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 send a message to scifiweekly@scifi.com.
echo the sentiments of Bob Palomino's letter ("Firefly DVD Fans Flames of Anger") to this column. I just spent the long holiday weekend watching my new Firefly DVD in its entirety. As they say with a good book, I
couldn't put it down!
Firefly was everything any series should be. Entertaining, engrossing and, in spite of being set in space, totally real. The scripts consisted of a perfect blend of humor with drama with witty dialogue delivered in perfectly natural fashion. I loved each and every character as I gradually got to know them and was hungry for more on their histories and on what was to become of them. And praise does not stop at the writing and directing. Excellent choices were made on who was to bring the characters to life. All of the performers were outstanding.
I was so impressed with the series again, that I ordered a couple more sets for others to enjoy. Perhaps if the DVD sales of this great series are high enough, Joss Whedon will get the backing he needs to continue the Firefly saga. I, too, hope that it is not in the form of a theatrical movie. I would like to see the series brought back weekly, of course, but failing that, I would like to see it performed as a miniseries or
as a series of movies made for television.
Carolyn Charney
cc42(at)optonline.net
aking John Parsons letter ("Galactica Needs More Diversity") at face value, I found his comments loaded with reverse racism. His big problem with Battlestar Galactica seems to be that there are not enough black cast members. Excuse
me, but I didn't realize SF shows had become so horrendously PC, that race was now subject to quota! John went so far as to break the show down in to how much screen time the black cast members had, and then attempted to pin a racist badge on the producers, by asking if they didn't want African Americans to watch!
Why is it that John requires a black face, in order to identify with any of the cast, or find them admirable? He cites the '70s as an example, conveniently forgetting that the '70s was the era of blacksploitation movies such as Shaft, and TV showed black characters like Huggy Bear from Starsky & Hutch. Whereas contemporary SF TV has often featured actors who happen to be black in great roles. The X-Files, The Others, Crusade, Babylon 5, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel are all examples. There are also black superheroes like Blade, plus the forthcoming Black Panther and Luke Cage movies.
If John's son really needs SF TV to feature black actors in good roles in order for him to, quote "believe we make it to the future" unquote, then I feel sorry for him. It is my hope that the African Americans of the future are regular guys, just like the rest of us, and the words of an infamously white black man come true; "It don't make no difference, if you're black or white."
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazilREMOVETHIS(at)freeuk.com
n an ideal world, I probably would not have felt the need to criticize Battlestar Galactica ("Galactica Needs More Diversity"). But we do not live in an ideal world. Diversity, or in this case, the lack of, does matter, particularly with visual mediums. I singled out Battlestar because it was a good remake. Yet, changes were made in the casting on purpose. Those changes were done both to enhance the drama and make a statement. Those changes were made by the producers, not the original writer. Starbuck and Boomer are now played by women. Where once there were strong black actors, now there are none. Those changes were significant. What were the producers and casting director trying to say? Those changes needed to be addressed. The people who made them should have opportunity to explain why. The race and sex of characters is [an] obvious issue and should have been raised when the casting director and producers made their decisions. I again raise the question what were these people thinking when they made their casting decisions. Were their worlds really that small as not to include black actors?
What was important about the science fiction shows of the '70s, '80s and '90s was the diversity. In the '50s, science fiction was done only by white male and female actors, women were only there to be rescued. Uhura (Nichelle Nichols) on Star Trek was the first black actress I saw in a science-fiction program. Whoopi Goldberg said Uhura opened the door for her character (Guinan) in Star Trek: The Next Generation. Boomer and Colonel were the first major black male stars I saw in a science-fiction program. They may have opened the door for Geordi La Forge (Levar Burton), Worf (Micheal Dorn) and Capt. Sisko (Avery Brooks). These characters would have been played by white actors if the producers and casting directors had not stepped out of their comfort zones and been open to hiring actor who did not look like them. In a lot of ways, using actors from many different races is one of the hidden strengths of the Star Trek franchise.
Yes, Battlestar had decent-to-good special effects. The new version did some interesting things with the mythology of the Battlestar story. Yet sadly, it was very retro in its casting. Hopefully this will be corrected if, or when, it becomes a regular weekly series.
John Parsons
[Address withheld by request]
he latest letter column got me to thinking (some say it's a rare thing for me). What does each person bring to the viewing or reading of science-fiction and fantasy material? Have we become such a society that our discourse is skewed by everyone's views? It certainly appears to be so in the political arena, where I have never seen such polarization as we have now—it is totally disheartening to actually like anybody in politics today.
But my main thrust concerns the views people bring to such editorial outlets as this letter column or newspaper editorial pages. I am not here to suggest that some "people's views" (by that narrow definition) are necessarily "evil" or "wrong." Nor am I arguing that some views should be suppressed like others have said. Rather what bothers me is that the owner(s) of the view hold that their viewpoint is unique and ubiquitous. So, they pass it on with such fierceness to scare even the strongest amongst us. Nor do I espouse the position (that some may term liberal) that all views are equally valid. This politically correct ploy can only dilute the common intelligence and bring more division, disharmony, disunion and feverish debate (in times of crises) to all those who love something whether that idea is sci-fi or something really important like freedom. That is not to suggest that people should not speak up for their freedom either, but alas, that is a different debate.
So on to my point. I will address both Battlestar Galactica (BG) and The Lord of the Rings (LOTR):
The letter writers about BG are correct ("Casting Should Not Be Driven by Race", "Letter Writers Should Play Nice"). The lack of black characters in BG means nothing. The original BG took place during a time when it was important in a sense to portray black officers. (And they were strong characters, I felt). I had hoped that we have passed that time, and this is not blatantly important any more. People are who they are first (because of who they are—an obvious statement to me) rather than where they are from, or what they look like, or any other such factor. Yes, I am white, but I can understand what it means to be black and to have gone through what people have gone through because of their skin color, even if I haven't experienced it (and good science fiction and fantasy, have helped me "experience it"—this is what a good art does, it takes you places you can't possibly go). I have even been attacked because of my ethnicity. Through it all, and because of sci-fi, I have come to believe in people and not skin color, nor political ideas or narrow viewpoints. This is the reason why I believe in strong characters, like President Palmer in 24 or Morgan Freeman's portrayal of the president in Deep Impact. Both men are black and both can be my president whenever they want! They portray qualities that a real United States president should have—the most important one being: they are human... they are not "a puppet" or "the man in the high tower."
The mistake that people make is in thinking that BG or LOTR can be viewed through the old series or the original books. They cannot—I said so in a past letter. The new creators of BG tried to "recreate" from the original idea. Whether they were successful or not, I will not debate here, simply because I have not watched the recreation, as I personally was satisfied by the original and I can only view the recreation through the original. This is not narrow-mindedness, it is reality. The past always impinges on the future, whether we want it to or not. Maybe if I expend the energy to view the new BG in the future, I can debate it on its own merits, rather than comparing it to the original, but I can't promise to, since I grew-up with the original.
As for LOTR, I watched it all, very simply because I wanted to see if the picture in my head looked at all similar to other people's "mind pictures" (i.e., Peter Jackson and the whole creative staff behind the film trilogy). I am happy to report that it did. But it cannot be said that the vision (the actual scenes) was faithful to the books, nor should it have been. It would have been impossible to put in the Barrow scene and all the other delightful things that occur in the book because the film would have been over 12 hours long. And yet, the basic premise, the basic idea central to the book is very well translated onscreen. It does not matter who kills the Nazgul. It matters what that death and the destruction of Sauron symbolizes. And in the end, the most important thing in the book, is left untouched, undiluted and very prominent: "Even the smallest person can change the course of history." It is not the hobbits that bow down to the returning King, but the King himself who bows down to those who changed the course of history—to those who really mattered.
Those who really read the books will understand this; will understand the principles that J.R.R. Tolkien was trying to promote through his books. Viewing the films in this matter not only makes them faithful to the source material but also opens new ideas and new ways of thinking to a generation that has grown up on movies and music videos and has never read a book. Peter Jackson has succeeded in promoting the values of friendship, trust, self-sacrifice, love, courage, etc., that are at the core of the LOTR books.
So, while all viewpoints are welcome, as someone else said, they are not necessarily valid. When sitting on the "soap box" we should allow intelligent opposing views to be heard. (Again, note the emphasis on "intelligent.") While it is great for this letter column to publish opposing views, it is important that the unintelligent, invalid (or simply wrong) ones are counteracted by intelligent letter writers such as Peter Boghossian, or Carl, or Robert Mathes Jr. There are unshakeable concepts or beliefs and political correctness be damned if you tell me that "I should not watch or do something because it bothers you." Do not perpetrate a crime by imposing your view. Rather teach important principles to your children like Mr. Mathes has done instead of letting Buffy or Angel or Star Trek or the flavor of the week do it for you.
I am off the soap box now, at least until next time. Keep up the great letter column as it has become the first thing to read as each issue is published—although like others have noted recently, I have become disheartened by the sheer volume of unintelligent blather about "this being wrong with Buffy" or "that gone badly in Smallville" or "the other being incorrect in Star Trek." Do what I have done! Turn it off, and the creators will know that what they are doing is wrong. You cannot fix it, just because you wrote a letter. They (creators) are making a ton of money to do what they do, and it's their creation. If you want intelligent TV, watch intelligent TV.
Michael Papagermanos
makedonia(at)earthlink.net
everal issues raised by the letters column that I'd like to address, briefly.
Firstly, Bravo to both Mr. Robert Mathes Jr. ("Letter Writers Should Play Nice"), and to Carl ("Casting Should Not Be Driven by Race"). Neither science fiction nor literature since time immemorial has been about paint-by-the-numbers, so many of these, so many of that. It's always been about people, and places and what if. I hope it always will be. But first and foremost, it has always been about hope, even in the darkest of times and most dire situations, the basic thematic has been hope. May it continue to be so.
Secondly, Mr. Watts ("Jackson Gets Rings Wrong Again") states that Eowyn did not kill the Witch King, that Merry did it with his Elvish blade. How odd. My thought on seeing that bit was that was one spot taken exactly from the book. Merry stabbed the Witch King in the leg, distracting and weakening him, enabling Eowyn to deliver the killing blow. Merry's arm and side were benumbed by the Witch King's power backlash, which landed him in the infirmary to be treated by the new King, Aragorn. Eowyn, likewise, was knocked senseless by the power she absorbed when she killed him. Thus, the Witch King, who "could be killed by no man" was killed by a woman and a hobbit.
I first read The Hobbit in 1959, and the trilogy in 1965, when it became available in this country in mass-market paperback. I have re-read it on the average of every five years since then. I love the poetry and the mythology and the sheer emotional power of the work. I thoroughly enjoyed the incredible story brought to life on film, and have no problem whatsoever with the changes that were made. They haven't changed the book, folks. Just relax and enjoy them both. To those like Mr. Stark ("Rings Changes Do Novels No Justice") who can do nothing but whine and snuffle at the changes without being moved by the power and the imagery and the emotion that were conveyed so ably on the screen, I can only say you're the kind of folks whose whole day is ruined if you don't find the toy you want in your box of cereal, aren't you? Grow up.
Thirdly, Tolkien had pages and pages and pages to set up the tension and destruction that the ring was doing to Frodo and Sam, and had done to Gollum. The movie had a fraction of that. So they tightened it up. Frodo and Sam did have disagreements at approximately the times framed in the book. No, they were not of the intensity that were portrayed, nor carried to the same conclusions, but the movie interpretations are well within the parameters set forth in the book.
