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 send a message to scifiweekly@scifi.com.
CI FI movie's newest venture into nonsense, Hammerhead owes some serious money to the original cast of Saturday Night Live. All you folks have done is riffed on the old "Landshark" routine with Belushi, Radner and the SNL cast, moving it into the current period's rampant recombinant DNA paranoia, which replaces the 1950s atomic radiation paranoia.
Where are Mike, Tom Servo and Crow T. Robot and the rest of the Satellite of Love crew when we really need them? I'm sure that they, like this letter, will not be present when this flick hits the screen.
What next? Mutant turkeys to go with Hammerhead and Mansquito?
Here's a better idea—spend less on the CG and put the money into something novel—good scripts instead!
Lee Darrow
mstrhypno(at)earthlink.net
Assistant Editor Brian Murphy responds:
You're not the first to comment on Hammerhead's similarity to the Saturday Night Live skit; in this week's interview with William Forsythe, he references the very same sketch. And he's one of the stars of the film!
Best,
Brian
totally disagree that more respect is deserved [for Ralph Bakshi's Wizards] ("Wizards Deserves More Respect", "Wizards Owes Much to Bodé"). How about all of the film that was lifted from other movies to be repainted and presented to the moviegoing audiences as Bakshi's work, when in reality it's another creator's work Bakshi colors?
Thanks but no thanks. At least credit the orginal creators if you take some of their hard work.
Bob Marrinan
bob.marrinan(at)gmail.com
find it interesting that writer Harlan Ellison ("Ellison Talks Spielberg's War") can be so self-righteous about the new War of the Worlds and [Steven] Spielberg ("Ellison Should Be More Open-Minded"). This coming from a man who said on television about wanting to shoot people with an Uzi. The general public viewpoint of the horror/sci-fi fringe is more than justified.
Richard A. Ekstedt
robertaandrick(at)epix.net
think that Mr. Michael Anthony Basil ("Ellison Should Be More Open-Minded") is taking Harlan Ellison ("Ellison Talks Spielberg's War") a bit too seriously (in the Letters section of issue 425). I'm all for respect and open-mindedness in everyday life, but when it comes to Ellison's legendary bile, I say, "Let it flow"!
Let's face it: Harlan Ellison is a great writer, a living legend ... but his rants and public appearances are at least as entertaining and thought-provoking as some of his best writings.
So, I just wanted, respectfully, to remind Mr. Basil that Ellison has earned the right to his crankiness, and we're lucky for it.
I wonder what he thinks about The Suckling?
Pablo del Moral
delmoral(at)yahoo.com
am perplexed by Matt Seibert's recent commentary on Battlestar Galactica for two reasons ("SF Should Makes Us Think, Not Drool"). First, he cites Farscape as a TV space opera that didn't rely on explicit sex or colorful metaphors in conversation to achieve popularity.
Are we talking about the same Farscape? That show distinguished itself as one of the most overtly sexual sci-fi series in American history. D'Argo and Chiana's sexual escapades were every bit as graphic as those of Baltar and Number Six on BSG. Frankly, most of the crew on the living spaceship Moya were sexually active, including astronaut hero John Crichton. Even the villains got in on the act: Who can forget Scorpius' creepy, sadomasochistic sexual fling with his old flame, Natira? Thus, Mr. Seibert is hypocritical for criticizing BSG for committing the same sin as Farscape.
While we're on the subject, what has struck me about BSG's writers is their willingness to explore the consequences of ill-advised sexual encounters. Some characters learn from their mistakes, like Chief Tyrol in "Litmus," who finally ends his affair with his superior officer, Boomer, after it interferes with his guard duties, resulting in the deaths of several of his crewmates by a Cylon suicide bomber and the false imprisonment of another. Other characters refuse to learn, like the arrogant, self-serving Baltar, who keeps sinking further into depravity because he uses his imaginary relationship with Cylon Number Six, among other things, to blind himself to his role in the near-complete genocide of mankind. Sure, it would be more politically correct for Baltar to admit his guilt early on, but in real life people often don't admit their sins until they're caught.
This dovetails into the other thing that baffles me about Mr. Seibert's complaint. He claims that BSG isn't thought-provoking. I strongly disagree. For example, in "Flesh and Bone," Starbuck interrogates a Cylon double agent who claims that one of the ships in the ragtag fleet will soon be destroyed by a bomb he planted. With the clock ticking, she tries civility to get the Cylon to talk, but no luck. So Starbuck decides force is in order and commands the guards to torture the prisoner.
It's an understatement to say that viewers, including myself, were shocked that one of the "good guys" would take an interrogation so far. However, considering the Cylons wiped out the Colonies and planned the same fate for the surviving humans, wanting to exact revenge on one of the androids is an understandable reaction. Yet, after the Cylon admitted he lied about the bomb and was later executed, Starbuck felt not satisfaction but regret that she did cross the line. And this feeling sticks with her until the season finale ... and an appropriately ironic twist.
Now, some will dismiss the notion that any civilized person would mistreat even an enemy as badly as Starbuck did. In response to those critics, especially my fellow Americans, I would remind them of the recent Amnesty International report which compared the U.S.-run Guantanamo Bay, a prison camp for "enemy combatants," to the gulags (slave labor camps) of the Soviet Union. U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld vehemently denounced the report as ludicrous. However, an increasing number of Americans like myself question if the war on terrorism begun after 9/11 is motivated by justice or vengeance. If it is the latter, then Americans are in danger of yielding to the temptation to torture terrorists, real or alleged, because they "deserve it," just as Starbuck [did].
Such relevant stories are among the chief reasons why BSG is not only SCI FI's highest-rated drama ever, but the most popular space opera on TV today. As enjoyable as they are, Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis are more of the same as far as the general public is concerned. Like Star Trek, both shows deal with heroes who always win and moral dilemmas that are neatly resolved within an hour. By contrast, BSG opened with humanity being nearly exterminated by their Cylon foes. Hence, no characters on this show are safe, and the effects of the life-and-death decisions in each episode last long after the end credits. This approach lends BSG more dramatic realism than you expect of the space-opera subgenre.
In short, SCI FI's darker and sexier take on BSG has been more beneficial than detrimental to the show's stories and ratings. As demonstrated by popular adult sci-fi series like X-Files and Lost, TV viewers are more concerned by a genre show's quality than if it's family-friendly. I've seen many a wholesome sci-fi show made offensive by bad acting and generic stories: Lost in Space, Andromeda, Star Trek: Enterprise, etc.
Frederick D. Weaver
Duane106(at)verizon.net
think maybe Messers. Roelli ("Sex Has Its Place in Sci-Fi") and Adams ("Uptight Country Needs to Relax") misinterpreted statements made about the sex and language on Battlestar Galactia.
First of all, there is a huge difference between sex and sexuality. Overtly referring to a sexual encounter, or suggesting that one has either happened or is going to off-camera, is miles away from showing the bare back of a woman gyrating on a reclining man. Hearing muffled sounds of intimacy from behind a closed door and having someone make a joke about it isn't showing the bare legs of a woman wrapped around a man as she groans in ecstasy. I'm not a prude, nor do I think that every show should be child-friendly. I just would like to know why some writers, directors and producers feel the need to be so explicit in their portrayals of sexual relations.
I had thrown Farscape out as an example of overt and suggestive, but not blatant, sex themes. Everyone who watched the show knows they cursed all the time. They cursed on a foreign tongue, but it was still obvious that it would be considered bad language. What I do find odd is that much of the foul language used on BSG is commonly used English cursing that the regulators tolerate with the exception of the thinly euphemistic "frack."
The question still is, "Is it all necessary to make a show that people will watch?"
Matthew Seibert
matthew_seibert(at)hotmail.com
'd like to respond to Julie Bicking's letter to me concerning Battlestar Galactica ("Television Isn't Untouchable").
I find it interesting that you do agree that creators have rights to present their material choosing any of the many mediums available to them, and that some of the mediums are "untouchable and even sacred" but that you exempt television because of its current state. Networks "butcher shows for commercials ..."
First, making room for commercials is a way to offset costs. I don't feel it changes the story, though it does interrupt the pacing. Obviously the major networks do edit movies to fit their broadcast standards. But they only do this because they are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. They are broadcasting something they didn't create. While they do it, I don't agree with it and I don't think it should be allowed. I'd rather they pass on the movie and let someone else broadcast it in its original form. Any modification is a change to the artists' vision.
In Battlestar Galactica's case, the SCI FI network paid to create this series. It passed their standards and is something they wish to show.
You make the point:
All I am saying is that I would just like to watch a good show like Battlestar Galactica on the non-premium SCI FI Channel and not have Baltar masturbate in front of me. Why is that such a difficult concept? Is there some reason that can't be put in the extended-DVD version for those that will get a kick out of it?
You ask us to wait for the extended-DVD version so that we can see "this version." Why couldn't you do that? Wait for it to be syndicated and most likely altered to fit your tastes?
It's obvious that you feel that removing certain scenes won't affect what you view as a "good show." I would actually argue the point that you don't feel it's a good show, since you want it altered so that it is more palatable. But many of us feel that the way it is now makes it a great show. Taming it and watering it down removes its edge. Those scenes that are offensive to you are what the writer is using to show you something of the character, who he is, what drives him, his differences from others, etc. By editing this out, we make Battlestar Galactica like every other science-fiction show on the non-premium channels, versus a show that is helping science fiction to grow up in this medium.
Just a question to ask ourselves: Why can't television become one of those mediums that are untouchable and even sacred? Even with the ability to offer various versions on DVD, does that make it right? If there are multiple versions of something, can it still be art? Is one better than the other, or do they all cancel each other out, leaving us with a commercial mish-mash whose sole purpose is to push toothpaste and sell cars?
If a filmmaker created a movie and released an R and a PG version, would you rush immediately to the PG version? I would want to watch the one that matched his vision. It has nothing to do with getting my kicks out of the R version. True art comes from a vision, not a sanitized or glorified version of the original work.
While we are on opposite ends here, I will tell you one thing we share: I will miss Joan of Arcadia. I also feel that I'm "down to" a few good shows left, and that's why I don't want Battlestar Galactica changed.
Louis Sivo
scifi_reader(at)yahoo.com
K, I admit, I'm maybe a bit too detailed-oriented when it comes to my entertainment. But [director George] Lucas completely discounting his own original three movies for weak, badly written drama in this last prequel really grated on me. [Warning: Spoilers follow.]
Luke asks Leah in Return of the Jedi if she remembers her real mother. And then completely forgets this when Padme dies in childbirth. There's no dodging the scene in Jedi, and there's no apologizing for it or excusing it, either. Lucas either finds his original movies forgettable or that scene in particular to be inconvenient. Either way, his dismissal of his own work is pathetic and maddening to fans of the original movies.
H. Robson
hmrobson(at)mac.com
evenge of the Sith failed to redeem the pre-trilogy because it failed to translate some sort of unified sense of motivation. I walked out of the theater confused as to whether even the bad guys wanted to win the war. [Warning: Spoilers follow.]
After two decent displays of character, first as queen of a besieged planet, then as a senator in a faltering republic, Padme sits around on cushions the whole movie and cries. And then she dies. Never being required to do anything but wear a different dress, we are left unconvinced she really can't follow Anakin down his dark path to power. The Padme we have come to know would have been motivated enough to be leading a sedition plot of her own. She wouldn't have been held up by a belly.
Earlier concept storyboards provided in the illustrated movie books even show a more intriguing end to their romance: Padme tries to kill Anakin to save her republic. With a knife. On the volcano planet. That would have been a far more respectable death than a broken heart!
For so many viewers who haven't read all the books and comics, this last film fails to explain the motivation of even its own title: Why do the Sith want revenge? What got their panties in such a twist? Why does the Senate believe Palpatine so readily that the Jedi must die? What reason is there to say in the opening titles that there are "heroes on both sides," but show the Separatists to be entirely made up of bad guys and idiots?
Motivation supplies even the reason for the failure of the lauded special effects. The Battle of Endor translated so much better on screen because, through Lando Calrissian and Admiral Ackbar, we were kept pace with the decisions that caused the space battle to be fought the way that it went down. Too often during Sith, all we saw were ships hurled at each other in the way a small boy plays with toy trucks. Only the battle on the Wookiee planet contained a glimmer of the old SW magic.
The worst attempt to convince us that any of them were motivated by high stakes was definitely dished up by Obi-Wan. He just ended up aping the emotion when he tried to strike a thoughtful pose, before leaping down and confronting General Grievous one on one. Old Ben would have just scratched his beard nonchalantly before getting down to business.
Laura Stewart
phyrcat(at)earthlink.net
very week a new boxed set of DVDs is hitting the stores. If you can't find what you're looking for in your local store, be it a locally owned shop or a Circuit City, then you can go online to any number of stores and build your own set of TV and movies series with loads of special features, extras, et cetera.
You can collect Knight Rider, Wonder Woman, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, Babylon 5, The X-Files and more. Shows that only filmed 13 episodes and aired less than 10 are ending up in boxes and on the market for their fans.
I have no problem with this! If there's a market, then sell! That's the purpose behind capitalism, right?
Where, then, is the crown jewel of the Irwin Allen productions, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? Rumor has trickled down from High Places that there are no plans whatsoever to release this classic series onto DVD, and that's more than a shame; it's a crime!
All three seasons of Lost in Space are now available, and I'll admit it's a cult classic. There's no doubt that the hardware (the Jupiter 2, the Chariot, space pod and the robot) are among the coolest in sci-fi television history, but the series has been buttonholed as "The series that is so bad it's good."
I'll admit that this also describes most of Irwin Allen's shows from the '60s, but, detractors aside, Voyage lasted an impressive 110 episodes and has a fanbase that can be astonishing! There is a market here that is more than likely larger than that of Lost in Space!
I write this bracing myself for the hate mail I get every time I mention Irwin Allen in a letter, but Irwin Allen doesn't get the credit he deserves. I'll be the first to admit that some of the shows for any of his four '60s series are laughable, but look at the climate of the period! Look at the way censors controlled TV!
Irwin Allen was a groundbreaking pioneer who set out to do sci-fi/action/adventure in a climate that most people not only don't understand but can't understand today. The X-Files would never have been allowed on the air in 1964. People don't realize the trouble Roddenberry had getting Star Trek on the air, much less keeping it there.
Yet Irwin Allen had science fiction on the air from 1964 until 1970, with close to 300 hours of science-fiction television, spread between four landmark series.
Yes, I'm pushing for Voyage, but Time Tunnel and Land of the Giants deserve legitimate DVD box-set releases as well. If Firefly, Wonderfalls, Crusade and other series that lasted less than a full season deserve box sets, then so do the rest of the series in Irwin Allen's catalogue.
If, for nothing else, the special effects! The toys! The hardware!
Then, when you're not paying attention, the stories will snag you and drag you in, kicking and screaming, and you'll realize that the writing was better than anybody thought, even when it was bad.
The networks didn't just air these shows because there was nothing else to do ...
Keith Kitchen
boyoklaatu1(at)aol.com
Back to the top.
