HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
id <m0mfrrA-0000KyC@crash.cts.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 92 06: 36 PDT
	id <jg23784@pro-amber.cts.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 92 06: 36 PDT
From: rsopicki@pro-amber.cts.com (Randy Sopicki)
Subject: Re: Aliens (New Book?)
Organization: ProLine [pro-amber] -- Spring Valley, Ca
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 06:26:58 PDT

In <1992Oct15.124429.5336@tc.fluke.COM>
stevep@fluke.tc.fluke.com (Steve Peterson) writes:

>
>	I just picked up a book called "Aliens (Earth Hive)" book 1 by an 
>author named Perry. It states it is a Dark Horse Novel and has CBS Fox all
>over the covers. I have only read the first 2 chapters and there is nothing
>about Aliens vs Preditors but it does have the same atmosphere (So far) as 
>Aliens (The second movie). There is no mention of Aliens vs Preditors 
>(Thank goodness), but it seems to be a good candidate for a movie if there 
>going to make a part 4.
>

I must be getting mellow in my old age. I agree with you 100%. I found Steve
Perry's book to be well done. The setting will lend to good screen
translation, more so then an Aliens vs Predator type of movie.

Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.movies:7783 rec.arts.movies:29706 alt.cult-movies:8826
From: bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
Subject: Re: computers or physical?
Date: 7 Oct 1992 23:55:00 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


>
>Well, perhaps what we really disagree on is the definition of 'traditional'.
>In the all the literature I read prior to the Old Star Trek, 'android' meant
>a flesh and blood, or biological, but synthetic or manufactured human.  For 
>that matter, I haven't read anything since in which androids were electro-
>mechanical. 
>
>If by traditional you include post-Old Star Trek Sci Fi, and/or popular 
                                                                 ^^^^^^^
>dictionaries (e.g. Webster's or Oxford) then you are right.  Personally
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^              ^^^^^^
>I think we are each right, but in different contexts.  The use of the term


Hold up.

Go to a library sometime - a LARGE library, that is - and check out the 
Oxford English Dictionary.

It is twenty or so LARGE volumes.  And costs (I believe) more than 2000
U.S. dollars.

Definitely NOT a popular format!  :-)

 
>--
>dsc@gemini.gsfc.nasa.gov  
> |  Regards,         |   Hughes STX                |    Code 926.9 GSFC        |
> |  Doug Caprette    |   Lanham, Maryland          |    Greenbelt, MD  20771   |
> P.S.  Yes, I'm also one of those snobs who distinguishes between SF, and
> Sci Fi.
  ^^^ ^^^
Do you pronounce that, "sky-fi"?  :-)



-- 
Whom first, whom later         No one is fool enough to choose war instead of
did you kill in battle,        peace - in peace sons bury fathers, but in war
Patroklos, when the gods       fathers bury sons.  It must have been heaven's
were calling deathward? HOMER  will that this should happen...      HERODOTUS
From: s892031@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Pumpkin Power)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: T3 ?? What's the deal?
Date: 12 Oct 92 01:21:35 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre
NNTP-Posting-Host: minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au

glocke@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Gordon Locke  ) writes:
>	Pardon me if this is in a FAQ somewhere (I looked and couldn't
>find a FAQ posted), but I read on this newsgroup a while back a post
>wherein someone quoted a newspaper article that announced the
>forthcoming Terminator 3 movie.  What's the deal.
>	The alleged article told of a nnews conference held by Cameron,
>Arnie, Linda Hamilton, et al., and said that the flick will be out in
>the summer of '93.  While I cringe at the thought of a third Terminator
>movie (how could they do it??), if Cameron is behind it, I'm willing to
>hold out some hope that it may be good.

He was pulling your chain.  There was no such newspaper article, he
made it up - a few people followed up having been unable to find any
such article in the paper he mentioned.

Peter Barton : s892031@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au

--
From: yjc@po.cwru.edu (Jerome Chan)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: DARTH VADER vs. T1000
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies
Date: 7 Oct 1992 18:54:03 GMT
Organization: The Tofu Society of Singapore
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: b61539.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Oct6.215430.9335@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>,
gmcmanus@reepicheep.gcn.uoknor.edu (Gary McManus) wrote:
> 
> Just Kidding!

Urgh!

---
 The Evil Tofu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: jk87377@cc.tut.fi (Juhana Kouhia)
Subject: Re: T3 ?? What's the deal?
Organization: Tampere University of Technology
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 11:41:59 GMT


In article <1992Oct8.225741.5002@morgan.ucs.mun.ca>
glocke@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Gordon Locke  ) writes:
>
>Basically, that Cameron is against the idea, but
>Arnie would like to do it.  [Damn Republican =^]

Arnie shined his ego in T2 by not allowing killings or such.
I hope T3 has no the same case; uh oh, I'm hoping too much.
Instead I would like to see as terrifying film that Terminator
was -- of course, with modern special effects.
T2 was quite terrifying too, but T3 could be more and only terrifying.
(The problem is that where to fit those jokes of Arnie.)

I'm happy with any T3 as long as it is good and gives something new to
viewers.

Juhana Kouhia
From: sjs28257@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Stelter)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.starwars
Subject: Re: Return of the Jedi - what I didn't like (again)
Date: 11 Oct 92 23:40:41 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

rchao@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Chao) writes:

Comments concerning Robert's comments follow.

>I missed the recent stuff about what he hated about RofJ, and I just saw it
>again and just had to comment. One disappointment is the way Han and Lando
>are portrayed. For most of the film, they do not act like smugglers or
>pirates. They might as well be Wedge.

True.  However, we have to keep in mind that the Rebellion has been going on
for quite some time.  By now, Han and Lando have pretty much grown out of 
their "seedy pirate" image--they're generals in the Rebel Alliance by now,
for Yoda's sake.  This change in personality is bad news for fans (such as
yourself, apparently) who prefer the hard-nosed, tough-guy Han and Lando,
but good news for fans (such as myself) who thought it was pretty neat that
these two characters have redeemed themselves for their mercenary past and
developed into full-fledged Good Guys.

>The dialogue is weak. Consider the scene where Han and Lando part, and they
>say "Get going, ya pirate."

Cheesy dialogue is a staple of the Star Wars films.  Even so, I found the
dialogue in ROTJ to be much, *much* less awful than in ANH.  "Governor
Tarkin!  I recognized your foul stench the moment I set foot on this battle
station."  Ugh.

>The scene where Luke tells Leia they are related has almost no emotion.

Could be because Luke has apparently suspected it all along.

>I believe the opening scene could have been cut as it serves no purpose.
>Does anyone agree that small ships should not be able to go into hyperspace?
>Perhaps they could have loaded them all onto a carrier first.

Most Rebel ships, even the fighters, are hyperspace-capable so that the Rebel
fleet can get the best mileage out of the ships it has.  It's also good for
dramatic purposes, since it allows characters like Luke and Boba Fett to
strike out in their own ships without dragging the entire fleet behind them.

>All the scenes on Endor make me feel like the entire screenplay should have
>been chucked. The film reaches a low point when Leia gives a cracker to
>the little bear.

You're not alone here--lots of fans find the Ewoks annoying.  But I don't
think the Endor scenes were *that* bad, and certainly not nearly bad enough
to justify chucking the entire film.

>There's too much hot air about the dark side, the good side, and why does
>Luke try to talk like his dad? I liked him better when he yelled all the
>time.

Again, this depends on what version of the Luke character you like: the 
headstrong pilot wannabe, or the kindler, gentler, more together Jedi
Knight wannabe.  I prefer the latter, but your mileage may (and apparently
does) vary.

>I was beginning to like Admiral Piett.

*Never* get too attached to Imperial officers...they never last for more than
one film.  :)


                                   --Steve Stelter
                                     sjs28257@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: wakesm@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Steve Wake)
Subject: Re: Dune (longer version) FAQ?
Organization: Purdue University
Distribution: worldwide 
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:38:43 GMT

In <Bw2z26.AI9@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jatg5423@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (John A. Ternent) writes:

>Hi, all.

>Sorry if this is an FAQ, but there's a version of Dune playing on
>two nights here in Illinois (on Fox) that has a LOT of scenes that
>were not on the videotape release.  Does anyone know where to get
>the long version and how to distinguish the two (Aside from looking
>at "Running time")?

>Thanks,

>John Ternent
>jatg5423@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
The newer release of Dune on LD is really long, but I'm not sure what
footage in it is different.  The main difference between the version that
you are seeing on TV and the released version is the opening.  The TV 
version now has a section called the Epilogue with a different narrator.

Steve Wake          WAKESM@SAGE.CC.PURDUE.EDU
From: stranger@watserv.ucr.edu (Katherine T Lim)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Sigourney Weaver
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:47:11 GMT
Reply-To: stranger@watserv.ucr.edu


Happy 43rd birthday to the one and only
Ellen Ripley!  Does anyone out there
know where to write to Sigourney 
Weaver?  I'd appreciate _any_ information.

Thanks in advance.

			Kathy
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: sdt8s@curry.edschool.Virginia.EDU (Stephen Daniel Tilson)
Subject: Re: T3 ?? What's the deal?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:53:49 GMT

glocke@morgan.ucs.mun.ca  writes:
> 	Pardon me if this is in a FAQ somewhere (I looked and couldn't
> find a FAQ posted), but I read on this newsgroup a while back a post
> wherein someone quoted a newspaper article that announced the
> forthcoming Terminator 3 movie.  What's the deal.
> 	The alleged article told of a nnews conference held by Cameron,
> Arnie, Linda Hamilton, et al., and said that the flick will be out in
> the summer of '93.  While I cringe at the thought of a third Terminator
> movie (how could they do it??), if Cameron is behind it, I'm willing to
> hold out some hope that it may be good.
> 	Thanks in advance ...
> 	
> 	- Gord Locke, T2 fan extraordinaire.
>                           

This was a hoax. Scott Gorcey, if you're reading, please
apologize to Gord.

Steve
--
D.A.M.: Mothers Against Dyslexia
Steve's address is no longer sdt8s@poe.acc.virginia.edu;
I got booted to a new machine: sdt8s@curry.edschool.virginia.edu.
I'm working on a new .sig but not as we speak.
From: ss@wpi.WPI.EDU (Scott Streeter)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: TRON/HEAVY METAL/DUNE/BLADE RUNNER
Date: 16 Oct 92 11:49:02 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: BRADHAMP@ASHLEY.COFC.EDU's message of 15 Oct 92 20:23:38 GMT

>>>>> On 15 Oct 92 20:23:38 GMT, BRADHAMP@ASHLEY.COFC.EDU said:






BRADHAMP> I read an article last week that said Ripley Scott's
BRADHAMP> director's cut for BLADE RUNNER is now REALLY out, although
BRADHAMP> it hasn't reached my area.  Anybody know if and where it can
BRADHAMP> be gotten on tape?

It JUST came out again in theatre's!! Don't expect to see it on tape,
if ever, for quite some time.

BRADHAMP> Are TRON and HEAVY METAL available on tape?  if so, how can
BRADHAMP> I get copies?  If not, why not? [they were both really good
BRADHAMP> flicks]

Tron probably. Try a video store... Heavy Metal has never been
commercially release on VHS or any other media.
--
 Scott Streeter                             Keeper of the Star Wars Archive
 ss@wpi.wpi.edu                             wpi.wpi.edu        130.215.24.1
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
From: pete@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Peter Alexander Merel)
Subject: Re: Deckard as 6th Replicant doesn't hold water
Organization: AOTC - CSSC
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:47:09 GMT

fineberg@win31.nas.nasa.gov (Samuel A. Fineberg) writes:
>K.R.Catchpole3@lut.ac.uk writes:
>>In summary, I thought that the whole point of the film was that
>>Deckard is not a replicant and neither are any of the rest of the 'human'
>>characters but all are so similar to the replicants that to make a distinction
>>between them and kill the replicants is NOT HUMAN.

K.R has seen fit to post without reading the forgoing articles in the thread.
If he would care to address himself to the points they raise he would save 
everyone here a lot of rehashing. Suffice it to say that K.R's interpretation,
while valid, is by no means the only valid interpretation of the film.

>That's the point of the book, 

No, it is not. In the book androids are explicitly non-human. The big 
difference is that they are totally devoid of empathy and compassion, and
unable to learn it. 

>however, it is apparent from this discussion that Riddley Scott screwed up 
>his adaptation.  

Ah, I see, ambiguity is not permissible in art. Thanks for clearing that up
for us. I'll just go throw out my Dalis now - damned nosy fish, I never liked
them anyway.

>Unfortunately, the ambiguity
>he imposed on the issue hurts the impact of the story.  

How?

>P.S., Another stupid thing Scott added was the 4-year lifespans being a fail
>safe device.  

This gives context to the Tyrell implant technology that is central to the
movie. I think the 4-year device is very effective - why don't you like it?

>In the book androids died early because the designers had never
>figured out how to make tissue regenerate.  Therefore, there was a good reason
>to chase the replicants, and there was no such things as a special one that
>could last longer.  

I don't see how this alters the rationale for chasing the replicants. As to
Rachel being "special" - she isn't in the DC.

>Finally, in the book Deckard had taken the V-K test.

But if you remember, the V-K test itself was called into question when Deckard
was pulled in by the android police. The book does question Deckard's humanity
- and then leaves his humanity in question by making all objective tests 
meaningless.

>Now that I have said everything I wanted to say, I'm going to put this thread
>in my kill file.  It has gone on way too long.

I can't argue with logic like that. Good riddance.

-- 
Internet: pete@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au   UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!munnari!cssc-syd!pete
Snail: 1/18-20 Orion Road, Lane Cove NSW 2066 Australia    Phone: +61 2 911 3130
Theftright Peter A. Merel (T) 1992. Rights to all replies, followups, originals,
sources and anything else I can get my hands on reserved.
From: omori@ee.fit.edu (Ricardo Omori)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Battlestar Galactica Soundtrack
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:31:39 GMT
Organization: Florida Tech, CP/EE Dept.

Does anybody know the name of an album
and the place where I can find the
soundtrack of Battlestar Galactica?

Please send me any info at
omori@ee.fit.edu 

Thank you,
Ricardo
From: bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Greg Bole)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Dan Akroyd in Raiders???
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:55:50 GMT
Organization: HHMI/Human Genetics, Univ of Pa.

> Yes, it is Dan Akroyd.  I just checked my copy and he is listed in the
> credits as playing Weber.  That is the pilot you saw.  I don't believe
> actors contract to studios anymore.  That hasn't been done since about
> the 60's (I'm not sure of the exact time period), but actors contract
> for individual movies or television series, and are not connected to 
> any one studio.  The old studio system is gone.

But actors can sign mutiple picture deals with one studio, then if they 
do a picture with another studio, they cannot be credited.

This recently happened with Chevy Chase in _Hero_.

Greg Bole                               "You gotta look out for Goddamn
bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu             number-one, pardon-the-vulgarity."   
                                             Dustin Hoffman in _Hero_
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: pete@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Peter Alexander Merel)
Subject: Re: BR: Raw oysters, boiled dogs, tequila worms, calfskin wallets.
Organization: AOTC - CSSC
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 05:44:15 GMT

grae@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (Graeme Gerrard) writes:
>One thing I noticed in a recent viewing is that there ARE some real
>animals in BR - rats in JRs apartment and doves/pigeons in the scene with
>Roy and Deckard on the roof of the Bradbury, including the one Roy
>frees when he 'dies'.

Yes, I always found that a little jarring. Pris comments that "of course"
Tyrell's owl is artificial though we know that Tyrell is rich as Croesus, 
but Sebastien has wild white doves in his ceiling. Perhaps Sebastien, who 
we know likes to make toys, made a few doves to populate his eaves too. 
Likewise the rats. Anyone else see a little Renfield in Sebastien?

One thing we do know is that there are still plenty of fish stocks - or else
what was in Deckard's sushi? Wait, that was only in the voiceover and 
therefore erased from consideration now that the DC is out. Maybe the movie 
opens in a soylent-green bar or something.

>The whole animal extinction/blackmarket theme is much more developed
>in DADES.  I can't see how the few references to animals could make
>much sense without having read the book.

Yes, that's been the subject of some pedagogy here.

>The city setting seems to be adapted from San Francisco in
>The Man in the High Castle.

Are you sure? I don't remember there being all the macrostructure or the 
flying cars in MITHC. Been a while since I read it though.

As to mercerism - I think it went the way of most of the humour from DADES.
The mood machine, the unelectric cat, the android police station - I liked
those a lot, but they don't fit in BR. Neither does Mercerism.

Oh, and the wallet was catskin, not calfskin.

-- 
Internet: pete@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au   UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!munnari!cssc-syd!pete
Snail: 1/18-20 Orion Road, Lane Cove NSW 2066 Australia    Phone: +61 2 911 3130
Theftright Peter A. Merel (T) 1992. Rights to all replies, followups, originals,
sources and anything else I can get my hands on reserved.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: pjs@euclid.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter J. Scott)
Subject: Re: Star Wars music like what earlier composition?
Reply-To: pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:37:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.164151.59715@cc.usu.edu>, slb3y@cc.usu.edu (Punk Rocketeer) writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.210105.2022@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>,
> pjs@euclid.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter J. Scott) writes:
> > I've read in the past postings to the effect of "The theme from
> > Star Wars is a rip-off of piece X, by composer Y."  I have no
> > idea whether this is true and personally don't care, I would just
> > like to know the claimed values of X and Y so I can go listen to
> > it myself...
> 
>      Holst (I don't know anything about a first name)
> 
>      "The Planets"

Interesting; The Planet Suite has been one of my favorite works for
many years and I listened to it again only last week, which is why
I'm sure that the posting(s) I was thinking of were talking about
some other piece.  But, I can see "Jupiter" being used for a triumphal
theme...

-- 
This is news.  This is your       |    Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech
brain on news.  Any questions?    |    (pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov)
From: gschlesi@scott.skidmore.edu (gabriel schlesinger)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: re: Return of the Jedi - what I didn't li
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:27:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: scott.1992Oct15.022734.3032
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY

What's the matter with Wedge?  He is one of my favorites.  Wedge has
reached cult status in Newton, MA you know.  2)  Blowing up the Death
Star #2 was one of the best space battles ever done.  3) I had
problems with RofJ too.  Mostly the Vader/Luke crap.  I didn't make
sense. What if Luke just calmly killed Vader?  Would he go over to
the Dark Side then or was it just in anger?  And who really cares
since the whole place is blown up anyway?  The Emperor's ego is
infinitely large than Tarkin's, he wouldn't have left no matter what.
Most of all though was that there were unfulfilled prophecies from
ESB. (paraphrasing) "If you go now you will only cause your friends
more harm".  Where does that happen?  
My other problem is that there's no transition in the character of
Luke.  In ESB on Dagoba he is a fuck up.  He doesn't do anything
right.  Then all of the sudden he kills three barges of experienced
bounty hunters armed with a lightsaber.  I don't think so.  Hell,
Vader probably couldn't do that with far superior powers, and armor
protecting him.
	But all in all you have to accept it because the series is
just so good and I haven't seen any other sf movies which really last
as well as Star Wars.  I'm just waiting for the movies to be shown
like Rocky Horror.  There already exist enough people who can do it
line for line and when I had a marathon showing last year w/friends we
had response lines far superior to those from RH.
						-Gabe
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: sjs28257@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Stelter)
Subject: Re: Dan Akroyd in Raiders???
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:49:01 GMT

steelem@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (STEELE MARK A) writes:

>Near the beginning of _Temple of Doom_, when Indy, Willie and Short Round
>have arrived at the airport, they are met by someone stating that he had
>spoken to his (Indy's) assistant and managed to secure three seats on a
>cargo liner...
>I was viewing this on an old TV using VHS and this person looked alot like
>Dan Akroyd. I know that if an actor is under contract with one movie studio
>and they appear in another studios film then there name will not appear in
>the credits, sometimes actors will ask to have their names not placed in the
>credits because the part was so small/they did it for fun. Because of this
>I cannot check the credits to see if it is him, or who it really is.
>Could someone please confirm or deny that this character is Dan Akroyd.

It really is.  And BTW, Aykroyd is in fact listed in the credits.

                           --Steve Stelter
                             sjs28257@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu