watching hitchhikers guide to the universe for the first time... i'm in love with..

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Juddog

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
Movie was fun, book was fun. People that like the book bash the movie, but then again you can see that with any book to movie conversion. Taking a book and converting it to a show / movie means that you have to trim the majority of material out. To cover the full first book would probably require a 20+ hr movie.
 
Pheran

Pheran

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2001
5,740
35
91
Juddog said:
Movie was fun, book was fun. People that like the book bash the movie, but then again you can see that with any book to movie conversion. Taking a book and converting it to a show / movie means that you have to trim the majority of material out. To cover the full first book would probably require a 20+ hr movie.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point. The style of humor in HHGttG just does not work well in a visual medium like a movie - it doesn't translate. Any movie made of this book was doomed to fail.
 
Juddog

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
Pheran said:
You are missing the point. The style of humor in HHGttG just does not work well in a visual medium like a movie - it doesn't translate. Any movie made of this book was doomed to fail.
Click to expand...

I can think of more movies than I can count that had the same issue, and the same thing has been repeated ad nauseum for literally almost every single book adaptation I've seen, with a few exceptions.

The point of a movie is to take a concept that is really long (book length) and smush it down into a very short story that can introduce the concepts from the book to a wider audience.

Keeping that in mind, people that didn't read the book that watched the movie, that I personally know, had a positive reaction to the movie and thought it was funny and cool. You simply can't capture everything from a book in the vast majority of movie adaptations - you miss out on the character's inner dialogue, the book's brand of humor / horror / whatever, etc.. You have to sweep that notion aside when watching a movie adaptation, otherwise you're just due to constantly be let down.
 
N

Narse

Moderator<br>Computer Help
Moderator
Mar 14, 2000
3,826
1
81
Juddog said:
Movie was fun, book was fun. People that like the book bash the movie, but then again you can see that with any book to movie conversion. Taking a book and converting it to a show / movie means that you have to trim the majority of material out. To cover the full first book would probably require a 20+ hr movie.
Click to expand...

Actually IIRC they added a bunch to the movie that was not in the first book. The first book is actually rather short. The audiobook is only 5hrs 51min.
 
Juddog

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
Narse said:
Actually IIRC they added a bunch to the movie that was not in the first book. The first book is actually rather short. The audiobook is only 5hrs 51min.
Click to expand...

5hrs 51 min is longer than the movie.
 
AstroManLuca

AstroManLuca

Lifer
Jun 24, 2004
15,628
5
81
Juddog said:
I can think of more movies than I can count that had the same issue, and the same thing has been repeated ad nauseum for literally almost every single book adaptation I've seen, with a few exceptions.

The point of a movie is to take a concept that is really long (book length) and smush it down into a very short story that can introduce the concepts from the book to a wider audience.
Click to expand...

This is why I prefer TV shows over movies. With a show, you can tell a character-driven story and really focus in on the details. Even a short 10-13 episode season gives you 7-9 hours of material. A long 24-episode season (at 42 minutes per episode) gives you 17 hours.

Granted, many shows tend to add a lot of filler, but they can still stretch character development out a lot, creating much more interesting and nuanced characters rather than having to squeeze everything into a few minutes and thus have to resort to cliches or just not explain things to save time.

Oh and I also read HHGttG and saw the movie and the movie was a piece of shit. It didn't capture the feel of the books at all.
 
Fritzo

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,161
126
Pheran said:
Other than that, the movie is pretty worthless. Read the book, 100x better.
Click to expand...

yeah, I was SOOOO freaking disappointed with the movie that I almost walked out when I went to see it. Ford was completely miscast, they skipped all of the best parts, and the editing made the movie on the whole a non-nonsensical mess.

The BBC TV series is 10x better, and yes, the book is 100x better. I wish they would redo the movie properly.
 
crashtestdummy

crashtestdummy

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2010
2,893
0
0
Juddog said:
Movie was fun, book was fun. People that like the book bash the movie, but then again you can see that with any book to movie conversion. Taking a book and converting it to a show / movie means that you have to trim the majority of material out. To cover the full first book would probably require a 20+ hr movie.
Click to expand...

Pheran said:
You are missing the point. The style of humor in HHGttG just does not work well in a visual medium like a movie - it doesn't translate. Any movie made of this book was doomed to fail.
Click to expand...

Totally disagree on both of these fronts. The BBC miniseries (which was only 3 hours in total) was fantastic. My problem with the movie is that it missed the central message, that the world is an F'd up place that doesn't make any sense, and there's really no point in trying to figure it out. The movie instead tried to claim the meaning of life is LOVE! It just seemed like the worst kind of cop out.
 
shortylickens

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
Narse said:
Yes but you don't have to explain what things look like etc. A picture is worth a thousand words ya know ,
Click to expand...

Also a big chunk of the book is narrative which doesnt work well in a movie. Unless someone is always talking in the background and that kinda defeats the purpose of a motion picture.

In fact I think the TV series DID have a lot of narration and it made me not wanna watch it.

"At first, nothing happened. Then after a while, nothing still happened."
 
V

VulgarDisplay

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2009
6,188
2
76
AstroManLuca said:
Katy Perry is perpetually buried under several inches of makeup. No one really knows what she looks like.
Click to expand...

Picture+7.png


I still wouldn't kick her out of bed for eating crackers.
 
edro

edro

Lifer
Apr 5, 2002
24,326
68
91
Do you watch The New Girl? Last night's episode was pretty good.
 
KeithTalent

KeithTalent

Elite Member | Administrator | No Lifer
Administrator
Nov 30, 2005
50,231
118
116
Massive piece of shit that movie was. Painfully unfunny.

A shame because I love the cast.

KT
 
bigrash

bigrash

Lifer
Feb 20, 2001
17,648
28
91
Am I the only one who doesn't think that Zoey is attractive? I mean she's not bad looking, but she's so annoying. She's annoying in every movie I've seen her, and I can't stand her show.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom