HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pejulaju@sandman.cs.hut.fi (Pentti Lajunen)
Subject: Re: letterboxed VHS movies?
Reply-To: pejulaju@niksula.hut.fi (Pentti Lajunen)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Distribution: rec
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 11:52:29 GMT

In article <2819@nlsun1.oracle.nl> gbradley@uks197.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Bradley) writes:
>   In the Uk...
>
>    Alien
...........
>    several Godzilla films

British Godzilla videos that I've seen aren't fully letterboxed. Only
at ratio around 1.8-1.7:1 (while most or all of them seem to be shot at 
2.35:1). Anyway, its definately better than 100% pan&scan and no 
letterboxing att all.

					      Tyrell Corp. File Management (c)

Serial number: 	  151169-THX1138 Unit:          Pentti Juhani Lajunen
Incept date:	  15/11/1969     Incept place:  Rovaniemi/Finland/Earth
Physical level:	  B	         Mental level:  unknown
Termination date: unknown        CPU made in Helsinki University of Technology
Directive: 	  Collect property as much as possible before termination.
 - end of file -
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: mdouglas@cad067.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Maria Douglas ~)
Subject: Re: Harrison Ford Question
Organization: Intel Corp.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:24:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.121121.20139@hellgate.utah.edu>, llarsen%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Loren Larsen) writes:
|> Is Harrison Ford some sort of recluse?  I have never seen an interview with 
|> him or seen him in those pictures of the starts going to previews or parties.
|> Does he give interviews?  Am I just not looking in the right places?  All I
|> know about him is that he does great movies.  I can't think of a flop that he's
|> been in.  
|> 
|> Thanks,
|> Loren

-- 
Yes, he is somewhat.  He rarely gives interviews.  I saw one, where he talked
a little about his wife (whom he loves very much, apparently!).  I don't re-
member much about the interview except that he doesn't like giving them!
--
Maria E. Douglas	(408) 765-4728
Intel Corporation	mdouglas@cadev6.intel.com

"It bit his head off--like a GINGERBREAD man!"

	From Beyond

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: cooper@cos.com (Gary Cooper)
Subject: Re: Best War Movies?
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 02:10:54 GMT

In <25AUG199218084443@moose.cccs.umn.edu> rao@moose.cccs.umn.edu (Rao V. Akella) writes:

>In article <1992Aug25.021913.16096@cos.com>, cooper@cos.com (Gary Cooper) writes:
>I guess they wanted to introduce the internment of Japanese-Americans somehow,
>so maybe this seemed like a good idea at the time.

yeah - I just wish they'd gotten some decent actors..... 

[stuff about extra scenes deleted]

I'm truly surprised that these weren't included on the recent Laserdisc
release - thankfully I was a History major, and new what the references
to the damage on Lex were about, to others this could have been a bit
confusing. 
-- 
gary cooper (not the dead one)     "Non Dignis Sum!" - Waynus and Gartus 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,rec.arts.sf.movies,alt.cult-movies,rec.video.releases
From: bam@Bang.UUCP (Bret A. Marquis)
Subject: Re: Blade Runner Director's Cut (SPOILERS)
Follow-Up-To: alt.cult.movies
Reply-To: bam%bang@trout.nosc.mil
Organization: Marquis Property Development Co., San Diego
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:59:29 GMT

dododge@wam.umd.edu (David O. Dodge) writes:
: 
: - No voiceovers by Deckard ***ABSOLUTELY NONE***
: - The unicorn-coming-out-of-woods scene is now in the film
: - Movie ends when elevator door closes
: 
: That's about it, really. The film does NOT contain the extra bits of
: violence that are on the standard video release, so it appears to have
: as its base the original US film version.
: 

Did they use pieces from both?  The 'stronger language' was in the scene
with Tyrell, but not the added violence from the international version.

Dropping the voice-over dramatically improved the flavor of the film.
The crowded city scenes and the flying sequences were either lengthened
or were just much more intense without the narration.  Maybe its just a
perception thing but "seeing the film" without Harrison Ford "telling me
about it", forced me to feel the world in a deeper way than I had
before. Even though I own the Criterion Laserdisc of the film and have
seen it a dozen times.

The ending was much stronger cut the way it was and not necessarily any
bleaker.  Rather, with Gaff having returned Decker's gun to him on the
roof AND leaving the origami Unicorn for them to find.  I was left with
the distinct impression that they were not going to be hounded.  The
film did not require the extraneous ending the earlier releases had.


Notes:

Adding the Unicorn dream sequence did make a real change to the ending.  
Deckers realization after seeing the origami figure on the floor made
sense.

I noted in the chess/elevator scene that when the elevator was allowed
to continue up into the Penthouse, the warning tone made by the
Voight-Kampf machine could be heard.

Interesting to note that although Decker was in a rush to make sure that
Rachel was still alive, he had time to stop for medical treatment and
have his hand properly bandaged/treated.

Just seeing Bladerunner on the big screen again was great even if they
had made no changes!


Bret Marquis

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,rec.arts.sf.movies,alt.cult-movies,rec.video.releases
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Blade Runner Director's Cut (SPOILERS)
Keywords: blade runner ridley scott director cut film
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 15:20:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.100616.5632@wam.umd.edu> dododge@wam.umd.edu (David O. Dodge) writes:
>
>The print looked great compared to the re-release I saw last year.

I saw the raw cut last year, also, in San Francisco.  One strange
thing: I felt that the raw cut was somehow "smoother" than the cut I
saw on Friday.  Scenes seemed to flow better.  Perhaps this was
because it was the first time I saw BR on the big screen, or because
the lack of voice-overs had a bigger impact for me the first time
around.

>
>For those who are wondering what the major changes are:
>
>- No voiceovers by Deckard ***ABSOLUTELY NONE***
>- The unicorn-coming-out-of-woods scene is now in the film
>- Movie ends when elevator door closes

Also, the scrolling introduction was kept from the usual release.
The raw cut had a definition from some future version of the
Websters dictionary, something like "Replicants are..."  I found
this to be better than what we now have, much simpler.
>
>-----
>
>And here's something to chew on: ** I saw Holden's eyes glow **
>
>It's right after he asks Leon about the tortise -- he says "In answer to
>your query, they're written down for me. It's a test designed to provoke
>an emotional response". At this point the camera cuts to a shot of
>Holden smoking and his eyes are glowing. He then says "Shall we continue"
>and the glow disappears.
>
>Please someone else tell me if they saw this. It's virtually impossible
>to see on video, but it was very noticable on film (just like Leon's
>eyes in the same scene)

I'm probably going to see it again in a week or two.  A friend of mine
couldn't make it on opening night.  Actually, she also has my book of
Blade Runner criticisms.  Actually, I haven't seen it in over a year.
Hmm....


--
"It's a Drake's Coffee Cake....  I have another one, but I'm saving
it for _later_."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: fineberg@win31.nas.nasa.gov (Samuel A. Fineberg)
Subject: Blade Runner Directors Cut
Organization: CSC, NASA Ames Research Center, NAS Division
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 20:07:48 GMT
Reply-To: fineberg@nas.nasa.gov
Distribution: ba


I heard the new Blade Runner directors cut is starting Friday in Berkely.  
Does anyone know if it will be playing in the south bay area?

Thanks,
Sam
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,rec.arts.sf.movies,alt.cult-movies
From: steinman@me.utoronto.ca (David Steinman)
Subject: Re: Holden's Eyes (was Re: Blade Runner...(SPOILERS))
Organization: UofT Mechanical Engineering
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:20:29 GMT

crunch@camelot.bradley.edu (Randy Bloom) writes:

>That's like asking "why didn't character a know character b was going to do
>that? didn't he read ahead?"  The eye-glowing thing is only a film device
>to let the audience "know" who was or wasn't a replicant, and isn't
>necessarily an accurate measure. 

Wha??  Not an accurate measure?  If I saw anyone's eyes glow, I'd think
something was up (or they got into the spice :-)  I have doubts about your
interpretation; having replicants' eyes glow for the audience but not for
the film's characters is lame.  You might as well have a subtitle which
says "This is Holden; he is a replicant".
--
Dave!
From: bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Greg Bole)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Peter Pan meets Dinomonsters (Jurassic Park)
Date: 5 Sep 92 00:38:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: HHMI/Human Genetics, Univ of Pa.

In article <1992Sep4.231348.21097@PacBell.COM>, jcwasik@srv.PacBell.COM 
(Joe Wasik) writes:

> Of course Jaws was great and so was Indiana Jones Pt1.  But those were from
> a long time ago.  Look at Indiana Jones pts 2&3.  This childhood slide
> began right about there.

I can understand why you didn't like _Hook_, and even were irked with 
_E.T._.  But you thought _Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade_ was childish?

Please explain.

Greg Bole                           Indiana Jones - "Professor of Archeology,
bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu        expert on the occult, and how does one 
                                    say it?  Obtainer of rare antiquities."
                                         _Raiders of the Lost Ark_
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: Montague_Kevin@Tandem.com (Kevvy Kev)
Subject: Re: What are those Negroes doing with guns?
Organization: In Effect Enterprises
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:58:54 GMT

> >> >>In the second place, the poster did not say socialists and democrats
> >> >>are the same.
> >> >
> >> >I disagree again.  The post said "socialist/democrats" not
> >> >socialists and/or democrats, and it's my belief that he meant to 
> >> >equate the two, not list two separate entities.

> >. . .on the
> >slash as an abbreviation for "or," this is probably not the poster's intent,
> >as he doesn't say "socialists/democrats", he says "socialist/democrats." Quite
> >a difference.
> 
> In the first place, note that saying "the poster said" is quite different
> from saying "I think the poster meant".  One is a statement of fact and
> the other is an assumption, which seems to be quite in vogue these days.

Weren't you paying attention?  That's what I Said: "this is probably not the
poster's intent. . ."  Of course it was an assumption.  What the hell in this
whole discussion hasn't been?  Or, for that matter, in just about any 
discussion?  
The nature of language is that it has to be interpreted.  The most reasonable
interpretation of the phrase "socialist/democrats" is that the person saying
it is equating the two.  If you interperet something different, then You're
the one making the assumption, because this is correct usage.

> Secondly, whatever assumptions one cares to make to support one's
> preconceived notions, positions or crusades, it is certainly more
> correct to let the originator of said statement simply tell you
> what they meant.  

Oh give me a break.  As if I would let you sharks in on my "preconceived
notions, positions or crusades."  And as if this guy {yes, the attribution
is lost in hopeless mire by now} would honestly clear up the misunderstanding.
Look out, here comes a blatant assumption: The "originator" meant to equate the
two, when he said "socialist/democrats."  Said assumption based on clues 
sprinkled throughout the "originator's" messages, high school transcript,
and blood type.  Supported enough for you?

> At that point, you can be either right or wrong
> instead of merely a "good guesser".

You ignore a third option: that I could be both.  (Smiley omitted, as it 
generally seems too queasy/obsequious).

> Thirdly, unless this gets back to movies, this thread should probably
> be sent to another group, enjoyable as it might be.

Reality check: this thread veered far afield at the outset, when Walter 
decided to vent on topics ranging from women's rights to the treatment of
Native American Indians to the occluded state of his rectum, in response
to a simple message about Lee's Malcom X movie.  Methinks you should've
stepped in there, if it mattered to you.

Kevvy Kev
"Now, I don't generally mind when a movie doesn't go the way I thought it
 would, but it does bug me when my way is a lot better."
  -Jan Wolter
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,rec.arts.sf.movies,alt.cult-movies
From: tony@ajax.Stanford.EDU (Tony Evans)
Subject: Re: Holden's Eyes (was Re: Blade Runner...(SPOILERS))
Organization: Department of Chemical Engineering, Stanford University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 22:29:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.172721.27092@aosg.gsf.dec.com> montyb@alpha.aosg.gsf.dec.com (Monty C. Brandenberg) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep15.002907.24953@wam.umd.edu>, dododge@wam.umd.edu (David O. Dodge) writes:
>
>> The film has other things which are most likely just for the audience's
>> benefit. For example when Deckard looks at Rachael's photograph, it
>> "moves" for just an instant. Also if you listen closely during Rachael's
>> VK test you can hear Deckard talking about the spider (which he later
>> brings up in his apartment to prove to her that she is a replicant).
>> 
>
>This illusion of motion bothered me for a long time so I went over this
>sequence frame by frame on the laserdisk and my conclusion is that there
>is absolutely no movement in the photo.  Moving shadows from Deckard's
>living room area fall on the photo and cause that illusion.
>
I'm going to have to disagree although I haven't looked at this frame
by frame.  I just saw it on the big screen a few days ago and I was
careful to watch this scene since, I agree, it is a bit bothersome.
The effect is definitely to make the picture come alive for a few
seconds.  The shadows that move are supposed to be the shadows from
the picture that are cast on "little Rachel" and her mother from a
tree.  The reason it is disconcerting is that the shadows move OUTSIDE
the boundaries of the picture.  
 
