|
I think it should be pointed out that even if Dredd isn't a sadist that enjoys what he does, that doesn't really make him a remotely good person. I wouldn't call him evil, but he certainly isn't good. He does what he thinks is necessary to retain control, which is the same thing Mama does. Dredd burns up the perps for the same reason Mama throws the guys off the building: to send a message that he is dangerous. The main difference between Dredd and Mama is that Mama does everything she can to distance herself from the horrible stuff she does and Dredd forces himself to never look away. I was thinking about this movie the other day and one thing struck me about the ending that I hadn't thought of before. The scene where Anderson realizes the computer guy is a victim is more of a reveal that everyone is a victim. Everyone in the film is just following the few options they have. This is a world where you can't really be neutral. You can't get ahead by helping people. You either keep your head down and hope you can scrape by enough to survive (if something else doesn't kill you) or you take from others to live better. People in the building are all victims of Mama. Most that follow her do so because the other option is living under her, which is far worse. It's either happiness or morals. You can't have both. The computer guy is just a more direct example of what Mama does to everybody. However, even Mama is a victim. I mean she's an abused prostitute for fucks sake who worked hard so she's never be in the position of abuse again. Of course, like with Dredd, no one's actions are justified because of this.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:54 |
|
|
leokitty posted:Dredd isn't in merely in "service of the law", he is the embodiment of the law and the judge system in Mega City One. When Dredd does something that is cruel it's a reflection on the entire system. I don't think that that part is in dispute. The point I'm trying to make is that Dredd is relevant both as something that embodies the law and as a person within the legal structure. axleblaze posted:I was thinking about this movie the other day and one thing struck me about the ending that I hadn't thought of before. The scene where Anderson realizes the computer guy is a victim is more of a reveal that everyone is a victim. Everyone in the film is just following the few options they have. This is a world where you can't really be neutral. You can't get ahead by helping people. You either keep your head down and hope you can scrape by enough to survive (if something else doesn't kill you) or you take from others to live better. People in the building are all victims of Mama. Most that follow her do so because the other option is living under her, which is far worse. It's either happiness or morals. You can't have both. The computer guy is just a more direct example of what Mama does to everybody. However, even Mama is a victim. I mean she's an abused prostitute for fucks sake who worked hard so she's never be in the position of abuse again. Of course, like with Dredd, no one's actions are justified because of this. While their exact dialogue escapes me, I think that the discussion where the medical worker refuses to help Dredd and Anderson also supports this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
axleblaze posted:I think it should be pointed out that even if Dredd isn't a sadist that enjoys what he does, that doesn't really make him a remotely good person. I wouldn't call him evil, but he certainly isn't good. He does what he thinks is necessary to retain control, which is the same thing Mama does. Dredd burns up the perps for the same reason Mama throws the guys off the building: to send a message that he is dangerous. The main difference between Dredd and Mama is that Mama does everything she can to distance herself from the horrible stuff she does and Dredd forces himself to never look away. It's not a matter of justifying our actions but rather what we take away from them, how they influence our future actions and our outlook. Dredd is a "good" guy in that, as you say, he forces himself to never look away. Mama is a victim, but is corrupted to the point where she has to be above it all and in control, no better than the system that created her. Dredd, in not looking away or distancing himself from the execution of Mega City One's idea of justice, is able to be present for the revelation of what Anderson already understands, that almost everyone in the building is a victim, a symptom of a problem rather than the source. As the penultimate representation of the law, of the system, Dredd's decision that Anderson is a keeper makes him a good guy. His acknowledgement of those ideals represents them seeping into the justice system in general. Does he decide this because she makes him stop and think for a second? Look at the torture scene, Dredd literally tries to beat information out of someone with a US flag in the background, to no effect, Anderson engages in a dialogue with her abilities and gets the job done. It's no coincidence that they partnered Dredd with a character that gets results by literally using her brain first. Anderson was right too, there were people beyond "saving," but if even one young person has a non-militarized death horde view of the police and goes on to do something good with himself, then their actions were worth it and society could improve ever so slightly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 17:04
|
|
|
I'm still very reluctant to call Dredd a good person. Just because he does horrible things for reasons that he thinks justify them doesn't mean he still isn't doing horrible things. As they say, actions speak louder than words. There is also really no indication that Dredd is changed by what happens. There is no point where I feel Dredd acts differently then he always would have. In fact at the end he kills Mama in an overly brutal way to send a message just like Mama does in the beginning. I mean you can talk about how he did it because of the bomb but really I think it's use in the story was to reflect it's earlier use: as a means to tell people not to gently caress with him. Anderson's ideals really can't fully seep into Dredd anyways because that would cause him to quit like Anderson does. Dredd can't even really approach things the way Anderson does anyways. I mean, ignoring the whole psychic thing, can you actually imagine Dredd talking things out?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
Affi posted:I'm sure you've got a great comeback but the guy stops and watches people burn. There's nothing in the movie that suggests that he enjoys it, though. Dredd is simply an embodiment of the system, he isn't there to cull criminals, he's there to punish them. He burns them to death, throws them to their deaths and generally causes violent deaths not because he enjoys it but because he is there to be a figure of terror.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 17:41
|
|
|
Dunno if anyone's already picked up the news but the DVD/Blu Ray release date has been announced for 14th January. Not the best time for a release I would have thought. Add this to the whole "hold back theatrical release for 12 months - oh crap, The Raid came along and stole our thunder!" thing and I'm starting to seriously wonder if someone at the studio doesn't have a vested interest in this thing bombing as hard as possible, a la The Producers...
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
That really sucks about the January home video release. Was hoping to having this in my home before the holidays.axleblaze posted:I'm still very reluctant to call Dredd a good person. ... In the microcosm of this movie, free of the baggage of the comics/the Stallone movie/whatever, I can definitely 100% see that. Especially since the climax of the movie was his declaration that she's a keeper. Look at Mama's death, it happens in such a way that we had people in this board not even sure what was going on or why, yet that final moment of the movie is lingered on, dramatic musical flare, the works. This is the endgame of the movie they want us to pay attention to. The villain's death is handled and shot more as a drawn out formality then something truly important. Why is that? As for Dredd being a good person, if he didn't improve a bit he wouldn't have made that decision at the end. You're treating him as monolithic when even in the comics he's changed quite a bit (albeit very gradually due to the real time nature of the comics' continuity). Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Oct 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 18:17
|
|
|
Yeah but we don't really know why he passed Anderson, do we? Maybe his reason was just "she tortures people real good." Judge Dredd's mask is a lot like a Rorschach test. You can speculate a lot about the motivation of the man behind it. It's why I liked Urban's relatively subtle performance a lot. He didn't allow the character to fall too neatly into "sometimes cruel lawman with his heart in the right place" or "fascist with a boner for violence." Uncle Boogeyman fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Oct 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
Yeah, he might have even passed Anderson because the "don't lose the gun" thing wasn't a law and he didn't have to pass judgement on it. Who knows.]
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Yeah but we don't really know why he passed Anderson, do we? Maybe his reason was just "she tortures people real good." This seems like a given, should I end every sentence with "imo?" That said, do Dredd's motivations even matter? In the end he did the right thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:Yeah, he might have even passed Anderson because the "don't lose the gun" thing wasn't a law and he didn't have to pass judgement on it. Who knows.] I think someone said that the rule was "don't lose your primary weapon" - and Anderson's primary weapon isn't her gun, it's her mind. So she passes. I like that interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:Yeah, he might have even passed Anderson because the "don't lose the gun" thing wasn't a law and he didn't have to pass judgement on it. Who knows.]
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:The point is that explaining Dredd's actions does not end with determining them to be "in service of the law," because to be "in service of the law" is unspecific and however it will be pursued will reflect on the character. What is relevant in the "hot shot" scene is not killing the thug in that manner can be construed as being "in service of the law," but that Dredd took to understand and fulfill his service in such a manner that relies on cruelty and terror. Yeah kinda like this: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 19:04
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:This seems like a given, should I end every sentence with "imo?" That said, do Dredd's motivations even matter? In the end he did the right thing. To answer your first question, um, no I guess? I'm not sure what you're getting at there. You do not have to state "this is my opinion" every time you state an opinion. I am still, however, allowed to disagree with your opinion. To the second, that depends heavily on your definition of "the right thing." To my eyes, Anderson quitting the force was the right thing and Dredd yanking her back in is very wrong indeed. Uncle Boogeyman fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Oct 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:To answer your first question, um, no I guess? I'm not sure what you're getting at there. You do not have to state "this is my opinion" every time you state an opinion. I am still, however, allowed to disagree with your opinion. Your previous post made it seem like you were dismissive of discussion of what I was saying because everyone will have a different opinion without presenting anything else. I see her being yanked back in as a good thing because it means Dredd thinks she has what it takes. The fact that he did this even though she technically failed means he sees something in her literally beyond the law, so we have to look at what she does outside of Dredd's standard operation procedure to find the difference. Here I saw her abilities more as a metaphor for looking beyond the superficial "this person did a crime sentence them" to see the source of the problem. The movie plays this up regularly, most notably when they're just sort of arresting and bringing in Kay and his cohorts, but she goes the extra mile and always tries to extract information rather than retribution. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Oct 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 19:21
|
|
|
Sorry to break up the film-chat and come in with some general Dredd-chat, but I'm pretty much done with Case Files Vol. 2 (having read no Judge Dredd previously) and it's not quite what I expected it to be. I'm getting the impression that this is because these stories are from when the comic was still in its infancy, but it's all a bit wackier and less gritty than I had been lead to expect. There's intelligent, mutant t-rexes running about, alien presidents who eat rocks, a space race of lizard like mercenaries, and other such madness. I've ordered Vol 3 and I'm hoping there's going to be more day to day Mega City One goings on in this set of stories to more get a grip on the character and the world. Besides the Case Files I've been buying 2000AD each week since the film came out and I'm really, really enjoying modern day Dredd, which is far more in line with what I was expecting from the character.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
Leyburn posted:Sorry to break up the film-chat and come in with some general Dredd-chat, but I'm pretty much done with Case Files Vol. 2 (having read no Judge Dredd previously) and it's not quite what I expected it to be. Do not worry it does since it is the same writer writing now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
The thing with any of the early 2000AD stories (not just Dredd) is that everyone involved thought the comic would only be around for a few years - it was created to cash in on the sci-fi boom around Star Wars - so they threw anything that took their fancy in there, because having a new episode every week burns through ideas pretty quickly. If John Wagner had known not only that Dredd would still be running 35 years later, but that he would still be the lead writer, some of the wackier stuff might not have gone in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
Leyburn posted:Sorry to break up the film-chat and come in with some general Dredd-chat, but I'm pretty much done with Case Files Vol. 2 (having read no Judge Dredd previously) and it's not quite what I expected it to be. Yeah, I think this is a point that a lot of people who are new to Dredd miss out on - early 2000AD was very much aimed at British schoolboys of the late 70's-early 80's. Sure there were more adult themes thrown in too but by and large it was pretty much an action/adventure comic for kids, very much in the same vein as 'Action' which was in many ways it's non sci-fi predecessor (albeit far more violent than most comics of it's era, much like Action). Hence, a lot of the crazy, wacky stuff. Dredd got darker and more mature gradually over time (which is probably in line with the shifting demographic of it's original readership). This is probably most evident in the wake of the Apocalypse War arc and the Democracy storyline. I also think a lot of that was also due to a growing feeling of disquiet on the part of Dredd's regular writers, Wagner in particular, over how a lot of fans were missing the satirical elements and viewing Dredd more as an out and out hero. If you want a more mature take on Dredd I honestly recommend you give 'America' a try. It really is one of his finest stories and it offers a far more serious take on the character and both the world and the system he operates in. Plus the artwork by Colin Macneill is bloody gorgeous. For more recent Dredd, 'Satan's Island' and 'Mandroid' are both great stories and much more akin in tone to what you'd expect from the character now. Aaron A Aardvark fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Oct 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
I read the odd 2000AD as a kid around the early/mid 90's, and case files 2 certainly wasn't quite what I expected (christ knows what case files 1 is like). I think I'll just skip straight to America next. The two Judge Dredd Megazines since the movie are great though, and you get some old stories thrown in at the end too. How many Dredd world stories do you get in the weekly 2000ADs?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
Something about your username tells me you like Judge Dredd a bit, Aaron.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 21:18
|
|
|
Hello Aaron 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
In hindsight Zachary Zziiz might have been a wiser choice...
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
Aaron A Aardvark posted:In hindsight Zachary Zziiz might have been a wiser choice... I recognise a hell of a lot of Judge Dredd references because I had this  growing up. Man that book was great.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 22:03
|
|
|
Resonance posted:The two Judge Dredd Megazines since the movie are great though, and you get some old stories thrown in at the end too. How many Dredd world stories do you get in the weekly 2000ADs? Three at the moment, though that's unusual, I would guess it's normally only one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 22:43
|
|
|
Deathroller posted:Three at the moment, though that's unusual, I would guess it's normally only one. Yep. It's been one all along, with two on rare occasions. I've decided that when I whomp up the BSS thread - I'll make a start this weekend, the writing isn't as hard as the GISing - it's going to be a universal Dredd thread rather than a 2000AD thread. The reason for this is that IDW are about to launch a US Dredd comic, the first since Lawman of the Future back in the 1980s. With two Dredd-specific publications and the weekly strip to discuss, talk of other 2000AD strips might get swamped.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
January is actually a perfect time to release Dredd because dick all is normally released at that time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 02:19
|
|
|
Leyburn posted:Sorry to break up the film-chat and come in with some general Dredd-chat, but I'm pretty much done with Case Files Vol. 2 (having read no Judge Dredd previously) and it's not quite what I expected it to be. This is pretty much exactly how I felt reading through Vol. 2. I'm about 3/4 of the way through Vol. 4 right now and The Judge Child is a little better compared to the earlier stories, but it still veers off the tracks into crazytown after an amazingly cool setup. The last few chapters reign the wackiness back in somewhat and wrap the whole thing up pretty nicely though. That being said, I loved Monkey Business in the Charles Darwin Block in all its slapstick glory. I can't help but imagine that story playing out on-screen like some kind of Three Stooges-style B&W short.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:January is actually a perfect time to release Dredd because dick all is normally released at that time. Dick all is normally released at that time because everyone spent their money at Christmas and they don't buy anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 08:23
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:I recognise a hell of a lot of Judge Dredd references because I had this This was the first Dredd I read (hey!). I never knew the comic was as goofy as it was until reading that, and I mean that in the best possible way. I'd read bits and pieces of Dredd here and there, but I've been reading from Case-File 02 onwards from a few months ago until now. I'd say Case file 02 is good, but not what I expected, 03 is okay, 04 has 'The Judge Child' which will test the patience of anyone expecting gritty post-apocalyptic cyberpunk and 05 is really good so far. I also picked up Case File 15 which is alright, but has far too many British comics 'names' like Ennis and Millar pissing around being silly and finding their voice to be truly great.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
Saw the movie this weekend and it was as awesome as I was hoping it would be. I'll be honest, I was not exactly sure what to expect and I was afraid the film would be missing enough plot to make it entertaining. That wasn't the case, they got everything just right with this film and I left wanting more which is always the sign of a good execution. Very upset to see the movie tanking, I couldn't get ANYONE to see this film with me and managed to bring a friend along who only went because he had a free admission ticket. I don't understand what peoples aversion to seeing this movie is. My only complaints are nitpicks about the vehicles and weapons. The motorcycles just didn't match the same quality as the rest of the set design, but I did prefer Dredd 3D's Lawgiver over the Stallone versions Lawgiver. But I can't wrap my head around how so many munitions fit inside a gun of that size. In a handgun that takes pretty standard magazines, you've got regular rounds, armor piercing, rapid fire, silenced rounds, grenades, rockets, incendiary, stun rounds, it's pushing my suspension of disbelief a bit. Karl Urban was perfect and nailed the part without cheesing it up like Stallone did. His "I am the law" line was absolutely perfect in tone and inflection. NovemberMike posted:There's nothing in the movie that suggests that he enjoys it, though. Dredd is simply an embodiment of the system, he isn't there to cull criminals, he's there to punish them. He burns them to death, throws them to their deaths and generally causes violent deaths not because he enjoys it but because he is there to be a figure of terror. Dredd is not a figure of terror. You can argue the delineations of right and wrong, but I think Dredd believes he is doing what is right and his actions are justified by the machine that he serves. People claiming he's no different than Ma-Ma are wrong. Case in point, the scene where Ma-Ma sets up chain guns and levels an entire apartment block, possibly killing dozens or hundreds of civilians needlessly is far more telling of the kind of person Ma-Ma is versus Dredd. They're not opposite sides of the same coin. While Dredd does oftentimes put civilians at risk by shooting vehicles in traffic to stop them he's not doing it as needlessly or recklessly as Ma-Ma does and would never consciously choose to kill an innocent to get at his target. That's my interpretation from the movies, I've never read the comics though after reading about them for 30 pages, I have no desire to at all. I'll take the gritty realism of the movies over what you guys are claiming are in the comics - zombies and supernatural bullshit? I like my Dredd in a semi-plausible dystopian future grounded in reality. The Shep fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Oct 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 21:26
|
|
|
Cmdr. Shepard posted:That's my interpretation from the movies, I've never read the comics though after reading about them for 30 pages, I have no desire to at all. I'll take the gritty realism of the movies over what you guys are claiming are in the comics - zombies and supernatural bullshit? I like my Dredd in a semi-plausible dystopian future grounded in reality. The early comics are better described as wacky proto-cyberpunk future madness. Likean ultra-violent Futurama. Later, they get more grim and gritty (as do all comics in the 90s) and are generally more grounded.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 21:33
|
|
|
There was 'supernatural bullshit' in the movie too, with Anderson's psychic powers. But over 30+ years the comics have dealt with all kinds of different tones and subjects, I'd recommend you read America for some quality Dredd being a bastard without much wacky stuff. And the movie lawgiver has two different ammo clips- regular rounds in the front ammo clip thing you see them reloading in the movie, and special rounds in the handle, though a shot of Dredd reloading the special rounds didn't make it into the film. If that makes any sense, I know I'm probably using the wrong gun terms. And they do show the special rounds being pretty limited, Dredd only uses two hi-ex rounds iirc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
Well, I just might take you guys up on that and pick up some of the comics because the movie was that good. Someone mentioned Scott Pilgrim earlier and it's kind of depressing that both of these movies (Scott Pilgrim being probably my favorite movie of all time) did so poorly in box office. Dredd reminds me a lot of Earth Defense Force. Low budget, but highly entertaining. marktheando posted:And the movie lawgiver has two different ammo clips- regular rounds in the front ammo clip thing you see them reloading in the movie, and special rounds in the handle, though a shot of Dredd reloading the special rounds didn't make it into the film. If that makes any sense, I know I'm probably using the wrong gun terms. And they do show the special rounds being pretty limited, Dredd only uses two hi-ex rounds iirc. No that makes sense and that's how I imagined the gun to work. I understand bullets in the mag, special rounds in the front area. However, what doesn't make sense to me are armor piercing rounds. You can't convert regular bullets to armor piercing on the fly, you'd have to change out a magazine. This issue is entirely miniscule but fascinating to me as a gun owner, so I'm not trying to get into a big argument or debate, just theorizing how it would work. The Shep fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Oct 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
Why the hell is there no Dredd costume?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
Cmdr. Shepard posted:I don't understand what peoples aversion to seeing this movie is. Most of my friends sadly seem to struggle with 'satire'. Like their reactions to Robocop, they think the movie is condoning authoritarian violence. quote:Dredd is not a figure of terror. Really? What does his very name imply? quote:Dredd believes he is doing what is right and his actions are justified by the machine that he serves. That's a big part of what makes him terrifying. quote:People claiming he's no different than Ma-Ma are wrong. Case in point, the scene where Ma-Ma sets up chain guns and levels an entire apartment block, possibly killing dozens or hundreds of civilians needlessly is far more telling of the kind of person Ma-Ma is versus Dredd. They're not opposite sides of the same coin. While Dredd does oftentimes put civilians at risk by shooting vehicles in traffic to stop them he's not doing it as needlessly or recklessly as Ma-Ma does The movie presents them as almost identical; their body-counts and the brutality of them. The only real difference is that one is motivated out of selfishness (her drug empire and power) and the other out of selflessness (upholding The Law). so yes, Dredd won't fire directly on people who haven't committed any crimes, but that's only because of that technicality, not because of any real concern for them. A poster earlier in the thread astutely pointed out that Dredd defeats Ma-Ma because the Judge is a superior monster. While both are willing to risk every one else in Peach Trees via the bomb, only Dredd is willing to risk himself as well. In a way, Dredd is scarier than any "bad guy" precisely because his instinct to survive is only as strong as his desire to enact The Law (which is so severe and ridiculous as to be only slightly less bad than the rule of criminals). Blood Boils fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Oct 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 00:29
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Really? What does his very name imply? That Pat Mills liked reggae?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 00:42
|
|
|
Cmdr. Shepard posted:No that makes sense and that's how I imagined the gun to work. I understand bullets in the mag, special rounds in the front area. However, what doesn't make sense to me are armor piercing rounds. You can't convert regular bullets to armor piercing on the fly, you'd have to change out a magazine. This issue is entirely miniscule but fascinating to me as a gun owner, so I'm not trying to get into a big argument or debate, just theorizing how it would work. Well Dredd does run out of armour piercing, and the corrupt Judge only shoots about 4 or 5 of them. So still limited numbers of them, in the secondary magazine, but you can see why they would have more armour piercing in a clip than hi-ex or incendiary. There was a behind the scenes video where they showed the lawgiver prop, but I can't find it. They showed reloading both magazines. It's basically a normal looking real pistol with an extra magazine added to the front, the real magazine is the one they don't show them changing in the movie. I think in the comic, bullets are given the appropriate head for whatever round type is selected inside the gun just before firing. So it's fancy future technology. Like some kind of micro bullet factory. On the subject of Judge equipment, those helmets must be made of some strong stuff, since when Dredd shoots the corrupt Judge in the face with the same hi-ex round that took out a wall, his helmet was mangled but still mainly intact. I guess shooting in the face must have shielded Dredd from the explosion as well, containing it inside the helmet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
There's a reason they wear those helmets, and it ain't cause they don't have to worry about psychic powers being hosed it, it's cause they seem to stop anything short of a nuke.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 03:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:54 |
|
|
It's out in Australia! Finally! So I'm probably just repeating what's in the thread already, but anyway: I was very happy with it, as are most people it seems. I loved Lena Headey in particular; she was a proper Dredd villain, it was like she'd stepped out of an old-school 2000AD. The only way she'd have looked more Ezquerra-ish was if they'd cast Danny Trejo. I did miss the wackiness of the comic a bit, if only because the insanity of the 2000AD Mega-City One, all the idiotic fads and the Boing and bellywheels and floating surfboards, made such a great contrast with Dredd's stone-faced exasperation as he tried to hold it all together. Here he's just a grim and gritty badass in a city full of grim and gritty badasses. Still, Urban nailed it, I'd thought it'd look silly if he held the scowl all through the movie but by the end I was praying that he wouldn't stop. It figures it's bombing (we can't have nice things after all) but I can't really see how they'd pull off a Cursed Earth story in this more realistic setting, let alone the Dark Judges. Oh well. edit: Oh, and the Slo-mo effects were just beautiful, and looked fantastic in 3D, which normally I can't be bothered with. I was a huge fan of that super-slowed-down Justin Bieber song when it came out, and I loved that they used the same music effect here. Clipperton fucked around with this message at 08:10 on Oct 25, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 08:04
|
|