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 » Now I've seen it too. My thoughts.
Now I've seen it too. My thoughts. [message #29334] Do, 05 Mai 2005 03:14
Steve Marshall  
It often isn't too much help reading what someone else thinks of a film. You
don't know if they also like chocolate, heavy metal or crustaceans, for
example. So it was that I went to se the movie with some knowledge if what I
might see but not really knowing whether I'd like it or not.

It should be said that the very fact there is a movie means those
responsible deserve a great deal of credit. No-one managed it in Douglas'
lifetime ! But then perhaps Adams and movies don't really mix. His work is
something that movie makers don't seem to grasp. I remember at the launch of
Mostly Harmless Douglas talked about a possible movie but the Americans were
struggling with this 42 idea and maybe he could change that ?
Reading the Movie tie-in reprinting of the book reveals a lot of the trouble
they had with getting a workable script. Frankly I don't see what was so
difficult. The original book works pretty well IMHO - but I digress. What
about the film?

The first moments are stunning. Wonderful photography with utterly dreadful
music. I can't think of many so that make me cringe so much. Apart from
being hideous it pre-empts what is to happen by telling everyone the world
is going to be destroyed. Why ?
The beginning is welcomed with the tones of Stephen Fry who did an excellent
job throughout the film and was perhaps the best bit.
(Actually the sounds throughout the movie wasn't great. there were certain
points where I thought I could hear sound coming through from the next
screen but it wasn't it was background music. Distracting and annoying, I
could have done without that.)
Whilst mentioning music I would have liked some of the old sound effects
from the radio series which would have made this movie stand out from other
comic sci-fi movies - but we didn't get it. Another missed opportunity.

It seems to me when you watch the movie that there has been an effort to try
and make sense of it and explain it. The result is a spoiling of the wit and
numbing of impact that certain pieces may have. It extends to having a
circular theme to many items in the movie. The spaceships, Marvin, on the
doors etc etc which of course are countered by the baddies making use of
square spaceships etc. This means changing lines and emphasis of lines.
This impulse to make things easier to take on board extends to turning an
electronic thumb into and actual thumb with an electronic device on it. They
claim not to be dumbing down things so perhaps they don't understand the
distinction ? Throughout the movie there are things like this that make you
wonder how much they understand Adams. (Including crushing crustaceans).

The storyline is very changed. People have said the new bits don't make any
sense. I don't agree. They aren't too terribly good though. It seems that
numerous guide entries - some of the funniest parts, have been sacrificed to
bring in this new storyline which makes the film more lumbering and plain
odd than funny.
Of the parts that remain the emphasis is changed, comic timing altered and
much of the humour doesn't really work. There is nothing funny about Eddie,
for example. Tea is a theme rather than something that causes near fatality.
There is plenty of space in the new bits. Surely some of it could have been
condensed so some of the classic humour could have been retained ?

The characterisations are different too. Zaphod was cool. WAS ! This new
Zaphod is a jerk trying to be cool but pretty much failing in a big way. Not
too likeable and as the guide might say, mostly stupid.
Trillian is not given the intelligence she has in the book but is prehaps an
improvement on the book character. Adams didn't seem to know what to do with
her as a character, here she plays a definite part in the story.
Arthur used to be something of a cliched Englishman. Upright , stern,
stiff-upper-lip, manners, not shy of telling people what he thinks. In the
movie he is a bit of a wet blanket, (as they used to say). There was a
certain vigour to the old Arthur. He threw the cup at the nutrimatics drink
machine. This one would shirk away.
Ford was perhaps the most important character in the book. He is the one
that saves Arthur, gets him drunk, explains things. In the film he seems
almost as clueless as Arthur. The acting was much better than I expected,
but as I feared Mos didn't portray what I think of as Ford.

Other characters like Marvin and Deep Thought similarly lost their edge. The
portrayal was OK but the humour wasn't there. Maybe because they cut out the
intelligent humour that Douglas wrote.

This all sounds a bit negative, but I did actually think the film was OK. It
has some wonderful imagery and told the story with some new bits thrown in.
It sort of worked.

What is such a disappointment is that I used to absolutely love any new
Adams or Hitchhikers work. I raved on about it and grew up with people
quoting lines from the radio and making jokes in a similar vain. People will
not do that now because the lines are cut.
Two key elements kept people aware of HHGG; the Vogon poetry and the guide
entry about towels. The Vogon poetry didn't come across as they talked over
the top of it and the towel bit was cut. It's sad that a new generation
won't be impressed by Adams intelligent humour. It barely featured in the
movie, and that is why the movie is so disappointing. It works as a movie.
It isn't crap. It has some good parts and some great imagery. It is just
devoid of what makes Adams work so special.

It is great to actually have a HHGG movie at last. It pains me that it is
unimpressive and lacks in the humour and wit that defines Adam's work. An OK
film - a great shame.

Steve M
Re: Now I've seen it too. My thoughts. [message #29390 ] Do, 05 Mai 2005 21:15
Newob Det  
Yes. I can't agree more.

Newob
Re: Now I've seen it too. My thoughts. [message #29398 ] Do, 05 Mai 2005 21:59
Dave Adalian  
"Newob Det" <ebowen [at] kent.edu> wrote in message
news:1115320509.219881.313050 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I can't agree more.
>

Of course you could. You're just not trying hard enough.


Chiggy.
Re: Now I've seen it too. My thoughts. [message #29440 ] Fr, 06 Mai 2005 07:01
nacey  
Steve Marshall wrote:
> It often isn't too much help reading what someone else thinks of a film. You
> don't know if they also like chocolate, heavy metal or crustaceans, for
> example. So it was that I went to se the movie with some knowledge if what I
> might see but not really knowing whether I'd like it or not.
>
Good review, I totally agree. :)

Nancy.
Re: Now I've seen it too. My thoughts. [message #29535 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 02:20
Watson  
Well, as an American I never struggled with that pesky 42 idea. I've
always been quite capable of recognizing and appreciating cleverness
and wit.
While I don't think they destroyed it, it was watered down. I assume it
was simplified for the masses unfamiliar with the earlier works, as the
story is complicated and probably difficult to fit neatly in 120
minutes or so.
I was sorry that a lot of the really clever, subtle bits were not
included, but perhaps what works on the written page doesn't translate
well to the screen?


