History Headscratchers / TheHitchhikersGuideToTheGalaxy

15th Dec '17 5:52:54 PM Anddrix
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** This Troper couldn't have said it better. [[UnpleasableFanbase First they complained how different the books are compared to the radio series, then they complained how the TV series was rubbish compared to the books, and now they're bashing the film, as well.]] [[LoveItOrHateIt Either love it all or hate it all; make your pick.]]

to:

** This Troper couldn't have said it better. [[UnpleasableFanbase First they complained how different the books are compared to the radio series, then they complained how the TV series was rubbish compared to the books, and now they're bashing the film, as well.]] [[LoveItOrHateIt Either love it all or hate it all; make your pick.]]
3rd Dec '17 2:19:29 PM RossN
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** I don't believe its ever stated that they're the same species only that they're childhood friends and tangentially related. But I think it's said in the film that he had to have the extra head added to become a president. As far as I'm aware it's always been established that adding a second head was Zaphod's choice for one reason or another...although only Zaphod before the procedure really knew why.

to:

** I don't believe its ever stated that they're the same species only that they're childhood friends and tangentially related. But I think it's said in the film that he had to have the extra head added to become a president. As far as I'm aware it's always been established that adding a second head was Zaphod's choice for one reason or another...although only Zaphod before the procedure really knew why.why.

* I know it's a joke but how could Ford be so stupid as to think ''cars'' where the "dominant life forms" on Earth? He is familiar with technological transportation and sentient life resembling humans (sometimes very closely) seems to abound throughout the galaxy.
25th Nov '17 5:18:49 PM Jallen
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Ford and Zaphod are meant to be the same species, right? But only one of them has two heads. Nothing wrong with that, but I've always wondered why it doesn't get addressed. Did Ford used to have two heads and got one of them lopped off so he could blend in better on planets with [[RubberForeheadAliens low special-effects budgets]], or is having one or two heads just a normal physical variation among their species like hair or skin color among humans? Or maybe they're not ''really'' the same species? Or who knows?

to:

* Ford and Zaphod are meant to be the same species, right? But only one of them has two heads. Nothing wrong with that, but I've always wondered why it doesn't get addressed. Did Ford used to have two heads and got one of them lopped off so he could blend in better on planets with [[RubberForeheadAliens low special-effects budgets]], or is having one or two heads just a normal physical variation among their species like hair or skin color among humans? Or maybe they're not ''really'' the same species? Or who knows?knows?
** I don't believe its ever stated that they're the same species only that they're childhood friends and tangentially related. But I think it's said in the film that he had to have the extra head added to become a president. As far as I'm aware it's always been established that adding a second head was Zaphod's choice for one reason or another...although only Zaphod before the procedure really knew why.
21st Nov '17 3:47:12 PM AndIntroducingALeg
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

*** ... and that's why we have Belisha Beacons.
14th Nov '17 7:22:56 PM PaulA
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** There are two ways to interpret the phrase "it's rubbish compared to the Radio version". It's certainly possible when people say this they mean "it's rubbish because it was ''different'' from the radio version", but most people probably simply mean "the radio version and the film version aimed to tell the same broad story with the same characters and tone, and the radio version was good and the film version wasn't." To be fair, people do often act as if adherence to the letter of the source material is a prerequisite of a good adaptation, but equally people are generally pretyforgiving of wild deviation if the adaptation still adheres or the spirit of the book, or at least produces something new but of equal quality (e.g. Literature/DoAndroidsDreamOfElectricSheep? / BladeRunner, HowlsMovingCastle, TheBourneIdentity etc). With Hitchhiker's I would think it's a fanbase more forgivving than most about adaptational changes - as the OP points out, there really is no definitive version of these stories. I certainly don't think people were eager for the plot to remain the same as in the books. But the point of Hitchhiker's lies not in the events but the funny dialogue and monologues. As the above-linked hot take review points out, the movie largely disappointed existing fans by carelessly tampering with Adams' exquisitely crafted comic dialogue for no particular reason, replacing funny lines with its own sub-par inventions. For example, the film takes away most of Marvin's radio-originating lines top give him more generic stuff like 'oh for god's sake'. The idea of a depressed robot is pretty funny in itself, of course, but Adam's never expected that joke to keep people going for the run-time, he gave Marvin dialogue that made the joke funny every time he spoke. I suppose the best analogy I can come up with is Shakespeare. You can adapt Shakespeare into modern English but you'll be losing a massive part of the reason the plays are so beloved in the first place. As the artivle points out, it's not the changing itself that is the problem, it's changing without any apparent understadning of why the text took the form it did in the first place. Humour is possibly the hardest thing of all to adapt, and Hitchhiker's is one of those things that is more than the sum of its parts: individual moment or lines might be funny in isolation, but it;s the general tone and the ideas behind it that make the text ''so'' funny. The film didn't relfect the tone or ideas of earlier incarnations, and though there are others tones and ideas that the movie-makers might have successfully replaced them with and averted TheyChangedItNowItSucks, most fans seem to feel that their changes were to the detriment. [[WebVideo/TheNostalgiaChick Lindsay Ellis]] did a very good video once on the similar issues in the Franchise/MenInBlack franchise, which may shed light for those confused on the similar response to the H2G2 adaptation. Adams was right, I think, to compare ''Franchise/MenInBlack'' to his own work (it also relies on a pretty sophisticated, startling and finely balanced worldview to support the internal humour) and like Hitchhiker's, it suffered from a studio-pleasing later iteration that managed to misunderstand why the original was popular. To summarise the summary of the summary: it's not bad because they changed it, it's bad because they changed it badly.

to:

** There are two ways to interpret the phrase "it's rubbish compared to the Radio version". It's certainly possible when people say this they mean "it's rubbish because it was ''different'' from the radio version", but most people probably simply mean "the radio version and the film version aimed to tell the same broad story with the same characters and tone, and the radio version was good and the film version wasn't." To be fair, people do often act as if adherence to the letter of the source material is a prerequisite of a good adaptation, but equally people are generally pretyforgiving of wild deviation if the adaptation still adheres or the spirit of the book, or at least produces something new but of equal quality (e.g. Literature/DoAndroidsDreamOfElectricSheep? ''Literature/DoAndroidsDreamOfElectricSheep'' / BladeRunner, HowlsMovingCastle, TheBourneIdentity ''Film/BladeRunner'', ''Anime/HowlsMovingCastle'', ''Film/TheBourneIdentity'' etc). With Hitchhiker's I would think it's a fanbase more forgivving than most about adaptational changes - as the OP points out, there really is no definitive version of these stories. I certainly don't think people were eager for the plot to remain the same as in the books. But the point of Hitchhiker's lies not in the events but the funny dialogue and monologues. As the above-linked hot take review points out, the movie largely disappointed existing fans by carelessly tampering with Adams' exquisitely crafted comic dialogue for no particular reason, replacing funny lines with its own sub-par inventions. For example, the film takes away most of Marvin's radio-originating lines top give him more generic stuff like 'oh for god's sake'. The idea of a depressed robot is pretty funny in itself, of course, but Adam's never expected that joke to keep people going for the run-time, he gave Marvin dialogue that made the joke funny every time he spoke. I suppose the best analogy I can come up with is Shakespeare. You can adapt Shakespeare into modern English but you'll be losing a massive part of the reason the plays are so beloved in the first place. As the artivle points out, it's not the changing itself that is the problem, it's changing without any apparent understadning of why the text took the form it did in the first place. Humour is possibly the hardest thing of all to adapt, and Hitchhiker's is one of those things that is more than the sum of its parts: individual moment or lines might be funny in isolation, but it;s the general tone and the ideas behind it that make the text ''so'' funny. The film didn't relfect the tone or ideas of earlier incarnations, and though there are others tones and ideas that the movie-makers might have successfully replaced them with and averted TheyChangedItNowItSucks, most fans seem to feel that their changes were to the detriment. [[WebVideo/TheNostalgiaChick Lindsay Ellis]] did a very good video once on the similar issues in the Franchise/MenInBlack franchise, which may shed light for those confused on the similar response to the H2G2 adaptation. Adams was right, I think, to compare ''Franchise/MenInBlack'' to his own work (it also relies on a pretty sophisticated, startling and finely balanced worldview to support the internal humour) and like Hitchhiker's, it suffered from a studio-pleasing later iteration that managed to misunderstand why the original was popular. To summarise the summary of the summary: it's not bad because they changed it, it's bad because they changed it badly.
12th Oct '17 12:23:47 PM Lullabee
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* If Marvin is so horribly depressed about anything and everything constantly, why doesn't he just kill himself/shutdown permanently or whatever?

to:

* If Marvin is so horribly depressed about anything and everything constantly, why doesn't he just kill himself/shutdown permanently or whatever?whatever?

* Ford and Zaphod are meant to be the same species, right? But only one of them has two heads. Nothing wrong with that, but I've always wondered why it doesn't get addressed. Did Ford used to have two heads and got one of them lopped off so he could blend in better on planets with [[RubberForeheadAliens low special-effects budgets]], or is having one or two heads just a normal physical variation among their species like hair or skin color among humans? Or maybe they're not ''really'' the same species? Or who knows?
26th Sep '17 12:48:47 AM Jallen
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

*** It was busy, watching TV.
29th Aug '17 10:20:49 PM PaulA
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** There are two ways to interpret the phrase "it's rubbish compared to the Radio version". It's certainly possible when people say this they mean "it's rubbish because it was ''different'' from the radio version", but most people probably simply mean "the radio version and the film version aimed to tell the same broad story with the same characters and tone, and the radio version was good and the film version wasn't." To be fair, people do often act as if adherence to the letter of the source material is a prerequisite of a good adaptation, but equally people are generally pretyforgiving of wild deviation if the adaptation still adheres or the spirit of the book, or at least produces something new but of equal quality (e.g. Literature/DoAndroidsDreamOfElectricSheep? / BladeRunner, HowlsMovingCastle, TheBourneIdentity etc). With Hitchhiker's I would think it's a fanbase more forgivving than most about adaptational changes - as the OP points out, there really is no definitive version of these stories. I certainly don't think people were eager for the plot to remain the same as in the books. But the point of Hitchhiker's lies not in the events but the funny dialogue and monologues. As the above-linked hot take review points out, the movie largely disappointed existing fans by carelessly tampering with Adams' exquisitely crafted comic dialogue for no particular reason, replacing funny lines with its own sub-par inventions. For example, the film takes away most of Marvin's radio-originating lines top give him more generic stuff like 'oh for god's sake'. The idea of a depressed robot is pretty funny in itself, of course, but Adam's never expected that joke to keep people going for the run-time, he gave Marvin dialogue that made the joke funny every time he spoke. I suppose the best analogy I can come up with is Shakespeare. You can adapt Shakespeare into modern English but you'll be losing a massive part of the reason the plays are so beloved in the first place. As the artivle points out, it's not the changing itself that is the problem, it's changing without any apparent understadning of why the text took the form it did in the first place. Humour is possibly the hardest thing of all to adapt, and Hitchhiker's is one of those things that is more than the sum of its parts: individual moment or lines might be funny in isolation, but it;s the general tone and the ideas behind it that make the text ''so'' funny. The film didn't relfect the tone or ideas of earlier incarnations, and though there are others tones and ideas that the movie-makers might have successfully replaced them with and averted TheyChangedItNowItSucks, most fans seem to feel that their changes were to the detriment. LindsayEllis did a very good video once on the similar issues in the MenInBlack franchise, which may shed light for those confused on the similar response to the H2G2 adaptation. Adams was right, I think, to compare ''MenInBlack'' to his own work (it also relies on a pretty sophisticated, startling and finely balanced worldview to support the internal humour) and like Hitchhiker's, it suffered from a studio-pleasing later iteration that managed to misunderstand why the original was popular. To summarise the summary of the summary: it's not bad because they changed it, it's bad because they changed it badly.

to:

** There are two ways to interpret the phrase "it's rubbish compared to the Radio version". It's certainly possible when people say this they mean "it's rubbish because it was ''different'' from the radio version", but most people probably simply mean "the radio version and the film version aimed to tell the same broad story with the same characters and tone, and the radio version was good and the film version wasn't." To be fair, people do often act as if adherence to the letter of the source material is a prerequisite of a good adaptation, but equally people are generally pretyforgiving of wild deviation if the adaptation still adheres or the spirit of the book, or at least produces something new but of equal quality (e.g. Literature/DoAndroidsDreamOfElectricSheep? / BladeRunner, HowlsMovingCastle, TheBourneIdentity etc). With Hitchhiker's I would think it's a fanbase more forgivving than most about adaptational changes - as the OP points out, there really is no definitive version of these stories. I certainly don't think people were eager for the plot to remain the same as in the books. But the point of Hitchhiker's lies not in the events but the funny dialogue and monologues. As the above-linked hot take review points out, the movie largely disappointed existing fans by carelessly tampering with Adams' exquisitely crafted comic dialogue for no particular reason, replacing funny lines with its own sub-par inventions. For example, the film takes away most of Marvin's radio-originating lines top give him more generic stuff like 'oh for god's sake'. The idea of a depressed robot is pretty funny in itself, of course, but Adam's never expected that joke to keep people going for the run-time, he gave Marvin dialogue that made the joke funny every time he spoke. I suppose the best analogy I can come up with is Shakespeare. You can adapt Shakespeare into modern English but you'll be losing a massive part of the reason the plays are so beloved in the first place. As the artivle points out, it's not the changing itself that is the problem, it's changing without any apparent understadning of why the text took the form it did in the first place. Humour is possibly the hardest thing of all to adapt, and Hitchhiker's is one of those things that is more than the sum of its parts: individual moment or lines might be funny in isolation, but it;s the general tone and the ideas behind it that make the text ''so'' funny. The film didn't relfect the tone or ideas of earlier incarnations, and though there are others tones and ideas that the movie-makers might have successfully replaced them with and averted TheyChangedItNowItSucks, most fans seem to feel that their changes were to the detriment. LindsayEllis [[WebVideo/TheNostalgiaChick Lindsay Ellis]] did a very good video once on the similar issues in the MenInBlack Franchise/MenInBlack franchise, which may shed light for those confused on the similar response to the H2G2 adaptation. Adams was right, I think, to compare ''MenInBlack'' ''Franchise/MenInBlack'' to his own work (it also relies on a pretty sophisticated, startling and finely balanced worldview to support the internal humour) and like Hitchhiker's, it suffered from a studio-pleasing later iteration that managed to misunderstand why the original was popular. To summarise the summary of the summary: it's not bad because they changed it, it's bad because they changed it badly.
21st Aug '17 4:32:06 AM Sharlee
Is there an issue? Send a Message
21st Aug '17 4:31:33 AM Sharlee
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** And I'd assumed that it wasn't the supplanting of indigenous cave people with Golgafrinchans that mucked up the program - if you swap out the video card on your laptop, you can still run the same programs after the switch - but them ''burning down all the forests'' that did it. No reason to assume the humanoids were the only part of the Earth's hardware that mattered, after all.
This list shows the last 10 events of 169. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.TheHitchhikersGuideToTheGalaxy