Step 1: Goto http://www.google.com
Step 2: Type "answer to life the universe and everything" into the search box
Step 3: Click the search button
Step 4: Feel emotions of mild bemusement to absolute delight ;D
google = Deep Thought?
That's an interesting idea ...
I asked google/Deep thought for the ultimate question and it didn't know it.
So now we just need to figure out which search engine is earth ... they would know.
Haha that's quite hilarious.
Deep thought gives you 1 answer after 7,5 million years.
Google gives you 141000 answers after 0,09 seconds.
Anyone or thing that answers the meaning of life question with 42 should be shot, castrated and then given an imaginationectomy.
I would suggest that anything that answers 42 has already HAD an imaginationectomy. They require an imagionationoplasty.
imagionationoplasty... superb. And I bet even Google can't figure it out.
oh wait. it can!
I don't get it
Quote from: Tuomas on Mon 21/05/2007 22:17:10
I don't get it
write "answer to life the universe and everything" without the quotation marks
and if you still don't get it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Answer_to_Life,_the_Universe,_and_Everything
pfft, never read the book, it's just dusting in the shelf.
never read it either. only got it after reading the spoiler on wikipedia.
I loved these books. I have the giant volume sitting around here somewhere. (incomplete of course because Adams kept writing more and more books!)
But I must go out on a limb here. I like Adams but I also LOVE Kurt Vonnegut. The Sirens of Titan was written in the fifities & it turns out to be a great source of inspiration to Adams:
"...this quote from Douglas Adams, recorded in 1979 and first published in the Darker Matter interview last month:
"Kurt Vonnegut I think is absolutely superb. I've read The Sirens of Titan six times now, and it gets better every time. He is an influence, I must own up. Sirens of Titan is just one of those books â€" you read it through the first time and you think it's very loosely, casually written. You think the fact that everything suddenly makes such good sense at the end is almost accidental. And then you read it a few more times, simultaneously finding out more about writing yourself, and you realise what an absolute tour de force it was, making something as beautifully honed as that appear so casual."
Ahh, what a great movie that was. :)
Nice, bur predictable.
I watched the movie and it was funny and now I have a huge book that contains all the books in Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy series (all 6) waiting to be read, bought it last week.
And since Douglas Adams is dead evewolf there won't be anymore in the series.
Now I can catch up with him!
So, does Google still know where to find those WMDs?
Oh, and that movie was abysmal. The book is great but the way they treated in Hollywood is nothing short of horrific. Bad plot, bad cast, bad acting, bad special effects, and they even left out most of the well-known jokes!
WANHA
And indeed, the movie was horrible.
Quote
I have a huge book that contains all the books in Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy series (all 6) waiting to be read, bought it last week.
What's the 6th? Salmon of Doubt - the unfinished 3rd Dirk Gently - I think Adams said could/should be reworked as a Hithchiker's book so as not to end the series on a downer, but AFAIK there's only 5 Hitchhikers books. If I'm missing one - gimme, gimme gimme.
And the film wasn't bad - not as good as it should have been, but not as bad as some make out. Martin Freeman was miscast, Marvin looked wrong, they buggered up some jokes, left out some 'famous' ones and included some obscure ones that only make sense if you've read the books, but it was mostly OK. It's in the history that the story changes slightly between versions, and the changes were mostly in keeping enough to work, IMO. The only unforgivable thing was getting Arthur & Trillian together, which pretty much goes against both characters.
It's unlikely he's glanced over the proposed sixth book but I imagine its just the manuscript notes for an unfinished book known as "Salmon of Doubt." Which according to wikipedia was going to be a Dirk Gently book originally.
The Hitchhikers omnibus (which I also have) has "Zaphod Plays it Safe", a short story, in addition to the five novels.
The Salmon of Doubt was still a Dirk Gently novel at the time of Adams' death. (I have the edition with essays, interviews, etc. along with what exists of the manuscript.)
Ah, Ok. Sounds like I got all excited over nothing.
My Hitchiker's omnibus only goes up to So Long and Thanks for All the Fish - bought it before Mostly Harmless came out - but I've got the young Zaphod short story in a collection of shorts. Wasn't that impressed.
I've got that edition of Salmon of Doubt, too.
Well obviously you can't put 5 books in one movie without omitting a major part of the story and jokes. You can't moan about things but not about the plot - the plot is based on the books after all. Anyway I think the automatic internet bitching about how the movie sucks cause it isn't as good as the book, and some parts were omitted and some parts were changed from how they were in the books etc. is very exaggerated, and I say this with confidence although I'm yet to read the books. I'm really tired of all those "this movie sucks cos the book was better" rants, it happened with LOTR, Dune, even fucking Narnia and every movie based on a book ever. I agree the movie is NEVER as good as reading the book and it ain't ever gonna be. It's Obvious. GET OVER IT. It's just a different media and you can never transfer a book completely as it is to a movie. It's impossible. So be happy with what you get. Books are always better but movies based on them are still great because they put visuality on what you could only imagine by then, and for example you could never have imagined LOTR as beautifully as it looked in LOTR, even if some major things changed in the plot (like no Scouring of the Shire) and some important characters were left out.
And in HHGTTG's case the books weren't even first! first there was the radio programs! THEN the books, then the TV series and then finally the movie. And obviously things changed from media to media as it's only natural to happen. I wonder if people were ranting about how the book wasn't as good as the radio program back in 1979.
As for what's in my book, Zaphod Plays it Safe is indeed the 6th one.
The movie only covers the first book, more or less, not all five. Trying to cover all 5 in one film
would have been a disaster.
You're right, the story changed between the radio series, to the books, to the TV series, to the special edition LPs (left them out of your timeline), between the books, to the later books which weren't based on any pre-existing radio shows, to the radio shows based on the later books... Some changes between everthing that's gone before and the film are not only to be expected because it's a film, they should be welcomed because that's what the series has always done.
I don't think the film is as good as the book, but it's not because it's not the same. It's because I don't think it was as good. There were some really good new bits that worked because they were consistant with the style of evertything that'd gone before (except, as I said, getting Arthur & Trillian together - which doesn't work at all except to slap a 'hollywood happy ending' in there), but overall it lacked the spark of any of the previous versions (of which the books are my favourite, so I use them as the yardstick). No film of a book/radio show/TV series/comic/whatever is ever going to be exactly the same as the source, and especially when the source can't even keep things consistant, but 'be happy with what you get' is as pointless an attitude to take as 'it sucks because they changed X', IMO. It's unlikely there'll be film versions of the rest of them now, which I think is a shame. Maybe if they'd made fewer changes, that wouldn't be the case.
That said, I know someone who saw and liked te film without having read the books/heard the radio show (despite years of me urging him to). Because of the film he started the books, and couldn't get into them.
I'm not sure how much sense that actually made, or if I have a point.
Oh, and:
Quote
I asked google/Deep thought for the ultimate question and it didn't know it.
That's becasue the Question and the Answer are mutually exclusive.
I agree that the first wave of movie goers with knee jerk reactions "the book was better!" get repetitive.
I watched the first 30 minutes of HHGTTG up to where Zaphod is introduced and had to put it sleep. But up to this point I haven't complained to anybody. If a movie isnt good the only power i have against it is not to watch it.
I like both the original radio series, the books, and the recent movie. Should I be taken out back and shot immediately or do I get a last wish?
Yes, I admit the movie isn't as good as the radio series or the books, but really, what was so bad about it?
Quote from: Esseb on Tue 22/05/2007 21:22:07
Yes, I admit the movie isn't as good as the radio series or the books, but really, what was so bad about it?
I personally think that as a movie it's rather good, but as tied to the HHGttG world it's a bit misplaced. Maybe "horrible" was a bit overboard, it's not that bad all in all, but so many things are done differently, and some of those contradict with stuff in the original. So it doesn't really fit in in my opinion.
And have you watched the episodes made into a TV series? There's what, six of them?
The TV series has a lot of early-BBC-sci-fi series charm, and the animations for the Guide itself are great. I have a special fondness for the TV series, I saw it when I was very young before I'd got round to reading the books. It's based on the radio series, and follows it pretty closely, with many of the same cast.
Edit: Sigh, I am going to have to log out of this forum and sign back in as Becky so I stop posting accidentally.
Quote from: Nostradamus on Tue 22/05/2007 15:44:26
Well obviously you can't put 5 books in one movie without omitting a major part of the story and jokes.
No, but that wasn't the attempt to begin with. The movie is only about the
first book. Only they omit a few important parts and replaced them by a boring new sequence that apparently the director made up.
This is not just pointless internet bitching. The film is mostly incomprehensible if you haven't read the books, and severely annoying if you have. That's is why LOTR gets stellar ratings, while HHGG's ratings are mediocre (although admittedly not abysmal).
The TV series are far better, have a good touch of atmosphere, and keep several important in-jokes intact. For adventure game afficionados (anyone around here?), the computer game is also inspired, if very difficult.
Quote
Only they omit a few important parts and replaced them by a boring new sequence that apparently the director made up.
Actually most of the new stuff came from Adams, before he died. Obviously, it was rewritten between that and the film getting made, but it was 'made up' by the man himself, not the director. The biggest new sequence I can think of off hand is the Humma Kavula stuff, which was definitely Adams' idea originally - and realy, only Humma Kavula is new, the everything else there was mentioned in some earlier form.
You also can't put ONE entire book exactly as it is into a movie. As most people who replied show, my meaning is it's OK to say you didn't like certain parts of the film or to say some things were missing but the original "the movie was horrible" replies are really the ones I were talking about. I just hate how so many people jump on the internet hate bandwagon with these ridiculous "this movie was horrible cause it was different from the book" claims, because that's obvious that it will be different, and many people are repeating those comments because it's cool to say it in the internet. And since it is a humorous series in nature, in any media it has been portrayed in, people should not be so moany about inaccuracies compared to the book, maybe that kind of people are taking a comedy movie and book way too seriously.
But I'm not saying it's horrible because it differs from the book. I'm saying it's horrible because it has bad plot, bad cast, bad acting, and bad special effects, and because it's incomprehensible to people who haven't read the book.
I might say that the movie was horrible, and I wouldn't mean it in a "jumping on the bandwagon" way. Admittedly, I read the books first (not heard the radio shows or seen the TV series), and I might have had high expectations, but that doesn't excuse the low quality of the movie.
I bought the DVD when it came out, and watched it with a few friends: one thought it was a jumbled mass of confusion (hadn't read the book), and the other only brought away from it the song, and constant screams of "Hama Kavula!" (had read the book). I didn't like it. Zaphod was annoying, some segments were long and drawn-out, and the movie was absolutely unmemorable (I only watched it once afterwards, when clearing up my DVD cabinet).
I was looking forward to Sam Rockwell the most. I was a big fan of his since I saw this movie called "Jerry and Tom", one of those movies that plays on Showtime but noones ever heard of.
When I read about him playing Zaphod I got real excited and imagined him playing the part so well. I still think he's perfect for the part except that the love triangle ruined the tone.
But the Hitchhiker IS the true chameleon of all media! It was different in all its manifestations, be it radio show, interactive fiction, series, cartoon and then the movie. It's one of its strengths IMHO. And considering that Adams was initially involved in the writing of the movie, it can be considered that at least some of the changes were approved by him. Or even suggested.
Let's face it, the "Hitchhiker Nerd" is dying out. Many people haven't read the book, and they surely were put off by the movie- not because it was too drastically changed or incomprehensible, but because the Hitchhiker is, in fact, a poor story. Adams said so himself. There were no good characters, no memorable dialogues, just a lot of wild, weird and then radical ideas. For me that was always enough; the trilogy was and still is one of my favourite reads, but would the story interest some youngster today? I doubt it. It was and is an underdog book.
The LOTR movies could become famous not only because they could build on an even larger fandom, but because they had a) a more generic fantasy theme and b) cool guys with 8 o'clock shades. I went out of Two Towers when Orlando Bllom did the skateboard-kite shield trick. That was too much, really.
And "faithful to the book"- I kind of like the Harry POtter books, but apart from the first movie, I always had the impression that there was someone thumping through the novel, occassional saying "ooo, special effect, we take this", "hm, plot element, yeah, let's have it..." None of the movies is very enjoyable without knowing the book, yet they are usually highly rated.
The Hitchhiker was doomed when they filmed it, yet they did film it, and it was a good movie. Goofy, yes, and not in top notch form, but an underdog film that captured much of the original wackyness AND adding an ending that was okay to go with. I salute the team, yet I don't have much hope they'll actually do The Restaurant.
BTW- I really liked the cast, especially Zaphod, and yes, I liked Marvin. It was the head, I think...
Having read ~5/8 of the thread I'd just like to say that personally I found the HHGTTG movie to be beyond horrific. Perhaps my judgment is biased as I did read all 5 books (plus "Young Zaphod Plays It Safe" which honestly I never discovered how it fits into the storyline) before viewing the movie, but even with my best attempts at viewing the movie as "just some movie" and not as "the HHGTTG movie" I still found it very dull and lacking.
I'm a huge fan of Adams' work, but I found this movie to be perhaps the biggest disgrace to his legacy imaginable. I know that the story did change as it evolved from a radio show into the books, but I can't imagine that it changed so drastically as to completely eradicate all previously existing plot. Very little in the movie bore any resemblance to anything in the books, and even that left something to be desired.
One particular example I can think of is when Ford and Arthur are first rescued from the vacuum of space. I can't provide an exact quote, but I believe Adams said something to the effect of "the ocean stood still while the buildings washed up and down." The scene was very elaborately described, and filled my mind, immersing me in this distorted reality. In the movie they were turned into sofas for a few seconds and then they were themselves once more. Hardly the same.
Also in the same scene "there's an infinite number of angry monkeys that would like to discuss their take on Hamlet" (or some such (I believe this replaced, from the radio play, "Ford you're turning into an infinite number of penguins, please stop.")). Where are my infinite monkey-penguins? Where!?!?!
Aside from these moments, the entire storyline has been convoluted into something entirely different than it was before. At what point was the entire objective of the first book to rescue Trillian from the Vogons who had taken her captive for kidnapping Zaphod? I remember nothing of the sort. As I recall Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (sp?) pursued the human escapees of his own volition so he could complete his destruction of the Earth and put a check mark in the box.
The first book ended shortly after the crew narrowly escaped Arthur having his brain removed on Magrathea. There was none of this going to Vogsphere to rescue Trillian or Zaphod having one of his heads removed as insurance that they would bring back the POV-gun-whatsit. In fact, as I recall, Vogsphere was supposed to have been uninhabited. As for Zaphod's heads that part was just completely wrong. His two heads were supposed to sit side-by-side, not on top of each other.
I must leave now, but before I go let me point out that the ending of the movie leaves it wide open for a sequel. However the mechanisms of it doing so are completely and utterly wrong, and I quote Marvin from the movie, "the restaurant is at the other end of the universe." Clearly this is wrong because Millways isn't supposed to be at some outer-edge of the universe, it's at the end of all time. So, the movie is completely void, bunk, and should be completely disregarded by anyone who has ever called themselves a fan of the HHGTTG series, QED. :P
Wow ...
Just wow.
I am a big fan of the books. Been reading (and re-reading them) since I was a kid.
I knew full-well that the movie (being made so long after the original book was written) was going to be "modernized". I knew it would be different. And it was. However, I still enjoyed it.
I have been a huge fan of Sam Rockwell for years (go Guy Fleegman!!) and was amped when I heard he'd be playing Zaphod Beeblebrox. I wasn't disappointed with his performance in the slightest. I'm also a huge fan of Mos Def so I loved his portrayal as well. I found it to be zany and quarky and fun to watch all in all. Even with the differences in the story.
Dunno ... a lesson I learned LONG ago was that when books are made into movies they're never the same. Even if some parts are faithful, others will not be (as is the case with the Harry Potter movies). So I don't ever go to the theater expecting to see the book. Keeps me from being disappointed I guess.
Speaking of Google, Gmail just expanded its attachment size to 20MBs! Go google!
monkey_05_06 is saying the movie was "beyond horrific" basically because it was different from the book.
Radiant talked about bad acting etc, it can be arguable what he said about acting, cast, effects (and I argue with it) but it's a solid opinion based on movie critic parameters. That's how you judge if a movie is good or not.
Unlike him, monkey_05_06 is exactly what I've been talking about - a guy ranting and hating saying basically "the movie sucked cause it was different form the book". Exactly what I ment in taking a humorous story too seriously. Some of the scenes he mentioned were different form the books but they were funny in a different way. Why is that bad? And as people said before, most changes in the movie script compared to the book were actually made by or approved by Douglas Adams, so being upset about them is kinda unjustified.
Hey, it's a comedy film and it was a comedy book, it's not some serious epic masterpiece that has be to followed one to one in its movie version and that's why especially in this kind of film compared to other films based on books, people shouldn't pick on differences and inaccuracies between the book and the film. If the Shire wasn't Scoured it's a pretty big thing to have changed in LOTR, but if they turn into sofas or wooly toys or whatever instead of "the ocean stood still while the buildings washed up and down." it doesn't hurt the plot one bit. And the plot isn't serious anyway, it's a comedy!
Moving on to another point, to me the randomness, inconsistencies, wackiness, weirdness in the plot and and between scenes is exactly what the film's spirit is about.
I was severely pressed for time as I was writing that, so forgive me if I've fallen short of your supreme critiquing skills. I did state, though I didn't elaborate, that I didn't like the movie as a movie. I didn't really care for it (aside from the changes to the story), I found the story to be poorly written, much of the humour was very abstract, a lot of the movie felt utterly pointless to the plot...etc. and so forth.
It's all been said before me and I've already carried on one horribly pointless rant in this thread, so I'll just go find something else to waste my time on for now. Until we meet again!
I'm with Radiant on this one. I honestly had not heard of anyone who actually enjoyed the H2G2 film, and I'm frankly quite surprised that anyone did. The thing that always appealed to me with H2G2 (the novels) was that while appearing as random absurdist humor, there was an underlying serious satire to the entire enterprise, and the individual passages were often poetic and almost musical, giving the "randomness" a sense of natural flow that (IMO) is a large part of the true genius of Adams.
The film, on the other hand, was for the most part truly random, absurdist shit, like any of the hundreds of amateur flashes populating the Internet. Part of the blame may actually fall on Adams, as much of the new content was his idea; part, on the production crew, for not understanding Adams' work and just producing a film of generally mediocre quality; but the most blame, I think, lies in the fact that H2G2 has always been dependent on text, written or spoken, and that does not translate well into film. Much of Adams' best humor (IMO) is in the way he describes things, the metaphors and personifications and so on, which obviously are left out in cinema. (Consider that the best parts of the film, at least to me, were the excerpts from the Guide, which were often lifted whole-sale from the novel's text and simply affixed with extraneous animation to attempt to blend them into the film.)
That, and casting a woman for the voice of Deep Thought totally ruined the biggest joke in the whole damn thing. :=
Quote from: Redwall on Thu 24/05/2007 22:35:23
That, and casting a woman for the voice of Deep Thought totally ruined the biggest joke in the whole damn thing. :=
What exact joke would that be? Yes, they should have sticked to the male voice- I've always read that as a bit of a Deus Ex Machina reference, but where exactly is there a joke?
I'm once again *very* surprised how hot, long and deep a discussion can go. It seems to me these days there are far too many arguments about movies, with too many people broadcasting their rock-solid opinions. Spider-Man 3 was both the worst and the best movie of the series. Nobody likes Pirates 2 because it was flat and everybody considers it to be superior to Part 1, and in my watering hole there is a photo of me, pinned to the dartboard, just because I once officially stated I actually found the movie Monkey Bone quite entertaining. Why not consider a movie what it is- a matter of taste? I mean, millions of people have praised movies like Dogma, Meaning Of Life, The Matrix, and millions can't find the smallest bit of interest for these same movies. Does that mean that they are great, and one million people is wrong, or that they're bad, and the other million's wrong? Or could it just be that they are a part of a thing we humans have called entertainment, and that each and everyone can have his, her or its own oppinion about it?
I don't want to preach here, though. In the end, the answer's always 42.
The level of nerdology in this thread is stifling.
LimpingFish opens a window...
If it helps validate your opinions, if pressed to give a star rating (of 1 to 5) I'd have given the books 5 stars and the movie 3. Perfectly enjoyable, though not really comparable.
H2G2 is mainly funny because of the ingenious language. I don't think the comedy in those novels lies in what the characters actually do, I think it's in the textual descriptions of them, their looks and thoughts etc. The innovative phrasings with which he conveyed pretty corny jokes, most of which only computer geeks in high school can still truly appreciate after all these years. I mean, who's actually still laughing out loud every time they hear the 42 reference?
The glory with the novels is that you can re-read them all the time; you may remember the jokes themselves, but not the language and the formulations, and they'll keep you amused forever.
The movie lacked everything I personally enjoyed with the novels.