Discussion:
[I] Hitchikers Trailer
(too old to reply)
Puck
2005-02-16 21:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Hey all,

Just caught the new trailer for Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy from
Amazon.com. Looks really good, for a movie that should have been made twenty
years ago. I mention it here, because I know that Pterry fans and Douglas
Adams fans tend to overlap, and I have heard plenty of Adams references on
this group over the years. Has anyone else seen the trailer yet? Any
thoughts? I have only one real complaint, and that is that Zaphod has only
one head. Even the tv series in the eighties at least made an attempt at
replicating the two-headed effect. You would think that in this age of slick
special effects, a big budget project like HGTTG would leap at the chance to
flex its computer generated muscles by adding a CG head.

PS, I can't wait to see Warwick Davis as Marvin. Does anyone know if he is
doing the voice as well? It should be something to look forward too,
providing that I can keep myself from thinking "I want me gold" every time
he appears on screen.

--
Puck (onstage): I am that merry wanderer of the night!
Peaseblossom (in audience): I am that merry wanderer of the night, indeed!
"I am that giggling-dangerous-totally-bloody-psychotic-menance-to-life and
limb, more like."
-Neil Gaiman
Daibhid Ceannaideach
2005-02-16 21:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Puck
Hey all,
Just caught the new trailer for Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy from
Amazon.com. Looks really good, for a movie that should have been made
twenty years ago. I mention it here, because I know that Pterry fans
and Douglas Adams fans tend to overlap, and I have heard plenty of
Adams references on this group over the years. Has anyone else seen
the trailer yet?
I haven't, despite heading to Amazon as soon as I read this. A link would
be nice.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc/

Fate protects fools, little children and ships called "Enterprise".
But not shows called "Enterprise".
RW
2005-02-17 04:35:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daibhid Ceannaideach
I haven't, despite heading to Amazon as soon as I read this. A link would
be nice.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/subst/home/home.html/104-6677410-0904724


RW
Daibhid Ceannaideach
2005-02-17 12:05:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by RW
Post by Daibhid Ceannaideach
I haven't, despite heading to Amazon as soon as I read this. A link
would be nice.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/subst/home/home.html/104-6677410-0904
724
Thanks. I still haven't seen it, although I've started downloading it four
times. I've gotta get broadband...
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc/

Fate protects fools, little children and ships called "Enterprise".
But not shows called "Enterprise".
r***@excite.com
2005-02-18 00:54:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daibhid Ceannaideach
Post by Daibhid Ceannaideach
I haven't, despite heading to Amazon as soon as I read this. A link
would be nice.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/subst/home/home.html/104-6677410-0904
Post by Daibhid Ceannaideach
724
Thanks. I still haven't seen it, although I've started downloading it four
times. I've gotta get broadband...
Or download management software. I'm using "Star Downloader" as a
freebie. Howevr, I'm not downloading this file at the moment, if it's
/that/ size.
CCA:)
2005-02-16 21:30:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Puck
Just caught the new trailer for Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy from
Amazon.com.
[...]
I have only one real complaint, and that is that Zaphod has only
Post by Puck
one head. Even the tv series in the eighties at least made an attempt at
replicating the two-headed effect.
Oh good grief...
Two heads *is* Zaphod. You'd think they'd have got that one right, at
least!
Post by Puck
PS, I can't wait to see Warwick Davis as Marvin.
Willow?

CCA:)
The Stainless Steel Cat
2005-02-17 18:27:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by CCA:)
Post by Puck
PS, I can't wait to see Warwick Davis as Marvin.
Willow?
[Pavlovian response]
Mmmm, Willow...

Oh, wait...

Cat.
--
Jazz-Loving Soul Mate and Tolerable Frog to CCA
La Rustimuna ^Stalkato
Cat
2005-02-18 00:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Stainless Steel Cat
Post by CCA:)
Post by Puck
PS, I can't wait to see Warwick Davis as Marvin.
Willow?
[Pavlovian response]
Mmmm, Willow...
Oh, wait...
Cat.
<grin> I was gonna say that...

Cat. Um, also.
CCA:)
2005-02-18 12:29:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Stainless Steel Cat
Post by CCA:)
Post by Puck
PS, I can't wait to see Warwick Davis as Marvin.
Willow?
[Pavlovian response]
Mmmm, Willow...
Oh, wait...
*grin*
Now I come to think of it, Hunter from #afp has a dog called Willow...
CCA:)
--
Jazz-loving soulmate to Cat
Martin Francis
2005-02-16 22:02:55 UTC
Permalink
"Puck" <***@osu.edu> wrote in message news:cv0cil$jh3$***@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
I have only one real complaint, and that is that Zaphod has only
Post by Puck
one head. Even the tv series in the eighties at least made an attempt at
replicating the two-headed effect. You would think that in this age of slick
special effects, a big budget project like HGTTG would leap at the chance to
flex its computer generated muscles by adding a CG head.
Apparently it's not that big budget... and the second head *is* in the movie
(appears very briefly in the trailer- seemingly *underneath* his other one?)
Post by Puck
PS, I can't wait to see Warwick Davis as Marvin. Does anyone know if he is
doing the voice as well? It should be something to look forward too,
providing that I can keep myself from thinking "I want me gold" every time
he appears on screen.
Alan Rickman does the VO, i'm afraid. Actually not, I think he'll be perfect
for the role.
Puck
2005-02-16 22:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Puck
I have only one real complaint, and that is that Zaphod has only
Post by Puck
one head. Even the tv series in the eighties at least made an
attempt at replicating the two-headed effect. You would think that
in this age of slick
special effects, a big budget project like HGTTG would leap at the chance to
flex its computer generated muscles by adding a CG head.
Apparently it's not that big budget... and the second head *is* in
the movie (appears very briefly in the trailer- seemingly
*underneath* his other one?)
Post by Puck
PS, I can't wait to see Warwick Davis as Marvin. Does anyone know if
he is doing the voice as well? It should be something to look
forward too, providing that I can keep myself from thinking "I want
me gold" every time he appears on screen.
Alan Rickman does the VO, i'm afraid. Actually not, I think he'll be
perfect for the role.
Alan Rickman?! There is a God and he loves us! Well, he loves me at least.
Rickman is who I put as Marvin in my Fantasy Cast List. This was like 5
years ago! And they actually cast him as Marvin's voice? Woot!
--
Puck (onstage): I am that merry wanderer of the night!
Peaseblossom (in audience): I am that merry wanderer of the night,
indeed! "I am that
giggling-dangerous-totally-bloody-psychotic-menance-to-life and limb,
more like." -Neil Gaiman
Rob Skedgell
2005-02-17 02:57:50 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Puck
Post by Martin Francis
Post by Puck
PS, I can't wait to see Warwick Davis as Marvin. Does anyone know
if he is doing the voice as well? It should be something to look
forward too, providing that I can keep myself from thinking "I
want me gold" every time he appears on screen.
Alan Rickman does the VO, i'm afraid. Actually not, I think he'll
be perfect for the role.
Alan Rickman?! There is a God and he loves us! Well, he loves me at
least. Rickman is who I put as Marvin in my Fantasy Cast List. This
was like 5 years ago! And they actually cast him as Marvin's voice?
Woot!
How could they *not* use Stephen Moore for the voice? Heretics.

He always seems perfect on radio for roles that require a gloomy but
intelligent (comic) role. I find it hard to read the books without
'hearing' his voice.

OTOH I can't listen to recordings of 'Acropolis Now' without part of
me expecting Heracleitus to moan about the terrible pain in all the
diodes[0] down his left side, immediately after moaning about his
'shallow, crowd-pleasing git of a brother Aristophanes'[1].

[0] Not very common tech. during the Peloponnesian War AFAIK
[]1 OK, Lynn Truss takes more than a couple of liberties with
history, but I like it...
--
Rob Skedgell <rob+***@nephelococcygia.demon.co.uk>
GnuPG/PGP: 7DA3 1579 C0DD 8748 C05A  B984 E2A2 3234 D14B 6DD7
Vincent Oberheim
2005-02-18 18:26:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Skedgell
[snip]
Post by Puck
Post by Martin Francis
Post by Puck
PS, I can't wait to see Warwick Davis as Marvin. Does anyone know
if he is doing the voice as well? It should be something to look
forward too, providing that I can keep myself from thinking "I
want me gold" every time he appears on screen.
Alan Rickman does the VO, i'm afraid. Actually not, I think he'll
be perfect for the role.
Alan Rickman?! There is a God and he loves us! Well, he loves me at
least. Rickman is who I put as Marvin in my Fantasy Cast List. This
was like 5 years ago! And they actually cast him as Marvin's voice?
Woot!
How could they *not* use Stephen Moore for the voice? Heretics.
*snip*

Apparantly, the voice of the book itself is being done by Stephen Fry. This
might actually be a good film...

Vincent
redtiger
2005-02-21 03:42:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincent Oberheim
Post by Rob Skedgell
[snip]
Post by Puck
Post by Martin Francis
Post by Puck
PS, I can't wait to see Warwick Davis as Marvin. Does anyone know
if he is doing the voice as well? It should be something to look
forward too, providing that I can keep myself from thinking "I
want me gold" every time he appears on screen.
Alan Rickman does the VO, i'm afraid. Actually not, I think he'll
be perfect for the role.
Alan Rickman?! There is a God and he loves us! Well, he loves me at
least. Rickman is who I put as Marvin in my Fantasy Cast List. This
was like 5 years ago! And they actually cast him as Marvin's voice?
Woot!
How could they *not* use Stephen Moore for the voice? Heretics.
*snip*
Apparantly, the voice of the book itself is being done by Stephen Fry.
This might actually be a good film...
Oh good. After hearing Zaphod and Ford's American accents I was wandering
how much British would be left. For me HHGTTG will always sound British.

Anthony
--
I'm not bad.
I'm fairly new to mild naughtiness.
- Jeff, Coupling.
mcv
2005-03-07 19:46:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by redtiger
Post by Vincent Oberheim
Post by Rob Skedgell
[snip]
Post by Puck
Post by Martin Francis
Post by Puck
PS, I can't wait to see Warwick Davis as Marvin. Does anyone know
if he is doing the voice as well? It should be something to look
forward too, providing that I can keep myself from thinking "I
want me gold" every time he appears on screen.
Alan Rickman does the VO, i'm afraid. Actually not, I think he'll
be perfect for the role.
Alan Rickman?! There is a God and he loves us! Well, he loves me at
least. Rickman is who I put as Marvin in my Fantasy Cast List. This
was like 5 years ago! And they actually cast him as Marvin's voice?
Woot!
How could they *not* use Stephen Moore for the voice? Heretics.
*snip*
Apparantly, the voice of the book itself is being done by Stephen Fry.
This might actually be a good film...
Oh good. After hearing Zaphod and Ford's American accents I was wandering
how much British would be left. For me HHGTTG will always sound British.
Zaphod can be American, but Ford has to be British, if you ask me.


mcv.
r***@excite.com
2005-03-07 22:47:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by mcv
Post by redtiger
Post by Vincent Oberheim
Post by Rob Skedgell
[snip]
Post by Puck
Post by Martin Francis
Post by Puck
PS, I can't wait to see Warwick Davis as Marvin. Does anyone know
if he is doing the voice as well? It should be something to look
forward too, providing that I can keep myself from thinking "I
want me gold" every time he appears on screen.
Alan Rickman does the VO, i'm afraid. Actually not, I think he'll
be perfect for the role.
Alan Rickman?! There is a God and he loves us! Well, he loves me at
least. Rickman is who I put as Marvin in my Fantasy Cast List. This
was like 5 years ago! And they actually cast him as Marvin's voice?
Woot!
How could they *not* use Stephen Moore for the voice? Heretics.
*snip*
Apparantly, the voice of the book itself is being done by Stephen Fry.
This might actually be a good film...
Oh good. After hearing Zaphod and Ford's American accents I was wandering
how much British would be left. For me HHGTTG will always sound British.
Zaphod can be American, but Ford has to be British, if you ask me.
They're semicousins - they have three mothers in common - but Ford's
father was the only survivor of the Great Collapsing Hrung Disaster,
which took place on a different planet, albeit one apparently nearby.

Ford isn't /really/ from Guildford, but you'd never know, unless he
does that thing where he looks you in the eye and by and by you notice
he hasn't felt the need to blink for a while, and his version of the
universal telepathic message under stress, "I want to go home", hits
you with the force of just how far away his home is, which probably
happens a lot more on other planets in the Galaxay than on Earth.
Eric Jarvis
2005-03-07 22:44:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by mcv
Zaphod can be American, but Ford has to be British, if you ask me.
Not at all. Ford Prefect should be attempting to sound British, possibly
with the same effectiveness as he displayed in choosing his name.
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Puck
2005-03-07 23:05:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Jarvis
Post by mcv
Zaphod can be American, but Ford has to be British, if you ask me.
Not at all. Ford Prefect should be attempting to sound British,
possibly with the same effectiveness as he displayed in choosing his
name.
True. What would be funny would be if he tries so hard to sound British that
he sounds like many of us Americans think British people sound. "I say, good
show."
--
Puck (onstage): I am that merry wanderer of the night!
Peaseblossom (in audience): I am that merry wanderer of the night,
indeed! "I am that
giggling-dangerous-totally-bloody-psychotic-menace-to-life and limb,
more like." -Neil Gaiman
Richard Bos
2005-03-08 22:43:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Puck
Post by Eric Jarvis
Post by mcv
Zaphod can be American, but Ford has to be British, if you ask me.
Not at all. Ford Prefect should be attempting to sound British,
possibly with the same effectiveness as he displayed in choosing his
name.
True. What would be funny would be if he tries so hard to sound British that
he sounds like many of us Americans think British people sound. "I say, good
show."
So... is Dick van Dyke still alive and acting?

Richard, g,d,rlb
<@lec ©awley >
2005-03-08 23:04:07 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@news.individual.net>, ***@hoekstra-
uitgeverij.nl says...
Post by Richard Bos
Post by Puck
Post by Eric Jarvis
Post by mcv
Zaphod can be American, but Ford has to be British, if you ask me.
Not at all. Ford Prefect should be attempting to sound British,
possibly with the same effectiveness as he displayed in choosing his
name.
True. What would be funny would be if he tries so hard to sound British that
he sounds like many of us Americans think British people sound. "I say, good
show."
So... is Dick van Dyke still alive and acting?
Richard, g,d,rlb
I'll agree he was alive, but when did he ever act?
--
@lec ©awley
Lesley Weston
2005-03-08 21:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by mcv
Post by redtiger
Post by Vincent Oberheim
Post by Rob Skedgell
[snip]
Post by Puck
Post by Martin Francis
Post by Puck
PS, I can't wait to see Warwick Davis as Marvin. Does anyone know
if he is doing the voice as well? It should be something to look
forward too, providing that I can keep myself from thinking "I
want me gold" every time he appears on screen.
Alan Rickman does the VO, i'm afraid. Actually not, I think he'll
be perfect for the role.
Alan Rickman?! There is a God and he loves us! Well, he loves me at
least. Rickman is who I put as Marvin in my Fantasy Cast List. This
was like 5 years ago! And they actually cast him as Marvin's voice?
Woot!
How could they *not* use Stephen Moore for the voice? Heretics.
*snip*
Apparantly, the voice of the book itself is being done by Stephen Fry.
This might actually be a good film...
Oh good. After hearing Zaphod and Ford's American accents I was wandering
how much British would be left. For me HHGTTG will always sound British.
Zaphod can be American, but Ford has to be British, if you ask me.
Why? He's an alien, after all, so a foreign accent shouldn't be too
surprising. Arthur Dent should be not just British but English, however, and
with a Standard English accent at that.
--
Lesley Weston.

Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
Mark Gallagher
2005-03-09 02:53:27 UTC
Permalink
It's the end of the world as we know it, and Lesley Weston feels...
Post by Lesley Weston
Post by mcv
Post by redtiger
Oh good. After hearing Zaphod and Ford's American accents I was wandering
how much British would be left. For me HHGTTG will always sound British.
Zaphod can be American, but Ford has to be British, if you ask me.
Why? He's an alien, after all, so a foreign accent shouldn't be too
surprising. Arthur Dent should be not just British but English, however, and
with a Standard English accent at that.
Because Ford's pulled off an impersonation of an Englishman (I assume;
where the hell's Guildford?) for fifteen years. His accent doesn't
have to be good (to continue the gag about his name, it may even be
better if it's atrocious), but it does have to be *there*.
--
"I took up croquet today and I'm on fire"
- The Dresden Dolls, "Good Day"
Web: http://donotuselifts.net/
Email: m [dot] gallagher [at] canberra [dot] edu [dot] au
Puck
2005-03-09 07:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Gallagher
Post by Lesley Weston
Why? He's an alien, after all, so a foreign accent shouldn't be too
surprising. Arthur Dent should be not just British but English,
however, and with a Standard English accent at that.
Because Ford's pulled off an impersonation of an Englishman (I assume;
where the hell's Guildford?) for fifteen years. His accent doesn't
have to be good (to continue the gag about his name, it may even be
better if it's atrocious), but it does have to be *there*.
Well, just because he is "from" Guildford (ditto the 'where the hell is it?'
comment) doesn't mean he was born and raised there. Anyway, if Ford was a
bad enough researcher to mistake"Ford Prefect" for a name, then I don't see
why he has to be a good enough one to get his accent right. Yes, he managed
to "pull off" his act as a human, but if people don't comment on the name
what are the odds they will comment on the accent?
--
Puck (onstage): I am that merry wanderer of the night!
Peaseblossom (in audience): I am that merry wanderer of the night,
indeed! "I am that
giggling-dangerous-totally-bloody-psychotic-menace-to-life and limb,
more like." -Neil Gaiman
Peter Ellis
2005-03-09 08:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Puck
Post by Mark Gallagher
Post by Lesley Weston
Why? He's an alien, after all, so a foreign accent shouldn't be too
surprising. Arthur Dent should be not just British but English,
however, and with a Standard English accent at that.
Because Ford's pulled off an impersonation of an Englishman (I assume;
where the hell's Guildford?) for fifteen years. His accent doesn't
have to be good (to continue the gag about his name, it may even be
better if it's atrocious), but it does have to be *there*.
Well, just because he is "from" Guildford (ditto the 'where the hell is it?'
comment) doesn't mean he was born and raised there. Anyway, if Ford was a
bad enough researcher to mistake"Ford Prefect" for a name, then I don't see
why he has to be a good enough one to get his accent right. Yes, he managed
to "pull off" his act as a human, but if people don't comment on the name
what are the odds they will comment on the accent?
Indeed. In fact, there's no indication from the books that the others
at the pub think of him as particularly English, or even particularly
normal.

*******************************************

Arthur stared into his beer.

"Did I do anything wrong today," he said, "or has the world always been
like this and I've been too wrapped up in myself to notice?"

"Alright," said Ford, "I'll try to explain. How long have we known each
other?"

"How long?" Arthur thought. "Er, about five years, maybe six," he said.
"Most of it seemed to make some sense at the time."

"Alright," said Ford. "How would you react if I said that I'm not from
Guildford after all, but from a small planet somewhere in the vicinity
of Betelgeuse?"

Arthur shrugged in a so-so sort of way.

"I don't know," he said, taking a pull of beer. "Why - do you think
it's the sort of thing you're likely to say?"

Ford gave up. It really wasn't worth bothering at the moment, what with
the world being about to end. He just said:

"Drink up."

He added, perfectly factually:

"The world's about to end."

Arthur gave the rest of the pub another wan smile. The rest of the pub
frowned at him. A man waved at him to stop smiling at them and mind his
own business.

"This must be Thursday," said Arthur musing to himself, sinking low
over his beer, "I never could get the hang of Thursdays."

*******************************************

No real indication there that Ford's successfully fooled anyone into
thinking he's English. Ok, he's fooled them that he's human, but
that's a little easier.

"From Guildford" doesn't have to mean "English", anyway - I'm from
Cambridge, but wasn't born there.

Peter
Daibhid Ceannaideach
2005-03-09 19:18:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ellis
Post by Puck
Post by Mark Gallagher
Post by Lesley Weston
Why? He's an alien, after all, so a foreign accent shouldn't be too
surprising. Arthur Dent should be not just British but English,
however, and with a Standard English accent at that.
Because Ford's pulled off an impersonation of an Englishman (I
assume; where the hell's Guildford?) for fifteen years. His accent
doesn't have to be good (to continue the gag about his name, it may
even be better if it's atrocious), but it does have to be *there*.
Well, just because he is "from" Guildford (ditto the 'where the hell
is it?' comment) doesn't mean he was born and raised there. Anyway, if
Ford was a bad enough researcher to mistake"Ford Prefect" for a name,
then I don't see why he has to be a good enough one to get his accent
right. Yes, he managed to "pull off" his act as a human, but if people
don't comment on the name what are the odds they will comment on the
accent?
Indeed. In fact, there's no indication from the books that the others
at the pub think of him as particularly English, or even particularly
normal.
There's certainly no indication of the latter, indeed I'd say quite the
reverse, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the former.
Post by Peter Ellis
*******************************************
Arthur stared into his beer.
"Did I do anything wrong today," he said, "or has the world always
been like this and I've been too wrapped up in myself to notice?"
"Alright," said Ford, "I'll try to explain. How long have we known
each other?"
"How long?" Arthur thought. "Er, about five years, maybe six," he
said. "Most of it seemed to make some sense at the time."
"Alright," said Ford. "How would you react if I said that I'm not from
Guildford after all, but from a small planet somewhere in the vicinity
of Betelgeuse?"
Arthur shrugged in a so-so sort of way.
"I don't know," he said, taking a pull of beer. "Why - do you think
it's the sort of thing you're likely to say?"
Ford gave up. It really wasn't worth bothering at the moment, what
"Drink up."
"The world's about to end."
Arthur gave the rest of the pub another wan smile. The rest of the pub
frowned at him. A man waved at him to stop smiling at them and mind
his own business.
"This must be Thursday," said Arthur musing to himself, sinking low
over his beer, "I never could get the hang of Thursdays."
*******************************************
No real indication there that Ford's successfully fooled anyone into
thinking he's English. Ok, he's fooled them that he's human, but
that's a little easier.
There's no real indication he's fooled them into thinking he's human
either, except that no-one shows any sign of believing otherwise. In much
the same way as Arthur gives no indication he's ever doubted Ford's
Guildfordianess (it's in Surrey, people who were wondering), just his
sanity.
Post by Peter Ellis
"From Guildford" doesn't have to mean "English", anyway - I'm from
Cambridge, but wasn't born there.
So in what sense *are* you "from Cambrige", then? I'm from Inverness (or I
am when I'm somewhere else, anyway) because I was born there. I'm not from
anywhere else.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc/

Fate protects fools, little children and ships called "Enterprise".
But not shows called "Enterprise".
Peter Ellis
2005-03-09 19:50:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daibhid Ceannaideach
Post by Peter Ellis
"From Guildford" doesn't have to mean "English", anyway - I'm from
Cambridge, but wasn't born there.
So in what sense *are* you "from Cambrige", then? I'm from Inverness (or I
am when I'm somewhere else, anyway) because I was born there. I'm not from
anywhere else.
I'm from Cambridge because I live and work there. When I go off to
conferences and people ask where I'm from, I say "Cambridge". If they
ask where I was from before that, I'd say "Somerset", since that's
where I grew up, and where Mum lives. However, I was actually born in
Hertfordshire, so I could claim to be "from" there as well. We're
never given any information to show in what sense Ford is using the
term "from", nor shown in what sense the others around him believe him
to be using it.

