Talk:Predator (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copyvio

I suspect the newly added texts are copyright violation, but I couldn't find an original copy from Google. --Lorenzarius 18:34, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted the article to a previous version (unrelated to the possible copyright violation mentioned above) as all Wiki markup was removed in the last update. However, the article's history didn't work properly (presumably) because of that, so I was unable to check if any information was lost... Anym 22:46, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Links

Why do the bottom links all have to do with Alien and not Predator? This should be edited. Mkilly 08:10, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Plot synopsis

Could someone make the plot synopsis a little less run-on, and more coherent? Also, decide whether it should all be present tense or past tense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihavenolife (talk • contribs) 02:21, 14 September 2004 (UTC)

In fact, use the same format as Alien vs. Predator (movie). Act I- Humans arrive to fulfill mission. Act II- Predator kills all humans except for one. Act III- Last human faces off with the Predator. Then, go through individual scenes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihavenolife (talk • contribs) 02:28, 14 September 2004 (UTC)

movie

the film has three acts --Grazon 04:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Mercenaries

Schwarzenager and crew were mercenaries, not US special forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.79.52 (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Dutch makes multiple references to this in the film with comments like "We're a rescue team, not assassins" and later at the compound with "my men are not expendable, and i don't do this kind of work." - WildCard600 March 17 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.157.110.153 (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Predator Series

Is there a predator series template thing like the alien one at the bottom? It would make sense to have both or none really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragzouken (talk • contribs) 15:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

More than one tagline getting fused.

Can U believe it? The movie "Predator" has two taglines that are part of two other taglines. That's just overworking perfectly good taglines. -Alakazam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alakazam (talk • contribs) 04:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comics

Dark Horse Comics have Predator comics [1] (as well as the Alien vs Predator ones) and I was adding in the details to the entry for one of the writers, Ian Edginton, and noticed there wasn't an entry for them so I thought I'd flag the need for one and hopefully someone with a better knowledge of the series could get the entry going. --(Emperor 17:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

Mask

The predator=beowulf section states that Arnold pries off the alien`s mask. If I recall correctly, the predator removes the mask by itself as Arnold watches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.62.96.118 (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong credit given for actor who played the predator.

Someone had incorrectly stated that a "Danielle Symmons" played the Predator. According to IMDb, it was in fact the late Kevin Peter Hall who played the part in Predator I and II.
IMDb page for Mr. Hall: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001310/
IMDb page for Predator I: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093773/
IMDb page for Predator II: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100403/

In fact, not only is there no Danielle Symmons listed anywhere in the credits (nor any similarly spelled name), IMDb has no listing whatsoever for this person.
IMDb name search for Danielle Symmons:
http://www.imdb.com/find?s=nm&q=Danielle+Symmons

I've corrected the error, ensured there is a link for Mr. Hall's Wikipedia page and removed the following from the Trivia section:

"One of them being the actual actor behind the predator creature itself, one Danielle Symmons who provided her own hair for the predator model." (wtf?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.16.158 (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Its most likely someone putting their friend's name on there or something dumb.--Tenric 17:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV violation??

the second paragraph seems a fanboy-ish, i feel. "The movie blends effectively the '80s hard action movie genre with a healthy dose of sci-fi horror. Energetic and manly, the movie was successful enough (earning $60 million in the United States alone) to generate a sequel, Predator 2, in 1990." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macca7174 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just started rereading the Seamus Heaney Beowulf, but I think there is a problem in the Predator Beowulf section. The Predator removes its mask and shoulder cannon as a gesture of respect, opting to show Ductch its true face and and battle him in a more honorable manner. This is not annalagous to a decapitation in Beowulf. If there are no objections in a week or so, once I've finished rereading Beowulf, I'll strike that passage. --Nkuzmik 16:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Boewulf section

All very interesting, but without any citation, this is just speculation and WP:OR. Could someone please provide a reference or citation to where this is adequately documented externally, so the section can be peared down: otherwise it would have to be removed. -- Jon Dowland 12:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a citation, but the literary comparisons seem fairly accurate, with the exception of the removal of the helmet as analogous to removing the monster's head. In the first movie the creature removed its mask and ranged weapons in favor of battling Dutch "bare handed."

One could argue the Beowulf allusions continue in the second movie. Line 1520 of the Heany translation talks about Beowulf's sword not harming Grendel's mother when he struck her on the skull. This echos Lambert's ineffective head-shots on the train. Michael Harrigan's use of the Predator's smart disk is achtypically similar to Beowulf using a sword found in Grendel's mother's lair to slay her. In both cases the hero takes a weapon from the monster and uses said weapon to vanquish the monster. There is also a slight parralell to the "disarming" of Grendel.

