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.
n a recent episode of Enterprise ("Dead Stop"), we were led to believe that Travis Mayweather was killed. But how and why did we know that Mr. Mayweather could not possibly have been killed? Other major characters in the Star Trek universe have been killed (e.g., Natasha Yar from Star Trek: The Next Generation, the doctor in the pilot [episode] of Star Trek: Voyager, Jadzia Dax from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine). So what makes Mr. Mayweather's death so different?
Mr. Mayweather did not die, quite simply, because he was black. He did not die for the same reason that no other black protagonist on sci-fi shows will/did die (e.g., Tyr Anasazi from Andromeda, Joshua from First Wave, Teal'C from Stargate SG-1, Uhura from the original Trek, Luc from Starhunter, Zoe and the Shepherd from Firefly, Stephen Franklin from Babylon 5, etc.). It would have been politically incorrect to kill off a black character on the show. There could have been accusations of racism, or valid fears that this would alienate black viewers.
Of course, we would like to think of science fiction as being immune from many of the values that govern our age, like the two dominant values today: egalitarianism and multiculturalism. But this is a fiction. Ideally, but impossibly, science fiction would offer us visions or worlds that do not have our own cultural bias scripted into them. So, for example, we would never know whether or not Mr. Mayweather would die by knowing the color of his skin.
But as it stands, in a strange reversal of what science fiction ought to be, science fiction tells us about who we are by informing us about what values we import into other worlds or alternative futures. Science-fiction television acts as a time-and-culture capsule that enables us to reflect on modern-day values. In this instance, for example, we are presented with the obvious: that blacks have not achieved social equality. While bad for blacks, this is of course good for Mr. Mayweather and the talented Anthony Montgomery.
Peter Boghossian
pete@boghossian.com
just want to voice my displeasure with the abrupt cancellation of Birds of Prey by The WB ("Birds Flags; Firefly Flies). It seems like fans just start liking scifi or similar shows and just because they have an episode or two with bad ratings the networks have to cancel them. My family and I just started to enjoy the series when we heard about the news.
The networks put too much on the ratings and never mind the fans (unless the show is a comedy, medical or cop show—which are getting old real fast). Thanks for letting me voice my opinion. The fans of Birds of Prey should write the network heads and let them know how they feel.
(It worked for Star Trek.)
Grant Moore, Jr
gsmretmp@yahoo.com
o say that the road to a Battlestar Galactica revival has been very rocky is underestimating it, to say the least. It has been full of so many ups and downs, twists and turns, that the frustration is now at an all-time high. Especially for a fan base that is still so unbelievably vocal for a 24-year-old show that only lasted one season! (Not counting the cheap, six-episode imitation, Galactica: 1980.)
Amongst the high points of the revival was Battlestar Galactica series star Richard (Apollo) Hatch listening to the fans by writing four books to continue the story (with the fifth due in 2003) and even mortgaging his own home to produce a four-and-a-half minute trailer for both the fans and showing The Powers That Be what the fans wanted. (And fans applauded the efforts!) He even secured a large backing of funds for a movie or series ... all of this because he believes in the show, just as the fans do.
When Bryan Singer and Tom DeSanto (of the X-Men and X2 movie fame) jumped into the game with their own production, the fans were a little reluctant. We weren't sure of their intentions. Up to that point, fans were hoping for Richard's efforts to evolve into a movie or series. But as their plans emerged, even Richard himself got behind their efforts, as did many fans.
Unfortunately, Bryan Singer focused 100 percent on X2 and Tom DeSanto had the rug pulled from beneath him in April 2002 when the SCI FI Channel seized the project. (DeSanto was said to be three weeks from production!) Star Trek's and Roswell's Ronald D. Moore was brought aboard to "remake/reimagine" the original series. While the man is a talented writer/producer, fans were slapped in their collective faces by this.
Since the announcement, Moore has found little Internet support for his planned Battlestar Galactica mini-series ... and most fans have been outright rejecting his plans. Yes, he has spoken to fans first-hand, answering a Q&A session on BattlestarGalactica.com. We appreciate and
respect that, but the bottom line is: Fans keep speaking up for what they want ... and it isn't Moore's remake concept. Just look around the Internet, or ask Battlestar Galactica fandom. People want a
continuation with members of the original cast (characters), themes, ships and concepts, plus the addition of new actors/characters, technologies and story elements.
(Again: Richard Hatch's "The Second Coming" trailer demonstrated the potential, as does his book series. And Internet Web sites worldwide are supportive of a continuation, not a remake. That includes a petition supporting Tom DeSanto which has over 16,000 signatures!)
Ronald D. Moore has said many times that he has to follow what he believes to be right ... and that is why he is doing a remake. This has left a very bitter taste in the mouths of us fans. Business-wise, he is ignoring what the fanbase (and potential viewers) want ... and have clamored for in recent years. This is disappointing, given license-holder Vivendi Universal's financial situation ... and need for a strong franchise opportunity, i.e., Battlestar Galactica.
