Prey

[ShardWarrior]

Anyone catch this?  Looks interesting and I have been reading a few good reviews.   Always liked the first one and Predators.  The other movies stunk.   I do not have Hulu so curious if anyone has seen it.

 

 

[The_Warpact]

I think it comes out tomorrow and it's already on my watch list.

 

Although they must be retconning stuff, because, in AVP they (Predators) came during the time of the Aztecs. In Prey it looks like there are French fur trappers in it, so that's definitely not Aztec times.

[Luminara]

[The_Warpact]

2 hours ago, Luminara said:

Well Zorak is here, where's Brak?

[Frostbiter]

I thought the movie was really good. It's definitely more in the veins of the original Predator movie with the Governor. It's one of the few newer movies I've seen that clock in under 120 minutes and that definitely helped the movie not feel bogged down. There's no wasted screen time and none of the scenes felt pointless. Overall I found it to be a well paced action movie with a well told story. I feel like we should just call this one Predator 3.

 

Spoiler

I especially liked the protagonist. In the first act she is trying to prove herself as a hunter and warrior by focusing on the hunter part of it and she's honestly pretty bad at it. It went a long way to not making the character feel one dimensional. As a side note: Bow hunting is hard. Bow hunting a wounded mountain lion is almost suicidal.

 

I don't know about retconning anything from prior movies but at the end of Predator 2 they give LAPD Lt Harrigan a black powder pistol after he kills the Predator hunting him. That scene shows that they had taken spoils from human prey for thousands of years. It's been a while since I watched AvP but I think they return every generation to let the new warriors practice hunting on Earth and as a rite of passage. They also like to return in times of great conflict.

[DougGraves]

I liked the first one, so I'll probably check it out.

[ShardWarrior]

21 hours ago, DougGraves said:

I liked the first one, so I'll probably check it out.

 

Same.  Predator 2 was meh, although it did expand the story a bit at the end where you learned the Predators had been visiting Earth for quite some time.  The AVP films were awful.  Predators was pretty decent, although as great an actor as he is, I could not see Adrien Brody as an action hero.  I did not see the The Predator because it got such terrible reviews and from the clips I have seen, it does look like a stinker. 

 

Prey here is getting good reviews and it looked like an interesting idea.  I will wait for it to show up on Vudu or something since I do not have Hulu. 

[Luminara]

11 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

The AVP films were awful.

 

They never should've been made.  I don't say that from the perspective of someone critical of the films (i've never watched any of them), but because Xenomorphs were established as exoskeletal creatures in Aliens, Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection.  Exoskeletal.  Skulls are endoskeletal structures.  Xenomorphs don't have skulls.  They don't have any bones.  The skull on display in the Predator ship in Predator 2 couldn't have come from them.  So the entire AvP franchise exists because the writers were morons, the directors were idiots and the producers were even dumber.

 

Makes me want to punch everyone involved with the franchise.

[Frostbiter]

Since the xenomorphs take the pseudo-form of what they spawned from perhaps the skull is simply vestigial.

[Luminara]

36 minutes ago, Krimson said:

I don't know what movie you watched, but the skull was visible under the dome in the original Alien. Giger himself may have made that head.

That isn't a skull, it's head comprised of soft gooey bits inside an external structure.  Like a beetle.  Hard bits on the outside.

 

Skulls are internal structures.  The human-Xenomorph hybrid in Alien Resurrection had a skull.  Hard bits on the inside.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoskeleton <- Exo.  External.  Outside.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endoskeleton <- Endo.  Internal.  Inside.

 

Yes, it could be argued that life on some other planet could have developed both an exoskeletal and endoskeletal structure, but that argument would fall flat on its face because it would present a number of unsolvable problems.

 

First, it's a horribly wasteful expenditure of resources, and evolutionary progress is always represented by the most energy-efficient result.  This is true regardless of planet, conditions, anything.  Energy efficiency is key to evolution, and to all biological life known or speculated.  Anything which is inefficient at using energy is out-competed by more energy-efficient organisms.  That's a given, because the ability to use energy, be it from radiation (sunlight), simple digestion of less advanced life (cows eating grass), or predators eating prey (om nom nom), is what permits life to continue.  Poor energy usage results in death.  An entire species which develops with poor energy usage dies out, while more efficient species thrive.  Anything which did evolve in this manner would become extinct within a few generations.

