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.
egarding Keith Kitchen's "Farscape Faces Its Fiercest Foe": "While there are many genre shows airing, only one or two actually come close to the level of excellence set by the writers, producers and cast of Farscape. Only Stargate SG-1 and, perhaps, Enterprise come close. Farscape encompassed the best of science fiction by being excellent fiction."
You've got to be kidding!
While Farscape was great in seasons one and two, it went downhill in seasons three and four,
getting more and more outrageous, and stretching credulity well beyond the breaking point. Farscape absolutely cannot compare to Babylon 5 and even Crusade (with all its TNT baggage).
Regarding Enterprise as coming close to Farscape's quality, well, you're pretty much damning Farscape by that "praise."
You are right about one thing though. The SCI FI Channel is the enemy of quality, new sci-fi series. It's nothing but a "buy-a-big-name miniseries, reruns, non-sci-fi el cheapo series (e.g., Crossing Over, and the upcoming Dream Team), and grade-Z horror movies" channel. Now, viewers must look elsewhere for even passable new sci-fi (e.g. Enterprise on UPN).
p. s.: I used to be a 'Scaper.
The SCI FI Channel really should change its name, because the current name is not descriptive of what they air.
Mac Breck
macbreck@access995.com
hose lamenting the dual loss of Farscape and Witchblade ("Network Executives Ignore Fans", "Witchblade Was Like Lemon Sorbet" and "Farscape Faces Its Fiercest Foe") fail to see the big picture in the small-screen business: sci-fi on TV is boom or bust. Everybody's looking for the next Star Trek, and when an SF series can't make the jump from impulse power to warp speed and big bucks, it's cut because the networks know that they can get the same ratings from the same narrow niche who'll always watch whatever sci-fi replaces it. That's right, fanboys and fangirls, your sci-fi obsession is taken for granted and always will be. (SCI-FI Channel and Universal have teamed up to run a Tremors TV series on the cheap and draw the same reliable fan base that Farscape did.)
Look at the rest of the TV sked and you'll see series spun off from movies and comic books or minor-league concepts and second-rate budgets. The exception may be Dinotopia, a meeting of Jurassic Park and Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, which is more kiddie-fi than sci-fi. Do Over and That Was Then are more sitcom than sci-fi—Back to the Future meets It's a Wonderful TV Series.
What all fans are frantically searching for is the cutting edge of sci-fi, whether it be science fiction, horror or fantasy, in print or on the small or big screen. Can't anybody find it anywhere? Will the next Harry Potter please stand up?
"Stay tuned" has become an obsolete expression. Coming attractions at your theater are long-dated trailers first seen on TV. Magazines and newspapers are too little too late. If there's a new genre giant about to arrive on the scene, he, she or it will first appear on a screen—the one you're watching right now.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
n the last issue of Science Fiction Weekly, Keith Kitchen ("Farscape Faces Its Fiercest Foe") talked about how the SCI FI Channel shot itself in the foot by deciding to cancel Farscape. I would like to add something to this story: This is not the first time the SCI FI Channel has canceled an excellent show. Last year, they canceled The Invisible Man, their #2 show. And it happened in almost exactly the same way. Negotiations were underway for not one but two new seasons, when suddenly, it was canceled. They never gave us a good reason for it, no matter how often we asked.
The Invisible Man is a quirky little show, capable of so much more than what it could do in the short time it was allowed to exist. For the past year, we have fought hard to get our show back, seeking publicity whenever we got the chance. And we have not been unsuccessful—UPN had at one point expressed some interest in picking up the show.
But take these two cases together, look at the similarities between them. The top two shows of the SCI FI Channel, both canceled without good reason. The only conclusion I can arrive at here is that there must be something very wrong with the SCI FI Channel, if it won't show us sci-fi anymore.
To keep with the analogy, this means that SCI FI has not just one, but two bullet holes in its foot. One can only wonder how many will follow.
Brenda Muller
brenda-m@planet.nl
ne would like to think that there's something special or privileged about sci-fi television shows. But there isn't. Sci-fi TV is subject to the same market rules that govern, for example, sit-coms or reality shows.
The market is geared towards the lowest common dominator (whether it's TV, books, radio or computer operating systems). Mass appeal nets more money than specialty appeal (advertising revenues, merchandise, etc.). But mass appeal, by nature and definition, is necessarily more intellectually watered down. If it were not, then it would not be mass appeal.
Look at the sci-fi shows/movies that make it: SG-1, Star Trek: Voyager (ran for seven years), Star Wars. Now look at the ones that don't: The original Star Trek, Farscape, Babylon 5 (fought every year to survive). The first category is mass appeal adolescent sci-fi, with little or no intellectual appeal (Andromeda also fits into this category, but it's too early to tell
if the show will get canceled or not). The latter category is thought provoking, complex and even profound. But these latter types of shows must necessarily fail. Why? Because the marketplace does not support them, and because the populace is not intellectually equipped for more complicated and philosophically profound shows. (Just look at the most popular shows in any genre to see if this is true: Friends, ER, Baywatch, etc.).
Given this, while tragic, it's no surprise that Farscape did not make it. It's a thoughtful and intellectually stimulating show. Now contrast this to FOX's new Friday night show Firefly. This show will be a hit, bring in substantial advertising revenue, and thus it will be kept on the air. It's terrible sci-fi, but it has mass appeal and does not/will not deal with any intellectually complicated ideas. It will keep people in their comfort
zones, have a plot that's straightforward, characters that have some mystery but who are not overly complicated, and easily resolve ethical situations.
Voila! Now that's show biz!
Pete Boghossian
pete@boghossian.com
am writing to you on behalf of Witchblade fans around the world. For two seasons, TNT has brought the Witchblade comic book to life, gaining some 26,000,000 viewers. On September 4, TNT announced that they were canceling Witchblade. We don't know for a fact as to why, but there are a couple of rumors that are going around.
The first, and in my opinion the most ridiculous, is because of the fact that Yancy Butler (who plays the lead character) checked herself into alcohol rehab in the end of May. That is a really unfair reason that they give—and I think that they are [using] her as a scapegoat. The other rumor is because the lead character is female. That is really absurd, also, over half of the 26,000,000 viewers are female. Look at what they've done to other shows, such as Dark Angel.
As of September 18, there are 8,033 signatures on our petition, including one from an executive producer of the show!! The cast and crew of Witchblade want the series to continue as much as the fans do! Top Cow, along with Warner Brothers, own the rights to Witchblade. Please help us find them a new home and not let them die by helping us spread the word! The Web address for the petition is: www.petitiononline.com/Legion11/petition.html. Thank you!
Jamie Cusick
Jamie_Cusick@martinamcbride.net
was pleased to see your review of FLCL in your most recent edition, since it's one of my favorite anime mindbenders of recent years and I'm glad to see someone agreeing. But I've heard the question asked many times over: with all the esoteric, wacked-out humor, injokey cultural references,
and non-sequiturs, what does it all mean? The answer, to state it as simply as possible, is: Nothing. FLCL has no meaning. And how the heck do you defend something like that?
To defend it is to explain it. FLCL is a creation of Studio Gainax, the artistic group whose two biggest successes were among the biggest anime successes of all time: Evangelion and Karekano. According to the stories I've heard,
production and sponsorship problems on Karekano forced Gainax to abandon the series halfway through. Further financial problems followed, and the execs of the company told the rest of Gainax that unless the animation division produced something big to justify its existence (and fast), they would have no choice but to shut it down; otherwise, they were headed for bankruptcy.
Hence, a project was invented on the spot. The scriptwriter improvised a lot of the story as he went along, the artists came up with the strangest visuals they could think of (e.g., the giant iron-shaped building), and a few snazzy special effects were plugged in. As a result, FLCL makes almost no sense—which is because it's not supposed to make any sense; the guys who put it together have about as much idea of what's going on as we do in the audience. And I figure
that that makes it a little more interesting and fun, because it is genuinely unpredictable; the audience and the famous Gainax team are exploring this strange little world hand-in-hand.
Jacob Churosh
Address withheld by request
n response to Mr. Kassius' unfortunate speculation ("Obi Wan Is Aging Poorly") about Obi-wan's apparent age in the August 26 issue, math and little critters aside, Mr. K. has obviously never spent much time in the desert.
Ari Rottenberg's parting
shot about Tatooine's climate is very much on target ("Force Responsible for Obi Wan's Age"). As a desert dweller (leave the snow to the foolish masses), I know from a lifetime's personal experience that without a fair amount of rather narcissistic efforts at skin care one will end up looking like a lizard at a relatively young age. And
we all know that Obi-wan retreated to the back country of Tatooine, a desert planet.
Frances Hoffman
heat@media23.com
nyone who has read the original book and seen the original movie cannot possibly like or appreciate the terrible remake of Lathe of Heaven. The original had characters with depth. A viewer could get into them and feel for them. I could do neither for the poor and unbelievable performances given in this new version. Besides totally raping the story and taking away that which was most unique about it, that the beginning was not the dream, the war was reality and George dreamed he was alive, to leave that whole
part of the story out is unforgivable. Also, considering the advances in technology, the original still holds up well, the imagery much more representative to the story.
This movie does not hold up well on its own. It makes no sense. Shame on A&E for turning out such a shoddy product.
Marianne Roberts
marianee.roberts@lmco.com
dding to Joe Schembrie's comments ("Star Trek Wouldn't Survive Reality") about left-wing bias in Star Trek: One doesn't have to look very far; I will pluck out just a few
examples from memory.
(1) In one episode, Q appears before Picard in various guises, one of them apparently an American G.I. from the mid- to late-1900s. Q: "Let's go kill some Commies." Picard, in obvious disgust: "We're far beyond that." (Q should have then pointed out that "Commies" were an historical terrorist
group that ceased to exist several hundred years before the Federation came into existence, and that America had done them in.)
(2) Any person in either of the first two series who ever tried to make a living from the profit motive—Harry Mudd or the Ferengi—were played as immoral low-lifes, because obviously, (as I pointed out to great laughter to a Federal audience in Washington, D.C.) on Star Trek, everyone works for the government (Federation)!
(3) Patrick Stewart, on Jay Leno some years back, declared himself a leftist. Like Kurt Vonnegut before him, he has a right to believe whatever he wants, no matter how stupid I think it is. And as with Vonnegut, I have a right to disapprove of Stewart's philosophy and his politics and not to
purchase his artistic outputs.
While we're at it, I once mentioned the following to a TNG script consultant: For the sake of a story line, I can make myself believe that somehow some kind of socialism might exist in the future; I could even make-believe that the Naval-vessel-crew system might survive in starships; and I will even gulp and hope that starships so ugly could fly across the galaxy. ... But the truly unbelievable thing about TNG, the one premise I could never accept about the TNG's Enterprise was this: that a Frenchman would be in charge of it!
Yours for liberty, free enterprise and democracy.
Arlan Andrews Sr.
arlan@thingsto.com
e did not get to see the new seventh season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It did not show in our area! It was advertised for Tuesday the 24th on UPN, but did not show! We started watching UPN at 5:00 p.m. ET until 11:00 p.m. ET, but no Buffy!
We also looked to see if it was on FOX and SCI FI Channel in case it was moved! I have seen this before on other networks. Sometimes it was the local station's fault, but usually the networks had the problem. When will networks and local stations correct their problems and inform the viewers more precisely of things to change?
Will there be another showing of Buffy or is this another network/local fiasco!
Carl Park
Carl.Park@avistacorp.com
Back to the top.
