HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: sex in movies
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:47:59 GMT
Reply-To: jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:

> > Even "E.T." used numnull language..."Douche bag"...to push its rating up
> > from G to PG.  
> >
> > What harm? Considerable. 
> 
> If you're going to assert "considerable" harm, it'd be nice to know what
> exactly you think the harm *is*.

I didn't make the assertion, but I'll argue the point. The harm is to
the artistic integrity of the film. The film should contain only those
incidents and characters that further the plot and its themes. Anything
else is irrelevant and draws the viewer away from the essence of the
work, which is artistically counterproductive.

Take a broad example. Two characters are having an important conversation.
Behind them you see an orgy visible through their neighbor's window. The orgy,
and the neighbors, are irrelevant to the plot or the milieu of the film.
Do you still get the full impact of the conversation? No, because you
waste concentration trying to fathom the significance of the orgy.

John
From: v075q5fr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Aliens 3 and stuff
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:13:00 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug27.212732.23538@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes...
>In article <BtnAAs.6s9@acsu.buffalo.edu> v076r95v@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (The Nature Boy) writes:
>>In article <SSURHODE.92Aug26103154@suma1.susssys1.rdg.ac.uk>, ssurhode@susssys1.rdg.ac.uk (Paul Rhodes) writes...
>>>... 
>>>  c. How did the eggs get on the sulaco ? The queen detached herself
>>>     from the egg laying part of her at the end of Aliens. Also, the
>>>     queen was never left alone on the Sulaco.
>>
>>	No one knows how the eggs got on board which is why I thought that the
>>movie was SO STUPID!!  It made no sense.  Since no one could explain how the
>>eggs got onboard, there should have been no reason for the movie to have even
>>happened.  Without that stupid egg, they probably would have made it back to
>>Earth.  Sorry, I just really thought this movie was bad.
>>					PHOENIX
>>
> 
>Maybe a facehugger got on board with the queen, and was missed.

     How about this little gem from ALIEN (the first one): it's the
     perfect organism.  It will FIND a way.  You can never defeat
     it completely, because it is absolutely relentless, it will
     not stop, and if you find a way to defeat it, it will just
     evolve around the defeat...

     To enter into the slightly-geekish arena for one moment: the Queens
     are the only egg layers, right?  (Well, wrong: the facehugger "lays"
     something in the back of the throat that becomes the chestburster...)
     So, if the Queen is the only thing capable of laying facehugger
     eggs (from which the rest of the alien cycle comes), and if there
     is only ONE Queen per hive (and only one hive on LV426)... you have
     to figure THE PERFECT ORGANISM would have some kind of failsafe: if
     you kill the Queen, the rest will eventually die as well: so there
     should be a backdoor (a deues ex machina we didn't know about in ALIENS)
     for the Queen to avoid extinction for her race.

     But that's neither here nor there: I always thought Ripley gave a 
     perfectly good answer to how the facehuggers got aboard: "I don't 
     know."  She's not omnipotent; she was asleep, you know?  Why MUST
     everything be revealed always?  Why?

     Or you could just go with her other explanation: "I had a bad dream
     in hypersleep.  A nightmare."  She dreamt the facehugger on Newt
     (which is made clearer in script than on screen, but true nonetheless).
     The facehugger materialized out of Ripley's dream.  Because it's the
     perfect organism, and you can't kill it: if it has to, it will crawl
     back into your life through your DREAMS -- and let's remember, Ripley
     had overpowering nightmares after revival in ALIENS as well...
From: gharris@jade.tufts.edu (George W. Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Film with the least actors
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:26:27 GMT
Organization: Tufts University - Medford, MA
Originator: gharris@jade.tufts.edu

In article <1992Sep1.023905.2926@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu> bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Robert Church) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.192352.21160@pony.Ingres.COM> cathys@ingres.com (Cathy Savino) writes:
>
>>I'm sorry about the sketchy details, but the one thing I do remember is that there 
>>where only 2 actors in the entire film, and Micheal Kane was one of them.
>
>Was the other one Christopher Reeves?

	That's Reeve, and no it wasn't.  That one had two women and a host of 
extras in it.

>*    bob church                             *
>*    bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu           *
--
"If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste more like
prunes than rhubarb does."              -Groucho Marx 

gharris@jade.tufts.edu          George Harris, Tufts Univ. Dept. of Mathematics
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: The Potion with the Poison...
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:54:59 GMT

pfleury@ddsw1.mcs.com (Patrick J. Fleury) writes:

>"The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle.  The chalice
>from the palace holds the brew that is true."
>Later, the vessel with the pestle breaks and other glasses must be substituted
>so she now she tells him
>"The pellet with the poison's in the chalice from the palace.  The flagon with 
>the dragon holds the brew that is true."

>Of course everybody gets this confused and the mixup is funny.

Oops, guess I took the poison one in my previous post.  Oh well.

>	When I was watching this movie a couple threads from r.a.m. came to
>mind.  For example:

>1) Why aren't some of the female stars from the past included among the 
>discussion of "movie babes"  Glynis Johns is gorgeous with bright green (well
>I think they're green) eyes and a deep throaty voice.

I agree totally.  Also Wendy Hiller in Great Expectations, if I remember
right (famous last words)...

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Upcoming movies (was Re: What do you call YOUR remote?)
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 05:21:40 GMT

In article <BtFArM.E8E@egsner.cirr.com> datri@egsner.cirr.com (Anthony Datri) writes:

>>_1492_
>
>I've seen trailers that said that Columbus "discovered America".  I'm not
>impressed.

I'm not sure I understand the problem.  The "old" and "new" worlds didn't 
know about each other at the time, so either the American Indians had 
to discover Europe or vice-versa.  It is perfectly permissable to use 
the word "discovery" in connection with something that already exists. 

Ridley Scott directs this film and that is all the recommendation I need.

By the way, I loved "Dances with Wolves" and couldn't stand all the 
complaining at that time about how that movie didn't show both 
sides fairly.  Ditto Thelma and Louise.  Sometimes it is appropriate 
for a movie to have an attitude and it need not always be the most 
popular one.



Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
From: hopkins@agora.rain.com (Scott Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Most Embarassing Movie
Keywords: Extermely Bad
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:31:39 GMT

In article <Btzy3p.BE9@news.cso.uiuc.edu> rnmg1200@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (A Lady and her Walrus) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.153221.10030@lclark.edu> garyb@lclark.edu (Gary Bliefernich) writes:
>>
>>In one word, "C.H.U.D."
>>
>>(wretch, wretch, cold sweat, vomit)  God it was bad./gb
>
>How about C.H.U.D. 2:  Bud the Chud?  Didn't actually see it in the theater,
>but boy, was it baaaaad.
>
>The Walrus
>
	I don't know.  The killer dead-poodle attacking the mailman (Who
was delivering the mail at night for some strange reason) was pretty
classic.  And what Bud the Chud became embodied the wants/desires of every
teenager.  A dead, yet hip, dude!  On the other had, you're right!
			-Casey Hopkins
			hopkins@agora.rain.com


Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: edsum02@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Cassondra Pope)
Subject: Re: Upcoming movies (was Re: What do you call YOUR remote?)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Distribution: usa
Date: 25 Aug 1992 14:29 EDT  

In article <1992Aug18.143650.1@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu>, bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Greg Bole) writes...
>In article <1992Aug17.175334.15980@morrow.stanford.edu>, 
>AH.PBL@forsythe.stanford.edu (Mark) writes:
> 
>>   This thread, and the popularity of it, shows how this
>>   has been one of the worst summers for movies in a very
>>   long time.  Except for one or two films, this season's
>>   crop is a poor one at best.
> 
>But boy, there are some awsome looking films coming up!!!
> 
>_Bram Stoker's Dracula_
>_A Few Good Men_
>_1492_
>_Last of the Mohicans_
>_Jurrasic Park_
>_Hoffa_
>_Spiderman_?
> 
>....and plently of others!
 HOW COULD YOU NOT EVEN MENTION MALCOLM X ??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This film is due out about the same time as 1492. It'll be interesting to see
how they fair against each other.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: kaufman@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman)
Subject: Patti Rocks (Was Re: Film with the least actors)
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 16:00:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.131329.12286@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> ren@Turing.ORG (Karen Prestemon) writes:
>Has anyone ever seen the film "Patti Rocks"?  For some reason I thought
>it was just two guys sitting around, talking.  Let me know if I'm incorrect!
>(I also heard it was ridden with anti-male sentiment... a dormmate 2nd
>year came back from seeing the film, cursing the existence of guys...)

Basicly it is about three people, two men and a woman. If doesn't win for
least number of people because there are quite a few extras.

On the other hand, it is a very good film. I would not classify it as ani-male.
THere is one extrremly unsympathetic male character, but also one positive one.

Highly recomended..

Michael


-- 
Michael Kaufman | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on
 kaufman        | fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in
  @eecs.nwu.edu | the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be
                | lost in time - like tears in rain. Time to die.     Roy Batty
From: stevenra@feserve.cc.purdue.edu (Alex Stevens)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Film with the least actors
Date: 2 Sep 92 08:25:21 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

>I was just trying to think about which film had the least number of 
>actors. The smallest I could thing of is Breakfast Club which only has 
>>(I'm going by charters description here)
>>documentarys and film of that sort don't count.
>
>Do crowd scenes count?  If not, then I think we can include the movie
>version of Deathtrap which had . . . um . . . four if memory serves me
>right: Michael Caine (right?), Christopher Reeve, and the two women.


I've got you all beat.  The movie with the least amount of actors has
to be:

		Benji the Hunted!!1

Okay, I guess that should've won "Movie with least amount of audience."

Alex
stevenra@feserve.purdue.cc.edu
:
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: rlwilliams@gallua.gallaudet.edu
Subject: Re: great voices
Organization: Gallaudet University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:59:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.181846.4799@access.digex.com>, huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.222234.1@gallua.gallaudet.edu> rlwilliams@gallua.gallaudet.edu writes:
>>I also remember being in love with June Allison's voice when I was a kid...
>>
>>who else do you like?
> 
> Glynis Johns (_No Highway in the Sky_ based on a novel by Nevil Shute)
> Lauren Bacall (any of the four with Bogart)
> Tallulah Bankhead (_Lifeboat_)
> Judy Holliday (_Born Yesterday_)
> 
> -- Herb Huston
> 
> 
_____
How did I forget Kristi Ally and Amy Irving...
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 12:38:36 EDT
From: TODD BOBENRIETH <TAB129@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Most Embarassing Movie
 <1992Aug28.014042.1164@fulcrum.oz.au> <1992Aug28.191312.23885@bnr.ca>
 <1992Aug31.215528.29891@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>
 <1992Sep1.112615.1@gallua.gallaudet.edu>

It would have to be Naked Lunch...I hope I get flamed for saying it so we
see who are the airhead expressionists that actually liked this piece of
worthless dribble. Me and my friend went to see expecting your typical
Cronenberg masterpiece and ended up shifting around in our seats more than
any other in history. We left the theater(re) feeling like we were in another
reality where stupidity rules...very disappointing.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: howells@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (John Howells)
Subject: Re: Does anyone know the name of this movie?
Keywords: Airplane, 1950s, crash
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 14:50:27 GMT

rjs@ulysses.att.com (Richard Steinberg) writes:

<Does anyone know the name of this movie?  Here are the salient facts:

<1) There was a mysterious crash of an airplane.  One engine went out--a one in
<a million chance, but then, the other engine also went out, why?  The
<stewardess survived.  In order to determine what went wrong, the flight of the
<downed plane is re-enacted as closely as possible.  The stewardess describes in
<real time exactly what happened on board and every detail is reproduced.  The
<answer turns out to be a cup of coffee she brought to the pilot.  After the
<first engine went, the coffee cup spilled into an opening in the cowling and
<killed the second engine.

I recognize this film, but haven't seen it in many years. It's called
"Fate Is the Hunter". The only actor I can remember is Glenn Ford.

<2) Probably an American movie from the 1950s.

More like early 1960s, I believe.

--
                                        John Howells
                                        howells@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov 
                                        howells@earth.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
From: donnell@manowar.micro.umn.edu (Your Heinous)
Subject: Re: Most Embarassing Movie
Organization: none
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:19:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.215528.29891@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> mlh@eddy.austin.ibm.com (Mike Haskell) writes:
>
> What is the most embarassing movie you have ever seen?  (What I mean by
> embarassing, is that you feel absolutely miniscule when the lights come
> up and you HAVE to walk out of the theater with every other bonehead
> who bought a ticket to this turkey).  Movies on video don't count as
> your stupidity is hidden by the walls of your house. :-)

I guess I would have to say that "Message From Space" is mine. I saw it
when it came out , and was horrified. Sonny Chiba and a bunch of other
folks have to do battle with evil aliens on behalf of another planet,
because they were chosen by Magic Acorns. the Good planet sets sail
in a Space Sailboat, collects all the warriors who recieved the Acorns,
and they indulge in tacky psuedo martial arts fights for pretty much
the rest of the movie, pausing only to let Sonny Chiba have a heroic
last speech before he dies. Funny as hell, but not what I was hoping for
at all.

					--Judex--

Xref: sparky rec.arts.movies:26392 rec.arts.sf.movies:6815
From: kfree@fatcity.cts.com (Kenneth Freeman)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Ender's Game (was Re: Possible Foundation movie?)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 21:12:10 PDT
Organization: Fat City Software, San Diego, California

 
Perhaps the ambience of a _Forbidden Games_, the chilling
French anti-war film, is called for, but it will take some kind
of genius to cast and direct _Ender's Game_. An intriguing project!
Offhand, I can't think of many films in which children carry all
of the dramatic action where they aren't "children."

-- 
kfree@fatcity.cts.com (Kenneth Freeman)
Fat City Software BBS -- (619) 268-9275
UUCP: ...crash.cts.com!fatcity!kfree  OR  ...telesoft.com!fatcity!kfree
From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Most Embarassing Movie
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:35:52 GMT
	<1992Aug28.191312.23885@bnr.ca>
	<1992Aug31.215528.29891@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>
	<1992Sep1.203224.12836@phillip.edu.au>
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: t9014201@phillip.edu.au's message of 2 Sep 92 01:32:24 GMT

mlh@eddy.austin.ibm.com (Mike Haskell) writes:
>  What is the most embarassing movie you have ever seen?  (What I mean by
>  embarassing, is that you feel absolutely miniscule when the lights come
>  up and you HAVE to walk out of the theater with every other bonehead
>  who bought a ticket to this turkey).  Movies on video don't count as
>  your stupidity is hidden by the walls of your house. :-)

"Harry and the Hendersons."  No close competition.  This one became
the second film I *ever* walked out on.  (The first was the Grateful
Dead concert movie, but that doesn't count because I only paid $0.85
to see it.)

This film was particularly embarassing because I saw it with an old
friend and a new friend (someone I had recently met, not a date).  We
spent over an hour squirming uncomfortably in our seats, wondering
whether the other guy was just as embarassed or whether it was
possible that he was *enjoying* the thing.  I don't remember who
finally broached the possibility of walking out, but the agreement was
very swift and we were outta there.

If it had been just me and my old friend, we probably would have
exchanged one meaningful glance about ten minutes into the movie and
left without saying a word.

This sort of doesn't count under your definition of embarassed, since
we didn't have to face all the other poor saps who got suckered into
this one, having left early.  Still, it feels good to come clean about
this rather disgraceful episode in my life.  Now it can be told.
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: gt7994a@prism.gatech.EDU (ORMOND,SEAN PATRICK)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: What are those Negroes doing with guns?
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:07:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Sep2.233422.14312@cci632.cci.com> agc@cci632.cci.com (Anupama Chathampally - co-op) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.113813.744@calmasd.prime.com> wwr@calmasd.prime.com writes:
>>
>>	While I'm at it :> (snicker dastardly), I have no empathy for Native
>>Americans, or the inner city urban problems.
>>	[Politically Incorrect Comments deleted for your protection]
>
>The Indians did sign treaties for their land only to have the U.S. break them 
>and push the Indians further west until there was no where left to go. Check out
>some history books. 

	I believe the original poster was describing the current trend in
the media of placing a major guilt trip on the heads of modern-day white
males for the actions that led to the settlement (or destruction, if you
buy their stories) of this country.  Guess what?  We didn't have a damn
thing to do with it and couldn't care less!  Maybe I should just pack my
bags and go back to Ireland and we'll call it even!

Check out some bumper stickers...SHIT HAPPENS!

Sean


-- 
Sean P. Ormond
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt7994a
Internet: gt7994a@prism.gatech.edu
From: mchenry@guvax.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Twin Peaks:Fire Walk With Me (possible spoliers)
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:00:46 -0400
Distribution: world
Organization: Georgetown University

In article <1992Sep1.190214.2287@ils.nwu.edu>, Cliff Chaput <chaput@ils.nwu.edu> writes:
> In article <Btt4wy.Hwt@well.sf.ca.us> Robert Chao, rchao@well.sf.ca.us
> writes:
> 
> I just have to say, for the record, that I had been an avid TP fan, and I 
> absolutely *hated* this movie.  It was embarassingly bad.  Yuck.
> 
> Not that this movie didn't have its moments.  It certainly did.  The 
> opening credits and opening scene (the extraction from the television, 
> etc.) make a definite statement.  And Cooper's FBI office dream sequence, 
> with the videocameras and Bowie, are remarkably spooky and dream-like.
> 
> But, looking back, that's what the whole movie seemed like to me, a bad 
> dream, which would be a appropriate backdrop for a TP story, but there
> was 
> no story.  Just a handful of facts, half of them there to tie into the 
> series.  No explanation or character development.  And the dialog!  
> "Gobble, gobble, gobble"?!  Give me a break.
> 

It seems to me that David Lynch is interested in exploring HIS world of 
Twin Peaks, and doesn't really care whether or not we can follow it in a 
rationale manner. He gives us snatches of the plot and snatches of what 
happens "above" and "below." He has his own vision of what Heaven and Hell 
are. For instance, the dialog where Jacques says he is as blank as a fart, 
well, that's a reference to some previous conversation that they all had. 
We were not privy to it. Haven't you ever overheard a conversation full of 
private jokes and references? 

To me the film played like a TP episode. It raised as many new questions as 
it answered old ones. As nearly as I can remember, Lynch was remarkably 
true to what happens afterwards. I think it may have been an interesting 
exercise for him to try to make such a movie - are there any precedents, 
especially considering how complicated this story is? There was a lot less 
humor in this, but every character was just as weird. I think it's Lynch's 
way of saying that we are alike by virtue of the fact that, if you look 
deep enough, we all have something weird about us. I think the problem for 
TP fans is that the story doesn't give us anything about what happens next, 
i.e. since the end of the series. If we were seeing "new" parts of the 
story, we would probably all be as enthusiastic as ever. But did anyone 
notice the forward reference to what is happening "now" to Coop in what 
Laura is told to put in her diary? (I think I have not revealed enough here 
to be a spoiler...)

Bill McHenry
mchenry@guvax.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: clee@ssdslc29.asl.dl.nec.com (Christina Lee)
Subject: Re: sex in movies
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:49:34 GMT

>
>  Explicit, how?  What seemed "explicit" and shocking 15+ years ago
But the question in point is about movies today.
Are the movies today too sexually explicit?
Not, will the movies of today be sexually explicit in 15 years.

>  The people who complain about sex and violence in films today must
>  be the same people who keep going back for more.

Perhaps it's because there are not a lot of movies that don't have
sex and violence in them.  I have to admit that there are movies
with good stories, but sometime there's alot of sex and violence in
them too.  And I don't got to the movies for more sex and violence,
I go for a good story.

-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:  Christina Lee  @  NEC America Advanced Switching Lab, Irving, TX        :
:  clee@asl.dl.nec.com   || Any opinions stated here are mine and not      :
:                        || necessarily those of my employer.              :
Xref: sparky rec.arts.movies:26397 alt.cult-movies:7257