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.
odd Gilchrist's review of Thunderbirds has, I'm afraid, awakened the soap-box orator in me. Why do so many reviewers feel that to "critique" they must "criticize"? I know I have written on this topic before, but he made me angry. As both an original fan of the original Thunderbirds and the mother of an 8-year-old daughter, he tells me that something that I enjoyed thoroughly enough to have seen twice already (in the first week) is worthless. The statement "the film is a disaster that parents will not enjoy watching alongside their kids" is
completely false in my case, and apparently in the case of the many families who were in the theaters with me and my daughter.
Mr. Gilchrist seems to let a personal dislike for the directorial style of Jonathan Frakes dominate his review, when in fact the movie was a rather well-done live-action adaptation of a fun and campy childrens' T.V. series from many years ago. Mr. Gilchrist was so focused on trashing the lighting, the acting and the director that he failed to notice each of these remained faithful to the original series without coming across as flat or wooden. (Pardon the pun.) There was even one especially fun tribute to the original Thunderbirds that Mr. Gilchrist decided to ignore because he had predisposed himself to dislike everything about the movie. In one scene only, the hand that moves to the throttle is clothed in supermarionation-like rubber and attached off-camera with strings.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that Jonathan Frakes set out to make a fun movie that anyone could watch and not be offended. Oops, sorry, I am wrong, obviously a professional criticizer can be offended by something so fun and unpretentious. Thunderbirds is not trying to be dark and mysterious and moody, it is trying to be itself. And my daughter and I happen to like it very much, as do quite a few other people in the Fort Worth/Dallas area of Texas.
I really should just stop reading movie reviews.
Diane Catanzaro
dcatanz(at)yahoo.com
Reviewer Todd Gilchrist responds:
First of all, thanks for reading, and for taking the time to write. I'm always happy to hear from people who read my reviews, whether they agree or not. In the case of Thunderbirds, I simply did not enjoy the movie in either an academic or purely escapist sense. I completely understand the value of a movie that's fun and silly, even if it isn't altogether that well made, but I felt that the "lessons" the movie teaches speak down to its audience—no matter what their age. It could have been something clever, well-made AND instructive—like, say, Shrek 2—but it talks down to viewers instead of letting them draw their own conclusions.
Additionally, a critic (of any medium) has a responsibility to describe what he feels works and what doesn't in all spheres—be it the cinematography, acting or overall themes—and apply that to their visceral, emotional reaction. For instance, The Chronicles of Riddick isn't a particularly well-made movie, but it was entertaining enough to sustain my interest for two hours. At the same time, I don't pretend to be infallible, so if you enjoyed Thunderbirds, your opinion is no less valid than mine. I just try to articulate my reaction to the movie when I'm sitting in the theater; believe me when I say I'm happy to let you go and see it many more times so I don't have to.
Thanks again for writing.
Best,
Todd
aving read the interview with Gerry Anderson in issue 381, I feel extremely annoyed that Mr. Anderson feels he is in a position to slate the new Thunderbirds movie. Especially as he has not yet seen the film.
He also went to great lengths to distance himself, and his name, from the film. Could this just be a case of sour grapes?
If everyone listened to, and took notice of, the so-called "experts" (of course I refer to the critics), then a lot of very good and entertaining films would never be seen by a large group of people. Come on, people, use your brains and make up your own minds.
I have seen Thunderbirds, the movie, and personally I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was just under two hours of pure, clean (and not a lot of films can say that) entertainment. It was obviously a film aimed at a family audience. The characters were likable, and the story and action kept a good pace. The actual Thunderbird craft were nicely brought up to date for the big screen (although a flying FAB1 was a bit too much).
So, Mr. Anderson, swallow your pride and go and have a look. I think you will be pleasantly surprised. And if you still don't like it, then so be it.
Lyn Kirby
tribblelyn(at)ntlworld.com
agree with Julian Gift ("Adaptations May Be Damned") that books in general, and science-fiction books in particular, get lost in translation on the big screen. What may require years in an actual storyline of a novel is brutally compressed into two hours in a feature film. I am always happier with adaptations when they are made into a miniseries on the small screen. The storyline is more easily kept unified with four, six or even eight hours of playtime.
As for changing the credit wording at the end of the film, I almost always say to friends, that the movie is "looseley based on a book by Someone." I sometimes wonder if anyone on the writing crews ever read any of the books they adapt for the screen, so different are the stories and even the characters. That being said, I did go see I, Robot. I did enjoy it, as I usually enjoy special effects and Will Smith. I did not, however, go in thinking it would resemble Isaac Asimov's story in any way, and I was not disappointed.
Dayla Reagan-Buell
celtlass(at)Qnet.com
ith one exception, I enjoyed The 4400, and hope they make it a series. For the most part, I thought they chose well what to leave open: Sean moving out from his family into Jordan's housing project, and Jordan's obsession with Lily's baby and Sean's powers, as the enduring villain. [Warning: Spoilers follow.] The exception was the big revelation that it was "humans" from the future who had abducted the 4400. Clearly an unexpected and novel take on the abduction phenomena, but energy beings of light with tentacles—as grabbed Sean and Kyle—are human?
Short of Childhood's End, it would take longer for man to develop into
energy beings than the many millennia from Lucy to us. By the time man evolves into energy beings, they would no more identify with humans of today than we identify with early apelike primates. The "I'm human like you" line was hard to buy. Just being an energy being would give you
different sensibilities, priorities, etc.
