Article-I.D.: ut-sally.2202
Posted: Thu Jun 27 02:44:04 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Jun-85 03:24:06 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 59
Xref: watmath net.movies:6778 net.movies.sw:541



                           _Star_Wars_

                        by Kelvin Thompson

 _Star_Wars_, yet another entry in the recent spate of "Space Operas," is
 a bad, morally empty movie.  Look, quick!!  It has lights!!  It has
 zooming spaceships!!  It has laser flashes!!  It has explosions!!  Look
 closer, and it has nothing.
 
 The plot of _Star_Wars_ is certainly nothing new: a bunch of good guys
 try to overthrow an evil space empire.  Ruling the evil space empire
 are an evil count, James Earl Jones (a Negro), and an evil spaceship
 commander, Peter Cushing (_Dracula_A.D._1972_, _The_Curse_of_
 _Frankenstein_).  Among the good guys are a princess, Carrie Fisher
 (_The_Blues_Brothers, _Shampoo_), an old warrior, Alec Guiness
 (_The_Man_in_the_White_Suit_, _Murder_by_Death_), a young warrior, Mark
 Hammil (_Corvette_Summer_, _Three_Women_), a mercenary, Harrison Ford
 (_Witness_, _The_Conversation_), and assorted robots and aliens.
 
 From its opening scene, where two spaceships chase each other around a
 planet while trying to blow one another to smithereens, the movie loses
 any semblance of realism.  The spaceships make swishing and humming
 noises as they maneuver about, and their lasers make zapping noises as
 they fire -- all despite the fact that it has been scientifically proven
 that there are absolutely no sounds in space.  
 
 In another gaffe later in the movie, a robot supposedly manages to go up
 and down a staircase, even though it is quite obvious that it is
 structurally impossible for the robot to do so.  The camera cuts away
 just as the robot gets to the staircase, but the viewer is again jolted
 by the obvious impossiblity.
 
 More important than any scientific error, however, is the glaring lack of
 any moral statement.  In a time of mass starvation in central Africa,
 terrible human-wave battles in the Middle East, repression of civil
 rights in the USSR, legalized racism in South Africa, and rampant
 terrorism everywhere, this movie just hums merrily along in its
 rose-colored glasses.  
 
 For example, when Hammill, the supposed hero of the movie, sees the
 burned corpses of his parents, he responds by turning his head sideways. 
 No tears, no shouts of outrage, just a crick in the neck and they are
 forgotten.  Later, when an android buddy of his is discriminated against
 in a space-bar, he accepts the wrong without a blink.  Late in the film,
 when an entire *planet* full of billions of sentient beings is
 annihilated, the good guys just sort of go, "Gosh, that's too bad."  The
 bad guys, of course, smile cruelly.  These kinds of responses to murder,
 discrimination, and genocide certainly do not encourage the kind of
 consciousness needed to overcome today's problems.
 
 _Star_Wars_ contains a lot of action sequences, so it will no doubt have
 a strong draw on today's young people.  Nonetheless, parents should make
 every effort to keep their children away from this morally bankrupt movie
 and direct them toward a film which takes a useful stand on some of the
 issues facing our world.  And, naturally, all ethical adults should stay 
 well away from it themselves.
 

Article-I.D.: astroatc.164
Posted: Thu Jun 27 16:22:12 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Jun-85 00:32:52 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Astronautics ATC, Madison, WI
Lines: 96
Xref: watmath net.movies:6784 net.movies.sw:542

 >  
 >  
 >                             _Star_Wars_
 >  
 >                          by Kelvin Thompson
 >  
 >   _Star_Wars_, yet another entry in the recent spate of "Space Operas," is
 >   a bad, morally empty movie.  Look, quick!!  It has lights!!  It has
 >   zooming spaceships!!  It has laser flashes!!  It has explosions!!  Look
 >   closer, and it has nothing.

Star Wars is a FANTASY-Adventure, that just happens to take place
"a long time ago, in a Galaxy far, far away".  At this it is Excelent!
As for value, I recall that it won an Oscar. (Not bad for what you call
a worthless movie, especially considering that most critics would agree
with you!)
	Why to people expect *MUCH* more from a movie in space?  (See a
previous posting about Battlestar Galactiac posted to net.startrek)

	Look at how much is made off of James Bond movies....Do they have
any deep meaning, or new and original plot lines?  Are they less 
predictable?
	I happen to *LIKE* special effects, and I agree that removeing them
all would detract from the movie, but what would you have if you
made "Raiders" with 20 year old techniqes?
 >   any semblance of realism.  The spaceships make swishing and humming
 >   noises as they maneuver about, and their lasers make zapping noises as
 >   they fire -- all despite the fact that it has been scientifically proven
 >   that there are absolutely no sounds in space.  

cuz it's a fantacy-adventure in space.  The *BIGGEST* tech. flaw that
can't be labled as "artistic licence is the personality of the robots,
but I LIKE them cuz it's a *FUN* movie, not a serious movie like
"Breakfast Club" or "The Big Chill" both of which were a bit boring!

 >   
 >   In another gaffe later in the movie, a robot supposedly manages to go up
 >   and down a staircase, even though it is quite obvious that it is
 >   structurally impossible for the robot to do so.  

C3PO is no prob...R2D2 is a tri-ped, and he can extend his fore limb
(he rolled down an incline with is "body" vertical, not normal to the
 inclne)  so he/she/it should beable to navigate stairs, thou not without
considerable difficulty.

 >   
 >   More important than any scientific error, however, is the glaring lack of
 >   any moral statement.
---see abobe----
 >   For example, when Hammill, the supposed hero of the movie, sees the
 >   burned corpses of his parents, he responds by turning his head sideways. 

NO!  They are his Aunt and Uncle!  He hated them, there farm, and that
	whole planet!!  (Besides, real men don't cry!)  There death was
a predictable, and convenient way to get him to go with Obi Wan.

 >   No tears, no shouts of outrage, just a crick in the neck and they are
 >   forgotten. 

Quoting from the script (after the hologram-messages, and just after
	the destroyed jawa droid selling thing):
Luke: if they traced the robots here, they may have learned who they 
	sold them to.  And that would lead them back Home!
Luke reaches a sudden horrible realization, then races for the speeder and 
jumps in.
BEN: Wait, Luke!  It's too dangerous.
luke races off leaving ben and the robots...gets home...
Luke stumbles around in a daze looking for his aunt and uncle.
Suddenly he cones upon their smoldering reamins.  He is stunned, and 
cannot speak,  Hate replaced fear and a new resolve come over him.
---end quote---
it is common for one to not realize the full implication of a death
especially a sudden and violent death imeadeatly.  This is normal
psycology.

