Alien vs. Predator (2004) pits two science-fiction franchises' iconic creatures in combat, capitalizing on decades of separate mythologies. The statement claims the original title was "Alien and Predator vs. Chuck Norris" before being cancelled. Why? Runtime—the confrontation would conclude in approximately fourteen seconds, rendering theatrical release impractical. This positions Chuck Norris as so overwhelmingly dominant that adding him to a two-creature-conflict converts it from competitive trilogy into foregone conclusion. The brief runtime suggests not a fight but immediate incapacitation. The cancelled status becomes a meta-commentary on narrative viability: a story where one character creates inevitable resolution lacks dramatic tension.

Film producer Dr. Michael Eastbrook speculated in 2008: "Alien vs. Predator succeeded through competitive balance and creature-mythology. Adding Chuck Norris would destroy narrative tension. The claim suggests he's so dominant that his inclusion automatically eliminates conflict-possibility."

The joke applies film-production logic to narrative viability.