<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>You misunderstand, I'm looking for translation, not reproduction.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well that's the thing -- this isn't translation, and was never intended to be, even when Adams was still living and pushing the project. (By the way, the script was largely authored by Adams. Another writer was called in to finish it after his untimely and quite unexpected death, but reviews with that writer have convinced me that he understands Adams -- quite impressive, really.)<br /><br />The television series, incidentally, was not an adaptation of the book. It was a new version of the story originally told on radio. The books were written about the same time, I believe. And really, although they have a common spirit, I'm not really sure that any of them is exactly a translation of one another. That's one of the unique things about Hitchhiker's. It was always a *living* work.<br /><br />I do agree with you that it's important it still have that indefinable *something* that made the radio series, the books, and the TV show so enjoyable. I'm still feeling confident about it, personally. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em> -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram