It's different from the book... but Adams himself acknowledged that it would have to change as the medium changed.

I liked the narration of guide entries, as it gave the same impression of wit as the actual book, but somethings were so different that it made me hope they don't move onto Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

As for the issue latch addressed in his spoiler tag, wholly and fully agreed on that point.

I have been a huge fan of the books ever since I read them when I was just a wee lad. Since then I have read them several times over and am going to see the movie tommarow.

I actually was very impressed. I went in with pretty low expectations though. Of course it couldn't live up to the books, but taken as a separate thing the movie was great. There are some added plot twists that I am sure will be used to string together the next movies in a more cohesive way. The addition of the extra plot lines was somewhat annoying, but after reading a few interviews I get the idea that Adams himself probably had a lot to do with them, and I can see how they were needed to firm up the book's plot. I really got a good feeling from the movie though, as if Adams would have approved. Most people who have read the books loved the books and it is therefore obviously necessary to deflate your expectations a little bit before seeing it. That said though, some of the best parts of the book did make it into the movie more or less intact. I am actually now really looking forward to the next movies and hope they get made!

I agree with teflonian on this one. The movie was well done, considering expectations. Even my most devoted HHGTTG fan laughed a couple of times, which is rare for him at movies. (he's a movie snob *shrugs*)

But yah, it was good, Marvin was cuter than I imagined, but Allan Rickman is awesome, so it makes up for it.

Quite good, all in all! :D

just saw this movie. i haven't read the book yet, so this was one of the most confusing movies i have ever seen. that doesn't mean it wasn't good, because it was good. just kind of confusing. and it also seemed a bit short too. now i just have to read the book.

My kids enjoyed it. I gave it a 6 out of 10.

I saw this today. I've never read the book, so I'm sure it would have made more sense and been funnier if I had. It was one of the wackiest movies I've ever seen, but it was entertaining and worth seeing.

Overall I was pretty unimpressed with the movie. They talked about the towel alot but didnt explain it at all for the rookie hitchhiker, they never even chewed on the towels in the movie.

Its also been a while since I've read the books, I have a huge list of books to read before I get down to re-reading the hitchhiker series, so I wasnt sure if this is a colaberation of several books or just the first. I know it missed tons but I'm not sure if thats just cause it was the first book and in my mind all 5 are kind of muddled together.

I also tried to add a spoiler but Im kind of an idiot and can't figure out how to highlight the words so that they dont apear, maybe someone could help me out with that.

[QUOTE=blahblah454]Overall I was pretty unimpressed with the movie. They talked about the towel alot but didnt explain it at all for the rookie hitchhiker, they never even chewed on the towels in the movie.[QUOTE]

i picked up on that too, the whole thing about the towel in the books was in my opinion one of the funniest parts, and while the usage of the towel in some scenes was also very funny, it did miss parts for rookies.


Edit: Role on the extended DVD! :D

Man, I don't care if it was like the book, not like the book, any of that. It sucked. Hard.
Really. Sucked.

It's been a while since I saw a movie that utterly bad.

I thought that the movie was great. I went in realizing that it is not supposed to be a direct interpretation of the book, and I think that helped a lot. My only complaints are that they didn't go too far into the plans to demolish Arthurs house being in a locked cellar with no lights and whatnot. They could have also done without the love story. I also agree with Blahblah that they should have explained the towels better for the newbies. All in all though, the movie was great. This is definately a movie that I am going to have to pick up the DVD for when it comes out.

I saw this a couple of days ago - and decided I'd wait a few days to see if my feelings changed about this movie.

They didn't.

It was terrible. I am not sure what the point of this movie was - It was too far from the actual "trilogy" for the original fans to really enjoy it, and had absolutely no way to help someone who had never read the books to follow along.

I understand that some things had to change because the medium changed (Zaphod's head, ect) however - that doesn't mean that the entire story had to change. Basically - they took the names of charators/ships from books, a couple of scenes, and that's about it. Most of that movie doesn't even resemble the story from the books, much less do it justice.

I suppose, however, that I was fairly impressed with how they made the planet building factory look, other than that though, most of the special effects were rubbish. The Vogans? Give me a break... as someone previously said, "demented puppets" is a pretty accurate description of them.

I think a lot could have been done to explain to the newcomer what in the hell was going on - they don't really mention why the towel is so important - (which would have taken an entire 10 seconds) they don't really detail how the improbability drive works, so I can't even imagine what someone who had never seen the books is thinking when the ship turns into a flower... and many more staples in the Hitchhiker's Universe.

Unfortunate - but I suppose we can just chalk it up to yet another terrible book turned movie dud. I still have high hopes for Ender's Game though... *crosses fingers*

Oh, I must not be an original fan then, as I really enjoyed it. I guess I did only read the books 5-10 times each and haven't really yet immersed myself into them as some people have. Ok, I didn't need to get all snarky there, but I hate when purists demand that no one can enjoy a movie based on a book due to it being different.

The major changes that were in the movie are needed in my opinion. Reread all of the books and you will know that the series ends very very pointlessly and depressingly. The plot needed to be firmed up in some way to allow for a more solid story. I don't know for sure, but I am pretty certain they wouldn't have added the plot lines with the priest and what not if Adams hadn't done it himself or at least had started on something similar. The "trilogy” has been evolving ever since its first incarnation as a radio series (which I still really want to listen to but have yet not had the chance). I really hope the movie series doesn’t lead to the same end as the books, and from what I read from Adams, he really wanted to end the series in a different way as well due to the last book being written when he was in a depressive state of mind. So, I am looking forward to the surprises in store for us in the following movies… If they are ever made.

The minor changes such as the crew turning into, well, different things (to save this from being spoilertastic I won’t describe that in detail), were actually funny and more suited to a movie than the subtle things in the book. And despite what someone said earlier in this thread, they did explain the improbability drive, not quite as well as the book did… But sufficiently enough for something that obviously can’t be logically explained.

I have read and reread the books many times.

I enjoyed the movie. The first half was amazingly true to the books, I felt. The second half... not so much. The ending was Hollywoodized for sure. And the love interest was definitely overplayed.

So overall, I liked it. It wasn't as good as I would have hoped, but what can you do?

Wasn't the Heart of Gold supposed to be shaped like a shoe?

I just saw this today, and for the most part I thought it was good. I didn't read any of the books, but I think I should now because I felt kinda lost about the towel thing. Maybe someone could explain it? During certain scenes, I was laughing so hard I was crying. One in particular was the one with the whale, "Hello ground." Classic :)

Your towel is the most important thing you can carry with you, so sayeth the Guide. It goes on at some length about the uses of the towel in regards to intergalactic travel.

I think the movie is gonna kick ass
Probably wont be as great as expected but probably good
Im gonna go see it either way

I really enjoyed it. I haven't read the books in a WHILE, so I only remember the general bits. Everyone was very well-cast, I thought. I was a little "eh?" about Mos Def, but I think he did a good job.
It is sad that they didn't at least go far enough to include the Ultimate Question, but that's a ways into the second book, isn't it?
It did make me want to read the first book again, and maybe the rest.
I really liked the way they did the little sidenotes, like the stuff from the Guide and the whale bit. The little animations were cute!
I can't understand going and seeing it without read the books...You would be TOTALLY lost. That's one of the big problems with the series in general (although I'm not sure problem is the right word), that it isn't easy to cram into just a couple hours and make sense (not that the books really make a WHOLE lot of sense).
But it was cool that Adams was in on it, so I'm sure any changes were at least run by him. Thank God we're getting into that trend in movie making:bringing the author in on the making of the film.

i saw it sunday and my take on it is that it was OK - i didn't love it, i didn't hate it. it wasn't as good as i'd hoped, but wasn't as bad as i feared. i think there were bits of genius - the intro with the dolphins and the "So Long and Thanks for All the Fish" song, the Magrathea factory floor, the guide animations and voice... Still, it just seemed to me that the movie was missing something. as others have said, i also thought the lack of explanation about ford's towel fetish was misguided, and i think that the whole Deep Thought bit was too rushed.

i enjoyed the flick, but not as much as i'd hoped. i think it may be the kind of movie that you might appreciate more with each viewing, so i'd like to see it again.

i'd probably give it a 6.5 out of 10.

I saw it. I shan't say much. But I think the ending was original, yet still had that flare of Douglas Adams humour. I did think they skipped on some of the details including the details which was bad, and I think Zaphood (sic) wasn't done as I imagined it, but if that was in the book format, and the actual book was the movie, wouldn't you have been pissed anyway?

Here's the direct quote:

Ah... that makes sense :) Thanks

I've been a hardcore advocate of the Hitchhiker's series (and most of Adam's other works) since I was about 14. I've read all the books several times over, and all I have to say is...fuck all the haters. The movie was great. Entertaining, funny, and a brilliant visual adaptation of the galaxy that Douglas Adams created. He aided in creating and directing the movie, as well as penning the screenplay before he died. So if you didn't like it, you'll have to take it up with him.

Big bump to that.

I don't care if it turns out to be the worst movie ever made, I'm still going to see it.

Just came back from seeing the movie having only finished the book yesterday. It was all brilliant. The book of course was better, but i've yet to see a film that truely is better than the book (well apart from Fight Club). But anyway getting back to topic, Marvin was nothing like i imagined him, but when i saw him he was perfect, better than my wildest dreams. I think we all have marvin moments and for a robot they were expressed so well. So this is my sticking out my thumb and hichhiking out of this thread. So long and thanks for all the fish. Ah Bollocks.

I just saw it last night with my son and while he thought it was excellent I just liked it enough...

The biggest problem with the film, as I see it, isn't that it changed the storyline it's that in an effort to adapt the story to a 90 minute three act plot structue they stripped out nearly all of the Guide's commentary and the humourous asides. Everything from the Guide's comments on digital watches to the philosophers Vroomfondle and Magikthise... For me, it was always these elements that made the books, the TV series and the radio plays enjoyable.

When you strip it down to just the story it is interesting and wacky but no where near as hilarious.

"Run! He's got a towel!"

I enjoyed it overall. As has been said, the love story was overplayed, and the ending was too Holywood, but it could have been a whole lot worse.

My biggest gripe is that Marvin didn't have enough lines.

Growing the love story was inevitable when you are after a mainstream audience... no studio would have financed it if they didn't add that aspect.

My wife and I saw this last weekend and loved it. It's been a while since I've laughed that hard.... but I think we were the only ones in the theatre doing more than just a quiet chuckle. LOL

I want me 20 bucks back. My wife laughed once, which put her one up on me. I was almost not going to see this, because the reviews have been so critical. Bloody waste of a baby sitter opportunity.

When you take a book full of funny jokes and cut everything to leave a punchline, it is not funny anymore. What you are left with is a bunch of slapstick (which I personally don't find funny). Spoiler: Like when deep thought tells them the answer - with another 20 seconds of dragging out the computers hesitance, this would've been a much funnier scene

And if you need a love story to make a movie, then I don't think I want to go to the movies anymore - it really pisses me off that hollywood seem to have lost the ability to write a decent script without whiz bang special effects taking over - it seems that having fantastic exploding things makes it acceptable to write crap.

[QUOTE=PoweredByPorn]"Run! He's got a towel!" [QUOTE]

That made me laugh so much. The new vogons were leaps and bounds over the last ones, much funnier, and much more appropriatly designed i thought to the actual descriptions of their personalities.

Wow. This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. What a mess. Completely uninspired and trite.

I haven't seen it, but.....

Why doesn't Zophod have 2 heads?

I have to take issue with this... I am watching the BBC mini-series as I type this and it is *way* better than I remembered it being.

The acting and delivery is note perfect. The one negative is that it is a BBC made for TV series... if you can tolerate or even love the aesthetic of Doctor Who then you should have no issue with the production values of this series....

Very funny, well written and just damn clever.

In some ways, I'd say it's better than the movie.

I think I enjoyed the BBC miniseries better, too. The fact that they spread out the story as much as they could (as opposed to cramming it into one movie) helped it out a lot. Not all of it was great I guess, but they at least committed themselves to presenting something close to the book.

The movie was ok... it kept me entertained. Nothing was really hilariously done though.

I agree completely Charlatan. Good books are always going to be tough to put into a different medium. It might have worked better as a trilogy though.

Leo and Moskie... I fully suspect that (pending financial success) they will make more of these films (perhaps a trilogy in five parts).

The film as it stands right now, left a pile of the stories unfinished, the biggest of which is that they went and got the guns for Humma Kavula (John Malkovich) but never brought them to him... They also left off saying they were going to get something to eat at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe... etc.

In the end, it is all about the observational humour found in the book's dialogue.