Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy Movie Analysis

Fans of the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" have argued over the differences between book and film. One of the arguments made against the film is the changes made to the characters. Occasionally these arguments can get nitpicky, but this essay will do its best to remain understanding of the director and the limitation of film. To keep things simple this essay will only focus on Trillian, Zaphod Beeblebrox, and Arthur Dent. Thankfully Ford Prefect was portrayed almost the same in the film and book, which will prevent this paper from getting too bogged down. The most interesting differences between the book and film is the directors choice on how to portray and characterize Trillian. In both the novel and film Trillian is one character that

In the novel she's described as "slim, darkish, humanoid, with long waves of black...With her headscarf knotted in that particular way...she looked vaguely Arabic."(Chapter 4, pg.43-44). Instead we get the bland, pale looking Zooey Deschanel. Maybe that's a bit of a nitpick considering all the other missed opportunities with her character, but if they had a black man play Ford then why not an Arabic woman for Trillian? One can imagine their reason behind their casting choice was that they wanted eye-candy and name recognition. Plus, any director during this time period(2005) may have been a bit nervous having an Arabic woman as their leading lady, likely because they believed a movie with a woman of color at the forefront wouldn't sell as well(especially due to the post-9/11 racial tension). Even though Trillian doesn't exude autonomy or even stand up as an interesting character in the movie, it's hard to chastise the director for it. They didn't have much to work with it when it comes to source material, and they tried their best to fix what they could without infringing on Douglas Adams' material. Adams himself said that while he wouldn't have Arthur and Trillian wind up happily-ever-after in the books, he said that in the films case the audience would be disappointed otherwise. Suffice it to say, everyone behind the film did their best to improve upon Trillian, but played it a little too safe in order to

Now, his character is difficult to talk about, being that his character is enjoyable in both the film and novel. In the film, Zaphod is portrayed as a self-obsessed moron that is prone to jealousy and inadvertently signs off on the destruction of Earth. It's hilarious, and a crowd pleaser, but towards the films conclusion whatever inkling the audience may have about Zaphod's character development are quickly swept under the rug. The books version of President Beeblebrox is far more satisfying in the long run. Zaphod is regarded as an idiot, but only in some regards. The further the novel progresses the more the reader comes to realize that Zaphod is a more nuanced character with a history as to why he behaves as he does. At one point in the novel he reveals the synapses in his brains(his second head is on his shoulder in the novel) have been cut off by himself, and that he didn't take the 'Heart of Gold' for shallow reasons. He's very self-aware, and questions why his hunches are always correct and wants to know why he would tamper with his own brains. Granted, he's still a silly character that is prone to cockiness, but it's not as evident in the book. Why would the director not opt for the novel-version of Zaphod? One reason may have to do with adhering to the formulaic set up that Arthur Dent is the unlikely hero and Zaphod is the jerk that stole "his girl", and therefore