Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!@RUTGERS.ARPA:TRUDEL@RU-BLUE.ARPA
From: @RUTGERS.ARPA:TRUDEL@RU-BLUE.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Rocky (Horrible)
Message-ID: <497@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 3-Feb-85 17:18:43 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.497
Posted: Sun Feb  3 17:18:43 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 4-Feb-85 05:42:11 EST
Sender: daemon@topaz.ARPA
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 46

From: JOn <TRUDEL@RU-BLUE.ARPA>


>>> . Rocky Horror Picture Show - the Queen of bad SF
>
>Now wait just a minute here Mark.  Rocky is high camp - outrageous
>on purpose.  Rocky shouldn't be on a list of bad SF movies for many
>of the same reasons that Dark Star is exempt.  (I know, you just
>included it on the list so that you could call it the "Queen of bad
>SF", right?)

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Rocky Horror open to terrible
reviews and close after a few weeks in the theatres?  I seem to remember
that the 'Rocky' craze was enabled after the movie 'Fame' brought it
to our attention.  Rocky Horror was supposed to be a serious movie, and
it failed in that way.  

>If you've only seen Rocky Horror once, go again.  The movie grows on
>you after a while.  After about the tenth viewing, when you can sing
>all the songs and recite all the lines as well as you can for every
>Star Trek episode, you may find that you enjoy it.  Then again, you
>may no longer be sane any more.

I'm sorry, but I don't like to become a 'conformist'.  After a while, 
I'd get tired of saying "Where's your $%&{Saturn symbol}!# neck!" over and
over again.  The same holds true with ST.  I turn it on, and if it's one I 
instantly remember, I switch over to local PBS to see The Good Neighbors, 
Butterflies, etc.  Don't get me wrong, I like making fun of poorly made films,
but not more than once or twice.  I'd rather not patronize shoddy productions.

>To really be considered one of the "worst" movies of all time, I
>think that a movie has to be a) a ridiculously pretentious attempt
>at serious movie making, b) a low budget and poorly thought out
>attempt to jump on and exploit the "SF market" bandwagon, or c) a
>blatant insult to the intelligence of the audience.

This is true, but I do not agree with the requirement about low budgets.
Many films start out with Megabucks, and fail on the other counts.
Recent unfavorites include Superduperman III, and Trash of the Titans.
Need I say more?

JOn

"But what about our relationship?"
"%$# that!"
-------