Welcome to the Deep Dive. We have got a really
fantastic mission for you today. Yeah, we really
do. Because if you're joining us to get like
a quick summary of a sci -fi movie, you are in
for a massive surprise. A very big surprise,
yeah. We are using the Wikipedia page for the
2018 film The Predator as a basically... a completely
fascinating case study in Hollywood blockbuster
filmmaking. Right. It's the perfect anatomy of
a franchise movie. Exactly. Our goal is to give
you a shortcut to understanding the incredibly
chaotic ecosystem of the entertainment industry.
Looking at a film's messy production, the behind
-the -scenes struggles, and the intense studio
pressure, it often teaches us so much more about
how movies are actually made than a flawless
masterpiece ever could. It really lifts the curtain
on the business of art. And this specific production,
I mean, it literally has it all. We're talking
about an $88 million budget. Which is huge. A
legacy franchise with a massive, very vocal fan
base and a wildly ambitious attempt to blend
high -octane action, gory horror, and family
melodrama all into one package. Yeah, that is
a lot to juggle. It is. But what actually resulted
was a roller coaster of drastic reshoots, totally
unhinged alternate endings featuring some extremely
famous characters and serious real world controversies.
OK, let's unpack this, starting with the original
creative vision for the 2018 film, who was actually
steering the ship here. So to understand the
initial vision, you really have to look at the
director, Shane Black. He returned to co -write
the script with Fred Decker, and he also directed
the feature. Okay. But what makes this so poetic
for franchise fans is that Shane Black actually
starred in the original 1987 Predator film. Wait,
he was in it? Yeah, he played the character Rick
Hawkins. The commando reading the comic books
with the massive glasses. That is him. So he
has this very deep foundational connection to
the lore from the very beginning. Oh, wow. I
didn't realize that. Yeah. And his goal for the
2018 installment was to make it an event film
again. But surprisingly, he wanted to do that
by returning to a more intimate scale. Intimate
for a Predator movie. Exactly. He explicitly
stated he was aiming for a close encounters of
the third kind sense of wonder and mystery. He
didn't just want to deliver nonstop mindless
explosions. Which is, I mean, a huge swing for
a franchise that's literally known for alien
hunters ripping people's spines out. Right. It's
quite the pivot. Let's talk about the plot mechanics
they built to achieve that intimate scale. It
starts with Army Ranger Sniper, Quinn McKenna,
played by Boyd Holbrook. During a hostage retrieval
mission, he encounters a predator, manages to
incapacitate it, and steals its advanced technology.
And then makes a very interesting choice. Yeah.
In a very bizarre move, he literally mails the
alien armor to his own house to prove extraterrestrial
life exists. It is an intentionally grounded,
almost mundane, suburban inciting incident. You
take an intergalactic threat and just drop it
on a front porch. Exactly the kind of contrast
they were going for. So the package arrives at
his home and son, Rory, played by Jacob Tremblay,
finds it. Rory has a form of autism and deals
with heavy bullying at school. To hide from the
bullies, he actually wears the alien predator
armor while out trick -or -treating. Which is
a great visual! It really is. Meanwhile, Quinn
gets captured by a government agent named Will
Traeger, played by Sterling K. Brown. who runs
a secret operation called the Stargazer Project.
And Traeger is essentially the human antagonist
of the story here. He represents the military
-industrial complex and the government's intense
desire to weaponize this alien technology for
our own use. Right, so Traeger throws Quinn onto
a prison bus with a group of PTSD -afflicted
military veterans. In the film... They refer
to themselves as the Loonies. And this is an
incredible ensemble cast they put together. Totally.
You have Trevante Rhodes playing Nebraska Williams,
Keegan -Michael Key as Coyle, Alfie Allen as
Lynch, and Thomas Jane as Baxley. And there's
a fun bit of trivia there, too. Oh, yeah. Baxley's
Tourette syndrome in the film was actually named
after the stunt coordinator of the original 1987
movie. That's a great little nod. They end up
hijacking this prison bus, teaming up with an
evolutionary biologist named Casey Brackett.
played by olivia munn and rushing to suburbia
to save quinn's son from the aliens what's fascinating
here is how the film uses this sprawling suburban
setup to fundamentally alter the franchise's
mythology how so well for decades the lore was
simple Predators are intergalactic big game hunters.
They travel from planet to planet hunting dangerous
prey for sport and honor. Just for the thrill
of the hunt. Exactly. But this 2018 film introduces
a massive lore extension. The predators are no
longer just hunting for trophies. They are actively
using human DNA to upgrade themselves. But they
are doing full blown gene splicing. Precisely.
