The friendly cover will be on the paperback version. No need to panic.

I approve of this, but demand a larger part beyond thirty seconds, abrupt disintegration and relegation to being a universal swear word.

Didn't this already happen? I remember. They asked Ford for expense reports and actually wanted him to account for the charges. HHGTTG has really changed.

TheGreatZarquon: I approve of this, but demand a larger part beyond thirty seconds, abrupt disintegration and relegation to being a universal swear word.

Belgium

I was never so disapointed in a movie, being a big fan of the book. Who thought that was a good true to the book script? It was bad on all levels.

TheGreatZarquon: I approve of this, but demand a larger part beyond thirty seconds, abrupt disintegration and relegation to being a universal swear word.

At least you're not Belgium.

stuhayes2010: Who thought that was a good true to the book script?

Since he wrote the script, I'm gonna go with Douglas Adams.

Besides if you go on the mentality that the movie was just an adaptation, it isn't that bad. Check out the other versions (radio, book, TV, etc) and you'll see they were all different from each other.

Good headline by the way.

verbal711: Besides if you go on the mentality that the movie was just an adaptation, it isn't that bad.

Not to mention that the book was an adaptation.

Larry Mahnken: verbal711: Besides if you go on the mentality that the movie was just an adaptation, it isn't that bad.

Not to mention that the book was an adaptation.

Oh i hope you are kidding.

Penguin Death Squads: Larry Mahnken: verbal711: Besides if you go on the mentality that the movie was just an adaptation, it isn't that bad.

Not to mention that the book was an adaptation.

Oh i hope you are kidding.

No, the books are an adaptation by Douglas Adams of the original BBC 4 radio program he wrote that first aired in 1978.

Chronologically, the timeline goes radio series > books> TV show> movie

Some of the best Hitchhiker's Guide reading out there is the original radio scripts. You have to read some of the directions he gave to the effects guys.

verbal711: Good headline by the way.

Thanks!

stuhayes2010: I was never so disapointed in a movie, being a big fan of the book. Who thought that was a good true to the book script? It was bad on all levels.

Well, after waiting some 25-30 years for something beyond the BBC radio / TV episodes, I was happy they finally got the movie completed and managed to keep fairly true to the radio, tv and book versions.

You want true disappointment, compare Starship Troopers to Heinlein's book sometime.

verbal711: stuhayes2010: Who thought that was a good true to the book script?

Since he wrote the script, I'm gonna go with Douglas Adams.

Besides if you go on the mentality that the movie was just an adaptation, it isn't that bad. Check out the other versions (radio, book, TV, etc) and you'll see they were all different from each other.

The writing was painfully unfunny. On more than one occasion they did the set-up for a joke and then skipped the punch line, and far more often they just failed on delivery. The acting was (really, really) bad, the directing/editing was bad.

The BBC miniseries is better, and that's saying something.

fallingcow: The BBC miniseries is better, and that's saying something.

I truly enjoy the BBC series, although no one will watch it with me. I keep expanding on whatever just happened with material from the books.

And Marvin's voice was perfect.

evilgreg: I truly enjoy the BBC series, although no one will watch it with me. I keep expanding on whatever just happened with material from the books.

And Marvin's voice was perfect.

I agree completely, the TV series was excellent... But, if you haven't listened to the radio series, give those a listen sometime; they're excellent as well... I wish they'd continue the TV series the way they did the radio series, to cover the later books... But, I suppose to do it they'd really need new actors, and at that point would probably just reboot the original and do it all from scratch... And, probably would screw it up in the process... ;-/

I didn't totally despise the movie, but it definitely wasn't as good as the TV series... But, then, it couldn't really be, since it had to be so much shorter... I mainly hate that they left some of the best stuff out, and added in mostly pointless stuff... (Eg: they cut the wonderful Arthur vs. Prosser rant about "Beware of the leopard!" down to a painfully short and unfunny couple of lines, and cut the whole Vroomfondel and Majikthise bit, yet had time to add in the whole Humakavula (sp?) sub-plot, and the silly "POV gun" bits, and lots of Arthur pining for Trillian angst...) I don't mind the minor differences in the story; as has been pointed out, it changes in every new medium (radio, books, TV, video game)... I just miss some of the good bits that got cut for seemingly no reason (other than to buy time for less funny new bits)...

evilgreg: fallingcow: The BBC miniseries is better, and that's saying something.

I truly enjoy the BBC series, although no one will watch it with me. I keep expanding on whatever just happened with material from the books.

And Marvin's voice was perfect.

Listen to these people, the BBC TV series is a much better expenditure of TV time than the latest movie was. They had more of the actual book in there, the acting was better and every single scene in the Restaurant at the End of the Universe is hysterical.

TheGreatZarquon: Listen to these people, the BBC TV series is a much better expenditure of TV time than the latest movie was. They had more of the actual book in there, the acting was better and every single scene in the Restaurant at the End of the Universe is hysterical.

Additionally, most of the cast from the BBC version is the same as the original radio play. Douglas Adams has even stated he wrote the part of Arthur specifically for Simon Jones.

I don't share the abject hatred for the movie version that some people do, but I do think it was largely a rehash of something that was about as close to perfection as you could get (on a dodgy BBC special effects budget.)

I will admit that I thought Zooey Deschanel did a much better job as Trillian, and was closer to how I envisioned the character from the books.

It's almost a pity the movie-version didn't get a better reception, since I would have loved to see what they could have done with material we hadn't seen before, like 'Life the Universe and Everything'

guvnor: I will admit that I thought Zooey Deschanel did a much better job as Trillian, and was closer to how I envisioned the character from the books.

Oh, definitely... Trillian was the one huge weak spot of the TV series... Trillian shouldn't be blonde, for starters... And, she should appear to have more than a room temperature IQ... And, my god, that annoying voice! Ugh...

The movie Trillian was definitely a vast improvement... I didn't really have any problems with any of the characters in the movie, actually... I just think they lost too many good jokes/scenes and replaced them with subpar ones...

It's almost a pity the movie-version didn't get a better reception, since I would have loved to see what they could have done with material we hadn't seen before, like 'Life the Universe and Everything'

Without Douglas Adams around anymore to try to keep it somewhat close to what it should be, I shudder to think what Hollywood would do with it, though...

That's why I said I'd like to see them continue the TV series to cover the later books, instead... I have more trust in the BBC to do a proper series continuation/reboot (see "Doctor Who")...