 

Second, the added weight and physical limitations of a dual skeletal system is absolutely unsuitable for any predatory creature, in any environment.  Such a predator would be out-competed by faster and more nimble species.  It would be deprived of resources by more efficient hunters.  This adaptation would be more suitable for prey animals, as they tend to respond to predatory tactics by becoming harder to kill in some manner, but the same limitations which make it unsuitable for predators would impose the same problems for prey animals (and, again, not energy-efficient from an evolutionary perspective.  simply evolving to move more quickly, change environments (swim or fly) or improve one skeletal structure or the other would result in a superior organism).  Such a species would be incapable of evading predators and move too slowly to compete for resources with other prey species.

 

Third, even as an engineered form of life, as is shown in Prometheus, the engineering is still dependent evolutionary and biological limitations laid out in points one and two.  A Xenomorph with an endoskeleton and exoskeleton would not be capable of moving as lithely and quickly as depicted, they'd be heavy, slow, and cumbersome, and its growth stages would require so much energy that it would starve before it achieved maturity.  And a predatory species, even bio-engineered, would have no need for multiple skeletal structures.  There are no benefit to be gained by adding a second skeleton, only detriments.

 

And fourth, as I already noted, they're very specifically and clearly depicted as having exoskeletons in Aliens, Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection.  In all of these films, their heads are shown to be comprised of a shell of chitinous or similar substance, not a bony skull inside a leathery layer.

 

At best, Xenomorphs could be argued as having a cartilaginous internal structure, thus a cartilaginous "skull", similar to sharks, but even that would be an enormous stretch of believability when taking evolution, biology and the actual purpose of such a structure into question when the organism already has an exoskeleton.  All it would do is add weight, increase energy requirements and make it less efficient as a predator/weapon.

 

It's not a skull.  Period.

[Frostbiter]

8 minutes ago, Luminara said:

That isn't a skull, it's head comprised of soft gooey bits inside an external structure.  Like a beetle.  Hard bits on the outside.

 

Skulls are internal structures.  The human-Xenomorph hybrid in Alien Resurrection had a skull.  Hard bits on the inside.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoskeleton <- Exo.  External.  Outside.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endoskeleton <- Endo.  Internal.  Inside.

 

Yes, it could be argued that life on some other planet could have developed both an exoskeletal and endoskeletal structure, but that argument would fall flat on its face because it would present a number of unsolvable problems.

 

First, it's a horribly wasteful expenditure of resources, and evolutionary progress is always represented by the most energy-efficient result.  This is true regardless of planet, conditions, anything.  Energy efficiency is key to evolution, and to all biological life known or speculated.  Anything which is inefficient at using energy is out-competed by more energy-efficient organisms.  That's a given, because the ability to use energy, be it from radiation (sunlight), simple digestion of less advanced life (cows eating grass), or predators eating prey (om nom nom), is what permits life to continue.  Poor energy usage results in death.  An entire species which develops with poor energy usage dies out, while more efficient species thrive.  Anything which did evolve in this manner would become extinct within a few generations.

 

Second, the added weight and physical limitations of a dual skeletal system is absolutely unsuitable for any predatory creature, in any environment.  Such a predator would be out-competed by faster and more nimble species.  It would be deprived of resources by more efficient hunters.  This adaptation would be more suitable for prey animals, as they tend to respond to predatory tactics by becoming harder to kill in some manner, but the same limitations which make it unsuitable for predators would impose the same problems for prey animals (and, again, not energy-efficient from an evolutionary perspective.  simply evolving to move more quickly, change environments (swim or fly) or improve one skeletal structure or the other would result in a superior organism).  Such a species would be incapable of evading predators and move too slowly to compete for resources with other prey species.

 

Third, even as an engineered form of life, as is shown in Prometheus, the engineering is still dependent evolutionary and biological limitations laid out in points one and two.  A Xenomorph with an endoskeleton and exoskeleton would not be capable of moving as lithely and quickly as depicted, they'd be heavy, slow, and cumbersome, and its growth stages would require so much energy that it would starve before it achieved maturity.  And a predatory species, even bio-engineered, would have no need for multiple skeletal structures.  There are no benefit to be gained by adding a second skeleton, only detriments.

 

And fourth, as I already noted, they're very specifically and clearly depicted as having exoskeletons in Aliens, Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection.  In all of these films, their heads are shown to be comprised of a shell of chitinous or similar substance, not a bony skull inside a leathery layer.

 

At best, Xenomorphs could be argued as having a cartilaginous internal structure, thus a cartilaginous "skull", similar to sharks, but even that would be an enormous stretch of believability when taking evolution, biology and the actual purpose of such a structure into question when the organism already has an exoskeleton.  All it would do is add weight, increase energy requirements and make it less efficient as a predator/weapon.

 

It's not a skull.  Period.

 

It wouldn't be the first time the Engineers created a biological weapon. It's possible (Prometheus is confusing AF) that it's even the same one that they made on LV-223.  With super-science anything goes.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2022 by Frostbiter

[BazookaTwo]

while we are doing Skull Debate 2020... lets keep in mind that in some movies there are Predator/Xenomorph hybrids. Surely room for a skull in there. 

 

Go. Hunt. Kill Skuls. 

I want your skull. 

I need your skull!!!

[Frostbiter]

Wait...is this not the Berenstene Universe? Aw dammit!

[Luminara]

32 minutes ago, Krimson said:

Here's a production still with skull visible. Nice attempt but no... The skull was there from the beginning.

 

Ah, I understand now.  An early production photo showing the head design before it was altered is all the proof you need.  You're comfortable disregarding everything established as canon in the continuity of the films because you have a picture of the helmet without the opaque dome added when they decided to change the design.  Cool beans, I'll stop throwing down real science and citing actual film content.

👍

[battlewraith]

I remember a friend in 1979 having the 18" Kenner xenomorph action figure. The dark plastic bubble head popped off revealing the skull underneath lol.

 

As for the science, Alien is a horror movie. The whole point is that this thing is alien: it doesn't make sense, and is constantly changing. Viewing it scientifically is missing the point--which is why ALL of the subsequent films go off the rails and just turn into action/suspense flicks. Viewing it in terms of Giger's art, I'd say the thing is a kind of metaphor for rape. 

[ThaOGDreamWeaver]

On 8/9/2022 at 10:26 PM, Frostbiter said:

Wait...is this not the Berenstene Universe? Aw dammit!

 

My nerdery is clearly not all-encompassing. Read this and thought when the hell did the Berenstain Bears take on the Xenomorphs? 

Would happily read that one to my great-nieces.

 

And while the first flick was watchable for me (the less said about Requiem, the better), the AvP comics were better...

 

Edited August 14, 2022 by ThaOGDreamWeaver

[TheOtherTed]

On 8/4/2022 at 5:38 PM, The_Warpact said:

Well Zorak is here, where's Brak?

 

[Frostbiter]

1 hour ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:

 

My nerdery is clearly not all-encompassing. Read this and thought when the hell did the Berenstain Bears take on the Xenomorphs? 

Would happily read that one to my great-nieces.

 

And while the first flick was watchable for me (the less said about Requiem, the better), the AvP comics were better...

 

 

It was a pop culture reference to The Mandela Effect

 

 

[ThaOGDreamWeaver]

The Internet, yet again, is undefeated.

[Trike]

Prey is the best Predator movie since Predator.

 

I had a lot of fun kicking the legs out from under the anti-woke incels claiming “a girl with no training beat a Predator solo!” Like, here’s a thought, watch the movie to discover that, in the words of Luke Skywalker, “Amazing. Every word of what you just said is wrong.” 😝

 

As for alien skull thing, the xenomorphs are not endoskeletal or exoskeletal: they’re mesoskeletal. Which means they’re both endo and exo. Mesoskeletons have never been seen on creatures on our world as big as the xenomorph, relegated to tiny ocean polyps found on coral reefs, but I would put forward that such things are exactly why Science Fiction is so freakin’ cool.

 

Many moons ago when Mary Doria Russell’s novel The Sparrow came out, someone on Usenet was extremely annoyed because the aliens in that book were unlike anything that existed on Earth. I asked him why he bothered to read SF at all, if all he wanted was to see things from Earth except bigger. 

Spoiler

The aliens in The Sparrow are divided into two classes: the aggressive and violent ruling class is evolved from predators who adapted to look like their prey. Literally wolves in sheeps’ clothing. On Earth, of course, it goes the other way, where insects and such evolved to look like much more dangerous versions so they wouldn’t get eaten.

 

[ThaOGDreamWeaver]

4 minutes ago, Trike said:

Mesoskeletons have never been seen on creatures on our world as big as the xenomorph

Well, I've learned something today. And am probably going down an internet rabbithole.

[biostem]

On 8/25/2022 at 6:21 PM, Krimson said:

Back in the day, people talked about Giger's art looking like something else... And they were right. 

Yeah... there was a reason his art was called "erotomechanics"...  That being said, I honestly prefer the look the xenomorphs took on in Aliens over the original movie...