For anyone unfamiliar with the concept, gene
splicing in science fiction is the idea of taking
the genetic code from one species and literally
weaving it into the DNA of another to adopt their
best traits. Wow. And the urgency behind this,
according to the government agent Traeger's theory
in the film, is actually climate change. Climate
change. Yeah. Traeger hypothesizes that the aliens
anticipate global warming will soon end humanity's
viability. So the predators are scrambling to
harvest our DNA before we go extinct and the
resources lost. That is incredibly dark. And
that ties directly into the autism angle in the
plot, right? It does. Because Rory's autism is
framed as a preternatural ability to learn complex
patterns and languages. This allows him to instantly
translate and understand the alien technology.
Right. Because of this, the Predators view Rory
not as a target for a hunt, but as a prime subject
for this hybridization. They see his neurodiversity
as an evolutionary leap forward for humanity.
So... What does this all mean? Well, they have
this massive ambitious suburban setup. Huge lore
drops about climate change and DNA. And a very
specific tone in mind. But I know the production
was notoriously difficult. How did that vision
actually fare when it hit the editing room? It
was completely dismantled. Dismantled? Yes. The
movie audiences actually saw in theaters was
drastically different from what Shane Black originally
shot. It is a textbook example of studio panic.
Oh no. What happened? 20th Century Fox screened
an early cut of the film for test audiences.
These are everyday people brought in to watch
an unfinished movie and fill out reaction cards.
And I'm guessing it didn't go well. The reaction
was remarkably poor. In response, the studio
mandated that the entire third act of the film
be completely reshot. The entire third act. You're
telling me they basically threw out the climax
of the movie. Pretty much. Just to give you a
sense of the scale of this pivot. Actor Keegan
-Michael Key stated that roughly three quarters
of the finale script was entirely rewritten.
That is practically a brand new movie grafted
onto the end. It really is. What actually got
left on the cutting room floor during this massive
overhaul? So much was abandoned. First, the original
finale was shot during the daytime. Okay. But
the studio executives felt the upgrade predator,
the massive new genetically enhanced alien, just
didn't look scary enough in the sunlight. So
they changed the time of day. Yeah, they moved
the entire final battle into the woods at night
to hide the seams. Shane Black actually wanted
the home video release to include both versions,
an AM cut and a PM cut, but the studio flat out
refused to pay the money required to finish the
digital effects for the daytime scenes. I cannot
imagine the frustration of shooting a massive
action sequence and being told it has to be completely
redone in the dark. It had to be agonizing for
the crew. But it wasn't just the lighting that
changed, was it? The actual story of the finale
shifted entirely. Radically. In the original
version, there were emissary predators. Emissary
predators? Yes. These were actually human allied
predators who had come to Earth to help humanity
prepare for an impending larger alien invasion.
No way. They were military fatigues and were
literally riding on top of an armored personnel
carrier, fighting alongside the human heroes
in a massive chase scene. Teaming up with the
humans. That completely changes the dynamic of
the franchise. What were they fighting if they
were teamed up with the humans? They were fighting
a menagerie of mutant hybrid creatures. Remember
the DNA splicing we talked about? Right, the
upgrades. The original cut featured all these
failed genetic experiments breaking loose from
a pod. This included multi -limbed, tentacled
hybrids, and even spider predators attacking
a military convoy. Wait, spider predators? Yes,
spider predators. It completely abandons the
stealth and hunt genre at that point. It goes
from a tense thriller to a full -blown creature
-feature monster mech. That is wild. And because
they cut all of that out to streamline the ending,
they also had to completely delete acclaimed
actor Edward James Olmos from the movie. Wait,
he was in this? He played a military general
named Woodhurst, but his scenes were axed entirely
just to reduce the runtime of this newly stitched
together ending. Deleting Edward James Olmos
just to save time is wild, but I have to bring
up the craziest piece of trivia from these reshoots.
Oh, the alternate endings. Because they didn't
just... Ah, the ultimate cinematic universe attempt.
Yes, but on a level that sounds like fan fiction.
They brought in a stuntwoman, Brianna Watkins,
and they filmed her wearing this high -tech mask
that looked exactly like a facehugger from the
Alien movie. Okay. In the first alternate ending,
she takes the mask off and is revealed to be...
Ellen Ripley Sigourney Weaver's iconic character.
Wow. In the second alternate ending, she is revealed
to be a grown -up Rebecca Jordan Newt from the
movie Aliens. That is just bizarre. The implication
was that they had traveled back in time to act
as predator killers to help humanity fight the
invasion. If we connect this to the bigger picture,
it perfectly illustrates the immense struggle
of balancing a director's creative vision with
a studio's thirst for franchise expansion. Because
they're just pulling in completely different
directions. Exactly. You have Shane Black trying
to make a quirky, intimate, character -driven
story about PTSD veterans in suburbia. And then
you have the studio trying to force in time -traveling
franchise crossovers and massive CGI monster
battles to set up sequels. It's oil and water.
And the ending they ultimately went with in theaters
was still pretty bizarre. Instead of Ripley or
Newt, a piece of alien tech attaches to a random
lab worker and transforms into an Iron Man -style
exosuit. a wearable robotic armor literally called
the predator killer suit setting up humanity
to fight back So with all these moving parts,
the chopped up finale and these massive tonal
shifts, how did critics react when they finally
saw those scenes? The critical reception reflected
that exact behind the scenes chaos. It currently
sits at a 34 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. Ouch.
Critics really honed in on that tonal war. Outlets
like Nerdist and Variety called it an exhaustingly
energetic mess. That is quite the phrase. They
pointed out that the movie felt like three different
films fighting for screen time. It was trying
to be a. gory horror film, a fast -paced action
movie, a rapid -fire comedy with constant quips,
and a sentimental family melodrama all at the
exact same time. I mean, the characters are literally
running for their lives from an apex alien predator,
but they're constantly pausing to deliver these
rat -a -tat comedy punchlines. It completely
neutralizes the tension. It really does. But
the criticism wasn't just about the genre mashing,
was it? There was a significant real -world backlash
to the science and the lore expansions, specifically
that autism angle. Yes, that is a very important
piece of the film's legacy. Publications like
Sypha Wire, The New York Post, and Uproxx heavily
criticized the film's depiction of autism. What
were their main concerns? They took issue with
the movie's thesis that neurodiversity represents
a forward step on the human evolutionary path,
with reviewers calling the scientific basis for
that theory, I read that there was a lot of scolding
for the movie, falling back on the autism equals
really smart trope. Yes, that was a major point
of contention. Critics felt it was a deeply flawed
way to represent the autistic community, reducing
a complex real -world spectrum to a convenient
plot device just to explain why a child could
read an alien computer terminal. It highlights
a common trap in screenwriting. A sci -fi concept
might sound fascinating in a writer's room, using
neurodiversity as an evolutionary advantage,
but it fails to consider the lived experiences
of the audience and the nuances of the condition
when it actually hits the screen. As heavy as
that critical pushback was, there was an even
larger, much more serious real -world controversy
that broke just days before the film was totally
finished. Yes, and this had to do with a casting
decision. Right. This was a highly publicized
scandal at the time. Director Shane Black had
cast his longtime friend Stephen Wilder Striegel
in a minor, unauditioned role. Just giving a
friend a part. Right. He shared a brief scene
with Olivia Munn's character where he repeatedly
tries to flirt with her while she's jogging,
and she rebuffs him. But just days before PictureLog,
things exploded. For anyone who doesn't know
the industry term, PictureLog is the absolute
final stage of editing, where no more changes
are supposed to be made to the visual cut of
the film. It means changing anything at this
point is incredibly difficult and expensive.
Exactly. Right before this deadline, Olivia Munn
discovered that Wilder Striegel was actually
a registered felony sex offender. He'd been convicted
back in 2010 of enticing a minor via computer
after attempting to lure a 14 -year -old girl
into a sexual relationship. When Munn found this
out, she immediately took the information directly
to Fox executives and insisted that the scene
be completely removed from the film, regardless
of how close they were to finishing the movie.
And Fox did cut the scene. They released a statement
saying they were completely unaware of his legal
status when he was hired. But the public fallout
was incredibly messy. Very messy. Initially,
Shane Black actually defended his casting decision
and defended his friend, which caused a massive
public outcry. Black did eventually issue a public
apology and rescinded those earlier defensive
comments amidst the intense backlash. But the
situation really fractured the cast's promotional
tour right as the movie was supposed to be hitting
theaters. It put the cast in a terrible position.
Co -star Sterling K. Brown tweeted out in support
of Olivia Munn. But initially, a lot of the other
cast members remained silent. Which didn't go
unnoticed by the public. Right. It wasn't until
there was mounting public pressure that others
started releasing statements regarding the situation.
It cast a very tense, dark cloud over a movie
that was supposed to be a fun popcorn blockbuster.
It completely overshadowed the release. When
you have a production that is already struggling
with tonal issues, a chopped up third act, and
dubious scientific lore, a real world scandal
of that magnitude makes it nearly impossible
for the film to succeed purely on its own merits.
Which brings us to the box office reality. After
all that chaos, how did the financial math work
out when the movie finally premiered in September
of 2018? The film grossed $160 .5 million worldwide.
Which sounds like a lot of money, but you have
to put it against that $88 million production
budget. Ah, right. Once you factor in the massive
marketing costs and the fact that movie theaters
take a significant percentage of ticket sales,
a movie usually has to make twice its budget
just to break even. So it was certainly not the
massive franchise restarter the studio was banking
on. It actually finished first at the box office
in its opening weekend. but then suffered incredibly
steep drop -offs in the following weeks, audiences
just didn't stick around. The cast and crew have
been quite reflective about why it failed to
connect. In 2022, Shane Black took the blame
for the film's failure. What did he say? He said,
and I quote, we tried something different. In
retrospect, talking a finger on the pulse. I
guess we just didn't have that finger. That's
a very honest assessment. He openly acknowledged
that their attempt to reinvent the franchise
with all these new elements just didn't match
what audiences actually wanted from a Predator
movie. Boyd Holbrook, the lead actor, also had
a great perspective looking back at it. He said
that the original 1987 film caught lightning
in a bottle and that sometimes. No matter how
much people want more, you should just let a
sleeping dog lie. Which is often the hardest
lesson for the Hollywood machine to learn. They
rarely let a valuable intellectual property sleep
for long. No, they do not. Yeah. Here's where
it gets really interesting. Because despite this
massive stumble in 2018, the franchise absolutely
survived. It did. But it only survived because
it completely abandoned the path it was on. After
the sale of 21st Century Fox, the franchise fell
under Disney's new ownership of 20th Century
Studios. And instead of moving forward with that
Iron Man exosuit ending and the DNA splicing,
they went completely backwards. They greenlit
a prequel. And what is brilliant about this pivot
is that director Dan Trachtenberg actually developed
the project in secret under the working title
Skulls. Oh, to hide what it was. He specifically
did this to avoid the heavy baggage and audience
expectations associated with the pre - franchise
name during production. That secret movie, of
course, became the 2022 film Prey, starring Amber
Midthunder as a Comanche warrior taking on a
predator in the 1700s. And it was a massive critical
and commercial success. Because it learned the
exact right lessons from the 2018 failure. By
stripping it all back. Exactly. By stripping
away the bloated lore, the gene splicing, the
climate change ticking clocks, and the futuristic
exosuits, Prey returned to the primal essence
of the series. Survival. Right. By giving the
human characters bows and arrows instead of assault
rifles, it restored the terrifying power imbalance.
It proved that the core concept still had incredible
value, provided the execution matched the simplicity
of the premise. It is such a stark contrast.
And that successful back -to -basics pivot with
Prey... is what paved the way for the most recent
entry in the universe, Predator, Badlands, which
hit theaters in November 2025. They really figured
out the formula. They course corrected by looking
at exactly what went wrong when they tried to
do too much. It's the ultimate Hollywood ecosystem
at work. The overwhelming failure of the Predator
was practically necessary to create the creative
space for the stripped down success of Prey.
Which brings us to the ultimate takeaway for
you listening right now. The Story of the Predator
from 2018 is a masterclass in blockbuster overreach.
It really is. It proves that just throwing everything
at the wall, bigger CGI monsters, incredibly
deep scientific lore, complex evolutionary theories,
and wild franchise crossovers like Ripley and
Newt, none of it matters if the core tone of
the story is lost. You can't just patch a movie
together with tape. You cannot just mash up a
rapid -fire comedy, a gory horror film, and an
intimate family drama in the editing room and
expect audiences not to notice the structural
damage. This raises an important question and
it is something I want to leave you to mull over
today. I'd love to hear it. We see this trend
constantly where Hollywood franchises try to
modernize classic movie monsters by meticulously
explaining their biology. Like the gene splicing.
Exactly. They add complex scientific lore like
DNA splicing or they tie the monster's motivations
to massive real world issues like climate change
to make them feel relevant. Right. But at what
point does over explaining the monster destroy
the primal fear and the mystery that made it
so terrifying? in the first place. If you know
exactly how the nightmare's genetics work, is
it still a nightmare? Oh, that is an incredibly
fascinating question to leave on. Sometimes the
scariest thing in the jungle is the thing you
absolutely do not understand. Well said. Thank
you so much for joining us on this deep dive
into the chaotic, fascinating world of blockbuster
filmmaking and The Predator. We love unpacking
these wild behind -the -scenes stories with you
to give you those crucial insights into the media
we all consume, and we cannot wait to dive into
the next one. Catch you next time.