Hitchhiker's Guide review and spoilers

[Fellfrosch]

This site (http://planetmagrathea.com/shortreview.html) has thee articles by a guy who saw an early press screening of the film, and it is with heavy heart that I tell you he absolutely hated it. Fortunately (or unfortunately) he gives more than just his opinion: he gives a short review explaining the overarching problems, a brief look at all teh stuff not included in the movie, and a long, four-page spoilerific summary opf the entire show.

If you don't want to read it all, let me sum it up for you: the movie makes passing mention of some events in the book, but takes them all out of context and invents several new scenes that have no point, drama, or resemblance to the story as we know it. Worst of all, the dialogue (which is really the whole point, given that even Adams' original story was episodic and underdeveloped) has all been changed. Adams jokes all are gone, replaced by new, lame jokes that could have come from any bad Hollywood comedy. Zaphod's character, background, and motivation are completely changed, Marvin (arguably the most popular character, and certianly the most quotable) has virtually no lines, and the Guide itself is all but absent (and its narration, when it actually shows up, is completely different).

On the good side, he said that Slartibartfast is quite good, and Trillian is very well acted and, ironically, the most interesting and compelling of the main characters.

Obviously the guy who wrote the reviews is an obsessive Adams fan, so many of opinions are a little over-the-top. Nevertheless, if even half of what he says is true, this movie is a wretched, unfunny piece of tripe that is so far removed from the Hitchhiker's Guide we know and love as to be unrecognizable.

[42]

Well, to be hopeful. The reviewer would of have to have seen an early cut of the film. Often such screenings are done so that the director can get some feedback and then make some final editing changes before shipping it out.

Basicly, until the film debuts on it's scheaduled release date, nothing can be confirmed.

But yes, I do fear that Hitchhiker has been slaughtered. The interviews with the director kind of hint that they had no clue as to how to make this movie.

That and I have yet to see something funny in any of the trailers.

[Skar]

Fortunately for y'all, I have an invitation to see an advance screening of this film on April 26.

I'll let you know what I think.  I'm not holding out any hope, though.  I've read the articles Fell is referencing and it looks pretty grim.

Hollywood is SO afraid of anything new they shoot themselves in the foot nearly all the time with things like this.

[42]

I don't know if it's so much being afraid of something new. Hitchhiker's Guide really isn't new. I think it's more of a ego problem that they think the original source is almost always flawed and needs to be updated. Basicly, they think they're better than everyone else.

[Fellfrosch]

That's what it sounds like, 42. Also, I honestly don't think the filmmakers really know what's going on with the story at all--I doubt they've even read the second book. If I may be permitted one spoiler, at the end of the movie they decide to go to the Restaurant at the End of Universe and start flying off; Marvin corrects them and says "no, the other end of the universe," and they turn around. Aside from the obvious textual errors (they don't fly to Milliways, they get teleported there) this betrays a complete lack of knowledge that the "end" being referred to is the final end, time-wise, rather than some sort of physical edge. I really just think they thought it was a hot property, grabbed it, and then did whatever they wanted with it without regard for the source material at all.

[Skar]

By afraid I mean they try and smash anything different from their definition of a "hit-movie" into their hit-movie-mold.  And it nearly always sucks.

The management types want to be able to look at a spreadsheet and figure out how well a movie will do.  So they make movies that fit their spreadsheets, whether they should or not.

[Skar]

I don't know if it's so much being afraid of something new. Hitchhiker's Guide really isn't new.

Yeah, Hitchhikers may have been around for a while but I guarantee you it's new to the management types in hollywood and probably to the director.

[Master Gopher]

I'm trying not to think about it too much; the whole situation is so terribly sad.

[Spriggan]

I'm sure I'll enjoy it since I've never seen the books.  Yea me!  

[Master Gopher]

It depends. According to that review, it's a terrible movie as well as a terrible adaptation. From everything I've seen/heard at all, I must say I wholeheartedly agree. If it were a total misrepresentation of HHGTTG, but was still funny, even in a non-Douglassy way, I'd probably still go. Hell, I might even enjoy the thing. But as far as I can see, I'm not going within 10 miles of it.

[Fellfrosch]

Yeah, it apparently suffers from horrid plotting and pacing, even aside from being a poor adaptation. Like 42 said, this isn't a final edit of the movie, so things could change. I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Mistress of Darkness]

/me mourns

[42]

Well, the first review is up on RottonTomatoes, and it's positive, sort of.

Here's the review:
http://www.filmfocus.co.uk/review.asp?ReviewID=263

[Fellfrosch]

Reads like a very gushy fanboy. Thought he first review I linked to read like a bery bitter fanboy, so maybe we can hope for some nice middle ground.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I didn't read it as very gushy, though he wasn't terribly explicit about the good things. It didn't do much to get me excited though. If it doesn't recognizably follow the story, why did they bother? The main things he complains about seem to be deal breakers, in my mind. I'm kind of still not convinced. If you guys rave about it, maybe then.