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).
Voyager Gains a New Fan
have loved Star Trek since I was able to stay up and watch Shatner and Nimoy way, way back. Through the years since, there has been a ton of SF programming that, simply said, was awful. Poor acting, scripts that put you to sleep, special effects that you laughed at and episodes where you could pick apart the flaws.
I was really enjoying Star Trek: The Next Generation when Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Voyager hit the screen. Deep Space Nine was always super technical and overacted by the cast, and Voyager never caught my attention until now.
The last Next Generation movie about the planet of youth and the Pinocchio performance of Data reminds me of what Mr. Parris and Mr. Kim do on planet X in the Holodeck. The anticipation was really more than the movie deserved. I took a month off from watching any Star Trek figuring that it had to succumb to the age of ratings and popularity.
One night, while flipping channels, I came across the beginning of Voyager and wow! Once more, I got that little chill of excitement and couldn't believe the special effects in just the show's starting credit trailer! The shot of the ship's reflection off the planet rings put me in
awe! I had to see more!
Well, to make a long story short, I am absolutely impressed with Voyager. Even my wife has started enjoying science fiction where I was the only one.
I commend Voyager for having clean and intriguing plots, excellent acting, truly awesome special effects and the ability to revive science fiction overall.
I look forward to the last episodes coming up and shout to the producers of Next Generation movies to take notes from Voyager or move over and let Janeway show ya how it's done!
Vernon Bauer Jr.
cateredcrafts@mindspring.com
Conventions Are No Place For Children
attended an SF convention called Chicago TARDIS 2000 that was completely ruined for me by two people who were impolite and thoughtless enough to bring their screaming, howling baby to every event, including onstage interviews with Dr. Who actors and actresses.
Here is a news flash for all you breeders out there: SF fans do not spend their time and money to go to an SF con for the purpose of listening to your screaming rug rats. Leave your failed genetic experiments at home and hire a babysitter.
Robert Kruck
RobertKruck@aol.com
TV Violence More Real Than Books
would like to respond to Mr. Liberatore's letter of 21 February ("Kids Lit Has Never Been Innocent"). While it is
true that the works of children's literature he mentions do include all those rather awful things, there is a large difference.
None of those works made any attempt to be "realistic." Alice in Wonderland's drug references are deliberately veiled. The Grimms' fairytales are just that: tales with no attempt to portray reality. The Roadrunner cartoons are cartoons.
Look at it this way: every work of fiction is in someway removed from reality. Books are the most removed, cartoons are the next, whereas live-action TV and movies are the "most" real.
Books and cartoons (including Japanese anime) by the nature of the media can not be "realistic." Live action TV and Movies can not help but be realistic. For example, when John Crichton's eyeballs were screwed out of his skull and then screwed back in during his brainwashing--tell me that didn't look "real." My eyes hurt after watching that scene. Reading that in a book, seeing it in a cartoon, while not pleasant, could hardly have the visceral effect of seeing it for "real."
My point in my previous letter was to make the point that parents must decide for themselves what their children should and should not watch (or for that matter, read). But parents should not complain when they let their children watch things that are not age appropriate, when the parents know what might happen on the shows, "real" or not.
Patrick Baker
bakerpat62@yahoo.com
Hollywood Eager to Dumb Down Films
his is in response to Connor McLeod in the February 20th issue ("Battlefield Wasn't So Horrible"). Yes Battlefield Earth was that bad. I am sorry but I can not "turn off my brain and just enjoy the ride" of a movie. (Not McLeod's quote, but one I have heard non-stop in defense of crap films). I like to think when watching a film, and films as poorly-written and as badly made as Battlefield Earth should and have been rightfully blasted. I just can't watch movies to "forget the outside for a few hours." I want to see a story about people and I want drama, not explosions, gunfights, pointless nudity and poopy jokes. Ninety-nine percent of the movies being made today cater to those exact things. Why do people enjoy watching movies that require no thought?
Let's look at a film like Battlefield Earth. This film as no substance, no intelligence and most of all, no point. Same with Charlie's Angels, Vertical Limit, Godzilla, Star Wars: Episode 1, Starship Troopers, Dungeons & Dragons, X-men, Hollow Man, The Cell and countless others. Most people tell me that they enjoyed these films because they are a mindless, fun ride. Since most of these films made tons of money, it looks like the American people have spoken, and what they have said amounts to a belch.
The problem is that most people just want to be "entertained" and don't care how. They just want to take something in and they don't care what quality it is.
Unfortunately, Hollywood caters to this "mindless" crowd and the fans thrive on what stipend Hollywood gives them, and Hollywood has even convinced them that they like what they are seeing. That they like the same plot over and over again. That they like big breasts and even bigger explosions as the sole purpose for the film. That they like dumb toilet comedies with no point and even less value.
Should we let Hollywood get away with this crap? Should we let Hollywood executives and producers get away with selling us substandard garbage? That is what they do when they make movies like Charlie's Angels. They are basically telling us they know how stupid the average person is and they know that they will still go see their film. It just amazes me when I think of the process it took to make a clunker like these. Some writer had to write that script and then some producer had to read it and think, "This is pretty good. This would make a good movie." Then a director had to think the same thing. Then a studio exec and so on. Are these people really so dumb that they honestly can't see how bad this movie will be? And the actors. Why can't they read the script and say, "No way. This is really below me"? Why do people still seek out and gladly fork over cash to a film that insults not only the viewers' intelligence but the intelligence of everyone?
To finish, I just want to say that there is more to movies than FX. Science fiction is so open-ended and expansive that it should challenge your mind and let you look at things in a different light. Unfortunately, for the most, part science-fiction films are dumbed down-garbage.
Josh Hadley
mhadley@itol.com
Faith Difficult to Find in Film
s a Christian, I get a bit upset with Hollywood. Most times you see believers portrayed as narrow-minded, bigoted people. Sometimes, they're even the villains of the piece--the drunken priest who molests a parishioner, or the vigilante, killing machine doing "the lord's work" by ridding the earth of "the heathen hordes."
Granted, throughout the millennia, there have been heinous crimes committed in the name of Christ. Nothing to be proud of, that's for sure. However, it seems that mainstream media's primary focus, when it comes to Christianity, is to ridicule and protest.
When a movie like Left Behind comes along, there's high hopes in the Christian community that it will be a good movie, with high standards in story-telling, movie-making and in presenting at least some part of the gospel. Unfortunately, most believers in the industry think
that you have to brow-beat people with the message. I knew before the movie ever came out that this would be the way the producers of Left Behind would do things. Not that there isn't a place for forthright proclamation of your beliefs, but sledge-hammering non-believers with your particular slant on eschatology (the study of end-times) is probably the least effective tool of reaching the lost. In fact, any "Christian" movie or book or song or TV show have only small part to play in bringing people in the kingdom. You need other believers. But, I digress.
I haven't seen Left Behind, nor do I plan to. I'd rather rent The Spitfire Grill (a film about redemption and reconciliation, two important themes in the Christian faith) and enjoy a great movie with a great message.
Brian Guthrie is right ("Left Behind Review Hit Target"), the reviewer had every right to bring up the "fundamental belief" system when talking about Left Behind. Especially when the producers' primary purpose is the create "one of the greatest outreaches in Christian film history" (quoted from the video packaging).
p.s. If anyone knows of a film that deals with issues of faith in a way that's both enjoyable and thought-provoking, I'd like to know.
Kevin V. Fifield
mortar_music@hotmail.com
Left Behind and Review Both Flat
should point out that I did not castigate ("SFW Reviewer Was Left Behind") the reviewer of Left Behind for "bringing up" or "mentioning" the religious view points of the movie--it would hardly have been a review without that mention. I castigated him for reviewing that point singularly and completely throughout the entire review. It was not merely "mentioned"--in point of fact, the review mentioned little else.
My point was that this movie--regardless of its marketing, regardless of it subject matter, regardless of the viewpoint presented--should have been reviewed based upon its merit.
Trust me, the movie fell flat more for its failure as a production than for its religious perspective.
And, yes, it is unfair to have a movie like Left Behind--which receives horrible reviews for its religious perspective--while at the same time we have a movie like Sleepy Hollow wherein the blatant occultic witchcraft and paganism is heralded as a revolutionary concept.
Both presented basic, fundamental religious beliefs--their reviews should have had the same--as you said--"mention" of their faith. A single, one-paragraph, descriptive blurb would have been sufficient in both cases.
However, what we have instead is the Left Behind review tainted to its core with blatant attacks against a religious viewpoint--and another religious viewpoint heralded as unique and revolutionary.
Something smells in Denmark...
Evan Moore
EvanMoore@aol.com
Pern Must Be Handled With Care
lease be careful with Pern. As difficult as it is for me to believe that anyone who loves to read speculative fiction, has not read Anne McCaffrey's Pern books, I can only hope that is the case with the person who wrote this week's news item regarding the upcoming Pern TV series. In one paragraph, Moore is quoted as saying "I have a great deal of respect for what she's done and the world she's created. I want to make the transition successfully into the filmed environment, which does require some interpretation and moving pieces around. But by no means do I want to reinvent the world or throw things aside." In another paragraph which purports to be a synopsis of the pilot
that undesired reinvention is blatant.
The synopsis as written: The pilot--based on McCaffrey's first Pern novel, Dragonflight--introduces the central character of Lessa, the daughter of a noble family of Ruatha Hold. Her family is killed, and she journeys with F'Lar, F'Nor and Kylara to Bendan Weyr to reclaim her title and eventually return as a dragonrider ... takes the events of 18 years, distorts them and crams them into a one or two-hour episode? Kylara--who is admittedly very unlikable, which makes her a wonderful character to write or to play--is mentioned only briefly in the first book. Her
prominence doesn't come into play until the second book, where her appetites form the groundwork for a great deal of intrigue and tragedy.
The last TV series I can recall that had to deal with a huge pre-existing fan base was Little House on the Prairie. Girls of all ages had to put up with the reinvention of characters that had been cast in stone in their minds since childhood when they first picked up and read a copy of Little House in the Big Woods.
Mr. Moore should be careful. Anne McCaffrey's fan base is as big or bigger, and believe me--we are far more vocal, as well as being the primary target for his proposed series. Little House picked up people who just happened to like Michael Landon. The typical TV surfer won't just decide to
watch Pern. Many people will deliberately not watch it because of an aversion to fantasy or dragons or whatever they perceive to be wrong with the new show, based upon its teasers and trailers.
Anne McCaffrey is very careful about her intellectual property and I am sure she has quite a bit of creative control over episode content. I hope this is enough to rein in the film industry's distressing tendency to do just what Mr. Moore has claimed he doesn't want to do ... reinvent the world.
Diane Catanzaro
catanz@mail.com
Remakes Can Be Valuable
don't think that it's really that bad if films are remade, if done with the proper intent. An example I can give is Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The original '50s-era film was remade twice--once in the '70s and again in the '90s. Each film is notable because it takes the same plot, but places it against the backdrops of the society in which each version was made.
On the other hand, there is the mishandling of Roland Emmerich's Godzilla film. The film wasn't right from the beginning, simply because that the creature wasn't the real Godzilla that had been featured in movies for decades, becoming an icon.
Good remakes are able to offer something different, sometimes better, sometimes worse, than the original film or television show that it comes from. I personally have never seen the original Planet of the Apes. (Gasp!) However, I do plan on seeing the Tim Burton remake when it's released. I have no doubt that I will have a greater urge to see the original afterwards, and that's probably the most important service a remake can do for the original.
Justin Graham
jgraham_70@hotmail.com
Originality Better than Remakes
'd like to comment on the on-going "remakes good or bad" debate. I tend to agree with Julia Hayden ("Remakes Taint the Classics"). While Mr. Tame ("Remakes Are Not Always a Waste") has a point--that remakes are the trend--it seems to be a pretty long-running trend with no end in sight. Everyday I hear about some new remake coming down the pike.
Mr. Tame also made the point that pretty much every movie cited by both letters started out in book form. If this is the case, why not take some of the fifty billion new books out there and make them into movies? Mr. Tame also makes the point that remakes are easier to explain to movie execs. Well, sure it's easy to explain something that's already been done. They even have a nice little blueprint to follow. It's safe. If these execs are having trouble understanding new concepts, I would suggest that they need to get a new line of work--after all that's their job! It's also the job of the idea people to present these, preferably new, ideas in a way that makes these execs want to do the film. That's why they get paid.
Why was The Matrix such a big hit? Let's examine that one for about two seconds. Maybe because it hadn't been done before? That's why all other fight scenes mirror it. Because it was original, the public warmed to The Matrix a lot more quickly than, oh, let's say, The Mod Squad, Wild Wild West, and other TV show hits that grossed so much money because they were so wonderful and done well with good scripts. (Insert sarcasm here.)
If you're going to remake a movie, or copy a TV show, you should at least try and find some way of making it original. Following that argument, if you're trying to update old stories and make them relevant in our time, why not try and give the public something new? Take a book, or script, that's relevant now and take a chance on it! Give some new material a try. The public might like that as well. As I've said before, originality is the reason why movies like The Matrix do so well. Of
course the public is going to see mostly remakes. That's all that Hollywood has presented them with lately.
Cynthia Garges
ladyhawkeIII@hotmail.com
Publishing Is a Tough Racket
orry to hear that Michael McMaster's efforts towards getting published have so far
been in vain ("Personal Taste Reigns Supreme"). I'll agree that editorial comments that simply state that a section doesn't "read right" don't sound very helpful. It may just be that what you're writing hasn't been to the various editors' (I'm assuming that this has been a collective opinion and not just one person) tastes. That's unfortunate, and probably rather discouraging as well. (More than fifteen different publishers? Wow.) Never having submitted anything to a publisher (or written anything that I felt was worth submitting, for that matter) myself I can only imagine what the experience must be like. Here's hoping we'll see your work on the shelves someday! About all I can add is that disjointed sentences can be tough-going for those who don't encounter them very often. Perhaps the legacy of the "new wave" SF of the '60s is forgotten already ... What a pity.
As to McMaster's comments regarding my proposal for polling likes/dislikes in SF novels, perhaps my use of "loved" and "hated" was too strong. My intent was to get an idea of reading tastes in hopes that I (and, I hope, the other Science Fiction Weekly readers) would be able to come up with at least a few suggestions for other books that perhaps McMaster's might enjoy. Even merely a list of authors whose work he consistently finds enjoyable would be useful. For instance, if I knew that someone liked the work of Robert Heinlein, I'd recommend that they try Emergence by David R. Palmer, Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card, possibly Time Travelers Strictly Cash by Spider Robinson ... perhaps even Code of the Lifemaker by James P. Hogan, all of which are books
that ring as at least vaguely Heinleinian to my ear. Of course, that's just one person's opinion, too, which is why I was hoping that other readers would offer their suggestions as well.
Mr. McMaster also writes: "And by the way, if something is "old hat today," could you (or anyone, for that matter) please explain the sudden trend towards re-making movies/TV shows that were startlingly original in, for example, the 1970s?" Hmmm ... well, the publishing industry is different
from the movie/TV industry, first of all. And I'm not sure that the trend is all that "sudden" either. Movies have been remade almost since the invention of the motion picture, particularly movies based on books and short stories. Each decade, practically, seems to have its own "definitive" version of Dracula for instance. As far as movies based on TV shows go, I think we have a case of an initial trickle gradually growing into a raging torrent over the years. The earliest movies based on TV shows that I can think of (Star Trek: The Motion Picture, The Blues Brothers ... not that those were the first, just the earliest I can think of) were successful enough to encourage other studios to mine similar territory, and now we've reached the point where the trend is running rather stale. (Although I still want to see a movie version of My Mother the Car, darn it!) In any case, I hardly think 20 years (there's that phrase again!) counts as "sudden."
In any case, my original point (regarding trying to see if a 20 year-old SF novel or short story would be accepted by a major publishing house today) was that trying the experiment wouldn't really prove that today's publishing market is worse than it was 20 years ago, just different. There are a
number of SF novels more than 20 years old that are still in print, after all. Of course, there are a greater number that aren't, and probably a greater number still that were submitted at that time but never published. That's the way that the book publishing market has always worked: some works survive the test of time; others don't. And whether any given work survives seems to be due as much to luck as to its inherent goodness or badness.
Stewart Tame
sbt@ans.net
The Dead People See Us
s there any reason why the SCI FI Channel has John Edwards on every night of the week? It's neat that he validates that the spirit lives on beyond the body, but it's kind of creepy, too. According to Edwards, our dead family and friends are around us all the time.
Does that mean when I go to the bathroom I have an ectoplasmic audience? What about when I am having sex? Do I now have to cover up like some chaste '50s couple? I mean, gee whiz guys, with everything
else in our stressful life, do we really need to talk to the dead? They're dead!
T. Hannibal Gay
Hannibal@Hotmail.com
Back to the top.
