Interesting post mate. I just watched it today and I liked it a lot. Most of the stuff you mentioned didn't bother me but I've only ever seen the original and while I like that one too, it's nowhere near any of my favourite films so maybe that was a factor. I like that it was something different to the original and has a more modern sensibility, even though, as mentioned above, it was a little heavy handed (which didn't really bother me).
Just on your last paragraph:
Spoiler
The more I think about it, the more I agree with it, although I struggled somewhat with what was actually happening on screen so might need to watch it again. Getting how the Predator's mask works and using it against him in the manner she did did seem really implausible though, which like you say, was unfortunate. But it didn't spoil the film for me. Maybe because I like Amber Midthunder, she was great in Legion and was here as well.
And the comments about it being too dark, I didn't get that at all, it was absolutely fine for me.
Oh, I really enjoyed it too. I might have been too harsh on it in my previous post, but it was more out of frustration for what I think could have been a much better film. I admit I'm probably in the minority on some of those criticisms (especially the most technical stuff), and I understand that for most people those things don't take away from their enjoyment, but I'm a bit of a purist, so what can I do.
Predator is probably my favourite action/sci-fi movie of all time, but I'm completely fine with them going their own way. As I said, I really liked the premise, the setting, the cast and most of the action. The minimalistic story mostly works for me. In many ways, it's the form that bothers me. I'll explain and try to tie it with Armand's reply (which I've just seen, sorry) about the cinematography and colour grading aesthetic choices.
It seems to me that most modern movie makers, especially the ones premiering on streaming platforms, have this idea that films must look beautiful and pristine, no matter what the story is or demands. Call me old-fashioned, but I'm of the idea that any aesthetic choices must be made in favour of telling a story. In Prey, those choices particularly bothered me, because it's a gritty action movie set in the harsh 1700s Northern Great Plains made to look like a beautiful modern commercial. I'm sure these were corporate demands more than artistic choices made by the filmmakers though.
This overly saturated and clean to the point of sterility aesthetic of the movie, might look great on your OLED screen, but does it work in favour of the story? In my opinion, it doesn't, and not only that but it actively detracts from the movie's immersion. It's at odds with the time period, the harsh and dangerous environment it's trying to represent and most importantly, the nature of the film. There's a tonal dissonance between the story and the way the filmmaker chooses to convey it.
When you look at some great period pieces like "There Will be Blood" or "The Assassination of Jesse James..." to name a couple of modern examples, they have this harsh, grainy look to them, that works in favour of the immersion. Because whether we like it or not, our brains associate those kind of images with older periods. They have some beautiful shots in there too, but they are not trying to look pretty at every shot like Prey does. The grainy aspect look also adds an element of weight and tactility to a film. It makes them look cinematic. Prey doesn't look cinematic, it looks like a video game.
it's the modern era but before the industrial revolution and it's shot in pristine canadian wilderness (not comanche territory btw) and yet it is 'grainless and more artificial' (than *Dances with Wolves), how is this prime wilderness artificial? If the director wanted to add noise for tone (ie cinematic camera choices, which it appears you feel it needs), isn't adding 'grain' artificial?
Those beautiful vista shots I called grainless and artificial, are not artificial because of what they show, they look artificial because of the way they are so overly enhanced in post-production and possible CGIed to some extent, to the point they look fake and weightless. They also serve no purpose other than showing off their production values. In a movie like Dances with Wolves, it makes sense for the movie to frequently cut to those types of vista shots, as it's a slow-paced drama about a man that wanted to see the beauty of the American frontier. In an action movie that's about a tribe of Comache Indian fighting against an intergalactic alpha hunter, what's the purpose of those endless beauty shots?
Maybe if the film only focused on the Comanches in the begging, it would make sense to give us a sense of their relationship with their environment, and to mark a shift in tone when the Predator appears. But given that we're frequently interrupted with scenes of the Predator from the begging, it kind of makes them pointless.
And no, you don't have to artificially add grain in post-production to have a grainy look. The easiest way would have been to shoot it on film, in something like 16mm, which they probably didn't have the budget to it. But there are also ways to have more grainy shots with digital cameras, using higher ISO levels. To be correct, every camera captures some level of grain, even some of the most modern ones. What they never look like, is as clean and pristine as they do in Prey, that's for sure.
the original film is set in central american rainforest (actually shot in mexico) and apart from the encampment scenes at the beginning, all i recall is lush jungle, one wooden bridge and waterfalls
You're right in that the original Predator was shot in a Mexican jungle, but that's about all you're right. The original Predator is an ugly, harsh and grainy-looking movie. It's frequently under-exposed, with a limited colour palette and it never tries to draw the spectator's attention to the beauty of its surroundings. On the contrary, every image tries to convey the harshness and danger of the jungle. That's why almost every shot is at ground level with the group, and not from afar like in Prey, pretty and secure.
I'll end up by saying, that I understand and respect people liking those aspects of modern films. Personally, I detest the way most modern movies, and TV shows for that matter, try to look as pretty and pristine as possible even when at the expense of the story. For me is one of the clearest indications of how big corporations are trying to kill any sense of artistry or personality in modern entertainment.
