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 Forget Lord of Light
enjoyed your review of Jan Lars Jensen's new book, Shiva 3000. It
certainly does seem to be an interesting story and one that I intend to
pick up now. Be that as it may, your reviewer (and other reviews of the book that
I have read) make the mistake of seeming to think that the concept of Hindu
gods being put into a science fiction milieu is an entirely original
innovation. While it is certainly not a common idea, it has been done
before in the form of Roger Zelazny's Lord of Light. Indeed, when I saw
your review of Shiva 3000, I was fully anticipating a Classics
review of Lord of Light. As such, I was disappointed that Zelazny's work
didn't even get a passing mention in the main review.
Andrew Lias
andrew.lias@corp.usa.net
You Got The Gist Of Chi
hanks for your lovely review of my novel Chi, you really got the gist of it, which
is kind of rare. I'm naturally predisposed against neatly tight endings and
things wrapped up nicely. Goes against my grain! Ironically, Robin Williams
film-optioned the first novel in the trilogy, Rim, and held on to it for
three years before deciding it could only be done as an animation!
Alex Besher
A Little Clarity Would Be Nice
lthough I had heard and believed that The Blair Witch Project was a fictional "mockumentary," the fact that I had seen another, I thought,
documentary on the SCI FI Channel led me to believe that there was some
factual basis. There are, after all, two parts to SF: fiction and science. It becomes indistinct at times when we have no more than a brief scrolling image that says "cast." I am normally not a gullible person, but will now have to be eating crow because I believed the SCI FI Channel to be a credible one.
It is unfortunate in this day and age, when media is so important, that a
channel can, albeit unintentionally, mislead its viewers by not telling
them that an extremely realistic documentary is, in fact, fictional. If you
think it unlikely that fiction can be based on fact, all you must do is look at Titanic. A very fictional account of something that actually happened, yet we knew where the fact ended and the fiction began. A little clarity to take away from these confusing times would be nice.
Tim Bowman
timenchanter@yahoo.com
Blair Witch Is Just A Movie
would like to respond to a Josh Brumm's letter in Issue No. 119, "Blair Witch Insults Any Decent Person." First of all, it's a movie! Like any other movie, it's entertainment. This movie is doing quite well both critically and commercially. It's a novel and fresh approach to the genre
of horror filmmaking, not to mention quite effective, since so many people are
believing it to be a true story. In no way does it insult anyone. It's
simply taking some old folklore and weaving a new story from it. Never does it claim to be a true story, and the fact that they simply just don't say it's not is part of its novelty and draw. Its rough, gritty and amateurish quality gives it an edge that few other movies in the genre have achieved. George Romero never had to put out disclaimers to let
the public know that Night of the Living Dead was not a "true" story, yet his movie went on to become what many think is the most frightening movie ever filmed. He intentionally used a technique that was "documentary-like" and was quite effective with it, although he didn't use this technique to the
extent that The Blair Witch Project does.
Anyone who is "insulted" by this movie is taking it way too personally. No
one, it seemed, became "insulted" by James Cameron's movie Titanic when he created totally fictionalized main characters and we were asked to
"believe" it. I found this far more "offensive" of him to have created main characters, when there were so many true stories aboard that ship, just as touching if not more so, that he could have wrapped a movie around. There are a lot of people out there who actually believe that those main characters really lived (and died), when they never existed at all,
yet no one is attacking Cameron for this technique.
The fact that the producers of The Blair Witch Project simply gave vague instructions to cast and crew and "turned them loose" was just a filming technique to get the best and most "real" reactions from them. Again, it works! No insult intended and none should be taken. These people are artists, or at least would like to be considered so. They want to get their audience to react. If, in doing so, some react by being insulted, they have still achieved their goal. This movie is a success, but that does not mean that "more movies will be made of this nature." This style of movie making doesn't work for everything, just as James Cameron's style of movie making would not work for, say, Disney.
With no offense intended, relax and be entertained. It's just a movie!
Ed Turner
Starbug6@aol.com
The Truth About Blair Is Everywhere
he Blair Witch Project is not an attempt to deceive or a hoax, it's a put-on, like a
practical joke. Was the movie This Is Spinal Tap a
deception? Contrary to Josh Brumm's comment in his Issue No. 119 letter "Blair Witch Insults Any Decent Person" that
only a few people have access to the truth about this movie,
it's been my experience that this film has received
saturation coverage in almost every major (print) outlet,
and every article has clearly stated that the movie is
fiction.
My mother remembers that Orson Welles The War of the Worlds
broadcast. No one in her family panicked because they tuned
in at the beginning of the show, when it was clearly
announced that the following was a dramatic presentation.
Even then she wondered why anyone would panic, since the show
was interrupted for commercials, not likely if the world was
really coming to an end. As another writer stated, people
need to start using their common sense.
