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).
Andromeda is Just Television
eDon J.
Sweeney wrote in questioning
whether the premise of Dylan Hunt's quest on Andromeda to give re-birth to
the Commonwealth was far fetched. Hello? It's just a TV show. He can do whatever
he wants to. Not only that, it was Captain Kirk who said "In every revolution,
there's one man with a vision."
I can't believe I just quoted Star Trek.
I'm not a geek. I'm not a geek. I'm not a geek. ...
Dan Ware
djpw1@yahoo.com
Dylan Hunt Makes Her See Double
he other day
I watched the 1970s movie Genesis II starring Alex Cord, and discovered the main
character's name was "Dylan Hunt." This, of course, is the name of Andromeda's
captain, played by Kevin Sorbo. Granted, they are both Gene Roddenberry creations,
but I would have thought the writers could have been a little more creative than to
re-use this name in the new series. Other than being "frozen in time" the two have
nothing in common.
I say: Come on, give me a break! There's no penalty for
creating a new name for a new character. Even though the two characters were both
conceived by Gene, it's lazy.
Julie Mourar
judave@core.com
X Marks Zelazny Story
onight's
episode of The X-Files (12/10/00), was great. Just one problem with it: The
plot was lifted from a Roger Zelazny short story about a man who lives time backwards
until he gets to the point where he has a fight with his wife. The X-Files
story was a little different, but basically the same story. Zelazny's story was
incredible, and it is a shame The X-Files people didn't give him credit.
What's that I smell? A lawsuit?
Robert Thompson
webmaster@scifilist.com
Zhaan's Snapshot is Underdeveloped
he
responses to
my letter concerning Zhaan in issue #189
missed the point that I was trying to
make about Zhaan.
While I appreciate Ms. Hey's portrayal, I feel that she has been hampered by poor
direction and terrible scenarios. It is very apparent that the writers do not know
what to do with her as a character, thus the inconsistency. Farscape has the
benefit of having a very different approach with varied and interesting characters.
It is a question of alleviating a crowded cast of excellent characters and eliminating
the one which would do the least bit of damage to the show as a whole. Zhaan is the
perfect "victim" in that sense.
As I stated in Science Fiction Weekly #188, Zhaan's character has been the most
inconsistently portrayed this season. Her character's strong/weak, mild/hysteric scripts
do not do the character justice and are out of concept with respect to Season One.
Brushing it off as character development is a panacea to those who would apologize
for writers having no clue as to what to do with Zhaan. It is also readily apparent
that they are much more comfortable writing for the other Farscape characters
than Zhaan.
To eliminate Zhaan would only improve the show and allow opportunities for further
development of the more important characters of D'Argo, Rygel, Chiana, Scorpius,
Crais, Talyn, Moya, Pilot, John, and Aeryn. While I would miss her, this is
Farscape--not the Zhaan show and the impact would be minimal.
Tom Francis
mailto:tomf@neca.com
Remember That Actors Are Acting
r.
Randy
Gaudian thinks that actresses such as Kristen
Johnston (3rd Rock from the Sun) should not play Wonder Woman because
she played a "ditzy" character on her show.
I think Mr. Gaudian is confused by the difference between the actor and the
character. Just because Sally Solomon is "ditzy" doesn't mean Kristen Johnson
is ditzy, or somehow unable to play another character that is un-ditzy.
Will Johnston (or another "ditzy" actor) make a good Wonder Woman? I have no
idea. But Johnston would certainly play her as Wonder Woman, not as Sally Solomon
wearing a gold bustier.
Adi Jaya
deetya@mail.uk2.net
Writers' Rights Often in Conflict
would like
to weigh in on
Barbara Goldstein's
comments regarding novelists writing
screenplays.
While she does make some good points, Ms. Goldstein's reference to Harlan
Ellison's City on the Edge of Forever script is not one of them. Rather it
is a case of conflicting visions: The one, Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future
and the other, Ellison's vision of his script. While we can argue about whether or
not Ellison's script was better, we should not deny that it was Roddenberry's
right to alter the script to fit his vision for the show.
Authors who write screenplays or sell the movie rights to their stories must
always be aware of those conflicting visions. Even if we think that Hollywood today
is incapable of properly adapting a book to film or getting a good screen play, it
is still the right to pursue their own creative vision no matter how horrendous it
is.
Bill McHale
wmchal1@umbc.edu
Gellar is a Slayer of Many Talents
was
bemused by
Greg Kruse's comments on my letter about who should be
the lead in a possible Buffy the Vampire Slayer
movie. Mr. Kruse says that Sarah Michelle Gellar
is inferior to Kristy Swanson because the latter has starred in more films since the
first Buffy film. Strangely, Mr. Kruse does not provide details on exactly what
kind of roles Swanson played in those 13 films. One wonders if Mr. Kruse has actually
seen any of Swanson's films. This also raises doubts about Swanson's acting. As proven
by Sylvester Stallone and Adam Sandler, starring in a dozen films is no accomplishment
if you play the same role over and over.
By contrast, Sarah Michelle Gellar has nearly 17 years of acting experience on
stage, in film, and on television. I have already commented on films I have seen,
in which Gellar can skillfully play into the "blonde bimbo" stereotype (e.g., I
Know What You Did Last Summer) or not (e.g., Cruel Intentions).
Besides Buffy, highlights from Gellar's television career include her
portrayal of a young Jackie Kennedy in the acclaimed TV mini-series, A
Woman Named Jackie. Gellar also won an Emmy Award for her role on the daytime
drama All my Children.
Once again, all the odds are in favor of Sarah Michelle Gellar securing the lead
in the new Buffy movie. By Mr. Kruse's own admission, the first Buffy
movie was "light-hearted" fluff that pandered to its audience. Thus, Kristy Swanson
did not have to really stretch as an actress in the box office flop. On the other
hand, like Star Trek and Babylon 5, the Buffy TV series
refuses to be safe or predictable. One week, the show will air a Thanksgiving special
("Pangs") that questions whether or not the holiday trivializes the virtual genocide of
Native Americans. Another week an episode ("New Moon Rising") explores the pros and
cons of a homosexual relationship, a topic rarely dealt with on SF/fantasy TV
shows. A month later, an offbeat episode ("Hush") requires the cast to convey
a compelling story without uttering a word. Incidentally, "Hush" earned Buffy
an Emmy nomination because few, if any, TV series have attempted a silent episode.
As a constantly evolving series, the lead role in Buffy is a challenge that
can only be met by a very experienced, versatile actress. After nearly five seasons
and much critical acclaim, Gellar has proven to be that actress.
Now, Kristy Swanson is free to play another role in the new Buffy movie.
That would be a fair compromise for Swanson and Gellar fans. However, the role of
Buffy herself belongs to Sarah Michelle Gellar since she is the Slayer.
Frederick D. Weaver
duane106@olg.com
A New Name For Ursula K. Le Guin
s. Le Guin:
Writers and reviewers alike have struggled to assign a name to the now firmly
established literary genre of novel-sized collections of stories within the same
setting.
SF readers will no doubt be familiar with the convention through Ray Bradbury's
The Martian Chronicles (set on Mars) and Dandelion Wine (set
in a small town in Illinois). But Bradbury was not the innovator: He was inspired
by Sherwood Anderson's 1919 collection Winesburg, Ohio. And even Bradbury
was left searching for a name: "You might see a few apparitions of Winesburg,
Ohio in my other book-of-stories-pretending-to-be-a-novel, Dandelion
Wine." Somehow, though, "book-of-stories-pretending-to-be-a-novel" didn't
catch on, at least not at the English Department I went to. Anderson himself
described Winesburg, Ohio, as "half individual tales, half long novel
form." So even the writers who pioneered the form had no idea what to call it.
One essay I dug up on the web referred to them as "The American City Novel,"
because most of the major examples are both American and focus on a town or city
(Masters' Spoon River anthology and Dos Passos' Manhattan Transfer),
but there's nothing uniquely American about the form itself. And besides, the modern
practitioners of the form are largely SF writers, and the setting is usually a planet
or magical world.
The likeliest name I found came from a literary criticism website, which listed the
genre as "short story cycle" or "composite novel," admitting that there were "varying
terms" for the form. I also found one book of literary criticism called The
Composite Novel: The Short Story Cycle in Transition. One source I found
even attempts to draw dubious distinctions between short story cycles and
composite novels. In any event, it appears that "short story cycle" and
"composite novel" are the two nearly synonymous names that critics have
given to this particular genre, whether it be Salinger's stories of the
Glass family or your own "Orsinian Tales."
Kevin Eric Snell
enochf@home.com
Deep Space is in Deep Need
here needs
to be a Star Trek: Deep Space Nine movie! I've been hearing rumors that there
will be no DS9 movie. After suffering through Insurrection, I believe
the fans of the DS9 series deserve a movie. DS9 was a step above and
beyond all the other Star Trek series, it had rich character development,
awesome graphics, and a killer story-line from "Emissary" to "What You Leave
Behind." It seems like the execs at Paramount have forgotten about
DS9. Maybe its time the fans reminded them. Letter writing
campaign anyone?
Antroy J Roby
troyx71@cs.com
Dungeons & Dragons Did Its Job
get so
tired of wannabe critics. Take the latest ranting and ravings about the similarity
of the movie Dungeons and Dragons to Star Wars. How many countless
movies have had Kings, Queens, and leading political figures that were stiff and
unimaginative? How many countless movies have had major villains that were overbearing,
overacted, and just dumb? How many countless movies have had a character
that served only one purpose, comic relief? Even the Star Trek movies had
poorly acted Romulan villains, stiff and unimaginative planetary rulers, and even
Data and Quark provided sometimes stupid comic relief scenes.
Anyone who has played Dungeons and Dragons knows the game (story) is not about
Good vs. Evil, not about socially or politically correct themes and not about Romance.
The story is about some characters winding up on a quest for something. That is what
the movie Dungeons and Dragons is about. A couple of Thieves brought together
inadvertently with a Magic-User, a Dwarf fighter, and an Elf Ranger on a quest for an
artifact. They have an adventure where some get killed and some survive. The characters
explore dungeons, mazes, set off traps, fight and throw spells and do pretty much
what we see in the movie. During the adventure, the characters evolve into
something, sometimes better, sometimes more powerful and possibly sometimes
just a little smarter and wiser.
Anyone expecting anything different will naturally be disappointed. Get a life.
Or better yet, learn to play Dungeons and Dragons and have fun without
making it your
whole life experience.
And to all the wannabe movie critics in the world, remember the basic concept of
a movie is to provide a momentary refuge from the real world, to let us forget all
else for a couple of hours and to simply entertain us.
Joe Castleberry
biowolf@netzero.net
Dungeons & Dragons is A-OK
would
like to stand up for the Dungeons and Dragons movie. Some people think they
can compare this movie with Starship Troopers and Star Wars: The Phantom
Menace, but they aren't even in the same genre. The Phantom Menace is
sci-fi and so is Starship Troopers. Dungeons and Dragons is pure
fantasy. There is no sci-fi involved with the Dungeons and Dragons realm,
unless they have changed it since I played it several years ago. Yes, I have seen
the movie and am satisfied with it and the characters.
Sandy Ball
dara@kellnet.com
D&D is So Bad It's Good
n regard
to the Sarah Wallace's
"D&D Only
a Shadow of Star Wars,", it seems that someone had their expectations
too high. Yes, the movie was bad, but it's at least entertainingly bad. I went with a
group of friends to see it at a bargain matinee on the Sunday of opening weekend
and we had a blast, almost falling out of our seats laughing as Jeremy Irons
declaimed, "Let fiiire RRRRRAIN from the sky!!!!" From the advance buzz I'd
heard, I was expecting mindless entertainment and I was not disappointed. The
movie looks and feels like something from the '80s, a spiritual kin to movies
like Legend, Labyrinth, and The Beastmaster. Hollywood
tends to get fantasy right even less often than they get science fiction right,
so I never expect much from fantasy movies. D&D is a big, steaming hunk
of cheese, true. But that doesn't mean it's not entertaining.
I'm also struck by Ms. Wallace's comment, "I called in sick and played hooky from
my job to see a cheap rip-off of Starship Troopers meets The Phantom Menace.
I have to admit that I just don't understand this viewpoint. It's just a movie, for
crying out loud. I can't imagine any movie that's worth skipping work to go see. I
don't work all day, or even every day. If there's a movie I want to see I'll just
see it after work, or on my day off. I suppose Ms. Wallace's job must be worse than
mine...
Stewart Tame
sbt@ans.net
Dune's Understandable Adaptation
would
like to congratulations to all those involved in the making of Frank Herbert's
Dune. Not only did you capture the essence of Herbert's work, you made
it understandable to the many who did not read the books. For those who criticize
the mini-series for eliminating certain elements from the book, I understand and
agree that some could have been included. However, were they truly necessary in
understanding the larger context of Herbert's world? If Dune was filmed
word for word, the mini-series would have lasted a month! The true beauty of
this miniseries lies in its ability to share a highly complex story with a
large audience.
Vincent Scutaro
vscutaro@mindspring.com
Dune Should Be Burned and Buried
ith regards
to the new Dune: Frankly, it stunk. My friends and I were excited to see a
remake and kept a open mind to what may happen with the characters, scenes and such,
but were greatly disappointed. The director's cut movie of Dune is far
superior to that which was seen on TV. For the most part, it looked like the
animated series of Starship Troopers. Now, there were some great scenes
like the Sardaukar and Atreides' guards ready to fight it out to see who the
best soldiers were but it was not enough to hold my interest. Also, it seemed
that a lot of the characters were misplaced or terribly acted. Everyone seemed
to try to sound Scottish or English in their accent and was, once again,
terrible. In all honesty, maybe the original movie should be played and this
TV version buried deep in the sand worm's stomach.
Julio Diaz
WolfMaruder@aol.com
Filmed Dune May Be An Impossibility
was rather
disappointed with the latest adaptation of Frank Herbert's amazing novel,
Dune. I can overlook many of the minor details that were changed or
left out, as much of it was inconsequential to the story line itself (such
as Fremen dragging cloth on the sand to simulate natural desert sounds, instead
of the un-rhythmic walking described in the book; and, leaving out Paul's secret
sietch name "Usul").
However, I am very disappointed in some changes that do effect the story. For
example, the portrayal of desert life on Arrakis is pitiful. The mini-series contains
outdoor sietches and open stillsuits (when the Fremen actually wore them), while the
book describes underground sietches and extreme adherence to stillsuit discipline
(details that drive home the hazardous environment of the planet). Also in the
mini-series, Duncan Idaho dies in an explosion, rather than being killed by
Sardaukar. (The explosion would leave nothing of his body for Tleilaxu to create
the gholas of later stories.)
I also noticed that the Harkonnens aren't portrayed nearly as mad as they are
described by Herbert, especially the sick, horrifying Baron. And while Paul at
least looks close to fifteen, the mini-series doesn't translate the character's
transition from boy to Duke to messiah very well. The worst character representations,
though, are the Bene Gesserit, especially Jessica. She and the others display emotions
and reactions like many competent actors do, which misses the point entirely. The
witches are supposed to maintain complete, unswerving control. No emotional displays,
no "gasp" reactions, no nervous perspiration, etc.
Both the miniseries and David Lynch's version have their strong points, and there
are areas where each version out-shines the other, but I was just as disappointed in
Lynch's Dune as I am in the newest version. That leaves me to wonder whether
it's possible to successfully translate the book into a motion picture, or if
Herbert wrote something so fantastic that it can only stand alone.
Patrick Haden
libra1967@mindspring.com
After Dune, Adapt Gene Wolfe
thought the
Dune mini-series was excellent, especially the screenwriting, casting, sets
and costumes. The screenwriting artfully beefed up the role of Princess Irulan to
guide the novice through the story basics and political intrigue. The casting of
Western and Central European actors was refreshing and, for the American viewer,
brought the added effect of accents (Czech, Slav) which made the characters seem
more exotic and alien. So, did the sets and costumes.
Many Dune purists will no doubt find fault--but ask yourself this: Could
you do a better job writing this screenplay within the confines of six hours? This
fine production has given me hope that a team does indeed exist that is worthy of
bring my favorite sci-fi text to film--Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun.
Mark Thompson
mark.thompson@otis.com
Lynch's Dune is Still Superior
had planned
to write a letter about the remake of Herbert's Dune, even before
I read Paul
Di Filippo's review. My understanding was that the remake
was to "right past wrongs" of the 1984 Lynch version. Being a fan of the book,
I agree with most fans that the original did not live up my expectations. I
still enjoyed the film, but anticipated greatly this new version. After watching all
six hours I was left with one comparison: New Coke. The new version's acting was
unconvincing, the set design unimaginative, and the pace dirge-like. It should
have been named Frank Herbert's Dune as presented by the Smalltown Community
Theater Group. Who cast this Newman guy for Paul anyway, Aaron Spelling? I
appreciated the loss of the weirding modules, but not much else. David Lynch,
wherever you are, I now am watching your Collector's Edition Dune over
and over to get this one's images out of my head.
