This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"Buffy: Vampires are creeps. Giles: Yes, that's why one slays them."
11945 members | you are not logged in | 19 October 2014




Tweet







May 02 2005

Hitchhikers Beams. Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was the #1 movie this weekend, which in turn means that lots of people saw the Serenity trailer.

Except that alot of people went to see it and said they didn't see any Serenity trailers... I have yet to read one comment of someone who said they did, only those who didn't...

edited to appease Apocalypse and in a vain attempt to cover up my immense stupidity!!!

[ edited by CrazyMutha29 on 2005-05-03 04:08 ]
CrazyMutha...not tryin to be picky, but i think its 'except'
I didn't see the trailer. Still pissed about that. Also, the HitchHiker movie? ...It's a film! I'll give it that much.
Fifteeen of us went to HHGTTG so that we could see the trailer. No luck. Haven't heard of anyone in Canada who did see it. Wonder if this was U.S. only.
No luck in my corner of the HGttG, either. Bummed about it, too. I mean, I enjoyed the Guide all right, but my secret motive was the Serenity trailer, and I'm not really willing to put down $X.00 just for a trailer. Fangurl and all, but I have my limits.

Serenity trailer limited to big cities? Theaters with corporate links to Universal (mine wasn't)? or will the trailer also be appearing on May 5, along with the full-length previews?

[ edited by Maeve on 2005-05-02 19:52 ]
The theater I saw it in was owned by Disney, so no such luck on the Serenity front.
I found myself with a couple of hours to kill in the West L.A./Culver City area called the theater ("The Bridge Cinema De Lux") and confirmed that the Serenity trailer was playing.

Anyhow, it looked great on the big screen. Almost no audible audience reaction (one guy behind me laughed at the Mal's gun-shot). But don't feel bad, as there was no audible reaction to the "Revenge of the Sith" trailer (which, I've gotta admit, looked pretty great) either.

Nor was there any audible reaction to the main feature -- but I understood that....
My friend in Northern Virginia saw the "Serenity" trailer before Hitchhiker's. He liked it so much that he's given in to my prodding and the prodding of his other friends and has decided to borrow the Firefly DVDs.
I liked the HHGTTG movie! It was even more obscure than the books... I guess you don't have the same scope to reread bits and go "WHAT THE...?" in a movie though, so it might be a killer dvd. Still, I laughed my tail off.
We saw HHGTTG in Cherry Hill, New Jersey (just outside of Philadelphia). There were about a dozen trailers before the movie, and not one of them was for "Serenity." :( We were really disappointed, because that was our extra motivation to see the movie.
I went to a matinee of HHG to the G. The theater showed a batch of previews aimed at the rated 'PG' and 'G' crowd, but no preview for Serenity!!! :(
I also saw Sin City over the weekend and, alas, no Serenity preview there either. :( :(
No luck in NYC either. Only 4 trailers, Batman Begins and three kids movies, IIRC. I was pretty disappointed...I was going to see the Guide as soon as it came out anyway but I was really looking forward to seeing the Serenity trailer before it.
I caught the flick in a Loews in NYC, and no Serenity there, either. As hobgadling (excellent choice in a name!) noted, there was Batman Begins and a host of kiddie movies. (By the way, who needs a Herbie movie without Bruce Campbell? I mean, really...)
The theater I saw it in was owned by Disney, so no such luck on the Serenity front.


I saw HHGG in a Cinemark theater in Pasadena, TX, and there were a lot of Disney trailers (and no Serenity); maybe this is a lead? Does anyone know who owns AMC theaters?
Saw H2G2 at a Regal Cinemas theatre just north of Minneapolis and no luck on the BDM trailer. Some friends of my roomie's did see it however (Kerasotes theatre I think).

[ edited by zeitgeist on 2005-05-02 20:48 ]
Nope, no trailer here either. This was at the Famous Players chain in Canada.
Whatever happens, I can pretty much guarentee that the Serenity trailer will be showed right before Star Wars III when it opens on May 19. That's where I'd choose to put it.
I've worked for 3 theaters between 2 different companies. I've worked as a projectionist for one of the theaters. Trailers usually come in the case with the film reels so all the pieces of film can be assembled into one long reel that is fed through the projector by a spinning platter. The problem is, that many theaters like to assemble the trailers ahead of time earlier in the week so that when the actual movie comes the day or 2 before, they take the trailers and movie and throw them together. Theaters keep stockpiles of certain trailers in the projection booth, this is why they can assemble the trailers early usually.

The problem is when you have a trailer that is JUST coming out and is shipped with the print of the film. Serenity came in the can with Hitchhikers, so if the projectionist was lazy (like many of them are), you didn't get to see the trailer. I live in central New Jersey and it was the first trailer before the movie.
Still overall it appears like the BDM trailer was generally not where it was supposed to be. Bummer. Good thing there's still 5 months to go, campaign wise.

Funny btw, how many people toss in saracastic remarks about HHGttG. Seems a lotta folks were a little let down by that one. Makes me glad I skipped it. No BDM trailer AND a mediocre movie? Don't need that...
i saw hitchhikers guide twice this weekend, (saw it friday with a different group than the saturday group who were bummed they didn't see it friday.) anyway, really funny movie. the trailers for it were really a weird mix, so weird that i wondered if i'd wandered into the wrong theatre. we had herbie, some AWFUL looking basketball movie with martin lawrence, which i'm so happy i got to sit through twice, the will farrell yelling at children soccer movie, and episode 3. no Serenity. and the crazy thing? i'm seeing Serenity at that exact theatre this thursday.
No trailer in Northern New Jersey at a Clairmont Cinema Theater either.
oh yeah, there was also a chicken little preview that was a parody of the original "don't panic" hitchhikers guide preview. it got booed. i love this city! in SF, anything lame before the movie will get loud boo's.
I am not sure if the Serenity trailer was also supposed to be showing with HGTTG over in the UK but I went yesterday and made sure that I got there early just in case (hoping to get my mates interested) but there was no sign of our BDM I am afraid :-(
Like SpikeBad I am now thinking that it will be shown ahead of Star Wars Episode 3 - which did look very good in trailer form.
Well, if its due to lazy projectionists, then I'm glad I put off going to see Hitchhiker's Guide. Maybe it will be there this weekend. Was Hitchhiker's any good? I've heard mixed reviews.
Has anyone in the uk seen this movie and if so was the trailer on before the movie here? I was just curious as last Friday I rushed out to see the movie but because of the massive queues I had to stand in I missed all of the trailers and I donít want to have to sit through the movie again if its not on before it. can anybody shed any light on this?
tgilders--thanks for the info on projectionists--sure makes sense to me. I'm kind of glad I waited to see HGTTG--I'll try again next week. We have such knowledgeable folks here at Whedonesque--thanks again!
I thought HH was good, but not great.
Just in case I didn't make it clear, I thought HH, the movie, was mediocre at best. At times it felt like they had no real handle on the material at all. As someone who was a big fan of the original radio series, this was a dissapointment.
Saw HH here in LA and "Serenity" was the first trailer shown. Don't know if the trailer was only attached to HH in top 10 cities or what. But it seems as though the LA-area theatres were all showing the Serenity trailer...
I saw H2G2 in Coventry on Sunday. Trailers for Episode III and Kingdom of Heaven, but no Serenity. I was a touch disappointed by the film. Amusing, but it lacked the spark.
I didn't go to see HH because I called my theather and they told me the Serenity trailer wasn't with the movie. I'll call again this wednesday to find out if they have the Serenity trailer yet. If they do, I'll go see whatever movie its with.
"I was a touch disappointed by the film. Amusing, but it lacked the spark."

Hmm. Since that's kinda how I felt about the book, I guess I'll give it a pass - especially since the trailer seems not to be airing more often than not.
I really don't get why people here correct each other's spelling. I'm an English instructor. By whose? who's? standards do you deem another's English "correct"? No one is all the time. For a bunch of literate people, it's mighty nitpicky.

ETA: "correct" grammar

[ edited by April on 2005-05-03 01:11 ]

[ edited by April on 2005-05-03 01:17 ]
I thought the HHG to the G radio/book was genius, and enjoyed the TV adaptation too, although it looks a little, well, creaky now. But I've read reviews suggesting that the film just missed the point (or rather, the humor/style/spirit, since the point isn't really the point with Hitchhiker's) . . . I'm guessing that's what the admirable bobster was implying by his "mediocre" rating and Gill by her comment.

April, I'm not sure that spelling corrections happen all that often here. And people are remarkably self-policing, in conformance with the site's guidelines. But if I see that a person clearly meant to say one thing, and wrote another, I don't have a problem with calling that incorrect. There can be valid ambiguity, sure, but if i rite en thees wai, or use apply when I mean imply, then I don't find it nitpicky to (a) edit the mistake, or (b) ask the person to use a spellchecker. People may not be correct all the time, but attempting to write more clearly doesn't hurt anyone.
Attempting to police your own writing is a good thing. People here usually do that, I see. But when the meaning is conveyed, it's really not important. Correction is only necessary when itelligibility is an issue. Otherwise, it's kinda rude.
I saw HHGttG today in Glasgow and we didn't have the Serenity trailer either. But that's the second time I saw the film and I love it, I think it's really funny. I actually prefer it to the book, which I didn't think was as great as people say.
But when the meaning is conveyed, it's really not important. Correction is only necessary when itelligibility is an issue. Otherwise, it's kinda rude.


Well, context is always a factor, but generally I would have to disagree. In any case, my opinion is irrelevant; the site's rules ask that members "use proper grammar, capitalization and spelling as best as" they can. Occasional corrections by others tend to encourage that. Off-topic out.

I'm sure I'll go to see HH anyway; I'm just steeling myself for bitter disappointment, possibly tinged with righteous anger, and just a hint of febrile indignation.
I'd just like to add a quick point to the April-SNT exchange: everyone here may not have English as their primary language; from what I've seen, this is a pretty global site. Some may be learning, using translators, etc. Using the correct words for the context and keeping the words as correctly spelled and "grammar-ed" as possible makes the meaning easier to understand for everyone.

I went into HH realizing that it was 50-50 that we'd get to see the Serenity trailer. I was warning my kids beforehand to just enjoy the movie and we'd figure out another way to see the trailer on the big screen. I always meant to read the book, but I still haven't gotten around to it. But lots of my best friends over the years were fans, so I figured that was enough of a testament for me.

Some of it was a bit slow, but we laughed out loud several times. I thought Sam Rockwell did a great job and we ALWAYS love Alan Rickman.
One of the things I love about this site is its member's eloquence. Not that we costantly talk like we're old professors at Cambridge with a glass of port, but compared to the 'net's general state, this is an oasis in the desert.

English isn't my first language either, and I always try to make sure my words are correct before I press 'send'. I'm sure I still goof up, and unless it's clearly a typo (which I should still have caught, but is not the same as hitting the keys you want but getting the language wrong) it should be pointed out.

(Although I should add my wife is usually the one to do that anyway, hehe)

On HH, I've always felt that, considering my general tastes, it was a missing bit in my cultural knowledge, and I'm deeply ashamed, but I've never even read Douglas Adams' book. Maybe that means I'd enjoy the movie more if I were to see it, but it from what I heard, a lot of the points and themes of Adams' writing have been kind of left out. Is that true?
On the topic of picking up others on spelling and grammar, I work with people who have come through educational systems that seem themselves afraid to do this now. There is correct English (with dialects and international variants, of course) but no one correct version. However, when we mistake that for "the only correct version is the one I feel like writing" we lose commonality and, potentially, community. It is the very heart of language that it is also a way for group memebers to have something in common. Loss of that is sad in many ways.

Back to topic - I am going to HHGTTG tonight with a real fanboy. I read the books, liked them but that was it. It will be interesting to see our different perceptions. It seems to be split along the lines of "fanboy: not like" and "general audience: OK to good".
I suppose I should weigh in since my error and apocalypse's subsequent comment sparked this mini-debate. So long as no one says to me (unless I've made glaring mistakes to such extent that it's utterly obvious I was barely conscious when I typed said message) 'hey you stupid idiot, don't you know how to spell or write?!' I've got no problem with someone correcting my mistakes. So long as it's done in a polite manner I'm all kinds of cool. (My apologies for the Firefly colloquialism, I'm coming off a two day Firefly marathon in preparation for the advance screening this Thursday).

Anyways, that's my two sense. <---- ;-)
Re H2G2: if anyone else is a huge fan of it like I am, there's a new radio series starting tomorrow (apparently covering So Long and Thanks For All the Fish). You can get it online for a week after it airs at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/. Of course, if you're a huge fan, you probably already knew that :)

On the movie: I laughed at it, and as always Alan Rickman was brilliant, but I felt it was missing the subversive edge that always made Adams' humor sharper than anything else I read/heard. For example, they cut out the entire second half of the guide entry on the babelfish, taking out the part about the proof of the non-existence of God and the line 'Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.' These changes I think take away most of the meaning that Adams put into his writing.
not tryin to be picky, but i think its 'except'
Did no one else notice the irony in that particular grammar correction? I guess I just have a habit of noticing when "its/it's" are used incorrectly, since people do it so often.
Anyhow, I do really appreciate the general good grammar, spelling, etc, on this site Ė it sets it apart from other sites, and is a rarity on the Internet. Still, I think the occasional mis-use happens, often totally unintentionally. If we all start policing each other's you're/your, its/it's, accept/except errors (which are most likely just someone thinking one thing and typing another), this site could devolve into the kind of smug tone that I sometimes see in readers of my newspaper who write in thrilled to have "caught" our typos. I don't really see that as something this site's in danger of doing, but that tends to be where I come down on the subect.

Back on topic, I just saw HH. No trailer, even though I saw it in the same theater that's showing the Serenity screening on Thursday. Sad. As for the Hitchhiker's movie itself... It had its moments. I think I was a little too exhausted to totally appreciate it. I adored the books as a kid, and it was fun to see some of those elements come to life on screen. But it also dragged a bit... And did seem to miss some of the point. Maybe i'll feel differently once I've had some sleep. must... get... to... bed....
I saw the movie and it was all right, good enough to spark my interest in hearing the entire story. I think I'm going to pick up the book, also thanks hobgadling for the link, I'll have to check that out. And is there anywhere I can download or rent the original BBC broadcast?
Off Topic: Without anyone looking it up, does anyone remember a longer discussion of the merits or dangers of commenting on someone's grammar on this board? I went back and read the original post. I found it interesting that if "accept" was used instead of "except" that particular sentence could seem like an order that one should accept the fact of it, rather than that an exception to a statement was being pointed out. Ain't language fun?! (If I did not confuse you with that, let me know and I'll do better next time.)

I haven't seen the grammar police out for things like it's/its or there/their/they're or to/too/two. When people say anything they are always rather apologetic and embarrassed. It's as though they know they are treading on thin ice, but they are going to risk a cold dunking in that particular instance. (And yes, I gritted my teeth and corrected someone here once, my first time doing something like that on any board. I was very happy when she not only took it well, but made me laugh out loud with her reply.) Reasonable folks, these.

On Topic of HHGG: I did not read the book. Took my 9 year old son to see it. I thought it was slow and lacking the spark spoken about above. Of course I also know that I am a pretty tough customer when it comes to comedy. I think I only laughed out loud once, but that was a good one. I smiled a lot though.

My son liked it more than I did. He liked that it was a crazy story and the general silliness, I think. I doubt that many children his age would feel that way, however. He is what you might call an original thinker. One family with young kids walked out less than 1/4 of the way through and an adult couple left not too long after. Considering that the audience had less than 20 people to start with, that was a pretty big percentage. There were people smiling at the end, and I'm not sorry I saw it, but I would not recommend it to anyone else.

If you do go, stay through the credits. My family and friends always do, but since we are usually the only ones, I figured I should say it.
Well since people seem to want to talk about misspellings and the like, can I just please remark about the "James Master..Collecter" header on the front page? Usually stuff like that is caught right away, but its been like that all day...

*ducks*
Will y'all please back off on the grammar talk a bit? It's boring. It throws off a thread when so many dwell on that. Thanks.

On the HitchHiker's movie, if you have NOT read the books I STRONGLY encourage you watch this film as soon as you can, and then get the books and read them at your leisure. This film seems designed more to initiate newcomers to the story, but it's a strongly abbreviated version of the first book. I don't think it was produced with the fans of previous versions in mind at all. The people involved may not have even realized they were competing with the book and the game and the radio scripts. Maybe they thought enough years have gone by and people wouldn't even compare this to the BBC version. There are obvious indications that the producers were conscious of the show's previous incarnations, but they wanted to take it and make it their own. They tried. It's a film that is satisfactorily produced. I would almost say 'well-made' and at times I've even used that phrase or a phrase similar to it. I can't call it a GOOD film, in much the same way I wouldn't say a film based on Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer that wasn't funny was good. I mean, you could take Mark Twain's work and have actors go through the paces of bringing the pages of his book to life, but if they don't capture the Mississippi a century ago and if you don't believe the characters, no amount of resources and talented production value is going to make that a good movie.

The movie functions, but it doesn't 'work.' It's a great way to introduce a wide audience to Douglas Adams' words, if for nothing more than because it's the most recent revision of his words, but while the effort may have been well-intentioned, it just doesn't do his words justice. I've been struggling for days now with an ideal way to describe this film. It's not terrible. It's not BAD, but it's not good either. It's disappointing to diehard fans, but a film that diehard fans loved would probably confuse or scare off the uninitiated.

So if you're uninitiated, please give the film a try. If you are a fan of the Guide already, wait for it to hit DVD or otherwise don't bother. The BBC version is more true to the humor of DNA than the Disney version. I pulled out my old videotape after I got home from the movie, and I felt a lot better. =) You probably will too.
One thing that should be noted... the screenplay and all the ideas are Adams. The screenplay was written by him and just cleaned up by a third party. So if you didn't like it, blame the dearly departed DNA himself. But I felt it was perfectly indicative of its sources, if not a little accelerated.
Nope Mort. The screenplay used was written by Karey Kirkpatrick (who also was script doctor on Chicken Run, Little Vampire and others), based off the screenplay Douglas Adams wrote before he passed away. Reports are conflicting, but some people who saw the film and read DNA's screenplay say that only a few of the scenes in the film are exactly as DNA wrote them. As for whether or not the romantic comedy aspect of the film was DNA's idea or Kirkpatrick's, I haven't been able to get that pinned down. However, in every other version of this series... Well crap, I can't finish that sentence without 'ruining' the film for anyone who hasn't seen it. Bleargh.

It's Hollywood. It's not Adams.
And the Lack-of-Serenety lament from St. Louis:
My daughter saw "Hitchhiker" Friday and then, in a different movie theatre, my whole family went Sunday. Some of the trailers were the same, but not all. And NO "Serenity"!
I would have seen the movie anyway. Douglas Adams spent some 20 years on it (and my son says in 20 more years, if he'd had them, he would have pulled it off. And it would have been an amazing feat, too!) We think the problem with the movie is the pacing: they really don't have the time to set up the jokes/situations. But I give them kudos for a game effort.
Does anyone know if they really did package the Serenity trailer with all the Hitchhikers?
Dunno about the Serenity trailer being packaged with all the Hitchhikers but I have read rumours about the trailer being attached to Revenge of the Sith.
newcj: I'm sorry to read that you saw the movie without ever having read the book. I strongly encourage you to do that now. Or depending on your age and seriousness get "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" or "Last Chance to See".

or read any of those articles:

http://www.douglasadams.com/dna/articles.html
I saw H2G2 on Saturday afternoon, 29-04, in North Finchley, London with eleven 12-year-old boys (my son's birthday.) They loved the movie. I had read the books many years ago and liked them and I did like the movie, although it lags in the middle. No Serenity trailer, although we saw trailers for Revenge of the Sith, Kingdom of Heaven and Herbie. I watched the Serenity trailer online and was really looking forward to seeing it in not such an itty-bitty format. Rats.
ZachsMind - you are right, there are certainly different versions of of the Adams vs Kirkpatrick debate. I heard a radio interview (on TripleJ in Australia) in which one of the Executive Producers (I am almost certain it was Robbie Stamp - the one that was Adams' friend from way back, any way) said that the script was 98% Adams with only the slightest tweaking from Kirkpatrick, mostly on dialogue etc, certainly no major plot turns (like the afore-mentioned romantic comedy aspect). Hell, I am not even a fan of the original HHGTTG particularly, but I didn't think that aspect sat well with the rest of the film at all. Other than that, I hasten to add, I enjoyed it a lot.
Just to provide some balance to the force, I should report that I did see the trailer with HHGttG. It's not a location thing. The 24-plex where I went had HH on two screens - one with the trailer, one not. I called the corporate office ahead and found this out and got the show times with the trailer. There were two prints of HH distributed. The Serenity trailer is with the #2 print.
I think I've been convinced to see the flick. I have a great memory of one of those radio broadcasts I heard about ten or fifteen years ago. So good, and I remember it like I heard it yesterday. I'll probably make it to the theater this week, asking for the #2 print. Thanks, Hasufel.

ETA: A call to the theater let me speak with a "screener" who said the Serenity trailer would not be attached to the movie. Additionally, he hadn't heard of Serenity. *sniff*

[ edited by April on 2005-05-03 19:55 ]
For UK posters, BBC2 are rerunning the TV series starting tonight at 11.20 ish.

And anyone who hasn't read the books should! Even more than the Radio series or the TV show DNAs writing, the descriptions, the comments, the explanations, are what makes them classics.

Many, many, years ago I wrote to him, and got a nice reply, just about the only celebrity I have ever bothered to write to. (Apart from SMG, whose lawyers intercept all my letters. You'd think writing them in blood would be worth something. Twenty seven pages takes a whole lot of blood!)
Thanks, PTTP. Actually I had meant to read the book for, well, decades. (Ok, I'm old.) When I heard the movie was coming out, I decided to wait until after the movie because seeing a movie first has never ruined a book for me but I certainly have had difficulty enjoying a movie after falling in love with the book.

After the movie, my son and I decided to read the book together. I'm thinking, this summer when I don't have to spend all our time together getting him to do his homework. Only problem is that the new Harry Potter book is due out in July and we always read those together as well. Those are getting longer and longer so I don't know how long it may take us to get through it.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home