HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beh10@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Holsinger)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: The Stand (was RE: Movie indentification request)
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:19:22 GMT
Reply-To: beh10@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Holsinger)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <17ddtoINNehv@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> brettw@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Brett D. Watson) writes:
>ccw@prefect.uucp (26554-wood) writes:
>
>>In article <92227.065231MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>, Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>[... description deleted ...]
>
>>Aside from the bird part, this sounds an awful lot like the Stephan King
>>novel "The Stand". The disease was a cold virus, created in the lab as a
>>bio-weapon, that out-mutated the hosts immune system.  Imagine getting
>>about a dozen colds back to back, and finally overlapping.  For a couple
>>of years aftwr reading this, I became very nervous every time I got a
>>cold that lingered...
>
>>The ending of the novel sucked, btw...
>
>  OH!  OH!  You HAD to tell me that!  I am about 1/3 of the way
>through the uncut version.  I really like it so far.  It's very wordy,
>with lengthy descriptions but I like it.  Now don't go and post what
>HAPPENS in the end, even if it DOES suck :-)
>

Don't worry.  I read the first half of _The_Stand_ TWICE.  Very enjoyable
first half of a book.  Never bothered reading the second half.  I have
NO IDEA how it ends, and don't really care.  (I like post-apocolyptic
stories, but not King's stuff in general.  BTW, hated the movie Pet Semetary;
I wonder if the book was any good??)

Also, I heard that _The_Stand_ is being made into a movie or tv mini-series.
I doubt it would be any good on tv, the juicy stuff woould have to be too
watered down. But-- hopefully I'm wrong!



--
Barry Holsinger       | I ain't git'n et by no gators to make my wage!
Sunnyvale, CA         | There are better ways to make a buck in dis
beh10@DUTS.amdahl.com | nutty town!!  -Ralph Snart
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: smintz@sedona.intel.com (Stephen Mintz exp 11/92~)
Subject: Re: Star Trek VI - What anachronisms!
Originator: smintz@alamo
Organization: Intel Corporation
Distribution: rec
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:49:54 GMT


I have one quick question, how come in the 23rd century, can't they get sulu a
desent auto cup for his darn tea!!!!???!!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: mad-celt@cwis.unomaha.edu (Andrew Patrick Booth)
Subject: Re: Stranger in a Strange Land
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:01:25 GMT

minnear@ll.mit.edu (Bob Minnear) writes:


>Does anyone one know if 'Stranger in a Strange Land' is being
>made into a movie.  I seem to remember reading somewhere that
>it was, and Tom Hanks would play Smith, but I can't remember
>now where I saw that...


I never heard anything about it.  I think that Tom Hanks would play Smith
well.  I wonder who would direct this movie?  Not many directors could pull
it off.  I think George Lucas could make it a great movie.  However the movie
is only as good as the screenplay.  It's too bad that Robert Heinlen isn't 
around to do it.  (Isaac Asimov would have been a good second choice, but alas
he is gone as well)

--
- Maelstrom the Mad Celt -      * SOUND News and Arts magazine is available via
(mad-celt@cwis.unomaha.edu)     * anon. FTP: quartz.rutgers.edu (/pub/journals)
Andy Booth - SOUND News & Arts  * or email from (ed@cwis.unomaha.edu).  Soon to
"Evolution follows the storm."  * return to GOPHER.  Art and writing welcome.
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Alien^3? Loved it.
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:59:53 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@pmax1.cis.pitt.edu

In article <1992Sep2.202328.14283@u.washington.edu> mcclaine@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Casey) includes far more of the text written by:
>In article <PETRI.WESSMAN.92Sep2165932@daredevil.hut.fi> Petri.Wessman@hut.fi
     than any reasonable poster should...

>>was about death and the courage it takes to face death. A requiem, if
>>you like... the Good Guys don't always win.

>	A *requiem*.  YES!!! That's perfect!

	Actually, it's NOT perfect. Far from it.

>>All things considered, I can well understand why US viewers hate the
>>film. It's simply not a happy film, and that's a bad blow to a
>>generation that has been brough up to believe that heroes always win
>>and the Happy End triumphs.

	Unh? I thought THAT was the generation raised in the late 40's-
early 50's. Not the 60's and 70's generations. Lot more depression in 
those (the oldest of the '80s generation are now 12, so they aren't
the majority yet...).

	Me, I kept getting that old line about "stop it with the happy
endings" all through MY childhood (starting with Lord of the Flies),
so I don't see my generation as being raised on happy endings. Look 
at most horror films, for crissake...

>	Yes, it almost seems that the struggles of Newt, Hicks, and Ripley
>	were all a waste because of the outcome of this third installment,
>	but face it, real life presents many of those same ironic tradgedies
>	and I feel that there are not enough movies out there to reflect this.

	The hell there aren't. There are tons of them. I wander by them in
racks five high at my local Blockbuster.

	And I guess people miss the point of MOVIE. A movie IS NOT REALITY.

	Face it, I already PAY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS A YEAR so as to be able
to win MY fight against "real life"; why on earth should someone spend
multimillions of bucks to make, and ME then spend seven bucks to SEE,
a celluloid copy of the most grimy and negative things in Real Life,
instead of a piece of fiction that takes advantage of the fact that it is
NOT REAL to be able to create a BETTER fictional world than the one I'm
living in???


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: ALIENS 1-2-3
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:51:40 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <9224201.1130@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, by jamesbs@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (JJ Glamma):
> So what if there is a backup pilot on SULAO, who is paid to sit in the dropship
> bay smoking cigarettes, and he gets appendicitis at the wrong time. 

See?  Still better than ignoring the possibility completely.  

> You see my point, I hope. Backups cost money and resources, and ninety-nine
> times out of a hundred, they need never be used.

Yes.  And still they are included.  Everywhere around you.  And in the
military, especially.  Have you ever wondered why the US Navy uses so
many twin-engined aircraft?  Heavier, larger, more difficult to
maintain?  Because ejecting over the sea is not pleasant, though still
less so than sitting on a planet, with your only means of escape being
a beautiful ship sitting incommunicado hundreds of kilometers above
you.  A single man (or two) are very cheap as backups go.

> Someone in Colonial Marine ops
> decided that a seperated dropship and APC, with a qualified pilot kept away
> from both vehicles (Bishop) was enough redundancy.

I keep trying to just see that one thinking about whether he should
send 12 or thirteen marines (or 15/16, or whatever), but I can't.  The
point is that such a safety margin usually is included in such a
mission by default.  Nobody wastes any time on cutting that kind of
support.

(Btw, the separated pilot does not matter, since he's no use without the
dropship and he's not needed to use the transmitter in the APC.)

> Now, maybe he made a mistake, and there should have been more redundancy... but
> it seems a credible enough decision to me.

No. :-)
-- 
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: sm@g2.ph.man.ac.uk (Steve Mowbray)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Script Query: _The_Princess_Bride_
Date: 26 Aug 92 11:56:57 GMT
Reply-To: sm@g2.ph.man.ac.uk
Organization: University of Manchester, UK

I suggest that anybody who wants to know the story on
Goldman/Morgenstern/Princess Bride/Gondoliers goes and reads the
rec.arts.books FAQ (last posted in the last few days). 

---
Steve Mowbray, Physics Department, University of Manchester, U.K.
-  Janet: sm@uk.ac.man.ph.g2  /  Internet: sm@g2.ph.man.ac.uk  -
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Subject: Re: ALIENS 1-2-3
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 18:59:14 GMT
Organization: Sporadic and incomplete

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

>> 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.    
>
> Going from the cost estimate, firepower, etc, two techs with parts in a
> fast shuttle would do the job. The Sulaco looked like a fully equipped
> battlecruiser with troops. Thats a lot of overkill for a 'possible'
> downed transmitter, no matter how big the company. 

How do you know?

I'm serious.  How do you know?

At least I'm willing to admit that I'm just speculating; if you have a
copy of the Colonial Marines General Operations Manual I'd like to
hear about it.

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

"what kind of dream was this, so easy to destroy?"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: MLINDROOS@finabo.abo.fi (Marcus Lindroos INF)
Subject: Re: Possible Foundation movie?
Organization: Abo Akademi University, Finland
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 09:44:07 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <714928753.F00001@csource.oz.au> Bob.Blanchett@f503.n635.z3.fidonet.org writes:

>  -=> Quoting Jason Austin to (crosspost 1) All <=-
> 
>  ->           "Reported in PUBLISHERS WEEKLY for June 1st: TriStar Pictures,
>  ->      on behalf of Roven-Cavallo Entertainment, has purchased the rights
>  ->      to Isaac Asimov's FOUNDATION trilogy.  The agreement states that the
>  ->      company can produce one theatrical release using materials from
>  ->      FOUNDATION, FOUNDATION AND EMPIRE, and SECOND FOUNDATION.  Also
>  -> Updates?  Thoughts?  Comments?  Reactions?
>  JA> 
>  JA> I think and attempt to pack the Foundation story into a few
>  JA> hours would end up like Dune.  I read Dune just before seeing the
>  JA> movie and was really disappointed at all the great moments that were
>  JA> brushed over or left out completely.  I think what would work would be
>  JA> to turn it into a long running mini-series.
> 
>  Dune the movie was an unmitigated diaster. Better to leave Foundation
>  unfilmed than to let Asimov's memory be tarnished by an end product
>  that didn't come up to his high standards.

Having read the novels, I have to say that Bob is right. The
characters/dialogue in Foundation are both wooden and one-dimensional (yes,
like their "Dune" counterparts!), which is hardly a problem as long as it is
only a novel. Both Asimov's and Herbert's books stress ideas and visions of the
future over "action" and personal relationships. As David Lynch proved in 1984,
a great novel doesn't necessarily translate into a great film.
---
"Foundation - the movie" *COULD* work, but only if they a) simplified the story
a great deal b) came up with more "exciting" characters that do not sound like
they're giving a speech every time they are discussing something
c) introduced more "commercial" elements like breath-taking special FX,
romantic subplots (OK, Bayta & Toran Darrell...), action & violence.
In other words . . . STAR WARS!! Has anybody noticed just how much SW has
borrowed (bastardized:-) from the "Foundation"?! The Jedi knights have Second
Foundation-like powers (=telepathy, ability to control people's minds), a dark,
decadent Empire, a Mule-like Emperor, a Foundation of their own in the Rebel
Alliance etc.. If the events in "Foundation" were real and occured, say, 3000
years ago, the myths and religions inspired by it would be a lot like Star
Wars! 
 


 
>  Cheers,
>  Bob.
> 
> ... Uncle Gene; his eyes closed.
>  * Origin: Andy's BBS: Melb Australia - 61-3-357-3414 (3:635/503.0)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Inconsistent science in SF films
From: ace@kryton.UUCP (Catherine Beckstead)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 11:24:43 PDT
Organization: Paradox Alley F&SF BBS 805-492-8789

mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes:

> (Total Recall spoilers, I suppose)

> walrus@bessel.umd.edu (Grig Larson) writes:
> 
> >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.
> 
> You are, of course, correct.  It was even sillier than Outland.
> 
<lots of stuff about TR inconsistancies deleted>

> Matt McIrvin, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA 

Simple explination, it was fantasy, it was his memory vacation.....or
actually his ego trip entitled "Blue Sky on Mars".  Maybe Mars looks
totally and completly different then the one Recall, (the company), 
depicted.  Of course even at that, then you get plot inconsistancies
from before he went to Recall.  Like why he was having this dream,
and the news broadcasts.  Oh well, it was a "fun" movie anyway.  

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Beckstead                    ace@kryton.uucp
"Do you want to argue with a can of deodorant that registers
NINE on the Richter scale?"        --Ace, in "Dragonfire"
From: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Alien^3? How much bandwidth do we have?
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:26:40 GMT
Reply-To: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA

In the referenced article, lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
>> decompression as Mama tries to yank her off. . . 
>
>How fast a wind would it take to blow *you* loose from the kind of hold
>Ripley had on the airlock ladder rungs?  Nothing short of something
>capable of ripping her arm off would have done it, and you can only pour
>air through a hole so fast.  I don't see the problem.

Well, you can only pour it through at the speed of sound. In fact,
assuming a more or less perfect vacuum on the other side, you can
*only* pour it through at the speed of sound.

Given that mere 120 MPH winds (to say nothing of 6-700 MPH) will pull
trees out of the ground and fling them through the air for hundreds of
feet, it doesn't seem likely that Ripley's arm would have survived
long.

On the other hand though it's pretty unlikely, if she was protected by
any sort of lip at all on the edge of the hanger door, the eddy
currents could in principle have been pushing her *against* the wall
until such a time as the pressure was low enough that she could hang
on herself. Turbulence is a funny thing.

At least, if it weren't for that damn alien hanging on to her foot and
flapping about in the breeze. It should have ripped her foot (or its
pincers) off in the first split second.

But vacuum has certainly been shown more stupidly in science fiction.
Take (please), for example, that stupid scene in the Disaster ST:TNG
episode where Geordi and Beverly feel a need to stand in the stupidest
possible place in order to hold on when all they needed to do was get
as far away from the door as possible and put their backs to the wall
(no air rushing out behind them means no force pushing them in that
direction means no problem).
-- 
"When you're down, it's a long way up
 When you're up, it's a long way down
 It's all the same thing
 And it's no new tale to tell"                      ../ray\..
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: ALIEN question
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:32:59 GMT
Organization: Sporadic and incomplete

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

>> Have you ever heard of the phrase "IN JOKE"? 
>
> Have you ever heard of the phrase "dumb in joke"?  I don't need people
> wrecking the plausibility of film props just to show off their literacy. 

If the names of the *ships* made the _Nostromo_ and the _Sulaco_
implausible to you, it's because you were looking for something to
complain about.  99% of the people out there aren't going to recognize the
reference, and the rest might get a chuckle out of it.  That's all.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say you're likely to be the *only person on
the planet* who's an anal enough fanboy to even see this as a *problem*. 
That's a special role you have, Markus -- cherish it.  Maybe we could get
you a plaque or something.

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

"and I, my lord . . . may I say nothing?"
From: sjurk@dhhalden.no (SJUR KRISTIANSEN)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Plot holes in Alien^3 (*Spoilers!*)
Date: 30 Aug 92 19:17:11 GMT
Organization: Ostfold College

I guess these questions already have been discussed to death, but please 
forgive me anyway...
- Why did the facehugger in the opening bleed acid? because it wanted to???
  It must have been hurt in some way, but there was no signs of that 
  happening...
- How the H*LL did Ripley get impregnated?! The only shots of *ANY*   
  facehuggers was of the one in question #1, and that little bugger   
  impregnated the dog! Besides; wasn't Ripley's Cryo-tube intact when they   
  found her on Fury 161?- Yet another acid question: The alien (let's call 
  him/her/it Fido...) bled acid in the ventilation-corridor without any body 
  damage (as far as I can recall)
- Why did the queen take so long before bursting out of Ripley? 

Anyway, the chase scenes in the movie saved the damn thing from being 
totally uninspiring IMHO. By no means a classic, but all right as a means 
for beating a couple of hours to death (save for the MAJOR plotholes...)
                          ___
SJURK@SOFUS.DHHALDEN.NO  /// I've seen things you  people wouldn't believe. 
Sjur Kristiansen        /// Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. 
Ostfold College   ___  /// I watched  C-beams glitter in the dark near the 
N-1750 Halden      \\\/// Tannhauser gate.  All those moments will be lost
NORWAY              \/// in time - like tears in rain...       Time to die.
From: exukozi@exu.ericsson.se (Tom Koziatek)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: ALIENS 1-2-3
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:39:28 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems

In article <BtMLC3.J4H@comp.vuw.ac.nz> Philip.Banks@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Philip Richard Banks) writes:
>
>   Remember they were going into a situation where they didn't expect *any*
>trouble. They had the APC and the dropship safely seperated and the dropship
>was 'safe' in what was deemed a secure area. I have no problems with a fast
>response team like this one was taking everybody down to investigate what they
>thought was merely a downed transmitter.
>
Absolute crap. They had Ripleys briefing on the Aliens. If they *knew* it
was a transmitter, they would have sent a Maytag-repair tech to fix it. Instead,
they send a bunch of Marines going Argh!. Seems like they were preparing for
any sort of trouble.

However, 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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Death is the Ultimate Victor............            
                                                                      -Tom

Note : I don't care that my location shows .se, I'm in Dallas !!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sm@g2.ph.man.ac.uk (Steve Mowbray)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: AKIRA - Great flick! - But what's it ab
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:10:08 GMT
Reply-To: sm@g2.ph.man.ac.uk
Organization: University of Manchester, UK

In article 92Aug26201708@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu, ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat) writes:
>Just a little nit, but while the animation was done by hand, much was
>synced up from computer calculations and plots. That's why so much of the
>machinery looks and works like real machinery looks and works, and why the
>vehicle light afterimages look so cool.
>

And I suppose that explains why, when people were walking/running,
the ground appeared to be sliding out from under them.

---
Steve Mowbray, Physics Department, University of Manchester, U.K.
-  Janet: sm@uk.ac.man.ph.g2  /  Internet: sm@g2.ph.man.ac.uk  -
From: ssurhode@susssys1.rdg.ac.uk (Paul Rhodes)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: ALIENS 1-2-3
Date: 2 Sep 92 10:34:21 GMT
	<5796@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> <nigel.715406654@saturn>
Organization: Reading University, England

In article <nigel.715406654@saturn> nigel@socs.uts.edu.au (Nigel Pearson) writes:

   In <5796@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:

   >Not a reasonable principle.  Note that in Starship Troopers, there ARE
   >crews on the ships.  As for reality: The people who fly the AV-8Bs are
   >different from those who storm the beaches, who are different from
   >those who crew the landing ships.  Which brings me to another point:
   >Why is there no crew on the ship?

	Sorry to bring this up, but didn't the dropship go back to the Sulaco
   as soon as it dropped off the Marines in their little AV? Which would have
   accounted for about 10 minutes during which the Sulaco was uncrewed.

No. The dropship did not return to the Sulaco. If you remember the
voice over from Gorman as they landed.....


"Prepare for immeadiate dust-off and stay on station"...


or something like that.

Paul.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: welter@fwi.uva.nl (Richard Welter)
Subject: Re: ALIENS 1-2-3
Organization: FWI, University of Amsterdam
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:29:27 GMT

u906789@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (Mark Julian Turner) writes:

>welter@fwi.uva.nl (Richard Welter) writes:

>>u906789@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (Mark Julian Turner) writes:

>>>ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:

>>>>In article <2745@nlsun1.oracle.nl> gbradley@uks197.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Bradley) writes:

>>>>>    I agree 100% with this. This is a plot hole in Aliens. The only way
>>>>>they could justify leaving no one on the Sulaco during the mission was
>>>>>that the computers on board were smart enough to act as human overseers
>>>>>or backup. And if this were so, a destroyed dropship would mean the
>>>>>marines needed help, drop the second ship on automatic.

>>>>Or not drop it on automatic.  With a human, you'd radio back up and tell
>>>>him to drop the second ship.  If they could communicate with the computer
>>>>to do that, it wouldn't have to be automatic (what if no one survived?
>>>>No point in dropping the ship).

>>>If a computer could fly a dropship then why do they need Ferro & Spunkmyer?

>>That's the point, the computer couldn't do it, so they should have left a 
>>backup pilot on the Sulaco to fly the second dropship.

>This argument seems to be going round and round in circles, but here we go...
>A backup is not needed (except on this occasion) because the 2nd dropship can
>be remote-piloted from the APC. The destruction of the dropship and the APC
>would seem to be totally unlikely again a bunch of aliens with no weapons...

As you say yourself, a backup was needed on this occasion, so they should have
left a backup pilot on the Sulaco to fly the second dropship.
And however unlikely you should still be prepared for any emergencies, 
especially when you're several lightyears from home and help is weeks away.

-- 
*                         X      Computer Science                   /        *
*    Richard J. Welter   |X|  University of Amsterdam           \  /         *
*                         X                                     CIAmiga      *
*      "Marshmallows! Ben, where are those hickory sticks?!"  - Jerry        *
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies