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
Cloning Isn't Photocopying
am writing in response to Susan Colman's Issue No. 121 letter "Be Careful Who You Clone." Colman reiterates in her letter one of the most
misunderstood points regarding cloning, that is, that cloning is like
photocopying. Even if, as Colman states, "a maniacal genius clones a
psychotic killer," that in no way implies that the clone will itself grow
up to be a psychotic killer. Much in the same way that if Adolf Hitler
were cloned, we wouldn't have to fear the rise of a new Reich any time soon.
The basis of this incorrect assumption lies in the belief that we are
slaves to our genes (and a misunderstanding of the cloning process combined
with one too many "maniacal genius" flicks). While a clone may
represent a near perfect genetic copy of the subject being cloned, the
clone is essentially a mental "blank slate" and would not be predisposed to
murder, anarchy, or world domination any more than you or I would be. The
clone's mentality (and physical appearance for that matter) would be
determined by how it was raised by its parents and the life experiences it
accumulates over time. That being the case, it would be a heck of a lot
easier to skip the expensive and highly unreliable cloning procedure, have
a kid the old fashioned way, and teach him/her to be a murderer, anarchist,
or fascist dictator.
Antonio Iacoviello, B.Sc.
noise@ionsys.com
SFW's Reviewer Is Obviously Not A MSTie
was very disappointed to see the review of the final episode of
Mystery Science Theater 3000 in a recent Science Fiction Weekly. MST3K made no cheap shots at the SCI FI Channel over the cancellation, so would it be so hard for the Science Fiction Weekly review to show the same consideration? SCI FI's canceling of America's favorite cow-town puppet show, called by Time magazine "brilliant deconstructionist raillery," was horrible enough. However, there is no rest for already bereft MSTies because Science Fiction Weekly has to pick at the open wound with a poor review.
Really guys, a C+? Clearly, your reviewer is not a MSTie and knows
nothing about the show. The reviewer seems disappointed that it was an
"average episode." But MST3K: The Movie was too, and really, what did
you expect? Did you want them to kill off all the characters? If the
characters die, there is no way to revive the show when it gets picked up by another network without ruining its continuity. Continuity has always been a
benchmark of MST3K. All 10 seasons fit together and even though there have been different cast members no one appeared without explanation. And if
not character assassination, what did you expect? A jazzy song-and-dance
number? Oh wait, there was one.
Of course the writers "left room for fans to think" that the show could
still go on the next week. There is always someone out there ready to take
on MST3K when another cable network turns traitor. Somewhere there will
always be a home for the show, a young CEO with an eye for creativity who
has not yet tasted the evils of bureaucracy, and until MST3K finds that home, the story should remain open. I myself see this cancellation not as the end, but simply a hiatus. Having run for 10 seasons and topping the runs of both I Love Lucy and Laverne & Shirley, MST3K has become indestructible and uncancelable! As the review stated, no one wants to see it go. So where's it going?
Tracey Lee
GEClaire@aol.com
Editor's Note: I asked our associate editor and regular reviewer Tamara I. Hladik to review the MST3K finale because she is in fact one of the biggest MSTies out there. I guess she just thought they could have done a better job on their last episode.
What Was Ender's Shadow's Philosophy?
just finished reading John Clute's review of Orson Scott Card's new book, Ender's Shadow. In his conclusion, he called the book "a failure of philosophy." Unfortunately, Clute really doesn't explain his
notion of "philosophy." He simply says that bad philosophy often makes
good stories. Good thing Science Fiction Weekly didn't put this review in the reviews section, because Clute would then have to grade the novel--and hence explain what the hell he means by "a failure of philosophy." He would also have to explain why he was so upset that Card chose to set part of the novel in a strife-ridden, dangerous Rotterdam (it's a story; he can do what he wants). Finally, he would have to explain why he enjoyed
reading the novel and though the novel was expertly written yet was angered
enough by the novel's "philosophy" to call it a failure.
Michael Heumann
aboo@primenet.com
pologies to Michael Heumann for trying to compress a quart of
response into a pint bucket; and for forgetting (it's something that can
happen if you've been commenting on someone like Orson Scott Card for a
long time) that there's no reason in the world why Michael Heumann should
be familiar with something I might have published in some book or other a
decade ago, where I may have made myself clearer, at greater length. So,
a short formulation: I think Card writes beautifully honed and structured
stories whose implications I sometimes balk at.
But the bad philosophy I was speaking of, the bad philosophy that
makes good stories, was clearly enough pointed to, I think: as I said,
theories of history which foreground heroes are (to my mind) bad theories
of history, but, at the same time, they are fun to read about.
Regarding Rotterdam: Ender's Shadow is an SF novel, and in
writing an SF novel Card precisely cannot "do what he wants"--unless he
makes an argument for doing so. I saw no argument for the transformation
of the Netherlands in this novel, but left open the possibility that I
might have forgotten an argument from one of the previous volumes in the
series.
I am, incidentally, quite happy not to have to grade novels. I'd
make a botch of it.
John Clute
Blair Witch Is No Scam
found myself laughing out loud at Shane Hannafey's letter in Issue No.
121, "Blair's Brilliance Is Marketing." While I agree with him that the
filmmaker's use of the Internet was well-executed, I can't agree that it
was in any way a scam. The Blair Witch Project may not be the greatest
movie ever, but it is an intriguing and unsettling experience and to
fault it based on its camera work is plainly silly.
Shane wrote that the camera work was unbearable, yet he fails to
consider the possibility that "documentary footage" was deliberately
shot in a cinema verite style, and that the handheld footage was
intended (in the context of the story) only to be a record of the filmmaking process. It would be unrealistic to assume that particular care
is going to be taken to frame and shoot things perfectly when things
start getting weird.
The bit that made me laugh was his assertion that the only actor with
genuine talent was Heather Donahue, while the other two seemed like people he'd
known in film school at college. I laugh because--and I'm sure I'll be
corrected if I'm wrong--wasn't that the point? These were supposed to
be ordinary kids, caught up in an extraordinary situation. I thought the
acting was almost universally convincing, the only exception being one
scene with Mike which rang hollow.
As for Shane's comments about not being able to see what was happening,
I can only assume that he wasn't paying attention. The items in the
bundle are clearly blood-stained teeth, and are shown closely. Shane's
belief that music may have heightened the sense of drama may be true,
but it would have damaged the film's main strength--the illusion that
you're seeing something that really happened.
Joe O'Neal's letter in the same issue, "Blair Characters Got What They
Deserved," is another example of someone missing the point. He wrote "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." Was I the only one paying
attention here? Did he perhaps miss the part where it's obvious the
characters are really freaked out when they discover that, despite the
compass, they've been walking in circles? Their disbelief and fear at
the impossibility of their situation is obvious.
The Blair Witch Project certainly isn't the scariest movie of the
summer. For me that honor goes to Deep Blue Sea, though I suspect that
will change once I get to see The Sixth Sense. However, in a landscape
filled with Hollywood retreads and blockbuster wannabe's, Blair Witch
is a high point of innovative film making and should be encouraged.
Chris Halliday
otherchris@erols.com
Blair Is Bad, But Not That Bad
his is to reply to Shane Hannafey's Issue No. 121 letter, "Blair's Brilliance Is Marketing." I have to say, you are dead on right
with your observations Shane, except for two small points that both relate
to the same basic issue (something most people grumbling about the film have too easily
dismissed): the film
is shot, and told, as if about a bunch of lost hikers who have "something
unexplained" happen to them.
The acting, as another letter pointed out, was a masterpiece of
method workmanship. The three actors became real people, while still
acting. Remember, they are all college aged, which, by definition, means
they're both doofuses and over-confident. Also, since the cameras were manipulated by the
actors, you cannot blame the directors for bad work there.
Now, that said, I just saw the movie and I must say it was not what I
expected at all. I found that it was critical to following any of it, to
have first seen the hour fake-documentary shown on the SCI FI Channel last
month. I actually felt that that was better. More cohesive, and far creepier. Even so, the
ending of Blair did
freak me out for the rest of the night, so it was scary. It just wasn't
scary.
Also, I write this having just seen the Late Night with Conan O'Brien
interview with one of the actors, and he pointed out that it was basically
shot for no release at all. Little was expected to ever come from it.
Therefore, some of the genius of the film must go to the distributor who bought the film for a
song, then cranked out
the typical Hollywood trailer with the attached critical reviews to lure in
the mass audience. Naturally, it's going to make $40 million in a weekend
(an amazing sum for what one audience member behind me grumbled was "a crappy home
movie"--no joke!) Yes. We were lured by genius marketing, but was it all done by the filmmakers? I doubt
it. The Internet is hardly that influential yet in our culture. Advertising
muscle is still the strongest on television and radio, and here in San Diego, Calif., this film has been on
30-second spots non-stop for two weeks now. That's what generates the big money.
David Herschel
Skyngangor@aol.com
Blair Witch Accomplished Its Objective
find some of the negative comments aimed at The Blair Witch Project so
astoundingly incomprehensible that I wonder precisely what a person's
motivations are for making them. Shane Hannafey writes in his Issue No. 121 letter "Blair's Brilliance Is Marketing" that "The whole
film felt like home movies done by amateurs." Perhaps I'm missing something, but wasn't that
the intent? Is this
not like saying that The Phantom Menace felt "like some big budget, special
effects laden space opera"? Would he also criticize Inspector Gadget for
its "childish slapstick"? Can you rightly fault a film for accomplishing its objective?
He then goes on to say "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."
Now, maybe I was watching a different Blair Witch Project at my theater,
but two things in particular that I noticed about the darkness
scenes that made them frightening were 1) silence, and 2) noises coming
from the woods. Precisely the two things Shane suggests would have made it more effective.
What significant
things would he have the actors say at these points: "So, Josh, do you
think you'll be fired if you don't have the DAT back tomorrow?" or
"Heather, did you bring enough tampons?"
Oh, and then there's this comment: "I really feel like they should have
had a few frames here and there of terrifying images." Hm, seven piles of
rock graves, finding a similar rock grave outside the tent one morning, the
stick figures, the bundle of sticks wrapped with pieces of Josh's shirt. Oh, I guess there were no
terrifying images after all. Or maybe Hannafey's idea of a terrifying image
is some white headed bald guy with needles sticking out of his head
everywhere. Or maybe a creep in a goalie mask.
Chris Bush
shortstop_09@hotmail.com
Blair Witch Complaints Are Unwarranted
his is for all of those people out there who have nothing better to
do with their time than to slam The Blair Witch Project. First of all,
put yourself in the shoes of the three young people who are going into the
woods to do this project. Or can you? Have any of you people ever been out in the wilderness
in real
life camping, hunting, or even just hiking? I'm not talking about those
$10 a night, water and electricity hook up, toilet around the corner,
places either. I'm talking about you, your pack, and the "good" old outdoors. From the
majority of
the posts I've seen, I bet you haven't. I have, and that's one of the
reasons the movie, how shall we say, disturbed me. You're
naked out there. Especially if you're not experienced, which they weren't. All I've heard from
people is, "Why
didn't they do this," "They should have brought that," and "I would have
done something different." Give me a break guys/gals, it ain't that simple. I've been lost in the
woods before without anything, and let me tell
you, it's scary. You don't want to believe it, but you flip out just like
the people did in the movie.
Next, for all you who are complaining about the shoddy filming, open
your eyes! It's supposed to be that way. Yes, the frames are jumpy, and
sometimes make very little sense. They are amateurs, and it shows.
Complaints from film people are numerous. They say,"The cameras should be steadier," "The
mindless flopping around
and blank sequences are annoying," and "Why did they keep filming?" First
off, the film makers are anything but professional, so why do you think
they should be able to film perfectly? They didn't even have their own equipment for heaven's
sake! As for the
sporadic scenes being annoying, they aren't. Can you tell me truthfully
that when you're running around, you're going to keep a steady bead with
the camera? And as for the darkness shots, they were realistic. The near absence of sound is what
you would get.
Do you really think that the directional mic on the cam corder would pick
up every drop of a pin? Unless it's close or loud it ain't gonna get it folks. Finally, why did
they not stop recording? Let me think
here, reality anchor maybe! What did they have left? Definitely
not their sanity. It was all they had left, as the lead female actor said.
It was the only thing they had left from the real world that was still functioning. They originally
came to
film, so film they did. It was a sort of security blanket. Their last
thread of sanity.
And lastly (before I get flogged by the people who I'm shooting down),
the music. There was none, and that's the way it should be. For all you
eccentrics out there who couldn't handle having no sound track to tell them
when some thing was going to go wrong--live with it. The only excuse for music in this
movie
would be maybe a stereo that the filmers brought with them, or maybe some
crude drums or whistle that the supposed "witch" was using to frighten them
even more. Give me a break, this film was supposed to be portrayed as unedited as possible.
Last time I checked
the filmers didn't have a score prepared for the documentary.
Quailen Rose
Quailen@hotmail.com
Blair Witch Was Clever, But Over-Hyped
enjoyed The Blair Witch Project. I don't mind the raw footage and I like
improvisational acting. The directors are not geniuses but they are
clever. The problem is the film is way over hyped. I saw it in the
limited release in New York. I heard it was a cool little film. Anyone going now is expecting
the greatest horror film ever
made. A lot of people will be disappointed. I found the characters real,
so what if they're annoying? Does ever character have to be likable?
Michael A. Nelson
miskonelson@prodigy.net
Learn To Appreciate Psychological Horror
have to laugh at all the comments about The Blair Witch Project, i.e. that it
wasn't scary, the camera work was amateurish, etc. Obviously, what we're seeing here is people raised on Friday the
13th splatter flicks, who can't appreciate a good psychological
horror movie when they see one. Use your imagination, people!
There were no gory special effects because it wasn't that kind of movie.
It was about how people do the worst damage to themselves, without any
outside assistance. You don't need witches or ghosts to get lost in the
woods and start decompensating on each other--and that's a pretty scary thought.
Susan Buckner
slbuckner@earthlink.net
Is Blair Ahead Of Its Time Or A Waste Of Time?
t seems The Blair Witch Project debate will never be put to rest, so
maybe some perspective is in order. I for one loved the film but am not at
all surprised by the horrible reviews the film has received since its
nationwide release.
The way I see it is that Blair Witch is a "cult hit" traveling in reverse.
Traditionally, the cult movie goes virtually unnoticed by the viewing
public for months or years before its value as a uniquely creative or
innovative work is recognized. Unlike Brazil, Evil Dead, or Heathers, The Blair Witch Project gained its
cult following at the beginning of its run by being shown in limited
release in cities where the low budget "indie" film is more hip than Adam
Sandler. Those who saw the film during those two weeks were largely those had heard about it
before it came out. I
saw the trailer during My Son the Fanatic at the Angelika Theatre in New York, N.Y.
"During what?" Exactly. Then, of course the film was critically praised,
over-hyped, and released to the masses.
Blair Witch is not a film for everyone. It's different. To one person
it's ahead of its time. To four other people it's a waste of time.
Luckily for the makers of this cult hit, the viewing masses just can't
resist the 15 million dollar advertising campaign.
Andy Brown
galactor@hotmail.com
Blair May Be Over-Hyped, But It's Still Good
he feedback surrounding The Blair Witch Project is fascinating.
Everywhere that there is feedback on this movie, there seem to be only two
views. One, that the movie is very scary and well done, two, that the
movie sucks and is a waste of celluloid (or video in some parts). I belong to the first school.
As with any movie, the film does require some suspension of disbelief.
Yeah, it should be evident that even if you can't read a compass, following
the stream should take Heather, Michael and Josh somewhere. However, maybe
they were lost due to some supernatural force and not because they were novice hikers.
Some of the criticisms strike me as funny and even contradictory. One
person criticized the film because Josh and Michael were like 50 percent of the
people he knew from film school. Hey, if you're making a "mockumentary,"
that sounds like a pretty good stereotype to me.
Others criticize the fact that if the flimmakers were truly scared, they
would have stopped shooting and started running. Haven't you ever watched
a movie and found yourself telling the character not to open the door
because some ancient evil is behind it? This is the same thing.
I don't think that everyone will like this movie, nor should they. I
respect the opinions of the people who didn't like the movie, and I agree
that the hype is becoming like a snowball that is getting bigger and bigger
as it rolls down the hill. I just feel that some viewers are trying to review this movie as if it were
truly a
documentary. I have never seen a movie where 100 percent of the story was
realistic. As a story, there will be flaws in logic.
I am glad I saw this movie before all the hype, and I would recommend that
if you like horror movies you go into this movie with an open mind.
Lester French
lfrenc61@maine.edu
Changes Gutted Sliders' Chemistry
must say, as a rabid Sliders fan, I'm sad to see it go, but I
must
admit its time has come. As much as I admire Cleavant Derricks for loyalty to
the show's fans by staying on, too much of the core chemistry and
interaction has been lost by the early rotation or loss of cast
members. Additionally, I feel the writing quality has dropped off (no
insult intended to current company), but, perhaps, that is the nature of
the beast. One can only think of so many alternate universes. I do
believe that the loss of the O'Connells was the last nail in the
coffin. Truthfully, a series' producer(s) cannot expect a show's viewers
to blindly accept radical changes in cast without at least a bit of
disgruntlement. If we didn't mind cast changes, we would watch All My
Children or similar soap operas where the phrase "The part of John Smith
will be played by..." is commonplace. The only way I believe Sliders could
still exist is to kill the existing plot line/arc and transform it into an
ensemble show, offering different stories and different casts every
episode, all centering around the discovery, in one way or the other, of
sliding.
Sean P. Tomlinson
steelrat@slip.net
Sliders Naysayer Changes His Tune
was one of the people who thought Sliders was doomed without Jerry
O'Connell. After all, his character was the one who invented sliding, and the
show was based around him. With only one original cast member left, how
could it work? Well, after watching the first few episodes of the fifth season I have been proven wrong. The new
members of the cast are coming into their own and proving they have what it
takes to carry the torch and continue sliding. But I guess they will never
be given a chance to see if they can make it home. We'll never see a final ending to the Kromagg
threat. And
worst of all, Remmy will never get to sing at the baseball game.
Dewayne Matteson
heybert@webtv.net
Don't Touch Crusade And You Won't Break It
ell, I've watched the first 10 episodes of Crusade, including the
most
recent, "The Memory of War." And the show has impressed the hell out of me.
Crusade varies in quality a lot. "War Zone," "Patterns of the Soul"
and
"Rules of the Game" weren't so great ("War Zone" in particular being
really,
really awful). The rest of the episodes were pretty good, especially "Well
of
Forever," "Path of Sorrows," "Racing the Night" and "Memory of War," the
last
of which I will have to rewatch before making a final decision on (Galen,
as
always, was ultra-cool).
Most of the characters are memorable, too (except for Dr. Chambers, of
course; someone, please make her interesting). Gideon is a nice step
away
from Picard-type by-the-book captains (even though in "War Zone" he was
described as "dangerous," a sure sign that the character in question is
completely tame), what with his constant gambling and Gary Cole coolness.
Carrie Dobro as Dureena isn't especially great, but a nice addition to the
show. Max Eilerson is easily my second-favorite character, with his
"I-don't-give-a-damn-about-you" exterior complete with an all-too-human
personality. Lochley is just sort of...there. Lt. Matheson seems like a
good
enough character, but we haven't seen much of him. And lastly, there's
Galen.
Wow. This guy always leaves me grinning whenever he's on screen.
Interestingly enough, the parts of the show which I hate most are those
that were probably added by TNT. "War Zone" is the best example of this.
Pointless violence broken up by pointless explanation. Ugh. "Rules of the
Game" featured a bunch of zealous villains who, being as goofy as they
were,
seemed to say, "Screw you, organized religion!"--a first for Babylon 5 or
Crusade. There was also a pointless sex scene, which if I remember included
saxophone music (I never watched that episode a second time, even though
the stuff with Eilerson was pretty good). Ugh.
Lastly, I'd like to talk about Evan Chen's music. Even though I'm a die-hard Christopher Franke fan, I don't really think his music would be appropriate for Crusade.
It's...too much. It's for huge space battles and huger stories, that sort
of
thing. Chen's stuff, on the other hand, is of the small, lurking,
mood-setting type that's there to keep you awake, tell you what you're
supposed to be feeling and not much else. In fact, the times when I dislike
Chen's music the most are when I actually notice it.
To conclude: Crusade is a good show, up there with Babylon 5 and
Farscape. It has its problems, but then again most of them stem from TNT.
Scott Ferguson
Cassius81@aol.com
