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
Beastmaster Was Unfaithful To Norton
s a longtime fan of Andre Norton's books, I was very upset that the movie The Beastmaster
destroyed what was a very good story and turned it into another sword-and-sorcery B-movie.
The plot of the movie stole scenes from the book, but never paid attention to the story. I hope
the producers of the movies and TV series are paying through the nose for the abuse they have
heaped upon a classic work of SF literature!
Now for the flip-side. I did enjoy watching the movies, and applaud the screenwriters for
stories that manage to entertain and maintain the action (with humor, but without being too
ridiculous). I hope that the TV series can manage to continue the adventure and humor of the movies.
Jeff Morris
jeff62_mu_t@yahoo.com
Rings Movie Should Leave Out Liv
an, I can't even get through the press release for the start of the new The Lord of the Rings [film]
trilogy! I was excited, the casting looks wonderful, looks like a great group of movie makers to
make it come to life. My favorite books set to film, and maybe, just maybe, a halfway decent
interpretation to enjoy. Then I hit the line that sets me off. Liv Tyler will play Arwen (not too
bad a choice), the elf warrior. Wait, let me read that again, I must have read it wrong. Nope,
there it is. Stupid and unnecessary. My prediction: They will combine the roles of Arwen and
Eowyn for no good reason. Let's face it, Arwen is strictly secondary; it would make a heck of a lot
more sense to simply skip her.
Man! I didn't even get a week of enjoyment out of the whole thing.
Jay Phillippi
jdrp@cecomet.net
The X-Files Still Has Punch
have heard a lot of noise recently about how cheesy The X-Files has become to some
people, and that it's way too inconsistent in episode quality. Being a big SF fan in general, and
assessing the quality of the SF we've seen in the '80s and '90s, I must take issue and offer what I
feel is some serious perspective.
I don't believe there's been any TV SF that has had the overall impact that The X-Files has
had since the original Star Trek and The Twilight Zone aired in the '60s. Firstly, for any TV show (SF or otherwise) to be a consistent top 10 hit for seven years is a
coup at the very least. The X-Files has consistently dominated in ratings, Emmy Awards, quality of
production, and has influenced a whole host of other TV shows.
I love Star Trek and its various spinoffs, but face it, it took them
two to three seasons just to get those shows off the ground (and the jury's still out on Star Trek: Voyager), and
they've stayed on the air as long as they have only because of the strength of the
Roddenberry/Star Trek name. Honestly, I believe that most Star Trek fans would agree you could narrow the amount
of really classic, groundbreaking episodes down to a handful between these three shows. Myself, I
would be willing to put 30-40 percent of The X-Files in this category.
Unlike most shows, The X-Files came out of the gate in its first season as an unknown
commodity (on a young Fox Network) and kicked butt with some of the freshest SF
action/drama anyone had seen in some time. It continued to get deeper and stronger, becoming a TV standard in all facets: its original
concept, characters, musical score, depth of acting, cinematography, and its ability to captivate
and/or just plain scare its audience. Can you think of an SF TV show or movie
since Aliens that honestly scared people?
As far as its imitators, Dark Skies had potential, but it was a poor man's The X-Files at best, and
Pretender and Profiler have borrowed heavily from The X-Files in characterization, plot line,
cinematography, and overall vibe. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine added "Section 31" to their plot line, and Babylon 5 had Bester running the whole psychic wing
of that government, giving those shows a "secret conspiracy" angle, a la The X-Files.
And what about The Visitor, First Wave, Roswell, etc.?
The fact is that no show is perfect, but I believe that in its prime, The X-Files was one of the
closest things we've seen to it, and though maybe not as novel as it once was, it still packs a good
punch. While I'll concede that the show is losing some of its magic, and it's time to wrap it up, a
weak X-Files is better than many other SF shows on a good night. Give Chris Carter and company
their due; they've created and maintained a classic.
John Cox
jtcox@gja.net
X-Files Needs To Re-Focus
he way I see it, the problem with The X-Files (once my favorite and now my second favorite show)
can be traced to a single source--the lack of an overriding plot. Before
you point out the obvious,
yes, I know that the myth-arc is the point of the show; however, as any unbiased viewer could see,
there's no cohesion to it. The characters, most notably Mulder, are written erratically, with
abrupt changes in behavior and no explanation. Mulder swings too radically from trusting no
one to placing his faith wholeheartedly in strangers. Krychek changes sides every episode
he's in, but never for any obvious reason. The entire Russian plot involving him and the black oil
aliens seems to have vanished. Scully, as was pointed out, has become the token victim--not
only is she put through an emotional wringer every other episode, she alternates between a
season-one skepticism and a nearly blind faith in certain aspects of the paranormal. Also, if she were a real
person and not at the mercy of the writers, she would long ago have dumped Mulder and
demanded that transfer. His treatment of her is inconsistent and inexcusable--and, upon a second
viewing, the "hallway scene" in the movie (Mulder to Scully: "You make me a whole person.")
sounds more manipulative than affectionate. Mulder's primary concern is himself--he needs
Scully to stay for his sake, not for hers. This does not mesh with the Mulder we saw during the
cancer plot arc, who was willing to give up his great quest to save Scully. Later, when it is more
convenient for his needs, he blows her off in favor of Diana Fowley, who has proven herself less
than trustworthy. Also, there's his (read: the writers') tendency to forget vital elements, such as
Scully's ova, which he seemed to have acquired. Two questions: Why doesn't he tell her, and
where is he keeping them? His freezer, perhaps? I can't tell if this is a genuine oversight, or if
the writers are deliberately trying to make Mulder an unlikable person.
I also am frustrated by the show's tendency to meander in its plotting. I did like episodes such as
"Triangle," (very well done, with just the right touch of doubt: Is Mulder crazy or was he really
in the past?) but I get tired of too many "monster" shows between myth-arc episodes. Two or
three, cleverly written, are one thing. Week after week is another. It's as though they've
forgotten what the show is allegedly about. Also, the conspiracy plot, the show's bread and
butter, has become hopelessly entangled. First New Mexico, now Africa? The Consortium as a
collection of Crispie Critters? The return of the supposedly dead Well-Manicured Man? I get the awful feeling
they're scrambling for shocking cliffhangers and losing sight of Mulder's quest and the original
story. They've gotten me so confused I wish they'd bring out a conspiracy-only video collection
with all the myth-arc plus the movie along with a guidebook to how it all actually makes sense!
Jennifer Quail
tiepilot.geo@yahoo.com
TV Isn't Real, So Why Be So Critical?
ontrary to the overly serious diatribes against Farscape
that betray a need to get an actual life, I fully enjoy the
show and never miss an
episode if at all possible. It is, in fact, currently my
favorite television show. Farscape is far less
flawed than is every Star Trek spinoff, and every bit as
much fun to watch (if not as dark) as Babylon 5. Sure, I can find all
sorts of flaws in every show on television, including every
SCI FI Channel show, but why? It is not real life. At best the shows
are a diversion from the mundane fare of daily life, and are
lucky if they manage to catalyze or inspire new thought
and/or action. Farscape has characters that are fun to watch, special effects
that dazzle, and stories that are engaging (more than they
are not). I would probably prefer to see what Ridley Scott
might do with a series based upon Philip K. Dick or Jack
Vance or Robert Silverberg works, but until then, every
Friday, I will kick back and revel in
the sentients, plots and universe of Farscape.
Christopher Quinn
cwquinn@earthlink.net
Voyager Characters Aren't Interesting
n his Issue No. 130 letter Sean Hawk asks "Is Character Development So Important?" Well let me share.
He says that Dr. McCoy never really changed over the years, and that was just fine. The
difference here is that Star Trek was far less of an ensemble cast. There were recurring characters, but
other than Kirk and Spock they were all means to an end. McCoy was the moral center, the
epitome of human good intent, compassion and passion to counterbalance Spock. Chekhov was
there for young people to identify with, and the character the youth of America was identifying
with was a Russian. But Kirk and Spock developed greatly, between the series and the movies
the characters grew immensely, providing us with rounded characters to keep us interested in
where they were going.
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was the pinnacle of character interaction. The camaraderie of Bashir and O'Brien was done
perfectly. Sisko grew in strides from the first season on, and Kira softened as she was given the
comforts the Federation affords. Really the only character that went nowhere was Jake. Tell me
again why he was in the opening credits all those years?
This brings my rant to Star Trek: Voyager. Every character in there is static and flat, and none serve a
purpose. They have the lack of character development of McCoy but without any reason for
them to be there other than to say lines.
Janeway is an abomination. Some said that she is more representative of military officers than
we might think, but she is not representative of Federation officers. She started off the series with
this big speech about how Federation protocol was all that could get the crew home; unfortunately
it looks as if she never spent a day in the Academy. Whenever a problem comes up she gives the
lamest orders that could only work in the furthest reaches of 1930s SF. Star Trek has created a
rich world of science, that DS9 and Star Trek: The Next Generation stayed loyal to, but Voyager ignores all that has come
before. But it's not just the techno-babble, it's the fact that she always gives the wrong order and
everything works out anyway. Come on, suspend my disbelief already.
As for character interaction, it always makes me groan at the cheesiness. In DS9 the characters
and their relationships were very well done, in Voyager it is just cliche after cliche. The
Paris/Torres relationship is a joke. Give me the Odo/Kira or the Quark, Bashir, and Worf all pining
for Jadzia relationships any day. The characters seem to be the result of Voyager only employing
out-of-work soap opera writers.
This season, one episode was written by a DS9 writer, but he left immediately because of
"creative differences." I'm not surprised, he was probably used to working somewhere where
good stories and characters are the driving force, not keeping the United Paramount Network alive.
The problem with the stories has always been that they start off with an interesting idea, but
then self-destruct by the end. Notice how good the first episodes of two-parters are, and
then look at how lame the second ones are. The problem is that the characters aren't interesting
enough, or competent enough, to keep the story going past the set-up. This season may however
be the exception. So far they have all had only mildly interesting stories, but they seem to wrap
them up much better and my groan-per-episode rate has decreased dramatically.
To sum up, Voyager has no rounded characters, few good storylines, and an inability to keep
one's interest. My only hope is that it quietly finishes its seventh season without being canceled, or
being brought to anyone's attention, and then disappears into history making room for a new and
hopefully more interesting series in the Star Trek universe.
Zachary Niemi-Rischitelli
greatgoldencaribou@usa.net
No Show Can Get Everything Right
tend to agree with some of what Brett Shaff said in his Issue No. 129 letter "Voyager Is Full Of Broken Promises," but not all of it.
Brett's "cardinal rule for any star ship-based show" (the viewer
must like
the captain to the point of either wanting to be that captain, or at least
wanting to work with said captain) makes sense, but should not always be the
first rule of a show like this.
One can take some of the characters of past Star Trek shows to
bring out
the point. Quark, the big eared, profit minded bartender of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
was not exactly in love with Captain Sisko, yet they managed to find a way
to work together.
While Quark was indeed a character, and nothing quite like Chakotay,
I think it should be remembered that this lost crew did not start out
together, but instead were fated to form a single crew out of two separate
ones. One Federation, the other Maquis.
As for Brett's opinion that Captain Janeway is a "vindictive,
spiteful
control freak," I would say that while some of these traits do tend to
threaten to surface, they don't utterly take over her. I mean, we should
remember that this is a lost crew in a far corner of space, and everything
they see, they are more than likely the first Federation ship and crew to
do
so. Being lost for so long can tend to work on a lot of nerves, and not
just the captain's.
All this is to say that consideration should be given to simple stress
related
to the job. That can lead to imperfect behavior, to include the seeming
ordering around of Chakotay when she feels like it's time to eat. I would
wager that even a present-day ship's first officer (say on a navy sub) would
understand that having dinner with the captain is just about as close to a
plea to attempt to mend any ill feelings, even up to accepting an apology
for any wrong doing forwarded against the first officer from the captain. So
in reality, an imperfect attitude would not cause one in command to loose
said command. A "perfect attitude," all the time, would scare personally
me.
I know from military experience. It's not so much how you interact,
it's
what (and who) you know that makes you the boss. Information has always been
and is still king. You can take General George Patton for an example. His
troops hated him for bouncing them all over the globe, just so they can be
the first to knock somebody's head off, yet he collected five stars
before he took it too far. Everyone that was a part of his command did not
hesitate to parade the fact they were a part of his command, because he
made history. I would also contest Brett's obligation to "smack the crap"
out of a captain that may be too free with the phrase "I'm so
disappointed with you." Although it was funny to read, that's about the best
way in the world to find oneself...confined.
Also, Brett wrote that he thought that Voyager is "story of broken
promises, moronic plots, missed opportunities and discarded premises."
While
some things he mentioned are and were indeed overlooked, like the rapid
aging
of a certain little girl passenger, (could her genetic makeup be
responsible?) I would say that, all in all, we as SF fans are not
going to find a show that covers everything, every time. As SF fans, we
place one heavy demand on getting episodes on the air as quickly as
possible, so human mistakes should be expected.
I would guess that the best way to react to a show is to watch it,
and if
one does not like it, simply don't watch it again. I, for example, watch
Star Trek: Voyager practically without blinking, but think that Farscape is the
silliest show since Earnest Goes To Camp. I would rate Farscape not SF,
but "sci funny." In my opinion, it was only a matter of time before the
muppets arrived in the world of SF. My reaction? I don't watch it.
Simple as that.
Chris Taylor
taylor@minot.com
Voyager Is The Minivan Of The Franchise
've tried to like Star Trek: Voyager. I really have. But I just can't do it. What has been so disappointing is that the producers have completely failed
to create interesting characters who grow and change. What makes this
disappointment worse is that they did it so well with Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
Take Janeway for example. She is still the stick in the mud, we do it my
version of the Starfleet way or I kick you off the ship character she was
in
the first episode. The other characters are all the same.
I watched a couple of episodes for this season with the hope that now when they
could focus all their attention to this series things would improve. They
haven't. The series has been troubled by a lack of direction from the
producers that is only matched by Voyager's wandering around the galaxy
supposedly finding a way home. In recent interviews they have said that
their answer to these problems is not to change anything. The best thing to
happen would be for Voyager to crash and all the characters die.
Andrew Hall
afhall@mciworld.com
It's Not A Commander's Job To Be Liked
hoa! Let's everybody take a step back and think about two shows, just for a moment. First:
Star Trek: Voyager. At the beginning of the show, Janeway and her crew were going after
Chakotay and his crew in the Badlands. They had a beautiful new starship and were chasing the
bad guys in a broken down old fighter. Well, after five years in the Delta Quadrant, after
expecting a "three-hour-tour," it's no wonder Janeway has an attitude. This is one of the
strongest women to ever grace the television screen. We should all stand up and applaud Kate
Mulgrew's portrayal of Katherine Janeway. All right, Janeway isn't always likeable, but a
commanding officer's job is not to be liked, but to command.
Keith Kitchen
BoyoKlaatu@aol.com
I'd Enlist With Janeway
n the Issue No. 130 letters column there was a mention of Captain Janeway being
both the Mother Image and the Abusive Parent. It fits well. Some of my
Trek friends and I were discussing Janeway and comparing her to Kirk and
Picard. We came up with this: Captain Kirk was a scrapper! Captain
Picard is the diplomat! Captain Janeway...is...the captain! She has a
scrappy side and a diplomatic side! Both are necessary for one in
command!
I am retired Army and I have served with commanders with both
sides. Some I would stop a bullet for, and some I would "frag"--drop a
live grenade in their back pocket when they weren't looking! To be in
command in the military one has to have both sides and know how to use
them well. Janeway does this! In a real life situation I would have no
problems in serving with Captain Janeway.
Roger Venable
boomer2000@earthlink.net
People Can't Accept A Female Captain
o the Star Trek: Voyager detractors that want more gunslinging of Captain Kirk,
the cool, calculated, headiness of Captain Picard, and the omnipresence of Captain Sisko, welcome to
a real world, Captain Janeway, in a science fiction setting. I think what bothers
a lot of the detractors is the fact that she embodies a part of all the previous Captains that have
proceeded her on this series of "Treks," and most people cannot and will not accept the female in
the captain's chair. If a male had done some of the things that Janeway has done, it would be
called leadership and style. Why not her? Does everyone in command positions have to be
superhuman and male? Do females in command positions have to be above and beyond their
male counterparts? Somehow I thought we were all part of the human race. For some who
think survival is not something that can be a central theme, you live in a protected and non-real
world. Ask a survivor of the Hanoi Hilton if survival is not a central theme. I believe you and a
few others have missed a point of the series.
Leonard Hume
wxman@kansas.net
