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.
hree weeks ago I read Ben Stein's "How to Ruin American Enterprise". I found what he had to say intriguing, so I decided to read his book, How to Ruin Your Life.
It was an interesting premise: Just as people who want to succeed duplicate the actions of those who have succeeded, if you want to fail, then simply duplicate the actions of those who have failed. Of course, the exact same principles can be applied to sci-fi television, and that is what I will do in this letter. This letter is for all those who are currently producing sci-fi shows who wish to make bad sci-fi. If you want to make bad sci-fi, then draw from the worst elements of these shows and you are guaranteed to produce a terrible show! The following are just a few of the more well-known shows (for a comprehensive list go here: www.magicdragon.com/UltimateSF/tv.html#TV-C), with details for you to mirror their shortcomings.
[Warning: Spoilers ahead.]
Andromeda:
1. Make all main characters unrealistically immune from damage.
2. Be sure to have characters relate to each other in a very '90s way (or whatever decade in which you happen to be writing).
3. Have a linear story arch that is unclear why viewers should care (make sure it's also unclear why the main characters should care).
Babylon 5:
Keep the actors guessing—every season—whether or not the show will be canceled.
Crusade:
1. Don't advertise or market your new show in any way.
2. Have that network meddle with the show in every way possible.
3. Air it in a scrambled order. (This, and the fact that only 12 of the intended 22 episodes were ever filmed, makes it impossible to air a correct order of the existing episodes. In case you're wondering why I said 12 and not 13, "War Zone" was never supposed to exist.)
Earth: Final Conflict:
1. Make sure the writing is inconsistent—both within episodes and throughout the lifespan of the show.
2. Each season should be almost totally disjointed from the season before and after it.
3. Fire your best actor (who happens to be the lead) at the end of the first season.
4. If there is any clandestine activity taking place, then make sure those high-profile characters involved stroll in and out of the headquarters of their alleged enemies.
5. Ignore fan input.
Farscape:
End the main characters' lives in a completely senseless way in the last 5 minutes of the last episode.
Firefly:
1. Make the show's mystery as conspicuous as possible.
2. Make sure that you find a poor timeslot for the show, move its time slot repeatedly and preempt it early on.
3. If your show doesn't do well immediately then don't give it a second chance, just pull it off the air.
4. Air the pilot last, and air it in a scrambled order so it's hard to make sense of it all.
5. Also, be sure to never do encore showings (like USA does for The Dead Zone, Monk, etc. Monk is a 13 week show that they've aired for 52 weeks!)
First Wave:
When you introduce a new character (Jordan) make sure you stop developing the relationship between the existing main characters (Kade and Eddie)—the relationship that you took more than an entire season to develop.
John Doe:
1. If your main character is genuinely trying to discover who he is, make sure that he does something really idiotic, like intentionally and without reason overlooking a main clue in the search for his past (the metal device planted in John's chest in the episode "Save As ... John Doe").
2. Make sure not to experiment with placing the protagonist in new situations until the show is about to be canceled.
Mutant X:
Substitute style for substance.
Stargate SG-1:
1. Have an absolutely enormous secret government project that virtually nobody in the civilian world knows about.
2. If one of your main characters leaves the show, and comes back because he can't find other work, make sure you unrealistically change the universe to accommodate him.
Sliders: (Here is a model study in how to take a fantastic premise for a show and completely ruin it).
1. Continue to fall back on plot conveniences (like losing the timer) rather than writing thoughtful, creative episodes that engage viewers in "real" dilemmas.
2. If one of your main characters gets trapped in a nightmarish breeding camp with inhuman beasts, then make sure that the other characters don't do anything to actively rescue her.
3. Make sure that the characters are never prepared for the myriad of uncertainties that await them.
Starhunter: (This show alone, the worst sci-fi show that has ever been produced, could easily stand as a model)
1. Make sure that each episode is so unrealistic that viewers have to work to try to create the conditions for it to make sense.
2. Have the main character on a mission of supreme importance to him, and then make sure that he never pursues that mission.
3. Miscast the actors.
4. Have sloppy, trite and at times incoherent dialogue.
Star Trek (classic):
1. Don't have any vision—pull your show off of the air in three seasons.
2. Make sure NBC hosts your new show.
Enterprise:
1. Have lame theme music that is universally condemned by fans, and make sure that you don't react to their feedback by changing the music.
2. Make sure that there is no moral dilemma that requires genuine sacrifice (like scores of the crew dying for a greater principle).
Star Trek: The Next Generation:
1. Renew the contract, with bonuses, of actors who cannot act and who are incredibly annoying (Marina Sirtis).
2. Make sure that some actors dominate the screen (Stewart and Spiner) while others consistently give anemic performances (McFadden, Burton, Frakes, Wheaton).
3. Remove strong female characters from lead roles (Crosby, Forbes).
4. Don't have a realistic economy.
Star Trek: Voyager:
1. Thoughtlessly and unreflectively buy into the dominant values of this age (multiculturalism and diversity), and then reflect and reify these values 400 years into the future.
2. Make sure characters are always modifying the deflectors and discussing tachyon beams in order to get them out of a crisis.
3. Overly rely on certain characters' relationships (Janeway and 7 of 9) at the expense of developing other relationships.
The Prisoner:
Have a great buildup to an almost unintelligible ending.
The X-Files:
Have a main character that's perennially incredulous despite continuous first hand experiences.
Tracker:
Make each episode, and the show as a whole, as predictable as possible.
Peter Boghossian
pete@boghossian.com
noticed, and participated, in the Scifi.com poll this week concerning shows that are on the cancellation bubble. One of them is the WB's Angel.
I thought that you might be interested to know that there are some campaigns to gather support for Angel. The first of these is an online petition that I started in Feb. It is doing very well. I have sent updates of the petition, hard copies to the WB and to Angel's sponsors every couple of weeks so that they can see what kind of fan base the show has.
Renewangel.com also has some campaigns going, the main one being a postcard campaign.
If you would like to know more about the petition, please let me know I and would be happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you for your time.
Cari Kinz
ckinz@theriver.com
he SCI FI Channel's original programming Scare Tactics is another in the line of shows (Candid Camera, Jamie Kennedy Xperiment and MTV's Punk D) that takes fun by making fools of people. Whilst it is interesting to see how the collaborators of the show would produce such effects as alien invasions and elaborate government conspiracies, caution must be exercised, as some of the plots are downright serious and could even be dangerous in that the wrong kind of response could be invoked from the intended victim.
For example, the script with the homicidal hitchhiker with the "human head" in his bag saw the intended victim resorting to violence when he thought that his friend was being stabbed by the perpetrator. As we say here, "joke is joke, but damn joke is no joke at all."
Julian Gift
lira-b@tstt.net.tt
e should have called it Who Goes There?" said the late Ken Tobey in a Starlog magazine interview regarding John Carpenter's remake of The Thing in 1982.
The star of the 1951 classic had a point. The original film used only the alien menace angle in an Antarctic setting from John W. Campbell's 1938 novelette and dumped the shape-shifting scenario and endless psychobabble. Instead, the Howard Hawks/Christian Nyby/Charles Lederer production pitted pompous scientists "We've split the atom" against the cynical military "Yeah, and that made everybody happy" facing an "intellectual carrot" with the media chiming in, "This is the greatest story since the parting of the Red Sea" at the opening of the Cold War "They're everywhere [the Russians]. Like flies."
Minds boggled, but was The Thing good science fiction? Isaac Asimov called the James Arness played monster a "dull Frankenstein" and others in the sci-fi community also panned the film.
They missed the point. The 1951 Thing wasn't about science fiction; Hawks and company were after much bigger game. First and foremost a thriller whose influence could be felt in a hundred films ranging from Jaws to Alien, The Thing captured the post-WW II era as the U.S. sought to grapple with an uncertain and dangerous future. Whom could we rely upon to lead us?
Tobey played Capt. Henry, everybody's Everyman, a former B-17 bomber commander, who with his stalwart crew ("I haven't heard him squawk like that since we were over Ragensburg [The factory hometown of the infamous Messerschmitt fighter plane]") and simple, backyard science would triumph over the Nobel intellects and the nefarious invader—the brave rather than the brainy knew what was best for America.
Neither Campbell's text nor Carpenter's film had any such ambition. Both stuck strictly with science fiction. In writing the remake's screenplay Bill Lancaster (Burt's son) found Campbell's story "uncinematic" and "nothing but talk." Unlike the original which relied on subtlety, romance and humor ("A man from Mars! Where?" "On ice, buddy, on ice.") to create compelling characters the audience was quick to identify with, Carpenter's version went all out to create "A film of limited imagination with unlimited horror effects" (Pauline Kael) and "A barf-bag film, a geek show, a gross-out movie" (Roger Ebert).
In a four-hour (200 minutes film time) mini-series, now it's the SCI-FI Channel's turn. Which film or story will be remade or will this third time around take on both?
John W. Campbell's fiction writing career virtually ended with "Who Goes There?" but as an editor, he became the most influential mentor in the genre's history. His mantra: "The ethics of evolution is 'try'."
In taking on his signature story, will the SCI-FI Channel simply update the old or challenge its viewers with something new?
What's The Thing in the new millennium? "Who Goes There?" remains a most intriguing question. In making this mini-series, maybe Yoda has the final say. "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
egarding the letter written by D. Scott Scheibe ("Dune Miniseries Not Accurate") concerning the accuracy of the Dune miniseries:
I'm not sure what is in Mr. Scheibe's copies of the books, but the Weirding Modules of Lynch's movie never once appear in any of the editions I've read.
The Weirding Way, at least its martial applications, was portrayed in the books much more like the portrayal in the SCI FI Channel's miniseries than in the Lynch film, consisting of a fighting style—a "form," as we call them in Martial Arts—emphasizing "Prana Bindu," or fine control of the muscles and nerve impulses. Mastery of the Prana-Bindu system could enable the practitioner to perform feats of acrobatics and combat that seemed almost mystical in nature, leading to the term "Weirding," which was an idiomatic expression for anything "mystical" or "witchcraft" related.
In my own opinion, having read all of the original six books of the saga, the two works John Harrison and his cast and crew have created so far are, allowing for the necessary adaptations to screen conventions, excellent portraits of the themes of the novels. Despite my misgivings over how the
fourth novel could be made into a film, I hope these intrepid and daring artists are given the chance.
And yes, fellow fans, that's my real name. It's a long story; feel free to write if you really want to know.
Michael Atreides
atreidesmre@attbi.com
bviously the author of "Dune Miniseries Not Accurate" has not read any of the Dune novels, or least has had his memory of them influenced by David Lynch's version [of the film]. The "weirding modules" weren't in original novel but was an invention of Lynch, no doubt to save the time and expense of teaching unarmed and knife combat to his extras. Oddly enough, many Dune "fans," even those who excoriate the Lynch film, are so influenced by its imagery, that some still insist until their eyes turn blue that the book's Duke Leto had a beard or that the Reverend Mothers are bald "like in the book." When you think of Gone with the Wind, do you think of the way the events are depicted in the movie or the way they are in the book? Mostly it depends on which you've read or seen first.
As for the "inaccuracy" of the miniseries Children of Dune, novels seldom survive the transition to film intact. Many times, this is due to the vanity and superficiality of the screenwriter, director, producers, etc., but for truly good adaptations, this is mainly due to the differing requirements of literature and cinema. To boil down the differences to one lump: a novel tells while a movie shows. Frank Herbert's style was very literature-oriented in that many of the most important events of the novels occur in a character's head, or happen off-stage, or are related by an omniscient narrator.
Adapting novels such as Dune in such a way to strike a balance between pleasing the novel's fans and making the story comprehensible to non-fans is a difficult one and the result is likely to displease somebody. If you want a faithful, literal adaptation of Dune or any of your favorite books, you'll have to be satisfied with the theater of your imagination.
Todd Bennett
toddcoder@sbcglobal.net
'm writing to comment on the new Hulk movie being released this year. First off, The Incredible Hulk that I knew and that kept me glued to the television every day was Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno. To me, that storyline is the storyline the movie should be based on—good ol' Bruce lookin for a cure. Now, I do realize the new movie is based on the comic-book hero the Hulk. Therefore I will go and see it and probably even like it—but for everyone out there griping about how Ang Lee is "depicting" the Hulk, remember, it's based on the comic, not the television show! Go see the movie, then complain....
Which brings me to my next point—why in god's name is The Incredible Hulk TV show not on
the SCI FI Channel anymore? Please, for the love of everything that is good, bring it back! Will there ever be a way for us die-hard television Hulk fans to get a hold of the TV series? Thanks for your time.
Randy Mlynarski
bitties4ever@hotmail.com
n response to Peter Boghossian's "Farscape Finale Was Frelling Awful", in
some ways I would agree. It was a poor way to end a series that was known to
be ending its on-screen tenure.
However...
[Warning: Spoilers ahead.]
Farscape has shown on several occasions ways to cheat death. And there are undoubtedly opportunities to get around John's and Aeryn's apparent deaths (perhaps clones exist elsewhere in the galaxy, or alternative versions are stranded on some planet, the possibilities are endless).
Furthermore, simply because Farscape no longer has a screen presence (at least in terms of new episodes), doesn't mean the franchise/series is dead. Another great and long-enduring series—Dr. Who—has survived well after the final regular episode was produced back in 1989. It thrives in original novels, audio adventures, spinoffs and even a one-off TV movie (the ill-fated Fox/BBC venture of 1996). Granted, continuing television episodes would be preferable for Farscape (as well as Dr. Who), but Farscape can live on in other media.
Farscape is dead! Long live Farscape!
David Brauner
mozart827@yahoo.com
have to disagree with Peter Boghossian about the end of Farscape (Farscape Finale Was Frelling Awful). [Warning: Spoilers ahead.] Sure, the To Be Continued at the end just stuck another knife into our wounds at the loss of the series—however the "death" of Aeryn and John was very much in keeping with Farscape, which never shied away from bad things happening to good people for no good reason.
Unlike many SF shows, in Farscape there were consequences and repercussions to people's actions, and no reset button. People behaved well or badly for personal reasons, not some noble vision. Most of the time our heroes were just trying to stay alive, not make the galaxy a better place. But because they were good people, and often better people than they themselves actually thought, they did make the galaxy a better place. It was not Farscape's way to have resolution and a "fitting" end, even for our favorite characters. The Farscape galaxy just did not work like that—just like ours.
Paul Wright
paul@pawa.demon.co.uk
have some great ideas for Enterprise that may lift it out of the ratings pit, and show us once and for all that the creators are inspired.
Have Archer and the crew go back in time to save the whales.
Have T'Pol die and leave her soul in the doctor's head.
Have Trip undergo the seven-year "Texas Mating Ritual."
Oh, wait! These ideas have already been done! Still, lack of originality hasn't stopped the producers so far, has it? Perhaps they are burned out, and Paramount should consider moving new producers into place, before a series so rich with potential gets canceled.
And is there any special reason the show is shot in color? It may as well be in shown in black and white, considering all the different shades of black, dark blue, etc. used throughout.
I know—let's find a lunatic half-sister for T'Pol, who hijacks the Enterprise on a quest to find God. ...
Richard S. Drake
Drake70@msn.com
Back to the top.
