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
Send us your letters!
Got a gripe about something going on in the science fiction world? Want to call attention to an overlooked genre gem? Do you disagree with one of our reviews? Would you like to tell the editor of Science Fiction Weekly what a great job he does? Write a Letter to the Editor and send it in! You'll have the satisfaction of knowing that your letter will be read by thousands of SF fans. Doubtless, fame and fortune will follow (fame and fortune not guaranteed).
Reach For The Credit
egarding Reach for the Stars, reviewed in Issue No. 177, I'm glad to see this old warhorse still around, wearing a new coat of glitz. But I feel obligated to point out something that most reviewers neglect to mention: Reach for the Stars, at least in its earlier incarnations, is an almost direct adaption of the old Metagaming Concepts game Stellar Conquest.
Conquest (first printed in 1977, and later republished as Galactic Conquest by the Avalon Hill Game Company) was one of the first professionally published science fiction board games.
Reach for the Stars is not alone in its (ahem) borrowing of Stellar Conquest's systems; the mechanics of the wonderful Master of Orion also bore a striking resemblance to Conquest and used much of the same terminology.
I'm not suggesting that the producers of these fine computer games owe Conquest designer Howard Thompson money or anything; but they should at least acknowledge their inspiration!
Stefan Jones
sej@aol.com
Can Burton Improve Upon Perfection?
write to express my concerns regarding Tim Burton's upcoming "remake" or "re-imagining" of Planet of the Apes. I simply wonder how the original movie can be improved upon? I doubt it can. The original was virtually flawless when analyzed in its temporal context. I was enthusiastic when I learned a few years ago that a new Apes film was on the way. Now I am skeptical. In my view, the new film can only be truly successful in one of two ways. The first would be to place the movie somewhere within the timeline that the first five Apes films established. The second would be to remake the original movie and base it on Pierre Boulle's classic novel of the same name. The novel featured a more sophisticated ape society and also contained a shocking (although different) ending.
However, as I understand it, the new movie will bear no relation to the five previous Apes films. Rather, it is a "re-imagining" of the original film. I fail to see how Tim Burton can make a new movie based on an established franchise and yet pretend that the five films that preceded it never existed. This new project disrespects one of the greatest films of all time. Because I am an avid fan, I must stop short of claiming that I will not see the new movie. Nevertheless, I wonder if other fans of Planet of the Apes feel the way I do.
Michael Rampe
rampemic@msu.edu
Faith In Dozois Shattered
recently purchased the The Year's Best Science Fiction, 17th annual edition [edited by Gardner Dozois]. I was very excited. I took it home and, neglecting my poor underprivileged children, I began to read.
I was so unimpressed that the children's screaming was a welcomed break.
I have read almost everything Dozois has put his name on and have grown to trust him. This latest collection, save one or two stories, is--as the kids put it--poo-poo. Sorry to be so graphic but dammit, I live for these anthologies. What happened?
I am no scholar nor a professional critic, but it seemed to me that most of these stories had no direction or point. I will not believe that these stories are the "year's best."
Having said my piece I want to add that I will be waiting impatiently for next year's annual collection like a child who hears the ice cream man on the next block.
Jewel Gray
buray98@nstci.com
In The Beginning Was The Word
t was nice to read the interview with Gardner Dozois this week,
but after exploring the site a bit, it is hard to find any links
to the science fiction print or e-magazines. I am a 40-year SF
reader, and a great fan of the literature--most other media,
especially film and TV, rarely come anywhere near the thrilling
and thoughtful experiences I have with a good
book or magazine. I subscribe to Fantasy & Science Fiction, Analog and Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, so I
get my daily dose, but if you mentioned written SF more
often I would visit your site for more info.
As it is, each issue
of The Sci-File just gets a cursory glance, and if it is lacking such
good articles as the one on Ursula Le Guin or Dozois, it gets
deleted faster than junk mail in my house. You and the films and
the television programs would not even exist if not for the
printed predecessors, so I'd like it if you included a great deal
more literate references in your content!
Lou Judson
inaudio@pacbell.net
[Don't forget that we publish science fiction stories--both originals and classics--in the SCI FICTION area of SCIFI.COM. --Ed.]
Coincidence Or Conspiracy?
watch Exposure every Wednesday night and enjoy the very
creative and original short films presented with their
enthusiastic filmmakers each week. It gives me hope for the
future of science fiction cinema.
However, I found it a bit disturbing that in this week's
episode, a short film entitled "The Hole" that was produced
in Australia within the past few years was almost
identical in storyline to an episode of Amazing Stories
entitled "Thanksgiving," which was originally shown in 1986,
and which SCI FI has recently aired.
Sarah Mathews
SDMathews@aol.com
Highlander: 1/2-Empty Or 1/2-Full?
want to tell you why I liked Highlander: Endgame.
First, it fixes the storyline problems by ignoring the second and third movies: they were a complete mess to explain.
Second, both the Highlander views were represented in the picture, from the television series and from the original movie.
Third, the swordplay and fighting was fun to watch.
Fourth, the woman that Duncan was involved with in this movie was an absolute beauty for all time.
Finally, it has been a long time since I have seen any form of new Highlander material. The scenes were a little choppy, the storyline was a little confusing, most of the questions were not answered that I thought would be, it was missing scenes from the original previews that did not make the final cut and it lacked the music of Queen--all these didn't matter to me.
What matters is this: I like the characters. I like the show. I like the movie(s), even the bad ones. If I saw any of the actor(s) on the street, I would still want to get an autograph and talk to them.
In the end, even a bad Highlander is better than no Highlander. For those of you who don't agree, then you must have stopped caring about the show/movie a long time ago.
Eric W. Breunig
shivaeb@msn.com
Never Explain Decapitation
admit that I enjoyed Highlander: Endgame, although I will agree to two points--there seemed to be things missing and edited out of the film, and Queen's amazing music was sadly missed. Highlander fans, do yourselves and the Highlander franchise a favor and see this film, but approach it as just another Highlander TV episode.
I was, actually, quite relieved that, as Mr. Fovendal said in his Issue No. 177 letter, "What's The Point Of Highlander?," "Scenes from the previews (Kell cut in half, Duncan and Connor jumping through some kind of portal) were not in the final print." Thank God they were not! When I saw the previews, I groaned. Oh no, I thought, they're going to do it again. I was convinced, from those scenes, that we were going to be subjected to another inexplicable yarn with weird time travel or dimensional vortexes or other planets or some strange ... something ... that has nothing to do with Highlander.
Ask yourself this; why did Highlander, the original movie, and the series work?
Answer: the story made the impossible plausible. Immortals running around chopping off each other's heads--unbelievable fiction! But the way it was presented in both the original film and the subsequent series made us believe!
Why did the follow-up films fail (miserably)? Ramirez coming back from the dead, Immortals are really aliens--they tried to explain too much! Whenever you do that, you risk spoiling the story. You can't explain the unexplainable ... you end up with Star Trek technobabble. It may sound nice, but it means next to nothing! The original Highlander film and the series worked because they didn't search for answers to unanswerable questions. The premise of the stories was simple: There are immortals on this Earth who must chase and kill each other by taking other immortals' heads. The characters don't know their origins, but they have to deal with what they are. It works because of the humanity of the characters. Alien immortals killing each other? Who cares? Human beings dealing with the emotional torment that is Immortality--that's the real story. Letting it get too bogged down in explanation takes away from the true emotional core of the story. After all, as Connor said in the original film, and Queen so poetically underscored with their music, "It's a kind of magic." Anything else would just be unsatisfying.
Theresa Gauthier
theresag@comed.com
Highlander IV: The Sickening
have this to say on the new Highlander: Endgame: if you want to see a good movie, don't see this one. Instead, go to your local video store and rent the original. But if you're looking for severe intestinal cramping and a bleeding ulcer, by all means see this movie. There are so many things wrong about this movie I hardly know where to start.
First of all, it didn't look like a movie. It looked like they took the TV show and put it on the big screen. A biker gang of immortals? Come on! There were too many things thrown in at the last minute. For example, Duncan's old flame was clearly put in to give Duncan more screen time. She and the rest of the immortal gang--what was the point of having them at all?
Secondly, the swordplay was pathetic. Where Duncan was fighting all of the immortals was all right, but that was the best fight scene. The Kurgan would have eaten every one of them alive without breaking a sweat. Connor looked absolutely pathetic. You would hardly believe that he had already won the prize.
It's giving me a headache just thinking about it. I am going to watch the original movie all over again and just forget this last movie ever happened.
Darren Woodruff
woodruff001@yahoo.com
Highlander Pleases Devoted Fans
s a fan, I went to see Highlander: Endgame with friends and an enormous amount of expectation. For any devoted Highlander fan seeing this movie for the first time, there are obvious great high hopes for a story that has everything you've loved about the movies and the series. Endgame has this and more. The story and characters are rich, deep and not simplistic. However, they deserved much more attention and development than this movie took the time to give them. Even so, no movie is ever perfect and there is a lot to like about Highlander Endgame.
The focus of this movie is the relationship between Connor and Duncan MacLeod and the most perfectly written, acted and directed parts of the movie are those that deal with their relationship. We see Christopher Lambert as Connor as well as Adrian Paul as Duncan at their absolute best. The rooftop scene was intense and powerful and true to the Highlander story in every way. There was nothing about it that was trite, trivial or lacking. It was drama at its best.
The story should have been a little longer, better developed and more smoothly put together. The movie is flawed, but what is there is not just good, it's great. The development of the relationship between Connor and Duncan alone is worth the price of a ticket a dozen times over. So is watching Adrian Paul on the big screen. He is the next leading man Hollywood is looking for. There is no shortage of action (shootouts, swordplay, Hong Kong style) and it is well choreographed and worth seeing. The film score reinforces the story with its beautiful Celtic music--both traditional and contemporary--and the cinematography is breathtaking. The overall look of the movie, settings and sets worked.
Gemma Louviere
gemma_macw@hotmail.com
Highlander Disappoints Devoted Fans
saw Highlander: Endgame this weekend. I've been awaiting its release with much anticipation for some time now. I must say that I was disappointed. I can only add to what others have said before me.
There were too many plots going on. The whole Watcher drugging Duncan to start a new
Sanctuary--they never went anywhere with that.
Methos and Joe were not involved as much as I would have liked.
Duncan was married? Revision, revision, revision. In the episode where Tessa dies it clearly said that he never had married and he never would. The revision wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that they easily could have written the story so that there would not have to be such an obvious error. They could have had Connor come the day before the wedding to talk to Duncan, and Duncan could have killed her that night--no wedding, no revision.
I must say, being a woman, I didn't mind the butt shot at all. If that was the worst thing about this movie, there wouldn't be any complaints here!
Carol Wilson
macwilson@peoplepc.com
