Naru hardly struggled in dealing with him and she was very much one step ahead of him during the fight. No struggle and the Predator was defeated too easily and made to look dumb as if it didn't know how it's own weapons work.
Compare to how hard it was to defeat it in the first film to the point that Arnold's character couldn't fully beat it but it basically self-destructed.
What I did not like at all was, that Naru was able to jump on top of the Predator, on the neck/head area. That immediately lost points for me. The Predator is this awesome warrior, and he should not have been bested like that.
Naru's skill would've shone through more, in dealing with the Hunter, if that did not happen. It would've been fun to watch.
Exactly, it made it look as if Naru even overpowered the Predator. Just disappointing.
shareThe yautja in this film is a noob
This was explained in the press, but also heavily implied in the film by his cruder tech and uncertainty about which species he should be hunting (bear, dog, snake or human?)
Also, his last grunt, when he realized Naru had tricked him into shooting himself, was a pure “rage quit” howl
In fact, I only just realized it, but since Naru and Taabe specialize in hunting predators, the yautja is actually the "Prey" of the title
Huge fail. The Predator just earlier beat 30 French soldiers -- grown men, yet couldn't beat a 13-year-old girl in hand-to-hand combat?
shareI know it's almost like she set traps for him or something.
shareHe wasn't in a trap when Naru was on his back. And he wasn't in a trap when she somehow had the superhuman ability to rip his mandible out of his mouth, something not even Arnold was able to do.
shareNot your original claim. You said she bested him in one on one combat. She didn't just beat him in hand to hand she had weapons and traps. So no don't backpedal you scumbag.
shareShe did best him in one-on-one combat -- she climbed on top of him, did damage to him and and in hand-to-hand combat, ripped out a mandible with her bare hands. Have you tried to rip out a bear's tooth? Or a crocodile's tooth? Or a shark's tooth? Have you tried doing that with your bare hands? Pray tell, how did that go?
shareNo she didn't she was able to damage him. Also pray tell do predators exist in real life? So just to be clear Predator movies are functioning off of total realism? Want to double down on that?
shareWe don't need Predators in real life, we just have to refer to previous movies, where the male action stars, who were two or three times larger than Naru, couldn't physically manhandle a Predator... AT ALL. Even Danny Glover, who had a Predator's weapon and was fighting a one-armed Predator, still got his butt kicked and only managed to get a lucky hit in to end the fight. Every hit on Danny Glover was nearly fatal to him. Somehow Naru never got punched once, even though the Predator had previously beat the snot out of the 30 other Frenchmen. Explain that?
shareLol you once again backpedaled. You originally were referring to real life creatures. You asked me if I tried to rip out a crocodile, bear or shark tooth. You were implying that this movie is completely based off of realism. The predator also took some damage before she beat it now didn't it? Also took no blows? Did we watch the same film? She got thrown and cut which hinder her. See here is what's funny. If a male action hero survives something physically impossible it's fine because it's a man. If a woman does it it's not acceptable. If you want to judge things off of complete realism tons of your heroes wouldn't make the cut here pal. Indiana Jones, James Bond and others achieve physically impossible tasks. It's ok though right because it's a man.
shareYou asked me if I tried to rip out a crocodile, bear or shark tooth. You were implying that this movie is completely based off of realism
She got thrown and cut which hinder her.
If a male action hero survives something physically impossible it's fine because it's a man. If a woman does it it's not acceptable.
First you have no idea how much it weighs. Second you also lied about it never striking her. It clearly threw and cut her on the film.
Men also can not survive the things tons of action heroes do in movies. A guy no matter how good he is can take on 20 people at once. Do I hear you complain about that? No. It's simple realism doesn't apply to men only to women. You are an idiot.
That woman was also 65 moron. So are we going off of realism or not? You can't have it both ways. If realism applies to women it needs to apply to men as well. In which case lots of the action heroes you hold dear won't hold up to scrutiny. So which is it?
It clearly threw and cut her on the film.
A guy no matter how good he is can take on 20 people at once. Do I hear you complain about that? No.
If realism applies to women it needs to apply to men as well. In which case lots of the action heroes you hold dear won't hold up to scrutiny.
Which is why I also said he cut her dumbass. A cut is a strike.
That wasn't 30 fyi. Also I didn't say a man can't take multiple opponents I said not all 30 at one time. Also how often does a guy take on 30? Is that the norm? You can also survive jumping off the Golden gate bridge. Are your chances high of surviving though? By this logic there has been women that have killed a man in one on one combat. Is it rare yep but it's happened. On average if 30 people face anyone at once you aren't going to win. Remember according to you we go off of odds and averages. Since you said things that aren't average should t be presented as the norm. Action heroes constantly take on many people when in reality that is rare. Your own logic is killing you here.
Nope don't have to. Tons of your action heroes wouldn't survive the things they do in movies. Either we go by realism or we won't. You don't get to have it both ways.
By your logic no hero should ever be able to do physically impossible feats. By this logic no fantasy films or any kind of fiction should exist. How many gunshots did Selina Kyle survive on Batman returns? Have any issues with that?
Which is why I also said he cut her dumbass. A cut is a strike.
Also how often does a guy take on 30? Is that the norm?
By this logic there has been women that have killed a man in one on one combat.
A cut is a strike. Wrong.
I said 30 I never said a guy couldn't take on multiple. You twisted my words.
Plenty of woman have done physically amazing feats. Nope you didn't prove guys canas do the same stuff they they do in the movies. Newsflash movies aren't based on reality. Action heroes accomplish physically impossible feats. If it's ok for guys it's ok for women.
As soon as you show me a woman that survived as many gunshots as Selina Kyle in batman returns. Once you do that I will provide evidence.
A cut is a strike. Wrong.
Plenty of woman have done physically amazing feats.
As soon as you show me a woman that survived as many gunshots as Selina Kyle in batman returns. Once you do that I will provide evidence.
Being cut is not hit forcibly? Yeah when he has a sharp object and is swinging it at you that is him hitting you forcibly with a sharp object. You literally proved my point thanks. The dictionary agrees with me.
I never stated men couldn't beat up multiple opponents at once. I said a man can't take on 30 people at once. Your link was not 30 opponents. So I have no burden of proof. Action heroes do things which are not physically possible. You think men are allowed to not be held to realistic standards where as women have to be. It doesn't get to go both ways.
What did I say they couldn't do? I never once stated a man couldn't take on multiple opponents. I said he couldn't take on 30 opponents at a time. Your link didn't show him taking out 30 people. So once you prove a woman can take as many gunshots as Selina Kyle in Batman returns I will provide the evidence. Actually come to think of it Zoe Kravitz Catwoman is more realistic. She doesn't take gunshots like that and shrug it off. She's more realistic therefore by default a better Catwoman. Thanks for confirming that for me.
Being cut is not hit forcibly? Yeah when he has a sharp object and is swinging it at you that is him hitting you forcibly with a sharp object.
You think men are allowed to not be held to realistic standards where as women have to be.
So once you prove a woman can take as many gunshots as Selina Kyle in Batman returns I will provide the evidence.
There is thrusting a knife into someone and there is also swinging at someone. Which is a strike.
Doesn't matter. If we give action heroes who are men a pass for surviving something not realistic then you can do the same for women. You don't get to have it both ways.
Nope it applies. You say nothing about that character surviving the impossible. So by your logic Kravitz is a better Catwoman. Your concession is noted. I win. We were talking about action heroes and realism. Show me a woman that survived as many gunshots as Selina Kyle in Batman Returns. Once you do that I will provide the evidence you asked for.
Which is a strike.
If we give action heroes who are men a pass for surviving something not realistic then you can do the same for women.
Nope it applies.
Swinging a sharp object at someone is hitting forcibly which can qualify as a strike. Learn definitions idiot.
Nope either realism applies or it doesn't. Pick one. And plenty of male action heroes are a wish fulfillment fantasy.
Nope it still applies. We are talking action heroes. Use the same logic you used for Catwoman surviving multiple gunshot wounds in Batman Returns to excuse Naru and you should be perfectly fine.
Swinging a sharp object at someone is hitting forcibly which can qualify as a strike.
Nope it still applies. We are talking action heroes. Use the same logic you used for Catwoman surviving multiple gunshot wounds in Batman Returns to excuse Naru and you should be perfectly fine.
Being hit with a sharp object is being forcibly hit wrong.
