NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright, so I've seen the trailers for "The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy" movie. It looks fun, but, as a die hard Douglas Adams fan, I may actually choose not to see it. Movies like this tend to ruin the amazing books they spawn from.

What do you think? Is this a chance for more people to be exposed to Adam's genius, or a twisting of his dream?

I hope against hope that it won't suck so bad that I will never be able to read the book again without thinking of how bad the movie was. But I fear it will be the case.

i think your a sinner. a dirty, flithly sinner.

BOOGIE BOOGIE SINNER! in HELL!

From the bits and pieces I've seen, it looks good, and the fact that FP is black doesn't really bother me. It just makes him seem to be more of an outsider in Britain, and that's what he's supposed to come across as anyways, isn't it?

I'm worried.... real worried.

I heard they hacked up all the books and pasted the story together from there...

EEEK!

Come now, I know there are more Hitchiker fans out there...

I had heard that Douglas Adams had been involved in the early stages of this film (it was probably late when I read it so it could have been an insomnia hallucination) so it should be OK. Also, it doesn't matter if they hack up the plot because Douglas Adams did that all the time for different formats of HG didn't he. I really can't wait :D

Meh, seeing bad movies never ruins the book for me. If it sucks terribly, then I can make fun of it and make snide remarks to whoever I watch it with.

Then I'll read the book with a new appreciation for the brilliance that it is and how much worse things can get.

I haven't seen the trailor (I get 2 tv channels clearly) but my mom said it comes out some time after my exams. I'll probably drag someone out to see it with me at some point.

I had heard that Douglas Adams had been involved in the early stages of this film (it was probably late when I read it so it could have been an insomnia hallucination) so it should be OK. Also, it doesn't matter if they hack up the plot because Douglas Adams did that all the time for different formats of HG didn't he. I really can't wait :D
Yeah, I heard Adams worked on the script in the beginning before he croaked.

I don't think it will suck, my friend was complaining because Ford wasnt white and British, so me and my brother corrected him with the fact that Ford is not from Earth, but from a small planet in the vicinity of Beutelguese (sp?).

I've read all the books twice, listened to the radio show several times, and both of them differed from each other. I have high hopes for this movie.

From what i've seen from the trailers, it appears that the movie will be loosely put together. I also think that it will be a bad movie. I understand that it's hard to get all of the books into one movie, but i am still worried that it will be a bad movie. Then again movies that looks good in the trailers often end up sucking, so maybe this movie, because it looks bad, will be good.

From what i've seen (the trailers) and the website (which offers some really cool things, like the Guide to the Guide), i think this movie is going to be absolutely amazing. From what i can tell, it DOESNT span farther than the first book... the only badguys seem to be the Vogons (no Krikkits involved), all the jokes i've seen have come from the first book, and no scenes depicting a Restaurant at the end of the Universe.

Furthermore, the casting looks brilliant. Ford has to be black (doesn't Adams describe Ford as "out of place"? Alan Rickman is the voice for Marvin (the robot design isn't reminding me of my picture of Marvin from the book, but that doesn't matter, it's still pretty cool looking) And the guy playing Dent looks very much like what i pictured him to be, not to mention he says a tea line on the website and sounds fantastic :-p.

The special effects are really good, the story looks mostly intact, the humor is there (a LOT of direct quotes from the books, especially when talking about the guide)

Adams did indeed write a good portion, but he died halfway through the screenplay, so chances are they wouldn't mess it up.

I am so pumped for this movie, i have a wallpaper and screensaver based on the movie.

*EDIT*
now that i think of it, the Guide has a bit of humor from the second book... although it couldve also been from the first.. i dunno, it is reminiscent of the second...
*EDIT*

Movies like this tend to ruin the amazing books they spawn from.



...excepting the fact that the film isn't based on books in this instance.

I think what this production will really be about is merchandising. I can't think of anything else to add. "Hitchiker's toilet bowl caddy", anybody? Buy 'em quick, they're sure to appreciate in value sometime before the turn of the next century...

I think what this production will really be about is merchandising. I can't think of anything else to add. "Hitchiker's toilet bowl caddy", anybody? Buy 'em quick, they're sure to appreciate in value sometime before the turn of the next century...

Hey, it isn't as if there weren't Hitchiker towels in the past.

Its gonna be really tough to make everything fit into one movie, so I bet it will be loosely based on the books rather than a movie adaptation of them. Even then, it should be pretty good.

http://www.thelovens.co.uk/paracam/vogonpoetry.mov

I think Im going to go to the movie with the attitude of 'Its just a movie with the same name as the book.", because if I dont I know Ill be dissapointed.
Same thing I did with Lord of the Rings. Good movie, but not so similar to the book. I, Robot, 'meh' movie, not the same as the book.
And so forth.
Of course, it can be not at all related to the book AND a bad movie (most often it is), IE: Starship Troopers.

