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.
— 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). If you would like to submit a letter, please use our feedback form or send a message to scifiweekly@scifi.com.
'm 47 years old. Comics were 10 cents when I first started buying them ("Comic Prices Only Half the Problem"). The print was bad and the paper not very good but the stories were great and I bought 10 a week, saved them, too. As time went on, they jumped to 12 cents, then 15, then to 25, 50, 75, $1.00 to the now price of $3.95 or more. True, the paper is great, the art is great and the stories for the most part are as good or better than the early stuff, but what's really wrong with comics now is kids aren't interested in them anymore.
I used to fight throngs of kids at the local comic book stores back in the '80s and early '90s. There were six to eight good places to buy comics that were full-line stores. Now, there's only two stores and comics are an incidental offering. They sell 15 to 20 video games to a single comic now and that is the future. I can't interest one of my seven niece and nephews in my comic collection—all 200,000 of them (no I didn't throw one away). You don't want to hear what they say about my sport-card collection. Kids just aren't interested in this stuff anymore, computer video games and 200 channels have spoiled them.
As far as Enterprise goes ("Singing an Old Star Trek Tune" and "Enterprise Gets It Right"), it's a good show, better than Voyager but I still wish something more could be done with the cast of Deep Space Nine. Hopefully they'll show up in the next movie.
I firmly believe The X-Files is being groomed to move into a three or four movie-of-the-week event with the new players taking over ("X Does Not Mark the Spot" and "X Resolution Not Necessary"). Fox and Scully will move over into movies.
Wolf Lake cancellation is premature ("Wolf Lake Gives Reason to Howl"). It was just getting good and they cancel it. I've written to CBS, but unless a lot more people do, it's a hopeless cause. I was hoping they'd produce at least the full season and run them in the summer at least.
The SCI FI Channel is a mystery to me ("Listen to Your Audience, SCI FI"). It owned Friday night with The Invisible Man, Farscape and Lexx then broke them up. The Invisible Man was a great show, a
little uneven at times, but still better than 3/4 of the stuff out there. Patience is a virtue and apparently the SCI FI Channel doesn't have it.
Question is: What does SCI FI have up its sleeve to replace the Invisible Man? Would that they take over Wolf Lake ...
Gary Roelli
gjwr@excite.com
had seen Tim Burton's film Ed Wood about the man who was reputed to have made some of the worst films in Hollywood. I can not help but feel some pity for Ed Wood, a person who wanted to be a part of the film-making industry and probably did not have the talent for it. It is true that he had neither the resources, financial or otherwise, but if he did—would that have made a difference to his talent or probable lack of it? Or perhaps he should have exercised more caution in preparing and presenting his material. I do not know.
What I do know is that "Ed Wood" may be a name that people may consider bringing up as a reference as what "not to do" in creating films. It is not the kind of remembrance in the annals of history that one wants to gain for oneself.
Julian Gift
lira-b@tstt.net.tt
y name is Carla Crepin, and I live in Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies. There are many people in my
country who love your hit series The Invisible Man, myself included. I was deeply saddened when I read that the program was officially cancelled. I am please asking the people of the SCI FI Channel to reconsider.
I presently am viewing Season 1 on a local TV station. My village does not have any cable connections because of its remoteness from the towns. (We in Trinidad still use dial-up connections for internet access.) It is disappointing that at the end of Season 2 (which may be for me probably third quarter of next year) that I will be, once again, fishing for a good program on Wednesday nights.
So far, viewers in Trinidad have been treated to a roller-coaster ride of plot twists, witty dialogue, comedy, drama, unpredictable plot lines and the best cast it has ever been my pleasure to watch. In fact, the chemistry between Vincent Ventresca and Paul Ben-Victor immediately draws the viewer in and does not let go until the closing credits start to roll. The relationship between their characters, Darien Fawkes and Bobby Hobbes, is the major reason millions of fans tune in each week. I cannot think of another program on the air today that has this kind of chemistry between the two lead actors.
As I understand, there are quite a large number of international loyal fans who love this show, and we were all saddened when it was announced that SCI FI had cancelled it. In closing I would just like to urge you again to please reconsider and take a serious look at this wonderful show.
Carla Crepin
crepscor@yahoo.com
BS has just made me realize the #1 reason why I seldom watched network TV in the last few years. Wolf Lake was one of the most imaginative, mesmerizing shows I had seen on a network channel in years. All I can say is "So long big networks and farewell to your advertisers too. You have lost me for good."
Sharon Haas
sharhaas@charter.net
am joining in the protest ("Wolf Lake Gives Reason to Howl"). Canceling of Wolf Lake was not a good thing. It's like reading halfway through a good book only to find out that someone tore out the last chapter.
I need closure. Does anyone else?
Alice Childress
alice_c_75474@yahoo.com
n response to Tina Sena's letter saying The X-Files doesn't need
resolution ("X Resolution Not Necessary"). I beg to differ! The premise may be to hunt the truth, but the little side trips that assist in finding the truth must be resolved to some
degree in order for everything to make sense.
What happened to Gibson Praise? The black oil? And what about the origin of Emily? That's just a few of the many elements of the show that have never been resolved. And now the writers want us to become invested in a different conspiracy about super-soldiers and the justice department? Thanks, but no thanks. It's bad enough that Scully has been reduced to simpering "What about my baby?" type dialogue. I'm certainly not going to be reinvested in a show where it can't finish anything it started. All good things must come to an end eventually, and it's become blatantly obvious The X-Files should have ended two seasons ago when it was on top.
Mark Arnoldson
samspade@rebelspy.net
ith all the endless sea of carbon-copied sit-com clones floating about the various networks, I was shocked to see something so brilliant and hilarious come from such an unexpected source.
I saw the promo shots of Fox's The Tick, and I thought to myself, "What in God's name are these people thinking?" I was so sure it would be bad, I tuned in recently just to see to what extent. Well, let it not be said that I am a man afraid to admit when he's wrong. I found myself laughing uncontrollably throughout the entire half hour at the wonderfully clever and edgy situations and dialogue. Not Seinfeld, not Fraiser, not Friends, none of these supposedly original shows has ever made me laugh to such an extent. The Tick is probably one of the most original shows to see air in years, but it will surely fail.
Fox is putting this show up with almost no hype whatsoever against Who Wants to be a Millionaire, and with Family Guy as a lead-in. This is a show that should be nurtured long enough to find its audience, but it is being denied all opportunity and will probably last a few weeks at best in such an impossible-to-win slot.
I can only hope that it is picked up by another channel, as this is a sitcom that pokes fun at an almost totally untapped well of material.
Oliver Zuchowski
capzman@aol.com
our review of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was right on target. Well ... almost.
Since when is an extremely faithful adaptation of a beloved book a bad thing? My family and I sat through all two and a half hours of HP&tSS on Saturday evening, and even my five-year-old daughter sat in rapt attention during the entire movie. At the end, we all wished for more! The Hogwarts sequences were enchanting, but the scenes with the Dursleys were equally entertaining. Also, at no time did I find the musical score to be obtrusive or overbearing. On the contrary, I felt it added a more magical quality and depth to the film. A+, in my opinion.
Caroline Bales
bales_mc@willis.com
s Battlestar Galactica cursed? It certainly seems to be. Last February, we fans finally heard that our show was going to be revived after more than two decades of waiting. Our savior? None other than Bryan Singer of X-Men fame.
Now, after more than a week of rumors, it has been verified by the Web master of Galactica's official site, BattlestarGalactica.com, that Singer has left the production only one month before filming of the pilot was to begin so that he could concentrate all his energies on the upcoming X-Men 2.
What's worse than having a powerful, young director abandon us? Answer: Having the TV network that ordered the pilot (and possible subsequent series) similarly abandon us. That's right—seems that Fox was banking solely on Singer's drawing power and had little faith in Galactica's ability to draw an audience in and of itself, for the production offices have been closed down, and set construction halted.
Must another 22 years go by before another network or studio notices the potential in Battlestar Galactica, or will Fox see the light of day and officially greenlight the two-hour pilot movie? Singer had drawing power. Absolutely. But he was not the be-all and end-all of Galactica. There are many others involved, including his frequent producer, Tom DeSanto, who has been left in charge of the production.
We Galactica fans hope that Fox can understand this, and we hope that others who share our opinions—who want to see the show finally come back—visit BattlestarGalactica.com and add their names to the official petition there. We'll also have to hope that somewhere deep inside Fox studios, understanding will at last dawn.
Ray Grant
RGame8@aol.com
've got just one thing to say concerning Berman and Braga's latest Trek crap-heap: In Michael Okuda's Star Trek Encyclopedia: A Reference Guide to the Future, it clearly states that the first starship Enterprise was commissioned in the year 2245 and commanded by Capt. Robert April.
Where did Jonathan Archer and this version of the Enterprise come from, People? Where, Mr. Berman?
Leslie Brown
mercury189@ccountry.net
hat is up with Enterprise? Half the time it seems like they want to expand on history, the other half they want to re-create it.
My biggest question is this: They established in the first series that exploration had gone on sometime without any form of visual communication. Spock stated that the peace with the Romulans was done painstakingly over subspace radio. Please forgive the lack of an exact quote, I'm at work. Why
do we have visual communications before we met the Romulans?
Well, I suppose they could say the Romulans didn't have visual capabilities at the time, but I doubt many hard-core fans will buy into that one.
Other than that, I'm really liking the show. Except for the intro song—that sucks, and there's no denying it. Truth be told, I question the sanity of anyone actually liking the intro, since the song itself sucks too. I also question the sanity of anyone who thinks after four shows with a full musical
score the viewers would eagerly switch to that crap.
The characterizations are excellent. Capt. Archer as an eager, wet-behind-the-ears, captain who dislikes Vulcans serves as an excellent foundation for the rest of the crew. I'm not too sure about T'Pol. Granted she's a decent Vulcan, but Jolene Blalock will have to work hard to overcome the stigma attached to Seven of Nine (i.e., eye-candy role). The engineer is funny as a southerner, but I don't get that "engineer" feel that I got with Scotty, La Forge or even B'Elanna. I like the security officer, I just wish they'd give him some real weapons and lose the term "phase-pistol." The communications officer is the one everybody feels empathy for, and the actress elicits that sympathy quite well. She definitely looks like she's in way over her head, but everybody knows despite the struggles there's just no way she'll leave now. Our young and over-eager navigator is so wide-eyed he makes Harry Kim look positively ancient.
This show could really blaze some boundaries, or it could totally fall on its butt. I hope this series does not fall into the same trap as the preceding series by being to "politically correct." To be honest, I could never understand how a sci-fi show could be politically correct because, in my mind, science fiction is supposed to transcend those boundaries and show people just how rich and varied life is. Science fiction does not exist so that the small-minded corporate types or political
"activists" could continue to tell us how to think even when we're trying to imagine whole new dimensions of existence.
Please don't make this a show that's another slave to the advertisers, and don't totally destroy the history and universe that Gene Roddenberry created. I firmly believe that Paramount can make Enterprise a first-rate show, despite its track record.
Jason Barron
vbarron@adelphia.net
hat is being offered up for black characters and thrown on the big screen these days is ludicrous. Ironically, much like the black character reveals in the current trailer for the teen movie Not Another Teen Movie. "I'm just the token black guy who is supposed to say things like—that's
whacked!"
Sadly, it seems this is exactly what blacks are becoming in regard to mainstream film. In terms of what we represent to an audience, we have taken the place of the "small dog" alluded to in the script for Shakespeare in Love.
"Nothing in Star Wars was racially motivated," said Lucasfilm spokeswoman Lynn Hale. "Star Wars is a fantasy movie. I really do think to dissect this movie as if it had a direct reference to the world today is absurd." In just seven months, Star Wars: Episode II will make its premiere. It seems we will be treated to another helping of the racist pageantry which Ms. Hale and, her boss, sees as harmless fantasy.
How could an intelligent person make the comment such as the one above? Perhaps she should see the movie again, then have dinner with one of her close African-American friends to discuss the issue.
It seems that America's appetite for the portrayal of the "Lil' Black Sambo" is never ending. And unfortunately, unlike the Dorothy Danbridges and Lena Hornes of old, there are always plenty of talented actors rushing forward to accept these demeaning roles.
I don't blame White America solely for the sudden proliferation of the return of the Amos-and-Andy-type black characters (Rush Hour 2, Black Knight, etc.) however, I do suspect that White America is most comfortable with the roles and images of African-Americans that are being given and White Hollywood is most generous in picking up the tab.
Although not a traditional Star Wars fan, I am a person whom can appreciate a good escape into fantasy, however, after viewing Star Wars: Episode I, I was completely taken aback by the pageantry of racial burlesques that was paraded on the screen in front of me. Had I not been treated to the movie by a friend, I would have surely walked out in disgust.
Why are we allowing Hollywood to thrust upon us portrayals so stereotyped and humiliating that "Amos and Andy" would seem Shakespearean in comparison? In light of the World Trade Center disaster, I shutter to think of how Arabs will now be portrayed.
The movie is full of racial epitaphs masquerading as characters but by far the most derogatory of these characters is that of Jar Jar Binks. Complete in a futuristic sharecropper get-up, Mr. Binks shuffling his exaggerated gait shenanigans would have certainly put a smile on the faces of the creators of "Lil' Black Sambo." Believe me if the character would have suddenly blurted out "Who dat Mitter Charlie, a ghos'?" it would have not in the least seem out of order or out of character whatsoever.
This character, although an alien, is nothing more than a rehash of Steppin Fetchit persuasion: "The darkie" Negro stereotype from the glorious days of Hollywood. Mr. Binks is presented as a popped eyed, moronic buffoon. He plays the traditional role of the jungle boy in the service of the great White hunter. Unlike the standard jungle boy motif, there is not even a trace of intelligence portrayed in this stereotyped version. The excuse given is that he was created as a comic relief character for the children audience. I happen to occasionally watch Saturday morning cartoons and to my knowledge most characters no matter how outlandish their persona, show some hint of intelligence and/or proficiency; unlike Mr. Binks.
The amount of screen time given to his character is staggering. He is performing some aspect of his minstrel antics in almost every scene. I guess the children need a lot of comic relief. He is crude, rude, lacking in motor skills as well as social graces. Had he been given political office in the movie we could have called it Star Wars: Episode 1—Birth of a Nation. Jar Jar speaks with a unique accent which is sure to annoy an entire planet of African descendants. He speaks with a pseudo-African/West Indian/Slave Dribble/Ghetto speak dialect (it fluctuates from scene to scene).
The creature hails from an undersea city which is clearly a take off on an African Village. The village is run by an Idi Amin type chieftain whose poor command of the tongue is accompanied by his inability to control his own saliva. He conveys to the audience he own sense of the inferiority of his
race by denoting "The surface dwellers think they are so much smarter than us." I guess he is a character of comic relief for the children also?
Obi Wan Kenobi brings the inferiority point home again when he alludes to the fact that they had already picked up one inferior life form, a reference to Jar Jar.
Cleverly, the movie has its own built-in defense against accusations of racial stereotyping. We have Samuel Jackson, a black actor, occupying an important position, which by my observations is a role that does not utilize nor does it require the caliber of acting skill brought to the big screen by Mr. Jackson. It takes very little acting ability to place your hand on you chin, and for a few seconds, look stern and speak a few straight forward lines.
There is also a black actor heartthrob of the Denzel Washington type. Admittedly he does get a chance to display a bit more acting ability than Mr. Jackson. So let's recap, One "Sambo" character, one completely idiotic African Village, one black actor icon who ironically does get chance to act and one heartthrob of a black actor. So how could this be a racially insensitive film?
My personal opinion is that the casting of the latter two actors is nothing more than a smoke screen or perhaps guilt compensation for the obvious liberties taken in the stereotyping of Jar Jar and the mockery of the African village. By the way, I wonder—were Morgan State and other black Colleges thrilled with the marching band sequence?
My friend informed me that she was also not impressed by the characterization of Jar Jar Binks and the obvious racial overtones (wait ... she knew ). I guess she must have deemed these minor flaws in an otherwise great film because, they in no way seem to hamper her enthusiasm for the show. She is
not African-American.
Will movies like this contribute to our new rallying cry "America Unites?" I think it is a hypocritical statement on our society when we make calls 24/7 for racial harmony and unity yet allow these racial motifs and hate inspired depiction to be passed off as being the highest state of entertainment art. I could detect that many in the audience knew what was going on but, I wonder how many would go on the record and admit they knew racial politics were at work here? How many of you knew?
We should not allow Mr. Lucas to once again degrade an entire race while laughing all the way to the bank. Episode I, despite some minor controversy, was still one of the biggest box office draws ever; obviously that means along with White America, lot of Black American dollars also went to enriching the estate of Mr. Lucas. This time, let's get the ball rolling early, start the controversy and draw attention to his racially motivated agenda before the movie hits the theaters.
Phillip Ghee
Ghelove@aol.com
Back to the top.
