Hollywood does Htichhikers Guide?

[Whit]

      They're finally making a movie? Apparently so. Go figure. As much as I like the series I'm a bit worried about the movie. So much of the books charm will have trouble translating on to the screen. For instance, can large letters really look particularly friendly? How does one show God disappearing in a puff of logic after the babel fish is introduced? Well, I guess we'll find out.
      And yes, I know the BBC did a series years back. Just high lights my points, I think.

[Happy Monkey]

They waited until Adams died so he couldn't stop it from sucking.

I'll still see it, though.

[vsp]

The scriptwriter also did the script for Chicken Run, which was a clever movie, so there's SOME hope.

But I have a sinking feeling that the cast list will have "And BOBCAT GOLDTHWAIT as Zaphod Beeblebrox" or some similar atrocity.

[Elspode]

The BBC 6-part television series was pretty damn funny, so there is *some* hope.

I do agree that some things just don't translate from written word to film. For example, how in the world can they visually represent a phrase like "the Vogon ships...hung in the air exactly like bricks don't"?

[wolf]

Well ... special effects HAVE come a really long way since the BBC TV series ...

I fear that this project will suck in ways never before dreamed of. I worry about this with any film project based on something I liked in another medium.

I have long held a suspicion that Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure actually started out as a Doctor Who movie ...

But then again, I was VERY pleased by the film adaptations of Bringing Out the Dead and Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, so who knows ...

[Trillian-zz9]

Originally posted by Elspode
some things just don't translate from written word to film.

I agree, I think it just wouldn't work.

How could they want to make a film out of it anyway? I love the book, it's the best thing I've read, but no matter who makes the film, or how well they do it, someone will still think it's wrong.

Because you can see a film, but that's it. Everyone else sees the same thing.
With books, and verbal imagery etc. The same words mean different things to different people.


In summary: It would suck.

[vsp]

Originally posted by Elspode
The BBC 6-part television series was pretty damn funny, so there is *some* hope.

As I'm sure you're aware, BBC != Hollywood.

[wolf]

Originally posted by Trillian-zz9
I love the book, it's the best thing I've read,

Much as I loved the Hitchhiker's Guide ... it's not great literature.

Try some, just for comparison.

[hot_pastrami]

It's encouraging that our dear Mr. Adams gave the OK for Hollywood's version before passing, but the project just spent so much time on the backburner that it's only now being made. Of course, as far as I know he never saw a script, he just consented to allow Hollywood to take a crack at it, so his original consent does little to ensure a quality movie.

I share the concerns which others have expressed... The book's funniest moments aren't so much in the events and characters, but in the narrative. That means they have to do something cheesy like a voice-over, or lose much of the books' original feel. I am hoping for the best, but planning for the worst.

Originally posted by wolf
Much as I loved the Hitchhiker's Guide ... it's not great literature.

Try some, just for comparison.

This is an interesting point. Why? What does the series lack which removes it from the "great literature" pool? It's enjoyed by highly inelligent people, and it uses irony to make some important points. It is entertaining, but not mindless empty-fluff entertainment. It introduces thought-provoking ideas, despite the humorous context.

It's not that I disagree with you, because I wouldn't call them "great literature" either. But they're damn good, and worth reading. I'm just curious how you differentiate "great" literature from a book which is just really good. Do you base it on the general concensus of the intelligent reading community, or your own yardstick? How would you compare the difference in quality, product, and value?

Just curious.

Also, the late Mr. Adams was a devout atheist, and had some interesting things to say about his non-beliefs.

[Undertoad]

Oh but the very best of all HHGTG formats IS the original radio show. That's where it all began, the original format.

I still listen to them every two years or so, and Adams' incredibly dry wit and creativity is still inspirational.

(filesharing is your friend: search for the mp3s)

[hot_pastrami]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Oh but the very best of all HHGTG formats IS the original radio show. That's where it all began, the original format.

I've never listened to the original radio show, but I have long meant to. Does it utilize a narrator to convey the author's comments, or is it strictly dialogue? A narrator isn't bad in a radio play, but in a movie, voiceover narration is rarely palatable.

[juju]

Originally posted by hot_pastrami
This is an interesting point. Why? What does the series lack which removes it from the "great literature" pool? It's enjoyed by highly inelligent people, and it uses irony to make some important points. It is entertaining, but not mindless empty-fluff entertainment. It introduces thought-provoking ideas, despite the humorous context.

It's not that I disagree with you, because I wouldn't call them "great literature" either. But they're damn good, and worth reading. I'm just curious how you differentiate "great" literature from a book which is just really good. Do you base it on the general concensus of the intelligent reading community, or your own yardstick? How would you compare the difference in quality, product, and value?

Perhaps it's for the same reason some people think Classical music in inherently superior to current music -- because it's old. Some people think a thing has to be really old to be truly good. Just like how our "founding fathers" were always correct about everything.

[Undertoad]

The narrator in the radio show is about a quarter of the whole thing, gets us from point to point and also does enormous amounts of exposition.

Maybe they can get around some of the problem by using the book itself as a narrator.

[vsp]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Oh but the very best of all HHGTG formats IS the original radio show. That's where it all began, the original format.

Yeah yeah. I haven't heard them, but I have the book with printouts of the scripts, and there's some very witty stuff there that never made it to the "official" books. Plus, British radio comedy is a delightfully acquired taste all in its own (says a Goon Show fan).

I have another quasi-Adams-biography-and-HHGG-guidebook that talks about much of his earlier work, and the Failed Kamikaze Pilot sketch he did for The Burkiss Way sounds hysterical.

"How many missions have you been on?"
"Nineteen, sir."
"Let's see your mission log: couldn't find target... couldn't find target... forgot headband... couldn't find target... headache?"
"Headband too tight, sir."
"Vertigo... couldn't find target... couldn't find target. Now, you see, I just don't think you've been _looking_ very hard."

[richlevy]

I remember that they made a mini-series out of in the early 80's. I think I also heard the radio adaptation.

As far as the movie sucking, it would have to go a long way to win my award for the worst movie adaptation of an SF novel. That award goes to Dune (1984), the movie version not the mini-series.

Its amazing how badly something with a good cast and great source material can get.

Dino DiLaurentis has made some over-budget flops before, but the difference between the raw materials and final result in Dune is simply astounding.

They should show this movie to every class in filmaking as what NOT to do.

Anyway, I doubt that Hitchiker will sink to that level. It's too bad they couldn't get Peter Jackson for the job. It sounds like a project he could do really well.