Messages

[are]

It's the false sense of public confidence and perceived democratic mandate which that perverse system encourages which leads Prime Ministers to rule like US Presidents (who are directly elected) and make disastrous decisions like the Poll tax and the Iraq War - disastrous and unpopular decisions which would never have passed a public vote.

THIS is absolutely correct and very insightful.  I liked Margaret Thatcher and (most of) her policies a great deal - except the treasonous Anglo-Irish Agreement (which intransigent Unionism effectively brought on itself) - she didn't get everything right or go about everything the right way, although I believe her motives were just and noble and right, but she also behaved in a very Presidential manner that continuously humiliated, ultimately alienated, and eventually motivated her cabinet colleagues to stage a bloodless coup on her premiership that the Conservative Party still have yet to fully recover from.

The U.K. is supposed  to be a parliamentary democracy but has since Lloyd George and the creation of the Cabinet Office become increasingly like a de facto presidential democracy, with the Prime Minister increasingly becoming more powerful at the expense of the Commons or for that matter the very notion of collective cabinet government, and Margaret Thatcher represented this unfortunate development.  Granted it was her sheer force of will imposed on her colleagues, the fact she pretty much ditched consensus politics over conviction politics wholesale, that got many of her signature and more controversial policies through, but it also ultimately sealed her political fate.

The Irish Free State Constitution of 1922 got it right (I believe), the powers of the chief executive - ironically titled as President of the Executive Council - were very constrained and restrained in nature, they effectively were the chairman of the board and moderator of a collective government rather than an all-powerful Great Leader, and who had to get approval from assembled members of the lower chamber for the cabinet, and again should any change of personnel happen in said cabinet... this is proper collective cabinet governance, one wonders how Margaret Thatcher would have fared in such a constitutional situation?

Of course, having a House of Lords that actually had teeth and could stop legislation in it's tracks also helps as well... but Lloyd George certainly saw to that one!

Here endeth the lesson.

Dredd is undoubtedly a pretty good film, but certainly not a great one, it's a highly entertaining (if derivitive) procedural with sci-fi trappings - good point - but also very clunky at times with some major pacing and editing issues - bad point - not to mention a pretty stiff performance from Olivia Thirlby as Anderson (the role of which would have been better suited to someone like Juno Temple), way too much profanity, and action scenes that should have been kinetic and ferocious but came across as merely serviceable.

Whilst the cinematography was uniformly gorgeous, the tone was too unrelentingly bleak, it could have used some of the source comic-book's trademark jet-black humor to balance out the grimness with some levity... and indeed with John Wagner involved in the project at every stage of it's development, there really was no reason not to allow him to give the script a once-over to inject some much-needed gallows humor more prominently into proceedings.

And lastly, it's a pity that the film didn't have either another $5m to play with or was not commissioned as a 3-D presentation in the first place (a useless gimmick at best), in either case, the vehicles would undoubtedly have been more in line with Mega-City design aesthetics and the visual effects team would have given the Mega-City expanse the full treatment they had in mind initially (freeways cutting through buildings, etc).

All told, I think Mark Kermode got it exactly right in his review; it was a very flawed film with some major issues, but was nonetheless a brave, bold, and noble stab at making a more representative Judge Dredd film adaptation... unfortunately, it'll also be the last one for a very  long time indeed, that is unless Megan Ellison is won over to the Dredd cause and cuts them a $40m cheque to make a (non-stereoscopic) sequel!

Just my humble opinion as it stands...

... or the entire thread for that matter...

Beaky fella I would agree that wishing ill on anyone (e.g. Iranians) isn't the best of sentiments except I don't think Richmond was actually wishing that. He doesn't need me to talk for him but I think he was just expressing extreme anger at something and this Christian shares the anger if not the expression of it.

Once again you're the moderate voice in the extremist crowd - myself notwithstanding, of course - Prodigal dude, and I don't wish harm on Iranians, it's their leadership that needs to be taught a valuable lesson... preferably by a payload of bunker busters and a nice nuke down the hole, and God bless the Israeli pilot that pulls the trigger on the one that sends Ahmadinejad to Hades...

And our fair 'moderator' - and that's a joke in itself now - wished plainly and explicitly that a politician whose views he disagreed with would get either in a car crash or develop cancer, I think that speaks for itself, he was clearly wishing that, and he's an idiot for doing so... although the fact he's a fool isn't exactly a surprise!

Jim has put it better than I could.
I'm touched that your need to defend a right wing millionare against a post I made on a site about a comic prompted you to break your word.
And do me a afavour - if you're praying for me, make it to Odin. He's cool and has a groovy horse. Not really interested in that Jimmy Saville peadophile ghost fella you claim to follow.

The subject matters may be different, but you chastised one poster for getting personal, whilst you clearly got a heck of a lot more personal yourself, it was hypocrisy and you know it is, but why would I expect anything less from you?  And I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say with that Jimmy Saville remark, what he or a ghost (?) has to do with your hypocrisy and utter ineptitude as a so-called 'moderator' is beyond me, but stick with the medication, Rich, it's bound to kick in one of these days... 

Now if you'll excuse me, this forum has started to stink something awful, enjoy yourselves gentlemen, you deserve each other (Prodigal excepted)... here endeth the lesson.

How do you know the production budget for Dredd was $35m specifically, Joe sir,

'Cos Alex told him, I suspect!

True.

Ah, I see now, good enough... would that be $35m before or after the 25% rebate on production costs from the South African government, then?  I still stand by my assertion that a Dredd sequel would or could be done in the relative short-term if it racks up enough on the home release market, I still think it's improbable but not impossible, but time will tell...

Hmmm, it's interesting to read the differing views expressed here regarding Trojan, personally I wasn't that impressed with it, the jokes seemed forced and the pay-offs too obvious from a distance, maybe the rest of the series will be better, but I can't help feel that returning to the television medium was a decisively retrograde step for the 'Dwarf, admittedly I'm in the minority that thought series' VII and VIII were both uniformly excellent and genuinely funny, but that's where it should have ended, in regards to further television ventures...

Poor Doug Naylor had a devil of a time trying to get financing for the movie over the best part of a decade, but the cruel irony is he took up satellite channel Dave's offer to make the pretty underwhelming Back To Earth not long before the release of Avatar, and the subsequent 3-D craze it kicked off; had he but held out a little longer in regards the movie, he probably would have secured financing on a 3-D prerequisite similar to how Dredd secured it's budget, and had he shot it somewhere like Cape Town Studios in South Africa (which is extraordinarily cost-effective to film in, as we all know by now), plus with the advancements and overall cost-effectiveness of digital production/post-production/visual effects technology as it currently stands, Doug Naylor could have pulled off the 'Dwarf movie he wanted to make all along, without having to tighten the creative belt further, and for considerably less than the £15m budget projection the 'Dwarf movie was expected to cost, had it been shot back in the 'noughties as hoped for, still, while nice to have the 'Dwarf back, I just wish it had been on the silver rather than small screen, and I suspect, so does Doug Naylor...

[Mmm... maybe you missed my post about not making this personal?This stops now.By all means, talk about how Prometheus is rubbish, but do not make any more posts like this.]

I would not be at all upset if George Osborne died in a horrible car crash. Or from a painful form of cancer.

...and finally he hits rock bottom, been a while coming too, you either need to get a reality check or a seriously strong human compassion transfusion, Rich dude, you may not agree with Osborne's political views, but "horrible car crash", "painful form of cancer", that is both genuinely sad and truly malevolent that I thought not even possible by your own (admittedly low) standards, not to mention utter malice of such I had yet to encounter on this forum, sad dude, genuinely, genuinely sad, I pray you nor anyone you love (besides yourself, clearly) are neither in a "horrible car crash" nor develop "a painful form of cancer", but just one more thing before I logout, you posted THIS on the Prometheus  thread on October 4 this year;

Mmm... maybe you missed my post about not making this personal?
This stops now.
By all means, talk about how Prometheus is rubbish, but do not make any more posts like this.

... by that same standard, are you going to reprimand, ban, or remove yourself as moderator from this forum, if not, more than a little hypocritical, wouldn't you say, I await your (no doubt) venomous and oh-so-witty response, but I'll not hold my breath , 'nuff said... and then some!

How do you know the production budget for Dredd was $35m specifically, Joe sir, and if it was, what was the remaining $10m of the overall $45m budget spent on, the 3-D process? 

That got me thinking, if Dredd is certain to make it's budget back (pre-sales + theatrical + home release) for Reliance, wouldn't they see fit to go for a sequel if they make a nice little profit off it?  If they drop the 3-D for the sequel (because I think it's fair to say that it hurt Dredd at the box-office a lot more than it helped it ultimately), grant the DNA Films' team another $45m budget, put the full weight of said budget behind production values alone, and go with the pro-democracy terrorism/Cursed Earth (the latter of which could be filmed in neighboring Namibia) storyline that Alex Garland has alluded to recently, they absolutely could pull off such a sequel that is totally achievable within their budgetary resources, would provide the audience with a pretty definitive representation of the full strata of Dredd's world onscreen, and would more than comfortably fit in with the more grounded, gritty, heightened-realistic approach to this current and utterly superior adaptation, methinks anyway...

Without wanting to come across as a Monday morning quarter-back, would it have been a better decision to have released Dredd in February this year as was originally planned?  There was considerably less competition that month, plus the big CBM titles had yet to be released, and (this is just my own personal opinion here) had they NOT made the movie in 3-D, which is little more than a gimmick and an excuse for higher ticket prices;
1) the budget would have been an even $40m, giving them more leeway in breaking even and even turning a profit in short order,
2) without the post-production rendering process for a 3-D release like Dredd, they could absolutely have finished the film in time to make that February release,
3) and audiences who were clearly reluctant to stump up four or five bucks more for a 3-D film that wasn't a big and familiar tentpole release just might have been convinced to have went for Dredd had it been a normal wide 2-D release with cheaper standard ticket prices.

Dredd is clearly one of the strongest CBM adaptations of recent years, and I'm convinced it will endure as a cult classic on DVD/Blu-Ray/telly repeats, but I really feel for those involved in it's making that their efforts should have been better rewarded, and wonder if some of the above mentioned details had been different, would it have changed the ultimate outcome?  It has yet to finish it's theatrical run, and will undoubtedly do strong and steady business on home release formats - even the 1995 debacle did well on that front - but enough to justify a sequel (?), probably not in all likelihood, and that's a pity, a still-modest $50m budget (minus the stereoscopic imaging) would have been enough for that pro-democracy terrorists/Cursed Earth idea that Alex Garland had mentioned, and although it might still happen in a few years (ya never know!), I believe it's more unlikely than likely at this point, alas...

Sorry for the long post, wanted to make sure I said everything I wanted to say here, but short of any major new developments in the short-term future, I believe this little odyssey is drawing to a close, it's been some 22 months getting to this point, and although I would have wished for a better outcome - commercial not creative, the film rocks, ROCKS I tells ya - I'd like to thank Alex Garland and all at DNA Films for actually making the herculean effort in getting a new Judge Dredd  film made, much less one so darn good, your efforts are, have been, and will be appreciated, and although I still live in (slim) hope you'll get another bite at Mega-City One onscreen sometime, nonetheless the version you did successfully bring to the big screen was everything I hoped it would be... and then some!  Thanks again, cheers everyone here, I really am done now, anything else before I go (?)...




... court's adjourned.

Having now read through this entire thread, I feel compelled to (once again) break my vow of no further posts, this whole 'doom and gloom' thing today simply won't do, if you all are feeling down in the dumps about Dredd's potentially low box-office take, then spare a thought for Alex Garland and the DNA Films team who poured their heart and soul and professional reputations into making this the PROPER Judge Dredd adaptation we've all hoped for... and by gum, they darn well succeeded, and then some! 

If Dredd tanks - and it hasn't finished it's full theatrical run yet, not even close - then it won't be because the product was lousy, it'll be because it always had an uphill struggle to catch on with a wider audience; it was a dark, violent, grim, gritty, visceral film based on relatively obscure source material that had no A-List stars/director/producer, and had a restrictive R/18 rating to boot, it always was going to be a long shot, a leap of faith, a step in the dark, but be of good cheer that they actually took that step, I know I am... we got ONE HECK of a movie because other people took a chance on a project they believed in!

Lastly, I feel the need to point out that the 2004 version of The Punisher only made $55m at the box-office worldwide on a $33m budget, which is pretty bad - considering it had a massive star in John Travolta in it - but it took off like gangbusters once it hit DVD, selling nearly 2 million copies in the first week of release, and four million within a month, making a further $60m, and upping the total take to $115m worldwide... more than enough to get a sequel, which it promptly got!  Whilst not saying that Dredd's fortunes will follow this pattern, but it has both every chance to and no reason not to, I personally still hold out hope that Dredd will find it's audience on home release - outside of the cutthroat box-office competition - and if it does, a sequel is not only NOT an impossibility, far from it, but a very real likely prospect.  If they do get a sequel, we'll more than likely not hear about it until early next summer at best, so pipe down with the negative waves, think beautiful thoughts, and before you know it, we might - just MIGHT - be surprised at how this particular saga plays out, it ain't over yet...

I'm a very imperfect Christian who loves 2000AD. Here's my take:

1. I'm a committed secularist-faith and state should not co-habit. It poisons everything. Faith or the lack of it is personal. Keep it that way.
2. Christians should distinguish themselves by service not the pursuit of power whether that be political, economic etc
3. Christians should not want to bomb Iran.
4. Christians should be the least prejudiced people not the most prejudiced.
5. Christians need not set their brains on the shelf-science is good and needs embraced.
6. Jesus was a cool dude. Religion often warps him and his message.
7. Christians are not all ring wing fanatics-some are seditious left wing types (this one is a socialist).
8. God and nationalism are a particularly poisonous mix.
9. A faith questioned is a healthy faith. I question mine constantly from every conceivable angle and often doubt it. I don't get upset when others do the same or raise relevant issues and questions.
10. I know all about ugly passages in the OT,the Jehovah v Jesus thing and the what about tsunamis question.
11.The analogies with other pagan deities is, I believe, over-cooked.
12. I love 2000AD and am looking forward to Brass sun.

Cheers guys (tempted to say God bless).

I wasn't going to do this, tried hard not to, but as this is absolutely, definitely, wholeheartedly, unquestionably, and emphatically my last post on this forum (as Dredd is now out, I thought it would be... just when I thought I was out, y'all pulled me back in!), I'll respond to Prodigal's above post because, quite frankly, he's the only one here that seems reasonable and sensible, the rest is pretty much typical boilerplate guff, and Lee, I would be VERY careful about what you say next here or anywhere else, "God is not mocked, what a man sows, so will he reap"... I feel genuinely sad that you have such a blinded and ignorant outlook towards the Almighty, that you respond to such love with such hate, I don't know what happened to you to make you this way, but I'll pray for you.

Prodigal dude, ever the voice of moderation here, I completely agree with you about the separation of church and state - Ireland's sad history is proof of what happens when the two are entwined, 'nuff said - but not the separation of faith and politics; my faith dictates my political views, the two are inseparable, as Gandhi once quipped "those who want a separation of politics and religion have no idea what religion's really about". 

And Christians do not WANT to bomb Iran any more than Jews do, but would you rather them have a functioning nuclear warhead(s) aimed at Tel Aviv, get real dude, that whole appeasement thing didn't work in 1939, didn't work here in Norn Iron in either 1921 nor 1974, and won't work now, if Iran won't disarm then they should be disarmed by force and the sooner Bibi gives the greenlight to bunker-buster the mullahs back to the stone age, the better off the world will be and you'll thank him for it later (like the Israeli strikes against Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007), you know you will.

In my experience, Christians ARE the least prejudiced, but I see you gave no specific examples, so I will; if you're talking about homosexuality, that's not prejudice, that's morality dude, the Bible clearly and unambiguously condemns it, and I'll go with God's opinion rather than humankind, who seem to change their definition of morality with the tide.  If you mean the importance of marriage (one man for one woman) and the family, I think we see the effects of the systematic breakdown of that model on society today.  And if you're talking about abortion, I firmly believe that EACH AND EVERY life is valuable and priceless, and should be given a chance to fulfill their potential, abortion is unacceptable in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, and is nothing short of cold-blooded murder, which should be met with every single doctor who performs such procedures, past and present, immediately being stripped of their medical licenses... period.

And last but by no means least, science and the Bible can easily co-exist, many of science's pioneers were Godly men, as are many today - it's just the wingnut fruitcakes that get the attention in the media - and the Bible has been proven remarkably scientifically accurate, in fact, much of scientific knowledge we now take for granted was discovered by Godly men of science who got their breakthroughs by reading the Bible, too many instances to list but do your own research.

Well, that REALLY is it for me, guess I'm going out with a bang here, that's fine, standing publicly for my Lord and Savior is as good a subject to go out on as anything I can think of, it's been fun gentlemen, thank you all, goodnight and (if you won't say it, I will) God bless... and to Him be the glory, dominion, honor, and praise, Amen.



   

[2000 A.D.]

Unavailable from our location   

Try spotflux, that will circumvent it.

Anyone grab it and put it up so the rest of us can watch it in all it's zarjaz glory...?

Glad to hear the special screening went like gangbusters last night, hope y'all aren't suffering too badly from hangovers and nerd overload this morn', good to know that the 2000 A.D. folks went out of their way to hold such an event for fans, this adaptation is in good fantastic hands, let's hope Dredd does well enough to get that potential Origins  sequel that Alex Garland has mentioned recently...

Well, with Dredd's release now imminent, reviews uniformly glowing, and the knowledge that all trace of that 1995 debacle is about to be thoroughly washed away once and for all, the reasons for me joining this forum last year appear to be at an end, so I'll bid y'all a fair and warm adieu, it's been fun, informative, sometimes intense, but ALWAYS interesting, D-Day is now T-minus-7 days and counting, we've waited a long time for this (35 years to be exact), and it's been a long road, but we're finally here, and I sincerely hope everyone enjoys Dredd as much as you've been anticipating it, that it lives up to everyone's expectations, and that it's embraced enough by the audience at large to get a sequel(s), but that remains to be seen...

...see y'all in the funny pages, end transmission, court's adjourned ("I knew you'd say that!").

BBFC have rated it.
It's an 18, as expected.
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/BFF289356/

So it is a mere 95 minutes then, man, that's a tight running time, short but sweet I guess...

You won't care.

Considering you've actually seen the film, blackmocco dude, I'll take your word to the bank on that one, good enough for me ...

The most pleasantly surprising thing about Dredd is the sheer lack of bad or less-than-positive reviews it's received thus far... when's the last time that happened with a genre - ANY genre - film?  With such strong word-of-mouth and highly (near-unanimous) positive buzz, I have a real confidence about Dredd's prospects at the global box-office... if it equals the 1995 debacle in overall numbers (17 years of inflationary monetary increase taken into consideration), it's going to be a resounding success...

Oops, already posted on the BBFC rating on the 'Dredd' thread before I noticed this one, DOH!  I agree that the '18' rating will lessen it's box-office take, although I still think it will be a decent success overall but likely not a breakout one on the scale of other adult-oriented genre films like RoboCop in 1987 or District 9 in 2009, but I could be proved wrong on that one... and I certainly hope to be!  If I had to guess now, I would not be surprised to see Dredd take around $140m worldwide, enough to put it firmly in the black, but I would be pleasantly surprised if it exceeded that, although I think that number would still be enough to greenlight a sequel, but we'll see... although gangbusters business on home release formats will only help the sequel cause!

On that remarkably tight 95-minute running time, I was a little disappointed at first when I heard it was only a little over a mere hour-and-a-half, but considering this is only an introductory installment that is more like an extended first act, the more I think about it, I prefer it to be short and sweet and not overstay it's welcome, to use the old showbiz adage, "always leave the audience wanting more", and judging by the reviews thus far, Dredd definitely does that, so mission accomplished if that happens.