OT: Woohoo! A movie I am looking forward to!

[HornedFrog Purple]

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=1119662003

Hitching its way to the big screen

JIM MCBETH


AFTER two decades of being stacked in orbit around Planet Hollywood, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy has finally escaped the Vogon constructor fleet, to be made into a big-budget movie.

Douglas Adams’s surreal sci-fi comedy, the adventures of Arthur Dent, an innocent lost in space, who has been adored by Earthbound geeks for a generation, has been trapped in Tinseltown’s development hell for more than 20 years.

But yesterday, Walt Disney Pictures, which had bought the rights to the novel, gave the go-ahead for an £80 million feature-film adaptation.

The British actors Hugh Grant and Hugh Laurie are vying for the lead role of Arthur, who escapes Earth shortly before it is demolished, to embark on a series of intergalactic mishaps.

Hollywood superstars Jim Carrey and Cameron Diaz are understood to be interested in the roles of Zaphod Beeblebrox, a totally out-to-lunch, two-headed politician, and his glamorous girlfriend, Trillian, who is also from Earth.

Filming is scheduled to begin in Britain next year, and London will be used for the city shots.

One element of the long delay in getting the green light has been fine-tuning how the movie will look - whether it will be Hollywood-style epic or British in tone, in the same way as JK Rowling’s Harry Potter series.

What appears to have tipped the balance is the introduction of the British team of Hammer & Tong - Garth Jennings, the music video maker, as director, and his producing partner, Nick Goldsmith.

Karey Kirkpatrick, who wrote the screenplay for Chicken Run, has been brought in to write the final script based on a version by Adams, who died in 2001, aged 49, of a heart attack, and will receive an executive producer credit on the movie.

The story begins minutes before the Earth is demolished by the Vogons to make way for a galactic bypass, when Arthur is plucked from the planet by his friend Ford Prefect, who turns out to be an alien researcher for The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. For the previous 15 years, he has been posing as an out-of-work actor.

Together, Arthur and Ford journey through the galaxy, aided by the information contained in the guide. For example: "A towel is about the most massively useful thing an interstellar hitchhiker can have."

Along the way, they meet Zaphod, Trillian and Marvin, a paranoid - "Don’t talk to me about life" - android with an intellect the size of a small planet.

And Arthur also discovers the answer to life, the universe and everything - 42.

The news that the movie version is going ahead is a personal triumph for Ed Victor, the author’s literary agent, who confirmed the news yesterday.

Speaking from the Hessischer Hof hotel in Germany, where he is attending the Frankfurt Book Fair, Mr Victor said: "Disney has just green-lit the movie of Douglas Adams’s Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

"This is a project that I’ve been selling since 1983. It has been the single most substantial frustration of my professional life that a film has never yet been made, and I’m delighted that it’s now going to happen.

"There will, of course, be tie-in editions galore."

Hollywood is rampant with rumours about who will play whom, with Grant being talked about for the Arthur Dent role. "Hugh Grant was always the actor Douglas wanted for Arthur," said Mr Victor.

However, Laurie, who collaborated with Stephen Fry in a comedy acting duo, is also in the frame after achieving Hollywood success in the Stuart Little movies, the stories of a human family who adopt a mouse.

A jubilant Mr Victor is delighted that, after more than 20 years, the movie is to become a reality. He said: "It has been in that place which Hollywood describes as development hell. Ironically, since Douglas’s death, things have started to look better for the film, because a lot of people, like me, have determined that this film must be made in some kind of honour to him."

The fine-tuning of the film’s style is now going on, and it is envisaged that it will be British in tone. Mr Victor said: "I think you have to shoot it as a British thing as, for example, in the way that JK Rowling insisted that her first book was translated as a British film, as opposed to a Hollywood movie."

After Adams’s death, Mr Victor, Jane Benson, the author’s widow, and Sophie Astin, his private assistant, trawled through the hard disk of the author’s computer.

There, they found a final novel, A Salmon of Doubt, which has since been published, and a screenplay for Hitchhiker.

Mr Victor added: "There were so many different versions of the novel. He would take it and then revise it repeatedly, so there were many files."