Lance Kirby
LanceKirby@home.com
Dune Worked, But Novel Worked Best
I have
read Dune and seen both the theatrical and Alan Smithee versions of the 1984
David Lynch film. It is difficult not to compare this version of Dune with
the book and previous film adaptation, but on the merits of this film I think that
the sets and costumes are quite well done and the trans-light technique employed
by the film to give the interior and exterior studio sets added dimension work for
the most part, although there are some instances where I found the backgrounds to
look completely fake and the CGI shots tend to look a bit too CGI for their own good
at times. The navigator sequence is well done, but it owes more than a passing
similarity to the Lynch interpretation of a scene that is not in the book at all.
Even the look of the Guild ship is not unlike the look of the Guild ship in Lynch's
film.
In terms of acting, some of the characters come off well, like Dr. Kynes, Princess
Irulan, Shadout Mapes, and Gurney, while most of the lead characters seem stiff.
William Hurt comes off too distant and hardly charismatic. Jurgen Prochnow was a better
Duke Leto. For all of the complaints, the interior dialogues in the Lynch version
fitted the book more than the Shakespearean-inspired style speeches that at times
do not work at all. Case and point, Baron Harkonnen's speech after Leto's death--Who
the hell is he talking to if not breaking the fourth wall to the viewers? However,
this version does reveal the Baron's scheming and flamboyant character instead of
the pus-filled madman as seen in the Lynch film.
I could go on and on, but I will end this review with this recommendation. Regardless
of which version one might prefer and the elements within them, I suggest that viewers
read the book first above anything else and then watch both filmed versions to make
their own opinion. If anything else, I hope this new mini-series will encourage
people who have not read Dune to go out and read it for themselves.
Mark A. Rivera
WriterR5@aol.com
Nothing's Perfect Enough for Dune
just finished
reading the letters column from the
December 11th's issue, and note with interest that
opinion seems about evenly divided into pro-Harrison/anti-Lynch and
anti-Harrison/pro-Lynch camps. Having seen both, I have to say that in
my opinion neither of these films did justice to Herbert's book.
Lynch's version featured some truly beautiful and/or creepy set design and a
genuine sense of atmosphere, but the acting was poor and the plot was not well
explained. Harrison's version made a lot more sense, but, once again, the acting
was poor and ... there was no joy to it. It felt as if the film makers were merely
completing an assigned task, not bringing an artistic vision to the project. Visual
effects were inconsistent, at times polished and convincing, at others laughably
fake in appearance (i.e. when the sunlight shone from the right on the background
and from the left on the foreground). Others have pointed out a number of divergences
from the original book, but I must note with particular disappointment the weakening
of Jessica's character. I had read that Harrison's version of Dune was to include
"beefed up" roles for the women characters, but in reality Jessica became an ineffective
wimp and Irulan was transformed into a seductress. I wouldn't call that progress.
Dune isn't an un-filmable story. It can be made into a stirring, visually
beautiful movie. But it hasn't been done yet.
Janice E. Dawley
jdawley@impop.bellatlantic.net
Where Was Dune's Weirding Way?
ordon
Smith says, regarding the Dune miniseries:
"The bottom line is that the writers of this version blew it in worse fashion than
Lynch and DeLaurentis did." All I can say is, "huh?" Lynch turned the "weirding
way," a pivotal concept in the book, into a fancy ray-gun. Meanwhile the only
nit you can pick with SCI FI's version is the color of hair, costume styles
and the order in which people traveled from one place to another. The only real
valid nit in the post is the exclusion of Paul's secret name, Usul, which is
indeed strange. The only real gripe I had was Paul and Jessica's escape from
the Harkonnens being turned into a scene from Independence Day.
Ian Kennedy
ianken_ms@msn.com
Television is Not the Same as Paper
o all the
nay-sayers about SCI FI's Dune, may I ask you a question: Is there
anything you DO like?
Dune was wonderful.
It was not the book, but dramatic presentations can't be the same as a reading
experience. The Dune that I saw on television can't and should not be
compared to the one I created in my mind's eye reading Frank Herbert's masterpiece.
Take the effort for what it was, not what you want it to be. If you're looking
for something to be dissatisfied with, believe me you will always find it. Lighten
up! Enjoy when life gives you an opportunity to resample a great vision, and stop
looking for nits to pick.
Alan Katerinsky
poppabunny@yahoo.com
Is Anime the Answer for Dune?
ll of this
talk about the Dune movies and which was more or less accurate got me thinking
about the whole idea of adapting science fiction and fantasy literature to the screen
in the first place. The problem is the whole conflict between special effects, plot
and staying true to the story. There's only so much one can do with live actors and
sets and going all digital means spending insane amounts of money on super computers.
Generally, the lion's share of the time and money goes into making the film look
good, with plot, acting, scripts, etc. seemingly tossed in at the last minute.
So here's my thought: How about using anime as a format for adapting science fiction?
Japan has a well-established anime industry, turning out tons of material every year.
With anime, the only limit, visually speaking, it what you can draw. It's cheaper
than live action because it's all ink, paint, and computer-work. So the special
effects are taken care of, leaving more money for all those other things, like
plot and acting (you know, little stuff like that).
Many might scoff, but anime is not just big-chested women with guns and robots.
Anime can tell powerful stories just as well (sometimes better) than conventional
cinema; the excellent Grave of the Fireflies is an example (in my opinion)
of an anime that can make the viewer forgets it's a cartoon.
Richard Gaulding
f.gaulding@students.oglethorpe.edu
Nobility is the Spice of Dune
fter reading
the many letters regarding the Dune mini-series I was pleased to find that many
people agree with me that it was a huge disappointment. Although I felt the costumes
of the Fremen were an improvement, the rest of the mini-series must have had Frank
Herbert turning in his grave. I went out and bought the David Lynch version.
Two of the main reasons I didn't care for the mini-series were mentioned. One--the
costumes reminded me more of a Flash Gordon episode then the Dune novel, and
two--Paul was portrayed as an angry brat. But no one mentioned the lack of nobility,
and that was my primary concern. House Atreides was acutely aware of its own nobility,
as was the Padishah Emperor's House. This sense of nobility was correctly portrayed
in the David Lynch version, but was abandoned in this new mini-series. The biggest
departure from nobility, in my opinion, came at the meeting that dealt with how to
handle the Harkonnen problem. Paul slouched at the table looking bored and then
disgustedly threw in a comment. His Father, the Duke, made no comment and his
father's men praised the idea. A noble born would have been taught to sit
properly and would never have made himself look better then his father.
In the book Paul thought about the mistakes his father made, but
never voiced them. In the end, I taped the miniseries, but will probably
never watch it again. I'll stick with David Lynch.
Cynthia L. Perna
alethia@cfaith.com
Praise for Dune and the Imagination
fter reading
through the letters written concerning the miniseries Dune, it is apparent
that it is so much easier to be a critic than anything else. I thought the movie was
well done, the acting was believable and the special effects did not over- or
under-whelm.
For so many years I've read and heard comments from people who've said "the movie
is not like the book, the book was better." The book will almost always be better
because the reader must use his or her mind to fill in the details based upon the
author's description, and those details will not be consistent from one reader to
the next. In effect, each person has his own interpretation of many of the details,
and none of them are necessarily wrong--they are an interpretation.
Each work of art should stand on its own merits. A film can never capture the entire
essence of what an author writes, but it can attempt to convey parts of what was
written while at the same time being entertaining. I believe Dune did just
that. The movie cannot capture all of what Mr. Herbert conveyed in his book(s),
and I believe it is wise that the director, writers, and producers did not make
the attempt.
Very good job on the work you did. I enjoyed what I saw, and what more could anyone
ask than that? Thank you for a job well done.
Steve Madden
steve.madden@smed.com
Minor Details Aside, New Dune Rules
would
like to comment on all the negative letters about Dune the mini-series.
First: No movie or series can catch everything in a novel as huge and rich as
Dune. No matter what, some things are going to be left out. I was
disappointed that the series didn't do more with the Mentats, but you
can't have everything.
Second: Some of the pronunciations was a bit odd. I suspected that has
more to do with the multinational cast than anything else. Third: Yes,
the SFX were a bit cheesy. Those rear screen projections of desert-scapes
were just plain bad, but I could live with that. Fourth: If some letter writers
can only complain that Leto and Paul were blondes instead of dark-haired,
BIG DEAL.
This Dune beat the Lynch version to hell and gone.
The technology was just about right and true to the novel. All the major themes:
Boy becomes man, the desert is home to major religions figures, tough environments
breed tough people, etc., were all intact and carefully presented.
One last point--I think that William Hurt nailed Duke Leto. He presented the Duke
as smart, caring, savvy and as a good father and good husband.
Pat Baker
pbseller62@iwon.com
Back to the top.
