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.
thought I'd just air my opinion concerning Daredevil now before anyone says anything. Let me say that I haven't seen the film yet, however, I don't think Ben Affleck was/is the right choice to play the lead. In fact, I think maybe Ethan Hawke would have played a more three-dimensional character with emotional unrest and troubled thoughts.
Was Affleck cast because of his chin, i.e., it looks good sticking out of DD's mask? And I still reckon Kingpin should have been cast as in the comic as a very wide white guy. And Elektra could have been played by Famke Jansen or Lara Flynn Boyle from Men in Black II. At least try and cast so the actors look at least something like the comic characters. After all, this film has something to live up to, considering the hype—and then there's the matter of DD's appearance in the old Hulk TV series way, way back. That's my moan.
And also, why continue Buffy with Faith as the lead ("Buffy Faith Spinoff Mulled")? What are they thinking?
Stuart Howson
showson2002@yahoo.co.uk
any recent letter writers have touched on this and I have to finally put into words what we're all trying to say: There was a dream once called the Science Fiction Channel. For those of us who loved everything science fiction, it was wonderful. A place to get all the sci-fi movie classics, wonderful re-runs of TV shows that in some cases did not get enough exposure on regular TV (such as Otherworld, but not Viper), and occasionally, a newer sci-fi movie that very nicely entertained on a weeknight when nothing in regular TV Land was of any consequence.
Sadly, just like MTV ceased to be about the music videos and the music and became about 13- to 16-year-olds and ratings, so has the SCI FI Channel gone down the path of ratings. Science fiction is not horror. Science fiction is not The Dream Team. Science fiction is not Taken. Science fiction is not Knight Rider. Real science fiction encompasses Farscape and Stargate SG-1. Real science fiction is re-runs of Babylon 5 and Star Trek: The Next Generation, but I forget, some other channel has outbid [SCI FI] for the rights to that.
There are nights I tune to the USA Network, [the SCI FI Channel's] sister channel and I see more science fiction there than on the SCI FI Channel. If [SCI FI has] bought the Star Wars movie trilogy, please show it on the SCI FI channel, NOT the USA Network.
But, there is other science fiction that the channel once gave us a hint of, but too quickly took away from us. Where is Dr. Who? It's time he got re-introduced to the world. How about another British classic, Red Dwarf? But these are not the only examples of international SF fare that I believe would do really well on the channel. Hollywood is not the only place where innovative SF visual work is produced. And then there is the explosion in anime. Excuse me, guys and gals running the network, but have you missed the trend? There are lots of 18- to 24-year-old men and women watching this stuff, buying this stuff, staying up late to watch it on the Cartoon Network. And there are some 30-somethings among them that first started watching this stuff in the '80s due to the exposure of Robotech, etc., that have disposable income and buy this stuff from Japan. It can't be that
expensive to buy the rights to some of these movies, can it? [The SCI FI Channel] used to show this stuff on Anime weekends, where have those weekends gone?
In the all-important quest for ratings, [the SCI FI Channel is] close to losing me as a regular viewer. Once Stargate and Farscape are off the air, I will probably tune out. The only good thing that is coming down the road is the Dune miniseries. I doubt, I will even attempt to watch Battlestar
Galactica after hearing so much about how the channel is destroying it ("SCI FI Names Galactica Leads"). Come on, does [the SCI FI Channel] really need the suggestion of explicit material to sell this show? The fan base is huge, just like Star Trek, and just like the Next Generation stayed faithful to the premise, so should Galactica.
But, I am probably shouting against the ratings wind. I guess there are people who consider themselves sci-fi fans that really do like "TV psychics" and "dream interpreters." Or, it could be worse: horror of horrors, the SCI FI Channel is trying to "cross-over" and gain a wider audience! As if it needs to! Well, the channel can count me out as a future viewer. Maybe in the future, there is going to be a "true" science-fiction TV channel, and millions of us out here will rejoice again.
Michael Papagermanos
makedonia@earthlink.net
n the letter, "SCI FI Should Wake From Its Dream," Scott Barrow talks about
the advertisements for The Dream Team. If my experiences with the SCI FI Channel have taught me anything, it's "don't judge a TV show by it's advertisements." I admit, I haven't seen much of The Dream Team, but of what I have seen, most of the dreams they talk about aren't about sex.
However, the advertisements are misleading, and it looks like the SCI FI Channel is trying to attract horny teenagers and morons. But it won't work, SCI FI. People like that see already see sexual stuff all the time. In their dreams.
Shane Stephenson
deckmaster84@hotmail.com
hile reading Darren Simpson's letter about Star Trek advocating communism ("Star Trek Offers Communist Ideals"), I felt as if I had suddenly slipped into an alternate dimension. Star Trek? Communism? I don't think so!
NO! Star Trek has never advocated communism! If you would simply learn to read and understand what you read (OK, I'm leaving myself wide open here) then you would understand that Star Trek is advocating a form of socialism, not communism and they are two different things.
Also, do not blame Gene Roddenberry for the lines in Star Trek: First Contact which led you to your belief. By the time Star Trek: First Contact was released, Gene Roddenberry was long dead and Rick Berman had taken command of the franchise. Add to this that Patrick Stewart considers himself to be a socialist and has a good deal of input, then you will begin to see how this has slithered into the Trek universe.
Is socialism a possibility by the time of Trek? It could be. Communism? Not likely. At this point in time, there are only two nations on Earth still trying to make a go of communism: The People's Republic of China and Cuba. Neither are faring well economically and many analysts believe they will move closer and closer to a form of capitalism over the coming years.
As for accusations of Enterprise being locked into formula ("Enterprise Bound by Formula"), I can't disagree. With much of Trek's "future history" locked into stone by many of its fans, there's not much chance of it not being formulaic. Still, look at what's on TV right now. While the light of the Star Trek franchise may have dimmed somewhat, Enterprise still shines brightly when compared to the other sci-fi fare on the boob tube.
Yes, Farscape is still with us, though for only a brief time, and it's
better than ever. Stargate SG-1 is coming back for a seventh season, yet is as much locked into formula as Enterprise. Mutant X? Andromeda? Pure garbage. Andromeda started of well enough, but has degenerated into utter dreck. Roddenberry must be spinning in his grave over that! It's
possible, even likely that he wouldn't be happy over Enterprise, but Andromeda? Bah!
I'm not comparing Enterprise to shows of the past: How could I? I'm trying to compare it to sci-fi shows of the present and sci-fi shows only. I won't put it up against Buffy or Angel, because it's comparing apples
to oranges.
Trek is not and has never been communist, and compared to its competition, Enterprise still shines.
Could it be better?
Of course ... perfection has to be the goal....
Keith Kitchen
boyoklaatu1@aol.com
n regard to Star Trek and communism ("Star Trek Offers Communist Ideals")... I don't think that Roddenberry was a Commie, just pragmatic. Once the human race reaches a point where the cost of manufacturing material goods reaches zero, what would be the need for people to buy something they can get for free?
Now before we start throwing stones, consider that Karl Marx indicated that capitalism would be its own undoing because of its increasing efficiency at production. The cost of production due to technological advancement becomes cheaper and cheaper. For example, most of the goods we purchase in the U.S. are manufactured using really cheap labor in third world, a.k.a. "emerging," nations. Now, if we paid a small markup, versus the really huge markup we pay, the cost of things would drop dramatically. However, since CEO's salaries have increase over 500 percent in the past decade (seriously, that's not
an exaggeration) the cost of things have continued to rise as well. If we consumers paid attention, we could get grumpy and demand that things stay affordable. (Really, who can afford to live off minimum wage?)
Secondly, in regard to Star Trek's universe, some cataclysmic event happens that triggers a near-total collapse of human civilization. Trek hints at it being a nuclear war or some sort of thing. Just because a cataclysmic event happens, doesn't mean that people will suddenly go nuts and live in a Mad Max state of mind, nor will the technology disappear overnight. In Star Trek, people seem to "get it" that greed and other negative human emotions lead to things like apocalyptic wars. The survivors decide to build an egalitarian utopia, where they use technology to better the human race.
Thirdly, Star Trek is a form of utopian communism in which, everybody takes part in their community and society, and everybody has a role to play. They have a democratic form of government, free education and all the other socialist utopian ideas. How? They have advanced technology that gives it to them. When you have a device that can replicate a chocolate sundae or a cup of hot Earl Grey tea on command and you can make stuff practically appear out of thin air, why should someone have to sweat and labor to produce anything? Now this is not the same thing as what the former Soviet Union had, or North Korea or China in which they live(d) with dictatorships. Those are not utopian communist states, they're despotic regimes. Things Roddenberry was against, and not true communism.
Star Trek, as a metaphor, is supposed to represent what humans can achieve when we work together. We can achieve great things when we look out for one another, and we achieve evil things when we look out for our own self interests. We have the choice to work together and move ahead, or look out
only for ourselves and move backwards.
Now for my soap box: If we humans took that basic idea into practice, would we really be gearing up for Armageddon as the world seems to be on the brink? Yes, humans can be petty, lowly, greedy, sinful wretches, but we can also be great, honorable and virtuous. We can build the hydrogen bomb, but
we can also write symphonies and create art like Star Trek.
Trek, at times, can be art. When it speaks to us on a personal level and transcends all the marketing and hype of Paramount, it's art. Now, art says stuff. Humans getting to a point where we don't need money is a goal, and a dream, but not necessarily a reality. It works only so far as a metaphor, but not necessarily as possible in the real world. Also, before we cast the crew of the Enterprise as a bunch of "pinkos," keep in mind Spock did say, "Live long, and prosper."
Dave
dgrhm@hotmail.com
hat in the ... er, universe has happened to Andromeda?
The first season was decent, with good stories and a solid, noble mission (the reuniting of the Commonwealth). I got the feeling that Roddenberry may have been noodling with the hypothetical question, "What would it be like if the Federation collapsed, and the Enterprise entered this chaos from the past?" Not sure if his concept ever reached script phase or just a few notes, but the series his widow arrived at was compelling enough to keep watching.
The first half of the second season was OK, too, if a little dark. Second half of the second season (after they released the story editor responsible for the Magog World Ship storyline) took a sharp turn to the militaristic and even darker. It was still fairly interesting to watch.
This third season, however, has just gotten strange and puzzling. It seems that now that the original mission of jump-starting the Commonwealth has been completed, the writers no longer know where the story should be going, so this entire season has been very random, directionless and confusing.
Perhaps replacing the story editor with one whose "vision" followed Kevin Sorbo's was not the best idea they could have had. Just about nothing memorable has happened this season, and the last three week's episodes have been even stranger and more more confusing than ever. We are still waiting for the real show to get going again.
It also bothers me that, while there is supposedly a larger crew on the ship, we never see them except when they are about to die or are already dead. If they are having that much trouble with budget, they need to just kill the show before it kills itself. If Andromeda keeps going the way it's going now, it's not going to have another season anyway, because it is certainly losing viewers at an increasing rate now. It will be losing my household if it goes on as it has been.
Wayne Heyward
mtbandit@attbi.com
n the wake of the Columbia disaster, there are those who believe that the aged Shuttle fleet should be upgraded with a new generation of spacecraft while others blame science fiction for humanity's desire to explore the universe, a quest many scientists agree would be better undertaken by robots.
There is yet one more belief that must be reexamined. Last week we saw the light in the sky and then the debris field and learned to our horror and dismay that charred remains of at least four of the astronauts had been recovered. We've also been told that more than 12,000 pieces of Columbia have been found and nine looters have been arrested.
As the government's investigation to determine the cause of the disaster has only begun to heat up, the SCI FI Channel's much-publicized probe into a similar event seems to have gone cold.
You do remember the "Startling New Evidence"—those 26 bags of dirt removed from the Roswell "crash site" under armed guard? And let's not forget that "smoking gun"—the computer enhancement of a 55-year-old photograph of a memo in the hands of an Army Air Force officer.
Once the Roswell "incident" may have been interesting and amusing. Suddenly, with the death of seven astronauts, it's become insulting and pitifully naive. For those of you out there who still want to believe that a spaceship did crash in the United States, now you can. But please, do so with respect.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
F scholar Gary Westfahl's Locus Online essay ("Columbia, and the Dreams of Science Fiction") arguing that science fiction has misled the public ... "What happened to the Columbia crushingly invalidates all the cozy dramas of science fiction's space adventures." ("SF Authors Debate Columbia")
I believe that Mr. Westfahl is mistaken. SF fans and people in general are not misled. We understand the dangers. I believe to the contrary; that SF shows and books have alerted us to the dangers of space. We now know how dangerous Klingons, giant space amebas, black holes and space battles can be, because of these books and shows.
The only problem I see is that Mr. Westfahl has seriously underestimated SF fans and the public at large. We are not stupid or mislead. We are dreamers, planners and visionaries, but our feet are firmly planted on the ground. I feel Mr. Westfahl has confused SF fans and the populous at large with the generalizations and stereotypes of "dumb jocks" you watch on TV and read about in books.
Mr. Westfahl, we dream, we reach and we grieve. But we are not blind.
Bob Barton
rbarton@pdaonline.org
'm probably one of the many wondering what the hell SCI FI is thinking in canceling Farscape.
But, alas, it seems to be the general formula of television when it comes to a good sci-fi series. We lost Crusade from being completed, we lost Sliders to stupid storylines, Babylon 5 had to be given cable-only access because WB wouldn't finish it, Deep Space Nine was well written and dumped to late night showings in its first run and now we are losing Farscape. These shows had everything in common: originality, creativity, well rounded characters and high ratings. But they were dumped for stupid reasons. It's no wonder why non-science fiction fans have no respect for the genre.
Todd Behrmann
weyrleader@famvid.com
targate SG-1 needs to explain why everyone speaks English. Absolutely everyone speaks English. Sometimes it gets to be a bit too much. The SG-1 team, for example, goes off-world with the Russians and it's the Russians who have accents! Of course it's convenient, but it really detracts from the show's realism. (And yes, good sci-fi ought to be realistic).
Star Trek explained it with universal translators, Farscape with translator microbes, Dr. Who with the trick of the Timelords, Babylon 5 had occasional translators, but what's Stargate's excuse? Of course, the show would not work well with subtitles, but it would be nice if some explanation were offered as to why everyone was a native English speaker.
I'd like to offer an explanation, but I'm at a loss. Any ideas?
Peter Boghossian
pete@boghossian.com
Back to the top.
