An alternative to how to write the Hitch HIker's Guide movie (which no one important will read and that's a pity)
Created | Updated Oct 29, 2002
I have read an admittedly dated review of an old script for the Guide movie http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/35986p1.html and it kind of concerned me. Admittedly, this won't do any good because Disney will do what it wants, but I felt compelled to write my thoughts anyway and leave them here, after firing off an email to the nice man who wrote that review, and realizing that that won't do any good either. Please feel free to read on as it may have a few mildly funny bits in it, but Marvin is nowhere to be found.
We Guide fans have been waiting for an honest to Belgium theatrical film version of Guide since the original radio production, and many of us are most noticably a bit anal about it-if not downright militantly zealous. When I learned some months ago that it would be done by Disney, I gained a few grey hairs over it myself. However, if they're willing to devote $120 million, I'm willing to give it a chance. We've heard the radio version, seen the BBC version which was quite fun but more campy than Dr. Who, and the text-based computer game and the books and the comic and on and on. We'd just like to see it done right.
I know no one cares about my opinion, but just the same I'll tell you why the movie adaptation isn't working. They're making the same mistake all the other adaptations have made including the books. I don't mean to say that our illustrious leader, the Great Tall One, is fallible and human, but, well... I hate to break it to you my fellow Douglas Adams fans: he's fallible and human. The original version of Guide, the radio script, was written under incredible stress and pressure by Adams himself. He's repeatedly admitted in interviews that he had no idea where he was going with it, and basically did it because he was getting paid. He certainly never expected it to turn into what it has.
He's pleased as punch while simultaneously psychologically scarred forever. The Hitch Hiker's Guide is effectively the Frankenstein of the modern age. He's created a monster even he cannot completely control. The Improbability Drive for example. Why is it there? Well, he had written himself into an improbable corner, and needed something improbable to get himself out. He wasn't trying to make a classic work of literature that would withstand the ages. He was trying to be funny and to entertain. Surprisingly, my research in history tells me that old b******s like Mark Twain and William Shakespeare were doing the same thing. They wrote to entertain people; not to attain literary sainthood.
The plot elements are salvagable, but to turn this into a 2 hour film, the order of events must be redistributed and they shouldn't try to squeeze the entire first book into one film. Here's one example of what I mean. In the earlier versions, Zaphod and Arthur allegedly met six months before the Earth blows up, at a party in an Inslington flat. That was also where Arthur attempted to court Trillian and failed miserably, and then Zaphod shows up and literally sweeps Trillian off her feet. Unfortunately, all this background is revealed late in the story. How? Arthur and Zaphod argue about it. It's simply exposition. It's like when Shakespeare used to have a bit player run on stage and announce great battles or the death of prominent people that happened onstage. He couldn't necessarily show it, so he just announces it, and odds are Shakespeare added such tidbits in for later drafts just to move the story forward.
Yes. Shakespeare, like Adams, was infallible and human. Believe it or not. There needs to be established history with the four major Guide characters so they're not complete strangers when they finally meet on the Heart of Gold. As the plot exists now, it makes for terrible moviemaking. However, if we moved things around a bit we can see a plot that works better on film. If the story STARTED at the Islington flat, we establish more of a Status Quo between the characters, thus better building up to the climax of the first film.
The rest of the story would make a bit more sense both to diehard fans as well as newcomers to the story. We can establish in the opening scenes that Trillian has taken to carrying her mice pets in her purse. Why? Because she's fond of them and is a bit eccentric. Again, in the radio adaptation, Adams just put that in when he needed the mice. When he wrote the first episode about the bulldozer, he wasn't thinking he'd need the mice later. He was writing by the seat of his pants for the radio show. We can look at the previous versions of the tale and see them as earlier drafts for this Main Event. We don't have to stick to it as if it were gospel. It's not. I know I speak heresy, but it's the truth.
Then, instead of six months later, we learn that the planet is to get blown up THE MORNING AFTER. Follow me:
Arthur fails to get with Trillian because Zaphod (disguised as "Phil") steals her from him.
Arthur gets drunk and attempts to seduce a potted plant, then someone pours him into a taxi and he goes home dejected.
Meanwhile, Ford Prefect learns by pure chance that the world is to be blown up to make way for a hyperspace bypass.
Having no idea that his semi-cousin Zaphod is on the planet, Ford makes a couple failed attempts to get off the planet, and as morning breaks he rushes to find Arthur at home and we can pretty much pick up from there as normal.
So the story doesn't begin with the bulldozer. So what? We get a few scenes before the bulldozer to establish the characters and build a foundation upon which the rest of the film can stand, so we don't lose all the newcomers. Sometimes in order to tell a story properly, you have to find a better starting point. I think the Islington flat party is the perfect place. Granted, this would change A LOT of things. We do still need the improbability drive, but we wouldn't need to use the improbability drive to save Arthur and Ford after they are kicked out of the Vogon airlock. Zaphod and Trillian are still in the neighborhood and might get captured by the Vogons. There's a whole new set of possibilities.
One of the wonderful aspects of the many variations of the Guide, from radio to book to computer game and so on, is that the ending is never written in stone. In fact, there is no ending, really. The fifth book of the trilogy was an attempt to destroy all the principal characters once and for all. Basically Douglas Adams was saying he's had enough and has made quite enough money thank you very much and will write no more novels about this without someone sticking his feet in hot coals. As wonderful as all this is, Adam's is simultaneously just as sick of this whole thing as you might suspect, and has admittedly created a monster. He can't really escape it. Disney must have bought him a small country to convince him to even attempt this. If they stay true to the strange but fun roller coaster ride of silliness that the many versions of the Guide have had, while refining and solidifying the actual plot, they can entertain old fan and new arrival alike, and keep the entire franchise of Hitch Hikerness fresh and new.
My point, and I do have one, is that the tale CAN work for film, but they can't stick to the original order of the plot elements. For a radio serial that needed a cliffhanger at the end of every episode, it worked brilliantly. For a two hour movie that may or may not see a sequel depending on its success, the tale needs to be re-evaluated, and the first film should focus on the destruction of the Earth, and how the four of them survive the experience. The first film should end in with the four of them being reunited on the Heart Of Gold. Magrathea and the rest of the first novel should be saved for any theoretical sequels.
And if I could get Mickey Mouse on the phone and tell him I would, but he won't return my phone calls. The rat.
We Guide fans have been waiting for an honest to Belgium theatrical film version of Guide since the original radio production, and many of us are most noticably a bit anal about it-if not downright militantly zealous. When I learned some months ago that it would be done by Disney, I gained a few grey hairs over it myself. However, if they're willing to devote $120 million, I'm willing to give it a chance. We've heard the radio version, seen the BBC version which was quite fun but more campy than Dr. Who, and the text-based computer game and the books and the comic and on and on. We'd just like to see it done right.
I know no one cares about my opinion, but just the same I'll tell you why the movie adaptation isn't working. They're making the same mistake all the other adaptations have made including the books. I don't mean to say that our illustrious leader, the Great Tall One, is fallible and human, but, well... I hate to break it to you my fellow Douglas Adams fans: he's fallible and human. The original version of Guide, the radio script, was written under incredible stress and pressure by Adams himself. He's repeatedly admitted in interviews that he had no idea where he was going with it, and basically did it because he was getting paid. He certainly never expected it to turn into what it has.
He's pleased as punch while simultaneously psychologically scarred forever. The Hitch Hiker's Guide is effectively the Frankenstein of the modern age. He's created a monster even he cannot completely control. The Improbability Drive for example. Why is it there? Well, he had written himself into an improbable corner, and needed something improbable to get himself out. He wasn't trying to make a classic work of literature that would withstand the ages. He was trying to be funny and to entertain. Surprisingly, my research in history tells me that old b******s like Mark Twain and William Shakespeare were doing the same thing. They wrote to entertain people; not to attain literary sainthood.
The plot elements are salvagable, but to turn this into a 2 hour film, the order of events must be redistributed and they shouldn't try to squeeze the entire first book into one film. Here's one example of what I mean. In the earlier versions, Zaphod and Arthur allegedly met six months before the Earth blows up, at a party in an Inslington flat. That was also where Arthur attempted to court Trillian and failed miserably, and then Zaphod shows up and literally sweeps Trillian off her feet. Unfortunately, all this background is revealed late in the story. How? Arthur and Zaphod argue about it. It's simply exposition. It's like when Shakespeare used to have a bit player run on stage and announce great battles or the death of prominent people that happened onstage. He couldn't necessarily show it, so he just announces it, and odds are Shakespeare added such tidbits in for later drafts just to move the story forward.
Yes. Shakespeare, like Adams, was infallible and human. Believe it or not. There needs to be established history with the four major Guide characters so they're not complete strangers when they finally meet on the Heart of Gold. As the plot exists now, it makes for terrible moviemaking. However, if we moved things around a bit we can see a plot that works better on film. If the story STARTED at the Islington flat, we establish more of a Status Quo between the characters, thus better building up to the climax of the first film.
The rest of the story would make a bit more sense both to diehard fans as well as newcomers to the story. We can establish in the opening scenes that Trillian has taken to carrying her mice pets in her purse. Why? Because she's fond of them and is a bit eccentric. Again, in the radio adaptation, Adams just put that in when he needed the mice. When he wrote the first episode about the bulldozer, he wasn't thinking he'd need the mice later. He was writing by the seat of his pants for the radio show. We can look at the previous versions of the tale and see them as earlier drafts for this Main Event. We don't have to stick to it as if it were gospel. It's not. I know I speak heresy, but it's the truth.
Then, instead of six months later, we learn that the planet is to get blown up THE MORNING AFTER. Follow me:
Arthur fails to get with Trillian because Zaphod (disguised as "Phil") steals her from him.
Arthur gets drunk and attempts to seduce a potted plant, then someone pours him into a taxi and he goes home dejected.
Meanwhile, Ford Prefect learns by pure chance that the world is to be blown up to make way for a hyperspace bypass.
Having no idea that his semi-cousin Zaphod is on the planet, Ford makes a couple failed attempts to get off the planet, and as morning breaks he rushes to find Arthur at home and we can pretty much pick up from there as normal.
So the story doesn't begin with the bulldozer. So what? We get a few scenes before the bulldozer to establish the characters and build a foundation upon which the rest of the film can stand, so we don't lose all the newcomers. Sometimes in order to tell a story properly, you have to find a better starting point. I think the Islington flat party is the perfect place. Granted, this would change A LOT of things. We do still need the improbability drive, but we wouldn't need to use the improbability drive to save Arthur and Ford after they are kicked out of the Vogon airlock. Zaphod and Trillian are still in the neighborhood and might get captured by the Vogons. There's a whole new set of possibilities.
One of the wonderful aspects of the many variations of the Guide, from radio to book to computer game and so on, is that the ending is never written in stone. In fact, there is no ending, really. The fifth book of the trilogy was an attempt to destroy all the principal characters once and for all. Basically Douglas Adams was saying he's had enough and has made quite enough money thank you very much and will write no more novels about this without someone sticking his feet in hot coals. As wonderful as all this is, Adam's is simultaneously just as sick of this whole thing as you might suspect, and has admittedly created a monster. He can't really escape it. Disney must have bought him a small country to convince him to even attempt this. If they stay true to the strange but fun roller coaster ride of silliness that the many versions of the Guide have had, while refining and solidifying the actual plot, they can entertain old fan and new arrival alike, and keep the entire franchise of Hitch Hikerness fresh and new.
My point, and I do have one, is that the tale CAN work for film, but they can't stick to the original order of the plot elements. For a radio serial that needed a cliffhanger at the end of every episode, it worked brilliantly. For a two hour movie that may or may not see a sequel depending on its success, the tale needs to be re-evaluated, and the first film should focus on the destruction of the Earth, and how the four of them survive the experience. The first film should end in with the four of them being reunited on the Heart Of Gold. Magrathea and the rest of the first novel should be saved for any theoretical sequels.
And if I could get Mickey Mouse on the phone and tell him I would, but he won't return my phone calls. The rat.
