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.
ow, it must be nice to be prescient enough to know for sure what a finished movie will be before it is finished!! ("Hulk Fan Turns Green With Anger"). After all, if it says on the Internet (from unnamed sources) that Bruce Banner is bitten by a radioactive dog and becomes the Hulk, it has to be true, doesn't it? I also heard that Prof. X grows hair, Elektra will actually be a man named Oedipus, and the Punisher will again be Dolph Lundgren, and since it is on the Internet, it must be true, right?
My advice? Get over it. If you don't like the way it is "supposedly" going to be (which was denied by actual sources from the filming company), then don't go to see it. It's a movie, a piece of celluloid entertainment that is not real. Something many people seem to forget, and not just fantasy and
science-fiction fans.
Brian L. Miller
sylverfoxy@hotmail.com
his just in—Stephen King has written a sequel to Cujo entitled Cujo 2: The Incredible Hulk! Watch out for this hit! I am amazed, stunned and deeply sorrowed that the next installment of the Hulk franchise [warning: spoilers ahead] will involve Bruce Banner initially transforming into the incredible Hulk because of an attack by irradiated feral dogs.
As if that wasn't bad enough, I almost fell out of my chair upon learning that the Hulk will fight a giant CGI poodle ("Hulk Detail Revealed"). A poodle! Oh, give me the '70's TV show any day over this junk.
Just when Marvel was starting to get some justice done to their characters being portrayed in Hollywood, there comes this insanity. I hope sincerely that this is a huge joke designed to find out how much the public cares about the Hulk's origin. If it is not, it will be a laughable, passable feature that will return comic movies to the realm of Captain America. Are you listening out there, Marvel? Change this "beast" before it gets any more out of control.
Matthew Hawes
BigFatRock@aol.com
think that Martin Cahn's criticism ("Hulk Fan Turns Green With Anger") of how Ang Lee is changing the origin of the Hulk is unfounded ("Hulk Detail Revealed"). He stated that when Spider-Man's origin was changed from a radioactive spider to a genetically altered specimen and the webshooters became organic, it fit. My question for him is whether he realizes how many fans of Spider-Man were upset by these changes when they were first publicized during Spider-Man's production.
His comments regarding the changes to the Hulk seem to echo the Spider-Man criticism, and yet, when Spider-Man was released, the critics that were crying foul at Sam Raimi all seem to have shut up. My suggestion to Mr. Cahn would be for him to not judge Ang Lee's decision with a similar attitude. When The Hulk is completed and released, he may be in for a pleasant surprise.
Justin Graham
jgraham_70@hotmail.com
have to totally agree with Martin Cahn ("Hulk Fan Turns Green With Anger") on his take for the upcoming Hulk movie. He makes a valid point using the theatrical origin of Spider-Man. Yes, it was slightly different from what we know happened in the books, but Banner becomes the Hulk after being bitten by irradiated dogs?! Why couldn't Ang Lee just stay with the basic premise. It's not as if depicting the Hulk's true creation will be difficult sticking to the original story. Are you listening Mr. Ang Lee? And I can't believe that The Powers That Be at Marvel (Stan Lee?!) sanctioned this move after seeing how effective the Spidey film was.
Aaaaarrrggghhh!
Jawad Shah
js1701a@yahoo.com
don't know what Mr. Ahearn's beliefs are ("Fantasy May Border on Blasphemy"), but as a Catholic I find the whole Left Behind series offensive and blasphemous in its deliberate misinterpretations of Biblical prophesy combined with rampant Catholic-, Jew- and general "anyone-who's-not-a-Midwestern U.S. evangelical Christian"-bashing. Calling them "fantasy" is accurate in that they are self-aggrandizing fantasies for people who consider themselves God's chosen people and superior to all others, but an insult to those classic works of true fantasy such as the Lord of the Rings.
As for the books as literature, having suffered through one and part of another, I classify them as "drek," "crap," "garbage" and "the murder of perfectly innocent trees." The plotting is pathetic, the characters clueless, the dialog dreadful, the writing rotten and the stories insufferable. If one wishes to read quality Christian-based fantasy I recommend the Chronicles of Narnia.
Joseph Poutre
jpoutre@lehman.com
evin Ahearn says, "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?" ("Fantasy May Border on Blasphemy".)
No ... it sinks it to a lower place, populated by people who actually believe in superstitious nonsense.
There is a world of difference between those who enjoy reading science fiction/fantasy, but know that what they're reading is not real, and those who actually regard a piece of fiction as non-fiction.
I love Spider-Man, as well as the world of Dune, Gateway, Foundation, Matrix, et. al., but not for one nanosecond do I harbor a belief that they represent any sort of reality.
And I don't accept that metaphysical claptrap that reality, for me, is different than reality for someone else. These worlds exist on paper, and on paper only. The difference between followers of the Bible (or any other religious works of fiction) and me is that I realize what I'm reading is
fiction. They don't.
Reid Babbitt
qbit@hotmail.com
ecause it's based on Bible prophecy, is classifying Left Behind as "fantasy" blasphemy?" ("Fantasy May Border on Blasphemy".)
Blasphemy is cursing God.
Fantasy based upon history (whether reported in the Bible or not) is called "speculation," "fiction" and, in some cases, "fantasy."
Just because you speculate on what might be, doesn't mean that you are blaspheming God. Nor does blaspheming God indicate that you are speculating on what might be.
No, it is not "blasphemy." It's just bad creativity that they couldn't come up with an original concept and had to drag up other people's writings in order to make a name for themselves.
Evan Moore
EvanMoore@aol.com
his is in reply to the two young fans [warning: spoilers follow] who were saddened by Willow's pain and Tara's death at the end of season six ("Buffy's Good Goes Astray" and "Buffy Broadcasts Bad Message"). Though I'm not a lesbian, I can
sympathize somewhat with what you both are going through.
I've been a Buffyphile ever since the first episode in season one ("Welcome to the Hellmouth"/"The Harvest"). When Tara was introduced, I thought, here is an interesting character who will liven up the plot(s) somewhat. Tara became the good to Willow's bad. She kept all the other characters in perspective, acting as a balance to everyone's messes. I was shocked and saddened when she was killed by Warren's stray bullet and I'm glad Willow did what she had to do. But I've done some local acting and, sometimes, these types of things happen to characters. Most times, it's the creator's or the director's decision to get rid of a character, but in the majority of cases, it's the audience (those of us who watch the show) who has the final say.
Yes, it's sad to see Tara go, but, who knows, maybe Amber Benson will be in a future Buffy episode as another character. Just hope this will happen.
Debbie Ouellette
curlygirl43201@yahoo.com
just had to comment on Michael Atreides' letter ("Buffy Brickbats Are Absurd") suggesting
[warning: spoilers follow] that Tara's murder on Buffy the Vampire Slayer was brought about because Amber Benson
wanted to leave the show.
Amber Benson did not want to leave the show. She confirmed in an interview that in the summer before season six she tried to secure a contract that included her as a regular—Joss Whedon said no. As the end of season six was airing, fans talked with her mother at a signing and when asked about Amber's possible death, her mother said fans should write Fox and ask that she be brought back. And just recently, at a play in which Amber appeared, she told fans it was up to the powers that be as to whether or not she would come back. She also confirmed that she was doing more outside projects because she was told she would die on Buffy and she wanted to broaden her opportunities.
These are not the actions of an actor looking to leave the show. Unlike all the other major characters killed on Buffy, Amber Benson was not looking to leave—instead, she wanted to increase her role on the show. It was Joss Whedon's decision—and his alone—to remove Tara from the show.
Lisa Mayo
Scout886@aol.com
've been following the discussion about the end of this year's Buffy season and
[warning: spoilers follow] the death of Tara in particular. Some of the recent letters ("Buffy Brickbats Are Absurd", "Joss Whedon Made the Write Choice" and "PC Plotting Would Destroy Buffy") defending the series as Joss Whedon and Mutant Enemy presented it contain misconceptions that I would like to address.
Misconception #1: As stated by Michael Atreides, "Amber Benson decided to leave the show." Quite simply, this is untrue. I have seen Amber Benson in person twice since the Buffy season finished filming, and on neither occasion did she say she had wanted to leave Buffy. In fact, she wouldn't even say that she was off the show for certain. Recently, Joss Whedon was quoted in an article on SciFi Wire ("Tara's Death Riles Buffy Fans"), saying that Amber would in fact return, although apparently not as Tara.
In an interview on the Internet radio program, "The Succubus Club," Steven DeKnight claimed that Joss Whedon made the decision to kill Tara, right down to her final words. It had nothing to do with Amber Benson wanting to leave the show.
Misconception #2: As stated by Stewart Tame, "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." This attitude implies that there was no other way possible for the Dark Willow storyline to come about. Again, this is untrue. Not only was the story we saw not the only way to bring about Dark Willow, it can be argued that it wasn't even the best way to bring about that story.
For the first nine episodes of the Buffy season, Willow's problem with magic was depicted as a "temptations of power" story. Willow was becoming increasingly powerful, and with her greater abilities came a greater temptation to use them. She was well on her way to becoming Dark Willow all by herself. Perhaps she would go too far and tap into some dark force she couldn't control. Perhaps she would start getting into arguments with Buffy over the best way to defeat a villain. Perhaps she would try to maintain the leadership role in the Scooby Gang she had held over the summer. There
were a number of possibilities.
But instead of exploring one or more of those possibilities, Willow's story suddenly changed in the tenth episode, "Wrecked." Instead of magic being depicted as a power that tempted her, it became a symbol for drug abuse. Buffy fans and critics alike, whether they were supporters of the Willow/Tara relationship or not, criticized the sudden change as unmotivated and heavy-handed. It was a large part of the dark turn that many point to as the season's primary failing.
After Willow struggled through the addiction storyline for almost 10 episodes and finally won Tara back, all her efforts were rendered meaningless by Tara's death. Willow went straight back into the dark magic she was already getting into before. What then was the purpose of the 10-episode addiction arc? Was it simply filler, so that the Dark Willow storyline would arrive during the May sweeps?
And then there's the matter of Tara's death itself. Even if it was absolutely necessary, as some claim, did it have to happen as it did? Did Tara have to be killed in the very bedroom where she and Willow had been making love for the entire episode? Couldn't she have been killed at the Espresso Pump or the Summers backyard or the college campus instead? Did she have to be killed by a stray bullet? Couldn't she have been trying to protect Willow or Dawn or random strangers on the street?
In conclusion, while the question of whether or not the Dark Willow story was told in the best way possible is a matter of personal taste, it is very clear that the way the story was told was not the only way it could have been told. Joss Whedon and Mutant Enemy had plenty of choices and plenty of alternative ways to tell the story at their disposal. They weren't forced into telling the story the way they did. They chose it of their own free will.
Of course, this is a free country, and Joss as executive producer is free to tell his story any way he wants to tell it—but with that freedom comes responsibility. Mutant Enemy chose to tell their story the way they did, and they are therefore responsible for the consequences of that story. They are responsible for perpetuating a cliche they had full knowledge of and had previously repudiated. They are responsible for the hurt and loss suffered by gay and questioning young people who saw Willow and Tara as symbols of hope. They are responsible for the outrage and sense of betrayal felt by the gay community and its supporters. All of these things can and should be laid at Joss Whedon's feet, because his choices caused them to happen.
Robert A. Black
bbovenguy@yahoo.com
ox killed Dark Angel at the beginning of the year. The new writers
weren't so good, but the real issue is the Friday night time slot. An exasperated Fox employee wrote to a fan about how no matter what they did this year, they couldn't pull the ratings up. No one is home. A lot of the fans decided that you shouldn't rearrange your entire life for a TV show; leaving only die-hard, loyal fans to try and keep the show alive. This automatically restricts the show to cult status. Don't they get that?
