Talk:Alien (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Jones

This character is mentioned at the end of the plot summary and nowhere else. Who is it? 4.249.3.197 (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Read the plot summary again: "Brett follows Jones, the crew's cat...". Also under "Set design and filming": "matching cats were used to portray Jones, the Nostromo crew's pet." --IllaZilla (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Biomechanics versus biomechanical/biomechanoid/cyborg

IllaZilla. I'm mystified why you think my adjustment to the Alien article in the form of linking to the Biomechanoid/Cyborg article is so particularly incorrect such as to require reversion to the Biomechanics linked article. You state as the reason being 'Biomechanoid redirects to cyborg, which isn't the applicable concept here'. I got this verbatim from 'Giger's Alien', Giger's diary of his experience on the pre-production and production of the film Alien, page 34 - titled 'Cockpit', on the design and construction of the 'space jockey' at Shepperton Studios.

"The pilot is conceived as one of my biomechanoids, attached to the seat so as to form a single unit."

IllaZilla. Seat = mechanical. An alien organism attached to it = organic. How much more cyborg and 'applicable concept' can you get!?? There is no doubt that the space jockey is a cyborg. Why on earth are you putting up a fight to maintain a link that links to an article about the study and application of living animals which has nothing to do with the marriage of organic lifeforms and machines together as single units in a science fiction context, which is plainly what Giger is about? If you read the Biomechanics article fully, and understand it, you will see that it is the research and analysis of the mechanics of living organisms and the application of engineering principles to and from existing biological systems. It is not about the look of mixing fictional beings and machines at all. So I put it to you, and others, that to link the work of H.R. Giger to an article on Biomechanics is just, quite frankly, bizarre. A bizarre decision of yours made even more bizzare, by the fact that Giger is actually mentioned in the Biomechanoid / Cyborg article, that I was attempting to link to, as one would expect him to be, and of course not mentioned whatsoever in the Biomechanics article as one would equally expect. Another thread to my argument is the fact that I actually have a problem with the word biomechanical because of its links to biomechanics. Although I admit I will have less supporters here, as biomechanical as a term is in fairly common use outside of the scientific study of biomechanics. But like Giger, I prefer to say something can look, or be conceived as biomechanoid, ie. It could be said to have a cyborg streak to it. The films' makers and many other commenters on this subject have been careful to steer clear of using 'biomechanics' as a term of description preferring 'biomechanical' or 'biomechanoid' to clearly separate the earthbound academic scientific subject from the science fiction. I think it would be diligent if Wikipedia mirrored this. So IllaZilla. Could you justify please, for myself and others, several strong and valid reasons to contest mine, as to why links to the Biomechanics article should be maintained. Thank you.Caspar (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The perils of bulk-reorganization

On 2009-10-09 at 0459 hours a Wikipedian radically re-arranged a thread on this talk-page, stating in the edit-summary: "please put new text under old text. you're responding to a comment made a month & a half ago that has had several responses already. sticking your text in the middle disjoints the discussion". The revision meant that we lost the context of the indented comments within several separate sub-threads and the identifying/dating signatures on individual paragraphs -- questionable changes in the light of the WP:TALK guideline. I urge the re-construction of the original layout and indentation with a view to preserving the flow of the separate discussions. In the meantime, interested users can view the intended (original) context and layout at [1] -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The only "sub-thread" currently in existence here is "First sentence". If you want to make sub-threads for individual points of discussion, then create third-level section headers (=== Title ===). Other than that, sticking your responses in between the paragraphs of other editors' text (as you did to my text in your most recent edit) massively disjoints the conversation. WP:TALK permits editing of others' comments to fix such formatting problems, so long as the content is preserved as much as possible. Also note the banner at the top of this talk page that asks you to "put new text under old text". In this edit you replied to a comment made on August 8, but it had already had several responses already below it. Your comment belongs beneath those existing responses, not directly beneath the original comment, otherwise the chronological flow of conversation becomes very difficult to follow. If you want to respond directly to an older comment, ignoring the responses that have already been made, then quote the relevant portion of that original comment or simply address your reply to the editor who made the comment. If you want to make subsections, then make subsections; simply signing every paragraph of your comment doesn't make them into subsections, and would still cause confusion if subsequent replies were placed between your individual paragraphs. And please feel free to refer to me by name rather than as "a Wikipedian" when you disagree with an edit I've made. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely. Trying to read through that jumbled up mess with people's posts mixed out of chronological order with Pedant's replies was tedious and needlessly confusing. Following a discussion is much easier when all posts are complete and in chronological order, just like "put new text under old text" suggests. Stick to established protocol.Shirtwaist (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

IllaZilla is absolutely correct. Interlacing your comments with previously posted comments disrupts the history of the talk page and alters the original poster's contribution. New comments should be added below the original, not interspersed throughout it. If you need to respond to specific words I suggest quoting them in your response. --Captain Infinity (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

All this worthy advice, and no word of WP:INDENT, with its threads and appends... or of the way to follow debate chronologically (rather than thematically) via talk-page history logs. Perhaps we need little templates for use on each individual talk-page and specifying the local rules on acceptable behavior. - I note that the issues and queries I raised on October 14 remain unaddressed. Perhaps my talk-page edits have become obscured by all the re-arrangement. But everyone has had a few weeks to comment, so as a next step I propose to return to improving the article by incorporating my suggested edits. -- Pedant17 (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying about indentation there, but I trust your final "I propose to return to improving the article" isn't a misinterpretation of WP:SILENCE, which you've been specifically warned about several times before. It does not mean "if nobody's responded to my last point, I must have consensus and can put my edit back".

There's a clear consensus among other editors that the lead sentence to the article is actively degraded by being rewritten in E-Prime. If you repeatedly demand that editors show you a policy explicitly saying that "lead sentences must not be written in E-Prime", you should not be surprised if that small group of editors eventually stop responding. This does not mean that your final point has cowed or convinced them into agreeing with you. Please respect the consensus here, and take it to other channels (such as Wikipedia talk:Lead section) if you feel there's a wider problem or omission with Wikipedia's policies on lead sections. --McGeddon (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have a question about my comments re indentation, you have only to ask. -- WP:SILENCE does not have the narrow meaning you ascribe to it. If any point I've made remains unclear, please ask. -- The claim that a clear consensus exists "that the lead sentence to the article is actively degraded by being rewritten in E-Prime" has no foundation. Discussion at Talk:Alien_(film)#First_sentence makes no mention of E-Prime, nor of active degradation. -- Since I have never (let alone repeatedly) demanded "that editors show [me] a policy explicitly saying that 'lead sentences must not be written in E-Prime'", I remain surprised at this suggestion. -- I do not expect a single final point to cow or convince anyone. I do expect a series of non-refuted points to stand as evidence of a case -- until such time as someone refutes them. -- If we have any consensus here, it supports my latest proposed edit, and I expect other editors to respect that too. If they wish to challenge such "consensus", the invitation to debate on this talk-page remains open. -- Since I do not "feel there's a wider problem or omission with Wikipedia's policies on lead sections" I see no need to litigate at Wikipedia talk:Lead section or elsewhere. My proposed edits comply with policy and guidelines better than the existing version does. If you can prove otherwise, we can take the matter to a different venue then. -- Enough of these straw men. We can return (as I have repeatedly proposed) to debating proposed improvement of the article, or we can take the bold edit route. Pedant17 (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that Talk:Alien_(film)#First_sentence does not use the term "E-Prime", but it discusses seven of your proposed rewordings, all of them removing the word "is", and five editors explicitly object to them ("Pedant17's proposed re-wording does not belong", "only Pedant17 seems to feel that the first sentence needs significant changing", "Proposed changes by Pedant17 do not seem appropriate or necessary for the lead sentence"). In almost three years, nobody has agreed with you that the lead sentence would read better or follow WP:TONE more closely if the word "is" were removed. I cannot see how you feel that "If we have any consensus here, it supports my latest proposed edit", unless I've misunderstood which edit you're talking about. --McGeddon (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Alien_(film)#First_sentence discusses various proposed tweakings of the lead sentence so disparately that confusion as to which proposed version we refer to seems practically inevitable. But just because a fellow-editor detects a common stylistic trait in a series of my proposals does not make opposition to any one of them united and unassailable, let alone on that one -- generally unmentioned -- point. The discussions have progressed linearly, and the proposed revisions have changed accordingly as they have addressed outstanding objections. Editors who once raised points have gone away, seemingly satisfied. Now I propose a version which complies (I believe) with all relevant policies and to which nobody has raised objections on its merits. On the other hand, nobody has demonstrated that the bland and pedestrian tradition-bound and inadequate current version does the job in any better way. -- So let's clarify. I propose to change the lead so that the article starts thus: '''''Alien''''', a 1979 [[science fiction film|science-fiction]]/[[horror film]], has become an influential classic. [[Ridley Scott]] directed; [[Tom Skerritt]], [[Sigourney Weaver]], [[Veronica Cartwright]], [[Harry Dean Stanton]], [[John Hurt]], [[Ian Holm]] and [[Yaphet Kotto]] starred. -- This proposed version defines the subject-matter, emphasizes the film's importance, promotes the neutral point of view by declining to restrict the article to the film alone, and nods to the interest in release-dates and star-systems. It removes nothing of note from the current lead content, but arguably improves the style and legibility. Any objections to that text? -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the current lead, as it is straightforward, clean, and NPOV. Referring to the film as "an influential classic" is certainly not NPOV. Not even the article for Citizen Kane speaks of its subject in such a way. --Captain Infinity (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Seconded; the existing lead section already expresses the film's significance and reception, and the unattributed "influential classic" is clumsy and inappropriate. Again, you should not assume that editors who disagreed with you but didn't continue the conversation were "seemingly satisfied" by your arguments. --McGeddon (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

See responses to User:Captain Infinity above. I'll happily insert attribution to Roger Ebert and to the IMDB on the "influential classic" status of Alien. I contend that the phrase "influential classic" appears neither clumsy nor inappropriate. On the contrary: it succinctly summarizes in two words notability as established in the body of the article - bear in mind that a lead per WP:LEAD should "summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight" and that a lead sentence per MOS:BEGIN should declare what makes a subject notable. -- Do you have some reason whereby we should not follow Wikipedia guidelines in the lead of this particular article? -- As to making assumptions about "editors who disagreed [...] but didn't continue the conversation", per WP:SILENCE and WP:CONSENSUS I have no other insights into the opinions of fellow-Wikipedians than their edits and their participation in discussions. Other editors in their turn have my full permission to assume that I have no objections to their edits or comments until such time as I respond and make my own comments or edits. -- And given that some of the editors who have discussed the lead to Alien with me commented only on previous proposals for improvement, but not on more recent ones, we might conclude that we have approached closer to a consensus. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead sentence as of 25 January  2009: "Alien is a 1979 science fiction horror film directed by Ridley Scott and starring Tom Skerritt, Sigourney Weaver, Veronica Cartwright, Harry Dean Stanton, John Hurt, Ian Holm and Yaphet Kotto" appears far from straightforward, by no means clean, and deficient in NPOV. The heaping up of noun modifiers, the dual use of "and" and the listing of name after name put paid to straightforwardness or cleanliness. The strong and exclusive assertion of Alien as a film (and only a film) weakens the claim for NPOV. The arguments for preference of thus version on "straightforward, clean, and NPOV" grounds fail. -- Perhaps Citizen Kane had too much of the classic to become influential (or vice versa) -- but its labeling need not align exactly with our characterization of Alien. But the Wikipedia guideline on the first sentence of an article (WP:MOSBEGIN) does quite specifically recommend addressing notability: 'The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"'. It might prove difficult to highlight notability in any of the numerous Wikipedia articles devoted to B-grade and C-grade films, but surely we can work out together an appropriate notability-tag for a film as prominent as Alien. Precise labeling might seem inherently a matter of judgment, but we can summarize and cite opinions already in the article, such as those of Roger Ebert (among "the most influential of modern action pictures") and the judges of the DVDX awards ("Best Overall DVD, Classic Movie" for the Alien Quadrilogy) Would you prefer a toned-down "has become very influential" rather than "has become an influential classic"? -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

