HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: paul@pj.tmc.edu (Thorongil)
Subject: Re: The Last(?) Word on "Why didn't they leave someone else on the Sulaco?"
Organization: Mississippi State University ERC
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:04:51 GMT

wbarnes@sura.net (Bill Barnes) writes:

>
>For instance, during Desert Shield, I seem to remember hearing
>somewhere that the military had insufficient transport planes to get
>its men and machines over there, so they had to rent(?)  commerical
>transports to get the job done.  I think it's incredibly stupid that
>no one sat down and figured out, "Hey, if we want to be able to move x
>amount of equipment, we'd better buy y number of transports!"  And
>yet, apparently no one did.  

Granted this doesn't belong on this newsgroup, but I have to respond
to this comment.  In order to save money, the U.S. military doesn't
have all the cargo planes it needs to move the troops and supplies
from any point in the world to another point.  In the same way the
U.S. military doesn't have all the troops it needs to fight a war.
We have reserve units that we call up.  This is done to save money.
It was planned that way from the beginning.  It was planned that the
U.S. government would "borrow" civilian planes.  It was planned that
the government would use reserve troops.  In the long run it saves
money.  It is too expensive too have those planes just sitting around
doing basically nothing.  ( Granted they are used for training or in
bringing in relief supplies but most of the time they are still
inactive. )  Sorry, but in this area *both* Congress and the U.S. military
made the right decission.  Kinda surprising isn't it. :)

BTW: Most supplies are moved by ships.  It's cheaper and you can load
     more supplies on them.

As to the Sulaco disaster.  It was a 

S ituation 
N ormal
A ll
F ouled :)
U p

There would have been a backup on board the ship and the team would
have had a radio to reach them.  Must have been one of those plot devices.

       ___   ____                                                      
       /__)   /          ^  __| ^ |\ /|  ______________________________
      / .  \_/ .        /-\(__|/-\| V | (__   paul@erc.msstate.edu     
    _______________________________________)                           
      Engineering Research Center For Computational Field Simulation   

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: gre253@mis.csiro.au (Steven Green)
Subject: Re: Aliens  ....  does it really matter?
Organization: CSIRO ITS
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 01:26:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.205215.26099@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> orlando@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Peter J. Orlando) writes:
>Ok.. I know a ton of people are going to hate this post.  But it has
>to be said.  At least in my opinion.
>
>I, myself love to discuss movies and love to hear how other people
>think about the movies.  It is good that people can discuss stuff like
>this on a news network like this.
>
>But some of you people have abused the topic of Aliens to the nth degree.
>A lot of the points were made early in the thread.  But people are 
>rehashing and rehashing the same stuff over and over.  
>Is the really going to change the movie?  Is Riddley Scott going to read
>these rehashed posts and say "Gee... so many people think there were some
>plot holes.  I am going to remake the movie so there wont be any plot holes."
>Come on.  
>I am one who like to get in intense discussion about movies but.. come on,
>some people seem to have seen the movie over a hundred times.  
>My personal comment is that you have way toooo much time on your hands
>if you know every signal nit picky thing on the movie.  
>How about watch another movie?  Rent a classic.  Like The French Connection.
>Maybe a nice a good mystery.  Maybe even a spy movie like the Spy Who Came in from the cold.  Something like that.  
>Oh well.  Only some observations made.  If you want to flame this...
>do it to my mail...  I would hate to waste other peoples time with
>wasted bandwidth anyway.
>
>Peter
>orlando@gn.ecn.purdue.edu 
> 

Some else agrees with me !

-- 
* Steve Green     *  "Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outa my hat!"    *
* Comms Group     *  "That trick never works"                            *
* ITS Branch      *  "Nothin' up my sleeve - PRESTO"                     *
* CSIRO Australia *  "No doubt about it - I gotta get another hat"       *
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: ALIENS 1-2-3
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:40:16 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <9224201.893@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, by jamesbs@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (JJ Glamma):
> Now you say the system has to be *doubly* redundant? 

I'm saying there was an incredibly easy way of making it thus, and
that this way was simply ignored is, simply, a hole in Aliens'
plausibility.

> Of course the dropship landing on the APC was incredibly improbable. It's a
> plot device...

YES!  You realized it.  This is a incredibly improbable plot device,
and only works in combination with the incredibly improbable plot
device of nobody being on board the ship to react.

> What, you wanted the movie to end with them going up to SULACO,
> nuking the place, 

As I mentioned in another post, I don't mind improbable events.  They
happen.  I don't mind combinations of improbable events.  There are
other reasons why rescue attempts fail or have to be postponed.  But
they simply ignored a simple safety device that any sane operation
would use in such a case.  Have the ground stuff monitored from orbit.
I am aware that "take off and nuke them" would make the film
uninteresting.  I don't know how to do it.  But the way they wiggle
out of it - simply ignore - is really wimpy.

-- 
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
From: barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Alien^3 query
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:23:34 CDT
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

SPOILER WARNING:
 Go no further unless you've seen Alien^3 or read the book.




















  I've been wondering this for a while.  I never got to see the movie 
Alien^3, but I did read the book (actually spedread the book), so I
know most of what happens (alien inhabits dog, all the likable char-
acters from Aliens are killed off real quick, Dark Horse's brilliant
Alien comic books are completely invalidated, etc.).  My question is:
what differences are there between the book and the actual movie?  I
heard that they had completely refilmed the ending.  Thanks,

                                            Drizzt
From: mwilson@orl.mmc.com (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: ALIENS 1-2-3
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:49:40 GMT
Reply-To: mwilson@orl.mmc.com
Organization: Martin Marietta Orlando

In article 5796@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at, mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>Not a reasonable principle.  Note that in Starship Troopers, there ARE
>crews on the ships.  As for reality: The people who fly the AV-8Bs are
>different from those who storm the beaches, who are different from
>those who crew the landing ships.  Which brings me to another point:
>Why is there no crew on the ship?

I believe Chekov (Russian writer and director, not ST crewperson) admonishes 
directors not to add anything not required by the plot. (At least I think he was
the one.) Regardless, it is a good rule for direction. Adding a bunch of crew to
the ship would not move the story so they should be left out. This approach also
works with the Star Trek approach to technology: don't try to explain how a thing
works, just show the effects and let the viewers make their own assumptions.

>Possible counterargument: But the Sulaco is a warship.  Answer: Well,
>if it is a warship, then it should have a warship crew: people that
>are specialists in space combat, spaceflight, engineering, damage
>control.  Not just a platoon of grunts as passengers.  As long as it
>functions as a mere transport, it should be built as a transport.

More likely Sulaco is a transport/cargo ship with some modifications to 
support the marine operation as just one stop on it's route. 

The role of the ship is two fold. It is a place for us to meet the cast
and to develop some of the relationships. And, we need the cargo handler to 
even the odds for hand-to-hand combat in a bodacious cat fight. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Wilson                              Martin Marietta E,I & M Group
mwilson@orl.mmc.com                      Mail Point 170
Phone: (407)356-6386                     P.O. Box 555837
Fax:   (407)436-5482                     Orlando, FL, 32855-5837
My opinions are my opinions, Martin Marietta can speak for itself.
From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: ALIENS 1-2-3
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:29:14 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <2745@nlsun1.oracle.nl> gbradley@uks197.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Bradley) writes:

>    I agree 100% with this. This is a plot hole in Aliens. The only way
>they could justify leaving no one on the Sulaco during the mission was
>that the computers on board were smart enough to act as human overseers
>or backup. And if this were so, a destroyed dropship would mean the
>marines needed help, drop the second ship on automatic.

Or not drop it on automatic.  With a human, you'd radio back up and tell
him to drop the second ship.  If they could communicate with the computer
to do that, it wouldn't have to be automatic (what if no one survived?
No point in dropping the ship).

But there should be *some* way of getting the second ship down.


