HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tillis@icpsr.umich.edu (Eddie Tillis)
Newsgroups: alt.horror
Subject: Re: S. King Ka-Ka
Date: 6 Jan 1993 04:43:31 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan
NNTP-Posting-Host: tdis.icpsr.umich.edu

In article <1i0oj1INNbt4@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes:
>
>King is an excellent writer and I've long felt that he'd be good at
>pretty much any genre he chose, but the (apparently) Wild West theme
>of this series has always been something of a turn-off to me.  Can
>someone summarize the general premise of these stories?  I'd hate to 
>miss out on a good read because of a misconception.
>
That's EXACTLY what you'd be doing if you passed up this series! Although
the first in the series starts out rather slowly, it picks up quite nicely
and leads into the others very well.  BTW, I have no appriciation for the
"Wild West" genre either, so to make me care about anything involving said
theme it would have to be pretty good.  I guess it is because I can't wait
for the next installment!

>Geoff

ET

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What wouldya do for a Klondike Bar?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: barbey@lglsun.epfl.ch (Stephane Barbey)
Newsgroups: alt.horror
Subject: Re: Dracula?
Date: 11 Jan 93 12:30:12 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

In article <9301021.5702@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, moeller@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Mars) writes:
: So where's all the Dracula discussions? Considering it's a horror movie, 
: and I haven't read anything about it lately on this group, I can only
: put it down to the following reasons:
: 
: (a) Nobody apart from me has seen Dracula yet.
: 
: (b) Dracula isn't considered "horror", and therfore doesn't make it into
:     this group.
: 
: (c) Dracula has already been discussed for ages, and when it's finally
:     stopped being discussed I bring it up again.
: 
: (d) Everybody's seen it, but it's so amazing it doesn't need to be
:     discussed.

There is a group called alt.vampyres that had a lot of talk on the
movie some time ago.

Besides, I'm not sure this is an horror movie...

-Steph

--
Stephane Barbey				"It's not easy getting real wings"	
INJ-335, barbey@di.epfl.ch
From: stuam@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr O A Machado)
Newsgroups: alt.horror
Subject: Re: Suspiria on Cinemax
Date: 11 Jan 93 12:44:38 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
NNTP-Posting-Host: lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk

In article <C0nr32.L5r@news2.cis.umn.edu> donnell@tuna.micro.umn.edu (BogusMan) writes:
>
>they ran a strange print of the film, halfway between the edited version,
>and the Directors cut.
>the opening murder is still shortened, but includes the nastiest bits.
>But transitional pans and such are removed throughout. Perhaps this is
>the japanese cut we heard so much about before the directors cut came out.
>Look for the edition of the film released by Magnum Entertainment. It is
>the longest available. Argento refused to release it until someone allowed him
>a directors cut. Cinemax's print looked very nice, but it should be seen
>Letterboxed, which even the directors cut is not. Available that way
>on Laserdisc from Japan.
>Pax
>					--Judex--




The uncut version _is_ available letterboxed on Magnum in the US (at least
on laserdisc - I've got a copy). 

I think there are two VHS versions, one with "Collector's Letterboxed 
Edition" on the top left of the video cover.

By all accounts, the US laserdisc is superior to the Japanese, as the latter
still cuts off a small amount of the film frame, and also tints some 
sequences green (don't ask why...).



Orlando
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I can't take pleasure from killing - but there's |      Orlando Machado
 just some things you gotta do..."          - TCM |  stuam@csv.ac.warwick.uk
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pmarlowe@noncomf.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca (philip marlowe)
Newsgroups: alt.horror
Subject: Re: Repost of Horror Poll
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 02:47:41 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: darkpark

96nlp@williams.edu (sublime) writes:

> 
>   Well, in scope yes, it is one of King's more ambitious works.  But
> the ending, which reflects King's personal faith, in my opinion makes
> the first 1--- pages of sweat and blood seem . . . inconsequential.
> 
>   As for the second response, why yes, I do seem to have a glaring
> lack of appreciation for the Christian faith.  Yet if you ask yourself
> about The Stand, why not have God come down and just end the novel at
> page 12, save the world there instead of making us go through a
> thousand and a half pages of text?  I suppose that would sort of
> dampen the suspense, but it would save a lot of time.
> 
>   Basically, if you're going to include God in a book, you'd better
> include the Devil too.  It balance things a bit, don't you agree?
> 
> VHE (Very Humbly Expressed)- shit, what do I know? -
> 
>   norm


