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
Disgusted With The Entertainment Industry
n the last issue, you let us know that Warner Home Video will not
be releasing the extremely wonderful and thought provoking The Matrix on
VHS. Warner is afraid that the characters, who fight for freedom for the
entire human race, will make people think of the killers in Littleton, Colo. Why?
Because of clothing. This is
utterly insane. A group of boys, most of whom did not kill anyone, got a
nickname from other students and because of this nickname, and the entire world
seems to be ultra-sensitive about any showing of trench coats.
If the group had been nicknamed "The Peaches" would anyone be allowed to
eat, buy, or sell peaches?
I am disgusted with the trembling fear and cowardice that the entertainment
industry has shown over and over again since this incident. The industry
is almost telling the world that they believe that they are responsible
for real-life violence! This is preposterous!
Warner Home Video has decided to release The Matrix only on the more
expensive DVD so that, theoretically, only adults will be able to afford
the movie. Did Warner Home Video learn nothing from the intense bootlegging of the
postponed episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer? The fans will find a
way. The only question is if Warner Home Video will reap the profit, or if
a bootlegger will.
Furthermore, as a 25-year-old who loved The Matrix but does not own a DVD
player, I am simply appalled at Warner Home Video's decision. This is yet
another slap in the face to fans from the entertainment industry acting as
though we are mindless fools.
Victoria Norrick-Budd
pndra@yahoo.com
Warner Is Making Excuses...And Money
just read the news about The Matrix not being released for VHS
sales, only for rental. Of course, I read about how "The decision was
supposedly made to avoid attracting the attention of lawmakers and
activists who are campaigning against violent entertainment aimed at teens and pre-teens."
I feel personally insulted that
they would use this as a mere excuse, when in truth it is a matter of
making more money through rentals. A real shame, since this was one of the
best movies I have seen in a while.
Jose Hernandez
obring@aol.com
Let Sliders Die
agree with Ann Schwartz's letter "Sliders Is Nothing Without Jerry" in issue No. 114.
I hate the new Sliders cast! Jerry O'Connell is Sliders. All the new episodes
for the fifth season so far are a real letdown. Especially the last one, "Purgatory."
They really had to destroy the purpose of the fourth season, didn't they?
I think the writers could have found a better way. For one, you never
replace a main character with a new actor. They should have just let Quinn
& Colin find their parents and let Maggie and Remmy continue their quest or
go their own way. So much for a Sliders rescue! They should have just let it die. It would
have been a lot easier to swallow if they would have done a spinoff of the original
with a new cast.
Karen Gerwig
Pegasi33@AOL.Com
Sliders Died Long Ago
n her Issue No. 114 letter "Sliders Is Nothing Without Jerry,"
Ann Schwartz says that Jerry O'Connell's departure means the end of
Sliders. I humbly submit to her that it died a quiet death long ago
with the departures of John Rhys-Davies and Sabrina Lloyd, and that this is
just another nail in the coffin. Agreed, without O'Connell the series has no hope of turning
itself around, but
the chemistry seen in the early seasons is a far cry from what shows up on
my TV every Friday. It would've been better to end the series while it was
still capable of standing. Replacement characters have a long, mostly bad history in television.
Hopefully someone will put this once-great show to bed before Cleavant
Derricks jumps ship.
Tom Arnett
sp0rk42@aol.com
Give The New Sliders A Chance
loved the first two seasons of Sliders. I thought it was a
really great, creative, new show. It was very interesting and very
entertaining. But during the third season it really started to fall apart.
The departure of the professor was the beginning of the end for
Sliders, in my opinion. I hated Maggie when she first came on the show,
and I still don't like her that much. The whole third season went totally
against the original concept of the show. I didn't watch most of the fourth season,
but the episodes I saw really
disappointed me. I thought it was really unbelievable that after the fourth
season began they never mentioned the professor and only once mentioned
poor Wade, who was captured by the Kromaggs, which no one seemed too upset about. However,
the fifth season so far
has been very good. I was sorry to see Jerry O'Connell go, but the show must
go on, and I like the new characters. I think a lot of people are very disappointed that
Jerry and Charlie O'Connell left the show, but I think
you should all give the new characters and new season a chance. Sliders is
starting to come back to the great way it used to be and it's starting to
live up to its full potential.
Rachel Van Raan-Welch
merlin360@hotmail.com
It's Not The Same Without Jerry
'm president of a Sliders fan club. I tried my best to get everyone all
happy about the new season of Sliders, but it just doesn't work when you
think it's the worst thing you've ever seen in your life. Every time I hear
Remmy say the opening to Sliders, I start crying and I have to hit mute and pretend
Jerry O'Connell is saying it. It's really not the same without him; he was Sliders.
Now the show has no
point. What are they trying to do, separate Quinn and Mallory? Well, we know
that's not going to happen. There's really no point in watching it any more.
Maggie Cooper
BTVSlider@aol.com
Sliders Isn't Just About Jerry
ver the past couple of weeks, I have been reading letters about how
Sliders is "doomed without Jerry" or "Sliders should have been ended." How anyone can say a show
sucks simply because a rather popular actor left the series is beyond human
comprehension. After all, shows such as Law & Order and Homicide are fine,
even with constant cast changes. (Granted, Homicide is no longer making new episodes, but it still lasted
seven good seasons. Yes, I know that neither series is SF, but they're
the best examples out there.)
I would like to remind people that the series was never just about Jerry O'Connell.
The show originally intended to show what life might have been like had
history turned out different while watching the four characters find their way
back to their Earth. Unfortunately, in seasons three and four, drastic changes were made and the show lost some
of the charm of the first two seasons, beginning with the loss of Professor
Arturo and the string of movie rip-off episodes.
It is my hope that the series will try to get back on track as much as it
can. The season premiere gave me high hopes about the future of Sliders. I
have a firm belief that the show will do just fine.
Justin Graham
jgraham_70@hotmail.com
Sliders Is Still Worth Watching
everal of the last lot of letters focused on Sliders, but I found they
only showed one view. All of the letters focused on how the departure of
Jerry O'Connell was almost certainly a bad thing for Sliders, which is not
the view held by all fans across the Internet.
There are many fans out there, including me, who do not feel that Jerry
O'Connell was the be all and end all of Sliders, and that it shouldn't be
continued without him. It is true, he was an integral part of the show and
he will be missed a lot, but Jerry O'Connell is not the only reason we all watch the show (though it may have
been one reason!) As long as the writers portray interesting new characters in
well-written episodes, Sliders is still worth watching in many of our eyes.
Sliders isn't the same anymore, but that doesn't mean it's not still good.
Sarah Amos
slider_sarah@hotmail.com
Floyd Is No Slouch As Quinn
am just getting
back into Sliders through reruns and the new season. I have to admit when
Jerry O'Connell left, I was pretty surprised. He played Quinn Mallory to a
T. However, Robert Floyd is no slouch. We have to remember that his Quinn is a different person from
O'Connell's Quinn. O'Connell's Quinn is a brainiac, raised by both parents
in a stable environment. Floyd's Quinn is a smart-mouthed street-wise guy
who learned verbal defense and offense at an early age. Plus, he spent half his life in a wheelchair and is
now able to walk. I'd be a little cocky too. Floyd is doing a good job of
playing his Quinn, so you all cut him some slack. Plus, Floyd is just as
much a hunk as O'Connell. While my jury is still out on Diana Davis, Maggie and Remmy have gained more
dimension now that they are the veteran Sliders with two newbies in tow.
It's only been a couple of shows into the new season. So far, I like it
and will wait to judge it until I've seen the rest of the season.
J.M. Slusher
Jslusher@clarb.org
Say No To Leo!
was just reading the news section on Leonardo DiCaprio being asked or whatnot
to star in Star Wars: Episode II. I'm sorry, but this cannot be, and I am hoping that
it is true he did say no, because the only good thing I have to say about
him is disappointment. Please let's not have this be, it's bad enough that people get on
the Leonardo
bandwagon, not something as good as Star Wars. Get the word out to George
Lucas: "Say no to Leo!"
E. Gonzalez
gonzo5x12@msn.com
Bring More SF Literature To The Screen
read a letter only a short time ago that said science fiction is on the right
course with TV series like Babylon 5, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and movies like The Matrix. I admit, all these
are great accomplishments, combining a great story with superb visualization. But in
my opinion these are still the exceptions to the rule, and that is a bad thing.
Most SF movies these days, from Independence Day, Lost in Space, the new
Star Trek to the new Star Wars, are just great special effects fireworks,
while their story can be told in a few
sentences or less. It seems that producers are always trying to fix what ain't broke. For the
next Star Trek they announced even better effects and more humor. But those were never the problem,
not even in the original series where the effects were really bad. The problem is, was, and will be for
the foreseeable future, the stories.
I immensely enjoyed Babylon 5 and the later seasons of Deep Space Nine
because they gave much more weight to story and character development.
One of the prime examples is the B5 episode "Intersections in
Realtime," where you have zero effects but a lot of great acting.
I would really like to see more of the SF literature out there brought to
the screens. Things like
A Fire Upon the Deep or Ender's Game or Honor Harrington. Strong
stories, lots of potential for
special effects, good characters. But as long as Hollywood producers feel
that SF movies have to be
treated like cheap porno flicks, the story only thrown in to have an excuse
for showing off naked
flesh/effects, that will not happen.
Phantasy
Phantasy@ginko.de
Where Is The Adult SF?
have not yet seen Star Trek: Deep Space Nine's ending, but I will sorely miss the show. I
would like to give Crusade more time to develop. I think the characters, ship
and mission have a lot of potential, and it is a bunch better than
Sliders, Stargate SG-1 (a huge disappointment) and Farscape.
Farscape has some "moments," but where is the
intelligent, thought-provoking SF? It seems to have gone pablum or for
the younger sets. I'm an adult and want to see adult stories--ones that
make you think and leave an idea or two hanging around. The Outer Limits is
sometimes good for that and Babylon 5 was.
Star Trek was priceless for its ideas.
Judith Page
judithzu@psnw.com
SF Is Creatively Bankrupt And Racist
read with disappointment the news concerning Ray Bradbury being left
out of the second filming of Fahrenheit 451. Sadly, this situation is
typical of the creatively bankrupt '90s...strip mine the past
without giving any respect to the original source. What's even more
offensive is the lack of SF media coverage of a film Mr. Bradbury made
a cameo in, The Wonderful Ice Cream Suit. Given the racial climate
these days, especially in SF, the film's largely Latino cast did not
stand a chance with SF's increasingly narrow cultural cross section of
fans. Had that film starred Mel Gibson, I'm sure coverage would have
been slightly different whether the film was good or not.
Fredrick D. Gilmore
obit@hevanet.com
SF In Star Trek Has De-Evolved
cience fiction to me is a character driven story that causes awe and
sparks a tremendous amount of thought. Good science fiction from noted
science fiction authors certainly will do that. On television, I can
remember watching The Twilight Zone or the original Outer Limits. You concluded
watching the show and sat there with a
blank stare on your face. Your first reaction was, Wow! They didn't just
use a science fiction background, but covered issues as a science fiction
setting. It is not enough to just embed science fiction into a story by setting
something on a spaceship
400 years into the future, or using warp drive. You need continued awe and
mystery.
The purpose of this letter is to point out a major turn for the worse with
Star Trek. The original Star Trek had the type of awe I refer too, but
recently it has disappeared. Science fiction in Star Trek has de-evolved.
First there was the original series. For the first two years they were
loaded with science fiction. Great science fiction too. Stories like "Where
No Man Has Gone Before," "The Errand of Mercy," "City on the Edge of
Forever" and "The Doomsday Machine," were all filled with ideas that the best science fiction
writers could dream up.
These stories made you feel good, they made you think! You could watch
these stories and think about them for hours after.
In Star Trek: The Next Generation we still had a great many of these types of stories.
"Yesterday's Enterprise," "Q Who," "The Best of Both Worlds," "The Inner Light,"
and many others. We explored a Dyson Sphere, we saw more advanced societies
than ours, like the Q, and less advanced like the Mintokans who saw our captain as a god. Again, awe inspiring
with a lot of thought. Over seven years, were they all science fiction? Of
course not, but who cares. There was enough science fiction in Star Trek
to make the other character driven stories entertaining to watch.
Now lets look at Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Some good science fiction? Yes, but few and far
between. Don't get me wrong, I really liked DS9 but feel it lacked a lot of
true SF stories. There was the introduction of the Founders.
While that started out as great science fiction, we never got to understand them. We never saw their
society,
their evolution, and we never explored them with the true science fiction themes. They
became a greatly conceived species, which lent itself only to a war story.
While there were certainly some science fiction stories like "The Visitor," "The Children of Time," and
others, the main problem is that the war effort took center stage. They
called it science fiction because it took place 400 years in the future and
they used phasers. What the war did was place characters in a futuristic setting, but it lacked science fiction
above and beyond that. So, it was a war in the 24th century, but now what?
No exploration, no awe, no excitement.
Okay, now we go to the only remaining real Star Trek effort left, Star Trek: Voyager.
Forget it. The science fiction is almost entirely gone! Okay, there have been a
couple of science fiction concept shows, but the focus of Voyager is the
bad alien of the week. They are all hostile, and do nothing more than kick the crap out of the ship.
Where is the awe and wonder in that.
So, where is the future of Star Trek? Maybe Paramount could come up with a
unique thought of hiring some science fiction writers. Geez, what a
concept.
Paramount take note. Make the next Star Trek series different and
inspiring. Make it science fiction again!
David Moss
dmoss@blast.net
Kai Winn Never Believed In The Prophets
Editor's Note: The following letter contains information that may give away some
important plot elements of the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine finale. Please read at your own risk.
here seems to be a lot of discussion about Star Trek: Deep Space Nine's final
episode. I've read a lot of it, and agree with most, but I do have to
address the letter by Trevor Smith "Dukat Was Better Alive Than Dead" in Issue No. 115.
Specifically, the point about Kai Winn.
Smith stated that Kai Winn would "never have betrayed Bajor or the prophets" or joined with Gul Dukat
"just so she
can gain power." I have to say I completely disagree with that assessment
of the character.
From the beginning, since we were first introduced to Winn, before she was
Kai, her motivations were questionable. Her devotion to her religion
seemed to ring false. She was the epitome of a person saying what they
thought should be said and manipulating situation just so she could gain power. I never believed
that she had the
sort of faith in the Prophets that Kira had. I never believed that she was
acting in the best interests of the Bajoran people.
In one of the episodes that led up to the Deep Space Nine Finale, Winn
confessed that she never felt the Prophets' presence as other Bajorans
claimed to have felt when they saw the Wormhole (or Celestial Temple). She
claimed that she said what she thought was expected of her, but that the Prophets had not been a
strong presence in
her life. She was Kai because of the political power the position offered.
She was not pious. She was power hungry. I found her betrayal of Bajor
and of the Prophets to be one of the more believable aspects of the last season. As for her
"liaison" with
Gul Dukat, well, she really didn't know at first that it was Gul Dukat.
Frankly, I was surprised that she reacted as she did when she did find out
he was Dukat. I didn't think she had any ideals left.
Theresa Gauthier
theresag@comed.com
Farrell Wasn't Left Out Through Neglect
ey, folks, can we just for a second suspend our suspension of disbelief
and
think practically? I'm only guessing here, but it's likely that in order to
have flashbacks for Worf that included Jadzia in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine finale,
Paramount would have had to
cough up some bucks to Terry Farrell, and maybe they weren't willing. It's
also possible that she refused permission to use her image in any shows
produced after she left. Does anybody really believe this omission happened
through neglect?
Jon Delfin
Jondelfin@aol.com
Star Wars Is Too Bad To Be A Religion
Editor's Note: The following letter contains information that may give away some
important plot elements of Star Wars: Episode I. Please read at your own risk.
tar Wars is a religion?
I had to write in response to Sarah Collins' letter "The Force Is A Religion" in last week's issue.
First of all, Star Wars is a movie series, no more no less.
Secondly, if it was a religion, the last two Star Wars movies wouldn't have been so
bad.
Third, no prophets wrote of Star Wars, just George Lucas, and last time I looked he
wasn't a saint or a prophet.
Fourth, no religion can explain an abomination like Jar Jar.
And fifth is more of a religious type of question than a
statement. In Star Wars we always hear about how anger is wrong and it soils the Jedi;
a Jedi needs
to remain calm in mind and spirit...explain to me then why in Star Wars when
Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan are fighting Darth Maul and the
room seals off (leaving the two separated) we see Jinn sit down and pray
only to be killed, and then we see Obi and he's angry, pacing, waiting for
the shield to raise before he goes in and kills Maul? Is that a good religion?
David Alley
bucknbloom@aol.com
Straczynski Doesn't Own Crusade
he creator of a show does not necessarily own the show. Case in
point: Babylon 5 and Crusade. Sure, J. Michael Straczynski created them, wrote them, and
executive produced them, but he does not own them. In order to get his
vision on the air, he sold the ownership rights to Warner Bros. And
Warner Bros. also owns TNT.
When the owner of a show tells you to do it a certain way, you
either do it (and sacrifice your integrity) or you don't (and the show
gets canceled). Straczynski chose to not compromise either his integrity or
that of the shows and other projects he's working on by refusing to add
gratuitous sex and violence to Crusade.
He wrote one episode to TNT specs: "War Zone." And that episode
sucked. A completely unneeded fist fight, too much exposition on the
plague situation, and gratuitous film clips of riots on Earth. In
order to make room for these things, other parts of the script had to
be cut. The time slot for the show may be an hour long, but you lose
about two minutes to the opening and closing credits, and another 15 or
so to commercials. That leaves 45 minutes or less to tell the week's
story.
When the show's owners tell you to add something, you have to take
something out to make it all still fit.
Jeffrey Kaplan
jkaplan@world.std.com
Production Numbers Explained
n response to Ian Kennedy Issue No. 115 letter "Straczynski Is Responsible For Crusade," I would just like to reply that episode numbers make absolutely no difference whatsoever. A production number signifies the order in which all the filming for that episode was finished. It does not say,
however, when the episode was written, developed, aired or edited.
There could be a day on the set where they're shooting some scenes for
"War Zone" but then an actor might be sick or not make it to the studio,
or there might be some problems with a certain set. So, to make best use
of the time, they go on and shoot some scenes from "The Long Road" that
same day. The production numbers help everyone keep track of what
episodes they finished filming.
And, no, J. Michael Straczynski does not have total and complete say in what goes
into each episode. TNT can decide not to air an episode if it doesn't
meet their needs. This is also the exact reason why conflicts have risen
between Straczynski and TNT, and both are bailing out. Believe it, TV
executives have far too much say in things they don't understand. They're the
businessmen, not the artists.
Mick Wember
mwember@ameritech.net
