Turf Marking

All original material, except otherwise explicitly stated, is under this:
Creative Commons License
Creative Commons License
Warm Fuzzy Freudian Slippers, Ltd.
*Other People's Blogs


Things you need to know:
  • Some posts, or the links they contain, are NSFW. This is your only warning.
  • This blog serves the cause of my freedom of speech, not yours. I wield censorship like a 10 year-old boy who just found his father's handgun.

Sunday, May 08, 2005

E liked Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy more than I did. Call me a Douglass Adams purist, I don't care. But, the movie worked best for me the closer it stuck to the basics of the mythos. I can forgive the plot point differences. I can't forgive changing the entire point of the book. Just like you wouldn't rework "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" into some sort of spy thriller, you shouldn't take a story that's basically about a man's reaction to the discovery that Life, the Universe, and Everything is utterly absurd and make it into a love story. And, you damn sure don't do it by mischaracterizing almost all the characters. Except for Marvin. I can't decide if I'm entirely in favor of what they did. On the one hand, the look was awesome. I enjoyed the character... but why? Because aside from the new look and the new (Alan Rickman's) voice, his character was exactly the same as the one in the old radio/TV mini, even down to the pacing. So, why not change him like they changed the rest of it? Even the starship Heart of Gold acted the same. Were they respecting the mythos or giving us the finger. Like, "We'll leave the unimportant stuff alone, but screw with all the other things you, as a Douglas Adams purist, were intentionally looking out for."

The little video ditties of the Guide entries were funny, too. Again, 100% first class updating. The ships and the CGI were great. I was expecting one of the spherical vessels to suddenly sprout arms and a tongue, but I bet you they're saving that money shot for the sequel that they hinted on.

See it, and see if you can pinpoint the exact moment where the movie goes south.

Maybe I'm just old and jaded and just don't get it. Maybe I don't understand this current mindset of remaking, reimagining and revamping of, well, just about every God damn movie and TV series that existed between 1960 and 1989.

Then again, maybe it's the same thing that enabled me to recognize the greatest cameo in the film aside from the planet shaped like Douglas Adams' head - a cameo that, like the Kubrick reference in Kung Fu Hustle, vitually no one outside me and my wife recognized, let alone appreciated.