This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Was the DP, not just a cameraman that did not do as Jim Cameron did't asked and the whole section could do with a re-write with the mention of Cameron's quest for perfection and his inability to transmit this to the British crew who were recognised as highly-skilled but with a different mindset and working hours to that of American crews. The Footy Show ( talk) 14:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Just watched the entire Blu-ray extras on the film and that message is rammed home by both American and British members of the production. On the DP it is confirmed at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090605/trivia that Dick Bush was sacked and replaced with Adrian Biddle. The Footy Show ( talk) 01:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
It's conventional to have the cast section after the plot section - that's the way it's done in most film articles, and I've seen several thousand. If there is some special rationale for a different section order here, perhaps that only suggests the article needs to be rewritten? Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 01:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Producer Brandywine Productions IS AMERICAN And It's Worldwide Distributor 20 Century Fox Are Also American So It's An American Movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saccyind ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
This article uses box-office mojo as a source for the box-office. I'll ask you to look at the contradicting numbers in other websites. While all sites agree for the domestic box-office, around 85 million, I've found two reliable websites where the foreign box office is DOUBLE that of box office mojo (45 million against around 95 million). Please check out the website Numbers and French site jpboxoffice. Could box-office mojo be wrong by about 50 million dollars in foreign revenue?-- Munin75 ( talk) 13:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I recently took a photo of Michael Biehn signing a copy of the film's DVD cover, and after adding it to the article, it was subsequently removed by User:IllaZilla on the grounds that the photo is not relevant to the Interpretation and analysis section, in which I placed it. I'm not certain that photos always have to bear a direct relevance to the section in which they're placed (though that is preferable, I think, when possible), but the reason I placed it there is because I figured that the photo had some relevance to the article material on the home video versions of the film, which is discussed in the Special Edition section, which is just above the Interpretation and analysis section. I thought it might look okay on the left side of that section, but ultimately decided not to place it there because the caption of the Sigourney Weaver photo in the Accolades section just above that one dips below into the SE section, and I wasn't sure if that would look good, or possibly violate WP:STACKING. I'll re-added it to the article, now in the Special Edition section, and added a clear tag to the bottom of the Accolades section to make the two sections more distinctly separate. However, if a consensus here decides that it's best to leave it out entirely, then we'll just do that. Let me know what you guys think. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 23:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Addendum: I've moved the Sigourney Weaver pic up slightly in the Edit field so that in the saved version, its caption doesn't dip down into the next section. Again, discuss. Nightscream ( talk) 23:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Is the station notable enough for a stand alone article? Antiqueight discuss 01:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
There are several video games (technically also Alien Trilogy) and MANY other toys: http://www.jamescamerononline.com/AliensMerch.htm -- LKAvn ( talk) 12:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
And speaking of the games, I just created the following stub articles: Aliens: The Computer Game (Software Studios), Aliens: The Computer Game (Activision), Aliens: Alien 2, Aliens (video game). -- LKAvn ( talk) 14:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Also Aliens Online coming through. -- LKAvn ( talk) 15:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Aliens (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The events of both Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection will be ignored by the upcoming sequel to Aliens, which will be directed by Neill Blomkamp. [1] AdamDeanHall ( talk) 23:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Note - Variety: New ‘Alien’ Won’t Undo ‘Alien 3′ or ‘Resurrection,’ Director Neill Blomkamp Says - Gothicfilm ( talk) 22:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Further Note - Yes, it will, as of SDCC 2016. [1] But unfortunately, Fox put a hold on Alien 5 in favor of Covenant, which comes out in 2017. DeeJaye6 ( talk) 14:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Aliens (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
While forums and a couple of off-comments in fan articles have mentioned some of the problems with the story (the aliens bending and breaking thru inch-thick steel, a power plant exploding like a thermonuclear weapon, etc.), has a Reliable Source been written yet on these issues? That would make a good addition to the article - without challenging the artistic license for making an entertaining story. 50.111.2.50 ( talk) 03:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Aliens (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aliens (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Was Hudson killed, or was he killed and captured? (Or, of course, "captured and [then] killed) This is an interesting discussion, but not one so important that it needs to be edit-warred over. I incline to leaving it open, as compared to some characters (who very obviously are killedon screen), making the assumption that they are killed just because an alien is (presumably) about to capture them (e.g., Hudson, Burke) is frankly verging on original research. After all, although we assume that that will eventualy be their fate, we cannot draw any conclusions not told to us in the film (see WP:PTS). They are captured, it is fair to say, but what happens after that is left to the imagination. And it is certainly not our job to instruct our readers' imaginations. >SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 14:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Guys, what’s going on with cutting the British contribution to the movie out? Aliens was filmed at the UK Fox Studios, subsequently, the U.K. deserves a production credit. Roland Of Yew ( talk) 08:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
And don’t forget the crew were almost entirely British....am I missing something here? Roland Of Yew ( talk) 08:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Films gain their nationality from the nationality of the production company that actually makes it. Who works on it, where it is filmed, the nationality of the actors etc are not a factor. It’s the company that actually makes it. Empire Strikes Back isn’t Norwegian. Dr No isn’t Jamaican. Kick Ass isn’t Toronto etc. Plus what reliable sources state it is, such as BBFC etc. Canterbury Tail talk 13:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that the article has the category Category:1980s feminist films. Now I don't doubt this, however this appears to fail WP:CATDEFINE and general categorization guidelines. It's not being discussed, there are no references to support this, no mention in the article and (possibly slightly less true) this isn't the main thing that secondary sources use to describe the movie. Now I'm not removing the category, but for it to remain we need to bring this up in the actual article in order to support it being there. Canterbury Tail talk 13:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Dear User:Canterbury Tail, my edit was correct, pls read the source.
Regards, Da Vinci Nanjing ( talk) 13:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Dear User:Canterbury Tail, you are right. When Hendriksen appears at the end of film, either he is Bishop II oder Weyland, he isn't Bishop (I). When Ripley reactivates him, the character despiction is based on an animatronic puppet not Hendrisksen playing him, but Hendriskesn provides the voice for the puppet, so it is a voice only role.
Regards, Da Vinci Nanjing ( talk) 17:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
-- Stephenfisher2001 ( talk) 01:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Hey, I just want to say is, I've seen the movie back in January 2020, and My favorite part in the movie is "Game Over Man! Game Over!", and I've watched the Special Edition, within 154 minutes long, instead of the original cut! Newt is my favorite character of all time, she's so cute. :)
Canterburry, Like is said, I saw the 154-minute version, and I loved the extended version, the one you undo it, I'm not mad, I'm just being nice. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenfisher2001 ([[User talk:Stephenfisher2001#top|talk] contribs) 01:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Nothing in the movie states that Bishop is an "executive officer", or that Hicks is "Apone's second in command", or that Hudson is a technician or technical anything. The movie also includes no reference to "smart" guns, and does not name the type of weapon that Vasquez and Drake use. I am removing these extremely questionable claims and replacing them with each character's primary contribution to the plot or what they are most remembered for. Also, Bishop is explicitly identified as a Lieutenant in the mess hall scene ("looks like the new lieutenant's too good to eat with the rest of us grunts").
Shouldn't there be something about the "Special Edition" version mentioned in Jay Benedict? -- Mortense ( talk) 21:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
basically, i want to add horror to the genres of aliens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thephantomseeker ( talk • contribs) 13:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I made an edit the the infobox to include the runtime of the Director's Cut (154 minutes), and it was immediately reverted by a user using an IP address, hopefully not a bot.
The description read: Only the theatrical run time is included in the infobox
Common guidelines are actually not strictly theatrical releases.
Note the wikipedia guidelines in Template:Infobox film:
"The runtime for the film should be for the primary release; this will usually be the format the film premiered on, so for films that have had a theatrical release insert the runtime of the original theatrical version. Runtimes can vary due to regional censorship, alternative cuts (such as a director's cut or an unrated version) and different technical specifications across release formats, but do not include any additional runtimes without consensus."
While typically the theatrical release is considered the original, in the case of Aliens, the "Special Edition" is actually the original, or very close to it.
Refer to the following sources:
https://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=2558663
"The original version, however, was too long for the producing studio so it demanded several cuts to tighten the plot. Especially the American audience was not trusted to have the ability to sit through a movie of 148 minutes. So Cameron went to the cutting room, again, and lost more than 15 minutes of footage."
I would prefer to find better secondary sources, but I think these may suffice. If you feel otherwise, let me know.
If I don't generate a discussion, I'm going to revert the reversion of my edit.
--
NittyG (
talk)
05:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
This article contains numerous nonsense claims about Aliens being "considered" to be among the greatest films of all time, etc. The fact that some film magazine or other has included the film in some or other list hardly means that it is "considered" such at all: magazines frequently concoct such lists because they are a good way of attracting attention and sales. None of the major surveys of critical opinion such as the Sight & Sound survey ever list Aliens as among the greatest films of all time. It is simply nonsense. Only a certain kind of fan of Hollywood cinema could ever be so blind to the consensus of critical opinion to imagine that this is believed to be among the greatest films of all time.
Nevertheless, my attempts to adjust the wording and remove the most egregious of these claims have been "undone", in Wikipedia-speak. The argument given to justify this reversion was that "considered" does not mean that "everyone" has to believe it, since in that case Gone With the Wind would not be able to be said to be considered among the greatest films of all time. Well, aside from the fact that it is highly dubious to suggest that Gone With the Wind is considered among the greatest films of all time (no doubt somebody thinks so, but, again, it is very far from being a generally-held critical opinion), aside from that, this argument fails to acknowledge that the term "considered", without any further qualification, implies precisely that it is a generally-held critical opinion: it has nothing to do with everybody believing something to be so, but does have to do with a general feeling, for which a magazine article or two hardly count as sufficient evidence.
If this article is to be considered encyclopaedic, and not just a product of the work of fans of one kind or another, such nonsense needs to be toned down (and preferably removed altogether).
Finally, the editor who reverted my edits claimed, on the basis of the speed of my edits, that I must be a registered editor who is using another account in order to follow what happens with this article. That is a false assertion, made without evidence, and itself counts as evidence that the user sees and asserts what they want to see and assert. Will this cause the editor to reflect on their judgment about what to say about other users, and what counts as encyclopaedic content? We will see. 175.33.4.8 ( talk) 22:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there a reason the film Southern Comfort isn't name-checked. The script is written by the same team & is clearly a basis for Aliens.-- Dave F63 ( talk) 12:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Giler continued "One of them stopped me in the parking lot and asked me what I wanted to do for a sequel. So I told him of a story that was a cross between Southern Comfort, which Walter and I had made since, and The Magnificent Seven. He said 'Great, that sounds fine.' We all had a meeting and we were on." Both Southern Comfort (1981) and The Magnificent Seven (1960) concerned small groups of trained soldiers or mercenaries facing off against lethal threats."
Please please please can we get rid of the analysis section? Just having references doesn't make it encyclopedic. I am soliciting support for deleting the whole analysis section. Taquito1 ( talk) 04:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I believe that Aliens is an American film not an American and British film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimand299 ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Given that we are supposed to take it as read that copying Aliens has become a cliché (apparently this is in the Telegraph source but I can't access it, so I'm taking Dark Warrior's word for that), it would be quite good for the article to include some notable examples of films that have copied Aliens in the Cultural impact section. I added a reference to Army of the Dead but apparently a Netflix film is non-notable. Which are the notable films that have copied Aliens? Rodericksilly ( talk) 14:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
The comment about Carrie Henn having no other acting credits is no longer accurate. That needs to be updated. 89.105.221.207 ( talk) 03:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Great work on the FA! BTW, the first paragraph of section Music ends with the sentence Two scenes with James Remar as Hicks (shown from the back) were used in the film.
This seems to be misplaced. –
Reidgreg (
talk)
02:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
The article's intro currently claims, "Cameron was hired to write a story for Aliens in 1983 on the strength of his scripts for The Terminator (1984) and Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985)". How was he hired in 1983 on the basis of scripts for movies a year and two years later? If the scripts were written years earlier, the article should give those dates, not the release dates. Minturn ( talk) 16:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, why is an article about the plot of the film sidetracking itself by highlighting the alien attitude of the US production teams towards British crews, trade unions rights and tea breaks?
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Was the DP, not just a cameraman that did not do as Jim Cameron did't asked and the whole section could do with a re-write with the mention of Cameron's quest for perfection and his inability to transmit this to the British crew who were recognised as highly-skilled but with a different mindset and working hours to that of American crews. The Footy Show ( talk) 14:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Just watched the entire Blu-ray extras on the film and that message is rammed home by both American and British members of the production. On the DP it is confirmed at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090605/trivia that Dick Bush was sacked and replaced with Adrian Biddle. The Footy Show ( talk) 01:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
It's conventional to have the cast section after the plot section - that's the way it's done in most film articles, and I've seen several thousand. If there is some special rationale for a different section order here, perhaps that only suggests the article needs to be rewritten? Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 01:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Producer Brandywine Productions IS AMERICAN And It's Worldwide Distributor 20 Century Fox Are Also American So It's An American Movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saccyind ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
This article uses box-office mojo as a source for the box-office. I'll ask you to look at the contradicting numbers in other websites. While all sites agree for the domestic box-office, around 85 million, I've found two reliable websites where the foreign box office is DOUBLE that of box office mojo (45 million against around 95 million). Please check out the website Numbers and French site jpboxoffice. Could box-office mojo be wrong by about 50 million dollars in foreign revenue?-- Munin75 ( talk) 13:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I recently took a photo of Michael Biehn signing a copy of the film's DVD cover, and after adding it to the article, it was subsequently removed by User:IllaZilla on the grounds that the photo is not relevant to the Interpretation and analysis section, in which I placed it. I'm not certain that photos always have to bear a direct relevance to the section in which they're placed (though that is preferable, I think, when possible), but the reason I placed it there is because I figured that the photo had some relevance to the article material on the home video versions of the film, which is discussed in the Special Edition section, which is just above the Interpretation and analysis section. I thought it might look okay on the left side of that section, but ultimately decided not to place it there because the caption of the Sigourney Weaver photo in the Accolades section just above that one dips below into the SE section, and I wasn't sure if that would look good, or possibly violate WP:STACKING. I'll re-added it to the article, now in the Special Edition section, and added a clear tag to the bottom of the Accolades section to make the two sections more distinctly separate. However, if a consensus here decides that it's best to leave it out entirely, then we'll just do that. Let me know what you guys think. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 23:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Addendum: I've moved the Sigourney Weaver pic up slightly in the Edit field so that in the saved version, its caption doesn't dip down into the next section. Again, discuss. Nightscream ( talk) 23:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Is the station notable enough for a stand alone article? Antiqueight discuss 01:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
There are several video games (technically also Alien Trilogy) and MANY other toys: http://www.jamescamerononline.com/AliensMerch.htm -- LKAvn ( talk) 12:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
And speaking of the games, I just created the following stub articles: Aliens: The Computer Game (Software Studios), Aliens: The Computer Game (Activision), Aliens: Alien 2, Aliens (video game). -- LKAvn ( talk) 14:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Also Aliens Online coming through. -- LKAvn ( talk) 15:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Aliens (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The events of both Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection will be ignored by the upcoming sequel to Aliens, which will be directed by Neill Blomkamp. [1] AdamDeanHall ( talk) 23:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Note - Variety: New ‘Alien’ Won’t Undo ‘Alien 3′ or ‘Resurrection,’ Director Neill Blomkamp Says - Gothicfilm ( talk) 22:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Further Note - Yes, it will, as of SDCC 2016. [1] But unfortunately, Fox put a hold on Alien 5 in favor of Covenant, which comes out in 2017. DeeJaye6 ( talk) 14:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Aliens (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
While forums and a couple of off-comments in fan articles have mentioned some of the problems with the story (the aliens bending and breaking thru inch-thick steel, a power plant exploding like a thermonuclear weapon, etc.), has a Reliable Source been written yet on these issues? That would make a good addition to the article - without challenging the artistic license for making an entertaining story. 50.111.2.50 ( talk) 03:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Aliens (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aliens (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Was Hudson killed, or was he killed and captured? (Or, of course, "captured and [then] killed) This is an interesting discussion, but not one so important that it needs to be edit-warred over. I incline to leaving it open, as compared to some characters (who very obviously are killedon screen), making the assumption that they are killed just because an alien is (presumably) about to capture them (e.g., Hudson, Burke) is frankly verging on original research. After all, although we assume that that will eventualy be their fate, we cannot draw any conclusions not told to us in the film (see WP:PTS). They are captured, it is fair to say, but what happens after that is left to the imagination. And it is certainly not our job to instruct our readers' imaginations. >SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 14:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Guys, what’s going on with cutting the British contribution to the movie out? Aliens was filmed at the UK Fox Studios, subsequently, the U.K. deserves a production credit. Roland Of Yew ( talk) 08:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
And don’t forget the crew were almost entirely British....am I missing something here? Roland Of Yew ( talk) 08:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Films gain their nationality from the nationality of the production company that actually makes it. Who works on it, where it is filmed, the nationality of the actors etc are not a factor. It’s the company that actually makes it. Empire Strikes Back isn’t Norwegian. Dr No isn’t Jamaican. Kick Ass isn’t Toronto etc. Plus what reliable sources state it is, such as BBFC etc. Canterbury Tail talk 13:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that the article has the category Category:1980s feminist films. Now I don't doubt this, however this appears to fail WP:CATDEFINE and general categorization guidelines. It's not being discussed, there are no references to support this, no mention in the article and (possibly slightly less true) this isn't the main thing that secondary sources use to describe the movie. Now I'm not removing the category, but for it to remain we need to bring this up in the actual article in order to support it being there. Canterbury Tail talk 13:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Dear User:Canterbury Tail, my edit was correct, pls read the source.
Regards, Da Vinci Nanjing ( talk) 13:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Dear User:Canterbury Tail, you are right. When Hendriksen appears at the end of film, either he is Bishop II oder Weyland, he isn't Bishop (I). When Ripley reactivates him, the character despiction is based on an animatronic puppet not Hendrisksen playing him, but Hendriskesn provides the voice for the puppet, so it is a voice only role.
Regards, Da Vinci Nanjing ( talk) 17:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
-- Stephenfisher2001 ( talk) 01:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Hey, I just want to say is, I've seen the movie back in January 2020, and My favorite part in the movie is "Game Over Man! Game Over!", and I've watched the Special Edition, within 154 minutes long, instead of the original cut! Newt is my favorite character of all time, she's so cute. :)
Canterburry, Like is said, I saw the 154-minute version, and I loved the extended version, the one you undo it, I'm not mad, I'm just being nice. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenfisher2001 ([[User talk:Stephenfisher2001#top|talk] contribs) 01:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Nothing in the movie states that Bishop is an "executive officer", or that Hicks is "Apone's second in command", or that Hudson is a technician or technical anything. The movie also includes no reference to "smart" guns, and does not name the type of weapon that Vasquez and Drake use. I am removing these extremely questionable claims and replacing them with each character's primary contribution to the plot or what they are most remembered for. Also, Bishop is explicitly identified as a Lieutenant in the mess hall scene ("looks like the new lieutenant's too good to eat with the rest of us grunts").
Shouldn't there be something about the "Special Edition" version mentioned in Jay Benedict? -- Mortense ( talk) 21:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
basically, i want to add horror to the genres of aliens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thephantomseeker ( talk • contribs) 13:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I made an edit the the infobox to include the runtime of the Director's Cut (154 minutes), and it was immediately reverted by a user using an IP address, hopefully not a bot.
The description read: Only the theatrical run time is included in the infobox
Common guidelines are actually not strictly theatrical releases.
Note the wikipedia guidelines in Template:Infobox film:
"The runtime for the film should be for the primary release; this will usually be the format the film premiered on, so for films that have had a theatrical release insert the runtime of the original theatrical version. Runtimes can vary due to regional censorship, alternative cuts (such as a director's cut or an unrated version) and different technical specifications across release formats, but do not include any additional runtimes without consensus."
While typically the theatrical release is considered the original, in the case of Aliens, the "Special Edition" is actually the original, or very close to it.
Refer to the following sources:
https://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=2558663
"The original version, however, was too long for the producing studio so it demanded several cuts to tighten the plot. Especially the American audience was not trusted to have the ability to sit through a movie of 148 minutes. So Cameron went to the cutting room, again, and lost more than 15 minutes of footage."
I would prefer to find better secondary sources, but I think these may suffice. If you feel otherwise, let me know.
If I don't generate a discussion, I'm going to revert the reversion of my edit.
--
NittyG (
talk)
05:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
This article contains numerous nonsense claims about Aliens being "considered" to be among the greatest films of all time, etc. The fact that some film magazine or other has included the film in some or other list hardly means that it is "considered" such at all: magazines frequently concoct such lists because they are a good way of attracting attention and sales. None of the major surveys of critical opinion such as the Sight & Sound survey ever list Aliens as among the greatest films of all time. It is simply nonsense. Only a certain kind of fan of Hollywood cinema could ever be so blind to the consensus of critical opinion to imagine that this is believed to be among the greatest films of all time.
Nevertheless, my attempts to adjust the wording and remove the most egregious of these claims have been "undone", in Wikipedia-speak. The argument given to justify this reversion was that "considered" does not mean that "everyone" has to believe it, since in that case Gone With the Wind would not be able to be said to be considered among the greatest films of all time. Well, aside from the fact that it is highly dubious to suggest that Gone With the Wind is considered among the greatest films of all time (no doubt somebody thinks so, but, again, it is very far from being a generally-held critical opinion), aside from that, this argument fails to acknowledge that the term "considered", without any further qualification, implies precisely that it is a generally-held critical opinion: it has nothing to do with everybody believing something to be so, but does have to do with a general feeling, for which a magazine article or two hardly count as sufficient evidence.
If this article is to be considered encyclopaedic, and not just a product of the work of fans of one kind or another, such nonsense needs to be toned down (and preferably removed altogether).
Finally, the editor who reverted my edits claimed, on the basis of the speed of my edits, that I must be a registered editor who is using another account in order to follow what happens with this article. That is a false assertion, made without evidence, and itself counts as evidence that the user sees and asserts what they want to see and assert. Will this cause the editor to reflect on their judgment about what to say about other users, and what counts as encyclopaedic content? We will see. 175.33.4.8 ( talk) 22:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there a reason the film Southern Comfort isn't name-checked. The script is written by the same team & is clearly a basis for Aliens.-- Dave F63 ( talk) 12:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Giler continued "One of them stopped me in the parking lot and asked me what I wanted to do for a sequel. So I told him of a story that was a cross between Southern Comfort, which Walter and I had made since, and The Magnificent Seven. He said 'Great, that sounds fine.' We all had a meeting and we were on." Both Southern Comfort (1981) and The Magnificent Seven (1960) concerned small groups of trained soldiers or mercenaries facing off against lethal threats."
Please please please can we get rid of the analysis section? Just having references doesn't make it encyclopedic. I am soliciting support for deleting the whole analysis section. Taquito1 ( talk) 04:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I believe that Aliens is an American film not an American and British film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimand299 ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Given that we are supposed to take it as read that copying Aliens has become a cliché (apparently this is in the Telegraph source but I can't access it, so I'm taking Dark Warrior's word for that), it would be quite good for the article to include some notable examples of films that have copied Aliens in the Cultural impact section. I added a reference to Army of the Dead but apparently a Netflix film is non-notable. Which are the notable films that have copied Aliens? Rodericksilly ( talk) 14:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
The comment about Carrie Henn having no other acting credits is no longer accurate. That needs to be updated. 89.105.221.207 ( talk) 03:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Great work on the FA! BTW, the first paragraph of section Music ends with the sentence Two scenes with James Remar as Hicks (shown from the back) were used in the film.
This seems to be misplaced. –
Reidgreg (
talk)
02:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
The article's intro currently claims, "Cameron was hired to write a story for Aliens in 1983 on the strength of his scripts for The Terminator (1984) and Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985)". How was he hired in 1983 on the basis of scripts for movies a year and two years later? If the scripts were written years earlier, the article should give those dates, not the release dates. Minturn ( talk) 16:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, why is an article about the plot of the film sidetracking itself by highlighting the alien attitude of the US production teams towards British crews, trade unions rights and tea breaks?