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.
ven before Space Cowboys, it occurred to me that if they were ever to make a movie of Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, which we all should know was the inspiration for the darker, broodier, psychologically deeper Batman, starting with the Michael Keaton movie, who better to play a borderline psychotic vigilante than Dirty Harry himself?
Imagine Eastwood in exo-skeleton armor beating the sh*t out of goody-two-shoes Superman.
Both Jack Nicholson and Tommy Lee Jones could come back as Joker and Two-Face, not to mention having Michelle Pfeiffer as Selina when the Joker kills the now-retired Catwoman.
To me, one of the things missing in all the Batman movies is the physical stature of the character. At no time in any of the illustrated versions of Batman was he ever shown looking shorter than 6'2" and, most of the time, seemed more like 6'4" to 6'6".
For those who like a little more levity in their heroes, one could consider Burt Reynolds, he's got the build and the looks.
For those of us who think the Dark Knight graphic novels to be worthy of filmdom, who has a darker, broodier quality, the build, and the years?
Of course, I'm also the guy who thinks they should get Christopher Lloyd to play an American Doctor Who. Not to mention that he now looks so much like Boris Karloff that he really should do Jonathan in a remake of Arsenic and Old Lace.
Manny Lieberman
hanuvan@aol.com
hoa! I seriously would like to know what is wrong with some of these producers and directors in Hollywood these days! After reading the News in Brief section on the Science Fiction Weekly Web site, I find that Ashton Kutcher is supposedly the only candidate to play Batman in the latest film! ("Batman Casting Is Far Too Campy")
What? Please tell me this is one of those rumors that Hollywood has started to increase
publicity. I mean, c'mon! Ashton Kutcher as Batman ... even if you forget all the goofy, stupid roles this man has played and pretend that he could possibly play a serious, dramatic role ... just look at him! He looks nothing like Batman. I know, Michael Keaton was stretching it and and he did an excellent job ... but Michael Keaton is a good actor! I just don't want to see any more mistakes made when it comes to making a Batman movie.
There are a lot better actors out there who could play Batman. Several months ago I heard that Colin Farrell was being considered ... he would be excellent. Josh Hartnett would be another good choice. I know this letter is falling on deaf ears, but if there is anyone out there from Hollywood who has a say in things and you're reading this, please don't mess up another Batman movie!
Steve Guglich
guglich@hotmail.com
am a longtime reader but first-time contributor and I would like to address the controversy over Ashton Kutcher as Batman ("Batman Casting Is Far Too Campy"). Now don't get me wrong, I seriously think that Kutcher really is the worst candidate for the role, but, you know, this is exactly what they said about Michael Keaton in 1989! At the time that Burton announced that Keaton was cast, there was an uproar and people pointed to his performances in Mr. Mom, Johnny Dangerously and Beetlejuice. So maybe the WB thinks that they can get lighting to strike twice, but I think it's more of a ploy to get TRL watchers into theaters. Which is a shame, because I don't think they would enjoy a dark Batman movie.
David Hasenmueller
dhecsi@charter.net
nyone who cares: No-brainer, my friends. The hottest-selling film in the U.S. and the most obvious embodiment of male rage Hulk was just blown away by the $15 million "foreign" film 28 Days Later. The obvious similarities throughout the film with its "rage" centerpiece and stellar hero-ending make at least this filmgoer wonder if someone on the indy set didn't know something about the timing of its release.
Jay Jackson
jaejaxon@7662www0.nyc2.aens.net
'm extremely disappointed with the direction that the movie based on Isaac Asimov's collection of charming short stories is taking. Based on the latest news, Susan Calvin's character is to be made into a younger, "leading lady"-type character. The rest of the characters have been constructed by the screenwriters. My gripe is: If you're going to name it after a book, you should stay fairly true to the book itself. I know there's such a thing as taking liberties with the subject matter, but there comes a point where you take it too far.
The most annoying thing is that I'm a big fan of Proyas. The Crow is one of my favorite movies, and Dark City was another I enjoyed. However, if you're going to make a total mockery of Asimov's legacy, you shouldn't call it I, Robot. Call it anything else, but if you want to name it after one of Asimov's great collection of short stories, you better stay within the vicinity of the direction the story is supposed to take. Otherwise, you're doing a disservice, not only to Asimov, but to every SF fan out there.
But then, since when did Hollywood care?
I guess for every Lord of the Rings they have to have a Battlefield Earth. It's a pity, since they already had a fantastic screenplay for I, Robot, written by Harlan Ellison, no less. It's also a pity that that particular project fell through. Since when has vision and intelligence mattered in Hollywood?
Shehzad Rehman
shehzad202@yahoo.com
rusade Can't Compare With Brimstone" is the just kind of letter I expected to see in response to "Brimstone Lacked Crusade's Wow." To compare Crusade to Star Wars episodes I and II is ridiculous.
If anything deserves to be compared to the lackluster Star Wars episodes I and II, it's the Babylon 5: Legend of the Rangers pilot "To Live and Die in Starlight." In fact, upon watching "To Live and Die in Starlight" on Jan. 19, 2002, I wondered if
it was even written by J. Michael Straczynski. Yes, to me, it felt that far off; felt foreign, like it was written by somebody who was not familiar with the B5 universe. It was like the worst of the non-canon Dell B5 novels (#5 and #8). Even with all the problems Crusade had (creative differences between TNT-Atlanta and JMS, and only 12 real episodes of a 22 episode season[1]), Crusade was far, far better than "To Live and Die in Starlight." The SCI FI Channel made a huge mistake when it rejected restarting Crusade, and instead went with the Legend of the Rangers pilot. They should have re-started Crusade the instant they got the rerun rights, and finished the first season, including the spectacular scripts "To the Ends of the Earth" and "End of the Line." Great Maker, I would love to see those scripts (as well as Fiona Avery's "Value Judgements"), filmed!
Instead, thanks to the SCI FI Channel, we got the Legend of the Rangers pilot, which seems to have 100 percent killed all hope of any future B5-universe projects. When Galen said, "There is always hope, only because it's the one thing that no one has figured out how to kill yet," he had obviously never met TNT or SCI FI.
You say Crusade seemed to last much longer than its half-a-season run? Not to me, it didn't. It was hampered by the fact that there is absolutely no correct airing order in which to view it, because of TNT-Atlanta's interference and the dubbing they had to do to make better sense of TNT's mandated airing order (dubbing which now works against the SCI FI/JMS airing order). All of these problems could have been corrected by SCI FI if they'd restarted Crusade, fixing the dubs, and filming the 10 missing episodes, but no. All they do is re-air the same old problems, over and over again. As Vir would say, "What is wrong with these people?!?"
Regarding Brimstone vs. Crusade, that's a comparison I hate to see, because I love 'em both. They would both be excellent shows on the SCI FI Channel. However, what do we get instead? Shows like Dream Team, Tremors: The Series, Crossing Over with John Edward and Scare Tactics. Of those last four, Tremors: The Series is the only one I can stomach now and then.
[1] Note: I'm not counting "War Zone" because it was TNT's idea and was never supposed to exist. "Racing the Night" was supposed to be the first episode, and it was supposed to be aired immediately following "A Call to Arms" (the B5 movie), a feat which neither TNT nor The SCI FI Channel has managed to date. Must be "rocket science."
Mac Breck
macbreck@access995.com
egarding "Corin Nemec Can't Lose": To the viewer who is concerned that Michael Shanks' reasons for his departure from SG-1 might not satisfy his/her criteria for allowing actors to exit a show without earning their rebuke ... I'm sure you'll be glad and reassured to know that his reasons for leaving and returning are above reproach.
Executive producer and star Richard Dean Anderson has himself admitted that Shanks was under-utilized by the program. Mr. Anderson seems to feel this is a legitimate cause for complaint since he has welcomed him back warmly and stated several times how much he enjoys working with Shanks and that his return is a joy.
By all means, look forward to season six. I hope that you enjoy it.
Most viewers didn't take to the character of Jonas—which is why he has departed and Mr. Shanks is enjoying a successful and hugely appreciated return.
Mel Loyd
Artas15@aol.com
have been interested in science fiction since I first saw Star Wars when it first came out in theaters in the '70s. Actually, I saw it at a drive-in that is now closed. I have gone through many books, movies, comics, cartoons (or animated series, if you like) and computer games
concerning most genres of science fiction.
Science fiction has, in some form or other, dealt with just about every aspect of life that one can imagine (and some that many people never even thought of). There is one area that, I think, has been sorely ignored. That concept is including Christian beliefs, values and elements of
stories from the Bible into sci-fi stories in a serious and respectful way.
There have been a great many sci-fi stories that take seriously the concepts and teachings of Buddhism, Zen, Islam, Hindu, Zuni, Greek Mythology, New Age, Wicca, Evolution (yes, it's a religion, not science) and the beliefs of various aborignial tribes. Some point to C.S. Lewis' Space trilogy and a very few others like it, but some of these twist Christian concepts so much that they don't really count.
Usually in sci-fi stories, if it is mentioned at all, Christianity is the butt of many a joke, pun, sarcastic remark or even twisted and applied to the villain to make him even weirder.
I'm not sure why this is, but my guess is that Christianity teaches that there is absolute truth. That there really is right and wrong and that the only point of view on what is right and wrong that matters is God's. That all people are sinners from birth and will go to hell (which is not as much fun as some stories would have you believe) when they die if they do not sincerely repent, accept Jesus' sacrifice of His death and resurrection to take our place (we deserve to die for our sins, but He did it for us) and to believe that we are cleansed and saved from our sins not by our doing, but by God's through His Son Jesus.
Most sci-fi incorporates ideas from religions that run counter to Christianity. Some teach that when you die, you come back as an animal. Others suggest that people can evolve into gods or god-like beings. Some go so far as to make evil (even the Devil himself) look appealing. This used to be more of an element in fantasy, but it's creeping into sci-fi more and more.
It's not that there aren't any good stories or characters in the Bible. There are huge battles where good overcomes evil; there are prophets to whom God gives the ability to work miracles; there are brave heroes and dastardly villains; all the elements of good stories that many writers use, consciously or not. But there is something more. There are powerful, life-changing messages in the Bible. Messages and themes of hope, redemption, true freedom, love, kindness and more.
I know that today, it's considered Politically Incorrect (who started that nonsense anyway? I wish they could see the mess it's made of our culture) to say that anything is better or worse or good or evil. But, I'm going to say it anyway because I could care less about being P.C. I have come to realize over the years that much of what is in sci-fi, especially lately, when you remove all the shiny packaging, is evil. I now try to avoid stories in whatever form, that are based on evolution, witchcraft, magic, pagan gods and goddesses (both those in our larger cultures and those made up by the authors) and any stories that treat Christianity in a negative way. This has severely limited my choices, as you may guess, and it's getting more limited all the time. I may
eventually have to give up on it all together if something does not change.
John Enfield
johnenfield@webtv.net
n regards Gary Almes questioning ("Neo Shouldn't Fall Before Kung Fu") the extent of Neo's apparent super powers in the The Matrix Reloaded. I would suggest that the extent of those powers is demonstrated in the films.
Neo has vast abilities to manipulate non-intelligent constructs in the matrix, and less power over intelligent agents and humans in the matrix. Anything/one capable of fighting back gives Neo a workout.
Mike Benedetti
micben@earthlink.net
n response to Mr. Almes' "Neo Shouldn't Fall Before Kung Fu," I must admit
that although I have faults enough with The Matrix Reloaded, this is not one of them. [Warning: Spoilers follow.] Yes, Neo has been revealed as The One, but it makes sense to me that he must fight Agent Smith, at least. Agent Smith is an anomaly within the matrix; therefore, it follows that Neo might not be able to manipulate him. As for Neo's fights with the French guy's (sorry, can't recall his name) minions, I could possibly defend that based on a similar argument that they are anomalies within the system.
That said, allow me to concede that I have only seen Matrix Reloaded once and therefore may be forgetting important details. Mostly, I recall thinking that the action scenes were too long and that the scene with the Architect was too much of an information dump; one really couldn't absorb everything being said. The first half of the movie was rather silly in my mind. The second half is what made the movie worthwhile, although it felt at times like the movie was taking itself a bit too seriously. However, I must admit that I enjoyed it for what it was, and I anticipate seeing the conclusion in the third installment. (And, for those who haven't yet seen
it, The Animatrix explains and hints at many things.)
Joi Tribble
Aglaia000@aol.com
Back to the top.
