Talk:Xenomorph/Archive 2

message: It stated that the Predalien chestburster at the end of AVP had dreadlocks, when we didn't see any dreadlocks and on a offical replica of the chestburster, there was no dreads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.46.30 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your wrong look here Check this out,  Isn't that awesome, the first pics of the Predalien with dread locks. Somewhere we have to add this into some alien or predator article. Do not tell me that that is not cool!!! Somebody please insert it! Thanks! ManofSTEEL2772 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.20.93 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, we don't get to toss in media, especially copyrighted pictures, or even links, just because they're "cool." You can add some meaningful content to the articles that discuss the new creature, then provide the link as a reference. And though I agree the creature in the pictures is awesome, there's nothing there that officially links it to the film. --IllaZilla 06:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah thats what you told me on the AvP 2 web page here on Wikipedia but I added them into the AvP 2 and Alien and Predator sites as a reference saying that it might be or may not be what the creature will look like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.20.94 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Predalien WILL have dreads according to all 3 trailers and the still released before the first trailer. --68.114.123.93 23:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares? Why is this important? Are we adding a section on creature design and production? Otherwise just leave it out. --IllaZilla 00:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predalien movie dreadlocks error 

message: one thing I never got is how they slime or cocoon people. Do they like hock it up as a lugi or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.94.8 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They barf on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyuuga-sama (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe at least part of their goo is produced on their hands (and a personal deduction of mine is they are covered in slime, that  is partially why they are shinny, I have a faint memory of seeing one of them using their hands to mold a coccoon or wall or somthing like that, but I'm not sure --TiagoTiago 16:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Slimed" 

message: Who keeps removing the Commander section of the Xenomorph page?! It's as real a caste as all the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.134.216 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Commander section you are refering to appears to violate WP:OR and WP:V.  To my knowledge it is never mentioned in any film or associated literature. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commander caste 

message: What happened to the section about the king xenomorph. I know some females out their want the queen to be the most powerful but we atleast have to mention that there was a king xenomorph.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoundBlast (talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where was this king xenomorph? All that was given as evidence was a single action figure. In canon, the king is non-existent. I moved the King to the non-canonical list. Serendipodous 13:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  King 

message: Please look up the word "drone" in a dictionary? A drone is a fertile male of an insect colony. Its purpose is to mate with the queen of another colony to produce offspring. There is no evidence in canon that the alien warriors are fertile, and indeed the evidence suggests that the queen does not need to mate. --Serendipodous 11:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look, can the people constantly referring to the warrior aliens as "drones" 

message: I'm sorry I'll have to bring up an old topic, but didn't the young Chestburster show rather remarkable resistance to fire in 'Aliens'? It was caught on fire, and it last rather long time in the flames or a flamethrower? Opinions? --62.248.150.20 (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinions on what? It didn't die right away because, well, it looks better. --Funkynusayri (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adult Aliens weak against fire? (2) 

message: Would the intended meaning of "raptus" not be more likely to be "kidnapper" or "rapist" rather than "thief", considering the lack of a direct English translation of raptus? Both would be more reasonable translations considering the behaviour depicted in the films. Also, the producers of the Quadrilogy box set would be unlikely to have employed a Latin expert to create a tiny reference on the menu of a DVD. --Pug50 (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's true, then they could have gotten what they meant wrong for exactly that reason, so it doesn't necessarily make the "translation" wrong. --Xihr (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying that the translation is wrong, just that there are at least three possible translations of the word from Latin to English. "Kidnapper" or "Rapist" would make sense, whereas "Thief" makes no sense at all; The Alien has never stolen anything (other than people: kidnapping) --Pug50 (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of raptus 

message: There needs to be a part of the article discussing the first movie version as a stand alone universe seperate from the rest of the series. In Geiger's Alien he shows alien hierogyphics and suggests that they had their own culture. It is also thought that the Space Jockey was created by the aliens and that they also sent out the SOS signal as a trap. This of course is before the later movie Predator so there can be no theories about the aliens being created by the Predators projected onto the Space Jockey idea. Also the Alien in the first movie is indestructible, while Ash is reanimated he says that they can't kill it. Also the first movie has deleated scenes that shows Dallas being turned into an egg, so no Queen exists in the first movie's universe. This Alien also rapes Lambert with its tail which theoretically could impregnate her, so as horrible as it sounds this is probably what happened to Dallas. --70.211.25.105 (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that's all original research. We're not here to discuss theories about fictional material, or debate what is "canon." IMO this whole article needs to be worked on according to guidelines at WP:WAF. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it original research? Sources-Geiger's Alien, Alien DVD deleted scenes. The Alien in the first film is an indestructible killing machine. The Aliens in 'Aliens' can have their heads held down by humans and are crushed easily? Part of the horror of the first film was facing your certain death at the hands of an unstoppable force of evil. This idea is destroyed by James Cameron's hive, bug, queen, drone bullshit. --75.197.189.99 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That you're not fond of the later movies is really neither here nor there in the context of an encyclopedia entry about the Alien across all of the movies. --Xihr (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of your statements about alien heiroglyphs and them having their own culture and creating the space jockeys et al are fan theories and therefore qualify as original research. As Xihr says, this has no bearing on an encyclopedic article about the Alien as a movie creature in general. Plus, as you seem to be ignoring, in the first film all the characters had to fight the alien with were homemade flame throwers, so of course they didn't damage it much. In the 2nd and 4th films and AVP they were attacked by marines/mercenaries with high-powered guns, so naturally these did more damage to them. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not ignoring it, it has no bearing on my argument. They are not in the same universe so to speak. First movie, no queen. Ask Dan O'Bannon the creator of the monster. --75.199.64.4 (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That statement is obvious original research, which is why the opinion has no expression, and cannot, in the article proper. --Xihr (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a side note to the OP, "Geiger" is a misspelling of H.R. Giger's name. --Pug50 (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you didn't see the Queen in the first movie does not mean it was not there. --Kiljoy1337 (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geiger's original idea does not jive with mindless bugs 

message: In my opinion, such a long article about a fictional character in an inconsequential movie series does not belong in a general interest encyclopedia. A general interest encyclopedia (again in my opinion) is a concise introduction to general knowledge.  This article is appropriate to science fiction fan literature. I believe this article should be reduced to one paragraph and merged with one of the alien movie articles. --Rocky143 (talk) 03:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your notion that the article should be reduced to a paragraph & merged, though I do agree that it is overly long and needs a lot of work to be brought up to Wikipedia's standards in writing about fiction. The alien itself is a notable fictional character that has appeared in (thus far) six international feature films, several comic book series, numerous video games, and other media (not to mention merchandise, etc) over the last 29 years. It's certainly a notable enough character to warrant an article about it, though I agree this article needs a lot of work. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially since it's well established that such articles are notable on Wikipedia.  Anyone want to actually take a shot at trying to argue that the article on Klingons is non-notable?  Fat chance, that.  (And, while we're at it, they're not characters, they're a species.) --Xihr (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The alien has become a pop-cultural icon, and is pretty damn notable in itself. But the current article is shit, too much fan-boy in-universe rambling, and too little discussion about the concept and designs. --Funkynusayri (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article lacks significance 

message: Someone was having a seizure when they typed the last part of the Predalien section. --24.31.249.138 (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're going to have to be more specific than that.  Being constructive, as well, might help. --Xihr (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with 'Predalien' 

message: Yeah I just saw the new movie and am confused, in the beginning you see that the predalien does not show up on thermal, but when it fights the predator he takes his mask off and can still fight it even though predators see in thermal, so... what the heck?  Maybe someone here can elaborate or maybe this is pointless and it was just a screw up on the people who made the movie. --Kiljoy1337 (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty sure Predators see the same light spectrum humans see.  Their masks are what have the different vision modes. --Kyrandos (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No they only see in thermal, just watch the first predator movie. --65.32.239.201 (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused. 

message: I was walking around the local mall, and saw AvP:Requiem figurines of the Predator, Alien and Predalien being sold. I purchased the Alien, but on closer inspection with the Pred-Alien, I noticed a small section of the creature's skull being transparent- lo and behold, I could see eye sockets, plus a skull that was much the same shape as a humans. This struck me as rather odd, that an idea that was used in the original Alien movie be re-used on a figurine, since I had not noticed or seen a transparent section on the creature's skull. I think it'd be of small interest to investigate, that's kind've cool. --68.111.245.180 (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pred-alien head transparent? 

message: I think article should be retitled Alien.  I realize that using Xenomorph to refer to the creatures allows for greater flexibility in differentiating them from other aliens in general.  However, Xenomorph is not a uniquely specific and descriptive  term for that life form.  Its merely derived from the Greek Roots xeno and morph meaning “strange form” or simply Alien.  The term is used once and in a very broad sense by Gorman, who is trying to sound impressive by using technically overblown jargon.  All of you janitors/sanitation engineers will appreciate what I mean.  A tiger may be a type of cat, but a Xenomorph is just another way of saying Alien.  In addition, outside of the core of Alien fandom who have adopted that word, Xenomorph is  widely unknown among the general public.  Your average movie goer thinks of them as the “Aliens” and would have to be reminded of Gorman’s quote.  Although Alien is equally as nonspecific as Xenomorph, it is the term with the overwhelmingly widest usage and would be the term most likely referenced in any Wikipedia search.  The article should be designated as Aliens (also referred to as Xenomorphs). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.181.47.130 (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was originally titled Alien and was changed long ago.  Let's not go back and forth on this.  Xenomorph is the technical name that appears in several of the movies and is canon. --Xihr (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's canon in the context of Cameron's 'Aliens' and was referenced thereafter as the Xenomorph (damn stupid name that it is in the first place). Gormon used it in Aliens as a way of showing the limited military mindset. It is the Alien, plain and simple, and this article should be changed back to reflect that, quoting it and using it in context as is the basic premise of Wikipedia. Besides, it also respects the original film where it was simply the Alien.-- Gaunt (Gaunt) 10:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is saying that the word isn’t canon or that the term shouldn’t be used in the article.  If this was a journal article for a Sci Fi publication being read by hard core fans then it certainly would be appropriate to have Xenomorph be the title.  However, this article is disseminated to the general public, the vast majority of whom are more familiar with A.L.F. than the term xenomorph.  The overwhelming reference throughout the movies, books, video games is Alien.   It is likely to be the predominant term used in wikipedia searches.  Do you want an article that’s by fans for fans or one for the public at large?  There is precedent for this with other articles.  Puma concolor is the taxonomic name for a cougar.  However, people in western Montana and Idaho refer to them as catamounts.  Which do you suppose it is used as the article title?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.181.47.130 (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Also, look at the titles of all the films after Alien - they're not called Xenomorphs, Xenomorph 3, Xenomorph:Resurrection, Xenomorph Vs Predator or Xenomorph Vs Predator:Requiem. The word Xenomorph is a bit of pretentious nonsense used by Gormon in Aliens to show superiority and limited thinking - this whole article should be changed to give the word 'Alien' the precedence and only give one or two references to Xenomorph as the word introduced in Aliens. BTW, there's an interesting thread on this very matter here:  --Gaunt (Gaunt) 18:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is, we've already gone through this argument before and the article got renamed from Alien.  Going back and forth between names forever is not productive.  Please view the archives. --Xihr (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the archives, from what I can see it was never conclusive what to call it, just a bunch of people deciding that THEIR name (Xenomorph) was RIGHT and that it should be called Xenomorph, despite the fact that the name is only used consistently by hard core fans of the comic books. Let's fact it, it's a damn silly and highly pretentious name and the use of it in this article smacks of some people who have their own agenda and simply wish everyone to call the Alien the Xenomorph. No doubt it makes them feel superior even though it's wrong. --Gaunt (Gaunt) 09:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read thru the archives and what really jumps out at me is the number of times xenomorph is actually used.  If I'm being overly presumptuous I apologize but most of the contributors to these discussions seem to be the hard core fans.  Yet, aside from the whole Alien vs. Xenomorph Debate, Xenomorph isn’t mentioned nearly as often as Alien.  If the term is so predominant among the fan base then why not use it?  Why hasn't it supplanted the Alien label?  A fundamental question has been asked that I think it deserves an answer.  Who is this article being written for?  If its purpose is to as a sounding board for Alien Aficionados to show off, then so be it.  But if you are targeting a wider audience then why not use the term that is in general usage among Alien novices and experts alike. --JDelp (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alien or Xenomorph 

message: Months ago I was part of a discussion that aimed at cleaning up the Origin of the species section by removing the fan fiction. Today I looked at it and found that the fan fiction had partially returned. First of all, Ridley Scott never said in any of his commentaries that the Space Jockey's race created the Aliens. All he said was that the Space Jockey's race used them as bio-weapons. I challenge anyone to find a quote from the commentaries saying that the Aliens were created by the race that built the Derelict. Secondly, the production team only ever used the term "Pilot" and "Space Jockey". The plural term "Space Jockeys" is entirely fan fiction so don't put it back into this article ever again. The only time the Space Jockey's race was given a name was in the novel Aliens Original Sin and they were called the Mala'kak. --218.215.149.63 (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by fan fiction, because that has nothing to do with what you're on about. You're trying to allude to the use of the term "space jockey" as an informal term for the species by the vast majority of people unaware that these aliens have been given an in-universe designation, in what many might consider a secondary or even apocryphal. I don't see what your problem is. --Misterandersen (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be greatly appreciated if we could get this looking like the Predator entry instead of filling this to the brim with info that borders on original research. --The Chibi Kiriyama  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.129.9 (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the return of the fan fiction 

message: I am removing the Praetorian from the Hybridization (Alternate Forms) section of the article. They do not exist in the movies but in the expanded universe - which is what the List of castes from the Alien expanded universe article is for. --S-m-r-t (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2008(UTC)
The Praetorian's do not exist in movies and have their mention in the List of castes from the Alien expanded universe article - whoever keeps adding them - stop! They appear only in games and not in the movies. Thank you --S-m-r-t (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, the "runner" should simply be referred to as "dog burster" here, as that is what it was referred to in advertisement, and the term "runner" is only used in the games. --Funkynusayri (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praetorian 

message: I've got a bit of an issue with this "Super chestburster" since there seems to be no basis for this whatsoever. In Alien3, only regular facehuggers (and their corpses) are seen and it's made very obvious at the beginning of the film that there are multiple facehuggers aboard the ship before the jesttisoning of the EEV (at least three). I'm going to have a look at 3 again tonight because I don't remember ever seeing an implication that one facehugger was able to latch more than once and that the scene the author refers to about the 'black jellyfish' is where they discover the first shedded skin of the runner. (Bobbo9000)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate life-cycles 

message: In Alien³ there is another change of the Alien appearance. It has no "tubes" on his back [Giger said (on the special DVD to Alien³) that he invented those tubes so that the Alien could rest its head on them while staying on two feet. But this creature does not need them.] You can clearly see on the third movie, that this beast has no "tubes" on his back. Does anybody know why those Aliens really have them and why the "Runner" does not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.168.99.24 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess, and this is conjecture, is that during the gestation process there is room for mutation or perhaps the assumption of traits is not always exact.  The tubes might be a genetic disposition in the xenomorphs and have nothing to do with the host.  Perhaps like hair and eye color there are dominant and recessive genetic code, and some of the xenomorph breeds are more or less prone to certain characteristics. --Kyrandos (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well isnt it obvious, even though I'm only a kid, (elementary) that Runner does not need tubes because it's primarily a quadrupedal, so why would it need to rest it's head? --Ammonight423 (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance of Alien - Runner 

message: In the predalien section it says that in an interview with Greg and Colin Strouse stated that the reason the predalien could inject embryo's in you was because it was a young alien queen. Well can somebody tell or show me where they found that interview? Because I highly doubt that it was an alien queen but im willing to prove myself wrong if someone would show me where that interview is. And if not shouldn't that part of the section be deleted seeing as it has no liable source of confirmation on it? (please respond) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.156.46 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, delete it if it is unsourced. --Funkynusayri (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the directors dissagree about that, while Colin has stated that the reproduction ability was adapted from predator D.N.A., I do remember reading about Greg saying the Predalien was a young queen. If you look at the ADI book, you can see the begining of a queens crest growing on The Predalien. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.191.63 (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  predalien 

message: The article as a whole is an impressive piece of work, however, I find some weakened logic behind the statement relating the intelligence of the xenomorph as "roughly similar to that of a typical predatory mammal." How many 'typical predatory animals' have spaceships? --ScatChambers (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The xenomorphs never built or piloted spaceships themselves. What do you mean? --Dark hyena (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Watched Alien again. My mistake. Always thought that the unidentified alien in the chair when the crew of the Nostromo search the crashed ship was a xenomorph. On another viewing, actually paying attention to the shape of the being it is obviously more humanoid. I guess I just ignored the origin of that being in favour of the Giger original or Giger influenced surroundings attributing all such material to the xenomorph. --ScatChambers (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight Problem With 'Intelligence' 

message: If this article is going to justify itself, we need to show what kind of impact the Alien has had on wider culture. I'm not that good at that sort of thing, but Wikipedia never seems short of people willing to make pop culture references. Well, now I am giving you permission to do it. Give me something to work with, and I will redraft it. --Serendipodous 22:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There needs to be a pop culture section 

message: Is "Runner" an official name? As far as I know, it was simply coined in the video games. Plus, is there a better picture, like a screenshot? --Dark hyena (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Runner 

message: *Cyberman 
*Sarlacc 
*Time Lord
Looking at these, I think this article is actually in pretty good shape. All that's needed is more popular culture information (this would include references to the Alien comics, Alien books and AvP franchise), an in-universe history, and more information on the evolution of the Aliens' design (such as the use of rod puppets and CGI). --Serendipodous 08:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional creature GAs 

message: Are we to consider the AVP films canonical or not? --Serendipodous 09:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. We don't get to choose what's canon & what isn't. The Alien franchise doesn't have set levels of canon like the Star Wars franchise does, but in general the movies set the standard and have their own continuity with each other. The comics have their own continuity/canon that sometimes conflicts with the canon of the films, and the video games likewise have their own standards and use whatever ideas the designers want to come up with. For example, none of the "castes" of Aliens used in the video games show up in the movies (and very few show up in the comics). Also, there was a comic series done after Aliens which continues the adventures of Ripley, Newt, and Hicks after escaping LV-426, but then when Alien 3 came out Newt & Hicks were killed off right at the beginning. So there are lots of different continuities and canon to deal with, but again since this is primarily a film franchise the officially licensed films are usually considered the highest level, and we can't exclude certain films or show favoritism to others just because we like/don't like what they add to the canon. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Thing is there are some inconsistencies between  the Alien and AVP films. Perhaps, given the confusing number of conflicting chronologies, it would be better to leave well alone. If an in-universe history is to be included, I foresee every minor inconsistency between the films and the comics mentioned and analyzed until it takes over the entire article. --Serendipodous 15:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, I'd be just as happy without it. But what inconsistencies are there between the AVP films and the Alien films? They're set hundreds of years apart from each other, and the stories of the AVPs set the background for certain elements of the Alien films, ie. the Weyland-Yutani corporation and why W-Y knows of/has interest in the Aliens. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. So they just kept them a secret and did nothing for hundreds of years? And how many corporations exist for 2, 3, 400 years anyway? --Serendipodous 15:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm of the view that a consistent in-universe treatment would be impossible, largely because each film has been written/directed/produced by almost entirely independent groups of people with their own visions. I think a comparable example is Count Dracula or vampires generally. With so many films, books, TV programmes featuring vampires and suggesting different strengths/weaknesses/attributes, it would be impossible to say what was "right" and what wasn't. The Count Dracula article resolutely sticks to the original source to explain the mythos, but the vampire article is forced to cover a far more extensive range of beliefs. --GDallimore (Talk) 16:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: Weyland-Yutani: It's fiction. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief on this one in the interest of story. It's maybe a minor plot hole, yes, but there's nothing in the AVP films that contradicts things in the Alien or Predator films, so they do actually flow together as a unified continuity, which was the intent. You couldn't say the same thing of comparing the comics and films, since there are things between the two media that directly contradict each other. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Been thinking and looking at what we have so far. I think a separate article would be an idea. Something like: Development of Alien design. That article can discuss features of the alien design and abilities in each film separately with one good picture for each film. This article can then be pared down to just the important features that are common between each film, which probably only consists of the basic life cycle shown in Alien and acid for blood. This is based on looking at the vampire article which breaks the mythos up into regions and by time. --GDallimore (Talk) 16:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think a separate article would be a good idea; it would probably be flagged for deletion, or at least for remerging back into this article. Fictional Wiki subjects are currently going through a massive holocaust, and the only real defence is to keep articles concise, and few in number. --Serendipodous 16:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Re: Weyland-Yutani: Well, I could bring up the whole "Bishop was named after the founder of the Wayland Yutani Corp No Wait Bishop was named after the guy who designed him" bit, but I think I'll leave it at that. --Serendipodous 17:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, it looks like were stuck with the AVP films as cannon.  I understand that as the official studio versions, they have to take priority but, both fail to live up to the non-canon Alien versus Predator Comic that actually originated the concept.  What confuses me is that I thought the isolated setting for the first movie was chosen to allow for the cover-up you mention.  Then AVP-R moves it to a populated area and later nukes it?  Maybe they don’t directly contradict the continuity of the Alien movies but the AVP films still strain the bounds of credibility within the Alien Universe. --216.181.47.130 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 20:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  If we are going to do an in-universe history... 

message: Do you think the cloned alien warriors from Resurrection should have their own section in the hybridization chapter? The number of differences between them and the standard LV426 (A1,A2,A3)/Bouvet Island(AvP) aliens does I think warrant this.
*Double jointed hind legs; Not present in previous human spawned warriors. The fact that the concept was unique to Resurrection and was abandoned in AvP, shows that it wasnt just a casual design variant, as is the case of the head differences in A1 and A2. 
*Roaring and growling; Totally unseen before and after Resurrection (save for the Predalien).
*Spitting; Again, unseen before and after in human spawned specimens. --129.12.200.49 (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The double jointed hind legs do seem to be present in AVP and AVP Requiem from what I can see. And the spitting, while seen in human specimens, was seen by the dog alien of Alien 3 when it unloaded some acid on Murphy in the vent shaft.  As for the rest... I think because no one in the movie ever says that these are any different, we can't assume they're supposed to be... no one behind the production ever claimed they were supposed to be "unique" either, aside from the Newborn that is. --Bishop2 (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no continuity in what designs they use, it's like the raptors in the Jurassic Park movies. The differences are not explained by the story, and there probably wasn't any reason for the changes other than that it would look "cooler" (though I think they look like crap compared to the Giger designs). Differences should be mentioned in the design section. --Funkynusayri (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been variations on the design in each film, owing to a variety of factors: improvements in special effects, costuming, size of actors, advances in CGI, design elements required to make certain scenes work, and of course just the whims of the design team. To go into detail, since it's fun: In Alien it was very tall and thin and had humanlike arm & leg joints, because it was played by a tall, thin human in a suit. In Aliens they were played by many extras of a more average height, and the design was altered a bit (ie. the ridges on the head). Alien 3, of course, had the one spawned from a dog (or ox, if you prefer the special edition), which went back to the smooth cowl, lacked the tubes on its back, and tended to move on all fours. For that one they used a lot of puppetry. Resurrection used CGI in some scenes, and suits or puppets in others, and had their hind legs acting more like a bird's or like the velociraptors in Jurassic Park (note: not necessarily double-jointed legs, just structured differently like a bird's legs, or like most quadrupeds' legs where the ankle joint is more towards the center of the leg). It also added the raised ridges on the tail to make the swimming scene more convincing. AVP used a mix of suits, puppets, and CGI, had smooth heads, kept the tail ridges and extended their tails even longer. AVP:R used the ridged heads again but I don't remember any other differences. I don't remember what the legs were like in either of the AVPs, and of course there were other changes from film to film ie. the torso frame, rib cage, fingers, toes, tail spike, etc. We could go on and on. Really this could all be boiled down to a single section discussion how different design teams tweaked the design of the Alien from film to film to suit their own needs and visions. There's no need to have different sections for each design. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The resurrection aliens 

message: The part about alien telepathy is new, but I think somebody have tryed to erase it. I had to write it two times, making me use way to much time on this. There is also a aquatic alien by the way - is this mentioned annywhere?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.227.43 (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This information is not relevant to this article. There is another article List of castes from the Alien expanded universe, that deals with non-filmic information. This article is less about the in-universe story of the Alien and more about its development, design and cultural impact. --Serendipodous 12:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

text: By the way, please keep any further discussion on the discussion board. You are about to violate the WP:3RR rule. --Serendipodous 12:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some stuff from Alien omnibus are added. 

message: *Sub-concious communication
In the comicbook series "alien omnibus", a alien queen is brought to earth for research. She is locked inside a breeding-room and unable to escape, but she manages to communicate telepathicly with humans outside the research facility. This one-way communication manifest it self as nightmares at first, but then it grows into a feeling of belonging and mutual love with the queen alien, the queen alien becoming a sort of mother-figure for the people innfluenced by here telepatic communication. Since thousands of people have these dreams, it leads to the creation of a alien cult that seeks unification with the "true messiah". Even though none of its participants have ever seen a live alien, they manage to create a 3D picture of one, that is completly accurate. When the cult has grown large enoough, they attack the research facility and force their way into the chamber where the queen alien is locked up, eager to be inplanted with the infant alien. Security people try to stop them, but some manage to escape the facility after infection, and thus a uncontrolled alien infestation of earth starts. Even though the alien religion leads to the death of many of its followers, the cult grows together with the infestation. Those who are not used as host bodies by the facehuggers helps to protect the alien hives, and as the aliens get the upper hand, they help to track down the last remaining humans on earth. Those under the innfluence of a alien queen gradualy looses intrest in all other things then the wellbeing of the hive, and thus they devolve into zombie-like creatures. Dirty, underweight and naked. Many people are immune to the telepathic communication of the queens. 
*Commercial explotation of the alien Military value
At first the aliens are seeked out because of their military potential, but this is given upp after some time, as they are extremly hard to controll.
 
*Royal Jelly 
Royal jelly is a substance that is extracted from a alien queen (alien omnibus, book 2). It gives a feeling of wellbeing if eaten, but is also highly addictive, and it is later discovered that it has some rather strange sideeffects. Some corporations in the alien universe attack alien hives in order to get this substance. 
All this info is offcourse useless as It exists another article covering the alien comicbooks. Lots of time wasted for no reason.... Well well, only trying to help. Sorry:-(  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.227.43 (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you can always edit those other articles. :-) --Serendipodous 12:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A huge waste of time...... 

message: Is there a source for the origin of the name "facehugger"? It's been around longer than Xenomorph in the literature as far as I can tell, but I can't see where it started. --GDallimore (Talk) 22:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was the production team's name for the parasite that comes out of the egg. That's also where "chestburster" and "space jockey" come from. Those are the closest things to official names for those forms of the creatures, and they do appear quite a bit in secondary media. "Facehugger" and "chestburster" are for sure used in the DVD menus of the Quadrilogy set (I was watching Alien & Aliens over the weekend). If I get around to listening to the making of documentaries again then I can confirm this, but I'm 90% positive that facehugger & chestburster are names cooked up by the creators & the production team and are therefore the "official" descriptions. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They're used left and right, both by the narrators and the producers, directors, and actors from all the movies as seen in the extra making-of videos on the DVD.  They're about as canoical as it gets. --Xihr (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not denying that the term is the best one available, what I think needs doing is explaining the origin of the term in the article. Same goes for chestburster. If we can add a sourced explanation that these terms were used by the production teams of "movie X" I think that would be a useful addition to the article. --GDallimore (Talk) 11:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The names "facehugger" and "chestburster" go all the way back to "The Book of Alien" and "HR Giger's Alien", both of which were published in 79, so it can be assumed that they were coined by the crew. --Serendipodous 14:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article claims that the facehugger is basically able to survive in the cold conditions of the moon of LV-426 where carbon dioxide can freeze. However, Kane mentions that the chamber the eggs are located in as being "like the god damn tropics" (not an exact quote, but you get the point). Perhaps this should be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.155.131 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facehugger 

message: According to the Alien vs Predator game, the life cycle is as follows: facehugger>>chestburster>>alien>>praedorian>>queen
In the game it says that when the Alien matures it becomes a Praedorian, which enrages the hive and make the other Aliens want to kill it. So these Praedorians leave the hive and when they come back only one has survived, of which grows into the Queen.
Should this be mentioned? People may wonder, "If the chestbursters make aliens, where does the Queen come from?" --Orion qwerty (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See: List of castes from the Alien expanded universe --Serendipodous 09:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, that doesn't hold true in the movies themselves; we already know queen chestbursters exist, because Ripley had one. --Bishop2 (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life Cycle (2) 

message: To anyone who has seen the extras on AVP:R, could you perhaps talk about what was mentioned in the documentary "Science of the hunter" or the Predator homeworld? --Dark hyena (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science of the hunter 

message: Have you ever tried redirecting Alien (Alien franchise) to The Alien, I could move the original The Alien article to The Alien (Cancelled film)? --Clover08 (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't. There have been multiple discussions about what to title the article. See the first discussion near the top of this page, in fact. Alien (Alien franchise) was the consensus. It's not a matter of it having the same title as the cancelled movie, it's that there isn't a name for this creature that's not going to require some kind of disambiguation when used as the title. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact it's changed names at least four times over recent history.  This is just really not constructive; let's move on to improving the article, rather than endlessly going back and forth over what it should be named. --Xihr (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't appear very much constructive work is allowed to happen on these sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.220.174 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Name 

message: Ok, so, to the people who would like to remove a header explanation for this section, I just have a few questions:
Do you believe that humans do not constitute a species?
Assuming we all agree that they do, with the other evidence from the movies, we know that the only reason "aliens" appear human is because they came from human hosts.  The fact that the dog alien came from a dog and looks like a dog is clearly not a coincidence.  Neither is the fact that aliens born from humans resemble humans.  In fact, all evidence seems to point to the fact that the -only- reason the human alien looks human is because it comes out of a human.
Second, if you do not think that an alien came out of the Space Jockey in Alien, why does he have an extruded hole in his ribcage?  Is it a coincidence that he bears all the marks of an alien implantation and birth, and is sitting in a crashed ship full of alien eggs?  That his corpse foreshadows what happens to Kane?  In view of what did happen to Kane, isn't it logical to assume that he was killed by a chestburster?  Isn't this implied fact documented elsewhere on Wikipedia; hasn't it been intentionally written into the script, commented on by various people in the design team, and indeed isn't it common knowledge to anyone who saw the movie?
So, assuming you don't think the Jockey died of heartburn, in light of the fact that aliens take on the characteristics of their host, isn't it logical to assume that the alien that came out of the Space Jockey would be a "Jockey" burster; that it would not be the same as a human alien, just as a dog alien is not the same as a human alien; just as a predator-alien is not the same as a human alien?
This isn't original research, as no original ideas are being stated.  They should be universally obvious.  What specifically is the objection to adding this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.220.174 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pure speculation.  Yes it is based on facts and observations from the movie, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an original idea, not discussed in the film or any related material.  --Leivick (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Speculation based on facts is still speculation.  In Wikipedia, original research is inappropriate for conclusion. -- Xihr  04:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I hate to be the one to tell you... but you guys are beyond saving. You are just hindering progress, not helping it. An alien came out of the Jockey. It's not speculation, it's not original research. It's such a central part of the plot of the movie. It is not even an issue open to discussion. Just because it didn't happen on camera, does not mean it didn't happen. In fact, in this case, it did happen off camera--and eventually someone will come up with a DVD commentary quote, which will prove nothing more than the fact that you are wasting your own time as well as mine by your destructive undoes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.220.174 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You said an awful lot more than that in your changes and your comments on the talk page, so that's a simplification.  If all of what you said is true, then you should have no trouble finding a reliable, third-party source to back it up.  If not, then it's not appropriate for Wikipedia.  Following consensus and adhering to Wikipedia's policies and guidelies is not "hindering progress." -- Xihr  07:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Interspecific Hybridization' 

message: The last line in the first paragraph said "The alien takes on the appearance of the host" is a bit misleading.  If someone not familiar with the series read that, they might get the wrong idea.  A perfect example is Alien 3.  The alien that hatched out of the dog looked nothing like a dog.  However, it ran on all fours, and ran quite fast, just like a dog would.  I've changed that to "attributes", which would be more fitting. --CardinalFangZERO (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life Cycle section 

message: Would anyone be opposed to setting up the MiszaBot to automatically archive threads that have been inactive for a certain amount of time? I'd suggest 30 or 45 days as the parameter. I'll gladly set it up if nobody objects; this page tends to get pretty long. I've just seen it implemented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums and I just set it up for my own talk page, and it seems to work pretty handily. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there are apparently no objections I'm going to set it up. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated archiving 

message: Looking at this I was really impressed. If anyone thinks this is good enough to be renominated for GA, I'd gladly pass it since I haven't really made any edits before. --CyberGhostface (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article? 

message: While originally suppose to be in the the movie, they skinned predators were removed in the final version. I deleted it, but if someone would like to revise it they may. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.191.245 (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted the "Predalien skins" portion. 

message: "The creature known as the Alien has now been given an official species name; Xenomorphus Acheronesis"
When was 'now'? What institution has assigned this name, and in what sense is it 'official'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.196.206 (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus christ. For the last time, the alien creature does not have a name in any work that is even plausibly canonical. The term "xenomorph" used by Gorman in the second movie is just a latin-derived phrase that means "alien shape" or "foreign shape"- it's a generic term that could be applied to any exotic alien organism. By the way, this holds true even assuming you consider all four alien movies (including all director's cuts, alternate versions and assembly cuts) and both AvP movies are canonical. It has been called a dragon (alien 3), xenomorph (aliens and alien 3), an alien (all films), a "hostile organism" (aliens), a monster (aliens, alien resurrection). --Beerslurpy (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'official name' 

message: are all that is lacking at this point I think. But sources are pretty hard to come by. Some of the material may be self-evident (it's pretty bloody obvious that the Zerg and the Tyranids were Alien-inspired) but this sort of thing needs a citation. Serendipodous 18:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for the Pop culture section 

message: The image :File:Offspring - ST 1989.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright problem with File:Offspring - ST 1989.jpg 

message: Hay, some of the images are broken! Can some one please fix this? (i'm use to using Wiki's just cant be botherd with a "normal" wiki account.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.17.7.150 (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Images 

message: :Alien (Alien franchise) → Alien (creature) —  Title suited to Alien disambiguation page list, in fiction section. It would remove repeated word "alien", includes the  Alien (franchise) details in article page. -- RW Marloe (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Move (2009) 

message: If predaliens are mentioned in the article I believe other species should be described in the article such as 'Pretorians' and 'runners' from the games alien vs predator and alien vs predator two  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulyanov322 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a separate list article for those. See List of castes from the Alien expanded universe. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction of Other Species 

message: I'm surprised theres no mention of the alien skull seen in Predator 2 (other then the fact that its in there i mean). Its considered to be cannon by most people and should probably be mentioned in the characteristics part under appearance especially as there is a part there already written thats talks about the aliens head. The skull seems to suggest that the aliens have bones yet they appear to have exoskeletons in pretty much all of the alien movies, i think atleast bringing it up would be interesting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.198.194.66 (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not here to make theories (see WP:NOR). If a secondary reliable source has discussed it, then we can include that information. Otherwise there's not much we can say about it other than "it was there". --IllaZilla (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's equally likely that the 'skull' in Predator 2 was simply bleached exoskeleton.  --King Öomie 07:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But again, there's no need for us to speculate. Either there's a source discussing it or there isn't. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alien skull in Predator 2 

message: There is nothing here about what these Aliens eat. And their adaptation to oxygen rich environments etc (respiration) also in Alien there is a remark about nutritional requirements-- but nothing is here. Also the single Alien seemed to exhibit different behavior to the Alien in a hive. Single Aliens seem to eat or kill , while pack Aliens seem 2 harvest people for implantation. So there is behavioral note that is needed. --41.177.100.225 (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a load of original research to me. Not to mention that we need to be focusing on the real-world aspects of this fictional creature (concept, design, creation) rather than useless in-universe explanations and theories about its behavior. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diet of the Alien