Jump to content

Talk:Aliens (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

is this a "nuclear blast" or not at the end ?

the facility is "nuclear powered", however if the explosion is due to "to much pressure" in the nuclear plant, is this a nuclear blast per see? or just a steam blast? Sorry for the silly science question here, but adding "nuclear" were it shouldn't be would be a bit cheesy ^^ Aleph42 00:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The atmospheric processor is supposed to be a fusion reactor. While it probably isn't all that realistic to have an explosion like that caused by insufficient cooling in a fusion power plant (theoretically fusion power is pretty safe) it is nonetheless supposed to be a thermonuclear explosion. Bishop describes it as destroying an area the size of Nebraska tough to do with steam. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Al Matthews, in vietnam or not?

This article states; "In real life Al Matthews, who plays Sergeant Apone, was the first black marine to be promoted to the rank of gunnery sergeant while serving in the Vietnam War."

However, on the page for Al_Matthews, it says;

"In real life, Matthews was a member of the United States Marine Corps. According to IMDb, he was first black Marine ever promoted to the rank of gunnery sergeant while serving in the Vietnam War, however, this is false."

Which is true?

217.119.224.154 08:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, technically, Al Matthews was promoted to Sergeant, not Gunnery Sergeant. Sergeant is an E-5, Gunny is an E-7. I'll update the record and contact IMDB. From Al Matthews website:

http://www.almatthews.co.uk/news/newsstory.asp?NewsID=3


ShadowTao 02:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

l


The link about William Hope doesn't go to a page about the actor William hope.

Fixed. Fredrik | talk 14:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bishop

Was Bishop "re-introduced" in this film? Wasn't the android different, and named "Ash" in the first film? --130.91.131.122

Bishop was a new character, though an android. I see you fixed the article, thanks! — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:21, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Have removed POV sections of "Versions" which seemed to prefer one cut over another. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The analysis section

I think the section under the title 'Analysis' needs some work. The Vietnam allegory is fine, as is the bit about Ripley's daughter, but that could be expanded to further explore the theme of motherhood in the movie, including the Alien Queen. However the third piece, Weaver's real-life stance on guns has no bearing on the movie in itself and would be better suited for a trivia entry.

I agree, Weavers stance on guns belongs in trivia.

The Vietnam stuff was mentioned by Cameron in the DVD commentary. I also agree with what both of you have said about Weaver's opinion. I'd like to suggest that "analysis" isn't a very good name for this section. It makes it sound too much like personal research, or a personal review. Would renaming it "themes" be a good idea? Remove the gun control bit and leave it the "Vietnam" and "motherhood" parts? Mount Molehill 06:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Poontang

It's my understanding that poontang is a word for sex, particularly between soldiers and natives, and that it came into heavy use during the Vietnam War. Cameron and others have commented on the movie's similarity to "Vietnam in space"--a technologically superior force decimated by a low-tech enemy and so forth. So wouldn't it be better to assume that when the marines in Aliens say "poontang," they mean what we think they mean, and not some "new" definition like eating indigenous species or something? Teflon Don 18:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Poontang is female genitalia. Check the urban dictionary.


Female genitalia is always how I have heard it used (I don't think Ted Nugent was talking about extra-solar culinary practices on "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang"). And if you are familiar with the actual exchange in the movie, there is very little uncertainty about what is meant:

Frost: Hey, I sure wouldn't mind getting me some more of that Arcturian poontang! Remember that time? Spunkmeyer: Yeah Frost, except the one you had was MALE. Frost: It doesn't matter when it's Arcturian, baby!

[taken from the first draft of the ‘Aliens’ script dated May 28, 1985]

The exchange does seem to support the hypothesis of the paragraph.

The film also continues a suggestion in the film [is "previous film" meant here? After reading the article for 'Alien', which states the film's "gender politics have been subject of much examination", I conclude that that is what is meant, though no supporting evidence for the claim is included in the 'Alien' article] that in the future sexual orientation and gender identity would be non-issues.

The onscreen biographical reports on the missing crewmembers from the first film all include information on whether or not they have had a sex change operation. [I can't verify this, but will assume it is so]

Later on while the marines are eating in the mess hall, two of the marines joke about having sex with an alien being that might have been transgender [if you read the entire exchange it sounds more like some form of hermaphrodite where both genders have a vagina], although the joke is obscure, referring to "had some Arcturean Poontang". It may reference many things, such as eating an Arcturean creature [again, not much ambiguity or obscurity about what is being referenced when you view the entire exchange].

Suggestion for a rewrite of the paragraph:

The film also continues a suggestion from the previous film that in the future sexual orientation and gender identity would be non-issues. The onscreen biographical reports on the missing crewmembers from the first film all include information on whether or not they have had a sex change operation. Later on while the marines are eating in the mess hall, two of the male marines are discussing the merits of "Arcturian poontang" when one says, "except the one you had was MALE!" and the other replies, "It doesn't matter when it's Arcturian, baby!"

I'm also not sure if some of this paragraph, as well as parts of the paragraph on Vasquez (though I admit that the possibility of her being a lesbian or bisexual is more plausible considered in light of the Spanish comments translation), are more that the author is trying too hard to make a case for a theme in the movie about "sexual orientation and gender identity would be non-issues".

(btw, I'm not familiar with editing an article like this. Does someone have 'ownership' of it, and so should do any actual editing of the article?) MrFurry 08:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That whole gender/orientation section needs to be pared down and reworded (not to mention it belongs as Trivia, not Impact). There is no doubt what the "Arcturian poontang" exchange is meant to convey in the film and it actually serves to discredit the premise it supposedly supports.

If sexual matters were a "non-issue" why would one male be making a joke about another male mistakenly having sex with a creature of the same gender? The very idea that that exchange might be seen as about consuming an Arcturian is kind of ludicrous.

The film is reflecting the attitudes of the time it was made (for example consider the "illegal alien" joke directed at Vazquez. In the future we defeat all sexual issues/hangups and bias but it's still common to make jokes about ethnicity and homosexual sex with aliens? That doesn't make sense to me.

Deitrich or Crowe?

This article speaks of the portrayal of women in action movies and references Ripley, Vasquez, Farro, and Deitrich as strong female roles. However, I thought that Deitrich was a male grunt and Crowe was the fourth female (who was pulled up the wall by the first attacking alien in the scene under the atmospheric processor after speaking the line "Maybe they don't show up on infrared at all"). Anyone know for sure?

Nope; Deitrich was the fourth female Marine, and the one who was first to be attacked. If I recall correctly, Crowe had the least screen time of any of the Marines. I don't remember if the film even depicted his fate. *EDIT* Seems my memory was slightly off: Crowe was the one who died when Frost's ammunition bag exploded. It was Weirzbowski who died offscreen. --BobBQ
Slightly OT but when is Weirzbowski shown onscreen? I remember his offscreen death and the few odd shots of his camera feed but I've struggled to find him in person. Dosboot 09:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

He's seen during the chow hall scene, only twice I believe.ShadowTao 03:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Crowe is the male and he can be seen along with the other characters with short screen time for a brief moment during the briefing by Ripley. You have to pause the DVD just right to see it. They can also be ssen in some of the promotional posters when the movie first came out. 5by5 00:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Red Dwarf connection

I never noticed this until last night but Mac McDonald, who played Captain Hollister on Red Dwarf, also plays the guy in charge of the colony on LV-426. I found it interesting that he's a captain of a mining ship in Red Dwarf for a big corporation and then he's working for another big corporation that has giant Red Dwarf sized mining ships.--Skeev 14:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Major Errors

I don't know where the stuff about the conceptual weapons came from, but it flies in the face of all Aliens canon I've ever seen. None of the weapons have their correct names, the pulse rifle is listed as firing a 7.2mm round instead of the 10mm rounds specified in the film, and the flamethrower is described as being built out of power drill parts, when in fact the props were made using M16 receivers.

For now, I've edited it to match the official specs. --BobBQ 2:01, 30 April 2006 (EST)

Aliens influenced Starship Troopers?

In the impact section it actually states this, even though it's well known that the Novel Starship Troopers was used as a reference on the set of Aliens. Can someone remove this please, unless there is a good reason for it. Bihal 07:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Several months later, I've removing the reference. Bihal 05:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Asimov's First Law

During the cafeteria scene on the Sulaco, Bishop tells Ripley that "It is impossible for me to harm, or by omission of action, allow to be harmed, a human being." This is, of course, Asimov's First Law of Robotics. Worth a mention?

Nightshade01 05:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Only if you mention that Ash wasn't programmed with Asimov's Laws. Teflon Don 15:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Good point... though this (and more) is already mentioned in a paragraph on the Three Laws page, under 'The Laws in Film' section. Would reposting the paragraph here be redundant, or even allowed (sorry, I'm new at this)? Nightshade01 22:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I've seen related articles with sections of virtually identical text. As long as the information is relevant to both pages, there should be no problem simply copying and pasting the appropriate paragraph. If there is an issue, another editor can always make the necessary changes. And welcome to Wikipedia. Teflon Don 22:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Please confirm diameter of grenades

"M-41A pulse rifle with underslung 40mm grenade launcher ... ". I don't recall the exact diameter (25 or 30 mm) but I am sure they are less than 40 mm. Please confirm.

I was also of the opinion that the underslung grenade launcher was for 30 or possibly 25 mm dimention, not 40
I'm fairly certain the line is "I wanna introduce you to a personal friend of mine. This is an M41A pulse rifle. Ten millimeter with over-and-under thirty millimeter pump action grenade launcher." Ben W Bell talk 08:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Cpl. Hicks states that the grenades have a diameter of 30mm. However, they were actually closer to 20mm, in order to fit in the grenade launcher portion of the gun, which was modified from a shotgun. Teflon Don 10:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

would anyone be oposeed to...

removing aliens and resurection from the horror film catigory? they are clearly action films, with minor pop out scaryness, and no real horrorfilm overtones it just struck me as odd to find these films there, and thought that i would ask the community what they thought -manwithbrisk

Yes. Aliens is categorised all over the place as horror. Is BRISK the same as A WOODY IN HAND?--Shtove 22:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
brisk is a canned lipton iced tea, the name is in referance to a claymation(sp?) advert where ending with a fictional bruce lee saying the lines, "Only fool fight man with brisk"
you have to admit though that aliens is not a true horror film -manwithbrisk
Neither is Scream, but it is popularly categorised as being in a subsection of the horror genre. Aliens is 'Sci-Fi Horror', but Resurrection and AvP are more 'Sci-Fi Action'. Difficult to define, there is a definite fine line... but Aliens has scenes with a definite sense of dread (Medlab, the first foray into the nest) compared with the pop-out scenes in the others. Slavedriver 22:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, gimme a break. The movie is Sci-Fi/Action/Horror, though it isn't as suspenseful as the first (suspense being what we usually associate with horror). Clearly though, there are many horror elements, eg: The scene where Ripley has a nightmare about an alien coming out of her, the first scene where the colonists bets to be killed before the alien bursts out her chest, the scene where they lock themselves in part of the compound and the aliens start approaching through the ceiling space, the first encounter with the queen alien and her eggs, etc, etc. It's horror isn't limited to the sudden shock scenes, and I don't see how anyone can say this isn't a horror movie when Scream gets classified as one? What, do people think Scream is scarier or something? Plus, Aliens generally gets classified as horror in film guides. It is on Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, and as I recall it was in the TV guide when I first saw it back in 1990. All in all, enough evidence for me to justify adding "Horror" back to its genre description. Holymolytree2 13:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, I changed the word "atmospheric" to "suspenseful" in the below sentence, but both Alien and Aliens are atmospheric:
"...Aliens is a high-paced action-adventure film which is in stark contrast to the atmospheric Sci-Fi horror of the original Alien."
Holymolytree2 13:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Quote

Isn't this from Halo? -The marines have the same 'Gung-ho' attitude to killing aliens, and even the sergeant says the famous line, Go go go! The corps ain't payin' us by the hour! "The Sarge" --Sergeant Johnson-- is even a hard-talking veteran black man, like Apone.- In the article it says it's from Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun. -- X360 08:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

-The ODST Marines of the Halo series were inspired by the marines in Aliens, specifically Avery Johnson was inspired by the Sergeant in Aliens, if it says it's from C&C TS, then it definetly should be edited, as it isn't proper accurate canon.

Doesn't anyone notice that Foehammer (dropship pilot from halo) is sort of like the dropship pilot? She even says the same thing (in the pipe, 5 by 5).74.96.212.21 23:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that was pretty obvious when I first played Halo. I love the game, even though the marines and their vehicles are a total rip off of Aliens, ie: The dropship, the use conventional style weaponry (the vehicles and the guns) rather than techy-looking guns and vehicles, their overall personalities and contemporary style. Holymolytree2 20:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Popularity

Does anyone think a section should be added regarding the popularity and reaction towards this movie? After all, many fans considered Aliens to be the exception to the "bad sequel" rule.--Name Theft Victim 19:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Re-name?

From Aliens (1986 film) to Aliens (film). After all, there isn't any other films titled Aliens and the 1986 in the title is unnesscary.--Name Theft Victim 01:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you check the "aliens" disambig page, you'll see there are other articles that use this word.---Jackel 14:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I was talking about the 1986 in the title--Name Theft Victim 14:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of the shotgun in Aliens

Hicks is the only character in the film that uses the shotgun. Pvt. Hudson was holding the door closed in the scene where Hicks puts the shotgun into the mouth of the Alien. Hicks was clearly seen picking up/using the weapon in that scene. Pvt. Hudson was burned with acid as a result of being in the acid spray after the shotgun went off. ---namcos

APC / ATV

I edited all occurences of the term "ATV" (and its definition) with "APC", seeing as that's what the marines call it in the film. As far as I know ATV stands for All Terrain Vehicle, and not "Assault Transport Vehicle" (I personally have never heard the latter term before). SJH

I thought it stood for Armored Personnel Carrier, myself. Teflon Don 10:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"Six degrees of separation" on Aliens trivia

I don't think the "six degrees of separation" trivia entries are very good, for two reasons. First, the average viewer might not know what "six degrees of separation" means. Second, most of the entries (save for the South Park one) aren't even really connected to Aliens. They should be put on the actor's or director's article, since thye don't really apply to the film Aliens itself.

use of actors

Director James Cameron has been known to use Aliens actors in other films. Michael Biehn (Hicks), Lance Henrickson (Bishop) and Bill Paxton (Hudson) all appeared in The Terminator.

since the Terminator came out before Aliens, wouldn't then this be a case of Cameron using Terminator actors in other films? this piece of trivia seems pointless. and also incorrect... ZebulonNebulon 18:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You've got it backwards, Cameron used Terminator actors in other films. Bien, Herickson and Paxton all did work on Terminator before they did work on Aliens. Further, Goldstein worked with Cameron on Terminator 2.ShadowTao 03:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Goldstein was also in Titanic. Mcflytrap 16:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

My edits

I've rewrote the lead and removed the last three sections. I did the latter because the article Alien (film series) is already linked in the lead, and licensed toys is too small to be notable.--Dark Kubrick 00:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

errors in video game sections

"The digital ammo counter on FPS assault rifles in games like Unreal, Halo, and StarCraft was influenced by the M41A pulse rifle." Starcraft was neither a first person shooter nor could the player view a digital ammo counter.

A digital ammo counter did appear in some of the game's cinematics, though. Jonabbey 03:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

At best, that's tenuous reasoning. HalfShadow 03:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Digital ammo counter's were used in video games and arcade machines even before The first alien movie was published.

Original Research

This article is rife with Original Research, especially in the Analysis and Influences sections. Just because a movie or computer game may be influenced by Aliens doesn't allow an editor to include it. WP requires WP:Verifiabilty & a WP:SOURCE, no matter how obvious the connection appears. Ashmoo 03:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Synopsis FAR too long

there is a clean up note indicating the plot summary is too long. Sure enough, it is so detailed it's about five times the length of the summaries for the rest of the Alien series! Thanks to whoever did all that hard work, but I'm going to sub it down. raining_girl 17:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the synopsis is excellent, if only there were a way of keeping most or all of it. The summary for Alien3 is pretty long, but not as long... Enigma3542002 02:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Per Wiki's policy, plot summaries are not substitutions for watching the film. We finally got the first Alien film's plot under control, now it's time for this pages. Next will be Alien 3. Bignole 02:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
absolutely, there is a difference between being excellent because it's detailed and being excellent because it's just right for an encyclopaedia. this is the former - needs to be the latter! have put a suggestion on the films project talk page to the effect that 500 words is recommended as preferred length to save future editors writing more than they need.. raining_girl 14:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, and the 500 words seems about right. Halloween (1978 film) is about 470 words and it's a featured article. Granted some films may need longer plots, but that should be judge based on the length of the film, and they shouldn't be too much longer than 500 words. Bignole 14:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The current synopsis is excellent, I find it a good balance between the very detailed original and the truncated one. Good job to the synopsis rewriters. Enigma3542002 00:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Impact" section

Personally, I would find a citation for the bit about how it made an impact as far as female leads in an action film goes and then place it somewhere else in the article (the introduction, perhaps?) But the rest of this section isn't really clear about how the stuff it describes made an "impact." Plus it's mostly POV and speculation. I think it needs to be removed completely. Any thoughts? Mount Molehill 06:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be removed as well - it's mostly opinion. Desdinova 14:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Removed it - hopefully any valid points it makes can be reworded in a different part of the article Desdinova 16:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It's definitely something that would need to be categorized by experts and not wiki users. I'm sure it's there, we just can't use it till someone finds an expert to agree with it. Bignole 16:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Desdinova 16:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
After all this the lengthy essay on the female roles in the film was slapped back on there. So far the only citations I can find are in the narration of the documentaries on the DVDs. Like Bignole (41-14, neener neener) said, what's still there can't stay up there for long, so I'll try to find something better here in the next couple of days. -- Mount Molehill 09:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't find a thing. Taking it down for now. -- Mount Molehill 19:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Overt original research

Several sections held nothing but original research and they've been removed. The Analysis section of the mythos was entire OR. What the story does for the mythos of the franchise is irrelevant in an encyclopedia. It may be relevant on fansites, but not here. Also, we don't list every deleted scene that was inserted into a new version of the film. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A lot of the other sections need work as well, mainly citations. Alien is working its way into status, please see that for where this article should start going, and see Jaws for where it should end. Bignole 05:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Versions

I was going to add the differences between the special edition and the theatrical version, but then noticed the comment about not adding deleted scenes as they aren't encyclopedic. I couldn't see any discussion about this point - could someone clarify whether I should add these differences or not? Desdinova 14:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that a version of the movie was released that contained the deleted scenes is not notable. There isn't a history behind the scenes. For example, Richard Donner was fired from Superman II, and Richard Lester scrapped just about every scene Donner filmed for that movie. When Donner's cut was released, 50% of the film was new to audiences, like 10% was completely new (as in just filmed) and the film itself was like a completely new film. Now, Alien, Aliens, and the rest or just films that had their deleted scenes reinserted by the directors (or in the cast of Alien had some scenes removed). Part of Wiki's policies about information collection is that it's an encyclopedia and not just an "indiscriminate collection of information"; you have to find notability in it. These aren't new films, several of them had their releases on Laserdisc. Star Wars Episode IV comments about the "Special Edition" versions, and only lists the really major scenes like the Han/Jabba scene that couldn't be filmed because of budget reasons. It was a major scene that set up conflict in the next installments. The addition of these scenes in these movies weren't scenes that couldn't be filmed but scenes that Directors removed for time constraints or "they just didn't like them". Bignole 14:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Star Wars Episode IV doesn't mention the changes on the main page, it has it's own page listing for all of them. Personally, I think the scenes are notable - the discovery that Ripley's daughter has died as one example. If not entered into this section then perhaps the plot? In summary, should a page be created for Aliens listing the changes? Also, what needs to be added to the versions section if not these? Desdinova
See Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope#Special Edition, it discusses the addition of Jabba and Han. It also discusses the new CGI used throughout the film to achieve scenes they couldn't achieve with their budget. That is that makes it notable. The fact that a scene was removed because of time is not notable, that happens with ever movie. You don't list the deleted scenes for ever movie article. Notice Jaws (film)#Releases and sequels, it mentions "deleted scenes" but doesn't list them. Both of these are Featured Articles. My suggestion is following Episode IV's way of only detaiing the "special edition", ones that have a history. Ripley's daughter adds nothing to a plot, but adds to a character. If there was a reason behind the removal, other than time, a source is needed. It's about citations, and listing scenes is not notable, that's like writing a plot detail for detail. It's against Wiki policy, namely their "not an indiscriminate collection of information" part. Bignole 15:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Scenes are cut due to time constraints in every film, yes. But they aren't always reinserted into the film, and I think that is the main difference, for example between Jaws and this. I take your point about listing them all - but I still would like to know what should be included under this section so we can remove the template on it and hopefully get the article up to GA status. Desdinova 15:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I'd look to Star Wars as a good exampled of a Featured article, where the film has had editions where scenes have been reinserted or created from scratch. You best bet is to get discussions from the film makers about why they were reinserted/removed in the first place. It needs depth. There is a "SE" section and a "DVD release" section. As "Aliens" was re-released with these additions, but added for the Quadrilogy box set. I would note the entire "Releases" section of "Star Wars" and how it isn't limited to the "Special editions" or DVD releases. This way you don't run into a shortage of topics. If you find that you can't find enough info for the "SE" or "DVD" sections, then you just don't use a subsection header, and keep it all under "Releases". I'd read through the whole "Releases" section to get a better understanding of what is acceptable for featured articles, as "Good Articles" are often just a couple notches below, and you should always strive to get to the FA status. I'll try and help out with what I can find, and I'll always be watching for cleanups or opinions about things, but I have several other film articles that I'm working on, and an entire book article that has yet to be written, so I may not be able to help as much as I'd like. Bignole 15:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot - Thanks Desdinova 16:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Plot revert war

I've noticed the revert war going on regarding the plot. Sorry ShadowToa, but I have to agree with Bignole. Very little of your additions seem to add anything to the understanding of the plot. I realise it is annoying to do hard work on an article only to have it radically changed, but your edits don't follow WP guidelines on movie plot summaries.

It might be better to add your edits one at a time, or better yet put them here so we can debate them. Regards, Ashmoo 04:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I made mention of the eggs in the beginning as it was important to understanding Ripley's fears and motivations behind her aggressive reaction to there being colonists on the planet. However, the rest of my edits were just that, edits. Read the two side by side, Gorman isn't mentioned as being revived until all the way into the big attack by the aliens prior to the escape in the tunnels, but he had been conscious since just after the dropship crash. Further, the editing of Vasquez and Gorman in the tunnels, and their subsequent deaths wasn't clear at all. My further were for better flow, and to tie in the end of the plot analysis to the beginning. If you want to reduce the size of my text, that's fine, but I don't appreciate Bignole's altering the positioning of important plot elements, or the exclusion of specific points.ShadowTao 04:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You also added that Gorman was not a subordinate, which isn't relevant to the plot. You also added "while Ripley and Newt use the time to take a moment's rest in a another room.", which I changed to "try and get some rest", as take some time....in another room isn't necessary to the sentence. Or "Ripley awakes to find two empty specimen containers, the one that had been holding two live [[facehuggers]"; we don't need a detail of the scene they see--simply say there are the two live facehuggers with them. It's things like that that I changed. Again, I didn't initially revert you, as I didn't change the position of when Gorman is said to be "revived", I just removed the "subordinate" part. I didn't change positions of what you added, I removed items that were unnecessary. Bignole 04:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not important to the plot to understand that the platoon leader was removed from his command by his subordinate who is now making all decisions for the team? I disagree. Gorman's position in the team needs to be explained after his failure.

There is room for dramatic effect, especially for a movie like Aliens. You get this great review from Ebert, then a Wiki plot synopsis that reads like a technical manual. No one says a Wiki has to be dull.ShadowTao 04:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, you fail to understand that this is an encyclopedia, and what happens in a movie is not important to how the movie was made. Plot are just supposed to deal with major points, and Gorman not being in command is not a major point, especially when it isn't even address by anyone (i.e. I don't recall him ever "questioning Hick's authority"). Your opinion that Gorman was a failure falls under Original Research, as you are interpreting why he didn't become the leader when he was revived, that's a policy in Wiki too. As for "dramatic effect", Wiki is an encyclopedia not a publishing house for wannabe novelists. If you want to "spice up" text for a plot synopsis I suggest IMDb, or a personal fan website, as "spicying up text" isn't what Wikipedia is. Bignole 04:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Well Gorman is a very minor character so it is not so important in a plot synopsis to exactly spell out his status. Also, he is never explictly demoted in the movie, it's just that events go on without him, so why should the synopsisi explicitly said it? Lastly while we don't want to produce a dull article, if a reader wants drama, they can go watch the actual movie. Like the guideline says, the article is not a substitute for watching the movie. Ashmoo 04:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the WP that states a wiki cannot be edited for text flow or for purposes of adding interest. You're interpreting the WP. As for my "opinion" of Gorman's failure, there is no interpretion, it's fact; watch the movie. Vasquez states quite clearly, "Man, I'm gonna kill you," to Gorman. Burke states quite clearly, "You've had your chance." And, when Gorman tries to explain himself to Ripley, he is cut off. I took all three of those events are surmised them, how's that for concise? Or, would you rather I have added that info?ShadowTao 05:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You probably need to read original research, as taking scenes and trying to interpret them is clearly a violation of that. Gorman being demoted has no bearing on the movie. Also, you may want to check into neutrality, as using your "preferences" isn't keeping with a neutral tone, as your preferences might not be agreed upon by someone else. Bignole 05:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
You're trying to ignore my points, and argue policy that has no bearing on this discussion. There is no interpretion or opinion when I point out the actions of the characters with regards to Gorman. When several people state their disapproval of another character, it's factual that said character is disliked as a result of previous actions, in this case, the overt failure of the mission... or, do you feel that the numerous deaths, destruction of property and subsequent marooning on LV-428 was only a questionable failure, subject to reasonable differing interpretation, i.e. that the previously mentioned deaths could have been signs of success?ShadowTao 15:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
First, it's LV-426, not 428 but that's beside the point. Secondly, expressing dislike for a character, or disapproval of their actions does not insinuate "demotion", which is irrelevant as he was a secondary character. You have already had another editor tell you that him being demoted was unimportant to the plot, but yet you persist in this arrogant rant that you are so right and everyone else is so wrong. I've provided you with Wiki's policy regarding plots, and that they are not substitutions for watching the film; yet you persist that the section needs "more specifics" which is a violation of that policy. We want this article to get to GA status, and overly long plots with needless details will be restrictions to that status. Bignole 15:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Who said anything about "demotion?" That's your word, not mine. Further, you've got the argument entirely wrong. I said Lt. Gorman had become a "subordinate," which is obviously true since he was no longer giving orders, despite his being the highest ranking marine. I then stated, separately, that Lt. Gorman's efforts were a "failure," as evidence by the comments and actions of those around. There was also the small matter of his platoon being "wiped out," as you say. If you can explain how getting one's platoon slaughtered can be viewed as anything other than a failure, please, do tell. As for the "arrogant rant," don't call the kettle black.ShadowTao 00:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The funny part is that a lot of it I cut from your original edits so that you couldn't say that I "undid" what you added. Secondly, I don't believe anyone else had this "5th grade" assumption about it, and as far as college goes, I generally get A's on all my papers, even in the grammer portion. Since I threw this up there without proofing it, and without proofing what YOU had added originally and that I kept, I think it was fairly good. Just because I don't try and "dress it up" doesn't make it 5th grade in the least. It follows Wiki's policy for plot summaries. It's short, to the point, doesn't digress over minor details, it isn't a substitution for watching the film. You aren't supposed to walk away from the article going "wow that plot summary was 'tight'", you are supposed to walk away going "wow that article had a lot of encyclopedic information about the film (not the mythos of the fictional universe)". Also, a very important policy is that Wikipedia does not promote other websites, or any venue for that matter. This is also applied to films. "Spicying" up words, creating "dramatic effect" is indirectly promoting a film, or dismissing a film (if you write it negatively). If you read about what Wiki wants for plots, they should be able to be read by anyone, especially those not familiar with the franchise. You don't need to explain who characters are, because you have a "Cast" section for that. This isn't IMDb, there is a formula for how a page should be. "Dressing" plots up is indirectly promoting films, just the same if you only list positive criticisms for the film. If you notice, even films that have received high praise still have to have some negative feedback on that section, because Wiki has a NPOV policy. That policy extends to not just the reception sections but to every section including the plot. Creating dramatic tension in a plot is not in keeping with the NPOV policy. Bignole 02:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

New plot

This is how I just rewrote it, please discuss your opinions.

"After 57 years, Ellen Ripley is found drifting through space still in hypersleep. Since the events of ‘’Alien’’, the Weyland-Yutani Corporation has set up a terraforming colony on LV-426. When contact is lost with the settlers, Burke, a company executive, and Lt. Gorman of the Colonial Marines request help from Ellen Ripley. Although initially reluctant to join, Ripley agrees on the condition that the alien species will be exterminated.

Arriving in orbit, Ripley gives a briefing on the aliens to the marines, but her warnings are unheeded. The Marines quickly sweep the area with no signs of visible life, except for two live facehuggers in medical containers, and a young girl nicknamed “Newt”. After locating the colonists, via their surgically-implanted transceivers, the Marines attempt to rescue them. The Marines find the colonists cocooned in the alien nest. When the nest is disturbed, the aliens awaken from their sleep and attack the Marines. After most of the squad is wiped out, Ripley uses the APC to infiltrate the nest area to rescue Lance Corporal Hicks, Private Vasquez, and Private Hudson. They commission plan to escape the planet and nuke the site from orbit. When their dropship crashes, because of an alien onboard, they are forced to move back into the colony and set up barricades. They find out the processing plant was damaged in their attack, and will explode in several hours. Bishop, an android that accompanied the team, leaves to try and remote pilot the backup dropship down to the colony. The two live facehuggers are set loose on Ripley and Newt while the humans sleep in hopes that the facehuggers will impregnate them with a chestburster. Burke is revealed as the saboteur, but before Hicks can execute him, the aliens begin to swarm the barricades. In the initial fight, Hudson is captured and Burke is presumably killed. Newt leads the surviving Marines, and Ripley, through the ventilation duct. Vasquez is injured and Gorman returns to help. When two are overwhelmed with aliens, Gorman is forced to detonate a grenade killing them both in the process. The force from the blast causes Newt to fall down a chute, and be captured by an alien.

On the way to the second dropship, Hicks is injured after killing an alien. Once they arrive, Ripley grabs an assault rifle and a flamethrower and returns to the colony to find Newt. She finds and frees Newt from an alien cocoon, then accidentally stumbles into the nest's main breeding chamber, where both are confronted by the monstrous alien Queen. Ripley destroys the Queen's nest chamber. Ripley and Newt rendezvous with the dropship, escaping moments before the entire area is destroyed by the nuclear meltdown of the processing plant. Back on the Sulaco, Ripley and Bishop are surprised by the alien Queen that had managed to stow itself inside the wheel-well of the dropship's landing gear. After ripping Bishop in half, Ripley distracts the Queen long enough for Newt to hide. Just as the Queen is about to grab Newt from hiding, Ripley arrives wearing a mechanized exosuit. Ripley battles the Queen, and succeeds in dropping her into a large vertical airlock and expelling her into space. With all the aliens now killed, Ripley, Newt, Hicks and a badly damaged, but still functional Bishop, enters hypersleep for the return back to Earth."

Bignole 14:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment below

I'm all for concise, but the grammar reads at the 5th grade level. There are numerous run-ons, dangling modifiers, misplaced pronouns and incorrect verb tense. To replaced those errors requires longer sentences, there's just no way around it.ShadowTao 15:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Where? We need examples of what you think is incorrect as far as grammer. Your personal attack was also noted. Bignole 15:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't expect that I should, or would be invited to point out anything to you regarding the rules of American English Grammar. You've a ton of Wiki honors; honestly, you should know how to write a good article. Further, you're in college; the grammatical rules I was observering are taught from 5th grade (hence my 5th grade comment) on towards 12th. I'm guessing you're an American (judging from your personal wiki page); so, you would recognize the book of grammar of which I speak- it's gray, and disproportionately longer than it is wide. As for personal attacks, don't start- you've been playing the intellectual superiority card since you started harassing me on my edits. Ad hoc need not be overt, so don't think I haven't noticed the venom from your tenuous insults.ShadowTao 23:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Unlike ShadowTao, I'm going to point out some wording that could be improved and not say it's "5th grade level" writing in general.

  • "Although initially reluctant to join, Ripley agrees on the condition that the alien species is exterminated, and not brought back for experiments." This sentence is a little awkward from my perspective. Maybe "exterminated instead of being brought back for experiments."
  • I think the word "marine" needs to be capitalized.
  • "After locating the colonists, via their surgically-implanted transceivers, the marines attempt to rescue them." Shouldn't the surgically-implanted transceivers be in the previous sentence, since that's how they found the facehugged folks and the girl? Sorry, I haven't seen the film, so this didn't make sense to me.
  • "...the aliens spring to life. After most of the squad is wiped out, Ripley uses the APC..." Needs to be more clear here that the aliens attacked the squad.
  • "A plan to escape the planet and nuke the site from orbit is commissioned." An "active" verb could be used here, such as "They commission a plan to... blah blah."
  • "They soon learn the processing plant was damaged..." How about "find out" in place of "soon learn"?
  • "The two live facehuggers are set loose on Ripley and Newt while they sleep in hopes that they will become impregnated with an alien." The two "they"s are confusing. Perhaps write it as "...while the humans sleep in hopes that the facehuggers will impregnate them with... (better wording than 'an alien' here)."
  • "When Vasquez is injured Gorman returns to help, but the two are overwhelmed with aliens and Gorman is forced to detonate a grenade killing them both in the process." I do believe this is one of the run-ons that ShadowTac failed to point out. I think the sentence could be broken down into two or even three, since there's a lot going on in that sentence. recheck sentence, it's been adjusted
  • "She finds and frees Newt from an alien cocoon, then accidentally stumbles into the nest's main breeding chamber, where both are confronted by the monstrous alien Queen." While not technically a run-on, it's a bit long and could be separated into a couple of sentences. recheck sentence, it's been adjusted

Hope these suggestions help. I don't want to suggest too many changes in one sitting. I'll let you read my feedback, and I'll review it some more later. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feeback. It was a quick draft. I didn't capitalize "marines" becuase it wasn't in the previous plots, so I wasn't sure if it needed to be since it wasn't refering to the "Marine Corps" but just solidiers. Anyway, I implimented that change since it isn't a "wording" issue. Shadow should be happy because the last two paragraphs (morphed into one paragraph) were originally his. So I didn't eliminate everything that he added. I placed the "surgical trans..." there because initially they didn't find anyone but the girl (who was running about outside the room they were in) and the two facehuggers. Later, they used their tracking system to scout the colonists' receivers. Chronologically, they found the girl and the facehuggers well before they found the dead colonists. I've made the corrections to the rest, please feel free to go back and re-read the text for more suggestions or to critique the corrections made from your first suggestion. Bignole 18:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of brevity, but to be honest, I think this new plot summary might be a bit too brief. I think the existing plot summary is quite ok, and would prefer to keep it, with some minor modifications. Ashmoo 23:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I ran the sypnosis through the meatgrinder again. Characters were being mentioned with no explanation as to who they were (including the various types of aliens), the links were a mess, and I think it's most accurate to say that Gorman and Vasquez detonate the granade together.--Geoduck 07:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that the newer version of the plot is superior. It needs minor alterations but it is generally tighter then the current edit. I say go ahead and put it in from there we can all improve it bit by bit. Daniel J. Leivick 01:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it worth putting that at teh very end of the credits, the sound of an alien egg is heard opening, thus setting up the beginning of Alien 3?Screen42 14:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I've watched the movie, literally hundreds of times and have never noticed that. Are you sure that is what the sound is? And more importantly, can you prove it? Ashmoo —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is a link: http://www.eeggs.com/items/1795.html You have to listen very carefully as it says, but its there.--Screen42 21:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I personally agree that it's there, but it's so subtle and open to arguement I vote it doesn't get mentioned.--Geoduck 04:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I had a look. It seems like it is pretty hard to spot. Even some of the comments are the website seem to think it doesn't exist. I'll take the position that it does exist. Still, I don't think it is notable enough for the Plot section, since it is not part of the standard 'reading' of the film. Maybe in a trivia section? Ashmoo 10:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Supposedly, it's a facehugger, maybe the sound was added to the DVD version(s) after Alien 3 was released, in which case it's a bit of a retcon, not in the original prints of the movie. Furthermore, it is an easter egg of sorts, not really part of the plot. No need to mention. Enigma3542002 08:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Introductory citation needed

"The production was somewhat problematic, marred by several disputes between Cameron and the film crew, which eventually led to an all-out strike late in the production."

I believe that this is documented on one of the special features on the special edition DVD (released with the quadrilogy), with James Cameron saying how terrible the British crew was because they kept asking for tea breaks! I don't have the DVD to hand, but it should be easy enough to verify - one of the production featurettes. Desdinova 13:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I have it, I'll take a look when I get a chance (unless someone can verify it beforehand). Bignole 13:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I looked thisup in McIntee's book and it talks about quite a bit of conflict between UK and US ways of working (and the way things were done at Pinewood) which lead to the lighitng guy being given his cards but that the differences were largely smoothed out in the course of the production. can't see the mention of a strike. The whole story about the history of the production is interesting but unless a strike can be proved it might be better leaving such things for a section on the production history. (Emperor 19:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

I can attest to several citation sources for some of the info on which they are required, though they're hard to attain- the one pertaining to the musical score is cited in the Aliens: The Deluxe Edition soundtrack- I believe the academy award nomination for Best Actress can also be found in that source. The source for the Alien Nest>Batman fact is mentioned in the DVD commentary, as are the tidbits pertaining the the gun-props within the movie. Ridley Scott's affinity for Conrad is a known fact and is listed in several other Alien-related entries. I just thought I should list these if others wanted to double-check these sources.

I'll check when I can. We can't use the DVD for the BA nomination, we need to go to the source for that. Also, "well known facts" aren't good enough, we would need Scott actually saying so. Bignole 13:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I reverted this from the Trivia section: "According to Cameron the opening scene in which Ripley is rescued is filmed in the same style as Ridley Scott's, so as to bridge the gap between Alien and Aliens." Per WP:AVTRIV, this should be integrated with production and supported by citation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Already done. Ben W Bell talk 13:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

wrong date

"Aliens is a 2007 science fiction / action film starring-" 2007? damn someone mustve brought it back from the future when i watched it , can someone please change the date back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.27.185.46 (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Ratings List

Do we really need a list of the ratings this film recieved in every country, it is quite long and causes a large area of white between two sections of the article. Is it possible to present the information in a more concise manner or maybe we should remove it completly per WP:NOT#INFO. What are peoples thoughts on this?

Depending on what article you look at, it could be there. I personally don't care for it, and don't mind if it's removed. To me, it doesn't hold any relevant information other than a directory to find out what the film was rated in other countries.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  18:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Warrant Officer Ripley

@ Bishop2, where in the film is Ripley called a "Lieutenant"? I have the DVD movie and have read the script online.

Aliens James Cameron's 1985 first draft

Aliens script @ IMSDB

[http://www.amazon.com/Aliens-Special-Sigourney-Weaver/dp/B00000ILDE Amazon.com Aliens (Special Edition DVD)]

Chairman Van Leuwen at the inquiry calls her a Warrant Officer, which is not equivalent to a Lieutenant. It’s a rank between a junior commissioned officer (2nd Lieutenant) and top NCO (Sergeant Major). In nowhere does anyone refer to her as a Lieutenant, a commissioned military officer. She wasn’t even in the military. She was a civilian Warrant Officer/pilot of a civilian commercial towing ship, equivalent to a Merchant Mariner of our time. I’m changing it back to warrant officer but I think her previous rank title should not be included. She was originally fired from the Weyland-Yutani company at that inquiry and was attached to the Marine squad as a "consultant"/civilian advisor. She did not have any command authority with the Marines. --Pilot expert 18:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the only reference I can find or recall of her having a rank at all is that of Warrant Officer and that is mentioned in Aliens. Ben W Bell talk 18:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought that she was listed as "Lt." on her personnel screen during the board of inquiry. I might be wrong and I apologize if I am. I know she's mentioned as a Lieutenant in Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection; makes you wonder how she got that rank, considering that she accomplishes nothing between Aliens and Alien 3. It's also true that she's not military, of course, but since this is the future, we have no idea how/why their goofy commercial ship rankings work. --Bishop2 19:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Article improvements

I have added citations to the article, and some sections/formatting like the Alien article. Also some extensive modification of details/writing/etc. Hopefully these will improve the article further. Enigma3542002 09:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, some research and sourcing can support some of the analysis shown here: [1].... Enigma3542002 06:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Any ideas? Enigma3542002 05:08, 4 October 2007 (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) 23:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Soundtrack article

I would suggest an article that would talk more extensively about the soundtrack, as it had a special edition released with two hours of additional music and altrernate cues. I've heard from some sources (can't specify which) that although most of the score is atmoshperic music, Horner's climatic finale is considered the best music in the Alien series. Why expand it? --Surten (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Surten. That would then lead me to the following:

Open Call

I'm writing this comment in all of the articles about special editions of soundtracks. I suggest to create an article (or a portal if it was needed) with a list of soundtracks that have been expanded in several and more complete editions, as I find interesting to see which scores have been succesful enough that many editions and much more complete versions have been released. Please reply if you agree with me or if there's already something similar. --Surten (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Surten

Producer Picture -- reason for removal?

M3tal H3ad, I noticed you removed the picture of James Cameron and Gale Ann Hurd because it didn't satisfy fair use. But since that image is actually been given to the wikipedia commons for any use in wikipedia, that doesn't seem to be a justifiable reason. Do you have another editorial reason for the change? Marc.runkel (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was on commons, i will add it back. M3tal H3ad (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thx for restoring the picture, I found it and added it back in when I contributed to the cleaning up and expansion of this article a while back. At the time I also added the TIME magazine cover. It is customary to use free pics as much as possible, and I myself have done numerous searches to find free pics for many articles. This picture however is fair use, but it is referenced directly in quotes in the text, and is from a very influential national magazine, which IIRC was the only time the Aliens franchise was featured on its cover (Alien did appear on the cover of Newsweek). There are many articles on wiki that have TIME covers, including ones that are gunning for a high rating; I hope these considerations will be taken into account. On that matter, I thought I would add a suggestion--the article could possibly use a well-referenced cultural impact/analysis section. But the article has improved a lot already, thx for the good job, and hopefully it will get promoted. SynergyStar (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The intro

I have a small issue with terminology in the introduction. The third paragraph states "domestic box office" and I think using wording like "USA" or "American" box office would better show non-United States slant on the article; in other words less American POV.

Kresock (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

GA pass

I find the article to be well-written, stable, and fully sourced. I've gone through the article and did some copy editing (mostly comma issues). I'm passing the article. Congratulations on a GA. Nikki311 22:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

benchmark

Is it just me or is the word "benchmark" used way too often in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.236.174 (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Aliens redirect

I am adding this here in order to find as many opinions as possible. I have made a suggestion on the talk page of Alien that Aliens redirect to this page, Aliens (film). Please let me know what you think. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The terms "alien" and "aliens" refer to many, many different things which could all be article topics. That's the reason for having the "(film)" disambiguation in the first place. For example, someone typing "aliens" into the search box could be looking for an article on extraterrestrials, illegal aliens, the legal concept , this film, or even this film's soundtrack album. The disambiguation page for "alien" is entirely necessary, and it's appropriate that "aliens" redirects to it. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. I frequently enter plural search terms forgetting the default is singular. However, I do sometimes find redirects to disambiguation pages vexing. Aliens -> Alien (dab) is not quite annoying enough to change my disagree :P - 142.167.82.191 (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC) User:BalthCat

Production Story

Is there anyway someone could add this story (see below) to the article. I think it would definitely be an interesting bit of information about the production of the movie.

From Hello He Lied by Linda Obst. Story told by Gordon Caroll, Executive Producer, Aliens.

Cameron was young. He had just directed Terminator. Cameron had called a meeting to discuss his “next project.” Everyone knew Cameron had written a treatment for Alien 2 that nobody would touch because Alien was not a massive financial success. Alien 2 was not on the table. We expected a professional pitch from Cameron, an outline and a treatment of what he had in mind with a cursory budget; perhaps a couple assistants to run a slide show.

Instead Cameron walked in the room without so much as a piece of paper. He went to the chalk board in the room and simply wrote the word ALIEN. Then he added an ‘S’ to make ALIENS. Dramatically, he drew two vertical lines through the ‘S’, ALIEN$. He turned around and grinned. We greenlit the project that day for $18 million.

Source: http://www.derober.com/2008/06/26/6-crazy-hollywood-stories-you-probably-havent-heard/ Diemunkiesdie (talk) 04:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

References in Halo

I'm not sure if someone has added this information, but most of the lines and characters in the Halo game series (partciularly the marines) were inspired by Aliens. Some of the quotes are references to the movie "Move like you got a purpose" for instance. --Surten (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Surten

Yeah, there's a lot of stuff like that in StarCraft, too. It might be worth writing a section about how many video games have heavily referenced the movie or used it's visual and thematic elements. However, whoever does this will have to find some outside sources for verification. Alhead (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
If verifiable--with citations--include this in a section titled Influences on Popular Culture. Grammatophile (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC) 17/08/08
I'm not certain it is verifiable, and even if so it would be much more appropriate to the Halo: Combat Evolved article in a section about its writing and inspirations. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A level in Time Splitters: Future Perfect features a Marine that say's lot's of Bill Paxton's line's from the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Addistheman (talk • contribs) 19:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Apparently, someone placed a merge take on Newt (Aliens) back in March, but never bothered to continue with the process. I've continued it and am opening the floor up for discussion. Currently, the article is nothing but in-universe information, which fails WP:PLOT, WP:FICT, a bit of WP:NOR, and maybe more. I don't see any real notability in a character who has appeared in a single film (sorry, the "fake" appearance in Alien 3 doesn't count for anything). I doubt there is too much written about her in any scholarly film journals, though one could try and look. Scholarly films journals are not a must, obviously, but you get my idea. The same can be said for Hicks and the other character pages out there for this film article. They all kind of have the same problems.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I was the placer of the tag, and I did place the appropriate tags on this article as well, but they were removed by another editor who felt that the tags prominently at the top of the article hurt its chances of passing GA review (it was up for review at the time). Not wanting to cause too many ripples, I deferred. Basically I agree with everything you said ^ which is why I marked all of those articles. These characters are only notable in the context of this film and maybe some tie-in comics and games, and the articles lack any secondary sources and there are unlikely to be any to support them. Bottom line: these fictional characters are not notable enough to warrant stand-alone wikipedia articles. I'm in favor of merging the info into this article and List of characters in the Alien series. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for assuming you didn't follow through. I didn't bother to check the the history past the last 50 edits, which stop in mid-April. I don't know why someone would assume it would hurt their chances of getting GA, GA isn't based on what the article "will" look like, but what it "does" look like. Maybe we should group tag the other articles so that we don't have to have half a dozen discussions on the same thing. What do you think?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I'll look back and see which ones were suggested for merger so we can list them all at once. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's the diff: [2] I restored the tag with all the articles included & changed the title of this thread to include the multiple proposal. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the other articles, it appears that any real world information in them is basically taken from this article. The rest of the info is all in-universe information (far too details for a prop that appears in a single movie). As for the characters there's just a lot of in-unverse info, original research, and loose associations with other products there. I see some interesting things, like the Dark Horse comics and the "Game Over" catchphrase, but that something that could be added to this article. The comics could be part of a "Spin-off" section, while the "Game over" is easily an "Impact" or "In popular culture" section for the article. but if one cleaned up the articles to remove the OR and the excessive IU info, I don't see what could be left that would need a separate page. These are one film characters (Bishop being a slight exception, only because of how they handled the android's "likeness" throughout the series).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Since I made the proposals I haven't taken the time to go through the articles and see how much real-world info was already in this article. If there's nothing substantial beyond that, I say go ahead and redirect the other articles or maybe even AfD them if appropriate. Maybe salvage a few things here and there and move them into this article, but definitely get rid of these stubs. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, none are "stubs", per say. Since we've already started the merge proposal I say go ahead and give this a few days and see what other people have to say. If there's no response in 5-7 days, then it's probably safe to go ahead and redirect.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

NO MERGING —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.123.109 (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please actually give a specific argument for why we should not merge these articles. Simply saying "no merging" and removing the merge tag in the article is not going to build any consensus.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't LV-426 be merged to Alien? Also, merging Bishop, Hicks and Newt might work, the android's article provides good thematic analysis while I would be willing to write up on Dark Horse Comics' sequels featuring the latter two. Alientraveller (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think LV-426 is proposed for both pages, so that whatever info is relevant here will go here and whatever info is relevant to Alien will go there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok there are a lot of articles proposed for merging and it is a bit difficult to deal with them all in one go, so breaking it down:
So no "one size fits all" solution but there are a lot listed and some of them are fixable. (Emperor (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC))
The information on the Derelict and LV-426 is pretty much already found in both the article on Alien and Aliens, there really isn't anything that stands out on either individual that isn't presented somewhere else. If you removed the excess IU information, the real world info is already presented elsewhere. Neither Alien or Aliens is a long article, so I don't see a justification for spinning the Derelict and LV-426 out onto their own when they have not been the subject of significant coverage by sources independent of the subject. Heck, they don't even have large behind-the-scenes sections (which goes back to my "already present in the other articles" argument).
I'm fine with merging any relevant book information on the Marines into the book, and merging any relevant film information on the Marines into the film article. They first appeared in the film, so one would assume that any film information relevant to the "characters" would be found there.
The comics that Newt and Hicks appear in are spin-offs from this film, and should be mentioned here. A brief overview of what happens in that series of comics would be fine here (I think it already exists). Newt doesn't need a separate page just to say that she appeared in a comic book. The same for Hicks.
Bishop needs to be cleaned up from the heavy use of IU information, and the "Academia" section needs to be expanded; right now it's basically 3 one-liners with one that isn't really about him so much as its about androids in general.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose the point about Newt and Hicks is that the first 3 comic series diverged heavily from what we see in Aliens3. Thinking about it, I'd rather see that information in the comics section (at the moment if is actually explained in more depth in the book based on the retconned comic reprints), with perhaps a note in the characters list explaining the divergence in the different media.
I agree Bishop needs expanding, if I recall the references were ones I dug out last time these issues were discussed as a demonstration that there is real-world discussion of the character - the point is that it needs expanding and not merging.
Good points on LV-426 - information on the background is better off fleshing out the relevant entries. (Emperor (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC))
Yeah, a character list does not have to limit the information to just one respective media. It would be easy to discuss the character's appearance outside of the films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of these articles are now listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M41A pulse rifle, so I recommend carrying the discussions over to there. I've removed the merge tags from them, since as I explain in the AfD nomination all the relevant info from those articles is already in this article, hence there is nothing useful left to merge. For what it's worth, here is my stance on why these things should be deleted:

  • Character articles: All the pertinent info about the characters' roles in the film, as well as the real-world info about their casting, etc. is already present in this article. The same info, and more, is for the most part also in List of characters in the Alien series. I will leave Bishop for now as that articles is not part of the AfD. Hudson certainly has no notability independent of the film Aliens, and is completely explained in this article. Hicks and Newt have significance to the plot of Alien 3, but are already explained fully in that article. They also had some significance to a couple of comics, but nothing worth explaining beyond their entries in List of characters in the Alien series. Bottom line: there are apparently no reliable third-party sources available to support independent articles on these characters.
  • Weapons, props, ships, etc.: Again, all the pertinent info about their design, production, etc. is already in this article, and they have no notability outside the context of the film. The rest is in-universe stuff from the Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual. I would suggest that the info be merged into the article on the book, but there are no third-party sources available to support an article about the technical manual either. IMHO we shouldn't have an article about that book, as it is non-notable in and of itself. It maybe belongs in a list article about books related to the franchise, and probably deserves mention in Alien (franchise), but does not need its own article. I'll stop with that one for now, as the technical manual is not part of the AfD either.
  • Colonial Marines: Again, all info cribbed from this film and from the technical manual. All the film-related info is already in this article, the rest belongs in Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual if anywhere but as I've already said that book doesn't meet notability criteria anyway.

I won't touch on LV-246 as it's also not part of the AfD, except to say that I doubt there are third-party sources to support an independent article about it, either. All the pertinent info is already in this article and Alien (film), so IMO that article ought to go as well, but we can deal with it another time. Bottom line: None of these topics have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subjects, so they are not presumed to be notable and do not merit independent articles. For the most part they do not follow the guidelines of WP:FICT and do not have enough real-world context to be worth keeping. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe, in the least, we've got consensus that the weapons, all the characters (but Bishop) merged into either this article or the LOC article, merge the article on the Marines into the book on the Marines, and leave LV-426 alone for further discussion later. Did I get all that right?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me like that was the general view, per the AfD. We should get cracking on that. Shouldn't be hard; as I mentioned in the AfD most of the relevant info on the weapons & characters is already present in this article. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
What's happening to the articles? I would like to see that massive merge tag gone asap. Thanks M3tal H3ad (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess that items/people/etc ... found only in Aliens should be merged in the article, things like LV-426 should be kept separate - as LV-426 is present both in Alien and Aliens films and it would be IMHO bad putting the information only in one article. LV-426 could even be merged with the Alien (film) same way :) Some characters already went into List of characters in the Alien series, so perhaps put all people there and maybe update the template on top of article so it won't reference nonexistent articles --Qynx (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It was decided that LV-426 is split into both articles, as all of its information is already in both articles. You would redirect to the original film since that's where it was first mentioned.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


Should not be merged. Separate articles is cleaner and easier to navigate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.254.174 (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose wanton merging. There's no value in merging non-stubs into already sizeable articles. It makes the main article more difficult to work with. Absolute NO to merging articles referenced in multiple sources, whether they be movies, comics or video games outside the plot of the film in question. This article is about the movie, it should be about the movie. If something occurs elsewhere in the universe, it merits its own reference. - User:BalthCat 142.167.82.191 (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I oppose the merge, it will only clog up the article. I'm fine with the articles being deleted. M3tal H3ad (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, yeah, because most of the content from those article has since been merged into this one. Once that's been done we can go ahead and redirect the articles to this one. Balthcat, if you can find anything in the remaining articles (LV-426, United States Colonial Marines, & Private William Hudson) that is referenced to a reliable secondary source, then we might have something to talk about with regards to keeping them as stand-alone articles. They currently only reference primary sources (the films, comments from the directors, and supplementary "making of"-type material, all of which are primary sources). Only the Bishop (Aliens) article has any secondary sources, and since those only discuss the character in the context of Aliens I'm still of the opinion that it could be summarized rather well in this article as "cultural impact" or the like. Most of these articles is merely plot summary in different forms, and thus belongs in the articles about the fictional works themselves rather than stand-alone articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Digital rod removal?

The "Effects" sections states: "All sequences involving the queen were filmed in-camera with no digital rod removal." I assume that "digital rod removal" means using digital effects in post-production to remove the puppeting rods from the frames. I'm no film effects expert, but I doubt that this was a technique available in 1986. That being the case, is it worth mentioning in this context? Or at the very least, could we add the disclaimer "(a technique unavailable at the time)"? The way it's worded now makes it seem like the production team chose not to remove the rods digitally as a matter of principle, when in actuality it would seem as though it was impossible to do so because the technology for producing those kind of digital effects didn't exist yet. Thoughts? --IllaZilla (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this was possible in 1986. Alhead (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Based on the timeline of technology in that article, and the fact that the article is unreferenced and therefore all its claims are unverified, I disagree. I'm highly skeptical that in 1986 the technology existed to do digital touch-ups in post-production to the effect of digitally "removing" puppetry rods (and replacing them with background or whatever else would have been in frame). I'm going to remove the statement as it's irrelevant in this context to make a comparison between 1986 filmmaking technology and today's technology. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. And even if it was available (which I doubt), the use of the generic 'post-production effects' is better than specifying a specific technique. Ashmoo (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Inspiration: Vietnam & Corporations

Does anyone have a source for the statement that corporation-as-villian elements in the movie were inspired by a belief that the Vietnam war was stated to protect corporate interests? Ashmoo (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's from the source cited at the end of the paragraph (the audio commentary from the special edition DVD). It is the source for the 2 sentences preceding the citation. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Cinefex Magazine, August 1986. Interview by Don Shay.--203.201.73.154 (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation and Analysis

Changed title to reflect content of this section. Added paragraph from Mulhall, which seems to sum up much of the succeeding paragraphs, as well as to provide a summary of scholarly and literary interpretations. Grammatophile (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC) 17/08/08

Thanks for this addition. I cleaned it up/reworded it a bit to make sure that all statements were attributed as Mulhall's views. I have a few bones to pick with you over your other edits, though. First of all, dropship is, I believe, considered one word, not two. See its entry. I've only ever seen it written as one word, so unless you can present a convincing argument to the contrary I'm inclined to leave it the way the Wikipedia entry spells it. Second, parenthetical asides are not appropriate in the plot summary. We're summarizing, after all. Finally, I don't believe the addition of a cleaup tag to the plot section was warranted. It is 4 rather concise paragraphs and is not of excessive length in comparison to the rest of the article. The article passed a Good Article review with the plot summary exactly as it is now, so I don't see that a cleaup tag is warranted. If you have specific concerns you'd like to address, please bring them up here first so that we can discuss them. Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I think the rewrite is fine, though I wonder how you discerned what were Mulhall's views as opposed to ... what? Anyway, I think the plot summary is much too long, one paragraph is fine. The other sections are too filled with trivia and often read like a gossip column. Perhaps the entire section on Interpretation should have a one-paragraph summary and a new entry added. Given the substantial literature -- academic and non-academic -- on the film, as well as the very diversity of the viws expressed in them, I think that alternative is called for. What do you think? Grammatophile (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC) 17/08/08
I have to disagree that the sections are "too filled with trivia and often read like a gossip column". The article was reviewed and determined to meet all of the good article criteria, and to have a proper balance of plot summary and real-world information. I and several other editors spent a good deal of time fleshing out these different sections to give the article more real-world analysis and information, and I certainly don't think any maintenance tags are warranted on the plot or production sections. If we shrank these and split them into independent articles it would unnecessarily reduce this article substantially and take away most of this article's core information. This article isn't too long by Wikipedia standards. In fact I think it's just about perfect lengthwise. I recommend comparing it to some of the others in Category:FA-Class film articles to see how it measures up to some of our featured film articles. I think you'll find it measures up nicely as far as length, plot summary, and production details. For more information on article length and splitting topics I recommend reading the guidelines WP:SS and WP:SIZE. We certainly couldn't have an independent article for just the plot summary; that would go against a number of policies and guidelines (WP:NOT#PLOT for one).
As for the paragraph concerning the symbolism of the cryo tube, that entire paragraph is attributed to an article by Ximena Gallardo, and carries the appropriate citation at the end of the paragraph (similar to how your paragraph on Mulhall's analysis carries the single citation at the end of the paragraph). All the ideas are attributed to that source. I also disagree that this section should be split off. The section isn't very long, and though other sources may exist that could be added to expand the section we shouldn't split it until someone adds more paragraphs from some of those sources. Splitting it at this point would be putting the cart before the horse. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
That particular section seems to be referring to Alien3 and not Aliens. It doesn't make sense in terms of an analysis of this movie nor does it accurately describe events in the plot. This section would be a better description of the Narcissus sequence in the beginning of the film, but the sanctity of the cryostasis chamber is violated by the salvage team, not by a face hugger. At no time in this film is a cryostasis chamber attacked by an alien. Moreover, the religious overtones present in the third film are totally absent in this film. I would excise this passage from this article and move it appropriately to Alien3's.-75.157.198.121 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC).
Hmm, you may be right. It seems to analyze multiple instance in which Ripley is in cryp-tubes: The Narcissus tube at the end of Alien/beginning of Aliens, and the Sulaco tube at the end of Aliens/beginning of Alien 3. We may have to actually get our hands on that source to suss out which film(s) its referring to and put the info in the appropriate places. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Does every "Aliens" movie need one of these sections? This has nothing to do with the movie, and its not notable at all. When you think of "Aliens" do you think of the struggle of the working woman or the relationship between Androids and man's perception of mortality? No! Nobody does. Stick this hocus pocus in an article about crazed art house psuedo philosophy. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A film is a considered a piece of art (be it consumer art or more highbrow art, it makes no difference). It is released for public consumption and criticism. Every film article should have a section on critical interpretation and analysis of the film and its impact. This shows how the concepts and techniques used in the movie are relevant to the fields of film and (in this case) science fiction, and thus is a primary way of showing how the film is notable. It's positively ludicrous to suggest that we should exclude critical analysis and interpetation of the film simply because you consider it "hocus pocus". I would be shocked if you could find a single featured article on a film that doesn't devote some coverage to interpretations and analysis of the film and its components. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
But this is not a featured article. What I've noticed about featured article "analysis" sections of movies is that they mainly focus on the interpretation of those having a direct involvement in the project. Notably, Alien vs Predator, which is a featured film, has no "analysis" section at all. I have delved through several featured media articles, none of which contain long paragraphs dedicated to the opinions of "movie philosophers".
My problem isn't with an interpretation section at all. Just that the section be relavent and reasonable. Not simply including Slognorf Vielen's discussion on "Is the Facehugger scene a parable showing the director's feeling about Citizen Kane's ending?" just because it was in his book. That sort of thing just breaks the article's flow. I can see a movie like Fight Club having a section like this, but it doesn't; its equivalent section is quite on topic. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a feature article. As such, I suggest that including a section on analysis from whatever philosopher as long as it is relevant is in the spirit and the law of what an encyclopedia article is meant to do: cover its subejct from every possible angle. In many ways, an encyclopedia is a grab bag that you fill with whatever you can get into it - within limits set by scholarly, public, and considered opinion. Grammatophile (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
A featured article is an article of Wikipedia which is considered exemplory. This page on the movie Aliens is not an encyclopedia in and of itself. The article should conform to Wikipedia's guidelines, which do not direct us to fill an article with anything and everything we can find on a subject. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
But one would expect a featured article on a film to include relevant interpretation and analysis of that film, if such content has been published in a reliable source. We certainly aren't directed or required to "fill an article with anything and everything we can find on a subject", but since Wikipedia is not paper and notability explicitly doesn't limit article content, we are to a certain extent encouraged to do so (within reason and our core policies, of course). If there is significant interpretation and analysis of Aliens' motifs and themes, published in reliable sources (and clearly there is), then such analysis is germaine to an encyclopedic discussion of the film and its impact, and I can see no valid reason for excluding it (unless it represented some sort of fringe theory that might tread into undue weight).
I think a look through Category:FA-Class film articles will show that a good number of such articles contain information on interpretation and analysis of the film, where appropriate. You mentioned Alien vs. Predator earlier as an exception; while this is true, consider that that film is only 5 years old and was not exactly lauded by critics. Sufficient time has not yet passed to allow for a decent amount of interpretation and analysis to be written about the film and its impact, nor is there likely to be a lot written about such topics as the film is not considered a landmark by critical standards. Compare some more notable and critically lauded films, and the interpretation and analysis begins to show up: Casablanca (film)#Interpretation, 300 (film)#Controversy, Blade Runner#Interpretation, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial#Themes, Fight Club (film)#Themes, and V for Vendetta (film)#Themes are a few examples. In some cases (Blade Runner and Fight Club) there is even enough sourced interpretation to warrant separate articles. Aliens is a sufficiently noteworthy and critically acclaimed film that there has been a decent amount of analysis and interpretation of it done by scholars in the 23 years since its release, therefore it is perfectly appropriate to include content on that analysis and interpretation in a comprehensive encyclopedia article about the film.
Also consider this: Alien (film), which I worked my ass off on last year and got up to GA, failed FA review. One of the reasons: Not enough content in the "Impact and analysis" section addressing topics like feminst interpretations and the impact of the Ripley character. Surely if Alien (film)#Impact and analysis isn't comprehensive enough for the FA reviewers, then this article's analysis section isn't either. If anything we need more content comprising critical and academic analysis of the film and its themes, not to delete the section. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Music

Why are they erasing that the track where Ripley battles the Queen in the CD is called Resolution and Hyperspace? And that it was used in Die Hard? Why can't it be mentioned? --Surten (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Surten

It's more pertinent to the Aliens (score) article. It's extraneous here. It was also unreferenced, and unreferenced trivial info is often cut, especially from good articles like this one, to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia and keep articles from devlolving into trivia dumping grounds. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the info. I kinda already kenw that, but I didn't consider this particular info to be trivia.--Surten (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Surten

I don't think it is terribly trivial. Yeah, not super important, but interesting and perhaps valuable for anyone writing about this soundtrack or soundtracks in general. An article should provide a good jumping off point for people doing research.

Also, I added the info about the Jerry Goldsmith music used in the final attack. Just a line...but it needed to be mentioned. There was some controversy about Horner's score at the time the movie first came out. I don't know if there was any legal hullabaloo but the issue was the similarity of the title music to part of Khachaturian's ballet, Gayne and some of the music seems to be re-issued from Horner's Star Trek II. Although not a lot of space should be spent on this I do think that, if anyone can reference the contemporary articles, a sentence or two should be written. Without it there is distortion from omission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.23.121 (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, it needs to be referenced to a reliable source, otherwise it's of no use as "a jumping-off point for people doing research". As for the rest of your comment, drawing such comparisons without supporting references is original research. Either way, in-depth details about the music really belong in the Aliens (score) article, which is dedicated specifically to the film's score. That's the purpose of having separate articles for some topics like this; you can go into more detail than you can in the overall article about the film. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

James Remar

Would anyone care to insert some information about his casting in the film? He was to play Hicks, and supposedly there's still a scene with him in the movie (we only see his back though). I can't find any primary sources to refer to... most of the mentions of Remar I think are from DVD features of the movie. It's already mentioned that Biehn was brought in a week after filming began, so this would provide an explanation for that. Arrell (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It would definitely be worth mentioning if we could cite a reliable source. Citing the DVD featurettes would be fine; they provide lots of behind-the-scenes info. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Tones and motifs

I deleted this sentence:

Aliens' action/adventure tone was in stark contrast to the science fiction/horror motifs of the original Alien.

I did so on three grounds.

  • Firstly it's illogical: a "tone" cannot be in stark contrast to a "motif", only to another tone.
  • Secondly it's an opinion, unless it can be referenced to a reputable source. An acceptable sentence would be: "In the opinion of critics, Aliens' differed from the original Alien in that it was an action/adventure film rather than a horror film," and then give a reference to a critic who said this.
  • Thirdly, in my opinion, it's incorrect. I just watched both films, and they both have elements of "action/adventure" and of "horror." There is more "action" in Aliens, but there's also plenty of horror. There's certainly no "stark contrast" in tone between the two.

My deletion was reversed, and I won't revert, but I think I am correct. Other views? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that tone may not be the right word (as it refers more to the attitudes and emotions projected and conveyed by the film as opposed to its themes), so what we need is a workable synonym for motif (perhaps "theme"?). However, it is not an opinion: it is part of the lead section, and the point of the article lead is to introduce the subject and provide "a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article". If you read through the article you will find referenced statements remarking on the difference in motif/theme between Alien and Aliens, with the sequel focusing more on action while the original built primarily on suspense. For example:
  • Cameron was enticed by the opportunity to create a new world and opted not to follow the same formula as Alien, but to create a worthy combat sequel focusing "more on terror, less on horror".[8]
So no, we don't need a reference there in the lead, because we are merely summarizing what is covered in the body sections of the article.
I personally can't believe that if you've watched both films, you don't notice a difference in overall motifs. Alien has very little action (besides a couple of flamethrowers) and relies primarily on atmosphere and the building of tension to create its emotions (there's plenty of content in Alien (film) noting, for example, how suspense was built by never really showing the alien in full). Aliens, by contrast, has tons of action what with all the marines, the dropship sequences, heavy firepower, gunfights, transport vehicle chase, explosions, dozens and dozens of aliens, and climactic fight between Ripley and the alien queen. Yes they are both science fiction, and both have elements of horror, but Alien is almost entirely horror with just a bit of action while Aliens is quite the reverse. To say there is no contrast between the two is like saying there's no contrast between Halloween and Dawn of the Dead just because both have "plenty of horror". --IllaZilla (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I will admit, we can probably do without the "stark". It's not really a stark contrast, since both are still sci-fi with varying amounts of horror and action. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Production in UK

According to the text, production was slowed up because of "tea breaks" and "lucky dips". Firstly I removed the "lucky dips" bit because this is bizarre. It is not normal working practice in Britain to have regular "lucky dips" - this is something that might occurs at a child's party not at a professional film studio and certainly not regularly. If this is a direct quote then the speaker most likely misunderstood the meaning; but this section is not presented as a quote.

I left the bit about tea breaks, but what's with the scare quotes? I assume that in the US you have coffee breaks or simply "a break". Is it surprising that they occur in the UK? --Kegon (talk) 05:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The relevance here is that the American director & production staff became frustrated at the slow progress of the filming, and felt that things like tea breaks and other UK labor practices were contributing to the issue. Likely there were lots of other factors, but they made specific mention of tea breaks etc. as things which irritated them. Yes there are also mandatory work breaks under US law, but they vary from state to state & are probably not the same as in the UK. I don't know enough about UK labor laws to do a comparison, but for example here in California on an 8-hour shift there's a 30 minute unpaid lunch break (off the clock) and 2 20-minute paid breaks (on the clock). Anyway, the point of these quotes is to illustrate how there were conflicts between the American & British parties working on the film & how they contributed to delays in production. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Cameron is Canadian, not American. That said, in the contemporary documentary James Cameron - A Director and His Work, he does specifically gripe about the tea. It may, however, be more a reflection of Cameron's training in the Roger Corman quick-and-cheap school of film-making. Plenty of American and other foreign directors work in the UK, but Cameron's issues don't seem to be a common complaint. --Nick Cooper (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Investigation of Alien Spaceship

I am assuming that Burke ordered the colonists of the planetoid LV-426 to investigate the alien spaceship and its store of eggs only after being told of the existence of such a ship by Ripley. Thus, the colonists were not having any problems until after Ripley was rescued from space, at which point contact with the colonists was lost. If I am correct, I suggest this point be made more clearly in the plot summary. --Juve2000 (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

In the special edition DVD, a deleted scene is restored in which Newt's family are the ones who find the derelict ship, and Newt's father is attacked by a facehugger. In both versions of the film (theatrical and special edition), Ripley is told during her debriefing that there have been colonists on LV-426 for some time, and no Aliens have been seen. It's some time after this that Burke comes to inform her that contact with the colonists has been lost. Later, in the colony, Ripley discovers that Burke sent the colonists to investigate the derelict, based on her debriefing, hoping to retrieve eggs that can be used for biological weapons. This is why he seals Ripley and Newt in the medlab with the facehuggers: not only will he be able to smuggle Alien embryos back with him, as they will be inside Ripley and Newt, but once they burst from Ripley and Newt he will have eliminated the only 2 characters who could expose his role in the deaths of the colonists.
In any case, I think this plot point is made pretty clear in the plot summary with these existing lines:
  • Ripley [...] learns that LV-426, the planetoid where her crew first encountered the Alien eggs, is now home to a terraforming colony. Ripley is visited by Weyland-Yutani representative Carter Burke (Paul Reiser) and Lieutenant Gorman (William Hope) of the Colonial Marines, who inform her that contact has been lost with the colony on LV-426.
and later:
  • Ripley discovers that it was Burke who ordered the colonists to investigate the derelict spaceship where the Nostromo crew first encountered the Alien eggs, and that he hopes to return Alien specimens to the company laboratories where he can profit from their use as biological weapons.
I don't think there's any confusion there. Maybe this was just a plot point that you missed until now? --IllaZilla (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not want to create an edit war, so if you revert a second time, I will leave it alone since it appears that you are the gate-keeper to any and all edits to this page. I realize that in the film only 5 minutes pass between the debriefing and the subsequent visit by Burke, but in my opinion, you need to inform the reader that time has passed between the two scenes. Ripley has a job as a loader (being stripped of her credits) and the colonists have had time to investigate the alien ship. YOU YOURSELF STATED THIS above It's some time after this that Burke comes to inform her that contact with the colonists has been lost. I cannot believe that in order to make a simple edit I need to go through so much grief with you. I am sure you are breaking several WIKIPEDIA rules by being so protective and arrogant of this page. --Juve2000 (talk) 06:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I cannot believe how arrogant and protective you are of this site. You have already reverted my edit. Believe me, enough time needs to pass so that all the colonists are incapacitated. This does not happen immediately when Newt's father is attacked by the first egg. I am not saying that years have passed, but its a lot more than the 5 minutes on the screen. Secondly, you are WRONG that Ripley was not a loader before being on the spaceship. When Burke visits her at her apartment her job status is discussed. How else would she have known how to use those LOADERS once on the ship??? In the end, all I added was a few words, I think important words. --Juve2000 (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you should put this at the top of the page: DON'T BOTHER EDITING THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF IllaZilla, AND ANY EDITS WILL BE IMMEDIATELY REVERTED --Juve2000 (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll appreciate it if you lay off the accusations & insults & stick to the content of the edits. Having just popped in the DVD & re-watched the scene between Ripley, Burke, & Gorman, I see that you are right. Though they don't state how much time has passed, they do mention Ripley's job loading cargo & it's implied that some span of time has gone by. I don't think this warrants splitting the paragraph, though. It can be mentioned pretty easily while still keeping the opening scenes to one paragraph in the interest of conciseness. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Please note that other people have opinions too. They may not be YOUR opinions, and no two people ever agree on everything. I thought my edit was valid and at the end, very insignificant in the over-all length of the PLOT section. But you cannot let even this pass. I stand by my original edit and my assessment that you are just the gatekeeper. --Juve2000 (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, please do not misquote me. I never said a significant time time had passed. I said some time later. As it turns out, these are the same words you used above. --Juve2000 (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
While you're entitled to your opinion, this isn't really a difference of opinion so much as a simple misunderstanding. And if you'll look over the article's history I think you'll find that I'm only 1 of a number of editors who keep an eye on it, and a majority of my reverts are for vandalism, POV edits, and formatting issues. In fact I didn't touch any of your previous edits to it (going back a month), so I don't see the grounds for these accusations. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Wrong again. When I edited this page a week or so ago, you reverted my 3 words almost immediately while doing another edit. I re-instated them and now they remain. Hopefully this does not give you the idea to revert them a second time. My second edit was to revert some vadalism created by someone else, and this is my 3rd edit. Both of my original edits involve less than 10 words, but you had chosen to revert both. You can see why I have this opinion of you. --Juve2000 (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
What is NOT clear is why the Company would wait to send another ship in the first place? In real world terms, a second ship would have been sent within one or two years. Ponder that plot hole in the context of all this. In any case, it is NOT clear from the film that any time has passed. IF dates had been cleary shown on screen, there would be no confusion in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.83.232 (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge

No discussion since March 20008 on merging but quite sizeable articles without any notability tags. Merge tag removed. --Inwind (talk) 11:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"Sizeable" does not address the very real concerns of notability and sourcing in these articles. They are only "sizeable" because they consist of play-by-play plot regurgitation. "No discussion since March 2008" is irrelevant, as Wikipedia has no deadline and is built entirely by volunteers, so there is no expiration date on valid maintenance tags. Talk:Aliens (film)/Archive 1#Merger proposal is pretty clearly in favor of merging. The presence or non-presence of notability tags is irrelevant, especially considering that those tags are routinely ignored. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I redirected two of the proposed articles, if any content is not included in this one, it can easily be accessed. Bishop appears in another movie as well so merging the article here is not the best option. --Tone 20:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've replace the incorrectly removed merge tags. Inwind, the correct steps if no discussion occurs is to perform the merge, not remove the tags. Hopefully we'll generate some more discussion and come to a conclusion regarding this merge that has been pending for years now. What will it be ladies and gentlemen? Cliff (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment copied from talk:Bishop (Aliens) for discussion here

This must be the zaniest merge discussion ever. Only one of the paragraphs even relates to the movie the merge request targets. The merge discussion was started in 2008, and went stale, and died without merger, so the merge tag is definitively old and stale, and should be removed. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of the merge process is that no consensus means the merge is to be performed rather than abandoned. See if you understand it the same way... WP:Merge. Or we can simply reach a consensus now. I assume from your comment 184, that you oppose the merger. Cliff (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why you would contain Alien 3 information, AvP information about characters from those films the Aliens film article. That is a very wacky thing to do. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Simple thing to do, post a notice at WP:AN. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
to be clear, I have no stake in this matter other than to help clear a backlog of merge requests. 184,you oppose this merger? Cliff (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Another thing that may work is to split the Bishop article into each of the several films the character has appeared in and crosslinking them for those who want to know more about the character. Cliff (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should merge the article into Lance Henriksen. The bishop article actually discusses three separate characters played by Henriksen rather than an individual character across the series. Cliff (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC) I think this isn't such a good idea. Lance Henriksen is a very clean page and a BLP. It wouldn't be fair to concentrate so much on the actor's page about these three characters. Cliff (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The more I think about and look at this article, I think we should just AfD it. It's completely in-universe, and has questionable notability. Cliff (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There are lists of characters articles for Alien franchise and AvP franchise. I don't think merging into the films is all that hot, since we have character lists available. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
In any case, it is no longer appropriate to discuss this here. It should occur at the Bishop article talk page, since it mostly has no relation to this particular film, except a couple of paragraphs. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
are you suggesting moving all these comments to a different talk page, or simply abandoning this discussion and starting a new one? Cliff (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing merge request as most comments are in opposition and because of the reasons given by anon editor 184 above. I will likely start a new merge request to split the bishop article to character lists from each film. Cliff (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Summary

  1. Merge requested in March 2008 by IllaZilla citing notability, mostly in-universe content and other factors.
  2. 4 or 5 opposing statements without much reason given.
  3. discussion went cold in 2008 and no resolution reached. In that time the article has been expanded signifigantly.
  4. current arguments against include the fact that the Bishop character spans several films, and much of the content is from films other than Aliens.
  5. Possible solutions include splitting the Bishop article into character sections in each of the films he appeared in, or merging to the actor, or splitting the article to character lists for each film.
  6. merge request removed by Cliff (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

LV-426

Are the two films consistent in calling LV-426 a planetoid and not a planet? I could have sworn that its referred to as a planet somewhere. --Juve2000 (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Just did a little flipping through the first film and didn't hear them call it by either name. However, in the scene where they go into orbit they show a large ringed planet with a few large moons, and it looks like they're going around one of the moons. This isn't perfectly clear, though. --Silpion (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe either film is explicit in defining the status of LV-426. I'm pretty sure the first movie doesn't name the object. However the book Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual goes into detail regarding LV-426. It describes it as a moon of a super Gas giant or Hot Jupiter in the Zeta Reticuli system (this agrees with the first film which names Zeta Reticulli). The book describes how the Gas Giant itself is outside the habitable zone, but that it emits enough infrared radiation to create a secondary habitable zone for its moons. This seems to contradict some lines in the first film by the science officer Ash, something along the lines of: "deep cold, well below the line." Presumably referring the habitability line. Aliens doesn't really have an established canon system like Star Wars, so it is really up the viewers imagination to synchronize these contradictions. --Leivick (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Van Leuwen refers to it as a planet in the inquiry. And Ripley calls it a planet in the same scene. Also the script constantly refers to it as a planet. --Canterbury Tail talk 14:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
This isnt a question about the script, but the science. Is LV-426 a "planet" in the sense of Earth, Mars, Venus, etc., or a planetoid in the sense of Pluto & Charon. In the purest sci-fi/fantasy sense, any body in space is a planet if it "wanders" except stars & such. In a purely scientific sense, it's a moon. Probably based on Jinx, a habitable moon orbiting the gas giant Godzilla in the Larry Niven universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.83.232 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Stowaway? In Flight?

Article currently reads: "A stowaway Alien kills the dropship pilots in flight ..."

  • The word "stowaway" has incorrect connotations. A stowaway "is a person who secretly boards a vehicle, such as an aircraft, bus, ship or train, to travel without paying and without being detected."

The alien secretly boards the ship, but not to travel -- only to kill.

  • "Kills the dropship pilots in flight" -- this statement makes a couple of assumptions, reasonable assumptions but not strictly what the movie shows (assuming my memory about this is accurate). Sequence of events:

We see PFC Spunkmeyer at the dropship hatch -- he touches the door frame or some other part of the ship, gets alien goo on his hand and a puzzled look on his face. He reports this by radio. That's the last we see of him. We don't know that he's dead; good assumption, but we don't know. We furthermore don't know that he was killed in flight; assuming he was killed, maybe he was killed immediately after his radio report, before liftoff. We see Cpl. Ferro at the dropship controls. She lifts off. The alien kills her, crashing the dropship. She is definitely a pilot killed by the alien in flight. I can't think of better a better word for stowaway, and maybe I'm obsessing too much about the fate of Spunkmeyer, so I'll leave the rewrite(s) to someone else. Source: [3] --Karl gregory jones (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what that "source" is supposed to prove: it's obviously a fan site with no reliability and massive amounts of original research and speculation. Even if it were reliable, it says "However drop-ship pilots, Corporal Ferro and PFC Spunkmeyer are killed by an Alien, and the drop-ship crashes", which actually completely contradicts your points as it says plain as day that the Alien kills them. I think this is definitely obsessing too much about a plot point that blatantly obvious: the Alien isn't supposed to be on the ship, nor do the pilots know it's there, so "stowaway" is as good a word as any to describe it. And it obviously kills them both. No Alien onboard = live pilots, everyone escapes, drinks champagne and lives happily ever after. Alien onboard = pilots die, rest of group screwed. Similarly, we don't actually see the Alien kill anyone in Alien, but we don't assume they're alive drinking tea somewhere. It goes beyond "reasonable assumption"...the plot points are designed to indicate that the Aliens kill these people. Just because you don't actually see it rip their faces off doesn't mean "well, they could still be alive". --IllaZilla (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Suggest the word: Infiltrator —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.83.232 (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"causing the vessel to crash into the processing station" -- I don't think this is correct. The dropship crashes short of the processing station. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.231.73 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No it crashes into the atmospheric processor, that is what causes it to malfunction and later explode. Bishop says something like "the drop ship crash caused too much damage." --Daniel 23:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This discussion misses the most obvious point of all, you're splitting hairs on a fine point when you need to change the construct. The "agency" all along wanted to bring back the "alien" to study, which they finally accomplish by aliens 3, but even in alien, the original Bishop (not Henrikson's model based on Weyland, but the dude from the 5th Element) is tasked with bringing it back, goes off about how he finds it wonderful as a study in survival, admires it. So the word should be "cargo" not contraband. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.62.1 (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

I'm confused by why IllaZilla does not want to archive the old discussions on this talk page. Per WP:ARCHIVE, we should archive discussions that are obsolete. Editors will tend to respond to these discussions without realizing how old they are. On the first discussion of this talk page, we have Nick Cooper responding a year after the discussion took place. In the next two, we have an IP address commenting six months after each of the discussions. Canterbury Tail weighs in very belatedly on a discussion above. Is IllaZilla's concern the appearance of a blank talk page? I'm not sure why this is such a worry. Old discussions should only be kept around if there is some long-term purpose, so the wheel does not have to be reinvented. None of these discussions have that. Why can't we go ahead and archive? We don't have to embark on a mission to archive every single talk page, but if people willing to do some archiving, let them. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a bot that'll archive the stuff automatically. I assume the issue is that if the bot was set to archive discussions of a certain age, then that may have been the "agreed-upon" age, whenever that would have been decided, and he's seeking to stick to that. Not really bothered either way on whether it's archived on or, personally, but I'd be tempted to leave it until it's bot-done. GRAPPLE X 21:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I thought we usually employ a bot when we have a high level of active discussion (in the long term) to keep the talk page reasonably focused on the newer ones. This is not a topic drawing new kinds of discussions every so often. As I indicated, it misleads editors into commenting on discussions when the other parties have moved on long ago. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
When I put the bot in place a couple years ago, there were a ton of old discussions on here that I didn't want to sort through manually, and it was at a time when the article was being actively worked on and pushed to GA, so there was a decent amount of activity taking place. The bot is set to always leave the most recent 5 threads. The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 70 KB or has more than 10 main topics. This has neither. Archiving the entire contents, even when the discussions are a bit old, creates the impression that the talk page is unused or inactive, therefore editors will be less likely to use it to communicate suggestions or ask questions. Leaving a few old topics does no harm and, as evidenced by the IP edits above, allows newer editors to chime in and possibly offer new insight without having to dig an old discussion out of the archive. I'm a big supporter of clean, logical archiving, but I don't see any harm in leaving old discussions in place if new discussions aren't popping up. Eventually, if things get active here again, the bot'll take care of the old stuff. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aliens_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1136509315"