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).
Lucas Shouldn't Send in the Clones
K, first let me say that I have loved Star Wars since I was little. I've loved Lucas' vision and all the hard effort that the actors and production crew have put into the films, even The Phantom Menace, despite its less than stellar dialogue—I even tolerate Jar-Jar. I have found it somewhat irksome to hear how Lucas has delayed the release of the films and soundtracks in order to get more money, but at least his creative integrity has been intact.
I hope the same can be said for Episode II's story, but the title has to go! What in the world is George Lucas smoking?!
Attack of the Clones?
What is this, the sequel to Mars Attacks or Plan Nine from Outer Space? George, George, what's the matter with you? Can't you come up with a less-cheesy-sounding title? This is not a B-movie you're making—right? Even Ewan McGregor has been quoted as saying that he hates the title!
I've stood up for Star Wars over the years, including Phantom Menace. But this time, I admit, I'm worried ...
Adam Goss
argF91@hotmail.com
Clones Title Feels Too Retro
'm not crazy about the new subtitle for the next Star Wars movie, Attack of the Clones. I cannot help but think of droids dressed up as tomatoes waiting for George Clooney to come around the corner.
However, I wasn't crazy about the title The Phantom Menace, but when I saw the movie itself (which I have greatly mixed feelings about), it made a certain sense. You have Palpatine lurking about as the (reigning?) Sith Lord but posing as a humble Senator-cum-Chancellor. You have the Sith themselves, that the Jedi Council seems to have not been able to detect before. And you have Anakin, the ultimate Phantom Menace because none of the characters, including little-A himself, knows he's going to become Darth Vader.
Attack of the Clones conveys none of the mystery that Phantom Menace (barely) managed to do. It just sounds like Lucas is planning one big fight scene dragged out over a 2 hour plus movie. And yet, I know from visiting the official site and reading other material that's certainly not the case. If anything, preview material for Episode II reads like an action-romance or something (which also makes sense, considering what we know of these characters and their links forward to the original series).
Personally, while not actually second-guessing Lucas per se, I would have preferred something like The Shadows Rise or The Force Darkens or even just the one word Doppleganger. I don't know—something that would convey the power these movies are supposed to convey.
Instead, yes, he is taking us back to the 1950s B-movies—but I think the question a lot of us fans are asking is—should he?
Martin L. Cahn
Demensions Editor
editor@demensionszine.com
Clones Merchandising Causes Disgust
eading the SCI FI News article about Episode II ("Lucas Unveils Episode II Title") gave me a sick feeling.
So, Lucas is now showing his rough cut to licensing and merchandising reps? I guess we are going to be treated to another toy and video game advertisement masquerading as Star Wars. I have this picture of Lucas and his minions sitting around brainstorming ... "Now how can we come up with video game fodder? I got it! We'll have a pod race!" Hey, George, in case you haven't noticed, all the hard core fans despised The Phantom Menace. In the toy stores where I live, the Episode I toys are in the bargain bin, not at the collectors' shows.
I remember when Star Wars premiered, there were no toys at all, just a brilliant movie. We had to get chits and wait for them. How can you forget what made Star Wars great? I am disgusted.
Carolyn Blake
tardis@austin.rr.com
Hokas Brought A Furry, Funny Future
'm in the middle of reading The Sound and the Furry, a complete(?) collection of stories co-authored by Gordon Dickson and Poul Anderson. All I can think to say about it is, in this age of The Matrix, A.I., and countless other dark visions of SF, I'm glad that I have the opportunity to laugh at the antics of these extremely imitative teddy bears.
One can only hope that some TV or movie producer will get the production rights to a gem like "Joy in Mudville" and present it with the sensitivity and broad humor of the original. The SF world needs a damn good belly-laugh to offset all the doom and gloom. I'm very sad, though, that no new Hoka stories will be forthcoming in print because both of the geniuses behind the originals are gone.
'Bye, Poul and Gordy. Thanks for the laughter.
Henrik Harbin
kirneh1@home.com
Ellison's Writing Speaks For Itself
arlan Ellison a bore?! ("Ellison Editorial Isn't Accurate") I'd love to read his retorts to that
comment. As far as I can tell, he loves to stir the water (metaphorically speaking) and is far from afraid of voicing his opinions but I would never lay that title on him. I became a lifelong fan after reading "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream," the imagery of that story were so visceral it was like being hit with a sledgehammer.
To me, he's always been a dark moralist, examining topics head-on that most writers would shy away from. "Croatazoan" was a nightmarish and haunting indictment of abortion while "Shattered Like a Glass Goblin" attacked drug usage at the height of counter culture. His writing is poetic while examining the worst existential nightmares. If you want to say he's a bore, base it on his behavior, but his writing speaks for itself. Read the Paingod stories, and "Strange Wine" and you might discover there's another layer to the man. As it's been said a million times, "You can't read a book by its cover." In this case it's a literal truth.
Brettb
Brettb4842@aol.com
Trekker Pines for a Perfect World
ike Spurlock's opinion ("Ellison Editorial Isn't Accurate") that Harlan Ellison and David Gerrold are "talentless bores" is just that—his opinion. I think that Ellison and Gerrold (and Mike Resnick, and J. Michael Straczynski, and others who I won't name because I may have forgotten a good many) are entitled to gripe about Star Trek if they want to—Berman's folks never listen to them anyway, so what can it hurt?
I am a long-time Trek fan (I remember seeing the last season of the original series at age
three in 1968-69), and I've seen Trek grow from a relatively small three-season show into a multi-billion-dollar franchise. What the above writers complain about is not Trek itself—it's the franchise, and its evolution into something which Roddenberry may not have approved of—a means to make the studio execs, and Berman's folks in particular, independently wealthy. Roddenberry was a visionary, true; but Berman is, plain and simple, a bean counter, and science fiction has become more an industry and less an art form.
I, as a fan writer and a Trek fan, love Star Trek. But I hate the money machine behind it, which requires stupid moves (like a blonde Borg Barbie) to generate ratings. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need the money machine to sustain Star Trek. But this isn't a perfect world yet.
Henrik Harbin
kirneh1@home.com
Humans Are More Than Just DNA
enjoy reading Wil McCarthy's columns in Science Fiction Weekly, but the most recent column was an unhappy exception. As a Christian, I obviously cannot agree with the conclusions you draw in "Planet of the Hominids." DNA alone does not a human make; anthropomorphizing (for lack of a better term) animals is the first step towards de-sanctifying human life. Once human beings are reckoned as "just another species of animal," it's only a short step to reach "anything goes."
When apes create a functioning civilization, complete with literature, art and religion, please write another article. Until then, apes "R" still not us in my estimation.
Bruce Lewis
bchan@airmail.net
SCI FI Should Save EFC
almost got sick when reading the perky announcements on EFC.com about the return of William Boone, and the arrival of new alien "atavii." The return of Kevin Kilner—now that the three most popular characters have been axed—is a slap in the face to all Earth: Final Conflict fans, including those who desperately hoped for his return. Tribune Entertainment evidently feels that the fans are idiotic enough to come scampering back when they toss us a bone.
The descriptions of the atavii include "sultry" and "sensuous," as well as "evil." A far cry from the beautiful, androgynous Taelons whose personalities were carefully shaded in tones of gray. Reportedly Zo'or will display a more feminine physique (the idea is sickening enough) and William Boone comes out of suspended animation only to wreak vengeance on Zo'or, who is barely more than a child. The ending of it all will reportedly be "dark."
Perhaps I'm being paranoid, but there seems to be almost a malicious taint to the proceedings for Season 5. Every thing that would tick off the fans has been carefully and painstakingly done. The producers of EFC have never liked the fans stating what they wanted in a show. One close friend of mine, the co-head of www.geocities.com/shahariath/ was actually sent a hate-filled email from an EFC producer after she made disparaging remarks about their business practices. None of the fans can imagine such treatment from the SCI FI Channel.
In short, they have deliberately botched everything in EFC's fifth season, for the thing they love most: money. While it is necessary that a show make a profit, their treatment of actors and fans alike is unforgivable.
That's why excitement is high among the small but devoted EFC crowd now that the SCI FI Channel is rerunning EFC's episodes. The current treatment of the reruns is better than any Tribune gave EFC in the first run, and we know that if anyone can save the story, they can.
The only hope for EFC's end is that if the reruns rate well for the SCI FI Channel, they produce something to reverse the damage and make EFC's end the sort of intelligent, future-looking story that Gene Roddenberry would have wished.
Lisa Solinas
jsolinas@erols.com
Trek Stardates Finally Measurable
iscover Magazine this month has an article that says astronomers have discovered the first moment starlight was able to freely shine in the universe. It supposedly occurred 900 million years after the Big Bang.
Could this be a scientific basis for "stardates?"
Bill Olson
wdso@hotmail.com
Teens Created SF's Finest
was a teenage science fiction fan and I always will be. That's when the magic is! It's the young at heart in all of us that makes science fiction what it's always been: the literature of ideas. And it's the search for new ideas that keeps humanity forever young.
Unfortunately, Hollywood and the publishing industry see teens as nothing more than customers, outdoing each other in belittling the intelligence of young people. Assessing most of the books and the vast majority of TV and movie science fiction, it's as if we're living the ultimate Wellsian nightmare: The Planet of the Eloi. Doesn't science fiction know any better? Can't Hollywood, TV Land and the publishing industry see what is happening? And most importantly, don't teenagers themselves understand their vital literary niche in the science fiction universe?
Imagine, if you will, all the characters ever created in the history of the genre, vegetable, animal and mineral, assembled into a gigantic pyramid with the clankiest rip-off robots and cliche BEMs on the bottom and rising with the strength and importance and originality all the way to the top. Lara Croft is near the base, with Ellison's A Boy and His Dog somewhere in the middle. Higher up you'll meet Heinlein's Lazuras Long, Verne's Captain Nemo, Asimov's Hari Seldon and Clarke and Kubrick's HAL. Near the top are Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Huxley's Mr. Savage, and perhaps Roddenberry's James T. Kirk and Lucas' Darth Vader.
But none of these characters, fine as they are, deserve to stand at the very peak. Only two share that hallowed spot from which so much of science fiction owes its very existence: Frankenstein's monster and Superman.
At the very notion of this dual honor, legions of fans young and old might clamor to debate the monster's and the Man of Steel's importance and influence, but one fact remains unassailable: both these immortal giants were conceived and created by...teenagers!
Could it be that today's teens are infinitely smarter and more imaginative than publishers and moviemakers give them credit for? Weren't we at their age?
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
Not All SF is Sci-Fi
have a rather large problem with genre fans using the term "sci-fi" to describe everything that is related to the genre. I do not like "sci-fi." Sci-fi (to me) is the pop-culture science fiction that you see being touted by passing fans of the genre and the "news" media. I feel that the term "sci-fi" is an insult to the foundations that science fiction is based on. "Sci-fi" is an abbreviation of the genre (and the word itself is an abbreviation) which is essentially a short-cut or a cheat. That is not to say that "sci-fi" is all inherently bad, it just means that "sci-fi" is more of the bottom of the ladder of the genre. It's a term that applies to the kind of stuff you see when the "real" media decides to do a piece on Trekkies or a genre show and they dumb it down to basically those elements that make up "sci-fi."
Now, science fiction on the other hand is the kind of thought provoking, expansive, not-limited-unto-itself kind of stuff that we, as fans, care about. Some "sci-fi" things can be science fiction at times as well but that is rare. I never use the term "sci-fi" unless referring to the SCI FI Channel (or this newsletter).
The term pisses me off so much. It's basically just my definition but from the people I have spoken to, they are in agreement with me. I just get so aggravated when I see a news piece on anything genre related because to them it's all "sci-fi" with no regards to the merits. If you listen to the news media or the print magazines (which I try not to) they use the term "sci-fi" to lump us all together and they use the term in an (intentional or not) demeaning way. The way I see it, "science fiction" is for us die-hard fans of the genre, and "sci-fi" is for the passing fan. The term just bugs the hell out of me. This may sound a bit like a Harlan Ellison article as he has said these things before, but he was absolutely right, and I feel that it needs to be said again.
Josh Hadley
mhadley@itol.com
Enterprise Should Be Given A Chance
would like to enter the debate ("Enterprise Sounds Must Be Silenced" and "Enterprise Puts Trek On Last Leg") over the new Star Trek series: Enterprise. Any and all people that are praising or panning the series based on the promos should do one thing: Wait and see! You cannot know how any show is going to turn out based on the promos, or even the first episodes.
When Star Trek: The Next Generation was being promoted, many hardcore Trekkers were disturbed; It would never be as good as the original, it couldn't be!
Well, it was better, eventually. The first season had it clunkers, but by the time of "Skin of Evil" the show had hit its stride. Episodes like: "The Best of Both Worlds," parts 1 and 2, were some of the best TV ever. So, once again let me say: Watch the show when it airs, then make up your minds! But to pan a show based on the music in a promo is moronic, or because the Capt. carries a weapon, or the uniforms have pockets, or any other nit-picking reasons.
Watch the show, first then comment!
Patrick Baker
bakerpat62@yahoo.com
Klingons Were Genetically Altered
oncerning past and present Klingons ("Klingon Diplomacy Saved Face" and "Klingons Should Be Consistent"), I read a comment years ago given by someone that was attached to the series for a long time, (unfortunately I can not remember who that was) that the first Klingons were genetically altered to be able to fit into the world of the humans if need should arise, and that they maintained this image in the early years so that the Federation would not know what a true Klingon looked like. So this sounds like a good reason to keep them as the original Klingons, but maybe showing
them conversing on there ships with Klingons that have not been altered. Who knows, it really doesn't matter, because the producers will do it their way, not necessarily the correct or best way, although this would be an interesting way to bind the two Klingons once and for all.
Leonard Morgan
morgan@artisticmagic.com
Apes Ending Was Awful
he SCI FI Wire article quotes:
Apes Ending Explained?
Bruce Snyder, 20th Century Fox's head of distribution, talked to Zap2it.com about the controversial ending of Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes movie. Following are his comments, which may contain spoilers for the film.
The new surprise ending, intended to top the original 1968 film's Statue of Liberty ending, has many viewers scratching their heads. But, Snyder told the site, "Actually, you're not supposed to be able to [explain it]. If the truth be known, it wasn't really supposed to make sense. It was just supposed to go 'whoa,' make you think. Now is he in another world, did he go back in time, did he get forward in time?"
Snyder added, "The reality is, there's no firm answer to that. It's whatever you want it to be. Everybody keeps looking for [the answer], but you've got to remember you just watched a movie about talking monkeys in outer space. Don't look for too much logic, you know." Apes is now playing.
OK, there are many many things wrong with Mr. Snyder's comments. I hope he didn't quit a good job to become a paid Public Relations representative ... [WARNING: Spoilers follow.]
1) The surprise ending certainly did not "top" the 1968 version, which has a twist ending that will go down in history as one of the finest surprise endings in all filmdom. This one was an insult to its audience.
2) He says, "It was just supposed to go 'whoa,' make you think." Well, it succeeded. It makes you go 'whoa,' and make you think you just wasted $10.00 you could have used on something else.
3) Did he go back in time? Forward in time? Well, the land formations we saw were of North and South America, so we know it was Earth at the end. But if it was either backward or forward in time, explain the 1997 Chevy Malibu Classics used as police cars, with apes in human-fitting police uniforms, unchanged even a little from current design.
4) "Remember ... you just watched a movie about talking monkeys in outer space" so the ending doesn't have to make sense? How is that for a severe slap in the face to any science fiction fan? Oh, it's science fiction, it can be crap, because the audience just paid $10.00 to see talking apes in outer space, so they can't be all that smart, now can they?
What a colossal insult to the makers of the original film, fans of the original film, fans of Boulle's novel, fans of science fiction in general, and to the general public! I can't believe he actually said that!
I have to say that until that final sequence, the movie wasn't bad. I'd have rated it a 7 out of 10. Good premise, great costumes and makeup. No back-story or depth, but hey, who cares, right? We were there to be entertained.
The whole origin of the ape species on that planet made sense, and was actually pretty cool.
So what made Tim Burton throw away a perfectly acceptable movie at the end? To make us talk? How about to make us walk? With an ending like that, and word of mouth, this movie won't have legs, but its viewing audience will!
But hey, in this day and age of movie blockbusters where the only thing important is to make a trailer good enough to get enough people to go to pay for itself in the first weekend, I guess staying power doesn't matter, does it? If a piece of junk with a good trailer can make its money back in the first weekend, it certainly fulfilled every requirement a film has these days, eh? Who cares anymore about making a good movie, as long as it fills enough seats in the opening weekend?
Sad, really. Hollywood used to make good movies once upon a time ... but when was the last one? Of all the blockbuster hits this summer, how many have lived up to their hype? Tomb Raider? Final Fantasy? Jurassic Park III? Sadly no. In the last year, the only movie that has lived up to its hype machine was Shrek.
Sad, really. Very sad.
Sean Huxter
sean@turbinegames.com
Burton's Apes Disappoints
he letter posted last week by Andrew Lias ("Entertainment Must Still Make Sense") who said "[Good entertainment] stimulates our minds, our emotions and (for desperate lack of a better word) our souls," nicely summed up my feelings of disappointment after seeing the "new Planet of the Apes. Once you get past the action, make-up, special effects and outstanding performances by Roth, Carter and Giamatti, there is little stimulus left. "What? That's not enough for you?" you might be yelling at you computer screen right now. My answer would be, "For an action flick, Yes. For a science-fiction film, no." I went into Mummy Returns expecting a good action movie and that's what I got. But I expect more from a good science-fiction film.
To me, good science fiction makes you see things going on in the present world ("science fact") in a new way. Sometimes it's done through metaphor, sometimes it's done through using a new setting that allows you to see the realities of today more clearly. The original was a great science-fiction
film because it allowed us to see a magnified version of our society at the time. Boulle's novel Monkey Planet was published in '63 and Planet of the Apes was released in '68, during the civil rights and Vietnam War era. Both the book and film were ripe with political commentary. Yeah, yeah, yeah, this ape movie did include the "Equality for Humans!" sentiment, but it was singularly embodied in one character, Ari (Carter). Again going back to the original, it was Taylor's (Heston) arrival to the planet that sparked the frightening realization that their self-righteous, noble society may be repeating the same ignorant racist atrocities they suffered in the past at the hands of humans. They held a senate hearing to discuss this seemingly preposterous conclusion. One character, Dr. Zaius, had kept the proof of this "obvious heresy" to himself for years fearing what effect this knowledge would have on his perfectly delineated world of right and wrong, good and bad, ape and human. In this new Planet of the Apes, Dr. Zaius's equivalent (holder of this shameful knowledge of the past) is Thade's decrepit father who is out for nothing more than revenge against the humans who once oppressed his brethren.
To conclude, this new ape movie is obviously a sign of the times. It is basically one big chase scene from beginning to end. It deserves kudos for being a very good action film but falls short as good science fiction. I won't claim to be able to read Boulle's mind, but his novel seemed to come at a time when the message within it pages need to be heard. The same can be said for the original film. But the makers of this new Planet of the Apes obviously didn't care to update the message, just the facade.
Andy Brown
galactor@hotmail.com
Back to the top.
