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.
've just read [Paul Di Filippo's] review of The Butlerian Jihad, and have to say that
I share a number of your reservations. My own single most important reservation, though, centers on the inconsistencies that the authors are creating within the Dune universe.
The biggest, so far, is the description of Vor Atreides as the son of Agamemnon, a cyborg. Unless I am missing something, this seems to clash violently with the premise that the Atreides/Atreus family does in fact trace its lineage back to Agamemnon in ancient Greece.
I have to say, though, that I have found all the prequel books so far thoroughly entertaining, and they are far easier to read than Frank Herbert's own works, which I have now re-read about three times each since the prequels began appearing. The whole exercise has enabled me to form a much fuller understanding of what Frank Herbert was writing about, and place many of the characters more firmly in their time and place.
Brian Bollen
brian.bollen@virgin.net
just caught a glimpse of someone's ideas of the top SF characters "ever" ("Top SF Characters Ranked"). I have just one question: Sez who?
Numerous observations flitted through my brain as I absorbed this ridiculous piece. For example, not one of these characters (except Gandalf, though with the advent of the film, an argument could be made that not even he could be a product of reading the literature) are from the wider literary genre except perhaps tangentially (i.e., the books came after their TV/movie debuts). Half the characters were from fantasy stories, and not SF at all (and yes, in this case, it's important). In this marvelous list that says more about SFX's market than "best characters ever," names were conspicuously missing. For example, where was Spock, if we have to weigh in heavily on television, or for that matter, Kirk or Bones or Picard or Janeway (or, for that matter, John Sheridan)? It seems to me that at least one of them should have made that list. And why was there no representation from the novel side of the genre? Where was Lazarus Long, Miles Vorkosigan, Honor Harrington or Nicholas Van Rijn, to name a few possibles?
In the end I decided that SFX did not make any effort to conduct a true poll, but executed an unscientific, hock the hype, lazy-man's poll of television teenie boppers whose depth of experience in the genre run in the centimeters range—a pop-up poll that said to anyone attracted to their unsophisticated publication, "Tell us who you like!" SFX, please don't waste our time with such appalling filler in the future. Either make a good-faith effort, or leave it alone! You insult our intelligence with such hyperbole.
John A.M. Darnell
John.Darnell@walsworth.com
'm been very disappointed by the recent reviews of the proposed reimagining of Battlestar Galactica. I can understand wanting to update the show. I can even understand wanting to mess around with a few concepts of the show. But man, things have gone too far.
[Spoilers ahead.]
First of all, does a show like Galactica really have to have the amount of sexuality that this proposal pours into it? I mean, come on, does there really have to be a depiction of someone getting raped in the early scenes of the show? If they want that kind of stuff, why don't they just bring Lexx back? And some of the scenes with Baltar I won't even go into here for the sake of minors who are reading this. Sick. The original show was clean, and this reimagining should at least try to emulate something that was successful, and that still means a lot to many people.
Secondly, the characters. OK, so they want to make Starbuck a woman, fine. Let them have their "PC" version of the character, or whatever. The interaction between Adama and his son is apparently gone. Having Starbuck insult and strike a commanding officer? Ridiculous. Again, I'll avoid the Baltar subject.
Thirdly, the language. Any two-bit show can throw in curse words. There is such a broader audience to be gained by avoiding such things, which the original show tried to do. Do we want our children seeing these kinds of things (i.e., rape, insubordination, various other sex acts)? Make the show superior by leaving some of the junk out. For once, let's see a decent show that the whole family can watch. It can be done with the Galactica concept. It has been before.
Battlestar Galactica stood out because it was a superior show that also taught lessons that one could learn from. It involved characters that held moral beliefs. The new Galactica instead sends us a wrong message. It seems that this new mini-series will instead just rip off half of the junk that's on TV now. Some "reimagining." From what I hear, most of the fans aren't happy about this at all. Count me in with them. And when things really begin to heat up with this, watch out.
Matthew Hawes
BigFatRock@aol.com
cience fiction is disappearing off the airwaves faster than you can count: Birds of Prey, even though it had better ratings than Angel, who may well air its last episodes in competition with Twilight Zone in that slot, Firefly and now Odyssey 5.
But there is another show that may fail, not because it has bad ratings, but because it's the pair show to Firefly: John Doe. Fox is throwing out the baby with the bath water and seems to be using every trick in the book to kill the show! It hasn't been on in weeks, and now this week, there's an episode on Tuesday at 9 p.m. Yes, up against part of a two-hour Buffy and an episode
of Smallville. Further, it's airing on a day that many will never realize has an episode, not to mention, it's New Year's Eve when viewing will be down. This is hardly a fair test of the series' pulling power. Yet, I bet the Fox executives won't see the extenuating circumstances if its numbers don't sing.
Fox seems to have really become a major network, all right: like ABC, CBS and NBC, it's becoming one
more place where a science-fiction writer cringes when they hear their series has been bought, knowing it won't really be given a fair chance.
Barbara Goldstein
psifidoll@attbi.com
las, I think that Firefly was doomed before it even aired ("Firefly Disappears Into the Big Black"). Fox has a habit of banishing or axing shows before they even air, either because they're too expensive, someone at the network just doesn't like them or some unfathomable reason. Several of Fox's creative and critically well-received shows have been DOA (The Tick) or shuttled off to TV no-man's-land (Futurama) in favor of the latest version of The Bachelor or Temptation Island. All I can figure is that Fox will air a questionable (by Fox's standard) show a few times in hopes of a ratings miracle. If that miracle doesn't happen, the show's gone. Firefly did not pull off a miracle.
What has been most pleasing about Firefly is its character development. Too often with sci-fi, gizmos come first and characters are an afterthought. I knew more about the Firefly characters after five episodes than I do about the Enterprise characters after more than a full season. Joss Whedon's shows always manage to deliver snappy dialogue, interesting characters and actors who can really flesh out those characters—a refreshing combination.
Hopefully, Firefly will find a new home on a network like The WB, which has nurtured low-rating but well-done shows to their benefit, but it seems unlikely. If the SCI FI Channel can't afford Farscape, it seems unlikely they could afford Firefly, which looks like it could also be pricey. Depressing. It's always sad to see good sci-fi go away.
Anne Simmons
annesimmons@mindspring.com
een meaning to write. While watching the SCI FI series Taken, I was surprised to see that SCI FI was running an April Fools' Day commercial way too early. The commercial for The Dream Team is quite a hoot; air-headed, single-named hosts and "guests" who read their lines reasonably well.
So where's Uri Geller these days?
Michael Walsh
mjw@mail.press.jhu.edu
have just read the letters berating Peter Jackson's The Two Towers ("Rings Sequel Was a Towering Bore", "Tower Structure Difficult to Accept" and "Jackson Destroys Tolkien's Tale"). I have to disagree with those of you who did not allow yourselves to enjoy this great picture. As far as sticking to the book, I will direct you to one commentator that summed that all up. Watch the bonus features on The Count of Monte Cristo DVD and specifically the interview with the director. When making a film, that is what you do, make a watchable film. If you want the direct story out of the book, read the book! It's a great book. Personally, I wouldn't want to watch a direct translation of the Two Towers. That would be boring.
As far as cliches, Tolkien used a lot of them, or if you want to look at it this way, he originated a lot of things that are now considered cliches. I totally enjoyed this movie and I thought they got
Gollum dead-on. In fact, I would go so far as to say with both movies, Peter Jackson filmed as much as was possible, what I have imagined while reading these great stories. I can forgive a few minor details, if it helps others who might not be as familiar with this material to understand it and interest them in Tolkien's writing.
Tim Lutgen
fielding5.0@netzero.com
f we were in any sense vindictive, we would be issuing the following form of declaration: In the name of Eru, the merciful and compassionate one, we herewith issue a fatwa against Peter Jackson for the crime of heresy, and promise the reward of eternal bliss in the undying lands of Valinor for the individual who carries out the penalty.
However, vengeance is not our style.
As benign and loyal fans of Tolkien's work, we express our mortification over the changes Peter Jackson has wreaked in The Two Towers. When Jackson chose to portray Lord of the Rings in cinematic form, he knew that there were a legion of Tolkienites who would scrutinize his adaptation and reserve the right to pass judgement ("Rings Sequel Was a Towering Bore", "Tower Structure Difficult to Accept" and "Jackson Destroys Tolkien's Tale"). This is not to belittle his attempts or his intentions, and indeed any quibbles we have with the film The Fellowship of the Ring are comparatively minor, and we praise in the main his portrayal of a book that is hard to reproduce. However, in The Two Towers he elected to stray from the path of righteousness in a way that cannot be defended.
[Warning: Spoilers ahead.]
Where, please, is the justification for the alteration of Faramir's character, to the extent that Frodo and Sam are herded to Osgiliath as prisoners and the ringwraiths become aware of the ring's location? Other deficiencies are fairly trivial, save the false portrayal of the entmoot and the Arwen-inspired toilet stop, but we will pass over these in silence. But, no matter how effectively Osgiliath as a ruined city was portrayed, the departure from the text to this magnitude can only merit a response ranging from irritation to
outright betrayal.
Stephen Howat
sloudon01@hotmail.com
see many letters bashing film adaptations of movies for taking liberties ("Rings Sequel Was a Towering Bore", "Tower Structure Difficult to Accept" and "Jackson Destroys Tolkien's Tale"). If a movie is exactly like the book, why would I go see it? People spend way too much energy picking these films apart. To say these movies are for the un-intelligent (as was said recently) is stupid. To these people I say, "Stay in your room with your precious books!"
Certain things can never be properly translated to film. Some artistic license is necessary. As long as it does not turn into "insert book title adapted to a movie here" in name only.
D.R.H.
litswitz@cox.net
egarding previous complaints about The Two Towers not conforming to the
book ("Rings Sequel Was a Towering Bore", "Tower Structure Difficult to Accept" and "Jackson Destroys Tolkien's Tale"): Of the three books, The Two Towers is the least popular and least entertaining even among devoted fans. It is the first and the third books that everyone loves, because they have the most memorable passages and the best writing. So I understand why a filmmaker would have to make alterations to make what he deems to be a more palatable viewing experience out of the source material.
Books have far different narrative structures than movies and you can put them down when you get bored or tired. An audience's attention moves up and down during the course of viewing a picture in quite a specific way and the filmmaker has to account for that in order to make a film that is as
enjoyable as possible.
[Warning: Spoilers ahead.]
Ending on the Shelob scene would have been too much of a cliffhanger and too depressing to end the movie on. If The Empire Strikes Back had ended with Luke just plummeting down the shaft of the cloud city that would have really sucked.
It would also have been too taxing for the audience after three hours. Conversely, the Shelob scene will make for a great early scene in The Return Of The King and viewers won't be worn out or need to go to the bathroom.
Jesse
kleitman@aol.com
was very glad to see David Spence's comments ("Nemesis Treks to Perfection") regarding Star Trek Nemesis, although he may have gone a little over the top in calling it "perfect." Still, I certainly concur with his sentiment and appreciated this Web space's fair-minded review of the film, giving it a "B."
I was lifted by both the comments and the review because there has been so much negativity attached to this film. Don't get me wrong, I know that some Star Trek movies have deserved to end up trashed like that. Well, at least according to some people.
[Warning: Spoilers ahead.]
Nemesis isn't one of them, though. The mirror analogies involving Picard and Shinzon, Data and B-4 ... even Cmdr. Riker and the Viceroy, not to mention the two ships, the Enterprise and Scimitar ... were not dumbed down for the viewer, whether Star Trek fan or not. The Next Generation's sense of family—as it has in all their films—was not lost here and perhaps even played upon better than in its predecessors.
So, why has Nemesis done so "poorly" at the box office (it finally topped $30 million over last weekend) when it is so clearly a superior film to much of what's out there today?
