Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.RUTGERS.EDU Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!columbia!topaz!Alfke.PASA From: Alfke.PASA@Xerox.ARPA Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: (brief) movie review [Return of the Living Dead] Message-ID: <3456@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Wed, 28-Aug-85 17:22:55 EDT Article-I.D.: topaz.3456 Posted: Wed Aug 28 17:22:55 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 29-Aug-85 08:51:02 EDT Sender: daemon@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 30 From: Peter Alfke From Stuart Cracraft : >Dan O'Bannon's script-writing, which I detested in >Dark Star, is still detestable even now. How he gets funding for >these farces is beyond me. O'Bannon does have trouble getting his movies made. In a recent L.A. Times interview, he described how his script for LifeForce was butchered (even he admitted the movie sucked), and Alien nearly suffered the same fate (the producers couldn't resist sticking their fingers in the pie; at one point they wanted to eliminate the alien entirely and call the movie "Space Trucking". Really!). Several of O'Bannon's other scripts have disappeared without a trace. But did you really dislike Dark Star that much? I'm curious to know why; it's still one of my favorite SF and/or comedy films. It was even fairly realistic in its depiction of a group of people slowly going insane from boredom. [And who could forget the Bomb?] By the way, O'Bannon's rationale for making RotLD is that he feels that the horror genre has been overdone lately, and he wanted to make a dead-on parody of the genre, since the time has come for such a thing. I'll probably see the film in the next couple weeks, and let you all know what I think... --Peter Alfke PS: For an interesting description of how much money there is to be made in never having your scripts made into films, see the new issue of Time.