Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
The funny thing about THHGttG is that it exists several times simultaneously with wildly different canons. The original BBC radio show was the original, then they did the TV miniseries with much of the same talent (Mostly replacing Susan Sheridan with Sandra Dickenson as Trillian), THEN the book pentology, THEN the 2005 movie. They all start pretty similarly with Arthur's house and the pub and the Vogons, but then they go into all kinds of different directions in different orders.
For me personally, the plot doesn't matter all that much anyway. What I love is Douglas Adams' prose - the plot's mostly just a vehicle for that - and I feel that doesn't really translate to film. The perfect example:
It's funny. It's succinct. It's very descriptive. It doesn't just tell you that the ships were hovering, it draws comparison to bricks which conjures up images of blocky, inelegant ships, and it gives the impression that the way they're just stationary in the sky is somewhat unsettling or surreal. I think it's quite impressive how much such a short sentence manages to convey really!
Translating it to film, and having shot of some blocky, inelegant ships hanging in the sky, doesn't manage to capture the same humour or feeling that that short sentence in the book does, at least for me. And it's the same throughout the whole series, but that line is probably the easiest example to bring up. Some books translate really well to film and the imagery in the film ends up being far better than what I could imagine myself on the fly, but that's not the case with Hitchhiker's Guide at all.
The Hitchhiker's Guide radio series has a fair amount of narration so the prose still shines through in that.
I had similar issues with the various Dirk Gently adaptations, too. And I find I have the same issue with screen adaptations of Terry Pratchett's work for similar reasons. Without Adams' or Pratchett's wonderful prose, it often tends to feel very B-movie-esque to me.