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).
Deconstructing Matrix Is Futile
he remarks in a recent comment ("The Matrix Remixed With Originality") about The Matrix are true, in that many of the aspects of the movie are taken from comic books, sci-fi, etc. However, the way these elements are used is what makes this a great movie.
Think about it--a lot of the great movies, novels and comics are great because of their twists on established conventions. William Gibson owes a lot to Raymond Chandler, and Alan Moore revolutionized comics with his post-modern takes on conventional comic characters. Does that make their works cheap derivations? I don't remember the makers of the film claiming any revolutionary ideas; they just took a fascinating twist on some of the old ones. It seems like a number of detractors of the film view it as imitation, I see it as emulation. Emulation, to me, is the fleshing out of older, established ideas. An example of imitation would be Barb Wire, with its straight lift of Casablanca.
The Matrix has intriguing characters such as Morpheus and the viral agent who has developed, ironically, a human disgust for the race it was designed to destroy. It was fun, thought-provoking and visually intriguing. So why waste time deconstructing it? Also, think about other films which have explored similar topics i.e. Contact versus 2001: A Space Odyssey. Because they explore the same ideas does it diminish either film? It is what it is, just enjoy it.
Brett Bowles
Brettb4842@aol.com
Matrix Fans Defend Junk
have had it with the Matrix fans. All they ever do is berate all who disagree with them with their so-called logic. The Matrix is, simply put, Tron-meets-Star Wars-meets-Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The film has more plot holes than some country roads have potholes.
How can Neo be the one if the one is Neo? How can he be in buff shape when he comes out of his chamber when he has been in a coma-like status? How could Trinity survive the
helicopter explosion without even a scratch? That is just a sample.
The people who state that many other creators "borrow" from other filmmakers is true, however, in the case of The Matrix it was more like "stole." The slow-motion stuff was a steal from The Six Million Dollar Man, as well as many of the kung fu movies. The movie sets itself up for sequels, even though they don't need one. I saw The Matrix, yes, it had good effects--so did Mars Attacks, but that movie sucked also. I know I'm in the minority of the fans who didn't like The Matrix, but I don't care. When people try to compare that movie to classics like Star Wars, Forbidden Planet, Terminator and other great works, it is hard to swallow.
Comparing The Matrix to Star Wars is like comparing Monkeybone to Who
Framed Roger Rabbit. So enough already--when they make the sequels to The Matrix and they bomb or succeed, then jump on the high horse or admit it is average.
Evan Wardwell
EWardwell@email.msn.com
Battlestar Should Not Be Reborn
ust because we can do something, it doesn't necessarily follow that we should do that thing. Case in point: Battlestar Galactica returning to the screen. For goodness' sake, why!?
I was 12 years old when Battlestar premiered in '78, and even at that tender age, I could see that the show was an insultingly blatant, thoroughly inferior rip-off of Star Wars, which had taken the world by storm a year earlier.
"Quick!" said the people at Universal Studios. "We need a show with spaceships, laser-blasts, cute/funny robots and well-endowed women. Hurry hurry hurry! The iron is cooling! There's money to be made!"
Producer Glen Larson said, "I've got just the thing."
Some truly high-quality (for TV) sets, costumes, effects, etc. were utterly wasted on this show (and its poor cousin, Larson's Buck Rogers in the 25th Century retread). The scripts were extremely unimaginative ... but what can you expect from a show that's a shameless, bold-faced rip-off to begin with? And now it's coming back.
Why not? SF is big these days. You know those same guys are sitting around the conference table at Universal, saying, "Hey, we have a chance to do this again. No, no, don't worry about consistent storytelling. Don't worry about creating SF that's innovative and thought-provoking (and at least somewhat plausible!) as well as action-packed. Just have plenty of laser-beams, explosions and well-endowed women." Ugh. What's next? No--never mind. I don't want to know.
Tim Dykema
timdreamer@yahoo.com
Women Have Become Heroes, Too
ne should never be afraid to try new things. Learn a new skill. Open oneself to the limitless possibilities that exist in our modern world. Having diversity of skills is smart thinking in today's world where employability security has, more or less, replaced employment security. A valuable lesson for all small-screen male action heroes to learn that women on television are capable tomb raiders (Relic Hunter), superheroines (Black Scorpion), monster smashers (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), sword flashers (Xena: Warrior Princess; Queen Of Swords), starship captains (Star Trek: Voyager), mercenaries (Dark Angel), freedom fighters (Cleopatra 2525) and survivor experts (Sheena) to name a few. Screams from the queens are now battle cries and not, I repeat not, cries for help. There is still that fight to remove themselves as far away as the objects of desire, a desire that may be won as efforts are made to crash through that glass ceiling.
But, do not worry, for the unemployed TV-action hero who is staying at home waiting for that call to action. There are always other careers for the go-getters, and The Man Show on Comedy Central for those who cannot recover from unexpected changes in circumstances and societal culture.
