<strong>[Film & TV -> Review]</strong> - More info on <a href="http://wikipocalypse.duckandcover.cx/in ... le=Douglas Adams">Person: Douglas Adams</a> | More info on <a href="http://wikipocalypse.duckandcover.cx/in ... tchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy">Film & TV: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy</a>
<p>A Mr. <strong>MJ Simpson</strong> from <a href="http://www.planetmagrathea.com/" target="_self">Planet Magrathea</a>, posted a very very... and yes, once again... VERY, poor <a href="http://www.planetmagrathea.com/shortreview.html" target="_self">review</a> (there is another, but it contains <a href="http://www.planetmagrathea.com/longreview1.html" target="_self">spoilers</a>) of the <a href="http://hitchhikers.movies.go.com/main.html" target="_self">Hitchhiker's Guide</a>. Actually... It's less a review and more of a complete tongue lashing, as if the tongue were 300ft. tall and fell on the cast and crew while they were sipping tea... </p><blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px"><p><em>"As well as being staggeringly unfunny - and Hitchhiker’s Guide really is one of the least funny comedy films ever made - the film also suffers by having an entirely nonsensical plot. It is driven by convenience and unexplained happenings. Characters just happen to be where they need to be and have what they need to have, even if it makes no sense for them to be there or to have that. Maybe it did make sense at one stage, but the film looks like it has had some heavy re-editing from the version seen in early previews and test screenings."</em></p></blockquote><p>
I've read the series and I must say that it jumps around quite a bit and things do simply appear out of thin air, without explanation (least until later)... But then again, you're dealing with infinite improbability. In all fairness to the movie, it would be nearly impossible, or should I say, "Improbable" to compress the entire series into a 2hr. time slot, with out omitting certain plot details. <strong>MJ Simpson</strong> states that he enjoyed the TV and radio shows, which I can understand because they have unlimited time to explore every nook and cranny the books offer. Keep in mind that this is only the first negative review, but there are still 2 other <a href="http://www.h2g2movie.com/pages/review.html" target="_self">reviews</a> which have been positive so far. At any rate, I'll still be there opening day. </p><p><strong>PS:</strong> This movie has American influences in it and as we all “bloody” well know, American humor and British humor differs quite a bit… Ever watched, Are You Being Served? Damn that Ms. Peacock with her purple hair!</p>
Spotted @ <a href="http://www.planetmagrathea.com">Planet Magrathea</a>
Take a Hitchhike?
Lost In Translation
Lost In Translation
The books and the TV treatment came later.
The radio version was co-written, and I believe that those parts were not included in the books. Thus one of the differences between the two. The two treatments worked excellently for their media. Both were successes.
Adams' stand on how the movie would be made did not 'please' the corporate
moguls. Thus the delay in the movie project. Even after 'Men In Black' proved to 'the smart money' that sci fi could be funny.
I applaud your willingness to judge the movie for it's own merits, but don't labor to rationalize reviews and the 'improbable' content.
The makers of this movie may very well have failed to translate Adams' sense and nonsense to the motion picture screen.
The reported under use of Marvin may have been that these dramatic asides are too verbal and stage like for -modern- movie scripting. TOO MANY WORDS for the minimalist sensibility that hides the fear of, or inability to perceive, polysyllables, behind a bullying, know nothing, posture.
When movie treatments fail to flow narratively for the 'average' viewer , taxing that common denominator's cognate stamina, these interpretations, at best, turn into montages and vignettes' that reward those with 'art cinema' attention spans.
Part of the comic genius of Douglas Adams was setting up a logic structure that proved to be an intellectual prat fall, rather than random nonsense.
Any form of logic may be too difficult to dun down to -modern- entertainment standards.
The only structure allowed may be the well traveled, and comfortable, plot progression that knits together 'kewl particle effects' and the bump and grind sirens of tits and ass.
In his time, Adams did a lot of comedy skit writing, perhaps you will see some good rendering of pieces and parts. This review implies those who wished to market Adams' vision may have failed to craft a coherent and unified movie. They may have been cursed with Adams' infamous procrastination and failed to budget their time for that final edit.
