×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hitchhiker's Movie is Bad, says Adams Biographer

CmdrTaco posted about 9 years ago | from the breaking-my-heart dept.

Movies 925

Rollerbob writes "MJ Simpson, who has 'been studying and documenting the life and career of Douglas Adams for more than 20 years', has written a very in-depth review and plot analysis of the Hitchhiker's movie. As well as the full review that contains SPOILERS , he has also published a shortened spoiler-free version, as well as a list of things from the radio plays, records, books and TV series that have not been included in the movie. Hitchhiker's fans, prepare to be like Marvin ... very depressed."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

925 comments

Not just bad (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193513)

"Really bad"
"vastly, staggeringly, jaw-droppingly bad"
"bad on a big scale"
"bad on a small scale"
"staggeringly unfunny"
"unfunny, pointless crap"
"an abomination"
"amazingly, mindbogglingly awful"
"a terrible, terrible film"

(And that's from the short review)

Re:Not just bad (5, Funny)

g2ek (852570) | about 9 years ago | (#12193573)

sounds like good old marvin ;)

Don't Panic (4, Funny)

ericof (175183) | about 9 years ago | (#12193647)

If this movie is as bad as the review states... It will have a long life in the theaters ;-)

(But, don't you think, Marvin should look like Bender?)

Re:Not just bad (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193601)

They took most of the jokes out, and the jokes they left in were changed around. Also they simplified a bunch of stuff so that people who haven't read HHGTTG could understand what was going on, yet they didn't explain the plot really at all.

On a side note, I thought the BBC-TV series was actually pretty good, but apparently I'm the only one that thinks so. Maybe I have a soft spot for it because I saw it when I was much younger...

Re:Not just bad (5, Funny)

quantaman (517394) | about 9 years ago | (#12193623)

I know, one of the things I've always found hardest to understand about Movie Reviewers was their habit of continuously stating and repeating the very very obvious, as in "It's a comedy", or "It's a very long movie", or "Oh dear they've adapted this movie from a book and made it really really bad".

Re:Not just bad (5, Insightful)

provolt (54870) | about 9 years ago | (#12193709)

To all of us waiting for the film, I think there are really only two words that need to go with a bad review:

DON'T PANIC

It's just one review. You know you'll spend your 8 bucks anyway.

Re:Not just bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193737)


This movie is bad - really bad - you just won't believe how vastly, hugely mind-bogglingly bad it is. You may think it's a bad trip down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to this movie.

"Bad film" or "poorly written" (0)

lxt (724570) | about 9 years ago | (#12193759)

It seems to me the reviewer has some trouble distinguishing between bad films and badly written films.

I'm pretty sure the film is not "bad" bad. I doubt it's cinimatography is as bad as some of the stuff seen on MST3K. I'm sure the acting isn't as bad either.

Perhaps the script totally sucks. But consider this - would someone who had never read the books in their life enjoy this film? Probably. Would someone expecting the same as the books enjoy this film? Probably not.

But I don't think you can it "an abomination", especially when compared to the really bad films produced over the years. Seems to me the reviewer is a little bit stuck up trying to be a critic.

Disgusting (5, Insightful)

Wizy (38347) | about 9 years ago | (#12193515)

We all knew they couldnt fit the whole series in one movie. It should have been a trilogy at least.

But to remove Milliways, Disaster Area, and prehistoric Earth completely? Thats just horrible. It is not the same story. They have commited murder here. This movie should be renamed.

What? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193536)

As the review points out, the radio and play versions are two hours. There's no reason a movie couldn't be.

Re:Disgusting (4, Funny)

cpghost (719344) | about 9 years ago | (#12193570)

The movie is not 100% accurate? Oh, you mean just like the Guide?

Re:Disgusting (2, Insightful)

mwilli (725214) | about 9 years ago | (#12193713)

Douglas Adams has said that the movie isn't supposed to be like the plays or the book. It was written to be it's own entity. So when things from the book and things from the play were not included, it's not because he didn't want them to be, it's because they were never meant to be. He wanted to give us something a bit different.

Re:Disgusting (4, Insightful)

Angry Toad (314562) | about 9 years ago | (#12193589)


To be fair Milliway's and the prehistoric Earth are both from the *second* book, not the original H2G2.

Re:Disgusting (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193619)

yes, but the movie is the WHOLE series (i.e. all the books).

Re:Disgusting (5, Insightful)

xiaomonkey (872442) | about 9 years ago | (#12193627)

Reminds me of the upcoming "Doom" movie, that I heard neither takes place on mars, nor features hell demons. That is, the movie is suppose to take place in a secret lab on earth and feature a virus that mutates people into horrible monsters - so think another 'resident evil' like movie.

Anyhow, there were only 2 things they needed to get right to make the "Doom" movie "Doom", and the folks over in hollywood just couldn't handle it. Does it surprize anyone that they couldn't get it right for something more sophisticated like this?

Sometimes, we get lucky with something like 'Lord of the Rings', but I think that's probably the exception and not the rule.

Same story? (0, Redundant)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | about 9 years ago | (#12193635)

1. There is no 'story' in H2G2. I do not even think it was meant to be a story anyway.

2. In all of its form, only the theme was the same, not the presentation/execution. So, why can the movie not be different? It carries on with the tradition of H2G2 - no two versions were ever same.

But agree to the point that it should have been a triology.

BTW, who do you think could have been the best (or better) Zaphod?

Re:Same story? (1)

Wizy (38347) | about 9 years ago | (#12193660)

Zaphod? Any half decent actor able to show a lot of energy WITH A SECOND HEAD RIGHT NEXT TO HIS REAL ONE...

Ah crap. (3, Interesting)

bigtallmofo (695287) | about 9 years ago | (#12193524)

If this review is true, then I can't properly convey my disappointment.

Nostalgia is a powerful thing and I guess hoping that the movie could bring back some of the feeling I had from reading the first three books and playing the Infocom game was a little unrealistic.

Re:Ah crap. (4, Funny)

tehshen (794722) | about 9 years ago | (#12193631)

playing the Infocom game was a little unrealistic

Since when would you expect any incarnation of Hitchhiker's to be realistic?

Re:Ah crap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193688)

Reading long sentences isn't your strong suit, is it?

Nostalgia is a powerful thing and I guess hoping that the movie could bring back some of the feeling I had (from reading the first three books and playing the Infocom game) was a little unrealistic.

Re:Ah crap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193689)

Try again:

"Nostalgia is a powerful thing and I guess hoping that the movie could bring back some of the feeling I had from reading the first three books and playing the Infocom game was a little unrealistic."

What was he saying was unrealistic?

We don't have to start over with the whole "See Jack run" bit do we?

Uh oh. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193537)

Here come the 42 jokes. (trappling noise approaches)

I'm a Sucker (5, Funny)

Alcimedes (398213) | about 9 years ago | (#12193556)

Sorry, but I guess I liked the Hitchhiker's series enough that I'll go see it anyway. Hell, I sat through the new Star Wars series thus far, and that was punishment enough.

As long as there's no JarJar, I guess I won't leave too pissed.

After seeing the commercials... (1)

tquinlan (868483) | about 9 years ago | (#12193559)

...I am not even interested in seeing it. The guide looks like it was pulled right out of ST:TNG (complete with LCARS), and the acting looks bad. Combined with the fact that it looks like they spent too much on the "whiz bang" CGI scenery, it's looking like I'm just not going to see this one.

It's a shame, really, to take such a good story and to make such a mess of it on the big screen. Of course, I suppose I should be used to that happening by now...

Re:After seeing the commercials... (1)

Wizy (38347) | about 9 years ago | (#12193577)

Its not like we SHOULD have expected anything different. I konw I wanted and hoped for something different. But reality being what it is, everyone had to know it would be this bad.

Why should I care? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193561)

It's only one person slamming the movie, a person I have never heard of.

When there is a general consensus among reviewers that it is bad then... I still won't listen because I want to watch the movie regardless.

The should have got that Peter Jackson guy (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193567)

Lord Of the Hitchhikers, Fellowship of the Galaxy

Re:The should have got that Peter Jackson guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193602)

Meet the Feeble Magrathians

Here we go again.... (5, Insightful)

grahams (5366) | about 9 years ago | (#12193574)

I remember similar discussions over plot removal in Lord of the Rings... I'll reserve judgement until I actually see the film, as opposed to reading someone's fanboy opinion.

Re:Here we go again.... (1)

onash (599976) | about 9 years ago | (#12193644)

I agree on that! I saw the HHGTTG trailer before Sin City and I think that trailer was too good for the movie to totally suck.

Re:Here we go again.... (4, Interesting)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | about 9 years ago | (#12193651)

Except this guy gives specifics, and the specifics are terrible.

Also dialogue, which was (as the reviewer points out) always the best part.

An example he gives:
"I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."

"That's the Display Department."
"With a torch."
"The lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But you found the plans, didn't you?"
"Oh yes, they were 'on display' in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the leopard.'"

Or, as the movie version has it:

"I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"But you found the plans, didn't you?"
He gives other examples but I think you get the point. The things that made the story so much fun have been ruthelessly truncated.

Re:Here we go again.... (5, Insightful)

Cyberblah (140887) | about 9 years ago | (#12193654)

Well, while it could still be fan exaggeration, I think "they took the jokes out" is a criticism much more damning than "They left out [Tom Bombadil | scouring the Shire | any other single plot event]!"

to be expected (1)

orufet (873172) | about 9 years ago | (#12193583)

what else can you expect of a film? if you don't like what it's done to the novels, then don't go see it. simple. it happens with virtually all films that are made from literature.

Yeah, like Sin City... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193603)

Oh wait...

American Screenwriter (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193593)

The dialogue between Arthur and Prosser, which was written for a sketch in a Cambridge Footlights revue in October 1973, is a terrific example of Douglas' clever way with - and love of - language:

"I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the Display Department."
"With a torch."
"The lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But you found the plans, didn't you?"
"Oh yes, they were 'on display' in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the leopard.'"

Or, as the movie version has it:

"I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"But you found the plans, didn't you?"

I personally, with no intention to troll, feel that this is what happens when you let an American write English humour. The writer clearly had no concept of what made that scene funny - in his mind, it was a joke about not being able to find something. The dialogue simpoly went over his head.

Re:American Screenwriter (1, Troll)

lxt (724570) | about 9 years ago | (#12193663)

"I personally, with no intention to troll, feel that this is what happens when you let an American write English humour."

Because you'll never find an American writing that kind of humour - I mean, there wasn't an American on Monty Python team was there? And surely that's "English" humour if anything.

Oh wait, there was.

Re:American Screenwriter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193712)

Because you'll never find an American writing that kind of humour - I mean, there wasn't an American on Monty Python team was there? And surely that's "English" humour if anything.

Oh wait, there was.

Yes. There were also 5 English men, who did most of the sketches. And Terry Gilliam always understood the humour, as some Americans do.



Silly person.

Re:American Screenwriter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193719)

Terry Gilligan was the cartoon animator, not so much of a writer. Try 'gain.

Re:American Screenwriter (1)

grazzy (56382) | about 9 years ago | (#12193752)

Sorry mate, just because cleese moved to california it doesnt make him american ;)

Re:American Screenwriter (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193675)

Yes, it takes an Oxford education to counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor of Benny Hill.

Or maybe bad writing is just bad writing.

Re:American Screenwriter (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 9 years ago | (#12193718)

Or maybe they were trying to avoid a five hour movie?

Re:American Screenwriter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193735)

Or maybe they were trying to avoid a five hour movie?

The movie is based on the plot of a radio show containing such dialogue, which is two hours in length.

Re:American Screenwriter (4, Informative)

Blondie-Wan (559212) | about 9 years ago | (#12193730)

The odd thing is, though, that here [go.com] the screenwriter, Karey Kirkpatrick, discusses just those things that make Adams' writing Adams' writing, and it really seemed he got it.

Or maybe, since it's a movie.... (2, Interesting)

billybob (18401) | about 9 years ago | (#12193742)

this is what happens when you let an American write English humour. The writer clearly had no concept of what made that scene funny - in his mind, it was a joke about not being able to find something. The dialogue simpoly went over his head.

Or MAYBE, since it's a MOVIE, they don't have time to be true to the dialogue throughout the entire book. If they did that, the movie would be damn 10 hours long and un-released. You honestly think the joke you're quoting could really "go over someone's head"? It's not like it's a complicated or deep joke. It's funny for sure, I love the whole series of books, but you have to understand you just do NOT have time for that kind of dialogue throughout the entire movie. I'm sure there are plenty of scenes that are quite true to the original book. This just happens to be one that's not. :P

What did you expect? (1, Redundant)

Em Ellel (523581) | about 9 years ago | (#12193594)

Really, was it realistic to expect them to include everything?

If you want something that follows the book exactly try the BBC series - or, *gasp*, reading the books.

The real question is - what they did include - did they do that well? Is it a good MOVIE. Personally, I am willing to pay $10 to find out.

-Em

Re:What did you expect? (1)

Rysc (136391) | about 9 years ago | (#12193761)

RTFA. It's not even a good movie.

Very depressing! Horrifying.

Yes, I am going to see it anyway.

Re:What did you expect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193768)

If you want something that follows the book exactly try the BBC series - or, *gasp*, reading the books.

Huh? Which BBC series are you thinking of that follows the book exactly? Obviously not the television series, which didn't come close to following the books exactly and probably wasn't even based off the books in particular. Certainly not the radio series which came before the books were ever written. So what series do you mean?

I've got to guess that you didn't bother to read the review if you think it's about following the books (why the books in particular?) exactly.

The worst opinion you could solicit... (5, Insightful)

TempusMagus (723668) | about 9 years ago | (#12193597)

I'm sorry but these types of reviews are simply the worst on account of the person being so terribly close/obsessed to the orginal source material. Why not ask my ex-wife to give my current girlfriend a review of me?

In other artform can you find... (1, Insightful)

lxt (724570) | about 9 years ago | (#12193703)

...people who want to see a film that consists solely of material recylced word for word from something else.

A film should be different. There should be new things. It's suppossed to be a retelling of a story, not a carbon copy. I'd be pretty dissapointed if I went to see a film that consisted only of dialogue ripped from the existing novel. I don't see people up in arms when films are produced that transplant Jane Austen into Indian culture (Bride and Prejudice), or reinvent Shakespeare...

Anyone who goes to see a film adapation of a book expecting a word for word and scenario for scenario copy is, in my mind, slightly odd.

Re:The worst opinion you could solicit... (3, Informative)

TempusMagus (723668) | about 9 years ago | (#12193745)

[quote]In other words, from the audience's point of view, it matters not a jot whether Douglas Adams wrote any particular part of this movie; it only matters that it should sound like he wrote it.[/quote] The guy actually says this. No, it only matters if the FILM IS GOOD. I don't care if it sounds like him one whit.

In denial (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193598)

I see a lot of people in denial here

Let's face facts, just because the source material is good, doesn't mean the movie is good.

Now unless you trust Ain't It Cool News, you'll have to admit, this baby's looking like a stinker coming to smell up Douglas Adams' good name.

Those are the facts. That's reality.

Did you expect better from Disney? They make kids movies, and the Hitchhiker can't be made into a kids movie. Kids wouldn't appreciate it.

So we've got a movie. A piece of shit movie.That Douglas Adams lost is life over.

Deal with it, fanboyz!

Re:In denial (4, Funny)

lxt (724570) | about 9 years ago | (#12193727)

"So we've got a movie. A piece of shit movie.That Douglas Adams lost is life over."

Yes, that's right. The move killed Douglas Adams. Nothing else. It was just that damn movie. Now go back to sleep.

I can take some random crap, but that's a bit too far.

I'd be really surprised... (0, Flamebait)

duckpoopy (585203) | about 9 years ago | (#12193605)

if a bad movie which became a bad series also became a bad movie.

Re:I'd be really surprised... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193699)

What?

Set Up Us The Bomb (1)

ayeco (301053) | about 9 years ago | (#12193608)

With early review / press like this, the movie is being set up to bomb. There are a lot of fan boy movies that were "ok" movies but bombed because of the press.

Re:Set Up Us The Bomb (3, Funny)

lxt (724570) | about 9 years ago | (#12193638)

Like that underappreciated great "Batman & Robin"...still brings a tear to my eye.

Much worse than bad (3, Funny)

Raul654 (453029) | about 9 years ago | (#12193610)

The write up understates it, I think. From TFA:
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie is bad. Really bad. You just won't believe how vastly, staggeringly, jaw-droppingly bad it is. I mean, you might think that The Phantom Menace was a hopelessly misguided attempt to reinvent a much-loved franchise by people who, though well-intentioned, completely failed to understand what made the original popular - but that's just peanuts to the Hitchhiker's movie.

Re:Much worse than bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193643)

Is it me or that reads like an entry in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"?

Good morning, Captain (4, Funny)

AtariAmarok (451306) | about 9 years ago | (#12193694)

"Is it me or that reads like an entry in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"? "

Captain Obvious arrives! You are a little late this morning. Did the Obviousmobile break down or something?

Yes, and space is big (1)

DevilsEngine (581977) | about 9 years ago | (#12193652)

That part of the review is, of course, a satire on the Guide entry concerning the size of the universe (in case you didn't know, it's big). While I agree that the review is extremely disappointing, that opening paragraph needs to be taken with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

Another review (5, Informative)

Xeo 024 (755161) | about 9 years ago | (#12193621)

Here is another review [aintitcool.com] of the movie.

"One thing's for sure... Douglas Adams would be very proud. In the end, that's the greatest success that Robbie Stamp and Spyglass Entertainment and Jay Roach and Touchstone could have hoped for."

Not including everything != bad (1)

Ender_Stonebender (60900) | about 9 years ago | (#12193624)

I haven't RTFA yet (wanted to get this posted immediately), but I wanted to say that I don't think it will be bad because it doesn't include everything from the books, the radio versions, etc. It may be bad because it's *bad*; but that's a completely different from being bad because it deviates from the source material. Deviation from source material isn't necessarily bad - though it often is - and may be a necessary evil. (Or, in the case of Battlefield Earth, might have been a necessary good.)

--Ender
Off to RTFA now.

Which books? (1)

thundercatslair (809424) | about 9 years ago | (#12193634)

Does anyone know which books this movie was based off of? Just the first? I have looked but I could not find an answer, thanks.

Re:Which books? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193765)

>Does anyone know which books this movie was based off of? Just the first? I have looked but I could not find an answer, thanks.

Obviously you didn't check in the right book. May I suggest one entitled "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"?

Product Placement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193645)

What's that? I've never noticed anything like that in any film recently.

At least the new radio series was OK (1)

Andy Mitchell (780458) | about 9 years ago | (#12193658)

Every little hint of what was coming in the film has filled me with terror, the people making it, the trailers and the rumours. Looks like it will indeed be pants.

However, don't despair. The tertiary phase of the radio series, first broadcast in the UK late last year, was very reasonable. While not perfect it did manage to remain quite true to the original radio series despite the huge time gap between them.

For more info see http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/newseries. shtml [bbc.co.uk] or http://www.abovethetitle.com/content/programmes/hi tchhikers/hitchhikers_solong.html [abovethetitle.com]

A fourth series is planned.

It's meant to be a book, not a movie... (3, Insightful)

Gadgetfreak (97865) | about 9 years ago | (#12193664)

I think the main reason why the book is so well loved (it's one of the few books I've actually re-read) is because of the writing style, not just the plot.

Most of the humor and entertainment is in the narrative, and that rarely translates into a good movie.

childhood ... eroding (1, Flamebait)

SirSlud (67381) | about 9 years ago | (#12193679)

Yet another staple of my childhood turned into a downward marketing graph. I'll be boycotting the movie, because there was absolutely not one reason to make it. It's doubly evil because the only reason the current incarnation of the movie treatment (there have been MANY) wasn't made earlier is because, sadly enough, Doulas Adams would only have let this happen over his dead body.

Well duh (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | about 9 years ago | (#12193680)

Well obviously it'll suck. I just finished the trilogy myself and have fell in love with HHGG. It was a shame to even finish it..

Adams said all along he wanted to do a movie but the studio wanted him to cut up his lifes work and make it "more to there liking". Well now he's dead they've done it. Nice to see we respect authors of geek memes..

Come on (5, Insightful)

JensR (12975) | about 9 years ago | (#12193681)

DNA himself knew that the book wouldn't work as a movie, so he wrote a completely new story-line. And if I remember the "interview" with the scriptwriter he tried to add a lot of stuff from the books that had to be cut.
So if you expect a re-telling of all the books you will be disappointed. It is the same way as the books are not a re-telling of the radio series (where are the bird people? or the robot disco?).
I'm not going to read any reviews, because I want to see the movie with an open mind. And I hope I remember to take my towel.

I've got it! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193683)

They tried to make a movie that would appeal to Americans. Americans are really dumb so don't try to give them anything clever.

Never mind, I can think of something worse. How about Monty Python for Americans. The Goon Show, never mind, the Americans never heard of them. (Actually, I have a counter-example. How about Laugh In?)

Get a clue guys. Take the radio show and dub in the video. Never ever let Disney near anything clever! They don't get that clever might actually be funny.

Re:I've got it! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193744)

It's because Americans prefer humor that doesn't involve rampant stupidity, which is what 90% of all British comedy involves, especially Monty Python.

This movie is SO bad... (4, Funny)

AtariAmarok (451306) | about 9 years ago | (#12193717)

I've heard that this movie is so bad that the audience is urged to view it from the safe distance of thirty-seven miles from the screen in a well-built lightproof bunker, only after their eyes are gouged out. The director is now rumored to be serving eternity dead for "he really pissed off some geeks" reasons.

Viral marketing ploy. (4, Funny)

darkonc (47285) | about 9 years ago | (#12193720)

Now, we're all going to have to go see it just to se if it really is that bad.

Anyone who says... (5, Insightful)

SetupWeasel (54062) | about 9 years ago | (#12193726)

That the Hitchhiker's video game was good should not be trusted to review anything. I love Douglas Adams's work as much as the next person. Hell, I love it a whole hell of a lot more than the next person, but the Hitchhiker's video game was cleverly awful.

So many unsolvable puzzles. How the hell was I supposed to know that I needed the junk mail. If I had unlimited inventory, I would have picked up everything. It says fucking JUNK in the fucking name. Ha Ha. Really clever! Not fun to play though.

He calls Adams's dialogue "perfect." While it is teriffic, nothing is perfect. This review reeks of idolatry.

I don't know if this movie will be good. I will see it. I am encouraged that the producers appear to have put a great deal of care into the visuals judging by the trailers.

This isn't going to be Adams's work. I'm not expecting something as monumental as the radio series or the book. Even Adams himself lived in the shadow of that book. You don't make a masterpiece every time you paint a picture. I'm just looking for a good time.

Ok, and...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12193733)

The radio plays, books, albums, and miniseries have all been very different from one another thus far, and before he died, Adams said the movie would continue that trend. As someone who has experienced every incarnation of the story, I can say that I expected differences and can't understand why other people don't.

'Things that aren't in the film' (1)

fondue (244902) | about 9 years ago | (#12193739)

Most of this list is throw-away jokes, and things from the radio show that either a US audience wouldn't understand or would interrupt the pacing too much. It would be nice to see some of the guide entries re-inserted in some future DVD release, though.

Not surprising (1)

smoker2 (750216) | about 9 years ago | (#12193746)

The original Hitchhikers was the radio series on BBC Radio 4. I still have the tapes taken from those series. Then came the books, which, when I read them, I found disapointing as they bore little resemblance to the original. Then came the BBC TV series, which was mind-numbingly bad.
To expect a movie made all this time later to bear any resemblance to the the original series, or in fact any of the future adapatations is unrealistic, to say the least.
I won't be watching it unless it gets rave reviews, which is unlikely.
I put off watching LOTR for 5 years as I didn't want to ruin a perfectly good mental image, but that was actually pretty well done. It doesn't sound as if the same can be said for this.

Lets be honest (2, Insightful)

dr_dank (472072) | about 9 years ago | (#12193760)

Do you think that your average American moviegoing audience would have appreciated the extremely wry and dry Brit humor of the Hitchhikers guide?

Thats the reason that britcoms are usually marginalized to public television stations here alongside Masterpiece Theater and the exciting History of Plywood.

TFA's writer admits that Adams was a dialogue writer and the book reflects that. Trying to bring it to the movies while appeasing the loyal readers/geeks and attracting enough normals to buy tickets to break even on it seems this side of impossible.

Douglas Adams, the BBC Series, etc. (2, Insightful)

crumbz (41803) | about 9 years ago | (#12193769)

I had a sinking feeling about the movie when I saw a trailer at the theater last month. It felt a bit off. The understated, humourous way in which the novels dealt with "big issues" was joyful to read as a child. The BBC series was low-budget and corny, with a late 70's Dr. Who feel to it, but the material was the star, not the actors or special effects.

I suppose I will drag myself over to the local video store and rent the old BBC series for kicks when the movie opens....

They forgot... (5, Funny)

ari_j (90255) | about 9 years ago | (#12193770)

From the list of things that aren't in the film:
* The Guide entry on towels

Those bastards forgot their towel!

*The* Play? (1)

alanw (1822) | about 9 years ago | (#12193772)

Which play? The one at the ICA in London in 1979 (of which I only saw the first few minutes, up to the destruction of the earth, after which everyone with tickets moved to the rotating auditorium - I had just had some exams and hadn't had time to book tickets in advance)

Or Ken Campbell's production at the Rainbow, Islington, which had very poor reviews, but did have an interesting recipie for the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster (I've still got half a bottle of Blue Curaço? somewhere).

Or the production by the Theatr Clwyd, with a remote controlled Tonka bulldozer?

Who didn't see this coming? (1)

supabeast! (84658) | about 9 years ago | (#12193777)

Did anyone really expect this to work out well? I personally expected any future guide movies to be horrid as soon as I found out Adams had died. Why should anyone expected an American movie industry that has taken comedy into the bowels of sophomoric garbage to do anything good with a decades-old witty British novel?

Last year's big indie comedy based on a book fashioned after a teen road-trip sex comedy, with middle-aged actors and a lot of pretentious wine references, but there was nothing intellectual about it. Expecting Hollywood to risk releasing a big-budget movie targeted at the high-IQ crowd is moronic at this point.

On the upside, at least Hollywood can only keep up this trend a few more years before they have to come up a new trend - let's just hope that this time it isn't yet another lowering of standards. Going from disaster movies to an endless string of sexual and scatalogical jokes was pretty awful, so maybe we can expect redemption if the rest of Hollywood decides to follow the lead of Peter Jackson in doing movies that don't aim for idiocy.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...