This page contains responses to my original Usenet posting in 1985.
Click here to see responses to my Star Wars from 1997 and later.Date: Thu, 27 Jun 85 16:33:13 cdt From: harvard!h-sc1!guy To: harvard!ut-sally!kelvin Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler) Just what was that all about? I am passing no judgements upon your comments, I am just wondering about the timing? Is that something you wrote or read right after it came out? Is it a message that was sent into space and just got bounced back? ???
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 85 21:24:19 cdt From: thiel@ut-ngp.UTEXAS.ARPA (Stephen W. Thiel) To: ut-sally!kelvin Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler) I knew USENET could be a little slow, but REALLY!....
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 85 21:48:32 cdt
From: mercury@ut-ngp.UTEXAS.ARPA (Larry E. Baker)
To: ut-sally!kelvin
Subject: FLAME Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler)
[]
Aren't you a little late with this?
> 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
^^^^^^^^^
Why don't you just say 'nigger?' It sounds less racist.
> they fire -- all despite the fact that it has been scientifically proven
> that there are absolutely no sounds in space. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh, Really? Did you just discover this? How old are you, anyway?
> 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.
Ah, I'm afraid I don't agree. THE MOVIE WASN'T TRYING TO MAKE A
STATEMENT, YOU IDIOT, IT WAS *ENTERTAINMENT!* All "Entertainment"
does not, by definition, HAVE to make a statement.
And YOU'RE complaining about Racism? See my first comment above.
If you're looking for a statement, how about "the good guys always
win," or "if you fight hard enough for what you belive in, you may get
it?"
> 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.
If these are your responses to the movie, it is obvious that (a) you
NEVER read the book, (b) you are highly insensitive, and (c) you were
LOOKING for reasons to dislike this movie. How would *you* react if a
planet (not your own, or one you had even visited) full of "billions
of sentinent beings" is annihilated?
It's a *movie*, knothead. Do you want them to spend 10 minutes
"dramatizing" every little scene, like they do on TV?
> _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.
>From seeing this, I can only conclude that (a) you are posting this
with a (loudly forgotten) :-), (b) you are posting this only to get
attention and flames (like this one), or (c) you are a bible-thumping
idiot, more concerned with looking for hidden "moral" messages in
every movie you see.
You are the *only* person I've ever met (figuratively speaking) who
has denounced Star_Wars in such a roundly biased manner. If the above
is a serious response to the movie, then you are obviously going to
the movies for the wrong reasons.
Join the Peace Corps. You'll be happier there.
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 85 21:57:32 cdt
From: mercury@ut-ngp.UTEXAS.ARPA (Larry E. Baker)
To: kelvin@ut-sally.UTEXAS.ARPA
Subject: Flame just before this.
Kelvin,
I'm sorry about the tone in which I wrote my Flame response to your
posting. I do not mean to imply that I think you should not have
posted it, or that you do not have any rights to your opinions, only
that I *strongly* disagree with what you posted, and feel that you
approached the movie with a closed mind, looking for the wrong things.
Please insert :-)'s where appropriate.
- Larry Baker @ The University of Texas at Austin
- ... {seismo!ut-sally | decvax!allegra | tektronix!ihnp4}!ut-ngp!mercury
- ... mercury@ut-ngp.ARPA
From csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) Fri Jun 28 16:34:56 1985
Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler)
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
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
"The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack.
No one knows about it."
-Rev. Wang Zeep
From barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) Sat Jun 29 00:15:19 1985 Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler) Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Am I the only one who realized that the SW review was a hack? Or am I just making an unwarranted assumption? -- Barry Margolin
From lsmith@h-sc1.UUCP (Liz Smith) Sat Jun 29 10:29:28 1985
Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler)
Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Center
>
> 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
From johnw@astroatc.UUCP Thu Jun 27 15:22:12 1985
Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler)
Organization: Astronautics ATC, Madison, WI
>
>
> _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
From root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) Sun Jun 30 13:19:13 1985
Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler)
Organization: TRW Advanced Technology Facility, Merrifield VA.
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"
From dje@petrus.UUCP Fri Jun 28 13:03:40 1985
Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler)
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc
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!!!
From billha@azure.UUCP (Bill Hansen) Mon Jul 1 16:19:12 1985
Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler)
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
*** 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
From wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) Tue Jul 2 14:52:05 1985 Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler) Organization: USAMC ALMSA 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.
From armstron@sjuvax.UUCP (L. Armstrong) Mon Jul 1 15:47:45 1985
Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler)
Organization: St. Joseph's University, Phila. PA.
