe as opposed to its chronological end point. Which annoyed me quite a bit.
It’s fine though, I’m not one of these “They completely ruined it” people - there are so many different versions of HHGG what with the radio show, the books, the audio books, the TV show, and the text adventure game, that there really isn’t a single definitive version. I happen to not like the film, but the rest still exist, so it’s all hoopy.
I can understand these complaints. In general, though, I felt like the movie was just being a different thing while trying to stay faithful to the spirit of the book, and I loved the movie for that. It didn’t feel like the creators just wanted to cash in on a name, but genuinely liked the material and were trying to bring that to life.
It wasn’t a great movie, but as a fan of the books, I appreciate that it exists. I knew it wouldn’t happen, but I wanted the sequel.
Also, I didn’t get the feeling they misunderstand the “end” joke, I thought it was just a cute way to end the movie while name checking the potential sequel.
I should probably watch it again to be fair, I’ve not seen it in quite a while. Maybe I’d like it more this time.
I don’t hate the movie for being different from the book; I hate it for being poorly written/directed and cringey.
Now, the BBC miniseries from the 80s - that is worth watching.
But the miniseries is just a carbon-copy of the radio programme…
Is that a bad thing? It’s a different medium that can reach a much wider audience. I’d bet that at least 80% of people who enjoy the BBC miniseries have never heard of the radio program.
It’s kind of neutral in my opinion.
It would have been better if it varied more from the radio show as the books did, and the special effects were largely cringeworthy if a product of the time and budget. The animations were very good though.
My point was that it doesn’t particularly support the idea that all the different versions have been drastically different.
It’s a fairly close adaptation, but not the same. And even if it was, why would that affect what they said?
I thout that’s what people meant by the film…
The amount of pants-shitting about the film from people who’d only read the books (probably not even all of them) was, well… predictable
Especially crazy when Douglas Adams has a writing credit on the screenplay, and all indications are that he was substantially involved in it’s contents.
Edit:
It’s funny when people say that the original book was better. When the book itself is just an adaptation from the original radio play
While I have my nitpicks with the movie, overall I adore it. Especially Marvin’s design
This scene is an absolute classic.