Just saw the film on TV last night.

WTF has that got to do with The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy from Douglas Adams?

Okay, the main characters had the same names. But all the good dialogue was ripped out, the characters bore little resemblance to their originals (why had Zaphod one head UNDER the other? ). What the heck happened to Marvin? Did he shrink in the wash?

I know films usually get changed from the original material, and they usually lose out during the process, but they have done more of a hack job on this than they did with Harry Potter!

I was rather baffled when I saw teh film I must admit. Not the best translation of a book to film ever I feel.

This is something I find rather entertaining, as a lot of people panned it for not being as good as the books. Now, given the nature of the books, it would be well nigh impossible to convey the depth of humour that Douglas Adams created in them. However, what a surprisingly large number of people don't seem to know is that this wasn't a Holywood rip off of any description. The screenplay was written by Douglas himself, it wasn't someone else trying to adapt HHGTTG to screen.

Truly shocked

+1

That makes it even more disappointing. Having gone through the Radio Plays, the TV series and the books, all of which had minor inconsistencies, but generally followed the same story, to have an 80% different story passed off as the same thing was disappointing...

It was partly written by Adams. he didn’t finish it, so someone else did. The problem with the film is that it included a few extra new bits which were not in the radio plays, books or TV series. The radio plays vary wildly from the TV series, and the books again differ. So we have to expect each telling of the story to differ from the previous one.

That said, I wasn’t that impressed by the film either. There was way too much filler material - all the eco stuff towards the end is an example. I felt that the film was being unnaturally extended because of all of that. It was, sadly, a sickly addition to the stable. The BBC did a far better job in the TV series. I recommend you go and watch that now.

I liked the film..

I liked the book.

But in my mind, thinking of them as separate pieces of entertainment which just happen to have similar plots is much better.

I think, if you've seen the TV series, you've been spoilt and the film really falls down. Zaphod's second head was much more believable in the TV series, even it it was animatronic.

I think the TV cast was also vastly superior.

With a few exceptions, the TV cast and the radio cast were much the same. From memory, Ford Prefect and Trillian were played by different actors, though both Susan Sheridan AND Sandra Dickinson appeared in the more recent radio plays as varying versions of Trillian.

You also have to hand it to the BBC for making a second head for Mark Wing Davey out of a radio controlled helicopter. For the time, this was expensive, but clearly bold prop building, and even though it looks ropey now, to the 13 year old watching at the time, it was fantastic. Also remember that all those computer based animations which the BBC produced were hand drawn and animated on cells.

I had the original radio plays and the LP version on tape for years, they were excellent. I also have the thick all-in-one book. I also had the VHS version of the TV series. But I won't be adding the DVD of the film to my collection.