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.
have just read Cindy White's review of Eight Legged Freaks, and can only
say I find her ridicule of 1950s B sci-fi movies smug, self-satisfied and myopic. She notes that the "good" things about '50s sci-fi flicks were the bad scripts and cheesy special effects. Then, she goes on to include the 1954 sci-fi classic Them as an example of these "so-bad-they're-only-fit-for-MST3K" movies. Hmm. It would appear Ms. White can't tell the difference between a good '50s B-movie, i.e., Them!, and a bad one, such as Killers from Space ...
Contrary to Ms. White's opinion, Them! does feature a well-written script, fairly interesting characters and special effects that were, for the time, cutting edge. The film holds up quite well, if one is wise enough to make allowances for the craft of special effects as it existed at the time. This isn't just my opinion—most video books still rate Them three stars or higher. In addition, given the time it was made, Tarantula isn't that bad a film, and while The Black Scorpion is routine, it does feature some nifty (for the time) stop-motion effects. Indeed, Them!, Tarantula and The Black Scorpion can all be enjoyed as entertaining grade-B pics today, and a bit of fun can be poked at parts of the latter two, but not in the all-patronizing tone Ms. White champions.
It simply isn't fair to judge '50s movies on the basis of 21st-century visual and production techniques. The 1950s produced some of the most fun and diverting sci-fi the screen has ever seen, much of it admittedly primitive, but a good deal of it exhilarating. And while Ms. White speaks
of the bad scripts, at least most '50s sci-fi stories were more logically consistent than the plots of many of today's mega-budget SF spectacles.
You know, I wonder if Ms. White is one of those modern-day viewers who must have everything look ultra-realistic and adhere to the dramatic standards (or should I say fads?) of the day. If that's the case, you have to wonder how the special effects standards of today will stack up against SFX in 50 years. In 2050, will that automatically make thoughtful SF films like A.I. Artificial Intelligence antique, fit only for derision? Or will it relegate well-made contemporary monster flicks such as Tremors to be of "astonishingly bad quality?" Speaking of Tremors, Ms. White's concluding paragraph indicates that she, apparently like the makers of Eight Legged Freaks, doesn't understand the difference between camp and comedy. The TV Batman of the 1960s was camp; Tremors is not. Instead, the latter film is a clever homage to '50s monster flicks that includes both horror and humor. The funny stuff involving the humans is actually funny—not tongue-superglued-in-the-cheek camp—while the horror and action stuff is played straight. Tremors' monsters are real monsters, not beastly buffoons a la Eight Legged Freaks.
Mike Bogue
mike.bogue@mail.atu.edu
ho knew how much fun giant worms attacking an isolated desert town would be? Tremors is a funny satire of 1950s monster films. In the same tradition, Eight Legged Freaks is a good film. The cliche of giant spiders is an old one, but spiders make good villains. The added advantage of computer generated-images make the movie's monsters more interesting. No simple camera tricks to increase size, but seeing the spiders size and realistic movement, it seems almost real.
The comedy in the film is excellent, from "plan B," which is to run fast as possible, to allusions to 1950s monster movies. It is a lot of fun, and a great movie.
Ed Lawrence
godzillaguy@netzero.net
think many people didn't enjoy Reign of Fire as much as they could have is
due to the movie poster. [Warning: Spoilers ahead.] The wonderful poster for the film shows London burning while dragons and helicopters fly about. If you are expecting to see this battle, which would be a normal expectation, one would be disappointed, since this war actually takes place before the film. And in truth, haven't we seen enough cities burn via Independence Day, and other disaster flicks? That has been done many times before. But, this misunderstanding may lead to an audience expecting a different film than the one Rob Bowman delivered. That is unfortunate, as the film is actually very watchable and quite enjoyable.
The film is about dueling ideologies about how to survive in such a post-war environment. Of course, the plot fails in some spots and some of the acting is over the top, but, that is what I expected in a summertime monster movie. The dragons were quite real-looking and totally ferocious and merciless. Furthermore, I loved the fact that "real," not computer-generated, sets were used and blue screen shots were kept to a minimum. Visually, the film is very impressive.
In short, sit back, relax and enjoy the show. That's what I did.
Dave Kopp
Dolby1000@aol.com
es, mechanical enhancers are on their way ("Making Peace with My Cyborg Future") and we baby-boomers will probably be long gone to get any of the really neat ones. But some consolation is in order. For more than half a century, and hopefully decades more to come, our minds have been hooked up into the most fantastic machine ever created, the human body.
Like you, my bones, joints and muscles ain't what they used to be, but consider the alternatives: Would you rather be a tree? Their branches can remain spry for centuries. How about life as a tortoise? They hit their second childhood around 80.
Technological improvements would indeed be appreciated, but where does it all end? Let modern science and medicine do all they can to help me lead a better, longer and more productive life, but ...
Hmmm ... sounds like the beginning of a dilemma we used to call science fiction.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
see a recurring theme in the issue 274 letters: The networks have lost touch with the viewers.
While the "five-second rule" on that piece of cake they dropped as a kid may work, this constantly juggling of schedules, show types and rehashed and regurgitated storylines (how many times do we have to watch the Friends storyline based on ethnicity, sex, age?) has got to be terminated.
We do have a short attention span and it is because of the crap they are putting on TV now. Reality TV is an oxymoron; dating shows prove some people should N-E-V-E-R be allowed to breed.
It is really sad that I have extended cable with 80 channels and I have to scan the TV listings several times to find something to watch on a regular basis.
How about those poor satellite and digital people with channels numbering into the hundreds—I can see some of them curled up in a catatonic state, finger frozen to the "next channel" button on a 100-button remote (on wheels), unable to move, think, decide for days on end.
As an annoyed viewer with dwindling options on the telly to watch, I propose we hand these people their hats.
I am attaching the official "Pink Slip" to do that:
----------------- CUT HERE -----------------
Mr./Mrs./Ms. _______________________
Due to your less-than-stellar track record in programming TV content (aka, the "stuff" you have been putting on TV in case you don't know—and we are quite certain you don't have a clue), your services are being terminated.
We wish you good luck finding work outside of the entertainment industry, (NOTE: This is one of those clues you have been missing so far) and a successful career in whatever field someone else is insane enough to hire you into. Frankly we are at a loss as to what your vocation might be—but we suggest snipe hunting until something comes to mind.
Maybe politics—naw, scratch that, as Washington filled up from the last round of layoffs we did.
In the meantime, if you really think "reality TV" is the way to go, we have heard that Saddam is looking for someone to chronicle his life story—if you hurry, you'll beat the rest of the staff at the other networks who are also getting this pink slip as well.
(NOTE: Another clue—we're sooo kind.)
Along the way, if you see some of the dating-show people take them with you, as we're sacking them as well.
In the meantime, we will be transmitting this message on all frequencies out into space so that if it turns we are not alone out there, anyone monitoring us will see that we are truly an intelligent race who learns from their mistakes.
Regards,
__________________________
The people who really do pay your salaries...
----------------- CUT HERE -----------------
Steve Hayhurst
shayhurs@earthlink.net
n recent letters sections, SF-fans have been upset at the direction TV science fiction has been going in. I am also not happy with the current direction. It seems as if series aren't given enough time to build an audience, or the series are dumbed-down after a season or two, [and they] no longer resemble the series they once were. It's tough to see this happening, and yet one saga could fill the void: Babylon 5.
In the last few years, two new B5 spinoff-ideas, Crusade and Legend of the Rangers, have disappeared because of network mistakes. The fans are still out there, we still hang out online and talk about B5, and yet people who have the power to keep the saga going keep blowing it. The fans are out there, and we still want more. When will anyone finally realize that something in the B5 universe could make money if given the chance? Maybe sales of the upcoming B5 season-one DVD box set could convince them. Here is our chance, B5 fans—when this set is released, buy it. If enough of the sets sell, maybe people will finally see that B5 deserves to go on.
Tammy Smith
Tlsmith1963@aol.com
he letters you publish are always interesting and well thought-out, but Kevin Ahearn's letter ("SCI FI Needs to Make a Quantum Leap") was the first to give me that jaw-dropping, dumbfounded, "what are they thinking!?" feeling.
