Have people seen the movie yet? What did you think of it?

I have to say I did like Marvin. I also caught the older version of Marvin in the lineup in the grey building.

Overall I liked it but I admit it's not fantastic. Just fun.

I saw it and I have mixed feelings. I too caught the old marvin, enjoyed the opening song, and liked new parts added to the Hitchhiker mythos, yeah? However, I was not a fan of the lack of British people in the cast - Zaphod seemed a little too much like Bill Clinton. And Trillian was a bit obnoxious. Didn't like the Arthur - Trillian romance thing either, but you know what? On the whole, it was a fun little romp - a good waste of an afternoon with friends, if nothing else.

Was I the only one who brought a towel to the theatre?

I think it's a film that's going to grow on me. The books themselves are lovely and rambling, and so it was always going to be tricky to make a movie that told the story in a linear manner.

I was a little disturbed by the changes, but overall I don't think they've damaged the story, and personally I quite liked the handling of the Arthur/Trillian romance. If memory serves me, it was never fully worked-up in the books but it was definitely there too. Films are always drawn to relationships, and they help hold stories together. It makes them seem less pointless!

Adams' novels are all about his doubt over the relevence of the question of God's existence. He's not completely against religion, but he really conveys the idea that maybe life would be better if we didn't wonder so much about what might be going on and focussed on the things really happening in the world around us. I think the movie showed the majesty of the earth really well, and Adams would have really liked that.

I was sad with the lack of mentioning of how the Babbel fish disproved God, but... oh well.

(And to Mata, actually Douglas Adams hated religion. He just found it interesting to write about because of the power it holds over humans.)

I loved the film, and to be honest, all the criticism that I've heard from fans of the book made me a little glad that I still haven't read any of them. I intend to, have done for years... just haven't got round to it yet. One thing I have to give them praise for, though, was deep thought. Despite a slight change in the way it gave its answer, I still reckoned that the 42 line was perfectly delivered (one of the few bits from the books I know of).

And weren't almost all of the actors british? I know martin freeman, bill bailey, stephen fry and alan rickman are all british, and I haven't checked up on the others at all.

Well, Zaphod, Ford and Trillian were all American - Adams' only demand was that Arthur had to be English. Only an Englishman could pull off that character.

I don't think Zaphod could have been anything but American. Something about his character just wouldn't work with anything else.

Really enjoyed the movie And yes, I brought a towel.

I dunno... I was really hoping for an entire British cast. If nothing else, Ford and Trillian should have been English (espescially Trillian, though I appreciated them pointing out the lack of accent of Mos Def). I didn't like the Bill Clinton characterization of Zaphod, though. I get the point of it and it's a bit humorous, but it was a bit unnecessary - they didn't play up the "ex-hippie" part of his repetoire enough. The way he was played out bugged me too, the startling moments of wit and clarity that were much more pervasive in the book weren't there (the thinking cap was good, though.) And on that tangent, I didn't think there was enough of the trademark Adams banter between everyone - let's face it... as much as Zaphod was a fool, Ford was an oddball, and Arthur was a day late and a dollar short, they often had brilliant dialogue.

But I digress. I still enjoyed the movie thoroughly, hope for a sequel, and am eagerly anticipating/hoping for the film versions of Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency and The Long Dark Tea Time of the Soul. Woo!

My problem with these movies is that when I read a book, I become attached to the characters as I know them. I don't like seeing who the casting director decided they should look like, and the director what they should act. I also have my own ideas about what events were important and which were sort of trivial, and the director could have his own ideas.

I just don't like having all my ideas being permanently changed by some movie. I choked when I first saw Ford was black. I'm not racist, but I just never pictured him being black *shrug*

There are certain things, like the greatness of Hitchhiker's Guide, that I'm not willing to gamble with.

I really quite loved the movie, and thought it was very well handled, including the changes (which I didn't mind at all, because quite frankly, what _is_ canon in the Hitchiker's Guide? I mean, it was first written for radio, then rewritten for book, then rewritten again as a low-budget television program, videogame, comic book, play . . . and there's probably something I missed in there. Canon purists can go away now, mkay, thanks.) I thought it didn't start out very well, though. Some of the best lines at the beginning just seemed swallowed up, and they were in a real rush, it seemed, to get to the heart of the story -- which has both advantages and disadvantages, especially in a movie that was only 2 hours long. I wanted more!!

I thought the expanded romantic subplot between Arthur and Trillian gave Trillian some much-needed depth as a character, and Arthur a purpose (well, beyond really wanting a cup of tea). Yes, they were changes, but I didn't think they were bad changes. I loved Trillian. I thought that throughout, Trillian shone and I found myself genuinely liking her, instead of merely thinking of her as the girl who never really got any funny lines. Movie Trillian was, in my opinion, much better than radio Trillian, book Trillian, or (especially) tv Trillian, and was one of the highlights of the movie.

As for Zaphod as "Bill Clinton"... I didn't see that at all. He was badly dressed, egotistical, a very stupid president of the galaxy, and someone who just bounces gleefully through the galaxy. I found him annoying at times, and it wasn't the Zaphod I was entirely familiar with, but I didn't mind it. Also, I loved how they handled the extra arm and head.

I thought the least well used character was Ford. I didn't get a sense of him being much of anything. Anyway, I enjoyed the fact that Arthur was surrounded by non-British folk; it showed how _alien_ their attitudes and feelings were compared to Arthur's normal world. Even Trillian, who only wants to get away, to travel, to try new and exciting experiences -- she's from outside Arthur's familiar uptight British world. (No offense to the Brits out there. ). Just because they all didn't have accents doesn't really affect the story at all, and I think to complain about it is a bit silly.

I wish they would have played a bit more with the Improbability Drive concept -- but I loved the line about the sofas.

ARC, you have to remember that films aren't there to impose the directors vision of the book on you but to give it from their perspective.

You can keep your vision of the book in your head until you become a movie director then you can show it to the world.

I've not seen the film or read the books but I'd like to... might wait until the summer though, exams start next week.

Argh.

I kinda liked it, kinda didn't.

Found that it lacked cohesion - very much "we want thisandthisandthisandthis in it". They over-used Zaphod and Trillian, neither of whom really did anything for me (Trillian, shotgun, taken out back? Yes please), and then under-used Marvin, Ford and Arthur, all of whom were great.

I dunno. It was certainly an enjoyable two hours ("He's got a towel!!!!" and "He's shut the gate... Have to go 'round the other side" - excellent), but a lot of the book was missing and a lot of other - and not so good - stuff was added.

But. Yeah. Fun and mindless, but less than what I was expecting.

Considering that the movie was written by Douglas Adams, I think that makes it canon.

In the original photo-book for H2G2 (made by and with Adams) Zaphod was black. Adams only placed one restriction on who they cast, which was that Arthur had to be English. It wouldn't've worked otherwise.

I thought Mos Def did a very good job playing Ford, personally.

I thought Adams only had the chance to write half of it before he died?

I thought the whole cast was really good, although Trillian's accent was quite startling in its different delivery of the lines compared to the TV and radio series. I presume that this is related to the addition of the romantic plot strand.

Hmm, maybe, but considering he'd been trying to get the film made for about twenty years I thought he'd managed to write the whole thing.

I reckoned it was a bit rubbish. Only a bit mind.

Maybe it's just that the Hitchhiker's books never really clicked with me fully. They struggled to raise even a smirk at the best of times.

I found the movie completely 'meh'. Didn't make me laugh. Didn't bore me. Bit of a waste of 90 minutes of my life, but I certainly could have spent the time less-gainfully employed.

Marvin was terrible. The saaaaammmee joke time and time again. Yes, it's a depressed robot. Oh, the hilarity. And Alan Rickman was overly hammy as ever.

I have no doubt in Mos Def's acting, or any of the actors selected, but it was just the quickest example I could come up with, and the one that startled me most from the previews. It's just that I like the characters as I see them, but if I see the movie and then go back to reread the book, everything's been marred. It's not really a big deal, I'd just like to preserve my vision.

Adams is dead, obviously, how did he place a restriction on who they could cast? If he did it before he died, or just for the radio show, then I think it was a very clever move, though I think Marvin and Ford should also be British.

I thought Mos Def as Ford was an excellent move. Unexpected but fabulous, and he did it well. Miscast were only Zaphod and Trillian, both of which deserved to get taken away and shot.

Adams is credited for some of the production of the film (rather than just writing credits), so I think he would've have some input into what went on. Dunno, really.



Marvin was. Good ol' Alan.

Just got back from the cinema.

I liked it. I did have SOME gripes, like the love interest between Arthur and Trillian... however I always wanted it in the book. Oddly, I want it and yet I think it makes it worse.
Meh.

Deviated from the plot of the books and I wish more of the old jokes were in... but I can see how they probably wouldn't translate to film very well.

But perfectly set up a sequel, as in no way is the story finished. Whats the gun arc going to be like? Will Arthur actually end up back in time with the bag of scrabble? Etc etc.

Looking forward to see if it really is continued. Hope so.

Adams had been trying to get a movie of H2G2 made pretty much since the book was published

This is a fair point. I don't think that this is really going to win many new fans over to the books. The books meander constantly (as did the radio series they were based on), and so I think that it's quite surprising that they managed to turn it into anything watchable in the first place.

I thought that the repetition actually made Marvin funnier, but again that's possibly due to liking the character in the books.

Calantyr: I know what you mean about the love story. I was initially surprised about it, but when I thought about it I decided that I liked the way that it had been handled. Maybe I've got soft, but a really happy ending is sometimes nice. I didn't recognise the woman playing Trillian, but I thought she did a really good job at that aspect of the film, especially during the bit in the chamber under Deepthought (purposefully vague for people who haven't seen it yet).

I hope they will make the rest of the books. I think that it may well be the kind of film that grows on me.

I just walked in the door from seeing it. I loved it. There were some gaps and I wish they had included more background, but there was no way that they could have ever included all the material that was included in the books/radio show. I have to say that I am glad that I did not re-read the books before I saw the movie. I think if I had I may have like it less and there would have been less moments of "oh yeah!" which can be fun.

Karey Kirkpatrick played a large part in the rewrite of the script in order to get it out of development hell.

Hmm, I'd wondered how much he'd contributed. I suppose its canon status is debatable, then.

A I mentioned earlier in the thread, I'd heard it was around 50%, and I got that from a chap who spends a lot of his free time reading movie magazines.

Writing for the screen is a particular talent, and authors are not always the best people to adapt their own books. It's very hard to cut out bits that you dearly love just because they don't add to the plot, but that is what you have to do. Often whole characters go missing just because they really aren't needed... Like the other hobbit in the Lord of the Rings, he didn't make it into the films or the BBC radio version. They just split his good lines between the other characters.

If you mean Tom Bombadil, he wasn't a hobbit. If you don't, then I have no idea who you're talking about, because I'm pretty sure the movie exhausted the hobbit supply.

I do so wish that they would have had Tom in the movies. He was so cool.

[/spam]

Eeep! He was the one thing I was so glad they cut out of the movie, if not to avoid what I saw as his overwhelming sillyness and out-of-placeness (Sorry, Mr. Tolkien, it was a bad plot decision ), then to avoid the scene with all the hobbits frolicking around naked... *shivers*

</spam>

Wasn't he a hobbit? Oh well, yes, that was the chap I was thinking of. It seems that everyone who reworks the books agrees with you Tigersong!

Nekkid hobbits though... That can't be any worse than Gimley's mental image of 'going swimming with little hairy women'!

Is mata reading a different version of the books to us? I don't remember Gimli saying anything about that at all...

And yeah, cutting out the naked frolicking was all well and good, but Tom Bombadil was a very important character in the books, if not maybe to the plot (though he saved the Hobbits' lives at least twice) then definitely to the world. If you read into it a little more you find that he seems to be one of the original nature spirits, perhaps the force of nature itself. That's why Gandalf says he's so powerful, and at the same time why he says that Tom can't get involved in things (because he's not a creature of middle earth and its beyond his domain of responsibility). His woman is also, seemingly, one of the Eldar, though the details of her character are lost in the lore of my mind. I remember a song involving a ship and a lover who searched, never found, left middle earth and was never seen again, but for the life of me I cannot remember if that was her, or indeed what the names of either of the characters involved. I know certainly that Goldberry is not her real name... Anyone else read into this and can remember it, coz it'll bug me for days (I don't have time to go re-read that book and the simarillion... and I've never read "adventures of Tom Bombadil)?

He's watched the Extended Editions of the films is all I love those.

This is the precise reason I didn't like the love interest. Arthur wasn't supposed to have a purpose, part of the humor was always that he was a bumbling fool who really didn't want anything but tea, and later on, a good sandwich. The fact that there were these characters who really didn't care much about the answer and question to the universe was part of the underlying humor.

Perhaps. That is a valid argument, since that is part of the humour of the story, true.

However, I don't think it added too much, unneccessary depth to the characters -- most of the criticisms of the movie I've heard so far have been implications that there was no plot and the characters were extremely superficial, so I don't think it was extraneous.

---

Tarantio, I know where you're coming from about Tom Bombadil's importance in the mythology. I've read the arguments before many times -- I just don't buy them. The Tom side-story always seemed really added-on and unneccessary to the story. It always shocked me as this really out-of-place side-plot that jarred with the rest of the vision and depth of the books.

As for Goldberry, we know she is the "River-daughter," daughter of the "River-woman," and Tom tells the hobbits that he met her by the Withywindle "long ago," but that's about all we know about her. Like Tom, Goldberry is a mysterious being whose place in Tolkien's mythos isn't easy to establish. She seems to be some kind of river-spirit, though some have conjectured that she could be a Maia. If she has another name, it's not mentioned in the books. Tolkien himself said that she was supposed to represent symbolic seasonal changes.

If nothing else is significant of the Tom Bombadil character is that, correct me if I'm wrong, but the slipped the ring on and nothing happened which, in my humblest opinion, shows his purity and the nature of the ring.

Ok I loved the Hitchhikers film. I haven't read any of the books but I felt that the movie was a witty piece of Hollywood sci fi. Loved Arthur, loved Marvin, Loved Ford (from Guildford- round the corner from me!) loved the romance part of it even though it was somewhat obvious. I liked the fact that they didn't over americanise/ hollywoodise the plot. They had a cunning ending that allowed for both a tied up ending AND a chance of a sequel. And that song......

So long and thanks for all the fish!!!!!

Hitchhiker's Guide: Liked it. My boyfriend brought a towel. The theater seriously didn't have many people in it, which I thought odd. We were there for the second showing on the opening day. o.O But whatever.

And as to the LotR movie, the hobbit that was left out was Fatty Bolger. I think I've spelt that right. Very first movie, only hobbit I can remember being left out.

((Random tangent: I'm posting! I'm not dead! Yaaaay! Just been insanely busy.))

Well, if we're going for minor hobbits, they left rather a lot of them out. Ludmilla Sackville-Baggins, anyone? Sam's Gaffer (though I was pleased to see he at least got a mention)?

Actually, I believe Ludmilla was used but incorrectly. Was she not the one calling upon Bilbo when he was pretending to be home (beginning of the movie)?

Ludmilla was just another part of the Shire though, she never leaves it. Unless I'm mistaken, Fatty Bolger goes along at the start with the other four, for a short leg of the journey which I believe the film completely left out.

Edit: Just to be on topic, I'm rather skeptical about enjoying the film, but I shall be going to see it sometime either this week or next.