HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwalpe@goofus.helios.nd.edu (john walpe)
Subject: Re: Another Aliens Question
Reply-To: jwalpe@goofus.helios.nd.edu (john walpe)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:18:25 GMT

In article <BtvH6D.4A4@agora.rain.com>, hopkins@agora.rain.com (Scott Hopkins) writes:
|> 
|> 	While we're on the subject, why did Ripley bother to torch ad 
|> destroy all the eggs at the end of Aliens, when the planet was going to blow
|> up anyway?  Wouldn't it have been more smart to save her ammo, as much as she
|> wasted getting there, to try and get out of there alive?  Which she does of
|> course in a matter of seconds, as opposed to the minutes it took her to get 
|> there.  Cameron at his best!  :^)
|> 			-Casey Hopkins

  If you remember, right before she started in with the flame thrower, one of the eggs had started to open up, implying a face hugger was just seconds from latching on to her.  I believe that is why she torched the eggs.  The rest was just adrenaline.
 
                                               Court

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Court Walpe             | "Hey, balloons.  These blow up into funny shapes?"
Univ. of Notre Dame     | "Well, no, not unless round is funny."
Notre Dame, IN 46556    |                                   -Raising Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob.Blanchett@f503.n635.z3.fidonet.org (Bob Blanchett)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Possible Foundation movie?
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 02:38:09 +1000

 -=> Quoting Jesper Lauridsen to All <=-
 JL> [Speaking of Dune]
 
 > remember this?
 
 > Opening narration from dune by Princess Irulan: "..Oh I forgot..."
 JL> 
 JL> That narration really puzzled me: Princess Irulan does not appear
 JL> in the movie! Or if she does then very brief. What is the point of
 JL> having her do the narration? 

 commentaries from "books" by Irulan appear at the head of many chapters
 throughout the novel. Lynch used Irulan as a "chorus" in his film the
 way Shakespeare and many greek playwrights did.

 BTW Irulan was in the movie at the start and at the end.

 What is the point of anything Dino di Laurentiis touches anyway?


... I am not, nor ever have been a member of the Illuminati.
 * Origin: Andy's BBS: Melb Australia - 61-3-357-3414 (3:635/503.0)
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: ALIENS 1-2-3
Date: 26 Aug 92 10:45:25 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <u906789.714791167@bruny>, by u906789@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (Mark Julian Turner):
>   The destruction of the dropship was a  totally unforseen event which
> normally would probably be highly unlikely

Yes, that's why they had a second with them.
-- 
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: michaell@cogs.susx.ac.uk (Michael Lazarou)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Alien^3? How much bandwidth do we have?
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:00:30 GMT
Organization: University of Sussex pretty close to Brighton but nearer Falmer
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

JJ Glamma (jamesbs@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU) wrote:
: welter@fwi.uva.nl (Richard Welter) writes:
:
: Hey! Aliens has suspense - nothing in the third film could compare in terms of
: suspense with the marines walking through the empty colony buildings, and
: *maybe* there's something around the next corner. (Have you seen the little
: scene in the SE where Hudson and Vas pick up some motion? Great stuff.)
:
: Also the prelude to the battle in the reactor was pretty suspenseful IMHO.
:
: The guns, napalm and explosives were like added extras, y'know!
:
: 8^)

Absolutely. I can't understand people who enjoyed Alien^3. It was shite. A
complete load of tosh. Start to finish a waste of time.

The first 2 films were completely different but both incredible films. Alien^3
had nothing going for it. *NO* suspense, no plot, special effects were
yawnarama, no identifiable characters.

Bollox.

--
INSSOMNIAK
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: drwho@wpi.WPI.EDU (Eric Ant Von Laudermann)
Subject: Re: Naming Alien 4
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:44:32 GMT

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)

Yes? No? Maybe?


--E.V.L. (drwho@wpi.wpi.edu)        # "Never underestimate the power of
Disclaimer: "It's all absolutely    # spandex."
devastatingly true, except the bits # --Babs Bunny
that are lies."  --Douglas Adams    # 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: jamesbs@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (JJ Glamma)
Subject: Re: Even MORE crap on the Alien trilogy
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:22:44 GMT

wbarnes@sura.net (Bill Barnes) writes:

>In article <2747@nlsun1.oracle.nl> gbradley@uks197.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Bradley) writes:
>>wbarnes@sura.net (Bill Barnes) writes...

>>important factor...all those colonists are dead, except ONE (which I
>>counted in my original argument). There is NO EVIDENCE to Ripley at all
>>that they were coccooned while alive. Of course they is no evidence to
>>say they were cocooned while dead, either. My point is that as far as
>>Ripley can deduce, Aliens kill you immediately, then do what they like.
>>All the EVIDENCE she has seen so far (from Alien AND Aliens) should have
>>made her say "Newt is fucked, let's GO!!". Hence, I still say that
>>Ripley saying "They don't kill you" is a convenient plot hole in Aliens.

>You're forgetting, I think, about the woman cocooned up against the
>wall which then has a chestburster come out of it - she saw this
>happen *before* any of her comments later about how the Aliens don't
>kill you.  I don't know about you, but *I* managed to figure out by
>then what the Aliens were doing, I hadn't even seen Alien yet at that
>point!  Why couldn't Ripley?

No, he hasn't forgotten that.. he's just handwaved it away. What he *has*
forgotten is the scene that my .sig is taken from...

-- 
-----------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
JJ Glamma                          | "Hey look... The Sarge and Dietrich ain't
aka James William Patrick Bennetts |  dead, man... their signs are real low, 
jamesbs@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU         |  but they ain't dead!"
-----------------------------------+ "Then we go back in and get them!"
When in doubt, use brute force.	   | "F*ck that!"
		-- Ken Thompson	   |	-- PFCs Hudson & Vasquez, on loyalty.
-----------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
From: v129j6ed@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (This is F.U.N.)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Another Aliens Question
Date: 1 Sep 92 03:07:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <BtvH6D.4A4@agora.rain.com>, hopkins@agora.rain.com (Scott Hopkins) writes...
>	While we're on the subject, why did Ripley bother to torch ad 
>destroy all the eggs at the end of Aliens, when the planet was going to blow
>up anyway?  Wouldn't it have been more smart to save her ammo, as much as she
>wasted getting there, to try and get out of there alive?  Which she does of
>course in a matter of seconds, as opposed to the minutes it took her to get 
>there.  Cameron at his best!  :^)

I think Jesse "the Body" Ventura said it best in "Predator".

"Payback Time."

But seriously, I have wondered that myself.  All I can think is just
an emotional reaction to all of the Alien sh!t she has been exposed too,
and a way to make amends to those whom have fallen because of the Aliens.

*******************************************************************************
"Groovy!" - Ash "Evil Dead II : Dead By Dawn" (1987)
*******************************************************************************
"Fans are interesting things. Rush fans just can't comprehend why the
rest of the world doesn't like Rush. REM fans consider the rest of the world
beneath their social level to notice. Kate Bush fans love the rest of the
world, and the world loves them, but spend long nights plotting to knife
one another."                    --Richard Darwin
                                   Richard Darwin #33, "Gradenza"
*******************************************************************************
v129j6ed@ubvms
The KaTeFan(tm)
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 01:46:41 GMT

mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:

>From article <1992Aug24.074940.12623@arbi.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>, by Onno.Meyer@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Onno Meyer):
>> If aliens shows a first contact scenario, a lot of mistakes (like leaving
>> the dropship vulnerable to attack) might be explained.  The poor marines
>> never encountered anything but human colonists.

>No, the marines were presented as battle-hardened veterans (to show
>off Gorman's inexperience better).  Actually, the way they handled the
>dropship would have been dumb against any kind of opponent (regardless
>OF whether they fought aliens or humans before).

But, Gorman had declared "the area is secure". The aliens were only known to be
in the area of the reactor. Spunkmyer was hardly to know there was an alien
roaming around when he took the equipment to Bishop...
From: walrus@bessel.umd.edu (Grig Larson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: RE: Inconsistent science in SF films
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:32:28 GMT
Organization: Punkadyne Industries(tm)


Well, I am going for the all-out "Anal-retentive man of the year" here, and
hopfully kill the "Aliensiens: The Broadway Musical" type of topics.
 
But speaking of Ripley-Queen-Airlock arguement:
 
In Total Recall, there was a HUGE problem of their concept of air pressure.
Now, I'm no physicist, but I do know some stuff about air pressure.  I
really doubt that if you were thrown out unprotected into the martian air,
and dispite a huge part of oxygen was tossed out of a volcano near you,
that your eyes would bug out and then they would get better with no apparent
damage.
 
That almost ruined the film for me.  I mean, if they were going to throw in
the realistics of martain atmosphere, they should have been somewhat
acurrate or not done it at all.  I would have liked it better if you just
died of lack of oxygen or something, but someone had to toss in part of
the Outland f/x and make Arnie and his girl look like those OBIE toys that
were so popular in Europe years ago.
 
Just my 4 half-pence
 

'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
! Oh no!  In printing my mindless drivel, I have cost the Net hundreds if   !
! not thousands of dollars to send this message to thousands of machines    !
! everywhere throughout the civilized world!  Mea Culpa!                    !
!                               -- Punk Walrus at walrus@bessel.umd.edu     !
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
From: larryy@gallant.apple.com (Larry Yaeger)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Russian movie "Stalker, The Zone" anyone seen it in USA
Keywords: Zone Russian movies
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:19:47 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Aug27.172616.26031@nsc.nsc.com> robertk@nsc.nsc.com (Robert Krohn) writes:
>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.

Yes.  It occasionally shows up in repertory cinemas (that's where I saw it).
The director of that film, Tarkovsky, also directed "Solaris", which IMHO
is brilliant.  See it if you get a chance (repertory cinemas again, though
it has also shown up on videotape recently), but be sure to mentally edit
out the car ride through Tokyo -- if you've seen the film you already know
exactly what I mean, if you haven't seen it yet, you *will* know what I
mean, and *trust me*... you'll enjoy the whole film more if you just
mentally edit out that one scene.
-- 
-larryy@apple.com

"Shi Nou Kou Sho Inu Neko Programmer"  -  Takada Naoki
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com (Two days and a wake-up...)
Subject: Re: Alien 3 (NOT Aliens^3) script that I saw
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 08:48:27 GMT

In article <6bfnh5=@lynx.unm.edu>, lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes...

} cmeadows@nyx.cs.du.edu (Chris Meadows) writes:

}} Several months ago, when perusing the files of a local BBS, I saw a file
}} labeled "Alien 3 Script." 

}} The SULACO was boarded on the way back to Earth by a ship from the
}} empire that the U.S.S.R. has become (this was written before the breakup
}} of the Soviet Union). 

} The Soviet Union angle makes it sound like it's William Gibson's script,
} actually.

It is.

} I know that a script proporting to be Gibson's has been making the
} rounds at conventions.

Purporting, nothing. It's definitely Gibson's script.

-- 

	"She's my radiation baby.
	 She's my teenage fallout girl."

--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)

    boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Subject: Re: ALIENS 1-2-3
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 18:27:52 GMT
Organization: Sporadic and incomplete

mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:

>> It *wasn't* "enemy territory".  
>
> OK, it was friendly territory that had been occupied violently under
> significant loss of life. 

Nobody in the dropship knew that; they thought they were on a milk run.
An experienced commander would have let the people back at the dropship
know what had happened in the complex, but Gorman was anything but.

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Subject: Re: ALIENS 1-2-3
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 18:34:01 GMT
Organization: Sporadic and incomplete

exukozi@exu.ericsson.se (Tom Koziatek) writes:

> ...in war one should expect the unexpected. Always have a backup.
> There should have been at least another pilot on the Sulaco, just for
> emergencies. To assume that two separated vehicles cannot both become
> casualities is pure insanity. 

It wasn't "war" -- it was a possible downed transmitter on some backwater
planet being colonized by a Weyland-Yutani terraforming team.  W-Y and the
Marines know there "might" be an alien presence on the planet, but hey,
it's just the word of one screwup pilot who managed to lose an entire
refinery ship; maybe she made up the "alien" story to cover her ass.  So
they send in a compliment of Marines to keep W-Y happy.  The Marines
aren't going in expecting a real fight -- hell, the mission commander is a
green first lieutenant; he's barely seen combat.  So maybe they use laxer
procedures than they might in a known combat situation.  Maybe these *are*
combat procedures; they certainly don't seem that far out-of-line given
the technology they have backing them up.

Yes, the Marines weren't sufficiently prepared to handle the
circumstances.  Well, we knew the circumstances, but the Marines didn't. 
They thought they were going in to wet-nurse a bunch of stupid corporate
colonist types.  You saw how seriously everyone took Ripley during her two
briefings (the first being her license review and the second when she was
filling in the Marines); it seems safe to assume that that level of
disbelief was pretty consistent right up the chain of command, both in the
Marines and at Weyland-Yutani.

It's a screw-up, but the history of military and corporate culture is
*full* of similar screw-ups.  It hardly makes the movie less believable.   

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

"Hello.  My name is Julie, and this is the M-16."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
From: daf31428@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (David A. Fleming)
Subject: Re: "Banzai" + "Highlander" bootlegs
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 05:02:54 GMT

moore7004@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:

>Hi.  I'm not a regular reader of these newsgroups anymore, so I don't know if
>this has become common knowledge while I've been gone, but...

>Over the summer I procured a bootleg rough cut -- yea, rough cut -- of "The
>Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai".  It is the supposed Director's Cut, replete
>with the Jamie Lee Curtis as Sandra Banzai footage and a veritable wealth of
>other stuff.  As a rough cut, it doesn't have any real sound editing, so you
>get to hear what the actors originally said, how they said it, sans looping.
>(Example: Buckaroo says "What are you still doing on this floor, pal?"  Rawhide
>replies: "Well, well, look who came to the party.")  This is the merest of
>examples, for there are a plethora.

>Also managed to procure a bootleg of the European version of "Highlander",
>replete with the WWII scene and a few other nifty variables.
	I hadn't heard of that "Director'S Cut" of B.B., but I picked up the
	extended version of Highlander at a japanese video store about six
	months ago.  You wanna talk "nifty variables?"  You oughta see how
	the dialogue translates into Japanese!

				Dave Fleming
				daf31428@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
From: gbradley@uks197.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Bradley)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Alien^3? How much bandwidth do we have?
Date: 26 Aug 92 10:49:49 GMT
Reply-To: gbradley@uks197.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Bradley)

Montague_Kevin @Tandem.com (Kevvy Kev) writes...

> I think you're forgetting
> the scene she sees in the monitor, while in the Marine's RV with Gorman and
> Burke.  Remember, she sees the woman cocooned and the chestburster come out.
> Also recall that the marines went there because the PDT's of the colonists
> were clustered in one area. . .clearly the aliens took them there and 
> cocooned them for breeding purposes.

   See previous post. However, the majority of the colonists are already
dead. This is not weakening my argument. No one can tell if they were
alive or dead when they were taken there - least of all Ripley. Though
common sense would indicate they were dead to make it easier for the
Aliens to move and coccoon so many people. think about what exactly
Ripley has seen the Aliens do with her OWN EYES...she would NOT claim
"they don't kill you" based on what she has SEEN. Why would she make
total guesses about Alien behaviour when she has first hand EVIDENCE
contradicting those guesses??

+---------------------+------------------------------------------+
| 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: cmeadows@nyx.cs.du.edu (Chris Meadows)
Subject: Re: Another Aliens Question
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.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 03:26:24 GMT

In article <BtvH6D.4A4@agora.rain.com> hopkins@agora.rain.com (Scott Hopk
ns) writes:
>	While we're on the subject, why did Ripley bother to torch ad 
>destroy all the eggs at the end of Aliens, when the planet was going to 
low
>up anyway?  Wouldn't it have been more smart to save her ammo, as much a
 she
>wasted getting there, to try and get out of there alive?  Which she does
of
>course in a matter of seconds, as opposed to the minutes it took her to 
et 
>there.  Cameron at his best!  :^)
>			-Casey Hopkins
>



The torch and destroy bit, in my opinion, could have two possible
reasons: 1) so they wouldn't open up and attack her, and 2) (the more
likely possibility to my mind, considering her current mental state
) she was working off some aggression.
 
 /s

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: mcclaine@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Casey)
Subject: Re: ALIENS 1-2-3
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:22:04 GMT

In article <5804@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>From article <1992Aug21.120846.15341@engage.pko.dec.com>, by boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com (Two days and a wake-up...):
>> In article <dejohn.714385608@unix1.tcd.ie>, dejohn@unix1.tcd.ie (derek edward john) writes...
>> } 1  Why in aliens when the marines go down to the planet is nobody left
>> } to pilot the ship in orbit?
> 
>> One might just as easily ask why all of the crew of the ship (or, for that
>> matter, the Nostromo in ALIEN) is put in cold sleep, with no one left
>> un-frozen to pilot the ship on the way to the planet. They apparently put
>> more stock in letting the ship be piloted by computer than you do.
>

	OK, it's my turn...

	First of all, not all of the crew was put into hypersleep while
	the Sulaco was en route to LV426.  Bishop remained functioning
	to monitor the flight and all systems, including the hypersleep
	chambers.  This is the reason that many spacefaring groups insist
	on having a synthetic on board.  They make great "ship-sitters"
	over the long periods of hyperspace travel to other systems.
	Source:  *Aliens* novelization.

	Secondly, the only reason I can see that all of the crew, even
	Bishop would go down to the planet is the idea of cost-effectiveness.
	It is expensive to carry a crewmember across the stars, so the 
	Colonial Marines make it a policy of shipping over just enough
	people to get the job done.   Every member is a capable specialist
	and thus, for the mission to go well, they must have every member
	present.  Bishop, even, has a needed, non-combative value to 
	the squad, so he was considered necessary to come along as well.
	The Marine Corps probably considers it a waste of manpower and
	resources to provide additional crew to accomplish an almost
	needless task of monitoring from orbit.  They feel that it is
	better to leave the ships on automatic and accomplish the 
	task on the planet with all hands accountable.  At least in this
	given scenario, anyway.


	_/_/_/_/   _/_/_/_/   _/_/_/   	Troi:  "Worf, what exactly is that band
	_/     _/  _/       _/     _/   that you wear on your uniform?"
	_/     _/  _/       _/              
	_/_/_/_/   _/_/_/   _/            
	_/   _/    _/       _/          Worf:  "It's a Klingon flea collar." 
	_/    _/   _/       _/     _/      
	_/     _/  _/_/_/_/   _/_/_/      
	Robert E. Casey  (mcclaine@milton.u.washington.edu)