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
Squirrel Captures Critic's Heart
hile most of the time I agree with your film reviews (I was a
critic myself for 11 years), I really have to disagree with your
review of The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle. I've
been a fan of the show for as long as I can remember and I think
the film was able to perfectly capture the feel of the television
show, while transplanting the humor and its targets to the new
millennium. And all those sappy moments about finding America
and rediscovering your inner child were, in my opinion, a
slightly skewered and quite appropriate attack on the New Age
"feel good" movement.
I'm not saying that your critic should be publicly noogied on a
pay-per-view special or anything like that, I just wanted to get
an opposing viewpoint out there.
Jeff Holland
profbobo@neo.rr.com
Good SF Is Distilled From Bad
aving read many statements about good and bad sf, I thought I'd
wade into the debate with my own opinion, which can be summed up
by saying that bad sf is good sf. Here's why:
Speculative fiction is always hit-and-miss; its diversity is part
of what makes it interesting. And none of it is completely
worthless, although most of it (movies, TV and books, too) is
nearly completely worthless. But in everything there is some
fragment of an idea, something interesting, something
that can be gleaned and cut and polished and passed on. When sf
boomed in this country in the '20s and '30s, most of what was
being written was crap, but it paved the way for the slightly
better crap of the '40s and '50s, which supported the really good
stuff from those decades.
Good sf and bad exist in a kind of chemical equilibrium, each
contributing to and feeding off the other. We wouldn't have so
much bad sf if there weren't good stuff out there, just as Wells
and Verne spawned spin-offs and copy-cats, such as the U.S. sf
writers of the '20s and '30s. Further, most good sf writers have
spent a lot of their time consuming the bad stuff in quantities
that would make most people physically ill.
Since the two exist in equilibrium, distinguishing between good
sf and bad is a dicey operation at best. And trying to get rid
of one and keep the other is like cutting a baby in half.
Matthew Candelaria
matthias@falcon.cc.ukans.edu
Titan A.E. Makes Fine Eye Candy
totally agree with Sean Williams' Issue No. 166 letter "Quibbling Grade While Nibbling Gum" that Titan A.E. is "a great way to blow six or seven bucks ..."
I loved the movie (except for most of the music) especially the
"stunning visuals" (review), and even if the plot wasn't
original, it was interesting and had some twists (unlike Mission: Impossible 2, which desperately needed some). Maybe I'm just a sucker for
space art, but I'd go see it again.
Rose May
alystra@learn.com
Telefilms Keep Heroes Alive
ake a serious look at the tube, fans, and you'll see why genre
TV heroes don't endure.
Shows that last (and I'm talking about beyond the five-season
mark) do so because their characters are allowed, encouraged and
written to evolve (All in the Family is the only notable
exception). Sadly, Star Trek series don't count because
they're currently sold into syndication on a six- to seven-year
plan, so the only reason those heroes hang around is due to
contractual obligations. Another notable exception is Dr.
Who, but how many incarnations of the good doctor did we have
to go through?
The sad truth is that TV heroes don't endure because:
(a) there isn't a single viewer who would want to tune in and see
Manley Wayne saving the universe again this week;
(b) TV actors and writers tire of the same formula and,
consequently, avoid having Manley Wayne save the universe yet
again this week; and
(c) it wouldn't be a commercially viable formula to last more
than three seasons at best, and if you can't sell ad time, you
don't have a series.
The X-Files has broken the mold, but the characters have
been allowed and encouraged to go through multiple story arcs
that forced the audience to care about them. Maintaining
its core fan following and high production values has kept it
churning along, arguably with less quality over the last two
seasons.
The constraints of genre TV just don't fit into the world of
commercial television. That's one reason why I'd challenge the
convictions of those studios who want to continue the adventures
of Space Above and Beyond, Good Versus Evil, Buck Rogers
and even the Classic Star Trek cast. Go the way of the
Robocop and Alien Nation franchises and produce
two-hour telefilms quarterly over the year. You'll keep your
fans happy, you'll keep your franchise alive and you won't be
locked into the potential no-win scenario of episodic commercial
television.
Ed Zimmerman
ncc1205@aol.com
SF Called An Escapist Genre
hile I agree with many of the points Wes Herrin raises in his
Issue No. 167 letter "Star Wars Detracts From SF," I have to say one thing. There is room in the world of sci-fi for both hard movies and escapist
ones (such as Star Wars).
Science fiction in and of itself is an escapist genre. The
simple fact that most of the stories take place in a world that
does not exist means that you are reading them or watching them
to get away from this time/world for a little while. Movies are
the ultimate in this type of entertainment. Hard science fiction
makes for great reading but, with notable exceptions (2001,
Pi), for incredibly boring movies.
Sit back, relax, and enjoy the fact that because of Star Wars,
Independence Day and Star Trek, Hollywood is willing
to put the money out for the thinking person's sci-fi movies!
Paul Liberatore
paliberatore@aol.com
Hollywood's Originality Defended
would like to take issue with Wes Herrin's Issue No. 167 letter "Star Wars Detracts From SF." There is no question that there
is a great deal of independent film talent that Hollywood has
failed to recognize. It is an insult to those directors who are working within
Hollywood's confines to contend that they are motivated purely by
profit. There are many popular Hollywood directors who have
consistently produced quality movies--even some good SF movies.
I thought Deep Impact was unusually good, as was Contact.
Give consumers some credit. My opinion is that Star Wars manages
to capture all of the wonder of otherworldly SF as well as the
essence of early space opera. Independence Day, I'll agree, was
utter crap and its success continues to baffle me, but look at
the success of films like The Matrix and the failure of films
like Battlefield Earth--success and censure both rightly earned.
Independent films can break through--look at The Blair Witch
Project--and I can't understand why Pi wasn't a greater success
than it was. (It still managed more commercial success than the
average independent film.) Generally, when looking at
diminishing returns for things like the Alien sequels, Hollywood
movie-makers will come up with something new and more
interesting. They have to, or else they're looking at less and
less money.
If you really want quality SF, you have to go back to the books,
anyway. Forget Pi, Blade Runner and Alien. How
about Dune, The Foundation Trilogy, Neuromancer? If we
really want to see a resurgence in the genre, hit the shelves and
help some of those struggling authors.
If you know any good independent SF films, let me know. And
please don't say eXistenZ.
Brian Guthrie
Radagast4@home.com
Space Opera + CGI = SF
es Herrin's Issue No. 167 letter "Star Wars
Detracts From SF" pillorying Star Wars and all
other high-end summer fare is a mad rant of drivel. Star Trek is
science fiction? It's space opera, plain and simple.
There's no science at all when you're talking about warp drive
and tachyon fields. It's space opera, just like Star Wars. Herrin's claims of hating
shallow stories, pointless plots, bad acting, useless special
effects and so on describes every episode of Star Trek, much of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and almost all of Voyager.
Herrin must not be aware that George Lucas almost couldn't get
the first Star Wars movie made and had to mortgage everything he
owned to do so. He had a vision. He had a story to tell.
People have turned that vision into a phenomenon unparalleled in
pop culture.
Herrin mentions Blade Runner and Alien. Both good movies, but made
20 years ago when $20 million was considered an inflated budget.
Both were made to make money, just like any other Hollywood fare.
Directors and writers need to eat just like everyone else. So
until the day when studios start making movies for free and
actors don't charge for their services, big-budget CGI-laden
summer movies will be what we see.
Matt Baker
gadsteel@aol.com
But Could Kira Take Ivanova?
n response to the general Star Trek: Deep Space Nine/Babylon 5 debate, I just wonder why the
fans of sci-fi always have to put different universes at odds
with each other. Just because Deep Space 9 and Babylon 5 are
similar shows doesn't automatically indicate that they were
trying to rip each other off or that there's some sort of running
feud that the fans have to add to. Babylon 5 will be remembered
as one of the most innovative sci-fi shows of recent history, and
Deep Space 9 will be remembered as the most well rounded and
character-oriented Trek show since the original series.
Just leave each science-fiction realm to its own means and enjoy
them both without resorting to childish "But my sci-fi is
better!" preference wars.
Chris Mullane
cdm55@accessus.net
Catch The Dark Secret Of Oz
hose of you who missed the uncut, commercial-free
viewing of The Wizard of Oz on Turner Movie Classics
missed out big-time. I know what you're thinking: "I've seen the
movie millions of times, I memorized the damn thing, why do you
say I missed out?" The eleven o'clock repeat had a little
something different. Those with the SAP option on their
television or a Dish Network "Alternative" button in their
language section could have heard Pink Floyd's 1973 masterpiece
album Dark Side of the Moon over the film's soundtrack.
What people have called "Dark Side of Oz" has been playing for
as long as I remember, mostly in clubs or outdoor showings. This
is the first TV viewing of "Dark Side of Oz" that I've heard of.
The album is almost synchronized with the movie. The way the
actors walk and talk goes almost perfectly with the album. You
get the same feeling watching the movie as you get from listening
to the album. For example, when Dorothy, the Scarecrow and the
Tin Man are walking through the forest and meet the Lion--who
they don't know yet is cowardly--the song "Time" plays in the
background. The best part of the movie for me is when Dorothy
first gets to Oz and the song "Money" starts to play.
When you have two masterpieces like that together, nothing can
touch them. It was a great experience.
Joe Stevens
badcompany@earthdome.com
