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
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Science Fiction » alt.fan.douglas-adams » Some thoughts
Some thoughts [message #27562] Di, 03 Mai 2005 20:47
Newob Det  
(WARNING: SPOILERS!)

Previously on "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy,"
Douglas Adams wrote a smart radio play, five funny books,
a computer text adventure, and more, about the end of the
world and the happy-go-lucky days that followed. Arthur,
Ford, Trillian, and Zaphod had the most improbable
adventures and laughed at the most serious situations
imaginable, because, after all, in an infinite universe,
even the most staggering coincidences and mind-boggling
events are likely to happen.

In an infinite universe, it's even possible that Douglas
Adams died tragically and Disney made a predictable movie
from his story. It's even possible that they left out
the unlikely conversations and most of the suggestions of
infinity. But, what else was there? How could they
arrive at the same story without mentioning the literal
improbability of it? Why, by leaving out all the irony!

Improbably, Disney didn't mention what made the
destruction of Earth so funny! Naturally a dispossessed
Earthling would be curious about the reputation of his
recently deceased planet. What did that wholly
remarkable, compendious Hitchhiker's Guide say about it?
"Harmless," Ford tells Arthur. "Mostly harmless," after
Ford's rewrite. In the unlikely event that the Earth
will come to an end on a Thursday afternoon, to make way
for an unnecessary hyperspace bypass, nobody else in the
Galaxy would care! Can you laugh about the end of the
world? Of course you can, and you probably should,
because being unhappy about it wouldn't make it any
better!

The Earth, our home, was literally insignificant, and by
implication, all of our lives, religions, and socieities!
Not only that, but it was regarded as an unfashionable
Galactic backwater! The story made fun of everybody and
everything! It reflected the way life has of chewing you
up and spitting you back out. But by pointing out that
we're all in the same boat, it made knowing it not so
depressing after all. And in annihilating the Earth for
no reason at all, it suggested that we ought to enjoy it
more and treat it better while we are still here.

Nor did the Disney version point out that the Babel Fish,
by virtue of being so improbable, proved God's existence,
and therefore, made faith unnecessary. And poof! caused
God to cease to exist! (Of course then the author of
this argument went on to prove that black was white and
got run over at the nearest zebra crossing.) But that
was the whole pretense of the Babel Fish! It provided a
suspension of disbelief for the standard science-fiction
device of having everybody speak the same language! At
once it made fun of the idea, and made it work for the
story. Exactly what you would expect, exactly the way
you wouldn't expect it! Without the deliberate irony,
it's just a standard science fiction device!

The Infinite Improbability Drive was designed to cause
the least likely coincidences. It was a deliberate
comment about the unlikelihood of exactly the sort of
space adventure Douglas Adams created, making fun of
itself at the same time as giving you a reason to enjoy
it! Without the explicit self-referential commentary,
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," is just a
standard space adventure and the plot devices are just
plot devices and the characters don't have any
personality!

Then again, the least likely imaginable scenario was
that Disney would make a movie laughing at the end of
the earth, with characters who made exactly the sort
of observations you might if you were caught in that
situation. The fact that they presented a tale of
absurdity in a wholly predictable way was exactly what
you would expect. And in removing the ironic pretense
of the story, they have ironically confirmed what
Douglas Adams anticipated in the fifth and last
Hitchhiker book, "Mostly Harmless."

In that book the creator of the Guide, Ford Prefect,
was dispossessed of its publication because his former
colleagues fired him and turned it into a corporate
monster. And so it seems that "Mostly Harmless" has
become a fictional documentary about the real-life
future history of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the
Galaxy." The new corporate overlords have lobotomized
the first episode of the series, leaving out its most
depressing bits, which were ironically also its
funniest. Truly, the universe we live in must really
be the product of a deranged imagination.

Or, have they written a new chapter in the story that,
by virtue of being wholly unironic, has ironically
affirmed exactly what Douglas Adams wrote? They have
taken the Douglas Adams universe and blown it up!
And left his fans in a new world, without the import
of the Ultimate Question, where society at large
doesn't care about their preoccupations! Where the
utter misunderstanding of irony is explicit, and
probability is irrelevant.

But if I ever learned anything from Douglas Adams,
besides to keep my towel close to me, it is that you
can laugh about anything! Even the destruction of
your own planet! Even the disambiguation of your own
favorite riddles! Even in death, the irony of Douglas
Adams strikes where you would least expect it. And if
that means that we have discovered exactly what his
universe was for and why it was created, then it is now
free to be replaced by something even more bizzarrely
inexplicable.

In a departure from Adams, Disney restored the Earth in
the first installment of the story, for a happy ending.
You might be thinking that changes everything. But all
is not lost. In the last book, the Vogons destroyed
Earth in every possible universe, and so, that is still
true. Who is to say that the Earth can't be destroyed
again, in the sequel? In an infinite universe, that
possibility is guaranteed. And so there is still the
possibility, however improbable, that the Infinite
Improbablity Drive can restore normality ... er,
improbability ... er, irony, to the story.

Ted Bowen
Kent, OH
ebowen [at] kent.edu
Re: Some thoughts [message #27600 ] Mi, 04 Mai 2005 01:12
Neil Coward  
oh fuck off it was a great film
and I say that as someone who has bought the books, the records, the radio
show tapes, and the TV show DVD and even played the computer game.

There is so much to cram into the film and only a limited amount of space
(I'm sure you can see the irony here) . So HHGTTG fans can bleat on till the
cows come home about "this missed THIS bit...they missed THAT bit..they
didn't put THIS bit in booo hoooo hoooo"

I read today that its got to no 1 at the American box office so how d'you
like THEM apples mister??

and didn't Arthur say "this must be a Thursday, I could never get the hang
of Thursdays" so the world might not have come to an end on a Thursday as
you say. Arthur was just guessing it was a Thursday.



"Newob Det" <ebowen [at] kent.edu> wrote in message
news:1115146045.579516.195220 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> (WARNING: SPOILERS!)
>
> Previously on "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy,"
> Douglas Adams wrote a smart radio play, five funny books,
> a computer text adventure, and more, about the end of the
> world and the happy-go-lucky days that followed. Arthur,
> Ford, Trillian, and Zaphod had the most improbable
> adventures and laughed at the most serious situations
> imaginable, because, after all, in an infinite universe,
> even the most staggering coincidences and mind-boggling
> events are likely to happen.
>
> In an infinite universe, it's even possible that Douglas
> Adams died tragically and Disney made a predictable movie
> from his story. It's even possible that they left out
> the unlikely conversations and most of the suggestions of
> infinity. But, what else was there? How could they
> arrive at the same story without mentioning the literal
> improbability of it? Why, by leaving out all the irony!
>
> Improbably, Disney didn't mention what made the
> destruction of Earth so funny! Naturally a dispossessed
> Earthling would be curious about the reputation of his
> recently deceased planet. What did that wholly
> remarkable, compendious Hitchhiker's Guide say about it?
> "Harmless," Ford tells Arthur. "Mostly harmless," after
> Ford's rewrite. In the unlikely event that the Earth
> will come to an end on a Thursday afternoon, to make way
> for an unnecessary hyperspace bypass, nobody else in the
> Galaxy would care! Can you laugh about the end of the
> world? Of course you can, and you probably should,
> because being unhappy about it wouldn't make it any
> better!
>
> The Earth, our home, was literally insignificant, and by
> implication, all of our lives, religions, and socieities!
> Not only that, but it was regarded as an unfashionable
> Galactic backwater! The story made fun of everybody and
> everything! It reflected the way life has of chewing you
> up and spitting you back out. But by pointing out that
> we're all in the same boat, it made knowing it not so
> depressing after all. And in annihilating the Earth for
> no reason at all, it suggested that we ought to enjoy it
> more and treat it better while we are still here.
>
> Nor did the Disney version point out that the Babel Fish,
> by virtue of being so improbable, proved God's existence,
> and therefore, made faith unnecessary. And poof! caused
> God to cease to exist! (Of course then the author of
> this argument went on to prove that black was white and
> got run over at the nearest zebra crossing.) But that
> was the whole pretense of the Babel Fish! It provided a
> suspension of disbelief for the standard science-fiction
> device of having everybody speak the same language! At
> once it made fun of the idea, and made it work for the
> story. Exactly what you would expect, exactly the way
> you wouldn't expect it! Without the deliberate irony,
> it's just a standard science fiction device!
>
> The Infinite Improbability Drive was designed to cause
> the least likely coincidences. It was a deliberate
> comment about the unlikelihood of exactly the sort of
> space adventure Douglas Adams created, making fun of
> itself at the same time as giving you a reason to enjoy
> it! Without the explicit self-referential commentary,
> "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," is just a
> standard space adventure and the plot devices are just
> plot devices and the characters don't have any
> personality!
>
> Then again, the least likely imaginable scenario was
> that Disney would make a movie laughing at the end of
> the earth, with characters who made exactly the sort
> of observations you might if you were caught in that
> situation. The fact that they presented a tale of
> absurdity in a wholly predictable way was exactly what
> you would expect. And in removing the ironic pretense
> of the story, they have ironically confirmed what
> Douglas Adams anticipated in the fifth and last
> Hitchhiker book, "Mostly Harmless."
>
> In that book the creator of the Guide, Ford Prefect,
> was dispossessed of its publication because his former
> colleagues fired him and turned it into a corporate
> monster. And so it seems that "Mostly Harmless" has
> become a fictional documentary about the real-life
> future history of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the
> Galaxy." The new corporate overlords have lobotomized
> the first episode of the series, leaving out its most
> depressing bits, which were ironically also its
> funniest. Truly, the universe we live in must really
> be the product of a deranged imagination.
>
> Or, have they written a new chapter in the story that,
> by virtue of being wholly unironic, has ironically
> affirmed exactly what Douglas Adams wrote? They have
> taken the Douglas Adams universe and blown it up!
> And left his fans in a new world, without the import
> of the Ultimate Question, where society at large
> doesn't care about their preoccupations! Where the
> utter misunderstanding of irony is explicit, and
> probability is irrelevant.
>
> But if I ever learned anything from Douglas Adams,
> besides to keep my towel close to me, it is that you
> can laugh about anything! Even the destruction of
> your own planet! Even the disambiguation of your own
> favorite riddles! Even in death, the irony of Douglas
> Adams strikes where you would least expect it. And if
> that means that we have discovered exactly what his
> universe was for and why it was created, then it is now
> free to be replaced by something even more bizzarrely
> inexplicable.
>
> In a departure from Adams, Disney restored the Earth in
> the first installment of the story, for a happy ending.
> You might be thinking that changes everything. But all
> is not lost. In the last book, the Vogons destroyed
> Earth in every possible universe, and so, that is still
> true. Who is to say that the Earth can't be destroyed
> again, in the sequel? In an infinite universe, that
> possibility is guaranteed. And so there is still the
> possibility, however improbable, that the Infinite
> Improbablity Drive can restore normality ... er,
> improbability ... er, irony, to the story.
>
> Ted Bowen
> Kent, OH
> ebowen [at] kent.edu
>
Re: Some thoughts [message #27603 ] Mi, 04 Mai 2005 01:44
Watson  
Neil,
I have to say I am in agreement with you. I'm a huge fan, me and H2G2
go way back, and I thought it was fine. There is indeed only so much
one can fit in a 2-hour film, and when you think about how complicated
H2G2 is I think they did an okay job. A lot of the dialogue was taken
from the book verbatim. Yes, they added stuff. Yes, they took stuff
out. We take the story for granted because we are familiar with it, but
to appeal to a wide audience they had to organize it in a way that is
easy to follow. I think the actors were fine. Mos Def was a surprise as
Ford, I think he nailed it.
My husband, who is is unfamiliar with H2G2, really enjoyed the film. So
I guess the studio accomplished what they were after: a movie that will
make a profit. Who knows? Maybe sales of the books will be revived. At
least some attention is being paid to Adams' work again, which has been
a long time coming.
I enjoyed it-


Neil Coward wrote:
> oh fuck off it was a great film
> and I say that as someone who has bought the books, the records, the
radio
> show tapes, and the TV show DVD and even played the computer game.
>
> There is so much to cram into the film and only a limited amount of
space
> (I'm sure you can see the irony here) . So HHGTTG fans can bleat on
till the
> cows come home about "this missed THIS bit...they missed THAT
bit..they
> didn't put THIS bit in booo hoooo hoooo"
>
> I read today that its got to no 1 at the American box office so how
d'you
> like THEM apples mister??
>
> and didn't Arthur say "this must be a Thursday, I could never get the
hang
> of Thursdays" so the world might not have come to an end on a
Thursday as
> you say. Arthur was just guessing it was a Thursday.
>
>
>
> "Newob Det" <ebowen [at] kent.edu> wrote in message
> news:1115146045.579516.195220 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > (WARNING: SPOILERS!)
> >
> > Previously on "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy,"
> > Douglas Adams wrote a smart radio play, five funny books,
> > a computer text adventure, and more, about the end of the
> > world and the happy-go-lucky days that followed. Arthur,
> > Ford, Trillian, and Zaphod had the most improbable
> > adventures and laughed at the most serious situations
> > imaginable, because, after all, in an infinite universe,
> > even the most staggering coincidences and mind-boggling
> > events are likely to happen.
> >
> > In an infinite universe, it's even possible that Douglas
> > Adams died tragically and Disney made a predictable movie
> > from his story. It's even possible that they left out
> > the unlikely conversations and most of the suggestions of
> > infinity. But, what else was there? How could they
> > arrive at the same story without mentioning the literal
> > improbability of it? Why, by leaving out all the irony!
> >
> > Improbably, Disney didn't mention what made the
> > destruction of Earth so funny! Naturally a dispossessed
> > Earthling would be curious about the reputation of his
> > recently deceased planet. What did that wholly
> > remarkable, compendious Hitchhiker's Guide say about it?
> > "Harmless," Ford tells Arthur. "Mostly harmless," after
> > Ford's rewrite. In the unlikely event that the Earth
> > will come to an end on a Thursday afternoon, to make way
> > for an unnecessary hyperspace bypass, nobody else in the
> > Galaxy would care! Can you laugh about the end of the
> > world? Of course you can, and you probably should,
> > because being unhappy about it wouldn't make it any
> > better!
> >
> > The Earth, our home, was literally insignificant, and by
> > implication, all of our lives, religions, and socieities!
> > Not only that, but it was regarded as an unfashionable
> > Galactic backwater! The story made fun of everybody and
> > everything! It reflected the way life has of chewing you
> > up and spitting you back out. But by pointing out that
> > we're all in the same boat, it made knowing it not so
> > depressing after all. And in annihilating the Earth for
> > no reason at all, it suggested that we ought to enjoy it
> > more and treat it better while we are still here.
> >
> > Nor did the Disney version point out that the Babel Fish,
> > by virtue of being so improbable, proved God's existence,
> > and therefore, made faith unnecessary. And poof! caused
> > God to cease to exist! (Of course then the author of
> > this argument went on to prove that black was white and
> > got run over at the nearest zebra crossing.) But that
> > was the whole pretense of the Babel Fish! It provided a
> > suspension of disbelief for the standard science-fiction
> > device of having everybody speak the same language! At
> > once it made fun of the idea, and made it work for the
> > story. Exactly what you would expect, exactly the way
> > you wouldn't expect it! Without the deliberate irony,
> > it's just a standard science fiction device!
> >
> > The Infinite Improbability Drive was designed to cause
> > the least likely coincidences. It was a deliberate
> > comment about the unlikelihood of exactly the sort of
> > space adventure Douglas Adams created, making fun of
> > itself at the same time as giving you a reason to enjoy
> > it! Without the explicit self-referential commentary,
> > "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," is just a
> > standard space adventure and the plot devices are just
> > plot devices and the characters don't have any
> > personality!
> >
> > Then again, the least likely imaginable scenario was
> > that Disney would make a movie laughing at the end of
> > the earth, with characters who made exactly the sort
> > of observations you might if you were caught in that
> > situation. The fact that they presented a tale of
> > absurdity in a wholly predictable way was exactly what
> > you would expect. And in removing the ironic pretense
> > of the story, they have ironically confirmed what
> > Douglas Adams anticipated in the fifth and last
> > Hitchhiker book, "Mostly Harmless."
> >
> > In that book the creator of the Guide, Ford Prefect,
> > was dispossessed of its publication because his former
> > colleagues fired him and turned it into a corporate
> > monster. And so it seems that "Mostly Harmless" has
> > become a fictional documentary about the real-life
> > future history of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the
> > Galaxy." The new corporate overlords have lobotomized
> > the first episode of the series, leaving out its most
> > depressing bits, which were ironically also its
> > funniest. Truly, the universe we live in must really
> > be the product of a deranged imagination.
> >
> > Or, have they written a new chapter in the story that,
> > by virtue of being wholly unironic, has ironically
> > affirmed exactly what Douglas Adams wrote? They have
> > taken the Douglas Adams universe and blown it up!
> > And left his fans in a new world, without the import
> > of the Ultimate Question, where society at large
> > doesn't care about their preoccupations! Where the
> > utter misunderstanding of irony is explicit, and
> > probability is irrelevant.
> >
> > But if I ever learned anything from Douglas Adams,
> > besides to keep my towel close to me, it is that you
> > can laugh about anything! Even the destruction of
> > your own planet! Even the disambiguation of your own
> > favorite riddles! Even in death, the irony of Douglas
> > Adams strikes where you would least expect it. And if
> > that means that we have discovered exactly what his
> > universe was for and why it was created, then it is now
> > free to be replaced by something even more bizzarrely
> > inexplicable.
> >
> > In a departure from Adams, Disney restored the Earth in
> > the first installment of the story, for a happy ending.
> > You might be thinking that changes everything. But all
> > is not lost. In the last book, the Vogons destroyed
> > Earth in every possible universe, and so, that is still
> > true. Who is to say that the Earth can't be destroyed
> > again, in the sequel? In an infinite universe, that
> > possibility is guaranteed. And so there is still the
> > possibility, however improbable, that the Infinite
> > Improbablity Drive can restore normality ... er,
> > improbability ... er, irony, to the story.
> >
> > Ted Bowen
> > Kent, OH
> > ebowen [at] kent.edu
> >
Re: Some thoughts [message #27618 ] Mi, 04 Mai 2005 04:50
nacey  
Neil Coward wrote:

> oh fuck off it was a great film

That's a bit rude, isn't it?

Nancy.
Re: Some thoughts [message #27619 ] Mi, 04 Mai 2005 04:50
nacey  
Newob Det wrote:

> (WARNING: SPOILERS!)
>
> Previously on "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy,"
> Douglas Adams wrote a smart radio play, five funny books,
> a computer text adventure, and more, about the end of the
> world and the happy-go-lucky days that followed. Arthur,
> Ford, Trillian, and Zaphod had the most improbable
> adventures and laughed at the most serious situations
> imaginable, because, after all, in an infinite universe,
> even the most staggering coincidences and mind-boggling
> events are likely to happen.
>

What a cool review! I agree with you. Can't really add much to this -
I just wanted to say that I liked it! :)

Nancy.
Re: Some thoughts [message #29288 ] Mi, 04 Mai 2005 19:19
Neil Coward  
yeah spose it was, sorry Nancy, sorry Newob Det - it was my second head that
made me write it..


"nacey" <nacey [at] nospam.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:42783859$0$27552$5a62ac22 [at] per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>
> Neil Coward wrote:
>
>> oh fuck off it was a great film
>
> That's a bit rude, isn't it?
>
> Nancy.
Re: Some thoughts [message #29387 ] Do, 05 Mai 2005 20:46
Newob Det  
nacey wrote:
> What a cool review! I agree with you. Can't really add much to this
-
> I just wanted to say that I liked it! :)

Hey thanks. I must point out that although I have the above
misgivings, and partially because it is so funny that the movie sort of
did to Adams what Adams did to Arthur Dent, I did sorta like the movie.
But I LOVED the radio show and books! And the pacing in this movie is
all wrong. It goes from one thing to another so quickly you don't have
time to think about it, let alone laugh about it. But then thinking
won't help this movie be more funny. You can watch it once, enjoy it,
and forget about it. But the books weren't like that. The fun part
about the radio show and books was reiterating their quirky lines and
narrative paradoxes. The movie doesn't encourage that at all.

Newob
Re: Some thoughts [message #29415 ] Do, 05 Mai 2005 23:15
mechdan  
Newob Det wrote:

>Improbably, Disney didn't mention what made the
>destruction of Earth so funny! Naturally a dispossessed
>Earthling would be curious about the reputation of his
>recently deceased planet. What did that wholly
>remarkable, compendious Hitchhiker's Guide say about it?
>"Harmless," Ford tells Arthur. "Mostly harmless," after
>Ford's rewrite. In the unlikely event that the Earth
>will come to an end on a Thursday afternoon, to make way
>for an unnecessary hyperspace bypass, nobody else in the
>Galaxy would care!

The insignificance of Earth is reflected by the parallels
between the Earthling construction crews demolishing
Arthur's home with the Vogon contrustion crews demolishing
Earth. The movie adds a cute new angle to the joke by
putting Arthur's home in the middle of nowhere. The
obvious question it begs is why in the world would they
need to demolish Earth when there's all this uninhabited
space all around it?

The joke has a slightly new angle and one which I imagine
Douglas Adams had written. Ever since the first radio
episode aired, fans have asked him what the point was of
demolishing Earth for a hyperspace bypass. Ultimately,
he arrives at a simple answer--No reason. Utterly
pointless. Just another example of beaurocratic waste.

Of course, later on it turns out that Earth and humans
aren't really so insignificant and that there may in fact
have been ulterior motives for Earth's destruction.
But at the time of the writing of the first episode,
there was no thought of that.

>The Infinite Improbability Drive was designed to cause
>the least likely coincidences. It was a deliberate
>comment about the unlikelihood of exactly the sort of
>space adventure Douglas Adams created, making fun of
>itself at the same time as giving you a reason to enjoy
>it! Without the explicit self-referential commentary,
>"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," is just a
>standard space adventure and the plot devices are just
>plot devices and the characters don't have any
>personality!

You're reading WAY too much into the Infinite Improbability
Drive. It wasn't any sort of self-referential commentary.
It was simply a matter of Douglas Adams having written
episode one with no plausible way to get Ford and Arthur
out alive. All of the ways he thought for them to escape
seemed contrived and highly improbable. Aha! In a flash
of insight, DNA used the improbability of their escape
as the solution rather than the problem.

>In a departure from Adams, Disney restored the Earth in
>the first installment of the story, for a happy ending.
>You might be thinking that changes everything.

Why would this change anything? It's perfectly consistent
with the fourth book. The second Earth WAS built. The
people living on Earth 2 were completely unaware of the
Vogon incident and mainly just noticed the sudden (to
them) absense of the dolphins. In fact, after the second
Earth was built the Earth's entry in the Guide was expanded
to Ford's original submission (i.e. many pages).

What does change everything is that Arthur isn't interested
in living on Earth 2 (Earth's nearest equivalent), and he
doesn't need Fenchurch as a love interest since he already
has Trillian.

Isaac Kuo
Re: Some thoughts [message #29418 ] Fr, 06 Mai 2005 00:04
Newob Det  
mech... [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> The insignificance of Earth is reflected by the parallels
> between the Earthling construction crews demolishing
> Arthur's home with the Vogon contrustion crews demolishing
> Earth.

The events were always in parallel, but (in the books/radio show) there
wasn't anything funny about either the destruction of Arthur's home, or
the destruction of Earth, at first. It was only funny in retrospect
that first the one happened, and then the other. Irony!

But the movie doesn't dwell on either incident long enough for you to
take them seriously; they are treated as simple gags. There is no
wondering "How could this be funny?" It was supposed to be funny on
the face of it! Preventing any ironic reflection.

> You're reading WAY too much into the Infinite Improbability
> Drive. It wasn't any sort of self-referential commentary.
> It was simply a matter of Douglas Adams having written
> episode one with no plausible way to get Ford and Arthur
> out alive. All of the ways he thought for them to escape
> seemed contrived and highly improbable. Aha! In a flash
> of insight, DNA used the improbability of their escape
> as the solution rather than the problem.

And knowing that it was a premise deliberately devised to achieve a
plot point that needed to happen, he made the overt comments about
improbability! It's funnier if you mention, "by the way this part was
really improbable" than if you just make it happen, because it skips
the garbage explanations that usually accompany neat ideas in
science-fiction. And by replacing the garbage explanations with
something funny that said "yeah, we just pulled this out of nowhere,"
it made the satire work.

> Why would this change anything? It's perfectly consistent
> with the fourth book. The second Earth WAS built.

No. The mice decided to scrap the Earth Mark II. They didn't want to
wait another 10 million years for the Question, so they decided to take
Arthur's brain instead.

> The
> people living on Earth 2 were completely unaware of the
> Vogon incident and mainly just noticed the sudden (to
> them) absense of the dolphins.

What, in the books? The Earth Mark II was under construction. Its
purpose was to calculate the Question. It couldn't just appear as it
was, shortly before the Vogons came, if it were to serve the purpose of
the mice.

In SLATFATF the dolphins somehow brought the Earth back. That's what
the fishbowls were all about. How they did it was never adequately
explained. Maybe they paid Slartibartfast to do it. Who knows?

> What does change everything is that Arthur isn't interested
> in living on Earth 2 (Earth's nearest equivalent), and he
> doesn't need Fenchurch as a love interest since he already
> has Trillian.

Yeah, but Trillian could disappear as easily as Fenchurch does in the
books, and that would be truer to the spirit of the books. (In the
radio show, she doesn't last long past the Restaurant at the End of the
Universe!)

Newob
Re: Some thoughts [message #29437 ] Fr, 06 Mai 2005 03:47
Dave Adalian  
"Newob Det" <ebowen [at] kent.edu> wrote in message
news:1115330685.211900.301830 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> In SLATFATF the dolphins somehow brought the Earth back. That's what
> the fishbowls were all about. How they did it was never adequately
> explained. Maybe they paid Slartibartfast to do it. Who knows?
>

The dolphins brought the Earth back? I never got that impression. Can you
give us a reference from the text? And, if the dolphins did have something
to do with the Earth being reconstructed, why aren't they living on it?
They're still missing, remember? The fish bowls obviously mean they know
the Earth Mark II exists, but that doesn't mean they were responsible.


Chiggy.
Re: Some thoughts [message #29461 ] Fr, 06 Mai 2005 17:21
Newob Det  
Dave Adalian wrote:
> The dolphins brought the Earth back? I never got that impression.
Can you
> give us a reference from the text? And, if the dolphins did have
something
> to do with the Earth being reconstructed, why aren't they living on
it?
> They're still missing, remember? The fish bowls obviously mean they
know
> the Earth Mark II exists, but that doesn't mean they were
responsible.
>
>
> Chiggy.

I don't remember any specific explanation being given for the return of
the Earth in "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish." The text says
that the Earth was restored from an alternate dimension, or something
along those lines. But that could mean a lot of different things. I
always got the impression that because the dolphins left their message
on those three fishbowls that the dolphins had some role in restoring
the Earth. How? Who knows. And who says they would want to or even
could come back? How they got off the Earth is never explained either.
I have always thought it was better that way than making up some
pseudo-explanation. Douglas Adams was never about giving a
straightforward explanation, but seeing in what new weird direction
things could go in.

Ted Bowen
Re: Some thoughts [message #29463 ] Fr, 06 Mai 2005 17:38
mechdan  
Newob Det wrote:
>mech... [at] yahoo.com wrote:
>>The insignificance of Earth is reflected by the parallels
>>between the Earthling construction crews demolishing
>>Arthur's home with the Vogon contrustion crews demolishing
>>Earth.

>The events were always in parallel, but (in the
>books/radio show) there wasn't anything funny
>about either the destruction of Arthur's home, or
>the destruction of Earth, at first.

Sure there was. The humor was in the satirical
presentation of the beaurocratic mentality.

"Why has it got to be built?"
"It is a bypass. You've got to build bypasses."
"Didn't anyone consider the alternatives?"
"There aren't any alternatives!"

>It was only funny in retrospect that first the one
>happened, and then the other. Irony!

The ironic humor is that all the uncaring beaurocrats
demolishing Arthur's home get wiped out by equally
uncaring Vogon beaurocrats doing the same thing.

>But the movie doesn't dwell on either incident
>long enough for you to take them seriously;
>they are treated as simple gags.

It is a simple gag. In no version of the story has
the destruction of either Arthur's home nor the Earth
ever meant to be taken seriously--not even for an
instant.

In the movie version, the focus of the gag is shifted
away from beaurocratic droning toward the visual sight
gag of how obviously unnecessary the demolition is.

>>You're reading WAY too much into the Infinite Improbability
>>Drive. It wasn't any sort of self-referential commentary.
>>It was simply a matter of Douglas Adams having written
>>episode one with no plausible way to get Ford and Arthur
>>out alive. All of the ways he thought for them to escape
>>seemed contrived and highly improbable. Aha! In a flash
>>of insight, DNA used the improbability of their escape
>>as the solution rather than the problem.

>And knowing that it was a premise deliberately devised to achieve a
>plot point that needed to happen, he made the overt comments about
>improbability! It's funnier if you mention, "by the way this part was
>really improbable" than if you just make it happen, because it skips
>the garbage explanations that usually accompany neat ideas in
>science-fiction. And by replacing the garbage explanations with
>something funny that said "yeah, we just pulled this out of nowhere,"
>it made the satire work.

What was your complaint again? The movie kept the
explanation of exactly how improbable Ford and Arthur's
rescue was (including the phone number of the Islington
flat where Arthur blew it with Trillian).

>>Why would this change anything? It's perfectly consistent
>>with the fourth book. The second Earth WAS built.

>No. The mice decided to scrap the Earth Mark II.

They canceled their order, leaving the Magratheans with
no final payment but a largely completed Earth Mark II
on their showroom floor.

>>The people living on Earth 2 were completely unaware
>>of the Vogon incident and mainly just noticed the
>>sudden (to them) absense of the dolphins.

>What, in the books? The Earth Mark II was under
>construction. Its purpose was to calculate the
>Question. It couldn't just appear as it was,
>shortly before the Vogons came, if it were to serve
>the purpose of the mice.

>In SLATFATF the dolphins somehow brought the Earth
>back. That's what the fishbowls were all about. How
>they did it was never adequately explained. Maybe
>they paid Slartibartfast to do it. Who knows?

One perfectly plausible explanation is that the dolphins
commissioned it from Magrathea out of sentimentality.
And why not? It's already established that they have a
largely completed Earth on their showroom floor. The
Magratheans don't need to dismantle the Earth to make
room on their showroom, since it's their only job in
living memory and into the foreseeable future.

>>What does change everything is that Arthur isn't interested
>>in living on Earth 2 (Earth's nearest equivalent), and he
>>doesn't need Fenchurch as a love interest since he already
>>has Trillian.

>Yeah, but Trillian could disappear as easily as
>Fenchurch does in the books, and that would be truer
>to the spirit of the books. (In the radio show, she
>doesn't last long past the Restaurant at the End of the
>Universe!)

The problem DNA had with Trillian was that he couldn't
figure out exactly what her dramatic purpose should be.
He left her out of the second radio series since she
really wasn't necessary. He missed the opportunity to
expand her character and her role in the books. At
some point, DNA felt Hitchiker's was missing romance,
so he came up with Fenchurch.

But what about the movie version? Here, DNA gets the
chance to get it right from the start. The setup for
a romantic love triangle was there from the very
first radio episode, it just wasn't ever followed
through on.

Isaac Kuo
Re: Some thoughts [message #29523 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 00:20
Newob Det  
mech... [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> Newob Det wrote:
> >The events were always in parallel, but (in the
> >books/radio show) there wasn't anything funny
> >about either the destruction of Arthur's home, or
> >the destruction of Earth, at first.
>
> Sure there was. The humor was in the satirical
> presentation of the beaurocratic mentality.
>
> "Why has it got to be built?"
> "It is a bypass. You've got to build bypasses."
> "Didn't anyone consider the alternatives?"
> "There aren't any alternatives!"

That is completely straightforward. Which part of making fun of
bureaucrats involves some kind of expectation?

Irony involves an expectation of something and getting something else;
or something you wouldn't expect causing something you would expect
(and vice-versa); or something ambiguous which is typically viewed one
way, illustrated from a completely unexpected angle. Irony involves
disrupting or otherwise rearranging a linear arrangement of things.

It was ironic that Prosser was a bureaucrat, because he was descended
from Ghengis Khan. That is a deliberate departure from expectation
(and therefore also a reference to the expected). It isn't funny
*that* he is a bureaucrat. "Ha! Ha! A bureaucrat!" See? doesn't
work. The jokes *about* him being a bureaucrat are funny. The
conversation he has with Arthur illustrates that he is a stuffy nitwit.
That is funny. But it isn't ironic.

Of course in the movie we never know he was descended from Genghis
Khan; nor was his nitwittedness illustrated very well.

> >It was only funny in retrospect that first the one
> >happened, and then the other. Irony!
>
> The ironic humor is that all the uncaring beaurocrats
> demolishing Arthur's home get wiped out by equally
> uncaring Vogon beaurocrats doing the same thing.

Yes, the fact that they were killed by equally mindless bureaucrats
doing exactly what they had been doing is ironic. But in the film it
is presented straightforwardly. We don't have time to expect or not
expect anything until boom! the Earth is gone. In the radio and book
version we are somewhat glad that all the nitwits are gone too, because
the contemptible nature of the bureaucrats has been impressed upon us.
It isn't ironic that they died if you expected them to get their
comeuppance. They got what they deserved! That is exactly what is
supposed to happen to bad guys.

The demolition of Arthur's home might be funny if the demolition team
had been working with working with the Vogons secretly and planned to
destroy Arthur's home just before the Vogons destroyed Earth.

But they weren't and they didn't know the Vogons and the Vogons
couldn't care less if they lived or died. The Vogons were just doing
the same thing they were, just mindlessly doing their jobs and knocking
down people's homes regardless of who is calculating the Ultimate
Question there. That is ironic. But that doesn't mean that
demolishing people's homes is funny. Arthur didn't think it was funny.

Incidentally the interruption of the Ultimate Question isn't ironic if
we can just rebuild the Earth and instantly calculate it. If they
could do that then they wouldn't have had to wait 10 million years in
the first place.

> >But the movie doesn't dwell on either incident
> >long enough for you to take them seriously;
> >they are treated as simple gags.
>
> It is a simple gag. In no version of the story has
> the destruction of either Arthur's home nor the Earth
> ever meant to be taken seriously--not even for an
> instant.

I suppose you would think it funny if someone bulldozed your home then.
No? Then what makes it funny?

> In the movie version, the focus of the gag is shifted
> away from beaurocratic droning toward the visual sight
> gag of how obviously unnecessary the demolition is.

How is unnecessariness visual? Sight gags involve visual things.

Actually we technically don't know the demolition was unnecessary until
the Infinite Improbability Drive is explained. A powerful new form of
propulsion that makes hyperspace bypasses unnecessary! Too late for
the Earth, oh well. It was just harmless anyway. That is irony. But
it doesn't make blowing up planets funny. "Let's go blow up some
planets because it isn't necessary anymore! Ha! Ha!" That isn't funny
or ironic, but it is sadistic.

> What was your complaint again? The movie kept the
> explanation of exactly how improbable Ford and Arthur's
> rescue was (including the phone number of the Islington
> flat where Arthur blew it with Trillian).

The movie mentions the coincidence of the phone number and the chance
that Ford and Arthur would be rescued. But every other use of the
Improbability Drive results in them landing right where they need to,
or just turning things into other things. It becomes a Plot
Convenience Drive instead of an Infinite Improbability Drive. That
might technically be what the Infinite Improbability drive is, but
there was a reason for calling it an Improbability Drive.

Improbability doesn't just generate what needs to happen so the story
can keep going; it measures the unlikelihood of coincidences. The
characters can travel to unlikely places and cause unlikely things
because the ship can calculate the improbability of a coincidence and
then passes through every point in every possible universe to arrive at
that coincidence. And the mention of it provides a running commentary
on the improbability of the plot. The movie merely presents a series
of surreal images that progress along a predictable plot structure.

> >>Why would this change anything? It's perfectly consistent
> >>with the fourth book. The second Earth WAS built.
>
> >No. The mice decided to scrap the Earth Mark II.
>
> They canceled their order, leaving the Magratheans with
> no final payment but a largely completed Earth Mark II
> on their showroom floor.

Yeah but the Magratheans weren't going to finish the job without
getting paid. They are also raving bureaucrats! They were going to
let the mice take Arthur's brain! They would probably just scrap the
Earth Mark II, even if Slartibartfast objected.

> >In SLATFATF the dolphins somehow brought the Earth
> >back. That's what the fishbowls were all about. How
> >they did it was never adequately explained. Maybe
> >they paid Slartibartfast to do it. Who knows?
>
> One perfectly plausible explanation is that the dolphins
> commissioned it from Magrathea out of sentimentality.
> And why not? It's already established that they have a
> largely completed Earth on their showroom floor. The
> Magratheans don't need to dismantle the Earth to make
> room on their showroom, since it's their only job in
> living memory and into the foreseeable future.

Perhaps so, perhaps not. There is no reason to think so or not to
think so.

> The problem DNA had with Trillian was that he couldn't
> figure out exactly what her dramatic purpose should be.
> He left her out of the second radio series since she
> really wasn't necessary. He missed the opportunity to
> expand her character and her role in the books. At
> some point, DNA felt Hitchiker's was missing romance,
> so he came up with Fenchurch.
>
> But what about the movie version? Here, DNA gets the
> chance to get it right from the start. The setup for
> a romantic love triangle was there from the very
> first radio episode, it just wasn't ever followed
> through on.

Yeah, I kind of felt that way about it. No reason to suppose Fenchurch
will appear in the movies. Trillian was always there, and the only
woman left alive. But after this movie all the other Earth women are
returned to life! What does Trillian like about Arthur, anyway?
Perhaps it is just a simple infatuation and they will quickly break up
and go their separate ways. Perhaps Arthur could still meet up with
Fenchurch. Who knows?

Ted
Re: Some thoughts [message #29611 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 17:20
mechdan  
Newob Det wrote:
> mech... [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> > Newob Det wrote:
> > >The events were always in parallel, but (in the
> > >books/radio show) there wasn't anything funny
> > >about either the destruction of Arthur's home, or
> > >the destruction of Earth, at first.

> > Sure there was. The humor was in the satirical
> > presentation of the beaurocratic mentality.

> > "Why has it got to be built?"
> > "It is a bypass. You've got to build bypasses."
> > "Didn't anyone consider the alternatives?"
> > "There aren't any alternatives!"

> That is completely straightforward. Which part of making fun of
> bureaucrats involves some kind of expectation?

Nothing. It isn't supposed to be ironic, it's
supposed to be FUNNY. For some reason you think
the humor in episode 1 was about irony. However,
not all of it was.

> It was ironic that Prosser was a bureaucrat, because he
> was descended from Ghengis Khan.

Which wasn't in the original radio series, nor the
TV series. It's filler material to make the book
version long enough.

> Of course in the movie we never know he was descended from Genghis
> Khan; nor was his nitwittedness illustrated very well.

In the radio version we never know he was descended
from Genghis Khan. DNA didn't know he was descended
from Genghis Khan. For all intents and purposes, he
WASN'T descended from Genghis Khan. It really has
nothing to do with the main joke, which is simply a
satire of beaurocratic craziness.

(Satire, of course, is the opposite of irony. It takes
preconceived expectations and plays off them.)

> > >It was only funny in retrospect that first the one
> > >happened, and then the other. Irony!

> > The ironic humor is that all the uncaring beaurocrats
> > demolishing Arthur's home get wiped out by equally
> > uncaring Vogon beaurocrats doing the same thing.

> Yes, the fact that they were killed by equally mindless bureaucrats
> doing exactly what they had been doing is ironic. But in the film it
> is presented straightforwardly. We don't have time to expect or not
> expect anything until boom! the Earth is gone.

I just don't know how you get this. The movie version
is essentially similar to previous versions. Sure, some
really good comedy bits were cut out for time, but this
doesn't have any significant effect on building up or
not building up expectations.

> The demolition of Arthur's home might be funny if the demolition team
> had been working with working with the Vogons secretly and planned to
> destroy Arthur's home just before the Vogons destroyed Earth.

No, in the movie version the demolition of Arthur's home
was funny because of how obviously unnecessary it was.
Arthur's home was in the middle of nowhere! They could
have just built the bypass next to Arthur's home, or a
hundred meters away, or a kilometer away, without
demolishing anyone's home.

> > >But the movie doesn't dwell on either incident
> > >long enough for you to take them seriously;
> > >they are treated as simple gags.

> > It is a simple gag. In no version of the story has
> > the destruction of either Arthur's home nor the Earth
> > ever meant to be taken seriously--not even for an
> > instant.

> I suppose you would think it funny if someone bulldozed your home
then.
> No? Then what makes it funny?

Umm...the fact that the movie is a comedy. Pretty much
anything in any Monty Python movie wouldn't be funny if
it happened in real life. But it's just a comedy movie,
so it's okay to laugh at a knight getting his limbs
chopped off.

> > In the movie version, the focus of the gag is shifted
> > away from beaurocratic droning toward the visual sight
> > gag of how obviously unnecessary the demolition is.

> How is unnecessariness visual? Sight gags involve visual things.

Because Arthur's home is shown to be in the middle of of
a grassy plain, with no other homes in sight.

Similarly, Earth is in the middle of empty space. For
someone who was unfamiliar with Hitchiker's, the implication
is that there's no point to destroying Earth either.
Why destroy Earth to make way for a hyperspace bypass
when it's in the middle of so much empty space?

> > What was your complaint again? The movie kept the
> > explanation of exactly how improbable Ford and Arthur's
> > rescue was (including the phone number of the Islington
> > flat where Arthur blew it with Trillian).

> The movie mentions the coincidence of the phone number and the chance
> that Ford and Arthur would be rescued. But every other use of the
> Improbability Drive results in them landing right where they need to,
> or just turning things into other things. It becomes a Plot
> Convenience Drive instead of an Infinite Improbability Drive. That
> might technically be what the Infinite Improbability drive is, but
> there was a reason for calling it an Improbability Drive.

> Improbability doesn't just generate what needs to happen so the story
> can keep going; it measures the unlikelihood of coincidences.

In fact, the Infinite Improbability Drive _did_ become a plot
convenience device. It was like the Sonic Screwdriver or K9
in Doctor Who--a device too incredibly useful for the story's
own good. DNA never did get control over the device in the
first radio series. In the second series, he managed to figure
out some ways to use the concept to its potential, but in the
first series it was just an uncomfortably convenient plot device.

> > >>Why would this change anything? It's perfectly consistent
> > >>with the fourth book. The second Earth WAS built.

> > >No. The mice decided to scrap the Earth Mark II.

> > They canceled their order, leaving the Magratheans with
> > no final payment but a largely completed Earth Mark II
> > on their showroom floor.

> Yeah but the Magratheans weren't going to finish the job without
> getting paid. They are also raving bureaucrats! They were going to
> let the mice take Arthur's brain! They would probably just scrap the
> Earth Mark II, even if Slartibartfast objected.

And as raving bureaucrats, the proper forms would have to
be sent, resent, and recycled as compost before actually
dismantling the unfinished planet. Who can say how long
that would take?

> > One perfectly plausible explanation is that the dolphins
> > commissioned it from Magrathea out of sentimentality.
> > And why not? It's already established that they have a
> > largely completed Earth on their showroom floor. The
> > Magratheans don't need to dismantle the Earth to make
> > room on their showroom, since it's their only job in
> > living memory and into the foreseeable future.

> Perhaps so, perhaps not. There is no reason to think so or not to
> think so.

Which makes it one possibly convenient explanation for
the movie(s) to use if they want. It's a better fit
than they need, since the plot is already very divergent
from the books.

Isaac Kuo
Re: Some thoughts [message #29682 ] So, 08 Mai 2005 04:18
Newob Det  
IsaacKuo wrote:
> Newob Det wrote:
> > That is completely straightforward. Which part of making fun of
> > bureaucrats involves some kind of expectation?
>
> Nothing. It isn't supposed to be ironic, it's
> supposed to be FUNNY. For some reason you think
> the humor in episode 1 was about irony. However,
> not all of it was.

Yeah, the quirky conversations and quips about the end of the world
were funny. The actual destruction of things was ironic. Maybe you
thought it was funny. Maybe you think destroying things is always
funny. But I disagree.

The way I understand humor, the more funny something is, the less
ironic it is; and the less funny something is, the more potential it
has to be ironic precicely to the degree that it is serious. That's
how you can laugh *about* something serious without laughing *at* it.

Let me give you an example. A few years ago, I was in a rock climbing
accident and I was temporarily paralyzed, but with the help of
rehabilitation and a lot of determination, I have been able to re-learn
how to walk almost normally. During that time it helped that I could
laugh and make jokes about the situation I was in. It helped me
because I took it seriously. Because it was serious I could think,
"What would make this funny?" "When I get out of this hospital I want
to be a tight-rope walker," I thought. Or, "Well at least I am not
paralyzed *and* hanging by my toes from a rope, a hundred miles above
the ground." Things like that. The jokes were funny, the situation
was completely not funny. Because I had humor on my side, I was able
to keep a level head and use every advantage that came to me.

Ford and Arthur are often caught in tight situations, but they are able
to get out of them or at least deal with them because they keep making
funny jokes. The narration in the books provides the perspective one
would need to see how totally serious things like death, destruction,
and loneliness can be laughed about. "Don't panic! This happens to
everyone now and then! It will all be over soon!"

Isn't it ironic that the movie removes most of the clever quips and
jokes, but leaves the serious stuff and expects you to laugh at it? To
me that would be like making a movie about my paralysis accident but
leaving out my humor and replacing it with sight gags and slapstick.
That wouldn't have helped me at all.

But humor is subjective and I cannot account for what you think is
funny and what you don't.

> > It was ironic that Prosser was a bureaucrat, because he
> > was descended from Ghengis Khan.
>
> Which wasn't in the original radio series, nor the
> TV series. It's filler material to make the book
> version long enough.

Yeah I am aware of that; but I wasn't lamenting the loss of that detail
in the movie, I was just using it as an example of irony, which is
sorely lacking in the movie.

> (Satire, of course, is the opposite of irony. It takes
> preconceived expectations and plays off them.)

Please explain. I thought satire was the act of presenting in a funny
way something that someone thinks is serious. That could qualify
physical humor, verbal humor, or conceptual humor. Irony can be
composed of any of these things.

> > Yes, the fact that they were killed by equally mindless bureaucrats
> > doing exactly what they had been doing is ironic. But in the film
it
> > is presented straightforwardly. We don't have time to expect or
not
> > expect anything until boom! the Earth is gone.
>
> I just don't know how you get this. The movie version
> is essentially similar to previous versions. Sure, some
> really good comedy bits were cut out for time, but this
> doesn't have any significant effect on building up or
> not building up expectations.

Well, maybe I am underestimating the movie. I didn't get many laughs
out of Ford's and Arthur's conversations in the movie. But maybe I was
expecting it to be too much like the radio show or books, and others
who weren't expecting that got more out of the character interaction in
the movie than I did.

In the radio show anyway, the verbal humor distracts from the situation
long enough for you to pay attention to the characters and forget
whatever else might be happening at the moment. Then when we return to
the action it is more surprising. Especially in light of how clever
the characters are. And then when they survive the Earth's destruction
we are glad some clever characters survived it, and we care about them.

But by hurrying the action, the movie does a disservice to the
characters. Why should I care about them? How can I relate to them?
Why should I watch the movie again if I already know what will happen?
The survival of the charaters is virtually assured.

Their survival is assured in the radio play, but the radio play says
literally, "Don't worry. Their survival is assured." Which makes it
funny in a way that the movie doesn't.

> > The demolition of Arthur's home might be funny if the demolition
team
> > had been working with working with the Vogons secretly and planned
to
> > destroy Arthur's home just before the Vogons destroyed Earth.
>
> No, in the movie version the demolition of Arthur's home
> was funny because of how obviously unnecessary it was.
> Arthur's home was in the middle of nowhere! They could
> have just built the bypass next to Arthur's home, or a
> hundred meters away, or a kilometer away, without
> demolishing anyone's home.

Maybe you got that, but I wasn't considering it when I watched the
movie because I was hoping the characters would say something funny.
Which they rarely did, which was disappointing to say the least.

> > I suppose you would think it funny if someone bulldozed your
> > home then. No? Then what makes it funny?
>
> Umm...the fact that the movie is a comedy. Pretty much
> anything in any Monty Python movie wouldn't be funny if
> it happened in real life. But it's just a comedy movie,
> so it's okay to laugh at a knight getting his limbs
> chopped off.

The fact that the movie is a comedy doesn't contribute any humor to its
scenes at all. How could it? Am I supposed to think, "Oh! This is a
comedy!" whenever something happens that isn't funny, and therefore
laugh because it is a comedy? A movie is a comedy because it is funny,
it isn't funny because it is a comedy! If that was the case why not
just start out every movie saying "This is a comedy," and that will
make it funny. "The Passion of the Christ"? Just tell yourself it is
a comedy and then it's funny to torture Jesus! Well, that might be
funny to think about, but that would make "The Passion of the Christ"
ironic in light of my thought that it could be funny, it wouldn't
actually make torturing Jesus funny because it is not presented as
funny in that movie.

"The Life of Brian" is a funny movie that satirizes the life and death
of Jesus. It isn't funny because it is a comedy. It is funny because
the characters do funny things. It dosn't make Jesus's life or death
funny, but it is ironic that this might have happened during the same
time.

Chopping people's limbs off isn't funny because "Monty Python and the
Holy Grail" is a comedy. It's funny because the guy who gets his limbs
chopped off keeps on saying it's only a flesh wound. He should be
dead! But he keeps on denying that it's serious, which is funny. If
you made a movie called "Chopping People's Limbs Off: The Comedy," but
it was just a series of people getting their limbs chopped off and they
didn't say or do anything funny, being a comedy wouldn't contribute any
humor. On the other hand it might be ironic that you expected it to
contribut humor, and it didn't. Too bad all those people got thieir
limbs chopped off for nothing! Now that's funny!

Comic cues make a thing funny by intentionally poking fun at it.
Without intentionally poking fun, it might be unintenionally funny, but
that wouldn't make it comedy.

> > How is unnecessariness visual? Sight gags involve visual things.
>
> Because Arthur's home is shown to be in the middle of of
> a grassy plain, with no other homes in sight.
>
> Similarly, Earth is in the middle of empty space. For
> someone who was unfamiliar with Hitchiker's, the implication
> is that there's no point to destroying Earth either.
> Why destroy Earth to make way for a hyperspace bypass
> when it's in the middle of so much empty space?

That is debatable. How do you know so much about building hyperspace
bypasses? Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong. But in this
story it was allegedly necessary to destroy planets to make way for
hyperspace bypasses. Nothing in the story implies that this was a lie
about the construction of hyperspace bypasses. However the story does
go on feature a ship that can travel faster than light without using
hyperspace. I'll grant you that that is an irony preserved in the
movie. I was exaggerating when I said the movie left out *all* the
irony. It just left out most of it. The radio play is dripping with
irony; the movie version is slightly damp with irony.

> In fact, the Infinite Improbability Drive _did_ become a plot
> convenience device. It was like the Sonic Screwdriver or K9
> in Doctor Who--a device too incredibly useful for the story's
> own good. DNA never did get control over the device in the
> first radio series. In the second series, he managed to figure
> out some ways to use the concept to its potential, but in the
> first series it was just an uncomfortably convenient plot device.

Yeah but they got to Magrathea in the third episode with it; without
"accidentally" arriving on planets where they just happened to have
"old scores to settle." The radio play was filled with pertinent
conversations about things that the characters thought about; the movie
is filled with pointless subplots that distract from any thoughts about
what is going on.

Ted Bowen
Re: Some thoughts [message #29753 ] So, 08 Mai 2005 19:15
fablesto  
"Newob Det" <ebowen [at] kent.edu> wrote in message
news:1115392908.580599.31490 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dave Adalian wrote:
>> The dolphins brought the Earth back? I never got that impression.
> Can you
>> give us a reference from the text? And, if the dolphins did have
> something
>> to do with the Earth being reconstructed, why aren't they living on
> it?
>> They're still missing, remember? The fish bowls obviously mean they
> know
>> the Earth Mark II exists, but that doesn't mean they were
> responsible.
>>
>>
>> Chiggy.
>
> I don't remember any specific explanation being given for the return of
> the Earth in "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish." The text says
> that the Earth was restored from an alternate dimension, or something
> along those lines. But that could mean a lot of different things. I
> always got the impression that because the dolphins left their message
> on those three fishbowls that the dolphins had some role in restoring
> the Earth. How? Who knows.

Here's what the book actually says, in Chapter 32 of SLATFATF:

"And then the fling of hope, the finding of a shadow Earth in the
implications of enfolded time, submerged dimensions, the pull of parallels,
the deep pull, the spin of will, the hurl and split of it, the fight. A new
Earth pulled into replacement, the dolphins gone."

Of course, in MH, there were parallel Earths that were never destroyed at
all, which makes me wonder why they were apparently never able to come up
with the Question.

Nathan
Re: Some thoughts [message #29756 ] So, 08 Mai 2005 19:17
fablesto  
"Newob Det" <ebowen [at] kent.edu> wrote in message
news:1115418056.472600.296650 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> mech... [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> Improbability doesn't just generate what needs to happen so the story
> can keep going; it measures the unlikelihood of coincidences. The
> characters can travel to unlikely places and cause unlikely things
> because the ship can calculate the improbability of a coincidence and
> then passes through every point in every possible universe to arrive at
> that coincidence. And the mention of it provides a running commentary
> on the improbability of the plot. The movie merely presents a series
> of surreal images that progress along a predictable plot structure.

I did think the movie really didn't say enough about the mathematical
aspects of Improbability Physics. Maybe that goes along with their never
saying that Trillian was an astrophysicist.

Nathan
Re: Some thoughts [message #31997 ] Mo, 09 Mai 2005 23:41
Newob Det  
Nathan wrote:
> Here's what the book actually says, in Chapter 32 of SLATFATF:
>
> "And then the fling of hope, the finding of a shadow Earth in the
> implications of enfolded time, submerged dimensions, the pull of
parallels,
> the deep pull, the spin of will, the hurl and split of it, the fight.
A new
> Earth pulled into replacement, the dolphins gone."

And of course we can only speculate who was responsible for that, but
to me it seemed pretty obvious that the dolphins somehow did it. Maybe
they popped off to another dimension while they were at it. Get out of
that Plural Zone!

> Of course, in MH, there were parallel Earths that were never
destroyed at
> all, which makes me wonder why they were apparently never able to
come up
> with the Question.
>
> Nathan

Prior to MH, perhaps there were some universes where the Question was
fully calculated; perhaps there were even Earths where the
Golgafrinchans never crash-landed. By time-travel or by using the
Improbability Drive, someone could possibly arrive at one of those
possible Earths; unless in MH the Vogons succeeded in causing all
Earths to never have existed, in which case lots of other stuff never
happened either, like the whole story! But the story is still a finite
improbability, and we know about it, so our universe must be
impermeable to the Vogon threat ... at least so far! :)

But the Ultimate Question would probably turn out to be a trivial
question inasmuch as the Ultimate Answer is a trivial answer. "What is
six multipled by seven?" seems likely. On the other hand, if you
consider the question "What is the Ultimate Question?" you could
arrive at the conclusion that "The Ultimate Question is what?" Or just
"What?" Or maybe even just "?" Something to think about.

And then there was the coincidence with the number 42 at the end of MH.
Could that mean that the Infinite Improbability Drive could save our
characters again? It was strikingly missing in that story.

Personally I think the Douglas Adams universe would be best served by
creating a completely new story in the next movie, dependent on none of
what came before. Why remake what has already happend? Because it
would be neat to see that stuff on the big screen? Well, yeah. But we
all saw it in our imaginations already, and movies (as we have seen)
will not live up to what we imagine. Might as well make up a new story
(and maybe permeate it with some of the previously-used Guide entries)
as retell an old one!

Ted
Re: Some thoughts [message #31998 ] Mo, 09 Mai 2005 23:51
Newob Det  
mechdan [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> The insignificance of Earth is reflected by the parallels
> between the Earthling construction crews demolishing
> Arthur's home with the Vogon contrustion crews demolishing
> Earth. The movie adds a cute new angle to the joke by
> putting Arthur's home in the middle of nowhere. The
> obvious question it begs is why in the world would they
> need to demolish Earth when there's all this uninhabited
> space all around it?
>
> Isaac Kuo

But that is simply absurd. The reason the city can get away with
demolishing his house is *because* he lives in the middle of nowhere.
They wouldn't be demolishing houses in the middle of a city for their
bypass.

Similarly the reason the Vogons get away with destroying Earth is
because Earth is in the middle of nowhere, an "uncharted backwater,"
whose primitive inhabitants haven't even developed faster-than-light
travel and couldn't make it to Alpha Centauri where the plans for the
hyperspace bypass were "on display at the local planning office."

It's a clear case of a mighty bureaucracy stepping all over the little
guy, only in this case the "little guy" is a whole inhabited planet.
And the Earthling authorities thought they were so important!

Of course most of those details are lost on the movie, which doesn't
even mention Alpha Centauri.

The only thing that could be equally ironic is if some pandimensional
bureaucrats erased the whole universe containing the Vogons; or better
yet if they mentioned the Vogons but portrayed them as heroes.

Ted
Re: Some thoughts [message #33302 ] Do, 12 Mai 2005 02:28
Tian Harter  
Newob Det wrote:
> mech... [at] yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>What does change everything is that Arthur isn't interested
>>in living on Earth 2 (Earth's nearest equivalent), and he
>>doesn't need Fenchurch as a love interest since he already
>>has Trillian.
>
>
> Yeah, but Trillian could disappear as easily as Fenchurch does in the
> books, and that would be truer to the spirit of the books. (In the
> radio show, she doesn't last long past the Restaurant at the End of the
> Universe!)
>
For me, Nikitta will always be the real Trillian. It's funny,
but the movie didn't improve on the froup production in that
way.

--
Tian
Saturday I walked a huge precinct in Oakland for Aimee
Allison with three other people. Maybe we got her a couple
of dozen votes she wouldn't have otherwise landed. Many
times we told people "your vote could make the difference."
http://tian.greens.org
Re: Some thoughts [message #33303 ] Do, 12 Mai 2005 02:31
Tian Harter  
Newob Det wrote:
> Dave Adalian wrote:
>
>>The dolphins brought the Earth back? I never got that impression.
>
> Can you
>
>>give us a reference from the text? And, if the dolphins did have
>
> something
>
>>to do with the Earth being reconstructed, why aren't they living on
>
> it?
>
>>They're still missing, remember? The fish bowls obviously mean they
>
> know
>
>>the Earth Mark II exists, but that doesn't mean they were
>
> responsible.
>
>>
>>Chiggy.
>
>
> I don't remember any specific explanation being given for the return of
> the Earth in "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish." The text says
> that the Earth was restored from an alternate dimension, or something
> along those lines. But that could mean a lot of different things. I
> always got the impression that because the dolphins left their message
> on those three fishbowls that the dolphins had some role in restoring
> the Earth. How? Who knows. And who says they would want to or even
> could come back? How they got off the Earth is never explained either.

What? There was footage of them swiming up into the sky like salmon
going up waterfalls! How much explination do you need of a bit part?

> I have always thought it was better that way than making up some
> pseudo-explanation. Douglas Adams was never about giving a
> straightforward explanation, but seeing in what new weird direction
> things could go in.
>
> Ted Bowen
>


--
Tian
Saturday I walked a huge precinct in Oakland for Aimee
Allison with three other people. Maybe we got her a couple
of dozen votes she wouldn't have otherwise landed. Many
times we told people "your vote could make the difference."
http://tian.greens.org
Re: Some thoughts [message #33989 ] Do, 12 Mai 2005 18:18
Kaare Fiedler Christi  
Tian Harter wrote:
> Newob Det wrote:

<snip about dolhins>

>> How they got off the Earth is never explained either.
>
> What? There was footage of them swiming up into the sky like salmon
> going up waterfalls! How much explination do you need of a bit part?

Uhm, we were talking about the books here - you know, paper and stuff? :-)

Best
Kåre
Re: Some thoughts [message #35739 ] So, 15 Mai 2005 06:18
fablesto  
"Newob Det" <ebowen [at] kent.edu> wrote in message
news:1115674877.372698.57970 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Nathan wrote:
>> Of course, in MH, there were parallel Earths that were never
> destroyed at
>> all, which makes me wonder why they were apparently never able to
> come up
>> with the Question.
>>
>> Nathan
>
> Prior to MH, perhaps there were some universes where the Question was
> fully calculated; perhaps there were even Earths where the
> Golgafrinchans never crash-landed. By time-travel or by using the
> Improbability Drive, someone could possibly arrive at one of those
> possible Earths; unless in MH the Vogons succeeded in causing all
> Earths to never have existed, in which case lots of other stuff never
> happened either, like the whole story! But the story is still a finite
> improbability, and we know about it, so our universe must be
> impermeable to the Vogon threat ... at least so far! :)
>
> But the Ultimate Question would probably turn out to be a trivial
> question inasmuch as the Ultimate Answer is a trivial answer. "What is
> six multipled by seven?" seems likely. On the other hand, if you
> consider the question "What is the Ultimate Question?" you could
> arrive at the conclusion that "The Ultimate Question is what?" Or just
> "What?" Or maybe even just "?" Something to think about.

And don't forget Prak's comment that, if someone were to know both the
Question and the Answer, "it seems that the Question and the Answer would
just cancel each other out, and take the Universe with them, which would
then be replaced by something even more bizarrely inexplicable."

Of course, at the very beginning of the first book, when Fenchurch comes up
with what's apparently the Question, "it was right, it would work, and no
one would have to get nailed to anything." Which leads me to wonder whether
there was more to her disappearance in MH than DNA's not wanting to write
about her anymore, and the spaceline's excuse about beings from the Plural
Zones being advised not to travel with hyperspace (which certainly never had
any adverse effects on Arthur or Trillian, or presumably on Elvis, for that
matter).

> And then there was the coincidence with the number 42 at the end of MH.
> Could that mean that the Infinite Improbability Drive could save our
> characters again? It was strikingly missing in that story.

Well, so was Zaphod, who presumably still has the Heart of Gold.

Nathan
Vorheriges Thema:movie PG rating
Nächstes Thema:An odd problem...
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 10:48:45 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,08034 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered