h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

which do you think is best the book or the film ???????

i read the book and seen the film

I read the book in 2 days as i could not put the book down at all
i thought the book was brilliant very informative and explained alot even about the weird games that they play .

I went to see the film last week and thought oh dear
they have missed out so much about harry s growing up , i also thought that the film switched between different scences without much warning

altogether i thought the book was brilliant compared to the book anyone agree ?????

the film was a let down after the excitement the contained



good site

see you soon

bye for now


stu....................

I've read all the books and saw the film yesterday (honestly, my little sister dragged me.) Without meaning to I watched the movie cataloguing the bits the film-makers had left out (sad, doesn't aid movie enjoyment but roll on Lord of the Rings anyway) and although parts of it were great Chris Columbus somehow managed to suck most of the humour from the book and turn it into a pretty dull adventure. Most of all the film missed some aspects of Harry's role and celebrity in Hogwarts - his classmates are excited to have the famous Potter boy with them but quickly turn on him when he, Ron and Hermione manage to lose Gryffindor all those points over Norbert the dragon. The film only touched on Snape's acute hatred of Harry and favouritism of Slytherin, and without giving anything away the film seemed to leave out several details which are important later on in the series. It wasn't anywhere near as rubbish as Planet of the Apes, but it really should've been better.

I think the film is very good considering time limits ( lets face it there's only so much time you can leave anyone sat infront of a screen) though it tried very much to be a 'good parts' version - and everyone has a different idea of the 'good parts' in any book - though the Harry Potter series more than most.
I have to be honest I think the book is better - because there's no limit on what you can do in your imagination, no special effects , no pg certificate that states you cant be too scary or you'll fighten someone ( usually yourself) and you dont have a cast budget ! ( though I must admit Alan Rickman has really replaced my imaginary Snape). Also because the books are writen to appeal on many levels and touch on so much I think it would have been VERY hard to have tried to bring this over into a film.
I am really looking forward to 'Harry Potter and the order of the phoenix ' ( working title only) in 2002 though
Salubri - Harry Potter fan ( age 27 & 3/4)

I think that the question is one which is easy to ask, but impossible to answer. Books and films are fundamentally different media, with completely different possibilities. You cannot copy a book straight onto film, and any script for a film will be far shorter than a book. They simply don't compare.
In fact, I reckon both book and film did very good justice to the media they were presented in. Books are about being drawn in and convinced by the authenticity of the detail. Films are about being drawn in by the sweeping movements of the overall plot. At least it can be reasonably simplified that way.
Finally, I think any comparison made like this is bound to come up with an artificial answer. Anyone who read the books and liked them enough to go and see the film would be dissapointed by how different it is. Anyone who liked the film would be the sort of person who doesn't like books much, and so wouldn't have read it.



p.s. I agree: rollon LOTR!!!

A couple of books have translated very well onto the screen, by virtue of them being rather short books in the first place, hence the film can work in all the details. Ones that spring to mind are John Malkovich's "Of Mice and Men", as well as Stand By Me (based on Stephen King's novella, They Body).

I dread to think how the film genre will be able to treat the next few Rowling books, as the first one was the shortest and least detailed. If the film leaves out details that are crucial to later books, I don't know how they will manage it.

However, Rowling herself was intimately involved in the production, and gave it a "thumb's up", so I guess it is not really my place to worry, eh?

yea the special effects in the film were really good and amazing to how they are pertrayed in the book ,

but hey i still like the book better anyone read the second book yet i ve just started it



stu...........................

The books definitely beat out the film, which was extremely rushed and only focused on one plot line.

Hey, did anyone else miss Peeves?