A "Wiki page"? How precocious and presumptuous...
I was introduced to the Hitchhiker's Guide listening to its US first broadcast on the radio in 1981 (some people don't need a Wiki page to tell them about the 80s). I also read the initial book and the ones that followed as they were first released in the US.
Doug Adams initially created the Hitchhiker universe for a series of scripts to be performed by actors on the radio. Performance media (radio, TV, film) imposes limitations on an author at which Adams excelled. He managed to distill a broad range of ideas and concepts into a pair of radio series, each series consisting of six episodes, each episode 27 minutes in length. The conventions we associate with the Hitchhiker's Guide---the rapid pacing, interwoven dialogue, and the frequent interjections by the Book---were all conceived by Adams to fit the constraints of that performance media.
Only after the first radio series proved a success did Adams get a chance to publish it as a book. As a literal transcription of a radio script would have made for a very short and uninteresting book, Adams expanded the content and repackaged it for print. The success of the second radio series resulted in similar opportunity. Only the three books that followed the first two were wholly original products for print.
Print media requires a different structure than performance, relying upon the reader to imagine their own "voice" on the characters. It is only natural, if you were first introduced to this universe in print, that you would use your interpretation of the books as the basis for evaluating the film (many people are disappointed by film adaptations of books). It is also naturally your right to express your opinion that you prefer the books over what you saw on the screen.
The "slamming" comes about when, after expressing your opinion, you persist in defending it by belittling other posters or invalidating the value of their opinions with broad, unsubstantiated claims that only your viewpoint is the "most widely accepted" or that we'd be "hard pressed to find a HHGTTG fan who has listened to the radio play."
Sorry friend. I did listen to them and always considered the radio performances an absolute gem. And if other people didn't listen to them and share my opinion, we wouldn't hardly be talking about an obscure 1978 radio play in 2014.
And if you persist in arguing your "own PERSONAL OPINION that the movie sucked compared to the source material" I am likewise obligated to say you are wrong. By definition the only "source material" from which film, TV shows and books sprung is the radio plays. Only they reflect Adam's initial genius and, while there's more material in the books, don't mistake icing for the cake.
Comparing the film with the true source material---an "apples to apples" comparison between one performance media and another---in my own personal opinion (note the lack of caps) the film does an admirable job of capturing Adam's original craftsmanship and was well worth the wait.
On the other hand, if you feel another movie has failed to capture another book, go ahead and do so. You're welcome to your opinion. But that opinion is not particularly original in the film world and, at this point of this thread, becoming tedious.
reply
share
pschuste
10 years ago
I watched this with my dolphin and she LOVED it. At one point beer squirted out of her nose...I hope that was beer. Come to think of it I hope that was her nose. I'm with your evaluation
trhickey I started with the books but then went back to the real source material (radio.) I LOVED the books; I LIKED the radio bit; I LIKED the BBC TV series (in spite of B- acting and effects); and I LIKED the movie. As much as I enjoyed the books, in the opus of literature they are closer to, "A Confederacy of Dunces" than they are to "War and Peace." Don't get me wrong...I enjoyed "A Confederacy of Dunces." Someone else (sry for not giving proper credit) pointed out that DNA recognized that every medium was different. Comparing the movie to the books is like comparing a painting to a poem. ANYWAY...I LOVED the exchanges between Aurthur and Slartibartfast at the end. They really captured the spirit of series. One other thing to consider...I've seen posts slamming Hollywood for making a movie that catered to American audiences. Hollywood is in America. I don't get Bollywood but I'm smart enough to know that if there was a Bollywood production of HHGTTG I would have to adjust my expectations. I LOVE Monty Python but there are gags I just won't get as an American. "The Rise and Fall of Reginald Perrin" is one of my all-time favorites. SOME comedy crosses cultural boundaries, but some doesn't.
reply
share
stan-goodvibes
10 years ago
Apologies for the tardy reply, I've been a bit hectic lately. Also apologies for making the assumption that you were just quoting wikipedia - the level of error in my assumption is matched only by the level of my surprise that someone on this message board has actually *heard* of the radio plays, let alone listened to them. Especially in America. I lived in London from 1995 too 2001 and although i wasn't big 'fan' of HHGTTG I do recall meeting other people who had read the books or seen the TV show but can't recall a time anyone mentioned the radio plays. Which isn't to say they didn't, but that is the context (not mitigation) for the wiki assumption.
Actually this just reminded me - a friend I met recently was quoting from HHGTTG just the other day and I totally forgot to ask him if he had heard the radio plays!
Anyhoo, you make several good points which I can't totally refute, so.. you win :-)
I have to express my surprise though - along with the caveat that having not heard the radio plays I am therefore unqualified to comment on the real source material for the movie - that you actually enjoyed the movie. My personal experience (note lack of caps) of it was so disappointing that I can't believe immersing myself in the radio plays and then watching it again would help me to appreciate it more. But there again, I could be wrong.
That is what makes us all different I guess. I'm still amazed by all the reviewers commenting on how Interstellar is flawed genius when I found it to be some of the most tedious hours I've ever spent. Period.
Thanks for the reply.
reply
share
Mick1994
9 years ago
Dude... you deserve a medal!
Favourite movie of all time: "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan"
reply
share
smusherface
8 years ago
*Slow clap* Excellently stated response which employed a logical, rational, and reasonable argument. Great example of how to knock someone off their high horse without resorting to crude insults and personal attacks. The proof of that is the response you received to your reply. Not that it works with everyone, unfortunately, but bravo for not taking the low road, and delivering a well-deserved shellacking.
reply
share