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).
SF's Golden Goose Gets Cooked
had to respond to Anni Foasberg's reply ("Good SF Can Survive Scrutiny") regarding Scott Edelman's editorial "Science Fiction is Supposed to be Fun." I was an English major in college, and I learned to absolutely dread the word "analysis." I compare it to the fable of the goose that laid golden eggs, where the goose was killed to find out how it laid golden eggs and then there weren't any more eggs.
Yes, I agree that good books have multiple layers of meaning. Unfortunately, the teachers I had seemed more caught up in making sure we all agreed the book had the same meaning. As an example, we were required to read The Turn of the Screw. This is a wonderfully scary ghost story--until
your teacher goes off on this tangent about how the author was really writing about how the governess is in love with the absent father of the children she's caring for and so she kills the kids to get them out of the way, and that means (of course) the story is really about sexual repression in the Victorian Age. Then the teacher says "Why did the author write this story?" Silly me, I poke my hand up and say, "He wrote it to scare people." Needless to say, I didn't do very well in this class.
I really think what Mr. Edelman was referring to was the way too many teachers take a wonderful literary work (whether it's mainstream or sci-fi), and tell the kids what they were supposed to get out of the story. And if the kids don't "get it," then they're stupid. Been there, done that.
Yes, science fiction is supposed to be fun. Reading is supposed to be fun. Imagination is supposed to be fun. But there is no fun in being forced to agree that Hamlet has an Oedipus complex or the heroine of a ghost story is just sexually repressed. Yuck ... no wonder kids today don't want
to read.
Rachel Maley
rjmaley@surgery.unmc.edu
Defend Duchovny's Drop-Out Decision
umphrey Bogart, my favorite actor, said once, "All an actor owes the audience is a good performance." What I think he meant was that an actor does not need to live his or her life to suit the public. I have read many letters complaining about David Duchovny leaving The X-Files. They seem to believe he owes the fans of the show some loyalty. I strongly disagree.
While I doubt that Mr. Duchovny feels the need to be defended on his life choices, let me do so, anyway. Watching The X-Files has given me many hours of pleasure over the years. I have enjoyed Mr. Duchovny's and Ms. Anderson's work immensely. It has been work for them, however, very hard work by all accounts. They have made difficult sacrifices to make us happy. Now, it seems Mr. Duchovny wants to pursue other roles. It is his right as an actor to stretch his talents. Basil Rathbone felt trapped in the role of Sherlock Holmes. No doubt Mr. Duchovny feels the same about Fox Mulder. Rathbone was a classically trained actor with a wide range. Mr. Duchovny wants to explore his range. He owes himself that. He owes Ms. Leoni the best life he can give her. He only owes us his best performance.
John E. Nolan
roninja@bcpl.net
X-Fan Disses Mulder's Kiss Qualms
take issue with the comments ("Duchovny Disses X-Files Finale") you recently published by David Duchovny regarding the X-Files season finale.
If he actually made the comments he did--if he really was actually upset by his character's kiss with Scully--why didn't he just pull another one of his "I'm better than this" tantrums and walk out?
I mean, gee, he didn't have to do the scene, did he? He could have just walked off the set. He could have argued with them more. He could have done something other than do what he always does: Take Chris Carter's, etc., money, do his time, and then diss all over the net.
While I have been a big X-Files fan for the show's entire run and enjoyed the evolution of the characters of Mulder, Scully, Skinner, the Lone Gunmen and more--I am very, very tired of Duchovny's attitude (makes me wonder how Tea Leoni puts up with him).
I for one thought while the show certainly rushed things at the end of the season especially considering--at Duchovny's request!--that Mulder was barely in this season, the kiss was entirely appropriate. It was entirely set up by the events in the episode that Millennium's Frank Black was in and their relationship, while rather coy over the last 8 years, has been building toward this for ages.
Get over it, David! You've taken yourself off the show, which gives you even less reason to rant about it. Enjoy whatever success Evolution and other projects you decide to take on gives and move on.
Goodbye, Mulder; hello, Doggett!
Martin L. Cahn
editor@demensionszine.com
Another British Invasion Beckons
have two things to say. One is look out for the Blackadder: Back and Forth video from BBC video being released in the U.S. It stars Rowan Atkinson and Miranda Richardson and is written by Ben Elton and Richard Curtis. It features a time-travel machine going through the ages and it is a special based on the hilarious British historical satire written by Richard Curtis and Ben Elton. I'm surprised that when Sci-Fi Wire mentioned Ben Elton collaborating with Andrew Lloyd Webber on The Phantom of the Opera film musical, they did not mention being an edgy comedian who wrote for the Young Ones and Blackadder (two other British comedy hits) which should have surprised you
guys since he's working with Webber.
Also, look out for the League of Gentlemen movie coming to BBC America on the weekend of June 23rd and June 24th. In case, you haven't seen it on limited run on Comedy Central, it's a comedy (sort-of-drama) series which satires the horror genre--brilliantly and funny--and is said to be a cross between Monty Python and Twin Peaks. The movie and the series is based around the strange town of Royston Vasey with strange residents (two of them are owners of a local shop who make sure anyone unlocal is never seen again--murdered actually--and another is a creepy carnival owner who snatches wives and tells them "You're my wife now"). Also, Mark Gatiss, one of the Doctor Who novelists co-writes and co-stars in the League of Gentlemen.
The League of Gentlemen movie will satirize horror anthology movies. It's not to be missed.
Kostas Spiliotis
DavrosDW@aol.com
Lewis' Narnia Need Not Be Tweaked
am heartily dismayed to find that HarperCollins will be "reinventing" The Chronicles of Narnia. For a person who has read these wonderful tales as a child, and later as an adult, it is a slap in the face to find that they have been reduced to a marketing ploy. And a cheap marketing ploy to add to HarperCollins' vast monetary empire.
Also to find that these stories will be reissued in an easier format begs the question: are these classics being reduced to Cliff's Notes because they are too hard? The Narnia books are eminently easy to read, with wonderful word flow, and they are best when read aloud. There's nothing like dumbing-down great literature!
To issue new books, in the manner of C.S. Lewis, but with anonymous authors, smacks of the fact that there is nothing left to write and the publishers must resort to serializing already existing works.
HarperCollins is just riding the rampant wave of commercialism and merchandising fostered by TimeWarner (Harry Potter).
Aslan the breakfast cereal, Puddleglum the insect repellant.
Where will it end?!
Cara Torta
the_radicaledward@hotmail.com
Evolution Does Deliver Laughs
just read the review of Evolution by Patrick Lee. It's loaded worse than the bilge of a Navy vessel.
Patrick calls the film "a breathtakingly unfunny SF comedy that relies on monkey-brained bathroom jokes."
Unfunny? At last night's showing, I heard everyone in the theater laughing throughout the movie. Discounting one or two gag-me one-liners (which seem to be prevalent in the industry these days) the movie was fun, laugh-inspiring and more entertaining than a barrel of Woody Allens. And yes, Jones gets the majority of laughs, but the story appeared to have been written that way. Don't forget, in Men In Black, didn't Will Smith get more laughs than Tommy Lee Jones? Gee, the comedian got more laughter than the serious actor? Go figure.
I enjoyed the movie and plan to purchase a copy for my library when it's released.
Joe Castleberry
castleberry.joe@ssd.loral.com
Sugar-Coated Column Causes Cavities
s a long time lover of science fiction, I read Mr. Cassutt's little diatribe ("The Sci in Sci-Fi") on the poor science in science fiction with some puzzlement. It's a topic worthy of discussion. I just don't think Mr. Cassutt did a very good job of it. I would have enjoyed a little light being cast on the liberties Hollywood takes with science in science fiction. But this column read like a pet peeve puff piece, cotton candy, a whole lot o' nuthin' wrapped in sugar coating.
Maybe it's just me, but the column read like a quickly dashed off, last minute, written-only-under-obligation rehash of old ideas, with a little personal crankiness mixed in. Although I agree with Mr. Cassutt, he doesn't really make too much of a case, and certainly doesn't develop his ideas. The whole piece left me with a big, "Yeah? So what?" feeling.
I wanted more substance, more than, "I don't like this, so it's bad, but sometimes it's okay." C'mon, Michael ... summer vacation not soon enough? As for literary liberties with science in science fiction, the genre would not exist if liberties were not taken. Fiction would not exist! You can rationalize it using Clarke's idea of advanced science as magic, if you like, but there has to be a suspension of disbelief on the reader's part (as Coleridge defined it) of some kind in order for any piece of fiction to be read with enjoyment. It's the agreement we as the reader enter into with the writer. We agree to suspend our disbelief as we read, as long as you, as the writer, maintain an internal consistency, be it with your extrapolated pseudo-science, your rules of magic, your historical setting, what have you. Any writing that doesn't maintain an internal consistency is bad writing, whatever the genre.
Which brings me back to Mr. Cassutt. He set up an argument (Science in Hollywood Sci-Fi), diverted from that subject into written sci-fi, then waffled on the point (sometimes I like it), then ended the column. Yeah? So what?
Well ... so you got me to write in, I suppose ... Damn. Now where's my consistency? Mr. Cassutt, I usually enjoy your pieces. Just felt I had to call you on this one. A little sloppy.
Mike Luoma
glowindark@adelphia.net
Bad Writing Begets Bad SF
s usual, Michael Cassutt's latest column ("The Sci in Sci-Fi") got me thinking. For my part,
I'm willing to accept a certain amount of dramatic license in science fiction. Visible lasers (that you can dodge) and loud explosions in space are just plain neat. In space, no one can hear you scream, but you can hear nuclear explosions.
Plus, sometimes it's fun to come up with your own explanations for scientific improbabilities. For instance, although obviously you wouldn't get Mr. Spock from having unprotected Rishathra, I can imagine that Star Trek-era computers might be powerful enough to mix and match alien DNA like
so many Tinkertoys. Granted, you'd probably wind up with a sort of genetic lowest common denominator that would be more at home under a microscope than on the bridge of the Enterprise, but even that could be worked with. What's harder to believe is that the Federation would dabble in that kind of
science despite, centuries after the fact, still being shocked and ashamed for having accidentally created Ricardo Montalban (and who wouldn't be?).
Maybe the Federation came by the technology via some alien race. The question of what sort of people would develop such technology and why, and its resulting consequences, is one that could launch a thousand science-fiction stories all by itself. (Not a single one of which seems to have occurred to any Star Trek writer in the last 30 years.)
At the very least, being able to mate and produce offspring with any alien that came along would be one heck of an evolutionary advantage if you were looking to spread your genes across the galaxy.
Likewise, I bet you could imagine the engineering requirements of a giant ant, a la Them. Six legs and a relatively low-to-the-ground build would help distribute the weight. Plus, there's no heavy skeleton to worry about. The ant would have to be relatively light-weight and might be a bit on the
flimsy side as a result. Naturally, it would be proportionally a lot weaker than a normal-sized ant, or even a person. But it still might just be able to pick up a screaming man in its mandibles. Doing the same to a car would be out of the question though. At the very least, our giant ant would fare a lot better than the 60-foot titans of Land of the Giants.
Now, if you want your ant to be bullet-proof, breathe fire and mate with our women, that would be pushing the envelope a bit.
Bad science makes bad science-fiction only when it's a result of laziness on the part of the writer, or sheer ignorance. "Making the Kessel run in 12 parsecs," is a good example of the latter. Perhaps, one imagines, Capt. Solo knew a hyperspace shortcut to Kessel that was only twelve parsecs (or perhaps not. After all, he had just come out of a bar and then proceeded to refer to Jabba the Hutt as a "human being." Maybe he was just drunk.)
Things like Mr. Fantastic explaining about "protons, electrons and neurons," or Dr. Who saving the day by "reversing the polarity of the neutron flow" are pretty much unforgivable. Those gems are from actual scripts that were produced and aired on television. You'd think that somebody, somewhere along the line, would have remembered enough junior-high-school science to point out those errors.
In the former category, there's laziness or sloppiness on the part of the writers. Why even have inertial dampers if you can't go two weeks without needing to bypass them for some reason or other? If writers want to save the ship by "channeling a tachyon pulse through an inverted prehensile diabolic
retention grid," that's fine. But if the next week, they solve a problem by "beaming anti-gravitons through a convex prehensile diabolic retention matrix," then, frankly, they need to swap jobs with me, because they're out of ideas. They can write technical manuals and I'll write Star Trek.
Likewise, just how many shuttles did Voyager have anyway? That ship was practically an aircraft carrier. Sloppy. But that doesn't hold a candle to science-fiction's all-time shuttle-demolition champion, Space: 1999. If they could have somehow salvaged every Eagle that was destroyed over the course of that series, they would have had enough material to build a bridge back to Earth!
Steve Dong
steve@theboojum.com
Trite Hollywood Trash Tires Fans
ichael Cassutt's assertion ("The Sci in Sci-Fi") that the "Hollywood suits" continue to fail science is only part of their shortcomings. They also fail the audience's expectation of actually being entertained. Most movies billed as science fiction end up being an insult to the viewer's intelligence regardless of their level of interest in the genre. Case-in-point is Evolution.
This under-worked piece of film looked good in the trailers, but ended up being just another corporately tuned rerun obviously intended for the ever important "mass appeal." Forget the science. Forget the fiction. Try and forget that you just got ripped off of at least $8. What makes it even more frustrating is that this is just one of many in what seems a never-ending stream of studio eye-candy we, the public, must endure (remember your disappointment with Starship Troopers?).
Mr. Studio Executive, we the fans of science fiction are not a group of computer nerds looking for the next Star Trek replacement. We are not a walking wallet looking for something--anything--on which to spend our time. We don't all look for correct mass ratios or dispute which of the Star Wars episodes were our favorites. We are a cross-section of the viewing public capable of understanding the difference between good viewing and sophomoric humor. We don't need a movie sugar coated for mass appeal. We certainly don't need another remake or sequel to justify making a movie worth viewing. Stop feeding us crap sandwiches and we may just surprise you by paying to see a movie twice (and when was the last time you did that?).
Joe Flaugher
jflaugher@hotmail.com
Today's Magic is Tomorrow's Reality
'm sorry, but I'm quite amazed and disgusted that Michael Cassutt of all people would debunk science fiction ("The Sci in Sci-Fi") with the complaint that things weren't scientifically genuine enough.
Arthur C. Clarke also stated that "the magic of today could very well be the science of the future." Just because there isn't any scientific fact based on the technology presented in the stories you gave as example does not mean that sometime in the future (most likely well after both you
and I are dead and our bones turned to dust) these things won't be a realistic fact.
Examples:
Warp Drives: These are, at the moment, fantasy, but, anti-matter has been discovered and the theories and technology for anti-matter engines are on the "drawing board" and in the future will eventually become reality.
Nano Machines: ("magic beans" you called them) Sorry, you're dead wrong on this one, buddy. They are, in fact, a reality here and now in the year 2001. Albeit they are extremely simplistic in their abilities and the cost to manufacture a viable production line at present is, well, I can't imagine how
expensive that would be, but, nonetheless, they are a scientific fact and in the future will quite possibly be capable of at least some of the things that Seven of Nine can do with her little buggies.
Science and Invention walk hand in hand with Imagination, and without it they would cease to be--if you asked Pope Pious the III if he ever thought that man would build machines that would fly to the moon he'd probably have you burned at the stake for heresy and witchcraft.
Now I admit Land of the Giants is beyond hokey and there are science-fiction stories with technology that is unbelievable and most likely impossible in this world past, present and future, but science fiction is what it is: stories to entertain and give the ol' imagination a kick in the butt. Who knows if anti-matter would ever have been discovered without the broadcast of Star Trek all those years ago.
Please try not to be so narrow minded to what the future may bring. We probably won't be zipping around and saving the universe in and X-Wing fighter with the likes of Han Solo and Luke Skywalker, but we will travel to, and most likely colonize, other planets in time--imagination is the key, and
science brings the dreams to life.
I myself am hoping for a replicator for Christmas.
Jean-Paul Collier
budhaboy@bellatlantic.net
Claudia Black Deserves Saturn More
here has been a huge buzz about the Saturn Award choices for Best Actor/Actress of a TV series on a certain bulletin board lately, most of it surrounding the question: "Why Jessica Alba and not Claudia Black?"
I have to agree. Why not Claudia Black? Or Sarah Michelle Gellar? Charisma Carpenter? Kate Mulgrew? I'm sorry, but the Saturn Awards seem to be playing "Teacher's Pet," not only with the nominees, but with a good chunk of the awards.
And what about Ben Browder? If he was acting in the movies, he would have won an Academy Award by now.
How about Richard Dean Anderson, Jason Behr, David Boreanaz or Kevin Sorbo? There were a lot of better choices other than Robert Patrick.
And if you check out www.scifi.com/saturnawards, you can find membership information. Any shmuck with some bucks can buy into it and vote--yeah, it's a real Academy, alright.
I'm sorry, but this seems like a big gimmick to me. How can we take them seriously when they choose Jessica "lolly-pop" Alba over actresses such as Sarah Michelle Gellar and Claudia Black?
Bronwyn R. Lewis
SorlkLewis@scape-goat.co.uk
SCI FI Shouldn't Forget Small Shows
think that it's great that the SCI FI Channel often runs series that were only on for one season and are considered classics. But what about other shows that didn't quite make it that far? Either in length of time on the air, or through status?
I would love to see reruns of Shadow Chasers, Voyagers, Automan, Planet of the Apes, Kindred, War of the Worlds, Time Cop, and Werewolf. The list goes on and on. There is a wealth of series that did not make it past their first season, or never achieved a strong following, but the SCI FI Channel only runs the likes of Dark Skies or The Flash, both of which had a high fan base but low ratings.
I would like to see some of these other series revived, perhaps with the running of a different one each night of the week. I hope that you post this letter, and that there are more fans out there who would like to see some of these "forgotten" series run again.
Bill Hardman
stargater@neo.rr.com
New Rules for Network Executives
ometimes I have this fantasy where I dream that I'm head of this powerful army that is armed with swords and rayguns riding on top of dragons! We take over every TV Network. ABC, CBS, NBC, WB, FOX, UPN, etc., then my warriors bring the network VIPs before me, where I then lay down the law!
You will no longer take off any sci-fi TV show off the air without my OK first!
You will bring back all the SF TV shows that you had taken off the air, and provide them with all new episodes!
When I do give you the green light to take a show off the air, you will have a final, two-hour TV movie that will tie up all the show's lose ends!
All shows and movies in SF, fantasy and horror genre will be shown uncut!
You will all obey, or your heads are going to roll!
Yes, you're 100% right. I am ticked off. And with good reason, too. For years they have taken my favorite shows off, way before their time. Worst then that, the shows get the boot without that final story that will tell what happens to who.
At least M*A*S*H had its finale. The war had ended and everyone went home while the good Dr. Kimball, at long last, stopped running when he caught the one-armed man and proved to the law that he didn't kill his wife!
Networks kill shows before it's time is bad enough--but then they slap the faces of all the show's fans when they won't do a finale!
Yes, I'm mad very mad and there's not much I can do but dream. However, if this dream of mine ever does come true ...
Oh, I'm just going to love kicking network VIP's asses!
James Cash
Quake700@aol.com
Trek Cash Cow Is Being Butchered
am writing in response to the letter from Sean Huxter ("Admiral Janeway Murdered Millions") in which he complains that Admiral Janeway "murdered millions." Sad to say, it is quite obvious that Mr. Huxter has not really read all that much science fiction. Either that, or he is just attempting to "play devil's advocate" in an attempt to rile other people up. (Personally, I prefer the second reason, myself.)
Mr. Huxter, do you know anything about "alternate realities?" If not, those are what are "created" at what could be called "crisis points." Actually, in my own opinion (after reading science fiction for over 30 years) I would say that all Janeway did was to "create" an "alternate reality" in which the people she cared for did not die. I cannot fault her for that, since Kirk, Sisko, Picard and others did the same. Look at the Star Trek: The Next Generation movie, First Contact--Picard chased the Borg back in time and kept them from destroying Earth. Shouldn't he have just let them go? After all, he "murdered" who knows how many Borg when he did that, didn't he? I will leave it at that, since there are so many conflicting theories when it comes to time travel, and Star Trek seems to have used most of them--quite irrationally at times, too. Just remember this, Mr. Huxter--the people in
charge of writing these shows have only one goal in mind--to make money. They do not care what the fans think. They never have and never will. Gene Roddenberry cared, but the people in charge now do not even care about that. They will butcher anything related to Star Trek if they have even the slightest notion that it will increase the size of their bank accounts, you know.
Sorry, went off on a rant there. Not directed at you, sir, just the money-grubbing people in charge of a great thing that they have turned into nothing more than a "cash-cow."
"How dare they?" you ask? They will dare anything, when it pleases them--we (the fans) don't matter, that jingle in the pocket is all that matters to them. Sad, yes, but true.
Michael McMaster
mcmaster@usa.com
Time Travel Never Travels Well
lthough, like Sean Huxter ("Admiral Janeway Murdered Millions"), I didn't care for the final episode of Voyager, I didn't happen to share Sean's specific complaint with the episode. One of the effects of chaos theory is that everything everybody does causes millions of people to live and die. Say, for example, I depart in my car one minute later than I might have otherwise. The two different
options will result, eventually, in millions, nay billions, of people living and dying.
How? Well, my leaving one minute earlier vs. later means that the thousands of cars that I peripherally interact with will be affected, if minutely. Somebody will make a green light that wouldn't have, etc. And the thousands of people I peripherally interact with will in turn peripherally interact with thousand of more people each, until essentially everyone in the civilized world is affected--if just by a few seconds (or even just a fraction of a second.) Given that almost all auto accidents happen because someone was in the wrong place at the wrong time, virtually every accident that happens in the world will get modified slightly, changing who lives, who dies.
Of course the vast majority of the people who have had their life altered by just a fraction of a second probably won't see any notable difference in their lives, at least for some time to come. But most of the people that I alter the lives of by a fraction of a second will someday have sex and have
children. But the fraction of a second difference in their life means that a different sperm--or perhaps no sperm at all--will impregnate the woman. So my leaving in my car a minute later vs. earlier will affect the genetic composition of essentially the entire human race in a generation or so.
Now Sean might argue that even if I'm right, Admiral Janeway did it intentionally. Does that really matter? You can not help but to affect the birth and death of billions, so how does it really matter if it is intentional or not?
Finally, Sean might argue that Admiral Janeway did it after the fact, and that makes it worse. But if Janeway alters the timeline and the events never happen, how can anyone do anything after something that never happens at all? Of course, then how could Admiral Janeway ever have gone back in
time if the events that lead her to go back in time never happen? It is those kinds of paradoxes that I dislike about time-travel stories. And that is why I disliked the specific story, and most other time-travel stories.
Paul Doland
pdoland@sdrg.com
Trek Always Unwrites the Future
ean Huxter's heated remarks ("Admiral Janeway Murdered Millions") regarding the murdering Admiral failed entirely to acknowledge the equally murderous Capt. Kirk and Security
Chief Odo.
In "The City on the Edge of Forever," Kirk destroys not millions but billions of people (several centuries of generations) to "restore" his timeline. Who's to say that his timeline is the correct one?
In Deep Space Nine, Odo destroys an entire planet of descendents of the Defiant crew. Not as many perhaps as Kirk or Janeway, but all of those people were related to people he knew and loved.
Admiral Janeway did not just save three people, she saved over 20 of her crew. And let's face it, in infinite parallel universes, she failed and Voyager was destroyed. Take Janeway's advice, and that of the eminent Dr. Emmett Brown: from any given point in time the future is unwritten. Make of it
what you will because nothing is set in stone.
As for Chris Drakiotes' comments regarding the Enterprise ("Enterprise Revises Trek History"): I don't recall any of the new series promos mentioning that the Enterprise in question is a Constitution class star ship. In fact, what I have read indicates that the show takes place only 100 or so years from our present (2001), in the early years of terran star travel, long before a Constitution class star ship could possibly be designed or constructed.
The fourth Star Trek movie paid homage to the ships in our time that have been named Enterprise by having the nuclear reactor, that allows our intrepid crew to return home, housed in the bowels of a ship with that very name.
It seems fitting that one of the first terran ships, capable of star travel, be named Enterprise. Let's not crucify the new series before it starts, especially over a name. And, while we're at it, let's stop crucifying the older series for committing sins that have been committed before by other writers unrelated to Star Trek. All that does is promote indigestion and indignation. It is a mark of Star Trek's influence that we can get angry over perceived injustices committed by fictional characters, but we need to retain some perspective.
Diane Catanzaro
catanz@mail.com
Trek History Makes Room for Archer
'm writing in response to Chris Drakiotes' letter, ("Enterprise Revises Trek History"), where he fears that Rick Berman and Co. will rewrite Trek history for the sake of creating a new series. This may not be the case. You see, I've read some of the press releases for the show (which contain SPOILERS to the series synopses). Let me see if I can clear things up.
Enterprise will take place in the early days of the United Federation of Planets (UFP). The UFP was established (probably with the help of the Vulcans) in the year 2161. James Kirk took the helm of the Enterprise in the year 2263. Before Kirk, there was Christopher Pike. Before Pike, there was Robert April. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say that both Pike and April only served on the Enterprise long enough to complete their respective first 5-year missions. That would mean Pike became captain in 2258 and April was captain in 2253. If all that's true, that means that there's a gap of 92 years between the UFP becoming established and Robert April's captaincy, more than enough time for Jonathan Archer to make his mark in Starfleet history. So, take heart, true-believers, the face of Star Trek is still unblemished ... so far! Is it me, or do you hear the original series' suspense music?
Adam Boudreaux
TrekAdamG@webtv.net
Berman Discards Roddenberry's Canon
n response to Chris Drakiotes's concerns ("Enterprise Revises Trek History") about the new Star Trek series Enterprise and its relationship to Trek canon--I think it's safe to say that the canon was buried with Gene Roddenberry. The franchise is now completely at the mercy of focus groups and the passing whims of studio executives, with the canon serving merely as a source of names.
A good example of this disregard for canon was showcased in First Contact, where the entire history of Zefram Cochrane and humanity's first contact with alien life was discarded. It was clearly established by the Star Trek the original series episode "Metamorphosis" that Cochrane developed the warp drive on Alpha Centauri some time after humanity traveled there using sub-light spacecraft. And while the language used is admittedly ambiguous, "Metamorphosis" also implied that Cochrane was himself an Alpha Centauran, strongly suggesting that humanity's first contact was with Alpha Centaurans. Novels, episode guides, technical manuals, etc., written prior to First Contact all reveal a similar understanding.
I don't wish to belabor the point, so I will pass on describing at least a dozen other cases where the most recent Trek series and movies diverged from Roddenberry's canon works (i.e., the original series, The Next Generation and the movies through Star Trek VI), but it is obvious that the more time passes the more the canon will be ignored. Rick Berman flatly stated such in a recent interview with the Star Trek Communicator magazine. When asked about the influence of the original series on the current Trek projects, he replied, "The original series is very important, but in terms of content and style I don't think it's much of an influence on any of us." Thus, the canon is not merely being rewritten, it is being discarded.
So, to answer Mr. Drakiotes's question about why Berman/Paramount didn't choose to have the new Enterprise captain be Robert April ... They just didn't care.
Stephen Rynerson
Srynerson@usa.net
Constitution Viable for Enterprise
ne thing to mention in regards to Chris Drakiotes' letter ("Enterprise Revises Trek History") in the June 11th issue. The producers haven't said that Archer is going to helm a Constitution class starship.
You are right with the names of the captains for the Federation Starship Enterprise for this class of ships; however, as this series takes place at the dawn of the Federation, the ships aren't necessarily built to the specifications of the original series.
Remember, The Next Generation's Enterprise (1701-D) was a Galaxy class starship and the First Contact Enterprise (1701-E) was Sovereign class. So it would be no stretch for the writers to introduce the 1st Starship Enterprise and not have them damage the history of the franchise.
Paul Liberatore
RogueJedi500@aol.com
Trek is a Near-Death Experience
tar Trek will die if we are not careful! I say those words because for the years since Gene Roddenberry's death, we have been exposed to the same stagnant view of Star Trek, from Next Generation to Deep Space Nine to Voyager and now Enterprise. What changed during the period of Star Trek from the end of the original Series to the introduction of Next Generation was the it was not just the image of a group of people. It was open to different people's interpretation of Star Trek. From Robert Wise's 2001-like Star Trek: The Motion Picture, to Nick Meyer's militaristic Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country
to Leonard Nimoy's humor on The Voyage Home and the spirituality of William Shatner's Final Frontier. But what have we had since 1988? The Berman/Piller factory churning out series after series.
"Hey Michael?! Will seven series of Star Trek be enough?" For Star Trek to survive it will have to change the idea of TV like it did in the '60s. Why didn't Paramount go with an anthology series? Because it would of had the potential to kill the Star Trek cash cows, sorry ... franchise. For Star Trek to inspire instead of the same garbage recycled from series to series and only changing the inter-changeable actors it will have to stick to two of the tenants of the original series: 1)infinite diversity in infinite combinations and 2) risk, because risk, gentlemen is the name of the game.
Michael Simshauser
simmie76@hotmail.com
Darth Maul Was Killed Too Easily
am very disappointed in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. I have watched the movie several times since it was released on home video (after all, I am a dedicated fan) and I can't help but wonder what George Lucas was thinking with Jar Jar Binks. And I thought the Ewoks were bad!? There are several parts of the movie that I just don't see fitting into the Star Wars universe. For starters, don't you think it is kind of strange that Anakin Skywalker created C-3PO? That's crazy. Neither of them know the other is in Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Also, in Empire Strikes Back, Obi-Wan tells Luke that Yoda was his teacher, but in the Phantom Menace, Qui-Gon is. There was also no explanation for whom Anakin's father was, which really ticked me off. Isn't it kind of strange that none of the Jedi Council could feel the force in Senator Palpatine or Darth Maul, and they were right amongst them on Coruscant? Overall, there were too many questions that failed to be answered and left me confused.
Now, for some things that I thought could have been different about the film.
I think that Darth Maul was killed too easily. What Lucas should have done, in my opinion, was have Senator Palpatine use Darth Maul to turn Anakin to the Dark Side. Perhaps, he could have killed Anakin's mother or something (and I believe in all my heart that his mother will play a role in his turning evil).
Qui-Gon should have not been killed either. He was, in fact, a great character addition to the Star Wars universe.
Did anyone fail to notice that the battle droids with the shields had too strong of a defense for anyone to contend with? It makes you wonder why the Federation didn't have more of them instead of the skittish droid troops.
All in all, I just don't see the magic in this movie that made the others so special. I can only hope and pray that the next movie can make amends for this sub-par performance.
Brad Poynor
BradPoynor@tycom.net
Back to the top.