Most likely Scott's attempt to inject a more direct connection between
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: the Vanishing.
Keywords: thanks, people in it etc.
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:37:12 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <4027@keele.keele.ac.uk> phd85@seq1.keele.ac.uk (D.H. Holden) writes:
> Possible cast member include:-
>
>   Bridget Fonda (hope so!! ..slurp..drool)

My impression was that it'd be a Nancy something or other.  This was
from an Entertainment Weekly from a while ago, so it might have
changed.
--
"I wish I could vote for you a hundred times"
"You can . . . just kidding."
			-- _Bob Roberts_
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,rec.arts.sf.movies,alt.cult-movies,rec.video.releases
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 11:20:44 -0400 
From: Gaurang Hirpara <gh1r+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Dracula
	<iqk5PB4w164w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>
	<1992Aug28.000620.17076@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au>
	<2786@nlsun1.oracle.nl>


Re: Winona playing Lucy 

 She's not. She plays Mina. Lucy gets offed early on in the book doesn't she?

 --dan 
***************************************************************
gh1r@andrew.cmu.edu

"As a boat on the water is swept away from a strong wind,
even one of the senses on which the mind focuses can carry away
a man's intelligence." - Bhagavad-gita 2.67











Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: gckchin@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Kelvyn Chin)
Subject: Re: Highlander III.
Organization: Nanyang Technological University - Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 09:01:03 GMT

: 
: I can't believe that this is true. Christopher Lambert being quoted as saying
: that Highlander III was going to be more like Highlander I but someome
: please tell me that the plot is not going to be loads of immortals rampaging
: about. What time period is this set in anyway?
:
It's set in the English witch-hunt medieval times or something, but then Connor
MclEod steps thru a time portal and ends up in the present. He also flies around
a lot; and in one scene he has to act like a homosexual. :)
 
: How can a bunch of immortals "accidentally" get buried by an avalanche? If
: this is what its going to be then its going to be just like Alien3 and ruin
: the previous films.
:

Can anything ruin H. II ????
 
: 
: AAAAARRRGH! Someone please tell me this isn't true.
:

IT AIN'T TRUE !!!!!
Feel better ?  ;)
 
:
Seriously folks... Highlander III poses some very important questions:
"It's a special kind of magic". Can Chris Lambert say that again without
breaking into hysterics? Even more pressing, can we bear to hear that
again without wanting to barf? 
: --
: INSSOMNIAK

kelvyn
Organization: Sophomore, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:25:27 -0400 
From: Michael Edwin Sheldrick <msb1+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: STAR WARS SNEAKER


In response to various posts....

If I remember correctly, the sneaker is in Jedi, one of those short 5-10
second shots that precede a new scene. It is a shot of the Rebel fleet,
that big, lumpy (couldn't think of a more appropriate word) command ship
with several fighters zipping past.

I read a magazine article in Smithsonian (I think) a few years ago about
ILM, and it said a guy put the sneaker in because he was frustrated with
all the stop-action shots and overlays that had to be done.

Hope this helps...


me
From: bsrae@warwick.ac.uk (Dave Lockwood)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Films with no females
Date: 12 Sep 92 16:07:25 GMT
Organization: University of Warwick Business School, Ph.D. Group

"Ice Station Zebra" had no females in it at all, not even in the long
shots at the beginning...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
... a poor tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing

Dave Lockwood - bsrae@{xpress.wbs,csv}.warwick.ac.uk INTERN ONLY lockwo.d@wbs
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,rec.arts.sf.movies,alt.cult-movies,rec.video.releases
From: tony@ajax.Stanford.EDU (Tony Evans)
Subject: Holden's Eyes (was Re: Blade Runner...(SPOILERS))
Keywords: blade runner ridley scott director cut film
Organization: Department of Chemical Engineering, Stanford University
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 20:02:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.100616.5632@wam.umd.edu> dododge@wam.umd.edu (David O. Dodge) writes:

>And here's something to chew on: ** I saw Holden's eyes glow **
>
>It's right after he asks Leon about the tortise -- he says "In answer to
>your query, they're written down for me. It's a test designed to provoke
>an emotional response". At this point the camera cuts to a shot of
>Holden smoking and his eyes are glowing. He then says "Shall we continue"
>and the glow disappears.
>
>Please someone else tell me if they saw this. It's virtually impossible
>to see on video, but it was very noticable on film (just like Leon's
>eyes in the same scene)
>
>                                         -Dave Dodge/dododge@wam.umd.edu

I'm wondering if Scott may have added this while he was "recutting"
this newer version.  Maybe it's virtually impossible to see on video
because it isn't there.  With all the "glowing eyes" stuff that's been
posted I'm surprised no one's noticed this before.


Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,rec.martial-arts
From: reiher@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher)
Subject: Re: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III
Keywords: What another one?
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 16:40:59 GMT

In article <lb2ftoINNafd@grit.cs.utexas.edu> cmc@cs.utexas.edu (Chi Ming Cheung) writes:
>
>Do you remember when those previous moives were first shown there were a great
>deal of protests from some public sectors concerning the violence?  They
>claimed that the moives were a bad influence on the kids.  Frankly I never
>understood that.  The old Bugs Bunny cartoons were just as violent and they
>seems to present violence as fun.  I wonder if those protests were a form
>of Japanese bashing.

No, I don't think so.  The turtles' violence is more similar to the type
of stuff you see on TV shows like "The A-Team" - lots of violence, but
no one really gets badly hurt.  The violence of Warner Brothers cartoons
was considerably less "real" in their presentation.  In spite of which,
there are lots of parent protests about violence in cartoons, and the
kids programs that show older cartoons often edit them for violence.
I think the protests against the turtles were a legitimate concern about
the content of the violence, not Japan bashing.  Anyway, the Japan 
connection is not all that strong.

--
		Peter Reiher
		reiher@wells.cs.ucla.edu

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: reiher@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher)
Subject: Upcoming Stephen King Movie (was: Pet Sematary 2)
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 22:45:17 GMT

In article <BuA47I.M4@acsu.buffalo.edu> dianetti@acsu.buffalo.edu (Donald J. Dianetti) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.151323.444@altair.selu.edu> slib1602@selu.edu writes:
>>Is Pet Semetary 2 actually based on anything Steven King has ever written
>>or is it some producer's ideas?
>
>The only thing about this movie you could attribute to King directly is
>the setting (Ludlow, Maine) and the driving plot device (magical cemetery).
>Any characters or events are the creation of Hollywood writers/producers.

Not really related, other than through King, but people seem to be
interested in films based on his books - 

A film version of "Needful Things" is in the works.  All I remember,
off the top of my head, is that Ed Harris and Max von Sydow star.
It hasn't started filming yet, so it may not happen, but I'd guess
the chances are very, very good that it will get made.

--
		Peter Reiher
		reiher@wells.cs.ucla.edu
From: scher@unixg.ubc.ca (Steve Scher)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: HONEYMOON IN VEGAS -- Quick Impressions
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:18:21 GMT
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of the Cariboo, Kamloops, B.C. V2C 5N3

Here are some very quick impressions of Honeymoon in Vegas:

I did not find the film particularly funny or enjoyable (see Mark Leeper's 
review, which I agree with fairly completely). I think that Bergman's THE 
IN-LAWS is a classic, and I thought THE FRESHMAN was quite good, but this
just was flat -- few laughs, and loads of problems.

I agree with other viewers that the Elvis gags tended to wear thin, although
I thought it was a clever idea, especially the flying Elvis'.

I thought Peter Boyle as a weird Hawaiin cheif singing songs from South 
Pacific was the funniest bit.

The worst thing about this movie, IMO, was the fact that Sarah Jessica
Parker seemed to be restricted to dressing in bathing suits or skin-tight
dresses (the one exception, MAYBE, is her first scene where she is shown
at her job at the school).  I thought this was exploitative and out of
character for Betsy.  (NOTE: I think Sarah Jessica is a very attractive
woman, physically, andtherefore looked very good in these costumes, butit
was just exploitation).

Just another opinion.  I would wait for cable.

steve


-- 
*******************************************************************************
Steven J. Scher -- Department of Psychology, UCC, Kamloops, BC V2C 5N3
                   sscher@cariboo.bc.ca -- scher@chilko.ucs.ubc.ca
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies