The Letters to the Editor department is intended to be a forum for our readers to express their own opinions and ideas. While we appreciate the many complimentary letters we receive each day, you won't find them on this page. Instead, you will find letters that go beyond or even contradict what we have written, letters that offer a different perspective and provide a different view of science fiction. If you would like to submit a letter, please use our feedback form or send a message to scifiweekly@scifi.com.
-- Scott Edelman, Editor-in-Chief
Send us your letters!
Got a gripe about something going on in the science fiction world? Want to call attention to an overlooked genre gem? Do you disagree with one of our reviews? Would you like to tell the editor of Science Fiction Weekly what a great job he does? Write a Letter to the Editor and send it in! You'll have the satisfaction of knowing that your letter will be read by thousands of SF fans. Doubtless, fame and fortune will follow (fame and fortune not guaranteed).
Dune Demands to Be on DVD
he new
Dune series was totally awesome. The original Dune cannot even begin
to come close to the re-visioned version of this great series.
I saw all three parts on the three separate days that they were aired. The SCI FI
Channel did a wonderful job putting this series together. I cannot express in words
how great the series was during its showing. It expanded on a lot of things that the
original Dune did not expand on. However, it is unfair for me to compare the
old version of Dune with the remake of this great Sci-Fi classic. The fight
scenes were totally awesome. I really enjoyed the hand-to-hand combat scenes, coupled
with the aerial combat scenes as well.
The ending of the new Dune was a little lackluster. Since the Fremen stormed
through the Emperor's army, they should have gone ahead and killed the emperor and
overthrown them in one fatal swoop. I hope the SCI FI Channel offers the new Dune
on DVD. I hope they are not short-sighted like George Lucas was when he stiffed all of
the Star Wars fans with a VHS version of his Episode I:
the Phantom Menace.
Don't put this great classic on VHS, put it on DVD, where it can be enjoyed
by our future generations.
Virgil Yancey
Viscusa@netscape.net
Dune Nothing but Disappointment
am writing
concerning the new miniseries Dune. As an avid Dune fan, I have been
eagerly waiting for the release of the SCI FI Channel series. I was, however,
tremendously
disappointed to see the poor performance and adherence to the novel that I
saw in Part 1. I'm pretty sure that the book explicitly states that both the
Duke and Paul had black hair. Bene Gesserit women did not wear overbearing dress
with lots of frills. Gurney Halleck is a sword-master, not an overweight,
big-gutted man. It was disappointing to see all the (obvious) sound stage
open desert scene instead of outdoor filming. I'm sure that the book described
the garden as sealed instead of a walk-in room. Furthermore, the whole residence
is open air in the series and the importance of water seems downplayed by these
things. In all, I am extremely disappointed in all the failings that this series
presents.
On the good side though, the special effects are excellent and the depiction of
desert hardware and use of cloaks for the stillsuits are excellent.
Har'el Romans-Murray
hrm@amazingmedia.com
Lynch Nailed the Details of Dune
have
been anticipating the SCI FI channel's version of Dune since I first heard
whispers of it. Now that part one is over, I am extremely disappointed; all the more
so after reading the self-serving review posted here. People talk about the failure
of the David Lynch/Dino Delaurentis production, but it's only failing was that it
tried to cram an epic novel into a 170 minute movie. At least Lynch got the details
of the original novel right. Granted that confused many movie-goers who had never
read the novel, and it confused all the reviewers who as a species generally can't
comprehend Science Fiction, and certainly have no conception as to the difference
between good science fiction and bad!
I own six copies of the novel in five
different languages. I've read each of them 10 to 12 times and feel that I know
the story reasonably well. The short review on the SCI FI channel's Dune
is that it appears to have done a good job in dummying-up the story for the average
viewer, and it's long enough to tell the story adequately, but the details are
wrong all across the board. But let's look at just a few of the details.
Paul and
Jessica talk about wanting to see Leto, implying that he is already on Arrakis,
however, in the novel, Leto was still on Caladan. Leto talks with Paul about
leaving Caladan, about being a Duke, and about how proud he is of him before
they leave (Lynch got it right by the way). Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam
arrives at the very beginning of the novel, and gives Paul the Gom Jabar test
before Paul meets with Thufir and Gurney. Furthermore, Paul is in bed when the
Reverend Mother sends for him (Lynch got that right too). Let's jump ahead to
Arrakis. Right off the bat we have a mistake. Jessica can speak the language!
She also knows that Shaddout means Well-dipper. In the novel, Leto has to translate
for Jessica. The scene with he Hunter-seeker is wrong as well. Paul is in bed at
the time listening to his mother and Dr. Yueh having a conversation in another
room. Paul gets out of bed just as the headboard opens up and the hunter-seeker
emerges. Paul is alone in the room at this point, unlike in the SCI FI version
where he is awake and a maid is in the room with him. The Shaddout Mapes comes
to the door, and that is when Paul grabs the hunter-seeker and destroys it.
I'll ignore the multitude of other mistakes in Part One, and point out just
one last one, from Part two, which shows up in the preview to the second part.
You don't even have to wait until Monday night to see this screw up! After Paul
and Jessica have met up with the Fremen and are accepted into the clan, Paul
chooses two names: Muad'dib and Usul. Usul is a secret name known only to members
of his Fremen clan. When Chani is alone with Paul she says "Tell me of the waters
of your home world, Usal." In part two of this new and highly flawed movie,
she says: "Tell me of the waters of your homeworld, Muad'dib."
The bottom
line is that the writers of this version blew it in worse fashion than Lynch
and DeLaurentis did. When you set out to make a movie from a classic novel
(science fiction or otherwise) it helps to read the novel and get the
details right. The Lynch/DeLaurentis movie had its faults, but they
got the details right, this movie has gotten the details wrong time after
time; and we're only through part one!
Gordon Smith
evilminions@earthlink.net
Both Pauls Miss Big
aul
Di Filippo is from a different planet. The cast of actors in the current Dune
series, other than William Hurt, is B-grade. After struggling through the first part,
I rented David Lynch's Dune (again). The current Jessica looks and acts like
she just came out of the kitchen. Paul comes across as an arrogant brat. For a desert
girl living in a harsh water poor land, Chani looks like she's been eating too many
cream cakes.
Michelle Lim
michlim22@hotmail.com
SCI FI Screened a Superior Dune
am
forced to respond to J. R. Winders
letter ("Lynch's Dune Did Not Disappoint"). I have no doubt, that David
Lynch's Dune had vision. Unfortunately, it was Mr. Lynch's
(drug- and ego-induced) vision, not Frank Herbert's. I have watched the first two
parts (of three) of SCI FI's Dune and it is better in every way to Lynch's
version. It is faithful to the novel, has none of those annoying voice-overs, and yet
has told the story in a better and more interesting way. And, heaven forbid, the
technology and costumes are faithful to the novel. Stillsuits that cover the head
and face and are sand colored (not black, rubber things, with nose plugs, uhg. No
sane person would wear black in a desert). Ornithopter wings that flap. Fighting
with knives instead of sound waves. Please, I could go on and on. My strong suggestion
to Mr. Winder is to erase his copy of Lynch's Dune and tape the SCI FI
channel's (much superior) version.
Pat Baker
pbseller62@iwon.com
Try a Different Dune and Decide
was dismayed
that Paul Di Filippo feels David Lynch's Dune was a "failure." Watching it
in 70MM in 1984 was a thrill! $50 million dollars went a long way back then. The
DVD is an excellent transfer. Paul may want to try the Extended Edition of
Dune which plays regularly on the Sci-Fi Channel and USA.
Jeffrey W. Barbour
jbarbour@cfl.rr.com
Frank Herbert Would Be Pleased
ust writing
in to comment on some items that have been discussed recently. 1) Let me be among the
first to say that the Dune miniseries was incredible! Great acting all around,
stupendous production values and good, solid direction from Mr. Harrison. I'm sure
that the late Frank Herbert would be pleased.
2) The widescreen Babylon 5--I taped one of the first episodes shown on SCI FI
and compared it to the same episode that I taped a couple of years ago on TNT. On my 30
inch TV screen there was an estimated three to four inches of additional video on one
side or the other depending on where it was panned and scanned at. Having seen high
definition TV a few years back I imagine that this format will fit nicely in HDTV's
format in the future. I'm sure there's a tech wizard out there who can give a better
explanation than I can.
3) I've read some letters recently in the feedback section about how great it
would be if SF and Fantasy writers were allowed to do genre movies the right way.
Screenwriting and filmmaking are very different from writing fiction. It is
entirely possible for someone who is a very talented writer to fail miserably
at making movies. To prove my point all I have to do is mention two movies by
name: Stephen King's Maximum Overdrive and Michael Crichton's Runaway,
both written, produced and directed by their respective creators. Now I have to admit
that while I kind of liked Runaway neither of them were very good as movies
go.
Randy Barrett
jrbarrett101@yahoo.com
Another Loyal Lynch Fan Cheers
couldn't agree
more with Jerome Winder's comments about Dune.
("Lynch's
Dune Did Not Disappoint.") I was very disappointed in the
miniseries, particularly the ending. Dune is not primarily about
relationships between concubines and wives or about the Dukedom finally.
I felt the Lynch movie was much better and truer in spirit to the book.
The miniseries turned the book into a soap opera. Both missed a lot of the book's
focus on '60s "mind expansion" and turned instead as most visualizations do to
narrative plot. There is no comparison with the superb acting in Lynch's film,
and it is unfair to criticize Lynch for Herbert's fascination with the three
M's--messiahs, monarchy and miracles. After all, in a later book--I've read
them all--the hero turns into a worm! If anything, the heroes of Dune
for Herbert were the worms and the spice. I have been a fan and critic and
teacher of science fiction for years and I strongly suggest that
Dune, the film, is right up there with Blade Runner.
Susan Sherman
Casitodo@aol.com
SCI FI Saved the Spirit
ike many
fans of Dune, I waited with baited breath for this new version on Sci-Fi.
And I came away impressed. As was mentioned in your review, it's easy to carp if you
want every single detail of the book to remain. This version was amazingly loyal to
the original, and is probably one of the best TV adaptations I've ever seen. The cast
did a fine job and the visuals were stunning.
There are a few things that simply
glared at me. The glow in the dark Fremen eyes. The "Flying Nun" in the 27th Century
costuming of the Bene Gesserit. It must have been difficult for someone not familiar
with the story to follow some of the details. Did they ever explain why the characters
sometimes spoke in a funny voice (Bene Gesserit Voice)?
But mark this down as the
preferred version to the vile movie version of several years ago. I was astounded
to see yet another defense of this abomination. This mini-series attempted to bring
Herbert's vision to the screen within the limitations of the medium. Lynch took the
basic concepts and ran roughshod over them. He lost the spirit of the story. Lynch
is a brilliant director but forgot that he was telling someone else's story that
time. The SCI FI crew remembered.
Jay Phillippi
jdrp@cecomet.net
Dune Lacking Grandeur and Details
have just
read your review of the Dune miniseries and have seen same. I am disappointed
in both. I had one or two small problems with the David Lynch film version but it was
excellent. The miniseries is the most disappointing science fiction experience I've
had in quite some time. First of all, the costumes were way over the top, especially
the ridiculous head dresses worn by Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohaim, though the
effects overall were good. They did not mention that spice production came to a
halt as a result of Paul's activities and that that was the reason the emperor
came to Arrakis. I also didn't get the feeling of grandeur the 1984 film had.
Casting: The only real criticism I have is that William Hurt, an otherwise fine
actor, was the worst possible choice for Duke Leto. Paul tells Jessica who her
father is. He never tells her this in the first book. This and some other material
are revealed in the two prequels out in the last 18 months, House Atreides
and House Harkonnen. Also, the pronunciations are somewhat different than in
the Lynch film. Of course, Frank Herbert was still alive to advise David Lynch,
perhaps this is why the mini-series is so unimpressive. Lastly, two hours was
not enough for the first movie, and six hours is way too much for the miniseries.
Four would have been better. Contrary to what this web site's official reviewer
thinks, this show drags. The Lynch movie does a much better job conveying the
abilities Paul has as the Kwisatz Haderach. If you haven't seen this but love the
books, don't watch. If you have not read the books go ahead and watch, you won't
know what's wrong.
Tom Osborne
walkboss@i-plus.net
Herbert's Vision Remains Intact
s I watched
the mini-series Dune on SCI FI, I was most pleased to see how faithful to the
book the production was. Of course not everything in the book could be included in
the series. There was just too much to cover. The important parts, the vision of
Frank Herbert was left intact.
I read the original Dune books many years ago and have read each of the
new ones as
they were released, including the new series by Frank's son Brian. It was a treat to
remember the books as I watched Dune on TV. The original Dune movie that
came out in the '80s tried to put too much into itself and came across as choppy and
not very understandable unless you had read the books.
Also pleasing to me was the fact that not all the actors were American. It is logical
to assume that in the far future on different planets of the Empire, people would have
distinct dialects and that accents would differ between planets. The use of actors
from across the world lent another degree of realism and vision to the show.
I hope Harrison does just as well in the next mini-series based on the sequels to
Dune. I look forward to seeing Dune Messiah and Children of Dune
on the screen (either large or small) sometime in the future.
Gary Magid
SCIFIREAD@aol.com
Would Buffy Win a Battle Royale?
ast night
I and three of my friends were having this discussion that quickly turned heated.
It was over the question "If you took Buffy and Max (Dark Angel) and placed
them in a boxing ring with no stakes or toys (nukes, guns, etc.) who would win?"
Now, if you think about Max's genetically enhanced body/abilities and then Buffy's
super strength, endurance and speed it would be a good match to say the least. But
when it comes down to who has more intense training it would have to be Max. Now
when it comes to saucy, sarcasm and wit. Buffy would take the cake and leave Dark
Angel in the dust wondering what the hell just happened. If the tongue is a two
edged sword, Buffy's got the advantage. Now if looks could kill, well of course Max
would be an atom bomb. As much as I love Buffy in the end after a long cat & mouse
session I personally think Max would have to win! She wouldn't be able to resist
the temptation of using the cord of the boxing ring and choking Buffy with it!
What can I say she's more resourceful!
Antonio Wallace
just5ive@yahoo.com
Alan Dean Foster Wants You!
number of
readers have pointed out specific similarities between my Universe of the
Commonwealth books and the new Andromeda TV show. I would appreciate any
mention of these, particularly when the "thranx" appeared on the show, when the "AAnn"
were mentioned, and descriptions of the Wayism church. Comments may be sent to me at:
adf@alandeanfoster.com. Thank you.
Alan Dean Foster
adf@alandeanfoster.com
Andromeda is Short-Staffed
've been
watching Andromeda. I can't say I've enjoyed it, but I find it interesting.
I'm intrigued by what seems to be a lack of energy weapons like lasers or phasers
on Andromeda and the use of small fighters. So far, I don't have a problem
with the acting, the costumes, or the special effects. What I do have a problem
with is the lack of a crew. Dylan Hunt's belief that he can rebuild the Commonwealth
tests the limit of credulity because of this problem. How am I to believe a man can
rebuild a society of a million member worlds when he can't even find a crew of 4,000
people for his ship?
LeDon J. Sweeney
Marscub@home.com
SF Must Keep Hope Alive
have one
question... what has happened to the state of television science fiction?
It seemed like for a while things were improving. Star Trek: The Next
Generation premiered and over the course of a few years set a significant
bar for quality television. The sense of awe and adventure
had returned to television after years of Buck Rogers
and Battlestar Galactica. Then came such excellent series as Babylon 5,
the remake of The Outer Limits, and certainly Star Trek: Deep Space 9.
Things were looking good for intelligently written science fiction.
All of a sudden it stopped. Star Trek: Voyager has turned out to be nothing
more than a cliched horribly written show, and the original programming of the SCI FI Channel
such as Lexx and others are in the same category. I was at first delighted
with Earth: Final Conflict, but that too has become cliched and horribly
written. Then came the announcement that a producer from DS9 would be
working with Majel Barrett to produce another Roddenberry-inspired show. I
can't tell you how excited I was at the prospect of intelligently written television
again.
I waited, I read the web site, I was pumped. Then Andromeda premiered and
it was probably the biggest let-down I've had since Kirk's death. The show has plastic
and annoying characters, impossible wiz kids, terrible dialog and direction, and a
plot that is so implausible I have to believe would have gotten Roddenberry
sick. Is it based upon his works? Not really. Let's examine it for a moment. Dylan Hunt
was conceived as a character who awoke from a long sleep to find the world in chaos.
Okay, so far the same. But, he was recruited into an organization of mature
individuals looking to set the world right again ... PAX. In Andromeda,
he falls asleep but is awaken to be the only hope with a crew of five misfits.
Let's see--they can invent a transporter, recharge androids by sticking their
hands in charged water, pick the right planet out of over 300 to rescue someone.
Be real...
I have pretty much given up. It seems like there is nothing even to hope for anymore.
With Berman and Bragga in charge of the next Star Trek series I'm sure it will
be more of the same. We're appealing now to the masses, the same masses that can't
figure out how to put a hole in a punch card. We need Harlan Ellison, JMS, Steven
King and hard sci-fi authors to stimulate our brains. The only thing worth watching
anymore is The X-Files, and even that is not what it used to be.
David Moss
dmoss@blast.net
Wonder Woman Continues to Puzzle
have to
weigh in on the Wonder Woman issue. I generally agree with Mr. Randy Gaudian
in the December 4 issue that most of the actresses mentioned for the part are
unsuitable. In my opinion, Catherine Zeta Jones, Sandra Bullock, Mariah Carey,
Charisma Carpenter lack the physical presence for the part and Jessica Alba is
way too young. I completely agree with Mr. Gaudian that Lucy Lawless is by far
the best potential candidate for the role, but I disagree that Kristen Johnson
isn't a good possibility. Just because she currently plays a ditzy character
an 3rd Rock from the Sun doesn't mean she couldn't play a more serious
Wonder Woman--that's why they call it acting!
Laura Cvengros
lcvengros@aol.com
Bullock Isn't the Right Woman
agree
that an actress to play Wonder Woman needs to be selected with care and respect.
Lucy Lawless is a possibility; she certainly is the right physical type, but her
association with the Xena character may be insurmountable. My own suggestion is
Carrie-Anne Moss: she also looks like the comic book Wonder Woman, and has athletic
credibility. Please, no doe-eyed Twiggy types like Sandra Bullock!
Steve Block
baronsb@swbell.net
Dragonheart Sequel is DOA
nybody who
liked the second Dragonheart must have no idea of a good movie. The acting
was terrible, and the plot boring and predictable. The "hero" was just like the
hero in Dragonslayer in that they were both self-centered gits. He had no
idea about friendship and loyalty, and I was cheering for him to be killed. I was
thrilled when I saw that there was a new Dragonheart and I rented it on
the spot. Then I found out why it was never advertised. I am not a harsh judge of
anything fantasy and will go out of my way to argue any good points, but this had
none except for the dragon. The movie is sadly disappointing.
Clare Layendecker
mystful@yahoo.com
Roddenberry's Name Has Been Misused
'll admit it,
I take the easy way out. I've stirred up a lot of trouble even here by wanting an
immortal, untouchable hero of late, but I now have an issue. A new plague is upon us,
my science fiction brethren, science fiction repetition or Sci-fi name reliance is
causing a deep stagnation.
For instance, Andromeda, a show with infinite
promise, deserves a watch, but like David Spade says, "I saw it the first time
when it was called..." Genesis II. Now, for those who are unfamiliar with
this series, when Roddenberry was still alive in 1974, he made a series called
Genesis II. It starred Alex Cord as Dylan Hunt, a scientist frozen in
time who has to restore peace to humanity. The show was later
remade as a television movie called Planet Earth with Roddenberry as
executive producer, and Dylan Hunt was played by Mystery Science Theater
3000-spoofed villain supreme, John Saxon.
Now,
there is one slight problem ... the new
one is not a remake per se, but rather a version of Genesis II meets
Star Trek. I'm not against this, as long as the public is aware
that the new show is not exactly new, nor is it based on the original.
It is a hodge podge of concepts from Mr. Roddenberry relying quite a
bit on his name. If the SCI FI Channel were smart--and given that they
have won me over permanently by re-showing Brimstone and with their
new Dune film so they must be--they would pick up Genesis II
and Planet Earth and show fans Gene Roddenberry's original vision by
running it against Andromeda and seeing who would win.
So in the
end, what is my issue? I think now names are being used to sell concepts and
bring in fans when the actual concept is very far removed from its creator.
Just look around at science fiction. Its not Andromeda ... they make
sure you know its Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda. It's not
Dark Angel, they make sure you know it's from James Cameron by
emphasizing James Cameron's Dark Angel. This is all well and
good, but to be honest, James Cameron has probably not written too many
scripts for Angel nor has Roddenberry done anything with the
rehash of his older series. It's not just on television though. I mean,
Todd MacFarlane has not exactly drawn, written and plotted a complete
issue of Todd MacFarlane's Spawn in a long time.
My point is
this. Everyone likes to say others have sold out, but maybe fans are
selling themselves out by looking for names and not tracking down the
original source. Not to attack Andromeda, it is a fun watch,
but its not Roddenberry's vision--it's Roddenberry's vision mixed
with his other ideas and then interpreted through 40 staff writers
who probably never met Roddenberry. So, in the end, buyer
beware--these people are taking the easy
way out paved by the blood, sweat, and tears of creators who no longer
have a voice to protest.
James W. Thomas
captain_robert_april@startrekmail.com
A New Name for Ursula K. Le Guin
egarding
Ursula Le Guin's request for a name for a collection of linked short stories:
this might sound a bit silly, but how about a "circuit" or "circuitry" of stories?
You could even have serial and parallel versions, depending on whether the stories
have a progression. Just a thought.
David Hebblethwaite
zancranoz@hotmail.com
D&D Only a Shadow of Star Wars
et me
start by saying that when it comes to sci-fi/fantasy movies I'm often very
understanding and kind in accepting them. I wasn't to pleased with
Star Wars: Episode I, but I decided, okay, it took forever for
this movie to come out and it wasn't what I expected, but it was merely
a corner stone of a bigger Epic. So no one can say I'm not fair! Now let me tell
you how disappointed I was (lack of better term) with Dungeons & Dragons.
Ten years in the making my a**!!!I called in sick and played hooky from my job to
see a cheap rip-off of Starship Troopers meets The Phantom Menace.
Marlon Wayan's character "Snails" was a wanna-be but couldn't do it rip-off of
Jar-Jar Binks, not to mention Thora Birch's character "Empress Savina" was a
stiff and unconfident version of Queen Amidala in a state of extreme depression!
Looks like someone forgot to cast a spell to ward off the demons of Bad Acting,
not to mention No Plot. This movie couldn't have possibly been any worse. The
graphics even screamed out "Help Me." This movie should have been titled
Starship Troopers 2: Return to the Dark Age or The Flintstones go to
Naboo.
Sarah Wallace
just5ive@yahoo.com
Back to the top.
