Author Topic: The Predator Teaser Trailer Now Online!  (Read 51182 times)

azamultic
May 17, 2018, 07:21:31 PM
Reply #645 on: May 17, 2018, 07:21:31 PM
I'm concerned the most about the story and it's crap. I'm not guessing, I know. I have the script, I read it. Trailer confirms the story is basically thesame. I'm talking about facts.

  To be honset if not for the direction of John McT I think the original movie would be much much weaker. John Mct pulled the B-movie script to a classic level. Of course the help of Alan Silvestry's music, Sten Winston's team, and Arnold was part of the sucsess, but without  John McTiernan movie would have bean much less quality.

So there we had a pretty standard premise which was pulled off by the Direction. I am nost saying Shane can 100 % pull of his crazy script, but again I will wait for the Premiere.


KiramidHead
May 17, 2018, 07:36:07 PM
Reply #646 on: May 17, 2018, 07:36:07 PM
Do they not have the Winston stuff "lying around"?  These are props and costumes and such, ultimately, why not just rebuild or even use those?  Agree, part of the problem has been the toy-pred looking Preds vs. actual creepy/scary looking preds, another aspect that's fallen short in the "after" movies.

Also, being that this is the trailer release thread.  Is this the assumed trailer to be used in DP2?  (asked earlier but the "mandible turn occurred")

Depending on what the costumes are made of, they could fall apart over time. And Winston downsized in the early 2000s, and sold off a lot of the molds.


OpenMaw
May 17, 2018, 08:19:41 PM
Reply #647 on: May 17, 2018, 08:19:41 PM
OpenMaw I do love Winston job more than ADI's on the predator. But I really do think people exaggerating theirs statements and also being bias.
  Winston team did everything really fast, they didn't have much time(how you said earlier) and they just improvised all around. It was amazing, but I think the reason why Original Predator looks amazing it's because of the Director John McT did amazing job showing us the creature.
  Director is the main thing, look and Straus brothers, even though Steve Wang worked for them predator it self was still meeeeeeh.
  Also ADI guys did work for Stan and they know how to do prostetics, and know how Winston used to work, so it's not that their skill level is low, but the thing that director can't show it properly.
  I don't like the predator face from avp 2004 I agree with that, but I do think the technology of animatronics is much better, just from logical point of view. Because in original animatronics of the face did man who never did this mandibles before and he told that mandibles weren't perfect there.
 "just looking at the images there you can see that the eyes, the skin tones/texture, and the shape are all wrong. Not that they have to be identical, but they're wrong in the sense that they don't convey a believable creature." that is the work of director, even original costums going to look terrible with off lighting and bad camera work. So i do think people being less technical and too opiniated. and it's hard to judge the lighting and camera work from this  promo shots.

The original costume even holds up in broad daylight in the test footage shot before they took it out to the marsh. It's not just that Mcternian was a good director. Winston's team simply did a better job. Not just once, either. The effects in Predator 2 are also uperior ot anything ADI or KnB did with the Predator. KnB were over all much closer to Winston, but they f*cked the smaller details.

Yes, a good director can make a poor looking creature or costume look good with the right lighting, but a great team of talented artists can make a great creature suit. The Winston guys did better.

Look,

That leaked script had some bonkers stuff in there. Some bad dialogue. I pray that they fixed those things as the years have gone on. I think regardless though, this movie is going to have a lot of different idea brought to the Predator lore. Some of it will piss people off, whether it works in the film or not.

We got a bad teaser. No way around it. They had a shot to hype up all of the negative feedback that has been on the internet about the leaked plot points and set photos and instead they released that poorly edited teaser which did nothing for a lot of people. Some of the more extreme members on this forum are now saying this movie is doomed because of 90 seconds of footage.

The movie hasn't exactly done a lot for itself to give people hope. I'll say that. The talent on board is what I cling on to but that isn't always enough for everyone. We as fans are allowed to be concerned for a new movie in the franchise. We should just try to be fair about it though.

I hate to re-drop the chef analogy. It doesn't matter how good the chef is, if you give them rotten eggs and moldy cheese they will not give you a world class omelette.

Granted, they have some solid talent on board, and hopefully they can improvise out of the bad jokes and give us some better stuff.

There are still fundamentally terrible ideas at the core of the story, and there's just no way around that without completely excising them completely. I only hope that the "upgrade" ditches some of the shit described in the script, and that the
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
are given some other design.


MudButt
May 17, 2018, 08:26:16 PM
Reply #648 on: May 17, 2018, 08:26:16 PM
I agree. Like I have said in past posts, the team brought on board is a good sign for me but that doesn't mean the movie will be good. There are plenty of examples of a great team on board bringing a bad movie. Hell, Spielberg has a bad day in the office. I just choose to not shit all over a movie months before release. A movie can change drastically from a first draft to the final product. I read the leaked EARLY draft as well, there are things that I didn't like about it. Quite a few. I bet that the script they shot with is a much different script then the one some people have read. The teaser looks like the basic core story is still there from the script, hell even some dialogue was still there, but It's not fair to judge the movie so harshly just yet.

To each their own though, I'm an optimist. It doesn't always work out for me though.


azamultic
May 17, 2018, 08:44:50 PM
Reply #649 on: May 17, 2018, 08:44:50 PM
OpenMaw "The original costume even holds up in broad daylight in the test footage shot before they took it out to the marsh. It's not just that Mcternian was a good director. Winston's team simply did a better job. Not just once, either. The effects in Predator 2 are also uperior ot anything ADI or KnB did with the Predator. KnB were over all much closer to Winston, but they f*cked the smaller details.

Yes, a good director can make a poor looking creature or costume look good with the right lighting, but a great team of talented artists can make a great creature suit. The Winston guys did better."

   For me it's a little bit too simplistic view of the situation. I am myself kind of in industry of visual effects (even so I am not in the prostetic department), and I am trying not to critisize effects without knowing the actual details. Logicly it's imposible to make  worse practical effects now then in 1987 specially with the guys who worked for Stan in 1985 for Aliens, tools get better, more expirience and time to create new methods.
Now saying that Original Predator looks good on a day light on the BtS video is a little bit off. The quality of the video is not so well, and I am sure if you put new suites next to them they will look the same or even better.
   
   Now design wise, that's very subjective. My favourite is the city hunter, after goes original, and I am not fan of any other designs, but that's just taste. Face, oh man I really hated the AVP 2004 face, but I guess the reason was because they aimed to make predator look a little bit more friendly.
 
   So my point is that desing is very subjective thing, but quality of production is the same.     


SiL
May 17, 2018, 09:29:28 PM
Reply #650 on: May 17, 2018, 09:29:28 PM
Logically it's entirely possible to do worse, because the ultimate test of an effect is whether it's believable and achieves its goal. It has nothing to do with the techniques or technology that go into it.

Even the second Predator is a step down in quality. The closeup face had googly eyes and the mandibles on the head Kevin Peter Hall wore were stiff and twitchy. It was undoubtedly more sophisticated than the original, but it wasn't as effective.


azamultic
May 17, 2018, 09:55:07 PM
Reply #651 on: May 17, 2018, 09:55:07 PM
Logically it's entirely possible to do worse, because the ultimate test of an effect is whether it's believable and achieves its goal. It has nothing to do with the techniques or technology that go into it.

Even the second Predator is a step down in quality. The closeup face had googly eyes and the mandibles on the head Kevin Peter Hall wore were stiff and twitchy. It was undoubtedly more sophisticated than the original, but it wasn't as effective.

  The second one was amazing. The closeup face was a fully animatronic puppet, they didn't have fully animatronic head in the first one. They had more time and put much more details on the costume. Animation wise maybe I can agree that sometimes mandibles felt not so organic, but I need to check it again.
  It has to do with technology, of course we have talantes who can make a high art out of garbage, but in ADI they have trained professionals who has much better tools then 30 years ago(I am speculating but still). Also different castumes can be same  level of production and believability but the way ot shot is what affects it in the end. Give Straus brothers original castume of the Predator and they would still make a bad movie and costume will look fake. Give John Mct costume of AVP 2004, and I am sure he can make it look much more awesome.


OpenMaw
May 17, 2018, 09:59:08 PM
Reply #652 on: May 17, 2018, 09:59:08 PM
Now saying that Original Predator looks good on a day light on the BtS video is a little bit off. The quality of the video is not so well, and I am sure if you put new suites next to them they will look the same or even better.

No. They won't, because they don't. They look like rubbery suits.

Logicly it's imposible to make  worse practical effects now then in 1987 specially with the guys who worked for Stan in 1985 for Aliens, tools get better, more expirience and time to create new methods.

Based on what? I don't follow how you think how that works. As much as I hate the Newborn, it's a clearly superior piece of work than what ADI did in Harbinger Down.

Just because technology has improved does not mean the outcome is inherently better. If anything I think the emphasis on adding expression was a detriment to the creature's design and that less is sometimes more. The focus on KPH's body language, and the use of a few subtle facial movents lent to a far better design than trying to stuff the head with dozens of mechanisms to give the face more expression. Expression which gave the creature a more cartoon, over the top, appearance. You couple that with the ADI guys not following on from the work laid down in the first two Predator films, and clearly using different materials for the actual construction of the suits, it all adds up to something that is inferior in nearly ever way.


Logically it's entirely possible to do worse, because the ultimate test of an effect is whether it's believable and achieves its goal. It has nothing to do with the techniques or technology that go into it.

Even the second Predator is a step down in quality. The closeup face had googly eyes and the mandibles on the head Kevin Peter Hall wore were stiff and twitchy. It was undoubtedly more sophisticated than the original, but it wasn't as effective.

Indeed.

« Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 10:05:45 PM by OpenMaw »

Xan21
May 17, 2018, 10:01:35 PM
Reply #653 on: May 17, 2018, 10:01:35 PM
You know Predator 2 was a bit whacky character wise with those gangs and stuff... but still it felt like a genuine predator movie... it was so faithful to the predator character itself and I still hope for a directors cut. I just have a feeling this is just about slicing and dicing 'machines'.


SiL
May 17, 2018, 10:17:42 PM
Reply #654 on: May 17, 2018, 10:17:42 PM
The closeup face was a fully animatronic puppet, they didn't have fully animatronic head in the first one.
Yeah, and it looked worse. The eyes are cartoonish. They don't look real at all.

Quote
Give Straus brothers original castume of the Predator and they would still make a bad movie and costume will look fake. Give John Mct costume of AVP 2004, and I am sure he can make it look much more awesome.
The Strause Brothers and Daniel Pearl did a great job of filming Wolf. The difference McTiernan would give to Scar is that he wouldn't tell the crew to try to make it look "heroic" and would put the slime back on it. That goes much further than the latex and animatronics used to make it.


azamultic
May 17, 2018, 10:26:44 PM
Reply #655 on: May 17, 2018, 10:26:44 PM
Now saying that Original Predator looks good on a day light on the BtS video is a little bit off. The quality of the video is not so well, and I am sure if you put new suites next to them they will look the same or even better.

No. They won't, because they don't. They look like rubbery suits.

Logicly it's imposible to make  worse practical effects now then in 1987 specially with the guys who worked for Stan in 1985 for Aliens, tools get better, more expirience and time to create new methods.

Based on what? I don't follow how you think how that works. As much as I hate the Newborn, it's a clearly superior piece of work than what ADI did in Harbinger Down.

Just because technology has improved does not mean the outcome is inherently better. If anything I think the emphasis on adding expression was a detriment to the creature's design and that less is sometimes more. The focus on KPH's body language, and the use of a few subtle facial movents lent to a far better design than trying to stuff the head with dozens of mechanisms to give the face more expression. Expression which gave the creature a more cartoon, over the top, appearance. You couple that with the ADI guys not following on from the work laid down in the first two Predator films, and clearly using different materials for the actual construction of the suits, it all adds up to something that is inferior in nearly ever way.


Logically it's entirely possible to do worse, because the ultimate test of an effect is whether it's believable and achieves its goal. It has nothing to do with the techniques or technology that go into it.

Even the second Predator is a step down in quality. The closeup face had googly eyes and the mandibles on the head Kevin Peter Hall wore were stiff and twitchy. It was undoubtedly more sophisticated than the original, but it wasn't as effective.

Indeed.


Oh sir, the first costume looks like rubber too in the BtS video. Harbinger Down is a very low budget movie.
   I am not aiming for defending the AvP desing at all. I love second and first predator, everything about that, directing, make up, acting, MUSIC. And it always will be superior then other movies for me. But I do think that fans being very subjective on the production matter. Desing too, my favourite is the tribal desing of lost tribe. But I do get that it's my opinion. It's no right or wrong things about desings, because it's art. Now we can of course talk about "canon" and what made original good, but it's a long conversation.


SiL
May 17, 2018, 10:32:18 PM
Reply #656 on: May 17, 2018, 10:32:18 PM
The first doesn't look like rubber in the BTS videos. Neither do most of ADI's with the masks on.


azamultic
May 17, 2018, 10:34:36 PM
Reply #657 on: May 17, 2018, 10:34:36 PM
The closeup face was a fully animatronic puppet, they didn't have fully animatronic head in the first one.
Yeah, and it looked worse. The eyes are cartoonish. They don't look real at all.

Quote
Give Straus brothers original castume of the Predator and they would still make a bad movie and costume will look fake. Give John Mct costume of AVP 2004, and I am sure he can make it look much more awesome.
The Strause Brothers and Daniel Pearl did a great job of filming Wolf. The difference McTiernan would give to Scar is that he wouldn't tell the crew to try to make it look "heroic" and would put the slime back on it. That goes much further than the latex and animatronics used to make it.

Agree that it looked cartoony(but I loved it), and I think that it's fault of the Stephen Hopkins for shooting it like this. Again my point is that team can put same amaunt of work or even more, but in the end it depends from the director to show it. (Of course I can be wrong, because it's a lot of guessing)

Questionable about Wolf. Never liked the desing, nor the predator himself. But agree with the need of slime on the Scar. Man it would help a lot.



SiL
May 17, 2018, 11:23:09 PM
Reply #658 on: May 17, 2018, 11:23:09 PM
Agree that it looked cartoony(but I loved it), and I think that it's fault of the Stephen Hopkins for shooting it like this.
That's how it was designed to be filmed, but. It was made specifically for the big closeups of the face.



azamultic
May 17, 2018, 11:39:46 PM
Reply #659 on: May 17, 2018, 11:39:46 PM
Agree that it looked cartoony(but I loved it), and I think that it's fault of the Stephen Hopkins for shooting it like this.
That's how it was designed to be filmed, but. It was made specifically for the big closeups of the face.
I am sure Director or screenwriters could have avoided that shot, or do it differently with the animatronic mask on Kevin, like in the first movie, but they didn't. Therefore team was asked to make the animatronic face.(Just my guess) 


 

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed