Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons (
More info?)
Great Siberian Dragon the Zingy Cool Believer of Might wrote:
> I've seen it today... found it a bit of a mixed bag. I was sceptical
about
> how well can a book whose best bits are IMO in its page-long
digressions
> rather than its plot translate into a 2-hour feature film, and as a
film
> it's got lots of problems. It's messy and choppy, some scenes just
fall flat
> and it doesn't really go anywhere. That said I found a lot to enjoy
about
> the movie as well.
I just saw the movie today myself. I would say I found it perhaps a bit
better than you. I did not find it the plot excessively messy although
there were definetly weaknesses and they left a lot of loose ends
hanging (perhaps in anticipation of a sequel?). I have to admit I have
a hard time evaluating it as a film on its own though, being well
versed in the books and radio play (and having seen the BBC TV series
once or twice). On the other hand the fact that the books diverged from
the radio play but I liked both meant that I was less wedded to any one
plot than had Hitchhiker's just been a radio drama or books.
I think the special effects were something of a mixed bag but for the
most part rather impressive giving us a rather grand view of some of
the sight's of HHGTTG.
Obviously a 2 hour film has a different feel and style than a book or a
radio play. I think they made some tradeoffs that did not work (too
many jokes lost to keep the plot moving). Still, I felt as though
although certainly not a great film it was basically successful and
better than a lot of stuff out there. On the other hand not the best
incarnation of the Guide by any stretch of the imagination.
I would sort of wonder how someone never having been exposed to another
incarnation of HHGTTG would respond to it (I suspect it might be
difficult to get).
> <spoilers>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Marvin was great, as was Stephen Fry as the Guide. I really liked
all
> those funky animations.
I was okay with Marvin, but my problem was being so familiar with his
lines from the radio and book versions and so few of them being new
that I perhaps did not find them as funny as I would have had they been
new to me. I still laughed and all but I was practically mouthing the
words for most of his lines. I thought it was really gutsy choice of
body style, and I think it worked as far as it went, but could just
have easily been something else. I really liked his comment about the
accuracy of the Vogons shots.
Stephen Fry did the book so close to how it was done in the radio and
on the TV that I found it nicely familiar. The animations reminded me
of the TV show (but probably far better, my memory of the TV show is
dim on this point).
> - really liked Martin Freeman as Arthur; the book character was
something of
> en empty space but movie Arthur is a sweetheart,
Sam Rockwell was
a bit
> of a letdown; I fully expected him to rock my socks off as Zaphod but
he
> only hit the mark occasionally.
I think the characters other than Trillium and Arthur suffered from a
lack of a chance to really show themselves (2 hour movies with a lot of
story to get through can have that problem). I especially felt Ford
Prefect was shunted to the side (I think he was one of my favourite
characters in the radio version). Zaphod suffers more from being
recharacterized as more zany, I would say it is not consistent and does
not work.
> - strangely enough I think I enjoyed the movie more when it came up
with new
> stuff than when it followed the book closely. Maybe because many of
the book
> bits were a lot better on page.
I appreciated the freshness of the new stuff. I think it did okay doing
the old stuff. Also, sometimes when it redid or elaborated differently
something from the original it was quite good also (the Dolphin musical
number).
> - the way they dealt with Zaphod's second head was super-lame IMO.
Well I agree it did not work, but I am not sure any other way would
have worked either. In the other versions the fact that he has two
heads is a mere descriptor that then has no bearing on anythings. I
give them an A for effort and originality but a D for execution.
The thing that got me was how badly his third arm was done (when it
appeared it looked bad IMO). My dad who I went to see it with missed
its existence altogether. I think that was worse than the head.
> - I was prepared to totally hate the romance after even those who
liked the
> movie hated the love triangle, but surprisingly it worked for me.
I thought it was okay and it gave the plot a little more meat. So I
think it worked.
One thing I really wonder why they left it out was the explanation of
the importance of towels to an interstellar hitchhiker. Obviously
anyone who had read the books or whatever knows, but in the movie while
Ford clearly puts great stock in towels there significance is never
adequately explained to my mind. Arguably this is minor but it just
seemed odd to me.
--
d e+ N- T- Om++ UK!1!2!3!4!56A78!9 u uC uF- uG+ uLB+ uA nC nR nH+ nP
nI+ nPT nS+ nT- y- a26, Captain in the Cinnaguard, Weirdo, Blue Bow
[B><B], Website:
http://individual.utoronto.ca/fofound
-----------
Yours Truly Saint George's Dragon
Allan Olley -==UDIC==-
-----------
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man." George Bernard Shaw
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram