Talk:Aliens (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aliens (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Films (Rated B-Class) (Top importance)

This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-Importance on the importance scale.

Editing Guidelines

Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article:

If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film)
- For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)
When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references.
Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

WikiProject Horror (Rated B-Class)
	This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated B-Class)
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. Please feel free to add your name the project participation list and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Article	This article is a Article.

info

[edit] Al Matthews, in vietnam or not?

This article states; "In real life Al Matthews, who plays Sergeant Apone, was the first black marine to be promoted to the rank of gunnery sergeant while serving in the Vietnam War."

However, on the page for Al_Matthews, it says;

"In real life, Matthews was a member of the United States Marine Corps. According to IMDb, he was first black Marine ever promoted to the rank of gunnery sergeant while serving in the Vietnam War, however, this is false."

Which is true?

217.119.224.154 08:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, technically, Al Matthews was promoted to Sergeant, not Gunnery Sergeant. Sergeant is an E-5, Gunny is an E-7. I'll update the record and contact IMDB. From Al Matthews website:

http://www.almatthews.co.uk/news/newsstory.asp?NewsID=3

ShadowTao 02:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The link about William Hope doesn't go to a page about the actor William hope.

Fixed. Fredrik | talk 14:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bishop

Was Bishop "re-introduced" in this film? Wasn't the android different, and named "Ash" in the first film? ==130.91.131.122

Bishop was a new character, though an android. I see you fixed the article, thanks! — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:21, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

==Have removed POV sections of "Versions" which seemed to prefer one cut over another. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The analysis section

I think the section under the title 'Analysis' needs some work. The Vietnam allegory is fine, as is the bit about Ripley's daughter, but that could be expanded to further explore the theme of motherhood in the movie, including the Alien Queen. However the third piece, Weaver's real-life stance on guns has no bearing on the movie in itself and would be better suited for a trivia entry.

I agree, Weavers stance on guns belongs in trivia.

The Vietnam stuff was mentioned by Cameron in the DVD commentary. I also agree with what both of you have said about Weaver's opinion. I'd like to suggest that "analysis" isn't a very good name for this section. It makes it sound too much like personal research, or a personal review. Would renaming it "themes" be a good idea? Remove the gun control bit and leave it the "Vietnam" and "motherhood" parts? Mount Molehill 06:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poontang

It's my understanding that poontang is a word for sex, particularly between soldiers and natives, and that it came into heavy use during the Vietnam War. Cameron and others have commented on the movie's similarity to "Vietnam in space"--a technologically superior force decimated by a low-tech enemy and so forth. So wouldn't it be better to assume that when the marines in Aliens say "poontang," they mean what we think they mean, and not some "new" definition like eating indigenous species or something? Teflon Don 18:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Poontang is female genitalia. Check the urban dictionary.

Female genitalia is always how I have heard it used (I don't think Ted Nugent was talking about extra-solar culinary practices on "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang"). And if you are familiar with the actual exchange in the movie, there is very little uncertainty about what is meant:

Frost: Hey, I sure wouldn't mind getting me some more of that Arcturian poontang! Remember that time? Spunkmeyer: Yeah Frost, except the one you had was MALE. Frost: It doesn't matter when it's Arcturian, baby!

[taken from the first draft of the ‘Aliens’ script dated May 28, 1985]

The exchange does seem to support the hypothesis of the paragraph.

The film also continues a suggestion in the film [is "previous film" meant here? After reading the article for 'Alien', which states the film's "gender politics have been subject of much examination", I conclude that that is what is meant, though no supporting evidence for the claim is included in the 'Alien' article] that in the future sexual orientation and gender identity would be non-issues.

The onscreen biographical reports on the missing crewmembers from the first film all include information on whether or not they have had a sex change operation. [I can't verify this, but will assume it is so]

Later on while the marines are eating in the mess hall, two of the marines joke about having sex with an alien being that might have been transgender [if you read the entire exchange it sounds more like some form of hermaphrodite where both genders have a vagina], although the joke is obscure, referring to "had some Arcturean Poontang". It may reference many things, such as eating an Arcturean creature [again, not much ambiguity or obscurity about what is being referenced when you view the entire exchange].

Suggestion for a rewrite of the paragraph:

The film also continues a suggestion from the previous film that in the future sexual orientation and gender identity would be non-issues. The onscreen biographical reports on the missing crewmembers from the first film all include information on whether or not they have had a sex change operation. Later on while the marines are eating in the mess hall, two of the male marines are discussing the merits of "Arcturian poontang" when one says, "except the one you had was MALE!" and the other replies, "It doesn't matter when it's Arcturian, baby!"

I'm also not sure if some of this paragraph, as well as parts of the paragraph on Vasquez (though I admit that the possibility of her being a lesbian or bisexual is more plausible considered in light of the Spanish comments translation), are more that the author is trying too hard to make a case for a theme in the movie about "sexual orientation and gender identity would be non-issues".

(btw, I'm not familiar with editing an article like this. Does someone have 'ownership' of it, and so should do any actual editing of the article?) MrFurry 08:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That whole gender/orientation section needs to be pared down and reworded (not to mention it belongs as Trivia, not Impact). There is no doubt what the "Arcturian poontang" exchange is meant to convey in the film and it actually serves to discredit the premise it supposedly supports.

If sexual matters were a "non-issue" why would one male be making a joke about another male mistakenly having sex with a creature of the same gender? The very idea that that exchange might be seen as about consuming an Arcturian is kind of ludicrous.

The film is reflecting the attitudes of the time it was made (for example consider the "illegal alien" joke directed at Vazquez. In the future we defeat all sexual issues/hangups and bias but it's still common to make jokes about ethnicity and homosexual sex with aliens? That doesn't make sense to me.

[edit] Deitrich or Crowe?

This article speaks of the portrayal of women in action movies and references Ripley, Vasquez, Farro, and Deitrich as strong female roles. However, I thought that Deitrich was a male grunt and Crowe was the fourth female (who was pulled up the wall by the first attacking alien in the scene under the atmospheric processor after speaking the line "Maybe they don't show up on infrared at all"). Anyone know for sure?

Nope; Deitrich was the fourth female Marine, and the one who was first to be attacked. If I recall correctly, Crowe had the least screen time of any of the Marines. I don't remember if the film even depicted his fate. *EDIT* Seems my memory was slightly off: Crowe was the one who died when Frost's ammunition bag exploded. It was Weirzbowski who died offscreen. --BobBQ

Slightly OT but when is Weirzbowski shown onscreen? I remember his offscreen death and the few odd shots of his camera feed but I've struggled to find him in person. Dosboot 09:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

He's seen during the chow hall scene, only twice I believe.ShadowTao 03:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Crowe is the male and he can be seen along with the other characters with short screen time for a brief moment during the briefing by Ripley. You have to pause the DVD just right to see it. They can also be ssen in some of the promotional posters when the movie first came out. 5by5 00:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Dwarf connection

I never noticed this until last night but Mac McDonald, who played Captain Hollister on Red Dwarf, also plays the guy in charge of the colony on LV-426. I found it interesting that he's a captain of a mining ship in Red Dwarf for a big corporation and then he's working for another big corporation that has giant Red Dwarf sized mining ships.--Skeev 14:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Errors

I don't know where the stuff about the conceptual weapons came from, but it flies in the face of all Aliens canon I've ever seen. None of the weapons have their correct names, the pulse rifle is listed as firing a 7.2mm round instead of the 10mm rounds specified in the film, and the flamethrower is described as being built out of power drill parts, when in fact the props were made using M16 receivers.

For now, I've edited it to match the official specs. --BobBQ 2:01, 30 April 2006 (EST)

[edit] Aliens influenced Starship Troopers?

In the impact section it actually states this, even though it's well known that the Novel Starship Troopers was used as a reference on the set of Aliens. Can someone remove this please, unless there is a good reason for it. Bihal 07:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Several months later, I've removing the reference. Bihal 05:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asimov's First Law

During the cafeteria scene on the Sulaco, Bishop tells Ripley that "It is impossible for me to harm, or by omission of action, allow to be harmed, a human being." This is, of course, Asimov's First Law of Robotics. Worth a mention?

Nightshade01 05:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Only if you mention that Ash wasn't programmed with Asimov's Laws. Teflon Don 15:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point... though this (and more) is already mentioned in a paragraph on the Three Laws page, under 'The Laws in Film' section. Would reposting the paragraph here be redundant, or even allowed (sorry, I'm new at this)? Nightshade01 22:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen related articles with sections of virtually identical text. As long as the information is relevant to both pages, there should be no problem simply copying and pasting the appropriate paragraph. If there is an issue, another editor can always make the necessary changes. And welcome to Wikipedia. Teflon Don 22:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please confirm diameter of grenades

"M-41A pulse rifle with underslung 40mm grenade launcher ... ". I don't recall the exact diameter (25 or 30 mm) but I am sure they are less than 40 mm. Please confirm.

I was also of the opinion that the underslung grenade launcher was for 30 or possibly 25 mm dimention, not 40

I'm fairly certain the line is "I wanna introduce you to a personal friend of mine. This is an M41A pulse rifle. Ten millimeter with over-and-under thirty millimeter pump action grenade launcher." Ben W Bell talk 08:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Cpl. Hicks states that the grenades have a diameter of 30mm. However, they were actually closer to 20mm, in order to fit in the grenade launcher portion of the gun, which was modified from a shotgun. Teflon Don 10:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] would anyone be oposeed to...

removing aliens and resurection from the horror film catigory? they are clearly action films, with minor pop out scaryness, and no real horrorfilm overtones it just struck me as odd to find these films there, and thought that i would ask the community what they thought -manwithbrisk

Yes. Aliens is categorised all over the place as horror. Is BRISK the same as A WOODY IN HAND?--Shtove 22:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

brisk is a canned lipton iced tea, the name is in referance to a claymation(sp?) advert where ending with a fictional bruce lee saying the lines, "Only fool fight man with brisk"

you have to admit though that aliens is not a true horror film -manwithbrisk

Neither is Scream, but it is popularly categorised as being in a subsection of the horror genre. Aliens is 'Sci-Fi Horror', but Resurrection and AvP are more 'Sci-Fi Action'. Difficult to define, there is a definite fine line... but Aliens has scenes with a definite sense of dread (Medlab, the first foray into the nest) compared with the pop-out scenes in the others. Slavedriver 22:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

Isn't this from Halo? -The marines have the same 'Gung-ho' attitude to killing aliens, and even the sergeant says the famous line, Go go go! The corps ain't payin' us by the hour! "The Sarge" --Sergeant Johnson-- is even a hard-talking veteran black man, like Apone.- In the article it says it's from Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun. -- X360 08:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

-The ODST Marines of the Halo series were inspired by the marines in Aliens, specifically Avery Johnson was inspired by the Sergeant in Aliens, if it says it's from C&C TS, then it definetly should be edited, as it isn't proper accurate canon.

Doesn't anyone notice that Foehammer (dropship pilot from halo) is sort of like the dropship pilot? She even says the same thing (in the pipe, 5 by 5).74.96.212.21 23:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popularity

Does anyone think a section should be added regarding the popularity and reaction towards this movie? After all, many fans considered Aliens to be the exception to the "bad sequel" rule.--Name Theft Victim 19:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-name?

From Aliens (1986 film) to Aliens (film). After all, there isn't any other films titled Aliens and the 1986 in the title is unnesscary.--Name Theft Victim 01:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you check the "aliens" disambig page, you'll see there are other articles that use this word.---Jackel 14:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about the 1986 in the title--Name Theft Victim 14:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the shotgun in Aliens

Hicks is the only character in the film that uses the shotgun. Pvt. Hudson was holding the door closed in the scene where Hicks puts the shotgun into the mouth of the Alien. Hicks was clearly seen picking up/using the weapon in that scene. Pvt. Hudson was burned with acid as a result of being in the acid spray after the shotgun went off. ---namcos

[edit] APC / ATV

I edited all occurences of the term "ATV" (and its definition) with "APC", seeing as that's what the marines call it in the film. As far as I know ATV stands for All Terrain Vehicle, and not "Assault Transport Vehicle" (I personally have never heard the latter term before). SJH

I thought it stood for Armored Personnel Carrier, myself. Teflon Don 10:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Six degrees of separation" on Aliens trivia

I don't think the "six degrees of separation" trivia entries are very good, for two reasons. First, the average viewer might not know what "six degrees of separation" means. Second, most of the entries (save for the South Park one) aren't even really connected to Aliens. They should be put on the actor's or director's article, since thye don't really apply to the film Aliens itself.

[edit] use of actors

Director James Cameron has been known to use Aliens actors in other films. Michael Biehn (Hicks), Lance Henrickson (Bishop) and Bill Paxton (Hudson) all appeared in The Terminator.

since the Terminator came out before Aliens, wouldn't then this be a case of Cameron using Terminator actors in other films? this piece of trivia seems pointless. and also incorrect... ZebulonNebulon 18:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You've got it backwards, Cameron used Terminator actors in other films. Bien, Herickson and Paxton all did work on Terminator before they did work on Aliens. Further, Goldstein worked with Cameron on Terminator 2.ShadowTao 03:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Goldstein was also in Titanic. Mcflytrap 16:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My edits

I've rewrote the lead and removed the last three sections. I did the latter because the article Alien (film series) is already linked in the lead, and licensed toys is too small to be notable.--Dark Kubrick 00:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] errors in video game sections

"The digital ammo counter on FPS assault rifles in games like Unreal, Halo, and StarCraft was influenced by the M41A pulse rifle." Starcraft was neither a first person shooter nor could the player view a digital ammo counter.

A digital ammo counter did appear in some of the game's cinematics, though. Jonabbey 03:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

At best, that's tenuous reasoning. HalfShadow 03:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Digital ammo counter's were used in video games and arcade machines even before The first alien movie was published.

[edit] Original Research

This article is rife with Original Research, especially in the Analysis and Influences sections. Just because a movie or computer game may be influenced by Aliens doesn't allow an editor to include it. WP requires WP:Verifiabilty & a WP:SOURCE, no matter how obvious the connection appears. Ashmoo 03:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis FAR too long

there is a clean up note indicating the plot summary is too long. Sure enough, it is so detailed it's about five times the length of the summaries for the rest of the Alien series! Thanks to whoever did all that hard work, but I'm going to sub it down. raining_girl 17:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the synopsis is excellent, if only there were a way of keeping most or all of it. The summary for Alien3 is pretty long, but not as long... Enigma3542002 02:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Per Wiki's policy, plot summaries are not substitutions for watching the film. We finally got the first Alien film's plot under control, now it's time for this pages. Next will be Alien 3. Bignole 02:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

absolutely, there is a difference between being excellent because it's detailed and being excellent because it's just right for an encyclopaedia. this is the former - needs to be the latter! have put a suggestion on the films project talk page to the effect that 500 words is recommended as preferred length to save future editors writing more than they need.. raining_girl 14:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and the 500 words seems about right. Halloween (film) is about 470 words and it's a featured article. Granted some films may need longer plots, but that should be judge based on the length of the film, and they shouldn't be too much longer than 500 words. Bignole 14:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Impact" section

Personally, I would find a citation for the bit about how it made an impact as far as female leads in an action film goes and then place it somewhere else in the article (the introduction, perhaps?) But the rest of this section isn't really clear about how the stuff it describes made an "impact." Plus it's mostly POV and speculation. I think it needs to be removed completely. Any thoughts? Mount Molehill 06:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be removed as well - it's mostly opinion. Desdinova 14:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed it - hopefully any valid points it makes can be reworded in a different part of the article Desdinova 16:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely something that would need to be categorized by experts and not wiki users. I'm sure it's there, we just can't use it till someone finds an expert to agree with it. Bignole 16:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Desdinova 16:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

After all this the lengthy essay on the female roles in the film was slapped back on there. So far the only citations I can find are in the narration of the documentaries on the DVDs. Like Bignole (41-14, neener neener) said, what's still there can't stay up there for long, so I'll try to find something better here in the next couple of days. -- Mount Molehill 09:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't find a thing. Taking it down for now. -- Mount Molehill 19:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overt original research

Several sections held nothing but original research and they've been removed. The Analysis section of the mythos was entire OR. What the story does for the mythos of the franchise is irrelevant in an encyclopedia. It may be relevant on fansites, but not here. Also, we don't list every deleted scene that was inserted into a new version of the film. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A lot of the other sections need work as well, mainly citations. Alien is working its way into status, please see that for where this article should start going, and see Jaws for where it should end. Bignole 05:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Versions

I was going to add the differences between the special edition and the theatrical version, but then noticed the comment about not adding deleted scenes as they aren't encyclopedic. I couldn't see any discussion about this point - could someone clarify whether I should add these differences or not? Desdinova 14:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that a version of the movie was released that contained the deleted scenes is not notable. There isn't a history behind the scenes. For example, Richard Donner was fired from Superman II, and Richard Lester scrapped just about every scene Donner filmed for that movie. When Donner's cut was released, 50% of the film was new to audiences, like 10% was completely new (as in just filmed) and the film itself was like a completely new film. Now, Alien, Aliens, and the rest or just films that had their deleted scenes reinserted by the directors (or in the cast of Alien had some scenes removed). Part of Wiki's policies about information collection is that it's an encyclopedia and not just an "indiscriminate collection of information"; you have to find notability in it. These aren't new films, several of them had their releases on Laserdisc. Star Wars Episode IV comments about the "Special Edition" versions, and only lists the really major scenes like the Han/Jabba scene that couldn't be filmed because of budget reasons. It was a major scene that set up conflict in the next installments. The addition of these scenes in these movies weren't scenes that couldn't be filmed but scenes that Directors removed for time constraints or "they just didn't like them". Bignole 14:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode IV doesn't mention the changes on the main page, it has it's own page listing for all of them. Personally, I think the scenes are notable - the discovery that Ripley's daughter has died as one example. If not entered into this section then perhaps the plot? In summary, should a page be created for Aliens listing the changes? Also, what needs to be added to the versions section if not these? Desdinova

See Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope#Special Edition, it discusses the addition of Jabba and Han. It also discusses the new CGI used throughout the film to achieve scenes they couldn't achieve with their budget. That is that makes it notable. The fact that a scene was removed because of time is not notable, that happens with ever movie. You don't list the deleted scenes for ever movie article. Notice Jaws (film)#Releases and sequels, it mentions "deleted scenes" but doesn't list them. Both of these are Featured Articles. My suggestion is following Episode IV's way of only detaiing the "special edition", ones that have a history. Ripley's daughter adds nothing to a plot, but adds to a character. If there was a reason behind the removal, other than time, a source is needed. It's about citations, and listing scenes is not notable, that's like writing a plot detail for detail. It's against Wiki policy, namely their "not an indiscriminate collection of information" part. Bignole 15:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Scenes are cut due to time constraints in every film, yes. But they aren't always reinserted into the film, and I think that is the main difference, for example between Jaws and this. I take your point about listing them all - but I still would like to know what should be included under this section so we can remove the template on it and hopefully get the article up to GA status. Desdinova 15:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I'd look to Star Wars as a good exampled of a Featured article, where the film has had editions where scenes have been reinserted or created from scratch. You best bet is to get discussions from the film makers about why they were reinserted/removed in the first place. It needs depth. There is a "SE" section and a "DVD release" section. As "Aliens" was re-released with these additions, but added for the Quadrilogy box set. I would note the entire "Releases" section of "Star Wars" and how it isn't limited to the "Special editions" or DVD releases. This way you don't run into a shortage of topics. If you find that you can't find enough info for the "SE" or "DVD" sections, then you just don't use a subsection header, and keep it all under "Releases". I'd read through the whole "Releases" section to get a better understanding of what is acceptable for featured articles, as "Good Articles" are often just a couple notches below, and you should always strive to get to the FA status. I'll try and help out with what I can find, and I'll always be watching for cleanups or opinions about things, but I have several other film articles that I'm working on, and an entire book article that has yet to be written, so I may not be able to help as much as I'd like. Bignole 15:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot - Thanks Desdinova 16:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot revert war

I've noticed the revert war going on regarding the plot. Sorry ShadowToa, but I have to agree with Bignole. Very little of your additions seem to add anything to the understanding of the plot. I realise it is annoying to do hard work on an article only to have it radically changed, but your edits don't follow WP guidelines on movie plot summaries.

It might be better to add your edits one at a time, or better yet put them here so we can debate them. Regards, Ashmoo 04:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I made mention of the eggs in the beginning as it was important to understanding Ripley's fears and motivations behind her aggressive reaction to there being colonists on the planet. However, the rest of my edits were just that, edits. Read the two side by side, Gorman isn't mentioned as being revived until all the way into the big attack by the aliens prior to the escape in the tunnels, but he had been conscious since just after the dropship crash. Further, the editing of Vasquez and Gorman in the tunnels, and their subsequent deaths wasn't clear at all. My further were for better flow, and to tie in the end of the plot analysis to the beginning. If you want to reduce the size of my text, that's fine, but I don't appreciate Bignole's altering the positioning of important plot elements, or the exclusion of specific points.ShadowTao 04:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You also added that Gorman was not a subordinate, which isn't relevant to the plot. You also added "while Ripley and Newt use the time to take a moment's rest in a another room.", which I changed to "try and get some rest", as take some time....in another room isn't necessary to the sentence. Or "Ripley awakes to find two empty specimen containers, the one that had been holding two live [[facehuggers]"; we don't need a detail of the scene they see--simply say there are the two live facehuggers with them. It's things like that that I changed. Again, I didn't initially revert you, as I didn't change the position of when Gorman is said to be "revived", I just removed the "subordinate" part. I didn't change positions of what you added, I removed items that were unnecessary. Bignole 04:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not important to the plot to understand that the platoon leader was removed from his command by his subordinate who is now making all decisions for the team? I disagree. Gorman's position in the team needs to be explained after his failure.

There is room for dramatic effect, especially for a movie like Aliens. You get this great review from Ebert, then a Wiki plot synopsis that reads like a technical manual. No one says a Wiki has to be dull.ShadowTao 04:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, you fail to understand that this is an encyclopedia, and what happens in a movie is not important to how the movie was made. Plot are just supposed to deal with major points, and Gorman not being in command is not a major point, especially when it isn't even address by anyone (i.e. I don't recall him ever "questioning Hick's authority"). Your opinion that Gorman was a failure falls under Original Research, as you are interpreting why he didn't become the leader when he was revived, that's a policy in Wiki too. As for "dramatic effect", Wiki is an encyclopedia not a publishing house for wannabe novelists. If you want to "spice up" text for a plot synopsis I suggest IMDb, or a personal fan website, as "spicying up text" isn't what Wikipedia is. Bignole 04:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Gorman is a very minor character so it is not so important in a plot synopsis to exactly spell out his status. Also, he is never explictly demoted in the movie, it's just that events go on without him, so why should the synopsisi explicitly said it? Lastly while we don't want to produce a dull article, if a reader wants drama, they can go watch the actual movie. Like the guideline says, the article is not a substitute for watching the movie. Ashmoo 04:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the WP that states a wiki cannot be edited for text flow or for purposes of adding interest. You're interpreting the WP. As for my "opinion" of Gorman's failure, there is no interpretion, it's fact; watch the movie. Vasquez states quite clearly, "Man, I'm gonna kill you," to Gorman. Burke states quite clearly, "You've had your chance." And, when Gorman tries to explain himself to Ripley, he is cut off. I took all three of those events are surmised them, how's that for concise? Or, would you rather I have added that info?ShadowTao 05:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You probably need to read original research, as taking scenes and trying to interpret them is clearly a violation of that. Gorman being demoted has no bearing on the movie. Also, you may want to check into neutrality, as using your "preferences" isn't keeping with a neutral tone, as your preferences might not be agreed upon by someone else. Bignole 05:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You're trying to ignore my points, and argue policy that has no bearing on this discussion. There is no interpretion or opinion when I point out the actions of the characters with regards to Gorman. When several people state their disapproval of another character, it's factual that said character is disliked as a result of previous actions, in this case, the overt failure of the mission... or, do you feel that the numerous deaths, destruction of property and subsequent marooning on LV-428 was only a questionable failure, subject to reasonable differing interpretation, i.e. that the previously mentioned deaths could have been signs of success?ShadowTao 15:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

First, it's LV-426, not 428 but that's beside the point. Secondly, expressing dislike for a character, or disapproval of their actions does not insinuate "demotion", which is irrelevant as he was a secondary character. You have already had another editor tell you that him being demoted was unimportant to the plot, but yet you persist in this arrogant rant that you are so right and everyone else is so wrong. I've provided you with Wiki's policy regarding plots, and that they are not substitutions for watching the film; yet you persist that the section needs "more specifics" which is a violation of that policy. We want this article to get to GA status, and overly long plots with needless details will be restrictions to that status. Bignole 15:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about "demotion?" That's your word, not mine. Further, you've got the argument entirely wrong. I said Lt. Gorman had become a "subordinate," which is obviously true since he was no longer giving orders, despite his being the highest ranking marine. I then stated, separately, that Lt. Gorman's efforts were a "failure," as evidence by the comments and actions of those around. There was also the small matter of his platoon being "wiped out," as you say. If you can explain how getting one's platoon slaughtered can be viewed as anything other than a failure, please, do tell. As for the "arrogant rant," don't call the kettle black.ShadowTao 00:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The funny part is that a lot of it I cut from your original edits so that you couldn't say that I "undid" what you added. Secondly, I don't believe anyone else had this "5th grade" assumption about it, and as far as college goes, I generally get A's on all my papers, even in the grammer portion. Since I threw this up there without proofing it, and without proofing what YOU had added originally and that I kept, I think it was fairly good. Just because I don't try and "dress it up" doesn't make it 5th grade in the least. It follows Wiki's policy for plot summaries. It's short, to the point, doesn't digress over minor details, it isn't a substitution for watching the film. You aren't supposed to walk away from the article going "wow that plot summary was 'tight'", you are supposed to walk away going "wow that article had a lot of encyclopedic information about the film (not the mythos of the fictional universe)". Also, a very important policy is that Wikipedia does not promote other websites, or any venue for that matter. This is also applied to films. "Spicying" up words, creating "dramatic effect" is indirectly promoting a film, or dismissing a film (if you write it negatively). If you read about what Wiki wants for plots, they should be able to be read by anyone, especially those not familiar with the franchise. You don't need to explain who characters are, because you have a "Cast" section for that. This isn't IMDb, there is a formula for how a page should be. "Dressing" plots up is indirectly promoting films, just the same if you only list positive criticisms for the film. If you notice, even films that have received high praise still have to have some negative feedback on that section, because Wiki has a NPOV policy. That policy extends to not just the reception sections but to every section including the plot. Creating dramatic tension in a plot is not in keeping with the NPOV policy. Bignole 02:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New plot

This is how I just rewrote it, please discuss your opinions.

"After 57 years, Ellen Ripley is found drifting through space still in hypersleep. Since the events of ‘’Alien’’, the Weyland-Yutani Corporation has set up a terraforming colony on LV-426. When contact is lost with the settlers, Burke, a company executive, and Lt. Gorman of the Colonial Marines request help from Ellen Ripley. Although initially reluctant to join, Ripley agrees on the condition that the alien species will be exterminated.

Arriving in orbit, Ripley gives a briefing on the aliens to the marines, but her warnings are unheeded. The Marines quickly sweep the area with no signs of visible life, except for two live facehuggers in medical containers, and a young girl nicknamed “Newt”. After locating the colonists, via their surgically-implanted transceivers, the Marines attempt to rescue them. The Marines find the colonists cocooned in the alien nest. When the nest is disturbed, the aliens awaken from their sleep and attack the Marines. After most of the squad is wiped out, Ripley uses the APC to infiltrate the nest area to rescue Lance Corporal Hicks, Private Vasquez, and Private Hudson. They commission plan to escape the planet and nuke the site from orbit. When their dropship crashes, because of an alien onboard, they are forced to move back into the colony and set up barricades. They find out the processing plant was damaged in their attack, and will explode in several hours. Bishop, an android that accompanied the team, leaves to try and remote pilot the backup dropship down to the colony. The two live facehuggers are set loose on Ripley and Newt while the humans sleep in hopes that the facehuggers will impregnate them with a chestburster. Burke is revealed as the saboteur, but before Hicks can execute him, the aliens begin to swarm the barricades. In the initial fight, Hudson is captured and Burke is presumably killed. Newt leads the surviving Marines, and Ripley, through the ventilation duct. Vasquez is injured and Gorman returns to help. When two are overwhelmed with aliens, Gorman is forced to detonate a grenade killing them both in the process. The force from the blast causes Newt to fall down a chute, and be captured by an alien.

On the way to the second dropship, Hicks is injured after killing an alien. Once they arrive, Ripley grabs an assault rifle and a flamethrower and returns to the colony to find Newt. She finds and frees Newt from an alien cocoon, then accidentally stumbles into the nest's main breeding chamber, where both are confronted by the monstrous alien Queen. Ripley destroys the Queen's nest chamber. Ripley and Newt rendezvous with the dropship, escaping moments before the entire area is destroyed by the nuclear meltdown of the processing plant. Back on the Sulaco, Ripley and Bishop are surprised by the alien Queen that had managed to stow itself inside the wheel-well of the dropship's landing gear. After ripping Bishop in half, Ripley distracts the Queen long enough for Newt to hide. Just as the Queen is about to grab Newt from hiding, Ripley arrives wearing a mechanized exosuit. Ripley battles the Queen, and succeeds in dropping her into a large vertical airlock and expelling her into space. With all the aliens now killed, Ripley, Newt, Hicks and a badly damaged, but still functional Bishop, enters hypersleep for the return back to Earth."

Bignole 14:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment below

Great stuff - captures all the essentials without wandering off on a tangent about small details. Desdinova 14:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for concise, but the grammar reads at the 5th grade level. There are numerous run-ons, dangling modifiers, misplaced pronouns and incorrect verb tense. To replaced those errors requires longer sentences, there's just no way around it.ShadowTao 15:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Where? We need examples of what you think is incorrect as far as grammer. Your personal attack was also noted. Bignole 15:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't expect that I should, or would be invited to point out anything to you regarding the rules of American English Grammar. You've a ton of Wiki honors; honestly, you should know how to write a good article. Further, you're in college; the grammatical rules I was observering are taught from 5th grade (hence my 5th grade comment) on towards 12th. I'm guessing you're an American (judging from your personal wiki page); so, you would recognize the book of grammar of which I speak- it's gray, and disproportionately longer than it is wide. As for personal attacks, don't start- you've been playing the intellectual superiority card since you started harassing me on my edits. Ad hoc need not be overt, so don't think I haven't noticed the venom from your tenuous insults.ShadowTao 23:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Unlike ShadowTao, I'm going to point out some wording that could be improved and not say it's "5th grade level" writing in general.

~~"Although initially reluctant to join, Ripley agrees on the condition that the alien species is exterminated, and not brought back for experiments."~~ This sentence is a little awkward from my perspective. Maybe "exterminated instead of being brought back for experiments."
~~I think the word "marine" needs to be capitalized.~~
"After locating the colonists, via their surgically-implanted transceivers, the marines attempt to rescue them." Shouldn't the surgically-implanted transceivers be in the previous sentence, since that's how they found the facehugged folks and the girl? Sorry, I haven't seen the film, so this didn't make sense to me.
~~"...the aliens spring to life. After most of the squad is wiped out, Ripley uses the APC..." Needs to be more clear here that the aliens attacked the squad.~~
~~"A plan to escape the planet and nuke the site from orbit is commissioned." An "active" verb could be used here, such as "They commission a plan to... blah blah."~~
~~"They soon learn the processing plant was damaged..." How about "find out" in place of "soon learn"?~~
"The two live facehuggers are set loose on Ripley and Newt while they sleep in hopes that they will become impregnated with an alien." The two "they"s are confusing. Perhaps write it as "...while the humans sleep in hopes that the facehuggers will impregnate them with... (better wording than 'an alien' here)."</strik>
"When Vasquez is injured Gorman returns to help, but the two are overwhelmed with aliens and Gorman is forced to detonate a grenade killing them both in the process." I do believe this is one of the run-ons that ShadowTac failed to point out. I think the sentence could be broken down into two or even three, since there's a lot going on in that sentence. recheck sentence, it's been adjusted
"She finds and frees Newt from an alien cocoon, then accidentally stumbles into the nest's main breeding chamber, where both are confronted by the monstrous alien Queen." While not technically a run-on, it's a bit long and could be separated into a couple of sentences. recheck sentence, it's been adjusted

Hope these suggestions help. I don't want to suggest too many changes in one sitting. I'll let you read my feedback, and I'll review it some more later. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feeback. It was a quick draft. I didn't capitalize "marines" becuase it wasn't in the previous plots, so I wasn't sure if it needed to be since it wasn't refering to the "Marine Corps" but just solidiers. Anyway, I implimented that change since it isn't a "wording" issue. Shadow should be happy because the last two paragraphs (morphed into one paragraph) were originally his. So I didn't eliminate everything that he added. I placed the "surgical trans..." there because initially they didn't find anyone but the girl (who was running about outside the room they were in) and the two facehuggers. Later, they used their tracking system to scout the colonists' receivers. Chronologically, they found the girl and the facehuggers well before they found the dead colonists. I've made the corrections to the rest, please feel free to go back and re-read the text for more suggestions or to critique the corrections made from your first suggestion. Bignole 18:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of brevity, but to be honest, I think this new plot summary might be a bit too brief. I think the existing plot summary is quite ok, and would prefer to keep it, with some minor modifications. Ashmoo 23:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I ran the sypnosis through the meatgrinder again. Characters were being mentioned with no explanation as to who they were (including the various types of aliens), the links were a mess, and I think it's most accurate to say that Gorman and Vasquez detonate the granade together.--Geoduck 07:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the newer version of the plot is superior. It needs minor alterations but it is generally tighter then the current edit. I say go ahead and put it in from there we can all improve it bit by bit. Daniel J. Leivick 01:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introductory citation needed

~~"The production was somewhat problematic, marred by several disputes between Cameron and the film crew, which eventually led to an all-out strike late in the production."~~

I believe that this is documented on one of the special features on the special edition DVD (released with the quadrilogy), with James Cameron saying how terrible the British crew was because they kept asking for tea breaks! I don't have the DVD to hand, but it should be easy enough to verify - one of the production featurettes. Desdinova 13:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

~~I have it, I'll take a look when I get a chance (unless someone can verify it beforehand). Bignole 13:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)~~

I looked thisup in McIntee's book and it talks about quite a bit of conflict between UK and US ways of working (and the way things were done at Pinewood) which lead to the lighitng guy being given his cards but that the differences were largely smoothed out in the course of the production. can't see the mention of a strike. The whole story about the history of the production is interesting but unless a strike can be proved it might be better leaving such things for a section on the production history. (Emperor 19:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

I can attest to several citation sources for some of the info on which they are required, though they're hard to attain- the one pertaining to the musical score is cited in the Aliens: The Deluxe Edition soundtrack- I believe the academy award nomination for Best Actress can also be found in that source. The source for the Alien Nest>Batman fact is mentioned in the DVD commentary, as are the tidbits pertaining the the gun-props within the movie. Ridley Scott's affinity for Conrad is a known fact and is listed in several other Alien-related entries. I just thought I should list these if others wanted to double-check these sources.

I'll check when I can. We can't use the DVD for the BA nomination, we need to go to the source for that. Also, "well known facts" aren't good enough, we would need Scott actually saying so. Bignole 13:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

I reverted this from the Trivia section: "According to Cameron the opening scene in which Ripley is rescued is filmed in the same style as Ridley Scott's, so as to bridge the gap between Alien and Aliens." Per WP:AVTRIV, this should be integrated with production and supported by citation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ratings List

Do we really need a list of the ratings this film recieved in every country, it is quite long and causes a large area of white between two sections of the article. Is it possible to present the information in a more concise manner or maybe we should remove it completly per WP:NOT#INFO. What are peoples thoughts on this?

Depending on what article you look at, it could be there. I personally don't care for it, and don't mind if it's removed. To me, it doesn't hold any relevant information other than a directory to find out what the film was rated in other countries. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 18:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/l/i/Talk%7EAliens_%28film%29_902f.html"