Ohh that’s a good one. The other books afterwards were great too.
Would’ve loved a sequel and would honestly not mind them artistically fudging it a bit to pick back up with an older Arthur Dent
I believe Adams himself considered each different medium to be “it’s own story” though just as he added and changed things from the radio play for the book, he also added and changed things in the movie screen play… When he was involved in it. I’m not going to pretend it was all his work but it was it’s own thing.
Douglas Adams writing doesn’t translate well to film I think, a bit like Pratchett’s. It can be done (Good Omens was a great adaptation of Pratchett) but it’s probably super hard to do well and keep the original feeling/spirit
The 1981 TV series did a fine job, likely in no small part thanks to having Adams himself around and involved.
I feel like any future HHG adaptation would need to be TV rather than theatrical film. That universe is just too full to condense meaningfully into a 90-minute blockbuster meant to keep the Hollywood lowest common denominator in their seats. You need room for all the multilayered apparently-random stuff interacting with each other in the particularly bizarre ways Adams was so good at pulling off, and it needs to capture the whimsy of the source material without devolving into the unremarkable formulaic stuff the latest attempt to do Dirk Gently on TV turned out to be.
And the book wasn’t living up to the original radio series
Mostly kidding on that
I agree that I like the book better, initially I disliked the movie, but I’ve come around on it, some things from the radio series were changed for the book, and so it just kind of feels right they’d further change things for the movie. Playing a little fast and loose with it feels very in the Douglass Adams spirit to me.
