Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media It's funny. Laugh.

HHGTG Screenwriter Interviews Himself 257

Posted by michael from the cheese-sandwich dept.
Overly Critical Guy writes "The screenwriter for the upcoming Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy film has interviewed himself. A snippet: 'Who am I? "Not Douglas Adams" is the answer that concerns most people.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

HHGTG Screenwriter Interviews Himself More

HHGTG Screenwriter Interviews Himself

Comments Filter:

  • Douglas Adams (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ianoo ( 711633 ) on Saturday May 29, 2004 @07:16AM (#9284299) Journal
    Who am I? "Not Douglas Adams" is the answer that concerns most people.'"
    Actually I'd be more concerned if the guy claimed he was Douglas Adams, what with him having passed away and all.

  • Who is interested in the questions... (Score:5, Funny)

    by tmk ( 712144 ) on Saturday May 29, 2004 @07:18AM (#9284305)
    when the answer is not "42"?
  • For a writer - that is, someone who ought to be proud of what they write, unashamed - he sure masks a lot of words with random punctuation marks.</harsh>

  • I believe Adams himself once wrote... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fpga_guy ( 753888 ) on Saturday May 29, 2004 @07:22AM (#9284310)
    "The only problem with talking to yourself, is that you are rarely surprised by the answers..."

  • Wonderful.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Fullmetal Edward ( 720590 ) on Saturday May 29, 2004 @07:27AM (#9284321) Journal
    I hope this doesn't become a fad, most film actors don't have the IQ of an average person let alone enough to figure out that they are talking to themselvs....

  • The first question he asks himself.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nadavspi ( 631105 ) on Saturday May 29, 2004 @07:28AM (#9284323)
    "WHO THE H*#&! ARE YOU AND WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO MUCK AROUND WITH THIS TREASURED PIECE OF LITERATURE, YOU AMERICAN HOLLYWOOD HACK?"
    I like this guy already.

    Seriously though, the attitude he has in this self interview gives me (some) hope for this movie. He seems concerned with keeping the movie parallel to Douglas Adams' intentions and style.
    He also noted how his initial reaction after reading Douglas's script was "I can't write this, this guy's a genius and I'm no genius."
    "I was never trying to put my stamp on this material or bring my 'voice' to it (whatever the h*#&! that elusive thing is)."
    Who knows, it may even turn out decent. Eh, who am I kidding.

    • execs have the infinte power to $@~$ things up (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Random_Goblin ( 781985 ) on Saturday May 29, 2004 @08:05AM (#9284390)
      If you've read through "the salmon of doubt" you get a sense of just how difficult it's been to get this film made. Adam's was repeatedly told "there's no market for a funny sci-fi film". I don't recall his exact words on the success of "Men In Black", but you can feel the head bashing against a brick wall.

      there is more film goodness here [douglasadams.com] including what I think is a picture of marvin.

      You know what? It just might work, after all Pete Jackson did a damn good job, and everyone thought he would suck.

      Lets just all pray George Lucas doesn't walk near the studio. [shuddering at the thought of Ja-Ja Marvin]

  • Actually.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MooCows ( 718367 ) on Saturday May 29, 2004 @07:30AM (#9284327)
    .. this guy strikes me as a good person for this task.

    And when I told him of my "I'm not worthy" moment, he said "I think you're perfect for it and that attitude will probably help you."

    And he seems to really grasp the bizarre HHGTtG humor :)
    (Let's just hope the rest of the movie will be made by equally promising folks)

    • Re:Actually.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by MilenCent ( 219397 ) <johnwh@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Saturday May 29, 2004 @12:29PM (#9285208) Homepage
      Here's one thing I'm worried about:

      That someone along the line, someone important to the process, will mess it up terribly. The whole movie can get made perfectly and it can still get messed up -- we're talking about Disney here, they can always decide the editors did a horrible job and re-edit it, which could be murder to a Hitchhiker's movie.

      And here's another thing I'm worried about:

      Consider, for a moment, that everyone involved with this could be perfect and the movie could still disappoint. This is not a situation where they can take any old crap out of the script pile, raise its attributes by equipping it with a director and actors, and plop it out onto the screen.

      This movie is going to require real directoral skill to work, but he can't get too fancy with the material or he'll incur the wrath of geeks everywhere.

      And the last thing I'm worried about:

      A Hitchhiker's movie has been bouncing around Hollywood for a long time. Adams has been dead for what, two or three years now? When did the project get uncorked and start moving towards production? It wasn't long after the critical fatality.

      The thing that may have held up the movie for so long is Adams himself, refusing to accept the various flavors of Hollywood taint that infect so many productions. Of course, the success of the Lord Of The Rings movies has changed things a little bit....

      My god, that's the new thing that really worries me:

      A Hitchhiker's Movie is in production because Hollywood has concluded there's money to be made in movie adaptations of books beloved by geeks.

      O'Reilly is sitting on a gold mine.

      • O'Reilly is sitting on a gold mine.

        What a great idea, and why restrict it to O'Reilly! We can have George Lucas do K&R with all the C++ special effects added in later, have Peter Jackson direct a definitive version of Knuth that will most of the geeks can live with, and the guy who did Trainspotting can do the Camel book...

  • A film ? .. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Gopal.V ( 532678 ) on Saturday May 29, 2004 @07:32AM (#9284331) Homepage Journal
    Being the imaginative , day dreaming type , I've always seen stories rather than read them ...

    Like seeing a sandworm while reading dune or seeing the patronus (made of glittering points of light) from a low angle (only hooves visible) making ripples on the lake as it runs ... Or see Arthur Dent flying around trying to grab his bag with the bottle of retsina ...

    The Harry Potter movie literally destroyed that picture I had in mind, because a movie still cannot give me the "real" feeling the book gave me ..

    But I guess , illusions provided by a book cannot be enjoyed by everyone... some just need a little "CG" help.

    • Re:A film ? .. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by __aatgod8309 ( 598427 ) on Saturday May 29, 2004 @08:20AM (#9284428)
      The problem is when instead of 'a little CG help' they instead rely on 'the huge CG crutch'. Lets hope they focus on the original material, and don't end up with $$$ of flashy sfx trying hide the failings of the finished product...

    • Re:A film ? .. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by That's Unpossible! ( 722232 ) * on Saturday May 29, 2004 @09:31AM (#9284595)
      Sorry, it just really annoys me when you get that stereotypical person in a movie thread complaining about a movie being made, usually in reference to a 'sacred work of fiction'. DON'T WATCH IT AND SHUT UP ABOUT IT. Allow me to elaborate...

      But I guess , illusions provided by a book cannot be enjoyed by everyone... some just need a little "CG" help.

      Some of us like to enjoy the creative visions of others as well.

      Many people get a thrill from watching a well-constructed 2-minute trailer for a good movie, just as some of us like to watch a well-constructed 2-hour "trailer" of a good book.

      It's not the same as reading the book, they are two separate types of enjoyment.

      And sometimes the movie is actually better. E.g., IMO, The Shawshank Redemption. In my book-reading, I don't have the benefit of great actors, the voice over of Morgan Freeman, or the music of Thomas Newman to enhance the story.

      • Re:A film ? .. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by MilenCent ( 219397 )
        Some of us like to enjoy the creative visions of others as well.

        I can understand that. But in our culture, movies carry ten times the cultural weight that books carry. If a book and a movie made from that book are both equivilently popular, relative to the size of their audiences, then the culture will tend to remember the movie to the exclusion of the book.

        This is why, when a movie is made from a book, the book suddenly gets back into print, almost always with cover graphics that match the movie. The

    • Re:A film ? .. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ctr2sprt ( 574731 )

      But I guess , illusions provided by a book cannot be enjoyed by everyone... some just need a little "CG" help.

      Don't be such a snobbish elitist. Just because I like the Harry Potter movies doesn't mean I lack an imagination, which is what you're claiming. All it means that I have the ability to enjoy watching someone else's imagination without sacrificing my own. After all, no interpretation is really perfectly correct, even if your name is J.K. Rowling - you make the books your own when you read th

  • DVD regions (Score:5, Funny)

    by MavEtJu ( 241979 ) <[gro.ujtevam] [ta] [todhsals]> on Saturday May 29, 2004 @07:37AM (#9284337) Homepage
    And I didn't get a chance to watch their commercial and music video reel before the call (because my DVD player wouldn't play UK Region 2, but I digress)

    The snake bites itself in the tail...

  • The Radio Shows (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TaxSlave ( 23295 ) <<lockjaw> <at> <lockjawslair.com>> on Saturday May 29, 2004 @07:43AM (#9284348) Homepage Journal

    I'm glad to read that he followed up his script-reading and hiring by going straight to the radio shows. Both the TV shows and the first two books showed amazing genius, primarily because they sprung forth directly from those radio shows.

    In radio, you must build your images in the spoken word with minimal sound effects. You must do it clearly and succinctly. This translated very well to the TV screen, because they didn't throw away the descriptions altogether and replace them with images. They just added TO the descriptions.

    The first two books were very dialogue driven, and dialogue is where Adams' genius really showed through. The other books in the "trilogy" never felt quite the same, and I stronly believe that feeling came from the lack of basis in well-formed radio drama/comedy.

    I can't wait.

    • The Radio Shows (listen to them at KCRW) (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I could not agree more. All the versions of HHGTG are classics, but the radio show has the primary vision from which the rest sprang. You've not had the full experience until you've heard them.

      Luckily, KCRW has them on-line at: http://kcrw.org/show/hg

  • Nice attempt at a pre-emptive strike (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tuvai ( 783607 ) <zeikfried@gmail.com> on Saturday May 29, 2004 @07:51AM (#9284362) Journal
    But I doubt this stunt will be enough to silence the most rabid of followers of Douglas Adams' work, that particular camp will only be content if this movie is never released at all. After all, not even Peter Jackson, with his vision, scope, funding and love of the books could silence the complaints following the rings trilogy.
    He has to realise that with book-to-film adaptations, whether it be Harry Potter or Battle Royale, you can never satisfy the lunatic fringe. In fact, in the end, you can never win, all you can do is please as many people as you can.

    • Re:Nice attempt at a pre-emptive strike (Score:5, Insightful)

      by aheath ( 628369 ) * <adam,heath&comcast,net> on Saturday May 29, 2004 @08:07AM (#9284396)
      When I was a kid, there were many movies I avoided because I loved the book so much. As an adult, I've come to realize that it's the story that's most important. A movie is just a different way of telling a story than a book is. Book's encourage active imagination. Movies do all the imagining for you. Now I always make it a point to read the book before I see the movie.

      My 11 year old son just discovered HHGG and Douglas Adams. He's read the radio script, read the books, and seen the BBC TV show. Each version is slightly different from the others. I fully expect that he and I will both enjoy the HHGG movie because we will accept it for what it is instead of comparing it to the source material.

    • He has to realise that with book-to-film adaptations, whether it be Harry Potter or Battle Royale, you can never satisfy the lunatic fringe. In fact, in the end, you can never win, all you can do is please as many people as you can.

      But this assumes that the film moguls are actually trying to please people in the first place, rather than just exploiting well known brands to get more butts on seats.

      My major grip with book-to-film adaptations is how much liberty the studios take with the plot. I'm no diehard.

    • Who cares about the fringe people anyway?

      If they don't like the movie, I'll read them some Vogon poetry and that'll take care of even the strongest opponent!

      The point is to get DA's incredible stories out to people who have never heard of him or his work and at the same time be as true as possible to the original work.

      Fringe lunatics running around with dual papier mache heads are not the target of the movie.

    • Lunatic Fringe (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      He has to realise that with book-to-film adaptations, whether it be Harry Potter or Battle Royale, you can never satisfy the lunatic fringe.

      The problem is, with something as bizarre as this "trilogy", the lunatic fringe is a rather large percentage of the whole readership...not meant as a troll but you have to admit, these books are strange.

  • American to be the screenwriter for h2g2 .. hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)

    by themadcaplaughs ( 727214 ) on Saturday May 29, 2004 @07:57AM (#9284378)
    Well, with Doughlas Adams not around, someone of course had to do the screen-writing. I wished all along that the chosen someone be British.

    I am not any of the "ists" .. but then as a neutral observer, I would say let the duck float and and let the fish swim. J D Sallinger is funny no doubt, but then comparing him with G B Shaw would be injustice to both. For the more literally challenged of my friends here, check out the difference in the humour of Blackadder or Monty Phython and Friends or Will and Grace. I don't think Brit and American humour can be mixed. None of them is inferior ( ok that is being neutral to the point of getting irritating, so the confession : I do admire the Brit humour more ). Hoping this guy proves my doubts to be plain paranoia.

  • Whoa.. look at the cast (Score:5, Informative)

    by thatguywhoiam ( 524290 ) on Saturday May 29, 2004 @08:08AM (#9284401)
    So I went and did the IMdB like everyone else and after checking Mr. Kirkpatrick's credentials, I looked at the slated cast for the H2G2 movie... some interesting choices... [imdb.com]

    Arthur Dent = Martin Freeman ("Tim" from The Office)
    Ford Prefect = Mos Def (weird, but I could see it)
    Warwick Davis = Marvin (?!? uh, Willow?? is Marvin short, I can't remember)
    Humma Kavula = John Malkovich (say no more)
    Zaphod Beeblebrox = Sam Rockwell (right on!)

    I have hope.

  • Hammer and Tongs? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Dolentron 3030 ( 572903 ) on Saturday May 29, 2004 @08:28AM (#9284443) Homepage
    I'd never heard of these guys before reading that interview, but i found their website, Tongsville [hammerandtongs.co.uk]. You can check out some of their music video and shorts here to get an idea of their style. I'm encouraged.
    • Their little animated milk carton video for "Coffee and TV" by blur, was really good. I hadn't realised that was them. I knew I'd heard of them, but couldn't think of what they'd done.

      Good link

  • fools (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CAIMLAS ( 41445 ) on Saturday May 29, 2004 @08:35AM (#9284450)
    for those saying that a brit should've been picked for the screen writer: bullshit.

    genius is indiscriminate, and british cultural humour is not only "gotten" by brits, as the last 20-some years of Monty Pyton fandom in the US has demonstrated. Nor are brits the only ones that can create such humour.

    Furthermore, kirkpatrick said he didn't even make all that many changes, just organized it so it would fit the film format (ie, so that the action wouldn't be crouded at one end of the film, with the other 3/4ths of it boring as fuck).

    I don't know about anyone else thought about Chicken Run, but I thought it was very similar in style to Wallace and Grommit. Are not the writers/makers of W&G british? (I personally thought Chicken Run was more fun and humorous overall, but what do I know. I'm a stupid American, right? bigots.)

    • Re:Chicken Run / Wallace and Gromit (Score:4, Informative)

      by lxt ( 724570 ) on Saturday May 29, 2004 @08:54AM (#9284491) Journal
      Yes, they are British. In fact, I'm typing this around 100 metres away from the animation studio (Aardman) at which they were made.

      However, I do believe that Chicken Run was touched up somewhat by DreamWorks, to slightly Americanise it - after all, Chicken Run was bankrolled by a US film studio, whereas the Wallace and Grommit films were bankrolled either by Aardman themselves or the BBC

    • Chicken Run == Hollywood formula (Score:4, Insightful)

      by acb ( 2797 ) on Saturday May 29, 2004 @11:15AM (#9284917) Homepage
      The character development arcs in Chicken Run were done to Hollywood formula (i.e., the Mel Gibson character's journey of self-discovery). It could well have been plotted using the screenwriting software commonly used in Hollywood (and probably was).

      The Wallace & Gromit films, in contrast, have a charming naivete about them. The characters aren't instances of a Hollywood-developed psychological model, embodying drives and motivations and moving along like cogs in a well-oiled machine, but just characters, gleefully violating the rules. To a Hollywood studio executive, this would be crude, sloppy characterization (and if Hollywood money was involved, it would be sent to a script doctor to fix it before it ever got to filming); yet it works, and seems to have more soul than the products of Hollywood.

  • More behind the scenes stuff (Score:4, Informative)

    by guidemaker ( 570195 ) on Saturday May 29, 2004 @08:53AM (#9284489)
    On h2g2 [bbc.co.uk] there's more movie stuff, including an interview with the director and producer, and a short clip of behind the scenes as the first scene is filmed.

  • Worrying extracts (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, 2004 @09:14AM (#9284553)


    he was watching CHICKEN RUN (with his sons? I don't know. In my head, he watches it weekly) he thought "hey that writer seemed to create a feature film that worked as a big studio movie while still keeping an existing and uniquely British sensibility.

    Speaking as a Brit, I found Chicken Run hugely disappointing. It was a good idea with poor execution, like it was dumbed down. It felt like a sell out from beginning to end, with much of the quirky and inventive humour of the three Wallace and Gromits completely missing. I thought Nick Park had just struck a bum note in scaling up to feature length, but I guess it was partly this guys fault too. It was laugh free.

    one of those guys who quoted Holy Grail

    There is nothing more nauseating than someone who quotes MP at length, trying to be funny. It's basically the sure sign of someone who just isn't funny at all. Al Gore probably does it at parties.

    (brilliant ideas, too -- truly humbling),

    This whole Adams worshipping strikes the wrong note with me. I mean, the guy was great, but like the rest of us, he had his occassional shit ideas. I've read the early draft of the "Salmon of Doubt". He worked over and over on scripts to bring them up to par. If you're blinded by adoration, and don't have the talent to rewrite, maybe you're just not the right guy. He seems to go from

    "I'm not good enough"->"I'm really excited about the project, but I'm not good enough"->"This is my project, but I'm not good enough"->"I'm just like Adam's in many ways."->"I can rewrite his stuff better."

    Putting "I felt a certain amount of freedom to continue carrying that torch, mostly with the new concepts, characters and plot devices that Douglas had already created" together with "More has been made of the Arthur/Trillian relationship and the Arthur/Trillian/Zaphod triangle. Douglas knew, as I know, that in order to make a feature film bankrolled by an American studio that is to play on the global stage there needs to be a certain amount of attention paid to character, character relationships and emotion." suffuses me with dread. Let's say Douglas experimented with a number of lame ideas to make the film more appealling, such as more love triangles and jealousy. Shouldn't be in the final film, but will be in the process outlined here.

    Hammer and Tongs: the music video specialists. A 3 minute music video direction to a feature film direction? That's a hell of a leap. I'd worry with this project in experienced hands. Jackson analogy doesn't hold here, he cut his teeth on a number of low budget horror flicks like "Bad Taste", and one more mainstream "Heavenly Bodies"(?) before moving onto LotR. Anyone think of even one music video director who has gone on to make a successful full length feature? I can't.

    The tide has receded and left his admission he wrote the script for "Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves!" indelibly impressed on my mind like a hulk of a wrecked ship. Prepare yourselves: HHGTG will be a wreck of a film.

  • One thing not to loose: subtlety (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sela ( 32566 ) on Saturday May 29, 2004 @09:26AM (#9284586) Homepage

    I think the biggest problem with american works vs. British is the lack of subtely.

    In Hollywoodic movies everything needs to be explicit. We need to know who are the good guys and bad guys right ahead. If there is a moral to the story, they make an effort _nobody_ will miss it. If there is a commical situation, they make every effort to make us understand that we just experianced a funny moment - or otherwise Joe sixpacks might miss the fact that someone said something funny, which is not good for their wallet.

    And this is exactle what I hope _will not_ happen to HHGTTG. If it will remain a truely British film, they will be able to present the most commical, rediculous and improbable situation with a sence of casuality, as if it were an absolutely normal situation. If it will become a typical an hollywoodic film, every scene will be accompanied with a "Look - what a cool concept this is!", and "wasn't this just hillarious?". Every element in the story will be explained to death.

    I sure hope this won't happen to this movie.
    • "I think the biggest problem with american works vs. British is the lack of subtely."

      This is a shopworn bias. On the American side it only considers Hollywood films--and it convienently forgets all the awful British TV and film that gets made every year.

      There are differences between the British and American film canons, but it's nothing as simple as "subtlety".
      • I would like to know where the subtlety is in the Vogons, and in most of the other Adams villains who are evil simply because they exist. Or in any of the passages where Adams seems to be saying, "Look! Look at the funny horrors that have happened due to modern hypocritical beaurocracy!" I find that this kind of subtlety hits "like a slice of lemon wrapped around a large gold brick."

        If anything separates British from American films, it's not so much the direction of the plot as it is devotion to the plo

    • Re:One thing not to loose: subtlety (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Scarblac ( 122480 ) <slashdot@gerlich.nl> on Saturday May 29, 2004 @11:03AM (#9284865) Homepage

      I think he gets that, actually. Read the part where the directors ask him to "clarify" the infinite improbability drive concept:

      Each time we tried to clarify the I.I.D, we'd look through the script and say, "It's in there, isn't it?" By lunch, we moved from coffee to wine and the I.I.D. concept was gaining clarity. By late afternoon when we moved from wine to more wine, we had deduced that we were, in fact, brilliant and that the script was flawless. So we decided to go with the "less is more" theory and left the script alone. And then we had more wine.

      Less is more. He gets it.

  • Can we stop bashing the US (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kahei ( 466208 ) on Saturday May 29, 2004 @09:44AM (#9284636) Homepage

    There are a lot of posts here claiming that Americans just won't be able to get the subtle British humor of HHGTTG, and pointing to various great Brit comedies to support this. The thing is, when people talk about 'British comedy', they mean the comedy of one particular period, the golden age of really great British comedy from about 1965 - 1985, when Fawlty, Python, and HHGTGG flourished.

    Now, that was indeed a great flowering of the comedian's art, the like of which has not been seen elsewhere. But it's not an eternal immutable aspect of the US & UK population; it's an event that happened to occur in the UK. There's junk UK TV -- in fact, they produce rock bottom TV by the ton -- and there's great US TV.

    So please can we discuss this with reference to appropriate cultural phenomena, sure, but not with reference to this imaginary 'irony gene' that only British people have? It's only encouraging that class of annoying English people who go on and on about Americans not understanding irony like it was the only way they could think of to make themselves feel special.

    Hrm, well, my rant is over.

    I'll get me coat.


    • I beg to differ.

      The point isn't whose better. The point is: what's the best way to keep the true spirit of Douglas Adams's books when doing a movie out of it.

      True, not everything americans are doing is bad. I like Seinfeld and the Simpsons and Southpark, and lets not forget that the Coen brother are american as well ... but yet, when I have to choose, still Monty Python, Douglas Adams and the Black Adder would win (for me), hands-down over the best american show you can think of.

      And one more thing: as yo

    • Re:Can we stop bashing the US (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nathanh ( 1214 ) on Saturday May 29, 2004 @10:48AM (#9284824) Homepage
      There are a lot of posts here claiming that Americans just won't be able to get the subtle British humor of HHGTTG, and pointing to various great Brit comedies to support this. The thing is, when people talk about 'British comedy', they mean the comedy of one particular period, the golden age of really great British comedy from about 1965 - 1985, when Fawlty, Python, and HHGTGG flourished.

      Umm... Black Adder, Red Dwarf, Men Behaving Badly. The golden age never ended. The Brits keep churning out brilliant comedy.

      The only good comedy sitcom to ever come out of America was Frasier.

  • Of course it'll never replace the imagery Adams planted in my head, but it might turn out to be a really decent movie. And I can really see Mos Def as Ford.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.

Close