Jump to content

Talk:Predator (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brazil

[edit]

It took a bit of effort but I found the location for the map that General Phillips shows Dutch. The map is of the Chapada das Mangabeiras area in Brazil (easily seen in-full on the zoomed-out shot and in-part in the zoomed-in shot as it is in the largest font on the map) centered on about 10°13′S 44°38′W / 10.217°S 44.633°W / -10.217; -44.633. The missing helicopter seems to have gone down in the Parnaguá municipality. The key information I used to crack it was the municipality of Xique-Xique which can be seen to be located on the Rio São Francisco in the lower right portion of the zoomed map shown in the film.

Also interesting are the FIR/UIR lines on the map. One is the RECIFE FIR/UIR, which is Brazilan, and the adjacent one says BELEM FIR/UIR. Jason Quinn (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good find. But the map must be a goof, or the production team just didn't care enough to make one for the movie instead of just reusing an existing one. There's no country border nearby for the group to escape to, and the guerilleros were speaking Spanish (as does Anna) instead of Brazil's Portuguese. For me this is supposed to be situated in Central America.--176.199.18.119 (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They just didn't care. In 1987, nobody imagined crystal-clear pausing for home viewership. Nor could they have imagined how easy it would become for viewers to double-check this kind of stuff. Brazil itself has nothing to do with the movie except for the fact that the map they thought that looked best on camera happened to be of Brazilian territory. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General Philips

[edit]
82nd Airborne patch (on right shoulder)

Just for future reference, General Philips is a Major General (two stars on hat and collar). Major Generals are addressed as "General" as in the film and are the highest peace time ranking. He's wearing an 82nd Airborne Division patch with Airborne tab on his right shoulder (visible during opening scenes). Presumably, he is supposed to be the general of the 82nd Division.

In the helicopter, Dillon says that he and Dutch got Airborne lighters, so they too were in the Airborne Division also likely the 82nd which would explain why Dutch has respect for Philips who would have likely been one of Dutch and Dillon's superiors at the time. The 82nd Airborne is also based out of Fort Bragg which is consistent with how Dutch knew the "Green Berets out of Fort Bragg".

3rd award Combat Infantryman Badge (on left chest)
Airborne master parachutist badge (on left chest)

Visible at the end of the film, while he's in the helicopter, Philips can be seen wearing a 3rd award (notice the two stars above) Combat Infantryman Badge, which is awarded for action in Vietnam. Below this he's also wearing an Airborne master parachutist badge but it's very difficult to discern unless you pause an high-res copy right at the moment he appears in the helicopter.

Also visible on his left shoulder is this combination of a "Special Forces" tab with a shield patch of horse with a lightning bolt. According to the link the shield patch is a "US Army 1st Special Operations Command (Airborne) (1st SOCOM) patch". But 1st Special Operations command is a new thing according to our article for that it was established only recently, much after the film. So there's some history there that I don't yet know (and our article ignores). They were apparently also active in the Vietnam War (see commons:Category:1st Special Forces Group in the Vietnam War), which would have been Philips' case. Jason Quinn (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC) (Struck erroneous claim Jason Quinn (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

He has something else above his name that looks like this patch but that's from a different division. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this might might sense. So that patch appears to come from the 17th Airborne Division (United States). It however was only active until 1949. It's possible that Philips got his start in the Army in the 17th Airborne. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Useful link to see real MG of the 82nd: List of commanders of 82nd Airborne Division (United States) Jason Quinn (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This video contains a still shot that shows a couple of the actual patches. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: The description on the link is likely in error. The horse and lightning bolt patch appears to belong to the 1st Special Forces Group (United States) which would have been active for Philips, not to 1st Special Forces Command (Airborne), which is a modern thing that took over. So it appears Philips history is 17 Airborne (until 1949) then 1st Special Forces Group, then 82nd Airborne. This time sequence at least makes sense. Philips would have been in the army about 38 to 40 years by the time of the movie, which is actually realistic for a Major General. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's noted in the article but to keep this together: name patch says "Philips" but spelled as "Phillips" in end credits. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Novelization

[edit]

Val Verde was removed as the setting given in the novelization (@Leigh Burne:) and replaced with Guatemala. Many websites give Val Verde as the novelization's source so I'm wondering if this is correct. Perhaps both are correct. The story takes place in more than one country. During Dutch's initial briefing he's told, "We lost a cabinet minister and his aide from this charming little country". But Dutch asks regarding the location of the downed chopper, "This cabinet minister, does he always travel on the wrong side of the border?" So Dutch's team had to cross a border for their rescue. It's very possible that in the novel, Dutch and his team arrive in Guatemala for the briefing but after the helicopter trip the setting changes to Val Verde for the search for the chopper. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I own the novelisation and it never once mentions Val Verde. The opening briefing is said to take place in “Conta Mana” (a seemingly fictional state), while reading remainder of the action takes place in Guatemala. Leigh Burne (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this information, Leigh Burne. The locations for this movie certainly are a confusing state of affairs. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why???? my warnings are set to keep us here tonight

[edit]

switch 66.29.210.6 (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone give me an idea where the character names have come from?

[edit]

Are they all mentioned in the film or are they from later films/games and third party sources? They should only be credited as they are in this film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the expanded names are given in the film and I don't think it's given in any of the other films either. I think people were using the screenplay and/or the novelization to pull them in. I don't think we should do this. Fans will add this information back over time. Regarding Philips, what happened to the note about the spelling of his name? I think that's worth keeping as it's makes the real spelling of his name ambiguous and it's directly from the film. Also, Dutch is a Major so maybe that's worth keeping too. "Major Dutch" is also mentioned later in the article unexpectedly because it should have been established earlier if that's going to be used. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember the exact internal link but there is a policy against including ranks as credits. It could be part of the character description that follows but the names should be as credited, hence the only one I kept was General Philips. I will change the later mention of "Major Dutch" because that isn't what is in the reference anyway, and I'll find that Phillips explanation and re-add it. Fans re-adding stuff is just how wikipedia works but there is a guidelinefor crediting and these are as they are in the end film credits. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, re-reading the Phillips note, if he's credited as Phillips, who cares what the name tag says? Seems to be the same as the discussion above about how we should ignore the map showing the exact location as a mistake. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the relevant guideline (it's not a not policy) is MOS:FILMCAST. There are two parts relevant to this discussion in that guideline: A) "Editors are encouraged to lay out such content to best serve its readers." and B) "Names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source." Point A makes it a matter of debate whether to use the ranks. Point B at face value suggests we use the spelling in the credits although I think the purpose of that sentence was to avoid vernacular names for characters and this situation where there's a name-tag in the film itself perhaps is an unexpected special case that falls outside the original intent behind its inclusion. As for me, I like the footnote about the spelling as it makes the article more interesting and fun to read (at least in my opinion). But opinions may vary. In terms of the cast listing, for this particular film, ranks may help. Suppose I'm talking to a ordinary movie lover who has seen the film at some point—not a super fan like myself and presumably you too—and I refer to the character "General Phillips", I think some decent portion of people would remember who that was after a pause and a think because the word "General" help jog the memory. But if I just said "Phillips", I think most people would be stumped without further elaboration and probably left wondering if there was even a character named Phillips. People will remember that there was some high ranking character but since it was a minor character they probably wouldn't recall the name. So under this argument, "General Phillips" better serves the readers. (BTW I don't feel super strongly either way here. I'm just giving my opinion and offering a counterargument. You've done a wonderful job improving the article.) Jason Quinn (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently in the script, Dutch is identified as Alan Schaefer and that's where the name comes from though it isn't released in any official capacity until the novelization. I will see if I can find a source for that. The script does notappear to contain the extended names of the other characters though.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Predator is also a “horror film”

[edit]

Predator has elements of a slasher film: people in a secluded area being picked off one by one by an unseen or out of frame assailant. Other examples included the skinned bodies which elicit grotesque reactions- a definition of horror. Fear can be seen on several team members faces during the film. In addition the crescendo of sharp music as Dillion rounds the corner searching for Mac is both chilling and reminiscent of most horror films at the time. It also can be aruged that it’s a creature-feature: another subgenre of the horror film including The Howling, Piranha, Jaws, etc. The film should be classified as “action, horror, and sci-fi.” Mzimmerle (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources describing it as a horror film? Dimadick (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of arctiles that support the fact that Predator is a scifi/action/horror film with slasher elements being the primary reason why it is classified as such. Here are just a few instances of it being addressed as such. Pick one.
https://collider.com/horror-movies-action-ranked/
https://screenrant.com/predator-movies-horror-ranked/
https://pophorror.com/my-favorite-horror-movie-predator/
https://collider.com/thing-that-make-predator-a-slasher-horror-movie/
https://medium.com/@carvedoutofstone/predator-1987-the-movie-muscle-masculinity-7f7a6af3d88d Mzimmerle (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are rather weak sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think even with stronger sources it'd be tough to prove Predator is primarily a horror film, and the lead is meant to include only the primary genres, otherwise they could go on almost endlessly. Predator has horror elements, but it is primarily an action and science fiction film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mzimmerle, I agree with the others. We have to apply WP:DUE weight and be mindful of confirmation bias. Yes, we can do a search-engine test for a film and a genre together and get some results, but how does that compare with a search for the film and another genre? WP:FILMLEAD states, "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and reflect what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." It does not mean that the less-mentioned genres are invalid, it is that they can't all belong in the first sentence. Touching on other genres later can be done instead, if there is reliable sourcing and consensus for it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's keep the genres simple please. Popcornfud (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a source on the article itself where Arnold Schwarzenegger calls it a horror film: Predator_(film)#Cast
Here are two more sources as well:
https://www.allmovie.com/movie/predator-am4410
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093773/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_8_nm_0_in_0_q_predator
If a movie is also horror film, it should always be considered a primary genre IMO because of the nature of the genre to "elicit fear or disgust in its audiences for entertainment purposes" as per Wikipedia's article on horror films which are by their very nature unpleasant emotions, and is why horror films will never be blockbusters on the level of Avatar, and thus have to keep their budgets lower than most other mainstream genre films to remain profitable.
According to Wikipedia's article on action films, action films are often hybrids with other genres ( Action film#Hybrid_genres), so in the case of Predator, it is an action-horror film, which is a subgenre/hybrid genre, and so I therefore believe that it is perfectly in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines to include it in the lead sentence: Hybrid genre
And while it is true that Predator is a sci-fi action film, the movie also stops being a power fantasy as soon as we first start seeing things from the Predator's POV about 30 minutes into the film, then as OP correctly said, it turns into a slasher with the Predator picking off each character one-by-one until Arnold becomes the "final girl" so to speak, like Ash Williams before him. Predator is 1 hour and 46 minutes long, so it's a horror film for longer than it is action: https://www.nightmare-magazine.com/nonfiction/the-h-word-arnold-is-a-survivor-girl/ Memez24 (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are making the wrong arguments about this. For example, we want WP:SECONDARY sources describing the film, not WP:PRIMARY ones like Schwarzenegger. IMDb is user-submitted and should not be referenced for making points; same for Wikipedia. Lastly, we can't apply our WP:POV to say that the genre shifts in the film and thereby justify our selection.
WP:FILMLEAD, as quoted above, is rooted in MOS:LEADSENTENCE, "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." So we can't load all the genres into the first sentence. For which one to pick, WP:FILMLEAD is also rooted in WP:WEIGHT, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." So the genre to include in the first sentence needs to have the most weight. This does not mean that other genre elements cannot be mentioned later in the lead section.
To be clear, it does not mean the film is not action-horror. It's a question of if "action-horror" has more weight than "science fiction action" for the first sentence only, based on reliable sources. One or the other can still be covered in a subsequent sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't AllMovie count as a reliable secondary source though, along with the other articles that OP provided?
And it's true that IMDB is user submitted, but they're still staff approved, unlike Wikipedia. Everyone is free to make a submission, but if the editorial staff doesn't approve, well, that's all she wrote pretty much. I once tried submitting a genre change myself on another unrelated film, but it was automatically rejected because it had previously been disapproved by a member of staff, so it was blocked from further submissions, and there was no way to appeal that decision. It also goes the other way though, as once a genre has been pre-approved, there's no risk it might get removed again in the future by another user.
I still maintain horror has equal weight to science fiction action for reasons previously stated, but also because sci-fi is more of a setting/premise than it is a genre in the traditional sense unlike horror, thriller, drama, psychological, romance, action etc., same with fantasy, which is why most fantasy fiction is usually action/adventure and sci-fi pretty much always blends with another genre as well. They're not technically narrative genres on their own, if that makes sense. That's also why I think there's usually little to no doubt as to whether or not something can be classified as sci-fi or fantasy, but there's commonly doubt as to whether or not something is horror or thriller for instance. Action and horror are narrative genres, while science fiction/fantasy is the setting of a story. It definitely is in the case of Predator at least.
I actually just now found an article from Rotten Tomatoes editorial staff that describes Predator as a sci-fi horror deconstruction of the action movie, and I agree with this assessment: https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/predator/ --- so I strongly urge everyone present to please reconsider their stance on the matter, and allow the horror label to also appear in the lead sentence, given its equal importance to Predator's identity as an action film, I believe it qualifies as a primary genre too. Unless there's a rule that the lead sentence must only contain two genres at most, in which case I would propose just including it as a hybrid genre so it still technically counts as one ie. action-horror. Memez24 (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm just desensitized but even as a kid there was nothing scary about Predator. Alien is a science fiction horror film, Predator may have gross elements to it but it's not it's primary identity. The reason we are strict on this is because, if not, there's nothing to stop someone adding every genre unto which Predator may slightly nudge. We could call it a "science fiction action horror thriller adventure film", which would be unwieldly and would also violate WP: SEAOFBLUE. There are core genres, alien is a sci fi horror, aliens is a sci fi action, predator is a sci fi action. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]