Why take us to the Vogon homeworld? Why take out Z-man's other head? Why kill the Pan Dimentional Beings? I can see why they used the Vogons in every possible place, considering the massive budget to make them. But to use them instead of the Galactic Police on the attack on Magrathia kinda gets us away from the feeling of the undercover/forgotten nature of the quest for the Ultimate Question. Magrathia and the Pan-Dimentional Beings were working together. What's his name hired the Vogons to destroy Earth because if we all became enlightned then there would be no need of his profession as philosopher/theologian/psychiatrist.
And what's with that gun thing? I thought at first they were talking about the Cricket super weapon. And of course we just had to have that emotional thing with Arthur talking about all he ever wanted was Trillian (when of course we all know his true love is Fenchurch) Ah well. Still a great movie.
[ April 30, 2005, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never like Fenchurch. I was pretty happy when she simply vanished in the book Mostly Harmless.
Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I loved Sam Rockwell's Zaphod. I *really* loved Alan Rickman's Marvin. Arthur didn't bumble enough. Mos Def was quite good as Ford, I thought. Eddie and Slartibartfast were spot on.
The inside jokes like people calling Ford "Ix" on occasion, the Vogon captain sitting on a crushed Gazelle-like creature, the crabs... even the additions like people on Vogsphere getting slapped everytime they have an idea or the bar patrons lying down with bags over their heads... all of them seemed fitting and appropriate.
So why was I so disappointed?
*spoilers*
I think it has to do with the fact that people are putting "spoilers" on their reviews. There shouldn't be plot points. The thing is supposed to be a manic, disconnected series of jokes. Trillian's capture and rescue and the whole Humma Kavula subplot were entirely too... well... plotted.
They were onto something when they weren't sure where the improbability drive was going to take them... that's a perfect metaphor for what they *didn't* capture in the movie.
Somehow they made a *predictable* hitchhiker movie...
A small example... the babel fish scene. Ford has to wrestle Arthur to the ground and shove the fish in his ear... probably more realistic and it was actually pretty funny in the movie, but isn't it funnier and more *random* to just have Ford suddenly stick it in Arthur's ear? There's an element of surprise or timing or something that is missing in that slight change, and it's what's missing from nearly the entire movie.
So close... so close...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
not reading the thread yet cause I'm going today, but posting this so it bumps to new post status for when I get home tonight. =)
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing that bummed me out was that we only had 3 trailers and one of them was for that weird 3-D animated pigeon movie!!!
Though one of them was for Batman, so I was temporarily appeased by seeing Christian Bale on the big screen for a minute. But we didn't get Episode III or Serenity. What's up with THAT?
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't understand how people could dislike it so much. You guys all realize that Douglas Adams wrote the script before he died, right? And that it was polished by the scripwriter from Chicken Run?
I wasn't bothered by the changes (except for some jokes that got cut short) any more than I was bothered by the changes from the radio script to the book, or from the book to the computer game, or from the book to the BBC movie . . . you get the point. Douglas Adams seemed to enjoy rewriting the story with every iteration.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that DNA wrote the script doesn't change the fact that it wasn't well done. It did, however, cause my expectations to be set a little high.
So rather than this being a predictable disappointment, I went in expecting something good.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I enjoyed it. But then, I went in knowing it wasn't going to be a 100% re-telling of the books (or any of the other versions for that matter). Sure, I can think of dozens of really hilarious lines that were absent from this version... but so what? There were also a lot of great gags new to it. You can definitely tell they were walking a line between the absurdity and randomness fans of the books wanted and the resemblance of a normal story-arc that the typical movie-goer is going to expect.
If it had been a fairly straight forward retelling of the first book in the series, 90% of the story arcs would be completely unresolved, and I doubt they had LotR's luxury of knowing they would make the sequels no-matter-what.
Clearly, it's not for everyone. Neither were any of the other versions of it. There were a few bits where I was laughing nearly to tears only to look around and find I was the only one laughing. At one point ElJay whispered "Is there something I just missed there? It was a little funny, but not like THAT."
Btw, for anybody who just wanted to hear all the fun dialogue they remembered, I highly recommend the unabridged audiobooks read by Adams himself. He's got a great voice(s) for it and (amazingly enough) a perfect sense of comedic timing for his own jokes.
--Enigmatic (who is, at least, definitively wrong)
Posts: 2715 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really liked it too. And I came close to wearing a bathrobe...
The theater was half empty for a 5:15 showing, almost everyone had towels but nobody was in obvious nightwear.
There were a few places where I sat there thinking "I don't remember THIS" - the flyswatters, Humma Kavula and the brainectomy, a couple others. Dad was fairly confused, he remembered even less, but he hasn't read the series in at least 10 years, where I read it a month ago.
I'll definitely be going at least once more on the big screen, probably wait until it's in the second run theater so I can see it for 3 bucks, and it's a mandatory addition to the permanent collection.
And I'm sooooooooooooooo getting a Hoopy Frood shirt!!! Maybe two, I think I'll give Dad one.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I actually liked it quite a bit... it just fell short of what I wanted it to be and that was all the more bitter for how good the parts they got right were...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saw it twice. Took a towel both times, the same towel. Loved it. Decided to find the Marvin action figure and yarn dolls at a store near me. Didn't. Very disappointed. Decided to buy it on DVD the second it comes out. Does that cover it? Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoever decides which trailers to show with a movie had it totally wrong at our theater. They advertized Chicken Little, some Spy Kids like thing and some other kids' movie. There was no excitement in the entirely kid-less theater for any of the movies. I don't know what they thought Hitchhiker's Guide was.
Posts: 188 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Discussed this at length online with Shmuel, ultimately came away with this: it was probably a better movie than a faithful recreation of the first book would have been. More accessible, more of a coherent plot, character development. But it wasn't a very good representation of the mania and flying wit of the first book, which is what caused my disappointment.
The stuff that was added/expanded, I really liked. The lines that were watered down for (IMO) no good reason bugged me.
I think this is a movie that will improve on a second showing, now that I know to focus on what was there instead of what I was waiting to see.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim, I agree with your statement that they added too much "plot". Otherwise it was a super cool movie. Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Alan Rickman's Marvin ? Alan Rickman's Marvin ? ? ? ? Are you trying to tell me that Alan Rickman is dubbing Marvin ? Because if it is so, I have to see that movie, no matter how crappy it is (and I won't go if it isn't the case, because I really love the books and hate to see such a good material spoiled by Hollywood).
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Alan Rickman was the perfect voice. Or was it prefect voice? Doesn't Alan Rickman play Snape in the Harry Potter movies?
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It didn't follow the book exactly, but the book didn't follow the radio show exactly, and that's fine.
The opening song has been in my head for the past two days. If it isn't nominated for an Oscar, there is no justice in this world.
I thought everything was wonderful. I do wish it had a little more zany humor, but I think it had enough.
As we were walking out of the theatre, a little grandmother was loudly complaining at the top of her voice that she had just spent two hours and nine dollars on the weirdest, most worthless, most confusing experience of her life. Success!!
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
yes he does, he he... Let's face it : he's too old to play Snape (he should be 35, is around 65 and looks at last 50) but his voice still makes him the best for the role.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I asssume, Anna, that you've seen Sense and Sensibility? It's probably the best Alan Rickman goodness of all time.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen it yet, because I've been unable to find it in DVD ie in original version, and I don't want to spoil the movie by seing it in French. I'll definitively have to search some more.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always wondered who paula nancy millstone jennings (who had the worst poetry in the universe.) Well here's a sample of her poetry.
quote:The dead swans lay in the stagnent pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occassionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool’s mire. They also smelt a great deal.
EDIT 1 Well the poem is real, but Douglas Adams changed the name to "protect" the person who is. His real name is Paul Neil Milne Johnstone.
[ May 02, 2005, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged ]
Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We need a vomiting smiley. Or at last one expressing disgust. I always end in using this one instead, but that's not it.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BunnV, Grisha, and I went on Friday night. Marvin was great! I think someone should sell knit toy Marvins (as in the scene where they all were knit toy versions of themselves). But overall the movie quickly began to strike me as boring and stupid. The love story between Arthur and Trillian had me rolling my eyes and trying not to wretch. Zaphod wasn't appealingly insufferable, as he was in the books... just insufferable.
Oh well, they tried, but they just didn't pull it off.
On the other hand, we had a great time. We took our towels, of course, and discovered that a Super Grisha is an amazing thing, because he can do everything the regular Grisha can do, plus he has a cape. BunnV and I were in hysterics before the movie even started, trying to figure out what was going on with this strange dying "awwrp" sound we heard from an audience member. Then to top it off, we went to the midnight showing of Kung Fu Hustle, which was a wonderful hilarious movie. My recommendation to everyone is skip H2G2 and go see Kung Fu Hustle. It r0xx0rz!
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that Arthur vomited yarn after they changed back from the knit thing pushes it up higher than the sofas for me. That was fabulous. Otherwise I'd totally agree that the sofas were better. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
instead, but that's not it.
