From lsmith@h-sc1.UUCP (Liz Smith) Tue Jul 9 08:33:10 1985 Newsgroups: net.movies Subject: Re: WARNING!! Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Center > > > Beware of French Rip-Offs!! > > by Kelvin Thompson > Thanks Kelvin, for making me laugh (at 9am yet) once again. I'm glad to see that those all-too-serious netlanders haven't chased you away. Liz Smith
From rance@cornell.UUCP (W. Rance Cleaveland) Wed Jul 10 10:01:22 1985 Subject: Re: WARNING!! Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept. > > > > > > Beware of French Rip-Offs!! > > > > by Kelvin Thompson > > > > Thanks Kelvin, for making me laugh (at 9am yet) once again. I'm glad to see that > those all-too-serious netlanders haven't chased you away. > > Liz Smith Hear, hear! Rance Cleaveland
From evan@petfe.UUCP (Evan Marcus) Wed Jul 10 12:45:53 1985 Subject: kelvin Thompson Organization: Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls, N.J. I am amazed at the people who are complaining about Mr. Thompson's delightful reviews. Due to an unfortunate break in Usenet links, I missed the original posting for Star Wars and 1984, but just read the one about French rip-offs. Delightful! So many people take themselves so damned seriously that it's a pleasure to this netter to see someone like this have a little fun at the expense of these overly serious individuals. If we call attention to his work like this, maybe he'll write others! I only hope he can maintain his high level of quality and subtlety. --Evan Marcus P.S. When is he going to review that horrible movie Raiders of the Lost Ark?
From root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) Fri Jul 12 15:26:37 1985 Subject: Re: kelvin Thompson Organization: TRW Advanced Technology Facility, Merrifield VA. In article <372@petfe.UUCP> evan@petfe.UUCP (Evan Marcus) writes: > I am amazed at the people who are complaining about Mr. Thompson's > delightful reviews. Due to an unfortunate break in Usenet links, I > missed the original posting for Star Wars and 1984, but just read > the one about French rip-offs. Delightful! ... I only hope he can maintain > his high level of quality and subtlety. His Star Wars review was far from subtle. About all he could do was take potshots with the more obvious complaints and negativisms critics of Star Wars had. In short.... Mr. Kelvin's Star Wars article was neither clever nor fun to read. It was just plain dumb as tongue-in-cheek humor. "There are none so blind as those that will not see" "Gonna hit the ball, and touch 'em all, A moment in the sun. It's a-gone and you can tell that one goodbye."
From preece@ccvaxa.UUCP Tue Jul 9 09:35:00 1985 Subject: Re: Kelvin Thompson's June reviews, sum > For the amusement of many of you, and I hope the gross embarassment of > others, here is a list of the reviews posted by Kelvin Thompson in the > past month or so, and the followups they generated. ---------- What wit is there in posting something that makes you appear to be an idiot? There are enough seriously idiotic things posted on the net that we cannot be expected to recognize a posting as satirical when all it appears to be is stupid. Viewed as humor, the reviews were reasonably amusing -- if they had been posted in a fashion that made their humorous intent obvious (as, for example, if they had been posted as a group or marked with the traditional :-)) a lot of us would have been amused and appreciative. Posting them in the guise of serious reviews just made the author appear stupid. We all knew the reviews COULD be parodies, but I don't think anyone should be embarassed at not recognizing them as such. [Well, actually, everybody should have recognized the Star Wars review as parody, but I'm willing to believe there are people who haven;t read 1984]. I've always thought that playing on gullibility was a pretty juvenile and cruel form of humor: laughing at someone for trusting you doesn't say much for your sensitivity. -- scott preece
From tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) Wed Jul 10 07:48:22 1985 Subject: Re: WARNING!! Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J. Also watch out for "The Man Who Loved Women". I found these two side by side at the video store last week. One French, the other US. Its Burt Reynolds vs. Francious Truffo(whatever). TCW
From newman@bgsuvax.UUCP (Tim Newman) Wed Jul 10 17:35:16 1985
Subject: Re: Kelvin Thompson and humorless people
Organization: Bowling Green State University, OH
I read this net to hear the discussion on the relative merits of current
movies. It would be much appreciated if whomever is poseing as Kelvin
Thompson would keep quiet. There's enough drivel about without someone
purposely adding to the supply! It is really a waste of my time to be bogged
down with silly postings like Mr. Thompson's. I suggest that these "reviews,"
if they are not to be intended seriously, be posted to net.jokes.
Tim Newman
PS - It is oh so funny to laugh at people's proper expectations. Kelvin
Thompson is, if nothing else, not very civil.
From cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) Tue Jul 9 15:58:25 1985 Subject: Re: Rambo Redux Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA > Just when you thought this film could be closeted away, what happens? Mr. > Ronald Reagan, in hailing the release of the American hostages, cited the > methods of the above intrepid hero as entirely appropriate and effective > means in dealing with future similar situations. One would (or maybe it's > just me) think that some lessons could be derived from the trauma of the past > two weeks, that ranting, raging and frothing at the mouth do not have much > effect on the actions of terrorists. Reagan belittled Carter's efforts and > his words came back to him in the form of reportorial digs. Now that it's > over and done with (except for the current dozen[?] or so Americans held > by the Shiites under less dramatic circumstances), the lessons learned are > those taught by Hollywood's recent spate of chauvinistic cinematic atrocities. Assuming you are for real, this is exactly the sort of commentary that Kelvin Thompson has been satirizing so effectively. Reagan was making a *JOKE*. (Know what a joke is? Or is the sense of humor removed when you become a leftist?) > All we need do to generate more ill-will against us is to screen the film for > our third-world neighbors. I'm fairly certain they would not derive the same > message from "Rambo" as did our president. > -- > Jay Elvove ..!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umd5!jay > c/o Systems, Computer Science Center, U. of MD. Gee, I heard _Rambo_ was playing in Beirut, and was quite popular.
From kre@ucbvax.ARPA (Robert Elz) Fri Jul 12 08:19:39 1985 Subject: Re: Kelvin Thompson's June reviews Organization: University of California at Berkeley In article <3200003@ccvaxa>, preece@ccvaxa.UUCP writes: > > > For the amusement of many of you, and I hope the gross embarassment of > > others, here is a list of the reviews posted by Kelvin Thompson in the > > past month or so, and the followups they generated. > ---------- > What wit is there in posting something that makes you appear to be > an idiot? I suspect none. I'm also not sure who is supposed to have done this. I guess that you meant Kelvin Thompson, but maybe you meant me?? I wasn't trying to be witty (I've always failed when I have tried) - whether my posting made me appear to be an idiot I will leave for others to judge (if it did, then it would probably just be an accurate reflection). K.T.'s reviews would have only made him appear to be an idiot to other idiots. > There are enough seriously idiotic things posted on the > net that we cannot be expected to recognize a posting as satirical > when all it appears to be is stupid. Perhaps not. But nor does everyone have to post followups claiming "What kind of fool are you, have you never heard of the book 1984", or "It was a fantasy, idiot", or similar. The best thing to do with stupidity is ignore it. If it was real stupidity, it will just go away. If it turns out to be satire (good, bad or indifferent) then you haven't made a public fool of yourself. If you just have to make it clear that you know better then the poster of an article, then tell him by mail. > Viewed as humor, the reviews > were reasonably amusing -- if they had been posted in a fashion that > made their humorous intent obvious (as, for example, if they had > been posted as a group or marked with the traditional :-)) a lot of > us would have been amused and appreciative. Posting them in the > guise of serious reviews just made the author appear stupid. Satire doesn't work if it is obvious that you are trying to be funny. To be really good it has to be VERY subtle. And it has to appear to be entirely serious. > We > all knew the reviews COULD be parodies, but I don't think anyone > should be embarassed at not recognizing them as such. [Well, actually, > everybody should have recognized the Star Wars review as parody, but > I'm willing to believe there are people who haven;t read 1984]. I find it a little hard to believe that anyone who thought that K.T's reviews might be parodies, or satirical, would have posted one of those absurd followups. (Of course, there was the claim that the followups were satire too ... Anyone is free to believe that if they want) I am sure that there are people who haven't read 1984, but do you really believe that there is anyone who has never even heard of it?? > I've always thought that playing on gullibility was a pretty juvenile > and cruel form of humor: laughing at someone for trusting you > doesn't say much for your sensitivity. This might be a valid criticism of my article. But I wasn't trying to laugh at people. I was just trying to get people to keep their fingers off the 'f' key. I didn't gain the impression that K.T was laughing at anyone in his articles. Had he posted an article of the form "Ha Ha - I was just joking, you idiots" (perhaps just like mine) then perhaps you would be right. His articles were just good satire (though they deteriorated a little as time went on, my guess is that K.T was frustrated that people weren't recognising his "reviews" for what they were, and was trying to make it more obvious), it was only the followups that would caused anyone to laugh at anyone else (readers laughing at the posters). Robert Elz
From mercury@ut-ngp.UTEXAS.ARPA Tue Jul 9 11:06:06 1985
To: ut-sally!kelvin
Subject: Re: WARNING!!
> amusing _The_Woman_in_Red_. But usually they have the gaul to use
> virtually the same title as the American-made original. Hence we have
De Gaul that you must have had to post that pun must be incredable!
From ihnp4!ihlpm!cher Thu Jul 11 11:10:39 1985
To: ut-sally!kelvin
Subject: Re: WARNING!!
---
Hey, great style. Always a pleasant discovery in the
world of two-liners..
Mike Cherepov
From shell!neuro1!baylor!peter Fri Jul 12 01:02:56 1985 To: ut-sally!kelvin Subject: Re: WARNING!! I caught that (the Man with One Red Shoe) right away. Since I first saw The Tall Blond Man..., and The Return of the Tall Blond Man about 7 years ago I hope you're writing satire. BTW: If it wasn't for an upstream site eating our mail I would have scooped you on this... I tried to post an article on the similarities on the 6th of this month... Nyah.
From: John G Dobnick Fri Jul 12 03:23:01 1985
Message-Id: <8507120142.AA08922@uwmcsd1.UUCP>
To: ut-sally!kelvin
Subject: Re: WARNING!!
amusing _The_Woman_in_Red_. But usually they have the gaul to use
^^^^
|
\_____ Ouch!
Seriously, however:
I am new on the net. I see from some of the traffic in net.movies that
you have become a rather "well known" reviewer. Of particular note
were your reviews of "1984" and "Star Wars". Unfortunately, our site
connected to the net after these reviews were posted. Would it be possible
for you to forward said reviews via e-mail?
Thanking you in advance for your time,
J G Dobnick
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, Computing Services Division
(...ihnp4!uwmcsd1!jgd)
From: ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!msb Posted-Date: 12 Jul 85 05:58:38 CDT (Fri) To: utzoo!ihnp4!ut-sally!kelvin Subject: WARNING!! Status: R To: ut-sally!kelvin Subject: WARNING!! Now THAT's funny. Mark Brader
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 85 16:57:50 cdt From: waltz!smu!leff (Laurence Leff) To: ut-sally!kelvin Re: Your reviews I enjoy your sense of humor and style in your recent reviews. Just wanted to send you some support by mail since I see you are a victim of some bad flame attacks. Leff
From knf@druxo.UUCP (FricklasK) Fri Jul 12 19:57:35 1985 Subject: Re: WARNING!! Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver --> "Also watch out for "The Man Who Loved Women"... Yeah, watch out for the Burt Reynolds version, the Truffaut(sp?) version is MUCH better... '`'\' Ken
From jrb@wdl1.UUCP Thu Jul 11 08:58:32 1985
Organization: Ford Aerospace, Western Development Laboratories
A. It's _The Tall Blonde Man with One BLACK Shoe_
B. The "Tall Blonde Man" films are French to begin with.
John R Blaker
UUCP: ...!fortune!wdl1!jrb
ARPA: jrb@FORD-WDL1
and blaker@FORD-WDL2
From csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) Mon Jul 15 23:25:42 1985
Subject: Re: WARNING!!
Message-ID: <385@mit-vax.UUCP>
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
In article <481@wdl1.UUCP> jrb@wdl1.UUCP writes:
>A. It's _The Tall Blonde Man with One BLACK Shoe_
>
>B. The "Tall Blonde Man" films are French to begin with.
Another victim of the "Kelvin" syndrome. I think "Kelvin" knew that the
film you mention was french, but _The Tall Blond Man with One RED Shoe_,
an american film, was just released.
It's a joke. Ha ha. Get it? Never mind... I didn't laugh either.
--
Charles Forsythe
"Don't get bogged down with details, just eat
the stupid peice of paper."
-Rev. Wang Zeep
From dahlback@uiucdcs.Uiuc.ARPA Mon Jul 15 15:26:00 1985 Subject: Re: WARNING!! With one RED shoe, no less! Considering the sequels to THE TALL BLONDE MAN WITH ONE BLACK SHOE (two, aren't there?) we should have the man with the black shoe meet the man with the red shoe at some approprate location.
From beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) Wed Jul 17 14:41:59 1985
Subject: Re: Kelvin Thompson and humorless people
Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center
[This line was intentionally left blank]
From: newman@bgsuvax.UUCP (Tim Newman)
>I read this net to hear the discussion on the relative merits of current
>movies. It would be much appreciated if whomever is poseing as Kelvin
>Thompson would keep quiet. There's enough drivel about without someone
>purposely adding to the supply! It is really a waste of my time to be bogged
>down with silly postings like Mr. Thompson's. I suggest that these
>"reviews," if they are not to be intended seriously, be posted to net.jokes.
>
>
> Tim Newman
>
>PS - It is oh so funny to laugh at people's proper expectations. Kelvin
>Thompson is, if nothing else, not very civil.
I'm gonna unsubscribe to net.vineyards and sign up for net.movies. This
group has *much* better whine.
[This blank line, however, was an accident]
From hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg) Fri Jul 12 12:14:31 1985 Subject: Re: Kelvin Thompson's June reviews Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto >What wit is there in posting something that makes you appear to be >an idiot? There are enough seriously idiotic things posted on the >net that we cannot be expected to recognize a posting as satirical >when all it appears to be is stupid. Viewed as humor, the reviews >were reasonably amusing -- if they had been posted in a fashion that >made their humorous intent obvious (as, for example, if they had >been posted as a group or marked with the traditional :-)) a lot of >us would have been amused and appreciative. Posting them in the >guise of serious reviews just made the author appear stupid. [Mutter mutter curse...] The art of satire has been around for slightly longer than Usenet; perhaps you have read some Leacock or Twain. While I have certainly not read all of either of these gentlemen's works, I cannot recall ever having seen a smiley-face symbol in anything they wrote. Perhaps in the days when people could spell, the written version of a laugh-track was not considered to be necessary. Perhaps it still isn't. In my own arrogant way, I feel that a reader who cannot recognize humour is not worth communicating with. You may fire when your terminals bear... -- John Hogg Computer Systems Research Institute, UofT
From cjh@petsd.UUCP (Chris Henrich) Thu Jul 18 18:52:33 1985
Subject: Re: WARNING!!
Organization: Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls, N.J.
[]
Kelvin Thompson's "warning" against French "rip-offs"
is a typical example of American insensitivity to the
political problems of the Eastern Hemisphere. In this case,
he has failed to understand the heroic struggle of French
culture against the imperialism of the Anglo-Saxon countries.
For many years, the French have had to fight off "franglais,"
which refers to the contamination of their language with
English words (e.g. "Le Drugstore"). More recently, they have
had to withstand the onslaught of American movies like E. T.
which have extorted huge box-office receipts from the French
public. Who can blame the French film-makers for responding?
Regards,
Chris
--
Full-Name: Christopher J. Henrich
From reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP Wed Jul 17 18:36:21 1985
Subject: Re: Kelvin Thompson's June reviews
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
In article <9003@ucbvax.ARPA> kre@ucbvax.ARPA (Robert Elz) writes:
>
>K.T.'s reviews would have only made him appear to be an
>idiot to other idiots.
>
Then I must be an idiot, because I think K. T. is an idiot.
>> There are enough seriously idiotic things posted on the
>> net that we cannot be expected to recognize a posting as satirical
>> when all it appears to be is stupid.
>
>The best thing to do with stupidity is ignore it. If it
>was real stupidity, it will just go away. If it turns out
>to be satire (good, bad or indifferent) then you haven't
>made a public fool of yourself.
>
I disagree. The best thing to do with stupidity (or, more precisely,
ignorance) is educate it. Ignoring it does no one any good. If a person
is more worried about taking a chance on looking foolish than he is about
preventing errors from going unchecked, then that it his problem.
>If you just have to make it clear that you know better then
>the poster of an article, then tell him by mail.
>
Precisely what I did on the "1984" review. I also asked him if he was serious.
No response. When his review of "My New Partner" came out, he was talking about
a film which 95% (or more) of the net would never see, and about an issue (the
French government's support of the French film industry) which I suspect very
few net people have spent their time reading up on. If no one said anything,
some people who know little about French cinema would, thanks to KT, harbor a
totally false impression of how it operates. His "Star Wars" review struck me
as his attempt to say to all of us, "Hey, you guys are really stupid. I was
just putting you on. Yuk, yuk, yuk." (Incidentally, if any of you want to
make sure I don't read your postings, don't answer the mail I send you when
it is obvious I want a response. Works every time.)
>Satire doesn't work if it is obvious that you are trying to be
>funny. To be really good it has to be VERY subtle. And it
>has to appear to be entirely serious.
On the contrary, most effective, famous satires are broad. For example,
"Gulliver's Travels", "The Loved One", and "Bored of the Rings". A satire often
cloths itself in the garments of seriousness, but if satire is too subtle it
isn't satire, and it's vital that its seriousness be transparent to the reader.
Otherwise, the audience doesn't recognize that you are poking fun at the chosen
subject, and the satire's purpose is completely lost. KT seems to be using
satire as a means of proving to himself his superiority, not revealing the
pretensions and foibles of others.
>I didn't gain the impression that K.T was laughing at anyone
>in his articles.
I did.
>His articles were
>just good satire ...
>it was only the followups that would caused anyone to
>laugh at anyone else (readers laughing at the posters).
>
I don't think his articles were good satires. I looked at them and said,
"Well, if I assume he isn't serious, does this sound really funny?" The
answer was no. Hence, I regard them as poor satires.
Satire is, by its nature, cruel. Satires make fun of people. Their saving
grace is that, well used, they can make fun of things which deserve to be
ridiculed. I don't think KT uses them well.
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher
From msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) Tue Jul 23 20:21:03 1985
Subject: Re: Kelvin Thompson's June reviews
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Summary: Hear, hear, Peter Reiher
Elz: The best thing to do with stupidity is ignore it.
Reiher: I disagree. The best thing to do with stupidity (or, more precisely,
ignorance) is educate it. Ignoring it does no one any good. ...
Elz: ... tell him by mail.
Reiher: Precisely what I did on the "1984" review. I also asked him if he
was serious. No response. When his review of "My New Partner" came out,
he was talking about a film which 95% (or more) of the net would never see, ...
Right on, Mr. Reiher. (I also mailed to him on "1984", by the way).
And what this 95% means is that the "satirical" review of "My New Partner"
would be quite likely to be the ONLY review posted, and therefore many
people would form their opinion of the movie based on it. So KT did a
disservice to the net for that reason, because what he said, as always,
was that "this is a very bad movie."
Which it isn't. Or at least, not in my opinion, and I think there are
lots of others who would agree.
On top of that, of course, there is his responsibility for being the cause
of large amounts of flamage from intemperate posters (who don't seem to be
able to tell "r" from "f" :-)). Freedom of speech does not give you
the right to yell "open fire" in a crowded theater review.
I think it's time we had a "satirical review" of KT. I have the first
sentence all ready:
"This is a very bad reviewer."
Anyone want to take it from there?
Mark Brader
P.S. I'm aware that there was another serious review posted besides
mine and that that reviewer didn't like the movie. Doesn't affect my
point. I think he was unusually sensitive to what bothered him.
[Back to the review]
[Home page]
[Contact Info]
(Updated July 20, 1996.)