RiffTrax Forum
 

hitchhikers guide to galaxy movie

Started by sarcasm_made_Easy, February 11, 2007, 06:40:29 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

davo

Quote from: Andrew1911 on February 11, 2007, 07:56:14 PM
Awful, awful, awful movie.

agree...sort of. it was great til about 2/3 of the way through..then it fell apart.  i like the BBC series better...even with the lame paper mache head...

Pak-Man

See I think that's why a lot of people shut it down because it's too different. Most people were going in to see the BBC Series: Special Edition. Instead they got a whole new storyline. I'm just willing to admit that's a good thing. :^)

sarcasm_made_Easy

i could have done without arthurs speech about love,  I would have ended it at "how many roads must a man walk down?" 

ps, isnt the question in fact six times nine?

Pak-Man

Quote from: sarcasm_made_Easy on February 12, 2007, 10:01:59 AM
i could have done without arthurs speech about love,  I would have ended it at "how many roads must a man walk down?" 

ps, isnt the question in fact six times nine?
Yeah, but they don't figure that out 'til Restaurant at the End of the Universe. I'm gonna keep dreaming and, without Douglas Adams, it's probably always gonna be a dream...

sarcasm_made_Easy

I would have thought arthur would have thrown it out by accident at the last second (the scene where the mice are questioning him)

homerjayla

I didn't like this movie. I had to watch this with my sister a few years ago when the movie came out. ugh! Hated the actor that played the guy with the changing heads.

I read some of the book and it was ok.
Global warming, where?

Andrew1911

Quote from: sarcasm_made_Easy on February 12, 2007, 08:20:02 AM
andrew any particular REASON it was awful?


I thought it was great.  As to it not being like the books, well even in adams own Forewards he makes mention to the fact that there is no continuity between, radio, game, or books.  In fact in his own story it seems a lack of continuity is what he WANTS, he helped write the script so we can assume that it was mostly what he intended.



All the jokes fall flat, nearly everyone is miscast, the Arthur-Trillian romance is terribly done, and the only good things I can say about it were the parts from Adams's screenplay that survived the re-writes.

sarcasm_made_Easy

Another well argued point there andrew congrats.



Anywho,  anyone else think that the whole lifeless ship slash lifeless building thing was particularly funny, i know i did.

BathTub

Quote from: Andrew1911 on February 12, 2007, 11:11:41 AM
Quote from: sarcasm_made_Easy on February 12, 2007, 08:20:02 AM
andrew any particular REASON it was awful?


I thought it was great.  As to it not being like the books, well even in adams own Forewards he makes mention to the fact that there is no continuity between, radio, game, or books.  In fact in his own story it seems a lack of continuity is what he WANTS, he helped write the script so we can assume that it was mostly what he intended.



All the jokes fall flat, nearly everyone is miscast, the Arthur-Trillian romance is terribly done, and the only good things I can say about it were the parts from Adams's screenplay that survived the re-writes.

Oh please identify for the rest of us which parts were from Adams's screenplay.

sarcasm_made_Easy

specially since ALL the jokes feel flat, so what parts that adams left in that werent jokes were funny exactly?

Andrew1911

Quote from: BathTub on February 12, 2007, 02:59:20 PM
Quote from: Andrew1911 on February 12, 2007, 11:11:41 AM
Quote from: sarcasm_made_Easy on February 12, 2007, 08:20:02 AM
andrew any particular REASON it was awful?


I thought it was great.  As to it not being like the books, well even in adams own Forewards he makes mention to the fact that there is no continuity between, radio, game, or books.  In fact in his own story it seems a lack of continuity is what he WANTS, he helped write the script so we can assume that it was mostly what he intended.



All the jokes fall flat, nearly everyone is miscast, the Arthur-Trillian romance is terribly done, and the only good things I can say about it were the parts from Adams's screenplay that survived the re-writes.

Oh please identify for the rest of us which parts were from Adams's screenplay.

Marvin, Thanks For All The Fish, and the God sneezed planet.

sarcasm_made_Easy


davo

Quote from: Pak-Man on February 12, 2007, 09:58:24 AM
See I think that's why a lot of people shut it down because it's too different. Most people were going in to see the BBC Series: Special Edition. Instead they got a whole new storyline. I'm just willing to admit that's a good thing. :^)

i wasn't necessarily looking for a carbon copy,but i didn't want an americanized hollywood version,either.

sarcasm_made_Easy

i dunno i think it was pretty true to the humor of the book.  Hell aurthurs daring rescue of trillian was managed because he filled out some forms.  that was great. 

kodiakthejuggler

#29
Quote from: Andrew1911 on February 11, 2007, 07:56:14 PM
Awful, awful, awful movie.

I have never read the books(or came in contact with anything from Douglas Adams, for that matter), so I came into this movie with absolutely no clue what I was about to see.

Having said that, I absolutely LOVED the movie! It was so much fun, extremely funny, and had great characters. I especially loved Sam Rockwell's Zaphod.

As for Sarcasm's original comments, I was far too busy lusting after Zooey Deschanel to catch any of those minor details...   ;)