Talk:Alien (film)/Archive 1

message: Regarding the following sentence from the article:
:The alien embryo is discovered in a ruined pyramid on an alien planet; this concept was actually held onto for a long time, and preliminary H.R. Giger pyramid drawings intended for Alien exist, but eventually the producers went with the idea of a wrecked derelict (also designed by Giger, even though the ship was supposed to be that of a different alien species).
What is meant here by "different alien species"?  It is my understanding that the derelict was built by a different species than the "aliens", that it was infested with the aliens, and its crew was defeated by them.  One of their corpses is seen by the humans as they first begin to explore the derelict.  The above passage is very ambiguous, but I suppose you could interpret it to mean that the derelict was built and piloted by the aliens, but that is not the case.  In other words, it makes little sense to say that the ship was supposed to be that of a different species, when it was in fact that of a different species. --Yath 20:50, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has explained this, and I think it's just confusing, I removed the text from the article: (even though the ship was supposed to be that of a different alien species). --Yath 03:55, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different alien species 

message: Would it be a good idea to make an "Alien" project? I am surprised one does not exist already. -Matt 02:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject 

message: There is some confusion as to Ripley's status; is she military personnel or not, and what is her rank?
In the 1979 novelisation of the original Alien, when Ripley confronts Dallas about taking off from the planet, Dallas clearly states "this isn't a military vessel...standard procedure is to do what the hell they tell you to do". This would fit in with the fact that the Nostromo is a commercial towing vehicle.
Ripley's status in Aliens seems to be as a civilian advisor to the Colonial Marines. She wears no uniform and is not addressed by rank. Lieutenant Gorman and Sergeant Apone (who is called "Master Sergeant" in the novelisation, but in the film wears U.S. Army Sergeant 1st Class chevrons; one grade below Master Sergeant in both the Army and Marines) are in charge.
However, in both the movie and novel of Alien3, Ripley is addressed as "Lieutenant" (pronounced "lef-tenant" by the primarily British cast). The novelisation also clearly states "she was military, after all".
So, when did she "morph" from being a "civilian" Warrant Officer to a "military" Lieutenant?--MarshallStack 22:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i am fairly unfamilar with non-naval meritime(having to do with ships) ranking systems but is it possible that her spot on the nostromo, gave her the rank of lieutenant, or lef-tenant (which if i recall correctly was a british naval rank, not a very high one though) along with her being a warrent officer? -manwithbrisk
**Again, this is a really grey area.  About the only analogy I can draw is officers in the United States Merchant Marine, who, when in uniform, are almost indistinguishable from U.S. Navy/Coast Guard officers (the USMM is closely linked to the USCG) and would have definitely rated a salute from me when I was in the military.  The novelisation implies that "warrant officer" was a position, not a rank, but in the U.S. Armed Forces (which seem to be the model for the rank structures), a warrant officer is a specialist officer in between enlisted and commissioned officer ranks.  Of course, in the novel of the first film, Dallas is the only one given an actual rank title (captain).  The only explanation I can find is that she would have been given honorary lieutenant's rank in Aliens, since they were going into a combat situation.  She would have no longer held warrant officer status in Weyland-Yutani's merchant fleet, since they basically cleaned her out in the corporate board of enquiry in Aliens.  NB: In the novelisation of Aliens, Burke, when trying to persuade her to go out again with the Colonial Marines, tells her "one more trip and you qualify for a captain's certificate."  This would imply to me that she was never truly military, but held a specific position (warrant officer) aboard the Nostromo, which was an unarmed vessel owned by "The Company"/Weyland Yutani.  Incidentally, in the USN/USCG there are two grades of lieutenant, close to the bottom of the officer tier (but still outranking warrant officers) and in the Royal Navy and Commonwealth Navies (Australia, Canada, NZ) there are "acting sub-lieutenant", "sub-lieutenant" and "lieutenant" ranks, though the Royal New Zealand Navy follows US precedent in using "ensign" as its lowest commissioned rank.  Having said all of this, I still maintain that Ripley was a civilian, though one with considerable combat experience! --MarshallStack 22:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ripley: "Military" or not? 

message: I've often seen Alien and the "cosmic horror" genre of H.P Lovecraft linked, but there's no mention of this in the article. Alien is sometimes used as an example of a Lovecraftian film (example: here, and Giger himself is known to be inspired by Lovecraft's writing. 
Is this too slight a fact to warrant a mention? 211.27.72.12 14:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be a great addition.  --Quasipalm 16:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lovecraft 

message: Saw it as part of the AMC's DVD-TV special on Alien:Resurrection. Highly recommended to all Alien fans! - Emt147 Burninate! 05:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Beast Within: The Making of 'Alien' 

message: (*) There are two theories about how the egg was found within the Sulaco:
- The Alien Mother laid it there during the escape from LV-426 (which is almost impossible since its tale-like birth-pipe was broken apart during the explosions and left behind, she couldn't laid any other egg then),
- The egg was recovered by Bishop while Ripley came back looking for Newt before the Atmosphere Procesor would explode;  Ripley came back to the landing area and Bishop wasn't there.  Following his scientific goals, Bishop had enough time to leave the landing area and to pick one of the eggs up to finally bring it back home (Earth) after escaping from the LV-426; Corporal Hicks was on the ship with him but he was knocked down since he got hurt while running away from the Aliens.
Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum for fan fiction or speculation. Can you cite the official Alien/Aliens canon for any of this? - Emt147 Burninate! 20:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't a place where only official and canon sources can be cited.  I think it was a fine addition, and interesting to boot.  As long as it is clearly marked as a popular theory among fans, it is ok to add.  See Mulholland Drive (film)#Interpretation and allusions for another example.  --Quasipalm 03:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well it wasn't clearly marked as speculation, was it? One user put it in and another began arguing about it right in the article. It's a good movie but it's only a movie. Filling in plot holes is fan fiction. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egg origins in Alien 3 

message: ALIEN	This user will never look at spaghetti the same way again.
Chernicky 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: Does this page need to have synopsis for the rest of the series? Dr. No hasn't got all the other Bond Films on it. Please sort out.
:I think we need to have a page for the entire series generally (a place for shared information and the entire overview), and then seperate pages for each film.  For an example of this structure, see King's Quest (it was the first that came to mind, but I've seen films broken out by that).  Perhaps it could be named Alien (film series) -Quasipalm 18:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most everyone who edits this page would agree -- AvP is such a tangent that it'd be confusing to mix the two on an Alien series page. -Quasipalm 18:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serial line 

message: Just curious if anyone knows the date and network that aired the 1st movie Alien on TV?
It may have been USA Network sometime in the late '80s.  I definitely remember seeing it on HBO in 1981.--MarshallStack 22:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What network and when did Alien debut on TV? 

message: "It! The Terror from Beyond Space" (1958), starring Marshall Thompson, deserves metion in any discussion about "Alien" (1979).  Both films are about an alien that stows away aboard a spacecraft and kill the crew members one at a time, forcing the remainder to hide in a smaller and smaller section of the vehicle.  Both monsters are very difficult to kill.  In the "It!..." article, it is metioned that the producers of "It!..." sued the producers of "Alien", but, it is not stated what happened in the lawsuit.  Many people, including Leonard Maltin and Turner Classic Movies have metioned the simularities between "It!..." and "Alien".204.80.61.10 18:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. It's a great movie and clearly seminal to "Alien". I've added a short note to the "Early Versions" section and a link to the "It.." page. --Oscar Bravo 08:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: While it is clearly seminal, we need to provide a 3rd party source that has made the link to avoid WP:OR issues. Could we get quotes or cites from Maltin or TCM? Ashmoo 01:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Also, The Thing, which Roger Ebert thinks is seminal to Alien. --Oscar Bravo 11:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It! The Terror From Beyond Space" deserves mention 

message: In a documentary I watched called Deep Blue, they said that Giger was inspired by a fish that lives in the deepest areas of the oceanic floor to design the "alien". What is the name of this fish?--Sonjaaa 16:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HR Giger's inspired from a fish! 

message: The Influence section is terrible. Here are the problems I have with it:
*There's no introduction to the section. There should be a short paragraph explaining the impact that the film has had not only for horror and sci-fi movies, but for movies in general.
*It degrades into a list of other movies and games that have merely referenced it. These are less and influence than an homage, and should probably be in a separate section.
*Some items in the list are neither Influenced Works nor References to Alien, but something else altogether, namely the Helene Cixous item and should be moved. Zepheus 21:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, especially on the second point : it's preferable, for clarity's sake, to split the Influence section in two separate sections : one being a "Reference" section, containing all little references and homages to the Alien movie(s) in games and movies, and the other being the real "Influence" section, containing the works influenced by Alien movie(s). AceNoctali 15:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence Section 

message: This section (Feature films within the same storyline) does not need to be on this page. I'm sure the pages for the other movies have their plots listed there. Here, it's just filling up space. Most of this section should just be deleted. There could be another page with an Alien movie series timeline; such a page might already exist. Zepheus 04:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature films within the same storyline 

message: Anyone else agree?  Do there need to be quotes in there and all that detail?  Also, why are there plot outlines for other movies that have entries here?
:Agreed! Either I'm wrong, or someone is very confused about a plot section's purpose: I thought it sought to briefly describe a film's story, not to reproduce it in its entirety, dialogs included. This level of detail in a plot's summary is ridiculous in an Encyclopedia. If I had wanted to read the whole of it, I'd bought a book instead.
:Administrators, please use your scissors! - AVM 22:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It needs major cutting. While well intentioned, the plot section should be a summary, not an accurate description of every dialogue and visual effect. Ashmoo 06:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to attempt to try and cut the plot section down to size. It probably could have a lot more taken out if someone wants to try but I didn't want to go too far so thought I'd be cautious for now.--Chrism 17:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The plot section seems insanely long to me 

message: What is gained by  having this information here? Neither Indiana Jones nor Star Wars contain repetitions of their own plots, much less plot summaries of the other movies.  They simply have the "followed by" and "preceded by" set appropriately.  Star Wars has a "Star Wars Universe" page, but I really don't see what is the point of restating the plots of the movies here, when they are available on their own entries.  I can see maybe having a one-sentence summary for each, but it just seems silly. --Davetron5000 16:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we just remove the plot summaries for the sequels then? Many of us have a problem with. I'm going to do it per WP:Bold. I'll archive the text so that we have that information to cull from. Alien/QuadrilogySummary - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 16:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant Plot Summaries 

message: DragoonWraith 02:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree. I believe it's one of the most famous (and parodied) taglines of all time. I would say to put it on there. - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 07:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm generally not a fan of long lists of taglines, but this one is so famous that it warrants inclusion. Ashmoo 01:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I added the tagline to the opening section. It needs something showing its significance in popular culture as per Wiki:Films Project guidelines. - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 19:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagline 

message: What is with that section, the second paragraph is basically a `no it's not, it's completely different'. Definitely should be rewriten or removed. 21 July 2006
:Moot point since this has been reworked now, but to answer the original question: The task when comparing things is to high-light their similarities and differences. If there were no similarities, there'd be nothing to note. If there were no differences, they would be identical. By summing up the differences and similarities, you can judge the level of influence and originality in the successor work. For example, if you wanted to compare Flash Gordon with Alien, about the only thing they have in common is that they both feature spaceships, so you could conclude that Flash Gordon was not an influence on Alien. When you compare It! with Alien, you find many similarities, which implies It! was an influence, at least on the storyline, but also many original features in Alien, which are what makes Alien a much better movie than It!. BTW, try comparing Alien with The Thing From Another World... --Oscar Bravo 07:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precursor work POV 

message: I have a problem with the opinion that the Corporation's sole purpose for re-routing the Nostromo to LV-426 was to specifically find the so-called titular alien synonymous with the quadrilogy. Frankly, I think that they (the Corporation) most likely received the same distress signal the Nostromo did, and issued protocol-937 to investigate. However later on, much to Ash's surprise, the true alien presence became the parasitical one, and not the "Space Jockies". --Dark Observer
:Is there an issue with the article? - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Jocky, or Alien? 

message: I believe that we can bring this article up to featured status. We already have a lot of good text and information. It just needs to be organized and sourced. There are a lot of great references at its external reviews page at the IMDb. I think with a focused effort, we can reference many of these claims in a few days. I got started with the Sources section. If anybody would like to help with this, then climb on board. I'm putting an  tag on it to let people know. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 21:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hot diggity! Now I'm excited. I'll get cracking on references. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 21:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Should definitely be featured. Majik43 23:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature this! 

message: There's currently a template at the top of the article saying that there's a major overhaul in progress, and there's a template at the top of the trivia section saying that it's too long, so I'm hesitant to actually add anything, but I think it would be very noteworthy to mention that John Hurt satirically reprised his role as Kane in a scene (spoofing the chestburster scene) in the 1987 movie Spaceballs.  Since I really don't know what's involved in this overhaul or how long it's going to take, I'll just leave it up to someone more involved in the project to decide if and when to add this note. - Ugliness Man 06:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put both those templates on this page. You are welcome to help out making this article rock socks off. For the Spaceballs reference, check out List of cultural references to Alien. If that's deemed a more significant reference, it can be moved back to the main Alien page at some point. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 16:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent. By the way, references also help; if you would like to find references for those pieces of "trivia," that would be most helpful as well. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 19:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Ref #5 seems to not work. Any way to fix it without putting an "obsolete since" tag?--Dark Kubrick 13:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just tested it and had no problem with it. What is the problem? - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 06:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm. Maybe try the link by itself, and see if that works. I suppose it could either be a URL problem or a Reference tag problem. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 21:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref problem 

message: There are two of these Template:Alien and Template:AVP and I'd like to add the information from the latter into the former and update the main one (both format and content). I'll go ahead and do it when I get the time and see how it goes (unless anyone raises any objections). (Emperor 13:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I think the Alien Template is too big as it is, and shouldn't include some of the information it already has. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 17:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a restlying (like moving the headers to a side column (as on the games one) would help tighten things up. (Emperor 17:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Something like the music genre infoboxes might even work. See Drum and bass - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 17:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah that is one idea although it can't fit much in. I have just worked on this Template:Judge Dredd which is nearly the same size as the current Alien one but manages to fit about 3 or 4 times the amount of information in. See also Template:Battle Royale. We could redo the Alien template, add in the games, add more missing information and still have a smaller panel than we currently have. Everyone's a winner ;) (Emperor 18:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If you can merge those templates and make it look good, go ahead and do it. --Mika1h 16:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully it should still look good as it'll be based on your AVP template - using a table so the headers are on the left will reduce the amount of vertical height each section requires (in the current Alien template) will be reduced so the end result shouldn't take up anymore room that the current Alien one while fitting more information in (Emperor 17:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK as no one has raised any objections I'll have a crack at it later and we can see how it looks and if it is felt it doesn't work we can revert it. (Emperor 13:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its now done - as I suspected it is the same size as the previous one but now contains more information as I've added in a lot of missing entries and combined it with the AvP games one. Compare and contrast with the horror show of Terminator template that you can see here: Aliens vs. Predator vs. The Terminator. Granted it may need tweaks but I'm happy with the way the overhaul has turned out. Thoughts? (Emperor 16:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I suppose it depends on what the topmost entry is. If it is this one then most certainly. I went with the film series one as it links off to all the film and can be considered as a higher level entry. A fix might be: Alien, Predator & Alien vs. Predator - although note that :Category:Alien series links to the film series entry at the top. I think this will have to be a group decision. I am not really fussed either way although marginally lean towards having it as it is. See what other people think and its easy enough to change. (Emperor 16:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template/infopanel 

message: This category is empty and seems to be redundant as this :Category:Alien film series characters contain the characters. Delete? (Emperor 16:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Aliens characters]] 

message: There are some Alien series entries that either need a lot of epxanding or merging into other articles:
*Xenomorph-Yautja War - nothing much links into it. I'd suggest merging it into Alien vs. Predator
*Alien Quadrilogy - deals with the boxset and, as great as it is, I suspect it could go in Alien (film series)
*Barbara Coles - her most notable role was as cocooned woman in Aliens. I wonder if that really qualifiesas notable enough for an entry.
Anyway just a few thoughts in passing. (Emperor 17:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related-entries requiring attention 

message: The plot section is over-long. It needs to be pared down to a short summary of the events as opposed to a play-by-play. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 05:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There are a lot of entries on Wikipedia with very detailled plot summaries and it just bloats an entry. (Emperor 13:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't just about the size (though it was overly long). It's also about the "in this film", "at the start of the film" type text. It's just things like those examples that should be removed. I haven't had a chance to read through the whole plot summary, but those are things I just caught in the first paragraph. Sometimes they are necessary to explain what is going on, but usually they are needless text that can be removed. Example, we don't need the "this film mostly takes place on the Nostromo", because that will become evident during the reading of the plot itself. I think you've done a good job of shortening it, but not it needs some copyediting (which, most likely will shorten it some more, but that's not definitive). Bignole 17:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I worked on some of the things that Bignole talked about. It's slightly shorter and some redundancies are removed. I think it's getting there. If anybody else wants to take a stab at it, go for it. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 18:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long plot section 

message: I've cut the following section has it appears to be original research, which is not acceptable. It needs to be fully referenced before being restored. Dan100 (Talk) 07:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR 

message: I removed the list of deleted scenes. I did this for several reasons, one is that listing isn't good for an article and another is that listing every deleted scene is unencyclopedic, it runs up there with expanded plots that detail everything that happens in a film. If it was something special, like Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut, then I could understand. There is a history behind that film's deleted scenes, steming back 20 years. The scenes that were deleted in this film were done by the original Director for the same reasons that every Director deletes them. Noting that there are deleted scenes, that the Director's cut is actually shorter than the original theatrical, and that the Quadrilogy allows you to view either film is enough to note. Bignole 03:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special Features 

