Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy!!!

[nifty>>virago<<]

Personally I find the book The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy to be amazing, it's the movie I have problems with. After reading the book and then reviewing the movie I thought was perfect, I ended up being quite disappointed. The movie really doesn't follow the book well at all! They make things up for the movie to make scenes run smoother and make more sense but it really ruins the story. Maybe it was too hard to follow the book verbadum but I think it would have made for a much better movie if they would have stuck with more of the original story.

With that said I still find it to be an amazing movie!! My favorite part was when the missiles turned into a bowl of petunias and a sperm whale... poor guy has only seconds to learn who he is and what his purpose in life is before he hits the ground wondering whether or not it will be his friend.

Anyone else have an opinion or favorite part of the movie??

[phoenixineohp]

I'm a huge fan of the books, so I was really excited to see the movie. However, by the time it finished I was steamed. I couldn't stand the ending! But then I read up on it and learned that Adams didn't want to follow the story perfectly, he wanted to do something different. Figures. :S So watching it again and keeping that in mind, I started to like it. I even own it now. Even if the end still bothers me.

What I would have liked to see is a version that stays as true to the books as the BBC seires did, using the technology and images that the movie used. That would be neat. The BBC series stayed really on mark, but looked so bad it's brutal to watch. *Sigh*

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

guys, since when does a movie actually ever follow a book to the letter. I see a ton of movies myself, and when you see as many as I do, you realize that you just can't put everything from a book into a 2 hour movie, it's jsut not possible. Also, most of the time, they're not gearing a movie towards just the people who have read the book. With a movie, you have to make an effort to enjoy it who haven't read the book. Which, means not going totally word for word by the books, because then people who haven't seen it, wouldn't understand nearly as much. you might have been upset with it. But, in reference to my previous point, this movie seemed to be the the opposite of that. I myself have also read the HGttG trilogy, and have seen the movie. But, I have a friend who never read the book and went to see it and didn't understand most of the jokes at all.

[Dispozition]

Well...I saw the movie before readong the books, and was somewhat confused by it.

After I'd read the books, a lot of it made sense, but also a lot of it was made up, like the Point of View gun, and a fair few other scenes...

The books though, were amazing! So long and thanks for all the fish especially. Mostly harmless was the hardest to read, but brought everything together...

Damn it! You've made me want to read it again!!!

[Mattaeu]

Best part in the movie:

"I think I'm a couch."

"I know how you feel."


Sooo odd. and yet, classy. :D

[adanedhel9]

IIRC, every version of HGttG has been different, even when directly under Adams's control. The series's life started with an unused screenplay, which then developed into a BBC radio show, which then spawned the books and a BBC TV series. All of those were, to varying levels, under Adams's direct control. And each one had significant differences from the others. Adams was working on the script for this movie when he passed away, and there's no reason to think that the script was based 100% on the books, or the radio shows, or the TV series, or even the original screenplay.

As for the movie itself... I thought it was okay. The Guide scenes were a lot of fun, and the visualization of the Heart of Gold brought a lot of laughs. But when the actors started talking, the pacing seemed to lag to the point where the live-action stuff was just filler between animated portions.

[Om]

Well...I saw the movie before readong the books, and was somewhat confused by it.That was the most common complaint from my friends who hadn't read the book. Apparently the movie on its own just doesn't make sense.

[ghost_warlock]

I'm (re)reading the books right now and, while I enjoy them, they also horribly depress me. I think I actually like the movie better! I absolutely hate Trillan in the book(s). She's so completely flat and uninspiring that I feel like I'm reading a story about a paper doll! Zaphod, Ford, Arthur, and even Marvin are all much more interesting and three-dimensional characters that Trillan's uni-dimensional nature is simply jarring. By the end of Life, the Universe, and Everything I just wanted her to die!

But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Some male writers simply cannot write interesting, believable women. I'm starting So Long and Thanks for All the Fish now, which I haven't read before. I'm hoping Adams does better in this one considering, from the Prologue, the main character is supposed to be the woman who came up with the solution to unhappiness on Earth, just before it was destroyed.

BTW - I loved the Point of View gun from the movie. Giving it to Marvin just seemed like the perfect solution. :smallsmile: It mirrors how, in the book, Marvin accidentally convinces a police ship to commit suicide, thus saving the protagonists!

[pestilenceawaits]

Just seeing this thread made the "so long and thanks for all the fish" song pop into my head. I was a big fan of the books I thought the movie was good but it wasn't as rich as the books. l also like the Dirk Gently's holistic detective agency books.

[Angry_Gryphon]

I'll just say that I read all of the books in the series in the time span of three weeks, and then I watched the movie.

I could scream in agony across cyberspace, but I... urgh... ARGH!

Let's just say that it is the only movie that made me stay up for a couple of hours just thinking about how bad it was. All of my friends and family know not to even mention the title of the movie around me. I'll go ballistic.

Hell, I almost had a brain hemmorage looking at the title of this thread.

Oh, and just so everyone knows, I've seen plenty of bad movies.

[Penguinizer]

I saw the movie first. Then read the book.

IMO the book was a lot better (I've read it so many times that the bindings are coming apart). The movie didnt really follow the book and wasn't as funny. Still good none the less.

[Talon_McScruffles]

I read the book. It was good, but overall i think that it is a tad overrated. The ending of the first one really didn't make me want to read the second one too much. So, I have only read the first one.

And the movie?

Dead.

[fangthane]

BTW - I loved the Point of View gun from the movie. Giving it to Marvin just seemed like the perfect solution. :smallsmile: It mirrors how, in the book, Marvin accidentally convinces a police ship to commit suicide, thus saving the protagonists!
I assume you're talking about the Frogstar robot here; I disagree. That was just a conversation and had nothing to do with appreciation of a point of view or anything else. The PoV gun had a far closer kinship with a different element in the books, specifically when the Krikkit robots hook Marvin up to Hactar and his depression spills through their network and causes them all to go into a deep funk.

As to changes, I've read the radio scripts (which I own), heard the radio episodes, watched the TV episodes, read the books (which I also own) and watched the movie and it changed every time. Frankly, though, that makes sense; jokes which were built around 1970s British sensibilities just won't work as well in a more universal 21st century environment. Some will still work, to be sure, but not all or even necessarily most.

As to the movie, it had its moments but in a lot of ways it was a disappointment, seeming to focus on effects rather than plot or comedy as the earlier material did. That's what you get when Adams can no longer be involved, I guess. I was quite pleased to note that the *real* Marvin was in the Vogon waiting room though, even if I was probably one of only a bare few who noticed him there.

[Amotis]

The book didn't have the opening scene with full blown sound of singing dolphins.

[TinSoldier]

I really enjoyed the books, the recent movie, and the old BBC version.

I saw the recent movie first on a theater screen, though, and I thought that it would have been a better TV movie or direct to DVD release. It just really didn't warrant the big screen treatment, IMO.

[CorruptedDevil]

Okay. I love the books. I love the entire five-book trilogy. It's totally awesome. I own it all in one giant composite book. I read it in two days flat. I'd do it again, too, if I wasn't reading the DaVinci Code and other awesome books.

But, the movie? A waste of time? Not particularly. Just a spin-off of the book/radio series. You can't really call anything so ridiculously hilarious a waste of time. Just ridiculous. And annoying.

On that note, I wish I had a point-of-view gun. Then, my girlfriend would stop arguing with me.

[Cult_of_the_Raven]

42 is the answer. :biggrin:

[Lord of the Helms]

The books are okay, but not a fraction as good as a lot of people make them out to be. Fairly good plotting and pretty amusing, but failed to really pin me down and animate me to keep reading them to no end. Enjoyable, still.

I decided not to bother with the movie (ever since the nine hours of pain and suffering that were LotR, I'm more than wary about book-to-movie conversions), and from all I heard, it was for the better. The old series, for all its low-quality 80s special effects, offered a pretty good and faithful take on the books, on the other hand.

[Were-Sandwich]

Is it possible to get the theme tune anywhere?

[Amotis]

Is it possible to get the theme tune anywhere?

itunes. That's where I got it. They have a few versions of it too.

[nifty>>virago<<]

also if you have myspace they do have it downloaded and you can add it to your profile

[Wooter]

Ugh, I am sick and tired of people saying that the movie "Wasn't faithful to the books" and that a lot of stuff was "Made up"

They were both written by Douglas Adams. Each version of the story isn't exactly like the other. That's the way it is, a constant re-imagining by the author.

[Don Beegles]

I assume you're talking about the Frogstar robot here; I disagree. That was just a conversation and had nothing to do with appreciation of a point of view or anything else. The PoV gun had a far closer kinship with a different element in the books, specifically when the Krikkit robots hook Marvin up to Hactar and his depression spills through their network and causes them all to go into a deep funk.



Actually, he does both. At the end of HGttG, the party is being attacked by police officers sent to capture Zaphod. They suddenly die because their remote breathing packs die and so does the backup on the ship. When they find the ship, it's a dead hulk and Marin is plugged into it, trying to talk to it. Then, in either the Restaurant at the End of the Universe or Life, the UNiverse, and Everything, he makes the Frogstar robot so mad that the humans didn't leave him a weapon that he blows up the floor and falls to his death. BUt clsoe either way.

As for the movie, I didn't particularly mind it. Sure, it wasn't at all like the book, but in the forward to the deluxe edition (Guide to the Guide) DA says that no form of the Guide has been anything like itself in another medium, and that's OK. My biggest beef with the film is one my friend pointed out. They have the Heart of Gold and all of the potential that that means, and they seem to think that Infinite Improbabbiliuty means turning things into other things. String, couches, banana cream pies, you name it and they turned into it, but nothing more than that. Sure it does that in the books, but it does so much more. One of my favorite bits from the book is when Arthur slams the doors on many inkstained little fingers, turns to Ford, and says "Ford, there's an infinite number of monkeys out here who want to talk to you about a script for Hamlet they've worked up." The movie didn't have anything like that.

[nifty>>virago<<]

hmmm some people are saying that the movie doesn't make sense unless you read the book, but I thought that it did... I had no problem understanding the movie the first time I watched

[Tom_Violence]

Best bit in the book:

`Could be. I'm a pretty dangerous dude when I'm cornered.'
`Yeah, you go to pieces so fast people get hit by the shrapnel.'

As for the film, haven't seen it. Practically grew up on the Beeb series though.

[nifty>>virago<<]

hmmm another awesome part of the movie was when they went onto the facotry floor... watching them build planets was just really neat....

[Don Beegles]

I don't know Tom, I have to say my favorite bit was:

"Reaching normality now."
"Normal, you can talk about normal til the cows come home!'
"What is normal?"
"What is home?"
"What're cows?"

[averagejoe]

Ugh, I am sick and tired of people saying that the movie "Wasn't faithful to the books" and that a lot of stuff was "Made up"

They were both written by Douglas Adams. Each version of the story isn't exactly like the other. That's the way it is, a constant re-imagining by the author.

Anyways, everyone thinks they want movies that follow the books perfectly, but really that'd be really boring. As long as the movies don't miss the point of the book then it's all good.

Oh, and best part of the book (which, I believe, was also included in the movie):

"In the beginning the universe was created. This was generally reguarded as a bad move, and made a lot of people upset."

[musicnerd]

I loved the books and found the movie very enjoyable. Since I knew it was what Adams wanted, I found it easier to handle the changes. What I found really funny was how much my mom liked it, having never read the books and being dragged to the theater with me!
When either version of So Long and Thanks for All the Fish comes up on my ipod I am automatically in a good mood. :)

[Zangor]

My main problem with the movie is its treatment of towels. People who hadn't read the books, it seems to me, would infer that Ford is just oddly obsessed with towels, since it never shows that Guide entry. I really think that one should have been included, anyway, as it is quite possibly the best entry in the books.

[Closet_Skeleton]

The television series isn't that good an adaptation of the books since it uses the Radio series' plot with the book's alterations rather than the book's plot.

