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
Don't compare Warlord to Star Wars
've been reading sci-fi for 37 years.
I've watched sci-fi for that long also...Of course, it's only been the last dozen or so years that anybody has had money to produce "good-stuff" for TV or movies....excluding Star Trek and Lost Planet...the few exceptions....anyway...I am a fan.
As such, I have to say your review [of The Warlord: Battle for the Galaxy] smacks of someone who was looking for a Star Wars movie...which of course it wasn't...and in this context would appear just as you described it.
I am hoping it was a pilot for a series...if you watched the movie as a pilot its somewhat disjointed and possibly "trite verbiage" and storyline made sense...
When you set up for a story like this you have to jump in the middle, and in 45 minutes set the storyline and introduce and set the foundation for the characters...just like good novels do...reread Foundation, note how it starts....the characters are fleshed out later and the story is told and wound together as you read...
The low-key aspect is characteristic of a series that has been going for a while...many movies try to get too dramatic and high-key at first, then settle down to a confident "tempo"...this movie was "at-tempo"...
Take a look at it from this standpoint... look at a B5 or Star Trek episode and try to imagine not knowing what you know about the two series...you'll see they have a calm, low-key tempo...and, yes, "trite verbiage."
This movie was probably done as a pilot...and now UPN isn't sure...anyway, it is a winner if given a chance...
Randy M. Gaudian
R12347@aol.com
Editor: We're now told that Warlord was the long lost pilot to the never-aired series The Osiris Chronicles, which UPN neglected to tell us when they sent the review tape.
The Postman wasn't that bad
t seems that the consensus is that [The Postman] was a bust. In its own right the movie wasn't too bad; it was too long, though. The part that should have been left out was the love scene; it wasn't explained enough as to why it was in there. Having read the book first ruined the movie for me. The book was excellent! I cannot understand how D. Brin would have let them change his work so. If we're going to make movies out of the good sci-fi, I think that we should learn not to disarrange the storyline of authors!
William Dulin
nalikideyu@aol.com
Red Alert is better than Dark Reign
disagree with your extremely high praise for Dark Reign. While the game plays okay, I was extremely disappointed that there were no videos or any real explanation of what was going on story-wise. Westwood's games (Command and Conquer, Red Alert) always gave somewhat entertaining video breaks between each mission. Also with C&C and RA, by the name of the units you had some idea of their capabilities. With Dark Reign the learning curve was higher and harder.
Finally, Activision's customer support leaves a lot to be desired...they put out a cheat code--to access any mission without playing it through--I sent them a question two or three weeks ago and am still awaiting a reply.
I'd rate Red Alert as an "A." Dark Reign as a "C-."
JayMitch@aol.com
They're strip mining Forbidden Planet
hanks for the review of Forbidden Planet. It has remained one of my
favorite SF movies of all time. It is also a sad reminder that all of
the classic SF films that we all hold dear to our hearts would not even
get made today (how did Gattaca slip in?). Could you imagine Kubrick
trying to pitch 2001 today? If it did get made we'd have Tom Cruise
and Brad Pitt as the astronauts, Bill Gates as the voice of HAL,
starchild mouse pads and so on. No classical music soundtrack
either...it would have to be Tangerine Dream or Vangelis. You get the
idea.
Star Trek, in its original incarnation, owes a lot to Capt J. J.
Adams and his motley crew. When you look at the film, one could imagine
a million sequels with the crew of the C57-D traveling around
interstellar space. Next time you watch the original Trek, look for
the episode "Requiem for Methuselah"...it is a direct rip-off of Forbidden Planet. From the reclusive Mr. Flint, to the robot, and then on to Rayna Kapec, unfamiliar with the ways of lusty spacemen (i.e. Capt. Kirk). Now there is talk of a remake of Forbidden Planet. Instead of one robot, we will be treated to a host of them. Why do people feel that they have to remake good films? Has anyone tried to improve on the horrible '60s Italian interpretations of Perry Rhodan? I read an interview with the director of the new Forbidden Planet who obviously has contempt for his source material...saying the original was slow and primitive by today's "standards."
There are no ideas or standards in today's world when the majority of us are chain-linked to the Internet, which in part has hobbled our ability to dream new dreams and has allowed us to condescend on anything that has come before it. It's almost like the drag queen mentality...a guy who wants to be the very thing he cannot stand or even have, because deep down he
knows the whole thing is a cheat. I say long live the original Forbidden Planet. And if it is going to be re-made, do it as an Airplane-style spoof
starring Leslie Nielsen!
Fred Gilmore
obit@earthlink.net
