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.
just read Cindy White's review of Minority Report and thought you may
appreciate a little feedback. While I agree with some of what she wrote, a couple of issues really bothered me.
First of all, she gave away far too much of the plot in her synopsis [warning: spoilers ahead]:
"While on the run, he discovers the well-kept secret that the Pre-Cogs don't always agree on the events of the future. Occasionally, the most talented of the three—the female called Agatha (Samantha Morton)—has a different vision, called the minority report. Anderton's only hope of survival is to download the report directly from Agatha's memory, find his potential victim and figure out who set him up."
Part of the joy of watching a well-made thriller is experiencing each plot twist and revelation as it occurs ... why ruin these moments for potential film viewers? Some of these revelations that Ms. White so casually mentions don't even occur until more than an hour into the movie. A good review should discuss the execution of a work of art, but should ultimately refrain from giving up anything in the storyline that might detract from the viewer's joy of discovery.
Another point she raises seems somewhat unfair, and I wonder if she really thought about the implications of her comment before posting it:
" ... there are certainly plot holes (if the Pre-Cogs can see only murders within the small area of Washington, D.C., couldn't criminals just lure their victims out of the city and kill them there?) ... "
Actually, this point is addressed in the film. Murderers are free to commit their crimes outside of Washington, and any thinking criminal would probably do just that ... in the movie, however, the workers at Precrime clearly state that almost all of their cases now are crimes of passion, not premeditated murders (they even go to the trouble of mentioning and explaining the difference between the brown and red balls to convey this point). We are explicitly told that premeditated murders in Washington, D.C. are no longer even attempted, which is what makes Anderton's case so unique.
And lastly, her final remarks (inexplicably italicized) did not ring true at all:
"Though I loved the film, the overly blatant product placement was a bit much. If fictional companies had been used I would have given the filmmakers credit for social commentary, but by using actual high-profile sponsors, they seem to be embracing the institution of commercialism rather than
critiquing it."
This was a very confusing comment, since it seems quite clear to me that [Steven] Spielberg was not at all interested in attempting to "critique" commercialism with this film. In fact, he was trying to do quite the opposite, trying to create a totally realistic, immersive world that was truly a future-projection of our own. He was so deeply concerned with this type of accurate speculation that he (much like Stanley Kubrick did with 2001) assembled together an entire team of leading scientists and futurists in order to discuss possible discoveries and technological advances.
Regardless of Ms. White's own personal viewpoints on commercialism, I can assure you that in the future, corporations will continue to target consumers ... yes, even corporations such as Lexus and The Gap. Spielberg's use of real companies lent an incredible amount of weight and realism to the film, while using "fake" ads would have destroyed this whole illusion, giving the impression that we were not really seeing some future America at all, but rather some alternative fantasy universe where all of our present-day corporate giants had mysteriously disappeared and been replaced by unknowns. Many of our companies from 50 years ago are still around today, and many of our companies from today will certainly
be here 50 years hence—to me, this just seems like good, logical, speculative fiction, immersing the viewer in familiar symbols and connecting them to the future depicted in the film in a very direct, meaningful way. In other words, the story called for real ads, and using fake ones would not only have seemed unrealistic, it would have been downright intrusive. If Ms. White wanted to see a critique of commercialism, she should probably have reviewed a movie that actually attempts to deal with commercialism as one of its themes—there are plenty of them out there. (Fight Club is just one great example.) Certainly, she should not expect an economic critique from a film that is attempting to construct an accurate, fully-formed, "hyper-realistic" (in her words) projection of our own world.
Instead of inserting her own prejudices, I would like to have seen Ms. White grant us some insight into the themes that the movie actually does deal with: loss of privacy, innocence vs. guilt, freedom vs. free will, etc. This movie resonates deeply with many important issues facing the American people and our government, especially after September 11th, and yet she doesn't even touch on these issues.
Thank you for your time.
Stephen C. Hill
thornkings@attbi.com
understand that [the SCI FI Channel's] recent original film, Dog Soldiers, was a huge success. However, I must confess that I just didn't get it! I did not understand the turn of events at the end. In fact, I assumed that I had simply missed something so I actually watched the encore showing a few
hours later. And still, I'm at a loss to explain this film. Consequently, I'm very frustrated and annoyed and I feel that I've been ripped-off, that I wasted a total of four hours of my life on this film that was very big on atmosphere but which didn't seem to make much sense.
I am not a stupid person, so when I don't understand something, it usually means that it was rather unclear or muddy. Can someone please take a few minutes to explain Dog Soldiers to me? [Warning: Spoilers ahead.] First of all, who are these werewolves and where did they come from? Was that ever addressed in the film? This plot point was unclear to me. Secondly, at the end of the film, it appears that the woman is a werewolf and that she has been playing some sort of cat-and-mouse game with the human soldiers all along. Why? What was her logic or reason for luring them in and
pretending to be human and actually helping to kill off the werewolves? This part of the film was also very unclear to me.
I would greatly appreciate an explanation of the plot of Dog Soldiers, particularly the ending and the two plot points mentioned above. Thank you.
Wayne Diana
mrbroadway@earthlink.net
hy live-action? Why not make animated versions of the best SF books ever being put in the shelves? There are so many moments in every SF tomes that are admittedly too expensive, if not just impossible, to be put in live-action. Animation, in theory, at least, should at least cut most of the budget made
in live-action films, only it takes time longer to make one than normal films. Casting today is getting quite expensive, with most actors demanding salaries almost the same price as it is to make special effects. Also, it's less risky to put any live actors in danger when performing stunts. These and other points should tell you the many limits in making live-action.
But what matters more is that the unlimited levels of imagination in animation can bring out the ideas and visions put out by SF authors into fruition. Imagine seeing Ringworld in angles proved impossible if made into live-action. Or, the agonies of fighting a Forever War against the Taurians. Or huge space battles, or various alien species, or the endless void of cyberspace. Everything is or should be possible in animation.
But why insist on live-action? Is it to see famous faces playing the main characters of any SF books? Is it to see how aliens and technologies are being brought out in reality? What's the allure of flesh and blood versions of SF books?
Animation today is gaining recognition with recent success stories of studios such as Dreamworks and Pixar, and the rise of many independent animation studios, as well as it is as a growing industry in parts of Europe and Asia, including France and Japan. Animation too is coming step by step out of the same neglected ghettos as SF as more of a medium than a genre, so it should be obvious that the two should meet at a crossroad somewhere. Animation is seen as a mere child's toy as much as SF is viewed as a mere geek's domain. Besides, if the anime industry in Japan is still stuck in boy-&-mech or boy-meets-all-kinds-of-girls-who-wanna-do-him shows, the creative forces behind it should at least turn to the Brins, the Herberts or the Asimovs of the world to make a good anime.
Actually, there should be other good reasons why animation is better at adapting SF books than live-action, and the ones I've mentioned are the only best that I can give out. I do admit I'm quite biased at this, and I'm willing to hear more debates regarding animation vs. live-action in adapting SF
books. Thank you.
Ahmad Zaki Zakaria
zakizakaria898@hotmail.com
would like to respond to Brian L. Miller ("Hulk Rumors Should Not Be Believed") and Justin Graham's ("Hulk May Offer Pleasant Surprise") takes on my
letter ("Hulk Fan Turns Green With Anger") about proposed (and since denied) changes to The Hulk's origin in Ang Lee's upcoming film based on the Marvel Comics character.
First, I apologize if I was incorrect about crediting the rumor to Lee himself. I thought it was presented as being from his camp, if not the director himself. Certainly, it was a rumor, and it was labeled that way by SCIFI.com when it was first posted, but it seemed to have been written in a fairly firm way. I would also like to point out that, sometimes, rumors are also denied to throw fans off as well.
Be that as it may, I'm sorry that Mr. Miller felt it was necessary to bring up the "if it's on the Internet, it must be true" comment. No, I don't usually believe everything that's on the 'Net. On the other hand, I—and I think many fans—rely on SCIFI.com for information about genre projects.
Perhaps stupidly, I thought something posted on SCIFI.com specifically might actually be true.
Also, "getting over it" is something I've told many fans on a number of subjects, including as the former editor of a sci-fi/fantasy webzine myself. This has been especially true of the many Star Trek projects (of which I have generally enjoyed all of) just to name a few. I agree that The Hulk movie, in and of itself, will probably be quite entertaining, especially if Lee's previous promises to focus on Banner's psyche hold up. Banner is one of the few comic book heroes whose entire existence is based on alternate- or multiple-personality disorder (albeit gamma radiation induced).
Hopefully, the movie will get audiences into the question comic book readers have had for decades: How much of The Hulk was already in Bruce Banner long before he got hit with the radiation?
I also must point out what I think was a comment taken out of context by Mr. Graham. I never said that the version of Spider-Man in the current movie shooting organic webs "fit," merely that I found it palatable. I, too, was one of those many people upset over the change because I felt that Sam Raimi's explanation of the change actually put down some very intelligent young people.
He had said something to the effect that he didn't think it was believable to have a kid who would come up with the web-shooter technology, much less the webbing. I think that's ludicrous, as a matter of fact! I think it's perfectly plausible (certainly in the context of a super-hero movie) to have
Peter Parker come up with them. Saying that the organic webbing would make Parker more sympathetic to today's movie goers didn't go over well with me, but hey, the movie's great and obviously it didn't bother people that much.
What I did say (which Mr. Miller did get right) is that I felt Peter getting bit by a genetically enhanced spider made more sense today than being bitten by a radioactive one.
And, by the way, I won't be pleasantly surprised by The Hulk movie at all. As I think I said in my letter, I respect Lee's work. I have a feeling I'll simply be pleasantly entertained and ... as long as none of these silly rumors turn out to be true ... excited to see the movie when it comes out.
Thanks for letting me clarify.
Martin L. Cahn
m2cahn@mindspring.com
his is in response to Martin Cahn's outrage to certain changes Ang Lee is making to Bruce Banner's monstrous alter ego in The Hulk ("Hulk Fan Turns Green With Anger"). Specifically, Mr. Cahn is upset with the rumor that irradiated, feral dogs will be the cause of Banner's transformation into the Hulk ("Hulk Detail Revealed").
I am not surprised Ang Lee would tweak the Hulk's origin for a contemporary audience. Because of test bans, the United States military cannot detonate nuclear weapons on American soil as they did in the 1960s when the Hulk comics debuted. Still, the "hulk dogs" concept seemed pretty far out even as a Internet rumor.
Sure enough, Comics2Film debunked the "hulk dogs" rumor in an article posted June 13. On Comicon.com's message boards, the writer of the official novelization of The Hulk, Peter David, proclaimed the story was "bogus." So, Mr. Cahn's fears of any hokey "hulk dogs" appearing in The Hulk are unfounded. I suggest the site managers of Sci Fi Wire post an immediate retraction to prevent any further confusion on this issue.
Frederick D. Weaver
Duane106@olg.com
Assistant Editor Brian Murphy responds:
As Mr. Weaver points out, the rumors of the feral dogs turning Bruce Banner into the Hulk appear to be just that—rumors. As to his suggestion about a retraction, I will point Mr. Weaver and fellow Science Fiction Weekly readers to last week's News column. In the Briefly Noted section (near the bottom), you'll see a comment from noted author Peter David disputing said rumor. This same comment was also posted in Sci Fi Wire.
Thanks for keeping us on our toes!
Best,
Brian
have been extremely disappointed in the new season of Stargate SG-1. When SG-1 moved to the SCI FI Channel, and lost one of the actors, I thought that would be an ideal opportunity for a fresh start. The show is mired in superficial
dialogue and shallow plot development. From a marketing point of view this is not necessarily a bad thing: SG-1 has a loyal audience, advertisers love that, so don't futz with it. From the standpoint of what makes good sci-fi, however, this is a profound disappointment.
So what's the problem? I fear that SG-1 is going the way of the other less thoughtful, less reflective, science fiction television disasters like Andromeda and the late Roddenberry's other monstrosity Earth: Final Conflict. In each of these shows, what could be profound and thoughtful issues are treated sophomorically. Trite plots, superficial character development and addressing what could be really intense subject matter thoughtlessly, turns off many viewers who are looking for a more substantive and engaging science fiction experience. (For an example of what is a "substantive and engaging science fiction experience," watch Babylon 5, Farscape or Blake's 7).
Without a major overhaul of the show, which would alienate the core audience, what can be done? Here's just one idea—subtly link real-life events with plot development. Look to the original Star Trek series as a model. For example, if we are losing this war, then have a frank discussion about how to win it, including launching acts of terrorism against the enemy. Use this as an opportunity to have a thoughtful philosophical discussion; weigh the pros and cons of terrorism from the point of view of those who are not in a position of power. Don't just whitewash the issue by stating moral platitudes, but really wrestle with it and come up with examined thoughtful and morally justifiable conclusions.
Finally, I am sure that the show is doing just fine in the ratings. There will always be a core audience of younger viewers who will be attracted to what the show has to offer. But keeping and maintaining this audience is not mutually exclusive with attracting a different, more mature audience
that has more intellectually demanding expectations. We'll be watching, and waiting.
Peter Boghossian
pete@boghossian.com
eez Louise everybody ("Buffy Ending Not Inevitable", "Joss Whedon Acted Alone", "Buffy Decisions Made by Viewers", " PC Plotting Would Destroy Buffy", "Joss Whedon Made the Write Choice", "Buffy Brickbats Are Absurd", "Buffy's Good Goes Astray" and "Buffy Broadcasts Bad Message").
[Warning: Spoilers follow.]
Tara is dead, get over it. Someone on Buffy or Angel usually dies or is written out every season—Oz, Buffy's Mom, the high-school principal, Riley, Giles, Darla, Merle, Loren, etc. One of the points of the show is that the Slayer's life (and Angel's) is full of danger and loss. They call themselves the Scooby Gang, but no one on the show is risk free. I wager that next season Xander or Anya will be the next to be killed off.
Whedon can kill anyone of them off at any time. While there are clever jokes, there is also the dark thread that runs through every season. I disagree with the person who says that Whedon could have used some other way of sending Willow over the evil edge. That was a powerful scene. Nothing else to send Willow into a dark uncontrollable rage would have been believable except the loss of Tara with whom she had just reconciled.
It also made Willow's skinning of Warren justified, especially after his former girlfriend's ghost appeared to accuse Warren of rape and murder. That, too, was a powerful scene. I hope Willow's punishment for Warren's death is not too severe. That psychopathic boy deserved to die.
As I see it, Willow is a bisexual. She was in love and making it with Xander, then Oz, and then Tara. Willow was heartbroken when Oz left. I am amazed that some people have made them the unassailable poster girls for the lesbian culture. I repeat, Tara is dead. People die on Buffy. Willow must grieve and the show goes on. Get over it.
T. Hannibal Gay
Hannibal@Hotmail.com
obert A. Black wrote [warning: spoilers follow] in his article "Buffy Ending Not Inevitable"
that, "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 the hurt and loss suffered by gay and questioning young people who saw Willow and Tara as symbols of hope."
I've got two words to say in response.
Tough.
Deal.
Neither Joss Whedon nor Mutant Enemy were obligated to break cliches, preserve a positive onscreen lesbian relationship or further the employment of Amber Benson. They were obligated only to themselves; to tell the story they wanted to tell.
I can comprehend criticizing the storyline they chose to follow, but to hold them responsible "for the outrage and sense of betrayal felt by the gay community and its supporters" is absurd. Someone needs to grow a thicker skin if the death of a TV character causes "outrage" and "betrayal."
That this criticism is directed at Buffy the Vampire Slayer—where no relationship has found a happy ending—is even the more baffling.
James Ellis
ellisj@cadvision.com
read Mr. Edelman's editorial "Variety is the Price of Life", and I am in
total agreement with his basic premise. Science fiction fans are considered "nuts," and the media does everything it can to show this. On the other hand ....
Sometimes, I think we fans shoot ourselves in the foot. As in every group, there are those who go to extremes. Since the media makes profits on "sensational" stories, which do you think they're going to go for—the group of fans dressed in T-shirts and jeans discussing the utopian/dystopian dichotomy of Things to Come by H.G. Wells, or the group of costumed Beauty and the Beast fans arguing heatedly over who was better—Catherine or Diana? (I witnessed one of these arguments once—made me wonder if fans should be required to get rabies and distemper shots!) Or the Phantom of the Opera fans who rented all the rooms on one floor of the hotel so they could recreate the "Lair" and sing the music all night long? (Met them, too). Or the people playing the Star Wars live-action roleplaying game, running all over the hotel in their costumes? (Played in this one—great fun!)
Is this a trick question?
It is a fantasy of mine that society suddenly realizes that sci-fan fans are not the stereotypical nerdy, geeky losers living in their parents' basements, doing science fiction because they can't handle reality. And even better, Hollywood realizes it, and starts producing films that reflects the knowledge that sci-fi fans love strong story and strong characters even more than cool effects. Imagine—no crappy remakes like the recent Rollerball!
(Basks for a moment in the glow of a perfect world.)
Ah, well. At least Hollywood is starting to realize that there is real money to be made from sci-fi fans when the movie is more than just cool effects, that strong story and strong characters are just as important to us as to the people who go to films like The Sum of All Fears and Silence of
the Lambs.
Keep the faith, Mr. Edelman.
