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.
hat happened to Gene Roddenberry's legacy?
The man who produced two immortal sci-fi shows, classic Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation, has had his legacy forever soiled by Earth: Final Conflict, Andromeda and Star Trek: Voyager. To slap the Roddenberry name on such shameless drivel after he passed away was not just tactless or greedy, but dishonorable. While Roddenberry will forever be remembered by what he created when he was alive, his reputation and legacy have been irreparably sullied.
It is the hope of at least one fan in this community that his name is no longer used to promote anything that was not filmed (or written) while he was alive. Please spare our memory of Roddenberry from any further insult.
Peter Boghossian
pete@boghossian.com
agree with what some of the letter writers in this site have had to say about Enterprise ("Enterprise Needs to Deliver Adventure", "Trek Future Definitely Needs Fixing", "Enterprise Needs to Lighten Up"). I have always agreed that the last three Star Trek shows have not exactly been 100 percent true to the optimism that Gene Roddenberry originated in Star Trek during the '60s. And the recent "Cogenitor" episode is the one that truly disappoints me. One thing that always upsets me is a film or television episode that doesn't reach its full potential. It may be just my opinion. But the "Cogenitor" episode could have been a lot better.
How can a race as advanced as the Vissians still be unable to treat one of its genders as equals? And why would Tripp be necessary in the first place to spark in one young cogenitor the desire to stop be treated as an inferior? Surely some past cogenitor in Vissian history must have fought for equal rights and even succeeded. So why not? That just did not make sense to me.
And what would have been an even better idea would have been for Reed, that female Vissian he became entangled with and a cogenitor to engage in a threesome. Enterprise can still do better. And it is time that it did. A good sequel to the "Cogenitor" episode might be a [one where we] learn the full potential of Tripp's impulsive intervention. I would like to see that
somewhere down the road.
Seeing the episode where Earth encounters the Borg for the first time was interesting. And with the new storyline involving a mysterious alien race's attack on 22nd-century Earth, Enterprise may finally live up to its reputation of being arguably the best Star Trek installment since Star Trek: The Next Generation. Even if the Klingons are an enemy race all over again. There are still possibilities in Star Trek.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil@sympatico.ca
athan Brazil's letter about the lack of originality in science fiction ("Original Ideas Are Hard to Find") haunted me last Sunday as I did bills, cleaned house and folded laundry to a plethora of alligators and crocodiles that attacked over the course of the afternoon and evening. Then, I realized a couple of weeks ago I did chores to a parade of sharks from regular to genetically altered to prehistoric.
There's the sad answer as to what sells for all to see: come up with a variation on a known theme and the suits-at-the-top (who have no interest in science fiction but are the gatekeepers) will buy it under the mantra, "If it sold tickets/ratings before, it probably will again."
The poor writers tuck away their original ideas, write something that can get past the suits and hope that they become entrenched enough in the business to do something more original. (And even then, look at the trouble J. Michael Straczynski had [with Babylon 5]!)
So, here's the next thing to sell—pitching it to you all and cringing as I do—the giant sea crocodile vs. the great white shark, fighting over feeding territory with a town full of beach tourists in the middle. You know they'd make that movie. Jason vs. Freddy; Godzilla vs. Rodan.
It scares me: I can see the suits lapping it up, offering to option it as they look with relish at the earnings/ratings of past sea monster flicks—and showing nary a flicker of interest to any innovative SF ideas I might try and slip in as other projects they might be interested in...
Wait! This is beginning to feel like a walk in the Dead Zone of some moderately successful, science fiction, screen/TV writer. Help!!!
Barbara Goldstein
psifidoll@comcast.net
ord up to Kevin Harris ("BG Trailer a Galactic Letdown") ... [he calls] the original Battlestar Galactica a "seminal show." Frankly, I'm getting just a little sick and tired of hearing from people like Mr. Harris who want the same old sci-fi crap grandpa Glen Larson used to serve up back in the good old days before the Internet, cell
phones and anti-lock braking systems.
It's my informed opinion that the original show was one of the worst SF shows ever to be aired on network television (or anywhere else for that matter). So inane and terrible a show, it made Space: 1999 look like Titus Andronicus.
Thank goodness it only lasted one and a half seasons (if you count it the incredibly lame sequel series that followed, Galactica: 1980).
Ronald D. Moore, a former producer and writer of Star Trek: The Next Generation, whose skills I admire greatly and wrote some of the best episodes of the series, couldn't have been a better choice to helm the resurrection of Battlestar Galactica.
"Our goal is nothing less than the reinvention of the science-fiction television series," Moore stated on the introduction to the BSG site on SCIFI.COM. Friends and neighbors, based on his track record, I believe him.
If anyone could take a moribund and idiotic premise and turn it into something worth watching, it's him and I eagerly look forward to seeing the results this December. Almost anything would be an improvement over the original.
Chris M. Barkley
cmzhang56@yahoo.com
ear Editors: The old [Battlestar] Galactica is done ... it had its great moments, but it has found Earth. Thus, it needs a whole new strategy—storyline.
The essence of the show—now—is the infiltration of an alien human culture into that of Earth, and preparing Earth for the final assault from a cyber enemy. Thus, the same danger the colonies faced, but a whole new neighborhood.
The new Battlestar can act as a buffer against other meddling alien cultures, which are studying Earth's culture invisibly, perhaps even establishing alliances with these alien cultures.
It's really a whole new set of problems completely different than the bulk of the initial Battlestar series, escaping cylon destruction.
The writers will need to imagine themselves at the helm of the Galactica and determine what's the best way to interface with Earth's governments—directly or indirectly; Earth's industries—directly or indirectly; Earth's people—directly or indirectly.
How much technology do they introduce? Do they cure AIDS and other incurable diseases? Do they alter Earth's belief system? There are really a lot of ethical issues surrounding the new Galactica series, while at the same time death is very close with the approaching Cylons—making the fine points of ethical decision making, a moot point.
Let's be open minded about the new Battlestar Galactica. And perhaps the tonal dissonance can become cognitive dissonance after all.
George Person
phxrox2002@yahoo.com
just read [Scott Edelman's] latest editorial on Science Fiction Weekly ("California Dreamin'").
While you may dream of Arnold on Pennsylvania Avenue, remember he'll only be visiting. To be eligible to run for president, you must be a natural-born U.S. citizen. As a naturalized citizen, he is ineligible. Governor of California, he may become, president would require a Consitutional amendment, and I just don't see that happening.
George G.
georgeg@ncinternet.net
Editor Scott Edelman responds:
You are correct that the Terminator is currently ineligible to take up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But should he have a successful term or two as governor of California, who knows what changes in the law voters might ask for in the form of a constitutional amendment?
Best,
Scott
would like to thank the SCI FI Channel for supporting original programing when so many other channels have shown short sightedness in seeing programs through. For example, the original series Stargate SG-1 and Farscape, both excellent shows that I got my family and friends addicted too (only to see Farscape end in a sad whimper). Also your original miniseries, like both Dune series and Taken, are excellent.
Now if only Witchblade wasn't canceled on TNN ... any thoughts of saving that series just like you saved Stargate?
Thank you for entertaining my life,
Nathan Hanner
nhanner@hotmail.com
y cousin and I are great fans of Red Dwarf and we are pleased that, finally, there is going to be a Red Dwarf movie coming to the big screen soon.
This science-fiction sitcom, starring Chris Barrie (Lara Croft: Tomb Raider and [its sequel]) as my cousin's favorite character Rimmer, has always been utterly hilarious. The funniest episodes, including "Better Than Life," "Polymorph," "Meltdown," "The Inquisitor" and "Gunmen of the Apocalypse" would certainly make great background storylines for the movie. I am hoping that all the actors from the series will be reprising each of their roles, including Chloe Annett as Kochanski (the only female Red Dwarf crewmember who survived in an alternate universe and joined late in the series). And I am especially anxious as I trust all fans are to learn if the Red Dwarf crew will finally return home to Earth and [to learn] what has become of humanity after 3,000 millennia in deep space.
Any information that Science Fiction Weekly can provide concerning Red Dwarf and its rumored future on the big screen will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil@sympatico.ca
Assistant Editor Brian Murphy responds:
According to the official Red Dwarf site, "It is anticipated that the movie will enter full production in September 2003, with a release date of Fall/Winter 2004. The latest information on the film can be found on the Movie Deck [section of the site]."
Best,
Brian
couple weeks ago, [the SCI FI Channel] aired an episode of Stargate SG-1 (the title wasn't worth remembering), that struck me as yet one more example of how far this once-great channel has fallen, now that the accountants are in charge.
The plot concerned a computer virus shutting down the Stargate network, so the SGC enlists the aid of a bumbling, socially inept science geek to solve the problem. True to stereotype, this "geek" spends his time knocking over lab equipment, being tongue-tied around women and being mocked for his knowledge of science fiction—when he wasn't being hen-pecked by Mommy, that is.
This from a channel that once gave us weekly commentaries by Harlan Ellison, biography specials of some of the biggest names in SF, and reports from SF cons around the country. The reporters at these cons would treat the attendees as intelligent people coming together to share a common interest. If these pieces were done today, however, the hipper-than-thou, Carson Daily wannabees who seem to be running SFC would probably air something like: "Welcome to Worldcon! Thank God we're not geeks!"
Movies like Galaxy Quest, Free Enterprise and The Specials appealed to fans because they were comedies set in the world of fandom, but weren't intended to ridicule that world. Unfortunately, in an era of Big Brother and Queer Eye For The Straight Guy, ridicule and humiliation translate into big ratings.
Odyssey 5 wasn't picked up by SFC; after all, why would an intelligent, mature, well-written SF series interest the SCI FI Channel? Guess I'll read a book. The page is the only place we're still respected.
Mike Murphy
mmurphy@globaldialog.com
egarding the The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen ... Mr. Assad Khaishgi ("Fine Actors Can't Save LXG"), at least rent League. I saw it in the theater, and frankly, I enjoyed it. I thought there were some good performances (Peta Wilson, of La Femme Nikita, doing a credible Sean Connery impression made for a humorous moment), and I loved how Nemo and the Nautilus were portrayed! Ditch the Victorian gewgaws and the European angst of Nemo as portrayed by Disney—the Nautilus is a magnificent machine with brilliant Hindu influences (I loved the statues of Kali on the outside), and actually portraying Nemo as a Sikh prince (like in the book)?! Phenomenal! I thought the actor did a credible job, and I would certainly be open to
seeing him in other roles.
Sometimes, critics are just too full of themselves. Usually when critics hate a fantasy/sci-fi/action adventure film, it means I will enjoy it. LXG was one such case.
Rachel Maley
rmaley@unmc.edu
Back to the top.
