| Gripe about it here [message #23613] |
Sa, 30 April 2005 18:36 |
|
If you feel as I do that this movie was a complete travesty and a disgrace
to the memory of Douglas Adams, or if you don't and want to argue about it,
come to my new free, no-ads, no-banners, no BS website (I'll only plug it
once):
www.hitchhikersucks.com
Please be patient as parts are still under construction.
Thank you for your indulgence.
Sundog
|
|
|
| Re: Gripe about it here [message #23617 ] |
Sa, 30 April 2005 19:52 |
|
scojo the moo wrote:
> It can't be *that* bad, can it?
>
> Seems to be a 'love or hate' sort of film, I guess.
How come there isn't a hitchhiker-rocks site then?
|
|
|
| Re: Gripe about it here [message #23618 ] |
Sa, 30 April 2005 20:06 |
|
Sundog wrote:
> If you feel as I do that this movie was a complete travesty and a disgrace
> to the memory of Douglas Adams, or if you don't and want to argue about it,
> come to my new free, no-ads, no-banners, no BS website (I'll only plug it
> once):
>
> www.hitchhikersucks.com
Haven't seen the movie yet but thanks for posting your site. I'm
interested in blogging and message board site utils. How do you
like Simpleboard? I might give it a try. Noticed it uses mySQL.
Have you tried the phpBB or Phorum message boards? They both use
mySQL. Best feature; they're both free. ;)
--
phpBB http://www.phpbb.com/
Phorum http://www.phorum.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Gripe about it here [message #23735 ] |
So, 01 Mai 2005 18:33 |
|
Unfortunately... yes.
IMHO, it would be hard for it to be any worse. It's as if the people making
the film had only read the screenplay, never heard the radio shows, never
read the books, never saw the TV show. It bears no resemblence to the
Douglas Adams universe at all.
-------------------------------------------------------
www.hitchhikersucks.com
"scojo the moo" <binarycode [at] onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:1114881760.447077.83960 [at] l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> It can't be *that* bad, can it?
>
> Seems to be a 'love or hate' sort of film, I guess.
>
>
> scojo
>
|
|
|
| Re: Gripe about it here [message #23742 ] |
So, 01 Mai 2005 19:05 |
|
In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, Sundog's voice said the
following, in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion levels so
low as to make a man weep:
> Unfortunately... yes.
>
> IMHO, it would be hard for it to be any worse. It's as if the people making
> the film had only read the screenplay, never heard the radio shows, never
> read the books, never saw the TV show. It bears no resemblence to the
> Douglas Adams universe at all.
So all the references to towels, the characters having the same names, it
having a book called "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" mean that it
bears "no resemblance"?
What in the name of Almighty Zarquon?
--
John Coxon
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted then
used against you.
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: Gripe about it here [message #23754 ] |
So, 01 Mai 2005 21:18 |
|
ROFL! To you, it's enough that they didn't change the character's names, and
left the book in it? Okay. To each his own.
I'm a little more demanding.
------------------------------------------------
www.hitchhikersucks.com
"John Coxon" <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3dkge8F6tbdscU5 [at] individual.net...
..
>
> So all the references to towels, the characters having the same names, it
> having a book called "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" mean that it
> bears "no resemblance"?
>
> What in the name of Almighty Zarquon?
|
|
|
| Re: Gripe about it here [message #23755 ] |
So, 01 Mai 2005 21:30 |
|
In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, Sundog's voice said the
following, in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion levels so
low as to make a man weep:
> ROFL! To you, it's enough that they didn't change the character's names, and
> left the book in it? Okay. To each his own.
>
> I'm a little more demanding.
No, I said that saying there is "no resemblence" is absolute bullshit.
There is a resemblance. The fact it's got the same name is enough to prove
that.
--
John Coxon
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted then
used against you.
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: Gripe about it here [message #23766 ] |
So, 01 Mai 2005 22:48 |
|
LOL, apparently!
You and I have different definitions of "Douglas Adams' universe". To me,
the look and feel of the movie were completely unfamiliar. Who were these
terrible actors mouthing lines from one of my favorite books? I couldn't
relate at all.
But if it works for you, more power to you.
-------------------------------------------------
www.hitchhikersucks.com
"John Coxon" <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3dkotmF6si1orU1 [at] individual.net...
>
> You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted
then
> used against you.
>
|
|
|
| Re: Gripe about it here [message #23788 ] |
Mo, 02 Mai 2005 01:41 |
|
Kind of reminded me of Saturday morning version of star wars -
puppeteer alien creatures, laser guns that shoot a thousand rounds and
hit no one, super clean white ship interior. And boring as heck.
|
|
|
| Re: Gripe about it here [message #26836 ] |
Mo, 02 Mai 2005 18:26 |
|
John Coxon wrote:
> In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, Sundog's voice said the
> following, in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion
> levels so low as to make a man weep:
>
>> Unfortunately... yes.
>>
>> IMHO, it would be hard for it to be any worse. It's as if the people
>> making
>> the film had only read the screenplay, never heard the radio shows, never
>> read the books, never saw the TV show. It bears no resemblence to the
>> Douglas Adams universe at all.
>
>
> So all the references to towels, the characters having the same names,
> it having a book called "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" mean that
> it bears "no resemblance"?
It's kinda like those barbie dolls that are dressed up like characters
from movies we know and love. Sure, the outfits are pretty and the
boxes are shiny but under the glitz it's still the same cheap plastic
bimbo you can buy for 15 bucks down the shelf a little.
>
> What in the name of Almighty Zarquon?
>
That's what I thought after I saw the movie.
-Nancy.
|
|
|
| Re: Gripe about it here [message #26837 ] |
Mo, 02 Mai 2005 18:27 |
|
John Coxon wrote:
> In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, Sundog's voice said the
> following, in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion
> levels so low as to make a man weep:
>
>> ROFL! To you, it's enough that they didn't change the character's
>> names, and
>> left the book in it? Okay. To each his own.
>>
>> I'm a little more demanding.
>
>
> No, I said that saying there is "no resemblence" is absolute bullshit.
> There is a resemblance. The fact it's got the same name is enough to
> prove that.
Same name? Big deal. It's a superficial resemblance at best. And I'm
not happy with that.
-Nancy.
|
|
|
| Re: Gripe about it here [message #26838 ] |
Mo, 02 Mai 2005 18:28 |
|
Sundog wrote:
> LOL, apparently!
>
> You and I have different definitions of "Douglas Adams' universe". To me,
> the look and feel of the movie were completely unfamiliar. Who were these
> terrible actors mouthing lines from one of my favorite books? I couldn't
> relate at all.
>
> But if it works for you, more power to you.
Exactly, I'm really glad there are people that like it. It means they
don't feel as robbed and as awful as I feel.
On the other hand, I wish the movie had been better.
-Nancy.
|
|
|
| Re: Gripe about it here [message #26844 ] |
Mo, 02 Mai 2005 20:15 |
|
nacey wrote:
> Sundog wrote:
>
>> LOL, apparently!
>>
>> You and I have different definitions of "Douglas Adams' universe". To me,
>> the look and feel of the movie were completely unfamiliar. Who were these
>> terrible actors mouthing lines from one of my favorite books? I couldn't
>> relate at all.
>>
>> But if it works for you, more power to you.
>
> Exactly, I'm really glad there are people that like it. It means they
> don't feel as robbed and as awful as I feel.
>
> On the other hand, I wish the movie had been better.
I've never seen a movie that was even close to being as good as the
book. Can you give an example? All I can come up with are movies
that sucked compared to the book. There are quite a few but the one
that comes to mind right now is Prince of Tides; the book was
awesome. The movie turned a great story into just another love
story, which was *not* what the book was about. Still, I watched it
more than once. ;)
|
|
|
| Re: Gripe about it here [message #26872 ] |
Di, 03 Mai 2005 02:04 |
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "SoT" <sot [at] tioat.ath.cx>
>
> I've never seen a movie that was even close to being as good as the
> book. Can you give an example?
Lord of the Rings. Maltese Falcon. Catch-22. Just off the top of my head.
This is no excuse for making very avoidable mistakes.
-------------------------------------------
www.hitchhikersucks.com
|
|
|
| Re: Gripe about it here [message #26879 ] |
Di, 03 Mai 2005 02:18 |
|
Sundog wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "SoT" <sot [at] tioat.ath.cx>
>>
>> I've never seen a movie that was even close to being as good as the
>> book. Can you give an example?
>
> Lord of the Rings. Maltese Falcon. Catch-22. Just off the top of my head.
>
> This is no excuse for making very avoidable mistakes.
The worst mistake would have been not making tons of easy money so
at least he got something right.
|
|
|
| Re: Gripe about it here [message #29407 ] |
Do, 05 Mai 2005 22:56 |
|
In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, nacey's voice said the following,
in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion levels so low as to
make a man weep:
> John Coxon wrote:
>
>> In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, Sundog's voice said the
>> following, in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion
>> levels so low as to make a man weep:
>>
>>> ROFL! To you, it's enough that they didn't change the character's
>>> names, and
>>> left the book in it? Okay. To each his own.
>>>
>>> I'm a little more demanding.
>>
>> No, I said that saying there is "no resemblence" is absolute bullshit.
>> There is a resemblance. The fact it's got the same name is enough to
>> prove that.
>
> Same name? Big deal. It's a superficial resemblance at best. And I'm
> not happy with that.
So you admit that there is a resemblance, therefore proving my point that
saying there is no resemblance is untrue.
And it's not just the same name that was the only resemblance. I never
thought I'd see somebody actually using a towel for something in
Hitchhiker's - a lot was said but nothing was put into action. This time
round, Ford and his towel did stuff. Which was very cool.
--
John Coxon
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted then
used against you.
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: Gripe about it here [message #35602 ] |
Fr, 13 Mai 2005 17:42 |
|
John Coxon <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3dvfjfFdk4cU4 [at] individual.net:
> In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, nacey's voice said the
> following, in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion
> levels so low as to make a man weep:
>
>> John Coxon wrote:
>>
>>> In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, Sundog's voice said
>>> the following, in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with
>>> distortion levels so low as to make a man weep:
>>>
>>>> ROFL! To you, it's enough that they didn't change the
>>>> character's names, and
>>>> left the book in it? Okay. To each his own.
>>>>
>>>> I'm a little more demanding.
>>>
>>> No, I said that saying there is "no resemblence" is absolute
>>> bullshit. There is a resemblance. The fact it's got the same
>>> name is enough to prove that.
>>
>> Same name? Big deal. It's a superficial resemblance at best.
>> And I'm not happy with that.
>
> So you admit that there is a resemblance, therefore proving my
> point that saying there is no resemblance is untrue.
>
Yes, sometimes people use language to get a point across and don't
stick to strict literal interpretation of words.
But I enjoy a bit of pedantry now and then too, so I shan't complain.
> And it's not just the same name that was the only resemblance. I
> never thought I'd see somebody actually using a towel for
> something in Hitchhiker's - a lot was said but nothing was put
> into action. This time round, Ford and his towel did stuff.
> Which was very cool.
It was good to see, threatening the vogons seemed silly (but not in a
good way) to me. But catching the slapsticks, grabbing hot pieces of
spaceship etc. were good.
He did use it for a few things in the book, capturing Colin (happy
robot, in the guide office) is the one that springs readily to mind.
There wasn't much towel usage in the TV series though.
peter
|
|
|