-- 
Jorge Diaz                       | Sign in a restaurant:
Georgia Institute of Technology  | 
Office of Information Technology |   "We reserve the right to serve refuse to
ccoprdj@prism.gatech.edu         |        anyone."
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Alien hole?: Did the Dropship Forget Bishop?
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:12:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: golem.rabjab.48.0
Organization: sio
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

Another bothering thing:  when the dropship is called in to get the
team at the APC, WHY WASN'T BISHOP ALONG?  I thought the dropship
was close enough to operations and medlab that Bishop could have ran
out and climbed on board before rescuing the "away team".  What was
Spunkmeyer out doing outside the dropship before he got called in?
Inspecting the craft for takeoff?  He would have seen the 
Alien get on board.  No, he was probably getting back after another
supply run to medlab, which we see him doing once.

The impression I get is that "immediate evac and nuke the site from
orbit" was to be done in one stroke - there was not one reason to
remain on the surface of LV-426.  Pickup up the Marines and then
going back for Bishop would have been silly, considering the chance
"stirring up the nest" would result in the operations complex being
overrun again by Aliens.

No, they forgot to pick up Bishop because he was needed to pilot the
second drop ship after the first one crashed, IMHO.  A plot kludge,
if I ever saw one.

A detailed analysis of the footage
of the dropship and its personnel's location and movements may solve
this seeming dilemma and restore logicality to the plotline.

[In the BOOK, Aliens, Bishop is told to "pack up and meet them on
the tarmack".  Sounds like a little back-patching here, unless
lines were cut out of script at this point.]

Jeff Bytof
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
From: tjm@ecr.mu.oz.au (Trefor_John MORGAN)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Plot holes in Alien^3 (*S
Date: 4 Sep 92 04:10:15 GMT
Organization: Dept. Engineering Computer Resources, Melbourne Uni.


  As far as I saw in Aliens^3, there was only one egg on the ship and
this "infected" the dog.  The acid at the beginning drips on Newts
life support shell, and ripleys shell is fully intact. So

	HOW DID THE MOTHER GET IN HER ????????

  Help me please, as I have a sore throat and stomach and
want to see if I'm in the high risk category.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: artn@bert.eecs.uic.edu (Ellyn Sandor)
Subject: Blade Runner dir cut (again)
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:25:10 GMT

	I know there's been a lot of posting about this subject, most
of which bored me, so email followups.
	I have in front of me a full page ad in _U.: The National College
Magazine_, for "Blade Runner/The Director's Cut/The original cut of the
futuristic adventure."
	Please email me a short summary of differences, if any between
this and the original release/videotape/laserdisk.
	Thanks.

			sbm
-- 
--
Stephan Meyers | artn@uicbert.eecs.uic.edu
(Art)^n Laboratories, inventors of the Stealth Negative PHSCologram
(312) 567-3762
From: wu@mdd.comm.mot.com (Philip Wu)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: ALIENS 4
Keywords: New Script
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:08:08 GMT
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC

Ok.. Ok...  THIS should be the script.


Its a few years after Alien 3, and for a convention on some far-away
planet, several thousand parakeets are being shipped from Earth.

Lo!  The parakeet convoy is hijacked by Alien face suckers and suddenly
we have flying, talking, Aliens!!

Think of the possibilities.....  A flying multi-coloured Alien biting
someones head off, and then saying "Finger licking good!"

Phil
wu@mdd.comm.mot.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: robertk@nsc.nsc.com (Robert Krohn)
Subject: Russian movie "Stalker, The Zone" anyone seen it in USA
Keywords: Zone Russian movies
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:26:16 GMT

Has anyone seen this movie ?

It deals with 3 guys who break out of futuristic jail and venture into
a forbidden zone.

I ssaw it in Germany so Im not sure about the title. I would like
to see it again here in the States.

robert
--

-- 

Best regards Robert.
__________________________________________________________________________
Robert Krohn (M.S 16-320)                             robertk@nsc.nsc.com
From: gbradley@uks197.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Bradley)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Naming Alien 4
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:44:05 GMT
Reply-To: gbradley@uks197.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Bradley)

In article <19486.2a9ce9cd@ul.ie>, 9032754@ul.ie (S) writes:
|>In article <BtK728.Epy@wpi.WPI.EDU>, drwho@wpi.WPI.EDU (Eric Ant Von
Laudermann) writes:
|>> As a math major, I particularly noticed that although the movie
|>> was called ALIEN^3, most people called it ALIEN 3.  Not just out of
|>> convenience, mind you: they simply didn't get it (although most
|>> newspapers and entertainment magazines did.)  In keeping with
|>> this, how about:
|>> 
|>> ALIEN!
|>> ("alien factorial")
|>> 
|>> or...
|>> ALIENTH
|>> (1/alien)
|>
|>what about   dAlien/dX
            
   What about Alien 4? I mean the thought that the third film was called
"Alien Cubed" or "Alien^3" is just ludicrous and makes no sense at all
given the film. There is nothing "to get", the "most people" that called
it "Alien 3" were simply being sensible and able to see that it was
simply a nice way to write "Alien 3".
   
+---------------------+------------------------------------------+
| Gary Bradley        |   "You receive a love letter from me and |
| ORACLE Corp, UK     |                  you're f*cked forever!" |
| Edinburgh, SCOTLAND |        - Frank Booth ("Blue Velvet")     |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------+
| "God damn the censor man"                                      |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: rickk@emu.com (Rick Kleffel)
Subject: Re: Russian movie "Stalker, The Zone" anyone seen it in USA
Summary: A great Tarkovsky Movie that somewhat murders the novella
Keywords: Zone Russian movies
Organization: E-Mu Systems
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 17:54:05 GMT

I've seen this movie in USA, maybe about 8 years ago.  It's a movie by
Andrei Tarkovsky, which is going to give most SF movie lovers a real reason
to hate the movie.  It's very long, very slow, and if you're very unlucky,
like me, you'll see it in the Nuart Theater with two blow-hard know it alls
sitting behind you discussing the philosophical implications of the movie
for the entire length of the movie.  

Well, tyhis said, it's also a stunning, unforgettable movie.  If you've ever
seen Solaris, then you have a feel for "the Stalker".  However, it's based on
an even better novella by the Strugatsky Brothers called "Roadside Picnic".
The basic idea of the movie/novella is this:  There is some kind of event/
visitation/disaster that creates four or five evenly spaced "zones" around
the world. It's as if someone shot a gun at a spinning globe and it hit five
times.  In these zones, the laws of man and physics are unhinged.  The novella
title refers to the idea that we are but ants trying to analyze the remains
of a roadside pinic of some unimaginable life form.  Now here's where they
differ.

In the movie, we get a Scientist, a Writer, and some other archetype who are
led by a Stalker into the Zone.  Stalkers are smugglers who get things in
and out of the zones which is both dangerous and forbidden.  The three arche-
types have somew real windy discussions about the meaning of life, all the
while being led across Tarkovsky's painterly lanscapes.  The visuals -- just
pictures of a field, etc, I remember as being as mind boggling as any high-
tech special effect.  A good movie for Grateful Dead fans. :)

The novella dealt with the situation over a more extended period of time, that
is the life of the stalker.  It was much more in feel like a Philip K. Dick
novel, more populated, less pretentious, quicker moving.  Stanislaw Lem (author
of Solaris) likes both Dick and the Strugatsky's, at least in his essay,
Science Fiction, a Hopeless Case (with Exceptions), a title that many in this
group should take to heart. :)

I haven't seen the Stalker playing in theatres for a while, nor have I seen
it on video.  But Solaris is available on video, so the chances are that
somewhere, somehow, it's available.  Perhaps one of the more compulsive types
on the net :) can help us find out where/how.

Rick Kleffel
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell)
Subject: Re: PLEASE - No more Alien stuff !!!!
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 19:35:39 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <1992Aug27.181809.20718@dgbt.doc.ca> serge@dgbt.doc.ca (Serge Ah Hee) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.014337.6885@mel.dit.csiro.au> gre253@mis.csiro.au (Steven Green) writes:
>>AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!

Definitely a f'hugger.

>>PLEASE - enough with the Alien movies - aren't you guys getting
>>bored shitless with this topic yet!
>No, not yet

I can't believe I'm adding to this thread, but...

If you have something you'd rather discuss, bring it up. Those
people who are interested in it will start discussing it with
you, possibly distracting everyone else from Alien* discussions.
But if you DON'T have anything to discuss in this newsgroup, and
are just unable to handle paging past the Alien* articles or
learning about kill files, maybe unsubscribing is the best thing
you can do.

'Put up or shut up' comes to mind as cliched answer to this topic.

Now, back to theories on why the APC's transmitter beamed some
eggs through time onto the Sulaco whilst being destroyed. :)

Joshua
+      "Each woman is a promise that she can't keep that appeals to           +
|  a hope you can't control." - joe theseus, Deadface: Earth Water Air Fire   |
|                                                                             |
+ jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca   Academic Computing Services, University of Calgary +
From: wwr@calmasd.prime.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: SOMETHING OTHER ALIENS TALK (fave films on video)
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:31:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: calmasd.1992Sep2.093107.735
Organization: Computervision - A Division of Prime Computer

This net is getting kinda' bogged down on limited subjects, so to spice it up
I thought that I would post some of my favorite films that are out on video
(and you may not have seen).

Pastime -- this is the film for those of you who said, "There is no *really*
	good baseball films."  Takes place in the 50s, a minor league team,
	involves baseball, and other things essential to the human condition.

Legend  -- for those who love fantasy films. This little known Tom Cruise flick 
	has excellent special effect/make up/costumes.

The Hitcher -- Rutger Hauer, C.Thomas Howell, Jennifer Jason Leigh - for those
	who are tired of thrillers that are just hack & slash, or
	"psychological thrillers" (SWF) with no action.  An intelligent
	thriller with something of value on several levels.

29th Street -- very Capra-esque.  A warm, funny make you feel good film (with 
	out being smarmy, or insulting your intelligence.  Stars Danny Aiello.

Dogfight -- River Phoenix is a Marine who tries to pick out the ugliest girl to
	date.  For those of you who liked Frankie & Johnnie, The Butcher's
	Wife, and others like these, this film also offers a romantic comedy,
	but it breaks away from a pat formula and remains *very* entertaining.

Erik the Viking - for fans of The Adventures of Baron von Munchausen - has Tim
	Robbins as the brighter than average Viking who tries to save the
	world.  Cameos by Terry Jones & John Cleese.  Good spoofy sword &
	sorcery stuff, very entertaining.


	Well, that'll do for now, I s'pose.  What do think of this list?  Do
you have any to recommend?  How about if you want to talk about Dogfight,
rename the post header to that film, so that people can follow that film along,
and SO WE CAN GET SOMETHING ELSE OUT HERE BESIDES INCONSEQUENTIAL ARGUEMENTS
REGARDING ALIENS *THIS* AND ALIENS *THAT*! (none of which *really* matters, now
does it?  perhaps, maybe, a fine diversion/conversation, but not much more. 
can we now lay that subject to rest, pleeeaaase.)

walter
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: u906789@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (Mark Julian Turner)
Subject: Re: ALIENS 1-2-3
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 01:01:24 GMT

boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com (Two days and a wake-up...) writes:

>What did the Alien in ALIEN eat?  What did the "about 500 settlers"
>eat? (And there that many; they mentioned in the film that there were
>about 180).

158 colonists. Minus Newt and the chestburster killed by the flame-unit, that
leaves 156 possible aliens(maximum).
From: roy@harlqn.co.uk (Roy Badami)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Natives Down the River (was re: ALIEN^3 Eggs on Sulaco)
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:06:22 GMT
	<Bt8J41.I4E@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
	<1992Aug20.015949.14677@mel.dit.csiro.au>
Organization: Harlequin Limited, Cambridge, England

Ulricht == uhschreg@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Ulrich Schreglmann)
Steven  == gre253@mis.csiro.au (Steven Green)

  Ulricht> Xenophobes are people afraid of aliens.

  Steven> GONG!!!! Wrong
  Steven> Xenophobia is a fear/dislike of foriegners. (like most Australians)

Though some SF writers have used it to mean fear of other species (in
a universe with friendly contact between humans and intelligent alien
species).
--
Roy Badami, Harlequin Ltd, Barrington Hall, Barrington, Cambridge,  U.K.
Internet: roy@harlqn.co.uk               UUCP: ..!mcsun!uknet!harlqn!roy

``Computers are not like telephones. Computers do not ring'' --Tanenbaum