Tarantulon's Web + Marketing Mishaps

There's a review [planetmagrathea.com] of it that basically says the screenwriters decided to tear the humor out of the movie and/or replace it with less funny humor.

So I'm inclined to agree that they do indeed want the movie to fail.

In Response to themysticalone (#26789):

That review is the work of a humorless pedant who thinks that the only way that the movie could be good would be to recreate the book gag by gag. Adams himself had a large hand in the writing of the screenplay from all accounts.

Adams has always said that the movie would contradict everything that has come before, and I'm looking forward to a new (if perhaps somewhat familiar) experience. But it's still a shame that they're marketing it in such a clueless fashion.

In Response to jon (#26793):

To my understanding, Adams had at least 4 seperate scripts for HHGTTG that he said were good enough to put on the big screen, and had thrown out about 6 others.

I assure you that everything Jon has said about me is a lie. If you don't believe me, then everything Jon has said about me is half a lie.

See, I can compromise.

The ONLY good thing about Sin City was the Hitchhiker's Guide preview....
The stuff on TV is crap. The theatrical trailer is friggin hilarious. I was worried until I saw it. I was afraid they had completely missed the point... but, no, they absolutely nailed it.
Find that trailer and you'll feel better.

You know what trailer I saw when I went to see Robots the other day? Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I love Depp and Burton; but do you know what I love even more, the original movie. I am, of course, going to see it when it comes out due to a sick curiosity. It's the same curiosity that's getting me all excited about April 29th - that's when HHGTTG debuts. Anyhoo, back on topic, it looks fucked up. I haven't actually read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory but I think I might just to see which movie actually comes closer - I hate it when movies delineate too far from the books that they were adapted.

In Response to GeminiCrash (#26821):

The new Charlie is supposed to hew closer to the original book, which is good.

However, it will not have Gene Wilder, which is bad.

Very bad.

In Response to Lonely Goatherd (#26817):

I'm not so much worried about the content of the movie as I am at the way Disney is marketing it. Assuming this one is as good as the trailers make it out to be, I'd love to see all the sequels, but this one needs to do well in order for production on those to get greenlighted.

In Response to jon (#26822):

I'm willing to forego Wilder for more accurate Dahl. But then I was never particularly sentimental about the movie anyway.

Why the rush on pre-ordering the book? I just ordered it in a panic. So much for the Amazon discount.
Do you know when will it be shipped?

Rush? This has been available for preorder since February.

We should ship it in May or June.

In Response to jon (#26822):

Granted, I've only seen a very short little trailer for the new one, so I can't judge all that accurately - but I feel like there's a big and unfortunate difference:

Gene Wilder: I love children so much......... for breakfast...

Johnny Depp: I LIKE TO EAT CHILDREN!!!

I adore Johnny Depp, so I'm really hoping this isn't an accurate perception, but his performance doesn't seem to be nearly as subtle and nuanced as Wilder's (who I also love).

In Response to porcupine8 (#26882):

Depp sure does have some pretty big shoes to fill. Could you imagine what that pressure is like; having to follow in the footsteps (tee hee hee) of Wilder? And it's crazy how they got so many unknowns; but I suppose that makes sense.

I heard there's no bowl of petunias. You know, "Oh no, not again."

Several of my friends have vowed not to spend a dime on it because there's no petunias.

In Response to FacelessSchmuck (#26940):

Several of my friends have vowed not to spend a dime on it because there's no petunias.

So for the sake of a fairly minor gag, they'll ignore the entire story? Y'know, I want to have a HHGTTG that's faithful too, but if they're going to hold out for a word-by-word construction, what's the use of having a movie at all? It'll never match the pictures in their heads, and end up soulless and disappointing because the filmmakers aren't willing to take any risks at offending people.

Yes, there's a possibility it will not live up to expectations. There's also a possibility that it will present something new and worthwhile. Coincidentally, this also explains why the first two Harry Potter movies were "meh" and the third one was great: Warner's made it clear that the most important thing was not to really please anybody, it was to not piss anybody off and endanger the franchise (see also the many conversations about mass-market crap lager vs. good beer).

By the time the third movie came along, somebody unclenched enough to figure that they'd protected the investment. Plus, Chris Columbus is a hack and Alfonso Cuaron is not.
 

In Response to FacelessSchmuck (#26940):

I've seen the movie. There's petunias.

In Response to Lonely Goatherd (#27165):

I have also seen the movie. Speaking as someone who has read all of the books, seen the entire TV series, and read the radio scripts (in that order) I went into this movie with big expectations.

I was not disappointed.

And yes, there was a bowl of petunias. I would have complained if there hadn't been.

There were some things I didn't feel were quite 'right' - mostly Trillian, but I didn't feel that the TV Trillian was quite right either, so that could just be me.

Huh. Maybe I should actually, you know, register. So I wouldn't have to post as the anonymous 'Lonely Goatherd'

- Faizah

In Response to tynic (#26824):

Apparantly, Roald Dahl himself wasn't happy with the first movie. Or so I've heard.

I'm very much looking forward to that movie, too. As a young girl, Roald Dahl was my favourite author, and I read everything of his that I could find.

I have to see that movie.