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.
aving seen the first three episodes of the new season of Doctor Who, I can only shake my head in sorrow at SCI FI's shortsightedness at not picking up the series for broadcast in the United States. Great stories, superb cast, character development more poignant than ever before and, for once, the sets don't wobble. (Indeed, the effects are superb, and in the Doctor's catch phrase are "fantastic!"—in the sense of being more artful and wonder-filled than is the current trend of hyper-real effects evident on every sci-fi series.)
SCI FI wishes to follow a path of adult-oriented, mature programming. Fine. Why, however, does SCI FI feel the incessant need to place all of its programming choices into one basket? Rather than fill the airwaves with adult entertainment at night, reruns of a couple of shows ad nauseam during the day, and leaving the rest to horror movie after horrible movie (from which only infomercials give relief), why not follow the classic programming models of old? Adult fare in the evening, teen/adult fare in the early evening (perfect for Who) and the usual nifty afternoon science-fiction cartoons/kid-fare besides? (Go raid Filmation's vaults, if nothing else—they had a great Flash Gordon, a Journey to the Center of the Earth and a Fantastic Voyage animated series worth watching.)
Galactica's popularity with adults now is in no small part connected with their remembrance of the original series, and of other shows which made us wonder as children what might be possible (and yes, I'd always wished I could strap into a Viper, even more than an X-Wing, cool as they are). This quixotic monothematic approach by SCI FI, catering only to the adult and forgetting the next generation, abandons the very future SCI FI should be representing. Rather than foster a blossoming culture of futurists, instead we're creating a fragmented culture divided between those who watch this or that series, and those who leave even pedestrian horror movies on when there's nothing much else worth watching.
At least it has forced the BBC's hand into offering a DVD set later this year of Doctor Who's 27th season, and for this sci-fi has my thanks.
W.R. White
walterrwhite(at)netscape.net
m I having a bad dream or did some letter writer actually call the current offering the "Golden Age of sci-fi TV?" ("The Golden Age Is Now") And Science Fiction Weekly posted only one letter in protest ("The Golden Age Was Yesterday")!
Everything these days has had its "Golden Age," from cars to comic books. On politics, President Kennedy once remarked upon arriving for a cabinet conference that the White House hadn't seen so much talent in one room "since Jefferson dined alone."
There might have been a "Golden Moment in sci-fi TV," but it cannot be confirmed: If Rod Serling and Gene Roddenberry ever did the meatloaf special together in the network cafeteria. Next to that, all is silver-plated at best.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA(at)aol.com
have to buy into the Battlestar Galactica as family viewing debate ("All Parents Are Not Alike", "Sci-Fi Isn't Just for Kids Anymore", "Battlestar Is Meant for Adults"). I have no desire
to see "my" TV sci-fi dumbed down or cutsy-fied so that children can watch it.
There was more than enough of that sort of rubbish back in the cringe-worthy years of the '70s and '80s, when we had Buck Rogers running around with his midget robot sidekick.
Kids today have plenty of sci-fi aimed at them, especially in Australia. There's no need to lobotomize adult shows or censor them so that they can become kid-friendly. I don't know about overseas programming, but if Aussie parents want to watch sci-fi with their kids, then I suggest they wake up at a reasonable hour on the weekends and catch what is being targeted at their demographic.
Besides, what are these kids still doing up at 11:30 or later on a school night? Yep, that's when most of these shows roll end credits, if not later, here in Oz.
Yuri Shukost
yuri01(at)iprimus.com.au
s a parent and a former child I have to respond to the letters saying Battlestar Galactica is only for adults and that we need adult-themed shows ("All Parents Are Not Alike", "Sci-Fi Isn't Just for Kids Anymore", "Battlestar Is Meant for Adults"). When people say "adult shows," they seem to really mean shows with vulgar language and unnecessary sex and violence. Now, that is a 13-year-old male interest. Real adults want good solid stories that address human conflict and emotions. Anything less is not "adult" in the sense of a grown, mature, thinking person, but rather immature and just plain titillating. As Lord Byron said, "Bad language is used by poor writers."