1. Timing. Someone at Paramount decided to release Nemesis just days before Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, purportedly to ride its coattails. While there is some cross-over audience, Nemesis would have been better served coming out around Thanksgiving, or even earlier, if possible. Me? I'd rather it had been delayed until next summer, perhaps a month or two after the new X-Men sequel. It could have served well as a blockbuster between X-Men 2 and the second Matrix movie early in the season and the third Matrix and the last Lord of the Rings later in the year.
2. Mainstream reviewers who don't "get" or are even anti-Trek. It was evident from many reviews I read from major publications and newspaper syndicates that the reviewers are not only not Star Trek fans, but may actively have a beef with the franchise. It was as if they'd seen a completely different movie from the one my wife and I went to. I'm not saying Star Trek reviews have to be written by Star Trek fans. However, they should at least be reviewed by writers who know how to write at a distance or at least be knowledgeable of the science fiction genre.
3. The Web. Star Trek isn't the only victim, but there were spoilers about this movie back in 2001! This rather irresponsible behavior on a lot of Web sites provided Trek-bashers plenty of opportunity to make people think this was going to be the worst Star Trek movie ever made. While I absolutely will uphold anyone's free speech rights (a Web site for posting information; bloggers from making their comments), rights must be exercised responsibly. I'm not sure everyone followed the spirit of that credo to the letter. By the time Nemesis came out, it had been phasered to
death.
And the sad thing about that is that it wasn't necessary. Nemesis is one of the franchise's better films. While I won't conduct my own review here, Nemesis is, indeed, an echo of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and even Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country to some degree. However, it stands on its own merits while still paying homage to the past.
Hopefully, in a kind of homage itself to the letter-writing campaign that saved the original Star Trek back in the 1960s, positive word of mouth will prevail and Nemesis will take its rightful place as a solid Star Trek entry. And, by the way, the original cast got to make six movies. This was only The Next Generation's fourth. I hope they make one more, and pass the torch on to the Deep Space Nine crew or, perhaps, to yet another new generation of explorers
boldly going where no one has gone before.
Although perhaps after a good four or five year wait, eh?
Martin Cahn
demensions@msn.com
n response to David L. Spence's comments ("Nemesis Treks to Perfection") on Star Trek Nemesis and as general review of all things ST as of late:
The same exact reasoning and the same points you use in praising the latest Star Trek installment are the ones I will now use to explore how terrible and boring this movie was ... unless, of course, all your comments were done "tongue-in-cheek" (in which case I apologize in advance for missing the point).
[Warning: Spoilers ahead.]
Shinzon is built up to be Picard's most worthy opponent of all time (I thought that was the Borg Queen ... or was it Q?). However, Shinzon is no more than a rip-off of Ricardo Montalban's "Noonion Khan" of original episode's "Space Seed" fame and also from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Khan was a more worthwhile opponent to Kirk that Shinzon to is to Picard. And Montalban could act.
And yes, the discovery of "B-4" and the download of all of Data's memories into him is a very lame attempt to imitate the death of Spock and his return in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. What's next in Star Trek movie 11, Star Trek: The Return of Data? So, no, discovering B-4 is another poor excuse for a plot device.
Let's face it—this movie and the new season of Enterprise on TV point out the obvious. Star Trek is a tired old franchise that must be put out of its misery soon. Star Trek has not come out with any new ideas in years, and some of the best ideas of Deep Space Nine, never even made it to film. I will not pay Paramount to watch another Star Trek film in the theatre and I have already stopped watching Enterprise.
The only real question is: "How many people really feel like I do?" After all, it used to be that CNN quoted that 54 percent of Americans considered themselves Trekkies ... I wonder what that number is now. Forty percent? Thirty percent? One percent?
Star Trek was a glorious universe to explore when it was fresh and vibrant and new—but we have now seen the effects elsewhere and have become familiar with the story lines. If anyone wants originality, please watch the original series followed by the Next Generation, then some of Deep Space Nine. This is what I will continue to do, all the while praising Roddenberry's
vision and hoping for Rick Berman and crew to let the franchise die a peaceful death.
Michael Papagermanos
michael_papagermanos@hotmail.com
Back to the top.
