Talk:Alien Resurrection/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

anyone against removing...?

this and aliens from the horror film catagory? alien and alien3 i can safely put in the horror or at least suspence catagory, but aliens and res are both action films with no real horror value, in my opinion i figured i would ask the community what they felt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manwithbrisk (talk • contribs) 23:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel that there are still elements of suspense in both movies, although I agree that its a bit of a stretch for Resurrection. Also since IMDB classifies all four movies in the horror genre. So between my gut and IMDB i'd recommend keeping all four movies in the horror category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.84.149 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that aliens is a horror film, but alien resurrection dose'nt really have that many scary elements in it. --Green Kirby (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

All of the Alien films are horror. Its just that AR wasn't that scary which just makes it a poor horror film. --80.41.105.149 (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Alien 5

I removed the info hinting that there might be a fifth Alien with Sigourney Weaver. Read this: [1] --The 80s chick (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Alien vs. Predator

They should mention the media campaign, and also the movie. Not he best, but I think it should be metioned. --Surten (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Surten

Suction vs. blowing (or pulling, drawing, etc.)

It seems we have a debate going on over the wording to describe how the human/alien hybrid is killed. In the film, Ripley (or Ripley clone #8, if you prefer) throws a bit of her acidic blood onto a window in the spaceship's cargo hold. The blood eats through, causing a hole in the window. Due to space being a vaccuum, or to use a more technical explanation, the pressure outside the ship being less than that inside, the creature is then sucked/pushed/pulled/whatever against the hole and is forced through the hole and out into space, killing it. The debate here is what term is appropriate to describe the force which is acting on the creature to force it through the hole. Originally it read "sucked into space" but Bladestorm has raised an objection to that term (here I'm quoting from a message left on my talk page):

technically, there's no such thing as suction. A 'vacuum' is the result of one area having lower pressure than another. Material that's "sucked" isn't actually drawn in by the vacuum, but is rather pushed by the air (or other matter, I suppose) in the higher pressure area.

For example, if you suck on a straw, you aren't directly attracting the beverage to your mouth. Instead, you're creating a low-pressure area. The high air pressure around the beverage is constantly pushing on the liquid. Since the liquid has high pressure on one side, and low pressure on the other, it travels through the straw.

Similarly, the alien wasn't "sucked" into space. Rather, the higher air pressure inside, when compared to the drastically lower pressure outside, pushed the alien out.

Since then the wording has been changed to "pushing," "pulling," "drawing," and other variations. I propose that "sucking" is indeed the correct term, as Bladestorm's description above is in fact the definition of "suction." From Wiktionary:

Noun:

suction:

The principle of physics by which matter is drawn from one space into another because the pressure inside the second space is lower than the pressure in the first.

Based on this, I am changing the wording in all articles back to "sucked into space." If you have an opinion on this, please raise it here. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This is all a distinction without a difference. All that's involved here is a pressure differential, and an object caught in the middle. Whether you consider the high-pressure region pushing the object through the differential, or the low-pressure region sucking it out of it, the effect is precisely the same. There is no difference between the two; it is pure semantics. Xihr (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but since the wording in the article was changed 4 or 5 times today I thought it merited discussion here to reach a consensus, so that it can be stabilized. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

*sigh*... of course, the wikipedia article on suction is also interesting. Particularly this quote:

• Physicists consider the notion of "suction" to be specious, since vacuums do not innately attract matter.

Here's the simple fact: There are very few attractive forces in the universe; that is, very few things that actually pull. Gravity is an example of a 'pulling' force. Suction is not. This can be veeery simply solved. Answer me this question: How do you think 'suction' actually works? If it isn't a matter of a gas (or other matter) pushing, as a result of a difference of pressures and an equalizing of the two pressures, then what does cause the effect of suction?

This isn't complicated. This is barely highschool science. It really isn't an issue of semantics. It's an issue of accuracy.

For the record, this did not start with me. Some IP editor decided to make it more accurate. I probably wouldn't have bothered. I didn't get involved until the more accurate version was changed to a less accurate version. Bladestorm (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

While I'm willing to let it stand as is (with the compromise being "drawn"), I still don't see what the point here is. I'm not saying that the vacuum of space is "innately attract(ing) matter." You have explained what is happening here: that matter is drawn from one space into another due to a pressure differential. As I have pointed out, that is the definition of suction. Nobody is saying that suction is a "pulling" force or arguing about how it works. I am simply saying that "suction" is the correct term to describe what is happening in this scene of the movie. Whether matter is pushing or a vacuum is pulling in the process is irrellevant to this discussion. The fact is that there is a scientific term to describe the overall process taking place (where a pressure differential causes matter to move) and that word is "suction."

I honestly don't undertand what is wrong here. You seem to think that the word "suction" means or implies something other than its definition. You've said that it is the wrong term to use, then given an elaborate justification that is word-for-word the definition of "suction."

BTW, to keep it lighthearted, I still think it's hilarious that we're debating about this. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh... I agree on the last point. :) (then again, I had the pleasure of a ludicrously long argument argument about whether the 'wii' article should involve detailed discussions of urine, so... this is a very serious and meaningful conversation by comparison) :)

The point is that suction is somewhat analogous to a fictitious force. eg. Centrifugal force. There isn't really a force pushing the spinning object straight outwards; it just seems like it. And, yes, you can create screwy reference frames that make it very much seem real, but it's still fictitious. Now, I wouldn't remove cases of people mentioning centrifugal force as though it were real, but, if someone else were to decide to put in a technically more accurate description, then I'd tend to support their right to nitpick, in the absence of a decent justification to do otherwise.

That said, this is still better than discussing urine or 'wiimote' in the wii article. :D --Bladestorm (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sweet, merciful god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.133.107 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Bit new to this Wikipedia editing stuff, so forgive me if I've erred, but I found the phrase about the 'powerful vacuum' a little irritating, so I slightly edited this article. Vacuums don't do anything, since they aren't really anything, but the absence of stuff (like cold or black). I don't mind things getting 'sucked' from one place to another, just not by a vacuum, especially not a powerful one, since that's like having 'lots of nothing'. --Dischuffed (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Alien

I have proposed the creation of a WikiProject to improve articles related to the Alien series, including this one. If you are interested in participating please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Alien and add your name to the list of interested editors. If enough people are interested in starting this project, then I will move forward with it. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Concept art

If anyone finds the early concept art of the USM Auriga (the main ship) could they please link me so i can add it to the article. Thanks. --M3tal H3ad (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   References 11 to 15 are a bit confusing, are those magazines? if so, they need to be in the correct format and at least the year of the publication. Using "Template:Citation" would be a plus.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This is an obviously good article written by experienced users. Just drop me a note when this references issue is fixed.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 19:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks and good work!--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 09:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

most commercially successful

Was it adjusted for inflation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)