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.
trange as it may seem, the defeat of my favorite team in Super Bowl XXXVII and the failure of Nemesis at the box office had much in common.
When I left home in 1964 to serve overseas, sci-fi TV and professional football were smalltime affairs on a 17-inch black-and-white screen. Upon returning three years later, Star Trek and the Oakland Raiders were on in full color with a commitment to excellence, boldly going where no one had
gone before.
Classic Star Trek episodes featured unforgettable characters and unique stories as did the Raiders of the '60s. For every Trekker who treasures "Errand of Mercy" and "Mirror, Mirror," there's a Raiders' fan proud of the "Heidi Game" and resentful of the "Immaculate Reception."
Merchandising has pumped millions into both organizations and has spread their emblems around the world. Star Trek fans dress up in incredibly detailed costumes for cons and rallies, but they can't touch the denizens of the Raider Nation in full regalia on game day.
"Just win, baby" is the motto of the pride and poise Raiders and if you do, you will "Live long and prosper."
Upset when you meet a so-called Trekker who knows next to nothing of Star Trek history? Raiders' fans feel the same about wannabes ignorant of the team's glorious and infamous legend.
Gene Roddenberry was the "Galactic Big Bird" of the Star Trek universe while Al Davis is the Godfather of the Raider Nation. Maverick individuals with strong personal visions, they fought the establishment time and time again.
After Star Trek went off the air in the late '60s, the franchise seemed doomed. In 1982, Oakland became "the city on the edge of forever" when the Raiders bolted for the bucks to Los Angeles. The original crew of the Enterprise would return and so did Oakland's hometeam.
In syndication, Star Trek and its spinoff series will run forever. Adopting a similar strategy, the NFL will soon kick off its own channel, allowing fans to watch reruns of classic games.
Star Trek and the Raiders have gone through endless transitions, good and bad. With every new creator and new coach comes yet another attempt to reinvent the original concept.
Their latest game plans failed miserably. For the Super Bowl, the arrogant, overconfident Raider coaching staff came up with nothing new, took too few chances and suffered a humiliating defeat. Taking their loyal fan base for granted, the creative braintrust of Star Trek did the same with an
identical outcome.
Unfortunately, there is a dark side to Raider Nation. Fans in Oakland went on a violent, destructive rampage after the team's loss. Trekkers, when faced with frustration, write letters en masse.
The National Football League runs a violent and often dangerous game, but competition is even more cutthroat in the sci-fi entertainment jungle. Whether the Raiders win every game in the years to come or none at all, the team will continue to play with new players and coaches for new fans. Should Enterprise fail to garner the right demographics, Star Trek, as we know it, will never be new again.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
uch has been written about the merits and problems of Star Trek Nemesis ("Fans Not Responsible for Trek", "New Villains May Be True Trek Nemesis"), but I thought the biggest problems of the movie was in the writing, particularly the writing of long-term characters known so well to Star Trek fans.
Warning—spoilers follow:
Near the beginning of the movie, we are taken to the wedding of Riker and Troi. No mention at all is made of the previously hinted "romance" of Troi and Worf. Instead, Worf has little to do other than complain about the wine.
In the dune-buggy scene on the surface of the planet, I did not think it likely that the senior officers would return fire on the planet inhabitants when they were were collecting the parts of B-4. Whatever happened to the Prime Directive? In "Who Watches the Watchers," Picard was willing to die
for this principle.
Speaking of B-4, couldn't this role in the movie have been better served by the re-introduction of Lore? This would have been more in tune with Star Trek continuity and presented for a more interesting "counter" to Data. He could have been fully reprogrammed at the end, just as B-4 was. However, if there is another movie, the audience would be left to wonder if "Data-Lore" would really be consistent with the old Data.
Next, Picard seemed a bit too quick to distrust Shinzon. In the past, Picard has always been quick to prefer peace and to try to give people the benefit of the doubt, as in "Darmok." Perhaps a little more dialogue could have helped this.
Finally, the movie's climactic scene was the worst example of bad writing. After Picard slays Shinzon, he appears paralyzed, and overcome by the moment. This is not the Picard that is so beloved by fans. He has never "frozen" in tense situations before. Instead, he has always been depicted by being slightly cold, business-like and in firm self-control. The Picard I know would never freeze in that situation, and would not hesitate to sacrifice his life as Data did.
Worse, it did not have to be written this way! An alternative scene could have had Picard prepared to fire the phaser, only to have Data come from behind him and attach the transport device without Picard's knowledge or consent so that Data could fire the weapon, thus sacrificing himself to save Picard and the ship. This would have been very much in accordance with both Picard's and Data's character.
The movie wasn't terrible, but it could have been better. I guess I write this because it saddens me that this could very well be the last Star Trek, and I think it could have gone out on a much better note.
Bill Griesmer
wjgriesmer@cs.com
ast week's letter from Peter Boghossian ("Formula Fare Gets More Viewers") offered an interesting perspective. It seems to me that what he was saying was that Star Trek is now formulaic fiction which only happens to be in an SF setting. So much of what goes on in the average Trek show involves people whose main alien characteristic is bobbly head syndrome. The point being, those stories would be the same old same old, if they were transferred to a Western setting. So, is it fair to say that Star Trek has become the emperor's new clothes of science fiction?
Peter also mentioned "aliens who are seemingly irrational but really just culturally misunderstood, and a vision of the future filled with hope and promise." I'd add that it's symptomatic of Trek, and other formula shows, that these aliens are without fail categorized as being inferior, unless they basically conform to a Western, capitalist and mostly North American ideal. Further reinforcing the cultural bias. What the producers never dare to let their writers write, is that people who do not aspire to being American, or having an American lifestyle might be a) nice folks, and b) our cultural equals, or even superiors. Alien societies who are the technological equals of the Federation are always bad, or in some way flawed. The Klingons have a society based on ultraviolence, the Cardassians are the standard for space Nazis and the Romulans are like, what if the French had run the British Empire! Nobody, watching a Trek show, is encouraged to think that life under an alien system might be good. Or, phasers set to stun, even preferable.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil@freeuk.com
'm not one of those continuity freaks who worries whether Andorian hair is white or silver, however, I have to say that Enterprise has totally failed in its one, most interesting, job. Enterprise was supposed to bridge the gap between first contact (not the movie) and the founding of the Federation.
In this it has failed. Why? Because it is no longer remotely believable that the pathetic humans could possibly bring together the wild and woolly area of the galaxy that Earth seems to be in the middle of.
Enterprise has already introduced so much Picard-era technology (replicators, holodecks, etc.) to make it unlikely that 80 years later 13 Constitution-class starships could possibly comprise a fleet that "kept the peace for 100 years." I mean, the Klingons invented photon torpedoes? How
dumb is that? The warp 5 engine was supposed to be such a big deal, but every one else is going warp 7 or better. As I remember it (80 years later) warp 7 was pushing it for the NCC-1701.
And if Earth's sector has so many aggressive species, how would Earth have even survived to develop warp drive? And wouldn't someone on Earth noticed some of the communications traffic that must be boiling though space and sub-space?
In my opinion, the introduction of all this cool technology not only makes it improbable that the Federation would form under human leadership, it also makes the show bland and boring. Instead of using human ingenuity (like Kirk did) to solve problems, poor Archer is faced with what has to be super-technology almost every week. He might as well be flying around in a canoe with a bow and arrows strapped to his back. So he can only win with luck, or in most cases, some other race's help. Doesn't make for good storytelling.
And now that they are becoming a "Scooby gang" (cartoon, not Buffy) of "meddling kids," doesn't it seem like someone with shields and real weapons would just blow the Enterprise and its polarized hull-plating into plasma?
Sadly, with the exception of a Dallas-like time travel reset, I can't see how Enterprise can get back on course toward what I thought was its most interesting premise.
Tim Hunnicutt
timothy.hunnicutt@aol.com
heartily agree with those who say (openly and/or otherwise) that the SCI FI Channel should pick up Firefly or at least what's left of this wonderful show. It proved that there are still some writers out there with a creative streak. Firefly's human characters and evolving storyline were cut off far too early.
The last line of the pilot (which for those of you who missed it was the last episode aired) has got to rank as one of the most ironic ever. When asked why he was smiling after having all of the bad things happen to him that did during the episode, Malcolm Reynolds (the ship's captain) replied, "We're flying, and that's enough."
Let's pray that they can fly again. Shows as good are sadly lacking from our lineups. Instead, we see more tripe like a certain show where a man making $19k is set up as if he were worth $50 million and they sic money-grubbing women on him.
Give the Serenity a chance to fly, free from competition by the World Series, free from the onus of being in "The Death Slot" at 8 p.m. on Fridays, and I'm sure that she'll take off, and keep flying. And that will be enough....
Brendan Woodward
bwoodwar@twcny.rr.com
just read Kathie's comments on the Adult Swim lineup, and we're in agreement on most items other than one major difference: Sealab 2021.
As a child of the late '60s and early '70s, I grew up with the atrocious animation of Fantastic 4, Spider-Man, Sealab, Space Ghost, The Herculoids and their kin. Even then, we knew they sucked. The animation, the storylines, the actors (sorry, folks), but we didn't have cable, we had usually had only four channels, so we enjoyed it as much as we could.
I speak for many of my generation when I say Sealab is our favorite on Adult Swim. Sealab 2021, Harvey Birdman, and Space Ghost all represent the way we always felt about the trash we were forced to watch as kids. It is so much fun to see someone actually embody our thoughts as to how to improve these seemingly unimprovable cartoons. They have breathed new life into these old castoffs, given them an edginess, a sarcasm and a sick twist that has won us over, and made us enjoy that which we really despised. Sealab seems to have gone off the deep end, with no concerns for continuity, a viable plot or any other redeeming quality. Oddly, they've managed to hit a home run with the very qualities that made these shows lame in the first place!
On the whole, Adult Swim has that kind of feel that made USA's Night Flight a hit in the early '80s. It's just great to see someone taking notice of our 18 to 34 cartoon-loving demographic.
And a final vote for Samurai Jack as one of the finest, most beautifully animated cartoons of all time.
Scott Barrow
scottmbarrow@aol.com
igns was an intelligent and brave work of science fiction. Science fiction that is of worth addresses real human issues ("Shyamalan's Signs Should Be Ignored" and "Shyamalan Learned from Hitchcock"). Look at many episodes of the old Twilight Zone, look at Babylon 5. Frank Herbert himself wanted Dune to be about human issues and not just about a fictional setting. Signs addresses human issues in the ways of great science fiction.
Specifically, it addresses faith, in a time when that it a very important issue. They were also brave enough to have the main character be a Catholic priest in a time when that might not be popular. Signs could have been a bit of metaphysical/alien drivel in the vein of Whitley Streiber's Communion, as some probably expected. Instead, it was something worthwhile and it should be commended.
Steven Downer
downerczx@yahoo.com
Assistant Editor Brian Murphy responds:
One point of clarification: Mel Gibson's character, Graham Hess, is not a Catholic priest. I don't believe the movie explicitly states which denomination he served, but Hess was married, and therefore couldn't have been a Catholic.
Best,
Brian
read SCI FI's comments regarding Farscape in relation to the new Battlestar Galactica series in Bonnie Hammer's interview with TV Guide online with a feeling of immense frustration.
If SCI FI is looking for a fresh innovative series set in space, why on Earth (no pun intended!) could [the SCI FI Channel] not stay with Farscape? This show is still as fresh and groundbreaking as ever. It is continually moving forward with its stories and characters so that it remains surprising and different instead of following the same stale formula week after week as some shows do. It is [the SCI FI Channel's] show and therefore its originality and class have, and could continue to, enhance [its] reputation for championing intelligent and rewarding viewing.
It seems the continuing story arc is anathema to SCI FI, as [they] perceive the larger mainstream audience of casual viewers incapable or unwilling to invest in such. I believe Farscape actually has a much bigger audience of discerning viewers than the current system of ratings monitoring suggests, viewers who appreciate not being spoonfed easily digested fare that panders to the lower common denominator but rewards loyalty. Certain markets in particular have much higher viewership than the national trends would suggest. I also think more regular scheduling and frequent re-runs would enable many more new viewers to jump onboard and reap the rewards.
I can understand that SCI FI wants to try and expand their audience with more mainstream programming but if [they] want to also maintain [their] (previously) dedicated core audience of Farscape viewers, trying to come up with an alternative space series won't do. If anything, it rubs salt in the wounds that money is being spent developing a new series which could have been used to finish Farscape properly as originally promised.
If [the SCI FI Channel's] current philosophy is carried to its logical conclusion, the quest for ratings will mean programming will be increasingly dumbed-down until nothing but reality shows and formulaic watered-down fare will be made—surely it is worth trying to hold out against that situation? The SCI-FI Channel should be able to support shows of quality and intelligence, to run alongside such blockbuster mainstream shows as Taken.
Annie Dunn
anniedunnf@btopenworld.com
am a non-geek. I've never even been a big fan of science fiction, though I have seen a few episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation, and some science-fiction movies. I do, however, have a friend who is really into science fiction. And for the last few years, he's been raving on and on about this show on the SCI FI Channel called Farscape. Well, at the time I was in college, so I didn't have much time to watch TV. Now that I am out of school and have time to watch TV, I find that there is a severe shortage of quality programming on television. And I also found that when there are good programs, they get canceled before they can even garner an audience.
Recently, that friend of mine bought the first season DVD boxed set of Farscape. After a few Farscape marathons, we got through the entire first season. And ... I have become hooked. Now Farscape is a regular portion of my Friday-night television viewing. I love that it's completely different from any kind of sci-fi (what little) that I have seen before. The characters are so deep and complex, like the characters of a classic novel, and the process of revealing these characters are spread out over a dozen episodes instead of chopped up and neatly handed
to you. And they also change and evolve, the way real people do, and their actions have consequences and not every problem is conveniently resolved at the end of the hour and never mentioned again.
I am dismayed that Farscape has been canceled. I watch the new episodes with a heavy heart. Wanting to love them, yet also trying to steel my heart for the upcoming heartbreak. Please do not cancel Farscape. Or at least give them their last season to wrap up all storylines and give us fans some closure and resolution. If [the SCI FI Channel hasn't] got a season, then a half-season will do! Thank you for your attention.
Jeanna Kang
jeannakang@yahoo.com
am a science-fiction fan. Mostly I read the stuff, but I occasionally watch it on TV. You would think that a cable channel called the "SCI FI" Channel would have something I'd like. For example, I really really liked Babylon 5. It was easily the best science-fiction program ever on TV.
But for some reason [the SCI FI Channel], keeps passing on series created by J. Michael Straczynski. [The SCI FI Channel] could have resurrected Babylon 5: Crusade, but [the SCI FI Channel] didn't. Then [the SCI FI Channel] could have picked up Babylon 5: Legend of the Rangers, but didn't. Now, apparently, there was something called Polaris JMS was working on. I don't know what it was about, but I would have watched anything JMS put together. But [SCI FI] passed on that, too, in favor of a show about intergalactic vampires, a silly concept if I ever heard one. C'mon, guys! Let's have some REAL science fiction!
Sandy Stewart
risandy@speakeasy.net
Back to the top.