I then find it hard to believe that interventions this far back in their evolutionary tree will solve their dwindling population problem. Again, that's like us believing that by going back in time and tinkering with Lucy or earlier primates that it will change fertility, aggression—whatever they posit for the dwindling population—in today's population. There would be so many intervening naturally selected variables that would shape and reshape the evolution many times, over so much time, that it's unlikely the intervention would actually create what they want.
Barbara Goldstein
psifidoll(at)comcast.net
egarding Paul Di Filippo's review of S.M. Stirling's Dies the Fire:
[Stirling] set the novel in 1998 because it takes place at the same moment that Nantucket disappears. It's not a sequel to his Nantucket series, but it is connected.
Dave Allen
dave_ncsu_alumni(at)yahoo.com
ith TV channels at an all-time high, why is it I can see The Munsters, Mr. Ed, The Lucille Ball Show even silent movies if I look hard enough on TCM or AMC? I'm not taking anything from them or even saying they're bad, but there are few shows out there besides Star Trek (the original) that show the roots of science fiction.
How about a revival for our past, so we can see ideas from decades ago and compare with the present and even views of the future? Shows like Space: 1999 and even another old one that, I believe, is called UFO, would definitely catch the attention of young and old alike. Face it, if we don't know exactly where we come from, how can we judge how far we've come? Sci-Fi just happens to be your medium—can we transmit some of our past?
After all, when Star Wars came out in 1977, how many people knew what an ion engine was? Not many, just that it sounded cool! Today, the ion engine is a reality that is getting ready to take to space from this planet. Here's to reality that I've seen come to a reality from science fiction.
Jim Haire
marcelaine(at)earthlink.net
lien vs. Predator is the best sci-fi franchise crossing since Star Trek: Generations. The charismatic Sanaa Lathan as Alexa Woods, the first woman to utter the infamous line "You are one ugly mother...," could be the Ellen Ripley for this century. Lance Henrikson (who played Bishop, the android in Aliens and Alien 3) is also an interesting cast member for this latest installment in the Alien and Predator legacies. And without giving away the ending, I can say that my own vote over the Internet was for Predator.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
o Scott Edelman, editor-in-chief, who so kindly invites fan gripes about the science fiction world at-large, here goes mine! Recently, Cartoon Network's Adult Swim (AS) has quietly revealed that it has not opted to fund/produce a Season 3 of Chiaki J. Konaka's brilliant anime masterpiece, The Big O. By contrast, funding has been made available for a slate of a dozen original comedy programs, à la the cheap, simple animation and irreverent humor of Space Ghost: Coast to Coast, this according to a very positive article in the July 23rd edition of Entertainment Weekly.
Honestly, I'm not trashing, or bashing, the comedy programming. Much. I like some of it, watch some of it, and understand the appeal of some of it, such as Aqua Teen Hunger Force, The Brak Show and Sea Lab 2021. They draw the critical male 18-34 demographic. But so does the action programming, including the amazing, intricate, literate, engaging, visually stylistic, romantic, thought-provoking Big O! Tasha Robinson, Science Fiction Weekly's own anime reviewer, praised the show thusly: "All told, it's a complex and appealing package that seems constantly familiar but intriguingly new."
I have called The Big O a masterpiece. In my admittedly humble and prejudiced opinion, it truly is. But more important than that, the show is a joyous, mind-bending romp! Which, apart from alerting you to my frustrated "gripe" about the quiet cancellation of a U.S.-financed gem of an anime, brings me to another aspect of this letter. Can the SCI FI Channel become an ally in the campaign to www.savebigo.com at www.paradigm-city.com/forums ... in any capacity, such as a conduit between the almost "voiceless, powerless" fans of Big O and AS, or, maybe, help fund this inventive, unique anime, or, perhaps, acquire the rights to Big O?
The Big O has a tremendous history. Season two came about, after a two-year gap—not unlike the strange trials and tribulations of Roger Smith within his city of amnesia, Paradigm City—because AS recognized a truly great story. The fans, both current and future, deserve a season three. I hope that the SCI FI Channel can participate, in whatever manner possible, in this historic effort.
With all my thanks!
Vita Anne Hoffman
yvitaanne(at)yahoo.com
ifty years ago, television was a luxury and my family didn't have any. But my neighbor did, and we were invited to see the very first telecast of King Kong!
On a black-and-white 15-inch screen came the film "that launched a thousand [director] ships," including Peter Jackson's. More than 70 years since its premiere at Radio City Music Hall, King Kong remains the Babe Ruth/Elvis Presley of sci-fi movies. Maybe not the best or the biggest or the highest-grossing, but far and away the most important because it showed for the first time what a fantastic film could be!
What secret ingredient separates the magical from the mundane? In King Kong, long before the ape appeared, Fay Wray had cast an unbreakable spell over the audience, male and female alike.
Fay brought something else to the screen beyond beauty. Hers was an indefinable presence you couldn't take your eyes off. Given no sassy lines or a sexy wardrobe, the Canadian-born brunette playing the all-American blonde "lived through an adventure no other woman ever dreamed of" and made the world believe it!
Dorothy Gale, Lt. Ripley and Sarah Connor followed in the footsteps of Ann Darrow. Playing second banana to a wizard, an alien and an android, the ladies carried the impossible to new heights.
"'Twas beauty killed the beast" was the last line in King Kong. Neither time nor age will ever diminish the magic who will always be Fay Wray.
Kevin Ahearn
kahearn(at)netpub.net
Back to the top.
