I don't even want to see this movie, goddamn ads are everywhere and they're all "whoo we made this movie out of this book and we BUTCHERED IT whoo"... I've heard many bad things... come on, they turned it into a LOVE story!!

Wow, I'm going to get yelled at for creating such a pointless thread, but still... Hitchhikers Guide (book and series) was kickass, and they go and make a hyped up love story out of it

WHAT'S THE DEAL?!?!

***awaits the intense flamage***

__________________

Movies are never as good as the book. This movie was entertaining, but not as much as the super low budget british seriies years ago. I'd say it's worth seeing.

__________________

The old TV series kicked arse.

Bloody oath!

__________________

i heard from many that the movie was good, and considering the fact that i work at a movie theater, i hear lots of opinions.

__________________

i read a very crappy review of the movie.....killed all my excitement

__________________

Hey corroded, can you add my new e-mail?

Many good stories are ruined in film by the addition of a pointless Love plot...

quick pointless trivia....I have only seen two films with NO women in the entire movie.....can anyone name them?
Both were very good IMO

Reviews have the power to taint your view on the film, don't read them. Go and watch it and make your own conclusion.

This thread, however, has ruined my thursday night.

__________________

There are a couple exceptions to that rule, like "Interview With The Vampire" and "The Stand", in my opinion.

I'd agree on "Interview" but enjoyed reading "The Stand" about a million times more than that gay mini series.
I think the book was about 1400 pages......way too much was left out of the TV version.
IMO

I never saw the mini series, I own the movie. I thought the book was way too boring in parts, especially the middle where they had to organize their community.

What? Gay porn?

I can name a few with ALMOST no female acting: 2001: A Space Odyssey, Dr. Strangelove (both directed by Kubric). But ABSOLUTELY no females on screen...?


P.S. Maybe the original (not the Redux) version of Apocalypse Now didn't have any women, but I'm not sure.

Ain't a pointless thread. For people like me (nerds, who read all the Hitchhiker's books in high school and about fourty times since) this is important enough to actually go to a theatre and watch.

However! I've seen a lot of reviews in polatiry - some say great, others say turd-fondling. It's very strange and must be investigated. I would hazard a guess that it might be a decent enough movie, but deviate significantly from the books. That would piss me off significantly and you would cause you all to cop my "I hate screen adaptations" rant after I've seen it.

__________________

befor you bitches start whining that its not true to the book (its not) but just know that the guy that wrote it had alot of input in the movie and hes the one that changed alot of it, cause he wants it to evolve
if you like the book more, then read the damn book and stop bitching

__________________

Heh...
Apocalypse Now (any version) has alot of fems on screen....just no love thank god.
2001 The first 25 min has alot of fems too....in fact....a long drawn out dialog with the Soviet woman.

The two I know of was Carpenters remake of "The Thing" and the film "Lord Of The Flies"
No females from beginning to end and both wonderful movies!

Are you talking about Hitchiker's there? I spose you're not since Douglas Adams is dead.

__________________

hmm, thats what i heard anyway-maybe it was somone else who had a very prominent role in writing the book perhaps

__________________

Are you sure? I've watched the Redux, and the only women I recall are the models and the French ones, both parts from what I've read are not in the original version. But it was some time ago, maybe I've forgotten something.



It wasn't a "long drawn out dialog", it was only a brief conversation. And after that, not a single woman was shown (or maybe one of the hibernated astronauts was female?!).


P.S. You're right about Apocalypse, I remember now, there were a lot of native women in the movie.

I saw the movie with a couple of my friends, and the friend I had who had read the book and saw the series said the same thing.....yet he described how the movie was a "travesty" to the book.

From what others have told me about this movie, all the underlying humour and logic has been discarded, and instead of all the characters being smart and funny, I was told they are now dumb and slightly funny.

I was told the only character who remained somewhat true to the book and series was Zaphod, because he was so up himself.

I dont doubt any of this...

__________________

Douglas Adams was closely involved in writing this movie. It's been in development hell forever, but he wanted very badly for it to be a movie and worked very hard at it. So gd's probably right.

