Talk:Crawler (The Descent)

Notable?

This really does not deserve its own page. I suggest merging this with The Descent and making this a redirect. Otherwise I might nominate this for AfD. Konman72 04:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete or merge. Preferably delete. Geoff B 10:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I for one thing it should remain as an independant page. Nubula 13:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm seriously thinking about nominating this article for deletion. It does not meet WP's notability criteria, and it's got plenty of OR and speculation in it. At best, I think it should be merged with The Descent or an article on fictional underground monsters. Thoughts? Geoff B 14:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I say leave it as an independant page. Nubula 12:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no justification for this article to exist. I have merged it with the article about the film. Richard75 (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Other appearances of similar creatures

The book (not the movie) The Descent also features alternately-evolved human-like creatures who live in caves and kill people who intrude on their territory. They are referred to by a different term ("Hadals") but the similarities are striking. Worth a mention in the article?

I think so. Nubula 17:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Done.216.193.172.224 07:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Cannibalism?

How can they have resorted to cannibalism if they aren't actually humans? Kind of like how zombies aren't technically cannibals, because they aren't technically humans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scottiscool (talk • contribs) 07:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Scientific "error"?

I'm not quite sure how those items listed qualify as true scientific errors. While it is true that cave men did not exist in North America prior to that time, my understanding was that the crawlers were basically humanoid creatures that had split off from the human lineage millions of years ago (prior to Australopithecines, and had evolved parallel traits--you'd need millions, rather than thousands, of years to evolve those kinds of traits, anyway). Also on nocturnal vs. diurnal hunting, I'm not sure why anyone would say large game couldn't be hunted during the night just as well, if not better than, during the day. --70.111.106.119 14:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sadly the director's specifically mentioned cavemen: The crawlers are cave men that never left the cave, and substituting Australopithecines for cavemen just exchanges one problem for another as their where no Australopithecines in America either and the shape of the Crawlers cranium, mandible and zygomatic arch show them to clearly be a species of Homo (Human). Also the main differences between the crawlers such as their atrophied eyes could develop in a few thousand years and the fact that the movie’s content shows that they do not have acute hearing and smell, despite what the director says to the contrary, suggests they are testing the water so to speak, in the process of adapting to cave life but are not all the way there yet. As for the nocturnal vs. diurnal hunting I suppose the author is drawing comparisons to other large predators like lions and tigers which do the bulk of their hunting in the day. Nubula 11:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Crawlers = Wendigos?

I saw this movie earlier today, and to me, the Crawlers seem very similar to Wendigos, especially the way they were portrayed in the show Supernatural. Is it worth a mention? --James Duggan 04:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• There are a lot of interesting similarities, but I'd say no without director's commentary or similar canon that ties it specifically to that term. Without a source, the etiology of the idea could have come from other cultural mythology. --70.111.106.119 05:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Crawler.PNG

Image:Crawler.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)