Michael Harrigan does remove the Predator's mask, but in an attempt to insure that the creature is dead, not as a means of killing it. So I would say this is an inaccurate comparison. --Nkuzmik 03:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read beowulf a couple of times and have never, ever thought that the films were in anyway like Beowulf. Unless there's some scholarly article comparing the two, then its pretty much speculation. --Tenric 17:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Read a lot about Beowulf recently and agree perfectly with Tenric. The connection between Beowulf and the Predator story is way too vague for a wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.217.90 (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I found this, http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/beowulfbooklet.htm

The reference to Predator is brief but explicit. It also may be related to a deeper analysis.

I also found this; associatedcontent.com/article/35096/a_comparison_of_sciencefiction_predator.html

I'm quick to cite this source. It feels like a very superficial treatment of both texts. --Nkuzmik 23:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The existing article's point by point comparison's between the poem and the movie aren't bad, I might have gone a different way, but I've checked around and can find nothing on the 'net beyond the page I mentioned in my comment from October of '06 from rochester.edu. The author of the Beowulf Booklet is rather sparse on the comparisons. That said, I'm going to pare down the information on the main page to remove the author's original work. Should the aforementioned author read this comment: I am not criticizing you or your work. I would love to go into more detail but Wiki is not the forum for that. --Nkuzmik 18:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

I'm removing this:

"Some speculate the Elite from the game Halo took their design from the Predator in that they both have plasma weapons, armor cloaking, a warrior tradition, four mandibles and melee weapons. In addition, they both have a war cry and both are stronger faster and tougher than most humans, and both are bipedal"

This is 100% speculation with no sources given. The two alien types are really only similar because they have mandibles. They are completely different in looks, behavior, etc. Plasma weapons? So what? They fight with hand held pistols and rifles, they don't have blade wrists, nets, discs, etc. They have laser swords and that's about it. The elites fight enmass as a standing army, they don't hunt their victims and collect trophies. The only point that I can give is on the cloaking aspect and even that's a stretch. --Tenric 18:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Even though I think Trivia sections are the bane of Wikipedia's existence, I feel that it is actually noteworthy to mention in this article that Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger both went on to become United States governors. If there is some way to incorporate this into the article I would recommend it. Normally I would be against such a thing, but this is a very unique distinction for a film. Could just be me, feel free to call that arbitrary.--98.30.69.192 (talk) 09:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that two future governors acted in this movie is interesting, but it's not appropriate for this article because it has nothing to do with the film, nor does it give the wikipedia readers any further understanding of the film itself. Had the film been used as part of both of their campaigns then it would be a different story. Since the information is interesting, yet inappropriate for this specific article, I suggest adding it to Jesse and Arnold's article pages. They should have a filmography section and most filmographies have a notes section next to each film listed. That would be a good area to insert this information. An example would be:

Film	Year	Notes
Predator	1987	co-starred with fellow future politician *insert name*

RyanGFilm (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it not unique to this film that it is the first to feature two future state governors as leading actors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.2.69 (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Predator links

Every use of the "Predator" noun includes a link to the Predator's article. I believe this is unnecessary and does not follow standard procedure. The link is only necessary for the initial mention of the Predator. If there are no objections in a week, I'll remove the additional links. Mcr29 00:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I vote to leave the first example of the name in a given section as a link. It seems like a decent compromize

Nkuzmik 02:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone might jump to a specific section and it would then be a pain scrolling back up to find the first mention on the page - it works well as a compromise. (Emperor 02:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC))

High Importance

How is this article rated as high importance? Please explain your reasoning. Mcr29 17:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mandibles

The part about Jean Claude overheating in the suit and about John Cameron coming up with the idea of the mandibles was mentioned in a documentary on the making of the movie. Unfortunatly I don't remember the name of it, but I believe it was show on Starz before the movie itself. Sorry I can't be more helpful. - Deltawolf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltawolf (talk • contribs) 17:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned in David A. McIntee's book so I can dig out the page numbers if required. That said it is mentioned in the main entry on the Predator [2] and it should probably stay over there which would keep the trivia section here tight. Possibly expand it and make it more an entry on the production? (Emperor 18:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC))

Excessive plot section?

I think the plot section is too long and detailed. It has over 1400 words (while plot summaries should have no more than 900 words), and most of the information doesn't seem very important to the plot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pigslookfunny (talk • contribs) 23:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. It needs to be trimmed down a bit. -- Grandpafootsoldier 19:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A separate Dutch entry?

Alan "Dutch" Schaefer, is it needed? He hasn't appeared outside the film so the entry will largely replicate this entry. Thoughts? (Emperor 14:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Japanese dub actors

Two Japanese dubs of Predator currently exist, with the television-aired version starring Tesshō Genda being the more recent. This version is also on the Japanese DVD.

Character	English actor	Japanese voice actor (Yūsaku Yara version)	Japanese voice actor (Tesshō Genda version)
Dutch	Arnold Schwarzenegger	Yūsaku Yara	Tesshō Genda
Dillon	Carl Weathers	Kenji Utsumi	Takayuki Sugō
Anna	Elpidia Carrillo	Masako Katsuki	Tomoko Shiota
Mac	Bill Duke	Mugihito	Mugihito
Billy	Sonny Landham	Shōzō Iizuka	Ryūzaburō Ōtomo
Poncho	Richard Chaves	Ken Yamaguchi	Hōchū Ōtsuka
Hawkings	Shane Black	Masashi Ebara	Kazuo Kamiya
Blain	Jesse Ventura	Banjō Ginga	Takeshi Aono

Cat's Tuxedo 05:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

US Special Forces

IIRC Dutch and his team were not actually members of a US military unit, rather they were vets who had left the service and teamed up to act as a "for hire" unit specializing in K&R rescue work. CIA agent Dillon (Weathers) hired the team under the false pretense of doing a rescue job, but the real purpose was to just wipe out all the guerillas, the Agency knew there were no living hostages to retrieve. Anyone confirm this? Ellsworth 20:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

US Green Beret

I think its true they were a special force unit and they belong to the 10th special force group in which their area of operation is europe and every thing related to the soviet union as they talked about their previos operations in Berlin and Afghanistan and the reason they refused to join libya mission was it isnt there area of operation ( 3rd or 5th special force group ) . Hopper was from the 7th special force group at Fort Bragg responsible for central and south america . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Mayer (talk • contribs) 05:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Minigun

The uncited statement about the mingun in the trivia section is true, I don't know how to cite sources, but here it is, about 3/4 down the page. http://www.world.guns.ru/machine/minigun-e.htm PowderedToastMan 22:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Stuntman death

Wasn't this the film a stuntman was killed doing the waterfall dive or something like that? Can't find it mentioned at IMDB, but I'm 90% certain this the film shot in Mexico during this time period that had a stunt death. SteveCoppock (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The director states in the commentary the the Arnold's stunt actor put his knee out, in the fall, but that's it. Maybe you mean the guy who died while making Topgun? The only thing to die in Predator is the scorpion that Mac crushes. Anyone know why the stunt actor has a cloud of smoke coming from him in the fall?LordJesseD (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

Extra props to whoever made "Get to da choppa" redirect to this page! Good work guys - almost useless, but helped me remember which arnie film it was from!Caseykcole (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mercenaries or Special Forces?

In predator 2 special agent Keyes told Lt. Hurrigan :10 years ago a creature like this took out an elite special force unit , there were 2 survivors .....etc refering to Dutch unit ...so it was a special force unit not a mercenary unit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Max Mayer (talk • contribs) 05:33, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

The trap that Dutch sets... SPOILER MATERIAL

Changed a little of the text about how Dutch kills the predator: originally, the trap was supposed to loop around the pred's neck or body & pull it up into the spikes Dutch was seen planting earlier. The pred finds them near the end of the fight & goes around them. Dutch notices that its right under the counterweight & drops it on it. SMOOSH! Dutch: 1, Predator: zip. Tommyt (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The Unit in the movie

Its unlikely that the unit was mercenary unit as Major Dutch is obviously still in the military and what proves that after they destroyed the rebel camp he obey orders and become under Dilon charge.Im saying if they are not Green beret so they most be from delta force ( one of the most notable rules of Delta Force is saving hostages ) what proves this Dilon talk to Dutch as he said we need the best thats why you are here , also we can here the helicopter pilot addressing Major Dutch By Delta 5. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Max Mayer (talk • contribs) 11:29:14, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

I agree, the unit is definitely Delta Force. At one point Dutch recognizes the skinned men as, "Green Berets out of Ft. Bragg," where 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta is also based. The Green Berets stationed at Ft. Bragg are the 7th Special Forces Group, who are responsible for the South and Central American theatre. I added that link to the article.

Sorry, that's original research: you're making your own assumptions & conclusions based on a single tidbit of dialogue and your own knowledge of real-world military units. This is fiction, it doesn't necessarily correspond to real-world units. The specific name of the unit is not mentioned anywhere in the film, so we leave the description generic. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It IS known that the group is Delta Force because the helicopter pilot refers to him as Delta 5. Also, there is no way that Dillon can be from anything but the Special Operations Group because that's the only group that conducts paramilitary ops in the CIA. These are no more assumptions than that it's a "special task force." The dialogue specifically states "CIA" and "Delta 5" which identify both specifically. Just because the layperson doesn't recognize the language doesn't erase that dialogue and the intent of the writers (shown through the inclusion of those terms).

Beyond that, saying that the Green Berets were 7th Special Forces Group is not original research because they couldn't be anything else. If they're Green Berets and it's South America, it's self evident that they are 7th SFG. It's just more specific information emanating from deductive logic, not original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.16.194 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, keep in mind that this is a work of fiction and does not have to correspond to real-world military nomenclature. Original research encompasses "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources", and that's what you're doing: analysing certain elements of the plot and then imposing real-world criteria on them in order to advance the position that "they are Delta Force". They never say the words "Delta Force" or "Special Activities Division" in the film, the characters never identify as either one, and none of the real-world information in the article about the writing and production says that the writers intended for them to be DF/SAD. If you can find a reliable source saying that that's what the writers intended them to be, then fine, case closed. But we don't have any such source at the moment, and it's inappropriate for us to be applying specific real-world criteria to elements of a work of fiction. This is a film set in a fictional country, for pete's sake, in which an invisible alien from outer space with laser weapons attacks a bunch of bodybuilding badass commandos. It's clearly not based in reality, and thus there's no need for us to make it conform to real-world military designations that are not specifically mentioned in the film or any of its supporting materials. This reminds me a lot of the problem we had at Aliens (film), where a couple of anonymous editors kept insisting on applying current US military rank designations to a bunch of fictional space marines in the distant future, designations that were never mentioned in the film itself. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I concede all of your points, save for the fact that Dutch is referred to as Delta 5, which specifically places him within a certain branch and unit of the US military-- fictional or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.16.194 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately call signs don't work that way. Folks from Delta don't ever refer to themselves that way over the radio and in fact would negate the purpose of using a call sign. The character of Dutch also very clearly says that his unit is for search and rescue and not strictyly for combat. Hardly in keeping with the mission of the guys behind the fence. Since there is no positive evidence whatsoever what unit these guys are from, the most you can say at all is that Dutch is an Army Major. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.142.249 (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a call sign. When a DOD/JSOC task force is created, the "6" of the group is the Director: in this case, Dillon, from the CIA's Special Operations Group. The 5 is the Deputy Director: in this case, Dutch. The rest of the team is Dutch's Delta detachment team, thus the Delta designation. Special Operations Group often works in joint task force teams with Delta Force; it's talked about in Dalton Fury's Kill Bin Laden book. The only other place on Wikipedia that I can find mention of the numerical assignment system is on the Rainbow Six page under Members. I realize this is all original research, though, and can't be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.16.194 (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

From reading all of the above discussions and having seen the film many times myself, I feel that the specific unit that Dutch's team are from was never intended to be clear in the first place. From the initial meeting with Dillon and General Phillips, and being asked 'why Dutch passed on Libya?' it seems clear the team have the option of picking and choosing their missions which in itself is unorthodox and not typical of Special Forces command and control. When the bodies of Jim Hopper and his team are found, I feel that Dutch refers to them as 'Green Berets' in such a way as to suggest that his team is not. This may allow that particular unit to be crossed off the list. The reference to Dutch's call sign of 'Delta 5' could suggest a Delta Force attachment, but could also just simply be radio code - Delta is also 'D' in the phonetic alphabet, making a call sign of 'Alpha 5' or 'Bravo 5' as likely. Yes, the numbers 6 and 5 can refer to Directors or Deputy Directors respectively, but again this is still conjecture and not conclusive. As previously mentioned in the comments above, the film is a work of fiction, however, unlike the military personnel in the film Aliens, Predator's protagonists are intended to fit into a real world scenario - 20th Century, Central America, U.S. forces etc. This amalgamation of the real world and science fiction ultimately negates the need to accurately catagorise Dutch's team, perhaps they are to be regarded as a team that is as independent and mysterious as the creature they're up against.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.227.210 (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

When in the movie does Dutch get called "Delta 5"? I just went through all of the movie's helicopter scenes but did not hear it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.193.114 (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Rastafarian dreadlocks?

"Hall reportedly refused to trim his lengthy dreadlocks, infuriating director John McTiernan" -- there's film of him on the DVD during filming with no dreadlocks either before or after the shoot (there's a still from Harry and the Hendersons, too) and the reference doesn't seem to say that. I'll look about but the comment seems innacurate. AxS (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The comment is 100% inaccurate. I have the special edition DVD which has a Behind the Scenes documentary showing the Predator actor, Kevin Peter Hall, getting in and out of costume and also giving interviews out of costume and he did not have dreadlocks of any kind. The documentary also shows Stan Winston's sketches for the Predator that he made without having met Kevin Peter Hall and they all include dreadlocks.RyanGFilm (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Plot

Why was my plot revision changed? Was it too spoiler-y? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.138.115 (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean this revision? Where you took the entire plot section of Road House and slapped it in the middle of this article's plot section? Gee, I wonder why I reverted it... maybe because it's a completely different film with no connection to Predator. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Two Governors

I have given up on putting it into the article itself, since evidently "it has nothing to do with the film"; but maybe the remarkable fact about this movie that the featured cast includes two future governors – Arnold Schwarzenegger (of California) and Jesse Ventura (of Minnesota) – can stay in the Discussion section. Shocking Blue (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not to retain "remarkable facts" that have been deemed unsuitable for the article itself. It's not a forum for general discussion either. While it's an interesting bit of trivia, Arny and Jesse's future governorships are entirely coincidental to the film and have nothing to do with the film or with each other. Their respective governorships are unrelated to and did not coincide, and did not result from or have anything to do with their roles in this film. It's not like they met on the set of Predator and said to each other "let's become state governors someday"; both men's political careers occurred independent of one other. They could both have gone on to become pastry chefs, and it would have nothing to do with this film either. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of the way that Wikipedia works is that it is a collaborative effort among its contributors; what is "deemed unsuitable for the article itself" today might not be the case later on. I also note that dozens if not hundreds of similar articles have "Trivia" sections in them; while they are being weeded out, most of the information in them is of interest to a lot of people and would probably be retained in some manner in the articles. Whether or not Arny and Jesse had met before and whether or not they discussed their own political future is something that I doubt either of us could really know for sure; Arnold had certainly made his interests in politics known long before this. Some couples have fallen in love and later married while making a film – Courteney Cox and David Arquette, and Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis, for instance – and those incidents (at least so far) aren't mentioned in the articles on Scream and The Fly (respectively) either. But those marriages definitely have something to do with the film IMHO. I am not trying to make a big deal out of this, really; I guess I just wonder where some of these "rules" come from. Shocking Blue (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is a matter of flow. Articles can sometimes reference each other, and sometimes it is a one-way street. The factoid does not belong here because it is not pertinent to the topic. The fact that they both starred in the same film and later became political figures is happenstance. If there is a topic or a passage on Wikipedia that discusses entertainment figures becoming political figures, then such information could be mentioned in passing. "Actors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura, who appeared together in Predator, later became U.S. governors." Erik (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Van Damme Allegation

Please provide the page number and paragraph in Ventura's book "I Ain't Got Time to Bleed" where it is alleged that Van Damme intentionally injured a stuntman. I only see 2 paragraphs on page 126 that mention Van Damme and there's nothing about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.169.114 (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's sourced somewhere else in the book. ~~ The Quote Buff ^talk 09:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Legacy

Can the film's legacy in pop culture be included? As the line "get to the chopper" has become a meme and has made it's rounds on shows like X-Play and Family Guy, and the handshake between Weathers and Schwarzenegger is making it's rounds as the "Predator Handshake". Sarujo (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

and trivial. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Delta 5

Can someone indicate where it is that Dutch is refered to as Delta 5? I've watched the film a few times and I could simply be missing it.

For that matter, where are the members full names taken from? Could this all be from a novelization which is not mentioned? --RedKnight (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Critical Response

IMO, Ebert's 2 criticisms about the plot (20) say more about his complete lack of masculinity than anything, and simply represent POV of non-males. They should be removed. 72.174.55.164 (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No. Ebert is a renowned film critic, one of the most recognizeable names in the field, and his opinions are as valid as any other critic's. We're not going to remove them just because you don't agree with them. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ebert's two criticisms are invalid, anyway. They make no sense. "Why would an alien species go to all the effort to go to Earth to swing from trees and skin American soldiers?" Um, because they can, and who said there's any effort involved? Starship travel may be as easy for the Predator as it is for us to cross the street. And number two: "Why would it bother with arm-to-arm combat and not just zap Arnie?" This is answered in the movie: the Predator respects the rules of sport. When Arnie chooses not to use his gun, the Predator complies and chooses arm-to-arm to keep it fair. Methinks Mr Ebert didn't quite pay attention to the flick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.32.78 (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Your opinions on Ebert's criticisms are irrelevant. As a renowned expert in the field of film criticism, his critiques of the plot are valid. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, just so you know: criticisms are personal opinions. Contrary to his expertise in America alone (he is unknown here in Australia), his criticisms actually bear no weight over anyone else's. In other words, what he says, isn't gospel. That's all I have to say. But you can keep worshipping him if you like. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.32.78 (talk) 04:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, criticisms are opinions, but there is a difference between the published critical opinion of a professional film critic—especially one with a 45 year-long career, whose reviews are syndicated to over 200 newspapers around the world, who has published over a dozen volumes of professional reviews, who has been the host of five television programs devoted to film criticism, and who has won the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism—and the opinion of an anonymous person on the internet. This is what makes Ebert a reliable source and you not. It doesn't matter where you live; If you don't know who Roger Ebert is, then you clearly don't know much about film criticism. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Val Verde? Cite what sources?

Is there even a citation for Val Verde?

Where in the film does it mention this? I read the novelization, "... He leaned close to the map where it trailed through the Guatemalan highlands near the mouth of the Usamacinta (sic to Usumacinta River), circling as set of coordinates in the pale green along the Conta Manta border. ..." It states to their initial arrival in the first paragraph of Chapter 1, "... along the Pacific rim of the Conta Mana coast. The beach and shallow harbor at Balancan, ..." Ncsr11 (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Contents of the various DVD releases?

I came here hoping to learn whether any of the Predator DVD releases contained additional footage not in the theatrical release, either as a "director's cut" or as deleted scenes. Elsewhere, I read that there have been a "Special Edition," a "Blu-ray Edition" and an "Ultimate Hunter Edition." The article would benefit by adding a description of how the DVDs differ from each other and from the original. SEppley (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Without Warning

Apparently, based on another film called Without Warning. An AV Club article on Without Warning itself mentions serveral sources. This should probably be added to the Production section. -- 109.76.169.9 (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Laughing

The Predator is not actually laughing. He's playing a recording of Billy's laugh. 70.39.176.44 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Location in plot

The plot currently reads "unnamed country", but this seems confusing, so I added Latin America because its apparantly set in a border between Central and Southern America. Yeah its not great, but apparantly it used to say "Val Verde", a fictional location used a lot in these films. I think no one could find a source so it was removed, but I found this from the Val Verde article and was wondering if we could use it to retcon or not:

"According to the novelization of the 1987 film Predator, Alan "Dutch" Schaeffer's (Arnold Schwarzenegger) rescue team is sent to Val Verde ostensibly to rescue an American politician. However, in Predators (2010), Isabelle (Alice Braga) states that the events of the original film took place in Guatemala"

Either of those two I guess is applicable if we choose to retcon, but which has more authority?

--JTBX (talk) 09:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I changed it just now to Central America as thats what everything hints at and what the article says.--JTBX (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I popped in Predator 2, the part where Gary Busey's character is explaining the Predator to Danny Glover's. He says: "Ten years ago, one of his kind stalked and eliminated an elite Special Forces crew in Central America." I agree that, though a specific location is never mentioned in Predator, it's clearly meant to be Central or South America. And with Predator 2 explicitly saying Central America and Predators explicitly saying Guatemala (which is in Central America), I think saying "Central America" is just fine. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--JTBX (talk) 08:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Internal evidence from the film itself identifies Central America. After the attack on the guerrilla base, Dutch inquires of Mac for any sign of the remaining hostage, to which Mac replies, "Found the other guy [...] but if they're Central American, I'm a <expletive> Chinaman." Tachypaidia (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Correctness of quotations in Spanish language

This quotation in Spanish language, extracted from the following passage in the Plot section, is in the need of attention:

An ensuing firefight fails to draw out the creature, so the unit regroups and questions Anna, learning that their stalker is an unknown creature locals call "El cazador trofeo de los hombres", meaning "The hunter who makes trophies of men."

Whoever edited this passage faithfully replicated an erroneous version of this dialogue that can be found in all the most prominent online databases of information related to films and television programs. Spanish is not my native language, but as anyone who has a smattering in Spanish language could easily confirm, this sentence, "El cazador trofeo de los hombres", is syntactically incorrect as it lacks both part of subject and the verbal predicate. In the original dialogue, Anna refers to the alien antagonist as "El Diablo cazador de hombres", and then again as "El que hace trofeos de los hombres". The latter literally means "He who makes trophies of men", but is mistranslated by Anna herself in the movie as "The demon who makes trophies of men". The incorrect phrase that is ubiquitously disseminated on the Internet probably originates from the early dialogue as it was presented in the script for the movie when it was originally titled Hunter, a copy of which is available at imsdb.com. Could anyone make amend as they deem appropriate? 82.60.69.253 (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Alan Schaeffer?

Where is Dutch's real name given? I'm fairly sure he's only referred to as "Dutch" in the movie. 93.138.182.21 (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The novelisation gives his real name, and it has been reused in several other pieces of merchandise.--Leigh Burne (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the article should use more than is presented in the movie. If his name is expanded upon in other material, it should be mentioned using a footnote rather than simply absorbed into the text as if it were in the film. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Can a WP movie or book summary include made up data?

My question is - how accurate should a movie summary on Wikipedia be and are we allowed to make up or invent data to make a plot easier to explain? The first sentence of the summary was:

An alien spacecraft enters the Earth's atmosphere and jettisons a pod, which descends and lands somewhere in Central America.

The specific inaccuracies are:

1. The alien spacecraft never "enters" Earth's atmosphere. It's shown passing by in space.
2. A "pod" is never shown in the movie. All we see is a white colored spot of light that enters the atmosphere and glows orange for two seconds before fading to blackness.
3. While a "landing" is implied as we later have an alien on Earth it's never shown nor do we know where it landed. My personal first impression was that the landing had been in the ocean as that's what's shown in the scene immediately after whatever it is was is jettisoned and descends into the atmosphere. The alien is shown walking across the bottom of a river and so it probably can walk on the bottom of the ocean. The movie never shows an alien base or home.

Next we have:

Some time later, Major Alan "Dutch" Schaefer (Arnold Schwarzenegger) arrives in Guatemala with his elite team for an operation to rescue a presidential cabinet minister and his aide who were abducted by guerrilla forces in Val Verde.

1. Guatemala is never mentioned in the movie.
2. "Val Verde" is never mentioned in the movie. The only explicit geographic hint we get is at one point a map is shown and one thing that's visible to the viewer is "das Mangabeiras" which is probably Chapada das Mangabeiras in central Brasil. However, the natives shown in the movie speak Spanish and not Portuguese meaning that "das Mangabeiras" must not be the one in Brasil. There are implied geographic hints such as the jungle setting and the Spanish speaking "guerrillas."

Those first two sentences make the summary easier to understand simply as they invented a frame of reference for the reader. The movie viewer never gets that frame of reference. Note that after the initial sentences the summary appears to be accurate. Is it WP:OR to invent a frame a reference for an article about a fictional topic? --Marc Kupper|talk 16:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought about this for a bit came up with wording that removes the WP:OR elements that had been included in the plot summary.

There's still one part that I'm on the fence about which is "Realizing the creature only attacks those possessing weapons, a wounded Dutch sends Anna unarmed to the extraction point." I'll need to re-watch that part of the movie as I had not realized then that Dutch had decided that the creature only attacks those possessing weapons. From what I recall, they are running through the jungle to both escape the alien and towards the extraction point. They are shot at with Dutch being wounded. Dutch yells at Anna to continue on her own to the extraction point and he crawls back to apparently make a last ditch stand that would hopefully slow down the alien enough that Anna can escape. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you about the location: that should be derived from the film, but if a location isn't given on-screen then at least "Central America" or "South America" (which is, very clearly, the part of the world where the film is set) should be mentioned to provide frame of reference.

I disagree on the bit about the alien spacecraft. Well, partly anyway: You're right that it doesn't enter the atmosphere, but to suggest that we can't say a landing craft is released or that it lands where the film is set (which is clearly the intent) is taking NOR to extremes beyond the bounds of common sense. Of course the Predator lands in Central/South America, otherwise it wouldn't be where the rest of the film's characters are. I don't know where you're getting the impression that it walks on the bottom of the ocean...I don't recall anything of the sort from the film, other than it coming up out of a river after having fallen over a waterfall.

I do think we can rewrite these parts of the summary. I've never been happy with the "Val Verde" bit since I don't recall that fictional country ever being mentioned in the film. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree - it's set somewhere in central or south America. The movie was probably filmed during the Iran–Contra affair and came out while it was still in the public attention meaning it's quite likely most people assumed the setting was Central America.

At this instant I can't think of clean wording that does not sound as lame as "the movie appears to have been set in Central or South America."

How about, "The movie is set in the border region between two unnamed South or Central American countries"?

I'm really not comfortable with saying where the thing landed and would rather the plot summary be as open-ended as the movie.

I was happy to see that the original summary says "Some time later" as the events could have been hours or centuries later. Later in the movie a "local legend" is mentioned that the deaths are only in very hot years. Either this creature had been around for many years or there has been hunting by that type of creature for many years.

In fact, my first impression of the helicopter coming in and all of that "military" activity was that the approach and/or landing of the alien had been spotted and this was the reaction. Later we the viewer realize that the alien's arrival was not known to anyone in the movie and are given a hint that something has been going on for years. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added a footnote that explains the location. I'm fine with the map showing it's in Brasil but am not happy with the unsourced guess that it's in south or central America. That part violates Show, don't tell which is touched upon at MOS:NOTED. BTW, on that Brasil map this blog has screen shots of the maps. I did not mention it in the note but the boundary between the RECIFE and BELEM Flight information regions is clearly noted on the map. You can see a PDF with the FIR regions for that area here.

We needn't hesitate on identifying the drop zone in the prop map; it can be seen clearly from the blog post cited above [3]. Landmarks reference are unneeded as the coordinates are clearly visible. The drop zone is dead center (as much as possible with a hand-drawn felt marker) in the quadrant with its northwest corner at 10°S, 45°W. This puts the marked drop zone precisely at 10°30'S; 44°30'W. We shouldn't take this map's dead-center marking too exactly, though, as General Phillips informs us that he has a "transponder fix on the position about here." Tachypaidia (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Although the coordinates are clearly visible, I did not mean to imply that the landmarks are inconsistent--they are right on. Visible is the town of Barra (100 miles to the SE) and Parnagua Lake (19 miles to the NE); and of course, the Chapada das Mangabeiras mountain range looms large in presence and print, with the appropriate map elevations. Curiously, 10 miles to the SE is the Guatambu Airstrip (a happy naming resemblance to Guatamala).Tachypaidia (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I re-watched the part about the "creature only attacks those possessing weapons" and decided to leave that in the WP article. It's one of those implied things. Poncho got shot and dropped his weapon. Anna reached for it. Dutch said "no!" and when Anna continued with picking it up to shoot the creature Dutch kicked it out of her hands and told her to run.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc Kupper (talk • contribs) 03:50, 9 September 2012‎

On the other hand, Anna was a captured enemy prisoner, and under normal circumstances one would not trust a prisoner with a firearm. Also, Dutch might simply have believed she would be more likely to die if she fought the alien or ran while carrying a rifle than if she ran away unencumbered. (However, when I watch the movie the interpretation that came to my mind is the same as Marc's: that Dutch had guessed the alien only attacked armed people--who had a sporting chance--and was trying to save Anna.) SEppley (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Belated followup on the Anna-question in this thread. Arnold says "He didn't attack you because you weren't armed... No sport." to her. Dutch defininately sent her unarmed on purpose. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Review from Susan Faludi

Special:Contributions/2600:1702:10:4290::/64 has been repeatedly blanking a review from Susan Faludi, described in her Wikipedia article as a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. The author is notable, and the publisher is reliable. It seems to me that this is POV-pushing to keep the views of Faludi out of the article simply because the IP editor dislikes them (calling them "extremely false and biased"). It seems to me that there's a consensus to keep the review in the article. Does anyone have a policy-based reason to remove this? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Goes without saying that the quote belongs in the article. Popcornduff (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Dutch and Dillon's past

I recently removed some phrases implying that Dutch and Dillon were in Vietnam because I believed the film did not support this. Dillon does say at the 9:00 mark while in the chopper, "I was in '72, north of Huế. Me and Dutch both got one." while holding an Airborne zippo lighter. This dialogue is not in the script, which just says "Dillon seems comfortable with the men, showing Ramirez a battered CIGARETTE LIGHTER from a famed commando unit from the past." Those statements could be reinserted. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I readded them. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Not Delta Force

I removed the bit about Dutch and his men being Delta Force. They are not US military in the film; the novel makes it clear they are in fact private military contractors occasionally employed by the US army. Hints of this remain in the film, most obviously the fact that Dutch and his team apparently have the option to pick and choose operations at will, which serving personnel would never be able to do - if they were enlisted, they would simply have to follow orders regardless of whether they wanted to or not. This alone proves they aren't military personnel, special forces or otherwise.--Leigh Burne (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a very good point. They are operating by choice rather than orders. The only evidence that suggested they were military is Dutch's rank of "Major" but he would still be called that in this scenario even if he retired. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a related follow-up: they are not Special Forces either as the article said prior to my recent cleanup. The skinned men hanging inside the helicopter were Special Forces (because called "Green Berets" in the film) but the film gave no evidence that Dutch and his team are Special Forces. They might have been and it would make sense but there is no evidence for it. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Predator 2 established that Dutch's team were active Special Forces personnel though, so this is conflicting information. Let's not even forget the fact that Dutch referred to Mac by his military rank at one point. Dibol (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Does a single, possibly erroneous line of dialogue in a sequel really overrule something that is abundantly clear in the first movie?

Not to mention all Keyes actually says is that they were "an elite special forces crew", which is fairly vague and open to interpretation. Likewise, the referring to each other by rank could merely be honorific, or simply an indication that Dutch retained everybody's military ranks for leadership purposes.--Leigh Burne (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I was unaware that Predator 2 said they were Special Forces. Is the exact scene on Youtube? Since Dutch's team is clearly not active military, calling them Special Forces even if they once were is questionable or misleading at best and simply wrong at worst. So I think is is obvious we should avoid labeling them as such here. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Not (active) Special Forces either

It is clear they are a paramilitary group, not a military one. Dutch is Army Airborne but the film nor script do not establish him as Special Forces. He might have been but maybe not too. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)