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.
s a Tolkien fan of many years, I was thoroughly unhappy with the film [The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring]. It is, of course, impossible to grasp all of any of the books and place it neatly into one film; but that does not equal license to destroy.
The film changed much that was important in the book, and I disagree completely with your review of the film.
[Spoiler warning.]
The added love scenes between Arwen and Aragorn were a deviation from the story. The adapters also failed to capture Aragorn's self-doubt and uncertainty after Gandalf's death. Boromir's character was only partially captured, and the friendship between Gimli and Legolas ignored. Many other unnecessary alterations were made and additions created. The scene where Galadriel is offered the ring by Frodo, for instance, is overdone in the movie with terrible acting and questionable special effects. Saruman and Gandalf's battle was also appalling and ridiculous as were other Saruman scenes, none of which existed in the book. The adapters of the book even erred with Saruman's role in the book, claiming that he joined with Sauron, when in truth, he wanted the ring for himself. Dominion was Saruman's aim, not survival through service to the Dark Lord of Mordor.
There are may other failings in the film: one does not get the sense that Sam is Frodo's servant, but rather Gandalf's, at best; the relationship between Pippin, Merry and Frodo is never mentioned, nor is their camaraderie explored. The mistrust the hobbits have for Strider at first meeting is glossed over and quickly forgotten, which in turn creates a less bitter parting for Frodo and Aragorn at the end, unlike the book. And the end of the movie was another mistake: the breaking of the company was not a plan but a spontaneous action born of desperation. There are many other unnecessary changes, too many to easily mention.
The movie, in short, fails to capture the essence of LotR, which is not merely a war story, as you suggest in your review, but is a story about diverse characters building unexpected friendships in uncertain times. It is a story about courage, loyalty, avarice, hatred, love, betrayal ... in short, about us and our lives. And it is a story about good and evil, and how one can move from one to the other. The film removes from the story too much that is essential to the characters, and adds things Tolkien never intended. The father of modern fantasy is surely rolling over in his grave.
Donald L. Roe
dlroe@ciusa.net
n admirable adaptation [of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring]? Streamlined narrative? I don't think so! Since when did Arwen play any role other than the most fractional bit part? She does not rescue Frodo and take him to Rivendell. Absolute balderdash. Additionally, where did that Rancor-monster reject of a cave troll come from? I understand the necessity of cutting out some pieces (the trilogy is too great to fit in any three movies) but adding drivel such as these two? Preposterous.
If Elijah Wood has an acting talent, other than bugging out his eyes with fear, I am astounded. The sets, while lavish, have not conformed to the descriptions in Tolkien's splendid narrative. Rather than deride the adaptation of Harry Potter as "slavish," perhaps "faithful" would be a better term. I do not believe that all literature should be reduced to a movie. A movie is merely one person's vision. I remember Tolkien himself objecting to illustration as limiting the imagination of the reader. How much more so does a movie. And particularly this one. Now that it's onscreen, each reader's vision will be colored and diminished by it.
Lori Kissell
Lmkissell@aol.com
have to strongly disagree with your evaluation of Lord of the Rings. It was the worst movie I have seen in many years. The graphics were blurry and hard to watch, the story was predictable, the characters were not developed or interesting and the ending was terrible. I thought maybe I was mistaken, but my husband, son and daughter-in-law all agreed. This was one poorly done movie that I recommend everyone to miss.
Joan Phillips
joanp@enter.net
ow. How many times in the past two months has a reviewer, commentator or newsgroup poster compared Harry Potter with Lord of the Rings?
Why do people feel compelled to compare, contrast and therefore choose one of these two films as better than the other?
I've seen countless posts, articles and reviews, and many of them fall into the trap of comparing the Harry Potter apple with the Lord of the Rings orange.
Both films took liberties with the storylines, leaving out things for time and changing things for no apparent reason. Why was Norbert introduced only to be taken away off-camera? Why did Gandalf not solve the riddle of the door?
The two books are vastly different from each other in themes, intent, audience and level of complexity. And while they have some similarities, it's not unusual for any post-Tolkien fantasy to take some influence from that work. Hardly any fantasy written since 1950 can claim not to be influenced in some way by that masterwork.
First, the Harry Potter series of books has come under fire for being popular. Well excuuuuuuuse me. As I am fond of saying, a good book or series of books should not be shunned just because lots of people have read it. The books are exciting, complex, have detailed characters and a rich world that are all so compelling that putting any of the four books down is a chore, and picking it up again a delight.
Second, The Lord of the Rings series of books is also quite popular, but for some reason still maintains the "quality" admiration that comes only with a cult classic, that rare, elite work that only a few "knowing" people are aware of, and therefore it's cool. However, more people have read this book than practically any other written in this century (with perhaps now the exception of the Harry Potter series). These books are exciting, complex, have detailed characters and a rich world that are so compelling that ... you get the point.
But comparing the Harry Potter books or movie with the Lord of the Rings books or movie is like comparing Narnia to The Bible. Yes, there are biblical influences quite obvious in C.S. Lewis' books, but when it comes down to it, the Narnia series is a very good fantasy series, but does not have the depth of The Bible.
Many times these comparisons degrade into "which is better." "Lord of the Rings was way better than Harry Potter!"
Well, duh!
Both are good on their own terms.
[Spoiler warning.]
Harry Potter is a thoroughly enjoyable experience. Who can say they didn't share Harry's joy when he found that instead of having to live a life of drudgery under the stairs of his awful relatives, that he was someone special and loved? Who can say they didn't weep with joy when Dumbledore handed out the extra points at the end of The Sorcerer's Stone so Gryffindor could win the house cup, and not the despised Slytherin? Who can say they didn't grin as Snape's face fell, and the Gryffindor table erupted, when Dumbledore handed the last five points to the littlest of the Gryffindor heroes, Nevil Longbottom?
But Harry Potter is not The Lord of the Rings. It is much easier-compared to the Narnia series.
The Lord of the Rings is a world-sweeping, mind-spanning epic that may never see its equal in the literary world. The complexity of the story, the history, the characters and the mind-boggling beauty of it is astounding. So much so that the book has been voted by some as this century's best.
But Lord of the Rings is not Harry Potter. It is much easier-compared to The Bible.
So why compare the two, with the intent of saying one is better than the other? It's pointless, and truly, it is like comparing apples and oranges. Both are round, have peels and seeds. That's where the comparison ends.
Enjoy both, because both are worth enjoying!
Even if both feature a ride on a troll's head.
Sean Huxter
sean.huxter@verizon.net
is the season and Hollywood rolls out multi-million dollar, FX-laden blockbusters to "Make a buck, make a buck" during Christmas time. Hopefully, however, you took time to once again see the little black-and-white summer classic that defined what fantasy is all about: "faith in believing what common sense tells you not to."
The very next time you watch a fantasy or sci-fi film and a character asks for the suspension of your disbelief, whether it be Shrek or Superman, HAL or Harry Potter, Frankenstein or Frodo, Klaatu or King Kong, Darth Vader or Doctor McCoy, never forget that it was eight-year old Natalie Wood in Miracle on 34th Street who said it best for all of us...
"I believe. It's silly, but I believe."
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
opefully the amount of email and post coming to you, and the number of discussions starting up on message boards all over the Internet—MGM and the SCI FI Channel to name a couple—you now know how deep the feelings run regarding the loss of Michael Shanks from Stargate SG-1.
To split up the very team we watch for, to take Daniel from that team and think that we'll go on watching is frankly short-sighted. What makes Stargate so good, so fun, so watchable, is the dynamic between the four of them. Daniel can't be replaced.
We understand why Michael Shanks chose to leave. We stand by him, respect him for making this stance against the direction in which the series has been going; toward the political and away from the humanity and exploration it started off as. We, as intelligent fans, don't need some hidden political agenda or secret story arc to keep us. We ask only for the series we love to be kept in tact.
The possibilities of travelling to new planets, finding new aliens, new friends and enemies, new rituals and religions, new character direction are endless to an active imagination. Please don't let
Stargate SG-1 turn into The X-Files all over again!
We've seen all that, and we might have enjoyed it then, but it's not why we watch Stargate, not why we love it.
If all Michael asked for was a redirection of the stories—a place on screen for his character—why wasn't this possible? Why isn't the most wonderful character, the character who has been there from that start and who captured our imaginations and hearts, worth a change of direction when it's a change that the fans—those who watch every week—also want?
And to think he can be replaced ... in the same episode ... by a character being introduced as Daniel passes over. ... That's an insult not only to the character of Daniel, to the team SG-1, but to Michael
Shanks who portrayed Daniel so beautifully and to us. The fans.
This is a heartfelt plea that I know I'm not alone in sharing with you. Please, please take some notice of us. A wonderful, unique show is being lost here.
Thank you, and a very merry Christmas.
Maddy Hughes
elfin@burble.com
pen letter to all X-Files fans, if you've seen the promos for the upcoming episode that airs January 6, it gives the false impression that Mulder is coming back. Please don't believe it. It's merely a ruse, a con to get you to watch. David Duchovny is not returning to the show. If you resent the deceptive advertising, send a message to Fox and 1013 and boycott that episode. It's one thing to try to create a new show, but to resort to this sort of cheap deception denigrates what remaining class the show has. The creators need to make up their minds. They need to stop living under Mulder and Scully's shadow or move on to other projects where their creativity can be reinvigorated.
Jim Hammond
Jhammond@tfaw.net
ome past letters in Science Fiction Weekly concerning the state of The X-Files really angered me. I couldn't understand the negativity, the hostility and why those people were judging it so quickly when the show had just barely started. After viewing the first five episodes, I can understand and sadly, I now agree the show is past its prime and needs to end before it loses the few remaining bits of dignity it has. From the stunt casting of Lucy Lawless, the shift from aliens to supersoldiers, and the extra emphasis on gore, The X-Files is a fading
shadow of its original glory.
And the upcoming teaser for the next episode, with the several Mulder mentions reeks of exploitation and desperation. Everybody knows David Duchovny is not coming back. Why open up that chapter when you want to start a new generation show?
Frank Spotnitz has also reportedly said the show could go forever. I'm
sorry, but I no longer want to follow a story for years and years while the writers ladle on complication after complication and character after character, promising that all will be revealed and that there's a secret overarching idea to it, only to be frustrated by excessive coyness designed to string me along and buy time while the powers that be change their mind again and again about what it's really all about.
Scott Neron
tman@darkhorsemail.net
know I'm probably the only one who feels this way, but I am really bothered by the upcoming X-Files promos for the January 6 episode which uses Mulder as "fish bait" to try to "lure" in viewers. It's doing a disservice to the show, to its current leads, and to the remains of the fan base. The only thing that can justify it (in my mind) is if they really do wrap up the loose ends regarding Mulder's abduction (never dealt with) and his current disappearance and whereabouts. In fact, that's something I would love to see, because then they can move on and work on developing Doggett and Reyes, showing how they fit into TXF's world.
In other words, look ahead to the future instead of back to the past. I know that Frank Spotnitz is promising answers with this next episode, but given the "bait and switch" pattern they've used over the last year-and-a-half, I'll believe that when I see it!
Lonette Thompsom
lonithompson@teacher.com
egarding the wonderful news that Babylon 5 is going to DVD. I wish to say
that I have long awaited this, but have reservations. With any "fan club" there are a limited number of fans. I would be more than willing to purchase the whole collection on DVD, if the studio was committed in releasing it, but this "see as we go" mentality makes me nervous. I would be seriously disappointed if I began purchasing this wonderful series just to find out that the studio decided there wasn't enough "demand." That, sirs, would suck!
I would also like to commend the SCI FI Channel for airing this entertaining story, and having the fore sightedness to realize its future potential. If possible, please forward this email to the publicist in charge of the project, or whomever may have a hand in it no matter how small. I know this is just one email, and that I have no real say in what happens, but, hopefully, others will do the same. I would really enjoy B5 on DVD. If per chance The Powers That Be read this, please know that if the entire story goes on DVD, you will have one very satisfied customer. Thank you for taking the time to read my ramblings.
Marc Johnson
mrcjhnsn@yahoo
egarding the letter "Stand-Alone Novels Are Sadly Rare":
Amen.
Even the best (or most popular) novelists today release series. Harry Turtledove only writes books in series of four to eight it seems. Orson Scott Card has several series out (Ender and Bean each takes four books, with two of Bean's still left to be published). Dan Simmons: Hyperion series was four books. Fredrich Pohl's Eshaton series is at four (or is it five?) books. And just how many is it for Asimov's Foundation now, many of which were not written by him. These are just a few examples.
The last stand-alone novel I read was Darwin's Radio by Greg Bear. Stephen Baxter is another who, although his books might link together, can still be enjoyed as stand alone books. (Manifold: Time is a must read.)
But, as much as I like to read science fiction, sometimes I just don't want to commit myself to a series, and it is becoming harder and harder to find good books that stand alone. What we need to do is to stop buying all Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5, Doctor Who and any other multiple series books. I haven't read any of those in years. It seemed to me that after a while they all started to be the same since nothing really can happen to the major characters. I guess, I am of the religion of give me that old time single novel science fiction read.
Thus, as good as they may be, I have refused to read: The Civil War series by H. Turtledove (although I admit I do enjoy the World War series (up to book seven) and the Into the Darkness series, I am guilty here); the "House" series (Dune prequels); David Weber's never-ending series (I can't remember the name); any Star Wars novel after T. Zahn's first trilogy; any Babylon 5 novel; any Doctor Who novel; any non-Asimov Foundation novel; and any Trek novel, in particular, any by W. Shatner.
But, single novels are good any time.
And in case you think I only read science fiction, my current reading list includes: John Adams by David McCollough, American Scripture by Pauline Maier, Last Chance to See by Douglas Adams (non-fiction) and Nothing Like it in the World by Stephen Ambrose.
So, readers, don't think that we readers of this Web site are nothing but addle-minded fans. I considers many of us well-read individuals with serious opinions about what we read and the world around us.
David Kopp
dolby1000@aol.com
Back to the top.
