Talk:Aliens (film)/Archive 1

message: the facility is "nuclear powered", however if the explosion is due to "to much pressure" in the nuclear plant, is this a nuclear blast per see? or just a steam blast? Sorry for the silly science question here, but adding "nuclear" were it shouldn't be would be a bit cheesy ^^ Aleph42 00:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The atmospheric processor is supposed to be a fusion reactor.  While it probably isn't all that realistic to have an explosion like that caused by insufficient cooling in a fusion power plant (theoretically fusion power is pretty safe) it is nonetheless supposed to be a thermonuclear explosion.  Bishop describes it as destroying an area the size of Nebraska tough to do with steam. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  is this a "nuclear blast" or not at the end ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed. Fredrik | talk 14:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al Matthews, in vietnam or not? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bishop 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The analysis section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Poontang 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deitrich or Crowe? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Red Dwarf connection 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Aliens influenced Starship Troopers? 

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

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Please confirm diameter of grenades 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, I thought that was pretty obvious when I first played Halo. I love the game, even though the marines and their vehicles are a total rip off of Aliens, ie: The dropship, the use conventional style weaponry (the vehicles and the guns) rather than techy-looking guns and vehicles, their overall personalities and contemporary style. Holymolytree2 20:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Popularity 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  APC / ATV 

message: 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)
replies: text: Goldstein was also in Titanic. Mcflytrap 16:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  use of actors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  My edits 

message: "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)
thread_title:  errors in video game sections 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: I agree, and the 500 words seems about right. Halloween (1978 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)
replies: text: The current synopsis is excellent, I find it a good balance between the very detailed original and the truncated one.  Good job to the synopsis rewriters. Enigma3542002 00:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis FAR too long 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think this should be removed as well - it's mostly opinion. Desdinova 14:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. Desdinova 16:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Overt [[Wikipedia:Original Research|original research]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Is it worth putting that at teh very end of the credits, the sound of an alien egg is heard opening, thus setting up the beginning of Alien 3?Screen42 14:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've watched the movie, literally hundreds of times and have never noticed that. Are you sure that is what the sound is? And more importantly, can you prove it? Ashmoo  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a link: http://www.eeggs.com/items/1795.html   You have to listen very carefully as it says, but its there.--Screen42 21:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally agree that it's there, but it's so subtle and open to arguement I vote it doesn't get mentioned.--Geoduck 04:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I had a look. It seems like it is pretty hard to spot. Even some of the comments are the website seem to think it doesn't exist. I'll take the position that it does exist. Still, I don't think it is notable enough for the Plot section, since it is not part of the standard 'reading' of the film. Maybe in a trivia section? Ashmoo 10:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Supposedly, it's a facehugger, maybe the sound was added to the DVD version(s) after Alien 3 was released, in which case it's a bit of a retcon, not in the original prints of the movie.  Furthermore, it is an easter egg of sorts, not really part of the plot.  No need to mention. Enigma3542002 08:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot revert war 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Is it worth putting that at teh very end of the credits, the sound of an alien egg is heard opening, thus setting up the beginning of Alien 3?Screen42 14:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've watched the movie, literally hundreds of times and have never noticed that. Are you sure that is what the sound is? And more importantly, can you prove it? Ashmoo  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a link: http://www.eeggs.com/items/1795.html   You have to listen very carefully as it says, but its there.--Screen42 21:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally agree that it's there, but it's so subtle and open to arguement I vote it doesn't get mentioned.--Geoduck 04:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I had a look. It seems like it is pretty hard to spot. Even some of the comments are the website seem to think it doesn't exist. I'll take the position that it does exist. Still, I don't think it is notable enough for the Plot section, since it is not part of the standard 'reading' of the film. Maybe in a trivia section? Ashmoo 10:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Supposedly, it's a facehugger, maybe the sound was added to the DVD version(s) after Alien 3 was released, in which case it's a bit of a retcon, not in the original prints of the movie.  Furthermore, it is an easter egg of sorts, not really part of the plot.  No need to mention. Enigma3542002 08:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New plot

