One thing that most people don't seem to know about HHGG: it wasn't a book first.

It was a radio show. Wonderful performances, great sound effects by the BBC Radiophonic Workshop.

...and from what I've been hearing, a lot of what got cut was some of the best material from the true source.

Gobsmacking still sounds like getting smacked with some gay dude's gob.

This is my first hat tip.
I've really arrived ...
... yep, I feel pretty big.

Victory dance
Victory dance
Who the man
Knemon the man
that's right

/i need a hobby

True story:

When I first heard about this film (HGTTG), I thought that MORGAN FREEMAN was going to play our hitchhiker in the galaxy, as last, lone surviving human being going forth to experience other worlds with Earth now gone.

THEN I found out it wasn't MORGAN Freeman but the other guy with the same last name who now enacts that role, that film.

It might have been a great film if Morgan Freeman had been the lead, is all I'm saying.

I haven't seen it (yet) nor read the script, however, so can't make any comment on either but from what I've read, it seems to have offended fans of the earlier broadcast, original material. Not good for the film's future.

I feel the same way each and every single time I see a film adapted from a Michael Crichton book, always disappointed in the drastic changes that are made in the films that are often entirely opposite the original material (for example, "Jurassic Park"'s old guy, park creator, was written in the book as being nefarious in character and yet, in the film he's all warm and cuddly and the entire subtext of the film changed completely the original literary scenario).

Not surprised, really. I can't remember ever seeing a great book turned into a great film. It may be impossible. Part of what makes a great book is a the depth of detail; the interplay of the various characters, the examination of the characters (personality, motivations, history), and the scenic imagery. In your mind, as you read, you develop your own image of these things which are unlikely to be the same as the ones put in the film. How can you not be disappointed. And then there is the length of time allocated to films - 2 hours max. I know a picture is worth a 1000 words but 2 hours just ain't much time.

The lesson I've learned is to go with limited expectations - I'm rarely disappointed.

The only movie I've seen that's better than the book was "The Godfather." The book is kind of pulpy in tone, but the movie is just classic.

"The Shawshank Redemption" came pretty damn close to being as good as the story on which it was based.

I agree about both "The Godfather" and "The Shawshank Redemption" as being great films, if not better than the books from which they were adapted.

One lesson: beware any film that bears the line: "A film by Stephen King" and/or "a Stephen King Film" -- a few others adapt his material well but he has yet to ever do so, exceeding only in ridiculing his own written material.

"Master and Commander, TFSOTW" was great, however, a really great adaptation from a great book...looking forward to more from that series (hope they'll be made by the same talent).

How to put this>
Anybody with PlanetMagrathea in their URL already has a lot of emotional capital invested in 'Hitchhiker". Not that that's a bad thing. It's kinda like a Star Wars review from 'AngryWookie'.
So long and thanks for all the fish.

This review is pretty detailed, but come on...this guy sounds like LOTR fans who were angry that Tom Bombadil was left out of the movies.

Total fidelity to the source material usually leads to pretty bad movies.

Well as for good book to movie transitions, two come to mind: "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", and "Deliverance". The movie Deliverance had almost word-for-word fidelity to the original, the other was very different. But both were good - it can be done. Personally, I'm still looking forward to HGTTG, I think it will be good.

I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for the low-budget, crappy-set tv version.

Speaking of films better than the book, how about L.A. Confidential?

OT: Guess who's birthday is today? Hint: "If you be mad, be gone: if you have reason, be brief." - Twelfth Night

Rather apropos for commentators, don't you think?

I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for the low-budget, crappy-set tv version.

ucchhhhh....

I will tolerate most changes from books that I love when they make the jump to the big screen.... However, I can't stand when scripts and screenplays are altered to put a more PC (meaning liberal) spin on their movies.

I'm sure some people out there read Clear And Present Danger and were a bit puzzled as to what happened to the Islamic terrorists in the book.

I'm actually suprised Hollywood had the balls to portray Japanese people as the pilots who bombed us in Pearl Harbor. Or give swastikas and German accents to those pesky Auschwitz guards in Schindler's List.

After all.... we wouldn't want history and facts to force us to paint any one race or group into a corner now would we....

The thing about this guy's criticism that worries me is...

There are two sorts of humor in HGTTG. One is "wacky, crazy suff that happens."

The other is the characters' various reactions to this wackiness and absurdity, and the understatedly-hilarious language they use in reacting to it.

The feeling I get is that this film has almost exclusively gone with category one and only made the smallest nods to category two.

And the "wacky crazy" stuff just isn't the stuff people quote or love. When the nuclear missiles get turned into a whale and pot of petunias, that's not the funny part. The funny part is the thoughts of the whale and petuna as they crash towards Magarathea.

Now, that's not a good example, as the funniness was all thoughts they had; thoughts don't convey well in a movie.

But that general take is the wrong take, I think.

Best book-to-screen adaptation I've ever seen was "Silence of the Lambs." I think they nailed it. The adapation of "Red Dragon" -- the one with Ace's FAVE Ed Norton -- was also very true to the book.

Worst book-to-screen adaptation: "Starship Troopers." I'm still furious about that movie and can't speak of it rationally.

Best book-to-TV adaptation: "Lonesome Dove."

Worst book-to-TV: "The Martian Chronicles."

A couple of other decent adaptations: "Something Wicked This Way Comes," "The Stand," "Watership Down," and "Blade Runner" (although it didn't follow the book very closely, it got the message right). I also enjoyed "A Clockwork Orange" but a lot of folks didn't.

Later,
bbeck

I'm surprised no one has mentioned "Fear and Loathing." Whether you like the book or hate it, I don't think you can dispute that it's a pretty faithful adaptation. About 95% of the dialogue is taken directly from the book.

I loved it, but your results may vary.

Err...I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the most obvious one, The Lord Of The Rings. I'm something of a Tolkein dork (anyone who plods through The Silmarillon three times deserves some sort of nerd cachet), and I thought the films were just fantastic, despite the changes. I even preferred the way the film portrayed Faramir to Tolkein's far less believable version.

Cuckoo's nest ...

Regardless of how bad the movie pans, aficionados will still go see it just so they can say "Yeah, but the book is far superior."

The Lord of the Rings rocked.
Starship Troopers blew.
I, Robot is some completely different movie, honest.

Want to see:
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein.
Anything by Davis Weber.
The Warrior's Apprentice by Lois McMaster Bujold.
Ringworld by Larry Niven.

Oooh! Ringworld would rock! Frankly, a lot of Niven's stuff work in a movie - or even a tv series. Tales of Known Space.
Speaking of LOTR - has anyone checked out the Tolkein section of a good book store lately? Holy cow! It's like a Balrog threw up or sumpthin'.

I'd like to see "Hello, America" by J.G. Ballard ....

Isn't "A Glass Darkly" supposed to be coming out? Or did I blink and miss it?

sorry, "A Scanner Darkly."

Yeah, "A Scanner Darkly" is being made into a movie, and it will star Keanu Reeves, thereby dooming it to "Starship Troopers"-like status in film adaptations.

Ugh.

Darkly is set for release in Sept. Linklater's directing and doing it in the cartoony visual style of 'Waking Life.' Trailer's on the net.

noooooOOOOOOOooooooOOOOOOOooooo

oh, well. you can't win 'em all. you can't even win 5% of 'em.

What about "Time Out of Joint?" That was always one of my favorite Dick books (no jokes please) - I think that could make a great film.

Linklater will always hold a special place in my heart for the masterpiece "Dazed and Confused." On this I will brook no dissent. This is a great film.

But since then (and before, with "Slacker"): meh. emm-ee-aitch, meh.

p.s. I met the son of the old white-haired irish-accented philosopher in "Waking Life." He (the son) is a brilliant classicist and linguist with a flipper-arm. The kind of person whom you wouldn't buy as a character in a movie or novel ... too weird for fiction.

Two movies that were true to the books:

The Unbearable Lightness of Being (book by Milan Kundera), and

Dona Flor and Her Two Husbands (book by Jorge Amado)

Hell yes, Warrior's Apprentice would be great. A crippled hero is even PC in these days.

"What? What were you smuggling? We found no weapons!"

"Military advisors."

Another better than the book adaptation: "The Princess Bride."

Best nonfiction adaptations? "The Perfect Storm" and "Band of Brothers."

I agree with everyone on "Starship Troopers." Someone should have been punished for that one.

"Another better than the book adaptation: "The Princess Bride."

Oh yes, good one.

"I give you my word as a Spaniard"

"He's only mostly dead"

Must stop now....

The best nonfiction adaptation I've seen in recent years would have to be Downfall, which is based on Joachim Fest's Inside Hitler's Bunker: The Last Days of the Third Reich.

I can't recommend the movie highly enough to anyone interested in World War II or Nazi Germany. The guy who plays Hitler is frighteningly accurate; in fact, the characterizations of all the major Nazi players are stunningly "On Point," to use a gay phrase that just might end up sullying the name of Ace and Karol's new show.

Total fidelity to the source material usually leads to pretty bad movies.

Huh? I can only think of one movie that was faithful to the book and turned out bad, and that was Ballard's Crash adaptation that Cronenberg made. However there are plenty of examples in this thread of the opposite.

More recent examples of faithful adaptations might include The Cider House Rules, Wonder Boys, and The Ice Storm, and of course Sin City

Wonder Boys was exactly the sort of soft-focus-pretension highbrow sort of "quirky" film that I should have loathed, PLUS it starred Michael Douglas.

And yet it really grabbed me. Very, very good film - good enough to overcome my intense prejudice against that genre.

I'm thinking specifically of the Harry Potter movies, at least the first two. The director was so intent on putting every last scene from the story into the book that it got boring.

"Hannibal" was also a reasonably faithful adaption that kind of sucked.

Since this is clearly now a thread about "Movies Better Than the Book" : We've mentioned "Shawshank Redemption" from Different Seasons, but not "Stand By Me"? That's five-tequila Chicken Vindaloo loose shit.

I liked "Starship Troopers" but only because I told myself it was a mix between parody and popcorn-flick, and even then it didn't totally work. But remember that the book wasn't *that* great either (it trailed off at the end).

I second that about the first two LotR movies being better than 2/3 their source material.

But remember that the book wasn't *that* great either (it trailed off at the end).

Blasphemy!!! A pox upon the infidel!

Later,
bbeck

I know I'm going out on a limb here, but I thought Starship Troopers was ok. That is to say, ok in a James Bond sort of way, where the title of the book and the major characters made it into the movie but nothing else did. As a special-effects munch-fest with a chewing-gum plot, it passed.

That said, I REALLY wish someone would make a film of the book, 'cause that flick wasn't it.

I hope Heinlein or his estate got to laugh all the way to the bank on that one -- then it would be business....and it would be better if it were business -- it sure wasn't art.

We can only be thankful they've never butchered "Time Enough For Love."

"from Different Seasons"

- not to mention "Apt Pupil."
You know. Starring David Schwimmer?

*crickets*

Reading the long review itbecomes apparent the guy has a good point. It isn't just a matter of wandering from the source material, it's that they've produced an incoherent film that features some jokes you might recognize.

I'm pretty sure that this wouldn't have happened if Adams was around to offer his input. He's likely offer some fresher takes on the material just because he'd had so long to think it over but he'd also make sure everything tied in together and that everything happened for a reason rather than at random or left dangling with no resolution.

I expect to be as roundly shrieked at as the Pope is today, but I liked sci-fi until I sobered up. A lot of the oh-so-hip, isn't it far-out, obscure home-made allusions and the "that's sooo freaky" sort of schtick comes across as juvinile pretentious nonsense and just plain silly, which at the time it was but through the fog we couldn't see it, nor did we care to because it catered to us in a way that little else did. As Tolstoy wrote about false religions in War and Peace: "the petty everday world, hidden in the mists of distance, ... seemed to him great and infinite, simply because it was not clearly seen." Sci-fi is often like that, not clearly seen or understood which leaves the false impression of depth and great profundity that is difficult to comprehend by most mortal minds. The resturaunt at the end of the universe is a schtick whose time has come and gone, and perhaps so with the whole Hitchikers Guide.

72, that can be true in some cases, but not others.

Hitchhikers isn't written by James Joyce.

But there is plenty of science fiction that does have an underlying thought that is being explored. Often, books of that type lose their classification as 'Science Fiction' and get dragged off as honest literature. Brave New World, 1984 - speculation about the future. I'd put The Moon is a Harsh Mistress in there too.

That sort of book allows examining an issue before it becomes truly pressing. The number of books using various aspects of cloning is quite long for instance. Or alternative political structures, political commentary, whatever.