Talk:Alien vs. Predator (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

link error?

I arrived at the AVP:Alien Vs Predator wikipedia page through typing "alien 5" at the wikipedia search box, this is incorrect right? or is it a known incorrection, and just a stop gap for the next Alien film proper?Book_M 06,06

Yes. Alien vs Predator is NOT Alien 5. Paul Anderson (writer/director of AvP) has stated this himself. I had an Alien 5 (rumoured movie) page but it was deleted by the admins ('wikipedia is not a crystal ball'). You can see a trimmed version of my original page here on Pcb21's User page (see quote from Paul Anderson under the heading '2004'). My original Alien 5 wikipedia page has also turned up at this blogger site. Wikipeon 03:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Filming location

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0370263/locations

Ellen Ripley's ancestor, Alexa 'Lex' Woods

I would consider that Alexa 'Lex' Woods to be the ancestor of the Ripley family if this was true even though she was black while her descendant was white, i mean now she has the Yautja mark, i think that Ellen Ripley would carry on this bloody and costly "fighting for survival" tradition passed down from her ancestor (without the mark) though she doesn't about know about it, but i was thinking that in Alien 5, she will discover that secret of her family and eventually use the Yautja Pike-Spear in a final battle against the Queen Mother of the Hiveworld.

John-1107

There is absolutely no evidence for that, either in the canon or out of it. Teflon Don 08:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think he's suggesting it. It's a very good story-line, maybe for an animated Alien 5? --145.94.41.95 18:46, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Alien 5 is not animated.--Ed Telerionus 17:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alien 5 also doesn't exist. If it ever is released, it could very well be animated, as odd as that may be. --Vyran 9 July 2005 05:55 (UTC)

I'm so happy that your not in charge of writing the script for the Aliens films, Aliens needs to distance itself from AvP not draw itself into some vast ret-confest where everything must be changed to fit in with AvP. The inclusion of Bishop in AvP was bad enough.

What's wrong with Weyland being in AVP?

Plotting out the plot

Plot Outline? This is a very detailed story only short of film dialogs! Keep on writing anyway. :) -- Toytoy 09:18, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

You know, you're right :) I thought about this a bit... hmm... I'll see what I can do. Just gimme a few minutes.--Clueless 09:24, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done. I separated the details from the outline and placed them in two separate sections. BTW, I'm not sure if the plot details section should be the second one. Feel free to move it closer to the bottom if you think that's better. --Clueless 09:38, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Now we have three sets of spoilers:

• Plot synopsis (single paragraph)
• Plot outline (three acts)
• Highly detailed plot information (everything including kitchen sinks)

I think they call it pyramid writing. Its the newspaper style of writing! -- Toytoy 10:05, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... I think that having three separate sections about the plot would make the page a little too complicated, don't you think? I have an idea... how about merging the synopsis into the introductory blurb at the top of the page and then making your outline a subsection of the detailed plot info?

That way, we'd just have one section dealing with the plot details. My thinking is this: People who want general information (and no spoilers) can read everything except the plot section. And people who want to know everything that happened in the movie can read the details.

I think that'd make the page a bit cleaner. What do you think?

--Clueless 10:51, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I'm going to edit the page to show you what I mean... if you think it's bad, we can revert it back to the current design. --Clueless 10:58, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

The reason I use Act 1, 2, 3 is because traditionally, almost all scripts follow the 3 Act format. In this movie, forming the team and going to south pole is Act 1; fighting each other is Act 2; becoming partners is Act 3.

This is a script writer's basic tool. It's been used since the Greeks were playing toga parties. Thank you for your editing. Now this article is rich and enjoyable. I love spoilers! -- Toytoy 14:15, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

The 3 Act Play formula

1. Boy meets girl
2. Boy loses girl
3. Boy gets girl

Not only romantic comedies follow this formula, war dramas, action movies, science fictions, ... . They all use this formula. So is this movie.

1. Humans meet bad guys
2. Humans slaughtered by bad guys
3. One good human makes friend with one bad guy

-- Toytoy 14:43, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood your reasons for separating the plot into acts :) Right now, they're separated into the intro, body, and conclusion, which is still basically the same thing. I'll go ahead and change them back to Acts 1, 2, and 3 now that I understand what you meant.

If you want to know more, let me explain (otherwise, just skip this paragraph): When I first started writing down the plot, I had to stop halfway through because I was simply too tired that night. I posted the edit in the hopes that somebody would continue where I left off. An anonymous user did so and they finished the rest of the story. However, if you look at this page, you can see that he or she added a "Second Act" a paragraph after line 31. This is where I first stopped writing and I believe the anonymous writer took that to be a deliberate pause in the movie. It wasn't. I simply had to go to bed. I didn't think it would make sense to break into a separate act here, especially since the Predators were just about to begin their attacks. Anyway, I thought you added the acts solely because of this. Since that isn't the case, I'll revert it :)

Also, what do you think about the new sections? As I said, I mainly wanted to keep the spoiler information in one section so that people who don't want to know too much about the movie can avoid it until they've seen the movie. And, for consistency's sake, it seems that most other movies on Wikipedia have less information, so I just tried to keep the format similar to other movies' layouts: Intro - synopsis - cast and crew. The additional details are located at the end for people interested in them, but otherwise, a casual browser should be able to skip that section entirely. Do you think that makes sense or do you still think the original method was better?

And about the article being interesting... well, if you're really bored, maybe reading it wouldn't be so painful. But trust me: You should just go and watch the movie yourself if you haven't already seen it. It'd be much more interesting than any plot summary :)

Thanks,

--Clueless 15:23, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Boy, I love spoilers. I am sick. I admit it.

When I copyedit your first part, I wanted to use Act 1, 2, 3. But I havent's seen the movie, so I am even more clueless than you are. The second writer used Act 2, I thought he placed it in the wrong place. But I haven't seen the movie yet.

And then I saw this plot summary started to become a novelization. It was funny. I wanted to write a 3 Act description, and then came your single paragraph. I was laughing like a fool. We have not only one spoiler, but THREE HUGE SPOILERS for this stupid movie. Sadly, we can't post the copyrighted screenplay and storyboard. Anyway, I LOVE IT!

I'll see this movie. -- Toytoy 16:10, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Tsk tsk tsk... some people just don't pay any attention to {{spoiler}} warnings :) And yeah, the movie might not have been the most monumental film ever released, but I was so bored that night that I figured I'd just describe as much of it as I could. But looking back, maybe that was kinda dumb. Oh well. If someone complains, they can always (re)move it.

--Clueless 17:28, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Someone who has actually seen this movie should come in and edit the plot summary down to a reasonable length. Right now the synopsis is as long as the combined plot summaries of all the other Alien and Predator movies, and considering the critical panning and low cultural impact of AvP, it really doesn't merit that much time or space. Since I haven't seen the movie, however, I don't feel comfortable in editing it to a reasonable level. Oldkinderhook 22:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Added a Link to the Movie review query engine --203.217.32.219 12:53, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'Nonetheless, the film did reach the number one spot during the first weekend of its release.' - Is this supposed to refer to the US? If so, it should probably say so. Andrewferrier 19:51, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

Point of plot confusion

Having just recently seen this movie, I'm confused on one point. At the beginning of the movie, the predators are killing the humans but at the end they form an alliance. The only semi-plausible explanation I can think of is to kill the humans to keep them from being inpregnated with the aliens, thus less for the predators to kill. But that seems just too weak. Cburnett 22:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If I understood the movie correctly, the humans were never the primary focus. Maybe the Predators were killing the humans at the beginning because they were simply bored? They are hunters, after all, and you can see them hang some of the human corpses up as trophies after the kills. This is in line with some of the AvP games, where the Predators kill humans for no reason aside from the fact that they're there. We're just fun to massacre!

Or, perhaps they were deliberately trying to force the humans into the temple to faciliate the real hunt (for the Aliens).

Later on, the "alliance" between Predator and Human only exists between two individuals, not the two species as a whole. So it was probably more of a short-term partnership than an all-out alliance. Perhaps the lone Predator wanted help against the Aliens' sheer numbers, or perhaps he saw in her the same hunter spirit? That might make sense given what happens in the end when the other Predators leave her alone as well.

Just a guess :) Clueless 09:56, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

I propose that the Predators were killing humans with guns so that the humans didn't ruin the hunt by killing the aliens in self defense (as unlikely as that would be anyway). Later, after the shoulder cannons were found, the Predators were pretty anxious to get them back, and weren't just going to ask for them. Teflon Don 08:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Map of Antartica?

In the film an acient map of antartica is mentioned, wasn't this proved to be a fake?

Hmm, I don't remember an ancient map (but if you can narrow down when it appears, I'll check my DVD). There is a brief shot of a digital map, showing Bovetoya in an entirely wrong place. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 15:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When they all them meet the capitalist guy (name?) right at the start of the film, I think one of the archaeologists mention the map, I've heard about before, some years ago. An ancient map showing features that are under the snow and only visible using satilites, etc. --145.94.41.95 17:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The map is known as the Piri Reis Map

I watched it right now, and one of Weyland's men says "Ancient maps show antartica free of ice. It's likely the continent was once habitable.". This isn't true and no such maps exist. I think this is already adequately refuted in the "historical inaccuracies section of the article, which says "Antarctica has been glacial since the beginning of the Pliocene epoch, 5 million years ago, well before the development of human civilization." -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 17:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not really interested in the film, but in the (fake) map! I remember reading about it some years ago, but I am sure that it was a fake; I am really looking for links to articles about the map.

Well I thought I could google it and this is what I found: http://www.wwatching.net/enigma_ancient_maps.htm#Antarctica --145.94.41.95 18:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting. Other than the line above, there doesn't seem to be any mention of this, and all the graphics in the movie are modern CG stuff (the ancient map isn't shown). Incidentally, if you're interested in this kind of stuff, you'll find tons at Category:Phantom islands and maybe Category:Pseudohistory. Compared with the stuff there, a warm antarctic is fairly humdrum. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 18:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

more discussion in the 'trivia' section exists responding to the ancient map.

Anderson's true baby : the birth of the Predator Mary Sue.

The AvP movie has a slight subtext, which is ignored in all conversations, but very much existent. Fact is, that this type is movie is made for fans, and ever since the appearance of AvP, the amount of fanfictions (taking fanfiction.net as example) pairing a human with a yautja, has increased from 0 in the past 25 years, to 24 in less than a year, not counting those that were so bad the authors chose to delete them due to flaming. A picture say's more than a 1000 words. When looking at the book version, the extra photo's, such as the one above, and the result on the composition of the fandom, the way the cast refers to the two lead characters in interviews and the extreme obvious composition of the movie above all, it seems that Paul W. Anderson made the movie they way he made it on intention and with the result in mind that it eventually gave. Fanfiction.net is off course not the only reason why I believe the movie has such an effect, I also looked at communities, such as the Gaia Guilds, and at art sites such as DA, when looking at the dates of the 'deviations', allmost all the pred-human pairings on pictures date from around and after the release of AvP. I think Paul W. Anderson is now sitting at his home and grinning about what he did to the Predator franchise. The movie may contain alot of plot holes, but when looking for answer in the less commonly accepted routes, many of the plot holes actually became logical. The same way, Paul W. Anderson seems well in the mind of putting in such a subtext. In any case, whether he did it on intention or not, the fanhood of the Predator franchise now contains fangirls and there now is a thing such as the Preddy Sue (Mary Sue from the AvP franchise). The most generic Mary Sue is that the girl is rescued by the predator from aliens or helps him from being attacked, and for ussually unexplained reasons he spares her and lets her tag along. (AvP-style, only that unlike Lex, the girls are not required to prove herself actually useful after that in the same hive problem). These will become a hunter at the side of the yautja. Off course, for the first period of time, there will be no other yautja or humans in the story, until it has been established that the characters love eachother. Then it may be that someone ussually will appear that dissaproves of the whole affair. Or worse, the yautja completely do not care for the choice of their fellow hunter (even though their society revolves around breeding and they a yautja and a human could in no way bring forth fertile offspring). There is another type, the type that is raised by the yautja and where it is only natural that she is in love with at least one of the hunters, whom all show rather teenage like traits. This girl will ussually be extra-ordinairy strong and agile though her body is not overly muscular and she will have powers no one else has, or at least have some strange physical mark. These Sue's are totally integrated into yautja society and considered yautja. They don't need to be rescued because they are so extremely powerful and can defeat their enemies on their own. Another one that seems to be common in fanfics and fanart is that the girl becomes a slave of the hunter and they fell in love. These girls will either be beautiful or have some special talent. Most of the previously mentioned examples have not lasted long at fanfiction.net however. Fact is, none of those existed before AvP.

Uh, did you watch a different movie to the rest of us? pomegranate 10:37, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that Alexa's relationship with the Predator in the movie is roughly the same as that featured in the first Predator vs. Alien comic (where a human woman fights the xenomorphs alongside one predator, and is marked as one of the tribe at the end), so I don't see the movie as a trend-setter as far as this is concerned.JBPostma 23:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't think fanfiction.net is an awfully good source - have a look at the comic crossovers. There have been a lot of human/predator interactions. The fan fiction works you describe are pretty much the same as other topics you just substitute Predator for some other strong male figure (its pretty much the theme of a section of female-written literature going back to Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre). As has been said not only is it not an original story within the AvP universe but I really doubt PWA had that in mind at all. (Emperor 00:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC))

Historical inaccuracies

Is the historical inaccuracies section really necessary? I keep wanting to add "Aliens did not actually come to earth and show humans how to make pyramids" "The first human civilization was not destroyed in an atomic blast" "There were never any pyramids buried beneath Antarctic ice" ... Superm401 | Talk July 3, 2005 03:39 (UTC)

Heh, that's a good point but I think it's there to make sure you KNOW what's not true, aliens are obvious, ancient maps etc. are not. Ragzouken 19:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Plot in Detail Out of Order?

I've been watching the movie while following along with the Plot Detail, and it seems that the events are out of order. Is this because the Special Edition is in a different sequence or because it was written from memory? :) Just curious!

I probably messed up when I wrote the plot details (yup, from memory). Please do correct any mistakes you find. -Clueless 20:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

"historical inaccuracies"

The section "historical inaccuracies" displays too much evolutionary bias. It says that Antarctica was formed "five billion years before man evolved". Don't cut me off yet; Wikipedia is supposed to show a neutral point of view, right? Well, showing evolutionary bias is NOT USING A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW! The article is talking about "millions of years" as if that was actually what happened! We don't know that! You doubtlessly think that I'm just a stupid bigot, an irrational idiot who doesn't belive in "real science". Think what you like; but Wikipedia should NOT be displaying any sort of bias! I get really sick of hearing and reading evolutionary bias in EVERYTHING! Textbooks and encyclopedias show it! That is wrong! Scorpionman 02:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Look. Don't take this the wrong way. The Young-Earth viewpoint is, at best, a fringe perspective. No one with any background in any of the sciences dealing with origins disputes that the planet is about 4.5 billion years old. Creationism is a belief, just like the ancient Greek origin myths and the Jain belief that the universe has always existed. If you want equal representation for all cosmologies, no matter how well or poorly accepted by the scientific community, then you ought to make room for those beliefs as well. Teflon Don 09:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a practicing Christian (Lutheran) but do not believe that Genesis is literally true. What I do believe is that God created the world via the Big Bang and that this kind of beginning is more miraculous than any cheap magic trick having us pop into Eden 6000 years ago. BTW, this is not Intelligent Design. Science tells us the universe was created 13.7 Billion years ago; our sun was created approximately 6 billion years ago; the Earth formed some time after the sun between 4.5 and 5 billion years. --Neilrieck 04:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

NOT AVP!?

I was looking forward to this movie, infact i was the first fool to know about this movie in my school (no doubt!i am a movie boy). AFter watching this movie, i notice, i didn't say any good things about this movie, although i got a spoiler from my firend that saw it before me. This movie has nothing to do with the movies or game(PC). Only has some conpect to do with some comics and novel.

• How can a alien fight? that is one of the things that messed up the movie, alien's don't fight like that, they do sleath mode to kill their enemies.
• predatror's are huge, big and hench, : i like that, that is how they should be, but they didn't even do any sleath for them has well
• Storyline and Plot, was complety messed up, first of all you are going on diggin! Why did yuor crew brign guns? for god sake it's digging! (dumb @ss director didn't know how to put the gun section in the movie, but made a dailog for it)

What happens in the end, Predator has an alien inside it's chest, the alien bust the sh@t out of his chest

I told my friend, there an't gonna be a second one, but he says there will... do you think there will? >x<ino 00:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Okey, that was stupid of you. First I will say that I don't know that "sleath" means, but I think it is something with lurking with stealth.

Aliens do fight like that. Think that Aliens are very strong, the perfect monster, and the :Predators is not as weak as humans. Look at Aliens for more info.

Predators fights that way as well. They just don't have the weapons to be nasty, and the aliens is nastier than humans.

I don't know about the weapons, but remember the girl with the gun. Maybe the same mentality.

For the rest of you that reads this section, don't be like Xino.

This is quite old, i should delete this section

Yes i am correct!

If you look at Alien movie, Alien Comics and Alien games, they move in "Stealth2, my correction for my earlier mistake
Predator in other hand,...can't be botherd, this is a waste, the movie was a waste

100%, 69% were left down by the movie, i am one of them which makes it 70%

29% where happy about the movie, you are one of the fools which makes it 30% add up to 100% >x<ino 02:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

DVD

Someone should add information to the article about the different dvd's of this movie. A new dvd is coming with an unrated version.

is it? ok then welll...you too should find some source infornmation on it >x<ino 01:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

>>>

I just bought (2006.01.28) the two disk unrated DVD release and think it is really neat. Disk #1 contains both the theatrical release as well as an alternate version with 8 extra minutes. Disk #2, contains quite a bit of pre and post production information as well as interviews.

--Neilrieck 23:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

My edits (March 11th)

I really felt that the page needed some cleanup and I've taken it upon myself to do the work. As time permits, I'll continue to work and try to ensure that none of the important information from the previous version of the page gets lost. HOWEVER, I ask that you please don't simply revert to the previous version of this page, if there's something you don't like about what I've done either start making the minor changes yourself or bring it up here on the discussion page. We're not going to get anywhere if we just go back and forth trying to destroy each others work.

Could the author of this section please sign the above, so we know what we're not supposed to revert? Teflon Don 08:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ending Explanation

So like, in the end, was the thing that came out of the PRetadors chest an alien or a predator. Possible explanations. 1) This is how predators reproduce, they die and a new one forms. 2) In the shot when the predator marks itself, the third facehugger impregnated the predator If 1 is true, perhaps this means that the Aliens are related to the predators somehow. Maybe the Predators used their own DNA to make the Aliens or the Aliens evolved from the predators.

I'm assuming that you're not trolling but you really need to watch Alien 3.

It's a Predalien.

Clueless 09:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The Alien's use a sort of parasitic method of reproduction - The Queen lays eggs containing "face huggers" who wait within the eggs until a living creature is within striking distance of them. Once within range, the face huggers attach themselves to the living host, and affix themselves for a period of time, during which they essentially insert a featus into the chest cavity of the host. After a period of time, when ready, the host "gives birth" to that featus, and it exits through the host's chest plate, killing the host in the process. One of the major tennats of this process is that the Aliens cully some of their inherited traits from whatever creature is serving as their host - the Xenomorphs we are usually shown have somewhat human qualities because they've used humans as hosts. In Alien 3, one Alien uses a dog (or a bull, depending on which version of the film you watch) as a host, and thus takes on several canine (or bovine, as the case may be) traits, incluidng being a quadraped instead of a biped. What we see being 'born' at the end of AVP is the result of a facehugger "impregnating" that particular Predator. The new born Alien has obviously taken on traits of the Predator, including the mandables. It's hard to say exactly what the creature would look like, but we can venture an educated guess that it would be a biped of large size, with the "Alien Warrior" type head, a Preadtor-like mandible, the acid blood and the "mouth within a mouth" system usually seen in the Xenomorphs.

It's called the DNA Reflex, according to one of the Alien books. They steal any handy physical characteristics.

Fan Response?

I'm surprised there's not more on the way this movie obviously circumvented Alien canon...it offers lots of possible explanations to excuse the film's glaring errors, amd weaves it's way aroudn without stating an obvious conclusion; that many disgruntled fans realize the movie just blew off or retconned various canon points. Why can't we just get out and state the obvious, since the combine might of so many article writers hasn't squeezed that out? I'm biased, all right, but I think the hate many Alien fans have for this movie viciously intruding into the Alien franchise (and forever binding itself into canonicity as a horrible crossover between franchises that are better left within their own continuities)...needs to be expressed here. Popular reaction has been understated.

Apart from the fact that aliens grow faster in AVP than in the other movies, AVP did not contradict anything in Alien canon.

The article also doesn't mention the fact that James Cameron regards this movie as the 3rd best Alien movie. Ausir 07:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Since when!?

This movie was a waste!

>x<ino 12:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Read this article. AvP might have killed Alien 5, but Cameron did say "Then I saw Alien vs Predator and it was actually pretty good. (laughs) I think of the 5 Alien films, I'd rate it 3rd." Anyway, how can we say that it's less canon than e.g. Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection if the maker of Aliens prefers AVP to the other two? Each movie was made by a different director and a different writer, so there is either no canon whatsoever or anything made by the studio is canon. Now, I dislike AVP just as much as you do, but it doesn't make it any more or less canon. Ausir 22:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please...he rated that piece of shit above Alien 3? Well, no wonder...but what's he to say about Alien 3 being so bad, though? Since different people directed each film, who should listen to their opinions about which is better in the canon? Just because James Cameron made perhaps the most popular film doesn't make the series his. Alien 3 is horribly misunderstood...certainly stands up much better than AvP or that dismal Resurrection. But the point is, can crossovers really be considered canon? If anything, it's exploiting two different franchises in order to keep selling them. Plus, it arguably pollutes the purity of either franchise, when two canons come into conflict and are inevitably retconned. Bah, I probably shouldn't be complaining, but honestly! If anything, get Ridley Scott's opinion on the film. He directed the classic Alien, so lets see what he thinks of the direction it went in.

I was always given to believe that it was a new series using the creatures from the other two franchises. I mean, was Godzilla vs King Kon canon to the movies of the titular monsters? No sir. Who's to say this is any different?

Because Anderson has stated that this is more of a sequel to Predator and Prequel to Alien. Plus, Predator and Alien never have reoccurring characters...they are a species. Bignole 11:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The Alien and Predator franchises are both owned by 20th Century Fox and there've been dozens of AvP comics, games and novels, long before the AVP movie came out. Therefore it's fairly clear that the Alien and Predator franchises exist in the same universe. The original AvP comic that started the whole idea was a very good story and the movie was a failed attempt to transfer it to the screen, not to exploit the franchises.

When I first saw the promotional trailer in a theater I thought "this is going to be a big waste of time". About a month later I was on vacation with nothging to do so I went to a theater to watch this film and it was great. I've watched it a few times on Pay-Per-View and so decided to purchase the 2-disk DVD just to save on PPV charges. --Neilrieck 13:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hell, technically Cameron fiddled with things himself in inventing the queen and so on. Regardless though, this film DOES violate the established pattern of predators appearing in extremely warm temperatures. To a ludicrous degree, no less (note: P2 mentions it being a record high temperature, Anna in P1 says "only on the hottest days" etc). That, methinks, is pretty much without debate....FangsFirst 04:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

The very first note, about not knowing about the previous Predator because of P2 taking place in the city and there being publicity. I think this is really speculatory, because everyone was already under the assumption that it was gang killings and that there was some "new guy" in town that was killing all the gangs. No one thought of an alien, and Danny Glover's reaction at the end didn't seem like he was about to spill the beans on them. I don't think it would have been hard to cover up the LA incident, especially since most thought it was some vigilante. With almost a decade going by it wouldn't be hard to forget any rumors of alien species that comes to hunt humans, because they would have been thought of as "lochness monster sightings". So, I think that bit of trivia needs to be removed, because it isn't an accurate analogy, and as stated it is assuming and Wikipedia doesn't deal in assumption. Bignole 00:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with this. The people trying to catch the Predator certainly aren't going to tell anyone, and that only leaves Danny Glover who has seen the Predator. (The only scene where other people are likely to have seen the Predator is in the underground train, but even then it was dark and the Predator was cloaked) Even if he does say anything, who is gonna believe him? MrKWatkins 23:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

""* Antarctica has been glacial since the beginning of the Pliocene epoch, five million years ago, well before the development of the human species, or their civilization. From a purely historical standpoint, it is impossible for any large grouping of humans to have existed on or near Antarctica during the timeline setup by the film, as the climate is too cold for humans to live in. ""

>>>This is speculative, it has only taken the present human race around six thousand years to develop from farming to computers and nuclear weapons, ancient maps exist of antarctica's actual landmass which was not modernly known until radar maps in the 1960's. Should the above trivia entry be removed as too impassioned on limited current thought and scientific enquiry? Book_M06,06

There's way too much trivia in this article. Instead, the plot section could be more comprehensive. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 12:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

PredAlien ?

why is there no mention in the Trivia section that there was infact a predator infected (on purpose mind you..) by a facehugger, and that there was a chestburster seen near the end of the movie.. it should be noted that this could be the way that predators reproduce

For one, that isn't the way they reproduce. The chestburster is an alien, and regardless of how the Predator reproduces, it is come through his chest. Secondly, that isn't trivia, that is a scene in the movie that has no more importance than saying that the Queen Alien lays eggs in the film. Bignole 12:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Although it could be mentioned.. it is interesting that it was on purpose.. the Predator didnt seem to defend himself at all, and he wasnt worried about it, neither did the other Predators make any attempt at removing the chestburster, although it can be disputed that the entire movie wasnt completely canon. (my 2 cents) --Tyriel 09:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd scarcely call it on purpose. He didn't see the hugger until it leapt (remember that preds have pretty poor vision without their masks), and like Kane in Alien, didn't remember it afterwards. Admittedly it was pretty stupid of the clan not to scan his body.

too many aliens

There were 6 people in the Sacrificial Chamber who were initially face-hugged. 3 more were captured by aliens. 6 aliens were killed before the queen was released and 6 aliens were involved in rescuing the queen. That makes 12 aliens and only 9 hosts! Can someone confirm this? If this is so, then it means that some of the aliens are survivors of the 1904 hunt that were trapped in the pyramid for 100 years!

In one of the comics I read on Aliens it said that aliens live forever and cannot die but only killed it is possable they lived that long and would've live longer.

Blades

Modifications have been made to almost all of the previous weapons: the wrist blades are longer and larger, and can be fired

This isn't strictly true but I can't think of how to word it encyclopedically; perhaps someone can help. Y'see, each of the three predators has a distinct gauntlet configuration. The first to die has one big blade on the side of either arm. The second has a "tradtional" pair of wristblades on the right gauntlet and a netgun on the left. The third has a "bloody big", two-stage ejection pair of wristblades on the right gauntlet and a tiny, one-shot firing pair of blades on the left.

rm'd speculation

It is highly possible that portions of the film were based on or inspired by At the Mountains of Madness, a novella written by H.P. Lovecraft. Similarities include an alien race now in hibernation being in Antarctica, a scientific team exploring the continent, boring being done to the land by means of drills, the disappearance of many members of the team by aliens, and also a great hidden city built by an extraterrestrial race.

Given that the film is "essentially a simple rewrite of the comics", it's a stretch to say that it was inspired by Lovecraft to a noteworthy level. Plus, this is unattributed speculation. Plus if you include "boring being done to the land by means of drills", you might as well say that it was based on or inspired by BP. -- Lucianda

Archived old discussion: March 31, 2007

In reading through the discussions on this talk page I noticed that most of it was several years old, related to sections of the article that no longer exist, or had nothing to do with the article at all. I was tempted to delete a lot of the content, but in the interest of harmony and impartiality I instead archived it at Talk:Alien vs. Predator (film)/Archive 1, thus freeing up this space for new discussion about the article.

When contributing to this talk page, please try to adhere to the guidelines at WP:TPG, which are outlined in the header box above. Most notably:

1. "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."
2. "A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research."
3. "Sign your posts: To sign a post, type four tildes (~~~~)"

There were several problems which plagued most of the previous discussion here. The most prevalent was that a majority of the talk dealt not with the article at all, but rather consisted of reviews/opinions/rants about the film Alien vs. Predator itself. Please remember that talk pages are forums for discussion of the articles to which they are attached, and should only be used for discussing edits and changes to the article. They are not blogs on which to voice your opinions about the article's subject (in this case, the film), nor are they places to suggest original research. Finally, a great number of the archived posts were unsigned. Please remember to sign your posts so that others may know who has been editing and when.

With that said, I am adding a few subjects below which were not previously discussed but I feel should be brought up. IllaZilla 05:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of WikiProject: Norway tag

I chose to remove this tag from the talk page, though it remains in the archived discussion. This film has nothing to do with Norway outside of the fact that it is set on Bouvet Island, which is technically a dependent territory of Norway. However, the island's location and political ownership are fictionalized in the film: it is said to lie south of the southern 60th parallel and therefore to be subject to the Antarctic Treaty, meaning that no nation can claim ownership of it. In reality the island lies above the 60th parallel and is controlled by Norway, however this has no bearing on the film. The filming location was not on the actual island, nor in Norway, and the film does not reference Norway in any fashion. The article does not belong to any category that relates it to Norway either. Therefore this article does not belong in that project. IllaZilla 05:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Subject material from the expanded universe

Many edits to the article's plot summary and other sections have sought to add in terms such as "Youtja," "combistick," and "Predalien." These are terms which are not used in any of the Alien or Predator films, nor are they used in the Alien vs. Predator movie. Rather, they come from the "expanded universe" of comics, video games, and other media which also use the characters and creatures from these films. As such they are not appropriate in a plot summary of the film, as they are not terms which are used in the film series and could confuse a reader who is not familiar with the rather large library of expanded universe material. The plot summary, and the article as a whole, should only contain subjects (and wherever possible, terminology) which are used the film itself. IllaZilla 05:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Alien skull in the trophy case

Apparently we have an edit battle going on. I could cite other sources which mention this as being an Alien skull, such as Cinescape's ALIEN special issue which includes discussion with Dark Horse heads about the cameo and whether that came before or after the comics. So citing confirmation isn't an issue. The real question is... how is this appearance of an alien in a Predator film? It rather blatantly is, unless we're approaching the Alien and Predator as "characters," which I think is certainly debatable since the Aliens in particular are portrayed more as obstacles than characters. --Bishop2 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I would call both of them "creatures" rather than "characters" or "species." My objection to the way it was phrased earlier in the opening paragraph was that it said something like "...first shared appearance in a motion picture, other than the alien skull in Predator 2..." which to me just sounded somewhat unprofessional and more or less fanboy-ish. Is it worth mentioning the skull? Sure, if you're writing a section about how the concept for the movie was pitched and developed. But to stick it in the opening paragraph with that phrasing struck me as unnecessary and sort of opinionated. Even though there are sources to reference that indicate the skull was meant to be an alien, foreshadowing a future crossover of the franchises, the right place for that information isn't the opening paragraph of an article about the film Alien vs. Predator. That paragraph should stick to pertinent information about this film, giving an at-a-glance description and leading the reader to learn more in the following sections. --IllaZilla 01:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable view. I'm going to move the info and citations into the development section. --Bishop2 05:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

AvP 2

The release date is currently listed as 25th December 2007 - surely some mistake? Conrad1on 13:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Actually it looks like that might be right - it just seemed wrong somehow. I can't imagine who'd be going to see a film on Christmas Day. Conrad1on 13:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Predalien-1.jpg

Image:Predalien-1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Reception section

Maybe it should be enlarged remarking more criticism and fans' disappointment? There was (and is) huge criticism of this movie, that's pretty clear as I have quite followed imdb reviews and boards, many Alien or Predator fan sites and other sources. Adding it would be true to what has happened and not fan bias 83.43.153.252 12:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Image

There is no image of the movie scene.--TPOTPOEENHITOppv 15:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Certificates box

I took the liberty of removing the box/list of "certificates." I don't want to devalue the hard work obviously put in by 66.67.59.10, but I felt it was long, unnecessary, and basically cluttered up the page without providing any information of real value. I took a look at a bunch of other film articles that have been featured articles, and none of them had anything like that. So I felt pretty comfortable eliminating it. Basically I don't see what the encyclopedic value is in listing the film's ratings in every country it was ever shown in. That's pretty much trivial information that could easily be found elsewhere, such as IMDB. If anyone objects and would like to make a case for putting the list back in, please do so here. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It might be somewhat useful because there was some furore over the rating of the film when it came out, but that could easily, and probably is, be dealt with in the article itself. Funkynusayri (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it would be much better discussed as prose within the article body than a long and cluttered list down the side. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The James Cameron Vandal

Is there any way to lock just a single sentence from editing? This one sentence about Cameron's reaction to the film is being edited into a lie 3 to 5 times daily now, and I'm getting tired of having to constantly revert it back to the truth. --Bishop2 (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

We can request for the article to be temporarily locked. That often discourages vandals. But I don't think there's a way to lock just a section of the article. There may be a banner tag we can put in that section which says that it has been frequently vandalised, though. In the meantime I've put a bit of hidden text in there that anyone will see when they try to edit the section. I also placed warnings on the talk pages of all the IPs which have made that edit going back a week or so (I'm assuming they're all the same person or group of people, because they're identical edits). Basically it gets down to this: you cannot alter a direct quote in order change its meaning, or to make it advance a particular point of view. I believe that is in fact libel. As it appears now, there are 2 quotes from the interview which establish that Cameron had a negative opinion of the film before it was made, and a more positive opinion of it after viewing it. If you read the interview, this is exacly what he says. So altering the quote in order to make it appear that he only ever had a negative view of the film is intentional bias. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Locking it so that only registered users could edit the page would probably be enough, and I've seen other pages do that before, so that may be an option. And oh yes, it's obviously intentional bias. I don't think there's any way that this person is somehow confusing what Cameron said. He or she obviously simply hates the fact that he said he liked the movie. But, hey, sorry. That's what the facts are. --Bishop2 (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it's still going on, so I've put in a request for the article to be semi-protected. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw the comment reading through and that it was incorrect so checked up on the source which showed it to be wrong. If it is some one constantly changing this the artical should be tagged as such. Shame though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.80.150 (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Alien

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) 23:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Dot after vs

We do not put dot after vs if it should mean versus - it because shortcut 'vs' ends with the same letter as word 'versus'. If you put dot after 'vs' - vs., you get shortcut from version. So this article means Alien version Predator.87.99.29.92 (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your grasp of punctuation and abbreviation seems about as sound as your grasp of the rest of the English language. See VS: "Versus, properly written 'v'. In North America the abbreviations 'Vs.' or 'vs.' are often seen." So technically it should be "v" but since it is in this case part of a title, we are writing it as it appears in the title card of the film. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Chronological order

Seeing as the AvP film is placed before the events of Alien and all following Alien films, would it make sense to have it in timeline order, per the style of Star Wars (notably Ep. 3 is followed by Ep. 4) -- Harish - 04:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

2 problems I can see with that: 1) Since there is no set number of films in the series, as there is for Star Wars, we have no way of knowing if more films will be made that are set after AVP and AVP:R but prior to Alien. So a timeline wouldn't be set in stone. 2) I would argue that the way the Star Wars films are ordered in the infoboxes (the "preceded by" and "followed by" parts) are incorrect. The intent of that part of the infobox is to indicate the order in which films in the series were made and released, not the order in which their stories flow chronologically. So really Ep. 4 should come first and Ep. 3 should be last. Ep. 4 was not preceded by anything, as it was the first Star Wars film made. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Assessment/Review being conducted by Mspraveen

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that need to be resolved with a major re-write. This is how the article, as of January 19, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Notes

I. Minor observations about Prose

• In the Plot section

1. "Meanwhile, three Predators land and kill off the humans on the surface" - It isn't like chopping off, is it?
2. "The two ally with each other...and escape to the surface" - Too many pauses in the sentences making it difficult to read. You may consider making it more readable.
3. "The Alien queen emerges and the three do battle in the vicinity of the whaling station" - do battle?
4. The editors may please check for the prose in the plot section once again.

User:IllaZilla did so

• Alien director Ridley Scott had talked with Cameron and thought; "I think it...

• Use of semi-colon does not seem to fit into thesentence structure.
• It may be re-written as - ... talked with Cameron and thought, "I think it...
• Same follows for such quotations in the text.

Done. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• In the Reception section, "It grossed $38.2 million over its opening weekend" - Typo
• In the Effects and creatures section, use of profane language could be avoided: "Yes, we make you wait 45 minutes, but once it goes off, from there until the end of the movie, it's f***ing relentless". You may see Wikipedia:Profanity

II. Citations

• If I noticed this right, 2004 Yearly B.O. Results shows the film in 33rd position as against 44th in the text.
• I doubt if the critics are allowed to view the film in advance. The relevant citation only talks about is about the film's delay in release was costing the movie valuable publicity and coverage by movie reviewers.
• In the Cast section, "In the novelization of the film the Predators are referred to as "Scar," "Celtic," and "Chopper" or "Gill," though the film's credits list only Scar." and "The Alien played by Woodruff is listed in the credits as "Grid," owing to a grid-like scar"

This appears to me as your opinion unless promptly cited from published sources. You may refer to Wikipedia:No original research.

• In the Story and setting section, "Five Predators were originally intended for the film, although budget limitations only allowed for three" - Citation needed.
• In the Filming and set designs, "For the whaling station miniatures and life size sets, over 700 bags of artificial snow was used, which equates to roughly 15-20 tonnes." - citation needed.
• In Effects and creatures section, "...which Woodruff claims "is what the Predator is all about"" - a direct quotation needs a citation.
• In the Alien 5 and sequel section, need for citations for the direct quotations.

1. "kill the validity of the franchise"

This is in the same sentence with another quote and is cited at the end of the sentence. Don't want[1] it like this[1].

1. "To me, that was Frankenstein Meets Werewolf. It was Universal just taking their assets and starting to play them off against each other...Milking it."
2. "I think it would be a lot of fun, but the most important thing is to get the story right"

Fixed. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

III. Broadness in its coverage

• The inline citations refer to the DVD features such as Audio commentary, The Making of Alien vs. Predator. Relevant details about the DVD has to be added to this article.

Done M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• So is the case with the soundtrack. A quick search online gave me this webpage.

There isn't enough content for its own section although there is an interview that says who composed the soundtrack so i can briefly mention that. M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Managed to scrape what little info their is available to create a section. M3tal H3ad (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Any additional information about the DVD sales, if available, should be added.
• Director's cut seems 7 minutes longer than the original version. Some information about this, if available, will add to the broadness of the article.

Done M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Were there any special film festival screenings for this film? If so, it should be included to this article.

IV. Fair use rationales

• Non-free template may be used for the images.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note, below this review, showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Best regards, Mspraveen (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed review. M3tal H3ad (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Regarding the following:

In the Effects and creatures section, use of profane language could be avoided: "Yes, we make you wait 45 minutes, but once it goes off, from there until the end of the movie, it's f***ing relentless". You may see Wikipedia:Profanity.

To quote Wikipedia:Profanity:

In original Wikipedia content, a profanity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols. However, when quoting relevant material from external sources, rendering a quote as it was originally spoken/written trumps our style guidelines. If necessary, you may indicate that the blanking was in the original quote by saying so in some way outside of the quote, for example by using "[censorship preserved]" or "[sic]".

Thus the guideline seems to explicitly state that the profanity should not be changed. There's no link in the references to the interview itself, so we don't know whether the original source used censorship or not, in which case I don't think we can make assumptions and must leave it spelled out, as it though it were being spoken and directly transcripted without censorship. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Following-up

• No issues with the usage of profane language as a part of a full quotation. That missed my attention.
• Avpmovie.jpg still needs the {non-free fair use rationale} template.

Done. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I doubt if the critics are allowed to view the film in advance. The relevant citation only talks about is about the film's delay in release was costing the movie valuable publicity and coverage by movie reviewers. - Was struck off with being addressed?!

The fact that the movie wasn’t screened for critics during the week of its release was the first indication that something was wrong M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• With so many citations going towards the DVD content such as Making of the film and Audio commentary, I assume good faith in skipping to know the veracity of these.
• Good job on the DVD and Soundtrack sections. Adds breadth to the article now.
• Were there any special film festival screenings for this film? If so, it should be included to this article. - Not addressed if the editors' research yielded anything.

Nothing i can find as the the crew were rushing to complete the film. There was the standard industry screening and this [1] although it doesn't look noteworthy or reliable. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Anderson chose Kloser as he is a fan of both franchises." - cite needed. A quick glance at the closest reference did not convince me.

The reason why we hired him is that he's such a humongous fan. Again I wanted to go with people's passion for the franchise, their passion for the movies. This guy's a complete Alien and Predator freak. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I hoped to have initiated you with the editors of checking the prose in detail. One more final check yielded me the following:

"Based on an original screenplay written by director Paul W. S. Anderson and Shane Salerno, the two were influenced in the writing process by Aztec mythology, the comic book series, and the writings of Erich von Däniken." - Needs to be re-written.

"As the battle continues most of the characters are killed off, leaving only Alexa and a single Predator to face off against the remaining Aliens." - Use of "Killed off" again.

Done. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Unbeknownst to the others, one of the Predators is implanted with an Alien embryo." - Keeping the words simple would be apt for an encyclopedia.

Changed to unknown. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Another final check will be done after 2-3 days and a decision on this will be taken. I hope the above notes are considered in you making subsequent improvements. If you have any questions, please do write them on my talk page. Regards, Mspraveen (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

• "Based on an original screenplay written by director Paul W. S. Anderson and Shane Salerno, the two were influenced in the writing process by Aztec mythology, the comic book series, and the writings of Erich von Däniken." - It wasn't addressed and since it was a minor change, I addressed this.
• I doubt if the critics are allowed to view the film in advance. The relevant citation only talks about is about the film's delay in release was costing the movie valuable publicity and coverage by movie reviewers. - You should consider rewording the relevant text because, in my opinion, it does not really correspond with what argument you provided in response.

I changed this source to one from The New York Times. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In its current version, all criteria for a good article have been satisfied in my opinion, however, I did not emphasize too much on a certain aspect. Despite this, I am glad to report that this article's nomination for a good article has been promoted. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors, who worked hard and for being patient in bringing the article to this status. Congratulations!! Mspraveen (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed review :) M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Habit James Cameron Interview

Why can't the YouTube video on the James Cameron interview not be in the article? For one thing, it is not a copyright violation. The YouTube Terms of Use states this:

D. In connection with User Submissions, you further agree that you will not submit material that is copyrighted, protected by trade secret or otherwise subject to third party proprietary rights, including privacy and publicity rights, unless you are the owner of such rights or have permission from their rightful owner to post the material and to grant YouTube all of the license rights granted herein.

That's on the Terms of use page under 6. Your User Submissions and Conduct. YouTube videos that violate copyrighted works usually get deleted within a week; that video has stayed on for over 1½ years. Also, the video was posted by Jordan Morris, the guy that interviewed James Cameron in that video, works for the show, and obviously had permission to post it up; otherwise, it would've been deleted by now. It's like saying this video, which was posted by universalmusicgroup itself, is a copyright violation, which doesn't make any sense 'cause the company posted it itself. — Enter Movie (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL doesn't prohibit linking to YouTube, but allows it only if the link meets the other external link guidelines, which in 99% of cases it doesn't. In this situation we already have the text transcript of an actual interview, rather than a 12-second byte from the red carpet (hardly an "interview") which only has 1 sentence by Cameron. The interview that's already used as a reference is considered a better link to use than the video because it doesn't consist of rich media and doesn't require plugins for a reader to be able to view it. We also can't make the assumption that if it was copyrighted it would've been deleted. Like with Wikipedia, copyrighted content can stay on YouTube for a long time without anyone noticing it. Yes, YouTube tries to police itself, but the fact that anyone can upload videos to it makes it notorious for copyvio. Therefore common practice on Wikipedia is to avoid linking to YouTube, especially if there is another (official) site with the same or better content. For example, with the Sum 41 video you used as an example, it would be better to simply provide a link to the band's official website or MySpace profile, which has their music videos available for viewing in an unquestionably copryright-compliant manner. Given all that, I don't see the point in linking the video since we already have a transcript of a better, longer interview that has context to it and multiple paragraphs of statements by Cameron. You also can't make the assumption about what Cameron's opinions were at what times, since the YouTube clip has no date on it. The interview already linked states Cameron's views in a much more thorough manner. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work." The link with the James Cameron interview is undeniably better, but the YouTube link shows a different opinion. But it's still a reliable 12-second interview (maybe the interview was longer). And it's just 12 seconds. I've visited YouTube for a long time and have seen the workprint Halloween and Cloverfield teaser trailers that was taken down within a few weeks. Like I said, Jordan Morris works for the show and the video has been up for over 1½ years. The video has been up since August 11, 2006, and if you click on the video, click more. . . under "About This Video," it has Check out the full video: where you can go to Pt. 1 or Pt. 2 of the full videos about the Pirates of the Caribbean 2 premiere, which was released after the interview with James Cameron on that other link. The point of showing the YouTube link is to show that James Cameron has a different opinion about the film in another interview. — Enter Movie (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the main issue is that we really have no context on when he said that or where. We can't assume it was done in 2006 or at Pirates 2 or what. We'd have to find a way to mention this without giving it any context, which sorta seems to remove the point. --Bishop2 (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Check out the full videos. It's at the Pirates 2 premiere, and he's wearing the exact same costume as the video he was interviewing James Cameron. And since the Pirates 2 premiere was released after the 2-7-06, that YouTube video is definitely set after that Ain't it Cool News interview. — Enter Movie (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Even so, he never specifically cites AVP either. Only the interviewer does. This just feels too much like more of what we've been dealing with on this article - people who keep wanting to delete the Cameron section because it upsets them... --Bishop2 (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm not deleting the Cameron section. I'm adding more info. Anyways, back on topic: Like I've said, in the full videos, he's wearing the exact same costume and has the exact same microphone (and it even looks like it's the exact same crowd) as the YouTube one with the Cameron interview. — Enter Movie (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Shane Salerno's credits

There's been a bit of an edit war going on between myself and Truthpolice7 over the wording of the opening paragraph and the "origins" section concerning Shane Salerno's credits on the film. I believe that the following are correct:

• In the opening paragraph: "An Alien vs. Predator film was put on hiatus until 2002, with the final production based on a story written by Dan O'Bannon, Ronald Shusett, and director Paul W. S. Anderson, and a screenplay by Anderson and Shane Salerno which was influenced by Aztec mythology, the comic book series, and the writings of Erich von Däniken."
• In the "origins" section: "Anderson started to work on the film after completing the script for Resident Evil: Apocalypse, with Shane Salerno co-writing. Salerno spent six months writing the shooting script, finished its development, and stayed on for revisions throughout the film's production." (citing this reference [2])

Truthpolice7 seems to prefer a different version which I feel is less accurate, saying merely that Salerno "revised" the screenplay and that "Salerno was brought on to rewrite the script by Twentieth Century Fox". The reference that is used in the "origins" section is an interview with Salerno in which he states the following:

I worked on A vs. P for six intense months. I finished its development, wrote the shooting script, stayed on for revisions for cast, final budget and production notes and traveled to Prague to do on set work there. After that, I continued working on it back in Los Angeles when I returned. It was very exciting. I enjoyed working with Paul Anderson, who has a religious devotion to the first two Alien films and the first Predator film.

Based on that, it seems clear that Salerno's role was more than merely being "brought in by 20th Century Fox" to rewrite or revise the script. It seems that he played a major role in co-writing the screenplay with Anderson, and also wrote the shooting script. The situation is somewhat muddled by the fact that Salerno did not receive onscreen credit for his writing in the film itself, therefore he is not listed in the credits or on IMDb. I feel, however, that the article at present explains his contributions to the film accurately and in good detail, and I'm surprised that Truthpolice7, who purports to be trying to bring to light Salerno's role (as if there was some conspiracy to deny him credit), prefers a version that is less specific about his contributions and gives him less credit for his role. Salerno obviously played a major role in co-writing the film, he wasn't merely brought on for rewrites/revisions. I'm hoping that other editors who work on this article will chime in on this and offer their thoughts. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I admit there apparently was a problem with the reference link in some recent versions of the article. I found an older link that worked & fixed the reference there & here. This should help clear it up a bit, as I don't think Truthpolice7 was able to read the interview. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. It was bugging me. I tried to fix it earlier and was frustrated to see it removed; glad it's back. Now, I've seen Salerno described as the "closer" on the film, the last writer who did numerous touch-up re-writes to Anderson script over the course of many months leading up to the final draft. Early script reviews on sites like AICN claimed that he was listed as having done "revisions." I'm not sure if that makes him a co-writer or a re-writer, but both seem reasonable from the perspective of knowing he took an original script and proceeded to alter it multiple times for months. --Bishop2 (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Cast section

Might I make the suggestion of ditching the cast section altogether and just incorporating the actor's names in the plot section. If they don't all go then it means that the other actors weren't important enough in the plot to need to be mentioned. IMDb already keeps a comprehensive "list" of the actors involved in the film, and MOS films for cast and characters wants real world information in that section, not just plot infor rehashed in a second section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have seen many other FAs that use the format this article is currently using for the cast section. Of course we're not listing every person in the film, but we're including the most notable ones (certainly any that have independent articles) and providing some bits of exposition that don't really fit in the plot summary. I don't really see any compelling reason to "ditch" the section altogether, though there may be ways to incorporate it into the "casting" section with better prose and real-world context about the most significant casting decisions. Wikipedia and IMDB exist independently of each other, even though we often turn to IMDB as a reliable source for film info. In other words, I can't see removing the section just on the justification that IMDB already has a cast listing. That's essentially saying "this info is already somewhere else on the internet, so we don't need it on Wikipedia". --IllaZilla (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because others do it doesn't make it correct. Many articles have gotten away with things that they shouldn't have, that doesn't mean this should hold itself lower. It clearly states in the FILM MOS, "Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" that really belongs in the plot summary." I really don't see anything in the cast section that could not be deduced by simply reading the plot. Actually, we don't turn to IMDb for any reliably sourced info, because IMDb is considered an unreliable source. I'm suggesting removing it because it is unnecessary, and actually discouraged on the manual of style guideline for film pages. If you had the casting information there, instead of in its own section then that would be one thing, but you don't. You have a separate casting section, plus a partial listing of actors in the plot summary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the existence of it elsewhere makes it correct, I'm merely pointing out that there seems to be a precedent for this type of section in many articles which have passed an FA review (see these examples: 1, 2, 3, 4), so maybe it's something we should consider more carefully instead of just "removing it because it is unnecessary". If it's something that's common across many FA film articles, then maybe there's some value to it. The MOS section you're pointing out is a set of guidelines written by WikiProject Films specifically for that project and is merely that: a guideline...one which WP:FILM doesn't seem too feel too stringently about given that many of their FAs have sections like these and others don't. Just because the guideline exists doesn't mean we have to excise the section from this article altogether. I should also point out that WikiProject films has itself rated this article FA, so it doesn't seem that whoever reviewed it had a problem with the cast section in its current state. I'm not saying you're entirely wrong about the section's content, I'm merely saying we should consider other ways of improving the section or merging it with "casting" rather than just cutting it. Could it be improved? Certainly. Should we just delete it altogether? I don't think that we should.

Also, if IMDB is such an ureliable source, why do we provide links to it in the infobox and the external links section? I also see it frequently used to cite casting and production credits, though not in this article. Some parts of IMDB may be unreliable, such as "trivia" etc., but their cast & crew credits come from the films themselves and the WGA, and have a verification process that they go through. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

First, only 300 mirrors the lack of real world information in this article. All the other articles contain real world information in the Cast list section, with Jurrassic Park and V incorporating it more direclty into the list, as opposed to a prose section just below the list. How about it's redundant to the plot section. If you say "merge it with the casting section", then you're either getting rid of the casting section or getting rid of the cast list. You cannot merge and still have two separate sections, that defeats the idea behind "merging".

We've included IMDb for a long time and the only reason it is listed in the infobox and the external links is because of pure habit. IMDb is the first source to be ripped apart when an FAC comes. We cannot determine the reliability of the information they present, because the information they present is given to them by regular editors (like the ones that come here). The difference is that, although any random unregistered person and edit a page here, we actually require the sources to back them up. IMDb has been wrong on a number of films regarding their information, because they fail to actually check sources. Only certain films are actually certified by the WGA on IMDb's pages, not all, and that certification only comes well after the release of the film. If it's on IMDb then it's probably somewhere else; somewhere more reliable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that guidelines should be followed unless there is a good reason to ignore them. From what I can see, the fact that some other articles do it and that you believe the "exposition that don't really fit in the plot" aren't that good of a reason to ignore the fact that the guideline explicitely states not to turn the section into nothing but in-universe information. FILMS doesn't govern FAC process, that's the group of editors reviewing the article to make note of that particular guidance.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Queen image

Obviously, we have some editors (or at least one) who really want this image in the article. Per the fair use criteria the image needs critical commentary to be acceptable. The image was first placed in the plot section, with absolutely no commentary at all, but then moved to the special effects section. This was better, but there wasn't anything there that needed an image to better illustrate what was being said. There's a single line about the Queen being made by animatronics and CGI; an image of either isn't necessary unless you have more commentary to support it. Remember, images are not supposed to be eye candy. A statement, "The queen created by computer animation", and then an image that barely even shows that computer animation is not acceptable. The image is unnecessary, as there isn't anything on the Queen's design other then some simple statement that they made a CGI version.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's unnecessary, seeing as we already have a couple of fair-use images used to illustrate the topics (1 for special effects already). Therefore an additional image is extraneous, and it's pretty clearly only being put in as decoration. The article is excellent without the queen image; let's go ahead and leave it out. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

some citations needed

in the opening paragraph: "mostly negative reviews", "wooden dialogoue" etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.196.206 (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read past the opening paragraph and into the article body, you will find that they are cited in the "Reception" section. The lead forgoes the citations because it merely succinctly sums up the contents of the entire article. Everything in the lead is cited in the body sections of the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Resources to use

Article seems very dependent on either Internet references or DVD references. Here are some print references to help make the article more comprehensive:

• Brett, Anwar (2004). "When Aliens Collide". StarBurst (316): pp. 20–25. ISSN 0955-114X. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) (Paul W.S. Anderson talks about the challenge of making AVP)
• Duncan, Jody (2004). "Predator and Prey". Cinefex (99): pp. 15–22, 25–30, 33–38. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) (Feature article detailing the visual effects/CGI work for Anderson's ALIEN VS. PREDATOR, created by Amalgamated Dynamics Inc., the Moving Picture Company and Double Negative)
• Gross, Edward; Gorka, Sebastian (2004). "Death match". Cinefantastique. 36 (4): pp. 36–43, 70–71. ISSN 0145-6032. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) (Extensive production report on ALIEN VS PREDATOR, including details of the design evolution of the Alien and Predator creatures)
• Grove, David (2004). "Alien Vs Predator special". Film Review. Special (53): pp. 7–47. ISSN 0957-1809. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) (Special feature previewing Paul Anderson's ALIEN VS PREDATOR Includes an interview with Paul Anderson, with actor Lance Henriksen, production designer Richard Bridgland, comic book writer Randy Stradley, lists various facts about the film)
• Salisbury, Mark (2004). "AVP: ALIEN VS PREDATOR: Creature warfare". Fangoria (234): pp. 42–47. ISSN 0164-2111. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) (Cast and crew talk about working on ALIEN VS PREDATOR)
• Salisbury, Mark (2004). "The AVP Referee". Fangoria (235): pp. 40–45. ISSN 0164-2111. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) (Paul W. S. Anderson talks about making AVP)
• Gillis, Alec; Woodruff, Jr, Tom (2004). AVP: Alien vs. Predator: The Creature Effects of Adi. Design Studio Press. ISBN 0972667652. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Please implement these references when you can. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Those all look great, but as they are print sources they are not easy for all of us to get our hands on (some are, but others less so). If you have access to them, then please by all means add any info from them that you feel is appropriate. I'll make an effort to find those that I can, and I also have David McIntee's book Beautiful Monsters from which I can add material. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If I was at my university, I could access some of them in the stacks. They are not available online for me, unfortunately. Access via library is your best bet, especially if they can do interlibrary loans. For the last one, the book, type its title into WorldCat.org and see what libraries near you have it. Also, here is a pretty good online article about the film's visual effects. Just wanting to make sure the article adheres to the comprehensiveness criteria of being a Featured Article. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I can give my university library a shot too, but first I have to pay the enormous late fees on my thesis books. :) --IllaZilla (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Uncredited screenwriter

According to the article, "Salerno spent six months writing the shooting script, finished its development, and stayed on for revisions throughout the film's production," yet he is listed in the infobox as "uncredited." Given his contribution appears to have been substantial, I would like to see an explanation of why he received no screen credit somewhere within the article. Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 19:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this above ("Shane Salerno's credits"); I have no idea why he wasn't credited, but the sources make it clear that his work on the script was pretty substantial. It may be that as a "script doctor" he typically doesn't receive credit (maybe that's a stipulation of his contracts), but I don't know. I couldn't find any source explaining why he isn't credited in the film itself, but for whatever reason he's not. This isn't uncommon, many such writers don't receive on-screen credit for their revisions. I don't know why. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I saw the discussion above. I felt the issue should be addressed within the article, since it mentions all his contributions but doesn't explain why he failed to receive credit for so much work, which appears to have been much more than mere "revisions." LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 21:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Boldface

Most Featured Articles have boldface for "Cast" sections because the bulleted items in them tend to be multi-lined. An article like 300 (film), though, does not. It's the same case here, where the bulleted items are right on top of each other, so there's no need for emphasis via boldface. —Erik (talk • contrib) 06:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Browsing through Category:FA-Class film articles, I have to say I disagree. Here are a half dozen that contradict your assertion, where a majority of the entries are single-lined: Blade Runner, But I'm a Cheerleader, Casino Royale (2006 film), Jurassic Park (film), Red vs. Blue, and Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. There are of course examples on both sides of the fence, but as I look through the FAs I see that nearly all that are in bulleted list form, and have addtional text beyond simply the actors' & characters' names, bold those names regardless of the length of that additional text. Remember also that whether or not the text appears on a single or multiple lines will vary depending on the reader's screen size, window size, text settings, etc. There are simply too many variables to say "single line = no bolding, multiple lines = bolding". The example case at WP:FILMCAST uses bolding, and it says nothing about whether there needs to be multiple lines of text or not. Forgive me for sounding irritated, but the article has been FA for a year and a half with the bolding; removing it now just because it's going on the main page seems like based entirely on some editors' personal preferences about appearance. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The best thing about Wikipedia is that it's always changing. Just because something was done a certain way in the past doesn't mean it has to be that way forever. I think the bolding looks awful. You can call it "unnecessary stylistic nitpicking" but that doesn't mean everyone agrees with your opinion. You seem to be claiming ownership of this article because of your past edits. I thought that wasn't acceptable. LargoLarry (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It helps to remember that WP:FILMCAST is one of the oldest sections in the guidelines. I plan to propose a write-up for that section in time, as I've rewritten other sections to be more up-to-date with best practices. The example in the guidelines used boldface because ideally, a film article should have real-world context about the actors and their roles. Depending on the film, this can entail boldface, as it did for Witchfinder General. There are films where there is not much to say about individual actors and roles, so it results a simpler cast list like this. Two editors (at least) and I find the boldface unaesthetic, which is in line with the practice I've seen in place. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not claiming ownership, I'm merely a tad irritated by the sudden rush of very nitpicky stylistic changes that seem to be based on guidelines or MoS's that don't exist (or in the case of the bolding, actually contradict the existing MoS). This seems to be happening simply because the article is going to be on the main page, but then why was it made FA, and been FA for so long, with bolding and all of these other small differences in place? It's not like being on the main page suddenly changes all of the stylistic criteria or necessitates some massive copyedit. I'm not saying that it can't be improved, and if there's additional material to be added then by all means do, but from where I'm standing it's been an FA for quite a while without any major changes, and stylistically it looks just like a majority of our other film FAs, so I don't see why there's a sudden push to make it conform to supposed rules that don't actually exist. If you want to improve the WP:FILMS MoS to aim for more consistency between articles, that's fine; start discussions on the project pages. But don't tweak this article to your own POV just because it's going to be on the main page. Like I say, the format (bolding included) matches a majority of our other film FAs, so I don't see the rationale for applying a different style set to this article then we're applying to all of our others. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

IllaZilla, the guidelines do not say when it is most appropriate to use boldface. The example in the section uses boldface because there are multiple lines that warrant emphasizing the actor and the role. The guidelines do not use a bullet for the beginning of the "Robert Russell" item. Does this mean we should remove bullets across all film articles? (This is part of what I mean by these particular guidelines being old and needing revision.) Please assume good faith of others' efforts; we sincerely believe that it is unaesthetic to use boldface for items clustered so closely together. This film article does not belong to anyone, but it does represent the nature of film articles on Wikipedia as it appears on the front page, hence our collective involvement to refine it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

FA issues

The article itself looks good, but the guy in the picture used for the main page isn't identified on the main page. This should be fixed quickly. Drew Smith What I've done 22:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's off the main page now, but while it was there the image did have alt text that identified him. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

box office gross & inflation

When making a statement such as "AVP is the most commercially successful film of either franchise" it is vital to clearly state that this is not taking into account inflation. In 2004, AVP made $172 million worldwide. In 1979, Alien made $105 million worldwide. However, Alien is the most commerically successful of the two because $105 million in 1979 dollars would equal around $262 million in 2004 dollars. Furthermore, there is a problem with defining what is the "most commercially successful", since this would not just be about how much money a film grossed, but how much profit it made. Alien was made for $11 million in 1979 dollars. AVP was made for $60m in 2004. Even adjusting for inflation, Alien's budget would calculate to about $27m in 2004. I'm sure AVP fanboys would love to omit this fact, but this is an encyclopedia and has to present facts in an unbiased way. Saying AVP is the most commercially successful film of the franchises is total POV. 80.41.80.25 (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Update on the Production of the movie

I don't know why it wasn't listed on the page, but Paul Anderson left the movie before it was even complete. No mention of it. I had read about it and that made me wonder how the movie would turn out. After I saw the movie, that was how it turned out. Their were some sites that did state it back in 2004. Anderson had got upset and left the movie. FOX had to dispatch others to finish up on the movie. Anderson was credited because he had stayed on for most of the movie. majinsnake (talk) 10 July 2010 (UTC)

--IllaZilla (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Continuity of AvP withing established franchises

Robert Rodriguez has stated that Predators is meant to be a directo sequel to Predator and Predator 2, ignoring the AvP movies. In order to keep continuity straight (for myself at the very least) has it been stated that the AvP movies are specifically meant as sequals to the previous Predator movies or Alien movies? --RedKnight (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The director of AVP specifically stated that the AVP films serve as sequels to the first 2 Predator films and prequels to the Alien films (being that they are set chronologically between the events of Predator 2 and Alien). Robert Rodriguez's goal was to get the Predator franchise back to its roots, breaking away from the AVP brand. Therefore Predators doesn't have any Aliens in it and doesn't reference the AVP films at all. But that doesn't mean it establishes a new canon; it simply doesn't reference the previous couple of films directly. AVP didn't reference Predator or Predator 2 at all either, yet these films still all represent continuous, intertwining franchises as there are no contradictions between them. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's a big difference then. It makes more sense to have them within a single contiuity rather then alternate universal counterparts. Thank you. --RedKnight (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This film was made from a book?

I remember reading a text story in a book with more or less the same storyline as in this film, but set on a distant planet. In the book, at the end the Predator, before dying, taught the girl to say the Predatorese word for "Little Knife", that being a name that he gave to her. When the Predator ship came and left, they took the girl on board with them. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

on that. None of the sources say anything about the story being adapted from a book. It's an original screenplay. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Anthony's thinking of Aliens vs. Predator: Prey, by Steve and Stephani Perry. Prey was based on the original Aliens vs. Predator comic series scripted by Randy Stradley. For their version, the Perrys invented a spoken language for the Predators (including the word "yautja"). --71.2.131.119 (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Writing Credits

Somebody keeps inserting that O'Bannon and Shussett co wrote this screenplay. And its true that they receive co-writing credits. But those credits are only a legal function via a decision by the WGA. Although that is well known, I am unfortunately having a bit of trouble finding a great source for this. Here is one: [3] There is also this acurate quote from an earlier wiki entry that for some reason has been removed:

Paul W.S. Anderson was given the director's chair at about this time, and he started to write his own work into the movie. An interesting situation with the final writing credits now existed. From Wikipedia: "The writing credits submitted by the studio to the WGA recommended that Peter Briggs and Paul W.S. Anderson be credited for the story, while Anderson and Shane Salerno get the screenplay credit. Instead, the WGA denied any sort of credit to Briggs or Salerno, and instead gave co-story credit to original Alien writers Dan O'Bannon and Ronald Shusett on the rationale that some story elements were based on a deleted scene from that film. Shocked at this decision, the studio offered Salerno an executive producer's credit, but he turned it down.

I will continue to search if necessary, but I do guarantee that you WONT find a source stating that O'Bannon or Shusett actually wrote anything for THAT production. That was for legal purposes only and I'd like to see that made clear in the body of the article. --Thunderlippps (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC).

Here is a quick quote by O'Bannon describing the extent of his involvement: [4]

• Q: "Did you even see the first Alien Vs. Predator film?
• A: Yeah, sure, I saw it.
• Q: What did you think of it?
• A: Videogame. I did have an idea that they didn’t use, and that was that the alien in his next phase turns into the predator. But they weren’t interested in hearing from me…at least it would have had some continuity between the two ideas."

--Thunderlippps (talk)

Unless you can find reliable sources that directly support your claims ("I know this is true, I just can't prove it" won't cut it), this can't be included. O'Bannon and Shusett have legal writing credit on this thing. If you want to say that they had nothing to do with writing it, you need a source that specifically says that. If it's as "well known" as you say, finding such a source should be easy. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur with IllaZilla. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you know much about the Alien franchise? You've never heard this story? Have you ever seen O'Bannon or Shusett describe any involvement with this script. O'Bannon saying that they didn't want to hear from him isn't good enough? I like the way you play lawyer ball. Maybe you can tell me more about the legalities of exposing the details of contract negotiations? I'll keep looking. --Thunderlippps (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC).

BTW: So is it not true, or unnecessarily confusing? Thunderlippps (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC).

How about a compromise? Technically O'Bannon and Shusett are credited as additional writers. That is true. Its difficult to find documentation on the details of why 1. because O'Bannon and Shusett dont do many interviews. I think O'Bannon only did the one above after AVP until he died. And 2. I dont know how legal it is for him to even discuss that. Especially since he eventually received residuals for the credit. So how about you keep the first paragraph the way you had it, and insert what is known about his involvement under the "Production/Origins" paragraph? Thunderlippps (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the story likely originates from Fangoria #239.

"Variety reports that Dan O?Bannon, who's been absent from the fright filmmaking scene for a while, has signed with new management at ICM and will be working in the video game world for the first time. No specific projects in that field have been announced yet for O?Bannon, who co-created ALIEN and directed RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD and THE RESURRECTED. His last credit—likely a provisional one—was a story acknowledgement on last summer?s ALIEN VS. PREDATOR. Look for a full update interview with O?Bannon in FANGORIA #239, on sale December 7." [5]

--Thunderlippps (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know plenty about the franchise. I own all the films & have watched all the special features, own & have read multiple books devoted to the franchise, was involved in advancing this article to FA, wrote/rewrote 95% of Alien (film) and advanced it to GA, and created WP:ALIEN. And no, I've never heard this "story". As for the "lawyerball" and the question of truth, I never said that this story isn't true, I said you need to directly verify it through reliable sources. The very first sentence of Wikipedia's verifiability policy reads "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." O'Bannon and Shusett are credited as writers on the film; that is easily verifiable simply from the credits. These other claims—that they had little to do with it, merely received credit due to legal obligations, etc.—require sources specifically verifying these details. If you want details of this nature to be included in the body sections, you need to find the proper sources from which to source that content.

For what it's worth, Beautiful Monsters lists the writing credits of the film as "Written by Paul W.S. Anderson, Dan O'Bannon and Ronald Shusett (story), and Shane Salerno (uncredited)" (p. 188) and describes that the temple in the film is drawn from O'Bannon and Shusett's early draft of Alien and the various production designs and paintings made of it (mostly by Ron Cobb) during early stages of Alien's production (p. 196). Further, it says that the Anderson's incorporation of the temple into the AVP script was "something Dan O'Bannon was apparently concerned about" (p. 199). --IllaZilla (talk) 08:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that you're a huge fan of the films and are quite knowledgeable about them. I just got flustered because it seemed that you were implying that I was imagining the whole thing. :) I've uploaded the relevant page from Fangoria here for your verification: ( http://www.megaupload.com/?d=HRPVXIDD ) I'm assuming that that will be good enough verification to include it somewhere in the body of the article, so I'm going to go ahead and rewrite what I wrote before to include this information. Once again, I'm not slick with the finer aspects of page editing so I'll just include the source in parenthesis and if you could format that correctly I'd appreciate it. Thunderlippps (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's very late where I am, & I'm headed out of town for a few days first thing in the morning & don't have a laptop, so I'll leave it to others to continue this topic for now & I'll revisit it in a few days when I return. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

What others? You mean the polisher guy. Apparently he only undoes things and agree's with you. There's no one to debate there. Thunderlippps (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Others who may be watching this talk page. This is a featured article that has appeared as the article of the day on the main page...it's bound to be on a few other editors' watchlists. And in fact Polisher of Cobwebs and I have disagreed on a number of occasions. Please respect the consensus-building cycle and stop making contested changes while there is an active discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats sounds perfectly reasonable to me! I'm very open to a third opinion. Although I'm still not sure why we shouldn't be able to work it out between you, the Alien authority on this site, and me and the evidence I've put forth much effort to offer you? Do you disagree with the reference? What do you disagree with?

I can upload the whole magazine, advertisements and all if there is any doubt regarding its sincerity. I didn't think that would be necessary! Fangoria is a staple and unsurpassed authority of the horror and sci-fi genre. Its could be considered the analog of a technical magazine, which are widely accepted to be the front edge of technology before a book can be published. Those are Dan O'Bannons own words! And thats one of the rare places that you'll find them! I consider myself lucky to have scared up a digital copy of something so precious, and as a fan of the series, I would expect you to be too! I dont want to get into an ego thing here, I just want Dans memory respected by putting the facts straight! Dan and Ronnie did not write that script any more then Alan Smithee is a real person! Its a credit! Wikipedia should be the place to read truths, not press releases! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderlippps (talk • contribs) 01:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm disapointed in you illazilla... I suspect this is all an ego trip for you! --Thunderlippps (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Please be civil and don't make personal attacks. Contrary to your assertion, other editors (myself and Polisher) have engaged you in discussion, and consensus is not a contest, you do not "win" in a civilized discussion. If you would like to gather more opinions, you can notify larger forums of the discussion such as by placing at note at WT:FILMS.

As to your above comments, the standard on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. O'Bannon and Shussett are credited as writers on the film, this is easily verifiable. Your claim, which is essentially that they really had nothing to do with it, is extraordinary in light of their having legal writing credit on the finished film. If there is more to the story, such as that their credit is a technicality due to their having written the original Alien (which would be curious, since Jim and John Thomas—who wrote the original Predator—are not credited, and neither are any of the authors of previous AVP stories such as comics or novels), that's fine and would be good content to add to the writing section, but you'd need sources that actually say this. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You're playing lawyerball again! Printed proof is quoted all over this website! I supplied you with the best copy available! That you're still fighting me and denying facts, says more about you not being so familiar with the alien franchise fans, as you are with your own ego trip! Thats truth! --Thunderlippps (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Both parties please have a drink of WP:LEMONADE. While the disputed material may not be sourced, it's very inappropiate to engage in an edit war, especially once it begins getting personal. Thunderlippps, i suggest you read some of the guidelines (WP:CIVIL, WP:EDITWAR) forbidding your actions. Content will not be re-added until a consensus is reached (not winning). RAP (talk) 22:44 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I may have confused the issue with another. RAP (talk) 23:04 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thunderlippps, I've solicited more opinions from WP:FILMS. I've also reported you for edit-warring and violations of the 3-revert rule. Yes, proof is required, and you have to cite your sources when making changes. You can't simply remove credited writers from the infobox and edit-war to get your way, even if you insist it's "the truth". This is completely unacceptable from someone with almost 6 years of Wikipedia experience, especially on a Featured Article. I'm not going to indulge your personal attacks or yelling anymore. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Third opinion – O'Bannon & Shusett are credited SAG writers so should definitely be included here as matter of course; if the article omits them then readers may be confused if they see them credited in the film—it would certainly be a notable omission by the article. If they are just credited writers that were not part of the writing process at any stage, then that should be covered in the article and put into context i.e. we need a source explaining that the writing credit is just a legal thing. However, the onus is on the editor challenging their status as credited writers. This is pretty clear-cut really, credited writers shouldn't be having their names just culled from the article. Betty Logan (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The established writing credits should stand whether or not O'Bannon and Shusett actually wrote anything for it. However, after reading the Jan 2005 (#239) issue of Fangoria, O'Bannon does go into detail in the interview about how he and Shusett's only connection to AVP was through their original ideas being plundered by the writers of AVP. This seems relevant enough to include in the article's "Origins" section...WITH the proper sourcing, of course!

BTW Thunderlipps, adhering to WP's policies is not "lawyerball". Claiming on your part that it is violates WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. You should watch that kind of thing in the future. Shirtwaist ☎ 00:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Third opinion - Articles on Wikipedia are built on reliable sources and a neutral point of view. What we as editors believe, theorize, infer, or interpret from sources fall under original research. That is something Wikipedia articles are supposed to avoid. As far as the issue of "Who wrote the film?", start with reliable sources. The credits attached to a film and its home media releases are considered reliable, even if primary. That information is supportable for inclusion. Inclusion of other writers, or statements that those credited did not contribute to the film, need to be supported by reliable secondary sources. The wording of that inclusion also has to reflect what the source states, nothing more, nothing less.
  With what's going on here, are there reliable sources that can be pointed to that the film credits include those that did not provide material for the film? If so, point to them. If you are unsure if a source is considered reliable by Wikipedia, still point to it. The community will, especially on actively patrolled or watched pages, review it and either accept the sources or point out how it fails Wikipedia's guidelines and consensus. But at this point a source or sources need to be presented before that material is re-added to the article. And even with that, the text is going to have to follow the sources - all of them - not an individual editor's interpretation of them.
  Last thoughts: Edit warring for a particular good faith version of the articles is not acceptable. Those types of disputes are why the talk pages exist - so that the contested changes can be hashed out without disrupting the article unduly. When using the talk pages, the discusion should be civil and focus on the content to be added or changed, not the motives other editors or the editors themselves. And implying that an editor's objection to a change is due to protecting there work over the best interests of having a balanced, properly sourced article is undermining the editor not commenting on the content of the article.
  - J Greb (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Predator 2 comparison

It's WP:SYN to take an IMDB FAQ for Predator 2 about "the significance of the antique pistol" and comment on a perceived similarity to this film. The IMDB FAQ says it "was created directly by users and has not been screened or verified by IMDb staff" so isn't a reliable source in any case, but it simply isn't saying anything about Alien vs. Predator. --McGeddon (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. But some other editor has just said that I do not have to provide any reference to Alien vs Predator, when talking about it on the Alien vs Predator page, because Wikipedia permits that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The last couple of paragraphs of MOS:PLOT are clear on this. We can use the work itself as a source for what happens, but we can't use the work itself for pointing out callbacks to other films because that's not part of the work, it's a one-level-up interpretation of the work. That kind of thing can be fine and useful content (like the Cornetto in Hot Fuzz, which is amply sourced to director interviews), but it belongs outside of the plot summary. The plot section is just for delivering the plot to the reader as a standalone capsule summary. --McGeddon (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Note for this talk page: I am the other editor the IP is talking about, and I stated, "See MOS:PLOT; sources are not typically required. When they are, they should be reliable. Yours are not. Stop WP:Edit warring." Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alien vs. Predator (film). 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b8a223ab8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)