User Information

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Fred Dekker On The Predator Fan Reception and The ...  (Read 21309 times)

Huntsman
Jan 05, 2019, 10:51:49 PM
Reply #30 on: Jan 05, 2019, 10:51:49 PM
Turning Predator into a franchise was always an iffy idea. The original was a mystery: What is this thing killing everyone? You can’t repeat that without the law of diminishing returns kicking in.
A trilogy would’ve been fine, with differing locatations. Jungle, city and spaceship. The problem has been shitty scripts being greenlit, mimicking the original.


Huggs
Jan 05, 2019, 10:54:04 PM
Reply #31 on: Jan 05, 2019, 10:54:04 PM
It's not irrelevant when they get slammed for not taking their time or putting any effort into their work. Also, we don't know how their meetings with the studio went.
When people attack individual filmmakers for things that had nothing to do with them due to the process of making a film -- fair point.

But his argument seemed to be people criticising the film in general not knowing how hard it is to get something to screen. How difficult it is to make isn't the least bit of a defense. Every film is hard to make -- we still get good movies. Whether there was studio interference or not, whether the sets burned down or people had to get edited out at the last second, doesn't excuse the fact the end result is lacklustre.

Preach it. I cannot make a list of all the wacky and awful stuff they crammed into this movie, and not imagine alarm bells should've been going off for everyone involved. Those toxic fans are part of the audience, (aka) the hand that feeds you Mr. Dekker, mind the teeth please.


Huntsman
Jan 05, 2019, 10:56:32 PM
Reply #32 on: Jan 05, 2019, 10:56:32 PM
If these films are so hard to get made, why not get the script right before making one? The development hell/script issues problem always is a head scratcher. They basically have no idea what to do when the time finallly arrives. So we end up with a mix and match reshoot butchers job.


Huggs
Jan 05, 2019, 11:02:32 PM
Reply #33 on: Jan 05, 2019, 11:02:32 PM
Turning Predator into a franchise was always an iffy idea. The original was a mystery: What is this thing killing everyone? You can’t repeat that without the law of diminishing returns kicking in.
A trilogy would’ve been fine, with differing locatations. Jungle, city and spaceship. The problem has been shitty scripts being greenlit, mimicking the original.

Nothing really has to be connected. I'd wager it would be better if it weren't. Predators can be lots of places, and many stories could be told. The franchise lends itself to that. Aliens have to be discovered, predators come to us. If It Bleeds is good proof of what could be done. But they have to be willing to abandon this notion of constant innovation. Every single thing doesn't have to be different each time. There's a formula, it works. Pick a place, a time, a group of people, drop in a predator, Go!

For goodness sakes, how many SAW movies have been made? People gravitate to certain franchises for something specific. If the writers and studios are not going to give it to them, then they shouldn't be surprised when people don't like it.


Cihan 85
Jan 05, 2019, 11:04:00 PM
Reply #34 on: Jan 05, 2019, 11:04:00 PM
Another thing I wanted to say, we don't know who wrote what part of the story ofcourse, my guess is that Shane Black pretty much wrote the joke parts just like in the first predator film and that's about it. I think he got too much credit for Predator 1 and didn't really contribute anything storywise. Why else would you coke up with something so disrespectful to the franchise. I honestly hope that this film will be ignored in the future and we will get a proper Predator 4. I want to see the Royce story finished. And bring back Glover and Arnold in some way and everything comes full circle.


matthewjn
Jan 05, 2019, 11:16:23 PM
Reply #35 on: Jan 05, 2019, 11:16:23 PM
It's not irrelevant when they get slammed for not taking their time or putting any effort into their work. Also, we don't know how their meetings with the studio went.
When people attack individual filmmakers for things that had nothing to do with them due to the process of making a film -- fair point.

But his argument seemed to be people criticising the film in general not knowing how hard it is to get something to screen. How difficult it is to make isn't the least bit of a defense. Every film is hard to make -- we still get good movies. Whether there was studio interference or not, whether the sets burned down or people had to get edited out at the last second, doesn't excuse the fact the end result is lacklustre.

"by toxic fans" isn't people criticizing the film in general.
It's not suppose to be an excuse, but it can open some eyes and maybe people will realize that what was in the final version of the film wasn't what Shane and Fred wanted, but what the studio wanted. Shane and Fred could have wanted something else while the studio wanted another. Fred even said he didn't like the Predator Killer along with a few other unnamed things. Now I don't know how Shane feels, but if he does dislike it too, it's pretty clear that's what the studio wanted.

It's not irrelevant when they get slammed for not taking their time or putting any effort into their work. Also, we don't know how their meetings with the studio went.
When people attack individual filmmakers for things that had nothing to do with them due to the process of making a film -- fair point.

But his argument seemed to be people criticising the film in general not knowing how hard it is to get something to screen. How difficult it is to make isn't the least bit of a defense. Every film is hard to make -- we still get good movies. Whether there was studio interference or not, whether the sets burned down or people had to get edited out at the last second, doesn't excuse the fact the end result is lacklustre.

Preach it. I cannot make a list of all the wacky and awful stuff they crammed into this movie, and not imagine alarm bells should've been going off for everyone involved. Those toxic fans are part of the audience, (aka) the hand that feeds you Mr. Dekker, mind the teeth please.

Seriously? Mind the toxic fans? What a joke. You don't get to treat people how you want to treat them just because you're the hand that feeds them.

I'm going to assume you're one of those toxic fans since you're actually trying to defend them.

« Last Edit: Jan 05, 2019, 11:18:51 PM by matthewjn »

EeeeyyyForgotMyPassword
Jan 05, 2019, 11:19:53 PM
Reply #36 on: Jan 05, 2019, 11:19:53 PM
The movie is being harshly criticized because it sucks, not because people are toxic.
They completely butchered the Yautja, why do they hunt? Sport? Honour? Rituals? NOPE, IT'S FOR OUR AUTISM, THEY WILL COLLECT OUR AUTISM TO MAKE CELL FROM DBZ BUT AS A PREDATOR THAT WILL THEN FIGHT THE IRON MAN PREDATOR


Huntsman
Jan 05, 2019, 11:23:58 PM
Reply #37 on: Jan 05, 2019, 11:23:58 PM
Turning Predator into a franchise was always an iffy idea. The original was a mystery: What is this thing killing everyone? You can’t repeat that without the law of diminishing returns kicking in.
A trilogy would’ve been fine, with differing locatations. Jungle, city and spaceship. The problem has been shitty scripts being greenlit, mimicking the original.

Nothing really has to be connected. I'd wager it would be better if it weren't. Predators can be lots of places, and many stories could be told. The franchise lends itself to that. Aliens have to be discovered, predators come to us. If It Bleeds is good proof of what could be done. But they have to be willing to abandon this notion of constant innovation. Every single thing doesn't have to be different each time. There's a formula, it works. Pick a place, a time, a group of people, drop in a predator, Go!

For goodness sakes, how many SAW movies have been made? People gravitate to certain franchises for something specific. If the writers and studios are not going to give it to them, then they shouldn't be surprised when people don't like it.
I never said they had to be connected. P2 isn’t really a strong sequel to Predator in terms of narrative. I’m advocating for location diversity.


Cihan85
Jan 05, 2019, 11:27:08 PM
Reply #38 on: Jan 05, 2019, 11:27:08 PM
Hahaha, there is only 1 thing that I did like about the film though, The Fugitive Predator. The design was awesome and something different than previous Predators. But why kill him off within the first half of the movie and in such a disrespectful way?!! He was the only good part of the damn movie. Also, he is here to help mankind, but the first thing he does when he lands here is kill people and hang them in the trees!! Really, nothing about the film makes any sense!!


Huggs
Jan 05, 2019, 11:27:43 PM
Reply #39 on: Jan 05, 2019, 11:27:43 PM
Turning Predator into a franchise was always an iffy idea. The original was a mystery: What is this thing killing everyone? You can’t repeat that without the law of diminishing returns kicking in.
A trilogy would’ve been fine, with differing locatations. Jungle, city and spaceship. The problem has been shitty scripts being greenlit, mimicking the original.

Nothing really has to be connected. I'd wager it would be better if it weren't. Predators can be lots of places, and many stories could be told. The franchise lends itself to that. Aliens have to be discovered, predators come to us. If It Bleeds is good proof of what could be done. But they have to be willing to abandon this notion of constant innovation. Every single thing doesn't have to be different each time. There's a formula, it works. Pick a place, a time, a group of people, drop in a predator, Go!

For goodness sakes, how many SAW movies have been made? People gravitate to certain franchises for something specific. If the writers and studios are not going to give it to them, then they shouldn't be surprised when people don't like it.
I never said they had to be connected. P2 isn’t really a strong sequel to Predator in terms of narrative. I’m advocating for location diversity.

I know and I agree. And watch out for Voodoo. Predator 2 not being a strong sequel is enough to ring the gong.


Master
Jan 05, 2019, 11:28:48 PM
Reply #40 on: Jan 05, 2019, 11:28:48 PM
The film was trash because it had trashy script. When your movie  tries to change who lore to something much dumber and simply subpair, dont be surprised poeple who care about it will be vocal.

Death treats and such are bad, but saying you should be greatful cause they tried at least something different and it's  so hard to get film on big screen, it quickly becomes funny. Ridiculous even.


Huggs
Jan 05, 2019, 11:35:15 PM
Reply #41 on: Jan 05, 2019, 11:35:15 PM
Seriously? Mind the toxic fans? What a joke. You don't get to treat people how you want to treat them just because you're the hand that feeds them.

I'm going to assume you're one of those toxic fans since you're actually trying to defend them.

Easy now, there's no need for that. I'm saying he should avoid using terms like "toxic fans" when referring to people who are critical of the film, because that's a crap-load of people at this point, and not just folks who act hatefully. And like it or not, those toxic fans are part of the audience that go to see the movies, which (in turn) gives the studio's the money they pay him with. If nobody went to see movies, Hollywood would go bye bye in no time. It's a cash business, but it's the audience's cash. Hence, don't bite the hand that feeds you.

You don't insult or blame any portion of your audience...ever. It's bad for business.


EeeeyyyForgotMyPassword
Jan 05, 2019, 11:37:58 PM
Reply #42 on: Jan 05, 2019, 11:37:58 PM
Seriously, you have to be really stupid to say that the fans are toxic for hating the fact you just destroyed all of the expanded universe and the mythology of a franchise, this is simply insulting at this point, the only good scene in this movie was the Fugitive on the lab, everything else was really really bad, the fact this movie says that they take our spine not for trophys but for our DNA makes me really pissed off, this movie is a disgrace, Star Wars fans complain about their movies but they don't have to endure stuff like this.


Master
Jan 05, 2019, 11:39:30 PM
Reply #43 on: Jan 05, 2019, 11:39:30 PM
Yeah, see Ghostbusters III...


matthewjn
Jan 05, 2019, 11:46:09 PM
Reply #44 on: Jan 05, 2019, 11:46:09 PM
Seriously? Mind the toxic fans? What a joke. You don't get to treat people how you want to treat them just because you're the hand that feeds them.

I'm going to assume you're one of those toxic fans since you're actually trying to defend them.

Easy now, there's no need for that. I'm saying he should avoid using terms like "toxic fans" when referring to people who are critical of the film, because that's a crap-load of people at this point, and not just folks who act hatefully. And like it or not, those toxic fans are part of the audience that go to see the movies, which (in turn) gives the studio's the money they pay him with. If nobody went to see movies, Hollywood would go bye bye in no time. It's a cash business, but it's the audience's cash. Hence, don't bite the hand that feeds you.

You don't insult or blame any portion of your audience...ever. It's bad for business.

If you're not attacking any of the filmmakers saying things like "f you because the film sucks." "Go to hell" etc etc. then there's no need to get defensive when he says "toxic fans". You can still let them know the films sucks and express your disappointment while being level-headed.

And like it or not, toxic fans don't get a pass for their toxic behavior nor will they ever. If people get upset when toxic people get called out, they're part of the problem.


 

Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube RSS Feed