Jump to content

Talk:Aliens (film)/Archive 2

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

Filming section

Was the DP, not just a cameraman that did not do as Jim Cameron did't asked and the whole section could do with a re-write with the mention of Cameron's quest for perfection and his inability to transmit this to the British crew who were recognised as highly-skilled but with a different mindset and working hours to that of American crews.The Footy Show (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Source? --IllaZilla (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Just watched the entire Blu-ray extras on the film and that message is rammed home by both American and British members of the production. On the DP it is confirmed at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090605/trivia that Dick Bush was sacked and replaced with Adrian Biddle.The Footy Show (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Section order

It's conventional to have the cast section after the plot section - that's the way it's done in most film articles, and I've seen several thousand. If there is some special rationale for a different section order here, perhaps that only suggests the article needs to be rewritten? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe there's a set order, or even one which is generally seen as "proper". It's up to each article as an individual animal to find a layout which is right for it. GRAPPLE X 02:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
That's as may be, but if it's plot first then cast in the large majority of articles, and it is, one can assume that it's done that way with good reason. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Bear in mind, though, that in a lot of articles, plot and cast are discussed in very stand-alone fashions, whereas there is a continuing prose style here that makes sense chronologically. Again, it's its own beast. GRAPPLE X 02:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I still think it would be better to have the conventional arrangement here; there's a large chunk of text in the casting section that doesn't have to be there. It could be transferred elsewhere, into filming, say, or a proper production section. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The plot generally comes first because it gives the reader context for the rest of the information. Once they know the basic details of the plot, they then have context for discussions of the origins, inspirations, creation, impact, and analysis of the film (in the same way that one would generally view a painting before reading about its creation). The casting, however, is part of the process of creating the film and thus should be discussed chronologically with the rest of the process. Generally a film starts with an idea, gets written into a story/screenplay, is greenlit, gets designed and cast, is filmed, & is then released. This is the logical order of events when discussing the creation of the film and how it came together. Putting the casting section immediately after the plot, before the origins and inspirations, is completely illogical: it makes it seem as though the cast was selected before anyone even came up with the idea for the film (especially in a case like this, where the Casting section is not merely a list of names but contains actual prose about the cast selection and actors' preparation for filming). It only makes sense to discuss all aspects of the film's creation—including the casting process—in the order in which they happened. This is the same way that Alien (film) (also a GA) and Alien vs. Predator (film) (FA) do it. What "large chunk of text" is there in the Casting section that doesn't need to be there? The actual background information about the casting process and selection? It sounds like you want to reduce the section to a mere bulleted list of names and roles, which would completely erode the value of the section. As it is now the section describes the qualities the production team was looking for, the actors they selected for each role, and the preparations the actors went through before filming, all fitting very nicely (and chronologically) into the overall story of the film's creation. To suggest shuffling this content around, or cutting out the background info, in favor of "the conventional arrangement", is utter nonsense, especially since there is no "conventional arrangement" (each article uses whatever format best suits its topic). --IllaZilla (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
You must be kidding. If there's a reason for putting the plot first, wouldn't it be rather that the plot is what most people are most interested in? Just as most people would rather see a painting than read commentary on the painting? The chunk of text in the casting section that doesn't need to be there is the stuff starting, "Cameron opted to hire actors who had, or could imitate, American accents." That could be shifted elsewhere, and the section retitled simply cast, which could then be shifted after the plot section, as standard for film articles. That obviously has no implications whatever for whether "the cast was selected before anyone even came up with the idea for the film"; it's simply the standard way film articles are arranged. It's meaningless to say there is no conventional arrangement; having seen thousands of film articles (much more even than I've edited), I can assure you there is. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Shifting the contextual prose elsewhere and retitling the section simply "cast" is a terrible idea. We have a well-written section that falls in the appropriate chronological point and explains not only who the cast were, but why and how they were chosen and how they prepared for the roles. It seems what you'd like to do is reduce it to just a bullet-pointed list of names, because that's the way you like film articles to look. Of course, that would be a terrible disservice to a well-written article. Once again, there is no conventional arrangement. MOS:FILM#Cast explicitly says "Background information about the cast and crew should be provided, ideally as well-written prose" and "The key is to provide significant behind-the-scenes production information", giving the example of Halloween (1978 film) which "uses well-written prose to describe the casting and staffing decisions made, as well as discussing the reasons behind some of the cast decisions, the thoughts of the actors themselves about their roles, and some brief explorations of their careers before and after the film". It suggests only using a simple bulleted list as a last resort: "Failing that, a cast list inserted into the body of the article may be appropriate, though some editors frown on lists inside articles." The idea is to provide valuable information about the casting process, not simply to list the actors and their roles. I simply cannot understand why you would want to strip such information from a well-written section about the film's casting process. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It's AN American Film

Producer Brandywine Productions IS AMERICAN And It's Worldwide Distributor 20 Century Fox Are Also American So It's An American Movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saccyind (talk • contribs) 02:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong as usual, Saccy. It's an American/British co-production. Also as usual: stop yelling. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Box-office

This article uses box-office mojo as a source for the box-office. I'll ask you to look at the contradicting numbers in other websites. While all sites agree for the domestic box-office, around 85 million, I've found two reliable websites where the foreign box office is DOUBLE that of box office mojo (45 million against around 95 million). Please check out the website Numbers and French site jpboxoffice. Could box-office mojo be wrong by about 50 million dollars in foreign revenue?--Munin75 (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Photo of Michael Biehn

Hi. I recently took a photo of Michael Biehn signing a copy of the film's DVD cover, and after adding it to the article, it was subsequently removed by User:IllaZilla on the grounds that the photo is not relevant to the Interpretation and analysis section, in which I placed it. I'm not certain that photos always have to bear a direct relevance to the section in which they're placed (though that is preferable, I think, when possible), but the reason I placed it there is because I figured that the photo had some relevance to the article material on the home video versions of the film, which is discussed in the Special Edition section, which is just above the Interpretation and analysis section. I thought it might look okay on the left side of that section, but ultimately decided not to place it there because the caption of the Sigourney Weaver photo in the Accolades section just above that one dips below into the SE section, and I wasn't sure if that would look good, or possibly violate WP:STACKING. I'll re-added it to the article, now in the Special Edition section, and added a clear tag to the bottom of the Accolades section to make the two sections more distinctly separate. However, if a consensus here decides that it's best to leave it out entirely, then we'll just do that. Let me know what you guys think. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: I've moved the Sigourney Weaver pic up slightly in the Edit field so that in the saved version, its caption doesn't dip down into the next section. Again, discuss. Nightscream (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks better now. I didn't like it in the "interpretation and analysis section", which it has nothing to do with, or the way it shoved the "References" and "Notes" headers over to the right on my screen (this will of course vary based on screen size & settings, but it didn't look good on mine). It looks better within the relevant section and with the Weaver pic moved up. I added the "upright" parameter to the thumbnail to avoid it showing up so wide. For vertically-oriented thumbnails, use "upright" so they appear the same size as horizontally-oriented ones. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Gateway Station (Aliens)

Is the station notable enough for a stand alone article?Antiqueight discuss 01:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Nope, not even slightly. We know almost nothing about it. Canterbury Tail talk 02:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete article

There are several video games (technically also Alien Trilogy) and MANY other toys: http://www.jamescamerononline.com/AliensMerch.htm --LKAvn (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

And speaking of the games, I just created the following stub articles: Aliens: The Computer Game (Software Studios), Aliens: The Computer Game (Activision), Aliens: Alien 2, Aliens (video game). --LKAvn (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Also Aliens Online coming through. --LKAvn (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aliens (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

New Sequel

The events of both Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection will be ignored by the upcoming sequel to Aliens, which will be directed by Neill Blomkamp.[1] AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Note - Variety: New ‘Alien’ Won’t Undo ‘Alien 3′ or ‘Resurrection,’ Director Neill Blomkamp Says - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Further Note - Yes, it will, as of SDCC 2016. [1] But unfortunately, Fox put a hold on Alien 5 in favor of Covenant, which comes out in 2017. DeeJaye6 (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aliens (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

critique of film on logic/science basis . . .

While forums and a couple of off-comments in fan articles have mentioned some of the problems with the story (the aliens bending and breaking thru inch-thick steel, a power plant exploding like a thermonuclear weapon, etc.), has a Reliable Source been written yet on these issues? That would make a good addition to the article - without challenging the artistic license for making an entertaining story. 50.111.2.50 (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMHIST, " If ample coverage from secondary sources exists about a film's historical or scientific accuracy, editors can pursue a sub-topic sharing such coverage in a section titled "Historical accuracy" or "Scientific accuracy" ("accuracy" being applied as neutral terminology).". In other words, if you can find sources outside fan articles and message boards, be my guest. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aliens (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aliens (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

"Killed" or "killed or captured"?

Was Hudson killed, or was he killed and captured? (Or, of course, "captured and [then] killed) This is an interesting discussion, but not one so important that it needs to be edit-warred over. I incline to leaving it open, as compared to some characters (who very obviously are killedon screen), making the assumption that they are killed just because an alien is (presumably) about to capture them (e.g., Hudson, Burke) is frankly verging on original research. After all, although we assume that that will eventualy be their fate, we cannot draw any conclusions not told to us in the film (see WP:PTS). They are captured, it is fair to say, but what happens after that is left to the imagination. And it is certainly not our job to instruct our readers' imaginations. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 14:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Uh, how is explicitly stating that Burke and Hudson's deaths are considered "original research?" I mentioned in a previous edit summary in regards to Burke was that a Xenomorph used its teeth to attack him, which BTW is considered lethal in all Alien-related media (both film and video game. No way around that). It's as stupid as saying "Someone shot in the brain-stem with a military-grade explosive bullet may be alive" if the person's entire skull is blown off. Burke's capture is not in the final product of the film and only depicted in an unused deleted scene. Whatever is considered on the cutting room floor is usually not considered canon unless stated otherwise by the filmmaker. Hudson on the other hand was at least surrounded by multiple Xenomorphs from underground, and already got off-screen wounds when emptying his Pulse Rifle before being grabbed. Pretty sure his disappearance after this little grab meant left for dead at this point. BTW, it is not even our job to keep plot summaries ambiguous for the sake of being ambiguous.Dibol (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia. We need verifiability. If we do not see someone die on screen then we cannot say they're dead. If the aliens always killed people they attacked then you could maybe make the justification. However they do not kill everyone. We know they captured the colonists, Newt, Apone and Dietrich. As a result we cannot extrapolate and explicitly say that Hudson and Burke are dead as we don't see it. If we don't see it we can't say it, this is a core tenant of Wikipedia's WP:Verifiabilty policies. For you to state that they are dead is complete original research and guesswork on your behalf. Sure it may be implied, but even that implication is an interpretation by the viewer and therefore not admissible. Canterbury Tail talk 15:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Apone and Dietrich had the benefit of the doubt for them being captured because their fates are brought up by spoken dialogue. Burke and Hudson however do not have that same benefit, so how the hell does that constitute as "guesswork" here? "If we don't see it, we can't say it?" Seriously? That's a defense for "keep it ambiguous?" What's next? Spunkmeyer is not dead because we didn't see him get killed on-screen? The wiki policies here seem to be formed around mental gymnastics here. Dibol (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Dibol: Isee you've now reverted the same piece of information five times; you know where that road leads. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 15:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Dibol, Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Analysis and interpretation, "Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work. For example, we cannot state anything about whether the top remains spinning or topples at the end of Inception. Even small details that might be clear on a word-by-word or frame-by-frame analysis – steps well beyond the normal act of reading or watching a work – should be considered original research and excluded from such articles. If a vague plot element is later clarified by the work's creator, this can be included in the summary as long as a citation to this clarification is provided. Independent secondary sources that make analysis or interpretation of a work but without any correlation with the creator should be discussed in a separate section outside of the plot summary and not confused with the presented plot summary." In short, we can't say what happened to characters that is not shown in the film. I admire your dedication to the film and don't even really disagree with you that this happened, but we don't write these kind of material here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

British-American co-production not ‘American’.

Guys, what’s going on with cutting the British contribution to the movie out? Aliens was filmed at the UK Fox Studios, subsequently, the U.K. deserves a production credit.Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

And don’t forget the crew were almost entirely British....am I missing something here? Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Films gain their nationality from the nationality of the production company that actually makes it. Who works on it, where it is filmed, the nationality of the actors etc are not a factor. It’s the company that actually makes it. Empire Strikes Back isn’t Norwegian. Dr No isn’t Jamaican. Kick Ass isn’t Toronto etc. Plus what reliable sources state it is, such as BBFC etc. Canterbury Tail talk 13:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Technically, what makes a film British is a source that calls it British. Until then, it isn't British. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Feminist film

I noticed that the article has the category Category:1980s feminist films. Now I don't doubt this, however this appears to fail WP:CATDEFINE and general categorization guidelines. It's not being discussed, there are no references to support this, no mention in the article and (possibly slightly less true) this isn't the main thing that secondary sources use to describe the movie. Now I'm not removing the category, but for it to remain we need to bring this up in the actual article in order to support it being there. Canterbury Tail talk 13:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Does Lance Hendriksen play Bishop in Alien 3?

Dear User:Canterbury Tail, my edit was correct, pls read the source.

Regards, Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Not according to the movie credits, and I don't know if you've seen the movie, but Lance Henriksen does indeed play Bishop which your source even corroborates. I don't know if you've seen the movie but Bishop the android is in it, both at the start of the movie and about a third of the way in when Ripley re-activates him. Also credited as Bishop II officially, not as Weyland. Canterbury Tail talk 14:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear User:Canterbury Tail, you are right. When Hendriksen appears at the end of film, either he is Bishop II oder Weyland, he isn't Bishop (I). When Ripley reactivates him, the character despiction is based on an animatronic puppet not Hendrisksen playing him, but Hendriskesn provides the voice for the puppet, so it is a voice only role.

Regards, Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I loved the movie.

--Stephenfisher2001 (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Hey, I just want to say is, I've seen the movie back in January 2020, and My favorite part in the movie is "Game Over Man! Game Over!", and I've watched the Special Edition, within 154 minutes long, instead of the original cut! Newt is my favorite character of all time, she's so cute. :)

Canterburry, Like is said, I saw the 154-minute version, and I loved the extended version, the one you undo it, I'm not mad, I'm just being nice. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenfisher2001 ([[User talk:Stephenfisher2001#top|talk]contribs) 01:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Explanation of March 6, 2020 Edits

Nothing in the movie states that Bishop is an "executive officer", or that Hicks is "Apone's second in command", or that Hudson is a technician or technical anything. The movie also includes no reference to "smart" guns, and does not name the type of weapon that Vasquez and Drake use. I am removing these extremely questionable claims and replacing them with each character's primary contribution to the plot or what they are most remembered for. Also, Bishop is explicitly identified as a Lieutenant in the mess hall scene ("looks like the new lieutenant's too good to eat with the rest of us grunts").

See, I always interpreted that line as referring to Lieutenant Gorman. Do you have a source for your edits? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 01:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Read WP:BRD and List of characters introduced in Aliens (1986). Your wording needs improvement, in addition to sources. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 09:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I checked everything from Xenopedia to the packaging on the action figures and I'm going to have to retract my claim about Bishop being a lieutenant; it does make more sense that the "new lieutenant" would be Gorman, since the Marines already have some familiarity with Bishop ("do the thing with the knife") and Hicks shouldn't be surprised that androids don't eat. I stand by the rest of my changes, as they replace unverifiable claims with verifiable ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.13.107 (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Read the replies you received above, if you continue to revert to your edits, you will be blocked (also, Xenopedia is not a reliable source). −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 10:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I know Xenopedia isn't a reliable source. That's why I don't cite them for anything. Speaking of which, there are also no reliable sources for the information that I removed, which is why I removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.13.107 (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
See this source, written by Caroline Joan S. Picart, which has some descriptions of the characters and critical commentary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Not in the parts that are viewable by the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.13.107 (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that the smart guns are identified and clarified somewhat in the novelisation. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately the novelization is not the film, and thus anything in there cannot be directly applied to what we see and hear on screen. There are multiple differences between the film and the novelization. Such as Newt is only 6 in the novel, Aliens have stingers in their tails and take down multiple marines, and many others. Therefore the novelization cannot be taken as representative of what is on the screen which is this article. Canterbury Tail talk 11:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

"Special Edition" and Jay Benedict

Shouldn't there be something about the "Special Edition" version mentioned in Jay Benedict? --Mortense (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

can we add horror to aliens

basically, i want to add horror to the genres of aliens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thephantomseeker (talk • contribs) 13:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source stating that Aliens is considered a horror film? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Special Edition (aka Director's Cut) should be mentioned in the infobox in this case

I made an edit the the infobox to include the runtime of the Director's Cut (154 minutes), and it was immediately reverted by a user using an IP address, hopefully not a bot.