Bonnie Hammer and the SCI FI Channel want to make new series out of old Universal properties? Kevin's statement, "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" is almost dead-on, missing the mark only by the fact that the SCI FI Channel already had the "new television experiences for a contemporary audience" that they are currently seeking to create:
Crusade and Babylon 5: The Legend of the Rangers.
Though Crusade has been out of production for a few years, it has already been reported that the cast would like to continue the series. Similarly, while Legend was a one-time movie, I'm sure that cast wouldn't mind progressing into a series. Combine either or both of these with the fact
that JMS (Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski) says that he's at his best creatively when working on multiple projects, and the SCI FI Channel can reduce the amount of searching they have to do.
The SCI FI Channel has an opportunity to really set itself apart from other networks, where clones of whatever's hot at the nanosecond spring up all over the place, and otherwise good shows are yanked because the overnight ratings don't indicate it is a smash hit.
SCI FI Channel and Bonnie Hammer, please show us that you respect your audience. Whatever you pick, please choose wisely.
Roger Long
longrj2@gte.net
i folks ... Just want to thank you for the fine coverage of my book [Cult TV Man's Ultimate Modeling Guide to Classic Sci-Fi Movies] on Science Fiction Weekly. I am flattered.
I'd like to offer a comment about the 3-D illustration on the cover. We chose to create the cover using computer graphics for a number of reasons. First, we were trying to create an overall impression of the contents of the book in a dynamic, artistic way. The cover really helps sell the book, and I think this accurately represents the various subjects in the book. The other reason is timing. We had to put this book together under a fairly tight schedule. That meant articles were being written, chapters were being laid out all at the same time. And we needed a cover before everything was ready!
One little correction with regards to the studio model of the Discovery from 2010. This is not the original model from 2001. This is the Discovery that was built for use in 2010. The article documents the restoration work done to the studio model in the late '90s so it could be displayed at Turner Entertainment's corporate offices. I hope the article in the book was not misleading!
We tried to cover a number of different models and a variety of techniques for these kits. Some of it is basic, yet, as [SFWeekly] notes, a lot of it is advanced. The hope is that any model builder will get ideas to use on any model they build, and, in the end, build better looking models.
Thanks again for the kind review. It is appreciated.
Build the future!
Steve Iverson, CultTVman
CultTVman@aol.com
'd like to respond to John Darnell's letter regarding Enterprise and the Prime Directive ("Enterprise's Directive Isn't Prime"). While I understand Mr. Darnell's point of view, I have to say that I disagree with it. There is a big difference between actively causing the deaths of billions of people, and simply not preventing the deaths. While Archer did not prevent a potential genocide, he did not cause one either.
This issue also has to
be looked at from another point of view in the episode: that of the younger race on the planet. It is quite within the realm of possibility that, if Archer chose to save the elder race, the younger race might not end up evolving to its full potential; in fact, it might end up not surviving at all! If the elder race were to survive, it might someday come to see the evolving younger race as a potential threat to its own supremacy and power. Rather than risk that, the elder race could end up stifling, or even destroying, the younger race!
In that case then, one could easily say that Archer caused the death, or at least non-evolution of the younger race. Which would Mr. Darnell have Archer choose? Better to not interfere at all.
Paul Ruzicka
ruzicka@pcisys.net
f Sarah Michelle Gellar doesn't want to do an eighth series of Buffy, there's a fine opportunity to bring in Eliza Dushku, as Slayer Faith. The idea of a bad-girl Slayer, not all that happy to be in Sunnydale, and perhaps taking the Scooby Gang in directions they don't want to go, is fascinating. They could call it "A Matter of Faith."
Among the many questions; Would Willow fancy her? How about Spike? Where does he fit in? If Anya is gone, what does Xander do, and will his humor ever be funny? Can Giles keep a wayward Slayer in line? Would Dawn have faith in Faith? Would Angel get between Riley and Mrs. Riley? Will anyone ever see Oz again? Maybe Faith could keep him as a pet? And if Faith even said a kind word to Willow, and then got killed, would every lesbian in the known world moan about it for months?
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil@freeuk.com
Back to the top.
