| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Iain" |
| Date: |
04 May 2005 02:51:19 PM |
| Object: |
Hitchhiker's Guide Film Review |
I'd summarise this film by saying that it's one director's cut away
from being perfect. It's quite a faithful and graceful adaptation, but
the humour has been almost surgically removed with apparent decisive,
ill-deserved confidence.
The final revelation of the film about the importance of Arthur's brain
could have been spelt out a bit better, as well as the futility of
talking about an "ultimate question".
No complaints about the love sub-plot. It's not too instrusive.
~Iain
.
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitchhiker's Guide Film Review |
04 May 2005 04:43:46 PM |
|
|
Iain wrote:
I'd summarise this film by saying that it's one director's cut away
from being perfect. It's quite a faithful and graceful adaptation, but
the humour has been almost surgically removed with apparent decisive,
ill-deserved confidence.
The final revelation of the film about the importance of Arthur's brain
could have been spelt out a bit better, as well as the futility of
talking about an "ultimate question".
No complaints about the love sub-plot. It's not too instrusive.
I thought it was awful. It missed in just about every
singe thing it tried to do. They seemed to be trying to
get as much of the book in as possible, but they did
it by trimming all the actual funny stuff out of every
scene. They'd have done far better to have cut half
the scenes out and done the other hald properly.
Classic case - Arthur arguing with Prosser about the
plans. Instead of the over the top dialogue about
finding them in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet
in a disused toilet with a sign on the door saying
'Beware of the leopard', we get "I had to go to the
cellar to find them" - "but you did find them".
Then Ford arrives, and distracts Prosser. Do we get
funny dialogue in which Ford cons Prosser into lying
in front of the bulldozer? No, he just distracts
everybody with a shopping trolley full of beer that
he just so happens to have with him at the time.
Why does he have it? Because it drives the plot
forward.
In other words they kept the scene, but they took out
everything that actually made it funny! And they do
this over and over and over again.
And the characters... oh dear. Arthur Dent is reasonably
close. Trillian is, well okay I suppose. But that is
NOT Zaphod Beeblebrox, and that most certainly is
NOT Ford Prefect. Zaphod is a rather stupid, deeply
cool and very laid back person. Except in this movie
Zaphod is stupid, mean, and nasty. And I would say
what's with hiding his extra head in his throat, except
that it's perfectly obvious what's with that - it SCREAMS
"saving money! we're saving money here!"
And another mis-step. There's absolutely no mention
of Magrathea being incredibly wealthy. That's not why
they are going there - they are going there because
Zaphod wants to be famous. They're on a *quest* to
fing the ultimate question.
The central premise of the book is that the characters
are *not* searching for the question. This whole
massively important philosophical issue is something
that they show only passing interest in. They're in it
for the money, or because they have nothing better to
do. Hell, when they eventually do find out what it is
they pretty much shrug at the nonsensical nature of it
and walk off.
I could go on and on. By the midway point I was actively
wishing the thing would just end as quickly as possible.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitchhiker's Guide Film Review |
12 May 2005 01:19:27 PM |
|
|
Graham Kennedy wrote:
[.snip.]
Then Ford arrives, and distracts Prosser. Do we get
funny dialogue in which Ford cons Prosser into lying
in front of the bulldozer? No, he just distracts
everybody with a shopping trolley full of beer that
he just so happens to have with him at the time.
Why does he have it? Because it drives the plot
forward.
Now that I've seen the movie, I think the shopping trolley
full of beer was not nearly as random as you claim. It seemed
to me clear that Ford got the bunch of beers so he could have
something for himself and Arthur to drink for the transportation.
Why a trolley full of beers? He is in a hurry (as evidenced by
his behavior in the pub later), probably just dumped a whole bunch
and ran with it. He doesn't even realize that workers are trying
to tear Arthur's house down until later; when he arrives, he starts
using the beer in the trolley for himself and for Arthur, and only
offers
it to the workers later as a way to get Arthur to go with him.
That said, I found the movie... okay. Left me about the same
as the tv series, which I think was the worst of prior incarnations
by far. Now it ties with the movie.
Arturo Magidin, sans .sig
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitchhiker's Guide Film Review |
05 May 2005 04:16:36 AM |
|
|
Graham Kennedy wrote:
Iain wrote:
I'd summarise this film by saying that it's one director's cut away
from being perfect. It's quite a faithful and graceful adaptation,
but
the humour has been almost surgically removed with apparent
decisive,
ill-deserved confidence.
The final revelation of the film about the importance of Arthur's
brain
could have been spelt out a bit better, as well as the futility of
talking about an "ultimate question".
No complaints about the love sub-plot. It's not too instrusive.
I thought it was awful. It missed in just about every
singe thing it tried to do. They seemed to be trying to
get as much of the book in as possible, but they did
it by trimming all the actual funny stuff out of every
scene. They'd have done far better to have cut half
the scenes out and done the other hald properly.
I think it focused on one particular point of the book which is the two
revelations about 42 and the purpose of the Earth as a sort of computer
for working out a more useful question. I agree it wouldn't have hurt
to have had the extra comedy in, but that's what I meant about
"directors's cut" -- 5 Minutes extra would have made a very good film.
Classic case - Arthur arguing with Prosser about the
plans. Instead of the over the top dialogue about
finding them in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet
in a disused toilet with a sign on the door saying
'Beware of the leopard', we get "I had to go to the
cellar to find them" - "but you did find them".
Agreed; If the line isn't funny, why include even a trace of it?
Then Ford arrives, and distracts Prosser. Do we get
funny dialogue in which Ford cons Prosser into lying
in front of the bulldozer? No, he just distracts
everybody with a shopping trolley full of beer that
he just so happens to have with him at the time.
Why does he have it? Because it drives the plot
forward.
We see in the pub that he's a heavy drinker, something to do with being
alien.
In other words they kept the scene, but they took out
everything that actually made it funny! And they do
this over and over and over again.
And the characters... oh dear. Arthur Dent is reasonably
close. Trillian is, well okay I suppose. But that is
NOT Zaphod Beeblebrox, and that most certainly is
NOT Ford Prefect. Zaphod is a rather stupid, deeply
cool and very laid back person.
It's not the worst thing in the world if the characters aren't exactly
the same as in the novel. Look at what he's wearing; Where have you
seen it before?
Except in this movie
Zaphod is stupid, mean, and nasty. And I would say
what's with hiding his extra head in his throat, except
that it's perfectly obvious what's with that - it SCREAMS
"saving money! we're saving money here!"
A head under a head is no cheaper than a head beside one. It helps
explain how he could have met Trillian at a party without her thinking
him wierd.
They did economise, though. They resorted to Martin Freeman after
considering Hugh Grant(who could have used the oppertunity to
dis-typecast himself a little). It would also have been a rather easy
job for him. I probably would have cast Steve Coogan as Ford.
And another mis-step. There's absolutely no mention
of Magrathea being incredibly wealthy. That's not why
they are going there - they are going there because
Zaphod wants to be famous. They're on a *quest* to
fing the ultimate question.
The central premise of the book is that the characters
are *not* searching for the question. This whole
massively important philosophical issue is something
that they show only passing interest in. They're in it
for the money, or because they have nothing better to
do. Hell, when they eventually do find out what it is
they pretty much shrug at the nonsensical nature of it
and walk off.
I don't think that the plot having more mission is a bad thing.
I could go on and on. By the midway point I was actively
wishing the thing would just end as quickly as possible.
I saw an okay film that was tragically close to being good, had they
only spared some of the comedy.
The first-time director was a mistake. A crap, experienced director
would have been better. Someone like Tim Burton could have ballsed it
up a bit nicer.
~Iain
.
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitchhiker's Guide Film Review |
05 May 2005 05:21:18 AM |
|
|
Iain wrote:
We see in the pub that he's a heavy drinker, something to do with being
alien.
Actually this whole thing is another example of what
I'm talking about.
The real reason for the beer was that it's meant to cushion
your system against the shock of being transported up to
the ship - that's why he is trying to get Arthur to drink
as well, and it's why Arthur is surprised by it - it *isn't*
a usual thing for Ford. The humour of it is that it's highly
desirable for a hitchhiker to get drunk every time he wants
a lift.
Now this is a valid reason why Ford might have had half a
dozen or so cans with him. But a shopping trolley full?
And not only does that not make sense, but they dropped the
line explaining what the beer was all about in the first
place - and it was only one single line, it would have
taken two seconds to say it.
As it is, they've implemented it in a way that makes no
sense, then taken out the explanation for why it was ever
there at all. You could hardly have handled it worse if
you were actually *trying* to do that scene badly.
It's not the worst thing in the world if the characters aren't exactly
the same as in the novel. Look at what he's wearing; Where have you
seen it before?
They don't have to be exactly the same, but they should
be similar in spirit.
Except in this movie
Zaphod is stupid, mean, and nasty. And I would say
what's with hiding his extra head in his throat, except
that it's perfectly obvious what's with that - it SCREAMS
"saving money! we're saving money here!"
A head under a head is no cheaper than a head beside one.
It is. They are left with having to do a few seconds of
CGI every now and again (and they clearly got rid of the
extra head to avoid having to pay for even that), rather
than having to do CGI every second Zaphod is on screen.
It helps
explain how he could have met Trillian at a party without her thinking
him wierd.
He didn't have the extra head then - it was something he
added later. (Plus there would be lots of comedic
possibility about having Zaphod disguise his head,
given that this was a fancy dress party).
And another mis-step. There's absolutely no mention
of Magrathea being incredibly wealthy. That's not why
they are going there - they are going there because
Zaphod wants to be famous. They're on a *quest* to
fing the ultimate question.
The central premise of the book is that the characters
are *not* searching for the question. This whole
massively important philosophical issue is something
that they show only passing interest in. They're in it
for the money, or because they have nothing better to
do. Hell, when they eventually do find out what it is
they pretty much shrug at the nonsensical nature of it
and walk off.
I don't think that the plot having more mission is a bad thing.
I do if the whole point of the story is that these people
*aren't* interested in the question. The idea is that
it shows them as being a fairly shallow, self-centred
bunch - in other words they're realistic, normal people.
I could go on and on. By the midway point I was actively
wishing the thing would just end as quickly as possible.
I saw an okay film that was tragically close to being good, had they
only spared some of the comedy.
For me, they would need to basically rewrite and reshoot
the entire thing from scratch.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitchhiker's Guide Film Review |
05 May 2005 11:37:40 AM |
|
|
Graham Kennedy wrote:
Iain wrote:
We see in the pub that he's a heavy drinker, something to do with
being
alien.
Actually this whole thing is another example of what
I'm talking about.
The real reason for the beer was that it's meant to cushion
your system against the shock of being transported up to
the ship - that's why he is trying to get Arthur to drink
as well, and it's why Arthur is surprised by it - it *isn't*
a usual thing for Ford. The humour of it is that it's highly
desirable for a hitchhiker to get drunk every time he wants
a lift.
Now this is a valid reason why Ford might have had half a
dozen or so cans with him. But a shopping trolley full?
And not only does that not make sense, but they dropped the
line explaining what the beer was all about in the first
place - and it was only one single line, it would have
taken two seconds to say it.
Are you sure they dropped the line explaining why they must drink beer?
I remember Arthur asking "Why three pints?". I don't remember Ford's
answer.
The Earth-based introduction to the film should have been the most
carefully done bit, but wasn't handled very lovingly.
As it is, they've implemented it in a way that makes no
sense, then taken out the explanation for why it was ever
there at all. You could hardly have handled it worse if
you were actually *trying* to do that scene badly.
It's not the worst thing in the world if the characters aren't
exactly
the same as in the novel. Look at what he's wearing; Where have you
seen it before?
They don't have to be exactly the same, but they should
be similar in spirit.
That's a bit harsh -- The spirit is the one thing that is certainly the
same.
Except in this movie
Zaphod is stupid, mean, and nasty. And I would say
what's with hiding his extra head in his throat, except
that it's perfectly obvious what's with that - it SCREAMS
"saving money! we're saving money here!"
A head under a head is no cheaper than a head beside one.
It is. They are left with having to do a few seconds of
CGI every now and again (and they clearly got rid of the
extra head to avoid having to pay for even that), rather
than having to do CGI every second Zaphod is on screen.
Maybe true, but it's better than the B.B.C.'s mistake of effects beyond
its means in the 1981 series. See:
http://www.cinescape.com/multimedia/Master_Site/Books_&_Magazines/Master_SiteArticle271080.jpg
25 years later, a human head is still beyond our means, budget or not(a
CGI head next to a real one would look bad).
It helps
explain how he could have met Trillian at a party without her
thinking
him wierd.
He didn't have the extra head then - it was something he
added later. (Plus there would be lots of comedic
possibility about having Zaphod disguise his head,
given that this was a fancy dress party).
Wasn't Trillian a sort of girlfriend to Zaphod(Arthur seemed jealous --
he "blew it", meaning she got off with Zaphod instead of him)? I don't
think that would have felt right if he had had two heads beside one
another.
Then again, the Trillian\Zaphod romance was a bit out of character of
Trillian, who is of quite opposite character to Zaphod.
And another mis-step. There's absolutely no mention
of Magrathea being incredibly wealthy. That's not why
they are going there - they are going there because
Zaphod wants to be famous. They're on a *quest* to
fing the ultimate question.
The central premise of the book is that the characters
are *not* searching for the question. This whole
massively important philosophical issue is something
that they show only passing interest in. They're in it
for the money, or because they have nothing better to
do. Hell, when they eventually do find out what it is
they pretty much shrug at the nonsensical nature of it
and walk off.
I don't think that the plot having more mission is a bad thing.
I do if the whole point of the story is that these people
*aren't* interested in the question. The idea is that
it shows them as being a fairly shallow, self-centred
bunch - in other words they're realistic, normal people.
But they are as shallow here -- They are only after the question
because Zaphod wants credit for finding it, and drags the others along.
I could go on and on. By the midway point I was actively
wishing the thing would just end as quickly as possible.
The difference between you and I was that I hoped it would go on long
enough for something amusing to happen.
I saw an okay film that was tragically close to being good, had
they
only spared some of the comedy.
For me, they would need to basically rewrite and reshoot
the entire thing from scratch.
500 more lines would have given meaning to the rest.
~Iain
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitchhiker's Guide Film Review |
05 May 2005 11:54:43 AM |
|
|
On 5 May 2005 09:37:40 -0700 in alt.atheism, Iain ("Iain"
<iain_inkster@hotmail.com>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
[snip]
Are you sure they dropped the line explaining why they must drink beer?
I remember Arthur asking "Why three pints?". I don't remember Ford's
answer.
Peanuts for protein and beer for muscle relaxant, IIRC, but might be
wrong. I don't think that was fully explained in the film.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitchhiker's Guide Film Review |
05 May 2005 01:23:45 PM |
|
|
Iain wrote:
Are you sure they dropped the line explaining why they must drink beer?
I remember Arthur asking "Why three pints?". I don't remember Ford's
answer.
I'm pretty sure they didn't, but I couldn't
say for absolutely certain without watching it
again, and you'd have to stick forks in my eyes
before I'd do that.
The Earth-based introduction to the film should have been the most
carefully done bit, but wasn't handled very lovingly.
*None* of it was handled lovingly!
They don't have to be exactly the same, but they should
be similar in spirit.
That's a bit harsh -- The spirit is the one thing that is certainly the
same.
Well, that's not how it seemed to me. I thought
they messed up the spirit of all of it.
It is. They are left with having to do a few seconds of
CGI every now and again (and they clearly got rid of the
extra head to avoid having to pay for even that), rather
than having to do CGI every second Zaphod is on screen.
Maybe true, but it's better than the B.B.C.'s mistake of effects beyond
its means in the 1981 series. See:
http://www.cinescape.com/multimedia/Master_Site/Books_&_Magazines/Master_SiteArticle271080.jpg
25 years later, a human head is still beyond our means, budget or not(a
CGI head next to a real one would look bad).
If we can do Gollum, we can do an extra head.
It would just cost a hell of a lot. And while
the BBC head wasn't the most convincing thing
in the world, at least they *tried*!
He didn't have the extra head then - it was something he
added later. (Plus there would be lots of comedic
possibility about having Zaphod disguise his head,
given that this was a fancy dress party).
Wasn't Trillian a sort of girlfriend to Zaphod(Arthur seemed jealous --
he "blew it", meaning she got off with Zaphod instead of him)? I don't
think that would have felt right if he had had two heads beside one
another.
Then again, the Trillian\Zaphod romance was a bit out of character of
Trillian, who is of quite opposite character to Zaphod.
It's not really specified that I recall, but I
had the idea that Trillian and Zaphod had a bit
of a fling and then cooled off but stayed with
one another as companions. The three headed
relationship wouldn't bother me really - if
Trillian is the kind of girl to want to go
flying around the galaxy in the first place,
she's probably cosmopolitan enough not to mind.
I do if the whole point of the story is that these people
*aren't* interested in the question. The idea is that
it shows them as being a fairly shallow, self-centred
bunch - in other words they're realistic, normal people.
But they are as shallow here -- They are only after the question
because Zaphod wants credit for finding it, and drags the others along.
Which is kinda stupid, since Zaphod was already
famous.
I could go on and on. By the midway point I was actively
wishing the thing would just end as quickly as possible.
The difference between you and I was that I hoped it would go on long
enough for something amusing to happen.
Whereas I abandoned hope around the time Ford
and Arthur arrived on the Heart of Gold.
For me, they would need to basically rewrite and reshoot
the entire thing from scratch.
500 more lines would have given meaning to the rest.
Well, maybe you will get your wish on the DVD.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arturo Magidin" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitchhiker's Guide Film Review |
05 May 2005 01:32:54 PM |
|
|
In article <Rwtee.29135$Cq2.16707@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Graham Kennedy <graham@ditl.org> wrote:
[.snip.]
Then again, the Trillian\Zaphod romance was a bit out of character of
Trillian, who is of quite opposite character to Zaphod.
It's not really specified that I recall, but I
had the idea that Trillian and Zaphod had a bit
of a fling and then cooled off but stayed with
one another as companions.
The Radio Series is clearer.
The odds of being picked up by a passing space ship after being thrown
out of an airlock without a space suit are 2^{some number} to 1; by a
*staggering* coincidence, the number was in fact the telephone number
of a flat in Islington (in fact, Douglas's Adams phone number at the
time, though when he moved the new tenants did not find that amusing)
where Arthur had once gone to a party. At that party he had met a
wonderful woman, "all things I had been saving myself for" as he puts
it, with whom he completely failed to get off with. That woman was
Trillian. The reason Arthur failed to get off with her was because
someone named "Phil" kept saying "Hey, babe, is this guy bodering you?
Why don't you talk to me? I'm from outer space!". Phil, as it turns
out, was Zaphod, "though at the time he had only the one head and the
two arms". Since, with a degree in maths and another in astrophysics
it was either travel to outer space with Zaphod or "back to the dole
queue on Monday", she decided to go off with him. Since Zaphod
actually picked her up at a party, it is obviously clear that they had
a fling once. In fact, an exchange goes
T: "Zaphod, take your hand off me. Thank you. And the other
one. Thank you. And the other one."
Z: "I grew that one just for you, baby."
(The throwaway line that required Zaphod to have three arms in the TV
series...)
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arturo Magidin" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitchhiker's Guide Film Review |
04 May 2005 04:52:36 PM |
|
|
In article <mmbee.29478$qK3.2531@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Graham Kennedy <graham@ditl.org> wrote:
[...]
Then Ford arrives, and distracts Prosser. Do we get
funny dialogue in which Ford cons Prosser into lying
in front of the bulldozer? No,
So? That wasn't in the Radio Series or the TV show either. Instead,
Ford argues that since they agree that they will not be working if
Arthur stays and lies in front of the bulldozer, and they are
basically taking for granted that Arthur will stay, they have already
resigned themselves to not working, and so they don't actually need
Arthur to be there. So Arthur can "nip over" to the Pub and grab a
drink for a while. He then offers to do the same later for them if
they want to.
In fact, in each of the Radio Series, TV Show, and novel, Ford gets
Arthur to go with him by doing something else. No reason why there
would not be a fourth thing in the movie.
(That said: I have heard wildly varying reviews about this film, from
both devoted fans and neophytes. In both camps, there are people who
loved it and people who hated it...)
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitchhiker's Guide Film Review |
05 May 2005 02:50:05 AM |
|
|
Arturo Magidin wrote:
In article <mmbee.29478$qK3.2531@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Graham Kennedy <graham@ditl.org> wrote:
[...]
Then Ford arrives, and distracts Prosser. Do we get
funny dialogue in which Ford cons Prosser into lying
in front of the bulldozer? No,
So? That wasn't in the Radio Series or the TV show either.
So it was an example of a funny moment which was cut from
the movie. As was just about every other funny moment in
the whole thing. And he does con Prosser into lying in
front of the bulldozer in the TV series.
Instead,
Ford argues that since they agree that they will not be working if
Arthur stays and lies in front of the bulldozer, and they are
basically taking for granted that Arthur will stay, they have already
resigned themselves to not working, and so they don't actually need
Arthur to be there. So Arthur can "nip over" to the Pub and grab a
drink for a while. He then offers to do the same later for them if
they want to.
In fact, in each of the Radio Series, TV Show, and novel, Ford gets
Arthur to go with him by doing something else. No reason why there
would not be a fourth thing in the movie.
Indeed, and if they had replaced it with something else
that was also funny I wouldn't complain. But Ford just
happening to have a shopping trolley full of booze with
him? That's not funny, that's just makes you wonder why
the hell he carts a hundred cans of beer around with him
for no particular reason.
(That said: I have heard wildly varying reviews about this film, from
both devoted fans and neophytes. In both camps, there are people who
loved it and people who hated it...)
I wouldn't call myself a devoted fan as such - I've never
even heard the radio play, I only know the books and the
TV series. I'm not hopping mad that he didn't do a line
for line recreation of either one - but I wish he had
chosen the scenes he wanted to include and then done
them properly, instead of trying to put twice as much in
and then cutting the actual humour out of it all to make
it fit.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arturo Magidin" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitchhiker's Guide Film Review |
05 May 2005 11:36:37 AM |
|
|
In article <Nekee.32682$qK3.23656@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Graham Kennedy <graham@ditl.org> wrote:
Arturo Magidin wrote:
In article <mmbee.29478$qK3.2531@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Graham Kennedy <graham@ditl.org> wrote:
[...]
Then Ford arrives, and distracts Prosser. Do we get
funny dialogue in which Ford cons Prosser into lying
in front of the bulldozer? No,
So? That wasn't in the Radio Series or the TV show either.
So it was an example of a funny moment which was cut from
the movie. As was just about every other funny moment in
the whole thing. And he does con Prosser into lying in
front of the bulldozer in the TV series.
Hmmm... Yes, you're right. I can picture it in my head, but I can't
hear the dialogue at all. I'll have to check it when I get home. I
have the impression we don't see Ford explaining it to him, we just
cut and then there's a throwaway line at the pub about how he got him
to lie down in front, isn't there?
In fact, in each of the Radio Series, TV Show, and novel, Ford gets
Arthur to go with him by doing something else. No reason why there
would not be a fourth thing in the movie.
Indeed, and if they had replaced it with something else
that was also funny I wouldn't complain.
Fair enough.
(That said: I have heard wildly varying reviews about this film, from
both devoted fans and neophytes. In both camps, there are people who
loved it and people who hated it...)
I wouldn't call myself a devoted fan as such - I've never
even heard the radio play, I only know the books and the
TV series.
