HHGTTG May Not Suck.

[athelind]

The BBC gave it four stars out of five.

So shut up already.

Comments

[shavastak.livejournal.com]

Hey, *I'm* looking forward to it. I thought the previews looked good.

[darkkdragon.livejournal.com]

I have been waiting for this one to be released. It will be interesting at minimum, heh.

[araquan.livejournal.com]

I've been expecting it to Not Suck for a while now. Though obviously I'll reserve final judgement until after I've seen it...

[jeffxandra.livejournal.com]

I am.. hopeful.. but until I see it, the best it can do is be Lord of the Rings which is "Not as good as it was in my mind, but better than I expected from a movie"

[athelind.livejournal.com]

That's kind of my reaction to the book, actually. La la la...

[r-caton.livejournal.com]

I'll give it a go and probably get the DVD...
Wish the BBC would issue the radio show in an unexpurgated form.....

[(Anonymous)]

...but then the BBC churn out lots of crap themselves like the overrated 'Royle family' and the god aweful 'Office' that seem to be really popular when there's no actual content to then either - plus the BBC shafts us UK folks for £126 every damn year EVEN if we don't watch them. Yes that' right we HAVE to by law pay the BBC for the right to have a TV set in our homes even if we don't watch their channels. So forgive me if I don't trust their views on the movie seeing they stand to make money from it doing well i.e. boosting sales of the BBC produced radio plays that they've recently done new versions of.

[mavjop.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry that you feel so bitter about the TV License and the BBC. I come from Ireland, where we have the same sort of system, but unlike the BBC, RTE is pretty crappy on the whole. I think the BBC does a truly marvelous job. Despite RTE not being all that great (winning the Eurovision Song Contest is a pain in the neck -- it's a money sink putting it on!), I think the system is perfectly sensible. State-funded TV stations (in addition to, not instead of, commercial stations) make a lot of sense. Not everything which _should_ be broadcast makes economic sense. It's good that there's a way to get things broadcast which may not be profitable. Nobody particularly likes paying bills... but it's either that or (1) government funding in less directly obvious ways, e.g. coming from your income taxes or (2) providing no television with the community's interests at heart--only money-driven TV. I definitely am not in favour of #2. #1 has the disadvantage that there's more layers through which the money passes before getting to its destination, and so it will probably cost more.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Pretty much.

If it weren't for the BBC, radio as well as TV, there never would have BEEN a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It never would have made it on strictly commercial TV.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm sure you wouldn't feel that way when your unemployed and the Licence fee is nearly 3 weeks worth of your much needed money. The BBC should just do what all the other channels do and get their money from advertising, instead of that they force the viewers to pay for it give themselves huge pay rasies and churn out shit constantly the BBC hasn't produced a series I actually watch since series 5 of Red Dwarf. Sure they used to do a lot of good shows but when it gets to the point of never watching their channels at all why should you still have to pay for it? Personally I'd like a TV where I cannot get the BBC channels so I'd not have to pay it but guess what even if you did have a TV like that yes that's right the courts ruled you STILL have to pay. Where's the fairness in that?

[archteryx.livejournal.com]

Hey, the more I've seen of the trailers, the more I liked it. Alan Rickman as Marvin the Paranoid Android was a brilliant bit of casting.

The final bit was being told that Douglas Adams himself wrote a good part of the screenplay before his death. Anytime the creator gets at least somewhat involved, it tends to bode well for the project. (Jaws comes to mind).

-- ArchTeryx