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).
Klingon Mystery Still Unsolved
n Sean Huxter's letter, "Klingon Diplomacy Saved
Face", Huxter very cleverly hypothesized that the reason
for the differing Klingon facial appearences is due to
the Klingon's attempt to put the Federation of Kirk's time
(i.e. during the original series) at ease by somehow
altering their natural appearence. Since the Enterprise
and The Next Generation eras take place quite some
time before and after the original series, it is then easily
explained away.
However, this hypothesis doesn't take
into account the Klingon's appearence in ST:The Motion
Picture. Granted they are only shown for a few minutes,
but it's plain to see that these Klingons have the more
elaborate skull development that we would see in later
movies and TV series. I remember the first time I saw
ST:TMP and I thought to myself, "Who are these weird
looking aliens?" Since ST:TMP takes place only a
couple of years after the completion of the Enterprise's
five-year voyage, one has to ask what type of drastic
events occurred to bring about this change. A war
between the Klingon Empire and the Federation is
unlikely, since the Federation's flagship is in spacedock
and it's apparent that Kirk has been bored for some
time. Just an example of some of the fun little mysteries
imbedded in the Star Trek mythos.
Randy Barrett
jrbarrett101@yahoo.com
Kirk Created the Klingon Look
've heard a theory—one I'm prepared to accept—which states that the
Klingons shown in the Original Series altered themselves to appear more
human. We know they had access to the technology required for this because
in "The Trouble with Tribbles," a Klingon spy was able to appear completely
human. This same theory also suggests that Kahless appeared in the form of a
TOS Klingon because that was the image of the species with which Kirk was
familiar; and the various heroes and villains in that episode were drawn
from the minds of Spock and the good captain.
It's worth noting that Kahless behaved as Kirk expected, too: by the
24th century, it was clear that he was the Klingon version of Christ, and
nowhere near as treacherous or malevolent as he was made out to be. Of course, in the real world, the simple fact of the matter is that when
Star Trek was first produced, dark makeup was less expensive and easier to
obtain than cranial ridges. If Gene Roddenberry had been able to put ridges
on the TOS Klingons, I'm sure he would have; just as I'm sure he would have
put touch panels and holodecks on the original Enterprise if he'd thought of
it and been able to make it work.
Spencer M. Lease
beyondzine@mindshiftdesign.com
Trek Aliens Represent Earth
just read M. Kroll's letter about the look of Klingons in the new
Enterprise series, and all I have to say is this: Relax bro', it's just a
show. The time-travel episode he mentions was done specially for April
Fool's Day and is not supposed to be taken as a serious adventure. Worf's
words were meant to be a gag.
If the special-effects makeup technology available in the '80s was
available back during the original Trek series, the original Klingons
wouldn't have looked the way they did in the first place.
Far more importantly, the aliens in Trek have always been meant to
represent different peoples here in present-day Earth. In the original
series, the Klingons were the Russians, Romulans the Chinese and, not least,
Leonard Nimoy felt the Vulcans were the Jewish people. (Interesting note: the
Vulcan hand gesture that Leonard Nimoy invented is the hand symbol for god that he remembered from childhood that
rabbis use instead of the spoken word.)
In STNG and DS9, alien peoples are amalgams of many similar peoples rather
then just straight analogies. The Klingons are an amalgam of warrior peoples
from history, the Cardassians are fascists and the Bajorans are an amalgam of
post-colonial peoples and people in countries previously occupied by foreign
powers (Palistinians, Kurds, eastern Europeans, etc.). The
Ferengi are an amalgam of the materialistic aspects of many cultures.
This more sophisticated way of handling aliens has not been applied to the
Romulans as much as others. Quite the reverse, in fact. In STNG and DS9, the
Romulan Empire is presented as being even more like China. I'm speaking of
the government and not the Chinese people in general (I'm talking about
politics, not race). I think this is very interesting and would like to hear
what others think about it.
jesse kleitman
kleitman@aol.com
Deep Space Nine Deserves Respect
hy is Deep Space Nine ignored, decried or otherwise pissed on by "Trek
fans" (the term is loosely used here and it is obvious to me that those
that do this do not really understand it)? I am constantly reading about
how much "trekkies" disliked DS9 and how they bitch and moan about it
being
"too dark" or "too far from Roddenberry's vision." Roddenberry's vision
was garbage and was all too flawed. I feel (and I have a small
contingent
of followers in this matter) that DS9 was by far the BEST thing that Star
Trek has ever done and that DS9 brought Trek to a level that it had
desperately needed to attain. DS9 brought maturity and seriousness to the
Trek universe where previously only mediocrity and juvenile feats of
storytelling existed before.
DS9 brought Trek its first series with any sense of continuity. Hell,
the last three seasons were all just one BIG story told in 22-episode
segments.
The entire "War" story was nothing short of a TV and Trek masterpiece that
will go unrivalled for some time. When they chose to serialize the show
(something that the other three Treks have declined to do) they admitted that
the story they were telling was going to be told over a logical length of
time (and not compressed into 44 minutes) and that they felt the fans were
mature enough to handle and digest that.
DS9 brought about political intrigue and governmental foundations. The
inner workings of the Bajoran, Cardassian, Klingon and Dominion
governments as well as the Federation all got explored in great detail on DS9, where
only vague hints came about on the other shows (and often contradicted
themselves). The political in-fighting of the Klingons, the Dominions'
aspirations of universal "control," the Bajorans religious beliefs
clouding their actions, the barely averted civil war within the Federation and
numerous other sides of the purely political aspects of the Trek universe
were fascinating and all but ignored on the other Treks.
DS9 brought the first set of characters that actually evolved during
their run (face it, guys, Kirk and the old crew were exactly the same in
"Where No Man Has Gone Before" as they were in "The Tholian Web" and
Picard's crew did very little growing from "Encounter At FarPoint" to "All
Good Things" and Voyager was the same from the start to the lame finish).
The characters in the the other Treks just did not evolve, whereas the DS9
characters not only evolved but grew into real characters rather than the
caricatures that the classic and next-gen crews eventually turned into.
DS9 tried to answer the tough (and logical) questions that would come
up
in regards to an empire the size and age of the Federation and the
consequences of the answers to those questions. Section 31 was a great and
interesting idea (and something that was absolutely necessary for the
Federation to remain a "power") and brought the intrigue to another
(higher) level as it added an entirely playing field to Trek.
Also, was it just me or was the Dominion a none-too-veiled allegory to
the
Nazis? The Cardassian/Bajoran thing was definitely an analogy of the
Nazis, but I feel that was moreso of the occupation of Europe and of the
Jews in contrast to the Germans whereas the Dominion stuff was more about
the Nazi war machine and the blitzkrieg of their bid for domination.
Sisko was the BEST of the 4 captains (not counting Pike, as we only
really got to see him once). Sisko was less of a hot-head then Kirk, Sisko
was more of a manipulator and tactician than Picard and he was a hell of a
better captain than Janeway. Sisko asked the hard questions, Sisko made
the
tough choices, Sisko was willing to fire first if that was the option that
was necessary, Sisko knew when to keep a tight ship and when to go lax,
Sisko was a battle-hardened warrior (with more experience in the
"trenches") than any of the other captains that had always been given
everything and had the state-of-the-art equipment to work with, Sisko got
the job done using old, broken and sometimes outright dangerous equipment.
On all of the Enterprises, Voyager, etc. ... they had the state-of-the-art
equipment, the absolute best personal and the kooshiest assignments. Sisko
had a space station that was (at first) falling apart, then was brought up
to code but with major concessions made (remember that it is Cardassian
technology that was retro-fitted to work with Bajoran technology and that
must interface and operate with Federation equipment). The Defiant was by
far the superior of ANY other Federation ship but he only got that because
he was literally on the edge of the battlelines of a war (or at first, an
inevitable war).
Deep Space Nine was the best Trek ever and the rest are trash, plain
and
simple (my opinion). DS9 is hated BECAUSE it was so revolutionary and was
so well made and well written (something that Trek fans were not used to
that time). DS9 is where Trek should aspire to go again, yet in their
stunning ineptitude, fans are running screaming the other way.
If Evolution Is Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Evolve!!
Josh Hadley
mhadley@itol.com
Ellison Encounter Etched in Memory
hough six years younger than you (not to make you feel old), I, too,
attended the '74 Discon. One of my fondest memories was hanging out in
the "meet the writers" cocktail event, close to the door, when
Harlan strode in. The folks running the event handed him his styrofoam
boater with the red, white and blue paper stripe. He gave the hat a
jaundiced look, strode over to me, stuck it on my head and said "Here
kid, you be Harlan Ellison!" and strode off toward the center of the
party.
I should be so lucky. :-)
Stephen Jacobs
sxjics@rit.edu
Episode II Title Defended
really don't see the problem with the new Episode II title. People have said it seems to "B-movieish" and "Saturday matinee material"—well, why not—it IS, isn't it??!? If you put it alongside the three original titles, it doesn't even stand out—A New Hope; The Empire Strikes Back; Return of the Jedi; Attack of the Clones; The Phantom Menace.
People moaned about the first title (when they should have reserved all their moaning for Jar-Jar), and they will moan about the third title. Very few are ever going to be happy when a fantastic childhood memory is thrust in their faces now that they are 30+.
Live with it and enjoy it for the mindless escapism it is!!
DaveB
bilbaus@hotmail.com
Better Star Wars Title Suggested
t would appear that in his attempt to come up with a "Grand Title" for
the newest installment of Star Wars, Mr. Lucas seems to have forgotten that
sometimes it is better to just say things simply. The name Attack of the
Clones sounds a lot like some '50s-era B-movie title. It would be better
to call his SW2 movie, The Clone Wars.
Ken Gorrell
kaygee63@yahoo.com
All Characters Are Special
n "Ordinary People, Extraordinary Events," Michael Cassutt argues
the
point that big-screen heroes tend to be "royal," while television heroes do
not. The definition of "royal" he uses seems to be some special status
passed on through the blood. However, many of the examples he cites either
do not fit this definition well enough, or do not support his argument.
Yes, there is a princess in Star Wars, but she did not inherit this
title from her parents (since she was hidden from her real father), nor
does
this royal status add anything to the plot except for humorous comments
from
Han Solo like "highnessness." Throughout the trilogy, she is nothing but a
freedom fighter on quite the opposite end of the power spectrum. At the
trilogy's conclusion, her royal status is not restored, as the planet that
recognized it has been destroyed.
In addition, she is not exactly the main character of the story.
Luke
Skywalker is. While his bloodline is equally impressive, and responsible
for
his Force potential, in terms of plot it is an obstacle to be overcome,
not
something to be proud of, as he tries not to be like his father. Luke
Skywalker never rises to a position of authority (in the movie trilogy or
the sequel books).
Cassutt briefly mentions a reason for why sci-fi heroes are so often
princes. Sci-fi stories are "power fantasies" for 13-year-olds that
reassures them that they are "potential rulers of the universe." If this
is
what he believes, then I can name some TV shows where the heroes have
great
power and authority. On Babylon 5, Cmdr. Jeffrey Sinclair is destined
to
be a revered religious figure and the leader of an army in an ancient war.
The main character that succeeds him, John Sheridan, becomes the president
of an enormous alliance. On Deep Space Nine, Captain Benjamin Sisko, from
the very first episode, is revealed to be the Emissary of the Prophets.
Many
of these cases are pre-determined ("destined") much like princehood.
I agree that science fiction tends to have many characters like this,
but I do not see enough evidence that films do this more than television,
nor do I agree with his reasons for why this might be so. Some science
fiction stories are there merely to entertain, and some are there to make
a
point. Both can use ordinary, run-of-the-mill characters to accomplish
this.
On the other hand, some stories are meant to be epics, in which case it is
important for there to be something special about the main character. Any
show that is remotely an epic, or a long story about journeys and
conflicts
of great importance, requires a reason for the character to be embroiled
in
such events. Even characters Cassutt names have this, not princehood,
perhaps, but the aforementioned reason.
Mulder and Scully attract the eyes
of the conspirators, until they become a part of their plots. Mulder's
father was involved in this since Mulder was a child. John Crighton, quite
inadvertently, is the only person with wormhole technology stuck in his head, and this fuels his
quest. Buffy is "The Chosen", selected to battle vampires and other
nasties after the previous Slayer's death. Her counterpart Angel is the only
vampire
with a soul and is mentioned in a dozen prophecies. Characters in these
types of stories simply need to have something special about them. This
can
be acquired or inherited.
More analysis is certainly required before one can attribute these
trends to the genre or to the different media it is found in.
Alex Kulenovic
KAlex74205@aol.com
Teddy Was In A.I. All Along
n his letter "Spielberg Showed No Intelligence," Steve Clark suggests that Spielberg "threw in" the animated teddy bear. In fact, Teddy was an important character in "Super-toys Last All Summer Long", the original Brian Aldiss story on which the movie was based. I also remember reading that Teddy was in the story treatments that Kubrick was using as he planned the movie. There are probably many things you can criticize about how Spielberg decided to make this movie, but adding Teddy is not one of them.
Steve Sloan
steve@sloan3d.com
Koko Goes Ape for Religion
am a Teilhardian Christian. I feel very differently than Bruce Lewis does about gorillas and our other relatives. I haven't even seen the Tim Burton film, but I do know this.
There is a very charming gorilla lady named Koko. She creates art. She paints. She wrote this silly poem, "Flower pink, fruit stink. Fruit stink pink." She can't speak English, but she can understand it, and thus can rhyme things in English when speaking in American Sign language.
She can and does swear, but has never taken God's name in vain. (Can't praise her too much here though; she deliberately hasn't been taught It. Francine wanted to see what religious beliefs SHE would come up with on her own).
She can and does lie. She has a sense of humor, and has played some delightful tricks on people. She absolutely adores cats and is always very gentle with them, even when they aren't always so gentle with her. She believes in life after death. Nobody taught this to her. She came up with it herself. Francine thinks she got the idea from leafing through National Geographic magazines. Probably. She has given two different answers to, "Where do baby gorillas come from?" Once she pointed at her tummy, and once she pointed at the sky. Seems she might believe in life before birth, too. She emphasizes with others. Upon seeing a horse with a bit in its mouth, she said, "Horse sad." When asked why, she said, "Teeth." She has an IQ of 80 which makes her exactly as smart as Forest Gump. They are teaching her to read.
Her cousin, Binte Jui (I may not be spelling that right), is a "guest of a zoo." When a little boy fell into her gorilla pit and was knocked unconscious, Binte picked the child up and cuddled him. Now just imagine what would happen if a gorilla child had fallen into your average group of humans.
Jesus said, "Go out and preach my good news to the whole creation." He didn't say, "To all humans." He said, "To my whole creation." At the rate they are going extinct, by the time we think to follow Christ's words literally, we will have lost one of the few creatures smart enough to actually understand us when we preach to them. "Animals don't have souls," you say? Well then, please rip out of your Bible the 12th chapter of Job. That word translated, "life," or, "breath" in some versions, is actually translated, "soul," in the KJV, and well it should be, because that is the exact same word for soul used in Genesis to describe God's creation of Adam.
Bruice said, "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." Well, what is civilization? Gorillas as an average treat their children better than we humans do, and they don't make war on other gorillas, or humans. They seem civilized enough to me. Wish we hadn't left Eden. Koko has written poetry (literature) produced art (she paints) and believes in life after death and before birth. Sounds like religion to me.
Elizabeth Hensley
lhensley@mindspring.com
Planet Performed as Planned
fter reading letters about Planet of the Apes over the last few weeks, I thought that I should respond to some of the barbs that are being leveled at the movie. I liked the movie and thought that the story was good. There were minor things in the movie that I would have done differently if I had been responsible for it, but I thought overall it was good.
However, to say that it was terrible or that it disappoints should be taken in context. These are not statements of fact, but statements of opinion. In one such letter the author indicated that the ending of the movie ruined it for him. Why? Because he perceives, rightly or wrongly, that it was just an ending that Burton threw in attempting to shock. Or, perhaps, it was just the vision of the writer and Burton in the universe they created. I liked the ending because it has made me think how such a thing could happen in context to the beginning of the movie. I'm interested in the explanation for how it happened.
What is quite interesting to me is that people can be so critical of the work and creativity (I know some of you will dispute my use of that word) when they themselves only digest what they see or read and give it approval or not. If you don't like something, fine. Go out and do something better yourself. Write a book ... write a movie. If you are that good at criticizing what others do and you are right, then you'll succeed and I will enjoy your work and praise you for it.
Some of the letters I read that are so free to lambaste and criticize the works of others remind me of the statement, "If you are so smart why aren't you rich?"
Planet of the Apes is not the best movie done, nor do I think it is as good as the first one. But I did enjoy watching it and I thought it was interesting.
Steve Madden
steve.madden@smed.com
Burton Should Ashamed of Apes
guess all Hollywood directors are just boys with toys and have forgotten
the basics of any live entertainment. You have to tell the story!
Sadly, Tim Burton's Planet starts out interestingly and ends up
confusing,
illogical and for me, empty. Good science fiction requires a solid and
logically constructed story (with relationships, thank you very much!). It
doesn't matter how bizarre your universe is (and the beings that inhabit
it)
or what technology you imagine exists in the future, as long as your
story
line is consistent with whatever you create for it.
Mr. Burton starts with an interesting premise in order to bring us to his
ape planet, but he didn't think it through. By the time we get to the
middle
of the picture, not to mention the end, it doesn't make sense any more.
Then
there is the little problem of not justifying character actions by
developing them earlier in the film. Our giant gorilla (Michael Clark
Duncan), whom we have seen only as a religious fanatic and a friend and
supporter of the bad guy chimp general, suddenly does a turn around at the
end, for no apparent reason. One small reaction shot of him seeing his
"general" hit and injure the primitive chimp whom he thinks is a returning
"God" would have done it. But Mr. Burton didn't bother.
Today, film makers don't even try to present a good story, they just go
for
special effects and shoot individual scenes that they want to see, and the
hell with the audience. Sadly, this is most dominant in SF film where the
standard idea is "As long as it is Sci-fi (or fantasy), we can do
anything!
Who cares?"
I am especially upset by Planet because this really could have been a
new
classic. If, in addition to the great makeup Mr. Burton had developed the
story and relationships, if he had actually had anything to say, it would
have been GREAT.
I have to agree with the reviewer, Mr. Ebert. Ten years from now, people
will
still be renting the original version. Tim Burton, hang your head in
shame!
Martha Randolph
merandhi@earthlink.net
Apes Not Mindless Entertainment
'm what used to be called a low-brow. I thoroughly enjoy a good,
solid two hours of mindless entertainment. The supreme example was
Independence Day. In fact, Independence Day carried mindless entertainment
to such a point of perfection that it can serve as a model for all such
movies, such as the new Planet of the Apes. Independence Day had a very
strong plot, lots of action and an amazing number of well-defined characters
and subplots.
By well-defined, I don't mean in-depth, I mean exactly enough
characterization to make you care just enough while watching the movie. In
the same way, every subplot and every character had a beginning, middle and
end. In short, truly, genuinely, joyously mindless entertainment. At no
point were you yanked out of the movie by the fatal thought of "Huh? Where
did that come from? Who's doing what to whom and why? And who is that
person and what is he/she doing in this movie?" After the movie, you could
tear it apart of course, but during the movie you were merrily on a ride. That is what good mindless
entertainment should be.
Now, how does the new Planet of the Apes measure up as mindless
entertainment? We begin with a fairly interesting introduction that sets
the scene but fails to give the hero a personality. Then we crash onto the
planet of the apes. First problem. The crash is clearly fatal but our hero
walks away (okay, swims away) with nary a scratch. Then the plot begins.
He becomes a slave to the apes. Here it's briefly good as we see excellent
ape costumes and really clever little vignettes of ape city life. The fact
the actors are required to move like apes is excellent. The problem is that
all this excellent background is in service of nothing much in the way of
story. I mean, what is the plot? And who are the people? Nobody makes any
sense as a person or any impression as a though the villain comes close and
Charleton Heston is superb in a cameo. A gorgeous half-naked blonde is
introduced just to be a gorgeous half-naked blonde with no personality.
Subplots are introduced and then dropped. I could name them all but it would take too long.
Meanwhile, the questions mount up. Finally, we're given an explanation that
is supposed to be ironic of how the ape/human relationship began but it
doesn't explain where the horses came from. Were they on the space station?
Or where the gorillas and orangutangs came from--only chimps were on the
space station. Our hero gets beaten up repeatedly in a way that would land
him in the hospital--He emerges with his clothes a bit rumpled and,
eventually a bruise or two.
The list is endless and it means that this is
not mindless entertainment. Mindless entertainment, which is what it is
aiming for, carries you along for the ride. Planet of the Apes keeps
yanking you out of the movie, never allowing you to just enjoy what it has
to offer. And then, final insult, the ending. I won't give it away for the
sake of the two or three people who haven't seen the movie except to say it
has nothing to do with the rest of the movie. It is simply a nice, big, totally pointless ending that
sends you out of the theater thinking, "Well, that movie sure was a waste of
time."
Marian Powell
mepowell@cybermesa.com
SF Films Still Need Story
would like to echo Kevin Ahearn's sentiments about the state of SF movies. I have not seen Tomb Raider and don't plan to, but I will go to Final Fantasy and Planet of the Apes (not out in the UK yet).
In general, I have found all of the most hyped films of recent years over-rated and lacking the most important component: STORY. I don't mean plot, which can be simply a series of devices, but STORY, defined by Robert McKee in his great book on screenwriting of the same title. It has something to do with believable characters, understandable motivation and the engine of story which drives the whole thing to a logical, and hopefully, surprising, ending.
The Matrix, for instance, failed as a story, but worked as a display of film technology. The story itself was muddled, thin and a rehash of old science fiction tropes, with a bit of Kung Fu thrown it.
We can only hope that younger movie goers' constant craving for visual stimulation will reach saturation point and producers will seek out story-driven rather than FX-driven science fiction films. On the other hand, of course, McKee says that producers would gobble up a half-decent story, and that in reality there is a dearth of them. I hope this is not so, and in the SF field at least the wealth of fine writers who can tell great stories must surely have counterparts in the screenwriting trade (or write the screenplays themselves. I would have loved, for instance, to have seen William Gibson's screenplay for Aliens III instead of the one that made it.)
John Dodds
jac@girrick.freeserve.co.uk
Enterprise is Worth Waiting For
don't think you're giving the series that much of a chance. All you've
seen is a 30-sec trailer and you've practically condemned it. Let's look at
the trailer:
First, the series is just called Enterprise, not Star Trek: Enterprise.
Does that mean the producers have turned their back on the core SF audience?
The same audience that—God knows how or why—kept Voyager on the air for
seven years? Isn't it more likely that Star Trek has so permeated our culture
that any Joe on the street will see the name Enterprise and know that it's
Star Trek—especially the core SF audience?
Second, as far as "seeing enough good looking guys and gals in the quick
clip" ... well, I don't recall any of the Trek series actually having someone
straight out UGLY in the show.
Third, I believe the music for the show will be orchestral, just like the
other Trek shows. The alternative song they played for the promo is kind of
catchy and probably intended to connect the idea of the first years of the
Federation to today. Hey, it works.
I've also heard criticism of Scott Bakula wearing a baseball cap and fans
saying "Picard never wore a baseball cap." Well, by Picard's time they
probably didn't have ball caps—except as historical items. Anyway, Picard
was too uptight to dress like that. (BTW, Cisco used to regularly wear one
when he took batting practice in the holodeck.) The point is that in the
new show, it's not that far in the future. We can still recognize some
elements from today's world. That includes really being on the leading edge
and viewing all those new races and cultures as something exciting and—yes—dangerous. Mr. Bakula has proven that he can entertain an SF audience
before, let's give the show a chance before we condemn it.
Paul J. Ellis
pellis@bigfoot.com
Enterprise Differences Desirable
fter reading two previous missives regarding UPN's upcoming Enterprise ("Enterprise Puts Trek On Last Leg", and "Enterprise Sounds Must Be Silenced"), I am interested that I had exactly the opposite reaction to the promo that debuted a few weeks back. As a somewhat lapsed Trek fan, I can say that Enterprise is the first Trek show since Star Trek: The Next Generation to have piqued my interest. Voyager was a prime example of a sci-fi franchise endlessly spinning its wheels. There was no soul in that show whatsoever. Creative characterization and plot development took a backseat to the fan-fetish of cliched technobabble and bewildering deus-ex-machina conflict resolution. Marginally better was Deep Space Nine, which took nearly seven seasons to finally get it right ... too little, too late.
Now we have Enterprise, which, at least from what I've seen in the promo, promises to deliver something new and different. The first thing one takes notice of is the fact that they are dropping Star Trek from the title altogether, a clear move to distance the show from the franchise which bore it. This is a good move, considering the "franchise" has all the freshness (and appeal) of week-old underwear. The complaints I hear regarding Archer's wearing of ball caps, of his resembling a submarine captain, and even the use of alt-rock to promote the show are understandable, though, I fear, misplaced. This is the first Trek show to show us the connection between our time, here at the beginning of the 21st century, and that of Kirk and company in the 22nd. I, for one, love the fact that this is a Trek that gives us that bridge between our time and the "future." Does this play with some of the established "continuity"? Sure, but who cares? The slavish devotion to Trek's mythology is what has stymied the series for so long. It's pretty sad when the fan community is more concerned with making sure their obscure trivia is all in order than they are with getting a good show. Trek fans need to be a little less anal-retentive, and a little more willing to accept change, even if a few of their Sacred Cows have to be sacrificed at the altar of Creativity.
Is Enterprise the death knell for the Star Trek we've all grown to know and love? Maybe. But maybe that's a good thing.
Alex Mayo
AMayo@fascor.com
Episode II Will Disappoint
eorge Lucas made a mistake. He waited too long to continue the Star Wars series. Of course, everyone is going to nit pick at basically everything he does. The movies these new movies have to live up to have long ago ascended into the science-fiction heavens to be worshipped by the followers of sci-fidom. In the time between these movies, he blanketed the market with Star Wars action figures, books, etc. Let's be honest—there is a ridiculous amount of things on this Earth that bear the logo Star Wars.
Though Star Wars emerged from the mind of George Lucas, he is by no means, now, the same man that created the first movies. It has been a long time between these movies coming out. Do you know how many ego massages that is? How easy it is to believe your own hype, especially with 20 years of people raving about your movies? Complacency sets in easily, as well as the arrogance that comes from knowing you can make a crappy movie and still make a bundle of money simply by slapping
Star Wars on the title. All he needs is the core audience to see the movie once, and he's rolling in dough.
Of course, the movies are going to be different. Hey, you know what, they can even suck, badly, in fact. I know how much we want the movies to live up to our expectations, but quite simply, he waited too long. Our imaginations have long ago forged what these movies should be like, and there is no way any of these movies can or will live up to our expectations. They may say Star Wars in the title, but it is doubtful that they will ever ascend so high into the sci-fi heavens as the first.
Jim Mann
sol463@hotmail.com/b>
Back to the top.
