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 the May 2 "News of the Week," the news items "Wonder Woman Reinvented" and
"Wachowskis Shoot Some V," Joel Silver, producer of the Matrix films, is quoted frequently. He really blew it on one, though!
[Joel] Silver said, "But the audience feels the way they feel. So the boys [the Wachowski brothers] never saw it [the Matrix films] as a continuing saga; that was the end of the story."
Not only does Mr. Silver seem out of touch with the "Wachowskis' vision," he is even out of touch with himself!
"Matrix Online to Launch in 2004":
"The Wachowski Brothers vision for The Matrix is one that extends far beyond the theatrical trilogy, and the world they have created is so rich that we've chosen to tell interconnected Matrix-related stories in multiple mediums," said Joel Silver, producer of the Matrix films. "Our goal in collaborating with Ubi Soft is to create a multiplayer online game that reflects the trilogy's highly stylized storytelling and innovative action, taking fans beyond the boundaries of the movie screen and into a 'persistent world' where they can fully explore the vast realm of the Matrix."
"Sega to publish The Matrix Online (PC)":
"You could consider this the fourth movie," says Warner Brother Interactive's Jason Hall, one of Monolith's founders. "It opens on the first day after the last movie. You'll want to be there from the beginning to see what happens."
And of course, Science Fiction Weekly itself ...
The Matrix Online game review:
It is no secret that the Wachowski brothers first conceived their virtual-reality philosophy and kung-fu epic as a video game. And that the first Matrix video game, Enter the Matrix, was as much about expanding on the story of the first two movies as it was about driving and shooting puzzles. So it is completely in keeping with the Wachowskis that despite their having ended the movies with the third, they are now carrying on the story of the Matrix in video-game form with the launch of The Matrix Online.
Then again, with something like six hot properties set for 2005 and 2006, he probably just has a lot on his mind!
Thanks for the forum to be a perfectionist!
Chris Plambeck
cplambeck(at)yahoo.com
n [Science Fiction Weekly's] last Letters [column], Julie Bicking writes, "I have just as much right to watch Battlestar Galactica and not have someone's wet dreams shoved
in my face as you have the right get the Playboy Channel." ("Bad Language Leads to Anarchy")
Ms. Bicking almost gets it. However, let's replace the word "right" with "choice." I have a choice whether or not I want to watch the Playboy Channel (whether I get to depends on whether my local cable outlet carries it). In like manner, Ms. Bicking has a choice as to whether or not she wants to watch Battlestar Galactica. If she objects to the content, then she has the right to exercise that choice and not watch it.
Ms. Bicking, however, does not have the right to dictate the content of Battlestar Galactica, or any other show, anymore than I have the right to dictate the content of the Playboy Channel. That right is reserved to the creators and owners of the content and is guaranteed by the First Amendment and the realities of corporate patronage. Not even the FCC, for the moment, can impose content limits on cable television (although there are those in Congress who would desire to do so).
Ms. Bicking may, of course, raise her voice in protest, organize boycotts, write irate letters to the SCI FI Channel and to its sponsors and, in general, make herself as much of a nuisance as she deems appropriate or necessary (which is an actual right she has), but if she wants to be taken credibly, I would suggest that she might want to cut down on the hyperbole and the spurious assertions.
Andrew Lias
anrwlias(at)gmail.com
s it just me or have the right-wing moralists gotten too big for themselves? I feel they have. Case in point. Julie Bicking letter "Bad Language Leads to Anarchy". She calls Steve Martinovich ("Swearing Is the Stuff of Life") a hypocrite. I find her just as bad a one. Instead of boycotting Battlestar Galactica because it offends her, and reading a sci-fi book that does not, or going to another show she finds up to her standards, she wants to make it a kid-friendly show. Why does all sci-fi have to be a kiddie show to her and others like her?
One other way to solve this, and Julie Bicking does not mind editing shows, why not talk to CleanFlicks, or other editing companies about editing shows of the offending bits? In this way she can have her morally unoffending show and leave the rest with the show the way it is.
Timothy Mogan
zanlong(at)cox.net
think that we can pretty much cut through the crap here. We are no longer talking about just bad language or sexual content or necessarily one show, but indeed an entire concept.
Steve, I disagree with your comment ("Watching Battlestar Is a Choice") that I have no rights other than termination. Pardon me, sir, but the evolution of television itself is on my side. Whether you (or I) like it or not, television is no longer free. I don't know about you, but I pay a hefty monthly fee for this medium. Every time I pay my bill, that gives me the right as a consumer to demand quite a lot. Every time any two-hour movie is butchered beyond redemption for the addition of 45 (45!!!) minutes of commercials, I have the right to demand quite a lot. Every time a cable channel is marketed in the basic/standard/plus packages and not as a premium channel, I have the right to demand quite a lot.
If we were talking about HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, etc., I would have no words to say and, contrary to your misconceived assumptions, would even agree with the basis of your comments. But we are not. So, do not mistake my meaning, sir.
The choice is really whether or not you are willing to pay extra for the services that you desire. I am not holding a gun to your head either. And since you have the option of ordering premium channels, I should have the option of not having to change the channel. Quid pro quo.
And just for the record, we all have the option of turning off the TV.
Julie Bicking
bickj(at)hydrosoft.net
s a family of geeks, my children and I have been counting down the months to attend the opening weekend for Star Wars: Episode III—Revenge of the Sith. We've indulged in child-focused merchandising, watched the last five films together multiple times, remembered the excitement of previous opening weekends and shared family discussions about what we thought the next movie would bring. After all the hype and excitement, I've learned that I cannot allow my children to see the movie for several more years because it is rated PG-13.
I appreciate that SW III covers much darker material. I would never ask [George] Lucas to destroy his overall artistic vision for the sake of a rating. However, SW III is not an ordinary movie—it is the culmination of storylines spanning five other PG-rated movies, and 30 years. My children are devastated to be left out (and other parents of pre-teens realize this is not an exaggeration).
I do have a solution that does not adversely affect the adult audience. I would like to request a follow-up theatrical release of a PG version of SW III. Providing a PG theatrical version in addition to the original PG-13 version provides multiple benefits for Lucas (all financially lucrative) and brings peace to my home.
First, there will be higher box-office [revenue] thanks to an expanded audience, and parents (along with several others) will pay to watch both versions (especially with bonus material in the PG version). Second, merchandising will be higher when kids actually get to see the movie (unlike my kids, who now see SW toys as salt in their wounds). Third, early exposure helps foster a lifetime of brand loyalty in the newest generation.
Quality sci-fi does not need to exclude children in order to satisfy an adult audience. My children and I all adore: Hitchhiker's Guide, Harry Potter, Stargate, Star Trek, Twilight Zone, Doctor Who, select classic DC and Marvel comics and the original Battlestar Galactica. Please let them share in the concluding vision of Star Wars while I still have influence over their viewing habits.
Sincerely, Mom of three proud geeks in training,
Bernadette C. Wilson
bernikids1@hotmail.com
he SCI FI Channel found the new series of Doctor Who to be "lacking"? ("New Who Needs a U.S. Pickup")
Oh, wait ... isn't this the same network that fondly imagines that science-fiction lovers are clamoring for films like Mansquito? I suspect the only hope for Doctor Who fans in the United States will be if the BBC makes the new series available on DVD over here.
Richard S. Drake
rsdrake(at)nwark.com
absolutely agree with D.M. Suydam ("Fan Opinion Has Never Counted") and John ("Star Trek Doesn't Need a Rest"). Rick Berman's comments are
ridiculous, and [Brannon] Braga's only surprising plot twist over the years was pulling out the Borg, in any era and [in] every quadrant.
These guys are stuck in the parallel universes of bad Drama and Boredom, and I strongly hope they will never be able to muddy the waters of Trek again.
Thorsten Wulff
contact(at)thorstenwulff.com
'm sorry, Mr. Ron "And since when did we become smarter than the TV executives?" Hall ("Saving Shows Is an Obsession"), and Ms. Elizabeth "television executives are smart enough to know that ratings drive their decisions" Jewell ("TV Executives Aren't Smarter") (although I agree with everything else she wrote)—I concede nothing. If television executives are so smart, then why aren't there more Nielson boxes in sci-fi viewers' homes? If they want to see how well their "alternative" programs are doing, they need to look at the viewing habits of folks interested in that genre. Will & Grace was being watched primarily by a "certain" viewership and those so-called "executives" made sure that those numbers were counted. That show stayed on despite protests and boycott threats.
