New Empire magazine has new Dredd still as cover!

[Electromud]

I think Cursed Earth would make a cool sequel. Maybe they could even squeeze in a Judge Fish cameo...oops.

[Dirty Sanchez]

I don't recall anyone saying that Death is too outlandish for this take on Dredd - what people have said is that if he were to appear in any potential sequels, it would probably be a different - slightly less bizarre - take on the character to fit in with the more (relatively) realistic movie universe - so I'd imagine he would be reimagined as a rogue Psi judge, or mutant gang leader or something rather than an undead, immortal zombie from another dimension.

Since psychic mutations have already been established and presumably other mutations will have been hinted at, I think making Death an especially nasty super-mutant would be the way to go. The multiple-dimension concept was only ever used for a couple of throwaway gags in the comic anyway.

[Dirty Sanchez]

That said, I would be keen to see a series of Dredd movies that got weirder and more off-the-wall as they went along. I'd prefer to see Otto Sump in the sequel over Judge Death.

[pauljholden]

But isn't he some undead, alien, super-fiend from another dimension?
Isn't that his 'essence'?

Don't you mean 'EssssssSSsssence'?

(For me: the essential bit of Death is the bastardisation of Dredd; 'All Life issss a Crime, the sSSssentance is Death'. Plus the unkillable nature of him. Granted that comes from being another dimensional super-fiend, but doesn't require him to be so)

I think they might do the alien thing for a sequel. They're not gonna waste Anderson. I'm assume they picked her over Hershey for a reason. Maybe it was just to distance themself from '95, but I don't think so.

I think Anderson is a far better choice than Hershey; Hershey and Dredd are pretty much on the same page, Anderson though is a nice counter point to Dredd - he tolerates her because of her abilities, and she reacts of how straight laced he is (I always loved that Dynamic, esp in City of the Damned)

[SKD]

 I believe that Anderson's inclusion in this movie, as well as being a counterbalance to Dredd, is to set up character for a sequel. If that is the case then the possibility of  Death appearing is good. In the recent Batman series of films, the first film took 'lesser' villans so that they could concentrate on re-telling the origin story. The second film could then devote more time to the Joker story. (Sorry if I'm covering old ground here.) Personally I'd like to see a Dredd sequel start along the lines of JD's return from Luna 1 (Wagner & McMahon in perfect harmony.) Then Death, Death, Death all the way.

Stew.   

[SmallBlueThing]

Actually, i'd like to see the sequel set on the moon.
My biggest issue with this film is the scaling down of its scope. I accept the filmmakers believe it's the best way to go, but i disagree cimpletely. It gives me the same sinking feeling as when RTD made claims that the 'new' series of dr who would be mostly set on Earth, because 'audiences wont accept alien planets, or (the production team's) ability to realise them'.

Now, obviously, yes, the important thing is to hook the audience and make them enjoy the ride, demanding more. But if you take away everything that makes Dredd Dredd, are you left with anything other than a generic action film with people in judge uniforms?

I can only speak for myself here, but i dont like action movies- never watch them at the cinema, never rent or buy them, never watch them on tv. Have never knowingly watched any of the Die Hard sequels, or Commando, and have no interest in Jackie Chan or Steven Segal. To play down the sci fi elements of Dredd just seems so ridiculously short-sighted. I'd understand it better if the likes of harry potter, lord of the rings, star wars and avatar didnt exist, and we were in the early seventies before the blockbuster sci fi boom. But we're not.

SBT

[Steve Green]

"harry potter, lord of the rings, star wars and avatar"

And also pretty much top of the line in budget.

[JOE SOAP]

My biggest issue with this film is the scaling down of its scope. I accept the filmmakers believe it's the best way to go, but i disagree cimpletely.

I think it was more to do with cost than anything else, the bigger the world, the more sets/people/locations you need and the budget would need to be three times the size to make it any way good. At least in the city-block, the Judges can still act like Judges without the need to represent a massive city which hopefully can be revealed in any sequels.

There'd be no real 'sane' reason to make a Dredd film on the budget they have if they didn't do it this way, at this scale they can do it well and not bankrupt anyone.

[SKD]

 Also by filming on a budget, in a country where you get 'more bang for your bucks' you increase your chances of turning a proffit. (sorry again if going over old ground.) Dredd pics look ace by the way.

Stew

[SmallBlueThing]

Sorry guys, i know all that, but i am strongly of the mind that if you cant do something properly, dont do it at all. The budget thing is interesting- 45m is a hell of a lot of money. It's a lot more, for example, than the budget for entire series of tv shows, and yet they manage some pretty extreme visuals over 10-13 hours. And besides, it's comments like diggle's 'no flying cars' that worry me. What, not even in the background? It's one thing to scale down what an audience sees as the forefront or focus of the world (and the strip does this all the time) it's entirely another to remove those elements completely in an effort to 'ground' the movie in a dull 'reality'- or turn it into something it isnt. After all, isnt that how we got from Dredd to Robocop in the first place? And assumptions about what audiences can accept or will respond to led to 'Dredd the wronged hero, who follows the narrative of Stallone's established screen persona' in 95.

I know, i know, let's shut up and see how it turns out. Absolutely. But at this juncture it does seem to me to be in danger of missing the point, and just being another boring action film.

SBT

[IAMTHESYSTEM]

I think keeping the Film realistic is too appeal to a more mature audience SBT.

DREDD  is no way attempting to compete with the likes of Avatar etc these Films were aimed at mass audiences while DREDD is clearly R Rated or an 18.

I think it's difficult for some of us to accept that the Movie Dredd   and the Comic Dredd are two slightly different characters and in order to be different they must only share superficial likeness. This is a bit of a pisser for us who know the Comic Judge Dredd well and are avid fans but I'm afraid budget constraints mean a pared, down leaner DREDD Film since no Studio is going to risk $100,000000 dollars or so on an R Rated Movie whose previous incarnation is mostly seen as a commercial failure.

Even if they produced it with a massive budget any Judge Dredd Film  would inevitabley be watered down to appeal to a mass audience. Dredd-the Next Generation! is not what any of us want.

I know the DNA Movie is a compromise but I can live with it and give it a go.

[JOE SOAP]

Sorry guys, i know all that, but i am strongly of the mind that if you cant do something properly, dont do it at all. The budget thing is interesting- 45m is a hell of a lot of money. It's a lot more, for example, than the budget for entire series of tv shows, and yet they manage some pretty extreme visuals over 10-13 hours.

Can't really compare film and TV budgets, the focus is completely different.

The nature of scenes dramtically/production-wise in films are a lot different to TV. In a TV series, you either use existing locations or you build sets that are used throughout the series and a smaller crew. There's also the privilege of a 'working system' that develops with long-term constant production/output during a series which the form of TV production allows to evolve, get better value over the longer term. TV still doesn't have the 'intensity' of pace/scene elements in genre films, it's more long term character arc based with short bursts of action, which changes pace plus there's extraneous costs like mass marketing/bigger actors etc.

Ultimately TV moves in a different way and comparing both is not really fair as they serve different needs.

They don't take 2 years to make a 2 hour feature for no reason.

After all, isnt that how we got from Dredd to Robocop in the first place? And assumptions about what audiences can accept or will respond to led to 'Dredd the wronged hero, who follows the narrative of Stallone's established screen persona' in 95.

The assumptions/changes made about Dredd '95 were made to suit Stallone's action hero character template because the presumed 'expectant' audience were deemed to require that from a Stallone film. Stallone was the real problem, as Arnie probably would have been to if he'd taken the offer.

Different case for the new version which sticks with Dredd as the main focus not the actor.

[JOE SOAP]

You could make the same case about Nolan's Batman films and the trimming down of fantastical elements but would anyone doubt their success as being 'Batman' films?


As I've written elsewhere, albeit about the uniform, but somewhat applies to the changes/excisions in Dredd:

In many aspects Dredd as a character and comic-strip inherently has 'realism' anyway, unlike Batman or Spider-Man his is not a costume, it's a UNIFORM in a socially relevant world and that grounds him more than other comic characters so when they make Batman's costume more 'real', it's a different thing, it's a bigger alteration, a change in attitude to the character and their 'fantastic' world.

You could say they've forced Batman more in the direction of Dredd's social realism whereas with Dredd what they've done in the new film is add more 'detail' to that image aspect not particularly 'changed' it, they've deepened the inherent realism, added visual depth to a 'realist' character.

At the end of the day hopefully it'll still be Dredd the character doing his Job in a future that's 'future enough' for now.

[SmallBlueThing]

You could make the same case about Nolan's Batman films and the trimming down of fantastical elements but would anyone doubt their success as being 'Batman' films?

See, that's where we'd disagree. (Which is good, by the way, disagreement is good.) I'd call the last two Batman films two of the most horrible, boring, desperate pieces of arsewater I've ever had the misfortune to watch. They didn't feel at all like any kind of Batman I know from the comics- which, if we are hoping a successful movie leads to increased readership, is pretty fundamental.

Have the financial and critical success of the most recent Batman films led to increased sales of Batman titles? Did Spider-Man's three movies increase the sales of the Spidey titles? Do we have any reason to believe that an audience which responds to Dredd being a "gritty, violent, humourless action film" will find anything substantial in the prog? And worse, will the prog feel obliged to replicate the movie?

I dunno. I do wish the movie well- obviously- because then hopefully we'll get more interesting side projects and follow-ups, and 2000AD might gain a few extra readers. And I'm a fan- which means I'd wish the makers of a packet of Bonjo From Beyond The Stars underpants well- and probably buy them.

Oh, IAMTHE SYSTEM- with regard to ratings; An American R is a 15 over here, mostly. Dredd is highly unlikely to be an 18*.

SBT

*Unless they keep that scene in the script intact. Which is unlikely.

[JOE SOAP]

They didn't feel at all like any kind of Batman I know from the comics- which, if we are hoping a successful movie leads to increased readership, is pretty fundamental.

Have the financial and critical success of the most recent Batman films led to increased sales of Batman titles? Did Spider-Man's three movies increase the sales of the Spidey titles? Do we have any reason to believe that an audience which responds to Dredd being a "gritty, violent, humourless action film" will find anything substantial in the prog? And worse, will the prog feel obliged to replicate the movie?

I think that's a misinterpretation/conflation of intention though.


No matter how a film reflects a comic, I don't think you can expect a film to increase comic sales nor do I think that is ever the intention of the film-makers or even Rebellion in particular. They are different audiences, there will be a small crossover for a while, maybe, but I don't believe they're making/intending Dredd as a secondary marketing tool for 2000AD or even vice versa. I don't believe any of the big comic companies intend that. Like Disney/DC/Marvel, it's branding, and increasing the marketing scope of your characters/stories because not everyone is a comic reader. You don't have to like all they produce or more pertinently buy it.

No matter what you think of Nolan's Bat films, and I agree with you on some points which I don't think necessarily apply to Dredd to the same degree, his films have been successful for DC but Batman the comic which has like a lot of caped crusaders been a rather staid concern anyway hasn't changed too much.

The film is a way for Rebellion to expand their business into films while being faithful to their properties and since Rebellion aren't EGMONT in '95 and tend to leave the running of 2000AD to Tharg 'n the boys as it's proved to be it's saviour and kept the characters we love alive for years I don't see them messing with in any substantial but maybe supplemental, way.