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. If you would like to submit a letter, please use our comments form or send a message to scifiweekly@scifi.com.
-- Craig E. Engler, Editor
You call this SF?
abrina: The Teenage Witch is science fiction? Homeboys from Outer Space? These two shows have absolutely nothing to do with science fiction, and the latter, Homeboys from Outer Space, is an insult to human intelligence. If you want science fiction fans to take you seriously, take science fiction a bit more seriously. This crap doesn't deserve to be reviewed in a science fiction e-zine.
Pete
xenu@sprynet.com
Editor: We covered both "hard SF" shows and off-genre shows of potential interest to our readers, so that's why you saw Sabrina in the lineup. As to Homeboys...as much as you may dislike it, it is most definitely science fiction.
No half-baked guesses please
big "nay, verily" to your On Screen writers. Poltergeist: The Legacy has absolutely nothing to do with the Poltergeist movies, just as Friday the 13th: The Series had nil to do with the Friday the 13th teenybopper/slasher movies. If people are going to give reviews about quality sci-fi/horror, they should at least watch the show first and not make half-baked guesses about it.
Doctor-9
horn1970@mailclerk.ecok.edu
Editor: Actually, that's what we meant when we wrote "spin off." It's the title that's being spun off, not the story line. We'll try to be a bit clearer next time.
Give The Profiler a chance!
just had to say in response to your reviewer's summary judgment of The Profiler, you need to give it another chance. You have described it as too dark and depressing; yes, it is dark, but there is also a sense of affirmation that is coming off this show like a beacon. Sam takes her life back, moves her kid and her best friend into a firehouse in Atlanta, and faces her fears. This is not depressing; it speaks to anyone who has gone through a tragedy and needed to take the first big step towards the light again. Granted, this is an extreme example, but if it wasn't extreme, why would we tune in on Saturdays (or set the trusty VCR)? Also, Sam is not solving these cases "psychically," she is putting together the minutia that no one else catches, combined with years of ivory-tower study and practical experience. Your summary gives this show a bad, "cheesy" aftertaste. Please, watch the show for a couple or three episodes before you dismiss it.
Justine Greene
jgreene@cul.com
Editor: You convinced us. We'll give it another chance.
In defense of The Burning Zone
feel compelled to come to the defense of The Burning Zone after your summary dismissal of it in the latest issue. Although I don't think it's the best show I've ever seen, I found the pilot to be extraordinarily intriguing. I found the idea that there was a master virus that controlled all the rest and which had a hive mentality to be a really interesting one that had my mind wrapped around it for days.
I also especially liked the sub-theme of Godly intervention. Although it was never explicitly stated, it was hinted that God sent the flood to rid the Earth of the virus and was now aiding the virologists to get rid of it again.
I do agree that it is a very slim premise for a series, and the subsequent episodes have not lived up to what I thought was the promise of the pilot. But I do think it's cool that they keep bringing in the spiritual aspect I liked so much from the pilot.
My personal summary of the show would be that it is not a great series but it had a really interesting pilot/movie that I would really love to have on video so I could see it again.
Carma Spence
cspence@smtplink.coh.org
Editor: We were all pretty much underwhelmed by the show, but we'll keep an eye on it nonetheless.
UPN goes nowhere without Nowhere Man
really enjoyed the On Screen section of this issue. Your comments (on whether) a show was going to make it or not were right on target. I also agree that it was a really dumb move for UPN to take off Nowhere Man. That was one of my favorites! We would first watch Star Trek: Voyager and then Nowhere Man. It was great to watch TV on Monday nights!
Tom Wilson
wilsojl@okstate.edu
Editor: Our resident movie and television critic, Kathie Huddleston, would love to see Nowhere Man brought back. Who knows? Stranger things have happened...
Disagrees with DS9, Dark Skies reviews
reat site, but I must disagree with your review of Star Trek: Deep Space 9. Like Star Trek: The Next Generation, it has gotten consistently better since the third season. Better writing, better scripts, and, let's face it, better acting. (Sisko's chrome dome definitely helped, apparently.) There are quite a few excellent stories since the third season. I think DS9 will do just fine.
However, I also think that UPN's flagship show, Star Trek: Voyager, will also begin to get better ratings and, at the very least, tie the competition in the ratings. Finally, Dark Skies has just given NBC a ratings winner, in my opinion. If the pilot was any indication, it will help to sweep Saturday night. Incredible writing, and a nice twist to history, while keeping it the same.
Carl Riley
spock@macomb.com
Editor: Actually, Carl, we were pretty complimentary toward DS9, although we did note that its ratings had taken a significant dip (through no fault of our own). As to Dark Skies...it has left us unimpressed so far.
Broaden your definition of SF
have just finished reading a comment made by Chas Warren questioning the categorization of The Crow as a science fiction film. I respectfully disagree with both Chas's statement and the editor's response. I think that any story dealing with a subject matter that cannot be supported or verified by today's scientific beliefs or understandings can certainly be characterized as science fiction. I say that placing such tight parameters on a category only cheats true fans of the "out-of-the-ordinary."
Matthew Bumpas
MBumpas@goodnet.com
Editor: I think most people would place The Crow movies squarely in the supernatural category, but I'm as willing to loosen my parameters as the next fan.
More in store for Omni Internet
e're delighted to be awarded Sci-Fi Site of the Week, particularly as our site is still under construction. During the next week my "links" and Omni's fiction guidelines and writer's tips will be going up. October 15 heralds our Salon, which will contain Paula Guran's DarkEcho horror newsletter/workshop/magazine plus various interactive items such as an audience-generated science fiction novel, "reader" reviews, and science fiction, fantasy and horror bulletin boards. Over time, we will sponsor special events in the Salon -- like a round robin of four professional writers working on a short story and "a couple of authors sitting around talking" for a month or so via hypernews bulletin board.
Ellen Datlow
EllenDat@aol.com
Editor: Sounds very exciting. We're looking forward to the new features.
Looking for back issues
o you have an archive of back issues or any plans to include such at the Web site? I think it would be a wonderful and helpful addition. Sometimes I know I am too busy with "real life" to read an issue but remember the title or mention of an article that I would love to go back and read.
Sheila Hudnall
sehudnall@aristotle.net
Editor: For now you can always look at our site index to see what back issues we keep on site (generally the last eight or so). In the coming months we will also be introducing a searchable archive of all our past reviews.
