Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There were one or two moments that actually made me laugh. Not worth buy ticket IMO.

I thought the interplay with the soldiers was amusing but I can also see why people might not like it. Not realistic at all in terms of portraying how actual soldiers would fight. Could have done without the dogs the design was meh I thought the boar like dogs from Predators were much better and significantly more intimidating. Disappointed they didn't drop the want some candy line in.



I don't get why they always feel that they need to have the female as some sort of she-women do it all badass only to get tossed aside like a rag doll so the male main liner can suddenly swing the battle. If she's a super scientist or some sort of spec ops person that's great and believeable, but superscientist-slash-super-duper-solider all in one combo just doesn't gel very well. Last time I checked most laboratory egg heads aren't running obstacle courses whilst slinging machine guns like a pro in a firefight. I hate to say it but in action films one dimensional characters are usually more believable (male or female) and don't actually need a ton of character development so long as they have a well defined personality hook. When they can do everything while kicking total ass it just falls apart IMO.

 stanman wrote:

I don't get why they always feel that they need to have the female as some sort of she-women do it all badass only to get tossed aside like a rag doll so the male main liner can suddenly swing the battle. If she's a super scientist or some sort of spec ops person that's great and believeable, but superscientist-slash-super-duper-solider all in one combo just doesn't gel very well. Last time I checked most laboratory egg heads aren't running obstacle courses whilst slinging machine guns like a pro in a firefight. I hate to say it but in action films one dimensional characters are usually more believable (male or female) and don't actually need a ton of character development so long as they have a well defined personality hook. When they can do everything while kicking total ass it just falls apart IMO.

Why is the long history of men do-it-alls okay but the woman isn't?

Gordon Freeman is the only example you bring up even somewhat analagous to Olivia Munn's character in The Predator. And, well, there's also a female brainiac action heroine in HL2, or did you forget Alyx Vance?

Anyhow, the issue isn't that a woman can't be a polymath and a hardcore badass, physically. Lara Croft has been a beloved example of this for how many decades now? The issue is, any character, male or female, requires supporting characterization. Olivia Munn's character doesn't have that. If the bland Army Ranger character started talking about particle physics out of nowhere, it would be just as dumb.

 Manchu wrote:
Gordon Freeman is the only example you bring up even somewhat analagous to Olivia Munn's character in The Predator. And, well, there's also a female brainiac action heroine in HL2, or did you forget Alyx Vance?

Disagree. You should read about Doc Savage. The super scientist adventurer is basically every person from the pulp era. Including... Tarzan. A crazy physical bad ass who is also a super genius that taught himself several languages in their writen form and only didn't know how to speak any of them because he never heard the sounds. Indiana Jones IS a scientist. He's not an adventurer. He's an egg head archeologist who specifically tells his students that archeology is a lot of reading, studying, and writing. But then he DOES go on the adventures and does all the winning. Batman is a super scientist with a focus on his detective work but his large egg head knowledge base includes chemistry (including bio chem), anatomy and medical science, and various earth sciences.

Anyhow, the issue isn't that a woman can't be a polymath and a hardcore badass, physically. Lara Croft has been a beloved example of this for how many decades now? The issue is, any character, male or female, requires supporting characterization. Olivia Munn's character doesn't have that. If the bland Army Ranger character started talking about particle physics out of nowhere, it would be just as dumb.

Every character in this movie was dumb. From the autism is a super power kid all the way up to olivia munns best character in the movie who was also dumb. It's a bad movie.

 stanman wrote:
I don't get why they always feel that they need to have the female as some sort of she-women do it all badass only to get tossed aside like a rag doll so the male main liner can suddenly swing the battle. If she's a super scientist or some sort of spec ops person that's great and believeable, but superscientist-slash-super-duper-solider all in one combo just doesn't gel very well.

I'd love to see that trope subverted, ie the character starts to try doing super soldier stuff, gets ragdolled, and then yells "I'm actually a geologist man!" or something to that effect.

Indy is an adventurer first and foremost from his earliest days. I'd suggest watching the movies and the TV show to learn more about this character. Turning to Batman, we have a superhero without actual super powers - but all his knowledge and combat espertise are well established. Doc Savage is not even a current reference but I guess you only bring him up to suggest he is a prototype. The problem there is, depicting a male hero as a paragon of all desirable traits has been completely out-of-fashion for at least 40 years and in fact both Indy and Batman are great examples of heroic men with anti-heroic flaws.

I agree wholeheartedly that every character in The Predator is dumb. But they are dumb in a variety of ways. The specific way that Olivia Munn's character is dumb is that she is an out-of-nowhere badass.

BTW I also agree that autism-is-a-super-power is dumb. It's by far the dumbest part of this movie. I am shocked to see it in a movie in 2018. It seems to be a theme for the entire film, however, as the fact that the main crew all appear to be super badasses seems linked to them having mental disabilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I'd love to see that trope subverted, ie the character starts to try doing super soldier stuff, gets ragdolled, and then yells "I'm actually a geologist man!" or something to that effect.

I thought we were headed that route when she shoots herself in the foot and then the whole amusing betting scene when she wakes up. Good stuff for a different movie. But then by the third act when the production suddenly remembers this is a Predator film, she becomes a spec ops legend b/c script?

 Manchu wrote:
But they are dumb in a variety of ways. The specific way that Olivia Munn's character is dumb is that she is an out-of-nowhere badass.

Good stuff for a different movie. But then by the third act when the production suddenly remembers this is a Predator film, she becomes a spec ops legend b/c script?

With how badly this movie was edited I can't rule out that there was some piece of this film that does lay out some background explaining this that wound up on a cutting room floor. Not that excuses the omission, and I wouldn't normally try to reach for explanations for why a movie is broken, because we only care that it is - but this was is so clearly something that was killed by committee that it seems a possible extrapolation.

BTW I also agree that autism-is-a-super-power is dumb. It's by far the dumbest part of this movie.

I'd still have to go with the very final scene being the dumbest part.

I think I would have been OK with the autistic kid being good with puzzles etc without them layering on that extra dialogue; you know which parts. There is another good example of this where they take a not terrible element and then make it way worse by spelling it out - the climate change piece. Another eye rolling moment.

I do stand by the fact that I enjoyed this movie generally, but I also said from the very beginning that I have seen every movie (and the related ones) in theaters, read all of the (vastly better) comics, and that I am heavily biased so consider that with my opinion.

That's a great point, the movie is a structural mess seemingly released in desperation to be done and over with.

OTOH I am not convinced there was anything worthwhile even if we were to see a director's cut. I think the moment a kid appeared in the trailer, it was just a matter of completely unfounded hope that this could be anything other than what it turned out to be.

The final scene of the movie was like someone taking a dump on top of a cake they worked really hard to bake but it came out terribly anyhow so hey why not just also literally gak on it, like somehow that will make you feel better. And while a stack of gak coils on top of a cake is indeed shocking, the really awful part is what drove someone to do it. And that's where we get to the main conceptual twist of The Predator.

For context, I am an honest to goodness Predator fan and have also read all the comics and the novelizations based on them and (while I like AVP better) I will even defend AVP R. When it comes to The Predator, I hated the entire movie as a Predator film. But I hated the second and third acts of the movie as a human being.

Overall I didn’t hate the movie. Good enough action bits. Cute redefining previous assumptions of trophy hunting for the bio upgrade bits. Magic autism is dumb but a tired enough cliche I just kind of accepted it (though had flashbacks to Community I think it was). I didn’t mind spec ops lady, because she really wasn’t? I mean right from the start where she’s pursuing the escapee she’s shown to be reasonably competent/action oriented, and I don’t recall her doing anything exceptionally bad arsed in the later part.

The parts that most bugged me were the dog, which I just don’t understand what was going on there, and the contents of the pod, which I’d much rather have been a person.

I seem to recall her jumping on Predator the Larger near the end after, as noted above, she must have run 15-20 miles through the forest to catch up with the fleeing ship.

You don’t have to be super spec ops just to jump on someone’s back from higher ground. I mean she jumped onto a moving bus in the beginning. Running twenty miles thru the forest in ten minutes is also fairly standard movie physics.

 AduroT wrote:
someone

= 11 ft tall evolved super alien warrior ...

... in order to fight it hand-to-hand.

I don't think continuing this exchange will be worthwhile.

I'm not saying you can't have a do it all super woman within a film, but in that case she should be the lead character not playing second chair. All of the examples, Batman, Doc Savage etc are the main characters and none of them are depicted as super badass to just get tossed aside. The issue with Munn's character is a lack of consistency as she constantly waivers back and forth, she's incompetent enough to shoot herself in the foot and get tossed aside but runs faster than the bionic man leaps onto busses and sprints through mountains and heavy woods to catch up with a ship flying at high speed, not once but twice. First time when she bounds up the hill to take pot shots at the ship, then covers miles worth of distance to suddenly leap on the Predator. Not to mention she managed to spot and pick up the small cloaking ball at night which was nowhere near her, apparently she also managed to figure out how it works while mid sprint through the woods. Regardless of gender it's just bad writing for that character.

Where does a do-it-all female lead work? Alien & Aliens, Ripley stays consistent with her character as badass from the get go and doesn't suddenly become weak for random plot elements or for a male to take over. Ripley isn't some uber martial arts warrior leaping up and taking down her enemies in a kung fu leg grab but she's fierce and unbreakable mama bear which makes her both an awesome lead and believable.

 AduroT wrote:
You don’t have to be super spec ops just to jump on someone’s back from higher ground. I mean she jumped onto a moving bus in the beginning

I agree you probably don't need high physical skills to jump on the bus, but they probably help to stick the landing

I wouldnt call ripley a do-it-all. Shes a bad ass whos a space trucker that gets backed into a corner and goes scorched earth. Ive never seen her do the brainy science stuff.

That's correct about Ripley. She's neither a brainiac nor a combat prodigy. The fact that she's normal is actually what makes her so badass.

But we're long past the age when such characters can exist.

 Manchu wrote:
That's correct about Ripley. She's neither a brainiac nor a combat prodigy. The fact that she's normal is actually what makes her so badass.

But we're long past the age when such characters can exist.

Agreed. Ripley was what you get when you take the 'final girl' all the way to her logical end point; a total bad ass whose bad ass because her experiences made her that way. Underrated brand of character that in this new fangled age of super soldiers and super powered whatsimawhosits.

Well, looks like the reviews are as I feared. What is with all the failures at reboots? I swear I have yet to see one franchise get it right.

Starting a new thread to discuss.

Shame about Predator tho.

KTG17 wrote:
Well, looks like the reviews are as I feared. What is with all the failures at reboots? I swear I have yet to see one franchise get it right.

Starting a new thread to discuss.

Shame about Predator tho.

I would say Planet of the Apes got it right, though I have no idea how they compare to the originals. I really enjoyed all 3 of the newer Andy Serkis films.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
Well, looks like the reviews are as I feared. What is with all the failures at reboots? I swear I have yet to see one franchise get it right.

Starting a new thread to discuss.

Shame about Predator tho.

I would say Planet of the Apes got it right, though I have no idea how they compare to the originals. I really enjoyed all 3 of the newer Andy Serkis films.

Yes, those were good but they also took it on from a different timeline. The other reboot, with Marky-Mark, was terrible.

KTG17 wrote:
Well, looks like the reviews are as I feared. What is with all the failures at reboots? I swear I have yet to see one franchise get it right.

Starting a new thread to discuss.

Shame about Predator tho.

The need to attempt a reboot by definition shows that the film maker hasn't got enough original ideas, and needs to depend on nostalgia.

Or if they have got some new ideas, they often end up changing the original in a way that conflicts with our nostalgia.

 Manchu wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
someone

= 11 ft tall evolved super alien warrior ...

... in order to fight it hand-to-hand.

I don't think continuing this exchange will be worthwhile.

How about turrets soldier jumping on said 11 foot tall pred...While the predator is literally on fire - so he can stab him - because rifle could not penetrate his hide?

Yep that was also incredibly dumb. Just assume that will be my response to any “what about the scene where ... ?” type questions.

 KTG17 wrote:
Well, looks like the reviews are as I feared. What is with all the failures at reboots? I swear I have yet to see one franchise get it right.

Starting a new thread to discuss.

Shame about Predator tho.

I don't think this new Predator movie is intended to be a reboot, but a sequel to the others.

But it radically reworks the nature of the predators. So it’s a soft reboot at least.

 Manchu wrote:
But it radically reworks the nature of the predators. So it’s a soft reboot at least.

It only radically reboots canon established outside of the movies.

Look at what data is given to us strictly in the 3 predator films and the avp films (the spear from avp is in the base so apparently they are pred cannon even though they CANT be in the aliens anymore).

Pred 1. Hunter come in the hottest years and make trophies of men. They have a code about taking trophies from the toughest prey and how they hunt that prey.

Pred 2. Younger preds go berzerk just hunting fething everything to prove themselves. Preds have been coming here for centuries. Preds can live for 300+ years.

Pred 3. Some off shoots of pred are bigger and sometimes hunt other preds. They make game reserve planets for gaks and giggles or to act as proving grounds for their advancements?

AvP. Preds have used ritual temples and xenomorphs as a right of passage for unblooded to become young bloods.

AvP R. When gak gets out of hand they can remotely dispatch a cleaner to remove their tech and clean gak up.



Nothing in The Predator contradicts any of that.

Nothing in The Predator is good mind you. It's all gak. But it doesn't change anything that came before.

Disagree. The Predator introduces the notion that Preds don’t really care about hunting and taking skull trophies but rather just harvesting DNA in spinal fluid, culminating is the Evolved Pred kidnapping a disabled human child - about the least Pred thing one can possibly imagine. I guess we are meant to think, maybe this is why the Normal Pred is against what’s happening (as no direct explanation is given or even attempted). So sure the idea could be, Preds have lost their way, culturally or spiritually or something, but there is no development of this notion in the other movies, so dropping such a major change in this newest movie qualifies as a soft reboot. The final product is such a terrible mess, maybe earlier drafts or even cuts explained this more, but it’s still rebooting (in the soft sense) because we have moved entirely away from the core concept of Pred as sport hunter.

 Manchu wrote:
Disagree. The Predator introduces the notion that Preds don’t really care about hunting and taking skull trophies but rather just harvesting DNA in spinal fluid,

It doesn't say they DON'T care. They can do 2 things at once. Especially if it's basically the same thing.

culminating is the Evolved Pred kidnapping a disabled human child - about the least Pred thing one can possibly imagine.

Yeah that bits basically the biggest dumbest thing in the big dumb movie.

I guess we are meant to think, maybe this is why the Normal Pred is against what’s happening (as no direct explanation is given or even attempted). So sure the idea could be, Preds have lost their way, culturally or spiritually or something, but there is no development of this notion in the other movies, so dropping such a major change in this newest movie qualifies as a soft reboot. The final product is such a terrible mess, maybe earlier drafts or even cuts explained this more, but it’s still rebooting (in the soft sense) because we have moved entirely away from the core concept of Pred as sport hunter.

It was never really a SPORT hunter. The implied cannon and expanded material has always shown that the preds hunt isn't merely sport. Its always something that has cultural significance for them. Establishing pecking order. Creating leaders, rank, status etc etc... The more and more valuable the trophies the higher the preds place in their society. That isn't just sport.

Sport is pretty damn culturally significant. But sure, as I mentioned, I guess the Preds have lost their way culturally or spiritually. Except some Preds (at least one?) are not on board. Maybe? Who knows.

Or cares.