EVIL,
It wasn't my intention to give off a belittling tone so I apologize if that's how you interpreted it. When people make a stand on a particular point of view, I try to quote every part of it and respond to each statement so as to not brush off aspects of the case they've built and better understand why they feel the way they do. That's why I said "I don't see how this helps your argument at all," as Dutch's cleverness was added in your response but I didn't understand its relevancy. I'm not asking you to repeat yourself, just to explain how it is relevant.
Adding to that, though, I don't see how anything you've suggested fixes elements of the mystery or proves The Predator is a "dumb monster movie". Here's why:
-'Predator' has an opening scene that lets the viewer know the film is a sci-fi film due to a spaceship flying by Earth and dropping "something" off.
-If the big reveal you're speaking of is our realization that Arnold is fighting against something outside of the norms of a grounded film, we already knew that early on into the movie.
-However, if the big reveal you're speaking of is simply the "awe" of seeing the Predator creature for the first time, then how can we fix that for a sequel? We cannot erase our knowledge or memory of what a Predator is, and your idea for a Middle East or Mexico setting cannot fix that either. I asked how a setting in Mexico or the Middle East fixes anything because I genuinely do not understand - it's not because I'm biased.
-As I asked before, are all the Predators in this film coming to Earth and killing anyone and everyone without prejudice or reason? If so, then I would agree that The Predator is being developed into a "dumb monster movie" but I doubt Shane Black would write anything that simple. Feel free to correct me if this is the case, as I have not read the script.
-Lastly, I never wanted you to "repeat" yourself, that's why I asked you many questions in my first response. I thoroughly read everything you stated and I genuinely believe your reasoning is flawed (if not, then I'd be happy if you explained it to me by answering my follow-up questions). This isn't me "rubbing salt in the wound," just trying to understand your claim when you say: "Predator is supposed to be mysterious, instead what we have now is a dumbed down monster movie."
EDIT: I'd also like to address that when I say "argument" I'm using the second definition here:
ar·gu·ment
ˈärɡyəmənt/
noun
noun: argument; plural noun: arguments
1.
an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.
2.
a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
"there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal"
synonyms:
reasoning, justification, explanation, rationalization;
I'm not sure if we Americans use it more when presenting a stance, but in school when writing a persuasive paper, a common term that professors use is "present your argument with evidence and sources." I wasn't trying to have an angry discussion with you, "argument" has different meaning depending on the context.
Also, about your perceived contradiction in my "war film" statements: I don't see 'Predator' as a war film because it was presented as a sci-fi film early on. However, IF you take out the spaceship at the beginning, the predator vision, the vocal mimicry, the cloaked Predator and flashing eyes, the mystery might really pay off because the entire film would feel more like a war film up until maybe the waterfall scene. Just like how 'Split' is presented as a relatively grounded film before the rug is pulled from under us at the very end. However, this is not how the film was made, so I stand by my claim that 'Predator' never felt like a war film.
