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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

link error?

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)

Filming location

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0370263/locations

Ellen Ripley's ancestor, Alexa 'Lex' Woods

I would consider that Alexa 'Lex' Woods to be the ancestor of the Ripley family if this was true even though she was black while her descendant was white, i mean now she has the Yautja mark, i think that Ellen Ripley would carry on this bloody and costly "fighting for survival" tradition passed down from her ancestor (without the mark) though she doesn't about know about it, but i was thinking that in Alien 5, she will discover that secret of her family and eventually use the Yautja Pike-Spear in a final battle against the Queen Mother of the Hiveworld.

John-1107

There is absolutely no evidence for that, either in the canon or out of it. Teflon Don 08:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think he's suggesting it. It's a very good story-line, maybe for an animated Alien 5? --145.94.41.95 18:46, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Alien 5 is not animated.--Ed Telerionus 17:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alien 5 also doesn't exist. If it ever is released, it could very well be animated, as odd as that may be. --Vyran 9 July 2005 05:55 (UTC)

I'm so happy that your not in charge of writing the script for the Aliens films, Aliens needs to distance itself from AvP not draw itself into some vast ret-confest where everything must be changed to fit in with AvP. The inclusion of Bishop in AvP was bad enough.

What's wrong with Weyland being in AVP?

Plotting out the plot

Plot Outline? This is a very detailed story only short of film dialogs! Keep on writing anyway. :) -- Toytoy 09:18, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

You know, you're right :) I thought about this a bit... hmm... I'll see what I can do. Just gimme a few minutes.--Clueless 09:24, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done. I separated the details from the outline and placed them in two separate sections. BTW, I'm not sure if the plot details section should be the second one. Feel free to move it closer to the bottom if you think that's better. --Clueless 09:38, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Now we have three sets of spoilers:

Plot synopsis (single paragraph)
Plot outline (three acts)
Highly detailed plot information (everything including kitchen sinks)

I think they call it pyramid writing. Its the newspaper style of writing! -- Toytoy 10:05, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... I think that having three separate sections about the plot would make the page a little too complicated, don't you think? I have an idea... how about merging the synopsis into the introductory blurb at the top of the page and then making your outline a subsection of the detailed plot info?

That way, we'd just have one section dealing with the plot details. My thinking is this: People who want general information (and no spoilers) can read everything except the plot section. And people who want to know everything that happened in the movie can read the details.

I think that'd make the page a bit cleaner. What do you think?

--Clueless 10:51, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I'm going to edit the page to show you what I mean... if you think it's bad, we can revert it back to the current design. --Clueless 10:58, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

The reason I use Act 1, 2, 3 is because traditionally, almost all scripts follow the 3 Act format. In this movie, forming the team and going to south pole is Act 1; fighting each other is Act 2; becoming partners is Act 3.

This is a script writer's basic tool. It's been used since the Greeks were playing toga parties. Thank you for your editing. Now this article is rich and enjoyable. I love spoilers! -- Toytoy 14:15, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

The 3 Act Play formula

Boy meets girl
Boy loses girl
Boy gets girl

Not only romantic comedies follow this formula, war dramas, action movies, science fictions, ... . They all use this formula. So is this movie.

Humans meet bad guys
Humans slaughtered by bad guys
One good human makes friend with one bad guy

-- Toytoy 14:43, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood your reasons for separating the plot into acts :) Right now, they're separated into the intro, body, and conclusion, which is still basically the same thing. I'll go ahead and change them back to Acts 1, 2, and 3 now that I understand what you meant.

If you want to know more, let me explain (otherwise, just skip this paragraph): When I first started writing down the plot, I had to stop halfway through because I was simply too tired that night. I posted the edit in the hopes that somebody would continue where I left off. An anonymous user did so and they finished the rest of the story. However, if you look at this page, you can see that he or she added a "Second Act" a paragraph after line 31. This is where I first stopped writing and I believe the anonymous writer took that to be a deliberate pause in the movie. It wasn't. I simply had to go to bed. I didn't think it would make sense to break into a separate act here, especially since the Predators were just about to begin their attacks. Anyway, I thought you added the acts solely because of this. Since that isn't the case, I'll revert it :)

Also, what do you think about the new sections? As I said, I mainly wanted to keep the spoiler information in one section so that people who don't want to know too much about the movie can avoid it until they've seen the movie. And, for consistency's sake, it seems that most other movies on Wikipedia have less information, so I just tried to keep the format similar to other movies' layouts: Intro - synopsis - cast and crew. The additional details are located at the end for people interested in them, but otherwise, a casual browser should be able to skip that section entirely. Do you think that makes sense or do you still think the original method was better?

And about the article being interesting... well, if you're really bored, maybe reading it wouldn't be so painful. But trust me: You should just go and watch the movie yourself if you haven't already seen it. It'd be much more interesting than any plot summary :)

Thanks,

--Clueless 15:23, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Boy, I love spoilers. I am sick. I admit it.

When I copyedit your first part, I wanted to use Act 1, 2, 3. But I havent's seen the movie, so I am even more clueless than you are. The second writer used Act 2, I thought he placed it in the wrong place. But I haven't seen the movie yet.

And then I saw this plot summary started to become a novelization. It was funny. I wanted to write a 3 Act description, and then came your single paragraph. I was laughing like a fool. We have not only one spoiler, but THREE HUGE SPOILERS for this stupid movie. Sadly, we can't post the copyrighted screenplay and storyboard. Anyway, I LOVE IT!

I'll see this movie. -- Toytoy 16:10, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Tsk tsk tsk... some people just don't pay any attention to {{spoiler}} warnings :) And yeah, the movie might not have been the most monumental film ever released, but I was so bored that night that I figured I'd just describe as much of it as I could. But looking back, maybe that was kinda dumb. Oh well. If someone complains, they can always (re)move it.

--Clueless 17:28, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Someone who has actually seen this movie should come in and edit the plot summary down to a reasonable length. Right now the synopsis is as long as the combined plot summaries of all the other Alien and Predator movies, and considering the critical panning and low cultural impact of AvP, it really doesn't merit that much time or space. Since I haven't seen the movie, however, I don't feel comfortable in editing it to a reasonable level. Oldkinderhook 22:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Added a Link to the Movie review query engine --203.217.32.219 12:53, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'Nonetheless, the film did reach the number one spot during the first weekend of its release.' - Is this supposed to refer to the US? If so, it should probably say so. Andrewferrier 19:51, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

Point of plot confusion

Having just recently seen this movie, I'm confused on one point. At the beginning of the movie, the predators are killing the humans but at the end they form an alliance. The only semi-plausible explanation I can think of is to kill the humans to keep them from being inpregnated with the aliens, thus less for the predators to kill. But that seems just too weak. Cburnett 22:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If I understood the movie correctly, the humans were never the primary focus. Maybe the Predators were killing the humans at the beginning because they were simply bored? They are hunters, after all, and you can see them hang some of the human corpses up as trophies after the kills. This is in line with some of the AvP games, where the Predators kill humans for no reason aside from the fact that they're there. We're just fun to massacre!

Or, perhaps they were deliberately trying to force the humans into the temple to faciliate the real hunt (for the Aliens).

Later on, the "alliance" between Predator and Human only exists between two individuals, not the two species as a whole. So it was probably more of a short-term partnership than an all-out alliance. Perhaps the lone Predator wanted help against the Aliens' sheer numbers, or perhaps he saw in her the same hunter spirit? That might make sense given what happens in the end when the other Predators leave her alone as well.

Just a guess :) Clueless 09:56, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

I propose that the Predators were killing humans with guns so that the humans didn't ruin the hunt by killing the aliens in self defense (as unlikely as that would be anyway). Later, after the shoulder cannons were found, the Predators were pretty anxious to get them back, and weren't just going to ask for them. Teflon Don 08:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Map of Antartica?

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)

When they all them meet the capitalist guy (name?) right at the start of the film, I think one of the archaeologists mention the map, I've heard about before, some years ago. An ancient map showing features that are under the snow and only visible using satilites, etc. --145.94.41.95 17:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The map is known as the Piri Reis Map

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)

I am not really interested in the film, but in the (fake) map! I remember reading about it some years ago, but I am sure that it was a fake; I am really looking for links to articles about the map.

Well I thought I could google it and this is what I found: http://www.wwatching.net/enigma_ancient_maps.htm#Antarctica --145.94.41.95 18:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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)

more discussion in the 'trivia' section exists responding to the ancient map.

Anderson's true baby : the birth of the Predator Mary Sue.

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)

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))

Historical inaccuracies

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)

Plot in Detail Out of Order?

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)

"historical inaccuracies"

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)

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)

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)

NOT AVP!?

I was looking forward to this movie, infact i was the first fool to know about this movie in my school (no doubt!i am a movie boy). AFter watching this movie, i notice, i didn't say any good things about this movie, although i got a spoiler from my firend that saw it before me. This movie has nothing to do with the movies or game(PC). Only has some conpect to do with some comics and novel.

How can a alien fight? that is one of the things that messed up the movie, alien's don't fight like that, they do sleath mode to kill their enemies.
predatror's are huge, big and hench, : i like that, that is how they should be, but they didn't even do any sleath for them has well
Storyline and Plot, was complety messed up, first of all you are going on diggin! Why did yuor crew brign guns? for god sake it's digging! (dumb @ss director didn't know how to put the gun section in the movie, but made a dailog for it)

What happens in the end, Predator has an alien inside it's chest, the alien bust the sh@t out of his chest

I told my friend, there an't gonna be a second one, but he says there will... do you think there will? >x<ino 00:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Okey, that was stupid of you. First I will say that I don't know that "sleath" means, but I think it is something with lurking with stealth.

Aliens do fight like that. Think that Aliens are very strong, the perfect monster, and the :Predators is not as weak as humans. Look at Aliens for more info.

Predators fights that way as well. They just don't have the weapons to be nasty, and the aliens is nastier than humans.

I don't know about the weapons, but remember the girl with the gun. Maybe the same mentality.

For the rest of you that reads this section, don't be like Xino.

This is quite old, i should delete this section

Yes i am correct!

If you look at Alien movie, Alien Comics and Alien games, they move in "Stealth2, my correction for my earlier mistake
Predator in other hand,...can't be botherd, this is a waste, the movie was a waste

100%, 69% were left down by the movie, i am one of them which makes it 70%

29% where happy about the movie, you are one of the fools which makes it 30% add up to 100% >x<ino 02:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

DVD

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)

>>>

I just bought (2006.01.28) the two disk unrated DVD release and think it is really neat. Disk #1 contains both the theatrical release as well as an alternate version with 8 extra minutes. Disk #2, contains quite a bit of pre and post production information as well as interviews.

--Neilrieck 23:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

My edits (March 11th)

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)

Ending Explanation

So like, in the end, was the thing that came out of the PRetadors chest an alien or a predator. Possible explanations. 1) This is how predators reproduce, they die and a new one forms. 2) In the shot when the predator marks itself, the third facehugger impregnated the predator If 1 is true, perhaps this means that the Aliens are related to the predators somehow. Maybe the Predators used their own DNA to make the Aliens or the Aliens evolved from the predators.

I'm assuming that you're not trolling but you really need to watch Alien 3.

It's a Predalien.

Clueless 09:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The Alien's use a sort of parasitic method of reproduction - The Queen lays eggs containing "face huggers" who wait within the eggs until a living creature is within striking distance of them. Once within range, the face huggers attach themselves to the living host, and affix themselves for a period of time, during which they essentially insert a featus into the chest cavity of the host. After a period of time, when ready, the host "gives birth" to that featus, and it exits through the host's chest plate, killing the host in the process. One of the major tennats of this process is that the Aliens cully some of their inherited traits from whatever creature is serving as their host - the Xenomorphs we are usually shown have somewhat human qualities because they've used humans as hosts. In Alien 3, one Alien uses a dog (or a bull, depending on which version of the film you watch) as a host, and thus takes on several canine (or bovine, as the case may be) traits, incluidng being a quadraped instead of a biped. What we see being 'born' at the end of AVP is the result of a facehugger "impregnating" that particular Predator. The new born Alien has obviously taken on traits of the Predator, including the mandables. It's hard to say exactly what the creature would look like, but we can venture an educated guess that it would be a biped of large size, with the "Alien Warrior" type head, a Preadtor-like mandible, the acid blood and the "mouth within a mouth" system usually seen in the Xenomorphs.

It's called the DNA Reflex, according to one of the Alien books. They steal any handy physical characteristics.

Fan Response?

I'm surprised there's not more on the way this movie obviously circumvented Alien canon...it offers lots of possible explanations to excuse the film's glaring errors, amd weaves it's way aroudn without stating an obvious conclusion; that many disgruntled fans realize the movie just blew off or retconned various canon points. Why can't we just get out and state the obvious, since the combine might of so many article writers hasn't squeezed that out? I'm biased, all right, but I think the hate many Alien fans have for this movie viciously intruding into the Alien franchise (and forever binding itself into canonicity as a horrible crossover between franchises that are better left within their own continuities)...needs to be expressed here. Popular reaction has been understated.

Apart from the fact that aliens grow faster in AVP than in the other movies, AVP did not contradict anything in Alien canon.

The article also doesn't mention the fact that James Cameron regards this movie as the 3rd best Alien movie. Ausir 07:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Since when!?

This movie was a waste!

>x<ino 12:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Read this article. AvP might have killed Alien 5, but Cameron did say "Then I saw Alien vs Predator and it was actually pretty good. (laughs) I think of the 5 Alien films, I'd rate it 3rd." Anyway, how can we say that it's less canon than e.g. Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection if the maker of Aliens prefers AVP to the other two? Each movie was made by a different director and a different writer, so there is either no canon whatsoever or anything made by the studio is canon. Now, I dislike AVP just as much as you do, but it doesn't make it any more or less canon. Ausir 22:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please...he rated that piece of shit above Alien 3? Well, no wonder...but what's he to say about Alien 3 being so bad, though? Since different people directed each film, who should listen to their opinions about which is better in the canon? Just because James Cameron made perhaps the most popular film doesn't make the series his. Alien 3 is horribly misunderstood...certainly stands up much better than AvP or that dismal Resurrection. But the point is, can crossovers really be considered canon? If anything, it's exploiting two different franchises in order to keep selling them. Plus, it arguably pollutes the purity of either franchise, when two canons come into conflict and are inevitably retconned. Bah, I probably shouldn't be complaining, but honestly! If anything, get Ridley Scott's opinion on the film. He directed the classic Alien, so lets see what he thinks of the direction it went in.

I was always given to believe that it was a new series using the creatures from the other two franchises. I mean, was Godzilla vs King Kon canon to the movies of the titular monsters? No sir. Who's to say this is any different?

Because Anderson has stated that this is more of a sequel to Predator and Prequel to Alien. Plus, Predator and Alien never have reoccurring characters...they are a species. Bignole 11:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The Alien and Predator franchises are both owned by 20th Century Fox and there've been dozens of AvP comics, games and novels, long before the AVP movie came out. Therefore it's fairly clear that the Alien and Predator franchises exist in the same universe. The original AvP comic that started the whole idea was a very good story and the movie was a failed attempt to transfer it to the screen, not to exploit the franchises.

When I first saw the promotional trailer in a theater I thought "this is going to be a big waste of time". About a month later I was on vacation with nothging to do so I went to a theater to watch this film and it was great. I've watched it a few times on Pay-Per-View and so decided to purchase the 2-disk DVD just to save on PPV charges. --Neilrieck 13:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hell, technically Cameron fiddled with things himself in inventing the queen and so on. Regardless though, this film DOES violate the established pattern of predators appearing in extremely warm temperatures. To a ludicrous degree, no less (note: P2 mentions it being a record high temperature, Anna in P1 says "only on the hottest days" etc). That, methinks, is pretty much without debate....FangsFirst 04:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

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)

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)

""* Antarctica has been glacial since the beginning of the Pliocene epoch, five million years ago, well before the development of the human species, or their civilization. From a purely historical standpoint, it is impossible for any large grouping of humans to have existed on or near Antarctica during the timeline setup by the film, as the climate is too cold for humans to live in. ""

>>>This is speculative, it has only taken the present human race around six thousand years to develop from farming to computers and nuclear weapons, ancient maps exist of antarctica's actual landmass which was not modernly known until radar maps in the 1960's. Should the above trivia entry be removed as too impassioned on limited current thought and scientific enquiry? Book_M06,06

There's way too much trivia in this article. Instead, the plot section could be more comprehensive. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 12:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

PredAlien ?

why is there no mention in the Trivia section that there was infact a predator infected (on purpose mind you..) by a facehugger, and that there was a chestburster seen near the end of the movie.. it should be noted that this could be the way that predators reproduce

For one, that isn't the way they reproduce. The chestburster is an alien, and regardless of how the Predator reproduces, it is come through his chest. Secondly, that isn't trivia, that is a scene in the movie that has no more importance than saying that the Queen Alien lays eggs in the film. Bignole 12:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Although it could be mentioned.. it is interesting that it was on purpose.. the Predator didnt seem to defend himself at all, and he wasnt worried about it, neither did the other Predators make any attempt at removing the chestburster, although it can be disputed that the entire movie wasnt completely canon. (my 2 cents) --Tyriel 09:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd scarcely call it on purpose. He didn't see the hugger until it leapt (remember that preds have pretty poor vision without their masks), and like Kane in Alien, didn't remember it afterwards. Admittedly it was pretty stupid of the clan not to scan his body.

too many aliens

There were 6 people in the Sacrificial Chamber who were initially face-hugged. 3 more were captured by aliens. 6 aliens were killed before the queen was released and 6 aliens were involved in rescuing the queen. That makes 12 aliens and only 9 hosts! Can someone confirm this? If this is so, then it means that some of the aliens are survivors of the 1904 hunt that were trapped in the pyramid for 100 years!

In one of the comics I read on Aliens it said that aliens live forever and cannot die but only killed it is possable they lived that long and would've live longer.

Blades

Modifications have been made to almost all of the previous weapons: the wrist blades are longer and larger, and can be fired

This isn't strictly true but I can't think of how to word it encyclopedically; perhaps someone can help. Y'see, each of the three predators has a distinct gauntlet configuration. The first to die has one big blade on the side of either arm. The second has a "tradtional" pair of wristblades on the right gauntlet and a netgun on the left. The third has a "bloody big", two-stage ejection pair of wristblades on the right gauntlet and a tiny, one-shot firing pair of blades on the left.

rm'd speculation

It is highly possible that portions of the film were based on or inspired by At the Mountains of Madness, a novella written by H.P. Lovecraft. Similarities include an alien race now in hibernation being in Antarctica, a scientific team exploring the continent, boring being done to the land by means of drills, the disappearance of many members of the team by aliens, and also a great hidden city built by an extraterrestrial race.

Given that the film is "essentially a simple rewrite of the comics", it's a stretch to say that it was inspired by Lovecraft to a noteworthy level. Plus, this is unattributed speculation. Plus if you include "boring being done to the land by means of drills", you might as well say that it was based on or inspired by BP. -- Lucianda

Categories: Talk archives