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.
he state of affairs in popular sci-fi is in dire straits, and is portentous of some very negative trends stretching out into the future both within the medium and beyond. Sci-fi/spec-fic/etc. ("SF") has often been reflective of both the current technological path that the "real" world is on, as well as having an obvious influence on the scientists/creators of tomorrow. The standard results of SF inspiration include the communications satellite, cell phone (Dick Tracy?), palm computer, etc., (the list can easily go on for a while), while many people in the sciences routinely reference Star Trek (or more serious written works) as part of their inspiration for their chosen path in life. One needs only witness the impressive support given by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory to Babylon 5 to get a feel for some of the connections between scientists and SF.
When (objectively) good SF gets crowded-off the SCI FI Channel by idiotic pap such as Crossing Over with John Edward (and the like), that's one for the bad guys. Although the blame rests on a few shoulders in the programming department of the network (MBAs?), it's presumably reflective of collective viewer tastes and certainly indicative of the dumbing-down of America, although I'm not sure if it's a cause or an effect (or both!). In the long run, it does not bode well for the future of our country and our culture.
I was inspired to write this letter because of the news that The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence set an original special ratings record for the SCI FI network. While I personally would much rather watch a Test Pattern than a so-called documentary on UFOs (unless it was directly addressing the delusionary aspects of the "witnesses"), it frankly bothered me that this type of show would be so popular. Compounding my distress is the new miniseries Steven Spielberg Presents Taken which has alien abductions as its central theme; not because I'm offended by the premise, but rather because people treat it almost more as a dramatization rather than absolute fiction. The writer of the series, Leslie Bohem, told Sci Fi Wire that "he hopes the show will encourage people to ponder questions about the possibility of aliens and alien abductions ("Bohem Intrigued By Taken")" Well, Leslie, I hate to burst your bubble, but there have never, ever been "alien abductions" outside of bad SF (and the very-entertaining Close Encounters of the Third Kind). This isn't my opinion, this is cold, hard scientific fact. Given the current time of year, the obvious comparison is to Santa Claus in terms of equivalent level of existence (which is to say, none). Sorry Virginia, there is no UFO.
I weep for the future. ...
Michael Lustig
mpl@blackrock.com
have just seen the new movie Treasure Planet yesterday with a friend. It was an awesome movie. It was a good mix of fun and quality that I think has come up missing in a lot of animated films (and in many cases, science fiction in general) in the past few years. The movie does an outstanding job of marrying the swashbuckling movies of the '30s with some good, old-fashioned science fiction adventure. The characters and the animation were very well done.
Disney has finally returned to the kind of animated movies that made them leaders in the field for many years—ovies that had wonderful character development and good stories. These were things that were sorely missing from the last Disney movie Lilo & Stitch. I strongly recommend anyone to go see it.
Joseph H. Ficor
gificor@yahoo.com
atching the second Harry Potter movie makes you appreciate how good the first one was. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is not a bad movie, but it lacks the sense of fun and charm of the first movie, along with a clear plot line and really warm relationships among the three leads. Plus the three are all teenagers now. The movie can't help that, but it is startling.
I saw the first movie with my whole family and we enjoyed it—from ages 8 to 60. I'm not sure who the second movie is aimed at. It's too dark and grim for very small children, but the jokes seem all aimed at children. As an adult, I found myself bored during the first half. It did pick up as it went along and got into the action. Of course, the acting was fine. It was a lovely farewell for Richard Harris. Kenneth Branaugh seemed to be having the time of his life as an egotistical wizard. So all in all, it's not a bad movie— but it's nowhere near as good as the first one.
Marian Powell
mepowell@cybermesa.com
ust a point of clarification regarding the [F. Paul Wilson Repairman Jack] series [recently reviewed by John Clute in his column entitled "Book of the Mouth"]: The final chapter has already been written.
Wilson's out-of-print book Nightworld is the sixth and final book in what he called "The Adversary Cycle"; that story is essentially an apocalyptic tale, and Wilson has said that is where the series will stop. The Tomb was the second book in that series. (The first was The Keep.)
All the books in the Repairman Jack series have looped out from The Tomb. In fact, less than a year remains between the events of The Haunted Air and Nightworld, and no more than three or four separate The Tomb from Nightworld. (He may edit Nightworld somewhat to bring it in line with the Repairman Jack series, though as I have not yet read that novel, I am
not sure what this would entail.)
Samer T. Ismail
stipenn@yahoo.com
Reviewer John Clute responds:
It will be interesting to see if F. Paul Wilson can make his burgeoning Repairman Jack sequence fit neatly into the apocalypse foretold in Nightworld (1992), as a lot has happened in the real world of history since 1992, and the Repairman Jack sequence, almost all of which dates from the last few years, genuinely reflect that real world. My own guess—I haven't read Nightworld either—is that any new edition of the book would have to be pretty radically changed.
