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
Have We Stopped Dreaming?
or all you Star Trek fans that are complaining about the latest installment of the Trekmovies, I have a question. Did you see the same Star Trek: Insurrection movie that I saw? I loved the movie! The musical score was great, the acting was great, and the story line was fresh, thought provoking, and the effects were great!
I have watched Star Trek from the beginning. Yes, that means from the first show to now, and I must say I have loved each episode. I always have and always will love Trek, and I hope it continues for several more years and movies. Indeed, it will be a sad day for the universe when Star Trek no longer goes were no one has gone before. I hope that day never comes.
Remember, Trek was created to fulfill a human dream. To explore our universe. Have we stopped dreaming? I hope not!
For all you people bashing Trek, get a life! I still dream of mankind exploring the galaxy and maybe my children will get that chance, thanks to Star Trek.
Richard Barker
Quasi_stellar_object@yahoo.com
Why Are Trekkies So Negative?
am sitting at the computer shaking my head as I read many of the comments made about Insurection. I have been watching Star Trek since the commercials for the first episode began to air on my little television. I personally enjoyed this movie. Of the three Next Generation movies, I truly believe this was the best. Sometimes I really wonder what people think they want out of a Star Trek movie.
On the one hand, they complain that creation of a device to shut Data down is not up to the old standards; however, I could see Spock and Scotty coming up with just such a device. I read the comment that perhaps having an engineer find a last minute solution would be more Trekish, what about Riker going where no one would want to go, as evidenced by the crew, to gather gasses to use against the pursuing ships? I enjoyed the, as some put it, wasted film of Riker and Troi reliving their youth and particularly enjoyed Riker losing the beard. It makes these characters much more like real people to me.
Finally, I will agree with the one letter in which the writer suggested that those who are so disillusioned and disappointed with the way Star Trek is going just don't go. That way I won't have to compete with you for a ticket and can enjoy the movie. Many years ago I heard a comment that you can always tell a real Star Trek fan when they refer to themselves as a Trekker vs. a Trekkie. Why is it so many of the negative letters are from people who refer to themselves and their friends as Trekkies?
Dennis Minch
minchmob@madmac.com
Go Ahead, Mess With Trek
his whole Star Trek thing is turning out to be nastier than the whole SF debate (and I thought things were bad when that was going on). It seems we have two groups, the people who thing Star Trek can only do good, and the people who think Star Trek has fallen down a cesspool and will never be able to clean itself off (yes, I'm aware that I'm over-generalizing a bit, but just go with me). I would have to disagree with both groups.
To those of you who have put the original series up on a pedestal, that's rather short sighted. I've been watching Star Trek my whole life (which can tell you how old I am) and I've seen all nine of the movies. Some of the six originals are worse then anything I've ever seen in my life. I say this while freely admitting that I love Star Trek. The first and fifth Star Trek movies are really very bad. I don't watch them anymore, I won't even think of buying them. Generations was pretty bad but it doesn't hole a candle to the sheer horrendousness of the very first Trek movie.
At the same time it's true there is something lacking from Insurrection that made Undiscovered Country so good. I think it isn't the idea though, I think it's aging. Yeah, there were story flaws in Insurrection that could sink a ship, as dark and unyielding as a black hole. There were also some very nice moments of camaraderie, some parts that I truly enjoyed. But then, of course, my favorite parts in all Trek movies are the parts where you see how accustomed everyone is to each other.
I think [Rick] Berman is just afraid to take any chances. While fans' imaginations soar, the writers, producers and directors just can't seem to take that last step. Where the original movies triumphed was in the continuous storyline, one movie affecting another. The Trek movies have been patchy, just one episode, no sense of a more over-reaching storyline. Berman took a chance with Deep Space Nine and Voyager and has gotten a bit of flack for it so now he doesn't feel like messing with a good thing. I say mess all you want Rick, let the people on the Enterprise grow. It's a big galaxy out there.
Insurection was a great possibility. There were so many things that could have been done, explanations and enlargations of storylines that could have fleshed out and enriched the story. Next time Rick, let your imagination soar. We're tired of the same story, give us some meat.
