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).
Roddenberry's Vision Does Endure
here have been several attacks that Andromeda is a horrible remake of Genesis II, Planet Earth, and Star Trek. While it is a remake, it is far from horrible and it does comply with Roddenberry's vision. I suspect Roddenberry would be pleased if he were to see Andromeda. The Genesis II concept failed twice and Roddenberry was left with nothing to be remembered by but Star Trek. Then there are two Star Trek series made, and both completely destroy Roddenberry's vision of a perfect universe.
Roddenberry basically believed that problems in the 24th century would be resolved in an hour-long show. Deep Space Nine and Voyager exist in universes where life, in general, sucks. Finally, six years after Roddenberry's death, we were given Earth: Final Conflict. Though the show has had more bad than good points since the second season, we finally had something to remember Roddenberry by other than Star Trek. Now, several of Roddenberry's ideas and philosophies have been combined to bring us Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda. Every episode of the show brings us a style that we almost never see now that Roddenberry's gone. Andromeda has finally given us a SF show that has the intelligence of sci-fi with the creativity and vision of Gene Roddenberry that we've missed since the passing of shows like Babylon 5 and DS9.
Daniel Rasmussen
rasnet@rconnect.com
Dual Dunes Both Succeed
generally liked both the David Lynch version and the most recent SCI FI version of Dune; both re-kindled the unique sense of mystery that I always get when I read the novel. A few observations that are relevant to the recent on-going discussion here:
1) Casting: I thought that all of the Atreides were better cast in the SCI FI version. The most important thing about Paul's appearance as described by Frank Herbert that is relevant to his character is that his features are sharp and intelligent looking. I think Kyle McLaughlin is a fine actor, and played Paul well, but doesn't have that "sharp" look that the actor in the SCI FI version has. I was also unhappy with the decidedly un-Ducal Barry Gibb Disco-era beard and hair style of Duke Leto in the Lynch version. William Hurt, of course, is an American national treasure, and looks very Ducal. I also thought Chani was very well cast in the SCI FI version--Sean Young in the Lynch version looks too urbane to be Fremen. Unfortunately just about everyone else in the SCI FI version was worse cast. Why were soft-looking actors cast as Gurney Halleck and Stilgar--two characters who epitomize fighting trim? Why was Duncan Idaho of all people portrayed as sporting dandyish hair with longish, oiled ringlets? Feyd-Rautha in the SCI FI version was all right, but he didn't have the psychopathic intensity of Sting. Lynch did a better job with both the Mentats and the Bene Gesserit--both are sources of intrigue in the novel, but were unremarkable in the SCI FI version. Piter Devries (a man of devilish cunning) is spot on in the Lynch version, but looks too innocuous to be a "twisted mentat" in the SCI FI version.
2) Variations on the literal plot in the SCI FI version, such as a maid being present in Paul's bedroom during the hunter-seeker attack, or Princess Irulan's much greater role, are within the normal limits of artistic interpretation, and I am sure that they are not "mistakes." Any re-telling of a story is necessarily an act of interpretation, and a certain license is normal, indeed, is a hallmark of many great film adaptations, as long as the variation does not do violence to the central themes. However, in the Lynch version, I thought the invention of "weirding modules" as the basis for the military potency of Muad'ib's Jihad was inexplicable, unforgivable and the greatest weakness of the Lynch version. It profoundly undermines Herbert's important idea that religious fanaticism and ascetic mind-body training were the basis for the Jihad's success.
3) One of the best scenes in the Lynch version is the Imperial audience with a Spacing Guild Navigator ("We have just folded space from Ix ... "). Such meetings between powerful figures is central to the sinister atmosphere of Byzantine convolution that pervades the Imperium, and the Guild Navigators are among the most intriguing and disturbing inventions in Herbert's Universe. I was disappointed that this scene was omitted from the SCI FI version.
4) Finally: one area where I thought that the Lynch version brightly out-shone the SCI FI version is in the filming of Paul's dreams and visions. Despite the psychedelic graphics employed in the SCI FI version, the dream sequences in the Lynch version have a much more nightmarish, hallucinatory, ominous quality. Then and again, David Lynch is the maestro of creepy, nightmarish hallucination, as is well testified by Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, Wild at Heart, and Twin Peaks.
Ian Short
cis@arcturus.sci.fau.edu
Weighing the Differences of Dune
egarding comments about the recent Dune mini-series on SCI FI and the David Lynch version: I say both versions have merit and both fell short. The Lynch version is too short and crammed. The sets and costumes are well done. Lynch actually went to a desert to film. There was a big budget, although still short of the Lucas budget probably needed to pull off a successful Dune adaptation. The bad side of the equation was the acting. Sure, most stand out in their roles but many were over-acted. The whole tone of the movie is over the top and the story has zero humor to begin with.
Baron Harkonnen is so gross in the film, one hardly listens to his lines. The Mentats having lip stains, why? Just so we can see they are different? I'm sure it still went over most people's heads. I know critics don't get sci-fi, Roger Ebert thought the spice was simply called "spice" and called that dumb--the spice HAS a name, "melange," although this was not mentioned in the new miniseries.
I thought the miniseries would see more story development, which it did. They downplayed the Bene Gesserit and the Mentats and the Duke's men but in a way this made for a more streamlined story. The betrayal comes by the first third of the novel, Lynch makes it almost half of his film. The focus is more on Paul and his awakening. Those scenes of mind expansion were great in the miniseries, simply discussed in the Lynch film. I loved seeing the Place Where You Cannot Go. Many of the actors were bland but none were terrible. The desert was too studio-bound but it was a TV production so one had to accept it.
This version was much closer to the novel, who cares about the little details like hair color or body size? You'll never have a word-by-word adaptation. That's ridiculous. Two different mediums require two different approaches. I give Lynch a rating of 2 1/2 stars while the SCI FI version gets 3.
Mike Nelson
miskonelsonny@hotmail.com
Adapt Doon Instead of Dune
rank Herbert has always been one of my favorite authors, and the Dune saga one of my favorite reading experiences. After the motion picture debacle, I was dreading any further adaptations. In an interview, Lynch, who was not familiar with Dune prior to getting the director's job, admitted that after 11 screen-play rewrites he didn't know what was part of the book, and what wasn't. Although the SCI FI mini-series was a valiant effort, and tried to adhere more closely to the original story, it was another failure as far as I'm concerned. The bottom line is that the book's story is convincing and its characters engaging, and as a reader you care about what happens. The cinematic versions invoke none of these sentiments. Dune moviemakers could drop virtually all of the book's intangibles, if they could simply tell a convincing story with appealing characters.
In the SCI FI mini-series, why are all the scenes on water-rich Caladan shot in sterile enclosed rooms, without a single window showing the outside? It's a wonder Paul can describe water bodies at all; I only saw them from space. On Arrakis there were luxurious open rooms with pleasant breezes flowing through everyone's hair. Frankly, I thought Dune looked more inviting than Caladan, and what would Herbert have to say about that? I was not convinced by the show that the Fremen were an unusually fierce native force, toughened by a harsh environment, ready to be used by a charismatic Duke to retake his own, and the Emperor's into the bargain. Although my wife, not as familiar with the book as I am, said she enjoyed watching it.
I wish they had adapted the National Lampoon's Doon rather than Herbert's masterpiece. I think beer and pretzels is something even Hollywood could get right!
Jim Geckle
jgeckle@dol.net
Original Dune is Worth Watching
have read the entire series of Dune books, watched the original movie and the miniseries. The book has a lot of material to cover and, I find, a lot of times by viewing what an author has created lets the story flow and gives me a better understanding of what is actually happening. I really enjoyed the first movie although I classify it as a dark one--many of the settings were dark and the storyline had a dark edge to it. The new miniseries moved well, spelled out quite a few points that I still hadn't grasped, such as the Baron being Paul's grandfather, how Paul was made into a god, a lot of the workings of the Empire and how most of the characters fit together. The settings had a much lighter look to them although the miniseries did not show why exactly all water was saved in underground cisterns and how the planet was transformed and how Paul and the worm became one. I would like to see it taken farther into the other books and then maybe a lot of the people who have written in such critical letters would take another view of it.
I am not a person who can stand to watch a movie more than once, there a few select that I will watch more than once, the original Dune is one.
Sally Cousins
scc@centurytel.net
Dune Backlash Proves Surprising
hoa! If there's this much blow back from the newest film adaptation of Dune, heaven help the screenplay writers and producers of the upcoming Lord of the Rings films. Maybe it's best not to mess with people's realities ... even if it's all made up stuff.
Michael Kroll
aradyn@hotmail.com
SCI FI Deserves Our Respect
had a reader of my post in issue 190, e-mail me regarding my comments about the Dune series. He asked me if I had ever read the Dune novel.
I explained to him, that I had read the novel when I was a teenager. However, the point I made to him, is that the novel and the screen version of any storyline is always going to be different. I never expected the first Dune screen version to be exactly like the novel. The new revised Dune series was awesome. Personally, I would not like to see a single thing changed, except for the way it ended. Like I stated in my previous post, the Fremen should have wiped out the emperor altogether. I believe everybody is entitled to their own opinions. However, I do not understand why people who read a novel, should think that the movie or the screen series is going to follow that same plot as the novel. That sort of thing is just not going to happen. Those individuals also believe that if the screen version did not stay true to the movie, then it did not accurately depict the storyline, or plot(s).
For example, look at how Starship Troopers the movie was totally different from the novel. I liked the movie and the novel, but here's an example of how movies and novels are not going exhibit the same series of events, and plots. I have always looked at Dune with an open mind, even when I read the book, and saw the first movie. I also kept an open mind after seeing the SCI FI Channel revision of this great classic. I cannot describe to you how I felt seeing a revision of that sci-fi classic. It was awesome! They could not have done a better job with respect to the revision. As far as I am concerned, they gained a lot of my respect by revising this classic. I would have to stand up for the SCI FI channel, and say, did any of the other networks even think about touching this project, the answer is "No!"
So, I salute the SCI FI channel for having the guts to go where network has gone before, to bring this revision to our big screens.
Virgil Yancey
Viscusa@netscape.net
Dungeons & Dragons Deserves to Die
ow, Dungeon's & Dragons was one BAD film. I am talking Battlefield Earth bad. The script (if indeed there was one) was so awful I could damn near feel Gary Gygax reeling in pain at every word spoken on the screen. The plot makes little sense and is all over the place (taking totally unnecessary and useless tangents just to fill in time and to use more FX). Characters lose and gain weapons all the time despite the fact that it makes no sense (swords just appear in their hands and then disappear when the fight is over). The ending makes absolutely NO sense and is so convoluted it leaves you feeling like they grabbed the wrong page of the script when filming it. The FX were obvious CGI and the sets were bland and unimpressive.
Now to the acting (if it can be so called). Irons is left to run amok, hamming up every word he utters and mugging it for the camera. Payne is trying so hard to be Darth Vader he comes across so laughably goofy (also whether it is intentional or not I don't know, but during all of his scenes they seem to play the "Darth Vader theme music"). Marina is useless besides being cute (she is a freaking mage yet she rarely uses her magic). Rather than use magic to end the fight and win she just yells and cheers on the hero. Wayons is just pathetic as the slapstick/sidekick and makes the film into more of a mockery than what the script did. Birch is something else. What she is even doing in the movie escapes me as she doesn't do ANYTHING. The Dwarf and Elf are just there, they do nothing, they barely utter a line and they serve no real purpose in the film. The hero (actors name escapes me at the moment) is simply attempting to be Matt Damon, but all he accomplishes is to further muck up the movie.
I have no idea what they were hoping to accomplish by making this movie but what they did is make one of the worst of 2000 and most likely the worst of the decade.
Josh Hadley
MHadley@webtv.net
D&D Will Be Redeemed
he Dungeons & Dragons film was critically panned and has bombed at box office. However, all the criticism leveled at the actors, writers, and the director is rather unfair, as the film seen in theatres was not the film director Courtney Solomon made. Originally, the final cut of the D&D movie was two hours and thirty minutes long. New Line Cinema jumped on this. They didn't want to release a fantasy movie more than 100 minutes long, because they felt fantasy was an unproven genre. So the film was heavily edited by New Line. Scenes of exposition, transitions, characterization, and special effects footage were cut out of D&D. Approximately 45 minutes was taken out, which is why the film that you saw in theatres and rated one star is so choppy and poorly paced.
But New Line did more than take out almost an hour of footage. They took it upon themselves to re-edit almost all of the fight sequences. Originally, the combat pushed the limits of a PG-13 rating. New Line took all that out, and shortened the action sequences considerably.
And then, they forced Courtney Solomon, the director, to re-shoot several scenes. The most important re-shoot was the ending. Originally, the film ended with Ridley (Justin Whalin) at Snails's grave alone. He said his farewells, and that was the end. But New Line wanted the film to end with a cliffhanger, and they forced Solomon to shoot the ending scene again, and it became what you saw in theatres.
After all those changes, D&D came in at one hour and forty-five minutes. The cuts, the changes--all of it made a solidly entertaining film into a mess. I don't think it was horrible, but it wasn't a very good movie.
Courtney Solomon is currently working on the director's cut. His original 150 minute cut of the film will be released on the DVD, and there are actually plans to do additional CGI for some scenes that had to be left out of the movie due to the effects being unfinished. As for fans that were disappointed by the film (I was one), the novelization is rather good. New Line Cinema didn't bother to alter the novel to fit their changes, so the novel tells the story of the director's cut. The writer, Neal Barrett Jr., is very good, and his style makes the novelization feel like a standalone fantasy novel, not an adaptation. For now, that is the director's cut, and it is a novel that captures all the fun and adventure that we were all hoping would come from the film. But the special edition DVD is on its way, and Dungeons & Dragons will be redeemed.
Kevin Riley
impulse49@yahoo.com
Listen to People, Not Demographics
have been keeping track of the possible Wonder Woman casting ideas and I cannot see any of the names mentioned being able to pull off the role of Diana. Kristen Johnston has shown in all of her work that she is a "Blonde" type character and neither her nor Carrie-Anne Moss have the look that the character has in the comics. Best bet is to find a slender female body builder who is talented enough to carry the role. If you doubt this idea, think back to Christopher Reeves. My fear that, with Johnston, it would probably be campy or too Xena-like.
As for the Dune mini-series that everybody is up in arms over: I was a fan of the first film and thought that this version, while lacking in some areas, was good and gave us more of the novel that millions know and love. My main concern is that studios are continuing to make so-called new teen-aimed films that are steals of Animal House, Porky's and other comedies that are lame and nasty if not down right stupid, but cannot make movies that fans are asking for. Fans want more classic SF done as good films or remakes that stay true to the ideals of the original but with a modern twist and updated effects. Studios like Universal would rather make American Pie 2 than bring back Battlestar Galactica, or Paramount would rather continue to let Rick Berman make lackluster Star Trek movies than bring back the original cast, mainly Capt. Kirk. At least 20th Century Fox made The X-Men and they did it as close to the original comic stories as commercially possible.
Keep sending the studios faxes, letters and phone calls to get them to wake up and listen to the people not demographics. One last thing--everyone please give Jar Jar Binks a break. He has been put through the wringer and he will be having a smaller role in Episode II--so you won.
Evan Wardwell
EWardwell@email.msn.com
Little Buffy Has Grown Up
ll this hype between who makes a better Buffy and who should be allowed to play her in a "possible" movie is getting tiresome. Let me just state my opinion now. Given the right script, I think either Gellar or Swanson could pull it off. Let's face it, the movie script could have been much better, and besides the fact, it was a B movie in every aspect. Swanson has out-grown the role of Buffy now, and Gellar has put in more time playing the part that it's almost second nature. I believe that Kristy Swanson represents a younger Buffy Summers, and Sarah Michelle Gellar has brought about a more mature and grown-up sense to the character. Buffy's no longer the ditsy blonde cheerleader she once was--she is now in college and has faced many things along the way. If a movie is made I think it's only right that Gellar play Buffy. But it might be important that Joss Whedon, even if he doesn't do another movie, at least go back like they did in the Darkhorse Comic Buffy The Vampire Slayer: The Origin and explain (we don't need any cheesy flashbacks please!) how becoming a slayer has changed Buffy and help mold and mature her to who she is now.
Theodore Wilczynski
just5ive@yahoo.com
Mining Relationships for Ratings
know this is being very nitpicky, but I was reading the letter's column in issue 191and came across a letter by Frederick D. Weaver discussing who would play Buffy in a Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie. I agree wholeheartedly with Weaver. I didn't realize there was a debate. There was a different Captain of the Enterprise in the pilot of Star Trek--would you want him to be brought back with no explanation in the first movie and Captain Kirk ditched because someone didn't like William Shatner? Sarah Michelle Gellar is Buffy. Kristy Swanson from all accounts doesn't want the role, and it probably helps that Joss Whedon himself disavows the original movie as an alternate universe to his series. How could one think that anyone else could play that role? It's like switching Darrens in Bewitched.
But there was another thing that bothered me about this letter, "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."
"New Moon Rising" was not about the pros and cons of a homosexual relationship, in fact that was the least-explored aspect of the episode. In the origins of the Willow/Tara plotline (though this is not true of later episodes) the homosexual element was barely hinted at, dodged around, and avoided. This is still true of "New Moon Rising," which is one of my favorite episodes because it more fully explores Willow and Oz's fractured relationship. The episode is about relationships, homosexual or otherwise. Willow is dealing with the pain of Oz's departure earlier in the season, and her new feelings for Tara. Her friends are almost instantly receptive of her relationship with Tara, a good example, but not dealing with pros and cons. Yes, Tara is also female, but the series treats it as just another couple on the show. There was a larger exploration of Xander and Cordelia, not to mention more consequences to their involvement with each other.
People are continually praising Buffy the Vampire Slayer for tackling the "homosexual" issue. But what about the fact that Tara came out of nowhere and in the space of a few episodes turned one of the most established characters on the show upside down all for the sake of exploring the issue? Or how the shows creators and actors are insulting fans who dare to think it was a ratings ploy (and who can honestly say that ratings played no role?). I have read numerous articles by fans, writers, and actors in the series where anyone who does not wholly embrace the "lesbian witches" is homophobic, stupid, blind and inattentive.
And if one would like to see a homosexual relationship explored in sci-fi television, Babylon 5's portrayal of Susan Ivanova and Talia Winters was done within network censorship, and with the subtlety of a writer who was confident that he didn't need exposition to prove a point, that he simply wanted two characters to be together, and that was the finality of it. It is a shame Andrea Thompson left the series--that was a storyline that could have stood as an example.
Chang Meiran
chang_meiran@hotmail.com
Dracula 2000 Drew Blood
his past weekend some friends and I who have been dying to see Wes Craven's Dracula 2000 found that the movie was receiving an special advanced midnight screening at a local theater hosted by our favorite radio station. Believe me, we got there as fast as we could. It was nearly 11:25 when we got there and we were panicking that we wouldn't get in because it was free. Needless to say we got in. We were of the first thirty to show up. At about around 11:50 there was a huge line wrapped around the building. They only took the first hundred and twenty.
Let me tell you what I expected to see. Since it was a Wes Craven film I just knew it would be packed with sarcasm and humor like Scream. But the last thing I expected was a really scary movie about a world-famous vampire. I pretty much expected either a good rip off or clone of John Carpenter's Vampires or Buffy. The very title itself sounded cheesy, not to mention the fact that Vitamin C was in it. What I did get was an action-packed, roaringly funny, not to mention suspenseful and really scary movie about a world famous vampire. At some points I didn't know whether to hold my ribs or cover my eyes! All I can truly say is much praise to Wes Craven, Jeri Ryan and yes, Vitamin C. I was wrong!
But hey, Mr. Craven, just because this movie was good doesn't mean you have to ruin it with a sequel next year! Please leave well enough alone.
Antonio Wallace
toysoldiers2001@yahoo.com
Wolfe Should Run From the Screen
n the previous Letters page, Mark Thompson suggested that somebody make a filmed version of Gene Wolf's classic Book of the New Sun. Just because a book is great doesn't mean a filmed version of it will be. Please for the love of god, Hollywood, never ever make a movie of a Gene Wolfe book! I love this author too much! There are several reasons why it could not be done. I fear that some are quite subtle, so please bear with me.
The strength beneath Wolfe's overall writing is that it is prosaic in the extreme. That is to say his characters experience things the way we experience things in everyday real life (as if they are actually happening) and not the way characters in movies experience them (with all the added drama, foreshadowing and mood heightening soundtracks), and events unfold like real life unfolds. In one book characters meet fairies and it's as if you or I happened upon a young woman in a coffee shop who happened to be a fairy. It's not depicted as a "wondrous" experience; it just happens. Even in his most intense moments he just describes the facts of the events as they unfold. Where other authors write books that can be likened to movies, Gene Wolfe's books could be likened to documentaries.
So any movie version of the books might have the same "stuff" in it but the experience would be completely opposite to that of reading the books. The movies that have the closest dramatic style to Wolfe's books are those of the Italian neo-realists (like Passolini) or those made by the adherents of Dogma 95, an attempt at absolute realism in filmmaking. See The Ceremony or Dancer in the Dark. Any big Hollywood version of Gene Wolfe's books would be hopelessly over-acted and over art-directed. Even having music on the soundtrack would be too much. If fans are baying over both Dune films imagine how they would react to what Hollywood would do with, nay, to this material. Now a television series on the other hand ... that, in all seriousness, just might work. A TV version wouldn't have to spend as much on promotion so the actual show wouldn't have to be as grandiose and dependent upon eye candy. It wouldn't be over-acted because TV acting isn't as "larger than life" as film acting. It's cheaper to produce so there could be less original material left out. Maybe it's not a bad idea after all.
Jesse Kleitman
kleitman@aol.com
SFW Readers Have Lives
love the Letters section of Science Fiction Weekly. I find it amazing that anyone can get so worked up about things that are not life-threatening issues in their lives--or at least I would hope they aren't. So imagine my surprise when Issue 191 contained at least 7 letters from people who seemed to have a grip on reality and recognize the entertainment industry for what it is supposed to be. I would like to congratulate the following individuals for actually "having a life": Dan Ware, Adi Jaya, Bill McHale, Joe Castleberry, Stewart Tame, Alan Katerinsky and Steve Madden.
Judy Erp
judy.erp@honeywell.com
Frakes Finds his Fans
would just like to say to the people who are condemning Star Trek: Insurrection that they should not be so hard on it. I hear constant reports of how bad Star Trek: Insurrection was. I thought it was a wonderful movie. Jonathan Frakes and all of the cast should be proud of their accomplishment. If people say that the story line was "too thin," then fine, I'd like to see them come up with something better.
Elizabeth Walsh
Petergwalsh@btinternet.com
Don't Put Faith in Future Cures
r. McCarthy is perhaps too optimistic too soon. He spoke of new antibiotics in the works. There are the latest ones to be approved, and only for the most life-threatening infections. These may already have a resistance rate in humans of 30%. This "new" antibiotic has been used in animal feed for years. New? Yea, right.
Add the fact that people insist on an antibiotic for every little sneeze, cough, sniffle or scratchy throat. The bacteria love this. Even out-patient treatment is in on the act--prophyllactic antibiotics (usually one dose) is used prior to many minor surgeries and most bone operations.
Much as I hate to say it, the evolutionary money is on the bugs. I'm not giving any odds.
Bonnie L. Bowman
bowman@halifax.com
Strange Days Should Have Its Day
here aren't any comments made on Strange Days, and I have to tell you, this movie deserved to be elevated to the same sci-fi status with Blade Runner, 2001: Space Odyssey, Ghost in the Shell, Akira and Brazil in terms of themes it represents and the vision of a near future to come (even if the year the movie is set in is passed, we can still look at it as an alternate reality).
Most will hate comparisons, but to me, it's like watching Blade Runner or Ghost in the Shell accelerated. The chaos, the colors and the fury of (alternate) 1999 LA seemed to feel more "refreshing" then the dull, dark netherworld of 2019 LA in Blade Runner.
For the uninitiated, the movie is produced by James Cameron, who needs no intro, written by Jay Cocks and is directed by his ex-wife Kathryn Bigelow, who also helmed Loveless, Near Dark, Blue Steel and Point Break--and is one hot woman.
Anyway, Strange Days should be watched on many levels. While it's supposedly a murder mystery involving SQUID, a VR style tech which records other people's memories that are then used for pleasure, there's a beautiful love story told underneath, despite all that violence. Also, while not really featuring any droids,(hey, it's 1999), at least it's about humanity trying strive in a world gone amok.
My point is, give this movie a chance. Some day, who knows, maybe Strange Days visuals might influence comics, video games, even movies, among many other visual media forms. Much like Blade Runner.
Ahmad ZAKI bin Zakaria
zenris@time.net.my
Back to the top.
