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.
verybody stop! Hold onto your hats! N'Sync is going to be in [Star Wars:] Episode II ("Lucas Is Not N'Sync With SW Fans")! What? N'Sync? How dare George Lucas? What can he be thinking? What? N'Sync is being kicked off Episode II because of popular demand? How dare George Lucas?
Who cares?
Believe it or not, the Star Wars franchise is run by George Lucas, so if he wanted to put the boys of N'Sync into any of his movies, he should be able to. Of course, seeing that this particular boy band is one of the world's most popular, it was inevitable there would be a media blitz.
Did they deserve the chance? I'm no fan of N'Sync, but I've caught their videos in passing and their dancing is excellent. There is precedent: ZZ Top made a cameo appearance in Back To The Future III—nobody said a word. Perhaps no one remembers, but The Beatles made a cameo appearance on BBC's classic Doctor Who way back in 1964—when they were teen kings. This was before Doctor Who was known in the U.S., during, I believe, the incarnation of the first Doctor, so most Americans may be unaware of this.
If George Lucas wanted N'Sync to appear, however briefly, in Episode II, it would have been better if there had been no announcement until after the segment were already filmed. Perhaps then, it would have garnered the media interest it deserved: None.
As I asked earlier: Who cares?
Keith Kitchen
BoyoKlaatu@aol.com
hen I heard the rumors about N'Sync ("Lucas Is Not N'Sync With SW Fans") and the computer-generated Yoda, I realized something. George Lucas is using us. Us, as fans, buy up anything that says Stars Wars on it because it goes with our motif. We get excited over movies, or remasters, before we even see them. Well, I am sick of throwing my heart to the dogs.
We let him get away with too much in Episode I and we should have stopped it there.
A friend of mine told me I was taking this too far, and that I shouldn't let my entire mood shift because of Hollywood marketing. But Star Wars, to a lot of fans, isn't just a movie, it's a world. A world we can escape to, and is just as precious as the Earth we live on. And once I thought George Lucas felt the same way. It was his world, his universe, and he is throwing it away for a few extra dollars, disregarding his fans, and tossing us aside as if Star Wars can support itself. I wish I could take it back. Direct it myself. Reimagine it, like they did with Planet of the Apes, (except I won't rape it and leave it for dead as they did).
I hope George Lucas reads this, but I have a feeling he is to "busy" to read what his fans have to say. If he did, he would have never betrayed us way he did. But George, if you are reading this, I want you to know you have killed my universe. He probably won't read this, because he is the God of the Star Wars universe.
But even God listens to prayers.
George Northwind
joebobr@yahoo.com
ould everyone please get off Lucas' back for casting N'Sync ("Lucas Is Not N'Sync With SW Fans"). From all reports, they run on screen and die (the idea is not without appeal), they don't have speaking roles, they won't be in the next movie, even if their
acting sucks you won't notice it, so who cares? There needs to be a limit to this pathetic obsession with the minutiae of what is, for all its hype, just a film. Just sit back and enjoy it for what it is, space opera.
Kent Sutherland
kentasutherland@yahoo.fr
ow, I freely admit, I could care less about N'Sync or their music, but why in God's name are Star Wars fans getting so mad about them having cameos in Episode II ("Lucas Is Not N'Sync With SW Fans"). That's right, folks. Cameos! They aren't supposed to be major players, they aren't even supposed to have lines! They were, from what I have read, only supposed to be dressed as Jedi's in the background during a battle scene. Even if it's not a battle scene, who the hell cares?! They're Star Wars fans, they're famous, they wanted to do a cameo, Lucas said OK. So what!? You know, I've been an obsessive Star Wars fan since I saw A New Hope in 1977 (I was seven) so I think I have some right to say this:
Lighten up, people! Jeez!
Jeff Holland
profbobo@neo.rr.com
would like to add my voice to the fray ("Rings Rules Regardless of Fluff", "Jackson's Judgment Tops Lucas", "Jackson's Adaptation Exudes Passion", "Boring Book Spawns Blockbuster Film" and "Whining Critics Are Not Wanted") regarding The Lord of The Rings: Fellowship of the Ring movie. It seems that there are two camps here: those who say the movie was not what it should have been, and those who say to lighten up. I seem to fall in between.
I, like many others, was eager to see Tolkien's masterpiece brought to the screen. Earlier attempts were, at best, minimally successful. I was heartened by the fact that Peter Jackson is a fan of the book, and that the talent engaged for the three movies is excellent. Not to mention the fact that several of the stars, having read the book themselves, were allowed to
voice their opinions of how their characters should be portrayed. Also, I was curious as to how various events and characters would turn out. And so, as soon as I was able, I went to see the movie.
For starters, I knew that certain characters, details and events would be left out, and that time would be compressed to allow for the movie to be shown in three hours. I was not prepared, however, for how much was actually left out. No Farmer Maggot and no Tom Bombadil, I expected. But no Barrow Wights? Granted, the Barrow Wights are caught up in the Bombadil portion; but I'm sure there could have been a way to work them in. I was rather dismayed, too, with the way most of the characters were portrayed. Aragorn suffers no indecision after the loss of Gandalf; Merry and Pippin were mostly reduced to comic relief; Arwen was turned into a Xena wannabe; and Galadriel has maybe five minutes of screen time. The knock-down-drag-out between Saruman and Gandalf was out of character. Saruman was working for himself, not Sauron. And many plot elements that were not apparent till The Two Towers book ended up in Fellowship, the movie.
All of this being said, there were many things about the movie that pleasantly surprised me. The special effects, especially that of the hobbits appearing shorter than the humans, and the Ring appearing to change size, were very well done. The cinematography just about knocked me out of my seat. And as I said earlier, the talent gathered for this movie is just about the best that could have been.
What the result of The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship movie is that Peter Jackson has made a movie of a beloved classic. Whether one likes it or not is a matter of personal preference. I will see the other two movies when they are released, if nothing else, for curiosity's sake. I may not agree with all that Peter Jackson has done with the movie, but I can say that this is by far the best attempt to bring Tolkien to the big screen. It may not be everyone's vision; but I applaud the effort.
Tess Luchsinger
librisleo@accesstoledo.com
would just like to respond to a letter posted this week concerning whiny
critics ("Rings Rules Regardless of Fluff", "Jackson's Judgment Tops Lucas", "Jackson's Adaptation Exudes Passion", "Boring Book Spawns Blockbuster Film" and "Whining Critics Are Not Wanted"). I disagree with the author's demand that the critics quit their whining. Both Jackson's film and Tolkien's book can well stand the slings and arrows of a few obsessive critics. A couple of whiny letters will not diminish the impact of either the book or the film. Any movie that can get so many people to read a fantasy novel has to be pretty good. And any book that can inspire legions of loyal fans for decades, can certainly survive a couple of people complaining that it was too boring for them.
The critics only generate more buzz for the film and the book, which is good. But most importantly the critics provide a valuable service to the rest of us who read the letters section. I have forwarded the link to those letters to many of my friends and co-workers, and discussed them over lunch, and during breaks at the vending machine. The amount of pleasure that those letters have provided, to those of us who have laughed out loud at them, cannot be measured. I have friends who thought that the comic book guy on the Simpson was an exaggeration. Short of dragging them kicking and screaming to a convention, I don't think that I could have found better examples to show them that they are wrong, than these letters.
In short, please don't stop whiny critics. Keep writing those letters, they are a riot!
Paul Dieken
pdieken@hotmail.com
K, I finally saw the movie and have caught up on the posted letters ("Rings Rules Regardless of Fluff", "Jackson's Judgment Tops Lucas", "Jackson's Adaptation Exudes Passion", "Boring Book Spawns Blockbuster Film" and "Whining Critics Are Not Wanted") that I held off reading until I saw Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring for myself.
Commenting on the omission of chapters and characters from the book: Well, duh. How long did you want this movie to go on? Unless allowed 20 to 30 hours, Peter Jackson and his team had to make choices of who and what was in and out. Since Tolkien's text is wordy and difficult to follow at times, I appreciated the fact the Jackson worked on understanding and telling the essence of the story. I believe his film captured the look and feel of Middle-earth. I came away with a better appreciation of the work. If the film worked to include every line, every character, I believe we would have ended up with the technically correct (well mostly) but emotionally lacking Harry Potter movie (let's not go there).
Even though the screening I attended was presented poorly (they couldn't get the lower left corner in focus and at times the sound was garbled), the majesty and beauty was awesome. Yes, sometime the movie had kind of an Indiana Jones feel to it (cliffhanger after cliffhanger), but then, the audience at a movie is different than one reading a book. Peter Jackson has to entertain a wide range of an audience. I thought they captured the adventure portions from the book quite will since I don't remember ever being quite that excited reading it. And the Ringwraiths were impressive. I can't wait to see what they do with the climax in The Return of King.
Finally, one last nitpick (and perhaps this was because I was trying to focus away from the bad print): Was Boromir ever actually named in the movie? From the time the Fellowship is formed all the way to the end of the movie no one actually calls him by name! Since we (my wife) and I hadn't actually read the books in 20 years, we couldn't agree on who he was! Sure, Aragorn was called Aragorn, Frodo and Sam were easy, but, most of the time, Merry, Boromir, Legolas and the Dwarf were never called by name! Watch the movie again and see how often we get to know who (by name) these characters are. It drove us nuts.
Finally, must "Sauron" and "Saruman" be so damn close. To this day I could never keep them apart since Tolkien decided on naming them almost identically! I would have changed one to Bob just to keep them straight (kidding). Now I just look at Saruman and say Christopher Lee and I'm okay. In a book of so many characters, I have always thought it odd that these two major characters have names so close.
Dave Kopp
dolby1000@aol.com
t's sad when any one group of fans gets complacent and resistant to change. It's been seen in Star Trek for the last 15 years with each incarnation. Most recently in Star Wars fans with Episode I. As opposed to seeing what they loved about something they only saw what wasn't.
This seems to be now occurring with X-Files fans for the first time with Season Nine. Instead of seeing great "movie of the week" episodes, expansion of/merging of the mytharc with aliens and supersoldiers, and new character development shows, they see what's not there. What's not there is Mulder. What's also not there is a strong and determined Scully. She's scared, over-cautious and weaker. Robert Patrick was allowed the luxury of developing Doggett amidst a departing Mulder. Most fans you'll find, among message boards, at least like him. You got to see a strong Mulder next to a strong Doggett.
Annabeth Gish doesn't get that similar comparison. Her open mind and passionate character is overshadowed oftentimes by Gillian's sappy, scared and lonely Scully. After all is viewed and done, this show should still average a nice viewership. It should be given its tenth season so Robert and Annabeth can show to the doubters and reaffirm the diligent the "X still marks the spot."
Craig Parnell
parnellbc_76@yahoo.com
keep reading everyone's opinions ("X Still Shows Potential" and "Scully Is Not X's Lifeline") of how The X-Files has changed with these new agents, Monica and John. The fact is, nobody seems to understand what The X-Files is really all about, and what it has been about for the
past nine seasons.
I have been a huge fan of the show since its beginnings and I have cried and laughed and been scared with Scully and Mulder through out every episode. The bottom line is I think that, though I am obsessed with the show and so devoted I'd cut off a limb rather then miss one episode, I do believe it is
time for Chris Carter to let the show go. Patrick and Gish are very talented actors, and both of them have a great chance to shine in their roles, but the producers of the show have made an entirely too big mistake of using them to replace the legends of Gillian and David's roles.
Let's face it, guys. The show is the show it is because of Dana Scully and Fox Mulder, and without them it can never be the same. After all, the show is not just a show about some files in an FBI basement. It's a show about one man and his partner's personal, life long search for the truth. When you watch Gillian Anderson play that role of Agent Scully now, you see the maturity that character has—the strength and the wisdom she has from those years of working through incredible, unbelievable things. You can't just replace characters you have let grow for so many years with new ones because a certain TV station wants the viewers it pulls in every Sunday. I would pay good money to have the show the way it has always been. Mulder and Scully.
But, since that can't happen, I say we should let the show go. It could have gone out with a fantastic, historical bang, but now it will die out slowly because of its drastic changes from old to radically new. I wish the show the best, and I will surely not stop watching it, but I do hope that somebody working those episodes knows that we miss the way X-Files was, and the way it should be.
Rachel Moss
lmao_again@hotmail.com
just want to make it clear that people that don't like the theme song for Enterprise are in a minority. I love the theme song, it sends shivers
through me I like it so much. Chatting to people I know on the internet, (I know a lot of people) it seems most love the theme song. Remember people are more likely to take the time to complain then praise. Another reason why they shouldn't change it is that I think the opening credits (pictures) are
really good too and the old-style theme tune would not work well with the pictures in my opinion. Finally, I think it suits the series perfectly, and it would be a big shame if they changed it.
David Wood
apwood@bigfoot.com
ovies are dreams that we experience while we are awake. Everybody would like to relate to these experiences. They don't want to feel cut off from an emotional experience because it never includes their philosophy or culture. I think that is the main reason why people are calling for more diversity in our entertainment. While we should ignore the headline making rabble-rousers that call for quotas, we shouldn't ignore pleads for more diversity.
I consider myself a student of the world. I try my best to learn about different religions and cultures. I applaud Hollywood when they produce a product that is a window into a way of life I am unfamiliar with. If all the peoples of this planet are ever going to learn to live together, they are going to have to try to understand different points of views and cultures.
Hollywood, because its main concern is making money, has focused mainly on the Western world's lifestyle and way of thinking. Hollywood also has a long history of building up the Western worldview by bringing down all other views. I think that is where the current anger comes from. Native Americans, Hispanics, African-Americans and others have regularly been portrayed in a negative light during Hollywood's history of moviemaking.
It can be very depressing to view a futuristic movie (like 2001: A Space Odyssey) or a movie set in another galaxy (like Star Wars: Episode IV—A New Hope) and see all the human characters being portrayed as white. The casting sends a disturbing unstated message to viewers. I am not trying to say that all movies should have racially mixed cast. I think that the casting of Lord of the Rings is justified by the story it is illustrating and the culture that story came from.
I think that it is sad that some use this letter page to express misdirected rage. Do we really need to keep discussing Jar Jar Binks ("Talking Race Doesn't Create Racism")? It is also upsetting that others instead of debating the issue in an intellectual fashion resort to insults and rants.
I would like to see an end to the name calling on this letter page due to the issue of race in movies. I would like to see us join together as human beings and ask Hollywood for more diversity. Diversity is good for everybody.
Ronald Hood
jhubbub@hotmail.com
ee Harrison's letter, "Talking Race Doesn't Create Racism", ends with the following quote: "Talking about racism ... (whether it's intentional or unintentional racism) doesn't create racism; it serves to create awareness of it."
I respectfully disagree. What if the racism isn't there in the first place?
Humans tend to see patterns everywhere, in everything from clouds and ink blots to books and movies. Those looking for racism in a piece of entertainment will most certainly find indications of it, if only because it's what they went looking for in the first place.
When I first saw Star Wars: Episode I, Jar Jar was nothing more than a minor annoyance—unneeded comic relief, with an accent that made it impossible to understand fifty percent of what he said the first time he said it. Now people are trying to use this incidental character as proof of Lucas's deep-seated racist tendencies—all because they're looking at the film through the filter of their own prejudices.
I once had an English teacher who could find deep meaning in a volume of the encyclopedia. ("Look here, at the strict alphabetical progression! Clearly, the author's extremely rigid and methodical structure serves to frame the larger epic story he or she is telling. And the dispassionate tone taken in each short vignette makes it clear the author does not identify with anyone in the story, from aardvark to zebra.") He could find whatever he needed to support any interpretation, just by starting with a few basic assumptions and looking for what he needed to support them.
Talking about racism that isn't there doesn't create racism. It just points out the inherent racism of those who find it when it doesn't exist.
And tarnishing the reputation of a creative professional because you saw what you went looking for? That's just wrong.
Randa Wright
randagirl@hotmail.com
eems the fifth and latest Superman film finally has a director. Now if it only had a direction.
Superman Lives is one suggested title. Really? The character who has defined superheroism for three generations is still alive? Keep those bulletins coming!
Superman Reborn? The Man of Steel is killed and a committee of screenwriters will resurrect him? Please! Fox did that with Klaatu and Paramount played the same game with Mr. Spock.
Earth to Warner. The time has come, not to bring back the last son of Krypton, but to push him forward, to reaffirm the champion of truth, justice and the American way in the new millennium.
Anything less would hardly be super.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
he Future: Treacherous When Shallow" article is a keeper. Not just for what it says about science fiction and the role it plays, but as a source of inspiration for any human being who is looking to go the distance in proving his or her worth and finding one's place in this world.
Julian Gift
lira-b@tstt.net.tt
ou've heard from those who think Stargate SG-1 is over because Michael
Shanks has decided to leave ("Stargate SG-1 Needs Shanks Back" and "Shanks' Departure Doesn't Ruin SG-1"). I thought you might be interested in hearing
from the other side.
I have watched Stargate SG-1 from the very beginning. I began watching it because the movie was first rate and the concept of going to other worlds by means of a ring which created a wormhole was fascinating. I have continued to watch because the writing is top notch and I enjoy watching the team
interact every week.
I totally support Michael Shanks' decision to leave. If he truly feels that his character is not being utilized enough or is unhappy with the storylines, then he would be doing all of us a disfavor by staying, because these feelings would no doubt affect his ability to portray Daniel Jackson in the way that we have come to know him.
While I am sorry to see Mr. Shanks go, the character of Daniel Jackson is not the reason I watch the show. I watch it for the team. SG-1 is a team, made up of more than one character, and while that team will change with the absence of Dr. Jackson, it will still consist of the three other members who have been a part of it from the beginning.
To say that Stargate SG-1 is over because Michael Shanks is leaving, is selling Richard Dean Anderson, Amanda Tapping and Christopher Judge short in my opinion. Not to mention the writers and crew who work hard to bring us a quality show every week.
I for one, am looking forward Season 6 and will be anxiously awaiting its premiere in June on the SCI FI Channel.
Kat Girard
airmankit@yahoo.com
Back to the top.
