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.
think you should either review your old issues of "News of the
Week" or hire a new fact checker. In [last] week's News of the Week you wrote that Polar Express was the first time, other than sports video games, where performance capture was used ("Don't Call Polar A Toon"). What the heck (insert a
stronger expletive here please) do you call what Andy Serkis did in Lord of the Rings?! I went to a Q&A session after viewing The Two Towers, and that's what they call his performance. All those interviews on the DVDs, they're calling it performance capture! Your old issues of News of the Week, you also call it performance capture. So, maybe this is the first time an entire movie has been based in performance capture, but it is certainly not the first time it has been used in a feature film outside of sports video games.
I don't ask much, but people, you're writing a 'zine for sci-fi fans here! "Fans" is short for "fanatics." We pay attention to these things. Just get it right!
Rachel Olivier
kikoandme(at)earthlink.net
SCI FI Wire journalist Patrick Lee responds:
Laudable though Andy Serkis' performance was, it was technically called "motion capture," in that the filmmakers captured Serkis' gross body movements. Though the facial performance of Serkis was used as the basis of the computer animation for Gollum, it was not "captured" in the same sense as the facial performances of the actors in Polar Express. In the new film, the actual facial expressions were digitized and input into the computer, resulting in a new level of fidelity in the computer animation. Hope that clears things up.
Best,
Patrick
atrick Leonard ("Hitchhiker's Earns a Thumbs-Up") asks: "Can someone tell me the piece of music that was used for the theme? Who recorded it and what record it was on?"
The song, "Journey of the Sorcerer," was originally recorded by The Eagles, on their album One of These Nights.
I believe the song was re-recorded for the BBC series, though I don't know by whom.
The BBC series is also available on DVD, too.
Joseph Loehr
jloehr4299(at)aol.com
atrick Leonard ("Hitchhiker's Earns a Thumbs-Up") writes of the Hitchhiker series: "It was an excellent series that faithfully adhered to the series of books."
In point of fact, the BBC Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was adapted from the BBC radio plays. The books followed the TV series, and hewed closely to the plot arc of the radio plays, as well. All were written by Douglas Adams, which is why they weren't screwed up.
Shane Edwards ("Douglas Adams Deserves Better") writes: "I really hope the new movie of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy will be better than the TV version that showed here about 10 years ago. I think it was done by BBC or British Channel 4. Abysmal! TV's Zaphod Beeblebrox's extra head and arm were so obviously fake!"
Well, Mr. Edwards, the BBC series was made in 1981—with the budget for the entire series being approximately equal to the cost one 30-second American advertisement. Considering the money they had to work with, the series is a miraculous achievement. When you comment on a series, it helps to be aware of the times in which it was made, and the extremely limited budget involved.
It sounds to me like you're more interested in FX than in the series' brilliant writing (upon which the movie will be based).
Sheldon A. Wiebe
captain_average(at)shaw.ca
would like to respond to Shane Edwards' letter "Douglas Adams Deserves Better". I don't understand what statement you are trying to make. Of course the new movie will (hopefully) be better than the BBC series made 23 years ago (not 10), but I would hardly call it absymal. That's kind of like calling a small child's drawing pitiful to their face when they are still learning how to draw. It was Star Trek II director Nick Meyer that said that: "Art thrives on restrictions," and I think that the BBC managed to do some excellent shows on a shoestring budget. Douglas was involved in the production of the TV series as well. Heck, he even played the guy walking into the surf naked!
Half the problem with getting things going with Douglas Adams was his legendary aversion to deadlines, as well as the fact that every single version of Hitchhiker's is different from the previous form [in which] it appeared and posed its own unique problems unique to that particular medium. The radio scripts are different than the radio serial, which are, in turn, different from the book, which is different from the LP, and is different from the TV show, which is different from the game, which is different from the stage show, which will most assuredly be different from the upcoming movie.
If you are after a more literal idea of what Douglas' vision for the the movie would look like, check out: The Illustrated Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. And to see how hard it was to create the "abysmal" series, check out the documentary The Making of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. By the way, Hitchhiker's Guide and Restaurant at the End of the Universe are the only books/radio serials that were on the TV series. The BBC are only now doing Life, The Universe and Everything as a new radio serial with the original radio cast and Douglas as the voice Agrajag, with plans to do both So Long and Thanks For All the Fish and Mostly Harmless.
Simmie [last name withheld]
simmie76(at)hotmail.com
found two of [last week's] letters to the editor laughable.
In the first letter, someone rants about how folks can most certainly watch two programs at once because of VCRs ("Sci-Fi Scheduling Is No Conflict"). Actually, this is untrue in many cases. At least out here, our cable provider makes it impossible for you to record one show and watch another if you subscribe to their digital service, unless you jump through three different hoops, and [even] then it still doesn't always work. Believe me, I tried. Also, not everyone can afford or has TiVo. Tsk, tsk, reader.
Then someone complains about the quality of the original Hitchhiker's Guide TV series ("Douglas Adams Deserves Better"). Um, buddy, this show was made about or more than 20 years ago on a shoestring budget. You know, kind of like Doctor Who. But then, I guess this reader is probably jumping for joy over Lucas' redone Star Wars, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
It's really a shame that people are so caught up in the current technologies that they cannot enjoy the older versions of films. I hope this doesn't become a trend and that we see other classics redone simply because they can't appreciate the technology of the original version.
Cybele Baker
cybele(at)drarchitecture.com
or those who read Nathan Brazil's recent letter ("Gandhi Was a True Superhero") explaining that Mahatma Gandhi was a pacifist superhero, I recommend they also read Harry Turtledove's delightful story "The Last Article," which shows what would have happened had Gandhi's opponents been barbarous Nazis rather than relatively civilized Brits.
Arlan Andrews Sr.
arlan(at)thingsto.com
was wondering what the party line would be [in regard to the letter "Calling Wives Sci-Fi Is Desperate" with reviewer Kathie Huddleston's response]. A friend of mine suggested there might be some synergy going on, given SCI FI's ownership. That seems more likely. Unless, of course, you'd also consider Sunset Boulevard science fiction. That movie is narrated by a deceased person, too.
Jon Delfin
jondelfin(at)nyc.rr.com
Editor Scott Edelman responds:
There was great debate behind the scenes as to whether we should cover such pseudo-science-fictional shows as Jack & Bobby and Desperate Housewives. The discussion had everything to do with the genre trappings in which these shows have garbed themselves, and nothing to do with any any supposed corporate synergy. As those series proceed, we'll all learn on which side of the sci-fi divide they really fall.
As I've stated before, Science Fiction Weekly's voice is an independent one. In the past, SCI FI shows have occasionally been given grades as low as D-—which certainly proved to the creators of those shows that honesty trumps synergy every time.
Best,
Scott Edelman
hile I haven't seen the show [Jack & Bobby], there is a reason: Although perhaps an intriguing premise, and with the flash-forwards, somewhat visionary, there are those of us, of a certain age, who forever [associate] the names Jack and Bobby [with the former president and his brother] and find the use of them in a TV show appalling.
One of my first memories was of JFK's funeral, and I grew up with MLK and Bobby. I always cry when I hear "Abraham, Martin and John." Those names, and the feelings and hopes they represented and still do, are not something to be trivialized into a commercial TV venture. Any other names would have sufficed. The unspoken reference to the Kennedys and the fabled days of Camelot are insulting to my memories, however misplaced they may be. Jack and Bobby represented the hope of a new America for many of my generation.
Kristin Lundgren
kristinlundgren(at)yahoo.com
fter reading Laura Cvengros' comments about Jack & Bobby ("SF Weekly Doesn't Know Jack"), I couldn't disagree more. As I turned over to watch it, out of curiosity, I found the premise fascinating, especially in light of the current election and the view of politics and politicians today.
Especially engrossing is the idea that a single mother who is a recreational marijuana smoker, a college professor and obviously has personal issues to get through on her own, is also able to raise a child who turns into the president. I'm interested to see how this show's story builds—to have such complex characters and to see how their development affects their lives and each other and molds someone to become president—that's something we never truly see in our elected officials. This is the closest we would ever come to having that much insight into the minds of our congresspersons and presidents. I applaud the producers for developing a unique and engrossing hour of entertainment.
Jonathan Heisey-Grove
jgrove(at)weymouthdesign.com
achel Maley ("Lucas Should Leave Star Wars Alone") wrote: "Did Shakespeare re-write Hamlet 20 years after the first version to 'achieve his original vision?' Did Tolkien put out four different versions of The Lord of the Rings 20 years after the fact?"
As a matter of fact, there is strong evidence from the First Quarto that Shakespeare did indeed rewrite Hamlet, and the exact text of The Lord of the Rings is still, to this day, being straightened out from the several different branches of authorial revisions that were all published as the "second edition" in the 1960s, as is explained at great length in current printings. (I myself, a mere casual reader, have mailed in six corrections to Houghton-Mifflin in the last three years.)
John W. Kennedy
jwkenne(at)attglobal.net
know this this will probably cause some flack to fly my way, but I mostly disagree with Rachel Maley's opinion on George Lucas' changes to the original Star Wars ("Lucas Should Leave Star Wars Alone"). The original versions were great, timeless classics, but I always thought the special effects could be better. What's wrong with him going back and changing the way the film looks? The original story and characters that have touched every generation since it came out remain intact. Really, most people's complaints over George Lucas' changes really seem like minor quibbling to me.
I know that the thought of changing something you grew up with makes most people uncomfortable, but he's not changing anything that really matters. So who cares if Han Solo or Greedo shot first, or at the same time? Who cares if Hayden Christensen is digitally added to the end scene, and Ian McDiarmid replaces the Emperor in the second film? It doesn't matter one teeny, tiny iota, because it's still the same tale you loved when you first saw it, just given a bit of a polish.
Now, if George Lucas had digitally replaced the blasters with walkie-talkies, then I might take offense.
Shane Stephenson
deckmaster84(at)hotmail.com
just bought and watched with my father George Lucas' fantastic director's cut of THX 1138, and I have just three words to describe it: "Better than ever!" This is precisely how Lucas' directorial debut was meant to be, with its haunting vision of the future and today's newest special effects. Robert Duvall is still memorable as the conflicted hero, and Donald Pleasence (who I always thought should have been nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar in the '70s for his performance) is equally memorable for one of his impressive contributions to science-fiction films. The bonus features, including Lucas' film student production of this story, the history of American Zoetrope, the hypnotic trailers and the original reactions of the actors (including Maggie McOmie as the hero's doomed lover), who had to have their heads shaved bald for the movie, are all admirable.
After seeing the re-releases of Alien, Blade Runner, E.T.: The Extraterrestrial and Lucas' original Star Wars trilogy, I have come to agree that directors' cuts are more effective (especially with the science-fiction genre) than remakes and THX 1138 has earned its rightful place as a fond addition to this category. Thank you, George. You have surpassed yourself, yet again.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
am getting fed up with Star Wars fans who think that Lucas should leave his films alone ("Lucas Should Leave Star Wars Alone"). They are his Star Wars films. He was never completely satisfied with them in the first place. He thought he could have done it better, but the technology just was not there. Rachel Maley feels that the Star Wars movies were completed works. Not to Lucas. To him, they where uncompleted works. There was a lot that he envisioned that never made to the screen back then, but now with digitized effects, he is able to do them. I like the fact that Lucas is able to get his vision on the screen the way he wanted it while he is still alive to do so. A lot of filmmakers do not get that option. Mainly, because the film, by the time it gets on the screen, is not theirs anymore. Lucas owns all the Star Wars movies, not Fox. So I feel that he should be able to achieve his original vision.
Timothy Morgan
zanlong(at)cox.net
his is not your father's Oldsmobile," ran a TV car ad a few years back, ironically featuring William Shatner as the pitchman. The line fell on young, deaf ears; after 107 years, General Motors is phasing out the brand.
So why do so many want to read or see their father's or grandfather's or great-grandfather's science fiction and fantasy?
However great Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy was, it's old, old, old. I, Robot and Van Helsing are older still. King Kong and Superman and Batman, Wonder Woman and John Carter are hot on the comeback trail from generations past. As innovative and as dazzling as Sky Captain may be, it's grounded in stuff from long, long ago. (Are there no Blackhawk [1941-1980] fans left to confirm this?) Are we to be forever subjected to the tales and heroes of SF&F imagined before its audience was born?
Those who believe that the worth of SF&F can be measured in awards won, box-office tallies or weeks on the bestseller lists, in the words of Oscar Wilde "know the price of everything and the value of nothing." Science fiction and fantasy are judged by their impact, not at the cash register, but how they register with us—how they make us think and feel about our world and about ourselves.
The King Kong and War of the Worlds remakes may be the two greatest SF&F movies ever made, but neither will match the impact of the original 1898 novel or the 1933 movie or even compare to the furor created by the Orson Welles' 1938 radio broadcast.
Your father's science fiction and fantasy didn't play that way. Nearly 40 years ago, an obscure short novel and an even lesser-known short story became Planet of the Apes and 2001: A Space Odyssey which ushered in a new era, persuading one Hollywood studio to risk big bucks on an original screenplay called Star Wars.
Are those days gone forever?
The new millennium has unleashed unparalleled technological as well as political change—yet another turbulent time ripe for new science fiction and fantasy that will, by its originality and imagination and honesty and wit, compel us to reexamine who and why we are.
So where the bleep is it?
Those who would fault Hollywood and book publishers whose synergy dominates what we see and read fail to understand that the corporate giants thrive by offering the market exactly what it wants to buy.
Don't get me wrong. This is not a quality issue. There's absolutely nothing wrong or inferior about the classic novels and short stories of the masters, no more so than many true music lovers would demean the impact and the influence of Elvis Presley and the Beatles, but are we to forever sing and dance to our fathers' and grandfathers' rock 'n' roll?
In his last editorial ("Catching Snowflakes on My Tongue"), Scott Edelmen mentioned that "Jack Williamson, the award-winning Grand Master who at age 96 is still hard at work on his newest novel, due out in 2005."
I am rooting for Mr. Williamson because he was one of the early corps who followed Shelley, Verne and Wells to make science fiction a distinct and important voice in the 20th century. The very heart and soul of SF&F (especially science fiction!) is its newness—original thinking from a unique point of view. In this new millennium, science fiction is more "voice over" than voice, a shrill marketing tool pumping up movies, TV shows and video games, its once-vital impact diluted by wave after wave of "sci-fi entertainment." Here's hoping that Mr. Williamson will not take us back to the Golden Age of SF, but forward to a new age, injecting his long-burning spirit into a genre that seems to have been lacking any for too long.
Kevin Ahearn
kahearn(at)netpub.net
Back to the top.
