Stu Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 http://www.milkandcookies.com/stuff/triumphvsw.asx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 No. More importanlty has anyone see Hitchhiker's yet? Or Constantine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hottoddy7 Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 Hitchhikers is bad. Bears little resemblance to the books. I know people say that about just about any movie treatment of a book but it is not even close to the books. Most of the movie isn't in the book and what they took from the book they changed drastically. Very disappointing for someone who expected so much, truly fantastic books truly dreadful movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarrek Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 Nyet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Yeah, heard nothing but crap about Hitchhiker's but from fans of the book so it can get a little distorted sometimes. I tend to be generous with "artistic license" when it comes to translating books to pictures. You've got to wonder sometimes how people ever get the nerve to try to bring certain books into the frame of the big screen. Sometimes too much has to get glossed over, left out, or modified to meet the scensabilities of a modern audience for which the novel wasn't written. (Lord of the Rings and Troy being the most recent examples that immediately spring to mind). Told the Wee Elf I thought Lord of the Rings was something far, far better suited to a Sunday night movie series rather than a 8 hour trio of films. Given the dramatic reduction of costs of special effects thanks to computers, I'd have guessed that it was doable too. But that's a guess. Yeah. Heard nothing but crap reviews about Hitchhiker's. As far as I'm concearned any version that has Zaphod two armed and single headed for the majority is just some studio using familiar names and a title in a money grabbing attempt to sell some theatre tickets. Not to mention a missed opportunity at comic creativity. Bah. P.S. On the subject of Sunday night movie series and books I've always thought Notre Dame of Paris would be a grand series. Nice melodramtic period-piece alive with facinating characters. God what I could do with that Hugo novel given the opportunity, money, and freedom... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Yeah, heard nothing but crap about Hitchhiker's but from fans of the book so it can get a little distorted sometimes. I tend to be generous with "artistic license" when it comes to translating books to pictures. You've got to wonder sometimes how people ever get the nerve to try to bring certain books into the frame of the big screen. Sometimes too much has to get glossed over, left out, or modified to meet the scensabilities of a modern audience for which the novel wasn't written. (Lord of the Rings and Troy being the most recent examples that immediately spring to mind). Told the Wee Elf I thought Lord of the Rings was something far, far better suited to a Sunday night movie series rather than a 8 hour trio of films. Given the dramatic reduction of costs of special effects thanks to computers, I'd have guessed that it was doable too. But that's a guess. Yeah. Heard nothing but crap reviews about Hitchhiker's. As far as I'm concearned any version that has Zaphod two armed and single headed for the majority is just some studio using familiar names and a title in a money grabbing attempt to sell some theatre tickets. Not to mention a missed opportunity at comic creativity. Bah. P.S. On the subject of Sunday night movie series and books I've always thought Notre Dame of Paris would be a grand series. Nice melodramtic period-piece alive with facinating characters. God what I could do with that Hugo novel given the opportunity, money, and freedom... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redhat Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Just saw it yesterday afternoon. Maybe the best Star Wars movie ever, excellent digital effects (and better acting than Episodes 1 &2). Lots of kids though. But the matinees were only $7.50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Revenge of the Sith is great. Hitchikers was as mediocre as I thought it would be, which is a shame as it doesn't do the late Douglas Adams justice. A lot of his witty & intelligent humour is taken out and replaced with dumbed-down humour. Those not familiar with the original radio series, the book and fantastic tv series might not realize all the great stuff that's missing & enjoy it - though if I were in their shoes I'd have a tough time figuring out the true significance of a lot of the ideas & concepts presented in the film. And as for how they ruined Zaphod........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadiankick97 Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 I went last night. Episode 3 connects everything really well to the old series (now number 4). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachesl Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Saw Episode 1, again, on CBC last night (back home for a visit). Forgot how godawful it was[xx(], especially compared to the older ones. Will see 3 soon, hopefully it's a lot better than the last 2 stinkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurosawa1555362267 Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 quote:Originally posted by beachesl Saw Episode 1, again, on CBC last night (back home for a visit). Forgot how godawful it was[xx(], especially compared to the older ones. Will see 3 soon, hopefully it's a lot better than the last 2 stinkers. I saw it friday (#3) it is much better than #1 and 2. But I still think Hayden Christensen (Anakin) is not a really good actor. But it does'nt bother me as much in #2. I also hated #2 because I recognized a place in Sevilla in it. It took me out of the story and I was never able to enjoy that film afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 I didn't think Hitchhikers strayed that far away from the books. In fact it was more faithful to its source than most films I can think of. It was funnier than I expected, but didn't really amount to much. And some of the changes really hurt the characters (the love interest, Trillian being less of an academic and the reason why Zaphod became president of the galaxy for a start) and reduced their depth. The concensus was good for the opening night crowd when I went (half of the people there brought towels. I felt like a dork for going to the first show, but I felt much, much less dorky after that). Hey G-L> how did you like Mos Def? I didn't think he was great, but was he better than you expected? Anyway I saw Episode 3 last night and while it didn't suck, it was hardly a great movie. I've wondered if I would have liked the first three had I been older when they came out. The effects were (mostly) remarkable and as always it was beautifully shot. I'm still mad at Lucas for the way he handled the prequels. There's some great stories in this part of the trilogy and I don't think he told any of them very well. His diologue was better, which means it was cingeworthy less often. I just wonder how much better these movies could have been if they had been made for adults and were dramas rather than action movies. I'm not saying get rid of the action, but the plot seems to service the action and not the other way around. cheers, matthew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Hombre Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 I enjoyed Hitchhikers and I'm a big fan of the book. I thought that Sam Rockwell was really good as Zaphod and was glad that they kept him single-headed because otherwise I'd have had to watch a CGI'd Zaphod for the whole movie and that would've taken away from it. It was good entertainment-wise. Not nearly as good as the book, but still enjoyable. Also, for those lamenting that it was not like the book, Adams did it that way on purpose. He wrote the script with the full intention of it not being a regurgitation of the book. Just like the book isn't a regurgitation of the radio play. Haven't seen Ep. III yet. The wife won't let me choose the next movie we see for awhile because I made her sit through hitchhikers. see, didn't like it for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Stu http://www.milkandcookies.com/stuff/triumphvsw.asx Wow! What losers! And I'm not saying that because they're Star Wars fans (altho I am a bit jealous of them cuz they probably all have hot girlfriends), but rather because they would actually line-up for a movie. Won't the movie be exactly the same a week from now when there's no line-up? [)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 I saw it today. Better than the first two. Still too much CGI "spectaculars" (that opening scene had zero emotional punch) and crappy dialogue (it got better around the middle, but I think it's not the actor's fault - Portman, Christensen and Jackson are all good actors who looked like wooden puppets). The best part of the movie was Palpatine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.