HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wbarnes@sura.net (Bill Barnes)
Subject: Re: ALIENS 1-2-3
Organization: SURAnet, College Park, MD, USA, NA, Earth, Milky Way
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:08:30 GMT

In article <66905@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
>In article <9223913.16604@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> jamesbs@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (JJ Glamma) writes:
>>3) There is a remote link to the Sulaco aboard the APC.
>Why do you make this assumption?

We don't need to assume anything - there was a transmitter for bringing
the other dropship down, it was on board the APC, and unfortunately for
them it got toasted.  I refer you to this little scene in Operations:

Ripley:  I mean, there must be some way to bring the other dropship from
the Sulaco down on remote.
Hudson:  How?!  The transmitter was on the APC, it's wasted!

>The APC was not destroyed (at least, not until the whole thing blew up).

Huh?  Did you miss the bit where the dropship smashed into the APC and
they both blew up?  If so, did you also miss the bit where Hicks goes,
"This is absolutely everything we could salvage from the APC's
wreckage."?  And if you missed that, did you also miss the aforementioned
line of Hudson's?  What were you doing during this movie, anyway?

>Which implies that the APC does not have a link to the Sulaco (or else
>they would have used it).  Which implies that the only way to get the
>second dropship down is to use a land-based signal that may (or may not)
>exist on the planet they are on.

Considering I just refuted both your points with lines and scenes from the
movie, your conclusion is invalid.  Please try again.
-- 
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: ega015@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Robert Edge)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Watchmen
Date: 1 Sep 92 11:10:18 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing at Lancaster University, UK.


	Can anybody tell me any more news on turning Alan Moores
	Comic book "Watchmen" into a movie.
	The last i heard was that Terry Gilliam was going to direct it.
	Thanks.

			Robert....
				ega015@comp.lancs.ac.uk
				ega015@cent1.lancs.ac.uk
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: ALIENS 1-2-3
Date: 26 Aug 92 10:34:53 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <1992Aug25.194940.18145@iplmail.orl.mmc.com>, by mwilson@orl.mmc.com (Mark Wilson):
> In article 5796@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at, mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>>Why is there no crew on the ship?
 
> I believe Chekov (Russian writer and director) admonishes 
> directors not to add anything not required by the plot.

Yes, but of course Chekov assumes that the plot is plausible.  We are
not a talking about plot add-ons, but about plot HOLES.  See the
difference?  SF films are based on creating a moderately
self-consistent universe.  Aliens violates common sense continuously.

> Adding a bunch of crew to
> the ship would not move the story so they should be left out. 

Sort of like there being nobody in Casablanca except for Bogart,
Bergman, the piano player, the police chief, and the Nazis.

> More likely Sulaco is a transport/cargo ship with some modifications to 
> support the marine operation as just one stop on it's route. 

Well, then it should really have a crew, shouldn't it?  Look at the
Nostromo.  (Counterargument: Technology has advanced, intelligent
machines can take care of that.  But then there should have been a
intelligent machine on board that could have supported operations on
the ground)
 
> The role of the ship is two fold. It is a place for us to meet the cast
> and to develop some of the relationships. And, we need the cargo handler to 
> even the odds for hand-to-hand combat in a bodacious cat fight.

Yes.  And it does not fit that role convincingly.  Like a terminator
with a cold.


-- 
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: dtgordon@unix1.tcd.ie (Damian Gordon)
Subject: rec.arts.sf.alien
Summary: set up newsgroup or faql for alien(s)(3)
Keywords: new, newsgroup, faql
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:58:39 GMT

I really think it's about time someone considered
setting up a rec.arts.sf.alien or a r.a.sf.movies.alien.
Seriously, I certainly think the Alien trilogy is
worthy of a newsgroup of its own.
At least, could someone start an Alien FAQL ?


--
* When he shall die, take him and cut him into little stars, and he will  *
* make the face of heaven so fine that all the world will be in love with *
* night, and pay no worship to the garish sun.  ** Romeo & Juliet **      *
* Gene Roddenberry (1921-1991)                                            *
From: ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Alien Cuisine: What did Nipper nibble on?
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:39:11 GMT
Reply-To: ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu
Organization: 3WA, Boston Office. Or Nu Meta Chi. Take your pick.
In-reply-to: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu's message of 26 Aug 92 20:12:15 GMT
X-Get-A-Clue: Have two, they're small.
X-Signature-Virus-Protection: Version 1.51
X-Posting-Software: GNUS 3.14.1 [ NNTP-based News Reader for GNU Emacs ]

>>>>> "JB" == Jeff Bytof <rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu> writes:

JB> Even a hundred or so humans can't be enough food for an egg-producing
JB> queen.  WHAT ELSE DO THEY EAT?

Just about anything/everything. Though with acid blood, they could thrive
off of electrical/electromagnetic energy. They do seem to be attracted to
high-tech gizmos, don't they? (Newt survived *how* long, without any
functional electronics, but when the Marines show up, they go right after
the motion detectors :-).

--Rat

||||| | | | |  |  |  |   |   |    |    |    |   |   |  |  |  |  | | | | | |||||
                                                   __        ___ 
Richard Pieri, Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat/   | /| / /   | The Worlds
Internet: ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu   /__  |/ |/ / /| | Welfare Works
    UUCP: ...!northeastern.edu!meceng!ratinox  /   | /| / / / | | Association:
  BITNET: UA_RLP@NUHUB{.BITNET}               /__  |/ |/ / /  | | I will solve
  USNail: 14 Westdale RD  Holbrook, MA 02343 /   | /| / / /___| | any problem
 ICBMnet: 42 deg 1 min N, 71 deg 0 min W    /    |/ |/ /_//_____| for you.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Subject: Re: ALIEN question
Reply-To: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 23:35:18 GMT

In the referenced article, lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
>> Have you ever heard of the phrase "dumb in joke"?  I don't need people
>> wrecking the plausibility of film props just to show off their literacy. 
>
>If the names of the *ships* made the _Nostromo_ and the _Sulaco_
>implausible to you, it's because you were looking for something to

It's not even that implausible, if you assume that the founder,
president or even the guy in charge of naming ships at the Company (or
the colony command central ship registry) is a big Conrad fan.

Hell, I've named piles of computers after things more esoteric than that.

Complaining about this is about as sensible as complaining about Star
Trek because there's a "Constitution" class starship named the
"Lexington"...gee...how provincial and coincidental. Who cares?

-- 
"When you're down, it's a long way up
 When you're up, it's a long way down
 It's all the same thing
 And it's no new tale to tell"                      ../ray\..
From: ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: AKIRA - Great flick! - But what's it ab
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:33:38 GMT
Reply-To: ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu
Organization: 3WA, Boston Office. Or Nu Meta Chi. Take your pick.
In-reply-to: sm@g2.ph.man.ac.uk's message of 27 Aug 92 13:10:08 GMT
X-Get-A-Clue: Have two, they're small.
X-Signature-Virus-Protection: Version 1.51
X-Posting-Software: GNUS 3.14.1 [ NNTP-based News Reader for GNU Emacs ]

>>>>> "SM" == Steve Mowbray <sm@g2.ph.man.ac.uk> writes:

>Just a little nit, but while the animation was done by hand, much was
>synced up from computer calculations and plots. That's why so much of the
>machinery looks and works like real machinery looks and works, and why the
>vehicle light afterimages look so cool.

SM> And I suppose that explains why, when people were walking/running,
SM> the ground appeared to be sliding out from under them.

Shhhhh! :-) They synced up machinery, not people :-).

--Rat

||||| | | | |  |  |  |   |   |    |    |    |   |   |  |  |  |  | | | | | |||||
                                                   __        ___ 
Richard Pieri, Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat/   | /| / /   | The Worlds
Internet: ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu   /__  |/ |/ / /| | Welfare Works
    UUCP: ...!northeastern.edu!meceng!ratinox  /   | /| / / / | | Association:
  BITNET: UA_RLP@NUHUB{.BITNET}               /__  |/ |/ / /  | | I will solve
  USNail: 14 Westdale RD  Holbrook, MA 02343 /   | /| / / /___| | any problem
 ICBMnet: 42 deg 1 min N, 71 deg 0 min W    /    |/ |/ /_//_____| for you.
From: Bob.Blanchett@f503.n635.z3.fidonet.org (Bob Blanchett)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Possible Foundation movie?
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 01:27:52 +1000

 -=> Quoting Jason Austin to (crosspost 1) All <=-

 ->           "Reported in PUBLISHERS WEEKLY for June 1st: TriStar Pictures,
 ->      on behalf of Roven-Cavallo Entertainment, has purchased the rights
 ->      to Isaac Asimov's FOUNDATION trilogy.  The agreement states that the
 ->      company can produce one theatrical release using materials from
 ->      FOUNDATION, FOUNDATION AND EMPIRE, and SECOND FOUNDATION.  Also
 -> Updates?  Thoughts?  Comments?  Reactions?
 JA> 
 JA> I think and attempt to pack the Foundation story into a few
 JA> hours would end up like Dune.  I read Dune just before seeing the
 JA> movie and was really disappointed at all the great moments that were
 JA> brushed over or left out completely.  I think what would work would be
 JA> to turn it into a long running mini-series.

 Dune the movie was an unmitigated diaster. Better to leave Foundation
 unfilmed than to let Asimov's memory be tarnished by an end product
 that didn't come up to his high standards.

 remember this?

 Opening narration from dune by Princess Irulan: "..Oh I forgot..."
 NOT something you'd expect from one who was BG trained and an imperial
 princess.

 I don't know that that much will come of it, movie companies are always
 buying up prospective stories to stop others from using them, if
 nothing else..

 Personally I wouldn't think it'd film that well, It requires that the
 viewer cope with a very large and longterm view of history, there
 aren't enough battles or gunfights.

 Cheers,
 Bob.

... Uncle Gene; his eyes closed.
 * Origin: Andy's BBS: Melb Australia - 61-3-357-3414 (3:635/503.0)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: wbarnes@sura.net (Bill Barnes)
Subject: Re: Even MORE crap on the Alien trilogy
Organization: SURAnet, College Park, MD, USA, NA, Earth, Milky Way
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:19:38 GMT

In article <2747@nlsun1.oracle.nl> gbradley@uks197.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Bradley) writes:
>wbarnes@sura.net (Bill Barnes) writes...
>> Gee, she sees from the APC all these colonists plastered to the wall with
>> these rather suspicious (and probably familiar) holes in their chests.
>> Hmmm.  Isn't it possible for her to figure out on her own, "Oh my God,
>> they're using them as *hosts*!"?  She seems to be a reasonably intelligent
>> individual (certain surrogate-daughter-rescue-scenes notwithstanding 8-)
>> and she has some idea how the Aliens reproduce, and it does make sense,
>> so maybe...
>  Aha! I knew someone would try this one! You're forgetting one
>important factor...all those colonists are dead, except ONE (which I
>counted in my original argument). There is NO EVIDENCE to Ripley at all
>that they were coccooned while alive. Of course they is no evidence to
>say they were cocooned while dead, either. My point is that as far as
>Ripley can deduce, Aliens kill you immediately, then do what they like.
>All the EVIDENCE she has seen so far (from Alien AND Aliens) should have
>made her say "Newt is fucked, let's GO!!". Hence, I still say that
>Ripley saying "They don't kill you" is a convenient plot hole in Aliens.

You're forgetting, I think, about the woman cocooned up against the
wall which then has a chestburster come out of it - she saw this
happen *before* any of her comments later about how the Aliens don't
kill you.  I don't know about you, but *I* managed to figure out by
then what the Aliens were doing, I hadn't even seen Alien yet at that
point!  Why couldn't Ripley?

I also didn't even bother to point out the fact that after Newt was
snatched and Ripley screams, "They don't kill you, they-!  She's
ALIVE, she's ALIVE!"  she didn't seem to be thinking too logically.  A
mother's love...
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Has the new BLADERUNNER movie come out yet??
From: kuchar@buast7.bu.edu (Tom Kuchar)
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:02:00 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

It will be part of this years's Boston Film Festival, but it will
have a one day showing during the run of the Festival.  I'm not
sure if it will have a wider release in Boston after the festival.
But at least you can be assured that it is coming out and very soon.

I think I read either in this group or alt.cult-movies that it
will be released 11 Sept.  I'm not sure if this is meant as a wide
release or a `special limited engagemen't release.




-- 
Tom Kuchar			  
kuchar@buast7.bu.edu		  -or-                      kuchar@plh.af.mil
Department of Astronomy		                     Phillips Laboratory/GPOB
Boston Univerity		                                  Hanscom AFB
From: gbradley@uks197.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Bradley)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Even MORE crap on the Alien trilogy
Date: 26 Aug 92 10:41:17 GMT
Reply-To: gbradley@uks197.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Bradley)

wbarnes@sura.net (Bill Barnes) writes...

> Gee, she sees from the APC all these colonists plastered to the wall with
> these rather suspicious (and probably familiar) holes in their chests.
> Hmmm.  Isn't it possible for her to figure out on her own, "Oh my God,
> they're using them as *hosts*!"?  She seems to be a reasonably intelligent
> individual (certain surrogate-daughter-rescue-scenes notwithstanding 8-)
> and she has some idea how the Aliens reproduce, and it does make sense,
> so maybe...

  Aha! I knew someone would try this one! You're forgetting one
important factor...all those colonists are dead, except ONE (which I
counted in my original argument). There is NO EVIDENCE to Ripley at all
that they were coccooned while alive. Of course they is no evidence to
say they were cocooned while dead, either. My point is that as far as
Ripley can deduce, Aliens kill you immediately, then do what they like.
All the EVIDENCE she has seen so far (from Alien AND Aliens) should have
made her say "Newt is fucked, let's GO!!". Hence, I still say that
Ripley saying "They don't kill you" is a convenient plot hole in Aliens.

+---------------------+------------------------------------------+
| Gary Bradley        |   "You receive a love letter from me and |
| ORACLE Corp, UK     |                  you're f*cked forever!" |
| Edinburgh, SCOTLAND |        - Frank Booth ("Blue Velvet")     |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------+
| "God damn the censor man"                                      |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: wbarnes@sura.net (Bill Barnes)
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Alien^3? How much bandwidth do we have?
Organization: SURAnet, College Park, MD, USA, NA, Earth, Milky Way
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:02:54 GMT

In article <2748@nlsun1.oracle.nl> gbradley@uks197.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Bradley) writes:
>   See previous post. However, the majority of the colonists are already
>dead. This is not weakening my argument. No one can tell if they were
>alive or dead when they were taken there - least of all Ripley. Though
>common sense would indicate they were dead to make it easier for the
>Aliens to move and coccoon so many people. think about what exactly
>Ripley has seen the Aliens do with her OWN EYES...she would NOT claim
>"they don't kill you" based on what she has SEEN. Why would she make
>total guesses about Alien behaviour when she has first hand EVIDENCE
>contradicting those guesses??

Sir, I think you're showing all the devotion (and intelligence) of one
so sure of one's theory that one is unwilling to listen to dissuading
arguments and/or dismiss them without thinking about them.  I know,
I've been there a few times myself.  Therefore, I will try to be gentle:
[grab Bradley and shake vigorously until his teeth rattle]
WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU, WHY WON'T YOU LISTEN TO REASON?!

Ahem.  Now I'll try to be logical:

1)  Ripley has seen two cases of chestbursters, the guy on the Nostromo
(I forgot his name) and the woman on the wall in Aliens.  In both instances,
the host is alive, until the chestburster emerges, whereupon the host
is quite decidedly dead.  So, she can deduce, "OK, it needs to impregnate
a live host."

2) She sees all of the colonists on the walls with these odd holes in
their chests (at least, I gathered from her reaction she recognized
the holes in their chests - if you want to be nitpicky, you might
argue she couldn't tell, based on the low resolution pictures she was
getting in the APC).  She deduces, "These people were used as hosts.
Hosts must be alive.  Therefore, these people were captured and
immobilized, i.e. they weren't killed, so they could be used as hosts.
The chestburster emerged, killing them."  (I managed to figure this
out on my own, without having seen Alien, i.e., I didn't have Ripley's
foreknowledge of the Aliens, so I don't see why she couldn't as well.)

Still with me?  Did that all make sense?  OK, now please explain to me
again why you think Ripley figuring out the Aliens' reproductive
cycle (living hosts are impregnated with facehuggers, when possible
these hosts are captured and immobilized) on her own is a plot hole...
-- 
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: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Alien^3?
Date: 23 Aug 92 18:30:55 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <2721@nlsun1.oracle.nl>, by gbradley@uks197.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Bradley):
>    Okay, I've taken a lot of time in reading your article and a lot of
> the points you make seem very valid. However, I must disagree with your
> hammering of gore. The major point of the follow up is this: EACH TO THEIR OWN.

But who says that "your own" and that of other gore-fans is something
good?  As gore-oriented films go, it may have been good.  As sf films
or horror films go, gore often means nothing but lack of imagination
and exploitation of bad taste.
-- 
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: beh10@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Holsinger)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Alien^3? How much bandwidth do we have?
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:28:25 GMT
Reply-To: beh10@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Holsinger)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Aug31.170030.12546@syma.sussex.ac.uk> michaell@cogs.susx.ac.uk (Michael Lazarou) writes:
>
>Absolutely. I can't understand people who enjoyed Alien^3. It was shite. A
>complete load of tosh. Start to finish a waste of time.

Completely.

>
>The first 2 films were completely different but both incredible films. 

Yessiree.

>Alien^3 had nothing going for it. *NO* suspense, no plot, special effects were
>yawnarama, no identifiable characters.

Add to that no understandable dialog.

>
>Bollox.
>

Just call it crap, nothing fancy.

--
Barry Holsinger       | I ain't git'n et by no gators to make my wage!
Sunnyvale, CA         | There are better ways to make a buck in dis
beh10@DUTS.amdahl.com | nutty town!!  -Ralph Snart
From: t9014201@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Possible Foundation movie?
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:26:07 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Organization: RMIT (Bundoora Campus)

In article <94674@bu.edu>, shimkevi@buchmf.bu.edu (Sergey Shimkevich) writes:
> In article <urf.714728061@sw2001> urf@icl.se (Urban F) writes:
> 
>>>Any other science fiction classics you'd like to see transported to
>>>the screen, and think they could be done well?
> 
>>Is is too soon to nominate Friday as a classic? I also think Glory Road
>>could be made into a good movie. Also The Forever War and All My Sins
>>Remembered.
> 
> I would rather not see "The Forever War". I didn't like the book at all, sort
> of like a black-and-white leftist answer to Heinlein's "Starship Troopers". 
> Now a REAL version of "Starship Troopers" is another story.
> 
> Please do not followup with flames about TFW, this is only my opinion.

There hasn't ever been a good serious Space Opera Movie of the type Niven or 
Iain Banks writes.  Star Wars was fun, but it was Buck Rogers, not Foundation.

My personal dream is to see Micheal Moorcock's Dancers at the End of Time
turned into a huge $200,000,000 trilogy of Movies.  
It has amazing wild visuals...  Larger than life characters...  Colour, Music,
Aliens, Romance, Time Travel, Sex, and a happy ending.
A perfect movie.
> 
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> // Ryan: What is it to you, demon?       //// Sergei Shimkevich             //
> // Lune: It is Sir, Demon to you, worm!  //// shimkevi@buchmf.bu.edu        //
> // -Phantasy Star III                    ////                               // 
-- 

--
* Clouds...  Love...  Stars... Colours... *
                                     Greg McPherson * T9014201@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies