Talk:Alien vs. Predator (film)

Production countries

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)

Production countries again

As this film seems to have a bit of a big list of production countries, I've browsed around for details from each potentials countries datbases based in their own countries.

• Filmportal.de: says: UK / Czech / Canada / Germany (Davis Entertainment (London), Brandywine Productions (US) in co-production with: Lonlink, Stillking Films (Prag), Kut Films, Babelsberg Film GmbH (Potsdam-Babelsberg) Inside Track 2LLP )source
• AFI: Production Company: (Twentieth Century Fox) United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Canada, Germany, United States source
• Czech Film Comission: (Production company, Davis Entertainment, Impact Pictures) USA, Germany, Czech Republic, UK source
• BFI Film & Television Database: USA, Great Britain, Czech Republic, Canada, United Germany source Production companies: Davis Entertainment Company, Brandywine Productions. Co-production: Lonlink, Stillking Productions, Kut, Babelsberg Studios source 2 Presented/Released by Twentieth Century Fox, [Production Company]Impact Pictures source 2
• Collections Canada: I can't find any evidence from this site that Canada was involved.

So each source states at least UK (3) Czech (4), Germany (4), Canada (3), US (3). Production companies are all over the map. Quick research does not state much of how these companies were involved otherwise. Whats the solution here? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, what a mess... to make it messier, Lumiere says US / GB / CZ / DE / CA (where GB has "inc" which apparently means "incoming investment"). Perhaps in prose, call it a multinational production with the involvement of all five countries, and reference AFI, BFI, and Lumiere? In the infobox, list all five and have an inline citation listing all three of these sources? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

A mess indeed! I've re-added them to the infobox per your suggestion, but am sort of struggling to find a decent way of explaining this in the prose... Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Budget $70 million

The Numbers puts the budget at $70 million[1]. The article previously listed $60 as claimed by Box office mojo, I've changed it to list both numbers as recommended by Template:Infobox film. The LA Times wrote: "Fox decided not to show its nearly $70-million investment to movie critics before its release." [2]

Anonymous editors often delete budget figures when a range is presented, so I'm mentioning it here to make it clear that both numbers should be maintained. -- 109.78.214.194 (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:FAR

Although listed in 2008, I am not sure this article still meets the WP:FACRITERIA in present state. Regarding the following specific criteria:

- well-written: the prose is poorly organized at times. For example, the Cast section contains a large amount of (uncited) text in bullet form that should be rewritten as prose. The lead is a bit short and lacks a general, engaging, comprehensive summary of the article.

- comprehensive: While the production section is comprehensive, the "Other media" section is an odd combination of loosely related material without further comment. It should be expanded with well-researched and comprehensive information.

- well-researched: Other than the Cast and Production sections as mentioned above, the release section could benefit from expansion.

- media: could benefit from expanded use of images and other media, where appropriate, as required for FA.

I will begin the process to nominate for WP:FAR, if there are any objections or discussion please discuss here. Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)