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.
ord of the Rings and Harry Potter are fantasy. With his first appearance in 1962, Stan Lee added Spider-Man "to the roster of those who make fantasy the most exciting realm of all!"
Now try this: "On a flight from Chicago to London, several passengers aboard Capt. Rayford Steele's plane suddenly and mysteriously disappear. When Steele radios to London to report the situation, he discovers that the incident on his plane is not an isolated phenomenon but a worldwide occurrence. As Steele begins his search for answers, he learns that the Christ has come to take the faithful with Him in preparation for the coming apocalyptic battle between good and evil." [This is] from Left Behind, "a novel of the Earth's last days is the book that began it all ... or at least the book that heralds the beginning of the end!" by Jenkins and LaHaye who "brilliantly imagine the tribulations we will experience and endure, and perfectly describe for us the events prophesied to occur prior to Christ's return to earth." The "fastest-selling works of Christian fiction ever published" series is in its eighth book, for which Ballantine paid $35 million.
Because it's based on Bible prophecy, is classifying Left Behind as "fantasy" blasphemy?
Until further notice, the cloning of a human being is science fiction. Arnold Schwarzenegger was cloned in The 6th Day. Ira Levin cloned Adolf Hitler in Boys from Brazil. But when "a scientist plans to prove the existence of extraterrestrial life by cloning live cells found on the Shroud of Turin, it will become a nightmare of worldwide destruction and the ultimate battle between good and evil! Tightly woven around the fulfillment of every major and minor 'end-times' biblical prophecy, as well as major prophecies from more than a dozen other world religions, The Christ Clone trilogy (Armageddon Books, "World's Largest Bible Prophecy Bookstore") is an edge-of-your-seat ride through the earth's last days that ties fact and fiction so closely, it includes nearly 300 footnotes."
The Book is believed by many to be the Word of God. Interpretations and speculations are definitely done by Man and Woman. When combined with the Bible, does the result lift science fiction or fantasy to a higher place?
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
just read your SciFi Wire story ("Hulk Detail Revealed") of how Ang Lee revealed [warning: spoilers ahead] that in his version of The Hulk, Bruce Banner will be transformed because he got bit by irradiated feral dogs?!
What kind of nonsense is that?!
It's one thing to change Spider-Man from being bitten by an irradiated spider to a genetically altered one—that makes sense by today's standards. Even the change from him creating web shooters to being able to expel organic webs was palatable.
But when Banner is transformed into The Hulk because of some irradiated dogs, The Hulk could become the laughingstock movie Marvel doesn't need.
Could it have been so far fetched to have Banner be a modern-day scientist involved in testing some type of nuclear device—such testing still goes on.
I respect Ang Lee for the work I've seen of his so far, but this is ridiculous, speaks down to Hulk fans everywhere and, I think, says that he does not respect the folks who created Banner and the Hulk all those years ago.
Martin Cahn
m2cahn@mindspring.com
always enjoy Michael Cassutt's columns, and "Sharing the World" was no exception.
It got me thinking: As fans, instead of complaining about the state of SF—especially TV and film SF—why don't we do something about it? Most of us have some sort of skill we could apply.
Let's create a couple of "open-source" SF universes and begin populating them with histories, characters, stories, technical documents, 3D models, artwork, animations, music—even full shooting scripts. Eventually, enough open-source material will be available to let a small team with a DV camera, some talent, and an average PC/Mac create short (or full-length) movies complete with CGI backgrounds and action sequences.
I think it would be a lot of fun and might even end up being better than most Hollywood fare.
Rob Scott
rob@eventbooking.com
s a gay man, I am incensed at the irresponsible and absurd comments ("Buffy's Good Goes Astray" and "Buffy Broadcasts Bad Message") in recent letters to Science Fiction Weekly about the Buffy the Vampire Slayer season finale.
[Warning: Spoilers follow.]
Tara's death was tragic and sad, yes, but it was not a message to gay youth. Here's a fact, kids: People die. And in a show like BTVS, they die horribly and often senselessly.
Amber Benson decided to leave the show. Considering the history of the characters and depth of the
relationship, there was no believable way she could leave the show other than death.
Anyone who got out of the storyline the idea that gay relationships are bad or doomed is clearly coming at it with their own agenda. Further, they are doing the actors and writers of the show a grave disservice.
Jessica McCollum says:
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."
Hmm. I think she and I must have watched different versions of the show, because I got something
completely different out of it. I watched a story about where grief can take you, and what can pull you
out of the darkness of that grief. I saw a story that testified to the power of friendship, the power of love and family to overcome even great tragedy.
Mostly, though, these ladies are insulting gay youth. Kids are smarter than these "whistleblowers" give them credit for. They know that there wasn't a negative message there, but just good storytelling. They know not to project nihilistic thoughts onto what is only a story.
This is one gay man who strongly supports Joss Whedon's decision, and finds the rabid outcry of the fans reprehensible.
Michael Atreides
atreidesmr@yahoo.com
n Jessica McCollum's recent letter ("Buffy Broadcasts Bad Message") she quotes Joss Whedon: [Warning: Spoilers ahead.] "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."
She then went on to comment: "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?"
What I presume it to mean, Jessica, is that Joss is feeling a bit defensive on the subject. Hollywood (and comic books, and probably other forms of entertainment I'm not thinking of) have a reputation for killing off gay characters. Since Joss had made the decision to kill Tara, he was concerned that this criticism would be leveled against him. I believe that the point he was trying to make was that Tara's sexuality had absolutely nothing to do with the decision to kill her. If Willow and Oz had still been together it would likely have been Oz's death that set her off. I tend to agree with Whedon who seems to believe that being gay shouldn't automatically convey immunity to death—the writer should be free to do whatever they choose with the characters. The problem comes when viewers watch the show and, rather than see Tara and Willow as individuals, they see them as representative of all lesbians everywhere—an understandable reaction given the relative lack of lesbian and gay role models in popular entertainment.
Anyway, Joss didn't kill Tara because of her sexuality, but because someone intimately linked with Willow needed to die in order to bring on Dark Willow for the end of the season. It's a tribute to the writers' abilities that Tara's death hit everyone (or everyone I know who watches the show anyway) so hard.
Stewart Tame
sbt@ans.net
arning: Spoilers ahead.]
In response to Jessica McCollum ("Buffy Broadcasts Bad Message"): The show is named Buffy The Vampire Slayer, not Tara The Invulnerable Lesbian. Be glad that Joss Whedon had the guts to include such a character, prominently, in a positive way, over a long period, and give her an exit that was dramatic. He could have just had her walk away from Willow, and never return.
In response to Hilary Clay ("Buffy's Good Goes Astray"): Lots of "good" people have suffered during the course of the show, and it would surely send the wrong message to single out any character for preferential treatment based on their sexuality. It is exactly that kind of politically correct nonsense which has the real world in the sorry state we now face. That is where people are less than honest on a daily basis, for fear of offending this or that minority. Is it not better to treat everyone the same? Or have we already reached a point where if there's ever a show with a gay, black, Jewish character, written by a retard, it'll run forever—'cause nobody would dare to cancel? Personally, I like to think that all minority groups would prefer a great story,
rather than twaddle which patronizes them.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil@freeuk.com
am a Dark Angel fan writing to voice my agreement with Elizabeth A. Mizdail ("Fox Disses Dark Angel") and Ginny Finn ("Fox's Angel Decision Not Heavenly"). Fox made a major programming mistake when they decided to take Dark Angel off the air. The show was an example of finely crafted writing
and excellent scripting. I particularly agree with Ginny's comment that the show addressed "current controversies" and would like to add that it touched on more than just political issues. Beyond its comments on the abuse of governmental power and genetic engineering, Dark Angel spoke to the human condition. Through dynamic characters and plausible situations they addressed issues such as racism, love, friendship, family and loyalty.
The first season spoke to the issues of responsibility (Max and Logan's fight against corruption in Seattle), love (their budding relationship) and family dynamics (how she related to the other escapees and the lines she drew between those "family" connections and her relationship with Logan). In season two, the writers took on larger issues such as friendship, loyalty and racism (the last episode is a prime example of this). These are issues that all of us face and struggle with, the only difference was James Cameron, et. al., put a science-fiction coating on them to make a hard-to-swallow reality a bit more palatable. It really disappoints me to see a show that offered something worthwhile to its viewers removed—despite viewer protest—due to reasons as questionable as Fox's.
Aaron C. Eller
a_c_eller@hotmail.com
am writing to discuss an annoying trend I've noted recently, in which computer-generated special effects are blamed for all sorts of problems with modern movies. This trend is exemplified by a letter in your last issue ("CGI Should Be Abandoned") in which CGI effects are scapegoated for the failures of Attack of the Clones. The writer feels that CGI made it so easy for George Lucas to immerse himself in making up new worlds that he forgot about the basics of creating
a good movie. He implies that if Lucas had been forced to use the old techniques involving models and matte paintings, he would have had to work harder to realize his vision and thus somehow produced a better product.
There seems to be a common perception that generating effects using CGI is incredibly easy, that the director simply waves a magic wand and his vision comes to life. Having worked with computer-generated images, I can tell you that this is not the case. The computer effects in a movie like Attack of the Clones require a huge amount of planning and coordinated effort by hundreds, and even thousands, of people. Much of the work, such as design, is identical to that performed for non-CGI effects. Conversely, all of the effects in AOTC could probably have been achieved using conventional
techniques; just at a much higher cost in time and money, and with less convincing results. Using CGI generally means getting more out of the same level of effort, not making less of an effort.
Perhaps because they think it's so easy, people tend to be critical of even the tiniest noticeable flaws in CGI, while forgiving the sometimes much more obvious glitches seen in older effects methods such as such as matte painting, stop motion and puppetry. I recall one letter writer making a comment like "why should I be so impressed with effects that I could render myself on one of my home computers?" That's like saying "why should I be impressed with the effects in King Kong when I could do the same thing at home with some rabbit fur, metal rods and a cheap old movie camera?" Digital effects creators invest as much care, skill and attention to detail in their work as those who create by "conventional" means.
So if you want to lay blame for the problems with Attack of the Clones, it must rest squarely on George Lucas' failure of vision and not on the concept that CGI has made things "too easy." A background is a background, whether it's a matte painting or a 3-D animated CGI rendering. And by the way, Lucas actually did work with a form of CGI in the original Star Wars movie. The spacecraft were filmed using computer operated motion control cameras, an approach that took the space battles light years beyond the old "model-on-a-string" look and was a vital factor in the film's success.
Matt Frey
mattgfrey@aol.com
ere's my biggest problem with Star Wars: Episode II—Attack of the Clones: Anakin saves Amidala's posterior not once but twice in The Phantom Menace (the second time saving her entire planet as well!), both times risking his own life in a dangerous race or battle and yet in the intervening decade between Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones, Her Royal Highness not once thinks of sending somebody to Tatooine to bail his mom out of hock?
This is despicable, even in a work of fiction, and Mr. Lucas is either contemptuous of his audience or so self-involved he can't see the hideous flaws in his own work.
I'll wait for Episode III to hit free TV or basic cable before watching it.
Buzz Dixon
Realbuzz3@socal.rr.com
dam Boudreaux in his letter "Little Space for God in Trek" thinks he has found the flaw in the theme song to Enterprise. (Quote below) He blames its failure on the idea that faith is not a part of the Star Trek universe. This is entirely beside the point.
The reason the theme song is so bad is that it's a bad replica of a bad '80s hair-band rock ballad that is:
badly written, even worse than the original 80's hair-band rock ballads
badly executed, even worse ...
badly sung, even worse ...
a bad imitation of bad music that people stopped caring about in 1987.
The '80s hair-band rock ballad era is over, and it's over for a good reason. There isn't a single example of a good rock-ballad during the '80s.
Enterprise deserves a good theme. It doesn't have to be the orchestrated music we're used to, but it at least should be good. It isn't. Which is very, very sad.
Sean Huxter
sean@turbinegames.com
've read a ton of letters ("Star Trek Theme Song Sings", "Enterprise Should Be Cheese-Free", "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") this season regarding the love/hate relationship people have had with the Enterprise song during the opening credits. Unfortunately, everybody is stuck on the song instead of moving on and noticing how poorly written this show is. I've been a Star Trek fan since Kirk and can honestly say that Enterprise must be written by lobotomized orangutans (or just really bad writers—you pick).
How about everybody who hates the song skip the opening credits and watch the show so that they can see that it's the writing that needs to really be changed.
If you love the song, great, now stop replaying the opening credits and check out the bad writing. If you like Star Trek, then let's skip the first two minutes and focus on the remaining 58 minutes that really needs help.
Craig
craige812@yahoo.com
Back to the top.