Best,
John
drian Hunter is right on target by saying that networks aren't obligated to keep unpopular shows on the air ("Art and Entertainment Aren't the Same"). I was hoping someone would finally say what I was thinking! It's only common sense. I certainly don't expect a network to air any show, even a beloved one like Farscape, if it's not popular.
My only point of disagreement was that Adrian seemed to think that Farscape was canceled because it was "dooky." Farscape wasn't dooky; it was an excellent show. But even if it had been bad, that had nothing to do with its cancellation.
The show was canceled because the SCI FI Channel moved it to a different time so it could air Stargate SG-1 in Farscape's old timeslot. In Farscape's new timeslot, ratings fell terribly. Rather than doing the logical thing and moving Farscape back to its old timeslot, the network decided to just abruptly cancel their (previously) flagship show outright. In other words, Farscape didn't stop being popular because it lost touch with its audience (a la The X-Files). As one can see by the flood of letters that have come in, Farscape didn't stop being popular at all. It was just in a crummy timeslot. Meanwhile, the network is treating the dreadfully boring SG-1 like their "golden boy" now, airing it like 100 times a day. My question is, if SG-1 had aired in Farscape's new slot instead, how well would it be doing? Which show would have been canceled?
So why didn't SCI FI even attempt to save the show? Even though Farscape was their most popular show, it was an expensive show to produce. The network clearly cares more about producing cheap programming than very successful programming—hence their recently announced dedication to creating more shows around sideshow hucksters like John Edward than to do anything that actually fits under the title "sci-fi." In fact, with the appalling decision to air Braveheart, SCI FI has entered into the desperate stage where they're about to lose their brand. I would point them to the example of VH-1, which has recently started showing everything from old Batman shows to the Godfather movies. VH-1 is an industry joke right now. Be forewarned, SCI FI.
All that said, SCI FI has made one decision that I'm in fact very happy about: The decision to air Farscape one hour before SG-1 when it returns Jan. 10. Maybe then it'll get some of the ratings it deserves again, and SCI FI might reconsider its disastrous decision.
Tom Holste
tomh1138@hotmail.com
have read many letters here about Farscape ("Farscape Killed by Laughter", "Farscape Jumped the Frellin' Shark" and "Art and Entertainment Aren't the Same"), and I wanted to add my own two cents. Many people think that the ratings shouldn't matter, and that the show's quality alone should be enough to keep the show on the air. While that is a nice idea, it remains an idea. American television, and the entertainment industry in general, has always been focused on one thing and one thing only: making money. They do this by selling advertising time between segments of programming. If a show doesn't have much ratings, it doesn't attract much advertising, and thus the channels try to make programming that everyone likes. Quirky shows like Farscape and Firefly often don't fit into the program.
That being said, the way to save these shows should be obvious. Watch them! Get as many people as you can to watch them. Try to explain as much as you can about them to everyone you know. Get them interested. If everyone can get just one new person watching Farscape and Firefly, the ratings should double.
I heard that SCI FI was airing a Farscape chain reaction on Christmas Eve. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, then fans should come out and support the show the best way possible: by giving it their undivided attention when it is actually airing.
Shane Stephenson
fsfan1@hotmail.com
t's been a while since I've seen people walk out on a movie, but that's what happened when I saw Solaris on its opening day. I too was surprised to find the film wasn't at all what I expected, but I enjoyed the film very much. My expectation, which was probably similar to those of the people who left midway through, was a slick, high-budget, thriller (the word "thriller," after all, was used in the film's synopsis). What Solaris turns out to be is a methodical, abstract mosaic of silences, stillness and confusion. Admittedly, I found myself uncomfortably waiting—wanting something to HAPPEN—a chase, a fight, a hurried escape. When one looks at sci-fi films today, the majority fit into the "Western in space" mold that uses a futuristic environment to create worlds, weapons and villains that could never exist on present day Earth.
Solaris simply uses its futuristic environment as a catalyst for psychological, spiritual, ethical and moral exploration. It is based on a novel, of course. And sci-fi novels to tend to be more purist in their use of metaphor than sci-fi films which usually have none. (The recent exception being The Matrix which mixes the cool weapons and villains with deeper philosophical backdrops addressing our perceptions of reality, freedom, etc.) So although Solaris won't leave you thinking about how cool all that futuristic technology was, it will leave you thinking about life—which is what good science fiction does.
Andy Brown
andy@auditioninteractive.com
'll have to admit, I've been losing my tolerance for the mismanagement of affairs at the SCI FI Channel over the past number of months, but last week (Sunday, Nov. 24) I was stunned and aghast when theSCI FI Channel aired Braveheart, starring Mel Gibson.
I couldn't believe the SCI FI Channel would broadcast this movie! Yes, it's a good film, but it's an historical drama, not science fiction nor horror nor fantasy! There is no reason whatsoever the SCI FI Channel should have ever run this movie.
Come on! Even They Saved Hitler's Brain or Plan 9 From Outer Space would have been an improvement, seeing that, as terrible as they are, at least they are science fiction!
Keith Kitchen
BoyoKlaatu1@aol.com
hile I was certainly surprised to see Braveheart airing on SCI FI, I wasn't as shocked and horrified as Ms. Booker seemed to be in her letter ("Braveheart Shouldn't Cross Over"). For all that William Wallace was a quasi-historical figure, you cannot take that film as fact in any way, shape or form. Rather, one needs to perceive the film as "speculative historical fiction" much as the rest of SCI FI Channel's programming is "speculative fiction."
The film Braveheart shows poor history, poor imagery, poor design decisions and an all around disregard for the actual events and people of the period. History has little true evidence of Wallace's actions, relying mainly on tales told by senachies years later. The film is, however, an exciting story told in broad strokes, no less valid as art than the exaggerated tales of the bards of old. It certainly doesn't belong on the History Channel, so where else to air it but a cable channel dedicated to stories of a basically non-realistic bent? Would one also be obligated to eliminate all quasi-historical programming from Sci Fi? Farewell, Forever Knight. Farewell, Star Trek TOS episodes clearly rooted in history. Farewell, fiction back to The Bible, for of course, "there's nothing new under the sun." Legends, myths and speculative historical fiction is the root of science fiction. By eliminating the first, you cut the legs from the latter like a claymore through butter.
For more truth to the history of Scotland from the late 11th century into the 12th century, I refer you to your local library. For entertaining television and film at home that encourages you to broaden the mind, that provokes thought, and tickles the imagination, I refer you to the SCI FI Channel.
Kasey Myers
kaseymyers@hotmail.com
ust to let you know why Firefly is suffering: It's not very good. I am a huge fan of Buffy [the Vampire Slayer], I didn't think there was anything Joss Whedon did that wouldn't be great ... I was wrong. When the characters are inherently not likable, then you don't invest in the show; you don't care what happens to the people, and you don't watch. I gave it five shows, but cared less and less and became more and more bored. An interesting concept only gets you so far,
then you need more. Thanks for your time.
J.E. Kostenko
je40@hotmail.com
n "Equilibrium Not 451 Redux", Kurt Wimmer, writer/director of some lame-sounding upcoming movie Equilibrium, is quoted as saying: "I see the [Motion Picture Association of America], with every film that comes out, narrowing the bottleneck of the emotional bandwidth that we're allowed to feel. The R-rated films [now] are literally the PG-13-rated films of 1989, and the R-rated films of 1989 were the PG-rated films of 1979."
I don't know what films he's been seeing, but as a parent, I can attest to the fact that he's got it bass-ackwards. The films of my youth ('70s and '80s) that were rated R, would now be a PG-13. I was shocked to see Kate Winslet's mammaries displayed proudly in 1997's PG-13 Titanic. I assert
that this was the reason the movie grossed so much, due to the adolescent teenaged male crowd, which would have rated an R in decades past. Nowadays, I routinely hear the S-word in PG-13 movies, when 20 years ago, that word alone would have mandated an R. Today, even the F-word is in PG-13 films, such as the aforementioned Titanic and The Perfect Storm. I'm not advocating banning such displays in film or television, I just think the rating system has gotten much less strict than it used to be, not more restrictive as Mr. Wimmer claims.
I'll pass on Equilibrium, and suggest to Mr. Wimmer a promising future penning unrealistic world-views in scripts for Enterprise.
Jeffrey A. Johnson
IntoTheCornfield@yahoo.com
ike many fans, I had just found a gem of a show called Andromeda near the end of the first season. The show was brilliantly written and featured a fantastic ensemble cast of actors. I caught most of the episodes I had missed on reruns and, by the start of season two, was firmly addicted to the show. I'm sorry to say that since the changes that Mr. Sorbo refers to in his interview, I find the show to be of little interest.
In several interviews, Mr. Sorbo refers to the first Star Trek. I suppose that is an apt comparison, if you are looking at some surface issues such as how many recent Andromeda episodes include the requisite "girlfriend of the week" for Mr. Sorbo's character. However, while the first Star Trek often appears dated these days, we should remember that in its time the show was a cutting-edge drama that tackled issues such as race relations, war and ecology (among others) long before more mainstream television. From that standpoint, Mr. Sorbo's "tune-in, stop thinking" vision for Andromeda shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as Star Trek.
Perhaps I'm wrong though. The original Star Trek had a short run and was canceled because network executives didn't have the vision to see how good the show was. A comparison between Mr. Sorbo and those executives might be fairly apt after all.
D.L. Buttram
dilynnb2000@yahoo.com
ace is a factor in death ("Race Is a Factor in Trek Deaths", "Money Is the Root of All Trek Ends", "Trek Deaths Are Rarely Permanent" and "Star Trek Deaths Make Equality Live"). Money is a factor in death. How about the N.A.A.C.P. is responsible. How about the A.C.L.U. is responsible. How about, how about, etc. etc.? How about none of us really know, have you considered that one? It's all a big conspiracy-theory guess. Hey, here's a new idea. Maybe Kirk was killed because it actually made a good story ending. I don't suppose anyone considered that. If Mayweather died in the next Enterprise episode, does that mean they hate blacks? What if Hoshi were killed? Did they do it just because they saw a ratings boost from it? You don't know, I don't know and, unless anyone received news directly from the set, no one else here knows either. If you're looking for such patterns, you will find them whether they exist or not. I have learned by observing both racial organizations and politics that such things exist mostly because we want them to in order to make a point or prove a truth, again, whether it exists or not. Yes, the show is governed by profits as well as ratings, but that's the business because it is a business if you know what I mean.
I've noticed that we, as a nation, worry way too much about the petty things in life and forget the important things, such as the fact that we're not faced with war, famine and chaos, and are blessed with the freedom to actually sit around and discuss these things. Forgive me, but being on the
edge of war helps me look at the bigger picture.
Eric E. Anchor
DragonRider64@aol.com
oncerning John Nolan's point about which Brit the religious right should fear ("Potter Is Not the Brit to Fear"), we should perhaps add a third candidate. None other than J.R.R. Tolkien.
[Warning: Spoilers ahead.]
On the outside Tolkien was a devoutly religious professor. But his dreams included orcs, black riders, the dark lord and One Ring to rule them all. Sure, the evil forces were beaten back in the end, (sorry about the spoiler, kids), but nobody is going to tell me that Frodo Baggins ever went to confession, or hated Jewish people or thought all Muslims were evil fanatics. Perhaps, in his subtle way, Tolkien was telling us all that holding a particular religious belief does not automatically make the believer good, or correct in his thinking. Tolkien also made us aware of Sauron, a former god, who no one living had ever actually seen, but who many believed in and died for. Then there was Saruman, who appeared to be a wise, powerful, bearded old man, capable of performing miracles. But that was just an image. Those who followed him also came to a sticky end. It seems to me that what Tolkien was really saying, is that blind faith in leaders, or anything, will get us killed. If the religious right realize that, J.R.R. will be their number-one enemy. Especially as, if I may borrow from the words of Obi-Wan
Kenobi, Tolkien has now become more powerful than they could possibly imagine!
On a lighter note, with regard to the recent letter from Peter Boghossian ("Race Is a Factor in Trek Deaths"), highlighting the reverse racism in SF shows, readers may like to know of a European twist on this theme. Here in the U.K., almost everyone in TV adverts knows one black person. Except for those adverts which feature more than one black person, and they usually know one white person. Meanwhile, in Spain, a country full of pleasantly brown people, most of the TV presenters and actors in TV advertising appear to be doing their best to look blonde and pale skinned! It makes me wonder if in Scandinavian countries those on TV are trying to look a little darker ... in their red sweaters.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil@freeuk.com
have to agree with T. Shawn Hardy's letter about Battlestar Galactica ("Moore's Galactica is Still Less"). I was excited when Bryan Singer and Tom DeSanto were going to continue the story, then [I was] disappointed when Singer bailed, and finally I was disgusted when the continuation, thanks to Ronald D. Moore and the SCI FI Channel, was
suddenly going to become a remake.
What I don't understand is this: Singer and DeSanto's continuation was going to be on the Fox network. Much of its mainstream audience would probably not even remember the Galactica story begun in the late '70s. The SCI FI Channel, however, is entirely comprised of science-fiction fans, most of whom will already be familiar with Galactica's original storyline. Why, then, is this niche market going to do a remake?
Maybe my failure to understand can be blamed on the fact that I'm not a network executive. But if I was one, you can bet I'd put a remake of an old science-fiction show on a general broadcast network and a continuation of an old science-fiction show on a network that specializes in science fiction.
It's just crazy enough to work, I tell you.
Ray Grant
RGame3@yahoo.com
Back to the top.
