Talk:Alien 3/Archive 1

Archive 1

Citation

I'd like to see a better citing of the Village Voice source in the AIDS bit. There are no quotes, so there's no way to tell what was exactly said or how much of this is the writers fancy. Please use a quotation and cite the issue of this information. --DanielCD 15:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Superscript 3

I don't know where the title "Alien 3: Resurrection" came from. It was "Alien 3". Or rather, with the 3 in superscript, which led to fans calling it "Alien cubed" -- Tarquin 10:50 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks): "avoid using special characters that are not pronounced and are included purely for decoration. In the article about a trademark, it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears, but thereafter, an alternative that follows the standard rules of punctuation should be used". ed g2s • talk 19:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this rule, which is intended to apply to things like company name, applies here. Films, like other works of art, should be at their exact titles, and the ³ in Alien³ is used fairly consistently - certainly as much as the 7 in Se7en, for example. — sjorford++ 09:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the trademark rule definitely applies. Company names, product names, and movie titles are all analogous situations. But that’s only if the name of the movie is pronounced “Alien three.” If it’s pronounced “Alien cubed,” then Alien³ is perfectly acceptable. There is some inconsistency, though: The video game, which uses the same logo treatment on its cover as is used on the movie poster, is filed under Alien 3. That’s not to say that a logo is a reliable source, though; graphic designers and press agents do all sorts of funky things with titles to make them stand out from competitors and to generate buzz. --Rob Kennedy 19:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Added section on the misrepresentation of the XYY syndrome

I've added this in the interest of those people who have XYY syndrome. It clarifies the fact that they're not actually aggressive criminals as the film suggests - something which must be done from the point of view of fairness, I hope you'll agree.

Moved section to Talk page

The XYY syndrome is misrepresented in the film and this may warrant a section in the article, but a meaningful account of how and why the absolutely false scientifically discredited XYY stereotype depicted in the film arose would be disproportionately long and beyond the scope of an article about the film.

The following section as written was partly correct, but very incomplete and unsourced, so I moved it to this Talk page:

Misrepresentation of XYY syndrome

Although the film depicts people with XYY syndrome as being aggressive or having criminal tendencies, in actual fact there is no connection. This was reported by an early academic paper as a result of the number of men in the general population with XYY syndrome being underestimated so that the incidence discovered in the prison population was assumed to be disproportionate, but despite becoming conventional wisdom to many people, subsequent checking of the general population found there to be the same proportion as in the prison population.

A similar statement was added at the same time (18 August 2006) by the same editor (81.104.12.5) to the XYY syndrome page.

I moved (28 August 2006) that statement to the Talk:XYY syndrome page for similar reasons.

Please see 28 August 2006 comments in topic 4. Article should specifically reject notion that XYY people are aggressive on the Talk:XYY syndrome page for further explanation. Panda411 21:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It is neither "biased" nor "superfluous" to include a 6-word parenthetical comment in the 904-word Plot section to clearly qualify as "an absolutely false scientifically discredited stereotype" the fictional plot device mischaracterizing the "double-Y chromosome pattern" (47,XYY) as "marking men as extremely violent and dangerous offenders."

Added references to chapters on sex chromosome abnormalities (including 47,XYY) in current editions of leading, authoritative medical genetics reference textbooks to support the parenthetical qualification. Panda411 16:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that the film means this syndrome, really. It comes across as a quick way to say it's an all-male penal facility to me, at least. I severely doubt most people will see that mentioned in the film and go "OH MY GOD THEY ALL HAVE A GENETIC CONDITION THAT MAKES THEM RAPISTS AND KILLERS OF WOMEN!" I don't think that saying it means XYY Syndrome is appropriate, without a reference stating it. Like, the novellization. Howa0082 01:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

plot summary overlong

This needs paring back a bit. Is there an agreed ideal length? perhaps something for the Films Project. raining_girl 18:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ellen Ripley

The article reads:

Ripley develops an intimate relationship with Clemens, revealing her first named for the first time in the series.

