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
Battlefield Movie Betrays The Novel
ust saw Battlefield Earth, and having read the book in 1984, I feel taken. This movie is more like a long-winded commercial, just offering the tasty dessert while leaving out the main course. It look likes Hollywood turns to SF as quick money and not story value. This story was cut up and mutated into a disappointment. After waiting sixteen years for a movie, I now think it would have been better to have left this one in book form.
I'm sure John Travolta had all good intentions, but this is just too massive a novel to be handled in the way it was. This movie requires a commitment that has probably never been achieved in movie making before.
Jeff Wilson
jaw@jorsm.com
Be Open To Battlefield Earth
umanity is an endangered species.
That's how Battlefield Earth starts. With that simple phrase we are transported to an Earth we don't recognize, and one that has been destroyed completely without our help. I think that is what has made people turn their collective noses to the sky when talking about this movie. Look at it--men in loin cloths? Aliens ruling the Earth? Aliens driven by power and greed? Never!
We seem so willing to accept that man is greedy and destructive, but we find it hard to believe that there could be anyone in the universe that is better at it than we are. Surely if someone landed on Earth from another planet they must be nice, or at least indifferent.
I believe that Battlefield Earth was good story. Was it Dune? No, but I didn't expect it to be. Was the movie version of Dune really Dune? No, but I didn't expect that either. Is Star Wars really science fiction? That's debatable. Is Star Wars loved by millions including myself? Yes.
What I am saying is Battlefield Earth is exactly what I expected it to be. A good time, a swash buckling movie with the bad guy wearing a black hat, and the good guy wearing a white, er, loincloth. Don't necessarily look for depth (even though if you look hard enough there is a definite science over superstition theme) look to have fun and take a romp in the 31st century. If you let your mind be open, you may just have a good time at this film.
David Voderberg
alphawolf01@msn.com
All My Favorites Are On SCI FI
just felt I should respond to Fredric P. Conrad, Jr.'s
Issue No. 159 letter, "SCI FI Is Declining Rapidly." I've only had the SCI FI Channel for a little over a
year, but I think it's great. First of all, it's one of the most
watched channels in our home. SCI FI has started airing two of my
favorite shows, specifically the shows that Conrad referred to as
trash: Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and Xena: Warrior Princess. Also, SCI FI has acquired the rights to and
will be airing Babylon 5 (another favorite) this September. I'm
hoping that once B5 begins to air, ratings will be high enough for SCI FI to
consider negotiating with WB and/or TNT about picking up the first 13 episodes of
Crusade and then producing the rest of the series. I also love Farscape,
Star Trek (all forms), Sliders, Quantum
Leap, Seaquest DSV. Really, the list of SF-related shows and movies I
like/love is endless. SCI FI is doing a fine job in my
opinion.
There are a lot of
things that aren't technically SF. Sure, fantasy is one of them, but I
don't think horror is truly SF either. I'm just happy there is a
channel I can turn to for all three. In the end, I hope all my favorite
SF-related shows end up on the SCI FI Channel. But I have to agree that I
don't like Tales from the Crypt, good vs. evil, or Lexx.
Lisa Cypert
necro1@primenet.com
Bring Back SF News
'm in complete agreement with Frederic P. Conrad,
Jr.'s Issue No. 159 letter "SCI FI Is Declining Rapidly." However, he left
out one more negative point: SCI FI's lack of science fiction news!
In the past, shows like SF Vortex, Sci Fi Buzz, The Anti-Gravity
Room, Inside Space and the Masters of Fantasy specials were the
highlights of my viewing week.
Seeing and hearing my favorite authors,
artists and filmmakers was like attending an SF con without ever leaving
home! Now, however, in an effort to attract a wider audience, SCI FI
has abandoned its fan base and clogged up the airwaves with trash like
Lexx and good vs. evil (which is about as SF as Bewitched!)
Now, there's nothing wrong with making money; and
if SCI FI wants to continue doing so, then they should give their
core audience the respect that they deserve. Otherwise, it might be time
for us to jump ship.
Mike Murphy
mmurphy@globaldialog.com
Air More Classics Like Thundar
omething that the SCI FI Channel can do to address both the slipping quality of its programming and the fragmentation of the SF community is to put more classic programming on during some of its prime spots. Not all, and not the same shows every night.
SCI FI seems to have this philosophy that all its programming is intended to do is fill time. From this perspective, the block programming makes sense, but from any other perspective, it doesn't. Even I can't commit to four hours of The Outer Limits every Monday night. The same philosophy also gives rise to the daytime programming, where series are stuck in the same time slot every day so that they quickly run through all their episodes and end up repeating far too frequently.
By mixing and matching its line-ups SCI FI will find that it is not only keeping its audience interested, but entertaining them as well. Further, the classic programming should not be limited to series such as Battlestar Galactica, which is good, but runs out of episodes if shown every night, but maybe include some forgotten favorites like Space: 1999. And what about cartoons like Thundar the Barbarian to take the place of the schlock they've got on in the mornings now. I would also appreciate more classic movies instead of the '70s and '80s felgercarb they're showing now.
Ever since I got the SCI FI Channel, I got in the habit of checking it every time I'm home, or just passing through. I'm always excited by the thought of SF programming 24 hours a day. Sadly, the reality is that I'm almost always tuning in another channel or turning the tube off when I see what's on.
Matthew Candelaria
matthias@falcon.cc.ukans.edu
Good Shows Don't Get Too Serious
t's a pity Fredric P. Conrad, Jr. ("SCI FI Is Declining Rapidly," Issue No. 159) has such a narrow view of what constitutes "good sci-fi," and that there is no room for fantasy in that definition. Fortunately for all of us, the SCI FI Channel isn't hobbled with that narrow focus, and continues to provide us with shows we enjoy immensely.
SCI FI has the vision to carry unique programming like good vs. evil and Lexx--two shows with a skewed outlook that give us a different slant on life, friendship and duty. We are also graced with shows like Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and Xena: Warrior Princess. While not strictly SF, they are fun to watch and don't take themselves too seriously.
I think that's what all these shows have in common--they don't take themselves too seriously and have a good time while telling their stories. We the audience are having a great time watching them.
Deborah Brown
MrsSpooky@aol.com
SCI FI Has Changed
feel that there is less emphasis today at the SCI FI Channel on the core idea of SF entertainment and more on finding ways to recycle other USA Studios properties (Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, Xena: Warrior Princess, good vs. evil, etc.)
Let me put this in terms that even a studio executive can understand. I am a die-hard SF fan and I watch the SCI FI Channel less and less as time goes by. I can still remember a time when I would watch SCI FI instead of prime time TV. I haven't changed, have you?
Tom Longfellow
tlongfellow@home.com
Japanese Seem To Love Big Guns
'm surprised anime reviewer Tasha Robinson only seems to be noticing
anime's odd fascination with guns now. The fact that firearms are virtually
illegal in Japan is precisely why the Japanese are so fascinated with them.
Aside from the obvious Sonoda fetish pieces like Gunsmith Cats and Riding Bean, I've long held that Japan's love (and jealousy) of American-style
firearms ownership just has to be the root of the otherwise utterly illogical
habit of having giant Macross and Bubblegum Crisis robots fight not with
anything logical like internal weapons bays, guided missiles or cannons
mounted on their forearms, but giant robot-sized rifles and pistols!
This reaches its ridiculous zenith with Patlabor, where an often painfully
realistic series is suddenly burdened with nine-foot-tall exact replicas of
Colt Pythons that fire similarly upsized Winchester-Western .357 Magnum
cartridges that have to be reloaded one at a time--by hand! Puny little
human hands at that! (This always kind of bugged me--couldn't they have just
upsized a speed loader for poor Noa?)
The Japanese love our guns
and the freedom that comes with them. Of course, it's a whole lot easier to
love them an ocean away!
C.J. Scott
Innpchan@aol.com
A Gun Is A Tool
egarding Tasha Robinson's apprehension about "Guns equal freedom," the message of the
third episode of Trigun is quite simple. A gun is a tool, nothing more. It has no
moral value one way or another. Frank Marlow the gunsmith began
drinking because his family was killed by robbers using his guns.
Conversely, his guns save the whole town only because everyone in the town
has a gun, and is willing to protect the town.
Put it another way. "An armed society is a polite society."
Rodrick Su
rsu@tigana.com
I'm Sick Of Arthur C. Clarke
'm getting more and more fed up with novels under the name of Arthur C. Clarke. It may be a good marketing ploy, but I simply reject buying anything with the name Arthur Clarke since I experienced the Richter 10 novel.
Clarke's novels are only an indication of the recent "made to order" novels, that are worse than made to order PC software.
What have we done to deserve that in the SF community?
Kurt Friis Hansen
kfriis@kfriis.dk
Star Trek Needs Strong Captains
awn Clark misses the point entirely in her Issue No. 159 letter "Voyager Is My Inspiration" when she claims that Star Trek: Voyager is good because it has a woman in it. Having a woman or a man is not the issue here. Janeway as a character, and perhaps the actor who plays her, aren't strong enough to inspire respect or awe the way Kirk did, the way Picard did or even characters like Riker and Spock.
I remember a Commander Shelby, who served under Riker during one of Star Trek: The Next Generation's best episodes "Best of Both Worlds." Shelby was young, she was strong and she commanded respect both as a character and the actress. A woman could have been a great captain in Star Trek. It's the setting, it's the writing, the incoherent plot lines the uninteresting character development, the sometimes childlike treatment of their own Star Trek lore and the inconsistencies from episode to episode that Star Trek fans and ex-fans are griping about.
I've always liked having a man captain on the bridge. But if the plot was great, and the storyline and character development great and there was a woman captain heading the whole thing, I'd be the first to support such an endeavor. Unfortunately, such is not the case. Clark says that if we don't like the show we shouldn't be watching it. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was cancelled for poor ratings. Voyager is soon to end up in the same place. I think people have stopped watching the shows a long time ago.
Erik Salazar
eriksalazar@hotmail.com
Uhura's Race Wasn't Important
n response to Dawn Clark's Issue No. 159 letter "Voyager Is My Inspiration," Uhura was not seen as a black, she was seen as the first woman in a position of power on TV. She was the communications officer, one of the most important roles of any officer in any kind of service. She was one of the few women on TV that shaped many young girls' views of themselves and the world and it had absolutely nothing to do with her race. The only time her race was ever an issue was in the episode where she and Captain Kirk were forced to kiss, and it was not an issue with the fans of the show, just of the critics and the network. Uhura is still the one woman I admire and aspire towards. Even as a child I could see and feel her morals, goals and beliefs. Nichelle Nichols is an exceptional actress and a woman who was able to communicate to little girls across the world that it is okay to be a girl in today's world. We have dignity, honor and strength all from within ourselves. If anyone doubts what a joy it is to be feminine and be in a position of power, try watching the movies Star Trek 3: The Search for Spock and Star Trek 5: The Final Frontier. The feeling one gets from Uhura is one of ultimate power. She is given a job to do, she does her best, she gets the job done and she enjoys it. She communicated to me personally that it is definitely okay and desirable to be feminine and that I could be and do anything I wanted if I just put my mind to it. Without her as Uhura in Star Trek I would not have become the woman I am today.
Janette Schill
mschill@cyberhighway.net
Future Exploration Will Never End
. Francis, in his Issue No. 159 letter "Face It, Trek Is Finished," sounds suspiciously
like Nietzsche pronouncing "God is dead." (Christians, it should be noted,
are fond of quoting God: "Nietzsche is dead.") If Star Trek is tired it's because
the starship wandering around the galaxy theme is tired. Okay. We can agree
with that. But is the notion of future technology, future human expansion in
the cosmos, future societies, future theoretical understanding, finished?
I doubt it. Unless we one day come to the much-touted (by certain offbeat
historians) "end of history," there will always be a place for Trek.
Craig S. Shoemake
CSShoemake@aol.com
No More Violence For Episode II
egarding Scott Rapoport's argument in his Issue No. 159 letter "Episode II Must Aim For Adults," to argue that what adults want is more violence seems bizarre. It is the adolescent audience that is most thrilled by "Biff--Pow!" and bloody spurting. But beyond that is fact that Star Wars is based on an older form, the movie serial. It grew (and presumably still grows) from Lucas' love of the old movie form with simple plot lines, clearly delineated good and evil, and briskly paced scripting. In many ways George Lucas has updated the form and raised it to its highest level. Star Wars cannot, should not and in all likelihood, will not move away from that vision. It is that very innocence, that naiveté that makes it so emotionally appealing. The light saber duels are always fun, but only because I care about the characters and I want the good guys to win. Alter the balance within this universe and you betray the central personality of its reality.
Jay Phillippi
jdrp@cecomet.net
