Talk:Alien 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Odd stuff[edit]

<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)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was hardcore move, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 12:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alien³ → Alien 3 — Per WP:MOS-TM, pretty much. The superscript 3 is special treatment that the copyright owner is encouraging, and we're hardcore and that guidline says, "No, we're not doing that." Therefore, why I'm asking. —hbdragon88 02:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support: The superscript 3 is a stylization used for promotion and marketing. The title (which is pronounced "Alien Three," not "Alien Cubed") should be in plain English according to Wikipedia rules, without any stylizations. A move would eliminate the need for an automatic redirect when a user types "Alien 3" into the search box. May I also suggest the same for Se7en? --IllaZilla 05:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • They can't make lowercase work, but they can make this work?! Wikipedia never ceases to amaze. Ewlyahoocom 19:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This ³ is a special character in the basic 256-character set, not a 3 superscripted by <sup> -- </sup>. Anthony Appleyard 20:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

WikiProject Alien[edit]

I have proposed the creation of a WikiProject to improve articles related to the Alien series, including this one. If you are interested in participating please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Alien and add your name to the list of interested editors. If enough people are interested in starting this project, then I will move forward with it. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One second...[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm watching the movie right now (the special edition, granted) and the alien comes out of a cow. Is this just in the special edition of the movie, or am I drunk or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.89.52 (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article. In the original, theatrically-released version of the film, the Alien gestates in and comes out of a dog. In the Special Edition that was later released on home video formats (ie. DVD), it gestates and comes out of an ox. You can learn more about the differences between the 2 versions of the film, and the reasons why they went with a dog in the theatrical version rather than an ox, by watching the special features and commentaries on your DVD. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast rights[edit]

Has any television or cable station purchased the broadcast rights to the 2003 Special Edition of Alien 3? AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of. Is this relevant to the article? Or are you just wondering? --IllaZilla (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Fanfare[edit]

Is this the only film that plays with Fox's fanfare? — Kieff | Talk 23:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, all four films play with the Fox fanfare. Alien and Aliens lead with the shorter version, while this film and sequel Resurrection feature the longer one. However, the fanfare for Alien 3 is unique in that it is the only one that distorts into the soundtrack. StolenEyes (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bishop was a synthetic...[edit]

'Aaron picks up a large wrench and strikes Michael over the head with it, believing him to be an android' - what evidence do we have that he thought that Michael Bishop was an android? Wasn't it just because he came to a sudden realisation about the true nature of the Company?

Conversely, it seems to me that this Bishop probably was an android - having been bashed over the head sufficiently hard to dislocate his ear and the squamous temporal bone (as is clear from a couple of brief shots), he stands up and challenges Ripley - no human being could do that!! --Ndaisley (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with changing the wording in the article, but as for the rest, this isn't the place for theorizing. Bishop (Aliens) has had enough of that. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you - had not spotted that article! --Ndaisley (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the DVD subtitles Aaron says "fucking android" as he hits Bishop.Archiewood (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but he even says in the Special version, "I'm not a droid!" Mrhalohunter24 (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awards section - Mtv Movie Awards 1993 Nomination[edit]

I'm not certain why there isn't a mention of this nomination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_MTV_Movie_Awards#Best_Action_Sequence Martinatime (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the mention to the article. Thanks for the heads-up! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 22:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egg on Sulaco[edit]

This article does not offer an explanation as to why there was an alien egg on the Sulaco during the opening credit sequence. Does anyone have a cited article that explains this? Or is this a plot inconsistency? The end of the previous film, ALIENS, does not offer any suggestion as to how this was possible as the Queen xenomorph did not have egg laying capability when she landed on the USS Sulaco. Perhaps this is a notable example of a plot inconsistency that should be included in the body of this article and is a further example of the incomplete script that was revised while principal photography was underway? 76.65.28.115 (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article to explain perceived plot inconsistencies. If there are reliable sources that discuss this, then certainly we can cover it, but if there aren't then we cannot. (The basic answer is that there were eggs on the Sulaco because they needed to be there in order for this film to have an Alien in it). --IllaZilla (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Poor wording on my part: agreed... it is not Wikis responsibility to offer an "explanation." My apologies. The point I was trying to make is that some wiki articles about various books, films or TV series often point out inconsistencies of character or narrative between entries. In this case Alien3 is directly tied to Aliens and Alien: Resurrection from a story standpoint. However, the way Alien3 opened does not make much narrative sense. Agreed, it would have to be sourced and I'd be willing to dig around a bit, but not if people don't want it in the article and just revert it. I have seen too many examples of people making additions to articles (sometimes good work, sometimes bad work) only to have it deleted (sometimes for cause and sometimes not). That is why I raised the idea here first. 76.65.28.115 (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's likely that the special features on the DVD or Blu-ray versions of the film may give insight into this, ie. the director or writers may talk about how they came up with this plot device and how they perceive/intended it to follow from the preceding film. Those certainly would be sources we could cite. Beautiful Monsters by David McIntee would also be a good source to check. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we can handle this issue by removing the first part of the "Plot" section which reads "Following the events in Aliens". If we take that out people might realize that this movie has nothing to do with the last movie, which other than character's names seems to be the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.78.249 (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "nothing to do with the last movie?" It is the sequel it continues the same story that began with Alien. It may not be the greatest movie, but the plots are still obviously connected. --Daniel 21:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problems with A3 started - and wrecked the film - before the opening credits were over. Not only did nobody secure the ship before hypersleep, not only was there an egg aboard, not only were there either two facehuggers in it or one that was able to implant twice or a second egg we never see, not only did the facehugger hatch even though no host was near, not only was the ship unable to detect its unexpected movement, not only could it not contain a small fire (eg by venting the air to space) - those were minor problems compared to the fact that two of three key characters from A2 were simply killed gratuitously off (one killed by a safety strut FGS).Tirailleur (talk) 10:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous inconsistencies between Alien 3 and its predecessor, but the most glaring for me has always been why the cryopods the Sulaco crew were sleeping in completely changed between films. This is one of those movies that is much more enjoyable if you don’t ask too many questions. StolenEyes (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsi ad[edit]

Does it make sense to include information about the ad campaign and product tie-ins like Pepsi? I think it is notable due to the cost of the Pepsi ad and the fact that it was tied to an R rated film - which is unusual...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT5IngAP_yk

Thoughts? 76.65.28.115 (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless reliable sources cover this, which they probably do, but you'd have to cite them. The marketing tie-ins are hardly surprising, even for an R-rate film...there were Alien comic books, video games, and action figures one could buy at children's toy stores. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank God for crap Irish television, that ad would have frightened all sorts of piss out of me as a youngster. GRAPPLE X 15:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha I'm in the States and I don't recall ever seeing it, and I was about the age of the kids in the commercial at the time. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be great to see a marketing section in this article. IMO it is a major part of modern filmmaking and highly influences public reception. But, I think there is a general wiki article about the Alien creature. Perhaps this mention would be better suited there as part of the Xenomorph in Popular Culture section.
IllaZilla, this ad did get a lot of airplay in the US and Canada at the time of release... that is even the unique creature design used in Alien3. I have the feeling David Fincher directed the spot and I think that is Martin Sheen's VO at the end. If I correctly recall an article I read (many years ago), it was one of the most expensive commercials of its time. 76.65.28.115 (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the creature itself is Alien (creature in Alien franchise). A Marketing section would definitely be good content to add to this article. Beautiful Monsters by David McIntee contains some info about the marketing of each film (I was reading the book and working on articles simultaneously, but after working on the original film my attention drifted elsewhere), I could check it to see if it mentions this ad. If this ad ran around the time of Alien 3, and especially if it featured the version of the creature from this film and/or was by the same director, then it certainnly seems most pertinent to discuss it in this article rather than the more general article about the creature (though a shorter mention in the creature article could be warranted if there's a marketing ti-ins section there). --IllaZilla (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for the heads up about Beautiful Monsters IllaZilla. When I return from vacation, I will see if my local rference library has a copy. A quick internet search has not revealed any wiki worthy citations about that particular Pepsi spot, however, as a point of interest, the kid that says "I don't think he is from around here" is a young Jeremy Davies. 76.65.28.115 (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hicks Vs. Turk[edit]

Removed two atextual references to "Turk", reverted to the character Hicks. The article is an article about the film Alien 3 rather than the video game or the video game's addition to Alien chronology or history. In the editing section of the Plot section there are notes not to change "dog" to "ox" as the article is about the theatrical version of the film. This would also hold true to the Turk character, a character from the video game. --Jamaver (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Cult" film[edit]

Several IPs have been adding/restoring the claim that this film, though poorly received, has since developed a cult following. This may or may not be true. However, without a reliable source, it is not verifiable. The repeated additions have cited blogs. As self-published sources, blogs are not acceptable sources for this type of information. If Entertainment Weekly says it has a cult following, we can say it has a cult following. If "Jim-Bob's Movie Page" says it has a cult following, Jim-Bob and his 3 readers can say it has a cult following.

If you disagree or do not understand, please discuss the issue. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chances are that it's the same person on different IPs. I explained the below on one of the IP's talk page..
Hi, I just wanted to explain the issue with what you've been adding to Alien 3. The opinion you are adding to the article needs to be a recognised authoritative source, particularly when it is claiming to be the opinion of a number of people. So we need a film critic, or recognised film website. A single blog by some unknown person is not notable enough to be included. Thanks.
--Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Sequel Commentary[edit]

There has been some discussion of the following insertion:

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.[1]

I believe this item needs discussion before it appears in the live article. Thoughts? HullIntegrity\ talk / 21:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--my issue would be, as previously mentioned by Gothicfilm, that this passage states a certainty about the future ("will be ignored"): something an encyclopedia simply does not do. HullIntegrity\ talk / 21:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, the source should not be misrepresented in the article, i.e. making it sound like something is certain when the source says "probably" and "maybe". This issue could be mentioned on the franchise page, but it is currently speculation and should be treated as such. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this will stop AdamDeanHall from jumping the gun and inserting speculation into articles:
Variety: New ‘Alien’ Won’t Undo ‘Alien 3′ or ‘Resurrection,’ Director Neill Blomkamp Says - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Rosen, Christopher (February 26, 2015). "Neill Blomkamp's 'Alien' Sequel Will Probably Forget About Two 'Alien' Movies". The Huffington Post. Retrieved February 26, 2015.

Inconsistency[edit]

On reading the article, I found an inconsistency with regard to political ideology. At one point, the description of the script suggests "socialism", then later "Marxism" and finally "communism". The three political ideologies are markedly different from each other - is there a definitive source that suggests which of these three ideologies the scriptwriter(s) had been wanting to represent? --98.122.20.56 (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Alien 3. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weaver´s dissatisfaction[edit]

"Weaver liked the Cold War metaphor, and agreed to a smaller role,[16] particularly due to a dissatisfaction with Fox, who removed scenes from Aliens crucial to Ripley's backstory.[17]"

After having consulted reference 17 of this part of the text, I don´t see where that article supports the claim made in the second part of that sentence. Maybe an error in referencing?

Year/Timeline[edit]

Alien 3 cannot possibly take place in the year 2179 because it explicitly takes place over 200 years after the eradication of cholera. It must be 2279 or later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.13.107 (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No year is mentioned in the film, so we shouldn't list any year in the plot. Anyway when someone mentioned 200 years, they don't generally literally mean 200 years, more like an approximation. Canterbury Tail talk 02:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refs for modern reassessment[edit]

Refs for a modern reassessment paragraph:


[1] The Guardian

[2] Game Rant

[3] Den of Geek

[4] Vox (website)

[5] Inverse (website)

Lankyant (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those refs are already in the article—I guess you're organizing them for a new context. Wouldn't you just expand on the paragraph under "Critical response" about the Assembly Cut? 70.163.208.142 (talk) 04:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name stylised as Alien³[edit]

So User:Canterbury Tail has asked for sources to include the 'Alien³' stylised name. It is listed at the BFI: Alien³ at BFI

And is used in reliable sources

It should be readded Lankyant (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is specifically against the MOS Guideline MOS:TMRULES, which calls this article out specifically as the best example of what not to do. Do not use superscripting to emulate a trademark. Here's a reproduction of the relevant section.
  • Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words or letters (e.g., "♥" used for "love", "!" used for "i") or for normal punctuation, unless a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently include the special character in the subject's name. Similarly, avoid special stylization, such as superscripting or boldface, in an attempt to emulate a trademark. (See also Wikipedia:Article titles § Special characters.)
So since it's very specifically called out it would be unsuitable for us to go against that. Local consensus cannot trump the MOS. For us to use or mention it with a superscript we'd need consensus to change the MOS for this. Canterbury Tail talk 00:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The TMRULES you quoted are only for primary usage. Look at Indicating Stylizations in the TMRULES and it's perfectly acceptable to show the stylisation in the first sentence. Lankyant (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please discuss rather than edit warring over this instead of continually re-adding it. Additionally please stop referring to me as "mate", I know it's not your intention but it comes across as dismissive and insulting. Canterbury Tail talk 23:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Canterbury Tail I apologise, it was not intended as dismissive or insulting in any manner, simply just my vernacular and how I talk but I guess written down it could be taken that way so please accept my apologies about it.
And are you happy with my reasoning? It happened to come up during GA review of Seven (1995 film) when the stylisation paragraph was raised to me saying what you had said in regards to Alien³ and on reading that I believe it's now fine to use the stylised version at the start but just nowhere else.
Lankyant (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the question comes down to did 20th Century Fox use this stylized version in regular text, or if it just logoisation in the poster etc. If the former then it seems it likely is fine to your point, if the later than it's to be excluded. So do we have reliable sources to show that the production company etc used the superscript in regular text and not just logos? Canterbury Tail talk 07:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look and see what I can find, as I listed above it is used in notable sources including BFI but I'll see what else I can dig up.
Lankyant (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't see the egg hatching[edit]

According to the article, this is how the movie begins:

"Following the events of Aliens, an egg hatches aboard the Colonial Marine spaceship Sulaco, releasing a facehugger."

But we don't see the egg hatching. We don't see it releasing the facehugger. All we see is an already open egg and a facehugger that is already outside of the egg. This is just my opinion but I think the article should avoid describing events that are not shown in the movie (of course there are exceptions but I think it's not necessary in this case). Dornwald (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alien_3&oldid=1217244931"