So there's a character called Dirk Gently and he's a holistic detective. And that's it.
Why not call it something else and save the licensing fees? Or did the BBC still have the rights from the earlier version and decided to get some more mileage out of them?
That's what I thought. Besides the name, it isn't anything like the original series.
shareFWIW, it was never intended to be anything like the original books.
https://www.wired.com/2016/10/dirk-gently-bbc-america/
Then why use the name? Why not make a show called Coronation Street, and have it be about a civil war on Mars?
shareThey took the idea of a 'holistic detective' and ran with it. Presumably, with the permission/approval of Adams' estate. Not sure why this should even be an issue. I suppose people who thought this was going to be a direct TV adaptation of the books are disappointed, but the producers made it clear from the start that's not what this was going to be.
Yes, my fault for believing the advertising that mentioned Douglas Adams and Dirk Gently. Instead I should have found out who was producing it and looked for interviews with them.
shareCan't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but yes, you could have done a little research. Or you could have paid closer attention to the advertising, it wasn't deceptive.
AMEN. It's not our fault they chose to change everything about it but the name, and author. It's not like they did a big ad campaign. We were goin on what we knew.
shareThe advertising didn't say it was going to be a direct retelling of the originals, did it? You fooled yourself into believing something nobody promised you.
The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/
to be fair, it also did not warn the viewer that it does not share anything with the books, characters or anything else, except that one person is named dirk gently and that the hollistic term is used multiple times.
shareadmittedly its such a cool idea, a holistic DA.
Dougie struck gold with this idea,I think they were better than the Hitchikers books to be honest.
I don't understand people who want a 1:1 retelling of a story they're already familiar with. The same people are probably upset about every version of Hitchhikers being different from one another.
The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/
because that's not the problem here.
the bbc version (2012) also did tell different stories, but it kept the characters (with some minor changes) and the spirit of the books. this version just does not have anything to do with the books or the characters or anything.
as the hitchhiker:
first came the radio show, then the books, then the tv show, then the abridged and unabridged audiobooks and all of this versions, while different, were well received by the fans. it was the movie, which was the only version that failed, even though the creators tried their best, because all they did was take the basic story and left everything that made it good, completely out.
with DK16 they did neither stick to the story nor to anything else.
i think it captured the spirit of the dirk gently books pretty well, idk
share"books"
Well, there's part of the answer there. There were only ever 2 books, the second of which was absolute drivel if I remember rightly.
There's just not enough meat on the bones to make an episodic series. Besides which, the BBC had already done loose adaptations of those books previously which may also be part of the reason why they just took the base idea and did something different.
then why call it that?
the 2012 show was in canon, had the characters and almost everything else was different. why do something entirely different and name it after something it has nothing to do with?
that's like doing a film called john rambo, but it's about a figure skater.
The 2010/12 show is impossible to reconcile with the books, so it isn't "in canon".
This series is explicitly set after the books. There are a couple of things that could be considered to contradict Adams's writing (notably Dirk's age) but are easier to fudge over than the Mangan series.
the mangan series perfectly fits the tone of the books, some of the plot lines and get most of the characters right, so yes, it is in canon in a way that sherlock was praised as being in canon with the original books.
"This series is explicitly set after the books. There are a couple of things that could be considered to contradict Adams's writing (notably Dirk's age) but are easier to fudge over than the Mangan series."
except for the name, it has nothing in common with adam's work. neither directly nor in tone. it doesn't really matter when it is set.
They succeeded beyond expectations then. What a total abortion this show, "based on" the books, is.
shareYou haven't read the books.
sharePeople keep saying "oh, you don't understand, Douglas Adams doesn't translate well and that's why you don't like it."
No, if this was based on a short story written by some guy who smelled really bad and left it on the bus" I'd still think it was a poorly done mess. It's like the film version of all those Art 100 prints that used to sit on the drying racks until someone threw them away.
another stupid argument about books to film, i realised after 40 years of watching movies no film can do justice to a novel, there for stupid argument, i personally have not read the books but from what i have seen 3 episodes this is a fun series and kept my interest not many films do that this days for me.
sharewrong. the radio show was great and was faithful to the books, the 2012 version was great and for the most part only took the characters and some parts of the stories, yet was in canon. THIS? nothing in it, except for the name and random things connected have anything, not even the slightest tiny bit, to do with the books.
shareI'm happy to know that it is different than the book, because i don't want to read something i already seen
to answer at why they kept the name...well it,s kind of obvious that it's Adams comedic style, maybe this story is not by him, but that's the style he created and his universe
i will go see the new Star Wars movie even if its not by Lucas and i am happy they didnt renamed it the gay life of beethoven, because i never heard of stormtrooper in the beethoveen movies ( the story of a st-bernard who created the fifth symphony)
"to answer at why they kept the name...well it,s kind of obvious that it's Adams comedic style, maybe this story is not by him, but that's the style he created and his universe "
i am sorry, it is fine to like the show, but that is straight up bollocks. the comedic style has much more in common with jerry lewis'old slapstick films, than anything adams has ever created. adams' humor had much more to it than broad strokes.
its not sdsms style really, its more fsrgo.
edit - replace s for a. keyboard was drunk.