Rachel Maley
rmaley@cox.net
tend to agree with [Scott Edelman's] comments ("Variety is the Price of Life") about science fiction being damned
with faint praise. Of course, I think that too much of science fiction, the science fiction in movies, is based on the science fiction that was written during the early days of the field, that is, science fiction space opera, or monsters and the like. This is why I don't consider myself a huge fan of
Star Wars. Oddly enough, I do love the science-fiction movies of the '50s, with their radiation-created monsters. So I'm not consistent, I know. And I do read humorous and light science fiction. But I also read what is called "hard" science fiction, and that is my favorite kind of science fiction— [it's] forward looking, yet is based on a rational consideration of the universe around us.
Only occasionally is hard science fiction the basis for a movie. And I don't know if movie producers, with only a general idea of what the best science fiction provides, would ever go for producing, in significant numbers, the kind of intelligent science fiction that the average SF reader
reads on a regular basis. Star Wars is science fiction, and highly entertaining, but one would be hard put to say that these movies are anything near adult in nature.
So, one reason science fiction may not be getting any respect is that the public at large may not know what the best of the literature can provide.
Allen Smith
bigal4151@aol.com
was at first confused, then amused by the torrent of damnation, vilification and praise ("Left Behind Should Be Left Alone", "Fiction Does Not Replace Reality" and
"Left Behind Is Not Blasphemy") that fell from the heavens like a Spring shower over Kevin Ahearn's email on Left Behind ("Fantasy May Border on Blasphemy"). I have not read the book, but I have seen the movie, which I found to be highly entertaining. It had good actors, a fine plot and some excellent photography. I did not find any kind of Catholic or any other religion-bashing (to make sure all is disclosed, I am a Presbyterian, but I was raised Catholic and I have no trouble worshipping with my Roman brethren—I am also the assistant editor of a Christian SF magazine) going on through the movie. For Pete's sake, an evangelical minister was one of those left behind! But hey, let it pass. In a country of nearly 300 million souls, you can always find a vocal minority who will call cheese curdled milk, and wine spoiled grape juice.
I read the letters at least three times trying to understand what it was all about, and finally figured out that I had missed the original submission by Mr. Ahearn. So I clicked on the conveniently supplied link and read that controversial tome. The problem is that I have read that document three times now, and I still cannot figure out what Mr. Ahearn was trying to say.
In my humble opinion, a lot of people got excited about a lot of nothing. For pity's sake, people, exhaust your emotions on something that makes sense next time.
John A.M. Darnell
John.Darnell@walsworth.com
en in Black II director Barry Sonnenfeld told SCI FI Wire that the upcoming sequel movie will clock in at a trim 87 minutes and 26 seconds. "When I was growing up, every movie was 90 minutes long," Sonnenfeld said in an interview. "The show times at the Loews on 175th Street and Broadway [in New York City] were 2,4, 6, 8 and 10" ("Sonnenfeld Gets Curt In MIB II").
That is the most stupid response I've ever heard! Back when he was going to movies, they only cost two bucks! Hell, I want the most I can get for my $8.50! And if that means you have to make the actors speak slower, or add more action or tell more story, the better. To limit a movie just because that was the way it was done or to satisfy a theater preference is ridiculous, a movie should tell a story and be entertaining and it should take as long as it takes.
Sorry, but I just had to respond to such a incredibly nearsighted comment.
Gregory Manhart
GManhart@fciconnect.com
here did all these full-screen DVDs come from? For the second time now, the first being The Mummy
Returns, I have unknowingly purchased a DVD that only has a full-screen version. As I loaded up Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, I was dismayed at the, "This movie has been modified to fit the screen" message it displayed. I grabbed the box and searched for any clue that it was not widescreen. On the back of the box, in small type, along the bottom edge there it was, the note stating the format of the video.
As an early adopter of DVD, back in 1998 I bought my first RCA DVD player for about $400, I've always thought of DVD as home video in it's highest quality and purest form. Only once TV shows began to appear on DVD did I even contemplate a full-screen, or only full screen, DVD. Most all movies originally released on DVD were wide-screen or provided both wide- and full-screen versions.
I'm not saying that DVD movies shouldn't be released in full-screen versions, especially with the mass market adoption of DVD. Not everyone likes letterbox's black bars or has a TV big enough to make it practical.
I do call for better packaging with either stickers, display hangers or cover printing to clearly identify every DVD as to the format it contains. This would save me return trips to the store, and the retailers dealing with returned open DVDs. Fortunately, the first time this happened they did accept my exchange, and will hopefully accept this one as well.
I do have one positive point about the full-screen Harry Potter DVD. The full-screen version is still very watchable with limited panning or scanning that hacks off important images.
Tom Loveman
tloveman@earthlink.net
Back to the top.
