The Wasteland

Regarding “All Ears, All Day in TV Hell,” by Howard Rosenberg (June 27):

I generally switch the dial between Channels 2, 4 and 7 trying relentlessly, but usually in vain, to get some semblance of intellectualism. When I tire of the Big 3’s pretentious, inquisitional social and political pundits, I switch to the Looney Tunes on Channel 5 for some respite.

As for looking at anything objective after 9 a.m., other than an occasional “MacNeil/Lehrer,” I find more objectivity in cleaning the commodes and pulling weeds.

DAISY M. CHRISTIE

West Covina

Rosenberg’s bizarre stunt of watching 41 talk shows in one day should have been accompanied by a warning that he is a professional idiot and that amateurs should not try to imitate the feat.

Parents should keep that issue of Calendar away from small children. As it is, I’m sure there will be reports of brain injuries and fatalities. How irresponsible can you get?

PAUL H. CUTTING JR.

Mojave

It is interesting to note the talk shows with which Rosenberg spent so much time. For instance, a full 36 minutes with “Jenny Jones” at 2:25 p.m. and fully 40 minutes with “Oprah” from 3:01 to 3:40 p.m. (excluding a five-minute break for “Donahue”).

By omitting the 3:30 p.m. “Rush Limbaugh Show” from all that drivel, Rosenberg obviously feels that it deserves more serious discussion.

MICHAEL HILLSTROM

Lake Elsinore

Rosenberg writes: “On June 16, I did my best, monitoring and keeping a journal on portions of every talk or talk-oriented show available in the area of Los Angeles where I live.”

Oh, really? Considering Rush Limbaugh’s popularity (his national ratings beat Arsenio’s and Letterman’s) and that he appears twice daily in the Los Angeles market, one can only imagine Rosenberg’s logic in excluding him from the article. “He doesn’t have guests, that’s it! Whew!” The absence speaks volumes.

MARK PEARSON

Lakewood

“Rush Limbaugh” was not included in Howard Rosenberg’s roundup of talk shows because he chose to focus on programs in which hosts interview guests.

Death to Drivel

Hooray! Let’s celebrate the rumored death knell of “action” films that glorify aggression in the male personality. As if it needed encouragement (“Endangered Species,” by Peter Rainer, June 27).

The concept of such films “becoming terminally muscle-bound and knuckleheaded” was too funny. Becoming? Hasn’t critic Rainer been paying attention? I refuse to give 2 cents of my movie-going dollar to such moronic drivel, obviously aimed at the obstreperous 12-year-old (male) mentality.

Let’s hope that what rushes in to fill the (long-awaited) void can best be described as “thinking people’s” pictures. (Dare I say it, “women’s films”?)

NANCY PARRY

Northridge

What seems to have escaped The Times’ critics (and others) regarding “Jurassic Park” is that it’s the first pop culture movie in a long time that has real educational content.

Steven Spielberg is exposing audiences all over the world to new theories about dinosaurs, their possible relation to birds, DNA research and more, all while entertaining the hell out of us.

Critics, you’ve been complaining about the vacuousness of popular entertainment for years. Here’s a thrill ride that may actually inspire some of our children to become scientists. This type of filmmaking should be lauded, not lambasted.

BOB GALE

Universal City

Gale is co-writer and co-producer of the “Back to the Future” trilogy.

Saur Loser?

Dinosaurs are curious things. So are human beings. Invariably, whenever something becomes insanely popular, there are always people who can’t resist hopping up on soapboxes to gleefully denigrate it, their words laced with an attitude seeming to say, “I’m above all this!”

William Simpson’s letter regarding the “dino-sized blunders and curiosities” in “Jurassic Park” (June 27) is a case in point. He takes such delight in taunting the movie, but to attack it on a technical level is a risky proposition, and in some ways a self-defeating argument.

Maybe the jeep was wet in one shot and dry in the next, or its door was hanging open in one shot and closed in the next, but such things aren’t all that unusual. Ever since the first footage of the first movie was shot, mistakes have been made. Entire books have been written on the subject, cataloguing goofs and bloopers in even the best of movies and television shows. It’s simply a fact of cinematic life.

Dramatic license also comes into play, hence the scene with the velociraptor crashing into Lex’s reflection. That scene is meant to be suspenseful and cause fear within the audience. If we could see the raptor’s reflection as well, the trick would be blown, and there would be no suspense, no shock.

Well, Mr. Simpson, I hope that at least your seat was comfortable, the air conditioning was to your liking and the popcorn wasn’t too overpriced. In the meantime, it would help to take the advice contained in the letter that followed yours: It’s only a movie! And a damn good one.

RUTH E. RADECKI

Santa Maria

“Jurassic Park” has received a lot of negative press about its effect on young children, and I accept that. But for reader Simpson to point out not one but six mistakes in the film is where I have to draw the line.

In my opinion, people who sit in darkened theaters and point out mistakes in a movie need professional help quick.

RACHELLE A. MOORE

Marina del Rey

This letter is in response to all the negative opinions about “Jurassic Park.” Even though I’m 8 years old, and don’t usually like scary movies, I liked “Jurassic Park.” Some critics say no children should see it. If you’re old enough to know that the creatures aren’t real and you know it’s fiction, then seeing “Jurassic Park” won’t harm you.

Another point I wanted to make in response to the story “Dinologists Aren’t Saur . . .” by Thomas H. Maugh II (June 20) was that the T. rex could have followed smaller scavengers to the dead carcasses, so T. rex didn’t necessarily have to have good eyesight to survive.

JOEL SMITH

Los Angeles

Agent Provocateur

Forgive me, if you will, but I have tried and tried to ignore the article that appeared in the June 13 Film Clips (“Have You Heard the One About the Liar Who Got a Film Deal?”). I have worked in the industry for the last seven years, both as a development person and most recently as an agent. During that period, I’ve spent far more of my time dealing with liars, cheats and hustlers than I have with people of legitimate talent.

There is no question that Hollywood has always been a tough nut to crack, but there is a difference between ingenuity and deceit. As far as I’m concerned, Carol Ann Francis is beneath my dignity but the industry as a whole should be appalled. By rewarding her for scamming people by playing her own agent, where then does that leave the thousands of others who are trying to succeed and make a way for themselves in this town through sheer perseverance?

When TriStar’s Stacey Lassally said, “We were squeamish about getting into business with someone who’s a liar,” all I can say is she should have trusted her initial instincts. As far as Francis is concerned, the world will take care of her in the end.

LISA KASTNER

Valley Village

As an actress and a victim of Francis’ lies, I must respond to the news that she has sold her “con on Hollywood” story.

I hope that Barbra Streisand and her representatives fully realize that among those Francis duped were actors and actresses she promised representation under the guise of agent Ann Hollingsworth if they signed up and paid Francis for acting classes. I recently won a judgment in small claims court against Francis for refusing to give a refund for an acting class that never took place. My major reason for pursuing this suit was in the hopes that she would not be able to take advantage of anyone else.

I sincerely hope that anyone who is forced to deal with her recognizes immediately who they are dealing with and saves themselves a lot of grief. You know, on second thought, I do hope this deal with Streisand and TriStar is successful so there will finally be something to garnish.

MAJORIE BLY

Beverly Hills

Giving His All

I take exception to the review of Billy Ray Cyrus’ album “It Won’t Be the Last” by Richard Cromelin (June 20). This was not a review, it was yet another personal attack.

Curious about why this singer was always spoken of in the press as a national joke, I purposely tuned in to a recent TV appearance to see what the derision was about (and I am not a country music fan). I discovered a man with a flexible, impressive baritone voice that had none of the monotone nasal twang (a la Willie Nelson) of the majority of country singers, nor the throat- wrenching scream (a la Michael Bolton) of most male pop singers.

Cyrus can sing, can have fun with lyrics, can command a stage with exuberance and humor--and also manages to be cute as a Betsy Bug without resorting to the glitter, spandex or tattooed eyeliner of the majority of today’s music video “stars.”

MELODY SUPPES

Rancho Palos Verdes

In a time and place in which annoying, mediocre talents like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rush Limbaugh, Ross Perot, Jay Leno, Jerry Falwell, Mel Gibson, Andrew Dice Clay and Bruce Willis rise to the top of their respective fields, it seems ridiculous to criticize a boorish non-artist like Cyrus for claiming his slice of the American pie.

Considering the less-than-discriminating tastes of most Americans, reviewer Cromelin should be in awe of the fact that there aren’t more Billy Rays enjoying incredible levels of success at the top of the charts.

It’s all so painful, but Billy Ray certainly won’t be the last.

JANICE HARDING-SMITH

Long Beach