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.

  • AustralianSimon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • livus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

  • Decoy321@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

      • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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

      • Decoy321@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        How do you define it, then? The definition I’m aware of is for an inference that doesn’t follow from the premise.

        • Swagicus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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)

        • techwooded@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

        • PapaStevesy@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

  • Anticorp
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    The predator in the movie has several trophy skulls from other species on his spacecraft. He’s just a trophy hunter.