←I agree with both Captain Inifinity and McGeddon. There is no need for the words "influential classic" in the first sentence, especially as ⅔ of the lead section is already devoted to summarizing the film's impact and influence (a summary that begins a mere 2 sentences after the lead sentence). With the exception of the adding the words "influential classic", there is no substantial difference between your proposed wording and the sentence in its current form. In fact, I see little difference between this proposal and the ones you've been making for 3 years now, none of which have gained any support. Futher, I disagree that it "improves the style and legibility" of the sentence. Specifically, the second sentence of your proposed wording uses a semicolon where a coordinating conjunction would be clearer. Lastly, as McGeddon points out, you should not assume that editors who have disagreed with you for years now but simply stopped replying were "seemingly satisfied" by your arguments. As usual, I'm anything but satisfied. I've simply lost interest in this useless line of discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

For my comments on following guidelines by introducing notability into the first sentence please see the responses to User:Captain Infinity and to User:McGeddon above. For my response re satisfied editors who have debated various different points and proposed versions in the past, please see my notes to User:McGeddon above. -- Thank you for the recognition that the core of my proposed version has "no substantial difference" with the existing version. -- You make just one point on my improved "style and legibility" -- it pleases me that all other issues of style and legibility appear resolved and ready to implement in the article. As to replacing a semicolon with a coordinating conjuction in the sentence: "Ridley Scott directed; Tom Skerritt, Sigourney Weaver, Veronica Cartwright, Harry Dean Stanton, John Hurt, Ian Holm and Yaphet Kotto starred", I agree that on a purely visual level it might seem "clearer" to write something like "Ridley Scott directed and Tom Skerritt, Sigourney Weaver, Veronica Cartwright, Harry Dean Stanton, John Hurt, Ian Holm and Yaphet Kotto starred". Though this would introduce a second "and" to the sentence and potentially blur the demarcation between the functions of directing and starring. Semantically the semicolon functions to mark the distinction more clearly. We could improve matters further with: "Ridley Scott directed the film; Tom Skerritt, Sigourney Weaver, Veronica Cartwright, Harry Dean Stanton, John Hurt, Ian Holm and Yaphet Kotto starred". -- So let's go with a further-enhanced lead of: '''''Alien''''', a 1979 [[science fiction film|science-fiction]]/[[horror film]], has become an influential<ref> {{cite web | url = http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031026/REVIEWS08/310260301/1023 | title = Alien (1979) | first = Roger | last = Ebert | authorlink = Roger Ebert | date = 2003-10-26 | work = rogerebert.com | publisher = [[Chicago Sun-Times]] | location = Chicago | accessdate = 2010-01-25 | quote = 'Alien' has been called the most influential of modern action pictures, and so it is [...] }} </ref> cinematic classic<ref> {{cite web | title = Alien (1979) - Awards | publisher = [[Internet Movie Database]] | url = http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/DVD_Exclusive_Awards/2003-2 | accessdate = 2010-01-25 | quote = Best Overall DVD, Classic Movie (Including All Extra Features) Winner: * Alien (1979) - Charles de Lauzirika - Also for Aliens (1986), Alien³ (1992) and Alien: Resurrection (1997) - (Alien Quadrilogy) }} </ref>. [[Ridley Scott]] directed the film; [[Tom Skerritt]], [[Sigourney Weaver]], [[Veronica Cartwright]], [[Harry Dean Stanton]], [[John Hurt]], [[Ian Holm]] and [[Yaphet Kotto]] starred. - Do you want to make the edit, or will I? -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I previously attempted to explain the film's notability in the first sentence by calling it "culturally influential" and referencing that to its induction into the National Film Registry (see this revision for example), however this was removed by WikiKingOfMishawaka with the rationale that there is "never a reason for these kind of adjectives in the opening sentence". In retrospect, I would actually have very little problem with restoring something similar to what I had back then (calling it "culturally influential" and then referencing that to the NFR). This seems pretty straightforward in my opinion, and requires only 1 citation. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Then let's put "culturally influential" back in the lede sentence (with referencing, of course) and take further discussion from there. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I recently stumbled back across this page after a long absence and saw the "culturally significant" remake in the lead section. Needless to say, I removed it. IllaZilla was kind enough to point me to this discussion that has apparently discussed that little bit of information prior (which I was unaware of). I'm not sure how it was suggested to put "culturally significant" in the lead sentence, but WP:MOSFILMS#Lead section is pretty clear about what goes in the first paragraph of a lead (and the first sentence), and where something like "culturally significant" would go. The reality is, no adjective should be used in the first sentence, let alone the first paragraph of the lead. The first paragraph is designed to tell you what the film is, not what the film accomplished. Alien is not a culturally significant film, but a film that achieved cultural significance. Ridley Scott made just a film. You cannot "make" a culturally significant film, that is something you achieve (generally after a long period of time). This is the same reason why we don't include things like "Academy Award winning" or just "Award winning" in the opening sentence, because you're describing what it accomplished, and not what it is. The MOS even states, "Avoid using "award-winning" and similar phrases in the opening sentence to maintain a neutral point of view and summarize the awards in the proper context in a later paragraph of the lead section." - "Culturally significant" would be considered "similar phrases". It's find to include in the lead, especially if backed by a source, but it isn't fine to include it in the lead sentence (or in the first paragraph). Rule of thumb is that the lead paragraphs should flow in an order best represented by the order in which things happened (e.g., people come on board, things get written, things get filmed, things are released, things earn money, things win awards, and finally things become significant).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film)#Lead section does not reveal as its design-purpose the requirement "to tell you what a film is". On the contrary, it prescribes: "The lead section should introduce the film and provide a summary of the most important aspects of the film from the article body". Nor does that guideline countenance any "rule of thumb" on "the order in which things happened". It actually allows that lead sections can move on to "important aspects of the film detailed in the article body and not mentioned already in the first paragraph" -- and such aspects may not necessarily occur in any idealized chronological non-overlapping order.. -- Following the maxim that "no adjective should be used in the first sentence" would strip the current lead sentence back to "Alien is a film directed by Ridley Scott and starring [a whole bunch of actors]", with no mention of genre adjectives or release-date adjectives. The trend to highlight what a film "is" tends to mask some of "the most important aspects" behind a formula which scarcely does justice to Alien's achievements -- it limits us as editors and may lull us into losing sight of the generic guideline given in WP:MOSBEGIN: 'The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"' If we agree on the notability of this film, why consign it to the obscurity expressed by a first sentence that could apply, mutatis mutandis, to any obscure B-grade movie? -- I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that "Alien is not a culturally significant film, but a film that achieved cultural significance." But I see no reason not to follow the guidelines and summarize that important "achievement of cultural significance" early in the piece. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I interpret "Why is this subject notable?" in this context to refer to objective attributes only, as in the example they give in WP:MOS#First sentence : "The electron is a subatomic particle that carries a negative electric charge.". "Notability" does not apply to subjective terms like "classic" or "influential", as far as the first sentence is concerned. Alien is made "notable" enough to have its own article by its status as a major motion picture released to the public, nothing more. The first sentence, therefore, is perfectly sound the way it is - WITHOUT adjectives.Shirtwaist (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

'it's a warning'

I modified a sentence, which in its original form stated that *Ripley* worked out the message from the alien craft was a warning. This was reverted with a comment that it was Ripley decided the message was a warning.

I have undone this revert and I hereby quote the relevent section of script;

      INT. BRIDGE

       Ripley at her console, still working on transmission.
       Gets a readout.
       Looks worried.
       Speaks into communicator.

                                RIPLEY
                 Ash, tell Dallas Mother speculates
                 that the noise is some kind of
                 warning.

[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toby Douglass (talk • contribs) 22:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As the article explains, there were many revisions to the script, so I'm not sure which version it is that you're looking at but it doesn't match the actual dialogue in the film. In fact, glancing at that link you gave I see that it clearly doesn't match the final film: most of the dialogue on the first few pages from the opening scene either isn't in the film or is significantly different. Here are the actual lines from the film that I am watching right now (the original 1979 theatrical version from the Quadrilogy DVD set):

• Ripley: Ash, that transmission; Mother's deciphered part of it. It doesn't look like an SOS.
• Ash: What it is?
• Ripley: Well I...It looks like a warning. I'm gonna go out after them.
• Ash: What's the point? I mean, by the time it takes to get there, you'll...they'll know if it's a warning or not, yes?

As you can see, the computer merely deciphers the message. It's Ripley who determines that it "looks like a warning". A computer (at least the one in this film) cannot speculate on the message's meaning or intent, it merely deciphers text. A human (Ripley) has to look at that data and decide what it means. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur. However, there is a point I'd like to see clearly made in the article, which I think currently is not clearly made - that Mother deciphered the text. When I originally read the article, the impression it gave me was that Ripley deciphered the text - which is not the case. She merely read it, after Mother did the work. I will see if I can undo my undo, and then I'll try for what I've described here. Toby Douglass (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded it because I felt your text was overly long and didn't need the parenthetical aside. Also "Mother" isn't named anywhere in the plot summary (though it is named & explained in a footnote), so saying "Mother" without explaining it was confusing. This is really getting nitpicky, I think; the important thing is that they (the crew) realize (too late) that the signal is actually a warning to stay away. It's all of 30 seconds in the film and is never brought up again, and if one really gets down to it it could be cut from the summary altogether without hampering understanding of the plot. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, couple of seperate things. I mistakenly thought Mother was in the plot summary - in fact, it's <ref> text, so it's not something which the reader sees. That's why I refered to Mother in the way I did; had I realised she wasn't mentioned earlier, I wouldn't have done so - it's bad writing. I disagree (go figure :-) about it being nitpicky; I think it is important - the reader shouldn't be misled into thinking Ripley *herself* analysized and decoded the messages. You're right that it could be removed - but it isn't - and it is nice to have it there - so it should be done correctly. I think you're not wrong to describe my attempt as overly long - I was at work, bit distracted I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toby Douglass (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 February 2010

McIntee article references and alien section

I'm a bit concerned that a vast proportion of the references cited in the notes section are simply stated as 'McIntee' followed by a number (page number I suspect). A scan to the references section of the article reveals that this refers to Beautiful Monsters: The Unofficial and Unauthorised Guide to the Alien and Predator Films by David A McIntee. Surely a more official and specialised source should be sourced from and cited? The reason it's both unofficial and unauthorised could include containing factual inaccuracies pertaining to the film's production. I'm staggered to see that the book Giger's Alien, in the form of a diary written by Giger himself (and including many images of conceptual designs both drawn and in maquette form, and stills from the workshops and sound stages of Shepperton) through pre-production and production of the film Alien isn't referred to once in this film's article. Has this article been evolving since its creation without its creators ever having referred to this de facto tome? After comparing this article with Giger's account of the production, there are a few aspects of this article that could well do with a rewrite. Especially the section on the alien itself. A link next to the title of the section suggests 'For more details on the creature, see Alien (Alien franchise)'. However that article contains even less information on the construction of the costume for the original film. Many pages are dedicated to the design and construction of the costume in Giger's Alien. A day by day account with many photos of Giger and Rambaldi and others working on the iconic costume. Now I'm not going to (nor would want anyone else) to reproduce these images (WP:NFC), or pad out the article section as it currently stands to be anything near as comprehensive as described in Giger's Alien, but I think the section as it currently stands, considering that the alien is the 'star' of the film is very flimsy and brief. A flimsiness exemplified by the use of some very suspicious facts and figures like 'The final head had about nine hundred moving parts and points of articulation'. There is no mention of anything near as trivial as a 'parts count' in Giger's Alien and I sure can't imagine Carlo Rambaldi, under such pressure of time, sitting there counting out all the parts as he mechanised one of the alien heads! It's guff. It reads like a tatty fanzine rather than a professionally researched and authored encyclopedic article. I can't imagine anyone counting the parts it's made of, then or now, and points like that lowers the bar for the quality of the article (which is otherwise quite good) and I don't think questionable stats like that should have a place here. How about a more thorough description of Rambaldi's mechanisation of a head, and readers can make their own mind up as to how many parts it could use?!! For that matter, why not describe the other heads made and for what uses in this film? That's a far more interesting statistic, I think. 14 out of 73 pages are dedicated solely to the alien itself in Giger's Alien, and although I'm not suggesting that sort of weighting should be applied here, more than is currently dedicated, and more accurate, is definitely in order. I for one, would be happy to participate in this aspect of the article's evolution. Caspar (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points to make in response:

• "Surely a more official and specialised source should be sourced from and cited? The reason it's both unofficial and unauthorised could include containing factual inaccuracies pertaining to the film's production."

Actually its contents are surprisingly accurate inasmuch as they match much of the details found in the DVD featurettes and other primary sources, as well as adding additional detail. Being "unofficial and unauthorised" merely means that it has no official association with 20th Century Fox or the film's producers. There are a many such books devoted to specific branches of fiction (Star Wars, Star Trek, etc.); being "unofficial and unauthorized" doesn't make them any less of a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, so long as they are published by a reputable publisher with editorial oversight, which this is. As a secondary source it is perfectly acceptable, and in fact Wikipedia prefers the use of secondary sources to solely primary ones. Wikipedia itself is an "unofficial and unauthorized" source in relation to the film, as we have no affiliation with 20th Century Fox or the film's creators, but that doesn't mean our information is innaccurate, so long as it is properly researched and referenced. So it is with McIntee.

• "I'm staggered to see that the book Giger's Alien [...] isn't referred to once in this film's article."

By all means, then, please add some material from it with citations if you've got the book. I don't happen to have it (getting my hands on The Book of Alien was difficult enough). Additional sources of this caliber are of course very welcome.

• "A link next to the title of the section suggests 'For more details on the creature, see Alien (Alien franchise)'. However that article contains even less information on the construction of the costume for the original film."

Again, by all means feel free to add material from the Giger book. I agree that the article on the Alien itself is quite lacking in this department, and any help you'd like to offer that article would be greatly appreciated as well.

• "A flimsiness exemplified by the use of some very suspicious facts and figures like 'The final head had about nine hundred moving parts and points of articulation'."

This figure comes directly from one of the featurettes on the DVD. I don't recall exactly who said it, but the whole featurette is devoted to the construction of the Alien and includes interviews with Giger, Rimbaldi, and many others involved in the design and creation of the creature. I would hardly call such figures, as given by the creators themselves, "suspicious" or "flimsy", and I think that it serves to exemplify the level of detail and complexity in the design as well as the expertise and effort put in by the designers.

• "It's guff. It reads like a tatty fanzine rather than a professionally researched and authored encyclopedic article."

I respectfully disagree. I put a lot of time and effort into researching and writing the section, and there is nothing in there that I did not get directly from the sources. As mentioned above, the creators felt it worth noting the number of moving parts and points of articulation in the DVD featurette as an example of the complexity and detail of the design. With regard to special effects involving puppetry and animatronics, details like these are not insignificant. If Frank Oz had remarked on the number of moving parts and articulating points in his Yoda puppet, such a thing would be worth noting in an article detailing Yoda's creation.

• "How about a more thorough description of Rambaldi's mechanisation of a head, and readers can make their own mind up as to how many parts it could use?!!"

Again, why do we need to do that when we have the creators telling us how many parts they put in it? I'd be happy to watch the feature again tonight and quote for you exactly who said it. Trying to describe the mechanism itself in words is rather difficult; watching the feature I really didn't understand it until they showed it in action. If I were to give the quotes alone they would do a very poor job of describing the mechanical action, as they don't articulate the engineering concepts very well in the interviews.

I happily welcome any content from Giger's Alien that you wish to add, and enthusiastically invite you to do so. But I disagree rather strongly with your debasement of the current content and its descriptions and figures, which come directly from both primary and secondary sources including the Giger and Rimbaldi themselves. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi IllaZilla. Thanks for the speedy reply. Just to quickly set the record straight: The section as it stands is not guff, of course, much of it is just fine. That sentence of mine referred solely to the statement 'The final head had about nine hundred moving parts and points of articulation'. It referred to that statement *only* as being guff. So no offense! I also find it very interesting that the component count was sourced from the DVD. Before I make any other comments on this, I would be grateful if you could recheck the DVD to find out who said it. Although I must add that during (unscripted obviously) interviews, some members of crew can have their mouth run away with them a bit, and I've sure noticed that some of these 'making of' features can be embellished with 'sensationalised' 'facts' in their adjoining narration that I, being involved in the industry, know to be very questionable. I still hold it with high suspicion any mention of how many parts it took to make a one-off animatronic more than thirty years ago, when people were less obsessed with trivial facts and figures. Even if Ridley, Giger or Rambaldi had quoted it themselves, I would still suspect it and would have thought better of them to do that, to boot!! I think it's really just a guess, to help put into perspective how complex it is. But it could be a thousand parts, or maybe five hundred. No one really knows for sure and it could be way off, and so I think you'd be putting the article a peg above the making of DVD featurette by removing that rather extraneous 'fact'.

As for the rest of what you say, I pretty much agree throughout. We'll sort something out perhaps. Keep an eye on the article page and I may drop some bits in with refs to Giger's Alien, and if you're not sure about it we'll discuss it here. Caspar (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll check the DVD when I get home and share the quotes here. For what it's worth, there isn't any adjoining narration to The Beast Within; it's 100% interviews. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Great. Let me know. And there's no narration either? Interesting. Anyway, at the bottom of your reply you drew an example of the Yoda puppet. I'd just like to add that I totally agree that the statistic of how many moving parts and articulating joints it had would be of interest, and to me too. It would be a good measure of the puppet's 'expressiveness'. But that isn't the stat in question in the alien section. The suspect alien stat seems to be a bizarre mix of the actual amount of individual components needed to make it (meaningless, as I will explain) and the amount of moving parts and its articulation ability. Because we don't know where the component count finishes and the moving parts and articulation starts, it is totally unhelpful compared to your Yoda analogy. Because of this (and unlike the Yoda analogy), I have no idea how 'expressive' the alien head puppet would be. However in Giger's Alien, Giger simply mentions briefly that there are ten cables that operate face muscles, (in addition to the thrusting tongue/mouth) which is far more revealing of the alien head's expressiveness. As for the actual component counts of constructed hardware, it's a stat that even when clearly represented on its own (and correct too, somehow!) I find completely meaningless. For example, what if Rambaldi had made a second alien head immediately after he'd finished the first? What if he managed to build the second with the same functionality as the first, but purely through improvements culled from the experience of making the first, he managed to make it with 150 less parts. I assume it would be cheaper and lighter, yes? Good yes? But hang on. Maybe the original was found to be unreliable during filming, and that 200 more parts would be better, and it wouldn't weigh much more, say. That's good too right? You see? Without knowing every single aspect of the machine's design, construction, and problems uncountered with it both now and in the future, a discrete component count is meaningless, completely, as a measure of how good or bad it is, and it shouldn't be mentioned about anything ever! This is what irks me everytime I see a parts count for a machine anywhere and to do with anything on this planet! Caspar (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Found it. These are from the behind-the-scenes documentary feature The Beast Within: The Making of Alien on disc 2 of the Alien Quadrilogy DVD set, the chapter titled "The Eighth Passenger: Creature Design":

• "Rimbaldi actually built a separate head with 900 moving parts." –David Giler (Producer)
• "The mechanism of the mouth no was very complicated; is three movement: one cable for open the mouth, second cable the tongue coming out from the mouth, and another cable for open the small mouth of the tongue." –Carlo Rimbaldi (Alien head effects)

As you can see, it's difficult to fully grasp the concept from Rimbaldi's words, partly because English isn't his primary language and partly because mechanical systems are easier to understand visually. In the feature he shows several drawings of the mechanics he designed to control and thrust the tongue, which makes it a bit easier to understand, but not much to someone like myself with no background in engineering. He also describes the difficulties in animating the facial movements and some of the changes they made in order to make it work, but with the language issue it's difficult to understand. So the "900 parts" thing comes from Giler. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent news. Giger has much praise for Rambaldi in Giger's Alien, but did add that (at the time) he hardly spoke any english at all, even though he'd lived in America for several years. However the description of Rambaldi's you mention reads pretty clearly, and if the grammar was just tidied and it was reworded a bit (automatically severing any copyright problems too) I don't see why it couldn't be added to the article. It's better than nothing, seeming the article doesn't contain the all-revealing footage. As for Giler's ridiculous statement about how many moving parts there are. Well, my previous reply sums up my feelings on parts counts - moving or static! And what do you think, after hearing Rambaldi's account, and Giger's that I mentioned earlier? A hundred moving parts in total, perhaps? Maybe two hundred, tops? Possibly more, but 900 is plainly wrong (as I suspected), and is typically inaccurate for a scriptwriter and producer whose 'skills in the business lay in other areas'. I'd remove it from the article forthwith. PS. Does the featurette actually credit Rambaldi onscreen as Rimbaldi? If so, then they've spelt his name wrongly too! Caspar (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

After thinking about it some more, I really don't know where Giler got that figure from. If he thinks he was told it, then maybe he's remembered it wrongly. Or maybe he remembered it right but isn't technically savvy enough to question it and find out later for sure. Whatever the reason is, I don't buy it. I don't think my car has 900 moving parts and it's got to be more complex than the alien head with its three fundamental moving parts of mouth, tongue and smaller tongue mouth! Caspar (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, it's "Rambaldi"; that was my own spelling error :P I wouldn't actually be surprised if it turned out a car had over 900 moving parts, as I've done some tinkering in and under my own car, but I agree with most of what you're saying. Giler's tone in the feature is pretty deadpan and straightforward, so it's hard to tell if he's exaggerating. The head did have a lot of moving parts involved in the mechanisms of the jaw, animation of the lips, and of course the inner mouth and the mechanisms required to make it thrust (most of these were controlled by puppeteers operating levers and controls from offscreen), but I suppose the actual number of parts isn't important. I'll see if I can reword something closer to Rambaldi's description and put it in there a bit later (got to run off to work now). --IllaZilla (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I wouldn't be surprised either if it turned out a car had over 900 moving parts, but I'd be very surprised if the alien head had anywhere near that. I think I'm on the cusp of working out where Giler went wrong. He may have been told that there were 900 parts in total, but somewhere along the line the word 'moving' has slid in there. Anyhow, it's unlikely to be correct and I'm glad you're going to remove it. As for Giler's manner, I think it's a requirement for those working in the higher echelon of any business to 'speak authoritatively on subjects it is expected for them to know about'. Whether what they actually say is correct or not is another matter...

I think your summing up of the mechanism in your last reply is almost word perfect for the article! How about: 'The head has a lot of moving parts involved in the mechanisms of the jaw, animation of the lips, and of course the inner mouth and the mechanisms required to make the tongue thrust. Most of these were controlled by puppeteers operating levers and controls from offscreen.' What's wrong with that?!! It could replace the preceding sentence too that starts, 'A system of hinges and cables...' and the morphed together linguistically with it. Ultimately-

'The head has a lot of moving parts involved in the mechanisms of the jaw, animation of the lips and face muscles, and of course the inner mouth and the mechanisms required to make the tongue thrust. Most of these were controlled by puppeteers offscreen, using cables operated by levers and controls.'

-Perfectly succinct, I think. Although, having seen the video, you might want to specify whether the cables are mechanical cables, or electrical cables, or a combination of both types.

As I put in a bit of Giger's observation there, you should put Giger's Alien, Titan Books, ISBN 1-85286-219-X as a reference. And I couldn't more strongly urge you to buy this tome as soon as possible. It's quite expensive new, but I've seen second hand copies on Amazon.com for as little as $10. (Although copies that cheap could be a little 'thrashed'. My original copy that I got in the early 1980s eventually fell apart it was read so much. I had to buy a new copy again recently!) Caspar (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Quotes

The quotes on the right and left of the article should (probably) be integrated into the article. Some quotes are done so, but others are not. This lends to a POV. Be careful to avoid this (see wp:npov).Hyperpiper (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

External links

Wikipedia:EL#What_should_be_linked says "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." IMDB and, to a lesser extent, Rotten Tomatoes, fit this category and are widely recognized as being a valuable link. In fact, I found that this page was missing an IMDB link because I was running various checks on pages for high-rated movies. Out of 550 movies culled from various best-of lists, 548 pages on Wikipedia had IMDB links. Only Alien and Samurai X: Trust & Betrayal were missing them.

The fact that Rotten Tomatoes is also cited inline is irrelevant. Ridley Scott's name is inline and in the Infobox. It's just good, consistent design. —KHirsch (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Because the infobox is a summation of details from the article. The External links section is not. There is little sense in repeating a link twice just for the sake of having it twice. WP:EL and WP:NOT#LINK encourage us to be critical in choosing what external links we provide. When the same site appears as an External link in every single film article, it's an indication that maybe we are not being so critical and need to rethink the status quo. If it's so valuable, why don't we consider it a reliable source and allow it to be used as a reference? I grant that IMDb has additional detail that is valuable to a reader (ie. full cast & crew listings), but if we agree that the information is valuable, why don't we allow the site to be used as a citation for verifying cast & crew info in the article? The reader can easily access the additional info via the link in the citation. As for Rotten Tomatoes, I fail to see what additional information it provides that is not/could not be in the article itself, considering that it is already linked via citation in References. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

IMDb is valuable as an encyclopedic resource and does deserve an EL, but I don't think RT deserves one, simply because there's so little info on ALIEN there to justify it. Or is it's importance related to 1001 reviews mostly by people I've never heard of nor care about?Shirtwaist (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I understand the point of not having links repeated twice should we not take into consideration the fact that the database sites are part of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film) External links guide and are part of the majority of other film articles. To me it is easier for users to find these links in the external links section than to read through the 90+ notes. The goal is to try to make the article user-friendly for all, for first time users of Wikipedia it may be easier to find these database links in the external links section.Invisec (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:EL encourages us to be critical and frugal in determining which external links to provide. The goal is to provide links to additional content that is not or cannot be included in the Wikipedia article, not to be a directory of links to film databases. There is no added value in an external link to a site that is already used as a source in the article. By your logic every album article should include links to Allmusic and Discogs.com, and every video game article should include links to Gamespot and IGN. When we are linking the same sites in every single article in a topic area, clearly we are not being critical or frugal about the value those links provide in relation to the content provided by the WP articles themselves. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It's also completely redundant to link a bunch of databases that all have the exact same info. TCM and Allmovie pretty much just have technical details such full cast & crew listings (Allmovie sometimes has reviews, but these should definitely be used as sources instead). IMDb provides these same details, but also other content that is beyond the scope of what we can provide (ie. galleries of non-free screenshots which they have the rights to use). When there are multiple databases that all essentially cover the same ground, it makes sense to simply choose the one that adds the most informative value rather than redundantly link all 3 (but again, only if it's not already used as a source). --IllaZilla (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Taking into account all that has been discussed I re-added the external link to the TCM database website because TCM has a section called Alternate Versions which is not covered in IMDb or in the wikipedia article. Invisec (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternate versions are covered in the section "Home video releases". The "contribute" button at the bottom of the TCM "alternate versions" section seems to also indicate that this info is user-contributed. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Gross revenue

There seems to be a disagreement between 2 common box office sites with respect to Alien's total gross. Box Office Mojo gives figures of $80,931,801 domestic and $24,000,000 foreign, for a total worldwide gross of $104,931,801. The Numbers, on the other hand, gives figures of $80,930,630 domestic and $122,700,000 international, for a worldwide total of $203,630,630. Notice that The Numbers' international figure is almost 5x that given by BOM, resulting in the The Numbers' total gross being nearly double that given by BOM. What accounts for this discrepancy, and which source is more reliable? --IllaZilla (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

One possibility: The Numbers gets totals from more countries than BOM? Just to add to the confusion: World Wide Box Office lists domestic as $80,930,630 and Foreign as $104,000,000. Maybe foreign numbers do fluctuate with number of countries counted, while U.S. total remains the same in all three?Shirtwaist (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Protagonists, antagonists and heroes

I've made some adjustments to the use of these terms in the article mainly for consistency with the linked Wiki pages.

An antagonist is someone who's opposed to the protagonist, and a hero is simply the major character. An anti-hero is someone who fails to be heroic, although in common misusage it tends to mean an evil hero.

The article originally said that the alien was the antagonist and Ripley the protagonist. I'd suggest that it is much more like the other way around, i.e. actually it's the alien that is the protagonist. This is not because the film is called "Alien" rather than "Ripley", but because it is the alien's attributes and actions, not Ripley's, that drive the plot. Ripley's role is a reactive one, so while she qualifies as the hero, just about, she's not the mainspring of the story.

I suspect the terms were used under the default assumption was that the protagonist had to be the good guy, and the antagonist someone who opposed him, i.e. the bad guy. This need not necessarily follow.Tirailleur (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The Alien is certainly not the protagonist. The protagonist is the main character, with whom the audience is supposed to share empathy. In this case that would be Ripley: She is introduced (with the other human characters) at the start of the film, while the Alien is not introduced until about halfway through. The other humans are protagonists as well, but she is clearly the central character as the narrative focuses on her more and more as the other characters die off, until at the end she is the only one left and we (the audience) are sharing all of our empathy with her as she attempts to survive. The Alien is the clear antagonist: It opposes the major characters and represents a clear threat to them. The audience is clearly not supposed to empathize with the Alien: as noted in the background and analysis sections the Alien is supposed to represent all manner of human fears—it's amorphous, incredibly dangerous, has acidic blood, and its actions against the protagonists are symbolic of rape and sexual violation (facehugger, chesburster, second mouth). It's not simply "good guy/bad guy", the Alien is specifically designed to inspire fear and revulsion, making the audience empathize more and more with Ripley and root for her survival.

Besides, the sources (both the creators and the critics) specifically refer to Ripley as the main protagonist and the Alien as the antagonist. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with IllaZilla. All definitions I found of "protagonist"/"antagonist" (including WP) clearly indicate they refer to Ripley/Alien&Ash in that order.Shirtwaist (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Does Lina Bradley Even Exist and Does Anyone Care?

"Film analyst Lina Badley has written that the Alien's design, with strong Freudian sexual undertones, multiple phallic symbols, and what the critic terms an overall feminine figure that provides an androgynous image conforming to archetypal mappings and imageries in horror films that often redraw gender lines.[95]"

I've looked around for this alleged film analyst. I keep running into the same quote over ad over again... and it is the above quote from THIS article!

I'm not saying that there aren't sexual undertones to the film. I think that's obvious. But can we get a far less obscure and much more authoritative and respected person for the quote? 75.48.22.62 (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well her quote was cited to a book, not all of which land on the interwebz, of course. I never agreed with her assessment myself, but I don't see any reason to remove it. I'll wait to restore until others weight in though. Consensus and all that. Millahnna (talk) 05:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I restored it. That you don't think the author "authoritative and respected" because you couldn't find this particular quote on the interwebs doesn't make the source any less reliable. It's a legit, published book on pop culture study published by an established publishing company. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

New Prequel ?

Anybody got anything on this ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 21:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a section on it at Alien (franchise). It's unknown at this point whether it's a prequel or an entirely separate film. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"Brett was becoming an Alien egg"

That sounds not very well phrased. A host of a parasite, or what's going on the in movie, isn't an "egg". --212.251.183.149 (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I quote the source: "Dan O'Bannon intended that the Alien's life-cycle should start with the face-hugger implanting an embryo, move on to the chest-burster, and then have the adult Alien cocoon its victims. Some would then be covered with an exuded substance that would cause them to turn into eggs, while the others would be held as hosts ready for the new face-hugger to emerge from the eggs. [...] The final section of O'Bannon's intended lifecycle — the cocooned victim becoming an egg — was in the shooting script. In fact, some footage of Brett turning into an egg, while Dallas is cocooned nearby to be face-hugged, was shot. This sequence was originally cut because Ripley's discovery of the nest came in the middle of her frantic quest to escape the ship before it exploded, and so the scene damaged the pacing of the end sequence. This footage turned up in the deleted scenes section of the DVD and laserdisc releases, and a shortened version was integrated into the Director's Cut." (McIntee, 24)

Also to quote associate producer Ivor Powell, describing this deleted scene: "Dallas is found in the ship as an egg, still alive." And to quote director Ridley Scott referring to the same scene: "they're morphing, metamorphosing, they are changing into...being consumed, I guess, by whatever the Alien's organism is...into an egg." (these quotes from the audio commentary and special features of the 2003 DVD release in the Alien Quadrilogy set).

So yes, the intention was to have Brett becoming an egg, with Dallas nearby ready to be implanted by the resulting facehugger. But the scene was cut and so this part of the lifecycle is non-canon (and the notion was pretty much nullified by the introduction of the Alien Queen in Aliens as the source of the eggs). From your comment, I think you may have this scene confused with the Kane sequence, in which Kane has the embryo implanted in him by the facehugger, later to have the chestburster come out of him. This section refers to an entirely different (deleted) scene involving 2 other characters: Brett and Dallas. We're talking her about an idea/sequence that was cut from the film, not the events that are actually depicted in the plot. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a difference of opinion between O'Bannon's original intent and Scott's and Powell's version--the former saw Brett as an egg and Dallas as a host, while the latter two say they both were supposed to be eggs. Did Scott intend for Dallas and Brett to be morphing into eggs, or are they mis-remembering?Shirtwaist (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Everything I've read/watched indicates that all involved considered that Brett becoming an egg while Dallas was nearby to be face-hugged. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Then I must be misreading the Powell and Scott quotes you posted above indicating Powell saw Dallas as morphing into an egg, and Scott saw both Dallas and Brett morphing into eggs. I'm not understanding this. What they're saying, or said, does not jibe with what you're saying. Can you clarify this?Shirtwaist (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Powell's quote comes from the special features, while Scott's comes from the DVD commentary track. Powell is merely offering his own speculation on the scene's meaning, while Scott is sort of vaguely recalling what he meant with the scene (you can hear it in the track; his recollection of the intent is vague and he's sort of trying to recall what it was about). McIntee makes clear that the intent of the scene—as far as the screenplay—was to have Brett becoming and egg while Dallas is nearby to be face-hugged. I can't remember where, but I believe somewhere in my reading I saw Scott give a description that jibed with this. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well done.--Edmac1 (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Origin of Alien

I was interested to read Dan O Bannon's claimed influences on the "Alien" story. I rather find some of those films mentioned have a somewhat tenuous claim to being an influence on Alien, particularly Forbidden Planet. I also find it strange that the obvious progenitor of the Alien plot is conspicuously not mentioned, that film is "IT! THE TERROR FROM BEYOND SPACE" (1958). Alien has many scenes lifted straight from ITTFBS including the creature moving through the air ducts and stashing its victims there. Also the climactic scene with the surviving crew members retreating to be cornered in the nose cone. ITTFBS had a screenplay by JEROME BIXBY, and this film may have in turn been influenced by A. E. VAN VOIGHT's Voyage of the Space Beagle. I think ITTFBS warrants a mention at least. (Source "The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction" 1982) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.103.156 (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Read the rest of the article, specifically the "Antecedents" section. There are works that O'Bannon has explicitly noted as inspirations, and there are works that third-party critics and analysts have drawn comparisons to. "Origins" covers the former, while "Antecedents" covers the latter. You'll find that both works you mention (It and Voyage of the Space Beagle) are covered in Antecedents. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

My apologies I rushed to add that before reading the complete article. You are quite correct and I've removed the comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.131.157 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No need to remove the comment. Glad you found what you were looking for in the article :) --IllaZilla (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: citing Planet of the Vampires as a primary source in intro paragraph: a truly NPOV arts article should not just represent what the creators want you to think about their creation. I do believe different artists can develop parallel ideas, and that great art can develop from not so great antecedents. There is no doubt Alien is one of the greatest achievements in film, regardless of how it came together, the result is undeniable. But to explicitly deny antecedents and then to assert a non-denial denial such as O'Bannon's, "I stole it from EVERYBODY" I believe is significant. Wikipedia's own article on Planet of the Vampires contains a number of references to the effect that "[M]uch of the conceptual design and some specific imagery in the Ridley Scott screamer undoubtedly owes a great debt to Mario Bava's no budget accomplishments,” as stated by Robert Monell of the DVD Maniacs website. These are not minor details, or a passing influence. I think what makes that more significant is that Ridley Scott and Dan O'Bannon specifically denied that they had even seen the film, much less been influenced by it, according to a 1979 article in Cinefantastique. Beadmatrix (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where the article is "denying antecedents" or "asserting a non-denial". The "Origins" section details a number of works that O'Bannon specifically cited as inspiration for various elements of Alien, including not only Planet of the Vampires but also The Thing from Another World, Forbidden Planet, "Junkyard", Strange Relations, and EC Comics horror titles. The "Antecedents" section then goes on to detail other works that third-party critics have identified as roots for Alien, including It! The Terror from Beyond Space, Jaws, Halloween, And Then There Were None, The Voyage of the Space Beagle, Dr. Who, and At the Mountains of Madness. To suggest that any of these was a "primary source" above others, and to declare such right in the introductory paragraph of the article, is giving undue weight to that particular influence, a weight that does not accurately reflect the proportional prominence given to that work by the various sources in the article. The article lead is not the place to get into specifics about which works influenced O'Bannon's writing; That level of detail should remain in the body paragraphs. Remember that the lead is merely an introduction to the article: For the purpose of the lead, it suffices to say that O'Bannon drew inspiration from a number of earlier works of sci-fi and horror, since the body paragraphs do not make the assertion that one particular work was primarily influential above all others. Your quote from Robert Monell, and any relevant quotes from Scott and O'Bannon, would be good additions to the "Antecedents" section (in the vein of what is discussed there about A. E. van Vogt's The Voyage of the Space Beagle) but do not justify specifically singling out Planet of the Vampires in the lead paragraph, when there are so many other works that the creators have directly acknowledged as inspirations. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not necessarily that the article itself is denying an antecedent, but the significance of the author and director specifically denying an obvious and recognized antecedent (in Cinefantastique) that at least the author later acknowledged, but downplayed, suggests (to me, strongly) that it is perhaps more important than they would have liked anyone to believe. What makes that particularly important at the intersection of art history and commerce is that the perception of originality and novelty are often so crucial to the immediate success or failure of the artists, and future opportunities. And the story of Alien is not just the story of a piece of art but how its phenomenal success affected the careers of so many people, of an industry, a genre, not to mention "popular culture" and what some sociologists perceive to be a new sort of archetypal mythology - and it would take some digging to cite sources for that, but I do believe Alien is a part of that.

So if I rewrite a bit about this, to include in the Antecedents section, rather than an edit/undo back and forth, should I do that in the sandbox, and look for your input there? I love a great debate, and I appreciate the discussion, and your openness to my contributing to your (very good) article. Thanks! Beadmatrix (talk) 08:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said, if you would like to add the info from Monell you gave above, and any relevant info about Scott and O'Bannon's reactions, to the "Antecedents" section, that would be great (as long as you cite them, of course). But be careful to stick to what the sources say rather than drawing your own conclusions (the suggestion that "it is perhaps more important than they would have liked anyone to believe" is your own opinion and doesn't sound like it's explicitly advanced by the sources, so stating that implication in the article would be original research). And while it is certainly pertinent to the "Antecedents" section, it's still undue weight to single out one particular influence in the lead, as if it were the primary influence for the entire story. I also think it would be interesting to read Scott and O'Bannon's statements that they'd never seen Planet of the Vampires or been influenced by it, since—according to McIntee—The Thing from Another World, Forbidden Planet, and Planet of the Vampires were 3 of the works that O'Bannon (at one point or another) claimed to have taken conscious inspiration from and to have been among his main cinematic influences when working on his Alien story (David McIntee, Beautiful Monsters, p. 19). --IllaZilla (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! And you're right about my opinion, I'm not sure there's a source that states that explicitly, and I do understand that's where I need to be extra careful. Did you ever see "Planet of the Vampires"? I confess I don't remember ever seeing "The Voyage of the Space Beagle", or reading the story, though I think my Dad had everything van Vogt ever wrote on the shelf. I'll get my citations in order and go from there. Beadmatrix (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hanson's music at the end of "Alien"

Ok, IllaZilla, you are of course right that changes to sourced statements need sources themselves. Here's the (unsourced) facts: The Hanson theme is from the final minutes of the first movement of his second symphony. It's also called the "Interlochen" theme, and is performed as a kind of "sign-off" theme at the end of the Interlochen Summer Academy concerts. The second movement does have a brief return of this theme, but the music is scored differently and develops differently from the music heard in "Alien" (which is the version from the first movement) and the theme plays no thematic role in the 2nd (Andante) movement.
Unfortunately, I cannot verify three of the four sources in the article claiming that it is from the second movement of the symphony (which uses completely different themes), since two of them are in printed form (which I haven't access to, and it is not clear what they are sourcing: The use of music from "Freud", the use of music from Hanson's symphony, or the use of music from the second movement), one is a dead link, and the only one available online is from a CD review. And the reviewer messed up the movements. For the first movement, I could cite:

• The score of Hanson's symphony. (probably available in most music libraries in the US...)
• Alien Movies FAQ: "The End Credits of the film are taken from a Charles Gerdhart conducted recording of Howard Hanson's symphony #2 "The Romantic" (The last 2 1/2 minutes of the first movement.)"
• Another CD review: "Sci-fi buffs will recognize [the theme] at the end of the first movement as the music that arrives, incongruously, with the blasting of the alien and then quietly settles over the last minute and closing credits of Ridley Scott's Alien."
  

Here you can compare for yourself:

• Youtube: Blasting of the alien: start of the Hanson music in "Alien" (unfortunately, video breaks off prematurely)
• the very same moment from the second part of the first movement of Hanson's symphony on youtube
• compare to same theme but from the second movement (Andante) on youtube Not in "Alien".

I know that "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear" is not a valid source, so how do we do that? -- megA (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm off to work right now, but I'll pull out the printed sources when I get back & put up the quotes for comparison. I really don't know much at all about classical music, so if faced with conflicting sources I think a good compromise might be to simply change "the andante" to "a portion" in the contested sentence. Precisely which bit of the Hansen was used isn't that important to the context of what's being talked about: the substance of the sentence is that Goldsmith was pissed that Scott made changes to his score & pulled bits of music from other sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, was away myself. I think it's a good compromise, (though I still think I'm right ;-)) as it's worded more or less in that way in the credits as well. (IIRC "Excerpts from 'Symphony no. 2 (Romantic)") "portion", "part" or "theme" might work well. -- megA (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I forgot about this and didn't post the promised quotes. I'll make the wording change anyway, I think it works well. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ronald Shusett's executive producer credit on Alien

I see Polisher of Cobwebs again deleted co-story writer Ronald Shusett's executive producer credit, saying he agreed with IllaZilla that it "doesn't jibe w/ credits as listed in the print sources". Admittedly I'm new to editing on Wikipedia (having feared it would become a black hole sucking up all my time, though I've been contributing to the IMDb for years), so I would like someone to explain how unverifiable, unspecified "print sources" outweigh the film's opening credits and official poster. (There's even "A Brandywine-Ronald Shusett production" credit that appears right after the Fox logo.) In at least one interview I read some time ago, Shusett said part of his deal with Fox was that he get that exec producer credit and be on the set as the film was shot. That doesn't mean he had creative control, but he did get the credit. (You can see it on the poster on the top of the page...!) Why are you guys disputing that? Gothicfilm (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I do believe it is verifiable that Shussett was the executive producer of the film. That should probably be mentioned & cited in the article body. My objection at present is that I believe the "producer" field in the infobox is meant just for producers, not executive producers. If the infobox were intended to list executive producers, it would have a field for "executive producer". I especially do not like the parenthetical "(executive)". I've started a discussion about this at Template talk:Infobox film#Executive producer. Please feel free to comment there and let's hold off on changing this article until that's settled. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The only place Shusett's name appears in the credits in any kind of "producer" capacity is in the title "A Brandywine-Ronald Shusett Production". He is not listed as "executive producer" at all. Ivor Powell, however, is listed as "Associate Producer", so the IMDb entry listing Shusett as "executive producer" is unsubstantiated by the film credits. But the relevant fact here is that only Hill, Giler, and Carroll are listed as "producers". IllaZilla is right that the infobox template only has a provision for "producer(s)", NOT "executive", "associate", or any other kind of producer. Therefore, neither Shusett nor Powell should be considered "producers" as far as WP is concerned.Shirtwaist (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Shusett certainly does have exec prod credit - it's right there between the composer and the screenplay credits. Strange you saw Powell's name, which is only on the end credits crawl, but didn't see Shusett's single-card EXP in the opening. And as I said, it's on the official poster for all to see... There should be an Executive Producer addition to the WP template, as the title has become so common in the industry. You almost never see a film released anymore without it. Until then, the parenthetical "(executive)" seems to be the best way to handle it. You can't not list these people. Gordon Carroll, David Giler and Walter Hill, who produced Alien, were exec producers on Aliens. Why haven't you deleted them? Only Gale Anne Hurd actually had the "produced by" title on that film. George Lucas never takes "produced by." He's been exec producer on every film he's done since More American Graffiti. Are you going to delete him from the producer column for The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi? He'd have no credit then other than writer. Gothicfilm (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Doesn't change anything though - what exactly does "executive producer" mean in his case? Did he substantially contribute to the production of the film as H-G-C did? He already has story credit, what else did he do? I believe the "Producer" box was intended to tell the reader who the people most responsible for the actual production of the film were, not some guy who simply brokered a deal to get the ExP credit and did nothing else. Why would the reader care about that guy? The reason ExP credits have become so common isn't because more people are actually filling the role of producer, it's mostly people who either want a bigger cut of the profits, or just want to see their names in the credits and have the clout to do it.

Anyway, the consensus on the "ExP" talk page seems to be going against allowing it in. Shirtwaist (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

the term "alien"

shouldn't it be noted that this film is solely responsible for the modern-day use of Alien as an extraterrestrial being? --78.22.52.172 (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. There's documented use of the term in that context from before the film's release, including The Alien from the 1960s. It has almost certainly popularised the term, but it hardly coined this application of it. GRAPPLE X 23:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

number of images

there are 11 images in total in the article: 4 images public domain, 7 non-free; one of the major reasons this didn't pass for FA almot 3 yers ago is because of the number of images used in the article; why hasn't anything been done about the number of images? the public domain images should stay, but the non-free images should be cut down to at least 4, so 3 non-free images should be removed; I could do this myself, just by deleting 3 images that are unecessary, according to the FAC comments; should I?-SCB '92 (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd probably go for the three images of the facehugger, chestburster and fully-grown alien if I was taking anyything out. The other non-free images contribute to the critical assessment of the production and design and are uncommon images to see, whilst any google search would turn up hundreds of visual examples of the creatures themselves - creatures which are so etched in popular culture nowadays that they're entirely familiar to most audiences anyway. GRAPPLE X 23:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

All the images have proper fair use rationales and directly support aspects of the production and design described in the text, in ways that words alone cannot convey. The only one I could really see removing is the one of Scott filming the model, as you really can't see the model well in that shot anyway. It makes no difference what one might be able to find off-Wiki; this is not a criteria of WP:NFCC, in fact one of the criteria is that non-free items must have been displayed off-Wiki before being used on WP. The fact that these creatures are "etched in popular culture" is all the more reason to keep images of them, as they are highly notable and there is no free equivalent that can be used to fully convey the same information (their appearance and design aspects). The whole point of all of this description, as well as the images, is that these are highly notable creations and thus a detailed description with supporting visuals is warranted in order to provide thorough and detailed coverage of the topic for readers. The appropriateness of non-free content must be assessed not by a mere count, but by weighing it against the depth and breadth of coverage and the degree to which each item of NFC increases readers' understanding and meets the criteria of NFCC. This article is roughly 100K and has 7 items of NFC, all of which were judged in the FA review to individually meet NFCC. Punk rock, a featured article of similar size, has 18 items of non-free content which have all been similarly judged to meet NFCC. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

so, there are differing opinions about this situation; the appropriateness of non-free content still didn't stop the article from failing the nomination of FA; I guess I could remove the image of Scott filming the model; IllaZilla, you're the one who nominated the article for FA almost years ago, haven't you done more work on the article in the past 3 years to try and make this a FA, or at least A-Class? SandyGeorgia quoted: "very fine start. Please sort the image, sourcing, prose and comprehensive issues prior to re-nomination. Also, sandwiching of text between images." I myself think that too many images are placed on the right, and should be placed rght-left-right-left thoughout-SCB '92 (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Images: The appropriateness/number of images wasn't the deciding factor in the FA review. From the review: "I am uncomfotable with the quantity of images, but having said that, those that are used are well integrated in the text, are used to illustrate points that could not be easily described with text alone, the usage seems consistant with WP:NFCC, and by extension featured article criteria three."

Sourcing: I believe the sources discussed in the FA review have either been fixed or are reliable.

Prose: I inquired in several places about getting a copyeditor to review the article for the FA "brilliant prose" requirement, but got no responses. I feel I'm too close to the text (having written nearly all of it) to do this myself, though I could try giving it a once-over since it's been a couple of years since I wrote it.

Comprehensiveness: Some sources were suggested in the FA review that would contribute to adding more about feminist interpretations of the film. Unfortunately I no longer have access to a university library so it would probably be a challenge for me to find those sources.

Sandwiching: There is no longer any text sandwiched between images, though there are 2 places where text is sandwiched between an image and a quote box.

Right-aligned images: One of the FA reviewers mentioned that there are not supposed to be left-aligned images under third-level headings, citing WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS#Images. The article has a lot of third-level headings, so the images are right-aligned in order to avoid displacing the section headers.

--IllaZilla (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Nationality of Alien

I just noticed "British" was removed from the lead sentnece, but "American" was not put in its place. Isn't Alien generally considered an "American" film? That's what the "Country" field in the infobox says - US - so I assume "American" was at one time in the lead sentence. Shirtwaist ☎ 11:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Alien has something of a mixed origin: It was written by Americans, produced by an American production company, and stars mostly Americans, but it was directed by a Brit and filmed in England with a mostly British crew. The nationality is not really intrinsic to the film, and it's certainly not as important as defining the genre and key players, so in my opinion it's not something that needs to be stated in the lead sentence. There are currently several discussions happening at WT:FILM about how to define the nationality of film; I would prefer to wait and see what consensus arises out of those discussions. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on some stuff recently said in the conversation at the project page I'm wondering if we shouldn't remove the country from the infobox as well until said consensus? Millahnna (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the "Country" field in the infobox is supposed to reflect the nationality listed in the lead, and since there is currently no nationality in the lead, the Country box should probably be removed. Shirtwaist ☎ 20:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The British Film Institute lists Alien as being a US/UK production. Halliwell's Film Guide lists country of origin as UK. Both of these are valid, high quality sources. It's true that the film was financed by Fox, but it was made entirely in the UK (pre-production, photography, effects, editing, music, everything) using a British crew. The Film infobox template does not say that the nationality of the writers or producers is what defines a film's country of origin. At the very least, the lead and infobox should say US/UK as the country. 88.110.247.32 (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The film infobox used to say that the country was supposed to reflect the home country of the production company, but that parameter's description has since been changed. I removed the sources from the infobox as they aren't really needed (and one wasn't properly formatted); there are already plenty of sources cited in the article as to the UK involvement (pre-production, director, filming, etc.). Heck, the film was made in the UK and directed by a Brit. It's pretty common sense. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think to avoid the problem of someone else deleting UK and or US from the article, it would be best to include appropriate sources to show it is a UK/US production and to list it as such in the lead (since there is no doubt as to the nationality of the film). While you and I acknowledge that Alien is a UK/US production, not everybody else will and not everybody is likely to read this discussion page before making edits. I have no objection to the two UK sources being moved into the main body of the article (though a source not being properly formatted is not a reason to remove it entirely).88.110.253.125 (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think they needed to be moved. There are many sources already in the article discussing the American writers/production company/actors/premiere as well as the British directors/studios/crew/production/actors, so both the American-ness & British-ness are already well established and sourced, and the infobox reflects that. The infobox is a summary of key facts from the article, after all. True, we don't expect readers/editors to check the talk page, but we do expect them to read the article, and I think the US/UK co-production aspects are blatantly obvious to anyone giving it even a cursory reading. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. The "nationality" of Alien has been a bone of contention for quite a long time on this article, to the point where "warning notes" have been added to the article for editors not to identify it as a British film (did you place the note there yourself?). As it stands, you have simply removed two highly valid sources from the article that resolved that particular problem. As said earlier, I have no problem with those sources being relocated, but I object to them being removed entirely considering the contentious nature of the film's country of origin. It's not particularly encyclopedic to let readers "assume" the film's country of origin just based on where crew and cast members come from when we could include the BFI source that identifies it as a US/UK production. For one thing it will stop editors from adding British or American to the opening sentence and will clarify that issue once and for all. Of course, there are also some readers who may want just basic information about a film and only read the lead rather than the entire article (which is, admitedly, fairly lengthy). 88.104.22.116 (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: Yes, I put the hidden note there originally. I also wrote ~90% of the article, for what that's worth.I don't remember if I was the one who removed the nationality from the lead, but I certainly agreed with its removal as (A) it's hard to summarize in one term ("American/British" would read awkwardly) and (B) the nationality isn't really intrinsic/a key characteristic of this film. I admit I didn't read the sources you added to the infobox very thoroughly, but I didn't think they were necessary since, as I said above, there's already plenty of description and accompanying sources in the article body explaining the international production. We haven't really had a problem with editors adding British/American to the opening sentence, at least not on a regular basis. My problem with moving the source is: where would we move it? Would we simply add a blurb somewhere saying "Alien was an American/British co-production"? That, to me, would seem to be shoehorned in. IMO anyone who reads as far as the "Direction and design" section, or who clicks on the links in the lead, will understand the US/UK nature of the film. Honestly, I don't think attaching a national origin to this film in the lead and/or infobox is all that important, as it's not really intrinsic to the film (in the way that it is for The Patriot, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, or Slumdog Millionaire). --IllaZilla (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, we can either put it in the intro ("Alien is a 1979 US/UK film...." or "Alien is a 1979 Anglo-American film...." etc, with a source after the countries) but I think it there are awkward wording problems, we can have it as a footnote in the infobox for the time being (footnotes are permitted and there are already a couple there for the run-time and the budget). We could include both of the sources within the footnote, and it would just help to clarify things and would avoid any future edit-warring issues. It is important that the sources are added in some way though since it was a contentious issue. 88.104.26.4 (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It sounds awkward? What kind of argument is that? Can there be no British-American or American-British films? Of course nationality is a key characteristic of the film. It belongs to a genre that originates from Hollywood. It uses Anglosaxon names. I see neither Iranian, nor Russian characters in the movie and the only language used is English. Nationality is a very important part of this film. 80.98.146.68 (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Just because a film isn't blatantly foreign doesn't mean nationality is an intrinsic factor of it. Alien was an international production (American & British), but neither American-ness or British-ness are a particularly strong characteristic of the film, as it is set in space sometime in the future and never makes mention of any nationalities whatsoever...how do you know all the characters aren't Canadian? When it comes to the lead sentence, the nationalities of the production companies are not a key piece of information about this film, as they would be for films like Slumdog Millionaire, The Patriot, or the James Bond films where nationality is a defining aspect of the film. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Giger's view of Alien

IllaZilla just removed relevant, sourced information that I added about Giger's view of Alien. OK, I probably added the info in the wrong place, but it wouldn't be very difficult to shift it to somewhere better, would it? Giger's view that Alien is actually crap is obviously relevant and belongs in the article. While it might be helpful to have more material on Giger's view than that one detail, I don't think that we need more "context" simply to soften the blow of Giger's judgment, so that's not a good enough reason for removing what I added. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, his view is indeed relevant, but the information was poorly placed (in the Production section, when it has nothing to do with the film's production). A better place would be the Reception section, as that's where the post-release opinions go (both from third parties and parties involved with the film). However, I was uncomfortable with simply moving the statement because I feel it lacks context: When did Giger say this? Why? What specific complaints did he have about the film? Having watched all of the behind-the-scenes interviews in the Alien Quadrilogy, and having read several books including The Book of Alien and Beautiful Monsters, it seems that Giger didn't have any serious complaint when actually working on the film. Or if he did, they aren't discussed. However, it is well-known that Giger's attitude toward the Alien franchise as a whole soured in later years, as he wasn't involved in the making of Aliens and his creature designs for Alien 3 were rejected. For years after that, he badmouthed the franchise. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the period during which he called Alien a crappy film. Without this context, the statement seems slapped-on and out-of-place, since nowhere else in the article is there any indication that Giger had negative feelings toward the film. Then suddenly, appropos of nothing, there's this sentence that says "Giger hated it", when several of the preceding sections have detailed all the work he put into the film (painting sets by hand, sculpting the Alien suit himself) and none of the text gives any specific criticism by Giger of either the process or the final product. It's also unclear what's meant by "he didn't get a fair mention in the screen credits", as he is credited in the credits. What does he mean by this? What credit was he given and what further credit was he looking for? Without any of this context, the statement is vague and will simply confuse readers. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm not able to provide the necessary context, since this is a print source and I don't have it. Since you apparently have it, it would be great if you would add the context to better incorporate this info into the section, rather than having it come out of left field without any supporting explanation. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The source is HR Giger ARh+, an art book published by Taschen in 1991. I do have it. If it helps, the material I added is from a comment by Giger that reads in full, "I have seen myself how delighted you should be if just one scene turns out the way it was planned. I can understand why a director like Ridley Scott won't let a film out of his sight once he's started on it. I can also understand why, once the film has been released, he racees from one cinema to the next in order to check the quality. I have seen, too, how important it is to have a director who is so versatile that he can step in as top man in any field. Only then can you hope for quality. In future I shall only work with directors I can admire. How much money you make along the way is unimportant, but when you've fanatically dedicated a year of your life to what ends up as a bad film that you will be forced to watch on TV for years to come - that's really depressing. You can't hide a third-rate film, unfortunately. So you can be secretly glad if you don't get a fair mention in the screen credits." Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe that the information I added should be simply removed. However, I can understand your rationale for removing it, so I won't restore if you remove it again. Maybe it would be better to find a different source for Giger's negative view of Alien - I'm open to that suggestion. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh...Are you sure he's talking about Alien when he says "a bad film that you will be forced to watch on TV for years to come" and "a third-rate film"? From the full quote it sounds like he's admiring Scott for being so obsessed with quality control. Does he mention Alien specifically as the "third-rate film" he's upset about? Because he also worked on Poltergeist II: The Other Side (1986) and Tokyo: The Last Megalopolis (1987) and did poster art for Future-Kill (1985), and like I said he submitted designs for Alien 3 (1992) that weren't used, which IIRC was a sour experience for him. Since Alien received so many awards (including an Academy Award for Visual Effects for Giger himself) and has gotten so much praise over the years, it doesn't seem to make sense that he'd be referring to it as a "bad" and "third-rate" film. It strikes me as much more likely that he could be referring to one of the other film experiences with these comments (I mean, it's not like we're here discussing the deep cultural impact and lasting critical praise of Poltergeist II or Tokyo: The Last Megalopolis...these strike me much more as third-rate films that Giger might regret having been involved with). Unless he specifically complains about Alien in that book, I'm not comfortable with the statement as-is, because like I say it sounds like he's praising Ridley Scott for his quality control. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no mistake - the title of the comment by Giger is "Alien." (The page Giger's comment is on, and the facing page, are illustrated with Giger's Alien art, concept sketches, etc.) Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but reading the full quote you posted above it really sounds to me like he's praising Scott, and his negative comments seem to be directed at some other experience he had with director he didn't feel cared about quality, just about money. It's a red flag to me that, with all the research I did rewriting this article a couple years ago (watching every special feature, reading multiple books, reading through numerous articles & reviews), this is the first time I've ever seen it mentioned that Giger was dissatisfied with the film. Especially when he refers to a "third-rate film" (Alien? With an Academy Award, 2 BAFTAs, 3 Saturn Awards, & a Hugo Award?) and mentions "not getting a fair mention in the screen credits" when he got an Academy Award for his work on the film and is listed in the credits with "Alien design". Since he goes on about Scott's commitment to quality, and doesn't specifically mention Alien in his comment about "third-rate film", I'm highly skeptical that Alien is what he's referring to. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It is perfectly, perfectly, perfectly obvious that Giger is referring to Alien. It is possible that his comments might not be 100% serious (and they definitely might not be fair), but there's no doubt at all what film he has in mind. If you're so very interested in Alien, and in Giger, you might want to look the book up. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I will. It's difficult to ascertain his meaning when it's just print. One doesn't get the tone, inflection, etc. that might hint at his intended meaning. But to call Alien a "third-rate film" after spending the previous several sentences describing Ridley Scott's obsessive commitment to quality, and to say that he's "secretly glad [he didn't] get a fair mention in the screen credits" for a film he was given an Academy Award for strains the bounds of credulity. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"So you can be secretly glad if you don't get a fair mention in the screen credits." But he is credited in Alien, so it can't be that film. 80.98.146.68 (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Not only is he properly credited, he was given an academy award for it. Giger seems to be saying that he understands Ridley Scott's obsession with quality, because he (Giger) has been through other experiences with filmmakers who didn't have such an eye for quality and turned out films that were bad, and which Giger wasn't properly credited on, but he's sort of happy about not being credited because he thinks the films sucked anyway. He can't possibly be talking about Alien in this regard, because his role in creating the film is one of the first things anyone ever discusses when talking about Alien. Everyone knows what his involvement with the film was...it's chronicled in numerous books and journals and he got an Academy Award for it. To say he's "secretly glad [he didn't] get a fair mention in the screen credits" would be an absolutely incredulous statement if he were referring to Alien, but it makes perfect sense if he's referring to some other film and comparing it to the high quality of Alien. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it stretches credulity to assume that Giger thought Alien was a "third-rate film" - after all, the more effort one puts into creating something, the more it seems terrible if it doesn't turn out as hoped. From what I saw of the full quote listed above, my impression was that Giger (a perfectionist himself) admired in Scott the same perfectionism he's guilty of himself, but simply felt that the film wasn't to his liking despite both their efforts. He might have considered it a turd, but throw enough money and possible awards at him, and he'll try polishing it. However, the full quote may be better served being used in a quote-box to provide the full context, or given alongside other Giger quotes from various timeframes to help source his gradual disenfranchisement with the film. GRAPPLE X 04:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

IllaZilla and the IP are both simply wrong. It is obvious that Giger is referring to Alien. If his statements about it seem strange (or false...) that may indicate that Giger was mis-remembering or mis-stating facts, or that his comments weren't fully serious. IllaZilla, if you admit that you haven't even seen the book, you shouldn't be making suggestions about what Giger does or doesn't say there. Nor should you be trying to judge matters at second hand, from my description of the book. Personal assumptions about what a source would or would not be likely to say are a very poor reason indeed for removing sourced material, as you did here. WP:OWN is food for thought. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not obvious that he is referring to Alien for the reasons I have stated above, chiefly his claiming not to have received proper credit for a film (A) that he received full credit for, (B) about which numerous books and articles have been written detailing his role, and (C) he was given an Academy Award for. This is what makes it not obvious that he is referring to Alien, because if he were then all of these facts would be in direct contradiction to his statement. It would be like Tim Burton saying he's secretly glad not to have been credited on The Nightmare Before Christmas...common sense says this doesn't add up. If it were obvious that Giger were referring to Alien, we wouldn't be having this discussion, but it's not. In the quotes you gave above, he does not explicitly name Alien as the "third-rate film" he's talking about, or that the "didn't receive proper credit" for. In fact, he spends the preceding several sentences discussing his admiration of Ridley Scott's obsession with quality. This is what makes it very difficult to understand his meaning, and why it seems to me that you are making suggestions about the intended meaning of his statements. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Your argument rests on the assumption that Giger wouldn't say something that was wrong. How could you know that? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

IllaZilla and I have had our disagreements, but this is one of several cases where I have to agree with him. It is not clear from your quoted text which film Giger was talking about. It seems to me in order to put such a contentious and unlikely statement in this article from this collaborator, you really should have at least two sources that give clear and direct quotes - talking specifically and unambiguously about this film. Right now you don't even have one. Gothicfilm (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you read HR Giger ARh+? If not, your opinion is worthless; you can't judge at second hand. Giger's comment is titled "Alien", and as such obviously concerns Alien. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Really. Just because an editor put a title over where a comment is printed doesn't prove that a mistake wasn't made. Books are not infallible. I've seen what clearly looked to me like mistakes in the editing and layout of several books over the years. Gothicfilm (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A mistake, really? Do you think the fact that Giger's comment titled "Alien" is on a page illustrated with art and sketches related to Alien is also a mistake? You could dismiss any source at all by crying "mistake" or "printing error" if you wanted to, but who would - unless it said something someone didn't like? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

An editor most likely made the mistake of putting a quote that was talking about some other third rate film Giger worked on in a section that made it possible for you to conclude he was talking about Alien simply because it was in that section.Gothicfilm (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Why, because you say so? Is there some reason you aren't willing to consider the possibility that Giger might have said something unflattering about Alien? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

In order to put that statement in, you need a definitive source. You don't have one. Nuff said. I'm done.Gothicfilm (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Polisher, while it certainly is possible that Giger might say something unflattering about Alien, it is unlikely that the "third-rate film" he is referring to in the passage you quoted above is Alien, because he refers to it as a film for which he's "secretly glad [he didn't] get a fair mention in the screen credits", but not only did he get mentioned in the credits for Alien, his work on the film was prominently publicized and commented upon and it is one of the primary works that he is associated with. It is therefore unlikely that Alien is the film he is "secretly glad" to not have been credited for. He also expresses admiration for Scott's versatility and attention to quality. Therefore it is unlikely that Alien is the "third-rate film" he is referring to. Are you unwilling to consider the possibility that, in discussing his experience with Alien, Giger might make comparisons to another film he was involved with that turned out badly, and for which he is glad not to be prominently associated with? Given his comments in the passage that you quoted above, this seems mostly likely to be the context of his statements. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has obviously reached the tendentious stage. IllaZilla, don't you feel even a little embarrassed that you're trying to interpret a comment in a book you haven't, by your own admission, even seen? You're repeating arguments that I've already responded to, and don't see a need to reply to any further. I think you are misreading Giger's comments about Scott; Giger is being careful to show that he admires Scott as a director, even though he considers Alien a third-rate film. Their purpose is simply to show that Giger respects Scott even though he doesn't think highly of Alien. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly possible, but then how do you explain Giger being "secretly glad" not to have been properly credited, when Alien is the film that he's most prominently associated with? It seems patently ridiculous for him to claim that he's relieved not to be closely associated with Alien, when it's the thing he's probably most notable for and his role in it has been high-profile public knowledge for (at the time of publishing) over a decade. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Consider the nature of the source. HR Giger ARh+ isn't an academic discussion of Alien. It's just a short book designed to showcase some of Giger's work, and present his personal reflections on things. If Giger wanted for whatever reason to say something that wasn't correct or make less than fully serious comments about something, including a project he worked on, he might well do it there. If you were able to look at the book itself, you would perhaps see what I mean. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Plot section

IllaZilla, you reverted me here, because I added one word to the plot summary. Two points. One, "before you start crying OWN, this adjective is just unnecessary" is an extremely patronizing edit summary. That's not a big deal in itself, but it's better to keep the personality clashes and suchlike for the talk page, OK? Two, the addition of the word "inadvertently" does help to clarify what happens in the scene. They don't "discover" that the Alien's blood is acid because they're interested in its blood and want to study it for its own sake; they learn that the hard way, when the Alien's acid blood starts eating through the hull of the ship. "Discover" by itself gives the wrong impression; "inadvertently" shows that they only find this out by mistake. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't give the wrong impression any more than saying "Kane discovers a vast chamber containing numerous eggs, one of which releases a creature that attaches itself to his face." We don't need to say "Kane discovers a vast chamber containing numerous eggs, inadvertently getting a creature attached to his face." Of course it wasn't intentional that they discovered its acidic blood...nothing at all involving the Alien was intentional, it was all "inadvertent" ("The crew investigates a mysterious signal, inadvertently getting themselves slaughtered by a horrific monster"). We know that they're not studying the thing at that point, because the first half of the sentence is "They unsuccessfully attempt to remove the creature from Kane's face". We know that their goal was to get it off his face; obviously the discovery of the acidic blood was unintentional. It is something they discover; That its discovery wasn't their intent is blatantly obvious. Their discovery of the eggs in the first place wasn't intentional, but we don't have to spell it out as inadvertent. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You have a peculiar idea of what is "obvious." Maybe you're forgetting that the plot summary is basically intended for people who haven't seen the film, not for Alien experts such as yourself? It's not obvious by any means, from the summary as it stands, that the Alien's blood wasn't being deliberately investigated for whatever interesting properties it might have. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is. The complete sentence is "They unsuccessfully attempt to remove the creature from Kane's face, discovering that its blood is an extremely corrosive acid." It is not "They investigate the creature's blood for interesting properties, discovering that it is an extremely corrosive acid." The first half of the sentence makes it very clear what their intent was: to get the creature off Kane. The discovery of the acidic blood is obviously a consequence of this attempt. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the intent was to remove the creature from Kane, but why couldn't they have been investigating its blood as part of that attempt? Its ambiguous, and the addition of "inadvertently" helps clarify what happens. Where's the harm in it? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If they were investigating the thing's blood, we'd say so. They're not. They try to cut it off, only to find that it bleeds acid. The "inadvertently" is just an extraneous adjective. You might as well add it before anything that wasn't expliticly by intent: "They land on the planetoid, inadvertently resulting in some damage to the ship", "Kane discovers some eggs, inadvertently getting a creature stuck to his face", "An alien creature bursts from his chest, inadvertenly killing him", "Dallas enters the air shafts and is inadvertently ambushed by the Alien", "Jed Clampett shoots at a rabbit, inadvertently striking oil", etc. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Alien running time

IllaZilla is insisting on listing a running time of 119 minutes because his favored source, a book by David McIntee called Beautiful Monsters: The Unofficial and Unauthorized Guide to the Alien and Predator Films, apparently makes that claim. Most reviews in 1979 and since listed it at 116 or 117. And the British Board of Film Classification lists it at 116m 35sec. There's no reason to use his book or claim it's more reliable than most everything else. The BBFC actually measures the print of the film they are classifying to the nearest foot and frame - reviewers and other "reliable sources" use secondary sources. So their data is not as reliable. We don't know how McIntee got his running time of 119, so therefore it's unreliable in a real sense, even if I could see the book. I doubt he measured a film print. My real objection to what IllaZilla is doing here is not so much listing a runtime of 119 instead of a rounded up 117 -- no, my real problem is having the first reference in this otherwise very good article say something which is false - namely The cinematic release of the film ran 119 minutes, while later video and DVD versions ran 116 minutes due to the different frame rates between film and video. If McIntee were correct, every DVD would be three minutes shorter than the theatrical release. That's obviously not the case. According to BBFC figures I've checked on several films, including Alien, there's usually only a difference of around 10 seconds, if that. So rounded up to the nearest minute, for our purposes on WP, theatrical and DVD running times are going to be the same if the film hasn't been re-edited. --Gothicfilm (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that the BBFC are going to be the most reliable source on this matter, though perhaps a footnote (not a reference) to explain that sources disagree on the film's run time would be warranted. GRAPPLE X 15:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Gothicfilm has been patently dismissive of the McIntee source simply because it's a print source rather than online. There are also several broad, unverified, and rather claims in his above statement:

1. "Most reviews in 1979 and since listed it at 116 or 117." — Where are your sources for this claim? The "Release and reception" section quotes several reviews from the time of release, but none of them give a runtime.
2. "There's no reason to use his book or claim it's more reliable than most everything else." — Sure there is. It's a very comprehensive book dedicated to the franchise, giving in-depth coverage of all 4 Alien films, the first 2 Predator films, and the first AVP film. It's chock full of production and filming details, summation of critical reaction, and other behind-the-scenes content. There's absolutely no reason to assume it's any less reliable than any other source. In fact, it should be assumed more reliable, since its entire purpose is detailed, in-depth coverage of the Alien franchise, as opposed to websites that cover thousands upon thousands of films and whose coverage of Alien is merely slight. The BBFC's primary task is rating films for content, not detailing their background information.
3. "The BBFC actually measures the print of the film they are classifying to the nearest foot and frame - reviewers and other 'reliable sources' use secondary sources." — Again, please. A cursory search of the BBFC website didn't turn up any information on how they determine a film's length. And you have no way of knowing how other secondary sources get their numbers (having previously claimed that reviewers in '79 listed it at 116 or 117, without any source, you know claim that reviewers' figures aren't reliable? These arguments seem contradictory). I'm skeptical that an organization whose primary purpose is rating films for content is measuring reels of film to determine their length, as that has little to nothing to do with rating them.
4. "We don't know how McIntee got his running time of 119, so therefore it's unreliable in a real sense, even if I could see the book." – Just because you don't know where he got his figure doesn't make it unreliable. Again, David A. McIntee is a writer with plenty of experience in the science fiction genre, and who has devoted an entire book to the Alien films filled with detailed behind-the-scenes information. There is, in fact, every reason to consider his book more reliable than most other sources, in the same way that you would treat most books dedicating detailed, in-depth coverage to a particular topic to be more reliable than websites with broad scopes that give only cursory coverage to individual topics. All the more so since your claim about the BBFC measuring the filmstock isn't verified.
5. "If McIntee were correct, every DVD would be three minutes shorter than the theatrical release." — A broad claim, and certainly not true. Alien is a 32 year-old film that has been released in at least 5 formats: film reel, VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, and Blu-ray. It is hardly surprising that there would be different frame rates between these different formats (particularly between the original film reel and VHS) that would account for a couple minutes' difference in the final runtime. But just because this is true for a 32 year-old film that has been transferred many times to different formats does not make it true for every film ever released on DVD. One would expect that with technological developments over the years, the discrepancies between theatrical and home video runtimes on more recent films would be significantly less than on older films like Alien. In fact, note that your BBC source gives a difference of as much as 6 minutes between the film and some video versions.

In short, I see no reason to treat the McIntee source as unreliable on this matter. I don't see most of Gothicfilm's claims backed up by any evidence, and I'm inclined to treat a print source entirely dedicated to the topic at hand, with much detailed information on it, as more reliable than a website giving only cursory coverage, from an organization whose primary task is rating films for content as opposed to studying their production details. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with IllaZilla. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

IllaZilla keeps bringing up subsequent versions of the film. They don't change the running time of the original release.

I never said I'm "dismissive of the McIntee source simply because it's a print source rather than online". It may well be chock full of production and filming details, but that doesn't mean it got every detail right. No source is infallible, in print or online. I'm dismissing it on this topic because I know from personal experience the 1979 release was just under 117 minutes - so the 116m 35sec the BBFC reports sounds quite accurate to me. Most people on WT:FILM seem to agree the BBFC is most reliable. Again, we don't know how McIntee got his 119, so I see no reason to elevate it above all else on this issue. --Gothicfilm (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I never brought up subsequent versions of the film, I brought up subsequent formats on which the film has been released, which is completely germaine to the discussion as we are talking about discrepancies between different sources and we are unsure where those sources are getting their figures. You were, in fact, dismissive of the McIntee source, stating "BBFC is the best source, yours can't even be verified"... The information can be verified and is verified, via a citation to the print source. If what you meant was "you can't verify how McIntee got that number", that's true, but (A) neither can you verify how the BBFC gets its numbers, and (B) it is not our burden to further verify the information beyond the source itself. Certainly no source is infallible, and that includes the BBFC. To what personal experience do you refer? Were you sitting in a theater in 1979 with a stopwatch? I'm inclined to elevate a source specifically dedicated to this topic, and displaying a great depth of detail and coverage to it, over a database source that gives only the most cursory of coverage and whose primary purpose is ratings, not production details. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's focus on the runtime of the original theatrical release. McIntee says it's 119, while later video and DVD versions ran 116 minutes due to the different frame rates between film and video - at least from your reading of the book. But either his unknown source was mistaken on this point, or he made a mistake in interpreting what that source told him. I'm just trying to get info I know to be false off this article. (I won't waste time in how I know this, as that would be WP:OR.)

You certainly don't know it to be true. The mystery is why you're so determined to defend it just because it's included in this one book. There's nothing cool about claiming this film has a three minute discrepancy between the theatrical and (unaltered) home video release. Especially in view of multiple sources that correctly list the original release runtime of 117 (rounded up from 116m 35sec), from Rotten Tomatoes [3] to the New York Times [4] to the IMDb [5], and others, as well as the BBFC.[6] --Gothicfilm (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am focusing on the runtime of the original, and it's got nothing to do with the information being "cool". I'm at work right now, but I'll pull Beautiful Monsters back out when I get home and put up the exact quote. The reason I'm rather insistent upon it is because I'm inclined to believe McIntee: He's someone who knows the films inside and out, has a great deal of experience with the genre, and wrote an in-depth, detailed book specifically about the films, and he makes a special point of noting that the original theatrical runtime was 119 min, while providing a reason why later home video releases' runtimes are different. It's highly probable that many of these online sources' reported runtimes originate from a home video version of the film: Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb, and Allmovie (the NYT article linked above is just an Allmovie mirror) didn't exist in 1979, of course, so it's doubtful they got details like the runtime from an original print of the film. When a reliable source who is a specialist in the topic at hand makes a special point of noting a discrepancy in the theatrical runtime, I'm inclined to believe him. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's that quote:

"Running time: 119 min (cinema), 116 minutes (video/DVD). The time difference is not due to censorship, but the differing frame rates between film and video."

So, he makes it pretty clear that the theatrical runtime was 119 minutes. Given that all the online sources give a runtime of 116 or 117 minutes, it's likely they're deriving those times from home video or DVD copies rather than from the actual film reels. Given that Alien predates the popularization of the internet by over a decade, this isn't too surprising. IMDb is probably the earliest online movie database (having launched in 1990), and a lot of other sites like Allmovie and Rotten Tomatoes simply parrot IMDb's content when it comes to technical details like release dates, runtimes, and credits. So it doesn't surprise me much that most websites say 116 or 117 minutes, while McIntee is telling us that the original cinematic version actually ran 119 and is giving us a reason for the common discrepancy. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No, as I said before, most reviewers at the time listed it at 116 or 117.

Where did he get 119? Or his explanation? I thought you were probably going to have McIntee misinterpret someone involved with the film, but there's no clue here what led him to that conclusion. You're making assumptions with no foundation. You can more likely assume something different: For all we know he simply decided on that statement because he didn't have all the needed information. Someone told him the video release was uncensored. True. Unfortunately he also thought for some unknown reason that the film release was 119, so he came up with this theory to explain the difference. There may be frame rate differences with video releases, but they only change most features by a few seconds (unless the film is re-edited).

McIntee published this book in 2005? That means he had to look back in time as well. It's not like he wrote it contemporaneously. To elevate this one unexplained bit of data above all other sources that are relied on in WP is quite a stretch. You would have us believe everybody else got it wrong because the film pre-dated the internet. Not convincing. --Gothicfilm (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Your sources, as well as your claims, are unconvincing. Again you claim that "most reviewers at the time listed it at 116 or 117", yet you have done nothing to prove that statement is accurate. You have not provided even one review from the time of the film's release that even states a runtime. You accuse me of making "assumptions with no foundation", then you do exactly that ("Unfortunately he also thought for some unknown reason that the film release was 119, so he came up with this theory to explain the difference"). You have no way of knowing how or why McIntee came up with the number 119, nor more than you have any way of knowing how any other sources came up with 116/117. And it's irrelevant; I do not have to prove how McIntee came up with that number, any more than I have to prove how any other source came up with any figure they might have. Again, McIntee is someone with specialist knowledge of this topic, and Beautiful Monsters is dedicated entirely to this topic. That he makes a specific point of noting the original theatrical runtime, and why there is a discrepancy between it and runtimes we might calculate today based on video copies, is significant and carries a lot of weight. McIntee is to be elevated above sources like IMDb, Allmovie, etc. because he is an expert on the topic at hand and gives more than just a number, he gives an explanation for why his number is different from those we might see elsewhere. You would have us believe that an authority on the subject got it wrong because his number is different from the internet's. Not convincing. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's becoming clear to any unbiased observer that nothing can come between you and your position on this. Why I have no idea. You state You accuse me of making "assumptions with no foundation", then you do exactly that when the sentence you quote was clearly preceded by You can more likely assume something different:. Don't misrepresent what I said.

I don't expect people to go looking for offline articles or books - the links I already gave are sufficient for this purpose: Rotten Tomatoes [7] the New York Times [8], IMDb [9], and the AFI [10], as well as the BBFC [11]. There's plenty more. And if you're really interested, the AFI link lists a number of original print 1979 reviews and articles, several of which give the running time of 116/117.

You yourself admitted above that most websites say 116 or 117 minutes. You cannot argue with that kind of consensus. McIntee can hardly be considered the best source on this point when he doesn't explain where he got it from - this is especially necessary when it contradicts everyone else. A direct transfer of a two-hour feature to video, without editing, is not going to be three minutes shorter. A journalist would give his sources - did he do research, did he interview someone on why there's a three minute difference, instead of just a few seconds? You have no answer. He needs to explain that, or this self-titled Unofficial and Unauthorized source cannot be considered authoritative. Not on this point. --Gothicfilm (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

View from the outside:

• The run-time needs to be sourced.
• The run-time, in general, is related to the original release for the infibox. Run-times for director's cuts, TV edits, home video edits, etc can be spelled out in the body of the article if need be.
• Sources should be what Wikipedia considers reliable. This would eliminate IMDb.
• AFAIK, Wikipedia does not place a higher value on either on-line or off-line sources. A book that is a scholarly work, regardless of title, is as valid as on-line sites.
• If there is a discrepancy among the reliable sources, all or none should be included in the infobox and clarity should be provided within the article itself.
• If we are going with "show the work", then, IIUC, BBFC is the only one that does. It is assumed that critics receive a run time from the studio. AFI does not provide a source for the time it gives. IllaZilla, does the book you are referencing provide a source for the number it uses? Simple yes or no.
• If yes, put both - "116/119 minutes^[1][2]" in the 'box and cite BBFC and the book. I'd go in that order given the age of the information at the two sources.
• In no, put "116-119 minutes^[1][2][3][4]" which should cover the spread in the footnotes, "116-119 minutes^[1]" with a note that the time varies by source and build it into the body of the article, "See Running time" as a link to a section of the article covering it, or use the one that "shows its work".

- J Greb (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree with listing both equally. What we do not have here is a film whose running time is given two different ways by a roughly equal split of reliable sources. It's one book standing alone. I see that IllaZilla has not come back here to answer your question, despite spending the last couple days busily hitting dozens of pages. I'll assume that's because the answer would be a simple "No" - his book does not give any source for it's contested assertion. If it did he would have given it with the quoted section above. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

To answer some of the points above, the BBFC offers a measurement of the film in feet and frames. To take the Alien example for instance, they list it as 10493 feet: [12]. That said the BBFC are only reliable for the version they classify i.e. the version that showed up in UK theaters, but in this case they state they passed it without cuts. Another point is that PAL speed-up can make a significant difference to the running time of a film—about 5 minutes out of a 2 hour film. Taking the BBFC page again, they list the theatrical running time as 116–117 minutes, but the videos/DVDs at about 111–112 minutes, so it's important to use the theatrical certification and not a video one (although I think blu-ray is an exception to that). It does seem like this 119 minute time is anomalous, are there any other sources that corroborate it? Does anyone own a 119 minute version? Betty Logan (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The video release with the closest date to the theatrical release the BBFC lists is only eleven seconds shorter - 116m 24s from 10/04/1987. The videos/DVDs at about 111–112 minutes you mention have much later dates. So if I dare make another assumption, I'd guess they were edited. People with a DVD of the original version can see it matches the 1987 video release listed there. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's 116:35 - back in 2004 I was trying to calculate back upwards from the length of footage and the time difference between film (24fps) and video (25fps) to get an exact figure and my math sucks - failed the O Grade twice.Lonemagpie (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So it turns out that David A McIntee (talk · contribs) is actually on Wikipedia, so I asked him how he arrived at his figure. Here's what he said:

"I seem to recall going by the BBFC's website, which gave the length of footage as well, from which you can calculate an exact time (since other reference sites all gave slightly different runtimes back in 2004). Having said that, my maths may be wrong, as the BBFC now (they've updated their site several times since Beautiful Monsters was written) give a runtime of 116:35 for the original theatrical release."

Since we now have a response from the author of the source, I'm comfortable with listing the runtime as 116 or 117 min (rounded off from 116:35). It appears McIntee himself derived his figure from the BBFC, but their figures were different when he wrote the book. Chalk it up to the fact that information on the internet often changes. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering the amount of time you forced me to waste on this, I think you can say a little more than that. And you might try closing out that thread at WT:FILM with something more polite as well. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I think that wraps it up. I'm not interested in continuing what's essentially a personality clash at this point. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

A personality clash for you, perhaps. Looking over the above, one is struck how you spend paragraph after paragraph insisting on the infallibility of your one source, and then at the end try to claim it's the fault of an online source -- ignoring the fact that all the online sources I used were correct. This shows that books are not more reliable, as a book on your shelf cannot be corrected, even if the author later is made aware of his mistake. Information on websites can be updated and corrected, but as I said above, no source is infallible, in print or online.

When one source is contradicted by many others, you need to consider the possibility that one source has it wrong. I hope you are now less prone to give such credence to any one fact from any one source, especially when that one source does not list where it got that fact. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)