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!

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.

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... ;-)

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

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

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

Night of the living dead 1968 side by side with the 1990 remake🦖

I vote for Cinderella.

Original 1981 version is the best enough said I hate generation z😢

1981 is the best version 😌

Trust me. Watch the older film.

​@@robadams5799😊agreed well said

"DIVERSITY" shits all over everything good and pure.

@@divided_and_conquered1854 what the fuck r u talking about lol

Newt agreed🌍

"Every few years I think I may have been too hard on it, I watch it, and dislike it all over again." LOL.

Rather watch the 1981 version 😊

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. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/j86meK2B2Z2pZ5c.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?

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

well both never gave an answer to anything both still said the answer is 42 so finding out the answer it was awaste of time

1981 version is the best 🎉

Seriously the 1981 version is better but the awful 2005 remake has good cgi though 😊

Who cares

@@AtticTapes14agreed 🎉

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 🤷🏻‍♂️

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.