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.
believe your review of Star Wars: Episode II was a bit harsh. I feel that the reviewer needs to take another look at the film and see it from a broader view. He feels that Portman's performance was "stiff" and that the romance was not there. Perhaps he should see that the reason it may have
appeared awkward is that they didn't want to fall in love even though the connection was there. Has the reviewer ever been in love? It is often awkward!
[George] Lucas does choose to develop plots in his own way, and also chooses to write trying not go to over old material that has already been covered in previous episodes, but to "fill in the gaps," gathering a more fulfilled view of what is already known. Please be sure to look at a movie and see it for what it is, and from the money these movies make, people (myself included) love Lucas' movies. Perhaps entertainment, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, or better yet, the ticket holder!
Scott Francis
t-sfrancis@juno.com
o keep it short, yes! A fair review that reflects nearly all of the things I, too, felt about Star Wars: Episode II—Attack of the Clones. [It was] a great deal of fun, a great relief to see such a fun story after the dreadfulness of The Phantom Menace, but [this movie was] poor in the script, and the acting suffered because of the director, not the actors. ([The reviewer, Patrick Lee,] even mentioned how nice this soundtrack is, which I've been telling everybody!) I will direct many to Patrick Lee's review when they ask me what I thought of the film.
Anne Schneider
amsch@ix.netcom.com
n response to Kevin Ahearn, ("Attack on Clones Is Undeserved") I must say that I emphatically disagree with him. The critics are blasting this movie and rightly so. The dialogue was insipid, the romance was tepid. [Warning: Spoilers ahead.] The best dialogue in the entire movie was when Anakin did no speaking but listened to the Chancellor for all of five seconds. "Someday you will learn to trust your feelings. You are the most gifted Jedi I have ever seen, etc."
When I heard those lines, I thought back to Obi Wan tutoring Luke in the A New Hope movie (Episode IV). The playing off of Anakin running off to Tatooine to rescue his mother was another nice link to Luke. The feeling overall that I got from this movie is that the actors delivered their lines and did not infuse them with anything that would make them stand out.
The action towards the end of the movie was great. You had this Jedi contingent (number unknown) come to the rescue of Obi Wan. The action was compelling and the effects were great. The origin of the feared "Storm Troopers" made sense. [George] Lucas bowed to the fans of Boba Fett and created a bigger role for him as well as his father.
The villain "Count Dooku" (Christopher Lee) was a worthy opponent, even if he was a bit aged. He brought style and elegance to a part where the other characters seemed to bulldoze through their lines. Overall, I came away from this movie feeling let down, much as I did upon seeing the end of the franchise in Return of the Jedi. I felt and still do that the whizbang effects of this movie outdid the solid character development that made Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back so good.
One question you have to ask yourselves after seeing these first two installments, can you actually see Anakin becoming Darth Vader? The first scene ever of Vader, you hear the ominous breathing and the metal boots striking the deck, black-clad coming down a smoke-filled hallway with dead lying all about. He is as indifferent to them as he is to those whom he works with. Killing foe and friend alike at the slightest transgression. It is hard for me to accept that Anakin becomes Darth Vader after being mostly a brat or spoiled child who wants his way and throws a temper tantrum in front of Padmé about his woes.
Lucas has proven himself to be a wiz of effects and visual effects. Hopefully, in this next installment he will stick to that and let someone else direct. Lucas has a gem on his hands and I sincerely hope that he can salvage this last installment to make it worthy of the title Star Wars. While he is at it, perhaps he can come up with a better title as well—Attack of the Clones, come on.
Mark D. Bergman
mbergman@oneil.com
loved Kevin Ahearn's rant against Star Wars detractors, as featured in the
Letters column of May 20 ("Attack on Clones Is Undeserved"). I also believe that even the worst Star Wars movie (The Phantom Menace?) is still 10 times better than your average Hollywood retread of an SF book.
My only nag is with the "pygmies" reference that included Star Trek.
Without spending pages and pages, I think it's worth pointing out that Star Trek has penetrated at least as deep into the cultural lexicon as Star Wars. Maybe even more so, since Star Trek predates Star Wars? Your average Joe who is not a fan of either franchise readily knows "Live long and prosper" just as well as he knows "Use the force." Walk into any office cubicle in the world, especially an I/T cubicle, and you're bound to find miniatures of the U.S.S. Enterprise and toy hand phasers sharing space with Darth Vader coffee mugs and Rayovac-powered light sabers. Jedi Mind Tricks and Vulcan Mind Melds go hand in hand with X-Wing fighters and Galaxy-class cruisers. Carrie Fisher in her metal bikini, Jeri Ryan in her metal corset. Need I
go on?
Setting up Star Wars and Star Trek as competitors is a false dichotomy in my opinion. George Lucas certainly never set out to compete with Star Trek in the 1970s, and Roddenberry certainly had no intention of competing with Lucas when Gene took Trek to the big screen (and back to the small screen again!) in the 1980s. Both men possessed special visions of far away places and exotic stories and brave heroes ripe for grand adventures.
In this sense, the brainchildren of Lucas and Roddenberry are not pugilists on the SF playground. Instead, they are brothers, similar and yet different, charting their own paths yet sharing the same roots, all the while bringing SF delight to countless new and old fans alike, many of which adore both franchises with equal passion.
Besides which, how can any billion-dollar SF franchise that's produced hundreds of television episodes, novels, and (soon) 10 major motion pictures be called a "pygmy" in any aspect?
No. Star Trek is a giant, standing alongside—not against—its SF sibling
Star Wars. To suggest otherwise seems wrong to me.
Brad Torgersen
subodeon@sub-odeon.com
watched "Amok Time" on the SCI FI Channel last week for maybe the 50th time. It's got my favorite Star Trek moment: when Spock finds out he hasn't killed his captain and friend, James T. Kirk.
"Jim!" he explodes, with a flash of joy never seen before.
That's what classic Star Trek was really all about: not "to boldly go" or the Prime Directive, warp speed or sub-space ... Spock's struggle with and for his own humanity.
"I am your father," said Vader in The Empire Strikes Back and with that we discover the heart of Star Wars ... Anakin's lost humanity and his odyssey to reclaim it.
"Hasta la vista, baby!" said the Terminator, (a line he learned from John) and yet again, the most unlikely quest for humanity plays out.
The monster's final confrontation with Victor Frankenstein, King Kong's last longing look at Fay Wray atop the Empire State Building, Mr. Scrooge's torment by a quartet of ghosts, Pinocchio's earning his boyhood and yes, the Tin Man's winning of a heart ... these are the characters and conflicts
immortal science fiction and fantasy are made of.
Humanity is all we have—divine stuff that makes each of us a unique star in the universe. E.T. embraced it. Klaatu tried to understand it. RoboCop and The Fly fought to get theirs back while the body-snatching pods tried to imitate it. Huxley's "Mr. Savage" couldn't live with his humanity while Goulding's Lord of the Flies' children gave theirs away. Robert Louis Stevenson split humanity in two and had Dr. Jekyll and Mister Hyde fight to the death for it.
"What if...?" may have launched thousands of science fiction novels and films, but "Who am I?" is The Big Question. Artificial Intelligence had an android looking for the answer and struck out, but give credit to Spielberg and Kubrick; they were swinging for the fences. Smallville, plagued by gaps in logic and simple common sense, nonetheless flies because its focus lies squarely on young Clark Kent's questioning his own humanity. (Dress him up in a blue costume fighting for "truth, justice and the American way" and the show will close out of town.)
A fresh outlook on what it means to be human and the struggle and sacrifice to achieve it makes for the greatest of all adventures. To those who would proclaim that science fiction and fantasy are merely about witches and wizards, space aliens and super technology, far out worlds and futuristic speculation ...
In a pig's eye!
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
o Mr. Boudreaux ("Little Space for God in Trek"): I find your lack of faith disturbing. I find your lack of respect revolting.
First of all, if you had taken time to actually listen to the theme song, you'd realize that "Faith of the Heart" refers to the faith in man's ability to learn, to grow and to improve. If you had thought about it, your religious paranoia might not have clouded your thinking.
Next item. Roddenberry himself made references to God in Star Trek, the original series, several times. In "Bread and Circuses," they were witnessing, as Uhura said, the beginning of " ... the son of God" on that world (That's right. God). In "The Ultimate Computer," both Kirk and the computer quoted " ... the laws of man and God," or did your religion-phobia blind you to that, too? Yeah, I figured as much.
Just because Roddenberry was an atheist does not mean he didn't recognize the role of religion in the universe. Oh, and, by the way, I find your use of "out-dated," "clap-trap," and "jibber-jabber" personally offensive, childish and just plain rude. I respect all people's opinions, but your attitude is pathetic. I'm a Star Trek fan as well as a proud Christian, and I'll have words with anyone that uses such descriptions to insult my beliefs (or any others' beliefs, for that matter).
Just as an added note, I've read many articles published by some of the most prominent scientists in the world, and so many say the same thing. They say that the more they understand the universe, DNA, the human body, the human mind, geology, geography, etc., the more they believe in God and the universal creation by a higher being. Just a little note to chew on.
Oh, and most people don't like the theme because it's a pop song and not some big production like all the other themes, and, frankly, I love it. It's fresh, new and shows great imagination by the creators. So, to you, with all due respect, either don't watch or
live with it.
Eric E. Anchor
eanchor@yahoo.com
otta say I agree with Barbara Goldstein ("May Sweeps Raises Death Count").
[Warning: Spoilers ahead.]
I'm pissed off. Who began this rather alarming trend of killing off characters on our favorite TV shows anyway? I understand that sometimes people die in real life, and that needs to be reflected in our popular culture, but it's getting to the point where we haven't got a single sci-fi or fantasy show where the main characters haven't been killed off and resurrected in some form or another. And I'm sick to death (pun intended) of using one character's death as a plot point or catalyst for sending another character off on a mad rampage. It's not even remotely original, and it is downright annoying.
Yeah, I'm talking about Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
I'm usually a huge fan of Joss Whedon's vision (obviously) but I knew there was something up when Amber Benson appeared in the opening credits for the first time as a regular. A bit of hat-tipping in her direction perhaps? Acknowledging a fantastic effort in taking on the unenviable job of replacing the popular Oz in gaining Willow's affection, and playing a simpering, stuttering, shy type to boot? To some she was instantly appealing, to others she took a while to get used to, but I haven't met a single fan of the show who didn't at least have a modicum of respect for the character by the time of "Once More With Feeling."
And now, pointlessly martyred to the plot-point Gods. Or I could get paranoid and put this down to yet another horrible death suffered by the lesbian character. Punishment for sexual transgression? Perhaps. I thought Buffy the Vampire Slayer was different. I thought just once the lesbian might survive.
I'll still be a fan, and I'll cheer for the character development of Willow wherever the writers choose to take her. However, "Seeing Red" is going to take some work to overcome, and I just don't have the same feeling for the show as I used to. I mean, what's the point in becoming emotionally invested in something where characters are killed off for no reason anyway?
Veronica Holmes
vholmes@pacific.net.au
pider-Man! At long last, a big budget movie with superb character
development, a well-written, intriguing story and skilled direction. Tobey Maguire's performance was provocative and credibly nuanced. He made Peter Parker a real person we actually cared about. Sam Raimi expertly jet-propelled the narrative. The special effects were thrilling, but didn't replace substance or overpower a strong coming of age story.
Who would have guessed that the dumbed down, two-dimensional film barrier that we've endured from Hollywood for what seems like an eternity would be broken by an adaptation of a comic book? Let's hope Hollywood learns this is the kind of movie excellence the public wants ... and does it again, and again, and again. I'll go see it! And, from the box office results, so will everyone else.
Margaret Morin
margaret.morin@mindspring.com
just want to comment that in your review of The Chrysalids you say that it takes place in what used to be called Newfoundland. It actually takes place in Labrador, not Newfoundland.
Being a Labradorian, I can assure you there is a difference.
Frank Russell
fjrussell@rogers.com
ust wanted to say after watching The X-Files finale, that I will never watch any future Chris Carter/1013 production again. [Warning: Spoilers ahead.] After nine years, we get two hours of basically nothing. The first hour consists of an overly ponderous trial, complete with clipfest, and the second hour, we get the two lovers on the run from the world cliche. What a waste of nine years.
For reasons that I will never understand, Chris Carter never bothered to write a bible for the show, and never made the effort to figure out in advance where the mythology was going and stick to one
direction. Instead, he and the other writers got lazy and started to make it up as they went along. Science fiction can't just be plotted off the top of your head. It's a genre that demands great attention to detail.
And I don't care how much "chemistry" exists between your lead actors/characters, it can't take the place of competent storytelling. But Chris Carter decided to rely on a combination of good visuals, charismatic actors and self-referential in jokes in place of careful plotting.
It's truly sad how this once great show has fallen from grace.
Monica Ainsley
aurorablue@aintitcoolmail.com
ust writing to say I hope that some creative mind will come along soon and give me the same urge to watch TV, much like Chris Carter did with The X-Files. Last night was the last episode, ever. Many people may shout high from the roof tops of their little cubicles, "'Bout time." Or, "Finally." But, I for one, enjoyed every minute of it.
I loved settling down on Fridays (when the show first aired), and compromising with my Mom so I didn't have to do anything, or that I wasn't interrupted until it was over. When the show switched to Sunday nights, I was there. I lost some sleep, contemplating episodes 'til the wee hours of the morning. But, you know what? I wouldn't change it for the world. I never was much of a TV watcher and I never had a favorite show.
I still believe that the X-Files was one of the best on TV and always will be and since there is no chance, ever, that
they will return, except on the big screen, I just wanted to share my thoughts about my favorite show and just how much it meant to me. I fear that come next season I may have to get a life. And, to some that may be obvious, but for me, it's just not enough.
Carson W.
Carson_Wollock85@Paravision.net
forced myself to watch the series finale of The X-Files. It was rather like going to the funeral of an old friend: you don't want to, but you feel like you have to.
And it was just as awful as I had thought it was going to be. Mr. Carter missed the point, like he has missed the point during the last
two seasons. The X-Files was not about aliens, government cover-ups or the paranormal. It was about the relationship between Scully and Mulder. The best episodes had nothing to do with the aliens, but revealed a lot about the characters. Like "Jose Chung's From Outer Space," "Bad Blood" and
"Humbug." Yet, the last two hours of a once great show gave us nothing but "mythology" double talk and resolved not one question.
The X-Files should have ended two years ago. Instead of Fox and Mr. Carter letting it go out on the top of its game, they forced it to hang on, like a world-class boxer forced to become a circus strong man.
Patrick Baker
bakerpat62@yahoo.com
s a devoted follower of The X-Files, and a person with a very nice income whose family has spent thousands on show-related items, I found the entire "William" storyline to be offensive. Once again, the 1013 boys club, and that includes Duchovny, have shown disregard for female characterization.
[Warning: Spoilers ahead.]
The plot device known as William was poorly handled from the start. Mulder, a deadbeat dad, is heroicized for being absent. Then, when million-dollar Duchovny comes back, the decision is made to dump the kid on Ma and Pa Kent.
Scully's characterization was downright stupid and offensive. The baby was subjected to stranger danger—even crack whores know better than to leave strangers alone with their babies.
And then she gives up the kid and blithely goes on to expound on the glee of The Brady Bunch.
No, thank you, from this viewer and her family. You won't be seeing my money spent on DVDs and such, nor on a William-less movie where Duchovny can once again rescue Scully in distress.
Esther Massimini
esther@massimini.com
Back to the top.
