Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

537 comments

Fun Game! (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304009)

Hey, kids! Here's a fun game to play while waiting in line to shell big zorkmids on the latest book series to hit the big screen. Just fill in the name of a book, any book and you get a fairly true statement, summing up and entire movie review!

[Fill In Book Name Here] is not as bad as I had feared. Then again, it is not as good as I had hoped.

Choose from:

  • The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
  • Cat in the Hat*
  • Timeline
  • Oracle 8.5 The Complete Reference
  • Jurassic Park
  • I Robot*
  • Minority Report
  • War of the Worlds
  • (Anything based upon a comic book title or character)

Note: Those marked with an '*' may actually, really and truly, suck.

Seriously, mixing american actors with british actors and trying to turn something that wasn't very bad as a BBC TV series into a movie would be difficult, especially with the Hollywood penchant for wanting it to end differently than the book so the audience would be surpried and trying to make britishisms translate into equally funny americanisms or vice-a-versa. Imagine the following scenario: (brace thyself) A Hollywood remake of Monty Python and the Holy Grail... que horror, eh? Imagine (told you to brace yourself, you sensitive clod!) hip-hop actors, dimbulb comedy actors from sitcoms and the utter flattening of comedic timing to accomodate dumbed down humor. Yeah. Somethings are better left alone. Better to just go see Spamalot.

I do expect Rickman's dead-pan voice to be perfect for Marvin, but that's about all.

Re:Fun Game! (5, Interesting)

shakezula (842399) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304052)

I fully agree. The "Americanization" of BBC shows is WRONG. Have you seen NBC's version of "The Office"? IT IS TERRIBLE. The timing that made the UK version work so well has been completely dumb'd down for the US populace, just to make a few bucks. Its sad.

On the other hand, I'd really like to go see "Oracle 8.5 The Complete Reference", especially if it was in Mandarin with subs.

Re:Fun Game! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304125)

Jesus, a guy named "Shakezula" complaining about anything being "dumb'd down" is strange. And I wonder how one dumb's down timing.

Re:Fun Game! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304140)

Every time a British content creator waters down and ruins a project while making a US adaptation, people call it "Americanizing" like it's somehow the fault of us ignorant "colonials" that these fucking limeys are failing to sell products which insult our inteligence over here.

Did you see the US version of Coupling? Same English writers, actors with better teeth, but really a third-rate production.

Douglas Adams lived in America for much of his life and knew better than to insult us by not crediting us with being able to follow his stories of byzantine complexity. It's one of the reasons why he was a best-selling author, and the jackasses behind the BBC/FOX Doctor Who TV movie are now bussing tables.

Re:Fun Game! (2, Insightful)

justforaday (560408) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304229)

Did you see the US version of Coupling? Same English writers, actors with better teeth, but really a third-rate production.

Well, considering only an American company would buy the rights to a show that was a ripoff of something they themselves produced in the first place, does it really surprise you that it was bad? As for The Office, the American version is absolutely dreadful. Hey, let's toss out anything that was remotely funny about the original and turn it into complete shit. Then let's sit there scratching our heads wondering why it didn't do well...

Re:Fun Game! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304181)

On the other hand, I'd really like to go see "Oracle 8.5 The Complete Reference", especially if it was in Mandarin with subs.

As long as John Woo was directing it, I'd go.

Re:Fun Game! (5, Funny)

FunWithHeadlines (644929) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304279)

"On the other hand, I'd really like to go see "Oracle 8.5 The Complete Reference", especially if it was in Mandarin with subs."

Scene opens on a hilly vista, bamboo trees in the near foreground, and two men dressed in black face each other.

Man 1: You killed my triggers and erased my stored procedures. For this, you will die like a dog.

Man 2: I was seeking my rightful revenge for your destruction of my parent process. Now I will finish the job by applying pressure points to your SQL until it bleeds.

Man 1, flying through the air: Aaaiii!!!

Re:Fun Game! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304301)

I fully agree. The "Americanization" of BBC shows is WRONG.

Actually "Queer as folk" was not that bad.

Wait, you haven't seen it?

Re:Fun Game! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304055)

>>Oracle 8.5 The Complete Reference

This was funny, but geekiness factor in me had to take issue.
There was no Oracle 8.5. Oracle went from 8.1.7.x to 9.0.x

Re:Fun Game! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304075)

Spot-on!

Re: not quite true (5, Insightful)

BitterAndDrunk (799378) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304101)

Fight Club was a phenomenal book that survived the transition to a movie, and then some.

Re: not quite true (2, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304161)

Fight Club was a phenomenal book that survived the transition to a movie, and then some.

Never read Fight Club. Saw the movie and thought, 'damn, not another "crazy guy" film'. Didn't read Forrest Gump, but my sister's opinion was the film was considerably better. A rarity it seems.

Re:Fun Game! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304117)

Here's a fun game to play while waiting in line to shell big zorkmids on the latest book series to hit the big screen. Just fill in the name of a book, any book and you get a fairly true statement, summing up and entire movie review!

[Fill In Book Name Here] is not as bad as I had feared. Then again, it is not as good as I had hoped.


Except, of course, this is not true at all. Sometimes movies based on books are really good (witness LOTR and Harry Potter), and sometimes they are really bad (Cat in the Hat), and sometimes they are just OK, as you point out. Just like any other kind of movie.

Re:Fun Game! (4, Funny)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304131)

I think you need to put a '*' next to the Oracle manual too.

Re:Fun Game! (1)

drxenos (573895) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304149)

Okay, it's pet peeve time: it is vice versa, not vice-a-versa.

Re:Fun Game! (3, Funny)

Feynman (170746) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304208)

How about Eats, Shoots and Leaves: The Movie?

Re:Fun Game! (1)

Jimmy The Leper (734441) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304291)

Hey, that could describe any porn movie with a pizza guy in it!

"Oracle 9i and the Prisoner of Redwood CA" (4, Funny)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304201)

At least the Unix version of "Oracle 8.5" is true to the book.

I've moved onto the sequel, "Oracle 9i, The Wrath of Larry Ellison" myself.

I, Robot didn't suck. (5, Insightful)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304207)

I, Robot didn't suck. It just had absolutly nothing to do with the book. I bet your opinion of it would be a lot higher if they had stuck with the original title, "Hardwired".

Re:I, Robot didn't suck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304225)

And they hadn't called the female lead "Susan Calvin," maybe.

Re:Fun Game! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304214)

Dont forget Starship Troopers

Re:Fun Game! (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304232)

[Fill In Book Name Here] is not as bad as I had feared. Then again, it is not as good as I had hoped.

Truth is, if you care enough about a book to "fear" its cinematization, you care too much about it to enjoy the movie. That said, the Douglas Adams books have the same issue that affects Bridget Jones' Diary, Snow Crash, Vanity Fair and other books that made underwhelming/canceled movie projects: the best part of them is the language and style of the narrative, and it's hugely difficult to get that across in a movie without turning it into an audiobook.

Imagine the following scenario: (brace thyself) A Hollywood remake of Monty Python and the Holy Grail... que horror, eh?

Actually, on Monty Python's first US tour, they themselves tried to Americanize their act -- it was a complete fiasco. Changing Luton to Dearborn ruins the whole effect.

lol @ #buttes (-1, Troll)

bethane (686358) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304010)

#buttes: the cool place to hang out, if you're a fucking kike.

your an obese ugly cunt who no one wants. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304107)

pleae lose the glasses, 150 pounds, the acne, the deep sea flounder pussy, or..

KILL YOURSELF BEFORE ITS TO LATE

Is it a "negative" review? I dont think so... (5, Interesting)

Jhon (241832) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304015)

Hitchhiker fans will know what is happening, but newcomers will be left scratching their heads at a story that flits from one unpronounceable planet to another - each one populated by equally exotic-sounding characters.
If this is the critic's biggest problem, I'm 'ok' with that. Besides, there were things in the book not in the BBC TV series -- or things on BBC Radio that weren't in either the book or the TV series. I realize you can't sqeeze everything (even those few 2 or 3 word chapters DNA liked to use) in to a 2 hour movie. I never expected it.

Re:Is it a "negative" review? I dont think so... (4, Insightful)

Golias (176380) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304073)

Well, he also called it a "mess."

Personally, I plan on seeing it, but I also plan on going out of my way to read every last negative review and whiny Aint-It-Cool-News tirade which warns of how bad it is before seeing it.

The more I lower my expectations going in, the better the chances that I might extract a little pleasure out of watching what is bound to be a very flawed adaptation of my absolute favorite childhood novel.

Sort of a... (1)

gandell (827178) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304224)

Kind of a negative reenforcement? Eh, doesn't matter to me. I couldn't care less what critics say. I enjoy a movie for what it is, or hate it for what it is. I don't need a critic for that. (Though I wish I had had one before watching Matrix Reloaded...oy!)

Re:Is it a "negative" review? I dont think so... (3, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304086)

If this is the critic's biggest problem, I'm 'ok' with that. Besides, there were things in the book not in the BBC TV series -- or things on BBC Radio that weren't in either the book or the TV series. I realize you can't sqeeze everything (even those few 2 or 3 word chapters DNA liked to use) in to a 2 hour movie. I never expected it.

You know the thing that made the books so snappy ... it was that compared to Arthur, Ford was an absolute nut. Zaphod was bombastic. Marvin was quite possibly a sorrier character. All that contrast was fairly extreme and therefore, the wossname, chemistry worked, because each's point of view was quite extraordinary. And yet, all were sane within their idiom.

They could have just sat around in chairs on board the Heart of Gold for 90 minutes cracking jokes about earthman-monkey, diodes down the left side aching, vogon poetry, etc. and many book/play fans would gobble it up. This is trying to mass appeal, what already had mass appeal. See the problem?

Re:Is it a "negative" review? I dont think so... (5, Insightful)

Golias (176380) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304282)

compared to Arthur, Ford was an absolute nut.

Do you know what my favorite moment in the story is?

When Arther Dent, stuck on past Earth, announces that he has decided to go mad.

Ford suddenly appears and agrees that it's a good idea.

What I like about that moment is that I didn't really care for anything which came after it. Don't get me wrong, the prose was still very funny, but all this stuff of Aurther learning to fly, a planet-wise parody of what a boring sport cricket is, the truck-driving rain god, and the destruction of all possible alternate realities... It just wasn't up to snuff with the book material spawned from the original radio plays.

So, I have decided the following:

Arthur really did go mad at that moment. Ford never showed up. Arthur never learned to fly. Mattress creatures did not flollop. The reincarnated plant did not seek out revenge against Arthur. None of it happened. It was all just the delusions of Arthur's madness.

Looking at the final three and a half books of the trilogy in this light makes them much more enjoyable for me, especially since it discards the "Goddammit! I'm not writing a sixth book ever! Fuck all you drooling fanboys who will demand that my publisher lean on me to write more!" fatalistic ending. YMMV.

For that matter, one could take this premise and craft a fairly amusing fan-fic which picks up just as Arthur recovers his sanity, still stuck among the cave men.

Don't judge a book by its cover. (5, Funny)

TJ_Phazerhacki (520002) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304016)

Unless the cover says "Don't Panic."

First post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304017)

First post

My Verdict (-1, Troll)

Flywheels of Fire (836557) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304020)

My Verdict [google.com]

I could not believe how awful this film was. The story has almost nothing to do with previous versions of Hitchhiker's Guide and just rambles all over the place, but not in any humorous or interesting or entertaining or enjoyable way.

All the changes from the book and TV show and radio play seem to have been made for no reason and not only do they not add anything, they actually make it worse.

The acting is uniformly terrible, except for Bill Nighy, and some of the design work is embarrassing, although the special effects are impressive.

