One of my other hobbies on the internet is to watch trailes.
Now, I don't want to post links to movie sites, since if you're interested in movies, you would search them yourselve.
But today it's different. Today I have learned that they're making a movie about THE HITCHHIKERS GUIDE TO THE GALAXY. One of my favorite books (on tape...).
(EDIT)
teaser: http://www.apple.com/trailers/touchstone/hitchhikersguidetothegalaxy
trailer website: http://hitchhikers.movies.go.com/main.html
big trailer: http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/r/m/rmm260/movies/hhgttg2.asf
And to top if off. I learned yesterday that Tim Burton and sexy mofo, Goldmunt look-a-like Johnny Depp are filming Charly and the Chocolate Factory!
http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/charliechocolatefactory/
Bwaha! I already knew that!
Do try to keep up.
Moderately old news. For Hitchhiker film news, I'd check out Douglas Adams' website rather than apples. At least his wife claims that she's striving to make the Hollywood bastards stay true to the feeling of the series (somehow, I'm still pessimistic but not uneager).
I'm feeling so great.
You can't piss on my parade, today.
I can't wait for both of these!
I'm a huge hitchhiker fan and, as Yak seems to be, I'm worried about Hollywood effing it up. Here's hoping.
I'm not a huge willy wonka fan, though I did love the movie, but I'm a HUGE Tim Burton and Johnny Depp fan so I'm droolin' for their new movie!
I'm definitley looking forward to the Hitchhiker's movie. I have a feeling that, considering the script was written by Douglas Adams himself, that the movie should be great. Not to mention that Martin Freeman (Tim from BBC's "The Office") is playing Arthur Dent. I think that's the most brilliant casting ever.
Berserker, DNA wrote "a" script, nto the final script they're using for the film. That was written by Karey Kirkpatrick (writer of 'Chicken Run').
I heard the film is directed by the same gous who did the 'milk carton' musicvideo for the song 'coffee and TV' by some band that I cannot remember.
Isn't that awesome?
I just finished reading the ultimate hitchikers guide and it rocked so hard. I don't know if a movie could even do it credit though....
After watching the trailer for Charlie & the Chocolate Factory, i really want to see this movie. But i noticed that Johnny Depp looks really creepy (even creepier than Edward Scissorhands).
It looks very entertaining and it sucks that we have to wait until July. I loved Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, so i'm pretty sure i'll love this one.
I believe there was a mini-series of the show, but it only pertains to the first two books. I found it was enjoyable, considering the difficulty of getting Douglas Adams satire into a movie succesfully. Even if the new movie turns out to be horrible, I'm sure it'll get a good showing. At least I'll show up to it, no matter the reviews. As I'm sure many other fans of his work will do the same.
-MillsJROSS
The trouble with the TV show was that they spent most of the budget on the second head for Zaphod (it having been easy to say he had two heads in its original format, Radio) which didint work and looked rubbish. With CGI it should be much easier and better.
Quote from: Eggie on Wed 22/12/2004 21:15:12
I heard the film is directed by the same gous who did the 'milk carton' musicvideo for the song 'coffee and TV' by some band that I cannot remember.
Isn't that awesome?
The band is Blur, if you care...
I have mixed feelings about the Hitchhiker movie, I am worried it'll be too......"Hollywood" - they'll care too much about the special effects, which to me is wrong, I kinda liked the extra head used in the TV series that Mr Hero mentioned because it looked so.....odd. For me, it's all about the bizarreness of this new universe, and part of that might be lost if they go over the top with the CGI and whatnot.
Also, I am not sure if the readings of the book itself will transfer well to big screen, in a big movie like this they split the movie up too much, with these breaks, if you know what I mean.It may seem a little disjointed. That said, I heard a rumour that Tom Baker may be doing the voice of the book, & I can see that working well, especially seeing as he did the Little Britain voiceovers.
Still, I will be going to see it, & I hope all my fears are put to rest. If it's done well, it'll be done very well.
Just my 2p.
I'm not sure if this is the trailer Jet posted, since the link is dead, but here goes:
http://hitchhikers.movies.go.com/main.html
I found this trailer on Croatian portal under 'today's news' and didn't want to start a new topic.
I've seen the trailer of "hichhikers" and I must say it's pretty suggestive... The Earth explodes and a voice in off says "No problem, the fun starts now!" Or something like that... When I saw it I thought, we gotta see this one!
So, it's based in a book? A good one, apparently. I will have to add that to my list.
About the chocolate factory, I fear that the previous stuff that made it famous hasn't been released in Spain... What is it all about?
Bleh.
Am I the only one thinking that the Hitchhiker's trailer looks a bit... silly?
No, I also had my ups and downs with it. I mean, Hitchhikers is SUPPOSED to be silly, but... in a certain way.
There were some hints that it's going to be a little commercialised at parts, but that's hardly surprising given the budget. I was actually surprised how similar to the old TV series it often looked.
I'm not sure about the Zaphod head thing. I get the feeling they should've just given him one head and left it at that. It's not like that second head ever did a great deal. Actually the movie Zaphod reminds me of Wayne Coyne of the Flaming Lips, somehow.
I really hope this will be good.
Do any of you have a good idea of how far into the series the Hitchhiker movie goes? If it's the whole thing, how LONG is this thing going to be? And if it's not, have they been working on a sequel yet?
I am horrified, disappointed, angry, bitter, resentful, frustrated and repulsed by Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. What a nasty-looking movie. Tim Burton is a wanker that got lucky a couple of times, and Johnny Depp looks like small children imagine paedophiles to look. I hate everything. I also hate especially the idiotic, retarded back story that Wonka has in the movie.
Tim Burton: Oh man, I just watched
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. That movie was too sappy. It strayed too far from the original book. I hate David L. Wolper, the children are ugly, and Gene Wilder has a Jewish Nose.
Guy: Uh, I... I think... I mean, sir... Gene Wilder
is Jewi--
Tim Burton: I think we should make a
new movie. Only we'll stick to the book.
Guy: Actually, uh, Sir... I was thinking we could explore deeper into Willy Wonka's mysterious past, and his father could be, like, a Dentist. Because that would be funny. Willy Wonka's father is a Dentist? Wonka? Sweets?
Tim Burton: I love it! Throw that in somewhere.
Guy: But I thought you were sticking to the book?
Tim Burton: We'll stick to the book, AND explore Wonka's mysterious past in dentistry, under the guise of sticking to the book in order to better the Original Movie.
Guy: But didn't... didn't you say that...
Tim Burton: Yes? What did I say? SPIT IT OUT!!!
Guy: Um, well it's just that... you said the... you didn't like the way the old movie was Sappy, so... investigating the relationship Willy Wonka has with his estranged father... who forbade him sweets as a child... well, that's... you know... could be emotional.
Tim Burton: Nonsense! Just because we're exploring an emotional and crucial period of the childhood of Willy Wonka involving his estranged family, doesn't mean we have to bring any
feeling in to the movie, or make him any different from the character of the book!
Guy: But the character... the book Willy Wonka was...
Tim Burton: I don't care about the book Willy Wonka! Hey, why are you covered in piss?
Guy: No I'm n-- Mr Burton! Please! My new suit!
Tim Burton: Ahhh. Anyway, where was I? Ah, yes. Who can we cast to better Gene Wilder?
Guy: Sir, Gene Wilder is dearly loved and respected by many people across the world. Perhaps we should try... you know, maybe... we should try to avoid
bettering him, as much as creating a
different enterpretation, so as not to rival him?
Tim Burton: Excellent idea! Tell the magazines we are definitely
not trying to outdo the jew. Now, back to casting; we need somebody that will redefine Willy Wonka to children across the world; somebody who shall replace Gene Wilder in the memories of Children everywhere. Guy, have you read the Roald Blyton books?
Guy: Roald Dahl? Charlie and the... yes, yes.
Tim Burton: Excellent! What's Wonka like in it?
Guy: Well, I guess... you need somebody uh, somebody... whimsical, magical, with crazy hair and --
Tim Burton: Johnny Depp!
Guy: Yes! I mean, no. What?
Tim Burton: Come on! Think of Edward Scissorhands!
Guy: But--
Tim Burton: And then we could put a paedophilic twist on it!
Guy: I don't--
Tim Burton: Excellent! Quickly, I have to pitch this to the big guys before the Widow changes her mind! Give me the gist of the books, and let's roll!
Guy: I haven't read the books in twenty years, sir.
Tim Burton: I don't need your life story. What do you remember?
Guy: Well, there were kids, and --
Tim Burton: Excellent! [/list]
Roald Blyton. I pissed myself.
Bt
Quote from: Farlander on Sat 19/02/2005 13:36:43
So, it's based in a book? A good one, apparently. I will have to add that to my list.
Missed this post the first time around. Argh. It's based upon a book? Yes. Now it looks like it's time for another Bitchslap-A-Spaniard day (It's been what, a week?)
And Yuff, your dialogue was genius.. pure genius.
And very sad and pathetic.
Quote from: [lgm] on Sun 20/02/2005 00:27:22
And very sad and pathetic.
Goes rather well with your personal-title-under-avatar thing, doesn't it?
I say that only because it has nothing to do with how the movie was conceived and is just a ranting of someone with her panties in a twist.
I say that only because you are stupid.
I AM DONE.
You may all go on with discussing movies.
Well, it WAS funny, but lgm's right :P It's just ranting. Don't let it influence your thinking on the way the movie was conceived.
So anyway, they're adding in that Wonka's dad was a dentist? That IS stupid, (why of WHY can't they just plain STICK with the BOOK?!) but I still haven't lost my optimism for the movie. What's wrong with Johnny Depp? He's proved himself over and over again to be a genuinely talented actor who can play a wide range of characters, and almost always does a brilliant job of it. I was over the moon when I heard he'd be playing Wonka, because he's one of the few actors today I would trust to do the role justice. Tim Burton has had some hits, some misses... this could be either, I don't think we need to condemn him for Big Fish forever ^_^ (Same goes for JD and that Peter Pan movie).
I don't know... it could be a disaster but I still think that most of the things I've heard about it are good. I can forgive the dentist thing if the rest of the movie's well done.
My girlfriend is a rabid Douglas Adams fan and has been giving me long lectures on why the film is going to be a terrible representation of the books. Having not read the four novels and being unimpressed with the TV series (which I was forced to watch) I can only trust her judgement.
(As a side note, when watching the series I got the impression that the source material was complete genius, but got lost in translation to a low-budget visual form. I will read the books someday though, I've made a promise! Perhaps the TV series will make more sense afterwards.)
Quote from: [lgm] on Sun 20/02/2005 00:57:06
I say that only because it has nothing to do with how the movie was conceived
WELL YOU DON'T SAY. I even had
myself fooled there for a second! Goddamn internet rumours! Especially when you start them yourself, they're the most confusing, because you're slightly more inclined to believe them.
MEANWHILE!
Tim Burton: Some kid has been spreading
lies on the internet. They say she was
mocking the
conception of the movie. Apparently she insinuated that, to come up with the idea for this movie, I took a
piss on your face, and that I hadn't
read the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory books, and that we are trying to
fob off Dali's old lady so she won't appose our
shit back story. She tried to pass this off as
fact! And by gum, she was almost successful!
Guy: I don't think anybody would believe that's how we came up with... I mean,
any movie concept... little far fetched... even for the likes of
Gothika...
Tim Burton: And then she said that we're trying to outdo Gene Wilder, and that Gene Wilder is Jewish!
Guy: But, sir... ah...
Tim Burton: Here it is! Take a look at this! She's making me out to be some kind of
fool!
Guy: ...She tells it like it is, sister.
Tim Burton: Anyway, let's discuss the casting of this magnificent new movie! You know what I think? I think they were
too soft back in the 70's. You know who they
really wanted for the role of Wonka?
Guy: Fred Astaire?
Tim Burton: No, Fred Astaire. But they didn't try hard enough. They
gave up. Like girls, girls with not very much
will power. So the next thing they knew, they were stuck with that other fellow.
Guy: Gene Wil--
Tim Burton: Gene Wilder. I was looking through the audition files from 1970, for inspiration. I mean, I already know Depp is
the one, but I just like to gloat about how much better looking he is than that other fellow.
Guy: Gene Wilder?
Tim Burton: You know who I would have cast?
Guy: Fred Astaire?
Tim Burton: No... Johnny Depp! Ha ha ha!
Guy: Hilarious, Sir.
Tim Burton: But seriously, you know who I would'a picked? Check out this guy here. Audition Files of 1969-1970 for Quaker Oats company. Perfect, ain't he?
Guy: Gene Wilder?
Tim Burton: No, Jerome Silberman! Look where I'm pointing! See?
Guy: Uh...Ã, I see...
Tim Burton: Wonder why they turned him down? Must've been one of those there Paedophiles. Oh, which reminds me. Let's talk about the plot. I got a great new idea!
[/list]
Quote from: [lgm] on Sun 20/02/2005 00:27:22
And very sad and pathetic.
Never begin a sentence with 'And', genius! You just failed English 101!
Bt
I didn't START a sentence, I was finishing Yak's
Okay, everyone just needs to take a deep breath and relax
Calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean, it's just discussion about movies, it doesn't matter. Ohmmmmmmmm....
Quote from: Blackthorne on Sun 20/02/2005 18:15:50Never begin a sentence with 'And', genius!Ã, You just failed English 101!
Untrue. There's no reason (http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/b.html#but) why you can't start a sentence with "And".
Quote from: Snarky on Sun 20/02/2005 21:29:52
Quote from: Blackthorne on Sun 20/02/2005 18:15:50Never begin a sentence with 'And', genius!Ã, You just failed English 101!
Untrue. There's no reason (http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/b.html#but) why you can't start a sentence with "And".
True, true. One can begin sentences with "And" in dialogue, but in prose, it just looks damn sloppy.
Anyhoo, I thought Yufster's dialogue was funny, and LGM is jealous of her boobs.
Bt
Oh, but why should LGM envy my boobs?
Can you people just stop? Please?
LGM, you were just complaining that you felt like this wasn't your home anymore and then you go off and start a fight for no reason? If this is how you make yourself at home, stop, please.
I didn't mean to start a fight. I'm sorry.
Her dialogue WAS funny.. It just angered me because I adore Burton and impaitently await CATCF
Back to Hitch Hikers...
If Douglas adams wrote the original script, then it will be fairly OK. We can only hope they
Spoiler
1) Keep the bit with the bulldozers and "Yellow"
2) Have him actually wear the dressing gown throughout the movie
3) Try to have a NARRATOR! This will really allow them to include the funniest bits of the book (like the comparison form the Encyclopedia Galactica to the Guide about alcohol)>
[offtopic]
Quote from: Dark Stalkey on Sun 20/02/2005 01:33:38Having not read the four novels...
Five novels, actually
Spoiler
, although the fifth is actually a bit of a depressing read
.
[/offtopic]
So, when the movie comes out, Don't Panic, maybe it will be decent.
Maybe. Since I just read the books and already I think I'm a purist, although I always have really been about books.
God I've been a fan of hitchhikers since I was a wee little baby... or maybe since I learnt to read...
Anyway I still read the guide often, and another good read is the Dirk Gently series by Douglas too.
Man what a brilliant man... (Adams, not Gently)
Judging by the trailer, the hitchhiker's movie looks like it's gonna be awsome. I think it's too early to pass totall judgement on either of these movies, and remember they are one visual interpretation of the books, so of course it's not going to look exactly like you wanted it too, unless you made the film.
C.
Zor: Yay! Someone else who's read the Dirk Gently novels!
Einoo:
Spoiler
1. Seeing as in the trailer Arthur's house is destroyed, we can assume that the bulldozer bit occurs.
2. He wears the dressing gown in every shot in the trailer, so it's a good chance that will be so.
3. Stephen Fry is credited as playing the voice of "The Book." In other words he's the narrator.
Is it April yet? How about now?
I'd be more excited about the Chocolate Factory film if it wasn't for the fact that Burton's last truly great film was probably Ed Wood, and that was what? Ten or eleven years ago?
I'm actually much more excited about his stop-motion Nightmare Before Christmas follow-up "The Corpse Bride"
Not to mention there is no set "canon" for Hitchhiker's Guide. Remember, the books came after the original radio series. This movie isn't going to follow the book exactly, just like the tv series didn't, just like the book wasn't exactly the same as the radio series.
I have faith that the movie will be good, but we'll see.
I anticipate these films, but I don't have skyscraper high expectations.
I just hope the film will contain some fun.
It's like a Dutch critic once said,"I want to see great films with great actors. But if the actors aren't great, then they better be naked."
Quote from: Einoo on Tue 22/02/2005 03:38:09
Back to Hitch Hikers...
3) Try to have a NARRATOR! This will really allow them to include the funniest bits of the book (like the comparison form the Encyclopedia Galactica to the Guide about alcohol)>
The 'narrator' thing struck me as one of the problems with translating the book to a visual medium (aka the tv series), because most of the book is essentially narration. To make this work you have to take all sorts of compromises, and the visual aspect seemed to detract from the brilliance of the writing.
Incidently, the screenplay was written by someone who's not read the books and wanted to fill in the gaps in the radio series.
QuoteRemember, the books came after the original radio series.
All sorts of conflicting information in my head! I thought the first book was written before the radio show, and after that Adams went back and rewrote stuff. And the publishers released it in an unfinished state because they couldn't be bothered to wait any more months for him to finish writing the damn thing?
Quote from: PaulSC on Tue 22/02/2005 14:06:46
I'm actually much more excited about his stop-motion Nightmare Before Christmas follow-up "The Corpse Bride"
Dear sweet lord........ a follow-up to The Nightmare Before Christmas....... holy christ..... WHY? DEAR GOD WHY? That's almost as appaling as "Pooh's Heffalump Movie".....
Anyhoo, I saw Constantine last night, and the Hitch-hiker's trailer ran before it. The audience loved it - and I gotta say, on the big screen, it seems impressive. Should be funny, and a blast.
Bt
Quote from: Blackthorne on Tue 22/02/2005 17:41:43
...Anyhoo, I saw Constantine last night...
And how was Constantine anyway? it looks fairly interesting, but it will be strange to Reeves in a movie where he might have some dialouge thats more then 3 line or: "what do I do? how will I know? choice..." and of course "woah!"
C.
Quote from: c.leksutin on Tue 22/02/2005 18:09:29
Quote from: Blackthorne on Tue 22/02/2005 17:41:43
...Anyhoo, I saw Constantine last night...
And how was Constantine anyway? it looks fairly interesting, but it will be strange to Reeves in a movie where he might have some dialouge thats more then 3 line or: "what do I do? how will I know?Ã, choice..."Ã, and of course "woah!"
C.
Constantine was okay. Reeves was his typical self, though there were a few points in which he showed SOME kind of emotion.
It was the usual melding of The Occult, Theology, Christian Mythlogy and Action Flick.
Kind of like "The Exorcist" meets "Hellboy" meets "The Matrix". I did dig Shia LaBeouf in it, and Rachel Weisz is always beautiful. It's entertainment, nothing more.
Bt
Just what I wanted it to be! I want to go see it, but theaters are big burglars
Quote from: Dark Stalkey on Tue 22/02/2005 16:04:18
QuoteRemember, the books came after the original radio series.
All sorts of conflicting information in my head! I thought the first book was written before the radio show, and after that Adams went back and rewrote stuff. And the publishers released it in an unfinished state because they couldn't be bothered to wait any more months for him to finish writing the damn thing?
I always heard that the radio series came first, but I have no proof whatsoever, so perhaps you are right...
I'm not really a Stephen Fry fan, but I think he is a better choice for the voice of "the book" than many, they certainly could have done a lot worse (although I have already typed my feelings towards "the book" on the big screen, so I'm not gonna repeat myself :P).
I have also read Dirk Gently....just the first one I believe (fairly recently), though I may have started the other one and given up early on because I didn't like it (there were only two, right?). Having been a big Hitchhiker fan for several years, I had fairly high expectations for Dirkyboy, but I found I was quite disappointed. There are some clever ideas in there, but I did not think they were tied together well enough for it to be an interesting story. The complete randomness was less....random in Hitchhiker.
For example:
Spoiler
I liked the creature in the third (?) HH book who ends up being killed by Arthur in every on eof his lives, and how is was actually introduced as a plant pot before this. I don't know if he was originally planned, but I liked how this was "explained" a little. All the pieces of the plan seem to come together well, as well as at the VERY end of the fifth...even if it is a little depressing as Einoo says.
And I think they might do what they did with the TV series & end it at the end of the second book. This leaves the floor open for a sequel, but also porvides a fairly satisfying ending otherwise. Unless they plan to do all five books seperately in true "Hollywood sequel money machine" fashion.
Still...hopes remain optimistic.....at a distance....
Nightmare Before Christmas is terrific and my mind automatically rejects all statements to the contrary.
As for who I think should've played the guide... I always thought Richard Briers would've been a good choice, because he generally has a very similar tone to the guy who originally played the book in the radio and tv versions (Peter Jones?).
And the radio series definately came first.
Regardless of what came first, at least Douglas Adams wrote the screenplay before he expired. Here's hoping the people adapting it to current film standards don't flub it up too much. And for those of you who haven't done the text adventure, the BBC has a couple editions online with static graphics (although the best way to play is in the old-school DOS, take it with you to work/school). http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/gallery_game.shtml
Quote from: veryweirdguy on Tue 22/02/2005 18:36:53
I have also read Dirk Gently....just the first one I believe (fairly recently), though I may have started the other one and given up early on because I didn't like it (there were only two, right?). Having been a big Hitchhiker fan for several years, I had fairly high expectations for Dirkyboy, but I found I was quite disappointed. There are some clever ideas in there, but I did not think they were tied together well enough for it to be an interesting story. The complete randomness was less....random in Hitchhiker.
Actually, Dirk Gently is
much less random than H2G2, but most of the connections aren't revealed until the end, and you have to really pay attention to get some of them. Both Dirk Gently books are pure genius, IMHO.
Jesus, people! It's not like this information is obscure. Instead of making random guesses, why don't you just look up "hitchhiker's guide" on Google or Wikipedia?
The radio show came first, then the book. Then all sorts of other things including a play, a TV series, a record, a computer game, four sequels, a script book, and piles of money. All of it (except for the money) is mutually inconsistent.
If you really want the whole sordid history of HGTTG, Neil Gaiman wrote a book called "Don't Panic!" that tracks down every single incarnation.
Although Adams wrote a movie script (in fact, he wrote many different scripts), the finished version they're using in the film was written by someone else: Karey Kirkpatrick (mainly). He certainly did read the books (http://hitchhikers.movies.go.com/movienews/interview.html). (If there's one thing I've learned from the Internet, it's that anytime someone accuses a scriptwriter of not having read the books, they turn out to be wrong.)
Quote from: Snarky on Wed 23/02/2005 06:36:16
(If there's one thing I've learned from the Internet, it's that anytime someone accuses a scriptwriter of not having read the books, they turn out to be wrong.)
They're doing an ADAPTATION! Of course they have to read the books! Do you think they just sit in a room like this.....
PRODUCER: Well, see - there's this guy, who knows this other guy who's an Alien......
SCREENWRITER: Okay, okay. What are their names?
PRODUCER: Oh, shit.... uh, Arthur Dent and Ford Prefect.
SCREENWRITER: Oh, can I rename them Zap Westinghouse and Porsche Ferarri. Those sound hotter.
PRODUCER: I dunno, let me as the PA down the hall - he's got enough zits that I'm sure he's read the novel....
SCREENWRITER: There's a NOVEL of this idea? Brilliant!
PRODUCER: I know. The cross promotion is gonna be great.
--------
Seriously, it's not like their given a list of characters, and told what "sorta" happens, and then they run amok with a word processor.
Bt
Guy: Uh, Sir, the idea of using dialogue to mock people and spread lies and propaganda has spread. At least two people are now doing it.
Tim Burton: Excellent! Recruit them immediately.
What do you people mean when you say "The follow up to Nightmare Before Christmas"?
It's just a movie in the same art style. It has nothing to do with Nightmare Before Christmas as far as I have read. It takes place in the real world, not halloween town.
Eric
Quote from: Cont on Wed 23/02/2005 19:54:05
Guy: Uh, Sir, the idea of using dialogue to mock people and spread lies andÃ, propaganda has spread. At least two people are now doing it.
Tim Burton: Excellent! Recruit them immediately.
BLACKTHORNE: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
CONT: Shut the fuck up, you lame brained Andy Kaufman looking freak! Get Psychonauts and be quiet!
BLACKTHORNE: Loved your version of "I Want To Break Free" too.....
CONT: You're pathetic.
Bt
Quote from: MrColossal on Wed 23/02/2005 20:48:47
What do you people mean when you say "The follow up to Nightmare Before Christmas"?
It's just a movie in the same art style. It has nothing to do with Nightmare Before Christmas as far as I have read. It takes place in the real world, not halloween town.
Eric
Well I know story wise they're unconnected, but if a film is made in the same style and (aside from the lamentable absence of director Henry Selick) from almost the exact same creative team as Nightmare, and all for the first time since the release of that film, I don't think it's unfair or inaccurate to loosely refer to that film as a follow up.
QuoteI'd be more excited about the Chocolate Factory film if it wasn't for the fact that Burton's last truly great film was probably Ed Wood, and that was what? Ten or eleven years ago?
Sorry for bringing up reply 41 after reply 58, I only just read it. Wasn't "Big Fish" a Burton film?
Incidently, what films DOES he have to his name? Edward Scissor Hands, The Nightmare Before Christmas (both films marked my childhood), Big Fish (which marked the day I saw it and will probably keep influencing the remainder of my adolescence and adult life, God I LOVED that film), Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (which I've yet to see)... is there anything else?
The greatest of all - BATMAN! ^_^
Quote from: Rui "Erik" Pires on Thu 24/02/2005 11:13:31
...
...is there anything else?
How about this cinematic masterpiece.
(http://www.filmmakertimburton.com/peewee.jpg)
We all got to start somewhere, but this...
No wonder that movie (Pee Wee's Big Adventure) scared the living crap out of me. It was directed by Tim Burton.
Also, judging from the second trailer (the one with actual scenes from the movie), it looks like it might actually be good. Very good. I concur that it looks very much like the TV series. The pub looks the same, and the inside of the Heart of Gold looks very similar to that shown in the series as well. I will definitely watch this, and drag everybody I can find along with me. I seem to be the only fan of HGttG within a 50-mile radius, with the exception of one nerdy girl at work who wouldn't give me the time of day.
For the record, I think that the first Pee Wee movie was great. This new Chocolate Factory thing though, I'm not so sure. I guess I'll just have to wait for the Corpse Bride or whatever.
As far as other movies he's made, I think his stuff is pretty hit and miss.
• Big Fish (2003): Haven't seen it yet.
• Planet of the Apes (2001): Crap. What was he thinking?...
• Sleepy Hollow (1999): Not great, IMO. Some liked it, though.
• Mars Attacks! (1996): Loved it. Silly and a lot of fun.
• Ed Wood (1994): Haven't seen it.
• The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993): Was he REALLY only the producer and not the director of this? Anyway, it was fantastic.
• Batman Returns (1992): Didn't like the Penguin so much, but it was okay.
• Edward Scissorhands (1990): Very interesting, stylish little movie.
• Batman (1989): Loved it. Keaton was the best Batman ever.
• Beetlejuice (1988): Loved it. Keaton was AWESOME as Beetlejuice.
• Pee-Wee's Big Adventure (1985): As I said, I thought it was great.
• Vincent: A short piece, but being a fan of Vincent Price, I adored this one.
• Frankenweenie (1984): Ho hum.
So anyway, I think that at least 2 of his 3 last films weren't great. But he has had some good stuff in there. I'll be giving his Chocolate Factory a try with my fingers crossed, but I don't have very high expectations.
Quote• Batman (1989): Loved it. Keaton was the best Batman ever.
• Beetlejuice (1988): Loved it. Keaton was AWESOME as Beetlejuice.
I second those!
Thanks for the list, Oz. :=
New Hitchhiker's trailer (http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/r/m/rmm260/movies/hhgttg2.asf).
Quote from: Al_Ninio on Wed 02/03/2005 22:15:14
New Hitchhiker's trailer (http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/r/m/rmm260/movies/hhgttg2.asf).
Same thing, but a bit bigger (http://bvim-qt.vitalstream.com/HitchhikersGuide/HG2G_Trailer2_0197_3000.mov)
The new trailer makes me happy. I watched it with a bunch of friends and made a complete fool of myself bouncing around and clapping. I don't think they noticed, though, because they were behaving similarly.
34 days until release!
Quote from: Ozwalled on Fri 25/02/2005 04:59:36
• Ed Wood (1994): Haven't seen it.
It's awesome.
I went to see it with a couple of friends and one of them didn't know or realise Ed Wood was a real person. That just made it better!
The new trailer looks awesome. I am so pleased. The previous one had me really worried. It looked so silly. But THIS....well... it just looks fantastic!
April, HERE WE COME!
That new trailer rocks so hard!
When I read the book that's just how I pictured it ... perfect! Now I can't wait to see it!
And Arthur Dent is played by the body double guy in "Love Actually" who was my favorite character in the movie! And Sam Rockwell plays Zaphod ... just perfect. I loved him as Guy Fleegman in 'Galaxy Quest'.
Can't wait for this one ... I've been trying to get Sara (girlfriend) to read it lately, but she just never gets around to it.
I'm pretty happy about everything in this one apart from all that Arthur/Trillian crap... but I always hate that shit ^_^ Marvin still... is not right to me, but as long as he acts like Marvin, I'll be okay.
Yeah, Marvin looks odd, but I think Alan Rickman can save it. Speaking of Galaxy Quest vets...
I'm hoping the Arthur/Trillian stuff is just a joke... Arthur belongs with Fenchurch. :P
I'd personally prefer Arthur have no dealings with romance at all. Romance always ruins good stories, particularly clever, sci-fi themed ones.
I've got to agree with Kinoko on that one. When Fenchurch showed up in SLATFATF, it just seemed to throw everything off.
But she wasn't in Mostly Harmless, so it all evens out.
Anyway, Trillian is with Beeblbrox. They change that, there shall be kickings.
So did anyone end up catching Hitchhikers? This forum seems to have an odd habit of getting excited about things then not actually talking about them when they finally come out.
I mostly enjoyed watching it and thought it was more-or-less consistently funny all the way through, but I was pretty disappointed on the whole. I have no problems with new additions in theory, but most of the new stuff in the film just didn't achieve much at all, and a lot of the original stuff wasn't handled very well. The whole thing was just choppy and muddled as all hell.
Even though I'd say the visuals and casting (aside from Arthur) were generally weaker in the old TV series, that's still the place to go if you want something that mostly 'gets' the tone and humour of the radio/book versions. You do miss out on the delightful Zooey Something O'Rother if you skip the film, though.
Any thoughts?
I don't see what the fuss is with Zooey Whateverhernameis. Ho hum.
The film was good, and I enjoyed it, but I agree with Paul - the tv show was much better.
In the film, Arthur's whining annoyed me, the "relationship" annoyed me, Zaphod annoyed me - he seemed more freaky than froody.
Things I thought were better
- Vogons were better developed
- Stephen Fry as the book was perfect, although only marginally better than Peter Jones
- some of the infinite improbability effects
Is that it?
I saw Hitchhiker's. I thought it was great. It's hard to convert HHGttG to a movie format, fitting the 2-hour standard we so often find out there. For what it was -- with a plot forced upon the book to make the movie -- it was awesome. I would defnitely recommend it. It did have the feeling of the series, at first. The series never finished, so beyond that point, I felt like it was a good adaptation.
Just a few things I don't remember fom the book and am too lay to look up:
(o) While Arthur and Ford are talking in the pub about the world ending, does Arthur mention Trillian and how they met? Or did he mention her much later on? In the movie, they stuff that part in the pub scene, establishing Arthur's longing for Trillian.
Actually, that was all I could remember from the movie.
Also, they made Ford seem like a bumbling clutz in the movie, when I remember him as being smooth and knowledgable and sure of himself in the book, as well as the series. Also, as Phil Reed points out in his review on his web site (http://www.phil-reed.com), Zaphod seemed more like a parody of himself in the movie, while in the series and the book he seemed like he was legimately a "cool cat". :P
I'm seeing it on Friday. I've had friends say it was utter shit and others say it was fun. For the moment, I'm feeling positive about it because I've let go of my expectations about the movie. Still, we'll see...
Just keep in mind that it's a movie, the formula for which the book doesn't fit. They had to re-shape the book for the movie. Don't expect the book... instead, expect a damn good movie that won't disappoint. ;)
I have NEVER bought that "can't make book into movie" line. That's always the first excuse trotted out when some perfectly good plot and dialog is replaced with rubbish. Not that I'm saying that happened here...
But think about it. As far as I could remember, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" didn't really have an orthodox plot the same way other novels do. It just kinda went along at its own pace, unraveling a huge thread of initerweaving stories and anecdotes. The movie was awesome. Let's just keep it at that. :P
It didn't have a plot.
AS a film, it was enjoyable. As staying tru to the book it was mediocre. I liked the TV series better too. Sure, the Vogons were better here, but there were many new things not mentioned in the book. As I can recall, Arthur wanted nothing more than everything being back to normal. I might recall wrong thoug. It's been 6 months since I read it. I wanted to see the movie version of the restaurant at the end of the universe. Though Martin was terrible in my opinion.
I finally watched HHGTTG. I dug it. I thought the mood of the movie fit well with the book. There were some minor additions/changes but I'm not entirely convinced DA wouldn't have made some of them himself had he still been around. The beginning song was brilliant and put me in a very Monty Python mood.
Since there's a critical air about this place, I'll go ahead and throw in my criticisms:
>Thought the latter half of the movie fell a bit flat. They seemed to want to take the "plot" to a finish and wrap it all up nicely.
>I didn't care for Ford much. He seemed a lot more smart/sarcastic in the book. Any action he took seemed to be random or silly in the books but ended up showing a lot of know-how. In the movie, he was a bit more of a bumbler. He also didn't factor in as a real driving force or unique personality - more of a kick-off in the beginning than pencilling him in for the rest of it.
>Zaphod came off in the movie as an utter imbecile who acts like one. In the book, I felt he was more of a fairly stupid person that at least conveyed the idea that he knew what he was doing. In the books, he always struck me as a bit of a two-headed Leisure Suit Larry kind of chap. I didn't care for the compromise they made with his physical attributes but prefer it to them leaving that out all together.
> I think the voice of Marvin was a great choice, just didn't like the body style much. Somehow, in my head, he resembled something more like a boxier version of the Lost in Space robot.
Other than it flustering about and falling down a bit during the latter half, I enjoyed it. I'd expected to loathe it but, on the whole, it felt worthwhile. Certainly not a waste of cash (unlike many movies I've seen recently). Slartibartfast (sp?) kicked much ass. Also, they even kept a lot of the narrative/Guide parts, even when they interrupted an action sequence. A lot more true to the book than I expected. I'd give it about an 8/10.
I enjoyed the film.
Granted, it wasn't the book, and it wasn't at all similiar to how I imagined the book.
It may have been a bit too slapstick-y... But it worked.
One thing I didn't really like was Marvin.
The voice acting was perfect, as I knew it would be when I learned that Alan Rickman would be doing it.
The robot's design, however...
So... Cute... In an unsettling way.
Although they sort of made up for it when:
Spoiler
The original Marvin (from the TV series) made a little cameo. Sweet.
Slartibartfast was also quite awesome, and the whole Magrathea bit... Just... Wow.
For the most part, I really enjoyed it. It was odd to see little things they threw in that would make perfect sense to fans, but confuse or completely bypass anyone else (the crabs on the Vogon ship and planet, "This is my cousin Ix, sorry Ford"), while at the same time altering 'classic' lines for no readily apparent reason (although the only one that come to mind right now is "On display? I had to go down to a cellar.")
Quote from: HaddasAs staying tru to the book it was mediocre.
But, there's a long and pround tradition of each successive version of the Guide (radio to book, to TV, the sequels) ignoring or flat out contradicting stuff that's gone before. That's the reason, I think, that I wasn't as upset about most of the changes as I was expecting to be - it doesn't
have to be the exact story, provided it's in the same spirit. (Which is why I'm not happy about them getting Arthur & Trillian together - it's more or less antithical to the characters, as I think of them.)
As to the design of Marvin, I didn't like it either, for most of the reasons mentioned, although I can sort of see why - we know he's an electric sulking machine, but he wasn't necessarily designed to be, he's a personality prototype, that went a bit wrong, so he shouldn't look like a paranoid android, more like 'your plastic pal who's fun to be with'. I wasn't too happy with the voice, either - good as Alan Rickman is, he didn't sound like Marvin to me. He sounded like Alan Rickman - more sarcastic than depressed, and maybe a little drunk.
I'm also going to have to disagree with most people about Slartibartfast. He was funny, yes, but it just seemed like Bill Nighy doing the aging-rockstar-thing he usually does (as far as I can tell), and totally lacked the gravitas he had in the book. Still, as comic relief, I suppose he was perfect.
But I agree with Al about:
Spoiler
the original Marvin cameo being kind of cool
As was:
Spoiler
Simon Jones, the original Arthur (and the model for the character, I believe), as the Magrathean answer phone message.
I haven't yet seen the film but I read the book a few days ago when my dad recommended it for me. It was really the funniest book I've read this far.
Haven't seen the movie yet. Want to. But in regards to the whole "book into the movie" discussion, you can adapt most books into great movies. In fact, some of the best movies I've seen have been adapted from really crappy books.
In HHGTTG, adapting it was harder, mainly cause the story was inconsequential. What made the book great were Adams' digressions where he'd just ramble on about very funny stuff that had no relevance to the plot. He was just a funny guy who did a great job of weaving jokes around his narrative. Meanwhile, most conventional films rely on straight line narative. The digression weaving doesn't work so well.
Also, his digressions were very textual. It's hard to make them into something visual and still keep the flow of the story.
Keep in mind, though, I haven't see the film yet.
^^ good points.
Personally I wasn't bothered about 'accuracy', things being changed or shortened in principal, I was bothered by the fact that most of the big changes and additions didn't really make the story any more 'cinema-ready' or coherent, but also didn't add much in the way of good comedy. It just seemed to have a couple of new subplots thrown in there for no clear reason at all.
There was still enough good stuff in there to make it a basically enjoyable film, but I wish I could look back on it and go "yeah they really nailed it with that Hitchhiker film they did", instead of "Hm, not too sure about that one".
Now, where was the TV-Series Marvin cameo? I must've missed it.
In the queue on Vogsphere. You can see his back when they enter the room, and as Arthur passes him, he (Arthur) does a double take. I think his eyes where the wrong colour, though.
The movie was okay. Not as good as the TV show or the books, but it was okay. They left out some of my favourite bits (Majikthise and Vroomfondel were nowhere to be seen, and Mr. Prosser didn't lie down in front of the bull dozer :'() and some of the stuff they replaced it with was just sort of bland. And the ending was baaaaaaaaad.
But I must admit, I surruptitiously rocked out to the opening theme.
The moment when the main theme tune kicks in was definitely a chills-down-the-spine moment. The So Long And Thanks For All The Fish song was pretty catchy as well. And excellently reprised in Divine Comedy form at the end!
I agree that the film was basically OK, but what was with the whole section to do with Zaphod getting his head stolen? Although the coming of the big white handkerchief and the planet (I forget its name) that the guys land on are both mentioned in the book, I just don't see the sense in putting this stuff into the film in the way they did. The time used in these scenes could have been more wisely used by includig parts of the book that were left out.
Also,
Spoiler
Why did the dolphins return at the end? Did the makers of the film simply not read pas the second book? They're gone forever! Even on the new Earth! Arg...
It was a funny film, but, as mentioned by others, the characters and events seem to have been misinterrperated in the film.
The thing that annoyed me most (apart from the rubbish casting. Martin Freeman isn't nearly English enough!) was that all the ends were left off jokes.
Arthur says that the plans were in a basement, but he doesn't say they were in the a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard" in a basement with no lights and no stairs.
I mean, they leave in the entire wale monologue, but they cut "Very deep. You should send that into the readers digest, they've got a page for people like you."
The section on Vogsphere felt tacked on, though I did enjoy seeing old Marvin in the queue, and the Bug Blatter Beast of Traal.
Apart from that, the film was alright. Not a touch on the book and not quite as good as the TV series, but my hopes weren't high. At least they kept the theme music, and the lemon hat was a good replacement for the Peril Sensitive Shades.
Actually I would have overlooked ALL of these points, had Prefect been more childlike and subtle, and crazy, and if the plot had some vague coherence along the lines that Arthur is a bumbling idiot who can't grasp even the simplest of premises.
As for Wonky Willie, I prophesise nastiness.
Does anyone besides me know about the hithhikers guide to the galixy game ? crazyiest text adventure of all time
(for those who dont know, text adventures were what adventure games were before Kings quest)
I played that game once (actually, about 50 times, as I kept getting blown up right at the start).
It is indeed insane, and amazingly hard. Some of the puzzles, especially those inside the Heart Of Gold, are a bit too random for my liking, and it's because of this that I never finished it.
If anyone's interested, though, you can play it online, for free, here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/game_nolan.shtml).
You can save your games, too.
I used to totally love the text adventure when I was a kid. It might even've been my first intro to Hitchhikers. I keep meaning to set some time aside to go through it again.
It is practically impossible to finish on your own, but my version had all the hints built directly into the game, so it didn't matter. The thing is filled with just a ridiculous amount of detail and tiny jokes and things. The hint thing I had gave you a big list of all the guide entries and fun things to try in the game, but they don't seem to have put those online, the churls.
WTF! HHGttG won't be released until 4th August in the Netherlands.
: (
I am not a big hitchiker fan...it was read to me as a child, and I respected it, but I don't think I was awake for half of it and I doubt I grasped much of it. But watching this movie, everything came back as I watched it....everything seemed to be the way I had imagined it. So, I'm not sure, a diehard fan might see some differences but it at least felt that the feeling of it was very much the same. If you are able to slip into the fantasy, it's a really unique movie. So I loved it.
The best version of Hitchhiker's remains the radio series that started it all.
As for this latest incarnation: Excellent visuals, shame about the jokes.
my main problem with the HHGttG film is that they took ALL that story out from the start,