HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ttevans@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Tyler T. Evans)
Subject: Re: Dune
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 02:13:10 GMT

Supposedly there was 6 hours of film originally made for the movie and it
all had to be cut down to 2 hours. There have long been rumors that a long
version will soon be put out. I don't see why not.


Our Man Flint
co-sysop: The Sunset Strip
Call it: (609)683-4962
From: lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis Blair)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Who is the Bad Guy in E.T.?
Date: 24 Jul 92 02:55:39 GMT
	<3637@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

David Brin wrote:
>I often play this game at cons... "who is the bad guy in
>the movie, E.T.?"  One in a hundred gets it right

Brice Dowaliby wrote:
>Anyone venture to guess what Brin was tlaking about?
>Is there a hidden bad guy that I was supposed to have
>seen?

Ryk E Spoor writes:
>The Bad Guy is actually one we never see; it's Spielberg
>and co, who once more show that:  Love and Trust and
>Stupid Cute Kids are far superior to the poor, fragile,
>shallow brains of adults.  Scientists are all a bunch of
>psychotics who will gladly dissect any alien that lands
>here without so much as a how-de-do.  The
>Military/Government are EEEEEVIL and will do
>anything to cover up such a landing, help the psychotic
>Scientists get hold of the Harmless Alien, and use anything
>they learn to Destroy The World (tm).  E.T. was an anti-
>intellectual piece of trash.

I think that you are being more than a little unfair to
Spielberg.  It seemed to me that he depicted the scientists
as sincere individuals genuinely concerned about the
health of E. T.  The Military/Government is not depicted
as being any more evil than that of 2001.  Of course, for
awhile, the movie gives a kid's eye view of things in
order to help the viewer understand why the kids are
afraid of the authorities, but once the scientists are
around, it seemed to me as though they were depicted
as ordinary people.

As I said before, my answer to Brin's question would be:

E. T. has NO "bad guy"s.  Everyone behaves pretty
much with good intentions.  What little conflict that
there is in the film arises from misunderstandings
of one sort or another.
From: mfarrell@ADMIN.CABOT.NF.CA ("MARY J. FARRELL")
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Batman Returns Novelization
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:40:24 GMT


WELL!  Interest in Batman Returns is falling off rather fast, isn't it!  It's
only showing once a day in one of the smaller theatres here!

To answer the people who were discussing Catwomans miraculous transformation
from wimpy secretary to super athlete:  In the novelization there is one more
message on Selina's answering machine.  It is from the Rape Crisis Centre and
is from a woman telling Selina that just because she's mastered martial arts,
she shouldn't stop coming to class because she still thinks like a victim..or
something to that effect.  Gee, the movie would've made a lot more sense if
they'd left that one in!

By the way, at the end of the book, Catwoman doesn't appear again..so maybe
Tim Burton refilmed the ending to give it a more upbeat finish???

M. Farrell
St. John's, NF
CANADA
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: crichard@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (richardson craig s - CS500)
Subject: ST: Kobayashi Maru Success/Failure (was Re: Kobyashi Maru)
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Organization: Washington State University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 23:39:35 GMT

In article <deb.100.0@loni.ucla.edu> deb@loni.ucla.edu (Debjoti Sensharma) writes:
>>>>Scotty,
>>>>well, the simulator's computer would figure (mathematically) that the
>>>>Klingon shilelds would work one way even though they don't, he took
>>>>advantage of that little flaw, having himself disproved that particular
>>>>theory (he cheated! :-).
>>>
>>>Although this should really belong on one of the Star Trek groups, I believe 
>>>in ST2:TWOK, they mentioned that KIRK was the ONLY and SOLE person to defeat
>>>the K. Maru simulator.
>
>>Who said that Scotty, Sulu, and Chekhov DEFEATED it?  The book details
>>their 'solutions' where 'solutions' = 'valiant but doomed attempts.'
>
>>Sulu loses because he ignored the distress call. Chekhov because his
>>ship was killed, and Scotty because he gets killed anyway by ever
>>increasing numbers of ships.
>
>Then Kirk would not have been the only one to succeed (as mentioned in TWOK) 
>since he too cheated like Scotty...  Why was no one else mentioned?

Sigh.  Kirk cheated but *succeeded*.  He "reprogrammed the simulator so that
it was possible to rescue the ship."  Scotty cheated but *failed*.  He used
the knowledge that the simulator did not have a perfect model of reality to
his advantage, but was eventually swamped when his tactic could no longer 
succeed due to logistical problems/ridiculous numbers of enemies.

The simulator was programmed so that *nothing* a cadet might do would allow
success in the scenario, i.e. save the ship.  Scotty acted (albeit with
superior knowledge) entirely within the bounds of the scenario, and so could
never succeed, because the simulator was programmed not to allow that.
Kirk reprogrammed the simulator so that its built-in guards no longer functioned
and Kirk was able to succeed in the end.

Followups to rec.arts.startrek.misc.

--Craig

-- 
These remarkable insights were brought to you from the fertile imagination of:
Craig S. Richardson  (crichard@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu)
GM, Pullman Sleepers (Original Bitnet Fantasy Baseball League)
GM, Seattle Rainiers (Internet Federal AL League)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: c8853149@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Benjamin Thompson)
Subject: Re: _NEUROMANCER_ movie?
Organization: The Rasta Council, University of Newcastle.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:39:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.044438.19226@intacc.uucp>, zerobeat@intacc.uucp (Ferenc Szabo) writes:
> In article <1992Jul16.222347.1267@ee.ryerson.ca> lfernand@ee.ryerson.ca (luis fernandes) writes:
>>>... I'm wondering whether there is any work being done on a movie 
>>> adaption of _NEUROMANCER_, or ever has been, ...
>>
> In the early/mid 80's, I had heard that DEVO was slated to do the soundtrack
> for Neuromancer.  Needless to say, the movie was nixed by the studio for
> reasons unknown to me.
> 
> I like DEVO a lot, especially pre 1983, but after hearing Mark Mothersbaugh's
> work on the pretty lame Mann & Machine I hope he doesn't score anything
> else.  He did a damn fine job on Pee Wee's Playhouse though.
> 
> ferenc

Some time ago I bought for my Pc compatible a game based on William Gibsons
_NEUROMANCER_. The game is copywrite 1988 so it is not a really new release, or
any thing amazing by todays computer game standards.

The interesting thing about this game was that on the cover it had a sticker
saying something to the effect of; `Based on William Gibson's hit novel, soon to
be a major motion picture from the Bitmap Bros.' As I said this was some years
ago. DEVO, who I like immensely, did the sound track to the game, which is only
loosely based on the novel _NEUROMANCER_ but is still good fun.

/-----------------------------------------\ 
| FROM: Benjahman Thompson,               |
|       c8853149@wombat.newcastle.ed      |
|       The Rasta Council,                |
|       the University of Newcastle       |
|       New South Wales, Australia.       |
\-----------------------------------------/
From: das@cci632.cci.com (David Stumme (co-op))
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Kobyashi Maru
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:38:11 GMT
Organization: Computer Consoles, Inc., Rochester, NY

SPOILERS FOR (Old) Novel - Kobiyashi Maru


In article <deb.97.0@loni.ucla.edu> deb@loni.ucla.edu (Debjoti Sensharma) writes:
>
>>While not gaming material, one of the few Star Trek books I've read is
>>_Kobayashi Maru_, almost all flashbacks of the Enterprise senior
>>crewmembers' Kobayashi Maru tests. It's an interesting story, as each of
>>them had a different solution to the no-win scenario; Kirk reprogrammed the
>>simulator; Checkov rammed a Klingon cruiser, destroying his ship and the
>>Klingon fleet; Sulu refused to enter the Neutral Zone at all; and Scotty,
>>well, the simulator's computer would figure (mathematically) that the
>>Klingon shilelds would work one way even though they don't, he took
>>advantage of that little flaw, having himself disproved that particular
>>theory (he cheated! :-).
>
>Although this should really belong on one of the Star Trek groups, I believe 
>in ST2:TWOK, they mentioned that KIRK was the ONLY and SOLE person to defeat
>the K. Maru simulator.

Who said that Scotty, Sulu, and Chekhov DEFEATED it?  The book details
their 'solutions' where 'solutions' = 'valiant but doomed attempts.'

Sulu loses because he ignored the distress call. Chekhov because his
ship was killed, and Scotty because he gets killed anyway by ever
increasing numbers of ships.

--
 "If I speak, I am condemned.		David Stumme 
  If I stay silent, I am DAMNED!"	das@sunsrvr1.cci.com
      -- Jean Valjean a.k.a. "24601" 	das1417@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
         "Who am I?", Les Miserables 	D.STUMME @ GEnie
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: bz978@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Charles E Gibbs)
Subject: Re: ALIENS- mysterious marine.
Reply-To: bz978@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Charles E Gibbs)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 01:46:26 GMT


In a previous article, gdg019@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Ridley McIntyre) says:

>In article <1432@grivel.une.edu.au> scavanag@neumann.une.edu.au (Steven Cavanagh) writes:
>>
>>Just after Apone says his "we gonna go in, and we gonna conquer, and
>>we gonna kick some" bit, the camera follows the marines running out
>>to join the line up. Just before you see Frost handing out the M41As
>>there is a marine who puts on his helmet and runs off to the left. I'm
>>pretty sure I know the marines better than most, but I don't recognise
>>this guy. He looks older than the others. Who is he?
>
>This is Crowe. Wierzbowski is the podgy one that Hicks pulls away from the
>railings just as the ammo is about to explode. Fact is, that in the middle
>of a battle, in the dark, when everyone's wearing the same uniform, it's
>difficult to tell who's who. This is why (IMO) Hicks calls in to the Lt.
>that Crowe and Wierzbowski are down, and then shouts after Wierzbowski
>as he gets taken away. I think that Someone else was actually getting hit,
>but Hicks thought it was Ski.

Just for clarification, after the ammo blew up:

HICKS: Wierzbowski, Crowe are down.
       Dietric, Frost - off the board.

Frost was the black man that had the ammo when he was hit by...

Dietric, the lady with the flamethrower, first one killed by an alien.

Crowe, the body that went flying when the ammo exploded.  Wierzbowski was
  trying to pull him away when the ammo exploded.

Wierzbowski was stunned by the explosion and wasn't heard from until he was
 killed by an alien.

Hicks saw Dietric and Frost die (off the board), but he was unsure of Crowe
  and the big W.

Charles Gibbs
gibbsc@ac.grin.edu
From: JW83HISW@MIAMIU.BITNET
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Mysterious Marine in AliensI thought that marine was the other female one; not Vasquez or the
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:53:39 GMT
Organization: Miami University - Academic Computer Service

drop-ship pilot, but the one who examines Newt after they catch her.  I
think she's the teams' medic.
From: 2117steplerl@vms.csd.mu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Nightfall & Isaac Asimov
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:44:24 GMT
Reply-To: 2117steplerl@vms.csd.mu.edu
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services

Has anyone besides me seen this movie?  It made a really big impact
on me and I was wondering what others thought of it.  "Nightfall" came
out in early 1988 I believe.  Why have I not seen it in video stores.
I want someone else to have seen it so that I know that this incredible
movie was not my Imagination!
					Step
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Subject: Re: Wizards and Star Wars
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 19:16:07 GMT
Organization: Sporadic and incomplete

BHUM%NLU@UICVM.UIC.EDU (BHUM000) writes:

> I have a memory which the current discussion of _Wizards_ jogged: I
> guess it was 1975 and I was at a summer screening of _Wizards_ when a
> trailer (preview) of an upcoming movie ran. 

My copy of Maltin's lists "Wizards" as being a 1977 release.

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)

"Maggots!  Maggots!  The maggots are falling like rain!"
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: MANTEL@ADCALC.FNAL.GOV (MANTEL)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re:  SF-LOVERS Digest   V17 #367
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:52:58 GMT


   I'd like to hear opinions on this movie... did anyone out there like it?
I thought it was just awful, but not because it glorifies evil (which it
doesn't, but which Brin seems to believe) but just because it was a study
in low-quality film making.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I saw the movie "Wizards" when it first came out in the seventies.  I enjoyed 
it very much.  I have seen  it at least five times since and have enjoyed it 
each time I saw it.  True by todays standards it is a crudely animated movie
and has very little socially redeeming value.  But although I greatly admire
David Brin's work I do not understand his apparent hatred of Bashki's movies.
Unless it is a personal thing.  Because on an artistic note the movie Wizards
was a god send to those of us screaming for a divergent movie platform.  Before
Wizards the only animation one saw in the theatre was the cartoon at the
beginning of the feature.  I love animated movies and admit Bashki's work is
not that great but It is a genre in its own right.  It takes all kinds of
styles and approaches to define art without them art is bland and uninteresting
.  So if there is a problem with the artist that is one thing but a problem
with the product is totally, or at least should be, separate.
   FINAL COMMENT: I liked Wizards.  Lord of the Rings was OK.  But to get a 
little side tracked.  Heavy Metal Is my favorite Animated Movie to date.

					Jaime Mantel
   					Mantel@adcalc.fnal.gov
From: bt16+@andrew.cmu.edu (Bill Thomas)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Premiere's Top Ten SF Movies
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:09:48 GMT
	<1992Jul21.140754.13098@engage.pko.dec.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Graduate School of Industrial Administr., Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>} In no particular order the films were:
> 
>} 1.  2001: A Space Odyssey
>} 2.  Metropolis
>} 3.  The Day the Earth Stood Still
>} 4.  Invasion of the Body Snatchers
>} 5.  Blade Runner
>} 6.  Star Wars
>} 7.  War of the Worlds
>} 8.  Forbidden Planet
>} 9.  A Clockwork Orange
>} 10. Alien
> 
>} How many do *you* agree with? And what do you feel is missing?

A pretty good list. I'd like to plug in The Road Warrior. Bizarre, grim,
hilarious and totally over the top like no other movie ever. I'd bump
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (I assume they mean the original). It was
clever, but not brilliant, and its real contribution is in showing the
anti-communist paranoia of its day. It does it very well, which makes it
a fine movie. But as science fiction it has very little going for it.
From: rjn@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Niland)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:39:08 GMT
Subject: Re: Close Encounters
Organization: Hewlett-Packard/WSY Ft.Collins,CO,USA
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies

In rec.arts.sf.movies, mmccolli@ess.harris.com (Mike McCollister) writes:

> I've only version that I can find of "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"
> on video is the "Special Edition" which shows the interior of the large
> space ship.  Does anyone know if the non-special edition is available on
> video?

The exact original 1977 release is not available.  Something very close to
it is available on NTSC laserdisc from Voyager Company.  

Criterion Collection CC1242L (CLV format) is the 1977 release as Spielberg
would liked to have released it.

CC1241L (CAV format) contains both the 1977 and the 1980 "special edition",
as well as gobs of interactive still and motion supplements.  The 1980
inserts are at the end of each disc side.  In default play, you get the 1977
edition.  You need to program your player to insert the 1980 additions.
Beware of copies in the tri-fold jacket (not boxed), they may be from the
first printing, which has incorrect chapter marks and stop codes.  You need
to examine the batch numbers on the discs to be sure.  Send email for
details if it becomes an issue.

Both discs are presented at 2.1:1 aspect ratio ("letterbox"), and have
digital surround sound.

Regards,                                              Hewlett-Packard
Bob Niland      Internet: rjn@FC.HP.COM               3404 East Harmony Road
                CompuServe:  71044,2124               Ft Collins CO 80525-9599

This article represents only the opinion[s] of its author, and is not an
official or unofficial position of, or statement by, the Hewlett-Packard
Company.  The text is provided for informational purposes only.  It is
supplied without warranty of any kind.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: u906789@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (Mark Julian Turner)
Subject: Re: ALIENS- mysterious marine.
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:42:54 GMT

bz978@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Charles E Gibbs) writes:


>In a previous article, gdg019@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Ridley McIntyre) says:

>>In article <1432@grivel.une.edu.au> scavanag@neumann.une.edu.au (Steven Cavanagh) writes:
>>>
>>>Just after Apone says his "we gonna go in, and we gonna conquer, and
>>>we gonna kick some" bit, the camera follows the marines running out
>>>to join the line up. Just before you see Frost handing out the M41As
>>>there is a marine who puts on his helmet and runs off to the left. I'm
>>>pretty sure I know the marines better than most, but I don't recognise
>>>this guy. He looks older than the others. Who is he?
>>
>>This is Crowe. Wierzbowski is the podgy one that Hicks pulls away from the
>>railings just as the ammo is about to explode. Fact is, that in the middle
>>of a battle, in the dark, when everyone's wearing the same uniform, it's
>>difficult to tell who's who. This is why (IMO) Hicks calls in to the Lt.
>>that Crowe and Wierzbowski are down, and then shouts after Wierzbowski
>>as he gets taken away. I think that Someone else was actually getting hit,
>>but Hicks thought it was Ski.

>Just for clarification, after the ammo blew up:

>HICKS: Wierzbowski, Crowe are down.
>       Dietric, Frost - off the board.

>Frost was the black man that had the ammo when he was hit by...

>Dietric, the lady with the flamethrower, first one killed by an alien.

Clarification of the clarification: Dietrich wasn't killed by an alien ("The
Sarge and Dietrich aren't dead...")

>Crowe, the body that went flying when the ammo exploded.  Wierzbowski was
>  trying to pull him away when the ammo exploded.

>Wierzbowski was stunned by the explosion and wasn't heard from until he was
> killed by an alien.

>Hicks saw Dietric and Frost die (off the board), but he was unsure of Crowe
>  and the big W.

>Charles Gibbs
>gibbsc@ac.grin.edu
From: lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis Blair)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Who is the Bad Guy in E.T.?
Date: 24 Jul 92 03:44:31 GMT
	<735@tdat.teradata.COM>
Distribution: na
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

David Brin wrote:
>let's concentrate on "Wizards." ... The so-called heroes of
>the film _are_ the bad guys!
>
>I often play this game at cons... "who is the bad guy in
>the movie, E.T.?"  One in a hundred gets it right, yet most
>later agree that Spielberg had them on, throughout the film.
>The essence of the art of propaganda is to twist the viewer's
>arm into giving over his/her human sympathies to one side
>or another. ... Today, most American propaganda pushes
>themes like suspicion of authority ...

Brice Dowaliby wrote:
>Anyone venture to guess what Brin was tlaking about?  Is
>there a hidden bad guy that I was supposed to have seen?

Stanley Friesen writes:
>No guess, I have heard his talk on this.  (Going to cons gets
>you so much neat info ...)  The 'secret' bad guy is the *captain*
>of the ET ship!   He went off without a crew member, and
>never even *noticed*!  He had to be *called* back, despite
>the fact that he *must* have known where he left him!

I have to say that I suspect that Brin had something else
in mind when he posted his recent note to rec.arts.sf.movies.
It hardly seems accurate to say that "throughout the film"
Spielberg was trying "to twist the viewer's arm into giving
over his/her human sympathies to" the captain who is never
even identified and perhaps not even shown in the movie.

At any rate, the idea that the captain was a bad guy is
plausible, but unfair in my opinion.  We don't know that
he "never even *noticed*".  I got the impression that the
ship took off because they felt that they had to avoid
contact with the approaching humans.  E. T.'s message
may have been necessary to communicate such things
as (1) I am still alive.  (2)  I am not being held prisoner
by the humans.  (3)  I have made contact with some
humans who will help me and can be trusted not to
interfere if you land to pick me up.  (4)  The human
authorities are no longer in the vicinity of the landing
site.  (5) I will try to be at the landing site at these times.
And so on.  You get the idea.
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:36:31 -0400 
From: Louis Blair <lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Brin: Writers should be read and not heard
	<1992Jul23.195050.11829@hsv3.lsil.com>

David Brin wrote:
>the attractions to livid flaming are clear.  Biochemists find
>that endorphins released into a human brain during fits of
>self-righteous rage are almost as potent as those triggered
>by pain and injury, and are many times as addictive. ...
>(Of course, they rationalize this self-induced drug high with
>moral indignation about this or that.  But let's recognize the
>self-secreted equivalent to PCP when we see it.) ... (And yes,
>_I_ have been seen to rant self-righteously, in public, so we're
>talking shades of gray, here.)

I wrote:
>If somebody loses his cool after
>extended exposure to Brin's pomposity then it is because
>the person is addicted to endorphins or something, but if
>BRIN starts ranting, then suddenly it is a grey area.

Mike Van Pelt writes:
>I was unaware that two (2) messages constituted "extended
>exposure".

There's quite a lot in those two notes.  Brin, himself, tells
us that he spent "several hours", writing for our benefit.

>Just quit re-reading 'em.

I suspect that those who were annoyed by Brin's notes
only found it necessary to read them once.  I, of course,
read them a second time for the purpose of writing a
careful response.  Unfortunately, this is necessary if
one wants to counter some of the misinformation that
he has posted.  Some people did not seem to understand
why Brin got such a negative reaction.  I tried to explain
this, as well.
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Premiere's Top Ten SF Movies
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:36:45 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Jul24.152728.14890@engage.pko.dec.com>  
boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com (The Man from Another Place) writes:
> In article <5582@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>,  
mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes...
> 
> }}} 9.  A Clockwork Orange
> }} Wrong category. 
> 
> } Why?
> 
> Why indeed?  We've had this argument in here before. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE
> is as much science fiction as NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR.

Agreed. Therefore, it belongs on the list.

--
Jim Mann       jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  Stratus Computer