Don't Panic!
I am getting worried. I have always prided myself on being one of those people who has kept a dignified distance from all things fantasy and sci-fi. Only recently I found myself in a bar discussing the merits of the Red Dwarf book "Better than Life", a spin-off of the TV series which only die-hard fans bother to read. Then I did a "Which Ankh Morpork City Watch Character Are You?" quiz. I got so hooked I found this one (incodentally I came out as Rincewind.) Now I am in a downward spiral, where I find myself looking forward to the final installment (or third, depending on how you look at it) of Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. How do they make that nice Jedi evil? how does he turn into Darth Vader? Does Yoda go nuts again in this one? Because that bit was damn good last time. What's happening to me??!! One of my friends called it "Episode 3: Who gives a Shit?" I should agree with him... but I don't...
And then on Sunday I saw "The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy". Technicallyrachel wasn't impressed, and I have to admit my reaction was a bit mixed. Which just goes to prove that I know the books far too well if I'm in a position to be critical. My first problem was that they didn't bother to explain why Ford Prefect was called Ford Prefect (in case you don't know, and actually give a damn, he studied Earth and found the most common name at the time was Ford Prefect, so chose it so he could blend in.) Their argument was apparently that the joke was dated. Fine. So call him Fodr Capri. Or Coca Cola. Whatever. My second problem was that there wasn't enough of the guide itself. The book is called "Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy" not "A Kids' Film in Which a Few Two-Dimensional Characters Meet Some Aliens and It All Goes A Bit Trippy". As for Marvin, well, you can't really go wrong with Marvin. He's a genuine personality prototype, after all. But I think he looked too cute, and I don't think he got enough lines. For that matter, nor did Bill Nighy. Not because the character should have done necessarily, but just because it was Bill Nighy.
There were two bits I liked: the Whale falls from the sky. He wonders what that thing is below him and decides to call it "ground". He wonders if it will be friends with him. Oddly, all the bowl of petunias thought was "not again". And I liked the theme tune - "So long, and thanks for all the fish" - very 1950s Broadway musical-esque. I'd forgotten quite how skippy the book was, but when a film can fail to be as off-the-wall as a book...hmm.
Welll, I can think of worse ways to spend a Sunday. But still...
And then on Sunday I saw "The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy". Technicallyrachel wasn't impressed, and I have to admit my reaction was a bit mixed. Which just goes to prove that I know the books far too well if I'm in a position to be critical. My first problem was that they didn't bother to explain why Ford Prefect was called Ford Prefect (in case you don't know, and actually give a damn, he studied Earth and found the most common name at the time was Ford Prefect, so chose it so he could blend in.) Their argument was apparently that the joke was dated. Fine. So call him Fodr Capri. Or Coca Cola. Whatever. My second problem was that there wasn't enough of the guide itself. The book is called "Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy" not "A Kids' Film in Which a Few Two-Dimensional Characters Meet Some Aliens and It All Goes A Bit Trippy". As for Marvin, well, you can't really go wrong with Marvin. He's a genuine personality prototype, after all. But I think he looked too cute, and I don't think he got enough lines. For that matter, nor did Bill Nighy. Not because the character should have done necessarily, but just because it was Bill Nighy.
There were two bits I liked: the Whale falls from the sky. He wonders what that thing is below him and decides to call it "ground". He wonders if it will be friends with him. Oddly, all the bowl of petunias thought was "not again". And I liked the theme tune - "So long, and thanks for all the fish" - very 1950s Broadway musical-esque. I'd forgotten quite how skippy the book was, but when a film can fail to be as off-the-wall as a book...hmm.
Welll, I can think of worse ways to spend a Sunday. But still...
posted by RLS at 10:02 am
8 Comments:
did it? oh, well. maybe i was asleep for that bit.
Yeah - it was pretty easy to fall asleep during that film. Mucho disappointed.
my goodness what an interesting metaphor chees'm.
i have yet to see the film, but am half way through the series and feeling very despondant and rather vacant in the head.
Chees'm,
"Find a politician who is stupid enough to suggest that, you mean."
Off to a great start there mate - really opened my mind to your rebuttal...
"...not everyone is as unattractive to the opposite sex as you Peter dearest"
...? Wow, I mean, what an unnecessarily unkind thing to say, and indeed, what a strange thing to say given that actually you don't know me, so you couldn't possibly gauge my "attractiveness" (or lack thereof) to the opposite sex anyway...
"...and our police force would be completely overworked if we made all sex under 18 statutory rape."
Like it is now with all the 16-year-olds (and, sadly younger) having sex? The reason the law is there is so that the Police can apprehend and prosecute older men for grooming and having sex with younger people. It is not pragmatically there to stop younger people from having sex with each other.
Given this, I would rather have the potential disincentive to older men (and indeed, women) to have sex with younger people until 18, then remove that protection for 16-18-year olds!
Most teengae pregancies are actually the resulty of statutory rape, so it is, one might argue, in the best interests of younger people to have these stronger disincentives.
Actually, I don't think it would make a great deal of difference - but the law would be better I think, and more practical.
It would certainly be more consistent - at the moment, young adults can have sex with someone else, but not WATCH OTHER PEOPLE HAVING SEX (in pornographic films, etc.) until their 18. Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense...
Since I'd rather not have younger people watching porn, the logical thing to do is to raise the age of consent to 18. QED.
Plus, I think people are more likely to be able to make such a responsible decision at 18 anyway - that's the trationale of having the voting age at 18 after all.
What's more responsible? Having sex (which oculd potentially bring another human being into this world) or voting in an election?
"Why make drivers wait another year?"
Why not? Surely sex is more responsible than driving in many ways, surely voting as well? 18 as a general rule seems fair. I'm not hard and fast on that one though.
"Why make kids wait until two years after they have left school to start paying taxes? and if they are earning at 16, why shouldn't they be allowed to vote..."
Because the vast majority ain't responsible enough... They wouldn't vote anyway most of them, even if they could. As for the taxes, when I was earning at 16, was very glad not to have to pay any taxes, thanks!
"No, wait...don't tell me...you don't think women should be allowed to vote do you? Jesus didn't let any women vote...so it must be wrong..."
Is it really worth commenting on that? Well, it's just derisive and derogatory nonsense, so probably not.
Peace be with you,
The Cavalier
Biologically we're ready (and willing even) for sex from around 13/14 -in fact, in ye olden days women were popping out sprogs at 14 if not younger. To suggest raising the age limit to 18 shows a stunning lack of insight to society and people, and I doubt would make a blind bit of difference to the number of people having sex. Straight or gay.
And I grasp that the whole point of the voting thing at 16 is that if you're paying taxes (cause you're earning and not a student), then you should have influence as to how those taxes are spent.
Seems a simple enough proposition to me - don't quite see why you're being so argumentative about it Peter
W.R.
Yeah, the only reason Peter comes over here seems to be to argue about everything.
I have always prided myself on being one of those people who has kept a dignified distance from all things fantasy and sci-fi.
Too late, hon, you met me ;)
From my standpoint as hardcore sci-fi and fantasy geek, I have to say the film was... lame. Just lame. It was a bit fun, there were a few laughs, but when you have such wonderful text to work from, why cut out 95% of the best lines so you can work in more action and *shudder* romance? The whole thing seemed like a whitewashed version of a great classic.
Not to mention the fact that in all that time they never made it anywhere near the actual question!
It's odd to see, though, that no matter how light and fun your posts are, the serious debate still rages in the comments - do we need to segregate threads, so those of us who have just had enough are safe?!
Love and Hugs,
TW
Nice to hear from you! How's things? There are now 57 comments on the Cavalier's blog, that's where it's all happening!
You're right, the best thing about "Hitchiker" was the lines - hence the fact it was such a good book. And radio show. You lose a lot of the action through the radio...
And I maintain they didn't explain why he was called Ford Prefect. OK, so it shows him trying to shake hands with a car because he thinks they're the dominant life form, but that isn't the whole joke.
Talk soon
Px
Post a Comment
<< Home