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 send a message to scifiweekly@scifi.com.
here have been many good sci-fi shows canceled as of recent, but there is one that has been canceled that no one else here has mentioned that I am perhaps the saddest to see go: Futurama.
It was probably one of the best comedies on TV when it was new. It was even funnier than The Simpsons in places. On the plus side, you can still see old episodes on Cartoon Network. When it runs its course there, I hope the SCI FI Channel starts running it. It would certainly be an improvement on all those "original" movies they keep playing, which suck beyond belief.
Franklin Clark
blackops60(at)hotmail.com
ince the old Irwin Allen properties are in the process of a "revival" ("WB Gets Lost")—don't know if you're aware, but Kevin Burns has a fantastic proposal on his desk for the revival of the Crown Jewel of the Allen properties: Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.
Lee Crane (David Hedison) is now a retired four-star admiral and has replaced his mentor (the now deceased Admiral Harriman Nelson) as head of the NIMR. He oversees a brand new sub, captained by Nelson's son, with Chip Morton's daughter as the exec. The proposal takes the new version of Voyage away from the monsters and aliens of the '60s and brings it into the present and future, more relevant to today's viewers. Apparently there's plenty of drama, adventure and grittiness to appeal to both men and women interested. Sort of like JAG in a sub, but with elements of sci-fi and the future mixed in.
Burns was handed this treasure over a year ago and numerous sci-fi writers who know the original series and have seen it have all agreed this is best and most practical version to bring to todays more savvy.
You just might want to check this out.
Kay Dettner
kaydet1(at)yahoo.com
eing a huge fan of the Logan's Run trilogy—yes, I said trilogy, for those not in the know—I am happy to see that Hollyweird is attempting to revive and update the original. I still love the original movie, but only as a story within the framework that [George Clayton] Johnson and [William F.] Nolan wrote.
The '70s adaptation was horrible and so many key elements of story and plot were left out, and far too much had been changed. One would hope that with our new technologies we can undertake this epic and give it some justice. So, any of you Hollyweird types out there who might be involved with this project, take it from someone who knows this material from front to back: Don't screw it up again! I want to see aerial hand-to-hand combat and, most importantly, I want to see the installation at Crazy Horse Canyon for the finale and a spaceship and ... OK, I'm getting all freaky.
John Hill
kskisser(at)cox.net
ave Richmond ("Star Trek Has Lost Touch With Fans") kindly tells us that if we don't like Star Trek, we don't have to watch it. Also, that the show is purely for entertainment, purposes. Wow, what a revelation for all Science Fiction Weekly readers. He goes on to tell us that violence, sex and derogatory language run rampant in today's TV, and that this has become the social norm in television production. I don't know what he's watching, but he needs to broaden his channel package. I would, however, concede that U.S. couch fodder TV has become disturbingly ass-centered. Be it supposedly good guys threatening to kick the bad guy's ass, authority figures claiming to own someone's ass, or what passes for news featuring sycophantic reporters kissing political ass. Ass is everywhere, and personally I'd
like it wiped!
But back to Star Trek. I was entertained by Dave's assertion that Enterprise has evolved into a very watchable show (if you can ignore all of the time-line discrepancies). Huh? If I'm reading him right, what he's saying is that in order for the show to be watchable, the producers are to be excused for insulting the intelligence of the audience, and ignoring series lore built up over the past 40 years! Is Dave on his own here, or am I seeing the emergence of a trend, like ass TV, only more insidious? What he seems to be saying is that we shouldn't care because we don't have to watch.
What is this attitude of laying down for the machine to roll right over? Surely, if a series is bad, yet being propped up by a corporation, then the very least they can do is fire the clowns who've done the damage, and give some new talent a chance. But how would the suits ever be prompted to try such strategy, if everyone moved on and stopped complaining? If that happened, then we'd be asking the question, how many Paramount producers does it take to make Star Trek popular? To which the answer would be 10. One to produce, and the other nine to shout "Wooo, good job!"
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil(at)freeuk.com
have to agree with Chris Jorgensen ("Enterprise Sex Basher Is Silly") on this one. I'm not a particular fan of this latest incarnation of Star Trek called Enterprise. I can take it or leave it. My biggest gripe is that there was already a blueprint to base the show on as seen in "The Cage," "The Menagerie" and "Where No One Has Gone Before." There was no reason to make such drastic changes when captains like Robert April or Christopher Pike's adventures could have been used. I would have liked to see the old uniforms and tech in action with our current special effects wizardry. The Trek history has been slaughtered—but that's OK ... one thing that saved the show from permanently being erased from my viewing schedule was an earlier letter. It was a letter that mentioned that time travel could be the cause of these differences and that what we are watching is an alternate Trek reality ... that's what I tell myself now—it lessens the sting.
But to the subject at hand: To Ms. Hoffner ("Sexual Encounters Sink Enterprise") and others that think women are depicted degradingly—I can't remember the last time I saw an oppressed slave in an expensive suit or gown. The very existence of slavery is degrading. You are not supposed to look at a slave for sale or display and say, "Cool! They look so dignified!" We are supposed to find it reprehensible and be angered or saddened by it, whether the objectified person is male or female. Also, what we find unacceptable is not supposed to be necessarily wrong for other races in the universe. Earth is too small to be the morality police of the spaceways.
As far as sci-fi or Trek no longer sparking debate ... obviously you are mistaken, since your letter has been mentioned by at least two readers now.
One other thing though. To Peter Boghossian ("Burning Questions for Inquiring Minds"), who wonders if Trip is gay:
It's that kind of thinking and behavior that keeps the military in court for sexual harassment. Yeah, T'Pol is sexy and all, but if a pretty face and tight body working next to you causes you to behave improperly, you've got a real problem. Besides, maybe Trip prefers to stay with his own kind after his earlier encounter with an alien female that got him pregnant.
Sash Scott
Cptscott(at)aol.com
r. Scott Edelman has raised some interesting points in his column "Something Impossible This Way Comes." Where do the boundaries lie for what is open to review in Science Fiction Weekly? To quote him, "for an entertainment choice to properly be a part of Science Fiction Weekly's turf, something not yet possible—or downright impossible—has to happen inside. Serial killers and teen slashers need not apply. SF and those other genres of fantasy and horror are about delivering dreams, and the metaphors that move us here on this site—of things that never were and things yet to be—are the only ones that really matter."
I believe that Science Fiction Weekly should highlight, but not limit itself, to just examining the works of SF and fantasy. I, for one, enjoy reading what the professional critics have to say on subject matters that exist outside these fields and as for "serial killers and teen slashers need not apply," imagine my shock to learn that the Texas Chainsaw Massacre was based on actual events and not a story that came out of a person's head. Life is stranger than fiction or, to quote August De Winter in The Avengers movie, "nothing is impossible, only mathematically improbable."
After all. It is a strange existence out there.
Julian Gift
lira-b(at)tstt.net.tt
ust as Alien is making its 25th anniversary comeback this Halloween, so should The Sixth Sense for Halloween in the year 2023.
With Doctor Who making a much anticipated comeback to television, a good way to honor the longest-running science-fiction serial would be for the SCI FI Channel to air this Halloween the scariest Doctor Who stories. Including "The Daemons" with Jon Pertwee, "Image of the Fendahl" with Tom Baker and "Ghost Light" with Sylvester McCoy to name just a few.
Doctor Who was always notoriously popular for scaring its youthful audience. Sophie Aldred (who played the last companion in the show, Ace, in the late '80s) admitted in a magazine article once that as a child viewer of Doctor Who she had nightmares about the Cybermen. So it was probably fitting that she conquered her fear by facing off against the Cybermen (for the 25th anniversary adventure: "Silver Nemesis") and slingshooting them in their chests with gold coins. Gold is always more valuable in the Whoniverse for being the most effective weapon against the Cybermen. And Ace's strategy was marvelously original.
For me, personally, the scariest Whoniversal monsters for me as a child were the shape-shifting Zygons. Though I was relieved that their gigantic servant, the Skarasen also known as the Loch Ness Monster, was rendered harmless in the end. There should plenty of new and updated scares for the upcoming new Doctor Who franchise in this new millennium. I shall keep some gold coins handy in case the Cybermen return with the Daleks.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
Back to the top.
