Finally witnessing one of my beloved stories, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, grace the silver screen was a truly remarkable experience. The film undeniably benefits from its cinematic budget, delivering breathtaking CGI sequences that elevate the viewing experience significantly. Two scenes in particular stand out: the awe-inspiring backwards zoom from Earth’s surface, capturing the Vogon demolition charges just moments before the planet’s hasty destruction, and Arthur Dent’s arrival on Magrathea’s colossal factory floor, a sight that is simply overwhelming in its scale. These moments vividly illustrate the dramatic shift in perspective Arthur undergoes in such a short span of time, a feat uniquely achievable through the immersive medium of cinema. Furthermore, the on-screen rendition of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy itself is a fitting modernization of the format familiar from the television series, and it’s genuinely delightful to witness such whimsical animations on a grand cinematic scale.
However, the transition to cinema, a fundamentally different medium from any The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy has previously inhabited, presents both opportunities and challenges. While cinema allows for exploration of Douglas Adams’s imaginative universe in new ways, it also necessitates significant alterations. Most notably, and perhaps crucially for a two-hour film, there’s a more pronounced emphasis on crafting a conventional plot structure compared to the original narratives. This shift is accompanied by substantial changes in character motivations. Analyzing these changes becomes complex as it’s unclear which were initiated by Adams himself and which were introduced by Karey Kirkpatrick, the screenwriter. In Adams’s earlier works, the characters’ motivations were rather simple: Zaphod Beeblebrox, a narcissist, craved fame and attention; Ford Prefect was content with the prospect of a good party; and Arthur Dent primarily desired a decent cup of tea. Trillian’s motivations were even less defined. While these core traits remain recognizable, imbuing the characters with more tangible drives inevitably alters the narrative flow to accommodate a more traditional story structure.
One consequence of this plot-driven approach is that certain characters are overshadowed. Introduced and briefly developed, they are then largely sidelined to prioritize the central figures. Yet, the film doesn’t fully commit to a standard narrative structure. A significant portion of the main storyline seems to be abandoned in favor of focusing on a romantic subplot and a resolution that, at least, shows reverence for the established Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy formats. The outcome is a mixed bag. This adaptation made Arthur more relatable and Zaphod funnier than previous iterations. However, it also highlighted Arthur’s tendency to whine and Zaphod’s potential for boredom, aspects less apparent before because the audience was more engrossed in the unfolding events rather than the characters’ internal drives.
Another significant drawback, perhaps unavoidable given cinema’s visual demands, is the filmmakers’ attempt to cram too much content into a two-hour timeframe. Consequently, some brilliantly witty lines are omitted, and crucial explanations are glossed over, replaced by a general silliness that seems like a compromise between satisfying hardcore Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy enthusiasts and appealing to a broader cinema audience. While much of the new material is humorous, some of it feels out of sync with Adams’s universe, sticking out jarringly. Whether this is a result of being caught between Adams’s unique inventiveness and the constraints of cinema is debatable. Perhaps a bolder approach could have yielded a more fitting adaptation, or maybe this is the best cinematic rendition The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy could ever achieve. It’s a question that may remain unanswered.
In summary, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy movie is undeniably a very different experience from its source material.
