Dredd (2012)

[SmallBlueThing]

Because i very much wanted to like it, and gave myself three goes. At the end of three goes i was no closer to liking it, or even understanding why they did it the way they did. I actually bought five tickets, including my wife's and my friend's. He refused to pay to see it, having been put off by the script.

I will buy on dvd, but i very much doubr anything but the extras will be watched unless small blue wife specifically asks for it. She enjoyed it far more than i did- but then, she likes things like jean claude van damme and all that.

SBT

[Rusty]

Yeah, me. And half of the people i went to see it with. Im not sure why it's a 'dumb question' Goaty- liking the movie is not a prerequisite of enjoying 2000AD, and everyone has their own opinion. I didnt hate it, it didnt make me want to walk out, but i thought it a wasted opportunity and as close to the strip as the stallone one, in its own way. There was much that i objected to- notably the language, the meagre story and the graphic content. It's not a movie id want to watch again in a hurry.

SBT

If the source material is often light on plot in some of it's smaller stories, and is often very graphic, then I don't understand how you objected to those things. If anything, those were the stronger points of the film.

[Frank]

If the source material is often light on plot in some of it's smaller stories, and is often very graphic, then I don't understand how you objected to those things. If anything, those were the stronger points of the film.

That's true, but it's often not as well. Is this going to end with SBT being forced to confess to consorting with the devyl in the forme of a smalle black cat and making a clay image of Alex Garland into which he did stick pins?

[Rusty]

I don't get the whole culture of cinema goers and film watchers these days pinning for scripts that have convoluted plots. A film doesn't have to have a complex plot with a big pay off at the end to be good. In fact, very few films manage to pull that off, even the Nolan Batman films, which I think are a little bit too pretentious and bloated because of the "need" to be epic. The Transformers films are a perfect example of something being royally fucked up because of this trend. You look at the plot in that, and then think "was there any need?" If they simplified the plot to something very basic, then they'd be a lot better off for it. Just because a plot is simple it does not equate to something that is watered down and less entertaining. There is a reason why a lot of the films from the 80's are now regarded as classics and cult classics, and the plot isn't the main factor in that.

[SmallBlueThing]

See, ive not seen any transformers films. And while i have had the first couple of bat-films on, i wasnt really paying attention. I had them on as a  double-bill while i was doing a waking night, so was more worried about being murdered than the antics of batman. I wouldnt bother with the third based on what i saw.

Im not really interested in going into great detail as to why i thought Dredd 3D not very good. Suffice to say, it wasnt dredd i recognised or enjoyed and i would hope that were dredd ever to get a third go, they may just try and do it so it's like the comic that people have read. Like the hugely successful marvel films, f'rinstance, which celebrate the inherent silliness of the comics and yet still get accepted by millions of filmgoers across the world.

But id say while its still smarting that the dredd movie failed so badly, now's probably not the time to debate it.

SBT

[IndigoPrime]

See, ive not seen any transformers films.

Probably a good thing—doubly so if you've any fond memories of the property, especially the British comics.

[dracula1]

Dredd 3D, . . . a great film marketed at the fans (and felt like it was mainly made for fans). As for the general viewing public I don't even think they knew this film was coming and if they did didn't particulary care for it I wonder why that was? . . . perhaps it came across as old hat and looks like we've seen this somewhere before. And they probably have as this type of movie and theme has saturated the market for years now. Would newer fresher characters like Rogue Trooper and Strontium Dog appeal more to the movie going general audience?

[Spikes]

 Arent films like Batman, or X-men made, at least initially, for the fans?

[Fisticuffs]

No, in the VAST majority of cases films are made to make money, simple as that. The bigger the fanbase/societal awareness of a character/concept, the better, as it will hopefully make more money.

[Rusty]

See, ive not seen any transformers films. And while i have had the first couple of bat-films on, i wasnt really paying attention. I had them on as a  double-bill while i was doing a waking night, so was more worried about being murdered than the antics of batman. I wouldnt bother with the third based on what i saw.

Im not really interested in going into great detail as to why i thought Dredd 3D not very good. Suffice to say, it wasnt dredd i recognised or enjoyed and i would hope that were dredd ever to get a third go, they may just try and do it so it's like the comic that people have read. Like the hugely successful marvel films, f'rinstance, which celebrate the inherent silliness of the comics and yet still get accepted by millions of filmgoers across the world.

But id say while its still smarting that the dredd movie failed so badly, now's probably not the time to debate it.

SBT

I get what you're saying, but I think the film makers just didn't want to risk making it much like the comics that we know. It is, but isn't. I personally think that some of the things in the comic just don't work on screen. Dredd and the judges design being one. We already witnessed that in the Stallone version. Those outfits, while somewhat closer to the comic design, just looks silly in comparison to the new film's costume. What I wanted to see more of is Dredd in MC1 and more judges. That would have made it a lot more familiar to the overall comic aesthetic. It's because we never really got to see passing much judgement in this film, and it generally looked repetitive because it was mostly contained to the same environment throughout. Half of the appeal of the comic is the city and everything that it encompasses. We only got a sniff of that in this film, and that for me is where it fell short.

[Rusty]

Arent films like Batman, or X-men made, at least initially, for the fans?

Batman has more or less been made in the vision of the director first, rather than the fans. If anything, the fan's were the last thing Nolan thought of. It's just because it's Batman and that it was "epic" that it's a big as what it is. For me, Burtan's Batman is much closer to the comics than any of the rest. If a new Batman comes out, I'd like it to return to that kind of aesthetic. There's just something jarring about having a man run about in a rubber costume set against the backdrop of extreme reality. Him and the city don't gel well. This was one of the things that was a complete success in Dredd. Dredd isn't your typical, fantastic-looking comic book hero. He's just a regular man. His outfit is worn to the requirement of his job. The premise of his city coming to existence in the way it is was plausible. The judges coming into existence in the way they are is plausible to our own reality in many ways. A man running about in a rubber suit and cape is not. Dredd got the context of things relative to the character absolutely correct. What I'm saying is, Batman and the rest are better suited to keeping things more fantasy-based, like Batman and Burton's Gotham suited each other in their design. When I look at Nolan's Gotham, I just think "oh, look - it's Manhattan...again."

[Steve Green]

I liked the film personally, especially the portrayal of Dredd and Anderson. I did miss seeing more of the city, or even variety within the block - but I lay the blame for that on the insistence of 3D by the backers.

Personally I suspect that if the city/costume etc. had been closer to the comic it still wouldn't have made much difference, and we'd be having the discussion about whether that hobbled its chances.

[SmallBlueThing]

We shall never agree on this. I think movie dredd looks ridiculous; as if an escapee from the blue oyster bar has gone to a fancy dress party as comics' judge dredd. It's the juxtaposition of rufty tufty riot cop (which in itself looks stupidly pretend-macho and camp) and clashing helmet. It reminds me of one of those transformers that has the head of spider-man or batman.

Having seen judge minty the proper comics costume works fine. Absolutely fine. With a bit of work on the leather bodysuit (seams? Ha!) it would look fabulous. If Thor, Spidey, Captain America (and even i spent the avengers waiting for them to point out how stupid-looking cap was) and the green lantern (!) can get screen outings where they look like they should without some twenty-something know it all trying to do better and redesign them, then dredd should be afforded the same decency. But the look of the uniform was, for me, the least of the movie's problems.

SBT

[Spikes]

No, in the VAST majority of cases films are made to make money, simple as that. The bigger the fanbase/societal awareness of a character/concept, the better, as it will hopefully make more money.

Of course. But producers of such films are at least aware of fan's concerns, and factor those in - to a degree. Which is all Dredd's makers were ever doing. Certainly dont think Dredd was made exclusively for us.

Anyway it failed because (exactly like the comic) the 'good guy' is really a 'bad guy' - try selling that concept to the masses, and the 3D bubble burst, 

[COMMANDO FORCES]

You have to remember that Dredd's uniform is for practical use and not some crappy fashion parade, like D.C & Marvel. Looking back on the stuff I wore when I would do my sneaky beaky stuff, it would look cumbersome and not aesthetically pleasing to the eye but it did the job. You choose a happy medium between protection and use. This is where the Dredd production team got it spot on