|
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 » How to Fix This Zarking Film
| How to Fix This Zarking Film [message #23593] |
Sa, 30 April 2005 08:03 |
|
Keep Alan Rickman as the voice of Marvin. Recast everyone else. Leave
the entire John Malkovich plot on the cutting room floor. Expand the
Magrathea storyline. Bring in Vroomfondle and Majikthies.
Un-Americanize the thing and take it AWAY from Disney. Should have
left it to Pixar.
|
|
|
| Re: How to Fix This Zarking Film [message #23600 ] |
Sa, 30 April 2005 14:19 |
|
In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, Gromit's voice said the
following, in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion levels so
low as to make a man weep:
> Keep Alan Rickman as the voice of Marvin. Recast everyone else.
I loved everybody except Zaphod, who I merely liked. He seemed a little
more agressive/bullylike in this one, which isn't necessarily a good thing.
I think Mark Wing-Davey was superior, except for the head. *shudder*
> Un-Americanize the thing and take it AWAY from Disney. Should have
> left it to Pixar.
And animated it? What the hell? You honestly think that would've made a
good movie? I'd have hated to see HHGG crucified like that. The humour's
different.
And can somebody please try and explain to me which parts were
"Americanised"? Please? I honestly don't feel that the romance was done to
Americanise it, I think that was more to expand on Trillian's character
without changing things too much.
--
John Coxon
"I’m not worried at all. Hitchhiker’s is going to have Lucas quaking in his
boots! (Does George Lucas wear boots? He should. Big, red, thigh-high boots
with spurs and golden toe caps. And a fez. Don’t you agree?)" - Garth
Jennings (director, 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy')
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: How to Fix This Zarking Film [message #23606 ] |
Sa, 30 April 2005 20:25 |
|
"John Coxon" <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3dhb9hF6sroasU1 [at] individual.net...
> In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, Gromit's voice said the
> following, in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion levels
> so low as to make a man weep:
>
>> Keep Alan Rickman as the voice of Marvin. Recast everyone else.
As the Brits would say, Bollocks. A lot of people had different opinions on
the cast, but I enjoyed everybody, except Anna Chancellor, whom I kept
wondering why she was there. If there's a sequel, she will hopefully be
expanded on.
>
> I loved everybody except Zaphod, who I merely liked. He seemed a little
> more agressive/bullylike in this one, which isn't necessarily a good
> thing. I think Mark Wing-Davey was superior, except for the head.
> *shudder*
>
>> Un-Americanize the thing and take it AWAY from Disney. Should have
>> left it to Pixar.
>
> And animated it? What the hell? You honestly think that would've made a
> good movie? I'd have hated to see HHGG crucified like that. The humour's
> different.
>
> And can somebody please try and explain to me which parts were
> "Americanised"? Please? I honestly don't feel that the romance was done
> to Americanise it, I think that was more to expand on Trillian's character
> without changing things too much.
I think so too. It didn't seem Americanized to me. And I even had no problem
with the romance. It was always there, and in this case it gave Arthur a
better excuse to wake up hungover, it gave a better reason for Arthur and
Zaphod's relationship to be naturally adversarial, and it made Trillian less
than the token female. It just didn't happen fully because A. Arthur was too
much of a wimp in the other versions and he needed to be less so in the
movie, and B. Douglas Adams wasn't good at love stories (ex. So Long and
Thanks For All The Fish).
|
|
|
| Re: How to Fix This Zarking Film [message #23609 ] |
Sa, 30 April 2005 18:42 |
|
Chris Casino wrote:
> "John Coxon" <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3dhb9hF6sroasU1 [at] individual.net...
> > In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, Gromit's voice said the
> > following, in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion
levels
> > so low as to make a man weep:
> >
> >> Keep Alan Rickman as the voice of Marvin. Recast everyone else.
>
> As the Brits would say, Bollocks. A lot of people had different
opinions on
> the cast, but I enjoyed everybody, except Anna Chancellor, whom I
kept
> wondering why she was there. If there's a sequel, she will hopefully
be
> expanded on.
> >
> > I loved everybody except Zaphod, who I merely liked. He seemed a
little
> > more agressive/bullylike in this one, which isn't necessarily a
good
> > thing. I think Mark Wing-Davey was superior, except for the head.
> > *shudder*
> >
> >> Un-Americanize the thing and take it AWAY from Disney. Should
have
> >> left it to Pixar.
> >
> > And animated it? What the hell? You honestly think that would've
made a
> > good movie? I'd have hated to see HHGG crucified like that. The
humour's
> > different.
> >
> > And can somebody please try and explain to me which parts were
> > "Americanised"? Please? I honestly don't feel that the romance
was done
> > to Americanise it, I think that was more to expand on Trillian's
character
> > without changing things too much.
>
> I think so too. It didn't seem Americanized to me. And I even had no
problem
> with the romance. It was always there, and in this case it gave
Arthur a
> better excuse to wake up hungover, it gave a better reason for Arthur
and
> Zaphod's relationship to be naturally adversarial, and it made
Trillian less
> than the token female. It just didn't happen fully because A. Arthur
was too
> much of a wimp in the other versions and he needed to be less so in
the
> movie, and B. Douglas Adams wasn't good at love stories (ex. So Long
and
> Thanks For All The Fish).
I thought the love story in "So long..." was one of the best love
stories of all time. I guess I have strange ideas about romance.
Flying around naked is definitely on top of my list of romantic things
to do. My second favorite love story was Woody Boyd and Kelly on
Cheers. I think Trillian's character would have been hotter if they'd
played up her knowledge of math and astrophysics more. Hard to believe
I am single isn't it?
-DaveK
|
|
|
| Re: How to Fix This Zarking Film [message #23650 ] |
So, 01 Mai 2005 04:41 |
|
<dkotschess [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114879345.991037.20450 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I thought the love story in "So long..." was one of the best love
> stories of all time. I guess I have strange ideas about romance.
> Flying around naked is definitely on top of my list of romantic things
> to do. My second favorite love story was Woody Boyd and Kelly on
> Cheers.
Of all of the interesting romances on Cheers, your favorite was Woody and
Kelly? Come on! Diane sucked but even her on-again-off-again thing with Sam
was better. Of course Rebecca Howe played that up better, but that's a
different thing.
|
|
|
| Re: How to Fix This Zarking Film [message #23654 ] |
So, 01 Mai 2005 01:53 |
|
Chris Casino wrote:
> <dkotschess [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1114879345.991037.20450 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I thought the love story in "So long..." was one of the best love
> > stories of all time. I guess I have strange ideas about romance.
> > Flying around naked is definitely on top of my list of romantic
things
> > to do. My second favorite love story was Woody Boyd and Kelly on
> > Cheers.
>
> Of all of the interesting romances on Cheers, your favorite was Woody
and
> Kelly? Come on! Diane sucked but even her on-again-off-again thing
with Sam
> was better. Of course Rebecca Howe played that up better, but that's
a
> different thing.
Woody and Kelly were completely clueless. That is the closest
representation of real love I've seen on
I told I had strange ideas about romance!
|
|
|
| Re: How to Fix This Zarking Film [message #23674 ] |
So, 01 Mai 2005 12:55 |
|
In article <MqmdnT_MV-rkPu7fRVn-jw [at] rcn.net>, ccasino [at] rcn.com (Chris
Casino) wrote:
> I enjoyed everybody, except Anna Chancellor, whom I kept
> wondering why she was there.
Yes, that character was terrible - she had no reason to be there at all.
Acutely embarrassing.
|
|
|
| Re: How to Fix This Zarking Film [message #26829 ] |
Mo, 02 Mai 2005 18:09 |
|
Chris Casino wrote:
> "John Coxon" <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3dhb9hF6sroasU1 [at] individual.net...
>
>>In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, Gromit's voice said the
>>following, in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion levels
>>so low as to make a man weep:
>>
>>
>>>Keep Alan Rickman as the voice of Marvin. Recast everyone else.
>
>
> As the Brits would say, Bollocks. A lot of people had different opinions on
> the cast, but I enjoyed everybody, except Anna Chancellor, whom I kept
> wondering why she was there. If there's a sequel, she will hopefully be
> expanded on.
Are you kidding? She was there to make a 'happy ending' Awwww,
Zaphod's happy with a squeeze and so is Arthur. *spew*.
>
>>I loved everybody except Zaphod, who I merely liked. He seemed a little
>>more agressive/bullylike in this one, which isn't necessarily a good
>>thing. I think Mark Wing-Davey was superior, except for the head.
>>*shudder*
>>
>>
>>>Un-Americanize the thing and take it AWAY from Disney. Should have
>>>left it to Pixar.
>>
>>And animated it? What the hell? You honestly think that would've made a
>>good movie? I'd have hated to see HHGG crucified like that. The humour's
>>different.
>>
>>And can somebody please try and explain to me which parts were
>>"Americanised"? Please? I honestly don't feel that the romance was done
>>to Americanise it, I think that was more to expand on Trillian's character
>>without changing things too much.
>
>
> I think so too. It didn't seem Americanized to me.
It was totally americanized. That sappy 'she's the one' stuff? Right
from the daily soaps from the grand ol' US of A.
And I even had no problem
> with the romance. It was always there,
*double takes* Huh? No it wasn't. She barely batted an eyelid when
she saw Arthur again in the books, in the radio play, in the TV series
(do not bring up that those are different medium, yadda yadda. If
you're going to compare or reference the other media, then I'm going to
bring up previous canon ideas).
and in this case it gave Arthur a
> better excuse to wake up hungover,
I always liked that we never knew exactly *why* he was hungover. It's
like, "Aah, him too. Great."
it gave a better reason for Arthur and
> Zaphod's relationship to be naturally adversarial,
Huh - the adversarial aspect of their relationship didn't last very long
at all. Zaphod never respected Arthur enough to view him as an
adversary. He called him 'monkey-man' for a reason.
and it made Trillian less
> than the token female.
Please! In the movie we had *no* indication of her iron will, her
awesome intelligence or her devotion and patience for Zaphod. She is
there simply and purely to play off Arthur and be his 'reward' for being
the hero. She was stripped of what made her a great character. She had
to get SAVED for God's sakes! Point out in the books or any other
format where she had to be saved like a useless ninny!
It just didn't happen fully because A. Arthur was too
> much of a wimp in the other versions and he needed to be less so in the
> movie,
What?! He wasn't a wimp! He just didn't *like* her that much! He got
over it! He got to know her, obviously, and there was NO chemistry!
What about Fenchurch? Do you think he was a wimp about her? No!
Clearly when he's interested in a girl, he'll pursue her. He just was
never interested in Trillian enough like that.
and B. Douglas Adams wasn't good at love stories (ex. So Long and
> Thanks For All The Fish).
.... That story was perfectly fine. I enjoyed it. We learnt a lot about
Arthur and I loved the plots with Ford. Fenchurch was also adorable.
-Nancy.
(seems to be disagreeing with everyone today).
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 10:38:31 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,03737 Sekunden |
