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.
-- Craig E. Engler, Editor
Chill out and enjoy the movie
ouldn't disagree more with your nit-picks on the new version of Star Wars. It was great, it was fun and it sure beats the hell out of Star Trek. And, I did not find those additional scenes irritating, it just added to the movie, added humor, fleshed it out. So...while we all try to be journalists by blasting things, chill out and enjoy life and relive Star Wars again.
Eric Jensen
epj@pe.net
Editor: I think Frank did enjoy the movie...he certainly liked it enough to give it an A rating. Rather than "blasting things" I think he was just offering some insight on the new effects.
One small question...
ne small question buried in the massive hype about the Star Wars Special Edition: If George Lucas was willing to spend millions on revamping the special effects in the film, why didn't he spend a few cents more and fix the cliched characters and the inane dialogue? One thing's for certain: While Lucas may have had a better special effects budget, Ed Wood was a much superior writer and director.
Paul T. Riddell
priddell@usa.net
Editor: You're in luck, Paul. The Ed Wood movies generally sell for far less than the Star Wars films, so you can probably pick them up cheap.
You made a mistake
rank Garcia's's review of the Star Wars Special Edition contains an error. The "cardboard droid" he mentions was always in the film! Check the original version of the film if you have doubts. Also, the CGI creature simply replaces another droid that passes in front of the scene. The point is that there were always creatures passing in front of the scene Garcia mentions
Tom Murin
Murin@va.pubnix.com
Editor: You're right, Tom. Frank happened to be watching an old version of Star Wars a few days after we posted our review and he let me know about the mistake. It's since been fixed. Thanks for letting us know.
It was a TV show
ou stated in your review of Neon Genesis Evangelion: "...Overall, the pacing here suggests a daily television show rather than a videotape series with months passing between each installment."
It was a television show, albeit a weekly one. That's the only problem with releasing shows like that: You get two episodes every month, instead of one per week, and you watch them all at once, instead of spacing it out the way they were originally broadcast.
Joe Monson
nihon@qi3.com
Editor: That certainly explains a few things. Seriously though, thanks for giving our readers the additional information.
Evangelion is hot in Japan
n Japan at the moment the laser discs of Evangelion are at the top of the sales list, but that has to be read with the understanding of what the competition on TV in Japan is. You don't find out who or what the aliens are after. All the SF aspect is actually just the background to the lives, problems and dreams of the 14-year-old school kids, which is the main focus of the show! This soap opera type drama is the same as prime time popular dramas on Japanese TV. Sad but true...
Adrian Bruce
adrian@inetc.roland.co.jp
Editor: Wow, we're finding out all sorts of things about these Evangelion tapes. Thanks for the "home" perspective, Adrian.
Where's an IMAX near me?
read Tasha Robinson's review on L5: First City in Space to learn to my horror thats its only being broadcast on the IMAX format. I live in the United Kingdom and am unaware of my local IMAX.
This is what I attempted to do to discover my "local" cinema.
- Contacted Sony Pictures -- Result: No response
- Contacted all major picture companies -- Result: No response
- Contacted Sony (Europe) -- Result: No response
You are my last hope!
Stephen Page
abj99@dial.pipex.com
Editor: Actually, Sony is your last hope. Check out their Web page for more information on the IMAX theaters.
Great review, but...
reat review on War of the Worlds...with one exception I would have like to known...audio quality...the master I have off LP was taken from the original 16-inch transcriptions that were a bit noisy, and in this world of digital remastering, it would be of interest to know how clean Golden Age made it..probably just a direct transfer for $4.99...lets hope that come the 60th anniversary, some one will dig out no noise and clean up this great classic radio show (that is if someone hasn't done this already!).
Scott Snailham
ak270@ns.chebucto.ca
Editor: Good point, Scott. For the record, the sound quality was terrible, but in a good way...it made the whole production sound old and added to the ambiance.
It's obvious you didn't read the book
our review of The Relic does what I guess it should have: reviewed the movie. I, unfortunately, read the book two weeks before seeing the movie, and what they did to that book I wouldn't wish on the manuscript of my worst!
Not only do they remove the main character! (The lead FBI detective, Pendergast) who was the best character in the book, but they also removed any of the intrigue that came about from the personal agendas of the sleezy higher-ups in the museum hierarchy! The whole plot of the book was removed, and it was turned into a cheap monster flick with a plot you couldn't hold together with epoxy.
That's the major changes. But why in God's name did they make the small changes? Moving the museum to Chicago. Changing the name of the Mbwun statue to the name of the tribe that worshiped it, the Kathoga. Making a big deal (endlessly repeated close-ups having nothing to do with the rest of the movie) of the Kathoga being broken and restored. Changing the name of the antagonist from Kowakita to Lee. Changing the name of the computer program from The Extrapolator to The Interpolator. What is the point of these minor, aggravating changes? They do not improve the movie!
When reviewers said that Bram Stoker's Dracula was the most accurate movie representation of the book, they lied. Nowhere in the novel did Dracula "court" Mina Harker, and he certainly did not take her to a porn movie in London!
Why, when people read a book and think it's worthy of turning into a movie, do they have to "add their own touch" to it? If the book was good enough, shouldn't it make a good enough movie?
What they did to The Relic (not the best book in the world in the first place) should have forced them to use another title for this ripoff of a movie.
Sorry. Cute special effects and good lighting do not a good movie make. (Okay, occasionally.)
And what's with Penelope Ann Miller? Why is it that each time I've heard her name in the past month it's been along the lins of "a great actress who's yet to find a vehicle for her talent." Does this mean she's been in a bunch of awful movies, or can it equally mean that she's just no good, and the movies she's been in are a good indication of that?
Sorry to sound so angry, but I was livid when I left the theater, and it's obvious your reviewer didn't read the book. I guess for her sake, that's a good thing. It allowed her to enjoy the already-picked-clean carcass of what could have been a good feast.
Sean Huxter
sean@2ni.com
Editor: Movies based on books are just that...they are based on the book but are almost never billed as direct book-to-screen translations. That's Hollywood for you.