 You missed the point. King isn't a Christian -- his explaination of The 
Stand's end was that, when all's said and done, populist monstrosities 
like Hitler and Randall Flagg are "straw men". Big and bad on the 
outside, rotting, impotent wimps on the inside. 

marlowe

------------------------------------------------------------------darkpark BBS
pmarlowe@noncomf.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca (philip marlowe)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.horror
From: brea9430@mach1.wlu.ca (breadner ken u)
Subject: Re: Repost of Horror Poll
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:57:49 GMT

In article <k4i5wB7w165w@noncomf.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca> pmarlowe@noncomf.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca (philip marlowe) writes:
>96nlp@williams.edu (sublime) writes:
>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The STAND?  C'mon!  A 1500 page monster which concludes with the "hand
>> of God"?  One of the biggest let downs in all of King-dom.
>> 
>> Sorry.  Just felt unbearably indignant. :)
>> -norm
>> 
>> "It? I should have called it SHIT."  - S. King
>
>
> You think so? I consider it one of the Great American Novels, Dickensian 
>in its scope and popular appeal.
>
>marlowe
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------darkpark BBS
>pmarlowe@noncomf.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca (philip marlowe)
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gee, you know, I wonder if Norm is an atheist...
How else would you have ended that novel, Norm? This I gotta hear.

I have to agree with Mr. Marlowe, here...King has written many good
novels, but only three GREAT ones which, in my opinion, transcend the
horror genre and really ought to be considered as Literature (whatever
that is): The Stand
	  The Shining
and	  Dolores Claiborne.

I think the latter exhibits a "novel" technique as well as one-of-a-kind
storytelling.

My only gripe with the uncut Stand (and not the circumcised edition) was
that the updating was shoddy in spots.
Larry Underwood is presented as a very seventies character living in the
nineties; that is, there is no change in him from one edition to the next.
He's almost a hippie sort of character, and it's difficult to believe such
a character would exist in 1990. Easier to picture him ten years before,
though.
-- 
Ken Breadner          |Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Canada
brea9430@mach1.wlu.ca |"Life is what happens when you're busy making other
(the BREADbox...)     |plans" --John Lennon
Disclaimer: you mean somebody's taking something I said SERIOUSLY?
From: pmarlowe@noncomf.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca (philip marlowe)
Newsgroups: alt.horror
Subject: Re: Suspiria on Cinemax
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 14:08:19 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: darkpark

bgaughan@F22.ess.harris.com (Brady Gaughan) writes:

> Just saw Suspiria last night on cable on the Cinemax channel.  It was great t
> such a classic recognized on the cable network.  
> 
> Just wondering if anyone else had a chance to see it.  I've never been able t
> in the video stores, but at least now I have a copy :^)
> 
> --Brady
> 
> 


 Is this the edited version (which I have), or the complete version (the 
nasty parts of which I've seen)? The difference doesn't matter TOO much, 
as the flick relies more on style than on gore anyway, but the opening 
murder is a LOT better in its runny glory.

marlowe

------------------------------------------------------------------darkpark BBS
pmarlowe@noncomf.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca (philip marlowe)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.horror
From: burdickd@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Dakin Burdick)
Subject: Re: Dracula?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:58:17 GMT

Well, I'll discuss it, if only to get it out of my system!

I was appalled by the movie.  I almost walked out of it, and I 
would have if I hadn't been on a date at the time.  The following
problems applied:

1.  Stoker's version was savaged, changed into a teen-slasher with
    blood vomiting and breasty women in negligees.  The characters
    were all transformed into angst-ridden characters with little
    redeeming virtue.  The women were sluttish, but the guys were too,
    and actually so was Van Helsing!  And naturally the doctor was
    was turned into a drug addict (another tidbit that never went
    anywhere).

2.  The plot never got going; Coppola tried to cram too much in and
    the result was a confusing mess.  Renfield was well-played, but
    never did much, and Dracula's various appearances were more
    amusing than scary.  In fact, there was little thrill in the movie
    at all.

