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.
mpulse buy! Impulse buy! Impulse buy! Thoroughly browse the science-fiction section of your bookstore, starting with A and going all the way through to Z. Give yourself lots of time. Read each and every title, and if one sounds interesting, pull it out and check the cover. Read the synopsis and about the author, maybe even the first few lines. If you decide to get it, fine, but don't stop browsing. I can absolutely guarantee that you will find something original and exciting ("Original Ideas Are Hard to Find"). And if you must choose between the total unknown or the established writer, choose the unknown, or better yet, get them both.
Originality in science fiction is out there, it's just hidden in single volumes between shelves dedicated to author or franchise. Hunt for it. Track it down. You'll be glad you did, some first-time novelist will make a buck, and science fiction will remain what it has to be: original.
Impulse buy! Impulse buy! Impulse buy!
Pat Owens
pjowens@olypen.com
ichael Cassutt ("You've Got to Have Friends") asks, "Who on Earth was the actor playing Capt. Nemo?" (in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen). Naseeruddin Shah is a familiar veteran to viewers of Indian cinema, being one of the most respected and talented performers to appear on the silver screen. He's done mostly dramatic roles, but has succeeded with comedy and action as well.
That said, I really don't know what his performance was like in LXG (and everyone has bad days!), as I have not seen it and from what I've heard of it, am unlikely to. Usually I don't go by critics' reviews, but am making an exception in this case....
Assad Khaishgi
drassad@yahoo.com
Columnist Michael Cassutt responds:
A bad movie is bad all around, and even good actors suffer in them. ...
Best,
Michael
recently saw the extended trailers for the so-called Battlestar Galactica mini-series during the Tremors season finale. Speaking as someone who is one of the original BG fans, I was totally disappointed. "Re-visioning" BG is not what I wanted to see when I heard this seminal show was going to be re-presented to the eagerly awaiting fans. What I expected was a continuation of the tried and true storyline and characters that made the show an icon. Instead these producers have just thrown that to the wind and done the typical Hollywood blunder: old show meets Beverly Hills 90210.
Was this some marketing strategy trying to build a younger demographic? If so, it's ridiculous. Wouldn't it be better to make direct links to the original so that new inductees to the saga would actually want to refer to/watch the old show? Wouldn't that make an increase in audience to the re-runs? Now this new envisioning has to stand on its own and, from what I've seen, it's just another second-rate, SCI FI Pictures B-movie.
Totally disappointed,
Kevin Harris
heavykev2001@yahoo.com
hile I agree with some of what Michael Papagermanos wrote ("Trek Future Definitely Needs Fixing") about Enterprise, what I want to know is: Was there a survey the rest of us didn't know about? There must have been, otherwise how would he know that "most of us will not watch Battlestar Galactica."
I am looking forward to its debut in December, even though I was an ardent fan of the original. One of these days when I have more disposable income I may even buy the DVD collection. There seems to be a lot of people out there who want to decide for the rest of us what we want to watch. I admit I'll watch just about anything that vaguely resembles sci-fi, but that is my choice. I don't need someone to tell me what is or isn't good.
Good is in the eye of the beholder.
Norma Engelberg
engel818@yahoo.com
finally realized I was seeing an ad for the Battlestar Galactica miniseries. Edward Olmos was right: It bears little in common with the original—to the point of ludicrousness: names and only part of the original goal, the end. They didn't even buy elbow room and make it a new generation.
Themes such as "exodus" in Battlestar Galactica are repeated in all forms of literature, so why did the people involved in the project feel it necessary to invoke the old series? Why didn't they just create their own universe with their own people in exodus—such as Earth 2? Then they could do whatever they wanted.
But perhaps then the SCI FI Channel might have only wanted a Saturday-night original movie and not a mini-series. All the complaining from the original, diehard fan base is great publicity and generates interest in people who only watched the series "back when" and are curious to see how the new one differs. And ironically, these people, not the diehard fanbase, were the majority of the viewers. These viewers are not so invested emotionally in preserving the original in every way, hence more open to a new interpretation.
Tying a project to an already existing name is built-in rating points from "comparison curiosity." And even most diehards will check it out, if for no other reason than to intelligently gripe with other invested fans.
But, on the other side of the ledger, one doesn't have to be a diehard to have the jarring experience of having assumptions about a universe violated. The less invested viewing public retains varying subsets of knowledge of what's transpired in a series. And it is really frustrating when something you know about a series—take as part of the basic fabric of that universe—is violated. I had to be reminded that Star Trek's Zephram Cochran wasn't originally from Earth, but I was irked at a late '80s Johnny Quest cartoon-movie where Hadji was with the Quests in the story when Dr. Zin kills Johnny's mother. Since the original airings in the early '60s, I remember the episode where Johnny and Hadji met—and Johnny's mother was already dead. For someone else, it's reversed.
I think the producers, et al., forget that those who can feel violated go beyond the diehards. You can more easily woo the less invested fan of a franchise, but woo at your own risk.
I suspect the more a franchise keeps a consistent universe, the happier all fans are—but the less free/extra publicity for the producers. By that standard, the new Battlestar Galactica seems to have made a bad deal.
Barbara Goldstein
psifidoll@comcast.net
ust reading the comments and laments of the loss of originality in sci-fi ("Original Ideas Are Hard to Find"): It seems to me that the stories written seem to be politically acceptable or not, which defies the basic laws of sci-fi. Sci-fi has always been a reflection of the human situation, and it seems that most of the "successful" series make us feel good about where we are right now, with the good guys winning, etc.
Now, as an example, we take Space: Above and Beyond. One of the best sci-fi series to come out in a long time. The plot was good, with each episode covering different aspects of a future Earth. The character development was excellent, with the scriptwriters and actors creating characters we all really cared for. It had everything except the patriotic feel-good factor.
In fact, it developed into a space version of Vietnam with the Earth government knowingly going to war against an innocent race.
Maybe I'm just mad it was canceled or totally deluded, but the more sci-fi films and series I watch, the less criticism I see. Political broadcasting? Nah. ...
John Black
johnblack@mchsi.com
'd like to add something to this "Sci Fi is dying" debate ("Not All Sci-Fi Is Dying", " Sci-Fi Franchises Are Faltering", "Sci-Fi's Death May Be Our Own Fault"). Whether science fiction is dying or not depends on what sci-fi media outlet you're talking about.
Sci-fi books seem to be OK. So there's a lot of hope there. Sci-fi TV is the one that's declining the most. I don't know what's going to rescue it, but I hope it's something worthwhile. Sci-fi movies could be better if they based more of their stories on good sci-fi books, rather than just knocking up some ideas and scripts and hoping for the best.
But I think the best chance sci-fi has of becoming more popular is with the gaming industry. People today like to visit fantasy worlds and interact with alien characters, not just watch them. It is no coincidence that the same people who dreamt of being a Jedi saving the galaxy when they were kids are now the ones having lightsaber battles on videogames and have come further away from the TV screen and closer to the CD-ROM.
This is what I think is happening. People want to become more involved with their favorite shows and movies, and the gaming industry is the best way that this can be achieved. Perhaps sci-fi should put more resources into the games, and build on that.
Just a thought.
Darren Simpson
darrensimpson10@hotmail.com
n response to Tapati Sarasvati's letter "Internet Providers Shouldn't Police," I have to say that I couldn't agree more. We live in a society that seems to want to blame everyone except the person who messed up. Guy walks in and shoots six people ... let's sue the firearms manufacturer. Idiot gets liquored up and slams a bus ... let's sue the liquor store. Hacker cracks NORAD, let's prosecute the ISP. GEEESH!
Here's a novel idea. How about you take that slimebag that shot six people, and the piece of trash that drunkenly slaughtered a bus and make them responsible for their own actions. Leave the poor slob at the liquor store alone, and quit trying to blame the manufacturer of a firearm for something they have absolutely no control over. And while you're at it, admit that ISP's can't possibly control what each and every user is doing. Or should we just shut all ISP's down (starting with AOL)? Wonder what that'd do to our world in its present state?
Oh, how I long for the days long gone when a person would make the statement, "I messed up, now I guess I have to pay for it ... "
Sam
TigerTank@wavegaming.com
nterprise needs to lighten up and tighten up ("Enterprise Needs to Deliver Adventure", "Trek Future Definitely Needs Fixing"). When they did the AIDS allegory show they got hit for being heavy-handed. So what?! "Let This Be Your Last Battlefield" was heavy-handed. It was also—for its time—gutsy and thoughtful.
Enterprise needs to do what the first show did rather well, one show as a serious drama, one an all-out adventure, a comedy, a melodrama and sometimes just a guy in a rubber suit throwing paper-mache boulders.
They are so self-conscious—trying not to make anyone mad that they aren't making anyone happy.
Don't be afraid to do timely shows—the attack on Earth was a good start. Maybe there could be conflict over the response. Who is the enemy and why did they zap Earth? Are they faceless evil? Will the cure be worse than the disease? Neat if the older, so-called friendly races were pulling the strings to keep Earth down.
Nancy Myers
crowswork@yahoo.com
hose who harp on the merits of David Boreanaz as Batman ("Brooding Boreanaz is Right for Batman") obviously haven't seen Collora Studios' slick high-budget eight-minute fan film "Batman: Dead End."
This film, which premiered at this year's San Diego ComicCon, stars fitness personality and "American Health & Fitness" host Clark Bartram in the title role. While eight minutes is not enough to fully assay Bartram's acting chops here, he exuded more menace than Michael Keaton and more brooding than Val Kilmer. And since Boreanaz couldn't touch the hems of those actors' capes, he certainly would have a hard time achieving what Bartram did. And, unlike Boreanaz, Bartram's Batman looks like it stepped out of an Alex Ross painting.
Truly, though, the scene-stealer was Andrew Koenig (son of Star Trek's Walter Koenig) as The Joker. After seeing Koenig's performance, I see how wrong it was to cast Jack Nicholson as the Clown Prince of Crime. Nicholson's got nothing on Koenig. If you thought the characterization of The Joker in the graphic novel "The Killing Joke" was definitive, then Koenig's performance
will please you to no end.
As for the next big-studio Batman film, the only thing that's going to save the franchise is the cessation of wet-noodle casting of actors like Clooney and Boreanaz and the hiring of a creative team who understands the characters inside and out. In short, I have three words
for Warner Brothers: Hire Collora Studios.
Roman Gheesling
tienlung@hotmail.com
Back to the top.
