can't remember his code name.
Also a black guy, about twenty or so, called IQ. I have no idea now
what his specialty was.
I think there was another but I could be wrong.
The team had a pet-like robot that looked like a mechanical gorilla
that took care to house when they away on missions. I think it was
called Squeeky or something cute like that. I remember it would do
almost anything to eat aluminum cans.
The whole team had normal lives, the kids went to school, had friends
and the usual teenage angst from time to time. They all lived in normal
looking suburban residence.
Everyone of the members were "rebuilt" by a doctor but I can not
remember what his name was.
Anyway, the team led normal lives until the doctor would contact them.
When they wanted to go from normal to full power they would slam a ring
on one hand into the other arm, somewhere around the wrist and twist
their hand.
The principle villains was a "mad doctor" named Scarab, that was
always on a quest to become immortal. The were his lackeys but I can
not remember what they were called. There was one guy who usually wore
a purple suit and he liked to though bombs with a lacrosse-like
attachment on his bionic arm. There was the usual attractive evil
female but she had horrible scars on one side of her face, that she
usually concealed with her hair or a mask. And of course, there was the
usual extremely stupid but strong lackey that was barely smart enough to
remember to breathe.
This may seem very long to you but I needed to write this all down the
first time to make sure that someone could identify the name of this
show and what eventually became of the show. I used to watch this show
as much as possible but the superstation that carried it dropped it
suddenly and I eventually forgot that it existed.
Though it is not terribly important that I find out, I would
appreciate any help.
* CmpQwk #UNREG* UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
---
--- WcToss for WildCat! V1.8 [UnReg]
* Origin: Coles Kingdom BBS 615-657-5708 14.4KBPS! (1:3637/77)
Ä [20] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 53 of 158
From : Chris Carter 1:105/302.23 .pä 21 .žķ 95 03:19
To : Patrick Thoms
Subj : OLD YELLOW EYES/WHERE CAN
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
RL> Can anyone tell me of a source for the recording Brett Spiner
RL> (DATA) did cal "OLD YELLOW EYES?"
PT> I have the tape. Good music too!
If y'all want some real fun, and have World Wide Web capability, try
the Captain Kirk Sing-a-long page, at:
http://www.ama.caltech.edu/~mrm/kirk.html
It has wavefile snippets of songs from an album William Shatner did
some years back. The page also has links to some sounds from Brent
Spiner's music.
Chris - carter@teleport.com
--- cPoint v2.17/FreeWare
* Origin: Carter's Conspicuous Consumption (1:105/302.23)
Ä [20] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 54 of 158
From : Mark Jones 1:105/302.47 .īķ 19 .žķ 95 19:50
To : J Hulley-Miller
Subj : Sliders - Bathroom? Wash
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
On (15 Jun 95) J Hulley-Miller wrote to Frank Glover...
JH> No to mention technical ones. It should be impossible to replicate
JH> energy, Human brains require it. You could manufacture a lot of dead
JH> bodies, but not crews.
If that were the case, you'd kill everyone who ever went through a
transporter. Because the transporter is doing exactly what the
replicator does: it disintegrates Riker at point A, creating a
"transporter trace" in the process. The transporter trace is used to
guide the recreation of Riker at the far end.
Which is all that a replicator does, except that it recreates things
from patterns scanned in earlier.
--- PPoint 1.78
* Origin: HQ of World Domination, Inc. (1:105/302.47)
Ä [20] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 55 of 158
From : Mark Jones 1:105/302.47 .ņp 20 .žķ 95 18:23
To : Ecarey
Subj : B5 FRANCHISING
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
On (15 Jun 95) Ecarey wrote to Frank Eva...
FE > This is an UNfortunate consequence of there being a 5 year story
FE > > "arc", which is something trek never had. Trek novelists had
FE > > leeway to make good original sci-fi stories. All we get from B5
FE > > novelists is 'cloak and dagger' and 'murder-they-wrote'.
FE >
E > This isn't what the people who've written Trek novels say [and I know
E > one of them extremely well, and others more casually. The Trek novel
E > writers all say that the restrictions are extreme, often silly, and
E > subject to change without notice.
Don't forget also that the lack of scientific continuity in Trek makes
it easy to write an "original" novel--because no consequences need to
be considered. So what if the novel postulates a fantastic new
technology, or an amazing new use of an old one...it won't make any
difference in the long run.
B5 novels, on the other hand, are apparently held a different (I'd say
tighter, but that gets into value judgments, so..."different")
standard. They may not be able to advance the plot--but apparently,
they won't be allowed to work at cross-purposes either.
[Mini-Review of B5 Novel #2, ACCUSATIONS: I enjoyed this novel much
more than the first one. And I had no trouble believing that this
story could have been filmed as an episode or two of the series. It
worked quite well, I thought.]
--- PPoint 1.78
* Origin: HQ of World Domination, Inc. (1:105/302.47)
Ä [20] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 56 of 158
From : Mark Jones 1:105/302.47 .ņp 20 .žķ 95 18:35
To : Jack Butler
Subj : Batman Forever Review
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
On (18 Jun 95) Jack Butler wrote to All...
JB> I may, or may not, discuss spoiler material in this review.
Ditto for me.
JB> Everybody else, the elevator is going down.
Or as Hudson says in ALIENS, "We're on an express elevator to hell.
Going DOWN!"
JB> Not that they do too much character development in the third
JB> film... But still, it felt good. Finally we see a Batman who
JB> is Billy-Badass on the hand-to-hand arena, just like he is
JB> supposed to be. This Batman uses his head for more than a target,
JB> too. Not that Burton's Batman was written as an idiot, but we get
JB> to *see* him using his noodle in this one.
I didn't think Bats exactly stunk at hand-to-hand in the first
film, for that matter. He beat up quite a few gun/sword/club wielding
thugs, after all.
JB> So, action... great. Character usage... great... except for Dick
JB> Grayson/Robin. Granted, he only comes in half-way through the
JB> film, and isn't the star of the show anyway, but geez, guys. He
JB> pops in and out like a piece of bread in a toaster oven. Either
JB> decide to use him or *don't*.
I must confess that I was appalled by the news that they were
introducing The Boy Hostage.
I was very pleasantly surprised to discover that I *liked* this
Robin. And that I was pleased to see him presented as a capable
character in his own right, and able to take dramatic action when he
needed to (such as getting into the silver closet...).
JB> Tommy Lee Jones does a really great job as Two-Face. He actually
JB> stands up to Jim Carrey as the Riddler. The aura of boiling
JB> insanity covered by a thin veneer of absolute psychosis works
JB> well. (I loved that one scene during the attack on Wayne Manor...
JB> Two-Face flipping the coin, over and over, exasperated because it
JB> keeps coming up heads.)
And I appreciated our first sight of him, when he flips a coin to
decide the fate of the security guard. And, yes... he does abide by
the coin toss...more or less. But that doesn't mean he's going to let
the guy get away unharmed.
I didn't care for the Riddler here. As you say, it was a rehash of
Carrey's stand-up act in many ways. And just too over-the-top for my
tastes.
JB> One last thing: what the heck is up with this "kill the
JB> supervillain" nonsense! First, the Joker, then the Penguin, then
JB> Two-Face! Hello, McFly! Ever consider that you may want to bring
JB> one or two of them back for a sequel?
Well, yes, the Joker is definitely dead, dead, dead.
The Penguin is dead, dead, dead.
But Catwoman? She's alive--I'd bet my comic book collection on it.
Two-Face was last seen sliding into watery oblivion...but he'd
hardly be the first villain to escape from "certain death".
And the Riddler is alive, albeit insane and confined to Arkham
Asylum. But so what? He was insane BEFORE he was captured. It means
nothing. He could make a come-back.
So by my count, three of the five villains from the movies are
potential sequel-fodder.
MY main complaint with the film is that they've reused the same
subplot for the THIRD time in as many movies. The Babe Du Jour and
Bats are attracted to one another; Babe discovers Batman's Secret
Identity; Babe Du Jour mysteriously vanishes before the next movie.
Isn't there *something* else they could do here? Anything?
--- PPoint 1.78
* Origin: HQ of World Domination, Inc. (1:105/302.47)
Ä [20] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 57 of 158
From : Mark Jones 1:105/302.47 .ņp 20 .žķ 95 18:49
To : Jack Butler
Subj : Kilmer as Batman
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
On (18 Jun 95) Jack Butler wrote to All...
JB> Warner Brothers has already announced that both Val Kilmer and
JB> Chris O'Donnell have signed to make further Batman films after
JB> this one. Nicole Kiddman has also stated that she would welcome
JB> the opportunity to do another one.
And despite my initial fears, I'd welcome Chris O'Donnell's
appearance as Robin again. He was much, much better than I feared
he'd be (not that I doubted the actor--I'd never heard of him. I
feared what they'd do with the character of Robin).
If Nicole Kidman stuck around, I wouldn't mind either. She was
certainly delectable to look at. And having her character *stay* for
the next movie would be a welcome change from the "Babe Du Jour"
routine they've employed so far.
JB> The only problem I can see is a villain shortage. Right quick
JB> they are going to run out of "recognizable" villains for Batman
JB> to fight. All the villains who became "name recognizable" by way
JB> of the 60's TV show (the Joker, Penguin, Riddler, Catwoman) have
JB> been done (and most have been killed off in the movies). So, that
Well, Joker and Penguin are definitely deaders.
But Catwoman is still around, I believe. (Or could easily be,
because we NEVER SAW THE BODY...a cardinal rule in comics and pulp
fiction.)
As for Riddler and Two-Face...well, I won't say since it might
spoil the movie. But I don't think the well is quite as near dry as
you seem to think.
JB> Still, I have some ideas. I've long since retired the original
JB> wish list I posted oh so many years ago, but Dustin Hoffman as
JB> The Mad Hatter, Helena Bonham Carter as Poison Ivy, Alan Rickman
JB> as Maxie Zeus, Wesley Snipes as the Black Spider, Lance Henrikson
JB> as Ra's Al Ghul, Michael Biehn as Deadshot, and Patrick Stewart
JB> as Mister Zero would all do as villains. Also, I think John
