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.
t really shouldn't be a surprise that the purists are out in mass with the release of Lord of the Rings. The letters that have already been posted ("Rings Is Poor Adaptation of Tolkien", "Rings Diminishes Tolkien's Vision" and "Lord of the Rings Is Disappointing") are full of scorn for the film version of the literary classic, detailing the shortcomings ad infinitum. Why can't sci-fi viewers see this movie for what it truly is—the first film adaptation of a fiction novel that comes exceedingly close to the text. Sure, it's been "fluffed" with additional sub-plots. But, think back to all of the films that have been made from novels that have failed miserably to even come close to the original story (Starship Troopers, The Shining, etc.). So what if we get a mini love story or a different interpretation of a mage?
In December of this year, go see the second installment, forget about the details (or the ten dollar admission!) and simply enjoy the best adaptation to hit the big screen. To the purists, I've read the trilogy more than once and still found the movie to be worth the three hours of viewing!
Joe Flaugher
jflaugher@hotmail.com
ongratulations to Peter Jackson! It seems Tolkien purists are upset with only two aspects of his film of The Fellowship of the Ring: what he put in, and what he left out.
A fan of the book myself, I was initially concerned by the film's voiceover prologue. I had been looking forward to seeing Ian McKellen's Gandalf explain that history to Frodo. I was also disappointed with the decision to flaunt Sauron's physical presence so openly. I felt it diminished his threat
rather than expressing it.
On a visually aesthetic level, though, how could anyone possibly quibble with the sublime beauty of the images Peter Jackson had directed? Every shot a masterpiece.
When Gandalf eventually arrived at Bag End for that wonderful, impossible sequence between the two Sir Ians, McKellen and Holm, I was hooked. Held by magnificent acting—some of the richest you'll see onscreen—and magical cinematography, I let go of my concerns, pausing only to harrumph at the
occasional longshot of hobbit stand-ins and the expanded role of Arwen filled—if that is the word—by the sweetly vacant Liv Tyler.
By the end of the movie, I'd rediscovered my sense of wonder. I hadn't been so moved by cinema since The Shawshank Redemption. That's a tall order for any film.
In an ideal world, financiers would have been queuing to back a 20-hour cinema adaptation of The Lord of the Rings, to be shown in ten sessions over the course of a week. In a less-than-perfect world, TV networks would have been fighting over the rights to make a series the length of a season of
Star Trek: Voyager. In our world, Peter Jackson's backers made the unprecedented decision to produce three movies before the first had even been made. That's as good as it gets for now.
Bound by the constraints of big budget movie making, Peter Jackson made a conventional decision to choose plot over character, and another wholly conventional decision to show backstory directly rather than have a character report it. Hence, the scenes between Gandalf and Saruman, at the expense of potentially more scenes with Pippin and Merry. I don't think anything essential was lost. All of my acquaintances who have seen the film thought it was excellent, and all intend to return to the cinema for a second viewing. None of them has read the book. I have, and I'd choose Gandalf's escape from Orthanc over Pippin, Merry and mushrooms any day!
Creatively, Peter Jackson has now surpassed anything he's done before, in detail, scope and power. He's also surpassed any single film of George Lucas. Peter Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring is what Star Wars needs to be, and what Episode I was not. In an ideal world, George Lucas would ask Peter Jackson to direct Episode III. In an even more perfect world, Peter Jackson
would accept.
Andrew Jude Sweeney
andrew@dwebdoc.com.au
hile I share an abiding love of J.R.R. Tolkien's work with many of the critics already lining up to lament Peter Jackson's film in sackcloth and ashes, I have to say, "Get a grip, ladies and gentlemen." Professor Tolkien's books haven't gone anywhere. They are still there, on your shelves and in your hearts, and you will always be free to ignore the films.
Peter Jackson and his associates faced an utterly thankless and miserable
task, that of deciding which of Tolkien's story elements were to live or die, so to speak. I for one feel that the cuts and changes were handled in a measured and frequently brilliant fashion, more often enhancing the story than detracting from it.
What we must remember is that The Lord of the Rings cycle is not a religious text. It has no official arbiters of propriety. It is a story that belongs to the entire world, and Jackson's film has been crafted to be directly accessible to the common, ordinary viewer across that world. In this respect it is everything that Chris Columbus' Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is not. That film is a timid greatest hits reel extrapolated almost directly off the page. The Fellowship of the Ring offers a complete story, requiring no knowledge of the books on the part of the viewer. I have seen this film four times, and I have marveled at the audience response each time. Children barely old enough to walk, elderly couples, large families, irritable pre-teens and teens of the Attention Deficit Generation have all been astounded, moved, thrilled and impressed by what I would call "the
unlikeliest film of all."
What's truly sad is that the most vehement fan(atic) purists seem to be missing Lothlorien for the trees. Jackson's film exudes passion for the work at hand. The care taken in the selection and handling of the cast, the obvious reverence and enthusiasm with which they fill their roles, the intricate brilliance of the production design, and the glorious presentation of some of the most beautiful landscapes ever filmed all combine into one truly outstanding whole. This is a film that wears its heart on its sleeve, a film that shows what happens when a unique and inflexible creative talent receives a blockbuster budget to play with. Yet the tiny minority of extremely vocal critics would rather busy themselves quoting chapter and verse, whining about the omission of minor characters or the necessary enhancement of other roles. To each their own, of course, but I feel more pity than anything else.
Tolkien's novels display numerous glaring flaws despite their overall brilliance; Jackson's film is no different. Those whining about the fidelity of Jackson's adaptation to Tolkien's specific text are missing the point, and while they are entitled to their informed opinions, they do not speak for all of us, nor indeed for the great majority of us. Jackson and company have handled the Professor's work with the skill and consideration it deserves. The Fellowship of the Ring is a brilliant start, and I can barely wait for the coming of next Christmas. Lucas who? Never heard of the guy.
Scott Lynch
cryptosnark@yahoo.com
fter reading a whole bunch of letters about folks nitpicking Fellowship of the Ring and other folks criticizing the nitpickers, I think I have to come down on the side of the anti-nitpickers ("Rings Should Not Be Nitpicked").
Like one of your other readers ("Tolkien's Text Translated Well"), I just could not get through The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I've tried several times because so many people think they are the be-all, end-all of fantasy books. It isn't because I can't follow it. It's because I got bored. Tolkien's writing style made the books about as interesting to me as one of my college history texts. One reader complained about the absence of Tom Bombadil ("Rings Movie Missing Novel Chapters"). Not a problem for me. If
they'd included every little scene and non-essential character in the movie that Tolkien felt compelled to put into the book, then the movie would have been twice as long, and half as entertaining. Heck, it was all those peripheral characters and details that held up the story in the books.
As it is, my only problem with the movie was that they didn't have quite enough time for character development for all of the wonderful cast that they did include! The movie was lush and beautiful and well-paced. I don't think I have ever seen or imagined a more well-done fantasy movie.
Melissa Cavanaugh
sparkling_emerald_01@yahoo.com
ow many times have I heard this: "Oh the movie wasn't as good as the book." No kidding.
For one reason and one reason alone. You are watching someone else's imagined image of a book and not your own. Just sit back and enjoy the film. If you don't like the adaptations of books into film then don't watch them ("The Persistence of Visions"). The rest of us that enjoy watching a good film are tired of listening to the mindless, endless whining ("Rings Is Poor Adaptation of Tolkien", "Rings Diminishes Tolkien's Vision" and "Lord of the Rings Is Disappointing") that goes on after one of these films is made. If you don't like it so much don't watch the next two that come out and don't buy the video when it is released. The best way to show your disapproval of anything is to not talk about it in any form. I gave up listening to professional critics years ago because my opinions are very different from theirs. Just sit back and enjoy the film, or not. Just quit the whining.
Robert Reed
Krayzie@tendodojo.com
en Kesey refused to see One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Can't say as I
blame him. It was almost as good as his novel.
Stranger in a Strange Land should remain unfilmed. While it may have
charmed many readers, I don't want to see it.
Movies are windows. Look at the big rectangle and see everything. Books
are doors. It takes effort, sometimes a lot of effort, to open them and then
walk through ("The Persistence of Visions").
On the other side of the coin, could anyone be satisfied with a novelization of Star Wars or King Kong? The Sentinel of Eternity was a tiny door. 2001 was mostly window.
The argument rages on. But there are too many windows looked at revealing nothing and too many doors unopened. And there probably always will be.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
pparently [Scott Edelman's] editorials ("The Persistence of Visions") always inspire me to comment. I sympathize with your son's concerns; I had similar thoughts when I first heard of the
Lord of the Rings films. But first and foremost, the film is not the novel. I am re-reading the trilogy currently, and my enjoyment of the film (I have seen it twice thus far) has not in any way disturbed my enjoyment of the novel. In fact, it has enhanced it. I actually enjoy hearing the voices of the actors speaking the novel's dialog in my mind, particularly since it replaces the voices of the actors from the BBC radio play, who tended to creep in whenever I read the books in the past (so obviously for some people your son's concerns are valid). But if I didn't want those voices in my
head I could push them out with my imagination. In any event, unless your son has managed to avoid every illustrated book, calendar, book cover, etc. that has been produced relating to these novels, his vision of the characters has probably already been influenced by someone else's vision. But I would still say that he should not deny himself the pleasure of simply enjoying a good movie, and have faith in the strength of his own imagination. If he doesn't want the actors to get in there, they won't.
Rachel Sinclair
bluegirl@teleport.com
enjoyed your editorial, "The Persistence of Visions", very much.
Throughout my life I've been aware of book to film adaptations, and noted the varying degrees with which they succeeded. I took it for granted that books were better, but seldom resented the effort. I even conceded that films such as Blade Runner were worthwhile; although nothing like the book it was based on, it had a charm of its own. I even prefer the original Planet of the Apes film over the book. Everything changed when I saw Dune (take your pick). I realized that there were stories I hated to see butchered.
Like your son I am a Tolkien fan, and like him I was horrified when I heard that someone else was going to attempt a film adaptation of his work (having witnessed the animated debacle when it debuted). I have a deep and personal appreciation for Tolkien's legendarium, and for the Middle-earth which exists in my head. I realized my relationship with The Lord of the Rings was too close, and that no film could do it justice. I also knew my curiosity would get the better of me.
I applaud your son's conviction not to see the film, although visually appealing, and for the most part well-portrayed, it is simply a skewed plot summary, a pale reflection of Tolkien's achievement. If your son has doubts, he's better off with his own version of Middle-earth. My 25 years of familiarity
were proof against the potential imaginative contamination posed by the film, as I was relieved to find, but I feel sorry for those who discover Middle-earth after they watch it. For marginal fans, or those who will never read The Lord of the Rings, by all means enjoy the movie. Peter Jackson has created one of the best fantasy films I've ever seen; his Middle-earth is beautiful, but I'm glad I had got there before him.
Jim Geckle
jgeckle@dol.net
his movie [Impostor] is a big disappointment after waiting so long for its
release. The story is weak and the plot is poorly constructed. What's more, the opening scenes are plagiarized from Starship Troopers. They even use the same uniforms. But then there is a case for recycling, since this movie started as a short in a three part movie.
Beyond that, I almost slept through parts of this movie.
Chad Castagana
SONTARRIN@cs.com
have to say I was surprised by some statements made by one of the writers of last week's letters ("Series Inferior to Stand-Alone").
It's obvious that, in fact, Mr. Kopp has not read any of the latest Star Wars novels. Otherwise, he would be aware that main characters do change and, yes, even die. And unlike comic books, they do not come back (or even get cloned—usually). Dare I mention Chewbacca? I won't even go into how many characters died in the most recent Star Wars novel (Star by Star), including two very pivotal, expanded-universe folks.
I am also disappointed that he closed himself off from William Shatner's books. Whether or not you like him as an actor, he is a damn fine writer. His own creations have been excellent (Tek) and his grasp of all of the Star Trek characters is excellent. Only Peter David writes better Trek. Plus, since he avails himself of Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens, the veritable Star Trek historians, his books often bridge gaps and correct continuity and timeline errors made by the less conscientious writers of the past.
I will admit that the recent Foundation trilogy left much to be desired, compared to Asimov's masterwork. I haven't read Anderson and Herbert's Dune prequel, but Kevin Anderson usually does well with other people's work, and Frank's son is no slouch, either.
Besides, you should ease up a little on series writers—if people didn't read them, they'd certainly go away, wouldn't they? Publishers ask for books that bring in money, and apparently series work is where it is at—and not just in sci-fi, either. Look at Clan of the Cave Bear, Ed McBain, Zane Grey ....
Besides, series are a natural progression from the history of the stories, once serialized in magazines.
Paul
lonerangerone@excite.com
read Frederick Gilmore's complaint ("2001 Was Too Overlooked"2001) that both the mainstream media and SF fandom virtually ignored the masterpiece film 2001: A Space Odyssey. He is both right and wrong in his claim. In my experience, fandom did not ignore 2001. Several magazines and e-zines had articles or issues dedicated to it. My online magazine www.scifidimensions.com devoted the entire December 2000 issue to it ("2001: A Retrospective Odyssey"). The cable channel American Movie Classics played 2001 at midnight on New Year's Eve last year. Fan clubs around the country had 2001-themed parties, both in homes and at conventions. Not to mention the Limited Edition Collector's Set DVD!
Part of the problem is that 2001 is a demanding film to watch. It's abstract and not readily accessible to the average moviegoer—and many SF fans complain that it's too long and too boring. Although most fans and critics will admit the achievement and impact of 2001, it just doesn't have the mass appeal of a Star Wars.
If anyone dropped the ball, it was the "owners" of the movie. A remastered theatrical re-release was promised, but never materialized, and Arthur C. Clarke, now 84-years old and in fragile health, granted very few interviews and issued only one or two press releases on the subject. It's tough for the media to cover a non-event. And how can fans enjoy it in the cinema if it isn't there?
John C. Snider, Editor
www.scifidimensions.com
ichael Shanks' departure [from Stargate SG-1] is very upsetting news to fans. I am not on a mission to "make" Michael Shanks return for another season, but I would be lying if I said I didn't want him back. Michael Shanks has very good reasons for leaving the show. His character, like Christopher Judge's, is being ignored. When the writing staff changed in early Season 4, the whole show's formula changed for the worse. The show no longer became about a "team" and the situations they were in. It became about military action, special effects with "no heart." The heart and soul of the team, Jack and Daniel's friendship, mentally challenging story plots, team interaction, character development were all replaced by a cheesy, colonel/major romance, a Mallozzi/Mullie comedy show, dominating guest stars, and X-File(ish) conspiracy plots.
I respect Michael Shanks' decision. He is the most amazing and talented actor. He made Daniel Jackson such an incredible and likeable character. However, in all honesty and as hard as it is to say, I only want Michael Shanks to come back if the show recovers from its current path of lifelessness and destruction.
Cassandra Mahoney
brenda552001@yahoo.com
'm sure by this time [Science Fiction Weekly has] received an abundance of letters decrying the
current happenings with Stargate SG-1: the fact that one of the actors is moving on and the idea of the show branching out into different types of stories. There are many people upset about these things, and they widely make their feelings known.
There is another viewpoint, however, not as verbose, not spread with anger and anguish, but just as strongly felt. That viewpoint is that Stargate SG-1 is top-quality television that is every bit as entertaining now as it's ever been, and will continue to be so after Michael Shanks is no longer one
of the stars.
No one is saying that Daniel is an unimportant character, or that they will be glad to see Mr. Shanks go. The program will be fundamentally different without him, of that there is no doubt. But "different" is not synonymous with "worse." Stargate has an ensemble cast and a rich enough tapestry to allow this change in what is likely the show's final season.
Personally, I am interested in seeing how the team dynamic will change and how the entire situation will be handled. I'm also waiting to see it myself before I make any rash judgements. And I know I'm not alone. A great many fans love the job that the Stargate cast and crew has been doing, and we wish them well for the future.
Alli Snow
snow@sjhw.net
agree with Greg Hignight's comments regarding The X-Files ("Scully Should Say Goodbye to X"). I still like the show, and think it has a lot of potential with Patrick and Gish. I'm not criticizing the show, per se, but I do think it is time for the show to move on without Scully and Mulder. I believe I've seen Scully cry in more
episodes this year than in previous years. I always liked Scully because she was a strong person—I think she has lost some of that edge this year.
While I understand that the character would be this way, I agree with Greg—I'd like to see Scully depart to Mulder and The X-Files to develop into something new and different with the new characters not having to continually defer to the old characters.
After all, The X-Files didn't start with Mulder (the show did, of course), and they don't have to end with him.
Just my one cent worth.
Steve Madden
steve.madden@smed.com
just read the News section of the most recent Science Fiction Weekly. Annabeth
Gish is disappointed in the ratings decline or The X-Files and I don't
blame her ("X Ratings Frustrate Gish"). The hard work of the actors is apparent and they deserve a lot of credit for stepping into the shoes of "legends."
I believe that the problem with The X-Files is that the producers and the network are scared. They are holding onto Scully like a lifeline. They figure that if they lose the character, they will have nothing. That drives me crazy! Gillian Anderson is a wonderful actress but the character of
Scully needs to have resolution and be gone. It never occurs to the producers that all viewers do not necessarily tune in to see Mulder/Scully, but because of the enchantment of the possibility that there is something in this world beyond our immediate senses. The X-Files is just another outlet for those ideas.
It is time to end the Mulder/Scully storyline. The writers/producers took a miracle baby that would have wrapped up an incredibly complex storyline with the best open ended questions of all regarding God, love, miracles, etc., and are now hinting at turning the child into this super soldier for lack of
anything better to do with it. (Like being a miracle wasn't good enough.)
I look forward to The X-Files moving toward a resolution for Scully that the character, the actress and the viewers deserve. Then the characters of Reyes and Doggett can get back to business. Gish and Patrick are wonderful and I hope The X-Files lets them shine.
Julie Bicking
bickj@hydrosoft.net
tar Wars sure ain't what it used to be. The original trilogy seemed to be aimed at audiences of all ages and did an admirable job of doing just that. Now, it seems as if Lucasfilms is steadfastly aiming for early-teen girls first with Jar Jar Binks and now N'Sync.
What can we expect for Episode III? Barbie?!!
Tom Gardiner
tlgardiner@home.com
At press time, it appears that George Lucas may (or may not) be responding to fan outrage over N'Sync being in Star Wars: Episode II—Attack of the Clones. First the boy band was in, then it was rumored they were out, and now it appears that they may be back in, according to the most recent news article ("N'Sync Still In Episode II?"). We'll know more as the premiere date, May 16, approaches.
arly in the history of the silver screen, the main roles available to African American actors were those of slaves, maids, African savages and buffoons. The Buffoon, was an inept, singing and shuffling, bug-eyed, uneducated "negro" (or worse) that evolved into the subject of the very popular Minstrel shows (which at first could only be played by white actors in black face), establishing a historical standard that would further evolve and spread through our culture. Hollywood sold white audiences on the ideas of servile, simpleton Blacks, which were non-threatening, and non-challenging.
Jar Jar's character is similar to the Buffoon. It's probably fair to say he's not the brightest crayon in the box, he's overly clumsy and constantly looking to please. Regarding the controversy of the Blackness in his identity, I took a look at an unofficial script for The Phantom Menace, and Jar Jar's speech is peppered with numerous articles such as "dis," "dat," "da" and "dem" ("this," "that," "the" and "them," respectively) which is the same as those prevalent in a many colloquial Black American dialects from very early in American history until now. "Wesa be goen" has the same grammatical structure as Ebonics. None of this proves any charges of racism or that Jar Jar is Black, but there is certainly a close enough resemblance to warrant question. And it is this (possible) infusion of a few of our unique, ethnic characteristics into PM's least intelligent and most child-like character to be unsettling and even angering—particularly in
light of its historical context.
While the intent behind the creation of Jar Jar's character, (and other race/culture-controversial characters) may be completely innocent, the impact of those creations is still more than capable of offense. Talking about racism ("The "Race" Race Can't Be Won", "Trek Salutes Racial Diversity", "White Males Always Depicted Poorly", "SW Heroes Aren't Always Heroic", "George Lucas Explained Jar Jar" and "SW Spurs Reach for Understanding") (whether it's intentional or unintentional racism) doesn't create racism; it serves to create awareness of it.
Lee Harrison
Lee@rhd.org
Back to the top.