3.  The acting was appalling.  The hero was completely unconvincing
    and had a british accent like that of Kevin Costner in Robin Hood
    (BAD!).  The only two characters that were well-done were Van 
    Helsing and Winona Ryder's characters, although the actors weren't
    given much to work with.

4.  There were a number of problems with the costuming, the most
    obvious of which were the women's skimpy negligees (just because
    they came from "Victoria's secret" doesn't mean Victorian women
    wore them) and the god-awful cowboy outfit the Texan was wearing,
    from fringed leather to a Montana overcoat that mysteriously
    appears for him in Transylvania.  

5.  The sets and special effects were impressive but were used too
    often and were never really relevant to the story.  Someone should
    also have restrained the cinematographer, who did a wonderful job
    but who also got WAY out of control.  I giggled when the peacock
    feather turned into a tunnel; it was WAY too much.

The only redeeming things in this movie were Van Helsing's two
black comedic comments on chopping off heads.  If you have to see it,
rent it, get drunk with some friends, and laugh your head off.

Dakin
burdickd@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: rmr@acsu.buffalo.edu (Richard M. Romanowski)
Newsgroups: alt.horror
Subject: Fear, Dread, Orson Scott Lard
Date: 10 Jan 93 01:21:03 GMT
Organization: UB


	The only things that *really* inspire me with dread are abstract
reflections, like the fact that no one has yet shot Orson Scott Card....

	*Shrug* Wm. S. Burroughs doesn't frighten me so much when I 
reflect that his reflexes have been pretty slow for a few decades...
the orgone leaks out of prolapsed recta, y'know ... but WSB's stuff
can als inspire a fair amount of dread ...

	Actually, one of the most frightening movies I ever saw 
was _The_Crying_Game_.  I wasn't scared that these people would come and get 
me, or even pose an indirect hazard to my health.  I was just inspired
to sick fascination with how far our civilization has fallen and how 
far we might get before we hit bottom.

	But dread isn't enough to write a good horror story ...
a good horror story ought to have sympathetic elements.  True dread (IMHO)
comes when I have no sympathy at all with the characters, and I'm just
disgusted that they wweren't shoved into an oubliette prompty at birth.

	A good horror story needs push and pull.  First you push with 
the sympathetic characters ... say a Shirley Jackson protagonist.  You
just want to take 'em home and cuddle 'em and feed them chicken soup.
That gives you a sickening sense of spiritual disorientation when the
Scary Thing shows up and pushes you away.  Push and pull, push and pull.
I think Lovecraft mentioned this in _Through_The_Gates_Of_The_Silver_Key_
...but I could be wrong, and I usually am.

(:
(The above smiley is upsidedown since it's been decapitated.)
(Approach suspects using inverted smileys with extreme caution.
 They are happy and therefore dangerous.)
   
Xref: sparky alt.horror:5441 rec.arts.movies:36691
From: buhr@daimi.aau.dk (Morten Buhr)
Newsgroups: alt.horror,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: HELLRAISER 3
Keywords: Hellraiser 3
Date: 6 Jan 93 07:31:04 GMT
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark

parryh@p4.cs.man.ac.uk (Howell Parry) writes:

>Can anyone out there give me any information about "Hellraiser 3" ?

>Has it been released in the US yet ?

Yes, a couple of months ago.

>If so, what's it like ?

I haven't seen it myself, 'cause it's not been released in Denmark yet, but
there has been several comments out on the net.
The opinions varies, but a lot think it's an OK movie, but not a real
Hellraiser. It follows the trends which we have seen with Freddy in the
sequels to A Nightmare on Elmstreet, where Freddy is being made into a hero.
Pinhead is in Hellraiser 3 not as evil and scarry as in both Hellraiser and
Hellbound, but has turned into a sort of comic charactor.
The effects seems though OK, but the plot is a bit vague.

>Thanks,

>  Howell.

/Morten
-- 
Morten Buhr / e-mail buhr@daimi.aau.dk
Computer Science Department 
Aarhus University
Denmark
Newsgroups: alt.horror
From: paige@csri.toronto.edu (The Woodsman)
Subject: Re: Koontz
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Date: 7 Jan 93 14:06:03 GMT

  You have to be a bit picky with some of Koontz' work; he's recently
 become rather predictable/unreliable. Furthermore, his earlier
 works are of dubious quality. However, he has written some top-notch
 "horror" novels. I use the word "horror" loosely because Koontz' stuff
 isn't horror per se, more in the line of suspense with some underlying 
 horror overtones.

  The Best Koontz' to start with (in any order):

     Watchers
     Lightning
     Strangers    (my personal favourite)
     Phantoms
     Midnight
     Whispers
     The Bad Place


  Any of these 7 are top-notch stuff. The first four are the best.


  Enjoy!

			The Woodsman.
-- 

Rich Paige DCS/CSRI     paige@csri.toronto.edu             
Newsgroups: alt.horror
From: werewolf@cwis.unomaha.edu (Eric E. Buckner)
Subject: Re: Dracula?
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:56:46 GMT

burdickd@silver.ucs.indiana.edu  writes:
> Well, I'll discuss it, if only to get it out of my system!
> 
> I was appalled by the movie.  I almost walked out of it, and I 
> would have if I hadn't been on a date at the time.  The following
> problems applied:
> 
> 1.  Stoker's version was savaged, changed into a teen-slasher with
>     blood vomiting and breasty women in negligees.  The characters
>     were all transformed into angst-ridden characters with little
>     redeeming virtue.  The women were sluttish, but the guys were too,
>     and actually so was Van Helsing!  And naturally the doctor was
>     was turned into a drug addict (another tidbit that never went
>     anywhere).

	Have you ever seen the Bela Lugosi version of Dracula?  FFC's was
	at least mostly faithfull...Van Helsing a druggie, well, even Sherlock
	Holmes was said to have shot heroin (or morphene, or some other drug).
 
> 2.  The plot never got going; Coppola tried to cram too much in and
>     the result was a confusing mess.  Renfield was well-played, but
>     never did much, and Dracula's various appearances were more
>     amusing than scary.  In fact, there was little thrill in the movie
>     at all.

	If you knew the real story (i.e. the novel) it wasn't really that 
	confusing.  Except for that "love story" business, I still can't 
	figure that out.
 
> 4.  There were a number of problems with the costuming, the most
>     obvious of which were the women's skimpy negligees (just because
>     they came from "Victoria's secret" doesn't mean Victorian women
>     wore them) and the god-awful cowboy outfit the Texan was wearing,
>     from fringed leather to a Montana overcoat that mysteriously
>     appears for him in Transylvania.  
  
	Imagine that.  An American travelling in Europe actually brings his
	own clothes from home.  The cowboy outfit may have been in style 
	(I wasn't around 100 years ago, so I don't know for sure) or, since
	Mr. Morris is probably very comfortable (financially) some eccentricity
	in dress would be tolerated.

> 5.  The sets and special effects were impressive but were used too
>     often and were never really relevant to the story.  Someone should
>     also have restrained the cinematographer, who did a wonderful job
>     but who also got WAY out of control.  I giggled when the peacock
>     feather turned into a tunnel; it was WAY too much.

	Never see the movie "Highlander."  
 
> Dakin
> burdickd@silver.ucs.indiana.edu

EtSA
-- 
"Why should I have nightmares?  I give them to you." -- Stephen King

SIC GORGIAMUS ALLOS SUBJECTOS NUNC -- We gladly feast on those who would 
subdue us. -- Addams Family Motto (as heard in the movie)
Newsgroups: alt.horror
From: dstuart@vcd.hp.com (Dan Stuart)
Subject: Re: Koontz again
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:44:46 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Hewlett-Packard VCD
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

: In my opinion, John Saul is a much better writer than Koontz.

John Saul? I can barely stomach his books. They're so predictable, I won't
even buy them used. Once I've read about 30 pages, I can tell exactly what
is going to happen. Now, granted, in some of Koontz's poorer novels, 
he can be predictable.

Again, hold the flames. This is all IMHO.

Happy reading,

Dan Stuart 
 
Newsgroups: alt.horror
From: jpurlia@qualcomm.com (John Purlia)
Subject: Re: Koontz again
Followup-To: alt.horror
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc.
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:42:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.213526.2297@cs.tulane.edu>, jordan@cs.tulane.edu
(Grizabella) wrote:
> 
> In my opinion, John Saul is a much better writer than Koontz.
> 
I've said it once, and I'll say it again... any write who uses the word
"spasmodically" three time in the space of two pages (Saul in "The
Uninvited") should NOT be in print!!

Revolt!!  What do you think the small size Post-It notes are for?  Of
course!  Posting warnings on the covers of all the Saul paperbacks
littering the racks of every grocery store in America...
...........................................................................
John Purlia          : My brain; not my company's brain.  My brain says...
jpurlia@qualcomm.com : "The Toolbox giveth, and the Tech Notes taketh away"
...........................................................................
From: chuahl@ocf.berkeley.edu (Chua HakLien)
Newsgroups: alt.horror
Subject: Re: Repost of Horror Poll
Date: 12 Jan 1993 06:00:48 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu


[ No, you certainly didn't waste bandwidth.. this newsgroup has been
in the doldrums for a while... =) ]

While Barker is the more imaginative of the two, with his creations being
in a more fantastic/romantic vein ( the pleasure / pain Cenobites... ), 
King's monsters and creatures are closer
to home. Even Flagg is your demon-in-a-human-body, while the thingie in _IT_
goes around in a clown suit. It's probably the reason why King appeals
more to the mass market; his horrors can be more easily related to, and
Barker's creations seem remote in comparison. 

However, in terms of writing something that is actually scary, I find both
of them wanting. They may make one go 'Yucks' ( eg: The toilet blowing up
while this guy was sitting on it in _It_ ), but not 
make one rush out and buy a night light or check under
the bed. I suppose the modern day horror reader is more interested in
novelty, than in actually getting a good scare. Witness Koontz, whose 
one plotline has seemed to work well for over 18 books... =) 

Chua
+==+

Newsgroups: alt.horror
From: harrison@lclark.edu (Mark Harrison)
Subject: Re: Koontz: Soft Come the Dragons
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 07:13:31 GMT

In article <38157@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> cjd@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Christopher Dean) writes:
>Can someone list the stories that are in this collection and, if possible,
>their copyright dates. Mail to cjd@reef.cis.ufl.edu or post, whichever's more
>convenient.

To Behold The Sun
A Darkness In My Soul
Dragon In The Land
The Psychedelic Children
The Season For Freedom
Soft Come The Dragons
A Third Hand
The Twelfth Bed

The copy I have is one of the Ace Double books.  I forget what is on the
other side.  Most, if not all, of these were published before appearing in
Soft Come the Dragons.  And I know a few are shortened peices from longer
stories.  I have the longer version of A Darkness In My Soul, and A Third
Hand is a shortened version of Starblood.  If you want to know where these
stories originally appeared, let me know.  I think I have the info somewhere.

-- 
=============================================================================
Mark Harrison           |  "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx
harrison@sun.lclark.edu |   Our great computers fill the hallowed halls."
              -- Me     |                                    -- Rush
From: 96nlp@williams.edu (sublime)
Newsgroups: alt.horror
Subject: Re: Repost of Horror Poll
Date: 10 Jan 93 15:38:19 GMT
Organization: Williams College, Williamstown, MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbird.cc.williams.edu

In article <1ci6wB4w165w@noncomf.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca> pmarlowe@noncomf.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca (philip marlowe) writes:
>96nlp@williams.edu (sublime) writes:
>
>> 
>>   The main opinion I was trying to express is just that King's
>> protaganists never move the book: it's always the dog, or the psycho
>> lady, or the clown, or the vampires.
>>   I think Barker's novels are much more exhilarating, by the fact that
>> his characters push the plot by their own actions; they WANT what
>> happens; they have ambitions, and desires, as well as fears.  Unreal,
>> you might say?  I think the opposite.
>
> Barker's an interesting writer who's done some good stuff, but his 
>biggest weakness is the one you seem to like. The man's characters are 
>flat and unbelievable, and he seems to be more interested in the horror 
>than the humanity which must endure it.

  
  Flat and unbelievable are better words to describe the "monsters" if
you will, in King's novels.  They fall into the cliche of being
incarnations of pure evil, unleashing their awesome fury on the middle
class of America.  It's all black and white, clear cut as to who's the
good or who's the bad.  Essentially, I find King's protaganists to be
simply too boring.  A foil to the weirdness?  Yes, but a predictable
foil, one which leads to predictable endings.

    What Barker does is shift the "weirdness" onto his protaganists,
and the humanity onto the supernatural, something King would never do, for
fear his audience might get confused or not know who to root for.  It
may be unbelieveable, but that depends on what you believe.

VHE,
 norm