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, which began on radio in 1977, was the first in a series of the cult novels, which included The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, Life, The Universe and Everything and So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish. It was also turned into a television series for the BBC in 1981.

Such was the fame of the series that, in 2001, the Minor Planet Centre space agency named an asteroid Arthurdent.

I love those books! Please be good.. please be good....

[Raven Hawk]

Och! Carey as Zaphod is going to make me throw up.

But I like to see that quality films are in the works.

[mckerney]

No way do I want to see Hugh Grant play Arthur Dent. I thought Arthur was a guy....

[CamEdwards]

I somehow missed the news that Douglas Adams died. :(

BTW, if they're making a movie of "Hitchhiker's"... can a "Good Omens" movie be far behind? I loved that book.

[dawgfan]

Hmmm, I'm worried this will be too "Hollywood". I hope the director and producer are able to maintain the spirit of the books and keep the british humor sensibilites. I can't say I'm excited about Hugh Grant as Arthur - I'm picturing someone more plain for the role. I'm also worried Jim Carrey would be too over the top as Zaphod. Cameron Diaz as Trillian works for me, although I think you could put any very attractive american blonde in the role. I guess my point is I don't see the need for big stars in this movie.

[Bee]

Originally posted by dawgfan
I guess my point is I don't see the need for big stars in this movie.

I agree. I'd rather see them save money on the "superstars" and put it into production.

[Maple Leafs]

Normally I'd say "oh no, it will be terrible, etc", but considering what they did with Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, maybe there's hope.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Normally I'd say "oh no, it will be terrible, etc", but considering what they did with Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, maybe there's hope.

I'm giving a huge amount of credit to Peter Jackson for the success of LotR, and you have to admire how well Chris Columbus handled the kids for Harry Potter. Plus, they got a great screenwriter for Harry Potter (Steve Kloves).

I don't know anything about the director they've hired for Hitchhikers's Guide or the producer, but it will up to them to make this a success.

[Celeval]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
BTW, if they're making a movie of "Hitchhiker's"... can a "Good Omens" movie be far behind? I loved that book.

They've been working on that one a long time (Terry Gilliam has been behind a lot of it), but have had financial problems getting backing.

Unfortunately. Great book.

Kevin

[HornedFrog Purple]

You guys are killing my buzz. I am a Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy-The Movie fanboy.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
You guys are killing my buzz. I am a Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy-The Movie fanboy.

Sorry - it's the movie pessimist in me. I'm right there with you in hoping it's great since I'm a huge fan of the books. The greater the hope though, the greater the chance for disappointment.

[44Niners]

Originally posted by dawgfan
I'm also worried Jim Carrey would be too over the top as Zaphod.

is that possible? I remember Zaphod being the most absurd over the top character I have ever read.

[GrantDawg]

Too excited for words. There is a series I need to read again.

[sterlingice]

I think it's time to dust off my leatherbound copy of the increasingly inaccurately named Hitchhiker's Trilogy and get to work on re-reading it. I haven't read my book for the year and next year's book is already slated to be Lord of the Rings...

SI

[GrantDawg]

Couldn't sleep thinking about casting this one. I think the article has got something wrong, though I'm not privy to anything. Hugh Grant is not up for the role of Authur Dent. He would make no sesne in that role. He would be the perfect Ford Prefect. Hugh Laurie is a very good cast for Authur Dent.

Zaphod is much harder to place. Jim Carey would work, but I can't help but feeling there would be a better fit somewhere. Zaphod needs zanny, but he also needs a heavy dose of charisma that I don't if Carey pulls off.

Trillian could be any number of actresses. I think the perfect one would be this woman:
http://www.powerlord.vispa.com/media/jpgs/11oclock/sarah_alexander10.jpg

(Couldn't find a better pic, sadly). Her name is Sarah Alexander and she plays Susan on BBC's Coupling.

Anyway, that just was buzzing in my head.

[GrantDawg]

Hitchhiker's is now in filming. This is your cast (not even close to the early predictions):

Martin Freeman (The Office) as Arthur Dent-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38281000/jpg/_38281639_office300.jpg



Mos Def (Bamboozled, Monster's Ball, Showtime) as Ford Prefect:


http://www.cnn.com/interactive/entertainment/0211/gallery.rappers.movies/mos.def.jpg


Zooey Deschanel (elf, The Good Girl) as Trillian-

http://tedstrong.com/graphics/zoeapril4.jpg


Sam Rockwell (Matchstick Men, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Charlie's Angels) as Zaphod Beeblebrox-

http://entimg.msn.com/i/150/ce/jan/SamRockwell_150x207.jpg






Not exactly the star studded cast, but I like it. Sam Rockwell as Zaphod is genius.

[mordhiem]

Don't forget Bill Nighy (Love Actually) as Slartibartfast and John Malkovich as Humma Kavula. I have to syat that, after much intial scpetecism, I am now very excited about this movie. :)

[dawgfan]

Wow - Sam Rockwell as Zaphod is brilliant. I haven't seen either Martin Freeman or Zooey Deschanel in action, but they both look the part. Mos Def as Ford Prefect is an interesting choice. I know the name but don't really know much else about him. That's a critical role, so I hope he does well.

[Bearcat729]

Amazon has a trailer for the movie up

[Pyser]

Don't forget Bill Nighy (Love Actually) as Slartibartfast and John Malkovich as Humma Kavula. I have to syat that, after much intial scpetecism, I am now very excited about this movie. :)

who is humma kavula again?

i think they nailed arthur dent. anyone who has seen the office knows martin can definitely handle the humo(u)r.

[Pyser]

dola, since i only read the first book, and cant remember humma, i just realized that the movie may be all 3 books in 1?

[Pyser]

doube dola-

the trailer looks AMAZING. cant wait.

[sterlingice]

doube dola-

the trailer looks AMAZING. cant wait.
Same. That looks like it's coming together better than I expected.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

who is humma kavula again?
Someone Adams created while working on the screenplay when he was still alive. Since no two version of the story are the same (as Adams was always fond of saying), no biggie :D.

[Wolfpack]

Well, being as the Earth is in a "double ZZ" zone, it's hardly surprise there are multiple copies of the story. They all just appear through wormholes from parallel Earths. :)

[HomerJSimpson]

Not so good news. Must be taken, as any review, with a grain of salt, but this is "worse nightmare" kind of feeling.

***No spoilers in the short review. Long review links on page does have spoilers***

http://www.planetmagrathea.com/shortreview.html


The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy movie is bad. Really bad. You just won't believe how vastly, staggeringly, jaw-droppingly bad it is. I mean, you might think that The Phantom Menace was a hopelessly misguided attempt to reinvent a much-loved franchise by people who, though well-intentioned, completely failed to understand what made the original popular - but that's just peanuts to the Hitchhiker's movie. Listen.

And so on...

It’s bad on a big scale because enormous swathes of the story have been dispensed with - most of the Guide entries, whole scenes - or changed beyond all recognition. And it is bad on a small scale because many, many wonderful lines have been cut or in some cases actually rewritten to make them less funny. Whatever your favourite line from Hitchhiker’s, there’s a good chance that it won’t be in the film. Even if it’s really well-known, widely-quoted, much-loved, very funny - it will probably be absent from the movie. Or if it is there, it might have been changed.

Douglas Adams was a dialogue writer. That was his skill - writing great dialogue. And when he had written it, he would rewrite it again and again and again, changing a word here or there because he knew that good comedy writing is like poetry. It has a meter to it and when you get the right words in the right order it just sounds right and nothing else will do. Douglas’ dialogue was perfect. However, the makers of this film, despite all their talk of being faithful to Douglas’ intentions and ideals, have seen fit to piss about with his carefully crafted, wonderfully quotable lines.

To put it bluntly, they have cut most of the jokes out. I’m not being metaphorical here, they really have, in a very literal sense, removed the jokes from the story. There are scenes where all we’re left with is the set-up dialogue, there are jokes where we get the feed-line but not the punchline. It’s astounding. Occasionally, the filmmakers have actually bothered replacing the jokes but they have replaced them with really, really pisspoor, unfunny jokes; they have replaced them with stupid playground humour and pointless slapstick.

As well as being staggeringly unfunny - and Hitchhiker’s Guide really is one of the least funny comedy films ever made - the film also suffers by having an entirely nonsensical plot. It is driven by convenience and unexplained happenings. Characters just happen to be where they need to be and have what they need to have, even if it makes no sense for them to be there or to have that. Maybe it did make sense at one stage, but the film looks like it has had some heavy re-editing from the version seen in early previews and test screenings.

With a plot that makes no sense, and most of the explanatory Guide entries either missing or so heavily cut that they might as well be missing, I fail to see how anyone who wasn’t already completely familiar with Hitchhiker’s Guide could possibly follow what is going on. And those of us familiar with the story will just be incensed at the way that so much of it has been thrown out and replaced with unfunny, pointless crap.

This just doesn’t feel like Hitchhiker’s Guide. There’s no sense of a big crazy universe packed with weird lifeforms that somehow reflects our own world. Hitchhiker’s Guide has always been a Swift-ian satire but the makers of the movie have decided to ditch all that and replace it with pointless surrealism and crude physical comedy.

It doesn’t help that Martin Freeman plays Arthur Dent as an annoying little prat, that Zaphod has been changed entirely in appearance, character and motivation so that all that is left is his name, and that Ford never gives the impression that he wants to go to a party. Of the Heart of Gold crew, only Zooey Deschanel’s Trillian is at all believable and sympathetic. Bill Nighy is excellent, easily the best thing in the film, but Marvin might as well not be there as almost all of his lines have been deleted or altered.

Stephen Fry sounds like Stephen Fry, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz sounds like Richard Griffiths, and Deep Thought sounds like Helen Mirren really couldn’t be bothered at all. As for John Malkovich, if he wasn’t the movie’s token star value his scenes would probably have been ditched altogether as they are completely pointless. They set up a subplot which is not only never resolved but never even touched on.

Some of the new ideas, such as Malkovich’s character, were created by Douglas Adams himself but that doesn’t make them good ideas. And perhaps some of the rewriting was done by Adams too, but that’s no excuse. In any case I’m quite sure that he didn’t very slightly rewrite his dialogue so that it neither flows properly nor generates any laughs. The movie is packed with little things that will only make sense to fans of the story, but they’re not in-jokes because they’re not jokes. Just mentioning something that is meaningless without having read the book does not make it a funny thing, and only serves to confuse those poor sods who have the misfortune to encounter Hitchhiker’s Guide for the first time in this form.

There are quite a few nods to Douglas Adams himself and although these go some way to making up for the almost complete absence of his name from the publicity, surely a better way of paying tribute to this much-loved, much-missed author would be to not fuck about with the sublimely witty dialogue that he sweated blood to create.

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy movie is an abomination. Whereas the radio show, TV show, books and computer game are all recognisably variations on a theme, this is something new and almost entirely unrelated. It’s not even a good film if viewed as an original work: the characters are unsympathetic, the cast exhibit no chemistry, the direction is pedestrian, the pace plodding, the special effects overpowering (lots and lots of special effects, none of them funny mind you) and above all the script is amazingly, mindbogglingly awful. Oh, and they have taken most of the jokes out.

This is a terrible, terrible film and it makes me want to weep

[Honolulu_Blue]

Not so good news. Must be taken, as any review, with a grain of salt, but this is "worse nightmare" kind of feeling.

***No spoilers in the short review. Long review links on page does have spoilers***

http://www.planetmagrathea.com/shortreview.html
Hmm... Not too encouraging at all.

[Ragone]

I've seen 2 commercials for the movie.. and i knew it was going to be bad, there was just no way the movie could stand up and be half as good as the book..

[HomerJSimpson]

Well, I saw it today. It wasn't as bad as I was lead to believe, but it was a far cry from the perfect adaption. It had real pacing problems, and flaws in editing. The story was changed a good bit, but it is hard to tell what was Adam's changes and what wasn't. All in all, the changes weren't terrible, except maybe that they didn't have time to really explain everything. My advice, lower your expectation, and this will be an enjoyable movie.

[cthomer5000]

Well, I saw it today. It wasn't as bad as I was lead to believe, but it was a far cry from the perfect adaption. It had real pacing problems, and flaws in editing. The story was changed a good bit, but it is hard to tell what was Adam's changes and what wasn't. All in all, the changes weren't terrible, except maybe that they didn't have time to really explain everything. My advice, lower your expectation, and this will be an enjoyable movie.
I've never read the book(s?), but i went to see an advanced screening earlier this week.

I thought it was a really enjoyable movie, but didn't quite seem to have the breadth i was expecting. It almost came across as the filmmakers being torn between doing 1 movie and multiple. It seems to be really going places, then wraps up a bit quickly leaving a fair amount of loose ends (IMHO).

Still, an enjoyable viewing.

[TargetPractice6]

Can anybody who has seen the movie tell me how many books it covers? I'm in the process of reading the series and I'm just about to wrap up Restaurant.

[tucker342]

I'm seeing it tomorrow with my dad... (hopefully I won't still be drunk by then)

Im looking forward to it.:)

[Schmidty]

I have never read the books and I tend to not over-analyze most movies. Will I like it?

[cthomer5000]

I have never read the books and I tend to not over-analyze most movies. Will I like it?
I think you'll find it enjoyable, yes.

[Poli]

I liked it. I liked explaining missing bits to the guys afterward as well. Enjoyable.

[Schmidty]

I liked it. I liked explaining missing bits to the guys afterward as well. Enjoyable.

Was it funny? The one early review I read said that it wasn't even kind of funny.

[Poli]

I felt they could have done a little better. There was some humorous stuff I felt they cut out. People were laughing during the movie, no doubt about that.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

It's shaping up to be a very big summer movie season.

[BillyPilgrim]

Does anyone else get the impression that the review posted earlier in this thread was written by someone who wanted to hate the movie before he ever saw it and sat through the whole movie trying to find things to get pissed off about? In the books, Arthur was a "stupid prat" in the books, that was his role. I thought Trillian, the only character the reviewer didn't seem to hate, was the least faithfully adapted character in the books. Then there's this part

"the film also suffers by having an entirely nonsensical plot. It is driven by convenience and unexplained happenings. Characters just happen to be where they need to be and have what they need to have, even if it makes no sense for them to be there or to have that."

Personally, I think this is about as good a description of the plot of the books you'll ever find. The Restaurant at the End of the Universe just happened to be on Magrathea, so Marvin was in the parking lot, so he could open the door to Hotblack's ship and they could be shot at the sun, etc. They were great books, but they weren't exactly Orwell or Huxley in terms of a carefully plotted out story line. The universe of Hitchhiker's Guide is a random, screwy place where infinite improbability can power starships, after all. I'm not trying to say that this movie was perfect by any stretch, and I think the BBC television serial was probably better in terms of casting, character portrayal and sticking to the plot, but the movie wasn't nearly as bad as the guy who wrote this review wants to make it out to be. To me, he comes across like an angry little kid who won't be happy no matter what you give him.

[ISiddiqui]

Well the whole point of the books/radio show/etc, was that the universe doesn't have any order. It's all just a wacky place which escapes catagorizing.

[TargetPractice6]

Does anyone else get the impression that the review posted earlier in this thread was written by someone who wanted to hate the movie before he ever saw it and sat through the whole movie trying to find things to get pissed off about? In the books, Arthur was a "stupid prat" in the books, that was his role. I thought Trillian, the only character the reviewer didn't seem to hate, was the least faithfully adapted character in the books. Then there's this part

"the film also suffers by having an entirely nonsensical plot. It is driven by convenience and unexplained happenings. Characters just happen to be where they need to be and have what they need to have, even if it makes no sense for them to be there or to have that."

Personally, I think this is about as good a description of the plot of the books you'll ever find. The Restaurant at the End of the Universe just happened to be on Magrathea, so Marvin was in the parking lot, so he could open the door to Hotblack's ship and they could be shot at the sun, etc. They were great books, but they weren't exactly Orwell or Huxley in terms of a carefully plotted out story line. The universe of Hitchhiker's Guide is a random, screwy place where infinite improbability can power starships, after all. I'm not trying to say that this movie was perfect by any stretch, and I think the BBC television serial was probably better in terms of casting, character portrayal and sticking to the plot, but the movie wasn't nearly as bad as the guy who wrote this review wants to make it out to be. To me, he comes across like an angry little kid who won't be happy no matter what you give him.Ahem, Frogstar World B. ;)

[BillyPilgrim]

My bad, it was the tv series where the restaurant was on Magrathea...

[bob]

I went to the movie with two other people. One of them had read the book before, and thought they did a decent job. The other hadn't read it before, and was very confused as to what was going on and why people were laughing so much.

I've read the book and listened to the radio series many times, and honestly thought it was no better than a C+. This would be a much better miniseries - too much was covered, so they had to gloss over everything.

I predict it will do well this week and maybe next week, as all the fans will go see it. After that, it drops down the list quickly.

[Bearcat729]

The only thing I really didn't like in the movie was Sam Rockwell. It was a good movie overall.

[Surtt]

"the film also suffers by having an entirely nonsensical plot. It is driven by convenience and unexplained happenings. Characters just happen to be where they need to be and have what they need to have, even if it makes no sense for them to be there or to have that."

That kind of thing happens when you use an infinite probability drive.

[TargetPractice6]

My bad, it was the tv series where the restaurant was on Magrathea...Learn something new everyday...

[Crapshoot]

Zaphod pissed me off- he seemed very dumbed down and Americanized- Zaphod was an egotistical bastard, but an inteligent one - something that isn't clear. I thought Freeman was pretty good as Arthur - and as a whole, a fairly good go. Rickman was great as the voice of Marvin - as was Stephen Fry as the guide... ;)

[TargetPractice6]

Yeah I thought they got Arthur and Trillian right for the most part, but thought Zaphod and Ford were a bit off. Marvin and Slartibartfast were dead on though.

[ISiddiqui]

Zaphod was an egotistical bastard, but an inteligent one
Never thought he was quite intelligent in the book. I think Sam Rockwell nailed Zaphod pretty good. Zaphod is supposed to be an annoying twit who is kind of clueless.

Good movie as a whole. Liked where they went with the story... better for the medium for the big screen... the guide parts were great and well interspersed. And Humma Kuluva was actually tied in nicely to the plot and wasn't just a wierd throw-in (well he may have been originally, but decent anyway :D).

Mos Def was a good Ford. Arthur was good. Trillian, not so much. She's not supposed to be that ditzy... she's supposed to be good at science, isn't she? At least when I read the books she was smarter than that.

[Daimyo]

I've read the books and I liked it okay. It was far from perfect but it was much, much better than I expected it to be. My wife had no previous HGttG experience and she liked it too (although I had to explain some things afterward).

[Northwood_DK]

I found this funny story on his web page.

The Private Life of Genghis Khan (http://www.douglasadams.com/dna/980707-07-s.html)

”Later that year Genghis Khan stormed into Europe in such a rage that he almost forgot to burn down Asia <ST1:p</ST1:pbefore he left.”
Douglas Adams<O:p</O:p

[miked]

It wasn't nearly as bad as that review. I, for one, was not really a big fan of Mos Def as Ford. He played it ok, but that's not what I had envisioned. The story was a bit jumbled, but who cares...it was entertaining. It would be hard to make a movie based on the book verbatim as most of the book is dialogue. I loved Alan Rickman as the robot.

[Crapshoot]

Never thought he was quite intelligent in the book. I think Sam Rockwell nailed Zaphod pretty good. Zaphod is supposed to be an annoying twit who is kind of clueless.



Gross mischaracterization. Zaphod always played stupid, but never was. Remember, he had the foresight to conduct his own lobotomy of sorts to achieve his stated goals.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Remember that the book is based on prior work, and IIUC the movie is based as much on the prior work as it is on the book.