Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Science Fiction » alt.fan.douglas-adams » Just saw movie...
Just saw movie... [message #23483] Do, 28 April 2005 14:07
Ammut  
Dear me. I must say I'm quite disappointed. I expected SOME Americanisation,
but I did not expect slapstick.

Who could possibly say this is faithful to the original? I've heard the
radio series, read the books, and seen the BBC series, and the movie doesn't
come close to any of them. Zaphod is a twit, Ford isn't cool enough, and the
romance between Arthur and Trillian is pure fabrication.

Anyway, whilst I gripe my partner is cleaning the apartment and I feel
guilty for not assisting. I'll go and do that now.

--
Ammut
Devouring sinful hearts one at a time
Re: Just saw movie... [message #23484 ] Do, 28 April 2005 14:34
gclapperton  
In article <d4qjlr$blh$1 [at] lust.ihug.co.nz>, stace8383 [at] hotmail.com (Ammut)
wrote:

> Zaphod is a twit

Yes, although he's a twit in the original. The thing about the original is
that Mark Wing-Davey demonstrates how shallow he is by adopting a phoney
American accent, whereas in the movie he's an actual American so you lose
the fake-ness of him.

> Ford isn't cool enough

Ford has suffered a personality bypass and can't pronounce 'Guildford'...
Re: Just saw movie... [message #23485 ] Do, 28 April 2005 15:36
Fat Sam  
gclapperton [at] cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article <d4qjlr$blh$1 [at] lust.ihug.co.nz>, stace8383 [at] hotmail.com (Ammut)
> wrote:
>
>
>>Zaphod is a twit
>
>
> Yes, although he's a twit in the original. The thing about the original is
> that Mark Wing-Davey demonstrates how shallow he is by adopting a phoney
> American accent, whereas in the movie he's an actual American so you lose
> the fake-ness of him.

Douglas Adams himself said
"When it comes down to it, my principle is this - Arthur should be
British. The rest of the cast should be decided purely on merit and not
on nationality."

At the end of the day, whether he's dead or alive, it's his train
set...His gaff, his rules....

--
www.fixaphoto.co.uk
for photographic restorations
Re: Just saw movie... [message #23486 ] Do, 28 April 2005 15:50
gclapperton  
In article <3dc75tF6rgq3oU1 [at] individual.net>,
janetandsam [at] beeteeinternet.co.uk (Fat Sam) wrote:

> "When it comes down to it, my principle is this - Arthur should be
> British. The rest of the cast should be decided purely on merit and not
> on nationality."

Fair enough, but a viewer/listener is entitled to a reaction - and Zaphod
being such an old fraud in the original added a lot for me.
Re: Just saw movie... [message #23499 ] Do, 28 April 2005 20:56
nacey  
Ammut wrote:
> Dear me. I must say I'm quite disappointed. I expected SOME Americanisation,
> but I did not expect slapstick.
>
> Who could possibly say this is faithful to the original? I've heard the
> radio series, read the books, and seen the BBC series, and the movie doesn't
> come close to any of them. Zaphod is a twit, Ford isn't cool enough, and the
> romance between Arthur and Trillian is pure fabrication.
>
> Anyway, whilst I gripe my partner is cleaning the apartment and I feel
> guilty for not assisting. I'll go and do that now.
>

Thank you! I thought I was going completely mad for a while there. So
many people saying how great this movie was. Cosmetically? Yes - it
was great. The production was great. The design was great. The
visuals were great. The actual plot and writing was terrible!! After I
watched this I had to go home and watch my TV series DVD just to wash my
poor brain out.

You know your movie has problems if a twenty-year old version with a
mere slip of the budget you had is more entertaining.

And if I hear the 'adaptation' excuse one more time, I'll barf. LotR
was an adaptation too, and it was pretty damned good. As a die-hard fan
I was pleased with that.

Right now I feel like I do when I watch Sesame Street and remember how
cool it used to be in the seventies.

=Nancy.
Re: Just saw movie... [message #23500 ] Do, 28 April 2005 20:59
nacey  
gclapperton [at] cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:

> In article <d4qjlr$blh$1 [at] lust.ihug.co.nz>, stace8383 [at] hotmail.com (Ammut)
> wrote:
>
>
>>Zaphod is a twit
>
>
> Yes, although he's a twit in the original. The thing about the original is
> that Mark Wing-Davey demonstrates how shallow he is by adopting a phoney
> American accent, whereas in the movie he's an actual American so you lose
> the fake-ness of him.

No! Argh! Does nobody get Zaphod, or am I going mad? He engineered a
plot to find out who really ran the universe with his buddies. The
brilliant thing about Zaphod is half the time you didn't know whether he
was being deliberately obtuse or whether he was actually stupid.
There's a complicated level to Zaphod that is completely missed by the
people that made this movie. The only reason why Zaphod ever acted
stupid (rather than just shallow) is because he cauterised his own brain.
>
>
>>Ford isn't cool enough
>
>
> Ford has suffered a personality bypass and can't pronounce 'Guildford'...

Yeah. I liked Mos Def's acting in some bits but I just missed David
Dixon so much.

-Nancy.
Re: Just saw movie... [message #23501 ] Do, 28 April 2005 21:03
nacey  
Fat Sam wrote:

> gclapperton [at] cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
>> In article <d4qjlr$blh$1 [at] lust.ihug.co.nz>, stace8383 [at] hotmail.com
>> (Ammut) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Zaphod is a twit
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, although he's a twit in the original. The thing about the
>> original is that Mark Wing-Davey demonstrates how shallow he is by
>> adopting a phoney American accent, whereas in the movie he's an actual
>> American so you lose the fake-ness of him.
>
>
> Douglas Adams himself said
> "When it comes down to it, my principle is this - Arthur should be
> British. The rest of the cast should be decided purely on merit and not
> on nationality."
>
> At the end of the day, whether he's dead or alive, it's his train
> set...His gaff, his rules....
>

Totally agree, but you know what? I'm a writer, I write and draw
comics. And sometimes I make some dumb-stupid decisions when it comes
to plots. Sometimes I just shouldn't f*ck with what already works and I
talk to other people a lot to make sure I don't swerve off the path of
'this is the best it can be'.

I don't know what happened here. If DNA really did rewrite this thing,
then I really hope there's something really important that we're missing
due to the editing of the movie script or something. Cause I can't for
the life of me see how the movie I saw will continue on smoothly to a
second story that has anything to do with the other books.

It can't, it simply can't. And then what - what are the people writing
the scripts gonna do? Bastardize it all even more? And without DNA
there to at least show them the way? God, it horrifies me to even think
about it.

Maybe it's the overwhelming disappointment talking - I dunno. I'm
probably way harder on this movie than most other people.

-Nancy.
Re: Just saw movie... [message #23507 ] Do, 28 April 2005 21:43
Fat Sam  
nacey wrote:
>
>
> Ammut wrote:
>
>> Dear me. I must say I'm quite disappointed. I expected SOME
>> Americanisation,
>> but I did not expect slapstick.
>>
>> Who could possibly say this is faithful to the original? I've heard the
>> radio series, read the books, and seen the BBC series, and the movie
>> doesn't
>> come close to any of them. Zaphod is a twit, Ford isn't cool enough,
>> and the
>> romance between Arthur and Trillian is pure fabrication.
>>
>> Anyway, whilst I gripe my partner is cleaning the apartment and I feel
>> guilty for not assisting. I'll go and do that now.
>>
>
> Thank you! I thought I was going completely mad for a while there. So
> many people saying how great this movie was. Cosmetically? Yes - it
> was great. The production was great. The design was great. The
> visuals were great. The actual plot and writing was terrible!! After I
> watched this I had to go home and watch my TV series DVD just to wash my
> poor brain out.
>
> You know your movie has problems if a twenty-year old version with a
> mere slip of the budget you had is more entertaining.

A 21 year old version which the original creator thought was so bad he
was ashamed to have his name put to it...

Having said that, I love the TV series just as much as the radio series
and the books....I sincerely wish DNA and the BBC could have ironed out
their differences and continued to make a second series....

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm going to on Tuesday, so I'll hold
back on forming an opinion until then....

One thing I've noticed is that in the 3 previous incarnations (TV, book
and radio), the style was very different in each....
Each employed a very different kind of humour, and the plot was pieced
together in a very different way in each version....
In fact, in the books, the humour and plot mechanisms can be seen to
evolve and change quite a bit as the series progresses....
So, with that in mind, I won't be dissapointed if the film has a
different style of humour and visualisation....

For me, one of the great things about the HHGTG phenomenon, is the way
the different versions start from the same place, and from there take a
different story-line, while still maintaining a loose link with the
events contained in the other versions....It's part of the overall
attraction....
I personally won't mind if the films do this....To me, the fact that it
doesn't follow a previous incarnation religiously, and has it's own
quirks, simply means that it's been made true to the HHGTG ethos....

It's all horses for courses.....One mas meat is another mans poison I
suppose....

Having said all that....Ask me again on Tuesday night....Until then,
I'll keep an open mind and try to think positive thoughts about it....

--
www.fixaphoto.co.uk
for photographic restorations
Re: Just saw movie... [message #23509 ] Do, 28 April 2005 22:48
nacey  
Fat Sam wrote:
> nacey wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Ammut wrote:
>>
>>> Dear me. I must say I'm quite disappointed. I expected SOME
>>> Americanisation,
>>> but I did not expect slapstick.
>>>
>>> Who could possibly say this is faithful to the original? I've heard the
>>> radio series, read the books, and seen the BBC series, and the movie
>>> doesn't
>>> come close to any of them. Zaphod is a twit, Ford isn't cool enough,
>>> and the
>>> romance between Arthur and Trillian is pure fabrication.
>>>
>>> Anyway, whilst I gripe my partner is cleaning the apartment and I feel
>>> guilty for not assisting. I'll go and do that now.
>>>
>>
>> Thank you! I thought I was going completely mad for a while there.
>> So many people saying how great this movie was. Cosmetically? Yes -
>> it was great. The production was great. The design was great. The
>> visuals were great. The actual plot and writing was terrible!! After
>> I watched this I had to go home and watch my TV series DVD just to
>> wash my poor brain out.
>>
>> You know your movie has problems if a twenty-year old version with a
>> mere slip of the budget you had is more entertaining.
>
>
> A 21 year old version which the original creator thought was so bad he
> was ashamed to have his name put to it...

See, that confuses me. The humour was very similar to the books. I
found the old series more entertaining - it made me laugh more. Whether
DNA liked it or not isn't the point here.

>
> Having said that, I love the TV series just as much as the radio series
> and the books....I sincerely wish DNA and the BBC could have ironed out
> their differences and continued to make a second series....

Yeah, me too.

>
> I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm going to on Tuesday, so I'll hold
> back on forming an opinion until then....

I did that, I really did. I tried to be positive about it all and there
are things about the movie I really like. I can accept changed plots,
but there were other things that I just can't accept.

>
> One thing I've noticed is that in the 3 previous incarnations (TV, book
> and radio), the style was very different in each....
> Each employed a very different kind of humour, and the plot was pieced
> together in a very different way in each version....
> In fact, in the books, the humour and plot mechanisms can be seen to
> evolve and change quite a bit as the series progresses....
> So, with that in mind, I won't be dissapointed if the film has a
> different style of humour and visualisation....

Yeah but it had the same heart. It felt the same, deep down. You know?

> <snip>
> I personally won't mind if the films do this....To me, the fact that it
> doesn't follow a previous incarnation religiously, and has it's own
> quirks, simply means that it's been made true to the HHGTG ethos....

I can't really say much here without spoiling it for you.

>
> It's all horses for courses.....One mas meat is another mans poison I
> suppose....

I guess so.

>
> Having said all that....Ask me again on Tuesday night....Until then,
> I'll keep an open mind and try to think positive thoughts about it....
>

I honestly hope you enjoy it. Personally - I wasn't happy.

~Nancy.
Re: Just saw movie... [message #23516 ] Fr, 29 April 2005 02:01
grantkemp  
Just got back, and I am disapointed with the movie. The acting was ok,
could have been better, however they lost the energy, Arthur was meant
to be the straight man in a comedy parting but was just dull. So dull
he pulled the other characters down.
I think the problem with this movie, was that it had been cut to
shreds. Plot points left unresolved and whole swabs of the book cut
out. I think that they should change the name of Hammer and tongs, to
blowtorch and hacksaw!

Really bad, I am starting up a collection to do a remake of the book.
That thing I saw tonight was in no way related to one of the funniest
books ever written. If bad acting and directing was a crime then there
would be a lot of people in jail right now.
If I made this movie, I would def have alan smithee'd it. Watch out
here come the Raspberries.

The least they can do is remake it for the dvd, or at least release the
dailies so we can do a proper fan edited movie. We can use wooden
dolls for the scenes that they didn't shoot. You wouldn't really
notice the difference.
Re: Just saw movie... [message #23542 ] Fr, 29 April 2005 08:43
nacey  
grantkemp [at] gmail.com wrote:
> Just got back, and I am disapointed with the movie. The acting was ok,
> could have been better, however they lost the energy, Arthur was meant
> to be the straight man in a comedy parting but was just dull. So dull
> he pulled the other characters down.
> I think the problem with this movie, was that it had been cut to
> shreds. Plot points left unresolved and whole swabs of the book cut
> out. I think that they should change the name of Hammer and tongs, to
> blowtorch and hacksaw!
>
> Really bad, I am starting up a collection to do a remake of the book.
> That thing I saw tonight was in no way related to one of the funniest
> books ever written. If bad acting and directing was a crime then there
> would be a lot of people in jail right now.
> If I made this movie, I would def have alan smithee'd it. Watch out
> here come the Raspberries.
>
> The least they can do is remake it for the dvd, or at least release the
> dailies so we can do a proper fan edited movie. We can use wooden
> dolls for the scenes that they didn't shoot. You wouldn't really
> notice the difference.
>
LOLOL! Word, man. I dunno what else I can say or add to this - you've
hit the nail on the head perfectly!

-Nancy.
Re: Just saw movie... [message #23552 ] Fr, 29 April 2005 10:16
gclapperton  
In article <427131f2$0$17597$5a62ac22 [at] per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
nacey [at] nospam.iinet.net.au (nacey) wrote:

> You know your movie has problems if a twenty-year old version with a
> mere slip of the budget you had is more entertaining.

I found it intriguing that the plot on the high-budget version was
actually less ambitious than the original...
Re: Just saw movie... [message #23554 ] Fr, 29 April 2005 10:56
nacey  
gclapperton [at] cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:

> In article <427131f2$0$17597$5a62ac22 [at] per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> nacey [at] nospam.iinet.net.au (nacey) wrote:
>
>
>>You know your movie has problems if a twenty-year old version with a
>>mere slip of the budget you had is more entertaining.
>
>
> I found it intriguing that the plot on the high-budget version was
> actually less ambitious than the original...

I know. I was so looking forward to them doing something with this wild
and crazy plot. *sigh*

-Nancy.
Re: Just saw movie... [message #23566 ] Fr, 29 April 2005 13:51
Andrew Ness  
"nacey" <nacey [at] nospam.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:427132a7$0$17597$5a62ac22 [at] per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>
> gclapperton [at] cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
>> In article <d4qjlr$blh$1 [at] lust.ihug.co.nz>, stace8383 [at] hotmail.com (Ammut)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Zaphod is a twit
>>
>>
>> Yes, although he's a twit in the original. The thing about the original
>> is that Mark Wing-Davey demonstrates how shallow he is by adopting a
>> phoney American accent, whereas in the movie he's an actual American so
>> you lose the fake-ness of him.
>
> No! Argh! Does nobody get Zaphod, or am I going mad? He engineered a
> plot to find out who really ran the universe with his buddies. The
> brilliant thing about Zaphod is half the time you didn't know whether he
> was being deliberately obtuse or whether he was actually stupid. There's a
> complicated level to Zaphod that is completely missed by the people that
> made this movie. The only reason why Zaphod ever acted stupid (rather
> than just shallow) is because he cauterised his own brain.

But that is only true in certain versions. Never happened in the TV series.
And why would this not explain his actions in the film? (Which, unlike the
TV series, specifically refers to his brain op?)

Confused, now.

NSY
Re: Just saw movie... [message #23590 ] Sa, 30 April 2005 07:47
Tian Harter  
nacey wrote:
>
>
> gclapperton [at] cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
>> In article <d4qjlr$blh$1 [at] lust.ihug.co.nz>, stace8383 [at] hotmail.com
>> (Ammut) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Zaphod is a twit
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, although he's a twit in the original. The thing about the
>> original is that Mark Wing-Davey demonstrates how shallow he is by
>> adopting a phoney American accent, whereas in the movie he's an actual
>> American so you lose the fake-ness of him.
>
>
> No! Argh! Does nobody get Zaphod, or am I going mad? He engineered a
> plot to find out who really ran the universe with his buddies. The
> brilliant thing about Zaphod is half the time you didn't know whether he
> was being deliberately obtuse or whether he was actually stupid. There's
> a complicated level to Zaphod that is completely missed by the people
> that made this movie. The only reason why Zaphod ever acted stupid
> (rather than just shallow) is because he cauterised his own brain.
>

I was surprised at how differently the second head was handled in
the movie from what I was expecting.
>>
>>
>>> Ford isn't cool enough
>>
>>
>>
>> Ford has suffered a personality bypass and can't pronounce 'Guildford'...
>
>
> Yeah. I liked Mos Def's acting in some bits but I just missed David
> Dixon so much.
>

I like the way Mos Def suffered through the Vogon poetry.

--
Tian
Lately Bush has been offering to solve the problem of higher gas
prices by "building more oil refineries." I'm missing the logic of that.
Since when does building cookie factories cure a grain shortage?
http://tian.greens.org
Re: Just saw movie... [message #23621 ] Sa, 30 April 2005 20:42
Bondee  
<gclapperton [at] cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:icKdncT_08TtRe3fRVnyrQ [at] pipex.net...

> Ford has suffered a personality bypass and can't pronounce 'Guildford'...

That was the only bit that *really* bugged me!

"Gilled-ford", indeed!
Re: Just saw movie... [message #23774 ] Mo, 02 Mai 2005 00:00
Dave Adalian  
"Bondee" <fudgebear [at] spamhotmailspam.com> wrote in message
news:d50jhu$831$1 [at] newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> <gclapperton [at] cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:icKdncT_08TtRe3fRVnyrQ [at] pipex.net...
>
>> Ford has suffered a personality bypass and can't pronounce 'Guildford'...
>
> That was the only bit that *really* bugged me!
>
> "Gilled-ford", indeed!

Sounds like you missed the part where, after Ford reveals he's not from
Earth after all, Arthur says, and I'm paraphrasing, "That explains the
accent."


Chiggy.
Re: Just saw movie... [message #23787 ] Mo, 02 Mai 2005 01:37
treeleaf7  
First movie I almost walked out on.
Re: Just saw movie... [message #26811 ] Mo, 02 Mai 2005 17:13
nacey  
Andrew Ness wrote:
> "nacey" <nacey [at] nospam.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:427132a7$0$17597$5a62ac22 [at] per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>>
>>gclapperton [at] cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <d4qjlr$blh$1 [at] lust.ihug.co.nz>, stace8383 [at] hotmail.com (Ammut)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Zaphod is a twit
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, although he's a twit in the original. The thing about the original
>>>is that Mark Wing-Davey demonstrates how shallow he is by adopting a
>>>phoney American accent, whereas in the movie he's an actual American so
>>>you lose the fake-ness of him.
>>
>>No! Argh! Does nobody get Zaphod, or am I going mad? He engineered a
>>plot to find out who really ran the universe with his buddies. The
>>brilliant thing about Zaphod is half the time you didn't know whether he
>>was being deliberately obtuse or whether he was actually stupid. There's a
>>complicated level to Zaphod that is completely missed by the people that
>>made this movie. The only reason why Zaphod ever acted stupid (rather
>>than just shallow) is because he cauterised his own brain.
>
>
> But that is only true in certain versions. Never happened in the TV series.

So? A lot of cool things didn't happen in the TV series. A mechanical
head was used in the TV series - does that make it okay? Only because
it was all they could afford. This was a big budget movie. A little
subtlety depicting the character of Zaphod would have been nice.

> And why would this not explain his actions in the film? (Which, unlike the
> TV series, specifically refers to his brain op?)

It most certainly does not refer to the same brain op. In the movie, he
had his brain cut in half, so that he had an 'evil' self in his second
head, which he argued with - a cheap, crappy schtick only Hollywood
would be proud of.

In the books he was not split up quite in this way. There was a
powerful smart voice somewhere inside of him that niggled and nagged at
him to do things, and he was renowned for being *Very CLEVER*. He had
tests that PROVED it.

He was afraid because he couldn't control this intelligence half the
time, and all he wanted to really do was piss off and have a good party.

Now - let's see if his behaviour in the movie reflects that - loud
noises, idiotic behaviour, sheer stupidity and a complete lack of the
usual witty sayings that make Zaphod the joy he is (You're so unhip it's
a wonder your bums don't fall off!).

In the TV series, he showed that capability. Sure, they never delved
into that storyline, but they didn't have to - the series never got to
that stage and they were focusing on different things. They did it well
enough that it didn't annoy me. They gave Arthur the time and
exposition he needed (as well as Ford) and it worked. It fit with this
storyline without showing it. You could imagine it working with the
characters they portrayed. You simply couldn't say that with the movie
depictions.

The movie just raped the character of Zaphod like a cheap whore and left
me feeling dirty. Sure, I might be pedantic about these things but
Zaphod is my favourite character, next to Ford. Forgive me if I think
the movie did not do him any justice whatsoever. (Except the fact they
got a complete hottie to play him - that was a good move at least).

>
> Confused, now.
>
> NSY

It's not that confusing, really. I'm essentially pretty stupid most of
the time and I get it. Just look at the different incarnations and spot
the differences.

-Nancy.
Re: Just saw movie... [message #26812 ] Mo, 02 Mai 2005 17:15
nacey  
Tian Harter wrote:

> nacey wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> gclapperton [at] cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> In article <d4qjlr$blh$1 [at] lust.ihug.co.nz>, stace8383 [at] hotmail.com
>>> (Ammut) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Zaphod is a twit
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, although he's a twit in the original. The thing about the
>>> original is that Mark Wing-Davey demonstrates how shallow he is by
>>> adopting a phoney American accent, whereas in the movie he's an
>>> actual American so you lose the fake-ness of him.
>>
>>
>>
>> No! Argh! Does nobody get Zaphod, or am I going mad? He engineered
>> a plot to find out who really ran the universe with his buddies. The
>> brilliant thing about Zaphod is half the time you didn't know whether
>> he was being deliberately obtuse or whether he was actually stupid.
>> There's a complicated level to Zaphod that is completely missed by the
>> people that made this movie. The only reason why Zaphod ever acted
>> stupid (rather than just shallow) is because he cauterised his own brain.
>>
>
> I was surprised at how differently the second head was handled in
> the movie from what I was expecting.

It was the whacky arguments, the whacky "WOAH this guy's EVIL! WATCH
OUT I can't CONTROL HIM!" thing that really pissed me off. It was cheap.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ford isn't cool enough
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ford has suffered a personality bypass and can't pronounce
>>> 'Guildford'...
>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah. I liked Mos Def's acting in some bits but I just missed David
>> Dixon so much.
>>
>
> I like the way Mos Def suffered through the Vogon poetry.
>
That I did enjoy. I giggled incessantly at the faces he pulled. Mos
Def had some great moments.

-Nancy.
Re: Just saw movie... [message #26813 ] Mo, 02 Mai 2005 17:18
nacey  
Foley U. Matthews wrote:

> On Stardate Fri, 29 Apr 2005 02:59:53 +0800, nacey
> <nacey [at] nospam.iinet.net.au> applied digits to the keyboard and routed
> the information from some kind of brain (presumably), thusly:
>
>
>>
>>gclapperton [at] cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <d4qjlr$blh$1 [at] lust.ihug.co.nz>, stace8383 [at] hotmail.com (Ammut)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Zaphod is a twit
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, although he's a twit in the original. The thing about the original is
>>>that Mark Wing-Davey demonstrates how shallow he is by adopting a phoney
>>>American accent, whereas in the movie he's an actual American so you lose
>>>the fake-ness of him.
>>
>>No! Argh! Does nobody get Zaphod, or am I going mad? He engineered a
>>plot to find out who really ran the universe with his buddies. The
>>brilliant thing about Zaphod is half the time you didn't know whether he
>>was being deliberately obtuse or whether he was actually stupid.
>>There's a complicated level to Zaphod that is completely missed by the
>>people that made this movie. The only reason why Zaphod ever acted
>>stupid (rather than just shallow) is because he cauterised his own brain.
>
>
> that was certainly clearly alluded to in the film, Zaphod says words
> to the effect that they dont let just any personallity become
> president of the galaxy, so he had to separate his good and bad
> personas and keep the brain parts in separate heads.
>

I explained it in the other post. In this movie they sort of treated
the second brain as a 'trash can' for his socially unacceptable
behaviour, when really it's his most intelligent, powerful and ambitious
part of himself locked away in *both* his brains, flickers of which come
out. I've always loved that about Zaphod and they completely failed to
portray that.

Nancy.
Re: Just saw movie... [message #26819 ] Mo, 02 Mai 2005 17:31
HubCity  
"Ammut" <stace8383 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in news:d4qjlr$blh$1 [at] lust.ihug.co.nz:

> I did not expect slapstick

The slapstick serves to explain, partially, how the Vogons evolved. If you
stopped paying attention when people started getting smacked in the face,
that's your loss.

-HubCity
Re: Just saw movie... [message #26897 ] Di, 03 Mai 2005 07:47
Meth  
On 29/04/2005 12:07 a.m. Ammut hammered the electrons into submission:

> romance between Arthur and Trillian is pure fabrication.

I agree! I totally agree! More power to you! Of course, you missed
one tiny ... little, teensy weensy bit out... the romance was
specifically written by DNA for the film.

Dude. DNA would be really upset, I think. If there's one thing that we
should have learned from the many different incarnations of H2G2, it is
that it is an evolving thing.

It's such a shame that this is polarising people into vitriolic
statements. If I wasn't so tired and head-achey I'm sure I'd remember a
DNA quote that would illustrate the folly of this type of thinking.

*shrug*

Was the film good? Yes.
Was it a faithful rendition of the book/radio play/tv/towel ? No
Did it ever purport to be? No.
Did DNA say that it would be? No.

Meth
Re: Just saw movie... [message #27543 ] Di, 03 Mai 2005 15:22
nacey  
Meth wrote:

> Was the film good? Yes.
> Was it a faithful rendition of the book/radio play/tv/towel ? No
> Did it ever purport to be? No.
> Did DNA say that it would be? No.
>
> Meth

Was it funny? Not particularly.
Were the other incarnations? Hell yes.
Is that all you wanted - to be entertained? Yes!
Were you? No.

Nancy.
Re: Just saw movie... [message #29356 ] Do, 05 Mai 2005 11:27
Meth  
On 4/05/2005 1:22 a.m. nacey hammered the electrons into submission:
>
>
> Meth wrote:
>
>> Was the film good? Yes.
>> Was it a faithful rendition of the book/radio play/tv/towel ? No
>> Did it ever purport to be? No.
>> Did DNA say that it would be? No.
>>
>> Meth
>
>
> Was it funny? Not particularly.
I laughed out loud lots. I found it funny. *shrug*

> Were the other incarnations? Hell yes.
Yup

> Is that all you wanted - to be entertained? Yes!
Yes. And I was (especially the knitted puppets)

> Were you? No.
Yes... Oh - sorry were you asking me, or answering? This must be a
Thursday...

I'm sorry that you didn't like it as much as I did - but then I wasn't
responsible for it.

> Nancy.
Meth
Vorheriges Thema:Okay, I'm probably the only one, but....
Nächstes Thema:Are there any David Dixon fanpages?
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 10:35:06 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,08617 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered