Singing Dolphins

[yeahwho]

So Long and Thanks for all the Fish. (http://hitchhikers.movies.go.com/games/dolphin.html)

[Ace42X]

I thought that was the worst bit of a movie that shat all over Douglas Addam's grave.

[hitmonlee]

i just finished reading hitchhikers and watched the movie again and i saw this thread and thought of it instantly and was coming in to say so long and thanks for all the fish! but there it is already (y)

[hitmonlee]

I thought that was the worst bit of a movie that shat all over Douglas Addam's grave.

maybe get a bit of respect and spell his name right.

also, i suspect you are grossly misinformed.

as i mentioned i have just finished reading it.

my book is a new copy, it has 200 pages at the end about the making of the movie.

the script is basically the same as the screenplay douglas adams wrote, before he died. the movie was already being made. douglas' close friends and wife all love the movie and think douglas would be proud of it.

maybe its because i saw the movie first, but i think this was a pretty good "book to movie" movie, and you're just a bitter, die-hard fan.

[yeahwho]

I thought that was the worst bit of a movie that shat all over Douglas Addam's grave.
I also do have the Cellos (http://photos1.blogger.com/hello/178/2373/1024/cellos.jpg) rocking out "Rang Tang Ding Dong" (The Japanese Sandman) (http://www.box.net/public/static/zj5yg8ojtn.mp3)

Different than Dolphins yet still catchy (no pun intended)

[Ace42X]

maybe get a bit of respect and spell his name right.

Go fuck yourself, you dozy slut. Want me to pick out your typos?

also, i suspect you are grossly misinformed.

I suspect you a re a fucking dumbass, that wouldn't appreciate comedy genius it it bukaked in your eye.

as i mentioned i have just finished reading it.

BFD.

the script is basically the same as the screenplay douglas adams wrote, before he died. the movie was already being made. douglas' close friends and wife all love the movie and think douglas would be proud of it.

maybe its because i saw the movie first, but i think this was a pretty good "book to movie" movie, and you're just a bitter, die-hard fan.

It was a crap movie, no-one I know who has seen it has laughed in the slightest at it. The only vaguely good bit is when the original Arthur Dent appears as the Magrathean answering machine, and THAT was retroactively clichéd, as the "snooty answering machine message" joke has been copied from when it first appeared countless times in the last twenty years.

It was dumbed down unfunny crap, tailored solely for idiotic yanks with bland tastes and only a rudimentary grasp of irony.

And I don't really care what a dead author's mates and wife thought about it, like they'd say "Jeez, if he saw how crap he was, he'd've committed suicide before putting pen to paper! I want a posthumous divorce!"

It was unpolished shit without any style or finesse from start to finish.

[hitmonlee]

sorry i got a bit angry above.

i'm not american you know. but if i was, i'd be pissed at you calling me a yank.


i really enjoyed the book (which i am assuming you did too), so how can you say i don't appreciate comedy?

also, are you saying douglas adams is crap now? since most of the screenplay was his work...


Go fuck yourself, you dozy slut. Want me to pick out your typos?


not really, i am perfectly capable of doing that myself. just pointing out the irony of you saying that the movie shat all over his grave, while you disrespect him by spelling his name incorrectly. :)

[yeahwho]

crap argument.

check out David Lynch's (http://www.davidlynch.com/)daily weather report, he does it himself and it's actually qite good.

[Ace42X]

also, are you saying douglas adams is crap now? since most of the screenplay was his work...

If the film was indeed his vision, and not him being obliged into a crappy compromise for yank audiences by the studio bosses, then he lost it, and it's a good thing he died when he did, before he could "pull a Whedon" and ruin everything he had created.

Personally, I suspect that "it is pretty similar to his screenplay" means "to the compromised and sanitised draft that got re-written by several other people, and cut to fuckery before being handed over to the director".

If not, he wouldn't be the first writer who killed their own creation off by trying to over-milk it. South Park anyone? Joss Whedon can't help but draw crap on past its boil, real serial offender. And don't get me started on J Michael Staraczczczyk...

[Ace42X]

just pointing out the irony of you saying that the movie shat all over his grave, while you disrespect him by spelling his name incorrectly. :)

Give me a few million dollars, and teams of people working on producing and directing my posts, then we'll see if you still have a point.

[yeahwho]

Give me a few million dollars, and teams of people working on producing and directing my posts, then we'll see if you still have a point.

your just trying to trick her out of a few million dollars.

[hitmonlee]

If the film was indeed his vision, and not him being obliged into a crappy compromise for yank audiences by the studio bosses, then he lost it, and it's a good thing he died when he did, before he could "pull a Whedon" and ruin everything he had created.


screenplay was written before any studio had agreed to make it.

i have a massive amount of respect for the director(s) as well.

after all, they did "coffee and tv"
http://www.tongsville.com/cinemahtml/index.html


Personally, I suspect that "it is pretty similar to his screenplay" means "to the compromised and sanitised draft that got re-written by several other people, and cut to fuckery before being handed over to the director".


well yes. lots of writers worked on it, and directors and producers.

so you are against the movie being made? because you have to compromise some things to get a movie made. it can't be 2 and a half hours long. it can't have scenes from the book that don't work in a movie context.

what in particular didn't you like?

arthur/trillian relationship?


If not, he wouldn't be the first writer who killed their own creation off by trying to over-milk it. South Park anyone? Joss Whedon can't help but draw crap on past its boil, real serial offender. And don't get me started on J Michael Staraczczczyk...

i'm a huge whedon fan :P although i could have skipped the last 2 seasons of buffy.

[Ace42X]

screenplay was written before any studio had agreed to make it.

well yes. lots of writers worked on it, and directors and producers.

Screenplays get reworked dozens of times in their life. Adams was notorious for getting writer's block, and righting in manic bursts, and leaving things half-finished. He was also very hands-on in the development process, working closely with the BBC radiophonic workshop while producing the radio play, for example. Without being super-nerdy and trying to find copies of various stages of drafts online, I think it is pretty likely that it was fucked around beyond recognition between the initial version submitted and the end one we saw. Take the screenplay for Alien 3 as an example - before the studio execs (not the director) got involved, it was supposed to be set on a wooden monestary planet, and they were like "nuh... industrial prison..."

The studio bosses often fuck a film around greatly, and I have very little faith in the ability of the suits to avoid trying to sanitise HHG into a generic mess of lameness, which is (coincidentally, according to you) what the film ended up as.

so you are against the movie being made?

Yes and no, Yes in that I doubted anyone had the competence to do it, no in that the guide has been through countless incarnations (as Adam's introduction to the 'triology' states) and that doesn't necessarily mean it gets worse each time.

because you have to compromise some things to get a movie made. it can't be 2 and a half hours long. it can't have scenes from the book that don't work in a movie context.

It's that sort of wooly thinking that makes a phenomenon like HHG go from being a mind-bendingly big cult phenomenon into a boring by-the-numbers yawn-a-rama. If they couldn't do it right, they shouldn't've. Personally, I think they could've done better, but as you say, they were probably incapable of thinking outside the box and doing something original and innovative.

what in particular didn't you like?

I'd have to see it again for precise criticism, but the first thing I hated about it was the first thing I hated about it - the fucking dolphins. How shit was that? A perfectly witty concept, combined with sharp dialogue, and the entire basis of the gag is ruined in favour of the least entertaining credits I have ever had to sit through... "Yes, Dolphins, and they are singing... Great" - I want HHG, not fucking Little Mermaid.

The original "Dolphins" gag was an ironic "pull back and reveal" IT DOESN'T WORK IF THE WHOLE THING IS REVEALED FROM THE OFF.

I could go on about THAT all day.

The acting was, on the whole, feeble. Zaphod, instead of being a cool, witty, if frazzled and conceited, space-dude; ends up being a lame visual gag, and that's it. A one-trick pony. Freeman, who I usually like, was totally unDent. he would've been a good Ford, but for Arthur they needed someone who was more of a pushover and more lost. Trillian I can't remember at all, which is OK because she was a non-entity in the books too pretty much, but the Ford had no style or wit. Alan Rickman I think is great, but Marvin's part was poorly written and he was under-utilised.

The plot was all over the place, but not in the good zany HHGTTG way. There was no flow, so instead of feeling like the characters were constantly on the run, it felt like they were "jumping" into a series of totally unconnected sketches, and running through events just trying to get them over as soon as possible. On the whole that would've been a good thing if it had meant the movie had ended sooner, rather than dragging on for an hour and a half. Because there were so many little "scenlets" it made the whole thing seem rushed, and meant there was no opportunity for good dialogue or time to capitalise from the characterisations, which is what the series relies on as a hole. Also, Adams' plots usually rely heavily on convaluted intertwining events, and a healthy dose of poignant philosophical irony. The movie had none of that. "It's a gun which makes people feel like the shooter, and Marvin uses it, LOL!" Hardly in the same league as the lost cathedral of chalsem, is it?

The atmosphere was all wrong. It was totally non-immersive. At no point did I feel that I was watching anything other that a cheap pantomime. HHG, like Tolkien and Pratchett, works because it makes a believable immersive world - the book and the narration helps create this panoramic effect. The film failed to create this in every single respect, and I think that started with the totally ridiculous song and dance number, and just got worse and worse as the movie went on.

The dialogue was TERRIBLE. Adams' dialogue is usually sparkling, subtle, clever and witty. Probably because they were trying to cram too many visuals and scenes into such a small space (which meant more dialogue had to be exposition, instead of the meat), nearly all of that was lost, and rather sophisticated conversations, filled with great technical proficiency, gets trimmed into a load of rather feeble one-liners. That or they had to cut the irony for yank audiences, who just don't get it.

i'm a huge whedon fan :P although i could have skipped the last 2 seasons of buffy.

Precisely. I quite like Whedon, and I think the guy has a lot of talent. But I also think critical acclaim has gone to his head, and his popularity has meant that he has churned out a lot of tosh on the basis that it is a free meal ticket. The last two seasons of Buffy are an example. Ditto with the last two series of Red Dwarf. In both cases they became painfully self-referential and repetitive.

[TAL]

Oh crap, I agree with Ace.

[na§tee]

oh ffs.

ha, that's one thing i haven't seen used since circa 1997!