Movies: Predator: Killer Of Killers

[Jussi]

We aren't talking about "obscure comic 'canon'", but canon that was established in the first two major motion pictures over 30 years ago. It's like if a new Terminator or Alien movie contradicted the first two movies in those franchises.

Again, other live action films have come after those, why limit the canon to just the first two? Especially when the 2nd one was crap.

 

[shadow1]

Again, other live action films have come after those, why limit the canon to just the first two? Especially when the 2nd one was crap.

The first two movies established the canon, and other films expanded upon it.

Killer of Killers changed the canon. If Trachtenberg wanted to alter the canon, why didn't he create his own original character/creature?

 

[Osprey]

Again, other live action films have come after those, why limit the canon to just the first two? Especially when the 2nd one was crap.

Canon is always a limitation, but you can expand on it while still respecting it. Rogue One and Andor are excellent examples of expanding on the OT's canon without contradicting or changing it. If, instead, Cassian had run into Luke and Han and gone on adventures with them, would that have been OK because "why limit the canon to just the first three films"? Of course not. Changing canon isn't expanding it; it's destroying it. Now, the Predator franchise's canon has already been pretty destroyed by later films, but that's all the more reason to try to stay consistent with the original ones. Trachtenberg wisely did that with Prey and it got the franchise back on its feet.

 

[Jussi]

Canon is always a limitation, but you can expand on it while still respecting it. Rogue One and Andor are excellent examples of expanding on the OT's canon without contradicting or changing it. If, instead, Cassian had run into Luke and Han and gone on adventures with them, would that have been OK because "why limit the canon to just the first three films"? Of course not. Changing canon isn't expanding it; it's destroying it. Now, the Predator franchise's canon has already been pretty destroyed by later films, but that's all the more reason to try to stay consistent with the original ones. Trachtenberg wisely did that with Prey and it got the franchise back on its feet.

I just don't see the point in gatekeeping a canon, that's been fairly flimsy to boot.

 

[Osprey]

I just don't see the point in gatekeeping a canon, that's been fairly flimsy to boot.

The point is to not see it become flimsy, or flimsier. It's gotten this way because the writers haven't stayed faithful to the original canon. It'll only get worse if we excuse it each time.

 

[Jussi]

The point is to not see it become flimsy, or flimsier. It's gotten this way because the writers haven't stayed faithful to the original canon. It'll only get worse if we excuse it each time.

I see the canon as "still evolving". Seem Trachtenberg wants to actually do something with it long term, which has never been the case. I see that as a positive.

 

[shadow1]

I see the canon as "still evolving". Seem Trachtenberg wants to actually do something with it long term, which has never been the case. I see that as a positive.

Devolving is a better term. Turning the Predators from honor based hunters to bloodthirsty beasts makes them more generic. It would be like it in Alien: Earth, suddenly the xenomorph no longer needs to reproduce and is reduced to a slasher villain.

 

[Osprey]

I see the canon as "still evolving". Seem Trachtenberg wants to actually do something with it long term, which has never been the case. I see that as a positive.

Well, Shane Black likely would've done the same, but The Predator (which was to be the start of a trilogy) flopped, so he didn't get the chance. That movie was certainly not a positive for the franchise.

That said, Trachtenberg is off to a much better start than Black, so I agree that that's a positive. I just don't see everything that he's doing to "evolve" the canon as positive.

 

[Osprey]

For shadow1, mostly. Major spoiler warning.

"Two of the short stories are actually pretty decent, showcasing interesting characters in novel settings, the third is a bit goofy and over the top, and the finale kind of makes me wish the whole movie hadn't even happened."
Pretty much echoes my thoughts.

 

[RandV]

The point is to not see it become flimsy, or flimsier. It's gotten this way because the writers haven't stayed faithful to the original canon. It'll only get worse if we excuse it each time.

Okay so when I mentioned a comic book I didn't mean that in a negative way, I thought I saw it mentioned here that there's been a Predator comic so I assumed that may have created some deeper lore. But if we're just going off the first two movies, I think that makes it even a worse argument to start complaining about 'canon' here.

First off the original is a write off. There's nothing really established here that's different from Prey or the 3 initial sequences of this movie. If I recall correctly Arnie escapes the self destruct blast, they get picked up by the helicopter, and that's it. So the argument is more in Predator 2. While I haven't sat down and watched the full movie, I've seen bits and pieces here and there as they used to put up movies on cable TV and I vaguely recall seeing the ending where multiple Predators come out. Watching it again on youtube, yes they come collect the dead body and as an after thought the apparent leader and last to leave pulls out a 'trophy' from his belt and hands it to Danny Glover(?) in respect. Coincidentally it appears to be the same gun the pilot is given in the stadium.

Now I would call that an extremely loose bit of lore that you have to stick to. First off no one cared about Predator 2, and as a series it never really went anywhere until Prey came out which was largely successful because it mirrored the original but from a historic setting. Second what happened in Predator 2 is so easy to write around that it's barely a speed bump. Like for one there could easily be different factions of the species here. Or if I were to propose a broad story arch, I'd suggest rather than kidnapping the Predator's honor the victors by creating and preserving clones of them, Mickey 17 style. Then at some point in the distant future a petty tyrant has gotten hold of a collection and is now using them for sport.

I agree the writing behind the coliseum is kind of weak. The 'you will fight each other to the death, then the victor will get to fight me king Predator!' But as a broader story/series concept, I find the idea of bad ass warriors throughout history banding together to fight Predator in the future to be really good.

 

[Jussi]

Okay so when I mentioned a comic book I didn't mean that in a negative way, I thought I saw it mentioned here that there's been a Predator comic so I assumed that may have created some deeper lore. But if we're just going off the first two movies, I think that makes it even a worse argument to start complaining about 'canon' here.

First off the original is a write off. There's nothing really established here that's different from Prey or the 3 initial sequences of this movie. If I recall correctly Arnie escapes the self destruct blast, they get picked up by the helicopter, and that's it. So the argument is more in Predator 2. While I haven't sat down and watched the full movie, I've seen bits and pieces here and there as they used to put up movies on cable TV and I vaguely recall seeing the ending where multiple Predators come out. Watching it again on youtube, yes they come collect the dead body and as an after thought the apparent leader and last to leave pulls out a 'trophy' from his belt and hands it to Danny Glover(?) in respect. Coincidentally it appears to be the same gun the pilot is given in the stadium.

Now I would call that an extremely loose bit of lore that you have to stick to. First off no one cared about Predator 2, and as a series it never really went anywhere until Prey came out which was largely successful because it mirrored the original but from a historic setting. Second what happened in Predator 2 is so easy to write around that it's barely a speed bump. Like for one there could easily be different factions of the species here. Or if I were to propose a broad story arch, I'd suggest rather than kidnapping the Predator's honor the victors by creating and preserving clones of them, Mickey 17 style. Then at some point in the distant future a petty tyrant has gotten hold of a collection and is now using them for sport.

I agree the writing behind the coliseum is kind of weak. The 'you will fight each other to the death, then the victor will get to fight me king Predator!' But as a broader story/series concept, I find the idea of bad ass warriors throughout history banding together to fight Predator in the future to be really good.

Pretty much how I feel. There's no lore established in the first movie really.

 

[shadow1]

Okay so when I mentioned a comic book I didn't mean that in a negative way, I thought I saw it mentioned here that there's been a Predator comic so I assumed that may have created some deeper lore. But if we're just going off the first two movies, I think that makes it even a worse argument to start complaining about 'canon' here.

First off the original is a write off. There's nothing really established here that's different from Prey or the 3 initial sequences of this movie. If I recall correctly Arnie escapes the self destruct blast, they get picked up by the helicopter, and that's it. So the argument is more in Predator 2. While I haven't sat down and watched the full movie, I've seen bits and pieces here and there as they used to put up movies on cable TV and I vaguely recall seeing the ending where multiple Predators come out. Watching it again on youtube, yes they come collect the dead body and as an after thought the apparent leader and last to leave pulls out a 'trophy' from his belt and hands it to Danny Glover(?) in respect. Coincidentally it appears to be the same gun the pilot is given in the stadium.

