NB: My edition of HHGG was the UK Pan paperback, so: Hitch-Hiker's.
posted by rory at 1:57 PM on September 17 [2 favorites]

Because I grew up with the UK version, I'm always tempted to read the hyphenless US title as "hit-cuh-huh-hiker's".
posted by rory at 2:11 PM on September 17 [2 favorites]

When I first read this post I didn't immediately see that it started with the word "if" and I thought that seemed appropriate.
posted by deadbilly at 2:12 PM on September 17 [1 favorite]

If The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy is part of your DNA

A quick perusal of my profile will tell you everything you need to know.

I dunno, I've listened to the original radio series so many many times that the mere fact they aren't Simon Jones and Geoffrey McGivern sort of throws me out of the illusion. Great graphics and set design though!

Also: Needs more p-p-p-p-brr-p-p-p-p-brr-p-p-p-p-tika-tunk-beeeeep which, incidentally, is also my phone's notification sound...true story
posted by Greg_Ace at 2:58 PM on September 17 [8 favorites]

The 2005 movie was sort of ok and looked nice, but I was disappointed they focused on childish slapstick more than keeping the wit of the novels. This short gets the spirit of the novel much better.
posted by zardoz at 3:04 PM on September 17 [6 favorites]

I grew up with a VHS bootleg of the BBC television adaptation and Simon Jones and David Dixon will be my Arthur and Ford 4 EVA. I'm not a slash writin' man, but if I were, Jones/Dixon would be dancing in my head while I lit up the AO3.
posted by phooky at 3:27 PM on September 17 [6 favorites]

they aren't Simon Jones and Geoffrey McGivern sort of throws me out of the illusion

I'm similarly familiar with them, but have seen enough Peep Show that the very similar dynamic that Mark and Jez have means an alternate universe where they played Arthur and Ford in an early 2000 reboot is gradually taking over some of my memories of it.

I think these days Tim Key would probably be my Arthur fan-cast.

Anyway, always great seeing other interpretations of the sacred texts - it's been a while!
posted by Jon Mitchell at 3:39 PM on September 17 [3 favorites]

The early days of the web had their ups and downs, and when it was revealed that many of the noted and popular atheists that were on it in the early days turned out to be, or shortly became, raving racists it depressed me greatly, but I still think there's something to be sad about the fact that Monty Python and The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy have lost their status as lingua franca online.
posted by JHarris at 3:47 PM on September 17 [7 favorites]

I thought this was really well-done, and as I said in my comment on the original video, the more grounded tone gives this an interesting vibe. It plays more like a scene from Doctor Who than Hitch-Hikers, something where the characters may be quippy but there's some serious sci-fi business afoot. When Arthur says he's a bit upset about the Earth boiling away into space, it lands in a way I've never seen in another adaptation. There's genuine distress in it, and Ford's fumbling in the face of that casts a new light on him too.

The 2005 movie was sort of ok and looked nice

I thought the movie was pretty damn not good and I assumed they'd screwed around with Adams' script, but a while back I read a movie script that was apparently written by Adams himself and it was not good in ways that reminded me of the movie. Adams was a restless talent and I think he just plain got bored with going over this story again and again for the various adaptations. Instead of recognizing the stuff that really worked, his impulse was to keep chucking it out and doing something new, even if the something new wasn't anywhere near as good as the old stuff.

I'm similarly familiar with them, but have seen enough Peep Show that the very similar dynamic that Mark and Jez have means an alternate universe where they played Arthur and Ford in an early 2000 reboot is gradually taking over some of my memories of it.

I can certainly see David Mitchell as Arthur, but it's harder for me to see Robert Webb as Ford. Jez has a more desperate, try-hard quality than Ford. Jez is a bullshitter, but Ford knows what he's talking about and he's usually not trying to impress anybody. Ford is a hoopy frood who knows where his towel is, but Jez is really only cool compared to Mark.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 3:53 PM on September 17 [8 favorites]

That clip was ... GOOD. Its greatest fault is that maybe it borrows too much from the radio and TV versions that I love. Would it land the same way with a new audience? Still, I would totally watch a complete remake from this team.

We saw the 2006 movie, and I have the DVD, but yeah, I was disappointed with that as well.
posted by Artful Codger at 3:59 PM on September 17 [3 favorites]

Because I started with the book at the age of 14, at a time when there were only two¡ªand that seemed plenty, because The Restaurant at the End of the Universe ended beautifully¡ªnone of the actors playing any of the characters ever seemed exactly right to me, particularly McGovern and Dixon as Ford Prefect. I soon enough came to accept Jones as Arthur, and I suppose that's why Johnson here doesn't feel quite right, although his performance is very good... but Bell as Ford Prefect feels perfect. He might just be the Ford I was always hoping for. The delivery from both, as Ursula suggests, captures the pathos of the scene better than any other I've seen or heard.

(I went through the same thing all over again when the novelisation of Red Dwarf landed in Australian bookshops long before the TV show arrived. All the characters in my head were totally different, and it played so much differently without a laugh track. Better, really. It took a while to get used to the TV show as its own thing.)

Do watch the video of how he made the Guide if you haven't yet. It's well worth it.
posted by rory at 4:11 PM on September 17 [2 favorites]

there's something to be sad about the fact that Monty Python and The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy have lost their status as lingua franca online.

I did have a colleague compare me to Marvin the other day, but he easily has as many grey hairs as I do.
posted by The Ardship of Cambry at 4:17 PM on September 17 [1 favorite]

I'm old enough to remember circulating the first two novels among friends because there were no additional novels, and the radio show wouldn't arrive on our NPR affiliate until a couple years after its BBC broadcast. So Arthur, Zaphod and everyone else are firmly fixed in my head as inchoate figures with indeterminate voices and there will never be actors able to nail the key roles. Even though the radio show was first, and I've come around at least to acceptance of those voices as being canonical, they still don't sound right as they don't match what I read while I was in school.

Can't even say the 2006 movie was disappointing. It was just sad. It made me sad. Except for Marvin. The way they portrayed Marvin was so wrong that it was more enraging than disappointing.

> I still think there's something to be sad about the fact that Monty Python and The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy have lost their status as lingua franca online.

The HHGTTG radio series launched in 1978, thus the whole franchise's 50th anniversary will happen in three years. Monty Python is ten years older.

Hitchhiker's only has a radio series and four novels* published across a 5-year span ending in the mid-80s to define its canon. The additional seasons of the radio series, the TV series and movie (and various stage adaptations) have all been performances of the primary canonical story. Monty Python is ten years older than Hitchhiker's and the last time they created new material was in the early 80s -- since then their output has largely been reissues, adaptations, compilations, biographies and so on.

Basically, most of the dedicated fans of HHTTG and MP back in the day have burned out and moved on because there isn't anything more for them. They've consumed the stories, side stories, spinoffs, fan work, oral histories, interviews and merch. They can still feel fond about the times they spent with the stories and shows, but those wells are dry. New fans come up, but they're reading and watching old material that's only getting older and more dated. If anything we should be amazed that there's comedy that old that still has mainstream recognition.

Star Wars is the same generation as Hitchhiker's and Star Trek is the same generation as Monty Python, but they've both become franchises regularly producing new material to stay fresh for, what, three generations now? They'll go on for as long as there are people ready to spend to be entertained by them.

* This number is accurate and uncontroversial.
posted by at by at 5:02 PM on September 17 [5 favorites]

Star Wars was designed from the outset to be a long-term money-making franchise. I remember Lucas being quoted early on that he was planning 7 films (?) over 25 years.

HHGTTG was designed as a spoof of Douglas' pal Geoff's drunk antics, and was often written on multi-part paper frantically typed by Douglas mid-broadcast. Had he not gone to Cambridge University like most of the UK broadcasting establishment, we likely would never have heard of him.

I don't think you could have a remake. It needs to be chaotic and inconsistent, and Douglas is not around to cause delays.
posted by scruss at 6:14 PM on September 17 [2 favorites]

This was good and I'd watch more. 2006 was an Eddy in the continuum.
posted by quinndexter at 7:49 PM on September 17 [3 favorites]

Where can I get that sweet sweet remix of the credits theme?
posted by parisologist at 9:39 PM on September 17

I think Monty Python is actually pretty current, much more so than Hitch-Hiker's. It makes headlines every time Cleese and Idle tweet something catty at each other, and I still see plenty of references to stuff like Always Look on the Bright Side of Life or the Dead Parrot sketch. I don't know if something like Holy Grail would be particularly funny to a young person in 2025, but I think Flying Circus is still weird and interesting enough that it will probably be evergreen for misfit youths. It has a dream logic unlike anything else, so even if you don't get all of the jokes you can be fascinated by the way one scene blurs into another and then it suddenly turns into a freaky cartoon.

As truly fantastic as Hitch-Hiker's and Restaurant were in their various early iterations, I feel like it's really diminishing returns from there and eventually the whole thing staggers to its conclusion with Mostly Harmless, which was such an utter bummer of an ending that Adams reconsidered and was planning another book when he died. With Python you've got a TV show, a few movies, some books and records, all distinct projects you can evaluate as their own things. With Hitch-Hiker's you've got the same story, sort of, being told repeatedly in a bunch of different media without ever reaching a satisfying conclusion. Early Hitch-Hiker's was so good that I think it might always have a little cult following, but I don't know if the franchise can endure the way Python probably will. It's just too messy and your fandom inevitably ends in disappointment.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 10:05 PM on September 17 [2 favorites]

That was *excellent* - I would absolutely watch more!
posted by Space Kitty at 10:46 PM on September 17 [1 favorite]

As truly fantastic as Hitch-Hiker's and Restaurant were in their various early iterations, I feel like it's really diminishing returns from there

Really the biggest misstep I think Adams made with the series was it being a series at all - it doesn¡¯t need or even really benefit from an overarching story - each book being a slim standalone of the ongoing, er, goings on of Arthur and Ford, after the fashion of Jeeves & Wooster, would have worked perfectly well.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 10:51 PM on September 17 [2 favorites]

I love every second of it. Really true to the spirit of the BBC series and the book.
posted by uncle harold at 11:21 PM on September 17 [1 favorite]

This was great thanks!
posted by fridgebuzz at 12:26 AM on September 18 [1 favorite]

Where can I get that sweet sweet remix of the credits theme?

You're in luck, because Greig made that, too!

You can get the whole thing here: Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy theme tune

I was pretty sure there was a making-of video for that, too, but it might have only been for Patreon subscribers (I am one - and you should be, too) but he did a making-of video for his cover of the Doctor Who theme and his approach to music is just as low-budget and DIY (with similarly incredible results) as his approach to prop-making. Doctor Who Theme making-of.
posted by parm at 2:16 AM on September 18 [3 favorites]

It plays more like a scene from Doctor Who than Hitch-Hikers

I noticed that too, but I think it's in keeping. Adams came of age in the era of classic Who, and he could never stop writing the Doctor even after he got to do it for real.
posted by Pallas Athena at 5:29 AM on September 18 [1 favorite]

Thank you, Rory, this is an excellent post! I found the video strangely touching as I know the script off my heart (I've just discovered) and the change in delivery made it especially resonant.

I too have the Pan paperback of HTTG, bought by my father in Pokhara in February 1984 for 37 rupees, and sitting on my desk now. The 24th printing! I've always wanted a high resolution version of the 'Don't Panic' graphic on the back cover for my phone lockscreen; does anyone know if such a thing exists?
posted by Huw at 6:50 AM on September 18 [2 favorites]

I don't know if something like Holy Grail would be particularly funny to a young person in 2025

I showed it to my young person (14) a few months ago, and she was amused by bits of it, although it's looking pretty dated nowadays¡ªcheap and grainy production¡ªalthough so is any 1980s or '90s TV comedy, because they were all shot on videotape in 4:3 rather than digitally in HD.

But it did mean she got a kick out of a spontaneous stop at Doune Castle when we were driving to the west of Scotland to go camping a few weeks later. We didn't bother going inside, just admired the ramparts...
posted by rory at 8:12 AM on September 18

Count me as another who came to the books before the TV show (and I've never managed to listen to the radio version). Simon Jones as Arthur definitely felt right, but David Dixon didn't match what was in my head. (Is it mean to say "impersonating Tom Baker's Doctor without the gravitas"? I probably need to watch it again, it's been a couple of decades.)

It's also been a while since I watched the movie, but whatever its flaws, I always enjoy Martin Freeman, Bill Nighy did a great Slartibartfast, and the way Zooey Deschanel reads the punchline of the empathy gun scene will stay with me forever.

Agreed with all above that this video's version of the "bit upset" line is very successful. I wouldn't mind seeing more.
posted by Covert Kaiju at 8:22 AM on September 18 [2 favorites]

We didn't bother going inside, just admired the ramparts...

It's only a model.
posted by Greg_Ace at 8:25 AM on September 18 [3 favorites]

I grew up with a VHS bootleg of the BBC television adaptation and Simon Jones and David Dixon will be my Arthur and Ford 4 EVA.

This. 100% this. The dialogue from that adaptation is still imprinted on my brain, I watched it so much.

This new clip is pretty much perfect. The costumes, the line delivery, the sound effects ()...this absolutely made my day. Thanks, Rory!
posted by Janta at 9:19 AM on September 18 [2 favorites]

Does no one else think these two are a bit old to be playing Arthur and Ford? I think of them as being in their 30s, not their 50s.
posted by rikschell at 9:24 AM on September 18

Does no one else think these two are a bit old to be playing Arthur and Ford? I think of them as being in their 30s, not their 50s.

Eh? They both look in their 30s to me, a mid(-ish)-50s person. All three, Johnson, Bell and Parris, were in The Mash Report in 2018-2020 as part of a new crop of UK comedians; Johnson has a short film directing credit from 2010 that looks like a student film. I'd say they're late 30s at most.
posted by rory at 10:05 AM on September 18

Okay, I'm out a bit. Tom Bell, b. 1981. Rachel Parris was born in 1984. Let's assume Johnson is their contemporary. Early 40s.

(I blame 2020 being the year that never ended, so late-30s comedians who were on TV in 2020 are obviously still in their late 30s in 2025.)
posted by rory at 10:07 AM on September 18

Since this is the place for such pointless fantasies, I'd mention I'd be quite up for Mitchell and Webb as Arthur and Ford settling into fractious middle-age, as long as it could be written by John Finnemore.

(Heard the radio series on first broadcast; bought first book day it came out; quite enjoy the film actually; didn't really follow the books after the first three.)
posted by Grangousier at 10:23 AM on September 18 [1 favorite]

Really the biggest misstep I think Adams made with the series was it being a series at all - it doesn¡¯t need or even really benefit from an overarching story - each book being a slim standalone of the ongoing, er, goings on of Arthur and Ford, after the fashion of Jeeves & Wooster, would have worked perfectly well.

That's an astute observation, but it's also kinda how I think of the books. All the Krikkit stuff in book three feels self-contained, which given its origins isn't surprising; book 4 and Fenchurch felt like some other story entirely that just happened to have Arthur in it; and book 5 I... can't even remember at this point. But countless scenes and lines from the first two are etched forever in my brain.

Turns out the "increasingly inaccurately named trilogy" was referring to the inaccuracy of the implication that the group of books tell a single over-arching story, rather than to the number of books. It's a duology that spawned three spin-offs (and eventually a post-DNA fourth).
posted by rory at 10:29 AM on September 18 [2 favorites]

(and eventually a post-DNA fourth).

Which is unfortunately a pale imitation of Douglas Adams' style without any of his spirit or cleverness, and I'm sorry I spent the time reading it.
posted by Greg_Ace at 10:41 AM on September 18 [1 favorite]

Count me among those whose first exposure was the original broadcast of the radio series. The other versions are all good, but none of them are quite that good.

In particular, the movie version of Marvin is just wrong. I'll be interested to see what this crew does with him if they get that far.
posted by flabdablet at 11:21 AM on September 18 [2 favorites]

This was wonderful! I caught myself knowing the dialogue by heart before they spoke.

My first exposure to HHGTTG was through the books. I never heard the radio series (only some excerpts, much later).
I love the books, they were a formative influence to my young self and towards the type of creative wordplay I enjoy. I began with a Portuguese translation (which, in hindsight, wasn't bad given the difficulty of the task) of the first three and a few years later bought all five in English, and eventually some of the other works of Douglas Adams, like the Dirk Gently books and the wonderful Last Chance to See (perhaps my favorite, like it is for many others, from what I've seen).
posted by JSilva at 1:11 PM on September 18 [2 favorites]

You can get the whole thing here: Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy theme tune

AKA The Eagles, "Journey of the Sorcerer"
posted by kirkaracha at 1:17 PM on September 18 [3 favorites]

> I don't know if something like Holy Grail would be particularly funny to a young person in 2025, but I think Flying Circus is still weird and interesting enough that it will probably be evergreen for misfit youths.

I went on a nostalgic rewatch of the TV series a few years back and holy fuck has it not aged well. The silliness and dream logic and such still work, the contemporary cultural references are historical references now though as an American I was always going to be removed from them anyway, but the gags involving racism, sexism and gender (and I don't mean the Pepperpots) are more pervasive than I had remembered and they're leaned on pretty heavily. Granted they're (usually) working from an angle of satirizing the racists and etc., but blackface is still blackface.

This is something Adams was able to evade, somewhat -- extraplanetary humanoids in his universe seem to be pretty universally caucasian, British specifically. Every nation's space adventure tend to be populated primarily with humanoids bearing striking resemblances to their own nationality, I guess.
posted by at by at 1:48 PM on September 18 [2 favorites]

You are not currently logged in. Log in or create a new account to post comments.