HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: walrus@bessel.umd.edu (Grig Larson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: THE CLOWN IN "IT"
Date: 15 Aug 92 15:08:27 GMT
Organization: Punkadyne Industries(tm)

In article <1992Aug14.163116.1@cubldr.colorado.edu> streuer_d@cubldr.colorado.edu writes:
>Please, all you experts out there ... who played the clown 'Pennywise'
>in Steven King's movie "IT"?  
>
>I watched the credits, but never did see it.  It was suggested King played
>the part himself - but the voice wasn't right and I don't believe he
>could act that good.
>
>Thanks.


It was none other than Tim Curry, ie. "Rocky Horror Picture Show" fame.
 
One thing I noticed about Tim, seeing him on broadway in "Me and My Girl,"
is this guy is a natural ham who loves these kinds of parts. In Legend,
he played the Price of Darkness (I think that was the name) and did really
well. You could tell he loved the part. The makeup was superb, and dispite
a lot of well-deserved neagtive comments aboyut the film, I liked it.
 
I think he played a cameo on "The Hunt for Red October," as well.
 


=================<<< <  <   < *Punk Walrus* >   >  > >>>=================
[  \||/  |       ---------------------------------------       |  \||/  ]
[  (o-)  | "It might be in the     ||  walrus@bessel.umd.edu   |  (o-)  ]
[   /\   |  basement, I'll go up-  ||  Punk Walrus on the      |   /\   ]
[ Punkus |  stairs and check..."   ||  FanTek BBS 301-203-9582 | It's   ]
[ Walrus |       -- M.C. Escher -- ||  SF&F Author Extrordinare| Punkie!]
=========================================================================
Official EveCon 10 Representative for the InterNet Entertainment System.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: trent@mailhost.hsas.washington.edu (Sigfried Trent)
Subject: Aliens and film comment
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies
Organization: Academic Services, UW
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:15:31 GMT

There is what I think to be a wonderful movie publication which is "Fillm 
Comment".  Mostly they do classic movies and bios of various stars and
directors, but occasionaly they do what they must feel are important new
films.  Often they talk about Sci-Fi films.  I think this is appropriate
because in my opinion at leas Sci-fi films are the classic films of this
age.  In the past, dramas and commedys were the classics, but in the 
modern day Sci-Fi films have not only been the most popular, but also
have been ground breakers and set standards for other films to follow.
Most of todays greatest directors are chiefly known for the Sci-Fi/Fantacy
films they have done.

The most recent issue of film comment has a lengthy artical on Aliens 3 and
the other Aliens films as well.  I agree totaly whith what the author of
that artical has to say about these films.  That author is much more 
elequent than I so I will not attempt to paraphrase.

It looks like my previouse message didnt make it on here.

I think Aliens 3 is not so much about the Alien itself as were the first 
two films.  Aliens 3 is realy about Riply, and her struggle agains these
monsters that plauge her so.  The only way she finds to win is a sort
of loss or tie.  To win and die at the same time.  Which is more important
death in victory or life in defeat.  An interesting situation I think.

Ive seen lots of sugestions for what Aliens 3 should have been that make
me kind of sick.  They usualy are somethin like, Riply, Hicks and Newt,
land
somewhere and fight some Aliens again.  I'm sory but that is just plain
dull
and is the same story as the second film.
From: JMH131@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Does anyone remember _Nighthawk_?
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:20:26 GMT
Organization: Penn State University


 A movie I saw when I was just a slip of a lad was _Nighthawk_ which I thought
 to be one of the greatest fantasy movies I've ever seen.  I saw it years ago
 on the late movie on a CBS station, but I haven't seen it anywhere since, and
 I can't remember a lot of it since I was only little.  Does anyone remember
 this movie any better than I do?  All I remember is that the music was pretty
 cool, a stone hand letting go of a glowing sword in the prologue before the
 credits, and a giant holding a rope in his teeth to keep a boulder or
 something from falling on him that was attached to the other end of the rope
 above him.  --John.
From: vargish@sura.net (Nick Vargish)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Naming Alien 4
Date: 16 Aug 92 00:40:43 GMT
Organization: SURAnet, College Park, MD, USA, NA, Earth, Milky Way

There's only one real possibility:

		ALIENS 4
              Now they fly!

Nick "Sure it's obscure. Sue me." Vargish

-- 
|  Nick Vargish       |                N O N   S E R V I A M                  |
|  SURAnet Operations +-------------------------------------------------------+
|  vargish@sura.net   |  I wasn't hired to speak for SURAnet, and if my boss  |
|  h: 301 474-1863    |  thought I was trying to do so, she'd laugh at me...  |
From: boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com (The Man from Another Place)
Subject: Re: Laser and tape questions
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 10:58:18 GMT

In article <98940010@hpopd.pwd.hp.com>, dug@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Dug Smith) writes...

}} What is the difference between movies here and in the UK... I keep
}} hearing about how they reedit them. HUh, why? 

} Over here in Blighty, we have a different refresh rate than you guys,
} so if they don't edit the films, they play faster. Could this be what
} you mean?

That's got nothing to do with editing the film differently. They have
to play slightly different games doing the film-to-video transfer, but
that's a whole different ball of wax.

What the original poster was referring to was *different versions* of
the film, i.e. one version having scenes that are not in the other.

-- 

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

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

    boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com
From: robert@bear.stonemarche.org (Anyone got a scratch monkey?)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Movies circa 1983-1984
Distribution: world
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:38:27 EDT

In article <15043@umd5.umd.edu> walrus@bessel.umd.edu (Grig Larson) writes:
>I need to know:
>A: Big sf&f movies that came out in 1983, preferably late 1983.
Hurcules
Krull
The Man With Two Brains
Prisoners or the Lost Universe
Space Raiders
Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone
Strange Invaders
Superman III
Timerider: The Adventures of Lyle Swan
War Games
Ypr: The Hunter from the Future
>B: Which Star Trek were we on then, Wrath of Tin Khan? :)
A list of all of the movies and the year they came out:
Star Trek I    1980
Star Trek II   1982
Star Trek III  1984
Star Trek IV   1986
Star Trek V    1989
Star Trek VI   1991

>C: Had Return of the Jedi come out by then?
Return of The Jedi premeired in May of 1983.
>D: If you give me movies in 1984, make sure they are early 1984.
The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across The 8th Dimension - 1984
	Don't know when, but it was promoted in 1983 at several conventions.
Ghostbusters - 1984
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom - May 1984
The Brother From Another Planet
Dune
The Ewok Adventure
TRhe Last Starfighter
Night of the Comet
Nineteen Eighty-Four
The Philadelphi Experiment
Repo Man
Starman
Supergirl
The Terminator
2010
>I am giving a historical backdrop on EveCon's 10th year anneversary, and
>would like to date them in this manner.

>Also, if you have some other big references that might be in interest of
>Fandom at that time, please pass it along to this address!
Having been at Evecon 1 I know firsthand some of the problems that the con had
with drunk mundanes.

>Thank you all so much!

+--------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
|        Robert            |    robert@bear.stonemarche.org               |
+--------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
From: u906789@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (Mark Julian Turner)
Subject: Re: Aliens the Special Edition
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 08:59:21 GMT

boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com (The Man from Another Place) writes:

>In article <4457@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes...
>At any rate, I'm glad that Cameron left the scene out, too, as it
>violates the life-cycle of the Aliens that was established in the first
>film (i.e. Burke shouldn't have been conscious again after so short a
>time).

But Newt was consious when Ripley found her. And she would have been cocooned
for a shorter time than if Burke had been. But the is all just hypothetical
since it does look like Burke was about to get his head ripped off(The alien
had the same action (hissing, dribbling, opening mouth) as when Ferro was 
killed).

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: Sarek@world.std.com (Garrett Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: THE CLOWN IN "IT"
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:20:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.140358.17346@ncsu.edu> jhpace1@eos.ncsu.edu writes:
>Tim Curry also played the main character of the butler in "Clue" (with Coleen
>Camp as the maid!!!)

I'd really like to see him as the butler in the novel
_The_Remains_of_the_Day, by Ishiguro. Does anyone else have an opinion
on that?
--------------------
"...a dignity appropriate to his station..."

Sarek of Vulcan
a.k.a. Garrett Fitzgerald `:-)
Official Diver of the RFA, 'Chelle's TwinSib, and Donna's OneTrueLove

Sarek@world.std.com

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: davest@sequent.com (David C. Stewart)
Subject: Re: any T3 info?
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: sqnt
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 22:26:59 GMT

jglarson@watmsg.uwaterloo.ca (Johan Larson) writes:

>Has any information leaked out regarding the sequel to the sequel
>to Terminator?  Plot?  Characters?  Release date?

	Here's what I heard: During the filming of T2, Cameron was wearing
a button which said: "T3 Without Me".  Draw thine own conclusions.  ;->
-- 
David C. Stewart                       	uunet!sequent!davest
Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.		davest@sequent.com
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Natives Down the River (was re: ALIEN^3 Eggs on Sulaco)
Date: 19 Aug 92 08:27:05 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <4889@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, by seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp):
> 	ALIEN was a great haunted-house film or horror film. I went there
> to be (a) scared out of my seat, and (b) to see how the bugger would get
> nailed.

But (b) is not necessarily an ingredient of haunted house films,
neither in theory (i.e., "it's not a haunted house film if the bugger
doesn't get nailed") nor in fact.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: jamesbs@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (JJ Glamma)
Subject: Re: Natives Down the River (was re: ALIEN^3 Eggs on Sulaco)
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 03:18:07 GMT

v075q5fr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey) writes:

>>>1) The Sulaco was a military transport. I can (just) by Weyland-Yutani tapping
>>>into its telemetry in the third film, but I certainly don't buy them being
>>>able to issue orders to the military hardware.
>> 
>>     Can I say something?
>>     Who ever said that The Colonial Marines wasn't a DIVISION of The Company?
>>     Not a separate entity, but a connected arm.  Not a national, but a 
>>     corporate, defense mechanism.  

>      Or the alternative: who do you think MANUFACTURES all the computers
>      those Colonial Marines put top secret information in?

I like this idea better... it certainly explains the telemetry problem rather
nicely. However, I still think that Colonial Admin. would be smart enough to
lock the manufacturers out of their computers. After all, can Apple or IBM
issue orders to the US military by using Trojan Horses in the computers they
supply?

If they can, don't tell me - I have enough worries as it is.



-- 
-----------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
JJ Glamma                          | "Hey look... The Sarge and Dietrich ain't
aka James William Patrick Bennetts |  dead, man... their signs are real low, 
jamesbs@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU         |  but they ain't dead!"
-----------------------------------+ "Then we go back in and get them!"
When in doubt, use brute force.	   | "F*ck that!"
		-- Ken Thompson	   |	-- PFCs Hudson & Vasquez, on loyalty.
-----------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Natives Down the River (was re: ALIEN^3 Eggs on Sulaco)
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:11:25 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@pmax1.cis.pitt.edu

In article <1992Aug17.095610.58200@cc.usu.edu> slb3y@cc.usu.edu (Punk Rocketeer) writes:
>     OK, I've missed something here.  Why does a movie have to have a
>happy ending?  Why does Ripley deserve a break? 

	Because that's the way I like it, okay? I don't go to a movie to
get a dose of horrid emotions and no victories; I can get that crap on the
news, and it's REAL PEOPLE then too... plenty of meaningless losses there.

	So when I go to a movie, I expect that IF the heroine is going to
Bite the Big One, she will at LEAST have accomplished something WORTHWHILE
in so doing. 

	ALIEN^3 did not give any of that. She wasn't even spared the agony
of having the chestburster, her eternal nighmare, come out; it started 
emerging before she died. 

	Nothing good at all happened. Everything that Ripley fought for was
turned to worthless, pointless actions. The Company will have its little
bioweapon Aliens, the people who know the truth are gone, etc.

	If YOU like that, fine, but I prefer to believe that when one creates
a fictional universe one can come up with something at least a little BETTER
than the one you LIVE in.


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: wbarnes@sura.net (Bill Barnes)
Subject: Sci-Fi Movies and Aliens too!
Organization: SURAnet, College Park, MD, USA, NA, Earth, Milky Way
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:32:38 GMT

In article <trent-140892131359@128.95.123.185> trent@mailhost.hsas.washington.edu (Sigfried Trent) writes:
>Often they talk about Sci-Fi films.  I think this is appropriate
>because in my opinion at leas Sci-fi films are the classic films of this
>age.  In the past, dramas and commedys were the classics, but in the 
>modern day Sci-Fi films have not only been the most popular, but also
>have been ground breakers and set standards for other films to follow.
>Most of todays greatest directors are chiefly known for the Sci-Fi/Fantacy
>films they have done.

Interesting opinion...the good SF movies are often big crowd-pleasers
and money makers (Aliens, T2, Star Wars saga, etc.) and a few have some
intelligence to go along with the cool effects (like Blade Runner), but
classics?  Mmm.  Perhaps.  Depends on what it takes to be considered
a "classic."

>I think Aliens 3 is not so much about the Alien itself as were the first 
>two films.  Aliens 3 is realy about Riply, and her struggle agains these
>monsters that plauge her so.  The only way she finds to win is a sort
>of loss or tie.  To win and die at the same time.  Which is more important
>death in victory or life in defeat.  An interesting situation I think.

Gee, I rather thought "Aliens" was about Ripley's struggle with the aliens,
although with a different resolution than the one in Alien^3.  In Aliens
she finds the strength necessary to conquer her fear of the aliens, not
for herself but for her daughter-surrogate, Newt; in Alien^3 she sacrifices
herself in order to kill the alien inside her (someone else can delve into
the symbolism here).

>Ive seen lots of sugestions for what Aliens 3 should have been that make
>me kind of sick.  They usualy are somethin like, Riply, Hicks and Newt,
>land
>somewhere and fight some Aliens again.  I'm sory but that is just plain
>dull
>and is the same story as the second film.

I agree, just another "sock up the Aliens" would've been boring.  I'm glad
Alien^3 tried to be more original.  Unfortunately, I found the story to
Alien^3 to be lacking.  Fortunately, I can appreciate its look and feel
enough that I don't care too much 8-).  But for some reason, I think it
could've been much more...
-- 
Bill "Whassamatter?!  Can't you take a joke?!" Barnes   wbarnes@sura.net
Disclaimer:  The author apologizes for any thought-provoking material he may
	     have accidentally included and promises not to do it again.
Datclaimer:  My employers wouldn't WANT to share some of my opinions.
From: Robert.Turner@brunel.ac.uk (Robert Turner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Star Trek VI - What anachronisms!
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:11:20 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Brunel University, West London, UK

davest@sequent.com (David C. Stewart) writes:=
%	* The walls in Kirk's cabin and in the "Officer's Mess" (where the
%	  dinner with Klingons is held) are covered with paintings.
%	  Kirk seems to like pictures of ships and the like, while the
%	  mess has what look like portraits.  This is the first time I
%	  can recall there being this kind of decoration on the walls
%	  of the Enterprise.

Well, can't remember when (can't remember even in TOS or TNG, but seem
to remember TOS), I saw a set of pictures on a 'Ready Room' wall which
depicted ships called 'Enterprise' over the years. Seem to remember Kirk
giving a lecture. But may have been someone else.

Anyway, there is precident for this, at least.

Rob


-- 
 _________________________________________________________________________
/                            |                                            \
|   Rob Turner, PC Support   |     email : Robert.Turner@brunel.ac.uk     |
|   Brunel University        |                                            |
|   London, England          |      What IS this thing called love ?      |
\____________________________|____________________________________________/
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Natives Down the River (was re: ALIEN^3 Eggs on Sulaco)
Date: 17 Aug 92 09:25:33 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <4815@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, by seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp):
> That was what made
> ALIENS *WORK*! It took the original movie and took it off in another direction

Downwards?

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

-- 
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
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,alt.cult-movies
From: dave@blackbox.cc.columbia.edu (David Milner)
Subject: Re: Godzilla tiple bill info update
Keywords: Godzilla Japanese Monster
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 06:34:38 GMT

The version of GOJIRA TAI KINGU GIDORA that has been around for a
while is the version shown at the Tokyo International Film Festival
last September, and not the Hong Kong one. The English subtitling
on both is similar, but not exactly the same. 

David Milner  Columbia University
inet:   dave@blackbox.cc.columbia.edu
usenet: ...rutgers!columbia!blackbox!dave
        ...rutgers!columbia!blackbox.cc.columbia.edu!dave
From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge A. Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Natives Down the River
Date: 16 Aug 92 10:21:41 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Aug15.105249.12711@phillip.edu.au> t9014201@phillip.edu.au writes:
>OK, my turn...

>Why Alien 3 didnt work....

>Technology.
>I can see that the writer of A3 deliberately cut out those tech elements and it
>probably seemed like a good idea at the time, but I went into the movie hoping
>for Smart-guns, Spaceships, "Mother", Power-loaders, Movement trackers and so
>forth, and all I got was a Lead Refinery.

You wanted Aliens.

>Characters.
>Alien had its crew of eccentric Crew Members. 
>Aliens had its wacky band of Marines.
>Alien 3 had....  whinging Poms, who kept on making long boring speeches.

I don't know what you wanted here....  More marines?  More eccentric
crew members?  What?

>Letdown.
>Aliens was a BIG movie.  lotsa effects, lotsa noise, lotsa ideas.
>Then Alien 3 comes along, and it seems to offer not merely less than Aliens, 
>but less than Alien.  It felt very "Superman 4".

Again, it seems you wanted Aliens.

>Alien (1) had more elements in it to keep your interest....  The Mysterious 
>Alien SpaceShip, the life on board the Nostromo, the life cycle of the Alien
>, Ash, High Tech Medicine.

Agreed, Alien was a great movie.

>Aliens offered all this and more.

Disagreed.  IMO, Aliens was inferior to Alien.

>Depression.
>All the characters we we grow to attached to in Aliens are killed off right
>away.  The new characters listen to Ripley, instead of waiting for the Company
>so they die.  RIPLEY killed them.  RIPLEY dies.  The alien wins.  If there is
>any other aliens in the universe (probably), then the Company wins.
>A major theme of the movie is Ripley wanting to commit suicide.  This is NOT a
>theme to use to cheer up an audience.

So, who said they were trying to make a movie to 'cheer up the audience'?
Alien was not a very cheerful movie either.  Nor was it funny.  Nor was
it action-packed.  Aliens was all these things.  Again, I'm getting the
feeling that you wanted Aliens when you went to see Alien 3.

>The money heads in Hollywood must have seen that the crowds LOVED Aliens
>and surely they understood WHY.  So why did they produce a film that offered
>none of the thrills of the earlier films?

It did, for those of us who went in expecting Alien 3, and not Aliens 2.
It's been said before, but I'll say it again:

If you want to see Aliens, *rent* Aliens (or watch your own copy of it,
I'm sure you own one).  If you want an original film, then go see Alien 3.


-- 
Jorge Diaz                       | Sign in a restaurant:
Georgia Institute of Technology  | 
Office of Information Technology |   "We reserve the right to serve refuse to
ccoprdj@prism.gatech.edu         |        anyone."
From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Aliens the Special Edition
Date: 16 Aug 92 07:03:25 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <5715@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>From article <xz2mlw#@lynx.unm.edu>, by lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble):
>> kdontas@gmuvax2.gmu.edu ( ) writes:

>>> One question, where did the facehugger come from that was to impregnate
>>> Dallas ? 

>There is NOTHING in Alien to suggest the Alien can't lay new eggs.  No
>scene, no remark, no hint.
>Therefore, the solution, simple, straightforward, and without holes:
>The Alien himself laid the egg that produced the facehugger that
>impregnated Dallas.  This clearly is the intended meaning.

Actually, I think they implied (in the novelization) that the Alien
turned Brett into an egg, from which 'hugger hatched.  It pasted him
to the ceiling, and mutated him.  Sounds good to me. :-)

*>> even if the novelization did come up with something
*>> it's not necessarily going to be consistent with Cameron's queen-and-hive
*>> explanation. 

*>"Come up with something."  I really like that.  Face it, it simply is
*>Aliens that is inconsistent with both Alien and its novelization, both
*>of which came out much earlier.  Since they cut those scenes out of
*>the final version of Alien, it doesn't show up too glaringly, but it's
*>all Cameron's fault, since he imposed that queen-and-hive-botch on the
*>Aliens.

Ooh!  Well said. :-)


-- 
Jorge Diaz                       | Sign in a restaurant:
Georgia Institute of Technology  | 
Office of Information Technology |   "We reserve the right to serve refuse to
ccoprdj@prism.gatech.edu         |        anyone."