Why the PREDATOR sequels get the face WRONG [Opinion Piece]

[BigDaddyJohn]

To be fair, at least Wolf's not as blatant as the others, thanks to the lack of light lol.

[Kradan]

Let's the "Requiem is so dark" jokes begin ! 

[PAS Spinelli]

My introduction to the franchise was AVP, I grew up with it, and I'm able to see how bad the Predator face design was in it since I was 14, and I'm 20 now

[Kradan]

I'm 20 too, but I just can't. Call it denial if you like.

What were your thoughts on AvP when you watched it for the first time - did you love it, did you like it or did you thought it was "meh" ?

[PAS Spinelli]

I'm 20 too, but I just can't. Call it denial if you like.

What were your thoughts on AvP when you watched it for the first time - did you love it, did you like it or did you thought it was "meh" ?

I was 5-6 when i watched it, and for a while, it was the only movie I ever watched, the first solo movie I watched after was Predator 2, then Alien Ressurection

[BlueMarsalis79]

Weird order.

[Kradan]

I prefer term "unique perspective" myself

[PAS Spinelli]

It took me a long time to watch all Alien and Predator movies, Alien 3 was the last one I watched back when I was 9, then Predators came along yadda yadda, now my favorite movies of both franchises are the first 2 Alien movies and the first 2 Predator movies, and I always noticed something was wrong with Scar's face since I had seen Predator 2

[OmegaZilla]

thoughts in order

-circle clickbait photos as thumbnails is super cringe (so is the title)

-2021 and people still using the super-fake airplane story as an accurate portrayal of the design process (read: Predator design went from Munro/Short to Winston/Wang, and MANY of the character design traits that are now iconic to Predator were originally conceived by Munro/Short)

-this guy makes (x) assumption about a function the mandibles have, and then criticizes the artistic liberty taken by the sequels based on that assumption which is his assumption and not, you know, something established by anyone involved in the movies (if we are to take into account "biological plausibility" of the Predator based on real life animals, the Predator's face does not make any sense whatsoever -- you need several third-party assumptions to make it work)

-case in point: he argues that the mandibles serve the purpose of making the mouth insides not dry out... which would make sense, except for the part where the predator's assumed "gum integument" is still exposed even with closed mandibles. In order to do what the guy says the mandibles do, the mandibles would have to have flaps in order to have a complete, tight seal over the mouth area; which they don't (maxed out BD in Biology speaking here, gents)

-most of the criticisms he brings up cannot be applied to Predator 2 and yet he insists on saying "sequels" without specifying further. How peculiar: he mistakes personal taste with what should've been done artistically by -- hold up -- the very same team, head-by-head, that created the original creature? Damn!

-the "city hunter" is much more fleshed out character-wise than the original, and there's SEVERAL scenes in the movie testifying that -- but what would the character creators know, right? Predator 2 had literally EVERY SINGLE person involved in the original on the roster...

-the "biological point" of the face is stated nowhere in the literature I've collected and read for the past decade and I'll be happy to be proved wrong. A sequel can't "miss a point" that was never there in the first place...

-scar is a special case because everything about that face design was strictly dictated by the direction Anderson wanted to take with that character, which was extremely specific

-the bit where he says the wrinkles in the mandible skin are due to sculpture and moulding is complete bull ie the wrinkling is due to multiple rehearsals and footage being filmed. That's silicone being unable to snap back after being stretched beyond its capability to snap back! You can't always change the skin on a creature, especially when your filming schedule is SUPER tight (see: AvP). On this matter, the original Pred was "lucky" - they were in such frenzy to finish that they didn't shoot much with it (so much that they actually used stock footage)

-the guy "fixes" scar but forgets the little teeth in-between the upper jaw fangs

-wolf didn't get "back on track" it simply had a different direction compared to the AvP preds

-much as I'm not fond of the lockjaw pred in Predators that guy had been hanging by a totem for god knows how much and he certainly didn't drink eat or anything while there... try doing that and looking in your top shape. The lockjaw IS a complete mystery... and pretty much the only thing I agree on so far

-Berserker et al aren't "alpha" predators and were never intended as such

-watch the difference between dog breeds (pug vs golden retriever) and yet they are of the same species...

-again, fugitive has been in the lab being studied and basically tortured for some time... can't look top shape

-overall the attitude (esp in the Predator 2018 segment) is one of those spiteful, armchair-mod type attitudes I cannot stand, just dissing on the sfx artists like that having zero knowledge on what they wanted to do with the character, how that intention progressed with the execution and so forth

-agreed with the JPIII-type obsession to have the bigger new bad kill the old one gruesomely

-no I won't drop any like or subscribe to you until you do proper research on the subject matter(s) you choose to talk about


Thank you for coming to my TED Talk about this clickbait video

[Immortan Jonesy]

Wow You must have a PhD in monsters. I didn't want to click the video. Thanks ^

[BlueMarsalis79]

They definitely do yes I can assure you on that

[PAS Spinelli]

The Lockjaw is a animation kind of deal, rather than a design one, Scar and the Fugitive have an issue both in the design and in the animatronic, as both don't follow the normal anatomy set up in the first 2 solo movies, I don't like dunking on  ADI because they genuinely place effort into that they do, but their pred face designs have always been majorly different to the original designs

[OmegaZilla]

Wow You must have a PhD in monsters. I didn't want to click the video. Thanks ^

no such thing but I've been studying creature features and effects for the past decade so I may know a thing or two (see signature)

(and unlike this guy, I've grown past the stage of confusing my own view with a supposedly objective dogma)


EDIT: touch my baby boi Predator 2 and all you gonna get is THESE HANDS

EDIT 2: I wish I was mod here just to add 6 more quotation marks around the world analysis in the thread title

[Voodoo Magic]

-2021 and people still using the super-fake airplane story as an accurate portrayal of the design process (read: Predator design went from Munro/Short to Winston/Wang, and MANY of the character design traits that are now iconic to Predator were originally conceived by Munro/Short)

To be fair, who wouldn't trust what Stan Winston describes in a documentary as the story behind the mandibles, that it being a James Cameron conception?  Even with home video ownership and love for all the movies, who could blame someone for believing its behind-the-scenes featurette?

It be fair to suggest that not many general fans that go beyond the movies and supplementals would know the real story. There hasn't been a Predator book published containing that info...



And not knowing to not trust Stan Winston here doesn't take away from being able to view and be critical of various practical effect results in a franchise.

-most of the criticisms he brings up cannot be applied to Predator 2 and yet he insists on saying "sequels" without specifying further. How peculiar: he mistakes personal taste with what should've been done artistically by -- hold up -- the very same team, head-by-head, that created the original creature? Damn!

-the "city hunter" is much more fleshed out character-wise than the original, and there's SEVERAL scenes in the movie testifying that -- but what would the character creators know, right? Predator 2 had literally EVERY SINGLE person involved in the original on the roster...

I don't know. This seems excessive for 10 seconds on Predator 2 and I adore Predator 2. All the content creator mentioned was it started to stray with needing a little more cheek skin, but then quickly followed it up that it still properly maintains the closed mandible look of the Jungle Hunter. I'm not sure I even agree with the tiny criticism, but it feels like you're perhaps having a slight overreaction to it. 

-scar is a special case because everything about that face design was strictly dictated by the direction Anderson wanted to take with that character, which was extremely specific

I highly doubt Anderson instructed ADI to make sure Scar's excess skin roll and fold in odd, peculiar, seemingly unnatural ways... "It better not appear elastic and realistic ADI! And make sure his mandible teeth point in odd weird directions too!!!!" 

-watch the difference between dog breeds (pug vs golden retriever) and yet they are of the same species...

Yet dog mouths, their jaw bones, are all structured in the same way, where some of ADIs Predators appear to have broken jaws.

-again, fugitive has been in the lab being studied and basically tortured for some time... can't look top shape

Tortured? How so? You knock this guy for making an assumption here and there, yet to be fair, you're doing it too.

Look, full disclosure here, I loathe the ADI Predators. They have not come close at all to Stan Winston's in my opinion in regards to quality, design, proportion and realism. And I'd like to get there again. I realize some things are a result of director influence with ADI Predators. But the same can be absolutely said with Predator 1 and 2. Personally, after three tries, I believe Predators are not ADI's strong suit and hope another FX house gets a chance. Or even KNB again. At this point, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

[SiL]

To be fair, who wouldn't trust what Stan Winston describes in a documentary as the story behind the mandibles, that it being a James Cameron conception?  Even with home video ownership and love for all the movies, who could blame someone for believing its behind-the-scenes featurette?

If someone's going to act like they know what they're talking about and provide an "analysis", it's kind of fair to expect them to do some research and know what they're talking about.

Yet dog mouths, their jaw bones, are all structured in the same way