I watched the original Star Trek as a kid. There is nothing wrong in children watching programs with moral values, such as Star Trek, which used TV parables to show the wrong of prejudice, the evil of endless war, the crime of Nazis, etc. I read science fiction from Jules Verne to Isaac Asimov beginning in fifth grade—great classic works!
Wagon Train, Gene's template for Star Trek, was an adult show without sex, violence and bad language. Twilight Zone was an adult-themed show without sex, violence and bad language.
Anthologists have noted that the culture is losing something by no longer having shows watched by entire families. We lose an understanding between generations, a shared experience and common reference in conversation.
Polls have shown that one in three Americans know who Capt. Kirk and Mr. Spock are—when only one in five have seen an entire episode of any Star Trek. That's because the original show was watched and watched and watched by people of all ages and became part of a shared culture.
Forty years from now, will the same be said of Battlestar? Not likely. Because the "adults" will not have shared an interest in the themes and plots of the show with their children.
Enterprise failed because of weak scripts, overuse of actors in underwear, etc., but most of all because the producers made a decision to abandon longtime fans and most of the "history of the future show bible" and go for the all-important 18-to-24-year-old male viewer (most of whom, according to Time magazine, would rather interact with video games than watch any TV). The Enterprise producers proved that targeting one small slice of the viewing public cannot sustain a program. And that waiting until the end of the last season to do what was promised at the launch of the show is far too little, way too late!
I hope that in this case, "those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it" is not the mantra of the next Trek. I hope Trek will survive and someday my future grandkids will enjoy new stories from new worlds in Gene's universe!
Gloria Hoffner
Gloriah311(at)aol.com
am a longtime sci-fi fan, and smoker. I have always thought it was odd to see anyone smoking on any kind of spacecraft (many older sci-fi movie classics show this), because you know they have limited amounts of oxygen, close quarters, etc. I was very surprised to see people smoking in the new Battlestar Galactica ("All Parents Are Not Alike", "Sci-Fi Isn't Just for Kids Anymore", "Battlestar Is Meant for Adults"). But it didn't "freak me out" or turn me off to the series. I would think that no one would be smoking in the future, for very obvious reasons.
As far as "the children" are concerned, I would like to ask a question: How many episodes of various Star Trek series portray children as the main focus? Yes, there were some, but by and large they were mostly for and about adults, and adult issues.
I think it might surprise some parents to discover that, after a hard day, many adults would really like to enjoy a show without children and/or children's issues, that children are not always the first thing on their minds!
Yes, they are of utmost importance, they are the future! But what is wrong with some simple, adult-oriented entertainment?
Oh, I know, why don't the "children-obsessed parents" get together and come up with a new Star Trek series all about children, for children (and maybe even have some episodes by children)! They can watch that, and I will watch BSG!
Enterprise was very disappointing to me with the excessively long arcs, especially the Xindi. There were some awesome episodes, excellent sci-fi. What's the difference between T'Pol and Seven of Nine? They both added some romantic interest to the shows. I do feel Enterprise took it a little too far, but it was interesting to watch. I think Enterprise got a little too serious and dark. Not enough humor. Not enough "away missions" to beautiful, sunny places. I don't think it should have been moved to Fridays, or canceled. I think it was "coming around." I will miss my Wednesday Star Trek.
Andrew Kiszely
akiszely(at)earthlink.net
irst and foremost, I have to say I am a devout anti-smoker. I believe (unconstitutionally, perhaps) that smoking should be punishable by fines and jail time. Harsh, but in my perfect world, that's how it would be. Nothing I hate more than smoking and immature smokers (in attitude, not just in age).
That said, I defend Battlestar Galactica's right to have a smoking character on the show ("All Parents Are Not Alike", "Sci-Fi Isn't Just for Kids Anymore", "Battlestar Is Meant for Adults"). It's part of life as we know it, and I personally know some older doctors that smoke (thankfully I don't know any younger doctors that have picked up the habit). No problem with the smoking doctor and stogies for the pilots.
But that said: I do agree that BSG goes over the line in its positive portrayal of smoking and smokers. I know Ron Moore is unapologetic about it, and while I don't have any positive proof, I think it's a safe bet that he's a smoker and feels his smoking makes him "cool." What I would like to see, (not that it is ever likely to happen but it would be nice) is just one character say "no thanks" to an offered cigar, or cough, or otherwise express some distaste at the idea of smoking. I'm not about political correctness, but it would be nice to see that at least one person in the BSG universe not think smoking is cool.
Victor DiGiovanni
victor(at)victory-digital.com
od Grizz's letter, "Star Trek Needs New Format," is an ambitious concept, one that rekindles an idea I had when Enterprise hadn't made its debut and was only a "space seed" in Rick Berman's mind.
I had wondered what a series would be like to come from the perspective of one central character that "floats" through the Star Trek universe. Experiencing all the different facets of Federation life by traveling to all the places that we've only heard about in previous series and getting to see a wider array of personas, races and cultures. I had originally considered it a The Next Generation timeline show, one taken from the perspective of a human, but with Ood's concept taken a bit in mind, maybe it's from the view of a Vulcan—a person that has a longer life span. Or maybe even a Trill. The main objective—get the character out to experience all the things that any of us might experience on a journey of life and discovery.
I applaud Ood for his concept and trying to think outside the norm of the Star Trek universe. It is apparent that there is a desire for new blood and vision for the ST franchise ...
Live long and prosper!
Jonathan Heisey-Grove
jheiseygrove(at)gmail.com
n response to Ood Grizz's letter of issue #416 ("Star Trek Needs New Format"), a new format for Star Trek might work very nicely, but what you proposed, interesting though it would be for a hardcore fan, wouldn't have the staying power required for network television.
You've basically proposed an "anthology" series, not unlike The Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits, but set exclusively in the Star Trek universe—and even more interesting, in various time periods.
Anthology series worked very nicely when television was a young medium, but as the medium grew, audiences showed a greater desire for a core set of characters in a series drama, rather than something completely different every week. While the first Twilight Zone ran successfully for many years, its numerous attempts at sequels (as well as homage series such as Amazing Stories) were less than successful. People like to have a handful of stars in which to invest their attention and aspirations, stars playing characters that (for the most part) appear week after week on at least a semi-regular basis.
Having said that, wasn't there a proposal for a Star Trek series a while back set in Starfleet Academy? Now that would be an interesting show—it would provide a core set of characters (the teaching staff, administrators and students of the Academy) that would largely come back week after week, but could rotate some seasonally as "semesters" change, providing more variety. There's the youth appeal of characters closer to their own age group, with less of the hated "Wesley factor," a single uber-child who constantly saves the day while the adults look on in astonishment. Lastly, there's plenty of room for variety in the storyline—stories need not be anchored to the Academy grounds, with "historical holo lessons" and "field trips" providing the excuse to explore all aspects of the known Trek universe (perhaps even a time-traveler posing as a student observing a moment in history from the perspective of an Academy student or instructor providing a future perspective and allowing us a glimpse into where Trek may go from the Next Generation into the future). It would also provide an excellent opportunity for cameos of fans' favorite characters from previous incarnations of Star Trek—even going back to the original series.
Marvel Comics did a series, albeit short-lived, called Starfleet Academy, but I feel it died less from quality of stories, more from glut of Trek titles in a period of slumping growth for comics (all their Trek series stopped running shortly thereafter). The idea is definitely worth examining on the small screen (network or syndication, or even cable)—and perhaps even the big one, or on straight-to-DVD. Using young undiscovered talent and computer-generated sets would keep the costs of such a production within very modest levels while providing adequate production values—look at what Babylon 5 was able to accomplish on a relative shoestring budget, and that was with technology that's now about a decade old. I wonder what the SCI FI Channel or SpikeTV would say to being offered a comparably low-budget original series set in the Star Trek universe?
Don Boyer
[email address withheld]
ou have made some good points here, Kevin ("The Past Shouldn't Be Tweaked"). George Lucas may have his reasons for improving the original Star Wars trilogy (as well as THX 1138) and after seeing his work on the first trilogy's DVD release, particularly the enhanced ending of Return of the Jedi, I can understand his reasons. Ridley Scott seemed content to simply rearrange or substitute original footage for his director's editions of Alien and Blade Runner while Mr. Spielberg (with E.T. The Extraterrestrial) and Mr. Lucas both jump at the chance to take advantage of the CGI revolution. 2001: A Space Odyssey is wisely the same as Stanley Kubrick directed it, which is perfectly agreeable. Many DVDs, including Superman, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and John Carpenter's The Thing, to name just three, still retain their original special effects that still do them the justice they deserved. Mr. Shyamalan seemed to solve this dilemma quite easily with none of the addictive and spoiling special effects seen in most movies today. Even Signs, with its effects for the alien creatures, was modest in this regard. As you correctly pointed out, magic cannot be over-perfected. So I think it's safe to assume that even with Mr. Lucas' 3-D plans for Star Wars, the line is already on the verge of being drawn somewhere.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
have been amazed at the lack of outcry [WARNING: SPOILERS FOLLOW] against the cavalier decision by the writers of Stargate SG-1 to kill Sam, Jack and Teal'c in the season finale. I am selling off my series DVDs and giving up on Stargate. Who cares that look-alikes from another timeline have taken their places? I remember a show where a long-haired Dr. Carter came to SG-1 from another timeline; that Jack O'Neill had been killed by the raiding Apophis. No one in our timeline cared that he was dead, because that wasn't the real Jack. In fact, when Teal'c killed his own alternate on the other Earth, his remark was something like, "He is of no significance."
These new geeky imposters have no history with Thor and the Asgard, Bra'tac, the Tok'ra, the Goa'uld, the Tollan or even the team on Atlantis. This is not the SG-1 team that saved the world so many times. The real Sam, Jack, Daniel and Teal'c finally beat Anubis and the Replicators, and what is their reward? To relax and fish in Jack's pond, for Jack and Sam to finally get married, for Teal'c to work with Bra'tac on Chulak to free the rest of the Jaffa? Nope, they are dead in the prime of their life, after all their victories, lost in the sands of ancient Egypt. Way to go, guys!
This substitution of new characters also breaks down in the Atlantis series. In the Atlantis season finale, a team of Marines sent by Brigadier General O'Neill comes to Atlantis, powered by the ZPM stashed in the Egyptian tomb by the real SG-1 team (who died there). So the Air Force has allowed a Jack O'Neill, who has been fishing and drinking for 15 years, to step into a brigadier general's spot? What kind of briefing did he have to have to send a team to Atlantis? Please ... sci-fi is for thinking people, and that hole was big enough for a Goa'uld fleet to fly through.
I am furious, I am betrayed, I have mourned for Jack and Sam and Teal'c. I do have a real life, but I have followed the Stargate adventures for 10 years (since the movie came out), and have felt genuine affection for these characters. So without the real Sam, Jack and Teal'c, I am finished with Stargate SG-1 and the writers/producers/stars who thumbed their noses in the faces of their fans and said, in effect, "Hey guys, it's just a show, who cares what happens to the characters as long as you can still watch Amanda Tapping and Richard Dean Anderson do some science fiction stuff?"
I'm outta here ...
Annette Hunt
parjsh(at)comcast.net
Back to the top.
