On the matter of books and films

topic posted Fri, April 29, 2005 - 8:30 AM by  Bone
I am reading many reviews of the film, and it speaks of not being entirely faithful to the book but that the driving spirit is defintiely Adamsesque... Adamsian.... Adamsanian....

aannnyyywho... I just wanted to see what your thoughts were on what is needed in the transition from book to film? How much of the book MUST there be and where is the filmmaker allowed to work in their medium to create a better finished work?

P.S. anyone seen any good bootlegs?
posted by:
Bone
Portland
  • Re: On the matter of books and films

    Fri, April 29, 2005 - 11:41 AM
    The reviews I've seen haven't taken the same angle -- what I've seen are a lot of complaints that it just isn't as funny. :-/

    I think everyone familiar with at least one other incarnation of H2G2 apart from this film understands that each iteration of the series has been different from all the others: the book isn't the same as the radio play or the television show or the tea towel. Sight unseen, I don't fault the film for being different yet again. But when I read a lot of people who've seen it are saying "it just isn't funny enough" that's not hoopy with me.
    • Re: On the matter of books and films

      Fri, April 29, 2005 - 3:24 PM
      Well, that's definitely my problem with it. It's just not that funny. It's not terrible, just lacks the almost constant belly laughs of every other version I've seen. It's interesting that because of the time compression factor (It tries to fit in bits of the first three books plus several entirely new subplots.) Adams' great funhouse logic of how some of the most complicated aspects of his universe works, is mostly left out. So, instead of comic science fiction, you end up with comic surrealism. I won't give examples here because I don't want to spoil anything.
      In an interesting twist, this actually makes the film work MUCH better for folks who have no "Hitchhiker's... " experience. The guy I went with had never read, listened or watched anything from D.N.A. and his mouth was pretty much on the floor at how strange the whole thing seemed. He loved it.

      Maybe, in the long run, we have to accept that making a film about popular books can be really thankless.
  • Re: On the matter of books and films

    Fri, April 29, 2005 - 1:57 PM

    Just got back from seeing it, (none of my classmates were interested, so I went to a showing down the street instead of the one near school at 1:30) It was ok, not great. I predict that it will flop overall, but that fans will like it, not be overjoyed, but overall I think most will like it.

    There were some major deviations to the plot, but I suppose that's to be expected for something from Douglas Adams =)

    They mangled one of Ford's classic lines =( and there were certainly some parts of the film that dragged along a bit.

    Marvin fans will be happy to know that the original BBC TV Marvin does in fact make a cameo.

    Save some $$ see it as a matinee, and stay through the credits, there's a treat about halfway through.
    • Re: On the matter of books and films

      Fri, April 29, 2005 - 2:58 PM
      I think for me the spirit or mood must be the same. I guess that's something that is hard to define, but I'll try.

      For example, most people who love Heinlein's book Starship Troopers, the movie was an abomination. But, while I do love the book, I thought the movie captured the essential quality of the metaphor of the post-WWII US government vs. the "red menace" and much else about the books central message, even though the plot was entirely different. So while I'd love to see a "true" adaptation of the novel, I can enjoy the silly film because I can see the connection.

      I also tend to believe that when people truly love a book, the creation of both the writer and the reader's imagination when read, it can set unrealistic expectations for a screen adaptation. I was actually very surprised that LOTR was as well-received as it was. But even the most rabid fan of Tolkein's tales knows that it's just not possible, even in three 3-hr.+ films, to get it all.

      For HHG, I guess the humor not being up to par would be something that would cause it to fail for me, as it is a key element. But I have a feeling I will enjoy it even if it falls a bit flat.

      That's probably more analysis than you were looking for, Bone. But brevity's never been my strong suit....
      • Re: On the matter of books and films

        Fri, April 29, 2005 - 3:34 PM
        Well, the issue with Starship Troopers wasn't so much that it was different -- I think we're all on the same page about how a movie can't be a word for word transcription, different media have different rules, and we don't need to restate all that stuff -- but that the filmmakers deliberately and openly set out to create something that was antithetical to the author's message. They said so, in so many words! They didn't like the book and were taking the piss out of it. That's not a favorite book of mine by any stretch, but an author deserves more respect than that. If it's a book you deplore, don't make a movie out of it. If it's a viewpoint you dislike, at least honor someone's right to have a differing opinion.

        With H2G2 this is clearly not the case, and the makers want to pay tribute to the author. If someone made a movie in which Arthur Dent was a surly gun-toting soldier played by Bruce Willis...THEN it would be analogous to Starship Troopers.

        Ew...I just made myself ill! :-D

Recent topics in "Don't Panic"