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.
-- Editor
Focus On Innovation In SF Films
rankly I was flattered by the reaction to my Issue No. 167 letter "Star Wars Detracts From SF." For the most part, the responses were well thought out, and raised issues which I was unable to raise in my original letter. However, my letter was in regard to films, and only films. I intentionally left out other mediums so I could focus on the issue which is most important to me. I get a warm feeling in my heart when I see a piece of true genius, such as those I mentioned two weeks ago, along with many others too numerous to mention. Film is more than a pastime for me, thus I am beyond disappointed when I pay to see, as one writer called it, "crap."
To answer more questions, people have been emailing me asking what I think about The Matrix, The Fifth Element, Strange Days, Dark City, etc. With the exceptions of The Matrix and the Trek films I mentioned, I cannot think of any CGI-laden film which I truly enjoy (though it is possible there are a few which I have forgotten at the moment). In my own defense, I enjoy The Matrix more as a martial arts film than for its SF content.
I would welcome any emails from those who wish to discuss my views further. However, I still stand by my previous statement: "Let us finally take a stand, and support those who really have vision. Let us send Hollywood a clear message: No more sequels, no more Independence Days or Star Wars, no more crap!"
By the way, I did not create the heading "Star Wars Detracts From SF"; that was penned by an editor. I do, however, agree with it.
Wes Herrin
herrin@colorado.edu
Digging Deeper Into Oz Lore
'm writing this in regard to Theodore Wilczynski's Issue No. 169 letter, "Let's Go Home With The Bad Witch." His story of the movie's basis ("Did you know the movie was actually based on a girl who was depressed and needed some time to think about her issues and deal with them?") intrigues me. I've been an Oz fan (more the books than the movie) since I was old enough to read (I'm 32) and I've never heard this story before. I've done a cursory search on the Web but am unable to find anything that mentions it. I'm just curious to know more about it. Is there a resource on the Web or a book or magazine article that goes into more detail on this fascinating story? I'd always thought the movie was simply based on Baum's book.
Stewart Tame
sbt@ans.net
X-Men Proves Big And Believable
went to the X-Men sneak preview last night and truly enjoyed it. Although I am not a devoted X-Men fan, I do know enough about them to point out differences between the comics and the film, but I must say they did a good job. The only complaint I have is that I really wanted to see the "Danger Room," at least a glimpse of it. But otherwise it was great and somewhat believable, which is what I think they went for. Regardless of what others think, this movie is bound to be one of the biggest movies of all time, or at least one of the biggest opening weekends of all time (sorry, MI:2 and Scary Movie).
Theodore Wilczynski
calivaughnj@yahoo
Where Will X-Men's Success Lead?
hen one member of a group succeeds, it paves the way for the other members
of the group to be given a chance to be brought into existence and hopefully
attain the same level of success. Examples can be seen in Hollywood where if
a genre $ucceed$, then more will follow, preferably in the same vein, in order
to duplicate the financial success of the forerunner.
The early commercial success of the X-Men certainly gives Marvel Comics a
strong argument or at least a fair hearing to get more of the company's
characters onto the silver screen. However, I wonder if the hit movie will
have the studios looking to source other comic book companies for possible
material to appear on film. I could see the publishers of Marvel, DC, Image
and Dark Horse comics being considered by Hollywood. But what about the
independent and alternative publishers of comics? Some of the titles and original concepts that appear in these non-mainstream comics are interesting. After all, look at the success of Malibu Comics' Men in Black. The hit movie has led to its own animated series.
Julian Gift
lira@trinidad.net
It's A Bird? It's A Plane?
n reply to Alex Rich's Issue No. 169 letter "Hello X-Jet And Bye-Bye Blackbird," which complained that the X-Men's jet had been renamed
for the movie: the original X-Men jet was a highly modified SR-17 Blackbird,
while the aircraft in the film was most definitely not an SR-17 as they don't
have vertical takeoff and landing capability. Therefore, the X-Men's jet
couldn't be called a Blackbird, as it isn't one. As far as calling it the
"X-Jet," maybe it was for marketing, or maybe it was just an easy name for the screenwriters to come up with.
Crystal Bryan
cbryan1@tampabay.rr.com
Another X-Customer Heard From
t was better than Battlefield Earth, I will give X-Men that. First
off, it should have been called Wolverine (in big letters) and the X-Men (in
small letters off to the side). The whole focus was on Wolverine and
Rogue. The flashbacks to Wolverine's past seem like set-up for a
sequel. The rest of the team is just there as an excuse for some FX.
The villains don't really do anything; they just fight with the X-Men
now and then. Then Toad and Mystique kick all of the X-Men's asses by themselves. Huh? Storm just sits and gets her butt kicked twice and only seems to use her powers at just the right time, when that is all that will save everyone. Same with Cyclops and Jean.
Speaking of Jean, she is a TK, yet outside of a few useless times she never
uses her power. There is more than one time where she could end the fight
and win the day if she used her TK but she just sits there whining. The
pointless cameos are annoying as well. Kitty, Pyro, Iceman and others are
there for no reason other than to be there.
I don't know where I should start in pointing out the many moronic "plot" problems. First, the mutant-making machine. What the hell is that? Magneto has a machine that can make a human into a mutant. Freaking stupid. I also guess
that being stuck in a mutant-making battery and dying turns some (not all)
of your hair white (in nice even stripes, too). When Mystique changes form,
the CGI people have no idea what mass is. She sneaks into the X-Mansion as a boy (Iceman, who is about 10 years old for some reason), and when she changes back to her own shape, she doesn't change size, height or anything. In the comics she could also never have kicked the crap out of
Wolverine but she seems to do it with barely any effort in the movie.
Sabertooth is just a big, hairy bum here. Toad is annoying and really stupid. The fights are so overblown and over the top that they are funny to watch.
Every time someone gets hit, they go flying back (or up) as if there was a
stagehand off camera pulling them. There is no logic shown in the movie by
any of the characters and especially not by the cops. I can't explain it
but when you see the scene with the cops, you will end up beating your head
against the wall at how dumb it is.
Next, take the FX. Some look good and others (like Mystique's transformation) are such obvious CGI layovers that they look ridiculous. The sets look like something stolen from a James Bond film. Come on, there is no way you could sub-contract out the work needed to build
these complexes and keep it a secret (and not cost billions of dollars).
The dialogue was awful and really forced. The performances were either
bad or average and the plot twists could be seen 10 minutes before they
happened. The fact that none of the characters even come close to their
comics counterparts is something I was willing to overlook, but these are
so far off that it's blasphemous. This is yet another in a long line of awful comics movies, ranking up there with Blade, the Batman films and Superman 4.
Avoid it at all costs. At least I got to see the trailer for Highlander: Endgame.
Josh Hadley
mhadley@itol.com
Pining For The Delta Quadrant
his letter won't be applicable for many people, perhaps, but I'm disgusted and want to air my opinion somewhere. I just found out that our satellite programming center can't offer UPN except on 4DTV, which we haven't got. That means that we can't catch the last year of Star Trek: Voyager, which, regardless of many opinions were voiced here, I really like. I've written to UPN 38 (which was our station) but so far haven't gotten any response. We live in rural Wisconsin, in the coulees, where television reception is nearly impossible without a satellite, so we don't have too many other options and we certainly can't afford a new receiver. Does anyone have any ideas how I can see the final season? Does anyone else have this problem?
Mary Enger
engrflor@win.bright.net
Dreaming Of Oscar Night
hough several of my fellow readers have shared their mutual disgust at the compromise of science fiction at the hands of Hollywood, I would like to take a second to point out a hopeful trend. I expect to see Academy Award-winning science fiction movies in our near future. The painfully rare, but greatly appreciated, high-brow science fiction motion picture is finding a wider audience in America. I point to a time when we had to wait 20-odd years to see one (2001 to Blade Runner), to now, where we have been offered a worthwhile view every other year (Gattaca to Contact). Whether producers are ripping off the wealth of science fiction literature, or rather gleaning the occasional lesson, the results will be the same. My dream is to see an undeniably science fiction motion picture awarded the Oscar for Best Picture. This will be the benchmark that indicates the average pop-culture American has embraced science fiction as something more than a venereal obsession.
Jason P. Sloan
jpsloan1@home.com
Look To Books For New Thrills
just read the response to my critique of tv/film sci-fi's lack of--or outright fear of--originality. A cranky kvetch? It sounds as if someone missed my point. Babylon 5 is without a doubt one of the greatest television series to date and, aside from the underpinning plot, a highly original piece of work. The originality of the show lies in details such as characterization (Koenig's fantastic performance stands out here) and dramatic style.
As far as Hollywood doing something "original" based upon Alfred Bester's works, just look at Payback (it was the exact plot of The Stars My Destination, topped off with gangsters. They even call Mel's character "a Neanderthal" at one point!) and see if you can still call me cranky.
The point of my letter was to tell people to stop looking for what cannot be found. The success of film and tv relies upon giving people what executives think over one million people will be comfortable with. (Bear in mind that I haven't seen anything on the SCI-FI Channel.) What makes science fiction science fiction--that is, the thrill of new ideas--can only be found in books.
Jesse Kleitman
kleitman@aol.com
