That said, the graphics for the animated book sequences deserve to be singled outfor praise - the reason they haven't dated is that they were about thirty years ahead of their time, being rather better than any Flash animations I've seen. And why are they so good? Because the animators were fans of the radio series, and so lovingly packed them full of details, including references to things that don't even come up in the TV series.

And because they were done by hand as cel animations, so aren't tied to 1981 technology. Had they been done as CGI, they'd look really ropey these days.

Compare the genuine computer readouts in Alien (1979). It's the one thing on the Nostromo that's clearly 1970s vintage. The HHGTTG graphics on the other hand really look like the web - with flashing hyperlinks, graphical interfaces and so on, something that would have been impossible to fake in 1981 using extant technology.

They are showing all 6 episodes Mon-Thu this week & Mon/Tue next week.

I'm sure it will appear a bit dated but then the special effects were never really the strong point.
I suppose they have to put these sort of warnings on as a whole new generation will be seeing it for the first time.

>I suppose they have to put these sort of warnings on as a whole new generation will be seeing it for the first time.

I disagree. Why?

er........perhaps I'm being daft, but if they were last broadcast in 1981 then anyone aged upto about 22 years old will be unlikely to have seen them before, they will also be more likely to be unimpressed by the special effects.

>They are showing all 6 episodes Mon-Thu this week & Mon/Tue next week.

Why? Can't they just show one episode a week, or is that too complicated for BBC schedulers?

Grrr...

Well they could just mention it was made in 1981, and allow people to work it out for themselves. It's the 'don't worry' tone that's patronising.

>er........perhaps I'm being daft, but if they were last broadcast in 1981 then anyone aged upto about 22 years old will be unlikely to have seen them before, they will also be more likely to be unimpressed by the special effects.

Yes, but Mike's post, at the top of this thread, argues that people can work that out for themselves. Surely it's enough that it is announced as an old show, rather than the knee-jerk "looks a bit creaky" cobblers that absolutely no-one, let alone a small child, needs attached to the announcement.

For what its worth, the glass stages and hand drawn graphics hold up a lot better than its contemporaries. It was highly experimental for the time, and people should be assumed to have at least a morsel of intelligence with which to recognise that.

Honestly, this is what killed British science-fiction in the first place. The typical FX in modern SF are there to flash and shine, and not with the intent to simply serve a purpose and try to pass unnoticed, as with older, cheaper shows. The emphasis now is on "special" rather than "effect". In truth, these will all age just as badly.

They weren't last shown in 1981 though. In fact, in the mid-late 1980s, there was a time when they seemed to be repeated almost non-stop.

>Yes, but Mike's post, at the top of this thread, argues that people can work that out for themselves. Surely it's enough that it is announced as an old show, rather than the knee-jerk "looks a bit creaky" cobblers that absolutely no-one, let alone a small child, needs attached to the announcement.
>

I agree with you, however I was just speculating on their possible reasoning.

Having said that the only reviews I've seen so far are beeb.com & sceneone which have been entirely neutral, which will teach me for posting from a position of ignorance.


>Honestly, this is what killed British science-fiction in the first place. The typical FX in modern SF are there to flash and shine, and not with the intent to simply serve a purpose and try to pass unnoticed, as with older, cheaper shows. The emphasis now is on "special" rather than "effect". In truth, these will all age just as badly.


What killed British SF? the need for expensive effects?
I remember seeing the Zaphod Beeblebrox head on Blue Peter as a youngster and being thoroughly unimpressed at the time.
Perhaps when I watch it tonight I will realise that I underrated it unfairly for the last 20 years.
I repeat that I don't think the special effects are really relevant, the strength of Hitchhikers is the dialog & concepts - IMHO.

Quite, but the BBC became more and more concerned with gloss in the late-Eighties. That's what I was suggesting.

>The emphasis now is on "special" rather than "effect". In truth, these will all age just as badly.

