Talk:Alien Resurrection/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Fate of the Auriga
The user IllaZilla seems to be under some misguided notion that the USM ship Auriga exploded over Earth instead of impacting it, the film says otherwise, Ripley asks how long before the ship lands, she is told 2 hours, she plugs Call into the main computer and asks her to blow up the ship, Call says she can't so Ripley tells her to crash it instead, Call then resets the ground level. All this happens in the Chapel, also just before the ship crashes, the computer 'Father' says "USM Auriga will impact in 5 seconds" Considering the evidence I have presented I will be changing the plot to the correct ending. --Ricky540 (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Android/Gynoid
Just out of curiosity, wouldn't Call be a gynoid rather than an android? Or is that just confusing the point? --Kniobo (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Gynoid sounds like a neologism to me, which we like to avoid on Wikipedia. The gynoid article is poorly referenced & so I don't think it would fly to change it here. Android is a much more common term and that article explains the concept much better. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Spit
Has anybody noticed that the alien spits acid at Christie to melt his face? Is this some new ability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poketape (talk • contribs) 21:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it is ability not shown in any of the previous films. Does this have something to do with the article? Just making sure you're not not using this as a forum. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh for hell's sake, IllaZilla. Are you afraid the Internet is going to run out of space or something? Seriously, sometimes it seems like WikiPedia editors are mentally unstable. But to answer your question: Yeah, I'd think that a plot point shown only in this film might indeed have "something to do" with the article. If there's one thing I can't stand about the new breed of self-appointed WikiPolice that have shown up over the past year or two, it's the way they nit-pick each and every friggin' article until what's written bears almost no relation whatsoever to reality surrounding the actual topic. This article is a good case in point: if you'd never seen the film, never been a part of "Alien" fandom, had never read, heard, or been part of discussion surrounding it, and where, in fact, from another planet, then this article would lead you to believe that "Resurrection" was a success. But that's not really the case: it is, in fact, the most widely despised of the Alien series- something every single Fan knows, yet isn't even remotely hinted at in the Wiki article. Editors have become so obsessed with culling out everything except a bare recitation of Citations that they seem to have lost site of what WikiPedia was initially meant to be. Instead of being a living, organic document written by the community as a whole, it's become nothing but a soulless set of Hyperlinks, almost entirely devoid of anything even approaching Truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.98.215 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Welcome to the world of research writing. Ultimately the world at large doesn't give 2 cents about "something every single Fan knows". The encyclopedia is not written for fanboys. The only reliable way to guage critical reaction is to look to the critics. "Editors have become so obsessed with culling out everything except a bare recitation of Citations that they seem to have lost site of what WikiPedia was initially meant to be" ... Wikipedia was never meant to be a fanservice. It's an encyclopedia. If you want a place to rant about how much the fans hated the film, there are plenty of fansites out there. --IllaZilla (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Consensus on cast listing
Christ, has nobody actually started talking yet? Vote once below with a signature only. Straw poll, ~3 days. If deadlocked then it can run longer but let's try to avoid that. GRAPPLE X 01:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Order of appearance, as article was before warring
- GRAPPLE X 01:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW, I gave the initial IP 67.239.179.160 (talk · contribs) a 3RR warning & asked them to bring it up here for discussion, but they just came back for more edit-warring under a different IP. In my experience "order of importance" is too subjective, as there are a lot of notable actors in this film. Either order of appearance, alphabetical order, or the order they're listed in the credits would be objective and neutral. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support order of appearance, as per Grapple X. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Order of perceived importance
Support order by importance or, if needed for consensus, I support order of cast billing in the credits. As for IllaZilla's lie below that "The 2 IPs are obviously the same person", let's see your evidence for that, IllaZilla. I could claim that you have a hundred identifies on Wikipedia, but that doesn't make it true. Opinions are like assholes because we all have one, IllaZilla, and yours isn't any better than anyone else's.Changed my vote to help with consensus. 75.177.158.228 (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Order of cast billing in the credits
- Support order of cast list in the credits. Order of appearance does no one any good in an encyclopedia. It's a convention created for the end titles of a work an audience has just seen. It makes little sense anywhere else. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oftentimes the credits do list the cast in order of appearance, though. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Then you go by the billing order in the opening credits. It's irrelevant to this discussion. And I think we can add two more votes to this section - the two IPs who failed to come here to discuss. It's obvious their "order of importance" would go here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- If they choose not to partake in discussion, it's their own fault; it's no obligation of anyone else's to pander to them. GRAPPLE X 03:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- The 2 IPs are obviously the same person, and we should not !vote for them. That's not how it works. The whole point is to get them to come here and actually discuss their edits, rather than edit-warring. And my point about the credits is relevant to the discussion: Your argument was that we should list them as they are billed in the credits. Opening credits and closing credits, however, are not always the same, and it's usually the closing credit order that you'll find listed in secondary sources like Allmovie, IMDb, etc. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's irrelevant because it's not at issue here. The credits order is clear. But instead, you have Winona Ryder listed 13th. Why would you want to do that? Small wonder people are challenging you. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's relevant because you suggested that listing cast in credits order is better than in order of appearance, because "Order of appearance does no one any good in an encyclopedia." I'm pointing out that for a lot of films the end credits roll is listed in order of appearance, which means that credits order is not necessarily always better than order of appearance (not sure if that's the case for Resurrection, but your statement was very broad & seems to cover not just this article, but film articles in general). The argument that it "does no one any good in an encyclopedia" is entirely your own opinion. Whether we list the cast alphabetically, by order of appearance, by credit order, in the order they were cast, or in the order billed on posters doesn't really matter much in the end, as long as there's some logic to it to help readers' comprehension as they read their way down the list. We need to think about the way the text flows and how it best helps readers to understand the cast and their roles in the film. Listing by order of appearance can be very helpful when the cast list is somewhat sparse and is mostly plot recap (as in this case), as the characters' role descriptions can refer to each other in the same way they do in the plot section: chronologically the way the story unfolds. It would be awkward, for example, to jump from Weaver as Ripley to Ryder as Call (a member of the Betty crew), then to, say, Hedaya as Perez (part of the Auriga crew), then back to the Betty crew with Perlman. Currently the order flows as Ripley → Auriga crew & scientists → Betty crew → Purvis (Betty cargo/test subject), the same way the characters are introduced in the story. Since all we currently have are names and brief character descriptions (except in the case of Woodruff, who has some real-world info), this is a good flow for keeping readers' comprehension of the text. As the section is expanded and more "meat" (real-world info) is put on the cast list, there may be a better way to order it so that it flows best for readers. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- The cast list is supposed to be a bullet list - not well-flowing text that tells the story. That's what the plot section is for. As for other films, if the opening and closing credits conflict, they can and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, the WP:CASTLIST is supposed to have well-written prose with significant behind-the-scenes production information, not merely be a bullet list. A brief mention of the importance and role of the character is pertinent in that context, and you will generally find such content in the cast sections of FAs (those that include a bulleted cast list, anyway; some don't, opting for an all-paragraphs prose section instead). Not to toot my own horn, but I think Alien (film)#Casting is a good example of how to have both a bulleted list of names & roles (which many people seem to want) as well as prose with significant background information. The format ultimately depends on how much content there is to organize, and of what type, and it can then be arranged in a way that best facilitates reader comprehension. With the information we are currently presenting (actor names, character names, & brief mentions of the character's role in the story), order of appearance is a good method of doing this; since the only additional context we are giving the list of names is their role in the story, it makes sense that they appear in the order they do in the story. If the cast section is beefed up, which it should be if the article is to advance to FA, there may be a better way to arrange it depending on what content is added (for example, if a decent amount of information about the casting process itself is added, the best arrangement would probably be to list the actors in the order they were cast). --IllaZilla (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- As a last note on this, generally I'd say there should be a bullet list, in the proper credited billing order, followed by prose describing the casting process. If there's just the list, with some brief description, it should still be in the billing order. And I have no love for those pages where people go on about each character's story and even what happens to them in the end. Readers should be able to look at the cast list without the story being given away. But that's another issue. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, the WP:CASTLIST is supposed to have well-written prose with significant behind-the-scenes production information, not merely be a bullet list. A brief mention of the importance and role of the character is pertinent in that context, and you will generally find such content in the cast sections of FAs (those that include a bulleted cast list, anyway; some don't, opting for an all-paragraphs prose section instead). Not to toot my own horn, but I think Alien (film)#Casting is a good example of how to have both a bulleted list of names & roles (which many people seem to want) as well as prose with significant background information. The format ultimately depends on how much content there is to organize, and of what type, and it can then be arranged in a way that best facilitates reader comprehension. With the information we are currently presenting (actor names, character names, & brief mentions of the character's role in the story), order of appearance is a good method of doing this; since the only additional context we are giving the list of names is their role in the story, it makes sense that they appear in the order they do in the story. If the cast section is beefed up, which it should be if the article is to advance to FA, there may be a better way to arrange it depending on what content is added (for example, if a decent amount of information about the casting process itself is added, the best arrangement would probably be to list the actors in the order they were cast). --IllaZilla (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- The cast list is supposed to be a bullet list - not well-flowing text that tells the story. That's what the plot section is for. As for other films, if the opening and closing credits conflict, they can and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's relevant because you suggested that listing cast in credits order is better than in order of appearance, because "Order of appearance does no one any good in an encyclopedia." I'm pointing out that for a lot of films the end credits roll is listed in order of appearance, which means that credits order is not necessarily always better than order of appearance (not sure if that's the case for Resurrection, but your statement was very broad & seems to cover not just this article, but film articles in general). The argument that it "does no one any good in an encyclopedia" is entirely your own opinion. Whether we list the cast alphabetically, by order of appearance, by credit order, in the order they were cast, or in the order billed on posters doesn't really matter much in the end, as long as there's some logic to it to help readers' comprehension as they read their way down the list. We need to think about the way the text flows and how it best helps readers to understand the cast and their roles in the film. Listing by order of appearance can be very helpful when the cast list is somewhat sparse and is mostly plot recap (as in this case), as the characters' role descriptions can refer to each other in the same way they do in the plot section: chronologically the way the story unfolds. It would be awkward, for example, to jump from Weaver as Ripley to Ryder as Call (a member of the Betty crew), then to, say, Hedaya as Perez (part of the Auriga crew), then back to the Betty crew with Perlman. Currently the order flows as Ripley → Auriga crew & scientists → Betty crew → Purvis (Betty cargo/test subject), the same way the characters are introduced in the story. Since all we currently have are names and brief character descriptions (except in the case of Woodruff, who has some real-world info), this is a good flow for keeping readers' comprehension of the text. As the section is expanded and more "meat" (real-world info) is put on the cast list, there may be a better way to order it so that it flows best for readers. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's irrelevant because it's not at issue here. The credits order is clear. But instead, you have Winona Ryder listed 13th. Why would you want to do that? Small wonder people are challenging you. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- The 2 IPs are obviously the same person, and we should not !vote for them. That's not how it works. The whole point is to get them to come here and actually discuss their edits, rather than edit-warring. And my point about the credits is relevant to the discussion: Your argument was that we should list them as they are billed in the credits. Opening credits and closing credits, however, are not always the same, and it's usually the closing credit order that you'll find listed in secondary sources like Allmovie, IMDb, etc. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- If they choose not to partake in discussion, it's their own fault; it's no obligation of anyone else's to pander to them. GRAPPLE X 03:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Then you go by the billing order in the opening credits. It's irrelevant to this discussion. And I think we can add two more votes to this section - the two IPs who failed to come here to discuss. It's obvious their "order of importance" would go here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oftentimes the credits do list the cast in order of appearance, though. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support order of cast list in the credits. As for IllaZilla's lie above that "The 2 IPs are obviously the same person", let's see your evidence for that, IllaZilla. I could claim that you have a hundred identifies on Wikipedia, but that doesn't make it true. Opinions are like assholes because we all have one, IllaZilla, and yours isn't any better than anyone else's. 75.177.158.228 (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- That reply is highly uncivil. The 2 IPs (you and 67.239.179.160) are obviously related because you made the exact same edit six times in a single day and your IPs track to within 40 miles of each other. Quack, quack: Either you're the same person or one of you is a puppet (sock or meat, take your pick). --IllaZilla (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, your false accusations are not only uncivil, they are personal attacks with absolutely no basis in reality. Just because two editors make the same reverts does not mean they are the same person. Other editors made the same reverts as you, but that doesn't mean the two of you are the same. If you can't provide some real and unconfabulated evidence for your lies, then please keep them to yourself. And if you think I'm uncivil, go ahead a make a report about it. Let's see if an admin considers you to have behaved beyond reproach in your comments. This is supposed to be a civil consensus discussion, not your personal soapboax to make personal attacks just because someone disagrees with you. 75.177.158.228 (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- You cannot intimidate me into ignoring reason; anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that the persons editing from the IPs 75.177.158.228 and 67.239.179.160 are the same or at least in collusion. The likelihood that 2 unrelated people within such a close proximity would make the exact same edit/revert to the same Wikipedia article 3 times each in the course of the same day is slim to nil. Need further evidence? Both IPs left the same progressive warning notices on Grapple X's talk page: [1] [2] [3]. Do you really expect anyone to believe that's entirely coincidental? If it looks like a duck... Your "opinions are like assholes" comment was uncivil; such rudeness has no place in a consensus discussion. If you want to provide a reasoned argument for your preferred ordering of the cast list, by all means go ahead, but pretending that the 2 IPs are entirely unrelated is not fooling anyone, and just digs the hole deeper. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, your false accusations are not only uncivil, they are personal attacks with absolutely no basis in reality. Just because two editors make the same reverts does not mean they are the same person. Other editors made the same reverts as you, but that doesn't mean the two of you are the same. If you can't provide some real and unconfabulated evidence for your lies, then please keep them to yourself. And if you think I'm uncivil, go ahead a make a report about it. Let's see if an admin considers you to have behaved beyond reproach in your comments. This is supposed to be a civil consensus discussion, not your personal soapboax to make personal attacks just because someone disagrees with you. 75.177.158.228 (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- That reply is highly uncivil. The 2 IPs (you and 67.239.179.160) are obviously related because you made the exact same edit six times in a single day and your IPs track to within 40 miles of each other. Quack, quack: Either you're the same person or one of you is a puppet (sock or meat, take your pick). --IllaZilla (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Since the remainder of your points are laughably meaningless, I'll address the "opinions-assholes" matter. Are you disagreeing that everyone has an asshole? Are you disagreeing that everyone has an opinion. Ergo, opinions are like assholes -- everyone has one. Where is the incivility in that? (In case you don't get it, that's a rhetorical question; there is no incivility). Now, perhaps you're arguing against my point that your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's opinion. If so, let me know and I'll try to present my case on that point. Otherwise, I think you've stretched this ridiculous argument as far as it will go. I don't care to pander to your thin-skinned ego in such an absurd argument about opinions and assholes. I'm finished with you; let's see if others have opinions about the actual reason for this discussion: consensus about order of listing the cast. 75.177.158.228 (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
End the arguing, find consensus
This is a GA - good articles should not be fought over like this. You all need to find consensus.
Cast is mentioned in the Film Project MoS (style guide), I suspect that more attention should be paid to it, or to MoS if there is anything in there. The Film MoS clearly states that a cast list is the worst option, please familiarise yourselves with the section in question, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(film)#Cast, and maybe agree on how to word this as:
- prose in a cast section
- in the plot summary
- a cast list, with importance and role included.
This film will have attracted plenty of sources, and I am sure there is a lot that can be written about the cast. For example, there must be interviews that mention casting and cast from the DVD boxed set? Or perhaps Jos Wheedons comments about how casting affected the quality of the film? Horror Films of the 1990s By John Kenneth Muir (pg.480) or something from On film By Stephen Mulhall (pg.122-123)?Chaosdruid (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. End the arguing and false accusations, and find consensus. Since there currently is no consensus, the above discussion may need to be listed for an RfC. 75.177.158.228 (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Box office "success"?
A film cannot be considered a financial success unless the studio recoups its investment from it. Alien Resurrection had a production budget of $75 million, but that does not include marketing and distribution costs which can sometimes cost almost as much as the film itself. For example, 2009's Star Trek film cost around $150 million to make, but Paramount spent another $75m - $140m (depending on various reports) on marketing and distribution. It's doubtful that Fox spent that amount of money for Alien Resurrection back in 1997, but it would still likely have run into the tens of millions for such a high profile franchise film. Also bearing in mind that theaters take, on average, 45% of the box office gross, then its possible that Fox didn't even break even with Alien Resurrection while it was in theaters. Obviously, home video and TV rights will have increased their income from the film over the years, but it's unencyclopedic to call it a "financial success" when there is no evidence to prove this. 88.110.241.102 (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Bit of a double edged sword there, though—where are the sources to say that any of these other outlays and overheads even existed, let alone how much they were? I agree that "success" might be too subjective to use without a cite but simply stating that it recouped its budget and then some would be well within the bounds of what's permitted. GRAPPLE X 23:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well that's part of the problem, we don't know how much Fox spent on marketing and distribution for Alien Res therefore we're not in full possession of the relevant facts. It's really quite silly to see how people assume that a film's production budget is all that the studio spend on a film (a production budget is just the cost of making it, nothing more). And a lot of people simply assume that a studio gets every dollar in ticket sales, which is not the case. Theaters take an average of 45% of the box office as their fee. It's far better if we do not make assumptions about whether something was a financial success unless we have all of the data (which we don't) or it's just an unsourced claim made by fans of the film to talk it up. We should simply include what data we have (which is production budget and box office gross) and nothing more or it become a violation of WP:SYNTH. 88.110.241.102 (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes but the budget listed isn't the full budget, it's just the production budget. I would be inclined to end the lead section simply saying what the film grossed rather than adding "recouping more than twice its $75 million budget" since that wasn't the film's overall cost, and it can be further misleading since Fox would not have gained all of that $161 million from ticket sales anyway. That way, we are only stating citeable facts rather than making assumptions. 88.110.241.102 (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- At this point, the assumptive leap is in presuming that the figures we have somehow aren't accurate; we have the budget and the gross, they're cited and not misrepresented, to assume that there's some shadowy extra figure we don't know about. Acting as though something we don't know exists and can't cite is as important as what we do have sources for is as bad as, if not worse than, inaccurate synthesis. What he have is fine, it reflects the sources accurately; if an actual source for some shadowy additional outlay or cost is found then it can be reworked but I see no point in assuming such a cost exists without citing it, especially after opening a thread complaining about XYZ not being cited. GRAPPLE X 00:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- We have the production budget and the gross, that's all. We all know that films have separate production and marketing/distribution budgets, it's standard industry practice. There's an article about "The Avengers" here which highlights a marketing budget of $100m in addition to its $220m production budget. There's also an article in the LA Times here about the film "Sahara", which states on its first page that Sahara cost $160m to make and a further $81m to market/distribute, which again highlights that a production budget is only part of a film's overall budget and the rest can be considerable. A marketing/distribution budget is not some phantom amount of money, it's part and parcel of any studio film. All I'm saying is we shouldn't just assume that Fox only spent $75 mill on Alien Res just because we don't have the figures for the marketing/distribution budget to hand, and a little rewording of that last line in the lead will ensure we don't have misinformation in what is otherwise a great article. 88.110.241.102 (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Mainstream media generally calls a film a success or failure based solely on the difference between budget and gross. This is the criteria by which some films are considered "box office bombs" or big successes. Other expense figures, like marketing, are harder to come by and rarely considered by secondary sources in reporting on a film's financial performance. Alien Resurrection made more than twice its budget at the box office. So unless they spent more on marketing than they did to make the film (extremely doubtful), it was a financial success. Whether all the money it made went directly back to the studio or not doesn't really matter and isn't something usually taken into consideration by outside sources. That said, I like the wording GrappleX has used where we just state the figures and leave the interpretation up to the reader. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Inaccurate plot
The article mentions the alien hybrid attacking Ripley and Call which is not how it went, well at least to me. The alien hybrid almost killed Call when Ripley tells it to let her go. The hybrid then ... Uhhhh proceeds to cuddle with Ripley, probably meaning no harm. Ripley then still decides to kill it as described in the article. Also, when Ripley sees her hybrid child die, she seems pretty sad and sorry. I think this further proves that she had a tough time deciding whether to kill it, or not, am I the only one thinking like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.56.103.66 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is just a brief plot overview and i think changing it to something like the hybrid attacks call and ripley intervenes could be better? --Monkeymanman (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough, thanks! --81.56.103.66 (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't even notice that, the part I thought was out of sequence however, was paragraph 3,4 and 5 of the plot. Para 3 mentions Purvis killing Wren, and para 5 starts talking about them getting to the Betty, which is when Purvis actually kills him. Its a bit disjointed, like two people wrote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.63.179 (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Elgyn's death.
Elgyn does not die in the water in the kitchen. He is the first of the crew to die - on the ship just after the alarm is sounded. It is his lover, Hillard who dies in the water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.62.77 (talk • contribs) 23:23, December 18, 2014
- Also, the sequence of events on the escape ship is wrong. Ripley arrives first, then the Newborn makes it's way on the ship and closes the hatch. I leave it to another editor to make these corrections. Nodekeeper (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Parts of the summary are a bit confusing. I will see what I can do. HullIntegrity (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Also, the sequence of events on the escape ship is wrong. Ripley arrives first, then the Newborn makes it's way on the ship and closes the hatch. I leave it to another editor to make these corrections. Nodekeeper (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)