What in the name of "42" is going on here?
No discussion on this?
Anyone else interested?
Printable View
What in the name of "42" is going on here?
No discussion on this?
Anyone else interested?
i'm hoping to see it once it comes out - but i might be too busy to catch it first weekend. Looking forward to it.
I'm 99.9% certain there was a thread about it earlier, that could have found with the search function. Either that or I have very boring dreams.
I love the books but am usually disappointed by movie translations.. (Obvious exception - LotR) I'm worried about Mos Def, the trailer looks mediocre, but I have high hopes.
The humour in the books isn't really that visual. A lot of the laughs come from his manipulation of language. Without decent delivery, the jokes could fall flat.
I to am looking forward to it, however I am TRYING not to get my hopes up.
I just can't see Mos Def as Ford, it just does not feel right...
I'll stick to reading the books.
Im 100% sure there was a thread:
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/s...ghlight=galaxy
I bought the big compendium last year to rearead them all before the movie came out, but sadly I havent gotten around to it
I know NOTHING about this book or movie. I'm willing to bet lots of other people don't either.
That is probably true, however, you should.
Good, Good, stuff.
**If you are able to understand the humor
"Are you hear to save me"
"No, you're a no good dumbo nothing"
it's been a while since I read the book (hence the paraphrase) but I need to do so soon.
Anybody know where I can purchase disc's of the original radio show?
The first book was amazing, but I got less and less into the series with each sequel. I didn't even read Mostly Harmless. I thought Adam's humor was getting more and more forced with each book.
Anyway, I'm very much looking forward to the movie.
Yeah, i agree the series dried off towards the end.
From what I hear, the radio program was awesome.
Also, have a good trip, you must try Latanka's (sp?) on the big island, incredible food.
Mostly Harmless = Hella Depressing. But good.
I don't understand why most people feel that the series gets worse...book 4 is probably the worst one, but I thought the books got better until 3, then the sharp dropoff that was 4, and then 5 was...different.
Maybe it's because I read them when I was about 12 for the first time, and I read them all at once.
It's one of only 2 books (and I'll call all 5 books 1 "book") that's made me actually fall to the floor laughing. The other was Catch-22.
I've heard nothing but bad about the movie. I've even heard it was worse than the BBC TV mini-series (which I thought was okay, actually). Anyone care to support or refute these claims?
Had not heard that, however, I would not be surprised :cry:
I've heard 0 impressions on it, but DNA has been dead for a while now. It would've made me feel a lot better had I known he was involved with the project in any capacity; obviously that's impossible now.
I'm still going with Danni day one, we both like the books too much to pass on it =/
PS - anyone have any clue who the fuck that half-dude with the mechanical spider legs could possibly be!? Slartibartfast?!
Nope, he's a new character created just for the movie by Douglas Adams before he died.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzo
I'm worried about how it's going to be presented but I'm hoping for the best.
When I first saw teaser trailer I was completely dissapointed, however after seeing the new preview with the narrator I was actually catching myself laughing quite a few times. Now I'll go see it on cheap night with a 2 for 1.
D
Dont think you will find the radio show cheap, its UK import only, but heres an amazon link
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...music&n=507846
Thanks kind sir, Zaphod would be proud!
that guy with the spidery legs reminded me of Hotblack Desiato, but only because they were eating dinner.
"He's spending a year dead for tax reasons."
:lol: Genius.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowutopia
Damnit, I have to read the book again, because it may just be Hotblack the Rock Star (IIRC)
That line was :lol: even reading it again...
Im looking forward for this Hitchhikers, im gonna be busy but for sure im going to watch them on dvd. Ilike the trailer but dunno if the whole story are really good.
Good or bad.. still going to watch it ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowutopia
Watch the Italian Job... it has Mos Def in it and he actually does a good job, such that I think he'd make a good Ford. Not a "by-the-book" Ford but then... the book itself wasn't by-the-radio-show which it indeed was "based off of." Hitchhikers Guide has always been diffrent in many iterations, and all of them had Addams supervising. I'll also note that he wrote a fair bit of this screenplay.
Mos Def is actually the least of my worries.
From what I read, Ms Def is also very good in The Woodman. So I have hope in his portraial of Ford Prefect.