It has been many months now since we have heard from Ronald D. Moore. Many of us pray the entire re-imagining/remake idea is gone.
We are announcing our writing campaign to Mr. Barry Diller, head of Vivendi Universal/Universal Television. This letter writing campaign will take place on November 22, 2002. It will reconfirm that we fans are still here, still upset about a "remake" idea, and still wanting a continuation of the original Battlestar Galactica series.
I thank you very much for your time.
T. Shawn Hardy
tshawnhardy@hotmail.com
hanks, Pete, for bringing up Lexx ("Lexx Deconstructed the Sci-Fi Genre"). Lexx is indeed a great and original show that boldly goes where Star Trek fears to go. It's also fairly unique for
parodying the sci-fi genre. A move I've only ever seen elsewhere on Red Dwarf, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, 3rd Rock From the Sun and Mork and Mindy. Two of which are British. So America really needs to start looking at this kind of sci-fi more closely. It would be a shame for America to lose
out on such a refreshing sci-fi type.
Lexx should definitely make another series. However, I would also advice not making any more landings on Earth. I felt the last series was a disappointment. Lexx, like Star Wars, worked well because it stayed away from Earth and relevant Earth subjects. In other words it was pure space fantasy, as it should be. Sadly they not only visited Earth, but spent most of the series there, and it just didn't rouse the same interest as earlier and more fantastic episodes.
I hope Lexx understands this and goes back to its fantasy roots.
Darren Simpson
darrensimpson10@hotmail.com
K, I'm confused. That isn't unusual for me. As a matter of fact, it's my usual state of mind. There are two movie franchises out, or coming out. Both concern male citizens of the United Kingdom who routinely fight the forces of evil.
One concerns a boy wizard who is a virgin, tries to play by the rules, and who is always respectful to his elders.
The other is about a secret agent who sleeps with every beautiful woman who crosses his path, drinks copious amounts of alcohol and enjoys killing people.
My confusion stems from the fact that so many of the religious right are so worried about the boy wizard. They claim he will corrupt children's minds and/or souls. It would seem to me that the secret
agent is a less-desirable role model.
John Nolan
roninja@bcpl.net
abretooth is utter garbage. There was not one redeeming thing
in that movie. I actually feel most sorry for the animal, as it had the only decent role. Fortunately for me, I watched it on my ReplayTV and got through it in under 40 minutes. I cringed as each awful
line was delivered. And I was able to practically direct the movie as it happened it was so cliche and predictable.
The SCI FI Channel needs to get their heads out of the sand and read some of these letters. Letter after letter sings the praise of unique, cutting-edge programs like Farscape, Lexx, Outer Limits, Stargate SG-1 and the Invisible Man which are clever, thought-provoking and high quality. We may be genre fans, but we're not going to watch any slapped together piece of junk onto which they slap the "SciFi Pictures" seal of approval.
There happen to be many great genre shows on network TV this season, and maybe the pendulum has swung back to where sci-fi fans don't have to watch a niche cable network to get the sci-fi entertainment they so desire. John Doe just got picked up for a full season. Smallville is getting stellar ratings. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is having an amazing, albeit probably last, season. And Angel has even out-scored Buffy in the ratings and found a solid, loyal audience.
So SCI FI Channel, wake up and smell the coffee. We may tune in for the end of Farscape and Stargate SG-1, but if you don't impress us with some new shows of equal quality, it's going to be "Hasta la vista, baby!"
Tom Loveman
tloveman@earthlink.net
hile I realize that Firefly is in peril based on the Nielson's, Fox is searching for Firefly's audience. Fox has a bad track record, X-Files aside, of giving genre fare much chance to succeed. Since X-Files, the only other blips of genre fare have been Millennium (three seasons) and the recent Dark Angel (two seasons). I wish I could name them all, but Harsh Realm and Lone Gunmen come to mind. They did give Gunmen its whole 13 episode run and did decent in the ratings, better then presently Firefly is doing, yet still got the ax.
I did read today (11/18), over at Zaptoit.com, that Fox has ordered two more episodes produced from the six additional scripts. That would indicate that we should get to see the remaining three episodes from the front 13 and ratings willing, these two pick up from the back nine. Fox has put more time and effort into this from the start, than say, "Girls Club," to just abandon it. I believe they truly want to tap into the Farscape audience. Those fans need a fix, and plain Joss Whedon fans in general.
I liken Firefly's situation to X-Files. Fox was in need of something different to set it apart. Despite the X-Files' sub-par Nielsens, it was given a whole year, then blossomed in summer reruns. Having failed with a creator-hyped Dark Angel, they may have learned what they did wrong. Chris Carter at the time didn't have James Cameron-esque pull. Joss Whedon's Firefly and TV success, vs. Cameron's non-TV success may be the "something different" Fox now wants. I'll be there to see what Fox does. Burn long and bright, Firefly.
Craig Parnell
parnellbc_76@yahoo.com
've been reading the submissions regarding the cancellation of Farscape ("Farscape Woes Can Be Ended by Ads", "Farscape Salvation Is Still Possible" and "Farscape Prestige Must Be Profitable"), and I have a couple of comments of my own to make.
