History Headscratchers / TheHitchhikersGuideToTheGalaxy

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.
21st Aug '17 4:23:46 AM Sharlee
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

*** Or possibly out of a selfish or subconscious desire to ''not'' have Random show up out of the blue one day, never having met another human being. If she gives her kid ''Arthur's'' surname instead of her own, the girl is more likely to track ''him'' down first, because she'll have the name as a clue to find her dad.
11th Aug '17 4:17:58 PM AndIntroducingALeg
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** To be able to reply. Babel fish enable you to understand what others are saying, but not to be understood by them. For that, the birds would need Babel fish of their own, which they obviously don't have.
11th Aug '17 10:42:32 AM AndIntroducingALeg
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

*** Ford absolutely had to learn English, and presumably found a way to do so before he arrived on Earth. Babel Fish enable you to understand what people say to you, but they don't help you to be understood by people who haven't got one themselves.
19th Jul '17 2:07:49 AM Polokun
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** It's also just a joke. Not a great joke, admittedly, but probably not worth the anger.

to:

** It's also just a joke. Not a great joke, admittedly, but probably not worth the anger.anger.

* If Marvin is so horribly depressed about anything and everything constantly, why doesn't he just kill himself/shutdown permanently or whatever?
6th Jul '17 6:22:09 PM DemonDuckofDoom
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. 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. DoAndroidsDreamOfElectricSheep? 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.
16th Jun '17 9:45:37 AM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The Point Of View Gun from the movie: "It won't affect me, I'm already a woman." To that I say, "Oh really, let's test that theory, shall we?" ZAPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!! But seriously, the idea that such a device would only work on men is a load of bullshit.

to:

* The Point Of View Gun from the movie: "It won't affect me, I'm already a woman." To that I say, "Oh really, let's test that theory, shall we?" ZAPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!! But seriously, the idea that such a device would only work on men is a load of bullshit.bullshit.
** It's also just a joke. Not a great joke, admittedly, but probably not worth the anger.
30th May '17 1:38:19 AM Kyrillion
Is there an issue? Send a Message



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. 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.
This list shows the last 10 events of 162. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.TheHitchhikersGuideToTheGalaxy