Change Your Image
jon-788-143011
Reviews
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1981)
In descending order...
OK a lot of posts here, show that the history of H2G2 is poorly understood, it seems mostly by anyone who first encountered the 2005 film. So, to simplify, this was a radio show, then a book, then another radio series, then the TV series, then two more books, then three more radio series and another book, then a film.
So the TV series isn't an adaptation of the books, at most it and the first two radio series are substantially the same material, although it is a bit mixed up and it isn't entirely consistent (though it all was done by the author, so it is legitimate).
The radio shows used most of the same cast (except for Ford Prefect) and are the best version of the story (although it is a very long story, 15 hours or so). The TV series is a good rendering of the first two series and the first two books, inevitably it has some omissions.
The movie is pretty awful, and best avoided.
Sink the Bismarck! (1960)
Some facts for US contingent
A couple of the comments on here are probably well meaning but show a lack of detailed knowledge.
mikestollov comments: The Bizmark chose it's battles very well, avoiding conflict with Royal Navy warships that could do it actual damage. She was a commerce raider, praying on defenceless merchant ships, less powerful warships & fleeing from anything that could do her harm. The fact that she came up against warships that could actually do damage to her was down to the doggedness of the Royal Navy. At first she did prevail, but once more due to the opposition she was given. HMS Hood was definitely NOT a good choice for this conflict, she was NOT a Battleship, she was an old, thinly armoured Battle Cruiser & well below the standard of Bizmark, her guns were inaccurate & her armour wasn't up to the threat she was faced with."
Well, firstly, Bismarck never caught any merchant ship, defenceless or otherwise.
Secondly HMS Hood wasn't a new ship like Bismarck, she was over 20 yrs old, however due to the Washington Naval Treaty, the RN only had four newer battleships than Hood - KGV, PoW, Rodney and Nelson. The last two of these were much slower than Bismarck, because the design sacrificed speed for armour.
Meanwhile, bkoganbing from Buffalo, New York says: "Unfortunately some lessons were not learned by the British command and the Prince of Wales and the Repulse were sunk several months later by the Japanese with aerial bombardment when they reported for duty at the British base in Singapore. The British did in fact experiment with carriers as the Ark Royal's contribution in that action and others signifies. I'm willing to bet Mr. Churchill wished he had a few more carriers like the Americans and Japanese did."
Well, Force Z's carrier ran aground off Sri Lanka, that's why they was no air cover. Although doctrine at the time didn't accept that a battleship was unable to survive in the open sea without air cover. The sharpest needle, though, was Japan's Yamamoto. He spotted the effectiveness of the raid from HMS Illustrious on Taranto in Nov 1940, and used rather more planes in Dec 41 at Pearl Harbor.
Within the film itself the reference to Scharnhorst and Gniesenau reflects RN real concerns, but it implies that they are capital ships of a similar capability to the RN, if not to Bismarck. Scharnhorst and Gniesenau were lightly armed, with only 11" guns, on the two occasions they engaged RN capital ships, together in 1940 during the invasion of Norway, and Scharnhorst alone in 1943, they were ineffective: HMS Renown engaged both ships in 1940: in 1943 the KGV-class Duke of York sank the Scharnhorst off North Cape. There were other instances when S&G deliberately avoided engagement with old RN ships, including HMS Ramilies and HMS Malaya (both these ships had fought at Jutland in 1916!).