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
Armageddon: Bad SF, bad filmmaking
've been very surprised by the level of enthusiasm expressed over Armageddon. I can't believe people are enjoying this film. Are we so desperate for SF entertainment that we'll accept rubbish like this?
A movie doesn't have to be scientifically plausible to be entertaining (warp drive, anyone?), but the oversights in Armageddon are plain insulting, especially for an SF audience. Come on, people! We don't have to accept this as the best Hollywood has to offer!
Even if you can ignore the science errors, the plot is easier to see coming than the asteriod itself, the dialogue is inane, and the patriotic images are insultingly manipulative. The characters are carbon-copy stereotypes that we've seen too many times already: the gruff father who'll do anything for his kid; the eccentric, distracted scientist; the mooning, brain-dead sweetheart who loves her man; the big, strong, deep-voiced buddy; etc.
Conversations in a spacecraft while pulling 10 Gs? Firing rifles on oil derricks? Lovers who converse with animal-cracker metaphors? Is this escapism or the result of lobotomy surgery?
This is not only bad SF, it's bad filmmaking. If we accept this junk, what can we expect from Hollywood next summer? A movie about talking action figures? (Oh, wait a minute...) Don't believe the hype, people. Don't give your money to these Hollywood goons. Hold out for SF that doesn't insult your intelligence or rehash tired, paint-by-numbers storylines.
Charlie Cuthbertson
facuthbe@wpo.hass.usu.edu
Don't call Armageddon "science fiction"
must respond to those who wrote in to say they loved Armageddon even though the science was a complete joke. These writers said what does it matter; it's only fiction.
The truth is, this movie pretends to be science fiction. When it accepts that listing, then to be true to the format, it must contain real science. Jules Verne, the father of all great science fiction, knew that, and that is why he spent so much time in research.
Deep Impact is a science fiction movie. Like all real science fiction, it takes a look at science facts and adds a human element.
I once heard science fiction explained as follows: "In the late 1800s, any scientist could predict the invention of mass produced motor vehicles, but only a science fiction writer would imagine a traffic jam."
I truly believe it hurts the popular image of all science fiction when Hollywood simply puts a character in a space suit and calls it science fiction when everything about the movie violates basic scientific law! I'm not saying you cannot take a science principle or possibility and expand on it--that is exactly what makes Star Trek, 2001, The X-Files and so many others good science fiction.
For example, The X-Files movie contains a scene from the MIT Conference on UFOs--that is a real event. The episode with the white buffalo was also a real event that the writer gave new and credible possibilities in the storyline.
In contrast, Armageddon opens with an astronaut screaming in space--a place that is a void, where he would be dead in less than a second--and then goes on with fake space rocks, impossible use of shuttle, silly re-fueling at a space station (just how, may I ask, did the fuel get there?) and of all the silly ideas--working on the dark side of the moon!
Look, I can accept silly movies--I happen to love Splash--but don't, ever, ever call it science fiction when it is simply total fiction!
I bet the people who love this movie also loved Independence Day--a movie which would have us believe three aliens arrived in a two-seated ship in 1947 and waited 50 years to return in the same ship only to be defeated by a drunk and a laptop. Please!
Gloria Hoffner
gloriah@phillynews.com
Armageddon vs. Deep Impact
et me make this blunt: Armageddon is a hell of a lot better than Deep Impact. I went to see Armageddon for the fifth time yesterday. Deep Impact sucked so badly that I went to see it once. End of story.
Tom Streck
demonictutor22@hotmail.com
Doesn't like any of them
odzilla: Didn't like it. Too long and just a bad movie. The creature I grew up with was nowhere to be found. I don't know what that was on the screen. The movie used sappy performances to justify the sugar coated treatment of the egg laying lizard. I guess that I was supposed to feel sorry for the thing after it nearly leveled New York city.
Armageddon: The film was too long, too noisy and too busy wowing us with its special effects. What ever happened to plot and character development? There was so much action and explosions I got bored by it all. I kept wishing that I had my remote control. The subject matter, while serious in nature, was played like a Saturday afternoon serial. The prospects of something the size of Texas hitting us is certainly cause for alarm. I would hope and pray that our governments of the planet have some plans, indeed dozens of options to protect us as best they can. Don't get me wrong here, I enjoy SFX movies and hope they continue. But please don't knock me over the head with them. Have a story, a good plot, character development so that I give a good care for them.
Deep Impact: Throw it in a landfill, the world is coming to an end and yet we are supposed to care about a relationship between a dad and his journalist daughter. Morgan Freeman as the president is okay; I can buy that. But to make our president out to be monster willing to sacrifice about 220 millions souls. That is a bit of a stretch.
Lost in Space: Cast it adrift, thank you.
Gene Stamps
StarView5@aol.com
Take what you can get
ell, I wonder what kind of film you do enjoy. Your review
of recent films may be true, but the point is these are just movies for
our entertainment. I enjoy scientific accurately based films too, but
that's what the Discovery Channel is for.
When was the last time you saw a gunfight in the movies
where a person doesn't have that never ending clip full of rounds? Come on guys...just be glad they even make sci-fi films anymore, for the few
they make these days are trillion dollar films. Sometimes I miss the
older days of basic sci-fi where you didn't need two hours of special
effects or a blockbuster cast of actors. In a nutshell, I'll take what I
can get.
Brian Marafino
brimar@adelphia.net
Wants honest criticism
aving read Joe Castleberry's scathing attack on the "poor" review Armageddon received, I feel I must reply. He writes (concerning the critics), "They've all forgotten what movies are all about. Escapism. A little time away from reality." Unfortunately, some of us cannot just check our brains at the door.
As one such individual, I rely upon the honest criticisms given by reviewers such as Patrick Lee to determine whether a movie is worth my $8.50. Empty platitudes like "a thrill ride" do nothing for me. If you don't like critical reviews, there is an easy solution. Don't read them.
James Ellis
ellisj@cadvision.com
Truman was throught provoking
too have to disagree with any and all critics that failed to receive The Truman Show for what it was conceived and intended to be; cerebral entertainment and thought-provoking cinema that stopped short of "preaching." And no, it was not a comedy.
I consider myself an avid moviegoer and, for me, The Truman Show is the kind of film that makes it all worthwhile. I put it in the same level as films like Groundhog Day: These films challenge the definition of popular cinema. They overshadow the disposable offerings aimed at the money-making potential of their first two or three weekends at the box office and remind us of what movies can be and why we love them enough to sit through stuff like Six Days and Seven Nights in hopes of a glimmer of originality. Alas...
My guess is, it will be a while before we see another Truman come around again. But I'll be watching and hoping until then.
Matthew Stephens
central@m-y.net
Truman was good, but not great
am a bit puzzled by the overwhelming praise being heaped onto The Truman Show. It wasn't a bad picture, but it certainly wasn't great, either. Original? Hardly; we've seen this same basic premise done before, several times on The Twilight Zone, and as recently as this year's Dark City.
The Truman Show was strictly a feel-good, predictable fable--you knew there would be a happy ending. Unlike Dark City, the producers of The Truman Show did everything possible to stay out of dangerous territory that might actually allow the audience to think for themselves. The acting was professional, but again, no one took chances with their performances. For the life of me, I couldn't understand why millions would tune into a show about such an uncharismatic simpleton. Peter Weir has been quoted as saying he cast Jim Carrey in the role because he needed someone with innate charisma--someone who could believably portray a character worth watching--but because we weren't shown much of the back story, I couldn't understand why I should care for Truman.
In a recent interview in the Los Angeles Times, Noah Emmerich (who portrayed Marlon, Truman's best friend) recounted how the cast did daylong improvisations, including Truman's wedding to Meryl. This is the kind of detail if shown early on would have really cemented my empathy towards Truman and allowed me to care more about what happened to him later. As it is, The Truman Show is a fast-food meal--initially satisfying, but ultimately just empty calories.
Norman Cook
unclescrooge@hotmail.com
