It's tragic when someone so utterly brilliant as DNAhas a family that will sell off rights for the cash. They sold the film rights to Disney after all and he was utter opposed to them doing a film of hitchiker's when he was alive.
(
riverghost servicing your mum since,
Sat 8 Aug 2009, 13:39,
archived)
He wasn't opposed to making a film though, that's why he moved to California.I actually talked to him about it once. In 1991 in fact. He said at that point he was still trying to buy the rights back off Columbia and was working on a new script. He didn't want it made by someone who didn't get it essentially.
(
brianftang www.brianftang.co.uk,
Sat 8 Aug 2009, 13:58,
archived)
He was not opposed to the film and he met many times with DisneyThey would not give him creative rights and this was why he was opposed to Disney doing it. He hated the scripts that he was presented by them and they would not make the changes he wanted.
( riverghost servicing your mum since,
Sat 8 Aug 2009, 14:04,
archived)
not utterly opposed at all,he was even quoted as saying that as long as Arthur was kept British in the casting, then the other charcaters could be chosen solely on merit
(
The Great Architect is still waiting for his account to be deleted on,
Sat 8 Aug 2009, 14:01,
archived)
Please see my above answer.I am purely going by what I have found though my research of a guy who I always thought was a literary genius but also a technological pioneer.
He was not happy with any of the scripts Disney presented him and they would not make the changes that he insisted were made which was why he never gave them the go ahead.
(He was not happy with any of the scripts Disney presented him and they would not make the changes that he insisted were made which was why he never gave them the go ahead.
riverghost servicing your mum since,
Sat 8 Aug 2009, 14:04,
archived)