|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Science Fiction » alt.fan.douglas-adams » Review: Hitchhiker's Guide
| Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #23457] |
Mi, 27 April 2005 16:01 |
|
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was originally concieved by
Douglas Adams while he was lying drunk in a field in the 1970s. Since
that time it was a Radio Series, a Book, a Television Show and a
Computer Game. The one thing it hasn't been up until now, is a major
motion picture.
After some 20 years the much anticipated big screen adaption has
arrived. So how is it? Let's break it down.
First off I give the new set of actors credit, they've done a good job.
There isn't a bad casting in the bunch. The voice acting by Stephen Fry
(The Book) and Alan Rickman (Marvin) couldn't have been better. The
rest of the cast is solid, but they're in an almost impossible
situation. The character of Arthur Dent was specifically written by
Douglas Adams to be played by Simon Jones. Thus, it's not going to be
quite the same with anyone else. But Martin Freeman does a very good
Arthur, and while he's not perfect, he's close. This echos throughout
the cast with possibly one exception - Zaphod. Sam Rockwell does an
excellent job with Zaphod. He nails the ego and the well, overall
stupidity to a T. Rounding out the cast is Mos Def as Ford and Zooey
Deschanel as Trillian. Both do a solid job, no real complaints.
There are some good choices in the supporting cast as well. Although we
don't really get to delve too much into his character Jon Malkovich is
his normal creepy self and I thought Bill Nighy did a good job with
Slartibartfast.
As far as the script, it's faithful - very faithful. One thing to keep
in mind though, this is a movie and not a 6 part TV show or 3 hour
radio drama. Many famous bits are cut short or slightly modified, but
that has to be expected. What remains is the core of that Adams wit and
the strange and wonderful world of Hitchhikers. The first 15 minutes or
so is almost verbatim (albeit truncated) from the Book. This is
actually good and bad. It may be a bit hard for Hitchhiker's vetrans to
get into the film at first. The lines are so familiar it just doesn't
seem right coming from these new actors.. but give it a chance, it does
gel.
Fans of the books and the original productions will get plenty of nods
and injokes. There are cameos (in 3-D even!) and all sorts of small
bits that only Hitchhiker fans are likely to pick up on. For instance
the Heart of Gold has a Teacup motif which I thought was very cool.
The plot does stay from the familiar, especially with the Jon Malkovich
sub-plot. But this isn't bad. Adams himself penned some of this and
don't forget almost every version of the guide has differed slightly.
The Vogons get more to do including a trip to the Vogon home world
where everything is run like a government office. There is a new
romance angle between Arthur and Trillian, and although this maybe out
of left field it does work and isn't too distracting or sappy. My only
real complaint plot wise is the absolute very end, but even then its
minor overall.
The production values are top notch. The special effects (with the odd
exception) are spot on and quite striking. It's interesting to note
that some of the effects do mirror those now-archaic ones from the 1981
TV Series, just shows how creative they were back then.
The music is mostly harmless, although some of the background music is
a bit cheesy. Special props for using the Eagles 'Journey of the
Sorcerer' though.
So overall I liked it. It may not be the 'best' version of Hitchhikers
out there, but its a solid entry into what has always been a prolific
series. The door is left wide open for Restaurant, so lets hope it does
enough business for a sequel (or two).
- Be sure to visit the Village, an online message board devoted to a
variety of topics including movies and british programming!
http://www.villagebbs.com .. totally free!
= numsix
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #23482 ] |
Do, 28 April 2005 13:44 |
|
Excellent review. I agree with your assessment of it. I saw it four times on
the opening day (i.e. today) - I hadn't intended to, but I loved it. The
first time, I was distracted by all the bits that were different from the
versions that I know and love. But they became less of a distraction on
subsequent viewings. The film doesn't drag on at all. It still seemed fresh
on the fourth viewing.You can tell that the film makers had a lot of
affection for Douglas - there are nods and tributes to him throughout.
Beautiful. Didn't notice the teacup thing. Guess I'll have to go and see it
again!
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #23487 ] |
Do, 28 April 2005 15:55 |
|
> affection for Douglas - there are nods and tributes to him
throughout.
> Beautiful. Didn't notice the teacup thing. Guess I'll have to go and
see it
> again!
Even though they cut the description of the Infinite Improbability
drive short (ie the warm browning agent, say a nice hot cup of tea) the
'button' that engages the drive is an upside down teapcup on a saucer.
Also the front of the heart of gold (presumably the drive) has a blue
china (ie tea cup) motif. Anyway, I thought it was cool.
Overall it was a good flick. Many people have complained that many bits
were cut and there wasn't enough guide. Although I'll say there is some
validity to that, its the nature of the format. You have less than 2
hours to tell your story and you need to make something that follows a
traditional style, so what can you do? I think they did the best they
could with keeping it in the confines of a "market acceptable" film
that can appeal to non-fans.
So in that, Its probably one of the most faithful to the source movie
adapatations i've seen. I swear half the time the screenwriters just
glance at the jacket of whichever book they are adapting and go from
there.
I just hope it does well enough to justify a sequel. I'd like to see
more of these.
= numsix
= http://www.villagebbs.com
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #23488 ] |
Do, 28 April 2005 16:15 |
|
In article <1114696549.879162.205460 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
lupin3 [at] planetjurai.com (Jack (www.villagebbs.com)) wrote:
> Overall it was a good flick. Many people have complained that many bits
> were cut and there wasn't enough guide.
I think the real problem was the bits that were only half-cut - if
you're going to retain references to towels being important you
need to explain why, even if it's Douglas Adams style nonsense
explanations. Or cut it altogether - just don't put it in for the sake of
it and forget to make a joke.
> in the confines of a "market acceptable" film
> that can appeal to non-fans.
See, the towel stuff will only appeal to fans, moreso because there's no
explanation for the uninitiated.
>
> So in that, Its probably one of the most faithful to the source movie
> adapatations i've seen. I swear half the time the screenwriters just
> glance at the jacket
Hence the last line of the film, I fear...
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #23489 ] |
Do, 28 April 2005 17:04 |
|
gclapperton [at] cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> I think the real problem was the bits that were only half-cut
Suppose some well-regarded video directors decide to make a video album
out of the well-known "1962-1966" Beatles compilation. Great!
Suppose further that they discover ten previously unknown and
undiscovered Beatles songs from 1962-1966 and decide to add them to the
mix. Even better!
