Hitchhiker's Guide Trailer

[MrHat]

Here.

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.

[schild]

Seems to be a new trailer since the last time we talked about it.

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.

[stray]

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).

[SirBruce]

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

[eldaec]

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 or the Tv Show. 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.

[Toast]

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.

[WayAbvPar]

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...

[Riggswolfe]

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

[schild]

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.

[AcidCat]

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...

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.

[Samwise]

"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...

[SirBruce]

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

[WayAbvPar]

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.

[schild]

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.

[eldaec]

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. 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.

[Sky]

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

Nah, you have great taste.

If you lived in Tokyo.

[stray]

Hmm, first review is out:

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

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

/shrug

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

[schild]

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.

[Hanzii]

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)

[schild]

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.

[Riggswolfe]

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.

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.

[stray]

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.

[Hanzii]

This:

The books are fun, silly and smart,

Isn't really the same as this:

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

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.

[schild]

faltly stating that he's an overrated hack whit no lasting value is frankly stupid.

Show me where that was said. Please.

[Riggswolfe]

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.

[Litigator]

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. 

[schild]

lose Adams's linguistic flourishes and non-sequiter digressions, I'm not sure what you are left with. Probably "Galaxy Quest."

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.

[MaceVanHoffen]

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.

[Litigator]

lose Adams's linguistic flourishes and non-sequiter digressions, I'm not sure what you are left with. Probably "Galaxy Quest."

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.

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

[schild]

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.

[Trippy]

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.

[schild]

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.

[Ironwood]

Put simply, our taste in humor has outgrown mediocre british swaggering.

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

[Roac]

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

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. 

[Jayce]

People just like to say that. I've personally never met one American who didn't like something because it was "British" humor.

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.