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.
egarding Issue 428's review of War of the Worlds:
Ray Ferrier (Cruise), a divorced New Jersey dockworker, is not much of a father to his two children, 11-year-old Rachel (Fanning) and teenage Robbie (Chatwin). When Ray's ex-wife, the very pregnant Mary Ann (Miranda Otto), drops them off for the weekend, Ray's late, and the kids can barely bring themselves to say hello.
Actually, as a native of Staten Island, N.Y., I can tell you that Ray Ferrier actually lives in Port Richmond, in Staten Island, N.Y. That bridge that features prominently in the early scenes of the movie (until it is destroyed) is the Bayonne Bridge that connects Bayonne, N.J., to Staten Island.
We also see, when he is fleeing in the working SUV, shots of him traveling along two Staten Island Expressways.
I can understand the confusion, since Ferrier and the kids should have crossed the Goethals Bridge to get to New Jersey, but all we see is a flash of a sign that says "Last Exit in New York."
But Ferrier clearly works in Brooklyn, and lives in Staten Island.
Paul Weimer
jvstin(at)mindspring.com
Reviewer Patrick Lee responds:
You may be correct about the actual locations used for shooting the various scenes in the movie, but they are supposed to be standing in for Bayonne, N.J., where Ray is supposed to live, according to the story of the film. As in all things having to do with the movies, things aren't always what they seem.
Best,
Patrick
just saw War of the Worlds and found it a huge disappointment. I thought [Steven] Spielberg and [Tom] Cruise could conjure up something better than this. I rate a movie on how quickly I get so bored by the movie that I check the time on my watch.
Most of the movies this year, so far, with the exception of Mr. & Mrs. Smith, I've checked the time within the first hour of the movie. A really good movie, the movie's over before I think about checking the time. I checked my watch 35 minutes into War of the Worlds.
[Spoilers ahead.]
Forty minutes into the movie it's revealed that the "aliens" entered their tripod machines by riding lightning into the ground where they were buried a long time ago. Well, if they buried the machines "a long time ago," why didn't they take over the planet then? Also, they are eventually defeated by bacteria that's all around us and we've grown accustomed to. But if they were here before, why weren't they exposed to the bacteria then and realized there was a danger? I also have a question about the ending. Cruise triumphantly arrives at his ex-wife's house in Boston on a street that's barely been affected, when all through the movie the aliens destroy everything they see. On my way out of the movie I overheard a number of people say they thought the movie would be better than this. So did I. The aliens were ripoffs of the ones that appeared in Independence Day; the tripods were interesting, but after the great special effects of Lord of the Rings I expect nothing less, and actually better, than what was in this movie.
I'm sure that it will make a lot of money. It's been hyped enough to put people in the seats, but I wonder how long they'll keep filling them.
Gary Roelli
gjwr(at)excite.com
evin Ahearn's recent letter ("This War Isn't Wells or Welles") anent War of the Worlds and the state of what he calls "the sci-fi community" misses on almost all its facets. He asks if anyone ever has read the H.G. Wells novel, after proclaiming that Orson Welles' 1938 radio broadcast ranks as the top presentation of a science-fiction novel. Wells' novel was written in 1898, which he states. Though his letter fairly is well written (save for the sentence fragment "The irony of genius and those incapable of understanding it."), that almost is the only factual statement that he makes.
Wells' novel took place in England. Welles' radio adaptation took place in New Jersey. The novel exists in a print medium. The radio version existed on the airwaves and now exists in electronic transcription. Wells' novel took place in 1898. Welles' radio adaptation took place in 1938. Thus, only the novel itself is a presentation of a science-fiction novel.
H.G. Wells was trained as a medical doctor but quickly became dissatisfied with the state of medical science, and in fact science in general, in his era. His writings, therefore, reflected what his imagination wished for both medical science and science to be. One only has to read The War In The Air and The New Accelerator to understand really what H.G. Wells was all about.
As was Wells, perhaps, Kevin Ahearn has become dissatisfied with the state of science fiction in his era. But he merely demonstrates his own failure of imagination by not offering solutions to the problems he seems to see. Quoting Harlan Ellison out of context is not a solution.
The point that he misses most severely is his own that, if H.G. Wells came back as his Time Traveler, Wells would return to his own era and reimagine the start of the 21st century the way that all the rest of us would wish that it could be.
What time is it?
Russell Bates
writerfella(at)iwon.com
looked at all the flack about Luke asking Leia whether she remembered her "real mother" (Star Wars Scene Misquoted, "Lucas Didn't Create Discrepancies.") and sort of snorted. Were anyone to ask me if I remembered my real mother, I'd say "Oh, yes!" Post-birth, I never met my natal mother, barely even had correspondence with her, and wouldn't know her if I fell over her in the street. (Please understand, she did what she thought best for me;
and I respect her for that.) But I certainly remember my late nurturant mother, who lovingly raised me from the age of seven days, and that to me is who a real mother is.
Lucki M. Wilder
lucki1844(at)hotmail.com
ollywood is suffering through a terrible slump, the worst in 20 years. Some blame technology, claiming that DVD + HDTV + big home screens and super sound systems, though expensive, were purchased as investments: to save money by staying home rather than going to the movies. Moreover, DVD extras give the viewer a better show for the buck. High ticket prices and the skyrocketing cost of gasoline are also cited as contributing factors, as is competition from video games and 100+ channels television packages.
All of the above would seem to explain the film fall-off, but it's a rationalization of what's been building up for years, like fat on vital arteries, and is now killing the industry.
Worse than both world wars, the toughest time in modern American history was the Great Depression. Yet people flocked to theaters as never before. Yes, the prices were lower, but the movie houses were, by and large, dismal affairs running black-and-white talkies few speak about today. In an age long before TV and computers, people needed a 90-minute escape, and Hollywood gave them what they wanted to pay money to see.
The most popular film of the era? Not a remake or a reimagining or a sequel. A movie about a moviemaker determined to give the public "something it had never seen before": King Kong.
Has the industry learned nothing from Carl Denham?
It's not that Sith was a mediocre film, but the sixth Star Wars movie. Batman Begins after five other Batman movies. Superman Returns after four (or is it five?) Superman movies.
Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise are Tinsel Town's "dynamic duo," and the best they could put up on the big screen was a CGI soap opera/disaster story ripped from an 1898 novel whose copyright had long expired. What's their next project? A Scientology remake of Halloween extolling "mental health values"?
The show must repeat itself, and it will. Is there anybody still willing to pay to see T4 or 007 for the how-manyth time?
And the TV series and sitcoms turned into movies? I saw them on TV originally. Why pay money to see a TV show in a movie theater?
It's gotten so bad that one cinema chain is offering your money back, no questions asked, if Ron Howard's Cinderella Man fails to entertain you. It's not that Russell Crowe's latest is poorly conceived or inadequately produced and directed, but customers would rather wait and see a well-made "period piece" with extras on DVD.
What's Hollywood to do? Simple—make better movies. Instead of the constant rehash of seemingly safe investments, start taking chances on new stories by new writers. Wake up to the New Millennium and smell the $6 popcorn.
Of course, this letter is written to blind eyes. Hollywood will continue to believe that the audience will always be there. The industry has been around for more than a century and will go on for a century more. To those smugly arrogant and overconfident studio moguls and dealmakers, blissfully unaware of the "800-pound gorilla" about to break free from their grasp, let us remember the image of Carl Denham as he, ironically, addressed a packed theater at Kong's coming-out ...
"Don't be alarmed, ladies and gentlemen. Those chains are made of chrome steel."
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA(at)aol.com
es Kapler ("Crichton Sells Name, Not Science") and Matt Frey ("Climate Change Is Real") should remember three things. One, not all scientists agree on global warming, and, two, Crichton's book is a novel. And the real no-brainer is climate on Earth is always changing, and not usually for the better of the creatures inhabiting it.
Everyone is also forgetting that during the Renaissance period, about 1400 years ago, the average temperature was warmer than even the worst projection and man not only survived but thrived. So what will happen is the growing region will change, possibly for the worse, but possibly for the better. And the other thing is [that] most reports I am seeing is talking a few degrees of temperature, certainly less than five, and frankly is it really worth it to destroy an economy over so little? You really should read his work and realize the environmentalist lobbies really don't have mankind's interest in mind.
Scott Downey
scott_downey(at)hotmail.com
n my readings about about the new Cylons [in Battlestar Galactica], I get the impression that a number of people are confused as to whether they are androids or cyborgs ("Cyborgs Are Not Androids").
Certainly the original ruling class were depicted as self-aware androids similar to Star Trek's Data, with the warrior class more robotic, but still with an ability to think for itself.
Cyborgs though are, at the low end, the prosthetic enhanced Steve Austins' Six Million Dollar Man, up to the totally altered Cybermen of Doctor Who. (Who I still find better than ST's cyborgs—such clutter!), with the Daleks and Robocop somewhere inbetween.
This new breed can breed, and so are neither. They are biotronic at the cellular level up, and therefore, more a manufactured class of human probably more related to a test tube than assembly line.
I have tried to search for a movie I saw years ago that had the same sort of evolution from robot to breeding-enabled human, but without success. Though this movie had the hero and heroine being led off by a maligned but benign robot class for a final fit-out, both finding they were in fact wearing bodies provided by the robots due to life-threatening injuries. I may be wrong—it has been some time since I saw this movie, but I believe they were as indistinguishable from "real" humans as the new Cylons.
Steve Boyce
boycesteve(at)msn.com
he new SG-1 programs are all in high-definition. Everyone please ask DirecTV and Time
Warner to make HD channels available for SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis. HD is not
in its infancy. DirecTV is going to put on 1,500 new HD channels this fall (2005), but their plans are to pick up all local TV stations in HD, rather than putting new cable channels on HD.
This is illogical, since most locals already get their HD local channels over the air. The stores are displaying mostly HD TVs. Its time for the programming providers to step up to the plate and offer our favorite channels in HD, such as SCI FI.
Gene [last name withheld]
g.preston(at)ieee.org
athan Brazil ("Lucas Wields Money, Not Talent") needs to realize that George Lucas' talent made him his money, and that Lucas' money, in turn, has financed many, if not most, of his projects. To suggest otherwise is to locate Lucas within a Hollywood locus—whether of movie company decisions or of trade union actions—that Lucas has pointedly spent most of his career trying to escape.
Rick Spotten's ("Star Wars Scene Misquoted") attempt to resurrect the alleged Star Wars inconsistency discussed previously fails largely because it is irrelevant whether Luke asked Leia in Star Wars: Episode VI about her "mother" or her "real mother." There's nothing to suggest at this point that Leia would know that she is adopted. Only after this question does Luke reveal to a confused Leia that she is his sister (and hence that she is adopted).
Finally, Les Kapler ("Crichton Sells Name, Not Science") needs to look more closely at Michael Crichton's footnotes in State of Fear. Almost all of the material footnoted within the book is from the last five to 10 years. It should be pointed out here, as well, that the view of science Kapler raises as a discipline of accumulating evidence is useless as a critique in this context, given the Kuhnian or postmodernist view of science that Crichton puts forward.
Robert Burg
robwbur(at)netscape.net
t was interesting to see Yolanda Webb ("Lucas' Fun Can't Be Dismissed") compound the erroneous rebuttal from TJ ("Lucas Deserves His Cash and Kudos."). Her pronouncement that she was "too shocked by Mr. Brazil's statement in that letter to try to sit down and write a clear letter in retaliation that wouldn't take up 10 pages" made me laugh out loud. Only a fanatic would be shocked by one man presenting an opinion, and think it would warrant a 10-page reply! Let alone retaliation, which suggests to me a child-like sense of personal aggrievement. Is this what watching too much Star Wars does to a true believer? It's the movies, girlfriend, not real life.
Shooting, like an X-Wing, into her own universe, Ms. Webb added "to completely dismiss the downright fun of getting to see something like the scene between two iconic characters such as Yoda and the Emperor finally having a go at each other ..." Who, on these pages, has dismissed fun? Mr. Brazil and other Star Wars detractors can, on occasions, seem a little jaded and cynical. But then, it could be said that Yoda, Mace Windu and Obi Wan Kenobi have all exhibited those traits.
Lulli Doppler
lulli(at)minx.co.uk
ell, Mr. Brazil. I have read your letter ("Lucas Wields Money, Not Talent") and taken in what you have said. Let me respond.
If the Star Wars saga (prequels included) are filled with, as you say, "rubbish," in terms of plot, character, story, not to mention a total lack of originality, then why has it become so successful? Why have lines and imagery from these films become ingrained in the cultural landscapes of not only English-speaking countries, but around the world? Are we, as you said in your a original letter ("Lucas Doesn't Deserve AFI Award,") a bunch of gullible saps that Lucas is just squeezing money out of?
Well, for one thing, there really is no such thing as an original idea. What's original is taking old ideas and recasting them in a totally different way. That is what Lucas has done. He has taken both old and modern mythology and spun them together in a sprawling sci-fi epic in a way no one had ever attempted before. If you think that Darth Vader is just an asthmatic with a Nazi helmet (although actually the helmet has a Japanese influence) and that Chewbacca is just a walking rug, then I think you are missing the point of Star Wars entirely. And that I cannot help you with.
Now, it is true that the people you listed in your last letter have helped Lucas enormously during his career. Although, to be honest, how could it be any other way? Filmmaking has always been a collaborative art form and, to the best of my knowledge, Lucas has never failed to give credit where credit is due. As for Spielberg and Ford making Indiana Jones a cultural icon, it's important to note that Mr. Ford would not have a character to play nor Mr. Spielberg a film to direct if Mr. Lucas had not come up with the idea of Indiana Jones in the first place.
Lastly, I must take serious issue with the idea that Lucas has been nothing more than an investor with deep pockets and that this is how all the innovations in filmmaking he has made were realized. With all due respect, that's not how the world works. Things don't happen simply because you throw money at them. To borrow a quote from Jurassic Park, "Innovation is an act of sheer will." It also takes something called leadership. Mr. Lucas worked hard to place himself outside of the Hollywood system so that he could do things his way. Yes, he cultivated a large number of talented artists to make his various companies successful. But they wouldn't have become so successful if not for his direction. He's not the kind of guy who just sits behind his desk writing checks. He makes things happen. I'm also anxious to see just what the new Presidio facility in San Francisco is going to produce.
Whether as a director, producer or industry innovator, films are what they are today (good, bad or indifferent) in part because of what he's done. I guess there's really nothing I can say that's going to change your opinion. But I felt it necessary to make my case just the same. It's easy to tear something down and say it's rubbish. It's a lot harder to take an idea and make it a reality for all to see.
TJ
maxgremlin(at)adelphia.net
Back to the top.