Jon Femster
jonbodi@aol.com
Blair Is Better Than Most Horror Films
just wanted to comment on Josh Brumm's Issue No. 119 letter, "Blair Witch Insults Any Decent Person." I disagree that it is an insult to Hollywood to film a movie in such a way. The main difference between The Blair Witch Project and "conventional" movies is that the actors in the movie got to take an integral part in the filming process. The
movie was still written by the directors. It was filmed in a very original style, which in my opinion certainly makes for a far more interesting and scary
"horror" movie than the dreck that has been coming out recently in that genre. Films such as Halloween H20, I Still Know What You Did Last Summer, Scream 2, etc. I could go on all day listing bad movies. One should praise individualists such as the ones who wrote The Blair Witch Project as it stimulates Hollywood into making some very interesting and exciting movies. It leaves you saying, "I didn't waste my $9.00 going to see this movie."
Mike Pierce
slorak@mminternet.com
Blair Witch Breaks The Laws
t is with great humor that I have read letters lately blasting The Blair Witch Project for "fooling the masses," or for using
the "fear" of the actors to make a movie. Well, every time I tune into
Science Fiction Weekly for a review, the same old reviews are given. Let's see, "the movie has no realism" or "the movie plot has been done over and over," etc. Finally a film comes along that breaks all the laws of modern film (budget, plot, script, violence, sex) and people blast it.
The Blair Witch Project is incredibly original, and it is a refreshing film to experience. As to the "fear and discomfort" of the actors...hm...check out Alfred Hitchcock, or Lon Chaney Sr. and you'll see what real artists went through to achieve great film.
Mark Seidler
Scotthebrave@mindspring.com
Blair Scares In A Different Way
hen ever someone asks me what The Blair Witch Project is about, I simply paraphrase the opening titles of the film. "The filmmakers went out into the woods to film a documentary about the legend of the Blair witch and disappeared. Three years later the footage was found." Am I intentionally misleading these people? You bet.
When was the last time a fictional movie had a genuinely visceral effect on
you, the moviegoer? Not while you're watching the film (your emotions
welling up on cue with the swelling of violins beneath the impassioned
speech of the main character who only wants to right all the wrongs in this cruel, cruel world), but long after you leave the theater? The Blair Witch Project (which has no soundtrack at all, by the way) does exactly that, especially if you went in not knowing too much information. Asking "Did that really happen?" is the biggest flattery the filmmakers could receive for this film.
And frankly, the ambiguity of its "reality" is the whole point of the film.
Sure, Halloween was scary! The Omen and The Shining freaked me out! But I left the theater knowing everyone was still alive and Jack Nicholson really wasn't a psycho killer. Blair Witch scares you in a whole different way, letting your imagination, not the orchestra or the special effects artists, tell you when to scream.
And finally, for anyone out there who feels duped, cheated, lied to, or
insulted that they were misled, you should also feel a little silly for
not staying for the credits. Does "Characters similar to anyone living or
dead is purely coincidental" mean anything to you?
Andy Brown
galactor@hotmail.com
GvsE Is Entertaining Fluff
just finished reading Barbara Arnold's letter "GvsE Is Just A Brimstone Rip-Off" in Issue No. 118. I enjoyed Brimstone when it aired, but to compare it to GvsE is to compare apples and rutabagas. The only common theme between these two series is dealing with the undead. Brimstone was dark, serious, thoughtful and insightful about human nature. GvsE reminds me more of the Batman and Robin series, or even Starsky and Hutch, than it does of Brimstone. It is campy, satirical, very entertaining fluff.
Ms. Arnold should have watched GvsE (she admits she hadn't seen the
premiere episode in her letter) before comparing it to Brimstone.
Brimstone is, by far, the better series, but I find it very difficult to
believe that these two shows would compete for the same audience if put back to back.
I truly hope the people who are trying to save Brimstone succeed. I think there is room for both shows in this world.
Art Spencer
spence@wolfenet.com
GvsE Can Be Hard To Get Into
here's been a lot of talk about GvsE lately and I wanted to add my comments
to it. I saw about 10 minutes of the show a couple of weeks ago and decided
against it. I admit, it can be a hard show to get into. However, at the
urging of a friend, I watched it again the other night. I died laughing! It was the
episode
where the old Russian lady died and they carted her around. The captioning
had me rolling! "Body in trunk" and "Extra fries" was absolutely funny.
Then the guy stuck his french fry in the ketchup on his shirt. I'm the daughter of a cop and I
grew up with
that type of humor. It's good to see it done at just the right balance, for
once. Kudos to the USA Network for a unique little show!
J.M. Slusher
Jslusher@clarb.org
Good Riddance To Sliders
Sliders' cancellation is the only bright mark on a TV season which saw most of my favorite shows ending. Many people have said that the series has gone downhill since the departure of Jerry O'Connell, but I would like to remind them that the show was never uphill! Was I the only one that saw the first seasons? Not only was this one of the most uncreative shows I have ever seen (The Species rip-off episode, anyone?), but also one the most underproduced and underacted. Good for the SCI FI Channel for canceling Sliders. Maybe they can put a new show as good as Farscape on in its place.
Trent Jensen
servo32@hotmail.com
Sliders Can't Work Without Jerry
was really disappointed (but not surprised) that Sliders was being
canceled just as season five was beginning. Although the official
explanation is that the series has "run its course," it is obvious that the
show cannot work without Quinn Mallory. As the inventor of sliding and the driving force
behind their latest quest,
Quinn was the show. Shifting their mission from getting home to finding
his birth parents only reinforced that fact. Anyone who says differently,
was not watching the same show I was.
I was truly saddened to see this season attempt to get off the ground
without Jerry O'Connell. From the opening scene with its shot of the backs
of two actors who were obviously not Jerry and Charlie O'Connell, to the
later episodes in which they tried to deal with the "merged" Mallory, things were just not "clicking."
I'll give Cleavant Derricks credit. His evolution from whiner to the new
de facto leader of the group over the past few years was a superb
development, but without Quinn, the mythology of the show just couldn't
hold together. It was a shame, because I thought season four was the best so far. The show was finally finding a proper direction and had gotten away from the "movie of the week" rip-off plots that Fox had forced on the show, and that resulted in the very public and very bitter departures of star John Rhys-Davies and creator Tracy Torme.
I respect the decision of Jerry and Charlie O'Connell to move on, but it was their departure that killed the show.
Den Wilson
den451@panetwork.com
MST3K Promos Tick Fans Off
n July 25 the SCI FI Channel aired the first Mystery Science Theater 3000 promotion in many, many
months. Ironically, it was to promote the last episode of the show. While
the show's end is cause for regret, SCI FI's promotion is cause for annoyance.
The tag lines, a take-off on the first trailer for The Phantom Menace,
talked about "Every Show Gets Canceled" and "Every Legend Runs Its
Course." SCI FI, it seems, meant this to be funny. I, however, was offended at
the spot's poor taste.
SCI FI seemed to be saying, "Your show's dead! We killed it! It's
over! Shut up and get used to it!" Since the current management at SCI FI took power, MST3K and its fans got little respect. Now, it seems, the
show's passing is cause for no respect at all from SCI FI. They're almost
gloating over it. I doubt that the last episode of Sliders will inspire
such an attitude from SCI FI.
In short, I'm surprised at the great lengths SCI FI has gone to in
order to tick off viewers of one of their best programs.
Kenneth Morgan
greenmonsterprod@hotmail.com
Will Invisible Man Copy U.K. Comedy?
noticed that a new invisible man series is planned in the United States. The plot synopsis is almost a carbon copy of an
invisible man comedy drama series that aired on the ITV network in Britain
a year or so back. In it the main character became invisible when exposed to
water. The pilot TV film was very well done with sparkling dialogue and
good effects, but the subsequent series ran out of ideas too quickly and became
stale. Ah well.
Still, we've done well in Britain lately. Killer Net, Invisible Man and
Ultraviolet have all been excellent fantasy shows. Indeed, Ultraviolet is quite simply
the best fantasy show I've seen in the '90s. Lets hope we get more.
It'll be interesting to see the new Invisible Man. I just hope it's not a carbon copy of ours.
Gavin Jones
jonesg2@cardiff.ac.uk
Few Fantasy TV Shows Make The Grade
can appreciate Jason Puckett's point of view in his Issue No. 119 letter "Hollywood Needs More High Fantasy Films," though I
have to look at the short life of Roar to think that maybe the audience
isn't sufficient for major network consideration. True, that didn't go into
the realms of faerie and majick and dragons and things as far as some of us would think of in
reference to high
fantasy. Actually, Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and Xena: Warrior Princess and the spate of takeoffs that
followed them (Robin Hood, Sinbad, etc.) did pretty well at that, but as we
all know, only the first two really got anywhere. Conan was a pretty good series in the genre I thought--at least it treated its subject more seriously.
Ross Chamberlain
rchamber@wizard.com
Waiting For Crusade? Try Farscape
have been watching the Crusade debate for many weeks now, and I must
admit Crusade is not the same flavor as Babylon 5. Ever since the last episode of Babylon 5 aired, I have been desperately searching for a science fiction series to fill the void. I think I have finally found what I was looking for with Farscape. Farscape is a truly provocative science fiction show. What an eclectic mix of characters and such a Vorlon-esque ship to travel with! Kudos to the writers for coming up with the novel twist of having the ship pregnant--wow! If you have not seen it yet, take the time to. I think you will find it tasty eye-candy and an adequate supplement to your science fiction diet. Farscape is certainly better than waiting for Crusade to live up to its potential!
Lina Gay
linag@chp.hgala.org
At Least Old SF Has Real Scientists
read the review of When Worlds Collide and I have to say it's one of the old time SF movies I enjoy. At least in the old movies there are scientists who study and ponder their research and the results, unlike the
silly portrayal of scientists in Independence Day or their absence in Deep Impact. One can only hope and pray that if the Earth is ever facing the end, it is handled by serious scientists and not the souped-up unknowing military machine.
Also, I urge everyone to check out a great old SF classic, The
Day the Earth Caught Fire. It is a great science tale and one worth
watching this very hot summer.
Gloria Hoffner
gloriah@phillynews.com