First of all, you can't save a show that doesn't have enough viewers, and this seems to be the case. Obviously, the show has many loyal viewers, the letters proving that, but that just isn't enough. Star Trek [the original series] had many loyal viewers during its original run as well, but that didn't keep it from being canceled either. Any program on TV has to have a decent audience to stay on. It's as simple as that.
Second of all, I stopped watching it long ago. One reason was the fact that too many stories are too humorous, and a few are downright silly. The other reason, and I theorize that this is the reason it's losing an audience, is that the original storyline, Crichton trying to go home, has been all but ignored. Just about any show that starts to change like that gets canned soon after. I shall elaborate. ...
Space: Above and Beyond. Good show for the first season. It was about a war. Simple premise. Then the AI stories began to creep in. Then the personal crisis stories took over. Soon, the war seemed to be taking a backseat to everything else. Cancellation was inevitable.
SeaQuest. Simple storyline. Military sub being used for civilian sea exploration, rescue, etc. Then came the dreaded second season. Good sci-fi stories being replaced by bad sea-monster stories. Don't even get me started on the third season. My favorite program shot to you-know-where because the writers forgot SeaQuest's "prime directive."
Earth 2. Again, simple premise. New world needs prepping for colonists even though supplies are gone and aliens aren't exactly friendly. Good first season. Then came strange insects and animals, future flashes ... well, you get the point.
There are others that lost their way only to wind up on the scrapheap (Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers, etc.), and now you may now add Farscape to the list. The final word is that all shows can go only so far, and Farscape has run its course. It's time to move on.
Eric Anchor
DragonRider64@aol.com
know all good things must end, but sci-fi shows are definitely getting a bad rap in the ratings game. I agree with many of the opinions posted previously regarding Neilsen ratings [and why they] shouldn't count. Sci-fi is very hard for some people to latch onto the first time around. It took me two seasons to get my mother to watch The X-Files! It took me the entirety of Star Trek the Star Trek: The Next Generation to get my uncle to tune in. The X-Files can only be found in repeats and yet all of the so-called non-sci-fi folks I know are breaking their necks to catch every episode.
So, ratings shouldn't be the ultimate in whether a show is good enough to be given a second, third or even seventh chance. Some of the best writing out there is from sci-fi shows. The dialogue on Farscape, the X-Files and Firefly alone is better than half of the cheesy dramas that half of the world watches in anticipation of who is going to kiss, marry, kill or remarry whom. I just don't get it. I became a sci-fi fan solely because the writing is better. The stories are beautifully written and thought out. The characters are always engaging and never confined to stereotypes.
Sci-fi is the future—not only dreams becoming a reality and the realization of science in the mainstream, but also entertainment, education and a better quality of life. Einstein once said "Imagination is more important than knowledge." And Hollywood came out of the seas of creation, so
what gives?
E. Fugazi
efugazi@yahoo.com
etween all the wire talk about Buffy the Vampire Slayer stopping [warning: spoilers ahead]—or not—and the [latest] episode, "I Hear Dead People Talking," with all its dark, "portendy" omens and the death of Jonathan, my anxieties about "endings" have been set off. This usually doesn't occur until March. I'm hoping against hope that the predictions of that jarring episode weren't portents at all, but the oncoming evil playing with people's heads. It was clear with Willow, but much less clear with what Dawn went through. (Wouldn't that whole arc with Willow have been more devastating if they had been able to have an evil [person] masquerading as Tara?; too bad that didn't work out.) But I know I don't want the story to end with Willow evil, Buffy letting down Dawn, etc.
I don't even know what to say about Spike, except that maybe it's part of the theme of things sort of going back in time.
When I was a child, I always wished that series had endings. I was disappointed that the ending to The Fugitive didn't set off a trend. But it has become a case of be careful of what you wish for. At least for me, the ending has a lot to do with whether I watch the show in re-runs. I guess it's like any book or movie—I don't go back again if a series has a weak/bad ending. The difference is that a TV series sometimes has years of work on the line, and if other people are like me, it affects how the show will do in syndication. That's a heavy burden for a couple of episodes.
I loved Star Trek: Deep Space Nine more than any Trek since the original, because it did the most real science-fiction episodes, but its ending seemed forced and sucked, and I have never gone back and watched a single re-run. Whereas Babylon 5 covered similar issues in their ending—a three hanky affair to be sure—it was executed right, and I have re-watched the series innumerable times.
I used to wish [the SCI FI Channel] would do movies or miniseries to end short-lived series like VR5 or Prey, but endings have turned out to be a gamble. In efforts to do not-trite endings, it seems writers sometimes forget that trite is not in the idea but the execution.
I really hope Joss Whedon plays this home stretch right and doesn't do a Xena. I agree with Anthony Stewart Head's take that they need to go out on top and not do an X-Files.
Barbara Goldstein
psifidoll@attbi.com
Back to the top.
