I like Martin Freeman (Arthur Dent) a lot, from his work in "The Office" and also "Love Actually".
Bill Nighy is also in there, and I liked him tremendously in "Love Actually" and fairly in "Underworld", I think he has a lot to offer in the "sardonic satire" category of HHGTTG, the character of Slartibartfast must be rather fitting for him.
Why the chose Warwick Davis to play Marvin the Android I don't get, I thought he was rather normal-sized. It's not like Davis has a history of playing cynical, sharpwitted and cloy characters before, I would've expected something like Alan Rickman. Oh God how I would've liked Rickman as Marvin...
I've never seen Mos Def (Ford Prefect) in anything before, I'm slightly sceptical since my image of Prefect is a red-head, freckeled guy with bright blue eyes and a wide smile, sort of a Tintin-on-speed. I also read HHGTTG in the original english so I imagined Prefect talking in boy-school british ("'ere we are, lad, put this fish in your eah!"). I hope he doesn't fuck it up.
I felt Sam Rockwell was great in "Confessions of a dangerous mind" and "Green Mile", I sense he will take Zaphod Beeblebrox's overinflated ego to new heights. John Malkovich is stated as playing a "Humma Kavula", I don't remember that character but he'll probably pull it off in his usual, professional self (lol wtf!).
That's all the names I recognized from the cast list ass of now.
I so hope they make the Vogons look like they did in that beautiful HHGTTG comic book series I read (in 1999 I think, anyone?). There, the Vogons were tall, fat, green and scaly, with beady little black eyes, like dolls' eyes. What I do know is that they'll be CGI (Mak Wilson is credited as "voice" of Captain Jeltz) so there's hope.
Ok, so it is being made by Disney, so all the really good parts of Douglas Adams' lewdness, playful humor about couples, sex and innuendo may be watered down to wholesome american levels, but maybe the gist of the book(s?) will survive. Though if the producers have edited Fenchurch out I will slaughter their families.
What I don't know if this movie will be all four books in one (four-hour movie?) or if they will do three/four movies. I hope the latter, if they could churn out those happy-jolly Potter movies they should damn well do this.
Now that I think about it, large parts of the "Hitchhiker"-story were sad and fateful, with a lot of philosophizing and theories about heavy subjects (though at the same time tongue-in-cheek), I think he even got in a few dry jabs at the meaning of life.
Now I'm getting really worked up here. How can Disney possibly do the last book justice, since this is not at all a children's book and they will most probably try to pitch the movie(s?) as one...
It just hit me, I must try to remember Adams' immortal words.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim': Ok, so it is being made by Disney, so all the really good parts of Douglas Adams' lewdness, playful humor about couples, sex and innuendo may be watered down to wholesome american levels
Well, that officially killed any chance of my watching the movie. Changing all the character's physical atributes in a "re-imagining" is just pouring concrete over the coffin on this bad idea.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Try as I might, Mos Def (whom I have only seen in the teeth-gnashingly bad remake of The Italian Job so I am probably delivering undue critique here) doing the role of Prefect justice is a prospect I cannot wrap my tiny mind around at all.
And while Rickman playing Marvin ("by Grabthor's Hammer, I think you ought to know I'm feeling very depressed" - say it) would have been insurance against just about anything, I think that as it is, hooking up a generator to Adam's grave might be the best remaining course of action to still let some good come from this now.
(I AM NOT PANICKING, NO SIR.)
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
After the mind-blowingly awful promos for "I, Robot" (starring Will Smith, of all people), I've just about completely lost hope of anyone in Hollywood putting out a truly decent adaptation of any classic science fiction or fantasy novel. I think that "Lord of the Rings" is probably an extraordinary exception to the rule, not a herald of better movies to come.
I'll try to keep an open mind until I at least see the previews with actual footage from the movie, but Disney does not have my confidence right now...
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
In all fairness, "I, Robot" was a decent movie. It even incorporated some ideas from Asimov. It just needed a different name, because it was not "I, Robot".
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
IMDb's trivia section for the film states that Malkovich's role was written by Adams specifically for the movie. So, presumably, it's not in the book/radio series/TV series.
Of course, IMDb also says principle photography ended in August, so you'd think they'd at least have had some real clips to use in the trailer.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Ah, yes, the fate of any film that comes out from a Disney studio. Remember how they took all the violence and profanity out of Pulp Fiction? I was lucky enough to read the original script and, well, I don't want to go into too much detail, but remember Sam Jackson's supposedly "iconic" line all the promo material used? "My wallet's the one with Mickey Mouse on the front"? That scene was just so much better as originally imagined.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Teaser trailer != trailer Also, that teaser has actually been out for quite a while.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
It seemed to be high up in the "Newest Trailers" queue... I usually check once a week.
Tussen:
quote:IMDb's trivia section for the film states that Malkovich's role was written by Adams specifically for the movie. So, presumably, it's not in the book/radio series/TV series.
I read that his role was defined as "spiritual leader/missionary", so I thought he was the one who would oversee the building of that great machine that would figure out the meaning of life, the universe and everything.
If it's truly is a new character, it might be fun.
Sol System: I'm thinking more of "Cool Runnings", "Three Musketeers" and the "Mighty Ducks" series. Lukewarm and cautious, always with a mind for proportion.
One thing this movie cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Well, having just read Peter Biskind's Down and Dirty Pictures about 1990s independent cinema, I'd like to point out that Miramax, who distributed Pulp Fiction, generally weren't all that influenced by becoming a division of Disney (if they'd even become when when Pulp came out, I can't remember right now). When the Weinsteins (who owned & run Miramax) did interfere with a film's content, it was more because they aspired to being a big manipulative studio, like Disney, than the fact that they worked for Disney.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, my point, such as it is, is that Disney is a vast media machine, and Disney may pay for films filled with frolicking woodland creatures who learn how to play jai-alai, but they also own Touchstone and Miramax and I don't know what all else. A nuclear device. Half of Mississippi.
(My secret point was that the Mickey Mouse wallet made me laugh a little, quietly to myself.)
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
It was a terribly sardonic thing to say, though.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim': It seemed to be high up in the "Newest Trailers" queue... I usually check once a week.
This must be a Thursday...never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I hear Malkovich's character has something to do with the reimagining of Zaphod's second head, which itself is connected to certain sneeze-related theologies.
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
Originally posted by Sol System:
quote: Ah, yes, the fate of any film that comes out from a Disney studio. Remember how they took all the violence and profanity out of Pulp Fiction? I was lucky enough to read the original script and, well, I don't want to go into too much detail, but remember Sam Jackson's supposedly "iconic" line all the promo material used? "My wallet's the one with Mickey Mouse on the front"? That scene was just so much better as originally imagined.
Now, now, don't use up your whole ration of sarcasm at once. It has to last the month, you know.
Marian
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I just learned something fascinating yesterday... Did any of you know that when J.R.R. Tolkien sold the rights for making a Lord of the Rings movie, he made one condition: that Disney never, ever have anything remotely to do with the production of said movie?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Yes.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
A wise move. Prahaps he forsaw Disney's masterpiece The Black Hole.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: In all fairness, "I, Robot" was a decent movie. It even incorporated some ideas from Asimov. It just needed a different name, because it was not "I, Robot".
Much like the upcoming Speilberg/Tom Cruise version of War of The Worlds. It's done for name recognition- not because the producers have any love of the original material.
The Speilberg/Cruise WOTW is set in modern times and features "martians disguised as humans that have been here for years". ((shudders uncontrollably))
I misseed that in the original Wells version somehow.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Much like the upcoming Speilberg/Tom Cruise version of War of The Worlds."
Or The Time Machine. Or Planet of the Apes. I mean, you'd think that, at some point, someone would raise the issue of plagiarism.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, they buy the rights to the story from whoever owns it first (usually some writer's inheritors) nad then discard the entire story- keeping only the barest threads of plot- while retaining the title in an attempt to cash in on name recognition.
Posted by Mighty Blogger Snay (Member # 411) on :
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
That better not be Marvin...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Why not?
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
Somewhere, I've seen production photos of the actor putting the costume on. I got the impression, that it was a placeholder for CGI later.. but at any rate, he's your plastic pal that's fun to be with!
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Because a paranoid android shouldn't look like some plastic Japanese kiddy robot, goddammit.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
That's NOT what the marketing division of the Sirius cybernetics Corporation says, heh heh.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
In this instance, I like DC's spunque. And I guess Adams OK'd it.
Movie-Marvin will be played by Willow, Warwick Davis. If there is one thing Warwick lacks, it's sarcasm and bite. He's so damn wholesome in all his roles.
I sense they'll cutify Marvin the way the LOTR-movies cutified baby-eating, from-behind-strangling Gollum...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Movie-Marvin will be played by Willow, Warwick Davis. If there is one thing Warwick lacks, it's sarcasm and bite. He's so damn wholesome in all his roles."
Except, he's just in the costume. If the IMDb can be trusted, then the comments at the beginning of this thread are oddly prescient, since it says Alan Rickman is doing the voice.
However, I've always thought Marvin needed to look like a robot from a low-budget '70s production. That thing really just doesn't look right.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
He's not suppossed to look like that though. He's suppossed to be high-tech and cool, it's just that he's allowed himself to fall into disrepair. Adams disliked the chunky cheap look used by the BBC.
Also, Nim's books are just wrong. Authur looks about 22. And what's with the shorts, eh?
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
He looks older in the series, especially when he's got a beard. Early 30's, I'd say.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
