rans-Atlantic friends who take an interest in such matters will be aware of a small-scale British invasion on the way. No, not another Bush and Blair PNAC adventure, but the resurgence of a classic SF series. Dr. Who is back! Many things are the same and yet everything is different. Gone are the wobbly sets, woefully bad FX and rather unconvincing aliens. But the most astonishing change, is that instead of casting an actor who is basically playing a version of himself, the ninth Doctor Who is a serious, intense, character actor. Google the name Christopher Ecclestone to see how serious. The last time Ecclestone was on British primetime TV, he was cast as the Second Coming. It's also the first occasion that the Doctor has been played by someone with a Northern accent, which might trouble a few North American ears. But stick with it 'cause what he's saying is worth listening to. Alongside the Doctor, is new assistant Rose Tyler, played by Billie Piper. Once the British answer to Britney Spears, Piper quit singing and became a very good actor. Ally this package with top notch scripting from Russell T. Davies, and effects at least equal to anything seen in Buffy or Angel, and you'll have an idea of how big a deal this show has become. There's even room for in jokes, such as Who's appearance in the crowd at the JFK assassination. Older aficionados of the series will know the tongue-in-cheek significance of that. Newer viewers might get more of a laugh from stuff like the man-eating wheelie bin. It's been a long time, getting from there to here. But this enterprise, already a winner in the ratings, looks likely to keep on travelling. But things are rarely what they seem.

The new Doctor was appearing throughout the media, championing the revival, and telling us how much he enjoyed being Who. Then, a couple of days before the second episode had aired, Ecclestone quit! The reason stated is that he doesn't want to become typecast. A decision which any actor might make at any time. What irks me, though, is the timing. Eccelstone has filmed an entire series, so he could've had the good grace to wait until the last episode was shown, before jumping ship. Instead, he's demonstrated selfishness, using the iconic status of Doctor Who to raise his own profile. His actions border on sabotage. The millions of kids Ecclestone claimed he wanted to inspire may well draw the conclusion that this Doctor was only interested in number one.

Meanwhile, true to form, the BBC are already in talks with David Tennant, an actor currently flouncing around on British screens Casanova. This is not what the Doctor ordered.

Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil(at)freeuk.com

bout 18 months ago when it all started, I remember my negative reaction to the idea of Sandra Bullock as Wonder Woman; she was the first person suggested for the role. And since then, a plethora of actresses have been suggested in this column and elsewhere, each one less like Wonder Woman than the last. And by default Sandra Bullock has grown on me as the best, known actress for the job. Still, I have niggling reservations.

I, and I suspect others, are comparing each possible successor, perhaps unconsciously, to Lynda Carter, who truly seemed to be Wonder Woman brought to life—twice, both the WWII and modern incarnations. She is nearly an impossible act to follow.

So Joss Whedon has his work cut out in casting. We have to believe the actress is Wonder Woman—remember the Kathy Lee Crosby television movie-of-the-week version? I sure didn't buy her in the role. Because of the scanty outfit, I don't think a Michael Keaton as Batman number with the padded muscle suit is viable.

Perhaps this is the chance for some aging model—some decrepit 27-year-old—to make the transition to acting and break through in this role. I can easily see a couple of brunette models from a Victoria's Secret catalogue—Yasmin from the late '90s and her successor with bangs whose name I don't know—easily visually filling the costu—uh, image. So, there are people out there to believably fill the role.

I hope Whedon chooses well.

Barbara Goldstein
psifidoll(at)comcast.net

admit I don't read the letters page often enough, so I did not realize there was a slew of letters about the use of the word "frak" and the issue of smoking on Battlestar Galactica. Even gasp S-E-X! Maybe I am just too caught up in the great storylines, action and performances of the show to get too worried about things like that. Then again, maybe I am just a person that thinks the people writing all these letters are the type of people that Saturday Night Live wrote William Shatner's famous "Get a life!" for. Hey people, the main characters of this show are military people. Having been in the military, I think I can safely say that military people smoke, cuss and have sexual relations. So, far as I am concerned, 'nuff said.

I am also surprised about all the hubbub over the cancellation of Enterprise. I am a Trekkie, having followed the shows since the '60s. I am not a Trekker. That is for pompous people who aren't secure enough to deal with the mundane people that don't understand what being a sci-fi fan is all about. I have tons of Trekkie friends who all thought that Enterprise just didn't cut it as Trek. It gave only nodding recognizance of the Great Bird's original vision, yet was constantly rewriting Trek history established in earlier series. Many of the stories were subpar, and some even outright boring. One episode from last season disgusted me so badly that I was sure Gene was trying to claw his way out the grave! Everyone I know either didn't like the series or didn't care enough to dislike it. And the ratings reflect that. Yet, as soon as the announcement of cancellation was made, suddenly petitions popped up all over the 'net to save the show! Is this a case of people actually watching the show more than the ratings reflect? Or, as I think the more probable answer, a case of Trekkies who say, "Hey, any Trek is better than no Trek!"?

Let's face it, people ... we are in the true Golden Age of sci-fi television. By that I don't mean that we should ignore the great strides made in the genre during the '60s and '70s. Nor that today's creators have a more grand vision than those of decades past. What I am referring to is the fact that, at no time in TV history has science fiction ever had more acceptance than we do now. Is it just the dawning of a new millenium? Possibly. Is it that, because of the success of the various movie series that television recognizes science fiction as a way to increase revenues? That is a major factor. But, in my opinion, it is because of cable television.

With the advent of so many channels looking for original programming, as well as a higher standard being applied by an ever more discerning audience, science fiction is being recognized as a genre that can make ratings rise. The success of shows like the X-Files, Buffy, Smallville and SG-1 have made those who purchase programming realize that us hardcore fans can put a lot of money in their coffers. That means that there will be more and more programming of sci-fi and fantasy series as the years go by. It also means that the networks will have less patience with shows that don't cut it in the ratings. Cancellation will be quick and ruthless. In some cases, well-deserved. On other cases, maybe too precipitous.

However, this is a good thing. The success of the previous Star Trek series was, ironically, bad for sci-fi TV. It made series creators think that anything with Trek in the title was gonna be an automatic win. The poor quality of Enterprise is the prime example of this. It also made creators think that any sci-fi or fantasy show was gonna be easy to sell. For a while this was true, so we got shows like Beastmaster and Starhunter. In television, a successful series will also spawn both spinoffs and imitators. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. This brings us to how the cancellation of Enterprise is GOOD!

Even though Paramount kept the show on for four seasons, the ratings would not really have let the show survive for more than a season on a major network. So, by finally canceling the show, a message is sent: THE BAR HAS BEEN RAISED! No more will TV executives be so quick to throw just any sci-fi into the schedule. They realize the fans are more discriminating than they thought. So, this should raise the quality of what makes the airwaves. At least, for network television. Syndication is another matter altogether. Yet this gives us fans the hope of seeing more, and better, sci-fi and fantasy series coming in our future. For those of you that are nitpicking and griping, look for the silver lining. If you wanna gripe, gripe about the fact that there are still only a handful of really good original genre series on the air. Make waves about that.

Patrick Power
da_fringe_element(at)yahoo.com

am sad to see [Enterprise] go. But I think it suffered [from a] bad choice in timeslot in the schedule. On the station we could watch it on, it seemed like four out of five weeks it got bumped for sports of one kind or another. Oh, sure, they showed it later in the week, but it never seemed like it was the same time or day. Early on, I got tired of chasing it down. Then the most recent season, it was moved to Friday night, directly opposite the Andromeda or Stargate episodes on the SCI FI Channel. What kind of insane thinking was that?! Why try to bring a limping show back to life by pitting it against some powerhouse programming?

My other thought is that the scale of the challenge in the episodes was too big, too universal; if this was meant to relate back to the original series, it should have been, well, more episodic and less epic storylines. The whole Xindi storyline was this "our whole universe, as we know it, will cease to exist, if we don't succeed." What is wrong with character so-and-so is having some crisis, or this world has a problem, and the crew has to overcome obstacles to put things right? With Enterprise in the early stages of deep-space exploration, there should have been more original-series-sized problems for them to solve. It didn't really succeed in being like the original, nor was it a particularly believable "prequel" to the other series.

If the individual episodes are well written, the characters interesting and well played and the science consistent, people will watch. You don't have to leave them constantly hanging from episode to episode, or from season to season, teasing the audience with "to be continued." After all, if you have eaten a tasty meal and enjoyed it, you will most likely be back for more.

All the same, I enjoyed watching Enterprise, when I could find it, and am sorry to see it go.

Martha S.
TIMARTHA(at)cbpu.com