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.
know the critics have been harsh on [George] Lucas for all his Star Wars movies. We expect and ignore it. But now we have the nitpickers joining in the chorus ("Lucas' Latest Effort Lacks Emotion", "SFX Do Not a Star Wars Movie Make" and "Star Wars Inconsistencies Glare"). I used to think like you. I used to analyze every aspect of a movie, often making comments right then and there in the theatre (much to my wife's chagrin). But then I realized that I wasn't enjoying movies at all anymore. It's called suspension of disbelief, kids ... You naysayers and nitpickers live to find fault. You don't go to movies to enjoy them. You go to them expecting to find the slightest flaws and the revel in them. I changed, and so should you.
[Warning: Spoilers ahead.]
I personally loved Star Wars: Episode II—Attack of the Clones. Everyone I know loves Episode II. You've got a problem with the handcuffs? C'mon ... Get out in the sun for a while, you guys. For that matter, why didn't Luke just use The Force to raise the gate in Jabba's monster pit? OK, how about this ... Count Dooku is obviously a Jedi Master with a capital M. Perhaps when he puts cuffs on you, they stay cuffed (unless you have a bobby-pin). Who freakin' cares? The movie had suspense, action and a pretty good love story, which, in essence, is what this whole trilogy is about.
Hayden Christiansen does a pretty good follow-up to Jake Lloyd's bratty Anakin. OK, I'll admit he was a bit wooden, but I think he captured the "angst-ridden teen" attitude pretty well. I know teens that act (in real life) far worse than he.
You want "going through the motions?" Try Episode V. Empire is the least watchable of the original trilogy. It served only to set up the plot for Episode VI. Frankly, except for the Hoth battle and the ending sequence, it was a very dull movie. It didn't have the passion of the Episode IV, nor the "full-circle" feel of Episode VI. Maybe it's because I was 12 when I saw Episode VI, but the Ewoks really don't bother me that much.
At least Episode II has a plot. It's there if you look for it. Heck, you don't even have to look that hard. You just have to look past your insufferable, holier-than-thou, "I know better than George" attitudes. Episode II has twists and turns, and plenty of action. As a person who loves movies, I found it to be a totally satisfying experience that only made me want more.
Remember, critical analysis is one thing (and totally appropriate), but nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking is just wrong.
Dan Ware
Ware.Dan@aaa-newmexico.com
et us consider Dr. Who. This long-lasting series from the BBC was never known for a big budget for special effects. The costumes were terrible, the locations were on the cheap side and, well, the Daleks used blasters that looked curiously like a toilet plunger. But all this could be overlooked because of the story. The interaction between the characters, the dialog, the situations; all these things overcame the limited budget with success.
George Lucas had that idea when he wrote his first trilogy. He used the characters, and not the effects, to make his stories go. Then he let too much time pass between his trilogies. Now he has access to some fantastic animation techniques and he is uses that to drive his tale, but it isn't working. [With Star Wars: Episode II—Attack of the Clones], he has forgotten that people want to see and hear a story, not watch the background go by! I wish he'd leave that animation stuff alone and go back to models and live-action again. Then he'd remember how he did it, and he'd have another great science-fiction story under his belt.
Jandl Ray
cookies5@mindspring.com
ell, I've waited several weeks and I've read letter after letter ("Lucas' Latest Effort Lacks Emotion", "SFX Do Not a Star Wars Movie Make" and "Star Wars Inconsistencies Glare") condemning George Lucas' brilliant addition to the Star Wars saga, Attack Of The Clones. What I really want to know is simple: Did I see the same movie that these people are tearing to pieces?
I must have. These self-appointed critics (is there any other type?) occasionally point out scenes I know that I saw, but not quite the way I saw it. I have been wondering if perhaps these people went into the movie theater looking for some reason to berate it.
I have read accusations that the dialogue is "horrible," "dumb," "wooden," "stupid," etc. Where have these people been? The style of dialogue truly hasn't changed from the original. If anything, an effort has been made to make the dialogue sound more "formal," befitting the time of the Republic,
as opposed to the time of Rebellion.
