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

message: I arrived at the AVP:Alien Vs Predator wikipedia page through typing "alien 5" at the wikipedia search box, this is incorrect right? or is it a known incorrection, and just a stop gap for the next Alien film proper?Book_M 06,06
: Yes. Alien vs Predator is NOT Alien 5. Paul Anderson (writer/director of AvP) has stated this himself. I had an Alien 5 (rumoured movie) page but it was deleted by the admins ('wikipedia is not a crystal ball'). You can see a trimmed version of my original page here on Pcb21's User page (see quote from Paul Anderson under the heading '2004'). My original Alien 5 wikipedia page has also turned up at this blogger site. Wikipeon 03:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  link error? 

message: In the film an acient map of antartica is mentioned, wasn't this proved to be a fake?
: Hmm, I don't remember an ancient map (but if you can narrow down when it appears, I'll check my DVD).  There is a brief shot of a digital map, showing Bovetoya in an entirely wrong place. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 15:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I watched it right now, and one of Weyland's men says "Ancient maps show antartica free of ice.  It's likely the continent was once habitable.".  This isn't true and no such maps exist.  I think this is already adequately refuted in the "historical inaccuracies section of the article,  which says "Antarctica has been glacial since the beginning of the Pliocene epoch, 5 million years ago, well before the development of human civilization."  -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 17:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

message: The AvP movie has a slight subtext, which is ignored in all conversations, but very much existent. Fact is, that this type is movie is made for fans, and ever since the appearance of AvP, the amount of fanfictions (taking fanfiction.net as example) pairing a human with a yautja, has increased from 0 in the past 25 years, to 24 in less than a year, not counting those that were so bad the authors chose to delete them due to flaming.
A picture say's more than a 1000 words.
When looking at the book version, the extra photo's, such as the one above, and the result on the composition of the fandom, the way the cast refers to the two lead characters in interviews and the extreme obvious composition of the movie above all, it seems that Paul W. Anderson made the movie they way he made it on intention and with the result in mind that it eventually gave.
Fanfiction.net is off course not the only reason why I believe the movie has such an effect, I also looked at communities, such as the Gaia Guilds, and at art sites such as DA, when looking at the dates of the 'deviations', allmost all the pred-human pairings on pictures date from around and after the release of AvP.
I think Paul W. Anderson is now sitting at his home and grinning about what he did to the Predator franchise. The movie may contain alot of plot holes, but when looking for answer in the less commonly accepted routes, many of the plot holes actually became logical. The same way, Paul W. Anderson seems well in the mind of putting in such a subtext. 
In any case, whether he did it on intention or not, the fanhood of the Predator franchise now contains fangirls and there now is a thing such as the Preddy Sue (Mary Sue from the AvP franchise).
The most generic Mary Sue is that the girl is rescued by the predator from aliens or helps him from being attacked, and for ussually unexplained reasons he spares her and lets her tag along. (AvP-style, only that unlike Lex, the girls are not required to prove herself actually useful after that in the same hive problem). These will become a hunter at the side of the yautja. Off course, for the first period of time, there will be no other yautja or humans in the story, until it has been established that the characters love eachother. Then it may be that someone ussually will appear that dissaproves of the whole affair. Or worse, the yautja completely do not care for the choice of their fellow hunter (even though their society revolves around breeding and they a yautja and a human could in no way bring forth fertile offspring).
There is another type, the type that is raised by the yautja and where it is only natural that she is in love with at least one of the hunters, whom all show rather teenage like traits. This girl will ussually be extra-ordinairy strong and agile though her body is not overly muscular and she will have powers no one else has, or at least have some strange physical mark. These Sue's are totally integrated into yautja society and considered yautja. They don't need to be rescued because they are so extremely powerful and can defeat their enemies on their own.
Another one that seems to be common in fanfics and fanart is that the girl becomes a slave of the hunter and they fell in love. These girls will either be beautiful or have some special talent.
Most of the previously mentioned examples have not lasted long at fanfiction.net however.
Fact is, none of those existed before AvP.
:Uh, did you watch a different movie to the rest of us? pomegranate 10:37, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that Alexa's relationship with the Predator in the movie is roughly the same as that featured in the first Predator vs. Alien comic (where a human woman fights the xenomorphs alongside one predator, and is marked as one of the tribe at the end), so I don't see the movie as a trend-setter as far as this is concerned.JBPostma 23:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't think fanfiction.net is an awfully good source - have a look at the comic crossovers. There have been a lot of human/predator interactions. The fan fiction works you describe are pretty much the same as other topics you just substitute Predator for some other strong male figure (its pretty much the theme of a section of female-written literature going back to Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre). As has been said not only is it not an original story within the AvP universe but I really doubt PWA had that in mind at all. (Emperor 00:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anderson's true baby : the birth of the Predator Mary Sue. 

message: Is the historical inaccuracies section really necessary?  I keep wanting to add 
"Aliens did not actually come to earth and show humans how to make pyramids"
"The first human civilization was not destroyed in an atomic blast"
"There were never any pyramids buried beneath Antarctic ice"
...
Superm401 | Talk July 3, 2005 03:39 (UTC)
:Heh, that's a good point but I think it's there to make sure you KNOW what's not true, aliens are obvious, ancient maps etc. are not. Ragzouken 19:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical inaccuracies 

message: I've been watching the movie while following along with the Plot Detail, and it seems that the events are out of order. Is this because the Special Edition is in a different sequence or because it was written from memory? :) Just curious!
:I probably messed up when I wrote the plot details (yup, from memory).  Please do correct any mistakes you find. -Clueless 20:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot in Detail Out of Order? 

message: The section "historical inaccuracies" displays too much evolutionary bias. It says that Antarctica was formed "five billion years before man evolved". Don't cut me off yet; Wikipedia is supposed to show a neutral point of view, right? Well, showing evolutionary bias is NOT USING A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW! The article is talking about "millions of years" as if that was actually what happened! We don't know that! You doubtlessly think that I'm just a stupid bigot, an irrational idiot who doesn't belive in "real science". Think what you like; but Wikipedia should NOT be displaying any sort of bias! I get really sick of hearing and reading evolutionary bias in EVERYTHING! Textbooks and encyclopedias show it! That is wrong! Scorpionman 02:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look.  Don't take this the wrong way.  The Young-Earth viewpoint is, at best, a fringe perspective.  No one with any background in any of the sciences dealing with origins disputes that the planet is about 4.5 billion years old.  Creationism is a belief, just like the ancient Greek origin myths and the Jain belief that the universe has always existed.  If you want equal representation for all cosmologies, no matter how well or poorly accepted by the scientific community, then you ought to make room for those beliefs as well.  Teflon Don 09:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Someone should add information to the article about the different dvd's  of this movie. A new dvd is coming with an unrated version.
is it? ok then
welll...you too should find some source infornmation on it
>x<ino 01:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD 

message: I really felt that the page needed some cleanup and I've taken it upon myself to do the work. As time permits, I'll continue to work and try to ensure that none of the important information from the previous version of the page gets lost. HOWEVER, I ask that you please don't simply revert to the previous version of this page, if there's something you don't like about what I've done either start making the minor changes yourself or bring it up here on the discussion page. We're not going to get anywhere if we just go back and forth trying to destroy each others work.
:Could the author of this section please sign the above, so we know what we're not supposed to revert?  Teflon Don 08:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edits (March 11th) 

message: The very first note, about not knowing about the previous Predator because of P2 taking place in the city and there being publicity. I think this is really speculatory, because everyone was already under the assumption that it was gang killings and that there was some "new guy" in town that was killing all the gangs. No one thought of an alien, and Danny Glover's reaction at the end didn't seem like he was about to spill the beans on them. I don't think it would have been hard to cover up the LA incident, especially since most thought it was some vigilante. With almost a decade going by it wouldn't be hard to forget any rumors of alien species that comes to hunt humans, because they would have been thought of as "lochness monster sightings". So, I think that bit of trivia needs to be removed, because it isn't an accurate analogy, and as stated it is assuming and Wikipedia doesn't deal in assumption. Bignole 00:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with this. The people trying to catch the Predator certainly aren't going to tell anyone, and that only leaves Danny Glover who has seen the Predator. (The only scene where other people are likely to have seen the Predator is in the underground train, but even then it was dark and the Predator was cloaked) Even if he does say anything, who is gonna believe him? MrKWatkins 23:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: In reading through the discussions on this talk page I noticed that most of it was several years old, related to sections of the article that no longer exist, or had nothing to do with the article at all. I was tempted to delete a lot of the content, but in the interest of harmony and impartiality I instead archived it at Talk:Alien vs. Predator (film)/Archive 1, thus freeing up this space for new discussion about the article.
When contributing to this talk page, please try to adhere to the guidelines at WP:TPG, which are outlined in the header box above. Most notably:
#"Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."
#"A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research."
#"Sign your posts: To sign a post, type four tildes (~~~~)"
There were several problems which plagued most of the previous discussion here. The most prevalent was that a majority of the talk dealt not with the article at all, but rather consisted of reviews/opinions/rants about the film Alien vs. Predator itself. Please remember that talk pages are forums for discussion of the articles to which they are attached, and should only be used for discussing edits and changes to the article. They are not blogs on which to voice your opinions about the article's subject (in this case, the film), nor are they places to suggest original research. Finally, a great number of the archived posts were unsigned. Please remember to sign your posts so that others may know who has been editing and when.
With that said, I am adding a few subjects below which were not previously discussed but I feel should be brought up. IllaZilla 05:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived old discussion: March 31, 2007 

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

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

message: Apparently we have an edit battle going on.  I could cite other sources which mention this as being an Alien skull, such as Cinescape's ALIEN special issue which includes discussion with Dark Horse heads about the cameo and whether that came before or after the comics.  So citing confirmation isn't an issue.  The real question is... how is this appearance of an alien in a Predator film?  It rather blatantly is, unless we're approaching the Alien and Predator as "characters," which I think is certainly debatable since the Aliens in particular are portrayed more as obstacles than characters. --Bishop2 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would call both of them "creatures" rather than "characters" or "species." My objection to the way it was phrased earlier in the opening paragraph was that it said something like "...first shared appearance in a motion picture, other than the alien skull in Predator 2..." which to me just sounded somewhat unprofessional and more or less fanboy-ish. Is it worth mentioning the skull? Sure, if you're writing a section about how the concept for the movie was pitched and developed. But to stick it in the opening paragraph with that phrasing struck me as unnecessary and sort of opinionated. Even though there are sources to reference that indicate the skull was meant to be an alien, foreshadowing a future crossover of the franchises, the right place for that information isn't the opening paragraph of an article about the film Alien vs. Predator. That paragraph should stick to pertinent information about this film, giving an at-a-glance description and leading the reader to learn more in the following sections. --IllaZilla 01:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that's a reasonable view.  I'm going to move the info and citations into the development section. --Bishop2 05:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alien skull in the trophy case 

message: The release date is currently listed as 25th December 2007 - surely some mistake? Conrad1on 13:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AvP 2 

message: :Image:Predalien-1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Predalien-1.jpg 

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

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

message: I took the liberty of removing the box/list of "certificates." I don't want to devalue the hard work obviously put in by 66.67.59.10, but I felt it was long, unnecessary, and basically cluttered up the page without providing any information of real value. I took a look at a bunch of other film articles that have been featured articles, and none of them had anything like that. So I felt pretty comfortable eliminating it. Basically I don't see what the encyclopedic value is in listing the film's ratings in every country it was ever shown in. That's pretty much trivial information that could easily be found elsewhere, such as IMDB. If anyone objects and would like to make a case for putting the list back in, please do so here. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be somewhat useful because there was some furore over the rating of the film when it came out, but that could easily, and probably is, be dealt with in the article itself. Funkynusayri (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certificates box 

message: Is there any way to lock just a single sentence from editing?  This one sentence about Cameron's reaction to the film is being edited into a lie 3 to 5 times daily now, and I'm getting tired of having to constantly revert it back to the truth. --Bishop2 (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can request for the article to be temporarily locked. That often discourages vandals. But I don't think there's a way to lock just a section of the article. There may be a banner tag we can put in that section which says that it has been frequently vandalised, though. In the meantime I've put a bit of hidden text in there that anyone will see when they try to edit the section. I also placed warnings on the talk pages of all the IPs which have made that edit going back a week or so (I'm assuming they're all the same person or group of people, because they're identical edits). Basically it gets down to this: you cannot alter a direct quote in order change its meaning, or to make it advance a particular point of view. I believe that is in fact libel. As it appears now, there are 2 quotes from the interview which establish that Cameron had a negative opinion of the film before it was made, and a more positive opinion of it after viewing it. If you read the interview, this is exacly what he says. So altering the quote in order to make it appear that he only ever had a negative view of the film is intentional bias. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Locking it so that only registered users could edit the page would probably be enough, and I've seen other pages do that before, so that may be an option.  And oh yes, it's obviously intentional bias.  I don't think there's any way that this person is somehow confusing what Cameron said.  He or she obviously simply hates the fact that he said he liked the movie. But, hey, sorry.  That's what the facts are.  --Bishop2 (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's still going on, so I've put in a request for the article to be semi-protected. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the comment reading through and that it was incorrect so checked up on the source which showed it to be wrong.  If it is some one constantly changing this the artical should be tagged as such.  Shame though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.80.150 (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The James Cameron Vandal 

message: I have proposed the creation of a WikiProject to improve articles related to the Alien series, including this one. If you are interested in participating please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Alien and add your name to the list of interested editors. If enough people are interested in starting this project, then I will move forward with it. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Alien 

message: We do not put dot after vs if it should mean versus - it because shortcut 'vs' ends with the same letter as word 'versus'.
If you put dot after 'vs' - vs., you get shortcut from version. So this article means Alien version Predator.87.99.29.92 (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your grasp of punctuation and abbreviation seems about as sound as your grasp of the rest of the English language. See VS: "Versus, properly written 'v'. In North America the abbreviations 'Vs.' or 'vs.' are often seen." So technically it should be "v" but since it is in this case part of a title, we are writing it as it appears in the title card of the film. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dot after vs 

message: Seeing as the AvP film is placed before the events of Alien and all following Alien films, would it make sense to have it in timeline order, per the style of Star Wars (notably Ep. 3 is followed by Ep. 4) -- Harish - 04:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 problems I can see with that: 1) Since there is no set number of films in the series, as there is for Star Wars, we have no way of knowing if more films will be made that are set after AVP and AVP:R but prior to Alien. So a timeline wouldn't be set in stone. 2) I would argue that the way the Star Wars films are ordered in the infoboxes (the "preceded by" and "followed by" parts) are incorrect. The intent of that part of the infobox is to indicate the order in which films in the series were made and released, not the order in which their stories flow chronologically. So really Ep. 4 should come first and Ep. 3 should be last. Ep. 4 was not preceded by anything, as it was the first Star Wars film made. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronological order 

message: *"Based on an original screenplay written by director Paul W. S. Anderson and Shane Salerno, the two were influenced in the writing process by Aztec mythology, the comic book series, and the writings of Erich von Däniken." - It wasn't addressed and since it was a minor change, I addressed this.
*I doubt if the critics are allowed to view the film in advance. The relevant citation only talks about is about the film's delay in release was costing the movie valuable publicity and coverage by movie reviewers. - You should consider rewording the relevant text because, in my opinion, it does not really correspond with what argument you provided in response.
::I changed this source to one from The New York Times. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your detailed review :) M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusion 

message: Why can't the YouTube video on the James Cameron interview not be in the article? For one thing, it is not a copyright violation. The YouTube Terms of Use states this:
D. In connection with User Submissions, you further agree that you will not submit material that is copyrighted, protected by trade secret or otherwise subject to third party proprietary rights, including privacy and publicity rights, unless you are the owner of such rights or have permission from their rightful owner to post the material and to grant YouTube all of the license rights granted herein.
That's on the Terms of use page under 6. Your User Submissions and Conduct. YouTube videos that violate copyrighted works usually get deleted within a week; that video has stayed on for over 1½ years. Also, the video was posted by Jordan Morris, the guy that interviewed James Cameron in that video, works for the show, and obviously had permission to post it up; otherwise, it would've been deleted by now. It's like saying this video, which was posted by universalmusicgroup itself, is a copyright violation, which doesn't make any sense 'cause the company posted it itself. — Enter Movie (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:EL doesn't prohibit linking to YouTube, but allows it only if the link meets the other external link guidelines, which in 99% of cases it doesn't. In this situation we already have the text transcript of an actual interview, rather than a 12-second byte from the red carpet (hardly an "interview") which only has 1 sentence by Cameron. The interview that's already used as a reference is considered a better link to use than the video because it doesn't consist of rich media and doesn't require plugins for a reader to be able to view it. We also can't make the assumption that if it was copyrighted it would've been deleted. Like with Wikipedia, copyrighted content can stay on YouTube for a long time without anyone noticing it. Yes, YouTube tries to police itself, but the fact that anyone can upload videos to it makes it notorious for copyvio. Therefore common practice on Wikipedia is to avoid linking to YouTube, especially if there is another (official) site with the same or better content. For example, with the Sum 41 video you used as an example, it would be better to simply provide a link to the band's official website or MySpace profile, which has their music videos available for viewing in an unquestionably copryright-compliant manner. Given all that, I don't see the point in linking the video since we already have a transcript of a better, longer interview that has context to it and multiple paragraphs of statements by Cameron. You also can't make the assumption about what Cameron's opinions were at what times, since the YouTube clip has no date on it. The interview already linked states Cameron's views in a much more thorough manner. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work." The link with the James Cameron interview is undeniably better, but the YouTube link shows a different opinion. But it's still a reliable 12-second interview (maybe the interview was longer). And it's just 12 seconds. I've visited YouTube for a long time and have seen the workprint Halloween and Cloverfield teaser trailers that was taken down within a few weeks. Like I said, Jordan Morris works for the show and the video has been up for over 1½ years. The video has been up since August 11, 2006, and if you click on the video, click more. . . under "About This Video," it has Check out the full video: where you can go to Pt. 1 or Pt. 2 of the full videos about the Pirates of the Caribbean 2 premiere, which was released after the interview with James Cameron on that other link. The point of showing the YouTube link is to show that James Cameron has a different opinion about the film in another interview. — Enter Movie (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that the main issue is that we really have no context on when he said that or where.  We can't assume it was done in 2006 or at Pirates 2 or what. We'd have to find a way to mention this without giving it any context, which sorta seems to remove the point. --Bishop2 (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out the full videos. It's at the Pirates 2 premiere, and he's wearing the exact same costume as the video he was interviewing James Cameron. And since the Pirates 2 premiere was released after the 2-7-06, that YouTube video is definitely set after that Ain't it Cool News interview. — Enter Movie (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even so, he never specifically cites AVP either. Only the interviewer does. This just feels too much like more of what we've been dealing with on this article - people who keep wanting to delete the Cameron section because it upsets them... --Bishop2 (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? I'm not deleting the Cameron section. I'm adding more info. Anyways, back on topic: Like I've said, in the full videos, he's wearing the exact same costume and has the exact same microphone (and it even looks like it's the exact same crowd) as the YouTube one with the Cameron interview. — Enter Movie (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Daily Habit James Cameron Interview 

message: There's been a bit of an edit war going on between myself and Truthpolice7 over the wording of the opening paragraph and the "origins" section concerning Shane Salerno's credits on the film. I believe that the following are correct:
*In the opening paragraph: "An Alien vs. Predator film was put on hiatus until 2002, with the final production based on a story written by Dan O'Bannon, Ronald Shusett, and director Paul W. S. Anderson, and a screenplay by Anderson and Shane Salerno which was influenced by Aztec mythology, the comic book series, and the writings of Erich von Däniken."
*In the "origins" section: "Anderson started to work on the film after completing the script for Resident Evil: Apocalypse, with Shane Salerno co-writing. Salerno spent six months writing the shooting script, finished its development, and stayed on for revisions throughout the film's production." (citing this reference )
Truthpolice7 seems to prefer a different version which I feel is less accurate, saying merely that Salerno "revised" the screenplay and that "Salerno was brought on to rewrite the script by Twentieth Century Fox". The reference that is used in the "origins" section is an interview with Salerno in which he states  the following:
I worked on A vs. P for six intense months. I finished its development, wrote the shooting script, stayed on for revisions for cast, final budget and production notes and traveled to Prague to do on set work there. After that, I continued working on it back in Los Angeles when I returned. It was very exciting. I enjoyed working with Paul Anderson, who has a religious devotion to the first two Alien films and the first Predator film.
Based on that, it seems clear that Salerno's role was more than merely being "brought in by 20th Century Fox" to rewrite or revise the script. It seems that he played a major role in co-writing the screenplay with Anderson, and also wrote the shooting script. The situation is somewhat muddled by the fact that Salerno did not receive onscreen credit for his writing in the film itself, therefore he is not listed in the credits or on IMDb. I feel, however, that the article at present explains his contributions to the film accurately and in good detail, and I'm surprised that Truthpolice7, who purports to be trying to bring to light Salerno's role (as if there was some conspiracy to deny him credit), prefers a version that is less specific about his contributions and gives him less credit for his role. Salerno obviously played a major role in co-writing the film, he wasn't merely brought on for rewrites/revisions. I'm hoping that other editors who work on this article will chime in on this and offer their thoughts. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I admit there apparently was a problem with the reference link in some recent versions of the article. I found an older link that worked & fixed the reference there & here. This should help clear it up a bit, as I don't think Truthpolice7 was able to read the interview. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for fixing that.  It was bugging me. I tried to fix it earlier and was frustrated to see it removed; glad it's back. Now, I've seen Salerno described as the "closer" on the film, the last writer who did numerous touch-up re-writes to Anderson script over the course of many months leading up to the final draft.  Early script reviews on sites like AICN claimed that he was listed as having done "revisions."  I'm not sure if that makes him a co-writer or a re-writer, but both seem reasonable from the perspective of knowing he took an original script and proceeded to alter it multiple times for months. --Bishop2 (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shane Salerno's credits 

message: Obviously, we have some editors (or at least one) who really want this image in the article. Per the fair use criteria the image needs critical commentary to be acceptable. The image was first placed in the plot section, with absolutely no commentary at all, but then moved to the special effects section. This was better, but there wasn't anything there that needed an image to better illustrate what was being said. There's a single line about the Queen being made by animatronics and CGI; an image of either isn't necessary unless you have more commentary to support it. Remember, images are not supposed to be eye candy. A statement, "The queen created by computer animation", and then an image that barely even shows that computer animation is not acceptable. The image is unnecessary, as there isn't anything on the Queen's design other then some simple statement that they made a CGI version.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's unnecessary, seeing as we already have a couple of fair-use images used to illustrate the topics (1 for special effects already). Therefore an additional image is extraneous, and it's pretty clearly only being put in as decoration. The article is excellent without the queen image; let's go ahead and leave it out. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen image 

message: in the opening paragraph: "mostly negative reviews", "wooden dialogoue" etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.196.206 (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read past the opening paragraph and into the article body, you will find that they are cited in the "Reception" section. The lead forgoes the citations because it merely succinctly sums up the contents of the entire article. Everything in the lead is cited in the body sections of the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  some citations needed 

message: Article seems very dependent on either Internet references or DVD references.  Here are some print references to help make the article more comprehensive:
* (Paul W.S. Anderson talks about the challenge of making AVP)
* (Feature article detailing the visual effects/CGI work for Anderson's ALIEN VS. PREDATOR, created by Amalgamated Dynamics Inc., the Moving Picture Company and Double Negative)
* (Extensive production report on ALIEN VS PREDATOR, including details of the design evolution of the Alien and Predator creatures)
* (Special feature previewing Paul Anderson's ALIEN VS PREDATOR Includes an interview with Paul Anderson, with actor Lance Henriksen, production designer Richard Bridgland, comic book writer Randy Stradley, lists various facts about the film)
* (Cast and crew talk about working on ALIEN VS PREDATOR)
* (Paul W. S. Anderson talks about making AVP)
*
Please implement these references when you can. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Those all look great, but as they are print sources they are not easy for all of us to get our hands on (some are, but others less so). If you have access to them, then please by all means add any info from them that you feel is appropriate. I'll make an effort to find those that I can, and I also have David McIntee's book Beautiful Monsters from which I can add material. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If I was at my university, I could access some of them in the stacks.  They are not available online for me, unfortunately.  Access via library is your best bet, especially if they can do interlibrary loans.  For the last one, the book, type its title into WorldCat.org and see what libraries near you have it.  Also, here is a pretty good online article about the film's visual effects.  Just wanting to make sure the article adheres to the comprehensiveness criteria of being a Featured Article. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can give my university library a shot too, but first I have to pay the enormous late fees on my thesis books. :) --IllaZilla (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resources to use 

message: According to the article, "Salerno spent six months writing the shooting script, finished its development, and stayed on for revisions throughout the film's production," yet he is listed in the infobox as "uncredited." Given his contribution appears to have been substantial, I would like to see an explanation of why he received no screen credit somewhere within the article. Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 19:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a discussion about this above ("Shane Salerno's credits"); I have no idea why he wasn't credited, but the sources make it clear that his work on the script was pretty substantial. It may be that as a "script doctor" he typically doesn't receive credit (maybe that's a stipulation of his contracts), but I don't know. I couldn't find any source explaining why he isn't credited in the film itself, but for whatever reason he's not. This isn't uncommon, many such writers don't receive on-screen credit for their revisions. I don't know why. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your feedback. I saw the discussion above. I felt the issue should be addressed within the article, since it mentions all his contributions but doesn't explain why he failed to receive credit for so much work, which appears to have been much more than mere "revisions." LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 21:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncredited screenwriter 

message: Most Featured Articles have boldface for "Cast" sections because the bulleted items in them tend to be multi-lined.  An article like 300 (film), though, does not.  It's the same case here, where the bulleted items are right on top of each other, so there's no need for emphasis via boldface. —Erik (talk • contrib) 06:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Browsing through :Category:FA-Class film articles, I have to say I disagree. Here are a half dozen that contradict your assertion, where a majority of the entries are single-lined: Blade Runner, But I'm a Cheerleader, Casino Royale (2006 film), Jurassic Park (film), Red vs. Blue, and Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. There are of course examples on both sides of the fence, but as I look through the FAs I see that nearly all that are in bulleted list form, and have addtional text beyond simply the actors' & characters' names, bold those names regardless of the length of that additional text. Remember also that whether or not the text appears on a single or multiple lines will vary depending on the reader's screen size, window size, text settings, etc. There are simply too many variables to say "single line = no bolding, multiple lines = bolding". The example case at WP:FILMCAST uses bolding, and it says nothing about whether there needs to be multiple lines of text or not. Forgive me for sounding irritated, but the article has been FA for a year and a half with the bolding; removing it now just because it's going on the main page seems like  based entirely on some editors' personal preferences about appearance. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The best thing about Wikipedia is that it's always changing. Just because something was done a certain way in the past doesn't mean it has to be that way forever. I think the bolding looks awful. You can call it "unnecessary stylistic nitpicking" but that doesn't mean everyone agrees with your opinion. You seem to be claiming ownership of this article because of your past edits. I thought that wasn't acceptable. LargoLarry (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It helps to remember that WP:FILMCAST is one of the oldest sections in the guidelines.  I plan to propose a write-up for that section in time, as I've rewritten other sections to be more up-to-date with best practices.  The example in the guidelines used boldface because ideally, a film article should have real-world context about the actors and their roles.  Depending on the film, this can entail boldface, as it did for Witchfinder General.  There are films where there is not much to say about individual actors and roles, so it results a simpler cast list like this.  Two editors (at least) and I find the boldface unaesthetic, which is in line with the practice I've seen in place. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not claiming ownership, I'm merely a tad irritated by the sudden rush of very nitpicky stylistic changes that seem to be based on guidelines or MoS's that don't exist (or in the case of the bolding, actually contradict the existing MoS). This seems to be happening simply because the article is going to be on the main page, but then why was it made FA, and been FA for so long, with bolding and all of these other small differences in place? It's not like being on the main page suddenly changes all of the stylistic criteria or necessitates some massive copyedit. I'm not saying that it can't be improved, and if there's additional material to be added then by all means do, but from where I'm standing it's been an FA for quite a while without any major changes, and stylistically it looks just like a majority of our other film FAs, so I don't see why there's a sudden push to make it conform to supposed rules that don't actually exist. If you want to improve the WP:FILMS MoS to aim for more consistency between articles, that's fine; start discussions on the project pages. But don't tweak this article to your own POV just because it's going to be on the main page. Like I say, the format (bolding included) matches a majority of our other film FAs, so I don't see the rationale for applying a different style set to this article then we're applying to all of our others. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IllaZilla, the guidelines do not say when it is most appropriate to use boldface.  The example in the section uses boldface because there are multiple lines that warrant emphasizing the actor and the role.  The guidelines do not use a bullet for the beginning of the "Robert Russell" item.  Does this mean we should remove bullets across all film articles?  (This is part of what I mean by these particular guidelines being old and needing revision.)  Please assume good faith of others' efforts; we sincerely believe that it is unaesthetic to use boldface for items clustered so closely together.  This film article does not belong to anyone, but it does represent the nature of film articles on Wikipedia as it appears on the front page, hence our collective involvement to refine it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boldface 

message: The article itself looks good, but the guy in the picture used for the main page isn't identified on the main page. This should be fixed quickly. Drew Smith What I've done 22:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's off the main page now, but while it was there the image did have alt text that identified him. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA issues 

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

message: I don't know why it wasn't listed on the page, but Paul Anderson left the movie before it was even complete. No mention of it. I had read about it and that made me wonder how the movie would turn out. After I saw the movie, that was how it turned out. Their were some sites that did state it back in 2004. Anderson had got upset and left the movie. FOX had to dispatch others to finish up on the movie. Anderson was credited because he had stayed on for most of the movie. 
majinsnake (talk) 10 July 2010 (UTC)
: --IllaZilla (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update on the Production of the movie 

message: Robert Rodriguez has stated that Predators is meant to be a directo sequel to Predator and Predator 2, ignoring the AvP movies.  In order to keep continuity straight (for myself at the very least) has it been stated that the AvP movies are specifically meant as sequals to the previous Predator movies or Alien movies? --RedKnight (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The director of AVP specifically stated that the AVP films serve as sequels to the first 2 Predator films and prequels to the Alien films (being that they are set chronologically between the events of Predator 2 and Alien). Robert Rodriguez's goal was to get the Predator franchise back to its roots, breaking away from the AVP brand. Therefore Predators doesn't have any Aliens in it and doesn't reference the AVP films at all. But that doesn't mean it establishes a new canon; it simply doesn't reference the previous couple of films directly. AVP didn't reference Predator or Predator 2 at all either, yet these films still all represent continuous, intertwining franchises as there are no contradictions between them. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that's a big difference then.  It makes more sense to have them within a single contiuity rather then alternate universal counterparts.  Thank you. --RedKnight (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity of AvP withing established franchises 

message: I remember reading a text story in a book with more or less the same storyline as in this film, but set on a distant planet. In the book, at the end the Predator, before dying, taught the girl to say the Predatorese word for "Little Knife", that being a name that he gave to her. When the Predator ship came and left, they took the girl on board with them. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: on that. None of the sources say anything about the story being adapted from a book. It's an original screenplay. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Anthony's thinking of Aliens vs. Predator: Prey, by Steve and Stephani Perry. Prey was based on the original Aliens vs. Predator comic series scripted by Randy Stradley. For their version, the Perrys invented a spoken language for the Predators (including the word "yautja"). --71.2.131.119 (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This film was made from a book? 

message: It's WP:SYN to take an IMDB FAQ for Predator 2 about "the significance of the antique pistol" and comment on a perceived similarity to this film. The IMDB FAQ says it "was created directly by users and has not been screened or verified by IMDb staff" so isn't a reliable source in any case, but it simply isn't saying anything about Alien vs. Predator. --McGeddon (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you are saying. But some other editor has just said that I do not have to provide any reference to Alien vs Predator, when talking about it on the Alien vs Predator page, because Wikipedia permits that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The last couple of paragraphs of MOS:PLOT are clear on this. We can use the work itself as a source for what happens, but we can't use the work itself for pointing out callbacks to other films because that's not part of the work, it's a one-level-up interpretation of the work. That kind of thing can be fine and useful content (like the Cornetto in Hot Fuzz, which is amply sourced to director interviews), but it belongs outside of the plot summary. The plot section is just for delivering the plot to the reader as a standalone capsule summary. --McGeddon (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Note for this talk page: I am the other editor the IP is talking about, and I stated, "See MOS:PLOT; sources are not typically required. When they are, they should be reliable. Yours are not. Stop WP:Edit warring." Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predator 2 comparison 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Alien vs. Predator (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b8a223ab8
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified