• @graham1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    471 month ago

    The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. It did quite well when it came out, and it felt like there was potential for sequels

    • @Mostly_Gristle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      261 month ago

      I’m surprised nobody has done a modern TV version. All five books have been successfully adapted for radio, the scripts are done, it’s already blocked out into well-paced individual episodes. It’s just sitting there waiting to be made. You just need a good cast and a show runner who isn’t going to monkey with the source material. It’s already proven to be popular and long-lived. Seems like a no-brainer.

      • @DJDarren@thelemmy.club
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        121 month ago

        All five books have been successfully adapted for radio

        As far as I’m aware, the first two radio series predate the books. So, in fact, they were successfully adapted into print.

      • AwesomeLowlander
        link
        fedilink
        630 days ago

        show runner who isn’t going to monkey with the source material

        When’s the last time THAT happened?

        • @angrystego@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          229 days ago

          Which I didn’t like at all, it felt too much like an audiobook to me, reading all the guide bits, not like an adaptation. Looks like you can never satisfy all fans at once.

    • Björn Tantau
      link
      fedilink
      121 month ago

      I blame Douglas Adams’ extended tax evasion scheme. I think they were already struggling to finish the first one.

    • @turddle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      81 month ago

      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

        • @Fondots@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          91 month ago

          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.

        • @BigPotato@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          530 days ago

          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.

        • @BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          41 month ago

          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

          • Rob T Firefly
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            29 days ago

            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.