But the main problem with this film is that it is meant to be a comedy and it's just not funny at all. All the great comedy that was in the radio play and recreated in the books and recreated in the TV show and recreated (again) in the computer game has gone. All that is left is a lot of people falling over and getting slapped in the face and I don't remember any of that from the previous versions.

Nothing is explained. They don't even explain why the story stops for 20 minutes in the middle of the film while John Malkovich wanders around and talks for a bit. Was that from a different movie? It seemed to have no connection with the rest of the film.

As a long-time fan of Hitch-Hikers Guide, who has enjoyed all the previous versions, I thought this movie was just dreadful, and I couldn't even enjoy it as a movie on its own because it was so badly made. Douglas Adams deserves better than this. I hope he was right in his atheist belief because it would be awful if he could look down from heaven and see what these people have done in his name.

Re:My Verdict (5, Interesting)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304037)

I could not believe how awful this film was. The story has almost nothing to do with previous versions of Hitchhiker's Guide and just rambles all over the place, but not in any humorous or interesting or entertaining or enjoyable way.

All the changes from the book and TV show and radio play seem to have been made for no reason and not only do they not add anything, they actually make it worse.


NONE of the books/radio shows agree with each other, so why should you expect the movie to?

You're wrong there (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304238)

The radio show and books (so far as I've gone through them) agree with each other by and large all the way (I've heard a half-dozen eps of the original radio show, mind you, and they differed in about only one story arc to that point). All of the biggest notes are in there. From what I know the TV series wasn't THAT far off. This movie is VERY, VERY far off of ALL the other previous formats, to the point that it doesn't just change a story arc here and there... it reorganizes everything about the whole universe- including the way the characters percieve the Ultimate Question, which is something that's always been very near and dear to the series.

Re:My Verdict (4, Insightful)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304150)

Thank you for another great negative review, thus assuring my expectations will be appropriatly low so I can enjoy the film.

Curse you for giving away the part about Malkovich, it would have been an entertaining surprise.

Re:My Verdict (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304227)

If you need to be surprised to ever enjoy a story then I guess you aren't a big fan of history books.

Re:My Verdict (5, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304167)

I could not believe how awful this film was

Oh, come on, now. Deliberatly saying something's bad just so that the downloaders can claim they're sticking it to The Man for making bad movies... that's so, well, earlier this morning.

Thanks for the link... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304192)

...to " Motion filed to open FBI whistleblower case". Truly an enlightening review.

Re:My Verdict (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304254)

Call me crazy, but unless I'm mistaken, Douglas Adams had a rather sizeable role in creating the movie script for this movie before he died and even added a character or two of his own not found in the books... funny that he would be ticked off about his own work.

It gets an 8/10 on imdb...that's a pretty good rating.

Re:My Verdict (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304272)

OK, mod me troll but... how come the link:

My Verdict [google.com]

is actually a link, using Google as a redirect, to http://unspun.mithuro.com/content/view/60/, an article all about a "Motion filed to open FBI whistleblower case"?

first post (-1, Redundant)

BewireNomali (618969) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304021)

sorry... i had to do it.

Damnit. (0, Offtopic)

wcitech (798381) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304026)

damnit. :(

perspective. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304027)

The "immensely funny" thing is curious. To be honest, completely honest... I didnt find douglas adams' work to be all that genuinely funny

Interesting to read, and written with an easy style that said "come back and read more!" sure, but not funny.

Not to me, personally, and not speaking for anyone else.

Re:perspective. (4, Interesting)

Bobvanvliet (569014) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304133)

Well, I think I on the other hand, speak for many when I say this is the only series of books that had me laughing so hard I had to put down the book for a second.

Maybe you're just not a fan of british humour (IANA Englisman)?

Re:perspective. (1)

eclectro (227083) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304153)

I didnt find douglas adams' work to be all that genuinely funny

I do think that the BBC radio's interpretation is in fact immensely funny.

For the radio series to have this quality, it had to have good material to begin with.

The quality of humor is a subjective measure at best. A good deal of it also depends on the mood you happen to be in when you read it.

Re:perspective. (1)

Feynman (170746) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304180)

Not to me, personally, and not speaking for anyone else.