Now I would call that an extremely loose bit of lore that you have to stick to. First off no one cared about Predator 2, and as a series it never really went anywhere until Prey came out which was largely successful because it mirrored the original but from a historic setting. Second what happened in Predator 2 is so easy to write around that it's barely a speed bump. Like for one there could easily be different factions of the species here. Or if I were to propose a broad story arch, I'd suggest rather than kidnapping the Predator's honor the victors by creating and preserving clones of them, Mickey 17 style. Then at some point in the distant future a petty tyrant has gotten hold of a collection and is now using them for sport.

I agree the writing behind the coliseum is kind of weak. The 'you will fight each other to the death, then the victor will get to fight me king Predator!' But as a broader story/series concept, I find the idea of bad ass warriors throughout history banding together to fight Predator in the future to be really good.

The first movie establishes practically everything. The look of the creature, that it's from out of space, that it's drawn to conflict and heat, that it only attacks "worthy" prey (i.e. no one unarmed), that it collects trophies.

Predator 2 builds on top of those ideas. We learn more about the creature, including some cool new weapons, but its character motivations remain intact. You might say no one cares about Predator 2, but it has a 6.3 on IMDb. It's not a masterpiece but it's not a piece of crap, either.

 

[Osprey]

Okay so when I mentioned a comic book I didn't mean that in a negative way, I thought I saw it mentioned here that there's been a Predator comic so I assumed that may have created some deeper lore. But if we're just going off the first two movies, I think that makes it even a worse argument to start complaining about 'canon' here.

First off the original is a write off. There's nothing really established here that's different from Prey or the 3 initial sequences of this movie. If I recall correctly Arnie escapes the self destruct blast, they get picked up by the helicopter, and that's it. So the argument is more in Predator 2. While I haven't sat down and watched the full movie, I've seen bits and pieces here and there as they used to put up movies on cable TV and I vaguely recall seeing the ending where multiple Predators come out. Watching it again on youtube, yes they come collect the dead body and as an after thought the apparent leader and last to leave pulls out a 'trophy' from his belt and hands it to Danny Glover(?) in respect. Coincidentally it appears to be the same gun the pilot is given in the stadium.

Now I would call that an extremely loose bit of lore that you have to stick to. First off no one cared about Predator 2, and as a series it never really went anywhere until Prey came out which was largely successful because it mirrored the original but from a historic setting. Second what happened in Predator 2 is so easy to write around that it's barely a speed bump. Like for one there could easily be different factions of the species here. Or if I were to propose a broad story arch, I'd suggest rather than kidnapping the Predator's honor the victors by creating and preserving clones of them, Mickey 17 style. Then at some point in the distant future a petty tyrant has gotten hold of a collection and is now using them for sport.

I agree the writing behind the coliseum is kind of weak. The 'you will fight each other to the death, then the victor will get to fight me king Predator!' But as a broader story/series concept, I find the idea of bad ass warriors throughout history banding together to fight Predator in the future to be really good.

There was a comic that was based on the first two movies and supposedly solidified the lore, but most people (including me) have never read it and refer mostly to the first two movies when talking about canon. I don't see why that makes for a bad argument. Should fans not criticize later Terminator and Alien movies if they contradict the first two movies in those franchises? How many movies does a franchise need before fans are allowed to complain about canon?

Predator established in a few ways that the Yautja respect their opponents: it didn't attack the unarmed girl, it removed its armor and weaponry to give Dutch a fairer fight and it keeps skulls as trophies. Predator 2 followed up on that by having the predator spare a pregnant woman and the ones at the end giving Harrigan a trophy for killing one of them and letting him leave. Those last two were additions to the lore that almost all fans approve of. Even fans like me that don't particularly like Predator 2 like those additions because they make the Yautja seem even more honorable. It's kind of beside the point that the movie isn't that good. It expanded the lore in a way that most fans like, so it's still appreciated for that.

 

[Jussi]

For shadow1, mostly. Major spoiler warning.

"Two of the short stories are actually pretty decent, showcasing interesting characters in novel settings, the third is a bit goofy and over the top, and the finale kind of makes me wish the whole movie hadn't even happened."
Pretty much echoes my thoughts.