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Introductory citation needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: Already done. Ben W Bell talk 13:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: "Aliens is a 2007 science fiction / action film starring-" 2007? damn someone mustve brought it back from the future when i watched it , can someone please change the date back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.27.185.46 (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong date 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ratings List 

message: @ Bishop2, where in the film is Ripley called a "Lieutenant"? I have the DVD movie and have read the script online.
Aliens James Cameron's 1985 first draft
Aliens script @ IMSDB
Amazon.com Aliens (Special Edition DVD)
Chairman Van Leuwen at the inquiry calls her a Warrant Officer, which is not equivalent to a Lieutenant. It’s a rank between a junior commissioned officer (2nd Lieutenant) and top NCO (Sergeant Major). In nowhere does anyone refer to her as a Lieutenant, a commissioned military officer. She wasn’t even in the military. She was a civilian Warrant Officer/pilot of a civilian commercial towing ship, equivalent to a Merchant Mariner of our time. I’m changing it back to warrant officer but I think her previous rank title should not be included. She was originally fired from the Weyland-Yutani company at that inquiry and was attached to the Marine squad as a "consultant"/civilian advisor. She did not have any command authority with the Marines. --Pilot expert 18:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the only reference I can find or recall of her having a rank at all is that of Warrant Officer and that is mentioned in Aliens. Ben W Bell talk 18:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought that she was listed as "Lt." on her personnel screen during the board of inquiry.  I might be wrong and I apologize if I am.  I know she's mentioned as a Lieutenant in Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection; makes you wonder how she got that rank, considering that she accomplishes nothing between Aliens and Alien 3. It's also true that she's not military, of course, but since this is the future, we have no idea how/why their goofy commercial ship rankings work. --Bishop2 19:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warrant Officer Ripley 

message: I have added citations to the article, and some sections/formatting like the Alien article. Also some extensive modification of details/writing/etc. Hopefully these will improve the article further. Enigma3542002 09:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, some research and sourcing can support some of the analysis shown here: .... Enigma3542002 06:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Any ideas? Enigma3542002 05:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improvements 

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

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

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

message: M3tal H3ad, I noticed you removed the picture of James Cameron and Gale Ann Hurd because it didn't satisfy fair use. But since that image is actually been given to the wikipedia commons for any use in wikipedia, that doesn't seem to be a justifiable reason. Do you have another editorial reason for the change? Marc.runkel (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realize it was on commons, i will add it back. M3tal H3ad (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thx for restoring the picture, I found it and added it back in when I contributed to the cleaning up and expansion of this article a while back.  At the time I also added the TIME magazine cover.  It is customary to use free pics as much as possible, and I myself have done numerous searches to find free pics for many articles.  This picture however is fair use, but it is referenced directly in quotes in the text, and is from a very influential national magazine, which IIRC was the only time the Aliens franchise was featured on its cover (Alien did appear on the cover of Newsweek). There are many articles on wiki that have TIME covers, including ones that are gunning for a high rating; I hope these considerations will be taken into account. On that matter, I thought I would add a suggestion--the article could possibly use a well-referenced cultural impact/analysis section.  But the article has improved a lot already, thx for the good job, and hopefully it will get promoted. SynergyStar (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Producer Picture -- reason for removal? 

message: I have a small issue with terminology in the introduction. The third paragraph states "domestic box office" and I think using wording like "USA" or "American" box office would better show non-United States slant on the article; in other words less American POV. 
Kresock (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The intro 

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

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

message: I am adding this here in order to find as many opinions as possible.  I have made a suggestion on the talk page of Alien that Aliens redirect to this page, Aliens (film).  Please let me know what you think. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The terms "alien" and "aliens" refer to many, many different things which could all be article topics. That's the reason for having the "(film)" disambiguation in the first place. For example, someone typing "aliens" into the search box could be looking for an article on extraterrestrials, illegal aliens, the legal concept , this film, or even this film's soundtrack album. The disambiguation page for "alien" is entirely necessary, and it's appropriate that "aliens" redirects to it. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree.  I frequently enter plural search terms forgetting the default is singular.  However, I do sometimes find redirects to disambiguation pages vexing.  Aliens -> Alien (dab) is not quite annoying enough to change my disagree :P - 142.167.82.191 (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aliens redirect 

message: Is there anyway someone could add this story (see below) to the article. I think it would definitely be an interesting bit of information about the production of the movie.
From Hello He Lied by Linda Obst. Story told by Gordon Caroll, Executive Producer, Aliens.
    Cameron was young. He had just directed Terminator. Cameron had called a meeting to discuss his “next project.” Everyone knew Cameron had written a treatment for Alien 2 that nobody would touch because Alien was not a massive financial success. Alien 2 was not on the table. We expected a professional pitch from Cameron, an outline and a treatment of what he had in mind with a cursory budget; perhaps a couple assistants to run a slide show.
    Instead Cameron walked in the room without so much as a piece of paper. He went to the chalk board in the room and simply wrote the word ALIEN. Then he added an ‘S’ to make ALIENS. Dramatically, he drew two vertical lines through the ‘S’, ALIEN$. He turned around and grinned. We greenlit the project that day for $18 million.
Source: http://www.derober.com/2008/06/26/6-crazy-hollywood-stories-you-probably-havent-heard/
Diemunkiesdie (talk) 04:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production Story 

message: I'm not sure if someone has added this information, but most of the lines and characters in the Halo game series (partciularly the marines) were inspired by Aliens. Some of the quotes are references to the movie "Move like you got a purpose" for instance. --Surten (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there's a lot of stuff like that in StarCraft, too.  It might be worth writing a section about how many video games have heavily referenced the movie or used it's visual and thematic elements.  However, whoever does this will have to find some outside sources for verification. Alhead (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If verifiable--with citations--include this in a section titled Influences on Popular Culture. Grammatophile (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not certain it is verifiable, and even if so it would be much more appropriate to the Halo: Combat Evolved article in a section about its writing and inspirations. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in Halo 

message: The "Effects" sections states: "All sequences involving the queen were filmed in-camera with no digital rod removal." I assume that "digital rod removal" means using digital effects in post-production to remove the puppeting rods from the frames. I'm no film effects expert, but I doubt that this was a technique available in 1986. That being the case, is it worth mentioning in this context? Or at the very least, could we add the disclaimer "(a technique unavailable at the time)"? The way it's worded now makes it seem like the production team chose not to remove the rods digitally as a matter of principle, when in actuality it would seem as though it was impossible to do so because the technology for producing those kind of digital effects didn't exist yet. Thoughts? --IllaZilla (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this was possible in 1986. Alhead (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the timeline of technology in that article, and the fact that the article is unreferenced and therefore all its claims are unverified, I disagree. I'm highly skeptical that in 1986 the technology existed to do digital touch-ups in post-production to the effect of digitally "removing" puppetry rods (and replacing them with background or whatever else would have been in frame). I'm going to remove the statement as it's irrelevant in this context to make a comparison between 1986 filmmaking technology and today's technology. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. And even if it was available (which I doubt), the use of the generic 'post-production effects' is better than specifying a specific technique. Ashmoo (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital rod removal? 

message: Does anyone have a source for the statement that corporation-as-villian elements in the movie were inspired by a belief that the Vietnam war was stated to protect corporate interests? Ashmoo (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's from the source cited at the end of the paragraph (the audio commentary from the special edition DVD). It is the source for the 2 sentences preceding the citation. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cinefex Magazine, August 1986. Interview by Don Shay.--203.201.73.154 (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inspiration: Vietnam & Corporations 

message: Why are they erasing that the track where Ripley battles the Queen in the CD is called Resolution and Hyperspace? And that it was used in Die Hard? Why can't it be mentioned? --Surten (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's more pertinent to the Aliens (score) article. It's extraneous here. It was also unreferenced, and unreferenced trivial info is often cut, especially from good articles like this one, to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia and keep articles from devlolving into trivia dumping grounds. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for the info. I kinda already kenw that, but I didn't consider this particular info to be trivia.--Surten (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Again, it needs to be referenced to a reliable source, otherwise it's of no use as "a jumping-off point for people doing research". As for the rest of your comment, drawing such comparisons without supporting references is original research. Either way, in-depth details about the music really belong in the Aliens (score) article, which is dedicated specifically to the film's score. That's the purpose of having separate articles for some topics like this; you can go into more detail than you can in the overall article about the film. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: Would anyone care to insert some information about his casting in the film? He was to play Hicks, and supposedly there's still a scene with him in the movie (we only see his back though). I can't find any primary sources to refer to... most of the mentions of Remar I think are from DVD features of the movie. It's already mentioned that Biehn was brought in a week after filming began, so this would provide an explanation for that. Arrell (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would definitely be worth mentioning if we could cite a reliable source. Citing the DVD featurettes would be fine; they provide lots of behind-the-scenes info. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Remar 

message: According to the text, production was slowed up because of "tea breaks" and "lucky dips". Firstly I removed the "lucky dips" bit because this is bizarre. It is not normal working practice in Britain to have regular "lucky dips" - this is something that might occurs at a child's party not at a professional film studio and certainly not regularly. If this is a direct quote then the speaker most likely misunderstood the meaning; but this section is not presented as a quote.
I left the bit about tea breaks, but what's with the scare quotes? I assume that in the US you have coffee breaks or simply "a break". Is it surprising that they occur in the UK? --Kegon (talk) 05:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevance here is that the American director & production staff became frustrated at the slow progress of the filming, and felt that things like tea breaks and other UK labor practices were contributing to the issue. Likely there were lots of other factors, but they made specific mention of tea breaks etc. as things which irritated them. Yes there are also mandatory work breaks under US law, but they vary from state to state & are probably not the same as in the UK. I don't know enough about UK labor laws to do a comparison, but for example here in California on an 8-hour shift there's a 30 minute unpaid lunch break (off the clock) and 2 20-minute paid breaks (on the clock). Anyway, the point of these quotes is to illustrate how there were conflicts between the American & British parties working on the film & how they contributed to delays in production. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cameron is Canadian, not American. That said, in the contemporary documentary James Cameron - A Director and His Work, he does specifically gripe about the tea. It may, however, be more a reflection of Cameron's training in the Roger Corman quick-and-cheap school of film-making. Plenty of American and other foreign directors work in the UK, but Cameron's issues don't seem to be a common complaint. --Nick Cooper (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production in UK 

message: No discussion since March 20008 on merging but quite sizeable articles without any notability tags. Merge tag removed. --Inwind (talk) 11:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sizeable" does not address the very real concerns of notability and sourcing in these articles. They are only "sizeable" because they consist of play-by-play plot regurgitation. "No discussion since March 2008" is irrelevant, as Wikipedia has no deadline and is built entirely by volunteers, so there is no expiration date on valid maintenance tags. Talk:Aliens (film)/Archive 1#Merger proposal is pretty clearly in favor of merging. The presence or non-presence of notability tags is irrelevant, especially considering that those tags are routinely ignored. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I redirected two of the proposed articles, if any content is not included in this one, it can easily be accessed. Bishop appears in another movie as well so merging the article here is not the best option. --Tone 20:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

text: My understanding of the merge process is that no consensus means the merge is to be performed rather than abandoned. See if you understand it the same way... WP:Merge. Or we can simply reach a consensus now. I assume from your comment 184, that you oppose the merger.      Cliff (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see why you would contain Alien 3 information, AvP information about characters from those films the Aliens film article. That is a very wacky thing to do. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Simple thing to do, post a notice at WP:AN. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  to be clear, I have no stake in this matter other than to help clear a backlog of merge requests. 184,you oppose this merger?  Cliff (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

text:  Another thing that may work is to split the Bishop article into each of the several films the character has appeared in and crosslinking them for those who want to know more about the character. Cliff (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

text: There are lists of characters articles for Alien franchise and AvP franchise. I don't think merging into the films is all that hot, since we have character lists available. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

text: In any case, it is no longer appropriate to discuss this here. It should occur at the Bishop article talk page, since it mostly has no relation to this particular film, except a couple of paragraphs. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: are you suggesting moving all these comments to a different talk page, or simply abandoning this discussion and starting a new one?  Cliff (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Are the two films consistent in calling LV-426 a planetoid and not a planet?  I could have sworn that its referred to as a planet somewhere. --Juve2000 (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just did a little flipping through the first film and didn't hear them call it by either name. However, in the scene where they go into orbit they show a large ringed planet with a few large moons, and it looks like they're going around one of the moons. This isn't perfectly clear, though. --Silpion (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe either film is explicit in defining the status of LV-426. I'm pretty sure the first movie doesn't name the object. However the book Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual goes into detail regarding LV-426. It describes it as a moon of a super Gas giant or Hot Jupiter in the Zeta Reticuli system (this agrees with the first film which names Zeta Reticulli). The book describes how the Gas Giant itself is outside the habitable zone, but that it emits enough infrared radiation to create a secondary habitable zone for its moons. This seems to contradict some lines in the first film by the science officer Ash, something along the lines of: "deep cold, well below the line." Presumably referring the habitability line. Aliens doesn't really have an established canon system like Star Wars, so it is really up the viewers imagination to synchronize these contradictions. --Leivick (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Van Leuwen refers to it as a planet in the inquiry. And Ripley calls it a planet in the same scene. Also the script constantly refers to it as a planet. --Canterbury Tail talk 14:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This isnt a question about the script, but the science. Is LV-426 a "planet" in the sense of Earth, Mars, Venus, etc., or a planetoid in the sense of Pluto & Charon. In the purest sci-fi/fantasy sense, any body in space is a planet if it "wanders" except stars & such. In a purely scientific sense, it's a moon. Probably based on Jinx, a habitable moon orbiting the gas giant Godzilla in the Larry Niven universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.83.232 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  LV-426 

message: Article currently reads: "A stowaway Alien kills the dropship pilots in flight ..."
*The word "stowaway" has incorrect connotations. A stowaway "is a person who secretly boards a vehicle, such as an aircraft, bus, ship or train, to travel without paying and without being detected." 
The alien secretly boards the ship, but not to travel -- only to kill.
*"Kills the dropship pilots in flight" -- this statement makes a couple of assumptions, reasonable assumptions but not strictly what the movie shows (assuming my memory about this is accurate). Sequence of events:
We see PFC Spunkmeyer at the dropship hatch -- he touches the door frame or some other part of the ship, gets alien goo on his hand and a puzzled look on his face.  He reports this by radio. That's the last we see of him. We don't know that he's dead; good assumption, but we don't know. We furthermore don't know that he was killed in flight; assuming he was killed, maybe he was killed immediately after his radio report, before liftoff. We see Cpl. Ferro at the dropship controls. She lifts off. The alien kills her, crashing the dropship. She is definitely a pilot killed by the alien in flight. I can't think of better a better word for stowaway, and maybe I'm obsessing too much about the fate of Spunkmeyer, so I'll leave the rewrite(s) to someone else. Source:  --Karl gregory jones (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not exactly sure what that "source" is supposed to prove: it's obviously a fan site with no reliability and massive amounts of original research and speculation. Even if it were reliable, it says "However drop-ship pilots, Corporal Ferro and PFC Spunkmeyer are killed by an Alien, and the drop-ship crashes", which actually completely contradicts your points as it says plain as day that the Alien kills them. I think this is definitely obsessing too much about a plot point that blatantly obvious: the Alien isn't supposed to be on the ship, nor do the pilots know it's there, so "stowaway" is as good a word as any to describe it. And it obviously kills them both. No Alien onboard = live pilots, everyone escapes, drinks champagne and lives happily ever after. Alien onboard = pilots die, rest of group screwed. Similarly, we don't actually see the Alien kill anyone in Alien, but we don't assume they're alive drinking tea somewhere. It goes beyond "reasonable assumption"...the plot points are designed to indicate that the Aliens kill these people. Just because you don't actually see it rip their faces off doesn't mean "well, they could still be alive". --IllaZilla (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest the word: Infiltrator —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.83.232 (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

text: No it crashes into the atmospheric processor, that is what causes it to malfunction and later explode.  Bishop says something like "the drop ship crash caused too much damage." --Daniel 23:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stowaway? In Flight? 

message: I'm confused by why IllaZilla does not want to archive the old discussions on this talk page. Per WP:ARCHIVE, we should archive discussions that are obsolete. Editors will tend to respond to these discussions without realizing how old they are. On the first discussion of this talk page, we have Nick Cooper responding a year after the discussion took place. In the next two, we have an IP address commenting six months after each of the discussions. Canterbury Tail weighs in very belatedly on a discussion above. Is IllaZilla's concern the appearance of a blank talk page? I'm not sure why this is such a worry. Old discussions should only be kept around if there is some long-term purpose, so the wheel does not have to be reinvented. None of these discussions have that. Why can't we go ahead and archive? We don't have to embark on a mission to archive every single talk page, but if people willing to do some archiving, let them. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a bot that'll archive the stuff automatically. I assume the issue is that if the bot was set to archive discussions of a certain age, then that may have been the "agreed-upon" age, whenever that would have been decided, and he's seeking to stick to that. Not really bothered either way on whether it's archived on or, personally, but I'd be tempted to leave it until it's bot-done. GRAPPLE X 21:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we usually employ a bot when we have a high level of active discussion (in the long term) to keep the talk page reasonably focused on the newer ones. This is not a topic drawing new kinds of discussions every so often. As I indicated, it misleads editors into commenting on discussions when the other parties have moved on long ago. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: When I put the bot in place a couple years ago, there were a ton of old discussions on here that I didn't want to sort through manually, and it was at a time when the article was being actively worked on and pushed to GA, so there was a decent amount of activity taking place. The bot is set to always leave the most recent 5 threads. The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 70 KB or has more than 10 main topics. This has neither. Archiving the entire contents, even when the discussions are a bit old, creates the impression that the talk page is unused or inactive, therefore editors will be less likely to use it to communicate suggestions or ask questions. Leaving a few old topics does no harm and, as evidenced by the IP edits above, allows newer editors to chime in and possibly offer new insight without having to dig an old discussion out of the archive. I'm a big supporter of clean, logical archiving, but I don't see any harm in leaving old discussions in place if new discussions aren't popping up. Eventually, if things get active here again, the bot'll take care of the old stuff. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving