MovieChat Forums > Predator 2 (1990) Discussion > Why was this set in 1997?

Why was this set in 1997?


Wouldn't it have been simpler to do it as 1990?

reply

because they wanted to create a dystopian-future L.A. where crime, pollution, and heat are at an all-time high. This kind of environment makes a perfect hunting ground for the Predator.


http://www.manlymovie.net/

reply

I get that being their intention, but it was silly. I mean 1997 was not exactly all that far away, honestly, aside from some of the stuff being over the top it wasn't all that different than any violent city, you could have just set it in 1990 and people would have accepted it as a bit over the top.

reply

[deleted]

Setting it in a dystopian future made all the over-the-top crime and violence seem more plausible. They didn't want this to be an outright satire.


http://www.manlymovie.net/

reply

Not only that, but they originally wanted to set P2 in New York - a city which is much more synonymous with crime than LA. So I'm guessing setting it in the future was something of a justification to present LA as an over-the-top violent and near lawless place.


S.

reply

Jason vs Predator in New York.

reply

So in other words 1990 would have been fine, lol.

reply

Funny thing is that in reality, 1997 was a boring ass year
In hindsight, the anachronistic '1997' annoys me. Aside from the late 80s fashions, violent crime in LA had dropped dramatically, and the average summer temperature in `97 was only 1/10th of a degree warmer than in 1990. Granted, Hollywood depictions of the future are always off, but it seems unnecessary here because the plot would have worked just as well in 1990 with a fictitious gang war and heat wave (Though, it wasn't established until this movie they prefer heat, and wasn't relevant in the following movies).

reply

[deleted]

The futuristic/dystopian nature of the film made it a lot more interesting.


http://www.manlymovie.net/

reply

I see it another way. What was really great about the 1st (well, one of the many great things) was how it set everything up in a scenario that was grounded in the real world and the audience could relate to - then suddenly everything just got turned on it's head.

With this movie, by having it already start out in a pretend setting, you've already lost the "Holy Crap" moment when stuff just gets nuts. Plus, I just didn't see that they really did anything with the whole "future" aspect of it. Honestly, what would have been so different if they had just set it in 1990?

Maybe the gangs weren't thaaat bad, but you still could have set up drug turf battles and what not, those certainly weren't fictional. The Govt goons really didn't have anything that was futuristic, neither did the cops, I mean, all you could really say is that they exaggerated a few things about the real 1990.

reply

[deleted]

Well, again, like I say, I think the gang wars were exaggerated for sure, but not to any serious degree. I saw this movie when it came out, and I can honestly say it really did not make any impression on me that it was so far removed from things going on at the time.

Most movies exaggerate stuff. My whole vibe from it was just that it was a bit "goofy", but not really all that out there, I'm just saying I don't think it added anything to the film, they could have set it in the real 1990 LA which was hot, and had gang violence and lots of them were 3rd worlders.

reply

[deleted]

Honestly, if they would have just said it was 1990 I would have thought - meh, a little exaggerated, but OK. I mean, it's just kinda what movies do quite often, sure, the gang violence in LA wasn't THAT bad, but, movies take greater liberties than that all the time.

Honestly, if it was first pitched to me that they were going to film it in a major city rather than the jungle, I would be like "OK, that's a neat idea, the concrete jungle instead of an actual jungle" - I just didn't quite get the point of having to make it in the future, especially only 7yrs which really is kind of pointless.

As I said in a previous post, I think one of the cool aspects of Predator was taking a realistic situation and then turning it on it's head. I think they did this well in "Predators" now, don't get me wrong, that film had it faults, but I think that by setting it on an alien planet it managed to create that WTF! moment.

With P2 already being set "in the future" and having some over the top situations, the audience is already taken out of the realism part even before the Predator comes around.

reply

[deleted]

I think both methods can work, for me what was scary was the realism spliced in with the sci-fi element.

Also, like I say, I don't think you had to really go all over the top to show a Predator hunting gangs in LA, they did/do exist, they do use violence and many have heavy weaponry, so I just don't really see much that was gained by the way they went about it.

I just don't think it was all that great of a film to begin with, it was certainly an OK action/sci-fi flick, and it did introduce some neat new weapons and character traits for the Predator so that's cool. It's better than a lot of the CGI crap we get now for sure, but ultimately it just came off as a quick cash grab sequel. I liked "Predators" much better.

reply

[deleted]

OK, well, It's obvious your love of this film is way beyond mine, or most Predator fans for that matter, I can't imagine how you even remotely come to the conclusion that you did. This film, while it has it's moments, was low rent.

Predators had issues, I definitely could point them out, but it captured the feel of the original very well, and while I was mad when I first heard Brody was in it, he really impressed me and he was the perfect follow up to Arnold, instead of big and bulky, he was sleak and fast.

The team in that film was definitely not up to par with the original team to say the least, but then neither was Glover's team and I can't buy Glover taking on a Predator all on his own. It would be cool to somehow combine things from P2 and Predators, but no such luck, neither matched the first.

But to each his own.

reply

[deleted]

Yes 1997 did sound very cool back in 1990. I recall this very well when i saw this in the theatre. It may sound odd but 1997 felt very far away, very unknown future-like.

The same with Back to the Future's October 21 2015 actually. Until now that date felt like it was never going to happen.

Same with Prince's song 1999, which felt magical in the 80's.

reply

[deleted]

because the writers wanted to sneak in the line
"ten years ago in the jungles one of these things was spotted... etc etc"

it sounds cooler than "three years ago"

lolll

reply

1997 would have been a great setting had the story took place in Hong Kong. 1997 was when H.K. was no longer going to be a British colony.

reply

The movie is supposed to take place in a “not too distant future,” so I guess they just slapped a subtitle with the date on to help confused people

reply

Or "A few years from now" like in Mad Max.

reply