Which do you think is better? I know the purists (i.e. my parents) tend to prefer the old mini-series and the radio show (nothing beats the book, in my opinion) but I thought the new movie was much better produced, scripted, acted, and structured than the mini-series. I don't think I want to argue this point, I'm just curious what the general opinion is.
I'll post this on the movie board too...
[deleted]
Well, the miniseries might be close to the book, but Douglas Adams wrote the movie too and the old BBC radio show is also quite different from the book. Each edition of HHG contradicts each other, which is the power of Douglas Adams works.
I liked the BBC series a lot, but I found to movie to be amazing. The latest and last thing we'll ever see by Douglas Adams.
[deleted]
Yeah a movie on the first Dirk Gently-book would be awsome.
shareYeah a movie on the first Dirk Gently-book would be awsome.
"Adams wrote the movie too and the old BBC radio show is also quite different from the book."
Actuly what you mean is the book is diferent from the radio series. The radio series is the original.
My mom and uncle watched the mini-series with me when I was a kid. I loved it then, though I found some parts disturbing. The announcer at Milliways freaked me out, but then it was they 80's and men wearing make up, but not in drag, always freaks me out.
The movie is better than a lot of the purists and fanboys living in thier parent's basement (you know who you are) say it is. I talked about it with a much younger girl who discovered the books through the movie. While she would have passed up the tv series, she'll probably explore the radio plays eventually.
I re-watched the mini serise last weekend. The effects are bloody awful, even for then, and it really does distract from the humor and banter. While the movie the effects are TOO well done, and you miss the humor then too (or they just plain cut it out).
Hopefully, someday, someone will do a level headed version. But then hopefully not. I like the version that's in my brain from the novel.
[deleted]
Agreed - the series is the best. It is more detailed and leisurely, i.e. it has no time constraints upon it.
All the while it maintains the book's humour.
I think the 1980s stuff adds to its charm! It keeps it weird, wonderful and slightly quaint.
And the TV series Marvin is how I expected Marvin to be. Clunky and awkward rather than glossy and stylish (if that makes sense)!
***Schadenfreude. Gesundheit. Glasnost. Perestroika. Wonderful words...***
[deleted]
I like the mini series better because it had a better story, I thought. I didn't like the way that Zaphod Beeblebrox needed to be kept awake with a juicer because I thought he was funnier when he was stupid, but sly at the same time. I din't like how he was just stupid. I didn't like the whole story with the Vogons either.
sharethe movie was great, I watched part of the mini series. the actors didn't have much expression.
I come up with weird parodies. Listen to your heart becomes Listen to your newsman.
oh my gosh those vogons were hideous!!!! i could barely stand to look at them! and i agree about zaphod. i didnt like how he was just stupid through the whole movie. that kind or ruined the character.
anyway...douglas adams made them different on purpose. i really cant choose because i think the miniseries had a very douglas adams funniness about it. i seriously think it wouldnt have been as good with good graphics and special effects. thats what made it good imho. but then the movie was really great too. (i really loved the part at the end where i think its marvin says 'the restaurant is at the OTHER end of the universe'!) the effects were great and it was still funny and very douglas adamish although it was more different that some of the other stuff was. but it was great.
my personal fave will always be the books because to me they came first. they were the first thing i read by douglas adams. (btw has anyone listened to the audio books read by dna? theyre really good!)
If they could have combined the BBC series' script/plot/jokes & the movie's cast and production design, it would have been one of my favorite things ever.
As it is, I'd rather have funny than nice-looking, so I vote for the mini-series.
"As it is, I'd rather have funny than nice-looking, so I vote for the mini-series."
Me too! I couldn't agree more. I was watching the movie and thinking "if only the TV show could've had these special effects..."
The movie wasn't terrible, just lacking a few things. And the special effects in the TV show aren't that bad, it was 1981 after all - the worst thing was really Zaphod's crappy rubber head that looked like it was dead. Apart from that I really like the look of the TV show, 'specially Rod Lord's animations.
