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).
A Roswell Watcher Rides the Raves
he show Roswell was going really good until the episode where future Max came and told Liz that she had to fall out of love with Max! Well, that was a big surprise, because I was sure that they were going to get back together. Then, all these weird side-tracking things started to come up and happen, such as: are or are they not going to get back together?
The Las Vegas one sure made me think! I think that Max and Liz really make the show! Especially when they are together. This is my favorite show, and for The WB to keep them apart really bites. I think that Liz should tell Max that she didn't really sleep with Kyle and tell him why she had to do that.
And when I saw tonight's episode of Roswell I about flipped out because it was like, "uh oh are they gonna get back together?" but then dumb Tess gets in the way, and her and Max kiss big. And when I saw the scenes for next week's Roswell I about had a heart attack! What are they thinking by having Tess and Max have sex? And to top that off, he might have gotten her pregnant! Oh my god!
Maureen Flood
Mscott04@aol.com
Quality SF Always Gets Slaughtered
he sentiments expressed by Diana Campbell ("A Perfect Pern Still Lives On") last week really struck a cord with me.
It seems that truly artistic and creative ideas are the bane of existence for the almighty television network executives. Every time a writer comes up with something original, the brass are never secure until it has been chopped up, watered down and reconstituted into a format they can easily plug into their programming periodic table of formula entertainment.
I have never been able to decide if this is because they think the average viewer is incapable of relating to ideas above an intellectual level of a 4th grader. Or if they themselves are, in essence, educated idiots and incapable of appreciating or even understanding the concepts presented by of some of our best and brightest science fiction writers this age has seen.
To emphasize this point, let's just take a brief stroll down memory lane. I was in 8th grade and every Friday night it was a big decision for my friends and I whether to go roller-skating or stay home and watch Star Trek. It was one of the few shows my entire family could sit down and watch together and then discuss afterwards. The series had good writers, an outstanding cast and a loyal following. What was the networks response? Cut their budget and ignore their viewers then banish the show from production simply because its creator would not conform to the will of execs.
Earth: Final Conflict is another show that started out so promising, but it only took one season for the executives to slice and dice all of its individuality and appeal right off the airwaves. I was enthralled by the show's other-worldliness during that first season, now I don't even
bother to switch it on.
Then there was the assault on Babylon 5, truly a milestone in the world of science-fiction entertainment. I sometimes try and imagine how J. Michael Straczynski would have finished the series if the dream killers at Warner Bros. hadn't stepped in, threatening the show with cancellation causing him to break the flow of the arc and ultimately jump ship to the Turner network. And oh, what a jump--instead of support and salvation came another attempt to homogenize a great concept and storyline into some kind of dumbed-down space western. When JMS resisted their efforts the show was moved to several disfavored time slots and finally to the limbo of early morning Saturday cartoons.
Then in an act of spite, Crusade was cut off at the knees, sabotaged by insufficient marketing and the viewers' knowledge that the series was dead even before the first episode was aired. I've been re-watching the series premiere on the SCI FI Channel, and you can tell every episode that the educated idiots mucked around in trying to dictate what the viewers wanted to see instead of allowing us to continue to enjoy JMS's unique style and vision.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to tell the executives at the SCI FI Channel that you all are missing the boat if you don't allow Crusade's complete tale to be told. Pull the sets out of storage, dust off the costumes and bring back the cast. It's only been a few years, and none of the actors have aged that much. You have a ready-made audience out here. We're primed, pumped and ready for the story to be completed. Please give us what we want and not what you think we need.
Noel E. Duffy
Duffsplace@yahoo.com
Fans Must Help Keep Pern Flying
o, the WB has decided that if they can't rewrite Dragonriders of Pern the way they want it, they don't want it at all?
How arrogant. How utterly typical. And what an outrageous and undeserved slap-in-the-face to Ron Moore, his cast, his crew and even to Anne McCaffrey herself! I very much doubt that she would have given her approval to the project if Mr. Moore had not planned something that at least tried to do justice to the original series. I have even greater doubt that she would extend the same trust to the WB's staff writers.
Worse yet, the network had the unmitigated gall to pull the plug at the last minute. All the effort that went into locations, sets, props, cast, story, SFX, everything ... Poof! Wasted, like a tuft of Thread caught by dragonflame.
Am I surprised? No, not really. Remember, this is the same network that nearly binned Roswell, and only renewed it after concerned fans (and I'm pleased to count myself in that category) mounted a concerted letter-writing and Tabasco-sauce mailing effort.
I think it may be time to make a similar effort, if not quite as spicy. Mr. Moore may be willing to accept the network's decision, and their "justification," but here is at least one fan who is not! For those who feel the same way, here is the address, and some executive names to target letters to:
Mr. Jamie Kellner, CEO
Ms. Suzanne Daniels, Executive Vice President, Programming
Mr. John Litvak, Vice President, Programming
The WB Network
4000 Warner Blvd., Bldg. #34R
Burbank, CA. 91522
(Remember: Firm, but polite. Flaming, however well-deserved some of us may think it is, will only hurt whatever chance we may have to reverse this laughable "decision.")
Mr. Moore, if you're reading this, please don't give up! Dragonriders deserves the chance to fly on its own, and I firmly believe it should be Anne's fans, not the network executives, who determine if it will soar into the stratosphere or crash in flames.
Bruce Lane
kyrrin@bluefeathertech.com
Pern Would Always Be Compromised
just read the article announcing the cancellation of production on the proposed Dragonriders of Pern series, and I have to say--thank God! I'm sure the producer wanted to stay as close as possible to McCaffrey's vision, and I'm very glad he resisted the WB's urge to turn it into yet another
"young adult" (read: teen) show. I may love Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel nearly as much as I love the Dragonriders series, but for completely different reasons. The WB would not have been the place for it, and I salute the producer for not compromising his vision.
Beyond that, I don't know if anyone could create a vision of Pern that the fans, and more importantly, McCaffrey herself, could look at and say, "This is it. This is Pern." We've been reading these books for years, and all of us fans have a vision in our minds of what a dragon looks like, the landscape, the riders and even Thread. Try as they might, no television show could ever find a look that everyone could agree on. I like my Pern the way it is--written down so I can see it the way I want to, not the way a producer thinks it is. This is one of the best-loved series of books ever; let's leave it in the format where it's a proven success.
Jennifer Quail
tiepilot.geo@yahoo.com
Another Reader Patient for Pern
hree rousing cheers for Ron Moore! Thank you for sticking to your guns, and refusing to fall to the pop-culture orientation of The WB. I've been a major fan of Ms. McCaffrey's work for many many years, and though I was excited about the idea of a Pern TV series, I had my own doubts as well. After the recent plug-pulling on the series, I have to say, I'm glad that it was in the hands of a responsible individual like Ron Moore. I'm willing to be patient, and wait for a Pern that echoes the books closely, rather than one that crumbles under the pressure of mass-market appeals.
Kasey Myers
kaseymyers@hotmail.com
Voyager is Trapped in Pre-emption
have to agree with Earl Stewart ("Star Trek Has to Remain Accessible") and his comments about the inaccessibility of Voyager. We get UPN here, so we've been more fortunate
than Mr. Stewart. But Voyager is often pre-empted by sports. They will usually show Voyager at a later time, but the time slots are often changed at the last minute, making the TV listings useless. This is very frustrating!
I've seen every episode of every Star Trek ever made--except for two episodes of Voyager this year. One Wednesday, Voyager was pre-empted by hockey. It was to be shown late that night, so we taped it. But the listing was wrong, so we taped the wrong show. They show the episodes again on Sundays, which is nice. But again, it was pre-empted, this time by basketball. When I contacted the station they said that Voyager had been shown earlier in the afternoon on Sunday. What good does that do me if the TV listing said it would be on in the evening?! Am I supposed to stay
tuned to my UPN station 24/7 hoping to catch the new episodes at whatever time the station deems to put them on?
I think Deep Space Nine had the same problem. It was shown here on the local Fox station. They often switched the time slot from week to week, and it was often on at odd hours of the night and early morning. But at least with them, they stuck to the TV listings. If I could find the listing in
the TV Guide I could at least be confident that was when it would be shown.
Carol Wilson
macwilson@peoplepc.com
Voyager Plots On an Improving Trek
just finished watching the latest episode of Star Trek: Voyager. I am definitely looking forward to the rest of the season. The entire production is becoming a very good program. It is starting to treat the cast like real people, and the plots are interesting and plausible under the circumstances. The problem with some of the previous plots were that whoever is writing them fails to provide the interaction of real people. It doesn't matter about the background, if the story line is good. Voyager could be filmed in the backroom of a poolhall, anywhere--it would be good. When you rely on the setting to carry the show is when you start falling down.
John Ruster
jlruster@marathonkey.com
It's Time to Cast a New Picard
have been a Star Trek fan since I first saw the advertisements for the original Star Trek when I was in grade school. I was such a fan that I refused to watch Star Trek: The Next Generation for almost the entire first season because it was no longer Star Trek without the crew that originally defined what Star Trek is.
To me, TNG and Voyager, (TNG still being my least favorite ST series) are Nutrasweet versions of Star Trek. They come close to what made Star Trek precious to me but they miss the mark by being overly self-absorbed.
This brings me to what my definition of Science Fiction is. Science Fiction is a medium used to convey an idea, moral or concept relevant to the author (and hopefully the readers, viewers and/or hearers). A parable. One that is based on the theme of the known, perceived or predicted laws of the
universe (science) but not restrained to reality or accuracy (fiction).
To me, the best Star Trek episodes were the ones that were good Science Fiction. They told a good story. Like what honor is, what friendship is, how to treat someone different than you, how to honor others, etc. Not ones that were necessarily scientifically correct. The majority of the good story episodes were on TOS and DS9.
The other problem Star Trek seems to have is starting off with a variety of characters with different temperaments and beliefs and instead of showing us how to learn to work with this diversity, they melt all them all down into a pile of "This is the proper way to act and think. Our way." How does
that foster "diversity" (which I only believe in to a limited extent--I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy)? Star Trek is its own Borg! Look at the Doctor. They've given him so much "self awareness" that he is now basically a human with a body that can be turned off. In the show's reality he is simply a computer program. Think of the possible stories that could have been generated had they left him with just basic bedside manners and a matter of fact approach to things. The Doctor is Voyager's version of Data that got his emotion chip working.
Another problem with Star Trek is that every character is too closely associated with the actor. Some fans can't even conceive there is a difference. Patrick Stewart is tired of playing Picard so he is trying to have Picard killed off in the next movie. Picard (the English-accented Frenchman and my least favorite captain) has a lot more stories that can be told through him. If Patrick wants out, cast a new actor for his role (gasp!).
Keith Graf
wire_mapper@hotmail.com
Death is Necessary, Even in SF
t's a shame that there are those out there who feel that killing off fictional heroes is a bad thing (Bob Segarini's letter "Killing SF Icons Hurts Fans" and its responses). As Noah Vale ("Kirk Should Remain Dead") pointed out, the death of a character doesn't put an end to the stories that can be told and it doesn't mean that you can't go back an enjoy the old adventures over and over again. In fact, upon close inspection, you may learn new things when revisiting old stories. But the death of a character doesn't have to mean that the stories stop--there are always gaps in the life story that can be filled in, and as in real life, you can create stories about how a hero's life and death impacted others. There are often profound things about the human condition found in the death and suffering of a hero.
Furthermore, the notion that killing a hero brings a "phony 'realism' to a venue that helps us all escape" is an insult to intelligent fans everywhere who do appreciate the meaning found in death and is a cheap lie which ignores the notion that people watch and read SF for different reasons. In addition, there are studies that show that young children often learn their first coping with death skills thanks to fictional heroes that they encounter. Life is not forever, and while Mr. Segarini may like to enter a cozy fantasyland where death doesn't exist, killing a fictional hero isn't always just done for the weak reasons he seems to believe.
I'm sorry that Mr. Segarini and others feel cheated when their favorite characters die, but there are those of us out there who feel quite differently when these things happen. Just as in reality, we all can't agree on everything and we all must make accommodations with those with different feelings and beliefs.
Matthew Appleton
mattapp@aol.com
Killing Icons Increases Drama
fter reading several comments about the pros and cons of killing off
sci-fi Icons ("Killing SF Icons Hurts Fans") I just had to say something.
I've always found it more interesting when there was the very real possibility that a character could die in a show. It adds true drama and "nail biting" suspense to a scene when the threat of defeat and death are real. You find yourself wondering if everyone will actually make it this time.
A great example was the death of Obi-Wan in the first Star Wars movie (I don't care what episode number it has; it was the first and best). After the death of Alec Guinness' character there was real concern regarding the fate of the others. This gave the film serious dramatic effect.
It's just too boring when you know that all the major characters are going to be OK regardless what happens. There is no danger; no peril; no drama. Killing off characters isn't a bad thing if it's done to advance a major plot or storyline.
Brian Middleton
slapsho7@yahoo.com
Don't Kill Icons, Only Actors
re they "killing" icons ("Killing SF Icons Hurts Fans") or just the actors that portray them? In the case of Capt. Kirk, I had the personal belief that they just wanted to "do away" with Shatner. That original ending in Star Trek: Generations (getting shot in the back) was a terrible idea from the get go. The character of Capt. Kirk (like Horatio Hornblower--which many have speculated he is "based" on) is the kind of character you need in sci-fi, at least if you want action. The real problem is can we (fans) accept other people acting the role (like the different Bonds, for example)? People tend to have a death grip on some actors and the way they play a character. Especially the ones that start the character.
Ricky Cruz
rcruz01@compuserve.com
Fans Should Join Winning Team
have to disagree with Charlene Donatello ("Galactica Is A Sleeping Giant") who supports Richard Hatch and looks to be against Singer and DeSanto. What has Richard Hatch done recently? Can't think of anything? Same here. Now ask what has Singer and DeSanto done? That's right, the very successful X-Men. Success gets you in the door. Not passion. Oh, isn't there a feud with Richard Hatch and Glen Larson? Last I heard Glen Larson owns the rights to the show and can have whoever he wants to work on the new series. When I read the Fandom interview I got the feeling that original characters will be in the show, that Galactica will be just as good and maybe better than the original. Bryan Singer and Tom DeSanto get the full support of this Galactica fan.
Marc Borai
marc923@earthlink.net
Farscape Should Revive Zhaan Now
ow that I have recovered enough to communicate in coherent sentences, I want to flame the writers and producers of Farscape. Killing off Virginia Hey (Pa'u Zotoh Zhaan) was one of the most incredibly stupid bonehead moves of all time. And for what? To make room on the show for a whiny brat whose tantrums are loud enough to melt metal. (I mean that literally, for those of you who don't watch the show.)
Zhaan was my favorite character. This was particularly sneaky and underhanded, considering that the last time I checked, Virginia was still under contract to the show. As far as I am concerned, this is a bunch of frelling hezmot. I still haven't decided whether or not to continue watching the program. I really am that mad about this. Writers in Hollywood need to stop killing fan faves for no reason other than sensationalism.
Ward Miller
dutch206@home.com
Muppets, Robots and Kids Must Go
inor rant here. I tried to watch Farscape the other day, for about the tenth time, and for the tenth time I couldn't stomach it. I find that I can never endure more than five minutes of this series. Why? One word ... muppet.
Am I the only one who's noticed that there is a goddamned muppet on the show? Jeez, people, I'm willing to suspend my disbelief as far as the next person, but a stuffed hand doll as a character just doesn't cut it. Talk about shooting themselves in the foot. This might have been a good series. But a muppet!?
Which leads me to expand on my rant. Numerous times I've been willing to watch a weak and formula science fiction film or television episode, only to have that shallow pleasure snatched out from under me by a single poor decision on the part of the producer. The other day I watched a space opera about a group of teenage cadets, all dressed in white, who save a planet from a group of evil adults, all dressed in black, and I could have sat through it without vomiting (barely) but for one thing--the cadets had an amusing robot as their mascot/sidekick. Man, I hate cute, wise-cracking robots with ridiculously inefficient designs.
Remember Robbie from Forbidden Planet? Ha-a-a-a-t-ed that moronic tin can. How was he supposed to do any work with that non-flexible body and those idiotic excuses for hands? All he could do was shoot off his mouth. Sort of reminds me of another robot, a gold-plated smart-ass with an English accent who had his own loveable robotic sidekick (talk about overkill, a cute robot with his own cute robot).
There's only one thing I detest worse than cute, smart-mouthed, badly designed robots in science fiction films ... and no, it isn't muppets (although they come close). It's children. I hate kids in science fiction. Hate 'em, hate 'em, hate 'em. Kids and science fiction don't mix. There ought to be a law that no actor under the age of 18 is allowed to work on a SF film or series.
Listen, I started reading SF when I was nine years old. I started on the adult novels of Robert A. Heinlein, and worked my way back to his juvenile novels, which I didn't like half so much. Even at nine, I was able to identify with adult characters. Hell, I was even able to identify with old men or pregnant women. What makes producers of today's science fiction think that children are too stupid to identify with anybody other than other children? Or robots? Or muppets!!! When I was a kid, the last thing I wanted to do was identify with somebody my own age. I always wanted a main character who was older than I was, somebody I could look up to and try to emulate.
Consider the original Warner Bros. cartoons. All the main characters are adults! Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, Bugs Bunny, adults every one of them. Kids identified just fine with them for decades. Then someone has the bright idea of turning all the characters into babies. Judas Priest!
Every time I watch a SF movie or TV show, and I see 1) a muppet, 2) a cute robot, or 3) a smartass kid, I have an overpowering urge to a) puke my guts out, b) damn the writer to hell, and c) murder the producer. When you get rid of these three poisons of SF, it can actually ascend to towering heights of originality and beauty. Look at Blade Runner. Notice any kids? How about cute robot sidekicks? No? Then what about muppets? (OK, OK, Sebastian's toys come close, but they weren't cute, they were creepy).
I've got an original idea for a science fiction film. Let's make one about a mad scientist who uses animated muppets to lure wise-cracking, street-cynical kids with hearts of gold into his lab, so that he can strap them down and have his awkwardly-designed robots with English accents torture them to death. Now for that film I'd pay good money.
Al Smith
nanaisa@nono.com
Matrix Makes One Reader Scream
hile enslaving humans as energy sources doesn't seem efficient, it doesn't seem rational either, and that is the point; the AI is insane. Jealous of humanity's creativity, insecure about its status as a life form, all the while contemptuous of the biological filth which is the source of its virtual world, it created an infrastructure to feed a consuming hate for its creators.
Am I describing The Matrix? I could very well be talking about "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream."
Kirk Voelcker
anaxagoras@earthlink.net
Matrix Waters Down a Complex Comic
he Matrix is a captivating movie that does what good art is supposed to do: entertain and make you think. If some of the plot is obscure, chalk it up to the fact that the movie is a scaled-down version of The Invisibles comics series, and that complex concepts cannot always be presented fully in a time-constrained medium such as film.
Molly Schneider
stormborn@lucienlacroix.com
Don't Believe Everything You Hear
iolation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics ("Matrix Breaks Law of Thermodynamics
") is grievous sin indeed for a writer of comic SF. However, a thought comes to mind: why would the machines explain their true purpose to humans, who, by the way, probably never learned or even heard of the Second Law, or that Boltzmann was a depressive who killed himself after convincing no one that the universe was bound for Entropic Doom?
Anyway, the thought is this: to obtain AI as advanced as the entities in The Matrix, is it altogether unlikely that the machines learned how to use human minds to actually become sentient, or maintain themselves in some other, more horrible way. Alternatively, maybe the machines are scapegoats for human error, and the horror of the Matrix was created for humans, by humans. The list goes on, but don't believe everything your hear that is meant to explain or justify, even in SF--or should that be especially in SF.
Clem Stanyon
cstanyon@cmb.biosci.wayne.edu
Thermodynamics Is Not an Issue
just wanted to point out that the issue of Thermodynamics is not really an issue with The Matrix. Yes, it is true that it would require more energy to maintain humans as an energy source than it would if the energy was used directly; but that does not mean that the humans were necessary. If we assume that the machines were able to grow nutrients for the humans; the humans simply become generators for the machines in the same way that natural gas, oil or coal is converted into electrical energy. The real question of course is how did the machines produce the nutrients?
Bill McHale
mchale@toad.net
Gerrold Bounces Off Heinlein
thought the reviewer's comments about David Gerrold borrowing from Heinlein for his new book Bouncing off the Moon is nothing new for him. His greatest claim to fame, Tribbles are nothing more than a straight rip-off of Martian Flatcats from Heinlein's juvenile book, The Rolling Stones! I always wondered how he got a way with that. Any comments?
Duke Whedbee
dwhedbee@triad.rr.com
Imported Anime is Getting Worse
his has been an opinion that I've boiled with for some time, and I think it just needs to be said to spark debate. The influx of anime on American television must stop!
Not entirely mind you. It's just the fact that recently, anime series picked up for American television have been treated horribly. Card Captor Sakura, a good show for kids, was thrashed by Nelvanna and the WB network into a mess known as Cardcaptors, with bad dubbing, bad new introduction sequence and bad music. They re-edited the episodes and aired them in a different order. Essentially, they took a perfectly good show for the young girl crowd and lobotomized it into a companion to Pokemon.
The CCS transition is an extreme example to be sure, but other shows have suffered similar fates. When Cartoon Network picked up shows such as Outlaw Star and Gundam Wing, it almost seems that they pushed their products out onto the television with minimal effort. The dubbing in those shows are laughable at best, and the network continues to find new anime to put on television at a rate that friends of mine and I think is simply too fast.
One of the worst massacres of all however, was what Fox did to Vision of Escaflowne, retitled Escaflowne, for American broadcast. For one, once again, the dub could have been much better. Another point is that they chopped up the first episode and pieced it together with the second, essentially eliminating the backstory of the central character, Hitomi. Finally, they attempted to aim the series at the Saturday morning crowd, when the series is really meant for audiences no younger than teenagers. However, the saddest part about it is that Fox cancelled the show after only eight of twenty six episodes, or in the re-edited case, twenty five.
American networks need to slow down and watch which series they decide to pick up. They also need to show more care in which audience they're aiming for. If a network is looking at a show that was made for teenagers, they shouldn't look at it to see how they can change it for kids. If they want to air it, then they should see if it can be fit into the prime time slot.
P.S. On the topic of dubbing, my opinions are purely based on what I perceive as a good or bad dub. Everyone has a different ear for determining good and bad and should judge them on their own.
Justin Graham
jgraham_70@hotmail.com
Red Planet Problems Have Solutions
would like to respond to Gloria Hoffner's letter ("Red Planet Makes Fan See Red") regarding the movie Red Planet. She is correct that most science fiction requires us to "suspend some science in order to enjoy a good flick." And it is true that Red Planet pushed the envelope in a couple of areas, but beyond that, as I read her letter, I began to wonder if we had watched the same movie!
Red Planet was hit hard by the critics, and did not do well in theaters. I did not get a chance to catch it on the big screen, but could remember wanting to after seeing the theatrical trailers and TV commercials. After watching the movie on DVD (including the deleted scenes), I've come to a couple of conclusions. First, it simply was not the movie I thought it would be based on the advertising. There was less action, more personal interaction, and it did require you to think. Secondly, there was a "science thinking" versus "spiritual thinking" aspect to the movie that probably put the critics off their feed. One of the problems with this is that when you start down that road, you'd better completely develop that part of the story line--and if you watch the deleted scenes (like the ice cave scene where Tom Sizemore's character finally admits the possibility that God might be at work) you'll see what I mean.
It was not a movie about science or terraforming, and it really was not a movie about science versus God. It was a movie about a group of people faced with inexplicable events, mission disaster, and survival using good old American know-how, coupled with the SWAG method to stay alive and accomplish the mission. The spiritual element makes the people interesting, but does not drive the plot along, as it could have.
Ms. Hoffner complains about "a shower in the middle of the walkway just for the required sex scene ... "--but there was no sex scene! It is the year 2025, and it does not require too much suspension of reality to consider both-sex showers. Plus, even though it was adjacent to a common area, Bowman (Moss) says later in the movie, "I started locking the door." Additionally, this scene sets up one of the funniest lines in the movie.
I'll admit the ship fire scene was overdone--it is a big ship, and Bowman rushing around trying to be in more than one place at one time did not play out well. But as for as Ms. Hoffner's statement about "then the ship is just fine for the return to earth," has she ever heard of Apollo 13? It was obvious from Bowman's interaction with mission control that there were redundant systems and bypass methods available to get the ship going--and that did not solve the orbit degradation, fuel and time element that was plainly brought out.
She says "one pleads to die"--he did not plead, he simply stated the obvious--if they tried to carry him, they would all die, so he does something noble. Giving your life so that others may live might seem like an alien concept to some, but it used to be called heroism.
"The audience has no explanation how the place was built by unmanned probes, who destroyed it, where the missing parts went--etc. We are supposed to believe there is an icestorm--on a planet with no water?" What movie was she watching? Technology that can build an "AMIE" can build robots capable of remote terraforming tasks. The whole process was explained in the movie--low yield nuclear explosions in underground ice formations at the poles release water. Remote probes release the bacteria/algae, and the process of oxygen making begins. And the insects (possibly awakened when water appeared--and don't laugh, it happens right here on earth--or God might have put them there) destroyed the terraforming and survival facility. That too, was explained in the movie. It was not a "lifeless planet," it was a planet that had been in the terraforming process for two decades. As for the ice storm, water + low temperature + changing planetary conditions = ice storm!
The robot had a "mission" mode, and a "combat" mode. All of the robot's weapons had been removed, so that only "hand to hand" type fighting was available to it. It was on the mission to provide them with fast, high-tech information by scouting ahead and reporting back. It was never meant to be in combat mode, but the processor was damaged when the module it was in was jettisoned during their landing attempt. This was all explained in the movie.
"Why would a combat-trained robot selectively kill?" Once again, that was explained in the movie. It was operating in "guerilla" mode. It attacked and injured one of the team, so that the other two would be hindered by assisting him. Later, it would kill them all, and when it got to that point, it logically chose the one team member that had abandoned the others and was by himself.
After reading Ms. Hoffner's letter, it made me wonder if she'd watched the same movie I had--but upon reflection, she must have watched it--but with the sound turned down.
Jeff Parker
hjparker@bulloch.com
The Cape Needs Crusaders
ith the increase of space exploration from at home in the United States and indeed, the interest of the entire world, it is vitally important that this enthusiasm be projected to today's growing television audience. The short-lived television series The Cape did just that like no other drama could.
The Cape was a positive series. It showed us all what goes on behind the scenes with NASA and, most importantly, in an extremely entertaining way! For once, there was an easy way to get excited about NASA each week. We all feel proud whenever the space shuttle lifts off and then again when the orbiter touches down. Wouldn't it be great if we could have that same sense of pride each and every week? The Cape instilled that pride in each and every viewer during each and every episode.
American astronauts are hailed as the greatest of American heroes alive today. So why are the babes of Baywatch and the bad boys of rock 'n' roll given more praise and attention?
Apollo 13 was, for lack of better words, truly awesome. Countless dreams were inspired by this box office hit. The Cape can do for the small screen what Apollo 13 did for the silver screen: Inspire Americans of all ages!
Ryan Koncar
SWIM9700@aol.com
Jules Verne Is a Moving Target
ust today, I learned that the SCI FI channel decided to change the schedule (at least this week) of The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne and play the Babylon 5 movie "The Gathering." I'm saddened by this more for what it says about SCI FI's attitude towards the fans of this show than the fact that they told no one about the change--including whoever updates their Web site.
Jules Verne is a nice, light romp with good actors, passable scripts and lovely scenery. Yet it's been treated like an unwanted step-child to Black Scorpion, a series which at least in my mind, was created for the T&A factor alone. Hasn't anyone noticed that the movies aimed at that age group aren't doing well anymore? And while I'm sure teen boys need something new to drool over, does it have to be at the expense of good programming?
Sadly, it seems to be a trend lately to program for the lowest common denominator--and Black Scorpion certainly fits that bill. Now I fear for the fate of one of the few remaining shows on the SCI FI Channel that is entertaining without being exploitational.
Margot Wilkerson
mwilkers@ev1.net
Jules Verne Fan Fumes
he SCIFI Channel is up to its old tricks again. This week, without warning, it shelved one of its news shows--The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne--to a 1 a.m. Saturday night time slot. And there are still many new episodes left to be shown. This is also the third timeslot the show has had in four months.
Here is how this affects all SCI FI fans:
--We can't let SCI FI programmers be willy-nilly with our favorite shows without speaking up. And what's happening to The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne is just their latest moronic move.
--SCI FI moved The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne WITHOUT WARNING the fans--the site schedule-bot still lists the show at its old time period. If they do this kind of thing, any show could be next!
--Without SCIFI giving new shows like The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne a chance to build an audience, we may be doomed to watch more SCI FI Channel reruns. Now reruns are great, don't get me wrong. But original programming has a place too.
--Without SCI FI giving The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne and other new shows a chance to survive and build an audience, production companies may be less likely to support making new sci-fi or fantasy shows. This is bad news for all of us. I'm sure we all love reruns of our past favorite shows--but we do need to encourage development of new programming too.
--The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne is not your typical space opera sci-fi show. We need to encourage the development of programming that appeals to other sci-fi audiences--including women and steam punk fans. The SCIFI Channel should be reaching out to new audiences in the genre.
--The SCI FI Channel will take shows like The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne that are specifically geared toward fans of science fiction and fantasy and schedule them in the wee hours when most of us are asleep, but there has been a disturbing trend this year for the channel to program non-genre movies such
a Cape Fear in prime time. We need to keep the SCI FI Channel in sci-fi.
David A. Speakman
david@speakman.com
Lexx Puts Star Trek to Shame
have read many of your emails (people who actually send mail to the SCI FI Channel) and Lexx is never mentioned. Lexx rules. It was created in 1996, years before Farscape. Farscape blatantly carbon-copied Lexx and made it kiddie and stupid. Lexx is the story of a massive (11 km, 8 miles long) living spaceship and the crew of rebel outcasts that pilot it. When it came out, its state of the art computer animation put Toy Story to shame. Sound like a certain other, later sci-fi show? Even now, five years later, it still looks better than Farscape.
So I say to all of those family people who are too homophobic or overprotective to let their children watch good television (not counting Farscape), gather your spouses and young ones and watch Lexx 1.0 through 4.0 (uncensored version) and I guarantee Buffy, Farscape, Dark Angel and the rest will look like kids' shows with contrived plots, and definitely not in the least bit gory. Oh, and for everyone else, Lexx is more original, wittier and better done than Star Trek ever has been or will be.
Andrew Pfleiderer
arpfleiderer@home.com
Fan Offers 7 Days FAQ
noticed Ted Horton's recent query about the time travel "rules" of 7 Days ("7 Days Rules Are Weak"), and think I might be able to help out.
The issue of what happens to the Parker of the past when there is a Backstep has only been addressed indirectly. In the excellent episode "Buried Alive," we're told that the team at NNL know that a Backstep has occurred because the Sphere has vanished. If one extends that to everything sent back in the Sphere, it seems that the Parker of the past simply vanishes, replaced by his future self. As yet we haven't seen this happen, and it's possible the producers haven't shown us because they want to avoid painting themselves into a corner.
As for Parker using the Sphere to travel back seven days, then travel back a further week, this was addressed in the episode "Tracker." It seems that the power source for the sphere needs time to regenerate, and isn't fully charged until seven days have passed since its last use. Parker could use the device when it is only partially regenerated, but he wouldn't be able to go back very far. Thus the seven day limit remains intact.
For answers to further questions, I invite Ted and other viewers to visit the 7 Days FAQ, at http://welcome.to/7-Days.
Chris Halliday
otherchris@erols.com
SCI FI Fan
Offers Up Accolades
love all science fiction. I rarely watch anything else--movies or television. Of all the science fiction available, I believe the following SCI FI channel shows are among the best: First Wave, Invisible Man, and Prey. I loved every episode of Prey. I am happy to see others feeling the same for a terrific show. I would love to see something made to draw a conclusion to the rather abrupt end. I also enjoyed Brimstone. Thanks SCI FI for all of your hard work making the best television available.
Belinda George
bgeorge@pex.net
Back to the top.
