PeterDavid.net

Finally, a USEFUL review! And from someone who knows what he's talking about!

thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou

Currently reading a Douglas Adams biography--yes, in fact, it was tried as a musical in Britain, I believe. Possibly even predating the book.

Thanks for the review--all the newspaper reviewers don't seem to have read even one of the original formats.

I'm glad I slept today instead of forcing myself to go to see the film (especially since I have a thirteen hour work day tonight and tomorrow). The film will be there for a while, after all. What convinced me to sleep was Roger Ebert's review of the film, which more or less declared it for fanboys only.

It would be curious to see what happens with all the amrketing to kids this film is doing. It's been advertised heavily on Cartoon Network. Mind you, I suspect there's content that isn't too kid-friendly, but you gotta fill those theatre seats with someone's butts, don't you?

Oh man, I can't wait to see this.

Oh man, I Gotta wait till tomorrow at 4:10. Dammit.

I have a feeling that A-I'm going to enjoy it very much and B- theer won't be enough like minded folks to make it a hit. Hope I'm wrong.

Glad to see the site back up/

Peter, you didn't cover the important bit.

What towels did you and Kath take to the movie?

I'm a radio show purist, I admit it. They played it NPR; our family taped it and we would listen to it on the annual trip down to Florida for many, many summers. I always found the books a bit annoying because of the places where they diverted from the radio shows (which, I feel a pedantic urge to point out, were first) and once they veered off into parts unknown I lost interest.

I did like the TV adaptation more than I liked the books, though. Particularly when they translated one particular gag perfectly from radio to television.

I've decided I'll probably wait until the initial rush dies down before seeing the film (after all, I already know the ship sinks) but I'll keep an open mind. Though if one particular joke gets done wrong, I may groan in frustration out loud in the theater.

I'm off to see HHGTTG in the morning. Kinda encouraged by the positive reaction I'm hearing. I was dreading a horrible Hollywoodisation of it - y'know a "Road Trip In Space"-type deal. The only thing that still niggles me is the casting of Mos Def as Ford - not because he's black but because he's >choke!

The BBC is broadcasting the radio adaptations of the 4th & 5th books - The Quandary and Quintessential Phases - on BBC Radio 4 from next week. It features the original radio cast (which means the 'wrong' Ford again for me as I saw the TV series first) plus guest appearances by Stephen Fry, Griff Rhys Jones, Miriam Margolyes, Jane Horrocks, Christian Slater (yes THAT Christian Slater!) and many more.

It is adapted and directed by Dirk Maggs who was responsible for truly superb radio adaptations of Superman (adapting both Byrne/Wolfman stories and the Death Of... epic) and Batman: Knightfall among many others.

Episode 1 of 'So Long And Thanks For All The Fish' is broadcast on Tuesday at 6.30pm (British Summer Time) and is streaming FREE for 7 days after (i.e until they broadcast episode 2) on the BBC website here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/
where you will find lots and lots of other HHGTTG goodies.

Peace!
LEE
(So unhip it's a wonder my bum doesn't fall off)

That first paragraph should read:

I'm off to see HHGTTG in the morning. Kinda encouraged by the positive reaction I'm hearing. I was dreading a horrible Hollywoodisation of it - y'know a "Road Trip In Space"-type deal. The only thing that still niggles me is the casting of Mos Def as Ford - not because he's black but because he's {choke!} an American (and not from Guildford after all)...

Peace!
LEE
(Dangerous when cornered)

"(Dangerous when cornered)"

Yeah, you go to pieces so fast people are hit by the shrapnel!

(Sorry, but it had to be quoted...) :-)

I remember reading the intro Adams did for the omnibus edition, back when the trilogy only had four volumes (and one short story). He said that since he had conceived the entire story as something very different from what it became, and since he had some ideas while writing the book that hadn't occurred to him while writing the radio-play, he would start introducing something in each version that differed from other versions, and sometimes flatly contradicted them (remember the different black ships, from the radio version and the novels?). I'm looking forward to seeing this movie, enjoying it for what it is, and picking out the differences in this version...

(...although I still think it was a serious mistake not to cast a Brit as Ford - unless he changed his name from Ford Prefect to Ford Escort...)

And yup, the rubber duck was on the cover of the second album.

I stopped reading Reader's Digest (yes, this will get around to the HITCHHIKER'S movie) when Reader's Digest ran a column by Dave Barry that I'd previously read, and I could spot all the deletions that RD did. I had a similar response to the new HITCHHIKER'S.

It's a truism that a movie can't work in every detail and line of the book. That said, where was the description of Earth as "harmless"? (If they do films of all 5 books, they'll have to backtrack to work that in.) Why didn't Ford persuade the townsman to lie in the mud in front of the tractor? Why not mention that the Vogon ships hung in the air exactly the same way that bricks don't?

Ultimately, it was a cute movie that made me want to reread the books. I liked Ford Prefect a lot here -- sillier than Arthur, more responsible than Zaphod -- and Sam Rockwell's Zaphod is a whole lotta fun if you look at him as an outer-space George W. Overall, though, I'd say the movie was decent -- nothing to panic over, but not nearly as fun as the British television version.

James, in the BBC radio version, Arthur persuaded Mr. Prosser to lie down in front of the bulldozer - which lasted only as long as it took Ford to get Arthur over to the Rose and Crown.

Also in that version, as I alluded to earlier, the ship in which they left Milliways was not Hotblack Desiato's funereal stuntship, but was in fact the leader of an interstellar invasion force, whose crew mutated rapidly and in unpredictably silly ways. Zaphod, Trillian, and Marvin were eaten by an escape pod alien (although they got better later).

It doesn't follow the book because the book doesn't follow the radio play, and neither one is followed by the TV version. It's not supposed to. That's part of the fun!

Saw it tonight, enjoyed it. There were a few classic Dent lines that got deleted, and I was a little annoyed at the time, since some of them clearly had the space to be used.

However, as I left the theater, I realized that with the needs of the plot, Arthur had to be a COMPLETE kneebiter in the early scenes. Being snarkier to Prosser, threatening to jump up and down on the bits until he could think of something even nastier...these things make Arthur a bit too forceful for the desired plot of this retelling to work.

Actually, in all of this, Mos Def's performance surprised me in that it turned out as well as it did.

Granted, Ford doesn't have alot to do (and never did), but I still enjoyed Mos nonetheless.

I thought Zooey was a bit wooden though for most of the film. Maybe it's the fact she's American.

In the end, I loved the film, but the original radio will always remain my favorite.

Haven't seen it yet, and -- for spoilers' sake -- haven't read your entire review -- but I just wanted to say I agree on your take on Hitchhikers' purists. I've wondered all along whether the movie would be based more on the radio show, the books, or the TV series. I should find out by the end of the weekend...

I've wondered all along whether the movie would be based more on the radio show, the books, or the TV series.

The safest answer is: all of the above, and none of the above.

Much like the novel is vastly different than the radio/tv series, the movie is quite different than anything that has come before as well.

Sunday for me...wife gets off work Sunday morning, I'll make us breakfast...hit the bowling alley for 6-12 games... then hit the theater for HHGTTG....

Am I the only one frustrated by this film?

I came out of it feeling that the movie was all punch lines and no set ups. Why even mention towels if you're not going to tell us the joke? Most of the social commentary that was a hallmark of all versions is gone. Finally, it seems to me that the filmmakers were trying to pick up the pace (It was directed by a music video director) of dry British humor. British humor is slow on purpose.

To be fair, Alan Rickman was great, and it brought a smile to my face when Helen Mirren was the voice of Deep Thought. Of course, that really explains everything: Who would trust Morgan Le Fay with the secret of anything. We all saw how that went for Merlin...

"Finally, it seems to me that the filmmakers were trying to pick up the pace (It was directed by a music video director) of dry British humor. British humor is slow on purpose."

I wouldn't call British humor slow. There's nothing slow about, for instance, Blackadder verbally dismembering an opponent. I'd say it's more...meticulous than slow.

But I agree, the pace was faster. It had to be. Keep in mind that they were trying to tell fundamentally the same story in the space of an hour and forty five minutes that's consumed many hours of the TV and radio version.

There was enough they did right to keep me happy as a movie goer. And as a HGG fan, as far as I'm concerned, if the film stirs people to sample the books for the first time, then hear hear.

PAD

"Finally, it seems to me that the filmmakers were trying to pick up the pace (It was directed by a music video director) of dry British humor. British humor is slow on purpose."

I wouldn't call British humor slow. There's nothing slow about, for instance, Blackadder verbally dismembering an opponent. I'd say it's more...meticulous than slow.

But I agree, the pace was faster. It had to be. Keep in mind that they were trying to tell fundamentally the same story in the space of an hour and forty five minutes that's consumed many hours of the TV and radio version.

There was enough they did right to keep me happy as a movie goer. And as a HGG fan, as far as I'm concerned, if the film stirs people to sample the books for the first time, then hear hear.

PAD

> ...I don't see how there can be such a thing
> as a HGG purist. Purist to what? The
> original BBC radio show? The books? The
> record? The TV series? Each different,
> each with story variations, each with its
> pluses and minus.

To that list you can add the Infocom text adventure game, which is different from all of the above.

Kind way way off topic but if you turn to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042801995.html
you will see that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has enlisted several Marvel superheroes in the fight against terrorists.

Conservatives will be thrilled to see this outpouring of support from the superhero community. Liberals may take solace in the fact that, from my vantage point, Captain America looks like he's one second away from cold cocking Rummy.

Am I the only one frustrated by this film?

No. On one mailing list I'm on, our resident Aussie gave her review, and she thought it was a 5/10, she didn't care for Mos Def or Rickman, but she thought Freeman and Rockwell carried the film.

So, to each their own. :)

I do hope there's some deleted stuff on the dvd: the purpose of the beer & peanuts, towels... well, alot of things, in the end.

Just got back from seeing it about an hour ago and... well... I'm a big frustrated. The stuff I thought I would love I didn't and the stuff I thought I would hate I didn't.

My biggest worry, Mos Def, was absolutely fine - He was even 'not from Guildford'! But...

Zooey DeChanel was, to me, empty space - completely unappealing in every respect. I always thought Sam Rockwell's casting as Zaphod was perfect but I was incredibly surprised to find myself hating him - he was too 'Jim Carrey', too hyper & zany instead of ultra-cool and ultra-laid back. Plus I could barely understand a bloody word that came out of his mouth.

I found the whole movie moved just a little too fast and it didn't help that almost all my favourite jokes were cut out: Prosser lying down in front of the bulldozer, 'the Dentrassi hate Vogons', 'Mostly Harmless', 'it's rather like being drunk' and 'how the Babel Fish destroyed God' among many. Plus, like a previous poster noted, they tended to do half a joke - they didn't explain WHY a towel is so important for instance or WHY Ford kept saying "Belgium!" I get the impression that there will be a lot of deleted scenes on the DVD. Or at least I hope so.

The joy of Douglas Adams writing (in whichever form) is his use of language and his way of twisting logic bass-ackwards, but the HHGTTG movie tended to zip past all that making a casualty of comic timing. Compare the timing of the Deep Thought scenes in the movie and the TV series for instance. The TV version strings it out, builds up expectation ("the answer... is... is... you won't like it...") and bang! delivers the punchline "FORTY-TWO!" like the voice of God; the movie just kinda blurts it all out. Even Stephen Fry seemed rushed.

But on the positive side there is a LOT to like: the opening dolphin sequence is groovy; the Magarathean 'construction room' is breath-taking; the sofa gag, the knitted-people gag, the Point-Of-view Gun is brilliant, the Vogons, the face-slapping thingies (which got the biggest laugh at my particular screening), the cameos (Marvin, Simon Jones and Douglas Adams himself), Bill Bailey as the whale (although he again seemed a little rushed), the Vogon/towel/garden gate gag and it has to be said that Mos Def handles his towel like a pro.

All said, I AM hoping for a second film (and third, fourth and fifth)

Peace!
LEE
(Just some guy, y'know?)

Purists may despise it because it doesn't match the book directly, but they on the other hand should be used to that and able to make adjustments for that sort of thing. I didn't read Eberts review, I just check the scores, but it may point out what is more important: how will the mundanes who aren't familiar with any incarnation of the source material react? While Adams and science fiction fans may not get what they consider a perfect adaptation/translation, they are a niche and playing only to them will not insure that other such movies get made. If the movie isn't good enough to bring in Joe Citizen and for him to tell his friends to see it, the real risk is that Hollywood loses interest in making Science Fiction movies that are at least a step above Wing Commander.

Maybe I'm the only one who saw it, but the trailer for Chicken Little that came on just before the movie was one of the funniest I've ever seen, if only because it came on JUST before the movie.

The film itself I though was very well done. It was different from any previous version because it had to be.

I took my wife to an advance press screening a couple of weeks ago, and we both had some major misgivings going in- she was a bigger fan of the radio show even though she was working at the BBC when the television version was being made and had a number of friends working on it. And I'd been covering the film for the past several months and had interviewed a couple of dozen people who worked on it, which sometimes makes it difficult: if you get to like the folks involved and the movie sucks, what do you say to them when they ask what you thought? Anyway, we were both relieved that we liked it more than not, and also thought that Marvin stole the show; a deceptively simple design, brought to life by Warwick Davis who had the unenviable task of wearing the suit, and Alan Rickman, who probably had a much easier time of it, recording the voice in a comfy sound booth with a cup of tea next to him.

The strange thing about the Hitchhiker's movie is, it's almost a paradox. If you know nothing about HH, you probably won't get the film. If you're a purist, you carry a lot of baggage going in and probably won't be satisfied with the final product. I guess the ones who will really like it are the people who read one of the books a decade or two ago, so their memories aren't that strong.

Yes, I missed an awful lot of the great lines, but it's hard not to. When Arthur is telling Prosser about trying to find the plans for the bypass, your mind automatically skips ahead to 'beware of the leopard,' so when that exchange is cut back so much, its absence is felt.

In terms of casting, the only choice I really had was with Mos Def, and not because he's black and not because he's American. I just had some problems with his line delivery, where some great lines were tossed away almost as an afterthought. Def is actually quite a good actor (I just picked up the DVD of The Woodsman, and I liked his portrayal of the cop in that film), but I can't help thinking he was playing it too low key to provide a contrast with Rockwell's high-octane acting. By the way, for us Americans who didn't know it, my wife explained that the reason that Ford's name was so funny in the original radio show was because Ford Prefect cars were so ubiquitous at the time that it made sense that a visiting alien could accidentally choose that name in order to blend in. And I in turn was able to tell her that the Vogon language in the film is based on Pittman shorthand, so if anybody has a secretarial handbook, they'd be able to read all of the Vogon symbols.

And incidentally, I was interviewing writer Karey Kirkpatrick last week, and he confirmed that one of my other problems with Hitchhhiker's- that the story thread with the vice president and the Vogon pursuit seemed a bit truncated- was indeed because those scenes had been cut back quite a bit in the film, so maybe we'll see some of that material back in the DVD where it has more room to breathe.

Finally, my biggest problem with the film has nothing to do with the cast and crew, but with Disney, who seem to be marketing Hitchhiker's as a straight science fiction film, whereas I think the comedy is a major selling point. With Star Wars coming out in a few weeks, Disney could have played very well against that by parodying Star Wars in their advertising (picture a shot of Marvin and Alan Rickman's voice saying, 'I've seen it; it's rubbish!). But no, they've seemingly decided to promote their film (which in the press materials was sometimes referred to as 'H2G2;' try to figure that one out!) as a normal genre film. I just hope that doesn't prove to be their undoing. Opinions, anyone?

I enjoyed it and I think the rest of my family enjoyed it as well. I decided to bring a towel with my and my son Alan did so as well. After the movie one couple saw us with our towels and gave a good laugh - so it was worth it to get one reaction.

I have read the books, heard the original radio series (I haven't heard the new ones yet), seen the TV show (and the DVD of that), and played the infocom game. I was glad that there were new bits that we have not seen in any of the other incarnations. I was glad to see some of the familiar parts. I'm not surprised by the mixed reviews I've seen. I hope it does well enough to warrant making the sequels.

The one item that disturbed me about it was the Earth Mark 2 and it seeming to be a direct snapshot of just before the Earth was blown up. That just didn't feel right to me.

Does anyone remember where in any of the other versions the point of view gun appeared?

Neil

Does anyone remember where in any of the other versions the point of view gun appeared?

I believe that, like Humma Kavula, was created specifically for the film, and thus has not appeared in any of the previous incarnations of HHGttG.

Overall, I liked it. A few lines either worked better on the page or should have had a little mre attention devoted to them (an emphasis on one word or 2). I liked the inside jokes that weren't exactly relevant, but there anyway (like the crabs and "gazelle-like" chair). The only thing that kinda bugged me was that the Earth Mark II went into operation. The POV gun was really the only thing that screamed "Adams" at me from the new material. I heard some of the Guide entries were cut only with the promise they'd be on the DVD, and I'm hoping the last draft of Adams' original script ends up there as well. Even IF a sequel is made, I don't see it doing well because of the Earth still being there (even though there's the line of going exploring in the movie, just having Arthur change his mind and want to go back to the Earth wouldn't work) and Zaphod having no reason to do something with the Heart of Gold (which, in the book was there to find the true ruler of the Universe). I'm starting to ramble, so I'll stop.

"Finally, my biggest problem with the film has nothing to do with the cast and crew, but with Disney, who seem to be marketing Hitchhiker's as a straight science fiction film, whereas I think the comedy is a major selling point."

Personally, considering what Disney is capable of when they put their minds to it, I don't think they've been marketing it much at all. The litmus test of that is the Disney Stores, where it has no presence whatsoever.

The only major marketing I've seen of it was the main trailer, and that most definitely emphasized the comedic/satiric aspects of the film through the simple expedient of having "the book" calmly and thoroughly deconstruct everything that goes into a typical trailer. It was so mercilessly and hysterically lacerating that every other movie trailer which followed (when I first saw it in a theater) got huge laughs, not because they were funny, but because they followed the exact tropes detailed in the HGG trailer.

PAD

The point of view gun really felt like something I had seen in a previous incarnation, but I did find a reference to an interview with Douglas Adams where he mentions it as appearing in the screenplay.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/feature/-/7582/104-7208494-4925542

It's an article discussing Starship Titanic.

Neil

I liked the movie for what it was. While it wasn't a life-changing cinematic experience on par with the original Star Wars, neither was it a pimple on the rear end of the movie industry.

I actually like Mos Def's Ford. The fact that he acts as though all of Earth's problems can be solved with beer and hugs play up the idea of his research on our planet wasn't really all that thorough.

The problem with Ford and Zaphod is that once they play their roles in moving the plot along, neither of them have anything entertaining to do for the rest of the movie. I don't think this is a failure on the part of the actors so much as it is a weakness in the script. It was basically the "Arthur, Trillian, and Marvin Show."

Still, for the budget, the visual effects were wonderful (as anything from the Henson Creature Shop should be). The Heart of Gold looks awesome. The Vogons were bang-on (their bureaucratic nature wasn't really thoroughly explored in previous incarnations).

Humma Kavula and the POV gun (while both created by Adams) never get a satisfactory resolution plotwise, and thus feel like superfluous plot points that the movie could have easily survived without (especially since the Kavula scene renders Zaphod a stumbling, incoherent idiot for the rest of the film).

I liked the POV gun though, as it seems like the most uniquely Adamsian element in the film. The origin behind it seems to be a politically correct version (in reverse) of the story behind the Total Perspective Vortex.

I'm worried about this doing well enough to warrant (as Disney is wont to do on occasion) a low-budget, straight-to-video sequel with a cast that's almost, but not quite, entirely unlike the film cast.

Speaking of Disney and sequels, did anyone else catch the trailer for the Lindsay Lohan/Herbie the Love Bug film? If the Babel Fish wasn't conclusive proof of the non-existence of God, that waste of celluloid probably would be. :P

" I heard some of the Guide entries were cut only with the promise they'd be on the DVD"

You can see some of the guide entries voiced by Stephen Fry at the US movie web site.

http://hitchhikers.movies.go.com/index.html

Both that and the international web site at
http://www.thefilmfactory.co.uk/hitchhikers/global/index.html?countryID=§ion=&datastr=&
have lots of fun things to look at and play with.

Neil

***** obligitory but probably useless by this point SPOILER WARNING!!!!! *****

Overall I just thought it was rather flat. It looked fantabulous, to be sure, but other than that...feh.

I thought Rockwell would be great as Zaphod, and still do, but he didn't play Zaphod in this film. Instead of Zaphod and Ford trying to outcool each other when they first reunite on the Heart of Gold, they're sharing hugs and backslaps??

Most of the best lines got stepped on or truncated to the point of pointlessness. Arthur says the plans for the bypass were on display "in a cellar." Would it have killed them to included the locked filing cabinet and 'beware of the leopard' sign, because it sure killed the joke without it.

I've told friends who haven't read/heard/seen it in some other version to go and enjoy it (because I think they would) but then go and buy the books.

My most annoyingly cut line was the one saying that the Vogon ships hung in the air in exactly the same way that bricks don't. But yes, I too missed the leopard.

This movie prompted me to get the friend I saw it with a copy of the original book. The movie doesn't have me telling others to see the movie, except as an introduction to the books. And that's hardly a ringing endorsement for a film. ("See the movie, be reminded of how great the book is!")

Well, I saw it Saturday morning. My main hope for the movie was that I wouldn't come out of it saying, "The BBC did it better 20 years ago with probably a quarter of the budget." I was pleasantly surprised. I didn't hate any of the changes, and, while I had things I missed from prior versions, I quite enjoyed what was there.
It wouldn't surprise me a bit to see a DVD with a ton of deleted scenes. As released, the film is two hours and two minutes long, and that's a little longer than studios generally want movies to be these days (ideal length is 90 minutes, to allow for more showings and, presumably, sell more popcorn and soda). I can see this film easily stretching out to 2:30 or 2:45 and still working.
What Ford's last name should be, I guess, depends on how old he's supposed to be and when he's supposed to have come to Earth. If he's supposed to have shown up in the '80s, in England, than "Ford Escort" would definitely have been the way to go.
Did anyone catch the theme music from the TV series playing over the long shot that reveals the cover of the Guide? That shot lasts so long that I thought, "This was the original title sequence, and then they came up with the musical number."
My God, Zooey Deschanel is beautiful.
I haven't seen the trailer Peter described above, which is unfortunate because it sounds tons better than the TV ads Disney's been running. When the "Chicken Little" trailer came on at the HHGTTG showing I attended, I turned to one of my friends and said, "Oh, good, let's use the movie we DON'T know how to promote to sell the movie we DO know how to promote."
The showing I attended also included a trailer for "Serenity," and boy oh boy does that look fantastic.
The "Herbie Fully Loaded" trailer looked surprisingly good as well. Anyone showing up to qualify a 1963 VW Beetle in street trim for a NASCAR race wouldn't get very far, though. I'm toying with the idea of doing a cartoon of what a NASCAR version of Herbie would really look like...

Paul

("See the movie, be reminded of how great the book is!")

And when you're done reading the book, you can suggest to him to go listen to the original radio series, and thus be reminded of how great the radio series is. :)

Btw, I have a link for it here, for anybody that is interested:
http://kcrw.org/show/hg

You'll find the original 12 episodes there, but not the Tertiary Phase from last fall. On top of this, the Quandary Phase from BBC Radio starts tomorrow night. Yippee!

