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

... that with enough marketing and hype, people will buy anything.

How any self respecting adult can read this is beyond me. It's all cliched trite. I mean, can anyone imagine the thought process of JKR when she wrote this monstrosity?

Lead character-
Need sympathy. Can't be mithered with sorting out a decent backstory, or any depth so I'll make him an orphan! Instant sympathy!
*looks through fairy tales*
And let's throw in some evil family who he has to live with too!

Lead villain-
Erm, need him to be hated, too much hassle to make an interesting and evil character so I'll say he killed the lead's parents! No thought required!

Supporting cast-
Hmm, a best mate. I know, comic value! He can be inept! But how to re-enforce this???
*looks at big book of stereotypes*
Ginger hair and freckles!!!
Now we need a girl... I know, let's be original and make her precocious and bossy! That's not been overdone!
And it's about a wizard so we'll throw in a Merlin ripoff too!

Merchandising-
Let's invent a pathetic nonsensical sport and make it into a computer game!!! And have some kind of jelly beans!

Face it, the woman is a hack. How she can be spoken of in the same breath as Tolkein, Gemmell, GCSE English students, etc without the use of the words "She's not fit to clean the boots of...' is beyond me.

Nice entry, but the subject matter is appaling. Spot the Dog is less two dimensional than Potter.

Psyc

well...

that was interesting to read
although i have read the potter books i do agree,
Tolken and co are much better, and origanal... and imagenative...

Try reading it like this

Harry Potter = Frodo Baggins
Ron 'the ginger kid' = Samwise Gamgee
Dumbledore = Gandalf
Dimentias (sp?) = Ringwraiths
Muggles/children = hobbits
spiders = shelob
'The main bad guy whose name escapes me' = Sauron (both bisembodied iirc)

Give it another 50 years im sure someone else will do a P*ss poor job of ripping off the good professors work.

If only she'd stopped at ripping off the good professor. She's nicked nearly every fantasy character ever created. How soon until we see a Rincewind (Terry Pratchett's inept ginger wizzard)? Oh wait, is that not the future of Ginger Ron, the Wizzard.

She even rips of Enid Blyton. She also made a living writing about middle class orphans who don't fit in going away to bording school for 'lashings of ginger beer' and 'topper midnight scran sessions.'

The American bible belt wants them banned. Pity it's for the wrong reasons.

prisoner of askaban = escape from alcatraz

Its amazing that shes gotten away with it. Im surprised she hasnt 'fallen down a ravine' or other such incident.

The only part of the whole farce that i like in the slightest is maggie smith playing that woman (the old one) and robbie coltrane, simply because hes good in everything.

I know. As far as they taught me in A-Level law, stealing is wrong.
And how the hell they're willing to spend millions on making films of this crap when David Gemmell's Drenai and Druss the Legend sagas are screaming out to be put on the screen is astonishing.

Face it, HP is just the book for the McDonalds, Microsoft, Americanized generation that wants the same recycled rubbish because challenging your perceptions or (Bob forbid) making you /work/ for a fewarding story isn't cool.

People of the world, stop reading this cack and move up to Ladybird readers for the under 5's. At least Timmy bouncing the ball isn't a ripoff of 15 different authors, all of whom worked damn hard!

I dont think you could stick legend on the big screen. ive thought about it a hell of a lot and far too much would be hacked out. Maybe if you left out the thirty, and concentrated more on the duke then on druss then you'd get away with it, but the only guy whos got the age and the shape to play druss is mr conan himself and i dont think hed do it.

Dunno, I always thought of him as slightly shorter than Ahnold...

Ever read any Moorcock? The Elric of Melnibone saga is classic fantasy literature, and the obvious inspiration behind GW's Dark Elves.

See i always saw him as a dwarf, but theres no one who has the stature (having said that though, i suppose John-Rhys Davis could do it at his normal height without gimli-fication)

I'll probably get roasted for saying it, but whatever you think of the books they have got some things right.

for a start, Lord of the Rings is heavy going, which puts a lot of people of reading in general and reading it specifically. in contrast the harry potter books have got a lot of people reading who wouldn't have been caught dead doing it just a couple of years earlier.

also, while there is a lot of stereotypes being used in harry potter, it isn't that bad. it is reasonably consistant, without some of the major problems of missing clues being thrown in at the end which a lot of stories have. While there are some revelations at the end of the book, there is nothing fundamental missing which spoils the enjoyability of the puzzle solving elements.

I personally have read thousands of sci-fi and fantasy novels covering mand decades, and while I don't particularly like the writing style of the potter books, I have read a lot worse, including some which are generally regarded as classics.

If you don't like them, fine.

If you want to criticise them, also fine, but do try and stick with the things which are specifically wrong with these books, rather than moaning about things that are endemic in a lot of modern work.

I quite agree there. Harry Potter is a poor mans lame version of LOTR. Its a bit like saying 'Dont read the illiad A-level student, read spot the dog instead'. I say A-level students as many of them in my english group choose to do HP in a coursework.

Indeed theres a lot JK probibly did get right. Not that Tolkien didnt do it first and then get it ripped by her though.

It saddens me that probibly the most complete ficticious works in literature has been pushed aside by a rip of merchant and AOL merchandising.
The sad thing is, she knows that she can make an infinite number of books and makes millions from it (she'll only stop at another 7 if she gets hit by a car... good thing i cant drive/know where she lives)

I presume by your comments that you are refering to the lotr films vs the harry potter films.

lotr is spectacularly badly placed to be a good film, as it is just too long.

It barely works as a trilogy of books, with each being a bit on the long side. I am sure that if it was being released now it would probably be released as six individual books, as was the primary split in the original book.

The initial attempt at producing a single (animated) film was pushing it. Having three individual films based upon the three parts it is normally slit into was better, especially as it has done well enough to gaurentee the remakes in future, but I think it would work better split into six films, without having to cut away anything like as much to make it work at all.

as for the HP films, I have seen stuff which is a lot worse, so I don't really have much that I want to criticise them for.

You don't quite comprehend what you've just done, do you xyroth...?

*hits the deck*

"I presume by your comments that you are refering to the lotr films vs the harry potter films."
Not much contest really..

"lotr is spectacularly badly placed to be a good film, as it is just too long."
If long films bother you dont watch it. Its your loss.
The extended films are a total of 12 hours (ish) and when i get my grubby paws on the final one i intend to watch them back to back. Thats how its meant to be. Like the books they are a totally complete work of fiction.

"It barely works as a trilogy of books, with each being a bit on the long side."
If length is all that consititutes a good book, then Spot the Dog should be the greatest of all time should it not?

"I am sure that if it was being released now it would probably be released as six individual books, as was the primary split in the original book."
And then Tolkien would have spun in his grave. and Harry Potter would never have existed, along with many other fantasy stories.

"The initial attempt at producing a single (animated) film was pushing it."
Indeed, but do you know when the animated version was made? theres been so many advances in technology and film making (many done in the film) to make the lord of the rings possible. Okay theres the odd moment where a keen eye will spot the cgi's flaws (legolas off troll for instance) but theres others where it looks incredibly realistic (gollum, or even gandalf at Khazad-dum)

"Having three individual films based upon the three parts it is normally slit into was better, especially as it has done well enough to gaurentee the remakes in future, but I think it would work better split into six films, without having to cut away anything like as much to make it work at all."
You simply couldnt make it as six films and to think that is insanity. Theres just no clear way you could split it, or even compress it (which New Line recognised).
There wont be remakes in my or your life time. Its like star wars really. They cant touch the original but they can work around it. So expect the hobbit some time 2008-2010 (when peter jacksons finished with his monkey) and possibly the silmarillion if it was possible. And perhaps they'll tidy up the cgi in places. But seeing as though most of the cgi etc is brand new technology now, dont expect a remake quite so soon.

"as for the HP films, I have seen stuff which is a lot worse, so I don't really have much that I want to criticise them for."
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
Firtly, look at the dementias. How they do look familiar (ringwraiths anyone?)
Secondly in harry potter two, giant spiders (shelob..) surround the car thing in a very ZULU-esque way
Thirdly, the tree attacks the car to grab the Harry and the ginger one inside (two young hobbits...)
The big wizardy chap at the school (see how much i cared?) look strangely like gandalf...
The main bad guy is a disembodied thing that watches Harry (aka the eye of sauron)
Azkhwatisface is clearly alcatraz, with someone escaping from it (yes i know he turns into a rat to escape, but like the man who escaped from alcatraz, he does it my crawling around)

I could continue, but ill have to watch the films again. Harry Potter is a great way of printing money, Time Warner AOL knows this, and so does JK Rowling...

He-Who-Should-Not-Be-Named

Recognise that psyc? sounds like She-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named from 40k, or even the simplified She Who Thirsts....

"If length is all that consititutes a good book, then Spot the Dog should be the greatest of all time should it not?"

It is! Eeeh, Where's Spot has so many twists and turns, and when you finally lift the flap on the basket to reveal Spot? Literary magnificence.

yes, I do realise what I've done, but I expected the reply to have slightly basis in reality than the one I actually got.

but let's defeat those points gradually shall we....

taking the book length vs film quality point first, the longer the book, the harder it is to make into a good film. this can be seen from a number of films which are more inspired by the book than based upon it, but I think the examples of sphere, timeline, jurasic park, the puppet masters and starship troopers are more than enough examples to be going on with.

I personally don't have a problem watching long films, but experience has told movie producers that to be sucessfull a film should really be somewhere between 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 hours long. Each of the lotr films are over 3 hours long, and in each case I could hear members of the audience starting to fidget because of the length.

The extended lotr films are a good idea, but are still too short to do the book justice. also, given the problems the audience were having with the ordinary length films, the chances of them doing well in the cinema's are rather small.

Yes I did know that the animated film was released, but you seem to have forgotten that it only had a couple of minutes voice over with stills to cover all of return of the king.

That was about 20 years ago. and lo and behold it was attempted again. with some success. the films are at least mostly faithfil to the books, but the complete redefinition of the characters of merry and pipin to fit the shortened length doesn't help them.

neither does the almost complete elimination of the ents, or the removal of tom bombadil.

I will have to verify your point about the lack of a decent split point for making it six books or films, but considering the fact that the empire strikes back and the return of the jedi are basically one long story with a contrived break in the middle, it is still possible to do the same with lotr.

Alice in wonderland was also fairly impressive when it first came out, but that has not stoped there from being 3 other versions remade at various times, again with about 20 years between them.

The delay with the hobbit has nothing to do with the monkey, and everything to do with daft intellectuall copyright rules allowing the future film to be owned and controled by multiple parties, making it impossible to make until it is sorted out. It is not the only film with this problem, and I am sure that some of them will never reach the screen.

As for your claims of plagurism, they are just rubbish. Just about every story about wizards which I have read which mentions a jail for dark wizards only has the one. Quite often they have an escape happen, and quite a few have a mass escape happen.

The appearence of the guards again is nothing very unusual. they are usually fearsome creatures, often hiding themselves away under cloaks when they go among normal wizards and ordinary people.

O look, they have made the wizard be fairly old with silver hair and a long beard. isn't that unusual? well, no, not really. most wizards who are teachers are also presented in this way, dating right back to merlin in the earliest arthurian movies, which as tolkien had the chance to see them, he must have copied for gandalf.

Seriously though, tolkien took various characters from various historical works, in some cases keeping the description the same, but you then complain that rowling did the same thing.

there is a name for that, it is called creative writing, and ALL good authors do it to some degree.

Yes, a lot of the conventions she borrows from are not new, but they all were old enough to have hair on them when tolkien was writing, and there are lots of places in lotr where he has done the same tricks.

If you are going to criticise harry potter for having those flaws, then recognise the same flaws in lotr, and if you are unwilling or unable to see them in lotr, then take your rose coloured glasses off and have another look.

I say again, criticise films you don't like based upon their own unique faults, rather than just for using the same tricks as 90% (or more) of the rest of the genre.

"the films are at least mostly faithfil to the books, but the complete redefinition of the characters of merry and pipin to fit the shortened length doesn't help them.

neither does the almost complete elimination of the ents, or the removal of tom bombadil."

And Faramir. *seethes*

"Yes, a lot of the conventions she borrows from are not new, but they all were old enough to have hair on them when tolkien was writing, and there are lots of places in lotr where he has done the same tricks."

So in essence, all wizards are take-offs from Merlin?

Besides, before I get dragged into this, my point was the sheer amount of cliche in the books, which I stand by, as opposed to any plagarism real or imagined.

This is like arguing with robin about the harry potter films vs the lotr films. Entertaining.

"taking the book length vs film quality point first, the longer the book, the harder it is to make into a good film. "
Now where you get a notion like that? LOTR is a brilliant film, no matter where you look at it from. Its 10 hours long without the extended. Troy is another example (despite my grumblings about accuracy) based on the 290ish page illiad. Making a film of a book can be done. If anything its easier, especially with older books, because you can research opinions and thoughts and work out the preconceived ideas and go from that. All depends on director and writer to be truthful.

"I personally don't have a problem watching long films, but experience has told movie producers that to be sucessfull a film should really be somewhere between 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 hours long. Each of the lotr films are over 3 hours long, and in each case I could hear members of the audience starting to fidget because of the length."
Hmmm i think you've sort of got that one extremely wrong. The biggest money maker of this century is Lord Of The Rings. Course people are going to fidget, but how many do you see getting up? not many. Even at two hours in, after a large coke and with a full bladder, most sat it out for the second and third installments, after realising what they'd missed when they saw the first and went to the loo.

"The extended lotr films are a good idea, but are still too short to do the book justice."
To do the book justice you need basically all the money Time Warner AOL had, a machine that stopped actors from aging, a couple of thousand actors, and all of new zealand. To do the entire book would have been simply impossible. Ive heard the arguement about things being left out before, its just a case of accepting that it couldnt be done. The filming took an entire year, shooting back to back.

"the chances of them doing well in the cinema's are rather small."
The extendeds are dvds. As i have already stated Lord Of The Rings is this centuries star wars. Plenty of money at the box office and plenty more still coming in.

"Yes I did know that the animated film was released, but you seem to have forgotten that it only had a couple of minutes voice over with stills to cover all of return of the king."
I havent actually seen it. I know its old, i know it didnt do well.

"That was about 20 years ago. and lo and behold it was attempted again. with some success."
Yes, because someone went after it. Peter Jackson spent about a year trying to secure rights to the films and then get someone to pay for it. New Line were the only people who'd touch it, because the rest probibly knew about the animation, or didnt want to spend that much money.

"neither does the almost complete elimination of the ents, or the removal of tom bombadil."
Tom Bombadil?! your moaning about tom bombadil?!?!?! Imagine it. Tense moment as frodo and the gang move through a murky wood having seen a rider in black, then...
Big jolly man with a blue hat and a yellow coat appears from no where, starts to sing, and invites them in for tea. The ents get more in the extended edition by the way, and i was quite happy with what was in the original.

"I will have to verify your point about the lack of a decent split point for making it six books or films, but considering the fact that the empire strikes back and the return of the jedi are basically one long story with a contrived break in the middle, it is still possible to do the same with lotr."
Not really. There needs to be a cliff hanger with some magnetude. For example, the split in fellowship for the two discs is at the council of elrond. Elrond says 'you'll be the fellowship of the ring' and it cuts. That is not a cliff hanger.

"The delay with the hobbit has nothing to do with the monkey, and everything to do with daft intellectuall copyright rules allowing the future film to be owned and controled by multiple parties, making it impossible to make until it is sorted out."
The Saul Zantes company own the rights. Peter Jackson gained the rights to make three films. AOL Time Warner own New Line Cinema, who in turn funded wingnut who made the films. Now Saul Zantes arent stupid. They know how much money they can make, and they know that giving it to a direct other then Jackson (or one of his underlings) would be suicide. King Kong is Jacksons next film, and more then likely the hobbit will come after that.

"As for your claims of plagurism, they are just rubbish. Just about every story about wizards which I have read which mentions a jail for dark wizards only has the one. Quite often they have an escape happen, and quite a few have a mass escape happen."
Azkahban is clearly alcatraz. No ones escaped from it (if what robin tells me is true) apart from one man. They are both on an island, and people were known to go insane at alcatraz (if memory serves). Also has the same number of vowels in the name.

"The appearence of the guards again is nothing very unusual. they are usually fearsome creatures, often hiding themselves away under cloaks when they go among normal wizards and ordinary people."
They look far to much like ringwraiths. I promise you now, that come 1:30pm friday, when i go to the pictures to see this (i got a ticket free, and was half persuaded half forced) i wil stand up and shout 'run frodo' as soon as one appears.

"O look, they have made the wizard be fairly old with silver hair and a long beard. isn't that unusual? well, no, not really. most wizards who are teachers are also presented in this way, dating right back to merlin in the earliest arthurian movies, which as tolkien had the chance to see them, he must have copied for gandalf."
Ah yes back in 1950 when he started writting lotr. No doubt he took influences from many areas. The Rohan are clearly anglo-saxon and this can be seen from the language alone.

"Seriously though, tolkien took various characters from various historical works, in some cases keeping the description the same, but you then complain that rowling did the same thing."
Tolkien didnt just sit down in a kitchen and write the book. He was a professor of English. He knew how to manipulate language to the extent where the reader gets an image without actually knowing it. Elves seem sophisticated etc because they use lots of clauses, have a language of there own, and use highly latinate phrases. Take a look and see.

"there is a name for that, it is called creative writing, and ALL good authors do it to some degree."
Creative writing is something Rowling should look into. Im sure she'd be good at it.

"If you are going to criticise harry potter for having those flaws, then recognise the same flaws in lotr, and if you are unwilling or unable to see them in lotr, then take your rose coloured glasses off and have another look."
Can i perhaps know what im looking for. I mean, ive looked at the films for the past two years and i watch either fellowship or two towers once a fortnight so that stuff i need for media isnt forgotten. Tell me what exactly i am looking for and ill observe tonight.

"I say again, criticise films you don't like based upon their own unique faults, rather than just for using the same tricks as 90% (or more) of the rest of the genre."
The only differences between Frodo and Harry are magical ability, a scar, and age (although in the eyes of men they both appear to be children).


Tolkien wrote the hobbit, then went on and created an entirely original story that is the most complete work of fiction that has ever existed. He could have wrote a sequel for the hobbit, as many had requested he do, but instead he started from scratch. JK Rowling would never do that. Shes even said theres another three harry potter books... (50 quid says they'll be another five, including harry gets a job at hogwarts, and harry loses his job but gets it back again through some daring feat)

Hang on...

"The Rohan are clearly anglo-saxon and this can be seen from the language alone."

The Rohan are clearly [English] because the book is written in English?
The Rohan are Nordic, blonde hair, blue eyes, names like Theoden. Stick a medieval Nordic royal suffix (Theoden-Cynig) on the end, and tell me they're still meant to be Anglo-Saxon.