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

Started by bendinglight, Feb 21, 2021, 05:43:58 AM

Author
Why the PREDATOR sequels get the face WRONG [Opinion Piece] (Read 30,867 times)

SM

Whedon was passionate too.

426Buddy

Honestly if the film is actually good then I probably won't be bothered by crabator effects so much.

SiL

I will admit the birthday cookies for the director give me some hope.

But I'm way too cautious to pin my expectations on confectionary  :D

Voodoo Magic

Quote from: Kradan on May 11, 2021, 06:35:20 PM
Well, It looked like labor of love with Paul W. S. Anderson, The Strause Brothers, Shane Black too, you know. True, he may be very passionate about the story he's telling but creature's design ? He may very well just trust effects' guys to do their job.

Well, Anderson only had the Winston Predator creations to reflect back on, so this aesthetic issue was nonexistent for him.

However, the Strause Brothers did call out problems they had with the Predator design in Anderson's AvP, and actively pursued changes.

And Shane Black, I'm uncertain what was in his head.

But very true. It's just a hope at this point. :)

QuoteI'm genuinely curious is there any record of John Mctiernan or Stephen Hopkins having any inputs in Predator's design or they completely trusted Stan & Co. ?

Yes and yes, but McTiernan was the crucial one!  Check it out:

https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=62388.0

Quote from: SiL on May 11, 2021, 08:32:32 PM
"The guy seems passionate so he must want exactly what I want?" Let's wait and see.

I think that's a silly comment to put in quotes to be fair. Plenty of people have been hoping in these threads that Dan Trachtenberg feels Predator designs haven't measured up since the Winston originals (seemingly an overwhelmingly majority opinion among Predator fans regardless if they mind KNB and/or ADI's work), but no one is pretending we know what Dan wants. The hope is, if he pitched this as a Predator fan, he may have recognized a decline in design too . But we don't know what's in his head. No one is correlating passion with a definite desire to strive for our vision of Winston's superior aesthetic. We're just hoping a correlation may exist. But it may just turn out the opposite. We all know it. Therefore no one feels confident. But as fans, we can hope.

SuperiorIronman

Anderson's intentions with the design was obvious. It's a comic book movie.

AVP is based on a comic where proportions are exaggerated and the Predator character was to appear heroic in the film which meant hulking frames and a more emotive face. We've been over the emotive face several times here. The Predator is not a character who should smile but it fit the film because he wasn't trying to create a monster, he's trying to make an anti-hero the audience would have an easier time backing. The problem with Scar's face aside from a few technical flubs was that it's so different to the characterization that came before and since. They since walked that back hard because subsequent Predators have more or less been down and out bad guys again. Scar looks weird because he is the odd one out and why it's so frustrating to look at merchandise who try to "correct" the face because they don't understand he's not meant to look like the bad guy. The tag line lied to you, you're supposed to cheer for Lex and Scar.

That's why Wolf looks so different because they tried walking the design back. The angular mask, the lack of armor, the predatory cat influence on the face. All that was because AVP is a comic movie first and the Strause brothers didn't get that and so made Wolf as a pallet cleanser to the last film.

BlueMarsalis79

Scar's also shit looking, comic book influence notwithstanding.

Voodoo Magic

Quote from: SuperiorIronman on May 12, 2021, 02:47:55 PM
Anderson's intentions with the design was obvious. It's a comic book movie.

AVP is based on a comic where proportions are exaggerated and the Predator character was to appear heroic in the film which meant hulking frames and a more emotive face. We've been over the emotive face several times here. The Predator is not a character who should smile but it fit the film because he wasn't trying to create a monster, he's trying to make an anti-hero the audience would have an easier time backing. The problem with Scar's face aside from a few technical flubs was that it's so different to the characterization that came before and since. They since walked that back hard because subsequent Predators have more or less been down and out bad guys again. Scar looks weird because he is the odd one out and why it's so frustrating to look at merchandise who try to "correct" the face because they don't understand he's not meant to look like the bad guy. The tag line lied to you, you're supposed to cheer for Lex and Scar.

That's why Wolf looks so different because they tried walking the design back. The angular mask, the lack of armor, the predatory cat influence on the face. All that was because AVP is a comic movie first and the Strause brothers didn't get that and so made Wolf as a pallet cleanser to the last film.

I isolated the "The problem with Scar's face aside from a few technical flubs" because that's the heart of it to me, the crux of pages and pages of complaints. We can't control the director's choices in each film, but how much worse does each choice gets with inferior craftsmanship?

We know these unnatural folds & rolls in skin or cockeyed mandibles aren't part of the concept art or maquette, so how much better would Scar have looked with better craftsmanship?



Or what happened when trying to realize Steve Wang's cool approved Wolf maquette on screen?



And we saw the cg version of The Fugitive look more proportional than it's practical counterpart.



So at least for me, it's not the director's vision so much so as the company realizing these visions either in design,  puppeteering, or both. And it's crazy, because I think Alec & Tom are real talented guys.. it just seems Predators aren't their strength.

BlueMarsalis79

Perfectly explained.

Kradan

Quote from: Voodoo Magic on May 12, 2021, 02:21:42 PM
QuoteI'm genuinely curious is there any record of John Mctiernan or Stephen Hopkins having any inputs in Predator's design or they completely trusted Stan & Co. ?

Yes and yes, but McTiernan was the crucial one!  Check it out:

https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=62388.0

Ah yes, how could I forget about this one ! Thanks for a great read  ;)

Voodoo Magic

Thanks Kradan. The more people know the better!  :)

Quote from: Trash Queen on May 12, 2021, 05:14:56 PM
Perfectly explained.

Appreciate it! :)

SiL

Quote from: Voodoo Magic on May 12, 2021, 02:21:42 PM
No one is correlating passion with a definite desire to strive for our vision of Winston's superior aesthetic. We're just hoping a correlation may exist.
I know. That's exactly why I used the air quotes.

Yautja888

Quote from: Voodoo Magic on May 12, 2021, 02:21:42 PM
Quote from: Kradan on May 11, 2021, 06:35:20 PM
Well, It looked like labor of love with Paul W. S. Anderson, The Strause Brothers, Shane Black too, you know. True, he may be very passionate about the story he's telling but creature's design ? He may very well just trust effects' guys to do their job.

Well, Anderson only had the Winston Predator creations to reflect back on, so this aesthetic issue was nonexistent for him.

However, the Strause Brothers did call out problems they had with the Predator design in Anderson's AvP, and actively pursued changes.

And Shane Black, I'm uncertain what was in his head.

But very true. It's just a hope at this point. :)

QuoteI'm genuinely curious is there any record of John Mctiernan or Stephen Hopkins having any inputs in Predator's design or they completely trusted Stan & Co. ?

Yes and yes, but McTiernan was the crucial one!  Check it out:

https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=62388.0

Quote from: SiL on May 11, 2021, 08:32:32 PM
"The guy seems passionate so he must want exactly what I want?" Let's wait and see.

I think that's a silly comment to put in quotes to be fair. Plenty of people have been hoping in these threads that Dan Trachtenberg feels Predator designs haven't measured up since the Winston originals (seemingly an overwhelmingly majority opinion among Predator fans regardless if they mind KNB and/or ADI's work), but no one is pretending we know what Dan wants. The hope is, if he pitched this as a Predator fan, he may have recognized a decline in design too . But we don't know what's in his head. No one is correlating passion with a definite desire to strive for our vision of Winston's superior aesthetic. We're just hoping a correlation may exist. But it may just turn out the opposite. We all know it. Therefore no one feels confident. But as fans, we can hope.


Precisely :).And it doesn't hurt if the fans are vocal about their preference for the original design, (in terms of quality and aesthetic).Better be vocal about it before it's too late, you never know who read the boards.

The Necronoir

To me, this all begs an interesting question, which is: who owns the rights to the technology used in the creature effects? I mean 20th Century unquestionably owns the rights to the design of the creature itself, presumably along with any of the props actually used in the films. So what's to stop them giving the original Stan Winston Studios costumes and props to someone like ADI or KNB and just saying "make this"?

From there they could either use the original moulds or try to reverse-engineer it to build a perfect recreation. Or are the mechanisms that make it work somehow a separate IP that each effects house continues to hold? ADI re-used the original queen head in Resurrection, so there must be some leeway with it. You'd think that would work out cheaper than trying to re-create the wheel every time as well.

Master

As far as I'm informed, Queens head was bought from private collection. That's how ADI get hold of it.

Voodoo Magic

Quote from: The Necronoir on May 15, 2021, 04:38:08 PM
To me, this all begs an interesting question, which is: who owns the rights to the technology used in the creature effects? I mean 20th Century unquestionably owns the rights to the design of the creature itself, presumably along with any of the props actually used in the films. So what's to stop them giving the original Stan Winston Studios costumes and props to someone like ADI or KNB and just saying "make this"?

From there they could either use the original moulds or try to reverse-engineer it to build a perfect recreation. Or are the mechanisms that make it work somehow a separate IP that each effects house continues to hold? ADI re-used the original queen head in Resurrection, so there must be some leeway with it. You'd think that would work out cheaper than trying to re-create the wheel every time as well.

Personally, I lean towards believing all the work-for-hire creations belong to Disney/20th Century Studios, including the script rewrites, new characters from said rewrites, the Predator name, the iconic theme, even the creature (except when creature details match what's in the original "Hunters" script).

The only thing I feel fairly confident on is... once they reclaim the copyright, the Thomas Brothers can make a new "Hunters" movie with a revamped creature design, one that perhaps matches the descriptions in their original "Hunters" spec script, but Disney/20th Century Pictures can't make another Predator film without licensing from the brothers.

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