Talk:The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Other Characters and Production Notes

Mr. L Prosser

Mr. L Prosser is a representative of the local authorities, or more accurately, the local authorities that wish to demolish Arthur Dent's home. Curiously enough, though he doesn't know it, Mr. L Prosser is also a direct male-line descendant of Genghis Khan, though intervening generations and racial mixing have so juggled his genes that he has no discernible Mongoloid characteristics, and the only vestiges left in Mr. L Prosser of his mighty ancestry are a pronounced stoutness about the waist and a predilection for little fur hats.

Deep Thought

A female giant computer, watches an old BBC Kids show. Has an answer to Life, the Universe and Everything. Voiced by Dame Helen Mirren.

Eddie the Shipboard Computer

The shipboard computer located only in the Heart of Gold, built in France on Earth.

The Book

The help of any Hitchhiker. The Book is The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The Book is also Hitchhiker's Guide. Also the narrator.

---

What is this doing here? --Theaterfreak64 02:53, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Is this a copy and paste of other character summaries (see above)? The notes about Prosser are from the book, and aren't mentioned in the movie, Deep Thought was/is a giant computer, though the movie version gives it more of a humanoid appearance than any prior illustrated version (TV show, comic books, illustrated first book). And Eddie, being an alien computer on an alien spaceship was clearly not built on Earth (there is a joke in the first book about the Heart of Gold being launched from an island called France on a planet named Damogran, but again, none of this is stated in the movie). -- JohnDBuell 16:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Character descriptions are from [1]. I'm emailing their webmaster to determine if this is acceptable. Ubermonkey 21:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• No response yet from their webmaster. Bobber2 posted the material at 16:00, 28 Apr 2005 so I left a note on his talk page. Ubermonkey 17:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Bobber1, who is assumed to be the same user as Bobber2 (see user's talk page), did it again, with publicity material carrying a Touchstone Pictures 2005 Copyright. I'm reverting back to the earlier material on Humma Kavula, and I may do the other characters if necessary, for the same reason. --JohnDBuell 21:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Production Notes

SNIP! Removed copyrighted text, see below. --JohnDBuell 02:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

This complete text has been copied, word for word, from text with a 2005 Touchstone Pictures copyright on it. It's out of their publicity material, which is available on the Internet in a PDF file. It probably should not be posted here, but I wanted an ok before removing it from a Talk page. --JohnDBuell 22:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Characters

SNIP! Removed copyrighted text, see my note in the Production Notes section. --JohnDBuell 02:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry.

Heh...well, the radio show was the original basis for the whole thing...but thanks for correcting my recent edit. That's probably the best feature of Wikipedia.

Note to future editors tempted to make the same mistake I did: reliable sources say that the books were the primary source for the recent movie.--Joel 06:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Movie tie-in figures

NECA (The National Entertainment Collectibles Association) Official Site is releasing the official H2G2 movie tie-in figures (several of which are in stores now). Should these get a mention in the movie article, or on the individual character pages (or both)? Released so far: Marvin, Arthur, Zaphod, Kwaltz and Jeltz. All of these come in small and medium sized versions, Marvin comes in a larger version with light-up eyes (but doesn't speak, sadly). There are also "yarn" versions of Marvin, Arthur, Zaphod, Ford and Trillian, shot glasses, a holo-cube, and Marvin's "gun" which makes noises and shoots foam darts. --JohnDBuell 20:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Where can I buy a working POV gun to settle my edit wars with? --(kidding)Joel 06:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Second Earth

The article current reads "At the very end of the film, the second Earth is rolled out, and Arthur Dent chooses to remain a hitch-hiker. Nothing analagous happens in previous versions - although the Earth does re-appear in So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish - it turns out, in Mostly Harmless to be for completely different reasons."

I disagree with "nothing analogous". I haven't seen the movie, so maybe I'm not fully qualified to comment, but isn't this just the Earth Mark II, which is referenced in many versions of the story?

It's the "backup copy." The impression is given (in all prior versions) that the Earth Mark II would have to be started over from the beginning of the 10 million year program, but this one resumes at the same point where the Earth I was destroyed. Very similar to Earth "popping back" in the fourth book or fourth/fifth radio series, but not quite the same, and with a different justification. --JohnDBuell | Talk 04:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Mentioned Differences Not All Seen

In the section entitled "Differences of Plot, Theme, Characterization, and Dialogue from Preceding Versions", there are a number of things mentioned to be missing from the film version that I clearly saw or heard in the film version (such as mention of the Dentrassi and the guide reading the words "Mostly harmless."). I saw the film in a major theater chain in Taipei when it was released here a few months ago. Is it possible that the film version released in Taiwan included deleted scenes that were not present in the film version released to the North American market? thursiya 18:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Dentrassi aren't even available as a deleted scene. The "Mostly Harmless" scene is, and it's on the English (US/UK/Canada) DVD. Was this in English and subtitled, or dubbed? They could have created a completely different film dub. It may not be a bad idea to include "differences in translation" on either the film's page as a new section, or on The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as international phenomenon page. --JohnDBuell | Talk 19:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The film was entirely in its original English (I recognized the actor's voices), and it had Chinese subtitles. I did see the film more than a month ago, and I could have magically inserted the Dentrassi dialogue, but I'm rather sure it was in the movie. I'm much more sure of the mentioning of "Mostly Harmless" by the Guide. So this was not a true case of "Differences in Translation". I was concerned that it might be a much more shocking case of "Differences in Release Versions". I was hoping someone else might have seen the film in a slightly different version in theaters as well. --thursiya 17:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The sad part is that we might have to wait for official DVD releases to verify things like this. Anyone want to start a multi-lingual H2G2 movie collection? :) --JohnDBuell | Talk 21:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

iTunes Music Store

What's all this about being able to buy the soundtrack in the iTunes Music Store? I've searched all over and I can't find it - just 4 guide entry singles. Has it been removed, was it never there? Is this a fault of the wiki or iTunes? —EatMyShortz 14:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's all still there. The entire soundtrack, the Marvin Mixes, the Guide Entries, all available from the US Store. I entered "Hitchhiker" as the search keyword. --JohnDBuell 13:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I see the problem now. I think it's ONLY still available from the US and UK iTMS. Or perhaps it was only ever ON the UK and US stores. --JohnDBuell 13:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah right... I thought that might have been the case, because the 4 singles said "not available in Australia," which, by an astonishing coincidence, I am in. Damn! —EatMyShortz 14:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed that section to reflect the UK/US availability. --JohnDBuell 14:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Theme Song

This isn’t really related to the article, but I figured this would be a good place to ask. The theme song to the movie "So Long and Thanks for all the Fish" for some reason reminds me of a song I've heard before, but I can't figure out what. I think it’s from an old NES game or something like that. Maybe a bossanova song? Anyone have any ideas?

Can't help with that I'm afraid, but I just found out the song is shortlisted (one of 42!) for a best original composition OSCAR. IainP (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Only three songs got the final nomination, and this wasn't one of them :( --JohnDBuell 23:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Movie differences section

The section is a bit long, I agree, but the prose has been in pretty good order. You could fork it into a new article, I suppose.... --JohnDBuell 13:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll certainly help clean it up. I think it's got a lot of unnecessary stuff in there and it's getting a little POV'd. There isn't anything specific which is POV'd, but it seems like it's being extraordinarily nitpicky and its reflecting negatively on the film. I mean, MJ Simpson loathed the film and even he wasn't this nitpicky. (Particularly the part about the missing *cough* word "surrealism" which has 3 paragraphs in the wiki. Also some other parts of that section begin getting completely side-tracked, and talking about the differences between say the radio and tv show, and explaining long parts of the story.) It needs a huge cleanup. Also it should be presented in dot points, not prose. I'll get to work on it. If it's still too long I agree it should be moved to another article. —EatMyShortz 14:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

OKay, I've gone through and done a huge cleanup. I'll just explain here: most of what I did was culling unnecessary sentences and making it into dot-point form. By "unnecessary" I mean this: I noticed a lot of getting completely off the track - nice for a Douglas Adams novel, but not a wiki article! For example, some of the stuff started giving the story of later books which was irrelevant, or going into extreme detail about how something was expressed in different versions.

I also added new headings and moved stuff into those headings accordingly. I think it's nicer to explain the major plot differences first, and the differences with the characters, before getting too bogged down with the fact that the word "surrealism" is missing. I wrote some new content to go in these sections also. I hope you agree it's much neater and more concise. It's still a bit long - perhaps it could have its own page. —EatMyShortz 13:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I removed a large number of POV statements which were very picky about some of the plot holes in the film and kept saying "the film did not explain this". eg: "The film does not explain that Magrathea was a location for planet-building until after Arthur meets Slartibartfast ... Nor does the film explain why Deep Thought should be accessible from Magrathea." Such things don't really need explanation, and it's needlessly pointless for the article to point this out. (By this logic, we should have a statement saying "the film does not explain why Arthur lived in Cottington". Or for that matter, "the film does not satisfactorily explain what a hrung is, nor why it should choose to collapse on Betelgeuse Seven"... sorry, couldn't resist.) Another example: "This raises the question, why did the program to find the Ultimate Question take 10 million years to run on the original Earth, if the current Earth could be restored at the moment it was destroyed? The film leaves this unexplained." In this case, I think if you think about it, the second earth was a backup, so it might have been backed up incrementally, and the mice did say they still needed Arthur's brain to complete the puzzle. It makes enough sense. Bottom line is films don't need to explain everything that happens, as long as there might possibly be some explanation. This article doesn't need to point it out. —EatMyShortz 15:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Round of applause - nice rewrite! --JohnDBuell 15:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Very nice work. However, the Earth in later novels isn't named "Earth Mark II", nor is the Earth Mark II described as a "backup copy" in the novels. The Earth that appears later is not necessarily related to the Magrathean reproduction and its origin is perhaps deliberately mysterious, so it is not actually a recommission. Also the complete restoration of the Earth is a major plot change. oneismany 12:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't the Earth Mark II being created, but it was stopped after the mice decided they didn't need it? Granted, it was never completed like in the movie, but I thing it was still being created at one point. Rory096 01:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, regarding "In the film, the fleet does not enter hyperspace until after discharging Ford and Arthur. As a result it is indicated that they are picked up by the Heart of Gold in the same sector of space where the Earth used to be," they did enter hyperspace before Arthur and Ford were thrown out, but weren't they still picked up by the Heart of Gold in the same sector? Rory096 01:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

where is the criticism part??::

its a movie and no part of what critics may have sayd about it is here?, is it ok that fanboys should be running this page?... after all, it seems to have been completely erased.

There are links to criticism and reviews, but it's always difficult to decide if such things want to be included in a Wikipedia article or sub-article or not, without making said article look like an advertisement for the film. --JohnDBuell 16:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Having a list of differences (especially ones so minute) seems unnecessary. None of the other incarnations have sections like that; it feels like an indirect way of bashing the movie. Regardless of how one feels about it, the film is still legitimate. 24.176.68.77 06:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Are they ever making Restaurant at the End of the Universe?

I have yet to hear any news on it, which makes my very, very sad. --Nintendorulez [[User talk:Nintendorulez|talk]] 21:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Every rumor I've heard indicates that there will NOT be a sequel. --JohnDBuell 22:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't some mention of the sequel (or rather lack of) be mentioned in the main article - I guess under box office being the best place ? The Yeti 02:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, go for it :) --JohnDBuell 03:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It's more likely a Dirk Gently movie will be released before a Sequal to Hitchhikers. Acording to Salmon of doubt they were starting to ponder that before Adams's untimely death.-Sgore 16:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Zaphod's Second Head

Does anyone know why the production decided to eliminate Zaphod's second head and third arm? At the cocktail party where he met Trillian, he wore a shrouded birdcage on his shoulder to disguise the head. Did that bit of history get changed, along with his current appearance?

Well, in the film, Zaphod does have a second head, just not in the most obvious position; this was likely a direct response to general opinion that the rubber head used in the TV version was just too fake. The incident with the birdcage is, AFAIK, not mentionned in this version, and I wouldn't view that as "history getting changed", since it's only a passing reference anyway. In the end, I really don't think there's much point examining "what's different and what's not" between versions, since DNA himself happily referred to them as "mutually contradictory" or words to that effect, so each should really just be considered to stand alone. - IMSoP 19:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually it was because the two heads at the top of a single torso had ALSO been done in Men in Black II that made them come up with the idea for the "split-off personality" popping up from a human's neck. This is mentioned in Robbie Stamp's interview with Sam Rockwell, from the US movie tie-in edition paperback of the first novel. As far as at the party, the "second head in the birdcage" was first written for the computer game, and later was referenced in the fifth radio series. --JohnDBuell | Talk 04:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, I gathered Men in Black (I think not even Men in Black II, though I've only seen the first one, so maybe it's not the bit I'm thinking of) stole some ideas - that's why the out-of-scale-battle-fleet joke got put in the credits rather than the main film as well, apparently (to those who saw the film but missed it: you fools!)

On a point of pedantry, the fifth radio series is largely the same as the fifth novel ('Mostly Harmless'), which predated it by some 13 years, and does mention the birdcage. But, yes, it seems the birdcage isn't mentionned in the first book, or the first radio series (Arthur just says "of course, he only had the two arms then, and the one head", which isn't necessarily inconsistent if he fell for the covered birdcage disguise, which he would...). I never did get very far with the computer game, though, so I'll take your word on that :) - IMSoP 18:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe I read somewhere that one of the reasons was budgetary - either it would have had to have been a fake 'real' head (and so possibly falling into the same problem as the TV version head #2 looking ever so slightly crap) ; or a full CGI version, which would have cost a fortune. Simply, it was cheaper to hide head #2 most of the time. The Yeti 19:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

For me, I don't really matter. I largely ignore the fact that Zaphod had a second head while reading the books. It leaves me with a lot fewer headaches, and it worked nicely in Zaphod Plays It Safe. RPharazon 21:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Differences

Someone should enter something about the plot differences for the whale between the book and the movie. No. I won't do it. Someone should, though. --Blue Spider 05:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What difference? The fact that the whale's impact crater gives them an entrance into Magrathea in every other version? --JohnDBuell 21:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I've made significant changes to the 'Differences' section, merging the contents of the previous version whenever possible, but largely dismissing its structure, because it wasn't very well organized.

Comments?

(Above is from User:Oneismany).

One: Sign your talk page comments please, and you weren't logged in when changing the differences section, though that's not a big deal. Two: New talk page sections belong at the bottom of said talk page. Three: I put BACK in some things that were removed, and should stay (like the justification for Ford saving Arthur that was not in prior editions). Four: The section could STILL use a good re-write for consistency, preferably by someone who isn't a fan of the material (and can thus be impartial about it). As I said in my edit comments, the points raised are very valid, I did a bit of cleanup work to reflect the TV series and even the computer game, but as I say, it could still use a re-write. --JohnDBuell | Talk 18:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new. How do I config my signature, etc?

Check your preferences page, and a comment is signed with four consecutive tilde (~) characters. Two pages frequently recommended are:

• Wikipedia:Tutorial
• Wikipedia:Help desk

Now, I'm going to have to quibble a bit with your edits: the party in the Islington flat is first mentioned by the Guide's narration just prior to Ford and Arthur's rescue by the Heart of Gold (see Fit the Second). There really was no justification given for Ford rescuing Arthur, in fact, Ford only shows up at Arthur's house in the computer game version JUST to return Arthur's towel, and is reluctantly convinced to try to save Arthur's house. Also "screen version of the film" strikes me as very unnecessarily redundant. Also, you really have to strive to keep a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) when talking about things such as irony and surrealism, unless you quote a review that mentions the same thing, and give it an inline citation. --JohnDBuell | Talk 21:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it. I hope you find this more NPOV. oneismany 14:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. This section is shaping up quite nicely, and there was also a really good re-write from an anon editor earlier (or was that you?). Thanks for the input. --JohnDBuell | Talk 18:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

That was probably me :) oneismany 18:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the wikilink edits! :) oneismany 09:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

There really is no rule/policy about it, but for readability, the "rule of thumb" that I use, and which was suggested to me by someone who does a lot of editing on the Doctor Who-related pages, is to wikilink one character/idea/subject ONCE per article-subsection. Otherwise you get WAY too many blue (or red) links popping up, and it's just not as easy to read anymore. --JohnDBuell | Talk 15:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I cut this from the recent edit:

The movie originally was to have made a major change to Trillian's character by revealing that she is only half-human; this is described in the official behind-the-scenes book on the making of the film, as well as the film tie-in edition of the original novel, however at the last minute it was decided to edit this change from the film.

I thought that it didn't constitute a 'difference' from earlier versions because it isn't in the film. No offense! oneismany 15:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Good point. That would have been valid if available as a deleted scene. It IS noted on the page for Trillian (character) however. It was in several drafts of the script. I don't know when it was changed, but obviously after Robbie Stamp's manuscript for the "Making of" book! --JohnDBuell | Talk 18:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This passage is back in the 'differences' section, but it doesn't belong in this section. Perhaps there could be a separate section regarding 'proposed changes to the story' or something? oneismany 10:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Apart from changing Trillian's back story though, there really are NOT any other changes that were proposed to the general story that were NOT carried out in the final film. Mostly what happened was the sheer amounts of Adams's material that was cut out from draft to draft, which we've covered already. And we HAVE pointed out that the proposed change to Trillian's back story IS verifiable; the editor who put it back in mentioned that they discuss it in the DVD commentary too. --JohnDBuell | Talk 13:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah but nobody's back stories are in the film or in the books. I'm sure Adams cut lots of stuff out of his books during his editing process too, but that doesn't make a difference here either. This section covers differences that *are* in the story, not differences that are *not* in the story. I'm sure there are lots of aesthetic differences such as background music and graphics (between TV and movie) that could be noted too, but I didn't think that such differences should all be included together because it would bog down one section with too much extraneous information (which is why I changed the title to specify plot, theme, characterization, and dialogue. Right now the fact that there were proposed chages to Trillian's back story is completely extraneous, whether or not it is verifiable. If we wanted to inlcude every considered change to the story and compare every considered version of the radio, books, TV series, LP, and computer game to every considered version of the movie, this section would be a whole lot bigger. I'm not debating the worth of this information, I just think it should be in a different section or only included as a side note, because it is off topic. oneismany 10:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

There, I put parentheses around it, the same as every other note about the DVD version and script versions, because the film doesn't include those things. (Maybe there could be a separate section about changes or inclusions/exclusions for script/book drafts and the DVD?) Technically I suppose the change in Trillian's back story isn't denied by the film, so it could still be true. Although, that could include just about anything you can imagine, too. oneismany 11:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: The recent reversion from the long section title to the shorter version. It seemed necessary to specify plot, theme, characterization and dialogue because the section is awfully big already and it shouldn't be weighed down by notes about aesthetic or other differences as well. For example, differences in the music, animation, or artwork. Does anybody really care? If no one was going to mention anything like that, it probably doesn't really make any difference. oneismany 10:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I honestly think it 'reads better' with a shorter section title. That's my two cents. --JohnDBuell 17:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (film)/Archive 1 has failed, for the following reason:

Unreferenced GA Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me petition 02:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Vogon evolution

Someone on the Making of documentary on my DVD claims the Vogon slap stick thing (a) was made up by Douglas and (b) the idea is indeed that this has driven Vogon evolution. 82.35.13.34 19:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was the employees of Douglas's old company, The Digital Village, lending proof (from having read Douglas's actual screenplays) that some of the gags were indeed his, and not added by, say, Karey Kirkpatrick. --JohnDBuell 20:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Kirkpatrick has explicitly stated several times that he didn't make up jokes himself. All jokes that are in the movie are, says he, derived from Adams' own scripts. I have no reason to doubt this. MrTroy 10:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Failed good article nomination

Still has a bit of work ahead before it reaches GA status.

• The lead should be expanded, giving a small overview of the story and boxoffice/critical reception.

• Why is comedy not wikilinked?
• Why not say "It was distributed worldwide the following months until September."
• Adams' should be Adams's.

• Cast section should be rewritten as prose, with the actor's name, the name of his/her character, and a brief sentence or two detailing their role. See the Star Wars prequel article for more info.

• Is all you can find of the Production one interview with the producer? There's no information on casting, problems, script changes, stuff like that. You should at least rewrite the interview as prose, and not just simply quote most of the interview.

There are literally 25 years of history here. A page just for that is still in my long-term goals. --JohnDBuell 04:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Get rid of the photo of booklet with the soundtrack. It looks like the movie poster, so people could probably guess what the cover looks like. Split some of the information in Soundtrack to a separate article. Sum up that whole section as it is now in one paragraph.

• Plot. The whole section should be edited, especially for clarity. Here's some things:

• Drop the first paragraph.
• Merge the short stubby paragraphs.
• Cut out the parenthetical comments.

• Seriously cut out most of the "Differences from preceding versions" section, using only major changes, and reorganize the list under headings like "From book" and "From radio series". The paragraph at the end should go into a Critical Reception section.

This also was already under consideration, and your comments gave me the excuse I needed to fork it into a new article, where now text needs to be added for differences between all OTHER versions. --JohnDBuell 04:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Make the "Home video release" section a "DVD release" section, and form it into prose.

• Trivia is considered bad for Good or Featured articles. They're okay to start out with, so various information can go in one place, but as you edit, incorporate most of it into above sections.

• "Awards" should also include fan and critical reception, as well as Box-office information. Merge the Box-office earnings section into "Awards", as I missed it when I was reading the article.

• As for references, make sure to have some when quoting critics and fans. If you need more references, why not use the DVD specials?

Good luck. --Dark Kubrick 04:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Though I did not review this article, I would also like to direct a comment towards its editors on the size of the poster image used in the lead. At 1798x2667, claiming fair use is absolutely not ok. And on top of that, the unbelievably large size is not needed to depict the image in a way helpful to the reader. Shrinking this down to something more legal and manageable should be done as soon as possible. JimmyBlackwing 04:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that - when I wrote up the fair use rationale I think I only made a note of the dimensions of the first image seen, not the larger one that you could "click through" and view. I shrank it to 20% and reuploaded. --JohnDBuell 23:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Was this Film based on the TV series? According to List of British sitcoms turned into films it was.

I don't even consider Hitchhiker's to be a sitcom, but that aside, List of British sitcoms turned into films includes the movie as being a film version of the TV series, along with "classics" like On The Buses and Please Sir!

This film is clearly based on the book, so it doesn't fall into the same category as the other titles on that list. There's a discussion at the talk page and I'm surprised to see some people insisting that this was based on the "sitcom".

I thought people here might be able to add their opinion over there. 172.213.253.155 05:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Trillian and Arthur

There is nothing on this page about Trillian and Arthur getting together at the end! I would think that's an important thing to note, especially since it doesn't happen in the book. Lissa 20:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add a sentence or two to that effect to the end of the plot summary. --JohnDBuell 00:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Quotes?

Can we pease have some Qoutes put on?

No, go to Wikiquote. Gran² 21:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sequel

< While members of the cast had been signed for a potential sequel, the movie's modest box office gross earnings, particularly in the United States, have made any prospects of a potential sequel movie very unlikely. Adams himself had only worked on a screenplay adaptation of the first novel in the series, and none of the subsequent novels. >

This text seems to be very unreferenced.

1. If the sentence about a sequel being unlikely is to stay, there has to be a reference to someone saying this. Like a Disney executive, or Garth Jennings, or whoever. Now it's like the writer of the article thinks it's unlikely, which falls under the 'own research' rules of Wikipedia.

2. Has Adams indeed worked on only the first movie? On IMDB someone said he'd written a draft for The Restaurant too. Any reference for the statement he only wrote a script for the first novel? MrTroy 10:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well there's the problem. Nobody has come out and explicitly said, "No, there will not be a second movie." My best bets for accurate sources would be various SF magazines, such as SFX (UK) or the Sci-Fi channel's magazine (US). Perhaps members of ZZ9 know something. --JohnDBuell 11:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Starlog magazine (US) may have had something. I wish I had the time to try to dig through some back issues that I have (though not a complete set) before work this morning. But in terms of the logic of the lack of a sequel, several sources estimated the budget at US$40-$50 million. Thus if the US gross on the movie was only $50 million (and I have no idea about the video (DVD/UMD) sales), it really makes a sequel very unlikely. It probably would have had to gross $100 or $150 million. --JohnDBuell 12:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That may be true, but for inclusion in the article a citable source is needed. This factual information (the money) may lead us to speculate that there will never be a sequel, but that's own research and can't be included. MrTroy 14:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you rather remove it for now, or mark it with a {{cite}} until I've had a chance to check sources? --JohnDBuell 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem to be certain you'll eventually find a source, I'll mark it with {{cite}}s. For the record, I think you're arguments this far aren't so bad. But we'll have to stick to the WP rules. MrTroy 14:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A quote from the latest ZZ9 magazine has been added but the reference has not come out correctly. By the way, according to Box Office Mojo and Screen International, the film did gross over $100 million in total. I heard various rumours for the budget in the $10 to $100 million range, and those I consider more informed were in the $70-80 million area. Marketing was quite costly too, but overall the film probably made a profit, although the financial people could no doubt argue it either way depending on if you were on a percentage of the gross or not.

Percentage of net. They can't argue with percentage of gross.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't really fiddle with this until I'm recovered from recent injury. Sorry. --JohnDBuell 15:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, there will not be a sequel. http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2007/10/01/martin-freeman-no-sequel-for-hitchhikers-guide-to-the-galaxy/

Fair use rationale for Image:Ford-Arthur-Zaphod.jpg

Image:Ford-Arthur-Zaphod.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ultimate Question.jpg

Image:Ultimate Question.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical Reception

Can we have a "critical reception" section, please? It's the thing that's most immediately and glaringly absent when this article is compared with other lengthy film articles. (If I had the ability, I'd write one myself.) Loganberry (Talk) 03:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

References to other Adams works

I have removed the bit in this section which described the island of Madagascar by saying- "As well as, the place that "Reg" from Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency often visits in his time machine in order to see Dodos." I removed it because it is simply not true. Reg does not go to Madagascar. He goes to Mauritius, because that is where the Dodo is from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.146.225 (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Vogon poetry2.jpg

The image Image:Vogon poetry2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Was this Film based on the Radio series?

If the film was based on the book, when the book was based on the radio series, does that mean this film can be said to be based on the radio series as well (the original form of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)? It is inlcuded in the List of films based on radio series.

If so, it should include the Category:Films based on radio series.

AdamBMorgan 18:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It really shouldn't be on that list. It's SO far removed from the radio series (and even, arguably, the novel) that there's little relation. The UK DVD documentary and the producers have all stated on the record that the novel was used as the starting point for the feature film version, and there's already quite a bit of difference between the first four radio episodes and the first novel (so it wouldn't even be safe to say that it's based on the whole original radio series, because the novel is just the first four episodes). --JohnDBuell 21:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

--Astralbee (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Although the radio version came first, most fans consider the books to be the definite 'canonical' version of the story. The books also have the most continuity within the series, whearas the TV series stopped approximately after book 2 and the radio series had to 'reboot' a couple of times to bring itself back into line with the rest of the H2G2 universe.

That said, I was particularly annoyed when the film director referred in interview to "the original books", because he clearly didnt understand the legacy of H2G2 properly (as demonstrated by the appalling film). Perhaps the radio series would have been a better starting point.

References to Adams' Other Works

After drinking Pan-Galactic Gargle Blasters, Ford and Zaphod yell "Belgium!" (worst word in the Galaxy, according to at least the books) - anyone care to verify details and add in? (ed: Looks like Ford also says this when fired upon during Viltvodle VI arc.) (ed: Okay, maybe there are lots of nods to previous works not included in the Wikipedia entry - swearing "Zarquon," for example...) 24.23.246.223 (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Kelly Macdonald

How confident are we that Kelly Macdonald is indeed in the cast? Neither her IMDb or the film's one list her, and the official website doesn't go into details of lesser cast members. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 20:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a "Kelly MacDonald" listed in the cast, according to the cast list as printed in the Movie Tie-in Edition of the H2G2 novel. I have no idea how far in advance that list was written up, or if there've been changes since, or if this is the same Kelly MacDonald anyone else is thinking of. -- JohnDBuell 05:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kelly MacDonald (yes, that Kelly MacDonald) plays the newscaster . Jonabbey (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Inside Jokes

I'm surprised there's not a mention of the movie being full of inside jokes, right down to Douglas Adams' face being the last transformation of the ahip in the final scene. At least some of them must be documented on some site that fits Wikipedia's source requirements. --37.4.121.179 (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Plot summary section

I've removed, for now, the beginnings of a plot summary that somebody had added, for several reasons. Below the spoiler warning, it consisted of the following:

Arthur Dent (Earther) wakes up but gets problems in his house: Hit by wall while he's getting downstairs and hot sandwich hurts Arthur's hands. He meets Ford Prefect but Arthur finds Ford is an alien. (still in progress)

1. The article The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy already includes quite a lot of plot summaries for the stories in general; this doesn't make a summary of the film a complete no-no, but it does seem a good idea to structure any summary here around the differences from other versions
2. Unless the fact that "[a] hot sandwich hurts Arthur's hands" is vital to more crucial events later in the film, this is going to be an extremely detailed summary - almost more like a storyboard. An outline of the key events is probably more helpful.
3. Since it's only a tiny fragment, the fact that it's in such rough note form means it really doesn't give anyone much to go on - entering unpolished content here for collabourative editing is of course fine, but on its own this really didn't reduce the effort for the next person (compared to writing their own from scratch).

I don't want to put people off trying to write a summary, which is why I thought I'd justify myself here, but this attempt doesn't look to me to be heading in the right direction. Perhaps once a better outline of the whole plot has been written, it could be added and polished from there. - IMSoP 16:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps someone more familiar with the film could properly introduce the "mice," which are currently mentioned in the plot summary without any explanation or reference to their first appearance in the film somewhat earlier. Saitia 22:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saitia (talk • contribs)

Marvin

This page lists only Warwick Davis as Marvin, but doesn't Stephen Moore provide Marvin's voice? - Furrykef 06:17, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes: see here --Phil | Talk 12:49, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Well, Stephen did in the radio and TV versions, but here (in the movie) it'll be Alan Rickman --JohnDBuell 02:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Marvin is depressed, not paranoid. I've checked the back of the DVD and it does refer to him as a 'paranoid android', however anyone who has watched the film or read the book will notice that he is not at all paranoid, though he is certainly depressed. IMBD synopsis refers to him as 'the ship's eternally depressed android', 29 min into the movie Marvin says he is depressed. Furthermore Marvin has none of the attributes of paranoia while having lots of markers of being depressed.

We're not looking for a clinical diagnosis here, we're looking for how he's credited. If he's not credited as "Marvin the Paranoid Android" (or what-not) then we should drop the ending for the purposes of this article, but to my knowledge he's never been credited as depressed. DonIago (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Not the only Hitchhiker film adaptaion

I remember seeing an awful version of the Hitchhiker's Guide long ago. Zaphod's other head was a simply dummy head. The film was AWFUL. This article should mention the other film adaptation.24.214.155.48 (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That was likely the TV series with (at the time) BBC quality special effects. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's face it - this is a classic case of the pictures being better on the radio Unclearvide (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I have a copy of the movie you are talking about. I also found a link on IMDb for it. [2]

HEY LOOK! THIS IS THE 42ND SECTION! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.243.75 (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that the main difference with the BBC version is that the cast in the original were human rather than being made of wood, oh and the better 1970's special effects. People really loved that BBC original version, now how many people even a few years later even care about this awful effort. The biggest difference of course was that the people who made the original version actually got the humor in the books, this brings on memories of Battlefield Earth and Aliens vs Predators.. Lucien86 (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

No Vogsphere in the article

I saw it on the movie that men went to the base on Vogsphere while being smacked by shovel-like creatures on the way there, but the article has no mention of Vogsphere, which is the home of the Vogons. PlanetStar 03:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110522043123/http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061114/latu007.html?.v=74 to http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061114/latu007.html?.v=74

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Major difference: Ford

Pages of pages of talk about the Differences section (which seems to have been deleted by now), and yet neither the article nor this talkpage ever mention the elephant in the room, which was re-casting Ford as black. I remember many comments and reviews were pissed because Adams had stated several times in the books that Ford is white. And then these guys come along after his death, cast Ford as black and claim it's what the dead guy wanted when they don't even have proof for it. But seems "doing the Ford" has gotten awfully popular lately by casting Idris Elba of all people as Roland Deschain from Stephen King's The Dark Tower (series), when a number of times in the books he's called the spitting image of Clint Eastwood and King himself and even when actually black Detta Walker calls him a "honkey mahfah" several times. --2003:71:4E6A:C987:486C:87D0:0:B7B0 (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that discussed this casting decision, you're welcome to add appropriate information to the article. DonIago (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050413230711/http://www.douglasadams.se:80/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2288 to http://www.douglasadams.se/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2288
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.douglasadams.eu/en_index.php?p=en_movie_interviews

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:So Long, And Thanks for All the Fish (A Perfect Circle song) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Title

Moved from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (film) following naming conventions. I'm not sure about "film" usage in UK. If that's the case, then sorry, but guess it doesn't matter... — Kieff | Talk 07:54, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. "Film" do is synonymous with "movie" in British English but the naming conventions are of course more important. It doesn't really matter. --ZeroOne 14:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there is no convention; I see both (film) and (movie) all the time on Wikipedia. - Furrykef 06:17, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, the convention is to use "movie"; but that doesn't mean that all the pages follow it, because not many people spot and move them if they don't. And FWIW, I don't think "movie" is used nearly as often in British English as "film", but conventions are, in general, nice to have, so I'll go along with it. - IMSoP 00:17, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Release date

The teaser trailer for this movie in the United States says that the release date is May 6, 2005, not June 3. Anyone have a citation for the June 3 release date? - Walkiped 06:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was User:Valmi who added the release dates, he might remember where he got them. --ZeroOne 22:26, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I cannot provide evidence, but I'm sure this 3 June date didn't just slip out of my mind. I must have had a good reason to write that. I remember very well being surprised about the film being released first in the UK–and being also extremely enthusiastic about that. Anyhow, I removed the information, as it is obviously wrong/outdated/whatever. --[[User:Valmi|Valmi ✒]] 05:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was about to remove the extra date (it's back!) because the official site has "MAY 6 2005" in big letters, so unless it's guessing that I'm from the UK and giving me an appropriate version, it seems like that's the date, full stop. But, I did a quick googling, and came upon this site reporting the later date, too. It's a bit late at night for me to do any more detailed checking, but my suspicion, like Valmi's, is that this was a previously "pencilled in" date, and should now be considered incorrect. - IMSoP 00:17, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everything now appears geared towards April 29 as the release date, certainly that's what the official site and the trailers are saying. Hopefully it'll stop moving now. Rje 00:45, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Aha! I have stumbled upon an unofficial but seemingly well-informed FAQ containing a whole slew of release dates, viz (as of 23:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)):

Australia - April 28
Great Britain - April 28
USA - April 29
Puerto Rico - May 5
Canada - May 6
Iceland - May 6
Czech Republic - June 2
Brazil - June 3
Argentina - June 9
Poland - June 10
Austria - June 16
Germany - June 16
Belgium - June 29
Netherlands - June 30
Finland - July 22
Sweden - July 27
Norway - July 29
Denmark - August 12
France - August 17

Phew! That should sort that out then! (Note that it is released in the UK - along, obscurely, with Australia - a day before the USA!)

One of the sources of confusion appears to be that there are multiple official sites, run by different divisions of Buena Vista: compare http://hitchhikersmovie.com (redirects to part of Disney's "Go.com") with http://hitchhikersmovie.co.uk (redirects to part of Buena Vista UK's The Film Factory) - IMSoP 23:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

HHGG Mania

Let it begin... slowly, then build... slowly, then merchandize quickly! There better be some quality HHGG swearing in it, if not, it'll be relegated to my second favorite comedy. There can be little doubt of its total uberness. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tie-in Book

There is a LOT of information in the new tie-in edition of H2G2 (the novel). Del Ray (in the US) has printed new Mass Market Paperback and Trade Paperback editions, both with the same "92-page bonus section on the making of the movie." Included is an afterword by Robbie Stamp, interviews with Sam Rockwell, Martin Freeman, Mos Def, Zooey Deschanel and a "self-interview" with Karey Kirkpatrick. For interested parties, the trade paperback is ISBN 0-345-41891-3 -- JohnDBuell 02:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

brave brave sir marvin

It says that the origanal marvin can be seen in one of the scenes... which one??????? The bellman 10:35, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

When they are at the queue to rescue Trillian.Sclozza 10:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be worthy of at least a trivia note? 32.212.102.239 (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)