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. If you would like to submit a letter, please use our feedback form or send a message to scifiweekly@scifi.com.
-- Craig E. Engler, Editor
Stargate SG1 a disappointment
've been a real fan of the original Stargate. I thought the combination of actors was just the right mix. With all due respect to the cast of Stargate SG1, I've been really disappointed. I was mostly disturbed with the amount of nudity in the first episode. The special effects left a lot to be desired also. I realize that the producers of television series can't afford the money that the major motion pictures spend, but it seems they should be able to do a bit better than what I've seen so far. The original Stargate is one of my favorite all time sci-fi [movies].
Thanks for the chance to let you know what I thought!
Dane
dane@oio.net
Agrees with "Who" review, but...
agree much with your review of "Who Goes There?" It has an excellent concept and an interesting monster, much akin to H.P. Lovecraft's creature in "Call of Cthulhu," but the general execution of it was lacking. I thoroughly enjoyed Howard Hawks' adaptation, even if they extinguished the shape-changing abilities of the alien, and John Carpenter's version is my favorite horror film.
However, you forgot to mention what other versions of John W. Campbell Jr.'s story exists. As well as the two movie adaptations, much of the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers was based on or greatly inspired by the theme put forth in "Who" -- aliens absorbing and reduplicating humans, as well as the "Trust No One, They Could Be an Alien" motif.
Also, Alan Dean Foster wrote an expanded version of "Who Goes There?" as a novelization of Carpenter's The Thing, and carries that title as well, even if it bears numerous differences to the actual film. Just to let you know there was more inspiration behind Campbell's classic than you noted in your article.
Ian Watts
iwatts@charleston.net
Wants to see Ivanova return
vanova will be greatly missed, I enjoyed her character very much. I hope she does return.
John
jlpm50@aol.com
Resents muddled mediocrities like Wyrm
o Rich Green didn't like Wohleber's review of Mark Faby's Wyrm. Green says he stayed awake two nights reading the book; he wants to read reviews that are more reasonable.
Richard, darlin', I read the book, too. I got paid to; what's your excuse? I didn't think the MUD sequences were "criminally boring"; I thought the whole damn book was too long and too lame, even though I did read every page. What you may not want to realize is that there is an awful lot of print SF out there, and reviewers get to see whole bunches of it, and, this reviewer (San Diego Union-Tribune, book in question 8 June 1997) for one resents having to read overlong, muddled mediocrities like Wyrm.
I thought the MUDs were the only saving grace of this book. The rest of it, in my considered opinion, was misdemeanor boring.
But what the hell. Unlike Mr. Green, most of my readers pay for their copies of the Sunday newspaper. Now, when a paying customer takes issue with a review, it has very little impact; when a netcruiser who admits to seldom looking at your (unpaid) page demands reviews that fit his taste more. . .
You folks better listen up! Damn, but the consequences could be dire!
Thanks for the opportunity to vent.
Jim Hopper
jlhopper@sd.cts.com
