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

anthony steward head from buffy would be good as Arthur, or the book...he's english

In response to the later enteries in this thread.
The TV series was brilliant and the show seem to divert from the story at the end thus making it unique and disappointing. If a film was made it could either follow the book or the TV series.

Another point is that the average film is 2 1/4 hours long which isn't enough time to do even one novel and even then it would be a 5 part saga like Star Wars which took a long time to even though there was a 25 year gap.

I am totally neutral with the film (as of now) as long as its not done by Disney (romour from other websites) and that there is a consultation with the BBC or any British companies/involvement may persuade my arguement.

Disney was never a rumour - it was a fact. The film was in development with Disney (actually with Hollywood Pictures, as Disney subsidiary) with Douglas writing the script, and Jay Roach (Austin Powers) as the director.

They had a script that everyone liked, but the budget was very high. Management changed at the company, the people who brought the project in left, and those who came in didn't want to spend the amount of money it would take to produce it properly, so it's currently stalled.

I've no idea if it will get picked up again. Douglas was probably the person pushing it forward the most (as you would expect) so with him gone, there might not be the passion to do it.

I think Jim's right; eventually Douglas was the one pushing the thing forward. IMHO Douglas was let down by Those In Charge (TIC:s) because their interest waned so fast and nobody would care to put any effort into it. This as opposed to back in 1997, when it was all hooplah and good spirit and every TIC wanted to ride on the waves of the success of Men In Black. Had that not been such a huge hit, I don't think those deals Douglas signed in December 1997 would have existed.

Perhaps if MIB 2 is as equal a hit as the fist one, the TIC:s will show signs of life and rise from their comfy executive chairs and accomplish something?

I definately disagree with Zapdos' statement that "Arthur Dent and everyone else should be played by great British actors". The only main character I agree MUST be played by a British person is Arthur himself. None of the other main characters are even (necessarily) British in origin, so for most of them British accents would seem a bit like overkill.

I would, however, object to all of the other main characters being Americans. Since they all come from different planets, they should have a variety of accents.

who's making the film now?

Disney still has the deal, but nobody's doing it. It's in development hell, meaning there might emerge something but most likely will not.

Jim Carrey would definitely be on the worse end of the Gwyneth Paltrow - Dick Van Dyke accent scale. He's a possible as Zaphod, I suppose.

I'm still thinking. Stephen Fry? Too commanding a presence. Rowan Aktinson? You could say he's the British Jim Carrey. Palin? Yes, but, er... We want an actor who's like Michael Palin, but, preferably a wee bit younger. That's what I reckon anyway.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
We don't want jim carrey!

I was being diplomatic. If he *has* to appear, make him Zaphod, but if he's not in the film at all that's just fine by me.

agreed. i don't HATE him. I just think he would ruin this movie...

In response to some bloke who tried to think of a short, catchy, pithy name and spent five sleepless nights trying but couldn't think of one. I have changed my views on the nationallity of the actors and considered it to be a racist thought in the first place. I still believe that Disney would make the film more childish and thus less humourous from a foreign. Fenchurch says:

"An American company may interupt the story line as the company may place Arthur Dent living in the outskirts of New York and visit the party in Queens or some places like this and when Arthur is on the heart of Gold he would'nt be in Southend would he (How many Americans have heard of Southend), he'll probebly be in Los Angeles."

She prefers an all out conclusion that any work done by Americans should be ignored and that an British company should just do the film because it is an British novel.

I am still thinking of my conclusion and not even Deep thought knows my answer.

I agree on keeping the production British. There are many DNA fans in the US who laugh at the humour just as much as we in the UK do, so I feel an American company would spoil the whole 'mood' of it. Americans have a horrible habit of changing details to suit their audiences (i.e 'Americanising' British ideas), but how many American films do we see where we're scratching our heads, not getting the joke?

The BBC make films, so why not buy the rights back from Disney (who I also agree would make things too childish) and possibly go into co-production with FilmFour - the BBC has the finance, FilmFour has the expertise

"the BBC has the finance"

Trust me, they don't have the finance for a Hitchhiker's movie.

The budget on the script Douglas wrote was in the region of $120m, which is probably at least 10 times more than the BBC has *ever* spent on a single movie.

The BBC couldn't afford the risk on a one-off production like this. The big US studios can do this because they do occasionally make $1 billion on a movie, which helps fund the ones that lose money.

And despite what you might think, a movie of Hitchhiker's is *not* a sure-fire hit. Even Harry Potter could have bombed. Look at 'Captain Corelli's Mandolin' - that book sold by the bucketful, but the film was a complete flop.

Hmmmm, I had heard from a good source that the BBC did have that kind of money, but there we are. But even if they couldn't raise the money, or FilmFour for that matter, I'd be quite happy with a 'Harry Potter' - type scenario; American money, British production (OK, so the director is American too, but you know what I mean!) and a predominantly British cast. How does that sound?

As for success - I've spoken to quite a few people about a film and would they go and see it, and there is more interest out there than people might think. A lot of people I know are curious about h2g2, so I've got them to go read the books (yay!) and of course, there's us lot...

The BBC has lots of money, but it spends it predominantly on programme making. Its film division is tiny, and only funds small productions. It *could* fund a $120m movie, but that money would have to come out of someone's budget, and if the movie bombed, the BBC would get roasted by the tabloids for wasting all that licence-fee payers' money.

Frankly, I'd be prepared to lose a year's worth of EastEnders to see the Hitchhiker's movie made, but I think I'm in a minority.

Not at all, Jim, I'm right there with you.

Just a year? , I'm with you too

I still feel the film shouldn't have a predominantly [any nationality] cast, except the parts set in England. Each species of alien should be played by a different nationality of actor.