Hollywood does Htichhikers Guide?
 

      They're finally making a movie? Apparently so. Go figure. As much as I like the series I'm a bit worried about the movie. So much of the books charm will have trouble translating on to the screen. For instance, can large letters really look particularly friendly? How does one show God disappearing in a puff of logic after the babel fish is introduced? Well, I guess we'll find out.
      And yes, I know the BBC did a series years back. Just high lights my points, I think.

They waited until Adams died so he couldn't stop it from sucking.

I'll still see it, though.

The scriptwriter also did the script for Chicken Run, which was a clever movie, so there's SOME hope.

But I have a sinking feeling that the cast list will have "And BOBCAT GOLDTHWAIT as Zaphod Beeblebrox" or some similar atrocity.

The BBC 6-part television series was pretty damn funny, so there is *some* hope.

I do agree that some things just don't translate from written word to film. For example, how in the world can they visually represent a phrase like "the Vogon ships...hung in the air exactly like bricks don't"?

Well ... special effects HAVE come a really long way since the BBC TV series ...

I fear that this project will suck in ways never before dreamed of. I worry about this with any film project based on something I liked in another medium.

I have long held a suspicion that Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure actually started out as a Doctor Who movie ...

But then again, I was VERY pleased by the film adaptations of Bringing Out the Dead and Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, so who knows ...

I agree, I think it just wouldn't work.

How could they want to make a film out of it anyway? I love the book, it's the best thing I've read, but no matter who makes the film, or how well they do it, someone will still think it's wrong.

Because you can see a film, but that's it. Everyone else sees the same thing.
With books, and verbal imagery etc. The same words mean different things to different people.
:(

In summary: It would suck.

As I'm sure you're aware, BBC != Hollywood.

Much as I loved the Hitchhiker's Guide ... it's not great literature.

Try some, just for comparison.

It's encouraging that our dear Mr. Adams gave the OK for Hollywood's version before passing, but the project just spent so much time on the backburner that it's only now being made. Of course, as far as I know he never saw a script, he just consented to allow Hollywood to take a crack at it, so his original consent does little to ensure a quality movie.

I share the concerns which others have expressed... The book's funniest moments aren't so much in the events and characters, but in the narrative. That means they have to do something cheesy like a voice-over, or lose much of the books' original feel. I am hoping for the best, but planning for the worst.
This is an interesting point. Why? What does the series lack which removes it from the "great literature" pool? It's enjoyed by highly inelligent people, and it uses irony to make some important points. It is entertaining, but not mindless empty-fluff entertainment. It introduces thought-provoking ideas, despite the humorous context.

It's not that I disagree with you, because I wouldn't call them "great literature" either. But they're damn good, and worth reading. I'm just curious how you differentiate "great" literature from a book which is just really good. Do you base it on the general concensus of the intelligent reading community, or your own yardstick? How would you compare the difference in quality, product, and value?

Just curious. :D

Also, the late Mr. Adams was a devout atheist, and had some interesting things to say about his non-beliefs.

Oh but the very best of all HHGTG formats IS the original radio show. That's where it all began, the original format.

I still listen to them every two years or so, and Adams' incredibly dry wit and creativity is still inspirational.

(filesharing is your friend: search for the mp3s)

I've never listened to the original radio show, but I have long meant to. Does it utilize a narrator to convey the author's comments, or is it strictly dialogue? A narrator isn't bad in a radio play, but in a movie, voiceover narration is rarely palatable.

Perhaps it's for the same reason some people think Classical music in inherently superior to current music -- because it's old. Some people think a thing has to be really old to be truly good. Just like how our "founding fathers" were always correct about everything.

The narrator in the radio show is about a quarter of the whole thing, gets us from point to point and also does enormous amounts of exposition.

Maybe they can get around some of the problem by using the book itself as a narrator.

Yeah yeah. I haven't heard them, but I have the book with printouts of the scripts, and there's some very witty stuff there that never made it to the "official" books. Plus, British radio comedy is a delightfully acquired taste all in its own (says a Goon Show fan).

I have another quasi-Adams-biography-and-HHGG-guidebook that talks about much of his earlier work, and the Failed Kamikaze Pilot sketch he did for The Burkiss Way sounds hysterical.