The book really isn't that good. I couldn't be bothered to read the last one. The whole third book is completely uninteresting and the fourth is better but nothing actually happens in it.

[Tom_Violence]

Anyways, everyone thinks they want movies that follow the books perfectly, but really that'd be really boring. As long as the movies don't miss the point of the book then it's all good.

How on earth would that be really boring? Surely that would only be so dull if the book was only worth reading once. If the book, the story, is interesting enough that you can read it a second time, then reading it once and seeing a visual version of it once should not be really boring. Even a perfect transistion from text to film would not in any way deteriorate what you're seeing.

Plus, people like to see a fuller representation of what they themselves imagine when they read the book. People only get annoyed when they feel that what they're watching has somehow betrayed the original source which they've grown to love.

To suggest that a very faithful recreation of a book would be especially dull is to suggest that when you see a movie remake of a book, what you're really wanting to see is the changes that the new creator has made to the original - and I don't think that's true.

[TMTree]

The radio series has to be the best version, especially the second series, where everything completely unhinges.

My favourite bit is probably when, after Zaphod leaves the Total Perspective Vortex unscathed, in the series of questions at the end of the episode, Peter Jones asks something along the lines of whether Zaphod is really the most important person in the universe.

Typing this, I've realised how long it is since I listened to them, and it's given me the urgent need to do so immediately.:smallsmile:

I didn't like the movie so much, but it wasn't dreadful, just disappointing.

[J_Muller]

Well, part of the reason for the movie being so different in the last half was that Douglas Adams died in the middle of writing the script and they had to finish it without him.

[Tharj TreeSmiter]

I didn't like the movie much at all, it was too confused. Sometimes it wanted to be a monty python like comedy, then it would try to be more serious then it would descend to slapstick and then back to monty python. Worst of all it did none of those three well.

[R.O.A.]

The old BBC version is so much better then the new movie storyline wise, although the graphics on the new one are great. I really hated the mangled storyline, lack of ending, really wierd second head, the huge emphasis on the arthur /trillan relationship. Yes I know Adams wanted the storyline to be different for this movie. I don't!
oh, and Marvin wasn't depressed enough!
Watch the BBC series!

[tape_measure]

Zangor, wasn't there an extra on the DVD about the towels? Maybe I'm just taking the movie CGi and making it up in my head....who know, eh?

I really liked the movie. I though the effects were nice and it followed closely enough to make a pretty decent story, though I had to explain it a bit to my girlfriend.

Someone waaaaay up there *points up on the tread* mentioned the movie making Trillian a mnore in depth character, I think it was jsut Zoe Deschenelle (sp?) being a damn fine actress. Might just be my huge crush on her...who know's, eh?


As far as debating which is better? I, for one, can't do that with any translation of books to movies. I try to look at them as seperate entities. i've been burned too many times when i step into the theatre thinking ' I wonder how close to the book they'll get?' I just assume to avoid that headache and enjoy the show for what it's worth. If not, I'd probably stop watching movies after Jurassic Park came out.

[The Vanishing Hitchhiker]

I absolutely hate Trillan in the book(s). She's so completely flat and uninspiring that I feel like I'm reading a story about a paper doll!
...
Some male writers simply cannot write interesting, believable women.

Actually, I've read that Douglas Adams himself felt the same way about her. So you are not alone.

I like Random and Fenchurch, but I've heard a lot of people don't for some reason. But I'm absolutely weird and should be listened to under no circumstances. Ford's my favorite though.

I kind of like how the movie shows how Arthur and Ford met. Very cute. Conversely, I like how the TV series, while not really mentioning anything at all about Ford's eyes (it's in the book), at least went to the trouble of putting the actor in colored contacts. Details, details (let's not get into TV Zaphod's pants...)

Did not like the romance in movie. Didn't quite feel...sincere or something. Can't explain. I get the feeling it would've turned out better had DNA (he was born in Cambridge, in 1952...) lived longer... Zaphod's really cool in the movie - which is unfair, since Zaphod should not be cooler than Ford. Grr! :smallbiggrin: And there's a song in the movie which is also in Dogma, even occuring under similiar circumstances (characters eating...well, at least sitting at a table, it's been a while...). Trivia! Ding!

Oh, and if you want the full extended, original, version of the theme - just go get a song called Journey of the Sorcerer, by the Eagles. Yep.

I rather like Dirk Gently, by the way...

And the best book>movie conversion I've seen, I think, is the recent Narnia movie. So there you go.
Man, I can't wait 'til they get to The Silver Chair. Puddleglum rawks.
...wait, we were talking about what?

[Balesirion]

I have to say, the movie was dissapointing. I expected something better from Adams himself, but his quality has gone way done recently. It was like that with the books. The first two were awesome, the third was all right, the fourth one was absolutely terrible, and the last was pretty bad.

[Beleriphon]

Ugh, I am sick and tired of people saying that the movie "Wasn't faithful to the books" and that a lot of stuff was "Made up"

They were both written by Douglas Adams. Each version of the story isn't exactly like the other. That's the way it is, a constant re-imagining by the author.

I'm glad somebody pointed this out. The movie script was written whole sale by Douglas Adams. So if you want to blame somebody for screwing up Douglas Adams' book look to the author himself.

I personally love the movie. It make not be exactly the same as the book, but it captures the spirit and sensibilities of the book. That to me is more important than the exact details.

[fryer1]

When i first saw the film in the cinema i was very disappointed because to me it just didn't suit the plot-line at all, however after watching it a few times on dvd since i've grown to like it. It's a good movie and follows the plot enough for Hitchhiker's fans to appreciate it as another version of the story.

[Zephra]

movie was horrible.
pick a number, any number...

[Hannes]

One thing I must point out that the sperm whale was a reincarnating being named Agrajag, who knows his former lives and discovers that every time he dies, he is killed by Arthur Dent.

[WampaX]

I'm glad somebody pointed this out. The movie script was written whole sale by Douglas Adams. So if you want to blame somebody for screwing up Douglas Adams' book look to the author himself.

I personally love the movie. It make not be exactly the same as the book, but it captures the spirit and sensibilities of the book. That to me is more important than the exact details.

Well, Adam's himself has said that each new media that bears Hitchiker's will bear a different version of it.
Radio, Book, Radio Script, Record, TV, Movie - all are different variations on the same, and that was completely on purpose.

[Don Beegles]

One thing I must point out that the sperm whale was a reincarnating being named Agrajag, who knows his former lives and discovers that every time he dies, he is killed by Arthur Dent.

Nope, no he's not. The bowl of petunias is Agrajag, which is why he thinks "Not Again" before he hits the ground. The whale is, in fact, just an ordinary whale. Just a whale, just an ordinary whale.

[Eldred]

Just a whale, just an ordinary whale.
An ordinary whale, voiced by Bill Bailey. That was the only part of the film where my eyes glinted - that guy is hilarious. :smallbiggrin:

[nifty>>virago<<]

my sister requests that I post that her favorite part in the movie was the whale falling from the sky and wondering if the ground would be its friend... which was fun to watch but then in the book they talk about them walking through his splattered body :(

[swordgod42]

Man, Hitchiker's has to be my favorite book series ever. I recently got a leatherbound copy of the Ultimate Guide (Including all five books in the trilogy, and the short story) to replace my old and battered hardback copy.

I have to agree with those that have found the movie disappointing. My biggest problem was with Zaphod's second head. It was really obvious that they didn't want to go through the trouble of having it around all the time. If the BBC could give him a second head way back when, why couldn't we do it today with recent advances in computer animation, and animatronics?

[TinSoldier]

Hmm. I thought the way they did the second head was kind of a clever twist. It's not exactly what you think of when you think of someone with two heads.

However it made it kind of awkward when Humma Kavula decided to keep one of the heads as collateral.

[Vespe Ratavo]

What I think and keep in mind is that it's not a movie based on the book. It's a movie based on the basic story of the book. Thats what I think anyway.