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

...I like Colfer. I just don't think it's a good idea. I reckon as an atheist DNA wouldn't like us to contact him via Ouija board, but unless we can do that and get his assent, then they should let sleeping creatures from Alpha Centuri lie. If he really wanted someone else to continue his work, he might have said so, and all good things MUST come to an end - or else they stop being good. Isn't five books enough for one trilogy? Consider, they are five works of pure and simple genius, now let it be, let it rest, let some other young blades (or would it be pens? mightier than the sword and all that) try to live up to DNA's legacy, but they'll never do it with H2G2 - he was the master and creator of that, let them have their own ideas. Colfer is a fab writer and Artemis Fowl(e?) was a work of considerable merit as well as being an indepedant idea. Mr Gaiman (the only person I see as up to the job) has the greatest respect for DNA, writes his own, original stuff, and I'm sure that Pratchett would also decline this opportunity. They have their own ideas, they write their own books. Perhaps - for the purists - no one will come up with anything that good for a century or more but it doesn't matter because any imitation will be far worse that (dare I say it) something completely different.

For the sake of ART, don't remake films without a damn good reason, don't write sequels it just traps the movement of literature, and don't - whatever you do - try to translate books into films....

Gadzooks. And this was meant to be a short post. My apologies.

Hang on, are you saying books should never be made in to films? Ever?

Yeah, pretty much - I don't mind people basing films on books, but the 'film of the book' thing is kinda worrying to me - I mean, are these people incapable of having ideas of their own? Film is an independant artistic medium with its own intrinsic worth, I find most adaptions are detrimental both to the feel of the book and the development of the film. But, hey, contentious point, I know

sorry, I've just wrested control back from my evil twin - I wasn't saying it never works, but I generally find when you withdraw something from the inventor, without a serious consideration of what the whole thing was about and then claim it's the same thing there's something a little suspect happening.

Plus, the two mediums are so different - a novel can be SO long, both in emotional/ philosophical reflection and events, whereas a film has got three and a half hours max, and needs to maintain interest throughout - particularly to people who have never read the book and therefore don't have a vested interest. You have to make cuts, and, well, who's to say what is important - they turned Pride and Prejudice into a romance, for crying out loud! Adaptions can work, but it seems to be such a knee jerk reaction to make the film of any marginally successful book at the moment and most of them really don't work.

I don't tend to like 'film of the book's when I compare the film to the book. However, I love the Harry Potter films, and the books, as two separate things. They're great films. And Jurassic Park! I mean, come on! A brilliant film! And the film Stardust I actually prefer to the book, although it is *very* different in parts.

I was with you until the last one.... . The later Potter films, perhaps. Point taken though, the Jurassic Park book was a bit pants and the film was pretty cool, the same goes for Chocolat. My fav. adaptions are 'Company of Wolves'- which Angela Carter actually worked on, and the whole 'Ninth Gate' - 'Dumas Club' adaption - that was the coolest, cos Polanski knew he couldn't get all that in there, and anyway it wouldn't sell, so he ust cut half the narrative and changed the name, and focused on doing the best he could with the other narrative...

So we agree that, although the book is often better than the film, there are some good films that were books first, and that when taken as a completely separate entity to the book, films of books can be highly enjoyable

Books of films, on the other hand, are generally a disaster (with a very few exceptions).

Precisely!