Indeed, when it comes to humor, everyone is different. I have a pretty strange sense of humor.

I was recently reading the H2G2 books in bed before I went to sleep each night and was garnering complaints from my wife because my laughing and/or wanting to share bits with her were keeping her awake.

Re:perspective. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304206)

Perhaps the reviewer meant funny as in queer.

Now that it's debuted in the UK... (5, Funny)

bhsx (458600) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304032)

Where's the torrent? ;)

Re:Now that it's debuted in the UK... (5, Funny)

wcitech (798381) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304045)

Well, I'd give it to you but a) i don't have it and b) http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/20/17 33215&tid=95&tid=17

Ouch (1)

Deltaspectre (796409) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304033)

I misread it and thought the movies were immensely funny :S
Big surprise I got...

Right, then! (4, Funny)

American AC in Paris (230456) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304036)

Panic.

It sucks. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304040)


I think you all ought to know that I'm very depressed.

Marvin is now reviewing movies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304251)

" think you all ought to know that I'm very depressed."

Now THAT is funny!

Movie reviews usually suck. (5, Interesting)

EvilStein (414640) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304042)

I absolutely HATED "Napoleon Dynamite." I laughed ONCE during the entire movie. Yet, the reviews were raving about it. Then we had the recent article about the guy that's spent like 20 years studying Douglas Adams and his books/etc, and he hated the movie. Other reviews of this movie said it was clever & funny. Now the BBC says that there were just a few chuckles.

Generally, I think that humour is in the eye of the beholder. I never think that Penny Arcade comics are funny, but often still laugh at User Friendly.

Bottom line: The movie probably doesn't suck that bad at all, but the "The book was better" fanatics are going to jump all over it.

dyn-o-MITE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304132)

come on man.. when that cracker guy gets all thugged up? that wasnt the funniest shiznit you ever did see?

also the dancing at the end was fucking hardcore

"i caught you a delicious bass"

the time machine part

hah

Re:Movie reviews usually suck. (1)

c0d3h4x0r (604141) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304162)

I absolutely HATED "Napoleon Dynamite."
I never think that Penny Arcade comics are funny

Thank goodness I'm not the only one!

Re:Movie reviews usually suck. (3, Insightful)

badmanone (806884) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304190)

Napoleon Dynamite is, I think, a very generational movie. If you grew up as a "child of the 80's", and were part of a specific sub-culture (the geek/dork/outsider), you can look at this movie and laugh your ass off because you see how true to life a lot of it is. If you weren't in those circles, then it is hard to see how the movie is funny.

I myself was part of that culture, and now as a successful adult I can look back and recall all those childhood memories this movie brings up. The aweful clothing, the moon boots, the tater tots for lunch. For a lot of people, it's like their childhood (except streched out into late high school and taken to the extreme).

Re:Movie reviews usually suck. (1)

EvilStein (414640) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304228)

Hrm, possibly. I was born in 1975. ;)

Then again, it was set in Idaho.. and from what I've seen, they're STILL in the 1980s. :D

Funny? (4, Funny)

pholower (739868) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304049)

The article said...

Did the script veer too far away from the source material or tie itself in knots trying to keep faith with it?
Bizarrely, I think the answer is both.

Funny, I was almost certain it was 42

Re:Funny? (3, Funny)

CoffeeJedi (90936) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304285)

no no, the answer is tea and not tea

[obscure hhgttg reference swim]

maths? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304071)

"everything from handheld computing to existentialism to musings on cricket and maths."

nice to know someone is editing for the BBC.

Re:maths? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304111)

"Maths" is what we in the UK call Mathematics. It's not an error.

Re:maths? (0, Redundant)

svyyn (530783) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304129)

You are apparently unfamiliar with British English, where maths is the preferred truncation of mathematics.

Re:maths? (1, Offtopic)

conteXXt (249905) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304142)

In most of the world, MATHS is correct.

only North Americans (I believe) say MATH.

(which is short for mathemeticS)

Re:maths? (0, Offtopic)

maxpublic (450413) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304184)

only North Americans (I believe) say MATH.

No, that would be "anyone speaking American English".

In most of the world, MATHS is correct.

And this would be "anyone speaking British English."

Max

Re:maths? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304277)

How about "anyone speaking American English" and "anyone speaking English"? Since English is the native language of a country called England that you may have heard off?

We shouldn't have to qualify our language, "English English" would be somewhat redundant afterall.

Re:maths? (0, Troll)

musselm (209468) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304243)

"(which is short for mathemeticS)"

Nope, wrong. "Math" is short for "mathemAtics".

Thanks for playing :)

Re:maths? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304143)

The british say "maths" as opposed to the US "math". After all, it is short for "mathematics" not "mathematic".

Re:maths? (5, Funny)

Funksaw (636954) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304159)

"everything from handheld computing to existentialism to musings on cricket and maths."

nice to know someone is editing for the BBC.


It's British English. Sometimes they call a truck a "lorry," sometimes they call a television "the tube," other times they call elevators a "lift."

My god. This is just about the most culturally blind, obviously offensive, most idiotic thing I have ever seen on the Internets.

The Internets! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304223)

Are you by any chance George W. Bush hiding under an alias?

Re:maths? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304226)

My god. This is just about the most culturally blind, obviously offensive, most idiotic thing I have ever seen on the Internets.

Clearly, you haven't read many other threads on here, have you? Welcome to Slashdot!

Re:maths? (1)

nitemayr (309702) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304261)

"The Tube" usually refers to the London subway system... the "TELLY" refers to the TV.

Re:maths? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304169)

This usage is correct in the U.K. Not to worry.

Re:maths? (1)

Enrico Pulatzo (536675) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304267)

"Maths" is a perfectly cromulent word (if speaking British English).

Only one movie (2, Funny)

BorgDrone (64343) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304080)

While I haven't seen it yet, I'm kind of disappointed they only made one movie, there's enough material for more. Imho they should have announced it to be a trilogy (and then actually release 5 movies, one for each book).

Re:Only one movie (1)

Emperor Shaddam IV (199709) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304139)

Good idea... But considering how hard it was for Peter Jackson to get Lord of the Rings made as a trilogy, it will probably never happen. At least not in Hollywood. :)

A mini-series is the best bet.

Re:Only one movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304156)

there's enough material for 50 movies. Cripes resturant at the end of the galaxy can be at LEAST 15-20 2 hour movies on it's own. The whole end of the book can be a epic trilogy like LOTR was.

trying to condense HHTH into a 2 hour blipvert will be horrible.

the movie will be a cliff's notes of douglass adam's entire works.

Marvin said it best... (0, Redundant)

havaloc (50551) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304082)

..."I think you ought to know I'm feeling very depressed...about this movie"

That's a shame (1)

MattWhitworth (858990) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304090)

Having read all 5 books in the triology, I would have hoped that there would be a decent film version of it (well, I guess I haven't seen it yet). I have to say, the film adverts at least showed some promise :)

Ok, now that the movie is out of the way... (5, Funny)

Emperor Shaddam IV (199709) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304100)

The Sci-Fi Channel can remake it as a mini-series with a couple well known American actors and a bunch of unknown actors at a studio in Eastern Europe, with funny costumes, but a decent plot. :)

Re:Ok, now that the movie is out of the way... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304110)

Why not just watch the BBC miniseries?

Sci-Fi originals!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304148)

Screw that! Play Mansquito or Anonymous Rex again!!!

Re:Ok, now that the movie is out of the way... (1)

purplebear (229854) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304235)

I have thought since before the movie was announced that it needed to be made as a SciFi mini-series. You just can't make real sense of it all, without all of it. A single movie will just not be enough.
And I am really interested in how the books intro will fit into the movie. I mean they do have to explain to those new to the genre how to get the hell off the planet, right?

Previews make it look like an action flick (4, Interesting)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304103)

The previews of the movie don't look good for use Adams fans. They seem to emphasize special effects and the bustle of the books, but give no evidence of the deep humor and insane and yet insanely self-consistent universe that Adams created. Rather than create Adams' mind-boggling humor (which is harder), they seem to have created the usual array of eye-boggling visuals.

I hope the actual movie is better than the previews.

Re:Previews make it look like an action flick (1)

neilfein (146699) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304290)

Hm. I actually quite liked the trailer that went on and on about movie trailers.

Help stand up against this (1)

TheM$Man (802985) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304113)

I heard they used some evil M$ products during the filming of this film.

We must boycot it, as all of M$ is of the bad.

We must demand the name be changed to:

Microsoft's Guide to the Galaxy

Fight the power! They told me to!

They shoulda .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304126)

Quote from the BBC article:

Adams' deceptively complex novels are crammed full of witty erudition, great gags and lengthy digressions, so it was always going to be a struggle to turn it into a neatly packaged two-hour movie. Understandably perhaps, huge swathes of the novel have been cut in order to make a consistent, story-led film.

They should gone Peter Jackson and released it as a trilogy instead of trying to cram everything into a single movie.

sick (4, Insightful)

zerkon (838861) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304128)

I'm sick of all the FUD floating around... i'm officially not reading anymore /. articles i'm just going to go see the thing for myself... hope it doesn't suck

Re:sick (1)

Zonekeeper (458060) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304299)

Blasphemy!

Sounds about right... (5, Interesting)

ender- (42944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304146)

While Dent is a familiar cipher, audiences will be left clueless by Ford Prefect, bemused by Zaphod Beeblebrox and indifferent to Trillian.

Personally, in reading the books, I've always been left feeling quite indifferent to Trillian. Almost like she's a background character with little to no importance. So it sounds like they at least got that right.

Ender-

Re:Sounds about right... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304252)

Personally, in reading the books, I've always been left feeling quite indifferent to Trillian. Almost like she's a background character with little to no importance. So it sounds like they at least got that right.

It seems, according to the review, that they'll all end up as background characters. Marvin will be the star.

in the minority (1)

maxpublic (450413) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304151)

I'm in the minority that didn't think the Hitchhiker series was funny. Some bits were amusing but most of it was a series of bad jokes falling flat...or perhaps too British for me. Although I loved everything Monty Python so I'm not sure that's a factor.

Can't say I thought the movie would be any better, so I'm not terribly disappointed by the bad review. It isn't "The Holy Grail", after all.

Max

Humour is relative... (1)

neetij (167578) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304183)

Several people I know who've read the book didn't think it funny at all. Just as many thought it was an amazing book and series (myself included). I'm want to take BBC's opinion on this as the right opinion, but anyone that expected the movie to truly represent the book is a fool. Unless it's on the scale of LOTR/Sin City. Anyone remember the crappy 'hollywood-ized' Batman movies?

My take on the review: (5, Funny)

Kyrene (624175) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304200)

Entry for new movie updated from: "Harmless" to: "Mostly harmless"

Deja vu (1)

Davorama (11731) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304222)

From TFA

Did the script veer too far away from the source
material or tie itself in knots trying to keep
faith with it?

Bizarrely, I think the answer is both.

Wow, it's like Dune all over again. Gotta wonder
why sci-fi is so hard to get right. Maybe this
phenomena is not unique to the genre?

Wasn't it suppose to be only the first? (1)

CMan0 (191677) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304230)

I read in the salmon of doubt that the movie was suppose to contain only the first book's plot, has anything changed? By the review it sounds like it did....

Almost, but not entirely.... (5, Funny)

Undergrid (21142) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304231)

..unlike the books.

Don't bring your towel (1)

shashark (836922) | more than 9 years ago | (#12304233)

If you really dont like it, dont bring your towel to the cinema...

I bet the movie is better (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304247)

I tried reading through the books in high school, but around the 3rd book they lost the "funny" and just got BORING so I stopped. If I can even sit through the whole movie it will have been better than the books.

In other words... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12304286)

Almost, but not quite, entirely unlike the book
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...