HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sdt8s@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Steve Tilson)
Subject: Re: Alien 3
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:53:28 GMT

Nigel.Bamford@newcastle.ac.uk  writes:
> 
> 
> Why all the bitching about how "bad" alien 3 is ? I personally thought
> it was quite good, much better than the predictable aliens (one of the
> most blatant cases of formulae film making I've seen in recent years).

I disagree, but...

> 
> 
> Perhaps some people who use this and alt.cult-movies for discussion
> would have been happier with the film if it had a BIG director, a BIG
> cast, BIG sets etc.etc.

Aliens did not have these things, either. Despite the success
of T1, it was Aliens that thrust James Cameron into the
limelight. He was just an above-average director of grade-B
action flicks till then. The "BIG cast" consisted of mostly
unknown actors (and there were fewer of them than in Alien 3). 


And frankly, as regards Alien 3, I would have been satisfied
with a decent plot.
>


> I think that perhaps one or two people were expecting just a tad too
> much when they whent to see this film. 

Probably true. But the first two had set such standards of
quality that I felt justified in expecting a lot.

And as for plot holes, well
> there realy arn't too many films out there which don't have plot holes
> if you look hard enough.

That's certainly true.

> 
> -Nige.
> 
> Nigel.Bamford@newcastle.ac.uk
Steve
--
You are a true believer. Blessings of the state, blessings of the masses.
Thou art a subject of the divine, created in the image of man by the masses,
for the masses. Let us be thankful we have an occupation to fill. Work 
hard...increase production...prevent accidents...and be happy. (THX-1138)
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: ALIEN question
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:54:40 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@pmax1.cis.pitt.edu

In article <5803@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>Nostromo is the main character in that book.  Sulaco is the town where
>he lives.  Whoever picked the name Sulaco for the ship in Aliens
>should be flogged and declared void of intelligence.  That two ships

	Wake up on the wrong side of the planet today?

	Have you ever heard of the phrase "IN JOKE"? I think it's a 
very nice one. Not obvious at all unless you've read Conrad (I never
heard of him before I started reading this group), and they're
nice names, well outside of the usual run of starship names.

                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
From: exukozi@exu.ericsson.se (Tom Koziatek)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: ALIENS 1-2-3
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:48:46 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems

In article <3ycnscd@lynx.unm.edu> lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
>exukozi@exu.ericsson.se (Tom Koziatek) writes:
>
>> ...in war one should expect the unexpected. Always have a backup.
>> There should have been at least another pilot on the Sulaco, just for
>> emergencies. To assume that two separated vehicles cannot both become
>> casualities is pure insanity. 
>
>It wasn't "war" -- it was a possible downed transmitter on some backwater
>planet being colonized by a Weyland-Yutani terraforming team.  W-Y and the
>Marines know there "might" be an alien presence on the planet, but hey,
>it's just the word of one screwup pilot who managed to lose an entire
>refinery ship; maybe she made up the "alien" story to cover her ass.  So
>they send in a compliment of Marines to keep W-Y happy. 

Those guys had WAY too much firepower to be just to placate W-Y, even with a
green lt.


>Yes, the Marines weren't sufficiently prepared to handle the
>circumstances.  Well, we knew the circumstances, but the Marines didn't. 

Still, no backups is sheer folly. 

>They thought they were going in to wet-nurse a bunch of stupid corporate
>colonist types. 

Then you send some techies with spare parts, with maybe one middle aged
security guard with a potbelly. Just to be safe, bive him a shotgun.
                                                 ^^^^ give, actually

>It's a screw-up, but the history of military and corporate culture is
>*full* of similar screw-ups.  It hardly makes the movie less believable.   

Going from the cost estimate, firepower, etc, two techs with parts in a
fast shuttle would do the job. The Sulaco looked like a fully equipped
battlecruiser with troops. Thats a lot of overkill for a 'possible'
downed transmitter, no matter how big the company.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Death is the Ultimate Victor............            
                                                                      -Tom

Note : I don't care that my location shows .se, I'm in Dallas !!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Alien Cuisine: What did Nipper nibble on?
Date: 26 Aug 1992 20:31:12 GMT
Organization: sio
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu



>After Nipper (an attempt to personalize an Alien here) leaves Kane dead
>in the Nostromo's mess hall, How Did It get so BIG?  Did it drink
>water all day in the "room where it rains" or did it break into
>the food stores, like a nasty tribble?  Does it eat most anything?
>Metal, plastic, cloth?.  Does it wash it all down with sulphuric acid?

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

Obviously, "molecular acid" could come in different forms, depending
on its intended function.  One form is the defense mechanism.  Another
form with different end groups could be useful as a means
of selectively digesting a variety of substances.  Still another would help 
the Alien in its nest building activities by dissolving material and then
mixing it with an epoxy and regurgitated (or excreted from special
orifices).  

I propose that the Alien could consume a variety of materials, but with
that sort of weird biology, what food gives it the most energy??? 

Jeff Bytof
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Alien^3? How much bandwidth do we have?
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:26:23 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <2744@nlsun1.oracle.nl> gbradley@uks197.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Bradley) writes:

>   If you mean stated in "Alien", you are wrong. It is not. And when
>Parker and Lambert are attacked, the Alien kills them there IS NO DOUBT
>about this - we see the Alien's inner mouth piercing Parker's thoat.

Hmmm....  I'm going to have to go back and re-watch this scene.  I could
have sworn it crushed his skull....

As for Lambert.  They don't show anything happen to her at all....  Just a
scream


-- 
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."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: jamesbs@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (JJ Glamma)
Subject: Re: ALIENS 1-2-3
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 03:43:09 GMT

gbradley@uks197.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Bradley) writes:

>From article <1992Aug21.120846.15341@engage.pko.dec.com>, by
>boyajian@rub writes...

>> (Soothing, as to a small child) Well, you know, they did not really
>> intend to wait so long to get off the planet.  They just couldn't
>> because they had lost their dropship and there was nobody on the ship
>> to figure out that perhaps a crashed dropship meant they were in
>> trouble.  So perhaps half of them would have been saved.  But of
>> course, that would have reduced the body count.  So instead of finding
>> a credible excuse, we just leave the viewer with an incredible
>> premise.

>    I agree 100% with this. This is a plot hole in Aliens. The only way
>they could justify leaving no one on the Sulaco during the mission was
>that the computers on board were smart enough to act as human overseers
>or backup. And if this were so, a destroyed dropship would mean the
>marines needed help, drop the second ship on automatic.

There is no plot hole, if you think about the way the marines deploy their
equipment. The following four facts are from the film...

1) There is a second dropship on the Sulaco.

2) It can be brought down by remote control by Bishop and (presumably) Ferro,
and maybe even by other members of the squad (Spunkmeyer?)

3) There is a remote link to the Sulaco aboard the APC.

4) Once the dropship drops the APC, the dropship and the APC are kept apart.
(The dropship was not used to carry the APC to the processing station.)

Conclusion...

The marines can be evacuated either by their dropship or by the second dropship
from SULACO. The only way they cannot get off is if both the dropship and the
APC are destroyed. (Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens.) To this end,
they make sure that the dropship and APC are kept apart, to minimize the chance
of both being destroyed.

Unfortunately for them, this is a movie 8^)


-- 
  ___  __  __  __  ___ 
  \  \ \/ /  \ \/ /  /  WEYLAND-YUTANI BIOWEAPONS DIVISION
   \  \  /    \  /  /   "Bringing The Universe Back Home."
    \  \/  /\  \/  /    ------------------------------------
     \    /  \    /     JJ Glamma aka James William Bennetts
      \  / /\ \  /      jamesbs@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU
       ~~  ~~  ~~   
 Building Better Worlds
From: vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Inconsistent science in SF films
Date: 28 Aug 92 01:56:31 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

In <15161@umd5.umd.edu> walrus@bessel.umd.edu (Grig Larson) writes:

>In Total Recall, there was a HUGE problem of their concept of air pressure.
>Now, I'm no physicist, but I do know some stuff about air pressure.  I
>really doubt that if you were thrown out unprotected into the martian air,
>and dispite a huge part of oxygen was tossed out of a volcano near you,
>that your eyes would bug out and then they would get better with no apparent
>damage.

If that's what there giving AR awards for, I'd better line up for mine.

I couldn't agree with you more!

Vern Nelson
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: Petri.Wessman@hut.fi (Petri Wessman)
Subject: Alien^3? Loved it.
Reply-To: Petri.Wessman@hut.fi
Organization: La Gata Encantada
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:59:32 GMT

On 31 Aug 92 17:00:30 GMT, michaell@cogs.susx.ac.uk (Michael Lazarou) said:

[some spoilers]







Michael> Absolutely. I can't understand people who enjoyed Alien^3. It
Michael> was shite. A complete load of tosh. Start to finish a waste
Michael> of time.

Disagree.


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

Agree with you one this one, but...


Michael> Alien^3 had nothing going for it. *NO* suspense

No suspense? No suspense?!? Hmmm... were we watching the same movie?
Just how many spoilers had you read before seeing it?


Michael> no plot

Whazzat? It definitely had a plot, concerning finding yourself trapped
with the thing *without* the gung-ho firepower of _Aliens_, but
knowing just about what you were up against. No, the plot wasn't
cheerful (something that seems to bother a lot of people) and yes, the
plot had holes in it, but it *was* a workable plot if you accepted the
basic premise (i.e. that Ripley had a critter inside her).


Michael> special effects were yawnarama

Oh, I suppose you wanted some show-off morphing (T2) or some nice
futuristic ILM spaceships whizzing about? Must have been a shock to
have to watch good actors in a spartan, gritty enviroment. A3 used
"special effects" in the places where they were needed, not *everywhere*
("see how much money we dumped into this amazing computer animation!
 Whee!". Sigh, go rent T2 or the Lawnmower Man or something...


Michael> no identifiable characters.

Hnh? How about Ripley, the medic & the black "spiritual leader"? I
found all their characters believable and well portrayed. If by
"identifiable characters" you mean Heroes(tm) who waltz off into the
Hollywood sunset at the end of the film, no, it didn't have those.
Guess you missed the point of the film. It wasn't about survival, it
wasn't about humanity kicking the shit out of Bug Eyed Monsters, it
was about death and the courage it takes to face death. A requiem, if
you like... the Good Guys don't always win.

One of the things I loved about the movie was the way it avoided most
of the bad Hollywood cliches. Like the scene with Ripley and medic,
with Ripley asking him (pretty stright off) if he felt like having sex
with her. The next scene shows them *afterwards*, and the main plot
continues... most US movies would have had an extended lovemaking
scene at this point, A3 skipped that because it simply wouldn't have
fitted in with the feel of the film.

All things considered, I can well understand why US viewers hate the
film. It's simply not a happy film, and that's a bad blow to a
generation that has been brough up to believe that heroes always win
and the Happy End triumphs. Personally I respect Fincher for giving us
the film that he did, must have taken guts to push through such an
uncompromisingly harsh vision. I can just imagine the hordes of film
company executives screaming "you just can't do that in an American
film!". Bravo.

//Petri
From: marc@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Marc Goldman)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Plot holes in Alien^3 (*S
Date: 2 Sep 92 09:30:07 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing at Lancaster University, UK.

In article <2999.274.uupcb@thcave.no> morten.steinhauer@thcave.no (Morten Steinhauer) writes:
>
>sjurk@dhhalden.no (SJUR KRISTIANSEN) wrote:
>
>  > - Why did the facehugger in the opening bleed acid? because it wanted to???
>  >   It must have been hurt in some way, but there was no signs of that 
>  >   happening...
>
>        It may have been damaged when it tried to get through one of
>        the cryo tubes.

I always assumed that the face huggers could use acid to get at thier
victims. If you go back to the first film, the face hugger found little
problem getting through John Hurts helmet.

I thought it used it's acid for this.

Marc

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      **     **      *  ****** ***    *   |             On the net,
     ** *    **     *** **     ** *   *   |     no-one can hear you scream!
    **   *   **     *** ****   **  *  *   |-------------------------------------
   **     *  **     *** **     **   * *   |  email   marc@comp.lancs.ac.uk
  **       * ******  *  ****** **    **   |      marc@computing.lancaster.ac.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: welter@fwi.uva.nl (Richard Welter)
Subject: Re: ALIENS 1-2-3
Organization: FWI, University of Amsterdam
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:22:04 GMT

u906789@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (Mark Julian Turner) writes:

>welter@fwi.uva.nl (Richard Welter) writes:

>>u906789@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (Mark Julian Turner) writes:

>>>Events: 1.Dropship lands - APC drives off, dropship then lands somewhere else.
>>>        2.Marines & co. drive off to atmosphere processor.
>>>        3.Spunkmyer takes equipment to Bishop.
>>>        4.Marines get in a spot of bother(Ferro & Spunkmyer both know this but
>>>          only think Aliens are under the AP.)
>>>        5.Alien gets on dropship, DS takes off then crashes due to Alien
>>>          killing Ferro. DS destroys APC in the crash.

>>>Simple.

>>And also very stupid, leaving your door open in enemy territory without guard.

>It *wasn't* "enemy territory". Also people do make mistakes; things go wrong;
>noones perfect...

Of course it was enemy territory, they'd just found the colony with signs of
heavy fighting, you don't say "oh maybe they left after taking away all 
colonists", and then sit there like an idiot while the enemy could be anywhere.
And they aren't supposed to make stupid mistakes like that, they're highly
trained marines. 

-- 
*                         X      Computer Science                   /        *
*    Richard J. Welter   |X|  University of Amsterdam           \  /         *
*                         X                                     CIAmiga      *
*      "Marshmallows! Ben, where are those hickory sticks?!"  - Jerry        *
From: smintz@sedona.intel.com (Stephen Mintz exp 11/92~)
Subject: Re: SOMETHING OTHER ALIENS TALK (fave films on video)
Originator: smintz@alamo
Organization: Intel Corporation
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:53:37 GMT


BTW as an asside, I got to the sneak preview of sneakers last night....I recomend
it highly!!!
Stephen
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: Onno.Meyer@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Onno Meyer)
Subject: Re: ALIENS 1-2-3
Organization: University of Oldenburg, Germany
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 08:13:22 GMT

boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com (Two days and a wake-up...) writes:

>In article <dejohn.714385608@unix1.tcd.ie>, dejohn@unix1.tcd.ie (derek edward john) writes...

>} Just a few points here about aliens,

>Because they thought the whole trip was going to be a cake-walk.

>} Judging by the shots of their ship it looked the size of an aircraft
>} carrier at least.

>I don't know. I never really got a feel for the size of it. What are you
>measuring it against?

In the pictures of the alien queen falling out of the ship, there is a
white square indicating the airlock. I'd say the ship is more than ten
"airlocks" wide, and the airlock size is perhaps 4-5m (estimated from the
interior shots). This would give 40m*60m*400m for the sulaco.
-- 
* Onno Meyer - Kastanienallee 40 - 2900 Oldenburg - Deutschland  *
*     e-mail: Onno.Meyer@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de        *
* Mathe-Student, und auch etwas Informatik...                    *
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: jamesbs@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (JJ Glamma)
Subject: Re: ALIENS 1-2-3
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 03:47:51 GMT

mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:

>military, especially.  Have you ever wondered why the US Navy uses so
>many twin-engined aircraft?  Heavier, larger, more difficult to
>maintain?  Because ejecting over the sea is not pleasant, though still
>less so than sitting on a planet, with your only means of escape being
>a beautiful ship sitting incommunicado hundreds of kilometers above
>you.  A single man (or two) are very cheap as backups go.

Communications are not the problem. If they could call their phantom backup
pilot, they could bring #2 down on remote.

>(Btw, the separated pilot does not matter, since he's no use without the
>dropship and he's not needed to use the transmitter in the APC.)

I beg to differ. Dropship #2 has to be *piloted*, it can't fly itself. Bishop
himself states that he was the only one "qualified to remote-pilot the ship
anyway."

>> Now, maybe he made a mistake, and there should have been more redundancy... but
>> it seems a credible enough decision to me.

>No. :-)

Fair enough, but it does to me.
-- 
-----------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
JJ Glamma                          | "Doctor, I can have an airstrike here in 
aka James William Patrick Bennetts |  minutes."
jamesbs@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU         | "That won't do any good, Brigadier!"
-----------------------------------+ "No, I didn't think so."
A bird in the hand is messy.	   | 	-- Doctor Who:Battlefield
-----------------------------------+-------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: welter@fwi.uva.nl (Richard Welter)
Subject: Re: ALIENS 1-2-3
Organization: FWI, University of Amsterdam
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:42:40 GMT

u906789@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (Mark Julian Turner) writes:

>Events: 1.Dropship lands - APC drives off, dropship then lands somewhere else.
>        2.Marines & co. drive off to atmosphere processor.
>        3.Spunkmyer takes equipment to Bishop.
>        4.Marines get in a spot of bother(Ferro & Spunkmyer both know this but
>          only think Aliens are under the AP.)
>        5.Alien gets on dropship, DS takes off then crashes due to Alien
>          killing Ferro. DS destroys APC in the crash.

>Simple.

And also very stupid, leaving your door open in enemy territory without guard.

Richard.

-- 
*                         X      Computer Science                   /        *
*    Richard J. Welter   |X|  University of Amsterdam           \  /         *
*                         X                                     CIAmiga      *
*      "Marshmallows! Ben, where are those hickory sticks?!"  - Jerry        *
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: 10726446@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au (LAU WAI KUEN)
Subject: Re: Plot holes in Alien^3 (*S
Organization: Faculty of Engineering, Monash University 
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 02:23:11 GMT

In article <sjurk.25@dhhalden.no> sjurk@dhhalden.no (SJUR KRISTIANSEN) writes:
>From: sjurk@dhhalden.no (SJUR KRISTIANSEN)
>Subject: Re: Plot holes in Alien^3 (*S
>Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:44:02 GMT
>In article <1992Sep2.093007.7744@comp.lancs.ac.uk> marc@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Marc Goldman) writes:
>
>>I always assumed that the face huggers could use acid to get at thier
>>victims. If you go back to the first film, the face hugger found little
>>problem getting through John Hurts helmet.
>
>>I thought it used it's acid for this.
>
>>Marc
>
>Yeah! Right!!! I didn't think of that! Hmmm, that's one of my gripes done 
>with! Thanx!
>                          ___
>SJURK@SOFUS.DHHALDEN.NO  /// I've seen things you  people wouldn't believe. 
>Sjur Kristiansen        /// Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. 
>Ostfold College   ___  /// I watched  C-beams glitter in the dark near the 
>N-1750 Halden      \\\/// Tannhauser gate.  All those moments will be lost
>NORWAY              \/// in time - like tears in rain...       Time to die.

  The facehugger may have used acid to get through Hurt's helmet (it did
look melted after all).  Ripley's cryochamber has _cracked_ glass though-
sharp edges, etc.  Doesn't look melted at all.  The scene you can
see this is right at the start, when they show her in the cryochamber
sorta tossing around; in the flickering light, you can just see the 
glass looks smashed.  In the making of alien^3, they showed the scene
being filmed, and you can clearly see the glass looks shattered.
(Well.... actually, it looks like someone took a hacksaw to it and
cut a starshaped hole in it.  But you get the drift).

Halcyon