Dark Angel has potential. The finale was spectacular; it tied the year together and made me feel like bigger and better things were coming next season. It completely revived my interest, and I actually looked at the fan sites online. Guess what the first thing I learned was?
I really feel that canceling Dark Angel will seriously hurt Fox. Next year's seven-and-a-half hours of new programming won't help them. Besides, the reality TV, *gag*, they have created a whole lot of shows that rip off concepts from other shows. Everyone watched The Wonder Years, but that doesn't mean we'll all flock to Oliver Bean. John Doe is reminiscent of both
Bourne Identity and (to a lesser extent) the failed series called Nowhere Man from a network that is long gone from my local channels. Firefly, seems decent, if not incredible; but it also reminds me of Crusade (the brief Babylon 5 spinoff) and a watered-down version of Farscape. If it was on another night and it hadn't contributed to the death of my new favorite show, maybe I'd give it a shot.
Bring back Dark Angel! The fans are out there, and they're organizing. Dark Angel Nation [Web site] has coordinated email and letter campaigns. We've even begun mailing in barcodes. The petition numbers are around 50,000 when you add all the different ones together. We want our show back, and we aren't going to give up.
Kari Thomas
Moyaselene@aol.com
ot a comment, but a question. I have a memory of a TV movie in which an astronaut is hit in the face by a beam of light whilst walking in space, and when he returns to Earth, he cannot stand sunlight, his eyes change color, and he has vastly increased intelligence. The last three points are first noticed when he goes to walk out of a building then, runs back inside and cracks a security code to get out of the sunlight.
Can you possibly help with putting a name to this film? I thought it was North Star or something similar and it was screened in the U.K. on TV in the mid-to-late '80s. I
can't remember anything else about the film, and would be grateful for any information you have.
Malcolm Jeff
jeffm@aisl.uk.com
uzz Dixon ("Ma Skywalker Could've Been Saved") neglects to blame a group of people who might have had more luck than Amidala in saving Shmi. (Though with a name like that, death is probably too good for her. ...) I speak, of course, of the Jedi Knights themselves, who may well have had a tad more influence than one snotty-nosed queen/senator.
It is not "despicable, even in a work of fiction": it is clearly stated throughout all the films that Tatooine is backwater and far from the centers of influence in the galaxy. Why should anyone care? As a sidenote as well, by the time we reach Episode IV, there is no mention of slaves on the desert planet. Now, how long did it take you North Americans to abolish slavery? I also think that Buzz is being a little harsh on Mr Lucas: Perhaps it is this lack of parental control and influence that finally sends Anakin over to the dark side?
Ian and Sarah Banks
sibanks@bigpond.com
uzz Dixon ("Ma Skywalker Could've Been Saved") forgets that Shmi Skywalker [warning: spoilers follow] was a free woman, living on Tatooine with a man that she loved, when she was kidnapped and tortured to death.
We don't know all the backstory, but consider this: A moisture farmer who just happens to be in love with a slave manages to put together enough money to free her and marry her while still eking out an existence on a largely moisture-barren planet? The farm looked livable, not luxurious. Mr. Lucas never says where exactly Lars got the money to buy Shmi. How do you know Padme didn't have anything to do with it?
Lighten up on Lucas a little. I don't go to movies to deliberately find things wrong with them. As a result, I enjoy movies a lot more than some other readers here seem to do. Yes, I even enjoyed the original Star Wars before it had an episode number, a sequel or a prequel, even though every
critic in my hometown slammed it for glorified space opera in their original reviews. A month after it came out, one local TV reviewer "gave it a second chance" and miraculously found it to be "great fun," "a real romp."
Suspend your disbelief, pocket your "Beginners' Guide to Reviewing Movies for Profit" and go see the movie again. Go to a matinee show so you won't feel like you spent too much. Sit back and relax. You just might discover that, on second thought, it wasn't really that bad at all.
Diane Catanzaro
catanz@mail.com
Back to the top.
