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.
found Stephen Hill's letter ("Minority Review Has Major Flaws")regarding your review of Minority Report to be deeply disturbing. Why? I actually agree with most of his comments. What I find scary is that he didn't perceive the movie as a critique of
commercialism.
One of the best things about serious science fiction is that, by showing us a slightly skewed vision of our world, it gets us to question our perceptions and assumptions about ourselves and our society. Right now, we live in a world in which commercialism has gradually crept up to engulf our day-to-day existence. From endless Internet popup ads to intrusive telemarketers to stadiums named after office supply chains, we are swimming in a sea of advertising.
Minority Report shows us a logically extrapolated vision of our near future where our very identities are public domain items, free to be used by advertisers at any time. The holographic billboards in the movie ID individuals on the spot and generate custom ads targeted at them. You don't
want the entire world to know what you bought the last time you were at The Gap? Too bad! The movie asks us: Is this the kind of world you want to live in? OK, how different is it from our own? Mr. Hill's failure to notice the difference suggests that we may be closer to this world than we think.
Obviously, something has happened to our society between now and the movie's world of 2054. There are no apparent legal barriers to arresting and imprisoning citizens for crimes that they haven't yet committed. Even in the privacy of their own homes, even while making love, people unquestioningly
submit to identity checks. Did this happen because of some major disaster? Could we be headed that way? By not explicating how this shift occurred the movie suggests that just drifted into it by degrees, possibly the scariest scenario of all.
Matt Frey
mattgfrey@aol.com
was pleasantly surprised at the film version of Minority Report, although it wasn't a carbon copy of the short story (few movies are like that, because they have to show rather than tell what's going on in the minds of the characters), I saw it as a reasonably intelligent alternative to the Schwarzeneggerized version of Total Recall. Tom Cruise, unlike Arnold, is close to us and more believable than Arnold was, and the cinematography was more washed out but truer to the mood of the original. The best actor in the whole thing, in my opinion, was not Cruise, but Steve Harris—he brought the same smolder that he gives to Eugene Young on The Practice. The film industry will make a big mistake if they don't give him the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor.
Don't misunderstand me; the occasional bubblegum-for-the-brain movie is a relief from everyday stresses, but I feel that SF must mature to stay relevant to its audience. Time for SF to grow up, folks. Yes, fluffy movies like Men in Black, Lilo & Stitch, and the Star Wars prequels will continue to rule the box office, but Minority Report is the one most likely to do what A.I. sadly couldn't—namely, make us think about our world.
And to the writer who thought that MIBII was too short ("Black II Comment Turns Fan Red"): I haven't seen the movie yet, but just wait for the director's cut and the DVD—I'm sure there must be a 10-hour version planned in there somewhere.
Henrik Harbin
kirneh1@cox.net
totally agree with Mr. Edelman's response to the people who picture sci-fi or comics enthusiasts as weird or maladjusted ("Variety is the Price of Life"). I'm also a big sci-fi fan and although I don't attend conventions or wear costumes I see nothing wrong with the people who do. Every type of fandom has its own unique quirks such as watching NFL drafts for two days or dressing as a Confederate soldier in battle reenactments. Science fiction has fostered many of the dreams that led to real life accomplishments, such as the space program. People seem to have an innate fear of allowing their imagination to roam. What the non-enthusiasts don't realize is that good literature, no matter
the genre, comes from the heart and applies to human experience. People need to get away mentally sometimes and if these movies and books help, more power to them. The reason Spider-Man is doing so well is that beyond the fantastic it has a moral to it, as well as some poignant moments. If the ridiculers want to compare apples to oranges let's mention a few of the popular mainstream entertainments: Survivor, The Mole, Real World, ad nauseum. Who's living in a fantasy world when you look at that drek? People need to live and let live, especially when it's a sane, peaceable outlet to the tensions most people have to endure in the "real world." Anyway, isn't Hollywood the definition of what's strange and irrational. How ironic for one of its reporters to point that finger at us.
Brett B.
Brettb@aol.com
ver the last few weeks a great many fans and readers have written in ("Hulk Will Overcome Recent Rumors", "Hulk Transformation Rumor Debunked", "Hulk Rumors Should Not Be Believed", "'70s Hulk Out-Muscles Lee's Version", "Hulk May Offer Pleasant Surprise", "Fan Disgruntled by Hulk Revision" and "Hulk Fan Turns Green With Anger") and commented on the rumored changes that Ang Lee and company have in mind for the Hulk movie. It might help everyone who's concerned to remember that as a concept the Hulk's premise was never exactly written in stone.
Even that other Mr. Lee, Stan the Man in this case, had a hard time dealing with the Hulk as a concept in the beginning. From the very first issue of The Incredible Hulk (May, 1962) the character's concept would change almost every issue. Pick up a copy of The Essential Hulk and you will see what I mean. At first, after Banner saves Rick Jones and gets exposed to gamma radiation he only changes into the Hulk when the sun goes down. Then he becomes the Hulk all the time but Rick Jones can control him as long as Jones is awake. So Jones keeps the Hulk in this solid concrete prison that Banner had previously built so that he can sleep while the Hulk rages against the walls. Then Banner is cured of being the Hulk but he feels that he can now control the creature so he uses his machinery to periodically become the Hulk when needed. Then he loses all control and now he becomes the Hulk when he loses his temper and freaks out. By this time the Hulk had starred in six issues of his soon to be canceled comic and had made a half a dozen cameo appearances in some of the other Marvel books. So if today's Lee, Ang in this case, has to tweak an already abused origin so that it's more believable to today's audiences, then I'm willing to let him.
Randy Barrett
jrbarrett101@yahoo.com
bout the problem with DVD's not being labeled well as to being widescreen or fullscreen ("Widescreen Causes Wide Eyes"): I went to buy Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone on DVD and almost bought the full screen version myself. Luckily I read the fine print on the back and noticed that it said full screen. I had to go to a
few locations to find the widescreen version, as most places only [carried] the fullscreen version, including most rental paces. I don't know why the studios can't put both versions on the same disc.
The following contains a lot of my own opinions about DVD purchasers. When I first read about DVD's a few years ago one of the selling points was that both versions could be made available on the same disc. But most early DVDs included only the widescreen version. After the format became very popular more and more people starting complaining to rental places about the black bars and studios started caving to demands and put out more fullscreen DVDs. Most of the people complaining are only renting DVDs to watch the movie just like they did with VHS, but now DVD is the hot format. I doubt they even care about the extras. The [people who] buy the fullscreen versions are in for a surprise a few years from now when they go to buy a TV set and end up having to buy a widescreen set. They will now be
complaining about the black bars on the sides of the screen, and unlike widescreen versions of DVD's they will not be able to fix this problem. My local video place mistakenly put a sticker over the extras side of a Jeepers Creepers DVD when they put it on the shelf. Until I pointed it out, not one person who rented it had complained about the sticker, not a one had been interested enough in the extras to notice that the sticker would have kept them from viewing them. I checked, it had been rented several times.
Dewayne Matteson
heybert@webtv.net
ot too long ago, I wrote to Science Fiction Weekly concerning the seeming lack of stand alone novels. A number of people took this to mean I completely disapprove of print series. This couldn't be farther from the truth. I have read the Foundation series, the Lensman series, The Lord Of
The Rings, the Honor Harrington series, Turtledove's World War series and more Star Trek novels than I care to admit. I have also read the entire Left Behind series.
It is not blasphemous ("Fantasy May Border on Blasphemy"). This is a well-thought-out series with a strong basis in The Bible as a whole, not just the authors' view of the Book of Revelation. There are references to various books of the New Testament as well as references to numerous books of the Old Testament.
One difference between many (not all) fans of the Left Behind series is that the average fan of a given series is just that: a fan. The average fan of the Left Behind series is a believer. They don't just believe in Rayford Steele and Buck and Chloe Williams or even Anti-Christ Nicholae. They believe this is a representation of what could happen during the Tribulation. They believe in The Bible and they believe Christ is returning!
This is not to say that Catholics or any given Christian religion that does not believe in the Rapture or Tim LeHaye and Jerry Jenkins' representation of the Tribulation do not believe that Christ will return. Heavens no! These people however, are very, very vocal about their beliefs.
I would however like to know where the Catholic and Jew bashing was inserted into the series. I must have missed that part. LeHaye and Jenkins make it quite clear that those who were "born again" were taken up in the Rapture and those "left behind" had two simple choices: Give your life to
Jesus or throw your lot in with the Anti-Christ. Shortly after Anti-Christ Nicholae became Supreme Potentate, organized religion, whether it was Catholic, Pentecostal, Islam, Judaism or Buddhism, was outlawed. This pretty much places all religions aside from outright Satanism as criminal activity.
One problem I have encountered with the Left Behind series is that some members of the clergy, even the mid-western United States Pentecostal "born again" clergy, feel that too many people are putting too much faith into this series and leaving The Bible behind. This is misguided, but not blasphemy as the entire series has been written in reverence and takes its subject very seriously.
If you find it too serious for your taste, or perhaps not blasphemous and you're looking for something both humorous and blasphemous, then I highly recommend Robert A. Heinlein's Job. It also uses Bible text from both Old and New Testaments to make its point, it is one of the finest speculative fiction books ever written and it's funny.
Job is blasphemous. Left Behind isn't.
Keith Kitchen
BoyoKlaatu@aol.com
thought I'd respond to "Soldiers' Plot Is in the Doghouse". [Warning: Spoilers ahead.] I loved this film. I would dispute that the first plot point is "rather unclear or muddy." I thought it was perfectly clear in the film that the werewolves are the
family who live in the house. Presumably it is some kind of inherited trait, or one that the family infects their children with as they get older. I got the feeling that that family had been living on the isolated farm for generations, preying on cattle, deer and other wildlife. Beyond that, what
does it matter where they came from or how they originally became werewolves?
As for the second point, she has not been playing a game with the soldiers. Nor was she trying to kill the werewolves—in fact she knew very well that the soldiers' weapons couldn't permanently hurt them—only silver and fire could, and she didn't tell them that. She wanted them to keep the werewolves at bay.
As for why she was working with the soldiers, she explains that she was infected with lycanthropy against her will. She does not like being a werewolf, and resents the isolation it forces on her—"Do you think I wanted to run with the pack?" as she asks. She genuinely does want out, and
had hoped that the soldiers would have the skills and firepower to get out of the forest, taking her with them. She clearly has the willpower to resist the wolf in her, not being a naturally aggressive person, and might have been able to live a normal life amongst people. However, as the firepower ran out and more of soldiers died, she realized that they were not going to be able to escape after all, she changed sides to the pack. That is why she concocted the scam that rid the soldiers of their last means of escape (the car) and last effective weapon (the gas canister). That way, when she let the pack in, the soldiers wouldn't stand a chance, and the pack would be more likely to forgive her initial betrayal.
I know it isn't made absolutely obvious, in as much as she doesn't explain every stage of her thought processes, but it is there. You just have to extrapolate from what is said. It could probably have been clearer, and if the film has any flaws it is that scene when she lets in the werewolves, but
that didn't in any way stop it being a marvelously fun movie, with humor and action and scary werewolves.
Chiara MacGregor
Chiara_MacGregor@hotmail.com
have to admit that I like Ahmad Zaki Zakaria's idea of making animated SF films ("Anime Is the Answer to Live Action"). I must admit though, I'm a little puzzled as to where he got the idea that animation is cheaper to produce than live action. On the average, animation is more expensive. The money saved by not hiring big-name stars and using expensive special effects is quickly spent on the artists' salaries and the special effects required for animation. And assuming that the trend of hiring big-name actors to do voices for animated movies carries over to these new films we have the big-name actors' fees once again. Even if we use a computer to avoid having to have each individual cel drawn and painted by hand we still need quite a few artists to produce the movie. With approximately 172,800 frames to draw (I'm assuming a two-hour movie) the best way to keep characters consistent from frame to frame is to assign a team of artists to each character. So is the average actor (not everyone gets paid Tom Hanks or Julia Roberts wages after all) working for two weeks or even two months really cheaper than, say, five animators working for two years? And that's not counting the actor you'd need to hire to provide the voice either.
Another problem with animation is that most people still think of it as strictly for kids. I know that we Science Fiction Weekly readers don't think that way, but that's the general public perception at the moment. I'm sure we'd all love to see that change within our lifetimes. At the moment, though, the reality is that you'll have a much larger audience for Kenneth Branagh in Hamlet than you would for an animated Hamlet with Kenneth Branagh's voice.
Even we SFWeekly readers aren't totally immune to such misperceptions. Take Ahmad's comments about Japanese anime for example: "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 ..." There's a lot more to the anime industry than just these two types. Even if we limit ourselves to anime that have been released in the USA there are more. In fact if we even limit ourselves to just the most popular anime series on US TV—Dragonball Z, Pokémon, and Digimon—we see that none of them fit into either of the two modes that the Japanese anime industry is supposedly "stuck" in. In fact the anime industry has been responsible for quite a number of films and TV series that combine animation and SF. I'm sure any number of SFWeekly readers, myself included, would be happy to provide Ahmad with a recommended viewing list if he wishes.
And as far as the comment, "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," goes, well, they've met already, and have been working happily together since at least
the days of The Jetsons, if not earlier.
One assumption that seems to be running through Ahmad's letter is that these animated films will adapt existing literary works. But must they all be adaptations? Film is a visual medium, and what works well in a book won't necessarily work as well on screen. I'm sure that the Ringworld I imagine is subtly different from the one that Ahmad imagines, and both are probably different than the artist for an animated version would imagine. I'd be perfectly happy with original films.
There's certainly nothing wrong with having more animated SF movies (and TV shows even) to add to the already generous variety that's available. About the only thing keeping it from happening in the USA is the expense and the fact that the average movie-goer thinks of animation as kid stuff. And
there's more to anime than robots and harems. Such perceptions can be changed—it just takes patience and a steady stream of quality counterexamples.
Stewart Tame
sbt@ans.net
've been for them making more animated SF for a long time ("Anime Is the Answer to Live Action"). For stories with anthropomorphic animals or aliens it seems quite sensible. Simak's The City or some of Cordwainer Smith's Underpeople stories I think would be great in animated or even anime format. It'd also introduce more people to authors who've become largely forgotten. Many more recent works would also make more sense in animated form. Ringworld was a sensible choice, and even some works by [C.J.] Cherryh or [Vernor] Vinge might make sense in animated form. Oddly enough some literature is the same way. Though I personally loathed Call of the Wild I think it would make more sense animated. So would much Kipling which has often been animated. Even some Greek, American Indian and Asian myths I think
work better animated. As animation is becoming more mature in the states it may even be possible.
However I think Ahmad Z. Zakaria goes a bit overboard in his, understandable, enthusiasm. Live action does have advantages. We live in live action not animation. So for more Earth-based near-future human SF stories I think live action is more appropriate. If Dying Inside, Beggars in Spain or even Forever War and Ender's Game were to be filmed I think live action would be the right choice. I'm not saying animation would automatically be bad, but I think it would be unnecessary and counterproductive. Though I suppose Ender's Game could have moments of computer animation in the training games and VR type stuff they did.
Lastly on animation, the review that said cartoon sex is always fascinating, well I just have to say "ick." Oh well, not for me to judge.
Thomas Rogov
TRogov@sciam.com
atrick Stewart's "irritation at the presence of Nemesis' script on the Internet" ("Stewart Almost Declined Nemesis") is fully justified. "I understand people wanting to know who's in it, who are the villains, but blow-by-blow accounts mystify me."
What irritates and mystifies me is that Star Trek has abandoned its stellar credo, "To boldly go where no man [one] has gone before," to churn out movies meekly revisiting where Star Trek fans have already been—time travel, the Borg, Kahn, the Vulcans, the Klingons and the Romulans all sudsed up with "character scenes" better done on television.
(Ironically, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, berated for all its many flaws, at least attempted to take us out to encounter a mystery. Final Frontier also gave it a shot, but it was god-awful and filled with hopelessly lame "cast ensemble" moments.)
Nemesis may be the last Star Trek movie and that would be a Hollywood shame. If the longest and greatest sci-fi future series ever is to end, then let it leave its millions of loyal fans aglow with a story that begins with the Enterprise in uncharted space and before the opening credits have finished rolling....
C'mon, Paramount, get bold! Take us where we've never been before. We Trekkers are forever raring to go!
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
Back to the top.
