Messages

Interesting what Gordon says was the original plan, which in some ways sounds similar to a Dreddverse Regened (junior Chopper eg). As for what did for the mag, there was also the snag that the film ended up as a 15, meaning most of the kids the comic was aimed at wouldn't have seen it.

Well there were robocop toys & comics that was an 18 film.

The 'story driven decision' argument doesn't really hold water when we've already established it could have been ANY android, a brand new model would have done the job equivocally.

Exactly. Shame on all involved in this idea.

Painting a likeness of someone is different to reanimating them via CGI. A still image isn't recreating a performance.

They're not exactly the same, true. Part of the CGI performance is done by another actor. In the case of Romulus, it was a combination of technologies - animatronics, another actor and digital work.

It seems a bit like you're saying that impersonating people is wrong, but nobody gets upset (generally speaking) about impersonation. It's often seen as highly comedic. Nobody got up in arms about Daniel Day Lewis doing his best Lincoln. In fact, his performance was lauded.

Maybe this is specific to dead actors reprising roles through CGI. You may be able to tell that, while I do recognize that it's morbid, I'm no more or less offended than if the dead person's family decided to sell their unfinished manuscript, or their favorite car, or their theories on particle physics, or whatever. The dead person can't care, can they?

I'm not saying impersonating people is wrong. Where did I say that? I am saying reanimating them via CGI recreation is wrong. We know that someone doing an impersonation is not that person, it isn't relevant here I feel. We are talking about CGI recreation of dead actors but also this could lead to more CGI 'actors'. Also using Ian Holm's likeness in this way did not seem essential to the movie. There is also the 'uncanny valley' issue that means we know we are watching something artificial & it can bring us as an audience out of the reality of the movie. I think it was telling that they never including CGI Holm in the trailer, either they knew it would cause some controversy or they were working on it to the last minute. If we watch a biopic for example featuring an actor playing the role of a deceased person we as an audience buy into that concept. Seeing an actor reanimated via CGI for a substantial cameo especially when it was needless & felt like a gimmicky 'look what we can do, remember this person' is cynical & lazy. Yes there was another actor involved by why bother? Just create a new character for the role of Rook.

Unofficial comics likenesses - very obviously not them and there's a very long tradition of that, (living and dead folk). I've always looked at it as more of a tribute to those people than anything else, especially when likenesses are "acting" as an obviously different character.

What I'm not getting is why CGI (itself just another form of art) should be morally repugnant to people, while more traditional forms of art aren't. Some painters can paint quite photo-realistically - but one assumes that if they paint an alive-looking version of a dead person people wouldn't be repulsed. (I reckon, as well, that nobody would expect them to pay the subject's estate.) But when it happens in movies, it gets a more visceral response (only tempered, somewhat, by the exchange of monies). I find it interesting - it feels like a form of cognitive dissonance.

Painting a likeness of someone is different to reanimating them via CGI. A still image isn't recreating a performance.

Empire is probably the most well-regarded movie magazine in the world

Thank you I need to laugh today

Are you OK?

Empire is probably the most well-regarded movie magazine in the world

Thank you I need to laugh today

Apple are the only ones making quality product

AI image almost as bad as the new film.

crap

interesting responses.

On May 10, 2017 it was announced that a Judge Dredd tv show was in development. Over 7 years later...nothing...

Yes, we are aware of that.

Sometimes things don't pan out the way you hope.

People including myself have posted in this thread that the deal with IM Global fell apart pretty soon after the announcement.

The producer took it with him to his own company to hawk around but didn't get any interest, then the pandemic happened.

Streaming has had a rollercoaster ride, a spike in commissions, then companies trying to make the model profitable + a writer and actors strike.

If Rogue Trooper works as a viable method of adapting 2000 AD properties, that might be an angle - but other than that it's in the 'want to make it but need to find someone to finance it for the foreseeable' category.

Posting x number of years since the announcement isn't going to magic it up.

Rebellion just like their announcements about film/tv/games/other media, but the majority of them don't go anywhere

They should just tell us then that it is not happening.

Seven years and still no optician's appointment? Can we blame Starmer yet? Also, the thread with the cats is better.

Not comparable.

On May 10, 2017 it was announced that a Judge Dredd tv show was in development. Over 7 years later...nothing...

The news is fascism on the rise in UK. Must be stopped by whatever means necessary.

They are negative?

SRSLY?! They devoted about twenty minutes of one of their podcasts to calling for Mike, specifically and by name, to be sacked. Apparently, he was trying (and I quote) to "destroy the comic from the inside".

It has to be said: he's done a terrible job.

I don't listen to their podcasts.