|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Yep. You see it happen when Anderson reads his mind. Thematically, it might as well have been a castration.
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 20:54 |
|
|
Hand Knit posted:Which returns to the point of whether or not the satire was sufficiently clear: the castrating mother figure is literally called "Ma-Ma." And as if it wasn't obvious enough, she proceeds to threaten his balls with a gut hook every time she speaks to him. Also she bites off a dude's cock. Ugh this movie is so SUBTLE
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 15:55
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:And as if it wasn't obvious enough, she proceeds to threaten his balls with a gut hook every time she speaks to him. Also she bites off a dude's cock. Ugh this movie is so SUBTLE Wasn't she more threatening a disembowelling, though. I mean yeah, given her history she's liable to go for the balls, but it just seemed like she was more aiming for the gut with him. Perhaps because he was already "castrated"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
Shanty posted:Wasn't she more threatening a disembowelling, though. I mean yeah, given her history she's liable to go for the balls, but it just seemed like she was more aiming for the gut with him. Perhaps because he was already "castrated"? Well, literally she was threatening his lower abdomen, but the subtext was there. The knife-on-flesh imagery is effective and it's not like they were going to show the guy's actual balls.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
Shanty posted:Wasn't she more threatening a disembowelling, though. I mean yeah, given her history she's liable to go for the balls, but it just seemed like she was more aiming for the gut with him. Perhaps because he was already "castrated"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 16:06
|
|
|
I was mildly disappointed that unlike the rival gangs in the films who wear imitation Judge outfits, Day of the Dead facepaint etc. in line with their gang names, the Ma-Ma Clan didn't wear diapers, bonnets, and pacifiers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 16:11
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:I was mildly disappointed that unlike the rival gangs in the films who wear imitation Judge outfits, Day of the Dead facepaint etc. in line with their gang names, the Ma-Ma Clan didn't wear diapers, bonnets, and pacifiers. That could have happened in the comic book, depending on what era.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 16:19
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:I was mildly disappointed that unlike the rival gangs in the films who wear imitation Judge outfits, Day of the Dead facepaint etc. in line with their gang names, the Ma-Ma Clan didn't wear diapers, bonnets, and pacifiers. Yeah, part of me was hoping that these distinctive gangs were being established as antagonists for this film, so we had a bit of a Warriors thing going on where a shaky alliance of themed gang members (organized and led by Ma-Ma) team up to take down a couple of Judges. I really loved the look of the Judged in particular, and wanted to see more of them. Even if I didn't, I think it's a credit to the film that they were able to make me want to know more about even some of the smaller bit characters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 16:20
|
|
|
I'm fine with many of the points in the movie where Dredd and his system are critiqued, but that doesn't make the movie a satire. I enjoyed the movie, don't get me wrong, but Robocop it was not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 16:22
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:I was mildly disappointed that unlike the rival gangs in the films who wear imitation Judge outfits, Day of the Dead facepaint etc. in line with their gang names, the Ma-Ma Clan didn't wear diapers, bonnets, and pacifiers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
Lobok posted:I'm fine with many of the points in the movie where Dredd and his system are critiqued, but that doesn't make the movie a satire. I enjoyed the movie, don't get me wrong, but Robocop it was not. What makes you make that distinction?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:What makes you make that distinction? Well, humour. The movie certainly shows us how terrible the future world is and it doesn't always side with Dredd, but if it was supposed to be funny in relating that to our world then it was so subtle as to be invisible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Well, humour. The movie certainly shows us how terrible the future world is and it doesn't always side with Dredd, but if it was supposed to be funny in relating that to our world then it was so subtle as to be invisible. The part where a squad of robots comes out to dispose of a headless corpse and then announce that the food court will reopen in 30 minutes was totally serious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Well, humour. The movie certainly shows us how terrible the future world is and it doesn't always side with Dredd, but if it was supposed to be funny in relating that to our world then it was so subtle as to be invisible. In addition to the fact that the movie was definitely funny in places, satire isn't strictly limited to what is humorous even if it's common for the exaggerations of satire to be used for humor. I think you're making a semantic distinction which doesn't really match up to what the word means. Not all of the satirical components of Robocop were funny, though Robocop was more consistently funny than Dredd.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
^^If satire isn't limited to humour, then what is the point of even using that word? Mechafunkzilla posted:The part where a squad of robots comes out to dispose of a headless corpse and then announce that the food court will reopen in 30 minutes was totally serious. You're right, I forgot about that part. That was what I was hoping for more of in the film. There were the references to recycling bodies too, but I couldn't tell whether that was a joke (vague) or simply a reference to something from the comics. Lobok fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Oct 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
Lobok posted:^^If satire isn't limited to humour, then what is the point of even using that word? I don't understand this question at all. Words can have valuable meaning, as the word 'satire' does, even if they don't refer to a form of humor. I would think this would be made evident by all the words we have which don't state that something is funny. edit: It's specifically being used to describe Dredd to make clear that the movie is not advocating for Judge Dredd's attitude or actions, if that's what you're getting at. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Oct 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
One of Satire's main features is to make the thing it is focus on look foolish. It doesn't need to be laugh out loud funny but this movie makes Dredd and his entire institution into an awful, uncaring, humorless machine that is also powerless despite it's superior firepower. Dredd is honestly really bad at what he does in many ways. He has some magic devices that the bad guys don't and this make him win. He sees himself as an action hero but he's just a big man with a gun. He can't even pull off a one liner. There are so many points where there is a pause for him to deliver a witty one liner and he never has anything. He have the capacity for wit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
Lobok posted:^^If satire isn't limited to humour, then what is the point of even using that word? While satire is frequently funny, it isn't defined by humour for two reasons. The first is that since humour is heavily subjective, it makes a bad determinant for satire. Instead we refer to the tools used to produce the humour: exaggeration, irony, and absurdity. This way we can identify a 'valid' satire even if we don't personally find it funny. The second is that humour in and of itself doesn't identify satire. It isn't enough for a film to be funny, there are plenty of unsatirical action comedies, so the satire is located in particular tools, specifically ones that (as axleblaze identifies) make the subject look ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 17:17
|
|
|
Lobok posted:^^If satire isn't limited to humour, then what is the point of even using that word? It's a reference. All dead bodies in Mega-City One go to Resyk to be broken down into useful matter, spare organs and so on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 17:19
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I don't understand this question at all. Words can have valuable meaning, as the word 'satire' does, even if they don't refer to a form of humor. I would think this would be made evident by all the words we have which don't state that something is funny. I'm saying satire isn't just a synonym for critique. Using satire means using humour specifically to show why something is wrong. There were posts in the thread mentioning where the movie paints Dredd and his world as lovely or wrong, but not pointing out why that was actually funny. Mr Flunchy was going it alone in saying that the satire was pretty weak and I was surprised that more people didn't agree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 17:23
|
|
|
I'm really not sure where your getting the idea that satire has to be funny. It's more about holding up the bad parts of something for ridicule. While this often lends itself to humor, it still doesn't mean it needs to be (at least directly) funny.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
Lobok posted:I'm saying satire isn't just a synonym for critique. Using satire means using humour specifically to show why something is wrong. There were posts in the thread mentioning where the movie paints Dredd and his world as lovely or wrong, but not pointing out why that was actually funny. Mr Flunchy was going it alone in saying that the satire was pretty weak and I was surprised that more people didn't agree. quote:The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues No Wave fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Oct 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
Lobok posted:I'm saying satire isn't just a synonym for critique. Using satire means using humour specifically to show why something is wrong. There were posts in the thread mentioning where the movie paints Dredd and his world as lovely or wrong, but not pointing out why that was actually funny. Mr Flunchy was going it alone in saying that the satire was pretty weak and I was surprised that more people didn't agree. As was pointed out in several posts you appear to have skipped over, while satire isn't just a synonym for critique, nor is it limited to humor. It's limited - limited in the good sense, of being more precisely defined - to critique formed through, as stated by Hand Knit, "exaggeration, irony, and absurdity." While that form of critique often lends itself to humor, it is not further limited to be only the use of those tools to produce a critique which is humorous. No one here is saying that all critiques are satires. I am critique your post right now in a non-satirical manner.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
edit: nevermind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
Lobok posted:There were the references to recycling bodies too, but I couldn't tell whether that was a joke (vague) or simply a reference to something from the comics. In MC1, only the rich get a dignified burial. Everyone else is recycled into soap and chapsticks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
I thought the "96% unemployment rate" for the block was a bit strong of an exaggeration, but apparently in the comics the majority of labor in the city became automated at some point and most people are unemployed. That is part of why there is so much vice, people have nothing but free time. It struck me as dumb in the movie, but with that little bit of extra info I think it is an interesting concept for the universe. Medium Style fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Oct 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
Medium Style posted:I thought the "96% unemployment rate" for the block was a bit strong of an exaggeration... I like it. It's an exaggeration of real world phenomena, which helps define the film vis-a-vis it being a satire and the target of that satire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
axleblaze posted:I'm really not sure where your getting the idea that satire has to be funny. It's more about holding up the bad parts of something for ridicule. While this often lends itself to humor, it still doesn't mean it needs to be (at least directly) funny. I was going to say, wasn't everyone in this thread forced to read A Modest Proposal in school at some point? It wasn't exactly laugh out loud material. Finally saw this, it was great. Love the filthy US flag in the background when Anderson is interrogating their prisoner. Also the bit with the corrupt judges was handled much more effectively than in The Raid, which I can't help but compare this movie for obvious reasons. This movie's the rare gem like RoboCop that has its cake and eats it too. I hope this does well when it comes out on disk and VOD. When RoboCop came out drugs and greedy corporate jerks were the problem, this movie realizes that today our militarization of society via our militarization of the police thanks to greedy corporate jerks that now completely run most of the planet is the problem. One really stupid question though, I think when I saw this it somehow skipped a second or two of footage? Is that even possible with 3D/digital stuff? It was the scene where two of the corrupt judges find the first one that Dredd killed and say "Oh poo poo." It cuts to the Anderson scene almost before the words are out of the character's mouth, very jarring compared to anything else in the movie so I assume it was a technical issue. I didn't find the 96% unemployment jarring at all. It just felt like an exaggeration of where we could be heading that made sense if you look at each of those city-blocks as the equivalent of a normal apartment building today. The interesting thing with Dredd though is that, due to its satirical nature, it doesn't really lend itself to sequels and franchise kind of stuff. In this movie in particular Dredd's stomping grounds seem to be on the verge of total collapse. If it does well enough that a sequel is made where will they take it? Something set years later with more technological advancement where we have the older/slightly more mellowed out Dredd of the comics today? A Creepshow anthology style thing with a bunch of short "cases?" Even if the movie made money on home video it'd be a pretty big jump to go straight into using the dark judges. Seems moot, drat shame.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhIdvwXXCn4 So Mark Kermode's latest rant against 3D features the failings of the Dredd distributors in the UK quite clearly. Is this films box-office failure the most powerful anti-3D message yet? Or is it just that the trailer was rubbish, Judge Dredd 1995 made the character toxic or that people just suck?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
BisonDollah posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhIdvwXXCn4 I think the 3D has a lot to to with it, to be honest. I put off seeing the film for two weeks because I was hoping my local theater would put it on a 2D screen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 21:03
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:In this movie in particular Dredd's stomping grounds seem to be on the verge of total collapse. If it does well enough that a sequel is made where will they take it? Something set years later with more technological advancement where we have the older/slightly more mellowed out Dredd of the comics today? A Creepshow anthology style thing with a bunch of short "cases?" Even if the movie made money on home video it'd be a pretty big jump to go straight into using the dark judges. Dunno, the comic series has been going for 30 years. Examples of famous story lines include the Dredd being forced to travel the Cursed Earth, and a number of story arcs dealing with a peaceful pro-democracy movement that Dredd brutally suppresses, followed by various violent pro-democracy terrorists, which he also terminates with extreme prejudice. And the original concept for the film was a weird, trippy take on the Necropolis storyline. In particular, Dredd putting down pro-democracy protesters using realistic tactics like blackmail, slander, agent provacateurs, etc., and then the resulting bitter transformation of a peaceful movement into violent terrorism would be pretty darn good and a refreshing antidote to the last Batman movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
That would be really cool actually, but could it be done in a single film? I should have been more specific I mean in terms of there being a second feature film made. Remember the Stallone Dredd movie had almost that exact same plot you describe, except it's only mentioned in a thirty second rant from Armand Assante like ten minutes before the movie ends. Yet again, why can't everything cool be an HBO mini-series? If they could do that and keep the costumes and style from this movie it would make for a great show. Episodes of day in the life stuff as the pro-democracy "threat" looms in the background. Honestly having a smaller movie like this be only 3D at so many UK theaters was idiotic, what did the distributor expect? Unless it has super hyped Avatar caliber spectacle no one's gonna go just for the 3D even if the Stallone movie never happened and the marketing was more effectve (don't know about the UK but if didn't already like 2000AD I would literally not even notice that the poster for this movie exists as I walk down the subway, bland as hell). Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Oct 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
Just got back from a showing, and I have to say the psychic interrogation of Kay is the best one I've ever seen in a movie. Short, sweet, and hit the exact points that many perverted people (including myself) would think about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 23:25
|
|
|
I'm really glad I was sold on this movie by my friends, because I thought it was a blast. And I'm glad I caught it before it was gone, because it's at about 4 showings a day (mostly 3D) around here. However, the reason I wasn't planning on going was 3 reasons: 1. Hadn't heard much about it until it was out 2. Judge Dredd = thoughts of the 95 movie 3. Read #2. I think that or "It looks like a generic dumb action movie but not the good kind with the stars I know" were the main killers of this movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 07:51
|
|
|
Nut Bunnies posted:
This pretty much happened to my friend as well, since I had to convince him to see Judge Dredd and afterwards he loved it. I hate to say it but I think the trailer turned off a lot of people into thinking it was generic cop action movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 13:38
|
|
|
BisonDollah posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhIdvwXXCn4 I'm not sure. While I don't think a film being in 3D is necessarily bad (I think Dredd actually used it really well, second only to the Pixar 'Night and Day' short in terms of 3D films I've seen), films marketed as being '3D' are generally fairly mediocre horror films, so I wonder if by calling the film Dredd 3D, people have subconsciously sorted it this way. Hell, one friend asked me if it was the 3rd Dredd film since normally the '3D' moniker is seen as being reserved for lovely 3rd films in horror franchises. I'm not sure how many people remember the mid-nineties film exists. Do people who only casually care about film remember 'Lost in Space' or 'Star Trek:Nemesis'? It's hardly on TV a lot (at least in the UK) and people forgave Batman and Captain America lovely 90s movies. The thing is, the character is REALLY cult. Even in Britain most people might be vaguely aware of him, but the people who care are a small but passionate inbuilt audience. The trailer was pretty poor, though. EDIT: I'm British and while I've been a comics fan for a long time, I was always more of a Marvel/DC guy because 2000AD always felt like it belonged to a generation probably 5-10 years older than me who were old enough to properly enjoy it from the 80s into the early 90s. I'm expanding my Judge Dredd reading in light of seeing the film and really enjoying it, but if there are any sequels, I hope they keep the scale of the world presented in the film. I really enjoy the dystopian and post-apocalyptic stuff, but when the character goes into space or meets necromancers, I kind of wish it was reigned in a little bit. I'm maybe in the minority in feeling Judge Death only JUST fits. I like watching punks getting messed up in needlessly violent ways for following bluntly satirical trends, thanks! Disco Pope fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Oct 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 18:05
|
|
|
Saw it last night with a friend. Only way I can think of to review it is just one word. Brutal. It was pretty good. Not spectacular, but not bad at all. Still pissed that they show the ending of the god damned movie in the trailer. I thought after REC they'd learn about this poo poo. Overall, pretty good. Regarding the kid scene I took it that he didn't kill them because they didn't try to kill him either. Before the guy got loose and started them panic shooting all over the place, he wasn't worried they would kill him. They threatened to, but you could tell they were about to back down and take the juve-cube punishment. If there had been any chance they were going to actually TRY to kill him, yea they'd end up with bullets in the head. It feels weird saying some shots were beautiful, when the movie was about pretty much hyper violent realistic shootouts, but man they did a hell of a job on the effects in the movie. My favorite was the door bomb scene. Just the wobble/distortion from that poor bastard behind the door getting thrown by the explosion was amazing. Great movie. Some disturbing bits (interrogation section, tons o innocents dead, etc), but still one hell of a film. Liked it better than the raid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
There are a few reasons I can think of why 3D probably wasn't the best option for Dredd. First off it's a thing that I believe the main market for it kids. I'm not saying lots of adults don't love 3D but they're really the main demographic that actively demand it. Also Dredd just isn't that big of a name in the states. to most people this wasn't a comic book movie, but rather a remake of a lovely Stallone movie or a new property that the ads gave no one any reason to care about. While the reviews were pretty good most people aren't willing to pay 15 for a ticket to something that looks as iffy as this did. The price of a normal ticket is a little more palatable for a risk but the extra $5 just encourages people to see something that's a safer bet. Stupid_Sexy_Flander posted:Still pissed that they show the ending of the god damned movie in the trailer. I thought after REC they'd learn about this poo poo. Why would they have learned that from [REC]? [REC] did really well and the fact that the last shot was in the trailer did nothing to hurt it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
Yeah, I was thinking about that too. Has there even been any other movies so geared towards adults in 3D? I guess Final Destination was R rated but those are pretty much movies geared towards giant children. I'm not saying Dredd was Citizen Kane or anything but it earned the gently caress out of it's R rating. I wouldn't even consider bringing a child to see it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 20:54 |
|
|
NESguerilla posted:Yeah, I was thinking about that too. Has there even been any other movies so geared towards adults in 3D? I guess Final Destination was R rated but those are pretty much movies geared towards giant children. I seem to recall the most recent Piranha film, My Bloody Valentine and at least one Saw movie making a big deal out of 3D. Sure, most family films get a 3D release, but I always associate pushing the 3D angle as being a horror thing, possibly because My Bloody Valentine being the first film I remember being specificaly pushed that way. I feel I should reiterate that Dredd isn't really a big name in the UK either. He's not a Spider-Man or Hulk who has had lunchboxes and Saturday morning cartoons to breed familiarity. I've always thought of the character's spirit and audience being pretty punky.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 19:12
|
|