Talk:Aliens (film)

"Alien 2" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 1 § Alien 2 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)

paul reiser deserves better than this

"Aliens was Reiser's first major theatrical role, following small parts in films like Beverly Hills Cop (1984)"

his part in BHC wasn't 'small', but never mind that- his first major role was in 'diner'.

duncanrmi (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The source quotes him as saying "I'd done both Beverly Hills Cops, big films, but I was only a tiny part," he recalls. "Aliens was a whole new level that made me understand what it's like to be in a hit." I see where you're coming from regarding his role in Diner; perhaps there's a better way to word this sentence? Any suggestions? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps something like "Prior to Aliens, Reiser said he only had small roles in big budget films such as Beverly Hills Cops.? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Cast's billing order

The cast section has a debatable order that doesn't reflect neither the end credits billing nor the actual character's relevance. Vasquez is not an "also with", she's a major character with a distinctive look that survives through the final act. Whereas Frost doesn't even have much screen time and dies early. The end credits billing is as follows: Ripley, Newt, Hicks, Burke, Bishop, Hudson, Gorman, Vasquez, Apone, Drake, Frost, Ferro, Spunkmeyer, Dietrich, Crowe, Wierzbowski. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It's per the opening billing, the end credits is just a list, where is the cut off? Where we determine who stops being important? Following the opening billing is fair, it shouldn't be based on whom we deem important. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Basically agreed with DWB. If we measured it strictly by screen time, it would suggest someone who is killed in Aliens right away is less important, but I don't think it can be boiled down to basic math. Generally, while not a rule, I try to apply a cast based on the scale of the article, and I sort of ask myself (do I mention this character regularly in the plot? do I mention this character in the production? do I mention them in the reception?) The kind of helps put real world values into the weight. Not a wiki rule, but maybe something that would help persuade others for something that feels appropriate in terms of wiki rules. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)