Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
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 !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
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 info@lemmy.world. 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 Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It did quite well when it came out, and it felt like there was potential for sequels
Ohh that’s a good one. The other books afterwards were great too.
Would’ve loved a sequel and would honestly not mind them artistically fudging it a bit to pick back up with an older Arthur Dent
The movie wasn't living up to the book though...
And the book wasn't living up to the original radio series
Mostly kidding on that
I agree that I like the book better, initially I disliked the movie, but I've come around on it, some things from the radio series were changed for the book, and so it just kind of feels right they'd further change things for the movie. Playing a little fast and loose with it feels very in the Douglass Adams spirit to me.
But does it live up to the text adventure?
Yep
Get analgesic.
This guy gets it
(the analgesic)
But you didn't hang your towel up before pressing the button.
I still have my original "DON'T PANIC" button which came in the box with the game.
I believe Adams himself considered each different medium to be "it's own story" though just as he added and changed things from the radio play for the book, he also added and changed things in the movie screen play... When he was involved in it. I'm not going to pretend it was all his work but it was it's own thing.
Douglas Adams writing doesn't translate well to film I think, a bit like Pratchett's. It can be done (Good Omens was a great adaptation of Pratchett) but it's probably super hard to do well and keep the original feeling/spirit
The 1981 TV series did a fine job, likely in no small part thanks to having Adams himself around and involved.
I feel like any future HHG adaptation would need to be TV rather than theatrical film. That universe is just too full to condense meaningfully into a 90-minute blockbuster meant to keep the Hollywood lowest common denominator in their seats. You need room for all the multilayered apparently-random stuff interacting with each other in the particularly bizarre ways Adams was so good at pulling off, and it needs to capture the whimsy of the source material without devolving into the unremarkable formulaic stuff the latest attempt to do Dirk Gently on TV turned out to be.
Most don’t but that’s ok :) I still liked it
Not really, but it got me to read the books. And it could've been so much worse.