Slashdot Mirror

There are many political issues and any one candidate may fall at many different places on those issues.

Yes, but left/right refers to one specific axis: the axis of the aristocrats versus the commoners, or in modern terms, capital versus labor. Properly, one is not "left" or "right" on social issues, or foreign policy, or even on the amount of regulation and intervention the government should perform in the marketplace; one is leftist if one wants an economic system favorable to workers, and rightist if one wants one favorable to the owning class.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats favor policies that continue the accumulation of wealth into the hands of a small minority, the Democrats just favor a few small governors on that engine.

If you think the Democrat's are moving right, then look for either the Republican's or a third party to move into the political niche that is being vacated.

Which is why I usually vote Green, and probably will again this year. (Even if it's a write-in, and even if I might send money to or do some work for the Obama campaign. I live in a securely blue state with terrible ballot access laws, YMMV.)

Third, using game theory if we assume:...all the issues collapse down to a one dimensional continuum...

Which they don't. You need at least four dimensions to make sense of of politics: personal liberty on social issues, labor versus capital, planned economy versus free market, and aggressive versus diplomatic foreign policy.

Believing in a one-dimensional continuum is how we've come to the mess we're in, where people vote to make sure that the wrong lizard doesn't get in.

the voters vote for the person who is closest to their position

Interestingly, they often don't - when you ask people their positions on issues, they're often at odds with which party or candidate they vote for.

It's just another way in which people are a problem: given a population of politicians skilled in manipulating people, and a population of powerful people with a great deal of influence with said politicians, notions of "democracy" and "limited government" are a very brittle things.

Mostly asked and answered on a recent interview by *sigh* DarthBastard...

DarthBastard: We are hearing from some of the reviews of the film that some of the references to God (such as the second half of the babelfish description) are not in the movie. This is a shame but, given the current political climate in America, is perfectly understandible (though I'm glad the more subtle dig at organised religion - Humma and his sermon - is going to be there). What are your thoughts on this and will we see some of these references on the DVD?

Robbie Stamp: Good first question - there has been *no* pressure of any kind whatsoever to take out any of the " God" references. That Guid entry was cut because the pacing at that stage wasnt working. We had too many entries coming on top of each other too quickly. But there is still plenty of Douglas' atheism in the film and the whole Humma plot is right on the nose when it comes to organised religion. And yes look out for the DVD.

Essentially asked and answered already...

AlohaJoe: Is there anything that has been cut from the movie that you wish hadn't been?

Robbie Stamp: For me the "litmus" test scene was the whale - its the one that sums up everything that makes Douglas a genius. It comes at a moment when the movie should be driving towards the end but we go off on this digressioin that has not plot relevance. Its pure HHGG - invention, ideas and humour. Not a response about cutting I know but the honest answer is that there isnt really anything which I miss too much ( maybe one line but I'm not goint to tell you which one, though its been hinted at in an earlier question!)

Asked and answered, your honor...

Nellodee: If I dont get to be there later on, heres my question: First of all, hello Mr. Stamp, thank you for being here and for getting this project in gear! One question id like to ask you: Have you read MJ Simpsons negative review and if yes, how do answer? (Id like to add that I have full faith in the movie crew to give us a great H2G2 screen adaptation.)

Robbie Stamp: Yes I have read ( some) of Mike's review. I am genuinely sad that he feels that way, genuinely. I know how much he cares about HHGG and I am sure that he took no pleasure in writing that review. Having said that, I would be looking for a log cabin somewhere in Western Alaska if his was the only fan voice that I respect who has pronounced on the movie. But he isnt. In fact his is not the majority opinion. There are many fans whose opinions I respect just as much who loved the movie, genuinely loved it.

Please read this most-recent interview with Robbie before posting any (more) questions that have already been answered.

Saw it this morning, actually, for the second time - first was a 95% complete cut similar to the one Simpson saw, the second was the final edit. I went along with my friends Tim Browse (his review) and Sean Sollé (his review) - all of us worked with Douglas at The Digital Village, a company we joined mainly because we were already massive Hitchhiker's fans. (If you need further credentials for me, look here.

We've been involved with the film at various stages. Thus, the disclaimer. However, please also be aware that none of us would be defending a film that crapped all over Douglas's work, especially since it was such a fundamental part of our youth.

Most (though not all) of the spoilers that Simpson reveals in his review are true. Yes, the lying-in-front-of-a-bulldozer dialogue has been cut short. Yes, several key Guide entries are missing. Yes, some of the dialogue isn't as funny as it could have been, and a couple of the gags are corny rather than sharp. (Note: I said a couple. It's nearly two hours of film, there are still tons of good lines in there.)

It's at this point that Simpson's opinion of the movie and mine diverge rather radically, because he seems to think that you can judge the film's merits almost purely on what's missing, in combination with things that don't appear as quite as he'd have liked them. Personally, I loved it to bits. It's not perfect, certainly, and I agree with a couple of his criticisms (though with about 5% of his severity). But I fundamentally feel that it's true to the spirit of Hitchhiker's in so many ways, not just through the storyline and script (which is far, far better than MJ would have you believe) but also through visuals and design that are utter genius, reimagining Douglas's creations in totally new ways that still seem completely in keeping with his intentions. It wears its Britishness in a far more open and interesting way than any previous version of the story - the Vogons, in particular, are a satire of traditional English bureaucracy that borders on Hogarthian.

I could go through MJ's review point-by-point and debunk all the stuff - and there's plenty of it - which he's blown wildly out of proportion, or which is based on utterly blinkered thinking, or which is just plain wrong. But then, that would be succumbing to exactly the kind of checklist mentality that he has, and god, how I hate that. He seems to just want the radio and TV series again, on a bigger budget, thus completely misunderstanding the demands that the different media have. His review reads like he went in with a notepad and took score through the film, subtracting ten points every time a line from the original went astray, and based his final opinion on that. As others have said in this thread, it's exactly the same kind of fanboy nonsense that had LoTR fans doomsaying before its release, and it's just bullshit.

If you're the kind of fan who works that way, who demands pure fidelity to the original and nothing but, then you won't like this movie. However, given that every incarnation of Hitchhiker's has been pretty different (and this movie is staunchly in the same tradition), I'd say that you're a fan who's utterly missing the point. Simpson, in loudly complaining that the film's plot veers wildly all over the place, makes me wonder which "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" he's a fan of, 'cos it certainly isn't one I've ever seen. His review is also the only negative one I've read from a major fan - contrast it with this review from Jens Kellenberg, who runs one of the biggest HHGTTG

Saw it this morning, actually, for the second time - first was a 95% complete cut similar to the one Simpson saw, the second was the final edit. I went along with my friends Tim Browse (his review) and Sean Sollé (his review) - all of us worked with Douglas at The Digital Village, a company we joined mainly because we were already massive Hitchhiker's fans. (If you need further credentials for me, look here.

We've been involved with the film at various stages. Thus, the disclaimer. However, please also be aware that none of us would be defending a film that crapped all over Douglas's work, especially since it was such a fundamental part of our youth.

Most (though not all) of the spoilers that Simpson reveals in his review are true. Yes, the lying-in-front-of-a-bulldozer dialogue has been cut short. Yes, several key Guide entries are missing. Yes, some of the dialogue isn't as funny as it could have been, and a couple of the gags are corny rather than sharp. (Note: I said a couple. It's nearly two hours of film, there are still tons of good lines in there.)

It's at this point that Simpson's opinion of the movie and mine diverge rather radically, because he seems to think that you can judge the film's merits almost purely on what's missing, in combination with things that don't appear as quite as he'd have liked them. Personally, I loved it to bits. It's not perfect, certainly, and I agree with a couple of his criticisms (though with about 5% of his severity). But I fundamentally feel that it's true to the spirit of Hitchhiker's in so many ways, not just through the storyline and script (which is far, far better than MJ would have you believe) but also through visuals and design that are utter genius, reimagining Douglas's creations in totally new ways that still seem completely in keeping with his intentions. It wears its Britishness in a far more open and interesting way than any previous version of the story - the Vogons, in particular, are a satire of traditional English bureaucracy that borders on Hogarthian.

I could go through MJ's review point-by-point and debunk all the stuff - and there's plenty of it - which he's blown wildly out of proportion, or which is based on utterly blinkered thinking, or which is just plain wrong. But then, that would be succumbing to exactly the kind of checklist mentality that he has, and god, how I hate that. He seems to just want the radio and TV series again, on a bigger budget, thus completely misunderstanding the demands that the different media have. His review reads like he went in with a notepad and took score through the film, subtracting ten points every time a line from the original went astray, and based his final opinion on that. As others have said in this thread, it's exactly the same kind of fanboy nonsense that had LoTR fans doomsaying before its release, and it's just bullshit.

If you're the kind of fan who works that way, who demands pure fidelity to the original and nothing but, then you won't like this movie. However, given that every incarnation of Hitchhiker's has been pretty different (and this movie is staunchly in the same tradition), I'd say that you're a fan who's utterly missing the point. Simpson, in loudly complaining that the film's plot veers wildly all over the place, makes me wonder which "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" he's a fan of, 'cos it certainly isn't one I've ever seen. His review is also the only negative one I've read from a major fan - contrast it with this review from Jens Kellenberg, who runs one of the biggest HHGTTG

Saw it this morning, actually, for the second time - first was a 95% complete cut similar to the one Simpson saw, the second was the final edit. I went along with my friends Tim Browse (his review) and Sean Sollé (his review) - all of us worked with Douglas at The Digital Village, a company we joined mainly because we were already massive Hitchhiker's fans. (If you need further credentials for me, look here.

We've been involved with the film at various stages. Thus, the disclaimer. However, please also be aware that none of us would be defending a film that crapped all over Douglas's work, especially since it was such a fundamental part of our youth.

Most (though not all) of the spoilers that Simpson reveals in his review are true. Yes, the lying-in-front-of-a-bulldozer dialogue has been cut short. Yes, several key Guide entries are missing. Yes, some of the dialogue isn't as funny as it could have been, and a couple of the gags are corny rather than sharp. (Note: I said a couple. It's nearly two hours of film, there are still tons of good lines in there.)

It's at this point that Simpson's opinion of the movie and mine diverge rather radically, because he seems to think that you can judge the film's merits almost purely on what's missing, in combination with things that don't appear as quite as he'd have liked them. Personally, I loved it to bits. It's not perfect, certainly, and I agree with a couple of his criticisms (though with about 5% of his severity). But I fundamentally feel that it's true to the spirit of Hitchhiker's in so many ways, not just through the storyline and script (which is far, far better than MJ would have you believe) but also through visuals and design that are utter genius, reimagining Douglas's creations in totally new ways that still seem completely in keeping with his intentions. It wears its Britishness in a far more open and interesting way than any previous version of the story - the Vogons, in particular, are a satire of traditional English bureaucracy that borders on Hogarthian.

I could go through MJ's review point-by-point and debunk all the stuff - and there's plenty of it - which he's blown wildly out of proportion, or which is based on utterly blinkered thinking, or which is just plain wrong. But then, that would be succumbing to exactly the kind of checklist mentality that he has, and god, how I hate that. He seems to just want the radio and TV series again, on a bigger budget, thus completely misunderstanding the demands that the different media have. His review reads like he went in with a notepad and took score through the film, subtracting ten points every time a line from the original went astray, and based his final opinion on that. As others have said in this thread, it's exactly the same kind of fanboy nonsense that had LoTR fans doomsaying before its release, and it's just bullshit.

If you're the kind of fan who works that way, who demands pure fidelity to the original and nothing but, then you won't like this movie. However, given that every incarnation of Hitchhiker's has been pretty different (and this movie is staunchly in the same tradition), I'd say that you're a fan who's utterly missing the point. Simpson, in loudly complaining that the film's plot veers wildly all over the place, makes me wonder which "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" he's a fan of, 'cos it certainly isn't one I've ever seen. His review is also the only negative one I've read from a major fan - contrast it with this review from Jens Kellenberg, who runs one of the biggest HHGTTG

Ran across this the other day.

Gives some really good insight on what exactly is going on with the movie (in regards to the casting, plot, etc.):

http://www.douglasadams.se/forum/viewtopic.php?t =2 288

That's crazy.. according to the pictures, the same guy is doing Gag Halfrunt, Lunkwill, Fook, Eddie, Marvin's voice, and Vogon Jelz' voice!

No, I believe this picture is supposed to be the Heart of Gold.

http://www.douglasadams.se/movie/images/H2G2%20-%2 0Design%20Art2.jpg

That's the Heart of Gold??!

It's a little smaller than I imagined it...

Which of these looks more like the kind of product that would actually be marketed as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with?"