The End
Rob
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
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
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:
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
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
you know when its finished. ;)
Ninth crow
>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?
>
>
>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
<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
>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
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
>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
<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
>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
[snip]
>Keith "Vang" Oberschulte
Keith
"Alien 3 treated us like arse!"
John
<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
<snip>
> Maybe if people would just back away from defending one single part of
> 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
Kris Booghmans
Shouldn't that be arses? ;o)
K.
(it's a joke, it's a joke)
Kris Booghmans
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
>
> >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
>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
"Kris Booghmans" <krib...@starlab.net> wrote in message
news:3A2521B8...@starlab.net...
>
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
>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
>
> > 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
>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
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
Express 2.0"> doing in that hand crafted HTML code.. ;)
wmmvrrvrrmm
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
<< 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
>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
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
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
>>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
>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
>excuse for aliens to fight Predators,
Go figure.
Adam
Adam Cameron
>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
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
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
>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
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
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
>>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
>>>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
> 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
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
I'm not entirely sure... I just know I DON'T want a massive rumble with no
story.
Keith Hazelwood
>>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
>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
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
>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
<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
>>>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
>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
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
>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
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
> 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
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
>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
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.
JEyers
Since 1977, science fiction has always been a big earner, granted. But science
fiction, not fantasy. Look at the number of fantasy films that have flopped
over the years: Baron Munchausen (which I personally like, but might be a bit
too complex for some), Willow, Labyrinth... and they recently made Gormenghast
over here for TV, and it pulled in about 2 million viewers. Only Dragonheart
has come anywhere near the lower-level of blockbusterdom.
People won't see LotR for the same reason they won't read the book: it's too
involved, too stuck up its own butt, and too pretentious.
Adam Cameron
>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.
Kind of like that SF - definitely a niche market - film from 1977.
What was it called again? Anyway: it never amounted to anything.
Adam
Adam Cameron
Yeah but *up until* 1977 it was not. It was exactly how you describe
people as seeing fantasy now:
>People won't see LotR for the same reason they won't read the book: it's too
>involved, too stuck up its own butt, and too pretentious.
People *will* go see LoTR because they will have been conditioned to,
just as they were conditioned to see Star Wars. The marketing
campaign for LoTR has already started, and it's a year away from
hitting the screen. People basically do what they're told, and next
year they will be told to want to go see LoTR.
People will also take from a movie what they want: LoTR will have lots
of action and mayhem and probably even the odd explosion (or zingy
magic SFX, anyhow). Perfect.
If there's other complexity there (and sorry, but it was not *that*
complicated a story. The book was convoluted, not complicated), it
will just go over their heads. (Kind of like Starship Troopers.
Teehee).
Adam
Robbie Grant
> But it will flop anyway, mainly because it costs so much, and it's a minority
> Alien fans)
Compare the number of posts at alt.fan.tolkien and
rec.arts.books.tolkien to the number here.
> , 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.
The fantasy genre has been lacking a big, blockbuster title, and IMHO
LotR will be that title. Massive budget. Massive ad campaign. A
pretty damn decent line-up of stars. From all the New Zealand Tourist
Bureau ads (or whatever) we get here, the scenery will be breathtaking.
The sets already look wonderful, and you can bet that there'll be no
skimping on the special effects wizardry. And you needn't worry about
the story, naturally :-) Point out *one* movie that actually had these
things, but didn't do well, regardless of genre.
Robbie Grant
>
> >Would a massive rumble *with* a story suffice?
>
> even be the high-point of the movie. As long as it isn't the film's raison
> d'etre.
Well, in the end, aliens fighting predators *will* be the raison
d'etre, as you so nicely put it, of a film called "Aliens versus
Predator". If, on the other hand, you mean that you don't want aliens
fighting predators to be the sole focus of the film, I agree, and it
would be a very poor script that called for this. I don't think that
this is *necessary*, however an avp film is going to have a higher
"action count" than any alien film. There should still be room for a
decent story, though. Either way, I'm sure it'd be entertaining enough
to waste a couple of hours. As long as there were decent previews. :-)
SULPHURKILL
Adam Cameron <da_ca...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mqnq2tcu8qdebps9m...@4ax.com...
wmmvrrvrrmm
(JEyers) wrote:
<< Baron Munchausen (which I personally like, but might be a bit
too complex for some) >>
Well, I'm not too happy about putting that in the fantasy genre seeing that's
it's loosely based on the stories told by a real life adventurer. I'd loosely
call it semi-fiction since it's not an accurate biography picture, and then the
philosophy running through it might be said to be quite important for those who
wish to go on visionary quests of one sort or another. I think that Hieronymous
Karl Friedrich Freiherr Von Munchhausen would have appreciated Gilliam's
interpretation in terms of the restrictions of movie making, of course.
Robbie Grant
>
> sorry did i miss somthing what film is lotr
Lord of the Rings
Adam Cameron
I think we can - err - overlook it just this once.
Just - err - make sure it doesn't happen again.
All right?
OK, off you go then.
Adam
Adam Cameron
As Fuzz said: Lord of the Rings.
When you're consulting one of those Usenet / netiquette FAQs that
you've no-doubt D/Led, wanna read the bit about TOP POSTING and
SNIPPING?
We'll get you there eventually.
Adam
JEyers
Oh, I believe you. I know there is a vast following for Tolkein, much bigger
than the Alien series. But these films are costing what? $80 million? $90
million?! Try and comprehend how much that is in real terms. Everyone bandies
around 'oh, it only cost $50 million' without thinking about what they're
saying. The film needs to be huge, and I just don't think it will be...
>The fantasy genre has been lacking a big, blockbuster title
Exactly. Because they all flop.
>A
>pretty damn decent line-up of stars
Sean Astin (who?) and Elijah Wood (ditto)... plus a few hasbeens in cameo
appearences. It's the kind of film you can imagine having John Stockwell,
greatest Hollywood star ever headlining... I'm not griping at you, understand,
just the whole situation in general...
JEyers
>d'etre
Well, yes, but you know what I mean...
>If, on the other hand, you mean that you don't want aliens
>fighting predators to be the sole focus of the film
That's what I mean! :-)
>a higher
>"action count" than any alien film
I agree there. I don't have any problems with that. Action films done well make
for great experiences. But look at the best two action films (IMHO), Aliens and
Terminator 2. They had stories, and they had a heart. Most action films bore me
because they lack those two things. I'll even admit to saying Titanic wasn't a
complete waste of 3 hours, if only because Cameron knew when it was time to
ditch the romance and get on with the sinking...
JEyers
But he's Sulphurkill, he's the most important person here - he's allowed to
ignore them. Didn't you know?
JEyers
Let's not get pretentious here. I don't like it when people say 1984 isn't
science fiction because it's intelligent. I don't like it when people call
Fatherland a Counterfactual instead of a science fiction thriller. I even fumed
when BBC Radio 4 said Star Wars wasn't science fiction because it was set in
the past.
Call a spade a spade, I say.
JEyers
That's very exclusive of you.
You might be interested in reading that article written by Harlan Ellison on
this topic, because I subscribe to his theory. Paraphrasing the key points: to
say SF is about science and nothing else is a great deal reductive, because it
leaves out so many great works of SF. He went on to define SF as anticipation
of the future, re-analysis of today and rediscovery of the past. Dispute away,
but I buy that.
JEyers
Plus $100 million marketing and distribution. Industry standard for
blockbusters (i.e. films that NEED to make a lot of money to be worth it) is
about $90 million, but if they're hyping it up as people claim, then it's
likely to be much higher. BTW, marketing and distribution is where the creative
accounting occurs. That's why Weaver and Cameron took Fox to court over saying
Aliens made a loss. The film cost $22 million, I believe, made double that, but
taking into account marketing and distribution, it was very close.
>Lord of the Rings was voted "best" (read: "most popular") book *EVER*
>in the UK a couple of years ago.
Yeah, I remember that. But the UK is always more cultured than America, who
cite Stephen King as their greatest living author, and the maximum a film has
made in the UK was about $40 million (yes, I'm using dollars, because that's
what the source said) for Notting Hell and Titanic. I don't really think a
genre piece is going to notch up that much here. Plus the survey was of what?
10,000 people? Probably less? That's not even enough to make $1 million.
>I think yo're just trying to be contrary for the hell of it.
No. I wish it well, I really do. But I wished Resurrection well, and that
pretty much flopped in America.
>I'd say "good actors" rather than stars.
Yeah, I can respect good actors, but you don't see good actors like John
Cusack, etc. pulling in the crowds required to make the film a financial
success.
>Hugo Weaving is in it. Cool.
>(I wonder if he is going to be in Agent Smith-mode or Mitzi-mode ;-)
Well, he says he doesn't usually go for roles like Agent Smith, so I don't
expect it'll be that.
wmmvrrvrrmm
(JEyers) wrote:
<<
Let's not get pretentious here. I don't like it when people say 1984 isn't
science fiction because it's intelligent. I don't like it when people call
Fatherland a Counterfactual instead of a science fiction thriller. I even fumed
when BBC Radio 4 said Star Wars wasn't science fiction because it was set in
the past. Call a spade a spade, I say. >>
well, I wouldn't be too happy giving into the BBC. If Freiherr Von Munchhausen
did claim that he did visit a floating domed island in the sky called Madam
Luna where he met extra-terrestrials, and if he did meet Venus and Vulcan
within the forge at Mount Etna, and if he did a few things that defied the laws
of physics, I don't find anything more astounding than the contents of books
about Whitley Strieber escapades or biographies about Uri Gellar, or a few
other paranormal phenomena books. As for a good number of other stories, I
can't make any comment until I know their origins and the context under which
they were told. I can't wait for the full unadulterated tales Von Munchhausen
to come to the surface one day, if there is such a thing, maybe buried in a box
somewhere. And I guess that Gilliam's film was a kind of fictionalised
representation that was not historically accurate, but touched upon a sense of
the Baron's paradoxical life.
Adam Cameron
>science fiction because it's intelligent.
SF requires an element of *science* being central to the story. 1984
was a political satire.
> I don't like it when people call
>Fatherland a Counterfactual instead of a science fiction thriller.
I think you're missing the concept of SF here.
Fatherland was an "Alternative History" piece. Fairly eveident, I
would have thought, unless you think Germany is still like that (and
by the sounds of it...)
> I even fumed
>when BBC Radio 4 said Star Wars wasn't science fiction because it was set in
>the past.
Most people bag it's SF content because it has no "hard science",
which I think is a bit wanky. Spaceships and laser guns equate to SF
in my books.
But then again, in *your* books 1984 and Fatherland are SF too...
>Call a spade a spade, I say.
Oh that's just being *racist*
Adam
Adam Cameron
"...here comes my little self rationalisation as to why I'm right and
you're wrong".
>these films are costing what? $80 million? $90
I *think* it is USD170M for all three, but that is from my old dino's
memory. USD60M each.
>million?! Try and comprehend how much that is in real terms. Everyone bandies
What has *realy* terms got to do with anything? Films costing
USD100M, whilst not being *common* are certainly nothing *surprising*
these days.
>around 'oh, it only cost $50 million' without thinking about what they're
>saying. The film needs to be huge, and I just don't think it will be...
Well you're wrong. Can't be helped.
Lord of the Rings was voted "best" (read: "most popular") book *EVER*
in the UK a couple of years ago. That means a hell of a lot of people
have read it and liked it more than anything else.
The LotR trailer / teaser was one of the fastest hit websites on
record.
Lord of the Rings is going to be that rarest of combinations: a movie
marketed as a summer blockbuster (well, Xmas holidays blockbuster, I
guess, if the release date is still Dec 2001) which also happens to be
a *good* film.
I think yo're just trying to be contrary for the hell of it.
>>The fantasy genre has been lacking a big, blockbuster title
>Exactly. Because they all flop.
No, because it's not been tried.
>>A
>>pretty damn decent line-up of stars
I'd say "good actors" rather than stars. I'm inclined to think that
in a film like this, having big *stars* would work against it: the
*movie* is the star, not Sylvester Stallone (etc).
And hey... Just noticed Hugo Weaving is in it. Cool.
(I wonder if he is going to be in Agent Smith-mode or Mitzi-mode ;-)
Adam
Adam Cameron
Sorry: possibly bad wording from me, but also possibly you be
selective in your comprehension.
>say SF is about science and nothing else is a great deal reductive, because it
Which I didn't say.
>leaves out so many great works of SF. He went on to define SF as anticipation
>of the future, re-analysis of today and rediscovery of the past. Dispute away,
>but I buy that.
That sounds very interesting, but a bit too broad for my liking. Kind
of describes literature, to me. But as you suggest: opinions is
opinions.
Adam
Covenant
"Adam Cameron" <da_ca...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>People basically do what they're told, and next
> year they will be told to want to go see LoTR.
But what of us who want to see it *already* ??
I think LotR will be a niche film...
(A very large budget and highly publicised one... but still...)
--
Covenant.
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
Robbie Grant
>
> >Compare the number of posts
>
> million?! Try and comprehend how much that is in real terms. Everyone bandies
> saying. The film needs to be huge, and I just don't think it will be...
And I think you're wrong. 80-90 mill (or whatever it actually costs)
isn't that much these days. Of course it's a lot for you or me, but
what the fuck has that got to do with anything?
I know that movies require a large amount of money in to cover the cost
of making the movie as well as the cost of promoting it, but the next
couple of years are going to see a plethora of big-budget fantasy titles
getting people ready for the one that started it all. Dungeons and
Dragons, due for an American release in a couple of days time, should
give a pretty good indication of what the demand is like, and each movie
released will add to the hype for LotR. The makers of Conan 3
(rumoured), ElfQuest, Reign of Fire, Shrek, Harry Potter and Willow 2
(rumoured), to name just a few, seem to be placing great stock in LotR's
ability to raise the interest of Joe Public in these fantasy worlds, and
that kind of money simply doesn't get spent without it being a sure
thing. Mark my words: Lord of the rings *will not* flop.
> >The fantasy genre has been lacking a big, blockbuster title
>
> Exactly. Because they all flop.
What, exactly, flopped? Did it have all those things that I mentioned
going for it (that you conveniently snipped)? Didn't think so.
> Sean Astin (who?) and Elijah Wood (ditto)... plus a few hasbeens in cameo
> appearences. It's the kind of film you can imagine having John Stockwell,
> greatest Hollywood star ever headlining... I'm not griping at you, understand,
> just the whole situation in general...
Okay, so maybe "stars" was the wrong word, but your little attempt at
discrediting the entire cast by picking on a couple of actors that I've
personally never had a problem with shows your bias. Here's this list
of confirmed major cast members: Ian McKellan, Ian Holm, Sean Bean,
Viggo Mortensen, Liv Tyler, Christopher Lee, Elijah Wood, Sean Astin,
Billy Boyd, Cate Blanchett (Oi! Oi! Oi!), Orlando Bloom, Brad Dourif,
Dominic Monaghan, John Rhys-Davies, Miranda Otto, Hugo Weaving and
Bernard Hill. No complaints there from me, as long as they manage to
eradicate a few accents (and from all accounts, they've gone to great
efforts to do just that).
In the end, no-one can say that *any* movie will be successful or a
failure. But I do find your reasoning for LotR's assured success to be
highly dubious, if not blatantly contrived.
JEyers
>highly dubious, if not blatantly contrived.
I don't reason it will be an assured success. Quite the opposite.
>80-90 mill (or whatever it actually costs)
>isn't that much these days.
In terms of how much things like Titanic, Star Wars, Pearl Harbor and Dinosaur
cost, no, but all those four are far more mainstream than LotR ever will be.
This might be difficult for people in the SF and fantasy fraternity to
comprehend, but most people (i.e. the mainstream) think fantasy
films/books/etc. are a joke.
>Dungeons and Dragons
And who HASN'T panned it?
>Harry Potter
Now THAT will be a surefire hit.
>raise the interest of Joe Public in these fantasy worlds
Hmm, maybe. Either that or it will make people thoroughly sick of them before
LotR even hits the screen.
>Lord of the rings *will not* flop.
I'd bet you on it as well.
>What, exactly, flopped?
Willow. Labyrinth. The BBC's version of Gormenghast. All major fantasy
projects. All flops. It's not because they were bad films, and I fully expect
LotR to be better than all of them, it's just that there isn't the demand, and
demand = money.
>I've
>personally never had a problem with
Hey, no, don't get me wrong, I thought Astin was great in The Goonies and...
er... um... Friday 13th Part 22?
JEyers
>time.
I will be...
Robbie Grant
<snip>
Fine. Be that way. Just make sure you're still around in a year's
time.