The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
discussion
How is the book different from the film
message 1:
by
Mark
(new)
Oct 01, 2009 09:11AM
I've just watched the hitchikers film (a little late, I'll admit - it was out years ago) and have to admit I've never touched the book. Will i find much that's different?
reply
|
flag
Yes, it will be a lot more fun, as the text is filled with humour and jokes, unlike the movie which was rather dull in comparison.
The book is funny, the theatrical release film merely odd. There is a cameo by the REAL Marvin, just to see if actual fans were paying attention.If you have to "watch" instead of read, go for the BBC series, or better still, the radio plays. They have the exact flavor of the book.
I agree, Stormhawk. While I have enjoyed reading the book many times, the movie was one I don't want to re-watch. I've tried, and just don't like it. It was interesting to watch it the first time, just to see the way they showed the things from the book. But it isn't nearly as enjoyable. There is a subtle sense of humour that really did not show through in the movie. I haven't seen the older BBC versions, though.
Mark wrote: "I've just watched the hitchikers film (a little late, I'll admit - it was out years ago) and have to admit I've never touched the book. Will i find much that's different?"The book is far better. I can't imagine Adams being very pleased. The movie seemed to miss the whole heart and soul of the novel. The movie took us on an adventure, but the book was less random and far less pointless. Also, much of the original zany humor was lost in the movie.
The books are very different and I read them all first. The first time I saw the movie I hated it, but then I watched it a second time and very much enjoyed it (maybe it's the catchy "So Long and Thanks for all the Fish" song.) They are 2 different entities (movie vs books) and there is much in the movie that reflects Mr. Adams zaniness. I disagree that he would not be pleased.
The book is different from the film in that the book is funny.
Vince stole my thunder. The book is good, the movie isn't. That's the biggest difference.
HGttG has been released in just about every median possible. And each version has been different. I didn't care much for the movie and, couldn't help but wonder how it might have turned out of Adams was alive for it's entire production.
I'm not a huge fan of the film but douglas adams did actually write the screenplay, he just had to write it for a film audience who need a happy ending and don't generally like loose ends and need to see the guy get the girl!
Yes, that bit always made me wonder. Douglas writing a screenplay out of his hilarious radio play & books that turned out _not_ to be funny. Should have been an impossibility...
I honestly didn't mind the movie. It wasn't as funny as the books of course, but I still enjoyed the movie. And I loved that Alan Rickman was Marvin
Lisa wrote: "I honestly didn't mind the movie. It wasn't as funny as the books of course, but I still enjoyed the movie. And I loved that Alan Rickman was the Marvin"I definitely agree that he was the absolute best choice for Marvin's voice!!
the movie and book are both great but i tend to like books more because you see what the characters are truly thinking and feeling, and because nothing gets taken out. the movie was good and the book was AWESOME!
I didn't like the movie at all. I agree that Alan Rickman was the perfect voice for Marvin, but visually I hated Marvin. I grew up with the brilliant books and the BBC series where Ford Prefect was perfectly cast and Marvin actually looked as pathetic as he sounded.
The book is always different (in most cases) and in this case oh yes, but the movie passed the spirit and the feel of the book and that is a BIG deal :)Still, the book is always better than the movie.
Have fun ready!
HOW THE BOOK WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE FILM!!Book good!
Film sucked!
I agree that teh BBC series is closer to the heart of teh book. What I missed the most and what gave the most humor to the books were the Hitchhiker entries.
the difference is that the movie wont make you spew soda through your nose if you happen to be drinking as you watch, whereas the book def will!
Eliza wrote: "the difference is that the movie wont make you spew soda through your nose if you happen to be drinking as you watch, whereas the book def will!"Also the book will make you look ridiculous in public as you laugh out loud on public transport or during your lunch break
Eliza wrote: "the difference is that the movie wont make you spew soda through your nose if you happen to be drinking as you watch, whereas the book def will!"Love it. Makes me wish that Good Reads had a "Like" button. :^D
Eliza wrote: "the difference is that the movie wont make you spew soda through your nose if you happen to be drinking as you watch, whereas the book def will!"And that is why you should never read Douglas Adams in public! Seriously, do the book and if you can, follow it up with the BBC series. Forget about the movie...it was crap!
LOL! yeah my students always looked at me like I had a screw loose, demanding to borrow the book to see what was so funny :) led to a lot of kids reading, which is always a great thing!
Like most people here I would say the main difference is that the book is excellent and the film is rubbish
Wow, I might be risking getting flogged in this group, haha (that's nervous laughter there folks)I have to say that I really enjoyed the film, though it is definitely its own story. Really, though, I didn't expect it to be the book. Hollywood doesn't do that.
One thing the movie got right was the squished Vogon noses! :D
One thing that helped me enjoy the movie more than I did at first was to learn that each time the fiction was adapted: radio play, BBC, stage, video game, book, etc Adams changed the story in some way. So if you aren't looking for it to be 100% faithful it's a little better. However, I still think that what makes H2G2 the best is something that can never be properly translated to film - the narration and the guide entries.
If you can find the old Radio Plays it would be well worth your time/investment. They are the precursors to the books and though slightly different, every bit as funny as the books, and certainly much different (and in my opinion, better, than the movie.)
I think it was a good transfer, but there is always more in the text. Two different worlds if you ask me.
Have to agree with most on the board. The funniest book I've ever read but one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Go with the BBC series. My daughter loved the books and the movie but can't get into the BBC series, so there is a matter of personal preference.
I read the book a while ago, and after the movie, but there are many elements that are explained more fully. I would definitely read the book because it is just as amusing as the movie was:D
Showing my age here, I have read the books and listened to them on LP records (flat shiny black things with grooves on them: work a bit like CDs but much touchier) and watched the TV series and seen the movie. Definitely the TV series and the books are much better than the movie. I think you can get DVDs of the series.....
And I'm pretty sure the Radio series (from which the LP's were made)came first, then the TV series and further books. Finally the movie, so far from the original, and catering to a Hollywood audience, that it's no wonder it was second rate. The books, the TV series were brilliant. One of my favourite Douglas Adams quotes: "The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss" (well, that was Arthur Dent, really). What a loss his passing was!
I remember reading Douglas Qdams books years ago. I still think of them fondly. I guess it is time to dig them out of a box and read them again. Now, which box could they be in?
Sandybeach wrote: "I didn't like the movie at all. I agree that Alan Rickman was the perfect voice for Marvin, but visually I hated Marvin. I grew up with the brilliant books and the BBC series where Ford Prefect w..."In general the series had a perfect cast and feel to it. The movie is most of the time far too polished to be funny.
This is one of my all-time favourite series of books, but I don’t think the film deserves the panning it seems to be getting here.To be honest it was pretty much as I expected, and yes I did go to see in at the cinema on release!
The BBC TV series (I have the original VHS) is better though. I haven’t listened to the radio play, so can’t pass comment on that.
Obviously the books are better. They are books that are very much about the words, as opposed to action… if you know what I mean. So it was never going to translate to film very easily!
I can't even begin to tell you how much better the book is. It is a masterpiece of Brit humor. The movie made me wish I never saw it now knowing that so many people will think it is anything like the book. read it and you will be glad you did.
I love the book but I really enjoyed the film too.
Have to agree with most of what has been previously said. I saw the BBC series on PBS and actually taped it, trying to remember if I still have it or not. Only positive thing I can say about the movie is they did an awesome job of casting Alan Rickman as Marvin. I couldn't have thought of anyone better to play him
The book is much better than the movie.
The detials in the book makes it top choice. The movie was okay but the book was AMAZING. I would go as far as to say never watch the movie, just read the book.
I have enjoyed HHGTTG in pretty much every form I have encountered it, and I'm old enough to have started with the original radio broadcasts in 1978... From tv series to text adventure game, to LP records, to books, to stageshow, to film and beyond, every incarnation has brought something new to it. None of them are "perfect" - although the original radio shows are damn close - but none of them are terrible either. (Heck, at least the movie has characters and a plot which is more than can be said for Transformers...)
The film and book are different in many ways, the most salient of which is that the book is awesome and the film is terrible.
I love the book, it's one of my favorites, if not my absolute favorite. But I actually really enjoyed the film unlike most of the people here. Douglas Adams wrote the screenplay, and he's had his hands in every form that the story has been released. They are all different, this isn't like Harry Potter where they're trying to stay true to the books and letting people down... this is what he envisioned it to be.
Looking through these answers all the answers are there! The book is different to the radio series which is different from the TV series etc etc - I love the original radio series and the tv Marvin!
The BBC radio plays were better than any of the screen adaptations though they have some of the same cast members as the TV version. They do keep the same flavor as the book! In the Tertiary Phase (Life the Universe and Everything, I think)Douglas Adams plays agrajag! It's worth getting the collection just to hear this one.
I think the movie did the best it could with the time allotment it had, and I think it gets to some of the high points of the book without distorting it too terribly much. I rather thought that it held the lighthearted feel of Adams's book quite well. But yes, the book is far, far better. And from what I understand, Adams was actually in on the very early incarnations of this film before he died. I think it's the commentary on the film, actually, where I heard them talking about how they'd thrown around early structures for the film with Adams before he died.
And perhaps "So Long and Thanks for All the Fish" has something to do with my love for the movie. Not entirely sure about that. It's either that or, "Not again," which had me laughing for about fifteen minutes straight.
This is a very good question! It's important to note that the original Hitchhikers Guide output was the BBC radio program in 1978. The book was released the following year, and the BBC tv series the year after that. Because the book was actually loosely based on the radio show (and not vice versa) I don't really consider reading the book essential to enjoying THHG. If you enjoyed the Hollywood movie I would definitely recommend that you pick up the original BBC series which is superior in just about every way. Honestly the movie was made two decades too late, in the wrong country, taylored to match the humor of a different culture (US instead of UK), with way too much emphasis on the wrong elements, such as special effects.
Gotta agree with Glynn, Christos and SaraBooks and films are entirely different mediums. Apples and Oranges, really. Books get more into them because there's no time limit. People can take as long as they like reading, and the writer can waffle away until his heart is content, or inert.
Films have roughly 90 minutes to 3 hours to get their point across, so inevitably some of the side stories and extra bits that don't move the narrative forward will be cut so the whole will make some sense.
Also, I loved Sam Rockwell and Mos Def. "His hunches are good!" has me in stitches every time.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
