Talk:Predator (franchise)

The shooting is disputed between events of Predator 2 and Predators

This new information appears after the release of The Predator (2018). Until now Predators it has always been in the present time! If he was filming in the future it would have been known from the very beginning... For me Predators is set present time. There are other sources that confirm this. See here https://www.space.com/predator-movies-in-order here https://www.ign.com/articles/the-predator-movies-in-order and here https://screenrant.com/predator-movies-timeline-explained/ What do you guys think? Is it enough to edit the page to say that there is no filming between these events parts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.215.226.170 (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

https://people.com/how-to-watch-predator-movies-in-order-11749118 More sources that prove the facts!!! Is not between events of Predator 2 and Predators 89.215.226.170 (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

https://www.avpcentral.com/alien-vs-predator-timeline More sources 89.215.226.170 (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

https://ew.com/how-to-watch-all-the-predator-movies-in-order-11689904 More sources 89.215.226.170 (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/film-and-tv-reviews/predator-movies-in-order More sources 89.215.226.170 (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

https://www.justwatch.com/us/guide/predator-movies-in-order More sources 89.215.226.170 (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The movie Predators (also referred to as Predator 3) is difficult to pinpoint within the timeline due to the absence of specific dates. Most sources place the Game Preserve Planet hunt in 2010, aligning with the film's release year. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a865913/predator-movies-timeline-explained-alien/ More sources 89.215.226.170 (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

None of those are official sources. Just because fan-made timelines list it as being set before The Predator doesn't mean that it is. You have to find actual quotes from creatives involved.

.

Valid sources:

https://youtube/P7pOiu1kmZU?si=LvggPf6w9Fm_hDzd

https://youtube/cKkge7zxfJM?si=RJmOR6Sqeq6JXx5A

https://youtube/-9kj86URQo0?si=R5aDIDx7pz0fd5Yz

.

Shane Black, the director of The Predator, stated that Predators is set after The Predator. Predator: Hunting Grounds, which we include on the timeline list, suggests that Isabelle was on the Game Planet Reserve for a whole year. That game is set in 2025, as are those tapes which are explicitly shown to be set after The Predator.

.

So, Predators is objectively set in 2024. Marvel comics might have placed it in 2010, but they introduced the concept of Yautja cryogenically freezing prey to hunt on the Game Planet Reserve, which has now also appeared in the latest movie except with a different planet. They could have been taken in 2010, frozen until 2024, and then Isabelle spent a year on the planet before finding her way to Earth in 2025. MumfordFN2187 (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

It appears that those links don't work.

.

Videos:

1. Exclusive: Shane Black on his 'The Predator' movie and how it fits in the Predators Universe (by HeyUGuys)

2. All New OWLF Tapes 21-39 in Predator: Hunting Grounds (by Crazyboy9)

3. Predator: Hunting Grounds - Isabelle Tapes - Predator Lore (by Aliens vs. Predator Galaxy Repository) MumfordFN2187 (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The sources are official, there is something else. Roughly 2008. Nikolai was fighting in the second Chechen war which ended in 2009. 2010, especially since the dates of the Afghan War and the Chechen war (which are referenced in the film) would line up with that. I say 2010 because in the hunting grounds video games Gary busey’s son’s character from The Predator Mentions Isabelle returning which means she returns before the events of The Predator (2018) 89.215.226.170 (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Wrong. He mentions it AFTER the events of The Predator within the tapes. The tapes reacting to The Predator happen before the tapes reacting to Predators. You need to watch a YouTube video of those tapes again because you've got the timeline wrong. MumfordFN2187 (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I give an example Predator: Badlands It is known to take place in the future even before the movie is released. Is Predators develops in the future we would have known this many years ago It doesn't make any sense that the movie is set in the future, this is some new fictional news. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Predators doesn't place itself in any specific year. It is very easy for Shane Black and Hunting Grounds to retcon the movie as having post-2018. MumfordFN2187 (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Predators take place in 2010, not in the future like Shane Black says because Shane Black proved to be incompetent and oblivious to anything related to Predator. For some reason he thought Predators take place in the future and that's just his stupid incoherent conclusion. The Predator is proof we should discredit everything coming from Shane. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

these so-called creators are talking nonsense I can think of another example Hugh Jackman said that Logan is a different universe but it is part of the same timeline as the other X-Men films 89.215.226.170 (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

https://www.soapcentral.com/entertainment/where-predator-killer-killers-fit-franchise-s-timeline-details-explored More timeline 89.215.226.170 (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

That is a fan-made timeline. It is not a valid source. MumfordFN2187 (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

just by looking at the movie Predators there is absolutely nothing that looks like future tense in the movie but if you see Predator: Badlands It's obvious from everywhere that it's in the future tense. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=069VBgiPNWA 89.215.226.170 (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

https://www.thepopverse.com/movies-predator-how-to-watch-release-chronological-order-arnold-schwarzenegger-predator-badlands 89.215.226.170 (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

https://cinema.everyeye.it/notizie/predator-timeline-iconico-franchise-spiegata-bene-808173.html 89.215.226.170 (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Predators doesn’t look like being set in any year. The film doesn’t place itself anywhere. Shane Black saying that The Predator is set before Predators is a creative decision he could make. And as said before in this discussion Predator: Hunting Grounds which we include on the timeline set Predators after The Predator. MJknights (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

this was temporarily thought that way then it was changed and obviously predators does not develop in the future the movie itself dictates this stop talking nonsense just because the director said so this is not true 89.215.226.170 (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

It’s not just that Shane Black said it. Hunting Grounds is in line with what Shane said and makes it set after The Predator. The Predator is set in 2018, Hunting Grounds is in 2025. Isabelle spent a year on the planet before finding her way to Earth in 2025. Which makes Predators be set in exactly 2024. Because characters mention events of 2009 nine as such, and Yautja having cryosleep as shows in Marvel comics and Killer of Killers, there is no contradiction in them being abducted in 2010 and then "unfrozen" in 2024. MJknights (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

the game is not a criteria for the film, film it has absolutely nothing to do with future setting 89.215.226.170 (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The film is set on an alien planet there is no indication in it in what year it is set. And yes, the canon game that I assume collectively is approved on the timeline does have a lot to say about canon when it’s canon itself. MJknights (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

the majority says 2010 and because of the director, a small part says it takes place in the future tense 89.215.226.170 (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Shane Black is a creative involved in the franchise no? Also as I said, Hunting Grounds provides that Predators is in fact set in the future of when it was released. The game is canon, so information in it is canon, it sets the film to be set after The Predator. Im not here to discuss what I feel is better. I’m discussing it because in official canon the film is set after The Predator. If we’d talk about when i preferred it to be set it’d be 2010. But that would be factually incorrect as of this very moment. They can retcon the game out of canon whenever they want. And if that happens we’ll have a different topic but since the game is canon and sets the film to be placed after The Predator it’s what I’m saying we should have it listed after The Predator on the timeline. MJknights (talk) 08:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Where in the video does she say that? Near the end she says that she doesn't know how long the trip back to Earth took. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

1. Predator ships use instant transportation warps, as we can see in The Predator. It would be absurd to state she was travelling to Earth for 14 years.

.

2. The OWLF tapes are in chronological order. The events of The Predator happen before Isabelle lands on Earth.

.

3. Shane Black is a valid source. Random timelines created by random people not involved in the franchise are not. Articles on websites like Screenrant are not written by the creators of the franchise, thus aren't valid sources. They aren't major trades reporting on the cast. They are fan-made timelines made by people such as yourself who see Predators as happening in 2010 because it released in 2010. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. MumfordFN2187 (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Look at how the people are dressed and their weapons look like they are from the present time, not the future. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

It's very likely they were abducted by Super Predators back in 2010, and were 14 years in cryosleep. But even if not, in 2024 stuff didn't look that different to when it did in 2010. MJknights (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

According to the wiki predators took place in 2010, but Nikolai mentioned he was fighting in the second Chechen war before being kidnapped. So somewhere between 1999-2009 89.215.226.170 (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Wars can happen in any year, why does it have to be that one? Even if it was, we know that Yuatja freeze their prey to hunt at a later date as shown in the Marvel comics (which were literally set on the Game Reserve Planet) and Predator: Killer of Killers. He could have been taken from any point and it has no contradiction with Shane Black or the Hunting Grounds tapes. On the other hand, there are contradictions when placing it in 2010 or earlier. MumfordFN2187 (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

This theory is not true that they were frozen, rather they were sent by secret troops to this place, but unfortunately it is a big mystery and not much is known and understood. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

From an article:

We don't know when exactly it's set, and common consensus among fans over the years is that it's probably set in the year it was released. (The Predator director Shane Black has stated that his movie takes place before Predators though, so your call.)

Even if it's not exactly 2010, it can't be too far into the future as the group's weapons aren't that advanced, so it's probably still in the 21st century.

and my vision:

the director and the game have tried to remake the movie in a crazy way since it has no future filming and it feels like I'm choosing present tense as the movie itself seems to be. look at the atmosphere in Predator Badlands The film is famous for being set in the future and the weapons are from the future. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

everyone chooses for themselves where to put the film in the present tense as is obvious or in the future tense because of the director's stupidity 89.215.226.170 (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

is not set in future time is present time ! 89.215.226.44 (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/the-definitive-predator-movies-watch-order/ 89.215.226.170 (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Irrelevant fan site. Rcarter555 (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

https://www.ign.com/articles/the-predator-movies-in-order 89.215.226.170 (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

https://fandomwire.com/how-to-watch-every-predator-movie-timeline-chronology/ 89.215.226.170 (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

https://www.soapcentral.com/entertainment/the-alien-predator-timeline-explainer-need-predator-badlands-depth 89.215.226.170 (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=0DPW7eyzwJ0&t=94 89.215.226.170 (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

https://techwiser.com/predator-franchise-watch-order/ 89.215.226.170 (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Irrelevant sources change nothing. 2A02:810A:9A5:7A00:A5BA:F261:60EE:DD87 (talk) 07:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

they change because for most people the movie takes place in the present tense and there's a small group of people who say it takes place in the future tense which is crazy that 89.215.226.170 (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

None of those sources are reliable and are just fan sites, so yes, they are irrelevant. Rcarter555 (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

https://thedirect.com/article/predator-movies-order-chronologically-badlands 5.53.248.101 (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omFpOzo3A74 5.53.248.101 (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Another irrelevant fan site. Rcarter555 (talk) 07:36, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Regarding placing the films into different sections

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello User:Rcarter555, please lets discuss! Let me provide my reasoning first, I'm placing the movies into the following sections for the following reasons as distinct series of films; (1) Original films - these four movies constitute the original film and its direct sequels centered around the events of that original film; (2) Crossover films - these two movies simply constitute the two AVP movies that merges the continuities of the Alien and Predator films with their own casts and goes in their own direction disconnected from the events of the other films; (3) Prequel films - Prey and its planned sequel are literal prequels taking place centuries into the past with a completely different cast in a setting disconnected from the other films; (4) Animated films - Killer of Killers and any assumed sequel is a distinct animated anthology project disconnected from the other films; (5) Spin-off films - Badlands and any assumed sequel is something completely different taking place far in the future and disconnected from the other films. These are five different series going in different directions, same goes for the associated films on the Alien franchise article. Tell me what your disagreements are with this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.113.97.247 (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

You are right !!! 89.215.226.170 (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

You are using your own opinion in dividing these films in this way. Beyond the crossover section, I see no reason to separate any of the films into different categories, particularly Badlands which isn’t even out yet and is a big stretch to call it a “spin-off”. It’s no more a spin off than Predators or The Predator was and any indication that it is, barring reliable multiple sources that state as much, is just original research on your part. Rcarter555 (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, isn't it true that the crossover films constitute a different series? Or is it not true that the Prey film and its planned sequel constitutes prequels set centuries prior to the original films? Or is it not true that Killer of Killers is distinct on account of it being an animated anthology with its own separate storyline? Or is it not true that Badlands is a radically different movie separated from the original four films by having its own separate story centered around a protagonist Predator centuries into the future? At least the first four films have a unified red line centered around the events of the original movie, akin to the first four Alien films. You are evidently (and ironically enough) just using your own arbitrary opinion in removing these categories rather than reasoned argumentation for your position. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Rcarter555 Do you agree or disagree with these statements? 185.113.97.247 (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Rcarter555 I will push you against the wall, I will not let you breathe, it will not be yours. war begins 89.253.137.36 (talk) 09:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

When do admins block this user for blatant threats like this? Rcarter555 (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Admins will likely do nothing unless you report it. If you want to report this to WP:ANI you certainly could but please keep in mind that admins generally prefer to lock the article instead of attempting to block anon IP editors (I prefer to request that an article be marked to allow only flagged edits, but again admins prefer to just lock an article).

