The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy/Headscratchers: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

VisualWikitext

Inline

@@ Line 136: / Line 136: @@
 *** You're assuming a Close To The Original/Not Close To The Original, without considering there is another axis; good/not good. I didn't think the film was all bad but I disliked it because all the goods had already been done three times (in film/tv/book) and all the new additions just didn't work. Whether or not the new additions were done by Adams or not is irrelevant.
 **** "New additions didn't work?" Seriously??? There is a gun that, instead of harming the person you shoot, ''makes them see things from your perspective.'' At seven years old, in the back row at AMC Theater, my mind was blown by the profundity.
-**** In the words of M.J. Simpson: "[http://web.archive.org/web/20050410043910/www.planetmagrathea.com/longreview1.html Douglas was not the best arbiter of what did or did not work in various versions of Hitchhiker's Guide: much of what we love in the story was created by other people or at least by Douglas in collaboration with other people, and some of his own ideas were wisely dropped from earlier versions. So 'but Douglas came up with that bit himself' is not a valid rejoinder to any criticism of changes made from previous versions...In other words, from the audience’s point of view, it matters not a jot whether Douglas Adams wrote any particular part of this movie; it only matters that it should sound like he wrote it."] In the opinion of Simpson, myself, and various assorted others, this was not the case. Plot changes are irrelevant, all versions have them. What matters is primarily that it's funny, and on a lesser note that character motivations are consistent across versions and a few key elements are still around. The movie, in my opinion, failed at this. (I don't agree with his entire review, incidentally, and a lot of it is nitpicking, but I agree with the major points of his argument.
+**** In the words of M.J. Simpson: "[https://web.archive.org/web/20050410043910/http://www.planetmagrathea.com/longreview1.html Douglas was not the best arbiter of what did or did not work in various versions of Hitchhiker's Guide: much of what we love in the story was created by other people or at least by Douglas in collaboration with other people, and some of his own ideas were wisely dropped from earlier versions. So 'but Douglas came up with that bit himself' is not a valid rejoinder to any criticism of changes made from previous versions...In other words, from the audience’s point of view, it matters not a jot whether Douglas Adams wrote any particular part of this movie; it only matters that it should sound like he wrote it."] In the opinion of Simpson, myself, and various assorted others, this was not the case. Plot changes are irrelevant, all versions have them. What matters is primarily that it's funny, and on a lesser note that character motivations are consistent across versions and a few key elements are still around. The movie, in my opinion, failed at this. (I don't agree with his entire review, incidentally, and a lot of it is nitpicking, but I agree with the major points of his argument.
 ** I had considered the Good/Not good opinion and have no quarrel with people who view the film as good or not good, the thing that bugs me is those who view it purely in the terms of Close To The Original/Not Close To The Original.
 *** This happens with every book to film translation though. And I don't like changing "Ford saving Arthur's house by convincing the foreman to lie in front of the bulldozer via logical argument" to "Ford saving Arthur's house by distracting the crew with beer" because I think the former is Holy Writ. I think it's a bad change simply because the former is funny and the latter isn't.