Questions about Hitch Hikers Guide.

[Cail]

Well, for better or for worse, there's this...planetmagrathea.com/shortreview.html

[Warmark Jay]

Well, for better or for worse, there's this...planetmagrathea.com/shortreview.html

Ouch... but that's the first bad review advance screening review I've read. There's a couple of very positive takes on the movie at www.aint-it-cool-news.com . I'm a big fan of the books, and having read them many times I think the casting was inspired (yes, I like Mos Def; he's a good actor, and I think he's a good choice for Ford) and the look of the film (effects, costumes, cinematography) is great. This is going to be a movie that some so-called Adams "purists" will have problems with (just like the "true Tolkien fans" had issues with the LOTR movies, and the Batman "fans" have issues with all of the Batman flicks). I can't wait to see it.

[Sheriff Lytton]

Well, I'll go and see it anyway. But it looks like all my worst fears about this film may have been justified. I really don't like the sound of this.

[Myste]

O.M.G. They've

Spoiler

cut the Guide entry on towels???

What the effing HELL are they thinking? Those dirty rattish moronic subcretins!! Argh!

I have to go see it, if only to complain about it afterwards. I'm now horribly afraid it'll be like listening to Vogon poetry,

Spoiler

except that apparently the Vogon poetry has all been cut!!!!

Oh, dear.

[Avatar]

Oh man, just read the review in the link from Cail, and I don't think I'm even going to bother.

--Avatar

[CovenantJr]

Some of the stuff that's missing!... Here are the ones that appalled me most:

-Most of Arthur's conversation with Mr Prosser
-All of Ford's conversation with Mr Prosser
-The Guide entry on Earth An entry that was used as the title of one of the books?!
-The Guide entry on towels
-The second part of the Guide entry on Babel fish, about proving the non-existence of God
-Most of the Vogon poetry scene, including most of the poem itself
-Much of the Guide entry on the Infinite Improbability Drive
-"This is Zaphod Beeblebrox from Betelgeuse Five, not bloody Martin Smith from Croydon." This almost epitomises the Guide books!
-The Guide entry on Magrathea, and the Ford-Zaphod and Arthur-Trillian conversations about it, or indeed any hint of what Magrathea actually is prior to Slartibartfast saying, "You know we built planets, don't you?"
-The Guide entry on Deep Thought
-Most of the Deep Thought scenes
-Milliways, Disaster Area, the 'B'-Ark, prehistoric Earth and anything else in the later part of the story

[Edge]

I am appalled!

I shall be boycotting this travesty.

[I'm Murrin]

-Milliways, Disaster Area, the 'B'-Ark, prehistoric Earth and anything else in the later part of the story

I'd expect that something as big as the entire ending of the film would have to have been part of Adams' original screenplay... so it may have been his intention not to include those parts.

[CovenantJr]

Anyone who has read the books should check out the long version of the review. I actually almost feel sick

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Yeah, that review was too detailed to be that innacurate. Yup. Never seein this one, not no way, not no how

[I'm Murrin]

...

[CovenantJr]

...

[I'm Murrin]

Reading the review now. While the plot may be Adams', I'll give this much - the reason the other writer was hired was specifically to edit the dialogue and rework the scenes to something that works better in a film format. So, yes, it's the people who made the films fault, if these particular things make the film as bad as the reviewer says.

[Warmark Jay]

planetmagrathea.com/mjsimpson.html

After reading this, I almost get the impression that Mr. Simpson has some particular/peculiar (in every sense of the word) ax to grind. I liken his review to LOtR purists who were foaming at the mouth because Tom Bombadil was no where to be found in the films. The Hitchhiker's stories have always evolved; from the original radio plays, to the BBC TV series, to the novels, to the computer games...

Two points here. One: The film is, by all accounts, still a work in progress, with pieces being put back in and taken out (Simpson himself acknowledges this), but even so it would be impossible to include every funny bit of dialogue and prose in the book. (And it should be said that what is funny in print often falls flat on the screen. Example: "The Bonfire of the Vanities" contains some hilarious prose, and we know what happened when diPalma and Co. tried to replicate it...) Exposition simply does not work in comedy, and for those who argue that the funniest parts of the old series were the Guide entries - I agree. But how do you fit those into a 90 to 120 minute film without derailing the narrative? (I suspect, though, that the final cut of the film will include towel references). Point Two: This is ONE bad review by someone who clearly went into the movie looking to pick it apart. I'd hope that people would approach it with an open mind.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

They... left out... the towels!
The TOWELS....
I don't know about this...

[Warmark Jay]

They... left out... the towels!
The TOWELS....
I don't know about this...

But if you've seen the publicity stills (there are a bunch posted on Yahoo's movie page), there are numerous shots of Mos Def's Ford with his trusty towel around his neck, and in one instance wrapped around his head (presumably to ward off the stare of the Ravenous Bug-Bladder Beast of Traal...)

Like I said, I'm sure the reviewer did not get the finished product...

[Variol Farseer]

(And it should be said that what is funny in print often falls flat on the screen. Example: "The Bonfire of the Vanities" contains some hilarious prose, and we know what happened when diPalma and Co. tried to replicate it...) Exposition simply does not work in comedy, and for those who argue that the funniest parts of the old series were the Guide entries - I agree. But how do you fit those into a 90 to 120 minute film without derailing the narrative? (I suspect, though, that the final cut of the film will include towel references). Point Two: This is ONE bad review by someone who clearly went into the movie looking to pick it apart. I'd hope that people would approach it with an open mind.

1. The BBC television series ran three hours, total. And the film doesn't even cover the plotline of the last two episodes. It doesn't take much cutting to turn 120 minutes of TV into 120 minutes of film.

2. It's not a question of something being funny in print and not on the screen. HHGG has already been proven to be funny on the screen, in print, and on the radio — and many of the jokes cut from the movie worked famously in all three previous versions. Why not in this one?

3. I've read the long version of the review, and it doesn't seem to me that MJ Simpson had an axe to grind. He had studio access during filming, got chummy with cast & crew, and clearly remained on good enough terms with those involved to be invited to the private screening. And he's a huge Douglas Adams fan, and knows perfectly well that DNA wrote great chunks of the screenplay for this film. That does not sound to me like someone who went in trying to pick the film apart.

4. Simpson is quite right: Adams was horrible at plotting, and not much good at stringing together any kind of sustained narrative at all. His forte was brilliantly witty dialogue. To keep the plot of HHGG, and throw away most of the dialogue, would be like keeping the acting from Attack of the Clones and throwing away all the special effects. Or throwing away the bikini-clad babes from Baywatch, and keeping the serious drama. Or — but you get the idea.

I have a terrible feeling that this is going to be a trainwreck of a movie.

[Avatar]

Yep, I agree with VF here. (And will be joining Edge's boycott.)

Like Cj said, if you've read the books, check out the long review. *shakes head*

--A

[Myste]

I just read the long review. I'm depressed just thinking about it. I was going to see it just to complain about it afterward. I don't think I'm going to anymore. How could they leave out the towels? How could they leave out "mostly harmless?" And how, bloody HOW, could they leave out the fact that Arthur's main motivating force in the entire story is to find a decent cup of tea???

It's enough to make me want to rough up a screenplay for it myself, get some friends, some puppets and a digital video camera together, and make it myself. The production values would be crap, but it'd probably be a helluva a lot funnier.

[Warmark Jay]

Well, as for me, I love the books (the first two anyway; they go downhill fast from there), have read them all several times, thought the TV show was mediocre at best, and am still going to see the movie even if every critic and fanboy on Earth says I shouldn't. If I like it, huzzah. If not, what's 120 minutes and $9?