4too
Hitchhiker's was a BBC radio play first.... the TV and radio shows, which I can understand because they have unlimited time to explore every nook and cranny the books offer. ...
The books and the TV treatment came later.
The radio version was co-written, and I believe that those parts were not included in the books. Thus one of the differences between the two. The two treatments worked excellently for their media. Both were successes.
Adams' stand on how the movie would be made did not 'please' the corporate
moguls. Thus the delay in the movie project. Even after 'Men In Black' proved to 'the smart money' that sci fi could be funny.
I applaud your willingness to judge the movie for it's own merits, but don't labor to rationalize reviews and the 'improbable' content.
The makers of this movie may very well have failed to translate Adams' sense and nonsense to the motion picture screen.
The reported under use of Marvin may have been that these dramatic asides are too verbal and stage like for -modern- movie scripting. TOO MANY WORDS for the minimalist sensibility that hides the fear of, or inability to perceive, polysyllables, behind a bullying, know nothing, posture.
When movie treatments fail to flow narratively for the 'average' viewer , taxing that common denominator's cognate stamina, these interpretations, at best, turn into montages and vignettes' that reward those with 'art cinema' attention spans.
Part of the comic genius of Douglas Adams was setting up a logic structure that proved to be an intellectual prat fall, rather than random nonsense.
Any form of logic may be too difficult to dun down to -modern- entertainment standards.
The only structure allowed may be the well traveled, and comfortable, plot progression that knits together 'kewl particle effects' and the bump and grind sirens of tits and ass.
In his time, Adams did a lot of comedy skit writing, perhaps you will see some good rendering of pieces and parts. This review implies those who wished to market Adams' vision may have failed to craft a coherent and unified movie. They may have been cursed with Adams' infamous procrastination and failed to budget their time for that final edit.
4too
-
Franz Schubert
- 250 Posts til Somewhere
- Posts: 2714
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 9:59 am
- Location: Vienna
Actually, I didn't realize that, thanks for the info... Truly, its interesting to know. I'm not much a "search bug"... I only read the series.Hitchhiker's was a BBC radio play first.
The books and the TV treatment came later.
Understandable... DA's books aren't exactly movie material to begin with... The Radio Casts, etc... I don't know (though I assume they have more of an ability to engage the many details within the books)... But the books... You need some serious compression in there... If you were to create a movie based of them.The radio version was co-written, and I believe that those parts were not included in the books. Thus one of the differences between the two. The two treatments worked excellently for their media. Both were successes. Adams' stand on how the movie would be made did not 'please' the corporate moguls. Thus the delay in the movie project. Even after 'Men In Black' proved to 'the smart money' that sci fi could be funny.
Ok... Well, your applaud... Hmmm... Well, I can't hear much unless you give me a sound bite to play with... Any ways... The Improbability Drive was half a joke on my part... Half mind you, hehe...sighhh, look... The series skips around, it throws in things, briefly explains... I'm not sayin I didn't get a kick outta the books, but... It really dosn't equally to a good movie script if you were to take it verbatim... That was all I was saying. And MJ went on about how loose everything was and me, without haveing seen the movie, can say that I can understand how he might get that impression, being the die hard fan that he is... who has seen the TV series and heard the Radio casts. Me, I haven't been exposed to either of those... Only the books... And I can tell you that, What he explained sounded like, what I expected. But genious in it's own right, as were the books... You have 2 hours to explain weeks of reading... Much of the reading is narrative touching on things that only appear in later books or scattered throughout one... Come on, give the people a brake... I am a movie buff and I would find it hard as hell to even envision such a concept. And quite frankly, I would leave a good bit out as well.I applaud your willingness to judge the movie for it's own merits, but don't labor to rationalize reviews and the 'improbable' content.
The makers of this movie may very well have failed to translate Adams' sense and nonsense to the motion picture screen.
Actually, if I made the movie, I would leave out the relationship between Aurthor and Trillian, unless it took the form as a high school type/puppy love and skip straight to Fenchurch... That is where Aurthor had true happiness it seems.
The reported under use of Marvin may have been that these dramatic asides are too verbal and stage like for -modern- movie scripting. TOO MANY WORDS for the minimalist sensibility that hides the fear of, or inability to perceive, polysyllables, behind a bullying, know nothing, posture.
MARVIN WAS UNDERUSED IN THE BOOKS... Jesus, I mean, what the hell are you people talking about? He made a few apperances, then he finally died in So Long And Thanks For All The Fish... Are you going to cut out and switch randomly to a scene where Marvin is talking to a mattress in a swamp???? Come on... This whole bit reminds me of Andy Kauffman... "Only he gets the joke" which is being played on the viewers.
You didn't like 2001: A Space Odessy, Dr. Strangelove or maybe Europa Europa... Lots of movies... God so many movies...When movie treatments fail to flow narratively for the 'average' viewer , taxing that common denominator's cognate stamina, these interpretations, at best, turn into montages and vignettes' that reward those with 'art cinema' attention spans.
Part of the comic genius of Douglas Adams was setting up a logic structure that proved to be an intellectual prat fall, rather than random nonsense.
Any form of logic may be too difficult to dun down to -modern- entertainment standards.
The only structure allowed may be the well traveled, and comfortable, plot progression that knits together 'kewl particle effects' and the bump and grind sirens of tits and ass.
Ya know... Your final paragraph carries more weight than the rest... In fact, you could have simply given me that 1. Any ways. I agree... When a genious dies in the middle of something and others continue to errect the idea... More than often, it falls somewhat short.In his time, Adams did a lot of comedy skit writing, perhaps you will see some good rendering of pieces and parts. This review implies those who wished to market Adams' vision may have failed to craft a coherent and unified movie. They may have been cursed with Adams' infamous procrastination and failed to budget their time for that final edit.
Any ways, I'm not sayin the movie dosn't suck, though I doubt it sucked as much as some films I've seen, such as White Chicks or Legally Blonde... I think he was a bit harsh on his review and I haven't even seen the movie yet. I just understand what he was touching on and I tried to give an explanation as to why he felt that way. Honestly, I'm looking forward to the movie as a person who has only read the books, save Mostly Harmless (again, which I will read before the movie).
Righteous is the man who never turns a blind eye towards the truth.
Chance
Chance
FS.
Found M.J. Simpson's biography of DA in the book pile during jury duty.
Got picked for two cases so didn't finish.
Please, no spoilers, ......
E13.
The last paragraph is what I caught when it came down.
The process may not be the concise ruthless coherency that is the aspiration of present day communication, take what you find of use.
The challenge of movie making is taking what works in radio plays, and on the printed page and creating a good movie from the concepts.
Without choking on preconceptions formed from last week's big money maker.
Easier said then, ... filmed ... , and just as subject to chance as me finding that biography of DA.
4too
FS.
What, did you do a book report on him for school?
Found M.J. Simpson's biography of DA in the book pile during jury duty.
Got picked for two cases so didn't finish.
Please, no spoilers, ......
E13.
I started at the beginning, and pitched up my opinion of modern media marketing.... Ya know... Your final paragraph carries more weight than the rest... In fact, ....
The last paragraph is what I caught when it came down.
The process may not be the concise ruthless coherency that is the aspiration of present day communication, take what you find of use.
The challenge of movie making is taking what works in radio plays, and on the printed page and creating a good movie from the concepts.
Without choking on preconceptions formed from last week's big money maker.
Easier said then, ... filmed ... , and just as subject to chance as me finding that biography of DA.
4too
modern media marketing
shit, I agree... I hate modern media... Barf... Any ways... There have been 3 new reviews on the movie, which were positive, I just havent posted them yet, but I will... Been on a drinkin binge as of late. Any ways... The people reviewing the movie agreed with my ideas on MJ's take... Again, Ill post them later. But, yes, I know how marketing can be... Horrid... You're talkin to a guy who has been with Fallout since its conception... Hehehe, we are a hatefull community sometimes and know how devious the gurus can be... so... any ways... Im just saying "see the movie for yourself" thats my biggest concern. and Brits have a different idea of what the Guide is.... Americans mostly know the books... So... Any ways... I just like when people make up their own decisions is all.
shit, I agree... I hate modern media... Barf... Any ways... There have been 3 new reviews on the movie, which were positive, I just havent posted them yet, but I will... Been on a drinkin binge as of late. Any ways... The people reviewing the movie agreed with my ideas on MJ's take... Again, Ill post them later. But, yes, I know how marketing can be... Horrid... You're talkin to a guy who has been with Fallout since its conception... Hehehe, we are a hatefull community sometimes and know how devious the gurus can be... so... any ways... Im just saying "see the movie for yourself" thats my biggest concern. and Brits have a different idea of what the Guide is.... Americans mostly know the books... So... Any ways... I just like when people make up their own decisions is all.
Righteous is the man who never turns a blind eye towards the truth.
Your ideas on MJ's take, as presented above, incur the impression that you didn't actually read it, not the long version anyway.
His complaints are so specific, either they are objectively wrong or the movie sucks. It's not a matter of opinion because he didn't just state his opinion, he also described the objective base for it.
Here's a nice example:
His complaints are so specific, either they are objectively wrong or the movie sucks. It's not a matter of opinion because he didn't just state his opinion, he also described the objective base for it.
Here's a nice example:
So either the supposed problem wasn't a problem at all, or they didn't fix it. Yay.You may have noticed that the whole film up to now has been just a picaresque series of mini-adventures on a bunch of different planets. The original Hitchhiker's story was a picaresque tale too and that was always cited as one of the problems in trying to turn it into a feature film screenplay. But all that has happened is that one sequence of largely unconnected events has been replaced by another one.
Two Examples Of Book To Movie
Two Examples Of Book To Movie
Saw the Gregory Peck "Horatio Hornblower" movie back in the bland old days of network broadcast TV (''four and a half channels and nothing on ...''). Did not read the C.S. Forester novels until recently.
It was after reading most of the Patrick O'Brian historical novels over the last decade that I saw there was a "Hornblower" series too.
The novels possessed the pluses and minuses of series historical novels with just a touch of de-facto "bodice ripping" to acknowledge mammalian reproduction customs and our moth to candle flame attraction for that lure.
Watched " Captain Horatio Hornblower" and "Master And Commander" on VHS yesterday.
Each was true to the action format of their era of movie making. 1951 and 2003.
Each covered enough detail to be clearly, motion picture treatments of the books' narrative.
Gregory Peck was able to portray the stern mask that Forester's Horatio hid behind.
Russell Crowe was able to project the drive and charisma of O ' Brian's Jack Aubrey.
The "Hornblower" movie had more to do with 'classic' cinema like "'Captain Blood"". Technicolor palette. Scale models and process shots. Required 'love interest' via Virginia Mayo's plucked eyebrows.
"Master And Commander" had the advantage of building toward one climatic encounter. It was not possible to compete with the depth of 21 books about Aubrey and Maturin. The screen play did not lose it's adventure focus. I think the characters and the life on ship were well done and fit the cinema's action vector.
Each are good movies that started as novels.
4too
Saw the Gregory Peck "Horatio Hornblower" movie back in the bland old days of network broadcast TV (''four and a half channels and nothing on ...''). Did not read the C.S. Forester novels until recently.
It was after reading most of the Patrick O'Brian historical novels over the last decade that I saw there was a "Hornblower" series too.
The novels possessed the pluses and minuses of series historical novels with just a touch of de-facto "bodice ripping" to acknowledge mammalian reproduction customs and our moth to candle flame attraction for that lure.
Watched " Captain Horatio Hornblower" and "Master And Commander" on VHS yesterday.
Each was true to the action format of their era of movie making. 1951 and 2003.
Each covered enough detail to be clearly, motion picture treatments of the books' narrative.
Gregory Peck was able to portray the stern mask that Forester's Horatio hid behind.
Russell Crowe was able to project the drive and charisma of O ' Brian's Jack Aubrey.
The "Hornblower" movie had more to do with 'classic' cinema like "'Captain Blood"". Technicolor palette. Scale models and process shots. Required 'love interest' via Virginia Mayo's plucked eyebrows.
"Master And Commander" had the advantage of building toward one climatic encounter. It was not possible to compete with the depth of 21 books about Aubrey and Maturin. The screen play did not lose it's adventure focus. I think the characters and the life on ship were well done and fit the cinema's action vector.
Each are good movies that started as novels.
4too