Frankly I object to subdividing the franchise at all in any way, subgrouping the two crossover films does not even seem necessary or particularly helpful. I think anyone dividing an Infobox into sublists with only 1 or 2 items is fundamentally missing the point of the Infbox "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose" [...] "information should be presented in a short format wherever possible, and should exclude unnecessary content." -- 109.79.166.145 (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm tired of explaining, I'll give an example again, look at the pages of of X-Men (film series) and ALien (franchise) there they are divided into sections why can there be a series with sections but here it cannot be divided 84.252.57.11 (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

"I'm tired of explaining" I'm tired of editors like ip84 and ip89 trying to force these excessive and unnecessary subdivisions into film series and franchise articles and then trying to use the fact they got away with it in other articles as an excuse to keep doing it in even more articles. It was bad then and it is bad now, most other editors just don't care enough to revert or complain about it.

It is not about explaining, I understand what you are doing, I do not agree with what you are and various guidelines suggest that you should not be doing it either. The subdivisions Alien_(franchise) and Alien_(franchise) are excessive and unnecessary, I believe they are self-indulgent fancruft and I do not think they actually help normal readers. (Most editors wouldn't try to break the A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise) into subgroups just because on of those films happened to be a Jason crossover, they're all one series.) You're overcomplicating a very simple idea, a film series can be long and varied, no subdivisions are necessary, you're making it more cluttered and less clear. I don't know why the editors who maintain and actively contribute to those article are willing to put up with this needless overcomplication. -- 109.79.166.145 (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

look at the pages of of X-Men (film series) and Alien (franchise)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a convincing argument. -- Pemilligan (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I just reported it to ARV. Armegon (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:AIV, and the IP user is now blocked for two weeks. -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

You are right !!! 89.215.226.170 (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Chronology with their sub series

Original series

1. Predator

2. Predator 2

3. Predators

4. The Predator

Crossover series

1. Alien vs. Predator

2. Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem

Prequel

1. Prey

Animated film

1. Predator: Killer of Killers

Spin-off

1. Predator: Badlands 89.215.226.170 (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

This is not his point of view, these are facts, movies really should be divided into these sections. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

How Predator: Badlands it is likely a spin-off... This film is different from the previous ones in that the man and woman are played by non-humans. Man is a Predator and woman is a android in lead roles. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

We will gather as a guild of people and support the division of films into sections. We will not tolerate dictatorship. 85.130.104.15 (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

What dictatorship? There's no source suggesting that they consider Predator: Badlands any less of a sequel than the first four films. Heck, Killer of Killers is more of a sequel to Predator 2 than Predators is. They're one series, separating them makes no sense. They don't see it that way Behind-The-Scenes. MumfordFN2187 (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I know they are one series but they are divided into their sub-series. Predator: Badlands is a standalone sequel maybe because no one comes back and because they won't mention events from previous movies for Predator: Killer of Killers is a animated film is not live action film for this it needs marking Animated film and Prey is a prequel 85.130.105.100 (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

How do you know that Badlands won’t mention events from previous movies? The film hasn’t been released yet. Of course whether it does or not doesn’t really affect the idea that the films shouldn’t be divided up into sections. They are all more or less stand alone sequels. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

because the movie is set in the future very far away and it seems like they won't mention events from the previous movie which is a shame but we'll just have to wait and see 89.253.137.36 (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I give you an example with X-Men film series they are divided into sections and The Wolverine is set after X-Men: The Last Stand but is not part from original series how is are X-Men, X2 and X-Men: The Last Stand is part of his spin-off series with X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Logan 85.130.105.100 (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Men_(film_series)#Films 85.130.105.100 (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

That's a wild comparison to make. The X-Men film series features all the same characters, with Wolverine being a spin-off about one specific character. Predator: Badlands has equal relation to the first film that the others do.

.

Predator is an anthology film series. None of the films are strongly related to each other. The only film with characters from previous installments is Predator: Killer of Killers, which you call a separate sub-series... just because it's animated, I guess?

.

There is no distinction between the new films and the first four. Predator: Badlands is clearly just Predator 7 in the same way that The Predator is Predator 4 (though, technically Predators is set after it). MumfordFN2187 (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

The Predator is not set before Predators is after and yes the movies don't have returning actors but events are mentioned and that's also a connection and not just when actors return as far as Predator: Killer of Killers ad end is cameos and it even feels like it's completely unnecessary that they put these faces on 85.130.105.100 (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

and Predator: Badlands in all live action films is 8 film but in his original series is a 5 film part as is more accurate and proper 85.130.105.100 (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

these are two points of view of all the films and their division into series 85.130.105.100 (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

There are a lot of people who don't understand movie series and it's been proven recently that a friend of mine told me that Creed 2 was Rocky 8. of course he is not right The problem here on the site is also how many people are aware of things and how many understand them, and that's why there are misunderstandings. I dare say that I understand from this series. 85.130.105.100 (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

when they are sequels there are no divisions in the series but when they start with prequel, spin-off or crossover Divisions begin because we can't pretend it's the same thing. 89.253.137.36 (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

There are already several people who are in favor of splitting the series, and more will come until we get ours, it should be known. 89.253.137.36 (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Rcarter555Y ou just removed the sections and showed once again that you will impose your opinion, but we will not give up and we will not let you do what you want. Get ready for war in the coming days by gathering more people to come and vent their dissatisfaction with how you made the films your own way. 89.253.137.36 (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed! I'll give it some time, but unless any counterargument comes along, I'll consider the silence an expression of reluctant agreement. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Do not agree. Separating the films into these categories, without multiple reliable sources indicating this is an appropriate separation is OR and SYNTH. The main character from Prey appears in a cameo in Killer of Killers. How is that in a separate category than Prey? Being animated is irrelevant. How is something like Badlands (which no one has even seen yet, so CRYSTAL BALL also applies) considered a spin off but something like Predators isn’t? The connections between that film and the original are just as tenuous as we imagine Badlands would be (again, a film no one has seen). Rcarter555 (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

this is not a criteria that a character was in the animated film all films is in one canon but is a separate series we have to wait and see Predator: Badlands is spin-off or not 89.215.226.170 (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

yes, we should wait and see. Meaning it should not be done now. But even if it takes place in the future, I don’t agree that the criteria you mentioned classifies it as a spin off. Rcarter555 (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Alien film series are divided accurately and correctly into different series in wikipedia 89.215.226.170 (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Main series is wrong because this is generally speaking and covers original series prequel series and crossover series only spin-off is not main series 89.215.226.170 (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Whose definition of “main series” or “spin off series”? Show me s reliable source who categorizes the films this way and you’ll have an argument. Rcarter555 (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

We would here define "original series" as the original line of films starting from the original film and its immediate sequels which are explicitly connected to its narrative. Why do you need a source for this? Aren't the multiple sources the other guy already linked to enough to point to the very obvious fact that Badlands is a spin-off? Is Badlands your only point of disagreement by the way? Why do you even think it's narrative is connected to the original four films and not just it's own story? 185.113.97.247 (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Badlands hasn’t even been released yet and. I one has seen it, so classifying it this way is premature at best. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

And that matters because...? The fact it hasn't been released yet doesn't at all change the fact it's an evident spin-off, which the advertised narrative clarifies and which the linked sources affirms. You need to elaborate! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Advertised narrative is often misleading. We should wait for the film to come out before categorizing it. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

And that's supposed to mean... what, in this context, more exactly? The advertised narrative and it being reported as a spin-off by the media makes it abundantly clear. Why exactly do you want to "wait until it comes out"? 185.113.97.247 (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

must have separete section for films ! 89.215.226.44 (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

your tantrums don't advance the argument. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I will fight for justice and gather more people to come and support the division of films into sections. 85.130.104.15 (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

We are gathering more and more people who want and insist on dividing films into sections, we will not tolerate a dictatorship. 85.130.105.100 (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I see that you hold power and you are letting it go, but we will not leave things like this, expect more people in the coming days to come and insist that we divide the series as it should be, into sections, nothing is over, get ready for more!!!! 89.253.137.36 (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

The characters aren't a factor at all. Are you telling me that Creed isn't a spin-off because Stallone is in it? 89.215.226.170 (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

No, Creed is a spin off because it moves the focus to a different character. By that definition every single Predator movie is a spin off of the first one, since there’s no recurring characters. Rcarter555 (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

What classifies as a "spin-off" may be different from franchise to franchise depending on context. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Who decides that context? I again ask for reliable sources to be referenced in your change. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The franchise determines that context, and the distinction has been made abundantly clear in this thread. Stop acting obnoxiously. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Please be civil. Rcarter555 (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Lead by example. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

You cannot name one time I’ve been uncivil in this discussion. Rcarter555 (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

In multiple instances in this thread you've engaged the discussion in an uncivil manner by targeting the participants who disagree with you, saying "you're just arguing your own opinion" (ironic), "you need to learn", "you don't understand", "you will be banned", "you can't be convinced", and targeting non-important comments that fuels the flames, spending more time calling people "uncivil" and "assume good faith" when you're being called out for your own behavior, while merely making arbitrary assertions on the subject matter and then refusing to elaborate on your underlying reasoning, insisting you have made a sufficient argument and that we are merely disagreeing with you, even admitting you're not here to have a discussion but only to state and force through your own preference. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

these are sequels or standalone sequels with different characters not spin-offs in Predator film series 89.215.226.170 (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

must have separete section for films !!! 89.215.226.44 (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

That does not appear to be the consensus. Rcarter555 (talk) 09:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

more than one person is in favor of splitting the films 89.215.226.44 (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

How do you determine when you're alone versus several people? 89.215.226.44 (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this. The only ones pushing for separating the films are you and another IP that turned out to be a blocked user that tried to evade their block via IP socks. Armegon (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

How is it OR or SYNTH? Why do you need "reliable sources" for something that should be abundantly obvious just by sheer observation and acknowledgment of the facts? Again, answer each of my questions above!

I'll repeat to remind you; is it not true that the crossover films constitute a different series? Or is it not true that the Prey film and its planned sequel constitutes prequels set centuries prior to the original films? Or is it not true that Killer of Killers is distinct on account of it being an animated anthology with its own separate storyline? Or is it not true that Badlands is a radically different movie separated from the original four films by having its own separate story centered around a protagonist Predator centuries into the future? At least the first four films have a unified red line centered around the events of the original movie, akin to the first four Alien films.

Yeah, the main character of Prey appears in a brief cameo in the end credits of the animated anthology film, so what? That's Trachtenberg playing around. Prey is still its own prequel series unless you want to argue it's taking place simultaneously with the other films rather than centuries apart, and the animated anthology film is its own animated adventure heading in its own direction and obviously not the same as any of the live-action series of movies. Again, the original four movies (Predators definitely included) involves sequels using the original film as a central theme and taking place within the immediate decades and repeatedly referring back to it both verbally and thematically (heck, Dutch himself was planned to appear in every one but Arnold declined each time), whereas Badlands is set centuries into the future and follows a young Predator protagonist's story and has nothing to do with the original four films but merely a story Trachtenberg wanted to develop because it would be cool to see something new (and because he's obviously using the film to set up Alien vs. Predator 3). 185.113.97.247 (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

You are right but they don't want to adjust the series like that 89.215.226.170 (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

yes these are future projects Prey 2 and Alien vs Predator 3 89.215.226.170 (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

or maybe will have sequel of Badlands 89.215.226.170 (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

It is OR because it is your opinion that these films are categorized this way and you have no sources to back that up.

It is NOT inherently true that Killer of Killers is separate just because it is animated. It is NOT inherently true that Badlands is “radically” different because it has its own separate story (every film has its own separate story) or because it has a protagonist Predator and takes place in the future. Terminator 2 features a protagonist Terminator, is that a spin off? Many of the Terminator films take place in different timelines, are they spin offs? No.

So the main character of Prey appearing in Killer of Killers is just “Trachtenberg playing around?” Really? Where’s your source? If you have none, then it’s just your opinion and OR. You need sources for these things. That’s how Wikipedia works Rcarter555 (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Why do you need sources for what is obvious? Dude, Killer of Killers is not just a separate thing because it's going in its own direction, but it's the fact it is an animated installment that distinguishes it from the live-action movies. How are you disagreeing with this? Yes, Naru appearing in a post-credits cameo is indeed Dan playing around with his movies, what can I say! What's supposed to be your issue here when you mention Naru, what does it change for this discussion? You don't need "sources" for everything in life dude, you can have normal rational discussions without constantly appealing to "sources" for EVERYTHING (for no apparent need or reason)! You're clearly not listening to me here, the original four films are unfied around the original 1987 film and directly referencing it both verbally and thematically and taking place within the immediate decades of its timeline and its events influenced the three sequels. The Badlands film has no relation to those movies, it's a spin-off taking place centuries into the future and focusing its story on a young Predator protagonist and his cultural background, and this has again been described by news outlets as the obvious spin-off that it is as the other person in this discussion already noted. Terminator is an entirely different subject matter because its storyline is centered on the same core characters from the original Terminator film appearing across different timelines on account of the time travel story device. Come on now... 185.113.97.247 (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

You may not need sources for everything in life, but you do need sources for everything on Wikipedia. You list things as “facts” and “obvious” that are just your opinion. If these things have been described by news outlets as you suggest, then by all means, quote those sources. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Is it "just an opinion" that these films are crossovers, prequels, animated, and spin-offs? No, you don't need sources for "everything", sometimes it just takes acknowledging reality. You don't need sources for these things, and I don't see you providing any reasoning for why you need sources for this. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I’m sorry that you don’t understand how Wikipedia works. I suggest reviewing their rules before further editing. You need sources because Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of reality. It’s an encyclopedia of things that can be reliably source. Rcarter555 (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

You can't keep appealing to "this is not how Wikipedia works" (especially when your application of this reasoning is totally unclear), this is not operating in good faith nor productive conversation. Right now you're just being disruptive and stubborn and refusing to engage and arrive at an agreement, and this is again also not how Wikipedia works. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I am been neither disruptive, stubborn nor uncivil. I would argue you are being all of these things. I’m sorry that you don’t accept my very simple, yet very accurate assessment of how this site works. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you evidently are... This latest reply of yours is just another example of that, and you can't keep denying it while refusing to properly engage the subject. This is getting obnoxious. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I have been engaged with this topic, as my multiple posts should attest to. There is nothing in my replies that are disruptive or uncivil. I just disagree with you. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Don't play juvenile word games! You've technically been engaged in the discussion, but what I was saying is that you haven't engaged it in a proper manner that actually effectively addresses the subject matter and leads the other parties towards an agreement while acting in good faith and with due civility. You need to stop denying your wrongdoing and begin actually explaining your reasoning! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I find it somewhat amusing that you’d amend someone act in good faith and with civility in a comment that does neither. I have engaged in a “proper” manner. My goal is not to lead you to agree with me (that will obviously never happen), but to state my case which I have done. I will continue to deny any “wrongdoing” because I have done nothing wrong Rcarter555 (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. No, you have evidently NOT engaged in a proper and civil manner, as is the perception of the two individuals you've thus far engaged with in this thread, and the fact you just acknowledged you have NO intention of engaging the discussion in a manner conducive for arriving at an agreement, but only to assert your position regardless and repeatedly deny wrongdoing proves your disruptive attitude. You're incriminating yourself here. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

That’s how consensus building works. Rcarter555 (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

What is? Stop leaving vague responses and engage the discussion! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Terminator first 4 films is part from original series 5 film is reboot 6 film is retcon 89.215.226.170 (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

All just your opinion unless backed up by reliable sources. Rcarter555 (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

There are a few people here who insist on dividing the films into sections. 84.252.56.155 (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

And there are more people who are on the side of leaving it as it is. Rcarter555 (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

You just don't want the movies to be divided. I won't tolerate this disgrace and dictatorship that's happening here on the site. I want justice. The facts are that the movies should be divided into their categories and you can't run away from that and pretend it's not so. 84.252.56.155 (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

https://comicbook.com/horror/news/predator-franchise-spinoff-sequel-prey-badlands-dan-trachtenberg/ 89.215.226.170 (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, but we shouldn't have to point to an article that recognizes these are spinoffs and prequels, we can just recognize it as it is. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

yes the movie says what it is but we still have to go up and see maybe will be spin-off Badlands no lead humans in this one 89.215.226.170 (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I have been convinced many times that Wikipedia does not accept the facts on many occasions and rejects positive edits, calling them vandalism. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

No, that’s the very definition of original research. Rcarter555 (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

So according to you, recognizing that one plus one equals two is "original research" rather than merely intuitively obvious? Again, you have not answered any of the questions or engaged in the discussion, you only keep referring to "original research" and the like without elaboration. We got two people strongly disagreeing with you at this point, so either discuss and make your case, or concede that you've made an issue out of a non-issue. Let me ask you these questions once more, are not the AVP films crossover films? Are not the Prey films prequel films? Isn't Killer of Killers an animated film? Isn't Badlands a spin-off, disconnected from the original four films and their storyline in various respects, emphasized even by the title highlighting "Badlands" with "Predator" in a smaller font, centered on a young Predator protagonist's story and culture in the far future, and even described as such by the article mentioned by the other person above? 185.113.97.247 (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

you're right but he doesn't want to accept it and is wondering what crazy facts to give Every series that has more than one series is split and no sources are requested for this, it is visible. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, these categories are obvious. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

This person doesn't accept the facts and justifies himself with totally stupid things. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

They are not. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you actually saying that "it is not obvious that these are crossovers, prequels, spin-offs, and an animated film"? Pardon me, but this sounds disingenuous, and I'm still not sure why you're so insistent on avoiding these distinctions and barely caring to explain your reasoning. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I would argue they are distinctions without a difference. I have explained my reasoning. I believe they are all part of one franchise and don’t need to be separated into fairly arbitrary categories. If you find reliable sources that say otherwise, then the change should be made. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

How are they "distinctions without a difference"? With this reasoning you could say the same about distinguishing "films" from "short films" in the article. You have not explained your reasoning, you merely keep asserting that you have and barely trying, nor do you answer the questions I keep raising with regards to the clear distinctions between the categories of originals, crossovers, prequels, animations, and spin-offs. Obviously they are all part of one franchise, that's not under dispute, but they are also clearly falling under different categories within that franchise. Multiple sources on this obvious subject matter have been linked by the other person in this discussion. What more do you want? What is your actual issue and counterargument? You keep weirdly switching the goal posts. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I would argue they are not “clear distinctions” and those distinctions that do exist are not sufficient to separate them into different categories. The fact that Killer of Killers is animated, for example, is irrelevant to its placement within the series. I have not once switched the goal posts. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

How are they "not" clear distinctions? You do realize animated films are not the same as live-action films? Is that distinction "not clear" enough? Is the distinction between an original film set in the 1980's and a prequel set three centuries earlier "not clear" enough? Is the distinction between that same original film focusing on a particular human-centered narrative, and a spin-off set over one or two centuries later focusing on a particular Predator-centered narrative, "not clear" enough? How is it "irrelevant" and which "placement in the series"? 185.113.97.247 (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I don’t believe these distinctions rise to the level that would require them to be divided into different sections Rcarter555 (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Why not? Explain! Don't just leave a vague opinion, elaborate on why you think so! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure what else there is to explain. I don’t believe those distinctions are sufficient to warrant placing them in different categories. I believe being a part of a single franchise overrides these minor differences in content. Rcarter555 (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Then lets remove all categories in the article altogether, leaving no distinctions between "films" or "short films", between "main films" or "crossover films", between "films" and "novels", between "novels" and "comics", or between "films" and "games", to remain consistent with your reasoning. You have no argument, only arbitrary opinions without elaboration, that's what your responses like this one reveals. I'm sorry, but different categories of products being part of the same franchise doesn't erase these categories. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

You’re making a straw man argument now. Rcarter555 (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

And that "strawman" is supposed to be...? 185.113.97.247 (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

they are part of the same franchise and of the same continuity but they are different types of series this is not one type of series what do you not understand in this case 89.215.226.170 (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that it is your opinion and not fact that they are “different types of series” worthy of being divided into different sections. What do you not understand? Rcarter555 (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I would argue it is your opinion and not fact that they "aren't" different series. See how that works? You need to explain why you think they shouldn't be divided into different sections! You continually fail to elaborate sufficiently on your reasoning in a manner that leads the other person towards an understanding, you just leave brief odd remarks without further clarification. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I have explained. Now it just remains to see if there is a consensus for your desired change. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

You have not, and repeatedly asserting that you have done so doesn't change the perception of the others that you haven't in fact done so. We'll see whether the consensus stands for your desired change or the other. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I have answered all of your questions and engaged in discussion, you just don’t like what I have to say. I don’t need to elaborate on what is original research. It’s anything that can’t be sourced. And the idea that you think this is as obvious as ”1+1=2” suggests to me you should research more how Wikipedia works. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

You have not answered the questions, but you keep avoiding them. People naturally don't approve of someone being needlessly stubborn for the sake of being stubborn rather than providing actual reasoning for your position. Yes, you DO need to elaborate on how this equates to "original research" rather than intuitively obvious facts (such as are already acknowledged by the articles of the films in question), and you again avoiding to engage the discussion by arguing "I don't have to give you an answer" is not productive but disruptive and uncivil! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

“Intuitively obvious facts” is nit how this site works. I’m sorry if that’s not a good enough answer for you. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

You can't keep resorting to "this is not how the site works" and derogatory language as a defense for your bad argumentation. You're not even attempting to engage in a productive genuine discussion, you merely appear to be acting difficult for the sake of being difficult. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I would not resort to that reply if you didn’t keep suggesting things that are against Wikipedia guidelines (including suggesting said guidelines don’t really exist and everyone ignores them anyway). I have not used derogatory language once. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

You keep on doing it, and now adding slander like implying I was arguing that "said guidelines don't exist and everybody ignores them" to the list of examples of your uncivil behavior and bad faith attitude. You can't substitute reasoned argumentation for appealing to "guidelines" without clear application or justification. You're not even trying to have a normal honest conversation, and it's demonstrating the weakness of your case in so doing. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I apologize as it was the other editor who said “ and don't even mention Wikipedia rules to me, it has rules but no one follows them because everyone edits according to their own views, these rules just exist and that's it”. It is difficult to distinguish between the two of you since you are both unverified editors. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Apology accepted. The other individual will have to speak for himself, but you ought to be more careful, if you're going to insist on making this subject into an issue! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not just that you're stubborn and don't accept the facts, don't give me an example of how Wikipedia worked. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

You can't put things under one denominator like that. these are several series and should be noted 89.215.226.170 (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

https://www.screamhorrormag.com/badlands-new-predator-spin-off-from-dan-trachtenberg-begins-filming/ clearly emerges as spin-off !! 89.215.226.170 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

https://reactormag.com/badlands-elle-fanning-to-star-in-predator-spinoff/ 89.215.226.170 (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Then you should use those sources to separate that into a spin off category. Killer of Killers is a completely different story. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

It's an animated film, not a live-action film, and I don't care at all. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

If you don’t care, why are you commenting? This is a place for discussion. Rcarter555 (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

You're evidently not here to discuss yourself, as you didn't even address his point that it's an animated film and not live-action, and instead you chose to solely focus in on him saying he "doesn't care". 185.113.97.247 (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I don’t see the need to categorize an animated film different from a live action one if they are in the same franchise. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Why not? What does it matter that it's in the same franchise? That seems irrelevant, because it's an animated product within a primarily live-action franchise, and that's a clearly distinct category. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

No, I would argue that being of the same franchise is the most importing qualifier and being live action versus animated is irrelevant. Rcarter555 (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Then there should be no distinction between a film or a short film, a film or a video game, or main films and crossover films. How does "being part of the same franchise" justify removing these distinct categories? It doesn't, and you refuse to reason on why it would, and it makes you out to be disruptive or vandalizing. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I am neither being disruptive nor vandalizing. Obviously a video game is different from a film. A novel is different from a film. But to subcategorize films based on their content seems a step too far for me. They are all feature films. They belong, in my opinion, in their own category. Rcarter555 (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

You seriously don't see how arbitrary and inconsistent you're acting right now? I think you do. Using your reasoning, obviously crossovers are different from the original films, obviously prequels are different from the original films, obviously animated films are different from live-action films, and obviously spin-offs are different from the original films. This should not be hard to conclude, but you can't seem to bring yourself to remain consistent with your logic, but it's painfully and annoyingly arbitrary. We're subcategorizing the films according to what kind of films they are, just like distinguishing between "films" and "short films" for example. Obviously the originals, the crossovers, the prequels, the animations, the spin-offs are all feature films, but that has no relevance here, because these are still clearly distinct categories of films in this franchise. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Not how Wikipedia works. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Don't just leave such vague responses, explain yourself! If you're not going to actually engage the discussion and attempt to arrive at an actual agreement and just keep reverting edits you don't like for some odd reason, then you're just being disruptive, and that I believe is frowned upon on Wikipedia! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 06:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

https://comicbook.com/movies/news/predator-spinoff-badlands-looks-to-add-elle-fanning-to-cast/ 89.215.226.170 (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

https://cinema.everyeye.it/film/badlands-spinoff-predator/ 89.215.226.170 (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

https://theplaylist.net/badlands-elle-fanning-to-star-in-predator-spinoff-film-from-prey-director-20240603/ 89.215.226.170 (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Posting all of these links in the talk page does no good. You should use them as a reference in updating the article if you wish. Rcarter555 (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Then do it yourself, if this was truly such a big (though very odd) issue for you, or you're not doing any good and you're demonstrating you're not operating out of good faith and genuine care for the article. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems to be a big (and odd) issue for you since youve spent so much time and energy arguing about it. If you have the sources, by all means make the changes and properly cite your sources. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not the one who keep repeating the need for "sources" needlessly. You've been provided with sources, so implement them where you think they fit and are needed, because it's apparently not clear to us why you need this or how you mean to implement them on this subject. Don't be this obnoxious and juvenile. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Sources are hardly “needless”, however if you have what you believe to be reliable sources, no one is stopping you from updating the article using those sources as references. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that sources are inherently unnecessary, I was saying that there's no reasoning provided for why and where you need sources in this instance, especially as this concerns an instance where the categories are already based upon not just the franchise article but each of the film articles that contains sources that defines what we're categorizing. You never explain yourself, and your appeal to "sources" rings hollow! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I have explained myself repeatedly. At this point we’re besting a dead horse. You will never come around to my way of thinking and I will not come around to yours. At this point it’s just a matter of seeing if there can be a consensus of other editors one way or the other. Rcarter555 (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

You keep explaining away your lack of engaging the discussion and providing elaboration with the excuse that "you're never gonna come around" and I suppose you're right when that's virtually all you're providing for this discussion. I tried maintaining good faith and keeping things civil, but you're clearly not intending to make a difference here, so other people absolutely need to weigh in here, because this is ridiculous. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I would love for other people to chime in, as a few have done so far (all agreeing with me, by the way). I am not here to “make a difference”, I am here to argue my side of this discussion. Rcarter555 (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Clearly more people need to weigh in, because this isn't going anywhere, and you're not intending to have the discussion go anywhere or be genuinely productive as you've admitted repeatedly, including in this latest reply. This explicit incriminating comment of yours again demonstrates your disruptive mindset and that you have no concern for what's true or best for the article. And no, "all" are NOT in agreement with you, but thus far only ONE has expressed an explicit agreement with you, and that's without them having been discussing the subject as of yet, while two are explicitly disagreeing with you, and three others have yet to provide a firm opinion and are still engaged in the discussion and actually trying to provide reasoning conducive to agreement (unlike others). 185.113.97.247 (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree completely that other people need to weigh in. Rcarter555 (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Right now you're acting like a boss who won't back down from his own vision of things. And you don't understand anything about movies at all, it's a shame there are so many people like you here 89.215.226.170 (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Please remain civil. Rcarter555 (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Don't tell others to be civil when you don't seem to be acting in a civil manner yourself, and don't rely on these kinds of brief responses in the place of actually elaborating on why you're making these categories into a matter of disagreement. If you can't effectively explain your position, then maybe it's not one you should be insisting upon. He's seemingly correct in his assessment though, with regards to you not being willing to acknowledge the distinctions between these products (with them being crossovers, prequels, animated, and spin-offs) for some odd reason that has not been made apparent by your reasoning in this discussion. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I have effectively explained my position and have been civil about it. Your argument seems to be “it’s an obvious fact” when it’s not and that’s not how Wikipedia works. I’m sorry you don’t think that’s a sufficient argument but having reliable sources is a cornerstone of how this site works. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

You evidently have not, and insisting that you have doesn't change the perception of the other participants in the conversation. You keep on behaving in this obnoxious manner, and it's only making your case look empty and like you're clearly not here with the goal of being productive. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with it doesn’t mean that I haven’t made my argument. I’m sorry that you feel like disagreeing with you is “obnoxious”. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

You apparently haven't sufficiently made your argument. Don't be dishonest, it's not the mere fact you disagree with people that is obnoxious, it's your behavior, and you make no effort to improve and further the conversation. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

https://www.movieinsider.com/movies/genres/spin-off/2025 many sources have come out saying this will be spin-off film 89.215.226.170 (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Then use them as a source when updating the article. Rcarter555 (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

https://film-book.com/badlands-elle-fanning-in-negotiations-to-star-in-dan-trachtenbergs-upcoming-predator-spin-off-film/ 89.215.226.170 (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

if you have this many sources, you should have no problem referencing them when updating the article. Rcarter555 (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

If you've been made aware of all these sources, why do you not add them yourself if you care so much about it? You don't need sources to recognize the films in question constitutes two crossover films, one prequel film, one animated film, and one spin-off film. Why do you need sources for this? Do you also need sources for categorizing "films" and "short films"? Where do you want the sources to be implemented? You should have no problem clarifying yourself and your problems in this discussion or implementing the sources you demand, but thus far you've not engaged in any productive activity! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 06:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

You need sources that indicate those varying types of films are sufficiently recognized as such to require different categories. I would argue they don’t, but if you have sources that say so, by all means make the change that you desire and cite them properly. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Sources such as those not only mentioned in this thread, but also characterizing the films in question which are already sufficiently provided by the film articles themselves, you mean? Again, doesn't the articles on these films clarify enough that we're talking about four original films with sequels centered around the first, distinct from the two crossovers, the one prequel, the one animation, and the one spin-off? What are you arguing about? 185.113.97.247 (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I’m arguing that those sources, if you believe them to be reliable, need to be referenced in your changes. Posting those links here on the talk page is meaningless. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Are they not reliable? Where do you want them referenced in the article, and why exactly do you want them there? If you think it's such a big issue to not have those sources in the article, then put them there, or explain why they are necessary in this instance! Because they hardly seem necessary here. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know if they’re reliable or not, as you have never referenced them in the article. That is your responsibility if you want to make this change. Since you seem convinced that you have reliable sources for the change, I’m confused by your reluctance to use them in the article. Rcarter555 (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

You haven't even made clear what kind of sources you're asking for, why you want them in the first place, or where exactly you want them implemented. I'm confused by you here, it's not obvious what you want, and you're not clarifying anything. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

This guy is not at all like the people he gives, I have no words to say more. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Many people insist on dividing the films into sections, it's not just one person here, it's at least three. 84.252.56.155 (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Lets sum things up for the moment, two people are currently in agreement the films should be put in different categories (namely the four original films, the two crossover films, the one prequel film, the one animated film, and the one spin-off film), and only one person is disagreeing with these categories for reasons that have not yet been made clear, and whose attitude in the discussion appears arguably disruptive and stubborn, rather than conducive to productive discourse that leads to agreement. User:Rcarter555, please, you insisted on reverting the edits in question and demanded we have a talk, but you need to properly and clearly explain your problem with these categories in a civil productive manner and not just responding with brief "that's not how it works" or "this is not valid" type responses! Need we call in more people to weigh in on this issue? 185.113.97.247 (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I stand by these distinct categories. How about you 89.215.226.170, are you in agreement? 185.113.97.247 (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

yes I completely agree it is obvious 89.215.226.170 (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. Rcarter555 (talk) 07:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

So far two are in agreement to keep the distinct sections, while one disagrees without clear motivation. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I do have clear motivation. That you don’t recognize it is unfortunate. Rcarter555 (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

You have yet to clarify that motivation and lead the other people in the discussion to understanding and agreeing with you, all you seem to keep doing is addressing the others in derogatory manners. You can't engage discussions in this manner! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I have not said one derogatory thing in this discussion, which is more than can be said for others. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

It can't be allowed on some Wikipedia pages and forbidden on other Wikipedia pages. Where is the logic? Either it will be allowed on all of them or it will not be allowed on any of them. It can't be mixed. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

“Other stuff exists” is not a valid reasoning for a change. Please review Wikipedia guidelines. Rcarter555 (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we should call in more people because two people does not a consensus make (and if there is no consensus, the original edit stands). I, however, would argue that it is others who have been disruptive and stubborn (I never called anyone names or was uncivil). And I have been properly and clearly explaining my position, but you just aren’t interested in hearing it. So by all means, I would love for others to join the conversation. Rcarter555 (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

always the first film and its sequels are part of an original series then follows additional series that expand the universe as crossovers prequels spin-offs and this applies to every series and is a fact So save your work and don't write anymore because you're not saying anything smart. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Those are opinions and far from facts. Again, I would ask you to be civil in your argument. Rcarter555 (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

At least we agree we need more people to join in on the discussion. Two people are definitely heading towards consensus, and "the original edit" can refer to the edit you chose to change and make an issue out of for unclear reasons. When you choose to act in stubbornly disruptive and uncivil manners (targeting the person with "you don't like my opinion" or "you don't understand this" and refusing to properly engage a good faith conversation and properly explaining your points of contention you naturally receive similar responses in return. Try not to go that way, but explain your position clearly in a manner that effectively clarifies the issues to the other person. I opened this thread in good faith, trying to explain myself as clearly as possible, and you didn't address the arguments except for odd nitpicks and odd replies appealing to authority or guidelines without clear reasoning. You're right here in this latest response engaging in this same uncivil manner! You can't just insist that you've articulated yourself properly when the two people you're conversing with clearly don't think that you have. I'm hereby urging other people to join and give their takes on the matter! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

yes and I urge more people and express their opinion 89.215.226.170 (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Two people in not consensus and the fact that there hasn’t been any participation by other editors suggests a lack of interest in the change. The original edit is NEVER the change that is being disputed. Never. I am neither stubbornly disruptive nor uncivil (I am the only one being called stupid and other names in this discussion) I am not being disruptive by pointing out that I don’t think you understand the rules of Wikipedia. I am trying to help you. But you are not open to hearing counter arguments and instead just call them “nitpicks”. You will never win an argument on Wikipedia by just claiming something is inherently true without sources backing it up, which seems to be your main position. Rcarter555 (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

there is no such thing as an original edit here everyone comes and edits and uses their own point of view which in most cases is not true there are few people like us who think correctly and say the facts as they are because the films themselves say this we don't need sources to prove it 89.215.226.170 (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

You continue to display evidence of not understanding how Wikipedia works. When an edit is in dispute and goes to the talk page, if there is no consensus than the edit in question does not stand and it reverts to the previous edit. I urge you most emphatically to please read the rules of editing Wikipedia. Rcarter555 (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

and don't even mention Wikipedia rules to me, it has rules but no one follows them because everyone edits according to their own views, these rules just exist and that's it 89.215.226.170 (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

You will never win an argument here on Wikipedia by essentially claiming that the rules don’t matter. Rcarter555 (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Even if I don't win, I'm still a winner because these are the facts and Wikipedia doesn't accept them and it's not clear about things at all. This is my opinion and it's not just here. This problem is also on other pages. There are stubborn editors who think they know everything but are actually complete zero. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

This uncivil behavior is not helping your argument. Rcarter555 (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Two people is a plurality and when weighed against one person it's heading in the direction of consensus, and we're counting from this point onwards. Lack of participation can either indicate lack of interest, lack of priority, lack of ability, lack of understanding, or lack of awareness. There are two edits in dispute here, one where the films are categorized and one where they're not, and none of them can be described as "original" in any meaningful manner. You can't keep insisting upon having things your way, and never attempting to explain your position and make it understandable, or motivate the other person to understand why they should consider your position convincing. Yes, you ARE acting in a stubbornly disruptive combative manner that does not respond to people in good faith nor work to make your position understandable. You can't keep engaging in discussions with this argumentative attitude and by hurling accusations, derogatory language, and pejoratives around you while arrogantly appealing to guidelines and authoritative assertions without any clear application in place of actual arguments and good reasoning that would have been conducive to a productive discourse, all because of something that should under normal circumstances be a non-issue. To say you're being disruptive and uncivil is an understatement! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

That’s not how consensus works on Wikipedia. I have explained my position over and over again but you just aren’t interested in hearing it. I am neither acting stubborn, disruptive or combative. Those are all adjectives that could be used to describe others in this conversation. I have hurled neither accusations nor pejoratives, but the same cannot be said for others who have been extremely uncivil to me in this discussion. Rcarter555 (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Likewise, one person safeguarding their preferred version of the article from multiple people disagreeing with you is also not how consensus works on Wikipedia. You have not explained anything, you have made repeated vague assertions and appeals to "this is not how Wikipedia works" or accusations of "you're not listening" or "you're not interested in learning" and threats of "you will be banned" while denying the wrongdoing we've clearly observed and documented while admitting you're not here to try to convince anyone but only to assert your position and force it forward, seemingly by all means necessary, but never do you actually commit to any real efforts to elaborate on your reasoning and try to arrive at an agreement or understanding. Don't deflect, but be the better man, and focus on explaining your case. I've been all ears this entire time, and you never open up nor act in genuine good faith, but you act like you're just stringing us along. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

“Multiple people” are so far two unverified editors who want the change. There are three so far that have spoken for the status quo. I have explained my reasoning to an exhaustive level. I cannot explain it any further. Please assume good faith and don’t ascribe motives to my posts. Rcarter555 (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Then stop betraying our good faith. You can't demand something you repeatedly and overtly contradict and abuse. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I have never once accused you of acting in bad faith. I believe you are trying to improve this article and think that your edit did so. I disagree. I have not contradicted or abused anything. Rcarter555 (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

That's a lie, you have repeatedly presented me and another individual as if acting in bad faith, and if you do believe that I'm trying to improve the article and that my edit "did so", and you disagreed and reverted it, then you've only further admitted that you have been acting disruptively, and you keep on denying your wrongdoing suspiciously like an internet troll. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, because unless you haven't heard, multiple means more than one, so don't act like I said something false or weird. Regardless, the point is you have NOT been productive in this discussion, and you've made yourself out to be a nuisance for the participants in the conversation by your behavior. Surely you understand this (even worse if you're just here trolling people, which I'm beginning to suspect at this point). No, there are TWO who have spoken out in favor of keeping the status quo with distinct categories, and TWO who have spoken out against keeping the films in separate categories. You have barely made any effort to explain your reasoning, much less to any "exhaustive level"! If you cannot explain it further, then you have no argument other than "I don't like this" essentially. That's not going to fly! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

There has been absolutely nothing wrong with my behavior in this conversation. If you believe it has, by all means report me to the admins. You see me as a nuisance because I don’t agree with you. There are actually three (including myself) who have spoken out for the status quo and two for your change. I have made my argument, you just aren’t interested in hearing it, so you claim it’s not good enough. 🤷‍♂️ Rcarter555 (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

This is again a blatant lie, as demonstrated by the conversation documented on this thread. I'm absolutely considering reporting you to the admins! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

For anyone else joining the discussion, do you agree or disagree that the films should be divided into the following categories; (1) Predator, Predator 2, Predators, and The Predator as four original films, (2) AVP and AVPR as two crossover films, (3) Prey as one prequel film, (4) Killer of Killers as one animated film, and (5) Badlands as one spin-off film? 185.113.97.247 (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

YES!!! 89.215.226.170 (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Chronology with their sub series

Original series

1. Predator

2. Predator 2

3. Predators

4. The Predator

Crossover series

1. Alien vs. Predator

2. Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem

Prequel

1. Prey

Animated film

1. Predator: Killer of Killers

Spin-off

1. Predator: Badlands 89.215.226.170 (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, but lets wait now for other people to give their opinions, otherwise we'll go with the current consensus and consider the lack of participation a statement to the silliness of this argument, especially as no explanation for removing these categories was ever actually presented and the reverting of these edits can simply be disregarded as disruptive. It's weird enough how we're even arguing about something like this. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

It's this man's fault for thinking he's a god and dispensing justice. We're really arguing about something stupid and at the same time something that's obvious that we should divide the series into these categories. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Give it a few more days for others to respond, otherwise it's time to go ahead and revert back to the original with the films organized into distinct categories, undoing the disruptive reverts. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

It has already been reverted back to the “original”. Without a consensus, that is the way it will stay. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

No, you reverted it to your preferred version, and refused to elaborate on your reasoning for that decision in a manner that leads the other parties to an agreement. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I reverted it to the version that previously existed. I have elaborated extensively on my reasoning, but you just don’t agree. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

You changed it to your preferred version, and when your change got reverted, you reverted it again back to your preferred version, without any explanation or discussion. You have apparently NOT "elaborated extensively on your reasoning", and I would be happy to agree if you could actually provide the reasoning and show why it should be considered by others. But you haven't, you only keep on saying that you have, with nothing to back it up except referring back to repeated statements without elaboration or explanation. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

That is incorrect. You changed it, I reverted that change. Then you reverted it back to your original change. I reverted it again and instructed you to take it to the talk page (which you did). I have never created anything on this page and the current categorization is a long standing one on this page. I have explained myself thoroughly. I don’t believe the films are different enough to require distinct categories. That’s it. That’s my whole argument. You can ask for further elaboration all you want, but none will be coming. You and I just fundamentally disagree about this and so it will require the opinions of others to form a consensus. Rcarter555 (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary. Clearly you're not intending to engage the discussion and elaborate on your reasoning, but it's good to see you repeatedly admitting that as well! It again shows that you're not here to discuss, but to force your preferred version. At least I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when we started this conversation and I refrained from reverting your evidently disruptive arbitrary edit. Evidently other people will need to be brought in to discuss, because you're impossible to reason with. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 07:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and be civil, as is required by Wikipedia guidelines. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Then stop betraying our good faith. You can't demand something you repeatedly and overtly contradict and abuse. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

There is no current consensus and I have presented my argument, which you don’t find compelling. Without true consensus, any reversion to the contested edit will just be reversed again. Rcarter555 (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

There is no firm consensus because the discussion is still ongoing, and you have not clearly presented your argument, or your argument has been so bad that it's been found lacking. If you engage in an edit war over it, you will risk getting banned! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, assuming good faith I will assume you don’t understand what an edit war is, so let me elaborate. When someone makes a change on Wikipedia (you) and another editor reverts that change and sends it to the talk page (me), the conversation tries to achieve a consensus for the change. When no consensus is reached, the original edit (meaning before you made the change) stands. If you were to revert to your edit without a consensus, THAT is what constitutes an edit war. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

You cannot substitute a reasoned discussion for targeting the person. How do you think a consensus is reached? By reasoned discussion, contending with other people, convincing them to support one position or another. Something you have refused to engage in, and clearly being intent on engaging in an edit war if your preferred version is rejected. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Reaching consensus does not necessarily involve changing someone’s mind. There will never be a time when everyone is happy with the outcome of one of these discussions. Consensus just means that the majority of commenters agree on one approach. If my preferred version of the page is not supported by the consensus, I would absolutely not change it back. Consensus will have been reached. I have been involved in many discussions like this over my many, many years editing Wikipedia. Some ya win and some ya lose. Rcarter555 (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

You've made it abundantly clear that you're not intending to engage in discussion to reach an agreement, and you've overall been acting in bad faith here. I don't doubt you've probably been active on Wikipedia for a long time, but this is about your reckless attitude that clearly does not look for what's true and best for the article. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

You are a very annoying person. You want it to be yours, but it won't happen because you're starting to annoy me like hell. in other articles the pages are divided into categories, look at the ninja turtles there they are divided https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_in_film 89.215.226.170 (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll second that "you're getting annoying" remark! His responses were never productive nor made in good faith. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

They are absolutely made in good faith, unlike the “you’re an annoying person” comment, which is both uncivil and not assuming good faith. I am very close to reporting the comments to admins. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Clearly that's not the perception of the people involved in the discussion. You need to be less concerned with insults (the feeling is mutual by the way) and be more concerned with actually making your position and reasoning clear to us and remove all doubts about your intentions. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I have made not one insult in this discussion. On the other hand, I have been subjected to insults continually. It is clear to me that no matter what I say, you will claim my position is unclear because you disagree with it. Rcarter555 (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

That's a blatant lie, and you make it abundantly clear here that you are intent on engaging this discussion in bad faith and imposing your own preferences and arbitrary opinions without question. This is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and you're getting into deep water here! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

It is not a lie, blatant or otherwise. You cannot point to a single comment I have made that is uncivil or in bad faith. Can you say the same about your comments? The water I am in is quite shallow. Rcarter555 (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

You're totally dishonest, as has been shown repeatedly at this point in this thread and publically documented. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

What exists on other pages is not relevant. Again, I ask you to review Wikipedia guidelines. Also, please remain civil in your discussions if you don’t want to be blocked from further editing. Rcarter555 (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

You need to stop being so vague and begin clearly explaining your reasoning! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I have explained my reasoning, but I’ll state it once again. I don’t believe the films are sufficiently in a “different category” to require them to be separated as you have suggested. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

No, you have asserted your opinion, but not actually elaborated on how you arrive at this opinion in a manner that helps me to understand where you're coming from and why your opinion is valid and should be accepted. You keep making some variant of that statement, but never explaining the underlying reasoning of it. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I do not need to elaborate on how I “arrived at my position” and I have never asked you to explain how you arrived at yours. You believe that the various films are sufficiently different enough to warrant different categories. I do not. It’s really as simple as that and imploring me to expound further on that is a waste of time. Rcarter555 (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you DO need to elaborate on how you're supposed to arrive at this position and why we should consider and support it, that's the whole point of the talk page, and the fact you refuse to do so proves you aren't here to "talk" at all as you urged people to do when you reverted the article back to your preferred version, but all you're doing is forcefully asserting your own opinion and preventing people from changing or improving the article. Don't tell people to "take it to the talk page" and then say you "don't need to talk and it's a waste of time", this only clarifies that you're just being disruptive, and this is NOT in line with how Wikipedia is supposed to work! You're basically sending the message that this is all just for show in your mind, and your non-responses being meant to give the false impression that you actually participated in productive discourse when you never actually did. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

this is not an intelligent literate person acknowledging the facts and then going against them just like that AVP films is a different category so are the others and we insist that there be justice and that they be placed under these categories because right now this is not justice, someone here is imposing their will 89.215.226.170 (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with that assessment. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

And so the incivility continues. Rcarter555 (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, the feeling is mutual. I opened up this discussion to you in good faith and attempted to lay out as clearly as possible my reasoning to make it understandable with the goal of arriving at an agreement based on logic and reason, and you have not met me on that same level, but you've continually acted in an uncivil manner. Don't deflect from the subject, but engage the discussion properly! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I have not said one uncivil thing in this entire discussion and I challenge you to find anything I said that was uncivil. I have laid out my reasoning as well, multiple times. You find that reasoning wanting. Okay. That’s the nature of these debates. Others need to weigh in for a consensus. Rcarter555 (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

That is once again an evident lie that's been pointed out multiple times at this point in this thread and available for review! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn’t argue with IP socks. It’s a waste of time. Mike Allen 07:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

You’re absolutely right, which is why I bailed on this conversation a while ago. It’s just going around in circles. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

You never intended to engage the discussion and only asserted your own opinion without elaboration, that's why we're going in circles. It's up to you. 185.113.98.7 (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I elaborated non stop but you didn’t agree so just dismissed it. You won’t listen to any argument that doesn’t agree with yours and instead just complain about Wikipedia rules that stand in the way of you getting why you want. I’ll take note of the fact that only one suspect IP has agreed with you and ever other commenter here has not. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Something tells me you'd never bother discussing the subject at all. I reckon it's a good thing you stay out of it. 185.113.98.7 (talk) 04:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

New discussion

I split this section, so newcomers won't have to read the whole thing above. Vestrian24Bio 03:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Summary so far, should the films be categorized as following or not..

• Original series
  1. Predator
  2. Predator 2
  3. Predators
  4. The Predator
• Crossover series
  1. Alien vs. Predator
  2. Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem
• Prequel series
  1. Prey
• Animated film
  1. Predator: Killer of Killers
• Spin-off film
  1. Predator: Badlands

Vestrian24Bio 03:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Following WikiProjects have been notified of this discussion - WikiProject Media franchises, WikiProject 20th Century Studios, WikiProject Science Fiction, WikiProject Film and WikiProject Film/American cinema task force. Vestrian24Bio 03:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Arguably, yes, we should leave the films organized into these distinct categories, because they accurately represents what these products are supposed to be. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Leave it as it is. Also how do we know if Predator: Badlands is a spin off film if it is not out yet? Mediafan200 (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean "leave it as it is"? We know Badlands is a spin-off film not just because it's been overtly described as such by news outlets but also because the information released about it clarifies this as it doesn't follow the narrative of the original four films but is centered on a young Predator protagonist's story and culture in the far future. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Leave the film categories as they currently are beacuse splitting them in the way you want is too much. Also some of the sources are not reliable. Mediafan200 (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Why should we leave them without categories? In what way is it "too much"? What do you mean "some sources are not reliable"? Sources for what? You need to elaborate! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not normal for us to lose and there to be no justice, but whatever, the facts remain facts that we are right, even if things aren't edited like that. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The immaturity of this outburst doesn’t help your cause. I will refrain from further commenting on that aspect as I struggle to remain civil and assume good faith, as is required by guidelines. Rcarter555 (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

It's been made very apparent that you struggle to maintain civility throughout this discussion. I would suggest as well that you concede this argument if you cannot make your case clear nor engage the discussion in a civil and honest manner. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I have remained civil throughout this discussion. Others have not. I will concede nothing. My case is super clear, you just disagree with it. That’s fine. I have been engaging in this conversation in a clear and civil manner. Have I ever questioned your intelligence? Have I ever called you stupid? No? I have been called these things in this discussion and out of an attempt to be civil, I have not reported these comments to admins, although I certainly could. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

This kind of response demonstrates your bad faith attitude. I will grant you that some of the other person's comments have been less than productive or respectful, but leave that aside or ignore those comments, and focus on the discussion at hand! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I would want to see the reliable sources that use these different categories, we shouldn't just be making it up based on personal interpretations. I haven't done a deep dive into the sources, but in my experience the AVP films are deemed to be somewhat separate while everything else is generally considered to be one big film franchise. It also seems like overkill to me, especially with multiple categories of just one film. If anything, the three Dan Trachtenberg would surely make more sense going together, right? - adamstom97 (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you consider "reliable sources" or why you need sources for this in the first place. These categories aren't "made-up", they characterize the nature of these films. The original four films are direct sequels which are verbally and thematically centered on the original film. Is that not clear? The crossover films are part of this one big franchise but a distinct category on account of them being crossovers with the Alien films. Is that not clear? Prey is an outright prequel taking place centuries before the original films. Is that not clear? Killer of Killers is an animated film. Is that not clear? Badlands has been repeatedly described by news outlets as a spin-off and has been described as such by the people behind it with it being focused on a young Predator protagonist's story and culture in the far future. Is that not clear? Noting that each of these categories are also in the works of receiving sequels. Let me know if there's anything specific you're wondering about. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

There are many categories but these are the facts, they must be separated. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

They are not facts, they are opinions unless backed by reliable sources. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Is it not a fact that the AVP films are crossovers? Is it not a fact that Prey is a prequel? Is it not a fact that Killer of Killers is animated? Is it not a fact that Badlands is a spin-off? These are obvious facts! The sources you ask for have already been provided above. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Those things may very well be facts but the argument is whether that means they should be in separate categories. I argue it isn’t enough of a difference (except for AvP). Again, sources listed in the talk page are irrelevant. They need to be referenced in the article when you edit it. Rcarter555 (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Then you've conceded the point. You said they "weren't facts" and now you virtually admit they ARE facts. These are clear distinctions. You can't be asking for sources and then be provided with sources only to respond with "sources are irrelevant". This is just switching the goal posts. Cite them in the article then if you want them included, and don't delete the content! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Please read my comment more carefully. I have not admitted they are facts and I said the distinctions IMO are not sufficient enough to warrant separate categories. That’s the crux of the argument. Also, I never said the sources were irrelevant. I said listing them here in the talk page is irrelevant. They need to be referenced in the article itself when you make changes. It is not my responsibility to cite them in an article change that you want to make but I disagree with. No goal posts have ever been switched. And I now see that there are additional people weighing in who agree with my position. Rcarter555 (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I did read it carefully. You reluctantly admitted these are facts, and you didn't explain how these facts are "not sufficient to warrant these categories". If the sources matter that much to you, then cite them in the article, because we clearly do not see why you are in such need of them or where you want them implemented. These categories are already made excessively apparent throughout the franchise and film articles and are not needed for these category titles. If you're not going to bother adding the sources you oddly demand then you shouldn't bother removing the content either. There's one more person who has voiced an early agreement without elaboration, that makes two people who want to keep the categories and two who wants to remove them. We're still discussing the subject and trying to arrive at an agreement, so you better wait to conclude anything and don't be so eager to have things your way! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Please read it again. Saying “these things may be facts” is not admitting that they are facts. Again, you don’t understand how Wikipedia works. You don’t get to make a change to Wikipedia with no sources and then demand other people provide those sources. That’s your responsibility if you want to edit a page. But, as much as I’m trying to assume good faith, it seems evident you have no interest in learning and following the guidelines of Wikipedia and instead just want things your way. Rcarter555 (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

You said it in a reluctant manner like you knew these are established facts. Again, you can't engage this discussion with derogatory language like "you don't understand" or "you have no interest in learning" in place of actual reasoned argumentation. You're not even trying to defend your case or clarify your reasoning to lead people towards a clear agreeable understanding. What do you want sources for? Be specific, because it's still unclear what you're asking for! You just make it sound like you have no valid argument and you're just making up excuses to avoid having to engage the subject and actually have a conversation. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I was not reluctant at all and if it read that way, then that is my fault for not being clear. Those comments I made were not intended to be derogatory, unlike the several comments about my intelligence that have been presented in this discussion. What do I want sources for? Because reliable sources are required to make changes on Wikipedia. It’s super clear what I’m asking for. I’m asking that the current edit stand as I don’t believe there’s reliable sources to require the films be divided into fairly arbitrary sections. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Then why even make such a statement as "those things may very well be facts" if you actually did not agree with that conclusion? If that were a genuine mistake (which I doubt), then choose your words more carefully and make your points clear, which you have arguably not done. If going by your reasoning, do you then also agree that we shouldn't "arbitrarily divide" between "main films" and "crossover films" or between "films" and "short films". These distinctions appear just as factual and relevant as the categories "original films", "prequel films", "animated films", or "spin-off films". If you disagree, then you need to clearly explain why, and NOT merely assert your arbitrary opinion that they should all be mixed together without elaboration or explanation! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

How can it be that on some pages the series are correctly divided into categories? It's not possible here. I want a logical explanation. If it's possible on other pages, then it's possible here too. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

movies say what they are and that's why they are divided into categories Predator with sequels is part from original series Prey is prequel Badlands is a spin-off and Killer of Killers is a animated film not part from live action films Stop evading and repeating sources when the movies themselves are your sources. You want it to be yours, but it won't happen. We won't give up until we change this article. I don't believe it. Am I clear? 89.215.226.170 (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

You’re comical threats do not do anything to help your case. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

How can the series here be divided correctly into categories, but not in the case of the predator? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Men_(film_series)#Films Realize your guilt and admit that you are wrong, we are the ones who are right and think the good of the statue and not the bad. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

and again I tell you stop putting all the movies under one denominator they are not one thing but several different things 89.215.226.170 (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

They are all films in the Predator franchise. AvP is different because it is part of both the Predator and Aliens franchise. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems like an arbitrary distinction to me. Don't you agree? 185.113.97.247 (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

No. I think the arbitrary distinction is spin off vs sequel vs animated. Rcarter555 (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, why exactly? This again seems entirely arbitrary on your part! At this point it's too difficult to meet you in good faith given comments like this, and you're clearly not here to be productive but merely to impose your arbitrarily preferred version onto the article, possibly even being an actual internet troll intending to cause disruptive edits. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that you are here to impose your arbitrarily preferred version onto the article. That’s why we need consensus. Rcarter555 (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I have stated exactly why a dozen times but I will do so one last time. I don’t believe that the differences you articulate are distinctive enough to warrant their own category. It is evident that you do. But my outlook is no more or less arbitrary than yours. Others need to weigh in. Rcarter555 (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Obviously, you have made this statement, but you have barely bothered to elaborate on why. You've not made it clear at all. Yours is entirely arbitrary, whereas these categories evidently exists, and on some level it seems you know they do but refuse to acknowledge it fully. Obviously others need to weigh in, because this isn't getting anywhere! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

original series / prequel series / crossover series / spin-off series / animated series > These are 5 different things and you can't just pretend like everything is the same, I'm sorry, you can't convince me, just stop. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

reboot / remake / retcon is are 3 more different things but the series doesn't have any of those yet 89.215.226.170 (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

This is what Terminator looks like

Original series

1. The Terminator

2. Terminator 2: Judgment Day

3. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines

4. Terminator Salvation

Reboot

1. Terminator Genisys

Retcon

1. Terminator: Dark Fate 89.215.226.170 (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I’m sure I won’t convince you. But I’m also sure I will not stop defending my position until a consensus is arrived at. If the consensus goes against my preferred edit, then so be it. Rcarter555 (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

You're acting in bad faith here by treating us as if you "can't convince us" and saying you will "keep stating your opinion until you win", and that's an immature attitude that's unproductive and inappropriate for discussion. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm saying this here, everyone uses their own point of view and does things the way they feel most comfortable, and in their own defense, Wikipedia works that way, no, it doesn't work that way, forgive me, you like it that way, the movies are made that way, you can't really change the truth that we're not right and that's how things really are because even the movies themselves tell the truth when you watch them, there's no need for sources, that's nonsense. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

only here you are right that it is right to wait and see what the movie will be like, but overall it is going towards spin-off 89.215.226.170 (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

look at the page of Alien franchise there they are divided into categories, that's how it should be here too 89.215.226.170 (talk) 07:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

It's odd how it's even a question. In the words of Ellen Ripley, "did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?" 185.113.97.247 (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

yes it's strange how it became such a problem when this division into categories is obvious 89.215.226.170 (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Alien is a completely different beast. You have clearly the Ripley story line (original series), then David’s (prequels) and now Romulus ("spin-off" altho I disagree with that label). Predator never had a strict storyline followed film after film. In the entire franchise a main character reappeared in other film once and that’s a very new development. MJknights (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

this is not criteria there are sequels with different characters but they are still part of a specific story 89.215.226.170 (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The thing is, in this specific franchise each film has its own story. We learn more about the Yautja in each film that is correct. They still have their own stories not really an overarching one between films. Not yet. The Predator started to feel like they want to go into that direction but it didn’t fully and since then the franchise went back to be more anthalogical once again. MJknights (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I suppose the thing here is that both the original four Alien films and the original four Predator films are characterized by sharing overarching plot elements, the Alien films being centered on Ripley's story from the first film and the Predator films being centered around the events of Dutch's story from the first film. The events and themes of the three sequels that came afterward were influenced by the original film. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Alien: Romulus is more standalone sequel is not a spin-off 89.215.226.170 (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

As I said I disagree with the label given to it on the Alien franchise page. MJknights (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

So it's just the label you disagree with? Does it make any difference whether it's described as "standalone" or "spin-off"? 185.113.97.247 (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Here we have general agreement and I disagree with what label they gave him there. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 11:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

How do you mean? 185.113.97.246 (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think it makes sense for that split. There’s nothing to suggest they’re different sub series, as the franchise from the beginning took a more anthological approach. MJknights (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Alien is not different at all, there's clear similarities in these categories. The four original Predator films absolutely follows new characters in each film, but each film is explicitly centered around the events of the original film, and the elements and themes of that film are carried over to these three sequels, expanding on what happened after that initial event and how it influenced these later events (noting that each of the three sequels were even meant to include Dutch, but he repeatedly turned down the role). Then you clearly have the distinct crossover series which we all seem to agree is another category, and then there is the prequels set in the 1700's with Naru's story, and now there's the addition of an animated anthology film with its own story with different characters, and we're soon to have what is an evident spin-off with Badlands focused instead on a young Predator protagonist and his story and culture in the far future of the Romulus timeline. Why does this split "not" make sense to you? I figured you would agree with these distinct categories, seeing as you seem to apply that same logic to the Alien films. I'm not sure how you're applying "anthological" here. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Anthological here means that the films have their own separate stores, some have bigger or smaller references to previous films, but outside of exploring the mythology and those references they stand on their own. MJknights (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Alright, sure, the original four films have an anthological structure to them as you described, but they are arguably still distinguished by how centered they are around the original film both narratively and thematically. That being said, do you not agree that the films I described above constitute distinct series/categories regarding crossovers, prequels, animations, and spin-offs/standalones? Are any of these series/categories unclear? 185.113.97.246 (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

probably in Predator: Badlands they will not mention events from previous films while in Predator 2, Predators and The Predator they mention events from previous films but we still have to wait and see the movie has when it comes out 89.215.226.170 (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Yup, we gotta wait and see. MJknights (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I can't wait for the movie and I expect the filmmakers to release a more detailed trailer and a new poster. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Do we really though? Every indication points towards it being disconnected from the original films and being radically different in it being presented not as a sequel to the original and more like a spin-off focused on a Predator protagonist's narrative in the far future, as advertised and reported by media. Unless there's any clear ties to the original films that defines it as a direct sequel, don't you think it should be treated as a standalone thing? 185.113.97.247 (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

there are sequels that have no connection to previous films and still count as sequels 89.215.226.170 (talk) 06:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

All the movies that came after the originals are technically sequels, but we need to distinguish between these four direct sequels and spin-offs that aren't connected to those original sequels. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

that's right but we're not sure Predator: Badlands is a spin-off or not 89.215.226.170 (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

In what way are we "not sure"? The indications we have thus far strongly indicates a spin-off/standalone film, with nothing indicating it's a sequel to the first four films. 185.113.97.246 (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

it could still be a sequel where they just won't mention events from previous films there are those types of sequels 89.215.226.170 (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

That sounds like a spin-off/standalone to me, if it's not connected to the events of the original films. 185.113.97.246 (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Probably Predator: Badlands there is the case of Alien: Romulus mistakenly consider it a spin-off 89.215.226.170 (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean? 185.113.97.246 (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Lets sum things up again, two people think the films should be kept separated into different categories, and two thinks they should not (for still unclear reasons). 185.113.97.247 (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

No. Currently two are for the change, two are against it and one is against it without seeing reliable sources that break the franchise down into to those categories. So two for, three against as of now. Rcarter555 (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect, two support keeping the distinct categories, two support removing them, and three people have barely begun discussing it, but one of them started a new subthread and another asked a question and the last is still discussing the subject as it relates to Alien. Don't be dishonest! What do you need sources for more specifically? You never elaborate, and you have previously stated that you do not intend to elaborate or properly engage the discussion so as to help others understand your viewpoint and come to an agreement, but you're admittedly only trying to force things to go your own way! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I am done commenting on this topic as we are just going around in circles and my position is clear. But you are misrepresenting what people have said. It doesn’t matter if some editors have “barely begin discussing it” if their first comment is to disagree with the change. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

They're not disagreeing yet, not explicitly anyways. You feel free to remove yourself from the subject, you've not exactly been acting appropriately yourself, much less in a manner conducive to meaningful productive discourse! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Let me put it like this, then provide your opinion;

Do you agree or disagree that Predator, Predator 2, Predators, and The Predator constitutes a series of sequel films centered around the events and themes of the original film?

I agree with this category. 185.113.97.246 (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you agree or disagree that Alien vs. Predator and Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem constitutes a series of crossover films?

I agree with this category. 185.113.97.246 (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Alien vs. Predator is officially a separate IP so would be strange to consider it main series in my opinion. MJknights (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Good to know we have agreement that this constitutes a distinct category at least. 185.113.97.246 (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you agree or disagree that Prey and its planned sequel constitutes a series of prequel films?

I agree with this category. 185.113.97.246 (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, as the sequel to Prey doesn’t need to be a prequel to the rest of the series. MJknights (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The sequel to Prey doesn't "need" to be a prequel itself technically, but as things currently stand based on Prey, isn't it true that it constitutes a prequel, and a sequel to it is more probable to be of the same nature? 185.113.97.246 (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Prey is a prequel, but because of Killer of Killers it’s way more likely for its sequel (if ever will happen) to be set present day-ish. MJknights (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

But then operating on the basis of that agreement, we can determine that we got another category here, being prequel, and it would follow that the most probable sequel is going to at least not be set not long after, and possibly providing an explanation for how Naru ended up at the end of KOK, although there is no telling whether the KOK storyline will be expanded upon or simply be left as an easter egg. 185.113.97.246 (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

To be fair there is no explanation needed as to why Naru is where she is in PKoK. Prey ends with the credits in which at the end Yautja ships are arriving no longer after the live-action ending of the film. More than likely they took her afterwards. A sequel to Prey will more than likely continue where KoK left off, well I mean that Naru will be taken out of the cryosleep. MJknights (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Prey 2 and Alien vs Predator 3 are the following future projects in development 89.215.226.170 (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Sure, there is technically no explanation needed, but it's still more intuitive that a sequel would follow on from where Prey left off, and the end credits scene in KOK might only be a tease of that narrative. It's going to be a sequel to a particular prequel series regardless. Even the Alien prequels were set in different times and meant to connect with the original films at some point. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Do you agree or disagree that Predator: Killer of Killers and its probable sequel constitutes a series of animated films distinct on account of not being live-action films?

I agree with this category. 185.113.97.246 (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

There are no official announcements for a sequel. MJknights (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

True, but that's kinda irrelevant to the point of the question, which was whether the film (and any potential sequel) constitutes a distinct category as an animated film? 185.113.97.246 (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

But again, do you agree that animated films constitute a distinct category? I figure that would be rather obvious. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Do you agree or disagree that Predator: Badlands and its presumed sequel constitutes a series of spin-off or standalone films?

I agree with this category. 185.113.97.246 (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

To decide that we should wait for the film to release. MJknights (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Why? Shouldn't we decide this based on the available information and media presenting it as such until and if any contradicting information is presented? How would Badlands even prove to be directly connected to the original film and its sequels? 185.113.97.246 (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I will try to make my statement as clear as I can.

I don’t think there is a point into putting the films in different categories except AVP films. As I stated this franchise is more anthological in nature, events of Predator 2 aren’t influenced by events of Predator. OWLF does not exist because of what happened in Predator. There is a reference to Predator tho yes. Predators also isn’t influenced by either events of Predator nor Predator 2, there is a reference yes. The Predator has references to Predator, Predator 2 and AVP films. And we agree AVP should be a different category. What those 4 films have in common however is exploration of Yautja, we learn more about the species with each of those 4 films. Badlands will explore the species on a way bigger scale than the previous films. If Prey, Killer of Killers or Badlands will in the end go in different directions with getting direct sequels and such, then making different categories would make sense. As of rn, there’s no need of it. And yes, some media outlets call Badlands a spin-off, but from interviews with Dan and what we got revealed about the film, it all screams "mainline film". MJknights (talk) 07:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't really consider the Predator franchise any more or less anthological than the Alien franchise. As for the four original films which are chronologically tightly linked and taking place within a few decades (in contrast to the four Alien films jumping between half a century and a century), the events of the original Predator film are explicitly referenced as being of significant importance in Predator 2, Predators, and The Predator and are presented as having provided the characters in each film important information that contextualizes and aids them in dealing with the Predators, each entry adding further knowledge about them and building upon what came before (noting also that Hunting Grounds even more concretely ties together all four films, with the return of Dutch as a narrating centerpiece, who was again intended to have returned for each of the three sequels but Arnold turned down the role each time). AVP and AVPR takes place between Predator/Predator 2 and Predators/The Predator and has various references and connections to the other films, but we agree this is a distinct crossover category. Badlands is notably distinct, not merely because it's been reported as a spin-off/standalone, but because it's set within the Alien: Romulus time period centuries after the original four Predator films, and because it's focused on a young Predator protagonist and explores Predator culture, characterizing it as a notably distinct category clearly separated from the original four films in various respects. I don't know how you define "mainline film" here, but it's evidently not a continuation of the original four films from all that we keep hearing about it, so you'd have to clarify what you mean here. 185.113.97.246 (talk) 09:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, does it still not make more sense to put animated films in their own category, on account of them NOT being live-action feature films? 185.113.97.246 (talk) 10:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

WP describes after the fact, not before. There is no reason to rush anything. It would be basically just more work to write something, that has a good chance to neccessarily be undone later. WP is neither a news site nor a fanpage, it does not have to include everything as soon as possible. 2A02:810A:9A5:7A00:9D72:770B:A237:303C (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Overlap with MJknights. Basically what he say. 2A02:810A:9A5:7A00:9D72:770B:A237:303C (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

if there is Prey 2 will be set in past not in present 89.215.226.170 (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

There is no way for you to know that. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

and learn to use the word standalone film in the correct context > Halloween III: Season of the Witch and Wes Craven's New Nightmare are examples of standalone films I can't think of any others in the movie series, I don't think there are any, these are the ones 89.215.226.170 (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

https://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/predator-badlands-dek-like-conan-mad-max-exclusive/ He wants to make another movie that is a mystery and if it ever happens, we will find out in the future. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

He's clearly talking about probability here, not implying he actually knows it. It is most likely the sequel would pick up after Prey. 185.113.97.246 (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

this next secret movie maybe it is Prey 2 89.215.226.170 (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree, most likely it will be set in the immediate past time period of Prey, that's the most intuitive assumption, especially (if assuming KOK should be taken more seriously) given that Naru is still young and looks the same as in Prey during the easter egg scene in KOK. 185.113.97.246 (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Please see my reply to him, and feel free to provide a response! 185.113.97.246 (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether actors return or continue with different actors, they are still part of the original series. Predator, Predator 2, Predators, The Predator and maybe Predator: Badlands is part from original series 89.215.226.170 (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how Badlands would be part of the original four films in any clear meaningful way, especially as everything we know about it evidently disconnects it from the original film series. 185.113.97.246 (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Everything we keep hearing about the film keeps disconnecting it from the original four films and presents it as a spin-off/standalone, so that should be our prime assumption, but sure, I can understand the reasoning that we should wait until the film is released full and proper. 185.113.97.246 (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

WP does not assume. WP writes after the fact, and if we do not have fachts, we do not write. WP is not about you or me or anyone here sees something, but about how reliable sources see something. 188.192.34.144 (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Yup.MJknights (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not just that some people like this version, others don't like how the movies are named, each user uses their own vision, no one follows these rules. 89.215.226.170 (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Please note, that talk pages are not for general discussions on the topic. Thanks. 2A02:810A:9A5:7A00:C05B:C640:3CE5:5206 (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What does that have to do with what he said? 185.113.98.139 (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

See some of the more recent comments of the user above. 2A02:810A:9A5:7A00:2C59:3629:10F8:4390 (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Some of his comments do seem irrelevant, granted, just not clear what you meant in regards to the comment you responded to above. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

We make necessary assumptions constantly, on WP or otherwise, lets be honest here. "Reliable sources" is an undefined malleable term, especially when appealed to on Wikipedia. I'm going to presume you are a human being with common reasoning faculties who can comprehend what is being communicated in this discussion and is able to engage with the discussion. We do have facts, we have multiple reports describing it as a spin-off/standalone, and multiple indications the film is notably and evidently disconnected from the original films. The fact it hasn't been properly released yet is technically irrelevant and would just add another layer of confirmation to the obvious. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

"Indications" is the problem here. WP does not use indications, because that constitutes original research (see WP:OR). Reliable sources regarding to WP are defined; if you think, that definition is partially or at the whole wrong, please debate it there (WP:RS), not here. Please refrain from indications, from unreliable sources according to WP.

In a general note: I think the problem here is one of the oldest of WP, namely "the truth". WP does not write "the truth" in the sense of what feels true or what logic dictates to be true. WP basically mirrors, what reliable sources describe as fact. It is NOT a place to come to conclusions (OR). That is THE basic policy of WP, within which all WP editors work. 2A02:810A:9A5:7A00:2C59:3629:10F8:4390 (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Amen. Rcarter555 (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Thought we agreed you were gonna sit this one out. Guess you weren't particularly genuine about that. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

“We” didn’t agree to anything. I said I was done discussing this with you because of your refusal to hear any counter argument. But when someone states the facts as clearly and concisely (far better than I did, to be fair) as the previous editor did, I felt compelled to express my agreement and gratitude. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, "we" agreed you were done with your unproductive participation in the discussion where you never provided any "counterargument" but only repeatedly asserting "I'm right, you're wrong", in stark contrast to other individuals in this discussion who disagree with me but who clearly are capable of actually having a discussion. Nothing the previous editor said was "clear or concise", and you're just jumping on somebody's bandwagon to band up against me. Lets be honest here, and unless you're gonna actually contribute to the discussion, I suggest you stick by your promise and stay out of it. 185.113.98.7 (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I don’t believe I’ll be taking your suggestion. Rcarter555 (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't expect you to show that kind of integrity either. 185.113.98.7 (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

You still haven't provided a clear definition of "reliable sources" here or how a general term like "indications" are supposed to be problematic. You realize every "reliable source" you is reliant on the very things you're criticizing? You didn't actually express anything of true substance here, much less anything that progresses the discussion. You're just rambling. 185.113.97.247 (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

"Reliable sources regarding to WP are defined; if you think, that definition is partially or at the whole wrong, please debate it there (@WP:RS), not here." 188.192.34.144 (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

No, they're not well-defined, and never were. That's been one of the major problems with WP. You wanna ramble on about "reliable sources" on WP, then you go do that on the "WP:RP" article, and don't start rambling incoherently here and providing nothing of substance to the discussion. 185.113.98.7 (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Nobody makes any assumptions on WP, and reliable sources are defined at WP:RS. Vestrian24Bio 16:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

We always make assumptions, on WP or otherwise, and "reliable sources" are not at all well-defined at that mess of an WP:RS article. You can't go through life without making assumptions of various kinds, whether necessary core assumptions or assumptions of lesser degrees, especially on websites, articles, and forums. Regardless, this is NOT the discussion at hand, so lets stay on topic! 185.113.98.7 (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

For Predator: Badlands It would seem strange to me like spin-off 89.215.226.170 (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Again: this talk page is not a forum for general discussions, private musings or so. The movie aint released so far, and any speculation, what he is or is not, does not help the article at all. Please stop using this talk page for stuff like this, the debate is already way way overlong and thin on real arguments. 188.192.34.144 (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

He's engaging the specific discussion and voicing his opinion as expected, he's not straying off topic here, and we're not speculating that it's a spin-off, we're determining the fact that it is a spin-off. You need to clarify what you mean by "thin on real arguments", as if clear arguments haven't already been made to determine the existence of these distinct categories and only baseless speculation being used to argue against them. 185.113.98.7 (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

It appears that IP's User Talk:185.113.97.247, User Talk:185.113.98.7, and User Talk:185.113.97.246 are sock puppets of TurokSwe, a user that was banned indef in 2019 over arguments like this. The user still hasn't been unblocked and they've been evading their block via socks. I had opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TurokSwe and the pattern of combative and refusal-to-get-the-point behavior is identical. Armegon (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Here how AVP films is are canon !!!

AVP does share with the Predator continuity. The Predator brings back the AVP films to Predator canon and the 2010 film Predators has Xenomorph connections as well with Mr.Blacks jawbone being confirmed to be an Alien bone by the director.

Andrew Gaska has never posted a source for what exactly Fox said to him nor when Fox made such a statement to him and it was all for his Alien RPG elements for the games anyways that he was working on. When he talks about continuity, he is mainly talking about the Alien franchise as Shane Black, the director for the 2018 film, also worked closely with Fox and he added in Lexs spear and confirmed that all the films take place in the Predator universe even AVP and that they "dont deny any of them".

Theres also loads of connections to the AVP franchise in the Predator novels which Gaska I believe says is canon to the Predator franchise so he must've not read them lol.

It’s not too tough to just accept it’s all canon. Predators been hunting on earth for thousands of years. Sometimes they hunt aliens, sometimes they hunt humans, sometimes they kidnap humans, sometimes they try to ally with humans.

It sure is a struggle for a lot of guys to deal with Alien and Predator being set in the same universe.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-17089-74 (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Um, it's unclear what you are asking or want to do, it might be helpful if you're more specific. Govvy (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

AVP films is are canon ~2026-19264-66 (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

https://www.instagram.com/p/DXli4U7lvlX/?img_index=1 ~2026-21129-15 (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

https://www.avpcentral.com/predator-timeline-order-of-movies-and-comics full timeline ~2026-21129-15 (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

This is hardly a reliable source. Rcarter555 (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

AvP isn't canon, it's standalone universe. the events of AVP do contradict to the events of the both franchises (Alien and Predator).

There are three universes:

• Alien
• Predator
• AvP Lado85 (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Shane Black's The Predator (the latter of which featured references to AVP such as shurikens and Lex's spear which Scar made out of an Alien tail) ~2026-34880-68 (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

You say they are a separate universe and this movie has no connection to them. How are you going to explain it? Is it an Easter egg? this a spear of The Predator film ~2026-34880-68 (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Indiana Jones item appears in the Andor series' background, that doesn't make Indiana Jones and Star Wars canon. Same here.. Vestrian24Bio 16:14, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

so I'll have to accept that these AVP movies are their own timeline ~2026-34880-68 (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Future edited

Dan Trachtenberg has said he has more Predators in the works after the release of Badlands. 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes maybe sequel to Prey or sequel to Predator: Badlands ~2026-34880-68 (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2026 (UTC)