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.
oth Amy Sisson ("Lucas Treats Us Like Children") and Arlen Walker ("Lucas Has Become a Nostalgia Act") opened up a bag of chromium worms
with their comments on Star Wars. It's now almost 30 years on from when the original movie was released, and the Emperor is finally unmade. Not Palpatine, but Lucas himself. At last, people are seeing what is really there, rather than what they wanted to believe. The irony is that it's George Lucas who has pulled the rug out from under his own feet.
Arlen scored a bullseye, by saying something which, in previous eras, might've been considered SF heresy. George Lucas is not out there creating new works, because he can't. There are two reasons for this, the first and most obvious being that the man does not have the talent of invention. He has reached his current elevated position via a mixture of good timing, clever appropriation and brilliant marketing. But the Star Wars movies themselves owe their success to other people. Industrial Light & Magic, for the groundbreaking special effects, three or four key actors for good performances, and all of the SF authors from whose imagery
Lucas gained inspiration!
If he tried that today, it might be called something different. But the truth is, since the original Star Wars trilogy, Lucas has done nothing truly creative. What he does, very effectively and astutely, is rebadge the product, and sell it all over again. As for the movies he has made, the first Star Wars prequel is widely considered to be among the worst cinema of all time, and the second was overloaded with SFX to the detriment of the threadbare story. On the sole occasion that Lucas has attempted to flex creative muscles, the result was Jar Jar Binks. But what really, really annoys me in this saga is that Lucas has, for decades now, had the power to produce something truly fantastic. Imagine, if you will, how brilliant Star Wars could've been, if instead of characters who are all image and no substance, they'd been written by someone with the ability of J. Michael Straczynski. If Lucas had spent some money on good writing, then the legendary Darth Vader would've been an archetype of chilling evil, rather than an asthmatic bloke in a refurbished Nazi helmet!
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil(at)freeuk.com
re we to believe that all of the people complaining about the Star Wars "rewrites," who are so in love with the "originals" and want them in the [DVD] boxed set to compare, don't have either the VHS tapes or video discs as I do?
Pleeeeease. I was happy to pay $42, and not $82 for the new set. So pull out the old ones and put the new on eBay for cryin' out loud. Enough said.
Bob Reall
rreall(at)netscape.net
'm not a movie purist. I don't mind slight changes here and there. If [George] Lucas wants to punch up the visuals in Episode IV, go for it. If he wants to add the Jabba and Han scene that was in the novelization, that's actually a good idea. I still think he messed up the original Death Star explosion by making it fancier. However, what I have a problem with is his having Greedo shoot first. That wasn't about storytelling or visualizing the movie. It was an offer to the gods of Political Correctness. When Star Wars was released back in '77, it was fine to have a hero who shot first. Not all bad guys are such bad shots as Greedo apparently was.
Try to get into the movie: Greedo has Han cornered; he's planning to take him before Jabba (where he'll probably be killed); the best-case scenario is that he'll take Han's ship and let him go, leaving Han and Chewie to fend for themselves on Tatooine and try to get away before someone else catches them. Han's only real choice is to shoot. And it's Greedo's fault for letting him get his hands under the table. I believe there's some reference to that in the novelization.
This one act gave the view a ton of information about Han Solo; more than 10 minutes of exposition could have. And now it's gone. I can only hope the DVD release has the original version of Star Wars on it.
Paul J. Ellis
pjamese3(at)yahoo.com
immie wrote: " ... but I would hardly call it [abysmal]." ("Adams' Series Was Mostly Harmless")
The 1981 [The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy] series is, and most likely will always be, the paragon of bad British sci-fi. When I hear the term "British sci-fi," this is the series of which I think, and my skin crawls. That and Dr. Who. (Shutters!)
During the '80s, lines from the books (or series or radio programs or etc.) were constantly coming from the mouths of my friends. I picked up the book and read it. I never found the humor that would send my friends into bouts of belly-splitting laugher. I just don't see it.
I am glad to see that British sci-fi has improved over the years. I am a big fan of Farscape.
Also, Cybele Baker ("Older FX Should Be Appreciated") wrote: "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." OK. [The original] Star Trek [series] was done in the '60s, yet the technology shown in the show is still forward thinking. Yes, some of the mat backgrounds are very fake looking, but over all it is very good even by today's standards. The show is enjoyable.
I have seen better, cheaper (i.e., with no budget) home-made movies when compared to the 1981 Hitchhiker's. So, you can not tout the "technology" of this bad series as a saving grace. It may be nostalgic to see the series and remember the glories of our youth.
Also, Hollywood has a very limited ability to produce movies that it thinks will generate positive cash flow. So it constantly remakes good movies (and some bad ones), casting the stars of today in hope of pulling the original fans of the movie back into the theater and away from their DVD collection, while exposing a new generation of movie goers to a previously successful movie. Plus, they may already have the movie rights, or need to ensure that their rights are renewed due to an old contract and that old script just needs some revisions, thus reducing their up-front costs.
Hollywood has really hit a dry spell in the last few years. Just look at all of the bad B movies on the SCI FI Channel. Who in their right mind would make crap like Snakehead Terror or Frankenfish. My God, can't someone find something better to produce and on which to spend their money?
Come to think of it, bad sci-fi is not just a British problem. There is enough of it being produced here in America to keep the SCI FI Channel humming for years to come ... So, my apologies to my cousins across the Atlantic.
J. Lee Watts
jleewatts(at)hotmail.com
t appears that what comes around does indeed go around. Smallville moved to Wednesdays at 8, giving Enterprise trouble, and now Lost is doing it to Smallville, with two weeks of strong ratings that have to be syphoning off viewers who would normally tune into Smallville. Because I like Enterprise, I might have some satisfaction at Smallville getting theirs—but I'm not.
Smallville has gotten off to a great start his season with tight writing and the delightful addition of Lois Lane. Somewhere between Phyllis Coates and Margot Kidder's portrayal, this gal's liberated spunk makes it clear why Clark doesn't end up with Lana, and makes it less frustating that the series never paid off on Clark and Lana. Lois' over-the-top father/general makes a great recurring character. They need to keep her more than half the season.
But Smallville like Enterprise before them may have to move. Unless Lost gets bogged down in passenger-of-the week stories and doesn't advance the larger science fiction story, they are on track for an enduring run.
One final thought: Your cable company only credits the channel their box is set to for their ratings of how shows are doing. So you may be watching one and taping the other on your VCR, but you'll only be supporting the ratings of the one that came through the cable box.
Barbara Goldstein
psifidoll(at)comcast.net
he reason the old classics work so well is they are based on original imagination, as was most classic rock and roll. Modern rock, like modern science fiction, is built on copying the classic greats; unfortunately, the copies are usually garbage.
Modern science fiction is mostly based on zombies, Jason and Freddy clones and fantasy like dragons and such.
I don't read as much science fiction as I used to because my favorite part of sci-fi, which is true imagination, is very rarely written anymore. Asimov's Foundation, Heinlein's future history, Herbert's Dune (thanks to his son Brian, still coming out). With the possible exception of people like David Weber's Honor Harrington, 1632 and 1633, the science fiction genre is basically stagnant, so of course as Hollywood is wont to go with a sure thing.
I find this trend really sad as I am sure there are extremely awesome stories that are being ignored in favor of the next science (horror) fiction clone.
Scott D.
scott_downey(at)hotmail.com
ois & Clark and Smallville have each breathed new life into the Superman franchise. Recently, I have been pondering on possibilities for Supergirl (who was played by Helen Slater on the big screen in 1984 with Faye Dunaway as the female equivalent to Lex Luthor). I wonder if there are any possibilities for television in this decade or the next for Superman's super-lovely cousin.
Kim Poirier (Decoys, Dawn of the Dead) would be my first choice for the lead in a possible new TV concept. I am sure that there are several blonde and feministic youths emerging from drama school who would jump at the chance to portray Supergirl. I think it is time for the talents behind Superman to consider this. Ever since Helen Slater's impressive efforts, it would in all fairness be timely.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
Back to the top.