Suppose that they announce they're dropping some of the lesser, if
well-known, tracks to make room, since there are unavoidable limitations
of time due to their media format. Well, that's not so good, but what
the heck.
Now suppose that not only are they dropping some of the lesser, if
well-known, tracks -- they're dropping out individual verses and words
from the old songs that remain. Would anyone, let alone a Beatles fan,
call that acceptable? Far better, I would think, to leave them out
entirely than muck about with their internal structure.
o/~ We all live in a yellow sub, a yellow sub, a yellow sub...
o/~ Help! I need some! Not just any!
............................................................ .....
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #23494 ] |
Do, 28 April 2005 18:42 |
|
"Jack (www.villagebbs.com)" <lupin3 [at] planetjurai.com> writes:
>> affection for Douglas - there are nods and tributes to him
>throughout.
>> Beautiful. Didn't notice the teacup thing. Guess I'll have to go and
>see it
>> again!
>Even though they cut the description of the Infinite Improbability
>drive short (ie the warm browning agent, say a nice hot cup of tea)
"brownian motion", i.e. random movement of tiny suspended particles.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #23495 ] |
Do, 28 April 2005 19:39 |
|
> Now suppose that not only are they dropping some of the lesser, if
> well-known, tracks -- they're dropping out individual verses and
words
> from the old songs that remain. Would anyone, let alone a Beatles
fan,
> call that acceptable? Far better, I would think, to leave them out
> entirely than muck about with their internal structure.
>
>
> o/~ We all live in a yellow sub, a yellow sub, a yellow sub...
>
> o/~ Help! I need some! Not just any!
Problem with that analogy is its apples and oranges. You would be
changing an existing work with no adaptation. The movie isn't the book.
It's an adaptation of it.
= numsix
= http://www.villagebbs.com
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #23496 ] |
Do, 28 April 2005 19:40 |
|
> >Even though they cut the description of the Infinite Improbability
> >drive short (ie the warm browning agent, say a nice hot cup of tea)
>
> "brownian motion", i.e. random movement of tiny suspended particles.
>
> ---
> Merlyn LeRoy
Sorry, it was early.
= numsix
= http://www.villagebbs.com
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #23498 ] |
Do, 28 April 2005 20:15 |
|
Brian Westley wrote:
> "Jack (www.villagebbs.com)" <lupin3 [at] planetjurai.com> writes:
>
>>>affection for Douglas - there are nods and tributes to him
>>
>>throughout.
>>
>>>Beautiful. Didn't notice the teacup thing. Guess I'll have to go and
>>
>>see it
>>
>>>again!
>
>
>>Even though they cut the description of the Infinite Improbability
>>drive short (ie the warm browning agent, say a nice hot cup of tea)
>
>
> "brownian motion", i.e. random movement of tiny suspended particles.
>
In about 25 hours from when I'm typing this, I'll be forming my
own opinion of what the contents of the movie are like.
--
Tian
Lately Bush has been offering to solve the problem of higher gas
prices by "building more oil refineries." I'm missing the logic of that.
Since when does building cookie factories cure a grain shortage?
http://tian.greens.org
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #23504 ] |
Do, 28 April 2005 21:19 |
|
Jack (www.villagebbs.com) wrote:
> Problem with that analogy is its apples and oranges. You would be
> changing an existing work with no adaptation. The movie isn't the book.
> It's an adaptation of it.
And the putative video isn't the album, it's an adaptation of it.
(You'll note how few videos consist entirely of images of the band
sitting in the studio/standing on a stage and playing.)
Oranges and lemons maybe.
............................................................ .....
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #23527 ] |
Fr, 29 April 2005 04:04 |
|
In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, Forrest's voice said the
following, in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion levels so
low as to make a man weep:
> Jack (www.villagebbs.com) wrote:
>
>> Problem with that analogy is its apples and oranges. You would be
>> changing an existing work with no adaptation. The movie isn't the book.
>> It's an adaptation of it.
>
>
> And the putative video isn't the album, it's an adaptation of it.
> (You'll note how few videos consist entirely of images of the band
> sitting in the studio/standing on a stage and playing.)
>
> Oranges and lemons maybe.
Yes, but it's not an example that works, realistically. Changing a song to
fit a video is not how it works, you create a video in the music industry
which follows the song exactly.
The same cannot be said for movie adaptations.
--
John Coxon
"I’m not worried at all. Hitchhiker’s is going to have Lucas quaking in his
boots! (Does George Lucas wear boots? He should. Big, red, thigh-high boots
with spurs and golden toe caps. And a fez. Don’t you agree?)" - Garth
Jennings (director, 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy')
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #23528 ] |
Fr, 29 April 2005 04:06 |
|
In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, gclapperton [at] cix.compulink.co.uk's
voice said the following, in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with
distortion levels so low as to make a man weep:
> In article <1114696549.879162.205460 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> lupin3 [at] planetjurai.com (Jack (www.villagebbs.com)) wrote:
>
>>Overall it was a good flick. Many people have complained that many bits
>>were cut and there wasn't enough guide.
>
> I think the real problem was the bits that were only half-cut - if
> you're going to retain references to towels being important you
> need to explain why, even if it's Douglas Adams style nonsense
> explanations. Or cut it altogether - just don't put it in for the sake of
> it and forget to make a joke.
The film finally showed a hitchhiker using his towel for something other
than a pillow (episode one in the television series).
It was that that made me feel excited about going to see it, as I felt that
the makers probably 'got' it rather well. And I felt justified in that, as
I loved the film.
--
John Coxon
"I’m not worried at all. Hitchhiker’s is going to have Lucas quaking in his
boots! (Does George Lucas wear boots? He should. Big, red, thigh-high boots
with spurs and golden toe caps. And a fez. Don’t you agree?)" - Garth
Jennings (director, 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy')
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #23545 ] |
Fr, 29 April 2005 09:18 |
|
In article <1114709943.901643.196370 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
lupin3 [at] planetjurai.com (Jack (www.villagebbs.com)) wrote:
>
> Problem with that analogy is its apples and oranges. You would be
> changing an existing work with no adaptation. The movie isn't the book.
> It's an adaptation of it.
OK, but the audience still doesn't get any explanation as to towels, and
this is only one example.
My guess is that it'll do well, but not as well as the producers had
hoped.
Regards
Guy
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #23564 ] |
Fr, 29 April 2005 13:44 |
|
<gclapperton [at] cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JeadnRDny8mJbe3fRVnyhA [at] pipex.net...
> In article <1114696549.879162.205460 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> lupin3 [at] planetjurai.com (Jack (www.villagebbs.com)) wrote:
>
>> Overall it was a good flick. Many people have complained that many bits
>> were cut and there wasn't enough guide.
>
> I think the real problem was the bits that were only half-cut - if
> you're going to retain references to towels being important you
> need to explain why, even if it's Douglas Adams style nonsense
> explanations. Or cut it altogether - just don't put it in for the sake of
> it and forget to make a joke.
>
>> in the confines of a "market acceptable" film
>> that can appeal to non-fans.
>
> See, the towel stuff will only appeal to fans, moreso because there's no
> explanation for the uninitiated.
I disagree. The towel stuff is funny in its own right.
>> So in that, Its probably one of the most faithful to the source movie
>> adapatations i've seen. I swear half the time the screenwriters just
>> glance at the jacket
Well _one_ of the scriptwriters wrote the book. And the radio series. And
the TV series. All of which were blissfully inconsistant with one another.
I love the film. It will bring a whole new generation into the fold.
>
> Hence the last line of the film, I fear...
(Spoiler space)
....
Could be that Marvin's line means precisely what we know the end of the
universe to mean, and that Zaphod has assumed it in a more literal 3
dimensional context.
Guess we'll find out in the sequel!
NSY
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #23565 ] |
Fr, 29 April 2005 13:47 |
|
"Forrest" <gmauslander [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114700580.666980 [at] diskless11...
> gclapperton [at] cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
>> I think the real problem was the bits that were only half-cut
>
> Suppose some well-regarded video directors decide to make a video album
> out of the well-known "1962-1966" Beatles compilation. Great!
>
> Suppose further that they discover ten previously unknown and undiscovered
> Beatles songs from 1962-1966 and decide to add them to the mix. Even
> better!
>
> Suppose that they announce they're dropping some of the lesser, if
> well-known, tracks to make room, since there are unavoidable limitations
> of time due to their media format. Well, that's not so good, but what the
> heck.
>
> Now suppose that not only are they dropping some of the lesser, if
> well-known, tracks -- they're dropping out individual verses and words
> from the old songs that remain. Would anyone, let alone a Beatles fan,
> call that acceptable? Far better, I would think, to leave them out
> entirely than muck about with their internal structure.
>
>
> o/~ We all live in a yellow sub, a yellow sub, a yellow sub...
>
> o/~ Help! I need some! Not just any!
Ah, Jive Bunny, where are you now?
It's not the same thing at all. The source material is radio, book and TV,
all of which have totally different structures and lines. The film doesn't
slavishly follow any of them (good thing too, wouldn't work as a 2 hour
film, just make no sense) but treads its own path.
Anyway, I'm not going to defend it to the hilt, but asking for consistency
in a new version of Hitch-Hikers is like asking for a cup of tea without any
of those leaves soaked in it.
NSY
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #23572 ] |
Fr, 29 April 2005 18:20 |
|
In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, Andrew Ness's voice said the
following, in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion levels so
low as to make a man weep:
> <gclapperton [at] cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:JeadnRDny8mJbe3fRVnyhA [at] pipex.net...
>
>>In article <1114696549.879162.205460 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>>lupin3 [at] planetjurai.com (Jack (www.villagebbs.com)) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Overall it was a good flick. Many people have complained that many bits
>>>were cut and there wasn't enough guide.
>>
>>I think the real problem was the bits that were only half-cut - if
>>you're going to retain references to towels being important you
>>need to explain why, even if it's Douglas Adams style nonsense
>>explanations. Or cut it altogether - just don't put it in for the sake of
>>it and forget to make a joke.
>>
>>
>>>in the confines of a "market acceptable" film
>>>that can appeal to non-fans.
>>
>>See, the towel stuff will only appeal to fans, moreso because there's no
>>explanation for the uninitiated.
>
>
> I disagree. The towel stuff is funny in its own right.
>
>
>>>So in that, Its probably one of the most faithful to the source movie
>>>adapatations i've seen. I swear half the time the screenwriters just
>>>glance at the jacket
>
>
> Well _one_ of the scriptwriters wrote the book. And the radio series. And
> the TV series. All of which were blissfully inconsistant with one another.
>
> I love the film. It will bring a whole new generation into the fold.
>
>>Hence the last line of the film, I fear...
>
>
> (Spoiler space)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ....
>
> Could be that Marvin's line means precisely what we know the end of the
> universe to mean, and that Zaphod has assumed it in a more literal 3
> dimensional context.
That's a good way of looking at it, Marvin may mean "other" in a variety of
ways, and as he does have that brain the size of a planet...
--
John Coxon
"I’m not worried at all. Hitchhiker’s is going to have Lucas quaking in his
boots! (Does George Lucas wear boots? He should. Big, red, thigh-high boots
with spurs and golden toe caps. And a fez. Don’t you agree?)" - Garth
Jennings (director, 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy')
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #23579 ] |
Sa, 30 April 2005 00:35 |
|
Andrew Ness wrote:
> Guess we'll find out in the sequel!
"Now THAT'S comedy!" -- S. Squirrel
............................................................ .....
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #23616 ] |
Sa, 30 April 2005 19:47 |
|
Andrew Ness wrote:
> "Forrest" <gmauslander [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1114700580.666980 [at] diskless11...
>
>>gclapperton [at] cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I think the real problem was the bits that were only half-cut
>>
>>Suppose some well-regarded video directors decide to make a video album
>>out of the well-known "1962-1966" Beatles compilation. Great!
>>
>>Suppose further that they discover ten previously unknown and undiscovered
>>Beatles songs from 1962-1966 and decide to add them to the mix. Even
>>better!
>>
>>Suppose that they announce they're dropping some of the lesser, if
>>well-known, tracks to make room, since there are unavoidable limitations
>>of time due to their media format. Well, that's not so good, but what the
>>heck.
>>
>>Now suppose that not only are they dropping some of the lesser, if
>>well-known, tracks -- they're dropping out individual verses and words
>>from the old songs that remain. Would anyone, let alone a Beatles fan,
>>call that acceptable? Far better, I would think, to leave them out
>>entirely than muck about with their internal structure.
>>
>>
>>o/~ We all live in a yellow sub, a yellow sub, a yellow sub...
>>
>>o/~ Help! I need some! Not just any!
>
>
> Ah, Jive Bunny, where are you now?
>
> It's not the same thing at all. The source material is radio, book and TV,
> all of which have totally different structures and lines. The film doesn't
> slavishly follow any of them (good thing too, wouldn't work as a 2 hour
> film, just make no sense) but treads its own path.
That's okay for story lines. Try looking at the individual jokes. On the
whole, they have been conserved in all the versions quite faithfully.
For instance, any direct quote from the guide is virtually verbatim
between versions. The movie, I'm told, changes them to unrecognisability.
I hope the visualisations will make up for that. But I'm pretty sure I
will have a hard time accepting the dialogue in the movie, after what I
have heard.
Oh, well, the good thing about low expectations is that you have a good
chance of being pleasantly surprised :-)
Best
Kåre
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #26820 ] |
Mo, 02 Mai 2005 17:33 |
|
Kaare Fiedler Christiansen wrote:
> Oh, well, the good thing about low expectations is that you have a good
> chance of being pleasantly surprised :-)
>
> Best
> Kåre
Erm, sorry Kaare. I went in there with the lowest expectations. I got
excited for a little while (They did some pretty cool stuff and Zaphod's
picking up of Trillian was zarking awesome) but I soon went into
decline. Or the movie did. It's still worth it for a few good scenes
though.
Nancy.
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #26821 ] |
Mo, 02 Mai 2005 17:35 |
|
John Coxon wrote:
> In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, Andrew Ness's voice said the
> following, in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion
> levels so low as to make a man weep:
>
>> <gclapperton [at] cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:JeadnRDny8mJbe3fRVnyhA [at] pipex.net...
>>
>> Well _one_ of the scriptwriters wrote the book. And the radio series.
>> And the TV series. All of which were blissfully inconsistant with one
>> another.
>>
>> I love the film. It will bring a whole new generation into the fold.
>>
>>> Hence the last line of the film, I fear...
>>
>>
>>
>> (Spoiler space)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ....
>>
>> Could be that Marvin's line means precisely what we know the end of
>> the universe to mean, and that Zaphod has assumed it in a more literal
>> 3 dimensional context.
>
>
> That's a good way of looking at it, Marvin may mean "other" in a variety
> of ways, and as he does have that brain the size of a planet...
>
Naah. It was just a cheap shot at the last joke. There is no other
'end' of the universe. A universe begins and a universe dies. It's
obvious the screenwriters completely misunderstood what kind of 'end'
they meant, or if they did understand, didn't give a shit about it's
actual context in favour of a miserably stupid joke.
When I saw Douglas' face after that point, I felt like crying and not
because I was happy.
Nancy.
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #26855 ] |
Mo, 02 Mai 2005 22:43 |
|
Of course there's no end to the Universe. It's a funny set-up line, the
"other end" doubly so. Good joke, I thought. (And, do you remember that
Adams was the first to suggest there were two ends to his universe, or have
you forgotten the Big Bang Burger Barn? Yes, I know you were talking about
a physical direction, not a temporal one, but that's the way Adams has
always treated time, as though it was river you could camp along at
different sites.) Sounds like you might have been so emotionally
disappointed by what you thought was wrong with the movie you had given up
on it by that point and anything that was funny had to be astoundingly so to
get your attention. I let myself relax into the movie, rolled with the gags
and had a better time by letting their momentum carry me.
I find it worth remarking that almost everyone who disliked the movie did so
for different reasons, all variations on "it's not the same" as the book /
radio show / TV show / recordings / computer game but those who like it are
mostly, but not entirely, in agreement. The movie isn't unfunny. It's just
different. If you didn't enjoy it, that's a decision you've made and too
bad, I think. You're really doing yourself a disservice, especially since
what's done is done and won't be undone for all the criticality in the
world.
Chiggy.
"nacey" <nacey [at] nospam.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:427648b7$0$12788$5a62ac22 [at] per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Naah. It was just a cheap shot at the last joke. There is no other 'end'
> of the universe. A universe begins and a universe dies. It's obvious the
> screenwriters completely misunderstood what kind of 'end' they meant, or
> if they did understand, didn't give a shit about it's actual context in
> favour of a miserably stupid joke.
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #26863 ] |
Mo, 02 Mai 2005 23:18 |
|
<snip>
> I find it worth remarking that almost everyone who disliked the movie did so
> for different reasons, all variations on "it's not the same" as the book /
> radio show / TV show / recordings / computer game but those who like it are
> mostly, but not entirely, in agreement. The movie isn't unfunny. It's just
> different. If you didn't enjoy it, that's a decision you've made and too
> bad, I think. You're really doing yourself a disservice, especially since
> what's done is done and won't be undone for all the criticality in the
> world.
Strange. I've read all the reviews and I think the most criticism I have
seen is not "It's different" but "the plot doesn't work, and the jokes
aren't funny". It seems we have read different reviews, or at least
focused on different things.
Best
Kåre
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #26876 ] |
Di, 03 Mai 2005 02:15 |
|
"Kaare Fiedler Christiansen" <news [at] kaarefc.dk> wrote in message
news:42769917$0$758$edfadb0f [at] dread16.news.tele.dk...
>
> <snip>
>
>> I find it worth remarking that almost everyone who disliked the movie did
>> so for different reasons, all variations on "it's not the same" as the
>> book / radio show / TV show / recordings / computer game but those who
>> like it are mostly, but not entirely, in agreement. The movie isn't
>> unfunny. It's just different. If you didn't enjoy it, that's a decision
>> you've made and too bad, I think. You're really doing yourself a
>> disservice, especially since what's done is done and won't be undone for
>> all the criticality in the world.
>
> Strange. I've read all the reviews and I think the most criticism I have
> seen is not "It's different" but "the plot doesn't work, and the jokes
> aren't funny". It seems we have read different reviews, or at least
> focused on different things.
>
I'm not talking about professional published reviews. I meant the stuff
here and on other DNA fora.
Chiggy.
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #27554 ] |
Di, 03 Mai 2005 17:19 |
|
Dave Adalian wrote:
> Of course there's no end to the Universe. It's a funny set-up line, the
> "other end" doubly so. Good joke, I thought. (And, do you remember that
> Adams was the first to suggest there were two ends to his universe, or have
> you forgotten the Big Bang Burger Barn? Yes, I know you were talking about
> a physical direction, not a temporal one, but that's the way Adams has
> always treated time, as though it was river you could camp along at
> different sites.)
No. Why would they go to the Big Bang Burger Barn? That's not the end
of the universe - it's the beginning. It doesn't work in the joke -
the joke is shit.
Sounds like you might have been so emotionally
> disappointed by what you thought was wrong with the movie you had given up
> on it by that point and anything that was funny had to be astoundingly so to
> get your attention. I let myself relax into the movie, rolled with the gags
> and had a better time by letting their momentum carry me.
Okay, I've already had this said to me once and it's really quite
insulting. Just because I'm an emotional person does not mean I have
the inability to think. Emotions and logical thinking are *not*
exclusive. I have these emotions because my logical mind was sitting
there thinking "This is not funny". I know it might be hard for you to
believe that someone just simply found the humour in this movie to be as
sparklingly witty as flat champaigne, but it is so. Some people just
didn't think it was funny.
>
> I find it worth remarking that almost everyone who disliked the movie did so
> for different reasons, all variations on "it's not the same" as the book /
> radio show / TV show / recordings / computer game but those who like it are
> mostly, but not entirely, in agreement.
You're obviously not listening to what they're saying. Me - I would
have accepted it if it was different. All the other incarnations are
different to each other. But
a) The characters are still themselves
b) The storylines MAKE SENSE
c) They're still gut-bustingly funny in a witty, clever, although
somewhat cynical but always accurate way.
> The movie isn't unfunny.
Yes it is. It's about as funny as a car-crash for the most part.
It's just
> different.
It's just been desexed and robbed of all that made Hitchhikers cool.
It's like taking the surrealism out of Monty Python.
> If you didn't enjoy it, that's a decision you've made and too
> bad, I think.
It's not a decision I've made. I would have loved to have enjoyed it.
You think I *decided* not to like this movie? I couldn't help it
because I found it so crushingly *terrible* in parts. There were parts
I really really liked, believe it or not.
You're really doing yourself a disservice, especially since
> what's done is done and won't be undone for all the criticality in the
> world.
How am I doing myself a disservice? I'm just voicing my opinion. If
you're wondering why I'm here, I'm biding my time till the new radio
play comes out - I'd love to talk to people about it. And the movie
reminded me of why I love h2g2 so much so I thought I'd talk to other
die-hard fans.
I realise people might take my criticisms of the movie personally, but
they're not intended to be taken that way, really.
Nancy.
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #27555 ] |
Di, 03 Mai 2005 17:20 |
|
Dave Adalian wrote:
> "Kaare Fiedler Christiansen" <news [at] kaarefc.dk> wrote in message
> news:42769917$0$758$edfadb0f [at] dread16.news.tele.dk...
>
>><snip>
>>
>>>I find it worth remarking that almost everyone who disliked the movie did
>>>so for different reasons, all variations on "it's not the same" as the
>>>book / radio show / TV show / recordings / computer game but those who
>>>like it are mostly, but not entirely, in agreement. The movie isn't
>>>unfunny. It's just different. If you didn't enjoy it, that's a decision
>>>you've made and too bad, I think. You're really doing yourself a
>>>disservice, especially since what's done is done and won't be undone for
>>>all the criticality in the world.
>>
>>Strange. I've read all the reviews and I think the most criticism I have
>>seen is not "It's different" but "the plot doesn't work, and the jokes
>>aren't funny". It seems we have read different reviews, or at least
>>focused on different things.
>>
>
>
> I'm not talking about professional published reviews. I meant the stuff
> here and on other DNA fora.
>
Yeah - Kaare basically said what I said in my reviews and criticism, and
what other people have said, too. Sure, I've voiced the 'it'd be nice
if it were more similar' but I didn't want an ad verbatim reproduction.
Nancy.
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #27572 ] |
Di, 03 Mai 2005 21:52 |
|
Dave Adalian wrote:
> "Kaare Fiedler Christiansen" <news [at] kaarefc.dk> wrote in message
> news:42769917$0$758$edfadb0f [at] dread16.news.tele.dk...
>
>><snip>
>>
>>>I find it worth remarking that almost everyone who disliked the movie did
>>>so for different reasons, all variations on "it's not the same" as the
>>>book / radio show / TV show / recordings / computer game but those who
>>>like it are mostly, but not entirely, in agreement.
<snip>
>>Strange. I've read all the reviews and I think the most criticism I have
>>seen is not "It's different" but "the plot doesn't work, and the jokes
>>aren't funny". It seems we have read different reviews, or at least
>>focused on different things.
>
> I'm not talking about professional published reviews. I meant the stuff
> here and on other DNA fora.
So did I. I really can't follow that people are complaining mostly about
the movie not being like previous versions. I think people are mostly
saying that it isn't really very funny and the plot has gaping holes,
even for people who know the books.
Sure, there are some of the postings where people really miss parts from
the books (and some of the reviews I ignore because they aren't really
reviews, but rather abuse, contain a lot of "They fucking butchered the
fucking books and put in fucking all this fucking lame stuff they should
die fuck fuck") but the bulk of the negativism seem to be against no
funny jokes and a bad plot.
A strange thing, though, is that people with positive attitudes to the
moviue seem to think the acting was mostly great, while people negative
to the movie tend to think the acting was wooden. I am happy to report
that contrary to all fears, no one has claimed that Mos Def said a
single "Yo", though :-)
Best
Kåre
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #27578 ] |
Di, 03 Mai 2005 22:19 |
|
"nacey" <nacey [at] nospam.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:42779684$0$12813$5a62ac22 [at] per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> How am I doing myself a disservice? I'm just voicing my opinion.
Sorry. I mean it. I apologize. You are, of course, absolutely right in
ever conceivable way. How stupid of me not to have seen it before now. It
was the worst movie ever made, and you are right to complain, cry, carp,
collapse into a heap and moan, etc., which is the only logical reaction.
Carry on. By way of penance I'm going to force myself to sit through the
movie again just to bring home all of your points. I just hope my psyche
holds up under the pressure. Wish me luck.
Chiggy.
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #27615 ] |
Mi, 04 Mai 2005 04:38 |
|
Dave Adalian wrote:
> "nacey" <nacey [at] nospam.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:42779684$0$12813$5a62ac22 [at] per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>>How am I doing myself a disservice? I'm just voicing my opinion.
>
>
> Sorry. I mean it. I apologize. You are, of course, absolutely right in
> ever conceivable way. How stupid of me not to have seen it before now. It
> was the worst movie ever made, and you are right to complain, cry, carp,
> collapse into a heap and moan, etc., which is the only logical reaction.
> Carry on. By way of penance I'm going to force myself to sit through the
> movie again just to bring home all of your points. I just hope my psyche
> holds up under the pressure. Wish me luck.
>
*blinks* See - you had to go be an arsehole about it all, didn't you?
I never made fun of you in these posts - I just criticised the movie.
Do you really think your behaviour is necessary?
-Nancy.
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #29399 ] |
Do, 05 Mai 2005 22:25 |
|
In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, nacey's voice said the following,
in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion levels so low as to
make a man weep:
*SPOILERS*
>>> Could be that Marvin's line means precisely what we know the end of
>>> the universe to mean, and that Zaphod has assumed it in a more
>>> literal 3 dimensional context.
>>
>> That's a good way of looking at it, Marvin may mean "other" in a
>> variety of ways, and as he does have that brain the size of a planet...
>>
> Naah. It was just a cheap shot at the last joke.
How can you be sure of that? Did you write the script? You cannot prove
that it did not mean it the way that I have suggested it could be interpreted.
--
John Coxon
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted then
used against you.
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #29402 ] |
Do, 05 Mai 2005 22:39 |
|
In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, nacey's voice said the following,
in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion levels so low as to
make a man weep:
> Dave Adalian wrote:
>
>> Of course there's no end to the Universe. It's a funny set-up line,
>> the "other end" doubly so. Good joke, I thought. (And, do you
>> remember that Adams was the first to suggest there were two ends to
>> his universe, or have you forgotten the Big Bang Burger Barn? Yes, I
>> know you were talking about a physical direction, not a temporal one,
>> but that's the way Adams has always treated time, as though it was
>> river you could camp along at different sites.)
And also by "other" Marvin could have been saying "no, not the end as in
physically, it's the temporal end of the universe, you zarking fardwarks."
> No. Why would they go to the Big Bang Burger Barn? That's not the end
> of the universe - it's the beginning. It doesn't work in the joke -
> the joke is shit.
It's one end. If you look at time logically, you have to say that there is
a beginning and an end in a line (at least, from our perspective).
Therefore you can class the beginning as the beginning. But what about the
creatures in the Tertiary Phase who live backwards in time? Then the
beginning would become the end. Therefore there are two ends and two
beginnings, looking at it from the view of other DNA writings, therefore you
can conclude that this viewpoint from Dave cannot be ruled out.
> a) The characters are still themselves
> b) The storylines MAKE SENSE
> c) They're still gut-bustingly funny in a witty, clever, although
> somewhat cynical but always accurate way.
OK. If you think that you're right about (a) then I'd check out the comics.
And Slartibartfast goes from doddering old man to suddenly motivated
galaxy saver? hmm, your argument's not very well proven by the Guide, there.
(b) is just blatantly untrue in ANY version of the Hitchhiker's Guide,
because the basic underlying principles don't make sense at all.
Hyperspatial express routes exist outside space, therefore Earth would not
have needed demolishing, which proves the radio series, for the most part,
wrong (you can follow this up about the psychiatrists but they were only in
Zaphod's hallucinations anyway, y'see). The books are not exactly making
sense - so Arthur can fly and Fenchurch just happens to live at the place
where he decides his cave was? Hmmm, yeah. Riiight.
HHGG does not make sense, period. No version does. It makes more sense
than some sci-fi but a heck of a lot less than crime fiction, for example.
Oh, and (c) is true of the movie as well. So the movie disregards (a) and
(b) just like the other versions have been known to do and then it fulfills
(c). So in the end, all your points can either apply to the movie or have
been broken by other Guide versions, and therefore can't be used as
arguments against this particular one.
>> The movie isn't unfunny.
>
> Yes it is. It's about as funny as a car-crash for the most part.
Oh, for Bob's sake! You can't state that as a fact! It's your zarking
opinion, and we know you didn't like it, but you don't hear me going on and
on and on about how I loved the film and how everybody else is therefore
wrong, do you?
Just stop the argument here. Neither of you stands a hope in hell of
winning, as you can't win this sort of thing, and so it's very very
pointless indeed.
Plus, afda is meant to be a hip and cool place to be, and you two are
hotting up like whelks in a supernova. Just chill, froods.
--
John Coxon
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted then
used against you.
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #29433 ] |
Fr, 06 Mai 2005 02:49 |
|
"John Coxon" <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3dvdorFdrihU2 [at] individual.net...
> In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, nacey's voice said the
> following, in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion levels
> so low as to make a man weep:
>
> *SPOILERS*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>> That's a good way of looking at it, Marvin may mean "other" in a variety
>>> of ways, and as he does have that brain the size of a planet...
>>>
>> Naah. It was just a cheap shot at the last joke.
>
> How can you be sure of that? Did you write the script? You cannot prove
> that it did not mean it the way that I have suggested it could be
> interpreted.
>
In literary criticism, this is known as the "intentional fallacy". The
concept is that any interpretation of a text is valid regardless of the
author's original intent. So, if you say a cigar is a symbol of sexuality
and I say a cigar is a symbol of death, we're both right no matter what the
guy who wrote about the cigar had in mind, even if the cigar is just a
smoke. Cut's down on duels to the death in defense of one's honor.
Chiggy.
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #29455 ] |
Fr, 06 Mai 2005 16:08 |
|
John Coxon wrote:
<snip>
>> a) The characters are still themselves
>> b) The storylines MAKE SENSE
>> c) They're still gut-bustingly funny in a witty, clever, although
>> somewhat cynical but always accurate way.
>
> OK. If you think that you're right about (a) then I'd check out the
> comics. And Slartibartfast goes from doddering old man to suddenly
> motivated galaxy saver? hmm, your argument's not very well proven by
> the Guide, there.
Okay, so almost everybody agrees that the comics is a bad version. That
more or less takes care of that argument.
I agree with you about Slartibartfast, though. I always found that a
week point, and a point where it really shows this is an adapted script.
Than again, considering that a weak point shows that a) indeed holds,
because it is exactly an atypical situation for the characters in HHG.
> (b) is just blatantly untrue in ANY version of the Hitchhiker's Guide,
> because the basic underlying principles don't make sense at all.
> Hyperspatial express routes exist outside space, therefore Earth would
> not have needed demolishing, which proves the radio series, for the most
> part, wrong (you can follow this up about the psychiatrists but they
> were only in Zaphod's hallucinations anyway, y'see). The books are not
> exactly making sense - so Arthur can fly and Fenchurch just happens to
> live at the place where he decides his cave was? Hmmm, yeah. Riiight.
>
> HHGG does not make sense, period. No version does. It makes more sense
> than some sci-fi but a heck of a lot less than crime fiction, for example.
Well, they make sense internally, in that if you follow the underlying
assumptions in all the other version, the universe fits together [pi^2].
Apparently some feel it doesn't in the movie, which is what I hear as a
main point in the complaints I see against the movie (again, I haven't
seen it myself, I'm just going by what I read on the froup)
The fact that the above things don't really make sense is not an
internal inconsistency, since it's simply underlying assumptions for the
universe described in Hitchhiker's Guide. (I don't know how you know
that Hyperspace doesn't require normal space to be empty, I thought we
were talking about only theories there, so more or less anything is
possible, but even if it is true, it doesn't invalidate my previous
argument).
If you have read Terry Pratchett you have a prime exapmle there of what
I'm talking about, which may be clearer, since the universe is slightly
more well-defined: Nothing on the Discworld makes any sense by our
standards whatsoever, but the universe is internally consistent. That is
what makes both Discworld, Hitchhiker's Guide, and, for that matter,
Lord of the Rings so great: A welldefined cool universe that is
internally consistent (I'm repeating myself, aren't I?)
> Oh, and (c) is true of the movie as well. So the movie disregards (a)
> and (b) just like the other versions have been known to do and then it
> fulfills (c). So in the end, all your points can either apply to the
> movie or have been broken by other Guide versions, and therefore can't
> be used as arguments against this particular one.
>
>>> The movie isn't unfunny.
>>
>> Yes it is. It's about as funny as a car-crash for the most part.
>
> Oh, for Bob's sake! You can't state that as a fact! It's your zarking
> opinion, and we know you didn't like it, but you don't hear me going on
> and on and on about how I loved the film and how everybody else is
> therefore wrong, do you?
Well, here we get to the point that actually compelled me to reply: YES
I BLOODY WELL DO!! You keep going on about it, and your arguments are as
predictable as Nancy's (sorry Nancy).
> Just stop the argument here. Neither of you stands a hope in hell of
> winning, as you can't win this sort of thing, and so it's very very
> pointless indeed.
So why don't you take your own advice? Honestly, your points are just as
subjective as Nancy's!
> Plus, afda is meant to be a hip and cool place to be, and you two are
> hotting up like whelks in a supernova. Just chill, froods.
Well, there we agree at least.
Best
Kåre
[pi^2]
This is true until Mostly Harmless where all the understandings of time
contradict the previous assumption that time just fits together like a
jigsaw puzzle, which is my main grievance against Mostly Harmless,
(well, that and the complicated turn of events in the end of the story,
which is a grievance shared with both Dirk Gently novels)
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #29456 ] |
Fr, 06 Mai 2005 16:17 |
|
Dave Adalian wrote:
<snip>
> In literary criticism, this is known as the "intentional fallacy". The
> concept is that any interpretation of a text is valid regardless of the
> author's original intent.
Ah, yes, my Danish teacher (remember this is the same as your English
teachers) tought me about that.
I have to admit, that I have always thought that if I were an author I'd
be quite annoyed with this outlook on my work, no bloody literary critic
should tell me what I meant when I wrote my book...
I agree that there may be some things written subconsciously, but some
of the analysis that was conducted during those classes was so far
fetched that I really ended up HATING those classes.
Who are literary critcs to decide that there is incestous intentions in
the work of some poor author, where the author surely didn't intend it?
How would you feel as an author, if you were told you subconscious had
written incestous litterature? I know I would be mad as hell!
Well, I'm sorry, but I'm of the school where I think the author is the
only valid source for intentions of a work, where the intentions are not
obvious. Sure, it's okay to analyze literature, but if the author says:
"No that was never in my mind, and that's certainly not the message I
wish to send", then the author is always bloody right (or lying, but
that's not the point).
All this, of course, has no relevance in the discussion at hand, it was
just an oportunity to express my view.
Best
Kåre
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #29533 ] |
Sa, 07 Mai 2005 01:53 |
|
"Kaare Fiedler Christiansen" <news [at] kaarefc.dk> wrote in message
news:427b7c6c$0$672$edfadb0f [at] dread16.news.tele.dk...
> Dave Adalian wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> In literary criticism, this is known as the "intentional fallacy". The
>> concept is that any interpretation of a text is valid regardless of the
>> author's original intent.
>
> Ah, yes, my Danish teacher (remember this is the same as your English
> teachers) tought me about that.
>
> I have to admit, that I have always thought that if I were an author I'd
> be quite annoyed with this outlook on my work, no bloody literary critic
> should tell me what I meant when I wrote my book...
>
> I agree that there may be some things written subconsciously, but some of
> the analysis that was conducted during those classes was so far fetched
> that I really ended up HATING those classes.
>
> Who are literary critcs to decide that there is incestous intentions in
> the work of some poor author, where the author surely didn't intend it?
> How would you feel as an author, if you were told you subconscious had
> written incestous litterature? I know I would be mad as hell!
>
> Well, I'm sorry, but I'm of the school where I think the author is the
> only valid source for intentions of a work, where the intentions are not
> obvious. Sure, it's okay to analyze literature, but if the author says:
> "No that was never in my mind, and that's certainly not the message I wish
> to send", then the author is always bloody right (or lying, but that's not
> the point).
>
> All this, of course, has no relevance in the discussion at hand, it was
> just an oportunity to express my view.
>
Life is just an opportunity to express one's views.
I don't get upset about people misinterpreting what I've written. See, if
they're interpreting it, that means they're reading it, and I'd rather they
were saying stupid things about me rather than nothing at all.
Chiggy.
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #29580 ] |
Sa, 07 Mai 2005 13:04 |
|
Dave Adalian wrote:
<snip>
> Life is just an opportunity to express one's views.
>
> I don't get upset about people misinterpreting what I've written. See, if
> they're interpreting it, that means they're reading it, and I'd rather they
> were saying stupid things about me rather than nothing at all.
Ah, you misunderstand me. I do not mind people misinterpreting me or
anyone, I object ot them claiming their interpretation is correct.
Best
Kåre
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #29665 ] |
Sa, 07 Mai 2005 23:25 |
|
"Kaare Fiedler Christiansen" <news [at] kaarefc.dk> wrote in message
news:427ca0d0$0$666$edfadb0f [at] dread16.news.tele.dk...
> Dave Adalian wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Life is just an opportunity to express one's views.
>>
>> I don't get upset about people misinterpreting what I've written. See,
>> if they're interpreting it, that means they're reading it, and I'd rather
>> they were saying stupid things about me rather than nothing at all.
>
> Ah, you misunderstand me. I do not mind people misinterpreting me or
> anyone, I object ot them claiming their interpretation is correct.
>
Doesn't matter. They are right. You are, too. These things are mutually
exclusive. It's not a zero-sum situation.
Chiggy.
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #29703 ] |
So, 08 Mai 2005 11:38 |
|
Dave Adalian wrote:
> "Kaare Fiedler Christiansen" <news [at] kaarefc.dk> wrote in message
> news:427ca0d0$0$666$edfadb0f [at] dread16.news.tele.dk...
>
>>Dave Adalian wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Life is just an opportunity to express one's views.
>>>
>>>I don't get upset about people misinterpreting what I've written. See,
>>>if they're interpreting it, that means they're reading it, and I'd rather
>>>they were saying stupid things about me rather than nothing at all.
>>
>>Ah, you misunderstand me. I do not mind people misinterpreting me or
>>anyone, I object ot them claiming their interpretation is correct.
>
> Doesn't matter. They are right. You are, too. These things are mutually
> exclusive. It's not a zero-sum situation.
Who says they are right? It's a funny thing, really, that not only do
these literary critics try to put intentions in that were never there,
but it's the same literary critics that afterwards invent the term
"intentional fallacy" that means they can claim they are right.
No, it just doesn't sit with me. Actually, it's a that point I feel
literary criticism stops to have anything to offer, because it's only a
small group of people who either agree with or understand the
interpretations given by these ciritics (namely the group of other
literary critics), which in my opinion invalidates the interpretations -
they're more conventions and ionventions by literary critics than any
unintentional message by the author.
Now, the worst of it is that most of the unintentional messages claimed
left there by the author are extremely unfalttering to say the least.
For some reason everything in a text is written by sex, it seems, and
often by forbidden sex, like incest, bestiality, you name it. Although I
agree that sex does play a large part in the human psyche, I do believe
it is possible to write a text which has no message or symbolism that
points to sex - unless you; the reader; want it to do so.
With equal right as the existing conventions, I suppose I could start a
school of literary criticism, where everything, whatsoever, has
subconscious messages about communism. If anyone objected to that, I
could simply define myself to be right, even if the author didn't agree.
I would then proceed to call the authors simpletons for not
understanding or accepting my interpratations by wrapping it in some
fancy words.
Honestly, you'd think Dogbert invented literary criticism!
Best
Kåre
|
|
|
| Re: Review: Hitchhiker's Guide [message #29775 ] |
So, 08 Mai 2005 21:25 |
|
"Kaare Fiedler Christiansen" <news [at] kaarefc.dk> wrote in message
news:d5kmmk$d0a$1 [at] domitilla.aioe.org...
> Dave Adalian wrote:
>> "Kaare Fiedler Christiansen" <news [at] kaarefc.dk> wrote in message
>> news:427ca0d0$0$666$edfadb0f [at] dread16.news.tele.dk...
>>
>>>Dave Adalian wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>Life is just an opportunity to express one's views.
>>>>
>>>>I don't get upset about people misinterpreting what I've written. See,
>>>>if they're interpreting it, that means they're reading it, and I'd
>>>>rather they were saying stupid things about me rather than nothing at
>>>>all.
>>>
>>>Ah, you misunderstand me. I do not mind people misinterpreting me or
>>>anyone, I object ot them claiming their interpretation is correct.
>>
>> Doesn't matter. They are right. You are, too. These things are
>> mutually exclusive. It's not a zero-sum situation.
>
> Who says they are right? It's a funny thing, really, that not only do
> these literary critics try to put intentions in that were never there, but
> it's the same literary critics that afterwards invent the term
> "intentional fallacy" that means they can claim they are right.
>
> No, it just doesn't sit with me. Actually, it's a that point I feel
> literary criticism stops to have anything to offer, because it's only a
> small group of people who either agree with or understand the
> interpretations given by these ciritics (namely the group of other
> literary critics), which in my opinion invalidates the interpretations -
> they're more conventions and ionventions by literary critics than any
> unintentional message by the author.
>
> Now, the worst of it is that most of the unintentional messages claimed
> left there by the author are extremely unfalttering to say the least. For
> some reason everything in a text is written by sex, it seems, and often by
> forbidden sex, like incest, bestiality, you name it. Although I agree that
> sex does play a large part in the human psyche, I do believe it is
> possible to write a text which has no message or symbolism that points to
> sex - unless you; the reader; want it to do so.
>
> With equal right as the existing conventions, I suppose I could start a
> school of literary criticism, where everything, whatsoever, has
> subconscious messages about communism. If anyone objected to that, I could
> simply define myself to be right, even if the author didn't agree. I would
> then proceed to call the authors simpletons for not understanding or
> accepting my interpratations by wrapping it in some fancy words.
>
> Honestly, you'd think Dogbert invented literary criticism!
>
I think the point is the author may not in fact know what it was he was
writing about. There is that unconscious aspect of all art, wherein the
artist or author may include things that take on an unintended symbolic
meaning; and all art is eclectic, borrowing symbols from other works that
retain their previous meaning despite their new context. It may not have
been an intended meaning, but it is a relevant one that adds a deeper layer
to the work. I believe this is justifiable as the creative process is still
almost but not entirely completely a mystery even to those who seem to have
mastered it.
Chiggy.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 10:34:41 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,09445 Sekunden |
