Talk:Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lack of critical opinion in the "Reception" Section

Although the user below has done a good job cleaning up this section, The "Reception" section now fails to mention any critical opinions, not even a summary of the opinions on the Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic websites, which is mentioned in the articles of pretty much all the films on Wikipedia. I believe that this is important as people would look up AVPR on wikipedia to gauge public opinion; at the moment they cannot. Also (of course) it is the duty of an encyclopedia to comment on the social and historical effects of movies. Not to mention, of course, that this is easily on of the worst rated films of 2007/2008. So, please someone improve this section. Thanks for your time! 82.33.38.198 (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else notice that the initial summary of the film's performance is suddenly far more positively focused for a film that's been bashed from left to right by critics? It now reflects a bias, in my opinion. May it be changed back to its initial statement? The Chibi Kiriyama (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it. The film received an overwhelming negative response, why some fanboy started the reception section with positive quotes (and removed all the negative) is beyond me. M3tal H3ad (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section needs cleanup

The whole section is full of poor grammar and run-on sentences, as well as improper use of sources and doesn't say who the criticism is from other than the author nitpicking the movie canon. It needs to cite sources and have grammar consistent with the rest of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.142.137 (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The section was all original research so I removed it (just like I did yesterday... (sigh).-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Can somone cite where it has been declared that the Pred-Alien would have become a Pred-Alien Queen. We have been given no narative, or evidence in the movies to suggest the Pred-Alien would grow an egg sack, If this isnt given a source - eg From the Creators, I will remove the areas regarding "growing of egg sacks". Wikipedia is a good encyclopedia, because everything is proven factual by citing sources. Baaleos (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a tough thing to cite. Colin Strause talked about this being the intention over on the boards of AVPGalaxy; however, despite the web hosts claiming that they verified his identify, we can't verify his identity OURSELVES, which makes the cite difficult to pull off. I suspect we may hear something about it on the DVD, but if not, this may continue to be a problem. --Bishop2 (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat stupid question, but is bugging me

Why does this article use 'Xenomorph', but 'Predator' instead of 'Yautja'? Shouldn't we use either 'Xenomorph' and 'Yautja' or 'Alien' and 'Predator'? I have a suspicion I know why, but I would like confirmation..:Stirb Nicht Vor Mir:. (talk) 10:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is because Xenomorph is a more established name for the Aliens. While Yautja is not so common. I personally didn't understand Yautja in the beginning, even though i have watched Predator I+II. But Xenomorph is used in both Aliens and Alien³.--213.89.174.239 (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but just using the phrase "Alien" doesn't narrow anything down, since both of them are aliens... EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed...although i'ld say both are predators too... Rekija (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I thought it might have been something like that (Xenomorph being used in the movies where Yautja isn't), it just seems odd to me as I'd used to calling them that. :P.:Stirb Nicht Vor Mir:. (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the term Xenomorph is a term created by man. I believe that Yautja is the Predator's own term for their species (?) Thekoyaanisqatsi (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Soundtrack

I've noticed that a melody composed for the movie is almost identical to a choral piece used in several trailers, which are mostly from apocalyptic themed movies. I think they should mention that, and while their at it, say the name of that track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surten (talk • contribs) 05:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks... NOBODY! Just found out the name of the track, or at least, that's what I think is the name of the track. It's by Immediate Music, and it's called "Gothic Power". --Surten (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Surten

Title - Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem

This article should be renamed Alien vs. Predator 2 (film) like all the other movies. -- X360 09:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no need, there are no other articles with the exact same name. The only reason tags like '(film)' or '(animal)' are sometimes added to article names is to differentiate between seperate entities with the same name, such as Rhamphorhynchus (orchid) and Rhamphorhynchus (animal). Jerkov 21:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well there is a video game with a similiar title (Aliens versus Predator 2) but I guess its not exactly the same. -- X360 07:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added a Alien vs. Predator 2 (film) page that redirects to this one. -- Gmoddb 01 February 2007

Recently, Colin Strause said on AVP Galaxy's forums that the title has not been chosen.

coming soon and super hero hype have just announced that the official title is aliens vs. predator just add an s thats it kinda like alien then aliens

The film seems to have been renamed AvP-R - maybe the article should reflect it. Here's the link: http://www.avpgalaxy.net/index.php?subaction=showcomments&id=1187560953&archive=&start_from=&ucat=10& 15:45, 19th August

That sources is largely based on speculation. It may be correct but as it is still pending I'd suggest waiting until it is confirmed (IMDB still says Aliens vs Predator) as it is doing no harm as things are. (Emperor 22:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

Third update: http://www.avpgalaxy.net/index.php?subaction=showcomments&id=1187560953&archive=&start_from=&ucat=10& —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.240.4.233 (talk) 23:44, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Predailen first Pics

Check this out, http://joblo.com/arrow/index.php?id=8303 Isn't that awesome, the first pics. Somewhere we have to add this into some alien or predator article. Do not tell me that that is not cool!!! Somebody please insert it! Thanks! ManofSTEEL2772

Unfortunately, we don't get to toss in media, especially copyrighted pictures, or even links, just because they're "cool." You can add some meaningful content to the articles that discuss the new creature, then provide the link as a reference. And though I agree the creature in the pictures is awesome, there's nothing there that officially links it to the film. --IllaZilla 06:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thats alright but I added it to a link saying "pictures have surfaced on the web of what the Predalien might look like" here on this page with a reference thing and someone deleted it. ManofSTEEL2772

Yeah that was me. I'm leaving it for now because really all the Alien & Predator related articles need rewriting for professionalism, referencing, & encyclopedic value. Basically when you start a sentence "pics have surfaced on the web..." and it ends "this still remains unconfirmed" you can almost be guaranteed that it's going to get deleted. This isn't a blog. These are meant to be informative articles about notable subjects. They're not for rumors or speculation, even if things have started to "surface" on the internet. How could you better include the information you've come across? You could add a section about "creature design" or "special effects" and discuss the studio that was commissioned to work on the Predator/Alien hybrid and some of its design aspects, then provide a link via a reference. But the link would have to be informative and discuss these topics, rather than just be a cool picture. I've looked at the link a couple of times and it doesn't say anything that indicates any official connection with the movie. It discusses the creature in the picture, but it doesn't tell you who designed it, what its purpose is, or whether it's going to be used in the movie. I even went over to the parent site the pic came from (3dcustomfoam) & there's absolutely no discussion of the picture. It's just that, a picture. So even though it's cool, it doesn't add anything informative or meaningful to the articles. Remember, Wikipedia isn't for original research. --IllaZilla 18:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

New Information

Look here. http://www.avpgalaxy.net/avpmovie.php?section=movieavp2 I have already added some information in to the article concerning the creatures. Somewhere I think we should put the "estimated running length" in. ManofSTEEL2772

we should really make a Plot section to the page, but i am not sure what to put yet Xen Steel 20:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"These include a return to the ridged-headed aliens last seen in Aliens..."

Hate to be a huge AvP geek, but from the images at the cited website, this would be a Praetorian, although they're not exactly common; they're only really used to guard established nests, as apparent in Aliens. That said, Paul Anderson hasn't exactly took the original source material too seriously - the Predator's armour and weapons (although only some of them ;D) melting when coming into contact with the Xenomorph warrior's blood in the first AvP film is a big no-no; the metal used for them is the only material (in canon) that doesn't suffer such an energetic reaction from their blood.

Still, the movie was pretty good in my opinion. Didn't really like how weak the Predators were in comparison to the Xenomorphs - their shoulder cannons don't have some magical source of strength embedded in them for the Predators to tap into, from what I've read they much prefer close quarters combat!

I'm not one to get hung up on details - I just hope Anderson doesn't randomly throw Praetorians into the film because they look cool; I personally find the amount of detailed canon regarding the structure and social hierarchy of the Xenomorphs to be very interesting. It makes the films/games that much more fun to watch, knowing the background!

Anyway, if someone wants to throw in a more specific mention of what the 'ridged-headed' aliens actually are, I'd appreciate it. Maybe an anchor-link to the Praetorian species or something. Thanks!

82.109.66.150 11:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please try to keep discussions limited to improvements to the article, not opinions of the movie (see talk page guidelines up top). That said, I think the whole statement about the ridged aliens is speculative. It's based on 1 picture that comes from a fansite so we don't even know if it's real. Basically it's unsourced. That creature could by the hybrid, it could be something new, it could just be a new design on the alien...it could be completely bogus. This whole article pretty much needs rewriting to bring it to a number of Wikipedia standards (no original research, neutral point of view, verifiability, etc.), and that statement is just 1 example. --IllaZilla 23:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a hybrid - Colin Strause, posting at AvP Galaxy pointed out that the alien in the production still was a stunt costume, hence the lack of detail - other photos have since surfaced from comic con of alien models based on how they look in the movie http://www.alienexperience.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=831&Itemid=515 - by ridged head it simply mean the aliens seen in Aliens - there's no such thing as a Praetorian in the film universe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.71.31.247 (talk) 17:13, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

'Praetorians' only exist in the comics and games. They're fairly useless. Allegedly stronger, but always portrayed as much slower and far more awkward, because of the size. If they exist, then some should have been seen in Aliens, but they weren't. That means, either this is something else or it has ruined continuity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenomorphine (talk • contribs) 20:37, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

New Screen Shot

The First Screen Shot of the Movie was Released on IGN on August 22, 2007. This is the First AVP 2 Screen Shot, and was wandering how to add it to the article? --Mithos90 19:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

~Removal of sentences

I was thinking to remove these sentences from the Creatures section:

"This has caused a large amount of controversy with some fans, who claim that according to Alien: Resurrection, only the queen lays eggs. However, it should be noted that the queen in the fourth film was never given a chance to implant embryos directly into a host, and the viewers only see the queen in Aliens after she matures."

1. It mentions; some fans - not a verifiable source. 2. About the fourth film, withouth a verifiable source, this information is on the verge of original research. 3. What does the queen in Aliens have to do with the text, I fail to see the connection (probably just me).129.16.49.138 18:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. You're spot on with your assessment of those sentences. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. 129.16.49.138 19:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of the facts in the section on comparative changes need to be redone. An example would be how the Predator spear gets referenced as a tag-along when we could incorporate it into the existing sentence on the old weaponry returning for this film. The Chibi Kiriyama —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.129.9 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Predalien does not come from a human

so, what does "The Predalien differs from the human sprung." mean? Predaliens are NOT sprung from humans, im pretty sure that this should say "The Aliens differ depending on the creature it sprung from" or something along those lines. Also we know this information so i am removing it from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S-m-r-t (talk • contribs) 19:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC) I believe that the person meant Predalien differs from an Alien sprung from a human.

Sequel

It said that the sequal to AVP-R is "Aliens versus Predators: Apocalypse." There are only plans for a sequel in the Strause Bros. minds and they have not announced a title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.229.23 (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting, I have heard about the 3rd part too. Karnak666 (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Reasearch for certificates for the film

Under the film info box I've created another box that has the films certificates. In it so far is the United States and the United Kingdom's certificates.

Do you think that you can do some reasearch and find out more certificates for the film from other countries please?

I'm from the UK and I look on the BBFC daily for updates and new classification decisions and just Monday or Tuesday this week (first week of December) the BBFC's decision for this film is a 15 like the original.

I found out it was a R in the US by just one day finding out they are doing a sequel for AvP and saw that AvP:R was already classified in the US.

Anyway, can anyone please just find some more certificates and sort them into alpherbetical, I would but I'm rubbish at alpherbetical ordering.

I'll try and find some more certificates (how many times have I used that word?) and put them in. Whoever is good at alpherbetical stuff please can you sort them out :-)

I know this has nothing to do with anything but do you know how much I would give to go to america and see it on Christmas day? Us English have to wait till the 18th of January :-(

THANKS TO ANYONE WHO HELPS ON THIS :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlr6 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing the box/list of "certificates." I don't want to devalue the hard work obviously put in by Charlr6, but I felt it was unnecessary and basically wouled wind up cluttering up the page without providing any information of real value (as happened to Alien vs. Predator (film)). I took a look at a bunch of other film articles that have been featured articles, and none of them had anything like that. So I felt pretty comfortable eliminating it. Basically I don't see what the encyclopedic value is in listing the film's ratings in every country. That's pretty much trivial information that could easily be found elsewhere, such as IMDB. If anyone objects and would like to make a case for putting the list back in, please do so here. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Changed Rating?

I distinctly remember a preview in which this was rated PG-13. Is it just me, or is the wikipedia article's second paragraph about focusing on the fact that this rated R. Furthermore, the preview I saw on TV made a very big point of how rated R it was. In fact, the title has been changed to "AVP-R." Makes sense. Seem to remember the word "Requiem" getting not-good laughs in the theater. DeepSkyFrontier (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It was never rated PG-13. In fact, it was aiming for a gory R from the start. The first one was rated PG-13, however - maybe that's where the confusion lies? --Bishop2 (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That may be, but I still remember an early trailer for this movie with a PG-13 rating at the end. Please explain how you know that it was never rated R. 76.25.234.173 (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

dont they have to actually rate trailers based on content though, eg the trailer rated pg-13 didnt have any gore in it so the actual trailer is getting that rating, not the film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.35.226 (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

movie certificate box put in (5 certificates in box now)

I've already done something like this and this one looks better than the last so please whoever deleted the last one delete this one because if you look at some other films like The Omen 2006 remake they have the certificates so why can't this page have them. So, movie certificate box put in with certificates from Finland, Ireland, Taiwan, UK and US. I'll have a look at more certificates from other countries for this film.

I don't mean to devalue your hard work, but basically there's little encyclopedic value to having a list of ratings down the side of the page detailing what the film was rated in every country it was shown. If there was some kind of controversy or other reason that the rating of the film is notable, it should be discussed as prose within the body of the article. Just because other articles have a list like that doesn't mean this article should. In fact, those other articles probably shouldn't have them either. If you look at any featured article about a film, you won't find a list like this because they just add extraneous detail (take a look at any article in Category:FA-Class film articles). The purpose of Wikipedia is not to list every single factoid about a subject. If someone wanted a comprehensive list of international ratings for this film they could probably go to IMDB or some other resource. There could be a good discussion of the film's rating within the body of the article, but the list is useless. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Add a link to the 5 minute opening of the film

It was F***ING amazing! Awesome.

Here's a youtube link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=pPT0O0ee8hE

-G

No. Wikipedia external link policies prohibit linking to media that is in violation of copyright. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's FREE for everyone to view. No violation.

-G

It is not free. The copyright is owned by Fox, not YouTube! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

AvP3?

Seeing as this article is about "Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem", should there really be a section about a potential third film that might be or might not be made in the future? The Alien vs. Predator (film) concentrates on that movie only, shouldn't this article do the same, and concentrate on Requiem (only)? NevliX (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with it just because it seems to be a pretty common tradition to have a subsection for possible future films, such as the "sequels" section in the Golden Compass article, but I see your point that it's way too early for this to be a solid fact, and therefore is potentially non-encyclopedic. So I could go either way, personally. --Bishop2 (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A passing mention is suitable, as an entire article can't be supported at this time. Once there is enough material for a separate article, then we can phase it out of this one. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Bishop2, I was thinking more on the lines that it is a bit to early to speculate on a third movie when this one hasn't premiered yet, but I see your point about subsections for possible future films. Btw, I just have to say that you guys make excellent points! NevliX (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Alien

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

"Wolf"

Could this be a possible reference to 'Mr. Wolf', the cleaner from Pulp Fiction? Should that be noted? --deldeadeyes (talk)

I don't see anything to indicate that there is a connection. At this point it would just be speculation. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The director said it is a reference to Mr. Wolf on a message board. Although you would need an interview to reference it. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the main predator is dispatched to earth to clean up the mess his colleagues made- much as Mr. Wolf from Pulp Fiction does for Vinny and Jules. I cannot find the source for that, sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.150.229 (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

IMDB posted a link to MTV's interview, and I linked it in a recent edit. Will need help with the formatting of the citation. 64.85.234.166 (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Time

Does this film still take place during the year 2004 since its events occur directly after the first film's? We should make a Alien and Predator timeline here at wikipedia to give others a clear understanding of the timing of events. --Tj999 (talk)

Here is Alien and Predator Timeline. If everyone adds to it the time should be more understanding. --Tj999 (User talk: Tj999|talk]]) —Preceding comment was added at 12:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Visual effects

• AVP-R: The Strause Brothers Strike Back —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

AvP-R Blu-Ray "BD-Live" interactive product

It looks like AvP-R's Blu-ray release will be one of the first few to showcase Blu-ray's Profile 2 "BD-Live" technology. (Collection of quotes and links.) Claims include a multiplayer game and aspects of social networking. Is this notable enough to add to this entry? Krisjohn (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternate theories

This section of the article is unencyclopedic. It states many things and contradicts them - such as saying: Instead of hunting the PredAlien (the only alien that can reproduce), he hunts everything else, which belies an inability to prioritize (However, he might've been wanting to get others out of the way, first, so he can face the Predalien alone). It is merely pointing out a characters flaws and then giving a reason as to why they may NOT be flaws and strtegic methods. This makes the section pointless so i am removing it. S-m-r-t (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Right choice wrong reason. You should delete that section on grounds of WP:OR. That's within policy. - perfectblue (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

Since I have an interest in this article, and since I don't like seeing fan terminology or unofficial terms used to describe things in encyclopedia articles, I stayed through the credits of the film to see how the creatures and the actors who played them were credited. Tom Woodruff Jr. is credited as "Alien" and Ian Whyte is credited as "Predator". Nowhere in the film are the names "Wolf" or "Predalien" used, and certainly not the fan-created word "Predqueen". So, can we please refrain from using these and similar terms in the article? Just call the Predator...the Predator. That's what he's credited as, and there are no other Predators in the film to confuse him with (other than the ones who die in the first 2 minutes). For the Alien/Predator hybrid creature, call it something generic like "the hybrid". "Predalien" is a completely fan-created term that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. I've never seen it used in a reliable source, not even production notes. If the name Wolf was in fact used by the production team as a nickname for the Predator, that may be worth mentioning, with a reference to a reliable source (note: fan forums are not reliable sources). Bottom line: keep it simple and use the names of the creatures that are used in the film's credits. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

i do very much agree on most points you raise, however for the record you shoot yourself in the foot big time and that is purely down to you not being a 'fan' etc Predalien is definately an official term im sure. Features in the instruction manual to the alien versus predator game on the pc might be the 2nd game. if only fans were editing the wikis on stuff but also being as objective as you mate, in line with adhering to the way of the wiki. keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.35.226 (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your concern, IllaZilla but Wolf was already nicknamed in MTV's interview. I Already linked said interview in a recent edit. Dibol (talk) 05:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

See the "plot section rewrite" topic below. I have no problem with the reference, and it's probably something worth mentioning, but not in the plot section. It can be added to the Production section as that section develops to include discussion of the creatures in the film and their creation/development. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Plot description

Is terrible. Incoherent, short, badly written, and with a hint of bias and opinion. It should just describe the plot (obviously put 'spoilers' at the beginning) and no more, and in chronological order of events. It also shouldn't be an outlet for disgruntled fans/nerds to have a whine about the fact the predator isn't as invincible as they think he should be. Make a criticisms section for the article.

True, any chance of someone writing a decent synopsis of the film?--Screen42 (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

OP here, thanks to whomever rewrote the synopsis. Much better now. Still not as indepth, but much much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.233.34 (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even registered here, but I saw the terrible synopsis, had just seen the movie, and felt like writing it up. In regards to me changing the number of facehuggers from 6 to "several", I did it because I could only count 5 (one killed by hunter, 2 impregnating Father/Son pair, 2 impregnating homeless men), and I felt it would be better to leave it as undeterminable- the number of facehuggers seems to matter less than the fact that there were enough to start an infestation, is all. --68.111.245.180 (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way- is there any reason why some folks here seem to think that providing a play-by-play account of the plot isn't too long? You might as well be writing a novel, I thought the point was to make it short, succinct and not-too-detailed.--68.111.245.180 (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we at least restore the plot? 212.219.220.125 (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

i have to agree, much respect to the person who wrote this lengthy plot but it needs to be a few short paragraphs at most. also i havent even seen this film yet so cheers for allowing me to ruin it for myself by spending 5mins reading your very detailed plot haha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.35.226 (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing that caught my attention was the mistake at the begining of the description. It indicates that the whole predator ship was destroyed by one predalien. It's ridiculus considering the dozens of predators we saw at the end of the first movie. There is a scene after the predalien apears where a sort of shoutle or something similar detaches and takes orbit around our planet while the "mothership" leaves (it is shown passing by Jupiter I think). So there are only the two predators that were shown who realy died at the claws of the predalien. (sorry for any spealing mistakes english is only my seccond language, otherwise I would hve made the correction myself) 31 Jully 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.98.98.98 (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that scene is only in the "unrated" extended DVD version. The ship separation scene wasn't in the theatrical release (or the theatrical version DVD), which is what the plot summary is describing. The additional scenes, etc. are/could be explained in the "Home video releases" section. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Plasma "Cannons" vs. Plasma "Casters"

We have an edit war going on on this page. Every day, or at least every other day, users are switching the term "plasma cannons" to "casters" and then back again, etc.

As far as I know, these are known only as "shoulder cannons." Someone care to explain where this "plasma casters" stuff comes from? --Bishop2 (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea, but I would imagine it originates from one of the video games. A lot of the trivial stuff in these articles comes from the games & comics, which I'm learning as I work on the List of Alien and Predator games. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the term "Plasma Caster" originated from the Steve and Stephani Perry novel "Prey", which in turn was based on the series of Dark Horse AvP comics which spawned this series. Illa's correct in that it's trivial, it lies much in the same area as calling an M16 a gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoctris (talk • contribs) 19:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)