DVD Review HTF Review: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy... FAN Recommended (1 Viewer)

[Tino]

Actually, I think he meant the ship's computer, since he thought it might have been Alan Rickman.

 

[Kain_C]

And I find it funnier that when someone disagrees with someone else, that someone else suddenly becomes a 'fanboy'. FYI, I decried the movie because it was terrible, NOT necessarily because it deviated from the book, which incidently, it did.

 

[Yumbo]

I meant, was it the main guy and his brain or something else?

 

[JohnTRU]

Way to go, good for you - all that stuff. I don't care if you didn't like the movie, don't care if you did like the movie. My point (which wasn't actually directed towards you, FYI) is that there are never going to be people happy with literary adaptations, simply because when reading a book, people use their own imagination to come up with how it would visualise, and that when a film is made and someone's visualisation is up on screen and it differs from Fanboy73's own ideas, he gets up in arms.

Another point though could be is that film should be ok to deviate from its source material when the film was written by the same man who wrote the source material. A film should be able to deviate from the source material even if it wasn't written by the writer of the original. If people want the original, read the book (and before you get all uppity, that wasn't directed at you either, FYI).

Anyway, I still think the movie was fun - I've more than happily paid for a DVD copy which I've watched already and will watch again because I think it's a fun movie. You can stick to the book...

 

[Kain_C]

Well, 'fanboy' is a rather derogatory term in my book and not suitable to label someone as such because they happen to disagree with your particular opinion.

I love the books and was highly anticipating the movie. Everything looked sound with a few casting and production design exceptions. Even the very low budget BBC version got the spirit right as long as you ignore the obvious limitations. They followed the books pretty well. This film surpasses that one with a better cast (mostly), better production design, and much better special effects. But it failed because the deviations were unnecessary and a step down from past versions. They compromised the material for length's sake, and that ends up making this version inferior. Characters and motivations suffer. The often intricate comedy ends up chopped and only half-told, making it in plain terms "less funny". The pacing is way off and mostly inconsistent, rarely allowing typical "Douglas Adams's moments" time to breathe and sink in. And much more. Just think if the novel was based on this movie.

I spend too much time explaining my side, mostly because I am so disappointed in what should have been a 'home run' of a movie adaption. I think only 'The Phantom Menace' has disappointed me more. But also in response to people complaining about those complaining about deviation.

 

[Joe Schwartz]

 

[JohnTRU]

Well, I don't know about derogatory I can be the biggest fanboy when it comes to things, I'm not sure about any books or movies, but for people such as Neil Young, yeah sure, I'm a fanboy.

I think of a fanboy as someone who is so deeply 'into' something that their reactions are generally overstated to the thirtieth degree. Someone who either loves something more than anyone ever possibly could ("Boy, Stuart Little is just the coolest movie ever!") or has more disappointment or dislikes something so much that although what they want to love isn't actually that bad, the fact that it wasn't brilliant and beyond their already overflated ideas of how good it was going to be, it makes it the worst thing they've ever seen, and worse than castration...

As I said, wind me up enough and I'm a fanboy too!

 

[Kain_C]

If that's the case, then maybe you're right.