Blogcritics: Comments on Sir Not - Appearing -In - This - Film

Comment by Phillip Winn

Sat, 23 Apr 2005 13:59:45 EDT

I read that "review" by Adam's biographer and was disappointed, but then I read from HHGTTG to Mostly Harmless, and my hope was restored. Based on the "review," it seems to me that the creators of the film quite possibly understood how an "Infinite Improbability Drive" works better than the biographer, and several of his complaints about the film are similarly in the book. I don't expect the film to be just like the book, and despite all of the disclaimers to the contrary, it is now plain to me that the reviewer does.

Comment by The Theory

Sat, 23 Apr 2005 11:29:48 EDT

>>I don't have any idea what the trailer is trying to accomplish. It's just a shot of the world exploding! What is funny about that? There is little to no indication that the film is a comedy.<< that was only the teaser... there was a regular trailer that was really quite brilliant.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sat, 23 Apr 2005 09:32:34 EDT

Indeed you are, Ski. Truth is, I just could never get past the first few dozen pages of the book. I found it stupid and childish. Like reading fan fiction in the program of a science fiction convention. I'm also not a big fan of Terry Pratchett. But yet there is SF which I find humorous. I was just recently considering rereading Philip Jose Farmer's Image of the Beast for example. Dave

Comment by SFC SKI

Sat, 23 Apr 2005 06:40:40 EDT

Dave, you are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to ask "WTF?"

Comment by Dave Nalle

Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:58:43 EDT

The book is so awful the movie could only be an improvement, right? Dave

Comment by Tom Johnson

Fri, 22 Apr 2005 18:40:20 EDT

pathetic, jealous ramblings of those sad types who feel the need to criticise something they haven't read, describing something they haven't seen. Uh, Anna, hello? My comment above is pleading with people to give the film a chance to be its own thing and not judge it solely on whether it precisely mirrors the book. Whether or not it caputures the spirit is the key - not the nitpicky details.

Comment by Leoniceno

Fri, 22 Apr 2005 18:32:42 EDT

It doesn't help that Martin Freeman plays Arthur Dent as an annoying little prat

Hmm. In the books Arthur Dent is an annoying little prat, to almost everyone around him. The guy they got to play him looks kind of smug, though. Arthur Dent is supposed to be a bloke. I don't have any idea what the trailer is trying to accomplish. It's just a shot of the world exploding! What is funny about that? There is little to no indication that the film is a comedy.

Comment by Anna

Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:11:34 EDT

Here's what Simpson has to say about folks like the above Mr. Johnson: "I could put up with the pathetic, jealous ramblings of those sad types who feel the need to criticise something they haven't read, describing something they haven't seen. But what has broken my will is the vitriolic personal abuse and libel which has started spreading across the net from various individuals who don't know me. (A more paranoid person than myself might think that some of these, the ones who have joined discussion boards in the past week and since then posted on no other subject than myself, were studio plants. But not I.)"

Comment by Tom Johnson

Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:00:45 EDT

I've got the book sitting on my nightstand begging to be read (again) but I'm hesitant to do so so that maybe I can go into the movie with a relative level of innocence and ignorance, and maybe I'll enjoy it more not having refreshed myself on the subject. That said, something else popped into my head: the books are short, but they're very, very detail-oriented. It might be that the filmmakers decided to shoot the story itself and not worry so much about details the die-hards are going to freak out about. I'd assume the hope is this is successful enough to warrant the following sequels, in which they can introduce the quirkier elements of the series - things that might have turned off audiences that had no familiarity with the books.

Comment by Vidar Hokstad

Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:51:05 EDT

What Tom said.... :) And also remember that Douglas Adams himself was frequently changing things around to make it work for whatever media he was working with: He was directly involved in changing the original radio plays to make them fit TV, computer game and book formats, altering a lot of things along the way. Because of this, I strongly believe what matters is the overall feel. That said, I can guarantee that I WILL be nitpicking myself when I see it, and drive my fiancee completely crazy, but that doesn't mean I think I won't like the movie - nitpicking is fun! (until it results in blunt violence from my better half)

Comment by Solonor

Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:44:56 EDT

I hope you are right. Don't panic, eh? :)

Comment by Tom Johnson

Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:40:30 EDT

Why would anyone trust a review from someone as biased as Adams' biographer? This guy lives and breathes HHttG and can't seem to handle changes in the book for the movie. I read his review and it really sounds like nitpicking. I've read the books and from the sounds of things, they've gotten the nature of the book pretty well captured. They left out some things, but they had to - most of what this guy complains about being left out are concepts in the book that can't really be visualized, like ships hanging in the air in the exact way that bricks don't. And Adams gave his approval of this adaptation before he died. It's important to remember that none of the adaptations have been faithful to the book. Each one has taken its own personality.