I think the new movie was total bollocks.
It was nothing I had imagined while reading the book.
The movie was better IMO. The one thing that really annoys me about the series is the horrible sound FX and cheest Sci-Fi noises that often hamper the voice work, especially those of the Guide itself. Also, the movie had better acting, and naturally better FX (though FX aren't everything).
share The movie, in my opinion, was TERRIBLE. I think that Douglas Adams would have been insanely dissapointed by it. In an effort to try to appeal to a very young audience (when the story is not a children's story) they sucked out all the philosophy and satire that made it so great and unique and replaced it with clean special effects and cheap laughs. Not to mention a slapped together cast that had zero chemistry.
I thought the miniseries, however, was excellent. It was cheaply made, had corny effects and was painfully eighties, true, but I think that is how it works best. One of the constant themes in Adams' books is dissapointing truth and coming to terms with it. Arthur (and likewise the audience) expects space and the universe to be amazing and better and more intelligent than Earth. But, in truth, Arthur finds that people are no more civilized or intelligent on any other planet than they are on Earth. I like how the bad special effects kind of reinforce that idea....that feeling, the soul of the book, was lost (or maybe just forgotten) in the film. It's amazing how quickly people will ditch a great script and great acting for something shiny and new. It's all gone to quick fixes and big budgets, as if no one even remembers what the book was about, and I'm beginning to think there are not too many are left that actually do.
[deleted]
If they had the cast from the movie and the story from the mini-series, I think it would be better than the movie and mini-series put together.
"You left, just when you were becoming interesting"- Henry Jones
[deleted]
I'm going to be one of the people who says the movie is total crap.
A friend of mine who was unfamiliar with HG2G in other forms loved this movie on the grounds of it being a "happy, feel-good love story!"
Douglas Adams didn't WRITE a happy-feel-good-love-story. While HG2G (in it's other incarnations) is funny as hell, the actual universe is rather bleak, and there are few happy endings...
In other words, the Disney movie completely changed the tone and thrust of Douglas Adams's universe...
It's like (for example) doing Lord of the Rings and having changing the ending so that Gandalf keeps the ONE RING and becoming ruler of Middle-Earth. Or like doing Batman as a gun-toting vigilante who is judge/jury/executioner.
I would like to remind the people on this board who keep saying "Douglas Adams wrote the screenplay" that he DIDN'T.
DNA tried to get a HG2G movie made for 20 years... it didn't go thru until after DNA's death...
The film went forward after DNA was no longer around to say "stop screwing this up!"
The movie lists DNA and "Karey Kirkpatrick" as screenplay authors... Well DNA gets first credit because of contractual obligations... much the same way as Gene Roddenbery's name will be on every Star Trek project, forever. And I'm willing to bet that most of the "changes" from the books/radio series/TV mini were written by Karey Kirkpatrick.
DNA could write a better joke than sticking Zaphod's second head on a hula doll.
Yes, the TV series has crap special effects, but how could anyone say that the MOVIE had better acting?
And why the hell did the movie version make Marvin look like Charlie Brown? (Seriously... go find a picture of the movie Marvin... now imagine the chestpiece is yellow with the black trim... Now imagine that robot saying "I'm going to kick the football."
Oh, and give me the production design of the TV seres, too--yes, it was cheap, and that helped with the jokes... And the hand drawn, green-line book entries are going to look a hell of a lot less dated than the movie's book graphics in 10 years.... That neon/black/white design looks like an iPod ad...
An iPod ad from 2005---not even an iPod add from 2007.... see? Two years and it's already dated!
