Talk:Aliens (film)

WikiProject Alien

I have proposed the creation of a WikiProject to improve articles related to the Alien series, including this one. If you are interested in participating please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Alien and add your name to the list of interested editors. If enough people are interested in starting this project, then I will move forward with it. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

References in Halo

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

Soundtrack article

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

Open Call

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

Producer Picture -- reason for removal?

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

I didn't realize it was on commons, i will add it back. M3tal H3ad (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thx for restoring the picture, I found it and added it back in when I contributed to the cleaning up and expansion of this article a while back. At the time I also added the TIME magazine cover. It is customary to use free pics as much as possible, and I myself have done numerous searches to find free pics for many articles. This picture however is fair use, but it is referenced directly in quotes in the text, and is from a very influential national magazine, which IIRC was the only time the Aliens franchise was featured on its cover (Alien did appear on the cover of Newsweek). There are many articles on wiki that have TIME covers, including ones that are gunning for a high rating; I hope these considerations will be taken into account. On that matter, I thought I would add a suggestion--the article could possibly use a well-referenced cultural impact/analysis section. But the article has improved a lot already, thx for the good job, and hopefully it will get promoted. SynergyStar (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The intro

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

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

GA pass

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

Digital rod removal?

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

benchmark

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

Merger proposal

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

Exactly. I was the placer of the tag, and I did place the appropriate tags on this article as well, but they were removed by another editor who felt that the tags prominently at the top of the article hurt its chances of passing GA review (it was up for review at the time). Not wanting to cause too many ripples, I deferred. Basically I agree with everything you said ^ which is why I marked all of those articles. These characters are only notable in the context of this film and maybe some tie-in comics and games, and the articles lack any secondary sources and there are unlikely to be any to support them. Bottom line: these fictional characters are not notable enough to warrant stand-alone wikipedia articles. I'm in favor of merging the info into this article and List of characters in the Alien series. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for assuming you didn't follow through. I didn't bother to check the the history past the last 50 edits, which stop in mid-April. I don't know why someone would assume it would hurt their chances of getting GA, GA isn't based on what the article "will" look like, but what it "does" look like. Maybe we should group tag the other articles so that we don't have to have half a dozen discussions on the same thing. What do you think?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll look back and see which ones were suggested for merger so we can list them all at once. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the diff: [1] I restored the tag with all the articles included & changed the title of this thread to include the multiple proposal. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the other articles, it appears that any real world information in them is basically taken from this article. The rest of the info is all in-universe information (far too details for a prop that appears in a single movie). As for the characters there's just a lot of in-unverse info, original research, and loose associations with other products there. I see some interesting things, like the Dark Horse comics and the "Game Over" catchphrase, but that something that could be added to this article. The comics could be part of a "Spin-off" section, while the "Game over" is easily an "Impact" or "In popular culture" section for the article. but if one cleaned up the articles to remove the OR and the excessive IU info, I don't see what could be left that would need a separate page. These are one film characters (Bishop being a slight exception, only because of how they handled the android's "likeness" throughout the series).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Since I made the proposals I haven't taken the time to go through the articles and see how much real-world info was already in this article. If there's nothing substantial beyond that, I say go ahead and redirect the other articles or maybe even AfD them if appropriate. Maybe salvage a few things here and there and move them into this article, but definitely get rid of these stubs. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, none are "stubs", per say. Since we've already started the merge proposal I say go ahead and give this a few days and see what other people have to say. If there's no response in 5-7 days, then it's probably safe to go ahead and redirect.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I think LV-426 is proposed for both pages, so that whatever info is relevant here will go here and whatever info is relevant to Alien will go there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok there are a lot of articles proposed for merging and it is a bit difficult to deal with them all in one go, so breaking it down:

• M577 A.P.C., M41A pulse rifle, M56 Smart Gun, Sulaco (spaceship), UD4L Cheyenne - seem reasonable merges to here
• LV-426 - I could see a reasonable argument for keeping this and possibly merging the Derelict article in there (which is up for deletion I see). There is a lot of of information on the design and planning of the various elements.
• United States Colonial Marines - given the book on them Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual, I'd say merge that into there and keep it where it is.
• Corporal Dwayne Hicks, Private William Hudson and Newt (Aliens) - I can see a good argument for merging Hudson into List of characters in the Alien series. Hicks and Newt are trickier, granted their roles in Alien3 are relatively minor but they play big parts in the comics (which were also novelised), which before Alien3 were considered de facto sequels, they were retconned out in future editions of the comics. There is an interesting story to be told there and Alientraveller has offered to put in more information (and when I can find it Beautiful Monsters has more background on this). All of which would lead me to suggest keeping Hicks and Newt would be a good idea.
• Bishop (Aliens) - strong keep. The references there demonstrate his real-world impact.

So no "one size fits all" solution but there are a lot listed and some of them are fixable. (Emperor (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

The information on the Derelict and LV-426 is pretty much already found in both the article on Alien and Aliens, there really isn't anything that stands out on either individual that isn't presented somewhere else. If you removed the excess IU information, the real world info is already presented elsewhere. Neither Alien or Aliens is a long article, so I don't see a justification for spinning the Derelict and LV-426 out onto their own when they have not been the subject of significant coverage by sources independent of the subject. Heck, they don't even have large behind-the-scenes sections (which goes back to my "already present in the other articles" argument).

I'm fine with merging any relevant book information on the Marines into the book, and merging any relevant film information on the Marines into the film article. They first appeared in the film, so one would assume that any film information relevant to the "characters" would be found there.

The comics that Newt and Hicks appear in are spin-offs from this film, and should be mentioned here. A brief overview of what happens in that series of comics would be fine here (I think it already exists). Newt doesn't need a separate page just to say that she appeared in a comic book. The same for Hicks.

Bishop needs to be cleaned up from the heavy use of IU information, and the "Academia" section needs to be expanded; right now it's basically 3 one-liners with one that isn't really about him so much as its about androids in general.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the point about Newt and Hicks is that the first 3 comic series diverged heavily from what we see in Aliens3. Thinking about it, I'd rather see that information in the comics section (at the moment if is actually explained in more depth in the book based on the retconned comic reprints), with perhaps a note in the characters list explaining the divergence in the different media.

I agree Bishop needs expanding, if I recall the references were ones I dug out last time these issues were discussed as a demonstration that there is real-world discussion of the character - the point is that it needs expanding and not merging.

Good points on LV-426 - information on the background is better off fleshing out the relevant entries. (Emperor (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

Yeah, a character list does not have to limit the information to just one respective media. It would be easy to discuss the character's appearance outside of the films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I believe, in the least, we've got consensus that the weapons, all the characters (but Bishop) merged into either this article or the LOC article, merge the article on the Marines into the book on the Marines, and leave LV-426 alone for further discussion later. Did I get all that right?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me like that was the general view, per the AfD. We should get cracking on that. Shouldn't be hard; as I mentioned in the AfD most of the relevant info on the weapons & characters is already present in this article. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What's happening to the articles? I would like to see that massive merge tag gone asap. Thanks M3tal H3ad (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Oppose wanton merging. There's no value in merging non-stubs into already sizeable articles. It makes the main article more difficult to work with. Absolute NO to merging articles referenced in multiple sources, whether they be movies, comics or video games outside the plot of the film in question. This article is about the movie, it should be about the movie. If something occurs elsewhere in the universe, it merits its own reference. - User:BalthCat 142.167.82.191 (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose the merge, it will only clog up the article. I'm fine with the articles being deleted. M3tal H3ad (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Aliens redirect

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

I disagree. The terms "alien" and "aliens" refer to many, many different things which could all be article topics. That's the reason for having the "(film)" disambiguation in the first place. For example, someone typing "aliens" into the search box could be looking for an article on extraterrestrials, illegal aliens, the legal concept , this film, or even this film's soundtrack album. The disambiguation page for "alien" is entirely necessary, and it's appropriate that "aliens" redirects to it. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. I frequently enter plural search terms forgetting the default is singular. However, I do sometimes find redirects to disambiguation pages vexing. Aliens -> Alien (dab) is not quite annoying enough to change my disagree :P - 142.167.82.191 (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC) User:BalthCat

Production Story

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

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

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

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

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