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
The Blair Witch Persecutes Pagans
he Blair Witch Project is the single most inflammatory, anti-pagan
effort
I have seen in years. Historically, all non-Christian religions were
vilified by the Catholic church. Jews were accused of eating children right
up until this past century, but somehow they have overcome the terrible
rumors of the past. Why is it so hard to
let go of the lies told about pagans? I am continually surprised that
nobody is making the "Blair Jew Project" or the "Blair Muslim Project" but
everyone seems to feel that producing this sort of rabble-rousing
anti-pagan trash is acceptable. Pagans follow
an Earth-centered religion that believes all actions, both good and bad,
are returned threefold. No witch would do what The Blair Witch Project
pretends has happened. I can only hope that the next witch or druid who
finds themself being persecuted,
burned out, maimed, or otherwise injured by their version of the local
idiots will feel free to sue both the producers and yourselves for
supporting this totally fictitious trash. The world can afford to be less
entertained if it is a happier place to live in. I sincerely hope you will come to see
this piece of entertainment for the disservice it truly is.
Richard Festa, Jr.
sncline@hotmail.com
West Not The Best By Far
really had high hopes for Wild Wild West. Unfortunately, it let me
down...big time! The explanation behind Will Smith's James West character
was way too contrived. A captain in the U.S. Army? Black units that fought
in the northern army in the Civil War were all led by white officers. (See
the movie Glory for how it really was.) Kevin Kline's Artemus Gordon
was too over the top. The whole movie
was filled with cheap jokes and sight gags. Some of the jokes left me
feeling more than a little uneasy.
The movie's producers just couldn't capture the feel of the original series,
where the special effects were not the stars, Robert Conrad and Ross Martin
were.
Tom Reed
treed@ccrpc.org
Enjoyed West More Than The Phantom Menace
disagree with Patrick Lee's review of Wild Wild West in Issue No.
116. I enjoyed the film, laughed at its humor, and think both the script and the actors were
first rate. The film was intended to be a romp. It is a '90s update of a
'60s classic, and perhaps Mr. Lee has lost sight of that.
Will Smith is not Robert Conrad and nor should he be. This is a
reinvention and reinterpretation of the original so they had to do things
differently.
Sure, it weighs down the suspension of disbelief to have a black Jim West
in 1869 America. So what? I think the film handled that well enough in
much the same manner as the Indiana Jones films handled the anti-Semitic
Nazis. That is to say, it gave them the perfect villains to despise and
beat up on. Not only was Loveless an evil man, he was also a racist to boot,
thereby making it all the more satisfying when he is defeated by the black
hero, Smith.
As to the special effects overwhelming the film, I disagree entirely. I
thought they were well incorporated and added to the overall feel. The
"steampunk" was great and the 80-foot-tall iron tarantula was the
perfect threat.
I well remember the original series and enjoyed the campiness of it. The
villains in each episode were almost always over the top but were limited
to the small screen's size and time format. Moving the show to the big
screen meant coming up with bigger and badder villains. That also meant
bigger and badder infernal devices for those villains to play with.
Loveless's iron tarantula was perfect for that.
I think some of the bad press about this film is due to the mishandling of
the initial test screenings. Some of it may also be due to Will Smith's
own success. Too many people are tired of him being so smooth and being
part of so many blockbuster films.
In any event, I thought Wild Wild West to be a good film, a fun
romp, and worth the price of admission. True it was not the "Great American Motion
Picture" but then it wasn't supposed to be. Instead it was supposed to be
fun and in that it succeeded quite well. I would see this one again, and
that is a whole lot more than I can say for Star Wars: Episode I.
Madoc Pope
thor62@home.com
Wild Wild West Got Bad Buzz For A Reason
'm not prone to write a letter like this, as I feel there are enough
opinions on the Internet without the need for mine, but I found Barry
Sonnenfeld's remarks about the reasons for the bad buzz on Wild Wild
West so ridiculous I had to make a comment.
There is a lot of crap on the Internet, as well as armchair critics who
love nothing more than to tell you how bad everything in the world of
entertainment is. Anyone who doesn't take most Internet sources with a
grain of salt is looking for disappointment. However, film success and
failure is not based on the Internet alone, and no matter how bad, say,
The Phantom Menace is, bad Internet buzz didn't stop that film from
making $300 million. What Sonnenfeld needs to recognize is that there
was probably a bigger and more scientifically quantifiable reason his film is
getting bad buzz...it sucks.
We expect people involved in their own films to defend them, but please
don't do it by passing the buck. How can Sonnenfeld, with a straight face,
blame The Matrix for bad buzz. The "bait and switch" movie
screening is a fairly regular process. His first clue should have been when the audience
"booed" before the movie. Here were people that had all probably seen
The Matrix more than once and they had more interest in seeing it
again than seeing the Wild Wild West! If we assume many of them had seen
The Matrix it should follow that, when under comments they said they didn't like it
because it "wasn't The Matrix," the context there is not "I am very
disappointed at having my expectations pierced by being shown a different
film," but rater "The Matrix is a good movie, Wild Wild West
is not."
But since the audience booed before the movie I guess we can blame Warner
Bros. marketing department, right Barry?
Michael Pisaneschi
Pisan@texas.net
West Missed The Mark
ild Mild Mess is what Wild Wild West should have been named.
It was
obvious that it was intended to be a light-hearted film, but it missed the
mark. The scene with West exchanging insults with Loveless was just plain
mean and ugly. They'd been far better off not even trying to explain away
West being black (I actually winced when they explained it). Individually
I can't fault any of the actors either. I like all of them. It's just too bad they didn't have
better material to work with.
Dave Burns
gooey@gooey.com
Here's What I Want In A Movie
have to admit, Shane Kliese had a good point in his Issue No. 114 letter "What Do
Critics Want?" asking what the heck
we critical people want. I tend to be pretty critical of SF movies--they
rarely meet my expectations. I'll admit, what I want is pretty hard--it
is, frankly, harder to make a good SF movie than a good mainstream movie.
This is one reason I think a good SF movie would be better than a good
mainstream movie.
Let's see. First, I want the effects not to look cheesy, I
want internal consistency of premise, I want some degree of plausibility of
premise, and unless it's total space opera I would prefer no really obvious
violation of the laws of physics (especially as part of the premise).
Second, I'd like a "what if" of the
kind that
makes good print science fiction. It could be a future extrapolation
thing, or a "what if this kind of technology existed" thing, or a
"what kind of civilization would things that evolved this way produce" thing,
or what have you. There's been excellent science fiction on such simple
what-if's as "what if some guy went for a close orbit around a neutron
star?" Again, it would be nice if some attention were paid to social
stuff--the implications of technologies, not just their existence.
Finally, I'd like the kinds of things that make good mainstream
movies--three dimensional characters, interesting theme stuff,
non-hackneyed plots, strong emotions, good pace, good acting, stuff like
that. This doesn't have to mean no action--take Saving Private
Ryan. It was a good war movie, although in my opinion only good not incredible. It
dealt with all kinds of stuff: the horrors of war, dilemmas of whether to treat
the enemy as fellow humans, civilians caught in the middle. Real war
movies deal with that kind of stuff all the time. In SF war movies, things
get blown up, even planets get blown up, and nobody really cares--I mean,
it's only a special effect, right?
But at that, I wouldn't mind some SF movies with less action. Most
SF
movies you see are, basically, action flicks like Die Hard or
True Lies
except you get snazzier effects because there's future technology, and if
you're lucky there's a clever premise to dress it up. But there are other
possibilities. Junior was an SF romantic comedy. I thought it was
really good. The science was pretty good, or at least not obviously bogus.
The acting was good, and it was really funny--I'd have paid admission just
to hear Arnold Schwarzenegger tearfully declaring "but I'm all woman!" Or
one of those legal battle-type movies in an SF setting? Alien
Nation was a crime thriller with SF elements--I thought it worked quite well, although I
never saw the TV spin-off. For that matter, how about putting more good SF
books on screen? If they made a movie of David Brin's Sundiver or
Startide Rising, I'd sure go see it. If the screenplay and acting were at the
level of Shakespeare in Love or Emma Thompson's version of Sense and
Sensibility I'd come back raving about it.
Bottom line, to be really good, an SF movie must be good as a
movie (which means better than most Hollywood trash), technically good, and good
as SF. I'll admit it's a tall order, and much harder to do than a good
mainstream movie. So it doesn't happen often, and those of us with high
standards are going to be critical most of the time. But there is
something that would satisfy us!
Rufus Polson
dpolson@sfu.ca
Characterization Depends On The Film
have just read James Thomas's letter "SF Films Need Human Characters"
in Issue No. 115. It strikes me as odd
that Mr. Thomas seems to think that, in order to be human, characters have
to be "flawed" in some way, and show negative emotions--hate, distrust,
shame. True, conflicting emotions are a sure sign of humanity, and we all
have flaws. But
character depth
doesn't just depend on negative feelings being portrayed, does it?
Besides, the examples he gives concern films that are not really typical
of the genre in general: Both Star Trek and Star Wars belong
to the soap
opera sub-genre and cannot be used to illustrate comments applying to the
whole of science fiction cinema. In this kind of movie characters are often
two-dimensional, and characterization simply isn't the films' main concern. But what about the
way human beings are portrayed in films like Blade Runner,
Contact, Gattaca, Dark City, Screamers, or even Deep
Impact, which try--admittedly with more or less
success--to explore characters' inner tensions and motivations and raise important questions
about human identity and what it means to be alive?
It really all depends on what kind of SF we are talking about. I personally
enjoy films like Star Wars, but human interest certainly isn't part
of my
expectations concerning those movies, whose main function is to be visually
exciting and induce wonder by giving us the perspective of gods and making
us dream of
infinite vistas.
Raymond Perrez
rayperrez@hotmail.com
More Literate Films Are Coming
n response to the Issue No. 116 letter "Bring More SF Literature To The Screen," I
agree, but
Hollywood works in cycles and the literature cycle is about to start soon.
If you take comics as literature, the X-Men movie should be interesting.
David Brin has sold the rights to Startide Rising. The Lord of
the Rings trilogy is being
produced with a high
budget in New Zealand. Last, a The Hitchhikers Guide to the
Galaxy
film is supposedly in the works. If you take Japanese anime, RPGs, and
video games as literature, then you also have the completely computer
generated Final Fantasy film.
Max Battcher
world_maker@yahoo.com
Give A More Critical Read To SF Masterpieces
ark Wilson's review of the classic novel The Left Hand of Darkness in
Issue No. 116 was
great, but I do have one bone to pick. He left out the some of the
interesting commentary Le Guin made about how to write a novel in which
androgyny plays such a huge part, such as what pronouns does one use. If
he had read an early copy he would have seen
some of the different versions that Le Guin came up with, where her use of
different pronouns totally changed the views of some of the central
characters in the novel. It is this that made this novel a Nebula Award winner.
Le Guin used preconceptions that we have in
terms of gender in order to open her readers' minds to latent prejudices
that they may have held. I am not saying that Mr. Wilson did a bad review,
but he might want to give a more critical read to future SF masterpieces.
Anthony Bussert
Tbussert@hotbot.com
Right Wing Politics Cloud Book Review
t's great to see that at long last Ken MacLeod is getting a book
published in the United States. Over the past few years he has been producing some
of the best science fiction to have come out of the United Kingdom since the 1960s.
In particular, The Cassini Division and The Stone Canal are in my
opinion two of the finest SF novels of the 90s.
It was therefore disappointing that your reviewer (Mark H. Walker) allowed his
knee-jerk right-wing politics to cloud his review of The Cassini
Division. It appears that American politics these days is so parochial
and insular that any opinion to the left of the most inoffensive
liberalism is regarded as bizarre and extreme. Quite what your reviewer
would have made of the full-on Trotskyism of the hero of The Star
Fraction I shudder to think. As to his crack about running an army by
committee, I presume he's never heard of Nestor Makhno or his
Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army, the first fully democratic anarchist
army which kicked some major arses during the Russian civil war.
I can only hope that all fans of good science fiction in the U.S. will
read The Cassini Division (and its predecessors if they ever appear
over there) and take the opportunity to expand their minds and their
political horizons, while enjoying one of the coolest, hippest and
funniest space operas to have appeared this decade.
Lyndon Rosser
lyndon@net.ntl.com
Warner's Matrix Move Is A Publicity Play
n response to Victoria Norrick-Budd's Issue No. 116 letter "Disgusted With The Entertainment
Industry" and all those people out there who think (and
they're right!) that Warner is totally wrong in being afraid that the
characters of The Matrix will make people think of the killers in
Littleton, Colo., and influence younger viewers, which is the reason why
they will not release The Matrix on VHS, but only on
DVD (can you hear the cash registers?!), let me add this to our
crusade: don't tell me that all the pornography on VHS is suitable for young
viewers! Don't tell me that all the ultra-violent movies that are available
so far on VHS are suitable for young viewers! Here in Canada, there was a 13-year-old kid who
killed a five-year-old neighbor in order to boil his skin and drink the juice because
he believed this would make him fly, just like a character he saw in a
horror movie that was available on VHS!
Besides, when The Matrix will be available on pay-per-view
television and on HBO and TMN, there will be so many VCRs recording it throughout North
America that the movie will still be available for younger viewers--I got
it! This is the best publicity stunt I've ever heard of! We found out
everything! Stop the press!
Sylvie Gagne
Sylvie_gagne@hotmail.com
Where Star Trek Needs To "Boldly Go"
he producers of Star Trek, in creating a new series, have a difficult
job ahead of them. This is not to suggest, however, that there is a great
mystery in where the franchise should "Boldly go."
I recently watched a couple episodes from the first season of Star Trek:
The Next Generation. I observed an excitement with the story material
that Star Trek has not conveyed for some time. In other words, there's been so much
produced in recent years that it's become quite ordinary. In addition, it
no longer gives the viewer a sense that it is in a future setting. Remember
when exploring space was exciting?
The look, and feel of the new Star Trek could draw influence from
some other recent series. The overall production design could use an injection of the
esoteric. Some examples would be anime like Neon Genesis
Evangelion, and series such as Farscape and Babylon 5. TNG attempted
this stylized approach in its first years, but the futuristic designs would give way to
production concerns over the course of the series. A new approach to
design would not resurface until Star Trek: First Contact, in 1996. A cutting-edge,
futuristic production design would lend itself well to a new Star
Trek.
The creature effects are in need of a new look, as well. Star Trek:
Voyager had made a few forays into this realm with "Species 8472," as well as some
other creations. Computer-generated effects have opened up any number of possibilities.
However, even the general make-up of Babylon 5 provided a more diverse cast of
alien characters. The producers could learn from the approach used in other
shows. Farscape is a great example.
Another realm of series from which the producers could draw inspiration
is not science fiction at all. It's network dramas such as E.R.. A new
Star Trek series filmed with the pace, dialog, and production
methods of the
medical drama would really restore a "futuristic," "you are there" feeling
to
the franchise. It also wouldn't hurt to return to the more "hard science" and
exploration themes of the first two series.
My impression of Star Trek used to be that of a truly futuristic series
in terms of technology, and ideas. And, it was an exciting future, as
well. It's time for the franchise to return to those roots.
Greg Hignight
Denversaur@aol.com
Farrell Was Left Out Through Spite
n response to Jon Delfin's Issue No. 116 letter "Farrell Wasn't Left Out
Through Neglect," no, I don't think she was left out because of neglect. I
think she
was left out because of spite. Her public comments have all been to the
effect that she loved being part of the show, but an opportunity came along
for her to move into another area
of her profession, and she took it. She didn't want them to kill Jadzia,
she wanted them to transfer her (she was a Starfleet officer after all and
officers get transferred), and thereby make it possible for her to guest a
couple of times during the final
season. It was "executive" decision to kill the character. I think they
just did it so Worf could howl. I maintain they did Worf's character an
injustice by leaving out any image of his wife, the wife he met, was
courted by, and married on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
She was a major character for six years, for Pete's sake! How sensible is
it to leave out even one flashback? Not!
Diane Catanzaro
catanz@flash.net
Sliders Won't Survive Without Quinn
really like Sliders, but changing the main character is risky
business
especially after four years when most
of the episodes were centered around him. Remember, sliding
is Quinn's invention, which made the college student
the main attraction, so I rather liked when his brother came
on the show because I thought he was an interesting character
just discovering life for the very first time like a child,
adding an element of comedy such as finding out about television and other
modern miracles. However, I predict this
will be the last season, because the show cannot survive without the
original Quinn.
Douglas Hayes
hayes3@gte.net
Accept The New Sliders
play Quinn Mallory in a weekly Sliders role-playing game. For five years I have
not missed
an episode and I have fallen in love with all of the sliders. For being so
dedicated for so long they have become my family. Where I don't agree with
Jerry O'Connell's decision to leave the show, I do have to respect him, for I do respect Jerry
as much as Quinn. However, just because he is gone doesn't mean the show
should end. I have no idea what I'd do without them saying at the end of each
episode "and on the next sliders." It's been the only thing I've watched for five
years straight. The new cast will take some adjusting to, but I am with them,
same as always. Sliding through that vortex right alongside. If you people
want to be "Sliders" you need to learn that it is not all fun and games and you
are going to lose people you love. As much as I'd like to see Quinn take
over Mallory right now, I am accepting and I hope the show continues for
a
long long time.
Kurt Bergeron
Quinnm221@aol.com
Crusade Shouldn't Be Given A Chance
aving just watched the pilot for J. Michael Straczynski's Crusade, I
agree with the majority of letters on the subject I've seen in Science
Fiction Weekly
recently. It sucks. The computer-generated effects are great, a definite step up from
Babylon 5
visuals, but the plot is dull, unconvincing and uninvolving, and the
dialogue is laughable.
Now I do agree that if this was the first episode of a series from a green
scriptwriter, Crusade should be given a chance. But it isn't. It's
from a
guy with five years of experience with SF TV (set in the same
universe!). This considered, it's inexcusably messy and inept. I'd like to
point out I
was an enormous B5 fan until the mid-fourth season ("get the hell out
of our
galaxy"--ugh), and I still feel season three's climax with Sheridan at Z'hadum
is the best SF TV has to offer. But somewhere, Mr. Straczynski has lost
the plot. B5 degraded to a shadow of its former quality, and Crusade is
profoundly mediocre. And the tragic thing is that Crusade's failure is
going to make SF TV even more of a risk for producers...
Mike Sowden
gourd@msowden.freeserve.co.uk
Crusade Lacks Urgency
egarding all of the talk about Crusade, I think something has been
overlooked by everybody, including J. Michael Straczynski. If they have
only five years to find a cure to the plague, and they have no real clues
where to begin looking, why
isn't there a much greater sense of urgency to the show? It seems that
none of the episodes have had much to do
with finding a cure. The crew ends up somewhere for no good reason except
that it will help them greatly in their search. But why it will help, what
it is exactly that will help, and why they think it will help is not
explained at all. While I'm still
willing to give Crusade a chance to develop, and I agree with another
writers' sentiments that the first two and a half seasons of Babylon 5 didn't
compare with
the fourth and fifth, what I think is missing most isn't character development
(he hasn't had enough time for that yet and
I believe it will be there eventually), it's story development. If he
wanted the series to be less reliant on a story arc he should've used a
much broader premise, something like "A five year mission to seek out new
life..." The premise for Crusade which can best be paraphrased
as "a
mission to find a very specific thing in a very specific and short amount
of time" begs for a much tighter story arc, at least as tight as B5.
Nothing seems to tie these episodes together,
and given the premise, something needs to tie episodes together,
much, much closer together.
Ed Wright
ed@otmfan.com
Wait To Talk About Crusade's Ratings
think it is too soon for anyone to be talking ratings as far as
Crusade
is concerned. First off, there haven't been that many episodes shown.
Second, some of episodes were greatly delayed or preempted for sports
programming. My experience has been that neither the first nor the second
broadcast seems to have a time slot regular
enough for dependable ratings. There is good reason Crusade does
not have the best of ratings.
On top of that, there could be a little bit of a fan reaction to how TNT is
handling the show. From the minute the ads started referring to
Crusade as
a "limited series" they might as well have added "we are going to show what
we have to because we have invested the money, but don't expect a full
run." Some people might not want
to start watching a show, especially an arc style show, if they know they
aren't going to get the full story. Also some of the problems with
Crusade, like how it hasn't yet altogether meshed with the
Babylon 5 universe, are looked upon by a
number of the fans as TNT sticking their fingers in where they don't belong.
John Sheffield
jcsheff@mindspring.com
Star Wars Is A Worthy Religion
n response to David Alley's comment on Star Wars being a bad
religion ("Star Wars Is Too Bad To Be A Religion," Issue No. 116), he
needs to stop and consider some things. First, I hear a lot of Star
Wars
bashing. Personal
feelings about a film or film culture do not determine if it makes a good
religion. I don't like many concepts or characters of Buddhism, but that
doesn't make it any less valid as a religious form. Second, the film
portrays religion with humanity (they may not be earthlings, but it is
humanity). So what if Obi-Wan gets angry! One Jedi follows the training,
and the other, less experienced and/or mature Jedi allows his emotions to
get in the way. As far as religion goes, yeah, Obi-Wan screwed up in
following the Jedi ways by allowing that little spurt, but people screw up
all the time. That doesn't mean it's a bad religion, it means he
messed up
following it. And he tried to make up for it, though you can tell in the
later films he was still guilt stricken over his mistakes. (Hmm, Obi-Wan
allows anger to control him, sets bad example for young Anakin, Anakin goes
to the dark side driven by anger, Obi-Wan becomes a recluse, turning his
back on the Jedi concept, thinking his failure caused the demise of the
Jedi
Knights, until Luke pops up and he's forced again to deal with his past.)
Third, yeah, it's just a story told by some guy. Isn't that how most
religions started, as just a story? And that doesn't make Lucas any sort
of prophet, it just means he was able to find some moral truths. I doubt many
people believe the story is real, but they do believe what the story stands
for: things such as truth, hope and honor. Unlike many popular
religions in which you believe in a person/thing,
Star Wars finds its strength in a concept.
Unless, of course, you actually do believe in "the force,"
which makes it fall even better into religious concepts. Compare the force
to many religions of the Native American culture. Personally, I'm not a
big fan of Star Wars. And besides that, I'm a Christian.
However, as far as religion goes, Star Wars
can/could be/is worthy of the title.
Loretta Woods
tearsofgrace@hotmail.com
Don't Insult Those Who Like Star Wars
his comment goes to David Alley ("Star Wars Is Too Bad To Be A Religion,"
Issue No. 116). If you don't like Star Wars, how do you expect to
understand how it is a cult? You don't like it? Fine. Just don't insult
those who do. In fact, if you didn't like Episode V, why did you see
Episodes VI and I?
Jorge Salgueiro
c9305044@cca.fc.up.pt
