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).
Protect SF--Join The PTA
n your news, I read that the Harry Potter books were named to the "most wanted banned" by the American Library Association. This is why I finally broke down and joined that most suburban of clubs, the PTA. No illiterate, unimaginative know-it-all is going to tell me or my children (ages 12, 10, 9) what they can or cannot read! That decision is best left up to my husband or myself. My 10-year-old had gotten turned off reading in second grade because of having to read 30 minutes every night, over and above the hour of homework he had. The boy could read when he was three, and he loved it! Because of Harry Potter, he loves it again.
If this banning of books bugs you as much as it does me, go to one of your local schools and join the PTA, too. Then vote! You don't have to be a parent or teacher to join, just walk into the office and ask for an application. They will be tickled! Besides, your dues will be spent for library books, CD-ROMs, etc. And yes, I'm a Baptist! Granddaughter of a preacher in fact, and all I've read over the years has not affected my faith in the least. If reading does affect one's faith, that faith wasn't too strong to begin with.
Susan Conner
stikeforce@webtv.net
SCI FI's Conspiracy Revealed
haven't watched The Outer Limits much on SCI FI. I don't watch it
partially because some of the episodes are censored but mostly because of
the ridiculous "four-play" format. If it was on in a more traditional, five-
nights-a-week format, I'd probably watch. I am a big fan of the show, however.
I have watched it faithfully on Showtime over the past six seasons. I should
be ecstatic by the news of SCI FI's renewal, right? No, I'm annoyed.
The Outer Limits had a long and healthy run and was given a dignified
send-off episode. Conversely, shows such as Sliders and Good vs. Evil were canceled without a goodbye. Sliders had a cliffhanger ending for crying out loud, not a very nice thing to do to the show's fans who brought so much to the SCI FI Channel. Lexx came very close to being added to the canceled list as well. Why should SCI FI revive a show that has said its goodbye while cutting off other shows midstream?
Obviously the true reason for reviving the show is the three "backdoor
pilot" episodes that will be produced for potential new SCI FI shows. SCI FI
did the same thing with Sliders, renewing the show in order to draw a
fanbase over to the Channel, with the intention of canceling it as soon as
possible. Now they want to suck Showtime's "Sci-Friday" audience over to
watch some more "original" programming. Despite the apparent similarities, I
think Showtime's audience is different than the SCI FI one, so it should be
interesting to see the results.
Perhaps SCI FI should try to clean up some of the mess in its own backyard
before it goes looking over the fence at the neighbor's house. I remember
when The SCI FI Channel was a welcome relief to the major networks. Now it's
worse than them.
Erik Matthews
ematt00@yahoo.com
SFWeekly: Stick To Your Knitting
enjoyed your coverage of the new TV season in the latest issue but several inclusions puzzled me. The exact definition of what qualifies as "science fiction" has always been agreeably (to me at least) broad. But how on earth does Ripley's Believe It or Not qualify? The foundation of this decades-old franchise is the fact that it's not fiction! I would also think that fans of Crossing Over with John Edward would take offense at the idea that it is fiction, as well. Understanding that it airs on SCI FI, does that automatically make it science fiction? And if so what does that say about all of SCI FI Channel's sponsors?
But the biggest puzzle was the inclusion of NBC's Stark Raving Mad on the canceled list! There were no science fiction elements in this show at all. Ian Stark was a horror author (stretching the definition more than a tad). While I personally loved the show, there's no way it belongs in this discussion.
Surely the function of this publication is the discussion of that genre which we all love. So can we stick to the subject, please?
Jay Phillippi
jdrp@cecomet.net
Remakes Chafe SF Fans
'm writing in response to Sarah Mathews Issue No. 178 letter, "Coincidence Or Conspiracy?" First of all, Sarah is right, "The Hole" (Exposure) was a remake of the episode "Thanksgiving" (Amazing Stories), plain and simple. But as far as a conspiracy being involved, I don't think so. It was just a remake, just like the short film (can't remember the title) with Janeane Garafalo that Exposure showed was a remake of a story made for the mid-'80s TV movie, Nightmares, which has also been shown recently.
But what gets me about this letter is its irony. If sci-fi fans would be half as passionate about the remaking of sci-fi movies as about some rinky-dink short film show (which I love), then maybe the movie industry would lay off with this "sequel/prequel/remake" B.S. kick that they're on!
Adam Boudreaux
TrekAdamG@webtv.net
Summing Up Endgame's Pros and Cons
ighlander: Endgame wasn't that bad. Really, it wasn't. Okay, maybe it was. But there were high points.
For one, it got rid of Connor Macleod, who was, let's be honest, the less developed and less enjoyable of the pair. For another, it ignores--or outright disowns--the previous two movies. I remember sitting through The Quickening and whatever the third movie was called, wondering how soon it would be over and wishing I had the "Family Tree" episode of the TV series on tape.
Another good point--it got Jim Byrnes (Joe Dawson) back on the screen. There's just something about seeing him limp on-screen that warms me up inside. I always liked him ... and Methos! Methos got screen time. Not as much as he should have, but still, he got screen time.
On the other hand, there were plenty of down points--maybe not enough to cause internal bleeding, but ... well, close.
For one, the ending was obviously rushed to check it in at the hour-and-a-half mark. I would rather that they took an extra 20 minutes to tie everything together.
The evil Watcher plot is no good without Hortan. Sorry.
Agggh--the ending. I know, I already mentioned it ... but the last 20 minutes of the movie just felt too rushed. Watching, I got the distinct sensation that someone had a really good ending to the script, and it was cut out in favor of putting in something quick and easy. And bad. Let's not forget bad.
So. Highlander: Endgame. Final review? It was kinda like Cheez Whiz--a guilty pleasure that could definitely have been improved upon.
On the other hand, it did get Connor Macleod off the screen forever ....
Cliff Hebner
IHateItHere@hotmail.com
Endgame: New Movie, Same Old Stuff
would like to complain about those who complained about Highlander: Endgame.
One of the major complaints about the film was the "gratuitous butt shot." Um, I think I saw some naked breasts in the movie, too ... any complaints about that? (Not from me!) It just sounds like a little double standard going on there.
No Queen? Gasp! I think someone said this movie was expected to take the franchise into the new millennium, so maybe a few changes were in order. Let's have some progress, people! It sounds like everyone just wanted a re-edited version of the first movie. Maybe they should have just CGI-ed Adrian Paul into the fight scenes with that unsavory fellow with the safety pins in his neck.
Connor's sword-fighting seemed weak? If anyone paid attention to the storyline, he didn't really feel like defending himself so he was letting his guard down. Besides, Christopher Lambert is getting on in years, after all. (He's not really immortal, you know.)
It seems like everyone wanted a new movie with the same old stuff going on. The coolest thing about the TV series was how many different ways they threw two immortals together at the end of the episodes. You always knew there would be a swordfight, but you still stayed to watch it.
I do have my own complaints about the movie--like what's the deal with Connor getting the prize at the end of the first movie but the fighting is still going on? There can be only one? Only one movie, maybe.
I quite liked the film. I can forgive the little things .... The first movie wasn't perfect either. I could have done without that stupid spree-killing car scene... and the survivalist wacko in the alley scene, but I liked that movie, too, and have watched it over and over.
Forgive the little things, and just enjoy the diversion.
Michael Kroll
aradyn@hotmail.com
Consider "Happily Ever After" Trek
will sum up my request in a short sentence.
Star Trek: Voyager should end on a good note!
It should not end like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. In my mind Star Trek: Deep Space Nine ended on a very sour note. There were some
weird resolutions played out at the end of that series.
I'm requesting that the writers of Star Trek: Voyager think long and hard about planning
the finale of this series.
In my mind, the ideal ending will be that the
crew should run into Kes, and she should send
them home, or they should find another
caretaker, and he or she should send them home.
If I were a betting man, I'd say that the series will probably end on a note similar to the way Deep Space Nine ended.
If it does end on a bad note, I will not be
happy. Sometimes, I believe, the writers are intentionally
setting up these series to end in a negative fashion
for the shock value.
There is no value to ending this show on a negative
note. Especially if the writers intend on taking
Star Trek in a totally new direction, and Andromeda
might be that new direction for them ....
Virgil Yancey
viscusa@netscape.net
Give Burton Enough Rope
believe some fans of the original Planet of the Apes may be jumping
the gun in blasting Tim Burton for trying to go a different direction with
his version. It's entirely possible that the movie will be much closer to the
original novel, which featured an advanced ape society. If this is the case,
then Burton's film will bear little resemblance to the original. I ask this
question: Is that a bad thing? If you're going to remake a movie, why do
the same thing over? John Carpenter's version of The Thing bore almost no
resemblance to the B/W classic I love, but I found out later it followed the
original book much more closely. Both are enjoyable in their own way.
Although I don't particularly like the idea of remaking old TV and movies
when there are so many good original stories out there, I think it's a good
move on Burton's part to go in a different direction and give sci-fi fans
something fresh.
Zefram Mann
capzman@aol.com
Ape World Big Enough For Everyone
ith regard to Michael Rampe's Issue No. 178 letter "Can Burton Improve Upon Perfection?" concerning Tim Burton's "re-imagining" of Planet of the Apes, I too am a fan of the original five films, but I accept them for what they are ... far from perfect. The series never achieved the status of science fiction or SF; it always stayed firmly in the realm of "sci-fi" (no insult meant to the SCI FI Channel or to Scifi.com). To view them as "perfect" is, to my way of thinking, like claiming The Rocky Horror Picture Show is great cinema. While I can enjoy the histrionics of Charlton Heston and James Franciscus as much as the next fan of B-grade sci-fi, I believe that there are multitudinous approaches that Burton can take, that whatever he does will at least be interesting, and that nothing he does can mar the image any fan of the series holds near and dear to his or her heart. There's more than enough room in the genre to hold another "imagining."
Jim Reader
dbeaird@austin.rr.com
