Messages

I know he's like Marmite for some, and I'm not particularly a fan, but he is the most marketable action star to the younger demographic around at the moment, and I think Dredd has to be a modern action film to be successful. The benefit of this is that modern action films, rather than the macho, po-faced efforts of yore, are usually quite postmodern, ironic and satirical which is a perfect fit for the early days of Dredd. He's also British, so will possibly understand the source better, and isn't as expensive to hire, or as precious of his image as some Hollywood types who'd end up creatively interfering (Stallone anyone?)

The other element is even though his acting skills are quite bland, he's extremely physical, and isn't this what we want from Dredd? A stony faced cop who steamrolls through ridiculous perps in an insane world with a straight face? If we were talking about doing something like America, I'd say not in a million years, and go for Perleman, but if we're doing something like Block Mania, I'd say the reverse, and I'd say Dredd isn't Batman, so can't get away with a Dark Knight-esque deconstruction with a mainstream audience. The would however go for him trading blows with a chainsaw wielding clown while falling off a skyscraper! (and this would be extremely faithful to how Dredd started out)

Fair enough, but if it stays pure to the modern source, it'll bomb. You can't be precious about it.

A film has to sell to many millions more than currently read 2000AD, and compromises have to be made as a result. To me the only way to be faithful and go mainstream is to follow the early, more straightforward progs, and have Dredd as a cypher for the real character of the city rather than one that deconstructs a character most ticket buyers have barely heard of and so have no prior investment in.

Statham is perfect for the former as a younger Dredd in his 30s, Perleman for the latter as Dredd in his 50s/60s.

I don't think Statham's a bad choice at all, and please bear with me on this.

First of all, seeing as the Dredd film will need a relatively big effects budget for such a relatively niche appeal, it has to be made as marketable as possible. It doesn't have the same brand recognition worldwide that Batman has, and within cinema circles, it's cache due to the Stallone version is quite low. The manner to make it sell is to make an incredibly high octane action film to get a young demographic in, and one use and actor such as Statham who can currently draw it in and give it credibility, unlike the relatively genre anonymous Ray Stevenson who made the recent Punisher film feel all the more irrelevant and po-faced.

Also due to unfamiliarity with the source, the mainstream will have no patience for overt worldbuilding and mythology which will have to be done in the background, which necessitates and action approach. The best way to do this, I'd argue, is in a Block Mania storyline where you could showcase all manner of Mega City craziness, therefore doing some worldbuilding, but doing it within covertly the context of the plot, not as endless exposition or an origin that nobody wants to sit through. You can go from set piece to set piece throwing crazed simps, fatties, futsies, etc at Dredd without losing the audience but also developing the city as you go.

A benefit to Statham is that in his films such as The Transporter and Crank, he's an expert at playing the straight man to implausible situations and worlds - something that would be an excellent approach to Dredd in the world of Mega City One. People forget that there's two distinct categories to Dredd stories, the satirical (Caligula) and the meditative (America), and going down the latter route is a big mistake. Batman can do it because he's already a known quantity, but Dredd can't carry that on the big screen for Joe public. Using Statham as a highly physical straight man in an insane Mega City crisis in near-real time full of non-stop OTT action set pieces would work perfectly as a film, but also be extremely faithful to one facet of the Dredd universe.

Sure, some say he's too young, but Dredd started in the comics as a 33 year old. Why not reflect that period? Ron Perleman would be excellent as a contemporary Dredd, but he can't be as vicerally physical without effects or stunt work and the nature of reflecting that age of Dredd would lend itself to something of the nature of more procedural and worldbuilding storylines (like in Hellboy) with a message, while also great and faithful to the more recent Dredd than the early days, something that will not sell on its own merits to the masses, even if it will please the fans who already have a history with the character, unless it somehow attracted a big name director as an additional draw (which is why Hellboy managed to pull it off with an equally less worldwide known character outside of comic-dom)

Sooo, my backing is for Statham as a bad-ass 'classic (circa 1980-era)' un-deconstructed, straight man Dredd in a ridiculous world with a high octane, non-stop plot rather than Perleman as a still bad-ass 'modern', deconstructed, deeper, world building, Dredd with a Hellboy-esque intricate myth-arc plot with message which I think would only work in terms of a sequel that I doubt would get made if it was the first offering. The mass audience won't swallow a Dredd film with cinematic conventions, but will swallow a modern OTT actioner with Dredd trappings, which to my mind is still faithful to the strips's origins.