I've been praying since I saw the first trailer that it will be a good movie. Hopefully, it doesn't try to screw with any of the plot or jokes too much, because it was already hilarious. Besides, there's not much you can do to mess up this series anyway. It was so random to begin with that putting the jokes in just about any order will be as clear as the books themselves.

...excepting the fact that the film isn't based on books in this instance.
Come again? If you're referring to the fact that the books themselves come from radio shows, that's different. Adams wrote both of them, and it was his arrangement of his original material that made the books. And, though, as some people have said, Adams wrote part of the screen play, he is also, as has been said, he is rather dead. Therefore, no one holding them to the true story.

Even if the movie was brilliant (which I still have doubts about; I saw the "mice" portrayed as a human torso in a trailer), it still will probably kill my mental image from the books. Although, if Alan Rickman is doing Marvin's voice, that could be interesting...

Come again? If you're referring to the fact that the books themselves come from radio shows, that's different.

It isn't as if Adams didn't have a hand in the previous adaptions: from radio to novel, from radio to computer game, from radio to TV series.

It isn't as if Adams didn't have a hand in the previous adaptions: from radio to novel, from radio to computer game, from radio to TV series.
Um... that is exactly what I just said. However, as I also said, Adams is a little too dead to hold Hollywood to his vision (which, like I said, he maintained personally in all his previous adaptations).

Um... that is exactly what I just said. However, as I also said, Adams is a little too dead to hold Hollywood to his vision (which, like I said, he maintained personally in all his previous adaptations).

My original point was that the novels didn't come first and as such are no more the 'authentic' Hitchhikers than other versions.

My original point was that the novels didn't come first and as such are no more the 'authentic' Hitchhikers than other versions.
Fair enough. However, as I said, those versions were made authentic through Adam's guidance and approval. This movie currently has neither (though I'm pretty sure he wanted to get a really good movie version made).

However, whether its ligit or not is irrelevant. I'm just not sure that I want to have my mental picture of these books skewed. I like the way that I see the characters now; I don't want to imagine Marvin with a massive round head every time I reread the things, or Zaphod with his second head tucked away instead of just being there. It could be the best movie ever made, with acting and effects that put the greatest movies of our time to shame, and I'd still probably pass on it.

I don't want to imagine Marvin with a massive round head every time I reread the things, or Zaphod with his second head tucked away instead of just being there.

Clearly, that ship has sailed.

Clearly, that ship has sailed.
Unfortunatly, yes :(

However, it has yet to be fully engrained. Maybe if I reread the entire series tonight...

Wouldn't it be a crazy world where we judged a film by actually seeing it instead of pre-determining our reactions? Man, that would be nuts.

That being said-it looks good to me. I don't know how a movie can possibly 'ruin a book' for someone unless they hadn't read the book and the movie gave away the trick ending. Outside of that, it escapes me.

Books are a different narrative form than films and as such there are intrinsic(sp) difference in the way stories are told in the different mediums. You'd think that would be something that wouldn't have to be said. The book is going to be intrinsically different, there is a experience that you will always get out of the book that you will never get out of the movie and the other way around. If it where just a matter of 'filming the page' movies based on books would be rote(sp), visual cliffnotes. But there is a reason your teacher could always tell when you did your report on the movie rather than the book.

I'm excited. It's looked pretty good so far, I like Mos Def-he's a funny guy. That dude from The Office is pretty funny. Is it good? I'll let you know when I see it.

Wouldn't it be a crazy world where we judged a film by actually seeing it instead of pre-determining our reactions? Man, that would be nuts.

That being said-it looks good to me. I don't know how a movie can possibly 'ruin a book' for someone unless they hadn't read the book and the movie gave away the trick ending. Outside of that, it escapes me.

Books are a different narrative form than films and as such there are intrinsic(sp) difference in the way stories are told in the different mediums. You'd think that would be something that wouldn't have to be said. The book is going to be intrinsically different, there is a experience that you will always get out of the book that you will never get out of the movie and the other way around. If it where just a matter of 'filming the page' movies based on books would be rote(sp), visual cliffnotes. But there is a reason your teacher could always tell when you did your report on the movie rather than the book.

I'm excited. It's looked pretty good so far, I like Mos Def-he's a funny guy. That dude from The Office is pretty funny. Is it good? I'll let you know when I see it.
You're telling me that you've never seen a movie based on a book, went back to that book, and couldn't get the voice of the actor out of your head when you read the line? That's what I'm afraid of. Not that the movie as a whole will be bad (it could be good, you're right, I don't know), but that it might fall short of what I felt with the book, and I'd never be able to go back and see the real deal the same way again.

It wouldn't be the first time...

In my experience Hitchhiker's fans are too one-track about the books. I hardly know anyone else that has seen the BBC mini-series, and I know no one else who has heard the original radio broadcasts. Both of these precede the books. And of course, things changed and developed along the way.

Adams' never seemed too interested in the details about his characters... He was too busy having fun with them. Besides, I know he had a hand in the movie... When someone suggested making Ford black (if it wasn't Adams himself), I'd be willing to bet he said, "Hey... why didn't I think of that?"

I welcome this movie with open arms. It will be great. I don't even care if it slaughters the books, or the radio shows, or the game. I just want more story. I want more Adams' humor. That's all.

Even if the movie was brilliant (which I still have doubts about; I saw the "mice" portrayed as a human torso in a trailer),

No, that was Humma Kavula, religious leader of Viltvodel VI, not the mice. (Humma is played by John Malkovich; pretty awesome in my opinion.)

No, that was Humma Kavula, religious leader of Viltvodel VI, not the mice. (Humma is played by John Malkovich; pretty awesome in my opinion.)

Cool, we get to see the guys with all of the arms that invented deoderant before the wheel?

<--- has a CD of the radio series and a VHS of the miniseries
<--- also listened to the BBC 4 radio version of Life, the Universe, and Everything via the Internet

You're telling me that you've never seen a movie based on a book, went back to that book, and couldn't get the voice of the actor out of your head when you read the line? That's what I'm afraid of. Not that the movie as a whole will be bad (it could be good, you're right, I don't know), but that it might fall short of what I felt with the book, and I'd never be able to go back and see the real deal the same way again.

It wouldn't be the first time...
Not to sound too 'superior' or anything, but no-I haven't. At worst I am painted by whatever medium I first encountered the narrative, which is to say that if I saw the adaptation first and then went to the original source I am still reconciling my first experience to my second. But if I where to go back and re-read, say, Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas (which was by most measures a fairly faithful adaptation) after I have now seen the movie I still the book as it's own narrative and not 'the movie, described.' The notion and portrayal become different and I seperate them. I would encourage people in general to do that-you will not be able to reconcile narrative prose and narrative film. It just can't happen. If an audience member cannot recognize that divorce the fault does not so much lie in the interpretor but rather in the audience member.

I think, and some posters have touched on this, that Adams willingness to constantly translate this text across mediums and modify the material as he does it is a clear indication that he understood and embraced this notion of difference and in some way-perhaps tacitly-felt that the story could not be told accurately through one means but was neccisary, to really tell this story, to convey it through as many mediums as possible. Which would mean that there is no such thing as a 'pure' or 'true' Hitchhikers Guide and questioning the validity of one medium ignores a core element of the narrative.

In my experience Hitchhiker's fans are too one-track about the books. I hardly know anyone else that has seen the BBC mini-series, and I know no one else who has heard the original radio broadcasts. Both of these precede the books. And of course, things changed and developed along the way.


*looks at bookshelf, sees several versions of the books plus a couple of different versions of the scripts, looks at RECORD collection to find the original LP's and the re-issued LP's.

Notes that the DVD set is intact, and the original VHS (PAL) issue, and the version recorded at the time are all there too.

I also have the CD's of most things, the talking books, and the CD's of the new series.

Obsessive ?

Me ?

yeah - OK .

Oh - yes there is a new film coming out :)

I cannot wait.....

Hmm...

All interesting thoughts. Quite honestly, when I posted this, I thought more people would have sided with me. Live and learn. ;)

Though I've known how the books came to be from other mediums first, I was really just afraid that it would be a movie that would, somehow, ruin the books. But, considering all that has been said (and being pummeled into submission by stylish advertisements...damn ad copymakers), I may very well go see this.

By the way, this is not a "flip flop" or a lack of stoildness; this is merely the acceptance and application of well place arguement. :)

Hmm...

All interesting thoughts. Quite honestly, when I posted this, I thought more people would have sided with me. Live and learn. ;)

Though I've known how the books came to be from other mediums first, I was really just afraid that it would be a movie that would, somehow, ruin the books. But, considering all that has been said (and being pummeled into submission by stylish advertisements...damn ad copymakers), I may very well go see this.

By the way, this is not a "flip flop" or a lack of stoildness; this is merely the acceptance and application of well place arguement. :)
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

Never feel bad about considering your opinions or ideas.

Ah, you sass, the froods really coming out for this movie!

Ah, you sass, the froods really coming out for this movie!
I'm way too much of a hoopy to fall for that. :)