HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.video.releases
Subject: Re: Cameron's cut "Abyss"
Date: 27 Sep 92 22:42:02 GMT
Organization: Mr. Lazlo's Temple Of The Mighty Rude-Boy Skank

st1qp@Rosie.UH.EDU writes:

>> I have heard (yet another) rumor about Cameron's cut of the Abyss to 
>> be released on Laser Disc. 
>
> December 17th is the date.  New cut (3 hours), CAV, plus an hour of 
> supplemental material.  Retail price: $100. 

Where did you get the street date?  I haven't heard anything yet (though
that could be because Sight & Sound, in their infinite wisdom and despite
several recent big-money orders, don't seem to deem me worthy of receiving
their monthly catalog anymore).

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: gdg019@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Ridley McIntyre)
Subject: BR: MOVING VEHICLES
Organization: Ironpig Arcadia, Coventry, UK
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:54:24 GMT

Ok, ok. I've had enough mail asking me what I'm talking about with the
moving vehicles question to force me to explain myself.

Basically, I noticed while I was watching BLADE RUNNER for my Film Studies
essay that in between every scene change for the first two-thirds of the
film, there is a shot of a moving vehicle. It's very subtle, almost too much
so, but I'm convinced it means something. I'm going to have to find a VCR
and watch my copy again to find out exactly when the scene changes stop
being pre-empted by moving vehicles, but it happens about two-thirds of the
way through. Watch it! It's true!

Example:

Moving spinner at beginning before Holden/Leon scene.
Moving advertising blimp before Deckard is introduced.
Moving bicycles before entering Chew's Eye World.
Moving street cleaning vehicle before Deckard encounters Leon.

It goes on. If you lot can't find/suggest a reasonable significance (don't
tell me there isn't, cos I know Scott's work too well now to believe that
there was no reason for all these shots, and if it's just for continuity,
then why isn't it all the way through the movie?) then I don't know who
can, 'cept maybe the Man himself.

TIA,

Rid.

-- 
        	 **Ridley McIntyre - Ronin Ironpig**			
		     gdg019@cck.coventry.ac.uk
		 -----------------------------------
     	     "He's in a wibbly-wobbly world of his own."
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.movies:7633 rec.arts.movies:29247 alt.cult-movies:8555
From: grae@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (Graeme Gerrard)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
Subject: Re: Deckard as 6th Replicant doesn't hold water
Date: 1 Oct 92 08:52:51 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies
Organization: University of Melbourne

In article <BvA2GF.IBo@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>
>Considering the way Deckard was being tossed around by the replicants
throughout the movie, I would say that he couldn't
have been a replicant himself.
>--Brian

Nexus 6s came in various flavours, combat model,
basic off-world pleasure model, etc. It doesn't
make sense to send a Deckard-type model after
your Leon/Roy/Zhora types does it?
Er...unless he is successful in retiring them.

What am I arguing here?  I don't know, this discussion
is getting me more and more confused!

Anyway, weren't Nexus 6s supposed to be more intelligent
than their makers? - and stronger? and isn't that why they
were made with a (more) limited life span?


Graeme Gerrard
Graeme_Gerrard@muwayf.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
School of Music
Faculty of Music, Visual and Performing Arts
University of Melbourne
AUSTRALIA
From: takehira@flab.fujitsu.co.jp (Takehira Masanori)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Aliens v Predator Movie??? (+ Alien 3)
Date: 6 Oct 92 11:41:42 GMT
Organization: Fujitsu
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.0

Hello,

My name is Takehira Masanori from Japan.And I saw "Alien^3" about a month 
ago.

Is "Aliens vs Predeator" a comic or something? I would like to know about 
it. Somebody , would you please tell me about the book ? ( If it is a 
book.) And please tell me the author and the company which publishes it 
also.

Thank you.
                                  Takehira Masanori 

      ----------------------------------------------------------
       Takehira Masanori | e-mail:takehira@flab.fujitsu.co.jp   
                         | CompuServe 101032,1757                    
                         | VOICE:+81-5462-57-5702
      --------- Duck and Cover !!!! ----------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: gdg019@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Ridley McIntyre)
Subject: NAMOS CHRONICLES
Organization: Ironpig Arcadia, Coventry, UK
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:46:35 GMT

Something's been bugging me for years and years and I've decided to let you
guys settle it once and for all.

In an ancient edition of Starburst there was a review of a film called 
The Namos Chronicles. It looked sort of like Battlestar Galactica with
strange-looking spaceships and stuff. This was about ten or more years ago,
back in my childhood.

For some reason, this memory coincides with a TV trailer for a Sci-Fi movie
I didn't get to see but can't remember the name of. This had spaceships
and stuff as well, but had a clip in it of someone firing some kind of
laser arrow from a futuristic bow in space (I guess the writers figured if
they could have Light Sabres, they could have laser bows)... 

Anyone tell me what happened to the Namos Chronicles, and if it really was
a film or just some weird part of my imagination, and if the above trailer
was from the Namos Chronicles or if it was a different film?

Thanks in advance,
Rid.





-- 
        	 **Ridley McIntyre - Ronin Ironpig**			
		     gdg019@cck.coventry.ac.uk
		 -----------------------------------
     	     "He's in a wibbly-wobbly world of his own."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Subject: Re: Computers or physical? (was Re: Is not! Is too! Is not! Is too!)
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:07:32 GMT

In article <1ar32lINNg5g@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey) writes:
>
>
>In a previous article, dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) says:
>
>>
>>You've missed a few things too, but not the point of the film.
>
>What have I missed?
>

Oops, apparently not you, rather, the person who thought the replicants were
genetically engineered humans (which implies parents) rather than androids
(which implies construction, rather than breeding).

>>>...
>>>according to the OED, they are), turned into slaves, and sold to people
>>                  ^^^
>>Er, what does this stand for?
>>
>
>The OED is the Oxford English Dictionary.  Its definition of "android" 

Well, the OED is hardly an authoritative source for American usage, or SF
usage, or American SF usage.  Perhaps you should have consulted Webster's
for an equally bogus definition:  "An automaton in human form" or some such.
(:-)

>includes "humanoid robot".  You know that "chess playing automaton" of the 
>19th century, that had a chess playing midget sitting inside the thing?
>That was called an "android" back in the 19th century...
>

Is this the one that had the little person inside?   At least it was partly
biological.

>
>I don't like it, I wish I could lump it, but I won't argue with the OED...
>

I just did, see above.

>
>Consider the Ridley Scott directed movie ALIEN.  In the theater, and on 
>Canadian television (CTV network), the humanoid robot "Ash" was called a -- 
>a robot.  Yet when ALIEN was shown on American TV (nice and sanitary like),
>the word "robot" was dubbed over -- VERY BADLY and VERY noticably dubbed 
>over -- and changed to "android".
>

This *IS* really disgusting.  Going to the expense of overdubbing the dialog--
just to screw it up!

>
>Should I be scared?  Should I be (more) paranoid?  Should I run and hide?
>

Just keep posting to Usenet--it'll change the world.

>"What if I go north?"

Well, *I* won't go after you...

--
dsc@gemini.gsfc.nasa.gov  
 |  Regards,         |   Hughes STX                |    Code 926.9 GSFC        |
 |  Doug Caprette    |   Lanham, Maryland          |    Greenbelt, MD  20771   |
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it
 boring, absurd, or contemptible, and I have no cause to complain, since I have 
 similar opinions of their works..." -- JRR Tolkien
From: tunafuss@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Warren fuss)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: GUNHED - Translator wanted!!!
Date: 24 Sep 92 11:46:50 GMT
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida

There is a movie that was maed in Japan called "GUNHED".
It is a very good movie part Terminator/Aliens/Robotjocks
and it was done in half Japanese half English with japanese 
subtitles.  
If any one has an English copy of the movie script I would 
appreciate a copy of it.
If there are any students over in Japan that know how to get a copy of 
this movie I would be courious as to see how much it would cost (in 
american dollars).
Thanks 
Warren "Tuna" Fuss
Pompano Beach, Florida  U.S.A.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
From: daniel@csgi64.dcs.leeds.ac.uk (D N Crow)
Subject: Re: BR: was the U.S. defeated by Japan in a war?
Organization: School of Computer Studies, University of Leeds
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 11:02:42 GMT
X-Posted-From: csgi64.leeds.ac.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1aog6dINNcjj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey) writes:
> 
> For your consideration - two datum from the film:
> 
> 1. The police I.D. badges display information in both English and
> Japanese.
> 
> 2. Near the beginning of the film, the aerial billboard advertising the
> offworld colonies - the "badyear blimp" if you like :-) or don't like -
> is sponsored by
> "[Japanese-sounding-company] - helping America into the NEW ORDER".
> 
> Now I'm not sure if all the information I present in (2) is correct,
> but I'm DAMNED sure about the "new order" bit.  This was something
> like eight years before George Bush, trusting his speechwriters, 
> uttered his "new world order" line.  the "New Order" line in Blade
> Runner was undoubtably inspired by the use of that phrase by the
> Axis powers (Germany and Japan) in World War II.
> 
> 
> Are we to gather, based on what we see in the film, that there has
> been a non-nuclear war between the United States and Japan, which
> Japan won?

Philip K. Dick wrote many novels and short stories in which he changed one
historical event and then projected forward to see what sort of world
resulted. Often this was that Watergate never happened and Nixon became a
dictator of the USA. On a couple of occasions he did: what if the Axis
countries had won WWII? He usually presumed that Germany got Europe and
Japan took over America. I don't recall whether this is part of the plot of
DADOES (anyone?) but it is certainly part of PKD's "world". So yes, I think
there may be something to what you note.

-- 
Dan Crow
daniel@scs.leeds.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: jk87377@cc.tut.fi (Juhana Kouhia)
Subject: Re: Deckard is NOT a Replicant
Organization: Tampere University of Technology
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 16:08:29 GMT


In article <5974@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>From article <1992Sep29.072819.4841@cc.tut.fi>, by jk87377@cc.tut.fi
>(Juhana Kouhia):
>> 
>> In article <5964@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
>> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes: 
>>>The point is not that Deckard is weaker, but that he is TOO WEAK to do
>>>his job properly, considering the opposition he is up against.
> 
>> Too weak physically? Mentally he is not weak; he is intelligent, or?
>> The guns exist so that weak people can kill stronger people easily.
>
>Yes, physically. I used "weak" simply as a general term for inferior
>performance.  "Weak and slow" fits even better.  A gun is no use if
>you have it taken away from you on your opponent's whim.

Why then (assuming Deckard is human) they would take a 'too weak' human
to do Blade Runner job?
Your logic is quite strange.

Deckard is human like + Blade Runners all are humans,
so it is ok to Deckard to be weaker than other replicants.


>> How about other Blade Runners then? They are human and weak too.
>
>They are human, so it is reasonable that they are as weak and slow as
>they are.

And

>> It could be easily noticed by other Blade Runners that Deckard
>> is not human, if he were stronger than now.
>
>Who, Gaff and the captain?  They have to be in on it for it to work at
>all.

I got the idea that there's more Blade Runners in the place (it is ok
to assume show even the movies don't give details who they are);
but you can also count the recidents of the place -- people at bar
(for example) should not notice that there's Replicant.


>> So, it makes sense that Deckard is weak as normal human.
>
>No, since he would not be that weak and slow if he was intended to be
>a Blade Runner.  They could have made him better if he was without
>giving anything away.

My sentence above stay.
Instead, you should check who generally is choosed to be a Blade
Runner (strong replicant, eh?).


Because I'm not sure is my logic (in this discussion) ok; so I would
like to replies from other readers too and tell what they think about
the validy of 'theories'. Thanks.


Juhana Kouhia
From: ajl@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Lewis AJ)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Aliens v Predator Movie??? (+ Alien 3)
Date: 2 Oct 92 10:37:17 GMT

In article yi1XRB2w165w@CODEWKS.nacjack.gen.nz, system@CODEWKS.nacjack.gen.nz (Wayne McDougall) writes:

>The question is, how will they tie in the Homo Sapien interest? I mean, 
>lets face it, we're just a two-bit planet out in the uncharted Western 
>Spial arm, and every invasion force and galactic disaster seems to focus 
>on lil' ol' us. And why? Obviosuly people don't want to pay to see 
>obnoxious alien A beat up/get beated up by obnoxious Alien B. I mean, 
>what's in it for us? So in summary, how are they going to make an A vs P 
>match of interest to the G P.?

By concentrating on the people who get caught in the middle of the whole
thing. The comic was superbly done - good plot, good characterisation (!),
suspense, violence yes, but not for its own sake. The film makers'll probably
ruin the whole thing, mind, but it *could* be the best Aliens film yet.

Andy
-- 
Andy Lewis  (ajl@ecs.soton.ac.uk)
Department of Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton
From: bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Deckard as 6th Replicant doesn't hold water
Date: 28 Sep 1992 04:09:02 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, ttak@quads.uchicago.edu (toki  takeuchi) says:

>It seems to me that Deckard WAS a replicant, but not among the
>original 6.  Probably the same generation as Rachel.
>
>The fact that Edward James Olmos (Walsh?) new about Deckard's
>unicorn dream supports the idea of Deckard being a replicant.
>
>How Olmos knew about ANYONE's dream, be it a replicant's or
>a human's implies that he had to have been told about the dream.

It implies it.  It does not prove it.

>The dream probably then comes from another bladerunner.  This
>bladerunner could then be one of the bladerunners that was killed
>by Batty & company.


or...

...the dream could come from Deckard in the first place...


-- 
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: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Battlestar Galactica movie?
Date: 7 Oct 1992 03:49:41 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
NNTP-Posting-Host: crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <5221@balrog.ctron.com>, smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
> In article <1992Sep23.152556.5976@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, shiv@bnr.ca (Shiv Naimpally) writes:
> >Like many others, BG started out as a movie, and gave someone the idea
> >of turning it into a series. They did it with Logan's Run, M*A*S*H,
> 
> Sorry, but this is not so.  Battlestar Galactica was a TV series, concieved
> as such and presented as such.  The premier episodes were one multi-part
> story, mostly starring Jane Seymour, and they were combined into one movie
> for theatrical release to gauge the market outside the US, but the release
> postdated the first telecast by nearly a year.  When BG was cancelled, the
> movie was released in the US, and this was followed by one or two "TV movies"
> made from other two-part episodes.  The only one I rememeber was "Gun on Ice
> Planet Zero" about the big laser cannon.

Well, not entirely; The original pilot was a three hour TV movie which branched
into a multi-part follow-on. I believe this was then cut into a theatrical
release for non-US markets. The series was followed up by the one set around
earth with the now-grown-up 'Boxie' and then the series left the air. The
series did not last long enough to be syndicated so in order to sell it, the
original episodes were re-edited into a series of 'two hour' TV movies which
had only a passing (and probably accidential resemblence) to the original 
episodes as far as continuity went. There are also some hilarious re-dubs of
the original video scene with new dialog in voices which had no resemblence to
the original actors' voices. 





-- 
Richard H. Miller                 Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support  Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine        US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
                                           Houston, Texas 77030
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: cpeckham@nyx.cs.du.edu (Chris Peckham)
Subject: Legend
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 17:22:50 GMT

Hi,
does anyone know who wrote the storyline behind the film
_Legend_?  Have they written anything else for book or
film?  Thanks for your help.
Chris
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
From: jk87377@cc.tut.fi (Juhana Kouhia)
Subject: Re: Deckard as 6th Replicant doesn't hold water
Organization: Tampere University of Technology
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 17:04:31 GMT


In article <1992Oct4.032956.1008@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
dleibow@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David E Leibow) writes:
>
>if Deckard were supposed to be a replicant then we would be
>comparing replicants to replicants and it would all be meaningless.

Nope, because you note the 'Deckard is a replicant' at the end of
movie (the main glue that Deckard is replicant is the unicorn-things).

So, throughtout the movie you will compare humans to replicants.
(At least I did when I saw it first time.)

Juhana Kouhia
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: BLADERUNNER: Race and class
Date: 26 Sep 92 13:21:10 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH

shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham) writes:

>The upper class is enirely caucasian. It is easy to assert that Tyrell and the
>police chief are members of the ruling class. I will go farther and point out
>that Dekkard, Sebastian, and the (unlucky) man who gave Leon the VK test are
>not exactly poverty-stricken (Dekkard and Sebastian have decent-looking
>dwelling - although Sebastian does have an eccentric living arrangement. We
>never visit the interviewer's home, but he clearly is a man of some authority
>in the Tyrell Corp.).

An interesting analysis, but I don't buy it.

Tyrell is caucasian - many captains of industry are, many are not.  To
have Tyrell be white is by itself meaningless.

Sebastion has large living quarters, but it's in a delapidated building
with leaking roofs and broken walls.  Not exactly "upper class".

Dekkard has decent looking place, but so what?  All that means is he's
not poor.

The interviewer was clearly a man of some authority at Tyrell?  Nonsense.
He's a flunky for the police department, wasn't he? Are are we
thinking of different people.  I assume you mean Holden?

As for the "chief" I assume you mean W. Emmett Walsh's (sp?) character,
and I thought he was the head of some monir department.  His office
was like a police ghetto, and I have no idea where you got the
imporession that he was chief of police.  It's been a while since
I've seen it, but my impression was that he was head of a slimy
little department, out of the action of the main police dept.


-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: cadesjar@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (Curtis Desjardins)
Subject: B-movies and Schlock
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:12:11 GMT


I'm doing a seminar on B-movies and "schlock" movies of the B-W era.
I've already got some really bad movies lined up (eg. Plan 9 from Outer
Space, Earth vs. the Flying Saucers, Tarantula, etc.), but I need some
background info on this "genre". I've looked in some texts but they
weren't very helpful. Does anyone out there know of any good references
on this subject? Any help would be much appreciated.

========================= Fluffy the Wonder Bunny ============================
 	Sleep all day. Party all night. Never grow old. Never die.  
	It's fun to be a vampire. 	(The Lost Boys)
================== cadesjardins@descartes.waterloo.edu =======================
  Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature and join the fun!
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Deckard is NOT a Replicant
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:05:10 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <1992Sep29.072819.4841@cc.tut.fi>, by jk87377@cc.tut.fi (Juhana Kouhia):
> 
> In article <5964@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes: 
>>The point is not that Deckard is weaker, but that he is TOO WEAK to do
>>his job properly, considering the opposition he is up against.
 
> Too weak physically? Mentally he is not weak; he is intelligent, or?
> The guns exist so that weak people can kill stronger people easily.

Yes, physically.  I used "weak" simply as a general term for inferior
performance.  "Weak and slow" fits even better.  A gun is no use if
you have it taken away from you on your opponent's whim.

> Actually I don't understand how people can be *too* weak anyway.

Too weak and too slow to be effective against replicants without loads
of luck.  Watch the film again and consider his performance.

> How about other Blade Runners then? They are human and weak too.

They are human, so it is reasonable that they are as weak and slow as
they are.  (If Holden had been faster or had had keener senses, he
would have had a chance to evade Leon's shot.)

> It could be easily noticed by other Blade Runners that Deckard
> is not human, if he were stronger than now.

Who, Gaff and the captain?  They have to be in on it for it to work at
all.

> So, it makes sense that Deckard is weak as normal human.

No, since he would not be that weak and slow if he was intended to be
a Blade Runner.  They could have made him better if he was without
giving anything away.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies