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).
Ghosts of Mars Is Not Marred
n response to your review of Ghosts of Mars I had quite a few points to disagree with. [WARNING: Spoilers follow.]
The lack of an explanation about the mechanics of the enemy force are not a weakness in the script, and that kind of storytelling never has been. Carpenter opted to let there be unexplainable things in the universe, and I for one think it would have been more unbelievable for the characters to have solved a thousands of years old mystery in one night. And, maybe they were just ghosts as the title implies? No more explanation needed. Though I will admit, with all the possessed people getting killed, I wondered why the characters didn't have hundreds of free ghosts trying to possess them.
The movie was actually one of Carpenter's best in my opinion, and I am a die-hard fan. I even watched Vampires, which I thought was a disaster.
Genetisch Gott
gottgen@hotmail.com
Adult Swim Serves Different Strokes
athie Huddleston's review of Cartoon Network's Adult Swim line-up was of particular interest to me, as I have been looking forward to this project since hearing plans for it some time ago. Some of the most entertaining things on Cartoon Network have been the extended bumper pieces they've created to fill a few minutes here and there, featuring various characters, mostly from the Hanna Barbera archives. Playing with patently two-dimensional characters, giving them a third dimension via human foibles and sometimes strange fixations has taken trash and produced something entertaining. (Honestly, does anyone have any pleasant memories of Scooby Doo beyond the Blair Witch Project parody pieces?)
Moreover, I was (and am) anticipating it because in late December of 2000 I happened to catch an unofficial/unannounced sneak peak of several of the shows, which Cartoon Network slipped in around 4 or 5 a.m. some Saturday morning. While the favorite of the mix—and on this Kathie and I seem to agree—was the Harvey Birdman: Power of Attorney, I enjoyed almost as much Sealab 2021.
From the sparse information Kathie provides they have apparently shown critics a different episode than the one they premiered last year. The one I saw was a mish-mash involving a squid or octopus, the mental instabilities of the station commander, and one of the mainstays revealing casually to another station member that he's actually the head of a worldwide, evil organization. While some of my enjoyment may have derived from being awake at that absurd hour, I'm reasonably sure I will find it funny when I see it again, and I know there was nothing in it that offended me. Presumably on September 2 they'll run the episode Kathie's seen and I'll get a chance to see if it is as "terrible, unfunny and objectionable" as she found it. If it is, I have to wonder how broad the stable of writers is that they've managed to produce one episode that was so enjoyable and another so horrendous.
I'll be watching.
Mike Norton
miraclo@hotmail.com
Hugo Awards Decided Democratically
arty Halpern ("Hugos Should Reward Anthologies") writes "How about an Internet campaign to influence the WorldCon committee to make this change [a Best Collection/Anthology Hugo Award] to the Hugo Awards?" This appears to assume that the individual WorldCon committees decide what categories they are going to award; however, this is not the case. The rules for the Hugo Awards, including the list of Awards themselves, are in the constitution of the World Science Fiction Society. Aside from a single, one-off Special Hugo (such as the one ConJosé is awarding in 2002 for Best Web Site), WorldCon committees do not decide what the categories are. The members of the Worldcon, through the Business Meeting held at every WorldCon, decide what the categories are. If Marty wants a category for Best Collection, he should bring the proposal to the Business Meeting in the proper form—the officers of the Business Meeting will help him draft it—as an amendment to the WSFS Constitution. An e-mail campaign simply cannot work, because there is no mechanism for changing the WSFS Constitution other than by members of the WorldCon voting to change it at two consecutive WorldCons.
In short, there is no "them" deciding what the Hugo categories should be; there is only "us," the members of the Worldcon, voting in an open, democratic fashion to determine what awards we will give.
I encourage anyone interested in participating in the WSFS Business Meeting to contact me. I will do my best to explain the procedures.
Kevin Standlee
Co-Administrator, 2002 Hugo Awards
Chairman, 2002 WSFS Business Meeting
wsfs@conjose.org
Crouching Tiger is Hidden SF
orgive my idealistic naivete. I thought this was the Web site where people really cared about science fiction and took pride in making their opinions known. After all, with "More Than 222,000 Registered Readers," this has got to be the place.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the SFWeekly unofficial Hugo balloting, the genre's Academy Awards. I'm writing this on Friday morning, and so far less than 1% of you loyal and knowledgeable fans have even bothered to vote and the most popular choice is ... Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Now that's science fiction!
Hugo figure, Mr. Gernsbeck. Did you ever dream it would come to this?
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
Science Fiction Weekly's editor-in-chief Scott Edelman comments:
Please note that the five dramatic presentations used in our poll got there because they were nominated by the official Hugo voters. Those responsible for placing Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon in competition were eligible members of the past two World Science Fiction Conventions, and not the readers of Science Fiction Weekly.
One interesting data point is that the next five slots were occupied by Unbreakable, Battlefield Earth, Shadow of the Vampire, George Lucas in Love and Space Cowboys, none of which received a sufficient number of votes to make the final ballot.
E:FC Scheduling is True Horror
don't understand why the SCI FI Channel is suddenly on a horror kick. I was aghast when I discovered, after a few weeks of good ratings, Earth: Final Conflict was being yanked for an unknown amount of time. Hercules and Sentinel are gone. Are Babylon 5 and Star Trek next?
The weekday is being filled with reruns of horror shows, rather than the much-awaited first reruns of Now and Again and E:FC. Yet both were in the top 10 of the ratings slot. This doesn't make any sense, to shelve shows that are doing well because someone up in the ladder of the SCI FI channel likes horror better than SF.
This is not a good idea. Several of the highest-rated shows are SF, and they should not be pushed aside due to personal preference.
We E:FC fans have been waiting for a year to see our show again from the beginning. A lot of fans are salivating at the idea of a S6/movie/mini for E:FC, written by competent writers, but how can we even petition if the show isn't being aired? We have been told that it will hopefully return in a few months in a new timeslot—but will that timeslot be good, and will it return? Is it gonna be aired in the dead of night? Will it be aired at all, or will Tales of the Crypt fester in its place?
Is it going to be aired again? A bunch of people don't know, and are afraid of the answer. The SCI FI Channel should pull E:FC back into its slot before they lose the viewers the show has gained for their channel. If you wish for a better lineup, pair it with Babylon 5 or Star Trek or Farscape. But don't let it sink as Tribune Entertainment (hah!) has done...
LA Solinas
jsolinas@erols.com
Squaresoft Delivered a Fine Fantasy
ust a quick little add on to Bryce Tollefson's remarks ("A.I. and FF Deserve Attention ") about the Final Fantasy movie and game series. The reason that the series is called Final Fantasy is this:
Back in the 1980s, Squaresoft, a Japanese game company, wasn't doing very well financially. They decided to pool their resources and try making one last make-it-or-break-it game before the company was forced to close. Inspired by Enix's Dragon Quest (Dragon Warrior in the U.S.), the people at Square decided to create an RPG of their own that would surpass every aspect of Enix's creation. As the company's entire future was essentially riding on this game, they decided to entitle it Final Fantasy, as it could very well have been Square's final game.
When the game was released, it went on to become a huge success, saving Square, and has spawned nine sequels (so far) for various game platforms, as well as spin-off titles like the Final Fantasy Legend series that appeared on Game Boy. Each game in the series takes place in a completely different world with different characters and plotlines, though a few very minor things do carry over from game to game. The storyline for each game also contains similar themes that can be found in the plotline of the film, which, when these facts are taken into consideration, is in fact a bit deeper than many people seem to think.
Was the film an excellent piece of cinema? No, it wasn't, but it strived for the mark; something that can't be said of Tomb Raider. Was the level of detail in the film's animation as excellent as promised? Yes. Square never promised photo-realistic characters, but detail that brings it closer to that level, which is something many people overlooked when writing reviews.
And last of all, was the film a worthy film adaptation of the Final Fantasy series? In my opinion, yes.
Justin Graham
jgraham_70@hotmail.com
Roughneck Was Poorly Marketed
ecently, I decided to dig into my video cassette library and I pulled out the series of tapes on which I recorded Starship Troopers: The Roughneck Chronicles. It's been a year since the show was cancelled, but after re-watching the series, it's obvious what happened: The show was
marketed to the wrong audience.
Perhaps some readers are saying, "Duh! Of course it was," yet perhaps others have no clue what I am talking about. The Roughneck Chronicles was a digitally animated adaptation of Robert Heinlein's classic Hugo-winning novel Starship Troopers, the story of Johnny Rico and his mates in Razak's
Roughnecks. Of course, there was a major motion picture based on this same book, but where the movie was mediocre, the series was excellent.
Why was it cancelled, if it was so good? The series aired at 7:30 a.m. on the SCI FI Channel, along with other channels, as part of the BKN Kids network. If you were smart enough to have taped the show, or lucky enough to know someone who taped it so you can watch it, you will know quickly enough that this was a show that was never meant for "kids."
First, the level of violence in the show is very high. Most parents would have seizures if their 6- and 7-year-olds watched it. (That is, if they even knew what their kids were watching in the first place.) Second, the level of dialogue is geared more towards the teen-to-adult audience, leaving younger viewers in the dust.
Had the show been aired at a time when more adults would have had a chance to watch, this show would have had far more of a chance. As it was, it was cancelled after only one superb season. Unfortunately, the show was cancelled on a cliffhanger. Other series, such as the excellent Reboot have been completed with TV movies. CBC was to make two Reboot movies, they have yet to make it to the U.S.
Perhaps the SCI FI Channel could re-air the Starship Troopers series at a more advantageous time, gaining the viewership to justify finishing the series, either by returning to the air as a series, or with a TV movie.
Just a thought ...
Keith Kitchen
BoyoKlaatu@aol.com
Native Cultures Had the Right Idea
guess it has never occurred to Mr. Moore ("Man and Ape Have Different Souls") that it is his interpretation that could be wrong. The original translation of The Bible occurred so long ago and in a time when religious factions were making war on those that did not believe exactly as they did, that I find the translation to be suspect. And just what makes The Bible the book more so than the Koran, or any other religion's main text?
I, myself, can not conceive of a God who could—or would—create such a magnificent world filled with various creatures and favor one at the expense of the rest. If that were the case, the ark would have been much smaller.
Anyone who thinks nothing, other than humankind, has a soul doesn't believe in the same God I do—or else has an ego that belies description. You have only to look in the eyes of any of God's creatures and you can see an eternal spirit much more worthy than that of most humans. Maybe that is why many of the native, or more "primitive," cultures of this planet have such a high regard for their non-human brethren.
Judy Erp
comanchewolf@yahoo.com
Oscar Was Wild about Monkeys
hile I did enjoy the Planet of the Apes very much, the ending was indeed very lame. [WARNING: Spoilers follow.] The most amazing thing was the way apes and humans alike just stopped fighting when Pericles arrived. Just like that? Did you ever try to stop a barroom brawl? It would take more than the return of the Messiah to bring about a speedy end to such goings on. Yet a chimp from another time, another solar system just shows up, eek-eeks and all hostilities cease instantly. Wow! The U.N. could use a monkey. I guess it's true what Oscar Wilde said when asked how he broke through writer's block. "When in doubt, throw in a monkey."
Lisa Kopf
lisa_kopf@hotmail.com
Apes Ending is Evolutionarily Wrong
lanet of the Apes. OK, ending aside ... [WARNING: Spoilers follow.] where did the horses come from? Obviously an Earth-like planet would have Earth-like creatures; but the evolutionary range is so immense that exact horses would be unlikely to occur. Apes/chimps/humans were explainable as they came off the Oberon, but did they have horses, too? I don't recall any other life existing on the planet except vegetation.
There are possibilities ... interstellar Spanish settlers for one. Also, if the planet was Earth, time looping, etc., maybe the horses were the only survivors of an apocalypse (I can't think why). I reckon for an ending he should've landed on the Planet of the Horses-capable-of-space-flight.
Oh, and as a P.S. .... Ape Lincoln?
Stella Wood
tinderbox49@hotmail.com
Paramount Treated DS9 Poorly
enrik Harbin ("DS9 Is Not the Star of Trek") is right. Babylon 5 and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine have lots in common and let me add three more—back story, amazing recurring characters and a sense of humor.
That's what made both these shows so great. It's a shame that DS9 will always be Star Trek's bastard child, especially when Paramount is still trying to tout the greatness of seven miserable years of Voyager.
And Henrik. Want to see what's left for DS9? I refer you to the books Avatar Parts 1 and 2 to find out what happened to DS9 after Sisko's departure.
Jim James
jimjames2001@hotmail.com
B5 Strangely Similar to DS9
would have to disagree with the statements made by Mr. Harbrin ("DS9 Is Not the Star of Trek") in previous letters that Deep Space Nine was a copy of Babylon 5. In fact, for many years it seemed as though almost the opposite had happened. Deep Space Nine premiered in January of 1993 (I remember is was near my birthday) while Babylon 5 hadn't appeared until a year and a half later. Deep Space Nine is the original "space station," "outpost" sci-fi drama to appear on television within the last decade. Star Trek's innovation with DS9 prompted other sci-fi producers, like the people at B5, to produce their own similar epic.
I was shocked at how similar B5's jump gate resembled the Celestial Temple of DS9 or how B5's White Stars came out a year after the Defiant had seen scores of battles. Also it was striking how B5 sought to have a war with the Shadows while DS9 was in the middle of battling the Dominion. B5 did finally take its own direction and I've come to like B5 but I was very resentful about how so many of their story lines mimicked DS9. Well, despite B5's attempt to replicate Star Trek's innovation, DS9 was still the number-one syndicated show of its time and it lasted two years longer than B5 and DS9 didn't have to change captains three times to do it!
Carl Jackson
thirdintl@blackplanet.com
New Trek Marketing Raises Ire
nterprise may be an entertaining show. It might even return to some old themes and elements that made the original series a success (a sense of fun and adventure, a brand-new unknown universe, a Kirk-like captain), it might even be worth watching more than Voyager was, but I very much doubt that it will restore Star Trek to what most fans feel it should be. Instead, it will only continue the trend of further degrading Star Trek in the hopes of fattening wallets. I came to this realization while watching an Enterprise promo. A few things immediately jumped out at me.
First, in addition to dropping Star Trek from the title, I don't think the words Star Trek were mentioned once. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that I recognized Scott Bakula and saw a brief clip with Klingons in it, I might have trouble identifying it as Star Trek at all. While I do think that Enterprise by itself sounds better than ST: Enterprise, I believe this indicates a desire on the part of those responsible for the show to distance it from the rest of Star Trek.
Here's the logic behind this: Star Trek fans have been all over the news about the fifth Trek since the beginning. They'll watch. The promos, therefore, must be intended primarily for the non-fan audience. But more on that later. Back to listing evil omens. The music deviated from what you'd expect from Star Trek themes. Now, I understand that dishing out another Goldsmith fanfare might not be the best thing to do either, but as someone who rarely listens to anything written after 1950, I'm afraid I don't have much of an appreciation for popular music. There is also a rumor that an actual song will be the main theme for the series (that might have been it in the promo, but I couldn't
tell). The merits of this decision aside, it does send a clear message: they are marketing to a teen audience. One might ask, why not? The original Trek was very successful in its teen audience. Well, they're not aiming at that kind of audience, exactly, but rather the kind that tends to gravitate to shows like Dawson's Creek more than thought-provoking sci-fi.
Then there was a brief striptease by a female crewmember (I assume). Exactly what message is that supposed to send about the show? Probably the same message as all those Voyager promos on UPN that make you think every episode is related to Seven of Nine and sex.
As I considered this, I thought of a post I'd read recently on one of the SCI FI Channel's own bulletin boards about why some shows get renewed while others are cancelled. The answer is, in a word, money. Commercials pay for TV shows. How much money shows earn therefore depend heavily on the ratings. I also recall that the most prized audience for advertising is 18- to 34-year-olds, so a picture begins to develop. The creators of Enterprise assume (on some level or another) that Trek fans will gnaw on any bone they throw their way, so the best way to boost ratings beyond what Voyager and DS9 had is to focus on people who might be interested in watching a fun action/adventure show but don't really care about Star Trek or may even actively dislike it (hence the dropping of ST in the title. They focus in on their target age group, try to reel in a few classic Trek fans by promising them the return to the old days, and presto! Instant cash. Now for the obligatory disclaimer, I must say that these are just my ramblings on what I think might be going on. I will be glued to my TV set when the series premiere airs and I will give the show the chance it deserves. I am merely expressing my wariness of all future Trek projects, Star Trek X included (but that's a whole other story).
Alex Kulenovic
KAlex74205@aol.com
Back to the top.