One writer said that the movie reminded him of Flash Gordon. My God! In case you never noticed, that's what Star Wars is! Like the Indiana Jones series, the Star Wars saga is Saturday morning cinema serials writ large. The original Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon would have looked like Lucas' vision had the technology and budgets been available.
As much as I love the Star Wars series, I find when I go back and view A New Hope (also known as Episode IV, but I remember when it was known simply as Star Wars) that I cringe at some of the (now) hokey special effects, such as the way Luke gets bucked around while flying his X-wing into battle with the Death Star.
The biggest problem with Attack Of The Clones is that Star Wars is no longer new and everyone expects each succeeding movie to be bigger and better than the last. One writer to Science Fiction Weekly worried that Lucas used all of his creativity on American Graffiti and Episodes IV and V. I truly believe that we as viewers are looking for more than there is and what is that, you ask?
Entertainment. That's all Star Wars and any other movie is. If you're looking for more, you need psychotherapy.
Keith Kitchen
BoyoKlaatu@aol.com
aul Di Filippo's review of Silent Running, presumably inspired by the recent release of the DVD, was somewhat irritating. While he generally gave this exceptional film a high mark, he used several paragraphs of his assessment to rail on about personal gripes, and this overshadows discussions of the facts and finer points of Doug Trumbull's first film. In fact, many of his comments make it clear that he has not seen the new DVD, which has extra material that put some of his questions and innuendo to rest.
First, describing portions of the soundtrack as "screechy, tree-hugging songs wailed by Joan Baez" is just plain rude. Folk music is not at all my cup of tea either, but in the context of this film—and considering that it was made over three decades ago—these pieces are appropriate and even beautiful. The remainder of the soundtrack is gorgeous off-beat small-symphonic music by Professor Schickele, with "The Space Fleet" being a particularly powerful piece. If one wishes to complain about bad popular music being shoved into a score, head over to the ongoing discussion of the awful main theme from Enterprise; leave this film alone. These pieces integrate perfectly with the flow of the score and the purpose of the film.
Second, the reviewer can't seem to get past the fact that Lowell did not immediately realize the sunlight issue. Forgetting the fact that he is not an astronaut by trade but a member of the U.S. Forestry Service (which historically operates on Earth, not in space), and that he was having a lot of personal problems at this point in the film, remember then that any space training for the mission went out the window when, in a panic, he pulled the ship into Saturn's shadow to escape the fleet. I think we can forgive Lowell for being a little slow here, can't we? He is "lost in the wilderness with his sled dogs," in unfamiliar territory, and not at the top of his game.
The ships were in Saturn's orbit because they were staying out of the busy space shipping lanes. It is one more example of how little Earth cared about the project that it said, "OK, you can have your forests, but keep them out of the way." The design of the ships was also targeted by Mr. Di Filippo; apparently he did not catch Bill Anderson's line that the ships must now be "returned to commercial service." They were not designed for this purpose. The film implies that they were loaned to the project, again grudgingly, and were not built to be forestry ships. So who says that the biospheres needed the freighters? The freighters are there to ferry them around and support the humans, and much of them were probably empty. The whole point of a biosphere is that they be self-sufficient, which is actually a theme in the film.
The reviewer's comments about Saturn's rings not seeming very threatening shows a lack of understanding of science, too, on top of being critical of an older, low-budget film's special photographic (pre-digital, pre-ILM) effects. Even dust particles in space can be deadly (when Apollo 13 had its accident, the immediate culprit was believed to be a "micrometeoroid," a high-velocity piece of dust). Again, it is clearly stated in the film that the ships were not designed for the desperate maneuver Lowell was attempting. Mr. Di Filippo also sneers "where does the gravity come from?"—I guess he must not watch much science fiction. This, along with sound effects in space, is a liberty that almost every science fiction film takes. There's no reason to single out this small film on that count. It's the story that matters. Would he have been satisfied with a cavalier mention of "gravity generators," which is how every other SF program gets around the issue, when they even care to do so?
Finally, Mr. Di Filippo comments that he suspects that [George] Lucas was influenced by Silent Running. The commentary tracks on the DVD clearly explain that Lucas actually approached Trumbull to do the effects for Star Wars because of "SR," but Trumbull turned the job down (Lucas hired his father Don Trumbull, though). Lucas then told the young Trumbull that he really liked aspects of the film—particularly the "drones"—and asked if it was OK if he "did something similar" in his new movie. So yes, R2-D2 is owed in part to Silent Running. (Star Wars was influenced by many great predecessors.)
The commentary track also, by the way, talks about how bad blood developed between Trumbull and the late Stanley Kubrick because of reviewers constantly overstating Trumbull's contributions to 2001: A Space Odyssey, and yet this reviewer treads the same ground in the fifth paragraph.
Certainly any review is going to contain personal opinions, but I don't think they need be discourteous and unresearched. Silent Running is an excellent film, made by a handful of eager young filmmakers on a very modest budget. It is amazingly successful and, Bruce Dern's long hair aside, holds up well today in almost every way. The new DVD is the best print of it I've ever seen, and the few "extras" on it are more than worth the cost of the disk, considering how difficult it is to get information on this film. No one should be frightened away from it because of someone falsely ringing the "gaping plot holes" bell, or complaints of a "screechy soundtrack."
Ken Tkacs
Ken.Tkacs@jer.com
Reviewer Paul Di Filippo responds:
I am indebted to Ken Tkacs for his contribution to my further understanding of Silent Running. Watching an old tape as I did, not the new DVD, I was not privy to the horde of new data about the film. I regret that my gripes seemed to constitute an utter dismissal of the film in Ken's eyes, as this was not what I intended. Having seen the film upon its initial release, I retained an affection for it and many vivid memories of the action, sets and characters, memories which were not diminished by the new viewing. But I still would have preferred Peter, Paul and Mary to Joan Baez any day!
Best,
Paul
n regards to your review of the Seaview model from Polar Lights, there are a few comments that I would like to make.
First, the current kit is molded in black, as was the original release. While I did not have the original issue release, I did have one of the re-releases during the early 1980s. That release was molded in grey. And, there are some other unique differences with the new kit.
The base on the new kit is much smaller than the previous kit, which was molded in a light green, to simulate the ocean floor seaweed, I guess. There is more detail, such as hatchways, on the new kit. Surprisingly, the detail for the hatch for the "minisub" and diving bell has been removed from this
issue. But, the detail for the Flying Sub, a scribed line as was the hatch for the "minisub," has remained.
Fans of the television show will know that the addition of the Flying Sub prompted a modification from the original model design. The filming model actually had sliding doors that revealed the Flying Sub underneath the observation area. It would be nice if this concept might be included in a later release of this model.
One other point. The new kit, as well as the earlier release, does have one moving part. On the conning tower is a group of antennas, and one is capable of rotating. However, it is probably better to just glue it in place and move on.
The Seaview kit is what most of the releases from Polar Lights are, faithful recreations from the golden age of modeling. Anyone building this kit will have pretty much the same building experience that I had almost 20 years ago. That is not a bad thing.
It might be interesting if Polar Lights released another version of the Seaview. This one is basically from the original movie. However, I would like a version from the latter part of the series, including the changes I mentioned earlier. Perhaps this could be a larger scale kit.
One other point worth mentioning: When Aurora went out of business, their molds were sold at auction. Monogram released the "Flying Sub" about 10 years ago. I don't believe that it is still in their active catalog. Perhaps Monogram will release this kit again. Perhaps Polar Lights will acquire the kit.
Also, fans of Irwin Allen should visit the Polar Lights Web site to see another kit that is soon to be released this summer (scheduled).
Anthony Mark Morningstar
amstar@cdinc.net
Reviewer Sean Huxter responds:
Thanks for your in-depth knowledge of the model. You sure seem to know your stuff. My comparisons to the original relied on my memories of the model I had when I was about 8 years old (and had a ball putting together) and on write-ups on fan Web pages about the various models from the series, so if my recollection of the older one wasn't 100 percent accurate, it's because of the haze of nostalgia.
Knowing that someone besides Polar Lights has the molds to the Flying Sub, it now seems more unlikely that they will release a reproduction any time soon, but at least someone has that ability. I hope they take advantage of this wave of nostalgia that's going around.
I also know that with any cult-hit TV show, there are fans much more avid and well-informed than I, so I defer to your knowledge on this kit.
I did know that the hatchway had been altered, but was not aware of the detail changes. I only wish I had an original release by its side to do a better comparison, but I couldn't find one.
Thanks for the info, though. If I get another Polar Lights model to review, can I pick your brain for better detail?
Thanks.
Best,
Sean
feel that I need to bring attention to recent developments in UPN's Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a show that has a large younger fan base.
[Warning: Spoilers ahead.]
Two and half years ago, the producers chose to depict a lesbian relationship involving
one of its major cast members (Alyson Hannigan, "Willow") Over time, they have shown this relationship in an honest and natural way. It became the first network television show to show a lasting, healthy relationship with characters that appeared in nearly every episode. Nearly three years later, it is still the only network television show doing this. Hollywood has a long-standing history of either killing their lesbian characters or turning them into villains (a detailed documentary of this is The Celluloid Closet) and for the first time, this particular drama seemed to be avoiding that cliche. Then, on the season six, episode 19 ("Seeing Red," U.S. airdate Tuesday, May 7, 2002) one of the lesbian characters was shown being shot through the heart by a stray bullet in front of her lover, mere minutes after being shown in bed together, and the remaining character descended into "dark majiks," eventually becoming a murderer and trying to end the world.
Although this story has been done before, it is particularly upsetting that the producers of this show decided to do it to the only lasting gay relationship on network television. When the producers took that step to show a long-term lesbian relationship to millions of viewers, many of them young, they were doing something good for these people. They were giving a community sorely lacking in screen time someone to relate to. They were telling people who didn't know any lesbians in their lives that it was OK and normal. They were helping people overcome prejudice.
Now that they have taken this away in such a violent fashion, they have taken something that was doing actual good in the world and torn it down. Whatever the reasons, they weren't worth it. Most people will go their entire lives without affecting so many people for the better, and instead of
embracing it and doing more good, they reduced it to nothing, took it out in a body bag, no funeral, no remorse.
I believe that the people who take the good out of the world are no better than the people actively doing harm. I don't believe there is anything that can justify the treatment of these characters, and I want the producers of Buffy to be called on it. I strongly feel that they should take responsibility for the messages they send and I urge you to help in bringing this matter to attention.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Hilary Clay
hclay@u.washington.edu
have been sitting at my computer every day and every night looking over Web page tributes to Willow and Tara—two highly respected characters on the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series.
[Warning: Spoilers ahead.]
I am, along with many, many more [fans], very upset with the end of season six. I also am upset with the message it sends to our gay youth of today. They already have so much to deal with and to wonder about—the terrible things that happen in the real world. BVS, was somewhere they could go and get away from the troubles of the world for an hour, somewhere they could watch an openly gay couple express love and be accepted for it.
I am 24 years old and I know the difference between fictional characters and the real actresses. But what I understand, and I guess Joss Whedon and Mutant Enemy (ME) don't, is that when we watch a series like BVS we get lost in the moment. We relate to them, we go through what they are going through on the show. For the actors and actresses it may only last an hour a day, but for the fans it lasts forever, we look forward to every night of what is/was our favorite show.
I feel that this is not only a lesbian issue, but a bad message to our gay youth growing up now. I think life is hard enough without someone showing you on TV that if you are in love and living in wonderful bliss, then it's not real. Somewhere, somehow it'll all end for you because it ends for everyone. It tells our youth not to try and reach love or bliss because you'll be shot down in some way. Just as Tara was shot down in "Seeing Red."
These two characters on BVS showed extreme devotion for each other, complete trust and a lot of protecting. They were never selfish and always did for the others on the show. Willow spent the first three seasons, miserable and always sacrificing, then, just when she finds her happiness, Joss Whedon and ME take that away from her in the blink of an eye. No chance to say "I love you," no chance to even say "Goodbye, love." It is hard enough for our gay youth to see that sort of thing on the news or at school, but then to come home and turn on there favorite show and see it happen there as well!?
Joss Whedon and ME don't seem to realize that Willow and Tara became a part of the BVS fans' lives. He gave us something to look forward to every Tuesday. I cried when Tara died. I cried every time Willow showed her pain. I felt her pain. I still feel like I want to cry when I hear or read something about them. I have friends that literally got sick and had to excuse themselves to the rest room. Amber [Benson]'s character, Tara, was an innocent. She never hurt anyone and was completely devoted to Willow. She was always there for everyone else. She didn't deserve what she got and neither did Amber Benson. I have a feeling that Amber would have stayed on the show and would have kept a lot of the BVS fans interested in the show. I realize that these two women are fictional characters and even my lover doesn't understand my devotion to them. But you see, this is what happens when you take a good storyline and use the two most talented women in the business. Alyson [Hannigan] and Amber had us all convinced they were truly in love. You could see it in their eyes, you could feel it right through the television. Now they've gone and ripped this away from us because they think they know what's best for the BVS fans. I thought that if it weren't for the fans, they'd never would be as successful as they are now. So it's not in there best interests to upset the fans. Not only am I fighting to have Amber's character brought back but so are so many heterosexual men and women that just liked the experience of watching true love on TV for once.
This was pulled off of a message board written by Joss Whedon: "And I knew some people would be angry with me for destroying the only gay couple on the show, but the idea that I couldn't kill Tara because she was gay is as offensive to me as the idea that I did kill her because she was gay."
I'm sorry, but it sounds to me like he's saying he killed the character Tara not because she was gay but because people thought that he couldn't because she was gay. What exactly is that supposed to mean? I feel betrayed by Joss and ME. I never thought that they couldn't kill her because she was gay—as a matter of fact, isn't that what happens in the real world to some of the gay youth of today? But I did think that Joss wouldn't kill Tara, not because she was gay, but because she'd become an essential part of the show. They gained a lot of devoted followers of the BVS series when they introduced Tara into the show, and now they will lose more than they received because they've killed her and there seems to be no indication that they plan on bringing her back.
I know that there is nothing that you can do about this, it's Joss Whedon's show and he can do as he pleases, but I'd just like to get my feelings out there to the gay community. And the gay youth of today, I was once a youth myself and didn't have any where to turn but the TV at times as well. Thanks for listening.
Jessica McCollum
Willowlvr1@aol.com
aybe this is after the fact, but here goes: I think I can speak on behalf of many of the fans of X-Files when I say that the last two years, and maybe the last three years, have been a cruel
torture. As a devoted fan from the very beginning, I wanted the show to go on forever, but when it did, it was nothing but disappointment. They had it right up until season five, which was probably the peak of the whole show—characters, stories and writers all on one page, and it was the right page. Then, season six moved out of Canada, and the whole feel changed, but that wasn't really the end. It was glitzier and a little shallower, lacking a lot of the details that gave the first five seasons all their depth, but was still good.
But after that, it should have ended. It hurts me to say it, but it should have gone on to movies after that, and spared us the annoyance of wanting it to be as good and constantly finding it not. I don't remember anything really outstanding about season seven, and I saw hardly anything of eight or nine—I like Doggett and Reyes, and I think they have alot of potential as characters, but I agree with the other fans that have spoken here ("X-Files Could've Been Fantastic", "X-Files Finale Was a Flop", "X-Files Held On Far Too Long" and "X Finale Storyline Is Offensive"): The real soul of the show was between Mulder and Scully. It never should have continued when Duchovny wanted out. The spark of the show went with him, and all the rest was just trying to capture it again in all the wrong places.
And would it have really been so hard for them to end the show with a return to the best parts of the past? I, like so many others, watched the last episode out of loyalty, and I was glad to see Mulder and Scully reunited, but the whole rest of the show was too tangled up in it's own mythology, too lacking in feeling, and too lacking in that delicious touch of humor that always saved it from being overly-pessimistic before. [Frank] Spotnitz says there's more to be said; maybe after the writers and such have had some time off, they'll give us a movie that can end the show with the dignity and depth we all came to expect from and respect of The X-Files.
Samantha Holcomb
dragontamer_me@inorbit.com
've been reading the letters of the past few weeks from science-fiction fans who deplore the latest crop of both TV and movie science fiction.
The deterioration could have been predicted. I'm over 70 and have read most of the old classics and some of the better newer ones. Today's science fiction has been watered down for the average movie-goer and TV watcher. The true SF fan has been turned off by slam-bang action with implausible solutions and not many real plots involving social challenges and believable character interaction.
It looks like a trip for me back to the second-hand book stores where I can again enjoy the classic stories—from books.
Dick Mann
dimann@planetkc.com
'm another Dark Angel fan checking in to express my disappointment that
this series was canceled. Dark Angel had a great premise pertinent to current controversies such as illegal diversion of government funds, scientific experimentation on humans and corrupt politicians running the police. Dark Angel gave us an altruistic hero (not too many of those
around anymore) and a heroine who was struggling to discover her own humanity after having been indoctrinated as a genetically engineered soldier. The characters were dynamic, the adventures suspenseful and the minor characters interesting and humorous. I agree with a previous letter writer, Elizabeth A. Mizdail ("Fox Disses Dark Angel"), that it was a mistake to cancel Dark Angel and the series will be missed.
Ginny Finn
Address withheld by request
s a longtime fan of the works of James Gurney, I feel the need to disagree with Rod Heil's letter "Dinotopia Lacks Any Utopian Feel." Authors are all different. Just because your idea of a fantasy world involves a hot chick and carnivorous humans that have no morals and think that laws are only there to be broken, doesn't mean every story will contain these perameters.
James Gurney did describe a utopia, in its most well-known, literal sense. Men and animals living side-by-side, in harmony. The no-meat idea goes along with the harmony idea. How can you live in peace with someone if you eat it's flesh? What Rod described was his idea of a utopia, one opposite of James Gurney's. Obviously, you can't compare the two. Saying that Dinotopia isn't a utopia is like saying a sandwich isn't food or a Jetta isn't a car. Look up the word "utopia." Dinotopia embodies it. Rod's idea is a totally different story, it isn't Dinotopia's.
Amanda Beggs
axinne@darkcastle.com
n repsonse to several letters ("Roddenberry Never Ran From Religion", "Trek Promotes Unity, Not Division", "Trek Theme Speaks of Inner Strength", "Faith May Exist Without Religion" and "Little Space for God in Trek") regarding the theme song to Enterprise, I'd like to say that I have yet to find anyone who dislikes it. In fact, a friend of mine told me it's the best Star Trek theme song she's ever heard, and I have to agree. I and my group of friends are all Christian, but you don't have to be to appreciate this piece of music. It's a wonderful statement of faith and hope in a world that seems to be missing both. In fact, it's the only TV theme that I don't fast forward past; I sit back and sing along. The first time I heard it I was very much blown away by the simple message it brings. I'm only sad there are people out there who just don't understand.
Lynn Clark
raylynnclark@aol.com
eligious connotations aside ("Roddenberry Never Ran From Religion", "Trek Promotes Unity, Not Division", "Trek Theme Speaks of Inner Strength", "Faith May Exist Without Religion" and "Little Space for God in Trek"), to me the theme to Enterprise is just plain cheesy. A view also shared by my 19-year-old son and many of his friends. To miss the mark so widely in age groups such as ours must tell the producers something: like, change the damn thing.
Enterprise is not a daytime soap.
Steve Boyce
boycesteve@msn.com
Back to the top.
