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.
abylon 5 fans have begun a letter-writing campaign to support The Memory of Shadows and the original cast members' of Babylon 5 involvement in the project. Messages are going out to fans around the world, and letters are being forwarded to various media outlets in an effort to raise awareness of the project and fan support.
Would you post an item out on [Science Fiction Weekly] on this issue? I can either write it up for posting or you can go to www.keepb5alive.com to find the "Babylon Bucks" and sample letters that can be sent to Warner Bros.
It has been a very long time since Babylon 5 has been in production, but fans are determined to not only support the project, but put their money behind their support—that is where the Babylon Bucks idea came from. We have bought the DVDs in record numbers, and we stand ready to buy tickets for The Memory of Shadows when it is released.
Production is scheduled to begin in April. No release date has yet been set.
Let me know what additional information you need.
Thanks for your help.
Sandra Bruckner
sgbruckner(at)aol.com
t's precisely this type of thinking ("New Trek Movie Shelved?") from Rick Berman that annoys [me], and apparently the other 17 million fans who used to watch Star Trek: The Next Generation, and now could care less about watching the show.
I am, and have been, a fan for almost my entire life, but have no desire to watch Enterprise. I'm not alone, and, for some reason, Paramount executives want to stick with what's "not" working. Having nothing to do with characters that have ever existed on any Star Trek series in an entirely new setting. ... Hmmm, kinda wouldn't be Star Trek would it? Real Trek fans want the show to get back to basics, and back to what we love. No more attempts to be different. More attempts to give us a traditional Star Trek series. Hello, Paramount? Wake up and smell the Tranya!
John Kirk
trekkerjohn(at)yahoo.com
r. Edelman: Thank you for the touching goodbyes you gave to the people we grew up with and helped us (me, at least) get through the awkward years ("More Than Just a Year Is Gone"). Comic books and science-fiction movies gave me much more satisfaction than the "real" movies of the '60s, those dull, dreary movies that were supposed to be more realistic. Well, who needed that? I usually don't write fan letters and such to people like yourself because I figure that I don't have anything to say that others aren't saying or writing more eloquently than I, but your editorial moved me to tears, and that doesn't happen often either.
Thank you for saying what I couldn't.
Pamela Mace
p.mace(at)morehead-st.edu
ll the actors involved made the special chemistry that is Stargate SG-1. Through many changes in writers, directors and producers, it's their chemistry, and the characters they developed, that made the series work, time and time again. The villains, be they alien or human, always worked well. The allies worked well also. Superb casting and writing were definitely a part of it. But at the core, it was the SG-1 team, in characters and as actors, that made it all work so well. The plugging in of Jonas for that period was successful, but the other characters supported this transition with their consistency in their key roles.
As successful as Atlantis seems to be, as good as the actors in it are, as much as I feel they will be a success for a length of time, it's still not the magic of the SG-1 crew/actors. They have that rare thing that creates a great show, chemistry. Not to take away from the great stories that are written (though it seems they are toning it down recently—to boost Atlantis?), but my fear is, all these sudden changes. The loss of Gen. Hammond as a key character, the death of Dr. Frazier, have diluted the character ensemble. Now the reduction of Richard Dean Anderson's role (though I fully understand his desire to be with his family—his gain, our loss), the upcoming reduction of Amanda Tapping's role (this being more temporary, at least for now—congrats for her new family addition).
The "modernization" ("Americanization"?) of Teal'c ... all these changes alone are a lot to deal with as an avid fan of them being together. Now add this new addition of Ben Browder (I'm sorry, nothing personal against the man, I just never considered him a very good actor). I am fearful this is the first major miscast/addition. I truly hope he proves me wrong. The extended casting of this mysterious character to be played by Claudia Black, even before the Browder character is established, seems like it may divert from what SG-1 has become. The reference to Farscape even without dialogue will be too prominent in people's minds. I really, really hope I am wrong in all this. But I have this strange feeling all this may do what the Goa'uld never could accomplish: destroy SG-1.
Marty Norvaisa
Dragonrealm(at)sbcglobal.net
guess my comments are a little too late, since Battlestar Galactica's first season is already in the can [and premiered last week]. In the original series, the three components that made it a great series, were:
A: language—similar to English—yaren, micron, parsec, cubits, feldicarb
B: names: no last names, pulled from our history—Apollo, Athena, Bucky, Adama
C: family: close, caring, happy, cheerful
The new series is evil, nasty and a huge twist from the original. The pilot had an enemy that was similar to humans. All I can say about this is low budget. They briefly showed the machine Cylons, and they were CGI. Dress them up in metal costumes. This also left the audience thinking that at the same time they wanted to eradicate us, they were also trying to be like us.
Sex: This is way over the top and uncalled for. If you plan this show to be family-oriented, you are sadly mistaken. I can hardly let my children watch this. Why is sex a part of this? Baltar's wet dreams? When are Canadians going to learn that you don't need sex to get a show to survive? Look at Tripping the Rift. I saw many articles and complaints about how much sex there was. Look at them now. Sci-fi nerds do not need sex in a TV series, maybe a little eye candy like sexy girlfriends. Evil incarnate: When the Cylon broke the baby's neck was sickening. They are supposed to want to eradicate humans, not torture us into submission. I do not see the logic in that; probably just a twisted producer's wild ideas.
Trek Kinsey
TKinsey(at)NBSfasteners.com
realize I'm a week late on responding to Roby Statzer's letter about Andromeda ("Andromeda Shouldn't Be Mothballed"), but I, too, feel that it should be deep-sixed—however, for different reasons.
It has left way too may questions unanswered. How long were they "out of action" in that floating spacebox? What's happened in the universe since? What about the Commonwealth? Where is it? Is it still around? What about the Magog worldship? What about the Nietzscheans? What about Earth? Does anyone else even know where Andromeda is? Are they in another universe? An alternate reality? And I have many more questions, trust me.
I think the Riddler put it best. "Too many questions, too many questions." And unless they start answering them soon, I quit. This season is starting out very boring, and it's going nowhere awfully fast.
Eric Anchor
dolphinsmiles_97(at)bellsouth.net
n a recent letter, Keith Kitchen ("Andromeda Deserves the Ax") makes some very good points on the present condition of Andromeda. The show has become a shell of its former self. I wouldn't be surprised if the same writers that gutted Earth: Final Conflict have been hired to leave their less-than-stellar mark on Andromeda. That being said, I still believe the show can be saved. Hire new writers and let Kevin Sorbo go, if that is his wish. Get back to the original storyline and away from the confused storylines that have marked the last few seasons. Like EFC, the original episodes held a lot of promise and should have been built upon. They still can. I think saving Andromeda and bringing the show back to the fans is the right thing to do. I hope SCI FI agrees.
Or maybe not.
Roby Statzer
RoBieJuan(at)aol.com
he rumor that Andromeda may be discontinued may, in fact, become more than a rumor if the writing does not improve. No business can succeed on good intentions.
The first season was excellent and had wide appeal, I believe, for young sci-fi as well as older sci-fi buffs. Season two clearly targeted the teens and 20-somethings—decidedly a good market, but not as broad, perhaps, as the demographics reached by the first season. This latest season has been pure junk. It reminds me of coasting.
Either the directors are trying too hard for artsy awards or the writers have been spending too much time with their scripts in the shower. (It is no wonder what actors will say when their lines have been smeared.) Seriously, Andromeda had a solid first season and an OK second. Its latest season is having difficulty because the writing is simply not up to par. The entire season could have been reduced to three episodes and then back to conquering evil and restoring order with interesting and new characters. This notion that they are trapped on some heroine-chic planet of thirsty misfits and mutants has got to go. It simply has gotten dull dull dull after the second episode.
So, keep the show, but fire the writers, set designers and guest directors and hire a whole new team with better ideas.
Jim Callan
JimCallan(at)JimCallan.com
rom Don Boyer's letter (regarding the high prices of Trek DVDs, "Prices Always Come Down Eventually"): "Perhaps a 'stripped-down' version of the series DVDs are what's called for here—just episodes, no extras and a price tag more people will find palatable."
That is basically what Paramount did with the first Trek (the original series) DVDs that were released: 40-volume set, two episodes in a volume with preview trailers, 5.1 sound and captions.
They originally sold (I believe) for $19.99 per volume, and now can be found at $14.99 per volume (or less, depending where one shops). That equals $599.60 to $799.60 for the set.
I bought all three season sets for a total of about $260.
As has been said before, the only reason they are charging this much is because they know the Trekkies will pay it!
The cost is high, but it's the only game in town.
Joseph A. Loehr
JLoehr4299(at)aol.com
Back to the top.
