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.
igns is a remarkable movie. Finally, a good SF movie without special
effects, that is, no explosions, no space battles, nothing but pure suspense. It does have a few problems.
[Warning: Spoilers follow.]
First off, you may have heard it's about crop circles. It isn't really. They could have used something other than crop circles, and I wish they had, because I'm sure everyone has an opinion about
crop circles. So it's important to leave that baggage at the door and realize it's just a device to get the movie tension going. What makes the movie great is the steady build in paranoia and tension. There's a lengthy sequence when Mel Gibson is preparing to defend his family, and it is the most chilling scene I can remember in a movie. I've heard the term Hitchcockian used, and it's true. It's very Hitchcock in feel.
I should warn viewers that it has flaws. It's supposed to be about the loss of faith and redemption and all that is handled very simplistically. Mel Gibson seems to be trying hard not to be Mel-Gibson-the-action-hero, so he overdoes being confused and emotional. And the ending isn't worthy of the rest of the movie. I can't say what the
problem is without giving a spoiler so I'll just say that it's pretty lame. But all these faults are minor compared to the overall effect of sheer building, creepy paranoia that has you on the edge of your seat.
Marian Powell
mepowell@cybermesa.com
just want to say something [warning: spoilers follow] in response to Robert A. Black's ("Buffy Finale Is a Tough Deal") and Hilary Clay's ("Joss Whedon Shouldn't Have Lied") dismays over the death of Tara on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I understand how you feel.
The fact that the relationship between Willow and Tara was cut short must have been hard on you; it was hard on all Buffy fans. And the fact that they were the show's first gay couple must have made it even harder on you. But you are making it a big "gay" deal. Willow and Tara were a happy couple and Joss has said many times that happy couples are "boring," and that something must happen to them. You complain that Tara was killed and Willow turned evil, but am I the only one who remembers anything
about season two?
Angel, Buffy's one, true love, turned evil, and she was forced to kill him herself! And besides that, how many hundreds of times have we seen Buffy attempt a relationship and have it not work out? Riley, Ben, Angel? Am I the only one who remembers those names? We heterosexual Buffy fans could be making the exact same argument. Buffy has had several unsuccessful heterosexual relationships. How do you think we feel every time Buffy finds someone she is romantically interested in and they die, or turn evil, or move to L.A.? We are forced to deal, just like you should be. I was far from happy to see the love between Tara and Willow shot through the heart, but how many times have I seen Buffy and Angel (true and eternal soul mates) separated?
William Ruff
Utopia16@Bellsouth.net
agree with Lisa Cypert ("Whedon Shouldn't Wait for His Emmy"), who wrote: "But for once, can't these Emmy judges grow a pair and nominate Whedon for Buffy?" I can't stand to watch the Emmys anymore. Not that they had any meaning in the first place, but they prove time and time again that they are completely pointless. It's basically a Frasier-fest, which is truly sad, since Frasier hasn't been good since season two.
To watch episodes like "Hush" or "The Body" and see no award given is excruciating, but this year we'll see a repeat again if "Once More with Feeling" gets completely ignored. (And I'm not sure I buy the story that the episode was "accidentally" left off initial nomination voting slips. ... ) This episode was a masterpiece the equal of most Broadway plays, and it was written and produced during the normal run of a seasonal show with a strict set of deadlines. It was nigh unto flawless.
And the show could have been bad. Many critics were poised on the edges of their seats waiting to rip into it for its stupidity, but it never happened.
[Joss] Whedon could have played it safe and placed the show outside the Buffy universe as a tangential episode, but no, Whedon chose to make it a pivotal piece, attacking many aspects of the characters, and forwarding the relationships as any regular episode.
The critics raved. And rightly so. Rarely do we get exposed to such excellent TV viewing. The episode was daring, intelligent, emotional and just about perfect.
Being a Buffy fan is hard if you have any respect for the Emmy Awards. Fortunately, I do not. [Buffy has] proven over the past six years that [these awards] are irrelevant and frivolous. And each year that they recognize the overdone, tired Frasier and completely ignore Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the more they prove it to the world.
Personally, I would hope Whedon wears it as a badge of honor that he has never received an Emmy. It sort of validates his work that such an air-headed organization doesn't know quality when it sees it.
Sean Huxter
sean@turbinegames.com
ith regard to the statement in Sci-Fi Wire about Core being Hilary Swank's first foray into science fiction ("Reality Informs The Core"), that would be dependent upon the definition you give. Early in Ms. Swank's career, she was Kimberly Hannah in the original Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie and also appeared in the Harry and the Hendersons TV series.
David Stinson
dstinson@ix.netcom.com
he movie Unbreakable told a compelling story about the power of belief and what it could drive a person to commit in the pursuit of a goal. The fight scene between David Dunn and the hostage taker in the second half of the film was one of the best movie fight scenes. The combination of music and the fact that David Dunn was not draped in spandex brought out the feeling that the villain was fighting not just an ordinary man but also a concept brought to life.
I would like it if sequels to Unbreakable were made. I believe that its creator [M. Night Shyamalan] wanted to do a trilogy? There are amazing stories to be told.
Julian Gift
lira-b@tstt.net.tt
ark Angel is just the latest victim of the Friday Night Abyss. I noticed that usually, though, networks tended to schedule shows that they wanted/needed to get rid of on Friday so they could use the "low ratings" excuse.
The Lone Gunmen never had a chance. It was just a bone thrown to Chris Carter to keep The X-Files on the air. My guess is that Fox couldn't afford both Dark Angel and Firefly (and Buffy is produced by Fox!). Or James Cameron made some additional demands unknown to the rest of the world.
For those keeping score, here is a brief list of other Friday casualties: Starman, Alien Nation, The Adventures of Brisco County Jr.
Judy Erp
judy.erp@honeywell.com
've been watching sci-fi on television for 50 years, starting with Captain Video & His Video Rangers on a 13-inch black-and-white set. One afternoon, I turned on my favorite show as I played with my first sci-fi toy, a four-inch blue plastic statuette of a space cadet, marching proudly with
his ray gun over his shoulder.
Things were not going well for Cap V and his pals. Suddenly, one of them fell out of the spaceship. His ray gun over his shoulder, the unmoving figure tumbled through the TV blackness. My eyes glued to the set, I gripped my toy tighter and tighter ... that's when my suspension of disbelief snapped. The
figure falling through space and my plastic space cadet were one and the same. Captain Video & His Video Rangers was using my toy to fool me!
Sci-fi TV and [special] effects have since advanced by light years. Moving onward and upward is the whole idea. But with Star Trek and Star Wars stuck in backstory, has the past of the future become the present? Remakes and re-imaginings, never-ending stories already fully told. Series and sagas long run into the ground still staggering to nowhere. Comic-book characters from generations past heralded as the new heroes of our age. Tremors, Quantum Leap, Battlestar Galactica and The Creature From the Black Lagoon again waiting in the wings while loyal fans clamor for the return of Babylon 5, The Prisoner and Dark Angel. Aliens and Predator filming together!
Have all the trails blazed by science-fiction classics been forever trodden? Is there nowhere left to go? Have we given up and settled down, satisfied with the status quo? Where is the fresh and the new and the ambition and the courage to create and produce it?
"Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear ... " was the lead-in for The Lone Ranger and I hear he's coming back too.
Where's my plastic space cadet when I need him most?
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
'm writing to put in my two cents about John A.M. Darnell's letter ("Enterprise's Directive Isn't Prime").
I, too, have had a love/hate relationship with the Prime Directive.
First of all, I disagree with Mr. Darnell's assessment that Archer made the wrong choice. The choice he made was difficult, to be sure, but necessary, because what was happening was a case of "nature taking its course" (comparing the alien's plight to what happened to the Neanderthals and
homo-erectous of Earth was brilliant). Don't forget, the aliens were dying from a "genetic virus," not an environmentally-induced virus. Nature was telling them it was time to go, not Capt. Archer. Because of this, Archer was justified in his actions.
However, the problem I've always had with the Directive, is the part that says if an entire planet is about to die, explode, burn up, etc., you should let it, unless the inhabitants "call for help first." This is global annihilation we're talking about here, not just some simple, evolutionary "changing of the guard."
What I want to know is, how many alien species have we lost, because of that little clause?
Adam Boudreaux
TrekAdamG@webtv.net
n response to Bob William's ("Prime Directive Eliminates Choice") request of me: How would I feel if some alien species diverted the asteroid that destroyed the dinosaurs 65
million years ago? The facetious answer is that I would not; I wouldn't be here.
But the far better answer is that Mr. Williams is playing a "what if" game, and "what if" games can never be won, because the antagonist in that little game can always find a situation that is impossible for the protagonist to answer. OK, so let's cut to the quick:
Are there any possible situations where it is appropriate for a race holding superior technology to stand by and let a less technologically advanced species perish? To be honest, I don't know. But I do know that the very specific situation in which Capt. Archer was placed was not one of those where it was alright to stand by and do nothing. All the issues by which the Prime Directive, if it had existed, would have been invoked, were answered in favor of assistance. (Hey, folks. I didn't say so ... T'Pol did.) As I have said before, the only issue that scared Archer/Phlox off was this strange fear of somehow affecting the course of evolution, and, as I have said before, what a stupid fear.
John A.M. Darnell
John.Darnell@walsworth.com
llow me to comment on a number of the letters from Aug. 5:
Babylon 5 ("Babylon 5 Should Be Kept Alive," "SCI FI Should Crusade for More B5"): I would love to see this show resurrected in some manner. However, I doubt it will ever happen (too much time has gone by) and the SCI FI Channel mucked up Crusade and the Legend of the Rangers movie just a bit too much. However, if [J. Michael] Straczynski could be involved again and bring us the kind of compelling writing he's currently bringing to one Marvel Comic's Spider-Man titles, and which he brought us with B5 in the first place, I say go for it!
Which brings me to ....
Spider-Man: I think Steve Parker ("Spidey Flick Is Not Marvelous") went a bit overboard. Were liberties taken in this movie? Certainly. That's a writer's, producer's or director's prerogative when adapting a story from another medium. Happens all the time. Get over it. I especially found his comment about where the webbing should come from distasteful, not to mention a scientifically unsound conclusion.
While certainly someone who is completely transformed into a man-spider (as opposed to a
spider-man) would shoot webbing from where Mr. Parker (how ironic a name) described, a genetically
altered human at Peter Parker's level might not. There's no biological theory I know of that would debunk the idea that the alteration caused by the spider's bite wouldn't create the web sacs where they would do the human the most good [For scientific conjecture on this, read Wil McCarthy's column "The Physics of Spider-Man"]. The wrists are actually not a bad place. I admit, I was one of those who thought Sam Raimi's idea that a kid today would not come up with web shooters was off the mark—there are plenty of young geniuses who could probably, and certainly in a fictional setting, come up with all kinds of gadgets.
Other comments on Mr. Parker's letter—just because we didn't see the spider die doesn't mean a thing. It just means Raimi didn't choose to show it. As for the lunchroom scene, it was no more ludicrous than the idea, perpetuated for decades, that no one can tell Clark Kent is Superman. Remember, in the Marvel Universe (although not necessarily hinted at here), the kids would be just as likely to think he was a mutant as opposed to concluding that he was Spidey later on. My guess is, once Peter realized what had happened to him, he was more careful about hiding his identity. Also, keep in mind that the story takes place over at least several weeks, if not months, or longer. There's a good chance most of the kids had forgotten all about it, being kids and all.
Enterprise: Bob Williams ("Prime Directive Eliminates Choice") is right on the money regarding the Archer/Phlox episode to be the beginnings of the Prime Directive. I had a rather heated debate about this on a Star Trek Web site when the episode first aired and came to the same conclusions Mr. Williams did. I would add that as much as Kirk, Picard, Janeway and even Sisko veered from the Prime Directive, I still believe all four of them, as well as other officers depicted in the franchise, understood the concept quite
clearly.
There have been people over the last 20 years or so who decry the United States' acting as the world's "police force" and that we meddle in other country's affairs. I've heard for years that we should concentrate on our own problems and leave well enough alone elsewhere. This is a great analogy to the Prime Directive. America, like the Federation and Starfleet, should not simply stay at home, never to lend a hand. That is isolationism and usually produces devastating results for both the isolationist country and their neighbors. By the same token, America—like the Federation and Starfleet—must recognize that it can neither impose its will, or even its system of government, on other countries. That, too, can prove just as disastrous.
Therefore, the Prime Directive is, indeed, meant to be a clear guide, as Mr. Williams put it, to serving Starfleet personnel as they explore the galaxy. But Starfleet is in its infancy and the Federation doesn't exist as Archer began his Trek. Paramount is depicting him as the one who figures all these things out. I believe that is the most basic premise of the whole series. While I haven't been completely bowled over by every show, the series as a whole is doing well to show us the early years of Roddenberry's vision. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. I don't think it was meant to be. If it were, we'd be watching season 15 of The Next Generation.
Martin L. Cahn
demensions@msn.com
Back to the top.
