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.
This thread has been closed for new comments.
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.
edited to appease Apocalypse and in a vain attempt to cover up my immense stupidity!!!
[ edited by CrazyMutha29 on 2005-05-03 04:08 ]
CrazyMutha29 | May 02, 12:15 CET
Apocalypse | May 02, 12:18 CET
ZachsMind | May 02, 12:20 CET
Lioness | May 02, 12:27 CET
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 ]
Maeve | May 02, 12:51 CET
TheJoyofZeppo | May 02, 12:56 CET
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....
bobster | May 02, 12:56 CET
chickenbird | May 02, 13:20 CET
Mort | May 02, 13:20 CET
Nebula1400 | May 02, 13:33 CET
I also saw Sin City over the weekend and, alas, no Serenity preview there either. :( :(
Hjermsted | May 02, 13:37 CET
hobgadling | May 02, 13:38 CET
RambleOn623 | May 02, 13:42 CET
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?
brownishcoat | May 02, 13:45 CET
[ edited by zeitgeist on 2005-05-02 20:48 ]
zeitgeist | May 02, 13:48 CET
petranef | May 02, 13:55 CET
SpikeBad | May 02, 14:12 CET
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.
tgilders | May 02, 14:13 CET
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...
EdDantes | May 02, 14:34 CET
kittyholmes | May 02, 14:40 CET
newcj | May 02, 14:43 CET
kittyholmes | May 02, 14:44 CET
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.
Bill Door | May 02, 14:57 CET
killinj | May 02, 15:03 CET
willowzbitch | May 02, 15:15 CET
spikeangellover | May 02, 15:17 CET
zeitgeist | May 02, 15:40 CET
bobster | May 02, 16:04 CET
Jace at Televisionary | May 02, 16:52 CET
Gill | May 02, 17:12 CET
eddy | May 02, 17:20 CET
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.
Andarcel | May 02, 17:41 CET
ETA: "correct" grammar
[ edited by April on 2005-05-03 01:11 ]
[ edited by April on 2005-05-03 01:17 ]
WhoIsOmega? | May 02, 18:08 CET
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.
SoddingNancyTribe | May 02, 18:14 CET
WhoIsOmega? | May 02, 18:21 CET
Silv | May 02, 18:28 CET
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.
SoddingNancyTribe | May 02, 19:11 CET
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.
brownishcoat | May 02, 20:01 CET
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?
EdDantes | May 02, 20:45 CET
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".
catalyst2 | May 02, 21:01 CET
Anyways, that's my two sense. <---- ;-)
CrazyMutha29 | May 02, 21:22 CET
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.
hobgadling | May 02, 21:57 CET
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 – 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....
acp | May 02, 22:05 CET
adventures in spelling | May 02, 22:33 CET
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.
newcj | May 02, 22:54 CET
*ducks*
Willowy | May 03, 00:06 CET
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.
ZachsMind | May 03, 00:16 CET
Mort | May 03, 01:30 CET
It's Hollywood. It's not Adams.
ZachsMind | May 03, 03:27 CET
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?
hako | May 03, 03:35 CET
Simon | May 03, 03:43 CET
or read any of those articles:
http://www.douglasadams.com/dna/articles.html
Udo Schmitz | May 03, 05:34 CET
anima | May 03, 08:39 CET
catalyst2 | May 03, 09:55 CET
Hasufel | May 03, 11:29 CET
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 ]
WhoIsOmega? | May 03, 12:22 CET
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!)
zz9 | May 03, 14:28 CET
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.
newcj | May 03, 18:20 CET