Lastly, gerroff the bit about no women in the book, so Tolkien had to be a misogynist. Lighten up, folks. How many women were in The Thin Red Line or Hunt for Red October? Saving Private Ryan and Apocalypse Now didn't have any female chopper pilots, either. It's about war, the entire series is a statement on all the ways and reasons that war is hell. And how the only way to survive it is to form bonds with people, and do what has to be done, whoever we are, whatever our status in society.
Peg Davis
flamt(at)excite.com
his letter is in response to a letter posted by J. Lee Watts ("Jackson Gets Rings Wrong Again") listed in
Science Fiction Weekly on Dec. 31, 2003.
I do not mind criticism of things I've enjoyed, or disliked, as long as that criticism is based on fact and some research. There has been much said, by fans and press alike, about how Peter Jackson and crew changed too much, or too little, or left out important plot points, or added in too many plot points. And since there is a very old and well established book to compare the film to, the facts are easily checked.
Therefore, I was surprised to read J.L. Watts comments regarding how Peter Jackson's constant rewriting has deteriorated the quality of the story by using an incorrect example. Simply opening the Return of the King, and going to the second and third pages of Chapter VI entitled
"The Battle of the Pelennor Fields," the description of the Nazgul attack on King Theoden, the subsequent challenge to protect him by Eowyn, Merry's wounding of the Witch King and then his death at the hands of Eowyn reads exactly as portrayed on screen. The only changes are the dialogue was shortened a bit and the final discourse was between Theoden and Merry, not Theoden and Eowyn.
The fact that J.L. Watts didn't even bother to open the book to check the facts bothers me greatly. Yes, Peter Jackson and crew changed a lot of things, or left out important plot points, but a lot of it was put back in other places. Dialogue was moved from one character to another, plot devices were introduced at other times, etc. J.L. Watts even states that Merry killed the Witch King with an elven blade received on the Barrow Downs from Tom Bombadil, a storyline that was excised. Does J.L Watts actually think that the Uruk-hai captors allowed Merry and Pippin to keep their Elven Blades? In that chapter, there is no mention that Merry used an Elven blade that he couldn't even hope to still have.
If you are going to criticize Jackson's rewrites, then do so using the facts at hand, the books are easy enough to find. Not showing Merry pledge his oath to Theoden, changing Denethor's character a little too much and not showing that it's caused by a Palantir, leaving out the Houses of Healing with Aragorn showing his Kingly power and Eowyn and Faramir's romance, not having the rest of the Dunedain show up at Dunharrow and bring Arwen's Banner with them for Aragorn to unfurl on the captured Corsair ships, excising the Mouth of Sauron and his ploy to demoralize Gandalf and Aragorn by showing Frodo's Mithril shirt, and having Frodo banish Sam to return home. These are changes worthy of comment, and can be checked in the books.
Yu Kai-lin
yukailin(at)earthlink.net
egarding [the letter] "Jackson Gets Rings Wrong Again"...
Ahem.
Out of the wreck rose the Black Rider, tall and threatening, towering above her. With a cry of hatred that stung the very ears like venom he let fall his mace. Her shield was shivered in many pieces, and her arm was broken; she stumbled to her knees. He bent over her like a cloud, and his eyes glittered; he raised his mace to kill.
But suddenly he too stumbled forward with a cry of bitter pain, and his stroke went wide, driving into the ground. Merry's sword had stabbed him from behind, shearing through the black mantle, and passing up beneath the hauberk had pierced the sinew behind his mighty knee.
'Eowyn! Eowyn!' cried Merry. Then tottering, struggling up, with her last strength she drove her sword between crown and mantle, as the great shoulders bowed before her. The sword broke sparkling into many shards. The crown rolled away with a clang. Eowyn fell forward upon her fallen foe. But lo! the mantle and hauberk were empty. Shapeless they now lay upon the ground, torn and tumbled; and a cry went up into the shuddering air, and faded to a shrill wailing, passing with the wind, a voice bodiless and thin that died, and was swallowed up and was never heard again in that age of this world."
Make of that what you will. I, for one, am merely grateful that a damn fine adaptation of the [Lord of the Rings] novels has been made. But, if one does choose to gripe and cavil, do at least try to get the facts straight.
David Rhode
davidr3986(at)aol.com
ndoubtedly there were differences between the [Lord of the Rings] novels and the movies, but
most of them were in my opinion slight and facilitated the flow of the story. Going by the books, Boromir should have died at the beginning of Two Towers, and the Shelob episode should've occurred at the end of it. However, Boromir's death and the breaking up of the fellowship fit
wonderfully as an ending to the first movie, and it was fitting that Frodo and Sam's entire journey into Mordor, including Shelob, was part of the last film.
In response to J. Lee Watts's letter ("Jackson Gets Rings Wrong Again"), whether it was Merry or Eowyn who killed the Lord of the Nazgul is a matter of interpretation. According to the book Merry stabbed him behind the knee and Eowyn drove her sword between crown and mantle. Her sword broke, but it was only after her stabbing that the dark captain's armor was empty.
I, for one, missed neither Tom Bombadil nor the "Scouring of the Shire," as both parts could be left out without fundamentally changing the story. Many people undoubtedly disagree, as is their right, but I can see why Mr. Jackson made the changes he did.
The thing is: Did the movies do justice to the world Tolkien created, or did they not? I think they did, and I'll look forward to watching these movies again on DVD.
Maria Hällfors
mhallfors(at)hotmail.com
accept that in bringing an enormous trio of novels to film, changes and cuts will have to be made. In The Fellowship of the Ring, much as I lament the loss of Bombadil and Glorfindel, I accepted those changes. FotR was clearly made as a Tolkien movie for Tolkien fans, and most of my biggest objections (such as the history of Merry's sword, critical for book three) were explained satisfactorily in the extended edition.
The Two Towers and now Return of the King were made as Peter Jackson movies for Peter Jackson fans. With every movie having key scenes cut for lack of time, why were extended additional sequences—such as the warg attack on the march to Helm's Deep and Aragon's plunge over the cliff—added? Why were the Ents, who according to Tolkien were nobly marching off to war in every expectation of dying against a wizard of Saruman's power, made so stupid that the hobbits had to trick them into realizing that Fangorn was burning? Why were non-Tolkien scenes such as Faramir and Boromir at Osgiliath, or even Frodo being kidnapped to Osgiliath, included? What did Denethor and his sons ever do to Jackson? Denethor lit the signal towers while Gandalf was still riding towards Gondor. Faramir realized what the ring had done to his brother, and let Frodo go before he fell under its sway. The one who gets the best treatment by Jackson, Boromir, was the one who actually was corrupted by the ring, and his scene of nobility came more than a full movie after his character had died. Why were critical scenes such as Grima's throwing of Orthanc's palantir omitted entirely? It seems as though Jackson was rewarding his core actors with additional scenes even at Tolkien's expense.
Jackson seems completely unaware that the brilliance and popularity of the books comes from their societies, their languages and their total believability. Nothing breaks the readers' willing suspension of disbelief. But in the last two movies, too many things jar. In a world where it can take months to get an army from where it is to where it needs to be, palantiri are incredibly valuable and explain how Aragorn knew to take the paths of the dead. In the movie, no explanation; Elrond just "knows" in the same way he has picked up the unusual elvish ability of teleportation. Elves seemingly can manage a week's march or more overnight in Jackson's world,
even though Legolas did not outpace Aragorn in The Two Towers. Merry and Pippin drink the entdraught in the extended edition of the Two Towers; in RotK, they have shrunk. Frodo and Sam march seemingly forever through Mordor, to the point when Sam, in utter desperation, carries Frodo and the ring. Yet in the theaters, it seems that Mount Doom is a short stroll from Cirith Ungol, and the gates of Mordor an easy march from Gondor. Suspension
of disbelief is strained repeatedly.
Cinematically, we may not have needed to spend half an hour of theater time watching Frodo and Sam dying by inches as they trudge across Mordor. But the triumphs that were painstakingly set up in the books didn't get set up in RotK. After a billion dollars from Fellowship, which is by far the truest to Tolkien of the movies, why couldn't Jackson just say, "If we're going to be reasonably true to Tolkien, we're going to need an extra two or three hours, and that's before I put in all kinds of stuff of my own because, after all, I didn't write the greatest book of the 20th century, but I'm the director. So, lets plan on four movies, not three. We'll end The Two Towers with the flooding of Orthanc and before the battle of Helm's Deep. We'll end the new movie, Helm's Deep, with Frodo paralyzed and the signal towers lit calling for Rohan's aid while Gandalf and Pippin ride. We'll extend FotR with Smeagol and Deagol, which was when Tolkien wrote it. We can keep the Entmoot and Entdraught. Heck, with the extra money we made, we could even hire Robin Williams and film Bombadil for FotR extended edition, or maybe director's cut. We'll make each theatrical version true to the prior extended edition, which will drive even more sales and rentals and keep disbelief suspended. We'll keep the Tolkien fans happy, and we'll make an extra billion dollars." But I guess something in Peter Jackson had to hope they were coming to see him, not to see The Lord
of the Rings.
I saw Fellowship three times in theaters, the first movie I've seen thrice or more first run since I was a child. I own both DVDs. I saw The Two Towers once in the theatres, and only obtained the extended-edition after friends swore I'd like it better. I did like it better, but not nearly as much as I like FotR. And all throughout RotK, my wife and I were flinching at every possible cut (whether it was an actual cut or merely changing
scenes) because we expected it to be more Jackson cuts in order to make room for non-Tolkien scenes such as Pippin lighting the signal tower. Even when we were proven wrong as scenes continued as Tolkien wrote them, our enjoyment was shattered. Unlike almost every other great book made into a movie, RotK had to be more enjoyable for those who hadn't read the books
than for those who had.
I don't know how much remains on the cutting room floor, but I'd love to see a Tolkien version of the Tolkien trilogy if one can be assembled from a few scenes not in the extended editions, and maybe a few voiceovers (such as Gandalf telling Pippin about the signal fires as they are being shown on screen).
Richard Aronson
aronson(at)sierratel.com
his week I have seen, for the umpteenth time, Night of the Living Dead (both versions: George A. Romero's original 1968 classic and Tom Savini's 1990 remake, back to back) and I thought that it would make a good topic for one of my letters. The original is a cult classic for its time and years to follow. Although it could be my opinion, I tended to find the remake somehow more impressive.
Duane Jones was well-cast as the first African-American lead actor in a horror flick at the time. Though Tony Todd's (Candyman, Final Destination) performance as Ben, along with his altered comeuppance, was another impressive credit for this talented actor. Stunt actress Patricia Tallman (Babylon 5's Lyta Alexander) was also a smart casting choice for the remake's Barbara, with no disrespect intended to the under-used Judith O'Dea. And her just survival in the finale could have led to a sequel. There was agreeably more chemistry between the characters of Tom and Judy and between Harry and Helen in the original. Though Helen's demise at the hands of her "deathly" daughter is not as nightmarishly violent. And the doom of trouble-making Harry, played remarkably by Tom Towles, made a much better ending arguably.
Of course, I have to admit that, with due credit to Heather Mazur as the little girl in the cellar who joins the living dead, actress Kyra Schon as Karen Cooper in 1968 is still the most memorable. With regard to Resident Evil, 28 Days Later and all the zombie thrillers of science-fiction horror over the years, I agree that Night of the Living Dead shall forever be the most original. And if they decide to even do a third version someday, it can only get better.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
Back to the top.