I really do have to question linking known alt-right grifter, Critical Stinker here.

https://www.deviantart.com/razorrex/journal/The-Critical-Drinker-is-Bad-and-Here-s-Why-916866924

 

[Jussi]

Prey director teases secret new project after Predator: Killer of Killers and Predator: Badlands: "I sort of rushed two at once because I was so eager to get to the third thing"

Exclusive | Dan Trachtenberg suggests he's not done with the Predator franchise just yet

www.gamesradar.com

 

[shadow1]

I really do have to question linking known alt-right grifter, Critical Stinker here.

https://www.deviantart.com/razorrex/journal/The-Critical-Drinker-is-Bad-and-Here-s-Why-916866924

...think I'm going to skip the 1.5 hours of video and take your word for it.

I concur that his review mentioned something akin to "of course Disney had a female lead character!" more than once, which I picked up on. Otherwise, I was unaware of any of his beliefs/controversies. That's because overwhelmingly, his criticism stuck to the movie's facts. It's not like the guy said, "bro, the ending was woke! Ursa should've been a trad wife!"

I *believe* it's the highest viewed Youtube review (Heavy Spoilers has more, but is a details breakdown rather than review), so I don't see why it's controversial to post.

 

[Osprey]

I really do have to question linking known alt-right grifter, Critical Stinker here.

I question not responding to the opinion and, instead, attacking the person and linking to a blog on DeviantArt and two other YouTubers. Using other "grifters" to back up that he's one is not a good argument. You also repeatedly link to and reference John Campea, who has his own YouTube show that makes money from him commenting on movies and TV. You echo and promote social media "grifters" as much as anyone, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's hypocritical to do that when they share your feelings and then attack and name call the voices that you disagree with.

 

[Jussi]

...think I'm going to skip the 1.5 hours of video and take your word for it.

I concur that his review mentioned something akin to "of course Disney had a female lead character!" more than once, which I picked up on. Otherwise, I was unaware of any of his beliefs/controversies. That's because overwhelmingly, his criticism stuck to the movie's facts. It's not like the guy said, "bro, the ending was woke! Ursa should've been a trad wife!"

I *believe* it's the highest viewed Youtube review (Heavy Spoilers has more, but is a details breakdown rather than review), so I don't see why it's controversial to post.

Hate gets clicks on Youtube. John Campea brought it up recently how depressing it is for him that his most viewed videos on Youutbe are the ones where he's expressing a "negative view" of something. Also, you can apparently buy views on Youtube. A somewhat infamous Finnish "sports influencer", a convicted tax evader, has a podcast that has had an unnatural high number of views on Youtube considering the names involved aren't THAT famous, and it was recently discovered that just like on his twitter, he's been buying views for his videos (bots or something). Another point with Critical Stinker is that what does he actually like? The answer is stuff produced by Daily Wire/Ben Shapiro, films catering to only to the alt right/conservative audience.

 

[Bowski]

First off no one cared about Predator 2, and as a series it never really went anywhere until Prey came out which was largely successful because it mirrored the original but from a historic setting. Second what happened in Predator 2 is so easy to write around that it's barely a speed bump.

Any real Predator fan would highly disagree with this.

If we're talking about "the masses", good riddance, as it's trying to cater to all demographics that's led to the piles of crap produced after Predator 2 (Prey being the exception and I will give Predators a pass because of some cool concepts).

 

[Jussi]

I question not responding to the opinion and, instead, attacking the person and linking to a blog on DeviantArt and two other YouTubers. Using other "grifters" to back up that he's one is not a good argument. You also repeatedly link to and reference John Campea, who has his own YouTube show that makes money from him commenting on movies and TV. You echo and promote social media "grifters" as much as anyone, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's hypocritical to do that when they share your feelings and then attack and name call the voices that you disagree with.

The difference is that Campea sticks to only entertainment, he doesn't discuss politics on his show. And for what it's worth, I tend to disagree with him on a lot of stuff, like his incessant promoting of Man Of Steel as the "most underrated comic book movie of all time". I also do not share his appreciation of The Last Of Us tv show.

I will not give Critical Stinker any clicks and also made it already clear what I thought of the movie of the topic, I did not hide that I thought the ending required a fair bit of suspension of disbelief.