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
From allynh@ucbvax.ARPA (Allyn Hardyck) Tue Jul 2 20:16:06 1985 Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler) Organization: University of California at Berkeley 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.
From allynh@ucbvax.ARPA (Allyn Hardyck) Tue Jul 2 20:28:15 1985 Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler) Organization: University of California at Berkeley Excuse me - one person at mit, one at harvard... just a jaunt up mass. av...
From avolio@decuac.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) Wed Jul 3 11:39:17 1985 Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler) Organization: ULTRIX Applications Center, MD If it isn't clear by now, subtle humor is *lost* on most of the net.
From bobh@teklabs.UUCP (Bob Hubbard) Tue Jul 2 12:54:59 1985 Subject: Kelvin Thompson Reviews !!!! Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR Thanks again Kelvin for another hillarious movie review! Your tongue-in-cheek style reminds me of a columnist for the Houston Post that I used to read regularly and enjoyed immensely. Your -1984- review was the best but the -Star Wars- was pretty good.
From jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) Tue Jul 2 21:58:56 1985
Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler)
Message-ID: <216@hadron.UUCP>
Organization: Hadron, Inc., Fairfax, VA
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}
Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler)
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
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'?
From csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) Wed Jul 3 14:48:39 1985
Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler)
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
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
"The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack.
No one knows about it."
-Rev. Wang Zeep
From goodrum@unc.UUCP (Cloyd Goodrum) Wed Jul 3 17:26:37 1985 Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler) Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill In articlebarmar@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
From kevin@voder.UUCP (The Last Bugfighter) Tue Jul 2 18:32:45 1985
Subject: Re: Star Wars (badly spoiled)
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara
> _Another_Phony_Review_
>
> by Kelvin Thompson
This guy is not for real but some form of computer-generated life-form
(notice he never reviews THX 1138?). I just want to make sure that there's
no confusing the two of us.
---
Kevin Thompson {ucbvax,ihnp4!nsc}!voder!kevin
"It's sort of a threat, you see. I've never been very good at them
myself but I'm told they can be very effective."
From lew@leadsv.UUCP (Lyle E. Wilkinson) Tue Jul 2 09:26:19 1985
Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler)
Organization: LMSC-LEADS, Sunnyvale, Ca.
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
From jims@hcrvax.UUCP (Jim Sullivan) Tue Jul 2 16:33:52 1985 Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler) Organization: Human Computing Resources, Toronto 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!)
From jims@hcrvax.UUCP (Jim Sullivan) Tue Jul 2 16:37:37 1985 Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler) Organization: Human Computing Resources, Toronto In my pervious article, I incorrectly identified the author. The correct first name is Kelvin. (damn, I forgot the last name)
From jimc@haddock.UUCP Wed Jul 3 12:10:00 1985
Subject: K. Thompson, take us to your leader!
Kelvin Thompson, please tell us all who you are and what you are doing.
Your reviews just have to be jokes. If they are not, I pity you. If
they are, then you've pulled some good fast ones on all of us
net-readers.
At any rate, could you at least get on the net and say something, either
that you mean all this stuff or that you don't?
Jim Campbell
..!{ihnp4, allegra}!ima!haddock!jimc
From jrrt@mtuxo.UUCP (r.mitchell) Tue Jul 2 14:48:20 1985
Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler)
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
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*)
From grady@ucbvax.ARPA (Steven Grady) Fri Jul 5 16:29:33 1985
Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler)
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
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
From ibyf@ihlpa.UUCP (d. scott) Mon Jul 1 15:37:44 1985
Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
>
>
> _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..."
From reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP Wed Jul 3 01:24:25 1985 Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler) Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department 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
From jims@hcrvax.UUCP (Jim Sullivan) Tue Jul 2 16:26:24 1985 Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler) Organization: Human Computing Resources, Toronto > _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 movie, and it was his aunt and uncle, not his parents.
From clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Tue Jul 2 16:17:21 1985
Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler)
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
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,
From training@rtech.UUCP (Training account) Fri Jul 5 09:57:54 1985 Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler) Organization: Relational Technology, Alameda CA > 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
From daveb@rtech.UUCP (Dave Brower) Fri Jul 5 10:27:14 1985 Subject: Re: The Conversation, Harrison Ford (spoiler) Organization: Relational Technology, Alameda CA > Who WAS Harrison Ford in The Conversation? He was the Director's assistant, the one who offered Harry Caul the home made cookies during the first scene in the office. His voice is also the one on the phone in the end telling Harry, "We'll be listening." He's probably the one who dreamed up the plot against director Robert Duvall, enlisting Cindy Williams and Frederick Forrest.
From robertsl@stolaf.UUCP (Laurence C. Roberts) Tue Jul 2 08:45:15 1985
Subject: Kelvin Thompson and humorless people
Organization: St. Olaf College, Northfield MN
I think Kelvin Thompson's Star Wars review was proof positive of the true
nature of his 1984 review. O.K. Kelvin, you can go back to being subtle
again. I think it's hilarious to read the flames generated by his reviews.
I'd like to know if he's seen this Casablanca piece of trash.
Laurence Roberts
...ihnp4!stolaf!robertsl
Death to :-)!! If you can't recognise sarcasm, you don't deserve to live! :-)
--
Laurence Roberts
---------------------
| U.S. out of Edina |
---------------------
From sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) Mon Jul 1 22:36:06 1985
Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler)
Organization: The White Tower @ The Univ. of KY
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
From michael3@garfield.UUCP (Mike Rendell) Wed Jul 3 14:06:27 1985
Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler)
Organization: Memorial U. of Nfld. C.S. Dept., St. John's
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.
From naiman@pegasus.UUCP (Ephrayim J. Naiman) Thu Jul 4 21:49:16 1985
Subject: Re: Kelvin Thompson Reviews !!!!
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft NJ
<munch, munch<
I never saw Kelvin's _1984_ (why do people put underscores there ?) review.
Would someone please send me a copy ? It must have been a doozy.
Thanx,
--
==> Ephrayim J. Naiman @ AT&T Information Systems Laboratories (201) 576-6259
From daveb@rtech.UUCP (Dave Brower) Sun Jul 7 20:06:31 1985 Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler) Organization: Relational Technology, Alameda CA > ... 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.
From masuma@drupa.UUCP (Masuma Rahman) Mon Jul 8 16:31:51 1985 Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler) Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver 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!!
From steve@kontron.UUCP (Steve McIntosh) Mon Jul 8 11:25:28 1985 Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler) Message-ID: <339@kontron.UUCP> Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA Of course the original posting of the "review" was a put on, but I think that the MASSIVE flame-back is due to the fact that it was not very far from the reviews the movie got from some of the Professional reviewers. For example, the reviewers on the PBS show "At the movies" have always had to put down action/adventure/entertainment movies to keep their phony baloney jobs. They had a simple rule to follow Artsy-fartsy = good and Escapist = bad. There is a good jab at this philosophy in the movie "Neverending story", to summarize - People who fantasize have imagination and are hard to control, stamp out imagination and you can get power over them. [One Hackers Opinion]
From jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) Wed Jul 10 00:28:36 1985 Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler) Organization: Relational Technology, Alameda CA > > > OK, we've all gotten the "joke", such as it is. Now go back to net.flame whee > people appreciate such subtle (and yet totally unamusing) humor. > > Peter Reiher I disagree. I like Kelvin's reviews, despite the fact that I was originally taken in. I think they are funny. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak
From: goldman@umn-cs.UUCP (Matthew D. Goldman ) Wed Jul 3 12:01:04 1985
Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., U of Minn, Mpls, MN
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
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...
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 85 20:18:42 edt
To: ut-sally!kelvin
Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler)
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY
Where have you been for the past decade you inocuos slob!!!
A rebuke of STAR WARS, be real. I shan't begin to delve in to
your trivial criticisms nor will I even try to right your massive
ignorance. (spoiler) STAR WARS debuted in 1977, Empire Strikes
Back in 1981 and Return of the Jedi in 1983.
I don't mean to sound offensive, but I'm devasted that you
or anyone with at least enough competence to use the net could
have missed out on a cinemagraphic event that reshaped societys
technological standards.
Flame on about the film if you like, your opinion is of
course yours and I respect that. But, I for one don't really care
to see your reviews of 8 year old films. ( Maybe you have a
review of the Godfather you would like to post? )
My sympathy...
Barry Ruff
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 85 23:27:30 PDT From: Peter Reiher <reiher@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA> Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler) Organization: UCLA Computer Science Dept. To: kelvin@ut-sally If one writes like an idiot, one is either an idiot or trying to write like an idiot. In my book, none but an idiot would try to write like an idiot, causing the second group to be subsumed in the first. Therefore, you shouldn't have much difficulty figuring out what I think of you. Peddle your dubious wares in other newsgroups, please. -- Peter Reiher
Jump to: responses to Star Wars web page in 1997 and later | review of Star Wars | home page | contact info
(Updated September 20, 1998.)