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.
cott Downey's letter ("Earth's Climate Is Always Changing") defending Michael Crichton's novel State of Fear is a gag, right?
First off, he says that "not all scientists agree on global warming." That may indeed be true, but it only means there isn't a consensus among all scientists. You have to ask yourself just how many scientists do agree on global warming? You will find that the overwhelming majority of scientists in the international community agree that climate change is caused by human activity over the last 200 years. You will also find that the majority of GW skeptics being given media coverage are the ones funded by fossil-fuel industries.
Secondly, Downey says that Crichton's book is a novel. Again, that's true, but it is not a defense. If Crichton were just using the novel form to tell a story, that would be fine, but the author has used his profile to create a soapbox from which to proselytize out-of-date "facts" and dubious conclusions based on fake science. But don't take my word for that, do some research online and in credible magazines such as New Scientist and you will find first-rate demolition jobs of Crichton's misguided propaganda.
Downey also argues that "the real no-brainer is climate on Earth is always changing, and not usually for the better of the creatures inhabiting it." That is also correct, but no one is arguing to the contrary—indeed, that is the whole point. It is not that the Earth hasn't warmed before, but the alarm is based on the rate of change since industrialization and the collateral effects on things like the acidity of oceans. Downey's assertion that "everyone is also forgetting that during the Renaissance period, about 1,400 years ago, the average temperature was warmer than even the worst projection and man not only survived but thrived" is just plain wrong. As the New Scientist global warming report explains, the three warmest years on record have been in the last decade. Downey doesn't do himself or his argument any favors by claiming that the Renaissance period was "about 1,400 years ago." The Renaissance in Europe—a culturally rich period between 1450 A.D. and 1600 A.D.—is not a geological age. Instead of 1,400 years ago, it was between 405 and 555 years ago. If Downey's math is any indication of his grasp of facts, then his entire argument is flawed.
Unfortunately, Downey's letter is symptomatic of a mindset that has a half-grasp of facts. His final claim that "most reports" that he is seeing are "talking a few degrees of temperature, certainly less than five, and frankly is it really worth it to destroy an economy over so little?" If the survival of the planet is dependent on stopping Americans driving SUVs while ignoring the majority of scientific thought of even its own scientists, then yes, it is worth it.
If you want to have a debate on global warming, at least get your facts straight and don't rely on a washed-up novelist with a penchant for self-promotion as your source material.
Andrew Frost
tezby(at)hotmail.com
cott Downey ("Earth's Climate Is Always Changing") is factually incorrect—and I don't agree with his opinions, either.
He is factually incorrect about the Medieval Warm Period; it happened in the centuries before 1350—well before the Renaissance. In 1350 we went into the Little Ice Age, which lasted until about 1850. That's why there is so much snow in the portrait of Washington crossing the Delaware that bears no resemblance to the amount of cold and snow in the winters there now. Ditto for English paintings from the 1700s and earlier, where there is also far more snow and cold than Britain sees today.
As to his opinion that environmental lobbyists don't have humans' interests in mind, it shows a big ignorance of the interconnectedness of all living things. Quality of human life depends on the environment, and lobbyists are trying to maintain it. A couple of degrees cumulatively does make a difference: making deserts larger, drying up water resources, decreasing the amount of crops available to feed people. And there are other ripple effects bad for humanity, e.g., people willing to go to war for the resources they need when there is less.
It's a Republican myth that signing Kyoto would "destroy the economy." Oregon has been complying voluntarily with terrific results—complying actually created jobs!—and a much nicer environment for their people. Mr. Downey, you are underestimating Yankee ingenuity and inventiveness. How can anyone rationalize that big business is more important than the health of the planet?
Man is becoming a parasite on the planet (overpopulation), with people with Mr. Downey's attitude pushing us along toward extinction, refusing to see man's cumulative impact on the environment. Because we are the intelligent species, we are the ones with the stewardship of keeping God's green Earth intact. Because of too many people on the planet, carefully maintaining the environment is more important than ever. If we don't maintain the environment, the environment will stop maintaining us—guaranteed.
Barbara Goldstein
psifidoll(at)comcast.net
wanted to chime in about the global warming issue. In regard to "Earth's Climate Is Always Changing," it's true the Earth's climate is always changing. It's also true that scientists have disagreements about global warming, but I think the issue is being politicized and turned into a "he said, she said" kind of debate.
The majority of Earth's climatologists agree that global warming is real. The data shows that the Earth's atmospheric temperature is climbing at an accelerated rate, especially since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. It's also known that there is 150 percent more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there was 100 years ago. There has been an increase of 400 percent in methane concentration in the past 100 years.
Part of the politicization about global warming is being funded by energy companies. They hire scientists to do research to debunk global warming. When you pay somebody enough money, they'll find some information. The problem is all those scientists can do is come up with alternate reasons for the rise in global temperatures. All the debate prevents us from looking at the problem objectively and with seriousness.
I've looked at the facts from the IPCC reports' data and looked up enough data on my own to show me that global warming is real. I've heard tales from a friend who lives in Alaska and is telling me about how the glaciers are now becoming lakes. We hear on the news how chunks of ice the size of Rhode Island are breaking off of Antarctica. (Scientists down there are not skeptical about global warming; they see it up close every day.) Heck, do a Google search regarding the snowcap of Kilimanjaro. The mountain peaks are practically devoid of snow compared to what they were.
In essence, we're living in science-fiction type times. Our ability to mass-produce and mass-consume is putting a strain on the planet's environment and ecosystem. We're at a crossroads; we can bicker about weather global warming is real or not, or we can take action and do what we can to protect the environment. Our technology gives us the ability to alter and change the planet. We can use it and our information to make the world a better place for all living things, or we can just surrender to the greed and ignorance of our species and join the dinosaurs in extinction.
It's time for us to take action and treat our home planet with the respect and the love it deserves. It's the only known planet that harbors life in the universe; let's give it our best shot to evolve past our primitive ape brains and into something more honorable. It's not just about saving endangered animals, it's about preserving humanity, and all we've fought and struggled to build civilization. We owe it to ourselves and our children, and their children's children, not to be ignorant about what effect we have in the world.
David Graham
dgrhm@hotmail.com
n Adam-Troy Castro's excellent review of The Twilight Zone, Seasons 2 & 3, he makes the comment "By the onset of season two, it was struggling in the ratings and battling cancellation." In reality, the series was canceled after its first season. However, CBS had difficulty finding an audience for its programs the following season and brought the series back as a "mid-season replacement" in order to fill a hole in the schedule. The series was canceled again after the second season. But CBS realized there were not enough episodes to sell into syndication (the rule of thumb is 100 episodes, though there have been exceptions). With plans to chop up the previous one-hour installments into 30-minute episodes, CBS produced a third season of half-hour-length programs to pad the package. The third season did not air on CBS but went directly into the syndication market. The third season was done on a much smaller budget and on a tighter schedule. I agree with the review that seasons two and three were uneven in quality, especially when compared to season one.
I am a loyal fan of the series (as well as the original classic), and I was a subscriber to Twilight Zone Magazine at the time. The magazine followed the series closely through all the incarnations and was a valuable source of information at the time.
Like many fans, I was saddened by the poor writing that dominated the UPN version of the series (hosted by Forrest Whitaker). It was a terrible case of wasted potential.
Fans of the original Twilight Zone might be interested in the book California Sorcery, edited by William F. Nolan and William Schafer. The book features stories by the major writers of 1950s and '60s science-fiction film and television and contains excellent introductions giving the history of "The Group."
Lewis Murphy
lmurp02(at)mindspring.com
Reviewer Adam-Troy Castro responds:
Thanks to Lewis for the appreciation. That is admittedly more detail than I knew, but I suppose
limping through a belated second season as a mid-term replacement, after getting an unexpected new lease on life, would be more than amply covered by my phrase "battling cancellation."
The relatively wretched quality of the more recent UPN incarnation (despite a very few recognizable high points) may have been due to the same factor that has doomed a number of attempted TV fantasy-anthologies over the years: a sad lack of familiarity with the genre's history, which prevented those responsible from taking advantage of promising source material or
filtering out the hackneyed, obvious ideas that were old even when Serling rifled through them. If anybody involved with this one had actually read any short stories, it didn't show on screen. How much better the show might have been had somebody known the field they were laboring in, and even in the absence of genuine inspiration known what not to do?
Best,
Adam
an Spelling really needs to do some homework before he starts bashing a movie. Being a comic collector for 30+ years, I can tell you the movie characters fit the roles of the comic versions.
Thing and Torch were played to a T. Their lines fit both easily, especially Reed Richards, forever the scientist who puts his life on hold to analyze a piece of dust. The only one that was a bit different was Sue Storm/Alba, but the changes were needed for the translation. Dr. Doom, perfectly megalomaniac, egotistical and as power-hungry as his comic counterpart.
I thoroughly enjoyed [Fantastic Four], had some decent laughs and felt these
were Stan and Jack's creations on the big screen. Ian, let someone who knows the books review a movie based off of them.
Todd [last name withheld]
weyrleader(at)charter.net
just read the review of Fantastic Four. Give me a break. The movie will definitely not win an Oscar as best film of the year, but it is fun to look at, just like the comic book was back in the '60s. I have been reading comic books, mainly Marvel, since 1964. What more do you want, considering the movie doesn't entirely follow the comic-book origin of Dr. Doom or the FF? I especially like the casting of a black woman as Ben's true love, Alicia. Seeing Stan Lee as a mailman was also a nice touch. Look, I waited years for technology to catch up with Stan Lee's vision, and it finally has. Yes, I would love to see the FF battle Galactus and see the Silver Surfer. The Watcher is probably shaking his large head at the wonder of all this. Hey, it was a movie and it entertained; That's the bottom line. Thanks, Stan, for your vision, and thank God for allowing us true believers for seeing it on the big screen.
'Nuff said.
Ron [last name withheld]
rontairborne(at)aol.com
our review of Fanastic Four lacked substance when it needed it. True, it was a terrible movie on the overall scale, but your depiction of its errors lack much muster. Also, there are some humorous scenes in the movie. If you don't remember them, perhaps you should watch the movie among other people and see how they react. Quite frankly, people don't care how you liked the movie, they want to know how other people and themselves will enjoy it. Thanks—just positive criticism.
Michael King
Michael.King(at)spectrumretail.com
bviously [Ian Spelling] and the rest of the people at the screening [he] attended did not see the same film [Fanastic Four] that I did. I saw it in a nearly packed theater, with regular folks. There was plenty of laughter, and the audience reaction to the film was quite positive.
This is movie based on a comic book—for general audiences. What exactly did you expect? It was fine escapist summer humor. Nothing more or less.
Sorry you missed the fun.
Colin Ferguson
GoBLUEinGA(at)aol.com
Reviewer Ian Spelling responds:
Reviews are opinions, and I make no apologies for stating my view of FF. I wanted to like the film, believe me. But to Colin's point that it was escapist entertainment, I felt that what should have been fun and campy turned out to be silly. There's a fine line between escapist and empty. The special effects weren't all that special, and overall the film looked as if it were shot on a New York set in Vancouver—and most of it was. When the level of FX has been raised so high by the likes of Star Wars and War of the Worlds, it's frankly hard to watch FF's at-times-cheesy visuals and even harder to praise them. They were, again, my humble opinion, the equivalent of what you'd see on an episode of Mutant X or Earth: Final Conflict.
Yes, a few bits were inspired. Yes, it was fun to see Stan Lee make his latest cameo, but—and this one goes out to Ron—I chose not to include it so as not to ruin the surprise for anyone. If I'd put it in, people may have groused about my doing so. To Michael's point that I should have seen the movie among other people, I did (and that fact was mentioned in the review). It was a full house—a New York City full house of jaded, cynical media types, but also lots of everyday people—and you could hear a pin drop with each punch line. To Michael's other points: That people don't care about a reviewer's personal opinion and that they want to know if other people will enjoy it, I'd argue that the point of a review is express an opinion, to address pros and cons, to advise moviegoers as to what they're getting themselves into, etc. Personally, I like to read reviews, generally after watching a movie, to see how my opinion jibes with someone else's. And, in my own reviews, I'm the first to mention the reaction of the audience, as quite frequently people cry at scenes that leave me cold or crack up at jokes that elicit no reaction from me.
To another of Ron's points: I also appreciated the casting of an African-American woman as Alicia. Kerry Washington is both talented and lovely, and her moments with Michael Chiklis clicked nicely.
Best,
Ian
obody knows anything" is the mantra of the entertainment business, and certainly I am no exception. Moreover, the unpredictability of Hollywood success or failure is further enhanced by the indelible and seemingly permanent biases we all have in one form or another.
Before reading War of the Worlds or hearing the Welles broadcast or seeing the "classic" movie, I had read the Classics Illustrated version, and, in my young and impressionable state, that faithful and beautiful comic book remained unsurpassed even by H.G.'s 1898 original work. (Yes, the first graphic novel has been republished. Grab it!) No matter how good or great the Spielberg/Cruise adaptation may be, it's not going to change my biased opinion.
(Surely there's somebody out there who saw past Pal's FX to Gene Barry, a second-rate TV actor, screaming, "Sylvia! Sylvia!" at the movie's climax. "Classic?" In a pig's eye!)
Which brings us to the latest Hollywood remake of a property that's been a movie so bad it went unreleased, a series of comic books going back more than forty years and a variety of cartoon shows. Yet another uninspired "reimagining" on its way to the dustbin of trivia?
The Fanastic Four had been through more writers, directors and actors than any other comic-book movie in history. And don't ask about the property lawsuits! The buzz on the film was poor, and early reviews on the 'net were awful. Then the network, newspaper and magazine critics trashed the film. But the most scathing reviews were those by FF purists who condemned the movie as an outright desecration of their beloved superhero team.
So how come the movie did $56 million in its opening week, nearly double what the studio that released it thought it would gross?
Well, it seems the audience, the vast majority of whom had never read an FF comic or seen an FF cartoon, went into the theater unbiased and liked what they saw. The paying customers did not compare this FF to any other. "Virgin" eyes saw a newness that we experienced fans had long since lost, forgotten or had never seen in the first place.
Sorry, but that's their problem. For me, the FF peaked in the mid-1960s with Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and Joe Sinnott at the peak of their collaboration—that FF was MY FF, "The world's greatest comic magazine!" and no movie or cartoon or comic book thereafter was going to challenge my bias.
It's almost like "imprinting." That image just adheres to your consciousness and doesn't let go. That's what great SF&F is supposed to do!
Robert De Niro has won two Academy Awards, and his appearance as Frankenstein's monster was the most faithful to Mary Shelley's creation. Therefore, De Niro is the definitive monster? Only to those who have never seen Boris Karloff's portrayal. That soulful image will never leave me.
Then again, I'm biased and always will be.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA(at)aol.com
n response to Lulli Doppler's "Opinions Shouldn't Be Personal" ... I will gladly admit I am a huge fan of the movies, never claimed otherwise and never will. I'm glad you got a kick out of my artistic license in exaggerating my state of shock by my suggestion that I'd write a 10-page letter—that's what it was meant for! I just wanted to be sure to get across my shock at someone completely dismissing the work of a person who's had a tremendous effect on an entire generation of movie goers. Something just saying "I was shocked" wouldn't have made as clear. However, I did take offense at your suggestion that I had some personal stake in Mr. Brazil's letter ("Lucas Deserves His Cash and Kudos.") and do not know the difference between movies and real life. That was personal, and neither correct nor friendly.
My point in the letter was precisely what I said—pointing out that people seemed to be missing the fun of [the Star Wars] films, which made it and the originals before it such megahits. They've never been about flawless storylines or acting. It just seemed to me, in the recent letters detracting from it, that the fun and joy that these movies have brought to people were completely lost on those who seem to have become more than a little jaded and cynical. To say the acting was sometimes wooden, correct. To say Lucas isn't the best director or writer, I have to agree again. But do these things equal films with absolutely no merit whatsoever? I've got to raise a hand in objection. My letter was just an attempt to balance the scales a bit, since I didn't see many opposing opinions to the jaded critics.
I'd also like to add a short agreement and "hoorah" again to TJ, who wrote exactly what I was thinking in "Lucas Is More Than a Daddy Warbucks." I started to write myself; however, real life prohibited me from taking the time last week.
Back to my "girlfriend" Lulli: I'm not sure if you named your piece or not, but I have to ask ... if an opinion isn't personal, what is it?
Yolanda Webb
ylw31(at)yahoo.com
s a writer, I just have to take exception to TJ's opinion that there is no such thing as an original idea ("Lucas Is More Than a Daddy Warbucks."). Maybe none of mine are original, but I have read plenty of works which are not only highly creative, but also highly original.
True, there are no original ideas in Star Wars (or indeed, in most movies), but that is all the more reason to check out your local library.
Richard S. Drake
rsdrake(at)nwark.com
ll the good reviews that Dark Water has been getting are just. Director Walter Salles uses a paceful direction that Stanley Kubrick would have approved of, and Jennifer Connelly and Ariel Gade are the female equivalent of Bruce Willis and Haley Joel Osment. The talents of Tim Roth, John C. Reilly, Dougray Scott, Camryn Manheim and especially Pete Postlethwaite are never wasted, and Perla Haney-Jardine is as chillingly effective as Daveigh Chase is for the Ring films. This is one of the best horror thrillers in recent years, and I expect that it will endure along with others en route to the cinema in the near future, including Red Eye and The Exorcism of Emily Rose. Four stars.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
his 77-year-old grandmother has always loved good sci-fi and fantasy. I read H.G. Wells' book, remember Orson Welles' broadcast and loved the movie of the '50s. I have not yet seen the new movie but I can't wait! I was watching the '50s [version] the other day and thinking, "I usually hate remakes (they're almost always bad) but in this case, with the advances in special effects, I wish they would." Well, at the movie's end they announced it was being remade and by Steven Spielberg, no less. Wow! He does such a good job; Close Encounters of the Third Kind remains among my favorite all-time movies.
As to this new War of the Worlds, I am not looking for any dark meanings, just a heck of a good yarn. Of course, I, too, am afraid of terrorism, but I guess I try to leave it with good fantasy. I don't want to see us attacked from outer space; we do too good a job ourselves. I also am a Jurassic Park fan. So I say, long live Steven with his excellence in whisking us away to new worlds, and may he continue!
Jane Hardt
jhardt(at)webtv.net
Back to the top.
