Errr why should we? Because jungle and imaginary yankee toughs? I’m not sold on this analogy.
I mean, your interpretation is as valid as mine. But I think you haven’t done my words justice in your summary of the points that I made to support my interpretation. You’ve either responded before reading my whole comment or you’ve spent too much time on Reddit.
Predator reads more like Wells’ “War of the worlds” - turning the situation upside down on the colonizers. Suddenly they’re the ones being hunted for sport by uncaring invader with absurd levels of technological superiority (while still acting as if it’s fair and square).
An analogy is such because it’s not a 1:1 representation and it never will be. If it were meant to be a perfect representation of the Vietnam war then it would be a biopic or a documentary. There’s no inviolable rule that you can’t invert parts of your allegory and clearly this was done to make a Hollywood blockbuster action-scifi film.
The predator wasn’t a coloniser imo. There’s less in the movie to support the idea that the predator was colonising the jungle than there is for the Vietnam war allegory. A foreigner in a different land doesn’t amount to colonisation.
I was trying to find the quote from someone who was involved in production who said that if it were a few years earlier then Predator would have been set in Vietnam when I came across this opinion piece which makes a better case for the film being a Vietnam War allegory (while explaining the predator’s high tech) than I did.
Didn’t nafo already use the “I’m doing my part” bit from the movie, completely serious and missing the satire?
Maybe I’m blessed because I haven’t been exposed to nearly anything from the NAFO chuds but I’d absolutely believe this from a group of people who are rapidly circling the ideological drain hole that is fascism.