The description read: Only the theatrical run time is included in the infobox

Common guidelines are actually not strictly theatrical releases.

Note the wikipedia guidelines in Template:Infobox film:

"The runtime for the film should be for the primary release; this will usually be the format the film premiered on, so for films that have had a theatrical release insert the runtime of the original theatrical version. Runtimes can vary due to regional censorship, alternative cuts (such as a director's cut or an unrated version) and different technical specifications across release formats, but do not include any additional runtimes without consensus."

While typically the theatrical release is considered the original, in the case of Aliens, the "Special Edition" is actually the original, or very close to it.

Refer to the following sources:

https://thisorthatedition.com/aliens-1986/#:~:text=Both%20the%20theatrical%20and%20the,2003%20Alien%20Quadrilogy%20DVD%20set%3A&text=What%20you're%20about%20to,the%20special%20edition%20of%20Aliens.

https://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=2558663

"The original version, however, was too long for the producing studio so it demanded several cuts to tighten the plot. Especially the American audience was not trusted to have the ability to sit through a movie of 148 minutes. So Cameron went to the cutting room, again, and lost more than 15 minutes of footage."

I would prefer to find better secondary sources, but I think these may suffice. If you feel otherwise, let me know.

If I don't generate a discussion, I'm going to revert the reversion of my edit.


--NittyG (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The link you gave states 137 minutes for the original 1986 release, which is what should, according to your quote from WP's guidelines, be in the infobox. So the current referenced time currently there is correct. Any extra details about various formats, versions, censoring, additions, should be in the main article. Bazza (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The Special Edition was cut together later, it wasn't the original full cut. Anyway it's irrelevant, it wasn't the original release which was the theatrical release. While I agree personally the Special Edition is far superior to the theatrical cut, the theatrical cut is still the original release and what the article is about and therefore the theatrical release version is what should be in the infobox. Canterbury Tail talk 13:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Aliens "considered to be among the greatest films of all time"

This article contains numerous nonsense claims about Aliens being "considered" to be among the greatest films of all time, etc. The fact that some film magazine or other has included the film in some or other list hardly means that it is "considered" such at all: magazines frequently concoct such lists because they are a good way of attracting attention and sales. None of the major surveys of critical opinion such as the Sight & Sound survey ever list Aliens as among the greatest films of all time. It is simply nonsense. Only a certain kind of fan of Hollywood cinema could ever be so blind to the consensus of critical opinion to imagine that this is believed to be among the greatest films of all time.

Nevertheless, my attempts to adjust the wording and remove the most egregious of these claims have been "undone", in Wikipedia-speak. The argument given to justify this reversion was that "considered" does not mean that "everyone" has to believe it, since in that case Gone With the Wind would not be able to be said to be considered among the greatest films of all time. Well, aside from the fact that it is highly dubious to suggest that Gone With the Wind is considered among the greatest films of all time (no doubt somebody thinks so, but, again, it is very far from being a generally-held critical opinion), aside from that, this argument fails to acknowledge that the term "considered", without any further qualification, implies precisely that it is a generally-held critical opinion: it has nothing to do with everybody believing something to be so, but does have to do with a general feeling, for which a magazine article or two hardly count as sufficient evidence.

If this article is to be considered encyclopaedic, and not just a product of the work of fans of one kind or another, such nonsense needs to be toned down (and preferably removed altogether).

Finally, the editor who reverted my edits claimed, on the basis of the speed of my edits, that I must be a registered editor who is using another account in order to follow what happens with this article. That is a false assertion, made without evidence, and itself counts as evidence that the user sees and asserts what they want to see and assert. Will this cause the editor to reflect on their judgment about what to say about other users, and what counts as encyclopaedic content? We will see. 175.33.4.8 (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of asserting based on what they see, you're complaining about the "greatest films of all time" aspect. The bit I changed did not relate to that, it related onto to the 1980s, science fiction, and action aspects. Which is true and evidenced heavily in the article. I left your change that "it has been claimed that it is among the greatest films of all time". That isn't mentioned in the lede. Try reading before you try reverting or writing a huge chunk of text to claim I'm doing something I'm not because you didn't take the time to read. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I absolutely do not believe that this film is "considered" to be one of the greatest films of the 1980s. It is the insistence on this kind of nonsense, and the use of all kinds of rules and regulations to justify this kind of nonsense, that drives people away from contributing to this encyclopaedia and allows those who care enough about their agenda to dominate. If other editors would like to reflect on exactly what claims should be made in this encyclopaedia about the reputation of this film, then that's great. But I won't be holding my breath. By all means carry on with your highly worthy campaign, you dark warrior you. 175.33.4.8 (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Why should your belief override sources? What does that have to do with policy or guidelines or enforcing an agenda? I can't go over to The Dark Knight and add "It's the greatest film of all time" and if anyone challenges me on it say, "well I believe it is the greatest film, is this an encyclopedia or what?" I kept your edit about the greatest film of all time, the rest are thoroughly sourced. It is impossible to claim that a film as influential as Aliens and that has appeared on lists of the greatest films of the 1980s, is not possibly a great film of a brief decade. Especially because you simply don't agree with the sources unless it is Sight and Sound. The BFI listed it as one of the greatest action films of all time, but you removed that claim too. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure, have it your way. It makes Wikipedia look foolish and unencyclopedic, but if no one else cares, why should I? 175.33.81.147 (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
If you weren't being completely unreasonable and uncompromising I might care. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Southern Comfort

Is there a reason the film Southern Comfort isn't name-checked. The script is written by the same team & is clearly a basis for Aliens.--Dave F63 (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that connect the two together and state that Southern Comfort was the basis for Aliens? Canterbury Tail talk 12:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I researched the article and that film was never mentioned, so it's a weak claim at best. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a very passing mention of it in The Making of Aliens. This is literally the entire mention.

Giler continued "One of them stopped me in the parking lot and asked me what I wanted to do for a sequel. So I told him of a story that was a cross between Southern Comfort, which Walter and I had made since, and The Magnificent Seven. He said 'Great, that sounds fine.' We all had a meeting and we were on." Both Southern Comfort (1981) and The Magnificent Seven (1960) concerned small groups of trained soldiers or mercenaries facing off against lethal threats."

Doesn't suggest that Southern Comfort was the main source or basis, just that there was a similarity to it. Not mentioned again. Canterbury Tail talk 13:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Analysis? Seriously?

Please please please can we get rid of the analysis section? Just having references doesn't make it encyclopedic. I am soliciting support for deleting the whole analysis section. Taquito1 (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

These sections are necessary for an article to become a Featured article which is the ultimate goal of this article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
No, these kind of sections are an important section for any influential movie on Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 12:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Which country was Aliens made in?

I believe that Aliens is an American film not an American and British film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimand299 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The BFI disagrees with you. To qualify as a British film, it must use a British crew, be filmed in Britain, using British sets and equipment. There is a set of guidelines that is used to define a film as such for tax purposes. This is the same reason that Dredd is classed as a British/South African film because it's a British crew filming in South Africa with a big chunk of South African crew. You are focused on your belief being law, and it is not. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Per the BFI source it's United States and United Kingdom; per the AFI source it's UK-only. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
What are you talking about, per the AFI source it's the US only Kimand299 10:11, 15 January 2021 (ETC)
Ah, I see what you mean. So the American Film Institute claims sole location credit, and the British Film Institute claims joint credit per the guidelines that Darkwarriorblake linked to. Neither source invalidates the other. Thus both are in the infobox, and there they should remain (it won't get any less filmed in Britain). NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Fine but it should be at least disputed Kimand299 (User talk:Kimand299) 10:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Why? The only person disputing it is you, and begging your pardon, but a random Wikipedian is not exactly the most unimpeachable of sources. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
It isn't disputed. Disputed is that there are organisations and notable people arguing over it. This is just you, and I imagine it is for some jingoistic reason as I can't imagine why else someone would care so much. I have linked you to the UK cultural definition of a British film. The country section is not who owns the film, it is the countries of production. It is British/American. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
And the BFI is considered a reliable source. Canterbury Tail talk 00:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say there is broad disagreement with the BFI here as it is the only source to suggest that the film is a US-UK co-production. All other international sources I have checked identify the film as a US-only production: American Film Institute, European Audiovisual Observatory (LUMIERE Database), Danish Film Institute, Swedish Film Database, etc. Wikipedia's Template:Infobox_film has guidelines specifically for this scenario: 'If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then list only the common published nations'. In this case the US is the only common published nation across multiple reliable sources. 1879popsound (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The Lumiere databses categorises it as US only. However, the BFI is a reputable source and it cannot just be dismissed. You don't always get perfect alignment between sources when it comes to countries of origin so it is important to compare sources. The BFI also applies a "cultural test" for British content/contributions that perhaps other sources don't always recognise, so in this case I think it is important to find corroboration for the British nationality. If there are other reputable sources that recognize its "Britishness" then "UK" should remain in the infobox, but if the BFI is an outlier in this particular case then it should be removed. Betty Logan (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree. This aligns with Wikipedia's Template:Infobox_film guidelines on conflict of information in sources regarding a film's country. 1879popsound (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
You know something, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that in this instance the BFI is just plain wrong. General industry classification for a film's country of origin is based on the nationality of the production companies that make it. Not the director, not the cast, not the filming location, not the distributors, but the nationality of the companies that actually make it. None of the production companies involved in Aliens are British, they're all American. And while the BFI is generally accepted as a reliable source, even reliable sources can make mistakes. It's pretty apparent that the BFI is the only reliable source that considers Aliens British as well as American. I think in this instance we have to put our hands up in the air and say, you know what I think this is wrong, Aliens is purely an American film. Canterbury Tail talk 11:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Aliens was made at Pinewood Studios and the music, by the London Symphony Orchestra, was recorded at Abbey Road Studios. The film was processed by Rank Laboratories and the cameras and lenses were provided by Cinefocus, London. it's in the credits at the end of the film. BTW, many of the interior scenes were shot in the derelict Acton Lane Power Station.
yet none of those examples of of the production companies that made the film. Film nationality is usually only denoted by the nationality of the production companies. Otherwise Empire Strikes Back could be Norwegian, Star Wars could be Tunisian, Sicario could be Mexican etc. Canterbury Tail talk 02:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Films influenced by Aliens

Given that we are supposed to take it as read that copying Aliens has become a cliché (apparently this is in the Telegraph source but I can't access it, so I'm taking Dark Warrior's word for that), it would be quite good for the article to include some notable examples of films that have copied Aliens in the Cultural impact section. I added a reference to Army of the Dead but apparently a Netflix film is non-notable. Which are the notable films that have copied Aliens? Rodericksilly (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Carrie Henn

The comment about Carrie Henn having no other acting credits is no longer accurate. That needs to be updated. 89.105.221.207 (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source showing other films she acted in? A quick search is only showing me an 'as herself' in a documentary about 80's scifi. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Best I can find is that she did a couple of lines voice role in a completely non-notable YouTube only animated series that only has a few hundred views called Thunder Island. Seems zero sources exist for this show exist outside it's own YouTube existence and a slim IMDb entry that was probably submitted by the person who made it. Not sure if the voice acting credit would even count under the US's various actor/screenplay regulations. So nothing resembling a reliable source. Canterbury Tail talk 15:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced sentence

Great work on the FA! BTW, the first paragraph of section Music ends with the sentence Two scenes with James Remar as Hicks (shown from the back) were used in the film. This seems to be misplaced. – Reidgreg (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Timing?

The article's intro currently claims, "Cameron was hired to write a story for Aliens in 1983 on the strength of his scripts for The Terminator (1984) and Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985)". How was he hired in 1983 on the basis of scripts for movies a year and two years later? If the scripts were written years earlier, the article should give those dates, not the release dates. Minturn (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Well it should be referenced yes, but movie scripts are generally written and circulated many years before they turn into movies (2001 being a notable exception.) Canterbury Tail talk 17:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Storm in a Tea Cup?

To be clear, why is an article about the plot of the film sidetracking itself by highlighting the alien attitude of the US production teams towards British crews, trade unions rights and tea breaks?

The article is not about the plot of the film. The article is about the film. That includes the conception, production, post-production, marketing and everything else around it. Canterbury Tail talk 21:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ Rosen, Christopher (February 26, 2015). "Neill Blomkamp's 'Alien' Sequel Will Probably Forget About Two 'Alien' Movies". The Huffington Post. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aliens_(film)/Archive_2&oldid=1215676931"