Dredd (2012)

[ThryllSeekyr]

I hope to this film tomorrow night

I mean, I hope to see this film tomorrow night

[Goaty]

Oh lovely(!) Now Dredd 3D include in Total Film new feature's 40 Movies Made Better By Studio Interference

http://www.totalfilm.com/features/40-movies-made-better-by-studio-interference/dredd-2012

[JOE SOAP]

What a shite article.

[radiator]

Erm, that's just completely wrong isn't it?

[Frank]

I'm impressed that Total Film have managed to get to the bottom of whatever went on during post-production on Dredd; especially since the only rumour concerning the nature of any tensions was shot down by Garland himself in the Q&A he held on this site.

http://forums.2000adonline.com/index.php?topic=36741.0

[radiator]

Never mind what did/did not occur on the set, we know for a fact that Dredd's script changed very little, and they could only shoot the bare minimum of what they needed.

The idea of 'a more action packed cut' is pure conjecture, and just wrong, which the writer would have realised if they'd bothered to do any research.

[Frank]

It doesn't really fit the model of studio interference if the guy who's "interfering" is the single person with most creative input and control over the project since its inception. How often is any screenwriter given the opportunity to make sure his original vision makes it to the screen?

[The Bissler]

I agree with all the sentiments expressed here about that article.  I'm really not interested in what happened in the cutting room, only that we got a great Dredd film. 
Having said that, what really doesn't add up is the idea that Pete Travis would have shot all of those action sequences only to discard them in the cutting room.   I'm sure he was in no doubt when he started filming that Dredd was an action-drama, and as such it seems almost impossible to conceive that he would have removed all of those sequences (which would have been extremely expensive and time-consuming to shoot) from his edit. 
The article smacks of lazy journalsim at its worst.

[Richmond Clements]

Or, to play Devil's Advocate, maybe it's an article we just don't want to believe?

Who is to say it is not true, given that - as pointed out earlier - the only other source of information is someone directly involved?

[Goaty]

Yeah but it only from one article, and I find it annoyed that few reviewers used that as they don't check out other souces? And one troll repetitive used it as proof of why the film will flop!

It's really annoyed.

[The Bissler]

Or, to play Devil's Advocate, maybe it's an article we just don't want to believe?

Who is to say it is not true, given that - as pointed out earlier - the only other source of information is someone directly involved?

You're far too reasonable Richard!  Come on, jump in and join us in trashing this article!  You know you want to!  And I can confirm that the water's lovely!

[radiator]

Or, to play Devil's Advocate, maybe it's an article we just don't want to believe?

Who is to say it is not true, given that - as pointed out earlier - the only other source of information is someone directly involved?

I would have no problem believing it, im not reacting to the article because it somehow offends me, but it seems to be entirely based on conjecture.

Alex has stated many times that the assembly cut of the film was 97mins long. The finished film is pretty much beat for beat what is on the page of the leaked script.

The statement that there were more action scenes inserted simply isn't true, and is a result of the writer putting two and two together and coming up with five.

There were reshoots, but as far as I can tell these were to alter the opening scene (the hotshot) and the ending with the dead mans switch.

In any case, Dredd was an entirely independent film - I doubt very much the 'studio' had much input.

[MR. ELIMINATOR]

I find it pretty annoying how apparent film journalists don't bother to do any research.

[Frank]

Or, to play Devil's Advocate, maybe it's an article we just don't want to believe? Who is to say it is not true, given that - as pointed out earlier - the only other source of information is someone directly involved?

Nah, I couldn't give a monkey's about whether there were harsh words exchanged or who overruled who; folk working on films have exactly the same antipathy toward their colleagues as the staff of MacDonalds. The author of that article admits that the idea the producers of Dredd added more action scenes comes from essentially the same source as the rumour that surfaced in January that they were "very worried" about the level of violence on display; an insider.

That came from an academic posting on IMDB using the name SonofTorah, who had a student working as an intern on the film. Like the Total Film writer, his information came from "an insider" too; but Garland said it was bollocks, and the fact that (in January) he'd just directed a different version of the opening scene - where a guy's head melts - suggests he wasn't rethinking the decision to aim for an R-rating.

We know they used almost every second of film that was shot, so the idea that anything "the studio" did made a significant difference to the amount of action on display - which is the premise of the feature Goaty linked to - seems very unlikely. As long as the author of that article's just making shit up, I'd prefer it if he would embrace the process, go all out, and invent something more interesting. Like Urban wanted a sex scene with a robot; at least that would be entertaining.

[Richmond Clements]

his information came from "an insider" too; but Garland said it was bollocks,

So it's just one man's word against anothers and you have choosen who to believe.

We know they used almost every second of film that was shot

No we don't. None of us were on set, so we could not possibly know.

As long as the author of that article's just making shit up

I think you may be on shaky legal ground with this sort of statment...