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

The rule of thumb seems to be that the more a book,or series of books,is enjoyed;the less chance of it becoming a film.That said,there have been exceptions.Barry Sonofield (men in black,the addams family ;for 2)is a beautifully disturbed madman,who might be able to pull it off.He is american,but don`t hold that against him,please!!what do you think???

He also made Wild Wild West and Men In Black 2....which were very dissapointing films. Might it be that Hollywood doesn't quite understand the unique British sense of humour of the books?

that`s it-normally, that which makes a book +++ is un-translatable to a film. Imagination?...on a tangent???

Wasn't Will Smith in all those films? Maybe that's it. Except Adams Family. I liked that film. The pale skinned girl was my favourite. I have a thing about girls with pale skin.

Speaking from the States, I can say that Hollywood is the blindest, most idiotic institution that we posess (besides Congress and the Presidency, and, as a matter of fact, pretty much our entire government). Best to leave it to the Brits, I say, and good luck to you.

Pentameter/Semiquaver

AAhhhaaa,lovely wednesday! Cristina Ricchie.I liked M in B 2.The Addams family chronicles were all watchable.
Not every film directed by B. Sonnofield`s hit the mark.to be sure,you can`t please everybody all the time
Bummer about my title.I`m so used to coming out,well, NOT B-!

WE CAN@T MAKE FILMS! Name one good film maker from britain. We've had loadsa good actors.

Alfred Hitchcock, David Lean, Charles (A Fish Called Wanda) Crighton, Ridley and Tony Scott, Sam Mendes... need I go on?

yes

Perhaps you could let us know what your definition of a 'worthy' film is to make your point; I think of the drama/documentarist Ken Loach, Mike Leigh, Terry Jones.

The thorny issue is really about matching the written material from an amazing radio-series (which relied on our imagined sets and settings)....to a book, which did much the same...to a film, which makes everything concrete and visual.

That requires the talents of the writer, able to take material that's mostly ideas and cleverly-connected thoughts which are funny when spoken or read....and make them come across hilariously when SEEN.

Compound this with the need to have maximum connection with an audience who won't be familiar with the ideas, even if they've read the books/heard the radio-series....(asking cinema patrons to think is the anethema in Hollywood because doing so baffles studio executives, never mind audiences)....because films are incredibly expensive to make and so must do very well at the box-office.

If I were the screenwriters having a go at this material, I'd be both terrified and deeply thrilled: the challenge of this adaptation (to see an adaptation done extremely badly, watch 'Adaptation', from the two who made the very clever 'Being John Malkovich') and the deep terror of messing with 1)a classic work that everyone who's heard/read it loves; 2) the style of presentation.

Hollywood will be baffled by it because there are no shoot-outs (any sort of overt violence of the kind they're used to), naked women, car-chases, nor the need for any star-names (marquee value) to draw crowds and so both promote the film and recoup the investment.

Much as I'm keen to see a film version, I'm also incredibly nervous about the outcome.

Fruitbat

*starts heating water for long baths & really strong *

They'll need it

I haven't seen any of there films but I will correct myself. A good British film series would be Monty Python. We love those guys.

oh, let's just hope it becomes a movie this time.
I've heard so many rumours about a coming hitchhiker movie, I just hope they manage it this time. AND that they manage to convert it to a good movie...

I've seen clips of the one where you can 'see the string'. It'd be worth watching just to check how bad it is really.

I've seen clips of the one where you can 'see the string'. It'd be worth watching just to check how bad it is really.

I hope they don't make a movie... it will never be as good as the books and will probably be very disappointing to people who really like the books and have read them more than once.

I used to say the same thing about Lord of the Rings. That they could never capture what Tolkien was saying. But they have captured enough to make the series worthwhile and I think they could capture enough of what DNA said as well.

What an adaptation would need is: A + director & a + screenwriter...& Rick Baker for visual props!

Hmm... I'd say Industrial Light and Magic will be needed for this one. If they can make Final Fantasy X happen... then Zaphod Beeblebrox's two heads and three arms should be a piece of cake. (fairy cake, that is.) And think of Marvin... the possibilities are endless.

I would love to see Terry Gilliam direct this movie. He has that grasp of the sublimely ridiculous that Hitchhiker's needs. Barry Sonnenfeld doesn't think big enough.

One thing that all this has brought to mind; Douglas Adams was always concerned that the consumer of the product - radio show, television show, book, and interactive text adventure - would always get something a little different. Something added to the story -whether it's the tale of Arthur becoming an asteroid painter in the interactive text adventure, or Ford in the television series mentioning that Marvin sounds like Pink Floyd when he hums, there was always something new to enjoy. I haven't gotten to see the new script (has anybody?!) but I hope that he kept that tradition.

Oh... speaking of which... just got the Hitchhiker's DVD of the tv series. Possibly the coolest interactive DVD menu I've seen. (Not to mention the recording is so much better than the ancient tape that I have!)

The TV series didn't work for me, probably because of the clunky visual effects, although the 'Guide' worked well. My main worry for the film is that too much of the book / series will have to be missed out to fit things into the regulation 1.5 - 2 hours. That's usually what ruins an adaptation. The reason LotR is better than I expected is that they had the sense to do each book seperately, rather than running it into one film.