It seems to me that these executives are very apt to listen to criticism when it pertains to science fiction, a la Dark Angel's lesbian supporting character being censored, then dropped. Decisions are not based on "intelligent" viewing. Although I give the networks their props for coming up with "reality TV" while the actors' strike was going on—and I really don't mean to offend anyone that continues to watch those ever-increasing reality clone-shows and such—I watched a few when they were a novelty. But a lot of those shows are barely believable and definitely not "reality" when you have a camera pointed at you most for the time. The movie, The Truman Show was the best example of a "reality" show. If they're going to have fake television, then what's the problem with science fiction—other than it makes you think? (If it's well written ...)
And to Max (last name withheld) ("Smoking Is BSG's Smallest Concern"), good writing is color-blind. It shouldn't matter if a show meets a quota for token minority characters as long as the show is good. Can anyone tell me how many black actors auditioned for and were denied parts on Battlestar Galactica? When we have those numbers, then we can rise up. I prefer balanced acting to balanced pigmentation. The last thing I would want is for some executive to say, "See, we gave them a chance and they were lousy." That will hurt the minority acting community more than putting them on bad shows. Let's not give television executives the excuse to veto good actors and actresses on the basis of color. Let's get them to stand behind good television.
To that point I have to say, "Here, here." To Mr. John Williams ("Suits Never Got Sci-Fi") (love your music—bet you get that a lot). And to Ross Chamberlain ("Stargate Finale Found Confusing"), I give a hardy "hmmm." We sci-fi aficionados are so used to things going back to the way they were when a time-traveling dilemma is resolved. We may have overlooked the possibility that the characters are not the exact same characters that started the series, although I'm sure they are—anything else would be too creative. Before I read his letter I was on the bandwagon with everyone else about seeing SG-1's return to normalcy and chiding folks with "Did you see the ending at all?" Now I have to rethink that opinion and catch the second part again. Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain, for stimulating my brain. I wish we could do the same for certain television executives out there.
Sash Scott
cptsscott(at)aol.com
he only abyss found between the U.S. and Canada granting its people free speech exists in Terry Goodkind's mind ("Real Freedom Can't Be Granted"). If he thinks that by playing a game of semantics he will impress everyone with his pathetic attempts at patriotic furor, then he has a long way to go to win the hearts and minds of Canadians.
Despite what he believes, Canada doesn't arrest people for complaining about their government. Believe me, I complain about them all the time, and I have been walking freely, speaking my mind, paying my taxes, and living the good life here for the past 41 years. If they had ever wanted me, I'm sure they knew where to find me.
I'm even free to read the news that comes out of the U.S. You know ... stories about people arrested and jailed for wearing T-shirts that speak out against the policies of George W. Bush, the self-proclaimed leader of the so-called Free World.
So, why does Goodkind think he can point a finger at us because of some dusty old document, often ignored if not disparaged, written and rewritten—over some 200 years ago? All it took for Congress to dismiss it was the passage of the Patriot Act, which forever puts an end to all that nonsense about Inalienable Rights.
The temporary added security was nothing more than a fool's trade made in haste by a government in crisis that was all too quick to take power away from its own people. For without the freedom to speak, there is nothing, and for this reason alone, the very power needed to restore your rights is forever lost.
So much for your belief in Freedom's Light.
Brian L. Raney
Brian_l_raney(at)hotmail.com
ow. That Terry Goodkind sure can go on ("Real Freedom Can't Be Granted"). You know, it saddens me that such a thoughtful-sounding guy would rely on such a simplistic, jingoistic argument that the reason some people hate America is because they don't like our "freedom." (Is Mr. Goodkind running for some government office, or something?) I have as much dislike and contempt for fanatics and terrorists as any rational-minded person, but the fact is that there are actual legitimate and reasonable explanations behind why there are a lot of people who harbor ill will towards our—in many ways—great country. Believe me folks, it has very little to do with our freedom (for frelling frak's sake).
I have a Jewish-American friend who currently lives in Bulgaria and has traveled extensively through several predominantly Muslim nearby regions, and he has not once found himself under attack because of his filthy stinking American freedom. In fact, he has pretty much had all positive experiences meeting and interacting with people who are generally fascinated by American culture. Of course, I admit that he has not yet run into any fundamentalists or terrorists yet, but that is probably because they make up an incredibly small minority of the Muslim population.
The reason people are critical of our country is because of a number of dubious actions made by the U.S. government regarding many of its foreign policy decisions over the years. (I am not going to go on a rant and list the specifics because I think those of you out there truly interested in this subject are intelligent enough to find the information for yourselves.) Sure, there are a bunch of idiots who refer to us as the "Great Satan," or whatever, but honestly, I equate the intelligence of that kind of simplistic tagline to the intelligence of the tagline: "They hate us 'cause we're free!"
I don't hate my country, but that does not mean that I have to be blind to its faults, either. It can only be made better by acknowledging and learning from its mistakes.
Speaking of freedom, while Mr. Goodkind is thumbing his nose at the Canadians because they had to draft a law "granting" freedom (a subject I am not knowledgeable enough about to comment on), whereas the "United States was founded on the bedrock philosophical principle that an individual has the right to exist for his own rational ends," it pains me to have to remind him that there were a large number of Americans who spent over 170 years after the Constitution was drafted, fighting for any kind of true freedom at all in this country. Despite being told they were free some years before (around 1862, I believe), we all know that it took a lot longer than that to really kick in. Guess what, Mr. Goodkind? Those American individuals had to be granted permission for their freedoms, too.
And do I also need to remind you that American women individuals were granted their freedom to vote in the year 1920? That was, let's see, 143 years after our inalienable Constitution was adopted. I guess that means that we have embraced "collectivism" and are staring down at the road of "savagery and unspeakable evil," just like the Canadians! Oh dear!
Come on people. We can be better than this.
Also sharing Freedom's Light,
Theo Splint
tsplinter2000(at)yahoo.com
ear Editors: "And even Canada, because of our clear example of the ethical value of liberty upon which America was founded, has come to grant its people the right to speak freely." ("Real Freedom Can't Be Granted")
Wow. Despite the fact that I respect and understand Mr. Goodkind's view on the uniqueness and importance of America's Constitution in the history of the world and mankind, I think this statement jumped out at me more than anything else because it presupposes something I'm not at all sure is true.
I'm not a Canadian, but a significant portion of my family is; I have many friends there and I've spent a lot of time in Canada, and Mr. Goodkind is correct in stating how kind and decent Canadians are. However, although I freely admit I might be wrong, having done no real historical search on the subject, I wonder if he can really make a statement like this. Canada wrote a law because it admired the example set by America? In other words, only the sterling example of their southern neighbors led their government to lift a measure of their oppressive (my word) laws?
Not only is the statement condescending, but it suggests that there is no way that Canada could have come to this decision on its own, which I think is far more likely than any envy or admiration of a country that—while a beacon of freedom for most—is also beset by its own flaws, a lot of them resulting from its unique freedoms. My point is that America's constitution is everything Mr. Goodkind said it is, but Canada is a country of kind, decent, generous people, who have made it their business to create a society that is pretty unique, too. A society where the state takes care of those who can't take care of themselves, and yet allows people to "live and let live." Is it so shocking to consider that a state like that would come to the decision, as part of a natural progression, that the freedom the U.S. enjoyed from inception is one that should be afforded a people that understand freedom is a right—and also a responsibility?
The U.S. is a special and great country, but is it really correct to assume that a country that grants its citizens the same freedoms as the U.S. Constitution does so only because America has shown them the way?
Perhaps Mr. Goodkind should consider that it is not only America's freedoms that some people hate, but the condescending statements, observations and assumptions that Americans make because of their pride in those freedoms. Speak your mind, by all means, but do not assume that that is a singularly American trait—or right—that can be best presented by an American.
I expect that I will receive a storm of letters denouncing me for the aforementioned, so let me just state clearly I am not against America or American ideals, nor do I have a problem with someone underlining their importance to the rest of the world. Without a doubt, Mr. Goodkind and all Americans are entitled to their pride in their country. But other countries are also proud of their history and their society, and other peoples are certainly capable of figuring out right, wrong and what freedom means. Please do us the favor of respecting that when you make overreaching statements about what drives us to make ourselves better people.
R.S. Garcia
[email withheld by request]
In response to Mike Serrano's comments ("So Long, and Thanks for Nothing") on Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I'd just like to say that I thought the movie was great. Perhaps I have an affinity for British humor that I didn't know I had, but I laughed out loud in many places. This movie wasn't a completely sci-fi-centric movie. It was a great amount of humor as well, which I think was a main focus.
To me, that was one of the biggest things that drew me to the book in the first place. Sure, the sci-fi factor could have been more, but I think that'd be straying away from the book. When it comes to turning a book into a movie, I think one the most important things to do is to follow the storyline the original author intended, and I think that that's exactly what they did with this movie. Perhaps my opinion is a popular one, but everyone that I know that's seen this movie has said they liked it, and found it very funny.
Robyn Stillings
gatefiend(at)gmail.com
Back to the top.
