Talk:Alien vs. Predator (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Alien vs. Predator (film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 23, 2009.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Alien (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alien, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Alien and Predator science fiction franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Film (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Comic book films task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the German cinema task force.
 
WikiProject Comics / United States / Films (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Horror (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Antarctica / Norwegian Antarctica (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Norwegian Antarctica work group.
 
WikiProject Norway (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject United States / American Cinema / Comics (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Comics - United States comics work group.
 

Update on the Production of the movie[edit]

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)

[citation needed] --IllaZilla (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Continuity of AvP withing established franchises[edit]

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)

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)
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)

This film was made from a book?[edit]

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)

[citation needed] 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)
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)

Writing Credits[edit]

Somebody keeps inserting that O'Bannon and Shussett co wrote this screenplay. And its true that they receive co-writing credits. But those credits are only a legal function via a decision by the WGA. Although that is well known, I am unfortunately having a bit of trouble finding a great source for this. Here is one: [1] There is also this acurate quote from an earlier wiki entry that for some reason has been removed:

Paul W.S. Anderson was given the director's chair at about this time, and he started to write his own work into the movie. An interesting situation with the final writing credits now existed. From Wikipedia: "The writing credits submitted by the studio to the WGA recommended that Peter Briggs and Paul W.S. Anderson be credited for the story, while Anderson and Shane Salerno get the screenplay credit. Instead, the WGA denied any sort of credit to Briggs or Salerno, and instead gave co-story credit to original Alien writers Dan O'Bannon and Ronald Shusett on the rationale that some story elements were based on a deleted scene from that film. Shocked at this decision, the studio offered Salerno an executive producer's credit, but he turned it down.

I will continue to search if necessary, but I do guarantee that you WONT find a source stating that O'Bannon or Shusett actually wrote anything for THAT production. That was for legal purposes only and I'd like to see that made clear in the body of the article. --Thunderlippps (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC).

Here is a quick quote by O'Bannon describing the extent of his involvement: [2]

  • Q: "Did you even see the first Alien Vs. Predator film?
  • A: Yeah, sure, I saw it.
  • Q: What did you think of it?
  • A: Videogame. I did have an idea that they didn’t use, and that was that the alien in his next phase turns into the predator. But they weren’t interested in hearing from me…at least it would have had some continuity between the two ideas."

--Thunderlippps (talk)

Unless you can find reliable sources that directly support your claims ("I know this is true, I just can't prove it" won't cut it), this can't be included. O'Bannon and Shusett have legal writing credit on this thing. If you want to say that they had nothing to do with writing it, you need a source that specifically says that. If it's as "well known" as you say, finding such a source should be easy. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I concur with IllaZilla. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you know much about the Alien franchise? You've never heard this story? Have you ever seen O'Bannon or Shusett describe any involvement with this script. O'Bannon saying that they didn't want to hear from him isn't good enough? I like the way you play lawyer ball. Maybe you can tell me more about the legalities of exposing the details of contract negotiations? I'll keep looking. --Thunderlippps (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC).
BTW: So is it not true, or unnecessarily confusing? Thunderlippps (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC).
How about a compromise? Technically O'Bannon and Shusett are credited as additional writers. That is true. Its difficult to find documentation on the details of why 1. because O'Bannon and Shusett dont do many interviews. I think O'Bannon only did the one above after AVP until he died. And 2. I dont know how legal it is for him to even discuss that. Especially since he eventually received residuals for the credit. So how about you keep the first paragraph the way you had it, and insert what is known about his involvement under the "Production/Origins" paragraph? Thunderlippps (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the story likely originates from Fangoria #239.
"Variety reports that Dan O?Bannon, who's been absent from the fright filmmaking scene for a while, has signed with new management at ICM and will be working in the video game world for the first time. No specific projects in that field have been announced yet for O?Bannon, who co-created ALIEN and directed RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD and THE RESURRECTED. His last credit—likely a provisional one—was a story acknowledgement on last summer?s ALIEN VS. PREDATOR. Look for a full update interview with O?Bannon in FANGORIA #239, on sale December 7." [3]
--Thunderlippps (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know plenty about the franchise. I own all the films & have watched all the special features, own & have read multiple books devoted to the franchise, was involved in advancing this article to FA, wrote/rewrote 95% of Alien (film) and advanced it to GA, and created WP:ALIEN. And no, I've never heard this "story". As for the "lawyerball" and the question of truth, I never said that this story isn't true, I said you need to directly verify it through reliable sources. The very first sentence of Wikipedia's verifiability policy reads "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." O'Bannon and Shusett are credited as writers on the film; that is easily verifiable simply from the credits. These other claims—that they had little to do with it, merely received credit due to legal obligations, etc.—require sources specifically verifying these details. If you want details of this nature to be included in the body sections, you need to find the proper sources from which to source that content.
For what it's worth, Beautiful Monsters lists the writing credits of the film as "Written by Paul W.S. Anderson, Dan O'Bannon and Ronald Shusett (story), and Shane Salerno (uncredited)" (p. 188) and describes that the temple in the film is drawn from O'Bannon and Shusett's early draft of Alien and the various production designs and paintings made of it (mostly by Ron Cobb) during early stages of Alien's production (p. 196). Further, it says that the Anderson's incorporation of the temple into the AVP script was "something Dan O'Bannon was apparently concerned about" (p. 199). --IllaZilla (talk) 08:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware that you're a huge fan of the films and are quite knowledgeable about them. I just got flustered because it seemed that you were implying that I was imagining the whole thing. :) I've uploaded the relevant page from Fangoria here for your verification: ( http://www.megaupload.com/?d=HRPVXIDD ) I'm assuming that that will be good enough verification to include it somewhere in the body of the article, so I'm going to go ahead and rewrite what I wrote before to include this information. Once again, I'm not slick with the finer aspects of page editing so I'll just include the source in parenthesis and if you could format that correctly I'd appreciate it. Thunderlippps (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
It's very late where I am, & I'm headed out of town for a few days first thing in the morning & don't have a laptop, so I'll leave it to others to continue this topic for now & I'll revisit it in a few days when I return. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
What others? You mean the polisher guy. Apparently he only undoes things and agree's with you. There's no one to debate there. Thunderlippps (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Others who may be watching this talk page. This is a featured article that has appeared as the article of the day on the main page...it's bound to be on a few other editors' watchlists. And in fact Polisher of Cobwebs and I have disagreed on a number of occasions. Please respect the consensus-building cycle and stop making contested changes while there is an active discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Thats sounds perfectly reasonable to me! I'm very open to a third opinion. Although I'm still not sure why we shouldn't be able to work it out between you, the Alien authority on this site, and me and the evidence I've put forth much effort to offer you? Do you disagree with the reference? What do you disagree with?
I can upload the whole magazine, advertisements and all if there is any doubt regarding its sincerity. I didn't think that would be necessary! Fangoria is a staple and unsurpassed authority of the horror and sci-fi genre. Its could be considered the analog of a technical magazine, which are widely accepted to be the front edge of technology before a book can be published. Those are Dan O'Bannons own words! And thats one of the rare places that you'll find them! I consider myself lucky to have scared up a digital copy of something so precious, and as a fan of the series, I would expect you to be too! I dont want to get into an ego thing here, I just want Dans memory respected by putting the facts straight! Dan and Ronnie did not write that script any more then Alan Smithee is a real person! Its a credit! Wikipedia should be the place to read truths, not press releases! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderlippps (talkcontribs) 01:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm disapointed in you illazilla... I suspect this is all an ego trip for you! --Thunderlippps (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Please be civil and don't make personal attacks. Contrary to your assertion, other editors (myself and Polisher) have engaged you in discussion, and consensus is not a contest, you do not "win" in a civilized discussion. If you would like to gather more opinions, you can notify larger forums of the discussion such as by placing at note at WT:FILMS.
As to your above comments, the standard on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. O'Bannon and Shussett are credited as writers on the film, this is easily verifiable. Your claim, which is essentially that they really had nothing to do with it, is extraordinary in light of their having legal writing credit on the finished film. If there is more to the story, such as that their credit is a technicality due to their having written the original Alien (which would be curious, since Jim and John Thomas—who wrote the original Predator—are not credited, and neither are any of the authors of previous AVP stories such as comics or novels), that's fine and would be good content to add to the writing section, but you'd need sources that actually say this. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You're playing lawyerball again! Printed proof is quoted all over this website! I supplied you with the best copy available! That you're still fighting me and denying facts, says more about you not being so familiar with the alien franchise fans, as you are with your own ego trip! Thats truth! --Thunderlippps (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Both parties please have a drink of WP:LEMONADE. While the disputed material may not be sourced, it's very inappropiate to engage in an edit war, especially once it begins getting personal. Thunderlippps, i suggest you read some of the guidelines (WP:CIVIL, WP:EDITWAR) forbidding your actions. Content will not be re-added until a consensus is reached (not winning). RAP (talk) 22:44 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I may have confused the issue with another. RAP (talk) 23:04 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Thunderlippps, I've solicited more opinions from WP:FILMS. I've also reported you for edit-warring and violations of the 3-revert rule. Yes, proof is required, and you have to cite your sources when making changes. You can't simply remove credited writers from the infobox and edit-war to get your way, even if you insist it's "the truth". This is completely unacceptable from someone with almost 6 years of Wikipedia experience, especially on a Featured Article. I'm not going to indulge your personal attacks or yelling anymore. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Third opinion – O'Bannon & Shusett are credited SAG writers so should definitely be included here as matter of course; if the article omits them then readers may be confused if they see them credited in the film—it would certainly be a notable omission by the article. If they are just credited writers that were not part of the writing process at any stage, then that should be covered in the article and put into context i.e. we need a source explaining that the writing credit is just a legal thing. However, the onus is on the editor challenging their status as credited writers. This is pretty clear-cut really, credited writers shouldn't be having their names just culled from the article. Betty Logan (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree. The established writing credits should stand whether or not O'Bannon and Shusett actually wrote anything for it. However, after reading the Jan 2005 (#239) issue of Fangoria, O'Bannon does go into detail in the interview about how he and Shusett's only connection to AVP was through their original ideas being plundered by the writers of AVP. This seems relevant enough to include in the article's "Origins" section...WITH the proper sourcing, of course!
BTW Thunderlipps, adhering to WP's policies is not "lawyerball". Claiming on your part that it is violates WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. You should watch that kind of thing in the future. Shirtwaist 00:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Third opinion - Articles on Wikipedia are built on reliable sources and a neutral point of view. What we as editors believe, theorize, infer, or interpret from sources fall under original research. That is something Wikipedia articles are supposed to avoid. As far as the issue of "Who wrote the film?", start with reliable sources. The credits attached to a film and its home media releases are considered reliable, even if primary. That information is supportable for inclusion. Inclusion of other writers, or statements that those credited did not contribute to the film, need to be supported by reliable secondary sources. The wording of that inclusion also has to reflect what the source states, nothing more, nothing less.
    With what's going on here, are there reliable sources that can be pointed to that the film credits include those that did not provide material for the film? If so, point to them. If you are unsure if a source is considered reliable by Wikipedia, still point to it. The community will, especially on actively patrolled or watched pages, review it and either accept the sources or point out how it fails Wikipedia's guidelines and consensus. But at this point a source or sources need to be presented before that material is re-added to the article. And even with that, the text is going to have to follow the sources - all of them - not an individual editor's interpretation of them.
    Last thoughts: Edit warring for a particular good faith version of the articles is not acceptable. Those types of disputes are why the talk pages exist - so that the contested changes can be hashed out without disrupting the article unduly. When using the talk pages, the discusion should be civil and focus on the content to be added or changed, not the motives other editors or the editors themselves. And implying that an editor's objection to a change is due to protecting there work over the best interests of having a balanced, properly sourced article is undermining the editor not commenting on the content of the article.
    - J Greb (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Production countries[edit]

