From Newsgroup: rec.sport.tennis

------=_Part_0_181821640.1774032288836
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I mean the entire franchise?

It=E2=80=99s not because of the monster story, which is heavily sexualized =
to maximize its impact and is kind of irrelevant for me.

It=E2=80=99s because the films portray space as big, empty, cold, vast, and=
dark. You really get a sense of what it=E2=80=99s like or what it would be=
like if modest long term interstellar travel was actually possible.

If you=E2=80=99re, say, 15 light years away from Earth, our nearest stellar=
neighborhood, of course you can=E2=80=99t communicate back to Earth in rea=
l time. That's what I like to see.


Of course, true sci-fi can do whatever it likes, you can have subspace comm= unication and subspace travel so you end up with communication and timeline=
s resembling those in earth travel lasting hours, days, weeks.

But that ruins all of it, it's so "fantastic" that you're back to where we = are now, if moving from star to star is like travel from continent to conti= nent whether now, or decades or centuries ago, you're not really exploring = the concept of these absurd, yet totally real distances in space.


--=20

----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html ------=_Part_0_181821640.1774032288836--
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.sport.tennis

On 3/20/2026 1:44 PM, *skriptis wrote:

I mean the entire franchise?

ItrCOs not because of the monster story, which is heavily sexualized to maximize its impact and is kind of irrelevant for me.

ItrCOs because the films portray space as big, empty, cold, vast, and dark. You really get a sense of what itrCOs like or what it would be like if modest long term interstellar travel was actually possible.

If yourCOre, say, 15 light years away from Earth, our nearest stellar neighborhood, of course you canrCOt communicate back to Earth in real time. That's what I like to see.

Of course, true sci-fi can do whatever it likes, you can have subspace communication and subspace travel so you end up with communication and timelines resembling those in earth travel lasting hours, days, weeks.

But that ruins all of it, it's so "fantastic" that you're back to where we are now, if moving from star to star is like travel from continent to continent whether now, or decades or centuries ago, you're not really exploring the concept of these absurd, yet totally real distances in space.

I get your vibe and I agree. I don't like horror movies and don't watch
many sci-fi. But I always dug the Alien series. Damned realistic, I
think, if that type of space travel was possible.
--
---------------
Scall5
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.sport.tennis

On 3/20/26 8:59 PM, Scall5 wrote:

On 3/20/2026 1:44 PM, *skriptis wrote:

I mean the entire franchise?

ItrCOs not because of the monster story, which is heavily sexualized to
maximize its impact and is kind of irrelevant for me.

ItrCOs because the films portray space as big, empty, cold, vast, and
dark. You really get a sense of what itrCOs like or what it would be
like if modest long term interstellar travel was actually possible.

If yourCOre, say, 15 light years away from Earth, our nearest stellar
neighborhood, of course you canrCOt communicate back to Earth in real
time. That's what I like to see.


Of course, true sci-fi can do whatever it likes, you can have subspace
communication and subspace travel so you end up with communication and
timelines resembling those in earth travel lasting hours, days, weeks.

But that ruins all of it, it's so "fantastic" that you're back to
where we are now, if moving from star to star is like travel from
continent to continent whether now, or decades or centuries ago,
you're not really exploring the concept of these absurd, yet totally
real distances in space.

I get your vibe and I agree. I don't like horror movies and don't watch
many sci-fi. But I always dug the Alien series. Damned realistic, I
think, if that type of space travel was possible.

In the first one, in particular, the characterization and interplay was
very, very interesting, and Ripley was the least of it.

You had that oddball lead male/follower situation with Koto and Stanton,
and how Koto used this to simply exercise and show his desire for power
by seeking to demand more money, backed by Stanton. It kinda foretold
the wave of petty demands by blacks--as much for annoyance as for substance--backed by weak white wannabees.

You had the captain, Skerritt, who superficially fulfilled the
appearance of command, but was irresolute and indecisive when it mattered.

The automaton was an interesting, but trivial, side show.

Ripley was fine, but clearly was written and cast as a vehicle to appeal
to the rising tide of 2nd wave feminism. "I'm a woman. Hear me roar!"
sorta shit. Might just as easily have been cast as a weak
passive-aggressive male. Brad Dourif, maybe.

In my opinion, this was Ridley Scott's most effective film. Blade Runner
is very compelling visually, and has some decent characters (Batty, the
toy maker), but is somehow weaker.

Two costume dramas he did I like: Kingdom of Heaven (not really a good, complete film, but is set in a very interest era and locale--Crusader
kingdoms in the middle east), and The Last Duel, which is just plain
good. Rashomon II.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "...and your little dog, too!"
--Sawfish
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2