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.
— Scott Edelman, Editor-in-Chief
Send us your letters!
Got a gripe about something going on in the science fiction world? Want to call attention to an overlooked genre gem? Do you disagree with one of our reviews? Would you like to tell the editor of Science Fiction Weekly what a great job he does? Write a letter to the editor and send it in! You'll have the satisfaction of knowing that your letter will be read by thousands of SF fans. Doubtless, fame and fortune will follow (fame and fortune not guaranteed). If you would like to submit a letter, please use our feedback form or send a message to scifiweekly@scifi.com.
n regard to Ahnold running for President ("No President Schwarzenegger Allowed"), let's hope that never happens.
The guy may make some fun sci-fi films, but that does not make him a good politician.
The Terminator may have some good political connections, but he really hasn't stated any issues, nor does he have any experience. For example, how will he figure out how to remove a $36 billion-dollar deficit in California, and not raise any taxes? Cut spending? Borrow money? Bring in some out-of-work T-1000's?
If it comes to the guy reading lines off of a teleprompter, just about anybody can do that, but what interest does Arnie have in the people of California? Why would a guy who earns millions to work about three to six months on a film give up acting for a thankless job where at least 50 percent of the population will think he's a crook, liar and a no-goodnik?
Hopefully the good people of California will say "hasta la vista" to Mr. Schwarzenegger's political ambitions.
Dave
dgrhm@hotmail.com
ust some additional words for your editor, Scott Edelman, [regarding recent] comments ("No President Schwarzenegger Allowed") [in the Science Fiction Weekly letters column to his editorial "California Dreamin'"]:
From The Demolition Man:
Stallone: "Hold it! The Schwarzenegger Library?"
Bullock: "Yes, the Schwarzenegger Presidential Library. Wasn't he an actor?"
Stallone: "Stop! He was President?"
Bullock: "Yes. Even though he was not born in this country, his popularity
at the time caused the 61st Amendment."
Catch ya,
Mark Lett
markl@gallery1050.co.nz
s I read Rachel Maley's defense of the portrayal of Capt. Nemo ("Nemo Was in the Right League") in the
movie, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, I just cringed. She says, "the Nautilus is a magnificent machine with brilliant Hindu influences (I loved the statues of Kali on the outside), and actually portraying Nemo as a Sikh prince (like in the book)?!"
First of all, yes, in Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Nemo is an Indian prince, but no one knows that; it is not revealed until the sequel, The Mysterious Island, was published. There are broad hints that Nemo despises colonialism in 20,000 Leagues, and his crew is made up expatriates from around the world, but the narrator of the book can never decide where Nemo, himself, is from. The Nautilus was not festooned as a Hindu temple, or else there would have been no mystery to speak of.
Secondly, the movie's failure as a movie aside, it fails as the adaptation of a brilliant comic-book series because the adaptors ignored the restrictions Alan Moore placed on himself as he wrote the comic series. In this particular case, Moore portrayed Nemo and Nautilus exactly as they were in 20,000 Leagues, not as a martial arts expert with his gargantuan submarine
larger than modern aircraft carriers.
The ideas behind LXG are wonderful, and in the right hands, have been explored dramatically. It's a shame that the movie ignored the two literary sources it had in order to create a special-effects extravaganza.
Fred Perry
tarqas@bellsouth.net
constantly see letters slamming the SCI FI Channel for its programming ("SCI FI's Original Series Entertain", "Sci-Fi Suits Seek Shows With Teeth", "Sci-Fi Fans Deserve Respect") and while some are certainly justified, some appear to simple rantings.
Should the SCI FI Channel ease back on the inane shark and tentacle movies? Without a doubt! Should shows like Crossing Over be shipped to syndication and left there? Absolutely! Scare Tactics? Fire the guy who scheduled that!
Yet ... while the ball has been fumbled more than once recently, like losing bidding on Star Trek: The Next Generation (and what happened to the classic Irwin Allen series we love to hate?), and canceling Farscape, the bottom line is that SCI FI is still the home for Star Trek, The Twilight Zone and numerous other classics.
Not only that, whether or not many of you want to believe it, Stargate SG-1 is popular! People like it and that makes the cash register go "ka-ching" and that attracts the attention of the "suits."
Also, while I absolutely refused to watch it at first, I finally gave in and watched an episode of Tremors: The Series. This show is actually an example of genius. Wait! Don't jump back in horror. This show is on the same level as Lost in Space. It is so bad it's actually quite good.
As it was meant to be. It's a tongue-in-cheek comedy that takes on all the conspiracy theorists and survivalists that ever walked the face of the Earth, slams them into the ground and leaves you laughing. Like Batman with graboids instead of the Joker.
The SCI FI Channel is still alive and while it may not always be well, it's still kicking and there's always the hope that it will stand tall once again.
Keith Kitchen
BoyoKlaatu1@aol.com
n some respects he went a bit overboard, but I agree with much of what Mike Murphy had to say ("Sci-Fi Fans Deserve Respect"). Especially the allusions to the show Sci-Fi Buzz. In fairness, the show had been a bit uneven. It focused more on goofball antics and monster movies then I wanted. However, it was one of the first things I'd seen on TV where science-fiction authors got a chance to be seen. In some instances it even sort of introduced me to writers. At that point I knew very little about some big names in the field like Connie Willis or Jack Williamson. Seeing them interviewed on the show got me started reading their works. And although I didn't care for Ellison's harangues, his mention of Ancient Shores by Jack McDevitt made me curious. I later bought the book and got much enjoyment out of it. On going to commercial breaks, they even mentioned a book a viewer recommended. I got good ideas there as well.
Than all that stopped. Nowadays science-fiction authors are much more likely to be seen on the educational channels. I remember Gillian Anderson hosted some show on one of the learning channels that was all about cutting edge technology. As I recall, they had the late Robert L. Forward, John Clute, Gregory Benford, Bruce Sterling and others. The History Channel, I think, had or will have, a series on the history of the genre. I don't really bemoan that. Some of these kinds of shows belong on educational channels. Still, it seems regrettable the SCI FI Channel no longer seems to do any such shows or series. They could in least do a show about Sci-Fiction, as their Web site sponsors it.
Theodore H. Rice
thrice@bewilderingstories.com
WIN announced its own Doctor Who 40th Anniversary Poll results in Enlightenment 117 today. "The Evil of the Daleks" has been voted #1 for the '60s, "The Talons of Weng Chiang" is #1 for the '70s, "The Caves of Androzani" is #1 for the '80s and the Doctor Who: Comic Relief special (1999) ranked at #1 for the '90s.
To my unpleasant surprise, none of the spinoff videos ("The Stranger," "Probe," etc.) were included in this poll. I have only seen three of them ("The Airzone Solution," "The Zero Imperative" and "Shakedown") but I would think that they should have been included.
For combined media, "Alien Bodies" (audio) is #1 for the '90s and "Spare Parts" (audio) is #1 for this decade. For the novelizations, The City of the Dead makes it to #1.
There are so many Doctor Who fan clubs with individual views and opinions on the best and worst of Doctor Who. An agreeable vote is the Comic Relief special with stars Rowan Atkinson, Richard E. Grant (Gosford Park), Oscar-winner Jim Broadbent (Iris), Hugh Grant and Joanna Lumley as the ninth to thirteenth Doctors. I certainly agree.
There has been rumor after rumor about Doctor Who being adapted back to the big screen decades since Peter Cushing tackled the role twice in the cinema during the '60s. In the Doctor Who universe, there is always potential and dimension somewhere. Like Tom Baker (The 4th Doctor) once said ...
"There's always a solution. It's simply a matter of finding it."
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basi@sympatico.ca
ike a phaser set to stun, it hit me: bringing the realization that there may be another agenda behind the relentless way in which Star Trek is served up. Like all commercial TV shows, Star Trek should be subject to market forces. Yet time and again, we've seen dire series
propped up and extended by their backers, when any other works of such low quality were canceled. The big question is, "Why?" If the answer is simply "to make money from a globally recognized brand," why hasn't any other SF series ever been given similar backing? Surely, there are suits out there who understand the vast sums to be made from creating, and more importantly maintaining, a credible rival. But for some reason it's never happened.
Are we, in truth, seeing a facet of the globalist agenda? Before you dismiss this thought as lunatic conspiracy theory, think about the fact that what Star Trek presents as our future is a centralized, one-world government. Not a true United Nations, but a government which just
happens to be under English-speaking (American accented) rule. Western culture dominates all. The regime has, apparently, solved all the problems that we now face, producing utopia. As viewers, we've been told, literally for generations now, that the UFP are the good guys. Nobody has ever told us what happened to those who, by Democratic means, chose to resist this centralization of (Westernized) authority. But in the real world, the issue is a lot more complex. In the real world, centralized power in any country has a horrible tendency to lead to tyranny. Is the real reason why the big bucks continue to back Star Trek, regardless of its quality, because it's an established way to reinforce the hypnotism?
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazilREMOVETHIS@freeuk.com
fter hearing all the crying about the Star Trek universe's demise ("Roddenberry's Legacy Has Been Soiled", "Trek Still Retains Possibilities"), I just want to remind some of the older fans who have been there from the beginning that, Star Trek: The Next Generation's first year was bland, stiff and ... well, it sucked.
If you want to invigorate the Star Trek line, create miniseries based on some of the better novels. Best Destiny and Prime Directive might be a start.
It would also allow some new blood (actors and actresses) to take their shot at the captain's chair without committing seven years of their career to a long-term project.
Just a thought.
Orlando Falvo
ofalvo@yahoo.com
aving read the comments on older series ("Original Battlestar Was Bad TV", "The New BSG Deserves a Chance") such as Battlestar Galactica and Space: 1999, some thoughts occur. First, if you didn't see them when they first aired, your comments are biased. At the time, they were excellent for what they were. It isn't fair to compare them to today's technology and quality. I do agree, however, that after the first season they changed their direction and not for the better.
At first, I wasn't sure I was in favor of the gender switching either. Having spent some time thinking about it I now find myself looking forward to it. Change sometimes is good.
I believe no one thinks Gene Roddenberry's name is on the Star Trek series ("Roddenberry's Legacy Has Been Soiled") for any other reason then to give him credit for the original story line to build from.
Thank you for allowing me to participate.
Paul Hoffmaster
fuzzy2731@aol.com
egarding your [news] item, "Depp Eyes Wonka Role"—unless Mr. Depp can play the role differently than his usual portrayals, I hope he passes. I don't refer to the movie, Willie Wonka ... , but to the original book, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
While there certainly are many dark moments to the story, I trust he and Mr. Burton won't make it into a Batman. It's an uplifting story with humor as well as tragedy and Mr. Wonka is written as an eccentric, clever little fellow.
Jane Robinson
janer_28@fastmail.fm
Back to the top.
