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
The Tick vs. Megaton Man
was a little saddened to hear about how Ben Edlund's The Tick may become a live-action television show. I wasn't sad for anyone who likes The Tick or follows the franchise or owns the material. What bothered me is how one comic like The Tick can garner so much media attention, while the predecessor that it obviously copied still struggles for attention.
Don Simpson's Megaton Man (which can be seen at http://www.megatonman.com/) bowed years before The Tick ever came upon the scene and ate up reader and viewer interest. Before followers of The Tick start to get up in arms about my comments, read some of Simpson's stuff...the early Megaton Mans especially were re-written by The Tick's creators. Just give some credit to where it's due.
Mayumi Hirtzel
pmxo@pobox.upenn.edu
Larson Disrespects Galactica Fans
bout Glen Larson and his attempt at putting Battlestar Galactica on the IMAX route while dissing Richard Hatch over his version of the show: Who in the hell does that guy think he is? It's bad enough we had to stomach the "It's so bad, but it'll never be good" type of SF of Knight Rider, Nightman, and his recent piece of video-excrement Millennium Man (as if we haven't had enough The Six Million Dollar Man rehashes from him already, using a leotard-clad Sandra Bullock to help us overlook the glaring errors and goofs). But he has the nerve to belittle the motives of someone who not only did his best acting with the sometimes shoddy material (penned by the very same detractor, by the way) but also cares enough about the fans to give them some rather quality material involving the true future of the last Battlestar of the Twelve Colonies, not that sorry garbage that was Galactica: 1980!
Richard Hatch and his fellows have been doing their damnedest to make amends for the betrayal Larson pulled on the Galactica fans. In fact, several letters in this publication and others have voiced some rather strong language on how Larson should be shot into space without the benefit of a Colonial Viper or a spacesuit. Hatch got into the door first with his two novels, comic book series and fantastic trailer. Therefore by all rights, his vision should be the one that Universal must give top priority. Glen Larson may have the copyrights to the show, but he'll never have the respect of the fans. Not after all the stunts he's pulled and all the dreck he's unloaded to an audience who are just getting a little tired of being made fools of. Give the fans and me a break, Larson. Drop your little attempt at bandwagon-riding and leave Galactica to the more capable hands of Commander Apollo! (Unless of course, you like being abused by irate fans.)
James K. Chambliss
WeirdArchives@excite.com
Galactica Is Better Suited For TV
have read the recent press releases on Glen Larson's efforts to produce
an IMAX movie based on Battlestar Galactica. The project seems misguided.
I feel that the IMAX format is limited--and certainly not the best venue to
launch a revival of the saga. However, I am impressed with former
Galactica star Richard Hatch's own revival project, and I believe it should be produced as a new television series.
In television, there is far greater opportunity for character and story
development, with less pressure to engineer the "broad appeal" that is
expected in most cinematic efforts. This mistake has been made with a
couple
of the Star Trek films, writing for everyone instead of writing a story that is consistent within its own context. The slapstick and anachronistic humor of the most recent Trek film really detracted from it.
I believe that the best science fiction and fantasy produced in recent
years has been on television--like Babylon 5, Highlander, or the animated Batman--series that certainly had appeal but were not "dumbed down" in order to succeed.
Television also allows for more time to tell the story. Generally, I think
there is too much risk and not enough time in a two-hour movie--especially
an IMAX movie--to continue the Battlestar Galactica saga.
Greg Hignight
Denversaur@aol.com
William Gibson + movies = disaster
ell, that's not quite the equation. It's more like William Gibson + movies + bad producers/directors = disaster.
Hollywood's failure in the case of Gibson is in its failure to understand his work and cyberpunk in general. They immediately label it science fiction and want some glossy, high-tech gadgets helping the hero along. And while Gibson's got lots of gadgets and science, they're seldom glossy, and they usually hinder as well as help.
Producers and directors also seem to underestimate the human depths of Gibson's work, as they do most of science fiction in general. To them, science fiction is the excuse to drag out the heavy hitters of the special and visual effects industries to get the next biggest movie and the next biggest blockbuster. The strengths of Gibson's stories lay in their characters and their humanity (or lack of) and their themes.
Maybe if Robert Longo's too clean, overblown Johnny Mnemonic mated with Abel Ferrara's too non-tech New Rose Hotel, we'd be okay...but they didn't, and we aren't.
You know who I'd like to tackle a Gibson movie? Either Martin Scorsese or David Fincher. Both have the dark, seamy, sensibilities that Gibson needs, as well as the feel for what's inside a story. Actually, I'd like to see me tackle a Gibson movie, but being poor, I can't afford the budget to get Molly's finger razors to look right, and we wouldn't want that....
Daniel Kaufman
kaisrdanse@aol.com
Bold New Ideas For Star Trek
have read few articles from the Star Trek producers that there is the need for a new and original format for the continuation of the series. In the articles was also confirmed that a Starfleet Academy and Klingon-based series is out of the question--which I agree with, because such a show would quickly run into creative blackholes (i.e. will soon become boring). So, here, I would like to spin my idea of a creative future series:
1. I believe that a future series should take place in a relatively not-too-distant future from the Star Trek: The Next Generation/Star Trek: Deep Space Nine universe so that it won't alienate the present fans/viewers (i.e. 30-50 years in the future). Many of the Original Series (OS) folks do not like the newer versions of Star Trek (to my knowledge) so a radically different Star Trek universe in a new series may alienate some present fans.
2. The new series would be based on a Diplomatic Corps (DC) concept - i.e. a team of "UN" type of conflict management specialists that are sent around the Alpha Quadrant (AQ) to settle/manage disputes between species. The DC would not be under Federation control but would be formed by species from around the AQ with quasi-jurisdictional powers to manage/enforce disputes in order to create a more peaceful AQ.
3. The AQ is in turmoil because of the emancipation of the many species presently dominated by the Klingons, Romulans, etc. Thus, there would be insecurity in the AQ.
4. The Federation is no longer ruled from Earth. There are more Federation aliens in charge; not only humans at most levels of command.
5. A story would take place over the span of several episodes (i.e. three to four) to allow character and full story development. This would limit the "alien of the week" stories that are present in so many past episodes. It would also allow development of more expensive sets and aliens to be created. And, last, it would not create a shortage of episode ideas since a story would last several episodes.
I like the Star Trek series/movies but I think that sometimes quality leaves a lot to be desired (i.e. consistency, scientifically correct dialog, and the limitation of techno-babble).
I hope someone up there will see this and somehow find some inspiration or gain some creative stuff so the next series would top the rest.
Lucian Popa
lpopa@scimail.uwaterloo.ca
A Rest Won't Kill Star Trek
'm afraid I must state that, after reading James Green's Issue No. 139 letter "Star Trek Must Not Rest!" I feel Star Trek is in dire need of a rest--not just
someone who "is not burned out." It has been overworked and it is in need
of a dire transfusion of new blood. By that I mean writers, producers, lots of
behind-the-scenes changes. And after being subsequently humiliated by
the alleged and pitiful "tribute" called Ultimate Trek: Star Trek's Greatest Moments, I am all for
getting anything Trek related away from UPN, Viacom and Paramount. They have done little for it ever since Star Trek: The Next Generation went on the air but give us more Trek--and
not better Trek either. (Except for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine which was quite so-so at first,
than got great after Berman paid less attention to it and Ira Stephen Behr
and his talented team of writers worked on it.)
And, it's not like it's going to die if it takes a respite. Look back to
1966, there was classic Star Trek and it lasted only three seasons with a
total of 79 episodes. People had to wait for years upon years until any
fresh
canon material came out! Who would have thought that a small show with so
few
episodes could have amassed a total of four series (counting the animated
series), almost 10 movies, and countless millions of fans? Certainly not
the
people who canceled the show after the third year, not even Gene
Roddenberry
himself knew that Trek would live on in its fans!
So what if it takes a break? Yes, it may need new blood, but it also needs
rest. The people cannot get an idea for another series and refine it within a quick time period. Believe me, Trek isn't going anywhere--it lives not only on the television screen, in books, in comics, or in any other finite medium, but in the minds and hearts of Trek's fans. That is how Trek survived after being axed by NBC, and if Trek (any and all of it) takes a breather and a few years of "vacation" time, it isn't going to die.
Joe Beaudoin
JoeBeaud2@aol.com
Try It Before You Condemn It
his whole debate with Pokémon, Dungeons & Dragons, and Magic: The Gathering has
gotten a little out of hand. I will admit that there is violence in all
three franchises. Last time I checked there is violence in everything. The
book that contains the most violence ever printed is the Bible, and it
has caused more violence than any other work of literature in world
history. More than even Mein Kampf. The Bible can be traced back to be the driving factor behind
great loss of life, from the Crusades to the atrocities committed to the
Native Americans by the Spaniards and ourselves. All of the games I
mentioned above are just that, games. They are make believe, not real. I
suggest that before a parent condemn their children or their hobbies, play
it with them first. People who don't have knowledge about what they
complain about sound like fools. When it comes to things like this, don't
listen to your friends, your clergy, or your psychic, learn for yourself.
Those people I mentioned probably never tried it either, they just went by
word of mouth. Be an adult and learn for yourself. Play or observe a
session with an open mind and judge for yourself. Then, if you still think
it is evil, so be it. At least you tried and can honestly say you don't
agree.
Tom Curran
adelrond@hotmail.com
Pokémon's All About Money
fter reading the comments of other readers in recent
issues, I have come to the conclusion that the Pokémon
phenomenon is just marketing hype.
Pokémon has nothing to do with demons or the occult or
anything other than just plain money. I will admit that
I know very little about all of the characters and the
show's premise, however, history repeats itself.
I remember in the '70s and early '80s all of the hoopla
surrounding D&D, I haven't heard much about it in years
until I read some of the comments in recent issues.
As of yet I haven't seen or heard of any major acts of
demonic terrorism attributed to D&D. Do you remember the
Cabbage Patch Kids hype, or how about Teenage Mutant Ninja
Turtles hype? That's right, it's all hype, no one is trying
to subvert children into the occult, what is happening is
as old as time.
Your children are only being subverted into buying
merchandise. Whatever the fad or craze is, it is only
a marketing ploy to get you to buy this or to go to
the movie.
I could care less about Pokémon, but the hype is there.
For instance, here I am writing about something that
doesn't interest me but, even I am not immune to the
constant advertising on TV, radio and magazines.
The creators of Pokémon are hoping that this will become
as classic as Looney Toons for one reason only...money.
Before we get into unfounded religious semantics, just
remember that the only thing evil about all of this is
the love of money.
Billy Drown
billydgtr@knology.net
Only Villains Force Pokémon To Fight
his is in response to Eric Spratling's Issue No. 139 letter, "Pokémon Is Rife With Hypocrisy." First things first. He said something about not knowing what the show was about. First of all, how can someone attack a show that he doesn't know anything about. The reason that I know he hasn't seen the show is his comment about "What if the Pokémon just won't get in his ball?" Numerous viewers will agree with me on the fact that the Pokémon Pikachu has refused to get into the ball tons of times. The main character Ash doesn't really care. As far as "forcing" them to fight. Ash also doesn't force any of his Pokémon to fight. He cares for them, and they choose to fight. The only people on the show and the game that "force" the Pokémon to fight for their own personal gain is Team Rocket, or whatever bad guy comes into play. Any kid knows that we should not imitate the bad guy...so why would this be teaching the kids "wrong" things?
Any cartoon on Cartoon Network will have just as much violence as Pokémon. Look at Captain Planet. He used violence to punish the bad guy for polluting the Earth.
I'm not complaining, but please, please, please, know what you're talking about before you completely tear down everything a story stands for.
Chris Lawton
skaboybilly@canoemail.com
Don't Jump To Conclusions
ric Spratling's letter in Issue No. 139, "Pokémon Is Rife With Hypocrisy," is a wonderful example of a common event--people jumping to conclusions based upon little data and weak reasoning. One would hope that such would be absent from letters to a publication who's first word is "Science." Sadly enough, this is not the case.
I do not care to enter the debate on how "bad" Pokémon may or may not be. Mr. Spratling admits to having seen only the end part of a movie, and yet he claims to know its whole theme and meaning. Could not the preceding hour of film had some bearing on the question? He also claims to know the full theme of the series, but shows little sign of actually having watched a significant fraction of it with open eyes and mind. Quite simply, he has far too little data to support his conclusions, and should have recognized the fact.
The same criticism often applies to people who see occult or Satanic influence coming from card games and role-playing games. If one has not read the book, or seen the movie, or played the game, one is hardly in a position to condemn it. I suggest that anyone who wishes to make any such statements should first attempt open-minded and intellectually honest research of the topic before doing so.
Arnis Kletnieks
arnis_public@wiremaze.net
Parents, Do Your Job
agree with what Dylan Ramey wrote in his Issue No. 139 letter "TV Should Not Raise Children." I keep on hearing about how TV is such a bad influence on children, but the parents do not want to take the responsibility and just push that little switch that says "OFF" or turn the channel if they are so worried about it. It is the parents' responsibility to teach their kids what is right and wrong, not the TV. The only thing that I have to say to them is to get up and do your job!
Burl B. Bull
burlbull@connect.net
