Talk:Alien (film)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Antecedents

Hi Illa: re: Planet of the Vampires' influences: I edited a little to focus on the visuals, which are not mentioned at all as part of O'Bannon's belated credit to Planet of the Vampires re: plot points in the Origins section. Again, I think it is important for an article which purports to have an NPOV to recognize that the filmmakers denied the influence of Bava's film entirely in 1979, and that is simply not creditable given the evidence on film, which has been noted by a great many critics in the years since. I know this is your baby, and I urge you to consider the entirety of these significant influences, and especially that the early denials themselves are part what makes it important to note for such a work of art. Beadmatrix (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

My problem is the part that says "Despite the astounding visual similarities, both O'Bannon and director Ridley Scott claimed in a 1979 interview that they had not seen Planet of the Vampires." The Origins section says "Planet of the Vampires (1965) contains a scene in which the heroes discover a giant alien skeleton; this influenced the Nostromo crew's discovery of the alien creature in the derelict spacecraft." McIntee says this was one of the main cinematic influences on O'Bannon. So in the earlier section we're saying that POTV was one of O'Bannon's main influences when writing Alien, while in the later section we're saying he denied ever having seen it. This is a contradiction that needs to be resolved. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a shame O'Bannon isn't here to set the record straight. But it is entirely plausible for both things to be true: that he denied it once, and later acknowledged it. I haven't read McIntee's book, altho I'd like to. And it's possible we may never know the truth. The image of the derelict ship in Alien is almost identical to the one in Planet, as they approach across the foggy terrain. So it's not just the idea it's the visuals. I notice you mention O'Bannon influenced the design of the human technology and brought artists on board, and that Giger did all the work on the alien technology, but there's no mention of whether Giger saw Planet or if he was given storyboards for that sequence. And there's always the issue of Scott's denial. He is unquestionably one of the greatest directors of all time but that doesn't mean he isn't human, and might not want to acknowledge he made a mistake, or that he didn't want people judging his magnum opus by comparison to an old B-movie. I wish we could find out more. Beadmatrix (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Beadmatrix

Alien's sexual imagery

This section seems to hold some pretty homophobic opinions, in particular the quotes from Dan O'Bannon. Think about it: to Dan O'Bannon, the horror aspect isn't about being aboard a ship with an alien going around killing everyone. No, instead he's frightened by the concept of a man being penetrated, or a man giving birth, or a penis in another man's mouth. The fact that he wrote the screenplay doesn't change his overtly homophobic viewpoint. If anything, this section should be merged under the "special effects and design" section. --129.3.139.125 (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Your personal interpretations of O'Bannon's comments are irrelevant. The sexual imagery in Alien has been observed and commented on by many critics and and by others involved with the film, not just O'Bannon. The section will not be merged into "special effects and design", as it's not about special effects or design. It's about themes and imagery. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with IllaZilla. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite so. Merging it into "special effects and design" would be bizarre. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

First off, it would not be bizzare. Most of the sexual imagery has to do with Giger's alien, the design of which is mentioned partially on this page, and more extensively on a separate page, "Alien (creature in Alien francise)". On that page, the two topics have been successfully merged.

Second, you don't know who I am. You don't know how much research I've put into this subject of sexual imagery in film. How do you know I am not equally qualified to have an opinion? This is exactly why I've long since abandoned editing Wikipedia articles. Everything I've seen about "male rape" regarding Alien ultimately boils down to interviews with O'Bannon. Do the research. There is a great deal of sexual imagery in Alien, but the "male fear of childbirth" and fear of penetration crap has only come out of the mouth of one person and has been echoed by others. 129.3.139.125 (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

First off, the Alien (creature in Alien franchise) article is B-class and has never been peer reviewed, while this article is GA and has been peer-reviewed. The topics were not "successfully merged" in the other article, they were simply never part of different subsections to begin with. Which is fine, because the focus of that article is on the creature itself while the focus of this article is a single film in the franchise, and its analysis. In any case, how the information is presented in one article doesn't dictate how it's presented in another: sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.

Second, who you are is unknown and, unless you choose to make it known, irrelevant. Why do I assume you're not equally qualified to give an opinion on the topic? Because you're an anonymous person on the internet—a faceless IP address—while the sources cited in the "Sexual imagery" section are professional film critics, analysts, and writers. We have no idea whether you've done any research on this topic, because you haven't told us so. We aren't clairvoyant. Exactly what research have you done? Have you published anything related to Alien? Anything we could cite as sources? The section does not just cite O'Bannon, it cites three secondary sources attesting to the sexual imagery and overtones of the film. What proof do you have that these claims all originate from O'Bannon, and what does it matter? If the statements are echoed and expanded upon by multiple secondary sources, they have a great deal of validity. You would have us throw out perfectly valid, sourced information from multiple secondary sources simply because you personally believe the film's writer was homophobic (a claim not backed up by any sources). No thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying O'Bannon is homophobic. Or that O'Bannon originated ALL the sexual overtones critics have noticed. Just the stuff about the supposed male fear of penetration and childbirth. But to be afraid of an alien raping you with its mouth-penis, or implanting its seed into your body, is a little homophobic, as you're projecting human traits onto something that is not human, intentional physical similarities aside. When a facehugger or alien "rapes" you, you end up dead. Now when you take that idea outside the frame of the movie, the thought that a man's penis violating you ("you" being a heterosexual man, O'Bannon's target audience for this aspect of his screenplay) is equivalent to death is a tad homophobic, no? But whatever. Screw me for trying to make a valid argument. 129.3.139.125 (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You did say O'Bannon was homophobic (I say was because he's dead): "The fact that he wrote the screenplay doesn't change his overtly homophobic viewpoint." Saying someone has an "overtly homophobic viewpoint" and then turning around and saying "I'm not saying he was homophobic" is contradictory. And the penetration/birth stuff doesn't just come from O'Bannon: As the article describes, it was Ron Shussett who came up with the idea of the crew member being implanted with an embryo that would later burst out of him. And of course Giger's overtly sexual designs played a big role. Anyway, as I said your personal interpretations of O'Bannon's comments are irrelevant. This isn't a forum for general discussion of the film, it's for discussing improvements to the article; and your own analysis and personal opinions of the writer's comments have no bearing on the article if they are not supported by reliable, published sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with IllaZilla. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the echo, Polisher of Cobwebs, but I don't think IllaZilla is in a position to look at this issue objectively, considering he "completely rewrote Alien top-to-bottom and was primarily responsible for getting it to GA." I'm a magazine editor. As an editor, I'm not aloowed to have my own writings published in my magazine. It looks bad. Same should go for Wikipedia articles. ANYWAYS, this is not a "general discussion of the film" issue. O'Bannon's quotes about the male fears of penetration and childbirth is nothing more than his own interpretation of his own work and is simply not apparent to any viewer of the film who has not read into the sexual imagery of Alien. As such, his arguments really aren't GA material. But the alien being a penis-headed creature with a woman's body (and therefore androgynous in appearence) IS GA material. Going back to the original post for this section, suggesting the "Sexual imagery" section should be deleted/merged in its entirety was my bad. But my argument still is that the sexual imagery section needs tweaking. 129.3.139.125 (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection to my position. Because I wrote the article, I'm not capable of objectively addressing your complaints about O'Bannon's comments? I didn't put the words in O'Bannon's mouth, they came from primary and secondary source material (the behind-the-scenes DVD features, The Book of Alien, McIntee's Beautiful Monsters, etc.). I really don't understand your comment "I'm a magazine editor. As an editor, I'm not allowed to have my own writings published in my magazine. It looks bad. Same should go for Wikipedia articles." If Wikipedia editors didn't write Wikipedia articles, there would be no Wikipedia, so this argument doesn't make sense. And again, these aren't my opinions, these are sourced statements from O'Bannon and various film critics. There's not a single sentence in the section that isn't directly referenced to a primary or secondary source.

It's certainly not "nothing more than [O'Bannon's] own interpretation of his own work and simply not apparent to any viewer of the film who has not read into the sexual imagery of Alien", either: As I said earlier, the section cites at least 3 secondary sources (Adrian Mackinder, David McIntee, and Lina Badley) commenting on the sexual imagery of the film, specifically the "male rape" and "male birth" aspects and the phallic elements of the Alien. Even Roger Ebert, in the section "The Alien", talks about the creature's "unmistakably phallic shape" and "dripping vaginal mouth". Certainly O'Bannon's comments, in conjunction with these comments from third-party critics who've analyzed the film, are relevant material for a Good or Featured Article. If anything, the section needs more of this kind of analysis from additional secondary sources. If I found 4 secondary sources attesting to the film's sexual imagery in just a GA push (only 1 of those being a print source, the rest being online), surely there are even more out there that could be found in an FA push. I think you will find that many secondary sources comment on the film's sexual imagery, particularly the "male rape" and "male birth" aspects. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the last time I'll complain about this matter. But let me clarify something which you don't seem to comprehend: you can't be simultaneously both writer AND editor. It's about being objective, which one really can't do regarding their own work, period. It's one of the strongest arguments teachers have in their favor when it comes to not allowing Wikipedia to be a citable source in a research paper. 129.3.139.125 (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

References to use

Found a good reference if anyone wishes to use it, that contains some production information and cast stuff, like Weaver and Kotto clashing during filming. http://www.cio.co.uk/opinion/goldsmith/2012/05/28/when-excellence-is-an-alien-encounter/ Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Prometheus

I'm at a loss. What is conceivably wrong with mentioning that Prometheus is a third prequel to Alien in the lead? GDallimore (Talk) 20:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that there is no agreement that it is a prequel. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The only people saying it's not a prequel are the producers, and they are not an independent source so their view is irrelevant. It is set before the events of Alien, ergo it's a prequel. Doesn't matter. It's so key to the Alien franchise and has the same director and DEFINITELY started life as a sequel that I'm putting it back in the lead, without saying it's a prequel. That cannot be objectionable. GDallimore (Talk) 20:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Where do I start? Try some of the discussions at Talk:Prometheus (film), Talk:Alien (franchise), Talk:Alien (creature in Alien franchise), etc. Prometheus' status as an Alien prequel is debatable, and at best it isn't a direct prequel and isn't part of the Alien franchise. It's certainly not a direct prequel as the 2 AVP films are (which explicitly take place between the Predator and Alien films). And the producers are pretty much the authority on the subject. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't be bothered with this stupid fanboyish argument that ignores all common sense and plain English. This page is off my watchlist. Do what you want. GDallimore (Talk) 21:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The AVP films are not canon. The statement the producers made about the prequel status has to do with their intentions of making Prometheus a film that can stand on its own, however it is in fact a prequel to Alien. ScienceApe (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the separate article for the space jockey?

There used to be a separate article for it. Now that Prometheus is out, we have more information for it, but it's completely gone now. I suppose the removal of its mystique removed notability? ScienceApe (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't independently notable to begin with, and was deleted following an AfD. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Can I have a link to that discussion? ScienceApe (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Jockey (Alien) --IllaZilla (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Parellels to Cronenberg's Shivers (1975)

Another film that could be mentioned under the Antecedents section is David Cronenbergs 1975 film Shivers. It anticipates the concept of a parasite who penetrates and bursts out of human bodies, also combined with strong sexual themes (far more overt than in Alien).

Cronenberg briefly talks about these similiarities in this interview. They are also mentioned by several amateur reviewers [1][2][3] (although I could not find any professional opinion on this).
Could a native speaker confirm this information and, if approved of, incorporate it into the article? --Rantschy (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Cronenberg interview is more anecdotal and amateur reviews are not RS, but the material could be included if accompanied by reputable analysis. Betty Logan (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Alien Legacy

There seems to be an issue with what was included in the Alien Legacy DVD box set, released in 1999. I bought the box set the day it first came out and it contained all four Alien films. There were no previous releases of the Alien Legacy DVD set that ever only had three films in it. There is no mention of it ever only containing the first three films anywhere on the net (not even on eBay), but there are plenty of reviews and press notices which clearly state it was a 4-disc set from its first release in 1999. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc. 88.104.21.45 (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for including a ref in the edit this time. That was all we needed to leave the content in. I know it gets frustrating when you know something is true but reliable sources aren't backing it up, but at least there were plenty of sources to pull from based on your list above. Nice work and happy editing! Millahnna (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It suddenly occurs to me we should double check the text in the other films' articles to make sure it reflects the change with the new source. Millahnna (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are the relevant quotes from McIntee:

"The film was released on both VHS and Betamax for rental, and has been sold in several VHS releases, both singly and as boxed sets. It was also released on both Laserdisc and Videodisc before DVD became standard. The original DVD release, also available in the 'Alien Legacy' boxed set, featured a commentary by Ridley Scott, which is different from the commentary on the more recent 'Quadrilogy' edition." (p. 39)

"All the films have been released on VHS and DVD. Alien and Aliens were also released on Betamax, and Alien, Aliens, and Alien 3 on laserdisc. There have been several boxed sets: Alien, Aliens, and Alien 3 came out in a face-hugger shaped box, which included some of the deleted scenes from the laserdisc editions, and postcards. When Alien Resurrection came out at cinemas, the first three movies were released in a VHS boxed set with a Making of Alien Resurrection tape. A few months later, the same set was re-released with Alien Resurrection itself replacing the making-of video. This set was available in both widescreen and pan-and-scan versions. The most recent boxed set has been the 'Quadrilogy' nine-disc DVD set, which is a must-buy for fans." (p. 259)

My question is whether the VHS boxed set referred to (first released with the making-of vid, later replaced by Resurrection) is the Alien Legacy set, or if it had a different title (or not title at all). --IllaZilla (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like the Alien Saga VHS box set which was released in the UK in late 1997 and had the first three films plus the "Making of Resurrection" tape (see here). In 1998, it was reissued (still only on VHS) with the Resurrection film in it. It was never released on DVD. The Alien Legacy set was a different VHS and DVD box set from 1999 and always had four films in it. This was the very first Alien box set on DVD. Particled (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Plot

The alien is not "hiding" aboard the shuttle it is sleeping. Hench Ripley yells "Wake up you son of a bitch!"

I've added a small piece of info on the location in space, where the story takes place. The planet Calpamos and the moon LV-426 are fictional, but the rest is real. Stringence (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No thanks. This is minor, trivial, and doesn't need to be in the plot summary. The whole think is fictitious, including the setting. The "Spaceships and planets" section already says "In Alien the planetoid is said to be located somewhere in the Zeta² Reticuli system", so readers can click on the link if they want to learn more about Zeta Reticuli. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This information on location in our universe is vital for the story. This is the only way for readers to know that this star system is genuine, exists in real life. It gives orienation in space, relative to us, so everybody has chance to deepen their interest. I'm an astronomer, and correct koordinates allwas greately enhance the story. It becomes more realistic this way. So I urge you to put this information in, It was after all part in the movies script. To know how damned close it is to us, gives an extra nice frightening twist and enhances the the story. Stringence (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly vital; unless you spend an inordinate amount of time discussing how "close" the setting is to earth, it's not going to mean anything to most people. Space is space and is rarely put into context spatially. Devoting enough effort to the location to make it worthwhile to a reader would require us spending 10 times as much effort explaining it as the film does briefly flashing it on-screen. GRAPPLE X 02:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Grapple X. The particular point in space at which the planetoid lies is irrelevant to the story, and even less relevant to a summary of the events of the plot. It's minor, trivial, barely mentioned in the film itself, and does not bear going into minute detail about within a plot summary. As I mentioned previously, it's already covered within the "Spaceships and planets" section. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Space should always be put into context spatially. It´s not, and therefore people remain desoriented. In my sentence everything that needed explaining was explaned. You also know the SCENE of a plot is always as important, as the plot itself. That´s why I posted this information in the Plot-section. Where it goes is of minor importance, as long as it all is present. As a scientist I say only referring to the star system in section "Spaceships and planets" isn´t enough. But if you wish to disrespect people by saying they aren't integllient enough och interested enough to appreciate spatial context, there isn't much I can do. And who cares about your workload? Your job is to further knowledge, not stop it. Stringence (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems excessive for an otherwise snappy plot summary. If the distance from Earth is a significant part of the film's setting, and is clearly presented to the audience, then it wouldn't hurt to mention that in passing - a ship having trouble a few days away from home would give a very different atmosphere to one that was many years out. But if we're just talking about a character delivering one line of astronomical trivia with no context for the general audience (and in a line which may well have just been randomly-chosen technobabble), we shouldn't be presenting it as an intentional part of the plot. --McGeddon (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Correctly describing where this story takes place is not trivia, my remark isn't about distance. It's about where in the sky the story takes place, use the opportunity/interest of this film to teach readers a few interesting and real facts. I'm a scholar and see things through educational eyes. Again, I'm sadly faced with ignorent Wiki-administrators, and I'm beginning to understand why all scientists deeply detest Wikipedia with it´s dis- and misinformation. Shape up! Stringence (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

We're certainly not trying to "disinform" people. It's just that the precise location in space and distance from Earth isn't very pertinent to a summary of the plot. The aim of a plot summary is to give "an overview of the film's main events, avoiding minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, and technical detail." The planetoid could be 39 lights years from Earth or 15 or 100, and it would make no difference to the events of the story. Calling us "ignorent Wiki-administrators" isn't very polite (nor is it accurate; none of us in this discussion are admins), and doesn't aid your argument any. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I concur with IllaZilla about what goes in the plot summary. The summary is intended to be an overview of the film so readers can understand the rest of the article. More specific details can go elsewhere in the article body, if they have been discussed in reliable sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Then why didn't you move the information somewhere else you thought appropriate/suitable? You chose to completely delete it, with the argument it´s minor or trivial. Again, my purpose is only to use the opportunity/interest of this film to teach readers a few interesting and real facts. That´s all. I give up, there´s no point arguing. Stringence (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

As was pointed out in response to your first comment here, the "Spaceships and planets" section already states that "In Alien the planetoid is said to be located somewhere in the Zeta2 Reticuli system", with a link to the article for the benefit of any interested reader. --McGeddon (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Box-office

Many different websites have conflicting numbers for the international box office, but I'm pretty sure box-office mojo is way wrong with the 24 million dollars foreign box office estimate. The article says it earned almost 8 million pounds in the UK, which is approximately 12 million dollars (btw, box office mojo only counts a 114 000 dollars box office for the UK, that's where they got it wrong, they probably only counted the revenue from the premiere at the Odeon Leicester Square). So if you add up the revenues from box office mojo, and give the UK its 12 million dollars, or even if you give it 8 million dollars (and not pounds, like it says on IMDB), Alien surpasses the 24 million dollar estimate in foreign revenue.

Now, IMDB does give it a more believable foreign estimate of about 104 million (though it does count the 2003 release of the director's cut, but it wasn't that successful). The Numbers actually gives it a 122 million dollar foreign estimate, also probably counting the director's cut release. Regardless, the Box Office Mojo is almost certainly wrong, and that website is often wrong with its additions of foreign revenues, especially for "old" movies.. (same goes for Aliens btw).--Munin75 (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree; there is a tendency to treat BOM like the bible on here, but it does get a lot of historical data wrong, by either being incomplete or by mixing up gross and theatrical rental earnings. I don't think either BOM or The Numbers are correct in this case. Other sources such as [10] and [11] put its worldwide gross at $165 million by 2000. When you factor in the $5 million from the Director's Cut that would take the total to $170 million. During the 70s and 80s a big Hollywood film would traditionally add 50–100% of its domestic total overseas, which would put Alien's gross in the $120–160 million. The book figure is closer to that range. Obviously we can't know for sure, but I think we should probably do what we do with conflicting budget estimates and have an approximation range i.e. $104—170 million. Betty Logan (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The $104 million figure as quoted by BOM is obviously inaccurate, as the film had made $80m in the US, and the equivalent of around $18m during its first UK run in 1979/80 (pound sterling to dollar exchange rate back then was between $2.06 and $2.40). It's highly doubtful a film of this magnitude only made a further $6 million everywhere else in the world. The Numbers.com, which is no more or less reliable as BOM, states that Alien took $122m internationally, which is a far more believable figure than $24m. However, I've done what Betty suggested above and included both figures so we have a range for the worldwide gross, as this would be the most encyclopedic thing to do. Particled (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Influence on Futurama

I just saw an episode called "Murder on the Planet Express" of Futurama. In it, it seems like an uninvited parasite is eating the crew. Two characters have to go through the ventilation system to find it, just like the character Dallas did. So the episode title may reference Agatha Christie, but I'm sure this was inspired by Alien. jcm 12/7/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chumley41 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It might refer to both. If there is a reliable source for the information, it might belong in the article on the Futurama episode. With or without a source, including it here would be trivial. Please see WP:IPC. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

One sided accounts of sexual imagery

The article never says what the film makers made of the supposed phallic imagery and topic of the movie. Critics and academic analysts tend to say things out of pure shock value to stimulate attention. The article is not balanced when it touches on the subject, and never once refers to an opinion in the other direction, or potential confirmation. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the whole section?

• O'Bannon himself later described the sexual imagery in Alien as overt and intentional: "One thing that people are all disturbed about is sex... I said 'That's how I'm going to attack the audience; I'm going to attack them sexually. And I'm not going to go after the women in the audience, I'm going to attack the men. I am going to put in every image I can think of to make the men in the audience cross their legs. Homosexual oral rape, birth. The thing lays its eggs down your throat, the whole number.'"[112]

O'Bannon wrote the script, so I think that counts. The sexual imagery in Alien is one of the aspects frequently noted by analysts and critics. I'm not sure what you mean about "referring to an opinion in the other direction"...do you mean finding a critic who explicitly says there are no sexual undertones in the film? Because I highly doubt that's possible. That's trying to prove a negative. There is some previous discussion of this at Talk:Alien (film)/Archive 3#Alien's sexual imagery.

Note that there are other mentions of the film's sexual imagery to be found in other sections of the article as well, such as Roger Ebert's remarks in the section "The Alien" ("It is unmistakably phallic in shape, and the critic Tim Dirks mentions its 'open, dripping vaginal mouth.'"), Veronica Cartwright's comments in "Set design and filming" (Veronica Cartwright described Giger's sets as "so erotic...it's big vaginas and penises...the whole thing is like you're going inside of some sort of womb or whatever...it's sort of visceral".), and David Edelstein's remarks in "Lasting critical praise" ("Alien remains the key text in the “body horror” subgenre that flowered (or, depending on your viewpoint, festered) in the seventies, and Giger’s designs covered all possible avenues of anxiety. Men traveled through vulva-like openings, got forcibly impregnated, and died giving birth to rampaging gooey vaginas dentate — how’s that for future shock? This was truly what David Cronenberg would call “the new flesh,” a dissolution of the boundaries between man and machine, machine and alien, and man and alien, with a psychosexual invasiveness that has never, thank God, been equaled."). Is that enough for you? --IllaZilla (talk) 07:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with IllaZilla here. Neutrality generally applies to debates and disputed interpretations, but no such quandary exists in this case. There seems to be a universal consensus that the imagery is overtly sexual. The section is mainly reliant on critics and analysts because these are the people who sit down and write about the film. Some filmmakers—Stanley Kubrick for instance—refuse to get drawn on interpreting their work. If we can get some production info on the background to the imagery that is great, but it isn't a prerequisite. Betty Logan (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

My scanning through the article didn't pick up on the fact that O'Bannon was the writer, and not a critic. I was directed here from an article on an Alien Wiki, which I assumed was a copy of this word-for-word. Obviously I was wrong. Sorry about that. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Giger himself acknowledges the sexualized nature of the Alien creature in his production diaries, many of which have been published under the title of Giger's Alien. Here is a sample from page 46: "I changed [O'Bannon's sketch for the Alien egg] to look like an organic, vagina-like opening. When I take off the plastic cloths in which my work is draped, there is a howl of laughter from the whole group. I had lovingly endowed this egg with an inner and outer vulva." The production team then asked Giger to make the eggs less "specific"--more like a flower--so that the film will not get in trouble in "Catholic countries" (46). DrX (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Just as a side note, the Alien creature's lips were made out of condoms and the "goo" it salivates is a concoction based on KY jelly. I am pretty sure I can find the "hard" (excuse the pun) sources for this . . . somewhere around here. HullIntegrity (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:35, 12 May 2014‎

Error in Alien article

I don't know who's been writing these entries but the article entry for "Alien" states that "three sequel and three prequel films" have been made. Uh, this is factually incorrect. To date only "Alien", "Aliens", "Alien 3" and "Alien Resurrection" has been produced. While "Prometheus" has been produced, it's not considered an official prequel for the simple fact that Ridley Scott has went on record as saying that the movie Prometheus delves into a different aspect and that it will only be connected to the Alien films in a very minor aspect.

The article need to be updated and references to three prequel films removed. Being technical about it, only one prequel film has been produced with no word on whether any additional films would be forthcoming. It's disengenuous to mention films that haven't even been greenlit, yet alone, officially announced by 20th Century Fox. Since Prometheus bombed at the box office, it's highly doubtful that any further films will be forthcoming for a long time to come.

98.209.246.195 (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have removed some unsourced and out-of-place content. Thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, Prometheus is a prequel to Alien, and 20th Century Fox consider it to be such (its now even included in boxed sets with the Alien films). They're the owners of the property and they say what goes. It's also disingenuous to call it a "flop" when it made over $400 million worldwide and plans for a sequel have indeed been announced. Particled (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

What about the two (poor) Alien vs Predator films? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.154 (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

See Alien (film)#Sequels --Musdan77 (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

"Reverse engineering" motive

The plot summary says Weyland-Yutani wanted to "capture the creature in order to reverse engineer it" - is this actually in the script? It's been a while since I've seen the film, but a random shooting script file I've found online just has Ash saying "investigate a life form, possibly hostile and bring it back for observation". --McGeddon (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that's an assumption based on what Burke was going to do in Aliens, so it should probably be removed. The special order just says to bring it back for analysis.209.197.171.213 (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It was ramped up to "in order to engineer it for military use" overnight. I've changed it to "in order to return it to their employers for analysis". --McGeddon (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

New Sequel

The events of both Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection will be ignored by the upcoming sequel to Aliens, which will be directed by Neill Blomkamp. AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Note - Variety: New ‘Alien’ Won’t Undo ‘Alien 3′ or ‘Resurrection,’ Director Neill Blomkamp Says - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

References

A cheesy version of Aliens

I had just watched a 1988 movie called Deep Space and was surprised that the creatures in it were very similar to the ridley scott's aliens.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092863/

the movie above is a bit cheesy so i am not sure why they would use copies of the aliens from a higher quality film?

just wanted to add this to the discussion. thanks. 19:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.11.88.151 (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alien (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914184217/http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alien (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921143432/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearchInput.jsp to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearchInput.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905074007/http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2003/102303/film1.html to http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2003/102303/film1.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://reconstruction.eserver.org/043/gallardoc.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Observer_review/0%2C%2C1075900%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alien (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110731155143/http://www.allrovi.com/movies/movie/alien-v1503 to http://www.allrovi.com/movies/movie/alien-v1503
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110731155143/http://www.allrovi.com/movies/movie/alien-v1503 to http://www.allrovi.com/movies/movie/alien-v1503
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829144823/http://www.loc.gov/film/filmabou.html to http://www.loc.gov/film/filmabou.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alien (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/456/456974p1.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://web.ukonline.co.uk/nso/Hanson2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820050446/http://www.gadgetmadness.com/archives/20070402-buy_the_1979_original_alien_suit_by_hr_giger.php to http://www.gadgetmadness.com/archives/20070402-buy_the_1979_original_alien_suit_by_hr_giger.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bbfc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Alien-Final.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Alien: The Eighth Passenger

I always thought that Alien was subtitled as Alien: The Eighth Passenger, mainly because some Non-English speaking countries had titled this movie as Alien, le huitième passager (France), L'Étranger : Le Huitième Passager (French Canadian), Alien, el octavo pasajero (Spain)... and all of this titles translate into English as Alien: The Eighth Passenger. Is it sure that these translations are not from an original American title, given to the film at some point in 1978/1979...?

Can't say I've seen any reviews or promo material where the title is given as that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thank you Andrzejbanas, I will be awaiting for other user's views and opinions. Thank you again. Kintaro (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me comment one point: the documentary The Eighth Passenger: Creature Design, abundantly included in the present article as a reference, is titled following the term "The Eighth Passenger". What is interesting to point out, here, is that The Eighth Passenger: Creature Design is an American documentary, made by Americans. Thus, in my opinion, The Eighth Passenger, either as a title or as a subtitle, is of American origin... as it is indeed the film itself. Kintaro (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's your opinion, but you'll need to find it used anywhere. Can't say I've seen it, and honestly even if you do find it, it's not nearly as common as the simple Alien title. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The Eighth Passenger I take as simply the name of the documentary. Many documentaries about making of films are not named after the film. Dangerous Days for Blade Runner, Superior Firepower for Aliens etc. The documentary carrying that name doesn't really mean anything with regards to the film's title. I know the film was originally pitched under the title Star Beast but was called Alien by the time the script was finalized. None of my books on the making of etc mention The Eight Passenger that I've been able to see regarding either the title or subtitle of the English name. Nor can I see it in any of the poster variants that I have images of. Not saying it never existed, but I've not been able to locate any reference to it in English. It's possible the proliferation of it in the foreign names cross pollinated back into English and attached to it after the fact. Canterbury Tail talk 01:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, the point is that, as of 1979, countries like Spain, France or Canada (in Quebec) added the subtitle The Eighth Passenger to their versions, into their own language, of course (El octavo pasajero into Spanish and Le huitième passager into French). Regarding this documentary... the year is 2003, not 1979. Thus, the source of this subtitle (The Eighth Passenger) is not the documentary... Kintaro (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

No I didn't think the source of the name was the documentary. I was pointing to it as a cross pollination of the name back from the foreign language versions back into English. It's not uncommon for many different foreign languages to share a common translation of a film's name that doesn't exist in the English. This is often due to in most distribution studios there being a domestic department and then an international distribution department. So it's pretty common for the international distribution department to come up with a different name or description that is then used in the foreign language versions. it doesn't necessarily mean it was ever attached in any way to the English version name or subtitle.

Anyway all of this is academic, you'd need a source that the name or subtitle was attached to the English language version. Everything else we have is just speculation or synthesis. Canterbury Tail talk 17:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Canterbury Tail, for your kind and complete answer. It's a reasonable and quite convincing assumption. Kintaro (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I am however very curious and looking into this myself. My sources don't have the name attached to the film originally in English, however it would be fascinating if it did. So I'm checking what I can to see if there is any connection, old books etc. Canterbury Tail talk 19:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time in madrid. my mrs has the boxed set, & was puzzled by the english title being "just" 'alien'. she's always known it at 'alien- the 8th passenger'.

but don't take my word for it- here's the poster:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YToj0KGq7t0/U3LBp7Qg-nI/AAAAAAAALNY/vLDSGkWj5Mo/s1600/ALIEN+EL+8O+PASAJERO+-+Spanish+Poster+1.jpg

duncanrmi (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alien (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130926063011/http://chicagoist.com/2013/09/17/leonard_maltin_talks_about_45_years.php to http://chicagoist.com/2013/09/17/leonard_maltin_talks_about_45_years.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Production country

Just as a heads up. I added a possibly mildly controversial addition for the production country. In the Monthly Film Bulletin, the film is listed as simply a British production, noting that the 20th-Century Fox production is from a London division. I've changed the article to reflect this and added the source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

On returning, I've noticed someone removed cited material and added some bare-url google searches. Let's try to come to a conclusion before just removing material we don't agree with. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

With a little research, I found this snippet of information from the ever useful British Film Institute, stating the film was "American funded, but made by Twentieth Century-Fox’s British production subsidiary". Not sure how much that helps. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

As a heads up here as well, the Academy Awards seems to note the British production status here: [12]. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Its been nearly two years (!) and no one has dug up any sort of solution to the production company situation. I have found sources using the UK item and as there have been no further suggestions, I'll change the prose and text to state the film as both British and American co-production. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I've changed the production country as no one was expanding on the topic currently. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

There are a surprising number of online sources citing the film as both American and British, but based on the conventional definition for how a film's country of origin is determined, I'm not sure that's correct. I think the industry standard is that the country of a film is defined as the place or places where the production companies for that film are based, and therefore where the financing originated. In this case, the financing originated solely within the United States. As for the production company, the film's credits state that it's a 'Brandywine-Ronald Shusett production'. The BFI database similarly confirms that the production company for Alien is Brandywine Productions [13], although it notes that it was made by Twentieth Century-Fox in the UK and it therefore lists the film as both American and British. However, as mentioned above, where a film is made isn't a factor in determining its country of origin. So strictly speaking, since neither the financing nor the production company are from the UK, then this film should really only be listed as a US production. There are a number of published works that cite Alien as a US film, so references can be added as needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2DA2:ED00:8E:D84D:5A97:C36B (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The BFI link I mentioned above states that this is a UK section of 20th Century Fox, noting "American funded, but made by Twentieth Century-Fox’s British production subsidiary" Outside listing bits and pieces of countries, we need more detailed prose on the topic. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

British-American co-production?

My impression of a British-American co-production is a film that involves studios from both countries. Alien involves American studios only as production companies. Correct me if I am wrong.PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It was mostly filmed in Shepperton Studios (Surrey) and Bray Studios (Berkshire). Dimadick (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

December 2019 changes

Some of the changes today are reasonable, but is "She changes into a spacesuit and uses gas to remove the creature" a misunderstanding of the way "spacing", ejecting someone into space using the internal atmosphere to force them out, works? Or am I misremembering the film? Britmax (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Filming

I don't fully understand this line "then made moulds and casts and scaled them up as diagrams for the wood and fiberglass forms of the sets". Can someone with access to the book check this part? how can it be scaled after casting? --ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 08:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

"List of Planets in Alien Films" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of Planets in Alien Films. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 9#List of Planets in Alien Films until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 03:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Planetoid details

There used to be a wikipedia article titled "LV-426", the talk page for which covered such controversies as its name (some people hear "LV", others hear "LB") and size (stated by Lambert to be "twelve hundred kilometers" though it's not clear if she meant radius, diameter, circumference, or some other measurement). When that article went kaput, its talk page got locked. Discuss all controversies here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.13.107 (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Title sequence

I have added a section on the title sequence. It would be good to add more sources and information, as appropriate. Also talk here if you challenge the content. Thanks 86.14.189.55 (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Given that the plot section has a limit of 700 words, the size of the title section seems to be disproportate to the content of the film now that a 68 word quote from the Collider website by Gregory Lawrence has been added. I'm unsure that this is a reliable source per WP:NEWSBLOG, could someone provide further guidence on this. Information on which typeface it was, appears to be trivia IMO. Is the adding of such material likely to affect the article's GA status if it was reassessed? Sciencefish (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It should also be noted that that isn't strictly a quote, it's the entirety of the target article's entry on the Alien title sequence. Anyway I don't think Collider is a reliable source, it's technically a blog and general consensus (while not definitive) tends towards it not being reliable in previous RS/N conversations. Introbrand is definitely not a reliable source, as they are a video and animation rendering commercial site and not known for the content of their company blog. IndieWire is a reliable source and Art of the Title, while I don't think it's come up in a movie article previously does appear to be a reliable source. However I believe that the font topic and conversation is pure trivia and should be removed. Canterbury Tail talk 20:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a very helpful breakdown of the sources. I was unaware of RS/N. Sciencefish (talk) 09:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Edits made based on consensus 86.14.189.55 (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Is Introbrand reliable? ภץאคгöร 18:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned above, definitely not. They're an animation company selling their services that happen to have a blog, something they're not known for. So for that the "iconic" is purely their opinion and can't be used to determine that it's a widely held viewpoint among critics etc. Canterbury Tail talk 19:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Bechdel Test

It would be nice if the Bechdel Test connection of this movie was mentioned in the article. Greg (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

If you have a reference that includes the film then please add it, but do Lambert and Ripley even have a conversation? Sciencefish (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

O'Bannon quote

In the Cinematic analysis subsection, there's a citations needed tag for the following Dan O'Bannon quote:

One thing that people are all disturbed about is sex... I said 'That's how I'm going to attack the audience; I'm going to attack them sexually. And I'm not going to go after the women in the audience, I'm going to attack the men. I am going to put in every image I can think of to make the men in the audience cross their legs. Homosexual oral rape, birth. The thing lays its eggs down your throat, the whole number

The old source was this Cracked article, which claimed that the quote came from the 2002 documentary, *The Alien Saga*. I can confirm that Dan O'Bannon says this quote in the documentary, at 24:10. Here's a YouTube link. What kind of proof would be sufficient? The quote is in the movie, but if I'm to believe the removal of the Cracked reference (because Cracked is evidently not considered to be a reliable source), just stating so isn't enough proof? Please advise.

BanunterX (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

PS: Technically, the full quote is actually missing a sentence:

One thing that people are all disturbed about is sex... Everybody is always all in a knot about sex. I said 'That's how I'm going to attack the audience (...)

(I couldn't fully understand the English audio, but fortunately this article had transcribed the missing sentence.) It seems as though the Cracked article removed a sentence, and most online publications (including the Wikipedia article) got it from Cracked. And for the sake of being thorough, the interview clip also has one extra sentence at the beginning, meaning the full quote is:

The whole thing was supposed to be about the sexual life cycle of the Alien. One thing that people are all disturbed about is sex. Everybody is always all in a knot about sex. I said, that’s how I’m gonna attack the audience. I’m gonna attack them sexually. And I'm not going to go after the women in the audience, I'm going to attack the men. I am going to put in every image I can think of to make the men in the audience cross their legs. Homosexual oral rape, birth. The thing lays its eggs down your throat, the whole number.

BanunterX (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Destruction of the Space Jockey Prop.

The article currently states that "Certain Jewish rabbi set fire to the model of the space jockey, believing it to be the work of the devil." Other than the McIntee book cited, I haven't been able to find a single source that backs this up. While there's an general consensus that the prop was destroyed in a fire, the explanation for the fire ranges broadly. This newspaper printed shortly after the event states that the prop was destroyed by vandals, while some online sources credit a discarded cigarette as the cause of the fire. The only source I could find that linked the fire to just unspecified "religious zealots" was from WhatCulture - not an extremely reliable source. While it does seem like the prop was destroyed by a fire, I don't think there's enough evidence to state that a rabbi set the fire thinking that the prop was the devil's work. It might be better for the article to just state that the prop was destroyed in a fire. Are there any sources I'm not seeing that back up the specific stated cause?

StaticIsHere (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

"... One of the best films of all time"

The unsupported statement: " and is considered one of the greatest films of all time" is found on the lede of the article. There is no reference to support the idea, nor is it the film referenced or mentioned in the article linked in there. 181.51.32.39 (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

why does the blue word alien link to croissants please change delete this message after you changed it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:1580:9600:24CC:97D1:CF9D:8D11 (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Original ending

The article currently states:

“Alien originally was to conclude with the destruction of the Nostromo while Ripley escapes in the shuttle Narcissus. However, Scott conceived of a "fourth act" to the film in which the alien appears on the shuttle and Ripley is forced to confront it. He pitched the idea to 20th Century Fox and negotiated an increase in the budget to film the scene over several extra days. Scott had wanted the alien to bite off Ripley's head and then make the final log entry in her voice, but the producers vetoed this idea, because they believed the alien should die at the end of the film.”

The source given is the DVD director's commentary, which I don't have handy. I don't believe this is correct, because the 1976 screenplay by O'Bannon (before Hill & Giler revised it) ends with Roby finding the alien in the shuttle, shooting it with the spear gun and blowing it out the airlock, just as in the final film. There's even an illustration by O'Bannon showing the alien squirming outside the shuttle. As far as I know, Ridley Scott only came up with the “twist ending” of having the alien kill Ripley and make the log entry in her voice. Can anyone confirm? MFNickster (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alien (film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, given that this was delisted for a small number of citation needed tags, and those have now all been fixed with new citations, I'd just about be willing to pass this immediately. The article provides above-GA-level, near-comprehensive coverage, with over 180 citations. It's a mature article, worked on since 2002, and over the years expanded to over 150,000 bytes.

It would be as well, however, if a few statements were cited:

• 'Cast': Helen Horton.
• 'Writing': sole credit given to O'Bannon.

• In 'The Alien', " as it bursts from the chest of poor Kane (John Hurt). It is unmistakably " --- should this not be "...Hurt), it is..."? It seems to be one sentence if you read it.

• Not clear why the quote box in 'Spaceships and planets' is on the left; it would look more natural on the right, certainly the more usual placement for quotes. That way Cobb is introduced in the text, and then quoted.

That's about it from me. The article is well-written and properly structured so once these small items are fixed it'll be on its way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the review :)

I will look for cites later.

As for the 'The Alien' quote I get what you mean, it reads odd but I checked the source (and marked it as dead url) and it is written like that in the source... I'm assuming it's an issue of transcribing a spoken interview maybe?

And I've moved the quote box, it did look out of place on the left.

Lankyant (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I've now cited both points! The O'Bannon cite, I can't get the exact page number because I don't have JStor access but it is talked about in there.

Lankyant (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Great, that's all fine. The page range is the correct format. Many thanks for the rescue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Feminism

Before I try and take this article to Featured I think that it definitely needs a section around feminism and feminist interpretations of the film. It is majorly important in feminist cinema studies and it's weird it hasnt been raised before. Unfortunately, I don't have access to all the sources I like but want to build a little list of places to go if you wanted to create the section. (Thanks to User:Kaldari for raising this and suggesting the first two.) Feel free to create this section of add to this list.

Books:

• Alien Woman: The Making of Lt. Ellen Ripley (especially the introduction and first chapter)
• Alien Zone: Cultural Theory and Contemporary Science Fiction Cinema (especially the chapters "Feminism and Anxiety in Alien" and "Feminism, Humanism, and Science in Alien").
• Alien Constructions : Science Fiction and Feminist Thought
• Blood Relations: Feminist Theory Meets the Uncanny Alien Bug Mother

Articles:

• Here's Why the Alien Movies Are Renowned by Feminist Film Theorists
• The first action heroine
• 'Alien' Is Sci-Fi Horror's Most Feminist Movie Franchise

Lankyant (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of that, but my recollection is that Aliens is the film that really became a feminist touchstone. The first film, while featuring Ripley as a strong survivor and a high-ranking crew member of responsibility, also suffers to some degree from the horror-film "last girl standing" trope. MFNickster (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Physic

What is chemical thermodWhat is chemical thermodynamics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.57.95.21 (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

This looks like something that belongs in the science reference desk, IP with only one contribution! Someone-123-321 (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Why not just read the article on Thermodynamics, it'll be more than enough. It applies to everything that exists. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Please add the YEAR that these movies exist in.

" In 2202 the crew arrives......etc etc" . Why non of the Aliens wiki entrys never add the date? 2600:4040:5C5B:E600:A82D:BF89:4333:C8B4 (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

We don't because the movies never state these years and there have been multiple versions of the years in various other media since. Ultimately the articles are about the movies, and the movies were not, at the time, set in a particular year and it's never mentioned. As a result we can't mention it. Canterbury Tail talk 11:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Characters

Is it important to call out the ethnicity of some of the characters in the cast section? What makes it particularly odd is that, unless I missed it while reading the article, only two actors of African diaspora or African-American descent are called out while others are not mentioned. I’m removing those lines. If anyone has any input or objections, please raise here. Stephenamills (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe the "Kotto, an African American, was chosen partly to add diversity to the cast and give the Nostromo crew an international flavor.[12]" should be readded as it was a sourced reason to cast him Lankyant (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey Lankyant. One of the things in the sentence that that seems like a bit of an out-of-place mention is the word ‘international’. Though I understand the director is British, aside from that isn’t really anything else that makes the film specifically international or non-American (which I believe is what that sentence may be trying to say – I believe it’s saying the film is comprised of an international cast and that Kotto is one of those members). But it seems a bit out of place because the film is/was distributed by 20th Century Fox and it premiered in the United States so it’s already a joint American project in that sense.

It just seems a bit odd to use that phrasing with the word ‘international’ perhaps because to the layperson or other reader, it looks like it is calling the African-American cast member ‘international’ while the other characters are not labeled as such, for a project that is already distributed (or created) jointly with an American company or companies. Also to use the phrasing saying that Kotto was chosen partly to add diversity to the cast implies that he wasn’t chosen for ability and was instead singled out as Black to make the casting not seem suspiciously discriminatory. There’s probably some better phrasing that could be added that still acknowledges the cast diversity aspect but without making it seems like they added a Black character as a token Black person or as an insurance policy to avoid being criticized for discriminatory casting. Stephenamills (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Erotic horror films category

The article has multiple sources discussing the overt sexual themes and imagery used in the film, as well as the symbolism of these. I think it is, without a doubt, a horror film that is intentionally erotic. In fact, the word "erotic" is used in the article to describe Giger's work on the film. For these reasons, I think that the article should be placed in Category:Erotic horror films, but somebody disagreed, so I am coming to the talk page to discuss it. What say you all? Pinging @Canterbury Tail: for discussion. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to the talk page. There's quite the gap between sexualized imagery and erotic, and that may be personal interpretation. Even if some could be described as erotic, I've never seen a source say it's an erotic horror movie. However ultimately at the end of the day it simply fails WP:CATDEF. Alien is not commonly and consistently referred to as an erotic horror movie. Sources don't support the category. Canterbury Tail talk 13:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I see, thanks for your input. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The main article for the category, Erotic horror specifically mentions Alien so I don't see any problem with it. MFNickster (talk) 06:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Categories are not meant to be exhaustive, articles are not supposed to be in every category it's possible for them to be in. Articles should only be in the main categories that are their defining categoristics. As you read in WP:CATDEF above "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to". Most references do not commonly and consistently refer to Alien as an "erotic horror." Now it's fine for the article on erotic horror to mention and discuss Alien, but it's WP:UNDUE to use the category on the film as it's not defining according to most sources. Canterbury Tail talk 12:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not a member or author of anything so far, thus I have no account yet.

I am somewhat baffled by the use of the term "eroticism" in context with this movie. Yes Gigers work does definitely contain art that is erotic, no counterargument there. However, a lot of his work relies on body horror. Horror which is heavily inspired by genitalia, the process of giving birth, pornographic imagery, and so on.

Sure, everything can and will be fetishized, but I seriously doubt that anything mainstream considers the act of giving birth to be erotic in any way.

So coming back to the movie, yes it does feature set pieces or stylistic choices that are pretty in your face phallic or clearly are similar to female genitalia and so on. I really would like to know what is considered "erotic" in any of its depiction in the movie. Acts of rape and assault, the horror the process of giving birth could be seen as... Woth all its gore, it really escapes me what exactly is considered erotic. The only "erotic" scene is probably at the end of the movie in which Ripley is seen in underwear, but that would be somewhat cheap, wouldn't it?

Maybe I am a little lost here, but the huge mistake that is being made here is to make anything that remotely resembles genitalia seem erotic, which it isn't. Genitalia =/= Eroticism

I am not sure if it is a cultural thing, as - for example - US culture certainly does have issues with nudity as compared to most parts in Europe. Maybe this is a reason a door is considered erotic as it somewhat reminds the viewer of a birth canal, I really don't know. As mentioned earlier, apart from certain fetishes, the movie lacks mainstream erotica or depictions thereof.

I'd really appreciate if someone could explain it to me, as I find it quite strange this movie is put under the same category as "Dracula" (erotic horror).

Thx and sorry if my English isn't as good. 2A02:3032:30C:4EB9:D144:862D:B7BD:A0DB (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Ultimately it's not up to us, Wikipedia editors don't get to decide how something is described, we go by reliable sources and what they say. I don't see it myself either, but it seems a few sources (clearly not the majority) do call it that. However this is about should it be in the category and it very clearly fails WP:CATDEF when it comes to it. Canterbury Tail talk 18:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Disagree that it's undue weight when the film is specifically mentioned as exemplar of the subgenre. MFNickster (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, all you need to do is provide references that back up that it's defining as per WP:CATDEF. "The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to[1] in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place." Canterbury Tail talk 12:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Should the chronology of settings be added to the Alien film and its sequels

Currently I am updating the dating for the new Alien: Romulus film, which is to be set between the time frame of Alien and Aliens. The dating of Alien is given as 2122, and your edit on Aliens states that it is 57 years after the first film, which is 2179. It makes sense to add the timeline since Alien: Romulus is coming out later this year. HenryRoan (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Nothing is mentioned in the film about a year though and retrospective information wouldn't be added in the plot, at most it would be a hidden note backed up with a reliable source. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Since the director of Romulus has made a point of stating that his installment is set in time between the first film Alien and the second film Aliens, it seems that the films might be in danger of tripping over each other in readers' minds if the time frame is not made more explicit. Since your edit in the Aliens plot already states that it is exactly "57 years" later, then it makes sense to give the actual dating in more than a hidden note. Let me know what you think, dates or no dates in the Aliens article, dates or no dates in the Romulus sequel article? HenryRoan (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It would depend on the reliability of the source but it would still be a hidden note because it's not stated in the film while 57 years is. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

No dates are mentioned in either Alien or Aliens. Any dates applied are post movie ret-cons which are not actually part of the original movies. I don't see why saying something is set between two movies requires a specific date, just between the movies is sufficient. You would need to provide a reliable source that the Alien and Aliens films are specifically (at the time) set in those years, which at the time they were just some unknown future. We write movies from the perspective of the original release, not any retconning that happened later. Canterbury Tail talk 14:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Cailee Spaeny (an actor in Romulus) stated to Variety that Alien: Romulus will take place between the events of 1979's Alien, and the 1986 sequel Aliens.

I also just located this official looking poster released for the film which might be good for the Infobox of the film if you know might know someone with experience on how to load it for the Wikipedia article here: [14].

Canterbury Tail: The published companion books to the film productions also contain information on the timelines if an added source is needed. HenryRoan (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Again they were published well after the films and reconned dates into them. No date appears in the films. The plot is only for what appears in the film with the film as the primary source. If it doesn't appear in the film, it doesn't go in the plot section. MOS:FILMPLOT. Canterbury Tail talk 14:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Other interwiki versions of the articles about Alien include the date for the film setting such as the one in Russian. Also its covered in the companion books such as: Becoming Alien: The Beginning and End of Evil in Science Fiction's Most Idiosyncratic Film Franchise (Reel Spirituality Monograph Series) Paperback – March 15, 2021 by Sarah Welch-Larson (Author).

Also this second source book covers the timeline in: Author: Perry, S. D. (Stephani Danelle), author. Title: Alien : The Weyland-Yutani Report / S. D. Perry. Publisher, Date: San Rafael, CA : Insight Editions, [2016]

Two reliable sources are usually sufficient to support adding the information, both those authors thought it was useful to add dates. If you do a search on "2122 Alien" in the Google search engine then a bunch of sources come up justifying the use of these dates. HenryRoan (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you're missing what's being said to you. Per MOS:FILMPLOT only the film as a primary source is used for the plot. Since the date is not mentioned, referenced or shown in the film it cannot be included. You can find as many sources as you want, if it's not in the film it doesn't go in. Also what happens in other language Wikipedias has no baring on the English language Wikipedia and it's policies/guidelines etc, they're completely separate unconnected projects. Canterbury Tail talk 15:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Not to disparage foreign wikis but we try to work to a higher standard and Aliens is also a Featured Article. We don't modify plots based on retcons developed in future instalments or spin-offs. The best example I can think of is we don't change Star Wars' plot to read "Luke meets with Leia, secretly his sister" which I don't think is identified until the third film. Dating the Aliens films is a mistake anyway, as they are they're relatively timeless, but as I've expressed above, if the information can be reliably sourced we could add it as a footnote, but we shouldn't be saying "In 2179" because that isn't in the film as it was released.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

My edits have been centered on Romulus which Variety magazine says is to be set between Alien and Aliens in its time frame. If the years are not included in the Plot sections, then that sets up the problem for general readers to get confused when Romulus comes out about whether film A is set before film B or after film C, etc. Since DWB appears to offer the solution of using footnotes for this, and if you both agree to the footnotes solution, then I can look up the dates for all the films as listed in the Weyland-Yutani book which I cited above yesterday as a reliable source. I can post the results here over the next few days if both of you think that DWB's footnotes suggestion is the best approach at this time for the chronology issue between these films? HenryRoan (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I personally don't agree on the footnotes, it's trying to shoehorn in a retcon that doesn't exist in the films. And it's not a hard concept for people that Romulus takes place between Alien and Aliens. Actual years aren't needed for that concept and I think it's rather insulting people's intelligence to think they can't grasp such a simple concept. Plenty of films don't have specific dates with some taking place in between others, it's not an issue. It seems that you're looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. "It's set between Alien and Aliens", done. You're also assuming that Romulus will have a specific date to it in the film, when none of Alien, Aliens, Alien 3 or Alien Ressurection have. Additionally, any conversations around this and about changes to the article should take place on the talk page of said articles, and not on a user talk page, so a wider audience can be reached for consensus. Canterbury Tail talk 19:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The larger chronology of Alien and its sequels is not generally known to viewers of the films, although on numerous websites and published books the chronology is very consistently given as:

Alien vs. Predator (2004, it was supposed to be 'present day' when released)

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2004, also set in 2004 as a direct sequel to AVP)

Prometheus (2089, as stated in its Wikipedia Plot section now)

Alien: Covenant (2104, as stated in its Wikipedia Plot section now)

Alien (2122, not currently in its Wikipedia Plot section though well sourced on web)

• Alien: Romulus (sometime between 2122 and 2179 according to Variety magazine)

Aliens (2179, not currently in its Wikipedia Plot section which only states its 57 years after Alien)

Alien 3 (2179, same year as Aliens)

Alien: Resurrection (2381, several hundred years later)

The dating of the films is currently inconsistently sometimes given (and sometimes not) on Wikipedia, and DWB's footnotes approach might make Wikipedia more consistent for this film series as a whole. It might make sense to move this discussion to the Alien Talk page which started this film series as suggested by Canterbury Tail. HenryRoan (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

HenryRoan There really is no discussion to be had. You read as though you have your heart set on adding the date but it's flatly against WP:PLOT. As has been said several times, the plot summary is (a) a short summary of (b) only what is seen and heard on the screen. As an aside, the film has storytold extremely well in its 45 years without a date, which may be why the filmmakers kept it out.ToaneeM (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The filmmakers did include the dates in Prometheus and Covenant, excluded it from Alien, and partially included it in Aliens when they said "57 years" later. If this information is to be excluded from the Plot sections, then maybe it can be added elsewhere in the article. Its surprising for me to see this information about chronology also excluded from the Alien (franchise) page, where it would seem to be useful. If not in the Plot sections of the film articles, then maybe in another section of the articles could cover the chronological settings and not exclude this information outright. There are multiple reliable sources about these chronological dates which agree with each other. HenryRoan (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, those dates were retconned into the franchise many many years (decades) after they were made. They were not part of the original films (theatrical or directors cuts) and have no place in the article as a result. And (as per your commen on Darkwarriorblake's talk page) there is no drive for these films to be consist with two franchise films made decades later. Just because Prometheus and Covenant had dates in the films isn't an inconsistency with Alien or Aliens and isn't relevant. We need to be consistent with the actual film, it's not relevant what other movie articles have in them. Canterbury Tail talk 01:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

References