judege dredd - sellout flop or inspired saviour??

[stront692]

this is in response to the watchers comments about judge dredd the movie on the biggest blunder thread

basically, was this really the only way to get the movie made (hollywood route, and with a first time director who has since gone on to better things)

its true u cant blame the 2000ad editorial for the decisons made by the movie team - but what say did they have in it, was it all egmont head honchos who took the money and bolted and why was the money not re invested in the comic (after all marvel is now going down the route that the comics are just advertisements for teh merchandising, dc has done this for 20 years consecutively - so what is 2000ad/REBELLION doing wrong i this dept)

should 2000ad have held out for more control and powers in the film or gone down their own route, was this just sheer short termism or was the comic hemorhaging readers to the point that this was the only way to save it (paid for advertising in the form of a film license and dc doing film spin offs rather than another company doing usa reprints)

how many people started reading then, and still are - more importantly how many drifted away or feel that its not been as good since

last but not least, what were they thinking - why did they make these decisions (100 years earlier, dredd not being a clone, fargo still alive,, a comedy side kick other than max normal, far too many storylines interwoven into a 90 min film)

so what do u think/know - let the debate begin??

[Floyd-the-k]

well, I think the various changes to Dredd`s world don`t matter (except for the comedy sidekick who sucked) but that the story was a mess. I still watch the movie from time to time, having picked it up cheap at a closing sale. Mega city 1 appears to have about 200 inhabitants.  
   But it DID start me reading the comic

[stront692]

really, hmm

forgot to mention movie in the title (doh)

and my spellng typos are getting worse...

[CraveNoir]

Stront, you've brought up two personal bugbears I have so I'll dive into this Dredd movie debate like the familiar pair of slippers it's long since become.

Putting a date to Dredd is the first mistake. To me it seems the comic is set everywhen in the future just like Brazil was set everywhere in the 20th century. Maybe it's because I recall seeing the opening of Blade Runner which stated it was 2017 and I thought there was no way the world was going to be like that by then.

Some may consider the issue of dating the Dredd World a minor niggle, but I think that when you're presenting it to a broad audience things like that can act as a barrier. The date is irrelevant. It's obviously a future police state, just tell the damn story.

Secondly there is the issue of character names. If you're going to have a character that is NOTHING like the character in the comic, then change the name. The only reason for including someone called Fergie is to appeal to fans, and the only thing you'll do by not representing the character they know by that name is piss the fans off. It's a move designed to make people hate the film! (If I wrote a Superman film and wanted him to fall in love with a black, German, paraplegic, I would not call her Lois tit-friggin' Lane!)

So if you want to film The Midnight Surfer, but have the surfer played by a bald asian girl, then that's fine but don't call her 'Chopper'.

[Devons Daddy]

the movie was made at a time when holly wood still did not get it,when it came to comic books.though in recent years they have made huge improvments.

Danny Cannon was a squaxx of the highest order,but with little clout at the time.perhaps that was part of the reason he got the job. to be a yes man to the heavy hitters involved.

breaking it down. the sets where good,but to many things trying to be done.they should have stayed within mega city or the cursed earth.

to many characters where used but not given enough screen time.
the angel gang. they where perfectly rendered.mean machine was real life image of anti hero.but to have tehm appear and so quickly be despatched failed the effort.

the story was likely decent at first, but weighed down with re writes and additions.
Dredd has a clone brother. curroption within brings him back to the city in effort to detroy dredd and change the balance of power.
dredd over comes this and good truimphs over evil.

solid base. plenty of room for side bar humour mega city crime simps fatties etc.

but the love interest,the side kick fergie,the sheer number of characters used and wasted all seem to be have been hollywood access of which egmont and danny cannon had little control over.

[Dudley]

I want to see Carnivore's movie with Lois Tit-Frigging Lane.  I'm guessing German and specialist, right?

;)

[-=>DEMONIZER<=-]

Ultimately the flogging of Dredd to Hollywood was an executive decision with financial rewards considered above the end product.

You could say you don't blame those in charge for being canny and taking their opportunity, but at the same time we could say by aiming lower in the production stakes the owners to the rights of the character may have found a more dedicated visionary to come up with a darker, grittier, more faithful film.

Sellout flop on the whole, then - but no doubt a winner for some involved.

[JTurner]

I disagree that Hollywood 'gets' comics now - see LOEG.

I was unfamiliar with Dredd when I saw the movie, and so didn't pick up on many of the mistakes, such as the use of Fergie's name, and the Angel gang (though I knew about Mean Machine). The ending was probably the biggest blunder, though at the time I just thought it was cheesey.

It really wasn't a bad film, though. The costume designs in particular for the Judges were great.

Again, I'll stand by my point that Tharg shouldn't have expected a stampede of new readers off the back of the film - tooth will never be anything but a cult comic. It could be argued that the film came along at a bad time. The comic was filled with bilge, and many people may have read it and discarded it as not being worth buying, particularly as only a half dozen pages were given to Dredd.
Had the film come out now, with the Meg being better than ever and crammed with Dredd, would we have gotten more readers? I certainly think that we may have gained more readers recently on the back of the game, despite it being only average. The film would have reached far more people.

I don't see it as a blunder, more of an innevitability. We should be glad that the comic began to improve post-movie.

[-=>DEMONIZER<=-]

Costume designs cannot redeem a movie which is crammed with dumb and cheesy takes on Dredd and his world, where Dredd and his world as seen in 2000AD should be the star of the show.

It was not inevitable that such a big budget, Americanised and soulless film would emerge, but once the decision was made to aim high in the blockbuster stakes it was inevitable that it would be shit.

[stront692]

yep, basically 2000ad owners thought the movie rights people were buying, when really they were selling 2000ad down the drain

hollywood still doesnt 'get' comics (and probably never will), they just woke up when a 'fan' who was already a director with clout made a movie that re emphasised a character - thats BATMAN

hollywood is now a money game, they like comics bcos they have a ready adapted fanbase that will go see the movie and go buy the book and in this case that fanbase was british so they were always more likely to screw us

they certainly werent about to let us tell them what to do

[MrRazorz]

Some of the changes were fine as far as I'm concerned. Having a Council comprised of all the previous Chief Judges from the comic was actually a pretty cool idea, and having Griffin as the sellout on the Council was a definite nod to MC-1 history. And the changes to Dredd's past were there for pure emotional impact - it's a lot more traumatic for Dredd if he doesn't know in advance that he's a clone, that Fargo is his dad (I think that's right?) or that Rico is his brother.

As for Rico - in the movie version, he's one of the best villains I've ever seen. Sure he's evil, but he's got his (percieved)reasons for doing what he does - and he almost manages to convince you that he's right and justified, which is the mark of a truly well-rounded bad guy.

As for the Angel gang - they deserved better. Especially Mean Machine.

And as for Fergie - if they wanted a sidekick who provides comic relief and is true to the JD universe - why not Max Normal?

[Dudley]

Um, someone cleverer can probably remind me, but weren't the rights sold in the very early eighties or something, at a time they didn't really think JD was going to become the icon he is today?  Also, weren't the rights sold by the publisher rather than the editor?

And didn't the 2000AD editorial staff at the time of the movie had 2 options - either go along with the Hollywood dumbness or lose out on a big wodge of cash the comic desperately needed?  

[JTurner]

Is Dredd really an icon? Seriously? A friend of mine thought he was a superhero, and asked me "What special powers does he have?".
The characters from The Magic Roundabout have more cultural significance than Dredd - lets face it, most people don't regard him as a key comic character, more of a footnote in British comic history.
This may sound a bit harsh, but more people know of Dan Dare than Dredd, and who the feck is this Johnny Alpha bloke?
Most people didn't know Dredd from Dennis the Menace when they saw the film, and so the gaffs didn't really matter, they probably just thought it was a bit of an average film.
As for whether tooth fans though they were being sold out, should that tiny percentage of the UK population really be taken into account when dealing with a Hollywood blockbuster? Nope, the movie moguls didn't think so either.

[Priv8eye]

I think that Jacob has a point regarding Dredds status as an icon.  I've known of loads of people who need it explained to them who Dredd is.

As to the movie itself, the only people who care about the dis-continuity are the readers oof tooth, did their number warrent leaving material alone at the risk of isolating others?

I've got the "Art of" book at home which includes script and a forward by the guy that wrote the screenplay (don't recall who off-hand).  He states in the forward that one of the main aims in bringing Dredd to the public and making them like him was to make him more human.  Heads downwards from there obviously.

What happened to the script that Wagner and Grant were supposed to have supplied?

[Dudley]

I heard they insisted on getting paid for it whereas the Hollywood dude don't pay you unless they like your work, it all got into a horrible imp arse, and someone else did the treatment instead.


Is Dredd an icon?  Well, I'd be prepared to bet he's recognised by sight by more people than Dare.  The Loaded cover people obviously thought he could carry to interest of 600,000 readers at the time (and that Money mag recently probably thought the same).

I've seen puns on Dredd's name on front pages, columns and in leader editorials of the Guardian, Times and Independent.  I'd say it all added up to a pretty iconic presence.