Main Menu

Dredd (2012)

Started by Goaty, 06 September, 2011, 11:51:16 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

blackmocco

I suppose it's not much different than being a producer on a TV show and hiring directors to helm your episodes. Work-for-hire, do your job and then let the people in charge do what they want with what you've shot. Very much how it happens here on FG, for example but wasn't aware it happens on features that much.

I think I'm more confused by the joint statement than anything else I've read so far. Hard to tell if it's just a saving face damage limitation or whether it is as they say. I take some heart from it if that's the arrangement they made between themselves though.

In saying that though it's a shame this sorry affair was made public in the first place. Nobody cares about clarifications after the headlines come out...
"...and it was here in this blighted place, he learned to live again."

www.BLACKMOCCO.com
www.BLACKMOCCO.blogspot.com

Hoagy

Quote from: SneakeeX on 10 October, 2011, 09:32:00 PM
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 10 October, 2011, 09:28:29 PM
Update, 12:23 pm. Monday: Travis and Garland released a joint statement that read, "During all stages of the filmmaking, 'Dredd' has been a collaboration between a number of dedicated creative parties.  From the outset we decided on an unorthodox collaboration to make the film.  This situation has been misinterpreted.  To set the record straight, Pete was not fired and remains a central part of the collaboration, and Alex is not seeking a co-director credit.  We are all extremely proud of the film we have made, and respectfully suggest that it is judged on viewing when its released next year."
What do you think? Damage control or the truth?
I can buy it to a certain degree and maybe Alex is still involved in a reduced capacity and that was the plan all along.

I'm thinking the traditional stanzas of film-making are shifting constantly. It's been a lot about pastiches since the 60's. Now , maybe the environment with Dredd is a new NEW approach. With minds like Garland AND Travis wanting to experiment with the medium and finding Dredd the perfect property on which to do so. It's low budget, the company men are seeing what the like going into their pockets and the rest is up to the creative team at their loss. It's very much in the same vein as 2000ad itself. We've got the likes of Vaughn, who self-produced Kick Ass having the same independent attitude. Even with all the post public viewing and intake remarks from people who stick by the big bucks marketeers philosophy, there's no denying there're a definite group of Idealist Realist film makers out there who want a go at showing a new vision of the medium they love. No harm in that. The only downside is another shit self indulgent film pandering to the a; corporative mega-glyphs. Or b; the creative team and their ideologies.
"bULLshit Mr Hand man!"
"Man, you come right out of a comic book. "
Previously Krombasher.

https://www.deviantart.com/fantasticabstract

IAMTHESYSTEM

 So we got all riled up for nowt?  What a palarva.
"You may live to see man-made horrors beyond your comprehension."

http://artriad.deviantart.com/
― Nikola Tesla

JOE SOAP

Quote from: blackmocco on 10 October, 2011, 09:36:49 PM
I suppose it's not much different than being a producer on a TV show and hiring directors to helm your episodes. Work-for-hire, do your job and then let the people in charge do what they want with what you've shot. Very much how it happens here on FG, for example but wasn't aware it happens on features that much.




It happens more than you think. Usually with big directors like Cameron, Spielberg, Nolan et al. they are co-producers and have contributed money to their productions which allows them more power over the outcome. Producers rule Hollywood and the films you see brought to screen are the ones producers have interest in seeing out there with their name on it but they have no interest in acutally slogging it out for 12 hours a day on a set with the grunts. Producers are morepowerful than directors and can have the ego to match, some consider themselves artists too. Bruckheimer & Simpson were the epitome of this grand-standing.

Hoagy

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 10 October, 2011, 09:51:26 PM
Quote from: blackmocco on 10 October, 2011, 09:36:49 PM
I suppose it's not much different than being a producer on a TV show and hiring directors to helm your episodes. Work-for-hire, do your job and then let the people in charge do what they want with what you've shot. Very much how it happens here on FG, for example but wasn't aware it happens on features that much.




It happens more than you think. Usually with big directors like Cameron, Spielberg, Nolan et al. they are co-producers and have contributed money to their productions which allows them more power over the outcome. Producers rule Hollywood and the films you see brought to screen are the ones producers have interest in seeing out there with their name on it but they have no interest in acutally slogging it out for 12 hours a day on a set with the grunts. Producers are morepowerful than directors and can have the ego to match, some consider themselves artists too. Bruckheimer & Simpson were the epitome of this grand-standing.

Its what could be said is happening with The Walking Dead and the entire backlog of ABC's stuff.
"bULLshit Mr Hand man!"
"Man, you come right out of a comic book. "
Previously Krombasher.

https://www.deviantart.com/fantasticabstract

SmallBlueThing

I think the real statement is plain to see:

Quote
Update, 12:23 pm. Monday: Travis and Garland released a joint statement that read, "During all stages of the filmmaking, 'Dredd' has been a collaboration between a number of dedicated creative parties.  From the outset we decided on an unorthodox collaboration to make the film.  This situation has been misinterpreted.  To set the record straight, Pete was not fired and remains a central part of the collaboration, and Alex is not seeking a co-director credit.  We are all extremely proud of the film we have made, and respectfully suggest that it is judged on viewing when tits released next year."

:D

SBT








Note: I am JOKING. I'm sure all is fine!

.

Goaty

"Help its all gone tits"?

JOE SOAP

Quote from: Futurefuzz on 10 October, 2011, 09:53:35 PMIts what could be said is happening with The Walking Dead and the entire backlog of ABC's stuff.


It's always been that way in telly.

SmallBlueThing

.

JOE SOAP

Use a different colour than black next time.

Fuzzed

I, for one, am thoroughly relieved and reassured. Going to take that joint statement at face value, because frankly, it sounds totally plausible and that hint of annoyance at the end with the 'respectfully' rings very true.

And that 'very proud of this film' just makes me very happy. I'm going to love this movie, I'm confident.

Read this article today about scientists discovering that a too optimistic brain is actually a faulty brain, but you know what? If my brain is faulty, I like it this way. Much better than sinking in dooooooooom.

SKD

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 10 October, 2011, 08:40:37 PM
Quote from: SKD on 10 October, 2011, 08:33:28 PMI think the magic word there is 'rumours'.

Stew.

and if you read my previous post I think you'll find I emphasised that in the first place.

Sorry Joe, I was just reiterating the 'rumour' aspect of your statement. It was a rumour after all, that Garland was after a co-director credit. As you pointed out, there had been no official statement to either confirm or deny the stories. The rumour mill had gone into overdrive and there were people on the net writing this film off, because the director may have been excluded from part of the film making process. Now i'm not too savvy with how films are made, I don't know what sort of effect this would have on the finished movie (bad or good) Or the effect the negative conjecture would have on ticket sales in eleven months time. What I do know is, come opening weekend, I'll be there with my bucket of popcorn hoping for the best and wanting to be entertained.

Stew.

P.S. Fuck. The world has turned and 16 new replies and a statement in the time it's took me to compose my post. I'll change the tense to past n post anyway.     

SmallBlueThing

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 10 October, 2011, 10:09:49 PM
Use a different colour than black next time.

Time for new eyes, Joe. The old ones are wearing out.

SBT
.

radiator

I still have a couple of doubts ("Well, they would say that" did cross my mind), but the joint statement does go some way towards easing my worries.

I have spent the last few days wondering why - with so many extremely talented and experienced people on board for this movie and the evident confidence they appear to have in the end product - things could have been allowed to deteriorate to the level implied by the LA Times article.

Also may explain why Empire didn't run the 'story'.

Faith partially restored.

dweezil2

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 10 October, 2011, 09:28:29 PM
Update, 12:23 pm. Monday: Travis and Garland released a joint statement that read, "During all stages of the filmmaking, 'Dredd' has been a collaboration between a number of dedicated creative parties.  From the outset we decided on an unorthodox collaboration to make the film.  This situation has been misinterpreted.  To set the record straight, Pete was not fired and remains a central part of the collaboration, and Alex is not seeking a co-director credit.  We are all extremely proud of the film we have made, and respectfully suggest that it is judged on viewing when its released next year."


Well, thank fuck for that!
Savalas Seed Bandcamp: https://savalasseed1.bandcamp.com/releases

"He's The Law 45th anniversary music video"
https://youtu.be/qllbagBOIAo