Does anyone have any idea what year DREDD is set in :D
Movie never specifies.
I saw 2129 mentioned in one of the write ups but I doubt if that's official. Maybe they left it unspecified to give themselves the option of going all futuristic if they get a higher budget for a sequel.
I would prefer it if they kept the date a mystery in the film(s).
I've never come across a date for it, and also hope it's unspecified.
The quickest way for a movie to feel dated is to put a date on it.. Invariably the movie will reach said date and the world still won't have flying cars. Bladerunner did that.
Quote from: Michaelvk on 20 July, 2012, 02:43:06 AM
The quickest way for a movie to feel dated is to put a date on it.. Invariably the movie will reach said date and the world still won't have flying cars. Bladerunner did that.
I know I'm dissapointed I don't have a flying car so close to 2019. :'(
Best this film not have a date.
Quote from: hazy efc on 19 July, 2012, 10:49:35 PM
Does anyone have any idea what year DREDD is set in :D
The future.
Quote from: Michaelvk on 20 July, 2012, 02:43:06 AM
The quickest way for a movie to feel dated is to put a date on it.. Invariably the movie will reach said date and the world still won't have flying cars. Bladerunner did that.
To be fair to Bladerunner sci-fi in general has done this. I've been expecting to zip through the skyways since the 90s but no NO Sci-so called-Fi has been lying to me all through my childhood. Its almost as if the 'Fi' bit stands for fiction. DAMN YOU FALSE PROPHETS OF THE FUTURE. I'm never going to read any sci-fi again...
well i was thinking with anderson beeing a rookie as a bit of clue some1 might come up with a rough year
Why?
The film and the comic are different things.
It doesn't really matter.
Judging from the level of technology, 1981. :-x
SBT
If we wanted to build cars that fly with current technology, it wouldn't really be that difficult. The problem with flying cars is it just takes so much more energy to fly than to move on the ground. Until somebody comes up with that miracle fuel source that solves the energy crisis once and for all the chances of having flying cars are exceedingly slim.
Quote from: Mark Taylor on 20 July, 2012, 10:37:16 AMUntil somebody comes up with that miracle fuel source that solves the energy crisis once and for all the chances of having flying cars are exceedingly slim.
We'd better start putting irreversible time locks on our Intrinsic Field Removal chambers.
Quote from: Michaelvk on 20 July, 2012, 02:43:06 AM
The quickest way for a movie to feel dated is to put a date on it.. Invariably the movie will reach said date and the world still won't have flying cars. Bladerunner did that.
Yep, first 1990 went by and no floods (though there's been more and more since), then 1999 came and went and the moon's still here, though of course that's due to us sensibly not storing nuclear waste there. 2001, no obilisks near said moon, 2010, well, not been to Europa lately so I'm not sure about that.
Then of course there was some comic that predicted all kind of things for the year 2000 ;)
The main thing this shows to me is that predictions about future technology are insanely difficult. Look back at 1970s sci-fi and concepts: you had robots pottering about the place, flying cars, massive space stations, and so on. But you also had computers the size of entire rooms, whereas we now have powerful computing devices that fit in the palm of your hand. Frankly, I'm not terribly fussed about not having a flying car when I have a device I can carry with me that's far more powerful than the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 20 July, 2012, 12:57:03 PM
The main thing this shows to me is that predictions about future technology are insanely difficult. Look back at 1970s sci-fi and concepts: you had robots pottering about the place, flying cars, massive space stations, and so on. But you also had computers the size of entire rooms, whereas we now have powerful computing devices that fit in the palm of your hand. Frankly, I'm not terribly fussed about not having a flying car when I have a device I can carry with me that's far more powerful than the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
That is true. It's funny watching old Doctor Who/Blake's 7 with its Teleporters, spaceships, invisible ray guns and TAPE DRIVES.
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 20 July, 2012, 12:57:03 PM
The main thing this shows to me is that predictions about future technology are insanely difficult. Look back at 1970s sci-fi and concepts: you had robots pottering about the place, flying cars, massive space stations, and so on. But you also had computers the size of entire rooms, whereas we now have powerful computing devices that fit in the palm of your hand. Frankly, I'm not terribly fussed about not having a flying car when I have a device I can carry with me that's far more powerful than the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
The larger, more complex and more integrated our infrastructure becomes the harder it is to implement innovation and change throughout. It's also soaking up a lot more resources and time just to keep that structure ticking over with the various tech that exists all ready. So while new developments may come quicker, it can take longer for them to become commonplace or even to get the right funding for completion, which I suppose the fantasy of a more utilitarian fantasy is intended to address.
It obviously doesn't matter at all when the Dredd film is set; there's a non-canonical Chief Judge, Anderson's Dredd's rookie, none of the residents of Peach Trees appear to have robotic valets- DNA have clearly established a separate but related version of Dredd's world and history.
Around the time of the Stallone film, the Nerve Centre printed a letter from an earnest reader who'd fan-conned an explanation of the discrepencies between the comic and film versions of MC1 that involved a new city being built above the old one and a second version of Dredd being cloned to maintain the symbolic power of having a Dredd on the streets.
You could go mental trying to make all the individual pieces of every Dredd story, tossed off by dozens of writers, fit together; but if that's the kind of thing you enjoy, fair play tae ye. If you need to introduce the concept of an Earth2 to make it all work, you've probably gone too far.
Quote from: bikini kill on 20 July, 2012, 07:26:46 PM...none of the residents of Peach Trees appear to have robotic valets...
To be fair Peach Trees is clearly a slum block. Ma-Ma herself is probably the only resident wealthy enough to have a robotic valet... and why would she bother when she has the entire clan at her beck and call?
Quote from: Mark Taylor on 20 July, 2012, 07:45:42 PM
Quote from: bikini kill on 20 July, 2012, 07:26:46 PM...none of the residents of Peach Trees appear to have robotic valets...
To be fair Peach Trees is clearly a slum block. Ma-Ma herself is probably the only resident wealthy enough to have a robotic valet... and why would she bother when she has the entire clan at her beck and call?
That was really just a throwaway line to round out my rhetorical rule-of-three and point out that DNA have essentially shorn the Dredd mythos of any conceptual baggage that would appear silly or anomalous to contemporary film audiences.
Now you raise the point though;
America's robot butler figures Robert as a signifier of Bennet Beeny's wealth, but stories like
Something Abnormal About Norman (437) demonstrate that- just like big screen telly's- there are different models of robots to suit different sized pockets. Walter's original function was no more exotic than a sodastream.
Straightened circumstances don't necessarily inhibit folk from becoming early adopters of technology anyway; Sky dishes peppered the rooftops of council schemes long before they started appearing in middle class areas, and the lowest paid kids at my work are the ones with the cutting edge phones on ruinously expensive contracts.
But all of the above relates to the reality established by the comics; which is different to that of the film.
Quote from: bikini kill on 20 July, 2012, 07:26:46 PM
Around the time of the Stallone film, the Nerve Centre printed a letter from an earnest reader who'd fan-conned an explanation of the discrepencies between the comic and film versions of MC1 that involved a new city being built above the old one and a second version of Dredd being cloned to maintain the symbolic power of having a Dredd on the streets.
I remember that, it was batshit insane
Quote from: bikini kill on 20 July, 2012, 08:35:55 PMBut all of the above relates to the reality established by the comics; which is different to that of the film.
I don't disagree with your point. Since robots were mentioned though I seem to remember reading somewhere among one of the numerous comments from Alex Garland, the producers etc. that not including any robots was a decision to do with budgetary constraints rather than to do with the aesthetic they wanted to create for their version of Dredd's world. In other words if higher budget sequels come about I wouldn't be surprised to see a robot or two in these.
I realise this has little or nothing to do with your overall point, which still stands entirely intact. I just don't think the producers have necessarily ruled out robots as being something that exists in their version of MC-1.
Quote from: bikini kill on 20 July, 2012, 08:35:55 PM
Walter's original function was no more exotic than a sodastream.
:lol: Best analogy ever!
Ah, those were the days, lashings of cheap Irn Bru.
I agree that the lack of robots, futuristic vehicles and other sci-fi trappings - no matter how cleverly you can rationailise it - is purely down to lack of budget. They could have done it on $40m, but it would have looked shit. IMO they made the right choice.
Of course, it doesn't strictly preclude them from going into heavier sci-fi territory in the sequel, if there is one.
As a rather broad comparison, look at the Nolan Bat-films - Gotham, though obviously a version of Chicago, looks quite strikingly different in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. I'd say it looks a lot more stylised in BB, very subdued in TDK. Doesn't affect the respective film's quality one bit.
Ultimately, we may get a Walter cameo yet.
QuoteWe may get a Walter cameo yet.
Hope not.
I'd like to see Walter pop-up as a background detail, like an advert on a wall or as a kid's toy or something.
Quote from: M.I.K. on 21 July, 2012, 07:26:43 PM
I'd like to see Walter pop-up as a background detail, like an advert on a wall or as a kid's toy or something.
I did mention a Walter coffee maker.
That'd work too.
Quote from: Richard on 21 July, 2012, 06:00:41 PM
QuoteWe may get a Walter cameo yet.
Hope not.
Not even destroyed in slow motion?
Quote from: M.I.K. on 21 July, 2012, 07:26:43 PM
I'd like to see Walter pop-up as a background detail, like an advert on a wall or as a kid's toy or something.
That's the sort of thing mean when I say cameo.