@Moose Is the BBC show the one that was also shown on PBS? I thought the show was fantastic except for the last episode, which didn’t make much sense.
What were your complaints/dislikes about it?
“You know," said Arthur, “it’s at times like this, when I’m trapped in a Vogon airlock with a man from Betelgeuse, and about to die of asphyxiation in deep space that I really wish I’d listened to what my mother told me when I was young.”
“Why, what did she tell you?”
"I don’t know, I didn’t listen.”
Haven’t read the book, partially because the people I know that talk about the book are really annoying. I’m sure I would enjoy it. I liked the movie. I get some of the references.
"If you’re familiar with the Adams material, I suggest you stop reading right now before I disappoint or even anger you. All I can do is speak to others like myself, who will be arriving at the movie innocent of Hitchhiker knowledge. To such a person, two things are possible if you see the movie:
You will become intrigued by its whimsical and quirky sense of humor, understand that a familiarity with the books is necessary, read one of more of the Hitchhiker books, return to the movie, appreciate it more, and eventually be absorbed into the legion of Adams admirers.
You will find the movie tiresomely twee, and notice that it obviously thinks it is being funny at times when you do not have the slightest clue why that should be. You will sense a certain desperation as actors try to sustain a tone that belongs on the page and not on the screen. And you will hear dialogue that preserves the content of written humor at the cost of sounding as if the characters are holding a Douglas Adams reading."
I, like Roger, side with option #2. Tried to read the first book and lost interest. Watched the movie and thought it was ehhhh.
@JT954 - I didn’t see the movie but liked the first few books. The BBC tv production hit it spot-on, IMHO, which had the unfortunate effect of highlighting the novels’ shortcomings; I wouldn’t exactly call them “twee” (Merriam-Webster defines that as “affectedly or excessively dainty, delicate, cute, or quaint”) but maybe post-code-restraint bloody-cutesie-pie. The books AND the series have that campy quality of thinking themselves funny for their cultural references - which sometimes gets a little old even when you DO have the clues as to why that should be.
What actually worked for me, and still works in a kind of meta- way, is a certain desperation that comes across as Douglas Adams gets a feel for the brave new world of post-modernism. I HATED the ending, but I’m sure it’s true to Adams’ view of Reagan-Thatcherism triumphant.
@JT954 As someone who had read the entire “trilogy” going in, I also agree with opinion #2. The development hell the film suffered didn’t help the things, with the only funny bits being the new content Adams made just for the film. (The whole “stopping the dozer” gag at the start of the film was a butchered ghost of the version used in the prior adaptations.)
@narfcake@sanspoint I wanted it to work both for hitchhikers fans AND on its own… I figured with a bowl of petunias it wouldn’t work as a stand alone existential whale as well. And I think it’s true, because much of my family loves this design just as an existential whale in space - they haven’t read any of the books:)
It is a curious fact, and one to which no one knows quite how much importance to attach, that something like 85% of all known worlds in the Galaxy, be they primitive or highly advanced, have invented a drink called jynnan tonnyx, or gee-N’N-T’N-ix, or jinond-o-nicks, or any one of a thousand or more variations on the same …
@be2u Because Douglas decided to make Bureaucracy instead (which is hilarious, but makes the Babelfish puzzle look tame by comparison), and then the bottom fell out of the text adventure market.
“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.”
Douglas Adams. Not just brilliant, and funny, but also a truth-teller.
I liked all of the versions where Douglas Adams was in charge and had control. The books, the radio show, and the TV series. I didn’t like the movies.
When experiencing the different versions, it is useful to keep in mind that Adams wanted to make each work unique. The story in the radio show is different than the book. Large chunks of Adams’ dialogue and descriptions were replaced with new Adams dialogues and descriptions.
The movies didn’t match the earlier versions of the story either, but even the one that was started when he was alive didn’t seem like it was under Adams’ creative control.
My first exposure to Douglas Adams’ work were episodes of Doctor Who when he was the head writer. While not my earliest Doctor Who memories, they were the first ones that made the most impact.
If you like the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, you will probably enjoy those Who episodes. If you don’t like that sort of humor in one, you will dislike them both.
The theme of one of the modern Doctor Who episodes was “Dinosaurs on a Spaceship”. This was after Adams’ had left our planet, but it reminded me of his work. (Although, I’m sure if he wrote a version, the dialogue would have been much funnier.)
@hamjudo I actually liked the Hitchhiker’s Movie. Adams was involved for much of the pre-production work, and the new elements in the story were his ideas. No, it’s not perfect, but I think it’s a decent distillation of the Hitchhiker’s Guide concept into a Hollywood movie.
And, even if you don’t like it, which is fine, you gotta admit they nailed the look of the Vogons.
The story in the radio show is different than the book. Large chunks of Adams’ dialogue and descriptions were replaced with new Adams dialogues and descriptions.
The radio series came first, so it’d be the books that expanded from and altered the show.
“The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don’t.”
“He has found a Nutri-Magic machine which had provided him with a plastic cup filled with a liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.”
“Hey, you sass that hoopy Ford Prefect? There’s a frood who really knows where his towel is."
(Sass: know, be aware of, meet, have sex with; hoopy: really together guy; frood: really amazingly together guy.)”
@peabs007 No, hoopy is an adjective. “Really together” is an adjective phrase, modifying frood. (Sorry, but I have a BA in English, and this is one of the few times I can use it.)
As a rule, I don’t re-read or re-watch things on my own. It makes absolutely zero sense to me when people say they watch their favorite movie or read their favorite book every couple years. There is so much new content out there waiting to be discovered that it seems a waste to walk on ground I’ve already trod.
The lone exception in literature is The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy 5-book trilogy. Not only is it incredibly fun/entertaining, but the universe is so far-reaching that reading it again with an already-established familiarity with that universe allows another level of enjoyment.
At one point, I bought two paperback copies of The Ultimate Hitchhiker’s Guide just so I could lend them to friends who had never read the series. Long after I’ve thrown all the rest of my physical books away, there will be a special place on my shelf for my faux leather-bound, gilded copy.
@Kabn I agree totally. There are very few series I re-watch or books I will re-read, but I find myself back in Douglas’s novels every few years or so. I also have The Ultimate Hitchhiker’s Guide, and got a second that is specifically for lending out. I think I’ve forced 5 or 6 friends to read it in the past 14 years.
My first exposure was the TV series, which is still my favorite version. The original radio series is a very close second. The books are okay (and Eoin Colfer’s sequel was, I thought, quite good).
The movie . . . ehhhhh, it had its moments, but I felt it got rid of too much of what made the rest of the series great, and what it added didn’t make up for it.
(And my one and only tattoo is the words “Don’t Panic” in large, friendly letters on my right pec/manboob.)
Someone on Twitter pointed this out, and I’m leaving it here for all of you:
This is the Stephen Moore audiobook reading of the series, which some people really, really like.
You forgot the radio drama.
And the TV series.
And the text adventure…
@lljk How do you get the babel fish in your ear???
@blaineg A rather convoluted process that requires you to remember to grab your junk mail and bring it with you before leaving your house.
@awilkey @blaineg Pretty sure you need to have your towel too, but that goes without saying I suppose.
@awilkey @MagnaVis We did eventually get it, but that was one of the most frustrating puzzles I’ve ever encountered in any game.
The InvisiClues books were great, and a great sense of humor in some of the fake clues as well. “What game are you playing anyway??”
42
There’s a knack to flying. You throw yourself at the ground, and miss.
According to @Thumperchick, if she were the casting director for a refilming of the original book in the series, Irk would be Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz.
Oh, and @f00l said she’d be Marvin.
No way for the new attempt to be any worse than the original anyways.
https://meh.com/forum/topics/ask-a-mod#5729f997704ef0bc062f74d0
I don’t know about you guys but I never leave my house without a towel LOL
@ragingredd
Same towel? Hopefully you wash it when you’re at home.
Douglas Adams was lost far too soon. It still breaks my heart.
Read all the books, watched the (bad) movie, watched the (bad) BBC show, and even played the text based adventure.
I don’t know why I was so invested in it.
Edit: not that I think the source material is bad; if I was still literate I’d probably enjoy re-reading the first book
@Moose Is the BBC show the one that was also shown on PBS? I thought the show was fantastic except for the last episode, which didn’t make much sense.
What were your complaints/dislikes about it?
“You know," said Arthur, “it’s at times like this, when I’m trapped in a Vogon airlock with a man from Betelgeuse, and about to die of asphyxiation in deep space that I really wish I’d listened to what my mother told me when I was young.”
“Why, what did she tell you?”
"I don’t know, I didn’t listen.”
@shahnm I think it was something about proper storage of your batteries?
@2many2no Maybe, but that’s the kind of practical information I typically get from Meh.
Haven’t read the book, partially because the people I know that talk about the book are really annoying. I’m sure I would enjoy it. I liked the movie. I get some of the references.
@Oneroundrobb If you read the book, those people would promptly transform from annoying to interesting and insightful…
@Oneroundrobb Never judge a thing by its fans.
I, for one, enjoyed the movie.
Haven’t seen the movie or read the book.
@RiotDemon
Would you like to change that?
@RiotDemon It’s zany in a good way.
@PlacidPenguin I figure I’ll eventually get around to it.
@RiotDemon Ford… you’re turning into a penguin. Stop it.
@RiotDemon
Want me to nudge you every so often?
@PlacidPenguin no. When people remind me to do things, I usually avoid them.
@PlacidPenguin @RiotDemon Please remember to NOT ready this book.
@ELUNO
I was gonna suggest to @RiotDemon not to forget to forget that I wrote this message.
But your statement is more comprehensible.
@PlacidPenguin @RiotDemon Except I had a typo and now she’ll only ready it to throw it in the trash.
@ELUNO @PlacidPenguin I was politely ignoring the typo.
@PlacidPenguin @RiotDemon aww
@RiotDemon http://gph.is/1K7jPzr
@Targaryen I know… I know.
Excerpt from Roger Ebert’s review of the movie:
"If you’re familiar with the Adams material, I suggest you stop reading right now before I disappoint or even anger you. All I can do is speak to others like myself, who will be arriving at the movie innocent of Hitchhiker knowledge. To such a person, two things are possible if you see the movie:
You will become intrigued by its whimsical and quirky sense of humor, understand that a familiarity with the books is necessary, read one of more of the Hitchhiker books, return to the movie, appreciate it more, and eventually be absorbed into the legion of Adams admirers.
You will find the movie tiresomely twee, and notice that it obviously thinks it is being funny at times when you do not have the slightest clue why that should be. You will sense a certain desperation as actors try to sustain a tone that belongs on the page and not on the screen. And you will hear dialogue that preserves the content of written humor at the cost of sounding as if the characters are holding a Douglas Adams reading."
I, like Roger, side with option #2. Tried to read the first book and lost interest. Watched the movie and thought it was ehhhh.
@JT954 - I didn’t see the movie but liked the first few books. The BBC tv production hit it spot-on, IMHO, which had the unfortunate effect of highlighting the novels’ shortcomings; I wouldn’t exactly call them “twee” (Merriam-Webster defines that as “affectedly or excessively dainty, delicate, cute, or quaint”) but maybe post-code-restraint bloody-cutesie-pie. The books AND the series have that campy quality of thinking themselves funny for their cultural references - which sometimes gets a little old even when you DO have the clues as to why that should be.
What actually worked for me, and still works in a kind of meta- way, is a certain desperation that comes across as Douglas Adams gets a feel for the brave new world of post-modernism. I HATED the ending, but I’m sure it’s true to Adams’ view of Reagan-Thatcherism triumphant.
@JT954 As someone who had read the entire “trilogy” going in, I also agree with opinion #2. The development hell the film suffered didn’t help the things, with the only funny bits being the new content Adams made just for the film. (The whole “stopping the dozer” gag at the start of the film was a butchered ghost of the version used in the prior adaptations.)
I liked the book, but I wouldn’t call it a favorite. The movie was okay- worse than the book, but I enjoyed it.
https://shirt.woot.com/offers/existential-whale?ref=meh_com
@narfcake Where’s the bowl of petunias?
@sanspoint Maybe ask @jasneko?
There’s always this @Rasabi shirt too:
https://shirt.woot.com/offers/race-to-the-bottom?ref=meh_com
@narfcake @sanspoint I wanted it to work both for hitchhikers fans AND on its own… I figured with a bowl of petunias it wouldn’t work as a stand alone existential whale as well. And I think it’s true, because much of my family loves this design just as an existential whale in space - they haven’t read any of the books:)
Don’t Panic!!
I do actually have a towel that says “Don’t Panic” that I keep in my car, and has seen a fair bit of use.
/image towlie
Infocom: Why did you never produce Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy 2?
@be2u Because Douglas decided to make Bureaucracy instead (which is hilarious, but makes the Babelfish puzzle look tame by comparison), and then the bottom fell out of the text adventure market.
That said, they did try to make one, and you can read about it, and even play a very early alpha here
So long and thanks for all the fish.
Sounds awful. :sadrobot:
“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.”
Douglas Adams. Not just brilliant, and funny, but also a truth-teller.
I liked all of the versions where Douglas Adams was in charge and had control. The books, the radio show, and the TV series. I didn’t like the movies.
When experiencing the different versions, it is useful to keep in mind that Adams wanted to make each work unique. The story in the radio show is different than the book. Large chunks of Adams’ dialogue and descriptions were replaced with new Adams dialogues and descriptions.
The movies didn’t match the earlier versions of the story either, but even the one that was started when he was alive didn’t seem like it was under Adams’ creative control.
My first exposure to Douglas Adams’ work were episodes of Doctor Who when he was the head writer. While not my earliest Doctor Who memories, they were the first ones that made the most impact.
If you like the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, you will probably enjoy those Who episodes. If you don’t like that sort of humor in one, you will dislike them both.
The theme of one of the modern Doctor Who episodes was “Dinosaurs on a Spaceship”. This was after Adams’ had left our planet, but it reminded me of his work. (Although, I’m sure if he wrote a version, the dialogue would have been much funnier.)
@hamjudo I actually liked the Hitchhiker’s Movie. Adams was involved for much of the pre-production work, and the new elements in the story were his ideas. No, it’s not perfect, but I think it’s a decent distillation of the Hitchhiker’s Guide concept into a Hollywood movie.
And, even if you don’t like it, which is fine, you gotta admit they nailed the look of the Vogons.
@hamjudo Movies? Plural? Is there something I need to know?
@PocketBrain All you need to know is that my memory is not very good, and that my proof reading skills are practically worthless.
@hamjudo
The radio series came first, so it’d be the books that expanded from and altered the show.
“The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don’t.”
“He has found a Nutri-Magic machine which had provided him with a plastic cup filled with a liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.”
/youtube don’t forget to bring a towel
Hoopy is a noun, not an adjective.
“Hey, you sass that hoopy Ford Prefect? There’s a frood who really knows where his towel is."
(Sass: know, be aware of, meet, have sex with; hoopy: really together guy; frood: really amazingly together guy.)”
@peabs007 No, hoopy is an adjective. “Really together” is an adjective phrase, modifying frood. (Sorry, but I have a BA in English, and this is one of the few times I can use it.)
@peabs007 I think if it said “Hey, you sass that hoopy, Ford Prefect?” you’d be right, but without the comma it’s describing Ford.
The best version was the Apple IIc text adventure game
@boinks
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1g84m0sXpnNCv84GpN2PLZG/the-hitchhikers-guide-to-the-galaxy-game-30th-anniversary-edition
As a rule, I don’t re-read or re-watch things on my own. It makes absolutely zero sense to me when people say they watch their favorite movie or read their favorite book every couple years. There is so much new content out there waiting to be discovered that it seems a waste to walk on ground I’ve already trod.
The lone exception in literature is The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy 5-book trilogy. Not only is it incredibly fun/entertaining, but the universe is so far-reaching that reading it again with an already-established familiarity with that universe allows another level of enjoyment.
At one point, I bought two paperback copies of The Ultimate Hitchhiker’s Guide just so I could lend them to friends who had never read the series. Long after I’ve thrown all the rest of my physical books away, there will be a special place on my shelf for my faux leather-bound, gilded copy.
@Kabn I agree totally. There are very few series I re-watch or books I will re-read, but I find myself back in Douglas’s novels every few years or so. I also have The Ultimate Hitchhiker’s Guide, and got a second that is specifically for lending out. I think I’ve forced 5 or 6 friends to read it in the past 14 years.
My first exposure was the TV series, which is still my favorite version. The original radio series is a very close second. The books are okay (and Eoin Colfer’s sequel was, I thought, quite good).
The movie . . . ehhhhh, it had its moments, but I felt it got rid of too much of what made the rest of the series great, and what it added didn’t make up for it.
(And my one and only tattoo is the words “Don’t Panic” in large, friendly letters on my right pec/manboob.)
a long time favorite, AND one of my favorite movies. the yarn scene is one of my all time favorite movie moments
@jerk_nugget this is of course with the major caveats that i saw the movie
@jerk_nugget I really like how the doors on the starship Heart Of Gold all sigh, just like they did in the book.
/image starship Heart Of Gold
Someone on Twitter pointed this out, and I’m leaving it here for all of you:
This is the Stephen Moore audiobook reading of the series, which some people really, really like.
This is relevant to my interests.