vasudeva:
Fun Quiz: How many people who had never read HGTTG do you think walked out during that interminable chorusline number in the intro with all the dancing dolphins? I suspect that was 100% WTF for them. Not in a good way.

There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying.

The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. Pick a nice day, it suggests, and try it.

The first part is easy. All it requires is simply the ability to throw yourself forward with all your weight, and willingness not to mind that it's going to hurt. That is, it's going to hurt if you fail to miss the ground. Most people fail to miss the ground, and if they are really trying properly, the likelihood is that they will fail to miss it fairly hard.

Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.

One problem is that you have to miss the ground accidentally. It's no good deliberately intending to miss the ground because you won't. You have to have your attention suddenly distracted by something else when you're halfway there, so that you are no longer thinking about falling, or about the ground, or about how much it's going to hurt if you fail to miss it.

It is notoriously difficult to prise your attention away from these three things during the split second you have at your disposal. Hence most people's failure, and their eventual disillusionment with this exhilarating and spectacular sport.

If, however, you are lucky enough to have your attention momentarily distracted at the crucial moment by, say, a gorgeous pair of legs (tentacles, pseudopodia, according to phyllum and/or personal inclination) or a bomb going off in your vicinity, or by suddenly spotting an extremely rare species of beetle crawling along a nearby twig, then in your astonishment you will miss the ground completely and remain bobbing just a few inches above it in what might seem to be a slightly foolish manner.

This is a moment for superb and delicate concentration. Bob and float, float and bob. Ignore all considerations of your own weight and simply let yourself waft higher. Do not listen to what anybody says to you at this point because they are unlikely to say anything helpful.
They are most likely to say something along the lines of, 'Good God, you can't possibly be flying!'
It is vitally important not to believe them or they will suddenly be right.

Waft higher and higher. Try a few swoops, gentle ones at first, then drift above the treetops breathing regularly. DO NOT WAVE AT ANYBODY.

When you have done this a few times you will find the moment of distraction rapidly becomes easier and easier to achieve. You will then learn all sorts of things about how to control your flight, your speed, your manoeuvrability, and the trick usually lies in not thinking too hard about whatever you want to do, but just allowing it to happen as if it was going to anyway.You will also learn about how to land properly, which is something you will almost certainly cock up, and cock up badly, on your first attempt.

There are private flying clubs you can join which help you achieve the all-important moment of distraction. They hire people with surprising bodies or opinions to leap out from behind bushes and exhibit and/or explain them at the critical moments. Few genuine hitch-hikers will be able to afford to join these clubs, but some may be able to get temporary employment at them.

Crackalackin: Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy: because sometimes you just have to flush twice.

Can someone explain to me what's good about either the movie or the book? I get British humour, and I am a well-versed Sci-Fi fan. Yet, every time I tried reading the book, and all the time while sitting in the movie theater, I wanted someone to rewind the clock to the point where I was contemplating whether I should read/watch, and choose no the second time around.

What's the point, or merit of this work? I mean, the whole book read like the guy just sat down and wrote the first thing that came to his mind, without even trying to come up with a point, twist, moral, story, idea, or characters. Ok, so all these checkboxes are empty, all the metrics are zero, so let me ask you again: what's good about it? I cannot see its worth. Educate, yo.

Just to clarify, I like tongue-in-cheek, but only if there's a brain hanging right above that.

Mofo: Me no likey the movie. It misses a lot of what the book has. There small, random, and completely significant details that only possible in print were what made the book good. I read all five books in a row, listened to the original radio series, and saw the movie all in a span of a month. The movie is probably better to those who haven't read the book, cause they'll think its one of those random, quirky movies that leaves you confused. Kinda like Donnie Darko, only it doesn't make you hate life as much.

To me, and probably to a lot of the other book fans, it's a movie that missed a lot of good things.

And plus, what was with the random ass side trips and converting a book thats just point a to point b (though b happens to be somewhere, persumably drunk) into a love story?

Crackalackin: Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy: because sometimes you just have to flush twice.

To me, and probably to a lot of the other book fans, it's a movie that missed a lot of good things.

And plus, what was with the random ass side trips and converting a book thats just point a to point b (though b happens to be somewhere, persumably drunk) into a love story?

vasudeva:

YOU ARE DEAD TO ME

The beauty of the Hitchhiker's series is that Adams incisively deconstructs all of the stupid assumptions, contradictions, and ommisions made by many more 'serious' sci-fi books/movies/tv series, from language barriers (babel fish) to space travel (the infinite improbability drive and hyperspace bypasses, eg). The fact that he does so using typically Brit dry-yet-cutting humour makes it that much more valuable. He also tackles some of the biggest questions brought to bear in the modern hulabaloo surrounding physics and philosophy, such as "final theory" searches and other "ultimate questions." What other sci-fi writers can claim to have tackled such a broad array of modern issues is such a beautifully satirical way? Precious few.

I agree, but I'm not going to let that hamper my enjoyment of the movie. After all, when's the last time a movie truly lived up to the book version? (And don't cite LOTR - while good, there was a lot missing there as well).

i feel like if i hadn't read the books (many many times oh do i love them) before watching the movie that i might have not liked it. i really liked mos defs acting however.

Crackalackin:

Don't hate, educate. I would appreciate if you could explain to me what you see in that whole franchise. I want to understand.

Mofo: I don't like Zaphod in it (I always thought both his heads were visible - I guess he loses it in the movie to end this point early), and that added to the enjoyment (two drunk heads are better than one). I also don't like how they took Zaphod's random, drunken genius and made it lemon-hat powered.

vasudeva:
Honestly, I'm not sure if I can even explain it. It's one of those things where you get it or you don't. You like Monty Python? Same sort of thing, to me. "British humor" is about as definitive as I can get.

Crackalackin:

Hell yes, I like Monty Python. And I mean, I dig a whole ton of British comedies (including Bean and Pitkin), and even Red Dwarf. So I don't know quite why I am dead, according to Vas.

I think that maybe the Machine's answer to the meaning of existence is as fulfilling as the answer to the meaning of his book, any given chapter, or a collection of paragraphs.

I think that maybe the Machine's answer to the meaning of existence is as fulfilling as the answer to the meaning of his book, any given chapter, or a collection of paragraphs.