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.
ccording to a cable channel TRIO poll, 35 percent named Superman as their favorite movie superhero. Not bad for a space alien who hasn't flown on the big screen for nearly 20 years. For more than 60 years, from radio shows to comic books to cartoons, movies and TV series, more stories have been written, published and performed starring Clark Kent's alter ego than Star Trek, Star Wars and Spider-Man combined.
Admittedly, most Superman stuff isn't worth reading or viewing once you've graduated from kindergarten. (Highly recommended are the first two Reeve films and the Max Fleischer cartoons from the 1940s.) Smallville, the best Superman series ever on television, is not without its glaring faults, but when it has its magic moments, it leaps the tallest expectations with a
single bound.
To the subtle bars of John Williams' original Superman theme, such a scene occurred last week featuring Christopher Reeve as Dr. Virgil Swann (Curt Swann was a longtime DC artist), a mysterious, recluse genius who confronts Clark about his alien origin. This must be what Superman is all about. And for only a few minutes it was, more than making up for the rest of the series' shortcomings. (An added irony: Reeve is contributing to the retelling of his definitive first film which will be remade by Warner. Confused? DC Comics retold Superman's origin countless times, with countless variations over the years.)
Far more important than fantastic deeds, heroic posturing and slam-bang battles, the enduring worth of a uniquely empowered individual is determined by his (or her) quest to discover the meaning and purpose of his (or her) humanity.
Xena, Mr. Spock and Frankenstein's monster did so. Batman, Lara Croft and Daredevil never bothered. Peter Parker, coping with his inadvertently inherited powers, rather than fighting the Green Goblin, made Spider-Man a watchable movie. What will the Hulk make of his Jekyll-and-Hyde-like existence? Pure CGI effects without affects? And The Thing of the Fantastic Four? How grim will Ben's take be on his own misshapen humanity?
But the most precious moment of all awaits as Nicholas Cage (himself named after a Marvel superhero) contemplates the tiny wings on his Submariner's heels ("Cage To Surface As Namor?"). Talk about being all wet, in over your head and down in de-feet.
Glub, glub, glub!
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
eonardo DiCaprio as Iron Man? ("DiCaprio Suited For Iron?") With him starring, it should be named Iron Boy. Or how about Iron Hobbit! This was almost as bad as the near-decision to cast Nicholas Cage as Superman.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but aren't Marvel heroes pretty much super mesomorphs? They are definitely not monkey-hipped pretty boys. What next? Mick Jagger as the mighty Thor?
T. Hannibal Gay
Hannibal@Hotmail.com
am writing in hopes that the SCI FI Channel will seriously consider taking on Witchblade, even for one season. The main
character in this series is a strong woman, which has recently become a very surprising niche in the current entertainment industry. This appeals to both men and women. I was so surprised, and very excited, to see that a series could have such wonderful, creative and intriguing writing and content, alongside all the action. (The stunt work is excellent as well).
Please find some way to find a home/slot for Witchblade, even for one more season. Again, properly marketed, [the SCI FI Channel] wouldn't be sorry.
Trina Neu
freebird1998@earthlink.net
aving read this column for over a year, and corresponded with some of the frequent contributors (notably Kevin Ahearn and Nathan Brazil), I am surprised that none of the regulars have been contacted by the producers of any science-fiction shows. There seems to be no lack of fresh or even revolutionary ideas here, and some of the contributors seem to really have their pulse on what makes great sci-fi. My guess is that if some of the insightful contributors were contacted, they'd be happy to review or even write scripts for upcoming or existing shows. My hope is that the talent here would be tapped into, and I am sitting here wondering why it has not.
Is it that writers are territorial and would feel threatened? Is it a union issue? Is it that few, if any, of the producers of sci-fi television read this column? Can producers not risk taking a chance on an unknown? Or am I completely off base? It just seems like an ideal venue for potential writers to get their start and well-established industry folks to recruit cheap labor. If any producers are reading this then I would be curious as to your response.
Peter Boghossian
pete@boghossian.com
'm writing in response to a flurry of debate on two important franchises in the realm of mainstream scifi, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Star Trek.
I agree with Nathan Brazil's enthusiasm for a show featuring Faith ("Faith-Based Sequel Would Surely Slay"). I disagree with his desire to integrate Faith into the Sunnydale experience. Frankly, I'm a bit tired of hanging out on the Hellmouth. I hope, if this is indeed the last season for Sarah Michelle Gellar as Buffy, that they put a big cork in it and go out and party. Faith has a completely different personality and drive than Buffy and she needs an environment specific to her needs to grow both as a slayer and a person. Much as when Angel went off and, initially, stood on his own two feet, so must Faith. Shoe-horning her into the Scooby gang would be wrong for many reasons. While I don't wish to say goodbye to Willow, Zander, Dawn, Giles, Anya and the rest, I don't believe it's fair to Dushku or Faith to make the character return to follow in Buffy's footsteps. For a Faith-based (boy there are a lot of puns to insert here) series to succeed it must be as unique as Faith herself is. And that includes new characters and locations. She seems more of a New York girl anyway.
Star Trek, the longest running sci-fi TV franchise ever, and next to James Bond, one of the longest movie franchise, suffers from three critical ailments.
1. It is no longer unique from a production standpoint. The idea of an ensemble cast exploring strange new worlds can be found in series such as Andromeda. and Stargate SG-1. And now there are dozens of shows with cool special effects, mutants, aliens, space and time travel premises, that don't rely on a massive mythology or have such a critical fan base. It's not 1987 with TNGs ground-breaking special effects and new energy.
2. Money—One of Enterprise's saving graces is that it is the anchor of the UPN lineup. There are better shows that get higher ratings (e.g., Farscape) that have been canceled because of ratings and money. I don't like to think about it, but I feel as though Enterprise is being carried by the network. How long will that last? And I don't believe the line about "finding its legs." With 1.5 seasons in the can, it should be cruising at warp now.
3. Enterprise has little to offer the new viewer. It is a nostalgic show that has, in many ways, annoyed longtime fans with its revisionist history. When you consider Voyager, you have to take into account its distinctive draw to new viewers—Janeway. Having attended the Women of Star Trek: Voyager convention here in Cleveland two years ago, I can tell you that this was a major coupe for the Star Trek world. Women of all ages who had never watched Star Trek before found a reason to enlist. Without a draw, you just start loosing viewers.
Don't get me wrong though, I think that the Star Trek franchise has a lot of life left in it, although it needs to reinvent itself for a broader audience, with a unique proposition, and pushing the envelope in writing and production to stay ahead of the wanna-bees.
Trek is dead! Long live Trek!
Tom Loveman
tloveman@mac.com
spent some time reading notes posted commenting on Star Trek and Roddenberry's dream ("Money Can't Buy You Trek", "Trek Isn't Changing With the Times", "Roddenberry Dreamed of Better Future", "Star Trek Offers Communist Ideals", "Trek Has Never Advocated Communism" and "Trek Teleports to Pragmatic Future"), as well as on Farscape ('No "Doubt' About Browder's Ability", "Kemper and Company Deserve Kudos" and "Good SF Always Comes to Bad End"). Personally, I cannot think of any two series with more fundamental differences.
Reading the comments on Star Trek has reminded me of what I began to think and have had reinforced by the Trek-based series that have come since Roddenberry went to the stars. Trek is floundering under the leadership of Rick Berman and Brannon Braga. There does not appear to be a direction they want to go with the franchise. The movies and shows seem pointless and more focused on special effects than the writing of a good plot and dialogue. I know this will draw dissenting remarks, but I think the cast and crew of Voyager, Deep Space Nine and now Enterprise have been dealt a great injustice. Both Voyager and Deep Space Nine had excellent premises but the writing poorly pursued the capabilities of the cast and characters. It is a credit to the cast that the shows did as well as they had. However, the damage was done, many of the fans that returned to Trek for The Next Generation and DS9 were losing interest in the franchise. Voyager comes along in an attempt to regain the waning audience. Unfortunately, it did quite the opposite, even with the addition of Seven-of-Nine, which was an obvious ploy to increase the number of teenage male viewers.
Alternately, you have the Farscape series. In Trek's defense, Farscape does not share the curse and blessing of having a huge fan base that can quote line and episode from memory on demand. Farscape took an unusual cast, which includes two "Muppets" and a living ship and built a fairly large following. How? Good acting, writing enhanced, not overpowered, by SFX. Even in the final episodes, they are still delving into the good and evil of each character. The cast obviously still enjoys working on the show and they have not given up on the audience that they are working to entertain.
This show will be sorely missed.
Matt Seibert
mrsei@hotmail.com
ecently, there's been some discussion to the effect that Gene Roddenberry's
Federation, or at least the human part of the Federation, is Communist ("Money Can't Buy You Trek", "Trek Isn't Changing With the Times", "Roddenberry Dreamed of Better Future", "Star Trek Offers Communist Ideals", "Trek Has Never Advocated Communism" and "Trek Teleports to Pragmatic Future"). It
seems to me that what these discussions have missed is the effect of replicator technology on the economy.
The only way Capitalism as we know it could survive is if replicator technology is suppressed. In a society where replicators are available, the economy would be transformed into something that cannot be described in 20th or 21st century terminology. To begin with, everybody has all the factories in the world in his own home. Food, ordinary everyday clothing, pharmaceuticals, standard electronic gadgetry and anything else that in the 21st century might be mass-produced, may as well be free. This might lead to a withering away of the Capitalist economy.
What sort of things might possibly be worth money, or be expensive? Service, and original creations that become templates for replication. The artists or designers who can create originals are very valuable to society, and would receive some sort of reward equivalent, perhaps, to the way our recording artists are treated for recording music which can then be reproduced on thousands or millions of CD's. An original template, provided it can be authenticated, would be fabulously valuable. If replicated copies are free, then piracy is not an issue. As you see, a replicator economy is unlike anything that is familiar to us. It's not Capitalist, but neither is it Communist.
Steve Block
baronsb@swbell.net
'm astonished at the number of people that have said (in reference to Gene
Roddenberry's vision of the future) that they think a communist future would
be a good thing ("Money Can't Buy You Trek", "Trek Isn't Changing With the Times", "Roddenberry Dreamed of Better Future", "Star Trek Offers Communist Ideals", "Trek Has Never Advocated Communism" and "Trek Teleports to Pragmatic Future"). Has everyone forgotten what communism was like in practice? The commoners living in squalor while an elite (and abusive) few had
everything? For a more honest view of communism, I highly recommend the book A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
I'm not knocking Roddenberry—he was very talented, and of course an optimistic vision of the future would be one not ruled by greed. But political extremism like communism (or fascism) is not the answer.
Tom Holste
tomh1138@hotmail.com
o the Roswell fan ("Roswell Requires a Bigger Finish")—give the Melinda Metz series a try.
I know it is a "teen" series—but she is a great writer, and her ideas about Roswell were better than most of the series, and I liked the series a lot. She had a definite end and it was edgier—playing with characters more, also her characters were more ethnic. The WB made too much white bread out of the book.
If you like that series, then try her Fingerprint series, too. She's a terrific writer.
Kathi Bruce
kbruce@lascinti.org
happened upon the new Battlestar Galactica page at www.scifi.com/battlestar/ and read with great interest the letter from Ron Moore about the new project. Being a fan of the original, I am a
little perplexed at some of news. I don't remember Starbuck being a woman in the old series. I can agree with much of what Ron Moore says, especially going into more depth and complexity in the characters. No one wants to see the clock set back to 1978 in this show. I do disagree with him on this
though: Why can't the new show coexist with the storyline established in the original Battlestar Galactica, rather than denying that to us? Prequels worked with Star Wars and a continuation 80 years later worked for Star Trek: The Next Generation. Could Ron Moore's script be adapted to work in that way, too?
Ron Moore speaks of waking a slumbering giant with this show. I'm afraid that with his current script, he is not waking up that giant, but substituting it with a white elephant.
Steve Parady
animator@kua.net
Back to the top.
