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 » Funny Bits by Douglas Adams
Funny Bits by Douglas Adams [message #29380] Do, 05 Mai 2005 16:36
Kevin Saliga  
It's sad for me to think along these lines....

Maybe, before he died, Douglas Adams was writing the screenplay and thinking
that most of what he wrote in and took out would make it a good film.
Having never made a film before and trying to adapt a stunningly good book,
he wanted to do something different that would be visually pleasing, but
retain most of what he thought was funny and mind opening.

And then he died.

And someone made some adjustments to the movie, but we'll never really know
which ones. And maybe all the things people are saying made a terrible
movie were bits that Douglas Adams actually wrote in himself.

Go back and rewatch the movie, and while doing so, watch it with the idea
that everything in the film could have been written and constructed exactly
as Douglas Adams imagined it. Does that make it better? Is the idea that
we're seeing a vision of Douglas' at this point matter more than the actual
content of the piece? It's a good think there is no afterlife, or Douglas
might be looking back on the movie that he created and be so upset that the
people didn't like it because they thought his work was being destroyed.

If this is all Douglas Adams, then he's telling a new story - the same
story, but a much different way. Maybe it's better than the original
because it's been tweaked over 25 years to a new version he saw. I fear the
only way we'll ever know is if we get the original script he wrote before
anyone else made any changes.

And will we believe it when we see it? Probably not. That's human nature.

It's sad to see bits we've enjoyed changed or deleted. For me, I'll always
like the way the improbablity was described upon landing in the Heart of
Gold in the book. I'll also always like the way the Point of View gun was
used to escape Magrathea. I didn't like the Vogons running away from the
towel in the movie, and I didn't like the "alternate Eddie personality" in
the book (glad they took in out in the movie and gave Marvin the line "This
will all end in tears"). Perhaps the best version of the story is the ones
we individually piece together in our minds using all of the bits we liked
from the prior versions.
Re: Funny Bits by Douglas Adams [message #29384 ] Do, 05 Mai 2005 17:13
Steve Marshall  
"Kevin Saliga" <ksaliga [at] emdat.com> wrote

> Go back and rewatch the movie, and while doing so, watch it with the idea
> that everything in the film could have been written and constructed
exactly
> as Douglas Adams imagined it.

We know for a fact that some of the new bits are written by Douglas. The
Vorgsphere scene adn Humma, for instance.

> Does that make it better?

In the position the film makers are in it would seem important to include
any new Douglas Adams material. Part of the joy of any new work is the
discovery of new material. That's one of the reasons why I got Salmon of
Doubt.
In this storyline I think some parts are important whilst others are not. It
would seem a hard choice to cut anything new, but if it was in favour of
better material, I think they should favour the better work. but then they
would have been chastised for not using the new material. So they can't win
really.

Steve M
Re: Funny Bits by Douglas Adams [message #29451 ] Fr, 06 Mai 2005 14:41
Fuzzy Wuzzy  
"Steve Marshall" <sdm [at] atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote in message
news:427a3765$0$83089$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
>
> "Kevin Saliga" <ksaliga [at] emdat.com> wrote
>
> > Go back and rewatch the movie, and while doing so, watch it with the
idea
> > that everything in the film could have been written and constructed
> exactly
> > as Douglas Adams imagined it.
>
> We know for a fact that some of the new bits are written by Douglas. The
> Vorgsphere scene adn Humma, for instance.
>
> > Does that make it better?
>
> In the position the film makers are in it would seem important to include
> any new Douglas Adams material. Part of the joy of any new work is the
> discovery of new material. That's one of the reasons why I got Salmon of
> Doubt.
> In this storyline I think some parts are important whilst others are not.
It
> would seem a hard choice to cut anything new, but if it was in favour of
> better material, I think they should favour the better work. but then they
> would have been chastised for not using the new material. So they can't
win
> really.
>

the new material didn't have very much funny dialogue, just plot filler to
take
the place of the old actually funny dialogue - the movie is a seriously
dumbed
down version of the story make no mistake
Re: Funny Bits by Douglas Adams [message #29542 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 02:50
Steve Marshall  
"Fuzzy Wuzzy" <f [at] f.com> wrote

> the new material didn't have very much funny dialogue, just plot filler to
> take
> the place of the old actually funny dialogue - the movie is a seriously
> dumbed
> down version of the story make no mistake

Much of what is removed is guide entries. The stuff about towels, Vogons,
Babel fish and the proof of the (non)existence of God etc all gone. There is
a lot of actual dialogue cut too - Ford, my left arm has disappeared. How am
I going to operate my digital watch now ? For instance. In fact I think all
mention of digital watches has been removed maybe because they thought it
old-fashioned, digital watches being very much new technology in those days.
A great deal of the really clever stuff which defined HHGG as a Universe
looked at from a fresh different viewpoint is gone.



Steve M
Re: Funny Bits by Douglas Adams [message #29678 ] So, 08 Mai 2005 01:47
Ammut  
"Kevin Saliga" <ksaliga [at] emdat.com> wrote in message
news:117kbrfikkjtia8 [at] news.supernews.com...
> It's sad for me to think along these lines....
>
> Maybe, before he died, Douglas Adams was writing the screenplay and
thinking
> that most of what he wrote in and took out would make it a good film.
> Having never made a film before and trying to adapt a stunningly good
book,
> he wanted to do something different that would be visually pleasing, but
> retain most of what he thought was funny and mind opening.
>
> And then he died.
>
> And someone made some adjustments to the movie, but we'll never really
know
> which ones. And maybe all the things people are saying made a terrible
> movie were bits that Douglas Adams actually wrote in himself.
>
> Go back and rewatch the movie, and while doing so, watch it with the idea
> that everything in the film could have been written and constructed
exactly
> as Douglas Adams imagined it. Does that make it better? Is the idea that
> we're seeing a vision of Douglas' at this point matter more than the
actual
> content of the piece? It's a good think there is no afterlife, or Douglas
> might be looking back on the movie that he created and be so upset that
the
> people didn't like it because they thought his work was being destroyed.
>
> If this is all Douglas Adams, then he's telling a new story - the same
> story, but a much different way. Maybe it's better than the original
> because it's been tweaked over 25 years to a new version he saw. I fear
the
> only way we'll ever know is if we get the original script he wrote before
> anyone else made any changes.
>
> And will we believe it when we see it? Probably not. That's human
nature.
>
> It's sad to see bits we've enjoyed changed or deleted. For me, I'll
always
> like the way the improbablity was described upon landing in the Heart of
> Gold in the book. I'll also always like the way the Point of View gun was
> used to escape Magrathea. I didn't like the Vogons running away from the
> towel in the movie, and I didn't like the "alternate Eddie personality" in
> the book (glad they took in out in the movie and gave Marvin the line
"This
> will all end in tears"). Perhaps the best version of the story is the
ones
> we individually piece together in our minds using all of the bits we liked
> from the prior versions.
>
>

I'm of the opinion that it is unimportant whether Douglas wrote it or not.
Of more importance is the feel of the thing, the style, and I feel that the
classic Douglas style we all know and love is sadly missing from the movie.
-Ammut
Re: Funny Bits by Douglas Adams [message #29814 ] So, 08 Mai 2005 22:35
Kevin  
"Kevin Saliga" <ksaliga [at] emdat.com> wrote in message
news:117kbrfikkjtia8 [at] news.supernews.com...
> It's sad for me to think along these lines....
>
> Maybe, before he died, Douglas Adams was writing the screenplay and
> thinking that most of what he wrote in and took out would make it a good
> film. Having never made a film before and trying to adapt a stunningly
> good book, he wanted to do something different that would be visually
> pleasing, but retain most of what he thought was funny and mind opening.
>
> And then he died.
>
> And someone made some adjustments to the movie, but we'll never really
> know which ones. And maybe all the things people are saying made a
> terrible movie were bits that Douglas Adams actually wrote in himself.
>
> Go back and rewatch the movie, and while doing so, watch it with the idea
> that everything in the film could have been written and constructed
> exactly as Douglas Adams imagined it. Does that make it better? Is the
> idea that we're seeing a vision of Douglas' at this point matter more than
> the actual content of the piece? It's a good think there is no afterlife,
> or Douglas might be looking back on the movie that he created and be so
> upset that the people didn't like it because they thought his work was
> being destroyed.
>
> If this is all Douglas Adams, then he's telling a new story - the same
> story, but a much different way. Maybe it's better than the original
> because it's been tweaked over 25 years to a new version he saw. I fear
> the only way we'll ever know is if we get the original script he wrote
> before anyone else made any changes.

Agreed.

I mean, what was with the love interest between Trillian and Arthur for
pete's sake?

>
> And will we believe it when we see it? Probably not. That's human
> nature.
>
> It's sad to see bits we've enjoyed changed or deleted. For me, I'll
> always like the way the improbablity was described upon landing in the
> Heart of Gold in the book. I'll also always like the way the Point of
> View gun was used to escape Magrathea. I didn't like the Vogons running
> away from the towel in the movie, and I didn't like the "alternate Eddie
> personality" in the book (glad they took in out in the movie and gave
> Marvin the line "This will all end in tears"). Perhaps the best version
> of the story is the ones we individually piece together in our minds using
> all of the bits we liked from the prior versions.

Kevin, I have got to say I agree with you. I heard Douglas interviewed on
Rdaio Two here in Australia and he was talking about what a bunch of control
freaks DizNee were. I think we are lucky the movie eventually found its way
to the screen. Even if he would not be completely happy with the film it
does act as something of a tribute to his life's work (okay not his whole
life but the bit he may remembered for thge longest). I was full of
trepidation before I saw the film. I just wanted it to be good. You know, I
liked it. Some of the effects were really groovy. And Moss Def despite all
the hoo ha was easily better than that jerk David Dixon who played Ford in
the teevee series (AWFUL SHOW THAT IT WAS).

Help me out here. I may have nodded off but did Marvin actually say "Life,
don't talk to me about life"

(Okay I have only seen the film once, I am going again this week)
>
>
Re: Funny Bits by Douglas Adams [message #29816 ] So, 08 Mai 2005 22:37
Kevin  
"Fuzzy Wuzzy" <f [at] f.com> wrote in message
news:427b6600$0$8784$5a62ac22 [at] per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Steve Marshall" <sdm [at] atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:427a3765$0$83089$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
>>
>> "Kevin Saliga" <ksaliga [at] emdat.com> wrote
>>
>> > Go back and rewatch the movie, and while doing so, watch it with the
> idea
>> > that everything in the film could have been written and constructed
>> exactly
>> > as Douglas Adams imagined it.
>>
>> We know for a fact that some of the new bits are written by Douglas. The
>> Vorgsphere scene adn Humma, for instance.
>>
>> > Does that make it better?
>>
>> In the position the film makers are in it would seem important to include
>> any new Douglas Adams material. Part of the joy of any new work is the
>> discovery of new material. That's one of the reasons why I got Salmon of
>> Doubt.
>> In this storyline I think some parts are important whilst others are not.
> It
>> would seem a hard choice to cut anything new, but if it was in favour of
>> better material, I think they should favour the better work. but then
>> they
>> would have been chastised for not using the new material. So they can't
> win
>> really.
>>
>
> the new material didn't have very much funny dialogue, just plot filler to
> take
> the place of the old actually funny dialogue - the movie is a seriously
> dumbed
> down version of the story make no mistake

I missed Zaphod's Great, Great Grandfather appearing on The Heart of Gold.
>
>
Re: Funny Bits by Douglas Adams [message #32579 ] Di, 10 Mai 2005 21:38
Jonathan Baddeley  
> We know for a fact that some of the new bits are written by Douglas. The
> Vorgsphere scene adn Humma, for instance.

Do people think that after the radio series, books and TV series that he
might have the burning urge to not tell the exact same story? Perhaps to use
all those visual gags for the TV series that the BBC could'nt afford? :0)

Jonny5
Re: Funny Bits by Douglas Adams [message #44617 ] Sa, 21 Mai 2005 14:23
Neil Coward  
I think if an artist (or anyone for that matter) dies in the middle of a
project it bound to leave loads of loose ends. Assuming Dough has now
stopped fuming about being dead he's probably having a good laugh that he's
left his fans squabbling and arguing in dissarray.

I think his best joke was the Salmon of Doubt, I thought the Dirk Gently
story was fascinating and very promising and of course it stops halfway
though. Its as if the final joke is on us.
In The Salmon of Doubt (should I be calling in T'SOD ?) - without digging it
out and looking for the exact words - Doug says he was looking forward to
having fruitful discussions with the film people to bring his book to the
big screen. I'll bet Doug had a million clever ideas for the film. Even
though hes gone and we are not sure who wrote what, I think its an
unmitigated success.

I bet there will be sequels now, with it having done so well. Sad thing is
no DNA input apart from the text of the books.





"Kevin Saliga" <ksaliga [at] emdat.com> wrote in message
news:117kbrfikkjtia8 [at] news.supernews.com...
> It's sad for me to think along these lines....
>
> Maybe, before he died, Douglas Adams was writing the screenplay and
> thinking that most of what he wrote in and took out would make it a good
> film. Having never made a film before and trying to adapt a stunningly
> good book, he wanted to do something different that would be visually
> pleasing, but retain most of what he thought was funny and mind opening.
>
> And then he died.
>
> And someone made some adjustments to the movie, but we'll never really
> know which ones. And maybe all the things people are saying made a
> terrible movie were bits that Douglas Adams actually wrote in himself.
>
> Go back and rewatch the movie, and while doing so, watch it with the idea
> that everything in the film could have been written and constructed
> exactly as Douglas Adams imagined it. Does that make it better? Is the
> idea that we're seeing a vision of Douglas' at this point matter more than
> the actual content of the piece? It's a good think there is no afterlife,
> or Douglas might be looking back on the movie that he created and be so
> upset that the people didn't like it because they thought his work was
> being destroyed.
>
> If this is all Douglas Adams, then he's telling a new story - the same
> story, but a much different way. Maybe it's better than the original
> because it's been tweaked over 25 years to a new version he saw. I fear
> the only way we'll ever know is if we get the original script he wrote
> before anyone else made any changes.
>
> And will we believe it when we see it? Probably not. That's human
> nature.
>
> It's sad to see bits we've enjoyed changed or deleted. For me, I'll
> always like the way the improbablity was described upon landing in the
> Heart of Gold in the book. I'll also always like the way the Point of
> View gun was used to escape Magrathea. I didn't like the Vogons running
> away from the towel in the movie, and I didn't like the "alternate Eddie
> personality" in the book (glad they took in out in the movie and gave
> Marvin the line "This will all end in tears"). Perhaps the best version
> of the story is the ones we individually piece together in our minds using
> all of the bits we liked from the prior versions.
>
Vorheriges Thema:Quote
Nächstes Thema:Extreme piracy?
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 10:58:46 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,04761 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered