f13.net

Here. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/touchstone/hitchhikersguidetothegalaxy/trailer_3/hh_trailer_large.html)

Having never read the books (it's sitting on my shelf, just never got around to it), this trailer actually looks like a lot of fun.  I'm curious to hear what you fans have to say about it.

Seems to be a new trailer since the last time we talked about it (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=1606.0).

Don't like how they're using a riff from the Men in Black trailers (for both the original and the sequel) at the end. Which is unfortunately more telling of what will come than anything else I've seen of the movie.

I've never read the books either, but I'll probably see it anyways.

Over the years though, I would always hear how funny the books were. How much of that is really true? Because it doesn't really look like the film is aiming in that direction. It just seems funny in a "generally amusing summer blockbuster" kind of way. Except without Will Smith (but that's probably a good thing).

Read the books.  At least the first three.  They are pretty fucking hilarious.

The film trailers, at least the visuals, seem to imply a little more "jazzed up" version of events.  You know, more action, more explosions, more American in-your-face sort of comedy/action, was as the books (and the tv series, radio plays, etc.) had that more British feel, somewhat reserved, a bit wacky, and more sophisticated humor.  Despite the trailers, I fully expect that sort of humor to still be in the movie; it's just that you can't really build a good trailer out of that.

It's really a sci-fi comedy, but I'm pretty squeemish about comparing it to Men In Black.  It's hard to compare it to anything, really.  Think Galaxy Quest instead.

Bruce

The trailer suggests it's reasonably true to the books.

And true to the TV/Radio show for that matter.

The books are funny, but not, imho, as good as the Radio Play (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0563494212/qid=1112001476/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl/202-1627925-6344645) or the Tv Show (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005OCTS/qid=1112001476/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-1627925-6344645). As with many of DA's books, they work better as material for interpretation than on their own. That doesn't in any way mean you shouldn't read them, espeicially if at any time you feel your geek quotient is running a little low.

I do appreciate that many people disagree with me and believe Adam's original books are in indeed, to coin a phrase, robot jesus.

The books may not be Robot Jesus, but they are damn entertaining. Those who haven't read any of the books are missing out.

I think the movie has the potential to be a disappointing "summer blockbuster" OR it could be a huge success. The source material is clever and unique, but it may be a huge stinker on screen.

I finally got around to reading the first book. Meh. It was mildly entertaining, but it certainly wasn't anywhere near the holy book of geekdom that it has been made out to be. Or maybe I just am not nerdy enough? I thought my geek creds were impeccable...

I had the same reaction Way. Alot of my friends swear by them. I found them mildy amusing. Enough to read once.

You both forgot to put on your rose colored glasses. 90% of the people who say they're the robot jesus of books haven't read them in 10-15 years. Put simply, our taste in humor has outgrown mediocre british swaggering. Nonetheless, they're pretty decent far as books go. There's worse you can read, and there's lots better. I'd still recommend them to anyone, pretty easily though.

Like Lumines. I'd recommend Lumines to anyone. But how can you not recommend robot jesus? I love Sony.

Same here actually, I finally picked it up and read the first book last week, it was short enough, only took me a couple hours to read but in the end I felt that time was fairly wasted, I really don't understand why these books are so popular. If you're in the mood for comedy Terry Pratchett is much better.

"Wasted?"  Heathens, all of you.

I thought that was a pretty damn good trailer.  The narration was very Adams-esque.  It's getting more difficult to not get my hopes up...

I think there is something to the "rose-coloured glasses" angle, in that you have to understand the context when most of us first read the books.  You're talking geek teenagers who haven't yet been exposed to years of comedic sf references on the Internet.  Where British comedy is still something that only geeks really get, and to which we've been lucky to get a taste of though Monty Pyton and Benny Hill.  There's no Red Dwarf or Discworld and Dr. Who is amazing because THAT'S ALL WE HAD, MAN.

Anyway, so the books may not be "amazingly amazing" by modern standards, but if you can't even say they are "great" then you have poor taste.

Bruce

I agree with the first part of your post- if I had read it at age 16, I would have enjoyed it more. I disagree with the last bit, however. I would hover near decent; there is not enough to the books to make them great. They are a running gag (amusing) with little in the way of real character development or even an interesting plot.

When Bruce says I have bad taste, that's when I stick my fingers in my ears and start saying "lalalalalala."

He did, after all, invest in a WWII MMOG from an unproven company who, years later have yet to prove themselves. Striked out, I realized the rest was irrelevant. Unless you have the numbers 1942 or the words Call and Duty in your title, you suck.

Low blow, I know.

Edit: "Letters" aren't necessarily "words." I stand by my statement: words are hard.

I always feel Adams' books aren't as funny as they could be because while the stories, situations, and characters *are* funny, the guy has no comic rhythm. His writing wastes his own imagination. Compare Adams with the greatest comedy writer of the 20th century (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/158567057X/qid=1112047127/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-4577086-2190462?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). Wodehouse plots and characters are usually about as thin and unoriginal as a soap opera, but the guy had style in the way he put them down.

That said, with Adams, there certainly is something there to be wasted, as demonstrated by the radio/tv adaptations which are a lot funnier than, for instance, red dwarf.

Nah, you have great taste.

If you lived in Tokyo.

Hmm, first review is out:

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


/shrug

Could be that he's too familiar with the novels or something...?

He's a slobbering fanboi of the books. He doesn't realize that in the scope of comedy, they're bad. Really bad. Jaw-droppingly bad.

Once again on the subject of culture Schild proves himself to be not very knowledgeable but immensely confident in his own ignorance.

Hitchiker's guide is still fun to read and I still read it once in a while. The three first books are best and I actually prefer Dirk Gentlys Hollistic Detective Agency to the Hitchiker's series - Last Chance to See is also a great read and The Meaning of Liff is the kind of book I wish I'd written.
They might not be as strong now as they where and it pains me to say, but Bruce is right in his explanation to part of the reason.

That they're not funny to American kids is probably because sublety is lost on you guys raised on Friends and other crap with a laugh track - we all know how mangled Fawlty Towers and The Office (just to name two examples) became when translated for an US audience.
I must admit I expected more from you guys.

Terry Pratchett proved to be the funnier (and better) writer overall, but there's also room for plenty of misses in all the books he churned out. Adams had the funniest single moments and was of greater importance overall. Adams started alongside the Pythons and without him, there would be no Pratchett, Red Dwarf etc.
Go read Neil Gaimans excellent biography (Don't Panic) and be enlightened.

The movie will most likely suck, but the trailer had it's moments, so I'll watch it. And since Adams worked on the script and changed the story so many times, I'm not worried about strict adherence to the original - I'm just afraid it's been made stupid to help an US audience along.

(Caveat: I know a lot of truly intelligent humour comes from the US - it's just when you try to do dry British humour you really really fuck it up)

Christ man, that's a long rant to say I don't understand British or even European humor. I do understand it, and as far as brit humor goes, Hitchhiker's isn't near what the legends make it out to be.  There's no doubt in my mind that the movie will be a fun buddy picture and that the critic is just a sad fanboi who wanted a page for page transition to the silver screen.

I love the british Office and Fawlty Towers.

As far as the breadth of my exposure to European literary culture, particularly humor goes, don't be such a schmuck in response to one thing I said when a critic got all pissy. Hitchhiker's guide will be like Men in Black. I've enough confidence to put money on that. Fun, silly, but not smart. The books are fun, silly and smart, but they are NOT the living legends nerds across the planet cream themselves for. Except europhiles. They think they're gods gift to books, and that's fine. Some people think there's manga that's better than Shakespeare.

I'm glad you're here to look down your nose at us. Frankly, I like all kinds of humor, ranging from Bill Cosby to Monty Python. My exposure to Hitchhikers has largely gotten a "Meh" from me. I cracked a smile once or twice while reading the book but that was about it. I was horribly, horribly disappointed after all I'd heard.

Maybe it has less to do with us stupid Americans and more to do with the source material.

I find that the whole "British humor is lost on American audiences" thing to be a crock of shit. People just like to say that. I've personally never met one American who didn't like something because it was "British" humor.

This:
Isn't really the same as this:

I'm glad you disagree with yourself so much, so I don't have to.

And to the rest: Chill.
You're not the average American network executive, who thinks Fawlty Towers would do great in the US if only that hotel manager wan't such a meanie - after all the original has a (albeit smallish) American following whereas the US version tanked. Badly.
That's why I said, that I expected more from you guys.
Not finding Adams' style that funny is o.k., trying to argue why he's not the greatest comedic writer ever is too - faltly stating that he's an overrated hack whit no lasting value is frankly stupid.

Show me where that was said. Please.

In all fairness I came pretty close. But that's my opinion and we all know the various sayings about opinions.

The genius of the books is that Adams's galaxy was a collection of bizarre paradoxes and philosophical conundrums.  The driving theme of the books is the Meaning of Everything, and the central conceit that ties the stories together is that the improbable becomes inevitable when you place it in the context of the infinite. Once you flatten out that stuff to streamline the plot, and lose Adams's linguistic flourishes and non-sequiter digressions, I'm not sure what you are left with. Probably "Galaxy Quest."  The Hitchhiker's Guide is a film driven by ideas rather than characters or events, and I am not sure how that kind of thing will transfer onto film. My guess is badly. 

You're left with something cohesive and intelligible. The problem with Adams is he was writing easy to understand shit and his ego carried over and turned into something that can only be described as annoying. Those books were harder to read than they deserved to be. Particularly given the premise.

I'd take Nick Hornby over Adams any day.

I'm not a fanboi of the books, but I have read them several times.  I like them all, British comedy or whatever.  Easy, light reading that you get some yucks over is ok in my book.  Mind you, they aren't the Stainless Steel Rat ... but then what is :)

I thought the trailer was pretty neat too, and true to the spirit of the novels.

There is nothing hard about the "Hitchhiker" books. I think I read them for the first time when I was 10.

Yea so did I. And the filler was boring digression. Nick Hornby has INTERESTING digression. Douglas also tries to over complicate things. I didn't say it was actually hard to read. I said it was harder than it deserved to be.

One aspect of this was that Adams was a technophile -- he *loved* his Macintosh computers, for example. He loved to incorporate "techy bits" into his writing (not so much Hitchhiker but more his other books) which was kind of cool if you were a reader that was also a technophile cause he knew what he was talking/writing about but was also a bit strange cause you knew if you read the book again in a few years those parts were going to sound really dated.

That's probably one of the many reasons why the HG2G series just really hasn't held up for me. I never expected it to translate to the big screen, particularly not this long after they were published. Sure, I'm happy with a buddy flick. But I can understand why the fans of the book(s) think it's total shit. What I don't understand is why these fans of the books still think they're so great 10-20 years after they read them. I went back and tried to read them again during high school and was outright bored. I can't argue with the fans though. If they tried to adapt Cryptonomicon or Childhood's End onto the silver screen and turned them into a buddy flick, or worse - gasp - a star vehicle - I would probably ride into the movie lot on horseback, guns a'blazin.

Hanzii put it better, but ;  You're a dick.

Completely anecdotal, but I was at a large family gathering a couple weeks ago, and several of my younger (10-15y) cousins have read Hitchhiker.  One of them had a large hardcover with him and was scanning the pages while the adults were talking, and he was on at least his second reading.  I enjoyed it immensely when I read it (at 16 or 17), and all of us are from NC.  More people have not read it than read it of course, but that's true of even many great books, let alone one that's just good. 

I have.  But then they are the same people who thought 2 Fast 2 Furious was great cinema but Requiem for a Dream was "gross".

That said, I think a lot of American nerds use British "humour" and especially HG2G as a sort of calling card, a way to tell the world "I'm not like you", regardless of whether they actually like it that much.

Hitchhikers was good, but the Dirk Gently stuff was classic.  The bit with Thor was priceless.

Because I called Douglas Adams mediocre british swaggering? The brits have done better.

My point, and I think the big H's too, is that sometimes it's not what you say but how you say it.

I'm just trying to point out the part at which you lost your audience....

Get off that. Would you rather me have called it absolute shit? I mean I've said 20x harsher words targeted at American "classics" because that's what they are, absolute shit. I recognized the importance of Adams' to some people, however misplaced that might be, and chose the words "mediocre swaggering." If I lost my audience with that, there are some fucking sensitivity issues on this board that need to be worked out.

It's not that you're wrong - you are.
It's the staggering arrogance you put forth. You seem like a nice enough person, but when you're sure that you're right about some cultural issue, you're so busy telling everybody else that they're morons, that you somehow never get around to arguing your point.
Sometimes your posting technique makes Sir Bruce look like a sane person to argue with.
Not that it's impossible for one person to be right when the rest of the planet is mistaken - unfortunately that's not the case here, and even if it were, there's more well argued ways of being that sole voice of reason than what you manage in your posturing.

To be honest - it makes you look like a well read 15 year old.

Since you said I make Bruce look sane:

Show me where the _rest_of_the_planet_ says Douglas is the shit. Or by planet do you mean nostalgia-stained geeks?

The fact that the books have sold over 15 million copies and inspired a radio play, television mini-series, video game and now big-budget motion picture should give some indication.

Doesn't the new Harry Potter have a print run of like 22 million? Titanic is one of the highest grossing movies of all time (even accounting for inflation). Dune has sold an assload of books, has 2 mini-series (I think, I know of one) and had a major motion picture.

You should know that the "look how much it's sold!!!111!!!" argument just doesn't work anymore.

It does for the question you asked. 

Comeon, don't make me split hairs.

I said rest of the planet. 15 million is not the rest of the planet.

Way too late for that caveat.

This is your argument? Titanic, I'll give you was utter tripe. But are you trying to use Dune and Harry Potter as examples of bad writing that still made millions? Um, ok.

I read the linked review, and it sounded like the sweet, sweet whine of bitter fanboi squeezings.

I hate Dune with the passion of 500 Mercuries.

As far as using Harry Potter goes. I'm just saying how paltry 15 million is these days.

Dune was great, you PSP-loving artfag!

However, I agree that the HGTTG books are mediocre British swaggering, but I still like them.  Not everything is, can be, or should be Shakespeare, or whatever it is you consider "high" art.  There is plenty of room in the literary world for dated technological humor and odd philosophical ramblings that are written well.

EDIT: yay spelling

15 million may not be rest of the planet, but it certainly goes beyond nostalgia-stained geeks.  Is that hair split enough for you?

And I don't get the Dune thing.  Most of us probably consider Dune a great series, so you aren't likely to get any support using it as an example.

Dune is the shit. The Harry Potter stories (at least what I've read) are pretty fun. I also think the majority of fantasy and sci-fi literature sucks nuts -- so for me to like those stories goes a long way, I think.


PSP loving he may be, but artfag he is not. I mean, he actually liked Chronicles of Riddick...and those godawful Dragonlance novels, if I recall.

Dune is slow-moving ass. I don't care if I get support or not on it. I thought every incarnation of anything involving Dune was just fucking unbearable.

Oh, c'mon. Did you honestly read the books? I can understand your opinion applying to the Lynch movie (definitely applies), but the books move right along.

I have read the dune books an the first one is the best and only one that strikes me as really worth reading. They go down hill to sillyvill pretty damn fast after the first book. I read a ton usually about 5 to 8 novels a week and most of it is scifi/fantasy stuff and the first dune is good sci fi the rest go quickly to mediocre and thence to silly fast.

kaid

Be that as it may, your original point (in a nutshell) was to say that sometimes things that suck make a lot of money ("You should know that the "look how much it's sold!!!111!!!" argument just doesn't work anymore.")  All you've shown with the Dune reference is that sometimes things that Schild doesn't like make a lot of money.

The minute you start arguing your points and not stating opinion as fact, I might enter a discussion with you. Untill that I'll just stick to your way:
You_are_clearly_wrong!

Cosmic Coincidence, are just a low probability?... spent the weekend re-reading the first one.  Going to guess and say it has been about 15 years since I first read it.  Did I enjoy it, sure I did.  But nowhere near as much as I did many moons ago.... then again, try re-reading Stainless Steel Rat, Elric, or what have you a decade or two later and I think most will find they aren't nearly as spectacular as they were in the hands of a young teen.... /shrug

I will be buying a ticket to see the film, and will probably be standing in line wearing a Dr Who T-shirt or some shit like that.

I'll be carrying a towel, myself.

What he said.

The first Dune was very good, and God Emperor of Dune was also quite good. Some of the others were hit and miss and the last couple devolved into wacky sexual self-parody.

Anyone who likes DragonLance novels is not allowed to speak about any books ever again without getting laughed at.

I find things like the Hitchhikers stuff very similar to Dave Barry - good in small doses but it's really the same basic gags repeated over and over.

I am not a big fan of putting "IMO" every time someone has an opinion, but this group certainly has no problem stating as facts things that are clearly opinions and uneducated ones at that. And nothing is ever middle ground - it's the best thing ever or it's shit. That's some inspired critical analysis. Nobody here has a bright future as a literary critic, that's for sure.

If you are going to engage in crazy hyperbole, at least throw out a cogent point or two. Hitchhikers may not be for everyone but it's certainly in the top tier of absurdist humor.

Here's the thing about Dragonlance, I admit it's a guilty pleasure. Just like I do with many things. I don't LIKE liking them, it's just something that's completely uncontrollable. It's probably because I read most of them when I was 13 and never re-read any.

The fans of Dune and HG2G don't often admit they're guilty pleasures. All 3 are top tier in their specific field, there's no question (well, except, as many have noted the last few of the Dune series). And pretending Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman are bad writers is just lame. They're quite proficient, moreso than Clancy or Grisham. That said, it's not like they're anywhere near my favorite books. They're the geek equivilent of shitty romance novels that you see girls reading on the beach.

Sigh. I just realized I'm defending Dragonlance. Meh. I'd feel bad if the majority of the english speaking world didn't cream themselves about an ugly high school child wizard and his red-headed stepchild of a friend and their time at a wizard school. No, I'm not a huge fan of Harry Potter. I'd love it if I were 15 right now though.

Wow, I expected Toby Keith to show up halfway through the thread to sing a song about the greatness of American comedy. He'll put a boot in your ass, Brits, that's the American way.

Oh and Dune does suck ass. The movie is an abomination that should be hung around Lynch's neck like the Scarlet A that it is.

I will not mock the dragonlance novels to much. Sure they are not great books but they helped get a lot people I knew in highschool reading for pleasure when they never read things before. Same with the icewind dale drizzit books. These are not great books but my god they got a ton of people who never would willingly read on their own to actually go out and buy books for themselves.

I had a couple friends parents thank me for getting their sons hooked on reading. Once people start reading it helps open them up to reading more and better things once they get the habbit of picking up a book.


kaid

Don't be baggin on Dune.  I like the whole series (my favorite sci-fi series actually) and think Heretics is the best after the first as I totally dig Miles Teg as a character.

And Lynch's film is BRILLIANT.  You have to watch it many, many times (preferrably while drunk) to fully realize the greatness.

"I will take the boy-man, UHHG, he will have sanctuary in my tribe."

"Put the pick in there Pete, And turn it round real neat."

"I am Shadout Mapes, the hoooooooooouse keeeeeeeeeeeperrrrrrrrrrr."

Pure poetry.

Also, Brad Dourif'f finest work.

Man, you people hae no appreciation of cheese.

Lynch is currently in negotiations about revisiting the Dune movie for a new director's cut DVD, something Lynch said he would never do.

Well, that's good news.

Although I knocked the pacing of Lynch's version, I'll still agree with you Abagadro. The style and costuming, as well as the casting choices, are much better than the Sci-Fi versions. His take on the Harkonnens is definitely better. I can still watch it for that alone.

What I wish is that there'd be a version with the completeness of the storyline that the Sci-Fi version had, with the look and cast of the Lynch film. Hopefully this director's cut will be closer to that.

I'm convinced Lynch can't tell anything resembling a story. It's all oohs and aahs, and various WTF moments.

The Straight Story.

edit: And if those "ooh ahh" moments contain Laura Harring's titties, then you can count me in.

Twin Peaks was pretty much completely straightfoward and brilliant.

?

Dune is a brilliant series of books and a concept, but Lynch's film was just ... bad.  That film is a great example of why you must change key elements of a book when adapting it to film.  Lynch spent way too much time with those whispering thoughts instead of in dialogue, and too much drug-inspired imagery that was confusing even if you were very familiar with the story.  All of the actor's performances were great, however.  Just the script itself was horrid.  I think Lynch's Dune is tied with 2001 for the title of Worst Sci Fi Adaptation by an Overrated Director.

The Sci Fi channel's version was much better.  There, I said it.  Better casting, better adaptation.  Some of the acting was a bit cheesy, but that was the only thing I saw to fault it.

You blew all your credibility right there. 2001 is actually a pretty lame novel and the movie is great. Kubrick is overrated?  Please.

You're all about people blowing their credibility, aren't you? I love Kubrick. Most people hate him. He is, by far, one of the most proficient love him or hate him type of celebrities. Now, there's no denying his brilliance, I'd understand that, but some of his shit drags and I'm fine with admitting that. That said, 2001? Couldn't Mace have at least pointed to say, Eyes Wide Shut for crap?

Haha. I don't think an "imo" is even necessary in this case. That's just crazy.

I really enjoyed Dr. Strangelove, but 2001 is just too fucking slow for the internet generation.


Attempt at re-railing:

I liked the trailer I saw, it was funny and the right type of humor also it was great that almost every trailer I saw after it followed the rules (montage of explosions, stupid deep voice guy, ect).

I thought the radioplay was first, then the books?

Nope.  Any movie with a 17-minute drug hallucination that is supposed to "visualize" what's going on in the main character's mind is utter crap.  The movie isn't too slow for me.  I read Jane Austen and Mark Twain, so that isn't my objection.

Eyes Wide Shut? Yeah, crap.  A Clockwork Orange?  Crap, but at least artsy crap with a good political statement.  A Full Metal Jacket, Dr. Strangelove, and Spartacus?  I'll give you those, brilliant movies.  The Shining?  Only Jack Nicholson saved that from being a completely unwatchable pile of cow dung.

Kubrick is one of those directors that has some sort of avant garde following that feeds on itself and thinks the man shits out solid gold with every film.  He has talent, he's just overrated, much like our dear Mr. Lynch.  Kubrick is also dead, and that tends to amp up anyone's perceived talent.

As for credibility, I never had any.  I'm just a well-read software engineering nerd who likes movies and who spends too much time critiquing overrated directors :o

You take that back, swine.

I don't go as far to say Clockwork Orange is crap, but I certainly have a distaste for the movie. It's slightly ahead of Eyes Wide Shut as my least favorite of Kubrik's films.

It's unclear how much of the badness (read: central scenes from the books left out) is the fault of Lynch and which are the fault of the producers, the De Laurentiis family. I've read an essay by Frank Herbert where he lists some scenes filmed by Lynch that were cut, like Paul crying after the Fremen duel (giving water to the dead). Herbert accepted the changes were necessary to take the story to a different medium.

The scene I missed the most was when Dr Kynes has been thrown out by Harkonnen (in the movie they cut away after his stillsuit is ruined), and he discovers the relationship between the sandworms and the spice as he dies in a spice blow. However, that relationship is more important for the later books than for the movie, so *shrug* really.

But Lynch's film was visually near perfect, apart from the sandworm-riding scenes. The cultural differences between the houses was well done for instance.

Yes. It was inspired brilliance, as was the movie, and his earlier work, especially Wild at Heart. But after the TP movie? Total suckage. I couldn't finish watching The Straight Story, it was that boring. It's the kind of story you read on the web and go "HUH, ain't that something," then get on with your life. It's not something you make a movie about. Lost Highway? Mullholland Drive? STOP SMOKING CRACK, DAVID. At least Mullholland Drive had Naomi Watts in the lesbian buff, and Lost Highway had a killer soundtrack. But fuck, they are awful movies.

His Dune? Not so much. It was a project doomed to failure, because 3 hours is not nearly enough time to tell the story.

EDIT: As for Kubrick, he's most certainly not overrated, but not everything he does was worth doing his way. Barry Lyndon had some great Seven Years War battle scenes, but the story was just LONG, drawn out and not really very interesting. It needed much quicker pacing, which Kubrick refused to do. Eyes Wide Shut? Total fucking boring crap. His name shouldn't even have been on it. It was much ado about nothing, yes, in all lower case, because it really was useless.

But Clockwork Orange? Brilliant. Dr. Strangelove and 2001? Brilliant. Full Metal Jacket? Super brilliant. The only difference between those 4 movies is that Clockwork and 2001 are not nearly as approachable as Strangelove and FMJ. They take a lot more patience from the viewer.

The Shining? That movie was creepier and better than the book ever was.

If by "not nearly as approachable", you mean "sucked in ways that mankind has yet to discover it is possible to suck", then yes I agree.  God, I will never understand why people think 2001 was such a good flick.  Clockwork at least had an interesting take on a dystopian society.  2001 wasn't even interesting.

What's really odd is that some of Kubrick's films are in my favorites list.  Spartacus is simply divine.  It's like, a perfect movie.  As are Strangelove and FMJ.  Just beautiful pieces of cinema that prove Kubrick does have talent.  But no more talent than any other hot-and-cold director, like Lynch or even Lucas.  When I say he's overrated, that's what I mean:  when you factor out his hype, he doesn't stand out in a crowd of his peers.  I'll even pick a fight and say that Coppola is far and away the better director.


I have to give you that.  It was creepier and better, because the book was so horrible there wasn't anyplace else to go but up.  Stephen King is/was capable of so much better.  Nicholson and Duvall turned in stellar performances in the film, which was just goldplating the festering dungheap of the script.

King was drunk most of the time he wrote The Shining. I still liked it.

Coppola is a goddamn hack, and a much better winemaker than a filmmaker. I have grown to fucking hate the Godfather movies not because they are terrible movies, but because they are mediocre movies everyone fellates to death. Nothing in those movies other than Brando's performance in the first stands out to me at all.

Both 2001 and Clockwork Orange are very distance-inducing films. They put the audience either in an uncomfortable position or they are hard to decipher. Clockwork Orange puts the audience in the uncomfortable position of having to watch this complete bastard as the main character do completely horrible things. The rape scene in particular stands out. You don't want to see this shit, and yet the director puts it out there in as stark and naturalistic a way as possible. It makes the ultraviolence of this world so startling because it is so matter-of-factly filmed. He attempted to do the same thing with the orgy scenes in Eyes Wide Shut, except that the scenes were instead drained of all eroticism, and thus all emotion. Maybe that's what he was trying to do. 2001 was off-putting in that it really required patience and attention on the part of the audience to dechiper. It told you almost nothing in dialogue, and everything in visual symbols. It was also dangerously slow, but that is a hallmark of all of his work.

Whereas, Strangelove was less distancing because the characters were somewhat more understandable, as well as having some humorous lines. "Buncha pre-verts" is still one of my favorite lines. Peter Sellers amazing performances didn't hurt either. FMJ got you involved from the very get-go with the fantastic performance of the Sergeant, whose dialogue you can't help but laugh at. Both those movies had outstanding performances that made them much more approachable than the Clockwork or 2001.

Both Clockwork and 2001 are distance-inducing films, but I like those kind of films.  That isn't my objection, though it may be others'.  I simply thought the storytelling was bad, and I didn't like Kubrick's use of the camera in either flick at all.  They didn't flow well, and the imagery in 2001 was all wrong when compared with the books.

In short, I didn't like those films for the same reason I didn't like The Fifth Element, Dungeons & Dragons, or any other crappy sci fi/fantasy:  I just thought they were bad films.  With the caveat, however, that I liked the subject matter in Clockwork immensely, and was disappointed that a better director hadn't got a hold of that project.

And I baited you with Coppola.  You may fishslap me for that.  So I will let that drop :)

Let's not even get into the shitfest that is The Fifth Element.

Random Kubrick thoughts:

The dude wrote and directred Paths of Glory at age 29.  He was no hack.

Even if you can find fault with a couple of his movies, hit batting average was pretty dang high.

Remember that 2001 was made in 1968. It was far ahead of its time technically and has been a part of our collective conceince on a number of levels. 

And I have no idea why you mythologize 2001 the novel which is marginal at best.

Do not diss the genuis that is The Fifth Element. I love that fucking flick, warts and all.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Leeloo Dallas, moooltipass.

Love that movie.  Don't know why.  Just love it though.

I'm glad Haemish stepped up, so I don't have to try defending 5th Element myself. I will give a couple reasons I like it though:

Gorgeous to look at. Loved the vibrant color schemes and sets.
Gary Oldman  - far from his best role (which was Romeo is Bleeding), but its still Oldman
Milla's bod in skimpy clothing (probably why I liked Resident Evil as well)
Brion James - he actually gets lines! Probably more than in Bladerunner and Cabinboy combined!

There, that stuff above should give people plenty of stuff to use to derail this thread even further.

Put me in the enjoyed 5th Element catagory as well.

That and the Tom Cruise movie about the time cops are the only things resembling sci fi my gf will even sort of tolerate.  But frankly I watch movies just because I've got 2hours to kill and I want to be entertained.  I really couldn't give much of a fuck beyond that, when I want to learn about a facet of the human condition I'll read a book thanks.

I can't continue to be around you people. I have no respect for any of you.

What he said...

5th Element had big guns, spolsions, Milla in almost all her beauty, Chris Tucker before I ever knew who he was, Gary Oldman with a bad toupee, Tiny as President, Ian Holm as a monk, and was a living, breathing Moebius drawing. How could you not love it, in all its cheesy, Heavy Metal glory?

I didn't try to go too deep with that one. I just enjoyed it for the grimy, greasy, visceral thrill ride it was.

Ditto.  And I had such respect for Haemish after his Cat Woman review, despite his odd love for certain Kubrick flicks.

But seriously, the reason I hated The Fifth Elephant is the director's very French style.  That cultural sensibility played very well in other films like Amelie and even La Femme Nikita, but not well in a film that purportedly dealt with the human view of gods and demons.  There were so many silly, quirky moments that just broke the fiction for me.  Also, Chris Tucker made me want to strangle puppies.  His voice was on par with Fran Drescher's.

By the by, do we get some kind of award for Most Derailed Thread?

I gotta go with Schild on this one.  I recently re-read the book and it got a big "meh" from me.  I also skipped most of his digressions, because they were more boring and stupid than ST:TNG technobabble.

Go back and re-read some of their stuff, then say that.

Edit: Full Metal Jacket is one of the most overrated movies of all time. I am not a big fan of Kubrick but some of his stuff is quite good, and Clockwork Orange is certainly up there.

FMJ has a bunch of quotable lines but the characters are stupidly over the top, to the point of sabotaging any satire or greater meaning, and the second half on the movie is almost totally divorced from the first. By the time you reach the end what should be horrifying is just silly given what transpired in the first half of the movie.

One of my pet peeves are movies and books that try to have their cake and eat it too. (A common example of that is a movie that is supposed to have a strong female lead but also includes needless nudity to please the fellows) At some point having an amusing drill sargeant got in the way of having a good movie. FMJ is amusing but really very low-brow and uninspired. The entire thing can be distilled into a half-dozen one-liners. There's no substance. It's not even shocking, it's just silly.

Edit 2: I read Interview with the Vampire and thought it was really cool, then I read Vampire Lestat and thought it was awful. I think part of it was that I could tell Rice was entering the dreaded never-ending series mode of writing. Tune in next time! Maybe my tastes also changed. It's hard for me to think of another time I've read consecutive books in a series and had almost exact opposite opinions of them.

"Death Gate Cycle" started out very well but it fell flat in the last two books.

I'd rather read Anne Rice. And that isn't sayin' much.

I gotta go with schild on this one.  Weis and Hickman are good writers.  Dragonlance was "meh", but then every writer I can think of that I enjoy has also done "meh" books.  However, Dragonlance wasn't a bad series of books, merely simplistic and one-dimensional.  You know, for kids.  I can think of far worse books.

The Fifth Elements is perfectly enjoyable if you watch it with the idea in mind that it is essentially live-action anime.

Oh, and Margalis is right -- Weis and Hickman are terrible.  The sf and fantasy circles are very lenient on female authors, and allow them to produce schlock at far lower quality than their male counterparts, and all the while praise them for it.  Anyone who has heard Harlan Elliison's rant on this topic knows how I feel.

Bruce

Tracy Hickman is a man, man.

Hmm...I'd have to say that's even more of a reason to hate it.

edit: Haemish almost had me with the Milla love...But you just turned me back in the right direction.

Thanks!

Oh god, you did not ... !

I have read his rant(s), and I think he's full of it.  Harlan Ellison is an arrogant prick and an inferior writer who believes himself to be some sort of Sci Fi Shakespeare.  If the sci fi circles are lenient on anyone, it's this kind of effete snob whose won way too many awards he didn't deserve.  He's involved in more ridiculous copyright litigation than any writer I've ever heard of, as if anyone would bother copying his writing for anything other than a parody.  I could write better stories using my cat's fecal matter and a blowtorch than Ellison could.

You people act like every movie needs to be freaking Citizen Kane.

And Full Metal Jacket is a great, great movie.   Saying that is about "one-liners" misses the point. It is about how the human mind has to not only accept absurdity, but to actively seeks out and create it in order to deal with the absurdity of war or risk insanity.  The two halves are critical to each other as the first is about how the preparation for war attempts to dehumanize and deindividualize aperson and the second is how a person them attempts to maintain that identity and humanity in the the face of the worst possible environment. One of the best war films ever made and Kubrick was one of the best war filmakers ever, mostly because he had gone through it personally.

Yes, and Margaret Weis is a woman.  So are many of felllow authors she helped get published.

Bruce

Yes, I'm sure you beleive that, but you're an idiot.

Bruce

City on the Edge of Forever is pretty good, but other than that, meh.

BTW, the Sci-Fi Dune miniseries is on tonight.

Harlan's strength is in his short stories and his non-fiction.  ""Repent, Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman" is his classic work, and his Twilight Zone episodes "Soldier" and "Demon With a Glass Hand" are classics (and were also arguably ripped off by James Cameron in The Terminator).  One of my personal favorites is "True Love", one of the best short stories about love ever written.  His essays such as "The Three Most Important Things In Life" and the one who wrote about the Voyager probe at Saturn (I forgot the title) are essential reading.  If you can get it, find his collection of non-fiction columns called "Blood On My Typewriter".  Hell, I love reading his wild-eyed leftist rants and I don't even agree with them half the time.

Bruce

And he's not very good at either one.  The man is an editor, for cripes' sake.

Most of his work in the TV arena is, in his own words, hacked up and butchered prior to making it on the screen.  Notable in that regard is City on the Edge of Forever.  Yeah, well, I say that (1) behind the scenes, real editors got a hold of his work and saved it from being realized as the Uwe Boll-hack job that it was, and (2) Ellison is just that arrogant to believe that he can write when he is, after all, an editor without any talent beyond being able to spot typos.

As an evidence of the wonkiness of the sci fi fanbois, exhibit A is his last Hugo award. (http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Hugo1986.html#nvt)  Notice who he was up against:  "The Fringe" by Orson Scott Card and "Dogfight" by Gibson and Swanwick.  Holy poop on a stick, how can any honest reader read those two works and truly believe them to be inferior to Ellison's absolutely fetid "Paladin of the Lost Hour"?!  I'll tell you how:  The Hugo Award people are screwed up, and Ellison gets the leniency he claims other writers (females) get.  Damn prick.

I have read everything by Ellison that I know of, and I own his 35-year anthology.  So while I may make this statement in idiocy, I do not make it in ignorance:  Ellison sucks.

He's a family friend. I had lunch with him a couple times in California. Nice guy. Still does lectures and stuff at UCLA. When I go out to Cali every once in a while I see if he's in town.

Abagadro, considering how alike our taste is, I'm surprised you get pissy with my guilty pleasures.

The Fifth Element contains the greatest dvd sound/visual test on the market. (Yes, the opera sequence). It's better than the pod race scene, better than well, shit, anything. The high notes that I believe were sung by Danielle de Niese (who also did Vide Cor Meum, iirc on the Hannibal soundtrack) test the shit out of your speakers. Milla's red hair is great for bleeding.

Basically - the movie is a visual and auditory orgy. That said, it's one of the better sci-fi films ever made, considering at the very least 90% of sci-fi is horrible campy shit that refuses to take itself seriously.

I honestly don't remember criticizing anything you liked all the much as I do see our tastes being similar. Most of the time I defend stuff from what I think is unwarranted criticism.

Uh...are we talking about the Kubrick that has been dead for several years or did I miss something important?

Anyway FMJ is not a terrible film, or a bad film, but I do think it is terribly overrated. I know what the movie is supposed to be about, blah blah blah, I just don't think it pulls it off very well. The main thing people take away from the film is that the drill sargeant is funny. (Although I got sick of him after the first 5 minutes) Miracle-ing your ass over and all that.

Hickman and Weiss are just terrible. I can't compare them to other D&D novel authors, but I can compare them to other authors. I think it probably takes a certain type of hack to begin with to make a living off of D&D books.

I completely had a brain far when I made the post. I was talking about the producer on Lolita and Paths of Glory. Ignore me, I'm irrational right now. And completely unpredictable.

Well they did basically invent the genre.

I think they are very good authors of juvenile fiction and don't make much pretense that they write anything else.  BTW, Hickman is local here in Utah and I've talked to him a couple of times. Very nice guy.  

L.E. Modisette also lives around here and constantly has book signings, but I've never made it to one despite being a big fan.

Sounds to me like "New Wave" SF just isn't to your taste.  Perhaps you prefer the hard stuff?  If so, that's fine, but don't knock Ellison for appealing to a different audience.

Bruce

Full Metal Jacket is the most accurate depiction of Marine Corps Boot camp that I have ever seen.  The second half of the movie didn't make much sense to me until after serving in the Gulf War.  Now, I get it. 

FYI, the drill instructor wasn't funny at all.  That is how you are trained and it is not funny at the time.  Most Marines that I know have identical boot camp memories that contain most of the elements of the movie. 

Great movie.

I was just about to make this exact point (only I served in the Army not Marines).  Some friends of mine who had already gone through, when I was getting ready to ship out lo these 15 years ago, showed me the film and said "THIS is what you can expect".  And sure enough, I've never seen a better depiction.

The bad thing is that the DI's ARE funny when you are there.  The thing is, if you laugh or even crack a smile, you will regret the shit out of it.

Fifth Element is fun and a hoot. Except for Chris Tucker. He needed to be told to take it down about ten notches.

I think somebody already told him.....Haven't seem him for awhile now.

Jesus, now he's deriding my favourite French director...

Ooooh!  Another Wodehouse geek!  Pound for pound, the only humor writer better was Mark Twain.  I am duly impressed, sir.

I'm not sure if it was the "series-writing" mode that caused it, or the fact that Lestat is really just a completely uninteresting character to me that makes me agree with you. I fucking HATED Lestat, in all the books. I wanted to read more about Louis, because he was interesting. Lestat was just "see how fucked up I can make my existence by my immaturity, petulence and arrogance."

But I got outweighed by the angsty goth fags.

EDIT: To get to other parts of the thread.

Ellison is a bitter, twisted hack better left in the mountains somewhere growing a Unabomber beard and never being heard from again.

I thought Tucker was funny as fuck in the Fifth Element, but I can see how others would find him annoying.

A lot of that is done to try to amuse and one up each other.  It's also great for rattling people; when a private first gets there he has no idea what to expect, he's already on edge.  Then he's assaulted by this dude in uber-starched BDU's screaming inches from his face, but at the same time tossing off one liners.  People aren't used to humor being mixed with terror, so it throws 'em for a loop.

There are also the punishments we come up with.  My personal favorite is if I catch someone using dip or somehow managing to get ahold of a cigarette (usually if a relative comes to visit on a Sunday), they become my cigar store indian.  After dinner chowtime you can expect to do all the cleaning, buffing etc, take care of your personal hygiene, and then you'll be sitting indian-style by the front door to the bay and you'll be required to raise your right hand and say "How." to anyone entering.  You'll be relieved at 23:00 by the fire guard.  With a wakeup of 4:30, your stamina goes to shit, and I usually keep this up for two weeks.  Once I get one guy with this (and I always get at least one) the message goes out that the tobacco jones is easier to put up with than two weeks of being a zombie while getting your ass PTed into the ground and being screamed at.

Every drill has their own unique style, but originality is fairly important.  You want to project the image that not only are you a hardass, but also that you're somewhat unstable.  Of course, we tend to ease up around 2 weeks before graduation.  At that point you're not breaking down anyone anymore.  It's a gradual thing.  The first couple of weeks we are supposed to terrify you and get it into your head that you are no longer your own person, you belong to the US Army.  The middle period is where the bulk of the teaching comes in, and the last couple of weeks are when we ease up.  Of course, that's why we usually have a week or so off between every cycle of privates, because it's not easy switching modes at the drop of a hat like that.  We need to reacclimate ourselves too.

I wasn't deriding him.  I like Luc Besson's other films.  I think he is both a talented writer and director.  In fact, other than The Fifth Element, I can't think of a Besson film that I didn't like.  As I said before, I just didn't think his cultural sensibilities played very well that particular movie.

Also don't forget, it's not an adaptation of the novel--Clarke wrote the book concurrently with the movie screenplay.

I thought he might live in Utah, considering the bad guys in "The Parafaith War" are more-or-less "Mormons In Space".

I like his books a lot, he's one of those few authors that makes me think, even when it's to disagree with him.  Have to take a break between his books though; his characters tend to be pretty similar to each other and it gets old if I overdo the reading.

Now, Ellison?  I'd like to lock him in a room with nothing but a sign that says "Being misunderstood does NOT make you an artist."

Very true, and point well taken.  However, Arthur C. Clarke is a much better writer than Kubrick is a director.  That's why I liked the novels better.

And, just to keep it straight:  I never said Kubrick was a hack, or that he was a bad director.  Three of his films are some of my most adored pieces of cinema (my enjoyment of Spartacus possibly indicating latent homosexual tendencies, but I digress ...).  I just think Kubrick isn't that far above average, and I don't get why so many accolades are heaped on him when he isn't the best director among his peers, who include such giants as David Lean (The Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia, et al), about whom you hear almost nothing.  Ergo, I consider him to be overrated, not untalented.  Kubrick just seems to have better press, but more popular != more talented.

My opinion is likely colored by my belief that Clark is overated as a writer.  That whole series was very "meh" with me. I think he has cool ideas and stories, but doesn't put them down very well.

I agree completely with that.

Perfect example: Childhood's End (http://www.forum2.org/tal/books/childhood.html).  I first read it around age 11 and it had a profound impact on my worldview.  When I read it again in my early twenties the ideas couldn't captivate me enough to ignore the writing style.  I have that same sensation a lot when I read some of Zelazney's filler - fortunately he has masterworks like Lord Of Light which each time I finish feels like I just polished off a quality epic novel rather than an oversized short story.

I don't think wmovies like 2001 can be widely-circulated now and still have strong impact on the culture.  I don't think audiences today still savor suspense and arching plot development.  People now like to go almost immediately from plot conundrum to resolution.  "Internet generation" is just another way of saying people have shorter attention spans now and get restless pretty quickly.

You and I have had this discussion before.  Wodehouse is great.

The TV adaptations actually worked wonderfully too.

Entirely agree.  I *loved* Interview.  I didn't like the rest, and the series seemed to get worse as it went along.  Body Snatcher was the last I've read, although I've 'read' a couple of the Merrick books on CD.  From a character POV, I liked Louis a lot more.  He felt a lot more believable, compared to Lestat who was just a heidonist with supernatural powers.  Very thin.

I have tried no less than 4 times to get through The Vampire Lestat. Eventually I get so bored I have to quit. It is really a dreadful book.

I agree. I enjoyed "Interview with the Vampire" but Lestat was terrible. My wife said the series gets better, but I don't feel like putting myself through that. I have enough grudgereading to do with Robert Jordan every couple years.

I enjoyed the first trilogy. Out of the first 3 books I found interview to be the hardest to get through. Louis was so whiney I kept wanting to smash his face in. Hell, the only character I liked in that book was Claudia.

Heh. That is really what is has come down to, isn't it?

Ain't that the truth.  Jordan's seminal series started off so strong, and then ... bombed.

Here's a clue Mr. Jordan:  Move the story along with each book instead of retelling the same damn story from a different character's perspective.  Finish Wheel of Time and move on already.

He never resolved any threads, just kept adding more. And more. And more.

People keep buying his books, so why stop?

Because no one is ENJOYING the books. They buy them and read them because after 5 books you just keep buying in the silly hope that it'll end. It's the perfect example of grudgereading.

I loved some of the characters in those books, then he started focusing more and more on the Aes Sedai and their split, and all the petty bickering. I finally got to the point where I skipped chapters that had anything to do with Egwene, Nynaeve, or any of the others and only read about Rand, Matt (he's my boy), Perrin, and the bad guys.

The books became fun again. Though it bothers me. I've never done that before. I read a book cover to cover or not at all. This feels like cheating. Almost like I'm using scene select to watch only the best parts of a movie on DvD.

People enjoy them enough to keep buying them, despite what you may think, so again - why stop?  It puts a check in his pocket, and face it - this is a job, and he's making damn good money.  It's like on the extreme end, you have people like William Hung.  It obviously works, there's money to be made, so why not?  Your fault is in thinking your (personal) definition of good is what artists should aim for.  Mostly, they aim to make it big (aka, get rich).  If I could spend minimum effort to rake in millions, I'd do it in a heartbeat, and you sure as hell would too.  If there was any hollow feeling of "man, would be nice to produce something of substance" after the fact, then go back and make that AFTER the royalties have rolled in.  Not strangely, that's what a number of artists do.

I can sum up everything you missed-

Nynaeve tugged on her braid and acted like a bitch.
Elayne sniffed and acted like an entitled bitch.
Egwene crossed her arms beneath her breasts and acted like a bitch.

You forgot the dialogue.

"Men are so woolheaded."

Yes, that's for all chapters and all 3 characters.

And Birgitte got bonded to Elayne in a sideplot that had vaguely lesbian-ish overtones.

If the books suck stop buying them, problem solved. I've read a couple of Conan books by Robert Jordan and they were dreadful. If the guy real talent it isn't apparent.

Edit: Real talent other than making money that is.

The guy has writing talent.  That comes through in the first Wheel of Time book, and in his Conan anthology.  He's just lazy.  He develops the world and his characters well to a point, and then just .... stops.  His first Conan story began with great dialogue and an elegantly built storyline around our favorite barbarian's origin that he turns to shit with boobs and swords about halfway through.  Maybe that's about the time he ran out of money and needed to get the thing published.

Maybe he has the same inability to actually finish a book series storyline that afflicts Orson Scott Card and Piers Anthony?

All bow down before the might that is Zelazny's Amber anyway. I was happy the prequel trilogy Dawn of Amber used the same technique as the two quintlogies (entire story from single character's perspective).

The first few books of the wheel of time series were not bad. They were not great either but I have seen worse and it has some interesting ideas. The problem is somewhere down the line Robert Jordan must have lost all of his editors in some freak accident because any good editor should redmark about 800 pages of his last 3 books and told him to either cut them out or rewrite them.

Any actual changes or advancements in the story usually come in the space of about 50 to 100 pages spread across 1000 or so pages of whiney bitchs tugging their hair and descriptions of their cloths.

If robert jordan had a good editor who could red pen him into tightening his work up and getting to a point they would probably be readable.

kaid

Oh I forgot to mention the one thing that really boggles my mind about the Wheel of Time books. The whole concept of the wheel of time gives Robert Jordan all the space he needs to spin an infinite number of series on different turns of the wheel. There was never any need for this never ending eye gouging dead horse beating series to get dragged out to this extant.


kaid

EXACTLY.  Pure genius.

Add George RR Martin to that list, but not because I don't enjoy his works, he just WONT RELEASE THE FUCKERS!  When the hell is the current release date for Feast for Crows anyway?  Or has he renamed book 4 by now?  Wasn't it due like 2 years ago?

Oh, and I never read any Robert Jordan.  Instead I will just defer my commentary into a concise "What Kaid said."

I starting reading Game of Thrones and am hoping he gets Feast for Crows out this year, but his website still says:

He'll die before he finishes the climax chapter. Mass geek suicides will occur.

what I want is a phantom edit for the wheel of time.

give me the thief, the wolfboy with the axe, and mr. woolheaded lummox himself, and thats it. 


My conspiracy theory is that Jordan had either a horrific divorce or just hasn't come out of the closet yet.  Never have I seen an author paint nearly every female character in his books as annoying as he has.

I bet his wife made him do it.

Bold for emphasis. This is EXACTALLY the problem with robert jordan they skip the whole editing process which means his books are bloated meandering piles of scholck.


kaid

EDIT - Nothing to see here. Move along. Didn't see that review was already posted on page 1

Heh, didn't I already post that on page one (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=2686.msg72073#msg72073)? A 5 page fight ensued soon after -- Do we really need another one?  :lol:

crap. I didn't see it.  :cry:

Sorry.

I saw it this afternoon.  It was well put together, casting was good and had some very amusing parts with some good "Adams" moments. they jerked with the plot alot, unecessarily expanded certain aspects and rushed some parts.  I'm still thinking it over, but I would give it a marginal thumbs up. My wife has never read the book and didn't like it much.

So in the rush to create new fans they lost the old ones?

Adams' humor is sublime.  I don't expect the Tarantino fans of the world to enjoy it.  Not enough tenderizer mallet (http://www.blackamericanwest.org/westerntrails/object1/pages/dia_0065.html) for them.

I saw it last night and thought it was pretty good.  Nothing got cut out that I missed all that much (with the sole exception of a Guide entry discussing the uses of a towel, though Ford smacking Vogons with it was classic), and I liked most of the bits that got added, the POV gun especially.

There actually was a tenderizer mallet scene, which tickled me greatly.

Some of the changes/additions didn't make much sense to me, and I didn't really like Zaphod at first (he butchered the line, 'If there's anything bigger than my ego on this ship I want it tracked down and shot'  [or however it goes], and that pissed me off).  Still, it was good.  Could have been better, but since I think it would be difficult to make a good movie out of the book, I was fairly happy overall.

I blame the director for that one..

I know we're already off the Robert Jordan hook, but thought I'd pitch in this annoying tidbit...


Check out how many times he uses the word "dryly" in a chapter. Someone pitch that dude a thesaurus. And no, thats not a giant extinct lizard.

A lot of people here frighten and confuse me with their reading habits.  If these authors and their serials are so damn mediocre, why continue reading them?

As for the actual topic, Hitchhiker's was fun, and Zooey Daschanel is still so cute it's probably a crime.

Haven't seen HG2G yet, but yes. This is a true statement. As is the one quoted.

My favorite part was the little flash animations. Very funny. And of course, Mos Def and Sam Rockwell can do no wrong.

Saw it, enjoyed it, felt it was mostly harmless.

I even enjoyed the opening part, which probably left some people in the theater going, "WTF?"

Mild spoil:
Dolphin Broadway Sendup for the win...don't ask me why it was so bad it was good.

If you haven't seen it, stay thru the credits.  Trust me.

If you have and didn't, well, it was neat.

On the whole I think it was good, but I also think that having read the books a bunch of times in my life helped.  I couldn't imagine how someone like my fiancee's sister (who is not an avid reader and hasn't read the books) would get it.  She decided to opt out on it, so it was ftw for everyone.

I'm almost hoping they'll do Restaurant at the End of the Universe next.  But I also still believe that sequels can't be all bad.  Unless, of course, you're Ice Cube (http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/01/box.office.ap/index.html).

I really want to see a film version of the thing that Arthur keeps killing.  That alone would make a sequel worth watching.

Indeed (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=3083.0).

Rottentomatoes gives HGTG a 62%, which sounds about right.  I never found myself interested in what was going on.

Worth watching on HBO, but not really worth going to the movies to see.  Unless you're a big fan of the books or something, I'd pass until it hits cable.

Heh, well I don't really read Useless News all that much.

That's ok, your article made Bruer look even more riduclous.

For that, I salute you.