So, perhaps his opinion is something akin Christopher Tolkein’s of the Lord of the Rings movies. Taking that into account, I find my glasses only turning a brighter shade of rose.
That’d be a virgin blaster.
Exactly my point. His work adapts beautifully to movies and in general are terribly written (not plotting, but the actual telling of the story). The movies jump over his worst writing, and instead focus on his generally intersting setting, characters, and main plots. His secondary plots are utterly terrible and usually just there to pad things out. IMHO, of course.
Well I thought the TV version was excellent. Better even (gasp, heresy!) than the radio version. It was far more coherent, had a plot that verged on making sense and reaching a conclusion, and didn’t have any of the directionless making-it-up-as-we-go-a-longness of the original radio version.
Of course, it’s rather dated now. But if I was making the film I’d be very tempted to do a scene-by-scene copy of the TV version. Update the graphics and effects, spend a bit more money on locations, sets and costumes, and there you go.
I will be terribly disappointed if the film doesn’t have the Guide monologues. They were always the best bits IMHO.
Just a reminder that the “Quandary Phase” of the radio series will air only days after the movie opens. So if the movie really is crap, we can (I hope) enjoy new BBC radio adventures instead.
Maybe, just maybe, they were able to improve the material from “Mostly Harmless”… The trailer makes it sound like they’re shaking things up a bit, like they did in the Tertiary Phase…
All this discussion about whether the plot makes sense or not makes me wonder how other people view Douglas Adams’ work in general. To me it’s obvious that anything with a coherent and unified plot contradicts Adams’ personal philosophy. The entire theme, if you will, of everything he produced is that there is no grand unifying principle organizing the universe or human life, so there shouldn’t be a grand unifying scheme behind a work of art either. That’s why The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, at least in radio and book formats, bounces around in unpredictable ways and they appear as if Adams was making it up as he went along (though he very certainly wasn’t). The theme is that life gets made up as you go along.
I beg to differ. After voraciously reading every Hitchhiker’s Guide guide written, I have to point out that all his biographers agree that the man was very much making it up as he went along. Sometimes, he was making up page 40 whilst the actors were reading page 35 into the microphones. He was the prince of procrastination, terrible with deadlines, horrifically plagued with writer’s block and all too fond of a cup of tea and a nice bath instead of actually writing. Nonetheless, he was a wordscraft of the highest degree, and once you could squeeze a passage out of him, it was brilliant. But he had no idea what he was doing until he did it. He is, in fact, his own best evidence that there is no underlying order or grand master plan to the universe or his books. He just didn’t do it on purpose.
What would make you say that when they obviously were made up as he went along with no goal beyond finishing that particular script? The 70s were full of high people making up bullshit reasons why what they said made no sense if you looked at it too closely and a personal philosophy of “there is no grand unifying principle organizing the universe or human life, so there shouldn’t be a grand unifying scheme behind a work of art either,” is the very sort of BS justification that sounds great when you are high.
Here’s a link to the Slashdot discussion. Several links to other reviews & some interesting comments:
I’ve heard that Ford’s webshooters are organic rather than mechanical and that the scene in Milliway’s has been changed so that the Dish of the Day shoots first. Such changes are UNACCEPTABLE!
This fan - and one-time Douglas Adams collaborator - liked it. He also says “a load of stuff” from The Restaurant was included.
That being said, adapting it in compactified form into a 2 hour movie is going to require some alterations, so it won’t be as consistant as the radio, novel, and miniseries versions were with each other.
Er…um, never mind the last bit.
I’m afraid that they may actually be trying to cram in too much and not make enough changes to fit the medium. I’m interested to see the new storyline that Adams came up with specifically for the film. I just hope its up to snuff with his best work. The wholesale slashing of dialog–surely the best bit about Adams’ writing as it was with Wodehouse–is troubling, but we’ll see how it comes out in the wash.
Stranger
I believe he means “a load of stuff” from The Restaurant was included in the other reviewer’s list of things that were “missing” from the movie. Which makes sense, as it’s a movie of Hitchhiker’s Guide, not Hitchhiker’s Guide **and **The Restaurant. And further shows the first reviewer to be an insensible prat.
Anything to clarify this or is it just elitist snobbism?
Thanks, I couldn’t figure out what the collaborator was trying to say there.
It took me a couple of tries to get it! 
(<---- can we get this dude a thumb?)
Yes, but does he stand a whelk’s chance in a supernova?
Stranger
I’m still trying to wrap my mind around the look of Marvin. Just how is a leg from that misshapen Twikki wannabe going to be long enough to fill in as a cricket stump?
And if that aspect of the story is being abandoned, what’s the point? They might as well take the print of Black Beauty (the one featuring Mark Lester, from 1971), which bore no resemblance to the book beyond its title, and slap on the heading Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.
You don’t need the Chesterfield sofa. You do need the Krikkiters.
Er, Life, The Universe, and Everything was, plotwise, completely independant of the first two books (not surprising, as it never figured into the radio series at all.) In fact, it took a bit of contrivence in order to get Zaphod, Trillian, and Marvin back into the story. (Fortunately, the Improbability Drive offers all the Contrivance Generation Capability one needs, complete with glossy marketing literature from the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.) Unless the film does fantastically well I wouldn’t expect two sequels anyway (and given that Adams isn’t around to offer his input and guidance, it probably not recommended in any case.)
There are a lot of legitimate things to nitpick the film about, but adherence to previous versions really isn’t one of them. Adams was quite definite in demanding clearly defined areas of doubt and ambiguity in how each version related to the other, and absolutely insistant that compatibilty was a fine quality to be avoided at all costs.
As far as Marvin’s looks, at least he doesn’t look like a rejected costume from a Hong Kong Star Wars knockoff.
Stranger
Arthur C. Clarke once said that 2001, 2010, and 2061 don’t really have anything to do with each other save for having the same characters. Except for Hitchhiker’s and Restaurant, much of the same applies here.