The Predator Blu-Ray Deleted Scenes

[The Old One]

Everything from the eyes down is so flat.

Crab-Man indeed.

[The Kurgan]

Is it just me or does he look depressed or stoned in the Crabman-pics ?

[Voodoo Magic]

Is it just me or does he look depressed or stoned in the Crabman-pics ?

LOL. I don't know. Can crabs get depressed?  Enquiring minds would like to know!

[The Old One]

https://tinyurl.com/DepressedCrab

[SiL]

Agreed. Unfortunately, that very same Predator, with a little more light and resolution becomes.... 

Crab-Man! 

Yeah, dude, again, you need to stop comparing BTS shots to properly lit scenes.

[Valaquen]

Its a shame really... there is a decent and more coherent movie somewhere on the cutting room floor.

Assembly Cut by 2030, maybe.

[BishopShouldGo]

Yeah, I'm disappointed with the deleted scenes. It left a lot to be desired to say the least and I don't even think there is a commentary to play during the movie. I don't feel like they will ever release the APC/Emissary Pred scenes unfortunately, but there is a damn fine shot of one of the Emissary Predators during the A Touch of Black featurette.



Its a shame really... there is a decent and more coherent movie somewhere on the cutting room floor.

Whoa!!! That's amazing.

[Voodoo Magic]

https://tinyurl.com/DepressedCrab

Haha. Thanks for that!

Agreed. Unfortunately, that very same Predator, with a little more light and resolution becomes.... 

Crab-Man! 

Yeah, dude, again, you need to stop comparing BTS shots to properly lit scenes.

First, Stan Winston's designs looked good behind the scenes, night, day, properly lit or not.

Second, what are you judging as a properly lit scene? You're liking a camera pic pointed at a television screen, taken while the television is playing behind-the-scene footage on "The Predator" blu-ray and declaring the lighting in that as proper. But look at the attached pic. It's from the same cut, same background and he looks like a Crab-Man. 

Third, Stan Winston's designs looked good behind the scenes, night, day, properly lit or not. (It's worthy of repeating)

[Huggs]

there is a decent and more coherent movie somewhere on the cutting room floor.

More coherent, for sure.  Decent...I'm not so sure. 

I was literally about to say this, word for word.

[SiL]

First, Stan Winston's designs looked good behind the scenes, night, day, properly lit or not.

The bug-eyed close-up animatronic face in the second movie is the goofiest looking thing in the series. Goofier than Scar's surprise face.

Second, what are you judging as a properly lit scene? You're liking a camera pic pointed at a television screen, taken while the television is playing behind-the-scene footage on "The Predator" blu-ray and declaring the lighting in that as proper. But look at the attached pic. It's from the same cut, same background and he looks like a Crab-Man. 

I mean a scene that's been lit by a director of photography and his team to get the most out of the effect. It's a phone grab of a scene that has intentionally lit. The one you attached still looks good, despite the blown highlights. It doesn't look anywhere near as bad as you're desperately trying to make out.

Third, Stan Winston's designs looked good behind the scenes, night, day, properly lit or not. (It's worthy of repeating)

The bug eyes are really silly (It's worth repeating).

[The Old One]

Yes-
The animatronic eyes in Predator 2
aren't the best.
But everything else is superb,
correct lighting or not.

I can't say the same for any of the ADI Predators.
There's not a single one that looks good. IMO.
Wolf and Fugitive,
serviceable with masks though.

[SiL]

Yes, the animatronic eyes in Predator 2
aren't the best.
But everything else is superb,
correct lighting or not.

The whole animatronic face is a mess in motion. It doesn't cut with the mask well at all.

I'm not saying the Emissaries are suddenly on the level of the originals -- but they look a shitload better when they're lit carefully than in behind the scenes social media photos.

[PredBabe]

https://tinyurl.com/DepressedCrab

Haha. Thanks for that!

Agreed. Unfortunately, that very same Predator, with a little more light and resolution becomes.... 

Crab-Man! 

Yeah, dude, again, you need to stop comparing BTS shots to properly lit scenes.

First, Stan Winston's designs looked good behind the scenes, night, day, properly lit or not.

Second, what are you judging as a properly lit scene? You're liking a camera pic pointed at a television screen, taken while the television is playing behind-the-scene footage on "The Predator" blu-ray and declaring the lighting in that as proper. But look at the attached pic. It's from the same cut, same background and he looks like a Crab-Man. 

Third, Stan Winston's designs looked good behind the scenes, night, day, properly lit or not. (It's worthy of repeating)

Yes my pic is just a quick snap from my phone of my television screen but the picture you are posting doesn't do the actual shot any justice. Your attached pic has more lighting and resolution to the point that it looks grainy. The actual footage is more crisp with good lighting. Add that plus the slow head turn and eye movement and you get an awesome clip of the Emissary predator and an idea of how they would have appeared in the actual movie.


Of course you can't compare it to Stan's designs but the point is it actually looked good in the proper lighting. This isn't the first case where a movie monster needed the right lighting and angles to have the right affect.

[The Old One]

@SIL

True.

[Voodoo Magic]

The bug-eyed close-up animatronic face in the second movie is the goofiest looking thing in the series. Goofier than Scar's surprise face.

Ha, no way. No how.





The Stan's Predator in P2 wins in design, realism, paint application, everything. The only thing that Scar's surprised face wins... is the Goofy Award.

Yes my pic is just a quick snap from my phone of my television screen but the picture you are posting doesn't do the actual shot any justice. Your attached pic has more lighting and resolution to the point that it looks grainy. The actual footage is more crisp with good lighting. Add that plus the slow head turn and eye movement and you get an awesome clip of the Emissary predator and an idea of how they would have appeared in the actual movie.

Of course you can't compare it to Stan's designs but the point is it actually looked good in the proper lighting. This isn't the first case where a movie monster needed the right lighting and angles to have the right affect.

I hope my comment about your photo didn't come across as personal criticism. I do apologize if it did. I didn't intend it that way and I'm glad you shared the pic. 

I do understand good lighting can make anything look better, especially if it's positioned as models would say "from my good side", but the more it moves and is turned away from that angle, it just appeared as the dreaded crab-face (imo).  Which makes me miss Stan's designs because they never had the crab-face look and could look great in any light, any angle.

But to be honest, it's not all about Stan, because I was happy with KNB work in "Predators". So I'm just missing a certain level of quality that ADI struggles to achieve with Predators imo.

Now I'll give ADI credit that with AVP, AVPR and The Predator, they have improved with every film.  But considering how long we have to wait for a new Predator film, I'm ready to pass the torch to another company.  Time for some new creative blood.