From the lore of the Predator species, a Predator who goes for a hunt is trying to prove they are worthy of adult status in their society. As each Predator dies in the film they fail to attain adult status in their society.
You must log in or register to comment.
According to material online to become blooded they need to hunt and kill a xenomorph to mark themselves with the acidic blood. This allows them privilege to hunt solo.
So the Predator film (1&2) Yautja wouldn’t have been un blooded predators.
The AVP films though.
That’s an intriguing thought. So AVP1 is a sucessful coming of age story, but only for the main predator and the final girl.
Well that explains why I’ve always found it strangely heartwarming.
That’s non-sequitur. Predators go on more than one hunt in their lives. Your statement would only be valid if their 1st hunt was their only one.
That’s not what non-sequitur means.
Do you know those moving strips in the airport that are like horizontal escalators? In my mind that’s a sequitur, so a non sequitur would be just a piece of floor
…Anyway thank you for reading
A non-sequitur would be walking 5 feet across the floor and finding yourself in a jungle somewhere. In a place not connected to the place you just came from.
How do you define it, then? The definition I’m aware of is for an inference that doesn’t follow from the premise.
Literally, you’re right - in Latin it means “not following”. But in conventional usage, non-sequitur is more for things that are so completely out of place for the conversation.
Not a non-sequitur: “Okay, so based on this finding, [insert something topical but wrong]”.
Non-sequitur: “Okay, so that’s great, but Michigan beating Ohio State means this is irrelevant”.
(edit because I did not realize the formatting I used for my non-sequitur example caused it not to render)
Your definition for non-sequitur is correct, however the conclusion that Predators are failing to come of age is a logical conclusion of the stated premise. The actual issue, which you pointed out, is that of using a false or faulty premise (that all Predators in the movies are on their first hunts). The validity of an argument isn’t a function of how true a premise is. So you were right that op was wrong in their conclusions, you just mislabeled the issue
It’s all about the same movie series canon, none of this is non-sequitur. They would have to be talking about Predator canon and then just start talking about Terminator or something. And even that’s not a great example, because Arnold is in both of them.
One really shouldn’t pay more than $15 for a big mac. It’s just not that high in price yet even with inflation.
☝️That is a non-sequitur
The predator in the movie has several trophy skulls from other species on his spacecraft. He’s just a trophy hunter.
He probably died because he had too many skulls on
So they’re killing child predators and you’re complaining?
Defending themselves from adolescents.
Do the xenomorphs also have rituals about killing predators, or is this more of a one-way knockout game situation?
One way I would guess.
So it’s their My Girl?
I’m lost
Predator films where the
aPredator dies
Do you mean like Predator films? Because I don’t think tigers and velociraptors have coming of age rituals.
Sort of like when a kid’s drafted at the age of 18, and dies in a jungle on the far side of the planet, without ever once having lived as an adult in his home world.
Unless the kid went through many years of training then volunteers to go the jungle explicitly to hunt.
If he dies in that jungle it’s all the same
