If there was anything that I could change or fix on "Stargate: Atlantis," it would be to give them a new enemy that is not the old and boring replicators, but who could help balance out the threat of the Wraith.

It's not that I don't like the Wraith, mind you. But even Star Trek had more than one villain to deal with (I mean, you had the Klingons on one hand, and the Romulans on the other).

Outside of that, I think "Atlantis" is perfectly fine. The ratings are good, the stories are fresh (even though there seems to be a lot of the reset button being used still), and it's a good followup to a decade of "Stargate SG-1." But for whatever reason, the producers or MGM or SciFi Channel or someone thinks there's something about "Atlantis" that isn't quite right, and will once again give us another cast shakeup for the fourth season.

Don't laugh, ABC. You seem to have a similar problem, except you prefer to tinker more with timeslots than anything else. I would love to meet the genius who decided to move "Lost" to 10 p.m. on Wednesdays, not to buy him a beer, but to sucker punch him between the eyes. What was so broken about the previous timeslot?

And then "Doctor Who," oh, oh, oh, "Doctor Who." This British icon has been an icon because it's The Doctor who is the star of the show, not whatever actor is portraying him. How does the character remain the star? By making sure the actor playing him doesn't upstage him. That's why you cast people that are not majorly famous to fill the shoes. Hugh Grant recently revealed that he was being considered for the role that eventually went to Christopher Eccleston, as if "Doctor Who" was broken because of lack of starpower. It was slightly askewed simply because it needed a rest, and it needed a little refreshing, something that BBC rightfully gave it.

Why is it that producers or networks or production companies, or whoever is to blame, just can't leave well enough alone? Why do they feel that even though something is successful, there has to be more ways to squeeze that blood out from the turnip, so they start to mess around with a little bit here and a little bit there, until it becomes one big clusterfu ... well, you know what I mean.

I bring this up a lot, but this is a prime example of how a production company can screw up a good thing. You know what I'm going to bring up, don't you? I can see Alan Stanley Blair's face ... he knows exactly what I'm going to say. That's right, "Earth: Final Conflict."

In first-run syndication, E:FC didn't even have a network to deal with (why do you think Gene Roddenberry went that route with "Star Trek: The Next Generation"?), yet Tribune Entertainment felt that this show with an excellent premise and some great stories needed some changes. And more changes. And more changes. And more changes. By the fourth season, I thought the people who re-did the "Wars of the Worlds" series and "SeaQuest DSV" had come in and taken over. They might as well have.

If a show is successful, if a show is generating some positive buzz, then please, for the love of God, leave it the hell alone. "Atlantis" was fine just the way it was. "Lost" was fine in the timeslot where it was, even against that overblown karaoke show on Fox. "Doctor Who" was fine (and I'm glad that at least someone in this bunch had a brain cell).

Just please, please, please think about what you're going to do before you feel you have to put your mark on something. Sometimes, a show is simply fine the way it is, and without your mark.

SyBits
I was so happy to see a number of PBS stations picking up the first season of the revamped "Doctor Who" series. Yeah, it's already been on SciFi Channel and even BBC America, but "Doctor Who" was introduced to America through PBS, and it makes perfect (nostalgic) sense for it to be there once again. I know most people don't watch PBS, but for those that do between "Fawlty Towers" and "Are You Being Served," maybe some new viewers will come aboard. Bravo, PBS and BBC, for making that happen.

Let's take a look at some of the mail hitting the box, especially about last week's column that finally, once and for all, defined the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer Effect." Let's see how well I explained it:

I was intrigued by this "effect" that you mention because viewers (potential viewers especially) are quick to judge genre series. I am a great fan of "Supernatural." It's on The CW right after 'Smallville." It has a strong (but unfortunately small) fanbase,a nd I am perplexed as to why that is.
--Caroline (no location given).

Caroline, I have to stop you right there because two things have already crossed my mind. First, unless there was some previous series or movie called "Supernatural" that really sucked, then it doesn't fall under the Buffy Effect. Secondly, the real problem for "Supernatural" can be found 30 words in ... you know, following "It's on."

I want you to know that the SciFriday column entitled "Defining the 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' Effect" is the best article I have read on that fine site to date period. Because it defines the very nature of good television. Show's like "24," "Heroes" and "Lost" are popular because they are on mainstream television. By mainstream, I'm defining that as shows that are on such networks as Fox, ABC and NBC. But it's the shows like "Buffy" and "Battlestar Galactica" that don't see the type of recognition that these other shows have simply because of either the name or network they're being played on.

"Battlestar Galactica" is facing the same syndrome as "Buffy" did. people won't watch the show for various reasons. I know you're a busy man. I just wanted to e-mail you and tell you how much I enjoyed this week's column and tell you how right you are. Thank you for the great articles you write for Airlock Alpha.
--Justin Jenness (no location given)

Justin, I'm never too busy to read about how great I am. That's about all I read, though, so I hope there were no other important points there.

This last letter actually has nothing to do with any previous columns, but is a very good response to a story we had recently about Christopher Eccleston pushing to have his "Doctor Who" image removed from a special beer brewed in the United Kingdom. We reported the story as if Eccleston wanted to separate himself from his Doctor character, but this writer has another very, very good theory that I felt was worth sharing here.

It probably has less to do with him wanting to put distance between him and "Doctor Who" and more with his concern over how this image would influence children. He was always meticulous about not wanting to have The Doctor photographed holding a gun, etc. The Doctor and beer .. it's a children's show first ... that's where his concerns lie. You can bet on it, Mate.
-- Hazel May Lebrun, Ottawa, Ontario

And I think that's a bet you'd win, Hazel. Thanks for the great letter!

Why not take a few minutes and share your opinion with me. Just send an e-mail to mhinman@airlockalpha.com, and if you're lucky, I could use it in an upcoming column. Please include a name we can use, as well as where you're writing from. That means after your name, include your city and state/country.

Do you like to chat about the SciFriday columns you see here? Then join our message board discussions by clicking here.

If you're not yet a member of our free breaking news/headlines mailing list, then it's not too late to sign up. Simply send a blank e-mail to syfyportal-subscribe@yahoogroups.com and enjoy the latest in science-fiction and fantasy entertainment straight to your e-mail box with breaking news and headlines. I promise you you won't regret it! Also, beginning soon, we'll be posting news in horror at Airlock Alpha as we get ready for the launch of Rabid Doll. We also have a mailing list going for that, which you can join by simply sending a blank e-mail to rabiddoll-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.

Have a great week, and don't be a stranger!

Michael Hinman, recently named Time magazine's Person of the Year, is the founder and site coordinator for Airlock Alpha, writing out of Tampa, Fla. He can be reached at mhinman@airlockalpha.com.