Then you should definitely hear the radio series! At least the first
one; second one is a let down. But they just came out with a third and
a fourth is coming out soon, and I'm looking forward to those!
After all, Douglas Adams said he felt the TV series was the worse of
all the incarnations he knew...
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitchhiker's Guide Film Review |
06 May 2005 03:31:42 AM |
|
|
Arturo Magidin wrote:
In article <Nekee.32682$qK3.23656@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Graham Kennedy <graham@ditl.org> wrote:
Arturo Magidin wrote:
In article <mmbee.29478$qK3.2531@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Graham Kennedy <graham@ditl.org> wrote:
[...]
Then Ford arrives, and distracts Prosser. Do we get
funny dialogue in which Ford cons Prosser into lying
in front of the bulldozer? No,
So? That wasn't in the Radio Series or the TV show either.
So it was an example of a funny moment which was cut from
the movie. As was just about every other funny moment in
the whole thing. And he does con Prosser into lying in
front of the bulldozer in the TV series.
Hmmm... Yes, you're right. I can picture it in my head, but I can't
hear the dialogue at all. I'll have to check it when I get home. I
have the impression we don't see Ford explaining it to him, we just
cut and then there's a throwaway line at the pub about how he got him
to lie down in front, isn't there?
Oh no, there's a whole scene. Ford argues that it's clear
that Arthur is going to lie in front of the bulldozer for
at least the next few hours, and so if everybody has
committed themselves to that then there's no real need for
him to actually be there; they can all just assume he is
there while he nips off to the pub. So if Prosser will
just take his place for half an hour they'll do that;
and later on they could fill in for Prosser in the same
way if he wants to nip off himself.
"And no sneaky knocking Mr Dent's house down while he's
away, alright?"
"The slightest thought hadn't even begun to speculate about the merest
possibility of crossing my mind!"
I wouldn't call myself a devoted fan as such - I've never
even heard the radio play, I only know the books and the
TV series.
Then you should definitely hear the radio series! At least the first
one; second one is a let down. But they just came out with a third and
a fourth is coming out soon, and I'm looking forward to those!
After all, Douglas Adams said he felt the TV series was the worse of
all the incarnations he knew...
I think of the books as the definitive version. I don't
really listen to anything but music on the radio; not
even that much these days now I have an iPod.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitchhiker's Guide Film Review |
06 May 2005 07:05:40 AM |
|
|
Arturo Magidin wrote:
In article <Nekee.32682$qK3.23656@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Graham Kennedy <graham@ditl.org> wrote:
Arturo Magidin wrote:
Snippage....
Then you should definitely hear the radio series! At least the first
one; second one is a let down. But they just came out with a third and
a fourth is coming out soon, and I'm looking forward to those!
The new radio series has started.......(6:30 Tuesdays, BBC Radio 4)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/newseries.shtml
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitchhiker's Guide Film Review |
04 May 2005 04:58:42 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 4 May 2005 21:52:36 +0000 (UTC),
(Arturo Magidin) wrote:
In article <mmbee.29478$qK3.2531@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Graham Kennedy <graham@ditl.org> wrote:
[...]
Then Ford arrives, and distracts Prosser. Do we get
funny dialogue in which Ford cons Prosser into lying
in front of the bulldozer? No,
So? That wasn't in the Radio Series or the TV show either. Instead,
Ford argues that since they agree that they will not be working if
Arthur stays and lies in front of the bulldozer, and they are
basically taking for granted that Arthur will stay, they have already
resigned themselves to not working, and so they don't actually need
Arthur to be there. So Arthur can "nip over" to the Pub and grab a
drink for a while. He then offers to do the same later for them if
they want to.
In fact, in each of the Radio Series, TV Show, and novel, Ford gets
Arthur to go with him by doing something else. No reason why there
would not be a fourth thing in the movie.
(That said: I have heard wildly varying reviews about this film, from
both devoted fans and neophytes. In both camps, there are people who
loved it and people who hated it...)
Someone said that Doug Adams said when he wrote the screen play that
it would be different from the book.
I loved it, the bad reviews lowered my expectations.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
