|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alien 3 article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|References to use in this article. (see also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources)|
- 1 Odd stuff
- 2 Requested move
- 3 WikiProject Alien
- 4 One second...
- 5 Broadcast rights
- 6 Fox Fanfare
- 7 Michael Bishop was a synthetic...
- 8 Awards section - Mtv Movie Awards 1993 Nomination
- 9 Egg on Sulaco
- 10 Pepsi ad
- 11 Hicks Vs. Turk
- 12 "Cult" film
- 13 New Sequel Commentary
- 14 Notes
<Side Note> Originally, the scuttlebutt about the shaved heads of the prisoners of the colony, were because of a massive lice outbreak in the colony. All prisoners shaved all their body hair to avoid getting lice. (Entertainment Tonight, 1992) Also, the original concept of the movie, which was scrapped, was Ripley was raped by the Alien. (Star Magazine, 1992)
- What the heck? This needs to be re-written. Who the hell writes "<Side Note>" into encyclopedia text? And why 'originally', the lice problem was explained in the released version of the film. And 'scuttlebutt'? I may not be 100% up on US phraseology, but isn't this uneccessary slang?
- The second part is troublesome too... for one thing, there isn't really any such thing as 'the original concept', as the film went through many many evolving concepts. Plus I have trouble that the creators would even seriously consider such a scenario to the point where it would be a 'concept'. Unless a direct quote can be given I think this should be eliminated. pomegranate 10:31, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Sod it, I'm just gonna wipe it out. I don't there's enough worthwhile info there to warrant a re-write. pomegranate 17:15, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
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) 23:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm watching the movie right now (the special edition, granted) and the alien comes out of a cow. Is this just in the special edition of the movie, or am I drunk or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Read the article. In the original, theatrically-released version of the film, the Alien gestates in and comes out of a dog. In the Special Edition that was later released on home video formats (ie. DVD), it gestates and comes out of an ox. You can learn more about the differences between the 2 versions of the film, and the reasons why they went with a dog in the theatrical version rather than an ox, by watching the special features and commentaries on your DVD. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not that I'm aware of. Is this relevant to the article? Or are you just wondering? --IllaZilla (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Michael Bishop was a synthetic...
'Aaron picks up a large wrench and strikes Michael over the head with it, believing him to be an android' - what evidence do we have that he thought that Michael Bishop was an android? Wasn't it just because he came to a sudden realisation about the true nature of the Company?
Conversely, it seems to me that this Bishop probably was an android - having been bashed over the head sufficiently hard to dislocate his ear and the squamous temporal bone (as is clear from a couple of brief shots), he stands up and challenges Ripley - no human being could do that!! --Ndaisley (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with changing the wording in the article, but as for the rest, this isn't the place for theorizing. Bishop (Aliens) has had enough of that. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- In the DVD subtitles Aaron says "fucking android" as he hits Bishop.Archiewood (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Awards section - Mtv Movie Awards 1993 Nomination
I'm not certain why there isn't a mention of this nomination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_MTV_Movie_Awards#Best_Action_Sequence Martinatime (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I added the mention to the article. Thanks for the heads-up! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 22:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Egg on Sulaco
This article does not offer an explanation as to why there was an alien egg on the Sulaco during the opening credit sequence. Does anyone have a cited article that explains this? Or is this a plot inconsistency? The end of the previous film, ALIENS, does not offer any suggestion as to how this was possible as the Queen xenomorph did not have egg laying capability when she landed on the USS Sulaco. Perhaps this is a notable example of a plot inconsistency that should be included in the body of this article and is a further example of the incomplete script that was revised while principal photography was underway? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- It is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article to explain perceived plot inconsistencies. If there are reliable sources that discuss this, then certainly we can cover it, but if there aren't then we cannot. (The basic answer is that there were eggs on the Sulaco because they needed to be there in order for this film to have an Alien in it). --IllaZilla (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Poor wording on my part: agreed... it is not Wikis responsibility to offer an "explanation." My apologies. The point I was trying to make is that some wiki articles about various books, films or TV series often point out inconsistencies of character or narrative between entries. In this case Alien3 is directly tied to Aliens and Alien: Resurrection from a story standpoint. However, the way Alien3 opened does not make much narrative sense. Agreed, it would have to be sourced and I'd be willing to dig around a bit, but not if people don't want it in the article and just revert it. I have seen too many examples of people making additions to articles (sometimes good work, sometimes bad work) only to have it deleted (sometimes for cause and sometimes not). That is why I raised the idea here first. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's likely that the special features on the DVD or Blu-ray versions of the film may give insight into this, ie. the director or writers may talk about how they came up with this plot device and how they perceive/intended it to follow from the preceding film. Those certainly would be sources we could cite. Beautiful Monsters by David McIntee would also be a good source to check. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps we can handle this issue by removing the first part of the "Plot" section which reads "Following the events in Aliens". If we take that out people might realize that this movie has nothing to do with the last movie, which other than character's names seems to be the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean "nothing to do with the last movie?" It is the sequel it continues the same story that began with Alien. It may not be the greatest movie, but the plots are still obviously connected. --Daniel 21:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Does it make sense to include information about the ad campaign and product tie-ins like Pepsi? I think it is notable due to the cost of the Pepsi ad and the fact that it was tied to an R rated film - which is unusual...
- Not unless reliable sources cover this, which they probably do, but you'd have to cite them. The marketing tie-ins are hardly surprising, even for an R-rate film...there were Alien comic books, video games, and action figures one could buy at children's toy stores. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think it would be great to see a marketing section in this article. IMO it is a major part of modern filmmaking and highly influences public reception. But, I think there is a general wiki article about the Alien creature. Perhaps this mention would be better suited there as part of the Xenomorph in Popular Culture section.
- IllaZilla, this ad did get a lot of airplay in the US and Canada at the time of release... that is even the unique creature design used in Alien3. I have the feeling David Fincher directed the spot and I think that is Martin Sheen's VO at the end. If I correctly recall an article I read (many years ago), it was one of the most expensive commercials of its time. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- The article on the creature itself is Alien (creature in Alien franchise). A Marketing section would definitely be good content to add to this article. Beautiful Monsters by David McIntee contains some info about the marketing of each film (I was reading the book and working on articles simultaneously, but after working on the original film my attention drifted elsewhere), I could check it to see if it mentions this ad. If this ad ran around the time of Alien 3, and especially if it featured the version of the creature from this film and/or was by the same director, then it certainnly seems most pertinent to discuss it in this article rather than the more general article about the creature (though a shorter mention in the creature article could be warranted if there's a marketing ti-ins section there). --IllaZilla (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thx for the heads up about Beautiful Monsters IllaZilla. When I return from vacation, I will see if my local rference library has a copy. A quick internet search has not revealed any wiki worthy citations about that particular Pepsi spot, however, as a point of interest, the kid that says "I don't think he is from around here" is a young Jeremy Davies. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Hicks Vs. Turk
Removed two atextual references to "Turk", reverted to the character Hicks. The article is an article about the film Alien 3 rather than the video game or the video game's addition to Alien chronology or history. In the editing section of the Plot section there are notes not to change "dog" to "ox" as the article is about the theatrical version of the film. This would also hold true to the Turk character, a character from the video game. --Jamaver (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Several IPs have been adding/restoring the claim that this film, though poorly received, has since developed a cult following. This may or may not be true. However, without a reliable source, it is not verifiable. The repeated additions have cited blogs. As self-published sources, blogs are not acceptable sources for this type of information. If Entertainment Weekly says it has a cult following, we can say it has a cult following. If "Jim-Bob's Movie Page" says it has a cult following, Jim-Bob and his 3 readers can say it has a cult following.
- Chances are that it's the same person on different IPs. I explained the below on one of the IP's talk page..
- Hi, I just wanted to explain the issue with what you've been adding to Alien 3. The opinion you are adding to the article needs to be a recognised authoritative source, particularly when it is claiming to be the opinion of a number of people. So we need a film critic, or recognised film website. A single blog by some unknown person is not notable enough to be included. Thanks.
- --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
New Sequel Commentary
There has been some discussion of the following insertion:
- I believe this item needs discussion before it appears in the live article. Thoughts? HullIntegrity\ talk / 21:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
At the very least, the source should not be misrepresented in the article, i.e. making it sound like something is certain when the source says "probably" and "maybe". This issue could be mentioned on the franchise page, but it is currently speculation and should be treated as such. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully this will stop AdamDeanHall from jumping the gun and inserting speculation into articles:
Variety: New ‘Alien’ Won’t Undo ‘Alien 3′ or ‘Resurrection,’ Director Neill Blomkamp Says - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Rosen, Christopher (February 26, 2015). "Neill Blomkamp's 'Alien' Sequel Will Probably Forget About Two 'Alien' Movies". The Huffington Post. Retrieved February 26, 2015.