Steve Marshall wrote:
> It often isn't too much help reading what someone else thinks of a
film. You
> don't know if they also like chocolate, heavy metal or crustaceans,
for
> example. So it was that I went to se the movie with some knowledge if
what I
> might see but not really knowing whether I'd like it or not.
>
> It should be said that the very fact there is a movie means those
> responsible deserve a great deal of credit. No-one managed it in
Douglas'
> lifetime ! But then perhaps Adams and movies don't really mix. His
work is
> something that movie makers don't seem to grasp. I remember at the
launch of
> Mostly Harmless Douglas talked about a possible movie but the
Americans were
> struggling with this 42 idea and maybe he could change that ?
> Reading the Movie tie-in reprinting of the book reveals a lot of the
trouble
> they had with getting a workable script. Frankly I don't see what was
so
> difficult. The original book works pretty well IMHO - but I digress.
What
> about the film?
>
> The first moments are stunning. Wonderful photography with utterly
dreadful
> music. I can't think of many so that make me cringe so much. Apart
from
> being hideous it pre-empts what is to happen by telling everyone the
world
> is going to be destroyed. Why ?
> The beginning is welcomed with the tones of Stephen Fry who did an
excellent
> job throughout the film and was perhaps the best bit.
> (Actually the sounds throughout the movie wasn't great. there were
certain
> points where I thought I could hear sound coming through from the
next
> screen but it wasn't it was background music. Distracting and
annoying, I
> could have done without that.)
> Whilst mentioning music I would have liked some of the old sound
effects
> from the radio series which would have made this movie stand out from
other
> comic sci-fi movies - but we didn't get it. Another missed
opportunity.
>
> It seems to me when you watch the movie that there has been an effort
to try
> and make sense of it and explain it. The result is a spoiling of the
wit and
> numbing of impact that certain pieces may have. It extends to having
a
> circular theme to many items in the movie. The spaceships, Marvin, on
the
> doors etc etc which of course are countered by the baddies making use
of
> square spaceships etc. This means changing lines and emphasis of
lines.
> This impulse to make things easier to take on board extends to
turning an
> electronic thumb into and actual thumb with an electronic device on
it. They
> claim not to be dumbing down things so perhaps they don't understand
the
> distinction ? Throughout the movie there are things like this that
make you
> wonder how much they understand Adams. (Including crushing
crustaceans).
>
> The storyline is very changed. People have said the new bits don't
make any
> sense. I don't agree. They aren't too terribly good though. It seems
that
> numerous guide entries - some of the funniest parts, have been
sacrificed to
> bring in this new storyline which makes the film more lumbering and
plain
> odd than funny.
> Of the parts that remain the emphasis is changed, comic timing
altered and
> much of the humour doesn't really work. There is nothing funny about
Eddie,
> for example. Tea is a theme rather than something that causes near
fatality.
> There is plenty of space in the new bits. Surely some of it could
have been
> condensed so some of the classic humour could have been retained ?
>
> The characterisations are different too. Zaphod was cool. WAS ! This
new
> Zaphod is a jerk trying to be cool but pretty much failing in a big
way. Not
> too likeable and as the guide might say, mostly stupid.
> Trillian is not given the intelligence she has in the book but is
prehaps an
> improvement on the book character. Adams didn't seem to know what to
do with
> her as a character, here she plays a definite part in the story.
> Arthur used to be something of a cliched Englishman. Upright , stern,
> stiff-upper-lip, manners, not shy of telling people what he thinks.
In the
> movie he is a bit of a wet blanket, (as they used to say). There was
a
> certain vigour to the old Arthur. He threw the cup at the nutrimatics
drink
> machine. This one would shirk away.
> Ford was perhaps the most important character in the book. He is the
one
> that saves Arthur, gets him drunk, explains things. In the film he
seems
> almost as clueless as Arthur. The acting was much better than I
expected,
> but as I feared Mos didn't portray what I think of as Ford.
>
> Other characters like Marvin and Deep Thought similarly lost their
edge. The
> portrayal was OK but the humour wasn't there. Maybe because they cut
out the
> intelligent humour that Douglas wrote.
>
> This all sounds a bit negative, but I did actually think the film was
OK. It
> has some wonderful imagery and told the story with some new bits
thrown in.
> It sort of worked.
>
> What is such a disappointment is that I used to absolutely love any
new
> Adams or Hitchhikers work. I raved on about it and grew up with
people
> quoting lines from the radio and making jokes in a similar vain.
People will
> not do that now because the lines are cut.
> Two key elements kept people aware of HHGG; the Vogon poetry and the
guide
> entry about towels. The Vogon poetry didn't come across as they
talked over
> the top of it and the towel bit was cut. It's sad that a new
generation
> won't be impressed by Adams intelligent humour. It barely featured in
the
> movie, and that is why the movie is so disappointing. It works as a
movie.
> It isn't crap. It has some good parts and some great imagery. It is
just
> devoid of what makes Adams work so special.
>
> It is great to actually have a HHGG movie at last. It pains me that
it is
> unimpressive and lacks in the humour and wit that defines Adam's
work. An OK
> film - a great shame.
>
> Steve M
Re: Now I've seen it too. My thoughts. [message #29550 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 04:38
Sundog  
Well said. I'm glad you got a little enjoyment out of it - I was aghast with
slack-jawed horror the whole time.

I'm still depressed. No matter who liked it, the mere fact that so many of
us truly hardcore fans are foaming at the mouth means that it can't possibly
be regarded as a successful venture. SOme liked it - OK. But many, many,
many of us absolutely loathe it.

Everyone I know in meatspace who is a HHG fan agrees completely - the film
was a dismal failure.

-----------------------------------------------------------
www.HitchHikerSucks.com
(Over 1200 hits in our first week! Join us...)



"Steve Marshall" <sdm [at] atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote in message
news:427972c8$0$571$ed2e19e4 [at] ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...

> It is great to actually have a HHGG movie at last. It pains me that it is
> unimpressive and lacks in the humour and wit that defines Adam's work. An
OK
> film - a great shame.
>
> Steve M
>
>
Re: Now I've seen it too. My thoughts. [message #29597 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 16:26
John Coxon  
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:

> Well said. I'm glad you got a little enjoyment out of it - I was aghast with
> slack-jawed horror the whole time.
>
> I'm still depressed. No matter who liked it, the mere fact that so many of
> us truly hardcore fans are foaming at the mouth means that it can't possibly
> be regarded as a successful venture. SOme liked it - OK. But many, many,
> many of us absolutely loathe it.

More people like it than loathe it, I believe - several polls on DNA
communities over on LiveJournal are saying that.

The people who loathe it are in the minority.

--
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: Now I've seen it too. My thoughts. [message #29672 ] So, 08 Mai 2005 00:10
Steve Marshall  
"Watson" <sheburch [at] yahoo.com> wrote

> Well, as an American I never struggled with that pesky 42 idea. I've
> always been quite capable of recognizing and appreciating cleverness
> and wit.

Pleased to hear it. I think most sane Americans get Adams humour. He
commented on it once saying that they didn't need to change anything really.
There is an attitude in American that executives seem to think the populous
needs protecting which is why they took the word fuck out of the book. These
sort of people in the film world are the sort of people that think general
populous won't get complicated jokes and would rather produce films with
Steve Martin ro Jim Carey. Adams work isnt' that kind of thing - unless you
chop out all the intelligent stuff.

> While I don't think they destroyed it, it was watered down. I assume it
> was simplified for the masses unfamiliar with the earlier works, as the
> story is complicated and probably difficult to fit neatly in 120
> minutes or so.

Well it's been done before !
Also they didn't just cut stuff, they added a lot in. If they hadn't added
all the extra stuff there would have been plenty of room for some of the
good stuff. It wouldn't have needed much to get the classic old stuff in
alongside the new material.

> I was sorry that a lot of the really clever, subtle bits were not
> included, but perhaps what works on the written page doesn't translate
> well to the screen?

Again, it's been done before.
Some of the guide entries are what was cut. We got some of those. So it
would have been just as easy to include as those bits that did make it.
Some of the stuff they cut is just funny dialogue which would certainly have
worked.

If you cut the crap song at the start you could have added quite a number of
the missing bits and kept the new stuff which would have been a big
improvement.

Steve M
Re: Now I've seen it too. My thoughts. [message #29673 ] So, 08 Mai 2005 00:13
Steve Marshall  
"John Coxon" <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote

> More people like it than loathe it, I believe - several polls on DNA
> communities over on LiveJournal are saying that.
>
> The people who loathe it are in the minority.

Just to be clear, I don't loathe it. I sort of like it. It is just
disappointing. I think it could have been very much better with not a lot of
tweaking necessary to make big improvements.


Steve M
Re: Now I've seen it too. My thoughts. [message #29686 ] So, 08 Mai 2005 08:18
nacey  
Sundog wrote:
> Well said. I'm glad you got a little enjoyment out of it - I was aghast with
> slack-jawed horror the whole time.
>
> I'm still depressed. No matter who liked it, the mere fact that so many of
> us truly hardcore fans are foaming at the mouth means that it can't possibly
> be regarded as a successful venture. SOme liked it - OK. But many, many,
> many of us absolutely loathe it.
>
> Everyone I know in meatspace who is a HHG fan agrees completely - the film
> was a dismal failure.

I saw my cousin last night, a very intelligent, discerning sort of
person. She sat down to eat some dinner at a party and the TV series of
H2G2 was going on as my sister and I were watching it for a lark. She
looked at it and said, "What's this?"

"Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - BBC TV Series."

"Oh," she said. "I saw the movie. It was terrible."

"Oh?"

"Yeah, I wish I could have my money back."

She watched it and I asked her, about three episodes on, "What do you
think?"

"It's different," she said, "I actually understand what's going on now!"

And she had a few laughs through watching it too. I felt glad to show
her what the books were really all about.

- Nancy.
Re: Now I've seen it too. My thoughts. [message #29750 ] So, 08 Mai 2005 19:13
John Coxon  
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:

> And she had a few laughs through watching it too. I felt glad to show
> her what the books were really all about.

....tacky special effects and a second head which didn't work?

Did I miss something?

--
John Coxon

A day for firm decisions!!! Or is it?

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: Now I've seen it too. My thoughts. [message #29766 ] So, 08 Mai 2005 20:20
Forrest  
John Coxon wrote:

>> And she had a few laughs through watching it too. I felt glad to show
>> her what the books were really all about.
>
>
> ...tacky special effects and a second head which didn't work?

The writing.

> Did I miss something?

Yes.




............................................................ .....
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Re: Now I've seen it too. My thoughts. [message #32013 ] Di, 10 Mai 2005 02:22
Watson  
> Steve Marshall wrote:
If you cut the crap song at the start you could have added quite a
number of
> the missing bits and kept the new stuff which would have been a big
> improvement.

Steve-I can't agree more with that particular statement. What in the
world, er, universe was the purpose of that bit of nonsense? Dare I say
it? Oh well, here goes: to appeal to much of the American audience
unfamiliar with the works who will leave the theatre saying, "That song
with the dolphins sure was cute."
There, I've said it.
Forgive me fellow Yanks.


Steve Marshall wrote:
> "Watson" <sheburch [at] yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > Well, as an American I never struggled with that pesky 42 idea.
I've
> > always been quite capable of recognizing and appreciating
cleverness
> > and wit.
>
> Pleased to hear it. I think most sane Americans get Adams humour. He
> commented on it once saying that they didn't need to change anything
really.
> There is an attitude in American that executives seem to think the
populous
> needs protecting which is why they took the word fuck out of the
book. These
> sort of people in the film world are the sort of people that think
general
> populous won't get complicated jokes and would rather produce films
with
> Steve Martin ro Jim Carey. Adams work isnt' that kind of thing -
unless you
> chop out all the intelligent stuff.
> Steve Marshall wrote:

> > While I don't think they destroyed it, it was watered down. I
assume it
> > was simplified for the masses unfamiliar with the earlier works, as
the
> > story is complicated and probably difficult to fit neatly in 120
> > minutes or so.
>
> Well it's been done before !
> Also they didn't just cut stuff, they added a lot in. If they hadn't
added
> all the extra stuff there would have been plenty of room for some of
the
> good stuff. It wouldn't have needed much to get the classic old stuff
in
> alongside the new material.
>
> > I was sorry that a lot of the really clever, subtle bits were not
> > included, but perhaps what works on the written page doesn't
translate
> > well to the screen?
>
> Again, it's been done before.
> Some of the guide entries are what was cut. We got some of those. So
it
> would have been just as easy to include as those bits that did make
it.
> Some of the stuff they cut is just funny dialogue which would
certainly have
> worked.
>
> If you cut the crap song at the start you could have added quite a
number of
> the missing bits and kept the new stuff which would have been a big
> improvement.
>
> Steve M
Re: Now I've seen it too. My thoughts. [message #32572 ] Di, 10 Mai 2005 20:59
Jonathan Baddeley  
Well as somebody who likes Adams so much I've been on the committee of the
official fan club twice (www.zz9.org) I loved it. So, one hardcore fan who
disagrees!

Jonny5
(Who's posting a lot tonight as I've spent a week avoiding the froup until
I'd seen the film :-)

--
--------------------------------------------------------
My site:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/jonny_5/
Sundog <sundog [at] hitchhikersucks.com> wrote in message
news:JSVee.4299$Vz4.2969 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> Well said. I'm glad you got a little enjoyment out of it - I was aghast
with
> slack-jawed horror the whole time.
>
> I'm still depressed. No matter who liked it, the mere fact that so many of
> us truly hardcore fans are foaming at the mouth means that it can't
possibly
> be regarded as a successful venture. SOme liked it - OK. But many, many,
> many of us absolutely loathe it.
>
> Everyone I know in meatspace who is a HHG fan agrees completely - the film
> was a dismal failure.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> www.HitchHikerSucks.com
> (Over 1200 hits in our first week! Join us...)
>
>
>
> "Steve Marshall" <sdm [at] atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:427972c8$0$571$ed2e19e4 [at] ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
>
> > It is great to actually have a HHGG movie at last. It pains me that it
is
> > unimpressive and lacks in the humour and wit that defines Adam's work.
An
> OK
> > film - a great shame.
> >
> > Steve M
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Now I've seen it too. My thoughts. [message #34018 ] Do, 12 Mai 2005 22:34
John Coxon  
On 10/05/2005 19:59, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Jonathan Baddeley spewed up:

> Well as somebody who likes Adams so much I've been on the committee of the
> official fan club twice (www.zz9.org) I loved it. So, one hardcore fan who
> disagrees!
>
> Jonny5
> (Who's posting a lot tonight as I've spent a week avoiding the froup until
> I'd seen the film :-)

Psst: You may want to bottompost instead of topposting - that's how we do it
here.

And you don't generally post here anyway, it's a welcome change to see the
posts! :-)

--
John Coxon

A day for firm decisions!!! Or is it?

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/
Vorheriges Thema:Tertiary Phase on Audio DVD
Nächstes Thema:The Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy, WORSE than Vogon Poetry!
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 10:58:33 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,19331 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered