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

It would be hard to imagine that anyone who is a regular reader of or contributor to this sight could be unaware of the momentous event happening at this time.

The long awaited, feared, hoped for, and possibly lusted after, H2G2 movie has hit the theatres. As those in the know have been promising, DNA would not be disappointed.

And, when you got to see it - and you will - take your towel.

I've had the pleasure already, thank you, as if.....

I wasn't as good as I hoped. Which doesn't mean I didn't like it, but there were some differences that I just didn't expect and removed some of the humor from the other scripts. (Yeah I know about the many different scripts)

Also, it seems they made it more "American" and not so British. Which is one of the issues I have with the production.

I hope we will see "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe" come out in the future.

Hi there dim!

I truly appreciate your view, and share much of it. It seemed that DNA himself was becoming somewhat Americanized, but I'd always understood that even for the BBC version he had hoped to have an American accent for Zaphod (perhaps because they can sound a bit alien, especially the western and LA accents).

I did think that many things, like the opening musical number, were very reminiscent of Monty Python and the like. The humour was consistently Adams-esque, and the new takes on aspects like the two-heads-three-arms Beeblebrox were humorously well-conceived. (It was also nice that the second head got a solo part, heh heh.)

Absolutely, much was lost in taking a 12 half-hour episode version and pairing it down to one and a half hours. I may not agree with all the choices, but I have to admit that the overall effort worked well enough that I was bouyant upon leaving the movie house.

Now, Marvin the saviour, that I had a bit of trouble sussing.

Did you, by chance, experience a bit of Deja Vu upon seeing the Vogons walking about? Reminded me a bit of the aliens in Fifth Element.

Yes out of the fifth element definitely reminds me also. Enough different to be safe still...

Even though DNA seems to think that the universe doesn't truly make sense, I dont agree, I think it makes great sense. He left God out of the equation. He is a well known atheist you knew that didn't you?

Yup. I've read everything he'd published at least twice, including Salmon of Doubt, Last Chance to See, and all of the Dirk Gently series.

But I disagree about his leaving god(s) out of the equation. He seemed to have endless fun poking fun at religions, but ignore them he did not. I'm referring not only to Oolong's blockbuster trilogy, but to the appearance of gods at Milliways, the Great Green Arklesiezure, Norse gods in the Gently series, etc.

In fact, the only viable Ultimate Question turns out to weigh quite heavily on the 'god element' of the equation; that is, if we accept 42 as the Ultimate answer. It took me forever to work it out, but once you do it is absolutely and incredibly accurate to the restrictions laid down in his collective works, right down to 'does it make any difference whether I go to work today'.

Looking forward to larger crowds than the one I saw, and great video sales after the cine run. (We've got to make it financially viable to complete the conversion to film.)

"In fact, the only viable Ultimate Question turns out to weigh quite heavily on the 'god element' of the equation..."

As I have discovered only too well.

I agree with DNA on the god front; and I'm looking forward to seeing the film - though frankly I'd've thought it better to start looking at his other works for film material, given how many times the HHGTTG story has been re-worked in different formats. A Dirk Gently film would be great (I think DNA said that himself), and the Starship Titanic story could make for a good cinematic impetus. Do you think they'll get round to it?

The issue of the mice which are "pan-dimensional" beings leads us nowhere, even if somehow their vision of using the earth as a calculator we cannot truly understand them (since we are not pan-dimensional ourselves.) Truly they are not mice, they just appear to us as mice.

Reminds me of the Tralfamadorians from Vonnegut's book "Slaughterhouse Five", they used to earth's civilizations to give messages to their stranded colleague. In either case the use of the earth and/or the history of the earth for such transparently meaningless activities leads one to assume the dimsal attitudes of the authors.

Vonnegut's end of the universe is a similarly depressing and meaningless thing. The tralfamadorians had an accident and blew it up.

I am far more optimistic than either of these two authors, both about the meaning of life and the worth of human beings. Of course then I am not an internationally famous author either.

BB! Welcome, my friend!

Obviously, your agreement is with the living, breathing, atheistic DNA. His opinion may have changed since then. Only time will tell for us.

I would absolutely love to see the DG films!!! Perhaps we should start a conversation (in the appropriate area) to start talking casting?!

If early results of the movie are an indication of its success, we can be assured that other projects will be seriously considered. We can only hope. (Well, we can also pray; but that seems so anti-adamslike.)

I agree with you, Dim, on the dilemma in understanding the mice. Perhaps we should assume that the mice made regular back-ups of the program in progress, and that their most recent back-up had been quite recent. Or, perhaps - knowing that the time-police are only so effective - they went back and made a timely back-up. But, if they did, we are now left with the dilemma of what happened with the Golgafrinchans.

I am glad to see another God fearing individual here at hootoo.( I guess there are more than a few)

Part of DNA heritage is the impression that this universe doesn't really make sense, is irrational and therefore not inhabited by a God. Forgetting that we humans are not God's ourselves and therefore probably cant quite understand the ultimate purposes of an infinite God person. In a microscopic (human scale) sense then it really may appear that everything doesn't make sense and God allows this (obviously).

My understanding of the transfinite does help me a little although it is presumptuous to think that even that can determine what God thinks. Checkout set theory and aleph null and interesting subject for thinkers.

I just yesterday started a new job at Hewlett-Packard so I am very tired. we'll talk later.

Ah, another new-hire! I start my new gig on Monday!

Be careful though , for you are very close to reinforcing Oolong Colluphid's point. As we learn more and more about the subatomic and long-range astrophysical, the universe does seem to make more and more sense. If God's advantage is understanding all that we cannot, we may prove his non-existence by understanding it thoroughly. Being able to 'know his mind' would mean that his mind could not exist; for if it did, it would be ineffible.

Oolong may have another blockbuster in this.



PS: I think we are still safe as long as people are still playing the various lotteries.

Know his mind?! We dont even know our own minds. According to the Flatlander theory to know something means we must have an added dimension where we can thoroughly examine the subject and that would mean we are smarter than God not just "as smart as God."

That also explains whay we cannot know ourselves (we dont have that additional pespective of an added dimension) We can understand things like ant because we do have the added dimension. (see my guide entry about the qualities of infinities) A subset cannot equal the original set even if it does seem to reflect parts of it.

How true, How true. But what dimension exists that allows us to appreciate humour?

humor doesn't really exist in the abstract. But of course it does in reality exist. There is nothing in and of itself that is guaranteed to make someone laugh. It is something that must be experienced and witnessed individualy.

What makes one person laugh leaves another in tears so it is not a dimension just an ethereal, insubstantial, vapor. Even so, laughter is a powerful force in our society. More powerful than guns and cannon.

However, the more powerful an authority the less the sense of humor. Vesting in power means this person must be serious and therefore more the subject of humor instead of able to laugh at themselves. Society seems to want it this way and so it goes...

Good, Good! Now then, if humour is so subjective, how about dimensionality? Is that not also subjective?!

The comparison is not an equal metaphor. Are you and idealist who thinks that there is no real world just mental images? I most certainly am not.
One might even suggest that "Love" is a dimension?


Dimensionality is not just a contruct, but a way that God works with his creation. I understand how it might seem otherwise but for us ordinary humans (and no I am not suggesting that you are ordinary in any way)use our dimensionnality as a kindergardener uses his playpen as a safe area for us to grow up and to play. Unfortunately many people fail to grow up and others refuse to play.

Death is the dividing line, the time to leave the ol' playpen and be the mature individuals we were expected to be. In many conversations I've had on the subject I refer to C.S. Lewis' definition of hell as a place where people go to get away from God and it is locked from the inside.

True, humour and dimensionality are not like items. Still, you already made the point about needing and additional dimension to understand the three in which we live. That implies, to me, a subjective nature. I was kinda surprised that you didn't readily agree.

Now, if as you suggested:
"Know his mind?! We don't even know our own minds. According to the Flatlander theory to know something means we must have an added dimension where we can thoroughly examine the subject and that would mean we are smarter than God not just as smart as God.

That also explains why we cannot know ourselves (we dont have that additional pespective of an added dimension) We can understand things like ant because we do have the added dimension."

It occurs to me that, needing a dimension or pespective superior to His own, God would never be able to understand Himself either, and therefore the universe need not make sense even to Him.

I have enjoyed C.S. Lewis' Screwtape letters in written and spoken form (John Cleese, no less!). But I don't remember that definition. I do believe you! I probably just did not read that particular piece of writing from which you extracted it.

What I believe may come off as a bit strange, and perhaps uncomfortable for many; but it provides great comfort for me. If you really like, I'll share it with you. I don't go round trying to convince anyone to believe with me. No prophet complex here.



[PS: We don't have any dimensions in addition to those of the ant, although we may feel we have a better perspective.]

I have read so much that I try to educate people everywhere I go. Some dont like to be educated though, and that's OK by me. God really doesn't want nor does He expect everyone to make it anyway.

My main source of Bible understanding comes from Dr. Gene Scott
www.drgenescott.com he has thousands of hours of teaching and I've probably heard most of it (over the nearly 20 years I listened to him). Since he has died, there will be no more of his teaching though. Brilliant mind though, most worthwhile listening if you have a chance. He doesn't seek to convert just educate. I guess I got that from him also. He had his humorous moments also but mostly like a post graduate classroom. Very demanding from his audience.

I much appreciate your sharing this source. I applaud your interest in being educated and in educating others.

If there is any cautionary advice I would offer, it would be to never restrict yourself to just one expert source on any subject. No one person has a lock on knowledge, even in fields in which they may be THE foremost expert.

Altervnative views almost always exist; just look at the birds descended from dinosaurs theory, or the varying gravitic theories.

Once we had respected educators who taught that the world was flat, after all.

OH I hardly just totally rely on Dr. Scott. Hardly, but his work is so broad and deep that I can go back to it and plumb the depths and return to other topics with renewed vigor.

Lately I have been reading James Wylie's "History of Protestantism" a momentous work from the victorian era (1880's)thorough and complete about the relationship of the catholics to dissenters (I got most of my guide entry on Wycliff from this source). In fact I am dwelling now on what relationships we have with the Society of Jesus, (Jesuits). CAn we uniformly condemn them for their fanaticism etc?

A wonderful joureny of a life time that starts with one step.