Forty-Two!!!

[Jayngfet]

Discuss the hitchikers guide to the galaxy in all its mediums, the original radio play, the books, the comic, the god awful move, and the tv series.

[Finn Solomon]

I liked the movie a lot. Managed to retain much of the book's humour and the casting was spot on.

[Dragor]

I agree, and I'd read the book before hand. Just because it wasn't like the book in every single way didn't mean it was rubbish. They didn't just try and rehash the book, which I thought was good (I hate movies raking in cash just because they're a visual version of the page). They made a good move in trying to use Adams' style of humour and add in new things, which I thought, for the most part, worked very well.

Truth be told, though, I haven't read beyond The Hitchikers Guide and I haven't listened to the radio plays (to my eternal shame!) and I've only watched a little of the TV show.

[factotum]

I liked the movie a lot. Managed to retain much of the book's humour and the casting was spot on.

I'd have to disagree...while Arthur and Trillian were reasonably accurate, I didn't think Zaphod or Ford really matched the characters in the book all that well.

[Finn Solomon]

Ford could have been better picked, but Zaphod was absolutely bullseye. Sam Rockwell is the master of Beeblebroxidy goodness.

[Mewtarthio]

I just didn't like that romance subplot. The rest was decent.

[Solo]

Didn't Adams have a role in the writing of the movie?

[Seraph]

I don't know why people always use the dolphin scene as an example of how un-Adamsish the humor was. I always figured it as the exact sort of thing he'd do.

[Dorizzit]

I liked the movie, but I thought the books were much better.

[Jayngfet]

Didn't Adams have a role in the writing of the movie?

He's dead jim.

And there were a myriad faults in the movie: the misshaped heart of gold, the fact that they went into hyperspace at the wrong time, taking out fenchurch, not explaining the significance of the towel, ect ect.

Though it did have some good bits added:So long and thanks for all the fish!

[BRC]

He's dead jim.

And there were a myriad faults in the movie: the misshaped heart of gold, the fact that they went into hyperspace at the wrong time, taking out fenchurch, not explaining the significance of the towel, ect ect.

Though it did have some good bits added:So long and thanks for all the fish!

From what I heard, Adams Did write the movie, he wrote it but it didn't get off the ground until after he died.

[Finn Solomon]

He's dead jim.

And there were a myriad faults in the movie: the misshaped heart of gold, the fact that they went into hyperspace at the wrong time, taking out fenchurch, not explaining the significance of the towel, ect ect.

Though it did have some good bits added:So long and thanks for all the fish!

That's what you have to nitpick about? Jeezum crow, you're hard to please. If Hollywood can get like 50% of the plot somewhere into the movie, we're lucky fans. H2G2 was a decent effort, around 80% I'd say. Adding Fenchurch would have taken too much time and confused audiences, the hyperspace bit was done for timing reasons, the Heart of Gold ended up looking even better, and while I agree the towel could have been better explained, I was literally leaping for joy when they had the Bugblatter beast and the Vogon bureaucratic procedure word-for-word.

Anyway, Adams did have a hand in the writing of the script.

[Hunter Noventa]

Adams wrote the screenplay, and the mediocre romance subplot was written in after he died.

Anyway, I've read the books, seen the movie, watched the BBC series AND heard the radio drama. I love how every one of themis different in it's own little ways, yt still awesome. (Except maybe the movie).

What do you get when you multiply six by nine?

[WalkingTarget]

Besides, hating any version of Hitchhiker's for being inconsistent with any other seems like a faulty way to go about it, in my opinion. Under that reasoning, one should hate the book for being different from the original radio production ("Where are the Haggunenons? Your book fails, Mr. Adams.")

Anyway, I'm a big fan and it was fun to see the film on opening night. I also thought it was really cool that the BBC got most of the original cast together again for radio versions of the last 3 books at about the same time (I've got all five phases on my iPod at this moment :smallbiggrin:).

[Archonic Energy]

What do you get when you multiply six by nine?

53...
what ?

i kinda liked the movie, it wasn't brilliant but it was ok.
i think the TV series was the best incarnation of the series though...

... i would say that because it was how i was introduced to the works of DNA

[RTGoodman]

The movie, for me, was okay, but it didn't come close to the books. Of course, by the time I saw the movie, I'd read the whole series like eight times and was sort of expecting the movie to follow the exact plot.

Haven't seen the series or heard the radio-show, though.

I've only read one other thing by DNA (The Salmon of Doubt), but I remember it being pretty good. I've also heard from people that the Dirk Gently series is good, but I've never seen a copy of any of the books, much less read them.

[SilentNight]

From what I remember, the movie was pretty decent as was the BBC series. I liked the books as well with the exception of the fourth (which I didn't like, it wasn't that funny) and the fith which I haven't read.

[Destro_Yersul]

And there were a myriad faults in the movie: the misshaped heart of gold, the fact that they went into hyperspace at the wrong time, taking out fenchurch, not explaining the significance of the towel, ect ect.

For the record, Fenchurch was in book four, and the movie never got that far.

I liked the movie, the radio show, and the books. Marvin is the greatest.

[Player_Zero]

That film was a disappointment. I went to it on the first showing dressed in a dressing gown, holding a towel, with a plastic fish in my ear and I most assuredly expected it to be better than it actually was...

I really don't care about this tacked-on romance plot, or your new-age graphics; where are the freaking jokes which I remember and why are there not more of them?!

[Seraph]

the misshaped heart of gold

the point of the heart of gold is to look ridiculous. the problem is that your common space ship really does look like a running shoe, so the effect would have been ruined.

[Skippy]

Curiously enough, I saw the movie a few days ago. I, too, resent the lack of explanations about the importance of the towel. I would have taken out the Point-of-view gun so I could get five more minutes and explain the towels.

And I didn't entirely like the use of the Improbability Drive.

[Vaynor]

I agree, and I'd read the book before hand. Just because it wasn't like the book in every single way didn't mean it was rubbish. They didn't just try and rehash the book, which I thought was good (I hate movies raking in cash just because they're a visual version of the page). They made a good move in trying to use Adams' style of humour and add in new things, which I thought, for the most part, worked very well.

Truth be told, though, I haven't read beyond The Hitchikers Guide and I haven't listened to the radio plays (to my eternal shame!) and I've only watched a little of the TV show.

Not.. like.. the book in every single way? What??? THE PLOT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BOOK. NOTHING. Sure, the basic idea of the movie was similar, but the plot... ugh.

...sorry this movie pissed me off. Love the books though.

However, they did capture Marvin perfectly.

[Edan]

I liked the movie, it had plenty of good parts that worked well within the type of humor set by the book.

It didn't matter to me that it wasn't perfect, or that it diverged from the book at one point, because not every great book makes a great movie. It was enough to see some of Adams classic jokes brought to life on the big screen.

Best part about it was the voice of Alan Rickman for Marvin, fit the character perfectly in my opinion.

PS: Towel Day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towel_Day) is coming up, is everyone prepared? I am, got a new blue towel embroidered with my initials so I don't lose it.

[Mewtarthio]

Not.. like.. the book in every single way? What??? THE PLOT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BOOK. NOTHING. Sure, the basic idea of the movie was similar, but the plot... ugh.

Well, for the love of a certain anonymous solipsist, what's the point in going to see a movie if it's going to be the exact same thing as the book? Why not just read the book itself in that case? Besides, from what I heard, Adams wrote a good deal of the new stuff, including the POV Gun. I disliked the movie because of the romance subplot, but I wasn't at all offended by the different plot.

[Vaynor]

Well, for the love of a certain anonymous solipsist, what's the point in going to see a movie if it's going to be the exact same thing as the book? Why not just read the book itself in that case? Besides, from what I heard, Adams wrote a good deal of the new stuff, including the POV Gun. I disliked the movie because of the romance subplot, but I wasn't at all offended by the different plot.

Different views I can handle, I don't like it when it is exactly the same, but the plot was so largely different it was barely the same story anymore.

[Mewtarthio]

Different views I can handle, I don't like it when it is exactly the same, but the plot was so largely different it was barely the same story anymore.

To each his own, I guess. I just never considered the plot of Hitchiker's Guide to be all that critical to the enjoyment of the story (except for the ending of Mostly Harmless, of course :smallfrown:). Of course, a good part of my philosophy could just be the "Pessimists are never disappointed" mantra along with a nice dose of cognitive dissonance when I actually watch the movies. Remember, kids: Cognitive dissonance is your brain's way of telling you to not go insane.

[Ganurath]

The answer and the question are a simple math problem. If that's the ultimate, than any question more complex than the basic fundamentals of existence is thinking too much and therefore unneccesary. I came to that conclusion after several years of arguing with my father and brother about whether or not the flaw in the calculations was in finding the answer, or if the calculations were made with a numeric system other than base ten mathmatics.

That being said, I've only read two of the books and seen the movie.

[WalkingTarget]

The answer and the question are a simple math problem. If that's the ultimate, than any question more complex than the basic fundamentals of existence is thinking too much and therefore unneccesary. I came to that conclusion after several years of arguing with my father and brother about whether or not the flaw in the calculations was in finding the answer, or if the calculations were made with a numeric system other than base ten mathmatics.

That being said, I've only read two of the books and seen the movie.

I always assumed that the "incorrect" question was due to the Golgafrincham ship arriving on prehistoric Earth and displacing the native inhabitants, thereby throwing off the calculations (i.e. Arthur's ancestors weren't supposed to be part of the program, so his "output" for that program was faulty). I want to say that I saw somewhere that DNA had denied any base 13 explanations.

[Vaire]

It's generally a mistake to watch a movie based on the book and expect a page by page translation. I usually try to grade it by a few certain points:

1.) Does the movie feel as if it is written in the general style of the original author?

2.) Does the movie get the general point of the book across?

3.) Is it an entertaining movie?

I thought that Hitchhiker's hit all of those with a resounding yes.

Not to mention that it had the best musical number I have seen in a movie since The Muppets Take Manhattan.

[Silver2195]

I didn't like the movie. I didn't like the cheesy romantic subplot, I didn't like how Ford is a completely different character, and I didn't like the ending (It's not that end of the universe either!)

[Jorkens]

Aside from the stuff discussed above, has anyone played the text based adventure game?

It was made in collaboration between Douglas Adams and the people who did Zork, and it's really quite wonderful in an evil, evil way. The babelfish puzzle has driven strong men raving mad, and the consequence of not doing a fairly unobvious action on the one turn where it's possible early on in the game involves you losing entirely a lot later on and having to go through the whole thing again. And it's very funny - worth it for the initial response to inventory queries alone ("you have a splitting headache and no tea.")

http://www.douglasadams.com/creations/infocomjava.html

[TheLogman]

Out of the Five books that make up the Trilogy, I personally really like Mostly Harmless, with Life, the Universe and Everything being a second. My least favorite is So long and thanks for all the fish, it felt unnecessary and was easily the least funny of all 5. I also really liked the movie, it was well-done, funny, easy to understand, and had the right idea when deciding what to portray.

Also, I can't figure out how to leave the room in the text game.

EDIT AGAIN: Finally remembered.

[Finn Solomon]

53...
what ?

i kinda liked the movie, it wasn't brilliant but it was ok.
i think the TV series was the best incarnation of the series though...

... i would say that because it was how i was introduced to the works of DNA

54, mate. Not 53.

[poleboy]

For some reason, I find it incredibly amusing that Ford is the only black guy in the movie version. I wonder if that's something Adams came up with? It makes a bizarre sort of sense in the same way that all the other wacky stuff does.

[billwill91]

Ford could have been better picked, but Zaphod was absolutely bullseye. Sam Rockwell is the master of Beeblebroxidy goodness.

i felt that even though ford looked nothing like he did in the book, he did a better job than the tv show guy

[billwill91]

Aside from the stuff discussed above, has anyone played the text based adventure game?

It was made in collaboration between Douglas Adams and the people who did Zork, and it's really quite wonderful in an evil, evil way. The babelfish puzzle has driven strong men raving mad, and the consequence of not doing a fairly unobvious action on the one turn where it's possible early on in the game involves you losing entirely a lot later on and having to go through the whole thing again. And it's very funny - worth it for the initial response to inventory queries alone ("you have a splitting headache and no tea.")

http://www.douglasadams.com/creations/infocomjava.html

yeah!! i still have it on my windows 98 when im feeling a little old skool!!

[Mewtarthio]

Aside from the stuff discussed above, has anyone played the text based adventure game?

It was made in collaboration between Douglas Adams and the people who did Zork, and it's really quite wonderful in an evil, evil way. The babelfish puzzle has driven strong men raving mad, and the consequence of not doing a fairly unobvious action on the one turn where it's possible early on in the game involves you losing entirely a lot later on and having to go through the whole thing again. And it's very funny - worth it for the initial response to inventory queries alone ("you have a splitting headache and no tea.")

http://www.douglasadams.com/creations/infocomjava.html

Ah, yes. The most sadistic text adventure ever created. :smalltongue:

[Evil DM Mark3]

I recently aquired MP3s of the 4 Marvin songs. I actually cried when I first heard Marvin I love you. They came through the original release and transferred into digital format by my dad. Everything even distantly related to Hichhikers is funny and cool.