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
In Search Of ... Human Pets
'm trying to find out the name of an animated sci-fi film I saw in what must have been the mid-'70s. The story revolved around humans living in an alien world, basically as pets. The humans wore collars around their necks that enabled the aliens to "call" them at will. The aliens looked much like humans, but were gigantic in comparison. They could pick up a human between two of their fingers. There is a scene in The Cell where this movie I'm looking for is shown on the screen. Early in the film, Jennifer Lopez's character is having a hard time sleeping and this movie is what's playing on her TV when she's trying to get to sleep. I watched all The Cell credits roll, but no luck. Please email me if you know the film I'm looking for. Thanks for your help!
Chris Pitney
CPITNEY@lasvegas.harrahs.com
Stand Back, Comics-Scoffer!
van Moore's Issue No. 173 letter "The Trouble With Drivel" struck a chord. I've read and
enjoyed a great deal of SF over the years, but I'm also a
comics fan who doesn't like to see the medium put
down. Granted, comics have not had a good record
lately of doing science fiction right. The heyday of great
SF comics was the early '50s when EC was
publishing its classics in Weird Science and Weird
Fantasy. I can only think of a handful of good SF
comics since then.
But to say that comics are drivel is
flat-out wrong. I'll be the first to acknowledge that a lot of crap
is being published in the comics field. However, I can think of several comics
of high quality: Sandman, Cerebus, Watchmen, Hate, American
Splendor, Why I Hate Saturn, From Hell, Castle Waiting,
Eightball, 300, Bone, Love and Rockets, V for Vendetta,
Stray Bullets, Peep Show, Maus (which won the
Pulitzer Prize for Literature) and anything by Will Eisner. I could point out the wealth of
great translated European and Japanese comics that
are also available. To tell the truth I can't think of a time
since the '80s when there has been such a selection of
great comics to choose from.
Randy Barrett
jrbarrett101@yahoo.com
The Cell's Expressiveness Praised
don't understand why so many reviewers are expressing such dislike of The Cell. Apart from one or two lines I would change, the story was amazing, and not quite what I expected. I suspect that's the problem--the movie has failed to live up to expectations, and it is not being evaluated for what it is. It's expressive, visual filmmaking, with impressive storytelling. That the powers-that-be were able to put together a narrative like this, conveying much without words, is impressive.
It's not mainstream. It's not easily accessible. But it's great film.
Scott Advani
sadvani@home.com
The Cell Lacks Vital Details
[Note, this letter contains spoilers about The Cell. --Ed]
just saw The Cell. It was beautiful, but let me say, "What the hell were you thinking?" to the director and editor of the movie. I've read the story the movie is based on and I understand that there were a lot of things in the story they just couldn't do, but at the same time there were some vital details left out:
1) They never went into any detail about what drove Catherine. Big hint: They never actually explained what happened to her baby brother. When the movie mentioned it, it left the audience going, "What? Where did that come from?" A flashback while she was in his mind would have done nicely.
2) They never explained what happened to the cop when he was a kid. Big hint: Why did he think a man who had been sexually abused/molested could still turn out to be a good man?
3) They never completely explained that there were two sides to his persona: the frightened, innocent child and the ego that thought it was a king (brought on by the virus), and that Catherine was actually battling the virus that enhanced his ego.
The movie was intense, but they should have done a little more when she was brought before the ego/virus/delusional king to emphasize the severity and strength he had. These are the same things I've heard from everyone. I loved it but was hungry for more. It was long but I wouldn't have complained if it had been 15 minutes longer. How about giving the fans a special edition DVD when it comes out? I think we deserve that much!
Theodore Wilczynski
toysoldiers2001@yahoo.com
Whacking On Witchblade
have to totally disagree with your review of the Witchblade movie. I thought it was terrible. The trailer looked really good; unfortunately, the movie isn't. Actually it
seems less an adaptation of the comic than a mish-mash of other
(better) TV programs and movies. I noticed "lifts" from Millennium,
Batman, The Matrix, NYPD Blue, Gargoyles, Highlander, Homicide and The
Frighteners (among others). The FX are obvious layovers (you can see matte
lines) or computer generated, and most of the dialogue is just terrible. There are too many
plot contrivances and lapses in logic, plus sub-plots that don't go anywhere.
I think fans of the book and of genre TV in general will feel more than a little ripped off. I was so disappointed with it I doubt I will even check out the ongoing TV series (if it gets made).
Josh Hadley
mhadley@itol.com
Yancy In Wonder Pants
s there a place where I can post comments about the atrocity that I saw on TV? It was called Witchblade, starring Yancy Butler.
I just wanted to state some of my concerns with the project, which include but are not limited to the sucky acting, the sucky hair and make-up (not just on Sara, but on Ian, the chief and others) and the profound ability a director has to turn a good comic book character into a bullet-reflecting Wonder Woman remake in leather pants.
I will pray tonight that they do not make this into a TV series. If you can't get a thing right, you should not do a thing.
Mark Harper
odin@narrows.com
No Torch Outshines A Vorlon's
found amusing the idea that Farscape is picking up Star Trek's torch. Which begs the question: which Star Trek--the classic, or the pallid shows that have aired in the '80s or '90s? I found Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Voyager vastly wanting, the acting wooden--so full of self-importance, and so lacking in passion--that I wonder why anyone wouldn't fall asleep watching them. Whereas classic Trek, even with all the flaws it has from being made in the '60s, is still the best.
I tried Farscape but wasn't impressed. Of course, I am spoiled. There has been a recent program which blows all of them away--Babylon 5. Joe Straczynski's creation was so rich in story, and so highly evolved, that these other shows couldn't even begin to accomplish what was done in that amazing five-year saga.
The SCI FI Channel has been wise enough to pick up this program and I hope all of you who haven't yet watched it will take the opportunity. In this program you will find change, growth, passion, dialogues on religion and politics, and amazing writing. This show has inspired me to keep going in difficult times and to take a risk or two. It towers over all these other minor entertainments. It's simply the best SF show ever made. Nothing can touch it except for The Twilight Zone at its best. I feel privileged to have caught B5's magic.
Maybe classic Star Trek has a torch to be passed, but B5's fire is a roaring inferno of depth, passion and great, everlasting light.
Connie Colvin
CCB5Flamekeeper@aol.com
