Things I Felt "predator 2" Were Missing


New Member
I have never really cared for "Predator 2", nor did I enjoy the "Alien vs. Predator" films, and even though I liked the "Predator" character, I never did follow the comic books or video games that had the Predator in them. I honestly didn't like that whole concept of the Predator being included in all this pop culture and becoming a novelty and felt it took some of the seriousness and mystic away from the Predator. I mean, there were freakin' bobble heads for the Predator and you had little kids dressing up as him on Halloween. Come on man. I don't think that's good because I don't think people should be using the Predator as a source of comedy or as a tool to make their kids look cute.

I am happy to type that I really enjoyed "Predators" and feel that the film returned the character and the franchise to it's roots and made it scary and mysterious again. I feel Nimród Antal and Robert Rodriguez essentially did what director Tim Burton did with the Batman character in the late 1980's. In the 1960's, Batman became this goofy and campy cartoonish of a character that no one took seriously, until Tim Burton reinvented Batman, and made his own movie about the character, and made him dark, serious, and intense again, and that's very similar to what Antal and Rodriguez did with the Predator character.

I feel the reason why it worked is because the two took the time to make a decent film, and really think about what it was that people liked about the first Predator, but without ripping it off. I feel "Predator 2" was only made because the first one had a made a lot of money, so the studio quickly rushed to make a sequel, and just whipped something up, knowing just the words "Predator 2" on a movie poster would attract a crowd. Same applies with the "Alien vs. Predator" movies. I presume that the studios figure just take two highly established film characters, make a cross-over film, and there ya go, you attract a crowd, and the studio in my view clearly does not always care if the story in their films is good or not, as long as they make quick and easy money.

Predator 2 just doesn't have that "Do you ever get the feeling you're being watched?" vibe that both the original "Predator" and "Predators" has. Also, one of the appeals of both "Predator" and "Predators" is that the humans were on the Predator's turf, which added to the horror, whereas "Predator 2" took place on human turf, which took the horror away some in my view because we the viewers feel like we are on safe ground, and just knowing all it would take is the U.S. army to kill the Predator makes me feel a bit too comfortable as I watch "Predator 2" and what makes a scary film scary is I prefer to feel all on edge and uneasy.

I try to pretend "Predator 2" and the "Alien vs. Predator" films never happened and that "Predators" is the true, real, and only sequel to the 87' classic. VERY rarely do I come across sequels that were just as good or better then the first one, and I honestly think "Predators" is just as good as the original and is the ideal sequel.
dude you have to stop jumping back to "predators" and treating it like the be all and end all of the pred movies. compared to P2, Predators sucked balls. but thats my opinion and your welcome to yours.
I've already posted a lot about why I thought "Predators" was such a disappointment to me, so I won't repost it all again. Suffice to say: P1 was about a hunter;"Predators" was not.
Not "caring" or "liking" other pred movies,not following the comics or playing the video games..That is your prerogative. There's different levels of involvement when it comes to fandom some are just casual fans while others take it to the next level and are hardcore fans ,who know even the most minute ridicuous things there are to know about whatever interests them. you're saying that marketing the Predator outside film takes away from it , it's again your opinion. some pred fans like comedy relief and others like to see their lil one dressed as their beloved character. Tha does not mean it's going to stop being predator or make it less liked for fans. The chaarcter of the predator IS "pop culture".

Nimrod and RR took time to make a decent film? while I do like it I still feel it wasn't as good as some of the "new" fans make it out to be. You mentioned Tim Burton and his batman take and attack the adam west batman and how he made it more serious and less goofy? there were certain goofy parts on Tims batman also and as far as the adam west batman goes. maybe it's an age thing man, because not too many people thought it was "goofy" back in the day. people adored that show and had fans all over the world. I think it is in recent years that we have come to ridiculize the "BAMS" and "pows" of that show but for that era it was not out of the norm. that was the vernacular for kids while playing their favorite character.
There wasn't an overload of FX sounds and tricks at the time. Thus making it a hit with fans and also it was those "Pows" and WHAMS" that made the show like no other.

Don't know if you ARE indeed a batman fan but speaking as one from an early age. I can tell you that I had never viewed him as a goof becasue of the show. I was a collector of it's comics and being a fan of both didnt influenced my opinion, or make me compared them to each other. It went without saying what each was about. If you missed that...... well you need to revisit the batman lore again.
I don't get how you can discount predator 2 and saying he wasn't dark, serous and intense. KPH reprised his role and he did a ******* awesome job doing it!

When PREDATOR first came out it did well but it received harsh critics and it wasn't till years later it started to garner more attention from critics who unlike fans of the film started to give it a second chance. how Ironic huh? a cult hit born out of a script that was meant to be a joke

You not being a "follower" led you to the "assumption" in your earlier post about "the studios" having 2 highly stablished films and make a crossover. When in fact the crossover was stablished long before the movie thru the books "you chose not to follow".
It was in fact people like us "fans" that made the studios give the thought of a crossover in film.

You claim that Predator 2 doesnt have that "feeling of being watch" and it's not up to par with Predator and Preators when in fact what made that movie subpar was the studios miscasting and lack of a better sccript. Arnold turning down the role forced the studio to rewrite parts of the movie.
And in my opinion what made that movie viewable was in fact Kevin Peter Hall and Danny Glover.
You said it didnt work because they brought the pred out of his turf i.e. the jungle and in to the human turf, the city? you my friend are wrong!! the jungle is not the predator turf for the simple fact that is not his homeland, and the predator makes it it's home wherever he hunts. He adapts. check the films again.
Yeah, you can thank the comics for that alien skull at the end of P2 and even for some of AVP. Darkhorse owned the rights for producing Predator and Alien related comics. They were responsible for the original crossover of the characters. Something the studio got wind of in time to add the skull to the trophy wall as a nod to fans. Hell, AVP itself took bits from the comics concerning human/predator team ups.

As for P2 not being dark or gritty enough it has a lot more of that than the majority of the other movies. I mean, c'mon, drug cartels killing each other, back stabbing government agents, cocaine addled sex, people being gutted, and heads being lopped off. Doesn't get much darker than that.

Also, Predators didnt rip P1 off? That kind of makes me laugh. I mean the first time I saw that movie I was almost embarrassed by how badly it ripped the first film off. Army types in the jungle. Ol Painless, again. The music to a "t". Mud covered hero. Lines ripped right off the page of the first film. All that sort of weakens in my eyes. In the end I'd rank it just above AVP but not over P2.

You'll come to find we love a lively debate here. lol So dont take any of it personally.
Compared to the other thread I am fighting with everyone on, this thread is nada as far as internet forum drama goes. :)

In any case - I honestly saw "Predators" as paying homage to "Predator", but not ripping it off. There is still a big difference between the two films and that difference being that the main group of characters in "Predator" were all heroes. They may have been ultra-bad-asses, but they were all unselfish people who worked together, and looked out for one another. When they killed, they killed for a reason. The group of characters in "Predators" were litreally the extreme opposite. I thought that was a very cool twist.

To me, it's odd that some people would love "Predator", but not "Predators" when the overall theme of both films is very much alike. That theme being the Predator only kills creatures that it knows are just as dangerous as itself, which is exactly why the Predator never killed Anna in the first film because she had no weapon and as Dutch said to her, there was "no sport" in killing her, (much like to me there is no sport in killing a helpless deer, but there is sport in killing a dangerous bear)

What makes "Predators" different from "Predator 2" is that all the humans in "Predators" were predators themselves. i.e. They were villains or anti-heroes. "Predator 2" however has no controversy and is just another tale of good vs. evil and that is boring to me sometimes. Almost every film always has a hero, and sometimes I enjoy exploring the dark side of human nature in films and also seeing how violent people react to being put in the same position that they put others in. It makes it entertaining. For some, that is too much of a challenge. They see everything in black and white and get cranky when they don't get your classic good vs. evil story.

Even though the jungle was not the Predator's home, because it was in the jungle, the Predator had a much better chance of snuffing out his victims because there are more places to lurk, but in a big city, again, all you need is the U.S. Army or the Swat team, and the film is over.

Finally, I feel "Predators" doesn't tell you how to think, and makes you think for yourself, and some people just don't like that. I love films like "The Devil's Rejects", "Hard Candy", the "Saw" movies, "Freddy vs. Jason", "Conquest of the Planet of the Apes", "Battle for the Planet of the Apes", "Taxi Driver" and TV shows like "Oz", "Prison Break", "Tales from the Crypt", and "The Sopranos" and then finally video games such as "The Suffering" and "Manhunt" because all of those, like "Predators" doesn't give you a clear idea of who you are suppose to root for. It's all up to you to decide and I think you can learn a lot about who you are based on what your choice is. However, I get why some would prefer not to have that type of a test, but they are good tests to take sometimes because in my view "good" and "evil" do not exist in our world because we all define those things differently, so finding out what kind of a person you are morally is not a bad thing to explore, and certain films can be used to do just that.
We all have our reasons for liking and disliking....anything really. I've always believed because we all come from different backgrounds and have had different experiences we're bound to have different likes and dislikes in life. i.e. Be able to relate or not relate to certain songs, films, people, etc.

I think people like certain films because they represent our memories, fantasies, experiences, fears, misfortunes, and desires. For some of us, filmed depictions of major life experiences ranging from traveling to sexual intercourse to working to violence to socializing and plenty more precede and in some cases even substitute for our actual encounters with them. I think much of what we think we know of life comes not from direct experience, but from simulated experience delivered through vicarious and highly mediated format of motion pictures.

Films also give us the only knowledge we have of races we have never encountered personally, places we have never been to, and experiences we have never had. Thus the way we see, understand, and misunderstand experiences of the past, present, and future are largely shaped by pop culture; and movies, especially those which are very popular demand critical assessment and careful interrogation if we are to understand what they say about the concerns and values of us and our lives.

I think you can tell a lot about a person based on their favorite films if you look deep enough into it. The images we get from movies and other popular culture media, especially the images that are repeated often or are especially popular or powerful, likely influences how we view the world, and how we view ourselves, which in turn must influence how we act in it. Thus films become more than stories or pastimes. They function as myths that are an integral part of the process through which we remember history, interpret experience, and prescribe a course of future action.

Some people's dislike for the human characters in "Predators" is what makes the film appealing to me. Because all the human characters are either villains or anti-heroes, and of course some viewers who love heroes are going to be uneasy because there is not going to be any characters that they can relate to, or vicariously live through, and they are just going to feel miserable and uneasy and will feel stuck with who they will think are unlikeable, unpredictable, crazy and violent people.

Here's a parable I just came up with to describe why I love "Predators" -

I never go deer hunting because I feel deers are helpless and innocent creatures, and stand no chance against those who hunt them so I would feel bad killing a deer. However, if I had the proper training, I would MAYBE be open to the idea of hunting bears, tigers, wolves, crocodiles, snakes, rhinoceros, cape buffalo's and other dangerous animals who also hunt and kill other animals and humans.

Why would I be maybe open to hunting these animals? Because I know they are dangerous and would not think twice about hunting me, killing me, and maybe eating me afterwards. Hunting those types of animals is a true sport because when you do that, those animals are not the only ones who's lives are at risk. Yours is true. i.e. If you hunt those types of animals, you are also being hunted by them.

That is essentially what "Predators" is about - It's human predators going up against alien predators.

Here's another reason why I enjoy "Predators" - Even though I love some super hero films, going into them, I pretty much subconsciously know the super hero is going to win in the end, and that's cool, but whenever I watch films such as "Freddy vs. Jason, "The Devil's Rejects", or "Predators", because almost all the characters are either villains or anti-heroes, I pretty much don't know who's going to win or what crazy things the characters are going to do in order to win (because all villians and anti-heroes have traditionally always been greedy and unpredictable and will litreally do anything to reach their goal) and that unpredictability and suspense is apart of the appeal.

I understand though why some people wouldn't enjoy that type of stress in a film and didn't like that a Predator film went down that route since the other ones never did, and would prefer a classic "good vs. evil" film and kinda depend on that subconscious and comfortable reminder that no matter how bad things are in a film, the main hero is a guy we like and he is going to take care of things in the end.

With a film such as "Predators", you're not going to have that warm and fuzzy feeling. Some people will love that, but others will hate it. I personally think it was a good idea that they did something different instead of rehashing that same old thing where the Predator comes in, kills everyone, but then the hero stops it and we all live happily ever after again.

"Predators" would have been a rip-off if it totally copied "Predator", but it clearly did not. The first was about one Predator taking on a group of soldiers and was a classic tale of good vs. evil. It also served as a Vietnam parable. A bunch of bad-asses out in the deep jungle facing an enemy who is "alien" to them and they can never see it, but it's always watching them.

The last film is about a bunch of predators - Human and Alien and the suspense is that they are all dangerous That's where the suspense came for me. You not only had to worry about the alien predators, but you had to worry about the human predators as well.

If the film was about a bunch of cops and soldiers who landed on that planet, and they all worked together, even though I'd most likely still enjoy the film for it's visual beauty and because it was about a bunch of alien Predators instead of just one, I probably wouldn't enjoy the film to the extent I do now, and I might be inclined to agree with some of the comments, and think it was a rip-off/remake.

It's the fact that it was a bunch of villains is what made it it's own film and entertaining and gave it that extra edge. When it's a bunch of good people sitting around who all care about each other talking, you feel safe, but when it's a group of dangerous people, you're always on the edge of your seat because not only were you looking for alien predators to come out and attack, but you also know one of those human predators could turn on a character you like at any second.
"Even though the jungle was not the Predator's home, because it was in the jungle, the Predator had a much better chance of snuffing out his victims because there are more places to lurk, but in a big city, again, all you need is the U.S. Army or the Swat team, and the film is over."

Well if that's the case, why does P2 have the highest body count. In my opinion P2 was a great movie, the Pred looked cool and it added the extra mystic with the lost hunters at the end. As for the idea of being watched, P2 had just as many if not more scenes where he was lurking and or watching/baiting his prey. He even went so far as to taunt Hardigan with the necklace. Predators was an interesting concept, but as roninpred mentioned it's pretty much a rehash of P1 with a few alterations. Predators was entertaining as the best of the films since P2 but IMO it's just an updated P1. Plus the Predators looked kind of like bugs which I didn't like
Again, I don't see "Predators" as a rehash of the first one because in the first one the group of characters were all working together against one Predator.

In "Predators", the group of humans were not truly working together, and it was about them facing several Predators, and it took place on the Predators own planet, so it's a very different film then the first one in my view.

Just like how "Alien" was about one alien, whereas the sequel was about several. Then in "Terminator 2", the plot is a bit like the first, only instead a Terminator is protecting John Connor himself and a more advanced Terminator is out to kill Connor.

Or in "Beneath the Planet of the Apes" - Took place on the same planet, but a new character was the lead, and discovered the planet didn't just have a bunch of human-hating Apes living on it.

So to me because "Predators" paid homage to the classic, much like the other films I named also paid homage to the films they followed, "Predators" is the ideal sequel.

In regards of "Predator 2" - It taking place in a city just doesn't do it for me. It's like why I never cared for "Jason Takes Manhatton" - I need to see Jason in the woods. It makes it more scary in my view and limits your hiding places.
This thread is more than 11 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.