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.
nyone following the trouble-plagued production of The Exorcist: The Beginning might wonder if some of the decision-makers behind the scenes haven't lost their senses.
As SCI FI Wire reported last month, what had earlier been described as "re-shoots," subsequent to the completion of principal photography, have evolved into something more ambitious, if not unprecedented. The cut turned in by the film's original director, Paul Schrader (Affliction, Cat People) has been scrapped, and Renny Harlin (Deep Blue Sea), Schrader's replacement, has made an entirely new film. This is simply unheard of: The $35 million spent by Schrader was effectively written off, while Warner Brothers, the studio behind the project, allocated a matching sum to Harlin—doubling the budget (now $70 million). In doing so, the studio, in partnership with the production company Morgan Creek, has raised the specter of such infamous excess-ridden disasters as Ishtar and Heaven's Gate. (In fairness to those two films, it should be noted that the current buzz within the film industry finds the Exorcist prequel representing a new standard of excess and managerial folly.)
Aside from the predictable chorus of gasps and titters from Hollywood insiders and analysts, there seems to be very little outrage prompted by the story. I can't imagine that I'm alone in feeling a sense indignation at the behavior of The Exorcist: The Beginning producers. (For
one thing, this kind of profligate spending always leads me to think of the many smaller films that could have been financed with the wasted money.) Though I admit to being limited to the information available in the mainstream press, the treatment of Paul Schrader, an important American director whom I've admired for some time, seems appalling to me. The film's producers reportedly felt that the director's cut wasn't "scary enough," and he was summarily fired. Schrader characterizes their reaction as "buyer's remorse"—they bought a Ford and later wanted a Chevy. Indeed, the script Schrader was hired to direct, written by novelist Caleb Carr (which had been commissioned and approved by Morgan Creek), was by all accounts followed by Schrader to a T. It was then abandoned when Harlin was brought on board, and another script was commissioned—no mere re-write, Harlin insists; it's an entirely new story.
When the dust settles on The Exorcist: The Beginning, the real loser—apart from Schrader (who deserves much better, certainly in light of a distinguished career)—will be the movie-going public. I, for one, was tantalized by the prospect of an intelligent, psychologically potent and visually sumptuous (photography by the great Vittorio Storarro) addition to the Exorcist franchise—such as many of those who've seen Schrader's cut have described it. We may someday see Schrader's version on DVD—though I wouldn't hold my breath.
What we will see in theaters sometime this year is a Renny Harlin film. If his previous work is any indication, I think one can fairly assume that when the project passed from Schrader's hands to his, the result was a qualitative downgrade.
Paul Fries
paulfries(at)hotmail.com
egarding Wil McCarthy's science column, "Sleepless in Smallville":
A damned commercial in disguise.
Thanks a lot. Did you earn more, or less, trust of sci-fi from me?
LESS!
Michael A. Crane Jr.
macjr_1962(at)verizon.net
Columnist Wil McCarthy responds:
Michael Crane raises an interesting point. Never having used any of the chemicals described in "Sleepless," I'm not in a position to endorse or defame them. However, merely reporting their existence and effects may not be enough; if any representative of the drug companies would like to pay me to field-test these medications, the bidding starts at $2,000. Here at Science Fiction Weekly, we strive for the highest levels of journalistic integrity.
Best,
Wil
n response to A.R. Yngve's perception ("Most Sci-Fi TV Is By the Numbers") that all SF TV is plot by numbers, and "TV sci-fi is never meant to surprise" here's five examples off the top of my head to prove him or her completely wrong.
1. A sexy psychopath runs the Federation, and eventually kills all the good guys. Blakes 7.
2. A genetically new type of human evolves, and covertly sets out to replace homo sapiens. Prey.
3. The heroine is dead, but still has to make a living popping the souls of those about to depart from their bodies. Dead Like Me.
4. The Sheriff of a small U.S. town might be the Devil. He has a young son, who is protected by the ghost of his dead sister. American Gothic.
5. Human and alien politics, interspecies love, religion, millennia of genetic and cultural manipulation by near gods, and finally the wisdom to grow beyond. Babylon 5.
A.R. goes on to moan about this letters page always debating "trifles and petty details," which insults those who have commented on issues of race, politics, religion, war and justice. As for TV shows never daring to show sex, what planet has our friend been living on, Taliban Prime? Unless
a viewer is looking for full on hardcore, SF shows deal more than adequately with the subject. Kirk went boldly with almost every female alien that crossed his path. Tasha Yar did it with an android. Ivanova and Talia Winters had the first SF TV lesbian affair. Trip became a pregnant man, and most recently Buffy was boffing a dead guy so hard, it wrecked a building!
The one thing I can agree about, is that scriptwriters will run into the limits of what is allowed on network television. However, more often than not, this limit is not imposed by any dubious moral standard, or production budgets. It comes from those who really rule the roost; the accountants. Having zero imagination, these people more than any other group, urge producers to play it safe. Safe to an accountant means do whatever has worked before, over and over again. But, as the comic book writer Jim Starlin put it, diamonds keep on appearing in the tower of garbage. Then it all falls down, and the clowns have to rebuild.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil(at)freeuk.com
egarding the letter "Most Sci-Fi TV Is By the Numbers" (by A.R. Yngve), I couldn't agree more with this person's assessment of TV sci-fi and the fandom in general. Their comments are so on the mark, that I'm at a loss to add anything (they neglected the whole "mortal enemy and hero switch bodies and villain causes chaos among heroes friends until they discover the deception" plot—even Buffy did this one).
It's obvious that it's difficult for the writers and their finite imaginations to keep things fresh on a weekly series—another reason I think most shows should be like Babylon 5 and opt for a five season run, instead of going and going until the show totally exhausts its potential (i.e. Star Trek).
I also agree that too many fans use the Science Fiction Weekly letters page to complain
about stupid things, like whether or not a show is good, or other trivial details (I mean, nobody's going to change anybody's mind if they like or hate a show anyway, so why even bother?)
I think it's fair to say that Hollywood needs to be more daring in general with its storytelling when it comes to sci-fi/fantasy and stop giving people the same old garbage. If the creative people (and the suits) could innovate more, that would be the best thing for the genre.
But I'm not holding my breath ...
Tony K.
tkphoton(at)hotmail.com
have read among this letters column that many people feel that science fiction and/or fantasy literature is becoming old hat ("SF Is In Its Darkest Hour"), and that old ideas are constantly being rehashed in one form or another week after week, month after month and year after year. To a degree, that is true.
But, as always, there are exceptions to the rule. With new minds come fresh ideas and there is plenty of science fiction out there now worth considering and taking a look at, from certain comic books to short stories and novels, and even websites such as Keepitcoming.net are putting either new twists on old ideas or issuing premises that feature a remarkable insight that will allow the genre to survive and thrive for a long time coming. One way to see it is that the naming of names is unfair, (and woefully inadequate, because there is only so much space that can be provided in a letters column) because as connoisseurs of science fiction literature, everyone should be picking up the book of an author they have not heard of before when they are picking up their copy of Fahrenheit 451, The Lord of the Rings or The Slaughterhouse Five.
New and interesting science fiction and fantasy stories are everywhere. All readers must do is take a chance and read it.
Geoff Mosse
Latimere(at)aol.com
must take exception with Mr. Ahearn's letter "SF Is In Its Darkest Hour."
Just because every bad little novel that labels itself sci-fi doesn't sell thousands of copies hardly means the genre is going down to doom.
In just one sub-genre of sci-fi, military sci-fi, I can name several new authors with a wide readership; John Ringo, David Weber and Eric Flint. Also exciting new work by Lois McMaster Bujold in her Miles Vorkosigan series.
Harry Turtledove continues to produce good, solid novels in the alternative history sub-genre.
Heinlein is being reprinted at a furious rate and enticing a whole new generation into reading his books.
It is not nearly the pitch black picture for the genre as Mr. Ahearn would have us believe.
Patrick Baker
bakerpat62(at)yahoo.com
have a question. Do animated versions of popular science-fiction franchises succeed as completely as their live-action counterparts? The animated Star Trek for the early '70s may not have the best that it could have been although it did supposedly win at the Emmys for best children's animated program. In the '80s there were two back-to-back animated spinoffs of Star Wars featuring the Ewoks and the droid duo of C-3P0 and R2-D2, which was impressive at the time. And most recently the Doctor Who animated feature, "The Screams of Shalka" featuring Richard E. Grant as the voice of the Doctor, made some interesting headway with fans. There was, some years ago, an animated adaptation of The Lord of the Rings which bombed with critics. And just as my letter ("King Should Ring in Oscar Nods") in issue 348 anticipated the trilogy conclusion's win at the Oscars this year, the success of live-action combined with CGI ingenuity speaks for itself.
The Animatrix (its first computer-animated segment originally featured in the cinema), an intriguing prequel for The Matrix trilogy, is probably a just remedy for fans the trilogy after the disappointment of The Matrix Revolutions. This would indicate that animated aspects of the science fiction universe may tend to generate more glory occasionally.
There are some animated franchises that have successfully made the transition to live-action/CGI including X-Men and Spider-Man. And my recommendation for the next original animated science fiction epic to make the big leap would be Battle of the Planets (the first five volumes now released on VHS and DVD). I agree that animated versions of popular science fiction live-action will always have its rightful place in the entertainment industry. And who knows what is yet to come?
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
lthough I've been a real fan of Smallville since it began, it's time
for Clark to move to Metropolis. Most of the storylines and supporting characters have grown stale. This year, after a few senior-year adventures, Clark could graduate and use graduation night to tell Lana the truth about himself. Lana, although in love with him, would not want to stand in the way of his destiny. (Besides, she's a small-town girl who just wants to stay in Smallville and expand the Talon.)
Clark could accept a working scholarship with the Daily Planet (Perry White is an associate editor), completing his degree online and at night in two years without raising suspicions. Lex would also move up to the corporate headquarters in Metropolis. Clark would be introduced by Chloe to her cousin Lois Lane, who is going fulltime to Metropolis City College but working as a stringer for a competing newspaper. She hopes "someday to work at the Daily Planet."
Still without the cape, Clark would have the chance for more and varied super actions but anonymously in a large city. He would have the chance to interact with (or against) real cops, fellow college students and a wider range of character types.
It's time for Clark to grow up as a person and a series.
Thanks again.
Gaylen Roberts
[Address withheld by request]
emember the Flat Earth Society? You know, the folks who laughed at Columbus! Well, turns out they were right, but in a way they had never intended.
Science-fiction writers have long been fantasizing hi-tech wonders, but rarely anticipate the long-term effects. Verne got us to the moon via a giant cannon and other SF writers used more "realistic" methods, yet no one predicted that we'd watch the Apollo missions on television or the new technologies the space race would launch.
Experts fare no better than SF writers. (H.G. Wells had imagined an atom bomb long before the Manhattan Project!) After A-bombs were dropped on Japanese cities to bring an end to World War II, paranoia set in. Nuclear weapons would become bigger and more powerful! This was true. But no one had foreseen that nuclear warheads would become smaller, presenting an even bigger threat.
Ironically, the B-29 Superfortress, the aircraft that had delivered the first atomic weapons, was also the first bomber equipped with onboard computers. We know where that led. Or do we? Hundreds of novels, short stories and screenplays about gigantic machines dominating the human race, but like the nuclear doomsayers, SF writers missed the boat by thinking bigger instead of smaller.
Nearly 40 years ago, while still a teenager, I was an Air Force intelligence analyst based with the second largest concentration of computers in all of Europe. Coupled with my son's Apple, I now have more computer power, speed and memory in my country cottage for less than one-thousandth of the cost!
While scientific wonders still abound on Mars, in Earth orbit or in the stratosphere with capabilities undreamt of generations ago, equal wonders, cheap, small and easy to use, exist for exploitation at our fingertips. Gernsbeck's "scientifiction," Wellsian science fiction and
Aldrys' "technology" fiction have united to create a global phenomenon.
Crowned Time magazine's "Man of the Year" in 1984, the computer has since eclipsed McLuhan's "Medium is the message," Clarke's "Transparent society" and Disney's "It's a small world after all."
"Location, location, location," preach the real estate agents. "Give us a level playing field," demands Big Business. In the New Millennium, the former has become irrelevant while the latter may level the Middle Class—technology has negated geography.
There's a revolution at play here changing the way the world works. The ubiquitous computer has become the international equalizer. Linked with the Internet, the computer enables Third World people to fill First World slots at a fraction of the cost. The "outsourcing" of computer jobs in the U.S., Japan and Europe has only just begun. More than the tip of the iceberg, the computer is the iceberg and the titanic industries of the West have been hit by it.
Of course, the rich will control the cutting edge of technology, but the poor are catching up so much faster. The day will soon dawn when anyone with the language and tech skills will be able to fill any computer job anywhere. The technological bubble has burst. The world is flattening. The cheap will inherit the earth.
More than five centuries after Columbus sailed around the globe, the computer has turned the economic structure of the grand sphere into the shape of a CD. Welcome to the Flat Earth Society. Very soon, we'll all be members.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA(at)aol.com
can hardly imagine a show that is more distasteful than Tripping the Rift.
I wasted a half hour of my life on TTR. There are few things that offend me, but this really did. It started out by having one character wanting to f*** God, and it went downhill from there. And believe me, it went downhill in a big hurry. It was like Lexx crossed with South Park, only without the wit of either show. And poorly animated, besides that. I saw better 3-D animation 10 years ago with Reboot, and the art has progressed a lot since then. It looked and sounded like some high-schooler's computer animation project, complete with scatological and masturbation humor.
What has happened to the SCI FI Channel? It used to be a joy to tune into about 3 to 4 years ago. Now I barely watch an hour a week as I catch Stargate SG-1.
This is pitiful television and highly offensive. If a mainline network can be reprimanded for being offensive, then how does SCI FI get away with not only offending one's ears but one's religious beliefs as well? I am utterly disgusted.
Marie Johnson
amriej(at)hotmail.com
Back to the top.