"How many missions have you been on?"
"Nineteen, sir."
"Let's see your mission log: couldn't find target... couldn't find target... forgot headband... couldn't find target... headache?"
"Headband too tight, sir."
"Vertigo... couldn't find target... couldn't find target. Now, you see, I just don't think you've been _looking_ very hard."

I remember that they made a mini-series out of in the early 80's. I think I also heard the radio adaptation.

As far as the movie sucking, it would have to go a long way to win my award for the worst movie adaptation of an SF novel. That award goes to Dune (1984), the movie version not the mini-series.

Its amazing how badly something with a good cast and great source material can get.

Dino DiLaurentis has made some over-budget flops before, but the difference between the raw materials and final result in Dune is simply astounding.

They should show this movie to every class in filmaking as what NOT to do.

Anyway, I doubt that Hitchiker will sink to that level. It's too bad they couldn't get Peter Jackson for the job. It sounds like a project he could do really well.

I was thinking Tim Burton but we'll never know. I think Burton pretty much has the visual metaphor thing figured out.

I have the Hitchhiker's Guide series on DVD. It came out sometime last year, I believe. Wonderfully funny, and captures the sense of the books in a way that only a low budget BBC series can.

The movie Dune is an awful adaptation of the book. I wholeheartedly agree. However, if you regard it as a film by David Lynch, and view it in that context, it's pretty good. On that basis, I liked it, and I actually liked the original theatrical release version better than the recut monster with the tedious narration.

Okay...so far, so good...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...film_galaxy_dc

I'm trying, but can't seem to find a good search string that pulls anything usefull. Ideas?

-sm

this link will be temporarily valid and then mysteriously disappear. Right-click, save-as.

I'd love to be the guy who pulls off Neuromancer. I'd like to see Peter Jackson, or me do it. :)

Neuromancer as in "William Gibson's Neuromancer"? That book is fucking me up right now. I enjoy it, but I'm having to reread paragraphs twice to get whats going on.

you

straight

kick

ass


-sm

The BBC is releasing a radio adaptation of the last three books in the Hitchhiker's series, starring many of the same voice talents as the original (minus one who passed away).

Here's the ultra-spiffy part... Douglas Adams himself stars as one of the character voices. Hell yeah!

With very good reason, apparently.

Okay, so I'll plug it first: The movie is fucking fantastic, IMO. I thought it was very well done, and with superb casting/acting. Nothing about the movie was overdone - even with the extraordinary amount of absurd shit going on in the book. Much better done than many of the (serious) sci-fi movies I've seen to date. I laughed pretty much through the whole film. What I meant to say was: Much better done than even many of the serious sci-fi movies ...

I strongly recommend it. A friend said he didn't think it would be funny for people who haven't read the book, but I disagree. Very engaging and entertaining.

Sorry I can't provide more color - my brain is kinda zapped from a tough week at work.

And yes, I had to pay $10.50 plus $1.50 fuckin' Fandango charge to watch the damn movie here in NYC. This city really sucks sometimes.

Seconded. Very funny.

Haven't seen it yet, but regardless, Martin Freeman is a brilliant actor.

yea they did hitchhikers alright, hard up the arse. Bleh.
If they dare touch neuromancer or any other gibson novel it's nuke-from-orbit time. Sure, they'd make it look purty but it'd be what I Robot was to the original.

I thought "I Robot" was done pretty damn well all in all, and there's not many bigger Asimov fans than me.

True, it was a bit overly crash/bang/boom when compared to the short stories, but I thought the film did an admirable job of retaining the thoughtful nature and interesting twists which Asimov was so good at writing.

It could have been *much* worse.

It could have been much better.

It was about on par with Total Recall. A brief nod to the original material, and then goes off on it's own. In instances like that I judge the movie separately from the source material.

I don't think that principle will apply to Hitchhiker's, though.

Not at all.

it looks stupid from the previews, I'll wait for it to come on cable.

Of course it looks stupid.

It's meant to be stupid.

If it doesn't look stupid it hasn't been done right.

No, I haven't seen it yet. I'll hopefully be able to let you know if it's actually stupid within the next week or so.