HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rdosser@UTKUX1.UTK.EDU (rdosser)
Subject: Re: sound in space
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:22:12 GMT

In article <1e8fgmINN3l2@function.mps.ohio-state.edu> edgar@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar) writes:
>>>How many SF films are realistic enough that they show there is no sound
>>>in space? All I can think of is 2001.
>
>One movie (I forget which) used in its advertising the phrase:
>"In space, no one can hear you scream."
>
>
>-- 
>  Gerald A. Edgar                Internet:  edgar@mps.ohio-state.edu
>  Department of Mathematics      Bitnet:    EDGAR@OHSTPY
>  The Ohio State University      telephone: 614-292-0395 (Office)
>  Columbus, OH 43210             -292-4975 (Math. Dept.) -292-1479 (Dept. Fax)

The film was, of course, Alien, and in the shots outside the Nostromo
early in the film, it makes the standard large-spaceship heavy, low
rushing noise, masking Ripley's voice as she tries to raise traffic
control (Houston or Antarctica? I forget which). I think it's a kick-ass
shot, but it kind of clashes with that "no one can hear you..."
slogan.
From: spongebo@cithara.uucp (THE EYE-BALL KID)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: SF Novels that would make Great Films
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 20:01:39 EST
Organization: Local Testbed for network mail, we trust!

kpapai@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Ken Papai) writes:
> In <40663@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> amedrano@euler.ucsd.edu (Archie Medrano) writes:
> >Isaac Asimov's Robot City series (and Robots & Aliens).
> 
> Asimov totally disclaims the movie that was made from _Nightfall_
> I can see why, because it fairly sucks pretty bad.
> 
> I, ROBOT is an Excellent screenplay that Harlan Ellison wrote and asshole
> producers have not made the movie yet.  The screenplay has been published
> in Asimov's SF magazine 2 - 3 years ago.
> 
> I've also heard the rumors of making the Foundation series into movies.
> That would be fantastic.
> 
> Ken Papai

Books that COULD BE great SF movies?

DYING INSIDE, by Robert Silverberg
TIK TOK, by John Sladek (one of the least aknowledged writers of all 
time!)
BUGS, by John Sladek (see above)

Just thought I'd drop those in on the tail end, here. Why? because each 
book has a compact narrative that would adapt well to Film, without 
losing much in the "trimming phase" that goes into adaptation. Remember, 
books like Foundation are usually too complex for the 120 minute script 
they get crushed into.

Spongebo - THE EYE-BALL KID (:::::-)

spongebo%cithara@comback.login.qc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.sf.written
From: maxson@cerl.uiuc.edu (K R Maxson)
Subject: Re: Are *YOU* Human?
Organization: UIUC Computer-based Education Research Lab
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:30:47 GMT
Keywords: Bladerunner, Philip K. Dick, Replicants

In article <1992Nov16.192643.8619@ugle.unit.no> oscar@Lise.Unit.NO (Rune Aasgaard) writes:
>Question : Was Deckard a replicant or not?
>Philip K. Dick, author of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" - on which the
>movie Bladerunner is based - had this as one of his main themes. One of his
>best short-stories in this respect is "Human Is" to be found in "Volume Two
>of the collected short-stories of Philip K. Dick : Second Variety".
>In my opinion, the point isn't whether Deckard was a replicant or not! It
>doesn't matter one single bit! The question is this : 
>                            What makes us human?
>What are the replicants? They aren't Terminators, T1000's or any such thing!
>They are merely extremely advanced test tube babies, genetically engineered and
>designed, with human DNA as the building piece. They are human in every sense,
>except that they were conceived in a dish and born in a tank. They are freaks,
>they have close to perfect genes, and we "normal" and "not-so-perfect" humans
>hate them for it! Let's kill the bastards!

It has been a while since I read DADOES, but as I recall the genetic
engineering was introducted in the film Blade Runner; replicants in DADOES
were actual, bonafide machines.  In addition, at least many of the replicants
(I'm thinking of the police officer as an exception here) were totally lacking
in what I think Dick called "emotional response."  The question wasn't, I
think, whether the machines were in fact human, but whether humans hadn't
become machines.
From: johnh@xanth.CS.ORST.EDU (John E. Holeman)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: 2001 : What does it mean!!!
Date: 23 Nov 92 23:54:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: flop.1erqv9INN9u4
Organization: Oregon State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: xanth.cs.orst.edu

In article <1992Nov23.194746.1467@digi.lonestar.org> jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (J. Michael Tisdel) writes:
>
>*******SPOILERS*******
>
>of the Monolith Builders.  Kubrick uses Dave's observation of himself as a
>time compression device.  Dave is not actually jumping around the room and
>ageing.  When he is on his death bed, the Monolith appears again and, as it
All in all, I would say you are right on.  I would agree with your statement
about why Dave sees himself if it weren't for the scene where he is outside
the pod and observing himself eating.  The view went between the two at least
twice, and I belive the same occured when he saw himself on the death bed.  I
would say that he WAS jumping into various portions of his life.  I know that
the original poster did not want references to 2010, but in 2010, when
the star child visited Floyd, he "lept" between the different stages of life
that dave cycled through in order to become the star child.  I believe that
each of these "leaps" is a reference to different stages of our life.
The innocence of childhood, the bravery and foolishness of early adulthood,
the widsom and serenity of old age, and the final meeting with death.  Like
you posted, this is all IMHO.  Proper understanding of 2001 leads to alot of
discussion like this...that is one of the things that makes it such a great
movie.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: brad@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Brad Barton)
Subject: Re: sound in space
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:55:07 GMT
Organization: CompuTrac Inc., Richardson TX

In article <1992Nov17.004954.13497@ll.mit.edu> shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham) writes:
>There is also - aptly named - "Silent Run". A politically correct movie about
>a space gardner who kills his co-workers to save his plants.

The movie was "Silent Running", btw.. Politically correct before people
really knew what that phrase meant and released well before the general    
public got truely interested in the environment (early 80's, late 70's?).

Also -- for those that have seen the newest Star Trek: TNG (The Quality of
Life) (No real spoilers), how many of you were reminded of Huey, Dewey, and
Louie from Silent Running while looking at the exocomps?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    Brad Barton -- brad@cmptrc.lonestar.org                  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "No matter how hard you throw a dead fish into the water, it still won't    | 
|  swim."                                                  -- Marian Stevens  |
| "I never lie when I have sand in my shoes, Commodore."   -- Geordi LaForge  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re:  sound in space
From: alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith)
Date: 22 Nov 92 12:26:59 GMT+12
Distribution: world
Organization: Wanganui Amigans, Wanganui, NZ

In article <u906789.722151763@bruny> u906789@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (Mark Julian Turner) writes:
>rchao@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Chao) writes:
>
>>How many SF films are realistic enough that they show there is no sound
>>in space? All I can think of is 2001.
>
>If you're going to complain about "sound in space", what about : who's playing
>all that music you always hear in films. Is there an orchestra(sp?) just of
>screen or what...?

I remember Arthur C Clarke making the same point just after "Star Wars" came
out, in an interview. The interviewer was surprised to hear that Clarke had
liked SW, and asked him if things like sound in space bothered him. Clarke
replied, "Not at all. It's a convention, just like the music."

(I'm quoting from a 14-year-old memory here, of course, so it's probably not
word perfect!)

I'm pretty sure the magazine was "Future Life" (remember it? :-) but beyond
that I can't give any references.

--
...... Ross Smith (Wanganui, NZ) ...... alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz ......
   Mine is the ship bound for Alpha Centauri
   We must be out of our minds
   For though we are shipmates bound for tomorrow
   Everyone here's flying blind                          (Crystal Gayle)
--
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: List of all the Planet of the Apes movies?
Date: 20 Nov 92 05:20:59 GMT
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA

In article <BxuKz6.LDv@ecf.toronto.edu> hora@ecf.toronto.edu (HO ROBERT ANDREW) writes:
>In article <lma.721978693@dayton.Stanford.EDU> lma@dayton.Stanford.EDU (Larry Augustin) writes:
>>Several of the Planet of the Apes movies have been showing up on TV
>>here recently (also the series on the SciFi channel).  Could someone
>>post a list of the movies, along with a one-line description?  Here's
>>what I recall:
>>
>>1. Planet of the Apes - Astronaut Taylor (Charlton Heston) crashes on
>>   Earth in the far future, only to discover that we nuked ourselves
>>   back to the stone age and Apes have taken over.
>>
>>2. Beneath the Planet of the Apes - James Franciscus (??) follows in
>>   Charlton Heston's footsteps, and discovers a group of humans living
>>   underground that worship an atomic bomb.
>>
>>3. ?? (Journey to the Planet of the Apes??)  - I couldn't find anyone
>>   who remembered this one, and I've not seen it.  Somehow we get
>>   around the ending of (2), and 2 talking apes return to present day
>>   Earth.
>>
>
>This one is _Escape from the Planet of the Apes_.  The two apes that 
>befriended Heston in the the first movie (Cornelius and his wife, I think)
>return to 20th century earth in Heston's spaceship (they left just before
>the "end of the world" at the end of number 2.  Despite the cheesy 
>sounding description, this is probably the next best entry in the series
>after the original. .
>
>>4. Conquest of the Planet of the Apes - I
>>   think this one is where the supposedly dead child (Ceasar) of the
>>   talking apes in (3) starts the first rebellion against man.
>>
>>5. Battle for the Planet of the Apes - No idea.
>>
>
>This one is after a world war (I think).  Apes are the dominant species 
>but humans are still intelligent.  Caesar is still in control and has to
>fight off a band of humans living underneath a ruined city.  We get to
>find out whether history will repeat itsellf (i.e. the world will end in
>the 40th century just like in the second movie) or whether apes and humans
>will learn to live together peacefully. 


POTA has been my favorite SCI-FI for a long time.  The movies and TV series
came out in the late 1960's and early 1970's.  They are basically political 
satire much more complex and fascinating that Star Trek.

-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
From: verseman@STL-07SIMA.ARMY.MIL ("Amy N. Verseman")
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Frankenstien
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:53:49 GMT

The only stars of the "True story" I can remember are Michael Sarazin
as the monster and I think David McCallum (Ilya Kuryakin of The
Man From U.N.C.L.E.) as his creator.  I have a feeling that Jane
Seymour may have been the female star, but that could be mini-series
run-off.
Amy V.
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Deckard WAS a replica
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:54:45 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <0Dy6TB2w165w@cithara.uucp>, by spongebo@cithara.uucp (THE EYE-BALL KID):
> Sorry, I guess I might be coming in late on this one

You are.
 
> DECKARD might have been a replicant because:
> 1: he kept pictures (like replicants), impossibly old pictures.

I don't know what "impossibly old" is, but that would qualify half my
relatives as instant replicants.  The photos could simply be a hint on
the similarity between humans and replicants, and indeed work better
that way.  Note that Leon's photos are photos of people and places he
knew.  They were up-to-date, 3D.

> 2: He dreamt of the Unicorn - and EJ Olmos KNEW about that dream. That's 
> why he left the unicorn on the doorstep.

We've had other explanations for that.  Unicorns are a symbol for
purity, and that might have been what Gaff wanted to say about Rachel.

> 3: The MATH was wrong - "Six replicants jumped a shuttle, one got fried 
> in an electrical feild," and Decard is assigned to kill only four. Five 
> when you add Rachel, but she was created on Earth. Who is the extra 
> Replicant?

Certainly not Deckard, unless you are willing to accept he jumped ship
with the others.  Really desperate for arguments, are we?  The sixth
replicant was a piece of dialogue that was not redone when it was
decided to cut the sixth one out of the film.

> 4: When Rachel visits Decard there's a shot where Decards eyes turn red. 

Indeed, there's no doubt this was an intentional hint.  However, they
did not follow up on it, so it does not count for much in the original
edition.  Scott included it in the director's cut, but it still does
not clinch it.  Main reason why Deckard could still not be a
replicant: He is much too slow and too weak to deal with the others
effectively.  Main reason why Deckard should not be a replicant: The
film works much better that way.  This topic has been discussed to
death.
-- 
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: 01fortec@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: sound in space
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:41:13 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <BxvF4B.C8D@cen.ex.ac.uk>, cs92mjd@cen.ex.ac.uk (M.J.Davis) writes:
> In article <BxuFFB.5B6@cs.psu.edu> antunes@astro.psu.edu (Sandy Antunes) writes:
> 
>    >Oh, and the movie was called "Silent Running", and starred a young Bruce Dern,
>    >and is a classic movie in most senses of the word.
>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Eeerrrmm...most senses of _which_ word, exactly? Classic or movie? 
> 
> Best put in a :-), I s'pose.....
> 
> Mikey D
>                               
> --

Both I suppose :-)

And speaking of realism in film, I'm gonna open myself up for a flame.
Star Trek - the Motion Picture ( yup the first one ) was the most realistic
depiction of a space mission I've seen in awhile. Really. It was boring.
Having spent 12 years in the navy, I can tell you that getting from point A
to point B is boring. (in caps, underlined, bolded and exclamation point)
So from that point of view, STTMP was highly realistic. ( had to watch it 
four times to get the whole thing, kept falling asleep)

I will now go find appropriate cover. :-)

Joe 
01fortec@ac.dal.ca

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Dracula (No Spoilers)
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:13:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Nov18.201344.11788
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <dsanders.8.722102127@alexandria.lib.utah.edu> dsanders@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (David Sanderson) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.221824.13683@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>	I sometimes play "spot the matte" with myself at movies. With
>>DRACULA it was too easy to be fun. It's pretty in parts, I grant, but I
>>was not impressed by the production values (or much else).
>>
>>	Wait for the video, folks.
>
>     However, the special effects and scenery are not what this movie is 
>about, it merely helps to provide the mood.  The story of Dracula is a very 
>powerful tale.  It's too bad you spent the whole movie playing "spot the 
>matte" instead letting this wonderful story wrap itself around you.

	Learn to read. I mentioned the mattes (which jumped out at me -
no spotting required) because the post I was responding to claimed "high
production values"; they were not. The real problem, the worst problem
with the film, is that the story's been done at least a dozen times
before on film, and this version simply had no excuse (except money, of
course :-) for being made. The plot was buried under the atmosphere,
Keanu Reeves was horribly miscast, and the rewrite of the character of
Von Helsing was a campy hatchet job that was perhaps inspired by the
desire to cash in on Hopkin's effective portrayal of a lunatic in
SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.

	Yes, it's a powerful tale, the first few times. The old Lugosi
version is great, and my personal favorite. This new version is at best
indifferent.

	Remakes are generally a stupid idea, unless you can improve on
the original. This being true, why are most remakes of films that were
done so well the first time?

-  From the Crow's Nest  -                Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE:    			barry@netcom.com
From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Deckard WAS a replica
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:28:38 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

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

[Arguements about unicorn deleted.]

> 3: The MATH was wrong - "Six replicants jumped a shuttle, one got fried 
> in an electrical feild," and Decard is assigned to kill only four. Five 
> when you add Rachel, but she was created on Earth. Who is the extra 
> Replicant?

Am I missing something?  I realize that I've only seen this movie once,
but I just don't understand your logic.

"Six replicants jumped a shuttle.  One got fried in an electric field."

This leaves FIVE.

"and Decard is assigned to kill only four.  Five when you add Rachel, but she
 was created on Earth.  Who is the extra replicant?"

Well, are you including Rachel or not?  At first it seems you are ("Five when
you add Rachel," and then it seems you aren't "but she was created on Earth.")

So which is it?  Because if you are, then it makes perfect sense.  There are
five.  Decard has to kill 4, and Rachel is the 5th.  The sixth one got fried
in an electric field.  What's the problem?

If you're not including Rachel, why bring her up at all?

-- 
Jorge Diaz                       | "I want you to remember, Clark... in all
Georgia Institute of Technology  |  the years to come, in your most private
Office of Information Technology |  moments...my hand at your throat.  I want
ccoprdj@prism.gatech.edu         |  you to remember the one man who beat you."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: nicolas@stam.nl (Nico Veenkamp)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: George Pal
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 11:21:34 CET
Organization: Stam Tijdschriften bv, Rijswijk, The Netherlands

Just got drafted into doing the video program for next dutch SF 
convention..AGAIN  :-) :-) Naah I'm just a masochist.

Anyway. After this year's retrospective of shlock classics I want to do a 
retrospective of movies directed or produced by George Pal. Pal is the 
one that directed The Time Machine and produced movies like Destination 
Moon and Doc Savage.

What I need is a complete list of movies that Pal was responsible for or 
in anyway worked on. Also ANY info about him, his movies etc. is welcome. 
Does someone know if there is a book, encyclopedia or whatever that I can 
consult for additional information. Does he still live??

Anyone that can help me, please follow here or send me e-mail.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU


      *================================================================*
      |  Nico Veenkamp	        | You write, we publish                |
      |  Stam Tijdschriften bv  | -------------------------------------|
      |  P.O. Box 235           | Internet : nicolas@stam.nl           |
      |  2280 AE  Rijswijk      | FidoNet  : 2:281/1.7                 |
      |  The Netherlands        | BIX      : nicolas                   |
      *================================================================*
From: DUDE@OSWEGO!UB! (Edward G. Farrell )
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: GODZILLA QUESTIONS
Date: 18 Nov 92 13:32:45 GMT
Organization: oswego state


   Just a few questions concerning the new Godzilla

1) In the movie GODZILLA VS. KING GHIDORAH what does the non-mutated dinosaur
look like. I heard that Gojirasaurus was something like a Tyrannosaur. Is this
true. Is there any visual distinction between Godzilla in his pre and post
mutated forms?

2) What does Battra look like in GODZILLA VS. MOTHRA? has anyone seen any pict-
ures yet of this creature?

3) Is DARK HORSE comices going to release an adaption of GODZILLA VS. BIOLLANTE?
If so, when?


thanks                             
                
                                                                      -Ed
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: ses52823@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Marius   )
Subject: Re: New Frankenstein movie(s)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:38:20 GMT

Although I can't remember all the details, the movie was
(I believe) Frankenstein:  The True Story.  There WAS a
monster who was originally a perfect nobleman, but became
progressively more and more hideous.  He stole the scientist's
wife away from him (I think she died later) and the two finally
came to a confrontation at the North Pole aboard some ship.
The Doctor concluded that he was as monstrous as his creation
for trying to create life and ended both their lives by firing
his rifle up into the air, causing an avalanche.

The last words of the movie were Frankenstein's monster smiling
broadly and screaming aloud, "Bravo, Victor.  Bravo!"

A very chilling version of the original story.

* * * * * * 

Marius
ses52823@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

* * * * * *
.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: pejulaju@sandman.cs.hut.fi (Pentti Lajunen)
Subject: Re: Unrealistic space scenes ( was: sound in space )
Reply-To: pejulaju@niksula.hut.fi (Pentti Lajunen)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:17:55 GMT

>Can anyone forget the all time classic of unrealistic space scenes

"Realistic" or "unrealistic", does it matter?
If you'll go deep enough, you'll find there's no such thing as "realistic" in
movies.

>Not only did they have sound in space

Star Wars, Aliens, 2010, .....etc.

>but fires

Return of the Jedi?

>spaceships with "wings" that did banked turns 

X-wing fighters in Star Wars/Empire/Jedi?

>and very convenient large holes in the sides of the big
>ship that let them take off and land freely yet didnt let the air rush out
>into space!

The landing bay of the Death Star in Star Wars and Return of the Jedi?