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
All Art Requires Sacrifice
must confess that Josh Brumm's Issue No. 119 letter ("Blair Witch
Insults Any Decent Person") left me scratching my head. His assertion that
this film should be shunned because the actors were "mentally and
emotionally tortured" positively chills me.
The three actors he refers to entered the woods with their crew
willfully, deliberately, and with a full and mature understanding of what
they had to do to capture their intended atmosphere. They placed themselves
under stress as all professionals do, with a calculated purpose. They were not "victims" or
subjects of "torture."
If you condemn as "indecent" every creative work that ever involved
emotional or physical sacrifice on the part of its creators, I
conservatively estimate that you would eliminate every single work of
fiction ever produced by the human race in any format ever conceived of. I salute the stars of
The Blair Witch Project as mature, dedicated professionals who are fully capable of deciding for
themselves what they wish to do in order to film their projects.
Scott Lynch
scott.lynch@arcanelogic.com
Blair's Brilliance Is Marketing
eing a filmmaker myself, I am always one to support independent
filmmakers. My latest vote of confidence was directed toward The
Blair Witch Project. With an open mind, I set out to thoroughly
enjoy the movie everyone was applauding. I knew it would be somewhat
crude and very low budget, but I thought that might add to the
docu-drama feel and make the film that much more creepy and realistic.
If I went in not knowing this was all fake, it might have lent a more
chilling feel to me.
Going in knowing that this was a mockumentary definitely took more
away from an already grueling hour-and-a-half experience. What is wrong with this film? To start the list, for film students,
they must not have
completed Film Making 101 yet. The camera work was unbearable. The
whole film felt like home movies done by amateurs. Even when the camera
was set up for a shot, the framing was erratic and the handheld stuff
was all over the place. About one-third of the film had the camera
pointed at the ground, flying around haplessly, or staring into pure
darkness. No, the darkness wasn't creepy or innovative, it was
annoying. Annoying because nothing was scary and the actors didn't
have anything significant to say during these scenes. Silence would
have been more effective during some of these scenes or, possibly,
noises coming from the woods.
Before we go any further, let me touch on the acting. The only
actor who truly had talent was Heather Donahue. She gave us some genuine
emotions. The other two seemed like half the people I met in college,
especially in the film school. They were annoying back in college, and
they were even more annoying when I have paid to see them in a film. I
actually couldn't wait for them to bite the dust. Their fighting among
themselves didn't advance the film, nor make them any more human. It was
just plain annoying. All it seemed like was an excuse for profanity,
which further made them sound like idiots and made me care less and less
for them.
The scare tactics might have been scary to the trio out in
the woods, but it, in my opinion, didn't translate well to the
audience. I definitely believe that you can scare people more with what
they don't see, but having a camera flung all over the place and only
seeing glimpses of things doesn't work. It was irritating. I really
feel like they should have had a few frames here and there of terrifying
images. Not necessarily the witches, or anything that gives plot points
away, but maybe things that made you think they were the witches or some
other force out there in the woods. Any time some scary plot element
came into play, you couldn't tell what was going on because the camera work was
so bad. What in hell was wrapped in the clothing they found? A
finger? A tooth? What? (The only way I found out was reading about
it on the Internet afterwards.) What green ooze on the ground? We
couldn't see it. For that matter, if you were scared to death, would
you be able to film the object of your fear? You'd be more concerned
with getting the heck out of there. I know, there wouldn't be a movie
if that happened, but that is the reality of the situation. It was one
of the things that hurt my suspension of disbelief.
Another thing that could have definitely helped was music. I know
they wanted it to appear as raw stark images that worked on their own,
but guess what? They didn't! Music would have created the sense of
dread that could have made some of the situations genuinely scary.
The only time I started to feel chills was at the end, where they
were going through the house. But just when I finally started to get into
it, it suddenly ends. I was waiting for some
payoff. No, I didn't care what happened to them by this point, and they
gave you so little at the end, instead of it being scary, it was a joke,
a joke they had played on the audience. On the movie-going public.
These filmmakers are brilliant. Brilliant in the sense that this was
the best marketing scam I have ever seen. It scammed me. It scammed my
friends. They started the blitz on the Net early on and it definitely
made a difference. A small little film that wouldn't have been seen by
many turned into a media event, with masses of people dying to be a
part of the craze. If this film gets into the film history books, it
won't be because it is one of the scariest films of all time, it will be
because it was the first time independent filmmakers used the Internet to its
full advantage to create a must-see movie purely by hype alone.
Shane Hannafey
hannafey@ix.netcom.com
Lighten Up On Blair Witch
n response to Josh Brumm's Issue No. 119 letter about "Blair Witch
Insults Any Decent Person," he says, "If this movie does well, then Hollywood will be encouraged
to make more movies of this nature. More misinformation will be spread
to the public in a believable manner. More actors will be subjected to
mental and emotional anguish for the public's enjoyment."
Isn't this a little hysterical? I wonder if the actors in this movie
would agree with you about anguish. How about we just calm down and try
to remember it's a movie, and if the recent hype about it hasn't informed
the entire country that it's not real, then you are probably unconscious,
in which case it really doesn't matter.
It seems that anything interesting, new, a little daring or a little
offbeat, that comes out in the theaters is either immediately critiqued
to death or trumpeted as the new Destructor of the Universe and All Our Morals.
Lighten up.
Carla Spencer
changeling@catbones.com
Blair Characters Got What They Deserved
think of myself as an open-minded individual and I enjoy a good scare
as much as the next person. What ruined The Blair Witch Project for me (other than
the people behind me talking and everyone laughing at the wrong times) was
the fact that I can't see how anyone could be so stupid as to not be able to
find their way out of woods with the aid of a compass. You go one way, you're
going to find your way out. I'm not saying it couldn't have happened--if you
were an idiot, that would help. The thing that ticked me off was when they
were camping,
or cleaning up their camp, I saw a clearing in the background. After a few
trees, there was nothing. That ruined it for me. One more thing: I have had
a lot of "scary" things happen to me and seen a lot of horror movies and I
can tell you one thing--I don't care how fearless, how courageous you are, if you
tempt fate like those three did going there and basically spitting in the
face of the supernatural, you are asking to be shown the true power of the
unknown.
Joe O'Neal
onealjd@erinet.com
Blair Scares With Nothing
he Blair Witch Project is one of the scariest movies I've ever seen. Granted, I'm not a
connoisseur of horror movies, but there is no doubt in my mind that I was
scared witless as the film progressed.
The most amazing thing is what exactly scared me. And this is, nothing.
Absolutely nothing, as in, the unknown. There is only one point in that
film where any amount of gore is shown, and even that is paltry compared to
the horror movies of the last decade. The fear generated by that film stems from the unknown, from amateur
camera shots that reveal only a little of what is going on, from
method-acting that is so genuine you are immediately caught up, from a
story based on a disjointed myth that only leaves more room for the imagination.
What's even more amazing is that the film made it to the big screen. Look
at the film! It doesn't even fit on the screen. Its budget was much less
than a million dollars! That is completely unheard of! How much money did
Titanic cost to provoke a response? How much did George Lucas spend to make a movie that fell flat? What is the average budget for a film in the industry today?
The Blair Witch Project is an expression of unadulterated, unlimited creativity. In the
midst of all these blockbuster movies trying harder and harder to blow away
our senses, it is a classical violin concertino that knows just what string
to play, just what tone to play, to pull us into a story and scare the living daylights out of us.
Dan Soler
dsoler@u.washington.edu
We Went Home From Blair Disappointed
y son and I went to see the movie The Blair Witch Project. I'm glad that we went to the matinee because I would
have been disappointed if this movie had cost me $7.50 per person to listen
to an abundance of profanity and view a non-frightening trek through a Maryland national park.
The
characters were poorly portrayed and the movie, in my opinion, was poorly
done. Once I explained to my 13-year-old son how to decipher the poor
storyline, he came home unimpressed by the movie. It wasn't about a so-called witch; nor was it
closely tied to the
story about a deranged man who killed seven small children. It was about
three poorly trained backpackers who got lost in the woods. We stayed to
see the credits at the end of the movie--more proof shown to my son that the movie
was fake, and after reasoning with him, we both went home disappointed
because this was not a science fiction movie.
Earlene Cacciola
ewcacc@bellsouth.net
I've Been On Scarier Camping Trips
went and saw The Blair Witch Project. I was one of the ones that thought it was based
on fact until I read the Rolling Stone article on the movie.
I think knowing that the movie is just fiction makes the movie even worse
than I thought it was.
I can't believe this movie is being plugged as the scariest movie of the
summer. I've been on scarier camping trips than the one portrayed.
I'd wait a couple of weeks and see it when it comes out on video. The only
reason it's so popular is because of all the hype! The movie sucks!
Christine G. Tilley
cgtilley@msn.com
Different Doesn't Necessarily Mean Good
irst of all, I would like to say that the creators of The Blair Witch
Project are geniuses. I did not particularly enjoy this film (which I
will go into shortly) but I have no problem crediting its creators for
being original and innovative. When the public is fed something new and
different they fall in love with it. The public is consuming The Blair
Witch Project because it's an experience they have never had in a movie
theater before. However, some people are coming to realize that different
doesn't necessarily mean good.
I question The Blair Witch Project as a film because it is different.
What is a film? For me, movies have always been stories told in motion. You
witness these stories through the eyes of a narrator or, most of the time,
as an invisible party to a series of events. In film, you are immersed in
the environment the story is set in. Think about the advances of surround
sound, which is designed to make you feel as if you are inside the movie.
People go to see movies to escape their reality and experience another
reality. The Blair Witch Project does not do this, however.
The Blair Witch Project is, in every way, a documentary, except for the
fact that everything in it was staged; hence people have dubbed it a
mockumentary. This film is more like watching a video of events happening
to people than it is of watching events happening to people (as in a
movie). However, you can never lose yourself in the atmosphere of the
Maryland woods because everything is seen through the lenses of cameras,
not through your own eyes in that environment. True, all films are seen
through the lenses of cameras, but in most films you are meant to lose
sight of the fact that everything was filmed and feel more like you are
witnessing everything with your own eyes. Not once during The Blair Witch
Project did I ever forget I was seeing things through the lens of a camera.
These mockumentaries obviously have their audiences; but that does not
include me. A lot of people go to the movies looking for realism, but what
is the point? I live in a real world 24 hours a day, I go to the movie
theater to escape reality.
Sean Fitzgibbons
sean@sg-1.net
SCI FI Used Sliders Viewers
was greatly disappointed that, of the two letters you published
regarding the cancellation of Sliders last week, both were in support of
the move. Once again, you have presented only one side of the issue despite the
disclaimer to the contrary at the top of your letters page each week.
Sliders is my favorite show of the past decade, one of the few quality
SF shows to have been produced in recent years. When the SCI FI Channel began
producing new episodes, I was ecstatic. This is what SCI FI should be doing,
resurrecting good SF shows that were canceled by the networks before their
time and airing them for their core audience, i.e., the SCI FI Channel
viewers. I greatly enjoyed the fourth season of Sliders and am currently
enjoying the fifth. Despite what some naysayers, who apparently only
watched the show because Jerry O'Connell was "cute," have been spouting, the show
is just as good now as it was last season. No, it's
not as good as it was during its first two seasons on Fox, but that's
because its creator/executive producer/head writer left the series. Unless
he returned, that type of quality can't be expected. It's not the actors,
it's the writing.
Now Sliders has been canceled. Despite its continuing high ratings and
large fan base. I have heard that this was SCI FI's intention all along.
They wanted to lure the Sliders audience to the channel in order to provide the
ratings and momentum to produce other programming. SCI FI wanted to dump
Sliders as soon as possible. The logic behind canceling the channel's
biggest hit and second-highest rated show escapes me. Again, SCI FI is emulating
the strange behavior of the major networks. I used to think the SCI FI Channel
actually cared about its fans and viewers. Apparently that is not the case.
All television shows must end. I did not expect, nor want Sliders to
run for five more years. But the last episode of the fifth season will leave
Sliders just 12 episodes short of the 100 episode mark! What an
accomplishment that would have been, both for Sliders and the SCI FI Channel. The worst thing about this is the fifth season will end with a cliffhanger.
After all the Sliders fans have brought to the SCI FI Channel, we are going
to be given an unresolved cliffhanger!
I urge SCI FI to reconsider its decision and renew Sliders for a
final
season of 13 episodes to resolve all plot lines and let the show end with
dignity. Failing this, at least a two- or four-hour TV movie/miniseries
should be produced. If this is not done, and we are left with this slap in
the face, I will be dropping SCI FI from my programming package. This is
not
a childish act of spite, it is a response to being used.
Erik Matthews
EMatt75931@aol.com
Editor's Note: In the past month we have published several letters both condoning and condemning the SCI FI Channel's decision to cancel Sliders. The reason we ran two letters in our last issue that supported the cancellation and none opposing it is because those are the only letters about Sliders we received.
Old Sliders Was The Best
only saw one episode of the current season of Sliders, which was a boring
one at that. I agree with Trent Jensen's Issue No. 120 letter "Good Riddance To Sliders" about the first
seasons of Sliders, which I prefer to call Old School Sliders, with the
original cast of Quinn, Wade, Rembrandt and Arturo. The show lost all its chemistry when the
first link
was gone, Arturo. It could have been Rembrandt or Wade at that time and it
would have had the same effect. Who could forget the first two seasons of
Sliders: "Summer of Love," the two-part pilot episode, and pretty much every single episode. The
first season of Sliders was great compared to the last two seasons. And
Rembrandt was funny, the whining comic-relief guy. He added humor to the
mix. Arturo added the science and Wade and Quinn added the love interest. Those four flavors
became my favorite reason
to watch the show. And for those of you blaming the downfall of the show
on the absence of Jerry O'Connell, you should compare any of the later seasons to the first or
second season, and a great difference will be found.
John Suetmeier
johndav@itis.com
Sliders Is Better Off Alive
read the Issue No. 120 letters that suggest that
Sliders is better off dead. I, for one, would have to disagree. First of
all, in his letter "Good Riddance To Sliders," Trent Jensen seemed to be blasting a show
that he clearly was never a fan of in the first place. To see the first two
seasons and to say that they were underacted and underproduced is to say
you never paid attention to the seasons. The majority of Sliders fans think
these are the best seasons. (By the way, "The Species rip-off episode" was in the
third season, one that the majority of Sliders fans think was the worst. We
fully acknowledge what happened in that season. However, it did give us "The
Guardian" and "Double Cross" episodes, well liked by Sliders fans.) But
to say that the series was never uphill is to say that you never really cared for it
in the first place.
Now, for Den Wilson's letter, "Sliders Can't Work Without Jerry." I think that Sliders is doing just
fine
without Jerry O'Connell. Granted, he is missed. However, the fifth season
is regarded by
some to be a vast improvement over the fourth season. Jerry, while being
the main character in most ways, was never the driving force. The show was always about the
concept of interdimensional travel, and those that dared to take the
adventure.
Matthew Hawes
Fairfax30@aol.com
Crusade Lives Up To B5
am writing in response to those Crusade fans who feel that the show does not
feel like Babylon 5. I just finished watching "Racing the Night," the original
premiere, and it definitely felt like B5. Actually, it maintained the tone
and feel of "A Call to Arms." I loved this episode! We see great special effects, a very developed storyline, and exciting scenes. What I am trying to say is that this
series deserves its full run. I believe after people watch the next four
episodes, they will feel the same. I liked the show from the beginning and I like it even better
now.
Josh Spencer
csc@zoomnet.net
Be Careful Who You Clone
believe the article "Does Dolly have old age on the lamb?" brought
to light some aspects of the increasing reality of cloning. Cloning has
two sides. On the one hand, it could be a new shot at life for many people
who have organs that, by cause of injury or disease, were damaged or weakened.
It could also be a way for people to live for twice as long. It could reproduce
endangered species. However, cloning has a darker side: with the technology
we have today, we could clone any living mammal. Although it has not been
tested, this could have dangerous repercussions--if a maniacal genius clones
a psychotic killer, for example. Now, for this particular example, the law,
in some places, has made it illegal to (attempt to) clone humans. However,
the example still applies to animals, Jurassic Park being the classic
example. I am not saying that cloning should be stopped; I am merely stating
that science should be careful.
Susan Colman
Filly831@aol.com
MST3K Promos Are Absolutely Appropriate
couldn't help but find myself slightly ruffled by Kenneth Morgan's
comments on the promos for Mystery Science Theater 3000 in his Issue No. 120 letter, "MST3K Promos Tick Fans Off." This isn't the
first time I've read a comment from a MSTie condemning someone for
harshness towards their favorite show. MST3K is a harsh and biting view of not only the bottom
rung of the feature-film
stepladder, but of life itself. I find the new promos to be not only funny,
but also very loving and appreciative of what has been the most inventive
program on televison for 10 hilarious years. It is pointless and hypocritical to take
offense at it
unless you also want to take offense at making fun of B-movies. It's time
to stop accusing the SCI FI Channel of not being sorry to lose the show; the Brains have
specifically stated that the vibes among them and the network are as good as Moon Pies, and
despite the
fact that I strongly believe SCI FI handled the show wrongly, and that it
is indeed their sole fault for the show's cancellation, I think that they have come as close as
possible to making up for it in these final days.
John Ferrer
aceduke@hotmail.com