message: I removed the trivia section per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. I think that this information can go somewhere, but I'm not sure where at this point. Perhaps if we had a Reception and audience reaction section. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 04:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah we should keep that. We don't need a "audience reaction" section, because that borders on "fan reaction" which can't be measured accurately. Just a general "Reception" section with your standard film critic sources, and this tacked on. Bignole 11:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur. When I was checking out the article, I noticed a lack of a Reception section. I think part of the problem is that, when I looked, I mostly found reviews of the 2004 re-release. If we can find some reviews of the original release, that would be helpful. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 17:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think both reviews would be good, but the original reviews should be the majority. It will probably be hard considering you don't have many movies that get released 20 years later into the theaters as a Director's cut. Bignole 17:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed trivia section. 

message: "Along with launching the career of actress Sigourney Weaver, the film proved to be pioneering as it was the first action film to feature a strong female heroine."
There is no evidence provided to support this claim. Many action films prior to Alien featured female protagonists in the heroine role. This was a huge trend in blaxploitation films, notably Coffy and Foxy Brown. Many 60s spy/mod films, for instance Modesty Blaise, also featured a female heroine in an action film. Whoever wrote this is putting forth a false statement of opinion and is using no evidence or sources to back up their argument. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.104.58.116 (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited claim 

message: The alien needs a description to remain uniform to the other character's descriptions. Just wanted to point it out before somebody reviews it for GA. --Nehrams2020 00:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast section 

message: I got to tell you, the article is pretty well done, but without those footnotes, I've got to fail the GA nomination. Sorry. (Ibaranoff24 06:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA nomination 

message: I've nominated the page Giger's Alien for deletion because it appears to be just a list of names for the aliens in the franchise, aliens covered extensively at Xenomorph (Alien). The deletion debate is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giger's Alien, I thought I'd mention it here as the article's creator seems very attached to it... Driller thriller 03:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giger's Alien 

message: From my copy of the Alan Dean Foster novelization, I read that Nostromo is towing an oil refinery, which is processing a full load of crude oil, at the time in which the narrative takes place. I unfortunately have no movie to re-watch, but the refinery makes more sense in light of the explosive ending. Is this not a feature of the movie? Lord Dust 08:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the movie, it's towing mineral ore. - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 17:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cargo 

message: Things don't fossilize in open air. They need to be buried under sediment in order for minerals in the sediment to leech into the dead organism, replacing organic tissue with more permanant inorganic elements. 
The Space Jockey is more likely mummified.
74.101.48.139 16:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Jockey "Fossilized" Remains 

message: I would like to put in a source for a recent edit I made that was undone about how the Alien and the Metroid series contain references to each other, but I don't know how to add a footnote, and I know if I just put the information back up, it will get deleted again. What should I do?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZackVII (talk • contribs) 13:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metroid 

message: There is a conversion of the popular shoot em up game for the PC, Doom 'Aliens Total Conversion'. 
http://www.doomwadstation.com/main/aliens.html
http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Aliens_TC
Royzee 20:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doom Alien Total Conversion 

message: I deleted the sentence about hyperspace in the Plot section. As I recall there is no mention of something like hyperspace in the movie. Zarniwoot 01:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyperspace 

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) 23:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Alien 

message: 16th March - Paged edited - most significant change related to the plot twist that's revealed in the deleted scenes in the new release of the "Alien" DVD. In HR Giger's book, there are photographs of designs and props used for the sequence where Ripley discovers Dallas and Brett - Giger's props are discussed as part of a sequence where Dallas and Brett are turning into eggs. Thus it's incorrect to talk about "cocoons" or Dallas and Brett being implanted, since the props are clearly eggs & Giger's dialogue confirms them as such. This makes the scene subtly different to the "cocooning" sequences in the later movies, where a different, queen-based reproduction method is used.
In this context it's incorrect to talk about the alien "killing" some of the crew members, as they're not killed in situ, but disabled & abducted for the conversion into eggs. This doesn't sit well with the later films, but it's correct in the context of the original movie.
Other minor changes to the page : the plot summary is incorrect in the first paragraph, as there is no "young alien" involved in the implantation of Kane, and Kane is not "infected" - it's a separate, facehugger stage that's involved, and he's implanted, not infected. Other changes to the plot - the eggs aren't "protected" by a forcefield in the traditional SF sense, it's described as a "layer of mist".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.68.135 (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit changes - 16th March 

message: There is an episode in the animated feature film "Heavy Metal" that features the WWII story of a creature aboard a US bomber plane that lurks out of sight and systematically kills the crew one at a time. I was told by someone who worked on the "Heavy Metal" film (as I did, but not back then; more recently) that that story was also an inspiration for the Alien movie. That's rather sketchy so I will not add it but if anyone has any other information that supports this idea perhaps you will want to add it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.84.66 (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems unlikely, as Heavy Metal came out 2 years after Alien. --Silpion (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  other influence: Heavy Metal? 

message: I clearly remember seeing sketches by H.R Giger, in a making of documentary that showed the facehugger working like a jack in the box or something. I seem to remember seeing other sketches of tools that (I think) were inspiration for the design of the alien. Did anybody else see this on the two disc special edition release or am I just insane? Well, if it was an inspiration then I propose that we put this in (not as its own section though). Yojimbo501 (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tools as an inspiration for the alien? 

message: I dont know how to.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yojimbo501 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:FOOT should tell you all you need to know, and if you look for existing <ref> tags in the article, it'll help you understand how it works. Drop me a line on my talk page if you've got any questions. --McGeddon (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Yojimbo501 (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could somebody tell me how to put links in the references section? 

message: how does the first line make any sense? the creature is an "unfair" extra terrestrial?  how is it unfair? 
maybe someone meant to write something else?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.194.93 (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say that anymore. It was a nonsense edit & was reverted. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence 

message: The image :Image:Chris Foss Pyramid Book of Alien.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. --23:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright problem with Image:Chris Foss Pyramid Book of Alien.JPG 

message: "Star Wars. While the world of futuristic science fiction movies taking place in outer space up till that point had been shown as everything was new and fresh, Star Wars made it look like it was old and used, for instance the old Millennium Falcon, the scrap dealing Jawas, and the wild west settings on Tatooine. Influenced by this scenario, Nostromo reminds about an aging and rusty cargo ship with water dripping and trickling in the corridors, while the crew are typical workers dressed in coveralls instead of fine uniforms."  
This is NOT original research, as IllaZilla claims. It is Ridley Scott himself who says this in an interview in the short documentary called The Force Is with Them: The Legacy of 'Star Wars' . 84.48.35.203 (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you attribute the information to a reliable source, then it fits the definition of original research. All information in Wikipedia articles, especially info like this which makes substantive claims, must be attributed to a source. Since you didn't cite the source, or even mention that the information came from somewhere other than yourself, it looked like original research (see the diff: ). Please familiarize yourself with how to cite sources in WP articles, then please feel free to re-add the information with a proper citation to the source. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have now added a source to the info and the quote from Scott. Hopefully it makes it a bit better. 84.48.35.203 (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better. Thanks for that. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inspirations 

message: Merge all 3 (and remove all of the OR). Also, does a merge discussion already exist somewhere else? The merge tag's been there for a while... I don't see any discussion. DiggyG (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag was placed to spur a discussion, but nobody's made a comment until now. I'm currently working on some major stuff for this article that will take care of these merge issues and maybe even help it get to GA status. There are a couple more books I'm trying to get ahold of first to use as sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My 2¢: LV-426 is a designation from Cameron's sequel, with most information coming from that film (e.g. the name of the planet system, the Ilium range etc.). But even if the name had originated with Scott's first film, the moon is still a major element in two separate films, so LV-426 should have its own WP-article. If it needs to be included, it should be included in Aliens (film). It's different though with the Space Jockey: Unlike the Xenomorph it's only a prop by HRGiger, only a dead extraterrestrial. And it only appears in the first film. So it should be worked into Alien (film). If Scott and Weaver actually make a fifth installment and if the Jockey race is part of that film, one can always redo a separate article. Same goes for the Nostromo: To my mind it can be included in this article. (By the way: the Anchorpoint Essays are back online. This may be valuable for certain articles or information: xenomorph, space jockey etc.) —Eickenberg (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: First up, I'd have to say that this might be a wrong memory. It's not in any version of the film and not in any of the outtakes either. I think I remember reading in a third-party publication on Alien that there was actually a second, young Xenomorph at the end of the film that had hatched from Brett's cocoon. I think it was not in the novel… maybe it was in the comic adaptation of the film. But in any case, that was years ago. So, is this total nonsense, or were there maybe plans like this during the film's pre-production? —Eickenberg (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that scene is only in the 2003 director's cut, so I don't know. I've read tons of material on Alien in the last few weeks & haven't seen anything about a 2nd Alien at all, even in pre-production stuff. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you've read a lot of secondary material, I have one question: does anyone involved in the film mention the real second alien, i.e. the alien that burst from the Space Jockey's chest? This alien would still be around somewhere, dormant, hiding, whatever. It's only a minor plot hole, but still… a plot hole. —Eickenberg (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, nada. Ridley Scott & others offer some of their theories/ideas as to the nature of the space jockey, but nobody says anything about the Alien that burst out of him. A bit of a plot hole, yes, but it would seem that enough time has passed between then & the events of Alien that it's not too much of a consideration. For all the Nostromo crew knows, the space jockey could have been laying there dead for a million years. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd Alien warrior? 

message: The paragraph on "Spin-offs" says this: "For many years Foster's novelization provided fans and others with the only known source for the "missing cocoon scene from Alien" (see also above)." However, my original description of said "missing scene" in the paragraph "Special Edition (2003)" was deleted. So the sentence in "Spin-offs" doesn't make any real sense anymore. Either we should delete or rewrite the sentence — or mention the cocoon scene in the paragraph before. I vote for the latter, because the cocoon scene had been an important element of fan lore for a long time. —Eickenberg (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've written some sourced stuff about the cocoon scene for an "Editing" section in my upcoming update to the article. Give me a few more days, I'm still reading through Beautiful Monsters & looking for more critical reception stuff. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm looking forward to reading it. (^_^) —Eickenberg (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Missing scene" from ''Alien'' 

message: Today I updated the article with a major rewrite that I'd been working on in my userspace for the last several months. It started out as just wanting to improve the production sections by adding in information from the making-of featurettes in the Quadrilogy DVDs, but it eventually turned into something much larger. Before anyone flies off the handle, I'd like to address some of the major changes:
*Firstly, there is very little information that was in the previous version of the article that isn't in the new version. It's just been tweaked and maybe moved around into different sections, and in some cases better referenced. There were a couple of sources I removed because they didn't appear to be very reliable; in that the sources themselves didn't indicate that they'd been published in a reputable publication or that they had a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. One example was a .pdf document that appeared to be a journal article, but had no information about whether it had actually been published in any journal; therefore it could just as likely have been a college or graduate student's unpublished essay. Anyway, most of the pertinent information from these sources was also found in the sources I had on-hand and so it was easy to replace the info with a better reference.
*There's been a ton more information added, with literally dozens of citations. Most of this derives from 3 major sources: The Beast Within: The Making of Alien featurette from the Quadrilogy DVDs, The Book of Alien, and Beautiful Monsters: The Unofficial and Unauthorized Guide to the Alien and Predator Films. These provided lots of information about the origins and production of the film. Some of this was already in the article before, but now it has better citations to specific pages and/or featurettes.
*I reorganized and moved several sections. The "Origins" section now focuses more on the development of the story and process of getting the film green-lit, and less on intricate details from early versions of the script that didn't make it into the final film. Some of these details are still covered, but in other sections such as "Set design and filming" and "Editing". I also made a clearer distinction between sources that O'Bannon has specifically cited as inspirations and ones that later critics have identified or proposed as antecedents, by leaving the former in the "Origins" section and moving the latter into "Antecedents" (since there's a clear difference between "works the author has cited as inspirations" and "works which later critics have noted as bearing similarities").
*Some of the old sections have been renamed, split up, and new sections have been created. For example the previous "Spin-offs" section, which I felt was muddled and ambiguously titled, has been split and expanded into sections like "Merchandising", "Sequels", and "Home video releases". I also split the critical reactions/reviews into 2 sections, "Release and reception" and "Lasting critical praise", to give a clearer demarkation between critical reaction to the film at the time of its release, and reaction in hindsight decades later (most of the latter comes from reviews published around the release of the 2003 Director's Cut).
*I also changed and/or added a number of quotation boxes and images. I happen to like quotes a lot, as they are easily verifiable and, in this case, tended to state the points more clearly than I could have done by paraphrasing. As for the images, most of them were either here or in other Alien articles before, but I did add 1 of Ridley Scott filming the Nostromo model and another of some of Ron Cobb's concept art. The next step is to make sure that all the images have the proper fair-use rationales.
That should cover most of it. As a courtesy and a show of good faith I'd really appreciate it if other editors could read through the article before making any reverts or major changes. Not, of course, that I'm assuming ownership of any kind, and I love working within the collaborative editing process, but I am really hoping to get this article up to GA and then FA status and have spent a lot of time researching, writing, and revising in order to develop it in that direction, so I'd really appreciate the courtesy of people actually taking the time to read the whole thing before hacking it to bits. If anyone does feel that any major changes are in order or that anything has been ruined, it would be greatly appreciated if you could raise the points here first so that they can be discussed. Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major rewrite: Sept. 8, 2008 

message: The running time of the theatrical version, released on May 25 1979 is 117 minutes, while the Director's cut, released on October 29 2003, is 116 minutes. Does this mean anything to you? AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Director's Cut is discussed in its own section within the article. The infobox covers the original release, as that is the focus of the article. There's no point in replacing the current, referenced information which is actually relevant with unreferenced trivial information about the slightly different (1 minute) length difference between the 2 versions. The infobox need not cover every tiny detail about every version of the film ever released. Referenced info takes precedence over unreferenced, trivial clutter. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, as the reference states, the original film (as shown in theaters from film reels) ran 119 minutes. The later VHS/DVD versions run 116 minutes due to the different frame rates between projected film reels and home video players. I'm assuming that you're basing your numbers on IMDb, but IMDb is often wrong about these sorts of details, and may in fact be basing their numbers on the DVDs themselves. David McIntee, who wrote the book Beautiful Monsters (which is where the referenced information comes from) did his research. His book tells us what the cinematic and home video runtimes were, and why they were different. IMDb doesn't tell us at all what they're basing their numbers on. In this case the book is a more reliable source. As you may not be aware, different VHS and DVD players in different regions sometimes have different frame rates. Your mileage may vary depending on which version/edition of the videotape or DVD you own and what kind of player you have. This really isn't something worth getting worked up over, as it's already referenced to a reliable source that gives some context and explanation for the different runtimes. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theatrical version and Director's cut 

message: On 2008-08-22 at 0255 hours a Wikipedian objected to some of my editing work and called on me to stop "using easter egg links". I have no idea what an "easter egg link" looks like. Can anyone explain to the community in what way I have offended? -- Pedant17 (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:EGG. An "easter egg link" is when you use a piped link to create a link that is not intuitive to the reader. For example, piping "1979" to "1979 in film" by typing "1979 in film" is an easter egg link. When clicking on the link a reader will be expecting to go to an article about the year 1979 in general, not "1979 in film". Piped links are not always easter egg links, because most of the time they are intuitive and contextualized by the surrounding text. In the context of your specific edits, " Today" is an easter egg link. It also leads to a redirect, since there's no article titled "as of 2008". --IllaZilla (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that a link from a article on a film, to films of that year, would make more sense than a link listing every single thing unrelated to the subject category that happened that year.  What an odd rule to have.  I always wondered, does anyone actually click on links to years?  Not every year had notable events that people would remember, or feel affected the subject in the article. Dream Focus (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why the practice of linking dates is largely deprecated. See MOS:UNLINKDATES. It is of course still appropriate to provide a link to the article "1979 in film", but to avoid making it a WP:EGG we have to present it in context. That's why it's in a separate "See also" section. The purpose of this section is to provide links to other relevant articles that aren't already linked elsewhere in the article text. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  WP:ASOF seems relevant and useful here, explaining past practice and recommending new guidelines. -- I'll update my operations accordingly. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it appears very relevant to this article, as we're not talking about information likely to become dated any time soon. This article is about a 30 year-old movie, after all. In general we should avoid phrasing information in ways that imply recentism or that the info might soon become dated. That's why I usually remove "as of ____" phrasings on sight. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As soon as any article -- however historical -- starts making comparisons with "today" or claims of "recent" developments or "modern" views then WP:ASOF becomes relevant. For this reason I usually insert "as of ... " re-phrasings on sight -- pending overall re-phrasing to avoid such recentism where possible. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge this article doesn't do that (and I should know; I rewrote it top to bottom). That's why there are separate sections for "reception", which covers the critical reception at the time of release, and "lasting critical praise", which covers later critical analysis up to the present. If you read through the article I think you wil find that recentism is not a problem here. It makes no comparisons with "today" or claims of "recent" developments or "modern" views except for those that are properly contextualized and referenced in sections like "lasting critical praise". --IllaZilla (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pleased to hear it. I do hope such lapses don't creep back in. -- Pedant17 (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter-egg links 

message: I am a disgruntled wikipedian who has been trying to rectify a mistake on this page.
Maybe I need to reference it or something it but Aliens is not considered to be predomiantly a scifi horror, the common misconception.
It is predominantly a gothic horror piece and the most famous example set in a scifi setting.
The deffiency of the gothic horror article would suggest otherwise but even it makes mention of the terror aspect of the haunted house.
ALien is a "haunted house" piece that incorporates a suprising number of elements that characterize this genre in a most innovative way. Ridley Scott himself is particlary proud of this accomplishment- bridging old film and literary genres into a new setting.
Alien is a gothic horror piece. To just generalize it as a mere horror piece is irresponsible and ignorant.
Thank you very much and if you need sources just check google or better yet watch the dvd extras in the boxset and see what the creators say of it themselves.
Important to notes: the other films are not truely gothic horror pieces, only the first one is. 74.192.205.207 (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have watched the DVD features in the box set many times and do not recall any discussion of the term "gothic horror", just "horror". In particular O'Bannon and Scott make reference to other sci-fi horror films, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and Jaws as inspirations. None of these are "gothic horror". Read the "Origins" and "Antecedents" sections of the article for discussions of where Alien drew inspirations from. All interpretive claims in Wikipedia articles must be verified by references to reliable sources, otherwise they are considered original research and may not be included. If you can present some sources to back up your claims, then by all means we can look at how to best incorporate them into the article. But you have to actually present the sources. Simply saying "google it" is vastly insufficient; you need to present some specific sources. Not calling it "gothic horror" is not a "mistake"...calling it "horror" is simply more general. The film encompasses many subgenres of science fiction and horror, so simply calling it science fiction and horror is being the most neutral and the most helpful to the reader. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I saw it in the boxset and will rummage it till furthur discussion. WHile the origins of the piece no doubt drew from a myriad of other things that doesnt disclude that the film itself is a gothic horror piece. Jaws and TCSM are no gothic horror pieces. Alien just drew soem inspiration from them. How the film was shot is undeniably gothic horror, if you know anything about gothic horror then this obviously it. I am searching for articles and videos and understand the futility of my statements without the backup. My reason for posting this premptively was to make sure there is record of my dispute so when the change is finnally made somebody just doesnt wipe it clean again. Till then I will content myself with the generalization albeit abhorrent to such a great piece. However when the changes are made I inquire, will I have to put my sources here in the discussion page or credit them on the actual article page. Being a gothic horror piece isnt suitable to be in any of the catergories,not even origins, its just how the film was shot and what elements were present. What I guess Im asking is, what do I do once I have the proof to make sure I dont have any more problems? 74.192.205.207 (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you will present the sources here I will see what I can do to incorporate them into the article if they are appropriate. I think it's also worth noting that Wikipedia doesn't even have an article on gothic horror (it redirects to gothic fiction). I'd also highly recommend creating an account. While anonymous contributions are welcome, registering an account is easy (all it requires is an email address, which is not visible to anyone else) and it affords you a number of advantages such as having a watchlist of articles, the ability to create new articles, and a static talk page for other editors to contact you. Since your IP address seems to change regularly, it makes it hard to keep in contact with you. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ty. get back to you soon and thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.205.207 (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A gothic horror entry 

message: *The following has been copied from User talk:IllaZilla because it pertains to this article:
Hi!  We seem to be having a bit of back-and-forth on the Alien (film) page, so I thought maybe we should talk about it.  The item under scrutiny is the sentence "He has also cited as influences Strange Relations by Philip José Farmer (1960), which covers alien reproduction, and EC Comics horror titles such as Weird Tales which carried stories in which monsters eat their way out of people" in the Origins section.  The problem is that this statement contains a factual error; EC Comics never published a comic with the title Weird Tales.  They did, as you suggested, publish Weird Science (comics) and Weird Fantasy.  They also published Tales from the Crypt (comics), and it's possible that any one of these could be the comic for which the reference is meant.  I have read a good number of all of these comics, and while I don't remember ever seeing a tale where monsters eat their way out of victims, it is quite possible that such was published; EC Comics were notoriously visceral and gory.  On the other hand, Weird Tales, the text pulp in the link you are adding, was more cerebral, not to mention that it wasn't as comic at all, and it is far less likely that this is the magazine O'Bannon intended to reference.  I am certain that the comics were the influence, rather than the pulp.
I can think of two ways to reconcile the facts and fix the error.  The easiest is what I have been doing: removing the reference to Weird Tales and leaving the reference to EC Comics intact.  Since the sentence is a paraphrase, no factual data is lost, but the error is removed.  The other way is to turn the paraphrase into an actual quote, which would thereby place the blame for the error in the source's lap and leave Wikipedia guiltless.  In order to go in this direction I need to turn to you, as you have done such excellent work on the article.  I do not have the source to refer to, and so cannot pull a quote out of it.  Do you have access to the source, "Beautiful Monsters: The Unofficial and Unauthorized Guide to the Alien and Predator Films"?  If so, can you craft a quote that satisfies the claim of origin?  Page 20 is what we're looking for.  If you do not have the source or know a way to access it, I do request that option #1, that of removing "Weird Tales" from the paraphrase, be allowed to stand.
Cheers! --Captain Infinity (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do have the book on-hand (well, at my home...editing from work at the moment). I think you're right, there are ways we can re-word in order to resolve the factual error, which is probably on McIntee's end (there are a few other such errors here and there in the book; not enough to undermine its credibility as a source, but minor ones such as this). I think I'd prefer the option of just removing the reference to Weird Tales and leaving it as "various EC comics titles". I'd rather not have the factual error present, even if it is the source's error and not Wikipedia's. Also I can't think of a way to make a direct quote transition smoothly with the preceding text, so I think removing "Weird Tales" is the better option. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The direct quote from McIntee, on page 20, is "O'Bannon has also cited the way that Philip José Farmer covered alien reproduction in Strange Relations as an influence, as well as various EC horror comis, such as Weird Tales, which carried stories involving monsters eating their way out of people." As you can see, I didn't paraphrase very much. Again, he very well could have the incorrect title for the comic; it wouldn't be the only minor error in the book. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, thank you.  A further problem with quoting would be that McIntee is paraphrasing O'Bannon.  That is, it's not a direct quote from O'Bannon.  So we'll never know who messed it up, O'Bannon or McIntee.  I think the only solution is to remove the mention of Weird Tales altogether, and just leave it as EC Comics.  If you agree I'll go ahead and make the change.  Also, would it be OK with you to copy this discussion to the article's talk page, for future editors to see? --Captain Infinity (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Go for it. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alien, EC Comics, and Weird Tales 

message: The articles seems to be edited by someone who has nothing but sex on the mind. Could we erase these juvenile statements about sex and sex organ comparisons throughout this article?  05:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Either you've never seen the film or haven't read any critical analysis of it. The imagery in the film is highly sexual (the Giger stuff particularly–and intentionally–so). Every statement regarding the sexual imagery & themes is referenced to either a primary or secondary source. They are not "juvenile" in any way. Wikipedia is not censored and we're not going to remove critical analysis of one of the film's primary themes just because it offends your sensibilities. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

text: And for the record, there's a total of 1 paragraph and 3 additional sentences mentioning the film's sexual imagery. Hardly anything at all in an article of 100K size. There's Veronica Cartwrights comparison of Giger's set pieces to sexual organs, renowned film critic Roger Ebert's comment on the Alien's phallic shape and "vaginal" mouth, David McIntee's mention that the Alien is trying to rape the crew members, and the very short "Sexual imagery" section in which 3 critics analyze the film's sexual overtones. I hardly had "sex on the mind" when I wrote it...I got it all from the sources. Also for the record, Ronald Shusett's exact words for his idea about the facehugger was: "it fucks one of the crew" (or "screws", depending on which behind-the-scenes feature you're watching). I chose instead to say "one of the crew members could be implanted with an alien embryo that would later burst out of him". Clearly I wasn't looking to emphasize sex in any way inconsistent with the sources. I'd sure like to know where you're seeing these "juvenile statements about sex and sex organ comparisons throughout this article"...perhaps you're seeing what you want to see rather than what's actually there. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The sexual allusions in Alien (and HR Giger's work) are entirely non-controversial. Almost every serious analysis of the movie will mention them. There mention in the article is only a small portion of quite a long article. Ashmoo (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait till you read some Mulvey.  The content in the article is actually pretty grounded in comparison to some of the more...interesting...french structuralist takes on films like Alien. Protonk (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Xenomorphs reproduce parasitically. Nothing incorrect about that statement. Still, I'm a little scepticle of claims about phalic symbolism, as you can make such statements out of something as simple as a triangle or circle. The alien's head doesn't look like anything to me. Are the people talking about them notable in any way? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty sure Roger Ebert is quite notable in the field of film critcism and analysis. Being skeptical about the claims is your own opinion and irrelevant, as the sexual imagery comparisons are quite well-sourced to a variety of reliable sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Much Talk About Sex 

message: Since this article is getting very large, I propose we split the article in some way. Either a production article or an impact article, though the latter wouldn't reduce it as much. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As the person who wrote most of the current content, I'd like to see what can be copyedited and trimmed down first, and try to get the article up to FA, before we start splitting off sections. When I last nominated it for FA I put in a few requests for copyeditors to help pare down some of the verbage and help with the "brilliant prose" requirement, but I didn't get any bites. It's currently at 100K, and there are FAs that are even longer (Belgium, for instance), and I think that with some editing & trimming it could probably end up about 80-90K. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But if we split after featuring, that would be viewed as instability and could hurt its chances, you know what I mean? I think we should basically be "finished" with the article before we think of featuring it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I personally think that forking off large chunks of the content would hinder its chances of becoming FA. An 85K-ish FA would be a long read but not detrimentally so. I'm not saying "get FA, then split stuff right away". I'm saying revise, copyedit, & trim until we have a large (but not overly large) FA. Then, down the line eventually, if content continues to be added, we can decide if some stuff ought to be summarized & split. I'm pretty confident that this can be managed without splitting off some of the most important sections. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that the article is getting too large. Well-written Production and Impact sections both belong in the main article. If you think 100k is big for a film FA, take a look at Changeling, its the largest film FA at 118k and is, IMHO, far less significant cinematically than "Alien". I'm confident this article can be FA material.Shirtwaist (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split proposal 

message: "Reaction to the film was positive" You what? So no mention of reviews such as those from Vincent Canby who said "The roles might have been written by a computer." or from Time Out who said the film was an "empty bag of tricks whose production values and expensive trickery cannot disguise imaginative poverty" or even the great Leonard Maltin who said it "reverts to 1950s formula story ... some people’s idea of a good time." Surely, if this article is going to be FA-Class, it needs a little more elucidation on the mixed critical reception the film received. Prylon (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could be bold and cite those sources in the article, since you seem to have access to them, rather than berating other editors for not being aware of their existence? Or if you could at least provide links here, or info on where to find these reviews, I will endeavor to track them down and add them to the article. Throwing quotes at us without giving us any sources to work with doesn't help us solve your perceived problem. It really would help to have some contemporary reviews, which these all seem to be. Though to be fair, McIntee does state that contemporary critical reception was positive overall, and that statement is cited. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I've done it now. I don't really like how there is two parts to the critical reaction now. I think that needs to be thought about a bit more. The way I see it is that you need to incorporate the mixed reviews it received to begin with into the "lasting critical praise" (which is a bit POV) bit. Otherwise it's just confusing. Prylon (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it confusing? I think it's important to separate contemporary critical reaction (from the time of the film's release) from reviews that were written many years later. Otherwise the historical context of the reviews is more or less lost. And the reaction it's received in the time since its original release has been almost universally positive...it has a 97% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 71 reviews!!! I hardly think calling it "critically praised" in later years is inaccurate. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Maybe calling it POV is a little off. Still, it might be useful to make it explicit how critical reception changed over the years. E.g. The original reviews in Halliwell's and Time Out have been drastically revised. Prylon (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical reception