This Week on Quirks & Quarks we stretch the boundaries a little:
"Don't Panic: The Science of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".
Space is big. Really, mind-bogglingly big. So big, in fact, that everything that could ever happen, has happened somewhere in the universe. And, as improbable as it sounds, here, in our insignificant part of the universe, someone has published a book. A book full of facts and fantasy, aimed at explaining the science behind another improbable book, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The Hitchhiker's Guide was the creation of an ape descendent named Douglas Adams, and has appeared in various guises: a BBC radio series, a BBC TV series, a five-part trilogy, and, just last week, a new movie. Now another ape descendent has written the book about the book, wisely titled, "The Science of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." We'll talk to the author.
Plus - discovering the differences in dinosaur diets ...
All this and more on Quirks & Quarks, Saturday right after the noon news on Radio One.
By the way, has anyone listened to the new radio seasons (3 and 4, with 5 coming)? Are they worth looking for? I've only heard one, and it for some reason it didn't really click with me in the same way as the old season 1 and 2 did.
I didn't really find the 'Tertiary phase' all that great. I think one of the problems is that the original cast members are so much older now, and it comes across in their voices. Also the loss of Peter Jones as the voice of the book really took something away from it.
I prefer my read audiobook of 'Life, the Universe and Everything', even if it is abridged.
I had been prepared for it to be a disapointment, because it was getting a lot of negative reviews. I was still a bit disapointed, even with my expectations revised down somewhat.
I don't think any of the performances really worked for me, with the exception of Mos Def and Alan Rickman. Oh, and Slarti Bartfast. I like Bill Niehy (sp?). I was particularly disapointed with Freeman as Arthur Dent actually. I thought he would be a really good casting choice, but there was a lot more gurning and a lot less Denty charm than I was hoping for. Perhaps the director was to blame for this?
I thought that Marvin was inappropriately cute, even if the costume was cool. Couldn't they have made the same suit but with standard adult human size and proportions? That one picky gripe aside, I thought the rest of the production design was excellent. But great production design does not a fun night out make, unfortunately.
I second Andya's "eh?" over the whole John Malcovitch bit. It really wasn't funny enough to just be there, and it had no other purpose that I could think of.
The guide bits were a lot of fun, and they really worked well.
I guess there was always the danger that a film adaptation was going to be bitty and feel inconsequential, especially when compressed into a couple of hours. But I really did feel bitty and inconsequential.
well, as in i always thought marvin was kind of meant to be endearing. maybe not overly cute -- but that's mostly because of the costume. i mean, he was like a 50's retro-futuristic teddy bear. giant heads connotate babies, and babies are cute.
fix the proportion issues, the bad level of cuteness goes away.
I think Marvin's design is quite convinvcing as 'your plastic pal whose fun to be with.' Of course it flies in the face of Sirius Cybernetics appalling track record that their product should actually reflect their marketing.