Talk:Predator (fictional species)/Archive 2

message: This article states he stood at 7 foot 2 inches. His article says he was 7 foot 2 and a half. Either is plausable. But in John McTiern's commentary for Predator he states the Kevin was 7 feet 6 inches. He didn't specify whether this was in the Predator suit or not, but I believe not. Previously in the commentary he described Sonny Landham's body guard (6'6"), so maybe he was mistaken, as he seems to stumble a little in his commentary. I'm a bit unsure, if you look at the shot just as the Predator drops Dutch after observing him so that he can take his helmet off, the Predator looks massive and Arnold his roughly 6'2".
Also John himself states that he cast Kevin in the role of the helicopter pilot at the end of the movie and even points it out. The pilot of the chopper doesn't look or sound like Kevin, who I've seen in the making of of Predator 2. I could just be mistaken, though. I'm still very unsure of the facts about Kevin.
Although it would be more suitable to post his on Kevin's page, more people come here, and it is related to this article. Basically, I've no real idea of the truth about him, and I think it's neseccary to clean it up.LordJesseD (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kevin Peter Hall's Height and Portrayl 

message: When I listened to the commentary for Predator, John McTiernan states the suit weighed near 200 pounds (aprox. 110 kgs), and took about 5 hours or so to put on, and another 5 to take off. Kevin Peter Hall would wear a cool suit, similar to a race car driver's, which would keep him cool for roughly 2 hours. John McTiernan also had a "bungee rig" of sorts built (sorry for miss-spelling that if I did), which, to my knowledge, was used on the scene where the Predator jumps over a few rocks next to the waterfall after being unable to see Dutch, used to support the immense wait of the suit and actor, allowing Kevin to run. I think that if this information could be added to this article and the article for Predator, it would be useful. Also John Rosengrant says that the suit for Predator had much of the weapons (i.e. wristblades) and armor attached to the suit, but in Predator 2 much more of the Predator's inventory was removable and clip-on, done for a more realistic feel. (Except for the Predators appearing at the end in the spaceship). I should think this would be promising information for this article.
There's also something I disbelieve, that the suit for Predator, Kevin Peter Hall was unable to see out of it. I haven't watched the making ofs for Predator, but I know in Predator 2, the mask with the mandibles was tight-fitting with no eyes, and Kevin would wear contact lenses. I'm to believe that this was the technique used in Predator. So is this a false rumor, or am I mistaken? It's sourced in the article for Predator, but someone could have referrenced that to add fuel to the fire. I'm still open to the fact I'm in the fault, so feel free to prove me wrong. 
I'm 99% sure the mask Kevin would wear with the face cut-out and the helmet velcroed on, Kevin would see out the mesh "lenses." An interesting comment from Stan Winston on the makin of of Predator 2 was this: "Broad concept's the same. The difference is, this is a different individual. A different individual of the same species. As is a snake is a snake is a snake, but different snakes are different. Their colorings are different, different parts of their characterristics, their facial structures, suttle differences." I think that is quite an intelligent and meaningful comment that would do well in one of those small little blue boxes off to the side that noone ever puts in italics and it would be a viable relation to how the Predators all appear similar.LordJesseD (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds really promising. I'd support it, but how do you reference a commentary? By the way, the bit about the helmet being velcroed in is true. This is confirmed in the book "Winston effect".Dark hyena (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew that it was velcroed on, just didn't know (then) if he could see out the mesh. It was finite enough not to see into, but allowed someone to see out. To referrence a commentary I'd use the {ref}{/ref} (with the right characters) way. Just have it as, "Predator commentary, DVD, John McTiernan (year)." Just a simple referrence that provides the truth. By the way, would a picture of the contact lenses and the suit without the helmet help? All this information from the making ofs etc. would have to go in, we could use doubleimagestack-thing or I could Photoshop them together, or something. I think I might add Stan Winston's comment.LordJesseD (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Suits for Predator and Predator 2 

message: Okay, this is a slightly tricky subject. In Predator he has infrared vision while his helmet is on. When he takes it off, we see it's all mostly red. Thus: The original infrared camera they used on Predator was genuine. But because everything in Mexico is so hot, everything appeared the same. For it to appear blue with the helmet on Joel Hynek, the visual effects supervisor, said to cover the area in ice water and have the actors stand next to a fire before shooting. I'm to believe they did this with the guerilla camp scene in Predator.
But it was phenomonal work, and apparenyly John McTiernan simply filmed the other senes normally and took the film to a visual effects place and just painted it 'infrared' to save the effort. Also, he says they could move the infrared camera very much either, saying something like they could only move it about 4 feet from its rig. So it's our fan belief that the Predator's helmet filters ambient heat and body heat, while his natural vision doesn't. Well, in Predator 2 they used a true blue ifrared camera which recorded in greyscale and they added a color motif later. This is why the infrared looks far better in Predator 2. On a trivial note, the opening scene of the Predator overseeing Los Angeles was recorded with a police helicopter. But in Predator 2, we see the Predator without his helmet, his vision is the "normal" infrared, again because Los Angeles isn't like Palenque, Mexico.
In, Predator 2 we see other visions, same for AVP and Requiem, including the Alien vision. These don't really concern me. Although in Requiem Wolf takes off his helmet and sees in the red vision (even though it's a ship in a cold forest, but it could have been hot from re-entry to the Earth, although how could he touch it?). I just think the above information could be helpful to the article from a design POV.LordJesseD (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest including all this in a section on vision or special effects, with references to the behind-the-scenes featurettes you mention. Since you obviously have the desire and access to the features, I think you're in the best position to do it. Edit away! --IllaZilla (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I might start a new part under the creation section. I'll call it "Vision effects." Calling it "POV effects" would make it in-universe. Really I just got this from the commentaries. I only listened to the commentary for Predator 2 for about a minute, too, so I'll go over that before I do anything. Thanks for your support.LordJesseD (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predator's Vision 

message: To anyone who has seen the extras on AVP:R, could you perhaps talk about what was mentioned in the documentary "Science of the hunter" or the Predator homeworld? Dark hyena (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science of the hunter 

message: Please check this link;
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/2206/trikdeww6.png
Compare with;
http://fossilhistory.com/data/boneimages/triceratops.jpg
They look exactly the same. Clearly a triceratops. The concept of Predators hunting dinosaurs in the Cretaceous period is not new. It was covered in the graphic novel Predator: Homeworld, in which one scientist character speculated that Predators caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. 
I will not undo the recent edit for now, as I feel this is open to discussion. Any thoughts? Dark hyena (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. It's properly sourced so we don't have that as a reason not to include it. Only concern I can think of is how to write it in.--Marhawkman (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're looking at a movie still, drawing your own conclusions, and then adding them to the article, then you're conducting original research. If the only reference is the film itself, and you're drawing conclusions or posing theories beyond "there is a skull resembling a Triceratops", then those claims are not properly sourced. The commentary track on the DVD only makes mention of the space jockey skull, not any others. So unless you have a reliable source then it's inappropriate to draw your own conclusions, as you did in the text you added: "It is implied in Aliens vs Predator: Requiem that the Predators may have visited Earth during the Cretaceous period, as shown by a triceratops skull being on display in a trophy room." (citing the film itself). This is an encyclopedia, after all, not a detective agency. We need to be adding sourced, real-world analysis rather than trying to identify every skull in the 3-second scene and invent our own theories about them. For example, without a reliable source it's equally plausible that the directors threw that skull in as a reference to the Triceratons of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles stories. I'm not saying they did, in fact I think your claim is much more likely, but I'm illustrating how it's inappropriate to make theories & draw conclusions without proper sources. That's why I removed the claim. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, but by that same logic, a reference would be needed to provide evidence that the skulls to the left of the Predator are indeed human. Dark hyena (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, because we're not making any further claims about them. We can of course say that there's a trophy room filled with skulls of various species; that is plainly obvious & easily verifiable. But your text went well beyond that: "It is implied in Aliens vs Predator: Requiem that the Predators may have visited Earth during the Cretaceous period, as shown by a triceratops skull being on display in a trophy room." You are making inferences/assumptions about backstory plot elements that are not stated or shown in the film, nor discussed in the commentary or other sources, based on what you think is "implied" by the prop. Stating what appears on screen and making claims about what it implies are 2 different approaches. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I guess that would be fine. The reason I don't think anyone bats an eyelid over identifying the human skulls as human is because it's blatantly obvious. Besides, we know with 100% certainty that they hunt humans in the film series. I mean, there are 2 movies that are entirelyl about Predators coming to Earth to hunt humans. Nobody bats eyelids over saying that the Alien skulls are Alien skulls either, since there are 2 movies about them hunting Aliens and we see the Predator in that very scene skinning an Alien skull. We just don't look at the skulls and make inferences like "oh, that means that they've been visiting planet x for y number of years." That would be a claim not explicitly supported by the source. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: another example would be the skull display case in Predator 2. On appeared to be of a predatory dinosaur. Most likely a tyranosaurid.--Marhawkman (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldnt go that far. Though tyrannosaur-like, a close inspection shows it really isnt that similair. It has two lower jaws, and multiple eye sockets.Dark hyena (talk) 10:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? got a picture? I wanna see this. it sounds interesting.--Marhawkman (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fairly certain you're referring to this? Or maybe another skull in that scene but I can't find a good pic of it. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: different skull. *scurries off to google*--Marhawkman (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-watched the scene on my DVD & I see the skull you're talking about. It's to the left of the ones in the above pic. Unfortunately I can't find a screenshot of it on google, but I did find this which is from a diorama model made by a fan recreating the scene. Looking at the model and the freeze-frame of the film on my TV I'd say the model is pretty damn close to the actual prop in the film, and in either case clearly not a tyrannosaur. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Ah I see. Well that settles that little controversy. :) --Marhawkman (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omission of Triceratops skull 

message: Well I went ahead and merged the language article. I know that information I merged in is minimal, but honestly everything in that article was original research, speculation, an unsourced stuff about fan communities. In fact the only 3 "references" were links to fan sites. Honestly I barely found anything salvageable to merge, except to mention that the author of the novel series created a language set for that series. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: People like you ruin wikipedia. Why do you delete things? Cant you do anything constructive? Perhaps go and search for sources for the historic articles and leave other articles alone.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.32.156 (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing original research and unverifiable information is not "ruining" Wikipedia, it is improving it. Creating articles about trivial fictional minutia, and filling them with original research and fancruft, is what's ruining Wikipedia. These types of articles are regularly and rightly deleted or merged. If you don't like that, then Wikipedia probably isn't the place for you. —IllaZilla (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of language article 

message: "In 2004 a Predator ship arrives in Earth orbit to draw humans to an ancient Predator training ground on Bouvetøya"
There was noting in the movie that was done to included humans in their hunt.  The humans in the move always seemed to be in the way.  The Predators may have been planning on bringing hosts with them.  That seems as authentic as what the article states.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.6.18 (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The humans did theorize, upon translating the heiroglyphs, that the "heat bloom" which Weyland's satellites had detected had been created for the purpose of luring humans to the pyramid to serve as hosts for the Aliens. There weren't any other humans around for thousands of miles, so they wouldn't have had any hosts otherwise. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Is there any information regarding the sound predators make, I believe it to be a relivant topic that should be included in the article - RVDDP2501 (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the AVP:R DVD special features there is some commentary by the guy who made the noises. I don't recall what he said exactly, and I have no idea if he was the same guy who did it for the previous 3 films. Basically he makes the noises with his throat, and has slightly different sounds for different "moods" or expressions of the Predator. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predator chirp/noise 

message: why is it still on the table?--Marhawkman (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because no one's carried it out yet. There was discussion (here), and I think the arguments in favor of merging were laid out pretty well, but nobody's actually gone to the effort to carry it out yet. The technology article is still completely devoid of third-party sources, and should be pared down to a couple of well-referenced paragraphs that would fit nicely in this article. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: why would they?--Marhawkman (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would they what? Fit nicely in this article? Why wouldn't they? One could easily fit a few referenced paragraphs in this article summarizing the technological aspects of the Predator characters. That's where this info belongs. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: why would someone bother? The subject is one almost guaranteed to lack reliable third party sources. It's one of those annoying topics where you can find just enough sources for notability but cannot write an article based on anything but 1st part sources. Then again, most fiction oriented subjects are like that. A paragraph in this article is great. But condensing all of Predator technology into a paragraph or two is inane. Oh and "I think the arguments in favor of merging were laid out pretty well," By you and you alone. In case you forgot, I was your most vocal opponent. You didn't really have any supporters.--Marhawkman (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone considered, there is way too much information there, and will be more in the future, for a decent merger..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.120.200 (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is way too much plot summary and in-universe explanation in this article that could be significantly trimmed down. Additional real-world content would of course flesh it out properly. The Predator technology article is entirely in-universe plot summary and could easily be whittled down to a couple of paragraphs that would fit here nicely. This article is only 37K, not long by any standard. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Kevin Peter Hall's wikipedia page says the actor was 6 foot 6 inch tall. This page quotes it at 7'2" and doesn't specify if this was *in* the suit or his normal height. 
71.239.175.55 (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error (inconsistent information) 

message: I think it would be helpful is the unmasked faces photo had a caption that identified which of the films each of the four images came from. I'd like to know which is which. --JamesAM (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo caption 

message: It says that the final and largest Predator in the movie is defeated in single combat by one of the last two survivors. This, however, is inaccurate seeing as without the aid of the second survivor, the first would not have been able to defeat the Predator. Taken from the Predators (film) page:
"A fight ensues in which Royce successfully decapitates the Predator after being saved by a sniper shot from the recovering Isabelle." 96.252.156.84 (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predators Movie Inconsistency 

message: keeps putting in "However they have been shown to see in the same visual perception indicating that some see the same way as humans." Am I wrong, or is this completely false? As far as I recall, in every film when a Predator removes its helmet & the camera goes to a first-person, "through the Predator's eyes" perspective, they always see in infrared. There is no evidence to suggest that "some" see in the same spectrum as humans. I've reverted the IP several times & warned them with , but they keep re-adding it. Can someone back me up on this? I don't want to get blocked for edit-warring, even though I see this as introducing a deliberate factual error. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No you're right, this person appears to be talking about the video games, or the "unmasked Scar vs. Queen" fight in AVP. (There's this idea that the Aliens don't give off heat, not sure of the source...) The infrared effect intensifies when they take off their helmets in P1 and P3.---CadmiumX99 (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vision 

message: I removed the second external link due to it being no longer valid. Assuming it was just a glitch, I am including it here. 
* Predator: The Hunted Predator Information Site Ferrett (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I attempted a fairly mundane move from Predator (alien) to Predator (fictional alien) but this was reverted.  Unfortunately, neither editor gave a reason why the older title was better, so let me ask outright: Does anyone object to the new title, and if so why?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to make a move then please request a move by a formal request at WP:RM as you have been reverted. Keith D (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need for a formal request with WP:RM; the article isn't locked and any autoconfirmed user can rename the page.  Does anyone object to the new title, and if so why?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As there has been a revert on your previous rename there is obviously some contention as to what the name should be. I am requesting that if you want a move that you make a request so that it can be discussed and those who disagree with your proposed rename can air their views. By requesting via WP:RM it gets to a wider audience rather than a restricted one of just this talk page which can get overlooked. We do not want to get into a move war over the name of the article. Keith D (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was reverted, but neither editor gave a reason why the older title was better.  Their objections seemed to be based on mistaken understanding of process.  Not all moves need to go through community consensus.  If it did, they wouldn't make moves available on an article-level basis, nor would we have policies like WP:BOLD.  Does anyone object to the new title, and if so, why?  Thanks.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I am objecting to a move because you have been reverted twice and want to see a formal move request before this page is moved. Keith D (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, a formal request is not needed.  And again, can you please explain why you think the old title is preferable to the new one?  This is at least the fourth time I've asked this and I have yet to receive a single answer.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A formal request definitely is needed under the circumstances. You've had three editors so far tell you that the article shouldn't be moved without one. Personally, I prefer the current title as it is simpler and more elegant. I understand your rationale for changing the title, but I don't agree with it. I think we can rely upon readers to assume that "alien" means "fictional alien" and does not refer to a real alien species. Since no real alien species have so far been shown to exist, readers aren't likely to wonder, "Well, is this article about a real alien species or a fictional one?" Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Predator (alien)" might be a bit shorter than "Predator (fictional alien)" but not by much, and I know of no policy that states that brevity trumps accuracy.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You evidently haven't understood the point of my objection to the move. You're seeing a problem that doesn't exist: a supposed confusion between a real alien species and a fictional one. The problem doesn't exist because (at this stage, and as far as anyone knows) all alien species are fictional. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you're saying that it's OK for the article name to be wrong on the assumption that the reader will know better? Why not just fix the title so that it's accurate?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm saying that the article name is not wrong, because until anyone establishes the contrary, "alien" doesn't mean anything except a fictional creature. And yes, I think it's reasonable to assume that readers aren't slobbering morons who might get confused and think that Predators are actually real. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Titles should be as short as possible; adding the word "fictional" in there isn't beneficial, as there's no need to distinguish between a real alien and a fictional one. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone might think we're saying "illegal alien" ...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.183.136 (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: Aren't the predators cyborgs? I was wondering why this article didn't have the :Category:Fictional cyborgs...and for some reason I can't find any mention of them being cyborgs on the net. Why is that? --Fixuture (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that the predators' technology was outside their bodies, built into suits, tools etc, rather than being part of them. Pastychomper (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyborgs?