|
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
|
Science Fiction » alt.fan.douglas-adams » Question about the film
| Question about the film [message #23577] |
Fr, 29 April 2005 19:19 |
|
I know it's been both panned and loved, and that a lot of people think
that it's the fault of the directors/producers etc. However I'm
wondering if anyone ever thought that this movie would never be able to
work no matter what. First of all the story just isn't made for film. I
know they did the TV series but the TV series was a three hour long
affair while the movie realistically couldn't be much longer than 90
minutes to two hours. The other problem that makes this hard to make
into a film is Douglas Adams' untimely death.
The film makers kept many of the things in the movie that Douglas
himself wrote including the love triangle, slapstick on Vogon, and Humma
Kavula. These three things have been the things that I've seen talked
about the most. Most people who don't like the film say these things
don't work. However, had the film makers taken them out those same
people would have cried fowl for messing with what Douglas himself
wrote. This was a lose lose situation for the filmmakers so they took
the route which they thought would please the most people and that's to
leave in most of what Douglas had written.
I don't think this film could have ever been made in a way which would
please not only the fans but the general public as well. we have to
remember that even though the group of fans of H2G2 isn't small it isn't
large either. This isn't Star Wars or Star Trek, the revenue from fans
wouldn't be enough to carry this movie so some concessions had to be
made to make this more acceptable to the masses. No matter what the film
would've been this fact always would've made some fans mad. Basically
what I am saying is the nature of this film causes it to be one of such
extremes when it comes to reviews. I'm actually more interested in what
the general public thinks of the film than what the die-hard fans think,
because I think their opinion is a more accurate representation of
whether the film works or not.
|
|
|
| Re: Question about the film [message #23581 ] |
Sa, 30 April 2005 02:45 |
|
> I know it's been both panned and loved, and that a lot of people think
> that it's the fault of the directors/producers etc. However I'm
> wondering if anyone ever thought that this movie would never be able to
> work no matter what. First of all the story just isn't made for film. I
> know they did the TV series but the TV series was a three hour long
> affair while the movie realistically couldn't be much longer than 90
> minutes to two hours.
The series covered Restaurant as well don't forget -
the Hitchhikers part of the story was just 2 hours with all the funniest
lines
included.
The other problem that makes this hard to make
> into a film is Douglas Adams' untimely death.
> The film makers kept many of the things in the movie that Douglas
> himself wrote including the love triangle, slapstick on Vogon, and Humma
> Kavula. These three things have been the things that I've seen talked
> about the most. Most people who don't like the film say these things
> don't work. However, had the film makers taken them out those same
> people would have cried fowl for messing with what Douglas himself
> wrote. This was a lose lose situation for the filmmakers so they took
> the route which they thought would please the most people and that's to
> leave in most of what Douglas had written.
It doesn't mean DA wouldn't have beed critiqued if he was still alive
- for these additions I mean.
> I don't think this film could have ever been made in a way which would
> please not only the fans but the general public as well. we have to
> remember that even though the group of fans of H2G2 isn't small it isn't
> large either. This isn't Star Wars or Star Trek, the revenue from fans
> wouldn't be enough to carry this movie so some concessions had to be
> made to make this more acceptable to the masses. No matter what the film
> would've been this fact always would've made some fans mad. Basically
> what I am saying is the nature of this film causes it to be one of such
> extremes when it comes to reviews. I'm actually more interested in what
> the general public thinks of the film than what the die-hard fans think,
> because I think their opinion is a more accurate representation of
> whether the film works or not.
You are pretty much spot on though.
|
|
|
| Re: Question about the film [message #23582 ] |
Sa, 30 April 2005 03:21 |
|
docdude316 wrote:
>
> I know it's been both panned and loved, and that a lot of people think
> that it's the fault of the directors/producers etc. However I'm
> wondering if anyone ever thought that this movie would never be able to
> work no matter what. First of all the story just isn't made for film. I
> know they did the TV series but the TV series was a three hour long
> affair while the movie realistically couldn't be much longer than 90
> minutes to two hours. The other problem that makes this hard to make
> into a film is Douglas Adams' untimely death.
I suspect they'd need more money to impress the hard core fans
but they'll also need somebody calling the shots who really understands Adams.
And maybe next time they'll even use someone like John Williams for the score.
You know there will be sequels, if only to use Louis Armstrong's song.
> The film makers kept many of the things in the movie that Douglas
> himself wrote including the love triangle, slapstick on Vogon, and Humma
> Kavula. These three things have been the things that I've seen talked
> about the most. Most people who don't like the film say these things
> don't work. However, had the film makers taken them out those same
> people would have cried fowl for messing with what Douglas himself
> wrote. This was a lose lose situation for the filmmakers so they took
> the route which they thought would please the most people and that's to
> leave in most of what Douglas had written.
I think Adams' the characters should stick to the exact lines in the books
with very little variation, that it was the lyrical writing and the very faithful
reproduction of it in the TV series that sold people.
> I don't think this film could have ever been made in a way which would
> please not only the fans but the general public as well. we have to
> remember that even though the group of fans of H2G2 isn't small it isn't
> large either. This isn't Star Wars or Star Trek, the revenue from fans
> wouldn't be enough to carry this movie so some concessions had to be
> made to make this more acceptable to the masses. No matter what the film
> would've been this fact always would've made some fans mad. Basically
> what I am saying is the nature of this film causes it to be one of such
> extremes when it comes to reviews. I'm actually more interested in what
> the general public thinks of the film than what the die-hard fans think,
> because I think their opinion is a more accurate representation of
> whether the film works or not.
Small kids were laughing during the film. So did some older people who
were obviously unfamiliar with Adams. The more spacious scenes looked
very good on the big screen.
As a hard core fan there were many things I would have changed but I also
enjoyed some of the new ideas in the film. What I didn't like was the theator
running a preview for Disney's "Chicken Little".
|
|
|
| Re: Question about the film [message #23584 ] |
Sa, 30 April 2005 03:47 |
|
I agree with most of what you are saying. I also think that, as
die-hard fans, we know the story almost too well to like anything a
major studio will produce. We are each looking for our favorite parts,
the wittiest parts, etc. So there will be two major groups of movie
reactions among the fans: the ones that are thankful to see the film
made and will love it because it is a representation of the larger
story, and the ones that will be disappointed because it can't measure
up to the other mediums (radio, book, TV). The spirit of the story was
bound to be watered down as more people (who maybe didn't get it like
we get it) became involved in the project. I haven't seen it yet, can't
go until Sunday, so I'm not sure which camp I'll be in afterward.
|
|
|
| Re: Question about the film [message #26828 ] |
Mo, 02 Mai 2005 17:57 |
|
docdude316 wrote:
> I know it's been both panned and loved, and that a lot of people think
> that it's the fault of the directors/producers etc. However I'm
> wondering if anyone ever thought that this movie would never be able to
> work no matter what. First of all the story just isn't made for film.
Erm - no. Sorry. If they can make a six-hour tv series based on two
books, they can make a two and a half hour movie based on one - that
doesn't suck goat dick.
If they can make all the wonderful special effects in the world, they
can dig up people who are actually gifted in the english language and
craft a decent script (or adjust DNA's already probably brilliant one)
with no real problems. It'd be tricky, but they could do it. And there
ARE directors out there that have a zarking clue what they're doing.
Oh, there I go, being passionate again. I'm sorry. I just really
believe that H2G2 isn't an impossible mountain. It deserves one of the
greatest movies ever made, you know? *sad sigh*
Maybe one day they'll have another go. It'd be cute if they got Rupert
Grint to play Ford. He has weird eyes and he reminds me of David Dixon.
Hehhe.
Nancy.
|
|
|
| Re: Question about the film [message #26858 ] |
Mo, 02 Mai 2005 23:04 |
|
"Foley U. Matthews" <pteybiesla [at] biegeponed.ceom> wrote in message
news:4275a686.8437615 [at] news.bigpond.com...
> i think people are forgetting that as a film stuff can be seen
> visually, not just a line delivered...
Absolutely right. If you haven't done recently, go back and review the DVD
of the BBC TV version. Essentially, it's a group of actors moving from set
to set and repeating a long strings of dialogue while standing around not
doing anything. If that dialogue wasn't some of the funniest ever written
and they'd not already spent the money, the entire project would never have
been aired. The rest of the show being so visually bad really made the
graphics stand out, and that's partly why they won awards, besides being
really well done.
Chiggy.
|
|
|
| Re: Question about the film [message #26867 ] |
Di, 03 Mai 2005 00:11 |
|
Dave Adalian wrote:
> Essentially, it's a group of actors moving from set
> to set and repeating a long strings of dialogue while standing around not
> doing anything.
Like pretty much every other television comedy, then, save that said
dialogue was
> some of the funniest ever written
............................................................ .....
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
|
|
|
| Re: Question about the film [message #26875 ] |
Di, 03 Mai 2005 02:12 |
|
"Forrest" <gmauslander [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115071830.103293 [at] diskless11...
> Dave Adalian wrote:
>> Essentially, it's a group of actors moving from set to set and repeating
>> a long strings of dialogue while standing around not doing anything.
>
> Like pretty much every other television comedy, then, save that said
> dialogue was
>
>> some of the funniest ever written
Not at all. There are sight gags, facial expressions of reaction, funny
signage, odd props (which the BBC's TV Guide does have) and lots of other
things besides actors reciting lines. Note that I'm not saying the BBC's
version lacks all of these things; it just doesn't use them as effectively
as it might have done.
Chiggy.
|
|
|
| Re: Question about the film [message #26891 ] |
Di, 03 Mai 2005 04:15 |
|
In article
<42764dea$0$12817$5a62ac22 [at] per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, nacey
<nacey [at] nospam.iinet.net.au> wrote:
> Erm - no. Sorry. If they can make a six-hour tv series based on two
> books, they can make a two and a half hour movie based on one - that
> doesn't suck goat dick.
Three-hour tv series. I snipped the rest of your post. I don't
necessarily disagree with it, or with the sentiment above but it's
quite a big difference that they made a three-hour tv series out of,
well, not so much two books but roughly the same three hours of radio
series with some revisions from the books.
Call me slow, but I'm still trying to sort out all my reactions to this
thing. I didn't hate it, but I didn't find it fantastic. More to
come.
--
CrazyOne | "I say what it occurs to me to say
aka Greg Pacek | when I think I hear people say
Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Earth | things. More I cannot say."
|
|
|
| Re: Question about the film [message #27547 ] |
Di, 03 Mai 2005 15:31 |
|
CrazyOne - Greg Pacek wrote:
> In article
> <42764dea$0$12817$5a62ac22 [at] per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, nacey
> <nacey [at] nospam.iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Erm - no. Sorry. If they can make a six-hour tv series based on two
>>books, they can make a two and a half hour movie based on one - that
>>doesn't suck goat dick.
>
>
> Three-hour tv series. I snipped the rest of your post. I don't
> necessarily disagree with it, or with the sentiment above but it's
> quite a big difference that they made a three-hour tv series out of,
> well, not so much two books but roughly the same three hours of radio
> series with some revisions from the books.
Oh. Bleh. Am bad with maths, sorry. Plus I'm in the midst of a
terrible cold and spelling straight is a challenge at the moment.
>
> Call me slow, but I'm still trying to sort out all my reactions to this
> thing. I didn't hate it, but I didn't find it fantastic. More to
> come.
>
Naw. People process things at different speeds.
Nancy.
|
|
|
| Re: Question about the film [message #27575 ] |
Di, 03 Mai 2005 22:05 |
|
Dave Adalian wrote:
> "Forrest" <gmauslander [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1115071830.103293 [at] diskless11...
>
>>Dave Adalian wrote:
>>
>>>Essentially, it's a group of actors moving from set to set and repeating
>>>a long strings of dialogue while standing around not doing anything.
>>
>>Like pretty much every other television comedy, then, save that said
>>dialogue was
>>
>>
>>>some of the funniest ever written
>
>
> Not at all. There are sight gags, facial expressions of reaction, funny
> signage, odd props (which the BBC's TV Guide does have) and lots of other
> things besides actors reciting lines. Note that I'm not saying the BBC's
> version lacks all of these things; it just doesn't use them as effectively
> as it might have done.
Ah, yes, it seems this is the point, really. The way I read all these
complaints (and I still haven't seen the movie, so I'm just translating
what I read) it seems that thing is that the props lack the lines to
support them.
Maybe if the two approches were combined more effectively, we would have
gotten a better movie?
Well, I shall have to see for myself, come August.
Best
Kåre
|
|
|
| Re: Question about the film [message #27582 ] |
Di, 03 Mai 2005 22:55 |
|
"Kaare Fiedler Christiansen" <news [at] kaarefc.dk> wrote in message
news:4277d976$0$698$edfadb0f [at] dread16.news.tele.dk...
> Dave Adalian wrote:
>> "Forrest" <gmauslander [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1115071830.103293 [at] diskless11...
>>
>>>Dave Adalian wrote:
>>>
>>>>Essentially, it's a group of actors moving from set to set and repeating
>>>>a long strings of dialogue while standing around not doing anything.
>>>
>>>Like pretty much every other television comedy, then, save that said
>>>dialogue was
>>>
>>>
>>>>some of the funniest ever written
>>
>>
>> Not at all. There are sight gags, facial expressions of reaction, funny
>> signage, odd props (which the BBC's TV Guide does have) and lots of other
>> things besides actors reciting lines. Note that I'm not saying the BBC's
>> version lacks all of these things; it just doesn't use them as
>> effectively as it might have done.
>
> Ah, yes, it seems this is the point, really. The way I read all these
> complaints (and I still haven't seen the movie, so I'm just translating
> what I read) it seems that thing is that the props lack the lines to
> support them.
>
> Maybe if the two approches were combined more effectively, we would have
> gotten a better movie?
>
> Well, I shall have to see for myself, come August.
I'll bite. What happens in August?
Chiggy.
|
|
|
| Re: Question about the film [message #29308 ] |
Mi, 04 Mai 2005 22:36 |
|
Dave Adalian wrote:
> "Kaare Fiedler Christiansen" <news [at] kaarefc.dk> wrote in message
> news:4277d976$0$698$edfadb0f [at] dread16.news.tele.dk...
>
>>Dave Adalian wrote:
>>
>>>"Forrest" <gmauslander [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1115071830.103293 [at] diskless11...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dave Adalian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Essentially, it's a group of actors moving from set to set and repeating
>>>>>a long strings of dialogue while standing around not doing anything.
>>>>
>>>>Like pretty much every other television comedy, then, save that said
>>>>dialogue was
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>some of the funniest ever written
>>>
>>>
>>>Not at all. There are sight gags, facial expressions of reaction, funny
>>>signage, odd props (which the BBC's TV Guide does have) and lots of other
>>>things besides actors reciting lines. Note that I'm not saying the BBC's
>>>version lacks all of these things; it just doesn't use them as
>>>effectively as it might have done.
>>
>>Ah, yes, it seems this is the point, really. The way I read all these
>>complaints (and I still haven't seen the movie, so I'm just translating
>>what I read) it seems that thing is that the props lack the lines to
>>support them.
>>
>>Maybe if the two approches were combined more effectively, we would have
>>gotten a better movie?
>>
>>Well, I shall have to see for myself, come August.
>
> I'll bite. What happens in August?
Oh, I thought I'd grumbled enough about that for anyone to notice...
THE MOVIE ISN'T IN THE DANSIH CINEMAS BEFORE AUGUST! ARGH! THE HORROR!
STUPID DANISH CINEMAS!
Sorry, I'm feeling better now.
Best
Kåre
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 10:38:06 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,04855 Sekunden |