Hell, we don't even know if they believe him - they might well be
thinking "Bloody Americans, coming here pretending to be a local, who
does he think he's kidding".[1] OK, Arthur never says anything of the
sort, but he's (a) easy-going, (b) not the brightest bulb, and (c)
British, so would never *dream* of saying that sort of thing out loud.

Consider also The Shawshank Redemption, one of the finest films of all
time. The character Ellis Redding was originally Irish, nickname
"Red". In the film, he was played by Morgan Freeman - and he's the
best person they could possibly have cast. They didn't even have to
change the dialogue - in the film and novella, he's asked "Why do they
call you Red?", and in each he replies "Maybe it's because I'm Irish".
In one, simple fact - in the other, a joke based on the fact that he
obviously can't be Irish.

It could be that Ford said he's from Guildford, everyone took it as a
joke, then ignored him 'cos he's a bit weird. Ford assumes he's got
away with it. Or whatever. If you want to be more sneaky, you could
argue that pragmatically it would make most sense for Ford to
*deliberately* choose the wrong accent for his surroundings - any alien
peculiarities are then more likely to be ignored as simple foreignness.

It. Doesn't. Matter. The point is not whether Mos Def can spend the
first five minutes of the film convincing half a dozen extras in a
stage-set pub that he's an unemployed actor from Guildford: it's
whether he can spend the rest of the film convincing the *audience*
that he's an alien reporter.

Peter
Daibhid Ceannaideach
2005-03-09 20:15:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ellis
Post by Daibhid Ceannaideach
Post by Peter Ellis
"From Guildford" doesn't have to mean "English", anyway - I'm from
Cambridge, but wasn't born there.
So in what sense *are* you "from Cambrige", then? I'm from Inverness
(or I am when I'm somewhere else, anyway) because I was born there.
I'm not from anywhere else.
I'm from Cambridge because I live and work there. When I go off to
conferences and people ask where I'm from, I say "Cambridge". If they
ask where I was from before that, I'd say "Somerset", since that's
where I grew up, and where Mum lives. However, I was actually born in
Hertfordshire, so I could claim to be "from" there as well. We're
never given any information to show in what sense Ford is using the
term "from", nor shown in what sense the others around him believe him
to be using it.
Fair enough. That never occured to me, perhaps because I've never been two
stages removed from Inverness; if I'd been at Uni long enough to be based
there while going somewhere else, I'd probably have seen it.

In that case, though, depending on where Ford started when setting up on
Earth, he *might* actually be from Guildford...
Post by Peter Ellis
Hell, we don't even know if they believe him - they might well be
thinking "Bloody Americans, coming here pretending to be a local, who
does he think he's kidding".[1] OK, Arthur never says anything of the
sort, but he's (a) easy-going, (b) not the brightest bulb, and (c)
British, so would never *dream* of saying that sort of thing out loud.
Point.
Post by Peter Ellis
Consider also The Shawshank Redemption, one of the finest films of all
time. The character Ellis Redding was originally Irish, nickname
"Red". In the film, he was played by Morgan Freeman - and he's the
best person they could possibly have cast. They didn't even have to
change the dialogue - in the film and novella, he's asked "Why do they
call you Red?", and in each he replies "Maybe it's because I'm Irish".
In one, simple fact - in the other, a joke based on the fact that he
obviously can't be Irish.
Point.
Post by Peter Ellis
It could be that Ford said he's from Guildford, everyone took it as a
joke, then ignored him 'cos he's a bit weird. Ford assumes he's got
away with it. Or whatever. If you want to be more sneaky, you could
argue that pragmatically it would make most sense for Ford to
*deliberately* choose the wrong accent for his surroundings - any
alien peculiarities are then more likely to be ignored as simple
foreignness.
Point.
Post by Peter Ellis
It. Doesn't. Matter. The point is not whether Mos Def can spend the
first five minutes of the film convincing half a dozen extras in a
stage-set pub that he's an unemployed actor from Guildford: it's
whether he can spend the rest of the film convincing the *audience*
that he's an alien reporter.
Point.

<Daibhid withdraws graciously>
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc/

Fate protects fools, little children and ships called "Enterprise".
But not shows called "Enterprise".
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
2005-03-14 22:05:59 UTC
Permalink
On 9 Mar, in article
Post by Daibhid Ceannaideach
So in what sense *are* you "from Cambrige", then? I'm from Inverness (or I
am when I'm somewhere else, anyway) because I was born there. I'm not from
anywhere else.
Surely, being "from <somewhere>" depends to an extent upon how much one
was peripatetic in one's "formative years". Many people, I am sure, were
born in a locality, and lived there for some years (with parents) and
thereby established a "fromness". However, there are plenty who moved
around (service families, etc) and have no comparably roots.

For myself:
1945 Born [21st March] in Grappenhall, Cheshire. Went back to
1945 Littlestone (Romney Marsh). Mother left father in
1947 and moved to Kenilworth, Warwickshire.
1952 Mother remarried to an RAF officer.
1952 RAF Cranwell, Lincolnshire
1953-4 RAF Little Rissington, Gloucestershire
1954-5 Ashtead, Surrey
1956 Back to Kenilworth (step-father on protracted Antarctic mission)
1963 Bangor, North Wales.

Now, up to this point, if asked where I was from, I /might/ sometimes
have said Kenilworth, because I certainly spent longer there than in any
other single location. I was certainly never "from Grappenhall", because
I was literally only there a few days (my mother visited her parents
there because her father was an Inspector of Munitions Factories, and
visiting Warrington; my grandparents continued to *live* in Kenilworth).

1964 Anglesey
1966 London
1967 Shoeburyness, Essex
1968 Eskmeals (west coast of Lake District)
1981 Longcot, Oxfordshire
1982 Swindon, Wiltshire
1992 Longcot
1994 Faringdon, Oxfordshire

I've lived here ever since; if asked, I might well say that "I live in
Faringdon". I might also amplify that with "I'm originally from
Kenilworth", although I quite evidently am not.

BTW, Faringdon used to be the capital "city" of England, at least during
the summer months (when the winter capital was in Winchester).
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} ***@dsl.co.uk
"Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu
le loisir de la faire plus courte."
Blaise Pascal, /Lettres Provinciales/, 1657
Puck
2005-03-15 09:26:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
1945 Born [21st March] in Grappenhall, Cheshire. Went back to
1945 Littlestone (Romney Marsh). Mother left father in
1947 and moved to Kenilworth, Warwickshire.
1952 Mother remarried to an RAF officer.
1952 RAF Cranwell, Lincolnshire
1953-4 RAF Little Rissington, Gloucestershire
1954-5 Ashtead, Surrey
1956 Back to Kenilworth (step-father on protracted Antarctic
mission) 1963 Bangor, North Wales.
My turn:
1984: Born on the planet Krypton. Sent off into space in a rocket because my
parents wanted a girl.

1986: Created media sensation when it was revealed that the birthmark on my
big toe is perpetually shaped like tomorrow's stock market prices.

1987: Graduated college with honors, became the world's youngest person to
climb Mount Everest using only my teeth.

1990: Using three medium sized toenail clippings and some slightly frayed
twine, constructed working perpetual motion machine.

1992: Due to increased damage to twine over the years, machine breaks down
and secret is lost forever.

1993: Year of the distressed coatimundi. Persons born under this sign show
tendancy to gravitate to jobs in the fields of dog worrying and ball bearing
repair.

1995: We all know what happened on the eve of February 30 1995 at 8:03 pm. I
would simply like to state that the tooth marks didn't match and all the
charges were dropped.

1996-1999: Witness Protection Program.

2002: Due to design flaw in time machine (since corrected) this year
happened no fewer than five times in seventeen and a half minutes. I was
unaffected, but my dog Flotz remains lost in 14th century Bavaria. If found
call 578-0092. Reward availible.

2004: Came out of lurking on afp and revealed that he knows where you live,
has been inside your house, and doesn't think much of the pattern you chose
for your kitchen.

2005: Life story posted on popular newsgroup reveals his identity to
authorities. SWAT team now en route to his house. Please remain calm, the
nightmare is almost over.

Also 2005: Married Angelina Jolie, won Nobel Prize, flew around the world in
a weather-beaten old fedora and discovered a cure for reality tv.

That was refeshing! Its so nice to get stuff like this out in the open.
Excuse me, I hear someone at the door, won't be a mi
Flesh-eating Dragon
2005-03-15 13:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Puck
1987: Graduated college with honors, became the world's youngest person to
climb Mount Everest using only my teeth.
^^

Is that a grammatical error, or not?

Because the way you've written it, in order to beat your record
someone younger than you would have to climb Mount Everest using only
*your* teeth. It wouldn't do them any good to use only *their* teeth,
because the record is that of being the youngest person to climb Mount
Everest using only *your* (i.e. Puck's) teeth.

This gives you a somewhat unfair advantage. For example I hold the
world record for the fastest typing speed using only my fingers.

You may have intended to write, "became the world's youngest person to
climb Mount Everest using only THEIR teeth". This would be fairer,
because it is easier for a person who is not you to climb Mount
Everest using only *their* teeth (i.e. the teeth of the person who is
climbing Mount Everest) than it is for them to climb Mount Everest
using only *your* teeth (i.e. Puck's teeth).

I mention this possible grammatical error because apart from it I can
find no other reasonable cause for doubting the integrity of your
account of events.

Adrian.
Mark Gallagher
2005-03-15 13:53:09 UTC
Permalink
It's the end of the world as we know it, and Flesh-eating Dragon
feels...
Post by Flesh-eating Dragon
Post by Puck
1987: Graduated college with honors, became the world's youngest person to
climb Mount Everest using only my teeth.
^^
Is that a grammatical error, or not?
<snip />
Post by Flesh-eating Dragon
You may have intended to write, "became the world's youngest person to
climb Mount Everest using only THEIR teeth". This would be fairer,
because it is easier for a person who is not you to climb Mount
Everest using only *their* teeth (i.e. the teeth of the person who is
climbing Mount Everest) than it is for them to climb Mount Everest
using only *your* teeth (i.e. Puck's teeth).
Shirley, that should be "using only HIS teeth", or possibly "using only
hän's teeth"? <g, d, rps />
Post by Flesh-eating Dragon
I mention this possible grammatical error because apart from it I can
find no other reasonable cause for doubting the integrity of your
account of events.
Heh...
--
"I took up croquet today and I'm on fire"
- The Dresden Dolls, "Good Day"
Web: http://donotuselifts.net/
Email: m [dot] gallagher [at] canberra [dot] edu [dot] au
Puck
2005-03-15 19:17:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Flesh-eating Dragon
You may have intended to write, "became the world's youngest person to
climb Mount Everest using only THEIR teeth". This would be fairer,
because it is easier for a person who is not you to climb Mount
Everest using only *their* teeth (i.e. the teeth of the person who is
climbing Mount Everest) than it is for them to climb Mount Everest
using only *your* teeth (i.e. Puck's teeth).
You make a valid point. In order to keep my integrity, if anyone wants to
use my teeth for a climb of Everest they only need to ask.
--
Puck (onstage): I am that merry wanderer of the night!
Peaseblossom (in audience): I am that merry wanderer of the night,
indeed! "I am that
giggling-dangerous-totally-bloody-psychotic-menace-to-life and limb,
more like." -Neil Gaiman
Len Oil
2005-03-22 22:46:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Puck
1984: Born on the planet Krypton. Sent off into space in a rocket because my
parents wanted a girl.
<snip various other perfectly possible things>
Post by Puck
Also 2005: Married Angelina Jolie, won Nobel Prize, flew around the world in
a weather-beaten old fedora and discovered a cure for reality tv.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Everything else I accept unconditionally, but there is /no/ cure for
Reality TV... I think you're telling porkies with that one.
Flesh-eating Dragon
2005-03-23 05:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Len Oil
Post by Puck
Also 2005: Married Angelina Jolie, won Nobel Prize, flew around the
world in a weather-beaten old fedora and discovered a cure for reality tv.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Everything else I accept unconditionally, but there is /no/ cure for
Reality TV... I think you're telling porkies with that one.
I have an idea for a new show that will allow viewers to experience the reality
of what their television would look like if it were switched off. Do you think
this has potential?

The only downside is that I can't think of a way to work contestants and prizes
into the format.

Adrian.
Paul E. Jamison
2005-03-23 11:33:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Flesh-eating Dragon
Post by Len Oil
Post by Puck
Also 2005: Married Angelina Jolie, won Nobel Prize, flew around the
world in a weather-beaten old fedora and discovered a cure for reality tv.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by Flesh-eating Dragon
Post by Len Oil
Everything else I accept unconditionally, but there is /no/ cure for
Reality TV... I think you're telling porkies with that one.
I have an idea for a new show that will allow viewers to experience the reality
of what their television would look like if it were switched off. Do you think
this has potential?
I believe that it might. It reminds me of something I heard about certain
local TV stations in Amerrrica which will mark the holiday season by
broadcasting a video of a cheerfully blazing logs, so people could pretend
the TV set is a fireplace.
Post by Flesh-eating Dragon
The only downside is that I can't think of a way to work contestants and prizes
into the format.
The entrepreneurial spirit would find a way.

Paul
--
"Who reads, learns, lives the Ferret Way becomes keeper
of light, ennobling outer worlds from one within."
- a prophecy from the Ancients
Eric Jarvis
2005-03-15 12:11:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
On 9 Mar, in article
Post by Daibhid Ceannaideach
So in what sense *are* you "from Cambrige", then? I'm from Inverness (or I
am when I'm somewhere else, anyway) because I was born there. I'm not from
anywhere else.
Surely, being "from <somewhere>" depends to an extent upon how much one
was peripatetic in one's "formative years".
1945 Born [21st March] in Grappenhall, Cheshire. Went back to
1945 Littlestone (Romney Marsh). Mother left father in
1947 and moved to Kenilworth, Warwickshire.
1952 Mother remarried to an RAF officer.
1952 RAF Cranwell, Lincolnshire
1953-4 RAF Little Rissington, Gloucestershire
1954-5 Ashtead, Surrey
1956 Back to Kenilworth (step-father on protracted Antarctic mission)
1963 Bangor, North Wales.
Now, up to this point, if asked where I was from, I /might/ sometimes
have said Kenilworth, because I certainly spent longer there than in any
other single location.
1964 Anglesey
1966 London
1967 Shoeburyness, Essex
1968 Eskmeals (west coast of Lake District)
1981 Longcot, Oxfordshire
1982 Swindon, Wiltshire
1992 Longcot
1994 Faringdon, Oxfordshire
Let's see if I can remember this.

1956 conceived in Cornwall (probably Perranporth)
1957 born in Awali, Bahrain
1958 six months in Ham (near Kingston) then back to Bahrain
1960 ditto
1962 ditto
1963 six months in Bognor Regis then back to Bahrain
1965 Worcester Park (near Suburbiton)
1966 Lenham, Kent
1968 Roxby, just outside of Scunthorpe

Thus far I'd have claimed to be from Bahrain or Ham, usually the former.
Then we get to "the London years". From around 1971 I'd have said I was
from Scunthorpe but had moved around a bit before getting there.

1976 IC Halls of Residence in South Kensington
1977 ditto then Earls Court
1978 Hammersmith
1979 ditto then Acton
1980 Shepherd's Bush then homeless and sleeping on floors
1981 Drury Lane, then Clapham then homeless again
1983 Rotherhithe then Harringay
1985 homeless again then Stepney
1986 Lambeth

Where I have been ever since.

So now I'm really from Lambeth. Since I've been here 18 years and that's
far longer than I've lived anywhere else. However I still think of myself
as from Scunthorpe.

I think it really has to be down to self definition. What places you feel
have had the most influence on who you are, rather than any strict set of
rules. It's also something that is different in different circumstances.
Sometimes I find it useful to see myself as being from Bahrain, sometimes
it's useful to go with genealogy and to be from Cornwall, though I'll
admit I've never found circumstances where I wanted to be from Bognor
Regis or Rotherhithe.
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
<@lec ©awley >
2005-03-15 19:11:53 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@news.individual.net>,
***@ericjarvis.co.uk says...

<Where he came from>

I always say that I came from the M4, since I have always lived within
10 miles of it since they built the first bit. In one case they only
just finished it in time.

Egham, Surrey
Eton
Bristol,
Cwmbran, Gwent,
Bagshot, Surrey
Newbury
--
@lec ©awley
Diane L
2005-03-16 17:48:58 UTC
Permalink
Eric Jarvis wrote:

<snip context>
Post by Eric Jarvis
Sometimes I find it useful to see myself as
being from Bahrain, sometimes it's useful to go with genealogy and to
be from Cornwall, though I'll admit I've never found circumstances
where I wanted to be from Bognor Regis or Rotherhithe.
Even if the alternative was to be *to* Bognor Regis or Rotherhithe?

Diane L.
Eric Jarvis
2005-03-16 18:13:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diane L
<snip context>
Post by Eric Jarvis
Sometimes I find it useful to see myself as
being from Bahrain, sometimes it's useful to go with genealogy and to
be from Cornwall, though I'll admit I've never found circumstances
where I wanted to be from Bognor Regis or Rotherhithe.
Even if the alternative was to be *to* Bognor Regis or Rotherhithe?
That'd do it. :)
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Daibhid Ceannaideach
2005-03-16 14:01:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
On 9 Mar, in article
Post by Daibhid Ceannaideach
So in what sense *are* you "from Cambrige", then? I'm from Inverness
(or I am when I'm somewhere else, anyway) because I was born there.
I'm not from anywhere else.
Surely, being "from <somewhere>" depends to an extent upon how much
one was peripatetic in one's "formative years". Many people, I am
sure, were born in a locality, and lived there for some years (with
parents) and thereby established a "fromness". However, there are
plenty who moved around (service families, etc) and have no comparably
roots.
Yeah, I see that now. It didn't occur to me because my *story* goes:

1976 Born in Inverness. Moved for my Mum's job in
1978 to Nairn, about 15 miles away. Job changed again in
1980 and we moved back to Inverness (Well, Culloden). I started University
in
1998 and moved to Edinburgh. But I failed my course comprehensively and in,
2000 I returned to Inverness and moved back in with Mum.

So I'm not just "from" a town, I'm pretty much "from" a house...
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc/

Fate protects fools, little children and ships called "Enterprise".
But not shows called "Enterprise".
Len Oil
2005-03-23 00:22:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daibhid Ceannaideach
1976 Born in Inverness. Moved for my Mum's job in
1978 to Nairn, about 15 miles away. Job changed again in
1980 and we moved back to Inverness (Well, Culloden). I started University
in
1998 and moved to Edinburgh. But I failed my course comprehensively and in,
2000 I returned to Inverness and moved back in with Mum.
So I'm not just "from" a town, I'm pretty much "from" a house...
Year 0: born in $House1, $Town, $County.
(Ignore the years away at tertiary education, they're irrelevant[1].)
Year 25 or 26: moved to $House2, $City, $County.
Present day: still at $House2, $City, $County.

Boring[1].


[1] In almost all senses of the word.
Len Oil
2005-03-22 22:42:18 UTC
Permalink
1945 Born [21st March] <snip>
Hippo Birdie!


(Belated from yesterday, but as I'm a bit behind and I've only just
started reading this thread, from its root post dated 16/Feb, you'll
forgive me, right? :)
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
2005-03-24 00:02:35 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, in article
Post by Len Oil
1945 Born [21st March] <snip>
Hippo Birdie!
Many thanks; I must add that I don't *feel* sixty. For example, I don't
have trousers with the waist only slightly below my armpits.
Post by Len Oil
(Belated from yesterday, but as I'm a bit behind and I've only just
started reading this thread, from its root post dated 16/Feb, you'll
forgive me, right? :)
Of course; I'm multiple pre-expired threads behind myself.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} ***@dsl.co.uk
"Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu
le loisir de la faire plus courte."
Blaise Pascal, /Lettres Provinciales/, 1657
<@lec ©awley >
2005-03-10 19:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Gallagher
It's the end of the world as we know it, and Lesley Weston feels...
Post by Lesley Weston
Post by mcv
Post by redtiger
Oh good. After hearing Zaphod and Ford's American accents I was wandering
how much British would be left. For me HHGTTG will always sound British.
Zaphod can be American, but Ford has to be British, if you ask me.
Why? He's an alien, after all, so a foreign accent shouldn't be too
surprising. Arthur Dent should be not just British but English, however, and
with a Standard English accent at that.
Because Ford's pulled off an impersonation of an Englishman (I assume;
where the hell's Guildford?) for fifteen years. His accent doesn't
have to be good (to continue the gag about his name, it may even be
better if it's atrocious), but it does have to be *there*.
When Douglas Adams was asked why he chose the number 43, he said
something along the lines of "because is is such an ordinary, harmless
number - one you could introduce to your parents".

Seen from an Islington perspective, Guildford is the same. If you go to
the station, you can see there are trains that go there, and you may
very well meet people who live there and commute to the real world
(London). There is nothing *wrong* with Guildford, but an Islingtonion
is unlikely ever to have reason to go there. It is just a perfectly
harmless place to have come from. Because it is not far away, and not
very different, and has no known great landmarks, famous inhabitants, or
distinctive accent, no-one will ever ask you about it. Unlike the name
Ford Prefect, it is a perfect camouflage background.
--
@lec ©awley
David Roy
2005-03-10 21:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by <@lec ©awley >
When Douglas Adams was asked why he chose the number 43, he said
something along the lines of "because is is such an ordinary, harmless
number - one you could introduce to your parents".
Seen from an Islington perspective, Guildford is the same. If you go
to the station, you can see there are trains that go there, and you
may very well meet people who live there and commute to the real world
(London). There is nothing *wrong* with Guildford, but an Islingtonion
is unlikely ever to have reason to go there. It is just a perfectly
harmless place to have come from. Because it is not far away, and not
very different, and has no known great landmarks, famous inhabitants,
or distinctive accent, no-one will ever ask you about it. Unlike the
name Ford Prefect, it is a perfect camouflage background.
The only two problems with that being that he also said that he talked with
Geoffrey Perkins (producer of the radio series) for hours about what number
would be funniest, which kind of belies the off-the-cuff nature of the
comment, and that the number they came up with was actually 42...

IGMC

David
Daibhid Ceannaideach
2005-03-10 21:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Roy
Post by <@lec ©awley >
When Douglas Adams was asked why he chose the number 43, he said
something along the lines of "because is is such an ordinary,
harmless number - one you could introduce to your parents".
The only two problems with that being that he also said that he talked
with Geoffrey Perkins (producer of the radio series) for hours about
what number would be funniest, which kind of belies the off-the-cuff
nature of the comment, and that the number they came up with was
actually 42...
As far as the former goes, I think it works both ways. They could have
spent some time looking for such a number. I think he said somewhere else
that, if you ask a comedy writer to come up with a number, they'll
instantly come up with something like "two zillion and three" or "nine and
seven twelfths", and he didn't want a number like that. Coming up with a
number that was instantly recognisable as a perfectly unremarkable number
was probably trickier than it sounds.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc/

Fate protects fools, little children and ships called "Enterprise".
But not shows called "Enterprise".
Orjan Westin
2005-03-11 00:49:12 UTC
Permalink
Coming up with a number that was instantly recognisable as a
perfectly unremarkable number was probably trickier than it sounds.
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?selm=2l8jtsF9q269U1%40uni-berlin.de

Orjan
--
Get your Tale paperback or CD here:
http://tale.cunobaros.com
Or just read it there, if you don't want the illustrations
Marco Villalta
2005-03-11 07:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Orjan Westin
Coming up with a number that was instantly recognisable as a
perfectly unremarkable number was probably trickier than it sounds.
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?selm=2l8jtsF9q269U1%40uni-berlin.de
In light of that, I'm a bit amused to re-read *this* article:
<http://google.co.uk/groups?selm=ab89a7%24g8a6d%241%40ID-90122.news.dfncis.de>

(Written some one-and-a-half years earlier.)

--
Marco Villalta -- Reply-To: ***@spray.se

Note! New e-mail addresses.
Daibhid Ceannaideach
2005-03-11 10:28:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Orjan Westin
Coming up with a number that was instantly recognisable as a
perfectly unremarkable number was probably trickier than it sounds.
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?selm=2l8jtsF9q269U1%40uni-berlin.de
That leaves 17, 19, 31, 51, 53, 57, 59, 71, 73, 79 and 91 as two-digit
coincidental numbers.
Some eight months later, it occurs to me that you didn't mention the non-
coincidentality of primes. Which leaves 51, 57 and 91.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc/

Fate protects fools, little children and ships called "Enterprise".
But not shows called "Enterprise".
David Roy
2005-02-16 23:25:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Puck
Hey all,
Just caught the new trailer for Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy from
Amazon.com. Looks really good, for a movie that should have been made
twenty years ago. I mention it here, because I know that Pterry fans
and Douglas Adams fans tend to overlap, and I have heard plenty of
Adams references on this group over the years. Has anyone else seen
the trailer yet? Any thoughts? I have only one real complaint, and
that is that Zaphod has only one head. Even the tv series in the
eighties at least made an attempt at replicating the two-headed
effect. You would think that in this age of slick special effects, a
big budget project like HGTTG would leap at the chance to flex its
computer generated muscles by adding a CG head.
The trailer's pretty low bandwidth, so it's hard to say, but there's a bit
about two thirds of the way through where he seems to take his first head
off and have a different one underneath... That could be how they dealt
with it.

My main complaint with the new radio series was that it felt far too much
like a loving recreation of the original, but set in aspic. (A problem I
have with a lot of Dirk Maggs' series - they're beautifully done, but never
quite come to life.) The trailer seems to promise someone actually taking
HHGGTTG head-on and doing it again, rather than recreating a past version.
On those grounds alone, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt,
and even look forward to it coming out.

David.
Puck
2005-02-17 05:52:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Roy
The trailer's pretty low bandwidth, so it's hard to say, but there's
a bit about two thirds of the way through where he seems to take his
first head off and have a different one underneath... That could be
how they dealt with it.
You're right. Just watched it again, and there does appear to be a
two-headed effect going on, as if one head is wearing the other head as a
mask. Not a bad effect, all in all, but its still not the Zaphod I know and
admire. Interestingly, the Zaphod in the trailer bears a definite
resemblance to the one they used in the comic books.

Hey, in a related note, one of the sites Google found for me when looking
for pictures from the comic actually had the complete text from all of the
novels on it! That *can't* be legal. I mean, the stuff isn't in the public
domain, right?


--
Puck (onstage): I am that merry wanderer of the night!
Peaseblossom (in audience): I am that merry wanderer of the night,
indeed! "I am that
giggling-dangerous-totally-bloody-psychotic-menance-to-life and limb,
more like." -Neil Gaiman
Daibhid Ceannaideach
2005-02-17 12:16:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Puck
Interestingly, the Zaphod in the trailer bears a
definite resemblance to the one they used in the comic books.
Which is fair enough, as the one in the comics is based on the description
in the first book, Adams having decided at that point that Zaphod certainly
*sounded* like Wing-Davey, but that was no reason why he had to *look* like
him.
Post by Puck
Hey, in a related note, one of the sites Google found for me when
looking for pictures from the comic actually had the complete text
from all of the novels on it! That *can't* be legal. I mean, the stuff
isn't in the public domain, right?
Nope, it certainly isn't. Anyone know Ed Victor's e-mail address?
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc/

Fate protects fools, little children and ships called "Enterprise".
But not shows called "Enterprise".
Mike Stevens
2005-02-17 02:06:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Puck
Any thoughts? I have only one real complaint, and
that is that Zaphod has only one head. Even the tv series in the
eighties at least made an attempt at replicating the two-headed
effect.
It did indeed. The actor was Mark Wing-Davey [1] and I remember being
slightly disconcerted some time later seeing him play the Earl of Warwick in
the Henry VI plays (directed by Buzz Goodbody) in the BBC Shakespeare
series. It was a really excellent production, but I had a nagging feeling
in the back of my miond of "What's happened to Zaphod's other head".

[1] Who also, IIRC, played the part in the original radio series that
started the whole thing.


--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus II
Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk

No man is an island. So is Man.
Steve James
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
*Date:* Thu, 17 Feb 2005 02:06:21 -0000
Post by Puck
Any thoughts? I have only one real complaint, and
that is that Zaphod has only one head. Even the tv series in the
eighties at least made an attempt at replicating the two-headed
effect.
It did indeed. The actor was Mark Wing-Davey [1] and I remember being
slightly disconcerted some time later seeing him play the Earl of Warwick in
the Henry VI plays (directed by Buzz Goodbody) in the BBC Shakespeare
series. It was a really excellent production, but I had a nagging feeling
in the back of my miond of "What's happened to Zaphod's other head".
[1] Who also, IIRC, played the part in the original radio series that
started the whole thing.
Have a look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/
for the best informatio on the old and new HHGTTG




Steve (Steeljam) *BF DAcFD (UU) *
Resident Opsimath in Redivivus Studies
Gesso
2005-02-18 12:43:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Puck
Hey all,
Just caught the new trailer for Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy from
Amazon.com. Looks really good, for a movie that should have been made twenty
years ago. I mention it here, because I know that Pterry fans and Douglas
Adams fans tend to overlap, and I have heard plenty of Adams references on
this group over the years. Has anyone else seen the trailer yet? Any
thoughts? I have only one real complaint, and that is that Zaphod has only
one head. Even the tv series in the eighties at least made an attempt at
replicating the two-headed effect. You would think that in this age of slick
special effects, a big budget project like HGTTG would leap at the chance to
flex its computer generated muscles by adding a CG head.
It looks fun :)
Apparently Zaphod *does* have his other head (and extra arm); it's just
hidden. Even so, I'd've liked to have *seen* it, rather than get it
confirmed through AICN.

...Argh. I just went to show the trailer to my dad, and it's disappeared.
Curses!

Jess
Pudde Fjord
2005-02-18 20:55:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gesso
Post by Puck
Hey all,
Just caught the new trailer for Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy from
Amazon.com. Looks really good, for a movie that should have been made twenty
years ago. I mention it here, because I know that Pterry fans and Douglas
Adams fans tend to overlap, and I have heard plenty of Adams references on
this group over the years. Has anyone else seen the trailer yet? Any
thoughts? I have only one real complaint, and that is that Zaphod has only
one head. Even the tv series in the eighties at least made an attempt at
replicating the two-headed effect. You would think that in this age of slick
special effects, a big budget project like HGTTG would leap at the chance to
flex its computer generated muscles by adding a CG head.
It looks fun :)
Apparently Zaphod *does* have his other head (and extra arm); it's just
hidden. Even so, I'd've liked to have *seen* it, rather than get it
confirmed through AICN.
The main peeve I get, is that they had those lines with "..the extra
head suits you." and so on, that will be rather pointless if the head is
not in plain view.

At least they had an extra arm that looked good.

And there's no real reason why the two heads should look the same...


Pudde.
Steve James
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
*Date:* Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:55:05 +0100
Post by Gesso
Post by Puck
Hey all,
Just caught the new trailer for Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy from
Amazon.com. Looks really good, for a movie that should have been made twenty
years ago. I mention it here, because I know that Pterry fans and
Douglas
Post by Gesso
Post by Puck
Adams fans tend to overlap, and I have heard plenty of Adams
references on
Post by Gesso
Post by Puck
this group over the years. Has anyone else seen the trailer yet? Any
thoughts? I have only one real complaint, and that is that Zaphod has
only
Post by Gesso
Post by Puck
one head. Even the tv series in the eighties at least made an attempt
at
Post by Gesso
Post by Puck
replicating the two-headed effect. You would think that in this age
of >>slick
Post by Gesso
Post by Puck
special effects, a big budget project like HGTTG would leap at the
chance >>to
Post by Gesso
Post by Puck
flex its computer generated muscles by adding a CG head.
It looks fun :)
Apparently Zaphod *does* have his other head (and extra arm); it's
just hidden. Even so, I'd've liked to have *seen* it, rather than get
it confirmed through AICN.
The main peeve I get, is that they had those lines with "..the extra
head suits you." and so on, that will be rather pointless if the head
is not in plain view.
I agree, that was the thing that really stood out. There was a bit at the
end where one head was replaced by another but that is not how the radio
play or book was written. I can see many changes in the offing.
At least they had an extra arm that looked good.
And there's no real reason why the two heads should look the same...
But they should be both visible otherwise it would have to be ".. the
other head suits you."


Steve (Steeljam) *BF DAcFD (UU) *
Resident Opsimath in Redivivus Studies
graham
2005-02-20 21:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Hi there,
Post by Puck
Just caught the new trailer for Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy from
Amazon.com. [...] Has anyone else seen the trailer yet?
Yes, although I'm a bit concerned that it's rather Americanised (or
should that be -ized?) which suggests that any subtlety in the humour
is likely to be lost.

Still, I'll maybe give it a chance.
Post by Puck
I have only one real complaint, and that is that Zaphod has only one head.
Watch the trailer again. His second head appears to "pop up" from
underneath the other as if they're somehow interchangable.

My niggle is that The Heart of Gold is spherical instead of as
described in the books (and in the BBC version) "like a streamlined
running shoe" which looked pretty good, but it's a minor point.

Cheers,
Graham.
Laura Donaghy
2005-02-24 21:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Puck
Hey all,
I have only one real complaint, and that is that Zaphod has only
one head. Even the tv series in the eighties at least made an attempt at
replicating the two-headed effect. You would think that in this age of slick
special effects, a big budget project like HGTTG would leap at the chance to
flex its computer generated muscles by adding a CG head.
I've only ever read the books (yes yes I know, heretic) but I always
pictured Zaphod's heads side by side and identical. And I would have
pronounced it "Zah-fod" rather than "Zay-phod".

Oh no, this is going to be like LotR all over again... (I'm a terrible
purist, even when I'm wrong.)
Lister
2005-02-24 22:19:29 UTC
Permalink
La tempo, 24 Feb 2005 13:54:46 -0800 , La loco, alt.fan.pratchett .
Post by Laura Donaghy
Post by Puck
Hey all,
I have only one real complaint, and that is that Zaphod has only
one head. Even the tv series in the eighties at least made an attempt at
replicating the two-headed effect. You would think that in this age of slick
special effects, a big budget project like HGTTG would leap at the chance to
flex its computer generated muscles by adding a CG head.
I've only ever read the books (yes yes I know, heretic) but I always
pictured Zaphod's heads side by side and identical. And I would have
pronounced it "Zah-fod" rather than "Zay-phod".
Oh no, this is going to be like LotR all over again... (I'm a terrible
purist, even when I'm wrong.)
FWIW, I pronounce Zaphod the same as you :)
--
Wanted: Argos catalogues from 1980 to 1990
Will consider all offers
Puck
2005-02-25 01:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lister
Post by Laura Donaghy
I've only ever read the books (yes yes I know, heretic) but I always
pictured Zaphod's heads side by side and identical. And I would have
pronounced it "Zah-fod" rather than "Zay-phod".
Oh no, this is going to be like LotR all over again... (I'm a
terrible
purist, even when I'm wrong.)
FWIW, I pronounce Zaphod the same as you :)
That is how I always said it, even after seeing the show.
--
Puck (onstage): I am that merry wanderer of the night!
Peaseblossom (in audience): I am that merry wanderer of the night,
indeed! "I am that
giggling-dangerous-totally-bloody-psychotic-menace-to-life and limb,
more like." -Neil Gaiman
Alec Cawley
2005-02-24 22:37:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Laura Donaghy
Post by Puck
Hey all,
I have only one real complaint, and that is that Zaphod has only
one head. Even the tv series in the eighties at least made an attempt at
replicating the two-headed effect. You would think that in this age of slick
special effects, a big budget project like HGTTG would leap at the chance to
flex its computer generated muscles by adding a CG head.
I've only ever read the books (yes yes I know, heretic) but I always
pictured Zaphod's heads side by side and identical. And I would have
pronounced it "Zah-fod" rather than "Zay-phod".
Oh no, this is going to be like LotR all over again... (I'm a terrible
purist, even when I'm wrong.)
But to a purist, the radio series is the one and only True HGTTG, and it
was definitely pronounced Zay-phod there, at the source of all things.
On the other hand, the nature of the second head was not made at all
clear, except that Ford Prefect said something about "like the second
head". Therefore, apart from the fact that it must be at least
occasionally obvious, there is no canonical interpretation of the second
head.

Thinking of the production, it makes sense for it not to be there all
the time. Of course you have to have it - the script says so - but a CGI
with emotions that matches the movement of the physical actor is pretty
expensive - keep it for special occasions.

One way I could see would be a variant of the double exposure: the two
heads are often in sync, and appear to be one. But when Zaphod sees two
opportunities at the same time (say, two women to chat up), the two
diverge so that he can be facing both directions at the same time.
--
@lec ©awley
Design rule 1: Simplicate and add Lightness.
Daibhid Ceannaideach
2005-02-24 23:00:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alec Cawley
Post by Laura Donaghy
Post by Puck
Hey all,
I have only one real complaint, and that is that Zaphod has only
one head. Even the tv series in the eighties at least made an
attempt at replicating the two-headed effect. You would think that
in this age of slick special effects, a big budget project like
HGTTG would leap at the chance to flex its computer generated
muscles by adding a CG head.
I've only ever read the books (yes yes I know, heretic) but I always
pictured Zaphod's heads side by side and identical. And I would have
pronounced it "Zah-fod" rather than "Zay-phod".
Oh no, this is going to be like LotR all over again... (I'm a terrible
purist, even when I'm wrong.)
But to a purist, the radio series is the one and only True HGTTG, and
it was definitely pronounced Zay-phod there, at the source of all
things. On the other hand, the nature of the second head was not made
at all clear, except that Ford Prefect said something about "like the
second head". Therefore, apart from the fact that it must be at least
occasionally obvious, there is no canonical interpretation of the
second head.
The TV series and the Illustrated Book may not be canonical, but they do
suggest that DNA believed the heads were side by side.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc/

Fate protects fools, little children and ships called "Enterprise".
But not shows called "Enterprise".
r***@excite.com
2005-02-26 02:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daibhid Ceannaideach
Post by Alec Cawley
Post by Laura Donaghy
Post by Puck
Hey all,
I have only one real complaint, and that is that Zaphod has only
one head. Even the tv series in the eighties at least made an
attempt at replicating the two-headed effect. You would think that
in this age of slick special effects, a big budget project like
HGTTG would leap at the chance to flex its computer generated
muscles by adding a CG head.
I've only ever read the books (yes yes I know, heretic) but I always
pictured Zaphod's heads side by side and identical. And I would have
pronounced it "Zah-fod" rather than "Zay-phod".
Oh no, this is going to be like LotR all over again... (I'm a terrible
purist, even when I'm wrong.)
But to a purist, the radio series is the one and only True HGTTG, and
it was definitely pronounced Zay-phod there, at the source of all
things. On the other hand, the nature of the second head was not made
at all clear, except that Ford Prefect said something about "like the
second head". Therefore, apart from the fact that it must be at least
occasionally obvious, there is no canonical interpretation of the
second head.
The TV series and the Illustrated Book may not be canonical, but they do
suggest that DNA believed the heads were side by side.
There were also specially drawn little pictures in _Radio Times_ - are
they reproduced in the Illustrated Book to which you refer?
Daibhid Ceannaideach
2005-02-26 11:45:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@excite.com
Post by Daibhid Ceannaideach
The TV series and the Illustrated Book may not be canonical, but they
do
Post by Daibhid Ceannaideach
suggest that DNA believed the heads were side by side.
There were also specially drawn little pictures in _Radio Times_ - are
they reproduced in the Illustrated Book to which you refer?
Nope, the Illustrated Book is a massive silver-covered thing with all-new,
partly-computer-generated images, including The 42 Puzzle, which allegedly
contains 42 ways of producing that number, although TTBOMK the number
anyone's actually found is in single digits.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc/

Fate protects fools, little children and ships called "Enterprise".
But not shows called "Enterprise".
Flesh-eating Dragon
2005-02-25 00:05:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alec Cawley
But to a purist, the radio series is the one and only True HGTTG, and it
I don't see why, if the books were intended as improvements upon the
original series.
Post by Alec Cawley
was definitely pronounced Zay-phod there, at the source of all things.
Which goes to show that Adams couldn't spell. :-)

Adrian.
Daibhid Ceannaideach
2005-02-25 00:19:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Flesh-eating Dragon
Post by Alec Cawley
But to a purist, the radio series is the one and only True HGTTG, and it
I don't see why, if the books were intended as improvements upon the
original series.
Except there's absolutely no reason to believe they were, any more than
"Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers" was intended as an improvement on the
first three series of Red Dwarf. The differences in the books were, TTBOMK,
a result of the differing medium (and, I think, possibly a desire not to
use jokes that might have originally been John Lloyd's without credit), not
a belief the series would have been better if they'd done it that way in
the first place.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc/

Fate protects fools, little children and ships called "Enterprise".
But not shows called "Enterprise".
Flesh-eating Dragon
2005-02-25 00:45:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daibhid Ceannaideach
Post by Flesh-eating Dragon
I don't see why, if the books were intended as improvements upon the
original series.
Except there's absolutely no reason to believe they were, any more than
"Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers" was intended as an improvement on the
first three series of Red Dwarf.
In some respects, I would say without hesitation that IWCD/BTL _was_
so intended. I mean, obviously it doesn't improve upon those parts of
the television series that were not included in the book *at all*, or
those parts that rely upon visual humour, but those elements of the
series that *were* included in the book were often *improved* in the
book, because they were written with a greater quantity of hindsight.

Adrian.
r***@excite.com
2005-02-26 01:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Flesh-eating Dragon
Post by Daibhid Ceannaideach
Post by Flesh-eating Dragon
I don't see why, if the books were intended as improvements upon the
original series.
Except there's absolutely no reason to believe they were, any more than
"Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers" was intended as an improvement on the
first three series of Red Dwarf.
In some respects, I would say without hesitation that IWCD/BTL _was_
so intended. I mean, obviously it doesn't improve upon those parts of
the television series that were not included in the book *at all*, or
those parts that rely upon visual humour, but those elements of the
series that *were* included in the book were often *improved* in the
book, because they were written with a greater quantity of hindsight.
When Pterry talks about the handiwork of a less or more experienced
writer, and in the case of _The Carpet People_ undertakes a
collaboration by way of showing the less experienced writer how it's
done, ...

I suppose it's moderately well known that _Red Dwarf_ had a radio
ancestor, "Dave Hollins Space Cadet" sketches (from memory) in _Son of
Cliche_ (I'm not sure if there was a _Cliche_, starring Christopher
Barrie, Nick Moloney (if so spelt), and Nick Wilton. I'm not sure if
this disqualifies these shows from BBC 7 repeats as being too
expensive, or just as having the fellows repsonsible not sign the
contract. Anyway, whole pages of script are evidently tipped into RD.

I'm not sure whether to believe that they spent any time at all
seriously considering a pitch for the television adventures of Captain
Invisible and The See-Thru Kid. ASSO, the Spanish package holiday
detective, is more plausible.
Aquarion
2005-02-25 13:04:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Flesh-eating Dragon
Post by Alec Cawley
But to a purist, the radio series is the one and only True HGTTG, and it
I don't see why, if the books were intended as improvements upon the
original series.
This is Hitchhikers.

The radio series (which I don't have) is different to the CD series (which I do), though not significantly, but
the Album releases (which I have) are really very different to the Radio
(rerecorded, plus the sun-dive replaces the talking shoebox) and the
books, and the illustrated book, and the TV show and the stage show, and
the audio books _all_ differ in some way. This is why the film, despite
being a complete reimagining of the original concept, with little
resembalance to the first itteration beyond the names of the main
characters and the basic premise, is still "real" hitchhikers up until
it does the one thing that no previous Hitchhikers has done (except,
debatably, the third series), which is suck.
--
Aquarion, www.aquarionics.com (Mail to mailinator.com is publicly displayed)
net art, noun <http://www.eod.com/devil/>
Any collection of technologies, sensibilities and aesthetics
that causes a Web browser to crash.
The Roach
2005-02-25 16:24:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aquarion
This is Hitchhikers.
The radio series (which I don't have) is different to the CD
series (which I do), though not significantly, but the Album
releases (which I have) are really very different to the Radio
(rerecorded, plus the sun-dive replaces the talking shoebox) and
the books, and the illustrated book, and the TV show and the stage
show, and the audio books _all_ differ in some way. This is why
the film, despite being a complete reimagining of the original
concept, with little resembalance to the first itteration beyond
the names of the main characters and the basic premise, is still
"real" hitchhikers up until it does the one thing that no previous
Hitchhikers has done (except, debatably, the third series), which
is suck.
Are you sure you aren't referring to Tenchi Muyo! ?

Oh, you said radio series, guess not, then...
--
yIn nI' yISIQ 'ej yIchep
The Roach
(www.roachware.de -- www.roach.demon.nl -- elfwood.lysator.liu.se/~mja)
David Roy
2005-02-25 20:10:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aquarion
Post by Flesh-eating Dragon
Post by Alec Cawley
But to a purist, the radio series is the one and only True HGTTG, and it
I don't see why, if the books were intended as improvements upon the
original series.
This is Hitchhikers.
The radio series (which I don't have) is different to the CD series
(which I do), though not significantly, but the Album releases (which
I have) are really very different to the Radio (rerecorded, plus the
sun-dive replaces the talking shoebox) and the books, and the
illustrated book, and the TV show and the stage show, and the audio
books _all_ differ in some way.
You forgot the game. Also different. And therefore also canonical.
Post by Aquarion
This is why the film, despite being a
complete reimagining of the original concept, with little resembalance
to the first itteration beyond the names of the main characters and
the basic premise, is still "real" hitchhikers up until it does the
one thing that no previous Hitchhikers has done (except, debatably,
the third series), which is suck.
Agreed. I think that the main problem with the third series (and the main
danger for the fourth) is precisely that it sticks almost precisely to a
previously established template. It's stuck in amber - with no life to
it.

David
Aquarion
2005-02-25 21:00:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Roy
Post by Aquarion
Post by Flesh-eating Dragon
Post by Alec Cawley
But to a purist, the radio series is the one and only True HGTTG, and it
I don't see why, if the books were intended as improvements upon the
original series.
This is Hitchhikers.
The radio series (which I don't have) is different to the CD series
(which I do), though not significantly, but the Album releases (which
I have) are really very different to the Radio (rerecorded, plus the
sun-dive replaces the talking shoebox) and the books, and the
illustrated book, and the TV show and the stage show, and the audio
books _all_ differ in some way.
You forgot the game. Also different. And therefore also canonical.
I did, yes. I'd scabbed over that memory, thanks.

I detest, with a passion unholy, the H2G2 game. It sums up, to me,
everything that was inaccessible, pointless, painful and absolutly
fucking *Stupid* about (some of) infocom's text adventure output. I can
live with random, unpredictable deaths. I can live with leaps of faith
and of repeating every action six times to see if something differant
happens, and I can live with the crappy parser that took great delight
in not recognising your sentance structure whilst still counting it as
one of the three moves you have remaining until you're
eaten/crushed/stuck with pointy sticks.

All of this I could live with, but even when you could see the patterns,
peer into the Master's head for long enough to solve the puzzles, it
still wasn't any _fun_.

The only function it has is to be another iteration of the story, with a
few interesting variations, for which reason it does belong on the above
list.

I noted with interest that the BBC took this evil, time wasting,
unintuitive, impossible pile of gold-flecked shit and put it in *FLASH*
on a website. Sheesh.

If you didn't know this, and are even vaguely interested, you can find
it yourself.

Even if they've taken the page down now, finding it will be the most
minor of trivialities next to any one of the stupid moronic brick walls
you will be banging your head against should you ever find and play the
bloody thing.
Post by David Roy
Post by Aquarion
This is why the film, despite being a
complete reimagining of the original concept, with little resembalance
to the first itteration beyond the names of the main characters and
the basic premise, is still "real" hitchhikers up until it does the
one thing that no previous Hitchhikers has done (except, debatably,
the third series), which is suck.
Agreed. I think that the main problem with the third series (and the main
danger for the fourth) is precisely that it sticks almost precisely to a
previously established template. It's stuck in amber - with no life to
it.
Yes.
--
Aquarion, www.aquarionics.com (Mail to mailinator.com is publicly displayed)
Confucius say: Man that have sex with hole in ground have piece on earth.
Puck
2005-02-25 21:59:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aquarion
I did, yes. I'd scabbed over that memory, thanks.
I detest, with a passion unholy, the H2G2 game. It sums up, to me,
everything that was inaccessible, pointless, painful and absolutly
fucking *Stupid* about (some of) infocom's text adventure output. I
can live with random, unpredictable deaths. I can live with leaps of
faith and of repeating every action six times to see if something
differant happens, and I can live with the crappy parser that took
great delight in not recognising your sentance structure whilst still
counting it as one of the three moves you have remaining until you're
eaten/crushed/stuck with pointy sticks.
All of this I could live with, but even when you could see the
patterns, peer into the Master's head for long enough to solve the
puzzles, it still wasn't any _fun_.
The only function it has is to be another iteration of the story,
with a few interesting variations, for which reason it does belong on
the above list.
I noted with interest that the BBC took this evil, time wasting,
unintuitive, impossible pile of gold-flecked shit and put it in
*FLASH* on a website. Sheesh.
If you didn't know this, and are even vaguely interested, you can find
it yourself.
Even if they've taken the page down now, finding it will be the most
minor of trivialities next to any one of the stupid moronic brick
walls you will be banging your head against should you ever find and
play the bloody thing.
Um. I've played it. I beat it in like three hours. I liked the bit where you
have to "ENJOY POETRY".

--
Puck (onstage): I am that merry wanderer of the night!
Peaseblossom (in audience): I am that merry wanderer of the night,
indeed! "I am that
giggling-dangerous-totally-bloody-psychotic-menace-to-life and limb,
more like." -Neil Gaiman
Aquarion
2005-02-25 23:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Take a letter Miss Jones: To Puck, Re: [I] Hitchikers Trailer:

*snip me in 'mild dislike' mode*
Post by Puck
Post by Aquarion
Even if they've taken the page down now, finding it will be the most
minor of trivialities next to any one of the stupid moronic brick
walls you will be banging your head against should you ever find and
play the bloody thing.
Um. I've played it. I beat it in like three hours.
I didn't find it quite so edifying.
Post by Puck
I liked the bit where you
have to "ENJOY POETRY".
Ah. Culture.
--
Aquarion, www.aquarionics.com (Mail to mailinator.com is publicly displayed)
GNU License, noun <http://www.eod.com/devil/>
An impairment of vision, causing the victim’s perception to be
limited to black and white.
Cat
2005-02-26 23:02:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Puck
Post by Aquarion
I did, yes. I'd scabbed over that memory, thanks.
I detest, with a passion unholy, the H2G2 game. It sums up, to me,
everything that was inaccessible, pointless, painful and absolutly
fucking *Stupid* about (some of) infocom's text adventure output. I
can live with random, unpredictable deaths. I can live with leaps of
faith and of repeating every action six times to see if something
differant happens, and I can live with the crappy parser that took
great delight in not recognising your sentance structure whilst still
counting it as one of the three moves you have remaining until you're
eaten/crushed/stuck with pointy sticks.
All of this I could live with, but even when you could see the
patterns, peer into the Master's head for long enough to solve the
puzzles, it still wasn't any _fun_.
The only function it has is to be another iteration of the story,
with a few interesting variations, for which reason it does belong on
the above list.
I noted with interest that the BBC took this evil, time wasting,
unintuitive, impossible pile of gold-flecked shit and put it in
*FLASH* on a website. Sheesh.
If you didn't know this, and are even vaguely interested, you can find
it yourself.
Even if they've taken the page down now, finding it will be the most
minor of trivialities next to any one of the stupid moronic brick
walls you will be banging your head against should you ever find and
play the bloody thing.
Um. I've played it. I beat it in like three hours. I liked the bit where you
have to "ENJOY POETRY".
--
Puck (onstage): I am that merry wanderer of the night!
Peaseblossom (in audience): I am that merry wanderer of the night,
indeed! "I am that
giggling-dangerous-totally-bloody-psychotic-menace-to-life and limb,
more like." -Neil Gaiman
I liked it. It took a lot longer than three hours, but we made our way
through it and had fun doing so. For some reason, Footnote 2 (It isn't
a house, it's a home) has stuck in my head for the last 15 years or so.

We did have a heck of a time with the Babel Fish, and figuring out the
tea/no tea thing.

Cat
Mark Gallagher
2005-02-25 04:02:15 UTC
Permalink
It's the end of the world as we know it, and Alec Cawley feels...
Post by Alec Cawley
But to a purist, the radio series is the one and only True HGTTG, and it
was definitely pronounced Zay-phod there, at the source of all things.
On the other hand, the nature of the second head was not made at all
clear, except that Ford Prefect said something about "like the second
head". Therefore, apart from the fact that it must be at least
occasionally obvious, there is no canonical interpretation of the second
head.
In the books (I cannot speak for the radio series, having heard but one
episode), Zaphod's got two heads, one of which he wore a birdcage over
at a fancy dress party[0].



[0] Of course, that's /MH/. In /HHGTTG/, he didn't apparently *have*
the second head at the time, so make of it what you will.
--
"/Today Tonight/ keeps telling you your hair products will kill you,
run around the corner, and mutilate your Dad." - Descend Here, "Letters
of Complaint"
Web: http://donotuselifts.net/
Email: m [dot] gallagher [at] canberra [dot] edu [dot] au
David Chapman
2005-02-25 10:10:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alec Cawley
On the other hand, the nature of the second head was not made at all
clear, except that Ford Prefect said something about "like the second
head". Therefore, apart from the fact that it must be at least
occasionally obvious, there is no canonical interpretation of the second
head.
Except that it must be visible at the same time as his other head, or Ford
wouldn't have been able to comment on it upon first seeing Zaphod.

--
Who the f--k are you calling insolent?
Chris Soanes
2005-02-25 11:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Chapman
Post by Alec Cawley
On the other hand, the nature of the second head was not made at all
clear, except that Ford Prefect said something about "like the second
head". Therefore, apart from the fact that it must be at least
occasionally obvious, there is no canonical interpretation of the second
head.
Except that it must be visible at the same time as his other head, or Ford
wouldn't have been able to comment on it upon first seeing Zaphod.
Er. IIRC, In all of book, radio and tv versions, Ford comments on
Zaphod's extra arm......

...Ford, however, was not going to be outcooled: "Zaphod!" he drawled
"how are you?, nice to see you!, the exra arm suits you. Nice ship
you've stolen".....

Seminal moment in my youth, that was.

Tiff
--
Chris M Soanes: Amateur Sailor, Windsurfer, Cyclist, Biker, Mechanic,
Welder, Snowboarder, Swimmer, Dog Owner, Real Ale Drinker; Professional
Geek.Its not a saviour that we want, just somebody else to crucify! - NMA
elfin
2005-02-25 11:33:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Soanes
Er. IIRC, In all of book, radio and tv versions, Ford comments on
Zaphod's extra arm......
...Ford, however, was not going to be outcooled: "Zaphod!" he drawled
"how are you?, nice to see you!, the exra arm suits you. Nice ship
you've stolen".....
Seminal moment in my youth, that was.
how many arms did Zaphod have to begin with?

elfin
Adrian Ogden
2005-02-25 12:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by elfin
Post by Chris Soanes
Er. IIRC, In all of book, radio and tv versions, Ford comments on
Zaphod's extra arm......
...Ford, however, was not going to be outcooled: "Zaphod!" he drawled
"how are you?, nice to see you!, the exra arm suits you. Nice ship
you've stolen".....
Seminal moment in my youth, that was.
how many arms did Zaphod have to begin with?
To begin with, two. By the time we first meet him, three.

TRILLIAN: "We picked them up in sector Z... Zaphod, please take your
hand off me... and the other one... thank you, and the other one."

ZAPHOD: "I grew that one specially for you, Trillian. Took me six
months but it was worth every minute!"

(original radio series, Fit the Second.)
--
<< Adrian Ogden -- "Sic Biscuitus Disintegrat" -- www.rdg.ac.uk/~sssogadr/ >>

"There is no such word as 'impossible' in my dictionary. In fact,
everything between 'herring' and 'marmalade' appears to be missing."
elfin
2005-02-25 13:39:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adrian Ogden
Post by elfin
how many arms did Zaphod have to begin with?
To begin with, two. By the time we first meet him, three.
TRILLIAN: "We picked them up in sector Z... Zaphod, please take your
hand off me... and the other one... thank you, and the other one."
ZAPHOD: "I grew that one specially for you, Trillian. Took me six
months but it was worth every minute!"
(original radio series, Fit the Second.)
one day I will buy a copy and listen to it...

elfin
Daibhid Ceannaideach
2005-02-25 12:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Soanes
Post by David Chapman
Post by Alec Cawley
On the other hand, the nature of the second head was not made at all
clear, except that Ford Prefect said something about "like the second
head". Therefore, apart from the fact that it must be at least
occasionally obvious, there is no canonical interpretation of the
second head.
Except that it must be visible at the same time as his other head, or
Ford wouldn't have been able to comment on it upon first seeing
Zaphod.
Er. IIRC, In all of book, radio and tv versions, Ford comments on
Zaphod's extra arm......
...Ford, however, was not going to be outcooled: "Zaphod!" he drawled
"how are you?, nice to see you!, the exra arm suits you. Nice ship
you've stolen".....
Seminal moment in my youth, that was.
True. It's Arthur who comments on the headcount, "Of course, he only had
the one head, and the two arms, and he called himself Phil..."

It's later revealed that the second head *was* there at the fancy dress
party, but cunningly disguised as a parrot (computer game and MH).
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc/

Fate protects fools, little children and ships called "Enterprise".
But not shows called "Enterprise".
Laura Donaghy
2005-02-25 19:35:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alec Cawley
Post by Laura Donaghy
I've only ever read the books (yes yes I know, heretic) but I always
pictured Zaphod's heads side by side and identical. And I would have
pronounced it "Zah-fod" rather than "Zay-phod".
Oh no, this is going to be like LotR all over again... (I'm a terrible
purist, even when I'm wrong.)
But to a purist, the radio series is the one and only True HGTTG, and it
was definitely pronounced Zay-phod there, at the source of all things.
That's why I said 'heretic'.
Post by Alec Cawley
On the other hand, the nature of the second head was not made at all
clear, except that Ford Prefect said something about "like the second
head". Therefore, apart from the fact that it must be at least
occasionally obvious, there is no canonical interpretation of the second
head.
Fair enough. I'm just saying that it disagrees with *my*
interpretation of it, though obviously I can't back it up. It's just
my preconceived idea. Same goes for the pronunciation thing.
Post by Alec Cawley
One way I could see would be a variant of the double exposure: the two
heads are often in sync, and appear to be one. But when Zaphod sees two
opportunities at the same time (say, two women to chat up), the two
diverge so that he can be facing both directions at the same time.
Interesting point. Although if they HAD decided have both heads
visible I would expected them to, say, attach a dummy head (possible
animatronic so it can move) and then CG-animate its expression, etc.
And of course, there might be periods in the film where one head is
asleep.
mcv
2005-03-07 11:44:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Laura Donaghy
Post by Alec Cawley
On the other hand, the nature of the second head was not made at all
clear, except that Ford Prefect said something about "like the second
head". Therefore, apart from the fact that it must be at least
occasionally obvious, there is no canonical interpretation of the second
head.
Fair enough. I'm just saying that it disagrees with *my*
interpretation of it, though obviously I can't back it up. It's just
my preconceived idea. Same goes for the pronunciation thing.
The books (which are also canon, despite contradicting the radio play
all the time) occasionally have him slamming his heads together. And
wasn't he also involved in the TV series? Sounds to me that there are
three canons, and all of them mention two heads, and at least some of
them suggest they're side by side. I hope the film contradicts the
other 3 canons wherever possible, but I would like to see those two
heads.


mcv.
graham
2005-03-15 23:39:19 UTC
Permalink
Hi there,
Post by mcv
The books (which are also canon, despite contradicting the radio play
all the time) occasionally have him slamming his heads together.
To quote Arthur in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe "Oh go
bang your heads together, four eyes!"

Cheers,
Graham.
Len Oil
2005-03-23 00:53:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Laura Donaghy
Interesting point. Although if they HAD decided have both heads
visible I would expected them to, say, attach a dummy head (possible
animatronic so it can move) and then CG-animate its expression, etc.
With the exception of the CG-animation, that is, of course, how the BBC
series went and it was a reasonable attempt for the era, British style
of SFX[1][2] and budgetary constraints. I remember when I first saw it
(on some other programme, either Blue Peter of Tomorrow's World,
possibly, before the series itself appeared on screen) and while it
wouldn't fool a modern television-watching weasel in this day and age,
it didn't go too badly (as a second head, mostly asleep or catatonic but
capable of basic reactions).

[1] Was Matt Irvine behind it? He was behind, or alongside, most of the
other stuff the BBC did, from memory.
[2] Where alien planets were quarries and moors and forests and other OB
targets instead of sound stages full of polystyrene rocks. Something
that, frexample, Trek didn't do much of until well into TNG, if I
remember my episodes.
Daibhid Ceannaideach
2005-03-23 12:03:02 UTC
Permalink
<Zaphod's heads>
Post by Len Oil
Post by Laura Donaghy
Interesting point. Although if they HAD decided have both heads
visible I would expected them to, say, attach a dummy head (possible
animatronic so it can move) and then CG-animate its expression, etc.
With the exception of the CG-animation, that is, of course, how the BBC
series went and it was a reasonable attempt for the era, British style
of SFX[1][2] and budgetary constraints. I remember when I first saw it
(on some other programme, either Blue Peter of Tomorrow's World,
possibly, before the series itself appeared on screen) and while it
wouldn't fool a modern television-watching weasel in this day and age,
it didn't go too badly (as a second head, mostly asleep or catatonic but
capable of basic reactions).
Oh, yes, it looked wonderful during the demos. It apparently looked
wonderful in rehersals as well. Unfortunately that used up the battery, so
for much of the time in the actual show, it just sat there...
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc/
"Michael Grade's judgement is beyond reproach. This is the man who decided
what went in the Millennium Dome."
-John Culshaw, "Some Things You Need To Know About Doctor Who"
Catja Pafort
2005-03-27 20:20:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Laura Donaghy
Although if they HAD decided have both heads
visible I would expected them to, say, attach a dummy head (possible
animatronic so it can move) and then CG-animate its expression, etc.
And of course, there might be periods in the film where one head is
asleep.
And would complain about the noise.

Loudly.

Catja
aka PerditaX

Mike Stevens
2005-02-24 23:01:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Laura Donaghy
Post by Puck
Hey all,
I have only one real complaint, and that is that Zaphod has only
one head. Even the tv series in the eighties at least made an
attempt at replicating the two-headed effect. You would think that
in this age of slick special effects, a big budget project like
HGTTG would leap at the chance to flex its computer generated
muscles by adding a CG head.
I've only ever read the books (yes yes I know, heretic) but I always
pictured Zaphod's heads side by side and identical. And I would have
pronounced it "Zah-fod" rather than "Zay-phod".
Given that HCTTG started as a radio production, there's prime evidence that
the original pronunciation was "Zay-phod".


--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus II
Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk

No man is an island. So is Man.
l***@gmail.com
2005-02-27 21:57:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Laura Donaghy
Post by Puck
Hey all,
I have only one real complaint, and that is that Zaphod has only
one head. Even the tv series in the eighties at least made an attempt at
replicating the two-headed effect. You would think that in this age of slick
special effects, a big budget project like HGTTG would leap at the chance to
flex its computer generated muscles by adding a CG head.
I've only ever read the books (yes yes I know, heretic) but I always
pictured Zaphod's heads side by side and identical. And I would have
pronounced it "Zah-fod" rather than "Zay-phod".
Oh no, this is going to be like LotR all over again... (I'm a
terrible
Post by Laura Donaghy
purist, even when I'm wrong.)
Me too. I never can watch a movie that I previously read the book of
and agree with everything they did. And I always pronounce things
wrong, but thats just my having run across most words in print before
having heard them. The trials of being literate at an early age...
Maxx Pollare
2005-02-25 20:36:09 UTC
Permalink
The voice of "Puck" drifted in on the cyber-winds,
from the sea of virtual chaos...
Post by Puck
Just caught the new trailer for Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy
from Amazon.com. Looks really good, for a movie that should have
been made twenty years ago. I mention it here, because I know that
Pterry fans and Douglas Adams fans tend to overlap, and I have
heard plenty of Adams references on this group over the years. Has
anyone else seen the trailer yet? Any thoughts? I have only one
real complaint, and that is that Zaphod has only one head. Even
the tv series in the eighties at least made an attempt at
replicating the two-headed effect. You would think that in this
age of slick special effects, a big budget project like HGTTG
would leap at the chance to flex its computer generated muscles by
adding a CG head.
Thanks for the heads-up (I know, I'm late)...
For those who haven't seen it yet, there are several sites avalible by
now, incuding a few "super-high-rez" Quicktime:

http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&q=Hitchhikers+Guide+to+the+Galaxy+trailer&spell=1

I grabed mine from http://hitchhikers.movies.go.com/main.html by
selected the "Larger Trailer" button, and saving the imbeded file
from the "page info" dialog within firefox.
--
Maxx Pollare, a "small god" in his own mind...
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...