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).
Tie Classic SF to Newbie Directors
have an idea for all those hot shots and big wigs in Hollywood. How about doing more big budget movies based on classic sci-fi and fantasy novels like Asimov's Foundation and Marion Zimmerman Bradley's Mists of Avalon? Here's the catch: instead of using all these big directors that have been recycled over and over lets use more up-and-coming directors. Older directors tend to lose steam, newer directors would be more passionate about their work.
Tony Wallace
toysoldiers2001@yahoo.com
Ratings Not Behind Buffy Sexuality
read Chang Meiran's complaints about the Willow/Tara relationship on Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Mining Relationships for Ratings).
Mr. Meiran claimed that Joss Whedon turned the popular character, Willow,
into a bisexual in a cynical attempt to boost his show's ratings. There
would simply be no other explanation for such a major change in the
character. Mr. Meiran added that the Susan Ivanova/Talia Winters
relationship on Babylon 5 was better because it was more sophisticated and
less offensive to TV censors.
Of course, Mr. Meiran could be no more wrong. First, Willow's bisexuality
was hinted at months before she would meet Tara. In the Season 3 episode,
"Dopplegangland," Willow met her other-dimensional twin, who happened to be a
bisexual vampire. Buffy tried to assure Willow that her evil twin was no
reflection on her sexual preference. Buffy's ex-boyfriend, Angel, then
blurted out that a person retained her basic personality after becoming a
vampire. In short, Willow could be an in-the-closet bisexual. Such
foreshadowing debunks Mr. Meriran's claim that Willow was turned gay on a
whim to boost Buffy's ratings. It also validates the many Buffy fans
who believe Willow's love for Tara is perfectly in character.
Secondly, I am surprised Mr. Meiran disapproves of Willow's romance with
Tara because the latter "came out of nowhere." Oz was a completely new
character when he was introduced in Season 2 of Buffy. Yet, Mr. Meiran
had no problem with Willow falling in love with him. And this shouldn't be
an issue since cast changes on Buffy occur quite often. This was
especially true during Season 4 in which the cast graduated from high school
to college, thereby meeting new friends and foes. Thus, Willow falling in
love with Tara fits perfectly within Buffy tradition.
Thirdly, I always felt that the Ivanova/Winters romance on Babylon 5 was
a rather half-hearted exploration of homosexuality. The only evidence that
these characters were ever gay was a scene in "Ceremonies of Light and
Dark," in which Ivanova confided in Delenn that she loved Talia. Delete
that one scene, and the relationship between Ivanova and Talia could be
dismissed as a close friendship. None of their conversations or mannerisms
in previous episodes would indicate otherwise. The ambiguity of this
relationship is why it was never seen as groundbreaking as the Willow/Tara
romance.
And the Willow/Tara romance is revolutionary since such a relationship is
usually a one-time stunt on SF/fantasy series. Instead, it is an ongoing,
major subplot on Buffy as is any heterosexual relationship. This enables
the writers to fully explore all the pros and cons of being a homosexual
couple without being preachy or overly simplistic. The major con of such a
relationship is that people including your friends may not approve of your
choice of lover. In "New Moon Rising," Buffy was not thrilled when Willow
revealed Tara was her lover instead of a close friend. Buffy's cool
response to Willow was ironic. Earlier in that episode, Buffy had lambasted
her boyfriend, Riley, for thinking Willow was a "bad girl" because she had
dated Oz, a werewolf. Realizing her hypocrisy, Buffy eventually accepts
Willow's sexual preference. Of course, not everyone is as tolerant:
Buffy's sister, Dawn, had implied that her mother has a dim view of Willow's
lifestyle.
Yet, the pros outweigh the cons in the end. The lives of Willow and Tara
have been enriched by knowing how deeply each cares for and supports the
other. This romance also brings out the best in each young woman. After a
tragic breakup with Oz, Willow regained her loving, optimistic spirit when
she began dating Tara. Conversely, Willow's love has caused the once
painfully shy Tara to become more confident. This was evident when Tara
refused her emotionally abusive father's command to leave college and return
home with him. An added bonus is that Willow and Tara have helped each
other greatly expand their potential as witches. With all these positives,
it is no wonder Willow and Tara expresses such affection for each other
whether through a longing glance or a soft caress on the thigh.
The revelation of Willow's bisexuality on Buffy the Vampire Slayer is
the result of daring storytelling, not some sinister ratings ploy. The
show's openness on such a taboo subject will offend some SF/fantasy fans.
Yet, the true mark of a great genre show is its willingness to defy, not
pander to viewers' expectations. Star Trek, The Twilight Zone, The
X-Files, and Babylon 5 are hailed as classics for this very reason. The
same can also be said of Buffy. Remarkably, Joss Whedon's horror dramedy
had experienced steady ratings growth season to season despite being
challenging and innovative. This is a great reflection on TV viewers and
mainstream critics, who are increasingly receptive to genre shows that are
not inoffensive, predictable fluff.
Frederick D. Weaver
duane106@olg.com
ST Must Blow Our Minds Again
would like to respond to a letter in your last issue ("Star Trek and D&D Divide Fans") where the writer defended the movie Star Trek: Insurrection from those that were condemning its story
line as being "too thin". Normally I pass these
letters by because everyone has their own opinion
which is fine by me, but what caught me was her line
that I've read in others: "then fine, I'd like to
see them come up with something better."
You hit the nail on the head, we can do better and
many prove it by the fan fiction they write and by the
professionally written novels that one can read set in
the Star Trek universe.
I'm not going to re-write the movie here, but to those
that defend its plot, here is a short list that clued
me in that this was going to be a simple story:
--The people (Ba'ku) on the planet that our crew was
trying to save were the "beautiful" people.
Attractive, etc., because they were the "good guys".
The enemy (Son'a), of course, were disfigured and
horrible looking. Gee, why not reverse the two. That
would have been nice.
--The people on the planet are wholesome, living off
the land, looking down on the very technology that the
Enterprise crew is going to use to save their sorry
hides.
--No real follow-through on the conspiracy that the
Federation is part of, represented by Admiral
Dougherty who wants to move the Ba'ku off the world to
gain their anti-aging secret. Just using the word
"conspiracy" doesn't instantly thicken the plot.
I think one of the main problems here is that the same
core group is coming up with the stories. Star Trek: Generations
and Star Trek: First Contact written by: Rick Berman, Brannon
Braga and Ronald Moore. Insurrection: Rick Berman and
Michael Piller. The next movie: Rick Berman & Brannon
Braga. Maybe it's the money?
For Insurrection, I read in an interview that they
pitched some ideas to Patrick Stewart but none "took
off." Then they brought up the idea that in the end
was the movie, Mr. Stewart thought it was interesting
so they went off to develop it further. So that idea
wasn't even in the first batch (the A-list I would
assume) that they pitched.
I think if they have a great idea, then by all means,
run with it. But at the same time, it's not a crime for
them to open up the writing of the movie to others.
For the next movie I'd like something with some depth,
and a sense of wonder. For goodness sakes, this crew
is out there exploring the galaxy, please, please,
blow my mind!!!
Louis Sivo
scifi_reader@yahoo.com
Federation Decorations Disappoint
ell, I can already tell you what the next big Hallmark Star Trek ornament will be. For the end of Voyager we will get the Delta Flyer just as for the end of DS9 we got the Rio Grande. But when, if ever, are we going to get a space station? Hallmark missed one great chance, but let's be sure that does not make the answer "never." Contact Hallmark at
www.hallmark.com, select "contact us," choose "Keepsake Ornaments," and point out the "logic" of issuing a space station to go with all the ships that have been issued.
Marie Koch
mandlk@yahoo.com
Star Trek Must Learn to Write Big
'd love to weigh in on this trend of letters that suggest Star Trek was once a hot commodity and is now a dying ember on its way to contraction into black hole status.
Well, I agree! But I'd like to add a few comments of praise with my
critical evaluation. Star Trek is definitely NOT hot. In Southern California (and possibly other places), there are mall outlets and bookstores that once had whole shelves dedicated to Star Trek.
They are gone.
Why? I think it's four things. One: Fatigue from a great ride in that other universe. Just how many times can one watch Star Trek over 40 years before finally deciding to live in this one? I don't know how that Las Vegas attraction is going--but I do know I've been to Las Vegas many times and have never been there. There are just far too many things to do in this real world that I find more interesting. Two: Changes at Paramount Pictures since Michael Eisner left--finally overrun by greedy lawyers who actually went to court against the very fans who in love dedicated whole websites and who wrote stories as good or better than the hired help. These people, in bulk are far more responsible for the success of Star Trek than Desilu, Gulf+Western, or Paramount could have ever been. (A clue--even character names were trademarked--get a life!) Three: The UPN Network has been harder and harder to find, and hardball negotiators from UPN asked for too much by asking stations to join UPN or pay exorbitant costs to air Voyager. All true. It was an interesting idea to field a network based on Star Trek, but its time has long passed. I haven't seen ANY of this season's Voyager. Not a single episode. Do I miss it? Heck, I
still haven't seen half the Next Generation, most of Deep Space 9, and about
half of the Voyager episodes. Four: Society simply has too many alternatives and is simply too busy to watch Star Trek religiously.
That having been said, I think Rich Sternbach and his predecessor Matt Jeffries were INCREDIBLE. The actors of every incarnation of Star Trek were absolutely incredible beyond anything normally seen in Hollywood. From Nimoy and Takei to Visitor and Brooks--from Stewart and Dorn to Mulgrew and Picardo--these are truly the very best that the acting world has to offer. The production team was always above and beyond anything ever seen on television. Always.
What has been allowed to die was the writing department. The trend
actually began in the 4th season of the Next Generation--and I think it all went
downhill from there. In the old days there were writers with unforgettable names like David Gerrold and Dorothy Fontana, who will be known and loved forever for their lasting contribution to Star Trek.
Borg, Klingons, Romulan or Vulcan--it just became all too cliche' after
40 years. It's a big galaxy out there--apparently far bigger than the Star Trek
writing staff was able to handle over time.
John Sullivan
sullivan72@worldnet.att.net
Star Trek Should Return to Basics
aramount needs to take more chances with the Star Trek franchise. Star Trek: Voyager
was billed as a return to the concepts of the original series, when the goal
should have been to go even further afield. Gene Roddenberry's original
stated goal for ST was "Wagon Train in space." Paramount should be
thinking about cross-pollinating other concepts. The closest that they've
come to date has been some aspects of ST: Deep Space Nine, which frequently had
multi-episode story arcs such as seen these days in Buffy the Vampire
Slayer.
The best ST spin-off that I've seen recently wasn't officially a spin-off,
it was Peter David and Bill Mumy's Space Cases. Yeah, it was a "kiddie
version" of Star Trek in every respect but official blessing, but I found it
to be as enjoyable as many recent ST:V episodes.
With all those sets and costumes already in hand, why not do miniseries?
Paramount seems to have reservations about letting George Takei do a
Sulu-based series, but a miniseries of 3 or 4 parts would be a great way to
test the feasibility of that idea, as well as the others below.
Some of the most acclaimed episodes of any ST series have been the
comedies, starting with "The Trouble with Tribbles". How about something
devoted to humor, perhaps staring Capt. Bateman (Kelsey Grammer) and the
crew of the Bozeman?
Finally, Roddenberry's covert plan with ST was as a platform for social
commentary. While I'll admit that several of his attempts fell flat ("The
Omega Glory", anyone?), it is still one of the things for which the series
is best remembered. (And the movies, too: Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
was, in my opinion, an even better save-the-whales movie than Free
Willy.) Why not a series based on the exploits of the Federation
Diplomatic Corps, with people like Ralph Nader and Jesse Jackson invited to
contribute story ideas? (And why not George Will or Pat Robertson, for that
matter?)
Sam Denton
sam.denton@maryville.com
Steaming Over Steampunk's Meaning
n her review of The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne, Kathie Huddleston gives what I believe is an inaccurate definition of Steampunk. The subgenre Steampunk is derived from Cyberpunk. The "punk" element is not the "science fiction", but the dark "noir" tone and underground characters which are part of the story. The "steam" refers to the technology, usually Victorian, which
operates on steam. Babbage's steam powered computer is perhaps the best
example. Readers interested in Steampunk should look for The Difference
Engine by Bruce Sterling and William Gibson.
Lewis Murphy
lmurp02@mindspring.com
Don't Expect Too Much of D&D
'm still not quite certain how to react to the sharp divide between lovers and haters of Corey Solomon's directorial debut, Dungeons and Dragons. Although I by no means profess to be an expert in the realm of fantasy fiction, I would not deny some measure of familiarity with the subject, as I've spent the past three years reading nothing but fantasy between my high school classes, and most recently, between all the free time one has in their first semester of college.
"You and your group sit around a table at a crowded inn. Around you sit a collection of empty mugs and plates riddled with crumbs. A map sits upon the table that you and your group stare over with interest. Tomorrow your group shall begin your quest to discover a magical item that once belonged to a long dead king ..."
Sound familiar? For anyone who's played pen and paper Dungeons and Dragons, I'm sure it does. Almost every quest begins in a such a manner, with a group of player avatars within an inn, planning a quest to obtain a magical item of some sort, or perhaps some large amount of gold, dragon scale, or whathaveyou.
Dungeons and Dragons, by nature, does not profess to be art, but rather, entertainment; a fun romp through a magical land filled with dwarves, elves, halflings, humans, trolls, orcs, drow, and a personal favorite of mine, Kender.
For those who have read the novels of Ed Greenwood, R.A. Salvatore, Elaine Cunningham, and many more, I offer both my sympathy and my gratitude. In the realm of fantasy literature, Dungeons and Dragons has never been very philosophical in nature. Rather, like a Ridley Scott film, we're thrown into a foreign world filled with magic, wonder and a variety of interesting characters.
Unfortunately, for all the positive aspects, the writing, in comparison to some of the finer fantasy writers of my generation, leave something to be desired.
The Dungeons and Dragons film is no different than any of the novels. It has a heart filled with earnest ideas and characters, a child like sense of spirit, and a plethora of oft times predictable characters. But it's heart is in the right place, even if the brain may have taken a walk elsewhere.
Other staples of the world of Dungeons and Dragons are here: a quest for a magical item, a truly insane wizard, the dime-a-dozen bad guy (I'm still not sure how to explain the blue lips), the fantastic locations, the variety of spells and magical items (Magic Missle, a bag of holding), the tavern where the quest truly begins)
Knowing the workings of D&D novels, and being aware that many fantasy fans are aware of these same rules by which D&D exists, I find it hard to believe that so many fans are in such an uproar over the quality of this movie.
D&D is not high art and makes no pretension about such. If high art is what fans and critics seek, allow yourselves to wait a year for Lord of the Rings to do so. If it's simply a fun mindless romp through a fantasy land that you seek, pleasure yourself with Dungeons and Dragons.
Statements have been made about how the characters mindlessly wander from one point to another, how events occur at random, the random loss and regaining of weapons, the overacting of Jeremy Irons, and similarity of Snails to Jar Jar Binks, of Ridley Freeborn to Han Solo, etc. Then I must ask: who can we compare to Luke? Marina? Who can we compare to R2D2 and C-3P0?
Star Wars this is not. A retelling of various mythological tales this most certainly is not. To someone not well versed with the D&D universe, the film version is probably illogical and baffling, and unfortunately, nothing can be done other than explain the rules of the universe.
I suppose the film could have been constructed as to be more welcoming to non-fans, but I find myself wondering whether or not such a version of the film would pander to it's core audience of die hard gamers.
Did I like D&D? Most certainly. I love Jeremy Irons's overacting. I loved Justin Whalin's Ridley; he was a styling and hip hero. I loved the use of modern day english, as is a staple of all the D&D campaigns I have played. My only gripe is Thora Birch, who truly should not have been in this movie. I would have preferred someone with more spirit and conviction. I find myself wishing that Snails had lived, and to have perhaps been able to feast my eyes upon a battle with beholders, but then, that's what the sequels are for.
To those of the uninitiated, read some D&D novels, partake in an adventure with a local D&D group, or at the very least, play Baldur's Gate I and 2, and pay attention to the character of Minsc. He is a perfect example of what the D&D universe, whether it be the Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Greyhawk, etc, is all about: a goofy adventure with a fun and diverse group of characters. After all, where else would you get to play with a ranger who's companion is a giant miniature space hamster named Boo?
Ilya Popov
ilya@metalinker.com
D&D Is an Enjoyable Romp
have been reading all the recent letters and I have something to say regarding Dungeons & Dragons. While I was happy to hear of a director's cut, I am one of those people who has been gaming for about 20 years now, and whoever made the comments about how cheesy the dialogue was and that Gygax
would be rolling in his grave doesn't seem to get it. D&D has ALWAYS been
cheesy! Puhlease! That is part of the fun. To play some fantastical character
and say all those cliche lines that always made you laugh. Unhand her you
fiend! We really enjoyed the film, not because it was some
serious, cinematic drama but because it was silly and fun. Not everything
needs to be explained to death--look at the Highlander films as an example.
The first film was great, the second was an absolute farce, there was no
need to go into details of the immortals existence, they were there, 'nuff
said! And don't even get me started on the 3rd film!
I think too many people these days want it all spelled out for them. I
prefer to have something to either laugh and enjoy as just a simple fun film
or give me something to think about. I think George Lucas is one of the best
at doing this--he starts out basic and complicates things until you have a
great complete story told over time. Two hours is generally never enough time to tell any story! Thank You!
Cybele Baker
drkjedi1@pacbell.net
The Fans, and Truth, Are Out There
his is in response to The X-Files Preserve The Partnership campaign for
Mulder & Scully's relationship that SCI FI Wire offensively advertised.While using the charities are commendable, I see it as nothing but a
arrogant attempt to get the powers that be to write the show for one
specific fanbase without any regard for the rest of the fans. It's one thing to be a fan of a show, but it's taking it to a completely
different level when specific fan groups want the show to be only written
for them. That's my complaint with this campaign.
There are many different types of fans who enjoy the show for many reasons,
and just because they're not part of the group that fixates on the romance
between two fictional characters, their opinions NEVER count with the
pro-romance fandom. That said, they can't be totally blamed for their endeavor, as the show has
tried to be too many things to many people, and in the process has lost the
original elements that made it unique to begin with.
Instead of seeking the Truth, its apparent that the powers that be only hoped
the fans would continue to Believe The Lie. Perhaps the new tagline should read: Manipulate the Gullible.
Elisa Donahue
raingirl@my-deja.com
Sex May Sell, But Angst Doesn't
was recently watching Fox's new series Dark Angel for the first
time and I really enjoyed it. My only problem is that it is in danger of
falling into the "sexual tension" trap which has, frankly, been taken too
far. Why is it that people on television have angst so much about sex?
Either do it or don't do it! No, they have to angst, "sort out" their emotions, and go through all this turmoil which takes focus away from the story.
Interestingly, it is always the woman who feels that she must
prolong this tension, while the male just wants to have sex. So, what does
this say? That men are sex-driven maniacs while women play "hard to get?" As a result, terrific shows such as Babylon 5 and Farscape lose out on good stories and character development.
And for what? To make good shows less sci-fi and more soap opera. There are those who like "Soaps in Space" and generally soapy sci-fi, who can't get enough of this tension. To those people I say, at the risk of being very unpopular, stick to Star Trek and The X-Files!
Elizabeth Stockwell
lizstockwell@mediaone.net
Knowing History Helps Anime Viewing
'm afraid your review of Patlabor 2: The Movie is slightly flawed. The assertion that "Japan's rapid progression from a
peaceful democracy to an unstable nation poised on
the brink of war is both rushed and underdeveloped"
ignores the history of Japan, which the intended
audience (Japanese citizens) are fully aware of. The
attempted coup in 1936 by a breakaway military
faction that led to, basically, a military government, has
deeply scarred Japan. Especially in the light that that same
government entered into World War II as an
aggressor. The terrorist and military actions in the film
echo that point in history, along with the fear of war and
occupation. Japan has strenuously avoided becoming
part of any regional or international conflict since the
war, a place of peace surrounded by war as noted in
the film. So while the pacing towards may seem
rushed, in fact it relies on the viewer to know some
basic Japanese history.
Jason
rydenfur@hotmail.com
There's More to SF Than Dune
nough with Dune already, look ahead ... I have read most of the letters concerning the SCI FI Channel version, and the general theme is that you either like it or hate it, much like
everything else. We are on the threshold of a new millennium (for real, this
time). Now is the time to look what is coming up, such as the new Spider-Man
movie, Star Wars 2, a new--hopefully better--Star Trek series and movie, and
even a possible return of Battlestar Galactica. Of the latter and Star Trek,
all of our efforts should be applied to the studios to listen to the fans
and give us generally what we want, and that is quality stories and films
that we can all enjoy over and over again.
Evan Wardwell
EWardwell@email.msn.com
Dust Not Yet Settled on Dune
he recent miniseries version was far from perfect, but I found it enjoyable and entertaining. Thumbs up! A key point of satisfaction for me in viewing the Dune miniseries was the fact that although there were minor plot changes and additions, the important major themes of the
story remained intact.
In contrast, one of my most major complaints about Lynch's film version
(thumbs down!) was the introduction of the Atreides "secret weapon," a
ridiculous and superfluous plot element added to provide an alternate
explanation of how a planetful of Fremen could overcome the Emperor's
hardened troops, supposedly the deadliest warriors around--thus ignoring
the key plot point that the Fremen were naturally, intrinsically
"tougher" because Arrakis was even harsher than the prison planet used
for training the Emperor's troops.
If I remember correctly, in the book, the Fremen were routinely
trouncing the Emperor's troops, even BEFORE Paul and Jessica trained
them in the "weirding way." Their pre-Paul fighting prowess perhaps
wasn't stressed in the mini-series, but they certainly needed no "secret
weapon"' other than their intrinsic cultural skills, supplemented by
Paul's training. And their natural toughness due to the harshness of
Arrakis was specifically mentioned, as well as the direct comparison
between Arrakis and the Emperor's training planet.
Happier, but waiting for the definitive 12 hour miniseries version in
2011...
Mark A. Sellers
markasellers@execpc.com
Dune Should Be A Melting Pot
fter watching Dune on the SCI FI Channel, I noticed, to my regret, that there were no Black or Asian actors in the film. (Extras included.) It scares me to think what happened between
now and then that no black or Asian people are around in the Dune universe.
I am not trying to demand any sort of affirmative action, but I expect,
and deserve, more from science fiction than any other genre. In a Sci-Fi movie or TV show, the producers and directors are in complete control of the universe being created. There is no reason that future worlds can not represent the population of Earth today. George Lucas was guilty of it in the original Star Wars (And didn't get it much better 2 years ago). But this is the year 2001, there is no reason not to make science fiction all inclusive.
Darnell Davis
qdonq@excite.com
Accept the Myriad Images of Dune
o, the erstwhile battle continues. Brother against brother, shield against sword. And, well, Dune film against Dune film against novel Dune. The question one is forced to ponder is, why?
Well, before someone turns this lovely column into a shouting match,
it's because of infinite visions. Dune is one of those works that is so open
to the vision of the individual adapting it. Don't buy what I'm selling?
Well, let's shy away from Herbert's Dune and science fiction and look at
another author from a similar genre. Let us take horror and one of my
favorite authors, Edgar Allan Poe. Now, Poe is without a doubt one of
America's best known authors worldwide. So, the vision of his works remains
consistent, right? Yeah, right... look at any of the four most notable
adaptations of one of his most famous works, the poem, "The Raven." The 1912
version has nothing to do with the surgery horror film from 1932 starring Lugosi and Karloff. The spoof-esque Roger Corman, Vincent Price vehicle of
course stands alone. And of course, the West German film, "The Wild Raven,"
is a different take in and of itself. So, what's the point?
Perhaps I could propose something here. Perhaps the reason that Herbert
is considered a writer of a science fiction classic is because so much of
his words take shape in the head of the reader and are left to the
interpretation of the reader. After all, I myself read "The Raven"
differently than every film adaptation I have seen, so I would film it
different than Corman, etc. Still, I can appreciate Corman's take on the
film since it's his artistic vision. His vision does not diminish my own, but
it can inspire people to read "The Raven," which adds to the cultural
literacy of the world, so there's no need to complain, really. The point then
is this, no Dune on film will ever meet the requirements of the Dune that is
screened within the mind of every reader, but one must learn to appreciate
the views of others. After all, according to some psychological development
hierarchies, being able to see from another point of view, a different form
of vision if you will, is part of maturing. After all, when I go to an art museum on occasion, I don't want to be told that this work absolutely has to mean this, I will form my own opinion,
but it is always enjoyable to hear the other patrons talk about what it
means to them, because it enriches the experience.
In short, by all means argue the Dune films versus one another as well as the book, but remember, it is the vision of a select group, the person who did the adaptation, the
director, the producer, etc. Do not let them diminish your views, but allow
them to have their take on the work. I mean, how many horror or science
fiction films have shown us the errors of having everyone think the same.
Oh, Brave New World!
But what do I know, I'm getting old.
James W. Thomas
captain_scott@hotmail.com
Back to the top.
