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.
want to send a pre-emptive shout out to all those who would "Smash Hulk!" While a box-office success in its first weekend, early word coming back is [that it's] mediocre. TV Guide said most [reviewers] were giving it a B-.
I just want to say I think it was extremely well done. How do I know this? I left the movie emotionally drained. No movie about the Hulk should leave you feeling happy or excited. When it comes down to it, the story of Dr. Bruce Banner and the Hulk is a tragic, dark, depressing story. For Ang Lee to put it on the big screen and stay true to the nature of this beast, is an amazing accomplishment.
Despite this fact though, I still felt it was very entertaining and exciting.
Two issues though:
1. The comic-book split-screen camera angles and transitions were a bit too out-of-the ordinary. They actually gave me a little headache. Plus, the gimmick took away from the overall darker tone. Not much though.
2. This is not a kids movie. There were several parents with their children in the audience and they were very bored anytime the hulk wasn't onscreen. This is way more psychological than children can understand. They may enjoy the movie overall, but they'll be wondering what all the talking was about.
Lastly, the cameo of Stan Lee and Lou Ferrigno was nice and [was gotten] out of the way early. I was glad to see them in the movie, as it also helped remind me how every episode of the TV show ended, with Bill Bixby walking quietly away from the camera in his on-going search to tame the beast within. ... *cue sad music.*
Tom Loveman
tloveman@mac.com
here was an incredible victory won last weekend which, hopefully, will be felt and learned from for years to come.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix's record-shattering sales performance, outgrossing even Hulk, Marvel's latest comic book extravaganza, tells only the obvious, the numbers of the story.
To not fully appreciate and understand what happened in human terms would be a shame. Harry Potter, boy wizard, with magic unthinkable in New Millennium publishing, has restored the hope of the dwindling few of us who have always believed that the power of the printed word dwarfs the seemingly omnipotent might of the silver screen. The paper David had defeated the celluloid Goliath.
The triumph is twofold because the novel, at heart, is about the individual by an individual. Movies, and there have been some great ones, are group efforts, moreso now with teams of scriptwriters employed to write, rewrite and rewrite a screenplay. J.K. Rowling's achievement is hers alone. Pitted against the Tinsel Town fantasy machine and the TV-fiction mill which judge success only by ticket receipts and Neilsen ratings, an individual had beaten the conglomerates at their own game.
Should the day ever dawn when all entertainment and enlightenment are created by committee and homogenized for unanimous acceptance by the conditioned masses, will there be no one left who'll bother to look back at the Harry Potter phenomenon and care about what it meant and what we have lost?
Not in my lifetime.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
hat is the problem with 20th Century Fox and the Irwin Allen series? The Time Tunnel pilot sucked big time and it was tanked. Fox and NBC reneged on Lost in Space 'cause Jonathan Harris died. ...
I now understand there's a very viable project concerning Voyage but the producer is too egotistical to use it. And the Land of the Giants people are getting the shaft, too.
What gives?
Kay Dettner
kaydet1@yahoo.com
hank you, Scott Edelman for the great editorial, "Facing Front and Believing True." I totally understand where you are coming from when you said, "There's no way I can be unbiased about characters I've known for 40 years. Watching Cyclops, the Hulk and others, I was able to feel a joy that most other filmgoers could not—after all, these were my childhood dreams projected up on the screen, given flesh for all to see. Whether the films were made well or made poorly was almost beside the point. What mattered to my inner child was that they had been made, period—made real, made three-dimensional, made from myth into movies—and that tugged at my heart."
When the Superman and Batman movies came out, I enjoyed them, but was not really thrilled by them—but on opening night of X-Men, my inner child felt like it was trying to run a marathon. I have always been, and will probably always be, a Marvel fan. To see my childhood heroes finally up on the big screen, and to see the heart of the characters truly portrayed, left me speechless.
From now on, I will not knock down a movie based on characters that were someone's childhood heroes. I would never deny someone else that feeling.
Kim Christensen
gyrefalcon333@yahoo.com
lthough I was not a complete fan of Brimstone when it aired on television,
I am thoroughly appalled that someone rated Crusade over it ("Brimstone Lacked Crusade's Wow").
In my eyes, one can compare Babylon 5 and Crusade to Star Wars episodes IV through VI and episodes episodes I and II, in that the originals were brilliant, inspiring and with a clear vision. The prequels/spinoffs were so derivative, dull and fuzzy that one wonders if they were written by the same people. If Brimstone lagged in some places, at least it gave one a laugh occasionally at the Devil's rapier wit and an adrenaline rush with its bursts of action—unlike Crusade which seemed to last much longer than its half a season run. To the Crusade "fan"—if that is the right word because you seemed to be more interested in your own personal morality than good sci-fi—leave your moral opinions at the door and enjoy a good show. After all, it's just TV!
Mucomba Millar
mucomba@hotmail.com
find it amazing how a few negative words ("Brimstone Lacked Crusade's Wow") about a canceled series brings out those who thought it was a great show ("Brimstone Warranted Defense", "Brimstone Challenged Belief"). Too bad there wasn't enough people to save it from its short run.
But that's the way TV works—it panders to those shows with the highest ratings so they can charge more for advertising time. The quirky genre shows, like Brimstone, get the boot.
It's not fair, because there are people that begin watching a series, get to like it, then have to mourn when it is canceled. They then must wonder how it would have turned out a couple seasons down the line. As viewers, we are all losers.
Ann E. Bermingham
asafron@earthlink.net
recently read E! Online's 'Nuff Said column that reported a rumor that Ashton Kutcher is the only candidate to put on the cape and cowl in a proposed fifth Batman movie. Now, as big of and as loyal of a Batman fan that I am, and also admitting that they have done some really bad casting in the past, I must say that if this is true then Batman is headed to an all-time low of bad casting and desperation.
Ashton Kutcher couldn't be but yet the worst candidate ever. He's a great actor for comedy, which is his genre ... but for Batman? I would totally not see that movie. For God's sake, Justin Timberlake or Sean William-Scott would have been better picks (not that I'm saying I want to see them in that role).
To avoid the awful casting why not do an online poll by the fans? Two polls, one to see who they consider are worthy candidates, and another to vote for the actual role. Ashton Kutcher? Are we trying to revive the campiness of the '60s TV show? I'd consider Brenden Fehr, Nick Wechsler Marc Blucas or even Colin Hanks before Ashton Kutcher. I can only imagine the tasteless and stupid campy onscreen joke of him saying "Dude, where's my Batmobile?"
T.W. Wallace
scribals_75@yahoo.com
opefully, Stargate SG-1 isn't getting the shank. In reference to "Stargate Needs More Than Cuteness," I agree that
Stargate: Daniel Jackson is not at all appealing and hope the return of Michael Shanks does not signal a decline in the quality of the series. I don't receive the SCI FI Channel and my local station is a year behind, so except for "Meridian," I haven't seen any of the Corin Nemec episodes. But, having enjoyed watching the Parker Lewis Can't Lose series, I'm really
looking forward to watching Nemec as Jonas Quinn.
Daniel Jackson isn't my favorite character and seeing him disappear at the end of "Meridian" didn't really sadden me, but, knowing why Shanks left would affect my attitude towards his return. If he left because he just needed a break or because of some other selfless reason, then, I'd be happy to see Jackson return from where ever he went. But, if Shanks left because of the often-encountered "I'm-better-than-this" attitude, then, I say too bad; too bad for Nemec, too
bad for the other cast members and too bad for the fans. Luckily for me, I've got a year to find out. In the mean time, bring on season six!
Lem Grant
LemGrant@HotMail.Com
'd have to reverse the ratings on Sayuki and Read or Die. Read or Die looked good, but I didn't really feel connected to the characters. Call it the British detachment, or the limited room for development in the three episodes if you want, but I was far more into Hellsing by the end of volume one than Read or Die. I'd probably give it a B to B+ because it's a good story and the look of the show is great, but I was amusing my 12-yr-old yelling things at the screen—never a good sign.
Sayuki is cool. The guys are cute, anti-social types—is there ever a reason for these guys to get involved with each other? All the Dragonball Z guys were baddies of various degrees before becoming Goku's hero-flunkies. At least the Sayuki guys can be said to be bound by fate/past lives, etc. I love Son Goku—all he thinks of is food, sleep and fighting. Goyjo's the obvious gambling vulgar pretty-boy womanizer and my least favorite. Hakkai's cool—the most stable personality of the lot while Sanzo at least has the excuse of getting back the sacred scroll stolen by the demons who killed his mentor since it belongs to him now.
The theme of loners forming a bond of friendship is not unusual in anime or other forms of entertainment so why should it be so hard to accept here? Forget entertainment—how many of us remember our father of grandfather as a lovable grouch? We see Sanzo's soft spot for Goku early in the first episode, so we know his bark is worse than his bite and they are known to one another which makes them logical choices. Don't forget the mastermind behind this all is a goddess—remember the mess Taikobou was handed in Soul Hunter? Surely the Merciful Goddess knows which heroes to call on in a pinch to fight the revival of one of the greatest demons. Don't forget Master Roshi—at least Sanzo's cute.
The fights don't take up as much time as DBZ's. If this were a magical-girl show, the same amount of time would be spent on transformations and giant robots would probably spend more time fighting. If you're looking to hate it, any show can be horrible.
M.E.Hammond
Cassibabe@yahoo.com
enjoyed the action and cinematic qualities of The Matrix Reloaded, and even much of the philosophic content. But something doesn't make sense to me, and perhaps someone can explain: At the end of the original Matrix, Neo has proven that he is The One, a human with superhuman (if not godlike) powers inside the matrix. This is borne out in Reloaded also, as he flies through the sky and, once again, stops bullets. This is fine. But why, then,
is Neo fighting anyone with kung fu? What is the point?
Obviously, it's an opportunity for some pretty amazing action scenes. But for a movie (and series of movies) which claims so much intellectual territory, this seems to me to be an unforgiveable oversight. In order for any science fiction or fantasy universe to succeed, it must possess an internal logic. Neo can stop bullets—he can't stop people from kicking him?
Gary Almes
GaryTAlmes@aol.com
Back to the top.
