Talk:Xenomorph

Template:Maintained

Name for the article

There is a conflict in the naming of this article. Wikipedia demands that editors employ the most commonly used name for a subject in the article heading. In this case, that is definitely "Alien", rather than "Xenomorph". However, "alien" is not only the name of the creature but the name of its first film, the name of its franchise and indeed a generic term in its own right. So how do you disambiguate it? The most logical choice, based on prior Wiki usage, would be Alien (Alien) and while yes, that does look stupid, I still prefer it over "Xenomorph". Serendi^podous 19:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. I've been trying to cook up a good disambiguation term for awhile, and Alien (Alien) is the best I could come up with too. "Xenomorph" is a classification term (albeit a made-up one for the film), not a species name. It's like saying "it's an insect" or "it's a polymorph". In all of the film credits the creature is listed as "Alien". I say let's move the sucker, unless there's a high number of dissenting opinions. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with a move. Title could also be Alien (creature) or (monster) maybe. Funkynusayri (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Alien is not the only alien creature or alien monster in the media. Serendi^podous 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, it isn't the only alien alien either, but I see what you mean. What about alien (Xenomorph), could be a compromise, although an incorrect one. Funkynusayri (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is going to be a big job, involving a lot of redirects and rewrites, and it can't be corrected with a simple reversion. So before I go ahead with it I want to give any dissenters the opportunity to speak out. Serendi^podous 12:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've done it. There appears to be a consensus. Serendi^podous 19:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Good work. I'm busy starting up WikiProject Alien which doesn't really have any members yet, but I'll list fixing the redirects as one of our "things to do". --IllaZilla (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I, however, am not such a big fan of the move. Alien, though it is a more common name, seems much less specific. Xenomorph refers more to the species, and it also seems redundant to have the name Alien with Alien in parentheses right beside it. The Matyr ^{(converse with the Matyr)} 14:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia also demands notability. How notable is the term "Xenomorph", as opposed to "alien"? Aside from an apparent concurrence among Alien-Predator fanboys, it doesn't appear to have any relevance whatsoever. In any case, all "xenomorph" actually means is "alien form" in Greek, so it isn't really any more specific than "alien". If it were as specific as you claim, it wouldn't need to be disambiguated. Serendi^podous 15:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The title "Xenomorph" is almost more appropriate for the article in its present state, since much of it is still written from an in-universe perspective, not an encyclopedic article looking at the development and internally self-contradictory fake-mythology/biology of the alien in the various films/comics/computer games. However, this is not a call to have the article moved back to its old name, but a call to further improve the style of the article. There still aren't enough secondary sources discussing the primary sources. Since reliable sources that do this will probably almost entirely deal with the films, and then probably only the first two or three films, I suggest a suitable title is "Alien (movie monster)". While there have been other movie monsters that have been aliens, this is clearly the most notable example of the use of the word "alien" so I think it's the best choice. Alien (alien) does just sound a little weird.

Just occurred to me that "Starbeast" is probably as defendable a title as "Xenomorph". Neither title being remotely appropriate for an encyclopedic article. GDallimore (Talk) 10:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I'm working on getting this article out of universe. I could use some help. Serendi^podous 12:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that a lot has been done and the article is looking so much better than it used to. But it looks like most of the work that can be done from online sources has been completed and I don't have the paper sources (eg "big book of movie monsters") to take it any further. Best of luck! GDallimore (Talk) 13:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved it to Alien (Xenomorph) but realized that it is confusing and the discussion here proves that. But Alien (Alien) in my opinion, is a worse title. Imagine a fictional spider called 'Spider'. Would the title be Spider (Spider)? Of course not. It would be something like Spider (fictional creature) or Spider (fictional arachnid). These are the titles I have seen and have never come across something so confusing as Alien (Alien). So it is changed. Unless we can discuss further. JTBX (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is much of an improvement. All Aliens are inherently fictional creatures (at least as far as we know), so that's every bit as confusing and non-specific as "Alien (Alien)" already was. Perhaps "(film creature)" or something along those lines? This is an exceptionally tough article to name, that's for sure. --Bishop2 (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel the disambiguation sentence/link recently added to the start of the article really helps a lot with the issue. Props to Serendipodous for that. --Bishop2 (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• What about somehting like "Alien (Alien franchise)" or similar? Funkynusayri (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to add more disambigs, but it doesn't work. Still, they're up there, even if they do look clunky. Just my two cents in defence of my original title: the "(Alien)" in "Alien (Alien) is capitalised, and is meant to refer to the Alien film and franchise. If I had meant it to refer to the fact that the alien was an alien, it would have been "Alien (alien)". EDIT, post Funky: Yes, that is sort of what I was trying. Maybe that's the best idea. Serendi^podous 14:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OK; I moved it in line with Funky's suggestion. I think it is the best solution, and specific enough not to cause any confusion. Serendi^podous 12:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This whole Predalien NOT being a queen BS

Okay, this has been going on for ages. Some AvP fanboys with no usernames edit this article with uncited claims of the predalien being a young queen. One spammer recently went as far as claiming the Strauss brothers confirmed this in an interview (again uncited). I myself have read "Inside the Monster shop", (a "making of.." book on AvP-R) and saw NO mention whatsoever of the Prealien being a queen. The closest it ever got to insinuating such was simply that they used the same mould to sculpt the teeth and head, but that's it.

So basically, this section is here for the fanboy's to come clean and argue their points. Are there any sources (official) showing the Predalien to be a queen? Dark hyena (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are. Colin Strause said so on the AVP Galaxy forums and Greg Strause said it on the IMDB boards. I'll have to find the posts to confirm so I can cite for you. --Bishop2 (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Time out, why do we need to distinguish between a "queen" and non-queen? There's only 1 such creature. Its reproductive method could simply be different due to it being an Alien/Predator hybrid. Maybe a creature like that doesn't even need queens. Regardless, this is all a moot point. There's only 1 Alien/Predator hybrid, so there's no need to distinguish it (by calling it a "queen") from other ones that don't even exist. Keep it simple and keep the fan fiction out. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The directors say that it has this odd method of reproduction because it is a young queen and young queens now do this before fully developing. Seems like relevant info to me, and certainly not fanfic. --Bishop2 (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Added with cite. --Bishop2 (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That cite's not that helpful. We have no evidence that the guy on that forum IS a Strause brother. Serendi^podous 14:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to cite the interviews where he talked about his involvement on the message board next, then. --Bishop2 (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, folks, there is absolutely no need to distinguish between a "queen" and "non-queen" Alien/Predator hybrid because there was only 1 such creature. If there had been more of them, maybe they all would have been able to do the "injecting embryos via the mouth" thing. We don't know, and there's no need to theorize. Do we make a completely different set of theories and alternate life cycles about, say, the "runner" from Alien 3 because it came from a dog, or the human/Alien hybrid from Alien Resurrection? No, because it would all be superfluous. It's quite enough to just state what happens in the film: that the Alien/Predator hybrid reproduces by regurgitating embryos down the throat of a host and does not require eggs. Please just stick to what's in the film and other relevant sources. Also note that messageboards and forums are normally not considered reliable sources, as Serendipodous points out. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll get a cite backing up who that is, then. I suspect the audio commentary on the DVD will solidify the matter of both the identity of the poster and the nature of the PredAlien, however. Bottom line is that creator's intentions ARE extremely relevant to any article about film, and even to any film's narrative. My god, take a look at the page for Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End which everyone demanded include the "screenwriters' intentions" bit at the end of the plot summary despite a lack of evidence in the film proper. --Bishop2 (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'd suggest just waiting for the DVD to come out so we can use the special features as sources. There's no need to go diving into details that are basically extraneous when we don't have very good sources to back them up. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this picture, it occured to me that the predalien head on the left looks something like a queen's crest, if not somewhat smaller. http://www.avpgalaxy.net/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=7332&fullsize=1 Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.247.132 (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it does or not. Unless we can find a reliable, traceable source identifying the Predalien as a queen, then mentioning it is not calid. Serendi^podous 11:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

About that guy who claims to be Colin Strause, here is that guy's profile which includes his email adress. http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=257 I haven't found their offical website yet, but most people I've contacted on AVP galalxy confirm that the emails match up. I receaved the DVD as a gift from my friend just a few minutes ago, and on the featurette Colin Strause confirms that "Chet" The Predalien is, in fact, a Queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.247.132 (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I picked up the DVD yesterday and sure enough, right on the very first featurette on the set, Colin talks about the Predalien being a young developing queen who needs to establish "warriors" (they actually use the term warriors, apparently) as a foundation for the hive so that she has protection as she matures into a full queen. I'll have to go back and get the specific quotes tonight. --Bishop2 (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the directors' intentions are only relevent if those intentions are expressed in the film. We could note that the Strausses intended the PredAlien to be a young queen, but point out that this was not mentioned in the film. It's the same thing that's already been done with Ridley Scott's cocoon scene. --User:inkpenavenger 21:58, 27 April 2008

Just for the record, the term "warrior" has been used by cast and crew since "Aliens"; it's almost as canonical as "facehugger." Serendi^podous 05:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, the Strausses have been posting online about this since the movie was released. It's a young queen. Watch the movie, watch the commentary, and watch the featurettes. Not only is she referred to as... well, a 'she,' but they also added the queen crest on the back of the head because... well, she's a queen. Go figure. Incidentally, this also explains the long incubation period of Scar.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.112.100 (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone had been paying attention to this discussion page, the reason why any mention of the Predalien being a queen are removed is because of a lack of REFERENCES. R-E-F-E-R-E-N-C-E-S. Cite the name of the documentary.Dark hyena (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone who was un-editing these pages had actually watched the movie, the reason for the constant mentioning that the Predalien is also a queen is because it's part of the MOVIE ITSELF. Having to cite that it is a queen is like having to cite that the drones, or whatever you want to call them, are drones. If you didn't get this from this movie itself, you don't need to be editing the Alien Wikipedia page. Now I will admit, whether the new reproduction method is due to the young predalien queen being a predalien, or a young queen, is still somewhat up for discussion. But that discussion should be identified on the page, not here. The fact that it is a queen is beyond doubt. I'll collect a set of references to this put them all up. If you want to be helpful, we could start with the making of the Predalien featurette. Meanwhile, please quit jerking around. Oh, and by the way, yes the predalien does remove the spine from the cook (just like predators have been shown to do in previous movies), so quit removing the reference. Again, watch the movie. At that point, there are only 3 aliens and the predalien (Wolf has killed the other two). One alien goes to the powerplant to distract Wolf, one accompanies the Predalien to the diner, and the other shows up at Molly's bedroom. The alien that accompanies the predalien enters for a few seconds later from the opposite direction--so the creature that is shown off screen, removing the spine, cannot be anything other than the Predalien, which soon makes its appearance from that direction. So quit 'undoing' legitimate posts, or your undos will just be undone. Also, quit including reference to the predalien reproducing "asexually." ALL ALIENS REPRODUCE ASEXUALLY. Again, read what was changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.220.201 (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I recently re-watched the film and saw the spine ripping scene. I apologise. The fact is though, is that there are too many assumptions being made. Very well, the Predalien reproduces, but how do we know it is immature? "Alien Resurection" never shows an intermediate stage between chestburster and Queen, and "AvP: Inside the Monster Shop", written by both Gillis and Woodruff make absoloutely NO MENTION whatsoever of the Predalien being immature (or a Queen for that matter, but never mind that). IF THERE IS a source saying that the Predalien is immature, then by all means cite it. What is it? A making of featurette? A commentary? References are there for a reason: For people to check out facts for themselves.Dark hyena (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I finally got your reference for you. Region 1 DVD, 1st featurette, "AvP-R: Preparing for War: Development and Production." My DVD player says Chapter 1, 9 minutes. They first say the original draft was going to have a warrior do the face-implanting, then they say they decided to make it the Predalien that would do this instead. It's the next line that's the kicker: "Basically, the predalien is kind of the baby queen. There's a phase in between warrior alien and full-blown queens, that do this thing with basically embryo-implantation and the idea with that was we were trying to figure out ways, how does a baby queen quickly form her own little mini drone army, to get the hive built, before she evolves into the final state, where she can't completely defend herself." That's Colin Strause quoted, one of the directors. Now the funny thing is that, I got this just from watching the movie. It's a complicated movie, and even most of the fans did not catch all the subtle stuff going on, like the Space Jockey skull, the skinned predators, &c. It all goes by so fast and there's just so much there, I can't blame the casual viewer... and the darkness on SOME player/screen setups doesn't help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.220.201 (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thought I would post again just to address your concerns more specifically, now the main issue is at rest. Resurrection doesn't show the intermediate stage for two reasons. One is budgetary. They probably only had 1 or 2 models of the queen (not counting the initial chestburster); in fact they did show the young queen in the beginning, from the neck up, in darkness. It's hard to tell if she's full grown or not in size, but the dialogue implies that she hasn't grown her ovipositor, or at least that she hasn't started producing eggs. They say it'll take "days, maybe less" before she starts producing eggs. It also took probably a day or a few days for her to reach that size, starting from the time when they removed her prematurely from Ripley 8. Why build intermediate sculpts of the queen at different arbitrary sizes, and show them to the audience? It would be prohibitively expensive, and would only demystify the creatures before the movie has even begun.

The other reason is purely diegetic--the queen is in captivity, and her captors are only interested in getting the eggs (and possibly conducting experiments after she's already fully grown). Thus, they skip from when they removed the chestburster, to a small intermediate insert with dialogue explaining what is going on, and giving us a nice long shot of the queen's crown, and then they skip forward to the cargo scenes. But the queen is in captivity the whole time, in an artificially simulated, safe hive environment. There are no external threats, no need to move around, and she can immediately settle down and start growing her ovipositor as soon as possible.

Now, it could be argued, if all queens have the ability to reproduce orally, why would they need to wait for her to start producing eggs? Why not just throw people in with the queen and let her have her way with them? Again, I think this is obvious, on multiple accounts. 1) They don't have the cargo yet, and they end up getting it by the time the queen starts producing eggs anyway. 2) The eggs are going to be easier to manage... they are smaller, can be isolated with the hosts, and the process of facehugging is less violent and more safe, risk-wise, than throwing victims in with the queen. She may just rip them apart. 3) Oral reproduction was never seen in any of the previous films (there was never a need for it!), so the scientists could not know it was possible. Eggs, on the other-hand, were the first news about the alien that Ripley got, and she reported this to the authorities on Gateway... Burke was going to bring them back in Aliens. Everyone and their grandmother knew about eggs. 4) It is possible that the queen loses the ability to orally reproduce once she reaches maturity and starts producing eggs.

Then again, she may not. Personally, I think Requiem really fills in the gaps here with the aliens reproductive cycle, while actually adding some interesting interpretive twists onto the later movies. The queen we saw in Aliens was already full grown--but with the information we get from Requiem, the final fight between Ripley and the Queen takes on an even more grotesque angle. All those inner-jaw bites were scary enough, making us envision Ripley's face getting torn off if the queen got a lucky shot in, sort of like the doctor getting his nose bitten off in Requiem. But now it also begs comparison to the Wolf/Predalien fight, in which the Predalien is continuously trying to impregnate Wolf (who I thought, rather comically, gets pissed off and takes his revenge by ripping the tongue right out!). The queen we saw in Alien3 was just a chestburster, and it died before it lived, so to speak. And the one in Resurrection was raised stationary, just like the one in Aliens. The queen in AvP again was only seen in its adult and captive form. So Requiem is really picturing a new phase--the phase between chestburster and the final stationary 'captive.' In this intermediate and optional [depending on the circumstances] stage, the queen is mobile, and trying to found a hive. This is clear from the movie--she tries to found a hive in the sewer, but Wolf arrives too soon, dissolving it with his blue liquid and killing almost half of her force. If she had already become stationary, and started to grow an ovipositor, she might have been caught defenseless and killed. In fact, her being mobile still is the ONLY reason that Wolf failed in his mission. She knocks him through a wall mere seconds before he fires off his dual plasma casters, which would have killed the two drones he was holding back. Later, after building her force back up, she picks the hospital as the new site for her hive. Why? Because of the abundance of hosts. The hive gets well under way, but she doesn't quite settle down yet because she knows that Wolf is still after her. In other words, she's just as smart as any of the other queens in any of the other movies, and she knows she can't settle down until Wolf is killed and all other threats removed. The scene in which she is contemplating the babies in the nursery is two fold in significance--one the one hand, she realizes that impregnating pregnant hosts is going to be more efficient, and on the other hand, she's probably considering all those babies as potential hosts for a later time, as facehugger fodder, after she's already developed her ovipositor.

And, in view of the clear reference, which I'll eventually get around to citing on the main page, I've taken the liberty of changing the heading of this discussion to accord with the truth of the matter. No offense intended.

This ain't fan-fic--it's giving the new movie its proper due. Greg and Colin are smart guys, and I think they've made a great contribution to the franchise. The theatrical release was butchered and hardly makes any sense. The unrated DVD version is superior in every way, but unfortunately most people saw the film in the theatres and weren't able or willing to give the real version of the movie a chance, much less analyze it without bias.

Runner

Is "Runner" an official name? As far as I know, it was simply coined in the video games. Plus, is there a better picture, like a screenshot? Dark hyena (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Facehugger

Is there a source for the origin of the name "facehugger"? It's been around longer than Xenomorph in the literature as far as I can tell, but I can't see where it started. GDallimore (Talk) 22:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was the production team's name for the parasite that comes out of the egg. That's also where "chestburster" and "space jockey" come from. Those are the closest things to official names for those forms of the creatures, and they do appear quite a bit in secondary media. "Facehugger" and "chestburster" are for sure used in the DVD menus of the Quadrilogy set (I was watching Alien & Aliens over the weekend). If I get around to listening to the making of documentaries again then I can confirm this, but I'm 90% positive that facehugger & chestburster are names cooked up by the creators & the production team and are therefore the "official" descriptions. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

They're used left and right, both by the narrators and the producers, directors, and actors from all the movies as seen in the extra making-of videos on the DVD. They're about as canoical as it gets. Xihr (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not denying that the term is the best one available, what I think needs doing is explaining the origin of the term in the article. Same goes for chestburster. If we can add a sourced explanation that these terms were used by the production teams of "movie X" I think that would be a useful addition to the article. GDallimore (Talk) 11:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The names "facehugger" and "chestburster" go all the way back to "The Book of Alien" and "HR Giger's Alien", both of which were published in 79, so it can be assumed that they were coined by the crew. Serendi^podous 14:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The article claims that the facehugger is basically able to survive in the cold conditions of the moon of LV-426 where carbon dioxide can freeze. However, Kane mentions that the chamber the eggs are located in as being "like the god damn tropics" (not an exact quote, but you get the point). Perhaps this should be clarified.

Fictional creature GAs

Cyberman

Sarlacc

Time Lord

Looking at these, I think this article is actually in pretty good shape. All that's needed is more popular culture information (this would include references to the Alien comics, Alien books and AvP franchise), an in-universe history, and more information on the evolution of the Aliens' design (such as the use of rod puppets and CGI). Serendi^podous 08:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to do an in-universe history...

Are we to consider the AVP films canonical or not? Serendi^podous 09:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks like were stuck with the AVP films as cannon. I understand that as the official studio versions, they have to take priority but, both fail to live up to the non-canon Alien versus Predator Comic that actually originated the concept. What confuses me is that I thought the isolated setting for the first movie was chosen to allow for the cover-up you mention. Then AVP-R moves it to a populated area and later nukes it? Maybe they don’t directly contradict the continuity of the Alien movies but the AVP films still strain the bounds of credibility within the Alien Universe.216.181.47.130 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We don't get to choose what's canon & what isn't. The Alien franchise doesn't have set levels of canon like the Star Wars franchise does, but in general the movies set the standard and have their own continuity with each other. The comics have their own continuity/canon that sometimes conflicts with the canon of the films, and the video games likewise have their own standards and use whatever ideas the designers want to come up with. For example, none of the "castes" of Aliens used in the video games show up in the movies (and very few show up in the comics). Also, there was a comic series done after Aliens which continues the adventures of Ripley, Newt, and Hicks after escaping LV-426, but then when Alien 3 came out Newt & Hicks were killed off right at the beginning. So there are lots of different continuities and canon to deal with, but again since this is primarily a film franchise the officially licensed films are usually considered the highest level, and we can't exclude certain films or show favoritism to others just because we like/don't like what they add to the canon. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Thing is there are some inconsistencies between the Alien and AVP films. Perhaps, given the confusing number of conflicting chronologies, it would be better to leave well alone. If an in-universe history is to be included, I foresee every minor inconsistency between the films and the comics mentioned and analyzed until it takes over the entire article. Serendi^podous 15:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

True, I'd be just as happy without it. But what inconsistencies are there between the AVP films and the Alien films? They're set hundreds of years apart from each other, and the stories of the AVPs set the background for certain elements of the Alien films, ie. the Weyland-Yutani corporation and why W-Y knows of/has interest in the Aliens. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. So they just kept them a secret and did nothing for hundreds of years? And how many corporations exist for 2, 3, 400 years anyway? Serendi^podous 15:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's fiction. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief on this one in the interest of story. It's maybe a minor plot hole, yes, but there's nothing in the AVP films that contradicts things in the Alien or Predator films, so they do actually flow together as a unified continuity, which was the intent. You couldn't say the same thing of comparing the comics and films, since there are things between the two media that directly contradict each other. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could bring up the whole "Bishop was named after the founder of the Wayland Yutani Corp No Wait Bishop was named after the guy who designed him" bit, but I think I'll leave it at that. Serendi^podous 17:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the view that a consistent in-universe treatment would be impossible, largely because each film has been written/directed/produced by almost entirely independent groups of people with their own visions. I think a comparable example is Count Dracula or vampires generally. With so many films, books, TV programmes featuring vampires and suggesting different strengths/weaknesses/attributes, it would be impossible to say what was "right" and what wasn't. The Count Dracula article resolutely sticks to the original source to explain the mythos, but the vampire article is forced to cover a far more extensive range of beliefs. GDallimore (Talk) 16:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Been thinking and looking at what we have so far. I think a separate article would be an idea. Something like: Development of Alien design. That article can discuss features of the alien design and abilities in each film separately with one good picture for each film. This article can then be pared down to just the important features that are common between each film, which probably only consists of the basic life cycle shown in Alien and acid for blood. This is based on looking at the vampire article which breaks the mythos up into regions and by time. GDallimore (Talk) 16:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a separate article would be a good idea; it would probably be flagged for deletion, or at least for remerging back into this article. Fictional Wiki subjects are currently going through a massive holocaust, and the only real defence is to keep articles concise, and few in number. Serendi^podous 16:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The resurrection aliens

Do you think the cloned alien warriors from Resurrection should have their own section in the hybridization chapter? The number of differences between them and the standard LV426 (A1,A2,A3)/Bouvet Island(AvP) aliens does I think warrant this.

• Double jointed hind legs; Not present in previous human spawned warriors. The fact that the concept was unique to Resurrection and was abandoned in AvP, shows that it wasnt just a casual design variant, as is the case of the head differences in A1 and A2.

• Roaring and growling; Totally unseen before and after Resurrection (save for the Predalien).

• Spitting; Again, unseen before and after in human spawned specimens. 129.12.200.49 (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The double jointed hind legs do seem to be present in AVP and AVP Requiem from what I can see. And the spitting, while seen in human specimens, was seen by the dog alien of Alien 3 when it unloaded some acid on Murphy in the vent shaft. As for the rest... I think because no one in the movie ever says that these are any different, we can't assume they're supposed to be... no one behind the production ever claimed they were supposed to be "unique" either, aside from the Newborn that is. --Bishop2 (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no continuity in what designs they use, it's like the raptors in the Jurassic Park movies. The differences are not explained by the story, and there probably wasn't any reason for the changes other than that it would look "cooler" (though I think they look like crap compared to the Giger designs). Differences should be mentioned in the design section. Funkynusayri (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There have been variations on the design in each film, owing to a variety of factors: improvements in special effects, costuming, size of actors, advances in CGI, design elements required to make certain scenes work, and of course just the whims of the design team. To go into detail, since it's fun: In Alien it was very tall and thin and had humanlike arm & leg joints, because it was played by a tall, thin human in a suit. In Aliens they were played by many extras of a more average height, and the design was altered a bit (ie. the ridges on the head). Alien 3, of course, had the one spawned from a dog (or ox, if you prefer the special edition), which went back to the smooth cowl, lacked the tubes on its back, and tended to move on all fours. For that one they used a lot of puppetry. Resurrection used CGI in some scenes, and suits or puppets in others, and had their hind legs acting more like a bird's or like the velociraptors in Jurassic Park (note: not necessarily double-jointed legs, just structured differently like a bird's legs, or like most quadrupeds' legs where the ankle joint is more towards the center of the leg). It also added the raised ridges on the tail to make the swimming scene more convincing. AVP used a mix of suits, puppets, and CGI, had smooth heads, kept the tail ridges and extended their tails even longer. AVP:R used the ridged heads again but I don't remember any other differences. I don't remember wha the legs were like in either of the AVPs, and of course there were other changes from film to film ie. the torso frame, rib cage, fingers, toes, tail spike, etc. We could go on and on. Really this could all be boiled down to a single section discussion how different design teams tweaked the design of the Alien from film to film to suit their own needs and visions. There's no need to have different sections for each design. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Life cycle

Section needs some more info on Alien species such as drone etc, that appeared in the film. Just pointing this out. JTBX (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• A drone is never mentioned. In fact, no different species are ever mentioned. Funkynusayri (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I do think the life cycle seems to be missing the "adult alien" that dominates most of the films, it jumps from chestburster to Queen. As for "drones" and the like, maybe the article could use an additional section for creatures from the books/comics/etc? Something about the "Expanded Universe" or whatever you call those things. --Bishop2 (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Check this: [1] The adult alien itself is discussed here: [2]

I think we should have an image of each design so they could be compared, no ridge head alien so far for example. Funkynusayri (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

this is the best picture of an Aliens Alien I've been able to find online. If we do use it, it may need to be cropped to emphasise the ridges. Serendi^podous 14:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I did at one point include a paragraph about the transition to adult phase, but since it consisted mostly of speculation (since how the chestburster changes from infant to adult is still not explained) it seemed best to remove it.

Ah. Someone put it back. I suppose it can stay, if it's kept short. Serendi^podous 19:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not a fan of the word "drone", because it has never been used in the films (the writers/producers tend to use "warrior"), and because it is misleading; a drone is a fertile male bee whose job is to mate with the queen, not a worker/soldier. Serendi^podous 19:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Some stuff from Alien omnibus are added.

The part about alien telepathy is new, but I think somebody have tryed to erase it. I had to write it two times, making me use way to much time on this. There is also a aquatic alien by the way - is this mentioned annywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.227.43 (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This information is not relevant to this article. There is another article List of castes from the Alien expanded universe, that deals with non-filmic information. This article is less about the in-universe story of the Alien and more about its development, design and cultural impact. Serendi^podous 12:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, please keep any further discussion on the discussion board. You are about to violate the WP:3RR rule. Serendi^podous 12:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A huge waste of time......

All this info is offcourse useless as It exists another article covering the alien comicbooks. Lots of time wasted for no reason.... Well well, only trying to help. Sorry:-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.227.43 (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can always edit those other articles. :-) Serendi^podous 12:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Life Cycle

According to the Alien vs Predator game, the life cycle is as follows: facehugger>>chestburster>>alien>>praedorian>>queen

In the game it says that when the Alien matures it becomes a Praedorian, which enrages the hive and make the other Aliens want to kill it. So these Praedorians leave the hive and when they come back only one has survived, of which grows into the Queen.

Should this be mentioned? People may wonder, "If the chestbursters make aliens, where does the Queen come from?" Orion qwerty (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

See: List of castes from the Alien expanded universe Serendi^podous 09:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides, that doesn't hold true in the movies themselves; we already know queen chestbursters exist, because Ripley had one. --Bishop2 (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

New Name

Have you ever tried redirecting Alien (Alien franchise) to The Alien, I could move the original The Alien article to The Alien (Cancelled film)?--Clover08 (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. There have been multiple discussions about what to title the article. See the first discussion near the top of this page, in fact. Alien (Alien franchise) was the consensus. It's not a matter of it having the same title as the cancelled movie, it's that there isn't a name for this creature that's not going to require some kind of disambiguation when used as the title. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact it's changed names at least four times over recent history. This is just really not constructive; let's move on to improving the article, rather than endlessly going back and forth over what it should be named. Xihr (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Science of the hunter

To anyone who has seen the extras on AVP:R, could you perhaps talk about what was mentioned in the documentary "Science of the hunter" or the Predator homeworld? Dark hyena (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the pronoun used for the Queen Alien be "It/Its" instead of "her/she"

Now, I could be wrong, but last time I checked...the Aliens are never given a specific gender. And, it's strongly implied that they reproduce a-sexually (IE: Without the need to mate in order to reproduce)...or it's also possible that the Aliens are technically Hermaphrodites (IE: Having both male and female reproductive organs).

That in mind, I feel it more appropriate to call the Alien Queen an "It" instead of a "she" since the creature is technically genderless.

Also, it's just more appropriate to call an animal (fictional or not) an "it" when said creature has no specific gender.24.111.137.0 (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)BOBD

You are, I believe, technically correct... we never actually learn whether aliens have gender in any of the movies, and it's probably best to assume they have none. On the other hand, social insects do have gender, though the queen and warriors are often all female, the only difference being that the warriors are sterile and the queen fertile. Drones and kings, neither of which appear to exist in the alien hierarchy, are the only males. However, members of the movies crews, and characters within the movie itself, do refer to the queen as a "she," so I don't see the need to go back and change every single reference to the queen to agree with "it."