Nope completely relevant. I accept your concession. Catwoman in Batman Returns is a trash character. She is unrealistic by being able to survive multiple gunshots. Kravitz character is better. Like I said use the excuse you use for her with Naru and you should be fine. Since Natu sucks according to your logic so does Pfeiffer's Catwoman. Your concession is honestly great thanks for it. It tastes great.
Being hit with a sharp object is being forcibly hit wrong.
Catwoman in Batman Returns is a trash character.
"Somehow Naru never got punched once, even though the Predator had previously beat the snot out of the 30 other Frenchmen. Explain that?"
The explanation - They were French.
Like in Home Alone?
shareNope plenty of women have survived being hit by a blade. It is more likely for a woman to survive that than 4 gunshots at one time. So like I said use the logic and mental gymnastics you used to excuse Selina Kyle surviving those gunshots in Batman Returns for Naru and you should be fine. If Naru is a bad character by defying reality that makes Selina Kyle in Batman Returns even worse. So then I ponder and say why does he like that character in returns? She just so happens to be white. Where as Naru isn't white. Hmmm? I think I have your logic pegged you scumbag. So I'm going to ask again does realism apply or not? If it applies that means Selina Kyle in returns is a garbage character. So which is it?
shareNope plenty of women have survived being hit by a blade. It is more likely for a woman to survive that than 4 gunshots at one time
Selina Kyle surviving those gunshots in Batman Returns for Naru and you should be fine.
She got struck by the blade. You originally told me she didn't get struck. That was a lie from you. Doesn't matter if it isn't likely women have survived that. It's more likely to survive that then 4 gunshots.
Nobody else in Burtons Batman has any supernatural powers. All of them die by falling off a building or being tased to death. Why can Catwoman survive something Joker, Max Shrek and Penguin could not? That means she's stronger than all those Burton characters and she's a woman. She's a trash woke character by your logic. Naru is more realistic than Selina Kyle from Batman Returns. So is Kra it's Catwoman. So are we going off of realism or not? Answer the question. Remember you judge even a character like Furiosa or any other fictional woman hero by realism. So are we going by that or not?
You originally told me she didn't get struck. That was a lie from you.
Nobody else in Burtons Batman has any supernatural powers. All of them die by falling off a building or being tased to death.
A strike isn't just a punch. Being struck with a sharp object is also considered being struck.
Nah I'd rather take it up with you. So are we judging characters that are action female characters by realism or not? You don't get to have it both ways. If we go by realism Catwoman in Batman Returns is a woke trash character. She's even worse than Naru if we judge based off your logic.
A strike isn't just a punch. Being struck with a sharp object is also considered being struck.
So are we judging characters that are action female characters by realism or not? You don't get to have it both ways
Nope not true. You need to learn how the definition works. Anyways regardless it doesn't matter. Catwoman in Batman Returns survived falling off a tall building. Joker died in the first Batman from falling to his death from a tall building. She also survived 4 gunshots at one time. Use whatever mental gymnastics you used to excuse that here and you will be perfectly fine.
Lol nope. It is totally relevant and you want to dismiss it because it destroys your point. So let me ask again. Are we judging female action heroes off of realism or not? Don't dodge the question. If you dodge the question that's a concession and I win. I see through you and it upsets you.
Are we judging female action heroes off of realism or not? Don't dodge the question.
He didn't even attempt to land one punch on her because he didn't try and felt she posed no threat.. Why is this movie being debated as hard as it is?? She relied more on brains than brawn to kill this thing by setting a trap for him with that mask he wore
shareBecause folks like him are so up their own ass in politics the sight of a female hero makes them scream woke.
shareBecause he fought her one-on-one, in hand-to-hand combat, and somehow couldn't hit her once. He lost an arm, and she somehow had the superhuman strength to rip out his mandible with her bare hands, not even something Arnold could pull off and he's three times her size.
I'm not sure why people have turned their brains off to logic so badly to defend this film.
He was stuck in fucking quicksand when she did this.. He couldn't fucking move you moron.. Perhaps you need to pay more attention next time and less looking for a feminism argument out of it.. The whole point of this movie was the gun the Elder PREDATOR gave Danny Glover at the end of PREDATOR 2 that had a date on it of 1773 and this was THAT storyline..
shareHe wasn't stuck in quicksand when he chokeslammed her, which had zero effect on her, nor was he stuck in quick sand when she somehow pulled out his mandible.
The fact you became emotional over defending feminist propaganda (while being wrong about everything you wrote) says more about you than me.
Wow, I really had no idea this was going to be such a big deal, but Ok.. I enjoyed the movie for basically being a PREDATOR Period Piece, a one of a kind setting you don't often see
shareYet not one word about how Catwoman in Batman Returns surviving 4 gunshots at once. I guarantee you had this been flipped and Kravitz Catwoman survived that you wouldn't shut up about it.
shareThen that also means Batman Returns is inconsistent with it's logic. Why did Max Shrek die from being tased and Catwoman can survive 4 gunshots at once? There is an inconsistency in that film. It's also a woman character bring stronger than a male character. So by your definition that ha roke and she is a trash character.
shareBatman: Returns had a lot of supernatural elements, so I have no idea why you're even comparing it to Prey.
shareLol and so does Prey. Prey has a creature that does not exist in real life. That doesn't stop you from saying we should go off of realism. So I am going to ask for the 100th time. Are we going off of realism or not? Since you want to judge female action heroes off of realism that means Catwoman from Batman Returns is a garbage woke character.
shareWow, there really is alot of back & forth bickering over this movie which was a hell of alot better than The PREDATOR (2018) The PREDATOR in PREY killing that Grizzly bear with 1 punch was pretty impressive strength wise to do that when you consider the mountain of muscle in a Grizzly bear and around his neck and shoulders??
shareWell some folks don't like a female action hero achieving physically impossible feats. However they don't hold male action heroes to the same realistic standard. Prey was actually a good movie. In my book the best since the first one. It was inspired to see it in its setting it took place in. Has cool action set pieces and the predator design was cool also. The predator 2018 was a dumpster fire of a film. I can't fathom some would claim that to be better than Prey.
share'uncertainty about which species he should be hunting (bear, dog, snake or human?)'
I just took it he was gradually making his way up the food chain to identify the apex predators - us.
Perhaps this Predator was an unskilled tourist from his home planet who was on a packaged vacation tour to kill some game animals on an alien planet? That would be a good twist.
Have the motivations of the Predators coming to Earth ever been revealed?
And this unskilled tourist overpowers a bear in hand to hand combat?
Maybe they should make a sequel where the predator's wife sues the tourism agency.
Anyway, the motivations have been revealed in every single movie: they come to hunt for sport.
Okay, simple as hunting for sport. That works. So why aren't any of these predators stupid tourists who are out of their depth while hunting?
shareYes, story would make more sense with a 'touristy" predator.
It's not the viewer's job to justify things that should been made obvious by a movie. If the viewer does this, then the director failed. In this case, this is true.
The Predator killing that Bear with one punch was quite impressive and powerful as hell to do something like that when you consider the huge muscle makeup in the Grizzly Bears shoulders and head attached with no neck
shareRefresh my memory... but I believe by that point the Predator had already suffered some major damage including being maimed. Wasn't its forearm sliced off? Probably some major blood loss and was barely conscious.
It was also less experienced, smaller and had inferior tech compared to Arnold's predator which was in pretty much pristine shape before the final fight. According to the lore the Predators evolve and become better hunters every season, so this is a few hundred years of a difference.
Just offering an explanation... but I agree that trained soldiers at the end of the 20th century cannot be compared to an Indian tribe in terms of weapons and tactics.
The PREDATOR in PREDATOR 2 had his arm cutoff and he had the PREDATOR First-Aid kit he used in that bathroom to stitch himself up and he still fought with 1 arm.. PREDATOR 2 would have to go down as the most violent PREDATOR movie made with 1 very ruthless PREDATOR in that movie
shareWhich further proves OP's point in that the Predator in this film was far inferior to those of later films.
shareYeah but this movie takes place BEFORE all the others... So even if time travel wasn't involved (which the series never explicitly stated; as far as we know, they were just some species from a faraway world), they were still, in terms of technological, cultural, and even biological evolution, less advanced than they would have been in Predator 1, 2, etc.
So it makes sense that the predator in this movie wasn't as advanced as the others. It was at least 100+ years earlier than previous movies.