| Finally I saw the movie [message #125271] |
Sa, 03 September 2005 22:36 |
|
Although it wasn't the best movie I ever saw I liked it. In my opinion
the "boy-gets-girl"-part wasn't necessary, but the story on the whole
was a reasonable one.
--
Abi! Emine caput in porcum Jan v/d Broek
balglaas [at] xs4all.nl
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #125280 ] |
So, 04 September 2005 18:08 |
|
"Jan van den Broek" <fortytwo [at] xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:4319fc56$0$11077$e4fe514c [at] news.xs4all.nl...
> Although it wasn't the best movie I ever saw I liked it. In my opinion
> the "boy-gets-girl"-part wasn't necessary, but the story on the whole
> was a reasonable one.
>
Still a pity some real good jokes originating from the book were left out.
Like god being not existant including proof (poof... vanishing in thin air)
Furthermore, the "head thing" where Zaphod had heads on top of each other
and leaving one behind.
And then the endless prisoner release forms.
Still a fair movie....
Gr,
Ben.
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #126735 ] |
Mo, 05 September 2005 17:09 |
|
Jan van den Broek <fortytwo [at] xs4all.nl> hit the keyboard.
Afterwards the following was on the screen:
> Although it wasn't the best movie I ever saw I liked it. In my opinion
> the "boy-gets-girl"-part wasn't necessary, but the story on the whole
> was a reasonable one.
I just saw it for the second time yesterday. I still find it
reasonably good and still I probably need to get the DVD ;o)
/Rasmus
--
-- [ Rasmus "Møffe" Bøg Hansen ] ---------------------------------------
ATA100 is another testimony to the fact that pigs can be
made to fly given sufficient thrust (to borrow an RFC)
-Alan Cox
----------------------------------------------[ moffe at zz9 dot dk ] --
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #126742 ] |
Mo, 05 September 2005 21:55 |
|
To follow-op on my own post, also being a Residents-fan, I liked the eyeball-
design of the Heart of Gold.
--
Jan van den Broek balglaas [at] xs4all.nl
"There are only five great men in the world and three of them
are hamburgers" --- Don van Vliet
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #126753 ] |
Di, 06 September 2005 00:10 |
|
"Jan van den Broek" <fortytwo [at] xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:4319fc56$0$11077$e4fe514c [at] news.xs4all.nl...
> Although it wasn't the best movie I ever saw I liked it. In my opinion
> the "boy-gets-girl"-part wasn't necessary, but the story on the whole
> was a reasonable one.
>
Boy got girl in the radio play recently. That never bothered me either. I
think some people rattle off such criticisms automatically these days - it's
the done thing to slate the 'happy endings' or 'boy meets girl' bits. Can we
never have romance in any films now? Is that the general idea? :/
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #126762 ] |
Di, 06 September 2005 19:35 |
|
"Slitheen" <slitheen [at] snotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rn3Te.3859$Y06.3582 [at] newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>> Although it wasn't the best movie I ever saw I liked it. In my opinion
>> the "boy-gets-girl"-part wasn't necessary, but the story on the whole
>> was a reasonable one.
> Boy got girl in the radio play recently. That never bothered me either. I
> think some people rattle off such criticisms automatically these days -
> it's the done thing to slate the 'happy endings' or 'boy meets girl' bits.
> Can we never have romance in any films now? Is that the general idea? :/
Yeah, boy-got-girl in SLATFATFISH and that was written completely by
Douglas. Though it wasn't the best, it wasn't dire like the film. I don't
think the romance aspect was a) all that major or b) particularly damaging
to the film. Rockwell's Zaphod more than made up for that, of course, by
being an absolute f*cking travesty of the original character.
--
Fræk
There are 10 types of people in the world.
Those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #126775 ] |
Mi, 07 September 2005 02:45 |
|
"Slitheen" <slitheen [at] snotmail.com> wrote
> Boy got girl in the radio play recently. That never bothered me either. I
> think some people rattle off such criticisms automatically these days -
it's
> the done thing to slate the 'happy endings' or 'boy meets girl' bits. Can
we
> never have romance in any films now? Is that the general idea? :/
There was the point made that there wasn't room for some of the classic
humour. Yet they added in such scenes as the romantic stuff and queuing
scene which dragged on a bit. I think criticism of the extra material is
because it seems to be at the expense of some the classic humour - and in
HHGG it is the humour that stands it apart from the crowd.
The film makers seemed more concerned about having a storyline that was easy
to get to grips with and that has some appeal. Previous storylines were a
vehicle for Adams humour. The storyline could be and was changed around and
it didn't affect things too much.
I think they could have trimmed some of the new scenes and included some of
the missing bits and it would have greatly improved the film. Adams wit and
humour is something special. I didn't think the uniqueness of his style came
across in the film.
Romance is fine but it shouldn't be at the expense of what made HHGG great
in the first place.
Steve M
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #126777 ] |
Mi, 07 September 2005 09:02 |
|
On 06/09/2005 18:35, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Freakstone spewed up:
> "Slitheen" <slitheen [at] snotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rn3Te.3859$Y06.3582 [at] newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>
>>>Although it wasn't the best movie I ever saw I liked it. In my opinion
>>>the "boy-gets-girl"-part wasn't necessary, but the story on the whole
>>>was a reasonable one.
>>
>>Boy got girl in the radio play recently. That never bothered me either. I
>>think some people rattle off such criticisms automatically these days -
>>it's the done thing to slate the 'happy endings' or 'boy meets girl' bits.
>>Can we never have romance in any films now? Is that the general idea? :/
>
> Yeah, boy-got-girl in SLATFATFISH and that was written completely by
> Douglas. Though it wasn't the best, it wasn't dire like the film. I don't
> think the romance aspect was a) all that major or b) particularly damaging
> to the film. Rockwell's Zaphod more than made up for that, of course, by
> being an absolute f*cking travesty of the original character.
Yeah, I do have to agree that Rockwell's Zaphod absolutely sucked.
--
John Coxon
Disc space - the final frontier!
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #128070 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 00:37 |
|
"Steve Marshall" <sdm [at] atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote in message
news:431e36f0$0$1318$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>> Romance is fine but it shouldn't be at the expense of what made HHGG
>> great
> in the first place.
>
>
>
It wouldn't have made a good long film. They had lots of jokes to fit in,
and some to drop - it's a pointless argument to discuss which to drop, as it
will vary as much as our individual senses of humour vary. They couldn't get
them all in. I personally thought they got the right mix.
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #128072 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 01:12 |
|
"Slitheen" <slitheen [at] snotmail.com> wrote
> It wouldn't have made a good long film.
Why wouldn't be good ? I'm not talking about major changes. With the
trimming I suggested it wouldn't be much longer, if any.
> They had lots of jokes to fit in,
> and some to drop - it's a pointless argument to discuss which to drop, as
it
> will vary as much as our individual senses of humour vary. They couldn't
get
> them all in. I personally thought they got the right mix.
It isn't just jokes but the pacing of jokes. There were the lines that made
HHGG unique which were slashed. I simply don't accept that these had to be
cut when there was plenty of time taken up in the new scenes.
I don't think the mix was too far wrong but they cut key elements such as
the Babel fish and the towel entry. They are part of what gave HHGG it's
cult status.
For me the humour rarely worked and the best bits were the visuals.
Magrathea workshop and even the dolphins at the start, (despite the dreadful
song !).
If you liked the film then fine. I don't think it is valid for people to say
that those that didn't like it are just mindless critics who just want to
condemn it without giving it a chance. I gave it a chance and found some
bits were better than expected. I wanted to be proved wrong and find it very
enjoyable, but that wasn't the case.
Steve M
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #128074 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 10:22 |
|
Steve Marshall said:
> It isn't just jokes but the pacing of jokes. There were the lines
> that made HHGG unique which were slashed. I simply don't accept that
> these had to be cut when there was plenty of time taken up in the new
> scenes.
Yet surely they had to be cut in order to leave plenty of time for the
new scenes? You mustn't forget that the new scenes were the most
important thing. They're what defined this version of HHGG and made it
different from all its predecessors. Without them, there would've been
no point to making a film at all.
> I don't think the mix was too far wrong but they cut key elements
> such as the Babel fish and the towel entry.
The TV series cut the towel entry too, and it didn't appear in the radio
series until Fit the Seventh or Eighth. It appears that DNA
consistently didn't think it was a "key element". Did you expect him to
change his mind just because it's being shown on the big screen?
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #128077 ] |
Fr, 09 September 2005 00:42 |
|
<pippa.moran [at] gmail.com> wrote
> Yet surely they had to be cut in order to leave plenty of time for the
> new scenes?
Well as I've said, I think the new scenes could have been trimmed down a
bit. Some were much longer than they needed to have been.
> Without them, there would've been
> no point to making a film at all.
That's where I disagree completely.
> The TV series cut the towel entry too, and it didn't appear in the radio
> series until Fit the Seventh or Eighth. It appears that DNA
> consistently didn't think it was a "key element". Did you expect him to
> change his mind just because it's being shown on the big screen?
DNA changed his mind each time it was redone. As MJS pointed out he wasn't
always the best judge. He had cut most of the guide entries and humour and
the other scriptwriters put it back in - and then had to take a lot of it
out again.
If you don't think towels are a key element why do you think they included
towels in the film ?
Steve M
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129736 ] |
Sa, 10 September 2005 05:13 |
|
Steve Marshall wrote:
> <pippa.moran [at] gmail.com> wrote
>
>> Yet surely they had to be cut in order to leave plenty of time for
>> the new scenes?
>
> Well as I've said, I think the new scenes could have been trimmed
> down a bit. Some were much longer than they needed to have been.
>
>> Without them, there would've been
>> no point to making a film at all.
>
> That's where I disagree completely.
>
>> The TV series cut the towel entry too, and it didn't appear in the
>> radio series until Fit the Seventh or Eighth. It appears that DNA
>> consistently didn't think it was a "key element". Did you expect
>> him to change his mind just because it's being shown on the big
>> screen?
>
> DNA changed his mind each time it was redone. As MJS pointed out he
> wasn't always the best judge. He had cut most of the guide entries
> and humour and the other scriptwriters put it back in - and then had
> to take a lot of it out again.
DNA removed the jokes? I doubt that very much. They were the raison d'etre
of the entire thing in the first place.
--
Frankymole
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129737 ] |
Sa, 10 September 2005 06:57 |
|
Slitheen wrote:
> "Steve Marshall" <sdm [at] atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:431e36f0$0$1318$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>
>>>Romance is fine but it shouldn't be at the expense of what made HHGG
>>>great
>>
>>in the first place.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> It wouldn't have made a good long film. They had lots of jokes to fit in,
> and some to drop - it's a pointless argument to discuss which to drop, as it
> will vary as much as our individual senses of humour vary. They couldn't get
> them all in. I personally thought they got the right mix.
>
>
I'm waiting until I get the DVD to see it again. Then I'll ponder
the "rightness" of the way they did it. Right now I just remember
enjoying it.
--
Tian
9/9: I finally got my pictures from Burning Man on my
website. Check them out by clicking at the top of:
http://tian.greens.org
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129738 ] |
Sa, 10 September 2005 11:18 |
|
Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:10:31 GMT
"Slitheen" <slitheen [at] snotmail.com> schrieb:
>Boy got girl in the radio play recently. That never bothered me either. I
>think some people rattle off such criticisms automatically these days - it's
>the done thing to slate the 'happy endings' or 'boy meets girl' bits. Can we
>never have romance in any films now? Is that the general idea? :/
I'm not saying that happy endings or "boy meets girl" are wrong, but
to me the Hitchhikers Guide isn't a love-story, even Fenchurch was
just a thing that happened.
(Maybe I'm just not romantic enough, I will ask mrs. v/d Broek)
--
Jan van den Broek
balglaas [at] xs4all.nl 0xAFDAD00D
http://huizen.dds.nl/~balglaas/
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129740 ] |
Sa, 10 September 2005 12:04 |
|
On 10/09/2005 04:13, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Frankymole spewed up:
> Steve Marshall wrote:
>
>><pippa.moran [at] gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>>Yet surely they had to be cut in order to leave plenty of time for
>>>the new scenes?
>>
>>Well as I've said, I think the new scenes could have been trimmed
>>down a bit. Some were much longer than they needed to have been.
>>
>>>Without them, there would've been
>>>no point to making a film at all.
>>
>>That's where I disagree completely.
>>
>>>The TV series cut the towel entry too, and it didn't appear in the
>>>radio series until Fit the Seventh or Eighth. It appears that DNA
>>>consistently didn't think it was a "key element". Did you expect
>>>him to change his mind just because it's being shown on the big
>>>screen?
>>
>>DNA changed his mind each time it was redone. As MJS pointed out he
>>wasn't always the best judge. He had cut most of the guide entries
>>and humour and the other scriptwriters put it back in - and then had
>>to take a lot of it out again.
>
> DNA removed the jokes? I doubt that very much. They were the raison d'etre
> of the entire thing in the first place.
That's irrelevant - he still did it. Whether you doubt it or not, it's true.
--
John Coxon
Disc space - the final frontier!
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129744 ] |
Sa, 10 September 2005 16:50 |
|
Tian wrote:
> Slitheen wrote:
>> "Steve Marshall" <sdm [at] atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote in message
>> news:431e36f0$0$1318$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>>
>>>> Romance is fine but it shouldn't be at the expense of what made
>>>> HHGG great
>>>
>>> in the first place.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> It wouldn't have made a good long film. They had lots of jokes to
>> fit in, and some to drop - it's a pointless argument to discuss
>> which to drop, as it will vary as much as our individual senses of
>> humour vary. They couldn't get them all in. I personally thought
>> they got the right mix.
> I'm waiting until I get the DVD to see it again. Then I'll ponder
> the "rightness" of the way they did it. Right now I just remember
> enjoying it.
I suppose the sense of humour and the choice of jokes that is "right" would
have been DNA's.
They had plenty of time to include ALL teh jokes though, instead of
inserting new slapstick scenes and a lurrrrve story that had nothing to do
with Douglas' work.
--
Frankymole
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129746 ] |
Sa, 10 September 2005 16:50 |
|
John Coxon wrote:
> On 10/09/2005 04:13, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious
> storms of unreason and Frankymole spewed up:
>
>> Steve Marshall wrote:
>>
>>> <pippa.moran [at] gmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> Yet surely they had to be cut in order to leave plenty of time for
>>>> the new scenes?
>>>
>>> Well as I've said, I think the new scenes could have been trimmed
>>> down a bit. Some were much longer than they needed to have been.
>>>
>>>> Without them, there would've been
>>>> no point to making a film at all.
>>>
>>> That's where I disagree completely.
>>>
>>>> The TV series cut the towel entry too, and it didn't appear in the
>>>> radio series until Fit the Seventh or Eighth. It appears that DNA
>>>> consistently didn't think it was a "key element". Did you expect
>>>> him to change his mind just because it's being shown on the big
>>>> screen?
>>>
>>> DNA changed his mind each time it was redone. As MJS pointed out he
>>> wasn't always the best judge. He had cut most of the guide entries
>>> and humour and the other scriptwriters put it back in - and then had
>>> to take a lot of it out again.
>>
>> DNA removed the jokes? I doubt that very much. They were the
>> raison d'etre of the entire thing in the first place.
>
> That's irrelevant - he still did it. Whether you doubt it or not,
> it's true.
Prove it.
--
Frankymole
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129747 ] |
Sa, 10 September 2005 16:51 |
|
Jan van den Broek wrote:
> Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:10:31 GMT
> "Slitheen" <slitheen [at] snotmail.com> schrieb:
>
>> Boy got girl in the radio play recently. That never bothered me
>> either. I think some people rattle off such criticisms automatically
>> these days - it's the done thing to slate the 'happy endings' or
>> 'boy meets girl' bits. Can we never have romance in any films now?
>> Is that the general idea? :/
>
> I'm not saying that happy endings or "boy meets girl" are wrong, but
> to me the Hitchhikers Guide isn't a love-story, even Fenchurch was
> just a thing that happened.
Yeah but in SLATFATF, it was the *only* thing that happened <big evil grin>
--
Frankymole
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129750 ] |
So, 11 September 2005 00:30 |
|
"Frankymole" <ask_for_it [at] on_the_group.com> wrote
>
> Prove it.
Have a read of the Kary Kirkpatrick (is that right) self interview.
Steve M
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129751 ] |
So, 11 September 2005 00:33 |
|
"Frankymole" <ask_for_it [at] on_the_group.com> wrote
> They had plenty of time to include ALL teh jokes though, instead of
> inserting new slapstick scenes and a lurrrrve story that had nothing to do
> with Douglas' work.
The slapstick was written by DNA. If you have the chance to air new DNA
material the chances are you are going to feel obliged to do so, aren't you
?
I don't think the way it was done worked too well.
Steve M
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129752 ] |
So, 11 September 2005 00:40 |
|
"Jan van den Broek" <fortytwo [at] xs4all.nl> wrote
> I'm not saying that happy endings or "boy meets girl" are wrong, but
> to me the Hitchhikers Guide isn't a love-story, even Fenchurch was
> just a thing that happened.
> (Maybe I'm just not romantic enough, I will ask mrs. v/d Broek)
It wasn't a major part of previous versions but it was sort of there. They
chose to expand on this as they know it'll attract a certain type of viewer
rather than the the quirky humour that makes HHGG something special. The
film is OK, but it doesn't stand out from other films that are humorous
science fiction. I think it should do. It should be stunning. I don't think
an 'adequate film' that people find reasonably enjoyable is doing the
material justice.
Steve M
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129753 ] |
So, 11 September 2005 10:33 |
|
"Steve Marshall" <sdm [at] atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote in message
news:431f72c7$0$1282$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>
> "Slitheen" <slitheen [at] snotmail.com> wrote
>
>> It wouldn't have made a good long film.
>
> Why wouldn't be good ? I'm not talking about major changes. With the
> trimming I suggested it wouldn't be much longer, if any.
>
>> They had lots of jokes to fit in,
>> and some to drop - it's a pointless argument to discuss which to drop, as
> it
>> will vary as much as our individual senses of humour vary. They couldn't
> get
>> them all in. I personally thought they got the right mix.
>
> It isn't just jokes but the pacing of jokes. There were the lines that
> made
> HHGG unique which were slashed. I simply don't accept that these had to
> be
> cut when there was plenty of time taken up in the new scenes.
> I don't think the mix was too far wrong but they cut key elements such as
> the Babel fish and the towel entry. They are part of what gave HHGG it's
> cult status.
> For me the humour rarely worked and the best bits were the visuals.
> Magrathea workshop and even the dolphins at the start, (despite the
> dreadful
> song !).
>
> If you liked the film then fine. I don't think it is valid for people to
> say
> that those that didn't like it are just mindless critics who just want to
> condemn it without giving it a chance. I gave it a chance and found some
> bits were better than expected. I wanted to be proved wrong and find it
> very
> enjoyable, but that wasn't the case.
>
When I watched the accompanying documentary, and the chap was on about
Douglas insisting it got the Hollywood treatment and was absolutely sure he
wanted a film version - for *me*, that was the license to make cuts and add
new scenes - which is what always happens when a book transgresses into
film.
I would like to see a film version of The Prisoner - I would not, however,
support it if it was just a lavish version of the TV series. I would want
and, more importantly, *expect* there to be an imprint of the new people
overseeing the work. Yet ask the next Prisoner fan, and they wouldn't want a
single deviation from Patrick McGoohan's work. It's cliché, but you really
can't please all the people all the time.
I agree with what you said about people telling you that you "are just
mindless critics who just want to
condemn it without giving it a chance" being unfair - I prefer to believe
that you just rather don't like it, whereas I or the next HHGTTG fan
does/may like it. A simple matter of taste. As always. It's a shame that we
all can't appreciate it, but such is life.... I guess.
Regards.
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129754 ] |
So, 11 September 2005 10:40 |
|
"Jan van den Broek" <fortytwo [at] xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:jfi.4322A4E7.42.fortytwo [at] xs4all.nl...
> Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:10:31 GMT
> "Slitheen" <slitheen [at] snotmail.com> schrieb:
>
>>Boy got girl in the radio play recently. That never bothered me either. I
>>think some people rattle off such criticisms automatically these days -
>>it's
>>the done thing to slate the 'happy endings' or 'boy meets girl' bits. Can
>>we
>>never have romance in any films now? Is that the general idea? :/
>
> I'm not saying that happy endings or "boy meets girl" are wrong, but
> to me the Hitchhikers Guide isn't a love-story, even Fenchurch was
> just a thing that happened.
> (Maybe I'm just not romantic enough, I will ask mrs. v/d Broek)
Call me an old cynic - but it's often sci-fi fans who oppose romantic
storylines. I'm now wondering if it's because they remind geeks that they
haven't got girlfriends! Obviously, you are married though - so it can't be
as black and white as that. ;)
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129756 ] |
So, 11 September 2005 15:04 |
|
On 10/09/2005 23:30, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Steve Marshall spewed up:
> "Frankymole" <ask_for_it [at] on_the_group.com> wrote
>
>>Prove it.
>
> Have a read of the Kary Kirkpatrick (is that right) self interview.
Thanks, Steve.
--
John Coxon
Disc space - the final frontier!
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129757 ] |
So, 11 September 2005 15:05 |
|
On 10/09/2005 15:51, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Frankymole spewed up:
> Jan van den Broek wrote:
>
>>Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:10:31 GMT
>>"Slitheen" <slitheen [at] snotmail.com> schrieb:
>>
>>>Boy got girl in the radio play recently. That never bothered me
>>>either. I think some people rattle off such criticisms automatically
>>>these days - it's the done thing to slate the 'happy endings' or
>>>'boy meets girl' bits. Can we never have romance in any films now?
>>>Is that the general idea? :/
>>
>>I'm not saying that happy endings or "boy meets girl" are wrong, but
>>to me the Hitchhikers Guide isn't a love-story, even Fenchurch was
>>just a thing that happened.
>
> Yeah but in SLATFATF, it was the *only* thing that happened <big evil grin>
Damn, I seem to remember other things happening, my memory's getting worse...
--
John Coxon
Disc space - the final frontier!
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129758 ] |
So, 11 September 2005 15:26 |
|
John Coxon <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> hit the keyboard.
Afterwards the following was on the screen:
> On 10/09/2005 15:51, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
> unreason and Frankymole spewed up:
>
>> Jan van den Broek wrote:
>>
>>>Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:10:31 GMT
>>>"Slitheen" <slitheen [at] snotmail.com> schrieb:
>>>
>>>>Boy got girl in the radio play recently. That never bothered me
>>>>either. I think some people rattle off such criticisms automatically
>>>>these days - it's the done thing to slate the 'happy endings' or
>>>>'boy meets girl' bits. Can we never have romance in any films now?
>>>>Is that the general idea? :/
>>>
>>>I'm not saying that happy endings or "boy meets girl" are wrong, but
>>>to me the Hitchhikers Guide isn't a love-story, even Fenchurch was
>>>just a thing that happened.
>> Yeah but in SLATFATF, it was the *only* thing that happened <big
>> evil grin>
>
> Damn, I seem to remember other things happening, my memory's getting worse...
Believe me, it'll just get worse ;o)
Oh by the way...
Pssst, John are you not playing Majikthise?
/Rasmus
--
-- [ Rasmus "Møffe" Bøg Hansen ] ---------------------------------------
Beware of bugs in the above code;
I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
- Donald Knuth
----------------------------------------------[ moffe at zz9 dot dk ] --
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129759 ] |
So, 11 September 2005 15:30 |
|
Slitheen wrote:
> I agree with what you said about people telling you that you "are just
> mindless critics who just want to
> condemn it without giving it a chance" being unfair - I prefer to
> believe that you just rather don't like it, whereas I or the next
> HHGTTG fan does/may like it. A simple matter of taste. As always.
> It's a shame that we all can't appreciate it, but such is life.... I
> guess.
It wasn't made for the fans, of course...
--
Frankymole
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129761 ] |
So, 11 September 2005 15:32 |
|
John Coxon wrote:
> On 10/09/2005 15:51, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious
> storms of unreason and Frankymole spewed up:
>
>> Jan van den Broek wrote:
>>
>>> Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:10:31 GMT
>>> "Slitheen" <slitheen [at] snotmail.com> schrieb:
>>>
>>>> Boy got girl in the radio play recently. That never bothered me
>>>> either. I think some people rattle off such criticisms
>>>> automatically these days - it's the done thing to slate the 'happy
>>>> endings' or 'boy meets girl' bits. Can we never have romance in
>>>> any films now? Is that the general idea? :/
>>>
>>> I'm not saying that happy endings or "boy meets girl" are wrong, but
>>> to me the Hitchhikers Guide isn't a love-story, even Fenchurch was
>>> just a thing that happened.
>>
>> Yeah but in SLATFATF, it was the *only* thing that happened <big
>> evil grin>
>
> Damn, I seem to remember other things happening, my memory's getting
> worse...
Whoosh!
Sense of humour bypass?
--
Frankymole
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129762 ] |
So, 11 September 2005 16:40 |
|
On 11/09/2005 14:32, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Frankymole spewed up:
> John Coxon wrote:
>
>>On 10/09/2005 15:51, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious
>>storms of unreason and Frankymole spewed up:
>
> Whoosh!
>
> Sense of humour bypass?
Starting AS-Levels.
Basically the same thing. :o)
--
John Coxon
Disc space - the final frontier!
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129764 ] |
Mo, 12 September 2005 03:09 |
|
"Slitheen" <slitheen [at] snotmail.com> wrote
> I agree with what you said about people telling you that you "are just
> mindless critics who just want to
> condemn it without giving it a chance" being unfair - I prefer to believe
> that you just rather don't like it, whereas I or the next HHGTTG fan
> does/may like it. A simple matter of taste. As always. It's a shame that
we
> all can't appreciate it, but such is life.... I guess.
I didn't really not like it. I just didn't find it enjoyable or funny. There
were some scenes I thought were very good - some stunning photography. Some
quite good new bits, like the crew turning into wool figures which made me
smile for some reason. And then there were some bits that I thought were
bad. Is sticking a lemon juicer on Zaphod's head funny ?
I've liked every other incarnation of HHGG that I've come across. I should
have liked the film too. I mean, I even thought the TV series was OK! But
the film just seemed mediocre. An OK film .
I can appreciate it as a brave attempt. They actually succeeded in making a
HHGG film. Something DNA never managed.
Steve M
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129766 ] |
Mo, 12 September 2005 09:30 |
|
Steve Marshall wrote:
> "Jan van den Broek" <fortytwo [at] xs4all.nl> wrote
>
>
>>I'm not saying that happy endings or "boy meets girl" are wrong, but
>>to me the Hitchhikers Guide isn't a love-story, even Fenchurch was
>>just a thing that happened.
>>(Maybe I'm just not romantic enough, I will ask mrs. v/d Broek)
>
>
> It wasn't a major part of previous versions but it was sort of there. They
> chose to expand on this as they know it'll attract a certain type of viewer
> rather than the the quirky humour that makes HHGG something special. The
> film is OK, but it doesn't stand out from other films that are humorous
> science fiction. I think it should do. It should be stunning. I don't think
> an 'adequate film' that people find reasonably enjoyable is doing the
> material justice.
>
I want to agree with you, but that might be expecting more from
the movie crew then they could do.
--
Tian
9/10: I got a POWER TO THE PEACEFUL T-shirt by volunteering
at the Power To The Peaceful festival in Golden Gate Park.
9/11: I got an ART & WINE FESTIVAL '05 from the Chamber of
Commerce of Commerce for volunteering at the Mountain View
Art & Wine Festival. Can't remember another 2 shirt weekend.
http://tian.greens.org
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129767 ] |
Mo, 12 September 2005 09:36 |
|
Steve Marshall wrote:
> "Slitheen" <slitheen [at] snotmail.com> wrote
>
>
>> I agree with what you said about people telling you that you "are just
>>mindless critics who just want to
>>condemn it without giving it a chance" being unfair - I prefer to believe
>>that you just rather don't like it, whereas I or the next HHGTTG fan
>>does/may like it. A simple matter of taste. As always. It's a shame that
>
> we
>
>>all can't appreciate it, but such is life.... I guess.
>
>
>
> I didn't really not like it. I just didn't find it enjoyable or funny. There
> were some scenes I thought were very good - some stunning photography. Some
> quite good new bits, like the crew turning into wool figures which made me
> smile for some reason. And then there were some bits that I thought were
> bad. Is sticking a lemon juicer on Zaphod's head funny ?
>
> I've liked every other incarnation of HHGG that I've come across. I should
> have liked the film too. I mean, I even thought the TV series was OK! But
> the film just seemed mediocre. An OK film .
>
> I can appreciate it as a brave attempt. They actually succeeded in making a
> HHGG film. Something DNA never managed.
>
Before it came out the movie people were saying things like "we are HHGG
fans, we can do a good job on the material." Now I feel like they were
just saying that because they knew it was what we wanted to hear.
--
Tian
9/10: I got a POWER TO THE PEACEFUL T-shirt by volunteering
at the Power To The Peaceful festival in Golden Gate Park.
9/11: I got an ART & WINE FESTIVAL '05 from the Chamber of
Commerce of Commerce for volunteering at the Mountain View
Art & Wine Festival. Can't remember another 2 shirt weekend.
http://tian.greens.org
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129770 ] |
Mo, 12 September 2005 17:37 |
|
Frankymole wrote:
<snip>
> Whoosh!
>
> Sense of humour bypass?
It is a bypass! You've got to have bypasses!
(Although _I_ thought it was just a deadline passing)
Best
Kåre
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129771 ] |
Mo, 12 September 2005 18:24 |
|
Kaare Fiedler Christiansen <news [at] kaarefc.dk> hit the keyboard.
Afterwards the following was on the screen:
> Frankymole wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Whoosh!
>> Sense of humour bypass?
>
> It is a bypass! You've got to have bypasses!
The plans have been on display for the last nine months, you know!
> (Although _I_ thought it was just a deadline passing)
No, that was friday.
Well, that was my deadline. I still haven't done the thing, though...
/Rasmus
--
-- [ Rasmus "Møffe" Bøg Hansen ] ---------------------------------------
Linux hackers are funny people: They count the time in patchlevels.
----------------------------------------------[ moffe at zz9 dot dk ] --
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129772 ] |
Mo, 12 September 2005 20:18 |
|
Rasmus Bøg Hansen wrote:
> Kaare Fiedler Christiansen <news [at] kaarefc.dk> hit the keyboard.
> Afterwards the following was on the screen:
>
>
>>Frankymole wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Whoosh!
>>>Sense of humour bypass?
>>
>>It is a bypass! You've got to have bypasses!
>
>
> The plans have been on display for the last nine months, you know!
>
>
>>(Although _I_ thought it was just a deadline passing)
>
>
> No, that was friday.
>
> Well, that was my deadline. I still haven't done the thing, though...
>
(hides under desk)
THE VOGONS ARE COMING! THE VOGONS ARE COMING!
--
Tian
9/10: I got a POWER TO THE PEACEFUL T-shirt by volunteering
at the Power To The Peaceful festival in Golden Gate Park.
9/11: I got an ART & WINE FESTIVAL '05 from the Chamber of
Commerce of Commerce for volunteering at the Mountain View
Art & Wine Festival. Can't remember another 2 shirt weekend.
http://tian.greens.org
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129775 ] |
Di, 13 September 2005 03:51 |
|
Steve Marshall wrote:
> <pippa.moran [at] gmail.com> wrote
>
>
>>Yet surely they had to be cut in order to leave plenty of time for the
>>new scenes?
>
>
> Well as I've said, I think the new scenes could have been trimmed down a
> bit. Some were much longer than they needed to have been.
>
>
>>Without them, there would've been
>>no point to making a film at all.
>
>
> That's where I disagree completely.
>
>
>>The TV series cut the towel entry too, and it didn't appear in the radio
>>series until Fit the Seventh or Eighth. It appears that DNA
>>consistently didn't think it was a "key element". Did you expect him to
>>change his mind just because it's being shown on the big screen?
>
>
> DNA changed his mind each time it was redone. As MJS pointed out he wasn't
> always the best judge. He had cut most of the guide entries and humour and
> the other scriptwriters put it back in - and then had to take a lot of it
> out again.
This is the one thing that's always bothered me about the people
criticizing the film. The say it wasn't Hitchhiker's enough and the
point to a lot of things that Douglas himself wrote. As far as I'm
concerned it isn't ours to judge if it's Hitchhiker's enough if DNA
wrote it. It's his universe so he can do what he wants. I may not be
good, but it's still Hitchhiker's because DNA wrote it.
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129776 ] |
Di, 13 September 2005 03:52 |
|
Steve Marshall wrote:
> "Frankymole" <ask_for_it [at] on_the_group.com> wrote
>
>
>>They had plenty of time to include ALL teh jokes though, instead of
>>inserting new slapstick scenes and a lurrrrve story that had nothing to do
>>with Douglas' work.
>
>
> The slapstick was written by DNA. If you have the chance to air new DNA
> material the chances are you are going to feel obliged to do so, aren't you
> ?
I do believe the expanded love story was DNA's idea as well
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129777 ] |
Di, 13 September 2005 08:56 |
|
"Tian" <DontBeFuelish [at] aol.com74414949> wrote in message
news:dg4gp4$n2t$1 [at] domitilla.aioe.org...
> (hides under desk)
>
> THE VOGONS ARE COMING! THE VOGONS ARE COMING!
>
No, no, no. The Vegans are busy "reconstructing" Iraq. Ever seen a picture
of Karl Rove?
-- Dave
http://starry-starry-nights.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
| Re: Finally I saw the movie [message #129778 ] |
Di, 13 September 2005 08:55 |
|
docdude316 wrote:
> Steve Marshall wrote:
>> "Frankymole" <ask_for_it [at] on_the_group.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>> They had plenty of time to include ALL teh jokes though, instead of
>>> inserting new slapstick scenes and a lurrrrve story that had
>>> nothing to do with Douglas' work.
>>
>>
>> The slapstick was written by DNA. If you have the chance to air new
>> DNA material the chances are you are going to feel obliged to do so,
>> aren't you ?
>
> I do believe the expanded love story was DNA's idea as well
That would make sense. The love story does give Arthur *exactly* the
same emotional journey as the love story in SL&TfAtF. He ends up
rejecting the chance to settle down on a duplicate Earth because he's in
love with a woman who wants to explore the galaxy and he wants to be
with her. True, it's a different woman, but the character development
in Arthur is the same in each case.
|
|
|
