| |
|
Cameron: I read that review earlier and found it sadly convincing - it doesn't sound like mere pedantic fanboy nitpickery, it really does sound like they've bungled the job....
Really? I've only read the short, spoiler-free version, but I thought that pedantic fanboy nitpickery's almost exactly what it did sound like. Check, for example, the moaning that
It’s bad on a big scale because enormous swathes of the story have been dispensed with - most of the Guide entries, whole scenes
which, let's face it, is an imbecilic complaint. "It's shit because they've not managed to stick everything from a three-and-a-bit hour series into a two hour film! The horror!" Also, since when were the Guide entries "enormous swathes of the story"? Frequently, in the TV series, books and radio show, they were incidental jokes which existed independently of the surrounding narrative.
And the killer comment in that review has to be that
the film also suffers by having an entirely nonsensical plot.
This guy's supposed to be "the world's leading authority on the life and career of Douglas Noel Adams"? Am I missing something here? Is there another Douglas Adams somewhere? One who wrote plots that made sense, maybe? |
|
|