Elenna Conner
ElenaCon@aol.com
Insurrection Sticks To The Rules
ell, let's start off with a statement. I thoroughly enjoyed the new Star Trek film, finding it a breath of fresh air that left me feeling lifted.
What? Yes, it is a good film but it is obviously going to split people into two groups. There's going to be lots of talk of "A TV episode done big!" which implies a lack of understanding of what Star Trek: The Next Generation was ever about. But it has to be balanced against change and the ever fickle public. To make the point that First Contact was a more successful film is a fair one, as it is a very well-rounded, pleasing-all-of-the-people affair. But since when has pleasing the masses and toeing the line been what the franchise has been about? Star Trek has thrived on its inventiveness and lack of conformity. Like a favorite son, it inherited its "Father's" best points. Gene [Roddenberry] always insisted on going for broke, not pandering to mediocrity. Okay, he has, at times, been elevated to an almost messianic proportion, but the myth relies on fact at its core. Gene had a vision and Star Trek perpetuated it.
Insurrection goes a long way to being a flag waving example of this. It is Star Trek's answer to The Truman Show. A piece of film that educates you, and makes you stop and think. It lulls you into a "reality" so far removed from day to day that you are forced into a corner, and made to evaluate the way you go about life. Yes, the opening of Insurrection borders on schmaltzy, but it also presents an idyllic image that must make even the most hardened cynic contemplate the Baku way of life for just a few seconds. I actually found myself resenting the intrusion of the standard Trek world into this paradise--echoing the outrage expressed in the plot.
But there is still this misconception about where Star Trek is coming from. The film has been rated as a "date film"; great to take your girlfriend to. Why? Just because it largely abandons testosterone, in favor of an issue, or three. I guess the quandary is balancing our "pure" vision of Trek and its morals against the fact that it is a financial package that has to make money to survive. No matter how much outcry there is over whether each episode or installment is considered to "be" worthy of canoninity, it has to be pout into context--Hollywood context.
"They" want bums on seats, regardless of "artistic integrity." Insurrectionis living proof of this attitude, being a vaguely different product from the vision (that word again) of the production team. Ironically the studio implemented editing actually goes against the usual "sex & guns" rule that the "Hollywood context" implies. Does Patrick Stewart snogging his leading co-star make a statement? Is it considered "sexy" enough to be included as "Hollywood context" material? The problem is, as with any artistic endeavor, that despite First Contact's best efforts, you really can't guarantee what fans and the other billions of "punters" will take to.
The film works on a TNG level. It even works as a "thinking" science fiction film. It manages to stick to the 11-year-old rules, and make its own statements as well
Paul Gibbs
pgibbs@gibbs86.freeserve.co.uk
It's Just Entertainment
enjoy reading the mail discussing a topic back and forth. Until, that is, the debate loses touch with the main point or reality. I, too, discuss warp theory, black holes and the relative merits of Federation versus Romulan armaments. Or the advantages and disadvantages of Star Trek warp drive versus Babylon 5 jump gates and Star Wars light speed.
That is, I discuss until my wife points out that all these are just entertainment. And like other such forms, we should let ourselves be entertained and support those that will entertain us in this matter. The latter means, to me, putting up with Space Precinct while relishing Babylon 5. It also means accepting Star Trek: The Final Frontier (once) while playing The Undiscovered Country multiple times.
By supporting this genre, sometimes vocally, and looking at the positive aspects of a production, we embolden those who are responsible for producing this entertainment to try again, to try another way, not to give up. As a veteran of the B5 letter writing campaigns, praying each year that the series would complete its story arc, the start of Crusade is a testament that my (and my compatriots) efforts have not been in vain.
And I will do it again. Join me.
Charly Walter
Walterware@aol.com
Insurrection Is Classic Trek
am simply aghast at all the negative reactions to Star Trek: Insurrection! Is it possible that the Star Trek institution has so cultivated a macho demographic that if one of the feature films doesn't have a cling-to-the-edge-of-your-seat shoot out with an alien race, then it must be judged poorly? For shame! Gene Roddenberry would turn over in his grave!
Insurrection was classic Trek--worthy of being one of the finest episodes ever created. The only problem with it, to my mind, was that this really great episode needed to be fleshed out a bit more for the big screen. But that's a quibble. It was a great movie.
Don Wallick
dhwally@aol.com
The Original Movie Wasn't Better
must be out of phase, or something. That there are some out there who didn't like Star Trek: Insurrection is hardly surprising. I've been a Star Trek fan long enough to remember when we were still called "trekkies" rather than "trekkers." But when people start claiming that the original movie was better I'm clearly at a loss. It was wonderful to see our old friends again after so long a separation, but get out your video and look again at it as a movie. It was wretched! The special effects were grandiose beyond description and for no better reason than they could finally afford to do it. There is a long, lingering shot of the Enterprise when we first come see her that borders on the salacious. It's interminable and boring.
The new cast also offers a subtly of performance that the first several movies cannot even approach. Bill Shatner portrayed my boyhood idol but his twitching, pulsating scenery chewing was beyond belief (again, let's go to video for his nauseating scream "Khan!" in [Wrath of Kahn]) The series has had ups and downs several times. The original cast did a fabulous job in The Undiscovered Country. Both casts were dull in Generations. Jonathan Frakes direction has been uneven, but he began to come into his own with Insurrection.
Sadly the fixation that several writers have shown over how frequently one word appears, or whether they find the technology "based in reality" shows how far the imagination of the audience has fallen. Star Trek has never been, nor has it tried to be, Shakespeare. From the very earliest days it has suffered from some poor concepts and writing. But it also has created a living breathing universe of believable characters (believable enough that we care so deeply about them to have these very arguments). It contains all the absurdity, the contradiction and the illogic (thank you Mr. Spock) that makes the human condition the prime fodder for drama. I'd like to see the TNG and DS9 universes merged in the movies. More wonderful characters (and actors), and more opportunities for the kind of wondrous adventures that been so much a part of my life for three decades.
Jay Phillippi
jdrp@cecomet.net
It's About Enjoyment
've been reading the comments, pro and con, regarding Star Trek: Insurrection for a while. I have finally gone to see the movie, and want to put in my two cents' worth.
After being bored enough with the "original" Star Trek movies (I bailed out just before Generations), I was dragged kicking and screaming to this one--and had a wonderfully pleasant surprise! Yes, it was like a very well done ST episode with lots of special effects that you can't produce without a wide screen--but the plot hung together nicely, and it kept my interest throughout. It was actually a joyous relief that the "love" scenes were understated between an ST captain and his flame du jour and in keeping with the character (although I must agree with another writer to your forum regarding the "secondary" love plot; if Jonathan Frakes wants to portray himself as a sex symbol, he has to lose 30 pounds and the self-satisfied, hey-I'm-the-greatest-thing-to-women smile). It was even better to watch the characters act as a team; there was much less of the grandstanding of the "stars" that drove me away from the earlier ST movies (Note to Paramount: Thank you for keeping Kirk dead!). As an outgrowth of that team approach, I found the humor to be sly, sometimes understated, and thoroughly in character for all the actors.
I might not rank Star Trek: Insurrection as one of my top 10 movies of all time, but I did enjoy it--and that is what Star Trek is all about: Make you think a little while giving you a good time. I think Gene Roddenberry would be proud of what's happening to his legacy.
Margaret Kohutanycz
stonepony@erols.com
Won't Pay For Trek Drek
watched [Star Trek: Insurrection] the first day of release. I was impressed for about 15 minutes, after that the movie dragged. This was a great idea for a story that ended up being poorly written. [Rick] Berman and [Brannon] Braga have no business writing movie scripts. Braga has done a good job with Voyager this season, but I won't pay to see anymore Star Trek films with weak stories and weaker humor.
Data had been developed in the last two movies, but lost a lot of ground in this film, seemed like he was Data from the second or third season, instead of someone who had or was learning to live with newfound emotions. Only Picard shined in this one, the rest of the crew could have been almost any character, and no one would have noticed.
There are countless episodes of the series, all four series, that are better then all three TNG movies. If they can't make one that's better then "Best of Both Worlds" or "All Good Things," then don't make anymore.
Edward Toler
etoler@mail.dep.state.wv.us
