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.
egarding Peter Boghossian's "Popular SF Doesn't Equal Good SF": "That Andromeda is the number-one syndicated sci-fi show does not bode well for what's to come. For example, all of the thoughtful suggestions that people have written to this forum proposing possible directions Star Trek should take will almost surely be rejected. Producers and writers want to mirror what works and discard what doesn't: enter Andromeda, exit Farscape. Moreover, new shows will likely try to emulate this formula for success: hello Andromeda, goodbye Babylon 5. And finally, we are likely to see this have an impact on the genre overall, as a push towards this type of mind-numbing sci-fi becomes more commonplace."
I completely agree and it's a truly sad, sad state of affairs. It's time to buy Babylon 5, Farscape and Stargate SG-1 DVDs, and abandon sci-fi on TV. At least on the DVDs, we won't have to deal with the increasingly intrusive pop-up ads, station bugs, scrunched credits with staticy voice-overs and Scare Tactics ads.
If I'm really lucky, Crusade, Brimstone, Special Unit 2 and Firefly will also come out on DVD.
Mac Breck
macbreck@access995.com
nterprise isn't the only show suffering from a lack of creativity. Fox's new crime drama-cum-quasi sci-fi series John Doe is running out of steam—fast. The mystery of who John Doe is can only string viewers along so far, and if Fox doesn't get its act together, then John Doe will go the way of The Sentinel. The show is suffering from two fundamental problems: 1) increasingly formulaic and predictable plots, and 2) internal inconsistencies caused by sloppy writing. Either one of these is enough alienate all but the most devoted viewers.
OK, OK, John Doe knows everything except who he is, so he hangs out in Seattle and helps the police solve crimes while supposedly looking into the mystery of his identity. Not a bad initial idea for a show, but it needs to evolve. How long will this really keep viewers' attention? Why not try something a bit more creative? Have the FBI pick him up for a few episodes and tap into his skills (his motivation being that he has access to more resources to uncover his identity)? Maybe even drop his crime-fighting shtick and involve him in some larger, international mystery. These are obvious ideas, but what is important is not so much the particulars but the exercise of a modicum of creativity in the larger story arc.
Of course, Hollywood is unwilling to think outside the box until they realize it's too late. That's just the nature of the beast, and John Doe, Andromeda, Enterprise, etc., exemplify this institutionalized shortcoming. What is inexcusable, however, is the sloppy, even hurried writing that plagues the show. Almost every episode suffers from internal inconsistencies that should have never made it to production. For example, in the last episode, "Psychic Connection," once we realize that the psychic is not a psychic, it's never explained how she knew intimate details about the recent murders, or how she knew about the key and its connection to the murderer. These things are never explained because, without an incredible leap of the imagination, there is no explanation (and even with such a leap connections need to be made explicit for the less imaginative).
John Doe is yet another example of a show that's starting to suffer from a lack of imagination and stale writing. It is, however, not only salvageable but capable of flourishing, if the producers allow more creative scripts and the writers rigorously scrutinize plots.
Peter Boghossian
pete@boghossian.com
Assistant Editor Brian Murphy responds:
I don't think I can solve all of the problems you have with John Doe; however, I think I might be able to clarify one plot point from last week's episode. The "psychic" girl didn't actually discover the new bodies; she was subconsciously bringing John Doe and company to the site where she was attacked five years earlier. Luckily for them, this murderer liked to dump all his victims in one place. I forget which character says it, but it's (not so clearly) mentioned that once the police were in the vicinity of the old murders, the dogs picked up the scent of the recently killed girls.
Best,
Brian
recently read the Riverworld page from SCI FI Channel's Web site, and I have to say I am now feeling pessimistic about this movie. I read the whole series years ago, and loved it. Part of what I found so incredible about the series was the character development that [Philip José] Farmer took the characters through, from Sir Richard Francis Burton, Samuel Clemens and most especially Herman Goering.
Now, after having read the description of the movie (noting several story changes which are understandable) and looking at the cast/character list, I am upset. They have dropped the character of the cross-dressing Nazi leader Goering, neglecting the powerful character and spiritual development/evolution that Farmer takes him on. His story is, in my opinion, an integral part of the Riverworld story.
Although I do plan on watching this long hoped for television event, I am afraid I (and all the other Riverworld fans) will be left wanting.
R. Glenn Myron
Imladolen1@aol.com
have watched Roswell since it first started on The WB, and I continued to watch it when it regretfully was put UPN. Some may say the show was uneven, but for those who were true Roswell fans, we didn't watch in anticipation for evenness, we watched to see the struggles and battles of those we have come to love. I was very disappointed when Alex was killed off, since he was Isabelle's love.
I now watch Roswell on the SCI FI Channel and still enjoy it. They should bring the show back to The WB and continue the story where they left off because there are still many loose ends, like Max's son, regardless if he is human, his mother and father are aliens, and the FBI knows there is a
child out there that came to Earth on a space ship. How about the other royal four? We know the king Max is dead, but whatever happened to the other Tess? There are many stories that this show could follow. Please, for all the true Roswell followers, bring the show back and make it as compelling
and exciting to watch as I, and many, many others, know it is.
Jennifer Wright
jwright@fire.sbcounty.gov
n regards to the casting of a Superman for the movies ("O'Connell Confirms Super Rumor" and "Boreanaz Denies Super Rumor"):
I reckon they should get an unknown to play the part of Superman. When Christopher Reeve was picked for the first movie, he was virtually an unknown actor.
Superman needs to be the same—we require someone unseen in movies, so that there are no hang-ups with previous acting roles.
George J. Kennedy
timetrvel@cnet.com.u
he letter from Terry Mckay ("Enterprise Reflects Selective Memory"), commenting on the Enterprise management of history reveals more of a cultural blight than anything to do with Paramount in particular. Large chunks of the American media, in recent years, have become obsessed with editing history, or reimagining it to fit what someone thinks should have happened. Those responsible would no doubt argue that it's an example of artistic license, and to a degree, they're correct. But the effect diminishes like ripples from a pebble, the further the disingenuous product goes from its principle audience.
The not-so-subtle purge of anything which does not glorify the U.S. is naturally a source of irritation and insult to those whose countrymen actually made the history. It is mild racism, theft and childish bias, by people who chose to deny or devalue the heroics and achievements of other nations. But it gets worse, when melded with the kind of patronism which afflicts Enterprise. Instead of an exploration vessel, crewed by multinational pioneers, they're all Yanks. Except for the token Brit and token alien sex symbol. Instead of a crew taking humanity's first giant leap into the big bad galaxy, we get good old boy Tripp, patronizing this week's aliens, whose vessel he just happens to know how to fix!
But, let's not judge all by the twaddle of the few. Part of what made shows like Babylon 5 and Farscape so good, was that even though both featured Americans in lead roles, the characters were smart Americans. The kind of people who made the country great in the first place. They were scripted by writers who understood that we all have a lot to learn, regardless of where on Earth we were born, and we need to learn it together.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil@freeuk.com
egarding the notion that replications would kill capitalism ("Star Trek Sensibly Loses Money" and "Technology Could Bring True Communism"), I must disagree.
While it would be likely that everyone would have a replicator, doesn't it make sense that each replicator is programmed to produce certain things? Thus, you would have a basic replicator, which would produce basic foodstuffs (bread, milk, carrots, spinach, pecan pie, etc.), clothing
(pants, shirts, shoes, etc. a la Sears), a certain booklist (textbooks, classics, etc.), so nobody would go hungry or naked or uneducated, and then for an additional fee, you could have your replicator programmed to produce more exotic foodstuffs (Andorian drazha eggs, Vulcan plomeek soup, caviar, etc.), more specialized clothing (Chanel suits, Vulcan robes, Klingon armor, etc.) and the most recent "bestsellers." This is where the "status" would come in, simply because some people would be able to afford the upgrades, and some people wouldn't. Of course, the "top of the heap," as it were, would be those people who could afford originals (fresh grown foodstuffs, handmade clothing, printed books, etc.).
Humans will always have a social structure—the best one will be where nobody goes hungry, naked, without shelter or without education. I think that's really what Roddenberry was after.
Rachel Maley
rmaley@cox.net
tepping back from the realm of sci-fi and examining current real-world issues is a worthwhile endeavor for the average SF geek (like myself), and an issue raised in the ongoing Trek discussion ("Star Trek Sensibly Loses Money" and "Technology Could Bring True Communism") allows us to do just that. In the letter "Replicators Will Kill Capitalism," Steve Block discusses how a society containing unrestrained replicator use would irreversibly alter economic systems as we currently understand them by allowing "everybody [to have] all the factories in the world in his own home." This would lead to the artists/designers of original creations to be "valuable to society" and "receive some sort of reward equivalent" similar to "the way our recording artists are treated" today, according to Mr. Block. This issue allows us to not only ponder issues in a hypothetical (if improbable) future, including exactly how one would compensate artists (when the means of replicating their creations inherently makes all forms of compensation/exchange essentially useless), but it may give some insight into some real-world issues which are unfolding around us.
Rudimentary "replicator" technology exists right now in the entertainment business, and it's only getting better. As entertainment media rapidly migrate to digital forms (for both delivery and quality reasons), and computer and communication power/technologies rapidly ramp-up, we are not too far away from the Trek future in this medium. As computer capacities expand to infinity (from a practical standpoint) and super high-speed Internet connections become commonplace in peoples' homes (and TV/video and computer systems essentially merge), sharing a perfect copy of music/movie, etc., will be as easy as pressing one button (or in Trek fashion, telling your computer to do so [good voice recognition/comprehension isn't too far away, either!]). The Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other anti-pirating laws will be moot due to prevalence and unenforceability (equivalent to the inability to prosecute for pickpocketing in Larry Niven's "Known Space" series), and there will inevitably be a radical revaluation of certain intellectual property (IP) assets. Unfortunately, this will alter the incentives that currently exist to fuel artistic expression and creativity in these media, and we will all suffer as a result. In the end, the value of many forms of IP will go the way of the buggy whip.
Michael Lustig
mpl@blackrock.com
've noticed some desperate pleas for originality in science-fiction film and TV, in recent letters. I certainly agree that SF filmmakers should take their cue from SF books more often. If you look at the films that were based on books, such as Aliens, Solaris and Jurassic Park, they are the kind of films that people remember the most. Even video games, like Tomb Raider and Super Mario Brothers, are starting to become role models for movies.,/p>
But I'd also like to add an idea of my own that I have been thinking of for quite some time, that could greatly improve the SF film industry. Japan's greatest small-screen entertainment, anime. At present, anime is only sometimes shown on the SCI FI Channel. It needs to be shown more often. But
that's not what I'm mainly suggesting.
My main point is that our own SF-film industries could learn a lot from them in terms of creativity and boldness. The anime classics have so much to offer. Try and imagine Akira (or any other anime of the sort) in movie format with real actors and scenes, but keeping to the same story and idea. That would rock. Then there are those animes that mix ancient mythology with modern technology and make it work well. There are the shimmering cities of the future and genetic mutants running amok. I could go on and on.
It's a shame that American film producers have overlooked this opportunity. They could really make films that are both fast-paced and thought-provoking. How often do you see a movie that can claim both of those attributes in one? Exactly.
Anime makes good sci-fi. Yet, out of all of the Hollywood films that I've seen in the last decade, only The Matrix really stands out as good, anime-inspired SF. And look at the popularity that it's gained.
Anime ideas might not work for everyone, but they sure do for me.
Darren Simpson
darrensimpson10@hotmail.com
arvey, Topper and the Creature from the Black Lagoon are suddenly in the same boat; all three black-and-white classics are in the early stages of being remade.
Harvey, about a strange, gentle man and a six-foot rabbit who teaches us all a thing or two about reality and humanity would seem timeless, but alcoholism and mental health played key roles in the drama. An updating spiked with political correctness might mean all tonic and no gin.
Could you imagine the big bunny hanging with a demented pothead or coke fiend? See the original first, please.
The Creature featured a veteran cast, a sweet babe, a neat costume and a shrill score, but little else. Problem was that the walking Gillman was hardly the maniacal killer most '50s monsters were. Not to worry. The new creature will be CGI with babes aplenty riding an ecological current to make us air-breathers better appreciate our planet complete with a new water "wilderness area" for Gillmen, Gillwomen and their Gilltots to swim happily ever after.
Like MASH and Buffy, Topper had even bigger success on TV. Years ahead of
Bewitched and I Dream of Genie, the ghostly sitcom let the dogs out with the spirit of
an alcoholic Saint Bernard. One can only wonder what he'll slurp up in the remake? I can see the product placement now. This Alpo's for you!
Hollywood remakes films for the following reasons:
1. Each dated hit comes with a brand name.
2. As the rights are pre-owned, why spend extra millions on new stuff?
3. Betting on an old product almost guarantees a built-in opening audience, hedging the initial investment.
Now if only I could think of one reason to pay money to see them.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
Back to the top.
