Talk:Alien and Predator timeline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 25 March 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete; default to keep.
Alien Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Alien, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to the Alien science fiction franchise on Wikipedia. To participate, you can improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Objection

I am the creator of the page and what I don't understand is this deletion reasons. Whoever requested the deletion must not be a fan of the series for the reasons of deletion are not clear because:

  • The first AvP film clearly states the dates and times.
  • The second AvP film takes place directly after the events of the first AvP film.
  • The date in Aliens is stated as being 2179 and it is also stated that the events of the first film took place 57 years prior (aka 2122).

--Tj999 (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Although AVP:R does clearly seem to take place after AVP, there's no date attached except that it's "not October" according to Dale. Yet you have it listed as taking place in October. Furthermore, there is no date or location given for the events of the flashbacks to ancient times in AVP, yet you have dates listed and also claim to know where it happens, despite evidence in the film to the contrary (the temple in the past is blown up). Finally, no such date is claimed in Aliens. In fact, there are no dates in any of the standalone Alien films except "56 years later" in Aliens and "almost 200 years later" in Alien Resurrection. In the end, the vast majority of the items listed here have no actual dates that are citable, rendering a timeline irrelevant and impossible to construct, other than to say "this is the order the movies go in." And you could do that on the Alien vs. Predator franchise page. --Bishop2 (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Now I have the reference for AvP and as for AvP:R we will have to wait for the DVD to find out other information. Aliens and Alien 3 take place the same year and Alien occurs 57 years before Aliens while Alien: Resurrection takes place around 200 years after Alien 3. Obviously the Predator dates are accurate so there shall be no disscussion on that. --Tj999 (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Also object to delection

I am in agreement with the page author as to his times stated in the movies.

Also the entire theme is a synthesis, science fiction. I found the page not only helpful but verified much of the info from info available in the films themselves as noted by the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.76.10 (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page Saved

I now decided to bring the page to the next step by placing all information into a very organized table. I hope this table makes the information easier to understand for everyone. Thank you --Tj999 (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additions

I suggest the following additions (if the times are ever mentioned);

  • The launching of the Nostromo (I think it was mentioned how long they had been in space)
  • The opening of Fiorina 161, or it's prisoner reduction.129.12.200.49 (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the times could be found in the films, but I do not know. If you have the time to reasearch it that would be great. Thank you, though, for your input. --Tj999 (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alien vs. Predator is a good movie

I liked this timeline and think it should stay and the AvP movies do clearly state dates and times.I think it was well done, good job Tj999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.36.93 (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I admire your intrest and imput a lot! Also remember that the events of AvP-R take place directly after AvP so the year should probably stay as 2004. I am not for sure on the exact date yet, but once the dvd comes out I will be. Once again thank you very much and I hope to work with you in the future! --Tj999 (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

I have to say I agree with a number of User:Bishop2's concerns about the timeline, particularly in regards to the first several items satisfying WP:V, and the whole violating WP:SYN. I would also add that some of your dating is wrong - 5000 years prior to 2004 AD is actually 2996 BC, not 2994. In addition, I haven't watched AvP in a while, is there a source for the term "feasting ritual"? (The wikilink only goes to "ritual", so...) I would add in somewhat support that I believe the Unrated Edition DVD contains additional footage explicitly stated as being in 1904 at the whaling station. THAT could certainly hold up to WP:V somewhere in the related articles. However, as far as the AfD, I don't have a full opinion yet, but I do think it would help if you could find additional secondary sources to help back up your timeline. --Umrguy42 (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your imput. Well done on catching the 2996 BC date, I too actually think that should be it, so I will change it. --Tj999 (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Since the closure of the AfD was for keep, I have some other suggestions for some things to at least remove *some* of the controversy, and hopefully improve the article, if you're up for them:
  • As far as the first date, would it be acceptible to simply remove the location the Predators arrive on Earth? Unless it's specifically mentioned in the featurette in the reference that they land there, it's just controversial (and even then, you can debate whether that should be "definitive"/"canon"/whatever - may be worthwhile to have in a separate section of the article outside the timeline proper).
  • What exactly was the source for the second date? (I mean, what's the dialogue where this is mentioned?) If need be, this may need to be left at a more vague date (along with the actual construction of the pyramid at Bouvet Island). I both agree with Bishop2, AND play devil's advocate, that some pyramid (or pyramids) may have been destroyed at points past, but we can't say for sure either way.
  • As for some of the years (say, Alien, the stuff from Alien Resurrection), I know it's weaselling, but it may help to put "circa" in front of the years - yes, 2179 - 57 = 2122, but there was a discussion over on the Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles talk page on timelines, and in particular, the point was made that we humans tend to round numbers a bit, so depending on the dates, and exact time spent, we could potentially range from late 2121 to early 2123. Similar rationale on some of the other dates, especially where you ARE doing the math to reckon the dates.
  • In general, I would say your references/footnotes should be more like the one from Aliens - besides just stating the movie, a short note on *exactly* what line/scene/whatever brought that out would be helpful.
Anyway, hope these are helpful. --Umrguy42 (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have your first answer. I think it is clear to say that the first location is Cambodia because I believe that is what the director said in the featurette that I placed as a reference. As for the other things to clear up I will be back to try to fix those. Thank you for you suggestions. --Tj999 (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Now that the article is being kept, I definitely intend to see some of these assertions firmed up with factual cites as much as possible. I'm going to flip through my novelizations of the four Alien films to see if I can spot any citable dates for those movies; if I can't find any, I'll just add "citation needed" for those. We can't really cite the location on the first or second dates, as being at Cambodia or Bouvet Island or somewhere else is unknown, but we could conceivably just change it to "Earth." We might also want to toss in something I spied in the Alien vs. Predator novelization, which specifically mentions that the pyramid detonation seen in the flashback during Sebastian's story actually happened in Northern Cambodia "Circa 2000 B.C." --Bishop2 (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This is going off of Umrguy42's point on human's rounding numbers. I think that the 2179 - 57 = 2122 is right because with all the technology in the Alien franchise I bet they are easily able to come up with the length of Ripley's hypersleep.
Also I want to know if we are going to place alien, predator, and avp books in this timeline. If we do this it might get complicating but I don't know. Thanks. --Tj999 (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It would be very hard to place "expanded universe" stuff into the timeline, as IllaZilla has said. Although I do know that they revised and re-released the infamous Ripley/Hicks/Newt comics so that they're now about a Ripley android, a marine named "Wilks" and a girl named "Billie." But that's beside the point. I guess the major question is, okay, we know about the 57-year difference, but where the heck did we get 2179 in the first place? --Bishop2 (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, might help to double-check the source to make sure it's not being misread, but that's in the Aliens footnote - that may be the date of the directive from Burke, or possibly a date somewhere onscreen for Ripley's hearing. --Umrguy42 (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) On rounding, I agree they'd be able to precisely say how long she was actually in hypersleep - it's just that all Burke tells her is "57 years" (or whatever), as opposed to say "57 years, 2 months, 8 days, 3 hours, and 14.6 minutes"... or say "56 years, 10 months, etc. etc.". The point is, most people would likely round it to the major number when somebody asks "how long?" I don't insist on it, but I think using "circa 2122" would be better. As far as novels, I don't think Bishop2's suggesting including all events from regular (tie-in) novels, I think he's specifically mentioning strictly the movie novelizations for any possible information. --Umrguy42 (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You would have a ton of problems trying to fit in things from the exapanded universe such as novels, comics, and games. There is no official canon by which the expanded universe material for Alien or Predator ties in with the films, like there is for Star Wars. In fact there are things in the expanded universe (including the novels) that totally contradict events in the films. Like there is a comic series where Ripley, Hicks & Newt have continuing adventures after escaping LV-426. This was made before Alien 3, and of course Hicks & Newt were killed in the opening of that movie. That was one of the reasons I really didn't see this timeline as useful, as you can't tie in anything from the expanded universe & the series of events from one film in the series to the next is basically self-explanatory. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, no expanded universe stuff then. As for the Aliens 2179 time, that came from a part towards the end of the Aliens film where Ripley states that Burke sent a message to the colony adminastrator. I don't recall if the movie actually showed Burke talking about the message. If he did it would have been during the screening. --Tj999 (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
But that date only says "79," so it could be 2079, 2279, even 3079 for all we know. I've now gone through the novelizations of the first three movies and haven't found any dates, sadly. Still have to check A.C. Crispin's Resurrection novel for possible mentions, though. --Bishop2 (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
You are totally right on that note. I am going to have to say it is 2079. Reasons for this is because when Burke shows Ripley the photo of Ripley's daughter the birthday reads 20-- and the date of death reads 20--. so it would have to be 2079. I am sorry I released the wrong information then. Those other timeline sites have many flaws and we can not trust them. We must do our own research.
I will not change the dates until someone agrees with me on this. --Tj999 (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


Master A. Shley (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC) What I'm having a problem with is "Charles Bishop Weyland". He originally showed up as a "synthetic" (i think thats what they called him) in the Aliens movie. He was then in the end of the Alien 3 movie claiming to be the real one, as in human. BUT....he clearly dies in the first AVP movie. If not for the predator blade put through him, his decease would have. And his body was vaporised by the predators bomb too. I don't think it's just me when i say this doesn't make sense. How can someone die, and then be suddenly be all right again many many years later. *shrug* refactored to change away from lvl 1 heading --Umrguy42 (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the problem. The first AVP clearly establishes the character of Charles Bishop Weyland, human. Who dies. In Aliens, we have Bishop, clearly an android, who's (obviously) been modelled on the original Weyland. (Why, we don't know, but maybe Weyland-Yutani likes having one around. But I digress.) In Alien3, we see a character (played by Lance Henrikson) who the credits label as "Bishop II"... who may be an android, or may be human (never made clear). If it's not another Bishop-model android, it could be presumed to be a descendant of the original CB Weyland. BUT... Bishop II has never been presented (to my knowledge) as being the original Charles Bishop Weyland. --Umrguy42 (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Feasting ritual"???

I definitely don't think that term is correct. The Predators do not "feast" on either humans or Aliens, as they do not eat them. They use the humans as hosts for the Aliens and then hunt the Aliens for sport & challenge. It's a "rite of passage" or a "hunting ritual" but definitely has nothing to do with "feasting". I would change the wording myself but I wanted to ask here where you got that impression or wording from. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If it were I who wrote "feasting" in then that was my own mistake, because I thought I wrote "hunting" instead; as you suggested. I'll just change it though. Sorry. --Tj999 (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries. It's not the first time I've seen people refer to it as "feasting" so I was curious where that wording/idea came from. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fix UP

Thank you IllaZilla for the fixer upers and all, this timeline needs to be top noch. To get it to be top noch, I understand, we need to pull in those secondary sources and all. With research and time things of this timeline will come together. As of now I am working on the AvP novels but afterwards I will come back to the timeline, which I first created, and help it out. --Tj999 (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)