On a vaguely similar theme, why are we still supposed to be so impressed and amazed by Jurassic Park 3? Ooh, look, dinosaurs. Yes, we know, we saw them seven years ago when we did the first one. Then we were impressed, because it looked like people were being eaten by real dinosaurs. Think of something new now please.

>Quite, but the BBC became more and more concerned with gloss in the late-Eighties. That's what I was suggesting.

To save delving into this again, refer to the 'Dr Who'-related thread in Old Threads index.

The Standard says it's probably only of interest to Star Trek fans.

Shall I kill them now, Master?

NTK claims it's a Dark Star ripoff. I wonder what they mean by that? Apart from being sci-fi parodies set in space, they don't seem that similar.

I think Beeblebrox's second head is the only special effect that really looks silly in retrospect. The rest of it holds up pretty well considering its age. If it does get remade as a big-budget film, I get the feeling that expensive CGI would ruin the charm of the original. There's kind of a chutzpah about those TV episodes, the feeling that the production team were striving for something glorious and epic on a tiny BBC budget, and almost getting there.

Death's too good for them.

In these enlightened days of course, no one believes a word of it.

>In these enlightened days of course, no one believes a word of it.

And now, some instructions on how to use toothpicks.

>>In these enlightened days of course, no one believes a word of it.
>
>And now, some instructions on how to use toothpicks.

Ahh yes, Wonko the Sane.

Surely I am not alone in really loving Mark Wing Davey as Zaphod? The local radio DJ accent, and the fact that he often sounds like he's about to piss himself.

Heeeyyyyy, this is TERIFFIC! Someone down there is trying to kill us!

Shut that bloody computer up!

Yes, Wonko the Sane. Building an asylum for the world because it's gone so mad it now needs detailed instructions on how to use a simple toothpick. Based on an actual toothpick instruction leaflet Douglas Adams found in America.

Adams' satire was perhaps a little misdirected on this occasion. He should have been asking why the manufacturers of the toothpicks assumed the public were too stupid to understand how to use one.

Toothpicks don't go out of fashion.

I filled half an hour waiting in a hotel room in Manhattan once by ringing up the help line number on a box of tooth-floss. The lady was very helpful, even when I tried it out and carried on talking incomprehensibly at the same time.

There's a good bit in the brilliant Dr Katz where he and his son both dabble with Henna and end up with bright red hair. They then have second thoughts and decide to ring the help line number on the side of the tube to get some counselling.

>NTK claims it's a Dark Star ripoff. I wonder what they mean by that? Apart from being sci-fi parodies set in space, they don't seem that similar.
>
I assumed they were talking about the computer animation, which do look strikingly of a simular style.

I belive DarkStar's computer animation was also drawn by hand... (tho I'm not sure about the computers face which seems to be made up from ascii characters so could be a "real" computer)

>>NTK claims it's a Dark Star ripoff. I wonder what they mean by that? Apart from being sci-fi parodies set in space, they don't seem that similar.
>>
>I assumed they were talking about the computer animation, which do look strikingly of a simular style.
>
>I belive DarkStar's computer animation was also drawn by hand... (tho I'm not sure about the computers face which seems to be made up from ascii characters so could be a "real" computer)

Animation - loads of scrolling text on screen like dat - and computers with personalities, apparently.

A bomb is going to go off and blow up the space ship, so they try to convince it that it doesn't exist.

Also, it's cheap, very cheap, like Portillo's crack habit.

I read somewhere today that the title music (of HHGTTG) was composed by the Eagles.

Could someone *please* tell me that this isn't true? Even if it is - lie to me. I'l believe anything.

Don't worry, that's a common misunderstanding. It was in fact composed by some eagles.

Thank christ for that.

'Journey Of The Sorcerer' from their 'One Of These Nights' LP. Buy it from a second-hand shop - it's the full version of the radio series sig.

ANd I quote from The Observer's TV guide:

"The scripts renders the visuals redundant, which is fortunate because they look decidedly dated. This may deter a new generation of PlayStation-reared youth. Let's hope not."

The most worrying aspect about it for me is I was 8 when in 1981 when I first watched it. ANd now I feel so very old...!

I once had a temper tantrum because my mum wouldn't buy me a blue/red/yellow pringle sweater like Ford Prefect's.

>The most worrying aspect about it for me is I was 8 when in 1981 when I first watched it. ANd now I feel so very old...!

Don't worry, I was 10 at the time. And I felt guilty about liking it because, as a pompous immature Doctor Who fan, I was desperate to follow the received wisdom of die-hard Who fans (also pompous and immature). At the time, they all hated Adams, and the also deceased producer Graham Williams, because they had "allowed too much humour" into the series (humour is always a bit of a problem for hardcore Whovians, i.e. they don't realise that to most people, DW is unintentionally funny). Times change....

i'm just watching it for the first time and i have to say, it isn't a patch on the books.

I was 2 when this was made. I watch and type at the same time. It's splendid.

>i'm just watching it for the first time and i have to say, it isn't a patch on the books.

Stick with it for part two, which is a good bit and has Marvin in it.

I don't see any dated graphics. They just look great to me.

And of course, the actual set from the film Alien. Okay, maybe it's not quite as well lit and you can see the wooden floor boards of the sound stage through the gaps, but still...

And Ford somehow gets a perm whilst floating in space between this episode and the next, trivia fans!

puppetry by jim henson's less well-known cousin.

>puppetry by jim henson's less well-known cousin.

Yes, Fred Henson, plagued by wrist cramp.

Look at that Pringle sweater. Don't you just want one? Oh, he's giving him the towel!

Original mono-mix of the music. Marvellous to hear that again. The video mix was sorely lacking.

Is Show 2's slot for 35 minutes? I dearly hope that someone at the BBC's finally noticed that all repeat showings for the past two decades have had five minutes snipped (the Montreaux edit).

ropey camera work, ropey acting, but fantastic animation. two thumbs up.

>Original mono-mix of the music. Marvellous to hear that again. The video mix was sorely lacking.

Oh fuck. I knew there was a reason for taping it. I'd forgotten about that.

>Is Show 2's slot for 35 minutes? I dearly hope that someone at the BBC's finally noticed that all repeat showings for the past two decades have had five minutes snipped (the Montreaux edit).

Please tell me the commercially released videos don't suffer from that edit?

>ropey acting

They were just warming up, the first episode was actually the pilot. It really starts humming in episode 2. Ford especially improves wildly.

>Please tell me the commercially released videos don't suffer from that edit?

I should check the sodding article, yes, I know...

What's the point of this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/index.shtml

They've changed the order of the words to make them less crisp and more flabby.

Re: cuts: the video-edit reinstates the material, but messes about with the order of some scenes. I prefer the original tx edit because when Ford asks his final "Look...which government *owns* it?" (of Marvin, re the Heart Of Gold) it appears that he's had to listen to Marvin's moaning for ages rather than just a few seconds. You'll see what I mean if they show the right one tomorrow.

Incidentally, I'm so pleased this exists:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/gallery/images/1024/fordprefect.html

>Incidentally, I'm so pleased this exists:
>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/gallery/images/1024/fordprefect.html

terrifying.

No triple-breasted whore diagram in the Animation gallery. Still, mustn't grumble. Sir is certainly not dead, otherwise I would not attempt to serve Sir.

>I don't see any dated graphics. They just look great to me.

Vintage stuff! I'm still trying to work out whether I've ever seen it in colour before as we only had a b&w telly until about '85...

I designed a record cover last week, and desperate for ideas, I ended up scribbling a wireframe Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz on a receding grid, and showing it to the client.

"What about that?"

"Yes, that's brilliant. That's just the look we're after. Green on black, you say?"

Still at the cutting edge 20 years on, you see...

And if you like the TV show....

Waterstones have the 4-volume compendium of HHGTTG on sale at £6.99. Which also means you don't have to put up with the hopeless 5th installment.

Incidentally, this is the only sci-fi my girlfriend will read or watch. I think she has a good point made.

>And if you like the TV show....
>
>Waterstones have the 4-volume compendium of HHGTTG on sale at £6.99. Which also means you don't have to put up with the hopeless 5th installment.
>
>Incidentally, this is the only sci-fi my girlfriend will read or watch. I think she has a good point made.

'mostly harmless' was something of a return to form i thought, after the frankly not very science-fictiony 4th book. i don't really understand all that guff about whales and dolphins.

Last night's opening repeat is reviewed, fairly objectively, in the Evening Standard today (31/07/01). Warning: claims programme looks dated!

I thought the fourth book was brilliant. More Liff than straight Sci Fi. But I haven't read it for ages, and that may be the doomed adolescent romantic in me just having the horn for Fenchurch.


Fifth book worth it for Dent as the Sandwich Maker.

>Waterstones have the 4-volume compendium of HHGTTG on sale at £6.99.
Which also means you don't have to put up with the hopeless 5th
installment.

I didn't like "Mostly Harmless" the first couple of times I read it; it
seemed very confused and unfunny compared to the first four in the trilogy
(yes.)

I read it again a few months back, and found that I was wrong.It's bloody
good, just in a different way to the others. A way that I can't actually
explain, other than I really enjoyed it.

Sorry.

Pffft. Four volume set? What happened to Young Zaphod Plays it Safe?

...and Mostly Harmless, of course.

My verdict on the tv-series- worth watching, if only for the *perfect* 'computer graphics.'
Oh, and I enjoyed the BES.
<runs for cover>

>Last night's opening repeat is reviewed, fairly objectively, in the Evening Standard today (31/07/01). Warning: claims programme looks dated!

Further warning: reviewer seems horribly proud of being ignorant. But does sort of end up liking it.

Show 2 - full version!

I'm very, very pleased with you for telling me this was on. Thanks.

All of you, by the way.

>Show 2 - full version!

On the insistence of the BBC Restoration Team, I shouldn't wager.

Marvin's on!

>Show 2 - full version!

so which bits were reinstated? or is that in the edit news, i can't be bothered to look frankly.

i still think the best thing about H2G2 is the writing, and the cheap effects and funny voices just get in the way. plus trillian is so badly miscast it's laughable.

>
>>The most worrying aspect about it for me is I was 8 when in 1981 when I first watched it. ANd now I feel so very old...!
>
>Don't worry, I was 10 at the time. And I felt guilty about liking it because, as a pompous immature Doctor Who fan, I was desperate to follow the received wisdom of die-hard Who fans (also pompous and immature). At the time, they all hated Adams, and the also deceased producer Graham Williams, because they had "allowed too much humour" into the series (humour is always a bit of a problem for hardcore Whovians, i.e. they don't realise that to most people, DW is unintentionally funny). Times change....
>
>

Ah, another immature Dr Who fan, I had a feeling that it wasn't just me. I thought it was a shame that Adams' work on Dr Who never gets much of a mention when his work is discussed. Anyone here who loves HHGTTG should give his Who work a try. The series he worked on as script editor (1979) was the most wonderful thing a 7 year old could watch at the time.

"You see, he's a detective and I'm a burglar, our jobs dovetail wonderfully."

>or is that in the edit news, i can't be bothered to look frankly.

Or, for that matter, read this thread.

>>or is that in the edit news, i can't be bothered to look frankly.
>
>Or, for that matter, read this thread.

oops! but it's quite long now, and i did read it yesterday.

>"You see, he's a detective and I'm a burglar, our jobs dovetail wonderfully."

"What bracelet?"

Re: Sandra Dickinson as Trillian. Adams once explained that he was just relieved at the time to have found someone who injected a bit of humour into an otherwise not-very-well-written character.

>Re: Sandra Dickinson as Trillian. Adams once explained that he was just relieved at the time to have found someone who injected a bit of humour into an otherwise not-very-well-written character.

hmmm, i don't agree but i don't suppose it matters now anyway.

It's hard to kill something as good as Hitch-hiker's, but she came close. She and the makeup team.

Ah well. It's still class.

garrett
who preferred ford's hair in the first ep, by the by.

>Anyone here who loves HHGTTG should give his Who work a try. The series he worked on as script editor (1979) was the most wonderful thing a 7 year old could watch at the time.

I saw one with him named as the writer on UK Gold a few years ago and never found out anything else about it, but I was struck by the similarity to the story of the first Dirk Gently book.

>>Show 2 - full version!
>
>On the insistence of the BBC Restoration Team, I shouldn't wager.

I should watch my money. Steve Roberts has just confirmed that they had bugger all to do with it. Looks like since the D3 transfer in the Nineties they've managed to put everything in the right place. Doesn't explain the UK Gold showings though.(Last BBC repeat in 1989?)

Other news? The DVD remaster is awesome, by Roberts' account.

>>Anyone here who loves HHGTTG should give his Who work a try. The series he worked on as script editor (1979) was the most wonderful thing a 7 year old could watch at the time.
>
>I saw one with him named as the writer on UK Gold a few years ago and never found out anything else about it, but I was struck by the similarity to the story of the first Dirk Gently book.

one of them was on uk gold at 9:00am a few weeks ago. needless to say i didn't know until it had finished.

Steve Punt for Ford in the movie!

And while we're at it, Mitch Benn for Zaphod

>'Journey Of The Sorcerer' from their 'One Of These Nights' LP. Buy it from a second-hand shop - it's the full version of the radio series sig.

http://www.geocities.com/jubileeweb/

But go and buy the album too. It's grate.

>>"You see, he's a detective and I'm a burglar, our jobs dovetail wonderfully."
>
>"What bracelet?"
>
>Re: Sandra Dickinson as Trillian. Adams once explained that he was just relieved at the time to have found someone who injected a bit of humour into an otherwise not-very-well-written character.

That makes 3 of us! Shall we form a support group with Jake Thingy?

>>Anyone here who loves HHGTTG should give his Who work a try. The series he worked on as script editor (1979) was the most wonderful thing a 7 year old could watch at the time.
>
>I saw one with him named as the writer on UK Gold a few years ago and never found out anything else about it, but I was struck by the similarity to the story of the first Dirk Gently book.

The only story he 'wholly' authored was 'The Pirate Planet' (1978). He worked as script editor for the 1979 series, including 'City of Death' which he co-wrote with producer Graham Williams. By lucky chance, I believe this story is scheduled to appear on UK Gold either this weekend or next; it also happens to be one of the best Who stories ever. Both stories are available on video.

Adams ideas in Dr Who often cropped up in other works, and vice-versa. In 'Destiny of the Daleks' for example, The Doctor is seen reading from a book by Oolun Culophid!

>Adams ideas in Dr Who often cropped up in other works, and vice-versa. In 'Destiny of
>the Daleks' for example, The Doctor is seen reading from a book by Oolun Culophid!

Should have asked someone who was there.

And, of course, 'Nightmare of Eden' (it isn't easy being a water guard).

>He worked as script editor for the 1979 series, including 'City of Death' which he co-wrote with producer Graham Williams. By lucky chance, I believe this story is scheduled to appear on UK Gold either this weekend or next.

Saturday as it happens, with the immensely funny 'The Creature From the Pit' on Sunday, with a heavy Adams influence on the script.

Tonight's episode was only 30 mins - are they going to cut the rest now?

>Steve Punt for Ford in the movie!

Yes, that's occurred to me more than once. He'd be excellent.

>And while we're at it, Mitch Benn for Zaphod

LOL!

Someone suggested Crispin Glover for Arthur - nice if he weren't American. I wonder if he can do a decent English accent?