The End

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Rob

unread,
Nov 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/27/00
to
I don't really know if this has been said before but have we taken this
groupas far as it will go?

I can only relly see a new film re-vitalising this "desertification" of
Alt.cult-movies.alien.

What do you ppl think?

Cheers

Rob

JEyers

unread,
Nov 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/27/00
to
I probably agree with you. I used to hang around (sometimes just lurking, when
there really wasn't anything worth responding to) loads of forums. The ACH
forum has gone down the pan. The UA5S forum has gone down the pan. And this
place has about 10 regulars, if that.

The two most popular places seem to be the Bug Stomper site and AvPnews, the
latter of which has far most posts every day than I can humanly respond to.
Believe it or not, there are quite a few people who have something to say
that's worthy listening to. Some fanboys, naturally, but there's not much
flaming about from bad tempered funky chickens.

Of course, the question of whether another film will do good for this place is
another thing. For a year or so after Resurrection came out, this place was
just full of Resurrection-bashing, and the arguments got a stale after a few
weeks, but they kept on flogging the horses even though they were well and
truly dead.

Bug

unread,
Nov 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/27/00
to
>The two most popular places seem to be the Bug Stomper site and AvPnews,
the
>latter of which has far most posts every day than I can humanly respond to.
>Believe it or not, there are quite a few people who have something to say
>that's worthy listening to. Some fanboys, naturally, but there's not much
>flaming about from bad tempered funky chickens.


And if you've never experience my site go to:

www.stomper.demon.co.uk

And honestly I will update it this year!! The people who run AvPNews have to
be students, nobody with a job has that much free time! Mind you my next
update is going to be ENORMOUS, I've been sent so much fan fiction, fan art,
alien 5 scripts, fan scripts etc...

Bug
--
"We believe in God, but unlike the Americans we don't trust him"

http://www.k-nitrate.com - The official website for the UK Industrial Techno
band K-Nitrate
http://www.mp3.com/knitrate - K-Nitrate MP3s
http://www.stomper.demon.co.uk - The Alien Saga Movie Page

Achim Woellgens

unread,
Nov 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/27/00
to
In <t2554j8...@corp.supernews.co.uk> "Rob" <frosty@up-yours-spammers-starga
tesg-1.com> writes:

well, I am sorry about that loss of traffic, too , but right now I am
wondering, what subject to discuss...
a fundamental question I have is: whether they should continue with new films
of " Alien " and it ends up like Halloween, 12th following or Friday 13th
Freddy's " new, new, newest nightmares" ;-))) or whatsoever....
that's s.th. s bothering me.....
well what do You folks think about that? will there be a loss in quality if
quantity grows....?

bye

Achim


>Rob

Vang

unread,
Nov 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/27/00
to
Hmm, I might have something to add to your update in a little bit. Let
you know when its finished. ;)

Ninth crow

unread,
Nov 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/27/00
to
Rob wrote

>I don't really know if this has been said before but have we taken this
>groupas far as it will go?
>
>I can only relly see a new film re-vitalising this "desertification" of
>Alt.cult-movies.alien.
>
>What do you ppl think?
>
>Cheers
>
>Rob

I think you're probably right. I haven't always posted, but I've stuck
around here for almost two years and have seen a steady trickle of people
leaving as subject after subject is beaten to death over and over again.
Without something new to pick apart, I won't be surprised if the time
comes when the NG is just Adam, Keith, The Fuzz--and maybe Cov and
Swarve from time to time--arguing about God only knows what and how
some random aspect of something is treating them like arse.


~Kay
Completing her bi-yearly post quota.

John

unread,
Nov 27, 2000, 8:27:10 PM11/27/00
to
In article <20001127134840...@ng-cd1.aol.com>, JEyers
<jey...@aol.com> wrote:

> The two most popular places seem to be the Bug Stomper site and AvPnews, the
> latter of which has far most posts every day than I can humanly respond to.
> Believe it or not, there are quite a few people who have something to say
> that's worthy listening to. Some fanboys, naturally, but there's not much
> flaming about from bad tempered funky chickens.

hehehe you just cant resist it can you.

Let me point out that YOU started this so called flame war with your
inflammatory remarks and now try to blame me for pointing out your
errors in logic as have other people but ohh you conviniently ignore
those.

Bad memory, bad argument, what more can we expect from an AOL'er :)

FYI I'm not upset/pissed/whatever, just pointing out what a pompous and
delusional little fool you are who is still trying to put himself above
a group of people that are essentially the same.
Your still going on about this stupid mythical fanboy crap and cannot
grasp the concept that other opinions have as much validity as yours.
Indeed from their perspective you're the rabid apologist/blind fanboy.

You actually make me smile in wonderment.

To answer the original post yes IMO the group is dying a slow death and
has been for a number of years. I've been in this group for quite a
while (late 80's/early 90's IIRC from a Uni account) and I've got to
agree with the other posters saying that all the argument have been
done to death and we'll need another film to inject new blood into the
discussion.

P.S.
Just in case Eyers has forgotten (since this is a fairly long post! ;)
You started this flame thread by your own admission, dont dodge the
blame.

Adam Cameron

unread,
Nov 28, 2000, 2:05:00 AM11/28/00
to
>comes when the NG is just Adam, Keith, The Fuzz--and maybe Cov and
>Swarve from time to time--arguing about God only knows what and how
>some random aspect of something is treating them like arse.

Oi!
Stop treating us like arse!

Adam
(Come on: I *had* to)

Vang

unread,
Nov 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/28/00
to

Ninth crow wrote:
>
<<<SNIP>>>


>
> I think you're probably right. I haven't always posted, but I've stuck
> around here for almost two years and have seen a steady trickle of people
> leaving as subject after subject is beaten to death over and over again.
> Without something new to pick apart, I won't be surprised if the time

> comes when the NG is just Adam, Keith, The Fuzz--and maybe Cov and
> Swarve from time to time--arguing about God only knows what and how
> some random aspect of something is treating them like arse.
>

> ~Kay
> Completing her bi-yearly post quota.

I agree. I was one of those people that left the newsgroup after the
flood of "Resurrectionists" came into the group and started bashing
anyone who stated they really didn't like AR. I myself do not really
care much either way, I figured out long ago that personal opinion
doesn't really matter. But the constant flame wars were annoying as
hell so I dropped the group for awhile.

Then, a little over a year goes by and I decide to see if the AR fallout
has diminished any, and it seems like it has. So I resubscribe. Next
day I see the "Is AR for Real???" and its length almost rivals the "Eggs
on Sulaco" thread of a few years back! It was so unreal, all I could do
is chuckle and read through it. At least this time there were some good
points mixed in with the flames. (I find it especially funny that we
have an obvious "fanboy" calling other people here "fanboys" when this
group is for people who are "fans" of the Alien saga.

Maybe if people would just back away from defending one single part of
the saga as the best, or calling another the worst, maybe we could get
back to some serious discussions here?

Just my opinion,

Keith "Vang" Oberschulte

"Civilization is based on the absence of Natural Selection"

JEyers

unread,
Nov 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/28/00
to
>I was one of those people that left the newsgroup after the
>flood of "Resurrectionists"

Pity. I missed them. I thought I was the only one.

>AR fallout
>has diminished

But this is the Alien saga newsgroup. People are going to keep on discussing
it. People like me are going to keep on defending it. People like you will keep
on deriding it. Nothing wrong with a difference in opinion. If you don't like
hearing the opinions of others, you don't need to join in debates.

>"Eggs
>on Sulaco"

Even I remember that, and I was only a lurker back then.

>obvious "fanboy"

By that I think you mean me, so I would be interested in your definition of a
fanboy. The regulars here defined their opinion of it, but this "What is a
fanboy?" debate always pops up when someone new appears.

>get
>back to some serious discussions here

Then start one. If I never had to read another "Resurrection sucks" post again
I would be happy, but one pops up every couple of months, and I'm not exactly
NOT going to offer my opinion on that, am I?

John

unread,
Nov 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/28/00
to
In article <20001128163909...@ng-cd1.aol.com>, JEyers
<jey...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip>

> But this is the Alien saga newsgroup. People are going to keep on discussing
> it. People like me are going to keep on defending it. People like you will
> keep
> on deriding it. Nothing wrong with a difference in opinion. If you don't like
> hearing the opinions of others, you don't need to join in debates.

Ahh "Nothing wrong with a difference in opinion"
Yet you wilfully deride other peoples views and dismiss them as fanboys
in previous posts.
Still at least you're taking a step in the right direction.

<snip>



> >obvious "fanboy"
>
> By that I think you mean me, so I would be interested in your definition of a
> fanboy. The regulars here defined their opinion of it, but this "What is a
> fanboy?" debate always pops up when someone new appears.

Most recently started by you.
Thanks for doing your bit.

>
> >get
> >back to some serious discussions here
>
> Then start one. If I never had to read another "Resurrection sucks" post again
> I would be happy, but one pops up every couple of months, and I'm not exactly
> NOT going to offer my opinion on that, am I?

Ohh we've read your opinion. It's just a shame that you seem bent on
preventing others having the same luxury.

JEyers

unread,
Nov 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/28/00
to
>Ohh we've read your opinion. It's just a shame that you seem bent on
>preventing others having the same luxury.

So you've just wasted an entire post having a go at me, and now I'm wasting an
entire post pointing this out. What is the point, huh? Let's lay it to rest
here, yes? I haven't made a deliberately provocative post since the middle of
last week, but I've noticed you've replied to everything I've written as such,
apart from the ONLY one that really was debating ideas, not people, with him
who started the post when he came back to hive his final opinions of AR, which
I could respect. To that, you did not reply.

Keith Hazelwood

unread,
Nov 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/28/00
to
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:15:52 -0600, Vang <k...@hamilton.net> wrote:

[snip]
>Keith "Vang" Oberschulte

Keith
"Alien 3 treated us like arse!"

John

unread,
Nov 28, 2000, 7:50:59 PM11/28/00
to
In article <20001128175527...@ng-cd1.aol.com>, JEyers
<jey...@aol.com> wrote:

Well I dont consider it wasted if it makes you think of the
implications of slagging off other peoples views just because they dont
coincide with your own.

Of course I'm not going to reply to your post in this thread where you
are debating ideas, after all that was my original point. By all means
discuss and debate.
I've no problem with that and so why should I comment if I haven't got
a point to make in that particular discussion/context?

Consider it dropped.

Robbie Grant

unread,
Nov 28, 2000, 9:58:53 PM11/28/00
to
Vang wrote:
<snip>

> Maybe if people would just back away from defending one single part of
> the saga as the best, or calling another the worst, maybe we could get
> back to some serious discussions here?

If you have anything you would like to "seriously discuss", I know I'd
certainly welcome the change.

--
*The Fuzz*
You are about to begin reading The Fuzz's new sig. Relax.
Concentrate. Dispel every other thought.
-"And after that, my guess is you'll never hear from him again"-
| http://www.ozemail.com.au/~randrgrant
\ / "For such is the nature of men, that howsoever they
-- O O -- may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more
/ \ eloquent, or more learned; yet they will hardly believe
_| |_ there be many so wise as themselves...

Vang

unread,
Nov 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/29/00
to
Heh heh

Kris Booghmans

unread,
Nov 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/29/00
to

Shouldn't that be arses? ;o)

K.
(it's a joke, it's a joke)

Kris Booghmans

unread,
Nov 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/29/00
to
The end is always the beginning of something new remember that.

what was it again Dillon said...

Why? Why the innocent, punished?
Why the sacrifice?
Why the pain?
There aren't any promises.
Nothing certain.
Only that some get called, others saved.
She won't ever know of the hardship
and grief of those of us left behind.
We commit these bodies to the void with a glad heart.
For within each seed,
there is a promise of a flower,
and within each death, no matter how small,
there is always a new life.
A new beginning.

Vang

unread,
Nov 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/29/00
to
JEyers wrote:
>
> >I was one of those people that left the newsgroup after the
> >flood of "Resurrectionists"
>
> Pity. I missed them. I thought I was the only one.

No, you are not the only one, you may not even be one.
"Resurrectionists" is the term coined for those who became fans of the
series after seeing AR. If you were already here than most likely you
are not a Resurrectionist. It did not start out as a derogatory term
but that changed soon. Personally, I welcomed the chance to meet new
fans at first, but when most started flame wars calling all the other
movies crap or blasting anyone who voiced their dislike for AR, I soon
changed my mind. Once they had taken over the group, anyone who brought
up anything else was flamed.

>
> >AR fallout
> >has diminished


>
> But this is the Alien saga newsgroup. People are going to keep on discussing
> it. People like me are going to keep on defending it. People like you will keep
> on deriding it. Nothing wrong with a difference in opinion. If you don't like
> hearing the opinions of others, you don't need to join in debates.
>

People like me?

Did I *ONCE* say anything against or for AR in my post? All you have
done is taken a quote from my previous post out of context and applied
your own biased spin to it. If you are going to quote someone's post,
at least have the decency to quote more than just a few words.

You say nothing is wrong with different opinions and I stated that fact
in my previous post. Yet you try to imply that I do not like hearing
other people's opinions. Why? Is it because my opinion might be
different from yours or is it because you like to think that you are the
only one here who is defending AR? As I said before, I don't care much
either way. AR is here to stay and there is nothing anyone can do about
it. You either like it or you don't like it. Enuff said.


> >"Eggs
> >on Sulaco"
>
> Even I remember that, and I was only a lurker back then.
>

Heh, I guess that means that you are not a resurrectionist.


> >obvious "fanboy"
>
> By that I think you mean me, so I would be interested in your definition of a
> fanboy. The regulars here defined their opinion of it, but this "What is a
> fanboy?" debate always pops up when someone new appears.
>

Hmm, I thought my point was clear (though I now see I could have made it
clearer). We are ALL fanboys (and girls) of the movies, books, etc.
Otherwise, why would we be here? We are all individuals and we each like
what we like. You prefer AR, I prefer ALIENS, He prefers Alienł, she
prefers Alien. There's nothing wrong with that. Just be thankful we're
not "trekies" :) (just kidding there)

What IS wrong is when someone gets on a moral superiority kick and
decides that he is right and anyone who does not agree with him is
wrong. If someone thinks that AR sucks, let them! I hear from people
who think that Alien was the only real movie but I don't attack them for
it. It's not like their stating that is going to make you suddenly
change your mind and decide that they are right.

> >get


> >back to some serious discussions here
>
> Then start one. If I never had to read another "Resurrection sucks" post again
> I would be happy, but one pops up every couple of months, and I'm not exactly
> NOT going to offer my opinion on that, am I?

Give me a few days, I just got back ok? I promise it won't be
"Resurrection sucks" either. But even if it is, you do NOT have to
reply to it. As someone stating their opinion is unlikely to change
your mind, you stating yours is unlikely to change theirs. Like I've
said before; opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. You do not
have to keep showing off yours.

Vang

Adam Cameron

unread,
Nov 29, 2000, 11:41:41 PM11/29/00
to
>Hmm, I thought my point was clear (though I now see I could have made it
>clearer). We are ALL fanboys (and girls) of the movies, books, etc.
>Otherwise, why would we be here? We are all individuals and we each like
>what we like. You prefer AR, I prefer ALIENS, He prefers Alienł, she
>prefers Alien. There's nothing wrong with that. Just be thankful we're
>not "trekies" :) (just kidding there)

My take on the word is slightly different.

(1) FAN = someone who likes one or more of the films. Sometimes these
people are prepared to discuss this in [whatever forum: a.c-m.a is
just one].

(2) FANBOY = someone who's more of a fanatic than a fan, manifested as
follows:
- likes one or more of the films;
- collects all manner of paraphenalia, literature, sundry material
tied to the films;
- makes websites dedicated to the films;
- writes fan fiction;
- creates Alien-/Giger- inspired art.

(3) FUCKWIT = someone whose sole contribution to this group is to bag
people for their likes / dislikes in the film series.

I'm definitely a (1) when it comes to Alien and Alien3.

Arguably it could be said that sometimes I'm a (3) (esp. if A:R is
involved ;-)

I'm *not* a (2). People in the (3) category sit more easily with me
than the ones in (2), to be honest.

And, if I was to admit it, I am more on this group because of its
Internet-ness than its Alien-ness. I don't have conversations about
Aliens/3/R with anyone else, via any medium at all.

Adam

Covenant

unread,
Nov 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/30/00
to

"Kris Booghmans" <krib...@starlab.net> wrote in message
news:3A2521B8...@starlab.net...
> Shouldn't that be arses? ;o)
>
> K.
> (it's a joke, it's a joke)

Maybe so... but you ARE right!

;')


--
Covenant.
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands

JEyers

unread,
Nov 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/30/00
to
>- likes one or more of the films

Hmm. I'm a fanboy then.

>- collects all manner of paraphenalia, literature, sundry material
>tied to the films

Hmm. I'm even more of a fanboy then.

>- makes websites dedicated to the films

Hmm. My one failed, so does that mean I'm less of a fanboy?

>- writes fan fiction

Hmm. Done that in the past.

>- creates Alien-/Giger- inspired art

Hmm. Done that as well, but it got me an A grade GCSE Art, so if I'm a fanboy
because of that, so be it.

Vang

unread,
Nov 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/30/00
to
I guess that leaves one question: Does it matter if one is a fanboy or
not? :)

JEyers wrote:
>
> >- likes one or more of the films
>

> Hmm. I'm a fanboy then.
>

> >- collects all manner of paraphenalia, literature, sundry material
> >tied to the films
>

> Hmm. I'm even more of a fanboy then.
>

> >- makes websites dedicated to the films
>

JEyers

unread,
Nov 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/30/00
to
>No, just means you're crap at HTML.

Rubbish. I have an A-Level in Computing. The HTML is fine.
members.aol.com/jeyers My problems started when I got a new PC and lost all the
files, and it wasn't really worth downloading them from the site and starting
it up again seeing as all of a sudden a whole host of Alien Encyclopedias had
popped up (one of which I'm still dubious about, seeing as the wording is
extremely similar on quite a few entries...)

>Yep, and that's the final thing I forgot:
>- somehow feel the need to justify themselves in why it's OK to be a
>fanboy.

Ho, ho, that's a good one!

>Congrats: you are precisely the thing that you slag off.

Nah, the fanboys I slag off are the people who can't see the wood for the
trees.

Adam Cameron

unread,
Nov 30, 2000, 3:01:12 PM11/30/00
to
>>- likes one or more of the films
>Hmm. I'm a fanboy then.

Not yet.

>>- collects all manner of paraphenalia, literature, sundry material
>>tied to the films

>Hmm. I'm even more of a fanboy then.

Yes.

>>- makes websites dedicated to the films

>Hmm. My one failed, so does that mean I'm less of a fanboy?

No, just means you're crap at HTML. Fanboys can be this as well ;-)

>>- writes fan fiction
>Hmm. Done that in the past.

*Fanboy*.

>>- creates Alien-/Giger- inspired art
>Hmm. Done that as well, but it got me an A grade GCSE Art, so if I'm a fanboy
>because of that, so be it.

Yep, and that's the final thing I forgot:


- somehow feel the need to justify themselves in why it's OK to be a
fanboy.

Congrats: you are precisely the thing that you slag off.

The points against you continue to stack up, don't they? Oh well,at
least you're a nice pers... oh... never mind.

;-)

Adam

Adam Cameron

unread,
Nov 30, 2000, 6:55:21 PM11/30/00
to
>>No, just means you're crap at HTML.
>Rubbish. I have an A-Level in Computing. The HTML is fine.

Two things:
1) I meant "as opposed to being a fanboy". Having a broken website
suggests a failing in things-web, not things-fanboyish.
2) I'm not sure a secondary school qual in something as nebulous as
"Computing" really makes you immune from the possibility of generating
"broken" HTML or a broken website. I've been doing HTML for 5-6years
and I still fuck it up more often than not ;-)
How many weeks of your "computing" course did you spend on HTML? Or
shoud I ask "how many weeks of your course did you spend on
*FrontPage*?", which seems to be a more accurate apprasial of the
situation.

Having looked at your site, it doesn't actually seem broken, but some
of your HTML could use work (critique, not complaint: and I can drop
you a line and tell you what I mean, if you want).

But what's *this*... you state that a Andrew Harsent did the "coding"
for the site. How does *your* A-Level help *Andrew's* coding?

PS: Site is *very* fanboyish ;-)

>members.aol.com/jeyers My problems started when I got a new PC and lost all the
>files, and it wasn't really worth downloading them

Yeah. That D/Ling is very complicated and tedious, isn't it ;-)

>popped up (one of which I'm still dubious about, seeing as the wording is
>extremely similar on quite a few entries...)

I don't see any suggestion of "copyright" anywhere. Other than you
admitting that you're using material copyrighted by someone else.

Still: it would be nice for others to credit you, I guess. All your
text is orginal, is it?

>>Yep, and that's the final thing I forgot:
>>- somehow feel the need to justify themselves in why it's OK to be a
>>fanboy.

>Ho, ho, that's a good one!

No, real: I had thought of it when I first started devising the list
for that post, but forgot it. Sometimes my bloody work interrupts me
mid-post, so I lose my train of thought (such as it is).

>>Congrats: you are precisely the thing that you slag off.

>Nah, the fanboys I slag off are the people who can't see the wood for the
>trees.

That's nice.

What does it mean?

Adam

Robbie Grant

unread,
Nov 30, 2000, 8:16:18 PM11/30/00
to
Adam Cameron wrote:
> My take on the word is slightly different.
>
> (1) FAN = someone who likes one or more of the films. Sometimes these
> people are prepared to discuss this in [whatever forum: a.c-m.a is
> just one].
>
> (2) FANBOY = someone who's more of a fanatic than a fan, manifested as
> follows:
> - likes one or more of the films;
> - collects all manner of paraphenalia, literature, sundry material
> tied to the films;
> - makes websites dedicated to the films;
> - writes fan fiction;
> - creates Alien-/Giger- inspired art.
>
> (3) FUCKWIT = someone whose sole contribution to this group is to bag
> people for their likes / dislikes in the film series.
>
> I'm definitely a (1) when it comes to Alien and Alien3.

And I reiterate: definition of a fanboy -- someone who is more obsessed
with a film than you. Personally, I think that the whole concept of a
"fanboy" is just plain ridiculous. It has definitely taken on a
negative slant, and is basically used by people who like something to
bag other people who like that thing more than they do. People can have
hobbies and invest a large amount of time in them, to a degree that it
seems like an utter waste of time to other people; this doesn't mean
that they should be branded with a derogatory epithet such as "fanboy"
has come to be. And yes, according to your criteria, I *am* a fanboy
(with the exception of the website). And yet I like to think that I
manage to carry on somewhat coherent arguments, and put forward my
opinion on various issues in a relatively sane fashion. I've personally
never really cared what other people decide to call me: I am what I am,
and am quite happy about it. It just bugs me when other people are
intolerant of *anyone's* likes/dislikes/opinions/beliefs etc.
PS "Fan" was derived from "fanatic". To call yourself a "fan" and then
to distinguish yourself from a "fanatic" fanboy doesn't really make
sense.
PPS I'm surprised you haven't commented on the netball yet.

> Adam

Adam Cameron

unread,
Nov 30, 2000, 9:14:33 PM11/30/00
to
> And I reiterate: definition of a fanboy -- someone who is more obsessed
>with a film than you. Personally, I think that the whole concept of a

I think you might be on to *something* there, but only as far as one
of your words goes: "obsessive".

I think the definition should be a fanboy is an obsessive fan. Of
course it is up to the speaker to decide where interest finishes and
obsession starts. I offer my definition of that, I guess.

>"fanboy" is just plain ridiculous. It has definitely taken on a

I dunno really. It communicates an idea, so it is useful in my view.
It might not be quantifiable, but it certain has an emotional loading,
which is just as important in communication that quantity I think
("quantity" doesn't sound right, but less unright (!) than
"quantifiability"!)

>negative slant, and is basically used by people who like something to
>bag other people who like that thing more than they do. People can have

Not so. It suggests that the other people have an unreasonable /
unnatural / unhealthy fascination with whatever it is. As I said, the
yardstick is purely subjective, though.

>hobbies and invest a large amount of time in them, to a degree that it
>seems like an utter waste of time to other people; this doesn't mean
>that they should be branded with a derogatory epithet such as "fanboy"

Well people shouldn't call people a lot of things, but they do.

>has come to be. And yes, according to your criteria, I *am* a fanboy
>(with the exception of the website). And yet I like to think that I
>manage to carry on somewhat coherent arguments, and put forward my
>opinion on various issues in a relatively sane fashion. I've personally

The list wasn't supposed to be the definitive work!
And of course there are degrees and there are degrees. Of Fanboydom.
;-)

>never really cared what other people decide to call me: I am what I am,
>and am quite happy about it. It just bugs me when other people are
>intolerant of *anyone's* likes/dislikes/opinions/beliefs etc.

Me too. You'll note that the only time I make comment one way or
other about other people from this group's predelictions for
collecting / writing / drawing is when we are discussing the
"definition" of fanboy.

>PS "Fan" was derived from "fanatic". To call yourself a "fan" and then
>to distinguish yourself from a "fanatic" fanboy doesn't really make
>sense.

Of course it does. It's derived from it sure, but it does not mean
the two remain synonymous. They're different words. And I expect
more form you than to suggest what you did.

OED:
fanatic:
(of an action, speech): such as might result from possession by a god
or demon.
Of a person: frenzied, mad.
(hehheh: I didn't think it was quite so OTT!)

or:
A fanatical person, a person filled with EXCESSIVE and MISTAKEN
enthusiasm (my emphasis).


fan:
A fanatic (/rare/: late 17th century)
A keen or regular spectator [...] or supporter [... or] a devoted
follower of [a sport or sports team, or a specified amusement or
performer]
(all of that is in the defintion, but I abbreviated and reworded it so
I didn't have to type the whole thing out. The intent is preserved)

So hardly synonyms really, are they?

PS: fanatic seems to be derived from the Latin fanum, which means
temple. Are you suggesting that "fanatic" and 'temple" are also
synonymous? Of course not.


>PPS I'm surprised you haven't commented on the netball yet.

Oh yeah, forgot, sorry. Your cricketing women beat us, btw.
Actually the Silver Ferns (that's the netball, btw) seem to be the NZ
team to watch, at present: they beat you lot and just clean swept the
Japies as well, so I hear. Cool.
So women's sport is the way to go. All our *men's* sport sucks (go to
cricinfo and check the latest score in the NZL v SAf test, for
example).

Adam

Oh, and btw: your posting qualifies for the last - forgotten -
criterion from my fanboy yardstick, as detailed in a recent posting to
jeyers. Sorry.
;-)

Robbie Grant

unread,
Nov 30, 2000, 10:14:30 PM11/30/00
to
Adam Cameron wrote:
>
> > And I reiterate: definition of a fanboy -- someone who is more obsessed
> >with a film than you. Personally, I think that the whole concept of a
>
> I think you might be on to *something* there, but only as far as one
> of your words goes: "obsessive".

> I think the definition should be a fanboy is an obsessive fan. Of
> course it is up to the speaker to decide where interest finishes and
> obsession starts. I offer my definition of that, I guess.

But *your* definition is always going to be useless to anyone else.
No-one's going to say "I'm a fanboy -- I'm too obsessive". A fanboy is
*always* going to be someone more... enthusiastic... than yourself.
Someone else might call *you* a fanboy for subscribing to a.c-m.a, and
according to what you just said, they'd be right. This subjectivity is
what makes the term so utterly useless, other than as a general
derogatory term. And do we *really* need *more* of those on Usenet?

> >"fanboy" is just plain ridiculous. It has definitely taken on a
>
> I dunno really. It communicates an idea, so it is useful in my view.
> It might not be quantifiable, but it certain has an emotional loading,
> which is just as important in communication that quantity I think
> ("quantity" doesn't sound right, but less unright (!) than
> "quantifiability"!)

As above -- it's only use is as an insult, and one that the person
you're insulting will never agree applies to them anyway. So what's the
point? If you want to call someone a dickhead, call them a dickhead and
leave it at that. Don't say "your a fanboy because you like Aliens this
much, but I'm not because I like *Alien*, and only *this* much".

> >negative slant, and is basically used by people who like something to
> >bag other people who like that thing more than they do. People can have
>
> Not so. It suggests that the other people have an unreasonable /
> unnatural / unhealthy fascination with whatever it is. As I said, the
> yardstick is purely subjective, though.

And therefore useless in a conversation. Is it unreasonable for
someone to want to collect merchandise of their favourite film/s? Is it
unnatural? Is it unhealthy? And I'd think that someone who sat down
and wrote a fan fic., or made a website or whatever that other people
might enjoy was doing something far more valuable than two people
arguing about the definition/usefullness of the term "fanboy". Does
this make you a fanboy definition fanboy? Are you beginning to see how
useless the term is in this context?

> >hobbies and invest a large amount of time in them, to a degree that it
> >seems like an utter waste of time to other people; this doesn't mean
> >that they should be branded with a derogatory epithet such as "fanboy"
>
> Well people shouldn't call people a lot of things, but they do.

That's your excuse??? People shouldn't kill other people, but they
do. Does that give me free license?

> >never really cared what other people decide to call me: I am what I am,
> >and am quite happy about it. It just bugs me when other people are
> >intolerant of *anyone's* likes/dislikes/opinions/beliefs etc.
>
> Me too. You'll note that the only time I make comment one way or
> other about other people from this group's predelictions for
> collecting / writing / drawing is when we are discussing the
> "definition" of fanboy.

Yes, and it's this one time that I'm saying bugs me.

> >PS "Fan" was derived from "fanatic". To call yourself a "fan" and then
> >to distinguish yourself from a "fanatic" fanboy doesn't really make
> >sense.
>
> Of course it does. It's derived from it sure, but it does not mean
> the two remain synonymous. They're different words. And I expect
> more form you than to suggest what you did.

Yeah, I know. That's why it's a PS. Just a little jab.

> PS: fanatic seems to be derived from the Latin fanum, which means
> temple. Are you suggesting that "fanatic" and 'temple" are also
> synonymous? Of course not.

Actually, yes, that's *exactly* what I'm suggesting. :-)

> >PPS I'm surprised you haven't commented on the netball yet.
>

> So women's sport is the way to go. All our *men's* sport sucks (go to
> cricinfo and check the latest score in the NZL v SAf test, for
> example).

Just tried, but the damn site takes too long. I'll just trust that NZ
got soundly stomped. Personally, *I've* got no reason to ignore men's
cricket :-)

> Adam
>
> Oh, and btw: your posting qualifies for the last - forgotten -
> criterion from my fanboy yardstick, as detailed in a recent posting to
> jeyers. Sorry.
> ;-)

Not so. I never said it was "OK" to be a fanboy, just that I didn't
particularly care whether someone labelled me as such as the term is so
subjective as to be useless.

JEyers

unread,
Dec 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/1/00
to
>But what's *this*... you state that a Andrew Harsent did the "coding"
>for the site.

He did the frames. Nothing else. The rest I did... and I've never used
FrontPage.

>That D/Ling is very complicated and tedious, isn't it ;-)

When there are that many files, yes.

>I don't see any suggestion of "copyright" anywhere.

Well, technically, you don't need to. According to British law, as soon as
something is written down, it's protected by copyright, and seeing as I'm a
British citizen, and the site is on a British server, it's protected by British
law. But seeing as there is no way of proving it, and to pursue a case I'd be
asking for trouble using images copyrighted to Fox, I'm not that bothered. It's
just a matter of politeness, and scummy little thieves...

>All your
>text is orginal, is it?

Yes. I didn't even copy lengthy paragraphs out of the Technical Manual, unlike
SOME Encyclopedias.

>What does it mean?

People who can't see the Alien Saga for Aliens.

Bug

unread,
Dec 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/2/00
to
>Rubbish. I have an A-Level in Computing. The HTML is fine.
>members.aol.com/jeyers

So armed with some technical knowledge you went with AOL??? Hee hee! :)

Bug
--
"We believe in God, but unlike the Americans we don't trust him"

http://www.k-nitrate.com - The official website for the UK Industrial Techno
band K-Nitrate
http://www.mp3.com/knitrate - K-Nitrate MP3s
http://www.stomper.demon.co.uk - The Alien Saga Movie Page

Bug

unread,
Dec 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/2/00
to
Btw, what are all those <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage
Express 2.0"> doing in that hand crafted HTML code.. ;)

wmmvrrvrrmm

unread,
Dec 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/2/00
to

In article <t2554j8...@corp.supernews.co.uk>, "Rob"
<fro...@up-yours-spammers-stargatesg-1.com> wrote:

<< I can only relly see a new film re-vitalising this "desertification" of
Alt.cult-movies.alien.

What do you ppl think?
>>

There was something in one of the new issues of one of the DVD magazines that
reported another Aliens vs Predator in preproduction with an $80 million
budget, and Predators rescuing one of their own and picking off aliens who have
been used to kill of an opposing faction of some human organisation. I think it
was called Deathfall and no director had been finalised. I didn't mind the
idea. Have there been any other rumours perhaps worth forgetting?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Remove "zmmmzmmm" to e-mail me

The Wmmvrrvrrmm Place!
http://member.aol.com/wmvrrvrrmm
The Velvet Belly Page(dedicated to the band Velvet Belly)
http://www.geocities.com/velvet_belly_uk

wmmvrrvrrmm

unread,
Dec 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/2/00
to

In article <3A259005...@hamilton.net>, Vang <k...@hamilton.net> wrote:

<< No, you are not the only one, you may not even be one.
"Resurrectionists" is the term coined for those who became fans of the
series after seeing AR. If you were already here than most likely you
are not a Resurrectionist. It did not start out as a derogatory term
but that changed soon. Personally, I welcomed the chance to meet new
fans at first, but when most started flame wars calling all the other
movies crap or blasting anyone who voiced their dislike for AR, I soon
changed my mind. Once they had taken over the group, anyone who brought
up anything else was flamed. >>

While not wishing to point to these Resurrectionists, who I don't recollect
much about, maybe a number Resurrection fans can be broken up into people who
think that Jeunet didn't make a bad film considering Whedon's script, and
people who think that Jeunet ruined Whedon's script. Personally I'd like to see
Joss Whedon choke to death on a toffee apple if he ever gets the chance to
write another Alien script, hopefully it wont have to go so far

JEyers

unread,
Dec 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/2/00
to
>Btw, what are all those <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage
>Express 2.0"> doing in that hand crafted HTML code.. ;)

I said in a previous post I didn't set-up the frames. If my coder friend used
FrontPage, then that's his business.

As for AOL, I just want quick access (i.e. 20 seconds after you switch the
machine on, you're in). I don't feel the need to go with one of these complex
ones that makes you feel like you've accomplished something just by logging in.
Plus I was on AOL before I even did GCSEs ;-)

JEyers

unread,
Dec 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/2/00
to
I've always said if they make an Aliens vs Predator film, it should be about
humans, not aliens, or Predators. It should have a proper story, with the
aliens at the core. Otherwise, just like the comic books, it will just be an
excuse for aliens to fight Predators, and if I want to see that, I'd rather
play the game for free than shell out £4 for a cinema ticket.

JEyers

unread,
Dec 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/2/00
to
Maybe I'm not a Resurrectionist, but I'd agree that Jeunet saved us from
Whedon's vision. Ripley falling a hundred feet without a scratch? CRAP!!! Sure,
Resurrection was not perfect, but at least it's not embarrassing to sit round
here sighing and wondering what might have been. If Resurrection had been made
the Whedon route, I'd be pretty much ashamed to admit to being an Alien fan; it
had no redeeming features.

Adam Cameron

unread,
Dec 2, 2000, 2:51:43 PM12/2/00
to
>>Btw, what are all those <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage
>>Express 2.0"> doing in that hand crafted HTML code.. ;)
>I said in a previous post I didn't set-up the frames.

Did you? Missed that one.

> If my coder friend used
>FrontPage, then that's his business.

And what about in the body pages, then: also made with FrontPage or...
choke... WORD!!! Eek.

>machine on, you're in). I don't feel the need to go with one of these complex
>ones that makes you feel like you've accomplished something just by logging in.

So your A-Level computing class left you finding signing up to an ISP
being a complex task. Hmmm...

Just teasin' ya!

Adam

Adam Cameron

unread,
Dec 3, 2000, 12:25:23 AM12/3/00
to
>I guess that leaves one question: Does it matter if one is a fanboy or
>not? :)

No, not at all: each to their own.

However one should be prepared to wear a hat if it fits and someone
offers it to you!
(or something)

Adam

Adam Cameron

unread,
Dec 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/3/00
to
>I've always said if they make an Aliens vs Predator film,
>...it will just be an

>excuse for aliens to fight Predators,

Go figure.

Adam


Adam Cameron

unread,
Dec 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/3/00
to
>I said in a previous post I didn't set-up the frames. If my coder friend used

>FrontPage, then that's his business.

Just another thought... did you get your mate to set up the frames for
you because your A-level computing class didn't get that far?

Jus' wondering.

Adam


Adam Cameron

unread,
Dec 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/3/00
to

What are you talking about? Whedon *did* write A:R.

There is a difference between writer (Whedon) and director (Jeunet).

If there are any differences between the story that was knocking
around Internet for x months prior to A:R and the finished product,
you have Whedon to "thank", not Jeunet.

Jeunet does not speak English (well): he is not going to have any
input into the script of an English language film.

Adam


JEyers

unread,
Dec 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/3/00
to

No, no, you misunderstand. There would be zero story. No rhyme or reason. There
would just be some contrived situation where aliens, humans and Predators turn
up at the same place, and there's a load of carnage.

JEyers

unread,
Dec 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/3/00
to
>did you get your mate to set up the frames for
>you because your A-level computing class didn't get that far?
>

I hadn't done an A-level Computing when the site went up :-)

JEyers

unread,
Dec 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/3/00
to
>What are you talking about? Whedon *did* write A:R.

Well observed(!)

>There is a difference between writer (Whedon) and director (Jeunet).

See above comment.

>If there are any differences between the story

Have you READ the original script? It's a live-action comic book without any of
a comic's sensibilities.

>you have Whedon to "thank", not Jeunet.

No. I have Whedon to curse. He's already said he submitted his final draft
before shooting even began, and that was not the film that was made. I suspect
it was Weaver who 'advised' the changes (good on her!).

wmmvrrvrrmm

unread,
Dec 3, 2000, 7:34:13 PM12/3/00
to

In article <uc7k2togdldukbr06...@4ax.com>, Adam Cameron
<da_ca...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<< If there are any differences between the story that was knocking
around Internet for x months prior to A:R and the finished product,

you have Whedon to "thank", not Jeunet. >>

I dn't know what to "thank" Whedon for, but I think that you have one of the
producers to "thank" as well as well for working on the script. I think it
might be Jorge Saralegui (spelling?)maybe.

Keith Hazelwood

unread,
Dec 3, 2000, 11:39:52 PM12/3/00
to
On 03 Dec 2000 14:22:33 GMT, jey...@aol.com (JEyers) wrote:

>>If there are any differences between the story
>

>Have you READ the original script? It's a live-action comic book without any of
>a comic's sensibilities.

And the film (AR) was not??

Keith
"Alien 3 treated us like arse!"

Ninth crow

unread,
Dec 4, 2000, 2:41:05 AM12/4/00
to
Keith wrote

>>>If there are any differences between the story
>>
>>Have you READ the original script? It's a live-action comic book
>>without any of a comic's sensibilities.
>
>And the film (AR) was not??

It wasn't too terribly comic book-like. Sure I'll agree with you that it
still retained those attributes, if it went from the original script, it
would've been far more pronounced.


~Kay
Who (yes) admits to liking AR.

Robbie Grant

unread,
Dec 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/4/00
to
JEyers wrote:
> No, no, you misunderstand. There would be zero story. No rhyme or reason. There
> would just be some contrived situation where aliens, humans and Predators turn
> up at the same place, and there's a load of carnage.

So... what would you *want* from an AvP movie?

JEyers

unread,
Dec 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/4/00
to
>And the film (AR) was not??

The most comic-ish that got was the Johner-upside-down-ladder bit and the
chestburster-through-head. The AR script had Ripley falling 100 feet without a
scratch, killing an alien with her bare hands and ripping an alien's 'tongue'
out with her teeth (this was actually filmed, but thank god they cut it).

JEyers

unread,
Dec 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/4/00
to
>So... what would you *want* from an AvP movie?

I'm not entirely sure... I just know I DON'T want a massive rumble with no
story.

Keith Hazelwood

unread,
Dec 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/4/00
to
On 04 Dec 2000 13:29:59 GMT, jey...@aol.com (JEyers) wrote:

>>And the film (AR) was not??
>

>The most comic-ish that got was the Johner-upside-down-ladder bit and the
>chestburster-through-head.

Don't forget the silly ricochet scene. The whole movie just felt like
one of Sam Raimi's Evil Dead flicks. All it was missing was a Bruce
Campbell appearance (like Escape from LA, yet another winner). That's
fine if you like camp, but it's out of place in the Alien milieu.

>The AR script had Ripley falling 100 feet without a
>scratch, killing an alien with her bare hands and ripping an alien's 'tongue'
>out with her teeth (this was actually filmed, but thank god they cut it).

Which only reinforces my original opinion that BOTH Whedon and Jeunet
were responsible for that travesty.

JEyers

unread,
Dec 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/4/00
to
>Which only reinforces my original opinion that BOTH Whedon and Jeunet
>were responsible for that travesty.

I disagree. Jeunet had the sense to cut it. Whedon didn't have the sense not to
write it.

Keith Hazelwood

unread,
Dec 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/4/00
to

IMO, he didn't cut enough. It felt more like an Alien flick set in
the Fifth Element universe. Must be the French influence...

JEyers

unread,
Dec 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/4/00
to
>I actually think that Whedon and Jeunet could be be a good combination
>for the right sort of film. A:R was not that film.

Okay, perhaps for the first time, I 100% agree with you (any other time I might
have appeared to agree with you was probably in the 80% ballpark).

Keith Hazelwood

unread,
Dec 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/4/00
to
On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 10:24:10 +1300, Adam Cameron
<da_ca...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>IMO, he didn't cut enough. It felt more like an Alien flick set in
>>the Fifth Element universe. Must be the French influence...
>

>The thing is, there were a lot of elements that are...
>"par-for-the-course" for a Jeunet film: and they were mostly the
>"comic book" elements. It's the way he directs films.

I wouldn't know. I'm not one of the "enlightened" who's actually seen
Delicatessen or City of Lost Children, as if the mere existence of
those films somehow makes AR any less despicable or that seeing them
would help me "get" Jeunet's style and result in a greater
appreciation of what I consider his perversion of the Alien mythos.

I understand what you mean though, as I would cringe at the thought of
a Paul Verhoeven take on the Alien universe based on his previous
work, despite the fact that I actually liked Robocop and Total Recall.

Personally, I'd kinda like to see what Michael Mann would do with
Alien.

>I actually think that Whedon and Jeunet could be be a good combination
>for the right sort of film. A:R was not that film.

Buffy?

Adam Cameron

unread,
Dec 4, 2000, 4:24:10 PM12/4/00
to
>>>Which only reinforces my original opinion that BOTH Whedon and Jeunet
>>>were responsible for that travesty.

Yep.

>>I disagree. Jeunet had the sense to cut it. Whedon didn't have the sense not to
>>write it.

>IMO, he didn't cut enough. It felt more like an Alien flick set in


>the Fifth Element universe. Must be the French influence...

The thing is, there were a lot of elements that are...
"par-for-the-course" for a Jeunet film: and they were mostly the
"comic book" elements. It's the way he directs films.

I actually think that Whedon and Jeunet could be be a good combination


for the right sort of film. A:R was not that film.

Adam

Adam Cameron

unread,
Dec 4, 2000, 6:40:55 PM12/4/00
to
>I wouldn't know. I'm not one of the "enlightened" who's actually seen
>Delicatessen or City of Lost Children, as if the mere existence of

Hey, Delicatessan is about as enlighted as Bad Taste or Braindead (but
in a different way). It is *silly*, not "serious arthouse".

>those films somehow makes AR any less despicable or that seeing them
>would help me "get" Jeunet's style and result in a greater
>appreciation of what I consider his perversion of the Alien mythos.

Absolutely not. Don't forget that I'm *agreeing* with you, and
*dis*agreeing with Jeyers. I just replied to *your* post ebcause it
had the relevant comment about "French-thing".

A:R was rubbish *because* it was Jeunet at the heml. He's not right
for the job. I was defending Joss Whedon (kind of);, as I believe the
comic-book elements were not solely his fault. Jeuent directs (and
writes, previously) comic-book films. It is what he *does*.

>a Paul Verhoeven take on the Alien universe based on his previous

I think it would be good. He is a versatile director (Flesh+Blood,
Basic Instinct, Showgirls, Starship Troopers), and good at what he
does. I think people think "it will just be like Starship Troopers"
if Verhoeven makes an Alien film, but I think that is being
dismissive.

I think he is a good director, with a poor sense of what he should
direct.

But hey... I actually *liked* Showgirls, in a way (that exploitative,
twadry, perverted way: the way the film was intended).

>work, despite the fact that I actually liked Robocop and Total Recall.

I liked Robocop and Starship Troopers, and I think Flesh+Blood had
merit. And I don't like that particular sort of movie, but I think
Basic Instinct was good at what it set out to do, also.

>Personally, I'd kinda like to see what Michael Mann would do with
>Alien.

Michael Mann...
He's used to directing in a very wide angle, with lots of colour (if
white is a colour) and outdoors shots. Nice to look at, but could he
do the claustrophobia we're used to in Alien films? (Ridley Scott did
it, so why not: they're similar directors, in that sense).

Michael Bay...
No: *really*.

Tony Scott...
Had some dubious films (Top Gun, Days of Thunder), but some bloody
good ones: The Hugner, Last Boy Scout (come on, it was *very* slick),
Crimson Tide (didn't like it, but *did* admire it), Enemy of the
State. He can direct.

Bryan Singer...
Hey... everyone seems to think he did a good job with X-Men. And
Usual Suspects is a directorial masterpiece.

David Cronenberg...
He doesn't shy away from unpleasantries. And does SFX really well.

Peter Jackson...
Although - depending on how LoTR goes - he'll be out of most people's
leagues from now on.

Luc Besson...
He's just cool.

Kathryn Bigelow...
I think the direction of Point Break and Strange Days was excellent.
And given SD she can do SF.

Heaps of people.

I'd be inclined, mostly, to give it back to David Fincher now. I
don't think the studio would fuck with his vision like they did in A3,
after Se7en and Fight Club.

>>I actually think that Whedon and Jeunet could be be a good combination
>>for the right sort of film. A:R was not that film.

>Buffy?

Actually I reckon A Jeunet et Caro version of Buffy could be...
interesting. And Whedon's scripting styl;e suits that sort of
material.

Adam

JEyers

unread,
Dec 4, 2000, 7:01:29 PM12/4/00
to
>A:R was rubbish *because* it was Jeunet at the heml.

Well, first I disagree that it was rubbish, but that's another debate. Second I
disagree that it was rubbish BECAUSE of Jeunet. I believe he had the right
visual style for it, but is not a versatile enough director. He hasn't done
horror, and he hasn't done action. I don't mind if they pick a director who
hasn't, but at least pick someone who has already proven their versatility.

>I was defending Joss Whedon

Don't worry: I won't tell anyone.

>if Verhoeven makes an Alien film

Verhoeven has a preoccupation with blood, gore and adolescent arousal. If
Resurrection was lambasted for being icky, Verhoeven-does-Alien would be
lambasted for being just plain old disgusting.

>And
>Usual Suspects is a directorial masterpiece.

No, it's a screenwriting masterpiece. It doesn't take a great artist to spot a
great script and shoot it as is. Apt Pupil and X-Men showed us that Singer is
Just Another Director.

>depending on how LoTR goes

It'll flop. I'd bet you on it.

>Kathryn Bigelow...

I remember suggesting this last year. I was wondering what a woman's touch
would bring to a series which has always had a strong feminine side.

Adam Cameron

unread,
Dec 4, 2000, 7:49:26 PM12/4/00
to
>Well, first I disagree that it was rubbish, but that's another debate. Second I
>disagree that it was rubbish BECAUSE of Jeunet. I believe he had the right

OK, he was "a major contributing factor" then. Happy?

>visual style for it, but is not a versatile enough director. He hasn't done
>horror,

Well D and CotLC certainly touch on those. And anyway, Alien is the
only one of the set that was a horror film (if indeed *it* was).

>and he hasn't done action. I don't mind if they pick a director who
>hasn't, but at least pick someone who has already proven their versatility.

Yes agreed.

>>I was defending Joss Whedon
>Don't worry: I won't tell anyone.

That's a relief. It's only you and me that know.

>>if Verhoeven makes an Alien film
>Verhoeven has a preoccupation with blood, gore and adolescent arousal. If
>Resurrection was lambasted for being icky,

It was lambasted for being CRAP. I don't think anyone got specific
enough (or needed to!) to single out that it was... icky.
(When *was* it icky, btw?)

>Verhoeven-does-Alien would be
>[...] just plain old disgusting.

Yeah.

That was why I thought of him.

[puzzlement]

>>And
>>Usual Suspects is a directorial masterpiece.
>No, it's a screenwriting masterpiece. It doesn't take a great artist to spot a
>great script and shoot it as is.

Yeah, you've got most of a point there. But I put a lot of stock in
the execution of that film too.

> Apt Pupil and X-Men showed us that Singer is
>Just Another Director.

I thought people though he was A Good Thing for X-Men (obviously I've
not seen it).

And I thought Apt Pupil captured a lot of the essence of the book:
something tricky to do given the story was butchered.

>>depending on how LoTR goes
>It'll flop. I'd bet you on it.

You're on. I have huge faith in Peter Jackson, as he is very
meticulous and perfectionist in what he does, but this is not stifling
(as Kubrick was) because he's also a natural at it (it seems). He
also is not restricted by the producers, so it will be *his* film.

>>Kathryn Bigelow...
>I remember suggesting this last year. I was wondering what a woman's touch
>would bring to a series which has always had a strong feminine side.

Maybe she should remake Aliens ;-)

Adam

wmmvrrvrrmm

unread,
Dec 4, 2000, 9:01:19 PM12/4/00
to

In article <qj9o2t8drbrp2fhf0...@4ax.com>, Adam Cameron

<da_ca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<<
Hey, Delicatessan is about as enlighted as Bad Taste or Braindead (but
in a different way). It is *silly*, not "serious arthouse". >>

It was a kind of vicious Terry Gilliam kind of a movie, also a bit like a
Popeye cartoon world or something like that. There were some interesting ideas
in it that just stick in the mind. It inspired a number of TV commercials. It
has the texture of French arthouse movie you see, and when it came out , people
were talking about 1940s surrealist movement, especially Max Ernst and there
was a lot of joy that this kind of a movie could exist. It was amazing that a
movie could be made that seemed so much like a cartoon.

I have my golden pig badge still! ;-)

Fans of Jeunet and Caro as a double act might wonder what it would have been
like if Caro had taken on the role of co-director,and what it would have been
like if they wrote the script together. There would have been a dark harmony
going in a different direction.

Robbie Grant

unread,
Dec 5, 2000, 2:45:48 AM12/5/00
to
Adam Cameron wrote:
> Michael Bay...
> No: *really*.

Give up on your Michael Bay fixation already.

> Bryan Singer...
> Hey... everyone seems to think he did a good job with X-Men. And
> Usual Suspects is a directorial masterpiece.

I'd give more credit to the script than the director, although it *was*
excellently done, and the wrong director *would* have fucked it up.

> David Cronenberg...
> He doesn't shy away from unpleasantries. And does SFX really well.

Heh, heh. Pick the movie you want to end up as "just a dream".

> Heaps of people.

While all good directors, I personally wouldn't want a big-name
director putting his/her trademark on an "alien" film. The previous
movies worked, as I've said before, because we have a new director with
a distinct visual style. With the director being "new" and "fresh", we
really don't know what to expect. I mean, who say Alien and then
expected Aliens? Or Aliens and then Alien 3? A:R, of course, gave us
exactly what we expected, but at least the style was there.

> Adam

Robbie Grant

unread,
Dec 5, 2000, 2:47:30 AM12/5/00
to

Would a massive rumble *with* a story suffice? Although, it *is*
rather hard to fit all those effects shots *and* a whole storyline into
2 - 2 1/2 hours.

JEyers

unread,
Dec 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/5/00
to
>It was lambasted for being CRAP. I don't think anyone got specific
>enough (or needed to!) to single out that it was... icky.
>(When *was* it icky, btw?)

It was lambasted for a whole host of different reasons, and only the
professional wankers like Ebert listed more than one or two. If you look around
the Internet reviews, you'll find lots of apologetic reviews saying they wanted
to like the film a lot more, then pick out one reason why they didn't:
cardboard characters, lots of swearing, the Newborn, and the strangest one I
read said it was 'icky' (by that I assumed they meant the goo that was
literally everywhere in this film, even my sister commented that Weaver's
acting seems to have been reduced to sticking her fingers in slime whenever the
opportunity arises).

>>It'll flop. I'd bet you on it.
>You're on. I have huge faith in Peter Jackson

I'm not saying it will be a BAD film. I'm pretty sure it will turn out fine.
But it will flop anyway, mainly because it costs so much, and it's a minority
thing. You're going to get the die-hard Tolkein fans (even less of them than
Alien fans), casual fantasy fans and a few of those people who will go and see
anything. But that's a serious minority. I wouldn't be surprised if the first
one makes $40 million total, by which time they'll already be into the second,
which the backers will demand cutbacks to rescue their cash, and there will be
no third film.

JEyers

unread,
Dec 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/5/00
to
>Would a massive rumble *with* a story suffice?

No. Of course, I would expect some sort of alien/predator/human clash. It might
even be the high-point of the movie. As long as it isn't the film's raison
d'etre.