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

Indeed.

I like bits of the books. The bits that people quote most often. But when I sit down and read them they (like Pratchett) give me the impression that they are almost trying to be too clever. I don't think that about the Dirk Gently books though, which I find quite odd.

But the film... well, that was sorely disappointing. From the awful casting of Ford Prefect to the terrible vogons and the really cute Marvin (although I did like Alan Rickman doing that). The high point was Bill Nighy.

Right. I must stand up for Mos Def as Ford Prefect at this point...everyone's slagging him off, I thought he was really quite good.

In fact, most of the film was good. Not brilliant, but it definitely stood up. I just felt that they missed a trick with the Vogons - they overdid the bureaucracy angle, and didn't get enough nasty viciousness in.

RF

Oh and Zaphod's head. I can't remember how it was described in the book, but having it underneath the first one was a bit lame.

Come on though - what about the second head in the TV series?

The era it was made is no excuse either - Bela Lugosi had better special effects.

Yey RF! I liked Mos Def as Ford too, once I got over the initial shock

I remember seeing that 2nd head (from the TV series) on Tomorrow's World - it was rather complicated technology for the time, I think - but it did look awful.

But at least it was there all the time - unlike the stupid film one which seemed to be an afterthought.

johnny knocksville did a good 2nd head thing in MIBii

maybe that was why they did the over and under thing, didn't want to be seen to be copying anothe SF film

He had two heads in the book, and it was never mentioned that one of them was hidden. The dialogue implied that both heads were always visible. This wasn't just a bit lame, it was a complete and utter cop out. It was possibly the one thing that the film could've done effectively where previous versions couldn't, and they didn't even try.

It occurred to me last week that the radio series came before the book, so it's possible that Adams incoporated a lot of the actor's own personalities and potrayals into the characters themselves. This might be why most of the characters in the film - who were deliberately played differently - didn't really work. I found that Martin Freeman too wordly-wise and all-knowing to play the constantly bemused Arthur, and Alan Rickman came across as merely weary and sarcastic compared to Steven Moore's excellent morose drone.

The film was embarrassing.

About the second head in the TV series, I seem to remember having read somewhere (or was it in the DVD bonuses?) that its looking fake was a deliberate choice (I forgot why).

I am in the minority.

Not comparing it to either the book or the series- I can like it on it's own. I liked the others, on their own too.

For not having brillant special effects, they managed to make an entertaining film. I liked it the 3rd time more, the first the least!

Once I knew what to expect I rather enjoyed it for itself a lot more.

I could not imagine how to do a movie from the book! It would take a miniseries or more and still be incredibily difficult to imagine pulling it off.

I thought the DNA flair for the ridiculous,unexpected and creative was in the movie.

The film was the very model mediocrity. Mos Def and Bill Bailey were the least disappointing things about it.

I didn't like Martin Freemen before the film, I like even less for turning even an even worse performance that I had expected him to.

Oh, and the 80's TV version is awesomeness, but the radio series of course is more awesomer!

Mos Def? "Least disappointing"?

Were you watching the same film as everyone else?

I've wondered the same reading some of the comments folk have made before I.

There is just no accounting for taste...

However, I chose my words carefully. Mos Def was definitely amongst the least disappointing things about the film.

His being cast was different, but not dire. His acting was slightly below his usual, but didn't stand out because finer actors than he - of which there many - were all turning some of their careers lows.

The film basically covered the first book, or the first four episodes of the radio and TV series, both of which would've totalled about two hours of material, so I think comparisons between the TV series and the film are directly relevant. The film had far more advanced technology and a much bigger budget. Makes you appreciate just how good the TV series actually was.

>>Infintiely improbable, in fact?<<

the exact opposite rather.

Anything infinitely improbably *WILL* immediately happen more often than not.

and the happy ending was no good. noo good at all. Arthur and Trillan? pah!

Personally I did not rate the film at all as I know the radio series almost word for word and the film was just all wrong. The BBC series was OK as it used mostly the same scripts and actors.
I agree about Journey of the Sorcerer. Without that theme it was not genuine HHGTTG!

Wendy K

As an attendee at the world premiere some three years ago ...

... I can't remember what I thought although I did write it up here somewhere.

Anyway, *now* I think it's just as good as the radio series, TV series, and books. Just - not quite the same. But then, it's something that evolved and changed with every version, and I think that's part of its charm.

Mol

> I agree about Journey of the Sorcerer. Without that theme it was not genuine HHGTTG!

I keep telling people that this means the towel just isn't canon! But will they listen?