Prey Catch All Thread

[Mr.Turok]

Beating a dead horse again, but man....I still think the face was way too different for a Predator look. I get the subspecies idea but even then, the creatures in question never really look that different from one another. Bengal Tigers and Siberian Tigers are apart from one another in some ways like size and power but they aren't totally different from one another as they both are similar enough to be that, a tiger. EX: have the same coloration and pattern, ect.



The fan art reimagined piece does the concept better I feel.

[Engineer]

Ok
Now do a comparison of other earthly creatures.
Snakes
Crocodiles
Various arthropods
Sharks
Etc.

while some creatures look very similar all around, you can get others with extraordinary variety in morphology. A great example imo would be a Caiman vs. a Gharial... both crocodilians but they look pretty different in the face.

Or a hammerhead shark vs. a great white vs. a nurse shark
All 3 pretty different.

[Mr.Turok]

Ok
Now do a comparison of other earthly creatures.
Snakes
Crocodiles
Various arthropods
Sharks
Etc.

while some creatures look very similar all around, you can get others with extraordinary variety in morphology. A great example imo would be a Caiman vs. a Gharial... both crocodilians but they look pretty different in the face.

Or a hammerhead shark vs. a great white vs. a nurse shark
All 3 pretty different.

Easy. These examples are not subspecies but a separate species. The Feral Predator in Prey is said to be a subspecies of the usual Predator run. It's why I used the Tigers as an example of subspecies and not separate species like a Mako Shark and a Hammerhead Shark. Going by the definition of subspecies:

subspecies
noun
A category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subspecies

Another example: Alligators and Crocodiles are Crocodylidae  but they are not a subspecies of one another, rather a separate species.

[Engineer]

Ok
Now do a comparison of other earthly creatures.
Snakes
Crocodiles
Various arthropods
Sharks
Etc.

while some creatures look very similar all around, you can get others with extraordinary variety in morphology. A great example imo would be a Caiman vs. a Gharial... both crocodilians but they look pretty different in the face.

Or a hammerhead shark vs. a great white vs. a nurse shark
All 3 pretty different.

Easy. These examples are not subspecies but a separate species. The Feral Predator in Prey is said to be a subspecies of the usual Predator run. It's why I used the Tigers as an example of subspecies and not separate species like a Mako Shark and a Hammerhead Shark. Going by the definition of subspecies:

subspecies
noun
A category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subspecies

Ok then take dog breeds. Dogs overall are a subspecies of wolves. Yet, even among dogs you have a plethora of variation. Pugs, German shepherds, beagles, blood hounds, Pitt bulls, boxers, etc. you couldn't have a starker difference between a pug and a shepherd, yet, they're within the same subspecies.

[BlueMarsalis79]

I don't have an issue with the level of variation, but after having it earnestly sit with me for a while I just don't feel it's a particularly great execution, I think as often the case with ADI's Predators the initial concepts put the practical piece to shame.



I think this looks way more elegant and much more cunning than the final result honestly.

[SiL]

That looks just as shit as the final version.

And given the face is CGI in the final movie, blaming ADI is truly flogging a dead horse. If thee production wanted it to end up looking like that concept they could've when they redid the whole thing.

But they didn't, so they didn't.

[BlueMarsalis79]

I thought you might say that. It categorically looks much better to me because of the proportions and particularly having much more of a chin and the top of the head not sloping back as drastically.

It is not flogging a dead horse though because it is a pattern of behaviour from ADI dating back as far as AVP with their Predators, their concepts always look much better before they implement their animatronics, and the CGI model does not stray that far from the practical. It is just "enhanced" (if you can call it that) as Dan Trachtenberg once put it.

It is more of a should have statement I am making because yes they obviously could have changed it entirely in CGI.

[Mr.Turok]

Ok then take dog breeds. Dogs overall are a subspecies of wolves. Yet, even among dogs you have a plethora of variation. Pugs, German shepherds, beagles, blood hounds, Pitt bulls, boxers, etc. you couldn't have a starker difference between a pug and a shepherd, yet, they're within the same subspecies.

Problem with this example again is that dog breeds do not fit the criteria of subspecies. This means that dog breeds differ drastically in their appearance and other characteristics, while most of their genomes are still very much alike. Dogs are domesticated wolves shaped by human intervention for over tens of thousands of years while these two Predator lines have none of that. It's why Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals are under the same Homo Genus, but Homo (Humans) and Pan(Chimps) are two different species all together, but all under the Hominidae Family.

Granted there is something to be said of the recent PHG lore where the Amengi has captured the Hish and did selective breed and experimentation on them to produce the Predators we know today but it's been made clear that Feral's kind are a subspecies so I have no idea how his kind fits into all of this.

Which is why going by the concept art and the fan art, one looks to appear more menacing with the more separated eyes, brows brought more down and cross to give a more angrier look, mandibles tucked back even more into the face to give almost a slasher smile as an attempt to be different of the "standard" design, the whole "bigger and more menacing" trope we seen redesigning monsters in films these days.

The fan art precisely targets the subspecies idea where they take the baseline idea and actually putting in the subspecies concept of keeping the more inflated head for better heat detection, thicker jaws and mandibles for a more powerful bone crushing bite force, however the facial features still keep in the spirit of the standard Predator face to translate better that it's still indeed the already menacing Predator with the added details to show that this type is more specialized for a certain role.

They keep trying to reinvent the wheel instead of looking at the different type of wheels that is used for a different type of job. That's why Predator and Predator 2 is superior at showing the concept of same idea but different format. Both JH and CH are Predators but their details make them unique such as the coloration, armor, weapons, and tactics. CH's mandibles have more fangs, a slightly bigger forehead and more colorful pattern than JH but it's not that drastically different. Predator Hunting Grounds displays this too with different skin types, armor designs and Predator facial features that simply have either more fangs, face spines, facial scarring, and age. Work on the finer details rather then start from scratch completely, the base is perfect as it is.

[Engineer]

Ok then take dog breeds. Dogs overall are a subspecies of wolves. Yet, even among dogs you have a plethora of variation. Pugs, German shepherds, beagles, blood hounds, Pitt bulls, boxers, etc. you couldn't have a starker difference between a pug and a shepherd, yet, they're within the same subspecies.

Problem with this example again is that dog breeds do not fit the criteria of subspecies. This means that dog breeds differ drastically in their appearance and other characteristics, while most of their genomes are still very much alike.

Yes it does fit the criteria. Dog breeds are more strict in fact, but just focusing on one subspecies to another, compare that pug from the dog subspecies to another subspecies of wolf... the Dingo.

[SiL]

Yes it does fit the criteria. Dog breeds are more strict in fact, but just focusing on one subspecies to another, compare that pug from the dog subspecies to another subspecies of wolf... the Dingo.

You're comparing something that evolved in the wild to something that's been intentionally bred with compounding deformities that would've gone extinct in nature long ago. You're kind of proving the point there -- that kind of variation doesn't really happen naturally and is only achieved through concerted effort.

Although if anyone wants to argue that Feral is just a Predator pug bred for shits and giggles I'm all ears.

[Engineer]

Yes it does fit the criteria. Dog breeds are more strict in fact, but just focusing on one subspecies to another, compare that pug from the dog subspecies to another subspecies of wolf... the Dingo.

You're comparing something that evolved in the wild to something that's been intentionally bred with compounding deformities that would've gone extinct in nature long ago. You're kind of proving the point there -- that kind of variation doesn't really happen naturally and is only achieved through concerted effort.

It doesn't matter how the diversity developed. It only matters that the diversity exists. Dogs are one real world example. It can happen. It does happen. The 'how' is irrelevant. Fill in the gaps; use your head canon or whatever lol predators selectively bred themselves to have diversified subspecies, if that's what works for you...

Also I used pug because it's a pretty extreme difference. Bloodhounds would be about as extreme of a difference if you like that breed better. Bloodhound vs. dingo. Great Dane vs. dingo. Saint Bernard vs. dingo. Take your pick. Lots of dog breeds to choose from here. 

[SiL]

It doesn't matter how the diversity developed.

Of course it does, if we're talking about something that's being presented as a naturally occurring variation. Most of the extreme differences are not beneficial to the dogs themselves and wouldn't have been kept in the gene pool.

If Feral is deformed or a specially bred version, then whatever. They clearly just wanted something different and there was very little need for it to look so radical outside of reinventing the wheel.

[Engineer]

It doesn't matter how the diversity developed.

Of course it does, if we're talking about something that's being presented as a naturally occurring variation. Most of the extreme differences are not beneficial to the dogs themselves and wouldn't have been kept in the gene pool.

If Feral is deformed or a specially bred version, then whatever. They clearly just wanted something different and there was very little need for it to look so radical outside of reinventing the wheel.

The movie never says it's naturally occurring, nor does it say it was artificially bred that way. They just show us he looks different, and the concept artist just added his exposition that he intended for it to be a subspecies. You can fill in the rest with your own head canon for how or why, hence why it doesn't matter. What matters is feral was different, we see it, and yes, you can have that kind of diversity between subspecies making it possible one way or the other. 

[SiL]

I know. The film just wanted new for the sake of new and threw in a weak post hoc explanation behind the scenes.

I agree with Turok's overall assessment - they just wanted to reinvent the wheel, using a stack of tired design tropes to make it different, and it doesn't really gel as a Predator.

You could've had Feral's design in a completely unrelated movie and be forgiven for just thinking it was a brazen knock-off.

[Mr.Turok]

It doesn't matter how the diversity developed.

Of course it does, if we're talking about something that's being presented as a naturally occurring variation. Most of the extreme differences are not beneficial to the dogs themselves and wouldn't have been kept in the gene pool.

If Feral is deformed or a specially bred version, then whatever. They clearly just wanted something different and there was very little need for it to look so radical outside of reinventing the wheel.

The movie never says it's naturally occurring, nor does it say it was artificially bred that way. They just show us he looks different, and the concept artist just added his exposition that he intended for it to be a subspecies.

Which is by then considered canon. It's exposition said by a member of the team and not contradicted by Dan or any other lead creator in the behind the scenes. It cannot get much clearer than that.

Again, going with SiL, it has no real justification of being that radically different. No absolute real need to change the face that drastically as if people will get tired of the Predator design somehow. If anything I keep hearing from the fanbase is to keep true to the OG design without drastic changes, have proper mandibles, and have it be a genuine threat to the main characters in the story again.