Julian Gift
lira@trinidad.net
Edwards' Reason for Reaching Out
wanted to explain what John Edward is doing on Crossing Over. He is putting us in touch with our loved ones on the other side. He never said that the dead are watching us! ("The Dead People See Us") And no, they don't watch when you pee, have sex or rock and roll. Yes, they are aware of what we do (remember, they used to be part of this world, also) but what purpose John Edward is serving is that he puts the deceased souls in communication with the living when it comes to left-over anguish, guilty feelings or just to clear bad air. George Anderson is also doing this talent for dozens of grieving people who need to be reassured that their loved ones are doing fine.
And one thing I certainly do agree with John Edward is this advice: Tell your loved ones, friends and family how much you love them before they are gone.
D.K. Buelow
dkbuelow@tznet.com
"We" Can Mean Many Things
just want to remind Chuck Siegfried ("SF Can Create A Better World") that assumptions are often false. He indicated his belief that readers of Science Fiction Weekly were most likely to be members of the elite upper class.
As a decidedly working-class reader, I run into this notion often. I remember reading an issue of The Progressive where the author used "we" to mean people who are not poor, as if any reader could not possibly be a poor person. Although I have made the journey out of poverty into the lower middle class, I have had Internet access for years, with loaned computers, old computers, at school or at work.
Here's a plug for finding a good home for your old computers--it may enable a working class family to access the internet. Otherwise, I heartily commend the sentiment of Mr. Siegfried's letter.
Tapati Sarasvati
labyris@labyris.com
The Lucky Shouldn't Own Tomorrow
'm hoping Chuck Siegfried ("SF Can Create A Better World") meant "Communism" when he wrote "I'm not suggesting socialism since we know it doesn't work." Many of us who live or have lived in countries which have some degree of socialism in their democracy know it can work and enjoy the idea that health care, education and other essentials may be available to all with no questions about financial means. Through imperfect systems? Certainly--but aren't they all? An easy mistake to make when you live in a country where news is filtered through media owned by commercial companies, but one that must be pointed out.
As one whose earliest experiences of SF were through the writing of Jack Williamson and his peers I'm glad to know he's still there, challenging accepted beliefs and all of us to make a truly good future that includes all the people of Earth, not just the lucky or the ruthless.
Steve Roberts
davros@flash.net
New Farscape Season Needs Seasoning
am a longtime fan of science fiction and fantasy. I am not an established critic, just a fan with 40 plus years of enjoyment of my favorite genre. Over the years, I have seen and read a lot of good and bad sci-fi. To me, Farscape has ranked with the best the science fiction has to offer.
Having to watch a favorite TV show self-destruct is hard. The high promise of season one has slowly devolved into science-fiction limbo, with dubious plot lines, horrible mini-arcs and inconsistent characters wallowing in a soup of awful writing.
I am not a proponent of stagnation. Season one brought us fun and visually interesting episodes in a single story format that worked and were fun to watch. Season two brought us visually stunning episodes with flaky and inconsistent story lines that left me feeling uneasy. Season three has started off with stock visuals and a terrible story line in a horrible cliff hanger.
I would not presume to say that the SCI FI Channel has fallen victim to its own success, but it would appear, based on "Season of Death," that they have fallen into a trap that may not be easy to get out of. They are clearly relying on plot contrivance rather than plot innovation--the team is clearly capable of better.
The original twists and turns of Season one have fallen to standards of Star Trek, with impossible and implausible contrivances to enhance weak story lines.
I will remain a Farscape fan because, despite what I feel are its failings, it is still a step above most of what is served to us as science fiction on TV.
Good luck on Season Three.
Tom Francis
tomf@neca.com
Space: 1999 Carried Great Concepts
egarding your review of the Space: 1999 DVDs: I remember watching this show in the mid-'70s when I was seven or eight years-old. I had seen Star Trek and Dr. Who by then and enjoyed this series, too. Seeing it as an adult made me realize that, while it's no classic, I still like the first season. In addition to praising the effects and sets, I think the haunting music by Barry Gray needs a mention. I felt the show was quite spooky--the coldness of the setting made one feel insecure.
Several episodes--such as "Force of Life," "War Games," "Voyager's Return," "The Troubled Spirit," "Another Time, Another Place" and "The Guardian of Piri"--had great concepts. These had a certain quality that made me still enjoy them in spite of the silliness of the show's premise. (Why couldn't it have been a large spaceship? The moon wouldn't pass other solar systems without being draw into one of them?).
The second season of the show is some of the worst sci-fi ever. Since there was more action, I guess I liked it as a kid but now it makes me wince. The Maya character was a good idea but she became a mere plot contrivance.
Mike Nelson
miskonelsonny@hotmail.com
Star Blazers Deserved Better
'd like to address the recent Star Blazers review. I come not as a fanboy, but as someone who watched the series during its original U.S. run and recently started re-viewing the VHS collection. Your reviewer's comments that the show does not hold up are ridiculous. To each his/her own--but this series deserves a lot of credit.
The story is surprisingly complex--it is nitpicking to attack the dialogue, because this is dubbed and obviously loses much in the translation, just like so many live action Asian films do. There is a
sophisticated, ongoing story and a deep sense of melancholy that no U.S. filmed sci-fi entertainment has even attempted to match. The animation may be crude, but the designs are beautiful, and the music is exciting and often touching. The "stringent" countdown at the end of each episode is fun, as
is the opening theme song.
I won't bother to attack your critic, but a counter view is warranted.
Greg Lamberson
glamberson@archivefilms.com
Star Blazers Was an SF Pioneer
can't help feeling that Tasha Robinson was applying double standards in
her review of the Star Blazers DVD collection. I was glad to see it was
given a good B-grade, but in my opinion, the reviewer has made a too big issue out of "Simplistic Character Interaction," "Overwrought Dialogue," "Constant Factual Errors" (referring to the scientific factual errors) and the cheap-shot remark (even if it was meant to be a compliment) about making things futuristic "by adding 'Space' to the description". All true--and all can be also said about another product of the same era, Star Wars. Would you say all those things in a Star Wars review? Of course not. Because Star Wars, like Star Blazers, was never about complex characters or the scientific plausibility of the plot. It was a space-opera adventure, in all
of its wild, exaggerated glory.
As for the technical side--yes, the animation has grown old. Star Blazers--as every other science fiction film or TV series done more than a decade ago, is showing its age. You cannot judge the animation by the same standards you judge current anime releases. I actually think the English
dubbing wasn't bad (I couldn't figure out if the reviewer's comment about "voice over" was referring to the entire English voice-acting or just to the narration).
It appears that the reviewer found the series not to be as entertaining as it was 20 years ago. She's entitled, of course, to her own opinion, but I would like to offer my opposite view. After watching several episodes recently, I found them to be a fresh, fun and exciting--this isn't just the
nostalgia talking here, I think the show actually holds pretty well in its own right, and could have given a good competition to most of the today's shows, especially those aimed at kids.
What the reviewer really missed, in my opinion, is the chance to mention that the show was a pioneer in using plot devices and mechanics like comic-relief robot (yes, that "Annoying genius robot called IQ-9"), Holodecks, plot-arcs, not to mention entire plot-lines (like saving Earth from poisoning under a time-limit) years before Star Wars, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Babylon 5 and (as noted in more than one letter sent to this column) Crusade. Or maybe it was just reviewed in the wrong department? I suspect a review in the "Classics" department (which the show deserves, in my opinion) would have been far more generous.
Raz Greenberg
saabhfd@hotmail.com
Voyager Will Be Missed
ith the final episode closing in quickly and person after person speaking their piece, I feel I need to get a word in before the finale of Star Trek: Voyager. Rarely have I seen a show receive such a mix of both
joyful exaltations and revulsion--sometimes about the same episode.
Has Voyager been perfect? Hardly. Yet, it's been fun. I have missed only a few episodes over the seven-year run, and while it's not quite as consistent as Star Trek: The Next Generation or Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, it is still consistent enough to fit into the Trek universe, making it far superior to many other sci-fi series currently on TV.
I recently read a review complaining that most of its story ideas were stolen from "short stories and other TV series." I found this amusing as even the original series of Star Trek borrowed heavily from westerns (Spectre Of The Gun), war movies like The Enemy Below (Balance of Terror) and other genres. (Don't forget A Piece Of The Action and Bread
And Circuses, just to name two.) Look at most sci-fi TV shows, heck, any TV show for that matter, and you'll be able to see connections to other genres, short stories, novels, etc. Singling Voyager out is a crime.
Could some of the characters have been developed better? Of course! The biggest crime here was the failure to develop Chakotay's Native American character more fully. It would have also been interesting to keep Kes and watch her age, as she had a life span of only nine years. Yes, her character was resolved in the sixth season episode "Fury," but her aging would have been very interesting.
Harry Kim could have been further developed as well. Unfortunately, he ended up where he started, more or less a sidekick to Tom Paris. Also, there was a plethora of characters who moved in and out who could have been given at least a partial development, as minor characters were in Next
Generation and DS9.
Still in all, flaws aside, in my own opinion, Voyager more than deserves its place in the Star Trek universe and has been great fun. I live in an area not serviced by UPN and have literally had to send video tapes to family members to have the series taped so I can watch it,
sometimes weeks after the episodes aired. It has almost always been worth the wait.
Needless to say, I await the fifth series with great anticipation, but I will miss Voyager greatly.
Keith Kitchen
BoyoKlaatu@aol.com
Back to the top.