D'oh! Peter did mention the appearance of the original theme music. Oh, well.

Paul

Has anyone read a review by someone who is not familiar with the material, yet not predisposed to pan the film? I left it thinking that a neophyte would be complety lost...

Well, assuming I can post..

I've not read the books, seen the prior TV show, or heard the radio broadcasts. I know generally the theme of the books, and some of the big points (earth goes BOOM!...that's about it).

I enjoyed it. My impression was a cross between Dr. Who and Monty Python. Both of which I like, so that was decent. Silly, funny, maybe a tad slow, but I didn't think it was over-long. Could provoke some interesting discussions. Of course, the little things entertain me the most, so I'm still chuckling over the "look out, he's got a towel" comment, and "He locked the gate, we'll have to find another way around...."

My wife, on the other hand, was even less aware of the source material than I. I think she understood it was a comedy, but I'm not sure. She was highly disturbed by the early (umm, spoiler, I guess)

distruction of the Earth, and the rather casual attitude about how it came about. I don't think she ever really recovered from that, and she would have been happy to leave with the group of 4 sitting in front of us after about 30 minutes. Well, that, and she's 15 weeks pregnant, so sitting for long periods of time in uncomfortable seats is a trial for her right now.

I didn't hate it. I'm looking forward to a DVD version unconstrained by a studio's need to fit movies into 2 hour chunks. I don't think I'm inspired to take up the books. I'm a big fantasy and somewhat lesser sci-fi reader, but Adams' work just never grabbed me to try it.

I don't know that I'd pay to see a sequel, were one to get made. So, I guess that's not a terrific review. It entertained, I didn't hate it, but I'm in no rush to see more of the same.

And, good Lord, the spam is amazing.....

Posted by Craig J. Ries at May 2, 2005 02:50 PM

Btw, I have a link for it here, for anybody that is interested: http://kcrw.org/show/hg
___________________________________________________

Thank you Craig J. Ries.

I first discovered this series in the early 1980's when for some reason or another I was at home and happenned to turn on Channel 13 (PBS-NY) and the first thing I saw was the animation of Ford Prefect's opinions on why humans talk so much. They repeated all the episodes a little bit later on and I was hooked. I've read all the books (though MOSTLY HARMLESS's end confused the hell out of me to no end.) I even have the auido books read by Douglas Adams (and only he can read them correctly.) But the one things I was missing in my Fanboy score board was hearing the original broadcast. Now I can. Cool.

I liked the movie, and I agree with both the reviews for and the reviews against. I see both sides on this one, but I know I'll own the DVD when it comes out. I'm diehard on anything produced for this series. Even Fan Fiction.

Funny that you mentioned that "casual destruction" thing. My wife had the same reaction to Independence Day.

Thank you Craig J. Ries.

No problem.

With all the talk about HHG right now, I tend to cringe a bit when I hear people say that they've never heard the original radio series, assuming that the tv series or the book was the first incarnation of HHGttG that ever existed.

Or, as was commented on this thread, that the title theme in the movie is pulled from the tv series... but I'll give you one guess as to where the tv series got it from. ;)

Do you mean Journey of the Sorceror? I read somewhere that Doglas Adams liked the futuristic banjo sound. It's from an Eagles album I had when I was a kid.

Do you mean Journey of the Sorceror? I read somewhere that Doglas Adams liked the futuristic banjo sound. It's from an Eagles album I had when I was a kid.

Ok, what *I* meant was that the tv series used it because it was the theme for the original radio series.

I never knew it was actually preexisting music. And, Jefty, you're right, it was created by a guitarist for the Eagles.

You learn something new every day. :)

I actually bought the CD of "One of These Nights" because it has "Journey of the Sorceror" on it. The album orginally came out in 1975.

By the way, if you don't have the script book for the original radio scripts - I recommend it. It has lots of nice notes, tells you what all the music is, and of course it is great to see exactly what they are saying.

Neil

Posted by Peter David at April 30, 2005 02:18 AM
But I agree, the pace was faster. It had to be. Keep in mind that they were trying to tell fundamentally the same story in the space of an hour and forty five minutes that's consumed many hours of the TV and radio version.

