Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1981/2005): Side-by-Side Comparison
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 лип 2018
- Side-by-Side Directory: mattskuta.com/...
A side-by-side, shot-for-shot comparison between the 1981 and 2005 adaptations of the Douglas Adams novel The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
This side-by-side, shot-for-shot comparisons is intended to illustrated the the unique vision of filmmakers and the variety of choices possible when creating motion pictures adapted from the same written work.
I liked the movie, but it really wasn't as good as it should have been. They simply didn't get the point of the British humor.
For all of the faults of the TV series, it is still the best interpretation of Hitchhikers.
My personal favorite version of the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy is the radio show.
Quite right too... ;-)
I absolutely agree… There was a re-recording of it as an abridged script, which is my absolute favorite. Same actors, but much better comedic timing because of the limited runtime.
I got the DVD of the mini-series in 2004 and I went and saw the big screen adaptation in 2005. I thought the 2005 film wasn't as good as the 1981 mini-series. I felt something was missing with the 2005 Hitch-Hikers Guide.
My thoughts as well, the 81 version was much better in my opinion
Which is pretty sad when you consider the difference in budget. The movie really should have had a different director, instead of someone who was directing their first movie!
@@ThreadBomb I mean, the mini series had more time which led to better pacing of the story. A movie format is just not great for H2G2.
@@nathancundiffvo-INH agreed 😊
@@writershard5065 : Indeed it was, but the TV series was a shortened version of the original late 70s BBC radio show, which gave rise to the first book.... The radio series was the original, and best of any of the versions; the characters seemed 'real', and the situations and happenings just created the humorous, comedic moments naturally.
The 2005 film seemed to ditch most of the story, and just played it for laughs, that rarely worked, as the jokes came out of nowhere very often. They were completely without context, and so didn't work. The characters were also very wrong; Zaphod had two heads...NEXT TO EACH OTHER, not one hidden under a flip-top head; that was just stupid... in the original series, books and TV show, it was implicitly stated that Zaphod had two heads - each one next to the other, on top of his shoulders....at one point he annoyed Arthur so much that Arthur told him to "go and bang your heads together four-eyes...": Difficult to do if one head is hiding under your chin....
No, the film started off with promised, then started rushing out-of-context-gags, and the characters were just playing for laughs; there was no serious attempt to actually 'be' the character.
It was a mess.
If you want to know the REAL HitchHikers story, then the five radio series from the BBC are way to go.... all the story, drama, and humour are there in spades..... Douglas Adams was a brilliant writer, and to think that for many folks around now that think the film is his work, that is a terrible epitaph to him. His written, and radio work (and some 70s/80s TV work) is Douglas at his sparkling best .... the man was genius. The film was NOT!
The show really captured the book's intentions. Everything is accurately detailed whereas the movie didn't really seem to care about the actually book all that much! By far, I loved the original British version!
having seen both versions, i believe that each version has it's own strong points- and i do appreciate how both took on the challenge of the story, with the 1981 version being almost entirely accurate to the books to a T, and the movie takibg more creative liberty to stand out and speed up the slow pacing. Both are brilliant pieces of media that thrive out of their differences- and a lot of people aren't willing to accept that
Original 1981 version is the best enough said I hate generation z😢
I just realized recently that the movie was assisted and written by the actual author, so the extra bits and stuff are in a way: canon! But I was first Introduced to the BBC Adaptation of the radio programme...so I can really appreciate both. Thank you so much for making this side by side! Thank you thank you thank you!❤❤❤👍
The BBC 'adaptation' radio series was actually the ORIGINAL version back in around 1979; Douglas Adams wrote it for a radio show, and he then adapted that radio script to write his first book of the HitchHikers Guide To The Galaxy. Then he wrote the second radio series in the very early 80s and then made that the second book - but with each book, he changed several details and plot lines - things that happened on radio didn't happen in the book..... the he wrote the third, fourth, and firth books during the 80s and 90s, which were later dramatised by the BBC again to make the respective follow up series using as many of the original cast as was possible in the early 2000s.
The five books differ from the five radio series at times, but they are both still the definitive versions of the HitchHikers story.
All the radio series are available via Amazon on CD and Audible, if you're interested to hear the real original stuff - it's well worth it....true comedy-drama-sci fi gold... ;-)
Love the 1981 version it's the best 🎰
The 1981 series continued on to the restaurant at the end of the universe...
having seen both , but having cut my teeth on the 2005 version, I will have to say there are lots of things I like more about the remake than the original. Mos Def will always be Ford and Alan Rickman was a perfect manically depressed robot voice and Bill Nighy as Slartibartfast....then I love the Vogans in the '05
Ugh, Mos Def (aka Yasiin Bey) was a big disappointment to me. He didn't seem as "alien" as David Dixon, and how can Zaphod Beeblebox be Zaphod Beeblebrox with only one head? Even the adorable Zoey Deschanel couldn't save this remake for me. At least the original Marvin made a cameo.
@@robadams5799 I mean in the TV show and potentially even the books I guess we're under the assumption that Zaphod's second head is just mute the entire time which I find slightly awkward to imagine or watch. I somewhat prefer the hidden surprise head in some respects, and it pops up quite a bit until its removed halfway through the film. Oh well
@@robadams5799😊agreed well said
Could this be like the bruhaha over which was the best lead actor in "Doctor Who"?
am i the only one who thinks in the 81 version Slartibartfast looks like Saruman, I'll call him Slartibartfast the white
That's the point, he supposed to look impressive, like a Biblical prophet. This is ironic when he has the personality of a beleaguered civil servant.
Fun fact: when I read the book, I pictured Slartibartfast as Gandalf, due to the description lol
The film really doesn’t capture the intricacies of Douglas Adams humour and quirkiness like the series does. It was very much adapted to the series format by Adams himself so very much suited. Unlike the film that has a great cast. But. Seems to miss every small mark that really matters for it to have substance
The old school "cheaper" look is, in my opinion, SO much better. The sets have a theater-like quality to them. The cinematography has a cozy aura to it. The costumes are fun!
Doctor Who is another example of a show that looked so much better when it had that "cheaper" look to it.
i liked the 2005 movie, but only when i view it separately, it doesn't compare to the books, radio or miniseries
I like picture and music of 2005. But acting here is awful somehow.
In one hand there's expensive production but actors act worse then in TV show.
I never knew there 1981 version. So I willing to watch it soon.
I cannot believe how bad and lazy the 2005 version of Magrathea is! Even talking about the 2005 film is beating a dead horse but man, the BBC version of Magrathea in isolation looked big in scope for a budget assumingly on par with Dr Who at the time.
Nice Doctor Who benchmark. Now to find a video where I can argue with people who think David Tennant is the definitive Doctor.
People like him because he was an edgy bad boy in a trench coat.@@robadams5799
Nothing against early 2000's cultural appropriation (its much worse now) and I love Mos Def and Sam Rockwell, but I wish they stuck to the essence of the characters in the book. And I wish they made it a TV series. Following every novel articulately
Tbh, I didn't know Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy (2005) was a remake, I thought it was original, but I like a lot the movie.
Idk nothing about the series, but I have to watch the older film. And as far I can see the 2005 version looks better.
1981 is the best version 😌
Trust me. Watch the older film.
@@robadams5799😊agreed well said
Who am I to judge, which version is better. Perhaps that is because I have read it in Dutch where certain character names and places have been transformed into Dutch names and cities losing intricate details I'm sure.
I have nevertheless enjoyed the books and seen both the 1981 and 2005 movies (UA-cam and cinema respectively).
But regarding 2005 Marvin... he is by far the best. That big bobble head just oozes depression with that eye design only surpassed by the dreary voice of Alan... truly magnificent!
You skipped the majorly different endings.
I like the way the movie looks but there's some miscast characters and I don't think it gets the humour as much as the TV show did
yeah, despite the higher production value of the movie, it lacks the same charm as the show. i liked that they had a sliiightly more diverse cast, but the characterization of the main characters felt weird (and so 'look at the famous actors we got!' instead of 'yeah man cast ford based on how scary his eyes are'). a base misunderstanding of the feel of everything, or maybe just wanting to make it more appealing to a wider audience by making it more polished? either way, definitely a miss. not awful on its own, but underwhelming if ur familiar with the other versions .. thanks 4 the cleanly cut comparison video!
"DIVERSITY" shits all over everything good and pure.
@@divided_and_conquered1854 what the fuck r u talking about lol
Newt agreed🌍
Touchstone is my favorite
Rather watch the 1981 version 😊
i don't know why people don't like the movie. i think it was great.
It LOOKED great, but it was not a great film: The casting of the main leads was totally wrong as far as Zooey / Freeman / Mos Def goes. They were all far too bland. I saw zero chemistry between any of them at all! The best thing in it was Sam Rockwell's performance as Zaphod. It was a good idea to hide his other head under his neck, instead of at the side. The production design was fantastic tho. The spaceship looked great, just like the Aries from 2001, probably a deliberate "homage" I'd guess. The Vogons as well were fab. I have the art book for this movie, and it's such a shame to see such great work go to waste. Oh, what could have been, if this movie was made the right way. The TV series was spot on! But, the whole tone of the movie was just far too bland! There's only one person to blame for that. It didn't help that the director said that he didn't know much (if anything) about Science Fiction! And he had only done some commercials and music videos beforehand. Whose idea was it to give him the gig?? The Studio? They tend to do this with big budget films, because a name director cannot be controlled and told what to do. They cannot control a Ridley Scott or a Spielberg, usually because they insist on having final cut. Otherwise, there is no point them spending 2 - 3 years on a movie. Scott has said this a few times in interviews. But even he is past his prime now. :-0
@Matas Dulke: "i don't know why people don't like the movie."
Just like you, the hacks that threw that junk together and called it _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_ haven't the first clue about what is Douglas Adams' _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_ , so it's easy to sell it to dumb-bumps just like you that can't capitalize their "i"'s. Aren't you a little old to fail Kindergarten English yet again for maybe like the 50th time? ???
"i think it was great."
Aw, sit down!
Code Optimization Ware I like the 2005 version
@@the_slime_cat : "I like the 2005 version"
Sucks. Dumbed down. Waited until Douglas Adams died before making that dumbed-down load of crap. And the ending is arguably the stupidest part of it all.
ua-cam.com/video/YhvEJPt7E7c/v-deo.html
Going to _The Restaurant at the End of the Universe_ ? AAHAHAHAHAHAHA no they're not. They're not gonna make it.
On the other hand, thanks to Alan Rickman (R.I.P.) (a great actor in a crap-shit movie) there, WHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA yeah, they're not going to _The Restaurant at the End of the Universe_ , not that way, they're not LOLOLOLOL they did NOT read the source-material AHAHAHA too dumb, so shitty!
Code Optimization Ware It’s my opinion okay?
I've never read the books, but i think alot of people here are blinded by nostalgia. Everyone is open to their own opinions, but the 2005 movie was great. I don't even see how you could really hate it. People are treating it like it was the worst thing ever made.
1981 version is the best 🎉
The movie was a terrible missed opportunity. There was some miscasting, and Stephen Fry gabble his lines when he should have savored them. Zaphod lack charisma, and the whole thing somehow has an unpleasant seedy tone.
I love the radio series, the books, older audiobooks (not the one read by Martin Freeman but by Stephen Fry and Douglas Adams), and other obscure versions and felt their differences and similarities were great, but I really disliked the 2005 movie. I thought the screenplay was weak and the casting and a lot of the design choices were bad. I think they could have changed a few names and some minor tweaks and it could have been a kind of fun summertime sci-fi movie that was its own thing and not a HHGTTG movie but it just seemed to miss the mark for me.
I have listened through or the books dozens of times, the radio series probably just as much and watched the 1981 Television version so I often I couldn't guess but the 2005 movie I have watched 3 times. Every few years I think I may have been too hard on it, I watch it, and dislike it all over again.
Just my opinion and I do see plenty of people that like it but I will never understand anyone that prefers the main characters more from the movie.
"Every few years I think I may have been too hard on it, I watch it, and dislike it all over again." LOL.
See more Side-by-Sides at mattskuta.com/sbs/
Comment to help me choose my next side-by-side:
The Great Gatsby (1974/2013)
Open Your Eyes (1997)/Vanilla Sky (2001)
Romeo and Juliet (1936/1968/1996/2013)
Animal Farm (1954/1999)
The BFG (1989/2016)
Avatar: The Last Airbender(2003)/The Last Airbender (2010)
Cinderella (1950/2015)
Clash of the Titans (1981/2010)
Nosferatu (1922)/Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979)
The Shining (1980/1997)
Ghost in the Shell (1995/2017)
Night of the living dead 1968 side by side with the 1990 remake🦖
I vote for Cinderella.
Neither adaptation does the books justice really
No film will ever be better than the book in any case. I think we can all agree that any film adaptation of a book will never really do the book justice
Sam and Zooey
Hi
こ！は81年の方が想像通りだわ
I think that the movie is a mixed bag… I think that Martin Freeman was a pretty good Arthur, ( not better than Simon Jones but a fine performance) Mos Def was actually great as Ford Prefect compared to the horrifying David Dixon, but neither of them could hold a candle to Geoffrey McGivern ( which I’ll never understand why he wasn’t cast in the BBC TV series )
Zaphod was going to be a tough one no matter what. He was “ok” in the movie. I appreciate that Sam Rockwell had a tightrope thin line to walk between portraying the core elements of the character and making the character appealing to audiences who weren’t really aware of the Mick Jagger/David Bowie/70’s glam rock era could still enjoy.
Trillian was terrible in both adaptations… Zoey Deschanel can’t act her way out of a paper bag, and the TV series is painful to watch with the shrill voice and bubbly nature of it. The radio programme again is superior in comparison.
Visuals of the movie were actually pretty good… I think that this is one place where the extra budget helped a lot. There was some stylistic things that I wasn’t super excited about, but I appreciate that it had its own unique feel. The Vogons physically were really well done . Though I still would have preferred the dialog to be more like the radio version
But to me the most egregiously bad part of the movie is how they changed the jokes to make them more “palatable” for a wider audience… and in one case REMOVING THE PUNCH LINE! ( the drunk joke IIRC)
the tv series was way better and not boring the movie was supposed to be done in the 80s and would of been better than the awful American fluff and no substance
Yo the original looks god awful and I’d take the 2005 version always. I’ve read the books too. The he original looks like someone made it in their back yard lmao
Seriously the 1981 version is better but the awful 2005 remake has good cgi though 😊
I personally love most versions especially the radio show but I don’t like how similar the radio show book and miniseries are even though each version was better in every way than the movie the movie was such a disappointment, I think if Douglas Adams had lived to see the film’s creation I think I would have loved this movie, changes and all, and not only that it would have been funny and subtle and so very very intelligent but he didn’t and it wasn’t.
the 2005 Ford Prefect is just silly. They just try to be woke
First
Figures they had to throw a spook in there. Typical. 1981 for me, thanks.
I prefer the 2005 version. It's not so good, but it has some funny moments.
Same, I read the books. I think the 2005 version did a good job. And clearly had some of their own spin on it but it’s probably my favorite film 🤷🏻♂️
I like the 2005 version better
Who cares
@@AtticTapes14agreed 🎉
Let's be honest: They hired a black guy just for "political correctness" 😒
Any evidence for that claim? The dude's pretty famous, not too far fetched for him to be in a movie
Idk, but I always imagined Ford as the guy from the series
It was an out-there piece of casting to appeal to American audiences (same with having an American Trillian), but I was surprised and thought he was the best bit of casting in the whole film. He definitely has the necessary oddness.