I much prefer the mini-series. Much more faithful to the radio series and the book, and for me, the recent movie simply didn't recapture the essence of Douglas Adam's work or the world (or even universe?! LOL) of the Hitch-Hiker's Guide that I knew from endlessly reading all of the five books and listening to the radio series in my younger days.
shareThe one book I ever read in my spare time (not for school, college etc.) and they ruin it with this movie, thats it, I'm never reading again!
shareThe movie came close to being unwatchable. The actors in the series were pretty good. They didn't have much expression because they were supposed to play stereotypical Englishmen, the ones Adams imagined in the early eighties, and they did that very well. There's a reason why Ford isn't a black hip-hopper in the original. Satire doesn't work very well if you change the subject while leaving most of the jokes unchanged. I suppose the makers of the movie knew that perfectly well, but the studio execs wanted to appeal to an audience on which most of the underlying humour was lost anyway, or so they thought.
BTW, the special effects (the Guide, not the vogon rubber suits) won a much deserved award back then. They're hand-painted.
The movie sucked ALOT of balls. I've watched it once, maybe once and a half, and DO NOT wish to go back to it again. It's awful.
And as for the casting? Worst ever. Mos Def as Ford Prefect is the worst bit of casting I've ever seen- and thats NOT cause of his skin color or origins. Hell if your gonna get someone to play that part choose eddie murphy, not a 'rapper turned actor'.
Even martin freeman was miscast.
And the look of Marvin was wrong too, including the voice.
And don't get me started on the tacked on love story and happy ending, where they successfully rebuild earth and martin freeman doesn't want anything changed. *beep* hell, I'LL GIVE YOU A LIST OF THINGS THAT NEED TO BE CHANGED, and a big one at that.
The movie was pure Hollywood land cop out and I think if douglas adams were alive to see it he'd have his name removed. He hated hollywood and rightly so.
In an interview- even martin freeman said in empire magazine 'if I had to choose between the two I'd say the TV series is the definitive version', I'm sure you can find it if you look for it.
''KEEP IT FOOLISH!''
And why the hell did the movie version make Marvin look like Charlie Brown? (Seriously... go find a picture of the movie Marvin... now imagine the chestpiece is yellow with the black trim... Now imagine that robot saying "I'm going to kick the football."
I can't help noticing that the original radio series barely gets a mention in threads for both the TV series and that regretable movie (I started to watch it for the first time (on TV) last night and gave up after 30 minutes - revolting!)
I heard the radio series on BBC Radio 4 back when it was first broadcast, and at the time it was awesome, nothing like it had ever been done before. Listening to it again on mp3 recently, it still holds up not only as extremely funny and profound, but technically brilliant. The BBC Radiophonic Workshop did and still does amazing work, and I personally feel that the best movie rendering software in the world is the human brain! Listening to this through good headphones in a dark room you can imagine yourself *there*, no movie or TV pictures can do as well.
Worth pointing out that there are now 5 radio series on CD, and the new ones are as good as the original two. The sound effects are better than ever, and the scriptwriting, despite the lesser imput from Adams (for obvious reasons) is tight and enthrawling. Cast changes due to death and other reasons are regretable but by no means detract from the overall effect.
I thoroughly recommend HHG fans get hold of the Tertiary, Quandary and Quintesential Phases on CD, you won't be disappointed.
Paul
Yes, I also watched the movie for the first time as it was on TV over the weekend. Started off with it, but in true Marvin fashion felt "I'm not going to enjoy it!" and as it was by then 11pm, I recorded the rest and went to bed. Caught up with it last night, and I was right first time. Not a patch on the TV series, or the radio show. And mentioning the latter shows that we don't need flashy visuals to enjoy good and cleverly written humour. I felt that having a low budget TV studio recording meant that it was theatrical and the acting came to the fore, and the three principals of Arthur, Ford and Zaphod were vastly superior on TV. Trillian was about even - Gooey eyed Zooey was good. The only one who surpassed the TV was Bill Nighy as the perfectly cast Slartibartfast. Above all, give me the original Vogon guard any day. He KNEW how to shout "RESISTANCE IS USELESS"
sharemerriemoles wrote;
"Hitchhikers is satire, and, I think, peculiarly British satire at that, and effects that are too sleek distract and detract from that."
Exactly, the TV series is closer in spirit to the radio show and the book. It also fits the Monty Python style of humor which Adams had.
The Disney movie had a very different focus with its happy ending and boy loves girl story. There are many wonderful moments which are cut out to make a more typical Hollywood film comedy.
imho at least, BB ;-)
it's just in my humble opinion - imho -
"Arthur (and likewise the audience) expects space and the universe to be amazing and better and more intelligent than Earth. But, in truth, Arthur finds that people are no more civilized or intelligent on any other planet than they are on Earth. I like how the bad special effects kind of reinforce that idea..."
You've hit the nail absolutely on the head! All the film needed to do was give a spit and polish to the original TV show, sharpen it's teeth and maybe flesh out a few sub-plots that were missing. I loved their 80's spaceship designs, and the original "guide" animations and sounds could NEVER be improved upon! :D
Your comment also reminds me of the mood of the "writer in hell" bit from the short story "Hell is Forever" by Alfred Bester.
In fact, if the studio had had more faith in it, it could have become a film series similar to (and infinitely more entertaining than) the Lord of the Rings. With the Dirk Gently double-feature after that! lol Oh, all right... I've talked myself into it! I'll direct. Anyone else want to lend a hand... :)
Okay, I'm going to admit right here and now that the only adaptations I've seen/read/whatever were the books and the movie. My English teacher had the movie-cover reprint of the first book, which is how I discovered this wholly remarkable franchise. I sort of got sucked into the making-of hype in the back of the book, and--after finishing the series--found the movie DVD right next to the TV box-set in Barnes and Noble.
And bought the freaking movie.
Long story short, if I had known them what I know now, I would've shilled out the extra $20 and bought the TV box-set instead.
I actually think that--save for Rockwell, and Mos the first half of the movie--the acting was pretty good and the casting was spot-on. Fry was actually pretty good as the Guide (although I'm sure that for Englishmen he was nothing special, from what I hear he rules the airwaves right now.) That aside, the movie was God-awful...the plot was halfassed, the jokes were sacrificed, and the characters were painful to watch, and it wasn't because of the acting. (Well...maybe Rockwell, but he might've done a good job with a better script.) What really got to me was that Arthur, who asked his friends to abandon him on Krikket for a better lifestyle, spent his final years enjoying life as a sandwich maker for a simple, stupid people, and was miserable for most of his travels, CHOSE to continue hichhiking at the end of the movie. (And WTF was up with Zaphod's heads?)
The FX, while nice, did nothing for me.
I found the radio series recently, which I am greatly looking foward to listening to once I find the time.
Happy arbitrary date chosen to denote a restart of Earth's travel around the sun!
>> And WTF was up with Zaphod's heads?
Zaphod's two heads is an idea that works well on Radio drama and book form, but not well on film. Zaphod's second head on the mini-series was ridiculous. Giving him the flip-around head was a way to film it and not look completely stupid.
I never heard of the series until I saw previews for the movie. I watched the movie, and I did like it. It amused me. I then heard that the books/tv/radio series was far superior. So I started with the books and loved them. Then the tv series. I like the tv series better for the humor, the movie did loose alot of the banter between the characters. The effects weren't great, but that makes it fun. The only down fall for me was Trillian in the tv series. I didn't like the actress playing her. She was just annoying. But other than that I liked the tv show better. I recently got the radio series and started listening to them.
So liking the movie, really got me interested in finding out about the rest of the works.
Maybe not today. But you look into my eyes, you son of a bitch, 'cause I'm the one that kills you
I have to say, I liked the series better, yeah it was cheap looking, but my wife who has read the books, says it is much more faithful than the movie. I've seen both, I must say the series is better, HOWEVER, not to take completelt away from the movie, I prefered the actors in the movie over the series. Alan Rickman as the voice of Marvin was too prefect
It's like that stripey bag is mocking me... *beep* you stripey bag.
IMHO nothing, but nothing beats the radio show. You just cannot top the actors and their voices, in particular Susan Sheridan as Trillian and Geoffrey McGivern as Ford.
If you are not busy being born, you are busy dying.