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

Do you think the h2g2 movie was any good compared to the book?

Compared to the book? It was awful. But as a standalone film, it's quite quirky and entertaining.

Someone pointed out that it's infinitely better if you take into account that Mos Def is playing Ford as a very stoned/drunk kinda guy.

Oh, now I understand. I guess they expected the audience to be very stoned/drunk, too, or else the film wasn't enjoyable.

I think it was probably my least favourite of the different adaptations I've seen. It was *ok*, though.

yeah.. it's the kind of question we'd like others to answer for for us. I felt like that too.

Personally I prefer the radio shows over the books. and the old TV series had some good moments in it. I can't imagine anyone else than Simon Jones as Arthur Dent. If I were to read the books now I'd probably read it with the radio show cast in my head.

every version of hgttg (including the text based adventure game)is different from each other and it always turns out to be wildly fun.

but the movie...

I first experienced the movie in the worst kind of way, i.e a french dub made by canadians.... They translated Zaphod Beeblebrox to Zappy beebroh something. So I tend to be biased towards almost entirely but not quite utterly crap.

I probably went in expecting something. 10 minnutes in the I had gone past my expectations and just decided to watch it. half way though I was profoundly fed up. I mean this is the Zarking HitchHikers Guide To The Galaxy. not men in black...

It did have some good bits too though. like Marvin.

but they made vogons seemed almost genial.......... so no.

I still can't decide which version of h2g2 I like the best but it's certainly not the film. However, I guess the makers had their hands tied as they just weren't going to get away with a film purely for the fans, so I can accept that the story isn't as true to the other conflicting versions as I'd like (does that even make sense? ). Unfortunately I find that after speaking to fans and newcomers alike, it's the fans that were let down the most. And that's a damn shame.

I have a theory about the movie. I notice that they got a very inexperienced director whose grounding was mainly in music videos. I think he focused almost entirely on the technical aspects (and especially visual FX) and pretty much left the actors to it. As a result, the old pros like Stephen Fry, Helen Mirren, Alan Rickman, etc. just got on with it and came out rather well, while the younger ones got a bit lost. Sam Rockwell massively overacted as usual, and Mos Def and Martin Freeman underacted.

I liked it better than the original TV series.

I think they got the Vogons completely wrong, though. The Vogon guard is supposed to *shout* "Resistance is useless!", not whimper it.

RF

I thought Martin Freeman's underacting was quite good actually...
Nos Def was absolutely awful though, even with his stoned interpretation.

I was crushingly disappointed the first time I saw it. Admittedly my expectations were sky-high, but I watched it again a while later and realised it was just a bad film - it just kind of ambles from scene to scene with no direction and no real plot, and utterly fails to maintain any interest. I got the impression of a cheap US slapstick comedy without any laughs. Just to make sure it wasn't my preconceptions, I tried it on my wife and seven-year-old daugher, but they both found it boring too.

The story was dumbed down beyond all recognition, the dialog thinned out to make it comprehesible to idiots, and they took all the jokes out. In the book (and the original radio series) every single line was crammed full of jokes, clever twists, new and unexplored concepts, and interesting use of language. I was still picking out new bits on the 7th read. In the film I could go 10-15 minutes without learning anything new.

, but IMHO they took a silk purse and made a pig's ear out of it.

"it just kind of ambles from scene to scene with no direction and no real plot"

And the books were incredibly coherent, weren't they?

B

>And the books were incredibly coherent, weren't they?<

Well, they had a few tangents, but generally yes. Most of the events were necessary to the plot and tied together at the end. After two viewings of the film I still don't know what the Vogon planet and John Malkovich had to do with anything.

My memory of the film is completely overshadowed by the horror & disappointment I felt at what I was seeing. That's the problems with expectations - nothing ever lives up to them. I have it on DVD but haven't summoned up the energy yet to give it a rewatch. Unlike the TV series which I also have on DVD and love.

Deb

I was also disappointed by the film, it seemed just an OK film with the character of h2g2 taken out.

I seem to be in the minority here, but I quite enjoyed it. Having said that, I haven't read the book in a very long time.

I will clarify: it was okay. The time I spent watching it was not unhappy time. However, it could have been _so_ much better. I feel much the same way about V For Vendetta.

I think, on paper, it had a lot of potential - Stephen Fry as the voice of the book, for example, is a perfect piece of casting. Mos Def, on the other hand, isn't. A black American rapper going unnoticed in Guildford? I don't think so.

I suppose I'm fairly unique around here in that I didn't really rate the book or radio series that highly, so the film was pretty good.

Casting was of course paramount. Stephen Fry must have been a no-brainer for the Guide, and did a great and passionate job. I thought Martin Freeman was a effective Arthur, if only reprising Tim Canterbury. Mos Def was dire and I thought Alan Rickman, surprisingly, was disappointing as Marvin. Zooey Deschanel was appropriately tasty and zoned out, if not outstanding. The Vogons were either rescued or hindered by the League Of Gentlemen doing the voices, depending on the context. The film was stolen by the two Bills, Bailey and Nighy, hamming it up in their bit-parts and doing a terrific job.

B

I'm still undecided about which version of Hitchhiker's was my favourite (probably the radio series), but the film definitely wouldn't be it. That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the film - for one, it was so nice to see it on the big screen.

I find that, like with any adaptation or continuation of a series you've been a fan of for ages, there are always two ways to watch things like this: with fresh eyes or as a cynical long-time fan. Often the former will lead to enjoyment, and the latter frustration.

The first thing that got me was in the opening credits - Zaphod should not come before Arthur, about whom the story revolves. The obsessive fanboy within also would have liked Journey of the Sorcerer to have been the title theme, rather than a decoration halfway-through. Marvellous arrangement, though.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie, although I do agree with DaveBlackeye about the loose ends left over at the end of the film. I've got a feeling that, had a sequel been made, a lot of those would have been tied up, but the likelihood of a sequel is absurdly small.

Infintiely improbable, in fact?