Article on Eyewitness News:
http://www.eyewitnessnews.co.za/articleprog.aspx?id=59966&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.eyewitnessnews.co.za/articleprog.aspx?id=59966&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
I can't believe they never called me up once :'(
It takes two.
"Chief Executive Officer Nico Dekker"
Your great grand daughter has a date with Judgement Day!
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 21 February, 2011, 11:29:37 PM
It takes two.
Babaaaaay! It Takes Two, Babaaaaay! To Make A Dream Come True! It Takes Two!
From all I've read, dollar for dollar, the production got twice the value as they would have had the film been shot in, say, Montreal by shooting in South Africa.
I'm really excited for this.
The budget was $35million/R250million, not ginormous by any means.
You gonna poop on my parade everywhere go, Joe?
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 21 February, 2011, 11:56:21 PM
The budget was $35million/R250million, not ginormous by any means.
Hmm quite ginormous by my means. Lend us a quid?
Quote from: MarsHottentot on 21 February, 2011, 11:42:28 PM
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 21 February, 2011, 11:29:37 PM
It takes two.
Babaaaaay! It Takes Two, Babaaaaay! To Make A Dream Come True! It Takes Two!
From all I've read, dollar for dollar, the production got twice the value as they would have had the film been shot in, say, Montreal by shooting in South Africa.
I'm really excited for this.
That's cos we is CHEAP down here..
As long as it doesn't LOOK cheap...
Already?
Blimey.
They better do some form of viral advertising in the Summer to start the hype bubbling.
Quote from: Christov on 23 February, 2011, 09:08:07 AM
Already?
I think they started last November with a break for Christmas so that's about three months filming.... about right for a film these days i think.
Should be ready for release well before the end of the year... I hope.
As far as shooting schedlues go, that is actually pretty darn good!
There are blockbusters budgeted at a 100 mill + that would kill for a shooting schedule that long.
Furthermore, there is no reason why the movie could not be completed by Q4 2011, so I sincerely hope the rumored Dec. 1 2011 release date for the UK is true.
I'd take a weekend trip to England for that.
Quote from: MarsHottentot on 21 February, 2011, 11:42:28 PM
From all I've read, dollar for dollar, the production got twice the value as they would have had the film been shot in, say, Montreal by shooting in South Africa.
I wish it had been shot in Montreal though, I coulda maybe had a sneaky peaky then. Though I can't imagine Montreal's mish-mash of Art Deco and Neo Gothic architecture doubling for Mega City 1 as well as Johannesburg. Maybe Gotham...
Also hoping for a December release as that will coincide with my next visit home. I'd much rather watch it in the UK with fellow Dreddheads (or even yer average yob wanting to see a film with big splosions) then surrounded by Canucks doing "I AM DUH LUHHHR" impressions.
3D shoots are longer.
Bugger.
Well in that case Xmas 2011 shall have to be postphoned until such a time that the movie is ready. Sorry for the inconvenience but this will allow me to vanquish two birds with just the one stone. Thanks for understanding :)
Quote from: Buddy (previusly Uncle Umpty) on 23 February, 2011, 11:21:56 AM
Quote from: Christov on 23 February, 2011, 09:08:07 AM
Already?
I think they started last November with a break for Christmas so that's about three months filming.... about right for a film these days i think.
Should be ready for release well before the end of the year... I hope.
I think it was late september. I actually really can't remember, it's all a blur. No, wait.. That's when we upped sticks to go to the studio.. I think.. I can't remember dammit!
Ghostpockets, that was Xmas 2010 for me..
Principal photography officially began 14th November.
There'd been camera-testing, combat training, cast read-throughs and rehearsals in the prior 2-3 weeks.
Ah the camera testing.. No wonder it's a blur. Sorry. Holiday mode.
Anyone know when official hype for this flick starts,Teasers.websites etc...
1977AD
Quote from: DanboJohnJ on 26 February, 2011, 05:57:23 PM
Anyone know when official hype for this flick starts,Teasers.websites etc...
Well.. Can't say we didn't try..
Slight change of subject...sorry....but is Nick Cage one of Hollywoods most prolific actors?
He seems to turn out film after film is he short of a few bob or what?
Quote from: charleswalter1860 on 26 February, 2011, 07:00:16 PM
Slight change of subject...sorry....but is Nick Cage one of Hollywoods most prolific actors?
He seems to turn out film after film is he short of a few bob or what?
He was declared bankrupt recently so, yes, he is doing it for the money.
Slight change of subject - sorry, but why does the Sticky Jumper in TF2 have so many negative effects? Surely the fact that it does no damage is almost enough of a nerf on its own. Why make it so that the user takes 100% extra damage from all attacks?
Sorry.. Slight change of subject.. But has anyone seen the new 1/48 scale Land Rover WMIK's airfix is releasing later this year? I'm excited..
Slight change of subject again.
Has anyone seen my pen ?
I left it on the desk but it seems to have gone walkabout... :-*
Your pen has won an Oscar.
Best writer. ;)
Let's hope ''DREDD'' performs better then this on it's opening weekend.
:-\
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=driveangry.htm
The Reported budget for this...
$50,000,000
:-\
This Dredd Movie better be good,
Because it looks like Robocop is definitely coming back, and with a budget of $80 mil.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/heat-vision/elite-squad-director-helm-robocop-162887 (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/heat-vision/elite-squad-director-helm-robocop-162887)
The director of Elite Squad is also attached to the project.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwTiu3typeY&feature=player_embedded#at=132 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwTiu3typeY&feature=player_embedded#at=132)
I know that given a choice right now John Q American public would rather see a Robocop reboot than a Dredd one.
Hopefully the RoboCop re boot it will come out after Dredd so they won't be competing against each other directly.
Quote from: IAMTHESYSTEM on 02 March, 2011, 08:25:15 PM
Hopefully the RoboCop re boot it will come out after Dredd so they won't be competing against each other directly.
I imagine the Robocop re-boot is only at a very early stage of development-years away from stealing Dredd's thunder, one would hope.
Yeah, given that Dredd has finished shooting already it's likely to hit cinemas at least 18 months before Robocop, so this time Dredd will be stealing Robocop's thunder, if anything.
Furck Robocop. It's always goin' te be second outta th gate. Furck it I say. You wan' chrome Dredd? Buy airfix.
Robocop had it's day, it was great for it's time, but it really wouldn't be the same without Peter Weller in the lead role (they tried, it failed).
Utter and pointless waste of money.
Hm.. I should find out who's doing Robocop.. I need another gig now outcasts is looking shakey..
Robocop hasn't stood the test of time very well - watched it again recently and it's pretty boring and all those emo scenes where he takes off the helmet and reclaims his humanity are all a bit... twee. Shame as I remember loving it at the time.
Whaaaat? Robocop is arsom!
As for 'standing the test of time'? A large part of the appeal about the film for me is that it really captures something of the zeitgeist of the 1980s - that it is very much of it's time is one of the most appealing things about it.
Quote from: Michaelvk on 03 March, 2011, 11:58:59 PM
Hm.. I should find out who's doing Robocop.. I need another gig now outcasts is looking shakey..
TRAITOR!!!
Yeah, Robo-Cop rocks. Saw it for the first time a while back (not counting hazy memories of stuff on the TV that I can't really remember because I am young) and it really is something special. The adverts for future stuff, the black humour ("Someone get a paramedic!"), the stop-motion special effects (I'm a sucker for stop-motion) all makes the film stand out as a classic.
Why it needs a remake is beyond me.
(http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/ob/robocop/ed209.jpg)
PLEASE PUT DOWN YOUR REMAKE. YOU HAVE 20 SECONDS TO COMPLY.
What is it with Hollywood and remakes, haven't they got any talented writers? Dredd definatley needed to be remade but remaking Spiderman, Robocop etc is a waste of money and shows a lack of initiative as well as taking the easy option when it comes to film making.
Well made original classic movies should just be left alone...
One thing i've found from talking to my mates kids is that they simply do not want to watch what they call 'old' films, and yes that includes 80s films.
As long as a remake manages to capture the correct tone and character of the original (whilst still being good!), and sells the idea to a new audience, then its okay in my book! And Robocop, much as i love the film, is no exception.
If anything, i want a good remake so that new audiences can understand what is so cool about the concept!
And if the remake turns out to be shite (which is likely), then i've allways got Verhoeven's masterpiece on my shelf to console me :thumbsup:
Quote from: Judge Palmer on 04 March, 2011, 08:30:23 PMWhat is it with Hollywood and remakes, haven't they got any talented writers?
This is a bit of a
modern myth, Hollywood has always done remakes, ever since the studio system started and lots of 'em. Silent era films were made repeatedly over and over. There's multiple verions of the
Wizard of Oz -most of them made before the 40's- at least 3
Ben Hurs -two made before the most known one from 1959. How many
Robin Hoods have there been,
King Arthurs and multiple
Shakespeare adaptations. Bond films are generally the same
60's film made over and over again and there are three I
nvasion of the Body-Snatchers- these are all only some of the more know ones off-the-top-of-my-head.
People have short memories or are too young to remember but remakes are part of the Hollywood industry staple and always have been. It's a business and this is how part of it operates.
My guess is that 'anomalously' there were less remakes of in the 70's because the American 'auteurs' gained critical and commercial success but were unable to sustain the level of creativity so the big studio blockbusters returned with Spielberg and Lucas. One of the best fanstasy films of all time is a remake, the Thing, and it's being remade again in Hollywood fashion.
Hollywood produces 500-600 films a year, what percentage are remakes? I bet more new films are produced that are not remakes, they just aren't prominent. Remakes are generally more high profile with bigger budgets cos they are perceived as the safer game and sometimes this is true but still a risk. They're also making far more comic book films than they ever have or were ever able to make; the number of trends has just increased. Swings and roundabouts.
It could be worse, it could be Bollywood which makes a 1000 films a year and nearly all the same.
Re-boots are the new re-makes
Now THERE'S an idea! A Bollywood remake of Robocop! I'd watch that..
The reason there are so many remakes is that it is easier to copy an already existing script rather than come up with someting new.
Why take a risk on an original plot when you can use one which has already proven popular? Hell, why not even copy the ideas that didn't work, and try to fix them? Anything to avoid thinking, or using your imagination.
Quote from: Jared Katooie on 04 March, 2011, 10:39:54 PM
The reason there are so many remakes is that it is easier to copy an already existing script rather than come up with someting new.
That's always been the way with Hollywood and it will continue while there's an industry that needs to supply as many films as Hollwood makes.
Bollywood is big big business.
Slight tangent. Often when I have installed a set top box and set it up to HD, some customers expect the old grainy black and white Bollywood films to be immaculate. It is very hard to explain the reasons to a 70+ year old Asian woman who speaks very little English. Even some of the younger generation who you would think would be savvy ask similar questions.
V
I wont deny that Hollywood has always rebooted,re-made or reimagined films thats simply a neccessary evil or some great films would be forgotten forever since younger generations (christ i feel old) don't want to watch what they percieve as old films.
What gets me is Hollywoods insistance on making films of TV shows that even in their day were not that hot or cartoons (Scooby doo for instance)when there is a wealth of books and comics that are crying out to be made into film. There are plenty of books/comics that the rights have been sold to Hollywood for years, just waiting for someone to have the balls to say, "Hey, i know,lets do something different!"
Though usually when they do they tend to balls it up.
Theres the story of Terry Pratchett selling the rights to MORT only to find some Hollywood exec had said, "Great story, but can we lose the Death guy?"
Result, Pratchett bought back the rights.
Quote from: Michaelvk on 04 March, 2011, 09:47:57 PM
Now THERE'S an idea! A Bollywood remake of Robocop! I'd watch that..
It's been done already.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yBnl_krN_U
kinda
Quote from: Cyclopz on 05 March, 2011, 12:54:27 AM
It's been done already.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yBnl_krN_U
kinda
That was excellent! Ridiculous and great all at once. Pretty good effects too. Very imaginative.
Agreed. That was bloody amazing! Cheers for sharing.
Let The Right One In is a classic case.
Amazing film, great book ( I did prefer the screenplay I'll admit)
Yet the Hollywoodians chose to remake it so shortly after its original release- if that's not trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator I don't know what is.
Looking at the old 2000AD forum, I remember this old chestnut:
QuoteJust read some of the 'new' interviews on the official site. Alan
Grant had this to say about the Stallone Dredd....
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm glad it flopped, because I thought it was crap. But, at the same
time, I deeply regret its failure, because it represented such an
amazing opportunity: if the film had been a hit, it would have opened
the way to other comics-as-movies as well as giving comics in general
a much-needed boost."
He sighs, without any real bitterness and adds, "I'd have thought it'd
be natural for Hollywood to ask John and me to have a go at the
script. Actually, they did - but they'd had 14 other writers working
on it first. We spent some time working on a treatment together but
negotiations ground to a standstill over cash. Pity, because they'd
have had a much better storyline to work from."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I've also seen interviews where Wagner said they spent 6 weeks coming
up with a totally unique way to do Dredd that would avoid retreading
what 'RoboCop' stole from them. When I asked Wagner about this a few
years ago he said they'd locked their treatment in the bank and had
little hope of anyone ever needing it...
Love to know if this 'treatment' still exists or ever did?
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.comics.2000ad/browse_thread/thread/fd99dd21a1e60ce5/6e6eb521c0edbcf0?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=wagner#6e6eb521c0edbcf0
Quote from: Judge Palmer on 04 March, 2011, 08:30:23 PM
What is it with Hollywood and remakes, haven't they got any talented writers?
http://www.cracked.com/article_19012_5-hollywood-secrets-that-explain-why-so-many-movies-suck.html?wa_user1=3&wa_user2=Movies+&+TV&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=recommended
Quote from: Emp on 04 March, 2011, 11:06:11 PM
What gets me is Hollywoods insistance on making films of TV shows that even in their day were not that hot or cartoons (Scooby doo for instance)when there is a wealth of books and comics that are crying out to be made into film. There are plenty of books/comics that the rights have been sold to Hollywood for years, just waiting for someone to have the balls to say, "Hey, i know,lets do something different!"
Thanks Imp you put what I was initially trying to get across in a better way.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 04 March, 2011, 10:41:55 PM
Quote from: Jared Katooie on 04 March, 2011, 10:39:54 PM
The reason there are so many remakes is that it is easier to copy an already existing script rather than come up with someting new.
That's always been the way with Hollywood and it will continue while there's an industry that needs to supply as many films as Hollwood makes.
And that is why I think Hollywood needs to evolve and use all that wealth of books and comics that are out there. I personally don't want to see the easy option of reboots/remakes being chosen over original material which it seems within the last few years has been the option Hollywood has chosen. I don't deny that after the success of Spiderman/Xmen/Batman etc lots of other comic based character movies were made which while not all were hugely successful the majority were and showed the public that taking a risk and using material and characters never used before could be done. But then to trample all over the financially and commercial successful franchise a few years after (upcoming Spiderman movie for example) to make a quick buck as well as cashing in on the current 3D money pot is just wrong!
Quote from: lborl on 05 March, 2011, 02:14:01 PM
Quote from: Judge Palmer on 04 March, 2011, 08:30:23 PM
What is it with Hollywood and remakes, haven't they got any talented writers?
http://www.cracked.com/article_19012_5-hollywood-secrets-that-explain-why-so-many-movies-suck.html?wa_user1=3&wa_user2=Movies+&+TV&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=recommended
Thanks for that Iborl that made for some interesting reading and made me see Weinstein in a whole new light >:(
Quote from: Judge Palmer on 05 March, 2011, 03:04:37 PM
But then to trample all over the financially and commercial successful franchise a few years after (upcoming Spiderman movie for example) to make a quick buck as well as cashing in on the current 3D money pot is just wrong!
...but what's new?, the comic industry does exactly the same thing every few years, re-booting/re-making characters, killing off villains/heroes, ridiculous resurrections, ignoring continuity, multiple publications etc. It's all par for the course and the fans lap it up despite complaining.
Why should Hollywood be different?, comic fans complaining of such things as remakes/alterations should question the comics industry before they complain about Hollywood which is just giving them what they all ready
pay for in the comic world. If you don't like it, don't pay for it that's the greatest power fans have.
Hollywood is a monolith that rarely takes chances that are perceived too risky, look at
Scott Pilgrim, it's a fine film but it tanked because there wasn't enough interest shown by fans or the public-at-large so the industry perceives it as the 'audience' doesn't want it to change too much at all.
And that's why I WONT be paying to see the new Spiderman movie and don't pay a subscription to any comic publication as I like the freedom to choose to buy a comic with a character, story/plotline and artwork that I like rather than receiving some issues that I like and some I don't.
I do vote with my feet and my wallet!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=MBeT4ptY9sY
Quote from: Teivion on 05 March, 2011, 09:43:42 AM
Let The Right One In is a classic case.
Amazing film, great book ( I did prefer the screenplay I'll admit)
Yet the Hollywoodians chose to remake it so shortly after its original release- if that's not trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator I don't know what is.
In that film's case, I think it was mainly due to the fact it was a foreign language film. There are just so many English speakers who won't watch a film with subtitles. Their loss, and I think things should be different.
Unfortunately I think we're in the minority there, so at least in this case the remake is understandable if a shame. On the plus side, I think it was quite widely publicised that it was a remake, so those who are unaware of more worldwide films have an opportunity to seek it out, if so inclined.
I wish that didn't have to happen though.
Thought I'd post this review of the original Judge Dredd film here.
This guys opinions on Judge Dredd are so wrong its hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQENAU8RyMI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_ema8P4B30
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 05 March, 2011, 03:35:40 PM
Quote from: Judge Palmer on 05 March, 2011, 03:04:37 PM
But then to trample all over the financially and commercial successful franchise a few years after (upcoming Spiderman movie for example) to make a quick buck as well as cashing in on the current 3D money pot is just wrong!
...but what's new?, the comic industry does exactly the same thing every few years, re-booting/re-making characters, killing off villains/heroes, ridiculous resurrections, ignoring continuity, multiple publications etc. It's all par for the course and the fans lap it up despite complaining.
Why should Hollywood be different?, comic fans complaining of such things as remakes/alterations should question the comics industry before they complain about Hollywood which is just giving them what they all ready pay for in the comic world. If you don't like it, don't pay for it that's the greatest power fans have.
Hollywood is a monolith that rarely takes chances that are perceived too risky, look at Scott Pilgrim, it's a fine film but it tanked because there wasn't enough interest shown by fans or the public-at-large so the industry perceives it as the 'audience' doesn't want it to change too much at all.
Yeah, that always makes me laugh, the fanboys who practically bleed from the eyes regarding some paradigm shift in their favorite book - yet they still buy it month after month, confirming that despite the whining the book was a success.
Quote from: Cyclopz on 07 March, 2011, 11:40:26 PM
Thought I'd post this review of the original Judge Dredd film here.
This guys opinions on Judge Dredd are so wrong its hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQENAU8RyMI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_ema8P4B30
His opinions explain why the film is bad.
Not going to pick all his wrongness in that clip to pieces, but Eagle comics Judge Dredd issue 1 was the biggest selling indie comic in the US (at least until that point - may have been changed since). So yes, I'm not trying to say Dredd is "big" in the US, as thats ridiculous, but the Eagle comics were incredibly popular for a short time (probably until "Quality" moved in!).
And you can believe me on that as I've read a bunch of Dredd comics books.
Quote from: Leigh S on 08 March, 2011, 12:40:37 AM
Not going to pick all his wrongness in that clip to pieces, but Eagle comics Judge Dredd issue 1 was the biggest selling indie comic in the US (at least until that point - may have been changed since). So yes, I'm not trying to say Dredd is "big" in the US, as thats ridiculous, but the Eagle comics were incredibly popular for a short time (probably until "Quality" moved in!).
And you can believe me on that as I've read a bunch of Dredd comics books.
That's how I found out about JD and 2000AD.
Be honest folks, that's what I sound like when I'm defending Phantom Menace, isn't it? I don't pick and scratch at my head and face incessantly while I do it, but basically I'm that guy.
Quote from: TordelBack on 08 March, 2011, 08:09:04 AM
Be honest folks, that's what I sound like when I'm defending Phantom Menace, isn't it? I don't pick and scratch at my head and face incessantly while I do it, but basically I'm that guy.
Yes, I think Mr Hat-on-backwards-Stallone-fan had more than just Weetabix for his breakfast!
Does that guy have notes stuck everywhere with what he's going to say? Its like he's desperatley looking around for his next thought.
Quote from: Leigh S on 08 March, 2011, 12:40:37 AMAnd you can believe me on that as I've read a bunch of Dredd comics books.
Yeah I'll back that up, you can believe this guy because he's read a bunch of Dredd comic books, and you can believe me when I say you can believe this guy because he's read a bunch of Dredd comic books, because I've read a bunch of Dredd comic books too, and when you've read a bunch of Dredd comic books you can really tell when another guy's really read a bunch of Dredd comic books too, y'know, which I can tell you from experience because believe me, I've read a bunch of Dredd comic books.
Too bad Mark Millar wrote the bunch he got.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 08 March, 2011, 11:31:55 PMToo bad Mark Millar wrote the bunch he got.
To be fair, Mark Millar's Dredd can't be all that bad after all 'cos he's read a bunch of Dredd comic books. (etc.)
He could of done his research a bit better too. Surely if he'd checked IMDB he would of at least got the year of the film's release correct.
I must be watching the wrong video, all I can hear is:
"Blah blah blah blah blah."
Quote from: Misanthrope on 09 March, 2011, 10:53:14 PM
I must be watching the wrong video, all I can hear is:
"Blah blah blah blah blah."
You're watching the right video, it's just that the longer you watch it the more difficult it becomes for the brain to filter actual words out of it. It's a phenomenon known to psychologists as "listening to a boring twat talking bollocks syndrome".
...Kind of like listening to me, really. :D
Did anyone else feel the urge to punch the guy, repeatedly, very hard in the face ? I didn't watch the second part.
Yep :D
You should have written a few comments as he replied to mine! He was okay on part one saying
Quoteyeah he is called Bruce wayne haha. No but seriously i never ever saw Judge Dredd bought or read seriously. Just what i experienced. I respect your opinion though. I still thought it was fun. Not meant to be taken soooo seriously. Thats all im saying. Atallone is amazing as Dredd my opinion !
but by part two he said
Quotestill my channel and my opinion!! you dont like it tuff.
This looks very Third World Mega City-esque
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm7gEDhrPfk
Quote from: Cyclopz on 12 March, 2011, 11:31:21 AM
This looks very Third World Mega City-esque
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm7gEDhrPfk
Does indeed though I always saw Mega City being a bit more
utilitarian in it's design struture with only certain parts of it being complete spaghetti-sprawl.
Me like Mechas and very Mega City 1[ish] enviroment.
I suspect the game will be online multiplayer combat only.
That city-scape did look excellent! As for being like Mega-city, I would say, only if you interpret Mega City one as just 'big urban sprawl'. In most of the comic artwork it usually looks aesthetically ornate too with all the domes and curves. Quite beautiful in fact considering it's a dystopia. And that fits well with the ongoing themes of order and peace.... at a price. Dig through through the exterior packaging (and you don't have to dig far) and yes, there's something quite different.
That being said, it's so huge I wouldn't be surprised if there were parts of the city that looked like this, and we know Megacity One certainly has it's slums.
April can't get here soon enough! We need to see some damn official stills or footage already!! >:(
I see Hollywood has now ran out of barrel and is now scrapping pavement.....it wasn't bad enough to remake shite tv shows or kids cartoons. Oh no hollywood has decideds that Stretch Armstrong, a shitty toy has the makings of a blockbuster movie >:(
What possible reason can they dole out to explain this driv? Anyone who actually remembers Stretch will not be inclined to watch a film about a toy with a 10 min shelf life. Those who didn't grow up aware of Stretch will by asking "What the fuck is that all about?"
And kids will be ...well kids will be.............hmm,maybe this is an attempt to reintroduce the worlds most shite toy.
If it made money before it will so again is the Hollywood Mantra. Ghastly like a dog chasing it's own tail but that's how you 'win.'
If it makes a profit, according to the American dream ,it's good so if you can polish a turd and sell it to the masses you've succeeded.
Quote from: Emp on 19 March, 2011, 02:57:13 AM
I see Hollywood has now ran out of barrel and is now scrapping pavement.....it wasn't bad enough to remake shite tv shows or kids cartoons. Oh no hollywood has decideds that Stretch Armstrong, a shitty toy has the makings of a blockbuster movie >:(
What possible reason can they dole out to explain this driv? Anyone who actually remembers Stretch will not be inclined to watch a film about a toy with a 10 min shelf life. Those who didn't grow up aware of Stretch will by asking "What the fuck is that all about?"
And kids will be ...well kids will be.............hmm,maybe this is an attempt to reintroduce the worlds most shite toy.
I had one back in the 70's and man, it's a toy a kid looks at as a challenge to break. I mean, you want to see how far it will stretch, the answer of which isn't realized until it snaps and all that blue goo drools out. I remember in the 90's they made WWF wrestling versions that were smaller and didn't weigh a ton. We stretched one until it broke in a store. No more goo, but this skunky smelling powder.
I think it was Anthrax.
Asbestos
man.
Robbie had a stretch Scooby Doo. That has snapped in most of the limbs. When he eventually lets me I will cut it open to look at the guts inside.
V
the worlds most shite toy.
[/quote]
I had one back in the 70's and man, it's a toy a kid looks at as a challenge to break. I mean, you want to see how far it will stretch, the answer of which isn't realized until it snaps and all that blue goo drools out. I remember in the 90's they made WWF wrestling versions that were smaller and didn't weigh a ton. We stretched one until it broke in a store. No more goo, but this skunky smelling powder.
I think it was Anthrax.
[/quote]
Blue goo?I think you will find that was a replicant Stretch Armstrong, a quite rare edition :lol:
Rooby-DoobyDooGAAAKK!!
Quote from: Krombasher on 20 March, 2011, 06:34:09 AM
Asbestos
man.
That would certainly explain my bleeding lungs.
How long before we see official photos -does anyone know for sure?
I neeeed my fix of judge dredd movie news... :|
I'm hoping the 9th of April ;)
A friend of mine was helping someone out with a uni film assignment last night. He finds he is acting against Rakie Ayola. He's a bit of a lapsed Dredd fan and was chuffed when he found out she was playing the Chief Judge. He didn't manage to get any scoopage that we didn't already know but this comment from my mate was quite cool
Quote
...She went on to tell me that Karl Urban was very stand-offish at first, remaining in character most of the time. He hardly spoke to her off-script to the extent of her texting her husband to say that she didn't like him at all. Almost on cue, Karl turned to her and said, "So, did you fly in from London?" to which Rakie, taken by surprise replied. "Yes, but I'm from Cardiff".
Karl paused before asking, "Have you been in Doctor Who?" and when she said yes, he then asked "Which Doctor?". Rakie went on to explain how her character had sacrificed herself to save the Doctor (as the hostess in 'Midnight') after which they got on like a house on fire.
Gentlemen, I think this man can be trusted as Joe Dredd.....
Quote from: James Stacey on 25 March, 2011, 09:32:46 AM
A friend of mine was helping someone out with a uni film assignment last night. He finds he is acting against Rakie Ayola. He's a bit of a lapsed Dredd fan and was chuffed when he found out she was playing the Chief Judge. He didn't manage to get any scoopage that we didn't already know but this comment from my mate was quite cool
Quote
...She went on to tell me that Karl Urban was very stand-offish at first, remaining in character most of the time. He hardly spoke to her off-script to the extent of her texting her husband to say that she didn't like him at all. Almost on cue, Karl turned to her and said, "So, did you fly in from London?" to which Rakie, taken by surprise replied. "Yes, but I'm from Cardiff".
Karl paused before asking, "Have you been in Doctor Who?" and when she said yes, he then asked "Which Doctor?". Rakie went on to explain how her character had sacrificed herself to save the Doctor (as the hostess in 'Midnight') after which they got on like a house on fire.
Gentlemen, I think this man can be trusted as Joe Dredd.....
I think I'm in love.
(http://images.tvrage.com/people/21/62937.jpg#Rakie+Ayola)
The next Chief Judge!... doesn't look like Logan
Quote from: James Stacey on 25 March, 2011, 09:32:46 AM
A friend of mine was helping someone out with a uni film assignment last night. He finds he is acting against Rakie Ayola. He's a bit of a lapsed Dredd fan and was chuffed when he found out she was playing the Chief Judge. He didn't manage to get any scoopage that we didn't already know but this comment from my mate was quite cool
Quote
...She went on to tell me that Karl Urban was very stand-offish at first, remaining in character most of the time. He hardly spoke to her off-script to the extent of her texting her husband to say that she didn't like him at all. Almost on cue, Karl turned to her and said, "So, did you fly in from London?" to which Rakie, taken by surprise replied. "Yes, but I'm from Cardiff".
Karl paused before asking, "Have you been in Doctor Who?" and when she said yes, he then asked "Which Doctor?". Rakie went on to explain how her character had sacrificed herself to save the Doctor (as the hostess in 'Midnight') after which they got on like a house on fire.
Gentlemen, I think this man can be trusted as Joe Dredd.....
Always thought the casting Karl Urban was a good idea this just confirms it! :D
Silver looks better than i remember :D
"She's been in Dr Who? GET HER OFF MY SET!!" would have endeared him more to me, I'm afraid. :lol:
SBT
Quote from: Emp on 26 March, 2011, 01:07:29 AM
Silver looks better than i remember :D
Sex change but still kept the walking-stick.
Quote from: Cyclopz on 12 March, 2011, 11:31:21 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm7gEDhrPfk
Surely Stevie's not the only one thinking
Viking City?
According to a post on the Internet Movie Database Dredd forum....
QuoteMatt Smith(Tharg)added that we shouldn't expect the movie until spring 2012.
Full message:
Quoteby mubhceeb 6 hours ago (Wed Apr 13 2011 10:06:16)
UPDATED Wed Apr 13 2011 10:23:39
I was at the panel and it was very reassuring what Jock had to say about the rough footage he had seen-it was definitly R cert material and how the Lawmaster had been shot looked nothing like the blurry spy shots that had been leaked on the internet.
Dave Gibbons said he had read the script and it had captured Dredd perfectly.
It was also most interesting to hear from 2000ad artist Brendan McCarthy(who has done some pre-production design work on the long gestating new Mad Max film)that director George Miller was directly influenced by Dredd and 2000ad when making Mad Max II.
Matt Smith(Tharg)added that we shouldn't expect the movie until spring 2012.
May just be a coincidence but Watchmen (the film) was released spring 2009 - March 6, 2009. Watchmen had an extended time in post-production.
Quote from: helm on 14 April, 2011, 12:37:27 AMMay just be a coincidence but Watchmen (the film) was released spring 2009 - March 6, 2009.
So are many other films every year, not even a coincidence.
We all ready have several posts and threads about this. IMDB really is the last out-post to ever receive news.
I'm just saying Watchmen was released in the Spring so it's like some cosmic connection - Dredd and Watchmen. According to Alan Moore...
"I wish it was never released."
Cheer up, Mr Grumpy. :D
"It was also most interesting to hear from 2000ad artist Brendan McCarthy(who has done some pre-production design work on the long gestating new Mad Max film)that director George Miller was directly influenced by Dredd and 2000ad when making Mad Max II. "
One of the world's most arsom films just got even more arsom, IMO! :thumbsup:
I think that influence began with the first film if he's honest.
...yeah, almost as soon as the film begins when the "Halls of Justice" is shown. ;)
...and this poster:
(http://thisdistractedglobe.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/Mad%20Max%20poster%201.jpg)
I've been thinking of how the production-design of this film will look in the final product. Last night I was watching "Dark City", and I thought some of the stuff in it could be appropriate for "Dredd". Maybe the look of "Brazil"? What do you all think?
....something like this:
(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l296/shazam-kree/darkcity1.jpg)
(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l296/shazam-kree/darkcity2.jpg)
(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l296/shazam-kree/darkcity3.jpg)
(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l296/shazam-kree/brazil1.jpg)
I don't think it will be that stylised.
I'm thinking Robocop, with some massive skyscrapers in the distance.
Quote from: Steve Green on 18 April, 2011, 09:26:24 PM
I'm thinking Robocop, with some massive skyscrapers in the distance.
Not much of a parallel, but I loved the way the arcologies were just hazily visible in the background of the Iowa scenes in the recent
Star Trek movie. A clever way of indicating vast scale. Be interesting to see something similar in MC-1, huge misshapen towers looming out of an urban haze. An alternative to the rain of Bladerunner or the glittering lights of Coruscant.
Quote from: Steve Green on 18 April, 2011, 09:26:24 PM
I don't think it will be that stylised.
I'm thinking Robocop, with some massive skyscrapers in the distance.
Maybe. It could, I suppose, fututristically-wise, look like something in between Robocop and Demolition Man. A little more futuristically-amped than Robocop, but with a more dry, subtle, and gritty feel than Demolition Man.
Still, I am open to the notion that we could see something of a Blade Runner-type quality. Some fragment, atleast.
In the script, the city blocks are [spoiler]simply described as conventional tower blocks, but vastly bigger in scale - in fact the opening shot of the city is a visual trick - the Mega City skyline looks like any other, then the camera zooms in so that the audience can see just how big they are, regular sized skyscrapers in clusters around them give the sense of scale. Of course this may not be how the final film ends up looking - I'm sure things will have changed somewhat during the production process.
It's a shame that we probably won't be seeing the iconic domed towers of the Mega-City skyline on film, but I'm hoping the design team will have put in a few nods to the source material, like the statue of judgement looming over the statue of liberty.[/spoiler]
The thing that makes me think it won't be as large scale, is the use of the contemporary vehicles we've seen so far.
I'm just not sure those would quite work in the world described in the script.
It'll probably be rather vague when it comes to detail, total scale and the geography of the city, they aren't going to expand on much of anything outside one block, some streets and a skyline. It leaves it open for a greater fleshing-out without being boxed-in if any sequels happen.
Well, speaking of that "one block" in which most of the film will take place, it is that which really I'm actually thinking as to how it will look. Somehow, I think the stark and eerie atmosphere of the John Carpenter films "Assault On Precinct 13", and "Escape From New York" could be something that is given a nod to.
News snippet.
http://www.dailyblam.com/news/2011/05/02/karl-urban-dredd-star-trek-2-filming
Judge Minty images on the same site (http://www.dailyblam.com/news/2010/09/18/judge-dredd-reboot-will-be-faithful-its-comic-origin-yet-completely-fresh).
Quote from: Banners on 03 May, 2011, 10:41:33 AM
Judge Minty images on the same site (http://www.dailyblam.com/news/2010/09/18/judge-dredd-reboot-will-be-faithful-its-comic-origin-yet-completely-fresh).
That's a bit misleading... it looks like the Minty images are from the Urban film... good pics though.
Yeah, nothing to do with us. They've got the only official pic on a later news item, maybe that wasn't available when they posted the original item.
Thanks though.
Video of the interview..looks pretty chuffed about Dredd.
http://collider.com/karl-urban-interview-star-trek-2-dredd-hobbit-karaoke/88505/
This quote from the earlier snippet made me smile and also tells us that Urban is the right actor for the role.
Quote from: Banners on 03 May, 2011, 10:41:33 AM
Judge Minty images on the same site (http://www.dailyblam.com/news/2010/09/18/judge-dredd-reboot-will-be-faithful-its-comic-origin-yet-completely-fresh).
QuoteMany actors shy away from roles that don't allow them to use every element of their talent, but Urban isn't worried about having half of his face covered for the film's entirety:
V
Quote from: DanboJohnJ on 03 May, 2011, 08:02:05 PM
Video of the interview..looks pretty chuffed about Dredd.
http://collider.com/karl-urban-interview-star-trek-2-dredd-hobbit-karaoke/88505/
Jaysus, considering these guys don't have long to interview why bother with childish questions like what's you favourite Karaoke song? and will you be going on holidays to New Zealand? Faksake.
Collider are infamous for HORRIBLE interviews. Some of the worst I've ever seen.
Actors these days never seem to have much interesting to say anyways
Quote from: pops1983 on 03 May, 2011, 11:37:29 PM
Actors these days never seem to have much interesting to say anyways
He just finished playing Dredd in a film.
Quote from: pops1983 on 03 May, 2011, 11:37:29 PM
Actors these days never seem to have much interesting to say anyways
Mel Gibson?
Worst interviewer I've ever seen :o
Just waiting for him to roll a spliff and say 'So seriously man, what is your favourite colour really? ' Get to ****
Link is blocked at work... Is it just an interview or does it include images from film?
Quote from: Bat King on 04 May, 2011, 02:23:23 PM
Link is blocked at work... Is it just an interview or does it include images from film?
Just an interview: Urban sitting in a chair with a poster from Priest in the background.
Cheers Mike.
Quote from: Mike Carroll on 04 May, 2011, 03:00:43 PM
Quote from: Bat King on 04 May, 2011, 02:23:23 PM
Link is blocked at work... Is it just an interview or does it include images from film?
Just an interview: Urban sitting in a chair with a poster from Priest in the background.
You forgot to mention he's also dressed in the Dredd uniform.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 04 May, 2011, 09:47:19 PM
Quote from: Mike Carroll on 04 May, 2011, 03:00:43 PM
Quote from: Bat King on 04 May, 2011, 02:23:23 PM
Link is blocked at work... Is it just an interview or does it include images from film?
Just an interview: Urban sitting in a chair with a poster from Priest in the background.
You forgot to mention he's also dressed in the Dredd uniform.
Sitting on a Lawmaster NOT A CHAIR.
V
With Anderson on his lap.
Why I oughta.....
Oh wait, I'm at home, link not blocked!!!
Quote from: Bat King on 05 May, 2011, 12:20:30 AM
Why I oughta.....
Oh wait, I'm at home, link not blocked!!!
You're too late, they replaced the original video with a
vanilla Urban one.
I missed the Lawmaster and Anderson and everything!
Just got a New Zealander answering dumb questions and trying to pretend the interviewer was interesting.
Random link to pass the months until release.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylMtzL7Y0zI&feature=related
An audition, I think
awwwwww :D
Looks like it's going to be a long post-production process, which is no bad thing at all if that time is used to add great special effects.Finally succumed and read the script which is good (but I hope it is tweaked a bit) and will certainly be action-packed.
Given it's in 3D will it also get a 2D cinema release as some films have ,or is that unlikely -answers on a postcard please.
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 05 May, 2011, 09:20:16 PM
Looks like it's going to be a long post-production process
Yes I'm not sure if this has been posted here but in this interview at Den of Geek he says:
QuoteDredd was a gruelling shoot, it was. I have not seen an edit because they're actually, right as we speak, at the process of putting it together
Scroll down for the rest
www.denofgeek.com/movies/874289/karl_urban_interview_priest_judge_dredd_bourne_lord_of_the_rings_genre_movies_and_more.html
Quote from: Emperor on 05 May, 2011, 11:44:36 PM
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 05 May, 2011, 09:20:16 PM
Looks like it's going to be a long post-production process
Yes I'm not sure if this has been posted here but in this interview at Den of Geek he says:
QuoteDredd was a gruelling shoot, it was. I have not seen an edit because they're actually, right as we speak, at the process of putting it together
Whatever about the length of the
post-prod. -which may not actually be as long as you think- I presume their intention is not to release it until the first quarter of 2012 anyway regardless of the film's completion. Scheduling is important too, don't want it to clash with too many big budget films around holiday periods.
QuoteScheduling is important too, don't want it to clash with too many big budget films around holiday periods.
Yeah- I did think that one of the reason we haven't been getting any info is that it would be swamped in all the Thor/X-Men/Capt America/Green Lantern stuff we're getting at the moment.
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 05 May, 2011, 09:20:16 PM
Given it's in 3D will it also get a 2D cinema release as some films have ,or is that unlikely -answers on a postcard please.
I would have thought so, I'm sure I'm not the only one that has less than zero interest in this 3D gimmickry. Besides, there's not a huge amount of 3D theatres, so it'd be fairly suicidal to be exclusive you'd think.
2D is never going to go away due to the fact that folks with eye problems can't get full 3D or so i was informed :)
In the 2D cinema, the one-eyed man is king.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 06 May, 2011, 08:32:08 PM
In the 2D cinema, the one-eyed man is king.
Go to the top of the class!!
New (very brief) interview with Urban on Empire Online (http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=30901).
However the movie turns out, Urban has so far been an intelligent and considerate spokesman, and his interviews have done nothing but raise my expectations. I hope it works out for him.
Quote from: TordelBack on 06 May, 2011, 11:09:40 PMUrban has so far been an intelligent and considerate spokesman
I'd say DNA threatened to
fire him if he spoke about Lawmasters or posted on any forums.
'twittered' by Urban, Lawmaster exclusive:
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/144/323354307_41e9d0222e.jpg)
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 06 May, 2011, 11:36:54 PM
'twittered' by Urban, Lawmaster exclusive:
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/144/323354307_41e9d0222e.jpg)
Overcompensating a wee bit? :lol:
According to ComicBookMovie.com Dredd will be released 1st December 2011 not next spring :thumbsup:
Anyone else heard if this is true as I know the release date has been elusive.
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 09 May, 2011, 07:51:03 PM
According to ComicBookMovie.com Dredd will be released 1st December 2011 not next spring :thumbsup:
Anyone else heard if this is true as I know the release date has been elusive.
No apparently it was said at Kapow they were aiming for next Spring. ComicBookMovie.com are just getting the '1st December' date from the
Dredd IMDB page which is usually wrong about these things.
This is what is published on the bottom left of the front page of comicbookmovie.com:
QuoteRelease Dates Unknown
Deadpool
The Crow
Sin City 2
G.I Joe 2
Superman: Man of Steel
Judge Dredd
Runaways
Ant-Man
Hancock 2
Kick-Ass 2: Balls To The Wall
Wanted 2
Green Lantern 2
Preacher
Wonder where they've got to post Production wise? :geek:
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 06 May, 2011, 11:36:54 PM
'twittered' by Urban, Lawmaster exclusive:
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/144/323354307_41e9d0222e.jpg)
Isn't this subjected to a soopa-injunction?
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 06 May, 2011, 11:36:54 PM
'twittered' by Urban, Lawmaster exclusive:
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/144/323354307_41e9d0222e.jpg)
Bah, the wheels are too small ! :D
- C
[Pet peeve]
Can we cut the pics out of the quotes? It makes the board look messy....
[/pet peeve]
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 06 May, 2011, 11:36:54 PM
'twittered' by Urban, Lawmaster exclusive:
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/144/323354307_41e9d0222e.jpg)
Quote from: Bat King on 10 May, 2011, 06:32:43 PM
[Pet peeve]
Can we cut the pics out of the quotes? It makes the board look messy....
[/pet peeve]
No ;)
V
I remember how more than 4 months ago things were this quiet at the movie forums at conan.com. Now, "Conan The Barbarian" has had two trailers, two posters, and a solid number of production-stills released so far. I really look foreward to the day "Dredd" will start picking up on these things.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 09 May, 2011, 08:21:25 PM
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 09 May, 2011, 07:51:03 PM
According to ComicBookMovie.com Dredd will be released 1st December 2011 not next spring :thumbsup:
Anyone else heard if this is true as I know the release date has been elusive.
No apparently it was said at Kapow they were aiming for next Spring. ComicBookMovie.com are just getting the '1st December' date from the Dredd IMDB page which is usually wrong about these things.
This is what is published on the bottom left of the front page of comicbookmovie.com:
QuoteRelease Dates Unknown
Deadpool
The Crow
Sin City 2
G.I Joe 2
Superman: Man of Steel
Judge Dredd
Runaways
Ant-Man
Hancock 2
Kick-Ass 2: Balls To The Wall
Wanted 2
Green Lantern 2
Preacher
Judge Dredd,Preacher,Kick-Ass bttw and Sin City 2 are on my must see list i really really really hope they get this dredd film as near to perfect as they can.
Hancock 2? Really???
Quote from: pops1983 on 11 May, 2011, 07:36:37 PM
Hancock 2? Really???
There's a few other dodgy looking ones in that list..
Preacher? ::)
Thats been on an off more than a whores knickers.....i wont build my hopes up til i see an official trailer
Not worth a new thread but here's a 'visual' quote from the
Dredd D.o.P. Anthony Dod Mantle in 'British Cinematographer':
QuoteQ: What can you tell us about Dredd?
ADM: Kevin's brother, producer Andrew MacDonald, approached me a while ago. It's written by Alex Garland, a very astute, creative writer, who I've known since 28 Days Later. It was shot in South Africa on 3D – around 13 weeks principal, and seven weeks 2nd unit photography. It's a dangerous film, in the sense that the story places itself precariously on the floorboards of an action sci-fi genre film whilst underneath there's a no less entertaining allegorical comment about this kind of cinema and the violence that tends to come with this kind of product. Visually we have gone at it hammer and tongues. We shot entirely digitally, in scope, using RED MX cameras and SI2Ks, Phantom Flex highspeed, and multiple rigs shooting at the same time on first and second unit. I built some new cameras rigs that can take you very close to the action. It's won't look so much like the action films we're accustomed to, and the audience won't have things thrust in their faces every five minutes. I hope it will be more painterly. If we get it right, it will be a cross between Blade Runner and Clockwork Orange.
http://www.bscine.com/2011/03/camera-creative-anthony-dod-mantle-dff-bsc-127-hours-the-eagle-dredd-3d/
Here's an audio interview with Anthony Dod Mantle (with tech-speak) about the Dredd shoot and the superior image quality from a 'surveillance' camera they developed for the shoot and comparisons to the 3D detail in Avatar.
He decribes shooting it with the visual intention of a 'quiet film about violence...in an area between 2D and 3D'.
http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/mgoldman/video/podcast_the_adventures_of_anthony_dod_mantle_part_2/
Interesting
I like the sound of that!
Thanks for the post Joe!
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 21 May, 2011, 06:00:58 PM
Not worth a new thread but here's a 'visual' quote from the Dredd D.o.P. Anthony Dod Mantle in 'British Cinematographer':
Quote
It's a dangerous film, in the sense that the story places itself precariously on the floorboards of an action sci-fi genre film whilst underneath there's a no less entertaining allegorical comment about this kind of cinema and the violence that tends to come with this kind of product.... It's won't look so much like the action films we're accustomed to, and the audience won't have things thrust in their faces every five minutes. I hope it will be more painterly. If we get it right, it will be a cross between Blade Runner and Clockwork Orange.[/b]
http://www.bscine.com/2011/03/camera-creative-anthony-dod-mantle-dff-bsc-127-hours-the-eagle-dredd-3d/
Hmm, very interesting. As I have so far only read snippets of the script, the 'allegorical' side of things is all new to me, and quite surprising.
Really excited to see how the finished film looks - there seems to be a lot of thought and effort being put into the visual side - I think in that respect this movie is going to be far beyond the usual mid-budget B-movie fare that some are expecting.
Kudos Joe on the info , you do seem to have some kind of omniprescence quality about you :D
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 21 May, 2011, 06:00:58 PMIf we get it right, it will be a cross between Blade Runner and Clockwork Orange.
If they get anywhere near that, sold.
Sounds good!
I actually hope they keep all the gory violent stuff in it like I said there was, or I'm going to look like a right tit..
Michaelvk after the Dredd film has been released.
(http://www.balloonees.com/images/hen%20night/big%20boob.jpg)
V
Quote from: Michaelvk on 24 May, 2011, 02:50:35 PM
I actually hope they keep all the gory violent stuff in it like I said there was, or I'm going to look like a right tit..
We will let you off, considering what you did for us.
"Hammer and tongues"?
You're cool no matter what for the shit you took.
I(s that a right tit or a left tit tho V?
Quote from: Krombasher on 24 May, 2011, 09:48:37 PM
I(s that a right tit or a left tit tho V?
Well I googled right tit. But it can be what ever you want, great for stress relief so I am told.
V
Quote from: vzzbux on 24 May, 2011, 08:42:45 PM
Michaelvk after the Dredd film has been released.
(http://www.balloonees.com/images/hen%20night/big%20boob.jpg)
V
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I'll tell you a funny one from the armourers on Dredd.. When handing an AK to one of the not so bright extras, the armourer pulls back the bolt to show the guy the weapon was empty and didn't have a round chambered. He asks the extra: "Is it clear?" for confirmation and to be sure the guy knew he was handling a safe weapon.. The idiot extra then starts looking around over his shoulder and then says: "Yeah.. I think so.." The armourer shook his head in disbelief and handed him the weapon, hoping Darwinism would eventually sort him out..
Another one was a cast member was apparently asked if they wanted instructions on a shotgun. The cast member said no thanks, handled them before.. And subsequently blew two (yes.. two) holes in the floor.. Good times..
Double Whammy indeed ;-)
QuoteAnother one was a cast member was apparently asked if they wanted instructions on a shotgun. The cast member said no thanks, handled them before.. And subsequently blew two (yes.. two) holes in the floor.. Good times..
To be fair- it does sound like they know how to work it...
Or was this gun practice on a targe range?
I'm kinda surprised the 'shotgun extra' was handed a loaded weapon (apart from blanks of course which wouldn't do much damage except at close range).
Tell that to Brandon Lee...
Quote from: uncle fester on 25 May, 2011, 07:04:25 PM
Tell that to Brandon Lee...
I was more thinking of the 'big holes in the floor', though yes blanks can kill people. Especially if there's detritus in with the charge, etc.
DOn't forget a blank is a small explosive charge and can do pretty hideous damage up to 2m away..
So if the muzzle of a shottie is 10" off the floor and it goes off..
To be fair, this is a second hand anecdote..
In Cadets we show the dangers of blanks by firing one off close to a run can and show them the hole.
That's why we have strict limits on minimum safe distances.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 21 May, 2011, 06:00:58 PM
It's a dangerous film, in the sense that the story places itself precariously on the floorboards of an action sci-fi genre film whilst underneath there's a no less entertaining allegorical comment about this kind of cinema and the violence that tends to come with this kind of product. If we get it right, it will be a cross between Blade Runner and Clockwork Orange.[/b]
http://www.bscine.com/2011/03/camera-creative-anthony-dod-mantle-dff-bsc-127-hours-the-eagle-dredd-3d/
[/quote]
Interesting comment that raises more questions than it answers not that it was answering a specific comment but you get my point.
It seems like there is an external element being introduced within the film which is that the film is essentially a vehicle to make a statement about "This kind of product".
Obviously without knowing more i cannot comment other than to say that i think this may be something that may detract from the film unless its something that reflects the satirical content and statements within the scripts written by Wagner because otherwise i would rather see a JD film without it carrying any extra baggage and cleverness etc.
Not sure why there is a need for this film to be a cross between Bladerunner[i get so tired of references to Bladrunner in general] and A Clockwork Orange as i would rather the film stand on its own merit rather than being in the shadow of those two films but other than that i reserve judgement.........
There is a reason that you must always treat dummy as live. Plus on exercise you will see weapons have a BFA fitted onto the front (it's not just to keep the gases in the weapon to help reload) and it's painted yellow, for safety!
Here's a quip from wiki!
QuoteThe design of the blank firing adapter depends on the intended use. Different designs are used for different firearm actions and different user needs. For military use, BFAs are made obvious in order that they can be seen to be fitted - in addition to its role in cycling the action of a weapon, the BFA also prevents debris from the blank round (and in some cases, inadvertently loaded live rounds) escaping. This debris could cause injury to nearby personnel if the BFA has not been fitted or has fallen off. Use in motion picture special effects, however, requires the BFA to be hidden from casual view, so as not to disturb the illusion of live ammunition being fired, a feat usually accomplished with replacement barrels, the diameter of which is significantly reduced just in front of the chamber.
The BFA on the Cadet A2 rifle allows us to have a minimum safety distance of only 5 metres and will stop 5 live rounds from leaving the barrel.
SMI Perkins 8-)
The adapters on the semi and full automatic weapons in this instance are basically hollow grub screws threaded and even welded to the barrel, so the weapon can still cycle, and also give that lovely movie flash.
The shotguns, however, don't have that, so you get the full blast (depending on the charge..) out of it.
Nice avatar :o
I thought you'd appreciate it ;)
Quote from: Peter Wolf on 26 May, 2011, 07:08:44 PM
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 21 May, 2011, 06:00:58 PM
It's a dangerous film, in the sense that the story places itself precariously on the floorboards of an action sci-fi genre film whilst underneath there's a no less entertaining allegorical comment about this kind of cinema and the violence that tends to come with this kind of product. If we get it right, it will be a cross between Blade Runner and Clockwork Orange.[/b]
http://www.bscine.com/2011/03/camera-creative-anthony-dod-mantle-dff-bsc-127-hours-the-eagle-dredd-3d/
Interesting comment that raises more questions than it answers not that it was answering a specific comment but you get my point.
It seems like there is an external element being introduced within the film which is that the film is essentially a vehicle to make a statement about "This kind of product".
Obviously without knowing more i cannot comment other than to say that i think this may be something that may detract from the film unless its something that reflects the satirical content and statements within the scripts written by Wagner because otherwise i would rather see a JD film without it carrying any extra baggage and cleverness etc.
Not sure why there is a need for this film to be a cross between Bladerunner[i get so tired of references to Bladrunner in general] and A Clockwork Orange as i would rather the film stand on its own merit rather than being in the shadow of those two films but other than that i reserve judgement.........
[/quote]
It's a pretty nebulous comment though. I just took from it that even though it's a straightforward action/adventure/comic adaptation movie, it's got some depth to it.
Also, every movie always gets referred to others when people are trying to explain something in the simplest possible terms. I'm very excited about the comparisons he makes.
I would guess the Blade Runner side of it will come through in the design (you can't do a dystopian future cityscape without that happening) and when I saw Clockwork Orange mentioned I assumed they were comparing the violent oppressive justice of the Judges to the inhumane nature of the Ludevico method, both are pretty grim ways to deal with crime, and methods that could arguably be as bad as what they're trying to cure. Plus, Dredd will likely have the odd juvey gang in it so there's always that comparison too.
So when can we expect the big reveal,teaser trailer,release date,whatever,San Diego Comic Con?
Quote from: blackmocco on 27 May, 2011, 04:57:10 PMIt seems like there is an external element being introduced within the film which is that the film is essentially a vehicle to make a statement about "This kind of product".
Essentially, his comments don't tell you anything other than the intentions of the cinematographer, maybe the director and whomever else.
QuoteObviously without knowing more i cannot comment other than to say that i think this may be something that may detract from the film unless its something that reflects the satirical content and statements within the scripts written by Wagner because otherwise i would rather see a JD film without it carrying any extra baggage and cleverness etc.
At the end of the day, a 'script' is not a film, it's a plan and really, should we be complaining if the only other Dredd film to exist tries to be a little more than
just an 'action' film? Didn't we have enough of the last effort in '95 which couldn't even reach the level of a decent run-of-the-mill action film.
The in-depth knowledge of weaponry of some posts is both impressive and worrying :thumbsup:
Very pleased by Blade Runner comparison, it must have solid design work in place to backup this high benchmark comparison (that alone sells the film to me), not sure about a Clockwork Orange though (very over-rated in my opinion).What bothers me more is the references to very low tech weaponry (shotguns et al), this is supposed to be the future, not the past -the vehicles shown so far (which look sh**e) and no effort made on the weaponry by the sounds of it either, leaves cause for concern.
As posted earlier, why they are not cultivating support from the core fanbase is beyond me ,total readership over 30 years plus must be pretty high, so it is very foolish to neglect this is bordering on insanity.I only hope this changes soon...
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 29 May, 2011, 01:14:46 AM
As posted earlier, why they are not cultivating support from the core fanbase is beyond me ,total readership over 30 years plus must be pretty high, so it is very foolish to neglect this is bordering on insanity.I only hope this changes soon...
Simple, cos at this moment -during production- they don't need to,
IT WON'T BE OUT FOR ANOTHER YEAR, and when they do start marketing, the small core that we are amongst the cinematic masses will be behind it anyway. It's not a mystery, it's just fan impatience and siily need for constant satiation.
QuoteThe in-depth knowledge of weaponry of some posts is both impressive and worrying
Nothing to be worried about. Some of the guys on here are ex military and current members of the armed forces.
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 29 May, 2011, 01:14:46 AM
What bothers me more is the references to very low tech weaponry (shotguns et al),
That doesn't really bother me. I get the impression that the majority of weapons in the comic are based on current technology- projectile weapons. Even the lawgiver is just a more sophisticated version of that. For them to use actual weapons of our time period in the film makes sense considering the route they're taking. (In the
real future I doubt weapons will change much.)
To look at it from another perspective, revolvers are still the firearm of choice for many gun owners. Up until relatively recently it was the weapon used by the US police force, and probably others too. That is Victorian technology. Ironically they're often still more reliable than semi-automatics too, although they have other advantages.
Besides it makes sense that perps in Dredd's time would find it easier to grab 20th century weapons than the high tech stuff of their time period. Museums are easier to raid than army/judge store-houses.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 29 May, 2011, 01:22:20 AM
...it's just fan impatience and siily need for constant satiation.
But I want to suckle at the corporate teat!
Quote from: Mardroid on 29 May, 2011, 04:12:07 AM
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 29 May, 2011, 01:14:46 AM
What bothers me more is the references to very low tech weaponry (shotguns et al),
That doesn't really bother me. I get the impression that the majority of weapons in the comic are based on current technology- projectile weapons. Even the lawgiver is just a more sophisticated version of that. For them to use actual weapons of our time period in the film makes sense considering the route they're taking. (In the real future I doubt weapons will change much.)
To look at it from another perspective, revolvers are still the firearm of choice for many gun owners. Up until relatively recently it was the weapon used by the US police force, and probably others too. That is Victorian technology. Ironically they're often still more reliable than semi-automatics too, although they have other advantages.
Besides it makes sense that perps in Dredd's time would find it easier to grab 20th century weapons than the high tech stuff of their time period. Museums are easier to raid than army/judge store-houses.
plus i'm getting the vibe its set in the
near future presumably when the world as we know it is in complete meltdown and the judges are born to combat it so it kind of makes sense to have a post apocalyptic world with real worldish weapons vehicles etc ,i doubt we'd see much in the way of shiny mega ciies hover cars and h-wagons (though a helicopter based one of those would be cool.)
If we're to assume some correspondence to the comic timeline (and no real reason that we should), then it'll be set in or about 2099. That's 88 years into the (dystopian) future. 88 years ago was 1923, so we were already 20 years into Remington semi-automatic rifles,and .45 automatic pistols were entering wide circulation. Are common firearms that different today than they were between the wars (excluding high-end military issue)? Does anyone believe that the AK-47 won't still be the most common gun on earth as we enter the 22nd century?
I wonder if the AK47 might be the base weapon the Films designers used and they modified it slightly to make it look a bit more futuristic. You often see guns that are clearly modified in movies all the time.
The Lawgiver used by Karl Urbans DREDD looks like a modified Glock pistol as I recall.
Some interesting replies (I was joking Misanthrope ;)
I was thinking the weapons would jar in a film about the the future, but having read the replies maybe they won't.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 29 May, 2011, 01:22:20 AM
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 29 May, 2011, 01:14:46 AM
As posted earlier, why they are not cultivating support from the core fanbase is beyond me ,total readership over 30 years plus must be pretty high, so it is very foolish to neglect this is bordering on insanity.I only hope this changes soon...
Simple, cos at this moment -during production- they don't need to, IT WON'T BE OUT FOR ANOTHER YEAR, and when they do start marketing, the small core that we are amongst the cinematic masses will be behind it anyway. It's not a mystery, it's just fan impatience and siily need for constant satiation.
Strongly disagree here.Not looking for 'constant satiation', so far there has been zip officially and ZERO effort has been made to engage fans.You are also missing the point, you are looking at it from a purely commercial viewpoint (and here again you are wrong).Without the fans there would be NO movie,full stop, so not engaging with us at all is poor judgement and a bit disrespectful.
From a commercial viewpoint it makes no sense either.I estimate there must be over 300,000 who have been 2000ad readers at one time or another over 30 years, add friends and spouses who they may take with them to the cinema ,and the fact that fans tend to make multiple viewings, then you have a SIZEABLE base to support the film.
The YEAR away argument doesn't wash either.I remember LOTR generated a lot of buzz over a year before it was released, a few photos here and there , naturally keeping all the best stuff back till nearer the releaase date.
Anecdote time - Met a guy in my bank with a huge Judge Dredd and Anderson tattoo on his calf (it was a hot sunny day and in shorts, so no ,I didn't strip search him for looking suspicious :)), got chatting, apparently a lapsed 2000ad reader, swiftly converted him back to the cause saying how much he had missed (it had been ten years poor bloke) -then got chatting about the film (it was a long queue and service at my local Nat West is sh**te), and he was not even aware of it (and no he had not been living in a cave, and yes he had internet access).He was very excited by prospect. There are many like him who could be brought back into the fold with some simple marketing, generating simply awareness and word of mouth buzz so far in advance -IS NO BAD THING :thumbsup:
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 29 May, 2011, 01:03:58 PM
You are also missing the point, you are looking at it from a purely commercial viewpoint (and here again you are wrong).Without the fans there would be NO movie,full stop, so not engaging with us at all is poor judgement and a bit disrespectful.
There is no point to miss, simply beacuse there is enough time to build a campaign 6, even 3 months before release rather than a whole year, which is a long time in the movies. What difference does it make to us when they start that campaign since we are all ready aware of it's existence. Marketing is for those who are unaware of the film and pay no attention to the character. Has the dearth of info killed your curiousity in this film?, your posting on this forum would suggest not. Absence makes the heart grow fonder, familiarity breeds contempt or too much of a good thing... and all that guff.
QuoteThe YEAR away argument doesn't wash either.I remember LOTR generated a lot of buzz over a year before it was released, a few photos here and there , naturally keeping all the best stuff back till nearer the release date.
and how much of a budget did LOTR have? They had an entire department of people dedicated to that sort of thing and it wasn't just a campaign that had a
few photos a year before release it was full blown early fx reels 2 years before release. Just because they are films doesn't make them comparable in every way, It's like comparing apples & oranges, they're all fruit but it's rather pointless. To mount a PROPER campaign you have to spend money to do it. You can't judge 'Dredd' (pun intended) by the standards of mega-budget films.
Seriously, the film only finished shooting in March, it's only been two months since for-fuck's-sake, and we got our first picture of Dredd before it ever started shooting. That's not the norm. Would you not rather wait for a really good teaser to blow you away rather than a few snap-shots. I've seen early campaigns that have been completely detrimental to films where the audience lost interest. Whether the campaign starts now or 6 months from now won't make that much of a difference. An early campaign didn't do anything to save Watchmen from being a flop.
So what difference does it make to Dredd fans, lapsed or otherwise, for the producers to start shelling out stuff now a full year before release. It's not like people won't notice the advertising, old Dredd fans et al when it starts months before release, the web has sped up the dissemination of info. Considering the response of juvenile fan-criticism of the Lawmaters etc from a few guerilla photos can you blame the film-makers waiting to unveil a proper showcase?
When the advertising does start, months from now, this discussion will be completely forgotten.
If you want a film comparison, people tend to forget a medium budget ($11 million) sci-fi film in 1977 that had very little marketing -in the age of television- it opened in a small number of cinemas and with word-of-mouth became quite succesful ($775,398,007). It's timing and luck and no one really knows anything.
Quote from: IAMTHESYSTEM on 29 May, 2011, 12:55:12 PM
I wonder if the AK47 might be the base weapon the Films designers used and they modified it slightly to make it look a bit more futuristic. You often see guns that are clearly modified in movies all the time.
Didn't touch 'em
QuoteThe Lawgiver used by Karl Urbans DREDD looks like a modified Glock pistol as I recall.
PM me..
Quote from: TordelBack on 29 May, 2011, 10:08:48 AM
If we're to assume some correspondence to the comic timeline (and no real reason that we should), then it'll be set in or about 2099. That's 88 years into the (dystopian) future. 88 years ago was 1923, so we were already 20 years into Remington semi-automatic rifles,and .45 automatic pistols were entering wide circulation. Are common firearms that different today than they were between the wars (excluding high-end military issue)? Does anyone believe that the AK-47 won't still be the most common gun on earth as we enter the 22nd century?
The M1911 MEU in service with the US marine corps today is essentially 100 years old. There's no reason why Glock 17 variants won't be around for another 90 or so..
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 29 May, 2011, 01:41:24 PM
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 29 May, 2011, 01:03:58 PM
You are also missing the point, you are looking at it from a purely commercial viewpoint (and here again you are wrong).Without the fans there would be NO movie,full stop, so not engaging with us at all is poor judgement and a bit disrespectful.
There is no point to miss, simply beacuse there is enough time to build a campaign 6, even 3 months before release rather than a whole year, which is a long time in the movies. What difference does it make to us when they start that campaign since we are all ready aware of it's existence. Marketing is for those who are unaware of the film and pay no attention to the character. Has the dearth of info killed your curiousity in this film?, your posting on this forum would suggest not. Absence makes the heart grow fonder, familiarity breeds contempt or too much of a good thing... and all that guff.
QuoteThe YEAR away argument doesn't wash either.I remember LOTR generated a lot of buzz over a year before it was released, a few photos here and there , naturally keeping all the best stuff back till nearer the release date.
and how much of a budget did LOTR have? They had an entire department of people dedicated to that sort of thing and it wasn't just a campaign that had a few photos a year before release it was full blown early fx reels 2 years before release. Just because they are films doesn't make them comparable in every way, It's like comparing apples & oranges, they're all fruit but it's rather pointless. To mount a PROPER campaign you have to spend money to do it. You can't judge 'Dredd' (pun intended) by the standards of mega-budget films.
Seriously, the film only finished shooting in March, it's only been two months since for-fuck's-sake, and we got our first picture of Dredd before it ever started shooting. That's not the norm. Would you not rather wait for a really good teaser to blow you away rather than a few snap-shots. I've seen early campaigns that have been completely detrimental to films where the audience lost interest. Whether the campaign starts now or 6 months from now won't make that much of a difference. An early campaign didn't do anything to save Watchmen from being a flop.
So what difference does it make to Dredd fans, lapsed or otherwise, for the producers to start shelling out stuff now a full year before release. It's not like people won't notice the advertising, old Dredd fans et al when it starts months before release, the web has sped up the dissemination of info. Considering the response of juvenile fan-criticism of the Lawmaters etc from a few guerilla photos can you blame the film-makers waiting to unveil a proper showcase?
When the advertising does start, months from now, this discussion will be completely forgotten.
Very well said. We have to remember that this is not a "mega" blockbuster like "The Dark Knight", "Watchmen" or "Star Trek". This is an independent small film like "Sin City", "Kick-Ass", "Solomon Kane", and "District 9". As I recall, the last 4 mentioned films didn't kick-off their marketing that early.
It seems simple enough to even my feeble brain. You have X amount of dosh for promotion. You can spread that dosh over 24 months (in pre-production), 18 months (before/during filming), 12 months (during/after filming), 6 months (summer teasers for Christmas movies) or 3 months (the actual run up to the release). If you have loads of money, you can do the whole lot. If you have very little, you need to think about how best to spend it. Starting 18-12 months out with a small amount of money, you run the risk of "hasn't that already been out?" syndrome, where everyone has the nagging suspicion that the film has been and gone but nobody noticed, it's been so long since the trailer/article/stills. If you can't afford to keep it constantly in the public eye for the whole gestation period, don't try. Seems to me that you'd do best to keep your powder dry, hope Karl Urban and John Wagner say nice things when asked, and don't shoot 'til you see the whites of their popcorn.
OTOH I think more sensitive use could have been made of the kind of free positive word of mouth from the production team that we were getting several months back. This was all specialist enough that the general public, even the non-Tooth online nerderatti, couldn't care less about it, but the hardcore fanbase would have been kept well disposed to the project. Of course there's no point preaching to the converted - our tickets are as good as bought.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 29 May, 2011, 02:06:47 PM
If you want a film comparison, people tend to forget a medium budget ($11 million) sci-fi film in 1977 that had very little marketing -in the age of television- it opened in a small number of cinemas and with word-of-mouth became quite succesful ($775,398,007). It's timing and luck and no one really knows anything.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_qaYwze3SHP8/TGFaICt10JI/AAAAAAAABU0/wmRB-vAB7XY/s1600/Damnation_Alley_Landmaster.jpg)
You mean this, right...? :o
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 29 May, 2011, 01:03:58 PM
Strongly disagree here.Not looking for 'constant satiation', so far there has been zip officially and ZERO effort has been made to engage fans.You are also missing the point, you are looking at it from a purely commercial viewpoint (and here again you are wrong).Without the fans there would be NO movie,full stop, so not engaging with us at all is poor judgement and a bit disrespectful.
From a commercial viewpoint it makes no sense either.I estimate there must be over 300,000 who have been 2000ad readers at one time or another over 30 years, add friends and spouses who they may take with them to the cinema ,and the fact that fans tend to make multiple viewings, then you have a SIZEABLE base to support the film.
The YEAR away argument doesn't wash either.I remember LOTR generated a lot of buzz over a year before it was released, a few photos here and there , naturally keeping all the best stuff back till nearer the releaase date.
Anecdote time - Met a guy in my bank with a huge Judge Dredd and Anderson tattoo on his calf (it was a hot sunny day and in shorts, so no ,I didn't strip search him for looking suspicious :)), got chatting, apparently a lapsed 2000ad reader, swiftly converted him back to the cause saying how much he had missed (it had been ten years poor bloke) -then got chatting about the film (it was a long queue and service at my local Nat West is sh**te), and he was not even aware of it (and no he had not been living in a cave, and yes he had internet access).He was very excited by prospect. There are many like him who could be brought back into the fold with some simple marketing, generating simply awareness and word of mouth buzz so far in advance -IS NO BAD THING :thumbsup:
It's all been said. None so blind as those who won't see. They haven't got the cash to promote this thing incessantly for a full year. LOTR had probably three times Dredd's budget to spend on publicity alone and a FAR bigger (therefore a safer bet than something on the fringe like Dredd) fanbase to keep satisfied. Be another six months before we see anything substantial...
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 29 May, 2011, 01:41:24 PM
So what difference does it make to Dredd fans, lapsed or otherwise, for the producers to Considering the response of juvenile fan-criticism of the Lawmaters etc from a few guerilla photos can you blame the film-makers waiting to unveil a proper showcase?
They are going to have to do it eventually so waiting because they are worried about negative and "Juvenile" comments really isnt going to make any difference in the long term and if everyone concerned went into it knowing that a certain amount of criticism is inevitable/unavoidable then you should either not make the film in the first place or make the film regardless of the expected criticism.
All films especially in the SciFi genre are subject to criticism by fans and non fans alike and i dont really see it as a deterrent to marketing a film as it comes with the territory and they should know this.
I dont think anyone wants a sycophantic fan forum very much where all criticism is positive and constructive only and even if you did it isnt going to happen unless there is a no negative comment rule which i dont see happening.
sureley emailing one piccy to certain sites /mags etc wouldnt cost much :)
Patience is a virtue guys, while I hope the film is good, I just hope its not so bad that it damages 2000ad like the last one.
David
Quote from: Peter Wolf on 29 May, 2011, 09:50:36 PM
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 29 May, 2011, 01:41:24 PMSo what difference does it make to Dredd fans, lapsed or otherwise, for the producers to Considering the response of juvenile fan-criticism of the Lawmaters etc from a few guerilla photos can you blame the film-makers waiting to unveil a proper showcase?
They are going to have to do it eventually so waiting because they are worried about negative and "Juvenile" comments really isnt going to make any difference in the long term and if everyone concerned went into it knowing that a certain amount of criticism is inevitable/unavoidable then you should either not make the film in the first place or make the film regardless of the expected criticism.
All films especially in the SciFi genre are subject to criticism by fans and non fans alike and i dont really see it as a deterrent to marketing a film as it comes with the territory and they should know this.
I dont think anyone wants a sycophantic fan forum very much where all criticism is positive and constructive only and even if you did it isnt going to happen unless there is a no negative comment rule which i dont see happening.
Taking one part of my argument out of context to criticise doesn't reallly represent what I was saying. I never said the whole reason we weren't hearing anything was because of
negative reaction especially when most of the pictures we've seen have been totally 'unofficial' in the first place. I am merely saying things, quite
logically, aren't ready yet to be released and we aren't the only ones to please and I repeat:
IT'S ONLY BEEN TWO MONTHS SINCE THE SHOOT FINISHED.
The eventual cinema audience for Dredd won't only be
us and
realistically any criticism we would have at this stage will neither be constructive, negative or have much point other than academic since the film has been completely shot and not much we offer can change it now. If they were interested in our opinon that much, they would have consulted us beforehand and a badly co-ordinated marketing campaign on a small budget could damage potential. They are doing the right thing as far as I can see.
Quote from: mogzilla on 29 May, 2011, 10:05:04 PM
sureley emailing one piccy to certain sites /mags etc wouldnt cost much :)
No, but it wouldn't do much for support either in the space of a year.
To add to the point, releasing a bunch of out-of-context pictures in isolation on the web just so a bunch of twits like us can express their disapproval/approval or 'I wouldn't have done it that way' is not good marketing. Patience is a virtue.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 29 May, 2011, 10:51:53 PM
Quote from: Peter Wolf on 29 May, 2011, 09:50:36 PM
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 29 May, 2011, 01:41:24 PMSo what difference does it make to Dredd fans, lapsed or otherwise, for the producers to Considering the response of juvenile fan-criticism of the Lawmaters etc from a few guerilla photos can you blame the film-makers waiting to unveil a proper showcase?
They are going to have to do it eventually so waiting because they are worried about negative and "Juvenile" comments really isnt going to make any difference in the long term and if everyone concerned went into it knowing that a certain amount of criticism is inevitable/unavoidable then you should either not make the film in the first place or make the film regardless of the expected criticism.
All films especially in the SciFi genre are subject to criticism by fans and non fans alike and i dont really see it as a deterrent to marketing a film as it comes with the territory and they should know this.
I dont think anyone wants a sycophantic fan forum very much where all criticism is positive and constructive only and even if you did it isnt going to happen unless there is a no negative comment rule which i dont see happening.
Taking one part of my argument out of context to criticise doesn't reallly represent what I was saying. I never said the whole reason we weren't hearing anything was because of negative reaction especially when most of the pictures we've seen have been totally 'unofficial' in the first place. I am merely saying things, quite logically, aren't ready yet to be released and we aren't the only ones to please and I repeat: IT'S ONLY BEEN TWO MONTHS SINCE THE SHOOT FINISHED.
The eventual cinema audience for Dredd won't only be us and realistically any criticism we would have at this stage will neither be constructive, negative or have much point other than academic since the film has been completely shot and not much we offer can change it now. If they were interested in our opinon that much, they would have consulted us beforehand and a badly co-ordinated marketing campaign on a small budget could damage potential. They are doing the right thing as far as I can see.
I am not taking any part of your comment out of context as it was within context as you suggested something and i added my thoughts about that suggestion.
It was one aspect of what you were saying which is why i quoted that part of your comment.
Further back i posted a comment regarding why there hasnt been any promotion so far and you replied to it with a correction so i took that onboard and havent added any further comments so there is no need for you to have to use red Capitals to drive the point home further for my benefit as i got what you said the first time.
If anyone else can point out and explain why my comment was out of context then feel free to do so.
Just to respond to some points
1 -Cash is simply NOT an issue.A website can be set up for peanuts which can engage with fans and slowly BUILD interest (ie draw in other non or lapsed fans back in).This in turn generates FREE chatter on the social and 'geek' websites which draws more in...A virtuous circle.
2- Holding back till later, I agree keep the better stuff back till close to release but operating a complete vacuum is unwise.
3- I have 20/20 vision blackmocco :geek: :thumbsup:
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 30 May, 2011, 01:19:12 PM
1 -A website can be set up for peanuts which can engage with fans and slowly BUILD interest (ie draw in other non or lapsed fans back in).This in turn generates FREE chatter on the social and 'geek' websites which draws more in...A virtuous circle.
2 -Holding back till later, I agree keep the better stuff back till close to release but operating a complete vacuum is unwise.
Isn't that what this forum is doing?
The circulation of the first official pic of Karl Urban as Dredd prompted a number of lapsed fans to this forum but non fans will probably stick to their preferred sites anyway. Besides, anything the producers release now will be drowned out by the hype for this summer's blockbuster movies. I suspect we won't see anything till New York Comic Con in October at the earliest.
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 30 May, 2011, 01:19:12 PM
1 -Cash is simply NOT an issue.A website can be set up for peanuts...
Yes, a pish poor, amateur looking website can be set up for peanuts. A decent website could be set up for a modest cost price, but the marketeers would probably charge obscene amounts of money for setting it up.
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 30 May, 2011, 01:19:12 PM
... but operating a complete vacuum is unwise.
Why? It's already been pointed out that the fanbase have practically bought their tickets anyway.
You want to know why I think they're being so secretive? This very forum. At this stage, it's only people on this forum that are really interested in this film, and so far, one official still and one guerilla pic have generated 150+ pages of critical comments. When that lawmaster pic came out, io9.com ran a story about how Dredd doesn't look at all promising. To back this opinion up, they cited
this forum. If you want to blame someone for the lack of publicity, blame this forum and the (*edit)
minority of impatient, short-sighted, self-important eejits, who think they know better than the professionals
on behalf of the impatient ones...steady on. :P! as for the self important short sighted ones fair 'nuff ;)
QuoteWhen that lawmaster pic came out, io9.com ran a story about how Dredd doesn't look at all promising. To back this opinion up, they cited this forum. If you want to blame someone for the lack of publicity, blame this forum and the (*edit) minority of impatient, short-sighted, self-important eejits, who think they know better than the professionals
^^^This.
Quote from: pops1983 on 30 May, 2011, 06:46:54 PM
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 30 May, 2011, 01:19:12 PM
1 -Cash is simply NOT an issue.A website can be set up for peanuts...
Yes, a pish poor, amateur looking website can be set up for peanuts. A decent website could be set up for a modest cost price, but the marketeers would probably charge obscene amounts of money for setting it up.
Not sure what you are talking about here :-* since its the marketeers who would be being charged for the construction of the website not the other way around since the marketeers dont create the website and if it was created inhouse they wouldnt be charging themselves or anyone else "obscene amounts of money setting it up" as it would be within their promotion budget.
Have a rethink about your comment.
Its a very good suggestion of mine and @Sherman Kid about a website but so far apart from your ill thought out comment that throws a bucket of water over it no one else has added their thoughts about it.
The rest of your comment i dont go along with either as its just the blame game but of course the io.9 article cited this forum because the pics surfaced on this forum and further to that io.9 could have chosen to write a positive article instead of an article that mirrored an opinion that was shared by a few here.
So if its now all about the blame game then can io.9 share some of the blame for sabotaging the promotion of the film that you are pinning on comments left by myself and others here ?
I should know better than to get involved in this topic as it is pissing me off just like it did before but its disappointing that its degenerating into the blame game.
"who think they know better than the professionals"
Translates to :Keep ALL comments positive at ALL times and dont dare question design elements of a bike for example and dont question professionals.Ever.
QuoteTranslates to :Keep ALL comments positive at ALL times and dont dare question design elements of a bike for example and dont question professionals.Ever.
Or maybe: stop repeating the same tired 'I know better than the film company how to market a movie that they- not me- have invested many millions of pounds in' complaints, no matter how many times the reasons they are doing what they are doing are explained?
In my experience, professionals doesn't necessarily equate to being particularly good at a job, or having much of a clue.
Neither does being a fan mean that they're correct either.
Quote from: Peter Wolf on 30 May, 2011, 07:15:16 PM
I should know better than to get involved in this topic as it is pissing me off just like it did before
Same here dude
QuoteSo if its now all about the blame game...
Not intended, just pissed off at all these pointless debates about a film we know nothing about
Quote from: Peter Wolf on 30 May, 2011, 07:15:16 PM
"who think they know better than the professionals"
Translates to :Keep ALL comments positive at ALL times and dont dare question design elements of a bike for example and dont question professionals.Ever.
No. Translates as smart arse know-it-alls.
Maybe I just should have said that in the first place, as it could also be applied to professionals
despite loving everything im seeing thus far would it not be more prudent to lock the threads until we do have some official news/snippets? save all the negness ?
Is there a way of ignoring individual threads?
Quote from: Richmond Clements on 30 May, 2011, 07:20:16 PM
QuoteTranslates to :Keep ALL comments positive at ALL times and dont dare question design elements of a bike for example and dont question professionals.Ever.
Or maybe: stop repeating the same tired 'I know better than the film company how to market a movie that they- not me- have invested many millions of pounds in' complaints, no matter how many times the reasons they are doing what they are doing are explained?
I thought i had stopped repeating it since i was corrected a short while back and i dont have anything else to add about it apart from suggesting a website.
I suggested the website on a personal basis because i dont have that much of an interest in films these days like i used to but it was the District 9 website that got my attention and interest of the film and it was something new that i hadnt seen done before so suggesting a website was trying to add something constructive to what was being talked about.
Apologies for snapping at you @Pops and adding to the negativity.
[I was posting while being quite annoyed over something else on another forum]
Think nothing of it Mr. Wolf. I've never been snapped at so level headedly.
I'm always a wee bit snappy meself, especially before dinner
Isn't that what this forum is doing?
[/quote]
Yes, JUST this forum that's my pont
Quote from: pops1983 on 30 May, 2011, 06:46:54 PM
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 30 May, 2011, 01:19:12 PM
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 30 May, 2011, 01:19:12 PM
... but operating a complete vacuum is unwise.
Why? It's already been pointed out that the fanbase have practically bought their tickets anyway.
You want to know why I think they're being so secretive? This very forum. If you want to blame someone for the lack of publicity, blame this forum and the (*edit) minority of impatient, short-sighted, self-important eejits, who think they know better than the professionals
Quote
Wow, where to start with this one.Well, firstly the idea is to ADD to the support base, a good website would be a big help.Secondly 'know better than the professionals', that's what you call White Coat Syndrome where people naturally defer to anyone with authority without thinking themselves.I work in advertising and come across Marketeers regularly and know that they only ever recommend an idea if it is THEIR idea or they can portray it to their client as their idea(otherwise it underminds their position -sad but true).Thirdly, the people on this forum know more about the Dredd universe than most, so clearly can give their opinion good or bad, that's a bit like shooting the messenger.There is no blame game, it is important to listen to the views of others that's all, and if on balance they have a point correct course accordingly -nobody is a smart arse on this forum :|
Quote from: Richmond Clements on 30 May, 2011, 07:20:16 PM
QuoteTranslates to :Keep ALL comments positive at ALL times and dont dare question design elements of a bike for example and dont question professionals.Ever.
Or maybe: stop repeating the same tired 'I know better than the film company how to market a movie that they- not me- have invested many millions of pounds in' complaints, no matter how many times the reasons they are doing what they are doing are explained?
Missed this bit.Explained?Where, by who.Apart from posters like Joe Soap who have put a rationale to it and a quote from Jock , (leaving aside Michael who was given the :-X treatment),NOTHING has been officially said THAT is our point.
They will give us what we need when they are good and ready. Just sit on your coat tails and be patient. All will be OK in the end.
This is the problem with the world today. Everything needs to be done yesterday.(I've got a wife like this)
V
Quote from: vzzbux on 30 May, 2011, 09:05:55 PM
They will give us what we need when they are good and ready. Just sit on your coat tails and be patient. All will be OK in the end.
This is the problem with the world today. Everything needs to be done yesterday.(I've got a wife like this)
V
with my xbox being awol for a month and yet another "trim" that needs to grow out i am learning patience
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 30 May, 2011, 08:57:08 PM
Quote from: Richmond Clements on 30 May, 2011, 07:20:16 PM
QuoteTranslates to :Keep ALL comments positive at ALL times and dont dare question design elements of a bike for example and dont question professionals.Ever.
Or maybe: stop repeating the same tired 'I know better than the film company how to market a movie that they- not me- have invested many millions of pounds in' complaints, no matter how many times the reasons they are doing what they are doing are explained?
Missed this bit.Explained?Where, by who.Apart from posters like Joe Soap who have put a rationale to it and a quote from Jock , (leaving aside Michael who was given the :-X treatment),NOTHING has been officially said THAT is our point.
Jesus christ. I give up.
Why people feel they are entitled to be privy to the details/whys/wherefores of something they have no current worthy involvement in is worrying, asking why their 'concerns' haven't been acknowledged by said parties is tantamount to delusion. Do these people troll other companies demanding they reveal their new products before they hit the market? It shows that the geek mentality can manifest as illness and stunt one's mental growth. It'll be a 'conspiracy' next.
Nothing official has been said concerning the promotion but what i was told by others here seemed reasonable and plausable so i was happy to accept it rather than going on about it further.
I do this quite a lot regarding political type stuff where you very rarely have the official reason why so you have to either work it out for yourself or go with the explanation that makes the most sense until you get more information as continually asking the same question isnt really productive.
Anyway people are going to sound off about things on the internet wehter they know anything about the subject or not so getting worked up over that is just pointless.I am not preaching as i am guilty of both.
We can all be guilty of impatience but there's no reasoning with some 'tools'.
Joe whenever anyone circumvents/disagress with your arguments you descend into sniping 'trolls', 'tools' et al ::).No-one said they were 'entitled' and if no-one gave ,or could give ,an opinion on matters they have 'no current worthy involvement with' as you put it , who would bother to take an interest in anything ???
Look some posters disagree with the way things are being done -live with it
Quote from: Richmond Clements on 30 May, 2011, 09:47:42 PM
Jesus christ. I give up.
I think that would be the wisest course.
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 31 May, 2011, 03:03:35 AMLook some posters disagree with the way things are being done -live with it
The irony kills me.
I've decided that there is a certain course these film-makers are taking. Due to costs and complications and man hours, it's best to leave all promotion until the fat lady sings over the film production itself.Once they have a finely crafted artefact of the viewing and hearing middle medium of cinema, the concentration on promotion will proceed. Until then there is a budget to not gamble with, every penny counts and doing one thing at a time must be the wisest move all round.
Stands to reason.
Sits to disapproval.
I can just picture a crowd of sour faced, disapproving nerds, arms folded, shaking their heads and muttering, "come on then you highly experienced, professional film-makers, it's about time you showed us, the REAL FANS, what you've been up to, don't you think?"
Er, no. Just wait and let the meticulously planned release schedule run it's course. They know what they're doing. You don't have the first idea.
QuoteEr, no. Just wait and let the meticulously planned release schedule run it's course. They know what they're doing. You don't have the first idea.
Yeah, but why don't the release any picture now? ... and so on until the heat death of the universe...
if they hadnt stuck that piccy on 'ere none of this wouldve 'appened. ;)
Good things come to those who wait ;)
If threads could have symbols the ouroboros picture would be so fitting. ;)
I'll admit, speaking purely from a fan perspective, I hope to see more soon. That picture of Anderson would be nice, at the very least.
That being said, the anticipation is all part of the fun for me, and we've waited this long. There are plenty of other films/programmes to watch, and books and comics to read in the meantime. There won't be that long to wait. I find it curious (and worrying in some way) just how fast time seems to go past nowadays.
Quote from: mogzilla on 31 May, 2011, 11:56:27 AM
if they hadnt stuck that piccy on 'ere none of this wouldve 'appened. ;)
If they hadnt made the film none of this would have happened.
I think they are not releasing any pics or doing any promotion just to upset and annoy the fans.
If they dont do something very soon i am not going to watch the film and i sent the production company and the promotion company an email saying exactly that.
;) [Just in case anyone thought i was being serious]
I'm happy to wait. I actually hate going to the cinema only to find they put all the good bits into the 4 min trailer I sat through to see if it was worth going to see in the first place ;-)
I'm still waiting for a 'The Thing' prequel trailer or set photos......
Psidude. Love the avatar. That is devotion. I also have Anderson Tattooed on my arm.
V
Thanks vzzbux appreciate it.been a fan of the galaxys greatest comic the last 28 years,so showed my devotion getting a tattoo of Cassandra.would love to see your anderson tattoo? iam getting judge death next week on my other arm.
Quote from: Psidude on 01 June, 2011, 05:32:17 PM
Thanks vzzbux appreciate it.been a fan of the galaxys greatest comic the last 28 years,so showed my devotion getting a tattoo of Cassandra.would love to see your anderson tattoo? iam getting judge death next week on my other arm.
Mine's on a Tattoo thread somewhere in the doldrums of the off topic menu.
V
hunted it out nice work,also wicked t shirt!
Quote from: Lee Bates on 31 May, 2011, 11:41:38 AM
I can just picture a crowd of sour faced, disapproving nerds, arms folded, shaking their heads and muttering, "come on then you highly experienced, professional film-makers, it's about time you showed us, the REAL FANS, what you've been up to, don't you think?"
Er, no. Just wait and let the meticulously planned release schedule run it's course. They know what they're doing. You don't have the first idea.
That's not the only purpose of pre-publicity, though. It's not just about throwing out tidbits to keep the fans happy, it's about building a buzz and cultivating interest among people who would otherwise be unaware that a new Judge Dredd movie is on the way. You know, so it doesn't sink like a stone upon release.
What concerns me is, less than a year to go till the release date, and does anyone in the "real" world(outside of forums and so on) actually know this movie is happening yet? If not, that could be a problem.
Quote from: Goosegash on 03 June, 2011, 02:51:13 PM
Quote from: Lee Bates on 31 May, 2011, 11:41:38 AM
I can just picture a crowd of sour faced, disapproving nerds, arms folded, shaking their heads and muttering, "come on then you highly experienced, professional film-makers, it's about time you showed us, the REAL FANS, what you've been up to, don't you think?"
Er, no. Just wait and let the meticulously planned release schedule run it's course. They know what they're doing. You don't have the first idea.
That's not the only purpose of pre-publicity, though. It's not just about throwing out tidbits to keep the fans happy, it's about building a buzz and cultivating interest among people who would otherwise be unaware that a new Judge Dredd movie is on the way. You know, so it doesn't sink like a stone upon release.
What concerns me is, less than a year to go till the release date, and does anyone in the "real" world(outside of forums and so on) actually know this movie is happening yet? If not, that could be a problem.
Why would they care? It's 'only' Judge Dredd, most people are only vaguely aware of the character and, as you say, the film's not out for nearly a year. The film makers have a marketing budget and they need to make every penny count. If they 'shoot their load' too soon, they won't have anything left for the big event.
A tightly focused burst of marketing shortly before the release of this relatively low budget film is the most effective way of selling it to Billy Punter. "HEY YOU!!! LOOK AT THIS JUDGE DREDD FILM!!! IT'S OUT NEXT WEEK!!! GO SEE IT!!!"
The only people who will see any publicity shots on the internet are NERDS like you and me who already know the film is coming out.
Quote from: Lee Bates on 03 June, 2011, 03:15:48 PM
Quote from: Goosegash on 03 June, 2011, 02:51:13 PM
Quote from: Lee Bates on 31 May, 2011, 11:41:38 AM
I can just picture a crowd of sour faced, disapproving nerds, arms folded, shaking their heads and muttering, "come on then you highly experienced, professional film-makers, it's about time you showed us, the REAL FANS, what you've been up to, don't you think?"
Er, no. Just wait and let the meticulously planned release schedule run it's course. They know what they're doing. You don't have the first idea.
That's not the only purpose of pre-publicity, though. It's not just about throwing out tidbits to keep the fans happy, it's about building a buzz and cultivating interest among people who would otherwise be unaware that a new Judge Dredd movie is on the way. You know, so it doesn't sink like a stone upon release.
What concerns me is, less than a year to go till the release date, and does anyone in the "real" world(outside of forums and so on) actually know this movie is happening yet? If not, that could be a problem.
Why would they care? It's 'only' Judge Dredd, most people are only vaguely aware of the character and, as you say, the film's not out for nearly a year. The film makers have a marketing budget and they need to make every penny count. If they 'shoot their load' too soon, they won't have anything left for the big event.
A tightly focused burst of marketing shortly before the release of this relatively low budget film is the most effective way of selling it to Billy Punter. "HEY YOU!!! LOOK AT THIS JUDGE DREDD FILM!!! IT'S OUT NEXT WEEK!!! GO SEE IT!!!"
The only people who will see any publicity shots on the internet are NERDS like you and me who already know the film is coming out.
OK Then.
Let that be the final word on the matter.
[No one else has any idea except yourself as in "You dont have the first idea"]
Quote from: Peter Wolf on 03 June, 2011, 07:03:59 PM
Quote from: Lee Bates on 03 June, 2011, 03:15:48 PM
Quote from: Goosegash on 03 June, 2011, 02:51:13 PM
Quote from: Lee Bates on 31 May, 2011, 11:41:38 AM
I can just picture a crowd of sour faced, disapproving nerds, arms folded, shaking their heads and muttering, "come on then you highly experienced, professional film-makers, it's about time you showed us, the REAL FANS, what you've been up to, don't you think?"
Er, no. Just wait and let the meticulously planned release schedule run it's course. They know what they're doing. You don't have the first idea.
That's not the only purpose of pre-publicity, though. It's not just about throwing out tidbits to keep the fans happy, it's about building a buzz and cultivating interest among people who would otherwise be unaware that a new Judge Dredd movie is on the way. You know, so it doesn't sink like a stone upon release.
What concerns me is, less than a year to go till the release date, and does anyone in the "real" world(outside of forums and so on) actually know this movie is happening yet? If not, that could be a problem.
Why would they care? It's 'only' Judge Dredd, most people are only vaguely aware of the character and, as you say, the film's not out for nearly a year. The film makers have a marketing budget and they need to make every penny count. If they 'shoot their load' too soon, they won't have anything left for the big event.
A tightly focused burst of marketing shortly before the release of this relatively low budget film is the most effective way of selling it to Billy Punter. "HEY YOU!!! LOOK AT THIS JUDGE DREDD FILM!!! IT'S OUT NEXT WEEK!!! GO SEE IT!!!"
The only people who will see any publicity shots on the internet are NERDS like you and me who already know the film is coming out.
OK Then.
Let that be the final word on the matter.
[No one else has any idea except yourself as in "You dont have the first idea"]
Cheer up Peter. It's only a comic forum.
Comic forum or not its still an open discussion where ideas or criticism or anything else is put forward the same as anywhere else.
The fact that the discussion is within a comic forum doesnt detract from or diminish points raised within the discussion in any way.
Quote from: Peter Wolf on 03 June, 2011, 11:51:20 PM
Comic forum or not its still an open discussion where ideas or criticism or anything else is put forward the same as anywhere else.
The fact that the discussion is within a comic forum doesnt detract from or diminish points raised within the discussion in any way.
I didn't diminish anyone's point. I wasn't talking about you anyway but I thought that the tongue in cheek tone of my post would have indicated that I was trying to be funny. Apologies if I failed and came across as a twat.
I was trying to put my point of view forward in a humourous way whilst poking gentle fun at some of the more troll-like posts we've had about the film.
Quote from: Lee Bates on 04 June, 2011, 01:55:57 AM
Quote from: Peter Wolf on 03 June, 2011, 11:51:20 PM
Comic forum or not its still an open discussion where ideas or criticism or anything else is put forward the same as anywhere else.
The fact that the discussion is within a comic forum doesnt detract from or diminish points raised within the discussion in any way.
I didn't diminish anyone's point. I wasn't talking about you anyway but I thought that the tongue in cheek tone of my post would have indicated that I was trying to be funny. Apologies if I failed and came across as a twat.
I was trying to put my point of view forward in a humourous way whilst poking gentle fun at some of the more troll-like posts we've had about the film.
Apologies then for completely misreading what you were saying. ::)
Quote from: Lee Bates on 03 June, 2011, 03:15:48 PM
Quote from: Goosegash on 03 June, 2011, 02:51:13 PM
Quote from: Lee Bates on 31 May, 2011, 11:41:38 AM
I can just picture a crowd of sour faced, disapproving nerds, arms folded, shaking their heads and muttering, "come on then you highly experienced, professional film-makers, it's about time you showed us, the REAL FANS, what you've been up to, don't you think?"
Er, no. Just wait and let the meticulously planned release schedule run it's course. They know what they're doing. You don't have the first idea.
That's not the only purpose of pre-publicity, though. It's not just about throwing out tidbits to keep the fans happy, it's about building a buzz and cultivating interest among people who would otherwise be unaware that a new Judge Dredd movie is on the way. You know, so it doesn't sink like a stone upon release.
What concerns me is, less than a year to go till the release date, and does anyone in the "real" world(outside of forums and so on) actually know this movie is happening yet? If not, that could be a problem.
Why would they care? It's 'only' Judge Dredd, most people are only vaguely aware of the character and, as you say, the film's not out for nearly a year. The film makers have a marketing budget and they need to make every penny count. If they 'shoot their load' too soon, they won't have anything left for the big event.
A tightly focused burst of marketing shortly before the release of this relatively low budget film is the most effective way of selling it to Billy Punter. "HEY YOU!!! LOOK AT THIS JUDGE DREDD FILM!!! IT'S OUT NEXT WEEK!!! GO SEE IT!!!"
The only people who will see any publicity shots on the internet are NERDS like you and me who already know the film is coming out.
'HEY YOU GO SEE JUDGE DREDD!!', marketeer
'WHO'S JUDGE DREDD?, JOE PUNTER 1
'IT'S THAT GUY WHO USED TO BE IN THE PROFESSIONALS WHO WEARS A WIG IN COURT', JP2
'REALLY?THEY MADE A FILM OF THAT?' JP1
'YUP'
'NAH, LET'S SEE TRANSFORMERS 6'
'RIGHT WITH YER'
It's gonna take a lot of TIME and effort to pierce Joe Punters skull as to what Judge Dredd is all about -I wish them luck
Good job it's just called 'Dredd' then.
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 05 June, 2011, 02:26:19 PM
'HEY YOU GO SEE JUDGE DREDD!!', marketeer
'WHO'S JUDGE DREDD?, JOE PUNTER 1
'IT'S THAT GUY WHO USED TO BE IN THE PROFESSIONALS WHO WEARS A WIG IN COURT', JP2
'REALLY?THEY MADE A FILM OF THAT?' JP1
'YUP'
'NAH, LET'S SEE TRANSFORMERS 6'
'RIGHT WITH YER'
It's gonna take a lot of TIME and effort to pierce Joe Punters skull as to what Judge Dredd is all about -I wish them luck
It's really not. Much as I hate to burst the bubble, the average Joe Punter won't be going to see Dredd. It's not going to be fucking Bridesmaids or The English Patient, is it? It's an R-rated action/sci-fi movie adaptation of a (outside of the UK) moderately well-known comic character that already comes with very, VERY negative baggage as a previously failed franchise attempt.
I mean, why do you think they're making it the low-budget route in the first place? Because they know it's a very limited and specific audience and they need to give it the best chance they can for it to be successful. An aggressive marketing campaign that punches people in the face two months before it opens makes far more sense to me if you want to pique people's interest.
It's not a bad thing to keep in mind that another generation are coming of age since the last effort in '95 who know little of it. It's taken this long for another try at Dredd for a reason.
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 05 June, 2011, 02:26:19 PM
'HEY YOU GO SEE JUDGE DREDD!!', marketeer
'WHO'S JUDGE DREDD?, JOE PUNTER 1
'IT'S THAT GUY WHO USED TO BE IN THE PROFESSIONALS WHO WEARS A WIG IN COURT', JP2
'REALLY?THEY MADE A FILM OF THAT?' JP1
'YUP'
'NAH, LET'S SEE TRANSFORMERS 6'
'RIGHT WITH YER'
It's gonna take a lot of TIME and effort to pierce Joe Punters skull as to what Judge Dredd is all about -I wish them luck
I am sure more people know Judge Dredd as a character than Judge John Deed.
I only know about Deed because I just googled it using The Professionals as a base.
V
I'm pretty confident that it'll do reasonably well.. Considering the swathe of marginal Marvel characters that're getting their own movies these days, Dredd can't do much worse, though it's Robocop level of violence will probably make it more of a home viewing movie. My predictions are it won't be stellar at the box office, but will do pretty well in the rental/sales area.
I could be wrong though.. I did say Outcasts would do well too..
Quote from: Michaelvk on 06 June, 2011, 10:55:43 AM
I'm pretty confident that it'll do reasonably well.. Considering the swathe of marginal Marvel characters that're getting their own movies these days, Dredd can't do much worse, though it's Robocop level of violence will probably make it more of a home viewing movie. My predictions are it won't be stellar at the box office, but will do pretty well in the rental/sales area.
Agreed. Much like "The Punisher"(2004). Because of the dvd sales of that film, a sequel got greenlighted.
If they get the tone right, it's going to be an even harder sell.
Action fims require a hero, if they are to follow the general action film template, and Dredd isn't one.
The closest film to it, Robocop (which I am in a minority in thinking has aged really badly) - had Murphy's motivation and ultimate humanity well established - what happened to him demanded justice, so his actions became heroic as he overcame not just the gang who left him for dead, but also the corrupt corporation who turned him into 'the ultimate law enforcement machine'
Dredd will be going around with his motivation being upholding a police state and maintaining a status quo that keeps the citizens firmly in their place. That's quite a hard sell, for a movie audience expecting a sci-fi costumed superhero type cop film, as there won't be any movement towards making the City or the Judges more humane - which would compromise the character and make a sequal more difficult.
I think the concept of Dredd is fascinating, but hard to get right in a film.
I sound like a certain troll, I'd best shut up...
depends how much of it is done through Andersons pov I guess (not having read the script) If she is a sympathetic character and its seen from her angle it could work. Dredd has always generally worked best when hes not the main focus.
Quote from: Toni Scandella on 06 June, 2011, 05:17:27 PM
If they get the tone right, it's going to be an even harder sell.
Action fims require a hero, if they are to follow the general action film template, and Dredd isn't one.
Was
Dirty Harry a hero, was he sympathetic?, not in any substantial terms he wasn't. I've said this before and I still think it's true: If you want people to support a certain character, make those/the antagonists he is against, be worse -maybe morally- than he, that way you can establish certain moral parameters in the film which you can stick to and bend as you wish with substantial reason.
Antoher great recent example is
the Way of the Gun, two completely amoral characters -with no back stories presented- are the centre of the film. There are very few 'likeable' people in it yet you know who to get behind and there's a point to all the violence to boot. The same holds for all Sergio Leone films and most of Pekinpah's too. Who in
the Wild Bunch is the average hero? The 'sypathetic hero' concept is a hangover from bad/dated 80's Hollywood bullshit peddled by unsuccessful writers and execs who know fuck-all but wish to force their demographic formulas on the industry. Amoral central characters are a film staple going back to
film noir and before. That's what an anti-hero is. It's just people have forgotten that such films have been made and were successful before the 80's, the conservative American mainstream does not decide what people 'like'.
QuoteDredd will be going around with his motivation being upholding a police state and maintaining a status quo that keeps the citizens firmly in their place. That's quite a hard sell, for a movie audience expecting a sci-fi costumed superhero type cop film, as there won't be any movement towards making the City or the Judges more humane - which would compromise the character and make a sequal more difficult.
Considering the amount of dystopian sci-fi films and amoral cop films that pepper the history of film, the only hard sell will be if Dredd is a bad film, if it's not, it'll hold it's own. Trying to make Dredd a 'hero' in the '95 film was a complete disaster, there is plenty of room for a real character like Dredd in film-space. Serioulsy, at least in 'comic' terms, was Dredd a hard sell for young 'uns back in the 70's/80's when we all hardly understood the concept of hero types and what Dredd meant? No because it was still entertaining seeing Dredd do what he did every week.
Quote from: James Stacey on 06 June, 2011, 05:23:56 PM
depends how much of it is done through Andersons pov I guess (not having read the script) If she is a sympathetic character and its seen from her angle it could work. Dredd has always generally worked best when hes not the main focus.
That's a good point.
I think some of the burden will also be on Lena Headey as Mama, and the actors playing the other villains too. To sell a hard character like Dredd in a somewhat heroic light, the villains need to be even nastier pieces of work. That's not to say the villains can't be three dimensional characters we can empathise with in some ways too, providing questions concerning the state that helped create them, but there should be a difference in morality between the killers on both sides. Dredd, the killer with a code, and the twisted characters on the other side.
[EDIT- Oops, Joe Soap covered this already. In my defence I started this post before seeing his!]
I certainly don't think leaving the audience with questions concerning the morality of Dredd and his world would necessarily be a bad thing either though. Some of the best stories make you think a bit, question the 'hero'. Take Deckard from Blade Runner as an example. Or Jess from
Triangle (a film I saw recently). Very different characters from Dredd (and each other) obviously but morally ambiguous, yet I think we can sympathise with them somewhat.
Quote from: Mardroid on 06 June, 2011, 06:21:24 PM
Quote from: James Stacey on 06 June, 2011, 05:23:56 PM
depends how much of it is done through Andersons pov I guess (not having read the script) If she is a sympathetic character and its seen from her angle it could work. Dredd has always generally worked best when hes not the main focus.
That's a good point.
I think some of the burden will also be on Lena Headey as Mama, and the actors playing the other villains too. To sell a hard character like Dredd in a somewhat heroic light, the villains need to be even nastier pieces of work. That's not to say the villains can't be three dimensional characters we can empathise with in some ways too, providing questions concerning the state that helped create them, but there should be a difference in morality between the killers on both sides. Dredd, the killer with a code, and the twisted characters on the other side.
I certainly don't think leaving the audience with questions concerning the morality of Dredd and his world would necessarily be a bad thing either though. Some of the best stories make you think a bit, question the 'hero'. Take Deckard from Blade Runner as an example. Or Jess from Triangle (a film I saw recently). Very different characters from Dredd (and each other) obviously but morally ambiguous.
Well Dredd's not morally ambiguous as far as
he's concerned himself. Haha! He considers his duty to be completely moral, certainly in his early years in 2000ad and, I would assume, in this movie. But that's the great thing with Dredd's world. It doesn't matter for the most part how much of a bastard he is. As long as his villains are worse than him, he becomes the hero by default...
Quote from: blackmocco on 06 June, 2011, 06:25:58 PM
Well Dredd's not morally ambiguous as far as he's concerned. Haha!
I dunno. I think sometimes even he questions his decisions, especially now he's older.
Besides, this time, it's us the audience who are the judges!
Quote from: Mardroid on 06 June, 2011, 06:28:48 PM
Quote from: blackmocco on 06 June, 2011, 06:25:58 PM
Well Dredd's not morally ambiguous as far as he's concerned. Haha!
I dunno. I think sometimes even he questions his decisions, especially now he's older.
Besides, this time, it's us the audience who are the judges!
For sure in more recent years, but not back through his early days which I would assume this movie's channelling.
Quote from: Mardroid on 06 June, 2011, 06:21:24 PM
I think some of the burden will also be on Lena Headey as Mama, and the actors playing the other villains too. To sell a hard character like Dredd in a somewhat heroic light, the villains need to be even nastier pieces of work. That's not to say the villains can't be three dimensional characters we can empathise with in some ways too, providing questions concerning the state that helped create them, but there should be a difference in morality between the killers on both sides. Dredd, the killer with a code, and the twisted characters on the other side.
[EDIT- Oops, Joe Soap covered this already. In my defence I started this post before seeing his!]
Doesn't matter, I've said all of this before over the years on multiple threads and discussions when people still got caught up in and struggled with the bullshit 'hero' argument when it was never really a problem in the first place, it was a
phantom argument introduced by the writers and producers of the '95 film who wanted a diffrent type of character in the first place but were parasites on a potentialy lucrative property.
Personally I'd happily watch a film with a wholly unsympathetic lead character. All I care about is: "is the story any good?"
That's why there are films like Valkyrie and Cross of Iron.
and Arthur
Escape from New York always springs to mind when I think of 'anti-heroes' in movies.
Quote from: Misanthrope on 06 June, 2011, 11:58:22 PM
Escape from New York always springs to mind when I think of 'anti-heroes' in movies.
'Everyone loves a bastard' should be a sub-heading beneath the Hollywood sign.
Quote from: Misanthrope on 06 June, 2011, 11:58:22 PM
Escape from New York always springs to mind when I think of 'anti-heroes' in movies.
...and that one is a film that I wouldn't be surprised if it was used as a model for "Dredd" in some way.
Oh, as for "unsympathetic heroes", there's also Judge Dredd's other originator; Frankenstein from "Death Race 2000". ;)
Quote from: Jared Katooie on 06 June, 2011, 08:29:18 PM
Personally I'd happily watch a film with a wholly unsympathetic lead character. All I care about is: "is the story any good?"
The Social Network did quite well, and not only does it not have a single likeable character, it lacks anyone charismatic enough to earn the soubriquet of "antihero."
Dudley!
WTF have you been? You still in Cyprus?
:-)
I wont believe its Dudley til i see the picture of Judge Mellie... ;)
(welcome back, btw :thumbsup:)
Dudley...dudley..something vaguely familiar about that name
Quote from: Dudley on 07 June, 2011, 11:07:38 AM
Quote from: Jared Katooie on 06 June, 2011, 08:29:18 PM
Personally I'd happily watch a film with a wholly unsympathetic lead character. All I care about is: "is the story any good?"
The Social Network did quite well, and not only does it not have a single likeable character, it lacks anyone charismatic enough to earn the soubriquet of "antihero."
Mark Zuckerberg is just a dislikeable in real life and if anything the film made him more likeable.
QuoteMark Zuckerberg is just a dislikeable in real life and if anything the film made him more likeable.
Have you met him then, Pete?
Quote from: Peter Wolf on 07 June, 2011, 10:05:13 PM
Quote from: Dudley on 07 June, 2011, 11:07:38 AM
Quote from: Jared Katooie on 06 June, 2011, 08:29:18 PM
Personally I'd happily watch a film with a wholly unsympathetic lead character. All I care about is: "is the story any good?"
The Social Network did quite well, and not only does it not have a single likeable character, it lacks anyone charismatic enough to earn the soubriquet of "antihero."
Mark Zuckerberg is just a dislikeable in real life and if anything the film made him more likeable.
..and this example again proves my earlier point, you can have a film with completely unsympathetic characters yet still have empathy for them and be a succesful film. Considering that the more despicable, yet charming, character in the film is
Sean Parker -napster man-
Zuckerberg in contrast is at least empathetic and a story is told, the 'likeable' character is secondary. No reason this can't work in Dredd, if it's even needed.
Quote from: Misanthrope on 07 June, 2011, 10:11:37 PM
QuoteMark Zuckerberg is just a dislikeable in real life and if anything the film made him more likeable.
Have you met him then, Pete?
No i havent met him but i have watched and read interviews.
He is most famous for calling anyone that trusts Facebook with their personal information a "Dumbfucks".
Quote from: LARF on 07 June, 2011, 12:34:11 PM
Dudley!
WTF have you been? You still in Cyprus?
:-)
Hiya -
Yep, still in Cyprus, still teaching, mostly on the Guardian discussion boards these days. What's happened here in the past couple of years? What'd I miss?
The Tories are back in power with the Liberal Democrats as human shields.
We're invading- I mean liberating Libya from the heinous clutches of Colonel Gaddafi and his massacering death hordes by bombing the shit out of him and massacering his own people for him instead.
The Economy got so thin it will fall through it's own areshole.
Oh yeah there's going to be a new DREDD film but I might get an injunction against me for saying so.
Quote from: IAMTHESYSTEM on 09 June, 2011, 07:58:52 PM
We're invading- I mean liberating Libya from the heinous clutches of Colonel Gaddafi and his Raping, massacering death hordes by bombing the shit out of him and massacering his own people for him instead.
Fixed that for you.
V
Thanks vzzbux. God it's awful news like the Balkans. Why are Humans this way? There seems to be a darkness in us that cannot really be understood.
Human nature I am afraid. The world would be better off without us.
V
Humankind is a dogs idea of what a God should be.
Apart from me of course. I'm fab. And modest. Because I've got all too much to be modest about. :-\
Quote from: vzzbux on 09 June, 2011, 08:50:24 PM
Human nature I am afraid. The world would be better off without us.
A dark statement about the human condition. There is some evidence that we're getting less war like. If WW2 had been fought on the scale of many ancient Battles [Hannibals War with Rome, Ceaser invasion of Gaul]
2 BILLION would have died instead of 60 million or so. Not that overwhelming but at least we seem to be improving if somewhat slowly.
Cameron and clegg sould take the long walk right into a volcano!
Humanity needs to evolve mentally and emotionally.
I used to be a misanthrope for various reasons but i moved on from that as it was negative and instead i think that there is vast potential for humanity if only they would wake up and wise up and grow up.There is always that argument of nature vs nurture when in reality its both.
Quote from: IAMTHESYSTEM on 09 June, 2011, 08:37:19 PM
Thanks vzzbux. God it's awful news like the Balkans. Why are Humans this way? There seems to be a darkness in us that cannot really be understood.
The opposite of darkness is light and there is a duality with Humans as there is with everything else.I like and dislike Humans equally.
For the record the so called rebel forces have done their fair share of raping in Libya.
Quote from: Psidude on 09 June, 2011, 09:39:14 PM
Cameron and clegg sould take the long walk right into a volcano!
Traitors and sellouts and murderers.I just dont get how they can live with themselves. :sick:
QuoteTraitors and sellouts and murderers.I just dont get how they can live with themselves. :sick:
In a large house, paid for by the taxpayers.
Yes it really is the perfect social climate for a new Dredd film.
Some might even mistake it for documentary! :o
Quote from: IAMTHESYSTEM on 09 June, 2011, 08:37:19 PM
Thanks vzzbux. God it's awful news like the Balkans. Why are Humans this way? There seems to be a darkness in us that cannot really be understood.
Why?Because humans are animals with the gift of consciousness.Simples.
On the good news front , the chances of us lasting longer than the dinosaurs (well over 100 million years) is almost non-existant.Have a nice day ;) :thumbsup:
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 10 June, 2011, 01:05:47 PM
Quote from: IAMTHESYSTEM on 09 June, 2011, 08:37:19 PM
Thanks vzzbux. God it's awful news like the Balkans. Why are Humans this way? There seems to be a darkness in us that cannot really be understood.
Why?Because humans are animals with the gift of consciousness.Simples.
Apparently they are able to reason but i dont see much evidence of this within the majority.
I yam the fuzzckin P.L.A.N.E.T.!
Just been on imdb and Rakie Ayola is down as playing the chief judge.what do you all think will she be Mcgruder or hershey or a new character?
Unless McGruder and Hershey are now black, I would think she may be a new character.
Thats what i thought,but was judge silver not played by a white actor in the 1995 film? Mcgruder has to be my top chief judge! :)
Let us not mention 'THAT' film here please ;)
Sorry new to the board ;) That film was appalling,hope this film is dredds redemption :)
Quote from: Peter Wolf on 10 June, 2011, 01:11:53 PM
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 10 June, 2011, 01:05:47 PM
Quote from: IAMTHESYSTEM on 09 June, 2011, 08:37:19 PM
Thanks vzzbux. God it's awful news like the Balkans. Why are Humans this way? There seems to be a darkness in us that cannot really be understood.
Why?Because humans are animals with the gift of consciousness.Simples.
Apparently they are able to reason but i dont see much evidence of this within the majority.
To think I saw myself as the Forum cynic! You live and learn but isn't it painful!! ;)
enought said
shooting finished yonks ago...trailor plox! :P
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 10 June, 2011, 01:05:47 PM
On the good news front , the chances of us lasting longer than the dinosaurs (well over 100 million years) is almost non-existant.Have a nice day ;) :thumbsup:
Canard alert! Define 'dinosaurs'. That's an awfully big grouping of very diverse species (over 1000 last I looked) to compare little old humanity to (just the 1 species). If you mean the order 'dinosaurs' versus the class 'mammals' we've already won that one by a huge margin - over 40 million years more. If you mean any given dinosaur grouping versus apes in general, our point of divergence from the monkey-ancestors ca. 15 million years is pretty respectable. If we're just looking at H. Sapiens Sapiens our 100K years ain't great, but what is the longevity of any given ultra-specific dinosaur species? Who knows.
Quote from: TordelBack on 10 June, 2011, 11:50:08 PM
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 10 June, 2011, 01:05:47 PM
On the good news front , the chances of us lasting longer than the dinosaurs (well over 100 million years) is almost non-existant.Have a nice day ;) :thumbsup:
Canard alert! Define 'dinosaurs'. That's an awfully big grouping of very diverse species (over 1000 last I looked) to compare little old humanity to (just the 1 species). If you mean the order 'dinosaurs' versus the class 'mammals' we've already won that one by a huge margin - over 40 million years more. If you mean any given dinosaur grouping versus apes in general, our point of divergence from the monkey-ancestors ca. 15 million years is pretty respectable. If we're just looking at H. Sapiens Sapiens our 100K years ain't great, but what is the longevity of any given ultra-specific dinosaur species? Who knows.
1-Dinosaurs (See jurassic Park I-III for reference material)
2-'Us' I don't know about you but I have no monkey friends, real or imaginary, sad ,shocking even ,but true. :D
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 11 June, 2011, 08:30:04 PM
1-Dinosaurs (See jurassic Park I-III for reference material)
Yes, but that's a more than a dozen species* (even in the JP films), few of which even lived concurrently or even just millions of years apart, spread over that 160MY span, versus just the one species: humans. If you were to pick a specific dinosaur species, like the Tyrannosaurid
Albertosaurs sarcophagus, you'd find it confined to strata of maybe 2 million years date range - and who's to say how long or short that species was actually active within that range. Compare that to the genus Homo, and as long as you bundle us in with
Homo habilis (at 2.5 MYA), never mind our order (the primates, dating back to 55 MYA) we have definitely have that specific dino beaten - albeit under false pretences. The comparison should be longevity of a prticular
species, not an order or family, or in the case of dinosaurs, a super-order.
* Even discounting the non-dinosaur beasties.
If this film is part of a trilogy then the look of this film will be carried through into the next two films unless the next 2 films are set in a different timeline as in 20 yrs apart with a more mature JD.
This is terrible , a film forum reduced to anthropological/reptilian survival rates :'( :'(
Will SOMEBODY chuck us a f*cking bone!
PS Impressive depth of knowledge you have there Tordelback -Kudos
Ah, the naivety of a (comparative) noob...
Harken closely my child:
Anything can be improved with dinosaurs.
Just watching Andrew Marrs MEGA cities, John Wagner you should blush being a mere 30 years plus ahead of the curve :)
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 16 June, 2011, 08:04:57 PM
Just watching Andrew Marrs MEGA cities, John Wagner you should blush being a mere 30 years plus ahead of the curve :)
Except of course this programme is thirties years
too late and built on a false premise of the imminent future of global mega-cities as every recent economic/ecological demographic suggests the opposite: Worldwide depression, dwindling resources, food/water shortages, ecological disasters, power-plant failures, lack of efficacy of renewable energy systems, old infrastuctures of all countries being dependent on one unrenewable fuel source etc, all the things needed to fuel and sustain such humongous living structures point to the opposite of future Mega-Cities being possible as people are forced to spread out across the land again and into towns as the pragmatic
relocalisation and distribution of basic necessities is relearned. Seriously, in this part of the world did we ever need to import thinks like chickens or apples?
Yes some countries will have large cities but they'll mostly be slums.
plus Andrew Marr and the music are way over-the-top.
As ever we disagree.The number of 1million plus cities in China alone is expandinng exponentially (frighteningly fast really).Sure they are going through growing pains, as western cities did a century ago, but technological advances (solar powered self-heating buildings, more efficient electric cars, improved transport infrastrucure , ever higher skyscrapers, better use of renewables, increased recycling etc will gradually overcome these problems).Sure expansive slums will still be with us for a long time, but just look at bombay -Mumbai, that used to be not very long ago, just one big slum, and they have developed recycling into a fine art (still at this time unfortunately heavily dependent on the very poor).People will not move out enmass to the countryside or small towns again any time soon simply because the labour requirements are no longer there and will never return.Intensive mechanised farming is here to stay , just look at the US Mid-west, populations have been dwindling for a very long time whilst the cities continue to grow.
Andrew Marr is over-the-top and still a bit of a bumbling twit though :D
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 16 June, 2011, 09:30:34 PM
As ever we disagree.The number of 1million plus cities in China alone is expandinng exponentially (frighteningly fast really).Sure they are going through growing pains, as western cities did a century ago, but technological advances (solar powered self-heating buildings, more efficient electric cars, improved transport infrastrucure , ever higher skyscrapers, better use of renewables, increased recycling etc will gradually overcome these problems).
You need
oil for every one of these things to exist, you need oil to manufacture power cells, electric cars, charging batteries, grow food etc. etc. before you run or use anything, to transform any infrastructure to another power source equal to oil's energy output -i
f such a resource even existed- would take several decades and you need oil to make that transition happen in the firstplace. 88 million barrels is consumed everyday, the largest/latest oil field discoveries only amount to a few hundred million, a few days supply. We need about three new Saudi Arabias to keep up with our 'current' lifestyles and Saudi Arabia have overestimated what is left of their own supply and they'll be keeping it for personal use. So growth is not an option and the population will decrease. When oil was first discovered it was almost a 1:1 ration power source,youcould prick a hole in the ground and it shot out, that doesn'thappen anymore, it's getting to the point where it's more expensive to pull the oil from the ground that there's no fiscal point making the effort. The Middle-East is not war ridden for democracy but because it's last the region with easily available oil that is shrinking.
You obviously haven't seen the news in the statistics but the
city dreams in the funny papers. Theses aren't
growing pains, they are the pains of implosion and instability. Peak oil, peak credit, peak food, peak resources, peak politics...
As for China's 'expansion' -a country with a water shortage- it's a completely phantom phenomenon, if it wasn't so tragically a
misallocation of resources chasing the western capitalist myth of 'unlimited' growth and 'suburbanism' I could laugh. China's in the shithouse with rest of us.
'64 million empty apartments in China...':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPILhiTJv7E
That's what I love about our Joe "Sunshine" Soap, he sugar-coats every pill with a glaze of starry-eyed optimism.
Quote from: TordelBack on 16 June, 2011, 10:21:05 PM
That's what I love about our Joe "Sunshine" Soap, he sugar-coats every pill with a glaze of starry-eyed optimism.
Believe it or not I think it's a good thing! Just imagine the ale you'll be brewing in the back-lands of Tallaght-fornia...back to nature! What this country needs is a bit o' community spirit and
walkable neigbourhoods and towns. Ya never know we may even get a
squared jax-paper prog back too but it will cost one month of veggies and a water pack. Or you can wait for the retro-engineered UFO tech to save you arse.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 16 June, 2011, 10:26:56 PM
Just imagine the ale you'll be brewing in the back-lands of Tallaght-fornia...
Already there, squire. Haven't had to buy booze for nearly 6 months now, growing veggies, swapping labour, baking bread and cakes, freecycling... life with bugger-all money has its ups: if it wasn't for the c**ting mortgage sucking the marrow from our bones it'd be the bloody Good Life up here. Employer to crusty in less than a year, gotta love it.
Don't worry when we officially default, with the rest of the planet, that mortgage will evaporate out Ireland's ear when the EU/IMF double-cock is withdrawn and anyone else will be buying houses for cash. With the increasing number of allotments sprouting up round here, I think many are aware the crunch is coming.
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 16 June, 2011, 08:04:57 PM
Just watching Andrew Marrs MEGA cities, Carlos Ezquerra you should blush being a mere 30 years plus ahead of the curve :)
TSFTFY -- John had walked out at this point after the deal that would have given him & Pat the rights for 2000ad had fallen through.
Jesus Joe, a little optimism here.You remind me of those world-enders from the 70's , and the slew of hollywood dystopian films that came out then.We're still here and making progress, albeit slowly.
In the meantime I nominate you as official Human spokesman if we are faced with alien invasion..
'Surrender or die!' ,alien superfiend
'Nah, you don't want this place mate, it's a right shithole and far more trouble than it's worth.Try next door'
;):D
Lots of very interesting points made here about cities ,de-population of the countryside and growing your own food.Too many to comment on for the time being.
Ultimately cities create dependency as you cant grow your own food en masse in a city as well as everything else and also cities are touted as being green by Agenda 21 etc who think that everyone living in cities will save the planet when in actual fact unless everyone is living in a slum then cities require more resources than what would be used if everyone was still living off the land so that doesnt add up.
During the industrial revolution in the UK everyone moved into the cities that were growing at the time so now that China and India for example are going through their industrial revolution the same thing is happening with a mass migration into cities.At the same time the West is declining so there is less employment which means less income so simply to survive those that have access to land to grow food will do so as there is a mass movement in the US to do exactly that as they really have no choice unless you want to stay living in a cities living on foodstamps therefore being totally dependent on govt.
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 16 June, 2011, 09:30:34 PM
.People will not move out enmass to the countryside or small towns again any time soon simply because the labour requirements are no longer there and will never return.Intensive mechanised farming is here to stay , just look at the US Mid-west, populations have been dwindling for a very long time whilst the cities continue to grow.
Andrew Marr is over-the-top and still a bit of a bumbling twit though :D
Thats exactly what they will do in the US as it sinks more deeply into a depression or at least a percentage will as city life doesnt suit everyone either.There arent any labor requirements in a lot of cities in the US anymore and in a lot of ways its possible to have a better quality of life in the countryside than in a city if you have no work.The labor requirements are obvously not enough to go round for everyone even in India which is why you have slums and its why slums are not going to disappear but its interesting how they make the most of what they have which is virtually nothing.
You can drive through parts of France and see whole deserted villages as no one wanted to live in the countryside anymore as they were seduced by life in cities but as they slowly sink deeper into recession/depression over the next decade they will slowly return to the countryside and a lot of them will wish they hadnt sold off their land and homes to foreigners who wanted second homes.
Cities are not a panacea to the worlds problems in terms of a way of life as they are more of an ideal and a vision that promises a utopia like Modernists and Brutalists but they can become traps unless you just pack up and leave.
Like @Garageman said why import food when you are capable of growing your own ?
The West is going into a manufactured decline so self sufficiency is the way forward but thats very difficult in cities so if you dont have access to land ,no job,no money then you are basically screwed and you will be living on very little with no means to be self sufficient and eating GM food and Solyent Green or recycled shit burgers*.
*http://www.naturalnews.com/032715_turd_steaks_human_waste.html (http://www.naturalnews.com/032715_turd_steaks_human_waste.html)
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 17 June, 2011, 11:14:04 AM
Jesus Joe, a little optimism here.You remind me of those world-enders from the 70's , and the slew of hollywood dystopian films that came out then.We're still here and making progress, albeit slowly.
As usual you completely miss the point and value of what I said and what counts as not your opinion as being the negative rather than being pragmatic.
As I have all ready said, I didn't view it completely as a bad thing -which I take it you must- we need to clean the cobwebs out, it's people who cling to iphones, SUVs, lattes and expect life-on-a-plate who will find it hardest. My point is, there will be no Mega Cities, if you see that as a bad thing I only despair at what you think is actually 'positive' about such vast constructs and the energy needed to keep them going plus the environmental damage that results. Fanboy fantasies of living in a tighly packed tech-conurbation are best lived on the page, the reality wouldn't be too nice. It's your opinion of the expanding city I find negative or naive. Why would you see over-population, destruction of vast tracts of land/squandering resources as a good thing or even desirable?
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 17 June, 2011, 02:33:39 PM
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 17 June, 2011, 11:14:04 AM
Jesus Joe, a little optimism here.You remind me of those world-enders from the 70's , and the slew of hollywood dystopian films that came out then.We're still here and making progress, albeit slowly.
As usual you completely miss the point and value of what I said and what counts as not your opinion as being the negative rather than being pragmatic.
As I have all ready said, I didn't view it completely as a bad thing -which I take it you must- we need to clean the cobwebs out, it's people who cling to iphones, SUVs, lattes and expect life-on-a-plate who will find it hardest. My point is, there will be no Mega Cities, if you see that as a bad thing I only despair at what you think is actually 'positive' about such vast constructs and the energy needed to keep them going plus the environmental damage that results. Fanboy fantasies of living in a tighly packed tech-conurbation are best lived on the page, the reality wouldn't be too nice. It's your opinion of the expanding city I find negative or naive. Why would you see over-population, destruction of vast tracts of land/squandering resources as a good thing or even desirable?
As Andrew Marr said, you could say Mega Cities are here already Tokyo 31 mill, Jakarta 21 mill, New York 20 mill, Mexico 18 mill.These will undoutedly continue to grow.A good thing or bad thing?Some cities are far superior to others, New York for example is an excellent city I've been too, and most New Yorkers are happy to live there.Other cities fare less well.What it is though is a NECESSARY thing.If the population spread out to try and become more self-sufficient ,that simply wouldn't work.If 7 BILLION people spread themselves out it would have a devastating effect on the ecology of the planet.
As for the question of resources OIL we still have around 40 years worth left, coal over 100 years, nuclear till the heat death of the universe, add green power wind ,wave,solar and tidal, then hydrogen cells as we ll and we can cope for a while yet. Replacement energy sources will need to be found as reserves dwindle and I have no doubt they will.
Going for the Good Life option, simply isn't a realistic prospect.Those who 'cling' as you say to iphones, SUV's etc are called 'consumers' and they are the driving force of the capitalist system on which the world depends for creating jobs and providing an ever increasing standard of living.They are NECESSARY, as they sustain progress in ALL fields including science and medicine.
QuoteAs for the question of resources OIL we still have around 40 years worth left, coal over 100 years, nuclear till the heat death of the universe, add green power wind ,wave,solar and tidal, then hydrogen cells as we ll and we can cope for a while yet. Replacement energy sources will need to be found as reserves dwindle and I have no doubt they will.
There is no real logic in your argument, only vague references to perceived technologies and that they somehow easily slip-in, integrate and retro-fit into what we presently use, they don't.
All I can say is you're not connecting the dots of what makes all of those
alternatives possible,
oil, without it there are no alternatives since they all require equipment manufacturing and processes which all involve oil to build and extract the energy of which the final output energy ends up being less than what was put in to produce that energy in the first place, this is the general myth behind the 'alternatives'. This point alone is the core flaw in your alternative argument. To treat the alternatives as separate entities like solar, wind etc. that don't require another more productive energy resource, oil, in order to work is the
elephant in the room. We can only hope that an alternative that is close to 'fusion' or the mythical 'over-unity' is out there but if they are, there's not much push to bring them out into the open
If Hydrogen, electric or solar powered cars/machines etc had any real hint of being as genuine alternatives, we'd all be driving/using them because the major oil corporations and governments would have jumped on them to make money and sell us the goods in our 'consumer' culture. They wouldn't be spending entire GNPs in costly/dangerous wars and killing millions in the regions where the last major reserves exist. It's hard enough for the world to get together and solve the simplest issues, there's no indication that any real push is there for global energy alternative, so alternatives for living will be generated in non-established quarters and they won't be on the scale of transforming modern socirty to operate in the fashion we're used to.
Population only grows when the energy is there to support it, that's basic math. Before the oil age of the last century, the world population was 1 billion, in 100 years that increased exponentially to 7 billion. As the oil companies and governments have all ready admitted oil production everywhere is decreasing and reaching the cruder, harder-to-get-to oil miles beneath the crust can cause disasters like the BP gulf accident, the writng's on the wall. Fukushima has more or less dampened the increase of Nuclear reactors with Germany being the first to announce the shut down of all it's reactors within the next deacde.
If 'the Good Life' option (in my opinion it won't be so rural as you imply but it will be a mass economic/distributive/resource contraction in an overstretched world) isn't a realistic option how could man have survived for so long?, we are reaching a 2 steps back moment in history, anecdotally, the Romans,
masters of plumbing, had flushing toilets, after their empire fell there wasn't a flushing toilet in Europe for a thousand years.
Without vital mass energy producing resources,
populations and cities will shrink.
Without wanting to distract anyone from Garageman's argument (which I broadly agree with), the specifics of the 'flushing toilet' anecdote is a bit of a red herring. Romans had communal latrines that had a water channel directed through them to flush out waste - something the Harrapans and the Minoans and plenty of other ancient world cultures had cottoned to thousands of years previously, and not really what we imagine when we think of flushing toilet. Such amenities persisted in many areas without interruption almost to the present day - but were generally associated with a concern for urban or military planning. The absence of similar arrangements across post-Roman northern Europe reflects different modes of living rather than an economic or technological collapse - equally sophisticated arrangements for disposing of shit existed, from the recyclable value of the contents of the urban cess pit to the secure privacy of a medieval gardrobe.
Central heating, now that's a different story...
NASA recently came out in support of Energy Catalyzer technology as the number 1 energy solution:
[urlhttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:y2YGKLRFoKMJ:beforeitsnews.com/story/677/434/NASA_Chief_Says_Cold_Fusion_is_1.html+energy+catalyser+technology+nasa&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.co.uk[/url]
And not forgetting commercial Hemp cultivation as an alternative to oil of course.
And newly developed very high efficiency solar cells:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&biw=999&bih=629&q=energy+catalyser+technology+&btnG=Google+Search#hl=en&pq=energy%20catalyser%20technology%20&xhr=t&q=new%20high%20efficiency%20solar%20panels%20deloped%20in%20the%20US&cp=50&pf=p&sclient=psy&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=new+high+efficiency+solar+panels+deloped+in+the+US&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=fb011a95fbb67b53&biw=999&bih=629 (http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&biw=999&bih=629&q=energy+catalyser+technology+&btnG=Google+Search#hl=en&pq=energy%20catalyser%20technology%20&xhr=t&q=new%20high%20efficiency%20solar%20panels%20deloped%20in%20the%20US&cp=50&pf=p&sclient=psy&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=new+high+efficiency+solar+panels+deloped+in+the+US&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=fb011a95fbb67b53&biw=999&bih=629)
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 17 June, 2011, 09:49:01 PM
Quote
If Hydrogen, electric or solar powered cars/machines etc had any real hint of being as genuine alternatives, we'd all be driving/using them because the major oil corporations and governments would have jumped on them to make money and sell us the goods in our 'consumer' culture. They wouldn't be spending entire GNPs in costly/dangerous wars and killing millions in the regions where the last major reserves exist.
And as huge amounts of cash are spent on liberating the Libyans from their oil and anyone else who posesses fossil fuel resources by the present corporate power structure they are less likely to invest and promote the alternatives so its a vicious cycle.
Very comprehensive answer Mr Soap, I'll try my best to answer your points.
Nearly 50% of oil is used by cars, another 35% on jet fuel and diesel fuel.As oil supplies diminish and prices rise, there will be inevitably a great push towards alternatives ie far better electric vehicles, vehicles run on hydrogen cells and bio-ethanol, better public transport run on electricity eg trams to prolonging (perhaps marginally) the longevity of oil.Old gas-guzzling cars will become more and more expensive, thus gradually phased out.The essential need for these is not here yet and it's why there isn't such a massive drive towards them, but the push will come.Here is a good example, in the UK alone THOUSANDS of electic charging stations for cars are going to be set up within the next 5 years ,this is fact, and comes well before the dire need has arrived.This alone is a main fact why 'modern' society will continue to run normally and we will not fall back into the Dark Ages.
Manufacturing will not stop either. Synthetic alternatives for lubricants are already available, so shouldn't present a problem should oil run out.Plastics of course ,require oil to produce the polymers necessary.Here again, work on breaking down plastics to reclaim the oil has already begun.Even without this, it is possible now to breakdown and recycle plastic.A factory can be run on alternative energy to produce anything.
Synthetic oil will be the holy grail and I believe, given the inevitable need and impetus will give the eventual answer.Yes we are not there yet, but as they say, necessity is the mother of invention.
The capitalist system demands a concentration of labour, people go where there is work ,so cities will undoubtedly continue to grow.Improved communications allow far more people to work from home, but this is only a marginal effect, that impacts on a limited number of jobs, the vast majority have to physically be present at their place of work.
No, I don't have all the answers (if I did I'd been a millionaire) but I am certain they come through simple necessity.
PS As a History graduate I loved that Roman Empire fact you gave, which I knew (vaguely, erm very vaguely) ;) :D
PPS It's Friday night I hope you've been out and had a pint
Quote from: TordelBack on 17 June, 2011, 11:12:50 PM
Without wanting to distract anyone from Garageman's argument (which I broadly agree with), the specifics of the 'flushing toilet' anecdote is a bit of a red herring.
I bow to your excellence, though the
anecdote was never intended to be strictly comparitive but rather pointing up the infrastructure fragmentation which could occur if such a system as basic as plumbing can't be supported or maintained.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 17 June, 2011, 11:28:06 PM
...but rather pointing up the infrastructure fragmentation which could occur if such a system as basic as plumbing can't be supported or maintained.
Point taken.
(Much as I love the Romans and their amazing systems, their depiction as some kind of forerunner of the British Empire, bringing WCs to the savages, who immediately fell back into the benighted depravity of pooing in a hole once their betters had headed back to blighty, tends to get my goat. Roman plumbing was horrendously wasteful, and really a cultural foible, rather than being some ne plus ultra achievement of the early first millennium - viable alternatives existed. Even the much-vaunted steam and hot-water bath system was (probably) alive and well in the
fulachta fiadh and 'burnt mound' tradition of every cluster of huts in north-western Europe 2,000 years before Diocletian's Baths).
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 17 June, 2011, 11:19:13 PM
Here is a good example, in the UK alone THOUSANDS of electic charging stations for cars are going to be set up within the next 5 years ,this is fact, and comes well before the dire need has arrived.This alone is a main fact why 'modern' society will continue to run normally and we will not fall back into the Dark Ages.
And where does the power/energy come from that charges those batteries? This is my point, there has never been an almost free energy 'plasma' like oil that merely needs refining to be used. I bet that more
oil energy is used building these electric cars/charging stations, running the power-stations, charging/making the batteries etc than the most basic
transfer ratio of energy to work when putting petrol straight into your tank. Basically the lesser amount of steps from energy to work, the better and more efficient the system. Electric cars have really only been promoted as
clean and non-polluting rather than
energy-efficient as in they're more wasteful with a longer production and energy chain. 200 million vehicles in the US alone, do you think they will be driving electric vehicles soon and at what cost? In the U.S. right now, about 70 percent of the energy used to make electricity — more than four million gigawatt-hours — comes from fossil fuels. About 70 percent of that amount is wasted generating the power and transmitting it to the door. Additional energy is lost when charging batteries and running electric motors. Now fossil-fuel cars aren't that much better but I'm willing to believe that once all the costs and benefits are totted up electric cars are not much greener than conventional technology. But I also know this: the era of petroleum-fueled vehicles is drawing to a close. Either we find a substitute or we resign ourselves to a slightly updated version of the transportation options available in 1898.
It's a sad fact but since we all adopted a lifestyle where all the basics we need to survive have been misallocated to places and countries sometimes thousands of miles away when they could be made locally while supporting the local economy has damaged our survival chances and squandered resources. An example being the US establishment exporting all their manufacturing jobs overseas destroying local communities and using more and more fuel redistributing those goods back home! The misapproipriation of commodities and resources needs to be addressed before we can begin the energy crisis issue.
My point still stands though, in a world of finite resources and hopelessly wasteful, surplus generating capitalism, contraction is inevitable and no matter what there's a difficult time ahead. We have to get used to the fact that economies won't grow in the way 'markets' and 'marketeers' have always told us they should grow which is in
quantity but in
quality which will serve the inherent populace foremost.
For most politicians they have made a living by parasitically promoting 'growth' in the economy even when it was a blatant lie for their function has now become little else than telling us how good the 'next few years are going to be'. The good times are ending because the old capitalist way is killing us, that's why they fret and run around borrowing from Peter to pay Paul as the banks sit back and produce nothing of value. Financial 'manufacturing' had inflated and over-taken actual product manufaturing. A complete fantasy economy.
To add to the above:
In the U.S. right now, about 70 percent of the energy used to make electricity — more than four million gigawatt-hours — comes from fossil fuels. About 70 percent of that amount is wasted generating the power and transmitting it to the door. Additional energy is lost when charging batteries and running electric motors. Now fossil-fuel cars aren't that much better but I'm willing to believe that once all the costs and benefits are totted up electric cars are not much greener than conventional technology. The problem really is the infrastructure that's been set up where we all need cars to drive many times one individual to actually go to those places that are necessary for our survival, work, supermarkets, doctor/hospitals etc. it would make more make sense if all these were in walking distance in at least 50% of cases or that proper communal transport was available, the necessity for millions ofcars for so many individuals is a ridiculous idea.
Quote from: TordelBack on 17 June, 2011, 11:49:23 PM
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 17 June, 2011, 11:28:06 PM
...but rather pointing up the infrastructure fragmentation which could occur if such a system as basic as plumbing can't be supported or maintained.
Point taken.
Even the much-vaunted steam and hot-water bath system was (probably) alive and well in the fulachta fiadh and 'burnt mound' tradition of every cluster of huts in north-western Europe 2,000 years before Diocletian's Baths).
Jesus H Christ Tordelback, that has got to be quote of the week :oCan you also tell me what the meaning of life is :lol:Very impressed.
Mr Soap electricity can be supplied in abundance by nuclear power and coal powered stations which, as stated earlier still have over 100 years reserves.As for manufaturing going abroad, the capitalist market ensures it goes to where it is produced the cheapest, a process that cannot be changed under any circumstance except totalitarian control -which I'm sure you don't want.It is also impossible to put everything ,or even just essentials within walking distance for the majority.Besides millions have their own transport ie the right to go where they want, when they want is an established individuals right -to even attempt to any way curb that is follly.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 18 June, 2011, 12:15:41 AM
To add to the above:
As for manufaturing going abroad, the capitalist market ensures it goes to where it is produced the cheapest, a process that cannot be changed under any circumstance except totalitarian control -which I'm sure you don't want.It is also impossible to put everything ,or even just essentials within walking distance for the majority.Besides millions have their own transport ie the right to go where they want, when they want is an established individuals right -to even attempt to any way curb that is follly.
The so called capitalist system is already under totalitarian control wether you want it or not and its called Globalism.
If everyone is racked and stacked and packed into cities then everything is already within walking distance for everyone so its hardly impossible and since you are a strong advocate of that then thats an absurd statement.
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 17 June, 2011, 11:19:13 PM
Synthetic oil will be the holy grail and I believe, given the inevitable need and impetus will give the eventual answer.Yes we are not there yet, but as they say, necessity is the mother of invention.
Hemp .
Its very very simple.Plant Hemp seeds in the ground.Wait for the Hemp to grow and then at the right time harvest the Hemp and then boil it to extract the oil from the plant material and then you have the perfect non-polluting alternative to Oil from which you can produce anything that is presently derived from crude oil.
Why bother messing around and wasting time and money developing with synthetic oil ?
Synthetic oils would be patented by multinationals and a premium would be charged for them.
Mass commercial Hemp cultivation would not necessarily take up agricultural land as Ethanol presently does as it grows in substandard soils that are not suitable for normal agriculture so it would be easily possible for the US to produce enough hemp for itself so that it becomes self sufficient and also it could be grown in the Third World like Africa for example therefore providing a cash crop and income for those areas.
The facts on Hemp speak for themselves and their is not one negative against it.
The diesel engine was designed to run on oils like Hemp oil.
Quote from: Peter Wolf on 18 June, 2011, 01:28:37 AM
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 18 June, 2011, 12:15:41 AM
To add to the above:
As for manufaturing going abroad, the capitalist market ensures it goes to where it is produced the cheapest, a process that cannot be changed under any circumstance except totalitarian control -which I'm sure you don't want.It is also impossible to put everything ,or even just essentials within walking distance for the majority.Besides millions have their own transport ie the right to go where they want, when they want is an established individuals right -to even attempt to any way curb that is follly.
The so called capitalist system is already under totalitarian control wether you want it or not and its called Globalism.
If everyone is racked and stacked and packed into cities then everything is already within walking distance for everyone so its hardly impossible and since you are a strong advocate of that then thats an absurd statement.I live in a glorified seaside town that thinks its a city and i can walk to a doctor,a hospital,shops etc etc etc.....
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 17 June, 2011, 11:19:13 PM
Synthetic oil will be the holy grail and I believe, given the inevitable need and impetus will give the eventual answer.Yes we are not there yet, but as they say, necessity is the mother of invention.
Hemp .
Its very very simple.Plant Hemp seeds in the ground.Wait for the Hemp to grow and then at the right time harvest the Hemp and then boil it to extract the oil from the plant material and then you have the perfect non-polluting alternative to Oil from which you can produce anything that is presently derived from crude oil.
Why bother messing around and wasting time and money developing with synthetic oil ?
Synthetic oils would be patented by multinationals and a premium would be charged for them.
Mass commercial Hemp cultivation would not necessarily take up agricultural land as Ethanol presently does as it grows in substandard soils that are not suitable for normal agriculture so it would be easily possible for the US to produce enough hemp for itself so that it becomes self sufficient and also it could be grown in the Third World like Africa for example therefore providing a cash crop and income for those areas.
The facts on Hemp speak for themselves and their is not one negative against it.
The diesel engine was designed to run on oils like Hemp oil.
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 18 June, 2011, 01:09:36 AM
Mr Soap electricity can be supplied in abundance by nuclear power and coal powered stations which, as stated earlier still have over 100 years reserves.As for manufaturing going abroad, the capitalist market ensures it goes to where it is produced the cheapest, a process that cannot be changed under any circumstance except totalitarian control -which I'm sure you don't want.It is also impossible to put everything ,or even just essentials within walking distance for the majority.Besides millions have their own transport ie the right to go where they want, when they want is an established individuals right -to even attempt to any way curb that is follly.
...and how do you think they are built and how long do you think it takes to bring a nuclear plant online? Usually around 10 years. If more and more plants are built fossil fuel use will soar even more. As for coal, most of the easily mined stuff is gone if you can handle the pollution go ahead but going back to the coal option would be disatrous as it was previously for our skies and lungs. As with oil, coal reserves have been vastly inflated and prices have become prohibitive as use goes up. Although the price of coal has exponentially increased since 2002,
reserves have still fallen, normally when prices go up, mine managers ramp up production as fast as possible and shortage quickly turns to glut, this hasn't happened, which suggests there's not as much as once conceived. This is similar to what is happening with oil, where
fresh reserves have not been forthcoming despite soaring prices. To a growing number of oil industry commentators this is because we have reached, or are just about to reach, peak oil – the point at which oil production hits an all time high then goes into terminal decline. The industry has already produced most of the easily mined coal.
According to the International Energy Agency's latest long-term forecast, economic growth will require global coal production to rise by more than 70 per cent by 2030 so the world is heading for an energy crisis even worse than many all ready predict. Hopes that coal-derived liquid fuels will be able to step in as oil runs out will also be dashed.
Energy companies wouldn't be engaging in planet/health wrecking processes like
fracking if there were other, easier, safer options.
The thing is curbing transport vehicles won't have to be enforced as it may become financially prohibitive for most. My point being is if they had continued building proper publict ransport infrastruture instead of obeying the influence of oil companies who bribed/encouraged governments to rip up railroads and tramlines, the problem would be lessened. It's all fine and dandy standing up for your rights to drive a care but that car may remain garage-bound and, if you read my previous post you will see I never said
everything should be in walking distance, I said the necessities should be, which is hardly an impossibility since most towns functioned in this way before the industrial revolution and it was cheaper too.
The point is still that we have eaten up our mineral, metal, fossil etc. reserves too easily.
Quote from: Peter Wolf on 18 June, 2011, 01:28:37 AM
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 18 June, 2011, 12:15:41 AM
To add to the above:
As for manufaturing going abroad, the capitalist market ensures it goes to where it is produced the cheapest, a process that cannot be changed under any circumstance except totalitarian control -which I'm sure you don't want.It is also impossible to put everything ,or even just essentials within walking distance for the majority.Besides millions have their own transport ie the right to go where they want, when they want is an established individuals right -to even attempt to any way curb that is follly.
If everyone is racked and stacked and packed into cities then everything is already within walking distance for everyone so its hardly impossible and since you are a strong advocate of that then thats an absurd statement.
Is your job within walking distance, your hospital, your doctor, your relatives??Think again :-*
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 18 June, 2011, 02:05:02 AMIf everyone is racked and stacked and packed into cities then everything is already within walking distance for everyone so its hardly impossible and since you are a strong advocate of that then thats an absurd statement.
You're completely missing the point again, is your food grown in cities, can you walk to the place where it was grown and buy it direct? that would be a problem if fuel is too expensive to ship food/medicine/clothing etc. in ships/planes/trucks. Is there the available farm land to feed that entire city close by? I believe the suburbs may get in te way of that. The function of a modern city is merely to house people and provide dwellings for business/government not to provide locally the basics that 'support' life, the thousands of road miles within a large city is not only so we can whiz around on but to ship the food and goods et al which make a city sustainble at great cost plus a lot of vast modern suburbs/estates that encompass a city are geographically and civically badly designed and have very few central local amenities you don't need a car to get to and from. Modern cities are not built for sustainability. The power needed to maintain and heat large buildings is too much.
The suburbs served by the vast mega-malls in the US in which most need cars to get to, will suffer most as energy resources dwindle.
The idea that we can become "energy independent" and maintain our current lifestyle is absurd.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 18 June, 2011, 02:26:12 AM
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 18 June, 2011, 02:05:02 AMIf everyone is racked and stacked and packed into cities then everything is already within walking distance for everyone so its hardly impossible and since you are a strong advocate of that then thats an absurd statement.
You're completely missing the point again, is your food grown in cities, can you walk to the place where it was grown and buy it direct? that would be a problem if fuel is too expensive to ship food/medicine/clothing etc. in ships/planes/trucks. Is there the available farm land to feed that entire city close by? I believe the suburbs may get in te way of that. The function of a modern city is merely to house people and provide dwellings for business/government not to provide locally the basics that 'support' life, the thousands of road miles within a large city is not only so we can whiz around on but to ship the food and goods et al which make a city sustainble at great cost plus a lot of vast modern suburbs/estates that encompass a city are geographically and civically badly designed and have very few central local amenities you don't need a car to get to and from. Modern cities are not built for sustainability. The power needed to maintain and heat large buildings is too much.
The suburbs served by the vast mega-malls in the US in which most need cars to get to, will suffer most as energy resources dwindle.
Missing the point again.Its becoming a habit :D
What i meant was that i can walk to a shop and buy it.I can buy direct from a farmers market that sells local produce but obviously there isnt enough for everyone and only a minority buy from them.There is plenty of farmland outside of here but exactly how much farmland you would need is something i dont know.
I get your point about having to have everything imported into a city as its dependent and if something goes wrong you are completely vulnerable or you can be locked down into a city and it doesnt take very much for a city to descend into chaos and civil unrest and when that happens cities are not very pleasent places to be for the majority and even if you arent locked down if you want to get out by car you cant as the roads are gridlocked in no time at all.
Also some of the time i work where i live and other times not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G61RSRlVtJ4
Yup, new topic time.
My suggestion is........some film called 'Dredd' :D
Quote from: The Sherman Kid on 18 June, 2011, 01:09:36 AM
Can you also tell me what the meaning of life is
"It ends."
(See, I was paying attention.)
I wholeheartedly agree, more Dredd talk- what does fellow forum dwellers think of any potential merchandise for the new film, like, should there be any? Should they licence deluxe Dredd and Anderson action figures, with Lawmaster sold separately, or is it better not to whore out the first proper 2000 A.D. movie...?
The more the better as far as Merch goes. But that would mean CF would have to extend his Cellar.
V
QuoteShould they licence deluxe Dredd and Anderson action figures, with Lawmaster sold separately, or is it better not to whore out the first proper 2000 A.D. movie...?
I don't imagine there will be much in the way of merchandise - Dredd isn't gonna be anything like on the scale of
Green Lantern or
Thor. I'd imagine if it does well then we'll get a few limited runs of things a year or two down the line - a figure or two, prop replicas, that sort of thing.
Personally I don't buy action figures or props or anything like that, but what I'm really hoping for is a deluxe hardback 'making of' book, with the shooting script, all of the concept art, set photos and Jock's comic/storyboard of the script.
A tie-in game would be cool, but I can't imagine a property like Dredd would warrant a full release in this day and age, where game budgets are increasingly prohibitive. Perhaps a simple download-only Dredd game for XBLA, PSN, WiiWare or iOS?
Quote from: radiator on 19 June, 2011, 12:11:45 PM
QuoteShould they licence deluxe Dredd and Anderson action figures, with Lawmaster sold separately, or is it better not to whore out the first proper 2000 A.D. movie...?
I don't imagine there will be much in the way of merchandise - Dredd isn't gonna be anything like on the scale of Green Lantern or Thor. I'd imagine if it does well then we'll get a few limited runs of things a year or two down the line - a figure or two, prop replicas, that sort of thing.
Personally I don't buy action figures or props or anything like that, but what I'm really hoping for is a deluxe hardback 'making of' book, with the shooting script, all of the concept art, set photos and Jock's comic/storyboard of the script.
A tie-in game would be cool, but I can't imagine a property like Dredd would warrant a full release in this day and age, where game budgets are increasingly prohibitive. Perhaps a simple download-only Dredd game for XBLA, PSN, WiiWare or iOS?
hard back heh this is 2011 get them on i book LOL
Forbidden Planet will have some goodies I'm sure,wants a delux helmet,i will pay silly money if its a cracker.
Quote from: radiator on 19 June, 2011, 12:11:45 PM
A tie-in game would be cool, but I can't imagine a property like Dredd would warrant a full release in this day and age, where game budgets are increasingly prohibitive. Perhaps a simple download-only Dredd game for XBLA, PSN, WiiWare or iOS?
Wasn't it mentioned that there is definitely a new Judge Dredd game being developed by Rebellion to coincide with the release of the film?
There must be a "Daystick" butt plug, for that realistic Dredd "stick up the arse" attitude.
SBT
Quote from: Cyclopz on 19 June, 2011, 10:11:36 PMWasn't it mentioned that there is definitely a new Judge Dredd game being developed by Rebellion to coincide with the release of the film?
No.
Spot on Radiator, dude, I was thinking exactly the same thing, but forgot to put it down until after I'd posted. The trouble with everything you suggested in one single book is it would make it one hell of an unwieldy tome- and at one ungodly price too! It would probably be better to split it into two volumes, either sold separately, or together in a nice 'limited edition' box set, with the first volume the 'making of' book with detailed history of the project, tons of lovely photos, and the complete shooting script, whilst the second would feature the comic-book adaptation, Jock's concept art designs (both used and unused ideas), storyboards, and maybe even a written commentary by Jock and the movie's production team throughout, explaining why certain designs were used and others discarded, and if that wasn't enough, maybe also a chapter discussing the different looks and interpretations of Dredd down the years by varous comic artists who worked on the comic-book. I don't know, does that sound like too much, it's way better than silly action figures (however cool they may look on your shelf)...!?
I'm glad I expropriated a thing or two when I could. You might see some helmets.. They were mastered in the UK. I wouldn't hold your breath for any other prop replicas though. I'm not sure where molds for the helmets, Lawgivers, Badges or other stuff went. If they're still here the logistics of it all would be a nightmare.
Quote from: Michaelvk on 20 June, 2011, 08:38:55 PM
I'm glad I expropriated a thing or two when I could. You might see some helmets.. They were mastered in the UK. I wouldn't hold your breath for any other prop replicas though. I'm not sure where molds for the helmets, Lawgivers, Badges or other stuff went. If they're still here the logistics of it all would be a nightmare.
All i need is a helmet,that and a full working light saber, the ultimate collectable props IMO
Speeder bike and a Lawmaster would not go amiss either.
I'm all over a speeder bike when one comes out..
How 'bout this one:
http://gizmodo.com/359751/han-solo-frozen-in-carbonite-desk-reminds-you-that-someone-has-it-worse (http://gizmodo.com/359751/han-solo-frozen-in-carbonite-desk-reminds-you-that-someone-has-it-worse)