How is Predators (2010) any better than The Predator (2018)?

[AhabPredator]

Story, character, and themes aren't lore. They're just things that existed before that people want to keep going for continuity. It really doesn't affect the overall narrative unless you're a fan.

Is this real? Because I almost feel like this was meant as a joke. If not...those are some serious gymnastics. You must be tired. Somebody get him some milk!

Story, character, and themes aren't lore. They're just things that existed before that people want to keep going for continuity. It really doesn't affect the overall narrative unless you're a fan.

What would you define lore as being, if not stories, characters, and themes that are continuous throughout the media?

Exactly. Why would you even be here if you aren't a fan? 

[JokersWarPig]

Story, character, and themes aren't lore. They're just things that existed before that people want to keep going for continuity. It really doesn't affect the overall narrative unless you're a fan.

lolwut?

Everything you listed off is usually what movie lore consists of.

[AhabPredator]

Story, character, and themes aren't lore. They're just things that existed before that people want to keep going for continuity. It really doesn't affect the overall narrative unless you're a fan.

lolwut?

Everything you listed off is usually what movie lore consists of.

It might be a joke, but if not. It's a big lack of context. I said it best in another thread.

Spoiler

Lore is what assists in telling a good story.

World-building is so much more than just a framing device. It's the very essence of any good fantasy or science fiction story, and the basis of a sense of place in other genres.

Good world-building lends an immersive richness to your movie, while also giving viewers the information they need to understand characters and plot lines.

Dictionary.com defines lore as "the body of knowledge, especially of a traditional, anecdotal, or popular nature, on a particular subject."

UrbanDictionary.com describes lore as "The collective history and the sum of all knowledge available about a certain fantasy or sci-fi universe" or "The story or reasoning behind occurrences."

When writing horror, fantasy or any form of speculative fiction, lore provides consistency, a set of rules and standards that make your fictional universe believable. What are the specific characteristics, powers and limitations of your characters and why?

Without lore there is no suspension of disbelief. You need it to tell good stories.

[close]

[CelticP]

Story, character, and themes aren't lore. They're just things that existed before that people want to keep going for continuity. It really doesn't affect the overall narrative unless you're a fan.

lolwut?

Everything you listed off is usually what movie lore consists of.

The lore is like, Predators don't kill unarmed people, use DNA for super powers, like the heat, kill for sport. It's traditions passed down. Not the story character or themes. "Predator is a take down of super masculine films, where the most manly men are killed one by one by a vagina." isn't lore. It's subtext (probably text but whatever)

Or even cinematography. Which honestly is another slight against The Predator. Larry Fong is a genius. I don't know what happened there.

[Huggs]

Story, character, and themes aren't lore. They're just things that existed before that people want to keep going for continuity. It really doesn't affect the overall narrative unless you're a fan.

lolwut?

Everything you listed off is usually what movie lore consists of.

The lore is like, Predators don't kill unarmed people, use DNA for super powers, like the heat, kill for sport. It's traditions passed down. Not the story character or themes. "Predator is a take down of super masculine films, where the most manly men are killed one by one by a vagina." isn't lore. It's subtext (probably text but whatever)

Or even cinematography. Which honestly is another slight against The Predator. Larry Fong is a genius. I don't know what happened there.

The movie was doomed before it left paper.

[CelticP]

Maybe. I really could see a good movie from that script. Just needed a little tweeking in a certain direction. Instead it went the wrong way and became a sad mess. Oh well. I guess Shane Black had to direct one film I didn't like. Looking forward to the next one though

[P-Rock]

Also, the predator dogs are way cooler than the ones in The Predator.

[Kradan]

Maybe. I really could see a good movie from that script. Just needed a little tweeking in a certain direction. Instead it went the wrong way and became a sad mess. Oh well. I guess Shane Black had to direct one film I didn't like. Looking forward to the next one though

You're looking forward for direct sequel to The Predator or just another Predator movie? Just curious.

[CelticP]

Another Predator movie. Just make a cool story, make it entertaining. Make it a one off. My ideal Predator film would flop the protagonists, so it's more about the Predator than a human. Something different.

I love Prometheus and Covenant for a lot of reasons, but mostly is because it's just an interesting and unique direction for the series to go. It's not what the fans want. It's just Ridley's vision for it. And I love that. Even if someone comes in later down the road and does the "REAL ORIGIN" of the Alien where it's exactly as the fans always thought, then whatever. It's not going to ruin Covenant for me, as that film, and it's themes are super interesting.

Alien has always been about unique visions. Predator almost was there. I think Hawkens made a brilliant 90's comic book esq film with Predator 2, that really felt unique compared to the first. And while I love Predators, it does try to "take it back to it's roots" and that's the most disappointing thing about it.
The Predator at first seemed interesting as it dabbled with Predator v Predator wars, and a larger story to it's small town backdrop. But it being a confused mess killed it.

It makes people not want any more Predator movies, which I understand. But I can close my eyes and see so much potential for the franchise but I feel like the studio wouldn't want to try anything different. Honestly, I'd love it if you got a good filmmaker with a vision, gave them a small budget, and let them go wild with it. Do a Blumhouse basically. Have fun with the concept, and it'll be successful no matter what because the budget is small enough to turn a profit. 

[LastSurvivor92]

The easiest answer is that Predators doesn't butcher the lore, The Predator does.

Nah, this isn't it. The Predator is lousy for a lot of reasons. Mostly halfway through the editing starts to get real sloppy, and story elements from the reshoots start to slam into each other creating a incoherent mess. It doesn't know what it wants to be, and that's kind of the problem.

The lore doesn't matter because someone else will come along and do their own thing, which will add or remove elements of it.


Predators rules because it actually makes a pretty fun Predator story with a lower budget, and a pretty stacked cast of character actors. I mean holy hell is it great. It also doesn't try as hard to please the fans outside of some lame call backs. For the most part it does it's own thing, and adds enough new elements that it felt (and feels) fresh.

Lore absolutely matters. They are established rules of the universe provided by the prior movies. Without them, there is no suspension of disbelief. Without that, we can't invest in the ideas, characters, and story being pushed forward. They would be a farse.

Couldn't agree with this statement more. If lore doesn't matter in any way than why should there be a "series". I'ts important to build off from successful lore that was established so that the audience can relate and reflect on the experiences from prior stories/settings. I think yeah, overall any other ole' director is going to come in and change things up which is natural and important to keep things fresh and alive in the series. So I kind of agree on both sides. Yeah lore does matter pertaining to how audiences collectively engage with sequels, prequels etc. but also it kind of doesn't matter because there will always be someone new, different cast, new movie to bring in new elements to an already existing lore.

[AhabPredator]

The easiest answer is that Predators doesn't butcher the lore, The Predator does.

Nah, this isn't it. The Predator is lousy for a lot of reasons. Mostly halfway through the editing starts to get real sloppy, and story elements from the reshoots start to slam into each other creating a incoherent mess. It doesn't know what it wants to be, and that's kind of the problem.

The lore doesn't matter because someone else will come along and do their own thing, which will add or remove elements of it.


Predators rules because it actually makes a pretty fun Predator story with a lower budget, and a pretty stacked cast of character actors. I mean holy hell is it great. It also doesn't try as hard to please the fans outside of some lame call backs. For the most part it does it's own thing, and adds enough new elements that it felt (and feels) fresh.

Lore absolutely matters. They are established rules of the universe provided by the prior movies. Without them, there is no suspension of disbelief. Without that, we can't invest in the ideas, characters, and story being pushed forward. They would be a farse.

Couldn't agree with this statement more. If lore doesn't matter in any way than why should there be a "series". I'ts important to build off from successful lore that was established so that the audience can relate and reflect on the experiences from prior stories/settings. I think yeah, overall any other ole' director is going to come in and change things up which is natural and important to keep things fresh and alive in the series. So I kind of agree on both sides. Yeah lore does matter pertaining to how audiences collectively engage with sequels, prequels etc. but also it kind of doesn't matter because there will always be someone new, different cast, new movie to bring in new elements to an already existing lore.

Lately a lot of these directors have been doing very little or no research on the movies they are producing on a franchise run (lore wise). For example, Rian Johnson was a complete gamble and had never done anything like Star Wars. He had done plenty of one off movies, but nothing like that.

Additionally, some of them have also taken a nihilistic perspective on destroying what came before to elevate their vision. With questionable results.

Granted Black and Decker are no RJ, but people have also found Iron Man 3 divisive in the MCU. And while Black was an actor in the original Predator 1987 movie, I'm not quite sure he understood what made it successful.

[Highland]

Predators has aged well. I must admit I thought it was "decent" at the time, but now I think it's actually quite good and worthy of a spot next to P1 and P2 easily. The Predator deserves not to be in the box set as far as I'm concerned although perhaps it may age a little better too. It's hard to tell if Predators aged well also because everything after it has missed the mark.

I think with the lore thing, you can change the lore, but you have to lay the ground work. If the Predator can now run on walls for example, you've got to set up in an opening scene that we are now dealing with "wall runner" Predators so you can have your wall running scene later in the movie.

When you bust the lore open because it's "Predator" or because its "Star Wars" that's not going to fly with the fans.

[Hudson]

I seem to have a much different view of Predators than most people. I remember laughing out loud at the opening scene where characters are literally being dropped into the narrative. I never felt like the movie took off from there.

Among my many issues with the film which include the questionable casting of Adrian Brody and Topher Grace, the lack of any chemistry between any of the characters, Laurence Fishburn's ridiculously phoned-in performance, the re-hash of the first film's setting, problematic garbage like "CAN'T WAIT TO RAPE ME SOME BITCHES," inclusion of a Gatling gun because it was in Predator, inclusion of a scene where an ethnic minority bears a blade to challenge one of the bad guys because it was in Predator, inclusion of a scene where people fall from high up into water because it was in Predator, inclusion of a scene where the main character goes shirtless and covers himself with mud because it was in Predator, completely self-serious and humorless tone throughout and other issues remains the most important to me when I evaluate the movie on repeat viewings:

There are barely any Predators in the movie Predators.

[Stitch]

There are barely any Predators in the movie Predators.

Well, there were 4 predators, plus the characters who were also technically predators on Earth.

[P-Rock]

Not sure what's questionable about the casting of Topher Grace.