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).
Red Planet Makes Fan See Red
have just rented the movie Red Planet, and boy am I glad it I had a free rental coupon--this movie was the pits! It is movies like this that give sci-fi a bad name.
I am willing to suspend some science in order to enjoy a good flick, but this had neither. It started okay--leaving the Earth from the space station in order to avoid gravity--that was real--then all downhill!
A shower in the middle of a walkwall just for the required sex scene, a fire that burns through the entire ship--even into the void of space for a few feet!--but then the ship is just fine for the return to Earth. Then we have the men crashland on the planet, one pleads to be left to die, one thrown from a cliff (I could have played Ben Britt's role for all his lines) and three to walk across the planet to find the pre-planned home-away-from-home destroyed. The audience has no explanation how the place was built by un-manned probes, who destroyed it, where the missing parts went--etc. We are supposed to believe there is an ice storm--on a planet with no water?
And of course the hero re-starts a crashed 50 year old Russian probe--magically lifts off and lands exactly across from the orbiting space ship--which by the way does not have a defibrillator even through the entire event takes place in 2025! And of course, the fire-destroyed ship carries the surviving man and woman back home to Earth. Please, this movie walks all over science fact, does not make anyone care if any of these characters gets home and is a two hour waste of time, talent and money.
Please Hollywood types--how about reading a script before signing up stars and spending millions?? Robert Duvall saved the meteor-hits-Earth movie, but nothing saves Red Planet--not even comparison to the equally horrible Mission to Mars--at least that mission did not discover fully grown insects on a lifeless planet or have the astronauts bring a "fighting" robot on the mission. Will someone please explain to me why a mission to a lifeless planet would require a robot trained in combat? And, why would a combat-trained robot selectively kill? Please, rewind 2001 and take another look at HAL. The writers of Red Planet steal the killer machine theory without understanding how it works!
Someone help me by offering a good sci-fi rental. For now I'll stick with The Day The Earth Caught Fire--it may be old, but it's a great thinking-person's movie!
Gloria Hoffner
gloriah@phillynews.com
Recycling Doesn't Always Make Sense
was reading the news this week ... someone is really going to redo the Boogaloos? Yes, I remember this from my youth ... the question is why? The original story had no point (that I remember, kind of like HR Puff'n'Stuff). Can't they come up with something better?
Obviously, some can. Look at the Phillip Pullman stories that someone mentioned last week. Not that I want the movie-makers to attempt them and butcher them in the process. I bawled like a baby with a bad earache when one of the characters (spoiler, I won't mention names) died. I love B5 for the same reason. Imaginary characters, made real through the effort of will by a talented author. Ain't this the point of fiction, to get the reader so involved that the imaginary seems real? Why does TV spend so much time and money on things that sucked the first time around, and certainly will suck even worse with recycling?
Susan Wittkopf
badger805@aol.com
Star Trek Has to Remain Accessible
am a Star Trek fan from way back. I can even remember watching the rerun episodes with my grandmother when I was young. I will tell you the only thing I see destroying the Star Trek franchise ... but first I have a few comments about the Star Trek series that came after the original:
I loved Star Trek: The Next Generation. It had everything the original had plus more. It had better special effects. I loved all of these characters as much as I loved the originals.
I loved Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. I don't care what anyone says, it was enjoyable. Some fans say that Gene Roddenberry wouldn't have wanted the fighting and deaths on the show. What about evolution of the franchise? You cannot keep peace without a struggle to keep it, that wouldn't be realistic. The new characters were great. I would be watching it today, if it was still being produced.
I loved the first season of Voyager. It had promise. I really loved this renegade faction in the federation.
Oh! What about the rest of Voyagers' seasons?
This leads me to the only problem I see with Star Trek: I couldn't get UPN, so I didn't see the rest of Voyager. This is what destroyed Voyager and is eating away at the franchise. Star Trek isn't accessible anymore. I have many friends that watch and love the original on the SCI FI channel. Thank God for them, because we would have no Star Trek if the original didn't come on
that network. Of course, the ratings would be low on Voyager; most of the people who would watch it cannot catch it. When we caught the first season it came on at 12:00 AM in the morning on Saturday. Sorry if you had to get up for church the next morning.
Earl Stewart
sdoctorwho10@aol.com
Matrix Breaks Law of Thermodynamics
've been watching with interest the back-and-forth comments about the plot holes in The Matrix. The last letter "The Matrix Questions Have Answers" attempted to resolve issues that were brought up in "Accept Plot Holes, Enjoy the Ride."
The thing that seems to have been missed by all the reviewers is the basic plot hole that the premise of the movie violates the laws of thermodynamics. If you are trying to get energy out of a person (by electricity or any other means) then you need to put in more energy (to produce food, for example) then you can possibly get back.
By the way, I do agree with the sentiment that if the movie is otherwise enjoyable, a plot hole or two can be overlooked.
Ron Weiskopf
ronweiskopf@mediaone.net
7 Days Rules Are Weak
have lately become quite a fan of 7 Days, but because I picked it up after the first year I feel I missed out on some issues or "rules" of the program. What happens to the Parker of the past when a backstep occurs? Can they exist at the same time, or does Parker revert to a parallel time frame? If the limit is seven days, why can't Parker go back seven days, rescue the time sphere and go back seven more days? Is he, in his temporal situation, limited or does it not fit into the script "rules" for the program? I think these could be plot lines that could be developed if Days can last to a new season. So avid fans out there, let me know about these elements, if they have already been covered or what.
In another matter, I see the SCI FI Channel has come to their senses and buried Black Scorpion to late night on Saturdays. But where is Lexx? Will it return? Farscape is off to a great season, but I hope there is a plot twist that will return Zha'an to the crew. The character they need to get rid of is the metal faced guy or D'argo's son. Neither adds that much to the plot line.
Ted Horton
Yeoldebear@aol.com
Kirk Should Remain Dead
n response to Bob Segarini ("Killing SF Icons Hurts Fans"), I agree that it is often unnecessary to kill off fictional characters, but using Kirk was a bad example. I just wish they
would really kill off Kirk. I am really fed up with them bringing him back in books. Why can't he just stay dead? I thought Kirk's death was well done however, and the way they did it helped pass on the series from one crew to the other.
However, just because a character is killed off doesn't mean he is completely finished. When they killed Kirk off for example, even if they didn't bring him back to life they could have always gone back and done a story before his death. A fictional character is never truly dead. There are always other stories to be told.
Noah Vale
whiskeyandwinearemyonlyfriends@yahoo.com
Killing Icons Is Bad For Business
agree with Bob Segarini ("Killing SF Icons Hurts Fans"): Don't kill our heroes. In the great days of pulp SF, heroes could last for years. We need heroes; don't kill them off.
And from the standpoint of the bottom line, remember what happened when they tried to kill Ripley in Aliens 3.
Steve Block
baronsb@swbell.net
Swedish Fan Campaigns for Prey
couldnīt agree more with Mandy Engle ("Praying for More Prey"), Prey is on of the best show I have seen from U.S. for a long time.
And I was so disappointed and angry after the last episode, when Prey was shown for the first time in my country, Sweden. I was so angry and frustrated that for the first in my life, I was searching on the Internet to find if I was the only one who felt this way about this show. I was glad to find a Web site call Prey Campaign site and to know that I'm not the only one who feels so sad. There were viewers from all over the world who felt just like me, but I was too afraid to attend, and for I was uncertain of the English language (and still am), so I was a lurker on that board for almost two years. But this January I decided to be with them and I have never regretted it. They are such a great people from all over the word who have the same interest, try to bring back Prey again. It's great!
And for nearly three years now, fans from over 30 country write to networks (SCI FI Channel and Warner Bros.), sending postcards and letters, begging them to do a proper end of this wonderful show. And yet, still after all this time, no one will listen to us. This is very frustrating. Here is a show who that has so much quality, with such a great storyline, which was so believable, and had so many great actors... I can also tell you that Iīm not at all a sci-fi fan, and will probably never be, but Prey was so easy to love and so easy to get hooked by.
So please SCI FI, gives us a decent end of this great and wonderful show.
Barbro Johansson
barbro-johansson@mail.bip.net
Stanislaw Lem Was Not the Author
'm writing to correct errors in my letter about sci-fi remakes ("SF Remakes Must Outdo Originals"), in which I wrongly ascribed authorship of Roadside Picnic to Stanislaw Lem. It is of course by J&L Strugatzki, and Lem was Polish, not Russian. Thanks to Alex Reichert for this. While I am not a Russian agent, my embarrassment is such
that I may have to change my identity.
Prost!
Phil Rainbird
reginbert@hotmail.com
A Perfect Pern Still Lives On
hank you, Ron Moore, for not letting them trash Anne McCaffrey's work. Pern was beautiful. I have written every one I ever thought that could possibly bring Pern to life the way Anne wrote it. I am a great movie collector and I dearly would love to collect any movie made about Pern. God bless Anne--she brought beauty, fun and imagination to the written word. I can always sit and close my eyes and picture Pern as she describes it.
Diana Campbell
Maxchmolly@aol.com
Back to the top.
