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.
ardon me if I have this wrong: Mike Szymanski, the reviewer of the new Wallace & Gromit movie, doesn't like it [because it] is "too British"? Gee, I wonder why? Does every movie made for international release have to be Americanized before he likes it? Should Nick Park have put in a few Starbucks references, or have Wallace make some throwaway pop-culture references?
And a product of the cynically calculating Hollywood sausage factory, Disney "girl power" movie Twitches gets a better rating? Just how pathetically xenophobic can you get? It's a safe bet that The Curse of the Were-Rabbit will be enjoyed by more people around the world for years to come than some paint-by-numbers "girl power" movie.
Perhaps Mike should wait for a watered-down Hollywood remake, or an American-dubbed version, so he doesn't have to suffer any nasty foreign accents.
Mark Allen
mwallen(at)tpg.com.au
Reviewer Mike Szymanski responds:
Blimey, bloke! I don't think every movie should be Americanized, but if you're competing with other mainstream films you should be aware that there are some things that won't translate easily for kids here. I know Nick Park went out of his way to make the voices and expressions more clear, to assuage the concerns of the Dreamworks execs, but when my nephew kept asking me about certain words and my mom (an immigrant) asked if they were speaking a foreign language, then you know something more could have been done. So not on your nelly am I suggesting flickers should get more Yankified, but punters get aggro when their rabbit sounds like it's from the green wellie brigade.
Best,
Mike
egarding the letter from Walter James Linsley ("Non-SF News Is Unnecessary"):
Unfortunately, I too have written about this weird sort of sci fi reporting ... this tendency to allow for non-sci-fi-related "spatial matter" to make it on the site. I wrote three times about it and received not a single response. I'm glad at least Walter did.
I believe in sci-fi, and ... sci-fi funny. Two separate subjects altogether. But at least loosely related. I also believe that people tend to group anything they can't readily classify as anything else as sci-fi, like sci-fi is some dumping ground or something. It's irritating to see it happen.
Sometimes, the SCI FI site does not help straighten out the confusion, either. This kind of reporting is not always solely related to the news section.
Take your polls, for example. I can remember seeing time and time again the SCI FI [Wire] site asking people to rate shows. While most people would assume that since you are the SCI FI site, you'd be interested in ... SCI FI. Instead, what do I see? Bart Simpson outranking Stargate SG-1! Heh heh! For example! C'mon!
I like Bart, but Ol' Bart should have his own site ... not taking up space on here on the SCI FI site. I also understand that this is not a dedicated site, but more like a one-stop for sci-fi fans that like not just sci-fi but other things (i.e., shows, etc.) as well. Problem is, after all the years I've been visiting this site, this is the first time that I've ever seen anyone try to explain why you report the way you do.
While it's nice to see someone attempt to explain things a little, I certainly hope that the SCI FI site does not take this explanation as a blank check to start reporting like that put-me-to-sleep People magazine.
Ya might want to consider not reporting everything that falls into your ... bailiwick.
Chris Taylor
xbravo(at)min.midco.net
SCI FI Wire news editor Patrick Lee responds:
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, but we don't cover the Simpsons, though perhaps we should.
As for people's expectations of what the SCIFI.COM news service should cover, I can't really speak to them. All I can do is explain what we've set out to do and hope that it is of some use.
Best,
Patrick
want to thank you for all you've done to promote the reruns of Firefly and big-screen reruns of Serenity.
That said, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please ... x infinity, produce a new run of Firefly/Serenity.
With over $17 million in two weeks domestically on the big screen, 500k DVD sets sold and a 1.3 rating on 7 p.m. Friday reruns on your own network, I think this Firefly ship has proven it has what it takes to break atmo once again.
With first-run shows like Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis and Battlestar Galactica garnering 1.7 to 2.0 ratings for new episodes, and a production cost that should be in line with BSG's, I don't think there's a power in 'verse that would stop Firefly/Serenity from being a hit on SCI FI Friday.
Tom Loveman
tloveman(at)mac.com
have been visiting your site weekly for a couple of years now, and I'm sure I am not the only reader that has noticed that there are many readers who seem to complain at the drop of pin whenever they are confronted by even mildly risqué content. It seems that many of these readers are way too sensitive when it comes to this type of content, so it was rather surprising to me that there were no letters of protest in regard to the season finale of Battlestar Galactica. I myself wrote a letter in defense of that episode anticipating the torrent of negativity that I felt would inundate your e-mail box. Imagine my surprise when a second week went by and there was still no response from anyone mentioning this episode, pro or con, posted in your letters section.
I refuse to believe there was no response in fact; based on the angry responses to past SCI FI Channel (or general sci-fi) content that seems mild by comparison, nothing you can say will convince me that you were not swamped by letters dedicated to the BSG second-season finale. You do a grave disservice to your readers and viewers by not posting these responses to a sci-fi series that may just be the most sophisticated, mature and complex sci-fi TV series ever.
Although I personally believe that sometimes war is unavoidable, I am fully cognizant of the fact that in every war, truly awful things happen to the good guys, the bad guys and innocent civilians. Science fiction is a genre that all too often glorifies war while rarely depicting the truly savage nature of not just the battles but the resultant collateral damage. Of course, there are exceptions, but whenever an attempt is made to depict the brutality of war, it usually falls short in the gravitas department and has the forced feel of a redeeming afterthought.
If your entire view of war was based solely on how it's depicted in movies and TV shows, you would be completely unaware that the rape of women has been a main component in nearly every war. It's one thing to know intellectually that war is horrible; it is quite another to fully realize this and, in choosing to ignore all responses to this episode, Science Fiction Weekly passed up a golden opportunity to facilitate any meaningful dialogue that could only serve to impress upon some of its readers how dreadful war truly is.
The decision not to post these letters is particularly galling in light of our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. Arguably, one campaign is generally viewed as just, the other dubious. Regardless of how you feel, there is no mistaking that civilians are dying, prisoners have been tortured and humiliated, and all the while American and British boys and girls are dying and losing limbs by the thousands.
You also lost out on an opportunity to teach some of these same viewers what sci-fi is at its heart: a glimpse into the human condition in all its glory and joy, as well as its pain and brutality.
There is plenty of sci-fi fluff out there for the escapist in all of us. Give those of us who are not afraid to stare into the abyss the opportunity to defend this type of meaningful and definitely worthy sci-fi. Like it or not, the abyss has been staring back at us since the first caveman bashed his brother's head in with a rock, or since Cain killed Abel, if you prefer.
Orlando Pantoja
[address withheld by request]
Assistant Editor Brian Murphy responds:
Actually, Orlando, the massive swarm of indignant letters that you assume we received and subsequently refused to publish ... doesn't exist. Believe it or not, the absence of such letters from this site wasn't due to malicious censorship on our part. Rather, it was because no such letters ever came in.
While it's true we don't publish every single letter we receive, we do try to present the Letters column as a sampling of reader feedback. If the column seems weighted toward a particular issue or topic during any particular week, that's because the slant of the feedback affected that selection.
We don't create the Letters, we just publish them.
Best,
Brian
was reading your newsletter and I was ecstatic to see that finally there is going to be a John Carter of Mars movie. Even though the director of the movie wants to do 11 movies to encompass the "eleven" books, I personally would prefer that he stop after 10 due to the fact that the 11th book was, in actuality, never completed—unless it was completed in the last few years. The 11th book, The Skeleton Men of Jupiter, never was truly completed.
However, I believe that I would be one of the first to go to see the first movie, in the hope that it will do the book justice. Edgar Rice Burroughs was, to me, one of the few sci-fi writers that wrote books as if they were movie scripts.
One other thing: I am looking for someone that would be willing to assist me by illustrating a sci-fi book that I am working on. Even though I can be a bit on the thorough side when describing something, I would like to have illustrations so the readers can see with their eyes what I see with my mind.
Glenn Sellers
drivernjax(at)yahoo.com
hreshold. What a disappointment. I loved the series opener of Threshold, where some sort of E.T. presence was felt and invaded human civilization. I love the four-dimensional possibilities and bit of "hard" science that was thrown in (even if it might not have been totally logical, as some might argue). That was awesome.
However, much like many of the unfortunate human souls that became a type of alien zombie, the show transformed into something extremely predictable and utterly unentertaining.
I watched the second show hoping for some more E.T. interaction. None. But there was some more human/alien zombie action.
How about the third show? Hey ... what's this? Even more human/alien zombie action!
That's it ... I'm done with this stupid show. Maybe the producers have a limited budget and feel the whole E.T. and technology thing are beyond their means. But, unless something dramatically changes in the plot and some harder sci-fi come into play, they've lost me as a viewer.
Bruce Goldstein
[address withheld]
'd like to thank the SCI FI Channel for rebroadcasting the current episodes of Surface after they've run on NBC. I receive a very poor signal from my "local" NBC affiliate, which is about 50 miles away. Being able to watch the digital feed from my dish allows me to actually see what's happening during the program, and I've become a big fan of the show.
I wish other networks would follow their lead. Since dish users are not allowed to receive the big networks if there is a local affiliate, I rarely watch NBC, CBS or FOX—the picture is just too crappy. (All my "local" affiliates are in the next state.) Luckily, we do not have an ABC station locally, so I enjoy clear viewing of Lost, Night Stalker, etc.
Dave Garcia
msharp(at)ivnet.org
he new Night Stalker faces off with CSI and just might wind up on that series' autopsy table before the end of this season. I myself have seen no ratings reports, but I'm looking for same.
Three episodes have aired so far. The pilot episode was unfocused and a bit slow for the first half or so, as though the writer was unsure of his material. Yes, it was Frank Spotnitz, and that may be why the new series more closely resembles The X-Files rather than the classic Kolchak: The Night Stalker. We find the new Kolchak (Stuart Townsend, who was Dorian Gray in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) to be near middle age, that he is fairly well off, with a glass house in the Hollywood hills, and that he works as a respected reporter for the Los Angeles Beacon. He has become isolated and morose because of the mysterious death of his wife, whose murder caused him to be accused and arrested but never tried due to lack of evidence. An FBI agent seemingly is convinced that Kolchak is the murderer and is watching and waiting for Kolchak to make just one wrong move. The agent mostly disappeared after the pilot. And there is a barely seen hint of a conspiracy that mainly is manifested by an odd, lightning-like red mark on some murder victims' wrists.
The Beacon's editor, again, is Tony Vincenzo, though only peripherally used or even seen. He does team Kolchak with a black woman reporter and a young white photojournalist so the Beacon can get some useful stories out of its former star journalist. What they have investigated so far are strange deaths that play more like the series' characters are crime scene detectives rather than newsprint jockeys looking into the supernatural or even the supranatural. Halfway through the pilot, the story wakened and turned both suspenseful and satisfying. I saw two homages to the classic series: 1. We briefly see a Darren McGavin lookalike leaning against a desk as we pan across the busy Beacon newsroom, and 2. We see the original Kolchak's porkpie straw hat on a hatrack in the new Kolchak's glass house.
The pilot seemed to be about the Chupacabra, as if it were a product of Area 51 rather than a supernatural beast. Episode two resembled episodes of The X-Files about the mental "pusher." And the third was about an undefined evil force left over after a child died from fright. So far, the young photojournalist has not had that much to do. The black woman reporter more or less is on an equal footing with Kolchak and is a worthy character.
The new Kolchak wears an expression of pained stoicism and seems fairly unexcitable. He might better have been portrayed as cynical and jaded, as was the original. New guy Townsend fairly makes you want to tell him to take two Tylenol and call back in the morning.
If the new series is to survive, it will have to do a whole hell of a lot better, storywise. The worst comparison that can be made between the classic and the new is that the new series almost completely lacks a sense of humor, a matter that won over and charmed the audience for the classic series. There are humorous moments, to be sure, about one per 11-minute act. With luck, much amelioration, and maybe a timeslot change, it might last out the current season. The original, we know, lasted only one season. At this point, that's something else for which to shoot.
What time is it?
Russell Bates
writerfella(at)iwon.com
t is change, continuing change, inevitable change, that is the dominant factor in society today," wrote Isaac Asimov more than 25 years ago. "No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be."
DC Comics listened to Asimov. The company, according to the NY Times, "is in the midst of a major effort to revitalize the company's fabled superheroes for the 21st century and better connect with today's readers. The undertaking, which began in 2002, has involved a critical look at DC's characters—from Aquaman and Batman to Zatanna—and developing story lines that sometimes have heroes engage in decidedly unheroic deeds."
"This is not just an editorial risk; it's a company risk," said DC. "One of the goals is to hold on to a more sophisticated readership. Our characters were created in the 1940's and 50's and 60's. There's a lot of elements where we've had a disconnect with the reader base of today. [Readers] are more savvy, and they're looking for more complexity and more depth. ... Our audience is much smarter, much more sophisticated, and not necessarily because it's older. A 12-year-old 20 years ago and a 12-year-old today are reading at very different levels. That's just the way it is.
"Everything has to evolve."
Indeed. Hollywood's been evolving all along. Whatever one's opinion is of the many remakes and "re-imaginings," film makers knew going in that old stories had to be made to appear new if they had any chance of succeeding.
The TV people know all about evolution. Say what you want about Enterprise, Night Stalker and Battlestar Galaxative, serious effort was put into all to bring them up to date to attract audiences.
Ironically, those seemingly oblivious to Asimov's credo are science-fiction editors and publishers. The proof is in the numbers, which have fallen to a fraction of what they had been during Isaac's generation. Moreover, week after week after week, Science Fiction Weekly and other SF websites give sterling reviews to SF novels that could have been published word for word 20 years ago.
Last week the first ever QUILL Awards were given to writers based on reader popularity. Rowlings' Harry Potter has sold more than 300 million books. No "science-fiction writer" was mentioned. What used to be a viable genre has evolved into a stigma—book publishers, filmmakers and TV producers flee from "science fiction"—newly defined as a guarantee to lose money.
Do not misunderstand me. "Quality of writing" is a non-issue. There are those who will write this column proclaiming how "good" and how much they "liked" this SF novel or that SF writer—"subjective opinion" is also irrelevant. Publishing is about selling books. It's the numbers, folks, and SF's numbers continue to diminish.
QUILL award-winner Bob Dylan defined the '60s with "The times they are a-changin'." SF publishing has not.
Should SF publishing evolve and finally enter the 21st century?
To quote Dylan yet again: "When you ain't got nuthin', you got nuthin' to lose."
Kevin Ahearn
Dorothydspr(at)aol.com
Back to the top.
