# Talk:Monsters (2010 film)

Can someone find a better ref for the budget amount? Budget number of $15,000 at top of article uses reserveresult.com as ref (budget amount doesn't seem to be mentioned in the video there). Budget number near bottom has been changed from $250,000 to £250,00 but the next ref (traileraddict.com with what seems to be same vid) seems to have no mention of the budget amount (including the video). Failed to find budget amount at Monsters website and magpictures.com.  --EarthFurst (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, at London's FrightFest (August 28th 2010) the figure of £15,000 was mentioned.Twobells (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
IMDb has an estimated $15000 here Dylan (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the plot really this bad or did someone make it so the synopsis sucks....I haven't seen the movie..just wondering.--Alex Maione (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The synopsis is pretty bad, with numerous errors. Should be rewritten or deleted. Examples of errors: his son is not "estranged"; the ring is to pay for the trip escort, not just a bribe; they are traveling through Mexico, not Central America; there is no "terraforming"; the evacuated region where they arrive is probably Southern California or Arizona, not Texas; she speaks to her fiancé on the phone, not her father; neither "reconciles" with their family; the aliens are probably mating. --Kai Carver (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I just saw the movie and she does speak to her father... what are you talking about? --Againme (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The "evacuated region" shown after the border crossing is Galveston, Texas, shot right after Hurricane Ike while the island was still evacuated.
The scene just after they cross the border is typical Texas coastal plains, it could certainly be the Texas coast just north of the border.  There is, on the other hand, nothing like a jungle for hundreds of miles in any direction, so the idea of them walking there from the jungle encrusted pyramid in a half a day or so is laughable.Baron ridiculous (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I fixed the description to fit exactly as the places are presented in the movie, but clearly the film director does not know the geography of Mexico and Central America. The initial title says the protagonists are in San Jose, Central America (the capital of Costa Rica?), not Mexico, but when reaching the coast they are in Mexico (do they travel across Central America up to Mexico?). Also, the movie credits do not include Belize, so I delete it from the list of shooting locations.--Mariordo (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
No, if they start in San José, Orange Walk District, they can easily travel a little to the north and to the coast of Mexico. --Againme (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
But San Jose in this film was a big city, not vilage. --Zipacna1 (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
A Mayan Temple in the Rainforest at the Mexican-US border. There isn't much more to say about this movie... --Echosmoke (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I feel as though the current plot summary doesn't accurately convey the movie.  It doesn't have a description of the ending (beginning) of the movie where the military vehicles carrying Andrew and Samantha are attacked and their fate is uncertain.

This discussion is probably only going to be cared about by Armegon, so I will mostly make this a message to you. Why does this film need all of those genre descriptors? I agree that I shouldn't have removed "independent", but "science fiction monster film" is excessive. I think we need to do a source search to see what most refer to it as. My guess is that our result will be just science fiction, which I think describes this film the best as the titular monsters seldom appear. Thoughts? Sock (pka Corvoe) (be heard)(my stuff) 11:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Some sources:

Allmovie: Genre(s): Science fiction. Sub-genres: Creature film and Sci-fi disaster film.
AV Club: "low-budget science-fiction film"
The Guardian: "a thrilling postmodern sci-fi film", "terrifically exciting sci-fi movie"
LA Times: "lo-fi sci-fi construct 'Monsters'"
Toronto Star: "There are monster movies, made by real fans of the genre...Into this...first category steps Monsters"
Roger Ebert: "Drama, Foreign, Science Fiction, Thriller"
Empire: "less a mumblecore movie with monsters than it is a sci-fi picture which never loses sight of the human factor"
The Hollywood Reporter: "broad sci-fi sensationalism."
I'd say that's a solid list, but I didn't go through every single source (other than Allmovie and AV Club, these were just the top few critical reviews on Rotten Tomatoes). If you find more, post them here of course. But at the moment, we have seven calling it sci-fi, two calling it a monster movie, and one calling it a drama and thriller. I'm thinking, based on all of this, that the lead should say "independent science fiction film." Sock (pka Corvoe) (be heard)(my stuff) 11:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I think when we start defining the genre of a film on wiki, there's two ways to go about it. In the case of Monsters, we can either simplify it as a "science fiction film" or include the main genre, which is science fiction and follow it with the sub-genre, which is the monster genre. The Godzilla and Pacific Rim pages have followed this same pattern of genre formatting for wiki. I agree that we should keep it simple but WP:FILMLEAD never states that the genre has to be completely restricted to generalizing the film as one genre. If someone were to label Monsters' genre as an "independent science fiction monster drama road film", then it would be excessive. I believe that keeping the "science fiction monster film" definition for the genre illustrates what the film's major genres are. The film is called Monsters after all. Armegon (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The primary reason I think it needs to be limited is that "independent science fiction monster film" is really bloated. That's it, really. I'm not really sure how we can resolve this :p
I totally disagree with the comparisons to Godzilla and Pacific Rim though, as they are vastly different in how they use their monsters. Sock (tock talk) 10:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
True, the films do use their monsters differently but what Monsters does have in common with Godzilla and Pacific Rim is that the monsters themselves are the main source of the principal characters' problems. Without the monsters having some sort of effect on the main characters and the story, the films themselves would hardly be considered monster films, they'd just be science fiction films with monsters in the backdrop. Monsters does have that monsters-in-the-background type of story but it's like I said, the creatures themselves are affecting the goals of the main characters, the story itself exists because of the monsters. Should that not be enough to label the film as a science fiction monster film?
Additionally, it sounds "bloated" when you reference it as an independent science fiction monster film. "Independent" or "Indie" is not really a genre, it is a type of production funded without the aide of a major company. Armegon (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
You restored both on your original revert, so I figured I'd at least restore independent. I was referring to the original wording, which was the primary bloat. I think docking "independent" and adding monster film would be agreeable, just so it's short but it covers everything. Good suggestion! Sock (tock talk) 10:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I think we can do without the "independent" part. I'm certain readers will see the film was an indie project when they see the budget in the infobox. Armegon (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This movie has so many errors its not even funny.
They jump from clearly central mexico to guatemala/Mexico area with pyramids, then back to central mexico then back to central america like forests and mountains.
There are NO PYRAMIDS near the US BORDER. Nor there are such kind of vegetation or that many rivers next to the US border.
187.254.145.22 (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Monsters (2010 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Biggs Pliff (talk · contribs) 21:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Review  Completed - Biggs Pliff (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Lead Section
"takes place years after"- I found a source that says it is six years, I would include this, if correct, to make the phrase less vague.
I don't recall the film itself ever stating this. Which source did you find the info in? Sock (tock talk) 04:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
It was on imdb, but I thought it might be mentioned in the moivie, if not forget it. Biggs Pliff (talk)
The phrase "ignited the arrival" is not really used in English to my knowledge, it should be changed to either "sparked the arrival" or "led to the arrival..."
Fixed. Sock (tock talk) 04:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I've changed it "a to NASA probe crash in Mexico which led to". A small edit but I think it sounds better. Biggs Pliff (talk)
Sequel was not released on 28, November.


### Plot
Grammatically fine. To be pedantic the recommended word range is 400-700 and this is just below that, is there another relevant plot point which could be included? Maybe the chronological ending being shown at the beginning of the film deserves a mention here.

I rewatched the film today and there are very few events that are particularly significant to the plot. I don't personally think that including the chronological ending at the beginning of the summary is appropriate, since it's included in production and would just be confusing if it was explained at the beginning of the summary. Sock (tock talk) 04:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
In that case, it is close enough I think. Biggs Pliff (talk)


### Production
There is no need for the staff list to be at the beginning of this section, it is already in the infobox. It should be removed.

Fixed. This was habitual, since I've been adding these for other articles where it is appropriate. I agree though, the crew is far too small to warrant that list. Sock (tock talk) 04:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
In the "Development" section, there is a quote; "not going to be special anymore", that isn't directly referenced. The source does appear at the end of the paragraph but to be safe I would put it at the end of that quote as well. I'll get a second opinion to check if it is actually necessary.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it is advised not to use the same reference twice in a row, and just place it at the end of the paragraph. I'll be happy to change it if another editor agrees, though. Sock (tock talk) 04:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
You're right, leave it as it is. Biggs Pliff (talk)
In the "Filming" section, "Many settings featured in the film were real locations" is vague, isn't this true of essentially every film? Unless the scene is entirely CGI, everywhere is a "real location". What is the phrase supposed to mean?
Fixed the wording. The main point was that they filmed in places without permission. Sock (tock talk) 04:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


### References
Ref 3 Can't find any mention of improvising for having no camera dolly.
I've checked a few other random ones and they check out, since they all have recent retrieval/archived dates I'm happy to assume good faith.

That information appears to be leftover WP:OR that I never double-checked. Thank you for catching that, that was my bad. I searched high and low and couldn't find that information anywhere, except for people sourcing the Wikipedia article. Sock (tock talk) 04:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Basically just a couple of pretty minor fixes and then i'm happy to pass the article. All the Best. Biggs Pliff (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe I've made the necessary changes. Please review them when you get the chance, and speaking of review, thank you for reviewing this article! Sock (tock talk) 04:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I've passed the article, congratulations! Biggs Pliff (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Monsters (2010 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6Rd4jCIGe?url=http://volgafilm.livejournal.com/101599.html to http://community.livejournal.com/volgafilm/101599.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0%2C%2C20442887%2C00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/movies/monsters%2C1167715.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Monsters (2010 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Rd3AaRgW?url=http://filmschoolrejects.com/news/sx-fantastic-preview-monsters.php to http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/sx-fantastic-preview-monsters.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20442887,00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/movies/monsters,1167715.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monsters (2010 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Replaced archive link https://www.webcitation.org/6Rd3CNP3c?url=http://filmguide.lafilmfest.com/tixSYS/2010/xslguide/eventnote?EventNumber=4434 with https://www.webcitation.org/6Rd3CNP3c?url=http://filmguide.lafilmfest.com/tixSYS/2010/xslguide/eventnote?EventNumber=4434& on http://filmguide.lafilmfest.com/tixSYS/2010/xslguide/eventnote?EventNumber=4434&
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)