Sorry, I've been gone most of the weekend but I did get to see it Saturday night...Did anyone else get to see the movie besides me?<br /><br />I liked it!!! I thought it humorous, silly, and I enjoyed it very much...anyone else have thoughts?
- Status
Yours truly here from the UK - is it not out in the US yet then? I went to see HHG yesterday (its been out for almost a week i think) and was thoroughly disapointed. My friend who actually considers the book a holy text actually got quite violent and abusive at the conversion to film. The only good things about it was that it had a truly English feel (i.e not Hollywoodised) and there are dolphins singing opera.
Oh, it's out in the US. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> claywoman's from here; you can see her review above.<br /><br />I'm waiting until next Friday to see it; I'll have the day off, and can catch a matinee! I'm looking forward to it. I know the radio series, the novels, the miniseries, the text adventure..... I'm fully anticipating major changes, and I think that's crucial to having any enjoyment of it at all.<br /><br />The book, incidentally, is NOT the original. If your friend is upset that his holy text was perverted, he should consider how fans of the radio drama probably felt when they first read the book. There are some very funny and wonderful things in the radio series that never made it into any other form, including quite long sections of the story. (Much of the second season, for instance, didn't make it into the TV series or the books.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em> -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
Being that I haven't read the books, I was still pretty excited to see the movie. Now I kind of wish I hadn't, I thought the movie wasn't as good as I thought it would be. There were some funny parts and the special effects were great but over all I felt the movie fell flat.
cause his second head was disguised as a cage with a parrot in it 
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>Right; in the TV series he hadn't gotten the second head yet. Said Arthur, "Well, he only had the two arms and the one head and called himself Phil...."<br /><br />However, that wouldn't be consistent with the reason he got the second head (according to the radio series, the books, and now the movie, anyway). That wasn't a problem in the TV series, because they never got much into the reason he became president. As established in those incarnations of the story, he got the second head so he could split his memory. That was a prerequisite for becoming President of the Galaxy. Therefore, he had to get the second head before he stole the Heart of Gold, which occured before he met Trillian and Arthur at that party in Islington.<br /><br />Ergo, in the movie he has to have had two heads at the party. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />BTW, I saw the movie last Friday and thoroughly enjoyed it. Lots of fun! Although I do still prefer the TV series, I think it's a worthy addition to the whole body of Hitchhiker's work. It provides a different look at the story, and I enjoyed that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em> -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
I don't think Marvin had a big enough role in the movie. But I did enjoy the movie. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
I just saw it the other night and thought they mostly got it right. Stephen Fry was perfect as the voice of the book. The hairs on the back of my neck stood up when I heard the banjo strings pluck, then a fully orchestrated version of the "Journey Of The Sorceror" music rose up. That was cool!!<br /><br />Though I really didn't like Marvin's design nor the "Heart Of Gold"s. Also, rebuilding the Earth like it had never even gone trivialised it's destruction at the beginning of the film and also trivialised Arthur and Trillian's anguish at it's going.<br /><br />This smacked a little of a tacked-on story "quickfix" to resolve the story in case there is no sequel.<br /><br />I didn't mind the expansion of Trillian's role; that's something I wish Doug Adams had thought of. But by the same token, I thought the excellent Henson creature shop Vogons were somewhat overused. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!! LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>
Blasphemer!<br /><br />The Vogons were perfect in every way. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
Yeh i agree. I think apart from Zaphod, The Vogons where the closest to how i imagined them. One thing was i thought they were supposed to be more threatning and a bit more violent.
I can fix that!<br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Though I really didn't like Marvin's design nor the "Heart Of Gold"s. Also, rebuilding the Earth like it had never even gone trivialised it's destruction at the beginning of the film and also trivialised Arthur and Trillian's anguish at it's going. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Since the movie represents the latest attempt by Adams to tell the story from start to finish, it's worth pointing out that the Earth Mark II is something that was in fact introduced in the later books. He probably wanted to get it into a movie.<br /><br />The TV series did show us the Earth Mark II in Magrathea's transdimensional "factory floor", but it never gets completed. We hear that Slartibartfast has the glaciers "ready to roll over Africa" (since he's done it with fjords, of course), and we learn that the two policemen tailing Zaphod have decided to blow up Magrathea a bit later, so presumably in the TV series the new Earth is never delivered.<br /><br />But in the books, it is. Either Magrathea's destruction occured many years later, or the Earth survived it, or (more likely) the factory floor isn't really inside Magrathea and thus wasn't affected by the explosion, or something else. In any case, Arthur is very pleasantly surprised when, after having gone his own separate way hitchhiking across the galaxy at the end of "Life, the Universe, and Everything", he comes back to the solar system and finds the Earth Mark II sitting there. He knew the Magratheans had been working on it; he just didn't know if it had ever been delivered to the site. To his surprise, he finds that his house is intact, although the front door is practically barricaded with junk mail. He learns that everybody has a few minutes blank in their minds -- they've been recreated as they were a few minutes before the Earth was destroyed (about the time Arthur left, so there's no second Arthur hanging around). He settles back into life, meets a girl named Fen <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em> -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
I have days when I feel like that............... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
I know what you mean about promoting a movie only to have it turn out to not be what you thought it was. We had a choice to make like that, and I wanted to see one really bad, because it looked and sounded like a great one made in the style of an older great movie. So my wife and I went to see it. But I found out from watching it, all the funny parts were listed in the trailers, and that was it. Was I sorry I ever suggested watching it. <br /><br />But I enjoyed watching Hitchhiker, but I had my nephew there to help remind me of the parts being shown. My wife does NOT like stupid, so I was glad she was not there. But I enjoyed it because I did not know what they would do next. One comment my nephew made that helped me out was to a question I asked about the book, Restaurant at the End of the Universe. I asked if there was one consistent thread that bound the series together, and he said, that thread was that there was no thread, other then the eternal question of why? That seemed to make sense to me, and I may watch it again now that I know more of it. <br />But this movie was DEFINITELY better then Mars Attack, or even the subtitled one, Pineotto (wooden puppet) becomes real, (I forget the real title of George Lukas' film). That one I got the whole family from my wife's side to see it with me. <br />That is one reason I am very wary of any film I think would be a good one, and have just about quit making those good kind of recomendations as well. <br /><br />I have remembered the real name to that last movie I mentioned, it was A.I. But I CAN relate to your comments.
It's okay, farcall, not everyone is an Anglophile. If your good Wife did not get the humour, she's not alone. At the risk of sounding patronising for which I apologise ahead of time, some people (not necessarily your Wife) don't know that there are many different kinds of humour in the world. For instance, I have a friend who only thinks slapstick and/or toilet humour ("Something About Mary", "Scary Movie" or "American Pie") is the only kind funny there is in the world. Their tastes don't extend to subtlety.<br /><br />A solipsistic viewpoint, if you like.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!! LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>
I don't think that's patronizing at all. It's quite true that there are many different senses of humor -- and not just British versus American. There are many flavors of each. One can love Monty Python and hate Benny Hill, for instance. What's funny to one person isn't neccesarily funny to another. It's like art -- "I might not know much about art, but I know what I like." Humor is exactly the same way. It really depends on the audience having a common frame of reference.<br /><br />My husband loves "Red Dwarf". But he can't stand Monty Python. Okay, he loved "Holy Grail" and "Life of Brian", but he finds the TV show utterly mystifying.<br /><br />I would agree that the Hitchhiker movie will be most enjoyable to people already familiar with the story, although they'll be lamenting the bits that aren't there. But just to remind people once again, if you object to this being different from the book, remember that the book is not the original. It's not even the second version. It's the third. Some bits of this actually went back more to the original radio series, contradicting the books. And that's okay. It's just part and parcel of the whole Hitchhiker thing. They're all different.<br /><br />Personally, my favorite is the TV miniseries. The books and the radio series tie for second, followed by the movie and then the text adventure computer game. (It was a good game, but I still haven't forgiven it for the stupid sandwich incident. How in the world can anybody guess that you're supposed to feed the horrible and inedible sandwich to the dog at the very beginning of the game?) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em> -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
Saw it on saturday and All I can say is what a disapointment.<br /><br />It loses all the wit of the books/Tv series, nothing is entirely correct, they runied the story line...<br /><br />*2hours later...*<br /><br />... Marvin looks like a giant golf ball with legs and as good as Alan rickman is, he's not right for the part.<br /><br />*Breathes!<br /><br />If you really want to see it and haven't read the books or seen the tv series, it will probably confuse you.<br /><br />If you have then you probably just get bored and fall asleep.<br /><br />If you really want to know the story read the books. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
So did no one else spot the original Marvin from the TV series waiting in line at the Vogon Beurocrat place? He had a couple of really long screen shots.<br /><br />I liked the film and think they got it just about right. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#800080">"All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never, ever be boring" - <strong>Chuck Palahniuk</strong>.</font> </div>
Following my earlier post.<br />I've seen the new film, and i'm currently watching the tv series repeats on BBC2, and apart from the vioce of the book on the whole i think i actually prefer the new film, just goes to show you never can tell.
We all saw it last night and it was the proverbial curate's egg.<br /><br />Personally I find Douglas Adam's deliberately pointless stories (that is their point!), absence of plot etc., etc., rather tedious. rathe like Monty Python really. Both are saved IMHO only by the brilliance of individual scenes.<br /><br />However the film was too plodding for this to happen, despite the good actors. Also way too many American accents. Perfect for Zaphod (who has to be an American!) and perhaps the Heart of Gold's computer, but unneccessary for the rest.<br /><br />It should have been one fast moving scene after another, especially more bits from the Guide (which was disapointingly done, not as good as in the TV series). Making the film so slow moving meant that the flaws of the film (and the original concept) became more evidence.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>apart from the vioce of the book on the whole i think i actually prefer the new film<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I think Stephen Fry did a pretty good job, but you can't beat Peter Jones (who did it for the radio series and the TV series). And there's a story behind that, actually.<br /><br />When the radio series was originally being cast, Douglas Adams said that the person who reads the part for the Book should have a "Peter Jonesy sort of voice". Peter Jones was well-known for narrating documentaries at the time, particularly nature documentaries. They tried a lot of actors before finally resorting to hiring Peter Jones himself. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Peter Jones later remarked that he'd never done any science fiction before (or since, as far as I know), and that he had absolutely no idea what he was talking about when reading the part. But he enjoyed the experience of the radio series so much that not only did he do the TV series, but he also filmed a promotional insert for it which was never broadcast. (You can see that insert, and the man behind the Book's voice, on the miniseries DVD. The DVD is a goldmine of extras.) He was slated to perform the Book one more time for the movie, but the movie was interminably delayed. In the end, like Douglas Adams himself, he was never able to see Hitchhiker's become a movie. Peter Jones died on April 10, 2000 at the age of 79. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em> -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
I know a lot of you guys are big fans, I had not read any of the books and I don't remember a TV show that a few have talked about, But.....<br /><br />Man IMHO that movie was horrible. I went to see it with my girlfriend and we both walked out wondering what the hell we just saw. Sure some of the FX were cool, but the ship was dumb, kept turning into brocolli or a rose petel or something. The robot was annoying. The "president of the galaxy" was a complete idiot (and I thought Bush was stupid) The torture was with poetry? how dumb is that? the suposed "guide" was so simplistic it didn't offer any real useful information. And what was the deal with the towel?<br /><br />Ok, I'm ready to be bashed now. Although if you have an idea or a thought, you'll be bashed in the head by what looks like a no parking sign????!!!???? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 36
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram