HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jasstev@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (stevens jason)
Subject: Shutup about Blade Runner
Summary: ksjhdkshd
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:57:16 GMT
Keywords: kshgdjhf

  
  After hurling into my neighbour's lap after seeing yet another Blade Runner/
  Deckard posting, would it not be expedient to stop this mindless posting
  because it is driving mad.
  I wouldn't mind normally but Blade Runner is such a boring film.

  Currently being burned by fan flame for the above sentence,
  Jason.

  ps. Blade Runner is still crap. Harrison Ford thinks so too.
  (oops I did it again)

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: jdunning@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (John Alan Dunning)
Subject: Re: Alien 4 - NOT stop-motion animation!! (and it's a doggie)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:04:27 GMT

In article <92349.130350JTB117@psuvm.psu.edu> <JTB117@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>Hello folks I am writing here to let you in on a secret the process that was
>used for the tunnel shots in A3.  The Alien was a puppet...  so that part
>was partially correct.  You guys almost guessed the proccess they used.  It
>is called Go- motion, however, this is not a new technique.  ILM was using
>it way back in Return of the Jedi.  The process of Go- motion is where a
>puppet is rigged w/ motors and servos and all of it's motions are controled
>by a computer.  If you want more info.  mail me.  Babylon 5 will be out this
>Feb.  on a new channel, Warner Bros.
>
>Again if you would like more info. drop a line.
>I do have to chuckle..."Ray-Tracing???"

Me too.

>Justin
>God Imaging Inc.

Ahhh.  Vindication at last.

But I'm sure Richard Edlund, the Visual Effects Supervisor for A3,
said "mo-motion", not "go-motion", when he was discussing the alien
A3 effects on the "Making of Alien^3" video.  He also indicated that
it was a brand new technique which they invented.  Here's what he
said.

"It forced us to create a technology to handle Fincer's demands.  We
came up with this technique called mo-motion, which consists of a
motion-control robotic camera which you can quickly set up on the
stage and shoot on the sets, and then you put the alien, as a
separately-photographed creature, into another scene."

The puppets in RotJ might have been computer-controlled, but the ones
in A3 were assuredly not.  In the video they showed 6 or 7 guys
controlling one puppet, making it walk in front of a black background.
The only thing which was computer-controlled, it seemed, was the
camera, presumably so that the camera angles in the footage from the
sets and in the footage of the alien would be exactly the same.

Perhaps they did come up with a new technique, and they called it
mo-motion as a play on ILM's go-motion?

John
From: Alec Plumb <aplumb@ucsd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Deckard could be a replicant
Date: 11 Dec 1992 18:23:43 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego - IGPP
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: daveman.ucsd.edu
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d13
X-XXMessage-ID: <A74E1EF1A5010D33@daveman.ucsd.edu>
X-XXDate: Fri, 11 Dec 92 18:33:21 GMT

In article <Bynq5H.Cs4@news.cso.uiuc.edu> Shawna M Benson,
sbenson@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>I hate to barge in on your argument here, but I have something which
might
>or might not be of interest you...
>
>Has anyone ever read the book of the movie? (The smaller one with
pictures).
>Anyway, on page 14, the chief (what was his name again?  Bryan? Ryan?
whatever)
>says that only *5* escaped, not six as he says in the movie. This leads
me to
>believe that either the guy majorly goofed and they left it in or he had 
>Nexus 6 on his mind.  I don't know.  My dad and I have been debating
this for 
>months now, and he showed me the book.  I'm afraid that this is one of
the 
>biggest reasons people believe he is a replicant.  Maybe he could
*still* be
>a replicant, but at least not one of the ones which escaped.

I just saw the Directors Cut a couple weeks ago, and they mentioned that
one
of the six replicants was captured, leading me to think that Deckard
might be that replicant, except in that case he would be a Nexus 6 and so
would have been much stronger, unless they deliberately toned down his
strenght so he would be easier to handle, but then the other Nexus 6's
would
have recognized him, but then again Phil Dick was one twisted dude....

ARGH!!


Alec Plumb       \\                 \\ My opinions are certainly not
aplumb@ucsd.edu   \\   619/558-6969  \\ those of the Regents of the
University of California at San Diego \\ University of California, but
Institute of Geophysics and Planetary  \\ they darn well should be.
               Physics                  \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
From: 01fortec@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Favorite Movie One-Liners
Date: 13 Dec 92 23:18:12 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

This is probably cheating, but my favorite one-liner happened in real
life. It was a magnificent understatement by the pilot of an Apollo 
mission when he announced they had lost a fuel cell. He opens up
with a calm:

"Houston, we have a problem."

No shit, batman!

Joe
01fortec@ac.dal.ca
From: uhschreg@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Ulrich Schreglmann)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Alien 4 - NOT stop-motion animation!! (and it's a doggie)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:52:37 GMT
Organization: CSD., University of Erlangen
NNTP-Posting-Host: faui03j.informatik.uni-erlangen.de

<JTB117@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>Hello folks I am writing here to let you in on a secret the process that was
>used for the tunnel shots in A3.  The Alien was a puppet...  so that part
>was partially correct.  You guys almost guessed the proccess they used.  It
>is called Go- motion, however, this is not a new technique.  ILM was using
>it way back in Return of the Jedi.  The process of Go- motion is where a
>puppet is rigged w/ motors and servos and all of it's motions are controled
>by a computer.  If you want more info.  mail me.  Babylon 5 will be out this
>Feb.  on a new channel, Warner Bros.

Go, schmo! They simply don't do the stuff like they used to in Dragon-
slayer.
It's movements still looked like those of a robot, as King Kong's did
already, so I don't see what's the improvement.


May the Cool Be with You!

(C)OOL mcmxcii
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.movies:9378 rec.arts.movies:35311 alt.cult-movies:11248
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
Subject: Re: SF Novels that would make Great Films
Date: 15 Dec 92 03:13:21 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@unixd3.cis.pitt.edu

In article <1992Dec15.011530.1956@zip.eecs.umich.edu> stame@emunix.emich.edu (Stewart Tame) writes:
>A little thought experiment I've been working on:
>	If you were riding in a Russian sleigh pursued by hungry wolves
>	and had to throw out one passenger to lighten your load and your
>	only travelling companions were McCaulay Culkin and Wesley
>	Crusher, who would you jettison and why?

	Culkin, no hesitation. I like  Wesley Crusher, always did. Wasn't
HIS fault that someone wrote scripts that had him save the ship. And he
was one of the better developed characters as the show went on. Now,
Doctor POLASKI... tie her to Culkin and throw her off, to make SURE.

	Oh... WHY Culkin? Because he has tons more money than me and 
made it being disgustingly cute. I hate cute. Feed him to rabid man-eating
Smurfs.

                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.movies:9478 rec.arts.movies:35682 alt.cult-movies:11357
From: 9021477@ul.ie (Dragon, Kemist, Wired to the moon...)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
Subject: Re: SF Novels that would make Great Films
Date: 18 Dec 92 00:18:11 GMT
Organization: University of Limerick, Ireland

In article <1992Dec14.195012.7950@Virginia.EDU>, cew2w@Virginia.EDU (Christopher Edward Wrike) writes:
> 	Concerning Sci-Fi books that would make good movies,
> I don't think the Dirk Gently novels would make good
> movies.  The plots are incomprehensible and the books aren't
> that funny themselves.
>   	Does anyone out there think "Sphere" by
> Michael Crichton would be a good movie?  James Caan, Dana
> Delany, and Wesley Snipes in the leads?  Get Ridley Scott to
> direct?  I think it would be damn good.
> 	How about "Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card?  You know
> who you could get to star?
> 	MAUCALY CULKIN!!!!
> 
> 	--Chris Wrike

Macauly Culkin as Ender?
Excuse me a moment while I shoot you...
*BANG*
Thanks for your patience.
:>

Dragon
------
Dragon, possessing the mortal coils of one Brendan Vaughan (or is it Creed, 
who knows? ;))   Uni of Limerick, Rep. of Ireland. <9021477@ul.ie>
"And the monkey said, 'Mama, the presidents a fool, why do I have to keep 
reading these technical manuals?'"  Roger Waters
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: jarnis@mits.mdata.fi (Jarno Kokko)
Subject: Re: T2 wish list.
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:43:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.101321.27189@cc.tut.fi> jk87377@cc.tut.fi (Juhana Kouhia) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec17.002330.20270@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>sdt8s@curry.edschool.Virginia.EDU (Steve Tilson) writes:
>>
>>at your local Suncoast or similar video outlet; it costs about
>>$50 U.S. and is well worth it, IMHO. If you're not in the US...
>>sorry...
>
>Minor correction; there's reasonable priced VCRs which can
>play NTSC-videos -- though TV has to be modern, so that
>the signal is recognized; the trick here is, guess, to make only
>the color transformation (RGB_pal = T_matrix*RGB_ntsc*R_andom +
>R_andom; or how it was... Never The Same Color... but then we have
>to have anti-R_andom instead of R_andom.. err.. too mathematical).
>

FALSE! I Have panasonic J-45 VCRs, and they have NTSC playback
on PAL tv. TV doesn't have to be modern. Only thing is that
IF you TV is too high tech, you'll have to switch it to NTSC
mode. Low tech TVs like my 15" Salora which is about 5 years
old and was VERY cheap model when I bought it, work like
charm.

>Then there's high priced VCR which makes the NTSC-->PAL conversion;
>this video can convert anything to anything in any country.
>This allows the possibility copy NTSC tapes to PAL tapes.
>
>Well, yes, it is sorry to live here anyway.
>

Yes, these cost a fortune, a grandma or two and few gold nuggets
to purchase, but they are TRUE NTSC/PAL converters.

>Juhana Kouhia

- Jarnis

Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.movies:9459 rec.arts.sf.written:16339
From: rafem@gvlf7-e.gvl.unisys.com (Ralph Marrone)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: SF novels that have become movies (update)
Keywords: new, improved, a must-have for all movie buffs
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:34:37 GMT
Organization: Unisys Defense Systems, Great Valley Labs, Paoli, Pa

In article <1992Dec16.192728.10335@asns.tredydev.Unisys.COM> tmm@asns.tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tim McCaffrey) writes:
>Marooned by Martin Caidin, movie of the same name.  Around 1970?
>
>
>There was a short story by Theodore Sturgeon that became a TV movie.
>Can't remember the name (help?).  It was about a possessed bulldozer.
>

_Killdozer_.



regards,


ralph marrone.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Re: Unrealistic space scenes
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<6X3oVB7w165w@cithara.login.qc.ca> <19739@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com>
	<1gijgjEINN8jo@uni-erlangen.de>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:56:34 GMT

In article <1gijgjEINN8jo@uni-erlangen.de> uhschreg@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Ulrich Schreglmann) writes:

   news@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com (news) writes:

   >Solar sailers are only good near a star, they won't work in interstellar space.
   >No light, no solar wind to move them.  The biggest problem with high speed 

   You also can only move into one direction using sails: away from the
   sun. Sailing against the wind, like it's possible on the ocean isn't
   possible.

Cobblers. To fall towards the sun you angle the sail so that the net
force (which is perpendicular to the sail) reduces your orbital
velocity. The World Space Foundation was intending to use a sail to
send a probe to Mercury, using this very technique.

Anyone wanting to know more spend some time over on sci.space. I'm
just passing through this newsgroup and I'm amazed at the amount of
unscientific nonsense that is spouted in an authoritative manner here.

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
From: uhschreg@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Ulrich Schreglmann)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Unrealistic space scenes
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:39:49 GMT
Organization: Student Pool, CSD, University of Erlangen, Germany
NNTP-Posting-Host: faui09.informatik.uni-erlangen.de
Keywords: n

shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham) writes:

>In article <1gijgjEINN8jo@uni-erlangen.de> uhschreg@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Ulrich Schreglmann) writes:
>>news@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com (news) writes:
>>
>>>Solar sailers are only good near a star, they won't work in interstellar space
>>>No light, no solar wind to move them.  The biggest problem with high speed 
>>
>>You also can only move into one direction using sails: away from the
>>sun. Sailing against the wind, like it's possible on the ocean isn't
>>possible.

>Hardly a problem, as the Sun's gravity should provide you with a (considerably
>more powerfull) force toward it. All you need do is to fold your sails (or
>turn them in a right angle toward the sun) - and inward you go. In fact, the
>imbalance is so severe that only a heroic design (i.e. *very* thin, wide area
>sails) would allow solar wind (with effect proportional to sail area) to 
>out-power gravity (with effect proportional to mass) - and even that, to a
>very small extent.

Oh yes, I forgot about the gravity, but I was assuming that the vessel
would also orbit the sun, thus compensating the gravity. That way the
sails should have to be very flat, in order not to be slowed down by the
wind blowing in from the sides. And you'd also have to plan your course
much harder, but I agree that you can indeed fly towards the sun, by de-
celerating, or going into a very flat elliptic orbit and then pulling in
your sails. Whee! And I thought space travel were dull!
At least you can't capsize.


May the Cool Be with You!

(C)OOL mcmxcii
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: qtm2w@Virginia.EDU ("Quinn T. McCord")
Subject: Re: Favorite Movie One-Liners
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 12:14:50 GMT


	I really laughed during Ghostbusters when Dan Aykroyd
blasted the chandelier in the hotel and then apologized
profusely.  Bill Murray responded deadpan: "It's O.K.  The
table broke the fall."
							-Quinn
From: news@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com (news)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Unrealistic space scenes
Keywords: n
Date: 13 Dec 92 19:31:49 GMT
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale

>olljmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
>
>> In article <1992Dec9.193652.1@vax1.umkc.edu> kgassner@vax1.umkc.edu  
>> writes:
>> > 5. The propulsion system of ships is always active in the same way,  
>> regardless
>> >    what kind of maneuver they are performing.
>> >    As long as a ship doesn't change course, the propulsion system  
>> should be 
>> >    off. (E.g. in those Big-Ship-is-slowly-passing-the-camera-shots)  
>> But the
>> >    fancy lights on the end of the ships are just looking so nice. 
>> > 
>> 
>> Why?  We only do that now because fuel is so expensive. If you had
>> a ship that was actually capable of continuous 1 G acceleration,
>> you'd probably keep the engine on most of the time.
>
>Yes, but that would assume that 50% of the fuel would be used for acceleration
>and 50% for deceleration -- right? Or am I missing something here. (sorry if I
>am)
From: mcfar@dialup.UUCP (Lincoln McFarland)
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Subject: Re: SF Novels that would make Great Films
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 07:22:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.053427.12775@Virginia.EDU> cew2w@Virginia.EDU ("Chris Wrike") writes:
>stame@emunix.emich.edu  writes:> 
>> 	If you were riding in a Russian sleigh pursued by hungry wolves
>> 	and had to throw out one passenger to lighten your load and your
>> 	only travelling companions were McCaulay Culkin and Wesley
>> 	Crusher, who would you jettison and why?
>> 
>> 	-- Stewart "I'd chuck *both* of 'em" Tame
>> 
>
>	I'd jump out myself.  Better company.
>
>	--Chris Wrike

NO, no, no.  You don't throw someone out to lighten the sleigh.
You throw someone out to occupy the wolves while you get away.

Sheeesh!

Throw out whoever is going to be the tastiest!
From: spongebo@cithara.login.qc.ca (THE EYE-BALL KID)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Unrealistic space scenes
Date: 13 Dec 92 00:23:41 GMT
Organization: Organ Grinders Monkeys Union With Penguins As Mascots

olljmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:

> In article <1992Dec9.193652.1@vax1.umkc.edu> kgassner@vax1.umkc.edu  
> writes:
> > 5. The propulsion system of ships is always active in the same way,  
> regardless
> >    what kind of maneuver they are performing.
> >    As long as a ship doesn't change course, the propulsion system  
> should be 
> >    off. (E.g. in those Big-Ship-is-slowly-passing-the-camera-shots)  
> But the
> >    fancy lights on the end of the ships are just looking so nice. 
> > 
> 
> Why?  We only do that now because fuel is so expensive. If you had
> a ship that was actually capable of continuous 1 G acceleration,
> you'd probably keep the engine on most of the time.

Yes, but that would assume that 50% of the fuel would be used for acceleration
and 50% for deceleration -- right? Or am I missing something here. (sorry if I
am)

Also, what is "1G acceleration"? I pressume that's an Earth G, but if you're
flying to a planet that's larger -- or smaller -- than Earth you have to
re-calculate your "G" (so you can fall into orbit on arrival, right?).

I could be way out here, and expect to be corrected, but something I would like
to know is:

What are the structural peramiters required for "high-speed" outer-space
travel. Clearly things like "wind-drag" don't factor in, but there must be a
"shape" of ship which flies better. For example, a "sail-ship" might move fine
at the speed of the solar wind, but if you burn fuel to accelerate, the sails
will collapse under their "lower momentum"... or will they.

I'd appreciate refernce books if anyone has any. This IS a facinating
discussion...



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

spongebo@cithara.login.qc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: henrik@itekiris.kjemi.unit.no (Henrik Gudbrandsen)
Subject: Re: Sick of DECKARD!!!!!
Organization: SINTEF
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 12:19:36 GMT

In article <cam.724484523@hawk> cam@hawk.adied.oz.au (Cameron Newham) writes:
>cam@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au (Cameron Newham) writes:
>
>>Geeeez!  Will you people knock it off!
>
>
>>Look!  It doesn't matter if Deckard was a replicant or not!  It won't
>>change the movie!
>
>>cameron.
>
>>ps: deckard isn't a replicant.
>
>
>
>I agree!
>
>
This debate is replic'able!

(but it was a great movie)

Henrik
From: jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (J. Michael Tisdel)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: ZARDOZ
Keywords: ZARDOZ
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:22:41 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <7537@bigbird.hri.com.hri.com> fleurant@hri.com (P.Fleurant) writes:
>Zardoz, written, directed and produced by J.Boorman is out 
>on tape. (CBS video)
>
>It is uncut!   
>
>This 1974 film stars  S.Connery (007) in a very non-James Bond
>role with C. Rampling.
>
>IMHO this movie is still way ahead of its time and no other SF film
>has since come close to its satire, comedy, and drama.
>
>----------
>P.Fleurant


Great!  Are there any plans to release it on LD?
-- 
J. Michael Tisdel                   \\\\\\\\\\\\  digi!jtisdel@uunet.uu.net
DSC Communications Corporation       \\\\\\\\\\\\ jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org
1000 Coit Rd, MS 120, Plano Tx 75075  \\\\\\\\\\\\         jmtisdel@aol.com
   "I want to lie ship-wrecked and comatose, drinking fresh mango juice."
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.movies:9395 rec.arts.movies:35384 alt.cult-movies:11270
From: scollnik@acs.ucalgary.ca (David Peter Michael Scollnik)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
Subject: Re: SF Novels that would make Great Films
Date: 15 Dec 92 18:18:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <1992Dec14.195012.7950@Virginia.EDU>
cew2w@Virginia.EDU (Christopher Edward Wrike) writes:
>	Concerning Sci-Fi books that would make good movies,
>  	Does anyone out there think "Sphere" by
>Michael Crichton would be a good movie?  James Caan, Dana
>Delany, and Wesley Snipes in the leads?  Get Ridley Scott to
>direct?  I think it would be damn good.
>	--Chris Wrike

 I beg to differ.  I just finished reading the novel, and although
 most of the book was interesting, the ending was little more than 
 a re-working of the classic "I woke up and it was all a dream". 

 At present I'm reading  A.C. Clarkes last Rama novel. One or more 
 of the  books in that series might make it on the big screen.  Is 
 anyone else  out there  waiting  for a  monolith ( a la 2001 ) to 
 appear in the final Rama novel ?

-- 
David P.M. Scollnik 
Department of Mathematics and Statistics            MS 590 
University of Calgary                       (403) 220 7677
scollnik@acs.ucalgary.ca
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.movies:9421 rec.arts.sf.written:16270
From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: SF novels that have become movies (update)
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:36:40 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

In article <BzBMEq.I6z@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> 
gjschmid@leibniz.uwaterloo.ca (Greg Schmidt) writes:

>The Little Black Bag (1968) (BBC production)
>    "The Little Black Bag (19__)                   ______________________

  C.M. Kornbluth, 1950.

>The Right Stuff (1980)
>    _The Right Stuff_ (1979)                       Tom Wolfe

  If this is science fiction, so's _The Double Helix_.

>Nightfall (1988)
>    "Nightfall" (1969)                             Isaac Asimov

  "Nightfall" was originally published in 1941.
From: uhschreg@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Ulrich Schreglmann)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Unrealistic space scenes
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:59:50 GMT
Organization: CSD., University of Erlangen
NNTP-Posting-Host: faui03j.informatik.uni-erlangen.de

slb3y@cc.usu.edu (Punk Rocketeer) writes:

>     After watching ROTJ again last night, I have to disagree.  Modern
>weapons are clearly inferior.  Han Solo's blaster pistol penetrates
>Imperial stormtrooper armor without even scratching the white paint. 
>No scorch marks, no holes, nothing, yet the trooper dies.

Yet when the same type of weapon is shot at a Death Star, the thing ex-
plodes like a firecracker. Maybe the same thing should happen to the
trooper, with only the smoking boots left standing. But that only hap-
pens in James Bond remakes.  :-)


Emotion, Hysteria, the Dark Side of the Cool They Are!

(C)OOL mcmxcii
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies