|
Courtyard? Atrium? Somebody pointed out the similarity between those people falling and people falling off the World Trade Centre, but I'm not sure I get it. I think if anyone wanted to seriously analyze Dredd, the skate ramp would play a part. It's such a beautiful space, outside the politics of Judge vs Drug Lord, and when Dredd ended up there I was afraid he'd arrest or attack the skaters. Instead he uses it as a refuge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 07:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:In most coming of age stories, the hero starts of as merely inexperienced, but demonstrates his natural talent through facing adversity. Anderson doesn't have natural talent. She's a washout who gets to stay on because she has some special magical power. How is being the best mindreader not a natural talent?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 07:52
|
|
|
Didn't they say that she was one point away from passing the Judges exam anyway? I don't think most people could do that. The closest thing she showed to 'weakness' was human compassion.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 07:55
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:In most coming of age stories, the hero starts of as merely inexperienced, but demonstrates his natural talent through facing adversity. Anderson doesn't have natural talent. She's a washout who gets to stay on because she has some special magical power. Luke Skywalker has the force. Neo has the "oneiness" etc... Im sure that not all of them are like this, but a great deal of them are very much about down on their luck average people who do have a unique "magic" power etc..
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 08:07
|
|
|
Nutsngum posted:Luke Skywalker has the force. Neo has the "oneiness" etc... Anderson, on the other hand, is a genuine flunky. She was given her chance and failed to make the grade, but then they discovered in her some extraordinary quality that convinces the Chief Judge to make an exception. Anderson is designed to appeal to people with low self-esteem, who are allowed to become what they always dreamed of being because of some magical quality that makes up for their deficiencies. Baron Bifford fucked around with this message at 09:23 on Nov 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 08:50
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Anderson is designed to appeal to people with low self-esteem, who are allowed to become what they always dreamed of being because of some magical quality that makes up for their deficiencies. So you liked her, then? The Chief Judge gave Anderson more latitude than usual because of her psi ability - but then she turned Anderson over to the most hard-nosed Judge in the city for her final testing, a man who would never pass her "just because" and who is notorious for failing rookies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 11:03
|
|
|
The biggest disappointment of the film is the lack of any satire, whether of police power or popular culture. We see Dredd dispense a lot of summary executions, but I figure a regular cop in the same situation would shoot to kill as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 12:27
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Goddamit, this is the first movie that actually makes gore look beautiful and artistic. It's thematically consistent, though. Dredd's main running theme is dehumanisation through facial violence (and castration). It only makes sense that it climax with a face colliding with and exploding directly into the camera. Also, Anderson is an empowerment fantasy. She's not heroic in the least. She learns to mirror Ma-Ma's castration and emasculation techniques to gain the upper hand. The only difference is that she's doing it in the name of the law. There are no heroes and villains in this film, just winners and losers. And you say there's no satire. Professor Clumsy fucked around with this message at 12:45 on Nov 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 12:33
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but she's pretty drat heroic. That castration thing was a mere illusion. She used mind probing because she figured it was more merciful than Dredd's beatings. She let the hacker walk because she saw he was a victim and felt sorry for him. She felt regret for killing the husband of that woman whose apartment they took refuge in. She tries to minimize her cruelty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 13:33
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:I'm sorry, but she's pretty drat heroic. That castration thing was a mere illusion. She used mind probing because she figured it was more merciful than Dredd's beatings. She let the hacker walk because she saw he was a victim and felt sorry for him. She felt regret for killing the husband of that woman whose apartment they took refuge in. She tries to minimize her cruelty. Minimising cruelty isn't the same as being heroic. She symbolically castrates Kay twice. Her entire arc revolves around castration. She has a gun that Kay is determined to take from her (a castration desire, he wants to assert his superior masculinity by removing hers), but when he does so she makes it plain that she doesn't need it. She is the castratrice and her strength and superiority come not from masculinity but from femininity. Therefor, Kay is immediately (symbolically) castrated, losing both the gun and an arm. "She's a pass" because her primary weapon isn't a gun (penis). Like I said, she's an empowerment fantasy. Also, you liken Dredd's summary executions to police officers shooting to kill. How is that not a criticism of a police state?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 13:49
|
|
|
Count Chocula posted:Somebody pointed out the similarity between those people falling and people falling off the World Trade Centre, but I'm not sure I get it. I already hate that any time a tower collapses or a plane crashes into a building people have to point out 'the similarity to September 11th', but now we have to do it any time someone falls from a skyscraper? drat. Baron Bifford posted:The biggest disappointment of the film is the lack of any satire, whether of police power or popular culture. The film was satirical as hell. Pretty much every action the judges take ends up exacerbating bad situations, and the methods they employ are almost exactly the same as the criminals. They clearly don't care about the populace or helping people, they only care about enforcing the law, and Dredd in particular is an amoral emotionless robot for 90% of the film. jabby fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Nov 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 13:53
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:Minimising cruelty isn't the same as being heroic. She symbolically castrates Kay twice. Her entire arc revolves around castration. She has a gun that Kay is determined to take from her (a castration desire, he wants to assert his superior masculinity by removing hers), but when he does so she makes it plain that she doesn't need it. She is the castratrice and her strength and superiority come not from masculinity but from femininity. Therefor, Kay is immediately (symbolically) castrated, losing both the gun and an arm. "She's a pass" because her primary weapon isn't a gun (penis). Like I said, she's an empowerment fantasy. Professor Clumsy posted:Also, you liken Dredd's summary executions to police officers shooting to kill. How is that not a criticism of a police state? jabby posted:The film was satirical as hell. Pretty much every action the judges take ends up exacerbating bad situations, and the methods they employ are almost exactly the same as the criminals. They clearly don't care about the populace or helping people, they only care about enforcing the law, and Dredd in particular is an amoral emotionless robot for 90% of the film. I think there's a moment when Kay remarks that he's no worse than the Judges, to which I quietly replied that Dredd isn't sadistic, isn't selfish, and actually cares about innocent life. I think the only satirical moment in the film was in the opening action sequence when the corpses of the innocents caught in the crossfire are disposed of by the janitor, instead of being respectfully removed by a coroner. Baron Bifford fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Nov 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 14:15
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Dredd tried to negotiate for the life of the hostage in the opening action sequence, when I half expected him to shoot a bullet through the hostage to kill the perp. When they raided the drug den, Dredd shot those who brandished weapons but spared the unarmed. His "negotiation" was simply telling the perp that he would get a life sentence if he let her go and worse if he didn't. He then MELTS HIS loving HEAD!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 14:20
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Dredd tried to negotiate for the life of the hostage in the opening action sequence, when I half expected him to shoot a bullet through the hostage to kill the perp. When they raided the drug den, Dredd shot those who brandished weapons but spared the unarmed. How many people does Dredd gun down in the course of this movie? How many does he throw to their deaths, or incinerate in a white phosporus rain? You're saying this is all perfectly reasonable? That this is a sensible way to run a society? That this makes Dredd a noble figure?!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 14:21
|
|
|
Self-defense. He was facing a small army of armed criminals who were out to kill him and who were killing innocents in the process.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 14:22
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:His "negotiation" was simply telling the perp that he would get a life sentence if he let her go and worse if he didn't. He then MELTS HIS loving HEAD! Baron Bifford fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Nov 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 14:25
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Self-defense. He was facing a small army of armed criminals who were out to kill him and who were killing innocents in the process. There was no self defence when he burns all those guys. They had no idea where he was- he kills them because they were guilty of attempted murder of a judge for shooting up the phone box they thought he was in. And then he hangs around to watch them burn for just long enough to be uncomfortable. The movie does not endorse the Judge system. Baron Bifford posted:What was Dredd supposed to do? The perp had a hostage, yet Dredd couldn't let him walk. The perp deserved a death sentence for his crimes, but Dredd was willing to commute it to life in the cubes in exchange for the hostage's life. When the perp rejected the offer, Dredd took a gamble and killed the perp, saving the hostage in the process. We've seen this scene in lots of other movies - why is Dredd the rear end in a top hat on this occasion? Notice in this scene the citizen is clearly terrified of Dredd.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 14:30
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:What was Dredd supposed to do? The perp had a hostage, yet Dredd couldn't let him walk. The perp deserved a death sentence for his crimes, but Dredd was willing to commute it to life in the cubes in exchange for the hostage's life. When the perp rejected the offer, Dredd took a gamble and killed the perp, saving the hostage in the process. We've seen this scene in lots of other movies - why is Dredd the rear end in a top hat on this occasion? It's not real though, it's not really happening. It's a movie. The scene (a policeman melting a guy's face off after giving him an impossible ultimatum) means something. You shouldn't be going "yeah fair enough, dude had it coming", you should be going "well if this is the logical conclusion of the escalating police arms race, maybe we shouldn't be doing that??? maybe a police state is BAD NEWS when people having their faces melted off is the most sensible solution in these scenarios?????"
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 14:32
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:The perp deserved a death sentence for his crimes, but Dredd was willing to commute it to life in the cubes in exchange for the hostage's life. When the perp rejected the offer, Dredd took a gamble and killed the perp, saving the hostage in the process. We've seen this scene in lots of other movies - why is Dredd the rear end in a top hat on this occasion? Was he gambling to save a life or simply carrying out sentence? In any case, did he need to melt his head? The white phosphorous trick was self defense? I think your own views on what levels of violence are acceptable should be at question here. You clearly agree with the death sentence, for one thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 14:32
|
|
|
In this movie, Dredd deploys extreme violence in response to the most extreme pressures. He's kinda justified in going overboard because the villains have gone overboard on him. They trap him in the building, cut off his support, and come gunning for him with no care for the residents in the way. Now, if we saw Dredd shooting up a democracy rally, or beating up an obnoxious motorist for speeding, you might have a point. Maybe Dredd is that crazy, but this movie fails to convey that because there is not enough contrast. They act monstrously, and Dredd responds accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 14:39
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Dredd isn't the one who cut loose with a minigun in a crowded apartment block. No, he's the one who cut loose with incendiary weapons in a crowded apartment block. Given that bullets might penetrate a wall and kill anyone in the way but fire could potentially burn down the entire block killing all 80,000 residents, do you even have a point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 14:51
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:They act monstrously, and Dredd responds accordingly. They are defending themselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 14:54
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:In this movie, Dredd deploys extreme violence in response to the most extreme pressures. He's kinda justified in going overboard because the villains have gone overboard on him. They trap him in the building, cut off his support, and come gunning for him with no care for the residents in the way. Now, if we saw Dredd shooting up a democracy rally, or beating up an obnoxious motorist for speeding, you might have a point. Maybe Dredd is that crazy, but this movie fails to convey that because there is not enough contrast. They act monstrously, and Dredd responds accordingly. It's kind of pointless to speculate what's justified within the universe of the movie. You can set up any kind of crazy science fiction scenario to justify all kinds of unsavoury things. This is what cult leaders and dictators do. You should be questioning the morality of the scenario as a whole. The scenario in which a policeman has to murder his way through an entire building complex of criminals. A society where that's the only option for the police. Where the stakes have been escalated to the point where criminals have the choice between getting killed (and/or skinned) by their superiors or have their face melted off by an overzealous robot man.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 14:54
|
|
|
So...because the awful things shown in the film actually reflect what you feel a real cop would do, you feel that makes it less satirical? You see Dredd melting a head, you relate that to a thing you'd think a real cop would do and you don't think that has any bothersome connotations? You see a police officer reacting to violence with equal violence and you think that's a positive reflection of how things should be? I am so confused right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 15:00
|
|
|
Jedit posted:No, he's the one who cut loose with incendiary weapons in a crowded apartment block. Given that bullets might penetrate a wall and kill anyone in the way but fire could potentially burn down the entire block killing all 80,000 residents, do you even have a point? Could be wrong, but in the comics his bullets were 'intelligent', and so he could fire away with no care of starting fires or poo poo. Then again could be thinking of Rogue Trooper here, long time since I read the comics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 15:00
|
|
|
Jedit posted:No, he's the one who cut loose with incendiary weapons in a crowded apartment block. Given that bullets might penetrate a wall and kill anyone in the way but fire could potentially burn down the entire block killing all 80,000 residents, do you even have a point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 15:07
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:Could be wrong, but in the comics his bullets were 'intelligent', and so he could fire away with no care of starting fires or poo poo. You are wrong, nobody's ever suggested that fire is intelligent. Incendiaries are rarely used unless you want to destroy something that you don't dare use a Hi-Ex round on. (Or the Dark Judges, at least one of whom has survived multiple direct hits from Hi-Ex rounds but appear vulnerable to fire - apart from Judge Fire, of course.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 15:10
|
|
|
Jedit posted:You are wrong, nobody's ever suggested that fire is intelligent. Incendiaries are rarely used unless you want to destroy something that you don't dare use a Hi-Ex round on. (Or the Dark Judges, at least one of whom has survived multiple direct hits from Hi-Ex rounds but appear vulnerable to fire - apart from Judge Fire, of course.) In the film, though, it's never once suggested that Dredd fires his weapons with anything but complete accuracy and an unerring eye to how much collateral damage he can expect. The opening scene establishes that Dredd can target "perps" with surgical precision, leaving "civilians" unharmed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 15:19
|
|
|
Baron Bifford, do you think the Judge system is a good idea?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 15:32
|
|
|
marktheando posted:Baron Bifford, do you think the Judge system is a good idea?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
marktheando posted:Baron Bifford, do you think the Judge system is a good idea? If you want to show how hosed up the Judge system is, you need to confront Dredd with a less extreme crisis, one where he can afford to take a soft touch and consider mitigating circumstances but chooses not to. The movie instead makes Dredd look good. Baron Bifford fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Nov 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:No, but the movie doesn't do much to show that it is a bad idea. They do not confront Dredd with a situation that could have been resolved with a soft touch. This movie is in many ways a remake of The Raid: Redemption. In that movie, a SWAT team raids an apartment block with the intention of taking suspects alive and doing no damage, but they're surprised by some extremely fierce resistance. They're trapped in a building with some very dangerous men who have no intention of surrendering peacefully or taking prisoners. SWAT teams are heavily armed to deal with that possibility. Dredd is faced with similar circumstances, and goes all John McClane. It would lose all impact as satire if it was just this crazy over the top dude gunning down jay walkers and child offenders. No one would recognize that. In fact, it would be anti-satirical, since no matter how much of a police state you live in, you would always be able to say "well I know I don't live in a police state, because the cops aren't burning people alive for using swears" or whatever. "Robocop hasn't literally shot my junk off, so this can't be a police state yet"
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 16:25
|
|
|
There was a good post earlier in this thread replying to someone who thought the satire was too subtle. I can't remember it exactly, but it was something about the scene where Dredd tortures a black drug offender in front of an American flag.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 16:35
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:No, but the movie doesn't do much to show that it is a bad idea. They do not confront Dredd with a situation that could have been resolved with a soft touch. This movie is in many ways a remake of The Raid: Redemption (and perhaps Die Hard). You have a lawman who is trapped with some very dangerous men who have no intention of surrendering peacefully or taking prisoners. Dredd is faced with similar circumstances, and goes all John McClane. But they do? Picking out two moments: The opening scene where Dredd opts for the most brutal, painful, slow and fatal method to take down a criminal; the scene where Dredd finally confronts Ma-Ma, and puts the lives of 80.000 people at risk just to prove a point. Also the titular raid in The Raid: Redepmtion was illegal, which is why the Gang in the block has no qualms in gunning down the team.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 16:37
|
|
|
Electronico6 posted:But they do? Picking out two moments: The opening scene where Dredd opts for the most brutal, painful, slow and fatal method to take down a criminal; the scene where Dredd finally confronts Ma-Ma, and puts the lives of 80.000 people at risk just to prove a point. I don't know about Dredd melting the face off that perp in the opening. I suppose Dredd has supreme confidence in his skill with a gun and figured it was best to take him out rather than concede to the perp's demands, which could have complicated things. Whether you think the hotshot round was excessive as opposed to a 9mm through the brain is another matter. Maybe Dredd figured that the hotshot would prevent the perp from reflexively shooting the hostage. I do remember a nice part in the Stallone movie where Dredd convicts someone for hiding in a service droid when he could have jumped out the window to escape. This would have been suicide, but it would have been legal. We needed to see more absurdity like that in this movie. Baron Bifford fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Nov 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 16:42
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Luke Skywalker is also a brilliant pilot and has a host of other skills. Coming of age stories typically feature heroes who are disrespected because their youth or their background prejudices their fellows (like Hal Jordan getting crap for being a mere human, but later going on to be the greatest of all). But Luke is a great pilot because he is strong in the force, Vader even says so! Baron Bifford posted:Ok, you have some good points here. I too wondered why Dredd didn't take Ma-Ma alive. Though he did sentence her to death, he could have transported her several miles away before testing his theory about the detonator. Dredd doesnt have time to escort her away. As he said, they only respond to 6% of all reported crimes so judgment must be dispensed there and then. If there hadnt been a window to push her out of im sure he would have just shot her as thats what the law requires. Ridiculous and crazy? Well thats Judge Dredd for you! Also i cant belive you think we should have had more Stallone Dredd in it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
Nutsngum posted:Also i cant belive you think we should have had more Stallone Dredd in it. Baron Bifford fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Nov 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 19:26
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:That one line was very true to the comics. It's a case where he screws over a little guy by being inflexible and harsh. And characters in the film actually confront him about his extremeness. Although the Stallone film mishandled the issue, it at least tried to address it. In this new film, Dredd just shoots up gangsters and behaves like a common movie action hero. There are not enough moments of him making dickheaded judgements. The whole point of Dredd is that he isn't extreme by big meg standards- he's a good judge. He's not a loose cannon renegade- he's a by-the-book stickler for the rules. I hated that other Judges called him out for being too harsh in the Stallone film. And this movie doesn't address Dredd screwing over the little guy with his inflexibility? What about the homeless man? What about the wife and child of the wounded man he insists Anderson execute? What about him wanting to lock away the Ma-Ma clan's tech guy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:That one line was very true to the comics. It's a case where he screws over a little guy by being inflexible and harsh. And characters in the film actually confront him about his extremeness. Although the Stallone film mishandled the issue, it at least tried to address it. In this new film, Dredd just shoots up gangsters and behaves like a common movie action hero. There are not enough moments of him making dickheaded judgements. Borrowing from an article on why critics misread Starship Troopers quote:What baffled many critics when Starship Troopers was first released, I suspect, was the seamless melding of fascist satire with action-movie heroism. “There’s nothing wrong with good satire — but it’s self-defeatingly stupid to inject it into any story that expects us to care what happens to the characters,” Scott Rosenberg of Salon.com said at the time. But it wouldn’t be fascist satire unless we were supposed to cheer for the characters – regardless of what they did. In a good bit of fascist propaganda, like Triumph of the Will or Starship Troopers, what makes the heroes heroic is the color of their uniform and their ability to channel rage in the service of the Nation. That’s it. http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/11/26/starship-troopers-fascism What'd you think of Taken Baron?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 09:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
I haven't seen Taken, but I did see Starship Troopers and understood the satirical elements. If there was anything substantially satirical in Dredd, it went over my head. It's way too by-the-numbers. It's not distinctively Dredd. You could substitute Judge Dredd with almost any character from other action movies and the film would still work.marktheando posted:The whole point of Dredd is that he isn't extreme by big meg standards- he's a good judge. He's not a loose cannon renegade- he's a by-the-book stickler for the rules. I hated that other Judges called him out for being too harsh in the Stallone film. marktheando posted:And this movie doesn't address Dredd screwing over the little guy with his inflexibility? What about the homeless man? What about the wife and child of the wounded man he insists Anderson execute? What about him wanting to lock away the Ma-Ma clan's tech guy? Baron Bifford fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Nov 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 10:22
|
|