PAD

Eh, strictly speaking, they are trying to tell the same story that was told in the first book, which was based on the first four radio episode, which are about about1 hour 56, including 4 sets of credits and opening titles, all of which had a little fake continuity announcements after them.
In the version that was released on the CDs and LPs, they were 1:57 hours, with the same things counting. (The two versions were actually a bit different, due to the use of some copyrighted music, and had been re-recorded).

So it shouldn't have been too hard to keep it at the right speed.

One thing, I think, is that comedy shouldn't be rushed, I'm with Paul Merton (a hilarious Britich comedian), among others, in thinking comedy is all about timing. Plus, Douglas Adam' great gift was dialogue, so, having heard the reviews, decided not to see the film. Mainly because I prefer radio and books as a video, allows greater freedom of imagination.

I'm with the "too much was cut out from the earlier incarnations for the fans to enjoy and the non-fans to follow" group.

I also agree that if more copies of the original books and radio plays are sold to non-fans as a result, HOORAY!

Unfortunately, I don't take much stock in this happening. If most movie-goers were readers, they would have picked up the books before the movie came out, as a large number of SF readers tend to pick up novelizations of Star Trek and Star Wars films before THEY'RE released.

Maybe the DVD release will be more satisfying if there are restored scenes, that were left on the cutting room floor, installed.

"I also agree that if more copies of the original books and radio plays are sold to non-fans as a result, HOORAY!

"Unfortunately, I don't take much stock in this happening."

Remember when Paul Verhoeven's horrid mutilation of Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" came out? At the time, I'd read my second copy of the book to pieces, and decided, after reading something about the film's contents, that I'd stand outside my local theater reading the book in protest.

There wasn't a copy to be had. Not Waldenbooks, not Barnes & Noble, not the local comics shop, not even the used bookstores - everyone was sold out.

I have faith that at least some of those books were actually read, not put on coffeetables for display...

Well, I got to see the movie a couple of days ago and have had a chance to mull it over, and I have to say that I really rather enjoyed it. I went into it with the mindset that it WASN'T going to be absolutely true to the book (or radio play or TV series, neither of which I've seen or watched yet) just as none of the other versions are absolutely true to each other. If anything, I expected no more and no less than I've expected of the Harry Potter movies, a barebones version of the story which serves as a wonderful visual aid to the books. I love seeing how what's on the screen stacks up with what I've only seen in my head up until that point. And I have to say, honestly, I actually got a bit misty-eyed when they hit the Magrathean factory floor. Also, I have a hard time disagreeing with a comment my brother made. "The airlock scene, best site gag EVER."

As to the acting and dialogue, I wasn't as disappointed as I was afraid I would be, probably since I was expecting it to be more stripped down than it was. *shrug* Sure, my opinion will likely be dismissed by many because I'm not "hardcore" enough to have pored over every version of the story available, but the sense of giddiness I felt when they left in the sperm whale was practically worth the price of admission alone.

-Rex Hondo-

"Remember when Paul Verhoeven's horrid mutilation of Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" came out? At the time, I'd read my second copy of the book to pieces, and decided, after reading something about the film's contents, that I'd stand outside my local theater reading the book in protest."

There wasn't a copy to be had. Not Waldenbooks, not Barnes & Noble, not the local comics shop, not even the used bookstores - everyone was sold out.

I have faith that at least some of those books were actually read, not put on coffeetables for display..." I suppose the significance of this depends on where you live, where you saw the film, if Ebay or its equivalents existed back then, and if there were individual sales of those books or if it was the work of a group of dealers who were "prospecting" for an upcoming convention or "true believers" buying a large number of copies to tell their friends, "Look! There was a good story in there somewhere! Here's what it looked like before Verhoven and Co. destroyed it!!!"

I was just saying that most movie-goers aren't "readers." Even worse, some of them are PROUD if it! While I have no doubt that there will be a few "converted" HGTTG fans after this film, I won't hold my breath for a TORRENT of them.