Fuck, Bugger and Damn

[andrewducker]

Review of Hitchhiker's Guide movie here (and longer, spoiler-filled version here) which makes it clear that this film is, in fact, terrible.

Arse.

Comments

[kurosau.livejournal.com]

"Never trust a film critic, let alone one with an opinion about a film."

Granted, it does sound true, but I hope that this person is just horribly, horribly wrong.

[asim.livejournal.com]

However, the makers of this film, despite all their talk of being faithful to Douglas’ intentions and ideals, have seen fit to piss about with his carefully crafted, wonderfully quotable lines.

Of course they have. Just as Douglas did. And considering that he last did Hitchhikers (the original series) as a computer game almost 20 years ago, I'd expect a different animal. From interviews I've read, the reason the radio play, books and TV show all are alike is more due to the timeframe (and lack of time [and lack of Douglas wanting to write, given his feelings about deadlines]) than any actual urge to want to reproduce Hitchhikers exactly. Gaiman's DON'T PANIC details that time period pretty well, in fact.
My proof? The Computer Game, which was pretty much a rewrite of the books; damn little of the Series made it there, even the "quotable stuff". And yes, the stuff did need to be re-written, but Douglas could have lobbed all the cute quotes that still applied into the game, and he (by and large) chose not to.

So, for me, it's more "is it a good movie" than "is it a faithful adaptation", for the simple reason that Douglas would have laughed at the concept, I think. Which, of course, is easy for me to say, 'cause he's dead.

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

So someone who really likes the book complains they didn't make the film just for him?

Boo hoo. It is a film version of Hitchhiker's Guide. It's for everyone, not just for people who like the book. If you want the book, read it. There does seem to be a tacit assumption when books and comics are adapted that This One Will Be Different And Will Be True To The Original. They never are. But sometimes they still kick ass by being a different version, take on or just sometimes by being wildly different from the original source.

[johnbobshaun.livejournal.com]

Kim Newman liked it in his review for Empire magazine (this months ish). That review was very fanboyish rather than a balaned look at what's good and bad about the film. Oh my God! They left a lot out when they turned a 6 part radio series/TV show into a film! Well there's a surprise.

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

I liked some of the bits in the radio show that weren't in the books.

[andrewducker]

I didn't think he was saying that. A lot of the complaints were saying that the film didn't actually make internal sense and that they'd kept in things that had originally been jokes, but left out the bits that made it funny. Which strikes me as a sign of a film that's been well made, and then hacked to bits by an editor that didn't understand the material.

[azalemeth.livejournal.com]

I am going to see it. I know my pathological attention to detail and inability to watch anything that doesn't follow the source material means I'll probably hate it, but I am going to watch it nonetheless.....

[stillcarl.livejournal.com]

When I saw their take on Marvin I had a feeling they weren't quite getting it. "Oh, he keeps saying he has a brain the size of a planet - let's give him a big, round head!" Umm, no.

[drjon.livejournal.com]

It's a Cute thing. Big heads are Cute. Cute sells merchandise.

[drjon.livejournal.com]

I had a few things to say about MJ's review...