From what I can tell the problem isn't whether or not it's faithful (people get too tied up with that and fail to realize that film is a different medium, and an 'unfaithful' film can end up being a much better film than a 'faithful' one - compare the two versions of 'Lolita', for instance; and, while you're at it, keep in mind, oh you haughty 'the book is always better' motherfuckers, that every one of Kubrick's movies is an adaptation, and only rarely is it worse than the source material. On the same note, a lot of shitty novels have made fantastic movies), it's that the director's a first-timer with only music video experience. Thus and so, he has no idea how to handle things like 'pacing' over the course of two hours, rather than two minutes. Apparently inept directing ruins several jokes and undercuts the establishment of mood. This, combined with the fact that I never liked Hitchiker's Guide to begin with, will probably keep me from seeing it. I don't care how involved Adams was and how faithful it is if it's just a shitty movie, and it's bound to be if the director's a fuck-up.

The astronaut's wife appears over a video-phone type device about mid-way through 2001. And I don't see how anyone can forget Ladies Night in Cambodia from Apocalypse Now. Plus, in the redux, I'm pretty sure Martin Sheen has an affair with a retired actress who watches an old movie of herself. I don't think I made that up, and I don't believe she was French. Could be wrong, though.

The movie Fletch is better than the book. The book was fucking funny too, but different.

The movie Fight club was WAY better than the book (and that was a good book too).

As far as Stephen King goes, I think The Shining and The Running Man movies were both better than the books, but on The Stand I would go with the original book without all the extra crap as the superior version.



I heard Hitchhiker's Guide was good and since I only read it once as a wee child and only remember the "42" thing, I probably won't know the difference.

He has a nice conversation with his daughter too via VideoPhone.

Yes...Sheen and the French woman hooked it up.
Also...the redux version has about 15 additional minutes of the Playboy Bunny girls.

The Island of Dr. Moreau (Val Kilmer version). The only females are animal hybrids... Awesome movie.

I wanted to say Reservoir Dogs, but then I remembered the waitress thing at the beginning.

I never saw Dr. Moreau...
Reservoir dogs is close! Also the woman they carjack and shoot and "Bonnie" and also Julia Sweeney at the very end.
But altogether....the fems make up about 3 mins of the entire film......good noticing that!

Yeah, me too. Funny that I remembered the waitress from Reservoir Dogs but not the many women shown in Apocalypse Now.

Ah you mean Robbie Stamp, he was the ex-producer...and a friend of Douglas Adams.

__________________

i've read quite the opposite...

a) zaphod has only one head in the movie. the second head is somewhere around his neck and shows up only on a very few occasions.
b) it was too hard to attach a prostethic third arm...so zaphod has to do with two. oh oh oh wait whats under that robe of his????? A THIRD ARM !!!!! again, bleargh whatever...
c) he has this whole rockstar thing in the movie. zaphod is supposed to be cool and sarcastic and shit...but here, he's only mean and apparently, all that the makers could do about zaphy being cool was to give him a rockstar put-on.

but regardless of the reviews, i'm gonna go watch the movie whenever it comes over here.

__________________

Are you talking about Stephen King's "The Stand?"

I couldn't stand that fucking movie, it took all the subtle aspects that made the book entertaining and just beat you over the fucking head with it.

I did like the Blue Oyster Cult in the beginning though.

__________________

I saw that movie... it didnt make anysense...

if I do see this movie, it will be a long time from now. I dont visit theatres

Dont forget...The Stand movie is a Made For TV Movie.....first aired as a TV mini series.
There are little to no film actors in it....it's mostly TV sitcom and drama actors. (and some of the worst out there too)
It was later packaged as a film....but never really was.
It sucks donkeyballs IMO.

I saw it last night. What a sack of shit. It's not funny or witty like the book. It's basically a kids film. I generally didn't like the way they did the characters. I thought Arthur would be good (played by 'Tim' from the office, UK that is) but he wasn't.
Zaphod was fucking aweful. They played him as a retard, rather than an arrogant, inconsiderate piss artist. As well as the head/arms stuff corroded mentioned.
The only character who was good was Slartibartfast.

Marvin was the biggest let down of the film.

Gay.

Bill Nighly plays him doesn't he?

__________________

I'm no good with actors real names, but it's Shaun's dad in 'Shaun of the dead'

aaah, yup then....atleast he puts in a good performance from someones point of view. I haven't seen this film yet, but I was looking foward to it last week....now this thread has squashed my hopes.

Oh, and he's his step-dad, not dad.

__________________

yeah I realised just after I posted. I love that film. They should have cast Simon Pegg as Arthur, that would be great.

It's worth seeing, just because you have to, but it just didn't grab me. It just about held my attention. I'll stop slagging it off, just watch it without expecting too much.