irst, I must say that the Farscape: Peacekeeper Wars [miniseries] was outstanding. I was quite upset with the SCI FI Channel when it was canceled. Went so far as to ban the channel for months. The only thing that brought me back was Stargate SG-1 about seven months later.

Back to Farscape, I believe that you should all take a bow for this one. It was done almost flawlessly.

There are very few shows out there that could garner a tear from my eyes, but when D'Argo died I cried. The main draw to Farscape for me was the dialogue and character interaction between John Crichton and all of the other characters. It reminded me of the old Star Trek with a modern edge. I know that if you have great success with this miniseries then it is likely that you may try a sequel. I implore you not to. This was a fitting end for the show. Though I would love to see it in another incarnation without the current cast, I would think that it would be doomed and cast a bad light on the previous series. Again, thank you for doing the series justice.

Gary C. Wyms III
wymr(at)msn.com

CI FI Channel still doesn't get it and killed the golden goose. Farscape: The Peacekeeper Wars was not a miniseries; it was the series finale. By labeling it a miniseries, for me it held out the promise of more—like there could be another miniseries or movie next year. I actually thought the SCI FI Channel had come to their senses and realized it had a franchise worth nurturing every bit as much as Stargate.

But when they killed D'Argo, I knew better. It wouldn't be Farscape without the "buddy action" between he and John Crichton. That would be like an original Star Trek movie without Bones or Spock. (I guess, like Spock, D'Argo could be resurrected or have survived the explosion if the ratings are so good that the SCI FI Channel can't ignore them.) But I took D'Argo's death as a signal that this was it, and it wasn't the message I wanted. I was having too much fun with "old friends."

I have no problem with tying up the wormhole technology storyline, the story was delightfully Farscape, but closing the door to continued stories—Rygel asks the group and Moya to reconvene for help because the ancient Royal whatsis was stolen, Moya asks the group for help to find the Leviathan "homeworld," and that's off the top of my head!—is short-sighted! Farscape could have been so much more than SCI FI Channel's limited vision of it—before and now.

Barbara Goldstein
psifidoll(at)comcast.net

e seriously hope Stargate SG-1 will be coming back for another season. We understand Richard Dean Anderson's desire to spend more time with his family, and he would be truly missed if he left the show. But, keep it going!! Bring back Col. Alexi Vaselov. (You've brought people back from the dead before.) And/or [bring back] Jonas Quinn. Both of those characters would fit right in with SG-1. They were both strong, appealing characters, and would be awesome to have back in the mix. Also, bring back Malek and the Tok'ra. Go to more planets. Meet new people.

There are endless stories, and we want Stargate to continue (with or without RDA). Thanks for your time!

B.L.
csmtorque(at)hotmail.com

he debate over "director's cut" has been raging in SFW, and it is an issue that cuts both ways. And it's just not about films.

Imagine if Leonardo Da Vinci returned from beyond and insisted on adding blond highlights to his Mona Lisa, claiming he intended to all along but couldn't mix the right color. Oh, the brouhaha!

Consider the armless Venus de Milo: after the statue had been presented to King Louis XVIII around 1820, his art advisors sought the assistance of French sculptors in supplying the missing arms. They devised arms which held apples, garments, lamps and arms that held nothing at all but pointed in various directions.

Finally the king decreed that her marvelous beauty should not be marred by any other sculptor. It was a momentous decree which resulted in ancient statues being left practically as they had been found. What if the original lost arms were suddenly unearthed? Should Venus' limbs be restored, would that change our opinion of the finally completed masterpiece?

Like so many who read this column, I saw the original Star Wars in 1977. But imagine, if before that glorious opening scrawl, a warning appeared, declaring that we would be seeing an unfinished work which, if enough box office money were earned, would be completed at a later date. Would we have felt any differently?

Whether Lucas' changes are for the better or for the worse is not the issue; by revising his films, he's telling us that we did not see the definitive Star Wars, and that rankles us true believers to the core.

In 1931, director James Whale faced different circumstances. He had shot Frankenstein's monster throwing a young child into a lake and letting her drown. When the Universal suits saw the finished product, they were aghast. Surely this horrific film had to be toned down, and it was. For decades, no audience would see the child hit the pond. When restored, did that make the "complete" film better? Ask anyone who saw the original, and the reaction will be different from those who hadn't.

King Kong in 1933 was released as its creators wanted it, but in later years long-lost outtakes were discovered and restored to the film, including Kong's chewing and stomping of Skull Islanders and New Yorkers, scenes which Willis O'Brien, the monster's FX creator, specifically wanted omitted. (The infamous "strip scene" was as released. Like I'd ever forget it?) The ultimate missing sequence is that of giant spiders devouring the sailors after Kong smote them from the tree-trunk "bridge." In the late 1950s, a single grainy photo appeared in Famous Monsters of Filmland which had all Kong fans dying to see it.

Have the restored and yet-to-be-restored scenes made Kong an even better movie? I never thought so, but that's my expectations talking. Re-released in theaters in 1953 (after it had been on TV!), I saw the original version as a child and, to me, it remains the definitive Kong. The added scenes may be interesting, but nothing more.

That, in a real sense, defines the difference between the original and any later cut, director's or not. If the film is good, scenes brought back from the cutting-room floor are worth seeing, even if they shouldn't have been in the film in the first place. Blade Runner, E.T., Alien and Superman are must-sees in all their versions, but who wants to watch any cut of Wild, Wild West, Catwoman and Batman and Robin?

Kevin Ahearn
kahearn(at)netpub.net