I am looking forward the Guide. Loved the books, and hope that the film version at least kept some of the wit and weirdness that was in the novel.
He was good however his role was very small.
D
I hope there's an entry for the life cycle of the ratchet screwdriver.
I'm am quietly awaiting the 29th by chewing my fingernails off.
I really can't wait until:
Actually, the sperm whale falling, which is directly before that part. I can't wait until that.Quote:
Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was Oh no, not again. Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly why the bowl of petunias had thought that we would know a lot more about the nature of the Universe than we do now.
I might catch it next week. It definitely looks like an interesting universe. Me seeing it depends if I can get someone to go with me.
Italian Job was one of the 10 worst movies Ive ever seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer
Italian Job was fun. I like F. Gary Grey.
The resolution of that plotline was great.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
No it wasnt. The story was horrible (the best part was when Edward Norton shot the old guy), the action sequences were terrible, Mark Wahlberg was as lame and wooden as he is in every other movie (he is to movies what Carson Daly is to television), the jokes werent funny, and the 2nd half of the movie was a fucking Mini commercial. Seriously, one of the 10 worst movies ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpy
Yeah, I agree. Why did everyone like it so damn much?
The Mini Cooper. Duh.
And Spiderman was in it...
What exactly is this movie based on? The first novel? The whole series? Simply the characters? I'm re-reading this, and I'm on the fourth book so far.
Can you resist this shit then? I would, if I were you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tones
In the fifth book, they all die.
Mzo, I officially now hate you.
die, plzkthx
you were better off, it was horrible, from what i heard it was more him writing it to make people quit asking about how the series ended, he should have stopped with thanks for all the fish, that resolution made sense, i hated mostly harmless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
Here we go, reviews are coming in:
http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/mo...ers_guide.html
Good to hear that alot of things that are Adams, still in the film, and new additions were actually created by him, and not just afterward thoughts.
Go see I heart Huckabees.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
But yeah, asides from that, Wahlberg sucks.
I can't wait to see this movie this weekend. It's going to rock!
Yup. Tomorrow evening I'll be catching it. The reviews are good so far.
The only objection I would have to it, regardless of whether it is handled well or not, is Fenchurch.Quote:
Perhaps the most significant character-based deviation from the book is the decision to develop a romance between Arthur and Trillian. In principal, I think it's a good idea, but it isn't well handled.
It seems from the reviews that people who dont know the books don't like it much, and people who have read the books either enjoy it a lot (but agree it's not GREAT) or simply can't deal with the plot changes because they're purists and have no right to be fans of the HHG2G material.
From the clips on Yahoo, I have to say it doesn't look funny, and I'm a fan of the brand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowutopia
I don't care about changed plot and dialog. I love the radio series, the books, the TV series, and even the adventure game, and they were all quite different. The problem here is that, at least from the clips I've seen, the delivery is totally off. Who needs dry wit when you can be really zany and mug for the camera? And the added bits are lame (I'm sorry, the dolphins singing is a terrible gag that wears out its welcome long before the scene ends. "So long and thanks for all the fish" is funny as a one-off joke that's brought up just for the hell of it, but it's not funny as a full musical number).
I'm still going to see it tomorrow, but my expectations are low. At this point, I just want a movie that will make me laugh. I don't expect it to match the rest of the incarnations.
http://www.clevescene.com/issues/200...film/film.html
I want to see this movie but that review sounds exactly like I feared it would turn out.
Reviews are pointless now. There are so many people who think they are a critic that I tend to hardly agree with any of them anymore.
They say a movie is bad. I go see it and enjoy it. It wasn't great but it was fun.
Nobody has fun at the movies anymore, they are there with their pad of paper and their thinking cap.
Has Ebert reviewed it yet? Where's Despair with the link? D=
Dude, I was just about pos it :p
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...VIEWS/50413005
2 stars. Off to read it.
Just read it. It doesn't sound bad... as a fan I think I'll like it. It'll be interesting to watch at the very least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Despair
Ebert seemed to be quite unwilling and disinterested in the source material. It was kinda weird reception, since he usually does go for quirky/offbeat/weird things.
He did give XXX2 a better score by .5 star
Ouch.
Yeah, it really sounds like he dismissed it before he even watched it. And why would you never even want to read the books? D=
Maybe his "friend" made him lose interest in the stuff long before.
Ebert is usually good at explaining exactly why he disliked a movie.
They must have gotten to him.
Yeah, no shit? I've never read an Ebert review in my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
The point is he wasn't very clear at all here, it was a very odd review. The only real fault I could get from it was that the lines try too hard to be faithful, and end up being mouthfuls, kinda like Kevin Smith dialogue.
Ebert's reviews usually are pretty spot-on. I guess he does have his occasional duds though.
EDIT: For example, he was totally right about Episode II being CGI glitz with some of the worst acting in history.
Guys, read Eberts review in my XXX2 thread, for example of his good work. There he is witty, and to the point. Here he mumbles about the film, shows his disinterest in the source material and storyline, and pretty much gives up on the film.
Yeah. Well, from now on it's "Fuck that Nazi Roger Ebert" in my book."Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzo
well, at least he warned us that if we knew the source material his review would be meaningless, you have to appreciate the honesty if nothing else. Ill see it soon but not in the next few days.
Roger Ebert, if anything, knows his shit. Which is what I respect about him. And he also tends to be pretty funny:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Episode II review
The problem was that there was too many in-jokes and moments that referenced off of the source material. While everyone who had read the books were snickering he was left scratching his head. He liked the charm of it, but he said the delivery of lines sounded more like a recitation than natural, flowing ones (too faithful is a way to take it, I guess).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzo
This is the same reason he gives a lot of Star Trek movies lower scores.
I think this movie looks good, but I'm not sure if I will go see it.
Andrew's right. Even when I don't agree with his opinion, I love reading his reviews.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzo
I'm surprised at how disinterested he is in the Hitchhiker's books.. It seems like something he would be familiar with.
For what it's worth, the film got a very favorable review in the New York Times.
Ebert is a good writer, but he has been giving out some bizarre scores in the past year or so (three to Around the World in 80 Days? WTF? At least, unlike videogame journalists, he stands by his scores - which is what counts). I also dont like how he's been using his site to write political essays lately.
You can tell he's a Democrat but in most cases it doesn't really interfere with his normal reviews unless they are about politics.
The "Yeah, no shit?" comment was sarcasm. I read his reviews all the time and he's great, that's why I was so WTF about his complete disinterest in the movie. It's just something he's not into at all, I guess =/
He didnt like Aladdin as much as the Hunchback of Norte Dame or some shit, the man is not always right.
If you told him that I bet he'd own you faster than a hiccup.
I'm going to attempt to see this tonight, wish me luck.
Good luck.
I'm taking my girlfriend to see it tomorrow.
Just saw it tonight..I have to say, it was a little below my expectations. The character buildup just wasn't there, the jokes miss their mark many times, Ford's character takes a large backseat role, and the movie just isn't the same without the book's power of description.
Still, not a bad movie, just one that could have been a little more polished.
I thought that it represented the book well. Of course there were many omissions from the book's fine details, but this is expected in a book to movie transition. It was neat seeing a lot of the little things I laughed at in my head while reading the book being materialized on screen. However, someone who hasn't read the books will probably be a little baffled by the strange humor.
When it stuck to the book, it was good. Not great, but good. Delivery was a little off here and there, and sometimes they missed the point of the joke (kind of like those people who quote the book incessantly and think they're funny just because of that), but for the most part, it worked.
When it went into the new plotlines, it sucked shit through a straw. I don't say this because it's OMG HERESY to change the plot, I say it because the new sections are absolutely unfunny. There are a few chuckles here and there, but for the most part the audience (including the people who'd clearly never been exposed to Hitchhiker's before) was dead silent during the new parts, and it was sold out.
I thought this movie was wonderful, and it's too bad Douglas Adams isn't alive to see it. I guess if you didn't read the book, you might not get all the jokes, but most of them were easy to catch. The British half of me probably helped somewhat. Dry humor doesn't catch on too well with American audiences. The special effects were great, and I thought Mos Def played a perfect Ford Prefect.
I enjoyed the whole film thoroughly.
Most especially, "Hello ground!" *THWUMP!*
The opening song was great, along with that other version during the credits. The only thing I'm wondering about is what they'll do about the Fenchurch situation, since they combined a little bit of her into Trillian. Did the Guide's illustrations remind anyone else of Chu Chu Rocket?
Yes, it's a shame that he did take a backseat role after escaping the Vogon ship. Good choice, because he really played a hoopy frood well.Quote:
Originally Posted by animegirl
I ended up going to a show tonight instead, which to an extent saddens me. Tomorrow I'm going to go catch this, come hell or high water.
Or my planet getting blown up.
This was actually a problem I had with the movie. It wasn't dry enough. It felt way too zany at times, when the humor is supposed to come from the fact that everyone (except Arthur) considers their behavior perfectly normal. Monty Python was brilliant at delivery zany humor in a dry fashion. This had too much mugging for the camera for my liking.Quote:
Originally Posted by animegirl
Saw it tonight as well. It was OK. Like others have said, the parts that fallowed the book spot on were really great. But the stuff they changed were not up to Adams snuff. They tried to peg his humor but just missed it basically. Mos Def did a great job as Ford, but yeah they really pushed him to the side in order to put the focus on Trillion and Arthur. I was not too fond of Zooey Deshanells acting, she is just not very good. The movie overall just did not flow that great, they kind of rushed things. But I mean they almost have to in order to get through everything, and it makes the movie suffer. Visually its awesome.
Overall I would give it a C+
I just got back, and that is exactly what i was trying to put my finger on about this movie. I liked it a lot, but what really holds it back is the acting. They needed to be more dry. Arthur and the Robot are spot on perfect, everyone else for the most part was not. I really did not like Mos Def as Ford Prefect. He was too clowninsh. I always pictured him as being really cool, but in the movie he was always running around in an exagerated cartoonish manner lifting his legs too high. In some scenes it seemed like Trillian wasn't even there, just a robot reading lines of a cue card. Beeblebrox was the worst though. I expect him to be rediculous, and i even think the actor was trying to do the right thing, he just couldn't do it very well. Once in a while he'd deliver a line perfectly but most of the time i didn't enjoy his Beetleguise/Bill Clinton impersonation.Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
The movie definatly isn't as bad as some of the reviews have been. It probably helped that it's been so long since i've read the books that i barely remember them. I'm hoping for a sequel.
Never read the books, and I enjoyed it.
Marvin is the best robot ever.
Trillian is hot.
NOW READ THE BOOKS
That pretty much sums up my feelings. I'd barely even heard of the books before this movie, and I enjoyed it. Trillian is definately hot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinobi128
Perhaps Adams didn't want the movie to be as dry as the books. Most of the screenplay was written by him; the lines he took directly from the book are exactly the same but the new lines are more American cinema style lines. So I don't think it was a fault on the part of the actors, just that other person who helped with the screenplay.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormy
Try re-reading the books again. I think he got Ford down fantastically. Ford in the books is a bit wacky in a completely necessary way, it's what makes him cool and measured.Quote:
Arthur and the Robot are spot on perfect, everyone else for the most part was not. I really did not like Mos Def as Ford Prefect. He was too clowninsh. I always pictured him as being really cool, but in the movie he was always running around in an exagerated cartoonish manner lifting his legs too high.
This is true, I think he was a little TOO out of it, I think the character in the book was a bit more under control than Rockwell was. I got Beetlejuice as part of the impression he was doing, but I think the other person was Bush. You know, stupid president, ha ha ha? He did the squinting, that smirk, the same intonations that Bush uses. Anyone else think Bill Clinton?Quote:
Beeblebrox was the worst though. I expect him to be rediculous, and i even think the actor was trying to do the right thing, he just couldn't do it very well. Once in a while he'd deliver a line perfectly but most of the time i didn't enjoy his Beetleguise/Bill Clinton impersonation.
Love and kisses was great.
Yeah, re-read the books, you may find your criticism of Mos a bit lessened. If they do Restaurant, though, it may not be so hot since Adams won't be able to work on it.Quote:
The movie definatly isn't as bad as some of the reviews have been. It probably helped that it's been so long since i've read the books that i barely remember them. I'm hoping for a sequel.
You guys saw the last transformation of the HoG, right? :)
I don't think the problem was with the script, I think it was with the delivery. The script was suitably dry, but the actors and the director tended to play it up a bit too much.
However, I've read the BeebleBush thing everywhere, and I just don't see it. I got an Elvis vibe from him more than anything.
Elvis would make sense, as well, considering what happens in Mostly Harmless. Adams was a big fan so he may have written an Elvis impersonation in there. But go see it again and watch Rockwell's face as the upper head. A lot of the time, he makes that Bush face and he also talks in that stuttered manner Bush does a few times.Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
I was reading some other movie sites and they said the other screenplay writer didn't add anything, just structured it, so I guess the American actors just couldn't pull off the humor. I think Mos did, though.
Remembering some other things I liked, the Babelfish was really cool and Humma's cult was hilarious.
Why is everyone comparing it to the books; the books this, the books that? The original Hitchhiker's was a radio play, which is far closer to a film than a book. They weren't necessarily adapting the books.
(Personally, I thought it made a better book than a radio play, mostly because most actors can't deliver dialogue properly, let alone funny dialogue. The film is bound to fall into the same snare, unless you have a skilled comedy director that can get the best from those actors.)
Well I saw it last night. It was ok, but not great. The parts that killed me were all of the Trillian-Arthur love scenes. They just dragged, partially because I didn't care, and also becaue the acting by the girl who played Trillian was so crappy. Was it really necessary to add that shit it? Did Douglas Adams actually write that or was it just the studio thinking a love story is necessary (my vote leans towards the latter).
Marvin was perfect though, although I would have liked more.
Without the added love story there wouldn't be enough plot resolution in the film. This would be fine if they were already set on making sequels, but i think they had to make this a stand alone movie first, with possible sequels secondary. I didn't mind it so much, except for Trillians crappy acting like you mentioned. She was terrible in the shower sequence particularly, which is sort of a pivotal scene.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Saw it last night and I rather enjoyed it, of course I think the BBC series (somehow) managed to pull off a better representation of the book. The movie though I found entertaining, and as said before a bit slow in the added parts. I liked how they used that Eagles song at the beginning when they showed they explained the Guide and also had the original Marvin robot from the BBC series waiting in line.
As for Mos Def, I thought he was pretty funny throughout, his best bit was right before they were going to get blasted out of the ship.
"Wait... wait what's this.. this... this... is nothing, yeah we're gonna die."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
There you go. The radio play was the original version, but the books have long since become the definitive version.Quote:
it made a better book than a radio play
Saw it today with my girlfriend, I enjoyed it quite a bit but felt that it was a little off. Though, thanks for all the fish.
That scene felt like it was three hours long. :cry:Quote:
Originally Posted by stormy
Some tits would have definitely improved it.
Titties improve everything.
^ that has indeed improved my day
I had a lot of really good Ford scenes, but after seeing it again tonight, I have to say that his reaction to Arthur calling everyone at the party idiots was classic; when he just sort of made that pained face (this is after drinking the first pint of bitter) and said, "That's awkward."Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr-K
I love that. The impromptu and stiff hug he gives Arthur is really funny. Also the part you mentioned was great. They were both dead-on Ford Prefect from the book. If they ever make sequels and get to the fifth book, I can't wait to see him bust through the door of the editor-in-chief's office and roll around when the usual things aren't there.
Actually, I didn't like how they changed the "yeah, we're gonna die" gag. In the book (and the rest of the incarnations) Ford was just fucking around with Arthur to instill a false sense of hope. Here, he actually thinks he's found a way out. Ford's always been a bit of a crazy bastard, so I think the former is a lot funnier than the latter.
Sounds like a load of shit. You actually believe this shit? Fuck me. Fuck me in the ass.
Sodomite.
I saw this last night and I really enjoyed it. It was silly funny and the story was interesting. Marvin was a great character, made me laugh a lot.
I felt overall it was a bit too short. It could have used a bit more of a middle to the movie. I just felt it got resolved quite quickly and they could have added more.
I never read the book so I don't know how accurately it portrayed the book, but every movie that is based off a book is always criticized to no end.
Loved the movie. Visually awesome and I laughed a lot, plus I enjoy sci-fi quite a bit too... so I dunno, I don't usually agree with reviewers anymore.
Oh and so long, so long and thanks for all the fish. :D