The Hitchhiker's Guide Movie Is A Pos
esuna
Rock Bottom Join Date: 2003-04-03 Member: 15175Members, Constellation
Rock Bottom Join Date: 2003-04-03 Member: 15175Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">SPOILERS!</div> God.
How disappointed can I get. This is one of the few movies i'm totally glad i didn't pay for. What the hell were they <i>thinking</i>. Not only were the majority of the lead cast poorly chosen (Arthur, Ford, Zaphod, namely), but the characters they portrayed completely shattered the image of their book, radio and tv series counterparts.
For too long i've waited and wanted to see this movie, for too long i've built it up in my head that it was going to be awesome. How dumb i used to be. Sure, the script and screenplay may have been written by Douglas Adams, but this movie is a total insult to what the Hitchhiker's Guide once was.
All of the witty, excellent dialogue from it's former incarnations is, for the most part, gone, and what there is (Usually from Arthur or Ford) is just amazingly poorly read. Not to mention that in the absense of some of the wonderful dialogue, there's ridiculous slapstick and cheap gags in their place. And not just that, entire scenes have been mixed around or removed and replaced by things that were never originally there. A love story with Arthur and Trillian? The Vogon's persuing them across the galaxy? Christ.
As an example, take Ford's excellent reasoning with the construction foreman at the start of the book, so well written, intelligent humour, that is now replaced by Mos Def turning up with a shopping trolley full of beer. No longer does he convince them to not knock Arthur's house down, no, he just hands out beer.
Jesus ****' Christ on a goddamned mother****in' pogo stick.
So in short, if you hold any kind of dear memories for the books, radio show or tv mini series, don't see this movie.
How disappointed can I get. This is one of the few movies i'm totally glad i didn't pay for. What the hell were they <i>thinking</i>. Not only were the majority of the lead cast poorly chosen (Arthur, Ford, Zaphod, namely), but the characters they portrayed completely shattered the image of their book, radio and tv series counterparts.
For too long i've waited and wanted to see this movie, for too long i've built it up in my head that it was going to be awesome. How dumb i used to be. Sure, the script and screenplay may have been written by Douglas Adams, but this movie is a total insult to what the Hitchhiker's Guide once was.
All of the witty, excellent dialogue from it's former incarnations is, for the most part, gone, and what there is (Usually from Arthur or Ford) is just amazingly poorly read. Not to mention that in the absense of some of the wonderful dialogue, there's ridiculous slapstick and cheap gags in their place. And not just that, entire scenes have been mixed around or removed and replaced by things that were never originally there. A love story with Arthur and Trillian? The Vogon's persuing them across the galaxy? Christ.
As an example, take Ford's excellent reasoning with the construction foreman at the start of the book, so well written, intelligent humour, that is now replaced by Mos Def turning up with a shopping trolley full of beer. No longer does he convince them to not knock Arthur's house down, no, he just hands out beer.
Jesus ****' Christ on a goddamned mother****in' pogo stick.
So in short, if you hold any kind of dear memories for the books, radio show or tv mini series, don't see this movie.
Comments
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=92547' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index....showtopic=92547</a>
Stop making me hate it. I don't WANT to hate it.
I'm not listening. I'm not listening. I'm not listening. I'm not listening.
The casting crew deserves a big round of applause, because the vast majority of the acting was excellent and the actors, i feel, managed to play their charactors very well. For example, Sam Rockwell plays a brilliant and funny Zaphod while Martin Freeman plays an Arthur Dent that appeals to the audience. He is someone who does not really want to be out in space on an adventure, but rather sitting at home having a cup of tea. Marvin, Prefect and Trillian were also equally as brilliant. Alan Rickman was perfect for the role of Marvin, and most of his dialog is really funny.
The story, while a bit complex, was pieced together very well (apart from that dude with the robot legs. What was that about?). The dialog was quite witty in places and funny throughout, with several laugh out loud moments.
The effects were also absolutely brilliant. The scene where Arthur is travelling to the back-up copy of Earth is breathtaking. The vogons are done very well, along with all the other creatures in the movie.
I went into the cinema expecting a crap, boring film that tried to be funny and failed. Instead, i was pleasently surprised and will probably be going to see it again sometime soon. Of course, i have not read any of the books and i have only seen the first few episodes of the TV show (which was definitely much worse than the movie) so i am probably not qualified to comment on the film.
I thought the acting of Zaphod was spot on. The funniest scene was when he was holding the conference and said "I'm kidnapping myself!" and swung away on that rope. Awesome.
SPOILER.active=true
The Vice President of the Galaxy. She says that the during the first attempt to get him to turn himself in.
Anyways, I liked the movie. You have to realize that the book would be extremely complex to put on film. The changes that were made to tell the story in a shorter time span were good ideas (I saw it 3 times on opening day alone...I've memorized this movie.). Of course they are kind of weird, but you get used to them the 10th time around. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
For example:
Humma Kavula is used to replace the backstory of the way Zaphod finds Magatheria. In the book, the story of him meeting the previous President of the Galaxy during his pre-president days. That could have added some extra time. HOWEVER, by removing him and creating the character Humma Kavula, you killed three things at once? What do I mean? In the scene(s) that they meet Humma Kavula, they went through 3 things like it was nothing. You learned about the cult (the ones that are awaiting the Great Hankerchief, the species that invented the aerosol deoderant before the wheel, and the location of Magatheria. Now, yes, the changes seem weird, some may not like them, but it seemed to work out very well.
The only thing I did not like was Zaphod's extremities. The head could have been done better. An extra head on his neck/chest just seemed weird and illogical.
The TV series did <i>both</i> books in three hours. And with hardly any budget. And they didnt hack any of the jokes to pieces either.
There really isnt an excuse.
You see I liked it when you find out that Zaphod was really a genius kid who plotted to find out all that stuff including the guy who was REALLY in charge of the Universe (the one in the hut), because of a chance meeting with the former President. Sealing off his own brain through surgery so that it wouldn't be scanned and all that, it was brilliant.
You see I liked it when you find out that Zaphod was really a genius kid who plotted to find out all that stuff including the guy who was REALLY in charge of the Universe (the one in the hut), because of a chance meeting with the former President. Sealing off his own brain through surgery so that it wouldn't be scanned and all that, it was brilliant. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea, I cried when I didn't say that. And the "rock concert" scene made me cry too. And how they didnt go in depth on the brain (he did say that he seperated it, but it was fuzzy why he did.)
Yea, I just didn't like what they did to Zaphod. And GD! Say Ford's last name.
The casting crew deserves a big round of applause, because the vast majority of the acting was excellent and the actors, i feel, managed to play their charactors very well. For example, Sam Rockwell plays a brilliant and funny Zaphod while Martin Freeman plays an Arthur Dent that appeals to the audience. He is someone who does not really want to be out in space on an adventure, but rather sitting at home having a cup of tea. Marvin, Prefect and Trillian were also equally as brilliant. Alan Rickman was perfect for the role of Marvin, and most of his dialog is really funny.
The story, while a bit complex, was pieced together very well (apart from that dude with the robot legs. What was that about?). The dialog was quite witty in places and funny throughout, with several laugh out loud moments.
The effects were also absolutely brilliant. The scene where Arthur is travelling to the back-up copy of Earth is breathtaking. The vogons are done very well, along with all the other creatures in the movie.
I went into the cinema expecting a crap, boring film that tried to be funny and failed. Instead, i was pleasently surprised and will probably be going to see it again sometime soon. Of course, i have not read any of the books and i have only seen the first few episodes of the TV show (which was definitely much worse than the movie) so i am probably not qualified to comment on the film. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The effects had their moments, the Vogons were done well and the "factory floor" really was excellent, but other parts were incredibly poorly done, like Zaphod's third arm, the talking mice, Humma Kavula's little golden legs, etc.
And yes, the performances put on by Alan Rickman (Especially), Bill Nighy, Stephen Fry and John Malcovich were excellent, but unfortunately, that's pretty much where it stopped. Martin Freeman just didn't seem "into" the character whatsoever (Or it could be the changes that were made to Arthur), Ford Prefect was... well, his character was destroyed, and Mos Def is <b>FAR</b> from being the best actor in the world, Trillian was good enough and Zaphod was terrible, but i think that was more to do with Zaphod being an apalling character in the movie.
And believe me, before you make any comments about the dialogue being witty, read the books. The movie is a far cry from the excellent style the books are written in, i'll tell you that much.
Every time Zaphod was on screen I cringed. What the hell were they thinking when they casted that guy?
Every time Zaphod was on screen I cringed. What the hell were they thinking when they casted that guy? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
More to the point, what the hell were they thinking with that Interpretation of Zaphod?
Zaphod was a forgetful idiot, not a screentime whoring idiot. That doesn't even begin to be the actor's fault so much as the director's.
That's my opinion of Zaphod.
I seriously doubt he wrote most of it.
I highly doubt he would have changed:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"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.'"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"But you found the plans, didn't you?"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stuff like this happens all the way through the movie. Parts of the jokes survive, but they just <i>arent funny</i>
They also go on and on and on about the towels. They use them in almost every scene. And yet they didnt put in the Guide entry explaining why they were so useful.
I seriously doubt he wrote most of it.
I highly doubt he would have changed:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"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.'"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"But you found the plans, didn't you?"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stuff like this happens all the way through the movie. Parts of the jokes survive, but they just <i>arent FUNNY</i> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually he wrote pretty much <i>all</i> of it. The only thing I believe he left out was the ending.
Doesn't make it any less true <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
For what it's worth, Adams himself admitted cutting out alot of the jokes. He said the only reason he did it was to keep the movie in reasonable time lengths.
Same.
I mean, god <i>forbid</i> its not spot on the book. Movie's hardly are when they're written after them, anyways. You should go into the movie, forget about the book, and take it for what its worth. Not sit there and waste your money bickering at how untrue the movie is.
Sheesh.
I mean, god <i>forbid</i> its not spot on the book. Movie's hardly are when they're written after them, anyways. You should go into the movie, forget about the book, and take it for what its worth. Not sit there and waste your money bickering at how untrue the movie is.
Sheesh. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not just that it wasn't completely true to the books. It's that the books are 1000x better than the movie. If the movie was better, then we wouldn't be complaining that it was different from the books.
Which brings me to my next point (if you can call it that) I went into the cinema with no expectations whatsoever. I hadn't read the book, saw any trailers or heard people say "IT'S AWESOME! / IT'S AWFUL!" - I simply wanted to get out of the house for a few hours. So at the end of the film when my friend said "what did you think?" and I knew she'd enjoyed it, i simply said "it was good!" and felt i'd increased my opinion of it slightly because she'd enjoyed it so much.
What can I say, i'm easily pleased?
I agree with Esuna that the "factory floor" was great and extremely well done. I thought the design of the (stolen?) ship was average and the view of Earth at the start with all those tower thingys in it was very very good!
But it felt like the Guide Book itself should have had a more important role in the film. I know it was used a fair bit in the film but it didn't seem to be important in the slightest.
Thats just my humble opinion anyway.
Which brings me to my next point (if you can call it that) I went into the cinema with no expectations whatsoever. I hadn't read the book, saw any trailers or heard people say "IT'S AWESOME! / IT'S AWFUL!" - I simply wanted to get out of the house for a few hours. So at the end of the film when my friend said "what did you think?" and I knew she'd enjoyed it, i simply said "it was good!" and felt i'd increased my opinion of it slightly because she'd enjoyed it so much.
What can I say, i'm easily pleased?
I agree with Esuna that the "factory floor" was great and extremely well done. I thought the design of the (stolen?) ship was average and the view of Earth at the start with all those tower thingys in it was very very good!
But it felt like the Guide Book itself should have had a more important role in the film. I know it was used a fair bit in the film but it didn't seem to be important in the slightest.
Thats just my humble opinion anyway. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The book used to be a massive part of both the narrative and comic relief through previous incarnations, and most definately the source of some of the best humour (Babelfish explanation, for example), however in the movie, it just seemed like something that was there and not really of much importance at all.
Also, Deep Thought, thinking about it, reminded me of something from explodingdog.com for some reason.
Yea, I was sad that there was no entry on the towel.
Yea, Zaphod as a bumbling idiot sucks. Belgium. just...Belgium.