Talk:Aliens (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Aliens (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Alien (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alien, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Alien and Predator science fiction franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Film (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is on the project's core list.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
 
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
WikiProject Horror (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Filming section[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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)