Talk:Alien (film)

Ronald Shusett's executive producer credit on Alien

I see Polisher of Cobwebs again deleted co-story writer Ronald Shusett's executive producer credit, saying he agreed with IllaZilla that it "doesn't jibe w/ credits as listed in the print sources". Admittedly I'm new to editing on Wikipedia (having feared it would become a black hole sucking up all my time, though I've been contributing to the IMDb for years), so I would like someone to explain how unverifiable, unspecified "print sources" outweigh the film's opening credits and official poster. (There's even "A Brandywine-Ronald Shusett production" credit that appears right after the Fox logo.) In at least one interview I read some time ago, Shusett said part of his deal with Fox was that he get that exec producer credit and be on the set as the film was shot. That doesn't mean he had creative control, but he did get the credit. (You can see it on the poster on the top of the page...!) Why are you guys disputing that? Gothicfilm (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I do believe it is verifiable that Shussett was the executive producer of the film. That should probably be mentioned & cited in the article body. My objection at present is that I believe the "producer" field in the infobox is meant just for producers, not executive producers. If the infobox were intended to list executive producers, it would have a field for "executive producer". I especially do not like the parenthetical "(executive)". I've started a discussion about this at Template talk:Infobox film#Executive producer. Please feel free to comment there and let's hold off on changing this article until that's settled. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The only place Shusett's name appears in the credits in any kind of "producer" capacity is in the title "A Brandywine-Ronald Shusett Production". He is not listed as "executive producer" at all. Ivor Powell, however, is listed as "Associate Producer", so the IMDb entry listing Shusett as "executive producer" is unsubstantiated by the film credits. But the relevant fact here is that only Hill, Giler, and Carroll are listed as "producers". IllaZilla is right that the infobox template only has a provision for "producer(s)", NOT "executive", "associate", or any other kind of producer. Therefore, neither Shusett nor Powell should be considered "producers" as far as WP is concerned.Shirtwaist (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Shusett certainly does have exec prod credit - it's right there between the composer and the screenplay credits. Strange you saw Powell's name, which is only on the end credits crawl, but didn't see Shusett's single-card EXP in the opening. And as I said, it's on the official poster for all to see... There should be an Executive Producer addition to the WP template, as the title has become so common in the industry. You almost never see a film released anymore without it. Until then, the parenthetical "(executive)" seems to be the best way to handle it. You can't not list these people. Gordon Carroll, David Giler and Walter Hill, who produced Alien, were exec producers on Aliens. Why haven't you deleted them? Only Gale Anne Hurd actually had the "produced by" title on that film. George Lucas never takes "produced by." He's been exec producer on every film he's done since More American Graffiti. Are you going to delete him from the producer column for The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi? He'd have no credit then other than writer. Gothicfilm (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Doesn't change anything though - what exactly does "executive producer" mean in his case? Did he substantially contribute to the production of the film as H-G-C did? He already has story credit, what else did he do? I believe the "Producer" box was intended to tell the reader who the people most responsible for the actual production of the film were, not some guy who simply brokered a deal to get the ExP credit and did nothing else. Why would the reader care about that guy? The reason ExP credits have become so common isn't because more people are actually filling the role of producer, it's mostly people who either want a bigger cut of the profits, or just want to see their names in the credits and have the clout to do it.

Anyway, the consensus on the "ExP" talk page seems to be going against allowing it in. Shirtwaist (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

the term "alien"

shouldn't it be noted that this film is solely responsible for the modern-day use of Alien as an extraterrestrial being? --78.22.52.172 (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. There's documented use of the term in that context from before the film's release, including The Alien from the 1960s. It has almost certainly popularised the term, but it hardly coined this application of it. GRAPPLE X 23:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

number of images

there are 11 images in total in the article: 4 images public domain, 7 non-free; one of the major reasons this didn't pass for FA almot 3 yers ago is because of the number of images used in the article; why hasn't anything been done about the number of images? the public domain images should stay, but the non-free images should be cut down to at least 4, so 3 non-free images should be removed; I could do this myself, just by deleting 3 images that are unecessary, according to the FAC comments; should I?-SCB '92 (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd probably go for the three images of the facehugger, chestburster and fully-grown alien if I was taking anyything out. The other non-free images contribute to the critical assessment of the production and design and are uncommon images to see, whilst any google search would turn up hundreds of visual examples of the creatures themselves - creatures which are so etched in popular culture nowadays that they're entirely familiar to most audiences anyway. GRAPPLE X 23:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

All the images have proper fair use rationales and directly support aspects of the production and design described in the text, in ways that words alone cannot convey. The only one I could really see removing is the one of Scott filming the model, as you really can't see the model well in that shot anyway. It makes no difference what one might be able to find off-Wiki; this is not a criteria of WP:NFCC, in fact one of the criteria is that non-free items must have been displayed off-Wiki before being used on WP. The fact that these creatures are "etched in popular culture" is all the more reason to keep images of them, as they are highly notable and there is no free equivalent that can be used to fully convey the same information (their appearance and design aspects). The whole point of all of this description, as well as the images, is that these are highly notable creations and thus a detailed description with supporting visuals is warranted in order to provide thorough and detailed coverage of the topic for readers. The appropriateness of non-free content must be assessed not by a mere count, but by weighing it against the depth and breadth of coverage and the degree to which each item of NFC increases readers' understanding and meets the criteria of NFCC. This article is roughly 100K and has 7 items of NFC, all of which were judged in the FA review to individually meet NFCC. Punk rock, a featured article of similar size, has 18 items of non-free content which have all been similarly judged to meet NFCC. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

so, there are differing opinions about this situation; the appropriateness of non-free content still didn't stop the article from failing the nomination of FA; I guess I could remove the image of Scott filming the model; IllaZilla, you're the one who nominated the article for FA almost years ago, haven't you done more work on the article in the past 3 years to try and make this a FA, or at least A-Class? SandyGeorgia quoted: "very fine start. Please sort the image, sourcing, prose and comprehensive issues prior to re-nomination. Also, sandwiching of text between images." I myself think that too many images are placed on the right, and should be placed rght-left-right-left thoughout-SCB '92 (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Images: The appropriateness/number of images wasn't the deciding factor in the FA review. From the review: "I am uncomfotable with the quantity of images, but having said that, those that are used are well integrated in the text, are used to illustrate points that could not be easily described with text alone, the usage seems consistant with WP:NFCC, and by extension featured article criteria three."

Sourcing: I believe the sources discussed in the FA review have either been fixed or are reliable.

Prose: I inquired in several places about getting a copyeditor to review the article for the FA "brilliant prose" requirement, but got no responses. I feel I'm too close to the text (having written nearly all of it) to do this myself, though I could try giving it a once-over since it's been a couple of years since I wrote it.

Comprehensiveness: Some sources were suggested in the FA review that would contribute to adding more about feminist interpretations of the film. Unfortunately I no longer have access to a university library so it would probably be a challenge for me to find those sources.

Sandwiching: There is no longer any text sandwiched between images, though there are 2 places where text is sandwiched between an image and a quote box.

Right-aligned images: One of the FA reviewers mentioned that there are not supposed to be left-aligned images under third-level headings, citing WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS#Images. The article has a lot of third-level headings, so the images are right-aligned in order to avoid displacing the section headers.

--IllaZilla (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Nationality of Alien

I just noticed "British" was removed from the lead sentnece, but "American" was not put in its place. Isn't Alien generally considered an "American" film? That's what the "Country" field in the infobox says - US - so I assume "American" was at one time in the lead sentence. Shirtwaist ☎ 11:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Alien has something of a mixed origin: It was written by Americans, produced by an American production company, and stars mostly Americans, but it was directed by a Brit and filmed in England with a mostly British crew. The nationality is not really intrinsic to the film, and it's certainly not as important as defining the genre and key players, so in my opinion it's not something that needs to be stated in the lead sentence. There are currently several discussions happening at WT:FILM about how to define the nationality of film; I would prefer to wait and see what consensus arises out of those discussions. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on some stuff recently said in the conversation at the project page I'm wondering if we shouldn't remove the country from the infobox as well until said consensus? Millahnna (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the "Country" field in the infobox is supposed to reflect the nationality listed in the lead, and since there is currently no nationality in the lead, the Country box should probably be removed. Shirtwaist ☎ 20:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The British Film Institute lists Alien as being a US/UK production. Halliwell's Film Guide lists country of origin as UK. Both of these are valid, high quality sources. It's true that the film was financed by Fox, but it was made entirely in the UK (pre-production, photography, effects, editing, music, everything) using a British crew. The Film infobox template does not say that the nationality of the writers or producers is what defines a film's country of origin. At the very least, the lead and infobox should say US/UK as the country. 88.110.247.32 (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The film infobox used to say that the country was supposed to reflect the home country of the production company, but that parameter's description has since been changed. I removed the sources from the infobox as they aren't really needed (and one wasn't properly formatted); there are already plenty of sources cited in the article as to the UK involvement (pre-production, director, filming, etc.). Heck, the film was made in the UK and directed by a Brit. It's pretty common sense. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think to avoid the problem of someone else deleting UK and or US from the article, it would be best to include appropriate sources to show it is a UK/US production and to list it as such in the lead (since there is no doubt as to the nationality of the film). While you and I acknowledge that Alien is a UK/US production, not everybody else will and not everybody is likely to read this discussion page before making edits. I have no objection to the two UK sources being moved into the main body of the article (though a source not being properly formatted is not a reason to remove it entirely).88.110.253.125 (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think they needed to be moved. There are many sources already in the article discussing the American writers/production company/actors/premiere as well as the British directors/studios/crew/production/actors, so both the American-ness & British-ness are already well established and sourced, and the infobox reflects that. The infobox is a summary of key facts from the article, after all. True, we don't expect readers/editors to check the talk page, but we do expect them to read the article, and I think the US/UK co-production aspects are blatantly obvious to anyone giving it even a cursory reading. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. The "nationality" of Alien has been a bone of contention for quite a long time on this article, to the point where "warning notes" have been added to the article for editors not to identify it as a British film (did you place the note there yourself?). As it stands, you have simply removed two highly valid sources from the article that resolved that particular problem. As said earlier, I have no problem with those sources being relocated, but I object to them being removed entirely considering the contentious nature of the film's country of origin. It's not particularly encyclopedic to let readers "assume" the film's country of origin just based on where crew and cast members come from when we could include the BFI source that identifies it as a US/UK production. For one thing it will stop editors from adding British or American to the opening sentence and will clarify that issue once and for all. Of course, there are also some readers who may want just basic information about a film and only read the lead rather than the entire article (which is, admitedly, fairly lengthy). 88.104.22.116 (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: Yes, I put the hidden note there originally. I also wrote ~90% of the article, for what that's worth.I don't remember if I was the one who removed the nationality from the lead, but I certainly agreed with its removal as (A) it's hard to summarize in one term ("American/British" would read awkwardly) and (B) the nationality isn't really intrinsic/a key characteristic of this film. I admit I didn't read the sources you added to the infobox very thoroughly, but I didn't think they were necessary since, as I said above, there's already plenty of description and accompanying sources in the article body explaining the international production. We haven't really had a problem with editors adding British/American to the opening sentence, at least not on a regular basis. My problem with moving the source is: where would we move it? Would we simply add a blurb somewhere saying "Alien was an American/British co-production"? That, to me, would seem to be shoehorned in. IMO anyone who reads as far as the "Direction and design" section, or who clicks on the links in the lead, will understand the US/UK nature of the film. Honestly, I don't think attaching a national origin to this film in the lead and/or infobox is all that important, as it's not really intrinsic to the film (in the way that it is for The Patriot, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, or Slumdog Millionaire). --IllaZilla (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, we can either put it in the intro ("Alien is a 1979 US/UK film...." or "Alien is a 1979 Anglo-American film...." etc, with a source after the countries) but I think it there are awkward wording problems, we can have it as a footnote in the infobox for the time being (footnotes are permitted and there are already a couple there for the run-time and the budget). We could include both of the sources within the footnote, and it would just help to clarify things and would avoid any future edit-warring issues. It is important that the sources are added in some way though since it was a contentious issue. 88.104.26.4 (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It sounds awkward? What kind of argument is that? Can there be no British-American or American-British films? Of course nationality is a key characteristic of the film. It belongs to a genre that originates from Hollywood. It uses Anglosaxon names. I see neither Iranian, nor Russian characters in the movie and the only language used is English. Nationality is a very important part of this film. 80.98.146.68 (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Giger's view of Alien

IllaZilla just removed relevant, sourced information that I added about Giger's view of Alien. OK, I probably added the info in the wrong place, but it wouldn't be very difficult to shift it to somewhere better, would it? Giger's view that Alien is actually crap is obviously relevant and belongs in the article. While it might be helpful to have more material on Giger's view than that one detail, I don't think that we need more "context" simply to soften the blow of Giger's judgment, so that's not a good enough reason for removing what I added. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, his view is indeed relevant, but the information was poorly placed (in the Production section, when it has nothing to do with the film's production). A better place would be the Reception section, as that's where the post-release opinions go (both from third parties and parties involved with the film). However, I was uncomfortable with simply moving the statement because I feel it lacks context: When did Giger say this? Why? What specific complaints did he have about the film? Having watched all of the behind-the-scenes interviews in the Alien Quadrilogy, and having read several books including The Book of Alien and Beautiful Monsters, it seems that Giger didn't have any serious complaint when actually working on the film. Or if he did, they aren't discussed. However, it is well-known that Giger's attitude toward the Alien franchise as a whole soured in later years, as he wasn't involved in the making of Aliens and his creature designs for Alien 3 were rejected. For years after that, he badmouthed the franchise. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the period during which he called Alien a crappy film. Without this context, the statement seems slapped-on and out-of-place, since nowhere else in the article is there any indication that Giger had negative feelings toward the film. Then suddenly, appropos of nothing, there's this sentence that says "Giger hated it", when several of the preceding sections have detailed all the work he put into the film (painting sets by hand, sculpting the Alien suit himself) and none of the text gives any specific criticism by Giger of either the process or the final product. It's also unclear what's meant by "he didn't get a fair mention in the screen credits", as he is credited in the credits. What does he mean by this? What credit was he given and what further credit was he looking for? Without any of this context, the statement is vague and will simply confuse readers. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm not able to provide the necessary context, since this is a print source and I don't have it. Since you apparently have it, it would be great if you would add the context to better incorporate this info into the section, rather than having it come out of left field without any supporting explanation. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The source is HR Giger ARh+, an art book published by Taschen in 1991. I do have it. If it helps, the material I added is from a comment by Giger that reads in full, "I have seen myself how delighted you should be if just one scene turns out the way it was planned. I can understand why a director like Ridley Scott won't let a film out of his sight once he's started on it. I can also understand why, once the film has been released, he racees from one cinema to the next in order to check the quality. I have seen, too, how important it is to have a director who is so versatile that he can step in as top man in any field. Only then can you hope for quality. In future I shall only work with directors I can admire. How much money you make along the way is unimportant, but when you've fanatically dedicated a year of your life to what ends up as a bad film that you will be forced to watch on TV for years to come - that's really depressing. You can't hide a third-rate film, unfortunately. So you can be secretly glad if you don't get a fair mention in the screen credits." Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe that the information I added should be simply removed. However, I can understand your rationale for removing it, so I won't restore if you remove it again. Maybe it would be better to find a different source for Giger's negative view of Alien - I'm open to that suggestion. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh...Are you sure he's talking about Alien when he says "a bad film that you will be forced to watch on TV for years to come" and "a third-rate film"? From the full quote it sounds like he's admiring Scott for being so obsessed with quality control. Does he mention Alien specifically as the "third-rate film" he's upset about? Because he also worked on Poltergeist II: The Other Side (1986) and Tokyo: The Last Megalopolis (1987) and did poster art for Future-Kill (1985), and like I said he submitted designs for Alien 3 (1992) that weren't used, which IIRC was a sour experience for him. Since Alien received so many awards (including an Academy Award for Visual Effects for Giger himself) and has gotten so much praise over the years, it doesn't seem to make sense that he'd be referring to it as a "bad" and "third-rate" film. It strikes me as much more likely that he could be referring to one of the other film experiences with these comments (I mean, it's not like we're here discussing the deep cultural impact and lasting critical praise of Poltergeist II or Tokyo: The Last Megalopolis...these strike me much more as third-rate films that Giger might regret having been involved with). Unless he specifically complains about Alien in that book, I'm not comfortable with the statement as-is, because like I say it sounds like he's praising Ridley Scott for his quality control. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no mistake - the title of the comment by Giger is "Alien." (The page Giger's comment is on, and the facing page, are illustrated with Giger's Alien art, concept sketches, etc.) Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but reading the full quote you posted above it really sounds to me like he's praising Scott, and his negative comments seem to be directed at some other experience he had with director he didn't feel cared about quality, just about money. It's a red flag to me that, with all the research I did rewriting this article a couple years ago (watching every special feature, reading multiple books, reading through numerous articles & reviews), this is the first time I've ever seen it mentioned that Giger was dissatisfied with the film. Especially when he refers to a "third-rate film" (Alien? With an Academy Award, 2 BAFTAs, 3 Saturn Awards, & a Hugo Award?) and mentions "not getting a fair mention in the screen credits" when he got an Academy Award for his work on the film and is listed in the credits with "Alien design". Since he goes on about Scott's commitment to quality, and doesn't specifically mention Alien in his comment about "third-rate film", I'm highly skeptical that Alien is what he's referring to. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It is perfectly, perfectly, perfectly obvious that Giger is referring to Alien. It is possible that his comments might not be 100% serious (and they definitely might not be fair), but there's no doubt at all what film he has in mind. If you're so very interested in Alien, and in Giger, you might want to look the book up. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I will. It's difficult to ascertain his meaning when it's just print. One doesn't get the tone, inflection, etc. that might hint at his intended meaning. But to call Alien a "third-rate film" after spending the previous several sentences describing Ridley Scott's obsessive commitment to quality, and to say that he's "secretly glad [he didn't] get a fair mention in the screen credits" for a film he was given an Academy Award for strains the bounds of credulity. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"So you can be secretly glad if you don't get a fair mention in the screen credits." But he is credited in Alien, so it can't be that film. 80.98.146.68 (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)