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.
fter all the mediocre reviews that Men in Black II received, I'm delighted
to report that it's a good movie. It's fun and good-natured and doesn't take itself seriously. I actually enjoyed it more than [the first] MIB and am now looking forward to [a third installment].
There's been a number of complaints here about nitpicking movies, especially Attack of the Clones. I would like to humbly suggest that when you nitpick that a movie was bad because in one scene it didn't make sense that (fill in the blanks), what's really being said is that the movie was pretty bad. What's important about a movie is that it does what it promises to do.
Spider-Man promised to bring a comic book to life and did. It was a
wonderful show. Same with Minority Report. Attack of the Clones failed miserably on every level except the special effects, and the problem is that a special-effects action scene only works if you care about the characters. If you don't care, then you might as well be watching a video game. Clones gave nothing to care about. In Spider-Man, you care deeply about the hero.
In Minority Report, you care about the situation and you're left with some very challenging questions at the end. Men in Black II doesn't try to be anything but a hoot, and it succeeds completely at that level. Now, you can nitpick each of these afterwards, but it doesn't take away from the sheer enjoyment during the show—and that's what makes a good movie.
Marian Powell
mepowell@cybermesa.com
egarding Gregory Manhart's letter "Black II Comment Turns Fan Red": In it, he said that Barry Sonnenfeld's idea to make Men in Black II just 87 minutes long was a stupid thing to do and just isn't worth the $8.50 you pay to see the movie. Well, I just saw Men in Black II yesterday and I thought it was worth every penny that I paid to see it, even though it was only 87 minutes long. For him to worry about whether a movie is worth the money spent to see it because of the length is absurd in my opinion.
I thought it was pretty damn good for the length of it. There was lots of humor and action, along with cool special effects. Actually, I think since it was only 87 minutes long, it made it even more exciting to watch and you didn't get bored sitting there for a couple of hours listening to a bunch of actors talk for the majority of the time. Also, I think Gregory should watch the movie before he says it's a waste of money. It's like that old saying, "Don't judge a book by it's cover." Or in this case, "Don't judge a movie by its length." Watch it before you make an ignorant judgement like that. Thank you.
Mike Vodnoski
michaelaaron@shaw.ca
r. Di Filippo's review of The Scar in your most recent edition manages to give away every major plot twist in the novel. This is a disservice to your readers, most of whom (like me) presumably have not read the book yet.
I visited your site for the book reviews. I am not sure if I will do so in the future.
Bill Gibson
wgibs@hotmail.com
Reviewer Paul Di Filippo responds:
The format of the reviews at SF Weekly require a rather extensive plot synopsis as the opening gambit in each review. When composing such accounts, I strive mightily not to spoil the suspense and enjoyment that the reader will receive upon their own reading of the book under discussion. Nonetheless, it's a fine line to walk between giving away too much and offering enough plot points for the discussion to continue in the second half of the review. Have you read The Scar yet, Bill? I'd be surprised if my account of its action gave away even a quarter of the treats that China Miéville has in store.
Best,
Paul
n your online letters dated July 1, a reader states he believes Star Trek is going nowhere ("Trek Is Boldly Going Nowhere"). From his letter, it feels as if a physical destination is to what he refers. To this I would say, you're partially right. Trek is not solely limited to just "going places."
In a few interviews, Gene Roddenberry stated that he liked using
Trek as an exploration of humanity and other human conditions. Star Trek: Nemesis will physically take us to the homeworld of the Remans. An alien race in our backyard all this time, yet never explored. Their interaction is sure to give us yet again a look at humanity and how we deal with this conflict. After nearly 600 hours of Trek, there are still "places" to go and "things" to be explored. I'm looking forward to STX and would encourage all Trek fans and passive sci-fi viewers to go check it out on December 13.
Craig Parnell
parnellbc_76@yahoo.com
would like to offer what appears to be a minority report on Minority Report. On the whole, I found it a mildly entertaining but ultimately forgettable piece of SF candy, dominated by (for the most part) gratuitous special effects and overly long, less-than-credible chase scenes (always a sure sign that there's not too much going on upstairs), filled to overflowing with devices that cover up a plot that is itself filled with holes, and dominated by a specious and unconvincing sentimentality that seems to be Spielberg's trademark.
The "surprise" ending [warning: spoilers ahead], revealing the villain as the likeable old guy whom no one suspects, is so hackneyed that it actually did come as something of a surprise to me: I was surprised that the film's creators would think they could get away with such an unoriginal conclusion. While we're on the subject of endings, does anyone remember Gattaca? It's only one of many recent (and far more thoughtful) films with an identical ending.
Finally, I didn't even think Tom Cruise was particularly well cast. He's
simply too impeccably cleancut to be convincing as the presumably jaded, streetwise cop haunted by memories of personal tragedy that verisimilitude would expect him to be.
Maybe it's unwise to try to squeeze a two-hour film out of a short story, but I saw an awful lot of padding, pablum and just plain silliness. (The wooden balls with the names of victims and perpetrators on them? Give me a break!)
Terry Matheson
mathsnt@duke.usask.ca
n response to Mr. Kitchen ("Heinlein More Blasphemous Than LB"): Bashing, used in the context of your letter, usually means degrading or denigrating a person, thing or idea. The idea of, "If you don't follow my own particular set of ideals equates you with Satan/Evil/the Anti-Christ" is bashing those others who don't follow that path.
Heinlein used Bible quotations in Job to illustrate his point that any restrictive (i.e., I'm chosen and you're not, so you must be evil) religion is blasphemous, and that all religions, and all people, are the same in the eyes of God.
Quite frankly, Mr. Kitchen, I got half-way through the first Left Behind novel, put it down and never went back, not because I found them too serious or blasphemous, but because I found them narrow-minded, trite and very repetitive. Every idea that made them worth reading, has been done better and with more open-minded compassion for all living things in other novels. Job by Heinlein, for instance. The Lord of the Rings by Tolkien, for another. Left Behind, blasphemous? No. Poor fantasy? Yes.
I believe strongly in the tenets presented by Tolkien. I do not believe in the Rapture. If we cannot learn to value others who have different views as highly as we do those who agree with us, we are doomed to destroy each other as surely as Sauron wished to control and destroy all other life forms. I find the idea that "the destruction of anyone who doesn't agree with me is right and good," is more blasphemous than any quotation from any book.
I will leave you with a quote from another science-fiction grand master: Arthur C. Clarke's short story title, "The Nine Billion Names of God." Blasphemous, no. Good fiction, yes.
Peg Davis
FLAMT@excite.com
CI-FI president Bonnie Hammer's "excitement about SCI FI being part of the Universal family and having the opportunity to access the rich Universal library which includes a vast array of horror and sci-fi titles," would seem to usher in a new era for the channel—of old, old stuff.
Recycle, rehash, remake, re-imagine, why not rename it the RE-FI Channel? Didn't anyone upstairs learn anything from the Firestarter and Robocop miniseries? It's not that Quantum Leap and Tremors weren't worth making in the first place, but both have been done to death. After three movies, how many more stories can be told about giant killer worms? With a new (female "leaper"?) cast and the same old concept, how many additional leaps will be worth jumping up and down about?
Caught in a Catch-22, SCI FI seeks to "create new television experiences for a contemporary audience," but the rights to any fresh quality SF—from a novel, movie, script or video game, will be bought up for big bucks by Universal or another studio, leaving SCI FI only with cheap, secondhand
leftovers.
Such is the pecking order of the entertainment business. Isn't it time to start playing serious chicken with the Old Boy Network? Instead of taking stale handouts from the bottom of the feed barrel, Bonnie Hammer must mount an aggressive search for new material by new talent.
That's the quantum leap SCI FI's got to make.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@AOL.COM
n the basis of the pre-broadcast advertising, I recommended SCI FI Channel's movie Dog Soldiers to friends of mine in an online forum where I am member. It sounded interesting. Imagine my
extreme disappointment with the movie once it aired.
A major pet peeve of mine: Why would the SCI FI Channel pay to produce a movie in which they had to subsequently delete about one third of the dialogue due to swearing before they could broadcast it? It was like trying to listen to Morse Code and was highly annoying. They didn't even attempt to "fudge" the dialogue by dubbing in "clean" words as they do with some theatrical movies once they reach TV (still annoying, but less so than the total gaps).
And as far the plot ... what a rip off of George Romero's much better Night of the Living Dead! Let's see ... isolated farm house that becomes refuge from the ravening hordes (check!), make a mad dash for the truck that is your last chance for transportation out of the situation (check!), barricade the windows, then show the creatures outside reaching through to claw at those inside (check!), have at least one person inside transform into one of the creatures after being bitten (check!), show one person with their guts hanging out (a la Romero's sequel, Dawn of the Dead, check!).
And where was the suspense? Quick MTV-style editing does not substitute for true suspense and action. Darting silhouettes and shadows fail to impress. The special effects harkened back to the
days of Hammer Studios, rather than present day SFX capabilities. "Ooh, ooh, I'm changing into a werewolf!" Disappear below the table ... cue the now clawed hand ... rise and show the colored
contacts in place. ... Even the original 1930's Wolfman with Lon Chaney Jr. had a better transformation scene! And if you want the real deal, as far as special effects for human-to-werewolf
transformation, I suggest renting the much superior American Werewolf in London (which also had a much superior plotline).
Over all, I was highly disappointed in the movie and extremely puzzled by its subsequent high ratings. I can only surmise that the many viewers were primarily of the MTV-generation who are used to such schlock, or were suckers, like me, who actually expected a quality, SCI FI Channel-branded product.
Sadly, I had to return to the forum where I had previously posted about the then upcoming Dog Soldiers, to post my poor review and apologies for recommending it in the first place.
John L.
tristran40@netscape.com
he X-Files season nine recently began on Sky TV in the UK. The original characters Scully and Skinner are largely out of character, Mulder's disappearance (again) is very badly handled and the new plots are clashing painfully with the old. In tandem with this, the British wing of the SF Channel has chosen to censor The Lone Gunmen, by not showing the pilot episode! Apparently because the plot bears a close similarity to the 9/11 attacks. Bizarrely, the powers that be at the SF Channel don't seem to be able to separate fiction from fact, or understand that not showing the episode isn't going to undo the real 9/11. Shame on them.
But getting back to X-Files season nine: the sad thing is, it didn't have to be this way. What is so difficult for the producers and writers to understand about ending the original X-Files, and continuing down a parallel stream? Doggett and Reyes, with their own chemistry and their own post 9/11 conspiracy plots, could have been to The X-Files what NYPD Blue was to Hill Street Blues. There would even have been room for Scully, as an occasional visiting character. But no, they had to take what was well past its sell-by date and kludge it together with the new, making a confusing product. The remnants of the old X-Files are not explained properly, and the newer plots are broken up to accommodate this jigsaw jumble.
Similarly, Trek turned to drek, Star Wars into star bores, Stargate disappeared up its own wormhole, and even the mighty Babylon 5 is revisited as Babylon Lite (the Rangers thing). While these once-bright ideas commit slow suicide before our eyes, others of high quality bite the dust prematurely. Prey, Brimstone, Crusade, American Gothic and Ultraviolet were all canceled way too early. Only Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Farscape, among the long runners, have managed to get better season by season. Not as a result of pushing the same old stuff, but because they're unafraid to grow their characters, treat the audience with respect, and take risks with the stories. Why can't other shows follow this example? It clearly leads to long term success, both critical and financial.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil@freeuk.com
egarding Scott Edelman's editorial ("Variety is the Price of Life") on Hollywood's snubbing of science fiction: If you want an good example of this, you have to look no further than the Academy Awards. The Academy is notorious for weighting its choices for Best Picture heavily towards big-money movies. I guess you can't really blame them for this, since the Oscars were created to promote Hollywood. But in spite of the fact that eight of the top 10 highest grossing movies of all
time, both domestically and internationally, are science fiction or fantasy films, they have never awarded a single Best Picture Oscar to such a film. (Unless you count Forrest Gump. I don't.)
Steven Spielberg was notoriously snubbed by the Academy until Schindler's
List. George Lucas has never received an Oscar in spite of almost single-handedly saving Hollywood's ass in the '70s. Look at what happened with Lord of the Rings. It is almost unheard of for a movie with 13 nominations to not take Best Picture. And yet it lost in every major category, receiving only technical awards. Even Ian McKellen's superb performance was passed over, in favor of a film (Iris) that most people in the Academy probably hadn't even seen until just before the voting. Hollywood has no problem handing out Best Picture awards to overblown cheese-fests like Titanic, Gladiator or Braveheart. (I'm not saying these are bad movies. People say "These are old-fashioned Hollywood epics. What do you expect?") But when they are confronted with a really good old-fashioned epic that happens to be a fantasy, suddenly they have to give the award to a small "serious" movie like A Beautiful Mind.
Matt Frey
mattgfrey@aol.com
Back to the top.
