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. If you would like to submit a letter, please use our feedback form or send a message to scifiweekly@scifi.com.
-- Craig E. Engler, Editor
You missed important issues
enjoyed Frank Garcia's article about the Lucas revamp of Star Wars, but I think he missed some important issues. Lucas's fixes strike me as more than a bit annoying. In order to attract attention to all the neat tinkering he's done, each of the computerized animals snorts, growls, burps and farts in an annoying cacophony of background noise.
If you remember, Lucas has really only directed three films. And he hasn't really produced many more. I think revamping the Star Wars series is an excuse for him to put off starting the next group of films.
It also strikes me as more than a little hypocritical that Lucas has constantly pushed the edge of film technology in a series of films whose main theme is technology is bad.
Andy Hall
afhall@mosquito.com
Editor: I kind of liked the animals...after all, real animals do snort, growl burp and even, er, pass wind, in an annoying cacophony of background noise.
Journalists are the real danger
he only real danger we face are journalists who know little about a whole lot, are alarmists, and exist only to create controversy. I thoroughly enjoyed the latest version of Star Wars and took my son, who was born that very year. Anyone with too much time on his hands needs to find a real job and become productive. Frank is truly not needed. Gosh, today, journalists cannot be trusted to tell the truth and often pass opinion on as fact. Keep Frank off and let me be the judge of what I watch. He is only in the way!
Eric Jensen
epj@pe.net
Editor: I'm sorry you didn't enjoy Frank's column.
Lucas has the right, others don't
fter reading your article on Star Wars in Science Fiction Weekly I would just like to say that I wholeheartedly agree with you. Lucas certainly has a right to continually improve upon his work, as does any artist (As a case in point consider the story from the art gallery here, where they caught an old woman daubing paint onto a sculpture. It turned out she was the sculptor, and she was still adding to the work after 50 years). It would not be at all acceptable for someone else to add to his or any other director's work.
The Purple Elephant
csmart@physics.adelaide.edu.au
Editor: Thank you for the charming anecdote, Purple.
There was a special edition Close Encounters
rank Garcia is in error. Steven Spielberg has already reworked Close Encounters. The special edition of that film features Richard Dreyfuss inside the mothership. That footage was shot after the film's initial release. Incidentally, I noticed that a video re-release of the 20th anniversary Doctor Who story "The Five Doctors" now contains additional footage, new special effects, and stereo sound! The packaging states that this version is not meant to replace the original. I think George Lucas would agree.
Tom Murin
anonymous@va.pubnix.com
Editor: Actually, Frank didn't mean to imply that either Close Encounters or Lawrence of Arabia were not reworked, but we realized later that the sentence was ambiguous about that fact. We've since posted a clarification.
Asteroid was a turkey
've lost all respect for you guys. To quote your review of Asteroid:
"While the science is somewhat dubious and there are a few sub-plots (and characters) that should have been cut, overall this part gets high marks."
"Dubious"? It was so bogus as to be laughable. The whole airplane-laser thing was such a joke I was at a loss for words. The truck on the bridge scene was a hoot and even more so when the water subsided and our heroes were not even wet and the truck was shiny and new. The miniature effects set a new standard for cheese.
Back to the laser thing. Boeing and TRW are working on a plane-borne laser to shoot down missiles, however the laser is so big that its platform is a 747-400. Needless to say it is not a blinking light laden gadget in a little box with lots of keypads and ribbon cable.
The jet fighter scenes were awful as well. I bet the military wishes it had radar small enough to fit in an F16 and track a meteor in deep space. And just what does "commence the target" mean?
Even more bogus was the... ah forget it. I could go on for a million words on how stupid this show was.
I cannot believe you gave this turkey a B-.
Ian Kennedy
iank@microsoft.com
Editor: Well, if you had one of the nifty-keen F16 lasers instead of the outdated 747-400 model, you'd know what "commence the target" meant. Seriously, though, I thought the first half of Asteroid was quite promising, but the science was awful.
Have you heard of The Tempest?
ey! How can anyone spend more than a paragraph on Forbidden Planet and not mention it being a reworking of Shakespeare's The Tempest. Or the neat way Caliban and Ariel are reversed in Robby and "the monster from the id"?
Joel Peter Anderson
joela@nts.umn.edu
Editor: We usually reserve that sort of thing for our especially cunning readers to point out in the Letters column.
Blame Shakespeare
f Forbidden Planet falls a little flat at the end, you can blame Shakespeare. The plot of the movie is based on The Tempest, and Dr. Morbius is Prospero watching the world he created come to an end.
And to add to Tamara's comments at the end of the review for Forbidden Planet, the 50s was the Golden Age of science fiction films. The Day the Earth Stood Still, War of the Worlds, The Invisible Boy, Earth vs. the Flying Saucers, When Worlds Collide, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (and so many more) tended to be more plot driven and less special effects driven than today's films. Good directors and producers, like George Pal, actually attempted to make intelligent films, even if they were hokey B movies for kids.
Check out Forbidden Planet and some of the classics from the 50s. It will give you a whole new perspective on today's sci-fi movies. Most are rehashes of 50s films.
Anne Simmons
asimmons@nas.edu
Editor: It's nice to see everyone's up on their Shakespeare as well as their science fiction.
Thanks for not mentioning Star Trek
reat job. I saw the movie for the first time when I was 13 after reading about it in one of David Gerrold's books about Star Trek and loved it. I applaud you for not making the very obvious comparisons between Forbidden Planet and Star Trek.
John Miller
jamiller@dbtech.net
Editor: Okay, Shakespeare is in but Star Trek is out. I'm going to go write that down...
It's "baloo" like the bear
noticed in the review of the MST3K video that Tamara asked for a correct pronunciation of "Beaulieu." Here it is: Baloo ...Just like the bear in The Jungle Book.
Doug Smith
tomservo@mail.doorcounty-wi.com
Editor: Thanks Doug, and thanks to the many (and I mean many) Misties who wrote in with similar notes.
There was a Return of the King
was just reading your news of the week regarding a sequel to the Lord of the Rings. You correctly state that the original movie only included the first two books of the trilogy, but a movie called The Return of the King (the third book in the trilogy) was, in fact, made.
Geoff Poremba
sycamore@buffnet.net
Editor: Thank you for the clarification.