 

[shadow1]

Hate gets clicks on Youtube. John Campea brought it up recently how depressing it is for him that his most viewed videos on Youutbe are the ones where he's expressing a "negative view" of something. Also, you can apparently buy views on Youtube. A somewhat infamous Finnish "sports influencer", a convicted tax evader, has a podcast that has had an unnatural high number of views on Youtube considering the names involved aren't THAT famous, and it was recently discovered that just like on his twitter, he's been buying views for his videos (bots or something). Another point with Critical Stinker is that what does he actually like? The answer is stuff produced by Daily Wire/Ben Shapiro, films catering to only to the alt right/conservative audience.

I watched the video in isolation. Outside of an edgy comment or two, none of the things you're saying were present in the content of the video. He gave a lukewarm review of the film and had legitimate criticisms.

You are moving goalposts in this discussion. First saying the series lore is too small to matter. Then questioning who decides which lore is canon. Followed by questioning why the first two movies should decide the lore. Then, eventually settling on "there's no lore established in the first movie." In the meantime, you criticized the use of IMDB, citing its fading relevance. Now you're taking us down the rabbit hole on The Critical Drinker, whose opinion we can't cite because of his political views.

None of this has anything to do with the original point, which is that Killer of Killers messes with the series lore. If you had said, "I don't care, I like the movie and hate the old lore," I would've given you a like. Because while I don't agree, that would've been your opinion. Instead, you're coming up with every flimsy reason you can think of to invalidate those who have a problem with the lore changes. You flat out said you don't see the point of gatekeeping a canon, throwing shade at anyone invested enough in the series to care.

 

[Jussi]

I watched the video in isolation. Outside of an edgy comment or two, none of the things you're saying were present in the content of the video. He gave a lukewarm review of the film and had legitimate criticisms.

You are moving goalposts in this discussion. First saying the series lore is too small to matter. Then questioning who decides which lore is canon. Followed by questioning why the first two movies should decide the lore. Then, eventually settling on "there's no lore established in the first movie." In the meantime, you criticized the use of IMDB, citing its fading relevance. Now you're taking us down the rabbit hole on The Critical Drinker, whose opinion we can't cite because of his political views.

None of this has anything to do with the original point, which is that Killer of Killers messes with the series lore. If you had said, "I don't care, I like the movie and hate the old lore," I would've given you a like. Because while I don't agree, that would've been your opinion. Instead, you're coming up with every flimsy reason you can think of to invalidate those who have a problem with the lore changes. You flat out said you don't see the point of gatekeeping a canon, throwing shade at anyone invested enough in the series to care.

I like to question a lot here.

Now you're putting words into my mouth. I've made it very clear that I don't "hate the old lore" because I don't find the lore very established. As another poster brought up, the first movie didn't establish any lore, a point which I had forgotten, since it's been so long since I've seen it. Therefore it's hard to hate something which I don't recognize existing much really.

 

[shadow1]

I like to question a lot here.

Now you're putting words into my mouth. I've made it very clear that I don't "hate the old lore" because I don't find the lore very established. As another poster brought up, the first movie didn't establish any lore, a point which I had forgotten, since it's been so long since I've seen it. Therefore it's hard to hate something which I don't recognize existing much really.

I'm sorry for making that mistake.

Doesn't take away from everything else I said.

 

[Jussi]

https://collider.com/predator-killer-of-killers-ending-explained-prey-connection-spoilers-dan-trachtenberg/

One of the things I was wondering is when you see Amber and you have her in the container, there is the possibility of this going from animation to live-action. Is that even in your mind, taking Killer of Killers and moving it to the live-action space after this movie?

TRACHTENBERG: Yeah. Pie in the sky, in general, across the board. It would be cool to see animated characters in live-action, live-action characters in animation. I didn't devour all the animated Star Wars stuff that was going on throughout the years, but I think that some of the pleasure in what's happening now in some of the Star Wars tales, is seeing animated characters be live-action, and it'd be cool to go back and forth if we should be successful.

 

[StrangeVision]

I thought it was just okay. It just felt...incomplete. The vignettes didn't really work for me, and the ending scene was a whole bunch of blah.