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.
ar of the Worlds, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and now Tron (as I have just read in this week's newsletter) seem to be, in the views of moviemakers anyway, worthy contenders for remakes. Granted, not all remakes of science-fiction classics are as successful as anticipated, such as Planet of the Apes, whereas others, such as Invasion of the Body Snatchers (with Donald Sutherland, Jeff Goldblum and Leonard Nimoy), may have been successful for their times. I mentioned in one of my letters that I prefer directors' cuts to remakes of science-fiction films, although some writers to Science Fiction Weekly seem to disagree.
Hitchhiker's should be a hit with critics and audiences, in my opinion, which will be a fateful tribute to the late Douglas Adams. Spielberg's War of the Worlds is another remake that I am counting on to make refreshing waves for sci-fi fans. A remake of Tron, however, no offense, will be a mistake. The original Tron remains unsurpassed as the birth of cinematic CGI. There are mixed opinions, naturally, though War of the Worlds and Hitchhiker's are two remakes that I expect to be among the wisest and the most successful. The most ambitious and daring remake idea that I can think of would be of 2001: A Space Odyssey. That will be the day.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
ere are my two cents' worth on Andromeda. I think that in many ways this season is better than the past two seasons. However, it is not following the standard space-opera format of most sci-fi shows, and I think that people are uncomfortable with it because it is different.
Unlike previous seasons and most other science-fiction television shows, the space-opera concept of exploding spaceships and high body counts has been replaced with a more restrained format, and this concept is making people uneasy because it is not what they expect science fiction to be all about. Asimov's books showed that this was quite possible and could be done quite well. I applaud the writers for doing something different and demonstrating that science fiction can be other than space opera and does not need a huge CGI budget to be worthwhile.
This season is essentially one long story arc. While not unique to Andromeda, it is unusual among most science-fiction shows, and again it makes people uncomfortable because they have been conditioned to expect the universe to be solved in a one-hour timeframe. I happen to be enjoying this concept very much, and once again I applaud the writers.
Finally, I think that some of the episodes have been different, in particular "The Test," and people are not reacting well simply because it is different. While the stage lighting effect was not perfect, it worked well and made for an interesting variation of the show. Kudos to the writer and director for their imagination.
In summary, I think that given the evisceration of the season-five budget, the writers have adapted admirably, creating an entertaining, albeit different, type of science-fiction story. It would be a shame to see the series canceled.
Daniel Chesler
danandsu(at)hotmail.com
hanks for the excellent interview with Allison Dubois and Patricia Arquette.
There is one thing I wish someone would ask Allison: Does she have any information in the JonBenet Ramsey case? Or in other famous cases, that would help police to find clues they may have overlooked? Has she been able to contact the spirit of JonBenet? Or of Nicole Brown Simpson?
That would be fascinating.
Medium is one of my two favorite TV shows (along with Desperate Housewives). If the TV relationship between Patricia and Jake is an accurate representation of that of Allison and Joe, they are one lucky couple! I love that dynamic!
Judy Pokras
Vegwriter(at)aol.com
ormally most companies and organizations have a "think tank" that comes up with great ideas for making more profits, expanding the business, creating new products or just entertaining the fans. The SCI FI Channels's think tank comes up with short spots after commercial breaks that are sometimes amusing (Puddle Monster), sometimes funny (Jack in the Box) and sometime just OK (Dress). The latest makes me think the think tank should relabeled the "septic tank." Some rude, crude and socially unacceptable people may think blowing air into a dog's butt is funny, but I was not amused in the least.
SCI FI just threw its dignity out the window.
Joe Castleberry
joecastleberry(at)netzero.com
must congratulate Marty Norvaisa ("Browder Is Worse Than the Goa'uld") on talking about the chemistry of the actors on SG-1 yet never managing to once mention one of the four key characters and certainly my, and a large number of fans', favorite—Daniel Jackson!
I'm not certain about Ben Browder, as I never managed to get into Farscape, but I suggest we all wait and see. I'm delighted that Sam's brief absence is because Amanda Tapping is expecting a longed-for baby, and look forward to her return. I'll miss Jack, but I accept that Richard Dean Anderson has had enough (he's been saying that for a long time), and I'm thrilled to bits that Michael Shanks and Chris Judge have been given the opportunity to expand their roles as Daniel and Teal'c and really shine in season nine.
I wish Stargate, and all the characters, the very best for season nine.
Alison M.
ali(at)aalr.org.uk
hy is it whenever Stargate adds a new character people start jumping up and down saying the show will be ruined? ("Browder Is Worse Than the Goa'uld") They did the same thing when Corin Nemec was added when Michael Shanks left.
Now they are saying that Corin's addition to the show worked well. I thought so, but then I thought that from the beginning. Now they are saying that adding Ben Browder to the show will be the death of it. The show is getting a seasoned actor in the sci-fi genre. I think that many are upset just because he came from another sci-fi show and they fear a takeover. How? He doesn't write the scripts. He is an actor, and a very good one.
Deena Lindo
deenalindo(at)yahoo.com
he transfer of Farscape's Ben Browder and Claudia Black to Stargate SG-1 is cause for celebration, not dread. ("Browder Is Worse Than the Goa'uld") John Crichton and Aeryn Sun had chemistry, but then so do Vala and Daniel Jackson. That element of
twisted romance and honest—if mostly unfulfilled—sexual attraction is what has been missing from Stargate for some time now. It could be back, with Black. As for comments expressed on this page that cite Ben Browder as a bad actor, I can't agree. OK, he's not an Oscar winner, but then, neither is Richard Dean Anderson. What both men have in common is onscreen charisma and the ability to add a dry comedy element. So it's like for like on that score.
According to the makers, Stargate SG-1 is due to have all its older ongoing storylines addressed, leaving the way clear for a fresh chapter. I find this an enticing prospect, and see the introduction of new, regular, strong characters as a plus. If the format remains intact, and the scripts stay good, the show will continue to succeed. However, as has been pointed out, there are existing problems which are a distraction. The Americanization of Teal'c being by far the worst. This is the producers pandering to a star, at the expense of character credibility. From a look which made Teal'c believable as a noble alien warrior, we're now presented with something that puts me in mind of a gay, black, incredible hulk. Now, that may be a great show in its own right, but it doesn't belong on Stargate!
Will Farscape references destroy SG-1? No, I don't think so. Checkov and Bester. MacGyver and Jack O'Neil. Sam Beckett and Archer, T2 and Doggett, Picard and Professor X, Magneto to Gandalf and back again. SF TV and movies are littered with successful transfers of actors from one strong role to another. So why shouldn't the same be true for Browder and Black?
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil(at)freeuk.com
am writing in response to the letter "Paramount Needs to Fix Trek" sent in by Mr. Kirk. Have fans forgotten the motto: "To explore strange new worlds ... to seek out new life ... to boldly go where no man has gone before"? That is what Star Trek: Enterprise has done. They have introduced us to new aliens and new worlds (the Xindi) as well as delving into species only touched upon in the original Trek (Andorians and Orions). After all Star Trek: Enterprise deals with the beginnings of the Federation, of course it's not going to be like Star Trek: The Next Generation or any of the other series.
Enterprise may not be a "traditional" Trek series, as you say, but I believe it continues to carry on the dream created by Mr. Roddenberry. Sure, it has had its problems with writers, but all shows have that problem; even the original series did in its last season. But I continue to watch the show and have grown to love the characters as much as I loved the other series characters. If you are a true fan you would think they same.
Jonna Baskin
elfcat255(at)aol.com
never watched the original Battlestar Galactica. I remember people telling me the premise, which seemed promising, but was always followed by words like "cheesy" or "campy," which I never upheld as great adjectives. I read reviews about the DVD set when it was recently released. Nothing really appealed to me except, once again, the premise.
So, when the new miniseries in December premiered, I sat and faithfully watched both parts. I was enthralled. That's not to say I wasn't critical of it; the acting seemed a little wooden, the pacing was uneven, and at points for a general audience, which is what it needed to succeed, it wasn't entirely clear. Yet the action, the cinematography, the modern themes of loss and survival coupled with some brilliant characterizations created a miniseries that promised better to come.
Come it did. The premiere of "33" and "Water" was two of the best hours of sci-fi television I've seen. Ever. Equal to the highest quality of such praised series as Babylon 5 and Farscape, the new Battlestar Galactica brought everything its premise promised, a gritty story of human determination in the face of utter destruction.
Trek Kinsey's concern ("New Battlestar Is Nasty") over the evilness and sexuality were misguided. Yes, the series features adult sexual drives and an inherent and unknown mean streak in the Cylons. He is quite correct that he needs to question whether his children should see this. Yet this is not, whatsoever, the fault of the show. Ronald Moore created the new Galactica for adults, using adult images and language, in order to convey an adult message. It is not intended for children like the original, and, therefore, should not be judged by it. This is a different show for a different demographic that merely shares the same name and the same wonderful premise.
To judge this incredible new venture into the realm of sci-fi television based on a decades-old show that very few people nowadays remember, much less have seen, is to miss out on some of the most expert and suspenseful storytelling in any medium.
D.J. Lovering
djl274(at)nyu.edu
rek Kinsey clearly misunderstood what the new Battlestar Galactica is all about ("New Battlestar Is Nasty"). To be fair, this is understandable. The new show is a radical departure from its namesake in that it is clearly not intended for children.
Most of her remaining criticisms are invalid. For example, she attributes the fact that many Cylons look like humans to a low budget. It is, in fact, a part of the plot. A major part of this show will be the humans not knowing who to trust. I suspect the same can be said of the Cylons wanting to destroy the humans while simultaneously trying to emulate them in many ways. I'm sure that we'll see a great deal of exploration of that contradiction, as well as an exploration as to why the humans and Cylons are in conflict.
As for her complaints about sex being a part of the show: Well, as stated above, this isn't a children's show. What's "over the top" is a matter of opinion. But it's perfectly normal to have sex as part of this drama. These are, after all, a bunch of young, attractive people living in close quarters. It's perfectly normal that they're gonna be thinking about and having sex. The fact that they're in such an intense situation is only going to heighten that. I'd say it'd be unnatural for sex to not to play a part in the show.
I don't recall the Cylon breaking the baby's neck. But, if that happened, I find it distasteful. But, then, it does show just how ruthless the Cylons really are.
In short, it appears that Trek didn't get what she was expecting. Based on her criticisms, I'd suggest she watch something else.
Bob Spettigue
reddog_x2000(at)yahoo.com
Back to the top.
