h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think approaching it from the author's angle begs several questions, not least being 'are the films any good?' and 'is all the philosophising just a load of pretentious claptrap?' All I'd ask for is an *attempt* to answer these questions before we delved into the deeper meaning (if any) of these films.

i think even 'the matrix phenomenon by fe;lonius monk' would hardly be unbiased, im afraid...

whether or not (which i do) i agreed with it...

Hmm, lot of interesting comments there. There is one point I would like to make here though. I do not claim to be objective in my write-up. This is simply because I think it is not quite possible. That I am a person, conditioned by my environment, exposure, thoughts etc by itself makes me subjective. However, I do feel that the allegation that the write-up is not balanced is not well found. The reason being that it is very clearly mentioned in the article that there can be various opinions on what the movie means. That goes also for the value of the movie and where it stands. There are assumptions and expectations that a reader brings along with him to the text he reads as there is an implicit dialogicality (to use Bakhtin's terms) in what the author writes. Meaning that the author is probably responding to some issue (imagined/real) that is foremost in his mind. It is therefore quite natural that there be a difference between the signifier and the signified. To talk about a particular aspect of something is not to be subjective. It is only a reflection of what has given the author a stronger impression. Naturally, If the author insists that his alone is the 'right' interpretation, that of course calls for some criticism.

well perhaps in the spirit of fairness youd allow one of us to expand upon why the matrix is rubbish in a section of your article

" It is therefore quite natural that there be a difference between the signifier and the signified. "

Before we go rambling off into the realm of French-postmodernist-sub-Derrida-structuralism, the *basic* objection I have toward this article is that it assumes that (a) the cod philosophy purveyed in the films is not a meretricious attempt to make the film seem serious, and is actually worthy of further discussion and that (b) one person's expansion/interpretation of this 'philosophy' makes for a substantial and worthwhile EG entry. Neither is true, (b) being based upon the false predicate of (a).

I guess being a bit more specific might help. Your criticism reflects the assumption that every single person who has seen the movie was aware of the underlying philosophy (however hollow or bogus it may be). This is an assumption that by itself is debatable. Secondly, once the underlying philosphy became apparent to you, or you became conscious of the same, you inferred that it was nothing but an attempt to sound serious or add meaning to something that is meaningless. This is once again very subjective and presumptous. What might seem incoherent and out of place to you might be meaningful and refreshing for someone else. This is a point that my write-up makes very clearly. In my write-up, I am not glorifying the philosopical aspects of the movie but instead appreciating the fact that the makers have tried to cater to different tastes. As I have said before, this probably exposed them to critics who find the presence of both (philosophy and special effects) to be more of a cover-up than an innovation.

im sorry? was there philosophy in the film?

The author seems to have left the building - flea market?

I would propose 'back to entry' due to the strong reservations some felt as to the basic point it built upon

Pimms scout

okies

Will you post to scouts board, as it is not generally easy for me to post there?

Consider it done