New Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Coming Soon
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I did like the remake of the movie, the original was way to slow paced. A game to further explore the universe could be fun but I doubt it.
well if I get near the game and my Peril sensitive sunglasses go dark, I won't try it. otherwise I'll give it a chance and get wasted on pan galactic gargle blasters before hand
Hothead, there are not words in existence to describe how pissed off I'll be if you somehow manage to foul this up. Conversely the same can be said about how ecstatic I'll be if you turn this into a truly great game worthy of the brand.
I'll be watching this closely with very high hopes...
I'll be watching this closely with very high hopes...
It's a great fit studio-wise. I think Adams' humor will shine through quite well.
I wonder which way they'll go with it. Third person? First person- single char/multi char? RPG style groups? First person 'mouse icon changes for interaction'? Basic text base with animations? Possibilities are endless.
I wonder which way they'll go with it. Third person? First person- single char/multi char? RPG style groups? First person 'mouse icon changes for interaction'? Basic text base with animations? Possibilities are endless.
Me too.Vie said:
I am surprised that they would re-do HGTTG; was the script for it in Adams' archives or something.
It is a great setting with great characters, I hope they move it beyond the original texts/radio plays/tv/movies and beyond text adventure games.
A Vogon Tycoon game could be hilarious.
I can't begin to describe the throat-clenching horror that gripped me when I first read the title of this thread, nor the relief I felt when it just turned out to be a remake of the game rather than another movie or nopleaseno another book.
(Not that I've read And Another Thing, and I don't intend to until I'm over my current bout of depression. I doubt it could live up to my unreasonable demands, though - not my expectations, my DEMANDS. I DEMAND that every single line of print be a bar of solid Adamsian goodness with a chewy nougat center. If these demands are not met, I will hurl the book out the window and murder the author with it, perhaps not in that order.)
But just remaking the impossibly old (in computer game years) and relatively obscure Infocom game? Even if it fails, I think this will be mostly harmless.
(Not that I've read And Another Thing, and I don't intend to until I'm over my current bout of depression. I doubt it could live up to my unreasonable demands, though - not my expectations, my DEMANDS. I DEMAND that every single line of print be a bar of solid Adamsian goodness with a chewy nougat center. If these demands are not met, I will hurl the book out the window and murder the author with it, perhaps not in that order.)
But just remaking the impossibly old (in computer game years) and relatively obscure Infocom game? Even if it fails, I think this will be mostly harmless.
Ghastly. It all is. Just don't talk about it.
Here, look at this little picture to take your insignificant minds off your digital watches for a nanosecond.
Life. Don't talk to me about life.
Here, look at this little picture to take your insignificant minds off your digital watches for a nanosecond.
Life. Don't talk to me about life.
Replace "industry" with "universe" and that pretty much nails my feelings exactly. I loved the original (increasingly inaccurately-named) trilogy and the game ... but worried this is just a cash-in. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.GraelHart said:
Ya. The 2005 Movie was basically a compressed version of the 1981 6 episode BBC series. I watched to 2 next to each other and didn't notice anything missing form one to the other. The 2005 movie was significantly shorter, and Mos-Def and Zooey Deschanel added a LOT more character to their roles than their BBC counter parts.KnifeyMcStaberson said:
I'd be willing to sit in a theater for the sequels if they where able to get that team back together.
I suppose if you really want to try that game. You could always click on this link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/game.shtml
I wouldn't though. I wouldn't play anything. It's all very depressing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/game.shtml
I wouldn't though. I wouldn't play anything. It's all very depressing.
Apart from the toothbrush, the cheese sandwich, the PoV gun, Marvin's other half, Hot Black Dessiato, the Meal of the Day, The Beetleguisian Death Anthem, The Dreaded Bug Blatter Beast of Traal, Digital Watches (which are still very important), the pocket lint, a cup of really hot tea, Zaphod's other head, The Golgafrincham B Ark and a few ningis that don't exist.newwiseman said:
By chewing the scenery at every point during the film. Even Alan Rickman as Marvin was...tepid at best. They managed to re-write a plot based around one man's search for a cup of tea as...oh yeah...one man's search for the love of a good woman. [HEADING=2]LIKE EVERY OTHER DAMN HELL LADEN CELLULOID NIGHTMARE THAT GETS SPEWN AT US CONSTANTLY![/HEADING]
*ahem*
No. It wasn't as good.
Ghastly! - as Marvin would say.
Really, trying to pit the whimsical nonsensical funny source material with the structured, repetitive nature of videogames is a bad idea. The least thing I want is one of my favorite books dissected, unimaginatively designed, and split into chunks divided by fetch quests.
Leave DNA's work alone.
Really, trying to pit the whimsical nonsensical funny source material with the structured, repetitive nature of videogames is a bad idea. The least thing I want is one of my favorite books dissected, unimaginatively designed, and split into chunks divided by fetch quests.
Leave DNA's work alone.
And here I thought that you were going to say there was a new movie in the works... so now I'm very disappointed. Of course, that said, I think this could be a very good game depending on how they do it. I was a big fan of the Penny Arcade series, so I think it's in good hands. But I also think that if they try to force a battle system or something like that in, then it'll die. A puzzler or something more like the original game as you mentioned would be much better.
I also think it's a funny coincidence this was announced today, as I just rewatched the movie for fun, not knowing it was towel day.
While I do think that they really did push the Trillian/Arther romance too hard (especially given that they never actually get together in the books if I remember correctly), and I also think that the story seemed a bit too away from the original with the vogsphere and such, there were quite a few things I liked better about it.
For one, I liked the casting of Trillian and Zaphod much better. Trillian, in the show, seemed like too much of an air-headed bimbo meant mainly for sex appeal while the movies version was more like a character I could see working as an astrophysicist or a reporter as she is in the books. Zaphod also didn't seem very well done in my opinion, and it didn't help that, although he may have actually had two heads, we didn't see them interact in any way like we did the two in the movie. I also like the actor who played Zaphod, and he also did an excellent job in the movies Moon and Iron Man 2. Not to mention that I felt Marvin's design was much more fluid and natural in the movie compared to the show. The show's version was blocky and generic space robot in terms of appearance. At least the movie version actually seemed like a lumbering robot who's mind was bigger then any living creature's could be. In terms of Ford and Arther, I feel that both the TV series and the movie both had great casting choice, even if the movie version of Ford was different then the TV version in the way they behaved. I will say that the version of the guide was 1000x better in the movie then the show though. Of course, it helps that it had Stephen Fry voicing it.
Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy the TV series. The movies just seemed better to me. I suppose that could be because of the larger budget of course, and it did suffer from trying to get too much into such a short time frame, but overall I enjoyed it. I think it might come down to which you saw first though... those who saw the movie first likely think it's better, while those who saw the show first think it's superior.
I also think it's a funny coincidence this was announced today, as I just rewatched the movie for fun, not knowing it was towel day.
I think that the movie was better then the TV show in a lot of ways. For one, Quite a few of the things your mentioned, such as the Dessiato, were left out because they focused on the first book (or at least an adapted version of the first book).The_root_of_all_evil said:
While I do think that they really did push the Trillian/Arther romance too hard (especially given that they never actually get together in the books if I remember correctly), and I also think that the story seemed a bit too away from the original with the vogsphere and such, there were quite a few things I liked better about it.
For one, I liked the casting of Trillian and Zaphod much better. Trillian, in the show, seemed like too much of an air-headed bimbo meant mainly for sex appeal while the movies version was more like a character I could see working as an astrophysicist or a reporter as she is in the books. Zaphod also didn't seem very well done in my opinion, and it didn't help that, although he may have actually had two heads, we didn't see them interact in any way like we did the two in the movie. I also like the actor who played Zaphod, and he also did an excellent job in the movies Moon and Iron Man 2. Not to mention that I felt Marvin's design was much more fluid and natural in the movie compared to the show. The show's version was blocky and generic space robot in terms of appearance. At least the movie version actually seemed like a lumbering robot who's mind was bigger then any living creature's could be. In terms of Ford and Arther, I feel that both the TV series and the movie both had great casting choice, even if the movie version of Ford was different then the TV version in the way they behaved. I will say that the version of the guide was 1000x better in the movie then the show though. Of course, it helps that it had Stephen Fry voicing it.
Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy the TV series. The movies just seemed better to me. I suppose that could be because of the larger budget of course, and it did suffer from trying to get too much into such a short time frame, but overall I enjoyed it. I think it might come down to which you saw first though... those who saw the movie first likely think it's better, while those who saw the show first think it's superior.
The problem being that they missed out on a lot of the more Anglicised parts of the book. And missed out on the very Adamsy bits of it. (DNA was a great writer, but book 3/4 were tripe...sorry)Kapol said:
Trisha and Arthur have a kid, Random. But Trish is always in love with her career, and Arthur with Fenchurch.
Sandra Dickinson? You couldn't see, say, Natalie Portman filling that role? Or Angelina Jolie (Both are smart enough to have done that)
Zaphod was rubbish. He needs to be chewing the scenery from the off.
Oh really?
I just felt the movie was trying to make them all into heroes. Ford is a slacker, Arthur is a civil servant, Trisha is a genius and Zaphod is an egomaniac. What the movie did was bring out their GOOD points, and I really don't think they should have any. They are what they are.
Ah.
Major disagreement here, mainly because the films version wouldn't have been as good without the TV version. For the time, the TV version was stunning. (Given that it wasn't created on a computer as no computer could manage that).
The Guide is the best thing about both movie and series though.
Yeah, it's always tough to judge something on which is better due to that. And that the movie will have been based on the series by those that watched it.
I don't think it was bad.
Just...not as immediate. Mos Def didn't seem to do anything (and didn't have the David Dixon facial expressions). Trisha was given the Ripley Gene and turned away from her original writing. Zaphod stomped but didn't STOMP. And even with Rickman's Marvin and Fry's Guide, which do challenge the originals, it just seemed...flat...and uninteresting.
Maybe it could have done with some more fjords.
(To see what I mean, look at the Whale speech clips below)
3:20 onwards
Which whale do you feel sorrier for?
I don't care what anyone says, I'm excited. That said, if this manages to hack the Guide to pieces and dump it unceremoniously into computergameworld without a care for what Douglas might have wanted, there will be hell to pay. Hell.
As an aside, a previous poster mentioned And Another Thing. I couldn't be bothered to go back and quote. It's really not bad. It fits as a Hitchhiker's book. Probably too much Random in it for my tastes, but that's just me... Obviously Colfer wasn't able to imitate Adams perfectly. He wasn't trying to. It's undoubtedly a Colfer book, but his writing in general does share some qualities with Douglas Adams. So, a valiant effort, always mindful of Douglas Adam's notes, and his previous works.
To return to the point, *excitement*. That will be all.
As an aside, a previous poster mentioned And Another Thing. I couldn't be bothered to go back and quote. It's really not bad. It fits as a Hitchhiker's book. Probably too much Random in it for my tastes, but that's just me... Obviously Colfer wasn't able to imitate Adams perfectly. He wasn't trying to. It's undoubtedly a Colfer book, but his writing in general does share some qualities with Douglas Adams. So, a valiant effort, always mindful of Douglas Adam's notes, and his previous works.
To return to the point, *excitement*. That will be all.
