HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pwg25888@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Patrick W. Grady)
Subject: Re: 2001 : What does it mean!!!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 05:55:50 GMT

franzis@evax.gdc.com writes:


> Hello,
>	Last night I saw 2001 A space odyssey for the 10th time
>  and I still don't understand the last part. (When his space pod
>  is flying through the crazy colors to the end where the monolith
>  appears again) Am I suppose to understand it? Does the author
>  understand it !!??  If someone could enlighten me I would appreciate
>  it. Please no jokes and no references to the second movie 2010.


>				Pat.

	To really get some of this part of the movie, you have to have
read the book.  The book will contain more than what the movie showed, 
trying not to spoil it.  Used book stores might be your best place to 
find copies of this cheap.

	Patrick
	---
	pwg25888@uiuc.edu

  


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu (Wayne Hughes)
Subject: Re: New Frankenstein movie(s)
Organization: Botany Department - U of Georgia, Athens
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 01:40:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.003622.6755@scott.skidmore.edu> gschlesi@scott.skidmore.edu (Christopher Robin) writes:
>jacob@plasma2.ssl.berkeley.edu (Jamey Jacob) writes:
>> 
>> 	There was a fairly faithful adaptation of Frankenstein,
>> 	where the creature at first looks and acts fine, and
>> 	then decays into the monster, eventually battling for his
>> 	life with his creator over a frozen sea. 
>
>Doesn't sound faithful to me.  One of the points of the book is that
>he is ugly yet good in the beginning but becomes evil as he is
>continually shunned throughout his life.  I can hardly see why he
>would become evil if he acted normal and looked good from the


   The previous poster refers to _Frankenstein:  THe True Story_
   (I think), made in the mid or late 70's probably.
   By "decays into the monster" he means that the initially
   pleasing appearance of the creature degrades after a period
   of time; thereafter he is shunned.  

   The movie was pretty good actually, and it was my impression 
   that Mary Shelley's monster was also physically pleasing
   to start with, maybe I remember incorrectly.  At any rate
   it's not an uncommon interpretative gimmick; the theatrical
   production of _The Elephant Man_ with David Bowie relied
   on the audience's imagination to visualize Bowie as repulsive.

   Another possibility is that the pleasing physical appearance
   of the creature degrading with time is a metaphor for 
   the transition from good to evil under the influence of
   his social environment.

    Wayne
From: 01fortec@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: SF Novels that would make Great Films
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:34:18 -0400
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <futor-171192115019@chinacat.llnl.gov>, futor@llnl.gov (randy j futor) writes:
> 
>  kpapai@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Ken Papai) wrote:
>> 
>> I've also heard the rumors of making the Foundation series into movies.
>> That would be fantastic.
> 
> A friend & I were talking the other day about a thing that at least one
> reviewer has called "particularly American", namely the serial.
> 
> Does anyone else think, as I do, that the Foundation stories would
> serialize extremely well?
> 
> __
> \/  -+-  randy  -+-  all generalizations are flawed  -+-  futor@llnl.gov

Given the complexity of some of the novels, and of the series as a whole,
serialization may be the only way to present them on film. 

As an example, Shogun was a great depiction of the book in its serialized
form, but Taipan failed miserably at translating the written word because
it didn't allow enough time for character and plot development.

Joe
01fortec@ac.dal.ca
From: donnell@starfish.micro.umn.edu (BogusMan)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: New Frankenstein movie(s)
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:58:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: news2.1992Nov23.195842.6785
Organization: none

In article <1992Nov19.003622.6755@scott.skidmore.edu> gschlesi@scott.skidmore.edu (Christopher Robin) writes:
>jacob@plasma2.ssl.berkeley.edu (Jamey Jacob) writes:
>> 
>> 	There was a fairly faithful adaptation of Frankenstein,
>> 	where the creature at first looks and acts fine, and
>> 	then decays into the monster, eventually battling for his
>> 	life with his creator over a frozen sea. 
>
>Doesn't sound faithful to me.  One of the points of the book is that
>he is ugly yet good in the beginning but becomes evil as he is
>continually shunned throughout his life.  I can hardly see why he
>would become evil if he acted normal and looked good from the
>beginning.  Plus, there was never a battle as such between the monster
>and Frankenstein (but I'll pass over that because such scenes are
>always added to make things "exciting").  But this isn't a flame, I
>haven't actually seen the movie.  It just sounds to me as if maybe the
>director maybe wanted to convey a different point by making the
>monster look "fine" from the beginning.
>	 		Cheers,
>				C.R.
>
>> 
>> 

"Frankenstein: The True Story" is not nearly as faithful to the book as its
makers would have had you believe when it first cme out in 1974.

As Mike Weldon says, Hardly the "true story" but an excellent epic 
adaptation of the tale. Very memorable, and very touching at times. I 
have never seen Michael Sarazin this good again. I recommend the 2-part
mini-series version, which still shows up on latenite TV, at least around
here.

					--Judex--
From: spongebo@cithara (THE EYE-BALL KID)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: T3
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:38:03 GMT
Organization: Organ Grinders Monkeys Union With Penguins As Mascots

pisherwo@wm.estec.esa.nl (Phil Isherwood) writes:

> I had heard from a friend of a friend that James Cameron has
> employed a small group of UK graphics experts to work on
> developing new and improved graphics effects for possible use
> in another Terminator movie. The guy said that the T3 movie
> would only be made IF (and only if) more ijnpressive graphics
> are developed. The feeling is that T3 will have to be even
> more technically impressive than T2, or Cameron won't even
> consider making it.
> 
> Well, that's what I heard. As to the validity of the above
> statement, who can say ?

Hmmmm. Well, that might be one of the reason's I've never found Cameron's 
films particularly satisfying (apart from T1, which was a hoot). Relying 
on state-fo-the-art SPFX seems to be Jim Cameron's excuse for "pop" 
Sci-Fi.

But, before eveyone starts jumping on me for daring to say what I think, 
I should probably get to the point of this post:

Can anyone confirm or deny the rumour that ALIAS RESEARCH (who provided 
the software for T2) have gone out of business? I heard this was the 
case, and I also heard that Speilberg has bought himself a battery of 
Video Toasters for his next project, from someone "in the biz".

Any reports on this would be appreciated.

Spongebo - THE EYE-BALL KID (:::::-)

spongebo@cithara.uucp
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: cs386122@ucs.usl.edu (Mejia Pablo J.)
Subject: Re: Brasil and 1984
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern La., Lafayette
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:56:39 GMT

In article <BxwzvF.AKy@cck.coventry.ac.uk> mei172@cch.coventry.ac.uk (guru) writes:
>In article <kX4auB6w165w@cithara.uucp> spongebo@cithara.uucp (THE EYE-BALL KID) writes:
>>The original working title for BRASIL was "1984 & 1/2", and I think it is 
>>safe to say it was inspired by 1984, if not based upon it. I believe Tom 
>>Stoppard did the screen-play, and Giolliam added the imagery (as only 
>>Gilliam could!).
>
>guru sez:
>	I'd agree with that. Some of the stuff is just magnificent.
>	
>>There are substantial differences in approach, though (obvious, right). 
>>1984 was a political allegory based on Stalinist Russian and the 
>>destruction by totalitarianism or the communist ideal (see also Animal 
>>Farm, about the Stalinist purges).
>>
>>BRAZIL, on the other hand, takes the nightmare of contemporary 
>>beaurocracy (and British beaurocracy IS like that) and creates it's own 
>>totalitarian state.
>
>	No, it's based on the idea of the postwar British Government. It's
>	almost as if rationing had continued and not finished until about
>	1980. The society had stood still in almost every sense.
>
>	I think there are also some interesting parallels with McCarthyism
>	in the simple persecution of people who dare to question the system.

   Another thing about "Brazil".....

   At the time the movie was made, there was a LOT of discussion going
   on about suspension of the protection against "cruel and unusual
   punishment" in regards to terrorism, i.e.: the use of torture in
   questioning suspected terrorists.

   In "Brazil", it seems these rights were suspended, so then the gov't
   just re-defined terrorism.

   The classical "slippery slope" argument........
From: spongebo@cithara.uucp (THE EYE-BALL KID)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Brasil and 1984
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 19:44:55 EST
Organization: Local Testbed for network mail, we trust!

zosia@FRODO.NASK.ORG.PL (Zofia Sokolowska) writes:

> I am new in list and a little bit late becouse I have no time to read  
> letters every day. In letter about SF books that have become movies  
> (19 Oct) Greg Schmidt is writing that _Brasil_ is based on _1984_ by  
> George Orwell. Is it true?
> I have seen both _Brasil_ and _1984_ and I have read _1984_ by Orwell  
> and I feel that even if _Brasil_ have somethink in common with _1984_  
> than it is realy hard to say that it is based on Orwell.
> Could anybody explain it to me?
> 
> Zosia
> Zosia@frodo.nask.org.pl


The original working title for BRASIL was "1984 & 1/2", and I think it is 
safe to say it was inspired by 1984, if not based upon it. I believe Tom 
Stoppard did the screen-play, and Giolliam added the imagery (as only 
Gilliam could!).

There are substantial differences in approach, though (obvious, right). 
1984 was a political allegory based on Stalinist Russian and the 
destruction by totalitarianism or the communist ideal (see also Animal 
Farm, about the Stalinist purges).

BRAZIL, on the other hand, takes the nightmare of contemporary 
beaurocracy (and British beaurocracy IS like that) and creates it's own 
totalitarian state.

Comparing the films side by side gives an interesting political 
perspective: each demonstrates the destruction of the individual through 
the overwhealming power of "the state", yet "the state" in each comes 
from a completely diffeent direction (1984, from the left -- Brazil, from 
the right).

Spongebo - THE EYE-BALL KID (:::::-)

spongebo%cithara@comback.login.qc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.sf.written
From: oscar@Lise.Unit.NO (Rune Aasgaard)
Subject: Re: Are *YOU* Human?
Keywords: Bladerunner, Philip K. Dick, Replicants
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 18:49:23 GMT

In article <Bxu1BC.E84@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, maxson@cerl.uiuc.edu (K R Maxson) writes:

> It has been a while since I read DADOES, but as I recall the genetic
> engineering was introducted in the film Blade Runner; replicants in DADOES
> were actual, bonafide machines.  In addition, at least many of the replicants
> (I'm thinking of the police officer as an exception here) were totally lacking
> in what I think Dick called "emotional response."  The question wasn't, I
> think, whether the machines were in fact human, but whether humans hadn't 
> become machines.

I agree. I focused, perhaps, too much on the movie when writing my "original"
article. Whether humans are turning into machines or not is another thing
Philip K. Dick focuses on in his novels.

Either way, I don't think it really matters whether Deckard is a replicant or
not. Both the movie and book focuses on how similar replicants and humans are.

Rune

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|     Rune Aasgaard      | " Can't you see?                                   |
|   oscar@lise.unit.no   |   It all makes perfect sense                       |
|------------------------|   Expressed in dollars and cents                   |
|    Computer Science    |   Pounds, shillings and pence     "                |
| Norwegian Institute of |                                                    |
|       Technology       |                - Roger Waters , Amused to Death -  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: sound in space
Date: 22 Nov 1992 13:22:24 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith) writes:

>In article <u906789.722151763@bruny> u906789@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (Mark Julian Turner) writes:
>>rchao@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Chao) writes:
>>
>>>How many SF films are realistic enough that they show there is no sound
>>>in space? All I can think of is 2001.
>>
>>If you're going to complain about "sound in space", what about : who's playing
>>all that music you always hear in films. Is there an orchestra(sp?) just of
>>screen or what...?

>I remember Arthur C Clarke making the same point just after "Star Wars" came
>out, in an interview. The interviewer was surprised to hear that Clarke had
>liked SW, and asked him if things like sound in space bothered him. Clarke
>replied, "Not at all. It's a convention, just like the music."


Well, where in Star Wars was there "sound in space"?  If you mean the space
battles, then I'm sure that the pilots of each ship would hear those
swooping noises...  (hear it of their own ship that is).  I though that
those noises were due to the engine, etc.

If you mean the explosion of the Death Star, then sure you'd hear that.
I mean, such an explosion surely releases a shock wave of matter... you'd
hear it all right, when the shock wave reached you.  Or, if you mean
the destruction of Alderaan... same principle.  Surely the people in the
Death Star heard it, not to mention the people on the planet itself
(of course, they all died right away)...

keith
From: twyse@acpub.duke.edu (Timothy Wyse)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: XTRO ***SPOILERS*** (was Re: Movie sorta like Aliens name ???)
Date: 21 Nov 92 02:26:37 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.


  I read the summary of XTRO II, and, well, did we see the same movie?
Maybe there's more than just two, because I remember a much different plot.
In the movie I saw (I THOUGHT it was XTRO II) scientists in an underground
laboratory on earth were experimenting with sending people to alternate
dimentions. Only one person made it back alive, and she was then "chestbusted"
in classic Alien fashion. Jan Michael Vincent was called in because he invented
the project years earlier, and was the only survivor of a similar incident. The
movie was so bad I never bothered to see the original. It was SO much of an
Aliens ripoff, complete with a squad of government chumps with heavy weapons
who were "sure" they could deal with the situation and ignored advice from the
only person who had any experience with the problem. Can anyone straighten
things out on what movie is what?

What do you mean I don't
Support your system?                            Tim Wyse (twyse@acpub.duke.edu)
I go to court when I have to.
--Dave Mustaine (Peace Sells)
From: dhr@dsbc.icl.co.uk (Dave Robinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Jurassic Park Casting
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:59:46 GMT
Organization: ICL Bracknell, UK

Sorry if this is old news, but I heard a couple of days ago that Speilberg
has tempted Sir Richard Attenborough out of acting retirement for
Jurassic Park. 

Attenborough, while he has directed some of the most visually spectacular
films of the last decade, apparently hasn't taken an acting role for about
15 years. Quite a scoop for Mr Speilberg eh ?

Anyone heard this, or any other, casting rumours ?
Dave
-- 
Dave Robinson, ICL-BRA03, Lovelace Rd, Bracknell, Berks.  RG12 4TZ.  UK
Tel: (+44) 344 481000 x5441	ITN: 7263 5441  Fax: (+44) 344 868889
EMAIL:		dhr@dsbc.icl.co.uk or dhr@oasis.icl.co.uk
ICLMAIL:	d.h.robinson@uk01
From: shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: sound in space
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:49:54 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <Bxqsp3.MoH@well.sf.ca.us> rchao@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Chao) writes:
>
>How many SF films are realistic enough that they show there is no sound
>in space? All I can think of is 2001.
>-- 
>Robert Chao
>Oakland, California

I assume you don't count 2010 as distinct from 2001 in this context.

There is also - aptly named - "Silent Run". A politically correct movie about
a space gardner who kills his co-workers to save his plants.

Moonrakers (sp?), the James Bond foray into SF has a pointedly silent space
*some* of the time :-) (ok, ok, 007 movies are not real SF, but there *was*
considerable space-borne action).

There are a *lot* of false effects, beside sounds in space, regularly used in
otherwise realistic SF films: "LASER" beams that the viewer can see - in
transit, and all those human-looking alien species, etc.

I do not find false effects disturbing (or else I would not enjoy SF films).
I have come to rationalize that these effects are "for the benefit of the
viewer". They are "translations" from the what is taking place to what our
human senses could more easily comprehend. We can consider language translation
as an analogy. While it is possible to show accurate/realistic non-English
speaking stories in the intended tung, say with subtitles; it is easier for the
audiance if the characters speak English (replace English with your favorite
language if needed). This does not diminish from the films realism - it is
understood that it is a modification "for the benefit of the viewer". 
Likewise, LASER beams that can be visibly traced and space ships that sound
like airplanes wheezing by, make it easier on the human viewer to follow the
action.


Dan Shoham               shoham@ll.mit.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The view presented are not necessarily those of my employer, etc.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood Street
Lexington Massachusetts, 02173-9108
Office B-373
617-981-3515
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: myers@cs.scarolina.edu (Daniel Myers)
Subject: Alien biology
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 18 Nov 92 00:34:16 GMT

Just something worth noting...

It was made pretty clear (at least as I remember it) that the Alien
critters were a artifically created life-form, made to be the perfect
weapon, and that they were extremely adaptable to adverse conditions.
It might be then that there would be an infinite number of "casts" (kind
of like super-self-mutating termites) each adapted to perform a specific
task in a specific environment.

Basically they're more like self-manufacturing, single-purpose tools
than they are like animals or people.

Then again, I could be wrong (usually am).

-Mm
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Myers (Madman)		| If the creator had intended us to walk 
myers@usceast.cs.scarolina.edu	| upright, he wouldn't have given us knuckles
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: gre253@mis.csiro.au (Steven Green (+61 6 276 6813))
Subject: Unrealistic space scenes ( was: sound in space )
Organization: CSIRO ITS
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 05:16:33 GMT


Can anyone forget the all time classic of unrealistic space scenes

Battlestar Galactica !

Not only did they have sound in space, but fires, spaceships with "wings" that
did banked turns and very convenient large holes in the sides of the big
ship that let them take off and land freely yet didnt let the air rush out
into space!

-- 
* Steve Green     *  "Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outa my hat!"    *
* Comms Group     *  "That trick never works"                            *
* ITS Branch      *  "Nothin' up my sleeve - PRESTO"                     *
* CSIRO Australia *  "No doubt about it - I gotta get another hat"       *
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: u906789@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (Mark Julian Turner)
Subject: Re: sound in space
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 05:42:43 GMT

rchao@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Chao) writes:


>How many SF films are realistic enough that they show there is no sound
>in space? All I can think of is 2001.

If you're going to complain about "sound in space", what about : who's playing
all that music you always hear in films. Is there an orchestra(sp?) just of 
screen or what...?
From: barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Dracula (No Spoilers)
Date: 18 Nov 92 14:35:16 CST
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

In article <dsanders.8.722102127@alexandria.lib.utah.edu>, dsanders@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (David Sanderson) writes:
> In article <1992Nov17.221824.13683@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>In article <1eb15uINNc8i@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
 
>      Dracula was a low budget, relatively speaking, movie.

This is one of the few things we agree on about this movie.  :+)

> A lot of 
> stage magician tricks were used during the filming.  So, instead of lots of 
> post production hocus pocus we have simple but, in my opinion, very 
> effective visual trickery.  The way this movie was made gave it a feel much 
> like the older monster movies.  Since most viewers have grown up 
> being terrified (at least when you were young) by these old monster flicks I 
> think recreating that feel works very effectively.
 
>      However, the special effects and scenery are not what this movie is 
> about, it merely helps to provide the mood.  The story of Dracula is a very 
> powerful tale...

Yes, the original story is.  This movie wasn't.  The acting was the
stiffest I've *ever* seen in a movie (an allegedly non-B movie). 
Jonathan Harker vanished for half the movie, so long I had almost
forgotten about him (wish I could; Reeves was better in both the Bill
& Ted movies, though that's not saying much).  I couldn't understand half
of what Oldman said because of his thick accent.  The special effects
(such as they were) only distracted me (though it was a welcome
distraction).  Winona Ryder and the girl who played Lucy... the only
thing about them that's the same from the book is their names!  The only
two good parts were the madman (Dracula's lackey, I forget his name)
and Hopkins as von Helsing, and even then von Helsing seemed like he
wandered in from another movie.  And were we supposed to feel Drac was
evil incarnate or feel sorry for him?  And what was the point of
having the Texan be the one to stab Drac (yeah, I know the header says
no spoilers, but c'mon, we *all* know what happens in the end)?  It
should be Harker and Von Helsing?  Who was the protagonist?  Why do
they have the gratuitous breast shots every few seconds - just to keep
all the men in the audience awake?  Why should I care in the least
about any of these unsympathetic characters? etc., etc., etc.  I've got
a hundred other frustrations about this movie.  Possibly the biggest
waste of $3 in my life.  Wasn't it supposed to be *horror*?  Where
were the frightening parts?  The Nightmare on Elm Street series was
more frightening than this at its silliest!

<mutter mutter gripe>...

-Drizzt