Talk:Predators (film)

Noland's Motivations

The plot description currently states that Noland attempts to kill the other characters after deciding that he could not support them. My impression after watching the film was that his actions in the film were actually common for him, i.e. he often tracks the people dropped onto the planet, acts friendly to them, brings them to his camp, and then kills them for their weapons/supplies. He stated that he survives by scavenging what he can, and the container he locked the other characters characters in seemed tailor-made to be a death trap. I suppose it could be debatable, however, because he did seem to argue with his imaginary friend about the wisdom of trying to kill the other characters —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.21.138 (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I watched the film having avoided seeing/ reading any spoilers and that's how I saw it also; I think the fact that someone (was it Royce?) mentioned the fact that Noland is a scavenger, after the fire had been started, points us in that direction. 86.129.4.198 (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Al

Preceeded By

Should this film not be preceeded by Predator 2 and not AvP:R? The AvP films are a seperate spin-off franchise. Predator, Predator 2 and Predators are all part of the same series, independent from AvP.  — [Unsigned comment added by Sarbio (talk • contribs) 16:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC).]

No, because we don't list things by continuity. We list them by chronological production order, and this film follows AvP 2. If we based things on continuity, then we'd have film series with multiple "continuities". It would get too confusing to say that this film follows this film, but not this film, while this other film follows this film but not the other. You cannot ignore the fact that AvP exists simply because someone came along and decided to ignore them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, Bignole, but wouldn't it be more confusing to people if AvP2 is listed as the preceding film? I would think that this would cause confusion by making people think that Predators is a sequel, which it's not. I don't know though... I'm kind of torn on this one. RyanGFilm (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Only if they assume that "Preceded by" means continuity. You'd have to list this film AND Predator 2 in the "followed by" section of Predator (since Rodriguez said it's a sequel to the first film), just to be accurate since that would make two separate storylines that are both correct by themselves. As such, it would be even more confusing to the average reader, how there could be two films that immediately follow another. You cannot ignore the fact that any film after the first one was created simply because a writer chose to ignore it. Look at Halloween. That series has 4 different storylines (if you include Part 3's Season of the Witch)...how would you even go about making those accurate. This is why we keep it to the objective "chronological release", because you can argue all day about a film's continuity but in the end it always has a specific release date that cannot be denied.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RyanGFilm. It isn´t about continuity. It's about franchises and brands. The AvP Franchise is a completely different, albeit related, franchise from the predator franchise. There is the Predator film-series, consisting of Predator, Predator 2 and Predators. The AvP Franchise spun-off it and the Alien Franchise. Therefore it makes a lot more sense to treat Predators for what it is, namely the third film in the Predator Series, instead of the 9th film in the combined Alien & Predator Franchises. 87.174.213.9 (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The AVP films are not a "separate franchise" or "spinoffs", they are a crossover of the existing brands. The director of AVP explicitly stated that the film serves as a sequel to the first 2 Predator films and a prequel to the Alien franchise, there are plot elements in both AVP films that clearly tie them in to the existing franchises (Charles Bishop Weyland, the "Ms. Yutani" bit), and the creative team behind the Alien films (Gordon Carroll, David Giler, Walter Hill, Dan O'Bannon, Ron Shussett) were involved in the creation of AVP. The Aliens vs. Predator moniker may in itself be a distinct brand used by Dark Horse Comics for comics & video games, but the films are clearly meant to be part of both franchises, both in continuity and in branding, not stand-alone "spinoffs". That Predators chooses to move in a different direction and does not reference the events of the AVP films does not negate that those films are part of both respective film franchises, and that they preceded Predators in the production order of films in the franchise. It is in much the same way that Freddy vs. Jason is part of both the Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th franchises, even though both franchises subsequently chose to move away from the crossover element in favor of remakes/reboots. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. Being in continuity with something doesn´t mean it is not a spin-off. For instance the Caprica TV-Series is a Prequel to Battlestar Galactica, yet it is a spin-off. The recent AvP Video Game seems to be in continuity with the Films, yet it is a spin-off (obviously because it´s a game, ok), dispite Karl Weyland etc. AvP is a different Franchise from both Predator and Alien. It is treated that way in Wikipedia. There is a special article for that franchise. The Alien Franchise Article does not include the AvP Films and honestly I'm a little baffed, that the Predator Franchise includes them in it's article. AvP spun-off from both the Alien and Predator Films. What I'm suggesting is to inclde Predator 2 in the preceeded by section and respectively to include Predators in the followed by section of Predator 2. 87.174.213.6 (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The situation is a bit tricky because the Alien vs. Predator brand has been around since the mid-'80s, but the first AVP film didn't come out until 2004. Alien, Predator, and AVP products including comic books and video games were being cranked out simultaneously for almsot 20 years before the movie was made. So Alien vs. Predator, as a brand, needs its own article to explain this history and how it eventually developed to the point where it the brand was adopted into the film arms of the respective franchises. The 2 AVP films themselves, however, do not represent a separate, independent film franchise (anymore than Freddy vs. Jason represents a completely separate franchise); they are part of both the Alien and Predator film franchises. It's not just to do with continuity; they are made by largely the same creative team and are blatantly stated by the director to be installments in both franchises. The Alien (franchise) article should include the AVP films in its coverage, just as the Predator (franchise) article does; that ought to be fixed. Obviously the AVP brand "spun off" of the existing film franchises during the '80s, in the same way that Caprica spun off of BSG or Stargate Atlantis spun off of Stargate, but Caprica is still part of the Battlestar Galactica franchise and Atlantis is still part of the Stargate franchise. There have been many, many crossover comics featuring the Alien and Predator characters: Superman vs. Aliens, Batman vs. Predator, Aliens vs. Predator vs. The Terminator, etc...these don't each represent entirely different franchises. Crossovers are generally considered to "belong" to each of the respective franchises involved. The AVP films are part of both the Alien and Predator film franchises, and came between Predator 2 and Predators. The "prededed by" and "followed by" fields of the film infoboxes accurately reflect this. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Navy Seal

Stop changing Noland's Character profile, nowhere does it say hes a navy seal or even special forces. The best idea we have is he is an air cav soldier and the source for his characters info makes it seem like he is an air cav not a seal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.0.104 (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Please learn that "Seal" is a colored fella married to a hot model, or a mammal that swims in the ocean. The word you're [not] looking for is "SEAL". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.114 (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Dude, tone down the racism, please. - It's for the Lutz (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Don’t just tone it down. Sto it. 72.176.164.244 (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Edwin

it says in the character description everyone is cold blooded but Edwin, i am pretty sure thats wrong, can someone explain this to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.201.27 (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You may be looking at the wrong thing. ~~ The Quote Buff ^talk 07:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

False advertisement

Trailer vs. final film. Is false advertisement allowed in USA? I mean the trailer promised us things that was not in the final product. --91.150.18.209 (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless you have an article claiming this, please take it to a forum. BOVINEBOY2008 17:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Fox’s Predators was a lesson in frugal, pinpoint marketing.

In his review (mirrored, as above) Scott Mendelson praises the marketing for Predators as being small and well targeted. There may yet be other sources who feel the marketing was poorly targeted. -- Horkana (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

WP:REVERT Edit summary: False advertisement: WP:NOTFORUM. forum rant w/ no bearing on improving the article) -- User:IllaZilla Do not delete talk page comments. Irrespective of your opinion of the quality or relevance of the comments it is completely inappropriate delete other peoples comments. It is even more inappropriate to delete the reply comment by Bovineboy which was the correct and constructive way to the to respond. The perception that the trailers are misleading may be notable if this comes up later in criticisms and reviews of the Marketing. For the film Adventureland (film) there were plenty of complaints about the misleading marketing, and if supported by sources the same could be relevant here too. -- Horkana (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC) My removal was perfectly justified by Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." 91.150.18.209's original comment gave no indication that it had anything to do with improving the article; it's just some fan whining that there were things in the trailer that were cut from the final film (which, by the way, happens all the time since trailers are released months in advance of post-production work being completed). There was no indication from the original comment that the IP was suggesting this as something to add to the article; it was a blatant forum-type post. There is no point in pretending that it's relevant to the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Also in the talk page guidelines: "It is still common, and uncontroversial, to simply delete gibberish, rants about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article) and test edits, as well as harmful or prohibited material as described above." --IllaZilla (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Another editor had taken a respectful attitude and shown good faith to a poorly formed comment that also seemed to be in good faith. Your assertion and dismissal of the comment as "gibberish" is harsh and does not assume good faith. It is worth considering the marketing, and movies are often misleading represented in trailers which can be source of criticism, although sources are usually difficult to find that analyze marketing in any depth. The polite response from Bovineboy you also deleted was not definitely not gibberish and at the very least you should have shown some respect to Bovineboy and left both comments. His effort might result in a more coherent reply from the user, and improvements to the article. It is worth trying to encourage people. You are more than welcome to setup an archive bot with short delay if you want to keep Talk pages tidy. -- Horkana (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC) I never called either comment gibberish, I called 91.150.18.209's initial comment a rant, which it was. I'm not going to pretend that it had any relevance to improving the article. Is there pertinent discussion to be had concerning the film's marketing? Certainly, but that wasn't the nature of the IP's comment; it was a typical drive-by "I didn't like the film" complaint, suitable for a forum but not to Wikipedia. Bovineboy acknowledged as much in his reply, which while certainly civil was, I felt, unnecessary: forum-type comments should simply be reverted, and the editor warned on their talk page with {{Uw-chat1}}. If they then choose to come back and make an actual valid comment about the article's content, great, but 90% of the time we never hear from them again, whether their post is kept on the page or not. Trash is trash; there's no sense leaving it on the ground hoping it'll turn into a flower. I'm content to leave the text in place as you have subsequently turned it into an actual discussion of content to be added to the article. As for an archiving bot, I don't think it necessary at this time as this page does not have a lot of activity and only 6 current threads. In the future it may warrant it if activity increases and the threads start piling up. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC) "I never called either comment gibberish," you quoted guidelines to call it gibberish. I will finish by saying you hold new and inexperienced user to too high a standard and deleting poorly formed comments and branding their Talk pages with warnings is a poor way to encourage them to participate and behave more to your liking, when more carrot and less stick is more likely to achieve the desired result. -- Horkana (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC) I quoted guidelines to call it a rant. Note the bolding in my above post to indicate the portion I was referring to. I will finish by saying that I hold all users to the same standard when it comes to talk pages. I do not delete poorly-formatted comments; If format is the only problem with a comment I will simply fix the format when making my reply. I delete off-topic comments, including those which, while they may refer to the article's subject, give no indication that they refer to Wikipedia's treatment of the subject in the article. When one opens the edit window for a talk page, a link to the talk page guidelines automatically appears above the editor; It's there to help new users. As for the stick, {{Uw-chat1}} is less a warning than a simple notice, and is worded in a quite friendly and welcoming fashion. My desired result is on-topic talk pages, and removing off-topic forum posts achieves that result more satisfactorily than molly-coddling. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Illazilla! Who was the one doing the ranting there?! Unless it was you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.18.209 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

For more level headed people: Is it not false advertisement to show Adrian Brody's character with 10 predator lights on him, when theres only one in the final product? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.18.209 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hardly the first (or last) trailer to show footage that doesn't appear in the final product. How is this noteworthy again? Doniago (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it most certainly is not "false advertising". Trailers are cut months in advance of the film even being completed, and as Doniago echoes this is hardly the first trailer to show footage that is cut from or altered in the final film. The trailer advertises a movie called Predators starring Adrian Brody, and it gives you exactly that. False advertising would be if the final film were actually a Rainbow Brite movie. I still don't see what the hell this rant has to do with the Wikipedia article about the film. Take the whining to a fan forum; it's not pertinent here. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont think it was false advertisement but it certainly was dissapointing not to see the scene, when I watched the trailer I and guess a lot of other people were like "How the hell is he going to get away from that". So just go with Incongruities between trailer and final film —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.46.174 (talk) 04:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if this is old news but Rodriguez has gone on record saying the shot in question was a deliberate choice made by himself, in order to "crystallize the idea" of humans being hunted by multiple predators. http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/07/12/predators-producer-robert-rodriguez-addresses-missing-trailer-shot-in-theatrical-release/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.100.133 (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Cuchillo's guns

The drug cartel killers was carrying H and K's not uzis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.17.26 (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Source? Producer Robert Rodriguez specifically says "He has a rosary and double uzis...dangerous man." By "H and K's" I assume you mean Heckler & Koch MP5s. They certainly look more like some variant of those to me than they do like uzis, and Rodriguez certainly could be simply mistaken, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable changing it if we had a different reliable source stating specifically what model gun they are rather than intentionally contradicting the currently cited source. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

How about the IMFDB? They have reference photos clearly identifying the MP5Ks. "Uzi" has long been shorthand for any small submachinegun among people who don't know much about guns, and probably shouldn't be taken literally.

http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Predators#Heckler_.26_Koch_MP5K

Elmo iscariot (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As a wiki, IMFDB cannot be considered reliable, as anyone can edit its contents. Since IMFDB itself cites no sources, it unfortunately doesn't give us anything to go on. I was thinking more along the lines of a primary source like one of the film's production staff identifying the specific weapons. If they also identified the weapons used by the other characters, that'd be something we could add too. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If nothing else, IMFDB's closeup photo makes it clear to us, the editors, that the guns in question aren't Uzis, and that Rodriguez was either mistaken or using "uzi" as a generic term. I think it would be appropriate in this case to include the correct information (that the guns are MP5s), but understand your objection. I'm going to go ahead and change it to simply submachine gun, which is less precise but avoids passing on incorrect information. If you don't find this compromise acceptable, please feel free to revert and continue the discussion.Elmo iscariot (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I restored the reference as it still supports the info that he's a drug cartel enforcer, and still supports the submachine gun statement as uzis are a type of submachine gun.

P.S. here's a linking trick: When you're only trying to link a portion of a larger word, you don't have to use a piped link; you can simply bracket the portion of the word you want to link, and WP will automatically link the whole word to that target. This is especially helpful when linking the plural forms of many nouns, such as "submachine guns": You don't have to pipe it as [[submachine gun|submachine guns]], you can just use [[submachine gun]]s, which produces submachine guns. (See Help:Link#Wikilinks for other tips & tricks. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can't find IMFDB reliable because it's a wiki, then Wikipedia itself can't be considered reliable, which is why I wonder why Google puts a link to site first when I look for something. - It's for the Lutz (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Google search results aren't based on reliability, they're based on trying to get you to the right website. Wikipedia shows up frequently near the top of Google search results because we have so many articles on so many topics, and because Wikipedia receives a lot of hits. Neither of these things equate to reliabilty. By its own standards, and because it is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", Wikipedia (as a tertiary source) is not reliable. That's why you can't source a Wikipedia article by citing another Wikipedia article (see WP:SELFREF). We also don't allow citing Wikia.com or any of the dozens of other wikis out there, because they are not "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". You might want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability and the related guidelines on sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Tracker and Falconer Predator credits

I've finished rewriting the "Casting" section, but am puzzled by one statement in it: that Carey Jones played both the Tracker and Falconer Predators. Is there a source for this? The reason I'm suspicious of this statement is that there are scenes in the film where all 3 of the "super" Predators (Tracker, Falconer, and Berserker) are standing in-frame together, and it doesn't appear to be CGI, but actors in suits. For scenes in which the Predators are shown individually (such as when the Tracker kills/is killed by Nikolai and when the Falconer duels Hanzo) it is possible that it's the same guy playing both roles, but when they're all in frame together logic dictates that there must be 2 different guys in the 2 different suits. IMDb only credits Jones as the Tracker Predator, but does not list a credit for the Falconer. Allmovie, on the other hand, credits both Jones and Brian Steele as all 3 of the "super" Predators, which only makes things more confusing. When I saw the film I paid attention to the credits to see what they called the 4 Predators, but I can't remember which actors were listed as playing which ones. Can anyone help with this? --IllaZilla (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Rating

User:IllaZilla disputes the use of star ratings Template:Rating but it is not specific to this article. There is no guideline or consensus or even discussion about this I'm aware of despite assertions that ~ we don't do this ~ so I've started a discussion about the use of the star Rating. Please reply there. -- Horkana (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I do not disupte the use of the {{Rating}} template. I object to the practice of placing star ratings in citations, as that is not the purpose of citations. I have commented further at the linked discussion above. I think it might be valuable for the films project to adopt a ratings box similar to {{Album ratings}} or {{Video game reviews}} to allow ratings to be conveniently displayed within the article body. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Home media

User:IllaZilla has deleted the home media section on several occasions [1] [2] [3]. It shows a shows a serious lack of good faith that the editor deleted the entire section each time and did not request a citation, or when citations were provided make an effort to find better citations or WP:IMPROVE rather than deleting. I strongly encourage User:IllaZilla to try to be more patient and show good faith to other editors and help rather than berate those not familiar with the many rules of Wikipedia. Perhaps a break is needed. -- Horkana (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced or poorly-sourced information may be removed at any time. Sorry, but them's the breaks. And citing retailers is highly discouraged. I could not, at the time, find a relible, third-party, published source verifying this information, though now that time has passed I will take another look. And I would appreciate you not suggesting that I take a Wikibreak simply because I value verifiability and hold sources to a relatively high standard. You could quite easily have searched for better sources yourself. The burden of sourcing lies on those wishing to add or keep information. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have found this, which appears to satisfy standards of reliability and also includes quite a few details on the topic. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, tags are largely useless, and generally ignored. They're fine for stub/start-class articles or articles requiring a lot of maintenance, but in a case like this—where the article is quite substantial, rather well-sourced, and carries no other maintenance tags—unreferenced claims should simply be removed. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That edit summary was just rude and unnecessary. WP:MOSFILM suggests including a section. Deleting it repeatedly does not encourage other editors. WP:SOURCES says which sources are best but despite your assertion does not excludes retailer, and for retail information they seem like at least good enough for it to be unnecessary to delete an entire section. It is disingenuous of you to accuse me of not making enough effort to find sources.

It is unfortunate you do not like citation needed tags and but this article is not even at good article status yet. You presume citation needed tags would fail but you didn't even give it a chance, you didn't even try giving it a day, despite three different editors having tried to provide an adequate Home media section, and despite your deletions each editor tried to provide a better source.

Given your impolite edit summary, and repeated assertions I repeat the suggestion that you take a break. Your aggressive style might be useful in pushing an article from good to featured status but it is premature to be so aggressive on film article that hasn't reached home video yet. -- Horkana (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't rude, though it was blunt. MOSFILM is not more important than WP:V; you can't have a section if it's contents aren't verified. You say "It is disingenuous of you to accuse me of not making enough effort to find sources", but that's exactly what you did to me: the editor deleted the entire section each time and did not request a citation, or when citations were provided make an effort to find better citations. I did, in fact, make an effort to find better sources. It was only yesterday that I actually found one. Whether this film has reached home video yet or not has no bearing on the current quality of the Wikipedia article about it. Every section of the article has multiple citations to a number of reliable sources; allowing a new unref'd/poorly ref'd section just for the sake of having a section does not improve the quality of the article, it erodes it. I'm sorry you don't like my style, but I'm not going to apologize for removing unsourced or poorly-sourced information. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand "out of sight is out of mind" and would do well to read WP:IMPROVE again. Deleting is giving up. Marking as citation needed is at least waiting for better sources. Weak sources were provided, there was little reason to doubt the material was true and good reason to wait before deleting and at least ask for better source, but you didn't not wait once, despite the good faith efforts of three different editors. Use citation needed and give editors at least 24 hours to try and find a better source, deleting a section that WP:MOSFILM recommends should be in an article without once tagging it as citation needed is excessively harsh. -- Horkana (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, I understand AGF perfectly well, and I realize Wikipedia is a work in progress. I'm not new to this. When an article clearly needs a lot of work, sure, citation needed tags can help to identify specific statements needing verification. But in an article that is not in a sorry state, that has many references and has no other significant maintenance issues, allowing poorly-referenced additions to linger simply on AGF is unproductive. A tag and a 24-hour waiting period is not going to solve the problem, especially when dealing with IP edits. Unreferenced or poorly-referenced information may be removed at any time—we are not bound to tags and waiting periods—and removing it is improvement. Removing poorly-sourced additions is not "giving up", it is saying "not yet". If you object to that, then find better sources. Rather than placing tags and hoping a better source would magically appear, I searched for one myself; As I've already said, I was unable to find one until yesterday. MOSFILM recommending that articles have home media sections is a non-argument: sections shouldn't be made just for the sake of having them, they should be made when enough verifiable information is available to warrant it. In any case the point is moot, since I have found a reliable secondary source and cited it. With that done I consider the matter closed. Happy editing to you. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes Rating

Should the rating from Rotten Tomatoes in the article be updated? It has increased a considerable amount. 58.84.179.126 (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. It has actually decreased by a point:[4] (currenly a rating of 63 based on 167 reviews, average critic's rating 5.8/10). --IllaZilla (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Same lines dutch used in the 1987 film?

As the fight between the largest Predator and Royce began, were the lines Royce shouted the same as the lines Dutch uses during his fight with the Predator? Just curious. 121.223.126.74 (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a couple such nods to the original film. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Plot details reversion

Over the past week or so a few editors have been reverting the addition by an IP editor of "driven mad by years of isolation and looking to obtain the group's supplies" to the plot section about Nolan's motivations. I reverted it as the usual editors had done so, it's unnecessary detail and probably WP:OR to assume knowledge of the background. With a written consensus here it will be easier to deal with this problem, so invite the thoughts of others. I haven't reverted the most recent edition, despite recommending the IP follow WP:BRD, as I wish to show this process works, and don't want to get sucked into a slow revert war. Bigger digger (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. That detail (his motivation) is superfluous to the overall flow of events, and we should avoide "plot creep": the slow accumulation of minor details into the plot summary until it eventually becomes bloated & requires rewriting (again). The summary as it stands now is, in my opinion, completely adequate and requires no further detail. I also agree that it is, to a degree, OR...The scene establishes 3 possible motives for Nolan killing the others: (1) He wants to scavenge their weapons & equipment (I don't recall him ever stating this outright, but it is made clear that he survives by scavenging what he can), (2) he can't support that many people (in talking to his imaginary friend he mentions "too many mouths to feed" or something like that), and (3) he's batsh*t crazy (see the talking to the imaginary friend bit). It could be any combination of these motiviations that leads him to attempt to kill them. Anyway, as I said it's extraneous. We don't need to expound on Nolan's character or motivations much because he's not terribly important: he's introduced in one scene and killed in the next. His purpose in moving the plot along is to explain the Predators' background and inform the group about the ship. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

A few words to explain Nolan's motivation isn't extraneous. Without it the plot development sounds nonsensical. 173.22.180.181 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC).

Illazilla covered my thoughts but for consensus purposes, here I am noting them. It's completely interpretative. Millahnna (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

173.22.180.181, I don't see how leaving it out makes the plot "nonsensical". They meet this guy, he tells them some stuff, then he tries to kill them but they escape. How's that nonsensiscal? --IllaZilla (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll suggest that perhaps it doesn't sound nonsensical to you since you've presumably seen the movie. But if a reader who hadn't read the plot summary in its current state they'd likely wonder why. Since I'm obligated to AGF I can't see what the problem is with adding a few words. 173.22.180.181 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

Per WP:PLOTSUM, the plot should be pretty bare bones. Shorter is better. You're trying to add your reasoning for the actions, which (I guess, I've somehow missed this film) are not the only interpretation: there's debate at the top of the page about it too. The section without your words summarises the plot, your addition assumes to know motivations that aren't revealed by the plot, but only hinted at with the scavenging reference, which is already given a sentence or two earlier in the summary. Bigger digger (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can agree that the motivations aren't revealed by the plot. Sure, they're not explicitly discussed, though it's clear that Noland's madness, his scavenging tendencies, a fear of taking on newcomers to support, or a combination of the three is a factor. I'll certainly grant that should one want to extensively debate Noland's motives, there's room to do so, but I still think that the summary could benefit from some reference to it. I'm not interested in bloating the summary or making it unmanageable (yeah, it ain't Hamlet), but I really do believe just a couple of words could improve it here. 173.22.180.181 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

I've been very courteous about this and have been ignored. C'est la vie for wikipedia. I've still yet to see a compelling argument for not adding context to a plot point, particularly when it can be done in as little as two words. 173.22.180.181 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC).

Edit warring is courteous? I had no idea. The two words you want to add are 1) original research because it is never stated in the film and 2) completely irrelevant to understanding the plot. I agree with the consensus to leave them out. Millahnna (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As I haven't spoken up here, but did give the IP an NOR warning and filed a 3RR request (after they'd been warned about EW by a different editor) that resulted in the page being protected (not the outcome I would have hoped for, but solves the immediate issue I guess), I suppose I should go on record as saying - yes, what you said. (smile) Doniago (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, for the same reasons I already gave above. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It's nearly impossible to AGF here. The Predators summary a pretty good one, like anything on Wikipedia, could stand to be a touch better. Of course, people get on a big kick about page ownership, and it's always easier to try and meddle with someone's input than to be constructive yourself, so often arguments like this result, where the party in the affirmative is on the receiving end of a barrage of snooty and aggressively authoritative comments that always manage to conveniently skirt around making legitimate points. I made my point, some of you made yours, and that's fair, but I haven't done anything none of you have, which is to say adjust the article without asking everyone's permission and for "consensus," which on Wikipedia is largely a euphemism for "do as I say."

OR is such a slippery slope. Take this line from the summary: "Hearing Cuchillo's cries for help, they find his dead body being used and his voice being mimicked in an attempt to bait them into a trap." Well, we never know for sure that the Predators are doing this to try and trap the group. Maybe they're just taunting them. Perhaps if they had gone to help their friend, the Predators would have cut the games and given the group an award for kindness. But that it's a trap is never explicitly stated. Yet that line stands, and the one(s) I've contributed are no good? I don't point this out because I want that line removed, but just in the hope that we can drop the pretense that this bickering has anything to do with genuine concern over OR. 173.22.180.181 (talk)

Do you really believe that multiple editors claiming your additions are OR while you are the only editor claiming otherwise suggests that they are the ones who are POV-pushing? In any case, that's how consensus works here. You haven't yet illustrated how your addition is -not- OR, and have continued to insert it even while this discussion is in progress and consensus did not appear to support you, which is certainly less good faith and more an example of page-ownership than removing your edits while consensus supports their removal. As for your example, if you feel that's also OR, you're welcome to remove it as well. If anyone feels it should be re-added, that's a separate discussion. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If you'd read carefully, you'd have realized that I wasn't claiming the cited line as OR itself, only as an example of a line that, by the standards you wonderful chaps have decided to apply to my additions, easily qualifies as OR itself. Personally, I don't think my additions or that line is OR, because legit OR is more like something that either a. can't obviously be inferred or b. is blatantly personal opinion ("Barack Obama is clearly a better president than George W. Bush," etc.). If you want to get down to brass tacks, my addition is actually less OR than the one I brought up, since Noland's motivations are fairly obvious, whereas psychological warfare really could have been the Predators legit goal. And while on the subject of being a stickler for some rules but not others, I'll note that consensus, as defined by Wikipedia, is NOT a democracy wherein the votes are cast and that's the end of that.173.22.180.181 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC).

Wording of plot section

The following conversation has been moved here from User talk:IllaZilla#Predators (film). Please make replies below the line.

Hello, IllaZilla. I'm not sure why you think that someone who awakes could have been anything other than unconscious before he awakes (sleep is one form of unconsciousness). I am therefore going to revert you at Predators (film), although not right away, for obvious reasons. Maybe you could take up this issue with WikiProject film? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It's necessary to establish that he was unconscious. The intro doesn't make much sense if it just says "he awakens to find himself parachuting". What, he went to bed the night before and woke up falling though the sky? No, he was in combat, saw a flash of light, lost consciousness, and woke up in freefall, as did the other characters. Asleep and unconscious have very different connotations: The former is a naturally-occurring cycle from which one can easily be awoken, while the latter implies being knocked out by mitigating external factors (blow to the head, drugs, etc). Since the film begins with Royce regaining consciousness (as the result of being involuntarily rendered unconscious by alien abduction, though this isn't yet known either to him or to the viewer), we must of course establish that he was unconscious to begin with. The film does this through visual cues, but we must put it in writing for readers to understand the context (that he is clearly "coming to" from being knocked out, as opposed to waking up from a nap). It would be simpler to say "he regains consciousness" (a common phrasing to refer to someone coming to after being knocked out), but it makes for an awkward opening sentence since, again, we haven't yet established to the reader that he's unconscious.

I'm disturbed by your remark "I am therefore going to revert you, although not right away, for obvious reasons." This is pretty much a declaration that you're going to edit-war, but deliberately wait in order to avoid being blocked for 3RR. This would, of course, still be edit warring regardless. I again remind you of WP:BRD, and that you should have taken this up on the article's talk page after the first revert. I think the wording before your edit was better, and the burden's on you to convince me (& others) that it's not. You want the change, you take it to WP:FILM, and don't revert again without sufficient discussion. Believing you are right does not give you license to revert. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never said that the plot section should read "he awakens to find himself parachuting." I simply think it's incorrect for it to say, "Royce (Adrien Brody) awakens from unconsciousness to find himself parachuting into an unfamiliar jungle", and I've tried to explain why; if he had to awaken, he clearly was unconscious before. The rigid distinction you're trying to make between sleep and unconsciousness looks unsupported to me; if you really want to show how much you know about the subject, try quoting medical texts, not dictionaries, which are pretty much useless for settling such issues. It is not universally true that one can easily be woken from sleep. Nor does being unconscious imply being knocked out by anything; one can be unconscious for a hundred reasons or more. Unconsciousness is a larger category that subsumes sleep. That is the only crucial point. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

And regarding the edit warring thing, yeah, I'm aware that slow-mo edit warring is still edit warring. So no worries there. I do my best to respect Wikipedia's policies, though of course I am not perfect. I'm sure the issue will get resolved somehow or other; I might copy this discussion to the article's talk page, or, alternately, you could do that. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think my prior comments were a little heated. Apologies, been a long day. Anyway, it's a difficult opening to describe, sentence-wise, because it basically does a cold-open with Royce coming to in freefall. Your edit did make it say "Royce (Adrien Brody) awakens to find himself parachuting into an unfamiliar jungle", and to me that comes off too abrupt and kind of confusing. Awakens? Was he sleeping beforehand? No, he was clearly knocked out, and the later conversations with the other characters make this clear (in combat → bright light → unconscious → woke up in freefall). To me it's important to establish that he was unconscious, as simply saying he "awakens in freefall" sounds as though everything was fine beforehand, like he was taking a nap, whereas "awakens from unconsciousness" better conveys that he was knocked out (which he was). Unless you can think of a better way of conveying his state of being in the first few seconds (knocked out). In a case like 28 Days Later we can say the character "awakens from a coma", but it's more difficult to phrase "wakes up after having been mysteriously knocked out" without preemptively explaining the alien abduction bit. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You are right about the effect of my edit; I should have looked more carefully.

The third edition of The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology by Arthur S. Reber and Emily Reber defines "unconsciousness" as "the state of being unconscious." It then refers the reader to the entry "unconscious", a term that has several meanings. The relevant one is "A state characterized by a lack of awareness; unconsciousness". The entry explains that this meaning is "more or less nontechnical"; being a nontechnical term, it clearly isn't something that can be applied rigidly. The entry clarifies this particular sense of "unconscious" and its adjective form with the words, "When they occur in technical writings these meanings are roughly equivalent to those in everyday language; that is, they refer to that pole of the dimension of mental arousal that is exemplified by coma, fainting, deep sleep or the result of general anaesthesia." So I wasn't quite right to say that unconsciousness is a larger category that subsumes sleep, but yes, certain forms of sleep do indeed count as unconsciousness, so the strict distinction you're trying to base your argument on is unfounded. Your personal assumptions about the implications of "unconsciousness" don't reflect a proper understanding of the subject. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Medical jargon aside, how would you better construct the sentence to accurately convey to a reader that he is coming to after being knocked out? Again, simply saying "he awakens" doesn't do enough to convey his prior state. There's a significant difference, story-wise, between awakening from sleep and awakening from an alien abduction that rendered the character unconscious. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If we want to get things right - either the content of the article or the arguments we're using to prefer one version or another - it's no use to dismiss what a helpful source (and a dictionary of psychology, unlike a non-specialized general dictionary, is actually some use here) as "jargon". You insisted that sleep and unconsciousness have strictly different connotations; they don't. It's little use to say that "There's a significant difference, story-wise, between awakening from sleep and awakening from an alien abduction that rendered the character unconscious" when 'unconscious' actually includes sleep, in at least some cases. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, I'm not interested in debating the meaning of the word; It's not helping us improve the sentence to convey what it needs to. How do we clearly establish to the reader, right at the beginning, that the character is coming to after having been out cold? Might we say, "An unconscious Royce (Adrien Brody) awakens to find himself in freefall" or something like that? I think this better conveys the idea that he's been abducted and knocked out somehow, and is coming out of it and finding himself in a predicament. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that you'd say that you aren't interested in debating the meaning of the word, since you were emphatic that it had one particular meaning. Maybe this shows that you lost the debate? Anyway, I'll re-watch the relevant parts of Predators and reconsider the issue. And the next time I say that for obvious reasons I won't revert you right away, please assume that I mean that I want to leave time for discussion. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What ship?

The plot speaks of "using the other Predators' spaceship". Was there only one? How did the "small" predators get there? Is this detailed? How do they find the ship in question? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Lawrence Fishburn's character says that the ship belongs to the big Predators. It's not explained how the small one got there, but the ship pretty clearly belongs to the big ones since it's parked next to their camp. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it clear from the first encounter at the camp (which, following the PLOT, seems to be before meeting Fishburn) that the ship is there? Or is this something they discover later? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Noland (Fishburne's character) tells them about the ship when he takes them back to his hideout. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Plot section details missing (in my opinion)

This is mainly addressed to IllaZilla, the apparent vanguard of all Alien and Predator related articles. [5] This is your revert of what I added (I didnt add the Predator names that was someone else). Firstly let me explain, the 589 words I brought up simply as a fact that I wasn't violating over 700 guidelines, now that we have that out of the way:

1. Cuchillo's death shouldn't be left to just that, it could include details about him being used as bait (vocal mimicry being an important part of Predator fiction). As I added.

2. The framing of the above detail after the quadraped chase then sets it up nicely to what Royce says next (game preserve) instead of it being after quadraped but before Cuchillo's death. (I'm pretty sure it happens in the film the way I stated here, they find Cuchillo then Royce deduces it is a game preserve)

3. The paragraph has Predators mentioned twice (Cuchillo is killed by a Predator) but only hyperlinked later when they find one at the encampment. Confusion. The way I phrased it reveals the Predators when they attack at the encampment as per the story.

4. Noland. We do need to write about his mental condition. It's not a straight "Hi I am a former soldier and want to kill you" plot.

Thanks --JTBX (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And you may not remeber, but when this article began to be edited way back, you wanted Hanzo's death to be a simple "he is killed". I'm the guy that suggested adding the duel with a sword component, you may not remeber me. JTBX (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT isn't a license to go up to 700 words. Shorter (close to 400) is better in most cases. I know it wasn't you who added the nicknames, it was an IP. No worries on that one.

An earlier version of the plot summary (that I wrote) did have the bit about Cuchillo being used as bait. That was edited out by someone else. I believe it was Polisher of Cobwebs (talk · contribs); he edited the plot summary a bunch back in January. I agree that "Predators" shouldn't be mentioned in that sentence about Cuchillo's death, since the Predators haven't been introduced yet (the first time one is seen is when they find the one tied up in the camp).

I do not think we need to write about Noland's mental condition. (A) We don't know what his condition is. He's just sort of gone nuts from having to survive on the planet for so long. His motivations have been previously discussed, under #Plot details reversion. (B) We don't need to delve into detail about a character who's in the film all of 5 minutes. His role in the plot is pretty much just to give plot exposition (big Predators vs. little Predators, how the hunting seasons work, where their ship is). He's killed off right after. In the "casting" section there's a quote from Fishburne talking about how the character is crazy. That's really the best place to get into the character details. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

1.Since Polisher edited the part about Cuchillo etc isn't it possible to add it back? 2. I don't think I saw an answer to that. 3. I see you agree with 3. 4.I read the discussion but there was no clear conclusion to the IP's argument, and I think that it is clear Noland has problems, when talking with his imaginary friend. The plot as I mentioned, makes it seem he is a normal guy. Also, where does it state in the film he is an air assault soldier? Surely that is more OR than his mental condition. JTBX (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

1. I think so (I mean, naturally I'm going to prefer the pre-January version, since I wrote it, but I'm biased).
2. Changing 1. automatically solves 2., so I didn't see the need to address 2.
3. Yes, agree.
4. Yes it's clear he has problems, but it's not clear what those problems are. Is he schizophrenic? Delusional? Just plain batsh*t crazy? It's unclear, and not really worth expounding on his motivations since he's not in the film that long. Again, a little more depth is given to the character in the "casting" section. As far as the plot summary goes, it's not really important why he tries to kill the group, merely that he tries. That's what drives events into the next scene. You don't have to understand his motivations to understand the flow of events.

In the scene, Noland mentions that he's "air cav". That's short for "air cavalry", which redirects to air assault. It's not OR, since it comes straight from the dialogue. --IllaZilla (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add in the edits of mine apart from the Noland being insane bit. JTBX (talk)

The plot section is wrong!

The plot section says,

"Royce appears, never having boarded the ship, and saves Isabelle by stabbing Edwin through his throat.

Royce booby-traps Edwin's body with grenades, using him as bait to disorient the Predator."

That's wrong. The first line implies that when Royce saves Isabelle, he kills Edwin; but he doesn't. Edwin is definitely still alive when Royce bobby-traps him, and Royce knows this. Hihidufgh (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Timeset / Timeline Reference

For most of the films in the megafranchise Preds&Aliens we do have a timeset - which for some of us is interesting to view the movies *chronologically*: Predator referenced as in 1987, P2 in 1997, AVP in 2004, etc., etc. For this particular film, within its own plot the TS (timeset) might seem irrelevant. There is no such explicit reference anyway. Still, we can infer and introduce and then add such one to the article. For starters, Nikolai mentions he was in Chechnia. Then the dead American is "stationed in Afghanistan". So we could surmise some reference by figuring out the year(s) in which both there was war in Chechnia AND the Americans in Afghan. I presume it must be the first Chechen war. What do you think? 176.193.121.232 (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Oops! I've been logged out! sorry. It's Josh.

This kind of original research/in-universe trivia is appropriate for Wikia, but it doesn't really belong here. Wikipedia only catalogs facts that have been backed up by reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Black actor listed last

Why does Wikipedia make a habit of listing black actors last regardless of level of accomplishments or fame 72.176.164.244 (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd need to see some examples, but with regards to this film, Fishburne is listed last on the poster, so he's listed last here as well. It has nothing to do with his accomoplishments or fame. Similarly, if he wasn't listed on the poster, we wouldn't list him in the infobox because he wouldn't be top-billed at that point. DonIago (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)