| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | | | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film and literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions. |  GA | This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. | | High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | | | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science Fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | GA | This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. | | High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. | | | |  | This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Sections with no replies in 30 days are automatically moved. | [edit] Production in UK According to the text, production was slowed up because of "tea breaks" and "lucky dips" Firstly I removed the "lucky dips" bit because this is bizarre. It is not normal working practice in Britain to have regular "lucky dips" - this is something that might occurs at a child's party not at a professional film studio and certainly not regularly. If this is a direct quote then the speaker most likely misunderstood the meaning; but this section is not presented as a quote. I left the bit about tea breaks, but what's with the scare quotes ? I assume that in the US you have coffee breaks or simply "a break". Is it surprising that they occur in the UK ? Kegon (talk) 05:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC) - The relevance here is that the American director & production staff became frustrated at the slow progress of the filming, and felt that things like tea breaks and other UK labor practices were contributing to the issue. Likely there were lots of other factors, but they made specific mention of tea breaks etc. as things which irritated them. Yes there are also mandatory work breaks under US law, but they vary from state to state & are probably not the same as in the UK. I don't know enough about UK labor laws to do a comparison, but for example here in California on an 8-hour shift there's a 30 minute unpaid lunch break (off the clock) and 2 20-minute paid breaks (on the clock). Anyway, the point of these quotes is to illustrate how there were conflicts between the American & British parties working on the film & how they contributed to delays in production. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
-
- Cameron is Canadian, not American. That said, in the contemporary documentary James Cameron - A Director and His Work, he does specifically gripe about the tea. It may, however, be more a reflection of Cameron's training in the Roger Corman quick-and-cheap school of film-making. Plenty of American and other foreign directors work in the UK, but Cameron's issues don't seem to be a common complaint. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Investigation of Alien Spaceship I am assuming that Burke ordered the colonists of the planetoid LV-426 to investigate the alien spaceship and its store of eggs only after being told of the existence of such a ship by Ripley. Thus, the colonists were not having any problems until after Ripley was rescued from space, at which point contact with the colonists was lost. If I am correct, I suggest this point be made more clearly in the plot summary. Juve2000 (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC) - In the special edition DVD, a deleted scene is restored in which Newt's family are the ones who find the derelict ship, and Newt's father is attacked by a facehugger. In both versions of the film (theatrical and special edition), Ripley is told during her debriefing that there have been colonists on LV-426 for some time, and no Aliens have been seen. It's some time after this that Burke comes to inform her that contact with the colonists has been lost. Later, in the colony, Ripley discovers that Burke sent the colonists to investigate the derelict, based on her debriefing, hoping to retrieve eggs that can be used for biological weapons. This is why he seals Ripley and Newt in the medlab with the facehuggers: not only will he be able to smuggle Alien embryos back with him, as they will be inside Ripley and Newt, but once they burst from Ripley and Newt he will have eliminated the only 2 characters who could expose his role in the deaths of the colonists.
- In any case, I think this plot point is made pretty clear in the plot summary with these existing lines:
- Ripley [...] learns that LV-426, the planetoid where her crew first encountered the Alien eggs, is now home to a terraforming colony. Ripley is visited by Weyland-Yutani representative Carter Burke (Paul Reiser) and Lieutenant Gorman (William Hope) of the Colonial Marines, who inform her that contact has been lost with the colony on LV-426.
- and later:
- Ripley discovers that it was Burke who ordered the colonists to investigate the derelict spaceship where the Nostromo crew first encountered the Alien eggs, and that he hopes to return Alien specimens to the company laboratories where he can profit from their use as biological weapons.
- I don't think there's any confusion there. Maybe this was just a plot point that you missed until now? --IllaZilla (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- I do not want to create an edit war, so if you revert a second time, I will leave it alone since it appears that you are the gate-keeper to any and all edits to this page. I realize that in the film only 5 minutes pass between the debriefing and the subsequent visit by Burke, but in my opinion, you need to inform the reader that time has passed between the two scenes. Ripley has a job as a loader (being stripped of her credits) and the colonists have had time to investigate the alien ship. YOU YOURSELF STATED THIS above It's some time after this that Burke comes to inform her that contact with the colonists has been lost. I cannot believe that in order to make a simple edit I need to go through so much grief with you. I am sure you are breaking several WIKIPEDIA rules by being so protective and arrogant of this page. Juve2000 (talk) 06:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I cannot believe how arrogant and protective you are of this site. You have already reverted my edit. Believe me, enough time needs to pass so that all the colonists are incapacitated. This does not happen immediately when Newt's father is attacked by the first egg. I am not saying that years have passed, but its a lot more than the 5 minutes on the screen. Secondly, you are WRONG that Ripley was not a loader before being on the spaceship. When Burke visits her at her apartment her job status is discussed. How else would she have known how to use those LOADERS once on the ship??? In the end, all I added was a few words, I think important words. Juve2000 (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I think you should put this at the top of the page: DON'T BOTHER EDITING THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF IllaZilla, AND ANY EDITS WILL BE IMMEDIATELY REVERTED Juve2000 (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I'll appreciate it if you lay off the accusations & insults & stick to the content of the edits. Having just popped in the DVD & re-watched the scene between Ripley, Burke, & Gorman, I see that you are right. Though they don't state how much time has passed, they do mention Ripley's job loading cargo & it's implied that some span of time has gone by. I don't think this warrants splitting the paragraph, though. It can be mentioned pretty easily while still keeping the opening scenes to one paragraph in the interest of conciseness. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Please note that other people have opinions too. They may not be YOUR opinions, and no two people ever agree on everything. I thought my edit was valid and at the end, very insignificant in the over-all length of the PLOT section. But you cannot let even this pass. I stand by my original edit and my assessment that you are just the gatekeeper. Juve2000 (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Also, please do not misquote me. I never said a significant time time had passed. I said some time later. As it turns out, these are the same words you used above. Juve2000 (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- While you're entitled to your opinion, this isn't really a difference of opinion so much as a simple misunderstanding. And if you'll look over the article's history I think you'll find that I'm only 1 of a number of editors who keep an eye on it, and a majority of my reverts are for vandalism, POV edits, and formatting issues. In fact I didn't touch any of your previous edits to it (going back a month), so I don't see the grounds for these accusations. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong again. When I edited this page a week or so ago, you reverted my 3 words almost immediately while doing another edit. I re-instated them and now they remain. Hopefully this does not give you the idea to revert them a second time. My second edit was to revert some vadalism created by someone else, and this is my 3rd edit. Both of my original edits involve less than 10 words, but you had chosen to revert both. You can see why I have this opinion of you. Juve2000 (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Stowaway? In Flight? Article currently reads: "A stowaway Alien kills the dropship pilots in flight ..." - The word "stowaway" has incorrect connotations. A stowaway "is a person who secretly boards a vehicle, such as an aircraft, bus, ship or train, to travel without paying and without being detected."
The alien secretly boards the ship, but not to travel -- only to kill. - "Kills the dropship pilots in flight" -- this statement makes a couple of assumptions, reasonable assumptions but not strictly what the movie shows (assuming my memory about this is accurate). Sequence of events:
We see PFC Spunkmeyer at the dropship hatch -- he touches the door frame or some other part of the ship, gets alien goo on his hand and a puzzled look on his face. He reports this by radio. That's the last we see of him. We don't know that he's dead; good assumption, but we don't know. We furthermore don't know that he was killed in flight; assuming he was killed, maybe he was killed immediately after his radio report, before liftoff. We see Cpl. Ferro at the dropship controls. She lifts off. The alien kills her, crashing the dropship. She is definitely a pilot killed by the alien in flight. I can't think of better a better word for stowaway, and maybe I'm obsessing too much about the fate of Spunkmeyer, so I'll leave the rewrite(s) to someone else. Source: [1] --Karl gregory jones (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC) - I'm not exactly sure what that "source" is supposed to prove: it's obviously a fan site with no reliability and massive amounts of original research and speculation. Even if it were reliable, it says "However drop-ship pilots, Corporal Ferro and PFC Spunkmeyer are killed by an Alien, and the drop-ship crashes", which actually completely contradicts your points as it says plain as day that the Alien kills them. I think this is definitely obsessing too much about a plot point that blatantly obvious: the Alien isn't supposed to be on the ship, nor do the pilots know it's there, so "stowaway" is as good a word as any to describe it. And it obviously kills them both. No Alien onboard = live pilots, everyone escapes, drinks champagne and lives happily ever after. Alien onboard = pilots die, rest of group screwed. Similarly, we don't actually see the Alien kill anyone in Alien, but we don't assume they're alive drinking tea somewhere. It goes beyond "reasonable assumption"...the plot points are designed to indicate that the Aliens kill these people. Just because you don't actually see it rip their faces off doesn't mean "well, they could still be alive". --IllaZilla (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
No discussion since March 20008 on merging but quite sizeable articles without any notability tags. Merge tag removed. Inwind (talk) 11:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC) - "Sizeable" does not address the very real concerns of notability and sourcing in these articles. They are only "sizeable" because they consist of play-by-play plot regurgitation. "No discussion since March 2008" is irrelevant, as Wikipedia has no deadline and is built entirely by volunteers, so there is no expiration date on valid maintenance tags. Talk:Aliens (film)/Archive 1#Merger proposal is pretty clearly in favor of merging. The presence or non-presence of notability tags is irrelevant, especially considering that those tags are routinely ignored. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I redirected two of the proposed articles, if any content is not included in this one, it can easily be accessed. Bishop appears in another movie as well so merging the article here is not the best option. --Tone 20:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] LV-426 Are the two films consistent in calling LV-426 a planetoid and not a planet? I could have sworn that its referred to as a planet somewhere.Juve2000 (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC) - Just did a little flipping through the first film and didn't hear them call it by either name. However, in the scene where they go into orbit they show a large ringed planet with a few large moons, and it looks like they're going around one of the moons. This isn't perfectly clear, though. Silpion (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't believe either film is explicit in defining the status of LV-426. I'm pretty sure the first movie doesn't name the object. However the book Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual goes into detail regarding LV-426. It describes it as a moon of a super Gas giant or Hot Jupiter in the Zeta Reticuli system (this agrees with the first film which names Zeta Reticulli). The book describes how the Gas Giant itself is outside the habitable zone, but that it emits enough infrared radiation to create a secondary habitable zone for its moons. This seems to contradict some lines in the first film by the science officer Ash, something along the lines of: "deep cold, well below the line." Presumably referring the habitability line. Aliens doesn't really have an established canon system like Star Wars, so it is really up the viewers imagination to synchronize these contradictions. --Leivick (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
|
