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

And Long Dark Teatime Of The Soul for that matter? I know this will probably be met with cries of "It's not going to be made into a film" but then predicting the future is a mug's game.

I don't think anybody does to be honest. I have certainly never heard any rumours about it. Now that DNA has gone I don't think they will make it, or any more Hitch hikers movies for that matter. Probably for the best.

If no one has bought the rights, then they belong to Douglas Adams's estate. Presumably his wife inherited them.

I think Dirk Gently would make a good movie. It's short, carefully scripted and the detective format would be familiar to the viewers.

Dirk Gently would make an excellent Dr. Who story.

Oh, hang on... it already did.

Professor Chronotis appeared in "Shada", which was mostly filmed but never shown, and the whole "stop the villain going back in time to prevent an explosion which is responsible for the beginning of life on earth" plot was used in one of the finest Dr. Who stories ever, "City of Death".

I can't see it being made into a film personally, the plot is too complex, there's no sex, hardly any explosions, and it would require the audience to have an attention span in excess of five minutes. No way would a movie get funding...

SoRB

I presume Dirk Gently was actually written as a Doctor Who story.

To make that one into a movie, they'd have to simple down the plot a bit, to tell the truth reading the book made my head hurt!

Nah - it's too coherently plotted, plus it's not structured like a Doctor Who story, really. "Life, the Universe and Everything" definitely *was* a Doctor Who story, and indeed DNA stated he had difficulty getting the HHGG characters to work with that plot, because while the Doctor is go getting and dynamic and wanting to save the universe, HHGG characters simply look bewildered (Arthur), look for drink (Ford), look depressed (Marvin) or look cool or try to (Zaphod), which was why the plot ended up revolving somewhat uncomfortably around Slartibartfast and Trillian.

What it looks like is simply that DNA had a number of plot and character ideas that he'd used before - Professor Chronotis the retired time lord, St. Cedd's college where he's parked his TARDIS (Chronotis's study/time machine is quite clearly a TARDIS), the alien trying to get back into the past and prevent an explosion which is responsible for starting life on earth - and a number of new plot and character ideas - the electric Monk, the original source for the music of Bach, the involvement of ghosts etc. - and drew them all together into what was, I think, his most successful, cohesive single piece of work. The fact that he'd recycled some of the ideas from previous things he'd written doesn't, I think, detract even slightly from the beauty of the thing.

SoRB

The central thing you need to understand about the plot of Dirk Gently is that none of takes place in our world. The whole thing takes place in a parallel universe, right up until the very, very end, at which point the characters arrive in *this* universe.

Where they came from, remember, Coleridge finished "Kubla Khan" and there was no such thing as Bach.

Once you realise that, it becomes clear. Or at least, clearer than it is at the moment...

SoRB

Yes, I figured that out on the third reading.

I read it once when it first came out...

I recently decided to reread it...

I couldn't find my copy...

I ordered a first addition on the internet...

I am now on chapter 24.

I plan on rereading it straight off.

Anyone who's read Salmon of Doubt excessively would know that (somewhere in there) DNA suggests that after Hitchhikers he wanted to a) Finish Salmon of Doubt and b) Do a movie of Dirk Gently. Of course, he also wants to do a lot of other things, which is really a shame that he never got to do them, but that's running over old ground.

The point is, the plot is not too complex, it's rather less complex than other fantastically successful detective films like LA Confidential, and if you read/watch the whole thing twice in a row, it all makes perfect sense. The only thing that really stands in the way of the movie being made is the fact that the writer's died and it would be in horribly bad taste.

The only reason I asked is because I just re-read the book and having grown up with a producer for a mum I tend to create films out of books almost instantaneously, and this was one of those ones that actually worked, so I went on to imdb... I think you can see where the rest of the story goes from there.

In other news, "What are you listening to?" is about to get to fifteen thousand posts, I suggest we all go there and see who can get to it first.

"The only thing that really stands in the way of the movie being made is the fact that the writer's died and it would be in horribly bad taste."



Blade Runner

A.I.

Cold Lazarus

What, precisely, is in bad taste about making a film based on a book by an author who has died? I mean... they made the HHGG movie. Was that in horribly bad taste? Am I missing something?

SoRB

Lots of films are made after the author has died. "Pride and Prejudice" is in the cinemas at the moment.

Hamlet. Moby Dick. Emma...

I thought there was talk of "A Confederacy of Dunces" but IMDb turned up nothing.