Not so. We learn Ripley's first name in Aliens, in a scene that was missing from the theatrical release, but was seen widely before the release of the third film. So, this statement is simply false.--Visionthing 17:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I was actually watching the movie at the time I wrote it so I don't know how I got it wrong...but you're right :) IllaZilla2 16:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

CGI effects

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I seem to have misplaced my copy of the DVD to check, but... isn't the CGI scene where the dogburster skitters down the hallway in the original version as well? There's a few other ceiling-crawling scenes with CGI in, which leads me to believe that the Visual Effects section needs a kicking, but I think a small fair-use screencap of the dogburster as an example of the CGI might do the trick. Slavedriver 21:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There are more than just 2 shots of CGI. Almost every time you see the alien on the ceiling, when they are trying to trap it, and it's running along is a CGI shot (it's clear as day when you compare it to what we have for today's CGI standards). Bignole 21:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed the wording, but it still needs work. Is there any satisfactory way to cite DVD material, other than point at where it is? I can find a few review sites that comment on the dog costume, but they're usually very long and have just one line on it. Incidentally, if someone used the term "Alien cubed" at me and meant it, I'd hit them. Slavedriver 00:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the special features on the DVD, the shot of the dog burster running down the hallway is a puppet, not cgi. Of course, computers were used to remove the rods and puppetiers, but it's still a more solid effect than a completely CGI alien. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.136.140.24 (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, the "alien cubed" thing shouldn't be mentioned. nobody calls it that unless they don't know what the hell they are talking about. it's a bit like someone saying, "hey, i'm going to the grand pricks to watch them race round silverstone".

This is the proper citation would look like: <ref name="Alien 3 SF">{{cite video | people=David Fincher (Director) | title=Alien 3 documentary | medium=DVD | location=United States | publisher=Paramount Pictures | date=1992}}</ref>

and then <ref name="Alien 3 SF"/> for every time that you use the same source. There may be a more specific citation template to use for individual discs, but I'm not sure. I'd look at Wikipedia:Citation templates for the template. Bignole

Thanks a lot, I used that in the article. :) On a semi-unrelated note, I think a rewording of the alternate script section is in order. The problem with online script databases is you're taking them at face value. I think just noting that they'd been linked with the film and scripts in their name have been posted online would be more truthful and provable for now? Slavedriver 20:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I hate citing "online scripts", because you can never truly prove that they are who they claim to be. Anyone can write a script, put some names on it, and claim it was "official". Usually you can luck out and get a DVD that includes the script, but usually not "alternate scripts". Bignole 20:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The alien is not CGI; the DVD documentary makes this quite clear. I've been bold (not too bold, I hope) and re-written the entire visual effects section (probably still needs some work):

• It's a man in a suit, and a rod puppet.
• Clarified the bit about the whippet-in-a-suit alien.
• The previous version mentioned a CGI sunset, but it doesn't look like CGI to me and I don't think anyone says anything about it on the DVD, so I've removed that.

I'm not particularly happy with the citations. Fredrick Garvin directed the documentary, but his name seems superfluous here.

I hope nobody's too annoyed about me removing their hard work. This is my first major edit, so feedback would be much appreciated. Echidnaboy 09:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the clarifications, and the headsup. :) Seems all good to me, I knew that the full body shots were mainly composite shots (and the pipe/nesting alien scene or the flailing through the steam were man-suits), but you've meant that my crusade to relocate my copy of the DVD to crystallise the info can finish at last. With regards to the sunset, would that be the corona on the planet's edge at the beginning and end of the film? Congrats on the bold edit, good luck with many more. I'll keep chipping away with random stuff as I come across it, but I might feel the need to unstub some unsung articles. Slavedriver 21:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

A previous edit referred to "a brief scene of sunset shortly after Ripley is rescued" - meaning the shot of the crucifix, I think. It's followed by the corona you mentioned. Both look like optical effects to me, and I don't remember anything to the contrary being said on the documentary or the commentary. In fact, the VFX guys seem keen to point out how little CG they used. I get the impression the "CG alien" in particular is a popular misconception, which is probably why I felt compelled to make the edit... Thanks for the comments! Echidnaboy 10:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Aliens Fanboys.

Sorry, I'm guilty of bad edits myself (when drunk), but I'm utterly sick of the constant Hicks, Newt and Bishop references rather than 'the characters of...'. The whole article seems an excuse for Aliens fanboys to play off and sideline this film against their precious movie. The whole language of this article is utter tripe. Yes, I am a fan of this movie, but the negative detractions are becoming a bit too prevalent and inane. I’ve never made an alteration that incurs blatant POV into the page and I don't expect the morons to do so either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.92.168.164 (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Well I can only speak for the plot summary because that's the part I wrote/edited, but I feel it only addresses the characters in the context of their importance to the plot. It is significant that they are with Ripley in the escape pod, as this is the element that carries the plot of this film over from the previous one. There are 2 scenes of the film devoted to Ripley investigating the cause of Newt's death and then having her and Hicks' bodies incinerated. There is also another significant scene involving Bishop where she re-activates him and learns from him that there was an alien onboard the EEV. So these characters, although they die in the first scene, still provide important plot devices later in the film. Therefore their roles in the film deserve mention in the plot summary. IllaZilla 08:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Origin of the Egg

I think we should add some of the popular theories about where the egg came from.

1. The Queen carried it on her back.
2. The Queen was able to lay some kind of proto-egg without its egg sack and the proto-egg slowly grew to full size.
3. Bishop was able to steal one or more eggs from the hive before coming to rescue Ripley and Newt.
4. An alien warrior got aboard the dropship and brought an egg with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.215.130.98 (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

We certainly should not, as that violates WP:ATT/WP:NOR. This is not a place for theories or fan-fiction. IllaZilla 03:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Should it not be mentioned as a major plot hole though? It's one of the most-criticized aspects of the film, since it's highly unlikely that an egg could have gotten past the incredibly paranoid Ripley.

I have in the past owned a book titled "Terror in space" if anyone happens to have a copy there is a statement in this book that states (im paraphrasing here) The "how did the egg get aboard the ship" question can be answerd like this, it was a mistake, that element was ment to be dealt with in the script but was accidentally forgotten.

Terror in space is a soft cover book that deals with the first 3 Alien movies. If i remember ccorrectly it was authored by John Flynn.

Changes to Plot section

I changed a few things, if you care to look. I removed the reference of "Double Y Chromo" being related to the disease until a reference can be found to prove it. I changed a bit of wording, as I felt the previous stuff to be a little awkward, and slightly confusing. The alien that comes out of the dog is not an adult, because, frankly, a rottweiler does not have enough torso to support an adult alien. Golic was already insane before he saw "the dragon", and the experience merely returned him to his ranting state. It's why the Warden is so unwilling to believe him; Golic's already proven himself to be a dangerously psychotic killer back wherever he comes from. I changed the definition of the inmate's faith, as they are not so much a "no sex for you" type of faith as a "we have sinned, and through denial of worldly pleasures, we can repent and be saved" kind of thing. I'd like to think this was all self-explanatory, but transparency is fun. Howa0082 01:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed back a few things in the first paragraph. There was no article on the term you used for their religion, so "a religion which forbids sexual relations" explains it rather clearly, as that's exactly what they say the terms of their beliefs specify. Also, where did it say that the YY chromosome thing was a disease? It does link to an article on the YY chromosome medical condition, but how is that inappropriate? It doesn't say or imply that the prisoners in the movie have a disease, just that they have YY chromosomes, and the article on that condition would explain what that means. --IllaZilla 02:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's inappropriate because it has absolutely no grounds to be included based on the film. Saying these prisoners have the XYY condition, without any supporting evidence, is bullocks. I don't ever recall in the film them saying that's what the Double-Y designation meant, and I just watched it last night. It comes across as simply "all-male" rather than "genetic disorder". Prove me wrong. Is it in the novel? And the faith of the inmates resembles asceticism, especially considering their origins in earlier drafts as monks in their wooden planet monestary. So I forgot a letter. Howa0082 03:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

OK so the mistake on the religious link was spelling. I just saw a red link and thought "well, if it doesn't lead anywhere, why change it?" Anyway, the movie doesn't specify anything about the double-Y chromosome thing, other than that the prisoners have double-Ys and that it makes them prone to violence. What kind of supporting evidence do you need? They say in the movie that the prisoners have double-Y chromosomes. It's fiction, of course it's not literally the XYY condition that exists in reality, but if a person was curious about what "double-Y chromosomes" meant I think that the link is helpful, and I fail to see how it's misleading. It relates a plot device used in fiction to a real scientific concept and the reader can draw their own conclusions. And it doesn't simply come across as "all male," becasue obviously normal males are XY. The "double-Y" chromosome obviously has significance to that part of the plot, as that is not "normal" from a genetic standpoint. --IllaZilla 06:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say that at all. They're all killers and/or rapists. That's why they're there. No one says they have a genetic disorder that makes them prone to violence. The doctor is there because he killed a man through medical negligence. That's hardly indicative of a genetic disorder making him violent and stupid. The "YY Chromo" thing, as I have always taken it, would've been a way of saying "all-male" in the sense that "XY" would mean mixed-genders, and "XX" all-female. Also, I would like to know why you decided to revert my line about how the men there haven't seen a woman in years. What was wrong with that? It's the truth. The doctor himself says it to Ripley when she first wakes up and wants to go find her escape pod. Howa0082 15:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Here, I'll quote the line from the movie:

"We've 25 prisoners in this facility. All double-Y chromos. All thieves, rapists, murderers, child molesters. All scum. Just because they've taken on religion doesn't make them any less dangerous. I try not offend their convictions. I don't want to upset the order. I don't want ripples in the water. And I don't want a woman walking around giving them ideas."

Clearly "double-Y chromos" doesn't just mean "all-male." I think you're grossly oversimplifying. Nobody says "XY" to mean mixed genders/unisex. XY is male. XX is female. Specifying "double-Y" obviously means there's something genetically different about the individuals. Now, I'm not saying that's what makes them criminals (it's unclear whether or not that's implied in the film). Simply that this is a prison for double-Y criminals, for whatever reason. It doesn't just mean "all male," It means a specific type of criminal. There used to be a rather large section in the article explaining the XYY syndrome and how it was "an absolutely false scientifically discredited stereotype." It was put in by someone who obviously took offense to the suggestion that having double-Y chromosomes is what made the prisoners violent. Since we're talking about fiction, and since the double-Y thing is only mentioned once, it was agreed that the section wasn't necessary. However, in the interest of readers who might be curious about what "double-Y chromosomes" meant from a real scientific standpoint and who wanted to read more about it, a link was provided to the XYY syndrome article. --IllaZilla 20:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, man. Have fun keeping your inaccurate article in pristine condition. I'll make sure to never try to improve one of your flock again. And just because you have no idea how inline threads are set up doesn't mean you should revert the formatting on those, too. Howa0082 21:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Special Edition

The information about the Alien 3 Special Edition needs to be edited. It is not the original workprint, since the workprint had the dog being facehugged, not the ox. The footage of the ox chestburster is new CGI created for the Special Edition. The statement that the Special Edition is considered vastly superior needs citation. Furthermore, the Alien 3 chestburster plush toy is called the Dog Alien Chestburster. Since this toy came out in 2005, after the Special Edition had already been released, this conclusively proves that the theatrical version is the "definitive version". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.131.226 (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the page a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.131.226 (talk) 07:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Theme

I've added alittle more to the theme of the movie and what the Special Edition particular did enhance. I've tried to keep it in a NPOV, but movies and musical themes and symbolisme can be somewhat difficult to agree on and make to excact facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.94.195.21 (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)