Why isn't Predators (2010) great?

Started by Duracell, Jan 27, 2024, 09:01:32 PM

Author
Why isn't Predators (2010) great? (Read 2,903 times)

Samhain13

Wasted potential with the ideas, not enough action, you have a whole planet full of different alien creatures being hunted by the Predators and you don't show that at all, imagine them teamming up with the main characters, lots of fights... instead all stuff just gets one shooted, Noland, Tracker, Falconer. And the Cruficied, it was this chance to actually make a Predator and Human teamups that could work and they wasted. Too much build up that ends fast almost like AVP2004. But well better that the ones that came after.

RoguePred1987

the fact that they only had a year to go from nothing to releasing in theaters might of had something to do with it. their budget wasn't what was needed as well. complete lack of studio support. all factors.

i always say, the movie being as watchable as it is, is a miracle and testament to the work everyone involved put into it.

aliens13

aliens13

#17
Quote from: RoguePred1987 on Feb 03, 2024, 10:48:37 PMthe fact that they only had a year to go from nothing to releasing in theaters might of had something to do with it. their budget wasn't what was needed as well. complete lack of studio support. all factors.

i always say, the movie being as watchable as it is, is a miracle and testament to the work everyone involved put into it.
Maybe after the failure of both AvP and AvPR Fox didn't want to risk to much. But yeah, considering all the factors the movie it's very nice

RoguePred1987

i definitely think the good outweighs the bad when it comes to PREDATORS.

Wweyland

Wweyland

#19
It's a bit too similar to the first movie and sort of generic - maybe lacking in energy and creativity.
What if Rodriguez directed it himself?
The music is a bit of a rehash as well, compare this to Prey.

It's also where the "Bigger and Badder Predators" angle started, although AvP had a bit of it as well.

dnicholson277

They are right to use some elements from previous films.

However the jungle setting was too close to the first film.

The Super Predators are unnecessary, why do we need the classic Predator in it? Should just use a variation like in Predator 2.

The game reserve planet is a great idea if you had characters you give a shit about.

The cast is great on paper but the storyline is unbelievable from a character point of view. They accept they've been kidnapped too easily, aren't shocked by meeting aliens and don't freak out that they aren't on Earth. In Predator the one character who has a clue there is something up doesn't really know what's going on. In Predators it's like they've maybe seen the first movie.

Just my thoughts.

dnicholson277

Too many callbacks.

We meet the characters far too quickly with Royce.

I could have done without the clan war stuff.

One Predator hunting them and then clashing with another Predator over territory might work better for me.

The characters don't really seem too upset my the events in the movie.

It's almost too meta... Even when the credits hit .. the song is from Predator FFS.

BigDaddyJohn

Very bland movie. Uninteresting characters. When they die, you mostly don't give two shits about it.

Competently directed though.

Zoej

Zoej

#23
The whole movie came to a grinding halt with the introduction of Lawrence Fishburne's character, so much potential in world building could've been introduced but instead we got a few character pieces that didn't do much to add any stakes to the game or make us care for anyone.  Also Fishburne was killed too quickly.  Overall, there wasn't much forward momentum driving one scene to be the consequence of the previous scene. That ending was a big let down. 

Huntsman

Huntsman

#24
Quote from: SM on Jan 27, 2024, 11:05:43 PMI really like it, but I feel it leans too heavily on the first film.
It does. But there's still some decent stuff in there.

David

David

#25
To me Predators is a pretty decent film.

E. Shaw

E. Shaw

#26
They wasted Lawrance Fishburne, he was great till he goes full mad. Why if you want to survive would you kill more warriors could help you?
Adrian Brody was miscast IMHO as the lead. They sadly would have been better off with Chris Pratt, his kind of movie. 

Huntsman

Huntsman

#27
Fishburne 'going mad' was the best part of his character for me. He was thinking in terms of resources for his survival. I doubt he believed combat was a realistic proposition.

E. Shaw

E. Shaw

#28
Quote from: Huntsman on Mar 31, 2024, 07:40:48 PMFishburne 'going mad' was the best part of his character for me. He was thinking in terms of resources for his survival. I doubt he believed combat was a realistic proposition.

At the very least the Preds would have been busy hunting the newcomers rather than him. Why interrupt?

Huntsman

Huntsman

#29
He wanted their gear and probably saw their presence as unwanted attention to his own safety. He'd been there alone for a good while and knew what he was doing regardless of his break with sanity.

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News