Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy !

Yes but what do you compare it to? The radio show was first, so technicaly the book is wrong cause it's different from the radio show. Then the tv series is different again to both. And now we have the movie which is once again different.

Douglas Adams saw that each medium had limitations and advantages and beleived that the story should evolve and mutate to suite the medium that it is in. That is why each one is different. Lord of the Rings is a classic example, its a brillant adaptation with changes forced by the medium it is presented in. Purists get all up in arms about it, but when its already 3 hours long for each, how can you be 100% accurate to the books?

I think comparing it to star wars is not a good idea. Personaly I think that the concepts behind star wars is brillant. Unfortunatly I think the end script, cast/acting and directing has let down the more recent ones. Also the intended audience has changed, as its a commerical project and must make money.

HitchHikers guide isn't just a book, its a tv series, a radio series and books. To try and leave the author out of it is to ignore the genius behind the series and ignore the artistry behind it.

I liked the book, I didn't care for the movie. Why is this such a big deal?

well depends on where your comming from. You mentioned that you liked the book and that there are a lot of changes. This is a common complaint about movies when compared to books, but normaly the changes are considered to be sacraligious by fans of the author/book.

The problem is that when applied to movies, there must be changes due to limitations of the medium. Books can convey thought and dialog a lot better than a movie can, while a movie can sometimes portray action and spectacular scenery a lot better. In addition there is the monetary part of it as well.

So when i saw your post i presumed your a FAAN. IF so then knowing that the author of the tv series scripts, the radio series and the book had approved and cowrote the movie script would make you happier. But it appears your not a FAAN, just a person who liked the books.

Its very rare when a book is worse than the movie, I think Were Eagles Dare is the only example I can think of where the movie is better.

Lol, yeah I'm not a Douglas Adams fanatic. I just liked the books. I liked a Stainless Steel Rat is Born as well (I saw you mentioned it in another thread). I really disliked Trillians role in the movie, she was just a footnote in the book the main issue was the adventure. But in the movie she had a starring role and the adventures took a back seat IMO.

The only movie I've seen that I felt accurately portrayed the book was Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. It could have been just because it had been years since I had read the book, but I thought they did an excellent job of keeping it as accurate as possible.

The whole book to movie thing is the same as comeback musicians to me. Once you've heard a band on drugs and liked them, you're going to hate them when their off drugs. Which is why I refuse to listen to the new Billy Idol CD... and in the same respect once you've read a book, and loved it you're going to hate the movie and vice-versa.

yes very true, havta agree with what you said. if you read the book you tend to be book biased, if yuo watch teh movie first then you tend to be movie biased.

I never read Fear and Loathing, thats the movie with Nicolas Cage right? or is it the Johny Dep one? I always confuse the two.

Stainless Steel Rat is a series of books by Harry Harrison. The one you mention is a more recent one, was written after the others. You may find teh style of the othrs a tad weird cause they're very old. But thats partly how i got my nick.

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. I wasn't sure if Metal just liked to aregue with everyone or just with me. But he/she usually makes a point to disagree with me. maybe their just trying to test me, to see if I'm talking out my ass or if I really know what I'm talking about. Either way, it doesn't bother me much.


Metal,

Stainless Steel Rat Is Born isn't the first in the series? They way I remember it, it seemed like it would be the first. My father collected Sci-Fi books so I go through his collection often. That's where I found Stainless Steel Rat, Fear and Loathing, I Robot and other Asmiov's, RingWorld, etc. etc. 60-70's sci-fi is the best. It's kind of funny reading them now because they all say like "The year was 2003, my robot was refuling my spaceship for my daily flight to pluto."

Nicholas Cage was in Leaving Las Vegas, Johnny Depp and Benecio Del Toro starred in Fear and Loathing. Nicholas Cage is in a bunch of movies that take place in Las Vegas for some reason...hrm...

I dont have an issue with you unit_number_43, I was just debating the points you raised. I felt that some of the points you made were incorrect so I stated my position and explained why I beleived what I did. But if I decide that you have argued your point successfuly then I will always state so (as I did above). I actualy enjoy such discussions. If we don't put forth different views, how does one learn?

The Stainless Steel Rat is Born is the first chronological, but wasn't written first, it was first published in 1985. The Stainless Steel Rat was the first book written in that series and was first published in 1961. Looking at Harry Harrison's Bibliography it looks like he wrote a couple of more after "The Stainless Steel Rate Was Born", which makes sense considering the style of the books. My comments about this were not argumentative, I was just stating fact.

You should note that I am a major FAAN, and every book you have mentioned are books that I have in my library, I think i have 300+ books, about 70% would be Sci Fi, quite a few classics. This is why I will make comments on Sci Fi subjects.

As for Fear an Loathing, that was a question, I always get the two diff movies confused (the title that is).

[edit] your comment about star wars I still feel was invalid, as I stated, it was an off the cuff comment that is bound to create reactions from FAAN's.

wow. You guys like to talk. Pretty comprehensive stuff, i think. I didn't judge the movie by comparing it to the book because there really isn't any way to do so since so much of the book is absorbed through the text. I thought it was vey entertaining, however, as it kept its appeal throughout the film.

I have not seen this movie yet, but I'm thinking of going tonight. I heard both some good things, and some pretty bad things about this move, but I know that I should at least try out something before listening to other people.

From the previews, this movie does look pretty good. I suspected something else when the first preview came out for this movie. Hopefully I will be able to see this movie tonight, but it all depends on if my parents will allow me to go or not.

I heard that most the people whom read the books disliked the movie, and enjoyed the books a lot more. But, isn't it like that for everything (although, I personally enjoyed the screen version more).

The movie doesn't really interest me, it looks kinda stupid.