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.
s a science fiction reader, I am quite happy that Isaac Asimov's work is getting renewed attention, but it is not because of his inventiveness as a writer. The current edition of I, Robot that is now number 44 on the USA Today Best-Seller book list has a cover of Will Smith, but the content is actually the original collection of short stories.
Nowhere on the cover does it mention that the stories contained inside have absolutely nothing to do with the current movie, except for the Three Laws of Robotics. This is blatant misadvertising and Bantam ought to at least place a byline on the cover that informs readers that it is not a novelization of the movie.
David M. Mack
endermack(at)hotmail.com
m I the only one tired of letters of the form: "Dear SCI FI, I haven't seen movie XYZ, nor do I intend to. Yet I will trash it anyway as if I knew what I was talking about. Sincerely, I.M. Pontificating"
I mean really. So what if I, Robot was not based 100 percent on Isaac Asimov's short stories? I think they did an excellent job marrying what it was based on (a script treatment called Hardwired, from what I read elsewhere) and elements of Isaac Asimov's robot stories.
I just recently re-read the I, Robot set of short stories, and while they were interesting and enjoyable from an intellectual point of view, none of them would have made a particularly good movie, even though they are great (though slightly dated) stories.
The film, on the other hand, did make a good movie. It pulled classic elements from Asimov, added good characterization and dialogue and action, with a very enjoyable result, and they even managed to include some of the thought-provoking aspects of Asimov's writing. Sure, it did not match perfectly the Asimov stories. So? Few and far between are the written works that can translate exactly to the big screen, and typically attempts to translate prose exactly result in a dull end product.
I think more people need to evaluate films based on their own merits rather than on some arbitrary comparison to an entirely different medium.
Burt Smith
burt(at)pslashg.org
am not "bothered by the fact that [I, Robot] [the movie] really isn't the book" ("I, Robot Is Not Asimov's A.I."). I guess it helped knowing in advance, before seeing the film, that it was not "the book." I searched for movie reviews online, and in the newspaper, hoping to find the answer to the questions: Is the movie based on the Asimov stories, and how closely does this film follow the stories?
The review I read said that the movie wasn't Asimov's story, just some of the concepts, mixed together. That was good enough for me. Keeping that in mind, I went to the cinema, to enjoy "a story." Knowing that it was comprised of some of Asimov's concepts, I was able to enjoy the film for what it was, "entertainment."
I had an awesome time following the robots. I was engrossed in the computer-generated, computer-graphic, computer-animated stuff, i.e., the robots (who stole the movie), the vehicles, the city scenes, the holograms, etc.
I am bothered that people no longer check resources for themselves and fall for anything. I hope the rerelease of the book states somewhere that the movie is based on a concept of the stories and not true to the Asimov work.
Although I, Robot has been on my Books To Read list, long before the movie, it is the movie that has sparked my interest to move it up on the list, and get it read.
Finally, I leave you with this ... I am glad that the movie has sparked interest for people to go read for themselves and "knowing that there is always potential for human error and a glitch in the system." Happy reading and viewing.
"I" Wriddle
jvwriddle(at)sbcglobal.net
t is horrible what Hollywood is doing to the grand masters of sci-fi. I, Robot is only the most recent offence ("What Would Isaac Do?"); remember Starship Troopers, and The Puppet Masters? I would love to see a film version of Stranger In a Strange Land or any of the Elijah Bailey or Foundation stories, but I am afraid what horrors Hollywood would inflict on these classics.
Maybe we should start a letter-writing campaign akin to the two that keep Star Trek and Enterprise on the air to let the film industry know we want faithful versions of our classic stories made into film, or don't bother.
Michael Spath
mispath(at)vassar.edu
cott Edelman's editorial "What Would Isaac Do?" accurately depicts the pain
many SF fans feel when their most beloved SF books are adapted for the screen. I've never been a huge fan of Issac Asimov's work, but when we saw a trailer for I, Robot a few months back, my wife and I looked at each other aghast—this was how they were going to "adapt" the books?! Holy cow!
Since then I've calmed down a bit and remembered that Hollywood, being Hollywood, can do whatever they liked so long as their movie found an audience. According to the figures quoted in Edelman's editorial, Alex Proyas' version has certainly done that. I know I'll go along to see
fighting ninja robots with no expectation of seeing anything really resembling the world that Asimov imagined.
To my mind, the most faithful adaption of Asimov—in both detail and spirit—was Chris Columbus's Bicentennial Man. It was a terrible movie but, as Adam-Troy Castro pointed out in his review of Harlan Ellison's script for I, Robot, "Ellison understood that a straight adaptation of Asimov's intellectually intriguing, but visually static, tales wouldn't work onscreen." Perhaps that's the unfortunate truth of Asimov—great ideas but nothing much going on visually to make a movie—as Bicentennial Man proved.
Andrew Frost
tezby(at)hotmail.com
cott Edelman's editorial ("What Would Isaac Do?") bemoaning Isaac Asimov's I, Robot becoming somebody else's robot was accurate and well-intentioned, but truth be told, Asimov's robot stories from half a century ago have rusted badly. Moreover, as legend has it, the "Three Laws of Robotics" were created not by Asimov, but by his editor, John Campbell.
I read I, Robot when I was 10 and I heartily recommend the collection to 10-year-olds. Some 20-plus years later, I read Asimov's Robots of Dawn based on the Three Laws and was dismayed how little the author had grown in all that time.
Hollywood's relationship with SF authors has had both its ups and down. When Blade Runner was in production, Philip K. Dick was offered a fortune to rewrite his Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? to conform to the screenplay. Dick, whose alimony payments rivaled Mickey Rooney's, turned the money down.
Harry Bates got $250 for the rights to Farewell to the Master and died bitter. He shouldn't have. Put my name under the story credit for The Day the Earth Stood Still and I'd be eternally happy.
Campbell's novelette Who Goes There? became the 1951 Thing from Another World, an infinitely better story and a film classic. Those who prefer Carpenter's truer adherence to Campbell are in the minority. Ever read Red Alert? Didn't think so. That piece of tripe was turned into Dr. Strangelove by Stanley Kubrick whose take on Clarke's Sentinel of Eternity made 2001: A Space Odyssey a landmark film.
If any science-fiction writer suffered at the hands of Hollywood, it's Mary Shelley. Nearly 100 Frankenstein movies, a TV series, a galaxy of merchandise and the "mother of science fiction" was just voted into the SF&F Hall of Fame. Gee, how much credibility would the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame have if they had waited years before inducting Elvis Presley? Always way ahead of its time, some 40 years ago Mad magazine did a take-off a Hollywood blockbuster movie poster. The story credit: "Based on a bad dream by Yogi Berra."
Did Yogi read Isaac? Will Smith would know.
Kevin Ahearn
kahearn(at)netpub.net
here have so far been some poor reviews for Catwoman. It may be somewhat abrupt with its storyline and ending. But there are some good things I can say about this superheroine flick that was destined to be told. One is that Halle Berry was purrrrr-fect for this ultimate role of female empowerment. Another is that the premise for Catwoman, a superheroine that appeals to me personally for her elusiveness (a trait that I for one tend to find more appealing in superheroes), is a fitting redefinition for a classic character that supposedly may lead to a new TV series. Lucy Liu is evidently the #1 contender for the feline femme fatale, as voted over the internet on A&E during Catwoman's biography, in this possible new franchise. And I agree with her too as a great casting choice.
The fight scene between Halle and Benjamin Bratt is better than that between Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner in Daredevil. And Halle's climactic fight scene with Sharon Stone (who also delivers an exquisite performance as the villainess), which supposedly took 10 days to film, is more meticulous and classy than Uma Thurman's catfights in the Kill Bill films. Halle had to use a very slender stuntman for some of the action scenes, as Angelina Jolie also required a stuntman for scenes in Tomb Raider 2: The Cradle of Life. And the CGI action is well executed in Catwoman as it was for Spider-Man 1 and 2.
Although the film may not be the best that it could have been, I must applaud for the effort in this revamping of a popular character who was originally a villainess and has been justly given a whole new life of her own. Catwoman wins my vote for the epitome of the best action-adventure heroine of this decade. And I am looking forward to the new TV series. I would certainly recommend this film for anyone who admires Catwoman as a superheroine. And for anyone who agrees with me that Halle Berry does justice for the role. Meow!
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
'd like to respond to the following reply to my letter about the "documentary" about M. Night
Shyamalan: "Assistant Editor Brian Murphy responds: Before you get too upset with the filmmakers, Tapati, it's important to know that much of the 'documentary' was a hoax, a work of fiction, in which even director M. Night Shyamalan had a hand—which has been reported widely in various news sources on the Web."
Oh, OK. So, let me get this straight—next time I watch a SCI FI Channel "documentary," I am
to assume that unspecified portions may be fiction or staged and not take any of it seriously? Or
perhaps I'm supposed to do a thorough Web search before I decide to watch it, so I can catch any
mentions of the hoax and know not to waste my time? The only reason it was at all interesting to me was the hope to gain some insight into Mr. Shyamalan's process, as well as curiosity about the
controversy. If I don't know even now what portions are real and what are fiction, I have gained absolutely nothing for my time because I have to disregard all of it.
I've read the SCI FI Wire item regarding the hoax, and it does not really clarify exactly what was fact and what was fiction. Were all interviews staged or were some staged and some genuine? Will we ever know? Was anything true?
I am not amused at an elaborate joke for ratings being played at my expense. I won't be watching any more "documentaries" on SCI FI. Or should I call them mockumentaries?
Tapati Sarasvati McDaniels
[email withheld by request]
cott Wright (Trek Takes on Stargate) brought up the same fear I had last season with Enterprise when it was pitted against Smallville.
But fear not, Scott, and all other Enterprise fans. There are multiple factors to take into account that should help Enterprise:
—SCI FI's orginal series always break as the Fall TV season begins, resulting in a mid-season cliffhanger. Both Stargate shows should reach this point before or maybe even the same week as Enterprise's season premiere.
—SCI FI always repeats its new primetime shows later that same evening, making for flexible viewing and recording (DVR/TiVo/Replay are great for finding these repeats) so you don't miss anything.
—My UPN affiliate repeated all Enterprise episodes the following Saturday as well, which gave fans an easy way not to watch on Wednesdays, hurting ratings. With the competition repeated on cable, whereas Smallville was a one-shot deal, Enterprise should get more first-showing viewers.
—The competition at 9 p.m. on Friday is distinctly non-genre and no big ratings shows in particular (NBC's Third Watch, WB's Reba/Grounded for Life, ABC's Hope and Faith/Less Than Perfect, CBS' JAG, Fox's The Jury). Even the reality options aren't that great.
—The only positive thing I can say about reality TV is that Enterprise will follow the super hot America's Top Model. Although it is likely to be a non-genre audience for that lead-in, it can't hurt.
To me, studio and network plans aside, these factors are about as good as it could get for Enterprise. Frankly, my biggest scheduling conflict will be C.S.I./Tru Calling on Thursdays. Tru is the show with truly the biggest challenge to survive another season.
Finally, I just want to say I'm having a great Summer of Sci-Fi. The 4400 is creative, thought-provoking science fiction. Stargate Atlantis is off to a good start. And The Dead Zone and Stargate SG-1 are as good as ever.
So Scott, enjoy your summer, it's going to be just fine.
Tom Loveman
tloveman(at)mac.com
Back to the top.
