Talk:Aliens (film): Difference between revisions

Explanation of March 6, 2020 Edits

Nothing in the movie states that Bishop is an "executive officer", or that Hicks is "Apone's second in command", or that Hudson is a technician or technical anything. The movie also includes no reference to "smart" guns, and does not name the type of weapon that Vasquez and Drake use. I am removing these extremely questionable claims and replacing them with each character's primary contribution to the plot or what they are most remembered for. Also, Bishop is explicitly identified as a Lieutenant in the mess hall scene ("looks like the new lieutenant's too good to eat with the rest of us grunts").

See, I always interpreted that line as referring to Lieutenant Gorman. Do you have a source for your edits? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 01:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD and List of characters introduced in Aliens (1986). Your wording needs improvement, in addition to sources. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 09:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I checked everything from Xenopedia to the packaging on the action figures and I'm going to have to retract my claim about Bishop being a lieutenant; it does make more sense that the "new lieutenant" would be Gorman, since the Marines already have some familiarity with Bishop ("do the thing with the knife") and Hicks shouldn't be surprised that androids don't eat. I stand by the rest of my changes, as they replace unverifiable claims with verifiable ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.13.107 (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Read the replies you received above, if you continue to revert to your edits, you will be blocked (also, Xenopedia is not a reliable source). −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 10:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I know Xenopedia isn't a reliable source. That's why I don't cite them for anything. Speaking of which, there are also no reliable sources for the information that I removed, which is why I removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.13.107 (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

See this source, written by Caroline Joan S. Picart, which has some descriptions of the characters and critical commentary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Not in the parts that are viewable by the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.13.107 (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the smart guns are identified and clarified somewhat in the novelisation. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately the novelization is not the film, and thus anything in there cannot be directly applied to what we see and hear on screen. There are multiple differences between the film and the novelization. Such as Newt is only 6 in the novel, Aliens have stingers in their tails and take down multiple marines, and many others. Therefore the novelization cannot be taken as representative of what is on the screen which is this article. Canterbury Tail talk 11:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

"Special Edition" and Jay Benedict

Shouldn't there be something about the "Special Edition" version mentioned in Jay Benedict? --Mortense (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

can we add horror to aliens

basically, i want to add horror to the genres of aliens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thephantomseeker (talk • contribs) 13:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source stating that Aliens is considered a horror film? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Special Edition (aka Director's Cut) should be mentioned in the infobox in this case

I made an edit the the infobox to include the runtime of the Director's Cut (154 minutes), and it was immediately reverted by a user using an IP address, hopefully not a bot.

The description read: Only the theatrical run time is included in the infobox

Common guidelines are actually not strictly theatrical releases.

Note the wikipedia guidelines in Template:Infobox film:

"The runtime for the film should be for the primary release; this will usually be the format the film premiered on, so for films that have had a theatrical release insert the runtime of the original theatrical version. Runtimes can vary due to regional censorship, alternative cuts (such as a director's cut or an unrated version) and different technical specifications across release formats, but do not include any additional runtimes without consensus."

While typically the theatrical release is considered the original, in the case of Aliens, the "Special Edition" is actually the original, or very close to it.

Refer to the following sources:

https://thisorthatedition.com/aliens-1986/#:~:text=Both%20the%20theatrical%20and%20the,2003%20Alien%20Quadrilogy%20DVD%20set%3A&text=What%20you're%20about%20to,the%20special%20edition%20of%20Aliens.

https://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=2558663

"The original version, however, was too long for the producing studio so it demanded several cuts to tighten the plot. Especially the American audience was not trusted to have the ability to sit through a movie of 148 minutes. So Cameron went to the cutting room, again, and lost more than 15 minutes of footage."

I would prefer to find better secondary sources, but I think these may suffice. If you feel otherwise, let me know.

If I don't generate a discussion, I'm going to revert the reversion of my edit.

--NittyG (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The link you gave states 137 minutes for the original 1986 release, which is what should, according to your quote from WP's guidelines, be in the infobox. So the current referenced time currently there is correct. Any extra details about various formats, versions, censoring, additions, should be in the main article. Bazza (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The Special Edition was cut together later, it wasn't the original full cut. Anyway it's irrelevant, it wasn't the original release which was the theatrical release. While I agree personally the Special Edition is far superior to the theatrical cut, the theatrical cut is still the original release and what the article is about and therefore the theatrical release version is what should be in the infobox. Canterbury Tail talk 13:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Aliens "considered to be among the greatest films of all time"

This article contains numerous nonsense claims about Aliens being "considered" to be among the greatest films of all time, etc. The fact that some film magazine or other has included the film in some or other list hardly means that it is "considered" such at all: magazines frequently concoct such lists because they are a good way of attracting attention and sales. None of the major surveys of critical opinion such as the Sight & Sound survey ever list Aliens as among the greatest films of all time. It is simply nonsense. Only a certain kind of fan of Hollywood cinema could ever be so blind to the consensus of critical opinion to imagine that this is believed to be among the greatest films of all time.

Nevertheless, my attempts to adjust the wording and remove the most egregious of these claims have been "undone", in Wikipedia-speak. The argument given to justify this reversion was that "considered" does not mean that "everyone" has to believe it, since in that case Gone With the Wind would not be able to be said to be considered among the greatest films of all time. Well, aside from the fact that it is highly dubious to suggest that Gone With the Wind is considered among the greatest films of all time (no doubt somebody thinks so, but, again, it is very far from being a generally-held critical opinion), aside from that, this argument fails to acknowledge that the term "considered", without any further qualification, implies precisely that it is a generally-held critical opinion: it has nothing to do with everybody believing something to be so, but does have to do with a general feeling, for which a magazine article or two hardly count as sufficient evidence.

If this article is to be considered encyclopaedic, and not just a product of the work of fans of one kind or another, such nonsense needs to be toned down (and preferably removed altogether).

Finally, the editor who reverted my edits claimed, on the basis of the speed of my edits, that I must be a registered editor who is using another account in order to follow what happens with this article. That is a false assertion, made without evidence, and itself counts as evidence that the user sees and asserts what they want to see and assert. Will this cause the editor to reflect on their judgment about what to say about other users, and what counts as encyclopaedic content? We will see. 175.33.4.8 (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of asserting based on what they see, you're complaining about the "greatest films of all time" aspect. The bit I changed did not relate to that, it related onto to the 1980s, science fiction, and action aspects. Which is true and evidenced heavily in the article. I left your change that "it has been claimed that it is among the greatest films of all time". That isn't mentioned in the lede. Try reading before you try reverting or writing a huge chunk of text to claim I'm doing something I'm not because you didn't take the time to read. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely do not believe that this film is "considered" to be one of the greatest films of the 1980s. It is the insistence on this kind of nonsense, and the use of all kinds of rules and regulations to justify this kind of nonsense, that drives people away from contributing to this encyclopaedia and allows those who care enough about their agenda to dominate. If other editors would like to reflect on exactly what claims should be made in this encyclopaedia about the reputation of this film, then that's great. But I won't be holding my breath. By all means carry on with your highly worthy campaign, you dark warrior you. 175.33.4.8 (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Why should your belief override sources? What does that have to do with policy or guidelines or enforcing an agenda? I can't go over to The Dark Knight and add "It's the greatest film of all time" and if anyone challenges me on it say, "well I believe it is the greatest film, is this an encyclopedia or what?" I kept your edit about the greatest film of all time, the rest are thoroughly sourced. It is impossible to claim that a film as influential as Aliens and that has appeared on lists of the greatest films of the 1980s, is not possibly a great film of a brief decade. Especially because you simply don't agree with the sources unless it is Sight and Sound. The BFI listed it as one of the greatest action films of all time, but you removed that claim too. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Which country was Aliens made in?

I believe that Aliens is an American film not an American and British film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimand299 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The BFI disagrees with you. To qualify as a British film, it must use a British crew, be filmed in Britain, using British sets and equipment. There is a set of guidelines that is used to define a film as such for tax purposes. This is the same reason that Dredd is classed as a British/South African film because it's a British crew filming in South Africa with a big chunk of South African crew. You are focused on your belief being law, and it is not. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)