Hulu's excellent 'Prey' deserves to be remembered as more than a 'TV movie'

• "Prey" is nominated for six Emmys, including "outstanding television movie."

• The film, which reportedly had a $65 million budget, should have been a theatrical release.

• This feels like a dangerous precedent for films that are sent straight to streaming.

Nominations for the 75th Emmy Awards were announced Wednesday morning, and among the biggest surprises was how much love was given to Hulu's excellent "Predator" prequel, "Prey."

The Dan Tractenberg-directed movie received six nods, including outstanding directing, writing, score, and outstanding "made for TV movie."

While it's great the 20th Century Studios film is receiving well-deserved attention, these nominations are incredibly frustrating.

Labeling "Prey," one of the most unexpected hits of 2022, as nothing more than a "TV movie" feels disingenuous when audiences were robbed of it in theaters.

Tractenberg wasn't hired to make a straight-to-streaming $65 million"TV" event, so it's insulting to call what the creative team on "Prey" did a "TV Movie."

The idea for "Prey" goes as far back as 2016, long before Disney acquired the rights to Fox's entertainment properties. What's great about "Prey" is that even if you're not into the "Alien" or "Predator" films, it doesn't feel like one for a majority of the film. The focus is centered around a young woman, Naru (expertly played by Amber Midthunder), who protects her tribe against a mysterious threat, which turns out to be a Predator who landed on Earth. The film currently sits at 93% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Before Disney decided to send it straight to Hulu during the pandemic, "Prey" was supposed to be a theatrical release. And it should've been. But releasing "Prey" on Hulu was strategic for Disney.

If released in theaters, "Prey" would have streamed on HBO Max (now Max) as well as Hulu and/or Disney+ per a previous 20th Century Fox contract. Likely uncertain of how the film would fare theatrically, "Prey" was sent straight to streaming in hopes that it would bolster Hulu's audience, receiving a similar fate as the majority of films acquired after Disney's 2019 purchase of Fox save "Avatar: The Way of Water" and a handful of other projects deemed potential moneymakers ("Deadpool 3," "Bob's Burgers," and "Free Guy") or awards bait ("West Side Story").

Upon its streaming release, entertainment sites considered whether or not "Prey" would've been a box-office hit if released in theaters. While we'll never know for certain how it would have fared, the film deserved at least a one-week limited release.

Sending a film with a largely Native American cast straight to Hulu instead of putting it in theaters is a counterintuitive way to celebrate a diverse film. ("Prey" even created a Comanche dub of the film with the original cast.)

At the time, Disney said "Prey" was Hulu's biggest premiere ever. But when Hollywood studios claim they want to be more inclusive and then offload a mid-budget movie to a streamer, it sends mixed messages about their commitment to genuine and meaningful diversity.

Seeing "Prey" in categories at the Emmys against the likes of "Hocus Pocus 2" (another Disney-owned film), "Fire Island," "Dolly Parton's Mountain Magic Christmas," "Swarm," and "Beef," is absurd.

It's not just "Prey" that doesn't deserve the "TV Movie" title.

It's equally strange seeing Daniel Radcliffe's film,"Weird: The Al Yankovic Story," competing at the Emmys, especially when Yankovic told Yahoo he was "begging" the Roku Channel to make it Oscar eligible and was denied. (According to Yankovic, Roku "would rather have a Creative Arts Emmy than an Oscar, because they're in the TV business.")

These are two films that should have been honored at the 2023 Oscars in March.

It feels like both Disney and Roku sought potentially easier Emmy wins with these titles. Here's hoping it doesn't set a precedent for other straight-to-streaming movies moving forward.

Read the original article on Insider