I've updated the production countries. The country status written in quote on the page is not up to date with the current standards of the infobox film template. Both the British Film Institute and Variety have listed extra production countries. (http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/784433) and (http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117924613/). If you go into the "Credits" section on the BFI article, it goes into detail about which countries helped with production how (for example, Babelsberg pictures here: (http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/organisation/145610) which is listed as a co-production here. I think that should be enough. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The source cited doesn't jibe with the instructions at Template:Infobox film, which say:
"Fill in the nationality of the film as identified in the lead of the article. The nationality of the film should be backed up with a reliable source. The source must clearly identify the nationality in a descriptive capacity, as in describing it as an American or a French film/movie etc, or in a contextual capacity such as the BFI's list of top 100 "British films" or as an example in a published work on German film etc. Sources that simply identify the country of origin as France, or the production country as U.S. etc such as is the case with resources like Allmovie and IMDb is not sufficient identification of the film's nationality. If there is a conflict between nationalities, then the nationality should not be stated and the country field should not be filled in."
The lead identifies this as an American film. The site referenced merely lists production countries, it does not "identify the nationality in a descriptive or contextual capacity". A list of 5 countries is too long and will only serve to confuse readers ("What about this film is Czech or German?"). Both of the primary production studios (Davis & Brandywine) as well as the distributor (20th Century Fox) are American companies. Since it was filmed primarily in the Czech Republic, one expects to see some mention of a Czech company in very detailed production credits, but this doesn't make it a "Czech film". If so many countries are potentially to be listed, we should simply leave the field out of the infobox (and the nationality out of the lead sentence) in order to simplify things for readers. Since nationality isn't an intrinsic characteristic of this film, it really doesn't bear mentioning in such a prominent place. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
It does if you delve further where it actually tells you what companies aided with production. For example, it lists Lonkink as a production company for the film here and lists it country here. These countries are important as they show the evolution of how Paul W.S. Anderson worked with these countries. His most recent Resident Evil film was only a Canadian-Germany production for example. Just because it's confusing for a user, doesn't mean you don't list it. As there is conflict, I think it should either list all of these, or none at all. I stand by my statements that it does suggest more to put them all in.Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Like I said, if so many are potentially to be listed then it would be be easier on readers to simply leave the field out altogether. Otherwise we must harmonize the lead with the infobox by saying "Alien vs. Predator (also known as AVP) is a 2004 American-British-Czech-Canadian-German science fiction film..." which will just confuse the hell out of readers. Since the film in and of itself has no strong national ties (as do, say, Australia or The Patriot), there is no real need to assign it any national identities. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with IllaZilla. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
If there's so many in the infobox, than don't bother with it in the lead. I don't know why we'd have to re-post it twice as we don't re-post the film length's twice either. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
"Fill in the nationality of the film as identified in the lead of the article." — This suggests that there should be harmony between the lead and the infobox with respect to nationality. The first sentence identifies it as an American film, yet the infobox presents it as a multinational production involving 5 different countries (and if the film country templates are used, the categories at the bottom of the page identify it as a British film, a Czech film, a Canadian film, and a German film). This is a contradiction that will likely confuse readers (to call it American in the lead and call it by 4 other nationalities elsewhere in the article). --IllaZilla (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes but you aren't supposed to have citations in the lead either. This contradicts many of wikipedia's rules. I'm a bit flustered with it here and I'm thinking the talk page of the infobox article is a better place to discuss it. Feel free to revert it to nothing or leave it as American here for now. I'll take this up elsewhere. Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

As per new infobox standards we are to list all the countries in the production now. Please do not revert this edit or change the countries without discussing it first. It now going by wikipedia standard and changing it will be considered vandalism. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That is outrageous. Vandalism depends on the intention of a person making an edit. Even if the change itself is not helpful, an edit is not vandalism so long as the person making it doesn't intend to be unconstructive. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Even though it's new, and you are going against the policy of what should be there for person reasons then it is considered vandalism. I'm not going to call you on it, but people just reverting it proclaiming that there's still discussion going on about it (there isn't) or wait for standards to change (they have changed) is a little more than frustrating. Unless you have reasons to find my citation false or against the statement on infobox film, please don't revert it anymore. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, infobox documentation is hardly policy. Far from it, in fact. I stand by my prior comment that if so many are potentially to be listed then it would be be easier on readers to simply leave the field out altogether. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
It is the standard however and what most people will revert it too. Just because it's not repeated in MOS:FILM, it should be followed. Your first complaint was that it wasn't following the rules of the infobox, but now that it's changed, you say it's not worth following? At least stick with your argument. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Because I more or less agreed with the "rule" before it was changed. I'm not so jazzed about it if it means we have to list 5 countries and categorize this as a "Czech film", "German film", etc. when there's nothing at all Czech or German about it. Besides, it's still not entirely following the "rule", which starts off "Fill in the nationality of the film as identified in the lead of the article": I see you took it upon yourself to remove mention of nationality from the lead, despite insisting on listing 5 nationalities in the infobox. If you're that attached to this "rule" then you'd have to say "Alien vs. Predator (also known as AVP) is a 2004 American-British-Czech-Canadian-German science fiction film...". You can't claim something is a standard or rule if you're only choosing to follow the parts of it you like. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
"there's nothing at all Czech or German about it". That's a pretty bold statement because there is actually production companies involved with this film. Missing a production company is an important as missing a screenwriter or director. If you want to fill in the lead with a production country go right ahead, I'm not sure what to place there now because we have so many countries involved. I just know flat-out "American" isn't appropriate anymore. I'd be happy to help find a solution to that problem, but I also don't want incorrect information to be posted there either. Perhaps MOS:FILM will need to be changed as well for this situation. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
What I mean is, to anyone watching the film, there's no Czeck-ness or German-ness about it: No Cezch or German actors or characters, not set in either of those countries, not written or directed by Czechs or Germans, etc. The only connection to Germany is that some money came in from a company based there. It was filmed in the Czech Republic, so obviously a Czech company had some involvement, but that's a tangential connection at best. Something you'd expect to see in a finely-detailed list of every country involved in financing and producing the film in any way, but not something you'd expect to see in a synopsis of key details. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't need stereotypes of German films or whatnot to be considered a production of that country. It was co-produced by Babelsberg Studios, a German Studio who worked on the film. You can read here to see how this studio has helped several Hollywood productions, not just AvsP. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Predator 2 comparison[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)