Talk:Aliens (film)

Panic
Please check. I have watched the film repeatedly. Gorman doesn’t panic. Vasquez panics and opens fire, causing confusion and the squad loses cohesion quickly. Gorman, being inexperienced, is unable to restore control. I have made a simple amendment to reflect this.Kentish 86.3.134.204 (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I love comments like this, experts who've watched the film but did so with a blindfold. We've already gone past the part in the plot with the Marines, the sentence is "When the inexperienced Gorman panics, Ripley assumes command, takes control of their armored personnel carrier, and rams the nest to rescue Corporal Dwayne Hicks and Privates Hudson and Vasquez." It's about the APC carrier at this point and Ripley taking charge because Gorman is panicking. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting attitude. I love it when people watch a film with a blindfold and then remain fixated with their prejudice. Let’s try again ;)
 * As the squad patrol, they are attacked. In between the attack and the eventual movement of the APC by Ripley, Vasquez panicking causes the loss of cohesion that leads to disaster. It is Vasquez panicking that becomes the defining moment.
 * Of course, we could have discussed it without resorting to childish retorts but that does seem to be the wiki way. You take care now :p Kentish 86.3.134.204 (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not wasting any more time on this, that isn't what happens. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In the script, on page 95 during the scene where the team is fighting aliens, it says "Gorman is ashen. Confused.  Gulping for air like a grouper.  How could the situation have unravelled so fast?" Obviously the writer is telling us that Gorman has panicked. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Name
Isn't there any discussion on why the name Aliens, so similar to Alien, was chosen (pros and cons)? What about other languages? In Polish, both Alien and Aliens render as the same word ("Obcy"), so Aliens had was given a different title, effectively a subtitle ("Obcy: Decydujące Starcie"). I wonder if some other languages had to do something similar? Wikidata suggests this would be the case ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q104814). I think this could merit a section, or a paragraph, if of course reliable sources tackle this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It is talked about in the Revival section Lankyant (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Lankyant I presume you mean "the title Aliens reportedly came from Cameron writing "Alien" on a whiteboard during a pitch meeting and adding a "$" suffix."? That's good but it does not address the international market titles. What I am proposing to look into would help with the usual sysbias issue. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

"Alien 2" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alien_2&redirect=no Alien 2] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Revision 1214818042
Since another editor defended the questionable writing and unsourced claims, I'm adding why I changed them below:

About "along with those of Bill Paxton and Jenette Goldstein". Article only states: "Most of the cast was also praised, particularly Biehn, Goldstein, Henriksen, Henn and Reiser". As one can see, no point of highlighting Biehn and Goldstein when there are others mentioned with them.

As for the image: "Sigourney Weaver's performance as Ellen Ripley received critical acclaim ( unsourced claim ), earning her a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Actress. Her nomination was considered a milestone since the Academy paid little attention to science fiction films since its inception." This text is mentioned again in Accolades section, where it actually belongs: "Weaver's (pictured in 1989) Academy Award nomination for Best Actress was considered a milestone when the Academy paid little attention to science fiction." The editor insists on writing the same thing over and over with different pictures.

And lastly, "mostly rave reviews" is directly taken from the source, it's a verbatim quote. "generally positive reviews" is actually an "interpretation" of it. ภץאคгöร 13:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Why have you posted the same discussion across two pages? I said remove Paxton and Goldstein if you wanted, just stop changing the rest. Generally positive reviews isn't an interpretation, it's a neutral statement, whereas your edit note said it should be interpreted as "critical praise". Generally positive and generally negative are the terms we tend to rely on because they're neutral. "Mostly rave" doesn't mean the same thing to every person. If you have an issue with text in the image, remove the text not the image? I didn't add the text or notice it but I know I don't need to remove the image to remove the text. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My note didn't say that, I use directly from the source, not "generally positive", which is nowhere to be found in the ref. Why keep the image without text, even though Weaver's picture is already on the page? Should we fill the page with images that have no description? What empty excuses... ภץאคгöร  14:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The image had and now has a different text. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just as a quick aside for everyone, the Reception section on most film articles uses somewhat standardized terminology - positive, negative, or (rarely) mixed. It's meant to be in Wikipedia's voice, so we wouldn't normally quote something like "mostly rave reviews" as the sum-up. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 14:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)