Talk:Alien³

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.
This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. Please feel free to add your name the project participation list and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
Article This article is a Article.

I don't know where the title "Alien 3: Resurrection" came from. It was "Alien 3". Or rather, with the 3 in superscript, which led to fans calling it "Alien cubed" -- Tarquin 10:50 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to see a better citing of the Village Voice source in the AIDS bit. There are no quotes, so there's no way to tell what was exactly said or how much of this is the writers fancy. Please use a quotation and cite the issue of this information. --DanielCD 15:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know alot of the ins and outs behind the scenes. And the guy who took on this project with little experience was a fool to do so with Alien.

And most notably out of all the arguments for what went into this movie to make it terrible, is the fact that it makes the previous one anti-climatic. We get to watch Riply, and what is left of the others leave safely enroute to Earth. And in the next film, they killed them off. Great, so I spent two hours plus too see Newt, Riply and the other two escape only to find out those two hours were wasted.

What they should have done was adapt the graphic novel by Dark Horse, where it is around twenty years later and Newt, is a patient at some asylum. Which makes total perfect sense. That was a story. Alien3 is garbage. And the one following it is garbage too.

What the hell does that have to do with the article? Teflon Don 22:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Odd stuff

<Side Note> Originally, the scuttlebutt about the shaved heads of the prisoners of the colony, were because of a massive lice outbreak in the colony. All prisoners shaved all their body hair to avoid getting lice. (Entertainment Tonight, 1992) Also, the original concept of the movie, which was scrapped, was Ripley was raped by the Alien. (Star Magazine, 1992)

What the heck? This needs to be re-written. Who the hell writes "<Side Note>" into encyclopedia text? And why 'originally', the lice problem was explained in the released version of the film. And 'scuttlebutt'? I may not be 100% up on US phraseology, but isn't this uneccessary slang?
The second part is troublesome too... for one thing, there isn't really any such thing as 'the original concept', as the film went through many many evolving concepts. Plus I have trouble that the creators would even seriously consider such a scenario to the point where it would be a 'concept'. Unless a direct quote can be given I think this should be eliminated. pomegranate 10:31, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Sod it, I'm just gonna wipe it out. I don't there's enough worthwhile info there to warrant a re-write. pomegranate 17:15, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Superscript 3

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks): "avoid using special characters that are not pronounced and are included purely for decoration. In the article about a trademark, it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears, but thereafter, an alternative that follows the standard rules of punctuation should be used". ed g2s • talk 19:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this rule, which is intended to apply to things like company name, applies here. Films, like other works of art, should be at their exact titles, and the ³ in Alien³ is used fairly consistently - certainly as much as the 7 in Se7en, for example. — sjorford++ 09:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, the trademark rule definitely applies. Company names, product names, and movie titles are all analogous situations. But that’s only if the name of the movie is pronounced “Alien three.” If it’s pronounced “Alien cubed,” then Alien³ is perfectly acceptable. There is some inconsistency, though: The video game, which uses the same logo treatment on its cover as is used on the movie poster, is filed under Alien 3. That’s not to say that a logo is a reliable source, though; graphic designers and press agents do all sorts of funky things with titles to make them stand out from competitors and to generate buzz. --Rob Kennedy 19:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When does Ripley get impregnated?

I find that this is the main flaw in the script. There is no chance that she could have been impregnated in the previous film. Supposedly it happened whilst in hybernation on the return trip, but again there could not have been an alien onboard, aliens attack, and the queen was chucked out of the airlock into open space. Neither could the company get any eggs onboard, as the first landing craft was destroyed and the second was recalled in the last moment. The two egg creatures alive in Alien 2 were killed when the company man tried to have Ripley and the girl impregnated.

So I dont see how it could have happened and unfortunatelly it is not explained in the article either. If any editor could elaborate it would be appreciated.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 03:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the movie makes any sense, so explaining it could be problematic :). Mark Grant 23:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The true reason is of course that we "consumers" should not think anything as a plot hole, but a mystery to be solved! ;) You may want to check the ALIEN, ALIENS and ALIEN^3 Info & FAQ, part 3/4, it has some very nice examples of the art of fanwankery at it's finest. I really like the last one on the list: "Alien3 was a dream Ripley had." A nightmare within nightmare, perhaps?
You may also want to check the Alien3 script by William Gibson and weep... -- Talamus 19:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the word fuck

i dare someone to count how many times it is used in this movie i mean... wow

It doesn't even make it into List of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck". Iolakana|T 23:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added section on the misrepresentation of the XYY syndrome

I've added this in the interest of those people who have XYY syndrome. It clarifies the fact that they're not actually aggressive criminals as the film suggests - something which must be done from the point of view of fairness, I hope you'll agree.

[edit] Moved section to Talk page

The XYY syndrome is misrepresented in the film and this may warrant a section in the article, but a meaningful account of how and why the absolutely false scientifically discredited XYY stereotype depicted in the film arose would be disproportionately long and beyond the scope of an article about the film.

The following section as written was partly correct, but very incomplete and unsourced, so I moved it to this Talk page:

Misrepresentation of XYY syndrome
Although the film depicts people with XYY syndrome as being aggressive or having criminal tendencies, in actual fact there is no connection. This was reported by an early academic paper as a result of the number of men in the general population with XYY syndrome being underestimated so that the incidence discovered in the prison population was assumed to be disproportionate, but despite becoming conventional wisdom to many people, subsequent checking of the general population found there to be the same proportion as in the prison population.[citation needed]

A similar statement was added at the same time (18 August 2006) by the same editor (81.104.12.5) to the XYY syndrome page.

I moved (28 August 2006) that statement to the Talk:XYY syndrome page for similar reasons.

Please see 28 August 2006 comments in topic 4. Article should specifically reject notion that XYY people are aggressive on the Talk:XYY syndrome page for further explanation. Panda411 21:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Special Edition

The information about the Alien 3 Special Edition needs to be edited. It is not the original workprint, since the workprint had the dog being facehugged, not the ox. The footage of the ox chestburster is new CGI created for the Special Edition. The statement that the Special Edition is considered vastly superior needs citation. Furthermore, the Alien 3 chestburster plush toy is called the Dog Alien Chestburster. Since this toy came out in 2005, after the Special Edition had already been released, this conclusively proves that the theatrical version is the "definitive version".

I've edited the page a bit.

[edit] XYY plot device

It is neither "biased" nor "superfluous" to include a 6-word parenthetical comment in the 904-word Plot section to clearly qualify as "an absolutely false scientifically discredited stereotype" the fictional plot device mischaracterizing the "double-Y chromosome pattern" (47,XYY) as "marking men as extremely violent and dangerous offenders."

Added references to chapters on sex chromosome abnormalities (including 47,XYY) in current editions of leading, authoritative medical genetics reference textbooks to support the parenthetical qualification. Panda411 16:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] plot summary overlong

This needs paring back a bit. Is there an agreed ideal length? perhaps something for the Films Project. raining_girl 18:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ellen Ripley

The article reads:

Ripley develops an intimate relationship with Clemens, revealing her first named for the first time in the series.

Not so. We learn Ripley's first name in Aliens, in a scene that was missing from the theatrical release, but was seen widely before the release of the third film. So, this statement is simply false.--Visionthing 17:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I was actually watching the movie at the time I wrote it so I don't know how I got it wrong...but you're right :) Seaworldpunk 16:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CGI effects

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I seem to have misplaced my copy of the DVD to check, but... isn't the CGI scene where the dogburster skitters down the hallway in the original version as well? There's a few other ceiling-crawling scenes with CGI in, which leads me to believe that the Visual Effects section needs a kicking, but I think a small fair-use screencap of the dogburster as an example of the CGI might do the trick. Slavedriver 21:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There are more than just 2 shots of CGI. Almost every time you see the alien on the ceiling, when they are trying to trap it, and it's running along is a CGI shot (it's clear as day when you compare it to what we have for today's CGI standards). Bignole 21:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Changed the wording, but it still needs work. Is there any satisfactory way to cite DVD material, other than point at where it is? I can find a few review sites that comment on the dog costume, but they're usually very long and have just one line on it. Incidentally, if someone used the term "Alien cubed" at me and meant it, I'd hit them. Slavedriver 00:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


yes, the "alien cubed" thing shouldn't be mentioned. nobody calls it that unless they don't know what the hell they are talking about. it's a bit like someone saying, "hey, i'm going to the grand pricks to watch them race round silverstone".


This is the proper citation would look like: <ref name="Alien 3 SF">{{cite video | people=David Fincher (Director) | title=Alien 3 documentary | medium=DVD | location=United States | publisher=Paramount Pictures | date=1992}}</ref>

and then <ref name="Alien 3 SF"/> for every time that you use the same source. There may be a more specific citation template to use for individual discs, but I'm not sure. I'd look at Wikipedia:Citation templates for the template. Bignole

Thanks a lot, I used that in the article. :) On a semi-unrelated note, I think a rewording of the alternate script section is in order. The problem with online script databases is you're taking them at face value. I think just noting that they'd been linked with the film and scripts in their name have been posted online would be more truthful and provable for now? Slavedriver 20:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I hate citing "online scripts", because you can never truly prove that they are who they claim to be. Anyone can write a script, put some names on it, and claim it was "official". Usually you can luck out and get a DVD that includes the script, but usually not "alternate scripts". Bignole 20:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The alien is not CGI; the DVD documentary makes this quite clear. I've been bold (not too bold, I hope) and re-written the entire visual effects section (probably still needs some work):
  • It's a man in a suit, and a rod puppet.
  • Clarified the bit about the whippet-in-a-suit alien.
  • The previous version mentioned a CGI sunset, but it doesn't look like CGI to me and I don't think anyone says anything about it on the DVD, so I've removed that.
I'm not particularly happy with the citations. Fredrick Garvin directed the documentary, but his name seems superfluous here.
I hope nobody's too annoyed about me removing their hard work. This is my first major edit, so feedback would be much appreciated. Echidnaboy 09:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Cheers for the clarifications, and the headsup. :) Seems all good to me, I knew that the full body shots were mainly composite shots (and the pipe/nesting alien scene or the flailing through the steam were man-suits), but you've meant that my crusade to relocate my copy of the DVD to crystallise the info can finish at last. With regards to the sunset, would that be the corona on the planet's edge at the beginning and end of the film? Congrats on the bold edit, good luck with many more. I'll keep chipping away with random stuff as I come across it, but I might feel the need to unstub some unsung articles. Slavedriver 21:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
A previous edit referred to "a brief scene of sunset shortly after Ripley is rescued" - meaning the shot of the crucifix, I think. It's followed by the corona you mentioned. Both look like optical effects to me, and I don't remember anything to the contrary being said on the documentary or the commentary. In fact, the VFX guys seem keen to point out how little CG they used. I get the impression the "CG alien" in particular is a popular misconception, which is probably why I felt compelled to make the edit... Thanks for the comments! Echidnaboy 10:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/l/i/Talk%7EAlien%C2%B3_7b12.html"