HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tnt@netcom.com (Terry Turner)
Subject: Re: Comment on this Group!
Organization: Watch the Skies
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:31:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.005800.22307@daimi.aau.dk> rorschak@daimi.aau.dk (Jesper Lauridsen) writes:

   dfinch@fraser.sfu.ca (Derek Finch) writes:

   >Pardon me for interupting your forum, but I had to
   >post to say that this group has some of the most
   >polite, courteous posters in all of Netland. 

   F*ck off! We don't need pathetic losers like you in our
   group. Get a life and a clue! One of the most annoying
   things in this group is when clueless newbies and Macusers
   like you starts posting your drivel here. Find another
   group pollute with your drivel.

   -- 
   Jesper Lauridsen        | Deckard is not a replicant, Total Recall was a dream,
   rorschak@daimi.aau.dk   | Aliens was better than Alien, Skynet will be created.

i agree with everything but your sig, which proves you're fucked.

-- 
terry
	tnt@netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: disaacs@pietrzak.carleton.ca (Dave Isaacs)
Subject: Re: THE QUIET EARTH
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:29:48 GMT

In <1993Jan4.231333.18629@midway.uchicago.edu> ror1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard O. Rouse III) writes:

>Has any one out there seen the New Zeland film "The Quiet Earth" circa 1985?

>It is aboslutely not only one of my favorite sf films, but also one of my 
>favorite films all around.  But the ending is a little vague, so I was
>wondering other people's thoughts on it.

>In the end, is Zac supposed to be in heaven?  If not, why is Saturn appearing
>immediately in the background?
>At the end, why does Zac look at the tape recorder he has somehow brought with
>him to wherever he is, and then toss it to the ground (at least this is what
>I seem to remember seeing)?
>Does Zac save the earth in the end?  
>If so, are all the humans brought back to life, or does "all reality" simply
>maintain itself as it was after humanity was mostly killed off?

>I'm also curious to anyone else's thoughts on this *GREAT* movie.


I thought that this was one awesome movie!!
I don't think Zac is anywhere near Saturn at the end.  All you see is a
ringed planet, nothing at all indicates that it is Saturn.
I don't remember Zac throwing away his tape recorder at the end, but then it
has been awile.  I think that the fate of the Earth is left deliberately
obscure.  I don't think that all the humans are brought back to life, but at
least the remaining ones may survive.
One should remember that the reason Zac survived in the first case was because
he was trying to kill himself when the first "effect" occurred.  His sacrafice
was just finishing that job once and for all (and maybe doing some good in the
process).

By the way, I have always felt that the music in THE QUIET EARTH is just 
awesome.  Does anyone know what it is, or where one can get it?

-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 ____  ____  __  David Paul Isaacs ________________________________________
 _____ _____ __  Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering ________
 _____ ____  __  Carleton University ________________________________________
 ____  __    __  Ottawa, Ontario ___________________________________________
_________________disaacs@ccs.carleton.ca __________________________________
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: mcduffeek@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Aliens vs. Predators?
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:06:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.173706.1@vax1.umkc.edu>, kgassner@vax1.umkc.edu writes:
> 
> Hello!
> 
>> "Alien's vs. Predator will be battling its way into your theatre screens
>> sometime in 1994,
> 
> And what's to be expected of this movie?
> Aliens massacering predators?
> Predators massacering aliens?
> 
> 	Klaus
> 

Read the comic like I said!  It will explain...

-- 
  =====             Keith "Overtime" McDuffee            PHI KAPPA SIGMA
    |                                                International Fraternity
  =====                                                Gamma Upsilon Chapter
    |                  InterNet Mail I.D.                U.Mass. at Lowell
  ===                  ------------------                  P.O.  Box 113
                   mcduffeek@woods.ulowell.edu              Dracut,  MA
                             - or -                            01826
                    kmcduffee@cs.ulowell.edu                    USA
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: rorschak@daimi.aau.dk (Jesper Lauridsen)
Subject: Re: Comment on this Group!
Summary: A joke
Keywords: :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Organization: Exile Government of Bramming
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 00:58:00 GMT

dfinch@fraser.sfu.ca (Derek Finch) writes:

>Pardon me for interupting your forum, but I had to
>post to say that this group has some of the most
>polite, courteous posters in all of Netland. 

F*ck off! We don't need pathetic losers like you in our
group. Get a life and a clue! One of the most annoying
things in this group is when clueless newbies and Macusers
like you starts posting your drivel here. Find another
group pollute with your drivel.

-- 
Jesper Lauridsen        | Deckard is not a replicant, Total Recall was a dream,
rorschak@daimi.aau.dk   | Aliens was better than Alien, Skynet will be created.
From: rougan@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Untitled)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Terminator 3: Any word?
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:19:30
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
	<1993Jan6.180254.1@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu's message of 6 Jan 93 23:02:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.180254.1@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu> bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Greg Bole) writes:


   a movie about the war in the future with sky-net.  (T0 because it would 
   hopefully be before sky-net was prevented from coming into existance)


Who says that Skynet was prevented from coming into existance?  At the 
end of the second movie, and I could be wrong, Arnold, in his beat up form,
decended into the molten metal, and the kid throws the chip and the arm into
the metal, right.  The thing is that there were two unatached arms, or am I
imagining this.  One got ripped off in the fight with the t-1000, and the other
was from the original terminator and was acquired from Cyberdine industries
with the chip.  Now at the end, one arm is still unaccounted for.
So Skynet could still happen.


"The further I get from the things that I care about.....
   the less I care about how much further away I get"  The Cure         
      rougan@wpi.wpi.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: andrew@openage.openage.com (Andrew Scholnick)
Subject: Re: Star Trek VII ?!?!?!
Organization: Open Age, Inc.
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 04:55:33 GMT

nicolas@stam.nl (Nico Veenkamp) writes:

>In <1992Dec31.184628.9492@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner) writes:
>>In <C03686.1pI@idm.com> elr@idm.com (Eric L Reiner) writes:

>>>Has anybody heard about Star Trek 7 - the movie?  A local TV station
[...]

>The guy who playes Sulu (I forgot who, I'm not that much of a Star
>Trek fan) was on British television last week. He told the audience
>that a seventh movie is forthcoming. Aparently with him as captain.

I saw George Takei (aka Sulu) on the Sci-Fi channel last night...
He gave Shatner's directing a good swift kick in the ribs ("oh no, not him
trying to direct again..." or something like that) and proceded to *HINT*
at another movie in several ways:
	1) listing all of the preceding "this is the last time" ST movies
	2) explaining something about Paramount having OK'd ST-VII shortly
	   before the recent shake-ups there and how now things are on hold
	   for a while...
He also dropped the much quoted comment that *HE* would like to see (he didn't
say anyone was taking -or is it Takeing;-} sorry- it seriously yet) a ST - the
adventures of captain Sulu movie... maybe he (and Paramount?) is fishing
for sum public reaction/support before beginning/committing to a project like
that... (I would probably go see it, but then I go see almost anything SF...)

Anyhow, that's all I remember from what I saw/heard...

Toodles.

ARS.
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: ZARDOZ
Date: 4 Jan 93 11:02:33 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <1993Jan4.074733.1053@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE>, by k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai):
> In article <6258@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
> Hardly, my beef with Zardoz is that Boorman apparently thinks he's
> providing us with some great revelation by revealing Zed's identity
> in the middle. Instead, it just produces a yawn.

Tastes differ, so be it.

>>I think there was one comment, which I accidentally deleted, to the
>>effect of how could people fall to the level of the Brutals.  

> I don't believe that I posted anything to this effect?...

Yes, I think I mixed up my response articles there.

>>> If the Tabernacle is contained in a little crystal how does Zed manage to
>>> get inside of it, by shrinking down real teensy?

>>And where does the second Zed come from, the one he shoots?  Wow.  A
>>twin brother, and we're never told about him.  Now, there must be
>>something wrong with this film.

> Even you seem to admit that it doesn't make any sense, that was the
> original point I was trying to make.

No, that was failed sarcasm on my part.  The point is that the scene
is obviously not physical reality.  The confrontation is on a mental
level, not really by shooting bullets.  Call it "Sean Connery in
Cyberspace" if you prefer.  It does make sense, even though it's
presented in a quite heavy-handed manner.
 
>>> His films all seem to have the sound quality of a
>>> dubbed Japanese monster movie. Check out Arthur (Speed Racer) King of
>>> the Britons in Excalibur if you don't believe me.

>>Why should I?  I don't really care, and I don't see what this has to
>>do with plot line or logic of Zardoz.

> Lighten up Markus. I was making some general comments about Boorman's
> body of film work, not specific comments about Zardoz.

Don't worry, I'm not shouting at you. :-) I just wanted to make the
distinction between Zardoz-plot-specific and Boorman-general topics
clear.  Now, what's that "Speed Racer" comment about?  It's been years
since I've watched Excalibur.
 
-- 
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: Jason_Mulligan@camelot.apana.org.au (Jason Mulligan)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Test
Distribution: world
Date: 30 Dec 92 15:18:52 EST
Organization: The TOWER BBS



 -- AEd V1.36f/EvaA

-- Via DLG Pro v0.992

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: fils@iastate.edu (Douglas R Fils)
Subject: Re: Jurassic Park - DNA in blood?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:06:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.205704.1@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu> bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Greg Bole) writes:
>In article <724820727snx@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au>, cam@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au 
>(Cameron Newham) writes:
>
>> Apart from that, the idea behind JP is certainly valid - rather scary too.
>
>Ug, I'm tired of hearing this...no the science behind Jurassic Park is
>NOT valid.  Genetics is not something that is "rather scary".  There is 
>no possible way most of the things they do in JP could be done with today's
...
>A few examples: Most of any dinosaur genome would not be preserved.
>		Even if you had most, you cannot "fill in" the rest.
>		They never could have sequenced that much, that fast,
>		  especially on a small island off the coast of Costa Rico.
>		Most scientists agree the smartest dinosaur was about
>		  as bright as a chicken, not a chimpanzee.
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	Actually you might want to be a bit carefull with that
statement.  I have read and heard an interview or two with 
palentologists (sp) that some of the higher level dinosaurs had
intellegence on about the same level as dogs (much much higher
than chickens).

Doug

 
                       


-- 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: roland@quadsys.com (Roland Besserer)
Subject: Re: Jurassic Park - DNA in blood?
Organization: QUAD Systems
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 06:16:55 GMT

S104374@UMRVMA.umr.edu writes:
: 
: I have to agree, however, that the writing, plot, and character developement
: of the novel leave something to be desired.  However, it could make a very
: good movies, if Spielburg will keep control of his "creativeness" and
: stick to the story.
: 

Whow! You completely contradict yourself within 2 consecutive sentences.
First you lament that writing, plot and character development are 
unsatisfactory, then you want Spielberg to 'stick to the story'. Now what,
besides writing, plot and characters, constitutes a story?

-- 

Roland Besserer							     '86 RG500
QUAD Systems							    '91 RGV250
roland@quadsys.com	"License and registration please!" "What registration?"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Aliens vs. Predators?
From: kgassner@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:37:06 CST
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City
NNTP-Posting-Host: vax1.umkc.edu


Hello!

> "Alien's vs. Predator will be battling its way into your theatre screens
> sometime in 1994,

And what's to be expected of this movie?
Aliens massacering predators?
Predators massacering aliens?

	Klaus
From: wixer!cactus.org!wixer!pro-smof.cts.com!rfletcher@cactus.org (Robert Fletcher)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: space rangers
Date: 9 Jan 1993 04:38:45 -0600
Organization: The SMOF-BBS: Science Fiction Online Since 1985 [512-467-7317]
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

  Well, we will all know tonight which is the show.
----
ProLine:  rfletcher@pro-smof
Internet: rfletcher@pro-smof.cts.com
UUCP:     crash!pro-smof!rfletcher
ARPA:     crash!pro-smof!rfletcher@nosc.mil
From: zardoz@sycom.mi.org (David Lillard)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: RE: Terminator 3
Date: 10 Jan 93 17:09:37 GMT
Organization: Michigan Information eXchange
X-BBS-Software: EXCELSIOR! V0.975

As I recall, at the end of T2, the boy (a computer *genius*) takes a long,
*hard* look at the chip before throwing it in the molten pool.  Also, the
arm that was left in the machinery *could* have some *related* microchips
(for servos) in it.  It's *possible* that John Connor could grow up
arrogant enough to believe that he wouldn't allow the same kinds of mistakes
to be made with SkyNet and *he* would build it and the robots himself.  And
of cousre, mistakes *would* be made.  Etc.  Just a thought.
From: bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Greg Bole)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Jurassic Park - DNA
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:25:09 GMT
Organization: HHMI/Human Genetics, Univ of Pa.

> JURASSIC PARK >is< based on actual research being done. Just recently, the
> people doing the research received a grant from the Smithsonian.

Boy this statement makes you sound like a moron...

Yes: there is research into ancient DNA.  

Yes: amber trabbed insects and the blood they contain is one source 
for said DNA.

NO: there is no possible way to recreate said dinosaurs from said DNA.

So the fact that the book is "based" on actual events is a pretty shoddy
statement.  It's based, albeit *very* loosely, on many aspects of palentology
in the past couple decades.  But then Crichton throws in a lot of hand waving
and psudo-science to make it in to a fun work of science fiction.

Greg Bole                            "We ride...to hell.  Or to glory.  
bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu         It depends on your point of view."
                                Errol Flynn in _They Died With Their Boots On_
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: L660315@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Terminator 3: Any word?
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 10:44:32 PST

About eight months ago someone posted a copy of a news article dated April
'93 headlined "Cameron, Carolco, Swartzenegger say, 'He'll be back one more
time,'" or something like that.  In short, the article was about a press
conference called by the trio to announce Terminator-3.  Does anyone know if
this is on the level, and if it is has anyone heard anything else?  Allegedly
the film was to start shooting 11/92 for a 4th-o-July weekend release.  I
figured that I would have heard about it since from other sources.  I suppose
they could just be keeping it all real quiet.  But now I'm starting to wonder
if that posting was bogus.  I hope not.
Jerry Olson
From: bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Greg Bole)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Jurassic Park
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:30:52 GMT
Organization: HHMI/Human Genetics, Univ of Pa.

In article <C0CA6w.IA1@news.iastate.edu>, fils@iastate.edu 
(Douglas R Fils) writes:

>>		Most scientists agree the smartest dinosaur was about
>>		  as bright as a chicken, not a chimpanzee.
>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> 	Actually you might want to be a bit carefull with that
> statement.  I have read and heard an interview or two with 
> palentologists (sp) that some of the higher level dinosaurs had
> intellegence on about the same level as dogs (much much higher
> than chickens).

True, I was making a broad over-statement.  But hey, there are also
"scientists" that think that aliens control the United Nations.
(Actually that *would* explain alot)   :^)

My point being, you can dredge up a source to support almost any view.
Mine came from (in part) National Geographic:

The current issue of National Geographic (January 1993, Vol.183, No.1)
has an excellent cover article on Dinosaurs by Rick Gore.

"Most [scientists] would concur...the smartest dinosaurs - including the
velociraptors in _Jurassic Park_ - were about as intellegent as chickens."

"[One leading scientist] rejects the idea that escaped dinosaurs could 
threaten the modern world.  'Dinosaurs couldn't survive long today,' he says.  
'Theyd be too dumb and not agile enough.'

Greg Bole                            "We ride...to hell.  Or to glory.  
bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu         It depends on your point of view."
                                Errol Flynn in _They Died With Their Boots On_
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: foxx@foxxjac.b17a.ingr.com (AJ Foxx)
Subject: Re: Planet of the Apes
Reply-To: foxx@foxxjac.b17a.ingr.com
Organization: "n.  A group united by a common interest or goal"
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:06:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.153814.4894@memstvx1.memst.edu>, mcsweinberg@memstvx1.memst.edu (*R A Isexit) writes:
|> I don't know if this is the appropriate group but I noticed an error in
|> storyline in the Planet of the Apes movies and wanted to know if anyopne else
|> noticed it or if I am incorrect. 
|> 
|> In Planet of the Apes... we are to believe that the Humans started a Nuclear
|> War and after they destroyed each other the Apes evolved. But, In Escape from
|> the Planet of the Apes, Zera tells that the apes just revolted while they were
|> being treated as pets after the cats and dogs died. What happened to the4
|> Nuclear War?
|> 
|> Rai.
|> 

I've always assumed that the time travelling that occurs changes the
course of history, but only as minimally as possible.
From: Jay.Majer@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Jurassic Park - DNA
Date: 4 Jan 93 23:22:00 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993

To: bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu

GB> > JURASSIC PARK >is< based on actual research being done. Just recently,
GB> the
GB> > people doing the research received a grant from the Smithsonian.

GB> NO: there is no possible way to recreate said dinosaurs from said DNA.

I never said there was, did I?

 * Q-Blue v0.7 *
--- Maximus 2.01wb
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: "robert winkler" <robert.winkler@canrem.com>
Subject: spaceroots
Reply-To: "robert winkler" <robert.winkler@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: rec
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:44:51 EST

            < CONTINUED  FROM  PREVIOUS  MESSAGE >

                         Part 2 of 3  (58 lines)

The series, at least in the beginning, would be a strictly
nonprofit project. The TV station'd have the right to show
each movie ONCE, without having to pay any kind of royalties, while
the makers, actors etc. would retain all copyrights. This'd provide
the amateur talents with a unique chance to 'break in' to the
business, to get national (& often international) exposure of their
work, while the TV station would get 1-2 hours of entertainment (&
commercial time!) FREE of any cost.

The promotion of each movie & the coordination of available talents
could be managed through either:
1) the various conferences
2) one conference specifically devoted to this purpose
3) E-magazines
4) Newsletters or a Spaceroot Club Magazine
5) a club
6) ALL of the above.


                 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE PROPOSAL

1) It'd be impossible to start from nothing. First you need
   professionals, technical equipment, etc.

Sure. And the Earth is flat, & man will never get into space...
There're THOUSANDS of independent filmmakers outthere, without any
chance to ever get into a studio & make a movie - they'd be more
than happy to take up the challenge.

Modern video cameras (CDN $ 1500-2000) provide 400+ horizontal
resolution, more than what at least 50 % of the average TVs can show
- so what's the problem with shooting direct to video ? And you CAN
learn to make a movie from practice & handbooks just as much as
sitting in a university lecture room for 4 hours a day... If you
don't believe me, just take a look at a couple of independent
features - and a couple of Hollywood shows that's supposed to be A-
rated...

2) We'd need actors/actresses, where would you get them?

There're amateur theatres STRUGGLING to survive in EVERY city. For
them it's a hobby, & they'd love to take part in a movie project.
Exposure on TV'd not only give a name to their theater, but a
possibility to make name for themselves - cheaper than Faces
International, & sure as hell more effective...

You wouldn't need hundreds of actors in any case;  an average s/f
show has no more than 5-12 major characters, while the others are
one-liners or `crew in the background'. Take a look at ANY episode
of the Twilight Zone, Elvira, or most of the movies from Full Moon.
Besides, casting is also a matter of choosing the right person for
the right part. Your neighbour - ya' know, the guy smelling beer all
the time - can play the drunk alien as long as all he has to say is:
`What the f..., you didn't bring the money? No deal, pal. I get
better contract on Alpha Centauri' & then he gets shot. Just think
about Schwarzenegger in his first movie (Hercules?)... or ANY of his
movies...
               < CONTINUED  IN  NEXT  MESSAGE >
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Greg Bole)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: TV GUIDE NEWS?
Date: 12 Jan 93 19:33:14 GMT
Organization: HHMI/Human Genetics, Univ of Pa.

In article <C0p9zI.32C@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, 
gmcmanus@reepicheep.gcn.uoknor.edu (Gary McManus) writes:

> Does anybody have any news about the remake of "The Attack of the 50
> Foot Woman" HBO is doing for this year?  This weeks TV Guide said that
> Daryll(sp?) Hannah is slated to star.  Just wondering...

The only thing I know besides that is that Christopher Guest (Nigel in 
_This is Spinal Tap_ and Count Rugan in _The Princess Bride_ and director
of _The Big Picture_) is slated to direct.

Greg Bole                                  "A twelve-gague, double-barreled, 
bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu                  grenade-launcher of LOVE!"
                                           Steve Martin in _Leap of Faith_