IMO at least one of those was an awesome movie.
Anyways, back on topic, I recall back in sci-fi class that we watched a movie based on HHGTTG, yet I’ve seen no mention of it here. I’m assuming what I say may have been the TV series, so I wonder, was it actually a made for TV movie?
As I recall, there were no breaks in the movie (or show) that we were watching on VHS.
What you probably saw** Duderdude2** was the BBC mini-series which wasn’t bad but not as good as the original radio series.
Don’t panic, folks.
I’M NOT PANICKING!
Alright, I’m panicking, what else is there to do?
Well, I have my own version of a drink that may do to you what the PGGB did to Ford…absinthe-free. You’ll need the lemon.
Tall, skinny bar glass
3-4 ice cubes
Full shot each of good vodka, triple sec, Key Largo and green apple schnapps
Fill the rest of the glass w/ lemonade and garnish w/ lemon wedge and half a strawberry.
Drink. Make another. Repeat until life is good again.
Just suck on a corner of your towel, the one soaked w/ anti-psychotic meds. Everything will be alright. This should be a happy time of rejoicing, folks, a movie geared almost exclusively to people like us, how often does that happen? There won’t be titty scenes to make you roll your eyes, gratuitous car chases, or men w/ machine guns. There WILL be sound in the vacuum of space, but we just let that one go anymore, don’t we?
So I guess the makers of HHGTTG will be the first agaisnt the wall when the revolution comes? In any event, I’ve always felt that “Hitchhiker” only worked on radio; the writing in the book was thin and the TV show was drearily literal.
Still, I guess we won’t be calling this crew when it comes to making a Discworld movie.
Actually, we DO have the recipe for the Pan-galactic Gargle Blaster, but may require a few item substitutions. The recipe is:
These wonderful guys suggest the following substitutions:
(Obviously, they’re missing the obvious maraschino cherry with a splash of grenedine to simulate the Algolian Suns).
Share and Enjoy!
The most common criticism I heard of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone was that it followed the book too closely, without making allowances for the different medium. I haven’t heard anyone complain that it wasn’t faithful enough.
For that matter, I also haven’t heard too many folks who didn’t like Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings because it diverged too much from the book. Yes, there are plenty of people (like myself) nitpicking the movies, but most of those people (including myself) will readily admit that we liked them anyway.
That sounds really, really good. I’m having a couple of friends over Friday and Saturday, maybe I should stock up my liquor cabinet. Email me next Sunday to see if I survived! 
I, Robot may not be the best example, since it actually started out as an entirely different movie, until they realized that the plot was too close to the book, they snagged the rights to the book, changed a couple of things and presto! They had a movie. (Or so the poster who mentioned it claims.) And really, there’s a problem with being too faithful to the source material. I realize that I’m in the minority here, but I absolutely hated FOTR, because of how much of the dialog from the book they kept. One of the reasons for having long stretches of dialog in a novel is that it helps to break up the narration of the book. In radio plays, the characters will often say things in their dialoge which they wouldn’t say in real life, simply because it’s not necessary when the person you’re conversing with is in the same spot.
So, when you’ve got a film, you can dispense with a lot of the dialoge, because people can see what the hell it is that’s holding the character’s interest. Sadly, IMHO, Peter Jackson didn’t realize it, and kept far too much of the original dialoge in the film.
For a nerdling to bitch that the dialog’s been cut down, just shows that he’d only be satisfied with a verbatum transcription on the screen, which would be sheer agony for everyone else, since we wouldn’t need to hear Arthur and Ford discussing the sea standing stock still while the shore kept washing in and out, because we can see it! I’m not going to give up on this film, just yet. Everything I’ve seen in the trailer looks good, even if there’s a few scenes that I’m not happy with, however, having read an interview with the guy who took over writing the screenplay after Adams died, it seems that he pretty much “got” the book.
Quick note: This guy isn’t just another 'net geek; he’s actually something of an expert on Douglas Adams, having written a biography of him. One could see this as good or bad, depending on your point of view.
However, having read the long version of this H2G2 review, I must admit to some worry…
For that matter, I also haven’t heard too many folks who didn’t like Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings because it diverged too much from the book.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed, the reason “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone” (Sorcerer? Pfft) was not a great movie, and “Lord of the Rings” was - well, the first one, anyway - is that “Harry Potter” tried to bring the LITERAL narration of the story to the screen, while “Lord of the Rings” tried to bring the theme, atmosphere and characterizations to the screen.
Any attempt to bring any book to the screen in literal fashion will almost certainly fail. To be successful, you have to understand the book’s essence - what the story makes you feel - and then turn that feeling into a movie. The result will not literally mirror the book. That’s what “Lord of the Rings” did, and what “Harry Potter” did not (not the first one, anyway.)
A perfect example:
With respect to “Hitchhiker’s,” I’ve noticed the one of the most common complaints appears to be that Zaphod’s second head hides most of the time, whereas in the book, his heads are both visible all the time. It simply does not matter; it’s just not an important plot item. Anyone who would complain about such a thing is just totally missing the point.
Indeed, it can be strongly argued that having one head concealed is in fact more in keeping with the theme and humor of Adams’s book. Reading the book, Zaphod’s second head is usually not mentioned; 96% of the time his two-headedness is not relevant. It only pops up when Adams decides to make a point or a joke about it, which makes it funny in that it’s not always in your face.
So in a way, having the second head concealed in the movie is actually more consistent with the feel and atmosphere of the book than a literal interpretation would be, because a literal interpretation of Zaphod’s appearance would be different in cinema (you’d see two heads whenever he was on screen) than it is in print or on radio (you only “see” two heads when Adams chooses to mention it, and the rest of the time Zaphod may as well have one head.)
I can’t read the review. Something about bandwidth exceeded. Guess the review hit it big. :rolleyes:
I’d be a bit curious to know what this persons mindset was entering the film. Was this another book purist prepared to rail against the media for destroying his beloved geek bible?
Anyways, count me amongst those who think the ravings of an internet persona count as squadoo. I’ll decide for myself when I see it myself.
A bit off topic, but here it is anyway: Yes, most adaptations of books have to find a visual way to bring the mood and tone of the book to the screen, because it is difficult for dialogue to do that all by itself.
I offer however, that the easiest books to bring well to the screen, though it truly hasn’t been done often, are those by Stephen King. His writing is atrocious and what isn’t clearly visually detailed or covered in dialogue is almost invariably the part of the book that is the worst of it to read through.
His work adapts well to screen – Ray Bradbury (an exceptional wordsmith) translates with great difficulty – like trying to cross the Atlantic in a Caddilac) and rarely successfully, even when he does the screenwriting himself.
I hold hope for this movie – in fact, I’m planning on taking a group of students who have recently read it to see it when it opens. Now that’s a field trip.
Being Farked AND Slashdotted at the same time brought it down.
The author was identified by Slashdot as just this guy, you know, who’s been studying Douglas Adams and his work for 20 years.
But not as a hoopy frood who really knew where his towel was? Color me unimpressed then.
All right, step outside. We’re going to settle this like men.
[Sound of door opening. Footsteps. Sound of door closing.]
Errr, how exactly do men settle things?
Ah, of course. They went with the average fan to get their review. :dubious:
If you go by the standard that ninety percent of everything is shit, the winning percentage of Stephen King movies is very high. Discounting the two movies that really don’t adapt the works they’re named after (The Lawnmower Man and The Running Man) consider:
THE SHINING - Okay
CARRIE - Good
THE DEAD ZONE - Okay
MISERY - Great
THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION - Really Good
STAND BY ME (THE BODY) - Really Good
FIRESTARTER - Okay
DOLORES CLAIBORNE - Good
THE GREEN MILE - Good
The TV movies are mostly good for TV movies too. For the most part, Stephen King adaptations are usually decent and sometimes a lot better than decent.