YOUR leters

SFX: The Sci-Fi and Fantasy Magazine - - Contents -

SFX read­ers on 50 years of Star Trek – and the next 50 too.

Si­mon Kalje, Face­book If they take a leaf out of Abrams’ book and take every­thing peo­ple love about the older shows and build on it in a new way then it will find a fan base. If they try to rein­vent the wheel like En­ter­prise then it will fail mis­er­ably.

Em­met O’Brien, Face­book It needs to ex­plore some stuff it used to shy away from – how ho­mo­sex­u­al­ity is rep­re­sented in the 23rd/ 24th cen­tury, for ex­am­ple. DS9 had some in­ter­est­ing po­lit­i­cal stuff and that should be ex­panded on. I want to know how things in this uni­verse work out­side of peo­ple join­ing up to Starfleet.

Lug­gie MacFlufferty, Twit­ter I hope it does last an­other 50 years but I feel the next gen­er­a­tion won’t be as into it as my gen­er­a­tion and the one be­fore me.

Christo­pher Drewett, Face­book I’d like to see a show that fol­lowed the star­ship that had to try and cor­rect all the time travel foul- ups caused by Kirk, Pi­card and Janeway etc…

SFX Love this idea. Star Trek: Quan­tum Cock- up Con­trol. Pitch it to Para­mount, Chris!

Thomas Heiberg Nøhr, Face­book No new crinkly fore­head aliens. No time travel. No tech­nob­a­b­ble. No drag­ging out the usual “will they, won’t they” milk­ing of sex­ual ten­sion be­tween main char­ac­ters. They’re adults and can bloody flirt, like in real life.

Craig Hay­man, email For­get the star­ship stuff. Let’s have a Game Of Thrones style saga chart­ing the rise of the Klin­gon em­pire, full of blood­shed, in­trigue and be­trayal. Quapla!

SFX Why would you need this when you’ve got the Con­ser­va­tive party?

Matt Board­man, Face­book Let it die grace­fully. Dan Thorpe, Face­book Star Trek needs to evolve for our mod­ern era. The con­cept is fine – it’s the ex­e­cu­tion of the shows that needs fine- tun­ing. Need­less to say Star Trek will al­ways live on through the spirit of hu­man en­deav­our and our de­sire to face the un­known.

Lin­den Lyons, Twit­ter Em­pires rise and fall so per­haps a se­ries on the de­cline of the Fed­er­a­tion a cen­tury af­ter Voy­ager?

John Isles, Face­book Keep ex­plor­ing the fi­nal fron­tier – the sense of ad­ven­ture, won­der and show­ing the best and worst of hu­man­ity.

An­drew Gil­bert­son, email As a fan I would love to see new Star Trek set in Gene Rod­den­berry’s orig­i­nal uni­verse, push­ing for­ward in the 24th

It needs to ex­plore some stuff it used to shy away from

cen­tury. But hon­estly, the year and uni­verse are just set dress­ing. As long as the writ­ing is there, any uni­verse can pro­duce great Trek – it’s all in what kind of sto­ries you’re try­ing to tell. My hope is that it re­turns strongly to TV, fo­cused first on strong char­ac­ters and sec­ond on moral mes­sages that can reach and chal­lenge both sides of the po­lit­i­cal aisle equally. That kind of time­less­ness and uni­ver­sal­ity are the only way Star Trek can suc­cess­fully sur­vive the next 50 years; by re­turn­ing to what it had when Star Trek was at it’s best.

Keith Tu­dor, Rom­sey My hope for the fu­ture of Star Trek is to see DS9 re­leased on HD, and for the new se­ries to cap­ture the feel, the ad­ven­ture, the ac­tion, the moral dilem­mas and the fun of the orig­i­nal se­ries where the crew get on and sup­port each other and the ma­jor­ity of the con­flict comes from the weekly en­coun­ters.

Leonardo Cec­ca­rello, Twit­ter Any fu­ture with Star Trek in it is a good one.

SFX A most log­i­cal re­sponse, Leonardo.

Look out for the next SFX Hot Topic at bit. ly/ SFXHotTopic

# Disco ver­ing Mars

James Kins­ley, Nor­wich I was pe­rus­ing a back is­sue of your fine mag­a­zine re­cently and I came across a short piece that piqued my in­ter­est about a film that was in pro­duc­tion back then called Mars, di­rected by Ge­off Marslett. Fig­ur­ing it might have been re­leased by now, I tracked down a copy on DVD ( not easy to come by in this country, although I tweeted Marslett him­self and he swiftly came back to me with a few ideas). Long story short, I fi­nally got to sit down and watch it, and what an amaz­ing slice of weird hip­ster an­i­mated sci­ence fic­tion it is. The cast alone is a treat, the likes of Kinky Fried­man, James Kolchalka, Howe Gelb and Don Hertzfeldt all pop­ping up along­side the ever watch­able Mark Du­plass. Laugh- out loud funny, ex­tremely sweet and beau­ti­ful to look at, I’d have never dis­cov­ered this gem with­out, SFX. It’s a cry­ing shame it doesn’t ap­pear to have a re­lease in this country ( yet).

Your cov­er­age of the big stuff ( MCU, Who etc) is al­ways re­li­able, but thanks for the weirder stuff you slip in there too.

SFX Glad we could be of ser­vice, James. We’re al­ways here for the weirder stuff in life. Just look into our eyes. The things we’ve seen… the things we’ve re­viewed.

# Pesky Web- slinger

Stephen McAfee, Co Antrim Loved the new Civil War trailer but should they have shown Spi­der­Man like that? I think not. It seems like it’s his first meet­ing with Cap’s side – pre­sum­ably not the au­di­ence’s first sight of him as I can only as­sume we’ll see him and Tony meet at some point be­fore­hand. On the other hand I un­der­stand the rea­son for it from a mar­ket­ing point of view, and here I shall ask my ques­tion. Do Mar­vel even need to ad­ver­tise? If they dropped an unan­nounced Spi­der- Man movie a week later the in­ter­net buzz would send it through the roof. We’d all watch it and, I’m guess­ing, we’d en­joy it more be­cause we weren’t ex­pect­ing it and hadn’t seen a sin­gle scene from it. Should Mar­vel try the JJ ap­proach and just drop a movie with no trail­ers or posters? Yes, please!

SFX Great idea, Stephen. Even bet­ter: Mar­vel per­fect time travel tech­nol­ogy, erase Fox’s Fan­tas­tic Four films from the timeline and sub­sti­tute their own. Hey, ev­ery­one check their DVD shelves – maybe they’ve al­ready pulled this stunt…

Shouldn’t there be more ar­rows ac­tu­ally be­ing fired?

# All a- quiver

Paul Weather­head, Hunger­ford Am I the only one who feels Oliver Queen is get­ting side­lined in his own show? When­ever there’s a need to go af­ter a bad guy they de­cide that all four of Team Ar­row needs to take down one man. Then when they get there, they seem to al­ways end up in a sit­u­a­tion where one at a time they fight the bad guy, leav­ing you ques­tion­ing what the other three are do­ing. Then when that one gets in trou­ble an­other mag­i­cally turns up just in time to save the day.

Fur­ther­more shouldn’t there be more ar­rows ac­tu­ally be­ing fired? SFX Cut­backs, man. We’ve al­ready seen a 10% re­duc­tion in the show’s leather hood­ies quota. They’ll be slash­ing the bud­get for gra­tu­itous abs shots next, just you wait.

# reader VS reader

Mike Poole, Bex­hill My fam­ily and I went to our lo­cal mul­ti­plex on 25 March and saw a film no one ap­pears to have seen. It was thor­oughly ex­cel­lent, thought­pro­vok­ing, dif­fi­cult to pre­dict, well- acted and highly ex­cit­ing.

It was called Bat­man Vs Su­per­man.

I think there must have been an­other film of that name out the same week, be­cause I have seen a large num­ber of rant­ing, rav­ing com­ments de­cry­ing this other film as, amongst other things, “A stink bucket of dis­ap­point­ment”.

Un­less th­ese re­view­ers are sadly de­luded, or ra­bid Mar­vel fans un­will­ing for there to be two ma­jor fran­chises in the su­per­hero mar­ket, then they must have been watch­ing some other film.

Was it too long? Yes – by about 10 min­utes. Did it have a dif­fer­ent tone to Mar­vel? Yes – and surely that’s a good thing?

What I found fas­ci­nat­ing was that it made it en­tirely be­liev­able that Bat­man would think Su­per­man was a men­ace that he needed to put down. It was also clever how the play­ing field was lev­elled. This is per­haps the best Bruce Wayne we have seen, plus a bril­liant Su­per­man and a fas­ci­nat­ing new Won­der Woman. All in all, we came out smil­ing and happy, hav­ing had a thrilling cin­e­matic ride, with an in­tel­li­gent plot, to which you had to pay at­ten­tion to fol­low the film.

Wait a minute, per­haps I see now why a lot of re­view­ers didn’t get it…

Mike Garner, Moorends What a com­plete waste of two hours. That film missed the point by a mile. It looked at what Mar­vel was do­ing and tried to be some­thing dif­fer­ent. Un­for­tu­nately it tried to be se­ri­ous and grown up, like hip­sters “try” to be dif­fer­ent. The en­tire film seemed forced and noth­ing felt or­ganic. The best thing was the one thing ev­ery­one thought would ruin it – Bat­fleck. He played griz­zled pro­tec­tor very well and acted his ass off to try and make the film make sense. It had no soul, no hu­mour and no in­tel­li­gent sto­ry­telling. Dare­devil vs Pu­n­isher treated the “what is good, what is bad?” ques­tion so much bet­ter in Dare­devil and Ar­row and Flash have done team- ups so much bet­ter. They need bet­ter writ­ers if they want to keep the fran­chise afloat. They need MUCH bet­ter writ­ers if they want to chal­lenge Mar­vel. SFX You can see what I made of it on page 92. It’s not pretty, I’m afraid. I con­sole my­self that on one of DC’s mul­ti­ple Earths we got a mas­ter­piece.

Some­thing old, some­thing new…

Spidey’s on his marks, he’s get­ting set…

Will there be a pic­ture of Chris Pine on SFX’s let­ters pages 50 years from now?

Fire some of those ar­rows, dammit!

How some of the pun­ters looked on watch­ing the film?

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.