The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
discussion
How is the book different from the film
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
Jason
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Sep 08, 2011 07:21AM
Hmm... where to begin...? I won't give specifics, but the book is definitely funnier, longer, deeper, more important, more unforgettable.
reply
|
flag
Glynn wrote: The first time I saw the movie I hated it, but then I watched it a second time and very much enjoyed it That was my experience as well. I think the think is that the book and the film are very different, so if you're expecting the film to be like the book then you will be disappointed. But if you go back, knowing that the two are very different things, then the film does turn out to be a lot of fun on its own terms.
Douglas Adams even commented about radio programs based on his book and how they should be taken as completely different experiences rather than as adaptations of the book.
Jason wrote: "Douglas Adams even commented about radio programs based on his book and how they should be taken as completely different experiences rather than as adaptations of the book."That's a great way to look at it.
The book is different from the movie in that the book is actually good. I didn't even make it all the way through. That bad.
Totally agree. Radio show or book is best then tv show. Movie hugely disapointing.
I actually liked the movie better than the book. It felt like there was character development in the movie, where there was almost none in the book.
I think I must be missing something. I just could not get into the book. Maybe I'm expecting something out of it that I'm not getting. It just didn't feel cohesive to me. I just felt like random things were happening that were mildly amusing, but that didn't really grab me at all. Maybe I'll try again.
Marko wrote: "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."I agree! They couldn't possibly put all of the stuff from the book into the movie. The books are better, but I did like the movie. A lot of things that were in the movie might make better sense when you read the books(s).
The book and the TV series are quite good, although they aren't identical. But although the story is somewhat different between the book at the TV series, the movie gets the characters wrong. Arthur Dent gets the girl and gives up his little house for a life of adventure? That's not Arthur Dent. Ford and Zaphod just aren't right. Ford seems nearly as out of water as Arthur does, and Zaphod is just over the top silly rather than being the ultimate party animal.
I agree with most of the comments here, i'm old enough to have listened to the Radio Series, watched the BBC TV adaptation, read the books and watched the film. The film wasn't too bad, not one i'd rush to see again. The BBC TV series though was superb, if the film had been closer to that it would have been a winner.The books though are the ultimate.
The Film was wonderfully quircky and was of a visual style that Adams approved. Zaphod's second head was more convincing that that applied to poor Mark Wing-Davies in the TV series. The TV series was a more accurate rendition of the radio series but limited by the technology available (a bit like the sets of Blake's Seven).Like Andrew, I grew up with the radio series and the books, which were the brightest and freshest pieces of comedy writing of their time.
There are so many different versions of this story. The movie, radio, LP (yeah, I am that old), TV, etc. They all have a different flavor. They each add and remove various parts to/from the story. The book, however, is the best of the bunch. It is by far my favorite book series of all time. Douglas Adams had a knack for causing you to frequently do a mental double take while reading. His style has been emulated since, but there truly was only one Douglas Adams.
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?"Yes. just about all of it.
The book and movie are very different. But I found I was more open to the differences in the movie when I found out that it was Douglas Adams who made the changes and not some Hollywood upstart who was tampering with a work of art that wasn't his. That was Adam's thing...every time he did the story in a different medium (Radio>Book>TV Series>Movie) he made it contradict the last version somehow. I think that's cool. The movie, I also think was perfectly cast. Martin Freeman is exactly how I always pictured Arthur Dent.Having said that, I love the book so much more. Adams had a flare for description that just doesn't come through when taken off the printed page. You have to read his words to truly see the picture he's painting and get the scope of his humor.
Although I enjoyed the book more I do feel that the movie caught the spirit of the story. A few extra characters in the movie and there are some extra goings on (I'm assuming to punch it up some, not that it needed it). There is so much that the movie could not convey from the original story because it's absurd explanatory narration and not dialogue. Much like most of my favorite books converted for screen... you can't just have the actor reading lines for their thoughts while you look at their face... or always have a narrator butting in for 10 minutes here and there. It becomes considerably more confusing for most people in video format than in text. I do think the movie could have used some more guide entries as they were well done and more numerous in the book. The way one of my friends put it... all the various ways this has been told (comic, book, movie, TV, and radio) are quite different from each other and all of them are good for their own reasons.
4 words...book good, film m'eh
Douglas Adams is master of words, it's like comparing Skakespeare to Ben Afleck.
I thought the film was a fairly good adaptation. Hollywood has a tendancy to make films nothing like their source material. (Thankfully, it seems these days films are staying truer to the books.) As others have pointed out, films and movies are different media, making it pretty much impossible to do make a movie that is indentical to the book.For the most part, I thought the movie stayed pretty close to the book. I absolutely loved that some of the text of the Guide was quoted directly in the movie (especially the part about the whale.) Yes, there are significant difference. Some material is added and some is pulled from the second book. (The Hitchhiker's Guide is short enough that the first book probably wasn't long enough to make a full a movie, so such additions were necessary.)
Overall, despite the differences (particularly the ending) I felt that the movie stayed true to the spirit and humor of the book. It helped to know that Adams was involved with the movie before his death, which indicates to me that he probably approved of the changes. I dislike it when Hollywood changes things on their own, but I don't mind so much when the author is involved in the process. The story is ultimately the work of the author, therefore it is his story to adapt.
I think I'm the only person who didn't like Marvin in the movie.
L.S. wrote: "I think I'm the only person who didn't like Marvin in the movie."L.S, my boyfriend read the books, and he couldn't stand Marvin! (He enjoyed the stories very much, but he made it clear that Marvin was his least favorite character.)
I liked pretty much every iteration except for the computer game. Is the movie my favorite? No, but it had muppets, Stephen Fry narration and a general aesthetic that pleased me enough that I could overlook the sappy happy ending. Martin Freeman was a bit too exasperated for my taste; which is kinda funny becaue he's played Arthur Dentish characters often. I'm actually just fishing for negative things to say though. I enjoyed it.
Karla wrote: "L.S. wrote: "I think I'm the only person who didn't like Marvin in the movie."L.S, my boyfriend read the books, and he couldn't stand Marvin! (He enjoyed the stories very much, but he made it cle..."
Karla. I think I'm coming at it from the opposite end. Marvin was always my favorite, and I didn't really like the sorta iMarvin from the movie, even with Alan Rickman's voice. He was just nowhere near how I'd pictured him. But maybe I'm just being picky.
I only vaguely recall watching the movie (I was pretty young when it came out), but I do recall it not being super awesome, especially compared to the originals (radio play, book). And yeah, the BBC series is quite good.
But speaking of movies, apparently shortly before Douglas Adams' death, they* were planning a screenplay starring Hugh Laurie as Arthur Dent, which would have been amazing. But alas, tragedy struck.
*I think I read this on Stephen Fry's IMDb. Not entirely sure, though...
I've always loved the opening message to the 'movie' version of the BBC series, which is IMO much more entertaining than the Hollywood movie.A message from Douglas Adams:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kROHbQ...
David wrote: "I've always loved the opening message to the 'movie' version of the BBC series, which is IMO much more entertaining than the Hollywood movie.A message from Douglas Adams:
http://www.youtube.com/..."
This pleases me greatly.
And I see a nod there to Monty Python.
Douglas Adams was friends with the Pythons. He actually appears in an episode of the Flying Circus!
Karla wrote: "Douglas Adams was friends with the Pythons. He actually appears in an episode of the Flying Circus!"I know! It's so wonderful!
The Multiple Murders sketch...or whatever it was called. He was the surgeon. I did a double take when I saw it. :)
The best part of the movie, in my opinion, was the narration. There is, however, no comparison between them; the book was much better.The movie added at least one extra character not in the book, Humma Kavula. He's the crazy cult guy. In the book Zaphod doesn't lose one of his heads, nor does Trillian shoot him with the "point of view" gun. In fact, no one undergoes any serious character development. The characters also don't even stand in a Vogon queue, although that part of the movie was pretty funny. The characters also enter the interior of Magrathea through the hole that the whale made when it hit the ground rather than a portal.(I can understand why they didn't want to put that in the movie, however). Perhaps the worst cut, however, is the scene where the space cop tell Arthur and gang that, "I'm not the kind of guy that shoots people and then goes to bars and brags about it. I'm the kind of guy that shoots people and then agonizes over it for hours with my girlfriend."
There are alot of little differences. Most of the things that were changed or left out were the things that made me love the book. Although the movie does have both Alan Rickman and Zooey, so I can't complain too much.
H2G2 was originally a radio series which Adams adapted into a book and then a TV series and later still a film. The books which weren't based on the radio series were dramatised much later with as much of the original cast as possible given the time difference.Each version is deliberately different and all are fantastic though I've always thought the radio versions were the best. In my opinion the real gem is the second radio series which was never made into a book and seems to take place in a parallel universe at the same time as the third book. It's really funny and often seems to be forgotten.
I think the movie is soo much better than the book. I loveeed the fact that trillian and arthur became a couple,and in the book they didn't also the movie takes less time to watch. There are like five books!
L.S. wrote: "Karla wrote: "L.S. wrote: "I think I'm the only person who didn't like Marvin in the movie."L.S, my boyfriend read the books, and he couldn't stand Marvin! (He enjoyed the stories very much, but ..."
Oh, no, the visual of Marvin in the movie was terrible, I agree!
Marko wrote: "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..."It's merely an improbability.
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!"I watched the book for forty-two minutes, and it didn't do a single thing to make me laugh. So I picked it up and read it, instead.
I had seen the movie and I just started listening to the audiobook. Almost all the jokes and storyline are exactly the same. All these people claiming the book is so much better than the movie must not have watched the movie. I'm almost bored listening because I already know all the jokes word for word.
Back after listening through the first book. There were a few differences and a couple extra laughs but mostly the same as the movie. The story really picks up and gets way more interesting and funny and different from the movie in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
