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

It's pretty simple, really. He we all are, demonstrably the most dedicated DNA fans in the world (or on the net at any rate), and all with a fabulous knowledge of his work and style. Hell, we probably feel we 'own' him, and that anyone who messes with his stuff will answer for it. But this 'certain film company' is not aiming the film at us - that would be ridiculous. In order to make as much money as possible, which is what they are there to do, they will aim the film at as many people as they can, re-writing it to include lots of easy jokes and simple humour that appeals to all. They will remove any factors which limit the film's accessibility to the greatest number of people possible. For example, if they made it an 18-certificate, they'd never make any money (but it would be a *very* interesting re-write!). That's what commercial film-makers do. It is their business.

What we, the DNA fan base, will need if the film will be a success in our eyes, is a certification system which takes into account knowledge of previous material, whether we've read the book(s), whether we've memorised every single amusing phrase, and whether we're more intelligent than the worldwide norm. But that's never going to happen. We're a small minority here, and can hardly consider ourselves representative of the projected audience that 'the film company' has carefully researched with exhaustive demographic studies costing millions of dollars. The fact that we've chosen to use this site separates us from most of the other people out there (and not just because we're on the net). Whether the end result is true to the 'original' is nothing to do with making commercial films. It will only be similar if, by coincidence or planning, it happens to translate to a screenplay format, and appeals to the film company's demographic targeting. DNA's material is very quirky (i.e. not traditionally structured), clever and intelligent, and thus not to everyone's taste, which is why I think it will undergo some quite fundamental changes, which we, because we know and love the originals, will not like very much.

Of course, it is possible that the film can appeal to many *and* be true to the original style *and* be good, but this is very rare. Can anyone think of any films that fit this description?

*fingers crossed...*

Men In Black - that's a good one. It was substantially re-worked, though, I'll bet. I'm assuming the comic book was first, though - correct me if I'm wrong on that. It was also a classic formula for a film, which DNA's stuff is not. Books and radio are, I think, the ultimate form of his work. They need your imagination - that's what makes them so vivid. If the screen attempts to replace that, it will have to do it extraordinarily well!

Disney took Inspector Gadget, looked at the character of the niece from the cartoon, and turned her into his WIFE! Now is it just me or is that pretty sick?

At one point in My Favorite Martian, the lead characters are miniaturized and trapped in a toilet with a real big guy's butt on top of them. Talk about appealing to the lowest common denominator!

If they put pandas in the Hitch Hiker's Guide movie just because they happen to be fashionable right now, I'm gonna hurl!

As a kid raised on Inspector Gadget I was grumbling quite a bit. They made some good casting choices (Matthew Broderick, etc) but screwed it up with things like that damned talking car. When it comes to remaking classic things, I don't trust them farther than I can throw a planet.

What I love about THGTTG is that the humor isn't normal. It's strange, it's subtle, it's the lurking words that cause belly laughs. I love his books dearly, and I will go see this Disney version. If they change it badly, if they destroy the humor, they will NEVER hear the end from us. I know they don't see us. They want a film 8 year olds can understand. I don't see why they make movies of things if they don't remain true to the original.

And I'm all for Janeane Garofalo as Trillian, simply because I love her. She has amazing talent, and screw what Hollywood says, she's beautiful!

Is it definitely Disney, or is it possible that it'll be done through Miramax. The second one I could live with ...

Tragically, because we have all been hoping for and anticipating this for so long, it is highly unlikely that it could ever live up to our expectations. Even the 'die-hards' will each have their own interpretation of DNAs material. For instance, I have seen the original TV series (and bought the videos when they came out), have a recording of 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe' and have read all the books (repeatedly - and they just get better! Which is one of the great things about DNAs humour, which is also why it cannot translate so well to film, as it is necessary for the audience {ie uninitiated} to get the joke first time), but for me, Sandra Dickinson will never be Trillian. On the other hand, Simon Jones IS Arthur Dent and David Dixon is inimitable as Ford.

Disney have produced some great stuff, but for HHGG - the movie to achieve it's best, I think it really needed to be made in the UK. I think Disney have a policy of 'Disney knows best' (hence the re-write!), and I fear that the first thing to go will be the 'voice of the book'/narrator, not realising it's importance and downright necessity in conveying the humour and storylines. I also wonder how 'political correctness' will tackle such scenes as meeting the meat! I shudder at the thought of a blonde bimbo Arthur bemoaning in his phoney 'English' accent the fact that his apartment block is about to be torn down! The original HHGG was a roaring success in every format of DNAs making, and as they say - when you're doing something right, keep doing it!

As an aside, has anyone read the biography of Douglas Adams by (I think, but don't quote me on this) Neil Gaiman? Excellent book - more of the humour we all know and love. I loved reading how the television sequences of the electronic book were made!

Oh, please, please Disney, listen to the little people (not least of which - the author).

They can't do anything wrong with Marvin, surely. I will kill Mickey Mouse if they make him some kind of gadget-machine to show off flashy-FX sequences. And let's hope they don't continuously use the word 'butt' to make 5-year olds laugh.

Damn them in advance!

(If the film's good I will withdraw my damning.)

yea janeane garofalo would be exellent!

Eh ... the actual company (Hollywood Productions or something along those lines) is a subsidiary of Disney.

Oh spam, I didn't want to think it was true... Disney doing the movie...
Everybody knows that Disney screws up EVERYTHING. I can name some examples right now... but I wont because my list is far too long.
I intend to see the movie any way... but I will write a long complaint in my journal if it is cruddy

I think, if they decide to transpose the story to take place in America - something I would be against, but is likely to happen - Bill Murray would be quite good is Ford Prefect. He is great at the sly clever insult, and is good at characters who know a lot more than they seem to know. Anyone agree?