But with the book turned movie, esp. the *uber-fanboi* book turned movie, the palette of potential disappointment is so vast, they hardly know where to begin with the critical merriment. They’ve all done the movie in their heads, to some extent, so each and every twist, turn, and line of dialogue becomes ripe for evaluation.

To tear apart LOTR, in other words, is an essential way for the fan to enjoy it. And I would hope that Peter Jackson, with a few Academy Awards in his back pocket, can manage to be happy about the wonderful target he has given to the reader who aspires to be a critic.

Now, I’ve never read Adams’ books in full, I’ve only listened to part of the radio play, but I HAVE seen the original miniseries- though I’m told the plot in those is a bit constrained as well.

I liked the new one. I thought it was well balanced, and it brought a new level to the story. I particularly liked the simple animations to go with the narration. (there was even a nod to the original miniseries at one point when they showed the original Marvin) Hell, I would watch it again.

I’ll admit though with Lord of the Rings I was a bit more scrutinizing, since I had read the books. I absolutely adored the first movie, despite the omissions, and hated the second one because I thought some choices Jackson made were a little bit strange. In any case, I think he did a pretty good job.

I think the point is that the HHGTG movie is faithful in spirit, and that’s probably the thing that matters most.

First of all, it appears the source of most of the complete over-the-top dislike of the movie was MJ Simpson’s pre-release spoiler review/omission list. Then you get what’s called “a negative buzz” and everyone starts feeding off it. But the thing is, if you read MJ Simpson’s review, and the related articles on the site, you start to realize he’s in conflict with the estate of Douglas Adams, various external parties, and, ultimately, the Internet At Large once his views become known. This of course was likely what resulted in his quitting the site, and the fact it came earlier and with so much gusto (his resignation of running the site) was an inevitability pushed forward. In was particularly struck in his review how he turns arouns and critiques Douglas Adams for his inability to write!

I am reminded, like you, of the “controversy” surrounding the Lord of the Rings movies, and how there were a lot of people displeased with the work Jackson did with the film. I have long since lost it (and I am sad I did) but I remember finding one critique which listed in blistering details all the things wrong with the movie…. and then went on to list all the problems that Tolkien had with the books! In other words, the “perfect” Lord of the Rings movie was neither the movie or the book, but in this maniac’s head! There has to be a special, unique name for this syndrome of thought.

I have been working for the last four years on a documentary film about dial-up bulletin board systems. It has been a lot of blood and sweat and I have made a lot of choices and covered a lot of subjects. I could have possibly broken my head when the reviews start really coming in after it hits the DVD players…. but I was lucky, damn lucky.

I tell people, now, that the release of the Lord of the Rings movies forever and completely insured me from ever having a breakdown or ruined time from the reviews of my film, because, as I say:

“Peter Jackson spent SEVEN YEARS making this film. He had the FULL USE of a COUNTRY. He had a DEDICATED SPECIAL EFFECTS HOUSE that is now recognized as having revolutionized special effects as ILM did in the 1970’s. He made it nearly TWELVE HOURS LONG. For goodness sakes, he had MULTIPLE FULL-TIME FORGERS making swords for the entire cast and training them to use them.”

“AND THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HATE IT.”

Once this movie came out and I saw the hate, I realized (and I also know I should have realized this sooner) it is IMPOSSIBLE to make a movie that everyone likes. There are people who are contrarian, people who have expectations far outside the goals of the film, people who just don’t LIKE THE GENRE of the movie being shown.

Do what I do: go to rottentomatoes.com, the meta-critic site that brings together all the reviews it can from many, many sources. Then find something almost universally beloved. Something like Titanic or Lord of the Rings or anything else recent that has a nice amount of reviews. Then tell it to “only show rotten reviews”, the negative ones. Gaze back in wonder as you read why that percentage of reviewers hate the film. I remember one review of a documentary where, basically, the reviewer says that documentaries are a horrible art form and shouldn’t be made. And then, surprisingly, trashes this documentary he’s been assigned to watch!

I took a college course called “Novel Into Film”. It was very effective in showing why comparing books and movies is like comparing eggs and rocks. Yeah, they’re both round… but it kind of gets majorly different after that, and a good egg is a bad rock and vice versa.

By the way, Nick, you’re in my next film. Talk to you soon.

I got word of this review of Hitchhiker’s on ifMUD. It’s pretty much consistent with my take on the film, but much more detailed in discussing the movie itself (rather than swirling commentary). It’s also quite spoilery, but worth reading after seeing the movie.

1-The love story obviously was detremental to what the series is about (probably), that is wacky hilarious pieces stitched together in a Monty Python kind of way. The love story was out of place and just down right akward.

2-It got a lot less funny after the halfway point, I don’t know why.

3-They focused on all the wrong characters, just when you felt something could get going a new, worse character was added into the mix. And Marvin (I think tht was the robot’s name), just completely underused.

I was kind of let down I had almost no expectations for the movie, so I can easily see how a devoted fan of the source material would be let down.