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.
-- Scott Edelman, Editor-in-Chief
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).
Don't Be Scared Of SF Adaptations
am writing this in response to Michael Bell's letter "Bad Adaptations Can Harm Sci-Fi" and Alvaro Zinos-Amaro's letter "Is Asimov Too Good For Hollywood?" (Issue No. 181). My major complaint is against Bell's arguments.
He claims that he has "sincere concerns about the quality of the movie." Well, the adaptation of Riverworld isn't a "movie" at all--it's a TV series. And the TV format was chosen over a movie format for the project because director Alex Proyas felt that he could handle the broad scope of the Riverworld novels better in a TV series.
Bell also feels that the project "would take excellent writing, directing and acting to convey." Proyas has proven himself more than capable of directing sophisticated, intelligent, science fiction features, as in Dark City.
Mr. Amaro claims that Asimov's writing style doesn't fit Hollywood. I think he's wrong. Asimov had a simple, straightforward style of writing. (As I recall, Asimov himself, in a forward for his novel Nemesis, wrote that the
principle that guided him while writing was "clarity.") Such a style is ideal, in my opinion, for Hollywood movies. As someone who grew up reading Asimov's books, I'm excited at the prospect of seeing his great visions of the future visualized in The Caves of Steel, and also in the rumored adaptations of End of Eternity and Foundation.
What really angered me about both letters is the general notion that since most cinematic adaptations of science fiction books failed in the past, the Riverworld and Caves of Steel adaptations will also fail, so we shouldn't give them (or any future adaptation of a science fiction novel for that matter) a chance. That's before they even started filming. Both Bell and Amaro feel that the inevitable changes the stories will go through in the transition will necessarily result in a bad movie and a bad TV show. This argument is often used by people who don't understand the differences between films and books. You can't make a one-on-one scale adaptation of a book. On the other hand, Blade Runner--a not very faithful adaptation of Philip K. Dick's novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep--is nevertheless an excellent movie.
I believe both Bell and Amano are aware that a book adaptation--even a bad one--brings the adapted book to the attention of the public. It might draw more people to read Farmer's and Asimov's books. Is this a bad thing?
Raz Greenberg
saabhfd@hotmail.com
Don't Forget The Werewolves
kay, okay, I have to admit it. I'm a big time sci-fi and horror freak. I loved Final Destination and can't wait for part 2. I also enjoyed both the Scream and the I Know What You Did Last Summer series. I've also noticed that there are many vampire movies on the rise, as well as TV shows and miniseries such as Dracula 2000, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Ultra Violet, Queen of The Damned, etc. Now I'm starting to wonder, what about werewolves?
How about this for a pitch to Hollywood? I'd like to see the creators of Final Destination, Roswell and Buffy get together and do a movie or TV series about a group of teenagers who find themselves involved with werewolves. I'd call it Silver Curse or simply Silver, and have it start off with a fortune teller giving a group of kids a warning of a curse. Of course, the group of crazy kids tempt fate by going camping in the woods anyway. One person gets chased up a tree and bitten. The werewolf gets scared away by a black cat they found on the side of the road and made their mascot. And then it starts. Next full moon, all mayhem breaks loose in suburbia!
Of course, there have been ill-fated werewolf series in the past, but in the right hands it could be a hit!
Theodore W. Wilczynski
toysoldiers2001@yahoo.com
Dark Angel Is A Democratic Freedom
couple of days ago, FCC chairman William Kennard accosted Fox for showing Dark Angel rather than the presidential debates, saying, "To my mind, this
disregard for the American democratic process is unacceptable," adding that when networks show science fiction "flicks" or sports over debates, "...it's high time that we rethink the terms of broadcasters' compact with the American people."
These comments are completely uncalled for. There are no laws (nor should there ever be) that say a network must play what the government wants. Any such law would be a mandate for state-run television, which is nothing more than a complete disregard for the basic human freedoms guaranteed by The Constitution. The networks have the right to play sci-fi or playoff games if they so choose, as I have the right to watch or not to watch them. The new low (that Kennard spoke of in his speech) won't be when the networks are allowed to (gasp!) choose, but when The FCC starts to think for me, as it apparently wants to do.
Jeffrey Gustafson
PsicopJeffG@webtv.net
Dark Angel To Have Bright Future
really must disagree with Hannibal Gay ("Is Dark Angel's Future Dark?", Issue No. 181). While Dark Angel portrays the future as a dark place, I don't believe that people will get tired of it and stop watching the show. Dark Angel reminds me of The Pretender, in that you have a hero that must hide from the powers-that-be to survive. Granted, Max isn't an innocent hero who goes looking for people to help like Jarod was.
But they both have that same need and desire to find out about their past and to find out what happened to their families.
I don't believe that people will tire of Dark Angel. It's about survival, it's about family, it's about living in the shades of gray between right and wrong. And it is those qualities that will make Dark Angel an excellent and
long running sci-fi program.
Emily Blackstone
missmaita@juno.com
Is Jessica Alba Hot Or Not?
think that Dark Angel is going to turn out to be another cult series that either lives on or is put to death by the hardcore fans. As for Jessica Alba, she is an average actress with looks that some people find hot and others turn their head to.
In my opinion, Dark Angel has at least three seasons going for it because there are tons of people who love to "shut their brains off" and watch "dumb" TV. All hail Dark Angel.
Jonathan E. Cortez
jonathanecortez@mail.com
Queen Might Be King Someday
ice review of Queen of Swords: accurate and fair. If only the headline hadn't read "starring Tessie Santiago and Paul Wingfield". You'll have Highlander fans waiting in ambush with swords to take your head if that isn't fixed.
The show has a bit of potential (if for the eye candy alone), and hopefully will outgrow its early weaknesses as the series progresses.
Pam Mitman
mitm0001@umn.edu
Please Don't Kill Our Heroes
'm not a particularly unstable guy, but something is beginning to get on my nerves and I wanted to ask you, my fellow fans, if this irks you as much as it does me.
Remember when we all marveled at Captain Kirk and crew pulling off some unbeatable scenario? How we all cheered when Han and Chewie saved the day at the last second at the Death Star, giving Luke the chance to blow it up? Or how about the way we supported Connor MacLeod as he fought Kurgan? For cinematic science fiction fans, those were moments of true magic when we felt the world around us move.
But those films and shows were made from 1960 to the mid 1980s, and those days are gone. What we have now is increasingly disturbing. I sadly proclaim, our heroes are dying. Lucas allowed Chewie to be killed off in the books. Star Trek: Generations placed the nigh mythological Captain Kirk under a cairn of rock. Connor MacLeod, the first immortal Highlander, has now been killed off in Highlander: Endgame. I'm sure there are other examples, perhaps more dear to you than these, but my question to you is this: why?
Partially, some will say because actors age and can no longer do the roles. I will submit that this is true, but why does this mean the characters must die? James Doohan reprised his role as Scotty in the Next Generation episode "Relics," and it ended with him riding off into the proverbial sunset a hero. Why could this not happen with Kirk? Why did Connor have to be killed off just because Christopher Lambert did not look like he did in 1986 when the first was made? Could not he have just been removed from the game in some other way, perhaps in a vampiric kind of way, a stake driven through his heart so he could not regenerate per se?
I am disturbed that Hollywood and writers find that the best way to signify that these characters are going out in a blaze of glory is to have them killed off. I know there are problems inherent in letting them fade away, and that recasting has problems too, but I ask you this, what if they would have killed off James Bond when Connery would have quit? Still, I'm not asking for a recast necessarily, I'm just asking that the writers and directors realize its not necessary to kill off a hero to say that he is done.
Perhaps other forms of media made this seem wise. DC Comics killed off Superman briefly and it sold millions, but the key is that everyone knew to some extent that Supes would return. Unless Hollywood pulls a dramatic turnaround, my heroes from youth are dead. Perhaps that's why science fiction novels are superior: there are no actors to be replaced. In the end, I only know this about cinematic heroes: my father's heroes live on to this day. No one has ever dreamed of killing off the concept of Bond, Zorro (all right, kind of, but the legend lived on in the Banderas movie), Hopalong Cassidy, or any of that set. So why did Hollywood decide to start killing the heroes of my youth? I can not figure it out, but it's a pity, because my generation will be the first to grow old with a background of dead heroes.
James William Thomas
captain_robert_april@startrekmail.com
Bring More Asimov To The Screen
hile I agree with Mr. Alvaro Zinos-Amaro ("Is Asimov Too Good For Hollywood?" Issue No. 181) that some of Isaac Asimov's work can be "extremely difficult to translate" to the big screen, I don't think that Caves of Steel would be that hard to film.
Kodak released a version of the novel several years ago as a VCR game (Isaac Asimov's Robots), and that product is still in print (and presumably still making money for both Kodak and Dr. Asimov's estate); Harlan Ellison adapted
the I, Robot collection into a cohesive and compelling screenplay that only lacks money and an ambitious studio before it sees the light of day (and it's a terrific work on its own). Add to that the frequent advancements in computer technology (which may even, who knows, do justice to Fred Saberhagen's Berserker), and the possibility exists that Caves might even outstrip Bicentennial Man at the box-office.
SF is still a viable medium for experimentation on film. Some experiments do quite well (The Matrix) and some flop as soon as they emerge from the birthing tank (What Planet Are You From?).
My point is, if the studios have the faith to even think about filming Dr. Asimov's works, we should have enough faith to give the benefit of the doubt at least until the film's release. Only then do we have the privilege to decide if it was worth watching.
Henrik Harbin
kirneh1@home.com
Stargate SG-1 Is The True Star
n your October 9th edition (Issue 181), the news article "Braga Preps Next Trek Pilot" discussed how Brannon Braga and Rick Berman are prepping the pilot for a new Star Trek series. We've been hearing this for months, and there have been many comments in your letters section from fans who are wringing their hands in fear and loathing that the next incarnation will be Dawson's Trek as Berman and Braga fumble in the dark for a premise that will return the franchise to its glory days.
Well folks, I have quit wringing my hands. I have discovered Farscape, and I have high hopes for Andromeda. I have seen Andromeda's third episode and the quality is much better than the pilot (and in comparison, Andromeda's pilot was light years beyond "Encounter At Farpoint"). We need to give Hewitt time to work the kinks out of the show, but I think he'll be okay.
I haven't seen an episode of Star Trek: Voyager in months and I really don't care if I see another Braga/Berman Trek again. I have discovered a show that is far more fun and adventurous than anything Trek has offered since the third season of Star Trek: The Next Generation. I have found Stargate SG-1. The show is a blast. If you don't subscribe to Showtime now, get it just for this show. The characters grow and develop, and every episode does not resolve the situation or problem just because the hour is up. The characters actually remember the things that have happened to them in previous episodes. The universe of SG-1 is rich and has room for more than just techo-babble and "deus ex machina" stories. The members of SG-1 are far more human than a Starfleet crew. The members of the SG-1 crew make mistakes, learn from those mistakes and go on to make different mistakes (sort of like real life).
Science Fiction Weekly has done us a disservice by not carrying more information on this show.
John Miller
john@chapel42.com
It's Time For A New Time Tunnel
ames Cash's desire to see a return to the worlds of Irwin Allen ("Revive Irwin Allen's Worlds," Issue No. 181) is shared by more people than he could possibly imagine. While done for as little money as possible in the budget conscious world of TV networks (especially in the 1960's), Mr.
Allen definitely got as much "bang for buck" as humanly possible and entertained millions upon millions of fans with Lost In Space, Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea, The Time Tunnel and Land Of The Giants. If nothing else, wouldn't it be wonderful to find out if the Robinsons ever made it to Alpha Centauri (or back to Earth), if Doug and Tony ever made it back to Operation Tick-Tock or even if the crew and passengers of the Spindrift ever managed to return to Earth?
Wishful thinking, of course, but although each series had its pitfalls and embarrassing episodes, they were prime examples of fun-filled, action-packed and, yes, family oriented television the likes of which doesn't exist anymore. Gene Roddenberry's universe is unparalleled, but so are the many universes of Irwin Allen. Please, Hollywood, think about it!
Keith M. Kitchen
BoyoKlaatu@aol.com
