HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Montague_Kevin@Tandem.com (Kevvy Kev)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: I think Alien^3 has been flogged to death.
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:36:55 GMT
Organization: In Effect Enterprises

In article <1992Sep7.200416.29032@u.washington.edu>, daynem@byron.u.washington.edu (Dayne Miller) writes:
> 
> In article <Bu71wq.Lpv@acsu.buffalo.edu> v075q5fr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey) writes:
> >
> >     I've noticed that this newsgroup tends to flog a dead horse until
> >     all you've got left are bones and hair.  
> >
> >        re: Alien^3
> >        ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!
> >
> >        Let's not make this another Terminator2, shall we?
> 
> Sir, as I see it you have three options:
> 
>   1) unsubscribe from this newsgroup
>  
>   2) learn to use a KILL file
> 
>   3) bring up some other subject that might interest others
> 
> 
>      -Dayne Miller
>         daynem@u.washington.edu

I hope I don't offend anyone, but I'm genuinely curious: why do a large number
of posts on any one topic offend people?  I finally had to ask, because there
is a recurring pattern: people start talking about a movie, it generates one
or more long threads, other people complain, the complainers are then told to
use a killfile or unsubscribe.  All this makes me wonder:

1) No one ever answers the question, "why not learn to use a Kill file."  So
   I'm asking it again, in semi-open forum: Why do those of you who are 
   annoyed by certain articles continue to read them?  If you can't use a 
   killfile, what is the problem with paging past them?  I'm using an 
   application called "NewsWatcher" on a Macintosh, which doesn't have 
   killfiles, but when I see a thread I'm not interested in, I don't get
   angry. . .I just don't read any of the articles.  I'm sorry to ramble,
   but again, I'm honestly curious.

2) Could this be put in the FAQ?  Something along the lines of, "Don't complain
   if you see articles you don't want to read. . .just ignore/kill them."

Okay.  In our inflectionless medium here, I'm sure I've offended somebody; 
so be it.  But I'd really just like to hear from some of you who are annoyed
at the threads you don't like.  

Kevvy Kev
"No firing.  Flame units only."
 -Gorman
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: cosulliv@fraser.sfu.ca (Christina Marie O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Anthony Perkins: Aids: Died yesterday.
Keywords: aids,physcho
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:44:44 GMT

jpehko@cs.joensuu.fi (Juha Pehkonen) writes:

>Everytime someone famous dies of AIDS the only thing people can think of is
>'How did he/she get it?' which in other words means 'Was he/she a gay?'

>Juha Pehkonen
>jpehko@cs.joensuu.fi
This might be a wee bit inaccurate.  Everytime somebody famous dies of AIDS
the only thing some NARROW-MINDED people can think of is 'How did he/she 
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                       
get it which may or may not in other words mean "Was he/she a gay?"
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Amanda Blake of "Gunsmoke" died of AIDS and none of the press I read about
her death connected her with nor insinuated any homosexual activity.   

The AIDS epidemic is rampant enough to attack people regardless of their
sexual orientation or experience [case in point: Kimberly Bergalis, Ali
Gertz, Arthur Ashe, Magic Johnson].

It really is not our business to know how celebrities contracted AIDS.  It
is our business to know how it can be contracted and how to avoid getting it.

Furthermore, people who are now dying of AIDS, on AVERAGE, may have had the
disease incubated for ten years, which could mean that they may have been
infected with the HIV when it was known as Gay Related Immunodeficiency
Syndrome and when very little was known on how HIV could be prevented.  As
the 90s drag on, we will likely see the most "unlikely" (i.e. in some
people's minds, "straight") people succumb to this horror.  Then only the
orangutans and imbeciles will scratch their heads and ask "Was he/she a
gay?"

By the way, I had believed that lesbians were a very low-risk group.  Does
Juha mean to state that lesbians are at high risk of contractng HIV?  Or
that monogamous homosexual couples are at high risk? 

This quote is from some poster in this newsgroup (sorry, I can't think of
your name just now, but at least the fact that I am not claiming this as
my own indicates that I'm willing to give credit to its rightful owner:

"Don't tell me what I think, and I won't tell you what you think."
    
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: andre@rurutu.wri.com (Andre Kuzniarek)
Subject: Re: Dune, embarrassing?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:48:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.144813.27448@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> ren@Turing.ORG  
(Karen Prestemon) writes:
> 
> Can someone PLEASE tell me what those big whales floating around in 
> space were?  
> Its been a while since I've read the book or seen the movie, but
> tha one aspect of the film kind of stuck with me.  Weree the whales in 
> Dune in any way related to that huge salami that came for all the whales
> in Star Trek IV?????
> 
> What gives??
> 
> --Karen

It's possible that the salami was indeed related. If you remember in Dune,  
(during one of my favorite scenes), all the Atreides folks were flying up  
in their gold ships to enter the huge deep space cylinders that the Guild  
used to cart people around. Gorgeous stuff! The Star Trek salami thing was  
perhaps a similar device. And heck, maybe whales do spice to help with  
their navigation! And maybe they evolved into sand worms! And maybe they  
eventually gain the technology to cruise back in time and check out what  
ol' Kirk was up to. 

Chaaaaiiiii'-engage!

AK

------- andre@wri.com ----------------------------------------------------
                                  "The only blasphemy is to wallow in
				   IN-SIG-NIF-I-CANCE!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky rec.arts.movies:26901 alt.cult-movies:7513
From: bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Greg Bole)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
Subject: <None>
Date: 4 Sep 92 23:07:43 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
Organization: HHMI/Human Genetics, Univ of Pa.

In article <sbarnhar-040992151951@morril6t-10.micro.umn.edu>, 
sbarnhar@mailbox.mail.umn.edu (Dr. Barnhart) writes:

>> Barton Fink: Had to be the most boring piece of nonsense I've ever seen. 
 
> At least you're honest about this one.  I can't believe the number of
> people who start going into cinema-art speak when they talk about this
> movie.  I think what they're trying to get across was "..it was a really
> boring, stupid, go-nowhere movie, but it won all those important awards and
> was written/produced/directed by those paragons of new cinema, the Cohen
> brothers, so there must be some kind of important commentary on something
> or other."
> 
> Face facts, folks, that story ran out of steam after the first five minutes.

You face facts you ass!!!  Others can get things out of a film that you can't.
I'm so sick of being called a simp and a pretentious idiot because my friends
and I enjoyed Barton Fink/Naked Lunch/Wild At Heart/Prospero's Books/etc.

It seems there are alot of whining, finger-pointing, insecure brats on this
group!  I am not impressed by "cinima as art", I don't like films because they
are made by "new paragons".  I like these movies because they entertained me,
they captivated me, made me think, and fascinated me.

I'm not going into any "cinima-art speak", I just liked the movie, and was not
in the least bit bored...not for a second.  You have your right to dislike it,
and I suppose you even have a right to call me an idiot for liking this movie,
but either think of something condtructive to add to the convesations or do us
all a favor and keep your selfish imature rantings to your self.

To those who liked any of these movies, I look forward to intellegently
discussing them with you.

To those who were bored by them, I'm sorry.  I guess they weren't the right
film for you.  Now maybe you have a better idea of what to avoid in the future.

To those who wish to flame me...don't waste your time.

Greg Bole                                    "The ants in the grass, they
bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu                  were just doing their thing."
                                            Matt Dillon in _Drugstore Cowboy_
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen)
Subject: Re: great voices
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 09:03:45 GMT

In article <95868@bu.edu> abw@natchez.bu.edu (Al Wesolowsky) writes:
>In article <BD.92Sep12110533@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>>
>>lsnow@ncrclm.ClemsonSC.NCR.COM (Linda Snow) writes:
>>>Sidney Poitier!
>>
>>My god, he's a handsome man!  (and I say that as a hetero male).
>
>Moi aussi. And what's more, he seems ageless! I just saw him in "Sneakers"
>and while Redford is showing some years, Poitier, except for being a
>little stockier than 30 years ago, seems to have had Father Time pass him
>by. I would guess he and Redford are about the same age, but he looks
>about 30 years younger in the film.
>
>                                 ---Al
>
Just thought you might be interested.  From my "Film Encyclopedia".

	Sidney Poitier	Born Feb. 20, 1924

	Robert Redford	Born Aug. 18, 1937

The above makes Poitier *68* years old and Redford 55 years old.

And I agree!  Sidney Poitier looks terrific!

Marg
From: otto@jybox.jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Stanley Kubrick
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 01:55:27 EDT
Organization: Jyvaskyla Electronic Mailbox

revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:

>         Everyone knows that Stanley Kubrick takes his time in preparing his 
> films. 2001 took about four years, The Shining about five, Full Metal Jacket 
> about six. So Kubrick's about due for a new release fairly soon now.
> 
>         The big question is; does anyone have any good, substantial 
> information as to what Stanley Kubrick is up to these days? I know he's been 
> supervising the transfers of his films to laser (and apparently having 
> trouble with 'Dr. Strangelove,' as no original negative exists), but what 
> about any new movies of his? Any word at all?

Our science fiction club "42" in Jyvaskyla, Finland had Ian Watson visiting
us last summer as our guest of honour at our panel seminar on SF.  He had
just been working on a new hard SF film script involving robots with Kubrick
(of course he couldn't give very much details).  Ian told that the biggest
problem working with Kubrick is his eccentricity (some great tall tales
there), but Ian believed that WB would soon start putting pressure on Kubrick
to get filming, as Kubrick had already been paid quite hefty advances.

I hope they do get to doing it, and that it'll be better than Full Metal,
which was a dissapointing bifurcated movie.

PS. Interesting side note regarding the new movie: seems that Kubrick was
going to consult Dr. Marvin Minsky, like he did regarding HAL in 2001 (as
the good doctor has noted here on the net at some point).  Turns out Dr. M.
now has an agent and charges quite nice sums of money for divulging his
knowledge.  Perhaps he got ripped off re 2001 ?

   /* * * Otto J. Makela <otto@jybox.jyu.fi> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
  /* Phone: +358 41 613 847, BBS: +358 41 211 562 (V.32bis/USR-HST,24h/d) */
 /* Mail: Kauppakatu 1B18/SF-40100 Jyvaskyla/Finland, ICBM: 62.14N25.44E */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
Xref: sparky rec.arts.movies:27489 alt.cult-movies:7786
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
Subject: Re: Most Embarassing Movie
Date: 12 Sep 92 14:17:33 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <bahn.183@main.mndly.umn.edu>, by bahn@main.mndly.umn.edu (Christopher Bahn):
> This is easy, and I'm surprised nobody's mentioned it yet. "Twin Peaks: Fire 
> Walk With Me" is the worst film I have _ever_ seen, which is unfortunate 
> because i spent two hours convincing my sister to see it with me...I even 
> paid for her ticket. If you hated Highlander II, you'll want to lynch Lynch.

No.  I agree that FWWM is a horrible (i.e., badly made) movie when
seen on its own.  However, seen with the TV series as background, it
complements it beautifully, taking the central thread out and
reinforcing it.  It has lots of awkward scenes (the angels must be the
worst), but its net effect is very strong and, well, apt.  It
definitely can't be compared with Highlander 2 - Highlander 2 has
NOTHING to do with Highlander, but that does not apply to FWWM at all.

To the guy who wrote about Black Hole: I hated that heaven sequence,
but the hell part was the only scene where that film moved the tiniest
bit from its absolutely childish and beaten track.  Using such a
beautiful ship model as the Cygnus in such a dumb film is a crime.
-- 
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.movies
From: pichocki@nbrwh34.bnr.ca (Stephen Pichocki)
Subject: Hallucination Generation - How Can I Get This Movie
Organization: Northern Telecom, Bramalea, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 17:47:09 GMT

I was wondering if anyone could help me order the above mentioned movie on 
video.  I'm not sure if this is the right group, (please avoid flaming me) but
any assistance would be appreciated.


Regards,

Stephen Pichocki
Northern Telecom
Customer Service Marketing
Software Services
BUS   (416) 452-2391  FAX   (416) 452-4783   ESN   333-2391
Internet:  pichocki@bnr.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: sjs28257@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Stelter)
Subject: Re: Alien^3
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:16:18 GMT

kbuckhu1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Keir Buckhurst) writes:

>Sorry to do this, but I had no access to the net over the summer, so here
>comes a probable FAQ:

>In Alien^3, in the final scene, what is it that is being played over by the
>flight recorder (or whatever that is).  I could tell it was Ripley, saying
>something, but unfortunately I saw the movie in New York City, so I only
>caught every eighth word.  Could someone please post and tell me (if not
>word for word) the gist of what is being said?

It was Ripley's signoff message from the very end of the first film, just
after she had blown up the Nostromo and jettisoned the alien, and just
before she entered hypersleep.


                                    --Steve Stelter
                                      sjs28257@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu


Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: conrad@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Conrad)
Subject: Re: Howard's End
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:38:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.163030.1554@utkux1.utk.edu> koosman@utkux1.utk.edu (Toby Koosman) writes:

>I don't believe the sisters' financial situation was as secure as their
>lifestyle suggested.  That they didn't own their house is significant.

Not to beat this one to death, but that they didn't own their house is
not at all significant.  Most well-off people in England at that time,
if they lived in cities, did not own their houses, but had them on
long-term leases (as the Wilcoxes did with all their houses except
Howards End).  The land you owned was somewhere other than where you
lived, and provided you with your income.  Getting the "freehold" of a
piece of property in a city was quite an achievement, as the land had
been bought up long ago.  It's quite a different mindset than we have in
the US now, where buying a house is quite an ordinary procedure.  And
part of the attraction of Howards End is that it is indeed a piece of
property -- Mrs. W. inherited it, quite separately from anything her
husband owns.

>Their brother warns Helen against bankrupting herself by giving money to
>Leonard Bast.  

Sure -- if she gives him all of her year's income, she'll have nothing
to live on.

Jon Alan Conrad
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: "Reservoir Dogs" review. (DO NOT) See this film!
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:54:47 GMT

In article <5861@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>From article <1992Sep9.034811.25086@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, by gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart):
>> In article <1992Sep9.002213.4738@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au> braca2@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au (BRAY CHRISTOPHER) writes:
>>>jjonsson@alexandria.lib.utah.edu writes:
>
>>>>BOYCOTT RESERVOIR DOGS! Do not see this film unless you appreciate 
>>>>unbelievable amounts of ultra-graphic violence, unrelenting racism, 
>
>>>That covers most of the Western Civilisations youth (usually male).  Next
>>>please.
>
>> Western?  Excuse me, but what part of the world would you consider to be
>> the seat of pacificity?  And would that area not be one of the Totally
>> Impotent With Regard To Having Some Possibility of Affecting the Rest of
>> the World?
>
>This has nothing to do with the film any more, but how do you arrive
>at the conclusion that unrelenting racism and ultra-graphic violence
>is a prerequisite for having a possibility to affect the rest of the
>world?  A truly loopy comment (or a classic example for quoting out of
>context).  

Firstly, the entire context has been included, so I'm not sure what you're
talking about re: context.

Secondly, you're right in that your post has nothing to do with the film.

Thirdly, this conclusion you speak of doesn't seem to follow from previous
posts.  Or, I might be misinterpreting your post to be a follow up to mine,
when you might have meant it to be a followup to the original.

Fourthly, the conclusion that my post seemed to say that racism and
violence is a prerequisite for affecting the rest of the world does fit
the definition of "loopy".  It is true, however, that those that cannot
affect others to any great degree, will most probably not be guilty
of great violence or racism, and may be considered by some to be
"pacifists".  Impotence does not necessarily equate to goodness, but
may be mistaken for such.  The fact is that some may be guilty of
wrong acts simply because they are capable of such.  It may be a
sad commentary on human nature, but there it is.

Fifthly, my comments still stand as questioning the apparent conclusion
of the original poster that this racism and violence is the mainly the
exclusive purview of the Western Male.  That conclusion, while I hope not
intended as such by the original poster, is both sexist and racist.

Sixthly, there is no sixth thing, but this may be a placeholder for
my wondering if this is some kind of enumerative record for 
argument response lists.

Replies could probably be e-mailed, but I have no preference unless
others do.

GMS
From: bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Greg Bole)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: <None>
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:22:32 GMT
Organization: HHMI/Human Genetics, Univ of Pa.

In article <1992Sep15.143627.15494@cs.tulane.edu>, jordan@cs.tulane.edu 
(Misti Jordan) writes:
> In article <18r4k9INNqbg@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ca572@cleveland.Freenet.Edu 
>(Mark L. Stackpole) writes:

>> The Princess Bride
> 
> You didn't like this movie?!?!?!
> 
> INCONCEIVABLE!

"You keep usin tha word, I don not thin it means what you thin it means..."

(Sorry...had to do it)  :^)

Greg Bole                                         "Well ya killed the hell 
bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu                       outa that fellow today."
                                                Clint Eastwood in _Unforgiven
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: Dune, embarrassing? - whales
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<BuAnor.E4t@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
	<1992Sep9.144813.27448@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<1992Sep9.165929.25867@unlv.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:37:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.165929.25867@unlv.edu> frank@snooks.isri.unlv.edu
(Frank Jenkins) writes:

   ) Can someone PLEASE tell me what those big whales floating around
   ) in space were?  Its been a while since I've read the book or seen
   ) the movie, but tha one aspect of the film kind of stuck with me.
   ) Weree the whales in Dune in any way related to that huge salami
   ) that came for all the whales in Star Trek IV?????

   I have been wondering also. I think it had something to do with
   those huge, gross creatures that appeared in a tank in one scene
   and intimidated the Jose Ferrer character, but I would appreciate
   someone clearing it up.

I can't believe someone has not already responded to this.

The "whales" in the movie Dune were the representation of Guildsmen,
the mysterious Guild that maintains a monopoly on space travel.  The
"whales" were specific members of the Guild; something like "third
level"?  My memory fails me.

The movie implied that the guildsmen "warped space" by some sort of
personal power.  The book was more reasonable, implying that the
Guildsmen had been selected for centuries to use a spice trance to
find their way along space lanes and avoid collisions.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: citrin@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Wayne Citrin)
Subject: Re: Sky Pirates and Walker
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:24:09 GMT

In article <Bu6LID.1Mo@research.canon.oz.au> simon@research.canon.oz.au (Simon Walmsley) writes:
>
>The other film that my friends would chose would be: "Walker" (starring Ed
>Harris) - I actually enjoyed this film, with its very clever method of slagging
>US continual interference in Central America. My friends all hated it.
>Any other opinions?
>

I felt that this film was a failure, but it was a very bold failure, and
I respect it for that.  The story could have been much more coherent,
and it would have been a much better film, even if they did leave in the
helicopters and Time magazine.

Wayne

-----------
Wayne Citrin   citrin@soglio.colorado.edu   citrin@cs.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: hopkins@agora.rain.com (Scott Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Most Embarassing Movie
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 23:41:28 GMT

In article <187s3mINN694@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cb366@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark B. Bendiksen) writes:
>
>Casey Hopkins writes:
>
>> The only scene I found to be somewhat funny is when John Candy was
>>telling the story of leaving his child in a funeral parlor and how he didn'
>>t talk for two-three months.  But, I was the only one laughing in the
>>entire theater on that scene!
>
>Wow!  Deja vu!  I had the same experience!  I, too saw the film
>after it had been out a while. I laughed hysterically at the scene
>you mentioned plus the point at which Candy's telling Catherine
>O'Hara's character about his polka music. But, I, too, was the
>only one laughing in the theater. However, when the slapstick
>scenes hit in the last twenty minutes, the theater was filled
>with the high-pitched wails of pre-pubescent laughter.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one with a wicked sense of humor!
"pre-pubescent laughter"?  Yeah, that is a pretty good explanation!
>
>AAAUUUUGGHHHHHHH!

Again, that describes the movie quite well!

>P.S.  I did admit chuckling at the pizza delivery scene towards the
>     beginning. I wish the rest of the movie had been that clever.
>     Oh well......

Yeah, I guess I kind of chuckled too!  Then again, those were the only two
jokes that the commercials didn't show.  What?  You mean there were other 
jokes?  Where?

			-Casey Hopkins
			hopkins@agora.rain.com
			?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies