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

I am interested to note that everyone assumes there will be a sequel, does anyone actual have any information on this?

I'm not assuming... but I am hoping.

I think the end of the film set it up pretty well for a sequel.

B

Yeah, it seems as if they've set it up with a sequel in mind, and I believe the actors have said that they would do a sequel if asked.

There's quite a lot of material on it at rottentomatoes.com
including an interview with martin Freeman, who is willing to do a sequel if the same people responsible for HHGTTG are on board for the sequel. On the other hand, he says that he doesn't want the sequel to take two decades to make (as the first movie did .>

I would think that any talk of sequels would need to wait until the public reception of the first movie is assessed. Empire magazine seems to have indicated that the English box office returns for last weekend put HHGTTG in first place. I don't have a source for
American ticket returns.

In general, far more people see movies on video than in theaters. The box-office receipts for American theaters come to about 9 billion dollars a year. This compares to about 27 billion for videos. If the HHGTTG videos do well, it's hard to argue against having a sequel.

I'll buy the DVD when that comes out then (which I would have done anyway).

I don't know the figures, but I do know that it was the number 1 movie in America over the weekend, and I'm going to go see it *again* this weekend. I missed some things because I was watching it with friends...

It made over $21 million.

The have to make a sequel. It sets up for one at the end. It even has a refrence of the next book in the serise so it should happen.

I saw it for a second time this afternoon, and was surprised to find that these actors are really growing on me. Even Mos Def (as Ford Prefect) seems like a more reasoable choice than he seemed at first. What is different about these actors (as compared with the ones in the TV minsieries) is that they are more manic, more physically active. I like a good screwball comedy anyway.

The Vogons are priceless! The mice are fiendish and cynical
Humma Kavula is creepy . And Marvin is most amazing. He ought to have his own movie!

Saw the film with two people who just about knew the story etc. I also went in and tried not to think of the TV series etc.

My first thought at the start was where was the original music but then I remembered its a film lets go with it. I liked the really cheesy Dolphin song I thought it fitted in with the generally mood of the whole film a bit more slap stick in places than the other incarnations. The paperbags on the heads of the people in the bar was superb.

The Earth being imploded put the audience in to silence. It was stunning I have to say to the normally explosions. It gave an almost sinister methodical feel to it i.e. all the Vogon ships around it like a hand round a coke can and crush job done.

And then the original music - the first part of the film for me was a prologue setting things up for non-hootooers. And the original music starting then raised a lump in the throat.

The cast: Martin Freeman was very good; Mos Def was OK in the end he definitely got better and his towel work would have had Darth Maul running; Zaphod - hmmm a bit flat and silly but Ancrenes note of the fact that he chopped his brain in two did explain that in the context of the film; Trilian was OK; Bill Nighy was very good as the slightly distracted worker; Marvin acted very well and just looked even mroe depressed than the original Marvin(whom I do prefer overall); Alan Rickman was not bad as the voice; and Stephen Fry did a fine job.

The story I thought worked as well. The extra bits worked - going to the Vogon planet was a nice touch especially hearing the Vogon shouting 'You b*stard' at the tram driver who drove straight past without stopping.

I can see what everyone is saying about Deep Thought; the extended party scene(required I think to plant the emotional impact of the loss of the Earth that Trillian and Arthur feels into the audience quickly) and the other changes. The film was 110minutes long with a lot to get through it did not go into great detail as I would presume they did not want to slow down the narrative flow with exposition that was not required just to pander to 'the fans' or hang around explaining stuff too much when you find out about the new earth computer later (and the fans knew anyway so stop complaining about lack of explanation!)

The picture quality was bloody awful felt like I was in the local flea pit 20years ago.

DNA's head as a planet was for the eagle eyed and the shot of his head as the Heart of Gold disappeared was just a idea of eye-watering genius.
Oh, and of course the stop motion woollen version of the cast with Arthur throwing up was brilliant.

The acid test was: did the two people who went with me enjoy it and understand it - yes they loved it with not one complaint at all - so for the general public it worked. It also worked for me too as a different universe version. I have a feeling once the hardcore fans watch it more as a standalone than an straight adaptation of the book etc virtually all of the niggles will be forgotten becuase - people - it has finally been made and brethren it is good!

Amen, brother!

Yes, it's different from the others, but in many ways it's not different enough. One problem I found is that I knew most of the jokes and hence didn't laugh at them. They made up for this by adding in new sequences with new jokes, but these bits weren't quite as funny.

A friend of mine who never heard/saw/read hitch-hikers before went to see it before I did, and he said that he found it to be very funny. He said that the funniest bit in it for him was the whale/bowl of petunias sequence, but I didn't find that particularly funny as it's esentially word for word taken from the TV series.

And indeed from the book and radio show.

I can recommend the soundtrack album, by the way. Very eclectic.

B

I too heard the series, bought the records, etc.,
IMHO
I didn't think the movie was very good. They removed the militant philosophers from the DEEP THOUGHT scene, lost all the suspense from the "42" part, left out or played down many of the little quips/ japes whatever eg, "Good grief! is this really the interior of a flying saucer.....it's a bit squalid isn't it?" Left out the Dentrasi altogether so how did they get on the Vogon ship? Completely lost the plot when they went after "Trillion". As for 'The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief'... a passing reference in the book why so much time and effort. My son said the graphics were great, I agreed, but that's rather like complimenting a play for the scenery. We came back to watch the old videos and came to the conclusion that the "book" was far better digitized etc., many years ago than the book extracts on the film. I don't think I'll even bother buying the DVD if they ever bother to produce one. Did you notice the original Marvin in that scene on Vogonathene or whatever? Perhaps they borrowed it for the film and then thought they could do better, I think they were wrong.

I saw it yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it. It is a long time since I saw the TV version and I contrived to miss the recent radio series, so perhaps that gives me a slightly different perspective. There was plenty of stuff that I remembered from the TV show (particularly Slartibartfast's classic line "This may disturb you - it scares the willies out of me"). There was enough familiar stuff in it for it to feel ... well, familiar but there was also enough that was either new or that I'd forgotten for it to also seem new.

<>

I think the moviemakers wanted to make "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" seem like a logical title for the movie. In the book, Arthur and Ford went to only two planets, but in the movie they went to four.
They get around rather a lot, just as the title promises. I liked the visit to Vogsphere, because that gave the filmmakers a chance to see some of the things (crabs, etc.) that the book described.

<< My son said the graphics were great, I agreed, but that's rather like complimenting a play for the scenery. >>

I'm a sucker for nice graphics and great scenery. There have been plays that I've been seen where the scenery was the *only* thing I could remember afterwards. Also, the scenery for a play in a really nice theater with expensive tickets is usually a lot better than the scenery for the same play at a high school or Community Center. (I've been in rather a lot of plays, and can remember helping to dismantle the scenery after the shows were over. The people who construct those sets sometimes put a lot of time and effort into it, working miracles with ordinary materials. Just think of what they could do with great materials. )

I saw the film a couple of weeks ago, and I thought it was just fine. I never really liked the TV series as the technology at the time wasn't up to delivering the vision of DNA's concept. Now it is, and I think it's one of those films where it was necessary to make it now rather than try (and fail) to do it earlier.

In terms of sequels...this is a dog eat dog world. A sequel will be made based upon the economic viability of this one. I think it will be made...what worries me is whether the second one will be a success. Allow me to explain:

This film has been 20+ years in the making. It is pretty faithful to the original book*. There are no expensive stars required to carry the film. It panders to the fans' requirements. It is (allegedly) co-authored by the original writer. All of these I see as negative points.

What does Hollywood want? they want a successful film, that they can then turn into a franchise, and diverge from the original. How will a film of "Restaurant..." work? It fails pretty well on all of the above parameters. No-one wants to see it apart from a bunch of in the UK who want to see their dream realised on the big screen. Sorry, fellas, but Disney disnae work like that. What this franchise needs, and in fact needed for this film, was a complete rewrite *without* the original author being involved. If we'd had that, we'd have had a much better film without the limitations imposed by DNA, and a greater possibility of future films. Granted, it may turn into something like James Bond, where only the title and names of main characters are kept, but the flavour would still be there. I don't see any way that Disney will make a film of "Restaurant..." It's just not economically viable. I *can* see them making a "Hitchhikers 2" with a completely different plot, and the same characters (played by the same actors) in the next 2 years.

Just my thoughts...I'd like to hear what you think about them...please be kind!

RF

* A failing, in film adaptations, IMHO

"It is (allegedly) co-authored by the original writer. "

No 'allegedly' about it, surely. The majority of the script was co-authored by DNA some 15 years ago.

The one big failing of any sequel will be that Doug will not be involved, and therefore they risk either sticking tight to the book (boring), or branching out with other 'new scenes' which inariably be unfunny and not in keeping. I don't think the filmmakers are shallow enough to bow to the demands of Hollywood; HHGTTG is not a mainstream film, despite its high box-office.

B

but may not be that bad - I think Dirk Mags has done a splendid job of adapting all the other books for the current radio series - it can be done and work

Whether this is possible to do for the big screen without DNA is hard to say, but as long as people who have known and loved the stories (and DNA) are involved then some sort of (un)reality check should be in place.

CHAwke