 >   Nonetheless, parents should make
 >   every effort to keep their children away from this morally bankrupt movie
 >   and direct them toward a film which takes a useful stand on some of the
 >   issues facing our world.  And, naturally, all ethical adults should stay 
 >   well away from it themselves.
 >   
Bull!  SW is good clean fun! It also has a clear image of good and evil.
It shows a kid become a man, and even if you were right, that it had
totaly no social value, I'd still go see it 10 times just for the effects.

There is nothing wrong with 1) good entertanment (Sometimes I hate sorries that
try TOO HARD to make a statement!  That detracts!)
and 2) technology for the sake of tecnology!  (read: good movie effects)

flame back to sw (I don't read movies)

------John Wardale  --  Madison, Wisconsin

any civilized machine !uwvax!astroatc!johnw

*** To err is human, to really foul-up world news requres The Net ***

Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.1922
Posted: Thu Jun 27 22:41:26 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Jun-85 01:23:27 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Dept. of Chemical Engineering, UT Austin
Lines: 9
Xref: watmath net.movies:6789 net.movies.sw:543


I know that propagation through USENET can take a bit of time, but REALLY!...

-- 

                                         Steve Thiel
                               ...ihnp4!ut-ngp!thiel

"Qui nos rodunt confudatur et cum iustis non scribantur"  (:-))

Article-I.D.: petrus.384
Posted: Fri Jun 28 14:03:40 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Jun-85 04:15:52 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc
Lines: 81
Xref: watmath net.movies:6792 net.movies.sw:544 net.flame:10865

FLAME ON!!!

 >  
 >  
 >                             _Star_Wars_
 >  
 >                          by Kelvin Thompson
 >  
 >   _Star_Wars_, yet another entry in the recent spate of "Space Operas," is
 >   a bad, morally empty movie.  Look, quick!!  It has lights!!  It has
 >   zooming spaceships!!  It has laser flashes!!  It has explosions!!  Look
 >   closer, and it has nothing.

   Oh no! Not you again! Who are you? Why do you write these movies reviews
   that don't make sense? Okay, okay, Star Wars isn't a great movie, but it
   did great at the boxoffice (must have been seen by everbody). It's fantasy.
   It's action. It entertains (most people I know at least). Now...what do
   you mean by recent spate of "Space Operas"? Star Wars came out in 1977!
   Where have you been for the last 8 years?

 >   
 >   The plot of _Star_Wars_ is certainly nothing new: a bunch of good guys
 >   try to overthrow an evil space empire.  Ruling the evil space empire
 >   are an evil count, James Earl Jones (a Negro), and an evil spaceship

   Thank you very much for telling me JEJ is black. What does this have
   to do with your movie review? He doesn't play the part anyway, he
   just did the voice.

 >   From its opening scene, where two spaceships chase each other around a
 >   planet while trying to blow one another to smithereens, the movie loses
 >   any semblance of realism.  The spaceships make swishing and humming
 >   noises as they maneuver about, and their lasers make zapping noises as
 >   they fire -- all despite the fact that it has been scientifically proven
 >   that there are absolutely no sounds in space.  
 >   
 >   In another gaffe later in the movie, a robot supposedly manages to go up
 >   and down a staircase, even though it is quite obvious that it is
 >   structurally impossible for the robot to do so.  The camera cuts away
 >   just as the robot gets to the staircase, but the viewer is again jolted
 >   by the obvious impossiblity.

   Jolted???? I didn't even notice that! I don't think too many other
   people did either. This is entertainment. You don't try to examine
   a movie for its techincal flaws when its supposed to be fantasy!
   Why didn't you just sit down and enjoy it?

 >   
 >   More important than any scientific error, however, is the glaring lack of
 >   any moral statement.  In a time of mass starvation in central Africa,
 >   terrible human-wave battles in the Middle East, repression of civil
 >   rights in the USSR, legalized racism in South Africa, and rampant
 >   terrorism everywhere, this movie just hums merrily along in its
 >   rose-colored glasses.  

   Once again, Sta Wars was made in 1977. Anyway, your view on its
   moral value has no place in a review. If what you say is applied
   to most movies these days (even the good ones) then all are guilty
   of not addressing what is going on in the world today. Is Prizzi's Honor
   a bad movie because it doesn't address present happenings in the world?

 >   _Star_Wars_ contains a lot of action sequences, so it will no doubt have
 >   a strong draw on today's young people.  Nonetheless, parents should make
 >   every effort to keep their children away from this morally bankrupt movie
 >   and direct them toward a film which takes a useful stand on some of the
 >   issues facing our world.  And, naturally, all ethical adults should stay 
 >   well away from it themselves.

   You're a little too late. Most everbody has seen it already. Perhaps
   you should stay away from movies.


   If this article is supposed to be a joke (perhaps like your
   1984 review?) than I lower my flame. If not, please stop
   reviewing movies. Let's see some more real reviews on the
   net instead of this garbage.

                                     Danny J. Espinoza
                                     ...!bellcore!dje

FLAME OFF!!!

Article-I.D.: mit-vax.285
Posted: Fri Jun 28 17:34:56 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Jun-85 00:02:03 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP>
Reply-To: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe)
Distribution: net.movies
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 34
Xref: watmath net.movies:6802 net.movies.sw:545
Summary: 

In article <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> kelvin@ut-sally.UUCP (Kelvin Thompson) writes:

 >                            _Star_Wars_
 > 
 >                         by Kelvin Thompson
 > 
 >  _Star_Wars_, yet another entry in the recent spate of "Space Operas," is
 >  a bad, morally empty movie.  Look, quick!!  It has lights!!  It has
 >  zooming spaceships!!  It has laser flashes!!  It has explosions!!  Look
 >  closer, and it has nothing.

		(More garbage here)

 >  _Star_Wars_ contains a lot of action sequences, so it will no doubt have
 >  a strong draw on today's young people.  Nonetheless, parents should make
 >  every effort to keep their children away from this morally bankrupt movie
 >  and direct them toward a film which takes a useful stand on some of the
 >  issues facing our world.  And, naturally, all ethical adults should stay 
 >  well away from it themselves.

No no no no no no no no no no no no nooooooooooo!
You didn't write this Kelvin! Please tell the net you have drug problem.
This is BAD and STUPID. Kelvin! You're an idiot! Stop writing reviews!
You are giving the University of Texas a bad name. We can only lament,
that despite having both feet in your mouth, you can still type. Are you
for real?


-- 
Charles Forsythe
CSDF@MIT-VAX
"The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack.
    No one knows about it."
        -Rev. Wang Zeep

Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.4571
Posted: Sat Jun 29 01:15:19 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Jun-85 00:47:05 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> <285@mit-vax.UUCP>
Reply-To: barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin)
Distribution: net.movies
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 7
Xref: watmath net.movies:6807 net.movies.sw:546


Am I the only one who realized that the SW review was a hack?  Or am I
just making an unwarranted assumption?
-- 
    Barry Margolin
    ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
    UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar

Article-I.D.: h-sc1.408
Posted: Sat Jun 29 11:29:28 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Jun-85 02:35:33 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> <285@mit-vax.UUCP> <4571@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Distribution: net.movies
Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Center
Lines: 10
Xref: watmath net.movies:6816 net.movies.sw:548

 >  
 >  Am I the only one who realized that the SW review was a hack?  Or am I
 >  just making an unwarranted assumption?
 >  -- 
 >      Barry Margolin


	I thought so too - what does the author say?

	Liz Smith

Article-I.D.: drupa.999
Posted: Sat Jun 29 15:54:26 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Jun-85 03:12:25 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP>, <164@astroatc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
Lines: 46
Xref: watmath net.movies:6815 net.movies.sw:547


	Thank you John Wardale, I just couldn't think of
any thing to say that would appropriately put the 'observations'
of Mr. Kelvin Thomson in the right place -- out the window.

	I'm just curious to know what kind of a personality
expects Apocalypse Now and the Deer Hunter (with a sprinkle of
Kramer vs Kramer and Ordinary People) in a Science *FICTION*
*FANTASY* movie!!!!!  Read my lips -- it is all make believe!!
It is just for fun!!! Does *FAIRY TALE* mean anything to you?
I bet when Thompson's mother read Winnie the Pooh and Peter 
Rabbit to him, he exclaimed 'Mother!!! That's not realistic!!
Animals can't talk!'  What about Hansel and Gretel and all the 
witches in all the fairy tales and what about .....
 'THE WIZARD OF OZ'!!!!!! (Not the Return to . .)  I bet that
was a REAL waste of time for the whole world wasn't it???
I wonder why the heck it became a classic!!!!  Someone didn't
ask Kelvin's opinion!!!! (Shame on the critics!!)

	I'm really not trying to attack Kelvin Thompson personally.
I'm just trying to point out -- movies are a medium of escape.
And it takes all kinds of people to make this world.  That means
some people LIKE fantasy movies -- like science fictions, just like
some people like Rambos (though I'll never understand why -- but that's
another discussion) and others, probably like the Thompsons of this
world, like serious, 'mind jolting and thought provoking' movies ALL the time!!!
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  But all I'm saying is
see a movie as it is ... a fantasy is not SUPPOSED to be realistic --
it is a contradiction in terms. I personally like fantasy movies -- I can
find REALISM in my every day life anyway.  I don't need to pay $4 for 
2 hours and be miserable. I listen to the news every day.  I don't need
that kind of 'miserable news' even when I want to enjoy a couple of hours
at the movies.

	Star Wars is a clean good movie about the good vs evil.  And
the biggest moral in it is . . GOOD ALWAYS WINS . . something the daily
news and movies like Apocalypse Now lacks to portray. I was always taught
Good always wins -- and I still believe it.  And maybe that's why I try
to keep on fighting even when I feel 'good' has recieved an 'evil' blow.
I feel sorry for anyone who is cynical enough to not believe in that 
anymore.

	Lastly, fun is not for everyone.  It's for only those who are looking
for it.  Likewise, Star Wars is only for those who like to have fun and
enjoy a good, clean escape. Besides, wouldn't you rather your kids 'escaped'
on Star Wars than on '10'?

Article-I.D.: trwatf.1020
Posted: Sun Jun 30 14:19:13 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 2-Jul-85 04:44:54 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP>
Reply-To: root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith)
Distribution: net
Organization: TRW Advanced Technology Facility, Merrifield VA.
Lines: 62
Xref: watmath net.movies:6831 net.movies.sw:549

In article <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> kelvin@ut-sally.UUCP (Kelvin Thompson) writes:
 > 
 >                            _Star_Wars_
 > 
 >                         by Kelvin Thompson
 > 
 >  From its opening scene, where two spaceships chase each other around a
 >  planet while trying to blow one another to smithereens, the movie loses
 >  any semblance of realism.  The spaceships make swishing and humming
 >  noises as they maneuver about, and their lasers make zapping noises as
 >  they fire -- all despite the fact that it has been scientifically proven
 >  that there are absolutely no sounds in space.  

So what.  This is called artistic licence.

 >  In another gaffe later in the movie, a robot supposedly manages to go up
 >  and down a staircase, even though it is quite obvious that it is
 >  structurally impossible for the robot to do so.  The camera cuts away
 >  just as the robot gets to the staircase, but the viewer is again jolted
 >  by the obvious impossiblity.

If you're refering to the scene with R2D2 at the space port on Tatooine
then I think you're mistaken.  As I recall he was shown decending those stairs
by jockeying back and forth on his "legs."  No jolting impossibilities here.

 >  For example, when Hammill, the supposed hero of the movie, sees the
 >  burned corpses of his parents, he responds by turning his head sideways. 
 >  No tears, no shouts of outrage, just a crick in the neck and they are
 >  forgotten.

Those were not his parents.  They were his Aunt and Uncle.  You DID watch
this movie didn't you?

 >  Later, when an android buddy of his is discriminated against
 >  in a space-bar, he accepts the wrong without a blink.

Well maybe the universe this story was set in HAD discrimination.  This
isn't a sanction of discrimination.

 >  Late in the film,
 >  when an entire *planet* full of billions of sentient beings is
 >  annihilated, the good guys just sort of go, "Gosh, that's too bad."  The
 >  bad guys, of course, smile cruelly.  These kinds of responses to murder,
 >  discrimination, and genocide certainly do not encourage the kind of
 >  consciousness needed to overcome today's problems.
 >  
 >  _Star_Wars_ contains a lot of action sequences, so it will no doubt have
 >  a strong draw on today's young people.  Nonetheless, parents should make
 >  every effort to keep their children away from this morally bankrupt movie
 >  and direct them toward a film which takes a useful stand on some of the
 >  issues facing our world.  And, naturally, all ethical adults should stay 
 >  well away from it themselves.

Yes, let's stay clear of all movies that are devoid of morally or
politically relevant themes.  God forbid we should fill our minds with
anything but serious and meaningfull drama.
-- 

UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root	- Lord Frith
ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO

"Money for you from the Buddah"

Article-I.D.: mhuxn.201
Posted: Mon Jul  1 13:07:26 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 2-Jul-85 05:32:27 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> <164@astroatc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 99
Xref: watmath net.movies:6835 net.movies.sw:550

 >>  
 >>  
 >>                             _Star_Wars_
 >>  
 >>                          by Kelvin Thompson
 >>  
 >>   _Star_Wars_, yet another entry in the recent spate of "Space Operas," is
 >>   a bad, morally empty movie.  Look, quick!!  It has lights!!  It has
 >>   zooming spaceships!!  It has laser flashes!!  It has explosions!!  Look
 >>   closer, and it has nothing.
 >  
 >  Star Wars is a FANTASY-Adventure, that just happens to take place
 >  "a long time ago, in a Galaxy far, far away".  At this it is Excelent!
 >  As for value, I recall that it won an Oscar. (Not bad for what you call
 >  a worthless movie, especially considering that most critics would agree
 >  with you!)
 >  	Why to people expect *MUCH* more from a movie in space?  (See a
 >  previous posting about Battlestar Galactiac posted to net.startrek)
 >  
 >  	Look at how much is made off of James Bond movies....Do they have
 >  any deep meaning, or new and original plot lines?  Are they less 
 >  predictable?
 >  	I happen to *LIKE* special effects, and I agree that removeing them
 >  all would detract from the movie, but what would you have if you
 >  made "Raiders" with 20 year old techniqes?
 >>   any semblance of realism.  The spaceships make swishing and humming
 >>   noises as they maneuver about, and their lasers make zapping noises as
 >>   they fire -- all despite the fact that it has been scientifically proven
 >>   that there are absolutely no sounds in space.  
 >  
 >  cuz it's a fantacy-adventure in space.  The *BIGGEST* tech. flaw that
 >  can't be labled as "artistic licence is the personality of the robots,
 >  but I LIKE them cuz it's a *FUN* movie, not a serious movie like
 >  "Breakfast Club" or "The Big Chill" both of which were a bit boring!
 >  
 >>   
 >>   In another gaffe later in the movie, a robot supposedly manages to go up
 >>   and down a staircase, even though it is quite obvious that it is
 >>   structurally impossible for the robot to do so.  
 >  
 >  C3PO is no prob...R2D2 is a tri-ped, and he can extend his fore limb
 >  (he rolled down an incline with is "body" vertical, not normal to the
 >   inclne)  so he/she/it should beable to navigate stairs, thou not without
 >  considerable difficulty.
 >  
 >>   
 >>   More important than any scientific error, however, is the glaring lack of
 >>   any moral statement.
 >  ---see abobe----
 >>   For example, when Hammill, the supposed hero of the movie, sees the
 >>   burned corpses of his parents, he responds by turning his head sideways. 
 >  
 >  NO!  They are his Aunt and Uncle!  He hated them, there farm, and that
 >  	whole planet!!  (Besides, real men don't cry!)  There death was
 >  a predictable, and convenient way to get him to go with Obi Wan.
 >  
 >>   No tears, no shouts of outrage, just a crick in the neck and they are
 >>   forgotten. 
 >  
 >  Quoting from the script (after the hologram-messages, and just after
 >  	the destroyed jawa droid selling thing):
 >  Luke: if they traced the robots here, they may have learned who they 
 >  	sold them to.  And that would lead them back Home!
 >  Luke reaches a sudden horrible realization, then races for the speeder and 
 >  jumps in.
 >  BEN: Wait, Luke!  It's too dangerous.
 >  luke races off leaving ben and the robots...gets home...
 >  Luke stumbles around in a daze looking for his aunt and uncle.
 >  Suddenly he cones upon their smoldering reamins.  He is stunned, and 
 >  cannot speak,  Hate replaced fear and a new resolve come over him.
 >  ---end quote---
 >  it is common for one to not realize the full implication of a death
 >  especially a sudden and violent death imeadeatly.  This is normal
 >  psycology.
 >  
 >>   Nonetheless, parents should make
 >>   every effort to keep their children away from this morally bankrupt movie
 >>   and direct them toward a film which takes a useful stand on some of the
 >>   issues facing our world.  And, naturally, all ethical adults should stay 
 >>   well away from it themselves.
 >>   
 >  Bull!  SW is good clean fun! It also has a clear image of good and evil.
 >  It shows a kid become a man, and even if you were right, that it had
 >  totaly no social value, I'd still go see it 10 times just for the effects.
 >  
 >  There is nothing wrong with 1) good entertanment (Sometimes I hate sorries that
 >  try TOO HARD to make a statement!  That detracts!)
 >  and 2) technology for the sake of tecnology!  (read: good movie effects)
 >  
 >  flame back to sw (I don't read movies)
 >  
 >  ------John Wardale  --  Madison, Wisconsin
 >  
 >  any civilized machine !uwvax!astroatc!johnw
 >  
 >  *** To err is human, to really foul-up world news requres The Net ***

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
Way to go, John!

Article-I.D.: hcrvax.1847
Posted: Tue Jul  2 17:26:24 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jul-85 01:39:47 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Human Computing Resources, Toronto
Lines: 12



 >                            _Star_Wars_
 > 
 >                         by Kelvin Thompson
 > 
 >  
 >  For example, when Hammill, the supposed hero of the movie, sees the
 >  burned corpses of his parents, he responds by turning his head sideways. 

Hey, I saw that movies, and it was his aunt and uncle, not his parents.

Article-I.D.: hcrvax.1848
Posted: Tue Jul  2 17:33:52 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jul-85 01:40:54 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> <384@petrus.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Human Computing Resources, Toronto
Lines: 12

I posted a follow-up about this article, and here is another one.
Why is everyone flaming Keith ? (if I can call you Keith)  I thought his
posting was funny and enjoyed reading it.  Is the Star War saga so important
that no one can laugh at it.

Thank You Keith, I enjoyed it, and I invite others, who also enjoyed Keith's
review to comment.  Stop these people who take life too seriously.

Jim Sullivan

(I put a disclaimer, but who else would be so crazy to agree with me!)

Article-I.D.: hcrvax.1849
Posted: Tue Jul  2 17:37:37 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jul-85 01:42:02 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> <285@mit-vax.UUCP>
Distribution: net.movies
Organization: Human Computing Resources, Toronto
Lines: 4

In my pervious article, I incorrectly identified the author.
The correct first name is Kelvin.

(damn, I forgot the last name)

Article-I.D.: ihlpa.700
Posted: Mon Jul  1 16:37:44 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jul-85 06:42:27 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 25
Xref: watmath net.movies:6836 net.movies.sw:551

 >  
 >  
 >                             _Star_Wars_
 >  
 >                          by Kelvin Thompson
 >  
 >   _Star_Wars_, yet another entry in the recent spate of "Space Operas," is
 >   a bad, morally empty movie.  Look, quick!!  It has lights!!  It has
 >   zooming spaceships!!  It has laser flashes!!  It has explosions!!  Look
 >   closer, and it has nothing.
 >   
	more useless drivel...........



	oh! University of Texas...that explains it!!
DISCLAIMER:
	Nothing against all the rest of you but if you let this
	idiot loose with a terminal...well...something's wrong!!


						"Engineering....
						 Scott here..."

  

Article-I.D.: mtuxo.769
Posted: Tue Jul  2 15:48:20 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jul-85 08:42:29 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> <700@ihlpa.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 15
Xref: watmath net.movies:6842 net.movies.sw:553

I'll confess, for the first two reviews, I thought Kelvin was
serious.  But c'mon, folks, that STAR WARS review proved to me that
he is pulling our collective leg.  Reviewing an eight-year-old
movie, that wasn't just re-released, as if it *was* brand-new?

I don't buy it.  *Nobody* who has access to this net is sufficiently
disconnected from reality to not have at least heard of STAR WARS.

He's kidding, and now that I know that, I can appreciate his 1984
"review."  

Rob Mitchell  {allegra,ihnp4}!mtuxo!jrrt

Es un entreverado loco, lleno de lucidos intervalos.
(He is a muddled fool, full of lucid intervals.  *Don Quixote*)

Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8707
Posted: Tue Jul  2 21:16:06 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jul-85 09:04:07 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> <319@azure.UUCP>
Reply-To: allynh@ucbvax.UUCP (Allyn Hardyck)
Distribution: net
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 14
Xref: watmath net.movies:6844 net.movies.sw:554

Christ, CS people take themselves seriously.  I mean, except for those two
people at mit.

C'mon guys - the 1984 review should have given you a clue!  A person working
on an ARPANET machine in a department of COMPUTER SCIENCE at a MAJOR 
UNIVERSITY, reviewing movies, who only JUST saw Star Wars?!?!?!??  A guy who
knew that Harrison Ford was in Witness but I guess assumed that he became
a star because he was in The Conversation?!?!?!  How many of you knew he
was in that?  I knew he was in Apocalypse Now but...

No, Kelvin is having a very well-executed laugh on you.  Kudos.  I venture
that it's the requirement of the average harried CS person, who apparently
has no sense of subtlety, to view information as being absolutely factual and
serious first that caused the confusion.

Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8708
Posted: Tue Jul  2 21:28:15 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jul-85 09:05:42 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> <319@azure.UUCP> <8707@ucbvax.ARPA>
Reply-To: allynh@ucbvax.UUCP (Allyn Hardyck)
Distribution: net
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 2
Xref: watmath net.movies:6845 net.movies.sw:555


Excuse me - one person at mit, one at harvard...  just a jaunt up mass. av...

Article-I.D.: sjuvax.1186
Posted: Mon Jul  1 16:47:45 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jul-85 09:21:45 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: St. Joseph's University, Phila. PA.
Lines: 38
Xref: watmath net.movies:6846 net.movies.sw:556


	O.K., just one question.  WHY?  Of course SW didn't have the deepest,
most intricate plot in the world.  But the whole point of the movie was
that it was GOOD CLEAN FUN.  And for those of us who enjoy a little bit more
in our movies, I beg to differ that it "has nothing".  On contrare (sp?),
it has EVERYTHING.  .

 >   The plot of _Star_Wars_ is certainly nothing new: a bunch of good guys
 >   try to overthrow an evil space empire.  Ruling the evil space empire
 >   are an evil count, James Earl Jones (a Negro), and an evil spaceship
 >   commander, Peter Cushing (_Dracula_A.D._1972_, _The_Curse_of_
 >   _Frankenstein_).  Among the good guys are a princess, Carrie Fisher
 >   (_The_Blues_Brothers, _Shampoo_), an old warrior, Alec Guiness
 >   (_The_Man_in_the_White_Suit_, _Murder_by_Death_), a young warrior, Mark
 >   Hammil (_Corvette_Summer_, _Three_Women_), a mercenary, Harrison Ford
 >   (_Witness_, _The_Conversation_), and assorted robots and aliens.
 >   

	Sure, GOOD vs BAD isn't NEW, but with the current state of many of
today's movies it certainly is different.  Not like those movies whose entire
plot revolves around seeing the female lead without her shirt, or the super-
psycho of the neighborhood hack his way through everyonr in town.

	I could go on and on, but my I'd probably run out of virtual storage
before I finished my article.  So just let me close with one final note:

Star Wars is part of history!  It's a tale of black, white, and in the later
episodes, grey!  It has a lesson for all, be it "may the force be with you",
or that determination can change the world - Destiny is a matter of choice,
not luck!

-- 

					Len Armstrong
					St. Joseph's University
						- and -
					RCA - Advanced Technology Labs
	             {astrovax | bpa | burdvax | allegra }!sjuvax!armstron

Article-I.D.: mnetor.1124
Posted: Tue Jul  2 17:17:21 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jul-85 10:26:56 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP>
Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Distribution: net
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 142
Xref: utcs net.movies:6395 net.movies.sw:550
Summary: 

In article <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> kelvin@ut-sally.UUCP (Kelvin Thompson) writes:
 > 
 >                            _Star_Wars_
 > 
 >                         by Kelvin Thompson

Where have you been for the last decade?  Aren't you a little late for a 
review on Star Wars?  Your commentary also shows a notable lack of
understanding of what actually did happen in the movie and of how
movies with a moral statement HAVE to be presented.

 >  _Star_Wars_, yet another entry in the recent spate of "Space Operas," is
 >  a bad, morally empty movie.  Look, quick!!  It has lights!!  It has
 >  zooming spaceships!!  It has laser flashes!!  It has explosions!!  Look
 >  closer, and it has nothing.

Nothing what?  Not only is it entertaining, it has lots of moral meaning.  
In fact, it was laid on rather thick in places.

 >  The plot of _Star_Wars_ is certainly nothing new: a bunch of good guys

What did you expect?  There haven't been any new scripts for years.

 >  (_The_Blues_Brothers, _Shampoo_), an old warrior, Alec Guiness
 >  (_The_Man_in_the_White_Suit_, _Murder_by_Death_), a young warrior, Mark

You forgot the "Sir".

 >  noises as they maneuver about, and their lasers make zapping noises as
 >  they fire -- all despite the fact that it has been scientifically proven
 >  that there are absolutely no sounds in space.  

So what!  I have yet to see a Sci-Fi movie that doesn't have sound effects.  
And, I'm an addict of them! Besides, they always can claim that the battles 
were in a gas cloud which would transmit sounds.

 >  In another gaffe later in the movie, a robot supposedly manages to go up
 >  and down a staircase, even though it is quite obvious that it is
 >  structurally impossible for the robot to do so.  The camera cuts away
 >  just as the robot gets to the staircase, but the viewer is again jolted
 >  by the obvious impossiblity.

You are the first person I've heard that was jolted.  I don't even remember
that part.  Besides, one of the later movies did show how it was done.
 
 >  More important than any scientific error, however, is the glaring lack of
 >  any moral statement.  In a time of mass starvation in central Africa,
 >  terrible human-wave battles in the Middle East, repression of civil
 >  rights in the USSR, legalized racism in South Africa, and rampant
 >  terrorism everywhere, this movie just hums merrily along in its
 >  rose-colored glasses.  

Why is it that some people seem to think that every movie has to have
a moral statement?  The examples you give don't need movies to give 
them moral support.  The daily news covers them perfectly well enough -
AND there ARE other movies that DO have moral statements about just 
those things.  

You seem to display the same sort of knee-jerk mentality that
was responsible for the despicable treatment of the returning Vietnam
Vets.

 >  For example, when Hammill, the supposed hero of the movie, sees the
 >  burned corpses of his parents, he responds by turning his head sideways. 
 >  No tears, no shouts of outrage, just a crick in the neck and they are
 >  forgotten.  

What did you expect?  Shakespearean speaches?  Not everybody displays grief 
in that fashion.  And he did display grief - I don't think that you paid 
very close attention.  Besides, given the target audience (lots of little
kids) they could have done some real damage if they overplayed it.

 >  Later, when an android buddy of his is discriminated against
 >  in a space-bar, he accepts the wrong without a blink.  

Again, you weren't paying very much attention.  Besides, his buddy
was a robot - not a sentient being.  He also had to take into account
practicality - I'd hate to have to underwrite your life insurance if 
you are the type to take direct action in such circumstances.  Nor
would you live very long in the USSR.

 >  Late in the film,
 >  when an entire *planet* full of billions of sentient beings is
 >  annihilated, the good guys just sort of go, "Gosh, that's too bad."  The
 >  bad guys, of course, smile cruelly.  

Are you sure you were watching the movie "Star Wars"?  It doesn't sound
like you were.  You obviously didn't read the book either.

 >  These kinds of responses to murder,
 >  discrimination, and genocide certainly do not encourage the kind of
 >  consciousness needed to overcome today's problems.

What are you talking about?  The response was to defeat the bad guys.  
Would you have prefered that the bad guys got away with the murder, 
discrimination and genocide?  Or would you have preferred a lot of
breast-beating, wailing and retaliatary action BEFORE the good guys were
prepared?  There would have been pretty little opportunity for
morality if the good guys were killed by reacting instantaneously
to specific wrongs rather than developing their strength before
responding.  

Besides, as in all other "moralistic works" the movie had to take 
time at the beginning to show how bad the bad guys were.

 >  _Star_Wars_ contains a lot of action sequences, so it will no doubt have
 >  a strong draw on today's young people.  Nonetheless, parents should make
 >  every effort to keep their children away from this morally bankrupt movie
 >  and direct them toward a film which takes a useful stand on some of the
 >  issues facing our world.  

Why?  Besides, many of the films taking a "useful stand" are too strong
for children.  My children will see them eventually - I assure you of
that.  But I won't take them to such movies BEFORE they are ready for such
movies.  Many of these movies (eg: The Killing Fields, Holocaust) could inflict
serious emotional damage on young and unprepared children.

Nor is Star Wars morally bankrupt.  Particularly when seen in conjunction
with the other two movies.  The three movies promote many different
moral qualities - trust, striving to end injustices, forgiveness, and
risking your life for the lives of others to name a few.

 > And, naturally, all ethical adults should stay well away from it themselves.

Crap.  Besides, you're a teensy weensy bit late - it's already made over
300 million dollars.  It's the 1st or 2nd all-time biggest money-making
movie ever.

The bad guys lost - due to the moral response to their actions - what 
more do you want?

	Whether 'tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of 
	outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles
	and by opposing, end them.

The movie took the latter course - pretty moral I think.

I must be following up to a joke...
-- 
Chris Lewis,
UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis
BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321

Article-I.D.: garfield.3228
Posted: Wed Jul  3 15:06:27 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jul-85 18:52:36 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP>
Reply-To: michael3@garfield.UUCP (Mike Rendell)
Distribution: net
Organization: Memorial U. of Nfld. C.S. Dept., St. John's
Lines: 46
Summary: 

In article <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> kelvin@ut-sally.UUCP (Kelvin Thompson) writes:
]
]
]                           _Star_Wars_
]
]                        by Kelvin Thompson
]
] _Star_Wars_, yet another entry in the recent spate of "Space Operas," is
] a bad, morally empty movie.  Look, quick!!  It has lights!!  It has
] zooming spaceships!!  It has laser flashes!!  It has explosions!!  Look
] closer, and it has nothing.
] 
  .
  .
  .
] 
] _Star_Wars_ contains a lot of action sequences, so it will no doubt have
] a strong draw on today's young people.  Nonetheless, parents should make
] every effort to keep their children away from this morally bankrupt movie
] and direct them toward a film which takes a useful stand on some of the
] issues facing our world.  And, naturally, all ethical adults should stay 
] well away from it themselves.
] 


Well, Star Wars hasn't gotten here yet, but while I was on a trip last week
I saw it in Toronto and I LOVED it!!!!  It's the best movie I've seen since
Citizen Kane!! It was full of symbolic meaning, for instance the two
suns of Tatooine represent the friendship between Luke and Biggs - two sons
of Tattoine.  The explosion of the planet Alderaan was the wrath of God coming
down upon the evil citizens of planet for daring to create robots in the 
shape of men.  The X wing fighters representing the cross of Christ, fighting 
the seemingly hopeless battle against evil.  The explosion of the Death Star 
represents Mankind's final victory over evil.  Never again will such evil 
be seen in the universe.  
  Over all, it was a great movie, maybe the directors should consider making
a sequel exploring the relationship between Luke, Laya(sp?), and Darth Vader.
Maybe they could be related or something really wild like that!!  Just imagine
Luke meeting Darth Vader in a one on one duel!!!


						Mike Rendell
						michael3@garfield

P.s.  I wonder how Darth Vader and Obi-wan Kenobi first met?  I bet that
      would make an interesting movie too.

Article-I.D.: azure.319
Posted: Mon Jul  1 17:19:12 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jul-85 20:02:38 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 8
Xref: watmath net.movies:6840 net.movies.sw:552

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***

Er HUH? Since STAR WARS came out several years ago and was and was a
smash hit what is this review doing here and now?
(Golly, may be it was sent long long ago from a galaxy far far away?)
:-)

						W. Hansen

Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.11365
Posted: Tue Jul  2 15:52:05 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Jul-85 00:12:42 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> <285@mit-vax.UUCP> <4571@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Reply-To: wmartin@brl-bmd.UUCP
Distribution: net.movies
Organization: USAMC ALMSA
Lines: 7
Xref: watmath net.movies:6852 net.movies.sw:560

Nope, you are not alone. The several reviews to which people are posting
flaming responses really are parodies.

If you read some of this stuff and find yourself thinking "This can't be
for real", you are right.

No responses are necessary.

Article-I.D.: hpislb.67400002
Posted: Thu Jun 27 22:41:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Jul-85 04:08:23 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP>
Organization: HP Instrument Systems Lab - Loveland, CO
Lines: 9


Since I couldn't find a ":-)" in the base note (not that I've looked very
carefully), my reply is:

WHERE ON EARTH(?) HAVE YOU BEEN ALL THESE YEARS?????

BTW, Peter Cushing also starred in a couple of Dr. Who movies.

Jacob (inhp4!hpfcla!hpisla!gore)

Article-I.D.: leadsv.499
Posted: Tue Jul  2 12:26:19 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Jul-85 04:41:02 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> <1020@trwatf.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: LMSC-LEADS, Sunnyvale, Ca.
Lines: 15
Xref: watmath net.movies:6862 net.movies.sw:565
Summary: I think a number of people have been had!

 >  In article <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> kelvin@ut-sally.UUCP (Kelvin Thompson) writes:
 >> 
 >>                            _Star_Wars_
 >> 
 >>                         by Kelvin Thompson

I think a number of people out there have been had by Mr. Thompson.
He did an excellent job of spoofing the movie critique style using
as his subject a film with a plot well-known to all.

Those who seriously critiqued its content have probably made for a
good number of laughs down at the University of Texas.


          ucbvax!{sun!sunncal | amd!cae780}!leadsv!lew

Article-I.D.: decuac.549
Posted: Wed Jul  3 12:39:17 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Jul-85 06:04:57 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> <285@mit-vax.UUCP> <4571@mit-eddie.UUCP> <11365@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Distribution: net.movies
Organization: ULTRIX Applications Center, MD
Lines: 1
Xref: watmath net.movies:6864 net.movies.sw:566

If it isn't clear by now, subtle humor is *lost* on most of the net.

Article-I.D.: unc.538
Posted: Wed Jul  3 18:26:37 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 06:38:09 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> <285@mit-vax.UUCP> 
Reply-To: goodrum@unc.UUCP (Cloyd Goodrum)
Distribution: net.movies
Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Lines: 32
Xref: watmath net.movies:6868 net.movies.sw:567
Summary: 

In article  barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes:
 > 
 > Am I the only one who realized that the SW review was a hack?  Or am I
 > just making an unwarranted assumption?
 > -- 

	It sure seems that way from the flames Kelvin Thompson's been getting,
doesn't it??  I have to confess that when he posted his review of 1984, I was
taken in. I suppose it is possible that there might be someone out there who
had never read nor heard of Orwell's novel.

	But is there ANYONE who has just now seen Star Wars and is so out of
touch that he thinks that anyone would be interested in reading a review of
it???? That's impossible.

	I think what must have happened is that Thompson realized that no
one realized his 1984 review was written with tongue firmly planted in
cheek and wrote the Star Wars review thinking "Now everyone in Netland
will know I was just kidding." Poor Kelvin. I would have thought the same
thing myself, but I would have been wrong.

	I'd like to see Thompson do some serious reviews. There's a lot
of junk that Hollywood has been dumping on us lately, and they should
be taken to task for it. I'll give you an example. A few weeks back I
went to see a movie about Rimbaud, my favorite French poet. It was nothing
but a bunch of scenes with Sylvester Stallone running around shooting people!!
And it wasn't even set in France. As if the historical inaccuracies weren't
bad enough, that even spelled Rimbaud's name wrong in the title. Sheesh.

 >     Barry Margolin

	Cloyd Goodrum III

Article-I.D.: mit-vax.310
Posted: Wed Jul  3 15:48:39 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 06:41:24 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> <319@azure.UUCP> <8707@ucbvax.ARPA>
Reply-To: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe)
Distribution: net
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 18
Xref: watmath net.movies:6869 net.movies.sw:568
Summary: 

In article <8707@ucbvax.ARPA> allynh@ucbvax.UUCP (Allyn Hardyck) writes:
 > Christ, CS people take themselves seriously.  I mean, except for those two
 > people at mit.
 > 
 > C'mon guys - the 1984 review should have given you a clue!  A person working
 > on an ARPANET machine in a department of COMPUTER SCIENCE at a MAJOR 
 > UNIVERSITY, reviewing movies, who only JUST saw Star Wars?!?!?!??  A guy who

We are talking about TEXAS Allyn!    (very big :-)

-From the keyboard of a New England intellectual snob type.

-- 
Charles Forsythe
CSDF@MIT-VAX
"The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack.
    No one knows about it."
        -Rev. Wang Zeep

Article-I.D.: ukma.1935
Posted: Mon Jul  1 23:36:06 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 06:43:33 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> <285@mit-vax.UUCP>
Reply-To: sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey)
Distribution: net.movies
Organization: The White Tower @ The Univ. of KY
Lines: 22
Xref: watmath net.movies:6870 net.movies.sw:569

In article <285@mit-vax.UUCP> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes:
 > In article <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> kelvin@ut-sally.UUCP (Kelvin Thompson) writes:
 >>                            _Star_Wars_
 >> 
 >>                         by Kelvin Thompson
 > 
 > No no no no no no no no no no no no nooooooooooo!
 > [more flames]

Actually, whether it was intended to be funny or not, I thought the
review was quite accurate.  Star wars was quite a shallow movie.  The
reason it succeeded was because it's concept and execution was so new.
The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi were MUCH better movies
than Star Wars.

I thought that the book "Star Wars" was quite good.

-- 

-  Sean Casey				UUCP:	sean@ukma   or
-  Department of Mathematics			{cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean
-  University of Kentucky		ARPA:	ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA	

Article-I.D.: hadron.216
Posted: Tue Jul  2 22:58:56 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 07:27:37 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> <164@astroatc.UUCP>
Reply-To: jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao)
Distribution: net
Organization: Hadron, Inc., Fairfax, VA
Lines: 6
Xref: watmath net.movies:6876 net.movies.sw:570
Summary: It's a joke?

I can't believe anyone believes in that "review".
Dated so late, it's gotta be a joke.
It is a joke, isn't it?
-- 

	Joe Yao		hadron!jsdy@seismo.{ARPA,UUCP}

Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8812
Posted: Fri Jul  5 17:29:33 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Jul-85 11:00:28 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP>
Reply-To: grady@ucbvax.UUCP (Steven Grady)
Distribution: net
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 19
Xref: watmath net.movies:6895 net.movies.sw:573

In article <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> kelvin@ut-sally.UUCP (Kelvin Thompson) writes:
 > 
 > 
 >                            _Star_Wars_
 > 
 >                         by Kelvin Thompson
 > 
 >  _Star_Wars_, yet another entry in the recent spate of "Space Operas," is
 >  a bad, morally empty movie.  Look, quick!!  It has lights!!  It has
 >  zooming spaceships!!  It has laser flashes!!  It has explosions!!  Look
 >  closer, and it has nothing.

OK, I admit, I was taken in by the earlier postings.. But now I get it
(and I hope others do too..)  You should perhaps be a little more careful
to include ":-)" or some such, methinks, unless of course you like the
sight of open flames bruning bright..


	Steven

Article-I.D.: rtech.532
Posted: Fri Jul  5 12:57:54 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 7-Jul-85 05:51:55 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> <319@azure.UUCP> <8707@ucbvax.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: Relational Technology, Alameda CA
Lines: 7
Xref: watmath net.movies:6904 net.movies.sw:574

 >  A guy who knew that Harrison Ford was in Witness but I guess assumed 
 >  that he became a star because he was in The Conversation?!?!?! 

Who WAS Harrison Ford in The Conversation?

Robert Orenstein
Relational Technology

Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.6238
Posted: Wed Jul  3 02:24:25 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 7-Jul-85 06:11:36 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP>
Reply-To: reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (Peter Reiher)
Distribution: net
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 16
Xref: watmath net.movies:6907 net.movies.sw:576
Summary: 

In article <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> kelvin@ut-sally.UUCP (Kelvin Thompson) writes:
 > 
OK, we've all gotten the "joke", such as it is.  Now go back to net.flame where
people appreciate such subtle (and yet totally unamusing) humor.  And, while 
we're at it, one "m" in Mark Hamill's name, and they were his aunt and uncle,
not his parents.  Or is that part of the joke, too?

My suggestion to everyone else: ignore kelvin and he will go away.  From now
on, I certainly intend to follow this advice.  Long discussions about him will
merely make kelvin feel clever, despite all evidence to the contrary.  Praise be
to rn, which has features allowing me to cancel all articles by foolish authors.  
-- 
        			Peter Reiher
        			reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
				soon to be reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
        			{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher

Article-I.D.: drupa.1002
Posted: Mon Jul  8 17:31:51 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Jul-85 06:45:24 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP>, <3228@garfield.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
Lines: 11
Xref: watmath net.movies:6932 net.movies.sw:577


 Excuse me, but where have you been in the last 7 years?
Does 'EMPIRE STRIKES BACK' and 'RETURN OF THE JEDI' mean
anything to you?  If this article is a 'sequel' to the
Kelvin Thompson review joke, then let me say, harping on
the same punch line kinda gets stale (VERY stale) after a
while -- you dig?  Besides, if you want to make a joke,
let me give you a little advise, subltety gets the most
mileage out of most jokes.  Don't make it so ****** obvious!!
It reads SILLY all over it!!

Article-I.D.: rtech.544
Posted: Sun Jul  7 21:06:31 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 20:05:22 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> <285@mit-vax.UUCP>  <538@unc.UUCP>
Distribution: net.movies
Organization: Relational Technology, Alameda CA
Lines: 12
Xref: watmath net.movies:6953 net.movies.sw:580

 >                  ... I'll give you an example. A few weeks back I
 >  went to see a movie about Rimbaud, my favorite French poet. It was nothing
 >  but a bunch of scenes with Sylvester Stallone running around shooting people!!
 >  And it wasn't even set in France. As if the historical inaccuracies weren't
 >  bad enough, that even spelled Rimbaud's name wrong in the title. Sheesh.
 >  

I can hardly wait for Mark Shaney @ alice to start posting movie reviews.
-- 
{amdahl|dual|sun|zehntel}\		
{ucbvax|decvax}!mtxinu---->!rtech!daveb
ihnp4!{phoenix|amdahl}___/

Article-I.D.: umn-cs.765
Posted: Wed Jul  3 13:01:04 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Jul-85 02:11:56 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP>
Reply-To: goldman@umn-cs.UUCP (Matthew D. Goldman )
Distribution: net
Organization: Computer Science Dept., U of Minn, Mpls, MN
Lines: 19
Xref: watmath net.movies:6964 net.movies.sw:581
Summary: 

In article <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> kelvin@ut-sally.UUCP (Kelvin Thompson) writes:
 >  
 >  For example, when Hammill, the supposed hero of the movie, sees the
 >  burned corpses of his parents, 

no, no, no, it was his aunt and uncle...   :-)


-- 
-------
				Matthew Goldman
				Computer Science Department
				University of Minnesota
				...ihnp4{!stolaf}???!umn-cs!goldman

Home is where you take your hat off...			Banzai!

Kyllara :	What did you just do?
Moederan :	I don't know but it's going to be fun...