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.
n response to Patrick Power's letter ("The Golden Age is Now"), I could not disagree more with his assertion that we are in a Golden Age of Sci-Fi with regard to television. I would argue that exactly the opposite is true. It is a pretty bleak time for anyone who enjoys good science fiction on television, and it's not hard to see why. Enterprise is only the most recent casualty. Firefly, John Doe, Farscape and Angel have all been canceled before their time. The same fate would have befallen Buffy the Vampire Slayer had UPN not picked it up for another two seasons. All that remains is SCI FI Channel's Friday-night lineup and perhaps Smallville. More importantly, I haven't heard of any other genre shows being developed to replace them.
Of course, the answer is simple: money. Why should networks bother with an expensive sci-fi show when they can produce three or four reality shows for the same price? Sure, they possess no imagination and have the shelf life of a banana. But who cares? I'm sure those shows sell a lot of dishwashing detergent and male enhancement medication.
It only proves what most sci-fi fans have known all along. Just because a show is poorly scheduled or doesn't hit the right advertising demographic has no bearing whatsoever on whether the show is good or bad. The resurrection of shows like Firefly and The Family Guy are proof of this. When these shows went to DVD and the viewers could finally vote with their money, the powers that be discovered that there was a big audience for these shows after all! Imagine that. And without selling any dishwashing detergent.
T.J. Baker
maxgremlin(at)adelphia.net
ow ... after a good two months, I can't find a letter where anyone corrected you on this. And it's been at least four months since I received a regular mailing of the newsletter, or I would have seen and corrected your review sooner.
I'd like to call up an error and a clarification for you in your review of the Fullmetal Alchemist DVD.
"In the first two episodes on the initial Fullmetal Alchemist DVD ... The next three episodes go back in time ... " There are only four episodes on the disk, not five.
"I'm pretty firmly on the subtitle side of the great sub-vs.-dub faceoff, but I really liked the English voices on this release—particularly Alphonse, who has a sweet, appealingly authentic voice, like an actual child, though with a voice full of actorly nuance and emotion. Excellently done." Actually, the English voice of Al, Aaron Dismuke, is in fact an actual child. He's 12 years old, and has done a good job on this and several other Funimation titles.
Beyond that, it was a nice little review; it's always interesting to see what a new viewer thinks of the show, as its initial episodes are terribly misleading as to what's coming.
Gabriel Moonshadow
lexwyvern(at)rocketmail.com
Reviewer Tasha Robinson responds:
Yes, I knew there were only four episodes on the initial DVD—check out the header information at the top of the review, which clearly states that. However, the flashback extends past those episodes, and I thought it might be prudent to let viewers know both that this first disc didn't wrap up its plot arc—which can be very frustrating for people who evaluate a new series one DVD at a time instead of waiting for a box set and committing completely—and that the flashback did come to a close after three episodes, rather than continuing for, say, another two discs. That's why the sentence read "the next three episodes" instead of "the disc's remaining three episodes" or "the rest of the disc." Sorry this was unclear.
As to Aaron Dismuke, I wasn't aware he was so young. If he's 12 now, he would have been what, 8 or so when he started doing anime voice-overs? That's amazing. Thanks for the clarification.
Best,
Tasha
oting your weekly poll on SCIFI.com of a couple of weeks ago, it seems that, when asked whether Joss Whedon should pick Charisma Carpenter as Wonder Woman, greater than 90 percent of the respondents would be happy with it. Whedon alone gets only approximately 60 percent approval.
Most of the letters from others in this section have also questioned the selection of one of the immature or waif-like actresses that have been mentioned.
Joss said that he isn't interested in any of his "friends" from the Buffyverse because it's a business, not a reunion. Seems like the choice would be obvious to anyone wanting to make a buck (or 10, depending the theater of choice).
Maybe someone should call Joel Silver.
Doug Dale
ddale(at)coda.cc
m I the only one who is relieved that the Wonder Woman casting looks like it will be treated with respect and—surprise, surprise—be true to the comic?
The woman is supposed to be a Greek Amazon, so I couldn't understand where producers think they might find a hispanic or black Greek in order to have mooted J-Lo and Halle Berry for the part. Actually, after Catwoman, will anyone ever cast [Berry] in another comic adaptation, apart from X-Men?
Now all we have to dread is what will be done to the character of Zatanna. Lindsay Lohan in fishnets? Oh, and there had better be fishnets.
Yuri Shukost
yuri01(at)iprimus.com.au
ith the recent cancellation of Enterprise, for the first time in many years, television won't have a running Star Trek series. This caused me to consider the following thought: "What would you like to see emerge as the next Star Trek television series?" I would like to see some new thinking in what direction the Star Trek universe takes. My thoughts are that a series be created with no recurring characters, and also not set in any certain time frame. The title would be something like Federation Space, and every week we would have different and new characters involved in different aspects of space exploration/situations in well-written and exciting stories. The Outer Limits series provides a good template for how
this would look in its presentation. Using a combination of existing, known races and set through all the series' time zones, it could be presented as a history of Starfleet, the Federation and the individuals and races associated with the it.
Some story ideas might include the following:
1) Crew of a small Federation starship who find and "steal" weapons technology from more advanced races in such a way they don't realize it's been done due to the adverse condition of how they get the technology. Such as a derelict ship falling into the sun or such ...
2) Ferengi merchants out to fleece a planet or society who discover they have been taken to the cleaners at the end. Title something like "Deal of the Century" ... told by the Ferengi, with no humans involved.
3) Klingons who defend a non-Klingon planetary population of their empire to the last man, but save the planet and become honored heroes in that planets' history. Title something like "Honored Dead." Told by a Klingon storyteller and perhaps with most of the dialogue in Klingon with subtitles, or told by the planetary historian. Again, no humans involved.
This format would have several advantages in that individual shows that had good ratings and with characters that worked well could be spun off into new Star Trek series that examine aspects of the show never consider before.
Star Trek has been a major money maker for everyone associated with it in the past and can be again if the people who own the rights will wake up and see that good writing and story ideas are the key to reviving a real interest in the series.
I can't help but feel that Enterprise failed because it depended too much on political correctness and bouncy babes in tight costumes instead of good stories and creative ideas. Don't get me wrong, [I have] nothing against bouncy babes. They have been a staple of sci-fi for years, but it's not that factor that sells better sci-fi in the long-term market. And until the people who produce science fiction realize they have a market that includes older viewers and families, as well as drooling 13-year-olds, they will continue to make the same mistakes that doomed Enterprise to an early demise.
I suggest that people producing TV read some good sci-fi before they next "go boldly" ... books like David Weber's On Basilisk Station, Anne McCaffrey's The Ship Who Sang, H. Piper's Little Fuzzy, A.E. van Vogt's The Weapon Shops of Isher, Orwell's 1984, anything by Andre Norton, Robert Heinlein, E.E. Doc Smith, etc., would go a long way in showing just how broad the field is and how much diverse material is available to develop for television. Before we launch another starship in the Trek universe, let's remember that the original series was far from politically correct and questioned a lot of the assumptions of the time. Till a new series can do that, we will continue to see a lackluster Trek universe and more Trek shows crashing and burning like Enterprise.
Ood Grizz
d_grizz01(at)hotmail.com
ori Skeath ("BSG Should Be For Kids, Too") was quick to jump on the attack against Terry Thrasher ("Smoking Futures Fan the Flames") for his defense of smoking in Battlestar Galactica, saying that "if he/she were a parent, they would realize that it is exactly because parents are watching the show with their children is why they are so upset."
Well, Lori, I'm a parent and you certainly aren't speaking for me.
What issues I have with my young children watching BSG would have everything to do with the mature (and often sexual) content, and nothing at all to do with whether or not the odd character is puffing up, although I am in all other respects a militant non-smoker. Seeing characters smoke on-screen would merely provide another opportunity for me to discuss the perils of smoking with them.
In fact, I almost miss having the opportunity to have just this discussion. In trying to explain why the smoking in a science-fictional universe might differ from that in real life, I would have more opportunity to open their minds to the possibilities inherent within science fiction.
Too bad about the actual content I consider my children unready to be exposed to (though I make no patently ridiculous claim to be speaking on behalf of "all parents" in making this very personal assessment).
James C. Ellis
abd.al-hazred(at)shaw.ca
ee, I had never written to Science Fiction Weekly before last week, now I am writing a second letter!
I was reading a letter from a Lori Skeath ("BSG Should Be For Kids, Too"), who feels that BSG should be more family-friendly, so that her kids can watch it. Why? Which begs another question, that being, "Should sci-fi be aimed at kids?" My answer to that is a resounding "No!" for several reasons.
First off, the whole thinking behind the idea that all sci-fi be OK for kids just perpetuates the idea that the only people who are fans of the genre are immature. That is a stereotype that I have fought against my whole life, and I am not willing to take a step backwards. Going back almost 40 years, Star Trek was the first series that really was aimed at a more adult audience than sci-fi had previously been targeted at. It broke taboos then and set the standard for future series. If Science Fiction Weekly had been around then, I can just imagine the slew of letters about Kirk and Uhura's kiss.
Secondly, this is a series in the 10 p.m. timeslot, a slot that is aimed at an adult market. Looking around the schedule, I don't really see anything on TV that could really be considered "kid-appropriate," except on networks like Nickelodeon and Disney. Back in the 1970s, we had the whole concept of the "family hour," 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. The rest of the night was set aside for more adult programming. So, anything you see in a 10 p.m. slot should be expected to be for an adult audience.
Thirdly, a writer should not have to expect to water down a series for kids when the whole show has mature themes. It is the parents' responsibility to recognize that a series is not family-oriented and to deal with that in the home. If you know a series is not appropriate for the age of your child, then you should either not let the child watch it or be prepared to discuss with the child things you may not find appropriate. Don't ask the creators to dim their vision.
As was evident from the miniseries, BSG is not a program created with children as a target demographic. The show is for mature audiences who don't want to see the writing toned down for a younger audience. BSG is depicting realistic characters with all their flaws and strengths, and that is what the best television and movies do. Just because something is science fiction or fantasy does not mean we cannot have realistic characters and situations.
Should we be forced to watch a series that has less impact just because a few parents say so? If that thinking had held true throughout network programming, we would never have had such brilliant series as Hill Street Blues, NYPD Blue, ER or any number of other series that pushed the envelope, broke taboos and gave us an ever-increasing quality of television. BSG is another step on that road. Personally, I believe most of us want to stay on that road. Don't ask us to go backwards and accept less than we deserve. A life lived without passion is a life not lived.
Patrick Power
da_fringe_element(at)yahoo.com
have a simple response to Lori Skeath's letter "BSG Should Be For Kids, Too." Why?
The new Battlestar Galactica is not for kids. It wasn't meant to be. It is an adult show exploring adult themes with a science-fiction backdrop. (What a surprise to so many that "adult" and "science fiction" can go together.)
There are many shows for children, and many family shows that parents and children can watch together. Battlestar Galactica is not one of them, and is not required to be. If parents want to watch an SF adventure with their kids, I suggest that they rent the original [series].
Lee Russell
lrussell5(at)cfl.rr.com
ow does one let go? ("There Is Nothing New Under the Star") We both saw the "definitive" Star Wars in 1977 and neither one of us will be persuaded that a better version will ever exist. CGI and 3-D technology might make the original cleaner and sharper, but the heart and spirit of the film have absolutely nothing to do with "progress."
Lucas is stuck on the notion that those viewers yet to be born should see the newest, shiniest, most technologically advanced Star Wars possible. Naturally, we disagree. How dare anyone change, revise or improve what blew us away so many years ago! Magic cannot be over-perfected.
King Kong, Frankenstein, Superman (The list goes on and on!) will be changed, revised and "reimagined" for future generations of fans. That will be a matter of opinion, of course. Ours included, which puts us on the same track as Lucas, but going in the opposite direction: He wants to improve upon his originals, while we believe the past is more than good enough to stand up to the present and the future.
It's the paradox of getting older: We know because we were there. How can those born too late possibly understand?
Kevin Ahearn
kahearn(at)netpub.net
Back to the top.
