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
What About Those Who Can't Hear?
n last week's news you had an article titled "Lucas Lays Down Star Wars Laws." He makes all these wonderful rules for the hearing, but what about a few showings with open captions for those of use who can't hear and would like to see this movie?
I wrote Lucas asking him this and Fox wrote back on March 31 saying they were undergoing examination of this possibility and I should keep checking Tripod's web site.
I truly hope Lucas will release Star Wars: Episode I open captioned. I am not looking forward to having to wait nearly a full year before I am able to enjoy this film. I'd like to be able to discuss it with my friends. Would that I could do the same with The Matrix!
Scott E. Johnston
doodah1@gate.net
Disappointed With Lucas
am, like most people, excited about seeing the newest Star Wars chapter, but upon reading the George Lucas rules and regulations for theaters showing the movie, I feel a bit...disappointed.
Why would Mr. Lucas, or LucasFilm, or whoever is ultimately in charge, hand out such piddling, nit-picky little rules to the theaters? I can't imagine that more than eight minutes of trailers or popcorn ads would in any way diminish the returns he/they will be getting, or in any way detract from the experience. Part of movie-going is seeing the cool previews! Everybody loves the dancing hot dog.
Carla Spencer
changeling@catbones.com
Why Jeff Wayne Is So Popular
s a long-time fan of The War of the Worlds in all its forms, I'd like to thank Mark Walker for the positive comments he made about Jeff Wayne's The War of the Worlds game throughout the first part of his review. However, I disagree with pretty much the rest of it. I don't think the game was a good idea "gone sour." I admit the game is tough, but then, that's the idea. The folks at GT Interactive make no bones about it being unfair to the humans, but that's the whole point. The humans in Wells' novel were at just such a disadvantage. That's the challenge. It'll take several tries to win, but that's how you learn. I got my copy the day it came out and I am still enjoying it.
As to Mark's comments about the music, well, I can tell him exactly why Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of The War of the Worlds was so popular (and not just in the United Kingdom, but abroad as well). The answer is simple: it was damn good. A great story, thoughtful lyrics, great cast (Richard Burton, David Essex and Justin Hayward aren't nobodies). The album went quadruple platinum, remained on the U.K.'s top 100 albums charts for years after it premiered and still has a loyal following today. For me, Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds album and personal correspondence with him prompted me to learn composing and arranging and to take an interest in synthesizers and electronic music. It is still my favorite album of all-time, and I think Jeff's arrangements for the game are just awesome. I'm just sad that Mark Walker wasn't able to enjoy it as much as I did.
Neil Marsh
drwho@world.std.com
Jeff Wayne Is A Favorite
just read the comments on the War of the Worlds PC game. My son just got the game, and, from what I saw, I liked it. But what I really wanted to talk about was the comment about Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds music. The comment was that it is very popular in Great Britain, but who can say why? Well, obviously the author has never listened to War of the Worlds. It is by far one of the best productions I have ever heard. It has been one of my favorites since it came out. And everyone around me really loves it also. The music on the PC game doesn't do it justice.
Janice Scheib
trekkermom@earthlink.net
The Matrix Is A Damn Good Movie
saw The Matrix (twice), and I thought it was a pretty good movie. Not great. It had many scenes that were obviously reminiscent of Star Wars (if the scene when they are trying to lose the "squids" didn't remind you of a certain "traveling through hyperspace ain't like dustin' crops kid!" scene in Star Wars, you were sleeping). The special effects were very cool, though they did get a bit tedious after a while. The story line was very cool, and the characters were a lot of fun. I walked out of it the first time being reminded a lot of Dark City, a movie that I personally feel was underrated when it first came out in the theaters.
The Matrix was Dark City for the average TV viewer; it doesn't require the attention span or conscious effort that Dark City does, and for that reason I feel it was more successful. Dark City is a movie for someone who is familiar with science fiction, and with the film's director. It is a movie you have to want to be watching, as the darkness of the movie can get a bit oppressive.
The Matrix was made for someone who wants to get the most fun out of their seven dollar movie ticket. It is a crowd pleaser, Independance Day meets Dark City meets Lost Highway, with a bit of Alice in Wonderland to lighten it up. The script was very original, and they didn't make the mistake of trying to give Keanu Reeves a lot of dialogue. The plot was intelligent, and obviously so, something that has been lacking in recent films. I don't think that The Matrix should be discounted just because it is popular, otherwise many people will lose out on a truly fantastic movie going experience. The so-called hard-core science fiction elitist will just have to swallow it a little and admit that it is a pretty damn good movie.
Rachel Brandt
shea818@aol.com
Stay Away From The Matrix
can't see what anybody sees in this The Matrix. Sure the special effects are nice (but aren't they in all of today's movies?), but the acting is bad (except maybe Fishburne) and the story is ridiculous! Using humans as an energy source! What a joke. Anybody with a bit of electronics background knows that the human body produces at most a few milliamps. It just wouldn't make sense to go through the trouble of growing and sustaining all those humans. Cold fusion is a better idea. If you're a fan of intellectual SF, stay away from this movie. It tries too much to be cool and in the process it loses everything that could appeal to a dedicated SF fan. In short, it's for the masses!
Mark Rydyger
Markry@idirect.com
The Matrix Is A Winner
have to agree with the person that said that "suspension of disbelief" is at the heart of much of the controversy in SF arguments these days. I saw The Matrix and loved it. Of course, thoughts like, "this is a Blade Runner/Terminator/ID4 rehashing" ran through my mind. But I didn't go to see the movie to analyze it. I went to be entertained, to see how the subject matter was handled by someone else. All in all, I think The Matrix is a winner as both an SF flick and an action flick.
Kevin Adams
kadams@apk.net
The Matrix Doesn't Deserve A Sequel
he Matrix was the worst movie that I have ever seen, hands down! The first 10 minutes were good, but then the next hour was so boring that I felt myself drifting asleep. Where was the action at? That's the only question I want answered! The whole plot of the movie seemed to be about Keanu Reeves getting the powers and not actually using them! This movie doesn't deserve a sequel, what it deserves is an early grave!
Brad Poynor
BradPoynor@tycom.net
Sit Back And Enjoy The Matrix
saw The Matrix last weekend and fully intend to see it again. Yes, there is nothing truly new in it; yes, there was excessive mayhem; and yes, often the spectacular special effects were more attention getting
than whatever was happening at the time. The point is, so what?
It was highly entertaining (providing one did not bring little ones,
which too many did) and also gave moviegoers something to think about afterward. I was rather surprised to see how much time had elapsed while I was riveted to my seat. The movie sped me along so fast, I had no idea of the time
going by.
Personally, I don't go to movies to see reality with a capital "R." I
go, first and foremost, to be entertained. Just sit back and enjoy the
ride, you'll have more fun. And if you are going to the movies to see
real life, you ain't got one!
P.J. Weber
pjweber@erols.com
Megazone 23 Did It Before The Matrix
agree that The Matrix is one of the best science fiction films in some time, being both innovative and at the same time evoking a feeling of '70s future shock films like Silent Running. The idea behind the film's big surprise, though, was explored in the 1985 breakthrough original video anime Megazone 23. Fabricated reality isn't a new concept to SF, but I felt that the anime feature deserved credit for having incorporated it so
effectively. It was no surprise to find out the creators of The Matrix are anime fans, and the influence of Japanese animation could certainly bring
more creativity to Hollywood-produced SF.
Greg Hignight
Denversaur@aol.com
Barry Pepper In Battlefield Earth? No Way!
arry Pepper as Johnny Goodboy Tyler in the Battlefield Earth movie? No way. The character in the book is (as the "ticket" name suggests) presented as a good-hearted, somewhat innocent, even childlike character. He is also supposed to be a fairly perfect physical specimen, if a little over-muscled. The way the character is written inspires a kind of sympathy from the reader.
I just don't think the sharpshooter from Saving Private Ryan looks right for the part. He's not physically impressive enough for one thing, and his facial features are too cold and hard, even distant (he reminded me an awful lot of a young Christopher Walken). Keanu Reeves or Brad Pitt have better faces for the role, but I don't suppose you'll get any big names in a movie like this.
Maybe what the casting director failed to notice is that the part as originally written requires hardly any acting ability, basically being the part of someone rather calm and good-natured and even a little bit simple.
I remember when I read the book all those years ago it struck me what a great movie it would make. But it's basically a story which depends on stereotypes, and poor casting could easily ruin it.
Ralph Clark
ralph_clark@bigfoot.com
Is SF Dead? Only If Imagination Is.
s science fiction sick or dying? Only when imaginations have finally dried up and all hope is lost! Rudy Rucker came out with the third part of his totally whacked out robot series, and David Brin has completed the second trilogy of his Uplift Series! Writers like William Gibson are too busy wondering about the implications of nanotechnology to notice if speculative fiction is ill.
Bill Ralston
chancygard@aol.com
It's Hard To Be Original In This Business
s a writer, I'd like to comment on the complaint that the science-fiction/fantasy novels that are currently being released are unoriginal. It's hard to be original in a business that claims one thing, then does another. Your favorite publishers don't want originality because "originality" is the same thing as "untested." Wildly different plots get rejected time after time. So if you want to complain, write to your publisher!
Julie Palumbo
QueenDeva@aol.com
You Have To Look For Quality SF
'm extremely disappointed with some of the readers who claim science fiction is lacking science lately. People, there's an incredible amount of quality SF; you just have to look for it. It's inevitable that if a person reads books that are oriented toward the common reader--and therefore toward the publisher using the same old formula to cash in--they'll be disappointed.
A new breed of authors are on the loose. Ben Bova colonized both the Moon and Mars in the '90s with extreme hard science. Robert Sawyer produces some of the most compelling SF that the world has seen. Charles Sheffield also continues to be prolific. There are more authors where these came from, you just have to search for them. If a person reads the newest "commercialized" SF, it's impossible not to be disappointed.
The same goes with films. Who can argue as to the merit of Planet of the Apes? Isn't this thought-provoking film superior to Lost in Space or Independance Day?
I agree that with TV and movies, which are based on appealing to an immature audience, it's difficult to discover anything worth viewing, but for novels, stray away from the fancy cover and you might just discover talent.
Antoine Tardif
enigmaticus@hotmail.com
Great SF Must Be Great Fiction
hat makes a great work of science fiction or fantasy? Great science fiction must be great fiction! The debate over what fiction is the "best" is as old as fiction itself, but quality fiction has always been about people, whether those "people" are human beings, animals or inhabitants of other planets.
Science fiction does not have to be set in the future or beyond the Earth or involve people who make their living as scientists. One of my favorite works of science fiction is a short story called "Involuntary Man's Laughter," by Spider Robinson, in which people use technology to help a young man with a serious nerve disorder have a social life without being ridiculed or scorned. The fact that the devices used to solve the problem already exist, or that the problem solvers are not professional scientists, did not make it any less "science fiction." Anne McCaffrey's short stories and novels are appealing because she writes about conflicts that readers can identify with, but in settings that are fantastic. The same is true of Tolkien, Donaldson, Heinlein, or any SF&F author whose works have endured.
Bernard Rich
b-rich@csnet.net
Some Hard SF Is Possible
his is in response to Tim Huck's letter "SF Is Here To Stay." Although I agree with the bulk of your words, I must say I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement: "Even the hardest science fiction does not even come close to science fact. I get so sick of reading about high ideals like terraforming Mars when we can't even terraform Terra". NASA and other private agencies are currently studying terraforming Mars. I am an avid reader of SF, and there are hard SF books based in fact that are not only believable but possible.
Greg Holston
trantor29@hotmail.com
SF Stories Are The Tales Of Humanity
ames Craft asks, "Where are all the original stories" that we used to
see? When I was 11 years old and checking out Simak and Heinlein
from the public library, all stories were original. Well, guess what?
That's just what SF was doing when I was a kid! SF as a genre is less
than a century old, but many SF stories are the fundamental tales of all
humanity, retold in new ways. For that matter, this is the case with all
literature. When we were young we didn't know this. Now, I do find
myself becoming impatient sometimes with younger authors ("Asimov did
that better 40 years ago!"), but fortunately there is nothing wrong with
retelling an old story. Much of our best literature does exactly that. I
don't mind recognizing a plot or theme if the story has merit. I see a
lot of new good SF and fantasy stories out there, outnumbered nine to one by
the crud as always (as Ted Sturgeon pointed out a long time ago), but
still original, still vibrant and fun to read. I don't ask any more
than that.
David C. Kopaska-Merkel
davidkm@ogb.gsa.tuscaloosa.al.us
Quality Is What's Important
hen I was young I read Songs of a Distant Earth by Arthur C. Clarke. Now, I was much too young to truly understand what was going on, and much too young to grasp the concepts, especially in the brief afterword. I read it again when I was older, and I remember being so mad at what was written in the afterword. Star Wars and Star Trek not real science fiction?! Of course the were. How could my favorite author (at that time) say such things?
As I have grown, I have gained more wisdom, however. There are two sub-genres in SF. Science fiction and science fantasy. Each has become just as indelible, just as important, as the other. While things like Star Wars are science fantasy, that does not negate their meaning or quality. What I have grown to understand is that SF is a literary art, it is imaginative, it is creative. It grows beyond what science we know right now and sets a path for what the future could be. What is this if not fantasy? Clarke (and Kubrick) saw us going to Jupiter by 2001, he saw us as having amazingly intelligent computers and cryo-sleep right now. Do we have such things? Maybe we never will, but that does not negate the purity of his vision, of his fantasy, just as it does not negate the purity of Roddenberry's or Lucas'.
In the end, the quality is what is important, not the reality. If we didn't want to suspend reality for a little while, we would read the New York Times, and only that. Sometimes it is the beautiful lie that allows us to continue on, not the cold hard truth.
Raquel Vallejo
OilandFire@angelfire.com
