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.
have nothing to thank Joss for. I read with interest Angelina Phoenix's "Cordelia Became a Cheesy Character"
and felt I had to submit a response. Let me start off by saying I take great offense to her comment, "Thank you, Mr. Whedon, we original fans salute you." I'm also an original fan. However, the mistreatment of the actress Charisma Carpenter and the character Cordelia Chase over the last two years of Angel, does not make me want to salute Joss Whedon nor do I appreciate him being thanked on my behalf.
Joss Whedon and his team of writers decide the direction the characters of Angel take. The characters don't take it upon themselves to be "prophetic" nor did the actress just decide to play her that way. So, how can you say in one breath the character became boring, then in another thank Joss Whedon for removing her from the show when it is he who made her boring in the first place? Cordelia undertook a major journey in both shows which, granted, brought about major changes in the character. From bitchy cheerleader to higher being in seven years, showing all the bumps in the road and gradual changes in attitude is more believable than street kid to all powerful lawyer type in just two, with no back story, just, "Ohh, let's make Gunn a legal brain." In response to the Connor aspect of Cordy's story, Cordelia herself did not have a romance with Angel's son, Jasmine who was using Cordy as a vessel did. And as for the Cordy/Angel romance, I for one thought it was a brilliant way forward for the show, if they (the powers that be) had the guts to finally move on out from the shadow of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Obviously they didn't, after all, two weeks after Cordelia was put in a coma, Angel was in Sunnydale vowing to wait for Buffy until she was ready to be "cookies."
So, I must ask Angelina Phoenix, do you actually watch the show? 'Cause from the statements you made, I do have to wonder. I'll finish off by saying as many others in these pages have, Cordelia Chase was the heart of Angel Investigations. She was the glue that held the makeshift family together. Her being removed from the show has proved detrimental to the growth of not only the characters, but also the show itself. And I blame you, Joss Whedon. And I know many other fans do, too. So please, in the future, Miss Phoenix, thank him on behalf of yourself.
Gemma Scott
Sacredgem_1(at)hotmail.com
'm not a letter-to-the-editor type, but I'm inspired to write in about one of my favorite shows.
All the negative ideas I've seen seem to express the opinion that Joss Whedon doesn't know how to write shows that clearly deliver his point of view on the vision he created ("Cordelia Became a Cheesy Character", "Whedon's Hubris Was His Downfall", "Charisma Embodies Woman's Charisma", "Cordelia Will Be Seeing You"). Get real, folks! Joss is once again deeply involved in the series, both writing and directing. He's taking it back in a direction it was going during the first season, with a helping of his unique sense of humor. Getting completely back on track will take time.
Joss stated at the 100th [episode] party that Angel was a story of how an adult deals with his past and moves on. The addition of Spike only doubles this theme of redemption. Admittedly, Spike has never acted very adult until the last season of Buffy, but he's now seeking redemption in his own way. This gives two very different takes on the theme with two very different men. I think Spike is a good addition if the two men's characters continue to be shown in opposition. Mr. Broody and Mr. Irreverent are great foils for each other.
As to Cordy and the rest of the characters, I do like them for the most part and cried over Cordy's death. I agree that they occasionally detract from the base story and take altogether too much time away from the main character. Angel needs to come to the forefront more often. However, the subthemes these characters create are valuable in the way that they show how "normal" people deal with all the good vs. evil life and death stuff that is a constant in all their lives.
The WB and most other networks are moving in the wrong direction by canceling the quality series shows and adding more and more of what I call "trash TV." I suppose it's good though that we're watching alot less primetime television, at least in my household. By canceling Angel, The WB is giving us another hour of family time.
All things considered, I think the series is moving in the right direction and I'm just as avid a fan as I have been from the beginning. My family and I will be heartbroken when the series ends.
Sandy Flynn
cassandrafirst(at)yahoo.com
'm now in the anger phase of mourning the impending end of science fiction on television (other than the SCI FI Channel). And I'm feeling used. Fox did it to us, and now WB and UPN are doing the same thing.
I remember when fledgling Fox ran Sightings on Fridays at 9, before the advent of X-Files. And there were several shorter-lived companion shows in the 8pm slot (e.g., VR 5). Fox was new, trying to break new ground, grab untapped audiences—be innovative. They were satisfied with the ratings (Sightings ran several years before moving to SCI FI)—the sort of ratings science fiction generally delivers. They were trying to get a foothold.
For sure, the same dynamic was operating with the various incarnations of Star Trek in the existence UPN, and they always had at least one more genre show in their earlier years (e.g., Roswell). And along with teenage angst, The WB prized their Buffy franchise and also usually had a second offering.
But, as each of these networks gained steam, and became able to garner higher ratings than science fiction generally produces, their tolerance for the genre declined. Fox did not understand that the success of X-Files was the tail end of a bell shaped curve, and judged every show after by that those ratings, damning a number of decent shows from the X-Files spin-off to Firefly. I fear this year it will be Tru Calling.
Buffy (and I think Roswell) moving from WB to UPN started WB's retreat, although Smallville gets higher-than-usual ratings for the genre and seems secure. UPN appears poised to dump it's whole genre line-up, including Star Trek despite Enterprise being better than Voyager. You can see their tolerance for sci-fi ratings beginning to match Fox.
(In this column, even the SCI FI Channel has been accused of trying to garner a larger audience by watering down and departing from the interests of their core audience.)
I'm not saying we'll never see another genre show on those networks, but I feel like their tolerance for the usual rating genre shows receive is beginning to look like ABC's. And they are overall less interested in our genre.
So, are we at the nadir of the science fiction on television cycle because of a decline in interest—or because of a change in the threshold of the networks who were supplying us? I think the latter factor is as significant as the former. Science fiction was an easy target to develop an audience, but we seem to be eminently expendable once that audience has been developed.
Barbara Goldstein
psifidoll(at)comcast.net
fter reading about the plans for the Constantine movie, I couldn't help but wonder if Hollywood will ever produce a good film adaptation of any of [Alan] Moore's first-rate comics or graphic novels. First, the powers-that-be allowed the Hughs brothers, of all people, to film Moore and Campbell's From Hell. While it certainly looked good on the screen, the resultant film was a royal mess. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen didn't fare much better despite the presence of the great Sean Connery. The filmmakers evidently
felt that since it was derived from a comic they didn't had to make it either coherent or intelligent.
Now we have a movie based on Hellblazer in the works. While he was initially created as a secondary character in Swamp Thing, John Constantine remains one of Moore's major creations. So you can imagine how delighted I was to be reminded that they've gone and cast Keanu Reeves in the role of John Constantine. It reminds me of a story that crime writer Lawrence Block
used to tell. Block had written a series of novels featuring a burglar named Bernie Rhodenbarr who was a Jewish male of about 35 to 40 years of age. Eventually some producer in La-La-Land purchased the film rights to the novels. Naturally, when it came time to adapt the first book into a movie, they cast Whoopi Goldberg in the role. Reeves is the very antithesis to the character of John Constantine as one can get. To top it off they've gone and transferred the setting from London to L.A. of all places. So much for being foreboding and scary. Moore deserves better.
John Randy Barrett
jrbarrett101(at)yahoo.com
irst let me say that this is a black and white issue ("Casting Shouldn't Be Political", "Skin Color Doesn't Matter", "Superman Should Fly Without Beyonce"). As a writer and an artist, I hope that anything that I create stays true to my original concept. If I portray white, black, Asian or Hispanic characters, then keep them as that. I have a reason to show them as that nationality. I am so tired of this society trying so hard to make everything correct. Lois Lane
is white, period. Just like Marvel's Black Panther is black. Would fans really take him serious if, let's say, Val Kilmer were put in that part?
It is important to keep myths, origins and reality as it was meant to be. We should respect the original idea because it is a message in itself. We can't put a white man as Malcolm X even if he portrays the character better then a black actor. The texture of this character is black and texture is important for those that grew up with this image. We can't change nature. We can only mutilate it. We can change the course of rivers, concrete the world, but it takes away the original beauty that existed. If one says, "Will, this gives a whole race of people someone to look up to." I say the problem is not in recreating established characters. The problem is those that cannot get past the original color of the characters and just admire that person, emulate that person, for what that person is and not their skin tone. I greatly admire Dr. King and Mr. Colin Powell for who they are, not what they are. And I would never ever want to see those men played by some white actor because he can act better and especially because he is white.
You say that those men are not fictional! OK, how much meaning would the term "Uncle Tom" (a pacifist slave that stays true to the Masters that own him) have if some studio should make a movie of Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe and he was played by a white man? It would be stupid.
To sum it up, keep the characters true! Keep them whatever color they are, whatever costume they wear, whatever powers they have and especially whatever origin they have. Don't fix it if it isn't broke. The studio's have no concept of the impact some of these characters have on people. To agree with them, you are just caught up in their money making maze that wants to grab an audience that may not relate if one of their people are not portrayed as a main character. That makes the studio the Master and we are the Uncle Tom's. But this Uncle has no problem telling the Master to shove it if they change anything!
Waine Thomas
wainethomas(at)hotmail.com
would remind all those who would decry Beyonce Knowles as Lois Lane ("Casting Shouldn't Be Political", "Skin Color Doesn't Matter", "Superman Should Fly Without Beyonce"), lest they forget, that:
1) It was Michael Clarke Duncan, a black actor, who assayed the role of The Kingpin, a traditionally white character in the comics, in the film version of Daredevil last year. He brought style, power and elegance to the role—so much so that, along with Colin Farrell's portrayal of Bullseye, it made Ben Affleck's Daredevil flaccid by comparison. Moreover, no one blinked when Duncan was cast.
2) Almost a decade before Duncan's Kingpin, Star Trek: Voyager's Tim Russ spent about a season and a half of press interviews and convention Q&A sessions answering silly questions about black Vulcans. Because Russ had the acting chops and built a solid character, no one thinks twice about it anymore.
3) And much before Duncan or Russ, Orson Welles, because he wanted to play the traditionally black Othello character, hired a competent all-black cast to play the roles traditionally reserved for white people in a stage production of Shakespeare's play. People still
talk about this production favorably today.
So, as shown above, acting ability is paramount. Does Beyonce Knowles have the acting chops and the panache to play Lois Lane ? If yes, let her play the role; If she succeeds in her work, people will be too impressed to care what the color of her skin is.
Roman Gheesling
tienlung(at)hotmail.com
his in response to Adam Boudreaux's "Wonder Woman Needs to Be Tall". I couldn't agree more. It was reported on SCI FI Wire that Sarah Michelle Gellar is also trying out for the role. How tall is Buffy? 5'3" if you are being kind. She could have starred as Frodo's girlfriend in the Rings flicks.
This is another totally inappropriate casting consideration. This is almost as bad as casting Johnny Depp as Tony Stark in the upcoming Iron Man movie. Neither [Charisma] Carpenter nor Gellar are physically appropriate for this. Furthermore, as to their acting skills they are both young actresses and have a ways to go yet—Carpenter even more so.
I do not agree with Chyna as a choice. She is large enough but has a voice that sounds like ... well certainly not Wonder Woman. There must be some six-foot actress out there who is both beautiful and can act.
Nicholas Cage as Superman, Depp as Iron Man and now Gellar or Carpenter as Wonder Woman. How about Jim Carrey as Thor, the God of Thunder? Geez.
T. Hannibal Gay
Hannibal(at)Hotmail.com
s an avid sci-fi and fantasy fan, I was truly intrigued by TV for the first time in a long time, with the arrival of Tarzan. I was also pleased with The WB for continuing to step out of the box with a story like Tarzan. Now, some months removed from their rash decision, and again left shaking my head about their decision to send off Angel, I feel the state of sci-fi/fantasy on network TV is dead. I don't believe the concept of Tarzan is dead, however. Even with cast members moving to other projects and The WBs' tuck-tail, run and betrayal approach in reference to the project, I feel that this Tarzan can be and should be revived in a TV movie or more appropriately miniseries format on the SCI-FI channel.
Now, for those who are against the idea, let's agree to disagree because we all have different tastes—know this: There is still a group of loyal and active fans dedicated to the drama, its stars and the future for Tarzan. Those involved with the project, while involved with new pursuits would not be free to do the series format, but could certainly be freed up to work together again and continue the saga. I personally would love to see what SCI FI could do with this material, void of The WB trappings.
Anyone who also doesn't feel The WB affected the concept should know that the Frog Network wanted a funnier, not-quite-so-dark telling of the tale. They reworked the pilot and took out some of the sci-fi element, not happy with a darker tale. In my opinion, as well as others I know, if you're going to tell the timeless tale of a supposed savage in a violent and detached society of supposedly civilized people, isn't it a dark tale? Good vs. evil and the like? Although pleased by the program myself, along with many others in the Tarzan Loyal Camp, I feel The WB didn't really know, understand or respect the true conceptual gem they had. I would love to pose this here now to all who read this page—Would you want to see Tarzan with the cast from the recent series in an epic tale made by SCI FI? It would be the chance to fully explore the tale, the good vs. evil story, answering the questions about true savage behavior and bringing in more of the scientific element, like—the heightened senses and the evolution theory. Are the heightened senses a result of adapting to the environment he was raised in? There is a richness of story in sci-fi/fantasy and a realm one can go to, where we explore all of life's questions. For this viewer, television has become a bland and unsatisfying place—so I've not been a visitor in a while. Like all who are unsatisfied, there is still video to retreat to for, Highlander, Now and Again, The Invisible Man, The Pretender and now Tarzan. I keep hopeful for the continuing story that I feel at this point only the SCI FI channel can honestly continue.
Ann Marie Uzzo
auzzo77(at)yahoo.com
octor Who was one of the 1960s' many unexpected science-fiction successes for British television. It earned even more acclaim in the '70s. And John Nathan-Turner was reasonably successful in keeping this grand science-fiction epic alive throughout the '80s. So what chances does Russell T. Davies (Queer As Folk) have for bringing the legend back to life next year?
I have always agreed that the late John Nathan-Turner, the BBC's last and longest producer for Doctor Who, made his share of interesting headway with classic storytelling, intense drama (with thanks to excellent writers and script editors including Eric Saward and veterans, Terrance Dicks and Robert Holmes) and some intriguing twist-revelations for familiar characters in "Logopolis," "Mawdryn Undead" and "The Curse of Fenric." The heroic death of a regular character Adric, as played by Matthew Waterhouse, in the unforgettable "Earthshock" was naturally one of the dramatic elements that revitalized the series at the time. And "Survival" which was Anthony Ainley's final performance as The Master in 1989 was a moderately fitting ending for a production that was ailing towards the end.
The telemovie starring Paul McGann as the 8th Doctor may not have been as successful as intended. Eric Roberts, an admitted fan of Doctor Who for its "cheesiness," was an interesting casting choice for the role of The Master. Daphne Ashbrook as the beautiful companion, Grace Holloway (who is most popular for being the first ever to kiss the Doctor) also did justice for the story. And Paul McGann, who is rumored to reprise the role for the new series, was agreeably ideal for retaining the British quality of the TARDIS-traveler. Yet it failed to launch a new America-based series at the time despite its best efforts.
Obviously the powers that be agree with the fans that it is never too late. But can the new series revive the monstrous chemistry of memorable stories like "The Seeds of Doom" (which wins my vote for Doctor Who's best alien-monster-invasion story of the '70s)? Can the plausible return of evil enemies like the Daleks and the Cybermen still be as hauntingly effective for the 21st Century as they were for the 20th? Enterprise is breathing its own controversial new life into the Star Trek franchise for this new millennium. The new Star Wars prequel trilogy and Smallville's teen years for Superman are further evidence that the known science-fiction universe is showing no sign of diminishing. So does Doctor Who have a strong chance of making a triumphant comeback? A viable new series will ultimately have to be somewhat reconceived as was Battlestar Galactica and Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes. And even with Doctor Who's dimensional format, Russell T. Davies has accepted a formidable challenge. Can he do it? We shall soon see!
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
Back to the top.
