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.
hat happened to the review for Alien vs. Predator (AvP)? I was looking forward to reading an advanced Science Fiction Weekly review for it last Friday (8/13/04) so that I could get your take on whether or not the movie was worth checking out.
Instead, you reviewed Yu-Gi-Oh! The Movie?
Not for nothing, but if you gave Yu... a "C" and didn't even bother to review AvP, then AvP must really, really stink! I had to go to RottenTomatoes.com for their assessment (which was pretty darn bad).
Despite how lame AvP may or may not be, don't you think that you owe these two classic American sci-fi screen icons at least a paltry review instead of some ridiculous Japanimation kiddie cartoon movie based on some obscure card game?
Just my two cents.
Nick Iandolo
niandolo(at)mac.com
Reviewer Patrick Lee responds:
The Alien vs. Predator review is in last week's issue of Science Fiction Weekly (8/16/04). No review was posted until Monday because Fox declined to screen the film for us until opening day. Sorry for the delay, but I hope you enjoy the review.
Best,
Patrick
e've been afforded a brief period for clear communication.
Enterprise will end in a most unsatisfying way. After all, the first season has been a dream. Yes ... a bad Archer dream.
Writing-into-black-hole-must-escape-manoeuvre has been a successfully employed ending on numerous other TV illusions. It's 100 percent effective. It affords a sanitary slate for the next Trek iteration. In the interim, the large fanbase and sheer volume of material spins off:
The Trek Wreck Game Show, wherein loyal fans are contestants in a trivia-based Jeopardy program. The wheel turns in long generational cycles. Sorry.
Chris Gartner
GartneC(at)navcanada.ca
just finished reading your interview with Gerry Anderson and saw that his
opinion regarding the Thunderbirds movie was pretty much in line with what I've
read on many Brit forums. Interestingly enough, I, too, was a kid when The Thunderbirds were originally on here in the U.S., so I remember them clearly. I'm 47 now.
I took my family to see the flick last week (SoCal) and the theater was full, almost sold out, of families of various age groups. Sure, the movie isn't canon, but it was a good, fun flick that everyone got a kick out of. Everyone was enjoying themselves, thought the characters were believable, insofar as the usual suspension of belief required goes, and several people we talked to afterwards said they were glad that for once the parent(s) weren't characterized as idiots with the kids being the only reason anyone survives. The ships were just cartoony enough to give it a '60s taste, while the one scene where the pilot's hand on the throttle controls is shown attached to marionette wires made the place explode with applause! Every person we talked to is hoping for a sequel, and this family is planning on purchasing the DVD when it comes out.
I don't usually write in to these forums, but I thought it might be interesting for the vocal purists to hear that many of us thought the movie was, for once, worth the exorbitant admittance price.
Tom Donahue
grumpy.doc(at)verizon.net
n response to Lyn Kirby's letter ("Gerry Anderson Was for the Birds") with regard to the Thunderbirds movie, of course Gerry Anderson is in a position to comment. Regardless of whether he's seen the movie or not. Quite obviously, he's aware of the dire changes made, and how something that should have been about the fantastic Thunderbird craft has ended up being another Hollywood kids' movie. Nor is Anderson a "so-called expert"; he is the definitive authority on Thunderbirds. If Jonathan Frakes had shown some respect, and insisted on Anderson as a consultant, then perhaps Thunderbirds would have been a world-beating action movie, and still clean as the proverbial whistle.
Next up was Diane Catanzaro ("Despite Review, Thunderbirds Are Go"), who seems to think that "the movie was a rather well-done live-action adaptation of a fun and campy childrens' T.V. series from many years ago." I don't know what movie she was watching, but I'd like a pair of those glasses. If Thunderbirds had been a well-done adaptation, it would've been about International Rescue, and presented in a far more serious manner, albeit with space for humor. Instead, we got a cobbled-together, light-blasted pile of junk, starring three PC stereotype kids. As for FAB 1 flying, why the heck did Frakes have to do that? Weren't Thunderbirds 1-3 enough, or is it that the makers were just too cheap to fund the great aircraft as CGI and full-sized sets?
I agreed entirely with Todd Gilchrist's review, but didn't understand his comment in reply to Diane Catanzaro. "Believe me when I say I'm happy to let you go and see it many more times so I don't have to." Eh? Who put Todd in charge of how many times Diane goes to the movies, and if
she doesn't go, why would he need to go again? It must be one of those occasions where America and England are divided by the same language!
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil(at)freeuk.com
n response to Raleigh Moreno's statement ("I, Robot Is a Good Summer SF Flick") that those who avoid the I, Robot film are depraving themselves of a "summer sci-fi flick":
Hollywood's renewed zeal for turning science-fiction properties into "summer sci-fi flicks" is appalling. The dominant zeitgeist dictates that science fiction can only sell if it is an action or a horror story, and this indefensibly flawed premise has given us Starship Troopers, The Time Machine and a string of Philip K. Dick adaptations that, despite any merits they may have as movies, are lobotomized bastardizations of the original material. It is irrelevant if I, Robot is an entertaining film: It is not Isaac Asimov's story. It takes the title, character names and a loose interpretation of the setting and turns them into fluff. If Hollywood wanted to make a robot-based action film, there are plenty of properties to chose from. The commercials actually look like a good adaptation of the old Gold Key Magnus: Robot Fighter comics. God forbid they actually try to come up with an original idea.
I easily foresee the trend continuing. The movie version of A Canticle for Leibowitz will be about martial-art monks battling a horde of post-apocalyptic mutants across a radioactive wasteland. The Dispossessed film will feature a daring explosion-filled escape from an anarchistic planet. The Sound of Thunder will become an eco-terror horror—oh, sorry.
Jeff Patterson
baddaystudio(at)cox.net
urther to the current debate about turning Asimov books into film, might I gently point out (as I am getting on for being an old fart) that, after too many decades to mention of enjoying SF in books, at the cinema and on TV, they are all different media. True, some works lend themselves more easily to transferring to another medium. Further, some mediums transfer more easily into others: For example, graphic novels into films and vice versa. However at the end of the day you have to judge each work on its own merits and not against another version of itself.
For instance, even what should be an easy transferring of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen graphic novel to film can be messed up, but you do not need to refer to the original to see that. As the editor of the Megazine remarked (something along the lines), anyone can see that graveyards in Venice are a no-no.
As for I, Robot. I enjoyed the books (yonks ago). I look forward to seeing the film and will judge it as a film in its own right. Of course, with the Asimov badging I will expect some echoes of his work to shine through, and it would be a pity if the film did not mention the laws of robotics, but I won't let that spoil my potential enjoyment.
By the way, another correspondent mentioned Asimov's Nightfall ("Asimov Wasn't a Cinematic Writer"). Danger, Will Robinson, there is a Nightfall movie out there and it is truly dire. Like really bad. You don't want to see it.
Jonathan Cowie
info(at)concatenation.org
can't take it anymore. You people have it easy—a great innovative channel like the SCI FI Channel [in the United States]. But, my god, you should see the sister channel in the U.K. They have 10 shows that they are premiering this month; only one of them is still in production, and the rest have all been shown before. Do they think we are fools? SCI FI [in the U.S.] has loads of new shows and new films. We get a new episode of The Dead Zone. Good show, but that's it. No Stargate. No Battlestar Galactica. We only got to see that on a pay-for-film channel. Please, SCI FI. Sack your U.K. team and get someone who can give us at least some of what we—the viewers, the ones that buy the products advertised on your channel—want. I hope you take pity on us in the U.K./Ireland and send us some good shows that last more the one year.
P.S. Thank you, Science Fiction Weekly, for listening to the fans. You are the only one who lets us have our cake and nuke it, too. Thank you.
Colum Dillon
colum(at)staeducational.com
n the Letters section of the Aug. 16 edition of Science Fiction Weekly, Barbara Goldstein comments in her letter ("Plot Problem Doesn't Destroy 4400") that her only real plot criticism of the The 4400 wrap-up episode is: "but energy beings of light with tentacles—as grabbed Sean and Kyle—are human?" And then comments on how long it would take humans to develop into such beings. A good point—however, I want to suggest that she may be making an unjustified assumption. My assumption was that what we were seeing were manifestations of an advanced instrumentality—amorphous "tractor beams," if you would. That these were energy devices used to reach "through" time to accomplish the future-humans' purposes. There's no way to know which of these two scenarios the writers intended, but it is a possible alternate explanation. Of course, I had to wonder why this "time ship" approached from past the orbit of the moon, if it was coming from the future. Orbital displacement, perhaps? Anyway, I found that to be a bit of unfair misdirection.
What I found odd was the whole contention that future humanity was in such desperate trouble, when they were clearly able to pull off such a huge, coordinated technological and trans-temporal logistical operation. And if they could give present-day humans such amazing abilities, couldn't they give themselves whatever abilities they needed to deal with whatever their problem was? If this is picked up as a series, maybe we'll get a little more rationale on this aspect of it. Also, who didn't know that the rich businessman was gonna end up being E-VILE? A bit predictable, that.
David A. Young
drruser10(at)cfl.rr.com
athie Huddleston's article about USA's The 4400 mostly was interesting, but closer examination makes one wonder if truly she watched the series. For example, she stated, "It seems unrealistic that the government would let the Returnees go off to places unknown without some sort of surveillance." But the series made it quite clear that its Homeland Security people know exactly where each Returnee has gone. At one point, a map is displayed and it is explained that the Returnees have not gone very far at all, in fact remaining clustered around Seattle in almost concentric rings.
And thus it is that the "mystery" of the series' story becomes plainly revealed. The concentric rings on the map closely resemble a target. The 4400 were returned to Earth on what first was thought to be an errant, Earth-grazing comet. The Returnees have begun to display various levels of Esper talents. They have remained in the Seattle area. Thus, they must be here for a reason.
Add it all up, and it equals this: Seattle is ground zero for an incoming comet or asteroid strike in the near future, and The 4400 were abducted by unseen ETIs to be specially adapted, who now have returned them to be ready to deflect that strike with their mental powers. Else, all of mankind will be extinct, a la the dinosaurs. In such a manner, the ETIs truly are not interfering with the course of human history. In truth, the biggest giveaway was the cometary body that returned them all. Talk about "foreshadowing."
It is well-done and mostly has been absorbing, but one might have hoped for a much more challenging and imaginative "mystery."
Russell L. Bates
writerfella(at)iwon.com
Back to the top.
