Untitled Predator Fan Film

[areaseven]

Why can't Hollywood make a Predator movie like this? Is it too much to ask?

And to believe this was done on a $500 budget...

[renegadeleader1]

Just some honest critiquing here.

The US Military didn't allow racially integrated units in WWII so the black guy is out of place.

Predators hunt for sport and for trophies so the vaporizing grenade really isn't a weapon they would use.

While its damn good for $500 its kinda disapointing the mandibles didn't move when the predator roared. That's pretty much the money shot for predator films.

[Scyla]

I thought the grenade ported him into the Predators movie.

[GU-11]

Given the fact that it's a fan movie with a mere 500 dollar budget, it's exceedingly good.

[Dobber]

Overall I liked it, but like Renegadeleader I noticed those things as well. Also, could have used less direct quotes from the first movie, IMO. That being said, I did like it.

Chris

[skullmilitia]

Not bad, but some more originality would help. Copying some shot for shots, it's nearly plagiarizing the first film.

[Mommar]

Just some honest critiquing here.

The US Military didn't allow racially integrated units in WWII so the black guy is out of place.

Predators hunt for sport and for trophies so the vaporizing grenade really isn't a weapon they would use.

While its damn good for $500 its kinda disapointing the mandibles didn't move when the predator roared. That's pretty much the money shot for predator films.

Slight historical correction, the President of the US didn't allow racially integrated units, much to the chagrin of many US Generals who up until that time did command racially integrated units and who argued dividing them back up would be no benefit and would be demoralizing.

[renegadeleader1]

Slight historical correction, the President of the US didn't allow racially integrated units, much to the chagrin of many US Generals who up until that time did command racially integrated units and who argued dividing them back up would be no benefit and would be demoralizing.

No. The US military remained segregated since before the civil war by either forming soldiers into colored regiments with white officers or force them into non combatant roles. The first break in this was Eisenhower for lack of reinforcements at the battle of the buldge ordered the colored supply units to be armed and take up positions on the line. Truman officially desegregated the military in 1948 with an executive order and for the first time since the the revolution the Military had integrated units in Korea.

[Mommar]

No. The US military remained segregated since before the civil war by either forming soldiers into colored regiments with white officers or force them into non combatant roles. The first break in this was Eisenhower for lack of reinforcements at the battle of the buldge ordered the colored supply units to be armed and take up positions on the line. Truman officially desegregated the military in 1948 with an executive order and for the first time since the the revolution the Military had integrated units in Korea.

Nope, Woodrow Wilson re-segregated both the military and all federal offices.

[renegadeleader1]

Nope, Woodrow Wilson re-segregated both the military and all federal offices.

It seems your right about this, but you have me curious when did the military first integrate and when did Wilson instate his policy? I'm not saying you're lying, its more for my personal betterment. I'm a little pissed at myself for not knowing something like this and I'm having trouble digging up any details.

[renegadeleader1]

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I've been doing some research into this and I think I have figured things out.

The US Army never had integrated units prior to Truman's order with the only colored units allowed to serve pre WWI were the 9th and 10th Cavalry and the 24th and 25th infantry. When the US entered WWI none of those units were allowed to server in europe, but two new colored units were raised; the 92nd and 93rd infantry divisions. General Pershing commander of the American Expeditionary Force initially had control of the 92nd and 93rd. Woodrow Wilson refused to allow those two divisions to serve in the AEF and forced Pershing to place them under French and English command. When WWI ended the units were folded back into US command and stayed there through WWII untill the units became integrated post Truman executive order.

Woodrow Wilson's segregation policies focused mostly on the Navy. At any given point prior to the turn of the century the Navy had as much 30% of its manpower as colored. By 1902 the Navy started restricting recruitment of colored sailors and the percentage dropped. When Truman took office he severly cut recruitment even more, and restricted the jobs a colored sailor would be allowed to take, essentially preventing them from taking combat roles or becoming officers. the odd thing about the policies is it didn't prevent colored sailors who were already in combat roles from re-enlisting and keeping their jobs.

Mommar it seems we both had a little bit of the truth. Oddly enough in doing all this research I actually came upon a plausible reason for the black guy to be in this film. Come to find out the aformentioned 93rd infantry division was stationed in the Solomon Islands during the war in the pacific. If that Predator film ever gets expanded on it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to cast him as a soldier that got cut off from his own unit.

Edited February 5, 2014 by renegadeleader1

[areaseven]

Can we all forget about the political talk and just accept the fan film for what it is?

[renegadeleader1]

Can we all forget about the political talk and just accept the fan film for what it is?

You see political talk, I see a facinating subject of military history. Its no different than pointing out the inaccuracies in the hundreds of other movie threads we've had in this forum.

[reddsun1]

Historical accuracy? Aw, guffaw! Who needs that? After all--Abraham Lincoln hunted vampires! A crack unit of jewish commandos blew up Hitler and Goebbels in a Paris movie theater! etc, etc...

I always thought it wasn't until 1955 that the military [Army] fully integrated its units; can't remember where I got that date from though.

[Guest davidwhangchoi]

that's a great fan film... really good stuff.

500 hundred budget... i call b.s. (500 budget is subjective) the predator costume alone is more than that. a predator hot toys in a 1/6 scale cost 200.

http://www.sideshowtoy.com/collectibles/predator-classic-predator-hot-toys-901397/

if the budget for film was claimed at 500 and everything else was donated for free. then you can argue the $500 was donated and was free as well. depending on if the 500 came from the same source as the costumes/uniforms

Edited February 5, 2014 by davidwhangchoi

[skullmilitia]

We need a new take on Predator, that's why I like Predators so much.

It was a new take on how they hunt.

[reddsun1]

True dat. It did feel a bit too "familiar" in places. But considering its microscopic [alleged] budget, it's still pretty dang good. Hell, I still liked it better than Predators. Or any of those damned AVP movies...

Is it just me, or was big-man holdin' that trench gun kinda funny at the beginning?

[CoreyD]

Another note: if I recall correctly the Army didn't use nametapes until the Cold War.

[Graham]

^{An extremely poorly equipped patrol, the soldiers have no web gear (apart from belts), no magazine pouches, no canteens, no packs, no spare ammo etc......Arghhhhhh!}

^{And anachronisms abound - was that a Picatinney rail I spotted on one of the Thomson SMGs......LOL!}

^{Also, one of the soldiers appears to be carrying an AK (without a magazine) or possibly an SKS Couldn't be bothered to look too closely.}

^{Gave up watching after I spotted those.}

^Graham