PlanetMagrathea.com is now closed
That’s right. This particular web site, maintained by M.J. Simpson (reputed as “Britain’s leading Douglas Adams expert”), will no longer be updated. With the domain name he chose, you’d think the eventual closing of the site would be inevitable. But Simpson claims that what tipped the balance was backlash against him for his very harsh criticism of the recent theatrical release of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.
Which brings me to my main point: remarking on the curious behavior of highly devoted purist fans of various popular works of entertainment. The way in which they decry any modification from the creator’s “original vision” (even when the creator himself is making the changes) is similar to the behavior of religious fundamentalists. I guess they don’t call them “cult classics” for nothing.
Some people think that humans are hard-wired for religious behavior, and when they reject traditional religions, they gravitate toward substitute “religions.” Michael Crichton has described the parallels between environmentalism and religion. At least Douglas Adams fans aren’t trying to take away our gas-powered cars, though.
16 Responses to “PlanetMagrathea.com is now closed”
Oi! You lot! There’s a big election going on today and it doesn’t even get a post?
It says alot about American interest in world affairs, it wasnt even on CNN.coms main page earlier…
I’m basically sympathetic to the main point here, but your examples don’t really fit the thesis: (i) the Planet Margarathea guy was attacked for being insufficiently celebratory of the movie, whereas the phenomenon you discuss would be better instantiated by, say, fans irate with the movie for various ways it deviated from Adams’ vision; (ii) let’s face it — Lucas did make Star Wars into a worse movie than it had been originally. That’s not a matter of film fan fanaticism — it’s a matter of proper cinematic aesthetics.
Yes, our previous mentions of the British election gain us naught. If the results weren’t a foregone conclusion–and if readers were deeply concerned by the prospect of a Brown government–then we probably would have spent more time on it.
Plus, give us a break: Three of us have finals this week.
Hey, good luck in your finals! I was more making a generalisation about the american media, altho I was hopeful for some commentary here as your views are normally very interesting. While yes, Blair will win, there is still a lot at steak, and his majority been decreasced a lot could change policy in major ways, if he didnt have a huge majority we wouldnt have been in Iraq with America, so the size of the result is vital.
Anyway, good luck all in your exams!
-pete
the Planet Margarathea guy was attacked for being insufficiently celebratory of the movie
Actually, Simpson does seem to be irate with the movie for deviating from Adams’ vision. That was my point.
Actually, Simpson does seem to be irate with the movie for deviating from Adams’ vision. That was my point.
Douglas wrote the script, unless Douglas was at odds with himself, it was at least his core vision for the film version.
My girlfriend and I happened to like it quite a bit, but our tastes might be suspect. After all, we liked Sahara.
Check out the opening box office figures.
Foltz, I liked it a lot, too. But I think Zooey Deschanel is astoundingly cute, so that could be biasing my opinion.
I knew you werent all bad Eric.
“Simpson does seem to be irate with the movie for deviating from Adams’ vision. That was my point.”
Well…no. His complaints were not simply that there was such deviation, but rather that the deviation that there was (i) lost the ways in which HGG was originally so good, and did so in a way that (ii) failed to be good in some other way. It’s not you-have-failed-the-Master-so-you-must-die, but rather you-turned-a-funny-joke-into-something-lame-and-unfunny. You don’t have to agree with his criticisms to see that the form of critique is fundamentally reasonable & non-cultish.
Many of his attackers, however, do seem to be attacking him precisely on a you-have-failed-the-Master-so-you-must-die kind of basis. So the cultishness here seems to be in the proponents, not the critic.
I have neither followed the links nor seen the film, but it strikes me that HGG a) relies peculiarly on Adams’s vision because b) it lacks an actual core text. There’s the radio version, the novels, the games, and even the television version. So it’s a question of whether this is an “adaptation” at all or really just a new iteration of a theme. What bound together all the previous entries, however, was the quirky, absurdist, and tightly-controlled viewpoint of D.N. Adams himself, a viewpoint that is philosophically and scientifically informed (and outright atheist, especially by, say, the bitter end of the fifth book). The BBC let Adams thrive; I doubt Disney was a good choice.
“I have neither followed the links nor seen the film”
Don’t. Did you know that the real answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything is true love? Seriously.
“Did you know that the real answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything is true love? ”
You are kidding. Every critical word anyone speaks against this film is, thereby, fully justified.
As should be said when discussing any film details: SPOILER ALERT! The film doesn’t say that the ultimate answer is true love, though it could be interpreted that way. Having seen it just last night I’d have to say that it simply says that in the end that’s all Arthur Dent cared about. And nowhere does the film or any other version of HGG that I’m aware of paint Arthur as a genius.
Linking to you for the Crichton speech.
“And nowhere does the film or any other version of HGG that I’m aware of paint Arthur as a genius.”
Is this a non sequitur? Or what?
In any event, to judge from the final lines of Mostly Harmless, Arthur Dent cared only about finding an end to his life.