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.
-- Brooks Peck, Editor
Twins Separated At Birth?
oes Lexx remind anyone else of Red Dwarf? The basic setup of the two shows seems very similar, and the crew and adventures seem RD inspired; there may even be a twist of twisted Blake's Seven. Now, I have not seen many Lexx's episodes, but do want to view more. It is a different type of SF show, and I am willing to give it a chance.
Darren Robinson
drobinson@fhusd.org
Or Maybe Triplets?
fter watching the three episodes of Lexx, I'm still in "huh?" mode. Lexx to me
appears to be Farscape as interpreted by Monty Python.
The alternate universe background is fine--the problem is with the
execution of that background. The bio-mechanical (I assume
bio-mechanical) Lexx, a West Texas mosquito on steroids, is too similar
to Moya, also a bio-mechanical construct.
The characters, a disparate group of people escaping from an evil
empire, is also to similar to Farscape, only in reverse. Farscape has a
800-year-old mystic priest who is dealing with homicidal tendencies and
Lexx has a 2000-year-old dead assassin who is dealing with his
humanistic tendencies. And there are other similarities.
Lexx appears to me to be a show in the genre of Attack of the Killer
Tomatoes--so bad it's good. Which is unfortunate because the show has real potential.
Tom Francis
tomf@neca.com
Xev Isn't A Nympho
'm very surprised at the vehement treatment of Xev in many of the previous Letters about Lexx. To describe a sexually assertive woman as a "nymphomaniac" is not only imprecise, but insulting to women who enjoy their sexuality. If Xev were truly a nymphomaniac, she would already have bedded Stanley. Instead, she is picky. She is not defined by her sexuality, nor is she controlled by it. I think it's refreshing to watch a show wherein there is a sexually aggressive woman who enjoys herself and neither feels guilt for who she is, nor is she killed off for being it, as occurs in so many other genres.
Cassandra Phoenix-Haas
phoenix@madison-web.com
Lexx Be Frank
s are most U.S. viewers, I'm new to this series, and find it refreshingly
different. Regarding the issue of its preoccupation with sex: are some
people forgetting sitcoms or soaps? Most current TV shows are rife with
sexual innuendo, and we're all free to accept them or change the
channel. I think Lexx is being over-analyzed, due to the fact that
we're used to having SF movies and series presented as morality
plays. While there's nothing wrong with this, room should be made for
programming that doesn't take itself too seriously, and doesn't try to
send a deep philosophical message (see: Python, Monty).
Barbara Wilkin
auntbea@erols.com
It Takes Skill
never thought that anyone could take a subject as interesting and exciting as sex and make it boring and dull, but I was wrong, the writers of Lexx did it.
Cynthia Zaffuto
czhicks@earthlink.net
DiCaprio Is No Vader
was absolutely disgusted to hear that Leonardo DiCaprio is in the running to play Anakin Skywalker in the new Star Wars. I am a long time Star Wars fan but if they cast him in the next movie I am one fan who will refuse to see it. He is a horrible actor and completely unconvincing in any role he has played.
Luc Vail
whiskeyandwineismyonlyfriend@yahoo.com
And He's Too Skinny, Too
am very discouraged to even hear rumors that Leonardo DiCaprio is being considered for any part in the Star Wars films. I hope that Lucasfilms is denying them because they know it is a horrible idea. He is not that good of an actor and is presented as having a horrible personal lifestyle. Besides, how would that scrawny, dumb-looking kid grow up to be the huge persona of Darth Vader? The Star Wars films are my favorite of all time, but if Leonardo has any part in one I won't pay to see it.
Owain Glyndwr
testytesty@juno.com
Paramount Will Choose The Trek That Sells
was genuinely impressed with some of the ideas submitted for Star Trek
in the last Letters column. It's a shame that Paramount doesn't pay
attention to what the fans come up with. Unfortunately, it's unlikely
any of these ideas will come to pass. For Paramount, like most
companies, it's about the bottom line and not artistic freedom, creative
expression, or even just making something decent. It's about trends,
demographics, and what sells. This should be self evident in the fact
that Paramount runs multiple Trek series, licenses everything from Trek
water to Trek lottery tickets, and is constantly repackaging Trek videos
into an endless array of collectors sets to boost repeat video
purchases. And Paramount has every right to do so, as they own the
franchise. But don't expect cutting edge drama, thought provoking
stories, or detailed character development. Expect whatever the flavor
of the month is at Paramount. Dawson's Trek, Trek-Wrestlemania, Blair
Trek, or Who Wants To Win A Million Federation Credits? Myself? I
wished they'd taken up Roddenberry's idea for Andromeda...a Federation
that has disintegrated...Vulcans reverted to their warlike past,
Klingons without anyone to stand in their way, and a technological dark
age with one last starship standing between the utter destruction of
what is left of the Federation and utter chaos. Either that or the Love
Boat in space idea.
John McCulloch
j.j.mcculloch@worldnet.att.net
Show Us Trek's Little People
o add my two cents to the "next Trek" discussion, I'd like to suggest a
show that features the "little people" as the main characters: the
ensigns, the miscellaneous security guards, and the lab assistants,
characters with little rank who most of us can better relate to.
Basically, the people who are usually only around to get shot up before the
opening credits. It's been tried in that one Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, and worked, so
why not put it to use as a series?
Personally I'd rather not see a new series made at all, but I doubt
Paramount will let the franchise die so soon. If they do go ahead with a
fifth series (or sixth, if anyone's counting the animated one), I'd like to
see them at least try something different, because like many fans I won't
stick around for a fifth dose of more of the same.
Aaron Campbell
squishyhumanbrain@softhome.net
Show Us The Whole Crew
rom what I have been reading I gather that there are currently three ideas circulating around for a new Star Trek series. One would put George Takei back in the captain's chair of the Excelsior, reprising his role as Captain Sulu. Another would put teeny-boppers in space and would be centered around Starfleet Academy. The third would follow the exploits of a Starfleet Special Forces Unit. All of these ideas have merit, but would they really be any different from what we've seen already?
Most likely all these shows would center around a main cast of seven characters and each episode would center around one or two of them and follow them as they find themselves in a new crisis. They would be filled with plenty of bad acting, limp plots, and, of course, plenty of last minute fixes. Do we really want anymore of this? Someone wrote that Star Trek doesn't need a break. Well, the whole point of having a break is that after a while we tend to forget how bad things were so when they come back at us with the same old series in a new guise we'll think its the greatest thing we've ever seen.
What I propose is that Star Trek be taken to a whole new format all together. You see, it doesn't matter whether the show be centered around a particular starship, Starfleet academy, or some black-ops unit. What does matter is coming up with ways to keep the show fresh and exciting. To this end, I suggest that instead of following around the seven senior officers of a starship for the entire series that we, the audience, be exposed to the entire crew. Each week the show would come on and it would be about a different set of crew members, or what have you. The plot lines don't have to be filled with the lamest ideas SF has to offer either. They could be simple, concerning themselves with everyday life aboard a starship.
Being a regular viewer of Star Trek: Voyager it is easy to see that the writers are running out of ideas for their seven character crew. There's only so much you can do, but imagine having a cast of 200 characters each with their own history, responsibilities, and motivations. The possibilities would be endless.
Timothy Johnston
tjohnsto@usc.edu
Takei Can So Act
n his Issue No. 143 letter, "Takei Can't Handle A Lead Role" Sam Farris writes, "George Takei is not a good enough actor to pull off a lead role. He's okay in a supporting role, but for a series lead you need someone with the talent of a Patrick Stewart or even William Shatner (or Tim Allen for that matter)."
I believe this to be phenomenally unfair to Takei. An actor is only as
good as his material (see everyone in Batman and Robin, and half the cast
in Batman Forever), and Takei has never been given the chance to shine.
However, his Captain appeal is incredible. In Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Takei as
Captain of the Excelsior was one of the best things about the movie, and the
man has coolness like Sean Connery and Patrick Stuart. In contrast, one of the
worst things about the original series was William Shatner as Kirk (the ultimate
example being Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, which I don't openly admit exists). Takei is
a much better actor than Shatner. To continue through the list of
captains, Stuart's Capt. Picard was perhaps the best Star Trek Captain
ever, yet in the latter seasons and feature films, I found myself growing
bored and annoyed with the show. A captain cannot hold the entire series
together. What made the original series, Star Trek: The Next Generation, and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine so enjoyable were
their casts. An ensemble cast works well in a Star Trek world. No single
character will carry the show, so maybe having a "not good enough actor to
pull off a lead role" as the captain is just the thing to ensure that the
rest of the cast is well rounded.
Steve Kacir
kacir@mail.med.upenn.edu
Time For The Next Next Generation
don't think I'm the only fan to have been fascinated and
drawn into Star Trek: The Next Generation precisely because it jumped forward and
showed us the state of the universe some time after Kirk's
years at the helm. Well, we've been stuck now in the same
"time" for three series. I'm pretty sick of it. More
interesting to me: What will the Federation (should it still
exist) look like 200 to 500 years from "now"? More
integrated? Less or more righteous? Conquered, transformed,
re-formed, divided? Does technology progress, regress,
disappear, become rejected or revered? Are there any longer
"pure" humans? I would be hooked once again to see how the
writers envision human (and alien) destiny "generations"
after TNG.
E. Hauck
eliani@together.net
Forget Trek, Bring Back Doctor Who
have read all the comments, and while I like to watch Trek (I was raised on reruns of Star Trek), and I like The X-Files, and I'm ga-ga over Xena: Warrior Princess, what I would really, really like to see is the return to TV or to the big screen, of Doctor Who. It has the longest history, 1963-1989 and then the 1996 TV movie. And some of Doctors Who's concepts are really quite novel. It's sad that the BBC passed on the Paul Anderson/Jeremy Bolt project because I would have really liked to see it, had it materialized. But until such times as the good Doctor returns, I guess I'll just have to "make do."
Shahn-Ryan Schumacher
silverone@hotmail.com
Farscape Is Too Young
am a big fan of Farscape, but I am totally against the idea of a Farscape motion picture. At least for now. First of all, Farscape has been on for how long? A year? And they're already considering a movie? Why don't we slow down a little. Farscape hasn't gained enough popularity for a film yet. I know that it is much more successful than the creators had anticipated, but it's on the SCI FI Channel. And since the genre of SCI FI's programming is aimed at a more specific interest group, it's shows aren't as well-known as those on the more "diverse" stations who have everything from Just Shoot Me to Who Wants to be a Millionaire?
I think that Farscape is best to be left as a TV series. And a cult TV series at that. Only about five other people at my school have ever heard of Farscape, and only two of them have ever watched it. I hate to say it, but Farscape just isn't popular enough to become a successful movie. At least not yet.
Dylan Ramey
dyl@n-link.com
Gambit Can Appear In Sequels
n response to Kelly Ann Hampton's Issue No. 144 letter "Whither Gambit?" I of all people should be mad about the exclusion of everyone's favorite Cajun. I have always loved Gambit. A fun-loving French quarter guy with a mysterious past who is love with a girl that can suck his mind away (Rogue) and has a French accent...they rarely get cooler than that! But like you said, they can't put too much into the movie or it will seriously suck. Look at Mortal Kombat 2. They had just about all the characters from the game and that movie was a crappy sequel to the cool original. You can't do too much. Besides, the other reason for his exclusion is that the filmmakers wanted to focus mostly on the first and second generation X-Men teams, the ones from the sixties and seventies, which Gambit was never a part of. He didn't join until the eighties. I wouldn't worry too much about it though. With this kind of movie, there are most definitely going to be sequels and I know he will be in them. It would be a mistake not to include him.
Tom Colarusso
third_gunmen@yahoo.com
"It's Bull Crit"
was reading the letters section and found comments such as, "I have never read one of Shatner's novels and I don't plan to," or something along that line. I also see letters panning a Sulu series in Star Trek. Lexx has aired one episode and has been shot down more than any other work I have heard of. People have already started debating Battlefield Earth, every possible Trek series, and, probably, the price of American Cheese in Canada. What's the problem here? As a favorite high school instructor once told me, "It's bull crit." You haven't seen enough of this stuff to be acting negative towards it. If you haven't read Shatner's Delta Search, don't infer that it's a bad work. If you've only seen one episode of Lexx, stay around for a season before you condemn it all. Think a Sulu series is a bad idea? Wait until they make it. George Takei has done a lot of acting. Remember, he starred opposite John Wayne, he was in Mulan, and even on 3rd Rock From the Sun. Does this mean the show will be great? I cannot say, but, reviewing these works, it means it has potential.
Just imagine what SF would be like if no one gave things a second look or really paid attention. Trek would have disappeared after a season or at the least just slipped silently into syndication. Mystery Science Theater 3000 may have got canned before making it to Comedy Central and, later, the SCI FI Channel. I believe that science fiction would be far poorer for the lack of it.
Give things a chance. If more people (or someone now) would give shows like Harsh Realms, Brimstone, etc. a second look instead of "bull critting" them as bad shows without seeing them, well, then science fiction would be more diverse. Admittedly, I am not a big Lexx fan so far, but I'm not tossing the thing out yet. And, though I am a would-be author, I, perhaps, can best persuade everyone with a quote from a real one. On Sci Fi Buzz, Harlan Ellison once said, "Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that's horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our own opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing. Its just bibble-babble."
James W. Thomas
captain_scott@hotmail.com
